Review: StarCraft II

[Comic Sans]

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.

You said SC2 was good as it was very similar to SC1 and never said why SC1 should still be regarded as good considering the decade worth of changes to the genre. Sadly the one with the baseless assertion was yourself.
I thought SC1 was okay, but thought TA was far, far better when it came to skirmishes as back then MP was really LAN only.

Are you really trying to claim that how the pro's play the game isn't the correct way of playing the game? Really?

The Korean comment was because someone else originally said:
"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."
I think you are confused. I never claimed that looking at what a population does is a way of determining anything, unlike what the person above said.

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.

Then please enlighten me because you're doing the same usual forum nonsense of saying "Your wrong for saying X" and then not actually saying why.

In the post I did before, which you quoted, I gave examples of a few strats that people will pull out that the AI won't, or not as well. And we've repeatedly said why we like the game, you are simply ignoring it. But I'll humor you: because the first one is still solid today, and the second improved on it's UI and mechanics. This is a game for the fans, and we got everything we wanted. Again, answer one simple question: why are you still here? You are asking us to convince of something you clearly don't want to be convinced of.

 

[Denamic]

You said SC2 was good as it was very similar to SC1 and never said why SC1 should still be regarded as good considering the decade worth of changes to the genre. Sadly the one with the baseless assertion was yourself.

No, it's good because it's an extremely solid game.
It had 3 very distinctive races, each with a fairly different playstyle.
It was balanced, engaging and extremely competitive.
And it had the undoubtedly best multiplayer component to date.
It also had a compelling storyline, which is rare in RTS games, especially back then.
That's actually why I played through the singleplayer campaign at all, since I never was big on RTS games.
The game simply oozed quality.

And SC2 does the exact same thing, only better.
It's prettier, smoother, more polished and more fun.
Also, Bnet 2.0 is pretty great.
I have some gripes with it, but it does what it's supposed to excellent.

This has been explained multiple times already.
People here like SC2 because it's a great game that is easy to love.

Are you really trying to claim that how the pro's play the game isn't the correct way of playing the game? Really?

Jesus Christ, man.
It's getting laughable now.
I never said that either, and you know it.
You're really reaching here.
Seriously, it doesn't work.

The Korean comment was because someone else originally said:
"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."
I think you are confused. I never claimed that looking at what a population does is a way of determining anything, unlike what the person above said.

Perhaps, but you accused me of doing that.
And the fact that it is such a big game is a testament to its quality.
There's a huge difference between saying that it's popular because it's good and saying that it's good because it's popular.

And why am I confused when I had zero involvement with that comment?
In fact, why was I brought into it in the first place?

Then please enlighten me because you're doing the same usual forum nonsense of saying "Your wrong for saying X" and then not actually saying why.

Your assertions, accusations and completely random counter-arguments against things no one even said in the first place doesn't count?

Also, learn to snip.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Many other RTS have 3 distinctive races (or more) with different play styles, good balance, are very engaging and so on, so why all the outrageous love for SC? What exactly puts SC2 up there with the other major RTS' around? Specifics please, not general facts about the game (It has 3 races...).

Hasn't this been explained, in detail, several times now?

- Great campaign with wonderfully varied missions; no two feel alike.
- Interesting and appealing characters
- Outstanding voice acting
- Appealing visual style (bright, distinctive, utilizes the principles of design well)
- Outstanding graphics for the in-engine cutscenes.
- Expert level design
- Extremely well balanced
- High replayability
- Accessible
- Fantastic multiplayer; easy to learn, hard to master.

Really, you're asking us to objectively explain a subjective opinion which is inherently impossible.

 

[Comic Sans]

In the post I did before, which you quoted, I gave examples of a few strats that people will pull out that the AI won't, or not as well. And we've repeatedly said why we like the game, you are simply ignoring it. But I'll humor you: because the first one is still solid today, and the second improved on it's UI and mechanics. This is a game for the fans, and we got everything we wanted. Again, answer one simple question: why are you still here? You are asking us to convince of something you clearly don't want to be convinced of.

Scare yourself and say specifically why you like SC2 above, or on par with the other RTS' out.
Saying it's a game for fans just means people would have liked it if it was an unbalanced piece of cr*p that looked like it came fresh of an etch-a-sketch...Not quite sure how that's meant to give any sort of substance to your view other than squash it entirely.
I'm here because I disagree with all the praise it's getting, but seem to be up against people who will love it regardless of the actual quality of the game, or those who haven't touched a RTS in the last decade. Frankly I think the former and the latter are why game innovation has almost died a death and why gaming is going to become worse & worse year after year, and eventually die because it won't attract anyone who isn't willing to blindly follow a faceless corporation for some literally unknown reason.

It's the balance between high APM micro and tactics. No other game has this. Each and every unit has a purpose, there is no unit in any race that feels out of place or worthless (barring maybe the Ultralisk). There is no slow point in the game. It has the Blizzard level of polish. The game not going out of it's way to be OMFGBBQ in graphics allows it to run well on any semi-modern rig. Blizzard is incredibly good about balancing the game. It's a sequel that maintains everything I loved about the original while refining it and making it better.

You seem to not understand that first game was so beloved that fans would never give this game a free pass. If anything, they would be MORE HARSH on it. I went into the game expecting it to not have that fire the first did. I was ECSTATIC when it had that and more. We don't like it despite it's quality. We like it BECAUSE of it's quality. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't make it a bad game. That's a problem I have with gamers these days. Either they like it or it's god awful. They can't accept that it's just not their cup of tea. Why can't we just live and let live? The more I read your posts, and the way you manage to both bring up pointless arguments while trying to bash us in the head with the same ones over and over again, I begin to wonder why you have such a huge axe to grind against the game. You didn't buy it. You got to try it for free, which is something a lot of games don't do, at least not the full game. If it's not what you like, and you KNOW you don't like it, why argue the point? At this point you aren't looking to be convinced, you are trying to be an ass.

 

[Denamic]

"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."

So why is it not a good point showing how the pros play the game...?
If you weren't saying that, then what were you trying to say?

Because you're only using 'the pros' to enforce your own opinion.
It'd at least hold a LITTLE water if it was actually true, but it isn't.
I mean, seeing how you've already said 'the pros' does not do X, when they were shortly thereafter proven they do, your statements about 'the pros' are essentially worthless.
That's not just a fallacy, it's a plain damn lie.

Quit saying "It's a great game" followed by media buzz such as "Easy to love". Yes the single player is solid with a decent(ish) story, but the missions are a walk over.

It may be a media buzzword, but that doesn't make it any less true.
You're using another ad populum argument, by the way. Only reversed this time.
If you think the missions are easy, play on hard or brutal.
'Normal mode' is normal mode.
It's meant to be accessible to novices.

Basically if SC was the perfect RTS as everyone seems to claim, then why have RTS' changed so much if no change was needed since '98?

Because it didn't need to.

And you're just a hypocrite claiming that a large fan base is testament to quality - ad populum much?

No.
You need to learn about logical fallacies and how they work.
Again, saying something is good because it's popular IS an ad populum argument.
Saying that it is popular because it is good ISN'T.
In the sentence you used, it says that the popularity of the game is evidence that is is good.
It is not saying that it is good because people like it.
Keyword: testament.

Elaborate as to how I've gone wrong. So far your argument is "It's so good, it's great, it's awesome". Missing some detail there...
Many other RTS have 3 distinctive races (or more) with different play styles, good balance, are very engaging and so on, so why all the outrageous love for SC? What exactly puts SC2 up there with the other major RTS' around? Specifics please, not general facts about the game (It has 3 races...).

Because SC did it really well.
That's the gist of it.

It's 3 am and I'm too tired to go on with this pointless argument any longer.
'nite.

 

[dghjdgdjf]

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

Your right, it's more like 80$ on release in Sweden, not to mention other countries like Australia where the release price is often above 100$. I was thrilled that I only had to pay 60$ for Starcraft 2.

 

[SandroTheMaster]

Ugh, I've actually read through all this drivel.

Well, Mazty and some others have brought really good points up, but they really, really should have stopped talking a good while ago.

On the other hand 90% of the arguments for the defense of the game are... from weak to garbage. Oh god, how many hours have it been? Where was I...?

Oh right. I've got the game. It was a gift. I'm not going to say that it is a Greek Gift but I certainly wouldn't get this game otherwise, especially with Elemental and Civilization V just around the corner, but I did get it so I did play at and therefore I can jump into the discussion, I've earned that right.

Before anything else, ya, I liked the game. Sometimes it was really good and the Campaign customization was neat. But... what I can't stand is all reviews saying that SC2 is the second coming of the offspring of Jesus with Buddha with chocolate on top and whenever anyone say "well, it kind of isn't" the fans take it as a capital offense and accuse them of saying the game sucked and they are retarded and what not. Oww my head...

Anyway, I do believe the game is better than average. The game is solid, polished, competent, et al... but yeah, dated and the gimmicky nature of the campaign missions are very annoying at times. The one where you have to keep lifting the base from rising lava flows get the prize, but there are some close contestants. On the other hand, the Zombie mission and the commando missions were pretty good. Yet, all the way I just imagine why they just couldn't have the variety of units from the single player in the multiplayer. I mean, they already balanced the game to death anyway, why is it so hard to put the Firabats into it from single player to help against early zergling rushes?

I'd give it a 7/10. The graphics really aren't up to snuff with current gen, the story kind of got a complete 180º from the originals, some of the art direction was weird (loved the zerg, like the protoss, can't stand the terrans), and so on. I really think the game had everything to gain from implementing some innovations, especially the strategic zoom (I literally try to zoom out every 5 seconds) but queueble builds, build templates or a cover/squad/add-on system would be nice. But God forbid slightly changing the core gameplay of the original, because playing the original again for that is clearly impossible.

Can't stand the lack of LAN though. The servers are really, really freaking far from where I live, so lag is of at least 1 second of delay, making micro almost worthless. Then again, my connection is spotty at times, and to be deprived of LAN play when it is down is kind of cheap DRM move. Haven't the industry picked up that Ubisoft is hated for its anal insistence of keeping you connected so that they can make sure you're not a pirate while pirates play away happily (or at least happier than I) without having to deal with this kind of shit? Ugh, at least when they make some way to make a pirated simulated server to allow LAN I'll be able to play the game proper with the people standing right beside me.

And damn, the original was praised for, of all things, being fucking original. 3 asymmetrical factions in RTS was unheard of and it proved it can be done, then even now its something hard to pull off again. I'd hope for them to at least hamp it up a bit with a couple more factions, surely the cannon can allow it. Those civilians hurling molotovs at the first mission are way more in tone with Jim's ragtag junkyard bunch than the over-equipped technological marvel the marine is. Why not split him into a complete different faction from the human technology powerhouse of the Dominion? From all that is established from the game Raynor really shouldn't be able to mass-produce the some kind of technology. But I digress.

The main problem though, is that this title essentially killed everything else for the PC this month. I mean, I know at least a few titles that pushed its release in as manner similar to the Modern Warfare 2 craze to avoid going bankrupt before it was even in the market. People ask that Blizzard just don't hog from the public of other games, but that's just what they've been doing since World of Warcraft. I pity other titles launched this month, there's no way in hell they can hope to stand against the invulnerable PR monolith that is Blizzard and their "its better than sex and food!" title.

 

[Denamic]

Enlighten me to these 15+ min games the pros are having where they use the entire tech tree.

Spoiler: ENLIGHTENMENT!

I could just say "It's a bad game, hard for anyone other than fans to love" and that holds as much as your claim. Why? Because you don't elaborate why that is.

I'm not even here to argue why people like it to begin with, and I shouldn't have tried.
I really don't care why people do or don't like a game.
Besides, if you'd actually read what I've said, I'm not a 'fan' of StarCraft.
I didn't really like the first game that much.
And I don't even like RTS games in general.

What's hard about "Mass the unit that's unlocked for that mission and win"? Really? Considering the adult themes in the game, I'd expect anyone over the age of 16 to be able to work that brainless tactic out.

Then why even refer to what 'the pros' do when it's apparently so simple and easy?
Besides how can it even be so easy when your opponent is in the same situation as you?
It's easy for both to win?

"Because it didn't need to",....Re-read what I asked. I asked if SC1 was perfect, why has the RTS genre changed so much in the last decade???

SC1 isn't perfect.
And other RTS games change because they're other games.
They strive to be different while retaining elements which fans of the genre likes.
This is exactly what SC1 did too, by the way, and they happened to strike a golden chord.
SC2 is simply striking the same chord, because that's exactly what the fans of StarCraft wanted.

Are you really trying to say it's good therefore it's popular is different to it's popular because it is good? I think you may need to read up on grammar.

That's funny because English is apparently supposed to be your primary language.

Just because something is popular, it just means the marketing was successful, that is all. Unless of course you have some arbitrary scale on which to measure good...

Marketing only accounts for the initial weeks of sales.
After that, reviews and popular opinion makes or breaks a reputation.
SC1 wasn't such a big deal for 12 damn years because they had a good commercial.
It stayed because it was that good.

"Because SC did it well". So no other RTS has done it better in the last decade?

Exactly.
Warcraft 3 did it kinda well, but the SC races were far more distinct in their approach and gameplay.
No other RTS ever made comes close.

The fact that most RTS fans who aren't looking for nostalgia or the Blizzard logo think SC2 is resoundingly average shows that if you have any experience playing RTS', you got bored of this style of gameplay a long time ago as it stopped proving to be a challenge.

I wasn't a fan, and I wasn't even interested in the game, initially.
I just got a beta key from a wow guildie and played a few games with him.
Before I knew it, I was climbing ladders and was simply in love with the game.

Also, again, learn to snip.
I know my posts have been massive here, which is all the more reason to snip it.
Or at least remove the parts you're ignoring.
That should reduce it in size by at least 90%.

 

[kanarctic]

This game is seriously overrated, They didn't exactly reinvent the wheel did they? It's a fun game true, but honestly if it wasn't for the mythos surrounding it and the fact that its a competitive sport AND the fact that we've waited 12 years for it. I honestly believe it would have been slated by most ppl and the critics, Let me be clear I've always loved blizzard games, but there's something very underwhelming about it all, like we're being told we should love something we in fact only like.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.

I am going to step in and disagree with you on this point.
The AI is nothing but retarded, and most players are not much better, or sometimes worse then the AI. A problem from beta was Terran players turtling and then proceeding to BC gank. If the player expands at an expectable rate, then most units can not stop a BC rush seeing that most of the AA units are not cost effective against the BC, especially seeing that the yamato cannon can cripple most units in one shot.
But then what do we expect when an entire campaign has been made for just one race? Oh that is right, 5/5 or 100% ratings for having a broken multiplayer...

 

[Cody211282]

I love how this has basically turned into fanboys and antifanboys battling it out like children.

 

[John Funk]

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.

I am going to step in and disagree with you on this point.
The AI is nothing but retarded, and most players are not much better, or sometimes worse then the AI. A problem from beta was Terran players turtling and then proceeding to BC gank. If the player expands at an expectable rate, then most units can not stop a BC rush seeing that most of the AA units are not cost effective against the BC, especially seeing that the yamato cannon can cripple most units in one shot.
But then what do we expect when an entire campaign has been made for just one race? Oh that is right, 5/5 or 100% ratings for having a broken multiplayer...

If someone turtles up and doesn't expand and techs straight to BCs, then someone who expands should still have the advantage. 2/3 Vikings easily > a BC, bro.

The multiplayer is far, FAR from broken. It's not the game's fault you're bad.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.

I am going to step in and disagree with you on this point.
The AI is nothing but retarded, and most players are not much better, or sometimes worse then the AI. A problem from beta was Terran players turtling and then proceeding to BC gank. If the player expands at an expectable rate, then most units can not stop a BC rush seeing that most of the AA units are not cost effective against the BC, especially seeing that the yamato cannon can cripple most units in one shot.
But then what do we expect when an entire campaign has been made for just one race? Oh that is right, 5/5 or 100% ratings for having a broken multiplayer...

If someone turtles up and doesn't expand and techs straight to BCs, then someone who expands should still have the advantage. 2/3 Vikings easily > a BC, bro.

The multiplayer is far, FAR from broken. It's not the game's fault you're bad.

I'm bad yet I win most matches and walk over the AI with my eyes closed?

All I do is role over everyone with BC whilst expanding & turtle the minerals. Anyway, if you know how to macro properly then a BC will take out 2 Vikings with ease, and possibly 3, yet 3 Vikings costs more and are not great on ground compared to the BC. Either way, both of those units are Terran, so you just proved that Terran are OP which you would know anyway if you went to the official forums.