StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty Review

By Oli Welsh Published 3 August, 2010

The RTS takes flight.

Version tested: PC

"StarCraft II is fast." The first words I wrote about Blizzard's real-time strategy sequel, almost two and a half years ago, may well have been an exercise in stating the profoundly obvious - but they bear repeating all the same. It still comes as something of a shock: the urgent, breathless acceleration playing this game requires of your fingers and your brain, darting around the map, micro-managing, multitasking, watching your hastily-improvised tactics blossom or collapse in busy, laser-scattered chaos that always seems a beat ahead of you.

But there's another rhythm building in the background, behind every mission and skirmish, and this one is very, very slow. Conscious of its intimidating complexity and speed - of the yawning gulf between the curious, casual World of Warcraft player who will pick it up on a whim and the 300-clicks-a-minute eSports pro who's been training for it since childhood - Blizzard has built StarCraft II as an epic crescendo: a parabolic ascent through multi-layered campaign, challenge, skirmish and co-operative modes and then multiplayer ladder competition that stretches off into the vanishing-point distance.

One week in, and I'm barely in the foothills of that climb. It is an immense game - and this is just Wings of Liberty, the first part of the StarCraft II trilogy. Not to be outdone in thinking big by the guys across the hall, Blizzard's strategy team has delivered an RTS on an MMO scale.

Even with the time - seven years since Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne - and the bottomless resources they've had, that's not something you can do by brute force. A strategy game with thousands of units and maps and hundreds of hours of grind would just be unwieldy and overbearing. What's so clever about StarCraft II is that it's been built big through technology, finesse, depth, insane attention to detail and, above all, structural brilliance.

More on StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

Your first step on the StarCraft II journey is Wings of Liberty itself, the campaign mode told almost entirely from the point of view of the Terrans, one of the game's three races. Downtrodden space-faring humans piloting chunky, battered retro-futuristic mechs, the Terrans led by resistance hero Jim Raynor are caught in a three-way intergalactic struggle between former allies turned evil empire the Dominion, rapacious biomechanical menace the Zerg, and high-tech, high-church alien zealots the Protoss.

Wings of Liberty's installer helpfully recaps the important plot points of StarCraft and the Brood War expansion, including love interest Kerrigan's betrayal and transformation into the Zerg Queen of Blades. It's relatively easy to pick up, mind; though Wings of Liberty exemplifies Blizzard's easy way with grandstanding reversals and epic sweep, StarCraft hasn't got anything like as tangled up in geopolitics and lore as the Warcraft series has. Fans of trad space opera will be well satisfied by this thumping yarn, especially in its occasional, spectacularly well-made CG cut-scenes.

It's not as well-rounded as Warcraft on the human scale, however. There is much to love about the lavish point-and-click interludes aboard Raynor's ship, during which you buy unit upgrades and screen-filling characters swap lines (especially the Cantina jukebox spinning scratchy covers of Raw Power and Rumble; less so the arcade machine that proves the 2D shmup is one genre Blizzard can't do). But the dialogue often falls flat and the characters are either clichéd, banal or both - Raynor in particular, sadly. Still, Blizzard has always pitched its storytelling tone broad and refused to take it too seriously, and the spit-and-sawdust aroma of the Wild West ambiance helps disguise the whiff of cheese.

Moreover, the big-picture matters little, because it's the individual tales told by Wings of Liberty's fantastic missions that really stick in the memory. Penetrate the production values and you'll find level design and scripting of such quality, variety and invention that it easily sets new standards for single-player RTS campaigns.

The surprises, drama, cunning challenges and bold thrills keep coming. Execute lightning raids on speeding trains while dodging patrols; defend your base in panic against Zerg hordes by night, then cathartically pillage their infestation by day; strip back your building to the bare minimum as you race to raise mineral funds before a rival; take control of a lone Protoss hero in a tense, almost Diablo-esque flashback; choose whether to grimly purge Zerg-infested colonists or defend them against a merciless Protoss mothership. All that is from the game's first half.

There are 20 or so memorable hours here, but several times that in replay value across the five perfectly-pitched difficulty levels. The excellent Achievement design guarantees this, with three available for each level; one awarded for completing all primary and secondary mission objectives at any difficulty, and one specific challenge each for Normal and Hard modes, little problem-solving nuggets that can completely change the way each level plays. If you never venture beyond the campaign, you will find still Wings of Liberty a durable and rewarding challenge.

Virtually every one of the nearly 30 missions finds a novel twist on the familiar RTS litany, creating interesting tactical conundrums as well as gradually introducing you to the Terran units (including some you won't find in multiplayer) and surreptitiously tutoring you in the basics of StarCraft play. That they manage to spin suspenseful and exciting mini-adventures to boot - from the confines of that rigid isometric camera - is a miracle.

It's those irresistible Achievements that will eventually lure you out of the campaign's confines, though. A tempting breadcrumb-trail of points and rewards - under the non-threatening title "exploration" - leads you to the other StarCraft II: the one with the other two races available to play, the one that always starts with a blank canvass and a desperate lunge for resources, the one where you might be facing another player across the fog-of-war-shrouded map.

Many would say this is the real StarCraft, and overcoming new players' fear of it and its reputation as a harsh environment is an even bigger challenge for Blizzard's designers than reviving the art of the single-player RTS campaign. They're successful here too, if less resoundingly so.

There are multiple ways to ease yourself in to the game. Across nine tightly-scripted scenarios, with tiered Achievements for each, the Challenges pick up your StarCraft II meta-tutorial where the campaign left off. They teach effective unit counters, challenge your skills with the more advanced units, and teach efficient macro, micro (one Challenge has to be completed using hotkeys only) and rush defence techniques. They're stern but addictive, and it's only a shame there aren't more of them.

You can then test yourself in both single-player and co-operative skirmishes against AI before taking on a proper ranked multiplayer match - and even then, you can elect to do so in the Practice League. Here you play through 50 matches (which you can never repeat) with specially forgiving rules, and you should be matched only against other new players. (In the game's first week, you still had a chance of running into a seasoned veteran of the beta or the first StarCraft here, but unusually for a multiplayer game the Practice League should actually become a more welcoming environment with time.)

The options are there to build up a substantial body of experience and get comfortable with the game, and even if you're not entirely new to StarCraft, you will probably want to take them. The units are simple but numerous, and the three races are radically different to play. With many brand new units, and many substantially changed from their original forms, there's a lot to learn.

Thankfully, the units are all strikingly designed - both visually and tactically - impeccably balanced, and perhaps more to the point, extremely cool. Crisp art, exquisite animation, potent sound, exciting special skills - burrowing Zerg! transforming mechs! - and Blizzard's willingness to match overpower with overpower, refusing to neuter even the most basic building-block like the Marine: the great thing about StarCraft II's unit design is that, while considering the daunting balance demands of eSport, it has remembered to be fun.

That even extends to base units that can retract into the ground (Terrans can construct gates and walls out of supply depots) or take to the air to flee an attack or settle near a new mining opportunity. The map designs - the game comes with dozens, doubtless soon to be fleshed out by the game's fanbase - exploit multiple levels of elevation with cunning, making the pathing abilities of various units a crucial consideration and widening the gap between air and ground forces. Even if you concentrate on only one of the three races, StarCraft II presents an extremely supple and fluid strategic landscape.

Helping you cope with this are countless small improvements to an otherwise tried-and-true user interface (being able to set a rally point to a moving unit, thus automatically resupplying your front lines, is a huge plus, for example). Learning these and the countless shortcuts you will need to successfully manage the briskly shifting and accumulating facets of a StarCraft II game is essential. But, in a way, the UI itself simply becomes another layer of complexity you have to master.

Keeping multiple small forces mobile while they defend harvesting units is the key to this campaign mission.

It's all just a bit much, and despite the great and admirable lengths Blizzard has gone to to help you learn the ropes, there can be no changing that. StarCraft II is, at heart, still an uncompromised and uncompromising hardcore RTS with a resolute focus on micro-management speed. Even in an easy match it's tense and stressful, and not a crack has been left open for luck to enter the equation; this a pure skill environment, hermetically sealed from the forces of chance. That's a vital stipulation for dedicated players, but a tough break for the newcomer who needs a stroke of luck, just one, to feel like he or she might have a foothold in the game.

So Blizzard might still find that a very large percentage of players drop away before they even participate in their first ladder league (the superb matchmaking system that pitches players against each other in small, closely-fought groups, even as they play in a wider pool, which I predict will be the most-copied piece of multiplayer game design this decade). In fact, many won't even try the first of their 50 Practice League matches, never mind get through them.

If that does happen, it won't be because of the new Battle.net, a robust gaming platform that easily matches or exceeds Steam and Xbox Live for features and polish, fitted here to a bespoke and extremely slick StarCraft II front-end. It's a major component of this release and it seems unfair to gloss over Battle.net so quickly - but that's partly a compliment to its transparency, and partly down to the fact that its charms will only reveal themselves over time and through its gradual integration with World of Warcraft and, eventually, Diablo III.

No, if players drop away, it will be because Blizzard has done absolutely everything it can to make StarCraft easier to get into except changing it. Was there room to expand its range without dumbing (or slowing) it down? Maybe. Would that have been the right thing to do? Probably not. Because the hardcore fans would have been cheated, the eSports scene destabilised, the world robbed of a cutting-edge competitive strategy game.

And, more to the point, because millions will thoroughly enjoy StarCraft II regardless, thanks to a dense, thrilling, relentlessly clever and class-leading campaign adventure that takes this RTS to the masses in spite of itself. It might be less than half this sumptuous package, but it's a lot more game than almost anything else.

9 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
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 (146) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • peteb #1 2 years ago

    Ooh, nice!

  • Dagdriver #2 2 years ago

    WOW, that was unexpected... - NOT!

  • Vergis69 #3 2 years ago

    What it deserves

  • Deckard1 #4 2 years ago

    would I like this if I can't stand RTS games?

  • OnlyMe #5 2 years ago

    To be fair, from all the praise it's got from gamers everywhere, it sounded like the second coming of christ - so I expected a ten.

  • Eraysor #6 2 years ago

    Deserves a 10.

  • lordofthedunce #7 2 years ago

    would I like this if I can't stand RTS games?

    It's unlikely.

  • Markitron #8 2 years ago

    Best RTS since generals: Zero Hour. 10/10 for me personally, and anyone with a decent PC should try it, RTS fan or not

  • Gregolution #9 2 years ago

    How does that review equate to a 9?! It's a 10/10 game EG, come on.

  • MaxHughes #10 2 years ago

    Will be definitely playing this for a long time now!!

  • mingster #11 2 years ago

    YeeHah... Finally... yup agree with the score. Great Game.

    Come and join the Official Starcraft 2 thread on Eurogamer.
    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_posts.php? thread_id=192518
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_po...[/link]
    We have nearly 50 Blizzard Id's you can add.
    We are all learning so you wont have to get beaten by superfast Korean robots.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/10 @ 15:33

  • mowgli #12 2 years ago

    I'm loving it so far. And some of the depth in it is mindbogiling. I haven't even touched the multiplayer yet!

  • Dunnyone #13 2 years ago

    I love it, but why do I have to buy twice again to finish the story? Look what happened with Half-life episode 3. Please let this be the end of my wallet-rape.

  • marcgiu #14 2 years ago

    can you get this on the DS?

  • Bagpuss #15 2 years ago

    Great....the only decent PC developed game in ages comes along and its an RTS....a genre i fucking loathe and despise...

  • UncleLou #16 2 years ago

    I love it, but why do I have to buy twice again to finish the story?

    It's already a massive, 20 hours long, very varied campaign. Let's face it, the story is only a vehicle to connect the campaign missions, anyway, and I'll take 3 long campaigns of this quality over one condensed one that crams all 3 races into 20 hours.

  • swissorc #17 2 years ago

    So it's better than Alan Wake and Dead Space then?

  • bad09 #18 2 years ago

    With the Total War games and Empire at War I'm starting to find my RTS feet recently and might have got this as people seem really excited about it, sadly with news today of accounts being stolen I'm gonna steer clear of this one. Not that Blizzard care I imagine as it's sold shedloads.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 15:45

  • UncleLou #19 2 years ago

    at its core its just a rather tedious RTS

    Let's scratch the unnecessary "tedious" from your post, and your point vaporises into thin air. Nothing wrong with an RTS.

  • Moonprince #20 2 years ago

    pls don't include Alan Wake and Dead Space in direct comparison. That's wrong. DS was awesome.

  • JunglistVIP #21 2 years ago

    Tom Butcher

  • mingster #22 2 years ago

    so it's better than Alan Wake and Dead Space then?

    Well apart from the fact this is an RTS and the others are some competely different type of genre (One i can't stand tbh)
    Yes it is totally better than them. In every way. Easily.

  • sneetch #23 2 years ago

    @UncleLou
    at its core its just a rather tedious RTS

    Let's scratch the unnecessary "tedious" from your post, and your point vaporises into thin air. Nothing wrong with an RTS.

    Yeah the "[game name] is just a rather tedious [genre name]" pattern can be applied to any game whose genre you dislike. I'd give examples but they'd just serve to enrage a significant number of people who like that game or genre, I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. ;)

  • bad09 #24 2 years ago

    @ retrend

    Well personally I choose to play games that I don't need to worry about security issues and phishing issues, laugh at that and mark me down if you want but as a consumer it's my choice.

  • mingster #25 2 years ago

    but bad09 you have been warned of the phishing issues.
    How the hell can you still get stung if you are aware of it?
    Yu'd have to be a complete imbecile to fall for it after you are expecting it.

  • ignatiusjreilly #26 2 years ago

    The story/cutscenes are pretty rubbish to be honest. Only 4-5 missions in I stopped talking to anyone in the cantina because (despite the beautiful CGI) I cringe when listening to them.

    But who needs a story when gameplay is this good?

  • DazzeL190 #27 2 years ago

    Uh-ho mingster, nail on head there.

    I think a 9 is fair and the review does get across the sheer scale of the game. Starcraft 2 really is one massive, massive game. The real longevity, for a lot of us who can't compete on the pro level, will come from how well the seperated ladder system works. So far, colour me optimistic.

  • Hypercube #28 2 years ago

    @bad09 - you 've already stated elsewhere that piracy is your preferred option, so what's your point banging on about phishing again? And mingsters dealt deftly with that as well.

    Edit: Nope, my bad - you've not said you'll be pirating it. I misread the comment.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:09

  • bad09 #29 2 years ago

    @ mingster

    the phishers got those emails from someone, that's enough for me to say "not worth buying from Blizzard".

    Anyway I'm clearly upsetting the Blizzard fanboys with this reasonable concern so that's all I'll say on the subject and move on.

  • bad09 #30 2 years ago

    @ Hypercube

    I suggest actually reading my posts, I did not in any way say in those comments that I prefer piracy.

    EDIT - Ah you did read them thanks for the correction :)
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:11

  • FortysixterUK #31 2 years ago

    As predicted and glad to see the review wasn't rushed.
    At the moment the only thing missing appears to be the ability to play the "single player" campaign with two or more players, like you could with Red Alert 3. A single player co op mode if you will.
    Now for the SC & SC2 CGI animated movies, that remains totally true to the story....

  • costa_k #32 2 years ago

    Given all that hype (and advertising cheques ofcourse),this was expected.So it's as good as Men of War,right?I don't think so.

  • geeza2020 #33 2 years ago

    FortysixterUK:
    isnt the story cheesy and naff? Why would you want a film like that??
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:20

  • Hypercube #34 2 years ago

    @bad09 - no probs, I don't mind admitting when I've fucked up! Now, if only I could stop doing it so often...
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:21

  • butler` #35 2 years ago

    Great game. Predictable score. Dragged the metascore down a point from a 96 :o

  • Genji #36 2 years ago

    "It's all just a bit much, and despite the great and admirable lengths Blizzard has gone to to help you learn the ropes, there can be no changing that. StarCraft II is, at heart, still an uncompromised and uncompromising hardcore RTS with a resolute focus on micro-management speed. Even in an easy match it's tense and stressful, and not a crack has been left open for luck to enter the equation; this a pure skill environment, hermetically sealed from the forces of chance. That's a vital stipulation for dedicated players, but a tough break for the newcomer who needs a stroke of luck, just one, to feel like he or she might have a foothold in the game."

    Awesome. Now I don't have to waste my money in the hope that the game had become more forgiving to people like me.

    Sorry Starcraft, but you and me just don't get along. :)

  • UncleLou #37 2 years ago

    So it's as good as Men of War,right?I don't think so.

    Er, yes, yes, it is. Although Men of War, good as it was, was just a rehash of Soldiers, obviously, that added nothing to the formula.

  • Harmonica #38 2 years ago

    Looks like a great game, however for some reason I've never been a fan of campaign mode within RTSs, I much prefer a well set up skirmish game. No idea why.

  • UncleLou #39 2 years ago

    I don't mind the story being cheesy and naff (like I said, it's a vehicle to connect campaign missions, and campaign missions against all 3 races at that), I do mind Jim Raynor being a right old bore, though. A surprisingly uncharismatic main character.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/10 @ 16:26

  • Marshall2008 #40 2 years ago

    Campaign is a bit short and multiplayer is as the same as before. Nice graphics update though.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:32

  • ignatiusjreilly #41 2 years ago

    Now I don't have to waste my money in the hope that the game had become more forgiving to people like me.

    If you want forgiveness go to church! This is Starcraft ;)

    @UncleLou

    Yeah, the main character is boring but at least not hugely cliched. The southern criminal/tough guy, the gruff bearded armorer (is that guy a dwarf?!), the geeky lab tech, the dreadlocked Jamaican witchdoctor...zzz...
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/10 @ 16:33

  • sneetch #42 2 years ago

    @bad09
    @ mingster

    the phishers got those emails from someone, that's enough for me to say "not worth buying from Blizzard".

    Well yeah, but I wouldn't assume they got it from Blizzard: I got one on my junk email address which has nothing to do with Battle.net and has never been used there but haven't got one on my actual Battle.net email account (so far anyway). To put it another way, I've never had an account with Bank of America or Alliance and Leicester but I've received numerous phishing emails from people claiming to represent them and offering me mortgages or whatever: those companies never had my email address to give away so it can't have been stolen from them but if I were to apply your logic I'd never have anything to do with Bank of America or Alliance and Leicester.

    If you've ever received (or filtered out) a single piece of spam on your email address then you're a candidate for these scams, your email address is probably on a spam list somewhere.

    Edit: damn my English is terrible today!
    Edited by 4 at 03/08/10 @ 16:48

  • Daeltaja #43 2 years ago

    Read like a 10. Its the pinnacle of RTS gaming. I dont think I read a negative point in the whole review apart from maybe accessibility, so why hold off!
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:33

  • Physically_Insane #44 2 years ago

    I want this game now! I'm actually considering putting together a gaming pc just for this game. Might even trade in my xbox for some extra cash.

  • Iora #45 2 years ago

    Single player = Good, not as good as warcraft 3 though.
    Multi player = Bloody ancient micro management nonsense.

    9/10 is no surprise on Eurogamer, called it a week ago. Seems almost the default now.
    If another developer released a sequel to a their game some 12years later and was essentially a reskinning of the old game it would be crucified; and rightfully so.

    I know Blizzard are allergic to original ideas prefering instead to bring there titles to a high polish but this is taking the piss.
    Bets now on Diablo 3 being I-fucking-dentical to the previous titles baring tiny improvements to the UI and engine.

    I will patiently await reading its 9/10 review then.

  • matt6666 #46 2 years ago

    Great game imho. 9s right to be fair..

  • NorfolkNClue #47 2 years ago

    Shame I can't run this on my laptop. Ho hum.

  • UncleLou #48 2 years ago

    Bets now on Diablo 3 being I-fucking-dentical to the previous titles baring tiny improvements to the UI and engine.

    I bloody hope so. I don't want a different game in some cases. There seems to be the strange idea floating around these days that anything that wasn't innovated last week is automatically bad. Very strange, don't get it at all.

    If another developer released a sequel to a their game some 12years later and was essentially a reskinning of the old game it would be crucified; and rightfully so.

    What, like Zelda? Or Civilization? Or Gran Turismo?

  • Genji #49 2 years ago

    "If you want forgiveness go to church! This is Starcraft ;)"

    :)

    Look, I'm in no disagreement as to this being a fine example of the RTS genre. It is what it is.

    But I don't particularly *like* what it is. Personally, I much rather turn-based games, or RTS games that are more about squad management, and don't have so much of the base building / economic side of things. I like being able to concentrate on tactics without having to worry about my base continually producing replacement units, expansions, and whatnot. Dawn of War 2 was great in that regard.

    I dunno, I just find most RTS games to be quite stressful, and I don't really like them. I'm glad for this review, though. I was getting caught up in the hype a bit, and starting to forget why I didn't really like the game in the first place!

    I wish nothing but a good time for those that swing that way, though! My tastes are just a bit different.

  • Skandalle #50 2 years ago

    Time to blow dust off my keyboard!

  • feistycheese #51 2 years ago

    If North Korea ever wanted to successfully invade their southern neighbours, now would surely be the best time

  • UncleLou #52 2 years ago

    I like being able to concentrate on tactics without having to worry about my base continually producing replacement units, expansions, and whatnot. Dawn of War 2 was great in that regard.

    I loved Dawn of War 2, but I never quite understand why people name it as a counter-example to Starcraft 2's mechanics. DoW 2 online was micro-management hell, in my book.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:46

  • WJF #53 2 years ago

    Good to see you can now rally to squads...something RON did 7 or 8 years ago (tbf though, that was in-between Starcrafts)

    Can someone who's played it tell me if you need to lock the camera to the F keys for hot-jumping back to base still, or is there now shortcuts for the separate buildings so you can stay on one part of the map while queuing up units back at base, a la RON? (It's my fav RTS series, leave off!)

  • darkmorgado #54 2 years ago

    Agree with the review completely, though personally I really enjoyed the story. It's an over-the-top space opera. It knows its cheesy, so just enjoy it for what it is. It's not trying to be Battlestar Galactica (which got boring just because it took itself so seriously at all times).

    Just started league play... after doing alright in the practice leagues, I haven't won a single game yet :-( I'm Division Rank 37 in the Bronze League and will no doubt drop even lower by the end of the day lol. Add me - Darkmorgado :-)

  • darkmorgado #55 2 years ago

    @WJF

    I tend to assign single buildings a group number so I can jump to them and put units in my queues without leaving my current squads (Normally put barracks @ 8 and 9, factory on 7, etc. Just selecting them doesnt jump the camera, only if you double click.

  • anomagnus #56 2 years ago

    thats a fair score. In fairness to the story though, it wasn't quite that bad. I've seen people slate it, but its on par with most games.

    It was better than MW2 anyway! (cheap shot, i know)

  • Iora #57 2 years ago

    Games dont have to be different. Nobody wants to play Diablo FPS. There is a difference between altering a games core mechanics and bringing new ideas to the old shell. Diablo 2 with better graphics is not something i want to see neither is Starcraft 2's multiplayer.

    Zelda is different with every game. The same basic principles sure but every game has a different take on the world. Civ is always different too. Gran Turismo... well I'd agree with that one have never been a fan though.

  • InfiniteFury #58 2 years ago

    It's worth saying again that there's a good group of us on the forums here sharing Friend details and what have you - we even have a spreadsheet.

    If being bad at RTS games is the only thing putting you off, don't let it stop you. I'm terrible but love the game and there'll be opponents of all abilities for practicing.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 16:57

  • ignatiusjreilly #59 2 years ago

    But I don't particularly *like* what it is. Personally, I much rather turn-based games, or RTS games that are more about squad management,

    Actually I agree, and so far I think Company of Heroes is still a more exciting and innovative RTS. Maybe I'm playing it wrong so far (only a few hours in), but in SP Starcraft 2 I just seem to build up one huge army and move them en masse as a big blob around the map. In CoH, you you carefully pick units and have separate squads placed strategically around the map, and there's more in the way of special abilities and tactics. Still, I imagine Starcraft is very different in multiplayer, and I rather enjoy the over-the-top firepower this allows you to build up in the campaign.

    I absolutely adored DoW2 but IMO it was barely an RTS (again, in SP) - more like a Diablo-style action-RPG.

  • RexRunti #60 2 years ago

    I only have two criticisms of this game the first is that the main campaign doesn't really introduce how to use other races (well mainly the Zerg) and secondly and more importantly a small proportion of the money I spend on SCII goes to Bobby "insert expletive" Kottick.

  • Freelancepolice #61 2 years ago

    James Clarke http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=ccQcT22ezDU
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/10 @ 17:15

  • Mcstrife #62 2 years ago

    This is so much more than a graphical overhaul of a legendary game. They made huge leaps in mission diversity, presentation, achievements, social integration... It's one whopping package of fan service.

    Can't wait for the next two parts. Now I have to find my old gaming friends for custom maps and vs Ai coops

    Not sure why it didnt get a 10 honestly, when uncharted 2 and ME 2 did.

  • The_Bloody_Kettle #63 2 years ago

    Ok. I'm now getting it.

  • jaangus #64 2 years ago

    I gave up pc gaming about 5 or 6 years ago and i think this is about the only thing that could bring me back. Just about runs on my old pc and im absolutely loving it anyone else think this years games are a bit like entering a timewarp as im sure mafia is nearly as old as starcraft and theres diablo 3 out later too.

  • Vixremento #65 2 years ago

    So it's a great game but I'm a little upset about the multiplayer...my g/f and I (so yeah that was expensive) had a few "LAN" games against each other (we're two metres apart) and I experienced lag (yup - FRIEKIN LAG ON THE SAME NETWORK) - where's this "super" optimised network system of theirs?

    Also my connection ran out of bandwidth while playing which left me with no achievements (and I swear there were times when I was supposedly connected with the same thing happening)...luckily for them I don't give a crap about these achievements!

    Other than that I love it to bits...but frankly I'll never care about multiplayer against random people so if they could please do something that'll give me no lag when playing people in my house then I'd be happy!

  • spekkeh #66 2 years ago

    If another developer released a sequel to a their game some 12years later and was essentially a reskinning of the old game it would be crucified; and rightfully so.

    I haven't yet played this game, but am not much anticipating to either, exactly because of this. I liked the Warcraft games, I liked Starcraft... But that was al ten years ago. Of course Blizzard creates well crafted games, but I'm pretty much done with those kind of RTS. It's weird to see I'm apparently the only one.

  • actionfitz #67 2 years ago

    wish i could afford it.
    taxman raped my poor self employed booty last month.
    :/
    that and the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and Reading Next month.
    /sigh.

    maybe in September / October lol.

  • UncleLou #68 2 years ago

    Sorry Lou but the tedious stays, whilst your actual comment doesn't quite make any sense at all to me, most RTS games are by definition repetiitve henceforth tedious , now if repitition floats your boat yehaaw knock yourself out, personally it bores me shitless....funny old world!

    No need to say sorry, you just proved my point. Thanks!

  • varkdm #69 2 years ago

    Not a 10. Its Starcraft 1 with better graphics and improved battlenet functionality. Very enjoyable but .. just no way is it a 10.

  • craziii #70 2 years ago

    dow, the game series that took out base building and macro and resource collection. it is just a tactical simulation game. and 50% of it is luck, I hated it.

    reading the negative comments should tell you how good of a game this is. I can't help but smile at what they are conjuring out of their minds to justify their dislike just because they can't handle mp.

  • Desheep #71 2 years ago

    It's a good game, but this is too high a score.

    - It's 29 missions or so long. WC3:ROC was 33 missions long, plus you get a complete campaign which uses ALL the races WITHOUT having to buy another 1 or 2 games, just to see the full thing.
    - The multiplayer is as full of cunts as it has ever been.
    - You only get a full compliment of troops to choose from in the last 2 or 3 missions. It's typical RTS fare to build up your units 1 at a time, but I know that I had the full army at my disposal in RA3 much sooner than the end of the game.
    - Each mission feels... I dunno. "Linear" feels like the right word, even though it isn't. You are given a new unit to play with, and then the whole map is based around massing as many of that unit as possible. Try doing the train mission without the tank killer unit (which was poor unit for any mission apart from that one), for example.
    - The game is too easy on the "Normal" setting. If you want your 3-4 years of waiting to be worth it, put the game on "Hard".

    All in all, this is a 7/10 game.

  • Mcstrife #72 2 years ago

    Ah Mr Desheep, allow me to retort!

    - Yes, WC3 was great value as well! Although you kinda did have to buy TFT for the story too, and every race had a few lame getting used to missions.

    - Blame the cunts

    - Personal preference I guess. This way there is always that carrot of that even stronger unit dangling in front of you.

    - I kinda agree here, as it is obvious which unit is best to use. However, the upside is that every unit has a chance to shine. In sc1 there were a bunch of under-used units (by me) which I thought was a shame.

    - I played on normal and enjoyed it, good thing is that you can reply it all on a harder setting if you wish to.

    No real deal breakers here?

  • mingster #73 2 years ago

    Your supposed to play the missions on Normal and Hard to get all the achievements.
    Going for cheevs lengthens the campaign by making you play the mission differently giving you alternative goals.

  • dfunked #74 2 years ago

    "And, more to the point, because millions will thoroughly enjoy StarCraft II regardless"

    Count me out until the price drops a bit... Screw paying £35 for a PC game!!!
    You can pre-order Diablo III for £23 right now ffs!

  • electrolite #75 2 years ago

    Every time I see someone complaining about a game receiving a 9 rather than a 10 on a Games website (which means one persons opinion) I have to think "you need to take a long hard look at your life and where it's going". Jaysus....

  • j-bo #76 2 years ago

    glorious game, heartily enjoy it. 9.5 here I think

  • DazzeL190 #77 2 years ago

    So it's pathetic to have an opinion now, electrolite?

  • CaptainKid #78 2 years ago

    I don't like fast.
    I'm the guy who spends 10 minutes building one wall with turrets.

    But in Starcraft building is not fun, it's a necessity. Also because you don't have the fricking time.

  • Zaiz #79 2 years ago

    I think Oli was too nice about this game's storytelling. The characters were bad, yes, but I completely ignored them because the plot was trash. PROPHECIES! GRR EVIL MENGSK EVIL EVIL EVIL(did we mention MENGSK IS EVIL?!!!?!?) FIND MY COLONISTS A HOME WHILE I FAIL TO VOICE ACT. Oh, and let's not even mention the voice acting. They -wish- they had the quality of games with a tenth of the budget.

    Seriously.

    On the other hand, the gameplay is fluid, fun, and frenetic. It also feels entirely like SC1, which I've been over for six years.

  • Mcstrife #80 2 years ago

    Voice acting was solid enough for me, but Tychus was awesome. Jimmy!

  • neuroniky #81 2 years ago

    10/10 for me, and I never played the first one to begin with. MP is really where the game is, and what a game it is... fast, furious, unforgiving, but still easy enough to get into. Fighting for the first place in a 100 people with similar skill ladder is just fantastic, you really feel like you're trying to achieve something, it just gives sense to all the fighting. I've now played 50 games, between practice and league games, almost all of them with terran, and I feel like I'm just starting to scratch the first layer of complexity of the game. And the community is great, in those 50 games I was called noob just once cause I didn't want to surrender a game that I had not lost in my mind yet... many gamers were very friendly and all in all it was a very positive experience.
    I really don't understand the 9/10, I don't think RTS can get any better than this... and the package is so full of contents both for SP and for MP that is quite shocking. Just like World of Warcraft, there's so many layer of polish on SC2 that you just can't compete with it. Bill Roper may have left, Activision may have come, but Blizz is still flawless.

  • MrAtheist #82 2 years ago

    Seems to be a bit of trend, people are going easy on the SP experience because of the MP angle. Games like World in Conflict, CoH & DoW2 show how far we have moved on from SC1. Its a shame Blizzard, being one of the few devs left with the clout, didnt have more ambition (yes I know the review states the reasons for this before all you MP zealots get yer knickers in a twist)

  • neuroniky #83 2 years ago

    @MrAtheist: I doubt you're talking about SC2 after having played it. The single player campaign IS ambitious, it has probably the most varied and best designed missions EVAH. I loved DOW2 and all the novelties it brought to the SP side of things, but after a while it just became more and more samey. SC2 also has tons of units designed and used only during the campaign, which probably is a first in the RTS department.
    Yes, Blizzard didn't change the basics of the game, and the multiplayer is not taking many risks for sure, but downtalking the single player experience is just a plain mistake that shouldn't be done. It really is something special IMHO, expecially from hard level upward. Oh, and don't make me mention the achievement which are basically like the "hard modes" of WoW here, many are sooooooooo game changing that you can replay the same mission in a completely different fashion.

  • MrAtheist #84 2 years ago

    I doubt you're talking about SC2 after having played it.

    err I have played it and enjoyed the experience. Carry on acting like I insulted your grandmother or something though.

  • electrolite #85 2 years ago

    @ DazzeL190: -


    Did you even read my post? I'm saying that getting wound up about one mark here and there is pathetic. Even having review scores is pathetic but gaming seems to revel in its immaturity.

  • lmephisto #86 2 years ago

    The game is amazingly brilliant!!! I finished the campaign missions and started it again right away ! That shows how great this game is ! With the rewards , achievements and challenges it makes you wanna play again and again! For me this game is 10/10 and seriously i was waiting for a good RTS for a looooooooong time. Fucking expensive to buy though!

  • williamdeep #87 2 years ago

    Great game. Pretty balanced multiplayer game directly from the release. There are some things I wish they had added to Battlenet. Chat, LAN games, the ability to share replays, but overall very nice game.
    Wakefield Escorts

  • ZizouFC #88 2 years ago

    PC gaming lives to fight another day!

  • Miths #89 2 years ago

    I bought it but playing through the first ten campaign missions or so, unfortunately confirmed what occasional previous experiences with the genre had already told me - real time strategy games just aren't my thing.
    The first several missions were easy enough (as the wimpy difficulty setting of the same name would suggest), but once I got to a certain mission it was like hitting a brick wall - and the speed had already started to pick up a bit before then.

    I can't even begin to imagine the kind of mouse and keyboard dexterity, mental focus and stress tolerance that must be required to play a multiplayer match against an even remotely competent player in this game.
    I guess my ADHD "crippled" mind will just have to live with sticking to games that don't require me to keep track of numerous things at once in high speed realtime :).

    Bring on Diablo 3 instead :). Although I imagine that's probably a couple of years away still - if we're lucky.

  • Sweefyt #90 2 years ago

    I love it, but why do I have to buy twice again to finish the story?

    This should have been mentioned in the review. There is no cliffhanger, it balances perfectly between leaving you wondering how the story continues and giving you closure.

    You have absolutely nothing to worry about.

  • Lee_Morris #91 2 years ago

    The review made me think the game was going to get a 10. Doesn't really matter but I could see any Quibbles that Oli had with the game.

  • jaguarwong #92 2 years ago

    I'll stick to Swords & Soldiers thanks

  • Rack #93 2 years ago

    @Miths Try dropping the speed down a tad if you're having problems. Also in the campaign missions that let you build a base if you build an absolute crapton of SCVs (about 3 per mineral deposit plus 3 for each vespene refinery and a few for building and repair work, that's about 30 per base) you can churn a huge chunk of troops through your barracks and later buildings. Build 2 or 3 of the one you want to focus on with a mix of reactors and tech labs and you should do fine through most. The missions give you a trooptype to highlight the use of but building a ton of Marines, Marauders and Medics will get you through just about anything so try upgrading those first.

    As for the game the reviews fairly spot on, it's not some huge revolution, CoH is a much more interesting game in many ways but it's very well put together for the people who like this sort of thing. The multiplayer is some fresh kind of torment though.

    Edit: Fresh kind of torment for new players that is.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 12:19

  • Goodfella #94 2 years ago

    Seems Battle.Net is having problems at the moment, achievements are down and people can't log in and play the game, not even the single player campaign (you can play as guest), as it relies on a connection to Battle.Net for your profile game.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 08:50

  • Kovacs77 #95 2 years ago

    @Rack

    Yup, I bind my main base to '1', set it's rally point on the nearby crystal, and then every 30 second or so, hit 1-S regardless of what I'm doing on the rest of the map. Can never have too many SCVs (up to a point...)! Also, bind a few SCVs to another number, speeds up building (just hit 5-B-S to place a new Supply Depot for example, then if you hit 5-B-B, another SCV will start a Barracks). And if you build 2 Barracks or Factories, bind them both to one number by shift-clicking to select them all, then any units you build will queue in both buildings, speeding up production. And don't forget to use your Merc units, especially in the rush missions, or for saving your ass if you've left your base a bit undefended!

  • kar #96 2 years ago

    People calling starcraft 2 a 'micro' intensive game, really haven't played the game much, or alternatively don't actually understand what micro really means.

    Starcraft 2 is a _macro_ game above all else, even more so than starcraft 1.

    In SC2 if you rock up with 3-4 units more than your opponent, there's little he can do micro wise to balance the equation.

    I say this is a low diamond ranked player.

    The core mechanics aren't innovative in any way, this is unarguable. But like all simple things, the 'innovation' is in how players stretch and tear a simple game apart and introduce subtle complexity. When I think about a game as needlessly overegged like MW2, and think about the simple design of SC2, I know which game is the better design (ignoring genre's and just thinking about core design concepts).

    I can only recommend those that are intimidated by the human v human multi-player, to get into the coop games as they are immense fun, and there's nothing more satisfying than building a 'lot of stuff' and going on a rampage.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 09:48

  • abigsmurf #97 2 years ago

    I disagree with the final page and feel it reeks of elitism.

    If a large portion of online players give up because of the vertical learning curve, you say that's the player's fault, not Blizzards?

    It's not fun to lose, especially in SC2 where at low skill levels, you don't just slightly lose, you get annihilated, never having stood a chance. If your build order is out by as little as 10 seconds, that's enough to find 15 zerglings in your base with no units or defences. A slight gap in detector coverage? Enjoy your nukes. There are dozens of ways to get steamrolled in ways where, if you haven't specifically set up a defence against it, you stand no chance.

    The game doesn't provide any olive branches at all for new players. The practice league is a joke as new players will get thrashed by beta testers or SC1 veterans.

    Yes you do learn and after 15 or so losses a newcomer to SC may start lasting a bit longer and standing half a chance.

    Let me put across this point though: Imagine you've got a single player game and the first 15 hours are utterly miserable, you don't really understand the mechanics, you're not making any progress, you can't do anything... Would you say that is not an extreme negative for the game?

    Why should multi-player be held to different standards?

  • UncleLou #98 2 years ago

    Why should multi-player be held to different standards?

    Because it is absolutely impossible to balance a game where humans play against humans in the same way you can balance the difficulty in a single-player game. As the review points out, the practice league is only going to become more friendly to new players once the beta testers and veterans are through. And when humans play against humans, one of them has to lose, anyway.

    Your post reads like a fundamental slating of multiplayer gaming as such, without any constructive criticism.

  • zoweewowee #99 2 years ago

    @abigsmurf
    Starcraft's multiplayer is about being competitive, if you have difficulties with the multiplayer, you should finish the campaign, take a look at the challenges where's there's plenty to learn, and maybe try 1v1 vs cpu starting from the easiest difficulty level and going up (If you can beat the very hard cpu 1v1, you should have no problem lasting 10min on battle.bet even against players that are two leagues above you). If you're still that miserable on the multiplayer after that, you'll have to consider it's very likely that you truly suck. Don't blame Blizzard for that.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 10:32

  • abigsmurf #100 2 years ago

    I gave plenty of constructive criticism though. Here they are summed up.

    -A practice mode, meant for people with no online experience is filled with decent players who will crush a noob, defeating the point of it. I doubt it really will balance out. There are just as likely to be SC1/beta players who were holding out for whatever reason playing later. The prospect of it being slightly better at some undefined point in the future won't be any good to the people who having a horrible time now.

    -the game allows zero margin for error to defend against some tactics, especially with rushing. 3 out of 4 games I play involve rushing of some kind because of this.

    -RTS suffer worse than any other genre when you're being comprehensively beaten endlessly. In an FPS you can aim for 10th place out of 20 if you're not good. In a beat em up, games only last a couple of minutes and you always stand some chance of winning unless you're against extremely good opponents. In an RTS, especially Starcraft, Matches can be long, there's only winning and losing with no inbetween and it's incredibly rare to beat a player notably better than you are, especially at the lower level.

    To sum it up. All the focus on Starcraft 2 in terms of design and balancing has been on elite players. There are very, very few bones thrown to lesser players and it makes the game far less enjoyable for people who aren't very good. There are 3 measures they've provided: Challenges (even if you put the time in on them, you're still going to get steamrolled online if you're a noob), Rocks protecting your base in practice matches (zergling rushes get replaced by void ray rushes) and supposedly 'best ever' matchmaking and league placement (I won 2, lost 3 placement matches, I then proceeded to comprehensively lose 5 games in a row as I got placed way too high).

  • UncleLou #101 2 years ago

    -A practice mode, meant for people with no online experience is filled with decent players who will crush a noob, defeating the point of it.

    That's not really constructive criticism. You're asking for the impossible.

  • Kovacs77 #102 2 years ago

    @batbat

    when will people shut up about the bloody Alan Wake review? This is a different game, different genre, different reviewer. Did it's review score really effect you so much that you're still dredging it up three months later? Move on...

  • kar #103 2 years ago

    Is the practice mode filled with that good a group of players though?

    In the beta I did the practice games but it was so mind numbing I quit them after the first one and went straight to my qualifiers.

    I can't imagine competent players being able to stomach the practice mode at that slow speed.

  • sneetch #104 2 years ago

    @UncleLou
    -A practice mode, meant for people with no online experience is filled with decent players who will crush a noob, defeating the point of it.

    That's not really constructive criticism. You're asking for the impossible.

    Yes, especially as the practice league is the first 5 games ever then you begin your placement matches where you should be put in a league with (in theory) similarly skilled players. Those first few matches are vital to that process. The Challenges and co-op vs AI are designed to give a good grounding in basic Starcraft II MP, the AI does standardised MP builds and attacks. Go through those and you should be competent in MP at least.

    My friend and I (neither of us ever played Starcraft I MP) set up a 2v2 co-op vs AI on normal difficulty and, embarrassingly enough, got absolutely steamrolled the first three times, we then looked back over the build orders, watched the replay from the AI side and realised what we were doing wrong (too slow and too few workers, basically) and decided on tactics, fourth time we beat the AI comfortably, now experienced Starcraft players would obviously stomp normal AI but the co-op was a nice intro for us and took some of the "fear" of online MP out of the game for me.

  • kar #105 2 years ago

    Just another note, something to remember, when the game first launched, there were more 'good' players at lower rankings than there are now.

    For example I went 4:1 in my qualifiers and went into Platinum, where I was really struggling to win more than 50% of my games. On the weekend I went on a ridiculous winning streak, winning about 90% of my games (it was like a 20 game streak), and this was against gold/platinum level opponents.

    So between Tuesday when I got the game, and that first week, and a week later, the relative skill levels of the divisions had changed dramatically. I was promoted in to diamond where I'm back to around ~50-60% win rates.

    I think what has happened is as lots of newer players have come in, the skill level has dilluted. So if you were getting pummelled in your placement games, odds are you would do a lot better now, now the skill levels have had time to be properly distributed among the different tiers.

  • linksdad #106 2 years ago

    Minus a point because its from Clactivision, and another because its £45.

  • subedii #107 2 years ago

    @Kar: With respect, I constantly hear this refrain from Starcraft players that it's not "actually" a micro intensive game, and I have to say that's simply untrue, or at the very least extremely disingenuous.

    Micromanagement doesn't just come from individual granular control of the units and their abilities themselves. The very structure of the game is inherently micro intensive.

    Let me give you an example, the post above yours is a very good case in point.

    Every production structure has a queue of 5 spaces (barring the hive I suppose), but during real play you are literally almost never supposed to queue up units at all as this holds up resources. You're supposed to start each unit going as soon as the previous one finished. Every 30 seconds, you have to get your command centre creating another SCV. You don't queue up 5, there's no option to simply set it on a repeat order. Every 30 seconds, click click click of your keyboard in order to get that new SCV going. This is repeated for every production facility or group you have, until maybe mid-to-late game where you've got enough resources coming in that you can afford to actually queue up something and extend the time a little. That is extremely granular, repetitive individual control. There's nothing strategic about that, you are literally going through the motions of micro managing structures on an individual level in order to succeed. You don't even decide on the unit, there's no other units TO manufacture with a command centre.

    And if you forget for 30 seconds, get bogged down elsewhere, then that puts you massively behind. Then you've got things like supply management, usage of unit powers and so forth. There's an overall strategy to the game, but I'm tired of Starcraft players trying to imply that the game isn't micro intensive, micro is core to the gameplay.

    I've even seen Starcraft 2 players try to suggest that Dawn of War 2 is far more micro intensive (without having actually spent time playing it), but that's utter tripe too. DoW2 doesn't even come close to the kind of micro required of a decent game of SC2, the gameplay's structured completely differently. There's a reason that there's such an obsession with APM in Starcraft play, and it's because you need to constantly, constantly be taking care of minutiae on a granular scale. That is micro management.

    I realise most Starcraft players probably hate it, but it might do you well to check out an RTS like Supreme Commander 2 sometime. The focus there is shifted far more to the strategic "macro" level, and might give you an idea of how some aspects of Starcraft 2 clearly are micro oriented, even if you don't initially perceive them as such. And to forestall the next inevitable comments, no, I'm not saying something like Supreme Commander 2 is "superior" either (or for that matter, that it doesn't have any micromanagement itself, because every conventional RTS does to an extent), it just works along a different style of gameplay.

    Perhaps I'm overstating my case somewhat. But I feel as if the more hardcore Starcraft players have become so inured to the micro-rituals of the game that they don't even see it as micro management anymore.
    Edited by 2 at 04/08/10 @ 13:14

  • rudedudejude #108 2 years ago

    My main question for this game is does it introduce any new mechanics? New gameplay?

    As far as I can tell it simply uses the old skool rock, scissor, paper style of unit balancing.

    No use of cover, buildings, lay of the land, etc. It's just your old school tank rush special. Any special abilities? The General powers from C&C Generals, for example?

    Is it simply whoever builds the most units in the shortest and attacks first time wins?
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 13:26

  • subedii #109 2 years ago

    @ Adam_T: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Or more importantly, making drastic changes to a gameplay formula just for the sake of it doesn't do anything for the game other than make it worse.

    You mention cover for example. Cover was one of the things they actually iterated on early in the development of SC2. Ultimately though, they found it didn't really suit the style of gameplay they were trying to promote, so they scrapped it.

    The gameplay changes are a refinement of the formula. Basically if you loved Starcraft 1, you'll probably love this. If you didn't enjoy that style of gameplay, well, they haven't messed with it, so you're better off going with something else. But the games you mention aren't really "evolutions" of the RTS, they're just different styles ultimately. And describing it as "tank rush"... well, all I can say is that the gameplay holds a lot more depth than that, but you'd need to actually play and get into the game to be able to perceive what's happening when you watch a match.

    I mean I could watch a chess match between two extremely good players, but if I haven't got a good grasp of the game, the strategies at play will be largely inscrutable to me.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 13:39

  • haidenpitt #110 2 years ago

    I really like this game, I finished and I think that will be shocked by how extreme the Terran campaign. Probably going to have something by the twists of history during the campaign. If you liked the original StarCraft and its expansion, you will love this game.
    Hotels in
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 13:43

  • Kostas #111 2 years ago

    Here are my thoughts about the game from a single player standpoint since i was never the type to enjoy multiplayer sesions on any game that did not feature people i know.

    - The game is very well done, production values are all through the roof and the campaign is both lengthy and enjoyable. I do have some major gripes with the game however. First of all and my most problematic one is of course the story. It lacks impact. It lacks focus and it is kind of all over the place. With the exception of the Protoss missions which were fantastic lore wise the story was a mild dissapointment. The other is the exceptionaly bad optimization of the games engine. At no point was my CPU or GPU used above 60%. This is some bullshit, i have a monster of a system and it barely is being put to use while at the same time there ARE problems with the games engine on ULTRA settings especially when Zerg are involved.

    All in all this is a blast from the past. It may lack the sheer tactical opportunities and visuals of Dawn of War 2 or even Company of heroes but it is a great game non the less. From a personal and single player only standpoint i give it a solid 7/10.

  • rudedudejude #112 2 years ago

    Cheers for the info - I think it seems apparent that it's much more a building / resource / management game than a combat / strategy game.

    i.e. it's not so much about how you use your units and in what position, attacking strategy etc, but more about what you build when, and when you bring them to the front line. Without using things such as cover etc, I imagine the combat is akin to that of the C&C General era, i.e. group your units into number and send them forward in waves, maybe one squad from the left etc, but generall simplistic combat, not akin to the like to say company of heroes or games of the total war series.

    but I will try a demo :)

  • Rack #113 2 years ago

    @Adam_T It's kind of like that, though not quite so extreme. I'd recommend watching this commentated replay, it gives a pretty good idea of how the gameplay works at a reasonably high level. Terran vs Terran makes it easy to understand who wins and why. My games however always end as a result of my forgetting to build an scv for 8 seconds or so.

    http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=oUBwRiZ3X...

  • Morgawr #114 2 years ago

    Starcraft 2 is a good game and I am current enjoying the single player campaign, but I can't understand why people are acting like its the best game or even the best RTS ever. The PC has many great titles in the RTS genre and while Starcraft 2 is among the best of these, I really don't see how it's demonstrably more accomplished than World in Conflict, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes among others. I understand how hype works, and of course a sequel of a hugely popular game from a hugely popular developer will generate quite a bit of hype. However, when critics are saying Starcraft 2 is the pinnacle of RTS gaming, you start to wonder if objectivity flies out of the window when reviewing a Blizzard game.

  • subedii #115 2 years ago

    @ AdaM_T:

    Well economy management is always a big part of any RTS that features base building. It gives strcutre to the game and it's a core part of how the strategy plays out.

    A game like DoW2 focusses much more on squad combat and economy is used mainly as a means of pacing the game, there's less emphasis on being a strategic tool.

    I mean for example, DoW2 you're never really going to be scouting an enemy base. There's no point in doing that, there's one structure and 3 tech levels. Your units are going to be spending their time in the field take / holding points and fighting other units.

    In SC2, scouting your opponent's base is crucial, because seeing what structures they have will give you an idea of what they're planning and so how best to counteract it. You need to be scouting right from the start.

    Likewise, what you build IS important, because if you're not taking into account your enemy's army and what your objectives are, you'll get creamed. But this also applies to other RTS's. Choosing which units to build is a strategic decision.

    When combat ensues, it's not really about sending waves of units at your opponent either. The outcomes of battles will often be decided by unit composition and army size (again, that's strategic level decisions taken before the battle even takes place, having an effect), but when and where to engage is pretty important, as well as constant harassment.

  • slivir #116 2 years ago

    I don't understand all the gripes about the difficulty of MP. If ranked maches are too difficult then just mess around with unranked games until you feel comfortable.

    Besides that, the review was pretty spot on, (though I don't remember any mention about Brood War events in the installer).

  • kar #117 2 years ago

    @subedii the mechanics you are talking about, are indeed 'macro' and not 'micro', which is my point.

    Micro is all about small fine grained unit control. Macro is about managing the construction of 'stuff'. You get this distinction but the manual dexterity required to dance dragoons or stack mutas is on another planet compared to having the mental alacrity to rapidly strike group and hotkeys. For example, I personally don't find constructing units during a fight that difficult, especially with the macro mechanics in SC2. w, shift, z, z, z, z - it takes 5 seconds and no manual dexterity. Or for Terran, 5, d,d,d,d, right click to where your battle is. Done. Easy. Compare that with the millimetre perfect clicking and timing required with goons, or reaver/shuttle in sc1.

    I genuninely believe the two are completely different skill-sets.

    Games like Warcraft 3 for example, production of units is not as important as what you do with them. In starcraft 2, the ability to produce more stuff is more important than what you do with it.

    These are two very different skills, are require different personal and cognitive talents.

    Personally, I find the macro elements fun and challenging, but then I've played Starcraft since 1998 :) I accept this frenetic pace is not to everyone's taste, but at lower levels, forgetting to build stuff for 30 seconds is not 'game over'.

    Actually at lower levels, simply attacking with a sizeable force in the first place is what decides victory. At Silver and Bronze level, whoever wins the first battle wins the game. So the ability to multitask effectively, is much less important than at Gold and above level. And any player with a sound strategy and 20APM can win.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 15:14

  • subedii #118 2 years ago

    If you consider such things as "macro", then it's no wonder you don't consider Starcraft to be a micro intensive game. By appearances your definition of micromanagement only seems to extend to control of individual units and nothing else.

    Micromanagement is the focus excessively on controlling minute details. The things I just described very much fit into that category, and as I said before, there's no real big picture planning or large scale strategy involved in the behaviour of having to manually start an SCV every 30 seconds.

  • kar #119 2 years ago

    I think there's plenty of strategy, for example, how do you survive their push, how do you buy time for your expansion?

    What is your mid game strategy, how and when, do you transition to the end game.

    Strategy exists at every level of SC2. It's not overt, it's just inherent to the game. It's not like a game like Total War or anything. But strategy exists and it's important. For example I could play using nothing but the icons and the mouse and probably beat most silver level players, simply because my understanding of composition and timing will be better than theirs. I.e. I will know what likely attack they will make, how quickly they can mount it, and I will adjust my gameply to that.

    This reading and reacting are the most fundamental skills in SC and SC2. And these are the basic elements of 'strategy' as well. To say strategy in the game extends little beyond remembering to click S every 30s is extremely inaccurate. Not least, because part of the strategy, might be indeed to pull scvs in order to give your first push more 'oomph' at the expense of the mid game.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 15:44

  • Remy #120 2 years ago

    Great posts above from kar and subedii.

    I was about to add that, as you've already probably figured out, the trouble is you are working with very different definitions of the words micro, macro and indeed, strategy.

    kar's using the StarCraft/RTS players usage of "micro" and "macro" whereas subedii you're using the more traditional definition of "micromanagement". StarCraft II requires very intensive micromanagement by subedii's (and most people's general knowledge) definition, yet by RTS definitions standards it is a reasonably macro heavy game, and indeed more macro orientated than StarCraft 1.

    'Strategy' is a much trickier term though, as really there's no common understanding or definition of it. Everything Kar just listed as strategy, I can understand why you did it, but I'd only class pre-planned build orders and timings as strategic, whereas everything else I'd call 'tactics'. In equal teams play and especially 1v1 I'd say StarCraft II has some strategy, but is dominated by tactical play (read & react, adaption, speed), it's only once you get into a large FFA match where there's more strategy involved based on how I personally use the term.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 17:24

  • subedii #121 2 years ago

    I can largely agree with Remy that we seem to be approaching the concepts of micromanagement from different interpretations here. I'll also agree that most RTS's aren't really strategic level, but tactical level games.

    Although I will clarify, I wasn't saying that there isn't much actual strategy in the game beyond say, timing your SCV's at your command centre. However, it is an example of what I'd call micromanagement, it ultimately becomes a ritual.

    I mean the question that constantly resides in my mind is "why can't this just be automated?". If I go to SupCom2, I can set a factory to produce units X and Y in whatever ratios I want, and then click the repeat button. Those units will then be constantly created until I tell it to stop, drawing resources as they being construction, or put on hold when resources run dry, requiring me to restart it. To me, that'd be a handy feature for the command centre in Starcraft 2, just tell it to repeat construction of SCV's.

    The answer as to why it isn't in there isn't that it's impractical, or impossible for the game to achieve. The answer is that the more hardcore players actually view that manual queuing, each time, every time, as a core aspect of the gameplay, and that removing it would be removing part of the "skill" from the game.

    Hence the disjunct. I view it as micromanagement that could easily be streamlined to allow you to focus on other things.

    I remember similar raging when Blizzard expanded the ability to select units to beyond 12. Grief it was unbelievable, people were actually complaining that the ability to select more than 12 units at once was dumbing down the game and decreasing the skill required to play. And whilst I didn't see the reactions to smart-casting, I'd be willing to guess it was probably more of the same.

    Ultimately, Blizzard has to make the game tailored to its fanbase, and I can appreciate that. But to me, that kind of repetition adds to the work without really adding to the strategy. It becomes the busywork of maintaining precise construction timing of something minute, and that could easily have been automated to let the player free focus more on strategic level issues.

    I can't describe it as anything other than micromanagement.

  • THATinkjar #122 2 years ago

    A minor point, but you only play 5 practice matches, not 50 as stated twice in the review.

  • Huxley82 #123 2 years ago

    Manually having to train workers allows for subtle deviations in the standard build orders. Its common for expert players to interupt worker production at a precise time order to get a certain unit faster and that becomes a key part of their gameplan. Its only repetative if you choose it to be.
    Edited by 2 at 04/08/10 @ 21:05

  • CouldntResist #124 2 years ago

    subedii, automation can only work where there are very few resource constraints. A big part of SC2 is deciding where and when to spend your limited resources to cope with the (constantly evolving) situation in hand. Anyone using some kind of automated routine would get annihilated.

  • subedii #125 2 years ago

    Only if you stuck to it doggedly, and without thought.

    It's not like this is something that once set, MUST remain until the end of the game. You say that it's important to decide on how your resources are spread. This is true. I'd be willing to bet that for most of your early game however, you're hotkeying your CCenter every 30 seconds, and getting that next SCV going.

    It could just as easily be said that a huge part of the gameplay is the need to withdraw your SCV's from the mineral patch to fight, or avoid getting slaughtered. This doesn't require you to tell your SCV's to go on each mineral run every time. They do that automatically.

    If it's something that you would truly dislike to use, there's no compulsion on anyone actually use it. Again, factories have things like 5 spaces for queued units, but actually queueing up something like 5 SCV's is something that's thoroughly proscribed at any level of play beyond beginner. And even if you DO choose to make use of the unit queueing inappropriately, that doesn't mean you're stuck doing it that way for the rest of the game either.

    It goes back to my previous point, the reason for the hatred of the idea of such things isn't that it would be bad in itself, it's the concept that such automation, even though completely optional, would actually take away from the skill of the gameplay. And it's the same reasoning behind why there were even people railing against expanding unit selection.
    Edited by 4 at 04/08/10 @ 21:55

  • Drpwnage #126 2 years ago

    As someone who cannot be bothered with the multiplayer component of the more hardcore-online games I wish publishers would chop them in half and let me buy the SP campaigns of games on their own for less.

    The review perfectly reinforced why I won't be bothering with the full SC2 package, MP games like this, just demand so much time from you to get to a point you can start enjoying the competitive game, it leaves no time to play anything else!
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 21:44

  • CouldntResist #127 2 years ago

    Nowhere do i say automation would take away from the skill in playing the game. I'm just saying that i can't seeing it being of use on any level, be it in early game or late game.

    If i were to turn on scv production to automatic even for the first 60 seconds for example, i wouldn't have enough minerals to build a supply depot in time to have enough supply for further SCV production. Changes in mineral requirements just change far to quickly to accomodate a system like that.

    Oh and i don't really know what you mean by this 'tell your SCV's to go on each mineral run'...
    Edited by 2 at 04/08/10 @ 22:59

  • Rack #128 2 years ago

    @Couldn't resist, the number of clicks to decisions in SC2 is clearly out of whack. Churning out SCVs could easily be set to a toggle that you'd deactivate whenever you needed the supply, minerals or Command Centre for something else. Instead of 2 or 3 button presses throughout the game you end up with 100-150 for a process that requires only a couple of simple decisions. The only reason this doesn't happen is that Blizzard and most likely their fan base don't like the idea of the game being accessible or easy to play.

  • CouldntResist #129 2 years ago

    In which case you'd have to monitor the number of scvs being produced when the toggle is active and remember to turn it off. What about when you have multiple command centers. Is there a toggle for each one? This still does not address the fact there there will are very few long periods when you are constantly producing SCVs non-stop without resource or supply constraint. It simply doesn't work that way and you are abstracting the situation by suggesting that this is a common occurance. If such a situation were to arise where i need SCVs and have no constraints, what's wrong with simply queueing them the normal way? Not a good idea imo and even more management intensive then the current system.

    Finally let me make myself clear. I play to win. If automation makes it easier for me to win, there's no reason for me not to take advantage. In fact Blizzard have changed quite a few game mechanics which do make the gameplay less micro-intensive and they work e.g. 2 rally points for hatcheries one for resource one for units, unlimited unit selection. I don't believe what you are suggesting would give anyone a competitive advantage.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/10 @ 23:52

  • subedii #130 2 years ago

    I honestly don't see how a recursive operation that pauses when resources run out (or when you, I don't know, pause it) is somehow more management intensive than the current system where you manually start each and every SCV. You say "what if you've got multiple command centres", that same deal applies when doing it manually, even if you've got them all hotkeyed to the same command group.

    Still, if you really feel that strongly on it, we'll leave the topic of having a repeat order. I'm starting to feel I may have sidetracked myself by focussing on it.

    I want to get back to the original topic. Aspects like having to queue up units on an individual basis like that are a core mechanic of the gameplay as it is currently designed. And they are also an aspect of micromanagement. Now I want to be clear here, I'm not saying that a micro heavy game is a bad thing, but Starcraft is very much a micro heavy game.

    The only mainstream RTS that I can think of that's more heavily focussed on micro is probably Warcraft 3, and that's by the same company. DoW2, WiC, C&C series, none of those really even come close. Again, to clarify, this is not saying that there isn't larger scale strategy going on in Starcraft 2, but it's still disingenuous to talk about how the game doesn't have a large focus on micro, it does. Especially when you're considering aspects of the gameplay other than simply direct unit control.

    This is very much reflected in why APM is a big deal for high level players. High level play in something like DoW2 will never require the same kind of APM as high level play in Starcraft 2 ( I even saw someone in Diamond league confirm that one. One of his clan mates is a top level DoW2 player. Only his APM never actually goes above 90).
    Edited by 1 at 05/08/10 @ 01:12

  • oerhoert #131 2 years ago

    Nice review, informative and interesting.

    But was it necessary to spoil the story from StarCraft? How about a spoiler warning? (I just downloaded the game and am playing through it right now.)

  • azix2 #132 2 years ago

    The ending of this review is bull. THe game in MP is a spam fest

  • smelly #133 2 years ago

    Got excited by this - played it a lot..

    Doesnt seem to be THAT much different from the first game to me (bar the presentation/fmv). I dont/wont play it online.

    Fail to see the love. Guess They're like nintendo, some people wont hear anythign bad about them even when their products are mediocre and took 12 years to make...

  • sneetch #134 2 years ago

    @smelly

    Mediocrity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

  • Mooglepies #135 2 years ago

    9/10 is probably about right for me. The campaign is spectacular, minus the (at times) very wooden voice acting. I was pleasantly surprised at the sheer variety of activities they came up with while still sticking with a very traditional RTS framework. Good job, Blizzard.

    I've no interest in the multiplayer whatsoever though, got bored of the traditional RTS scene long ago. Power to those of you that still enjoy it though, I admire your attention spans and hope that this game justifies the 12 year wait you've endured.

  • UncleLou #136 2 years ago

    Got excited by this - played it a lot..

    Doesnt seem to be THAT much different from the first game to me (bar the presentation/fmv). I dont/wont play it online.

    Care to link to your battle.net profile?

    I am just asking because, you know, you seem to pop up in every thread ever,have allegedly played everything, but never like it, unless it's a Nintendo game, of course. You seem to spend an awful lot of money on stuff you don't like. Do you know so little about yourself? Or maybe you're just extremely susceptible to hype, and approach everything with insane expectations?

    Or maybe, just maybe, you've not really played most of the games you claim you have played?
    Edited by 1 at 05/08/10 @ 13:47

  • reyrayenz #137 2 years ago

    I am always been a fan of Warcraft game series (played 1,2 and 3) it is quality strategy, control and fulled realized nearest Warcraft 4, so I decided to buy it. The campaign is not the best but the new battle net improved significantly.
    gamecardwow

  • makariel #138 2 years ago

    @Desheep: "Try doing the train mission without the tank killer unit (which was poor unit for any mission apart from that one), for example."

    I did the train mission with a ball of Marines, Marauders and Medics. With a big enough ball of those units the train has no chance of getting past (played on hard). The mission where the Wraith is introduced I mainly used MMM & siege tanks. Yes, there are missions where you better use the new unit type they let you play with (Supernova is impossible without Banshees), but it's not as restrictive as you make it sound.

  • smelly #139 2 years ago

    I loved warcraft 3.. but totally cant get into this.

    I've tried.. But failed badly... Guess my tastes have changed over the years.

  • TheJediWookie #140 2 years ago

    I'm a little hesitant at getting this, I loved the first SC and have played it on and off for years, although I was far too rubbish to compete in multiplayer. SC2 though, from what I have read, just seems like more of the same but with a bit of spit and polish (and thankfully higher resolutions). I will probably end up getting this at some point, but I most certainly will not pay full price for it, followed no doubt by the second and third instalments also at full price. Way to go Blizzard financial department!!

  • xenoss #141 2 years ago

    A sequel that is basically unchanged aside from graphics... so basically the same game with better graphics and a new story. Usually, people would be whining about that. Graphical updates with little innovation is the worst sort of sequel, usually. Somehow this isn't the case with SC2.

    Also, the "same game" here (SC1) is from 10+ years ago. Throughout the decade, we've had MANY innovations in the genre. Somehow, SC2 manages to still be relevent.

    How? Is it because people never stopped playing SC1 throughout the decade? So this doesn't really feel old? Is it because the "innovations" to RTS were so radically different from traditional RTS that they became new genres (like CoH)? Is it because the traditional RTS's in the past decade all failed to achieve the same level of excellence as SC1 (like C&C3, RA3)?

    Is it all of the above?

    If so, the lesson is that innovations are unneeded as long as you have a solid foundation. People are happy to get more of the same with very minor updates, as long as you get the same core. It works even if the sequel is slightly inferior to the original (like MW2). It'll still sell like crazy, and people will still love it to death.

    The lesson, also, is that it is very hard to mess up a big IP. The name sells. The title markets itself. The IP itself is viral. Put more marketing money in that, and you get a million copies sold in 1 day.

  • xenoss #142 2 years ago

    SC2, in my eyes, is a failure. You can say how great the game is all day long, how grand the campaign and how awesome the mp. You can tell me how well it sold. It matters not. Why?

    Because I still remember what SC1 was like when it was released. SC1 was more than just a great game. It was more than that. The 3 distinct race implementation was awe inspiring, eye opening. It showed us the future of gaming. It made Blizzard 1 of the shining visionaries of games.

    SC2 in comparison, is just another game. Polished, extremely well presented, balanced, pretty... sold millions, but just another game no matter how well executed.

    It isn't SC1. Is Blizzard still capable of producing something that shakes the world the same way SC1 did? Or are they no longer capable of such greatness?

    Has their fame (and SC1's popularity) become a trap in which they can't flex their creative muscles the way they could in the past?

    And of course, there is the involvement of Activision.

  • jetsetdemo #143 2 years ago

    I just bought this and waiting for the download to finish. All i know is i love games nevermind what catagory they fall in to. I just dont buy crap games. I have the feeling this is not a crap game. Am i going to be disapointed?

  • Rack #144 2 years ago

    If that's your only standard then no. But if you like strategy games and have played Company of Heroes you'll be crushingly disappointed.

  • thomaspower0 #145 2 years ago

    A failure? This is a great game. Starcraft 2 is more intended to show gamers who were to young to play stratagy games when Starcraft 1 came out how great it is. It's not unique but it's the best (combat) strategy game I've ever played.

  • craziii #146 2 years ago

    what rack is saying is if you are a THQ fanboy, you will hate this game.

    if you are a RTS fanboy, you will love this game.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/10 @ 05:20