Review: StarCraft II

[John Funk]

What other RTS' are you comparing SC2 with? Or is this another case of Amazonian and his B&W TV?

You know, it's funny that you keep claiming that fans of other RTS titles find SC2 less strategic when you have RTS veterans in here claiming the exact opposite. And just the other day I had a long conversation with the lead designer of SupCom about how much he loved SC2. Guess your opinion is just that.

You really don't seem to get that SC2 is meant to be a different kind of RTS entirely. It is meant to be a game that eliminates the RNG as much as possible in favor of precision at the cost of some "realism." If you still think that flanking is pointless then you aren't fighting people who know how to retreat from losing battles.

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.

Are you seriously using the official forums as evidence for something? Dude, look at the WoW forums and you'll find evidence determining that EVERYTHING is OP. BCs are great with support but very vulnerable on their own.

And guess what? If imbalance exists, it gets patched out. It's been getting patched out since the beta. You're just not playing people who know how to play the game - I fought some guy who turtled and rushed to BCs and stomped him last night because his ground forces couldn't beat mine and I had Vikings (I play Random, I'd probably still have won if I'd been either of the other races).

 

[ecoho]

...

- Congratulations you found one long pro match. Are you still flogging this horse and going to claim the average pro match is 15+ mins?
- You said people like SC2 because it's like SC1. In this day and age why do people still like SC1?
"Because SC did it really well."
Well it did it well for 1998. But nowadays it is dated and less strategic than almost all other RTS'.
-"What's hard about "Mass the unit that's unlocked for that mission and win"" If you couldn't tell I was talking about the missions, so why are you going on about the pros...? Keep up with the convo.
- Saying games change because they are other games makes no sense. If the genre did not need any changes, why was it changed? I think a lot/the majority of SC fans are not RTS fans, but Blizzard fans, evident by the lack of RTS' they have played. Plus all you've said is the game is nothing but fan service. Well that sounds to me that the game therefore shouldn't be 5/5 etc as it's just fan service instead of a true decade-later upgrade.
- Well please, what arbitary sale are you using to measure the "good" of a game? Saying a game is popular because it is good, or a game being popular therefore makes it good are both equally as useless as you can't prove the former, and the latter is a fallacy.
- How is SC1 still good? Or you just spouting what you've heard? Nowadays it is slow, far less tactical than many other RTS' and very, very crappy.
- You haven't played any other RTS' I presume so how can you make such a statement? I can tell you that base building was done far, far better by both DoW and SupCom.
- You're a Blizzard fan. Go you. Now lift up your shirt so they can brand you with their logo.
What other RTS' are you comparing SC2 with? Or is this another case of Amazonian and his B&W TV?

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.

ok i quoted both of you to say this and i think the majoruty of the thread will agree...ahem STOP THIS CONSTANT BITCHING WE KNOW YOU DONT LIKE THE GAME SO PLEASE STOP TELLING US HOW MUCH YOU THINK ITS "dated" "not graphic heavy" WE DONT GIVE A DAM. now please do us all a favor and leave this thread and never come back. To reiterate your not wanted here so just go we dont need people here whos only goal is a flame war.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.

Are you seriously using the official forums as evidence for something? Dude, look at the WoW forums and you'll find evidence determining that EVERYTHING is OP. BCs are great with support but very vulnerable on their own.

And guess what? If imbalance exists, it gets patched out. It's been getting patched out since the beta. You're just not playing people who know how to play the game - I fought some guy who turtled and rushed to BCs and stomped him last night because his ground forces couldn't beat mine and I had Vikings (I play Random, I'd probably still have won if I'd been either of the other races).

Look at who posts the threads on OP Terran, of course some of it will be kids crying, but then a lot of people are trying to argue that they need a buff, so I go on my experience of the game and the people who post and put forward a good case. You argue that I have not played against anyone who is good, but I could merely say that have not played any good Terran players.

ok i quted both of you to say this and i think the majoruty of the thread will agree...ahem STOP THIS CONSTANT BITCHING WE KNOW YOU DONT LIKE THE GAME SO PLEASE STOP TELLING US HOW MUCH YOU THINK ITS "dated" "not graphic heavy" WE DONT GIVE A DAM. now please do us all a favor and leave this thread and never come back. To reiterate your not wanted here so just go we dont need people here whos only goal is a flame war.

" WE DONT GIVE A DAM"

So you are a fanboy then? If you can not reason why something is good bar ' Derp, is good cause lol', then you are a fanboy or lack the ability to convey your feelings properly. As I have mentioned before, I just want to know why this game deserves 5/5 as no one has said why this game is so cutting edge and fun.

 

[ecoho]

What other RTS' are you comparing SC2 with? Or is this another case of Amazonian and his B&W TV?

You know, it's funny that you keep claiming that fans of other RTS titles find SC2 less strategic when you have RTS veterans in here claiming the exact opposite. And just the other day I had a long conversation with the lead designer of SupCom about how much he loved SC2. Guess your opinion is just that.

You really don't seem to get that SC2 is meant to be a different kind of RTS entirely. It is meant to be a game that eliminates the RNG as much as possible in favor of precision at the cost of some "realism." If you still think that flanking is pointless then you aren't fighting people who know how to retreat from losing battles.

Doesn't the removal of RNG make the game then all about unit composition and nothing that couldn't be done on excel, with a bit of macro-ing?
I can see it's meant to be a different RTS, but certainly not one which is worth all the praise. I think with all the phrases and words such as "Fans of the original" and "nostalgia" that are being used, it's just clouding the review scores, and sadly it's games like this which help to kill innovation. Why innovate when you can rehash a decade old game to cries of "OMGOSH ITZ ACE!"?

Dear god i swore i wouldnt responed to you anymore but this needs a reply. Ok inovation is great when it works but when it fails it fails hard look at RTS games in general trying to form a base on consoles, or how about halo for that matter since your sooo found of useing consoles to compare. Let me end that last point and tell you why games can look better on a console then a pc it is because developers have a set of limitations for the console that they dont have for pcs every console is basicly the same were as every,let me say that again in caps so you read it EVERY pc is different.

 

[ecoho]

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.

Are you seriously using the official forums as evidence for something? Dude, look at the WoW forums and you'll find evidence determining that EVERYTHING is OP. BCs are great with support but very vulnerable on their own.

And guess what? If imbalance exists, it gets patched out. It's been getting patched out since the beta. You're just not playing people who know how to play the game - I fought some guy who turtled and rushed to BCs and stomped him last night because his ground forces couldn't beat mine and I had Vikings (I play Random, I'd probably still have won if I'd been either of the other races).

Look at who posts the threads on OP Terran, of course some of it will be kids crying, but then a lot of people are trying to argue that they need a buff, so I go on my experience of the game and the people who post and put forward a good case. You argue that I have not played against anyone who is good, but I could merely say that have not played any good Terran players.

ok i quted both of you to say this and i think the majoruty of the thread will agree...ahem STOP THIS CONSTANT BITCHING WE KNOW YOU DONT LIKE THE GAME SO PLEASE STOP TELLING US HOW MUCH YOU THINK ITS "dated" "not graphic heavy" WE DONT GIVE A DAM. now please do us all a favor and leave this thread and never come back. To reiterate your not wanted here so just go we dont need people here whos only goal is a flame war.

" WE DONT GIVE A DAM"

So you are a fanboy then? If you can not reason why something is good bar ' Derp, is good cause lol', then you are a fanboy or lack the ability to convey your feelings properly. As I have mentioned before, I just want to know why this game deserves 5/5 as no one has said why this game is so cutting edge and fun.

great story, good players, and how bout the game play is fun? we have been saying this over and over again you just dont seem to want to lison now im not a blizz fanboy the ONLY game beside starcraft 2 i like of theres is WOW and they're to very different games and should never be compared. Oh and while were on the subject of "fanboys" what is your problem with blizzerd? Did the company hurt you or are you just one of those "its a big corperation so it must be evil" people? please i realy want to know.

 

[JeanLuc761]

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.

The campaign is cliché & piss easy, but well structured and some good ideas like the pre-mission lobbies as such.
Characters are 'eh' - seen them before, and not a touch on Mass Effect characters. Plus Swann may as well have had "DWARF" stamped on his head.
Voice acting is really not outstanding...It's okay but nothing to be praised for.
-Visual style is schizophrenic. One minute you're in a dirty battleship or prepping on Char (Which looks awesome no less), the next you have a bunch of plastic, child safe buildings. The Zerg do look great, but the Terran and Protoss suffer from the WoW art style where you can't tell what the hell the buildings are made out of, leaving them looking cell-shaded. Then the Terran have been made child-friendly by rounding off all the sharp edges. Yes, because that is EXACTLY what the military would do....
- In engine cutscenes are great...for DX9. PC gamers have seen a lot better for a long time now.
- Expert level design?? In what way?? One ramp into base, 3 expansion areas, mirror the map. Hardly expert level design.
- It's not really extremely well balanced. Turtling Terrans are a nightmare with the battleship being OP if you micro the Y-Cannon.
- Just as re-playable & accessible as many other RTS' out there.
- Multiplayer is okay, but again for seasoned RTS' fans, its lacking strategy and just all about unit composition, which is nothing that couldn't be done on Excel.

*sighs*

You ask for me to explain to you why the game is great, I do exactly that, then you try and throw it all back in my face. You're fighting an un-winnable battle here pal.

 

[Xocrates]

Doesn't the removal of RNG make the game then all about unit composition and nothing that couldn't be done on excel, with a bit of macro-ing?

If you blob them and send them headfirst into the enemy, certainly.

If you properly micro, take advantage of the terrain, and otherwise think strategically, then it isn't.

All the removal of RNG means is that you won't lose a battle due to luck.

Or in other words: It's the reason why SC is big on the e-sports scene, while CoH/DoW isn't.

 

[Jimbo1212]

great story, good players, and how bout the game play is fun? we have been saying this over and over again you just dont seem to want to lison now im not a blizz fanboy the ONLY game beside starcraft 2 i like of theres is WOW and they're to very different games and should never be compared. Oh and while were on the subject of "fanboys" what is your problem with blizzerd? Did the company hurt you or are you just one of those "its a big corperation so it must be evil" people? please i realy want to know.

You like WOW, so your standards for games must be pretty low if you like monotony and simplicity, and this has been my point from the start. StarCraft 2 is a poor RTS and has missed all the innovation over the last 10 years - innovation that happened for a good reason. The game is slow ( yes it is compared to other RTS's), has minerals you mine ( every other RTS now has other mechanics because they work better), poor graphics (Yes they are, it is out of style and confused, and it is DX9), a poor engine that can not support more customisation of matches, and very bad AI.
As mentioned, after all this, how is it a 5/5 game as this means perfect or almost perfect? And again, you just said "how bout the game play is fun". WHY is it fun? Do you understand what explaining yourself means? This comprises of listing the reasons for why you find the gameplay fun as I have said it is boring compared to modern RTS's.

 

[ecoho]

great story, good players, and how bout the game play is fun? we have been saying this over and over again you just dont seem to want to lison now im not a blizz fanboy the ONLY game beside starcraft 2 i like of theres is WOW and they're to very different games and should never be compared. Oh and while were on the subject of "fanboys" what is your problem with blizzerd? Did the company hurt you or are you just one of those "its a big corperation so it must be evil" people? please i realy want to know.

You like WOW, so your standards for games must be pretty low if you like monotony and simplicity, and this has been my point from the start. StarCraft 2 is a poor RTS and has missed all the innovation over the last 10 years - innovation that happened for a good reason. The game is slow ( yes it is compared to other RTS's), has minerals you mine ( every other RTS now has other mechanics because they work better), poor graphics (Yes they are, it is out of style and confused, and it is DX9), a poor engine that can not support more customisation of matches, and very bad AI.
As mentioned, after all this, how is it a 5/5 game as this means perfect or almost perfect? And again, you just said "how bout the game play is fun". WHY is it fun? Do you understand what explaining yourself means? This comprises of listing the reasons for why you find the gameplay fun as I have said it is boring compared to modern RTS's.

Doesn't the removal of RNG make the game then all about unit composition and nothing that couldn't be done on excel, with a bit of macro-ing?
I can see it's meant to be a different RTS, but certainly not one which is worth all the praise. I think with all the phrases and words such as "Fans of the original" and "nostalgia" that are being used, it's just clouding the review scores, and sadly it's games like this which help to kill innovation. Why innovate when you can rehash a decade old game to cries of "OMGOSH ITZ ACE!"?

Dear god i swore i wouldnt responed to you anymore but this needs a reply. Ok inovation is great when it works but when it fails it fails hard look at RTS games in general trying to form a base on consoles, or how about halo for that matter since your sooo found of useing consoles to compare. Let me end that last point and tell you why games can look better on a console then a pc it is because developers have a set of limitations for the console that they dont have for pcs every console is basicly the same were as every,let me say that again in caps so you read it EVERY pc is different.

What the hell are you on about? Where have I mentioned consoles???

ok mazty my apoligies i got you mixed up with with infidal. now everyone who liked the games stop trying to reason with them they think they're ALWAYS right so there is no reason in any of their arguments so i say stop feeding the trolls and just ignore them. I woiuld also like to point out to you two that for a game you seem to truly hate youve sure posted alot about it over 9 pages.

 

[Xocrates]

I don't think anyone who plays DoW/CoH has ever lost a battle, or won one, through luck in any fight.

Didn't say they have, but there's a chance they will. And in a highly competitive setup that chance may be enough.

It's the fact that the life of the units in SC2 is built so that it will almost insta-pop when it comes up against the counter reducing the game to one battle and then a base stomp as you can't replace units quicker than when they are destroyed. Hence why battles 8ish mins in are the decisive ones, rather than a constant war of attrition and adapting armies.

This happens, true. It may even happen a lot, I'm not sure, but it's a reductionist approach.
The game being resolved in a single massive battle is due to an all in approach, which will only really happen out of overwhelming confidence and/or desperation.

Personally I have won and lost plenty of games without a single all out encounter, I've also had plenty of games with lots of back and fort and build changes that went on for over 20 or 30 minutes.

It happens. Just keep in mind it's not all that happens.

 

[John Funk]

I don't think anyone who plays DoW/CoH has ever lost a battle, or won one, through luck in any fight. It's the fact that the life of the units in SC2 is built so that it will almost insta-pop when it comes up against the counter reducing the game to one battle and then a base stomp as you can't replace units quicker than when they are destroyed. Hence why battles 8ish mins in are the decisive ones, rather than a constant war of attrition and adapting armies.

Again, if you think that battles 8 minutes in are the decisive ones, and that it never comes down to a war of attrition and adapting armies, you have never played a very even match. I had an hour-long 2v2 match last night that was all exactly that. Wearing the enemy's resources down, adapting to their adaptations, et al. AND we started the battle with a rush.

You like WOW, so your standards for games must be pretty low if you like monotony and simplicity, and this has been my point from the start. StarCraft 2 is a poor RTS and has missed all the innovation over the last 10 years - innovation that happened for a good reason.

This will be the last time I respond to you; this will be the last time you deserve to be responded to.

StarCraft 2 did not 'miss' the innovation over the last 10 years. The SC2 team consciously chose not to incorporate it into the game because it did not fit with the game they were making. If there's a point that needs hammering into your head, it is that - the inclusion of features does not automatically make something a good game. Can you imagine a game that threw every single RTS design element together? It'd be a bloated, schizophrenic mess. Cover and morale don't make sense in SC2 because whenever they tried to implement them, they found that it went against the feel of the game they were making.

Hell, I could turn around and say that the innovation happened because other developers felt that they couldn't match StarCraft on the "traditional" RTS front and just tried to find other avenues.

The game is slow ( yes it is compared to other RTS's), has minerals you mine ( every other RTS now has other mechanics because they work better), poor graphics (Yes they are, it is out of style and confused, and it is DX9), a poor engine that can not support more customisation of matches, and very bad AI.

Respectively:

-No it isn't. Turn the speed up.

-That isn't bad, it's a design choice. That means you need to think about whether you spend money on your economy or on building up a force. It means that you can turn the tide of a battle by killing your enemy's workers. It is not bad, it is different.

-If you look at one of the huge battles in late-game SC2 and say that it's poor graphics, then you are either in desperate need of an optometrist or lying through your teeth. Are there games that look better? Oh, of course. SC2 is still a great looking game.

-You have seen what people do with the SC2 engine in custom maps, right?

-AIs in any strategy game will always be inferior to a thinking human opponent. The SC2 AI isn't special, but it's par for the course.

As mentioned, after all this, how is it a 5/5 game as this means perfect or almost perfect? And again, you just said "how bout the game play is fun". WHY is it fun? Do you understand what explaining yourself means? This comprises of listing the reasons for why you find the gameplay fun as I have said it is boring compared to modern RTS's.

Why we find it fun? Because it's fast-paced and intense from the moment you start the match - do you want to go heavily econ-focused in the beginning? Should you prepare for a possible rush? How should you divide your forces? How should you divide your spending? When should you expand to a new base?

We find it fun because of that intensity. We find it fun because the units are cool, the races are fairly well balanced and the matchmaking gives us challenging encounters more often than not. We find it fun because there are so many viable routes we can take, because the removal of the RNG means that battles come down to planning and skill in execution. It's fun because it's slick, polished, and works extremely well.

There are games that simulate warfare better. There are games that have more features or whatever. But I have played many RTS games, and none of them do pure unbridled fun like StarCraft II.

You keep criticizing SC2 for being "dated," but the most popular strategy game of all time - chess - hasn't changed in centuries. Would chess suddenly be better if I could make my pawns take cover? Or if I could win a battle because I forced my opponent's rook to lose morale and flee? No, that's stupid.

Actually, let's take chess. There are thousands and thousands of different games a chess player could play, but at any given time there are only so many moves someone can take. The simplicity of chess means that it's possible for an opponent to try to predict what you're going to do, and to react accordingly (but at the same time, you're trying to predict him right back). Because StarCraft removes all of the extraneous elements, it's a much more 'simple' game, but that also means it's a game where at any given moment, I have a reasonable chance (with scouting and intel, of course) at predicting what my opponent is doing and trying to counter him. If my Overlord flyby sees a Templar Archive, I know he's planning on Psionic Storming my Zerglings, so how do I counter that?

It is a game that goes back to the purest essence of RTS and does it really, really well. You need to understand that a game is not suddenly better just because it has Feature X, if Feature X doesn't make sense in that game.

 

[Denamic]

- Congratulations you found one long pro match. Are you still flogging this horse and going to claim the average pro match is 15+ mins?

Just holy shit, man.
What the hell is the point in arguing with you when you ignore everything I say and make counter-argument against something I never even said?

- You said people like SC2 because it's like SC1. In this day and age why do people still like SC1?

Are you fucking serious?
Again? Seriously?
I'm just gonna stop now.
This is getting too stupid.

 

[abija]

StarCraft 2 is a poor RTS and has missed all the innovation over the last 10 years - innovation that happened for a good reason. The game is slow ( yes it is compared to other RTS's), has minerals you mine ( every other RTS now has other mechanics because they work better), poor graphics (Yes they are, it is out of style and confused, and it is DX9), a poor engine that can not support more customisation of matches, and very bad AI.

No, sometimes innovation happens for wrong reasons (like the cover system that plagues shooters lately). There's also innovation that happens just for the sake of innovation and isn't well thought out and even less tested.
The huge advantage Blizzard have is that due to the extremely long development cycles they actually get to test for extended time and eliminate things that seem good on paper but are a detriment to the gameplay, or things that are fun at start but get boring pretty fast, etc. One of the designers even mentioned how they tested various "innovative" elements like cover/squads and so on but they didn't work well in the game.
Minerals that you mine is a perfectly fine mechanic. It's one of the many ways you can implement resources in a RTS. They keep it because it's quite a simple mechanic but with a lot of depth. Perfecting it is not easy, which gives better players an advantage. The fact that other games do something different doesn't automatically mean it's better.
It's again your opinion that graphics are out of style and confused. I love the style and I find it very impressive how they managed to add so many effects yet you can easily follow what's happening in that mayhem on screen.
As for the engine? This just takes the piss. They have the most advanced editor in a RTS which combined with that "shit" engine can output an incredible variety of custom games. You know, before calling something shit, you might give an example of that has the same complexity and it's done better...

 

[JeanLuc761]

I'm just saying how it's not worth all the praise. If I couldn't fault it, then sure, it should be 10/10 etc, but it's far from flawless, unlike what some fans and reviewers would have you believe. Not saying it's bad, but it is the most hyped up game since MW2.

I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but here's the problem. Just because you find fault in the game doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the praise it's getting. Reviews are and always have been subjective personal opinions so if the game is being highly praised by most of the reviews, then most of the reviewers genuinely love the game.

If you want to look at it objectively, Starcraft 2 does have dated gameplay mechanics and slightly above average graphics, but what I think you and Infidel need to understand is that neither of those are faults to the people reviewing the game. It's exactly what they wanted, it's exactly what I was looking for, therefore the game DOES deserve the praise.