Review: StarCraft II

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

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.

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.

Richard Allen:

MegaSlaan:

Richard Allen:

werekitsune:
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but I'm not sure if I should get it because I never played the first one and I don't want to play catch-up with an outdated game (albeit a classic).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.

MegaSlaan:

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.

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 cunt.

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.

werekitsune:
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.

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

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.

JaredXE:
"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.

John Funk:
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.

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

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

Emergent System:
(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:

Richard Allen:

ark123:

Richard Allen:

Blue_vision:

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?

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.

Thank you for a review of SC2 which actually talks about the game rather than just mentioning the story line and going "OMGOSH AMAZIN!" like so many of the other "professional" reviews out there. It does sound interesting and is a good review, but 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. Have to get my hands on a copy...

Mazty:
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.

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?

TB_Infidel:
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?

TB_Infidel:
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.

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

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

Greg Tito:
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!

[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.

"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.

GoGo_Boy:

TB_Infidel:
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?

Greg Tito:
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.

ninjajoeman:

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.

Xocrates:

Mazty:
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.

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'.
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.
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.
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.

TB_Infidel:

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.

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.

Madmanonfire:

TB_Infidel:

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.

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.

TB_Infidel:

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.

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.

Sirevien:
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.

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.

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.

"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.

TB_Infidel:

Madmanonfire:

TB_Infidel:

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.

Virgil:
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.

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.

 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
Register for a free account here