Review: StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT
 

ionveau:

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).

[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.

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.

Bors Mistral:

DeadlyYellow:
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....

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.

Ewyx:

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.

Hm. I still do not see a big deal. You can still play with your friends by inviting them to custom games. You can still play with them in the same household and/or area. You just both have to be online and I still do not see why the internet would be down for a very long time or very frequently. I mean I live in the country and have very bad internet connectivity and yet that still does not stop me. Also if I live in a little tiny town in the middle of nowhere and my internet does not go down very frequently and yours does, it may be time to get a new ISP.

The point I am trying to make is, you can still play online and I doubt that you will lose internet frequently that will cause you to be unable to play. And if you are, try making or planning to build orders or study your old one. Still it sounds like you lose internet quite frequently and that not having LAN will be a huge downfall to playing. It is not, and if you have bad internet try figuring out how to fix it or call the company.

I do see your point though, however your making it sound much worse than what it is. As John Funk said, LAN is outdated Tech, it is going obsolete if not already.

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.

Nice little reference at the end there :D

I see Blizzard has, once again, bestowed some wonderfully creative cheat codes on us.

Tiamat666:

Tiamat666:
snip

use spoiler tags like this

ionveau:

Zhukov:
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.

Tiamat666:

My guess is that those are hooks for the future games in the trilogy. This is just The Fellowship of the Ring - some questions likely don't get answered until later on.

Xocrates:

I might agree on the "way too fast", but it certainly wasn't a WTF moment.

I finished the campaign last night, had to slow down because the GF was at the house, and it was definitely worth my $60. I kind of expected the ending but only from the clues in the campaign. I probably would of played the campaign alone in a couple days if I didn't have to work or log off. There was enough variety in the missions for me to stay interested. The missions where you only have a couple guys are the best, in my opinion.

Who cares if you have a DRM. Don't buy the game or buy the game and suck it up. That's really the only choice you have in the matter. IDK if you can't install/play a million copies on your PC and all of your friends. Make them buy their own copy. You can't play a LAN game? Connect to the net and join your friends. It's not that hard.

...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.

Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.

Aside from the ending of the game being a huge let down for me, I really enjoyed the Starcraft 2 campaign. Blizzard put tons of effort into it. I love all of the little details that add flavor to the setting. They're a nice addition for me since I love to learn everything I can about the setting, technology, creatures, and factions whenever a game interests me. All of the missions are surprisingly varied, having their own unique hazards and objectives I didn't expect Blizzard to implement. I expect the campaign to be highly similar to the Starcraft campaign. Instead, it was very different (in a good way).

And while the animated cutscenes are (usually) impressive, I still prefer it when games tell the story through the gameplay. Which is why my favorite mission in the game was the last Protoss one. It has far more impact because you're the one in control, rather than watching characters in a cutscene.

Cristian Capatana:

...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.

Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.

I agree that the story is very chiché. I think Blizzard should tone done the "Epicness" of their games and instead create an intriguing story by good and creative writing. Seriously, you can only save the universe this many times before it starts getting old. And the *Craft type games have had more of their share of prophecies and artifacts. I remember my soul hurting a little when they started talking of prophecies and artifacts and the 3rd or 4th impending Zerg apocalypse... but I didn't let in ruin the otherwise great experience.

StarCraft 2 is not an "average" game. Perhaps it has "standard" game mechanics, as all RTS games do. But then it is made so much richer by the strategic choices you have to do between missions and the story presentation. I've also never played an RTS with "dynamic mission elements" before, such as rising lava, nighttime zombie raids or burning planet surfaces.

Tiamat666:

-snip-

The first line of this review tells me you pay too much attention to Internet denizens.
Blizzard spent >10 years working on this game, of course it's a full game.

Original? No. See Warhammer 40000.
Modern? In graphics only. In terms of gameplay this game fits better in 1999 than 2010. They've pretty much ignored everything that's happened in the RTS genre since SC1.

Nostalgic? Yes.
A good primer for the RTS genre? Yes.
Well-crafted? Yes. The Blizzard polish is in full effect.
Compelling story? That depends on how much you like sci-fi space opera. A plot synopsis of SC1 is a pre-requisite for anyone new to the series to get full enjoyment out of the story.

Bottom line: It's amazing how they've managed to give such a classic game a modern look and feel. Any fan of space opera or SC1 should purchase. Also a great game for someone wanting to learn the fundamentals of RTS. Blizzard played it exceptionally safe with this game.

Your review was a little too starry-eyed for my taste.

Zhukov:
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?

Cristian Capatana:

...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.

Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.

There is nothing about this game that is even remotely average ... other than the dialogue.

Blizzard really needs to poach some people from BioWare on that end.

Captain Placeholder:
snip

No LAN is a problem, and you can easily find it out by trying any of the different custom maps (brawler, space invaders etc). The delay on every single command is borderline unbearable.

Tiamat666:
StarCraft 2 is not an "average" game. Perhaps it has "standard" game mechanics, as all RTS games do. But then it is made so much richer by the strategic choices you have to do between missions and the story presentation. I've also never played an RTS with "dynamic mission elements" before, such as rising lava, nighttime zombie raids or burning planet surfaces.

Those dynamic mission elements are nothing but a script that has no impact on the general experience. Sure, if you'd have random eruptions, a night-day cycle and the ability to set yer opponents lawn on fire and theses affected gameplay I'd give them points for that but now they're just purrty effects.
Not all RTS games are standard, Warhammer is the finest example of this.

chstens:

Greg Tito:
Review: StarCraft 2

I thought you were told to never use that phrase again... Terrible damage...

I too would also like to add my disgust of that phrase, even though it is used in jest. Terrible could either mean severe or it could mean extremely bad. That was a terrible storm or that was terrible coffee. The context is supposed to disambiguate which is meant. While I can eventually disambiguate what is meant, my first take is always the 'terrible coffee' meaning. This phrase is used a couple of times in the game.

There are other elements of the writing that aren't up to par.

These and other inconsistencies in the writing led me to believe that Blizzard didn't have any professional writers who worked on Starcraft II. It seems like Blizzard let their programmers write everything (and then do the voice acting).

Don't get me wrong, the actual campaign gameplay is really good. It is just the plot, the writing and the voice acting that I can't stand.

Blue_vision:
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?

The game comes with single player challenges specifically designed to teach you some core multiplayer tactics and help you improve your micro, as well as having some fairly decent skirmish AI.

Beyond that, the multiplayer has a practice league with newbie-friendly maps to help you come to grips with the game. Once you're ready for some real competition you'll have 5 placement matched designed to determine your level of skill which the matchmaking will use to try and find suitable opponents. It also saves the replays of all your games, including a bunch of info such how fast players were gathering money, so you can study them and help you improve.

And while for some stupid reason, the matchmaking seems to be placing me against players above my league a lot lately, it still does a fairly good job in ensuring they're not too much above you.

In short, the game does everything it can to ease new players into multiplayer, including a fairly solid skill based matchmaking system.

Xocrates:
n short, the game does everything it can to ease new players into multiplayer, including a fairly solid skill based matchmaking system.

Horray! Thanks for the insight :)

John Funk:

Cristian Capatana:

...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.

Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.

There is nothing about this game that is even remotely average ... other than the dialogue.

Blizzard really needs to poach some people from BioWare on that end.

...and learn to take a chance once in a while! They have 3 stories and they're beating them to death with the "sameold" stick.

Btw, some argument to back up that "not remotely average" claim would be interesting to have. :)

Cristian Capatana:

Those dynamic mission elements are nothing but a script that has no impact on the general experience. Sure, if you'd have random eruptions, a night-day cycle and the ability to set yer opponents lawn on fire and theses affected gameplay I'd give them points for that but now they're just purrty effects.
Not all RTS games are standard, Warhammer is the finest example of this.

It does affect the "general experience" if your base is engulfed in flames because you didn't evacuate soon enough, your workers are melting in lava because you didn't move them to higher ground or your troops are ripped to shredds by a legion of zombies because they were still out of base when the night fell in.

Tiamat666:

Cristian Capatana:

Those dynamic mission elements are nothing but a script that has no impact on the general experience. Sure, if you'd have random eruptions, a night-day cycle and the ability to set yer opponents lawn on fire and theses affected gameplay I'd give them points for that but now they're just purrty effects.
Not all RTS games are standard, Warhammer is the finest example of this.

It does affect the "general experience" if your base is engulfed in flames because you didn't evacuate soon enough, your workers are melting in lava because you didn't move them to higher ground or your troops are ripped to shredds by a legion of zombies because they were still out of base when the night fell in.

:) You're missing the point, those things happen in their respective mission parameters and do not weigh in the general game experience. You don't have the fear of being jumped at random by torch wielding zombies while mining a lava field at night in a multiplayer match or just a plain old VS AI skirmish.

Those are story relevant, one time only events that you can actually implement in the first starcraft with a bit of scripting know-how.

Cristian Capatana:

John Funk:

Cristian Capatana:

...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.

Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.

There is nothing about this game that is even remotely average ... other than the dialogue.

Blizzard really needs to poach some people from BioWare on that end.

...and learn to take a chance once in a while! They have 3 stories and they're beating them to death with the "sameold" stick.

Btw, some argument to back up that "not remotely average" claim would be interesting to have. :)

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.

The mission design is exceptional. The gameplay manages to be simultaneously StarCraft and yet NOT StarCraft thanks to seemingly-small design elements and changes that go a huge way towards how the game plays out. It's a traditional RTS because that's what Blizzard was intending to design, and because elements that work great in Relic games like CoH or DoW (namely, squad mechanics and cover) would have gone completely against what they were trying to do.

The mission and level design is superb; there are almost 30 missions that pretty much never repeat a central 'gimmick,' the entire thing is well-polished and though the story/dialogue are cheesy at best it's well told, with little on-ship interactions and conversations doing a surprisingly good job at fleshing out the world and characters surrounding what's going on.

Blizzard was trying to make a sequel to StarCraft, and they were trying to make a traditional RTS built around fast movements, fast thinking, and precise control. That is exactly what they have done, and they have done so exceptionally well. It isn't SupCom or DoW or Total Annihilation or Total War; it's StarCraft. And that's what it SHOULD be.

Captain Placeholder:

paketep:

kingcom:
Huh, your denying yourself so much pleasure but whatever you say.

Nope. Blizzard is denying me and many others that pleasure.

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

A.) Poor
B.) To lazy to have someone install it.

Anyways, if you picked up SC2 high chances you planned on playing multiplayer and why would you not have your computer hooked up to the internet damn near 24/7 these days? Haha, sorry if the post seemed rude, I just kinda found it funny.

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.

On a positive note it does look like a smashing game, and I can't wait to play it. Just a tad disappointed with how their art directions gone.

Nah, I believe that was what they imagined her since the beginning. I am not too sure however. They do have a statue of her in their offices and it looks just like what she looks like now. I do not know how new that it is but if it has been their for a number of years then it could be the original design but they could not pull it off do to the graphics of the time.

If that's how they imagined her originally then I'm sorely disappointed. One of the things I liked about the original Starcraft was the characters uniqueness, especially compared to a lot of other games where they pander to this idealistic notion of the perfect person. Jim Rayner wasn't handsome, he was an average looking guy with a big personality. Now he's this grizzled anti hero. Kerrigan looked more like a mature woman, and less like an American cheerleader in futuristic armour.

Although I must admit that I've not played the game yet, and I'm completely going of what I've seen in reviews and previews. Some of the characters do look like they've kept a tad of that Starcraft charm, even if the main protagonists easily fit into some hackneyed, overdone computer game goliath man/sexy girl character design.

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.

Starcraft 2 was advertised a lot here, I wasn't expecting fair and balanced, but having bought the game and played it, I wasn't expecting 5 stars, maybe 4 or 4.5 though I guess it IS worth the 60$ price tag, or 99$ in my case. After playing the campaign: I was disappointed by the multiplayer, it just seems much less fun. It seems boring, in the same way that I find Counter-Strike boring, it's more about twitch game play and rapid control of the mouse then it is tactics. While you can hone your about to performs hundreds of actions per minute, but why bother? I don't know, it's just not my cup of tea, I still prefer Supreme Commander 1 as multiplayer seem more like a sandbox war than an arena match.

Also, I had a LAN party last weekend, and Starcraft 2 was one of the games of choice, the lack of dedicated LAN mode didn't seem to be a problem, the game doesn't seem to be taxing on connections, even with 3 people with 3 accounts on one broadband line. The AI is hard and I appreciate the fact that it scouts you, and it doesn't seem to cheat.

John Funk:

Cristian Capatana:

John Funk:

Cristian Capatana:

...paying only 60 bucks feels like you are wearing a ski-mask and ripping off Blizzard at gunpoint.

Puh-fucking-lease, if this was any other RTS you wouldn't be so lenient. It has standard mechanics, a cliche story (ancient artifact, prophecy... really?!?, the RPG elements are bolted on and don't really make a difference and those achievements are just another way of bloating the thing, finishing a mission is not an achievement, it's the whole friggin' point of the game!

This is just an average but well polished game and not the paragon of perfection every review wants to jam down our throats.

There is nothing about this game that is even remotely average ... other than the dialogue.

Blizzard really needs to poach some people from BioWare on that end.

...and learn to take a chance once in a while! They have 3 stories and they're beating them to death with the "sameold" stick.

Btw, some argument to back up that "not remotely average" claim would be interesting to have. :)

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.

The mission design is exceptional. The gameplay manages to be simultaneously StarCraft and yet NOT StarCraft thanks to seemingly-small design elements and changes that go a huge way towards how the game plays out. It's a traditional RTS because that's what Blizzard was intending to design, and because elements that work great in Relic games like CoH or DoW (namely, squad mechanics and cover) would have gone completely against what they were trying to do.

The mission and level design is superb; there are almost 30 missions that pretty much never repeat a central 'gimmick,' the entire thing is well-polished and though the story/dialogue are cheesy at best it's well told, with little on-ship interactions and conversations doing a surprisingly good job at fleshing out the world and characters surrounding what's going on.

Blizzard was trying to make a sequel to StarCraft, and they were trying to make a traditional RTS built around fast movements, fast thinking, and precise control. That is exactly what they have done, and they have done so exceptionally well. It isn't SupCom or DoW or Total Annihilation or Total War; it's StarCraft. And that's what it SHOULD be.

M'kay, you're just describing what the game is and is not and not why it's supposed to be better than most other "traditional" RTS games. From what I've experienced so far, adding a few new units and tinkering with the old does not make a game "the best" it just makes it better than the original and considering that in the last 10 years we've seen a crapton of traditional RTS games that started with the starcraft formula and improved on it how can we make the affirmation "SCII rullz!"? On the other hand we can safely say it's an average game based on the plethora of games that didn't take 10 years to make, have been developed by studios with far less resources, had the balls to try something new here and there but use the same general mechanics as SCII.

Cristian Capatana:

M'kay, you're just describing what the game is and is not and not why it's supposed to be better than most other "traditional" RTS games. From what I've experienced so far, adding a few new units and tinkering with the old does not make a game "the best" it just makes it better than the original and considering that in the last 10 years we've seen a crapton of traditional RTS games that started with the starcraft formula and improved on it how can we make the affirmation "SCII rullz!"? On the other hand we can safely say it's an average game based on the plethora of games that didn't take 10 years to make, have been developed by studios with far less resources, had the balls to try something new here and there but use the same general mechanics as SCII.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. It's the best because it's very well balanced, very engaging and exciting to pick up and play, the breakneck pace means that it's an intense experience from the very moment you start the game because those first 50 minerals could make or break you down the line.

Other games added things to the StarCraft formula, yes. That does not mean they were *improving* it, much in the same way that adding ketchup to a sundae does not mean you're improving it, and much in the same way that an orange is not an improved apple because it has a peel.

There is not a single continuum of RTS design. Just because DoW and CoH have cover systems and squad mechanics does not mean that StarCraft II needs to have cover systems and squad mechanics because that bogs the game down and gets in the way of what the developers were trying to make.

So far your argument just seems to be "Wah, it didn't try anything new." That does not make it an average game, it just makes it an game that didn't innovate. Which is never what they were trying to do in the first place.

the ONLY reason i want this game is because of the story, i LOVED the story in the first SC and i NEED to see what happend in the second, unfortunately i am horrible at RTS's. and SC2 looks eve more brutal and unforgiving than SC1 :(

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here