Review: StarCraft II

[Rack]

[quote="TB_Infidel"
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?[/quote]

Because these aren't necessarily advancements, like some people prefer Space Invaders to Call of Duty or Pong to Virtua Tennis.

Why a graphical update of Starcraft goes for $60 while a graphical update of Monkey Island 2 goes for $10 is a little less certain though.

 

[Kavonde]

"Satisfying" isn't the word I'd use for the campaign. "Leaving you desperately wanting more, seeing as only one story thread was resolved, and that just opened up more threads, but you'll have to wait another two years and pay another $40-$60 to get the next third of the game. In the meantime, I hope you like achievement whoring, comparatively lifeless A.I. skirmishes, and getting your ass kicked by Korean guys" covers it better.

 

[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?

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.

Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?

 

[Flying-Emu]

Greg Tito would like to be Egon Stettman's friend.

I hear you on that one. Especially after the "He's dead, Jim." reference.

I knew, from the beginning, that SOMEONE was going to make a quip like that.

 

[Nunny]

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

Still a great game, even if it seems to be slowing down the longer i replay it.

rushed you say...
well not to say zerg rush but how was this game rushed at all?

The game itself is not rushed, just the story.
For instance, a world wide revolt takes all of one small mission... the shortness of story lines seems to continue throughout the game, expecialy with a quick ending.

 

[Madmanonfire]

Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?

Let's see... If they removed miners, it wouldn't be Starcraft. If they put strange melee mechanics, it wouldn't be Starcraft. The graphics are a major improvement from Starcraft 1, don't go calling them bad just because you prefer another game's graphics over it. "Bad" graphics would be something out of the 8-bit era.
I'm not going to comment on other things because I haven't yet bought Starcraft 2. I'm just commenting on obvious things.
But, it looks like you're hating on it because it's not exactly like other games. Dude, think before you post.

 

[Shjade]

Is it just me or have the character designs really lost a lot of their originality in the transition to such high end graphics? Kerrigan especially, she looks like typical ultra sexed up woman number four now.

Kerrigan has some changes, but she still has it around the eyes. I get the feeling she got some Nova blended into her look over the years.

I think Raynor had much bigger changes. When I saw the trailer for this I couldn't even tell who I was looking at until he opened his mouth and the old voice came out. He looks like he's Mengsk's freaking brother now. It's unsettling.

Other than Raynor's new look I think the characters are fine. The voices - the ones that changed from the original game - are a bit more disappointing, but they do alright. ...except maybe Tassadar. And Kerrigan sounds sorta...wrong. I dunno, it's hard to judge them on their own merits when I'm always comparing them to the old version.

Except Tassadar.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?

Let's see... If they removed miners, it wouldn't be Starcraft. If they put strange melee mechanics, it wouldn't be Starcraft. The graphics are a major improvement from Starcraft 1, don't go calling them bad just because you prefer another game's graphics over it. "Bad" graphics would be something out of the 8-bit era.
I'm not going to comment on other things because I haven't yet bought Starcraft 2. I'm just commenting on obvious things.
But, it looks like you're hating on it because it's not exactly like other games. Dude, think before you post.

So from what you are saying, StarCraft is dated ( some what obvious as it is 10 years old), and the sequel should remain dated to appease those few who only played the original rather then modernising and improving the game style?
From your comment on melee mechanics I would presume you have not played any modern RTS from the last 5 years.
The original is 10 years old, of course the graphics will have improved, but only very slightly, again, please tell me what modern RTS you are comparing StarCraft 2 with?

What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.

 

[Celador]

Stale and clichéd story, bland and unmemorable music, single campaign (yeah there's already rumors that each standalone/addon will cost around 50-60 bucks as well). Yup - totally worth your attention and money!

Blizzard spend way too much on marketing (not that theres anything wrong with that), but the game itself hardly qualifies as a decent RTS, at least for those who never played starcraft 1. Build orders? Rushing? Couple of infantry units taking down buildings and mechs? Fun if your Korean or a fan, awkward and frustrating if you're not.

Multiplayer actually feels more like a blitz chess game, rather than RTS - it requires no imagination or tactic whatsoever, only memorizing and fast clicking, so the first person to make a mistake - loses, and if you have an equal foe - it simply becomes a mess.

What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.

I actually never thought about this, but that might be true as well. Would explain all the fuss around this game, simply being driven by hardcore fans.

 

[LetalisK]

Oh, come on man, really? I'm playing SC2 and enjoying it, and maybe I'm just getting crotchety, but "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."? The poetic gushing devalues the review.

 

[Reedfrost]

Multiplayer actually feels more like a blitz chess game, rather than RTS - it requires no imagination or tactic whatsoever, only memorizing and fast clicking, so the first person to make a mistake - loses, and if you have an equal foe - it simply becomes a mess.

Did you actually play any of the original Starcraft online? Welcome to the game... that's how it's been played for the last 12 years.

 

[Dectilon]

Note for those worried about delay problems: I'm from Sweden. I play on the US server with less than half a second of delay. It's much better than Warcraft 3, and of what I hear they're even working on putting LAN back in.

Also note: The campaign missions range from genuinely fun to annoying, whereas the story is so bad I might not even play the campaign when the expansion comes out.

 

[hyperdrachen]

Just completed campaign on normal this morning... Wow.. First RTS I have ever played where i thought I could just set it down after the campaign and have gotten my moneys worth. The fact that I like the multiplayer as well sweetens the deal. Gonna set this one beside my mass effect discs, it's a good day to be a gamer.

One of the campaign missions goes down more like a MMO boss encounter than a RTS.

 

[CKalvin]

"One might argue that the single player campaign is a mere preamble to the multiplayer battles of StarCraft II, where your mettle is tested against the multitudes. I disagree. Despite the pressures of recreating the success of the multiplayer masterpiece of the first StarCraft, Blizzard obviously didn't put all of their eggs into perfecting just that portion of the game. The essence of StarCraft II is the saga of Raynor against the Zerg-infested Kerrigan and the struggle of freedom versus oppression."

Are you kidding me? Honestly. How many people still played the BW campaign on a weekly/daily basis after Sc1 and BW had been released for 3-4 years? Comparing that to the ridiculous amount of competitive multiplayer matches, it's easy to see where the true nature of Starcraft lies.

In its multiplayer. Anyone who says so is either a) probably a D player or worse or b) prefers a good story to a GG. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but claiming Starcraft is a singleplayercentric game is like calling Half Life 2 a physics simulator.

Since Total Annihilation every RTS has started to remove workers mining/harvesting as far better methods could be implemented that resulted in a more fun experience eg. Requisition points from Dawn of War. When the game was released every critical agreed on this point, therefore why have they now gone back on their words?

On the faster game setting the animation is destroyed, an example is the marine. Rather then looking like a man firing a rifle, he acts as if he is having a fit with a black bar. The same can be also said for the melee units.
Whilst on the topic of melee units, this too has been ignored. Again, most RTS's started to implement a melee mechanic which was also praised. StarCraft 2 ignored this development because?
The graphics are bad. There is a reason why the requirements are so low. If you disagree then please tell me what game you are comparing it with?
Good lip sink has been around for years now, it is nothing new.

Scale in an RTS is essential. Larger scale results in more in depth tactics and army movement, look at Empire: Total War and Supreme Commander.
As a result the gameplay is shallow. There is no moral, cover system, small scale, and the maps limit flanking a great deal.

What other RTS's have you played and why is StarCraft 2 better then them?

Let's see... If they removed miners, it wouldn't be Starcraft. If they put strange melee mechanics, it wouldn't be Starcraft. The graphics are a major improvement from Starcraft 1, don't go calling them bad just because you prefer another game's graphics over it. "Bad" graphics would be something out of the 8-bit era.
I'm not going to comment on other things because I haven't yet bought Starcraft 2. I'm just commenting on obvious things.
But, it looks like you're hating on it because it's not exactly like other games. Dude, think before you post.

So from what you are saying, StarCraft is dated ( some what obvious as it is 10 years old), and the sequel should remain dated to appease those few who only played the original rather then modernising and improving the game style?
From your comment on melee mechanics I would presume you have not played any modern RTS from the last 5 years.
The original is 10 years old, of course the graphics will have improved, but only very slightly, again, please tell me what modern RTS you are comparing StarCraft 2 with?

What I can see from everyone's reply is that most people who like StarCraft have not played any RTS since StarCraft or any modern games for sometime, hence why they enjoy playing a dated style of RTS.

Dated? You say that like its a curse upon the gaming world. The sequel is dated? Why, because it plays similar to Starcraft 1? "Modernising and improving the game style"? How exactly do you propose to do that exactly. If there is a problem with Starcraft 2, its that it's become too easy. The skill ceiling has been capped, with the computer handling a lot of micro that previously in BW needed a human touch.

The Blizzard team tried "modernising" Sc2 with a cover system which according to you would somehow make the game so much better. But it didn't work. The pacing became stuffed up, T would be OP'ed because all they need is to play a mech ball and leapfrog all the way across the map for an easy GG. Typical cover systems work because other RTS have classes with relatively similar playing styles, whereas a Z player will play in a completely different way to a T player.

And what RTS' do YOU play? I'm not even a proper RTS player, I'm actually a hardcore FPS ( 1.6, source, quake, UT ) that just occasionally dabbles in RTS like RA3 and of course BW which I used to play pretty religiously.

 

[UnkeptBiscuit]

Honestly, I don't think the multiplayer can hold up to how great the variety of the campaign was, or at least not until people get used to the scripting system and create some maps that have more complexity than simply "kill the other player" arena matches. After the success of Defense of the Ancients, I would have thought that Blizzard would have released with a bit more game variety in the multiplayer.

At least part of that is because in many circles the game's treated like a sport. If you played tennis, you wouldn't want them to change the rules around every so often, would you? Having the game system set in stone gives people something to master.

 

[Rad Party God]

I couldn't tell it better than Greg Tito, this is THE best game I've ever played this year, THE best RTS I've ever played (this is coming from someone who hated with his soul the first game) and THE best game Blizzard has ever created and that's saying a lot.

I can't wait for Heart of The Swarm to come out.

I hope this year's Blizzcon secret annoucement is Heart of The Swarm being released this december.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

There was a huge part of me that wanted to see this game taken down in flames...guess that's the part of me that is jealous of the people who have and enjoy this game xD

Another part of me is hopeful that Yahtzee will blast this game...I dislike being jaded sometimes

 

[samsonguy920]

The only deserved complaints are at B.net, which needs some work - chat channels, cross-region play are the glaring standouts.

Considering Blizz just tossed ye olde battle.net out the window and made it brand spanking new(I could even sense the new car smell), there are going to be bugs and hiccups. But Blizzard doesn't dillydally on dealing with issues. Heck I just got my copy today and there was already a smattering a fixes. Wasn't a mention on the framerate issue in the patch notes if that was addressed but I didn't have any problems there. I take good care of my baby. Keep in mind that Battle.net is going to be holding your Blizzard games as Steam does with all the games you can play through that service. Treat your Battle.net account like it was your first born child. Change password regularly and beware of scams. Otherwise you may end up losing your account and Blizzard may not be able to save it. In which case you will have to buy new games to put on a new account. An expensive proposition if you are deep into WoW. And there are no Xel'Naga artifacts to be found in this sector of the galaxy to sell.
As far as so-called DRM(which Blizzard never really used the term specifically or referred to but not claimed was their tactic) and online play: Welcome to the 21st Century. Those who are bemoaning the death of LAN and wondering why they have to do things online to get them done, you are now officially old farts. Soup and milk will be served in the cafeteria at 1:30 and the polkafest will be afterward.
Yes, having to go online for matches can tend to cause lag issues, but take into consideration that a game of this scope wouldn't even be playable online ten years ago. Wireless and communication lines are constantly improving, so what is laggy today will be smooth tomorrow. Unless you are on an outdated system in which case you have only yourself to blame. If you can't get a new PC, upgrade what you can. I steadily have with my PC and have kept it nice and shiny, with a decent internet access that doesn't break even my bank.
Either case, you are still able to play with the friends you know, or can just take a random shot online. Whether the matchmaking system Blizzard is using does its job remains to be seen. I aim to find out myself in time. As soon as I give Mengsk a swift kick in the arse.
I highly doubt there are any plans for turning Starcraft into an MMO. For one I don't see how the Zerg would be playable(since they are a hive race and there are no true individuals short of the cerebrates and Queen of Blades), which would leave only two factions...both leaving a lot to be desired as far as real individual opportunity as characters. Whatever happens through this storyline, and I am quite sure we are in for some sweet surprises, things will be folded up neatly or a foundation will be built for the third Starcraft or added chapters beyond the initial three. Which I look forward to playing, with thoughts as to what we may be seeing. I say may.

 

[samsonguy920]

There was a huge part of me that wanted to see this game taken down in flames...guess that's the part of me that is jealous of the people who have and enjoy this game xD

Another part of me is hopeful that Yahtzee will blast this game...I dislike being jaded sometimes

Yahtzee doesn't review RTS's. The only exception being Halo Wars was done so to make the point on why he doesn't like to(considering his attitude on Halo it seems to represent a double contradiction on his part. Interesting). Read his latest Extra Punctuation [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/7938-Extra-Punctuation-On-RTS-Games].
Either case, no one game is for everyone. Nobody here is expecting you to play it and there are plenty others out there to enjoy.