Review: StarCraft II

[LWS666]

the lack of LAN support is fine for me because i have internet, and the fact that i have to be connected to the internet at all times is fine, because if i don't have internet i drop everything and fix it so i wouldn't have time to play starcraft 2.

an awesome game, but the online is very hard for beginers that aren't masters of multi-tasking.

 

[Emergent System]

...the fact that i have to be connected to the internet at all times is fine, because if i don't have internet i drop everything and fix it so i wouldn't have time to play starcraft 2.

I realize you're not the one making this claim, but I'm just gonna correct you anyway - you don't have to be connected to the internet. You can still play just fine offline, though you won't be able to do achievements.

 

[tzimize]

Am I really the only one that was terribly dissapointed with the campaign? The missions were way too tutorialesque with most of the missions being a way of holding your hand through learning THE new unit. It seemed to me the story had been built around the missions, instead of the other way around. The mission with the battlecruisers and the psi towers come to mind...yamatoyamatoyamato...To me it seems the only reason the single player campaign was there was to present the units and abilities to people completely unexperienced to rtses and wet their appetite for multiplayer.

The "twist" was terrible, I couldnt care less about the crew and the best missions in the entire campaign was when you were NOT playing terrans...

The little story that was there was awful. I think it might be too long since some people have played SC1.
Fire it up again, check out the campaign. 30 epic missions with 4 pre-rendered cut scenes PER race. vs maybe 4 in the entire campaign here? And honestly, if anyone feels that the end of SC2 was even remotely close to the epicness that was the SC1 ending...I just dont know what to say.

The story was also VASTLY bigger in SC1, encompassing a lot of people and conflicts...SC2 was way way under par imo. The gameplay is as excellent as ever, and the polish is blinding but the story...? Really? Most dissapointing thing in a long long time.

If blizzard screws up diablo 3 in a similar matter I am going to lose absolutely all faith I have in them. Fortunately Diablo 3 looks awesome.

 

[ionveau]

This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.

If you don't mind a few plot holes (like exactly how kerrigan become the queen of blades, they gloss over it briefly and explain but not in-depth) then I would pick it up if resource based fast action RTS is something you like. In the campaign normal mode there were not any points where I felt rushed to the point that I sent my units into a situation I didn't think they could handle but I was also playing on the normal difficulty level so I could get into multi-player asap.

That being said the single player has some great new "gimmicks" and I say that in quotes because while not game changing or industry changing, they make every single map in the single player campaign feel unique.

Mulit-player is where it's at for the most of us however (the campaign can be beaten in about 16 hours if you blast through it, me being a veteran of the game but exploring a bit am at 23-24 ish) and this will make or break it for you I think if your interested in playing the game for more then a few weeks or w/e pace you play it at. It's extremely competitive, on the ladder, many games are over in about 7 minutes (don't think I've had one longer then 20). It's breakneck speed (high level competitors are usually judged a bit based on actions per minute which is in the 250-350 range for sc gods), and good chunk is bases on resource management.

Here's the other thing though, the map editor is just about the most powerful one to date. You can litterally turn a map in to a first person shooter experience if you want to so I would expect some very clever maps and game modes once the community gets involved.

Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth buying for someone (that is to say, me) who has no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?

Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to

1st: Yes the game is well worth it for the campaign alone, they definately didn't skimp out on the single player for multiplayer. If you enjoyed the original then your definately going to want to add this to your collection.

and

2nd: Really? REALLY? Can we just drop the whining and crying about DRM already, it's not going anywhere. Those of you who are against it have reason to fear it, which means you were doing something illegal with the software in the first place and essentially created this problem for yourselves.

REALLY REALLY (seewhatIdidthere)? You going to pull that same crap about drm. I've got a finger to show you. I bought the game just like I buy every other game. I understand lack of lan, I hate it, it goes against what Blizz has done in the past (spawning was soooo nice) but in all reality there are very few situations that this will affect people but there are some. I regularly play ad-hoc games while traveling and there are plenty of times where peoples internet goes out and are looking for something to do. Just because my situation is different then yours and you can't possibly conceive a situation where you might not have internet doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Maybe you shouldn't lay down blanket statements like your all thieves when I can guarantee I have supported the video game industry since the beginning and have been buying blizzard games since before they were blizzard.

Ok here's a bag of ice for your puss puss and Steel Magnolias for you to cry over. Oh and a tampon because you are one massively whiney ****.

Yes because I am sick of being called thief because I want to play on a lan that makes me a whiny c***. FWIW I could give a crap what you think of me but you follow the same line of thought as some of the greats like Kotick who feel that by punishing the people who actually buy the game while doing zilch about piracy is a good idea. The day every single one of your games has an always on internet connection and every time your internet has a hicup and you get dropped to your last save remember this post, it's people like you who are causing it. Also if your just going to drop obscenities and not even make an argument your pretty worthless as a commenter and I would ask you to troll somewhere else, this is one of the better communities and I think most of us would rather have you out of here.

removing LAN from starcraft 2 has NOTHING to do with piracy. There's tons of anti-piracy features. It was done so that they could sell the game with a subscription model in certain countries. I.e., no one in Korea or Russia would pay 9.99 monthly if they could buy the game once for 20 bucks and play on a LAN with their friends.

 

[Greg Tito]

This game looks great, but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic). Should I still pick this up? I did the same with half life 2, and had no problems.

When you are installing SC2, there is a voiceover narrator that catches you up with the game really well. Story-wise, you should be fine.

 

[Nurb]

I will not support Activision or Bobby Kotick. Screw them. I'd encourage people to pirate it more, but piracy doesn't do crap to big companies apparently

 

[Ewyx]

HAhaha... I love how people in this thread go 'LAN is outdated' and 'LAN is obsolete'. First of all, say that in GAMING it's obsolete if you have to.

Still 'don't play custom games', that comment is pure brilliance. Same guy also stated 'look up build orders while your internet is down'. Seriously, I should be deprived of a game that I BOUGHT with my own damn money, just because my ISP dc'd me for whatever reason? Are you listening to your arguments at all?

Second of all, it's not the fact that SC2 doesn't have LAN support, it's the fact that SC1 was one of the greatest, biggest LAN tournament games ever. It was pretty much the pinnacle of esports, the fact that they still play it in Korea should speak for itself.

Removing a feature like LAN in the sequel, is shafting the whole community... and what's more, the mentality here, roll over and accept fate is just terrible.

Also, I'm sure the game is good, but until someone gives me a good reason why the game is so good, and can show me, that the game pushes the boundaries of the RTS genre and is something more than sc1 with updated graphics, and it's not just another apm-clickfest that was sc and wc I'm not going to bother.

 

[John Funk]

"Playing all of StarCraft II after paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint. It's that good."


But it's not all of Starcraft II....I'm confused. Did Blizzard package all three stories at the last minute?

StarCraft I was The Hobbit. A smaller, self-contained story. This is Fellowship of the Ring. It is a huge campaign experience that happens to be the first third of an even larger story.

 

[Emergent System]

Who's discussing story? The story in StarCraft is cheesy B-movie space opera, the same as it's always been. Nobody expects great story from Chris Metzen, they expect a popcorn flick which is exactly what we got.

But it isn't cheese b-movie space opera. It's cheesy b-movie personal action/love story where the hero is in love with a crazy mass-murdering alien for no reason.

Imagine if they never made WoW and warcraft 4 started off where warcraft 3 TFT left off, but the whole story is centered around Jaina Proudmoore, now a crack- I mean, mana addict, who is out to save Arthas. The story is her gathering allies in random villages, where she solves random people's problems, by mass teleporting her entire army around, and then right before the end of the game a dreadlord shows up without any warning and gives her a MacGuffin that destroys the frozen throne and frees Arthas from the Ner'zhul's icy grasp. Also it revived him. And (probably) made him good again even though he sacked one of his own cities, lead one of his best friends to his death, betrayed his own solders on icecrown and lead them to their doom. (Keep in mind that the things Kerrigan have done are many million times more atrocious)

Throughout the campaign we get entertained by Jaina randomly chatting it up in a very girly fashion with undeveloped random people she met on her journey that we never learn anything about.

 

[ionveau]

I will not support Activision or Bobby Kotick. Screw them. I'd encourage people to pirate it more, but piracy doesn't do crap to big companies apparently

You cant pirate this game, they made the game into an MMO RPG want to play login...Someone hacks your account you need to buy a new copy of starcraft2 they made all the problems that MMORPSs have into RTS problems

 

[Xocrates]

(Keep in mind that the things Kerrigan have done are many million times more atrocious)

And keep in mind that, unlike Arthas, Kerrigan committed no atrocities before being transformed (well, none that didn't came with being an elite soldier anyway). If you take in account that, lore-wise, the Zerg were created with purity of essence: essentially they are single minded about consuming everything everywhere:

Spoiler

It would be perfectly acceptable for Raynor to believe that if Kerrigan was de-zergified, she would become her old self as opposed to a murderous *****.

Which indeed is what the ending cinematic seems to imply

 

[ark123]

Question for those who have bought it:

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

Another question like this:

Is it worth getting it if you'll like the story campaign and are kind of interested in the multiplayer, but know that you're going to be terrible at it? I'm assuming that plenty of multiplayer... players are veterans from the original starcraft; is it possible to get into multiplayer, maybe after going through the story, and not getting the shit kicked out of you to the point of frustration?

Depending on how bad you are you will probably loose all 5 of your placement matches and maybe a few more while it gets a feel for how good you are. Unless you are the worst player on earth the match making system will eventually find a good set of people for you to play with at or near your level. They had to detune it a bit during beta because every single match became a fight for your life match which was pretty intense during a marathon session. Now it will give you a good mix of easy matches, hard matches that you probably can't win (but are very good to watch the replays and learn from), and some that take every ounce of attention and skill you got but make you love the win all that much more. There is a 7 hour free trial with every game, if you can pick up one and do a marathon session of multi-player, and see how you feel at the end. I'm sure you it will find some good opponents for you.

If you play through the campaign and do the challenges I personally guarantee you will not lose all 5 placement matches.

More then likely not but during beta (smaller pool and I would guess a more difficult pool) I had a buddy lose his first 8 matches, he's pretty bad though. My only point was that if that is the case and you really are that bad don't give up. The match making system will find a good level of play for you.

It was meant to work with the amount of people in the system now. If you're silver you'll find a lot of people cautiously reading all the units descriptions, if You're gold you'll find people making 100 marauders and flinging them all unsupported at your base, and if you're platinum you might actually get a decent game.

 

[Xocrates]

I still find it hard to believe that it's that solid of an RTS as it seems to have ignored most of the large RTS' this decade such as anything by Relic.

That was kind of the point really. As good as Relic games are, they are a different beast altogether: they aren't so much an evolution as a branching path.

There are millions of people who like old-school RTS. Blizzard knows this, and it also knows that Starcraft was the grandmaster of that. You could make a game set in the Starcraft universe that followed the recent RTS crowd and reduced base building and added stuff like cover systems, but it simply wouldn't be Starcraft 2.

 

[Jimbo1212]

A much better review then most,

HOWEVER

What I want to know is how can StarCraft 2 be so good when it has these gaping flaws:

- Workers mining minerals
- None adjustable game speed from within the game
- Such a slow construction and game pace that every game is played on the fast setting
- Dated graphics and terrible animations
- Small scale
- Very shallow style of combat eg. No flanking, no morale, no cover system

With the development in RTS's over the last 10 years from series such as Total War, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander, all these RTS's had buried this old style of gameplay and returning to it feels the same as returning to black and white CRT TV's.

So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?

 

[Xocrates]

So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?

Because most of those aren't actually flaws, but subjective preferences that a lot of old-school gamers miss in recent RTS?

And what do you mean no flanking?

 

[GoGo_Boy]

A much better review then most,

HOWEVER

What I want to know is how can StarCraft 2 be so good when it has these gaping flaws:

- Workers mining minerals
- None adjustable game speed from within the game
- Such a slow construction and game pace that every game is played on the fast setting
- Dated graphics and terrible animations
- Small scale
- Very shallow style of combat eg. No flanking, no morale, no cover system

With the development in RTS's over the last 10 years from series such as Total War, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander, all these RTS's had buried this old style of gameplay and returning to it feels the same as returning to black and white CRT TV's.

So why is StarCraft 2 an exception to these points?

What the hack?
This post is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to start.

Workers mining minerals is a general flaw? None adjustable game speed from within the game even there is in fact adjustable game speed from within the game.
The standard game speed is in fact "faster" play ladder and you'll see it. Normal is just for newer people who cannot comprehend the FAST pace of SC. You call it slow? Really?

Graphics look superb (okay may be a personal opinion) and terrible animations? ARE YOU SERIOUS? They even have a fantastic lip sync for ingame portrait animations. And that for all localized versions as well.

Small scale is relative and it doesn't say anything about the quality of a game. So 40000 units make a game better than 4000?

And shallow gameplay? Ah c'mon why am I even arguing with the most obvious SC2-Hater-Leader in the universe.

 

[tautologico]

Get ready for massive DRM, The story is good, the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3

remember you wont be able to play this game THROUGH LAN so if you want to VS your brother sister friends etc you wont be able to

What? Levels copy-pasted from WC3? Did you even play the game or are you just dropping by to spew your hate?

 

[technoted]

Review: StarCraft II

It only took 12 years, but this sequel was worth it.

Read Full Article

This is easily the best game I have played since Gears of War and even though it seriously messed up my graphics card I've not had this much fun in god knows how long. And it came in a large box full of goodies!

But seriously, how awesome was Odin, I loved every second of it!