Review: StarCraft II

[J.T.Hipster]

And then those b.s. moral choices that are announced so far in advance I thought I had clairvoyance. There's always this question that leads up to the obvious moral choice mission about an hour before you actually do anything, and then it cuts to a screen where you can pick between Character X and Character Y, with Character Y usually being the attractive female standing up for the side of justice, a.k.a. Nova (who is the right answer.) Why do we even get this? Jim Raynor isn't a custom character, this isn't Mass Effect. All it serves to do is hook in players with a semblance of personalization when its purpose is incredibly unclear. Oh wait, its probably for money.
.

Nova isn't the right choice. If you go with Tosh you will discover that the Specters were fine all along. There isn't any moral choices in SC2 at all. Just missions that let you pick different rewards and different ways to solve that particular side mission.

So yeah, you just complained about nothing really. ^^

I use the phrase "moral choices" because it sounds better than just "choices." I'm complaining because its an otherwise linear game that shoves in these choices not because its good for characterization or plot, but because it feels sort of like having freedom, but not really. I'm complaining that its like everything else about Starcraft 2, something forced in to milk money out of things, just like Gom T.V. and facebook connectivity.

Also Nova is the right choice because she is Nova. She's a character who is famous for not existing and any time a character is put in for fan service you need to pick them. Also, Ghosts have the snipe ability.

[Edit]

Here's the ultimate problem with Starcraft II, at least my issue. Its not the plot, its not the graphics, and its certainly not the gameplay. The plot is mediocre, but so was the original Starcraft, and the gameplay is still tight because it hasn't changed much from Starcraft 1. The graphics are fine, and I guess they're better than Dawn of War 2, or at least they have less orcs in space, so that's not a problem. Its just the fact that instead of a glorious RTS game that would set the new standard for the genre, it was really just more of the same.

The fact that it took twelve years for this game to come out is the biggest issue. Twelve years is more than a childhood. If you started playing at the age of 8, much younger than you should have, you are now 20. 12 years waiting for a game to come and bring you something new to play, something innovative and fun that would last just as long as the original.

Honestly, Starcraft II isn't that. Its a game that felt like it was developed in 3 years, not 12, it felt like a game that wasn't quite as inspired or brilliant as say, Mass Effect was for RPGs. Starcraft II should have been a revolution for RTS games, like Mass Effect was for RPGs, but it wasn't. I shouldn't be able to go back to Brood War and go "This is still pretty fun," I should be wanting to get on Starcraft II as much as possible, but it just doesn't have that spark. It didn't live up to the standards that I expected, that others expected.

We're not exactly being unfair here. Twelve years is a long time, much longer that we've had to wait for any game I can think of, and what was released should have been flawless, but it wasn't. The single player is terrible, and while the multiplayer is good, that doesn't really justify it. Starcraft II is a good game, don't get me wrong, but after more than a decade, it should have been a great game. I mean, in the time it took to make it, the U.S. Highway System would have been built four times over. That's the scale we're talking about here.

 

[oliveira8]

Also Nova is the right choice because she is Nova. She's a character who is famous for not existing and any time a character is put in for fan service you need to pick them. Also, Ghosts have the snipe ability.

I don't know I liked the stun ability. It came in handy some times. Also I thought they only put Nova in as a nod to the late Starcraft:Ghost game, where the main character was a Ghost named Nova.

P.S:ALso I liked the choice missions, mainly the one where you had to chose between destroying the zerg flier nests or the nidus worms and in the final mission the one you picked wouldn't make an appearance. More of those in the sequels.

 

[ecoho]

snip

ok first off i want this to be clear i do NOT play any RTS games online there for all games must prove them selves with single player. Now saying that i loved the campain and plan to keep replaying it till the next one comes out and before you say it yes im a little mad i dont get all 3 campains but hey this one shined for me much better then ANY RTS game ive played in the last 10 years and yes i have played most of them. Now before you go off and say im a blizz fan boy let me say this ahem I HATED YES HATED STARCRAFT 1! IT HAD A VERY LOSELY FITED STORY AND I HATED IT! now that thats out of the way i say pick the game up and stop trying to compair it to art its fun play it. you dont like it pawn it and STFU!

Yet again, if I got paid for people saying the game is ''great cause lol ', I would be very rich thanks to this forum.
Why is this game better then then competition on the market? What makes this game the undisputed RTS champion of the decade? Already people have said the story is great, yet others have said it is predictable and the story was based around the missions. The graphics are poor compared to any other RTS, yet people try to say they are great showing that someone somewhere is lying through their teeth.

ug i said this already on this forum my computer is a peice of shit mostly because i like haveing heat and food so i could care less about graphics if a game is fun i play it so please do us all a favor and just shut up now it was nice for you to put out YOUR opinoin but seriously do you think it will change anyones mind? im gonna say this if you like the game dont lision to people like this guy just play the game and laugh at his kind in the comfert of your own home like i do.

 

[Captain Pancake]

If I get any money for my exam results, then I'm upgrading my PC. Then I'm buying this game.

 

[Xocrates]

-I've no idea what you're on about saying no need for expansions in DoW - can you elaborate?

Expansion: A secondary base.

-There is only DoW 1 with 3 expansions and DoW 2 with 1 expansion....It's hard to debate something when you make such a large mistake.

What large mistake? Saying the DoW series removed base building by game 2?

The tech trees in Sup Com are nothing alike

You're kidding right?
http://uk.faqs.ign.com/articles/887/887397p1.html

For comparison:

Zerg: http://www.sc2win.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/zerg_techtree.jpg
Protoss: http://www.sc2win.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/protoss_techtree.jpg
Terran: http://www.sc2win.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/terran_techtree.jpg

So again please stop talking about a game you clearly spend the best part of 15 mins playing.

I don't see that stopping you.

-The graphics are so dated we are talking an AGP GPU can run the game. That's not updating your PC every year, that's running a machine from the best part of a decade ago so stop acting as if I'm demanding DX11 with triple SLI.

And what you fail to realize is that the graphics don't need to be state of the art for a game to be good. Blizzard always launched their games with "dated" graphics. It means it's more accessible.

Why that's a problem I don't understand.

- Really? Any chance of posting some pics with altered texture quality etc as I find it very hard to believe.

Your wish is my command (with a rendering issue in the top one to boot, just to prove it's real time) http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1007/image3jq.png

 

[Grey_Focks]

Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

DoW? The first one and it's expansions is one of my all-time favorite games.
CoH? Also a big fan, and I play it regularly with my steam friends
TW? Not a fan, but I certainly see the appeal
DoW2? Did not like it near as much as the original, but I did like the campaign immensely.
SC? Played the demo, liked it but never bought it, played the second game's demo, thought it was bad.
SOSE? great game, but it's really more of a 4X game than an RTS.

That being said, I didn't play starcraft til a few months ago, and I didn't really like it, however I LOVED warcraft 3. I am also confident in saying Starcraft 2 is an AMAZING game, and for someone like you to go through all this trouble trying to convince people why it's "shit that has done nothing for the genre", I can safely assume that the original in some way did you harm. Did it rape your mother? Kill your father? Make fun of you in school in front all of the other kids?

 

[TobintheGnome]

No LAN play, no cross region play, no private chat, no offline play and only 1/3 of the campaign for $60? Once again greed destroys greatness. I'll pass.

 

[Le_Lisra]

This thread was very entertaining and enlightening to read..

But I will never get this game, because I still haven't forgiven the months that Blizzard took from me with playing frozen throne on bnet.

I will not give in again, there will be no relapse, I will be strong!

 

[JeanLuc761]

No LAN play, no cross region play, no private chat, no offline play and only 1/3 of the campaign for $60? Once again greed destroys greatness. I'll pass.

I won't debate you on the first three but the last two I'm tired of hearing.

It absolutely has offline play, though you'll be missing out of the features offered by Battle.net. You can still do skirmish and the campaign in offline mode though. Also, this "1/3 of a campaign" stuff is utter nonsense. I just beat the campaign on normal and it took me a good 17 hours to do so; I can beat the first Mass Effect in less time and that game was no slouch. You're paying for a 15-25 hour campaign with substantial replay value and an excellent multiplayer/skirmish gametype that has already given me a dozen hours of enjoyment.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Buddy, you haven't actually said WHY you like any of this. What you have done is given opinions.

Which is what SUBJECTIVE means.

A dictionary, get one.

Again, look at the picture I linked. Can you really say it is the best looking RTS in the last few years? I think not when the requirements are so low.

Starcraft was designed to be readable first and foremost. Of all the screenshots you posted, SC2 is amongst the ones it's easier to see what the hell is going on (and it's an old screenshot at that).

A sentence, learn to construct one?

Anyway,

Thanks for showing that you will lie to prove yourself to be right.
If you had actually played the other games then you would know that those screen shots had been taken due to the free moving camera the plays have control over.
Again, why did Blizzard not put this in the game? It would have only made it look better. To keep it out shows how lazy the dev's were.

snippy

1. Opinion is mostly what you've been posting as well. You say that (for example) Dawn of War's retribution and morale system is a provably better gameplay mechanic than harvesting minerals and lack of said morale system. It's not provably better, but it may appeal more to your personal preference.

2. While the system may feel "dated," to some, it's polished to a mirror shine, tactical gameplay is omni-present (much more than click spam) and it just...I honestly don't know how to explain it directly other than I just find it appealing. While I enjoy the additions to the RTS formula that Dawn of War brought to the stage, I don't necessarily think those made the genre "better," just "different."

3. I never said it was the best looking RTS in the last few years, I'm simply saying it's not poor. The game is beautiful so far as art style goes, even if the texture detail and lighting isn't as photorealistic as some other RTS games.

4. Colorful and vibrant =/= childish and I'd argue it's somewhat narrow-minded to think so. I like that the game didn't go for the gritty look that Dawn of War and Company of Heroes use, not only because it makes the game stand out from the pack but also because I happen to find it visually attractive. And yes, the pre-rendered cinematics look great, but they always do. The in-engine cutscenes are absolutely gorgeous as well.

More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.
It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?
The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.


Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:
-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?
-Quick start options along with resource rate options?
-No free moving camera
-Build speed option

 

[Lonan]

I wonder if Blizzard realises that the Dominion in modern terms would be Canada.

I also wonder if the guy on the video realises that while it may seem like stealing to get this game for 60$, Blizzard has been stealing from us every since World of Warcraft.

 

[JeanLuc761]

1. More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.
It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

2. WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?
The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.

1. Your preference seems to be that "The game needs to be more tactical to be good." The original Starcraft didn't have it, and Blizzard clearly didn't want to implement it. The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.

2. Asking me to explain, objectively, why an art style looks good is quite literally impossible because everyone's taste in art differs. I like the vibrant colors because it makes the map easy to read and I find the colorful design to be appealing. I can't explain it more plainly than that because it really comes down to opinion. Why you're so hung up on this is beyond me. Does a game need to have photo-realistic graphics to be good?

By the way, I like how you continue to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally handicapped. *thumbs up*

 

[Cody211282]

No LAN play, no cross region play, no private chat, no offline play and only 1/3 of the campaign for $60? Once again greed destroys greatness. I'll pass.

Don't say that, the fan boys will burn you! But honestly I agree about the story, the terran missions feel very much incomplete and the ending leave you let down.

 

[Jimbo1212]

1. More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.
It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

2. WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?
The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.

1. Your preference seems to be that "The game needs to be more tactical to be good." The original Starcraft didn't have it, and Blizzard clearly didn't want to implement it. The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.

2. Asking me to explain, objectively, why an art style looks good is quite literally impossible because everyone's taste in art differs. I like the vibrant colors because it makes the map easy to read and I find the colorful design to be appealing. I can't explain it more plainly than that because it really comes down to opinion. Why you're so hung up on this is beyond me. Does a game need to have photo-realistic graphics to be good?

By the way, I like how you continue to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally handicapped. *thumbs up*

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.
Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.


The FMV's are gritty right?
The storyline is dark and gritty?
The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?
Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:
-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?
-Quick start options along with resource rate options?
-No free moving camera
-Build speed option


Anything?
Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

 

[Bruce Edwards]

I'm going to interrupt the flamewar and say that, as someone who thought the first Starcraft was very good (but not mind bogglingly great), and can't stand multiplayer, Starcraft 2 is the best game I've played in a long time.

It has a far better story than any other RTS I can remember. It has graphics that look good whilst being crisp, clear and fast. It has a tremendous amount of 'optional' content in the single player campaign. And skirmishing against the AI is actually fun.

In short, I think this review is right on the money.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

Oh my!
Starcraft's fans are almost in the same level as Sonic's fans.

You know, "My God! They make Sonic skinny, I going out on a suicidal rage!"

 

[yankeefan19]

I am so glad that i bought starcraft 2. I have just always loved starcraft and I feel like this was worth the 12 year wait even if I'm not even halfway finished with the campaign.

 

[ecoho]

1. More game mechanics which are solely to do with the battlefield and fighting make the game more tactical as it has more elements to it. This point is not really up for debate as it is more of a fact.
It is a 'polished' system, however you can only make a bad game work better rather then be a good game. Yet again another person is posting who does not poses the ability to communicate their feelings on why the game is better then other games on the market.

2. WHY does the art style make it look good? "Cause it looks all shiny like"?
The game is meant to be gritty as shown by the FMV's and the previous game, so WHY does a cartoon style make it better? Even if it not childish, the game is out of place when going from fmv to game. The fact is that to make a game gritty it is more demanding on a persons PC, therefore if they mask bad graphics with an 'art style', people will be fooled into saying it is good.

1. Your preference seems to be that "The game needs to be more tactical to be good." The original Starcraft didn't have it, and Blizzard clearly didn't want to implement it. The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.

2. Asking me to explain, objectively, why an art style looks good is quite literally impossible because everyone's taste in art differs. I like the vibrant colors because it makes the map easy to read and I find the colorful design to be appealing. I can't explain it more plainly than that because it really comes down to opinion. Why you're so hung up on this is beyond me. Does a game need to have photo-realistic graphics to be good?

By the way, I like how you continue to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally handicapped. *thumbs up*

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.
Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.


The FMV's are gritty right?
The storyline is dark and gritty?
The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?
Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:
-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?
-Quick start options along with resource rate options?
-No free moving camera
-Build speed option


Anything?
Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

ok you can find all the problems in a game if you truely want to but if you ask me if you just focous on the bad parts of a game you will NEVER have fun playing them. As to the blizz fan boy shit give it a rest not everyone who liked this game is in blizzs poket. if it was a bad game i wouldnt of bought it and you question the intelligence of my self or others ill have to point out that you sir are by far the biggest idiot ive ever seen

 

[JeanLuc761]

"The fans basically wanted a polished continuation of the original and that's exactly what they got.
Therefore you are saying the game is fan service and should be 5 stars for fans, and a disappointment for nonfans.


The FMV's are gritty right?
The storyline is dark and gritty?
The original is gritty?

So how does a colourful backdrop and style that would seem fit for Mario then work?
Either way the graphics and animation is poor compared to every other RTS, thus to argue otherwise is a lie or shows that the person does not know what the standard other RTS's have set.

AND AGAIN:

Also, why has everyone avoided these previous points of:
-Why did they not put in adjustable game speed in-game?
-Quick start options along with resource rate options?
-No free moving camera
-Build speed option


Anything?
Your silence merely shows that you are ignoring the poor job Blizzard did because.... of some oath you swore to them?? Or is there another more possible reason?

Why are you so hung up on the visuals? Do you need photorealism to be happy?

There is an adjustable speed before you start a match, I'm not sure why they didn't add quick-start, I could care less about a free moving camera, and build speed is intended to be slow.

Honestly, you can dislike the game all you want and I'll respect that but to say Blizzard did a poor job when the game is getting almost universal praise (and is the fastest selling PC RTS of all time) is just ignorant.