1. DavidH

   10

   Hell, it's about time. I am writing this review because this is probably one of the most noteworthy games to be released in the past five years or so, and it is getting shit tons of awful reviews. I will address this at the end of things. First off, it is the successor to literally the greatest RTS game ever (it's the national sport of south korea), so how could this game not be good? It's been a 12 year gap since StarCraft was originally released, and this game has been in development for around five to seven years (that's a loose value). At E3 in 2007 they showed gameplay previews and have been working on it ever since. Any other game company would have quickly churned out a steaming load of crap when they had the slightest semblance of an actual game... aka back in 2007. Blizzard releases stuff when it's ready, and this game shows that 'it's ready'. I'm glad they took their time. This game gets 10/10, even with a few minor complaints. It is incredibly polished, well thought out, and well executed. Graphics are pretty awesome for an rts (I still zoom in on random stuff just to see the little nuances and details... especially after unit upgrades). I can run it on ultra at 1680x1050 on a rig that cost me around 500 bucks for the graphics card, mobo, cpu, and memory a year and a half ago. So far the campaign is enthralling and very well made. The little things really shine. The achievements are pretty legit and the single player challenge exercises really help to develop some core skills (micro mainly) to succeed on the multiplayer front. The map editor is hugely powerful and will definitely yield some awesome results. I will now address my complaints. /****!!!!!!MAY CONTAIN SPOLIERS!!!!!!!!*****/ My main complaints (disappointments even) are that prerendered cutscenes are recycled from various teasers and trailers released... I had a huge WTF moment during the opening "cinematic". Also, the mid-campaign zeratul cutscene was also unveiled previously. Not game changers by any means, but based on how good Blizzard cinematics are, I was expecting some ridiculous new stuff, but was sort of let down. That is honestly my biggest complaint. Crazy huh? Despite this, between missions there are plenty of scripted dialogue events and some pretty cool news casts, though I wish they could have been a bit more subtle in their portrayal of the UNN newscaster guy as an obvious faux news // disinformation source. I can understand the humor, but it's blatant to the point where it's just over the top and stupidly done (I'm sure there are people who are reading this and thinking: 'it's supposed to be FUD for the masses duh lolololololzzzz so true amirite!!!!'... these people also probably worship South Park... 'nuff said). This has no effect on gameplay though. I think it's also cool how they included original SC units in the campaign, but left them out of multiplayer. During the beta I was super pissed at first that there would be no firebats or medics or vultures (protoss and zerg units were also excluded), but quickly realized that the new units more than compensated in strategic value. I really like the upgrade and research system for the campaign. Researching stim packs or siege mode every mission would get tiresome quickly, so I'm glad that was dispensed with. The difficulty gap between normal-hard-insane is pretty large. I'm attempting everything on insane for the first time, but for around half the missions I've had to go to hard to finish them, and for maybe half of those hard missions I've had to go to normal as to not waste hours of time. The main obstacle is understanding how to effectively complete a mission, and then sticking with it. Normal is a breeze. Hard is more difficult. Insane has the same AI as hard, but I believe the computer gets additional resources. That's how the multiplayer worked, but I'm not exactly sure about the campaign. My only issue with multiplayer is that there are no custom game titles (for the inevitable DoTA comparison, how do we know we are playing -ap -rm and the lot? Also how do I know if a game is lightheartedly made for drunk college kids to dick around on and not really be interested in uber competition?) Bnet2 is pretty good, though the match making placement system for ladder games is sort of effed up... I won four matches and utterly destroyed my opponent, but then got cheesed by the fifth. I got placed in the bronze league (this was when they still had copper during the beta). I'm waiting to play multiplayer after I finish the campaign. We'll see how that goes. I will now address the people who are giving out 0/10 reviews. These people generally fall into a couple of categories: 1. They are legitimate fans of the game who play competetively and recognize the problems with a lack of LAN play for tournaments, and thus have waged campaigns of poor ratings in hopes of getting Blizzards attention. This was an organized movement by various StarCraft sites and leagues such as TL or ICCUP. I can somewhat understand this complaint, as it is an indication that Blizzard (or more accurately perhaps Activision) wants to be in control of "official" tournaments. I believe there were talks of LAN capabilities being available, but only to properly licensed (ie paying) organizations. Most of these people probably bought the game on release, but gave a poor review for their cause. I'm pretty sure we'll see LAN in the future though... if not from Blizzard, then from a third party. A possible solution to this could be to have an initial internet verification of every game client (DRM check), but then have it transfer over to a LAN based game. I honestly couldn't imagine having an internet based LAN party with eight people on one connection... that would be a mess, and I'm hopeful that a solution will arrive (but lets be serious... the days of the LAN are overshadowed by Call of Halo Wars Gritty Destruction: FUll Auto and Farmville) 2. Asshole pirates/cheapskates who want everything given to them for free. They whine about lack of LAN and spawn installs, and the fact that you have to have a Bnet account to play... when in reality they just want to play without paying a cent. Yes, starcraft was originally so successful due in part to it's spawn install, but that was back in the days when high speed internet was not as prevalent, and there needed to be some sort of demo type shareware thing going around. It was so you could play with friends together, socialize, have a good time, and convince people to actually buy the game. After I got a spawn install and realized I couldn't play without my other buddy who owned the game, I went out and bought the retail game. I don't know why these people bother with a review, because they are going to get a pirated version anyways and just play it in singleplayer, LAN, custom games, and probably emulated bnet eventually. I wonder what their rating would be based on actually playing the game??? SC has always been about the multiplayer. The campaigns are great, but multiplayer is where the value and replayability comes from. Tying the game to a bnet account seems to be one of the few methods of DRM that seems to actually work (Valve has a similar system via Steam). Additionally these people will say that you are paying full price for 1/3 of a game. This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The campaign is a full single player gaming experience. It is a full game. The single player campaign should take an acceptable amount of time to complete for a standalone single player experience. I've spent ten hours on it, and I'm maybe 1/3-1/2 of the way through it. I'm playing on insane/hard so things take some time. Yes you can blow through it on easy in probably under ten hours, but that defeats the purpose of the game. Guess what? If you Use cheats, and you can 'beat' it in under fifteen minutes! Amazing! The next games in the trilogy will be expansion packs adding huge campaigns. While I agree it sucks that it is divided up into three parts for each race, the sheer scope of the game warrants a trilogy. They have been transparent about this for around three years I believe, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. I only hope that the future expansions are priced accordingly... perhaps around thirty bucks. These reviews generally sound like: NO LAN, NO CHAT CHANNELS, NO SPAWN, 1/3 OF A GAME @ FULL PRICE, NO BUY!!!!! (that is a pretty accurate summary of all the 0 reviews on amazon and metacritic... wish they were actually playing and reviewing the game!) 3. Legitimate complaints. I've heard some valid issues from a very small minority of people complaining about compatibility issues (that may be the fault of awful/outdated hardware... even though the game scales really well), and the internet connection required to play... the most intriguing was that of a guy who had a yacht he wanted to play on but didn't have satellite internet so he couldn't play on his boat, even in a single player setting. That's a pretty niche issue. As far as compatibility/server issues, I'm pretty sure this stuff will get worked out and solved. Yeah it sucks that it doesn't work, but these things will be addressed. Basically, a lot of the zero star people are not giving reviews based on the merits of the gameplay. I would agree that maybe if people have issues with compatibility, internet connection, graphics, bnet, etc, that they should knock a couple points off the rating, but they shouldn't troll and give out a zero for a game they haven't even purchased/played yet. Despite all these negative reviews, Starcraft 2 is going to be GotY.… Expand

   • Helpful? 2 of 2 users said Yes.
2. Junk

   8

   The thing that makes this game great is the fact that it is an old school RTS game, they did not jump on the no base building hero unit trend which is great. Overall a good game. No problems running the game at all even on ultra.… Expand

   • Helpful? 3 of 3 users said Yes.
3. kirkteegardin

   7

   Star Craft II: Wings of Liberty is the first part of Starcraft II. Blizzard is planning on releasing several Star Craft II games with each of them having a a different story. They decided to do this to make more money. Instead of buying one game with a lot of campaigns you will have to buy multiple games. A lot of people love this game. Game Informer gives it a 10/10 (the last one given in three years). They way I look at it is that if you don't already have this game and are planing to play online you should not get it. I got it about a month after release and I am do terrible online. The game give noobs like you and me fifty warm up rounds (I skipped them and did the five games that places you in a bracket). I some how managed to win one of the five games. Now when I play online I usually lose in fifteen minutes. In other Real Time Strategy games like Age of Mythology and Age of Empires it usually takes at around twenty minutes for the first attack. In Starcraft II you are attacked after ten minutes of playing the game. As for me, I like to make an empire, get resources, get all the upgrades, and so on. Maybe RTS games online are not my cup of tea. The graphics are good along with the campaign. What I like most about the campaign is that in between missions you are on a ship and you can get upgrades and talk people. (This is unheard off in an RTS). I also liked when you are on a mission you get people communicating with you about the mission of the left side of the screen. The story was okay but I never played the first Starcraft (that may have helped me understand it). The graphics are good but I have seen better. With this game being pushed and pushed for a release date you would expect the graphics to be at least as good as Red Dead Redemption. One positive thing was that you did not have to pay a monthly fee like World of Warcraft. I would have played even less of this game or may have not purchased it if had Like I said, if your not already playing online then expect to get you smashed in.… Expand

   • Helpful? 3 of 3 users said Yes.
4. theNILE

   3

   Where should I start. Most BW fans were disappointed with the game and Blizzard just did a horrible job with this game. BW has a far higher skill-cap and feels more fun, WoL is a watered down version of the game. Even as a non Starcraft/RTS player, you'll probably easily understand the advantages, vulnerabilities and mechanics of WoL, it's just really simple and barely requires mathematics unlike BW. So... you have to pay for another account in a different region...if you're playing on a foreign region then your ping is terrible even though the ping was perfectly fine in the beta. The lack of social interaction is a big issue which they are only now coming to address. They removed units from the game itself from BW and changed the meta to encourage turtling. That being said, it is more balanced than BW and it is better spectator-wise which was the main problem with BW. Now the single-player...is the single-player, with a bad story and less memorable characters than in SC1/BW. All in all, Blizzard tried to capitalize on old franchise (as they did with Diablo 3) and it was just a waste of space.… Expand

   • Helpful? 5 of 12 users said Yes.

See all 752 User Reviews