Review: StarCraft II

Xocrates

New member
May 4, 2008
160
0
0
ionveau said:
Get ready for massive DRM,
What massive DRM? Once you activate you can play the whole Single player side of the game offline (which indeed I have)and the only difference is you won't get achievements. You need to be online to play multiplayer, but that is hardly surprising.

ionveau said:
the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3
As someone who played both games, I call bullshit on this.

EDIT:
ionveau said:
1 account per CD KEY(you cant even play the game without the account so dont lose it)
Correction: 1 online account per CD key. You have three offline guest accounts.

ionveau said:
no AI without internet
Lies
 

ThePirateMan

New member
Jul 15, 2009
918
0
0
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
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
Massive DRM? All you need is to make a simple and free account, type in your CD key, login and play. Then all you need to do is have an active internet connection and you can even play the campaign in offline mode once you've logged atleast one time. (Altho achievements would be disabled)

Your brother, sister, friends or whatever will simply have to get a game and a CD key of their own, it's not such a big freaking deal. There are also some guest card things that you might be able to work something out with.

Copy and pasted maps from WC 3? What the hell are you talking about?

Edit: Misstypes.
 

Virgil

#virgil { display:none; }
Legacy
Jun 13, 2002
1,507
0
41
ionveau said:
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
You can play with them just fine - your LAN just has to be connected to the internet. The game handles multiple connections from the same network without any real issues - it's obvious that Blizzard has learned a lot from the networking code behind World of Warcraft. We have had plenty of matches between people in the office here, all connecting through the same (not so great) internet connection with the same external IP.

ionveau said:
1 account per CD KEY(you cant even play the game without the account so dont lose it)
no AI without internet
Actually, once you have the game installed and activate the game by logging in once, the DRM is quite light. The single-player campaign can be played without logging in, without an internet connection (though obviously not tied to games linked to the account), and without a CD key.

Multiplayer requires an account login, but that requires an internet connection anyway, so it's not a big deal. AI matches (and Challenge maps) can be played offline - I just verified it on my copy.

That's not DRM. That's whining because they don't support a feature you think you want. You've made your point that you don't like that there's no LAN play. You can stop mentioning it in this thread now - you're on the verge of trolling, and we don't like that here.
 

Ewyx

New member
Dec 3, 2008
375
0
0
Captain Placeholder said:
Oh boo hoo, you do not get your precious LAN games, wait a sec. I am not no brain surgeon but can't you just have your friends bring their PCs to your house or vice versa and all sign in to the wireless internet source and THEN play? I know that is what they do in a certain shop in my parts here... and if you are also angry that you have to be online, if you do not have internet then you are either
Ok, let me explain to you the basic difference between lan and internet
LAN -
My computer -> My Friends Computer
Internet
My Computer -> ISP servers -> Blizz server -> ISP servers -> My Friends Computer
But ok, let's say that the server only uses matchmaking (don't know how it works), and it connects you directly to each other after it pairs you up (probably the case, but that creates additional problems)...
What if my router dies, what if my internet connection dies... What if I have a brother and we want to play while we wait for it to get back up?

Not having LAN play creates additional problems, and solves none.
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
Ewyx said:
Captain Placeholder said:
Oh boo hoo, you do not get your precious LAN games, wait a sec. I am not no brain surgeon but can't you just have your friends bring their PCs to your house or vice versa and all sign in to the wireless internet source and THEN play? I know that is what they do in a certain shop in my parts here... and if you are also angry that you have to be online, if you do not have internet then you are either
Ok, let me explain to you the basic difference between lan and internet
LAN -
My computer -> My Friends Computer
Internet
My Computer -> ISP servers -> Blizz server -> ISP servers -> My Friends Computer
But ok, let's say that the server only uses matchmaking (don't know how it works), and it connects you directly to each other after it pairs you up (probably the case, but that creates additional problems)...
What if my router dies, what if my internet connection dies... What if I have a brother and we want to play while we wait for it to get back up?

Not having LAN play creates additional problems, and solves none.
Thank you =)
 

Redratson

New member
Jun 23, 2009
376
0
0
I enjoy the game I was average at the first one and I think my skill is increasing. I love the practice league they put in there that was pretty helpful for a noob/part time player like myself. Single player story was, imo, pretty good though

I am a bit sadden that I did not play no zerg.

All in all I was pretty happy I pick up this game :)
 

Enigmers

New member
Dec 14, 2008
1,745
0
0
Zhukov said:
Question for those who have bought it:

Is it worth getting if I have no interest in multiplayer and kinda-sorta enjoyed the original?
Yeah, the campaign was a lot of fun and there are options for playing skirmishes against the A.I. if you'd like to.
ionveau said:
the levels are just copy and pasted from WC3
Here's the thing, though - they're both RTSes, and they both have campaigns - how different do you expect each mission to be? Warcraft III's single-player had a lot to do with how well you used the abilities of your heroes, whereas there's only one level (that I've played) in Starcraft II that does this (I've only gone through the campaign once); Starcraft II has the in-between mission hub wherein you buy upgrades and hire mercenaries - something I don't remember having a Warcraft III equivalent. Level for level, anything can look the same, but then again, you can look at every game on earth and say "they're all the same, you push buttons until you win."
 

Virgil

#virgil { display:none; }
Legacy
Jun 13, 2002
1,507
0
41
Xocrates said:
Virgil said:
straight AI versus matches require an account login
Am I the only person who noticed the "Versus AI" button on the single player menu?
I assumed he was right at first, since I didn't play any versus AI matches myself (and didn't play 'offline' either). I doublechecked though and updated my post. The Challenge maps are also available in single-player, and offline mode doesn't require a CD at all.

I'm actually wondering if the game will require 'reactivation' against the online servers every so often at this point. The DRM is so light once you have the game installed that it may as well not even be there (minus multiplayer, of course).
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
paketep said:
I have a games-more-than-ready PC, and I'm not buying this.

Not until they support LAN, at the very least.

BTW, the title for this should be "Review: StarCraft 2's Single Player"
We've covered SC2's multiplayer many, many times here. Here's all you need to know: It's fantastic, though very, very cutthroat.
 

Bors Mistral

New member
Mar 27, 2009
61
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Looks gorgeous, but I'll only buy the game when the battlechest is released.
Likewise, waiting for the BattleChest. The visuals don't impress me though, and I'd go as far as to call them a bit dated. They do have style though, even if it doesn't resonate with me.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
ionveau said:
Zhukov said:
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
Haha, what? Copy-pasted from WC3? Son, you best be joking. WC3's mission design is positively archaic compared to SC2.

Online activation is the only DRM worth mentioning. You can play the campaign offline. LAN would have been nice, but let's be honest, it's outdated technology and will one day be obsolete (if it isn't already). This is an office full of hardcore gamers and none of us have LANned in years.

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

Eruanno

Captain Hammer
Aug 14, 2008
587
0
0
I bought StarCraft 2 on launch day. I CAN'T STOP PLAYING.

Also, I want Heart of the Swarm. Now. Pretty please.
 

Blue Musician

New member
Mar 23, 2010
3,344
0
0
paketep said:
kingcom said:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.
Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.
Sure, No LAN sucks, but I would still buy this game, as this is probably one of the few RTS that I have truly enjoyed, along with the other Blizzard games, Warhammer 40K and Rome Total War.
I wouldn't miss this, for me it's the GOTY for me.
 

Eric the Orange

Gone Gonzo
Apr 29, 2008
3,245
0
0
ionveau said:
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
Like the level in WC3 where you have to keep moving your base from a on coming wave of fire or the where race an enemy to see who can hit a resource point the fastest. Or maybe the the one where you chase down enemy transports. Perhaps the one where you gather resources while dodging rising and falling tides of lava. Thoughs were all in WC3 right?

All kidding aside though, I could go on. Yes some of the levels are similar to WC3 but there is only so much you can do with an RTS.

Point 2, massive DRM? You only have to sign up once and then it's done. what DRM is less than that. DRM yes but rather slight, really undeserving of the massive label.

And lan, well ok I guess technically no but you can set matches up on the internet. I don't see why you cant play against friends/relatives ect. Perhaps if one of your internet is bad it may be a problem, but from what you said it would be impossible to play them at all which is false.

And Ironically the story was the only thing I had a problem with (see post above).
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
[this post contains spoilers]

No doubt, StarCraft 2 is an excellent, very polished game. I can't help being a little disappointed by the campaign though.

There's no sense of urgency or accomplishment as in the first game. Most of the time it's about getting funds for the revolution. So let's steal some alien artifacts here, and do some contract work there, and yeah, we want to take down Mensk but let's do this and that too... there seems to be a lack of focus.

So then Mensk has been dealt a blow and suddenly we make buddies with his son and his greatest general and assaulting the Zerg is the most important thing ever. WTF? I just humiliated the emperor infront of the whole galaxy and his greatest generals decide it's okay to work with me now in order to save sweetheart Kerrigan and destroy the Zerg (yet again)? That happened way too fast. And it's just weird.

The other weird thing is how I spend so much time collecting artifacts to sell to this research organization but then for some reason I keep it and use it to defeat the Zerg and "heal" Kerrigan. Well, what a coincidence that that turned out to be so useful to me. All this time I thought we were just going to sell that stuff for $$$.

I very much enjoyed the "Wing Commander" style intermissions, but the news program is so cheesy and exagerrated in its support for Mensk that I think it hurts the overall quality. Then there are "sub-plots" that get started but don't quite follow through. Tosh says something about a traitor on board. I never did find out who that was. Who is in control of Tychus "kill switch"? I still don't know. Also Tychus is constantly portrayed as a destabilizing factor, but it never quite follows through with that plot line and he simply fights on your side up until the end as if everything is just dandy. The character development especially with Tychus seems very fuzzy and ambivalent at times.

The missions offer great variety but I missed the StarCraft 1 type missions where you can gradually build up your base and progressively annihilate the opposition. Most of the time you're under time pressure, chasing down trains, avoiding getting burned by the sun, saving your workers from melting in lava, running from a huge Monsterzerg, racing with Kerrigan to get to some data, building up defences before a Zerg attack... Sometimes I wished I could have taken a little time to check out the special abilities of my units or actually enjoy the great 3D graphics without needing to check out some kind of timer every 5 seconds. A few more traditional missions would have been in order.

But these are all "minor" annoyances considering the overall high quality of the game. I guess I'm also scrutinizing StarCraft 2 alot more than other games, due to the immense expectations involved.
 

Zarthek

New member
Apr 12, 2009
533
0
0
Bors Mistral said:
DeadlyYellow said:
Looks gorgeous, but I'll only buy the game when the battlechest is released.
Likewise, waiting for the BattleChest. The visuals don't impress me though, and I'd go as far as to call them a bit dated. They do have style though, even if it doesn't resonate with me.
I may be wrong but I don't think they were topped out for the review video, Some sections of the graphics were a little off, but then again I'm playing it on a computer that can just barely go over the bare minimum of graphics so....
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
I doubt they were working on it for 12 years and it certainly wasn't worth the wait. The game is roughly the same as the original since they kept so many of the original units and characters. I mean, the new stuff is interesting, but for someone who was still playing the original till it's sequal, it got old really quick.

Also, the dialogue through the cinematics were so cliche' it hurt, it made me cringe. I've played all the previous Blizzard games and they were never this bad.

This is the first time Blizzard has disappointed me. Oh well, no ones perfect. Still waiting for Diablo 3.
 

BlueInkAlchemist

Ridiculously Awesome
Jun 4, 2008
2,231
0
0
If I had $60 US to spare on a game instead of needing to hold onto it so I can afford to feed myself, I'd probably have this game already.