Review: StarCraft II

[jack_hectic]

i hope yahtzee reviews this game and destroys it. im getting sick of every time i try to watch something here, i get their ad first. im starting to hear it in my head

"make no mistake... war is coming... "

and now this review that touts it as the golden calf.

i hope yahtzee goes old testament on their bum. smash it with stone tablets, ben croshaw!

 

[Cody211282]

The game was solid but the story felt incomplete(and yes I know it's a trilogy but the terran part feels horrible unfinished).

i hope yahtzee reviews this game and destroys it. im getting sick of every time i try to watch something here, i get their ad first. im starting to hear it in my head

"make no mistake... war is coming... "

and now this review that touts it as the golden calf.

i hope yahtzee goes old testament on their bum. smash it with stone tablets, ben croshaw!

This one of of those title that reviews will just give perfect score to no matter what sadly. The game is by no stretch of the imagination bad, it's just not nearly as good as to warrant a 100%

 

[Firehopper]

It's $120 here in New Zealand D:

 

[Nouw]

I agree Electric Gel, Kerrigan is way more sexed up. Seriously have you seen her? Not that it's a bad thing...
Seems to have more sexual content, especially that Dancer in the Cantina for the Campaign.

Starcraft 2 is real fucking awesome. One of the best PC games out there.

Spoiler: Here is a back-shot of her. I don't think part of it was necessary. You know what I mean

It's $120 here in New Zealand D:

And I bought it! Fuck Yeah! Even though we arguably have it the worst.

One last thing, Starcraft being B-Movie Material is what makes it awesome. Anything that is a fusion of Warhammer 40,000, Starship Troopers and Aliens has got to be (forgive me but) legendary.

 

[Electric Gel]

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.

I do agree, there adequate, but that's all they are. The voices still seem top notch, and I'm glad they've used Rayners old voice actor (whose cracking). I agree with how he looks like Mengsk now, and Mengsk doesn't look anything like Mengsk. I really do miss the old Rayner, as sad as that sounds.

Novas the lass from the Starcraft ghost game isn't she? If so then yer, I'd have to agree, she looks very much like her.She looks completely different from the old Kerrigan. I can easily live with that, I'm just a little disappointed. I was really hoping that they'd be trying to push the creativity with this game, and it seems they've settled for really generic character designs.

Nouw, I've not seen that shot before, and I like women's bottoms as much as the next man, but does that future lycra have to be so heavily stuffed up her crack? It really saddens me that games still can't get past this ultra sexy woman look. It really de-values the hobby.

... my god, that's shapely.

 

[LWS666]

...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.

i haven't wanted to disconnect my internet to test it, i just heard that if you're offline you can only play as a guest on skirmish matches and can't save your progress.

srsly don't care though, i have BFBC2 set up to only work with an internet connection too.

no-one mentions that, BFBC2 gives the option for that or X installs.

 

[Firetaffer]

It's $120 here in New Zealand D:

$98 in Dick Smith. (Through only order with free delivery)

And I bought it.

The matchmaking is one of the FINEST I have seen! It's awesome! Perhaps it's because it's just the first few days and the community's are bustling, but it finds an absolute perfect match in under 3 seconds.

 

[Ph33onix]

I will not only buy the game, I will also buy a knew computer specifically to run this and most new games at max settings.

 

[Xocrates]

That's not really answering the question. Saying it's a different beast isn't true - games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes bettered the genre by introducing more strategy, something which is vital in RTS'.

Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.

All of this is fine, but it just means it's a different type of game. Your argument is like saying Classical music sucks because Rock'n Roll is so much better.

Claiming that Starcraft need not change is nonsense unless you want to claim it's the best RTS ever, which we both know would be a nonsensical claim.

Starcraft needed not (a lot of) change simply because it fills a niche all but forgotten by recent RTS. For all your arguments you seem to forget that DoW 2 got a lot of backlash because it had no base building, and one could say that C&C 4 failed pretty much because it wasn't an old school game.

Let Starcraft/old School players have their fix. This is especially true since reviews pretty much all point out that the game is "dated". The reason it doesn't matter is because despite that it's still fun.
Everything else in the game (plot, campaign, multiplayer, presentation) is at least on par with the all the other top RTS out there, so it's hardly a surprise it's getting such good reviews

Just because a majority of people enjoy a game it doesn't mean it's the best in the genre. Starcraft wasn't even the grandmaster! This idea that it received flawless praise is nonsense as it didn't, plus Total Annihilation received more praise and frankly was a better RTS due to it's scale and balancing. But have you heard of it before? Sadly one of the only reason Starcraft is known is because of the large Korean following.

There are different schools of thought here. Some say it's Starcraft, some say it's TA, some say it's one of the C&C games.

All of that misses the point that they all play differently and some people prefer one over the other. Starcraft ended being the most popular of them all, and despite all your complaints, it was still a good game.

Personally I never really liked the C&C games (though I had fun playing them), and while I didn't play TA, I did play Supreme Commander which I found average, shallow, and ultimately more old-school than Starcraft.

Saying it wouldn't be Starcraft isn't an adequate reply. I want to know why the removal of the last decade of innovation in the game is a good thing and how it makes the game better than the competition. Frankly from what I can tell it'd just make the game less tactical, which I'm sure we'd agree is a daft move.

The game isn't get glowing reviews because it's old school, it's getting glowing reviews because despite being old-school it's still really fun, and it's presented extraordinarily well.

You can complain all you want, but the single player campaign has more variety (and for the most part it's longer) than all the "modern" RTS you're championing, and while you can complain about the plot, it doesn't change the fact that it's at least as good as the competition and presented better than any of them.

You don't have to like it, but that doesn't say the game isn't good.

But ultimately, and in a way, I find all this argument funny since nowadays a game can't be released without people complaining about "dumbing down" and the "consolification of the PC" and when a game comes out that doesn't, we argue that it should have.

 

[JackShandy]

Innovation's not the be-all and end-all. Trashing a perfectly great game just 'cause it's not new enough is idiotic. We shouldn't just kill and bury perfectly good game styles just as soon as they stop being in vogue. Hell, I'm playing Hydorah at the moment. Space-shooters are dead as a doornail, but it's still a fantastic game.

 

[Jimbo1212]

"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?

*snip*

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.

Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.
Again, how can you say a cover system would make T OP when you have not played an RTS with a cover system? Dawn of War 2 has races that fit into the zerg and Terran box and both use cover perfectly, showing that if the studio is competent, then it can be done well.

So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.

NB. What are the spec's of your PC as I presume they are poor? Is this a reason why you only play games that are very old?

Nooo... DoW and Company of Heroes didn't introduce more strategy, they changed the focus for tactics. They removed pretty much all the macro side of RTS and focused on small scale combat. Little to none base building, as well as a smaller number of units also makes for a less fluid and varied game since there are less possible builds.

Base building was an essential part of DoW. If you messed up your build order then it could lose you the battle.
With mechanics such as moral and melee, it still maintained a heavy amount of macroing as you could change the outcome of a battle if you properly managed your troops. You say there was a smaller amount of units when actually DoW had more units then StarCraft, merely they were put into squads for more reasonable management. With the weapon choices you could give to your troops, this too factly changed the build of an army, along with elite unit types and commanders. CoH had no base building, but was focused on a more tactical side of combat, again with flanking, cover, destructible scenery, armour location, and moral. How click spam is more tactical then this is beyond me.

 

[Xocrates]

Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.

Arguable and up to personal preference.

So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.

I have, and also played plenty other innovative RTS like Defcon, Multiwinia, or World in Conflict.

I have played RTS since Dune 2. I love the big "modern" RTS you're championing. I still love Starcraft 2 to bits. Do not make erroneous assumptions and silly generalizations.

 

[JackShandy]

I think we all know that, in order to have an opinion on Starcraft 2, you must have played every RTS created in the last hundred years and spend your entire budget each year on honing your PC into a finely-developed leviathan beast.

Stop using stupid ad hominem "You aren't a cultured enough gamer to truely APPRECIATE how much starcraft 2 sucks" attacks, TB_infidel. The game is the way it is. You should critique it for that, not attack it because it's unlike a different type of game. What you're doing is like reviewing the latest Mario game poorly because it didn't take advantage of the innovations used in Braid.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Yes, dated.
It is dated because other games have used methods of making the genre better, and as I thought, people who like StarCraft 2 have not played any other RTS since Starcraft, RTS's such as:
Dawn Of War
Company of Heroes
Total War series
Dawn of War 2
Supreme Commander
Sins Of a Solar Empire

Played, all expansions
Played
Tried, not a huge fan of the series
Played, with expansion
Played, not terribly fond of, and in fact consider it more old school than Starcraft
Played, all expansions

My most anticipated game of the decade? Starcraft 2.

These games are more fun, more tactical, and have a far better pace eg faster then StarCraft 2.

Arguable and up to personal preference.

So before posting or trying to argue that StarCraft is a great game, please do your homework on what else is out on the market.

I have, and also played plenty other innovative RTS like Defcon, Multiwinia, or World in Conflict.

I have played RTS since Dune 2. I love the big "modern" RTS you're championing. I still love Starcraft 2 to bits. Do not make erroneous assumptions and silly generalizations.

Congratulations in merely reaffirming that StarCraft has the strongest fanbase who have no reason to say the game is good bar Blizzard made it and it's a game from their childhood.

At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why' ergo, you like it because of nostalgia, not because the game is actually any good.
Just tell me why:
-Harvesting minerals is fun
-Slow build speeds is fun
-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good
-Fixed game speeds are useful
-No cover, moral, melee mechanic, and small mirror image maps make the game more tactical?

 

[Xocrates]

At no point did you actually say why I was wrong, merely ' You could be, but unlike you I will not reason why'

You know why? Because few if any of your points has anything to do with objective quality and all to do with subjective preferences. What if I like building an economy that can support my army? You don't, I get it.

There's no point arguing because nothing I can say will change your mind. You decided Starcraft 2 is crap, fine. That doesn't mean me or for that matter most reviewers agree with you.

Starcraft 2 does what it wanted to do, and it does it very well. If that means being an old-school and, yes, nostalgic game, I don't have a problem with that, and apparently neither do the reviewers. If you do, just don't play it.

There's no point arguing.

 

[Greg Tito]

-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good

Anything you said or will say is invalidated by this statement. There is nothing wrong with the graphics of StarCraft 2 especially when compared to the other games that you mentioned.

Also, you "harvest minerals" in Sins of a Solar Empire. Does that make it less fun?

 

[Jimbo1212]

-Bad animation and poor graphics looks good

Anything you said or will say is invalidated by this statement. There is nothing wrong with the graphics of StarCraft 2 especially when compared to the other games that you mentioned.

Also, you "harvest minerals" in Sins of a Solar Empire. Does that make it less fun?

StarCraft 2 has terrible graphics when compared to the modern RTS's and exceedingly basic animation which is made even worse seeing that most people play the game on faster. At the $60 fixed price this seems to be very poor value for money seeing that Blizzard have purposefully dumbed down the graphics to cater for very dated PC's.
What modern RTS does StarCraft 2 look better then? Dawn of War 2? Empire or Napoleon : Total War? Supreme Commander and Sins have similar graphics but the games have a far greater scale and are how old?

As for Sins, do you have harvesters? No - your point is therefore invalid.
Even if it was correct, you can adjust the game speed within the game, resource rates, build times, research times, movement speeds etc. Therefore the main problem RTS's fans have with StarCraft is this horrifically dated mechanic which was resolved many years ago in many different ways.