StarCraft II's bugs, issues listed

By Oli Welsh Published 28 July, 2010

Also, system compatibility advice.

Along with yesterday's launch of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty came the opening of the game's official forums on Battle.net. Rooting around in the technical support folders has revealed the current state of play with the game's launch bugs and detailed advice on its system requirements and compatibility.

In short - as you might expect from Blizzard - it's in pretty good shape. The lists of known issues and bugs on the US forums and European forums reveal nothing more serious than the game not working properly in Windows compatibility modes and rendering a black screen when used with a Quick Cam webcam.

On Mac, it's not completely stable if you're running OS X 10.6 with Nvidia graphics drivers, or using a USB headset.

You will also find very detailed system requirements on the forums that, as well as listing the required and recommended specs, list the compatibility or otherwise of a lot of processor and video card families.

We're deep in StarCraft II right now. Expect a review late this week or early next.

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 (39) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • NimbusTLD #1 2 years ago

    Cool I'm glad you guys are taking your time with the review and not just rushing to be "first".

  • mingster #2 2 years ago

    It's a weird situation where if anyone does do a review in the first couple of days they will get accused of not putting enough time into the game.
    It's almost unheard of for such a big release to have absolutely no reviews anywhhere on the internet.

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #3 2 years ago

    Well with the amount of content to actally get thru:The 8-16 hours of the story, the challange modes (with bw if you've never played SC before or suck at defending of rushes PLAY THAT - it's a sneaky little tutorial really), the skirmish mode, then just the battlenet features, ladders (and how that actally works), and then the matchtypes, and then finally the custom map systems...

    Anyone basically comming out with a review in the next 72 hours clearly hasn't played the whole package, I'm no fanboi and the game does have some heavy issues - but it your going to review one of the biggest waited on titles, do it right

  • darkmorgado #4 2 years ago

    @mingster

    I agree. It's going to be a very good measure of a site's journalistic integrity I think; not only will we be able to easily tell roughly how long each reviewer played the game for, but any errors in the reviews will be more easily noticed by the number of people who have hands-on experience.

    Personally, I for one would be happy for more companies to do this, or at the very least to make a public announcement when they have sent off review copies (or gather information about length of time played on review accounts) if it weeds out the lazier reviewers from the decent ones.

  • SAMagic #5 2 years ago

    Tip for anyone getting SC2: Check that you can login to your Battle.net BEFORE you finish installing. After attempting to log in to B.net, I was asked to enter my Authenticator code, which turned out to mean my account had been compromised. I spent almost an hour stuck on hold to Blizz Euro tech support (Fair enough, as it was launch day) and was told that someone had logged in a few weeks ago to steal items from my WOW account (It was inactive, but the account shows a 7 day exempt period, so it was either a free period from Blizz or they used a gamecard). I was then advised to run a full virus scan to get rid of any possible keyloggers before I reset my password. The scan took up 4 hours, finding one virus and a stack of trojans, which took up my whole evening.

    It's my own fault for not having AV protection, but heed this warning in case you're looking forward to diving straight in to the game.

  • geeza2020 #6 2 years ago

    does this not lead us to be overly critical of reviews though? At the end of the day its one persons opinion, and if their opinion does happen to go against the general consensus they will be crucified for it as now all the focus is on the review itself and not the game.

  • UncleLou #7 2 years ago

    Yep, but thats "apparently" (i say apparently because working in the programming sector i find there reasoning dubious at best) they had no way to get the battle.net system up for the reviewers to have pre release copies.[...] IMO its a bad precedent to set (as is the £45 price tag for the online version of the game

    On the other hand, each game comes with two trial codes, and you can register your boxed copy on battle.net and bin the disc.

    They rely on reputation, word of mouth, and trial codes. There's not much wrong with that, if you can afford it, and Blizzard sure can. And let's face it - either you know Starcraft is a game for you, and then you don't really need a review anyhow, or you're not so sure, and then you can either play a trial version, or it won't kill you to wait a few days for thorough reviews.

    Personally, I find review embargoes for dubious/less known games that last till release day a lot more problematic than how Blizzard is handling this.
    Edited by UncleLou at 28/07/10 @ 10:01

  • mazzl #8 2 years ago

    or the review score will suck, and they just want a week of sales before the reviews hit the web

  • UncleLou #9 2 years ago

    or the review score will suck, and they just want a week of sales before the reviews hit the web

    Yeah, that's why they aren't giving away trial codes that let you play the game for 7(!) hours, and why they didn't have a giant beta.

  • mingster #10 2 years ago

    I can tell you now it will be a gross injustice if this does get a poor review score.
    Comparing it to other games RTS games its obviously right up there with the best of them.
    The whole thing screams quality.

  • viper_h #11 2 years ago

    Game is obviously garbage, and Blizz just want it to sell for a week before people give it the gash scores it deserves.

    Review embargo... never heard anything so fucking ridiculous in all my life. Money grabbing cunts.
    Edited by viper_h at 28/07/10 @ 10:26

  • Goodfella #12 2 years ago

    I was a big fan of Starcraft when it launched and played it for ages online. I haven't played it for years and wasn't that interested in getting SCII but as there's a bit of a drought I thought I'd get it yesterday. Best decision I've made in a long time, I haven't been able to drag myself away from it, it outclasses the first game in every conceivable way, from the single player to all the other modes.

    If we're going to argue about insignificant scores then I really can't see this getting anything below a 9/10 on any site. If you don't like RTS games then avoid, but for everyone who does, or is on the fence then I'd recommend it, no question.

    It's so full of content and so polished it's blinding!
    Edited by Goodfella at 28/07/10 @ 10:48

  • anomagnus #13 2 years ago

    @Viper_h

    I can only assume you're aiming for a negging. I got the game yesterday, only played the first 3 missions before heading out, so its too early to say whether its brilliant, but i can tell you that its not 'gash'

    If anything is 'gash', its forumite blow hards like you, with your immediate knee jerk reactions, and total assumptions. Opinion is not fact. If you had actually done ANY reading on this subject, and i mean ANY, you'd know that there wasnt an embergo. Blizzard werent activating SC2 on Battlenet, making it impossible to play.

    More than that, when have blizzard ever put out anythig that could be considered gash? And if there were money grabbing cunts as you put, would they have waited 12 years to bring out a sequel to a game that is considered one of the finest RTS games around? Thats not money grabbing behaviour.

    Try activating your brain once in a while
    Edited by anomagnus at 28/07/10 @ 12:04

  • viper_h #14 2 years ago

    @anomagnus Nerdrage is funny. Go back to Korea.

  • Shiflett #15 2 years ago

    @Viper_h

    It's not nerd rage, he's just making a well thought out and on the point reply to your" lets say something stupid" comment

    I've not played SC1 or 2 and am not that fussed about RTS games in general, but i'd be willing to guess that it'll be a well structured, fun and engaging game to someone like me anyway.

    Blizzard don't have the reputation they have for no reason, if you're not a blizzard fan then thats cool, I wouldn't just bash blizz games unless you actually make a decent point

  • neems #16 2 years ago

    Isn't this the internet? He could be in Korea already for all we know.

  • dloob #17 2 years ago

    Well so far it's caused two blue screens on windows 7 64bit, which is the first time I've seen one on windows 7 so that was impressive. Maybe it's the updated AMD video driver.
    At least they only happen ocassionaly during start up and once it hung while trying to enter the options screen after it lost the battle.net connection.

  • UncleLou #18 2 years ago

    Nerdrage is funny

    Indeed. Look, I've found a hilarious example in this very thread:

    "Review embargo... never heard anything so fucking ridiculous in all my life. Money grabbing cunts."

  • anomagnus #19 2 years ago

    I'm not from korea!

    Was that a nerd ragy post? I'm not so much defending blizz, as getting annoyed by knee jerk reactions these days.

  • sneetch #20 2 years ago

    Got it yesterday, installed it, about 6 missions into the campaign and I love it, slick and highly polished I'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes RTS games with actual campaigns (unless, of course, you've already decided you hate it, buying it then would be a waste of money :) ).

    I liked the arcade machine in the cantina, nice touch and a good example of what you can do with the game engine.

  • BobsUncle #21 2 years ago

    @anomagnus

    They didn't spend 12 years making it, they said in the interview yesterday that they didn't expect WoW to be so big and got tied up with that.

    TBH, I agree with the money grabbing cunts comment. Acti/Bliz put a RRP of £45 on it because they know people will buy it, a bit like MW:2, and you don't have to look too far back to see the new mount for WoW debacle. What was it, £17 for a new horse skin? I think they're taking the piss myself.

  • chrisola #22 2 years ago

    Has it been announced whether or not the other races games will be full priced releases? I'm hoping they will be expansion pack prices otherwise getting hooked on this will be expensive!

  • lmephisto #23 2 years ago

    I got greedy and got the collectors edition but i have to admit that Act-Bliz are indeed way to expensive. They are to confident at the moment that ppl will buy their games and they rip us off like they did with COD games and even Blur. One mistake though and it will be enough for activision and blizzard to understand that they are not that special and lets hope they will reduce the prices like the rest or at least to put them in the normal retail prices like the rest.

  • UncleLou #24 2 years ago

    Don't mind the RRP personally as I know I'll get my money's worth out of the game, but to be fair, I haven't paid less for a new PC game than I did for SC2 in years anyhow. High numbers/big competition: cheap game. So it's more of a a theoretical problem, I dare say. Especially as you can register the game at battle.net, so there's no need at all to buy digitally.
    Edited by UncleLou at 28/07/10 @ 13:33

  • BobsUncle #25 2 years ago

    @UncleLou

    Where the hell are you buying your games if you've not paid less than £35 in the last few years!?

    Hang on, let me guess. Steam.

  • UncleLou #26 2 years ago

    Where the hell are you buying your games if you've not paid less than £35 in the last few years!?

    In Germany. :) PC game prices in the UK are lower than anywhere else in the Western world, so you are a little "spoilt", mind.

    But I've paid 37,- € for SC2, which is almost "mid-price" here. most new PC games cost between 45,- to 50,- €.

  • SAMagic #27 2 years ago

    Even £35 is a lot compared to other PC games - I've never paid for more than £30 in the past. If it was £45 for all 3 campaigns, in episodic format, like purchasing a season of games from Telltale, then it would be solid value for money. Apparently we're getting expansions for the zerg and Protoss campaigns, so presumably it'll be more than just the campaigns. And this is Blizzard who renowned for awesome expansions stuffed with as much as they can.

    Regardless, the £45 price is worrying. Blizzard apparently operate separately from Activision, but it's an obvious parallel to Acti increasing the price for Modern Warfare 2. I don't know. It's like investing in a joint venture between an angel and a demon, you want to trust them both equally but can't help but suspect one is influencing the other...

  • BobsUncle #28 2 years ago

    @UncleLou

    Ok, fair enough. That probably explains why Steam seems like such a rip-off to me but still keeps selling. (e.g. Chaos Rising is £30 on there or £15 from Play/Amazon).

    Can you not buy games from Amazon.co.uk as opposed to amazon.de?

  • BobsUncle #29 2 years ago

    @SAMagic

    Agreed, I want SC2 but I'm not buying it until it's clear under £30. By that I don't mean £29.97, I mean preferably below £25.

    I don't want publishers thinking £35 - £45 is acceptable for PC games.

  • UncleLou #30 2 years ago

    Can you not buy games from Amazon.co.uk as opposed to amazon.de?

    Yeah, I sometimes do that. Not nearly often enough due to sheer lazyness, but I should really. It's not just PC games, too. I recently checked a few PS3 games on amazon.co.uk (like Nier and Resonance of Fate), and they all cost less than half of what I have to pay here.

    Steam is another thing: you assume correctly that it's not really more expensive than retail here. In the UK, the difference is bigger, although Steam prices in the UK are already lower than anywhere else. I've had friendly forumites from the UK gift me (obviously I paid them) games on Steam, saving a lot of money, but still paying more than I would have for a boxed copy in the UK.

    Strange situation, all in all. I fully understand you guys being a little pissed off about SC 2, but part of it being so expensive is that it has a more "normal" price, on a European scale.

    FWIW, you guys could import it from Germany and use the code with an English version downloaded from Battle.net, but with the added p&p, it won't come cheaper, I guess.

  • wired009 #31 2 years ago

    There were a fair number of people who played the beta, myself included, who weren't overly impressed with the game. Play balance wasn't all there, limited number of units and unit upgrades, bad pathing and bottlenecks for melee units, etc. I'm not passing judgement on the game, it definitely is a huge improvement over SC1, just saying that sometimes it's not good to drink the Blizz koolaid. I'm waiting for my friends' verdict on the game before I pick it up.

  • anomagnus #32 2 years ago

    Technically, i didnt say they needed 12 years to code the game, jsut they waited 12 years to bring it out.

    Regarding price, i barely even noticed the price, it was pretty much the same as a new xbox release anyway. For me the price ceiling had been smashed ever since SF2 on the snes came in at 60 quid in the mid 90's.

    As for the activision thing, i'm not really concerned. Blizzard are not IW. I've no actual knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors, but i'd be surprised if activision were involved in anyway other than the most basic way. I think blizzard mentioned the only reason they went with activision was for their distribution and marketing channels.

    There is a strong internet tendancy to hate kotick and activision. i'm as guilty as any man, i posted reams of abuse about kotick, until i realised hes just the game version of micheal o'leary (ryanair ceo). He's simply saying things to get attention. What he says, and what the company does really wont effect my purchasing decision. If the game is good, and its something i am interested in, i'll buy it. If the game sucks, i'll ignore it. But how it's published won't bother me.

  • BobsUncle #33 2 years ago

    @anomagnus

    Yeah, on re-reading your post I realise you didn't mean they took 12 years to make it, but still, they didn't intentionally wait 12 years to release either. The intention was to release earlier but they were held up with WoW. It's not like they were waiting for the right time to release, they just couldn't do it!

    I guess if you didn't clock the price as high you may be one of the non UK readers like UncleLou who mentioned £35 is about right in Germany.

    If you are a UK resident and you think an RRP of £45 (even with a realistic price of £35) for a PC game is fine, well, you must be either rich or stupid (no offence). Also, Xbox and PS3 titles are always more expensive as you have to pay fees to Sony and MS to release on their platform, so comparing to a console price is not totally realistic, a PC title should always be cheaper.

  • dirtysteve #34 2 years ago

    Blizzards own digital version E59.99, Store price - E39.99. Is it worth emailing them to find out exactly what I get for the extra 20?

  • UncleLou #35 2 years ago

    Also, Xbox and PS3 titles are always more expensive as you have to pay fees to Sony and MS to release on their platform, so comparing to a console price is not totally realistic, a PC title should always be cheaper.

    While that's generally true, it doesn't apply for first-party software, where the platform holder pockets it all, and obviously has to pay no license to himself.

  • Rack #36 2 years ago

    ^Even then though the license fee is there to pay for the reduced cost of the console itself, MS may not have to pay themselves a license but they do have to throw something into the multibillion black hole of selling the 360 at a loss for so long. Of course Nintendo have no such excuse.

    As for the game, well I'm expecting another GTAIV, a solid but unremarkable expansion whipped up to a wholly unrealistically high score on all the major review sites as a result of a hype inferno.

  • Spekingur #37 2 years ago

    RRPs on console games is so high because they can get away with it.
    And that is also why Blizzard's own digital download copy is priced so high. Because they can - and we, the gamers, moan but buy it anyways.
    I'm still waiting on Activision putting out a 100EUR game (100USD game) that has no peripherals and is half finished - and will be released with lots of map packs and horse armour that is sold for 15-20USD/EUR each. This will happen if they get greedy enough.

  • FortysixterUK #38 2 years ago

    Well, having just unlocked all the areas on the Hyperperion, I can safely say this game is excellent. deserving of an 8 at least in review scores.

    Anyone who slates this game , therefore denying it's clever design, OTT but quality acting, great music and absorbing gameplay
    have likely got an opinion that matters little and everything they say and do is likely to be wrong in every way for the rest of their sad lives.

    There, I insulted all the SC2 slaters , and refrained from using a single rude word. Me so proud.

    However, I understand that the English phrase " Viper_h" actually translates to the word " cunt" in ancient Mesopotamian.

  • lmephisto #39 2 years ago

    Oh and another thing in Cyprus and Greece the retail price for starcraft is 59.95 euros for the standard and 94.95 euros .

    The game rules though is the prices Activision have to reduce .