Review: StarCraft II

[Xocrates]

I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Wait, does that mean that despite playing PC games for about 20 years, and spending hundreds of ? in PC games every year, I'm not part of a group who refuses to pay 60$ for a game because "my computer can run it", and "it's not equal to that other game I like, and therefore not innovative", and overall like to act as if games need to be created specifically to their tastes, while refusing to accept people have different tastes and priorities?

Whooo! \o/

 

[Denamic]

I'm an EU gamer and you're flat out lying saying we have to pay $80 for games.

No I'm not.
You don't live in Sweden.

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

I tried to get into some topic but i saw so much flaming that i simply gave up!
For me bottom line is: STAR CRAFT 2= EPIC!
From the very moment i began installing to 3 days later when i finished the campaign i was totally sucked into the universe!

I found it very rude of blizzard to cut off the finale of the game like that...but since this is a planned trilogy it did make sense...but i just cant bear to wait for the second part to see what were all my efforts for!!!! And why did Tychos have to die ((
and after everything im kinda wondering...did Valerian and his Dad actually plan this assasination plot....

And also yeah..who needs LAN>? thats ur complain? its the year 2010! Pretty much everybody is hooked up on the internet! And 85% of gamers probably have internet....there communities, MMOs and shit....its hard to imagine not having internet and being a gamer!
Also who would buy StarCraft simply for playing the single player part of it. The Campaign was a masterpiece!!! But the real shine is in the battle.net!
Althou in these first weeks it also feels like a dating site...
Everybody scouting out new friends to play with and build up a good F-List for some heavy marathons of gaming!

The Achievements add a very sweeet flavor to the game and some of the league achi`s are simply RAWR! I take pride in the Warp 9 units at the same time achi. It was so fun to do it. In the end i just swarmed my enemy with 50 Zealots and left them on atk mode in his base
But for now im doing them witheout planning (with few exceptions). 95% of my achi`s are done by pure luck and coincidence!
But later when i get into it ill start grinding some achievements down!
And oh gosh...i totally suck as zerg......how am i ever gona pull their side -_-`

 

[abija]

@Mazty

You can see the pic I've taken from the editor in previous posts. And at the top of the pic you see some sort of info bar. Default settings for me was low.

And please, point out the game that does the same but better. You keep comparing apples and oranges. Do you expect just cause 2 to have the same details as Crysis?
Do you expect them to change the gameplay to accommodate the latest DX10 effects with ultra high poly models?
Gameplay should always dictate the graphics not the other way around. And considering the restrictions imposed by the gameplay they aimed for, I think they did a really great job.

 

[adderseal]

Elite operatives called Spectres? That sounds like another game I've heard about.

 

[adderseal]

Elite operatives called Spectres? That sounds like another game I've heard about.

Which one?

Because remember that they actually have two options to pick from. Ghosts are the traditional elite operatives for the series and Spectres are the new campaign-only option.

I was thinking of the Mass Effect games. Doesn't look like it was too clear, sorry

 

[Jimbo1212]

Got a core i7 950 with HD5870. After the first 4v4 game that didn't end in the rush phase, I toned down the graphics from ultra to high because it was crawling under 10 fps in big fights.
That's the reason why the models (especially for units with low food count) try to be as low poly as possible.

And btw, do you and Mazty even realize the editor you so eager give examples from is set to LOW video quality?
http://a.imageshack.us/img101/2602/editorv.jpg editor zoomed in with better settings. Yes, very low details indeed.

Well then this shows that the engine is horribly optimised for ultra settings. If that is your setup then you would know this as you could play games like Metro 2033 which are far far more demanding and look much better. Other clues to suggest a poor engine is that games such as Sup Com and TW have far more units on screen at once at higher detail, yet still manage to keep 30+ fps, as well as StarCraft 2 uses very little of your processor. RTS's should normally begin to bottleneck due to the processor limiting the amount of scripting going on, however as Starcraft 2 seems to use about 45% of my processors power at any point, this shows a bad engine. Also, lets not forget Blizzard did not even put an fps cap on it. Great going guys.

You are aware that you are zoomed in more on that picture more so then you can in the game? Maybe that is the reason why they look so poor?

 

[JeanLuc761]

I'm guessing that you and almost everyone saying it looks great/they don't care about graphics aren't really gamers, or at least PC gamers as your idea on pricing and what constitutes a last gen rig are completely wrong...

Wait, does that mean that despite playing PC games for about 20 years, and spending hundreds of ? in PC games every year, I'm not part of a group who refuses to pay 60$ for a game because "my computer can run it", and "it's not equal to that other game I like, and therefore not innovative", and overall like to act as if games need to be created specifically to their tastes, while refusing to accept people have different tastes and priorities?

Whooo! \o/

I'm with you. I've been gaming for 15 years. I've owned Playstations, gamecube, Xbox, and above all a PC. According to Mazty, I guess I'm not a REAL gamer because I don't let slightly dated graphics bother me.

Gameplay > Graphics every single time for me.

 

[Denamic]

So why is at good thing to fix a price for a game which has shown very, very little improvement over the last, while still having dated problems and zero innovation?

I could have stopped reading right there.
No one could say that while having played both SC1 and SC2 without lying through their teeth.
The improvement part, that is.
The game's improved in every way possible while still maintaining the core gameplay mechanics that makes StarCraft StarCraft.
About the innovation though, yes, you're right.
Blizz has even said multiple times that they're not going to on some grand innovation crusade.
They said they were going to make StarCraft 2, and that's exactly what they did.
And why is innovation put on such a high pedestal anyway?
Why does games get a bad rap because they use tried and true concepts, even when they do it better than anyone has ever done it before?

Also, what 'dated problems' are you even talking about anyway?

Plus abiia the reason I flat out ignored that link is because it's EIGHT YEARS OLD. This may surprise you but things have changed in almost a decade and PC game prices have changed.

Yes, the economy's changed and the dollar is much weaker now.
So the games are technically cheaper, even though they've got the same pricing.

Sadly this thread is now down to people defending their purchasing decisions rather than talking about the game, so it's not going to go anywhere.

That's funny, because you haven't really been talking about the game either.
You're mostly complaining about non-specific graphical issues and extraneous issues like pricing and people not being 'gamers' now.
The bit where you talked about the game actually made me very doubtful you've actually even played SC2 more than a few minutes, if at all.
I mean, seriously? Scouting doesn't work?
Pretty much everything you said is either wrong or plain stupid.
Yes, some units win over other units.
Isn't that the point of having more than one type of unit?
Anti-air wins over colossi, hellions win over lings, ultralisks win over everything but air units, etc.
That's what tactics is all about.
You're not gonna win over a protoss player using void rays by using roaches.
But that doesn't mean that just because you use a specific unit to counter your enemy's army, you're gonna win.
Planning, resources, macro, micro, harassment, pressure, speed, strategy; all of it are vital to win in multiplayer matches.

Besides, your statement about scouting not 'working' and just using units that's strong against the units your enemy's using kinda contradict each other, don't they? You think you've got time to build a force tailored to defeat your enemy's force in time to defend against an attacking force without any kind of information? Without scouting, they'd be in your base before you know what units they're using.

And yes, units scuffle around each other, trying to get into range of their enemies.
This is by design; it's not a flaw. The units do exactly what you tell them to.
They move toward a target and open fire the moment they're in range.
To get more units into firing range quicker, you need to micro them manually.
You can't just send your army to attack and expect to win.
A skilled player can annihilate an evenly matched army purely through skilful micro.

Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS? It seems like X2 all over again, but I doubt you'll understand that reference, so it seems like an engine which is hideously optimised for the higher end of it.

Are you actually trying to be condescending?
Can't really comment on the graphical optimisation thing though.
I mean, as I get a constant 60 FPS on ultra settings, I wouldn't really have any reference to go by.

Plus where are you finding out that the editor is low setting graphics? Just curious as I checked the graphics options and there was nothing about quality.

File > Preferences > Video.
It's not rocket science, man.
It's automatically set to the same settings you have in the game, so it's no wonder you think the graphics are shit if you play with that.
Though I wonder why you complain about graphics when you play on low settings.
I mean, that's pretty much understood. It's called 'low quality' for a reason.

 

[Epictank of Wintown]

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Are you honestly bitching because the game runs well on your machine? Really? Really?

Wow. I've seen it all.

The game looks goddamn fine. Blizzard has never been about "OMG GRAPHIX HNNNNNNNNNNG," nor should they be. That's why so many other games fail. They make the game LOOKING good priority numero uno over the point of a fucking game; PLAYING well.

I love StarCraft 2. I've loved every second of it. The single player is great, the graphics look fantastic without making lower end machines have a stroke, a heart attack, then melt their processors and blow to pieces like Chernobyl.

I'll be digging in to the mulitplayer (custom games are <3) as soon as humanly possible. You can keep griping that the game doesn't run at 25 FPS on your machine at the Ultra setting- I'll keep cruising along at 60 FPS and crushing waves of Zerglings with my MMM ball, thanks.

 

[Denamic]

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Are you honestly bitching because the game runs well on your machine? Really? Really?

I didn't say that, TB_Infidel did.

 

[Epictank of Wintown]

The graphics are not excellent in any way, this is why I can run the game at over 60 fps.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Are you honestly bitching because the game runs well on your machine? Really? Really?

I didn't say that, TB_Infidel did.

...whoops. >.> My bad. LET ME FIX THAT.

EDIT: Fix'd.

 

[mike1921]

Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS?

You still don't get it, WE DON'T CARE, WE AREN'T BOTHERED BY GRAPHICS

At the distance from these units your point of view is normally at, sure.

Also, do you get it yet that we just DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK about graphics
Convince me these graphics are worse than games that came out 15 years ago, then maybe I'll care.

One phrase: Value for money.
It's unheard of a PC game to be this expensive (fixed at $60), and so I'd expect a bit better than those graphics. If I'm paying a lot for a game, I want it to be great in everyway, not lacking in some. Plus why are you wanting to compare it to games that are 15 years old instead of, I don't know, games that have been released in the last year?......

ok i need to make this clear in a way that wont offend anyone hopefully. Ahem the reason the game costs $60 is because it had the ENTIRE multiplayer packge in it as well as the campain and i know other games do this and dont cost as much but think of it this way you pay $60 bucks for the first game but only have to play 20-30 bucks for the expantions in the long run it saves us money. Now if that doesnt end up being the case go ahead and start going nuts again but untill heart of the swarm is released lets just let this thread die.

Oh BTW for the guys who said the stuff about hacking pick up your cell phone and down load an athenticator its free for fucks sakes and ive yet to see anyone get hacked who uses one.
As always people there is no spell check so please dont waste my time complaining about spelling

Am I the only one who had trouble reading that but didn't even notice the terrible spelling until you mentioned it?

 

[mike1921]

I could have stopped reading right there.
No one could say that while having played both SC1 and SC2 without lying through their teeth.
The improvement part, that is.
The game's improved in every way possible while still maintaining the core gameplay mechanics that makes StarCraft StarCraft.
About the innovation though, yes, you're right.
Blizz has even said multiple times that they're not going to on some grand innovation crusade.
They said they were going to make StarCraft 2, and that's exactly what they did.
And why is innovation put on such a high pedestal anyway?
Why does games get a bad rap because they use tried and true concepts, even when they do it better than anyone has ever done it before?

Also, what 'dated problems' are you even talking about anyway?

Plus abiia the reason I flat out ignored that link is because it's EIGHT YEARS OLD. This may surprise you but things have changed in almost a decade and PC game prices have changed.

Yes, the economy's changed and the dollar is much weaker now.
So the games are technically cheaper, even though they've got the same pricing.

Sadly this thread is now down to people defending their purchasing decisions rather than talking about the game, so it's not going to go anywhere.

That's funny, because you haven't really been talking about the game either.
You're mostly complaining about non-specific graphical issues and extraneous issues like pricing and people not being 'gamers' now.
The bit where you talked about the game actually made me very doubtful you've actually even played SC2 more than a few minutes, if at all.
I mean, seriously? Scouting doesn't work?
Pretty much everything you said is either wrong or plain stupid.
Yes, some units win over other units.
Isn't that the point of having more than one type of unit?
Anti-air wins over colossi, hellions win over lings, ultralisks win over everything but air units, etc.
That's what tactics is all about.
You're not gonna win over a protoss player using void rays by using roaches.
But that doesn't mean that just because you use a specific unit to counter your enemy's army, you're gonna win.
Planning, resources, macro, micro, harassment, pressure, speed, strategy; all of it are vital to win in multiplayer matches.

Besides, your statement about scouting not 'working' and just using units that's strong against the units your enemy's using kinda contradict each other, don't they? You think you've got time to build a force tailored to defeat your enemy's force in time to defend against an attacking force without any kind of information? Without scouting, they'd be in your base before you know what units they're using.

And yes, units scuffle around each other, trying to get into range of their enemies.
This is by design; it's not a flaw. The units do exactly what you tell them to.
They move toward a target and open fire the moment they're in range.
To get more units into firing range quicker, you need to micro them manually.
You can't just send your army to attack and expect to win.
A skilled player can annihilate an evenly matched army purely through skilful micro.

Also abiia what other games have you played on your rig? Does it not worry you that you can play games that are graphically far more impressive and yet get better FPS? It seems like X2 all over again, but I doubt you'll understand that reference, so it seems like an engine which is hideously optimised for the higher end of it.

Are you actually trying to be condescending?
Can't really comment on the graphical optimisation thing though.
I mean, as I get a constant 60 FPS on ultra settings, I wouldn't really have any reference to go by.

Plus where are you finding out that the editor is low setting graphics? Just curious as I checked the graphics options and there was nothing about quality.

File > Preferences > Video.
It's not rocket science, man.
It's automatically set to the same settings you have in the game, so it's no wonder you think the graphics are shit if you play with that.
Though I wonder why you complain about graphics when you play on low settings.
I mean, that's pretty much understood. It's called 'low quality' for a reason.

I've got a revelation to break to you - Starcraft is not the best RTS ever, and SC2 certainly isn't. I've just defeated Very Hard Zerg and Terran 1 vs 1 on my Guest Pass without having ever played SC2 and I haven't played the first in over a decade unless you want to count 1 hour a few nights ago...
That really isn't very good is it?
Dated problems include building units getting trapped between buildings, 800x600 ranges and units fumbling around in a awful attempt to track to the target. The fumbling isn't a good idea because it means ranged units instantly have a massive advantage as they just hold their ground and hand-to-hand cannot be focused on the smaller units.

Umm..you mean zealots and lings? You're saying zealots and lings, key to the zerg rush and proxy 4 gate are at a disadvantage?

I've talked plenty about the game and how the idea of unit composition is broken as that is all the strategy in the game. Enemy builds X, so just build Y to counter it and win, meaning that games last a total of 10 mins. Your just doing the usual internet forum argument of saying "Saying A is wrong" and then failing to say why it is wrong. Your not omniscient, so please enlighten me.
If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

No it isn't. Unit compositions, Unit placements, Taking full advantage of your casters (mothership and high templar) when to cut workers to make buildings (not really applicable to protoss), when to expand.

How about you go and play a real person online, not the practice leagues either.

A) You didn't happen to save the replay of that did you?
B)What pros exactly are you referring to? I think I've seen painuser with a thor

The graphics seem really poorly optimised, or albia is lying. It's not unusual for a game to be poorly optimised on the top settings, but again fro $60, this is a bit of a bad joke.

Dude , concentrate on trying to fault the gameplay. No one gives a shit about the graphics

 

[abija]

The editor was actually on a mix of graphics, nothing was on ultra, but nothing on low, and textures were actually on high so next time you may want to check instead of trying to be smart and just, well, failing....

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1919/terrain001.jpg vs http://a.imageshack.us/img101/2602/editorv.jpg
Clearly very little difference... Even if textures were on high in your settings, having everything else on low means no mapping/light effects were used. And keep in mind the game on ultra adds another 1 or 2 steps of processing.
Also, default is on low, regardless of the fact that it has checked to use game settings.

I've talked plenty about the game and how the idea of unit composition is broken as that is all the strategy in the game. Enemy builds X, so just build Y to counter it and win, meaning that games last a total of 10 mins. Your just doing the usual internet forum argument of saying "Saying A is wrong" and then failing to say why it is wrong. Your not omniscient, so please enlighten me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye-WW98JS38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOXWgi_5tGw

If you are reaching collosi, your doing it wrong as you shouldn't be teching up that far. Think I'm wrong? Well a)That's how I crush the AI and b) That's how the pros do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEsxvHWbvbU