Review: StarCraft II

[Nikolaz72]

60 euros :| no thanks. thats like 6 days worth of dinners

I thought it was 40 USD? Or translated. 35 Euro. 400 Danes. Whatever you wanna call it.

 

[Denamic]

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?

I very much doubt that.
You could just post your match history to prove it, but I somehow doubt that'll happen.
Then again, you could just lie about your experience.
And even if you're not, skirmish vs AI is essentially just practice for actual MP.
The AI is just an AI.
It'll conform to very bread and butter tactics and are generally extremely predictable.
It won't know when you're vulnerable.
It doesn't understand to exploit defence weaknesses.
It'll just build forces and attack.
Boasting you beat an AI is very unimpressive.

That aside, why is that 'not very good' to begin with?

Dated problems include building units getting trapped between buildings,

Then don't trap them there.
Yes, SCVs and probes getting stuck after building things is kinda annoying, but that's incredibly insignificant on the whole.

800x600 ranges

I don't even know what this means.

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.

That's why melee units are generally more powerful, purely stat-wise.
Stat wise, the marines are vastly inferior.
Being able to attack from afar is an advantage.
Go figure.

If you really are trying to say the average PC game is $60 on release, you are trolling. It is simple as that.

No, I'm just saying that doesn't really matter to me, because the game is clearly worth it.

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.

Chances are that your opponent have a brain cell and realizes that you might have figured out that he uses banshees and makes some vikings to defend them in case you send anti-air against them.
Oh wait.
You only play against the AI.

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.

Are you kidding me?
You should be teching as much as you can.
You're supposed to keep your OPPONENT from teching too far by pressing him and hampering his economy.

If up against a player who uses lots of ground units, a few colossi are a great defence.
Kinda like a siege tank, but not quite.
And with a mothership around, a few colossi in your army can be devastating.

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....Just looking at it set to Ultra - there is very little difference so I can't see why people are acting as if there is a huge difference between in-game and what I showed...The zerg look ace but as I've said I don't really have a problem with them.

Spoiler: Low

Spoiler: Ultra

Yep, you're right.
Can't see a difference.

 

[Pendragon9]

I actually love this game. I wish people wouldn't complain so much about it though.

"BAWW THEY REMOVE LAN AND SELL IN 3 PACKAGES, IT SUCKS AND EVERYONE WHO BUYS IT SUCKS BAWWW".

Geez, get over it already. Or at least stop saying we're all assholes for wanting a game. -_-

 

[Xocrates]

do you really want me to explain why he went for collosi or can you figure that out yourself? It's a Protoss armour popping tactic which the guy did as he obviously saw the roach warrens,

Except, of course, Collossus aren't the roach counter, Immortals are. The collussus were there because of the the Hydralisks.

 

[Xerosch]

I enjoyed the game but it did feel like the story is rushed through, not much time spent on each part of the story.

I just finished the game and feel a bit disappointed, too. As it seems there is quite a lot of people who appreciate what´s been done here but I felt the story to be lacking direction until the last 5-6 missions. In retrospect I had preferred a linear mission design for a streamlined story.

And why does my mission resumée state that I completed 25 of 26 missions? I played every mission including the three alternate ones. Help anyone?

 

[Xocrates]

And why does my mission resumée state that I completed 25 of 26 missions? I played every mission including the three alternate ones. Help anyone?

There's a secret mission.

 

[Serithil Menelith]

I must admit that it makes an Amazing game, but along with some other fellow Starcraft fans I realize that Blizzard did make a lot of game changing mechanics that were bad for the balancing, which I am quite disappointed about. As most games the Sequel pales in comparison to the original.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I stick by my words that the majority of SC fans have not played many RTS' at all and so it's like giving an caveman a black & white TV. It's great to him, but to everyone else who has colour and HDTV's, it does the job, but that's it.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that every single RTS to come out after Starcraft are objectively better games. I've played Dawn of War, Command and Conquer: Generals, Supreme Commander, Battle for Middle Earth II, and Rise of Nations in recent memory. I loved every single one of them, especially given that each one had differing gameplay mechanics that made each one special.

What I like about Starcraft II is that it doesn't try to be anything other than what it is; it's a polished, no-holds barred nostalgic throwback to the earlier RTS and I'm grateful for it. I didn't want Starcraft to feel like a Dawn of War clone, I wanted it to feel like its own entity and that's exactly what it does. I don't care that the mechanics are dated, I don't care that the graphics aren't top of the line, and I definitely don't care that it didn't take advantage of the innovations over the last decade.

For me, SC2 is to the RTS genre what Dragon Age is to the RPG genre: an epic, beautifully executed and compelling title utilizing the tried-and-true gameplay mechanics of old.

Starcraft 2 does not need to be anything other than what it was promised to be: a polished sequel to the first that continues the story, re-invigorates the multiplayer, and reliant on the old formula that worked so well.

If that doesn't appeal to you then that's perfectly fine, but it's impossibly arrogant to assume that the players who enjoy Starcraft 2 for what it is are clearly uneducated savages who haven't had the sublime honor of playing an RTS over the last 6 years or so.

 

[Denamic]

The fact it's true and you can't get your story straight between "I doubt that" and "That's unimpressive" makes the victories even better. Plus from what I've seen of MP, the AI is far more of a challenge than a lot of players.

You should probably stop trying to publicly stroke your own ego.
I meant that the AI is sufficiently potent enough to crush anyone who doesn't know what he's doing, because he's wasting time reading tooltips to figure out what to do.
That's while the AI is fairly proficient at quickly gather resources and building forces.
But any player with some experience can beat the hardest AI.

And no, you're wrong.
If you do really well, you'll be paired up with better players.
And there's ALWAYS someone better than you.
The thing is that the matchmaking function needs a few games to gauge your abilities.
And you'll often get harder fights when teaming up with a friend because premade teams are usually much more proficient.

 

[Xocrates]

It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Actually my point was that you were talking out of your ass since you said colossus were there because of roaches. Colossus work, sure, but that wasn't why they were there.

By the way, the game auto-saves replays in the Starcraft 2 folder in documents. So if you can, please upload those replays against the "very hard" AI because I really want to see them. (and not to verify if they're true, but because I'm honestly curious to see what you've done)

 

[Xerosch]

And why does my mission resumée state that I completed 25 of 26 missions? I played every mission including the three alternate ones. Help anyone?

There's a secret mission.

Ghaaa... Let me guess... After I finished the game I have to replay the entire campaign to get to the mission?

 

[Xocrates]

Ghaaa... Let me guess... After I finished the game I have to replay the entire campaign to get to the mission?

Yup! Which sucks :/

 

[Denamic]

It's the laser tactic of the Protoss - Immortals are ideal against roaches but if there's a mixed force and no rush, go Collosi. Congrats on being pedantic, can't really see what this has achieved unless I needed to clarify if your games take more than ~15 mins and you fully tech up, you're doing it wrong.

Didn't you just say:

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.

And no, games longer than 30 minutes isn't uncommon.
Most people aren't SC gods and you can't expect to be able to crush everyone in 15 minutes.
Many battles will drag on because you're up against someone that's almost exactly as good as yourself.

What's up with this switch to flexing your ego?
Some kind of superiority complex?

 

[Frankster]

Adding my 2 cents in it: sc2 is a great game, but not the 2nd coming of christ and deserving of the 10/10s in comparison to other rts which are just better games im my humble opinion.
Coh and homeworld are games that come to mind as just being plain "better", and if those games didn't get universal appraise like this one had, i fail to see why sc2 should.

Funny part is, if this game wasn't so hyped up and had apparently every reviewer on the planet fawning over it, i wouldn't be saying all this.
Campaign is awesome and has lots of replay value (again in my humble opinion, some might get bored of it faster especially if you see multi as the real game, but i'm on my 3rd playthrough and loving it despite the story which i find meh).
The game follows well from sc1 and though i'm not a pro player so my opinion here isnt worth much, but i like the new additions for each race.

Really main complaints i have comes from the incomplete story (too many plot threads unresolved which means you are kinda forced to buy the next games even for terran related matters), the overhaul of old fav characters (kerrigan wasn't a hot sexeh girl in sc, she was a mature operative, raynor was a somewhat ugly guy with a big heart and is now the stereotypical grizzled badass with muscles as big as his head, i swear only zeratzul is like i remember him).
And i don't care what anyone says, kerrigan and raynor were NEVER that close in sc1.
So between those complaints and battlenet, my main critiques lie with elements outside the core mechanics of the game itself.

Yet with so much positives and dismissable negatives, i still maintain sc2 isn't a 10/10?
I do. I far prefer Coh still, especially with some mods out there making it the definitive ww2 rts (normandy mod people, try it :O!!!!!), and homeworld is just a masterpiece (again all in my sincere opinion, i'm very biased towards coh).
Yet those games didn't get hyped to hell and receive the rapture sc2 did, and let's be honest, a lot of this warm reception is due to the hype and buildup around the game.

I guess my real complaint is that this overwhelming positive reception will be used to cement sc2 as the "best rts eva" in future geek arguments to come, when, compared to the personal examples i gave, it isn't.
It's the best at what it does, no doubt about that, but there are more deserving rts games out there who propose radically different experiences, and haven't been rewarded for it, and that stirs my gaming sense of justice.
Just as a fair amount of people here will recoil at my insistence of crowning coh or homeworld as "best rts eva", so i recoil from sc2 fans attempts to impose their own views as a universal truth.
Problem is, there is a lot more of you, then there are peeps like me, and although more peeps doesn't prove you right, i would genuinely be saddened if sc2 dominates the rts scene like sc1 did for so long until some innovative companies dared to be different (relic <3).

 

[Xocrates]

Coh and homeworld are games that come to mind as just being plain "better", and if those games didn't get universal appraise like this one had, i fail to see why SC2 should.

Hum... just FYI, both those games have the same metascore that SC2 currently has. And SC2 actually has reviews lower than both those games. Those games didn't have as much hype behind them, true, but the overall critical reception wasn't worse.

If you consider that through all it's flaws, both the campaign and multiplayer framework (matchmaking and leagues in particular) are better than CoH's I think we can agree that CoH's gameplay is actually considered superior.

Granted, Starcraft has a much larger user base so CoH never really had a chance, though I should note that, as a personal opinion, I find SC2 has a lower level of entry than CoH.

 

[Danallighieri]

I stick by my words that the majority of SC fans have not played many RTS' at all and so it's like giving an caveman a black & white TV. It's great to him, but to everyone else who has colour and HDTV's, it does the job, but that's it.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that every single RTS to come out after Starcraft are objectively better games. I've played Dawn of War, Command and Conquer: Generals, Supreme Commander, Battle for Middle Earth II, and Rise of Nations in recent memory. I loved every single one of them, especially given that each one had differing gameplay mechanics that made each one special.

What I like about Starcraft II is that it doesn't try to be anything other than what it is; it's a polished, no-holds barred nostalgic throwback to the earlier RTS and I'm grateful for it. I didn't want Starcraft to feel like a Dawn of War clone, I wanted it to feel like its own entity and that's exactly what it does. I don't care that the mechanics are dated, I don't care that the graphics aren't top of the line, and I definitely don't care that it didn't take advantage of the innovations over the last decade.

For me, SC2 is to the RTS genre what Dragon Age is to the RPG genre: an epic, beautifully executed and compelling title utilizing the tried-and-true gameplay mechanics of old.

Starcraft 2 does not need to be anything other than what it was promised to be: a polished sequel to the first that continues the story, re-invigorates the multiplayer, and reliant on the old formula that worked so well.

If that doesn't appeal to you then that's perfectly fine, but it's impossibly arrogant to assume that the players who enjoy Starcraft 2 for what it is are clearly uneducated savages who haven't had the sublime honor of playing an RTS over the last 6 years or so.

Thing is nostalgia isn't a good thing as the words "good" and "nostalgia" aren't linked in anyway. For me SC2 is far too simplistic and too old a style to have any place in the RTS market as it is less tactical than most of the popular RTS'.
Personally I couldn't stand Dragon Age. It looked like a cheap RPG (Archlord comes to mind) and was the same boring gameplay as WoW, but I digress.
It's not tried-and-true gameplay though - it's just dated. Name me another genre which could get away with releasing the same game as a decade ago with a few improvements. The only one I can think of is SMBW & for that, I'd just point you to Zero Punctuation as I seem to have the same idea of nostalgia.
As for SC2 and the story.....where's the UED?
I think the people who enjoy it enjoy it for nostalgia and/or haven't played many RTS' at all. As it stands, I think that's a fair presumption.

As to yer point of a game that was released ages ago that people would like remade... FF 7?