Review: StarCraft II

[JeanLuc761]

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

Then it does not deserve 5/5, 10/10, 95+% scores.

It is a good game, I'll give it that, but it is, at its core, a facelifted SC1. A graphical update does not, in any way, shape, or form warrant near-perfect scores.

A game that, and a community that horribile dictu PRIDES itself in being as uninnovative as possible, is doubly undeservant of the constant, fellating praise.

Look, I get it, you wanted SC2 for years, now you got it, and you are sky-high on eupohira. Good for you. Just accept that the rest of the world will not bow down befroe what you see as the second coming of christ, and we see as a completely and utterly run-of-the-mill RTS with an overbloated budget and fanbase that you could sell SC2 branded canned shit to.

I actually didn't play the first Starcraft so let's remove that assumption shall we?

The whole point of Starcraft 2, and this is something that many reviewers have touched upon, is that it uses the mechanics that worked so well a decade ago, brought them back, and refined them. That's exactly what I (and presumably, most of the fans) were expecting. I'm all for innovation but Starcraft 2 doesn't need to be innovative to be a fantastic game. It just needs to be Starcraft.

Why people were expecting Starcraft 2 to be like Dawn of War or Company of Heroes when Blizzard repeatedly demonstrated it was holding to the original formula is absolutely beyond me.

 

[John Funk]

I. Have. Not. Expected. SC2. To. Be. Dawn. Of. War.

That slow enough for your brain?

I was just saying that a game that includes nigh-zero innovation should not be clothed in naught but laurel leaves and gold, especially since its predecessor, while being relatively shallow in the innovation concept itself, introduced a number of interesting, and very influential (for better or for worse) concepts.

SC2 is, for me, 80-85%, at best, and with this I'm forgiving as to how it looks (like someone throw up colors on my units). Its not 100%. No game can ever be 100%.

Good thing we gave it five stars and not 100%, then. That's why numeric reviews are silly.

And a lack of innovation doesn't get in the way of it simply being a fantastically designed game.

Though personally I'm more amused how you changed from "it's OP" to "What's the point?"

They've changed their arguments so many times at this point that it's honestly more amusing than anything else.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I. Have. Not. Expected. SC2. To. Be. Dawn. Of. War.

That slow enough for your brain?

I was just saying that a game that includes nigh-zero innovation should not be clothed in naught but laurel leaves and gold, especially since its predecessor, while being relatively shallow in the innovation concept itself, introduced a number of interesting, and very influential (for better or for worse) concepts.

SC2 is, for me, 80-85%, at best, and with this I'm forgiving as to how it looks (like someone throw up colors on my units). Its not 100%. No game can ever be 100%.

Fair enough. No need to be a jackass with the "Superior than Thou" implications at the top of your post though.

 

[abija]

Then it does not deserve 5/5, 10/10, 95+% scores.

It is a good game, I'll give it that, but it is, at its core, a facelifted SC1. A graphical update does not, in any way, shape, or form warrant near-perfect scores.

It is not just a graphical update. It was improved in every possible aspect and everything was polished as much as possible.
I tried to play SC1 when first phase of beta ended and I couldn't stand it. And no, the problem wasn't that it looked aged, everything else (control, ui, ai) just felt wrong and clunky.
The point of iterating through a franchise is to improve the game, not to innovate for the sake of innovation. And that's exactly what they did.

It gets huge review scores because... gasp.. reviewers had a great time playing it, with it's top notch presentation and the best mission design the genre had to offer so far.

 

[diasravenguard]

Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.

That's how I feel about all the controls they have put into place with the game as well as that whole /maps folder being on a server...

 

[mike1921]

...The graphics ARE poor. Artistic style is utterly subjective and I think it looks like angry micro machines covered in bloom. But the graphics are poor - the textures are low quality, low poly models and so on. That technical aspect is not up for debate.

I have everything set on ultra and it looks good to me

Compared to what? Donkey Kong or Dawn of War 2?

Compared to every game I have ever played barring crysis and keeping in mind it's an RTS.

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

Battleship?

I would believe you were talking about the Battlecruiser, but that can't be it as those can be taken down fairly quickly by lower tier units a fraction of the cost.

Want over powered? Look at the Battleships in SC2, in what way is it bad?

I'm supposing you are referring to the battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are in no way OP at all. They are countered by a number of units, void rays for example. Void rays are T1 flying units in the protoss setup, whilst Battlecruisers are T2 flying units in the terran setup. Heck, most ground to air units counter the battlecruiser.

And I noticed how you guys are ignoring the videos we linked (Look at the HDstarcraft one linked below mine, HDstarcraft does in fact have a better computer then Husky, my bad.) where the graphics are SO MUCH better then the crappy VERY early beta patch picture you linked and keep referring to.

Then what's the point of the Battle Cruiser if it can be smashed by units that cost half the price...? Broken unit much?

Nah, just situational and needs an escort unless you're sure the opponent has no decent counters for it. It is pretty powerful against anything that doesn't directly counter it.

The only units I think you can even argue are OP are the marauder,void ray, and infestor.

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.
The one reason I ***** about the graphics is the price of SC2. It's $60 and the graphics are okay, with the terran art style being god-awful. I mean all the edges are rounded as if they are in a nursery for children with special needs. The intro and original would suggest a far grittier more industrial feel to the buildings, not something that would look right at home in a duplo set.
After watching the game and having grabbed a guest pass, I understand how the game is more tactical than I had wrongly presumed, but it looks like it has a major problem that if your first attack doesn't work, it's game over. Seems very ruthless almost to a degree that your first move just has to be a lucky one e.g. you start making marauders only to see halfway through that you're up against an entire zergling rush.

I play tons of games. Maybe I just don't notice because I'm not a graphics whore

I don't pay for the graphics. As long as they're half decent it has no effect on my decision to purchase a game.

The original would suggest that the marines, SCVS,a lot of other shit, and the command center look exactly the same way they do in starcraft II. It would be stupid to change the look of the units and buildings from the original game and piss off the fans just because of the few people who will take issue with that.
Also, I wish I had duplo sets that let me build this as a kid
http://img.fsgatelands.com/images/bv8frzh2aqt41sjxqdm.png

That's only if you rush and don't scout. If you scout your opponent early enough you could be ready for a zerg rush

 

[Comic Sans]

After watching the game and having grabbed a guest pass, I understand how the game is more tactical than I had wrongly presumed, but it looks like it has a major problem that if your first attack doesn't work, it's game over. Seems very ruthless almost to a degree that your first move just has to be a lucky one e.g. you start making marauders only to see halfway through that you're up against an entire zergling rush.

You only lose in the first engagement if you way over committed with the wrong build. The key is to scout. Send a worker into their base early and have it hang out seeing what they are building. After a bit of experience you will see patterns that give away what their plan is. I'll use Zerg as an example. Fast gas? They want to tech. Don't expect a bug rush, although Speedling (speed upgraded Zerglings) pressure is a given. Try and see if they go Lair fast, since with fast gas that means Mutalisks are coming. If they get a really fast Spawning Pool, and aren't getting many workers, Zergling rush incoming. Wall off your base with buildings so they can't run in, and play defensive. With Terran it's easy, put a Barracks and Supply Depot blocking the entrance to your base, with an SCV or two to repair once they are moving in on you. Put some Marines behind the wall, and they will all die trying to get through, and you will be far in the lead since they sacrificed economy to rush you, while you continued as normal. If you REALLY need the scout, each race has means to do so. Protoss can send in an Observer, the Zerg can sack an Overlord or drop a Changling in their base, and the Terran can use their Orbital Command (which you SHOULD have ASAP) to drop a scan in their base. Scouting is really important in SC. Never commit to a build or attack without having an idea of what to expect.

As for your earlier comment about Battlecruisers, they are FAR from OP. Despite what they appear to be, they are not to be used as a figurehead to be flaunted. They are to be used to punish someone with little anti-air. You hide them until you have three or four, and then push with them fast before the enemy finds them and prepares for them. In the time it takes for them to build good enough counters, the Battlecruisers will ravage the enemy army with the support of your current force. It works best with Terran Mech builds (Hellions, Siege Tanks, Thors) since the counters for mech and BCs don't really overlap.

This all comes with experience.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

You see, because of this nobody like hardcore gamers.
There will be people who gonna like it, There will people who who gonna hate it. So you enter in the discussion, give the reasons because you like it or not. Discuss if the review is exaggerated or not is also valid. But, suggest that people are pretending like or pretending dislike, that's a lot of hardcore insecurity.

 

[abija]

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.

I'd really love to see some screenshots of the DX10 or DX11 effects that make the quality difference between some main stream RTS game and SC2.
Let me guess... what made Metro worth the money were the 2-3 DX11 features they badly implemented last month before release?

 

[abija]

Again, screenshots of DX10 and DX11 effects that make other main stream RTS games so much better graphics wise?
You are complaining they didn't use a certain tool when you don't even have the slightest idea what advantages that tool would provide in this case.

 

[dghjdgdjf]

....You need to play way more games if you think a DX9 game is even comparable to other main stream RTS'.

I'd really love to see some screenshots of the DX10 or DX11 effects that make the quality difference between some main stream RTS game and SC2.
Let me guess... what made Metro worth the money were the 2-3 DX11 features they badly implemented last month before release?

How much is Metro 2033? How much is SC2? Go figure.
http://www.pcworld.com.mx/UserFiles/File/mtro2.jpg
I can get that for £12, whereas SC2 is £35 and doesn't even offer close to decent graphics. They are good graphics for DX9 which is how many years old??

Metro 2033 looks like shit compared to SC2 though.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Metro 2033 looks like shit compared to SC2 though.

While I do defend Starcraft 2's graphics...it most certainly does not look better than Metro 2033.

 

[fisk0]

Wait, you can't seriously be comparing StarCraft 2 with Metro 2033?
They are in totally different genres, and obviously the game engines have to be optimized for those differences. Metro 2033 looks ridiculously beautiful in it's cramped but very detailed enviroments - FPS engines generally only render a very small portion of a map at one time too (enemies often are not even spawned into the game world until the player gets close to them), just beyond what's visible to the player, while StarCraft 2 has to render the entire game world at once, render a lot of units at the same time and calculate path finding and that stuff for all those units.
Open world games also generally look worse than FPS'es and RPG's, because they also similarly have to stream the entire game world in a very different way compared to how FPS and RPG games do.

 

[ionveau]

Why do people care about graphics, i dont care about them, the thing i hate is the fact that SC2 will have DLC just wait in a month you will see maps coming out for 15$ just like MW2

You know why we dont have lan? its to stop people from pirating the DLC that will come out soon.

Blizzard really shot itself in the foot, thanks to their actions there will be Battlenet emulators so blizzard traded their long term customers for light minded people that will be happy to pay 15$ for DLC and always defend blizzard, Wait how is that bad...its a shame to say but blizzard is really evil,

I also noticed going from forum to forum the different looks on the game, People on map making forums are hating on blizzard, people on websites like these are giving this game love.


I am sorry but when i buy a game i want to buy the game not 80% of it i want the 100%
call me selfish but if i know a person is enjoying cooler items or more story than I it really turns me off,

A fun fact Dragon age DLC together costs 44$



Really this loyalty i am seeing from the SC2 fans scares me, The fact about life is that EVERYONE wants to take your money and give you as little as possible

Instead of saying blizzard gave us an updated battlenet or blizzard gave us a new game we should be saying

Why did Blizzard take away lan
Why did they start hosting maps on their servers?
Why do they charge koreans monthly to play starcraft online
Why cant we spawn play anymore?

Its too late already the people have spoken with their money, we payed for a future where we have less freedom with our games