Review: StarCraft II

[acosn]

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.

Hur dur Ima go poke fun at SC2's story WITHOUT ACTUALLY GRASPING WHAT HAPPENED IN BROODWAR.

You must not have finished the game because you'd discover that after being beaten back on all fronts and having their pet overmind destroyed, their second in command back stabbed by their third in command and the head committed suicide the UED fleet was soon after beaten to a pulp by the zerg swarm.

If you're going to try to be objective you need to make the case clear that you've at least played the game through.

In fact, I think I'd probably be more qualified to make an argument one way or another than you- I've basically played everything under the sun- WC2, WC3, SC, Homeworld, Homeworld 2, Homeworld Cataclysm, Rise of Nations, Europa Universalise, Rome Total War, Empire Total War, Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, Dawn of War 2, Company of Heroes, Majesty 1 + 2 (though its less strategy and more simulator) Cossacks, literally every single game to come out under the command and conquer franchise, and Empire Earth to name a few.

Your problem is that you're demanding something different when the game more or less isn't broken- the fact that SC is unofficially the sport of South Korea is somewhat of a testament to that. The game doesn't need to change that much beyond the meta-game because what's already presented is already good. It is really the difference between DoW and CoH without the paint job change from warhammer 40k to WW2. The game ain't broken. It doesn't need fixing.

 

[Lucifer dern]

Just cos people keep saying it im going to kinda explain what i thinck they mean whene very one spams NO FUCKING LAN!!
basicly if you want to play this with your brother
see if he likes it what ever
you have to buy 2 copys of the game
rather then just swapping disks around or something like that
i thinck thats what everyones so pissed about.
and tbh i kinda agree id quite like to play this with family without having to have 2 disks for one house-hold.

 

[Xocrates]

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

That's, frankly, fairly impressive. Most players wouldn't figure that out half as quickly and even less would be able to pull it off (I doubt I could).

However, and ultimately, you essentially figured the AI pattern. Against a decently skilled human opponent it's unlikely that would work half as well (the hidden pylon certainly wouldn't).

Also, weren't you complaining the game was slow not long ago?

However let's just leave it at this:

You don't like how the game plays, or looks, that's fine. No one is asking you to.

You may not agree with the review scores, that's also fine, but it just means that you and the reviewers value different parameters.

Ultimately what this all means is that we can ***** and moan all we want. All that's going to happen is that SC2 will continue to be a critically acclaimed best selling RTS, and we're going to keep playing the games we like.

I know SC2 wasn't innovative, or has exceptionally detailed graphics, but I didn't buy it because it was, none of us did, I bought it because I like it and it's the last one of a dying breed.
Why is that such a big deal? Is it seriously that hard to accept that different people like different things?

What, honestly, does any of us need to prove?

 

[Arisato-kun]

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)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

 

[Comic Sans]

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?

Okay Collosi was a very bad example as if you are lucky and don't get rush attacked, you can tech to them to use in the laser 'fest' tactic.
I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day? If people are such avid fans of the original I'd expect decent gameplay. If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.
Flex my ego? Explain, not sure what you mean there.

Hur dur Ima go poke fun at SC2's story WITHOUT ACTUALLY GRASPING WHAT HAPPENED IN BROODWAR.

You must not have finished the game because you'd discover that after being beaten back on all fronts and having their pet overmind destroyed, their second in command back stabbed by their third in command and the head committed suicide the UED fleet was soon after beaten to a pulp by the zerg swarm.

If you're going to try to be objective you need to make the case clear that you've at least played the game through.

In fact, I think I'd probably be more qualified to make an argument one way or another than you- I've basically played everything under the sun- WC2, WC3, SC, Homeworld, Homeworld 2, Homeworld Cataclysm, Rise of Nations, Europa Universalise, Rome Total War, Empire Total War, Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, Dawn of War 2, Company of Heroes, Majesty 1 + 2 (though its less strategy and more simulator) Cossacks, literally every single game to come out under the command and conquer franchise, and Empire Earth to name a few.

Your problem is that you're demanding something different when the game more or less isn't broken- the fact that SC is unofficially the sport of South Korea is somewhat of a testament to that. The game doesn't need to change that much beyond the meta-game because what's already presented is already good. It is really the difference between DoW and CoH without the paint job change from warhammer 40k to WW2. The game ain't broken. It doesn't need fixing.

It's the fact that SC2 doesn't mention the UED anywhere including in the background history. Congratulations, you've played a lot of RTS. Now do you care to say why SC2 is so good in comparison to them? You can't just say "it's good" and not elaborate.
Korea is the home of grinding MMO's. Does that make them good? Does a lot of people liking something make it good? Of course it doesn't. The game may not be broken, but being functional doesn't make something good by default.
No idea what you are on about comparing SC2 to DoW and CoH...Any chance you could clarify the point you were making?

They mention the Brood War in the first mission prelude. One of the mercenary groups is said to be made of ex-UED troops. However, there's really no reason to mention them. Their fleet never made it home. The Zerg swarm stomped all over them, leaving nothing left. That plot line is tied up, and has nothing to do with events in SC2. Why would people talk about something that happened 4 years ago and it not relevant to events at hand?

Really, why do we need to constantly reiterate why we like the game? We like it because it's more fucking StarCraft. It's a more streamlined, improved version of something we all loved. For the same reasons the first was good, the improved sequel is good. It doesn't need innovation because the core gameplay is good enough. Like it or not, this game was made with fans of the first in mind. It did what a sequel does, which is take the core mechanics and refine them. Some things don't need to be changed. I know quite a few people, myself included, who despised the changes made in Dawn of War 2. When you change the core mechanics of a series, you alienate the fans, the ones who's support you need to count on.

What points are you trying to make here? You've said your peace, that you don't like the game. You've also shown that you don't have enough experience in the game to call if out for lacking tactics. What, with saying scouting is hard (workers at the beginning, Overseers/Overlords, Observers, Comsat Sweeps, most things that fly can do in a pinch), saying that Battlecruisers are overpowered, that flanking is useless (it's what Zerg are all about, really), and that if a game goes on long enough to tech up you're bad. You don't like the game, you don't GET the game, and you won't prove anything in here. So, why are you here?

Oh, and I just wanted to let you know I've never played another strategy game in my life. Well, I guess a few. Just Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Dawn of War, Dawn of War Winter Assault, Dawn of War Dark Crusade, Dawn of War 2, Mech Platoon, Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, the entire Advance Wars series, Halo Wars, Command and Conquer, Command and Conquer 3, Red Alert 2, and Red Alert 3. So yeah, I'm uneducated as to how the strategy genre is supposed to work.

 

[Denamic]

Okay Collosi was a very bad example as if you are lucky and don't get rush attacked, you can tech to them to use in the laser 'fest' tactic.
I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day? If people are such avid fans of the original I'd expect decent gameplay. If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.

Would you stop talking out of your ass?
Seriously, you're not even playing multiplayer to begin with.
And you continuously spout things that are just plain wrong.
Scouting doesn't work? Teching advanced units is 'doing it wrong'?
You just have to build units that counter your enemy to win?
To anyone that has actually played SC2 for more than an hour, it's obvious you have no idea what you're on about.

Flex my ego? Explain, not sure what you mean there.

This:

I crush the AI in under 15 mins and I've been playing this game for what, a day?

And this:

If your battles are lasting for anything close to 30 mins, you're playing the game very badly.

Maybe your opponent's good?
UNPOSSABLE!

You have some serious attitude issues.

It's the fact that SC2 doesn't mention the UED anywhere including in the background history.

Why does this even matter?
The story isn't even finished yet.
They game doesn't really tell you what Kerrigan or Zerathul has been up to either, except for the prophecy missions.
It's very possible the UED will be mentioned or even play a part in the upcoming Zerg campaign.
Something that is not mentioned != plothole.

Congratulations, you've played a lot of RTS. Now do you care to say why SC2 is so good in comparison to them? You can't just say "it's good" and not elaborate.

Why is SC1 good?
That's basically the answer, only SC2 is improved and polished in pretty much every way possible.
Because it's StarCraft 2. Go figure.

Korea is the home of grinding MMO's. Does that make them good? Does a lot of people liking something make it good? Of course it doesn't. The game may not be broken, but being functional doesn't make something good by default.

You're not even making sense here.
How does Korean MMOs factor here?
Why would grinding mean it's good or bad? Some people like that.
I think most people with half a brain realizes ad populum fallacies are shit.
And what about this whole good by default crap?
Please make some sense.

 

[Frankster]

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.

They have the same metascore? o0 Color me very surprised, i got the impression both those games averaged the 8/10 mark. That genuinely gladdens me, though i knew they weren't quite as overlooked as some other gems, i didn't get the impression they were more then cult hits.

Can't argue with either campaign or multi framework favoring sc2. Coh's campaign can be described as functional at best. Dow series had better campaigns overall, with chaos rising showing relic is improving in that respect.
Multi framework is one of relic's key weaknesses overall, i could write a tl dr about it ><
Even with a less then brilliant battlenet,blizzard made some good choices such as 1 account per game, eliminating a lot of problems plaguing relic games.
The gameplay itself is a matter of taste, but aye, fair few of us will think Coh has the edge gameplay wise

I'm cool with sc2 being a massive success, game deserves it, so long as it doesn't overshadow other just as awesome rts games out there ^^

 

[Corkydog]

Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?

That's exactly how I felt before I bought it, and I was blown away. Everything you kinda-sorta enjoyed in the original is back with a vengeance, and all the boring "kill them all" mission types are gone. I believe that the singleplayer in SC2 was the main focus of Blizzard, and I wasn't dissappointed in the least.

Some people complained that they didn't innovate at all with it, but all the innovation is there to be had with the campaign: varied mission structures, from large scale assaults (with unique objectives and structure) to Diablo esque squad missions where a handful of soldiers use their abilities to take down enemies on a smaller scale, interactive storytelling through the main mission hub, rpg elements that dynamically change the experience of building up your base and unleashing holy hell on the enemy, and absolutely kickass cinematics, animations, and new units.

I probably won't play any multiplayer, but I love this game to death.

 

[Arisato-kun]

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)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

Great =/= nostalgia so the argument of "It's great cuz it's more of the same" doesn't fly because no one has said why it's good, or pointed out how a game relying so heavily on unit composition is a good idea and not just a game that can be solved using Excel.
Try the tactic. As the Zerg one is pretty straight forward I'm guessing you're doubting the Terran one. It's worked for me several times, so it should work for you. I was Protoss against Terran set to Very Hard, Fast, on Blood Sands (that the common one?).
Sadly I've yet to master Insane for the main reason the enemy gets 50% more resources so I just am going to call BS on that one and leave it well alone.

And innovation =/= better. Just look at Brutal Legend for example. It tried to be a both a hack n'slash and an RTS and failed at it. Starcraft 2 is good because it took a basic formula that worked incredibly well and improved upon it. That's all. It didn't need all those new bells and whistles because that's not what makes Starcraft Starcraft. Starcraft 1 was good because it's easy for just about anyone to pick up and yet remains a challenge if you're willing to put the time and effort into mastering it. The second installment is good for the exact same reason. It's fun. Isn't that all we care about? Blizzard didn't try to fix what wasn't broken and I applaud them for it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Comic Sans]

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)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

Great =/= nostalgia so the argument of "It's great cuz it's more of the same" doesn't fly because no one has said why it's good, or pointed out how a game relying so heavily on unit composition is a good idea and not just a game that can be solved using Excel.
Try the tactic. As the Zerg one is pretty straight forward I'm guessing you're doubting the Terran one. It's worked for me several times, so it should work for you. I was Protoss against Terran set to Very Hard, Fast, on Blood Sands (that the common one?).
Sadly I've yet to master Insane for the main reason the enemy gets 50% more resources so I just am going to call BS on that one and leave it well alone.

Seriously, just STOP using games against the AI as examples. The AI is not nearly as flexible or innovative as a human can be. Yes, people can be a mixed bag of skill. Yes, people can make mistakes. They will also micro, change strategies on the fly, and use groups of units in ways that the AI won't or rarely will do. Ever watched someone destroy a force with proper Marauder kiting? Or a double pronged Zergling/Baneling assault? How about 2-port Shees? Phoenix flying behind your lines picking off your tanks, workers, or whatever they please? The AI just doesn't give a proper taste of what you will see after your placement rounds. It's possible to beat a superior force with proper micro if the enemy just attack moves. I've seen it happen both in amateur games and pro games. Again, you simply don't understand the nuances enough to critique the game on strategy.

 

[Denamic]

So to sum it up you think you know better than the pros'
Cool story bro'.

Yeah, that's totally what I was getting at.
I'm fucking omniscient.

Omgosh it's Stacraft 2, which is like SC1, therefore it's instantly good. See the logical jump you made there?

It'd probably be better if you noticed your baseless assertion.

Why is SC1 still seen as good? It certainly wasn't seen as the best ever RTS when it was released. In fact TA was seen as a worthy competitor and was out a year earlier...

To be honest, I didn't even like SC1 much.
I could tell it was a good game, sure, but I never really got in to it and never played any more than the campaigns.

Surely an ad populum argument is saying that because Koreans play it, it is good. I said just because it's popular that doesn't make it good...Think you need to calm down and rethink what you are saying.

You'd be correct if I actually did say that.
Unfortunately, I never did say anything remotely like that.
In fact, you're the one going on about how the 'pros' do it.
Which is known as an ad verecundiam argument.
No, it's not a good argument.

 

[Comic Sans]

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)

I play as Protoss, liked them in the original so thought I'd give them a go. I can't be arsed uploading the videos but against Zerg I use 2 immortals which pop Roaches oh so easily with a few zealots which tie up the zerglings. Key is to get to the base asap. If they are going zerglings, then read below or just zealot rush with 3 gateways (4 is pointless I've found). Against Terran things get a bit trickier. Same basic set up but I use a hidden Pylon and warpgate to quickly mass some zealots (~4) and one or two stalkers to run in and mash the economy and production buildings. The other units hold out at the entrance to the base. Rinse, wash repeat once or twice and it's game over in under 10 mins.

Sorry man, on the internet it's pics or video or it didn't happen. ^_^

But then again I'm an uneducated gaming Neanderthal that absolutely hates innovation, has never played an RTS in the last decade and is blinded by nostalgia for liking Starcraft 2. So this quote will probably end in you flaming me in some way, shape or form.

Starcraft 2 is great, I'm not going to elaborate because the vast majority of this forum has done so already and you refuse to listen.

So please just do us all a favor. Sell Starcraft 2 and go back to playing a game you actually like.

Great =/= nostalgia so the argument of "It's great cuz it's more of the same" doesn't fly because no one has said why it's good, or pointed out how a game relying so heavily on unit composition is a good idea and not just a game that can be solved using Excel.
Try the tactic. As the Zerg one is pretty straight forward I'm guessing you're doubting the Terran one. It's worked for me several times, so it should work for you. I was Protoss against Terran set to Very Hard, Fast, on Blood Sands (that the common one?).
Sadly I've yet to master Insane for the main reason the enemy gets 50% more resources so I just am going to call BS on that one and leave it well alone.

Seriously, just STOP using games against the AI as examples. The AI is not nearly as flexible or innovative as a human can be. Yes, people can be a mixed bag of skill. Yes, people can make mistakes. They will also micro, change strategies on the fly, and use groups of units in ways that the AI won't or rarely will do. Ever watched someone destroy a force with proper Marauder kiting? Or a double pronged Zergling/Baneling assault? How about 2-port Shees? Phoenix flying behind your lines picking off your tanks, workers, or whatever they please? The AI just doesn't give a proper taste of what you will see after your placement rounds. It's possible to beat a superior force with proper micro if the enemy just attack moves. I've seen it happen both in amateur games and pro games. Again, you simply don't understand the nuances enough to critique the game on strategy.

Dude chill and calm down. The guy said he doubted it worked, so I just told him to try it out. Did I say the AI is just the same as a human player? Nope, so that rant was all for nothing.

I am quite calm. However, all your examples on tactics and game play have come from AI skirmishes. I'm simply telling you it's not nearly the same thing, and that you need to stop discussing aspects of it because you've proven time and time again you don't understand how the game works.