About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

Go Back   GameCritics.com Forums > Video Games Discussion > PC Games & Hardware Help

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2010, 06:42 PM   #1
Zanbatou
64-bit Poster
 
Zanbatou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 731
Rep Power: 14 Zanbatou is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Zanbatou
StarCraft 2

I finally got my official copy of StarCraft 2. Anyone else playing this? I've only spent time on the multiplayer portions of the game so far, but I've spent rather a lot of time with the multiplayer (I've been playing the beta for the last couple of months). It's great. It's hard to imagine a more worthy successor to the original game. Some people probably think it changed too much, and many more might think it hasn't evolved enough, but for my money it's just about spot on. There are one or two very minor things I would change if it were up to me (I'm annoyed that this game's "mind control" spell wears off after 12 seconds, for example), but overall this game is almost exactly what I wanted.

I love having a brand new game that I know will take me hundreds of hours to explore. It's a great feeling.
Zanbatou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:57 PM   #2
Richard Naik
Lt. Cmdr. PopAndFresh
 
Richard Naik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 186
Rep Power: 6 Richard Naik will become famous soon enough
Re: StarCraft 2

So far I get the same vibe I got from the first game. Balanced, interface is solid, and the new battle.net features are great for multiplayer with buddies.

The one think that really irks me is that it only comes with 1/3 of the campaign and is a full-price game. That is definitely going to have a significant on my final overall opinion of the game. Don't know how much yet, but it will.
Richard Naik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:36 PM   #3
Zanbatou
64-bit Poster
 
Zanbatou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 731
Rep Power: 14 Zanbatou is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Zanbatou
Re: StarCraft 2

The new format for the single player doesn't bother me. The original StarCraft and its expansion each contained 30 missions, with 10 missions dedicated to each of the three races. StarCraft 2 will come in three parts, with each part devoting about 30 missions to a single race. It doesn't seem like we're getting any less game for our money. We're actually guaranteed one extra expansion than the original had, which is great.

Plus, spreading the game out into three parts gives Blizzard more time to perfect the multiplayer portions of the game, which is where I'm happiest anyway.

Last edited by Zanbatou; 07-29-2010 at 04:38 PM.
Zanbatou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 08:56 AM   #4
reason49
New Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: X360: Fiddlemonger, PSN: Pretentious_Jerk
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 5 reason49 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

The last time I played Starcraft was about a year after its launch. I just bought Starcraft 2 yesterday, and I'm obviously blown away. It feels just as exciting and innovative as it did when the original was released.

I like the new campaign formats as well. I'm pretty awful at the game so far, but I think it's a good sign to have a good time playing a game I'm so horrible at.
reason49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 05:03 PM   #5
LordFarid
Lord of the Videogames
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,057
Rep Power: 17 LordFarid is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

As a long-time Blizzard fanboy I really had no choice and had to buy Starcraft 2. So far I'm loving it. It has everything the classic Blizzard games had yet at no point does it feel like an outdated game. I'm also loving the fact that the game runs so smooth on my 4 year old PC on highest settings.

The cutscenes are also awesome, as is the lost vikings minigame you can play in the canteen.
LordFarid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 10:56 AM   #6
Li-Ion
Space Pirate
 
Li-Ion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hampshire, England, UK, EU
Posts: 1,342
Rep Power: 8 Li-Ion will become famous soon enough
Re: StarCraft 2

I think it's the best RTS ever made. I'm not even halfway through the singleplayer, but I had more fun than with the last 5 RTS I played together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Naik View Post
The one think that really irks me is that it only comes with 1/3 of the campaign and is a full-price game. That is definitely going to have a significant on my final overall opinion of the game. Don't know how much yet, but it will.
I don't understand this reasoning. It's 1 big Campaign instead of 3 small ones, that doesn't make it shorter than the original by 2/3. Did you also complain in Dawn of War 2 that there's only one campaign instead of the usual 2 of the first part? Even when the games have roughly the same length overall (plus the campaign in DoW1 being quite crap)?

The missions so far are wonderfully crafted and diverse. Every mission in SC2 has it's own unique feature that can be considered as training for multiplayer. The dozen of missions I played so far had more ideas in them than any RTS I played so far. I rather play 5 missions that are fun and diverse than 50 missions that are the same old formula of building a base, then an army and stomp over the enemy forces.

Dawn of War 2 tried to break away from the generic RTS formula as well, but they made it into Diablo with more units. Starcraft 2 mixes up this old fashioned genre much better I think. I love how they implemented hanging around the cantina, reminescent of the old Wing Commander games

If you excuse me now, the galaxy needs saving
Li-Ion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 11:29 AM   #7
k8to
Chief Mallard
 
k8to's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,251
Rep Power: 14 k8to is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

It's definitely a full game. The single player sequence has lots of love. The multiplayer while still needing some tweaking is pretty good.

However, I don't like it. I would recommend against it for all but the most certain fans of RTS games. It's still the same stress-fest, and still the same click frenzy. The game is still one of those that (in multiplayer) is hostile to new players, and requires massive investments of time just to learn to play properly at all. I view it as a failure of design, in the sense that there's been any number of revelations and innovations about incorporating a larger player base that were not learned in the making of this game.

If I had to buy it again, I wouldn't. Not for sixty bucks. Maybe 20, or maybe 30.
k8to is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 12:11 PM   #8
LordFarid
Lord of the Videogames
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,057
Rep Power: 17 LordFarid is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

I kind of disagree with you k8to the game in my opinion is not hostile to new players at all. There is a tutorial that explains the basics, and there is a 4 tier difficulty, where the lowest difficulty level, casual is in fact incredibly relaxed and easy as far as I could see.

If you've never liked RTS games, then you probably won't like this, that i agree with, and SC2 does not compell RTS haters to play their game as much as WoW compelled MMO haters to play that game. But it definatly allows for a very easy and casual learning of the basics as long as your proud enough to select a lower difficulty level.

What I personally like about the game is a couple things. The storyline, the graphics, the classic gameplay and the massiveness.

The storyline is great, classic blizzard stuff and i love the fact there are branching options to choose how you want to progress the story, allowing it replay value and give meaning to the choices you make.

The graphics deserve a prize in my opinion. They are incredibly smooth, clean and colorfull, and make the game look next gen even on older systems (like mine)( without any lag or slowdown. This is a big win for Blizzard, since there are so many people out there with older systems that want to play the newest games, Blizzard always suprises them with next gen games that run smooth on past gen machines.

The classic gameplay. Well this is nice mainly for fanboys and people like me that been there since warcraft 1. The gameplay just still feels like Blizzard. It's smooth, fast, simple and at no time do you feel the system is cheating against you.

Finally the massive gameplay. This is in my opinion especially nice compared to recent more tactical oriented RTS games but also compared to Warcraft 3 for example. Starcraft feels massive again, with screens filled of huge armies, with the added advantage that the low system requirements allow this to happen without any slowdown. I find it much more entertaining then the semi/adventure games that we've seen in many other FPS'es like Warcraft 3 and Relic's FPS games.

I don't feel this is the best game of all time, as the genre to me is simly not as entertaining as the mmo genre for example, but as far as action oriented RTS goes this is probably the best on the market as far as I can see.
LordFarid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 02:56 PM   #9
k8to
Chief Mallard
 
k8to's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,251
Rep Power: 14 k8to is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

Sigh, if you read what I wrote, I said the multiplayer is new player hostile, and I stand by that.

I went into the so-called "getting started" matches and just got completely steamrolled by pros. Competitive online gaming has always had these problems, being owned by the experts. Matchmaking is supposed to handle this, but it really only handles the difference between dedicated but not that great players and dedicated and fantastic players. It doesn't really expand the player base at all, just makes it more livable for people who would have played the old system.

Compare it to wow, that has hours of no-stress gameplay (if you choose) to learn your abilities before you put them to the test.

You still have to lose a ton of matches before it even starts pitting you against people who are actually new like you are. Dyed-in-the-wool gamers don't mind this. New players to the genre will not accept it. This is a game for experts, not casual players. Even the single player campaign tells you this psychologically, playing on casual you can't even try to do most of the optional activities. The inclusion of the mode made me think I could play the game at my own speed, but the slanting of the achievements makes me feel like I "should" play on harder levels. I may end up using memory hacks to get the achievements on brutal -- not sure why, I just don't like the "you can't" feel of them.
k8to is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:15 PM   #10
joetbd
32-bit Poster
 
joetbd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 392
Rep Power: 5 joetbd will become famous soon enough
Re: StarCraft 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8to View Post
The game is still one of those that (in multiplayer) is hostile to new players, and requires massive investments of time just to learn to play properly.
Thats how multiplayer works in most game, right?
Either you are a master-ninja caliber player, or you get destroyed by the people that are.

Isnt that what people expect from multiplayer?
I know that is why I avoid playing games online.
joetbd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:45 PM   #11
LordFarid
Lord of the Videogames
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,057
Rep Power: 17 LordFarid is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

Ah sorry I missed the multiplayer part. I havent played the multiplayer part myself yet to be honest. My idea was to finish the entire campaign and maybe play it at harder difficulty levels before even trying to dabble with it.

I think its very hard to make a RTS friendly for new players in multiplayer mode. The reason is that RTS games are by their very nature very skill oriented. Theres an element of skill in MMO's too of course, you cannot become number 1 in arena's in WoW and get the undead dragon flying mount simply by mashing buttons. But you can win a lot of matches in battlegrounds and world pvp simply by being average and gathering some gear. In an online RTS there is no way to attain better gear then your opponent because usually the sides are balanced, so all that is left is skill. And because of the complex gameplay that a tactical strategy game offers the skill cap is much, much higher then with an mmo or even with a first person shooter (where the skill cap is not strategic thinking as much as its simply hand/eye coordination and learning a few environments).

Considering the fact that there are so many variables to keep track of, so many troops to steer in this purely skill based game of "chess" its nearly impossible to make it newbie friendly unless you would completely gut and "dumbify" the gameplay and turn it into some kind of "bimbocraft".

An easy to play and easy to get into "bimbocraft" game might actually be a golden opportunity waiting to happen, but it would also instantly turn off millions of starcraft fans, including millions of Koreans who want the real thing and not something watered down. I think Blizzard did not want to risk all that.

Anyway for now im still happy playing the single player game, and i will try out the multiplayer and if i don't like it then i'll just stick to WoW for my pvp fun.
LordFarid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:53 PM   #12
LordFarid
Lord of the Videogames
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,057
Rep Power: 17 LordFarid is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by joetbd View Post
Thats how multiplayer works in most game, right?
Either you are a master-ninja caliber player, or you get destroyed by the people that are.

Isnt that what people expect from multiplayer?
I know that is why I avoid playing games online.
Actually there are different levels. There are hardcore pvp games with a high skill cap. These are mostly skill oriented games (like guild wars and most first person shooters) where its nearly impossible to make an impact until you have a lot of practice.

Then there are casual PVP games. A good example are the battlegrounds in WoW. These are less focused on individual skill and more on gear, teamwork and the class/spec you choose. Here you will still meet master ninja's but if you manage to get gather some gear you will often still defeat them. For example if you gather some casual battlegrounds gear in WoW with a hunter and learn the simple act of kiting you could meet a master ninja highly skilled rogue and still be able to kill him because as a kiting hunter a rogue can do little against you.
LordFarid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:57 PM   #13
Li-Ion
Space Pirate
 
Li-Ion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hampshire, England, UK, EU
Posts: 1,342
Rep Power: 8 Li-Ion will become famous soon enough
Re: StarCraft 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8to View Post
Compare it to wow, that has hours of no-stress gameplay (if you choose) to learn your abilities before you put them to the test.
If you want the multiplayer of SC2 versus WoW you should compare it with the pvp aspect of WoW, since playing with another human versus the AI is also no-stress gameplay (if you choose). Just take a look at the pvp areas in WoW: if you're not pretty much an expert in your class you get pretty much destroyed.

You can, of course, just join alterac valley, where your lack of dedication and mastery of the game mechanics is evened out by the amount of people participating. This is pretty much the same as joining a random 3vs3 or 4vs4 in SC2.

In 1vs1 it's you against your opponent however, pretty much the same as in duels and arena in WoW. I got destroyed in the arena last time I checked in, simply because I didn't have time to equip my character and was outgunned. This doesn't happen in SC2, since every player has the same tools available from the start. I find the equipment disadvantage of MMORPG more hostile than an RTS to be honest.

Every game with a competitive player versus player mode has the problem of 'hostility'. In my opinion Blizzard put actually quite a lot of effort into making SC2 less hostile than the last couple of RTS I tried to play online. But let's compare apples (RTS) with apples (RTS) and not apples (RTS) with bananas (MMORPG) please.
Li-Ion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 12:40 AM   #14
k8to
Chief Mallard
 
k8to's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,251
Rep Power: 14 k8to is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

They don't compare.

The pvp (battleground) component of wow doesn't shut you down entirely if you aren't very good. The pvp (battleground) component of wow can't EVEN be experienced without some initial solo time. The PVP (battleground) component of wow uses the exact same abilities as the pve part. In wow you have a team you can lean on much more heavily. In wow you don't get eliminated. In starcraft speed of execution is paramount. In wow strategic thinking can be more decisive.

The comparison is not appropriate, accurate, nor does it change the fact that wow is inviting and starcraft is punishing.
k8to is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 01:28 AM   #15
LordFarid
Lord of the Videogames
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,057
Rep Power: 17 LordFarid is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: StarCraft 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Li-Ion View Post
If you want the multiplayer of SC2 versus WoW you should compare it with the pvp aspect of WoW, since playing with another human versus the AI is also no-stress gameplay (if you choose). Just take a look at the pvp areas in WoW: if you're not pretty much an expert in your class you get pretty much destroyed.

You can, of course, just join alterac valley, where your lack of dedication and mastery of the game mechanics is evened out by the amount of people participating. This is pretty much the same as joining a random 3vs3 or 4vs4 in SC2.

In 1vs1 it's you against your opponent however, pretty much the same as in duels and arena in WoW. I got destroyed in the arena last time I checked in, simply because I didn't have time to equip my character and was outgunned. This doesn't happen in SC2, since every player has the same tools available from the start. I find the equipment disadvantage of MMORPG more hostile than an RTS to be honest.

Every game with a competitive player versus player mode has the problem of 'hostility'. In my opinion Blizzard put actually quite a lot of effort into making SC2 less hostile than the last couple of RTS I tried to play online. But let's compare apples (RTS) with apples (RTS) and not apples (RTS) with bananas (MMORPG) please.

First of all it is certainly apples with bananas of course. I think the casual aspect of WoW is actually not in the Arena but in battlegrounds and its the gearing and the paper rock sciccors gameplay. The gearing process in wow does not require you to be good at PVP since you can get all the Arena gear from doing PVE. That means if your outgunned you can gear up till you outgun (and thus defeat) most opponents.

Furthermore rock/sciccors/paper gameplay means that when im on my disc priest i will kill the pally or the dk, when im on my dk i will kill the warrior and certainly the rogue, etc, etc.

This all doesn't apply to arena where many teams are min maxed perfect combinations and often very experienced and used to playing with each other.

Not having played the SC 2 multiplayer yet, i reckon that the more complex gameplay with controlling so many units, and the lack of the options to go back to pve and get better "guns" as well as the lack of a real rock/paper/scissors system (as far as i know the 3 factions are balanced and all perfectly able to defeat each other) means that playing against a SC1 pro will certainly mean defeat.

That being said, much like with first person shooters, it probably is possible to become a winner by playing many matches, learning the game better and and accepting a lot of defeats till you have become a master ninja yourself. Furthermore there are teamplay options as far as i've read (6v6 even), so after some basic practice in pve and in starting matches you could opt to look on the forums for a team to join.
LordFarid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | FAQ | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999-2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.