Our StarCraft 2 review is finally here! Time to open your wallets, lock yourself in a room and sit down to play!

It is difficult to compete with a legend. When StarCraft first came out in 1998, it was well received, and sold around 1.5 million in its first year- a respectable, albeit not spectacular number. Somewhere along the way, the sci-fi real time strategy game managed to transcend the realm of average and become something different- just ask gamers in Korea, where the StarCraft brand has generated nationally televised competitions, a professional league complete with large cash prizes (and game fixing scandals), and even a television station.  The game has gained a cult following, in the most extreme way possible.

So while a sequel seemed inevitable, it also seemed problematic. With millions of fans that have been playing for over a decade, the scrutiny heaped upon StarCraft II has been nothing short of intense, and in order to satiate fans, the game would need to be better than good- better than great. It would need to be epic. And in almost every way it succeeds. It isn’t perfect, but StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty offers one of the best games in the real-time strategy genre ever made.

For those that have expunged the original’s story after so many years having passed, here’s a brief recap.  Brace yourselves, the story has had 12 years to spawn expansion packs, novels and the fertile ground of gamers’ imagination where it has grown to epic proportions.

In the 25th century, humanity will be known as the Terrans, and we will still be kicking the crap out of each other, just on a galactic scale.  On a backwater planet, a marshal named Jim Raynor steps into the role as an unlikely leader, and fights off a horrifying attack from an insect-like swarm race known as the Zerg that are the stuff of nightmares.

Unfortunately the Zerg aren’t the only problem for Raynor and the Terrans, as the oppressive Confederacy of Man moves in and unjustly arrests Raynor.  Raynor then joins the growing revolution against the Confederation, where he meets Arcturus Mengsk.  The two join forces and soon Raynor falls for Mengsk’s second-in command, Sarah Kerrigan.

In what was a fairly major twist, Mengsk betrays everyone and shows his true colors as a tyrant. It is revealed that Mengsk was using the Zerg, and luring them to inhabited worlds to further his own goals by attacking his enemies.  Through his betrayals, Kerrigan is left to die, but is instead captured and mutated by the Zerg.  Raynor, believing her dead, forms his own resistance group called “Raynor’s Raiders”, and the war grows. Kerrigan returns as the Queen of Blades, betrays everyone, and helps push civilization to the brink of destruction. The Protoss, the most technologically advanced race in known galaxy join the fight against the Zerg, and total war engulfs the galaxy.

As the flames of war begin to burn everywhere, Raynor and a Protoss commander named Tassadar, discover the key to defeating the Zerg was to destroy the Overmind.  Raynor joins a desperate final assault on the Overmind, and Tassadar gives his life to destroy the Overmind.  It was fairly epic stuff.

The sequel picks up four years later, and again follows Raynor, as he continues to fight Mengsk and the Terran Dominion. Soon, the Zerg begin an all out attack, led by the Queen of Blades, who is seeking several mysterious relics. To give away more would do a disservice to fans who have been waiting for the campaign, but suffice to say they should be happy with the depth of both the characters and the storyline.

Campaign

The campaign follows the Terrans though a series of branching storylines that allow you to choose which order you want to play through, as well as giving you the occasional choice that will force you to side with one group or another. Despite the options, the game still follows a  mostly linear story, but it is engrossing enough that most will be happy to watch the scripted plot unfold.

Once you have taken control, the game plays out like many real-time strategy games, but it does so with a polish and finesse. Rather than reinventing the genre, Blizzard wisely takes what works, tightens it up, and streamlines the rest. The result is a gameplay style that will immediately feel familiar to fans of the genre, and yet still feel fresh and new as well. Players who aren’t familiar with the genre will still have some troubles at first, but should be able to stumble their way through until they get the hang of things.  RTS games are inherently difficult to master, but StarCraft II manages to balance complex, but intuitive controls against an ever increasing level of difficulty that eases you into using the full control scheme. It is a fine balancing act, but one that works.

After playing a few maps, you will quickly see the level of thought that went into the gameplay. Frequently in RTS games, gamers will find something- usually just a minor thing or two- that they wish they could do but can’t. Sometimes it is just a simple matter of wishing they could see where a certain unit is, or that there were simpler ways to do a particular chain of commands. It is inevitable with the genre, and usually more to do with the gamer’s individual style than anything. In StarCraft II, you will frequently start to  wish Blizzard had done this or that, then see that there is a way to do exactly what you hoped for. Some games spend years on exacting and detailed graphics. Blizzard spent years on exacting and detailed controls. With games like these, you can’t please everyone- there are so many personal preferences to deal with- but no matter what, you cannot fault Blizzard for the time and thought they put into the controls.

As for the campaign itself, the story is deep and compelling, but it is difficult to put an exact number on how many hours it will take to complete. Unlike other, more linear games, StarCraft II could be as long or as short as you want it to be. The campaign missions each feature multiple achievements that require you to go above and beyond just completing the mission requirements. Many of these achievements are only pointed out after the mission ends, which might have some people hitting the replay button right away, but usually you can guess what the achievement might be from the in-game communications.

But even if the achievements don’t appeal to you, the game is still difficult to put a time frame to because there are so many ways to play, and while they might be radically different, there is no wrong way. Some players might be offensively-minded and want to rush out and take the fight to the enemy, while others might set up defenses and let the enemy come to them. It can be the difference between a 20-minute game and an hour long game, and neither is wrong. A balanced player might be able to beat the campaign in 20 hours or so, while an achievement driven player could easily double that time.

The missions themselves are interesting and varied, and each new setting offers something different. Some levels will have you simply clear an area or defend a base- standard RTS stuff- while others will give you time based events that require you to react to the situation, which then changes and forces you to adapt. One early level has you under attack by the Zerg at night which forces you into a defensive posture until the sun rises, which then puts you on the offensive as you hunt the Zerg bases until the sun sets again.  Another level has you gathering materials in a lava bed, then quickly retreating and waiting as lava flows in, then back out and the countdown begins again.

In general RTS games can rarely illicit emotion from players.  They are a thinking person’s game, and as such you focus more on the next several moves than the mission itself- unless of course you count frustration as an emotion-  but seldom do you play a strategy game that has you nervous and wondering how you can possibly survive. Several of the missions in StarCraft II do just that, and you will find yourself keenly aware of everything happening on the board as you fight to survive and alter your tactics on the fly. It is an impressive feat for a game in the genre.

Multiplayer

But as good as the campaign may be, a few weeks from now, no one will care about the single player side – the focus will all be on the online multiplayer. When the StarCraft II beta came out, it was hard to get a real impression of the online side of the game. It was a beta, after all, and the point was to check the technical side of the game more than the gameplay or “fun factor”. After playing the beta and seeing the difference in the final game, it seems obvious that Blizzard knew exactly what they were doing.

The multiplayer aspect of the game is an incredibly well honed experience, and one of the best online games ever made. While the campaign might look great, and the cinematics are what you will see in the ads, it is really the multiplayer that will make this game a worthy successor, or a disastrous failure. In truth, only time will tell if players fully accept StarCraft II. The original became something of a phenomenon that took on a life of its own, but Blizzard has made sure to do their part and offer the tools to make this game the new “go to” game for RTS fans.

The first thing people will notice is that despite the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each of the three playable races, they are all well balanced, and there is no one particular strategy that will dominate the others. Each race plays differently. The Terrans are a balanced group, the Zerg are an overwhelming swarm, and the Protoss are the most technologically advanced. But no matter who you play as, you will find a strategy that works, and a counter strategy to that. If you aren’t familiar with the RTS genre, you might overlook the detail in the multiplayer, but after you play a few games and begin to see the way the matches can turn into battles of ebb and flow, you will realize that Blizzard spent a LOT of time fine tuning the multiplayer aspect of the game. There will be a steep learning curve for players unfamiliar with the genre, but most will quickly learn and adapt.

Graphics

As for the graphics, they are what you would expect, but maybe not what you would hope for. They are solid and look great, but after waiting 12 years it is hard not to be a bit disappointed that the game won’t blow you away graphically. Maybe that is unfair to the game, but it has been 12 years. That isn’t to say that the game doesn’t look great- it does. The detail is intricate, the character models look good, and the maps and locations are engrossing. We were using a Maingear eX-L 17 computer for the review, which might be a bit of an overkill, but most systems shouldn’t have much trouble running the game near its peak output.

The sound is also top notch, and little things like the jukebox in the cantina will frequently play songs that are original to the game, including one that talks about shooting Zerg. It is details like that which will make you smile, but you’ll quickly forget about them and move on. StarCraft II’s toughest competition is likely to be the expectations it faces. If you come in without any hype, you will likely be impressed.

No More LAN Parties?

Despite how good the game is, there are two noticeable problems with StarCraft II, and while both are understandable, it is hard to be enthusiastic about either. The first is a totally understandable, but somewhat regrettable exclusion of LAN play. For many this will not be an issue at all, but for some that have fond memories of LAN parties, this might come as a blow. There is no reason you could not recreate the LAN party online, but it just isn’t the same, and it leaves you at the mercy of the battle.net servers that you need to sign into each time to play. While reviewing this game, lag and problems with battle.net were frequent, but hopefully that is just growing pains for the game as the servers gradually begin to accept the strain of the huge influx of launch day purchasers.

The reason that LAN parties are not included is actually somewhat clever and understandable. It is also the reason you didn’t see any reviews of the game on the launch day. When you play StarCraft II, you are required to authenticate your copy of the game on the battle.net servers in order to verify that you are not pirating the game (the servers did not go active until launch day, which prohibited early reviews). Given time, someone may find a way around this with a crack, but with software piracy a massive concern for PC games, Blizzard might be on to something here. It is a shame that LAN parties had to be a casualty of the anti-piracy measures, but it is understandable.

Too Many Expansion Packs on the Horizon?

The second problem is more of a business one than something that will affect the game. While the campaign is deep and rewarding, it is also just one-third of the story. In the campaign you are only allowed to play as the Terrans. Blizzard has promised that the Zerg and the Protoss campaigns are coming soon, but both will require purchase. Again, an understandable business decision, and one that shouldn’t count too harshly against the game, but it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in your mouth. It is hard not to see it as a money grab, even if there are legitimate reasons to withhold the campaigns, and even if it is a reasonable business strategy. Still kinda sucks.

Despite these minor flaws, StarCraft II is a deep and intuitive game that will please veterans of the series, and allow new players to see what all the hype is about. Whether or not it becomes the classic that the predecessor did remains to be seen, but Blizzard has done their job and released a worthy successor, as well what is probably best RTS game made yet.

Showing 59 comments

  1. guest at 7:41am 29th November 2010 actually this game was not rushed at all they just spent 12 years working of getting a new coat of paint and some new units.
  2. mrdreamie at 11:44pm 26th November 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71UT-TP-SOU Starcraft 2 on IBM Pentium 4
  3. Tommy at 5:26am 21st November 2010 Great game but super locked down.A found some new stuff regarding This game on http://www.starcraft2videos.com .Very usefull .Go and see! Enjoy
  4. Wiser at 4:40am 16th November 2010 SC2 sucks... 1. No LAN 2. No chatrooms...as if it's difficult to program basic chatrooms... 3. No international servers, U.S. sticks with the U.S., Europe with Europe etc.,... Severely limits the multiplayer gameplay. 4. Facebook on Battle.net and Real I.D. names...What crackpots at Blizzard figured it was a good idea to add those?? The original Bnet was fine the way it was, all it really need was better server management. Everything in the new Bnet is fine except for what was stated on reasons 2 and 3. 5. No really, it's SC1 with better graphics and "devolved" units. Where did the Defiler go?? The Protoss no longer have mind-control, but the Zerg do... Talk about moving backwards with the lore. The "gear for E-sporting" idea from Blizzard was incredibly retarded, on all accounts. Not to mention the fact that SC1 did fine as an E-sport wihout needing to be geared as one... 6. All the fucking ladder maps are the same...Everyone gets a hill, wtf happen to the epic "Big Game Hunters" map? Or maps where the player DOESN'T start off on a elevated plateau, talk about lack of variety. 7. The Rock, Paper, Scissor gameplay upgrade is fine, SC1 is a Rock, Paper, Scissor game anyway and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Blizzard took the Rock, Paper, Scissor concept with units TOO far, it completely stunts the creativity and fun edge. 8. Too expensive with 2 expansions/campaigns on the way...way to go with the excessive Capitalist money grabbing Blizzard, or should I say Vivendi and Activision. Vivendi and Activision aren't fooling anyone...it's ridiculously obviously that they bent Blizzard's arm and successfully ruined SC2, (future) D3, and World of Warcraft. fyi many fans wanted WC4 instead. 9. Vivendi and Activision successfully sucked the soul out of the Warcraft and Starcraft franchises, money grabbing tactics tends to do that quite efficiently. 10. There's a severe lack of innovation, quality, creativity, and overall entertainment in SC2. As I said before, it's just SC1 with upgraded graphics and some slightly different units/features to keep the players from hating the new game too much, give them false hope.
  5. Starcraft at 3:05am 31st October 2010 I love playing Zerg, and I am reading guides non-stop http://starcraft2review.com/category/zerg-strateg... ; my win/lose rating is 1.52/1 and is rising. Hope i reach platinum
  6. Coolguy34 at 3:31pm 20th October 2010 I have experienced in StarCraft II that always my guys attack each other : (
  7. G S at 12:55am 5th October 2010 Don't waste your money on it right now. It is the most pathetic thing I have bought in some time. Bought it on release date and played daily till now. There is just too much wrong
  8. Tom J at 12:20pm 28th September 2010 Hey if you guys are struggling to get into the Diamond League of SC2, I highly suggest you get this SC2 addon: http://diamondgamer.com It is the only SC2 addon, pretty damn good, has strategies, tactics, and videos you can look at right inside the game.
  9. merdoc351 at 5:16am 16th September 2010 Have been playing for 3 weeks now, I think the game is awsome, a bit heavy for average PC but it has been worth the waiting and the money.. plus I found an awsome guide that helped me on my way through all races and campaign, recommended to all beginners and advance: da98fc4cpqlui3ogtnpqrsv4o5.hop.clickbank.net/?tid=PDLWV5F9 besides that i think the game rocks! it could have been better but it still rocks..
  10. Bizwald at 10:19am 2nd September 2010 Lan play should have been included. As a developer of games myself I have to say anyone with half a brain knows you can't stop piracy. You can't stop it from being cracked. to even try shows your groups over all intelligence. As soon as I heard there was no lan option (I have lan parties all the time and SC1 was always a hit) I will not buy it. I will not buy a game that is only 30% finished. That is called being greedy and ripping me off. I agree with the Sony comparison. And like Sony they will lose massive revenue for cheaping out their customers. And like sony it will hurt them big time... calling everyone theives and punishing everyone for what a small number of people do is childish.... so like Sony, blizzard needs to grow up. 1/2 of Sony's online game dev teams quit. Why? They watched Sony screw over thousands of players and screw up every game they purchased and attempted to make "improvements" ending in epic failure after epic failure, and when players bitched agents were told to tell them beat it tuff luck and if you don't like it don't play it, which in the end resulted in their line up of new games... never get released. And losing some of their best developers for how they treated their consumers and dragging the good names of developers into the muddy waters with them. Sony will never ever be what it once was. It's greed, ignorance, and refusing to listen to their consumers and straight out destroying games they purchased like; The Matrix Online, Starwars, which in the end were all the same game with different models and textures but same everything else.) The players caught on. Anyone in game attempting to let others know about these things were permanently banned from the game. Despite having invested thousands in monthly subscriptions. Now with Blizzard jumping on the "screw you your thieves train and took our favorite parts out and got all Nazi about game play on their glitching networks... and glitching second class internet services... they are headed down the same road SOE went down. I hope they figure it out. Greed begots more greed then eventually ruins everything. From one game developer to consumers. Screw them, pirate it. Unless they want to return you thought you were paying for and give the consumers the other % of the game they played for. I am against pirating.. I lost alot of money on quite a few games... due to piracy. But when a company screws you... guess what? You got every right. if your happy with what you got... good for you.. glad your so easily pleased. Must be nice to be so simple. But for the rest of us who waited 10 years..... Blizzard pissed all over us. And then asked them to pay us 3X what the game was worth. Blizzard=Epic failure. (But this can change.) If Blizzard decides to grow up a bit. Had SC2 included the stuff a 2nd should have. I`d have bought it. Instead.... I got it free from a friend who thought the same as I did and was going to throw it out. As far as a review of the game... SC1 was harder SC2 is a joke... and 2/3 of it missing... means it's incomplete and doesn't deserve a review till they decided to finish the rest of it off. (Normally a full game gets reviews, not some incomplete rushed joke.
  11. ??? at 4:35pm 30th August 2010 I can't believe you forgot the most important part of Starcraft 2... The units in which the game is made up of. What made SC 1 great and lived so long was how evenly matched and well balanced the races were. These new units blow. Yes the campaign looks great the acting can be great and the story line so-so. But what does it matter if the actual game behind the graphics is terrible. Hence I will not buy the game for pretty story line, the only thing worth of value here is the editor. In which case I would pay $40 for it, that is all.
  12. MrDestiny at 9:13am 23rd August 2010 I dont want to log in to battle net to play the damn game period. It should have said it in the box. I cant return the game since its already open. I like a stand alone game so i can play it when im in a place where theres no internet or in a public networks. That's just me...
  13. Lenny at 3:19pm 18th August 2010 This review is rather negative but gives some different insight. The part about the ritalin seemed to be sad but true. Starcraft 2 has always been build heavy but I think they could of limited it for casual players. http://starcraft2refund.blogspot.com/2010/08/star...
  14. Jake Howser at 5:42pm 17th August 2010 Star craft 2 is too much like star craft 1. Crappy job Blizzard.
  15. RAJ at 6:45pm 13th August 2010 The LAN exclusion was a big mistake. The excuse of piracy really does not hold up. Why? Even though people could pirate and lan the game they would still need to log on to battlenet to play the single player or compete online. Both could be included. Sure maybe a handful of people could pirate and have LAN parties. they would not be able to play online which is where all the achievements are. The people that pirate the game and only play LAN mode probably would have never bought the game anyway. No sales lost there. The best part of the game is online play so pirates would eventually have to purchase to enjoy the best part of the game. Right now I have 4 paid for copies and have a 5 cpu LAN. There are two ways this exclusion can ruin things. 1. My ISP goes down 2. Battlenet is down Even if both are working there can be lag that is not there in LAN mode. Lets say I had pirated a copy which did include LAN mode. It would only help on the occasion where I have friends over. Those people will also want to play under their own account online. For that you would need to buy the game. I think they got too paranoid. I have heard that there is a hidden LAN mode include. The pro players and tournaments wont use it. Why? Well some of these events are planned in advance and people drive a long way. They really can't afford the possibility of Battle net issues or lag. A blizzard rep will unlock the LAN mode for these. I have not verified that this is in the retail version but it was in a beta at some point.
  16. Plumbum007 at 5:43pm 13th August 2010 Starcraft 2 story line is disappointing. While playing Brood War campaign you have the feeling that it is a holy war between civilizations, with dramatical turnovers of story line. In Starcraft 2 you like a little hooligan who tries to play dirty against Mengsk who has been totally destroyed in Brood War. Kerrigan is also something terrible in second part. Queen of the swarm who destroyed Aiur and UED here is like an emo girl with a hydralisk pet, sitting on Char crying in the pillow. Isn’t she suppose to be in finding the answers about who the hell was Duran and what about all this Hybrid threat? Zeratul after his talk with Duran should have organized all protoss forces in order to destroy as many Hybrid bases as possible. Here he is somewhat confused as he never talk to Duran. Campaign is for kids over 7 years and for those who had never played Brood War. I think Blizzard should hire adequate scenarists.
  17. Andrew Cole at 5:31am 13th August 2010 I also forgot to mention, for all of you complaining about the single player not being worth $60 that you should have done your research first. Even though I think the single player is worth $60 alone, Starcraft has always been about the multi-player and the new Bnet ladder system makes competitive play more accessible than ever. If you didn't want to play multi-player, then why buy the game? That is like buying a car and then complaining that after playing with the radio, all there is to do is drive in it.
    1. Joshua Dunbar at 10:46pm 14th September 2010 Actually you got that backwards. The core of the game is supposed to be the single player and the extra is the multiplayer. Using your example, the car is the core and the radio is extra. Starcraft was not specifically about the multiplayer, I'm sure I'm not speaking alone when I say that the story is what drove me to purchase my copy of the game, the multiplayer was just a nice bonus, $60 is over the top if it was just for the campaign, but added with the multiplayer it is bearable. It's like saying "I'm buying the 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago for around $354,000 to $470,000. Now for that price I better get a radio, 670 horse power, 8000 rpm, 0 - 100 km/h in 3.4 seconds and a top speed of about 212 mph."
      1. Will Shortz at 2:18pm 24th September 2010 you really think that the single player is what made starcraft classic? no.
      2. Ryu at 5:43pm 29th September 2010 hahahaha you make me laugh single player hahahahahah Dude MULTIPLAYER is the thing that makes Starcraft 2 Special.
      3. Guest at 7:06pm 13th October 2010 NOOB ALERT!!!
  18. Andrew Cole at 5:28am 13th August 2010 What a bunch of hogwash about the graphics. Very few people are able to turn their graphics to Ultra. So unless you have turned yours to Ultra, then don't complain. Blizzard has always gone for a style that is cartoonish and fun, instead of more real looking and this game delivers. The creep on the Zerg, even on scaled down graphics, has a cool textured effect. Besides, all your focus and attention should be focused on the gameplay, where every game second (which is less than a real second) counts. Who has time to sit and smell the pansies?It looks great and feels great, so I wish people would stop complaining.
    1. idiot gamers at 7:35pm 7th September 2010 I know, usually killer graphics games have poor game play. If people are so concerned about graphics not being 'real' enough they should probably stop bitchin about it here and enjoy the 'real' life.
  19. monkeyjaws at 7:20pm 9th August 2010 Do you think they are selling the other 2/3 thirds of the game seperately to recoup the expense of 12 years or so of research? Would that be a valid justification?
  20. Hobbes_maxwell at 3:08am 9th August 2010 halfway through the single player modes, and i've gotta say, feels like more of the same, starcraft 1 with batter graphics (sort of).the in between mission stuff is a nice touch, but this is the sort of crap all other rts's have been doing for years, so no real innovation there, add to that that the classic starcraft stategy still applies, build up a force, roll over enemy, no thought required. IMo, this game brings nothing special to the table of rts gaming, it a "big deal" becasue it's starcraft nothing more.
    1. wow just wow at 7:34pm 7th September 2010 batter? wow I mean people have lot of typos online and that's completely fine but batter? wow that is a new low. LOL
      1. jjj at 5:47pm 18th October 2010 it's just one misspelled word. it's not "LOL" - worthy.
  21. BizarreSubpar at 6:00pm 4th August 2010 Finally got my copy and played through. Fun campaign- I can't complain. Compared to other, shorter games I've bought, I felt like I got my moneys worth. I thought the multiplayer was weird though. I kept having my ass handed to me online until I realized that the trick is to build the biggest thing you can as fast as you can, then rush with everything. Not really strategy as much as speed. Not my type of multiplayer fun, but I guess I can see how some people would love it.
    1. Guest at 7:04pm 13th October 2010 You would have been playing in a low league match. You'd get your ass handed to you if you went for the biggest unit against anyone remotely capable of playing SC2... It's a noob tactic.
  22. Matt at 2:34pm 3rd August 2010 This was such an obviously rushed review.
    1. ioman at 5:12pm 3rd August 2010 Why would you say that? Seems to be one of the most detailed reviews out there.
  23. Kevin at 11:43pm 2nd August 2010 I really love this game. The campaign was really good. Its a bit to short, only taking me 3 days to beat it on the hard difficulty setting but they do offer some replay value with the achievements and alternate story line routes. A lot of people complain about not being able to play the other 2 races, yet no one seems to mention that you do get to play the Protoss through about 4 missions. I do agree that I like the SC1 format of having you go 10 missions with all three races but all in all this game was excuted well and is worth the money in my opinion.
  24. Mike at 4:38pm 2nd August 2010 I agree single player is very good, multiplayer is SC1 w/ better graphics. So, meh, totally not worth $60 (or in my case $120 as I got 2 copies, one for my son as well).
  25. tealh at 1:34pm 2nd August 2010 i do not understand this hype. ok campaign is amazing but after you finish it you will be left with almost nothing! That what prolongs experience and makes the game immortal is multilayer and in my opinion i give you 2 games which are by far better : warhammer 40.000 and my all time favourite company of heroes which is true strategy game - shots from the cover , destruction of everything , doctrines And before you start shouting on me please go and find videos showing best Asian players in SC. Well i dont know if this is strategy or robots race?
  26. Porn Star at 6:41am 2nd August 2010 Graphic is a bit cheap for the nowadays type of game and camera angle is off from the original. Maybe if it was released like 4 years after the SC1 then it would be consider a good game. Some review sites even game it a 10/10. That is a dumb fan for a reviewer or blizzard pay him some dough under the table, but i think he got the game for free instead, seeing how cheap blizzard is.
  27. Blizzard Sucks at 6:33am 2nd August 2010 SC 2 was originally 49.99 but they raised the price to 59.99! Blizzard likes to rob people even during rough recession and jobless times.
    1. UnReal at 2:25pm 6th August 2010 Your an idiot Blizzard likes to charge a price for an item that they believe they can get because their purpose as a corporation is....TO MAKE MONEY!!!! Don't like the price??? then.....Don't buy it, it's not food you doof
  28. PizzaMan at 2:11pm 1st August 2010 I find this game amazing. Yea, I beat it quick on casual, but now I'm playing on normal and plan on finishing on the other two easily. I also have a lot of fun with my friend smashing AI bots like candy! On another note, I find it funny how everyone is stating that Blizzard is "grabbing money." Well, duh! These are companies, not charities. If you really don't like it, then don't buy it or keep playing it. If World of Warcraft is so messed up, then quit playing it. The only action that gets any company to respond is loss of revenue. I find it funny that people complain but still keep on playing/paying. What do you really expect to happen in the end if you aren't willing to put the game down and quit putting money in their pockets?
  29. Don at 11:48pm 31st July 2010 Blizzard is becoming more and more like Sony in the money grabbing department, as seen with the wow community, just look at some of the poor customer service there, the security problems that are definately on their end, and the money they ask for hand over fist for nearly any service no matter how small. Not including the making SC2 so that the other two races in the retail game and requesting money for them as expansions is just proof of this. Regardless of how good the initial game is, its hard to like the fact that it feels like we are just being robbed of 55-$60+ dollars for only 30% of the experience. Especially since the first game gave you all three..... I do not believe I will be purchasing these expansions unless they are like $10 each, if they end up being another $50 per, forget it, just is not worth it on any level.....
    1. Tom at 5:25am 1st August 2010 The moment I played a multi-player match I too felt that the game was just a money grabber aimed at competitive players and Blizzards SC1 fanbase. But then I played single player... the music, the voice acting, the plot twists, unit options, tough ethical choices, it was all so seamless it was clear they spent A LOT of time on it. That part was 5/5, multi-player was a bit too catered to the competitve fan base as basically it was SC1 Brood Wars with a facelift, a couple new units, and a few changed units. I agree that the expansion price could be over the top if they don't add much too it. However, if they put all that time into music, plot-line, new (balanced units), and all. Yeah it will be worth $30 bucks.
  30. WishDish at 1:10am 31st July 2010 Haven't picked it up yet, but I'm hearing mixed reviews. Great review btw!
  31. BizarreSubpar at 10:59am 30th July 2010 I agree with the review- I get that Blizzard wants to make some extra cash with expansions, but if it is just the same maps from a different angle, that just sucks. I guess it won't matter to real fans though. World of Warcraft fans complain about pricing mercilessly on the forums, then go and buy every thing they can. Otherwise I'm looking forward to getting SC2 this weekend and playing it nonstop. Good to hear it isn't crap.
  32. JonJon1time at 12:31pm 30th July 2010 I think the game is a great game but i am left DEEPY dissopointed wiht the units abilities and all i really need to ask is where is the the Motehr shis black hole an force feild an where is the battler cruiser's plasma cannons ?? the Blizzard video releaces were so amazing an after we spend so much to get only 1/3 of the game half of it isn't there so WTF .......
    1. Darren at 11:33pm 1st August 2010 The battlecruiser has the yamato cannons... wtf are you talking about? And they nerfed the black hole because it was a ridiculously strong OP ability. people whine too much.
  33. Charles at 8:35am 30th July 2010 I beat the SC 2 in less than 2 days....thats alot of money to blow on just one campain race. (Should have had same 3 race layout like the 1st Starcraft
  34. Nick at 7:38am 30th July 2010 I have been playing the 7 hour trial from the key my friend gave me (it came with his game), and I am blown away. I was a hardcore Starcraft player when it first came out (I was 10 years old). I was very happy to find my laptop can run this game very nicely at medium settings. I'm running a core 2 duo @ 1.67GHz, 2GB RAM, and a 256mb Geforce Go 7600
    1. Matt at 7:15pm 1st August 2010 Hey, i tried to play the game (not the trial) but got stopped by an error. Need the actual driver for ge force go 7600. Where can i get it? System: Asus Mainboard, Vista 32bit, 2 GB RAM, AMD X2 2.00 Gh. THX...
      1. Steve at 12:56pm 2nd August 2010 On the NVIDIA site, this is available, but it's listed as a beta version: http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_notebook_win... I couldn't get it to install correctly -- gave me errors. First it said it was not compatible. I retried and then it said I I didn't have Vista 32-bit (I do). I'm going to try this one next: http://downloads.guru3d.com/downloadget.php?id=20... This version is supposed to be supported with Starcraft 2. http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale... Good luck!
  35. ControlMonkey at 7:11am 30th July 2010 If the expansion packs are of the same quality of Brood War, than I have no problem with them releasing 2 expansions.
  36. David at 6:59am 30th July 2010 Good review. Regarding LAN, I heard some blizzard community manager saying that they're looking at ways to have it available for tournament hosts. However, they have not announced anything official like "we're working on LAN"
    1. Monte at 4:19pm 18th August 2010 Blizzard made an official statement saying they would never add LAN. Sorry...
  37. Sundance at 11:35pm 29th July 2010 Thanks for the review.Blizzard's "Even the news people get Starcraft with the crowd" approach had some very interesting effect that I don't understand why no one is talking about.With this, we saw that proffessional game reviewers, armchair generals, has lost such edge, that it took them almost one day to write descent reviews of the game (a game which had the public beta going on for over 18 months). Lots of independent bloggers put up very descent reviews with in a few hours of the launch, while the big dogs of gaming industry still do not have their official reviews online. This is something to think about I guess.It is for sure that Blizzard showed great courage to publish a game that is aimed at the long tradition of Starcraft fans, with spirit, gameplay and such, and stopped the urge to make a totally new, cutting edge technology game, that looked larger than life but most would forget within six months.As for my first expressions, game has that old feeling of being some sort of an elementary (some say arcade) strategy character.As for the non existent LAN play, if you remember, the original Starcraft had some kind of cloning option, skirmish or something like that. Like you have this one copy of Starcraft and seven other friends to party, you could install them with this cloning option, so that they could play the multiplayer but not the storyline, so that you could make a nice Lan party, which made pirating it very very unnecessary.But as for now it is a far -and sad- way from that to totally disable LAN play (eight people connecting to Battlenet is not a viable option). And I believe, LAN play (and of course Battle.Net initiative) are very very vital to Blizzard's success.For those who believe that IS understandable, Benjamin Franklin closed the debate (like 200 years ago) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Eric at 6:31pm 30th July 2010 Being able to play a video game with your buddies through a LAN connection is not what I would define as an "essential liberty"!!! I have a feeling Mr. Franklin would agree. Lame!!
      1. James at 7:00pm 1st August 2010 And I have a feeling Mr. Franklin would get drunk and shove a pot-bellied stove up your ass. The LAN play was what made Starcraft grow like it did (even though there were some issues with the protocols, and everyone being able to see the game). It allowed your friends to try it (for free), and 9 out of 10 times, they'd run off and purchase a copy for themselves. The game will be cracked, and will be pirated- It's just a matter of time. Although I understand Blizzard's side, their attempt to *control* people by castrating the game where us old-school folks loved it the most only turns me off to it. And charging people to play the other two races? Lame. I bet they release a LAN play update after the initial rush wears off, and everyone gets bored with battle.net and its problems. Unless you really understand what you're saying, don't criticize someone's honest opinion of a very well-designed game. Go play WoW, where you belong.
    2. stevie at 4:46pm 2nd August 2010 and also learn how to spell "decent" not descent
    3. JoeFranc at 10:48pm 5th August 2010 Hey Sundance. many things can change after beta and the big dogs of the gaming industry want to play the game from start to finish to tell you a full review of the game. Games take from 10-20+ hours to finish. They don't rush through it because they want to see the game in its fullest. Then write about it pass it to editor then have it set up to be published online. UNDERSTAND? Forget in 6 months? The original game is still being played professionally for 10 years! I do agree just like everyone else that LAN play loss is disappointing. oh that Benjamin Franklin quote was funny. You must have just learned that in school.
  38. haha at 6:02am 30th July 2010 still leaked early
  39. ioman at 3:39am 30th July 2010 I was lucky enough to pre-order and get mine a couple days ago. It's an amazing game. I do wish the graphics were better, but at least this way the game will be more compatible with everyones systems, and let more people play it. In the beta, the multiplayer was ridiculously hard. Even when the system was supposed to match you up with like-skilled gamers, they were a lot harder than I expected. Seems like a flaw to me. The storyline here is great and the campaign is long enough to justify it's own game IMO. I am not a fan of having to buy expansion packs to play the other races, but we will have to wait and see how they are prices. I would rate this game a solid 8/10! Go get it!
    1. watera000 at 9:07pm 7th October 2010 What are you talking about dude? the graphics are SICK!!! i cant wait to play this, but i need to get a job to get the 69.99 for the game.
Close Suggestion PlayStation 3 Perks up Profits with Doubled Sales for Sony
View Article