Review: StarCraft II

[Xocrates]

How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?

Because I'm not a graphics whore, and therefore didn't invest those 60$ because of the graphics?

SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps.

Oh, ok, 15 4-5 hours levels doing the same thing with a guy nagging you every 5 minutes to do it is better than 30 quick and interesting levels.

Everything else I've answered before.

 

[ionveau]

LAN would have been nice, but let's be honest, it's outdated technology and will one day be obsolete (if it isn't already).

The only deserved complaints are at B.net, which needs some work - chat channels, cross-region play are the glaring standouts.

I stil occasionally have LAN games which I enjoy, I mean theres nothing better than having fun with your mates whilst playing some Starcraft. However I don't see why everyone is complaining about the LAN not being there, you can still get friends round together and connect to the same internet connection and have some games, and from what I've heard there's pretty much no lag when you do this either.

And you say there's problems with B.net like the cross region play, I haven't played any online games yet since I didn't get a chance to play SC2 till late on Monday night and story comes first, are this problems really big or just minor irritants?

You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?

Also i dont feel like buying a copy for everyone in my house, why cant i play MY game that I PAYED FOR?


Easy answer, in Korea and Russia they setup a subscription program for online, So why would anyone pay for online when they would play lan through Garena btw Garena>B.net in skill and in quality

 

[dghjdgdjf]

How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?

Because I'm not a graphics whore, and therefore didn't invest those 60$ because of the graphics?

SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps.

Oh, ok, 15 4-5 hours levels doing the same thing with a guy nagging you every 5 minutes to do it is better than 30 quick and interesting levels.

Everything else I've answered before.

Every single one of the missions in Supreme commander sucked. Repetitive as hell, ESPECIALLY with some guy saying the same thing over and over again every five minutes or so. I'd rather have variety, strategic choices and fun with SC2 then enduring throughout Supreme commander again... Geez..

 

[dghjdgdjf]

"You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?"

Mobile internet, get it. Just because you are old and outdated doesn't mean technology should wait around for you. It's called progression.

 

[Jimbo1212]

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"
So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Think you might have quoted the wrong person here, but anyway. I've played quite a few modern RTS games and I enjoy them all. Why are you so determined to prove that Starcraft II needs to be like them? Why can't we just enjoy Starcraft II as it is?

How you can call Blizzard a bad studio when they did EXACTLY what they set out to do (and what the fans were expecting) is completely beyond me.

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

 

[ionveau]

"You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?"

Mobile internet, get it. Just because you are old and outdated doesn't mean technology should wait around for you. It's called progression.

$20 per month for 500MB bandwidth? NTY

 

[dghjdgdjf]

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"
So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Think you might have quoted the wrong person here, but anyway. I've played quite a few modern RTS games and I enjoy them all. Why are you so determined to prove that Starcraft II needs to be like them? Why can't we just enjoy Starcraft II as it is?

How you can call Blizzard a bad studio when they did EXACTLY what they set out to do (and what the fans were expecting) is completely beyond me.

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

It's not perfect, nobody here have proclaimed that. It's just really, really good. Except for the obvious problems with the story and battlenet 2.0, it's great!

"You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?"

Mobile internet, get it. Just because you are old and outdated doesn't mean technology should wait around for you. It's called progression.

$20 per month for 500MB bandwidth? NTY

That's one of the reasons why I love living in Sweden. Cheap, fast bandwidth!

 

[ionveau]

"Fixed game speeds? Isn't that normal? Don't know of too many games that let you change game speeds on the fly"

Please comment if you have actually played a few of the modern RTS from the last 5 years.

"No cover : Like I said before, Blizzard tried but just couldn't get the system to work without stuffing up everything else"
So they are a bad studio who can not get game balance right (beta was a prime example), but people still call this game the " Best RTS of 10 years" ? Fan service anyone?

Think you might have quoted the wrong person here, but anyway. I've played quite a few modern RTS games and I enjoy them all. Why are you so determined to prove that Starcraft II needs to be like them? Why can't we just enjoy Starcraft II as it is?

How you can call Blizzard a bad studio when they did EXACTLY what they set out to do (and what the fans were expecting) is completely beyond me.

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

Dont forget how they payed off the reviewers,

From what i see major reviewers are giving this game 10/10 while indie reviewers that you typically find on you tube give this game 7/10 or 6/10,

I dont know about you but i would rather trust a person with as much money as me and the same look on games rather then a person whos job involves talking about games all day,

Yes this game does feel like stealing from blizzard especially when you get a free computer with the game.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I think there's a very important distinction we need to make here. Starcraft II, to me, has always been a game designed to appeal to the fans of the first game. I'm pretty sure that was Blizzard's intent anyway. What you see as flaws, fans of Starcraft see as definitive of the series.

Don't get me wrong, I love the innovations games like Supreme Commander and Dawn of War have brought to the RTS genre, but if they were all implemented into a sequel to Starcraft, it wouldn't feel like Starcraft, if you know what I'm saying. It's the same reason why I loved Dawn of War but hated Dawn of War 2. DoW2 was innovative, certainly; I just didn't care for what it tried to do and it didn't feel like Dawn of War.

Dont forget how they payed off the reviewers,

From what i see major reviewers are giving this game 10/10 while indie reviewers that you typically find on you tube give this game 7/10 or 6/10,

I dont know about you but i would rather trust a person with as much money as me and the same look on games rather then a person whos job involves talking about games all day,

Yes this game does feel like stealing from blizzard especially when you get a free computer with the game.

Couldn't possibly be that all these reviewers were fans of the first game and genuinely love the game could it. No, HAS to be that they were paid off. I'll be frank with everyone here: I didn't much care for the original Starcraft. The mechanics were fairly solid but everything felt clunky. Starcraft II has polished everything to a mirror shine, and because of that, I love the game.

 

[Rythe]

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I could reply to all of that, but you'll just ignore half of it again. So let's do this simple like.

Your problem with Starcraft 2 isn't Starcraft 2.
Your problem is you wanted Dawn of War 3. (DoW 2 was a waste of my strategy dollars, by the by)
You wanted a different resource system.
You wanted a different style of graphics (or turn the settings up from nothing, for crying out loud)
You wanted an 'innovative' game. (Which doesn't make a good game, just a different game)
You wanted a different style of tactical combat.
Your problem with Starcraft 2 is you.

Because honestly, if you can't see how Starcraft 2 innovated how a RTS can tell a story by blending in aspects of different genres, then that's on you. If you can't see how they've advanced the Protoss and Terran race concepts, that's on you. If you can't see how they've completely updated their UI to modern day, cutting edge standards (not including B.Net), then that's on you.

 

[Rythe]

I expect you to be able to say why you enjoy the game other than saying "Just 'cuz". Basically, why is SC2 more enjoyable than the plethora of more modern RTS' out?
How does base building and resource gathering, with generally slower gameplay make the game better than the competition.
If you were put in a room with all the RTS' of the last decade, what would make you pick SC2 up over all the others? What are the merits of SC2 that make it stand apart from the others and how are certain elements which are seen as dated work so well they are not a nuisance e.g. Slow as f**k build queues and tedious resource harvesting?

How is it value for money for the graphics to be so dated?
SupComs levels lasted about 4-5 hours each, and that's not including reloads with phenomenally huge maps.
I'm not doubting the variation in the levels, its the core mechanics which I'm questioning.

Starcraft 2 is more enjoyable than the competition because it's a much tighter, much more polished experience while still offering more true variety and complexity than most of it's competition. It's also quicker to ramp up the pace than most of it's competition because time matters in this game more than you seem to realize for reasons I stated on page 6.

You know what pro Starcraft players do at the beginning of a match? They spam select boxes and clicks and jump their view around at a frenzied pace because that's the pace they have to be playing at in two or three minutes or they'll lose.

And resourcing in SC 2 is automated with just a few clicks. (Two to autoharvest a mineral patch, and a couple more to shift workers to vespene)

The graphics aren't dated. They just weren't trying to impress you specifically with a style you would prefer. Or get a new rig.

So read my last response to TB_Infidel because it basically applies to you too.

 

[Jimbo1212]

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I could reply to all of that, but you'll just ignore half of it again. So let's do this simple like.

Your problem with Starcraft 2 isn't Starcraft 2.
Your problem is you wanted Dawn of War 3. (DoW 2 was a waste of my strategy dollars, by the by)
You wanted a different resource system.
You wanted a different style of graphics (or turn the settings up from nothing, for crying out loud)
You wanted an 'innovative' game. (Which doesn't make a good game, just a different game)
You wanted a different style of tactical combat.
Your problem with Starcraft 2 is you.

Because honestly, if you can't see how Starcraft 2 innovated how a RTS can tell a story by blending in aspects of different genres, then that's on you. If you can't see how they've advanced the Protoss and Terran race concepts, that's on you. If you can't see how they've completely updated their UI to modern day, cutting edge standards (not including B.Net), then that's on you.

Yet again, you do not answer my questions.

How is a cartoon graphics style good for a gritty game ?
Really?

And name me another RTS game that has not died out and still uses harvesters?

I have not said the story is bad, or the mission style, only that the core mechanics of the game is dated and I want to play an RTS, not an RPG, so I do not care to much about for the story or upgrading characters etc.
The UI does not have time management build into it, ergo it is not cutting edge.
Please tell me how StarCraft 2 IS innovative on an RTS element, as it is an RTS, rather then spouting phrases that you would find at a conference.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Yet again, you do not answer my questions.

How is a cartoon graphics style good for a gritty game ?
Really?

And name me another RTS game that has not died out and still uses harvesters?

I have not said the story is bad, or the mission style, only that the core mechanics of the game is dated and I want to play an RTS, not an RPG, so I do not care to much about for the story or upgrading characters etc.
The UI does not have time management build into it, ergo it is not cutting edge.
Please tell me how StarCraft 2 IS innovative on an RTS element, as it is an RTS, rather then spouting phrases that you would find at a conference.

I don't know where you're getting that this game has a "cartoon" graphics style. It's colorful and vibrant, certainly, and it has lower texture detail so it's more accessible to a wide range of PC's, but it's not cartoony.

Starcraft 2 IS NOT TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE. It was designed to appeal to fans of the first game.

 

[technoted]

You and your friends are done with school, you go to the park, you pull out your lap top, you turn on SC2 how do i play with my friends now?

Also i dont feel like buying a copy for everyone in my house, why cant i play MY game that I PAYED FOR?


Easy answer, in Korea and Russia they setup a subscription program for online, So why would anyone pay for online when they would play lan through Garena btw Garena>B.net in skill and in quality

I finished with school a fair few years ago now, I'd rather not finish with it again. Who has a LAN party in a park anway? With the amount of power being used the battery would die after about 1 - 2 hours, the glare from the sun would be annoying and what if it rains? I think in all honesty you're just being really awkward about things now, rather than just accepting that this game is good and LAN is completely outdated and isn't needed at all anymore you just pick up silly little things as to hate on a game because it's popular to hate on something successful.

 

[ecoho]

I am not saying StarCraft 2 is bad, merely that it is far from perfect yet the reviews are saying it is the best game ever to be made.
As I said, Blizzard is a bad studio because they did not expand on Starcraft, rather then making a game that showed innovation and progression, they made a game for the fans and only for the fans / people who will jump onto the popular game wagon.
If someone could justify why all the flaws make it perfect, then so be it, but after numerous posts no one has.

I could reply to all of that, but you'll just ignore half of it again. So let's do this simple like.

Your problem with Starcraft 2 isn't Starcraft 2.
Your problem is you wanted Dawn of War 3. (DoW 2 was a waste of my strategy dollars, by the by)
You wanted a different resource system.
You wanted a different style of graphics (or turn the settings up from nothing, for crying out loud)
You wanted an 'innovative' game. (Which doesn't make a good game, just a different game)
You wanted a different style of tactical combat.
Your problem with Starcraft 2 is you.

Because honestly, if you can't see how Starcraft 2 innovated how a RTS can tell a story by blending in aspects of different genres, then that's on you. If you can't see how they've advanced the Protoss and Terran race concepts, that's on you. If you can't see how they've completely updated their UI to modern day, cutting edge standards (not including B.Net), then that's on you.

Yet again, you do not answer my questions.

How is a cartoon graphics style good for a gritty game ?
Really?

And name me another RTS game that has not died out and still uses harvesters?

I have not said the story is bad, or the mission style, only that the core mechanics of the game is dated and I want to play an RTS, not an RPG, so I do not care to much about for the story or upgrading characters etc.
The UI does not have time management build into it, ergo it is not cutting edge.
Please tell me how StarCraft 2 IS innovative on an RTS element, as it is an RTS, rather then spouting phrases that you would find at a conference.

ok i could tell you to up your graphic to the maximum but in truth i cant do that my self since i have such a dated computer so ill just say this the campain is all thats it all i play and its still worth more then half the console games ive bought. Now id like to clearify something for all you youngins gears of war and halo were not compied by starcraft, starcraft was copied by them! it came out in 1998 both of those other games came out in the 2000s so stop with the flameing

 

[Jimbo1212]

snip

I don't know where you're getting that this game has a "cartoon" graphics style. It's colorful and vibrant, certainly, and it has lower texture detail so it's more accessible to a wide range of PC's, but it's not cartoony.

Starcraft 2 IS NOT TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE. It was designed to appeal to fans of the first game.

Either don't post a reply or stop avoiding the question :
How is a colourful and vibrant art style good for a gritty RTS?
Bar masking poor graphics, Blizzard had no reason to do these, especially when EA had been criticised for doing this to the C&C series.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Either don't post a reply or stop avoiding the question :
How is a colourful and vibrant art style good for a gritty RTS?
Bar masking poor graphics, Blizzard had no reason to do these, especially how EA where criticised for doing this to the C&C series.

If you want me to be honest, I don't know the exact reasons behind Blizzard's decision to utilize colorful and vibrant colors, but they do it in every single game they've ever made.

For a lot of people, it's colorful, it looks pleasant, the map can easily be read, and it allows for more versatility in art direction rather than differing levels of grit (Dawn of War).

The cutscenes (both CGI and in-game) can be gritty for the sake of delivering story, and they are exactly that. Playable graphics, however, I'll sacrifice the "grittiness" if it means the game is more appealing to look at.

 

[awsome117]

Funny, I thought Funk would do the review for the game.

Anyway, good review I hope to have the game by next week.