No StarCraft II reviews before release

By Oli Welsh Published 22 July, 2010

We'll play it the same time you do.

There will be no reviews of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty before its launch on Tuesday next week, Eurogamer can reveal. All press will be experiencing it for the first time alongside the rest of you.

Blizzard was unable to offer an official comment at time of writing. However, we understand from our conversations with the developer-publisher that the new Battle.net service and its online features are so integral to the game that it would be both impractical and undesirable for press to review it before servers go live.

That, and designer Dustin Browder has previously confirmed to VG247 that the game will require a day one patch in order to give the famously perfectionist developer "a little bit more time to sort of get their ducks in a row."

Much of the multiplayer game has already been revealed via the recent beta testing phases. However, Blizzard has kept the game's campaign mode under tight wraps, offering no opportunities to play it outside of brief glimpses at preview events. The same goes for the challenge mode, intended to bridge the gap between the single-player and StarCraft's famously fearsome multiplayer.

More on StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

Blizzard often gives press and fans access to games and information at the same time, with game reveals and initial hands-on previews usually taking place at its BlizzCon fan convention. It's also favoured the public Gamescom convention in Germany over the industry-only E3 in recent years.

So, expect our verdict as soon as we've played the game enough to be sure of it - but not before.

There will be launch events worldwide on the evening of Monday 26th July - including one in London, which we'll attend - and we understand servers will be turned on by midnight for those lucky enough to secure an early copy.

This will happen by time zone, too, so players and journalists in Australia and New Zealand will be the first to get a taste of StarCraft II, followed by Asia, Europe, and last of all North America.

Digital copies will go on sale at 10am on the 27th, so an old-fashioned box copy will be your quickest route to playing the game.

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty - the first part of a three-part sequel to the 1998 real-time strategy classic - has been in development for seven years. The Wall Street Journal recently estimated that it cost $100 million to make. It's Blizzard's first non-World of Warcraft release since 2003. It launches with the new Battle.net, an ambitious, and sometimes controversial, attempt by Blizzard to create an integrated online gaming and social platform. It could not be a bigger deal, basically.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (71) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • NimbusTLD #1 2 years ago

    Oh great, it's shit then.
    /sarcasm

    Edit: added tag for clarity
    Edited by 3 at 22/07/10 @ 17:29

  • dirtysteve #2 2 years ago

    It doesn't matter the franchise, budget or company, when there's a review embargo, I get suspicious.

  • geeza2020 #3 2 years ago

    hopefully it will be awful and they will have to make another Warcraft RTS.

    Please?

  • Goodfella #4 2 years ago

    It's not uncommon for review embargos but to not actually have the game any earlier than the gaming public, that's weird!

  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #5 2 years ago

    @dirtysteve

    This isn't really a review embargo. In fact, it's kind of the opposite of one. They're simply not letting us play the game early.

    @NimbusTLD

    I honestly don't think that's what's going on here... To be fair to Blizzard, they did exactly the same with the WOW expansions and no-one bat an eyelid. Because they were online games. They would argue that this is too.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #6 2 years ago

    No purchase without review. Its that simple.

  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #7 2 years ago

    To clarify - I don't meant to say that I'm happy about this, because obviously I would like to be able to bring you our verdict before the game is on sale. But I can see why Blizzard has done it.

  • MrFlump #8 2 years ago

    I'll be waiting for the review of the singler player game. Don't care about the multiplayer aspect of it so I'm more than happy to hold off for days before thinking about getting it and see what people think of it then.

  • jonsaan #9 2 years ago

    Yeah. Agreed. There's nothing worse than a review which doesn't review the online part of the game. A pretty huge deal these days.

  • Gregolution #10 2 years ago

    It's Starcraft! By Blizzard! Who needs a review? Come on... If there's one game developer that absolutely never disappoints it's Blizz.

  • Vyggo #11 2 years ago

    I don't think many people really need reviews anyway, the majority of gamers know if they are into the starcraft style RTS or not.

  • Water1111 #12 2 years ago

    So it will be shit then!

  • pinebear #13 2 years ago

    Keza to review from Japan, article up by Monday 26th 6:30pm? #badtastedarkfalljokelols

  • FreakyZoid #14 2 years ago

    Maybe they just don't trust journos not to leak it to torrent sites. It's happened in the past.

  • Psychotext #15 2 years ago

    No review, no order. Not that it matters to Blizzard of course. I'm sure the game will do 1m+ at launch easy.

  • Goodfella #16 2 years ago

    It's Starcraft! By Blizzard! Who needs a review? Come on... If there's one game developer that absolutely never disappoints it's Blizz.

    ...and Valve!

  • anomagnus #17 2 years ago

    Unlikely to be shit in anyway, though i can imagine that many people, such as nimbus, will react before thinking, though i'm surprised how its possible to do that when you have to take time to type.

    The truth is blizzard simply don't give a fuck about reviews. They know they'll more than recoup their costs on this from the people who will buy this game, even if it got a review of 1/10 (though, not for one second do i believe its likely to be anything other than superb)

    As for reviews, as a guide to buying games, it has become extremely eroded over the past few years. Games are reaching the stage, where one mans shit, is another mans gold, and arbitary scores out of ten are meaningless for any game that is average and above. Obviously, its easier to agree on the very worst of games, but thats hardly a measure of greatness.

  • Agent_Orange #18 2 years ago

    Seems like they are trying to sell it based on reputation rather than actual quality. It's clever if the game turns out to get bad reviews, they may lose less. If it's well praised, then they dont lose at all.

  • menage #19 2 years ago

    LAME

  • Wyrm #20 2 years ago

    No review, no purchase? I'm sure Blizzard are shitting themselves.

  • X3Entente #21 2 years ago

    may as well give it a pre emptive 10 guys. cant believe people are saying it sucks, word of it sucking would have filtered down through the beta testing by now anyway

  • byakuya83 #22 2 years ago

    What's the population of Korea? That should secure enough sales to recoup $100m.

    It's going to be fantastic and most purchasers won't even care to read a review.

  • vegard #23 2 years ago

    serious question: how do you spend 7 years making a sequel to a RTS-game? is it more than just the old game with shiny new graphics and a few more multiplayer options?

  • paketep #24 2 years ago

    @Gregolution: Blizzard has disappointed a lot already with SC2.

    This review embargo just shows that either SC2 is mediocre (I doubt it) or the new improved uber fantastic facebook copy that left us without LAN support (so they could force us to go through it) is still a complete POS that can't even give access to the game to a selected group before release date.

  • paulf #25 2 years ago

    how much is the digital copy?

  • Jackface #26 2 years ago

    serious question: how do you spend 7 years making a sequel to a RTS-game? is it more than just the old game with shiny new graphics and a few more multiplayer options?

    Well I suppose one distraction would be making the biggest, most successful and well known MMO in the world, and then maintaining that for the next half-decade as well as adding numerous huge expansions. That would keep you quite busy...

  • Zaiz #27 2 years ago

    @Greg

    Hated WC3. Game bored me to tears. WoW bored me to tears. SC2 looks like more of the same rather than a revolution, and I honestly hate it when a company doesn't tweak its model to fit in better with more modern mechanics. Probably not going to get the game.

  • vegard #28 2 years ago

    @Jackface

    I thought that maybe they had seperate dev teams for each game.

  • ChthonicEcho #29 2 years ago

    I like how if this were any other unknown title (especially if it came from unpopular developers), the comments would swarm with negativity. But since it's Blizzard and StarCraft II, it's okay.

    Even as a person who doesn't take reviews to heart, I think such a policy shouldn't exist.

  • darkmorgado #30 2 years ago

    I like how if this were any other unknown title (especially if it came from unpopular developers), the comments would swarm with negativity. But since it's Blizzard and StarCraft II, it's okay.

    Well yeah, because a) Blizzard are almost genetically incapable of creating a bad game and b) the damn game is the National Sport in Korea, and the reception to the Beta has already been excellent.

  • makeamazing #31 2 years ago

    I dont have a problem with gamers needing a review before buying, especially in this economic time, but for me games buying certain key AAA titles is about the excitement and fun of buying a game. I would be shocked if this is less than an 8 review wise, i know generally what to expect as i played and enjoyed the original... but regardless of that its about buying exciting games/concepts....

    I guess games buying is different for us old timers :) no need to bother with reviews :D

  • MrFlump #32 2 years ago

    "I guess games buying is different for us old timers :) no need to bother with reviews :D"

    I put myself into the category of old timers having played games for over 25 years now but the thing is that I have no interest in multiplayer gaming on this, so if there is a pretty short or pathetic single player experience at the heart of SC2 while they make way for the multiplayer side of things, I'd rather know before buying it. Ultimately, i've no issue with not buying it or pre-ordering to have it for Day 1, more than happy to wait and see what the opinion is of the single player and more importantly the AI intelligence before parting with my cash.

  • Pirotic #33 2 years ago

    Considering how all the beta players are showing some serious signs of withdrawal after just a few days, I don't think review scores are going to matter.

  • GrandpaUlrira #34 2 years ago

    $100 million?!

  • Rubarack #35 2 years ago

    Or they know a simple update of a ten year old game will never be as good as the hype for it is and those 8s are going to cost sales.

    Edit: There's allegedly a single player component so big they struggled to fit it in so I don't buy this excuse, they could easily let reviewers through that component and could unlock multiplayer when the game launched. But that wuould mean genuine reviews coming in before the weekend and I don't see Activision wanting any of that.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/10 @ 19:36

  • coolbritannia #36 2 years ago

    Blizzard, Valve.....and Bungie!

  • Acrid #37 2 years ago

    It makes sense, I don't want a review based on half the product. Blizz have never disapointed in the past (although that was pre-acti).

  • Rubarack #38 2 years ago

    ^Well that's what you're likely be getting now. If they let reviewers have access early they could go through the single player then on launch play through multiplayer and come up with a decent impression on extended play a few days after launch. As it stands they'll have to rush it through as quickly as possible and all of the early reviews will be based more on hype than anything to do with the game itself.

  • UncleLou #39 2 years ago

    they could easily let reviewers through that component and could unlock multiplayer when the game launched.

    Cue 150 comments with people whining how a review ignoring the mp is "useless".

  • darkmorgado #40 2 years ago

    Cue 150 comments with people whining how a review ignoring the mp is "useless".

    Well, at least in the case of SC2, it is useless, because the multiplayer is the core focus of the game and always has been. People will be buying it predominantly for the multiplayer alone; the single-player campaign is just a bonus and, juding by the previews, is drastically, drastically different from how the game plays online.

  • DanForinton #41 2 years ago

    It's a Blizzard game - expect something fairly polished, very pretty CGI and thoroughly derivative gameplay that does nothing to advance the genre. It will play like a refined, tweaked and better version of it's predecessor, as you'd expect from a sequel that comes out a year or two after the previous game.
    I predict a 7, maybe an 8 if the reviewer is feeling generous - and if it's anything more, I'm calling shenanigans.

  • Rubarack #42 2 years ago

    Or not because it's completely irrelevant. Sure one or two reviewers might do a single player only review to get some traction but most would finish the singleplayer, play some multi and then do reviews based on both a few days afterwards.

  • xenoss #43 2 years ago

    The beta has been out for so long now, I'd suspect people have a pretty clear idea of what the game is like. This baffles me. SC2 is just SC2, a pretty standard traditional RTS. But with a name like that, most people will flock blindly in anyway, regardless of reviews.

    More than the game itself, it'll be the Bnet2 reviews I'm most interested in. A game with no LAN, and all the online hassle; I wonder how that'll pan out.

  • sonicgoo #44 2 years ago

    "I predict a 7, maybe an 8 if the reviewer is feeling generous - and if it's anything more, I'm calling shenanigans. "

    If someone who has played the game gives it a different mark than you, who hasn't played the game, you're calling shenanigans? I'm calling shenanigans.

  • Freek #45 2 years ago

    I doubt it's to do with quality issues and everything to do with the game now being so big they can do what ever they want. If they want to be perfectionist about it to an insane degree, they can. Hell they spent almost a decade making it, what ever they do now doesn't really matter anymore.
    This is what happens when you have unlimmited funds, you get a little crazy.

  • Goodfella #46 2 years ago

    I played the original Starcraft to death back in the day (1999 ish) but I'm not really interested in RTS games now. SCII may very well be a fantastic game (I predict an average 9/10 score) but I'm a bit 'meh' about this genre now despite my love for most things Blizzard.

  • Hunam #47 2 years ago

    I can understand this to be honest, and read the article and thinking about how Blizzard have operated recently and this really is in line with their customer focus. They know that they have a huge and loyal fanbase and that they are trusted to bring out a polished, brilliant game each release so reviews to their core fans are next to useless, because they have already bought the game.

    Secondly, I guess Blizzard just feel they are big enough to not need the press anymore. They are confident enough to show their games to consumers before launch and release proper gameplay videos featuring members of their community. I guess they feel they can express themselves better than a by-line on a news website. Sure some decisions have really irked me and I'm not getting this day 1 (Ł17 from Zavvi for me) but Blizzard are Blizzard, they one of the few companies I can hand on heart say they know what they are doing.

  • Daeltaja #48 2 years ago

    I've bought into the hype, even though I've never played the first.. Picking up a collectors edition on tuesday. Have bought everything Blizzard since Warcraft 3. Maybe its just the complete lack of game releases that I've nothing else to focus on. Finished Limbo, loved it, finished Deathspank, meh, finished Singularity, pretty good.. Maybe this will be as good as Eurogamer are making it out to be, will see on tuesday! Looking forward to getting into the multiplayer. Playing League of Legends at the moment, loving it a lot!

  • Tomnd #49 2 years ago

    anyone know the cheapest place or the collectors ed?

  • Sunyavadin #50 2 years ago

    RISE OF THE ROBOTS

    I remember my regular Sega mag back in the day printing a massive apology the month after that was released, that no magazine had received a review copy and they'd had to stand in line to buy it on launch day.

  • megadaisy #51 2 years ago

    @Happyhunt - or perhaps they've played the beta?

  • MightyMouse #52 2 years ago

    I don't get this - if people really cared about the multiplayer then they'd have played a beta as there's been ample opportunity. That, far more than any review, will have told them what they want to know. Personally I'm more interested in the single-player parts, so will wait for a review.

  • swissorc #53 2 years ago

    Haven't caught the star craft BUG! never will. If I'm being honest though it doesn't matter it will still sell well and hope everyone who is looking forward to it gets the game they all prey it will be. But for me the RTS honey moon died with Red alert (yes the first one).

  • mingster #54 2 years ago

    Its gotta be a 9 at least.

  • UncleLou #55 2 years ago

    The more comments I read, the less I am convinced that the majority of people is buying this for the multiplayer.I certainly ain't. Sure, multiplayer will be huge, but I wouldn't underestimate the people buying it for the campaign.

    Either way, I am pretty sure I know what I'll be getting, so I don't care about the lack of a review, but I fully understand if people want to wait. Fair enough.

  • Spekingur #56 2 years ago

    I wonder how much Activision has had a hand in SC2 - or further more, the new Battle.net?

    I don't really much care for SC2 but I guess I will eventually buy it. I am much more interested in Diablo 3. I wants it!

  • zoweewowee #57 2 years ago

    Starcraft is multiplayer. No matter how hard they worked on the new campaign, the single-player is just a mere appetizer and a new players' bait. Where Starcraft excels, gets really addicting, offers at the same time a neverending challenging experience, great satisfactions and a lot of fun, is on the multiplayer. Having played the beta (and the original game for years), I'd say it's already a 10/10 for all the fans of the first game. [same stuff than before] + [an awesome lot of new tactics] = the game we fans have always wanted, we don't care about graphics, cgi… if u add the new battle.net and other minor new features (new replays, new stat system…) it's a solid 10/10.

    Blizzard make games for their fans (had a look at diablo3 ?), who cares if some people don't understand why it's such a compelling game, good reviews will attract some of them, bad reviews will lead them to stay away from it, but it doesn't matter because the game was not really meant for them in the first place, Blizzard already have a h-u-g-e starcraft fanbase and a lot of faithful believers (add the WOW effect and it's millions) who know that a new blizzard release is always a masterpiece of gaming.

    Yes, I'm one of them, and if you doubt SC2 will be a great game, you should probably check other games instead of wasting your time on a game that was not meant for you. Critics don't matter, Xmas is just a few days away !
    Edited by 2 at 23/07/10 @ 10:43

  • UncleLou #58 2 years ago

    Starcraft is multiplayer. No matter how hard they worked on the new campaign, the single-player is just a mere appetizer and a new players' bait.

    In your humble opinion. For me, SC is about playing an entertaining single-player campaign with a sci-fi soap opera story with lots of CGI and whatnot. We're both neither right nor wrong, as it's both a single-player and multiplayer game.

  • zoweewowee #59 2 years ago

    @UncleLou

    Sure, and I understand why one could love the single-player, I myself liked the story. I guess one could not work without the other. However, whatever part we like more, that's the multiplayer one that has helped starcraft become a myth and a game that has been played years and years after its release. (there are still many pros making a living out of it in south korea and in the us)

  • UncleLou #60 2 years ago

    Of course - my point is just that I think you're selling it a little short if you say the campaign is just the appetizer - that sounds all too much like many purely mp-focused RTS games that just give you an alibi SP campaign, when Blizzard is usually pulling out all the stops for single-player as well with CGI films and whatnot.

  • zoweewowee #61 2 years ago

    You're right Lou, my first comment about the single-player was too extreme, I'm just too excited about the new multiplayer. I guess it would have been more fair to say that the single-player was a high-quality campaign, whatever goodness you could expect from blizzard, but that the game shows a lot more depth in the multiplayer (in terms of tactics, gameplay variety, perfect balancing between races, mostly with this unique gameplay I'd called 'Real Time Action Strategy' instead of RTS, which revealed its brillance in the multiplayer part because you always had to choose fast and act fast, while there wasn't all this pace and tension in the singleplayer campaign)

  • Milouse #62 2 years ago

    @eurogamer, about the article : it's just a shame Blizzard acts like this with the press. They could have let you do a review of the solo campaign, and you know it. They just don't want to, or didn't bother to find a solution - which is the same at the end. But, hey, you're letting this few we-are-king-of-the-world studios to consider you only when they need promotional articles (i mean the ones with no score, from their point of view). So, in a way, the press have what it deserves here.

    @zoweewowee
    I never played Starcraft or Warcraft III multiplayer, i played solo campaigns only, and i'm happy with it. Enjoying RTS mutliplayer mode involves semi-professional approach that don't suit everyone.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/10 @ 11:51

  • kar #63 2 years ago

    There wont be any pirating of this game. At least not until after the release date.

    It's a bit ironic, the PC is the most criticised platform for Piracy, but most of the major new releases suffer from almost no day 0 piracy compared to consoles.

  • sneetch #64 2 years ago

    @UncleLou
    Of course - my point is just that I think you're selling it a little short if you say the campaign is just the appetizer - that sounds all too much like many purely mp-focused RTS games that just give you an alibi SP campaign, when Blizzard is usually pulling out all the stops for single-player as well with CGI films and whatnot.

    Yeah, I think zoweewowee is right about standard issue RTS campaigns but the 30 mission single-player campaign in SC II is definitely not your standard issue RTS campaign. As someone once pointed out (possibly someone in Relic?) those are normally just tutorials that have been extended over a few missions. This doesn't sound like it'll be that, especially as I've heard that the old SC I units makes an appearance in the campaign, Firebats and Goliaths, yay! (dunno if that warrants spoiler tags but just in case).

    Speaking for myself and the friends that have expressed an interest we're most excited about the singleplayer and co-op side, although team multiplayer is appealing too.

  • Psi #65 2 years ago

    You can't go calling shenanagins without doing the shenanagins dance, thats how wars are started.

  • FortysixterUK #66 2 years ago

    I will be buying this. it's a no brainer, as is buying any Blizzard game, but as with many of the RTS games out there, does anyone else think that the interface that tends to cover the bottom fifth of the screen always seem too large?
    Why can't they give you a scaleable interface and a way to change its transparency?.

    AND ANOTHER THING....

    This game is going to require a Battlenet account to activate and work....so a permanent online presence is required even if I only want to play single player ? Hopefully, it'll just be an activation thing and after that you can play "offline".

    Never mind, winge over, I'm so getting this.

  • dirtysteve #67 2 years ago

    @Psi everyone run home and get your brooms!

  • mingster #68 2 years ago

    I think challenge mode is 1 player as well and is extra to the campaign.
    So there should be loads to do before you go online with it.

  • byron_hinson #69 2 years ago

    Got mine in the post today. Assume it won't work yet then!

  • sneetch #70 2 years ago

    @FortysixterUK
    This game is going to require a Battlenet account to activate and work....so a permanent online presence is required even if I only want to play single player ? Hopefully, it'll just be an activation thing and after that you can play "offline".

    No, at least in the past they said that you don't need to be online permanently while playing but that they were hoping that Battle.net would provide so much awesomeness that you'd never want to be offline. I presume they mean that your facebook page won't be constantly updated if you're offline. ;)

    I can't find that comment anymore so that requirement may have changed: caveat emptor.

  • vaughan42 #71 2 years ago

    10/10