This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 7th, 2010 at 3:55 pm and is filed under Pc Games.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty Collector’s Edition”
One can only respect BLIZZARD for not setting a release date before they knew they could meet it. No matter that this was the most awaited game for over a decade, they would release it “whenever it would be ready”. Well, it is ready, it is here and it rocks. Too bad they kicked the respect bucket in the end. But first things first.
THE GOOD OLD GAMEPLAY GETS THE CIGAR
Seasoned and new gamers alike will appreciate the simple yet highly enjoyable gameplay. The factions are well balanced and the units perfectly valued. You gather minerals and vespene gas, you build your defenses, you upgrade, you expand, you gather your forces – and you unleash hell. Repeat as needed until satisfied.
STARCRAFT: THE QUICKENING
The game is much faster than the original. Resource gathering, building, researching and expanding all go faster now. This is something that will appeal to most and I for one liked it. It conveys an enjoyable sense of urgency, adding to the immersion. And because the game is richer and deeper, the tension just keeps mounting.
SWARMS!
The game designers either enjoyed STARSHIP TROOPERS one times too many or they are fond of killer bees documentaries. Either way, be prepared to have to deal with a lot of swarming enemies! The plains shall be soaked in Zerg blood leaving you with a thick metallic aftertaste of accomplishment.
SPACE. SPACE IS BEAUTIFUL
Visually this game is GORGEOUS. It looks like C&C4 was supposed to (but failed miserably). The units are detailed in design yet clearly discernible whereas the environments are superbly done (although not that variable). True, I could do with somewhat more realistic graphics but I can see that this could only be done at the expense of clarity when the number of units rises. What needs a bit getting used to is how some of the buildings do not look that different. No complaints about how they look but one can easily confuse them and build the same building twice.
COME FOR THE VESPENE GAS. STAY FOR THE STORY
The story picks up just where SC-BROODWAR left off. Following each mission nicely done videos move the single player story along (no spoilers, not to worry) that, although we are given the illusion of choosing between different paths, apparently they converge towards a predestined end.
DAMN IT JIM, WHERE IS THE REST OF THE GAME?
Why only 3 stars then? Well, in a nutshell: GREED.
Apparently ACTIVISION’s influence is not very healthy to customer relations. Together with BLIZZARD they are trying to turn the StarCraft franchise into yet another World of WarCraft phenomenon – and, at the same time, using STARCRAFT II as the vehicle, turn BattleNet into the new STEAM. Unfortunately this results in a barely palatable product and using your fan-base to advance your corporate ambitions is always tacky.
Although priced even more than a full premium game, this is not a complete STARCRAFT sequel. You would not know this by its price-tag(!) but this is only A…THIRD of the game, the first part of three: you can only play the Terran campaign. The Zerg and the Protoss campaigns will be released independently later (and priced as if they were full games, one could safely bet).
To add insult to injury, one has to keep spending even more money if he wants any “premium maps” and “premium content” sold only via the BattleNet. Since this is a game that will be played mostly online don’t be quick to dismiss this if you have a competitive streak.
OK, LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT IT – BUT THERE IS A HYDRALISK IN THE ROOM, ISN’T THERE?
Much more serious is the NeverLettingGo-OnLineActivation requirement. The game will ask for activation during installation, which also includes signing up to BattleNet (and, yes, this means that even this expensive game never becomes yours to keep). But that is not all: a periodic OnLine confirmation is also required EVERY THIRTY DAYS, FOREVER. You can play offline but no more than a month between re-activating.
Unlike the latest EA and UBISOFT flops (which have an idiotic Always-OnLine requirement), with SC2, after its initial Activation, you CAN play a single player game (campaign and skirmishes) without logging on to BattleNet. Only, to do this you have to log on as a …”Guest” (I know, a Guest to your own game and your own computer…). You will be able to save your progress but you cannot tie it to your BattleNet account later, so any progress or accomplishments are lost for your online Account. After your 30 days are up you have to re-activate once more.
That is why a Broadband Internet connection is included in the minimum system requirements. You can decide if this bothers you.
SORRY TO BRING THIS UP BUT SPAWN SEEMS TO BE MISSING FROM MY COPY…
Remember how we could take our original STARCRAFT CD to a gathering of friends, Spawn it on everyone else’s PCs and start a LAN party? Now one can play with his friends only through the BattleNet – and the Spawn function has been eliminated! Yes, that means each one of your friends now has to have his own original copy of the game!
The brass at the top conveniently forgets that the ability to Spawn games was the main reason both STARCRAFT and DIABLO acquired such huge fan-bases.
Et tu, BLIZZARD?
This is a good game, one I think we will be enjoying for years – or for as long as BLIZZARD shall allow us to do so. However, I had higher hopes for BLIZZARD’s respect to its own customers.
Blizzard’s (now Activision-Blizzard) obvious success today was hardly a guarantee over a decade ago, and I believe two unshakable tenets of the company back then were responsible for taking them from small game developer to the huge juggernaut that they are now: polish and care. The polish is still there, but the care is gone.
Let me begin by addressing the good stuff in Starcraft 2 first, namely, how polished the game itself is.
Graphics, sound, and game play:
You have to hand it to Blizzard, their art direction is amazing. With such comparatively low polygon count for modern mainstream computer games, there is a world of details coupled with aesthetic color schemes that could make anyone smile. I really cannot stress the attention to detail enough, such as the Terrans laying down their barracks and seeing the beams and foundations go up in real time, the lighting effects of Protoss attack beams, or the reflective organic surface of Zerg bodies. It makes the game feel alive.
The musical score and sound effects aren’t fodder to the pretty graphics either; the production values are high and one can hear all of the treble and specific timbre that goes with every explosion or laser beam that gets fired with a clarity and sharpness that’s to be expected of Blizzard’s products. As any of the Starcraft veterans know, the music perfectly complements each of the three distinct races very well, from the mellow alternative rock motifs of the Terrans, to the new-age majesty of the Protoss, to the sci-fi horror-themed screeches of the Zerg. You may not personally enjoy listening to the background music per se, but it’s undeniable that the pieces fit with each race.
The single player campaign, from the missions I have played thus far, are engaging and wholly satisfying, with the feel of an epic trilogy along the veins of high-budget Hollywood trilogies. I have always adored Blizzard’s attention to story and lore, even if the same themes (betrayal, vengeance, contrition, forgiveness, etc) are used over and over again in their other franchises, but who’s to complain? They’re classic, timeless, literary themes.
The game play is fast and action-paced, save for maybe the first 3-5 minutes of the game where everyone is building up. I can’t say that Starcraft’s brand of fast-paced, high-lethality game play is for everyone, as the learning curve to be considered moderately good is quite high. Thankfully, Bnet2.0′s matching service somewhat mitigates this difference by pairing you with someone similarly skilled by considering total games played, win-loss ratio, level of opponents, etc. How well this matches players is up to debate, but so far I don’t have any complaints.
Now for the bad stuff, which may sound confusing to new players of Blizzard games, but veterans will instantly recognize the problems addressed.
Omission of obvious Bnet2.0 features, RealID support requirement, lack of LAN support, and cost:
The original Starcraft, and each subsequent rendition of [...], has several key features that is conspicuously missing from the Bnet2.0 used in Starcraft 2, namely:
-Private channel support
-Private game features missing
-Named custom games
-Regional server options
Private channel support:
Why is there no private channel support? If Activision-Blizzard were honest with their words that they wanted a [...] experience so good that we wouldn’t want to play offline or on LAN, why leave out such an obvious feature? Private channels allow clans or friends to gather in a chatroom in [...] to organize events, discuss strategies, or just shoot the breeze in general. The lack of private channel support is a huge offense, since this was a standard feature in the days of the original Starcraft, over a decade ago.
Private game features missing:
As it is currently, to join custom games, two players would have to have each other’s game ID, and add each other to their respective friends list. Not only that, ALL friends can see and join games that are created by a user on the friend list. What if you just wanted to relax and host a random custom game with complete strangers, or host a custom game with certain friends but not others? Well, you can’t easily do this, since any friend on your list can see the game you’ve made, and can subsequently join it if they wish.
Named custom games:
Anyone who has played Starcraft or Warcraft III on [...] knows that custom game names are important. “2v2 LT no rush 20min” or “DOTA Cali ALL RANDOM” tell game seekers exactly what they’re getting into when they join these games. This is no longer possible with the current Bnet2.0, as you are only privy to the game map name, and speed of the game.
Regional server options:
In the old [...] if you had friends in different parts of the world (North America, South America, Asia, Europe), you can switch your [...] server to hop over to any of those servers and play with/against them, albeit probably with much more lag, but nonetheless, the option is there. In Starcraft 2, you are locked to the region of your purchase, so there would be no way for you to change region servers. If you’re in the east coast and want to play a few [...] games at 2am and it’s too late in the night to find many games on the east coast, you would not be able to hop on over to the west coast where it’s only 11pm, and likely more players are still on.
RealID support requirement:
The Orwellian requirement to link one’s real name and location to their PUBLIC support forum profile is ridiculous; the potential for abuse is endless, as it is for anything that reveals real, personal information. I guess one could make the argument that it is in the game’s disclaimer, or just don’t buy the game altogether.
Lack of LAN support:
This cannot be stressed enough, LAN is an integral part of modern multiplayer RTS games, even if the majority of players will not be using it often. Just because most people don’t use Radians on calculators, does that mean we should get rid of it entirely and use only Degrees? The point is, LAN settings could range from fun, social gatherings with friends, to tournaments hosted at some internet cafe; being 100% reliant on [...] to be up is hardly reassuring, especially considering that tournaments require the low latency that only LAN environments can provide.
Cost:
At $60, and with all of the previous issues addressed, Starcraft 2 is too much for its worth. I hate to say it, but as much as I love the game play and the level of polish, the price tag does not justify the clear omission of certain key features.
I love Blizzard’s RTS franchises, but it seems that Activision-Blizzard has stopped caring about the long-time fans that catapulted them to their prominence today. I love Starcraft 2′s game play and level of polish, but I cannot get past some of the egregious offenses that the game possesses.
Rating: 2 / 5
Allow me to preface my brief review by saying I don’t care about LAN; I also didn’t particularly care about the campaign being split into 3 boxes, after being told that each campaign would be long. So my negative opinion of the game came after buying it, and completing the campaign, with no predisposed hostility.
Disappointment 1) The campaign was short, uninspired, and uninteresting. I guess I won’t spoil anything, but it did not feel, to me, like a complete story (a la… Starcraft, Warcraft 1-3). So although I didn’t care before about it only being the Terran campaign, I now do.
Disappointment 2) The battlenet system is just awful. The only people I know who love Blizzard RTS games are crazy for custom maps… RPG’s, melee maps with custom units, etc… This new system disallows you from simply making/downloading a map and playing it (not to mention you pretty much can’t make maps either, unless you have a master’s in computer science). I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say you are stuck with a handful of boring maps on battlenet or the maps Blizzard included… and it didn’t include many.
Disappointment 3) I loved Starcraft and Warcraft 2′s editors. Then Warcraft 3 came and just tore those to shreds, with its ease of use and total customization power. I was expecting the next level with Starcraft 2; what I got was pretty much a gigantic excel spreadsheet full of jibberish I don’t understand. Gone are the days when one could pop open the editor and add some new units or heroes to a map. Now, if doing that is still possible, you pretty much need to go to Starcraft U, and then spend several hours doing tedious crap that will get you possibly the same result as 2-5 minutes in the WC3 editor. This single issue would have led me to not buy the game, as this is my primary interest in Blizzard RTS games.
Disappointment 4) Campaigns and custom maps aside, the game is just a complete rehash of the original with less (and less fun) units. Almost as if they held back units for future releases, which is a total cop out. Firebats, medics, wraiths, and more all appeared in the campaign, so I got complacent… only to find the actual game was completely stripped down. At this point I thought “Hmm… oh well, I guess I can just put those units back in custom maps”… oya… I can’t… see disappointment 3.
So I’m pretty much disappointed about every single aspect of this long awaited game lol. I actually stopped playing it after only 4 days (yes, I completed the campaign, challenges, and played a dozen or so matches), and got the urge to start playing WC3 again (a far better, and more complete game).
I am really hoping the editor and battlenet things are addressed sometime soon, so I haven’t completely given up hope; but this game does not measure up to any game Blizzard has produced in the past 16 years.
Rating: 2 / 5
The game itself: the campaign is incomplete and therefore not terribly rewarding, although fun enough to play through. Multiplayer is where the longevity is, and unfortunately for that we’re reliant upon the biggest crime perpetrated against the most loyal fanbase in computer gaming history — [...] “2.0″.
What is wrong with “2.0″?
1. Region locked. 2010, regular internet user, you probably know someone in a different region you’d like to play with. This is an option only if you buy another client, for that particular region.
2. Limited to a single account. Does your family consist of more than one person? You’ll have to buy more than one copy.
3. Always online ‘experience’. Playing the campaign, watching replays, you’re visible to people who have you on their friends list (people who may have added you to their friends list without your permission). There is no option to disable messages, or be invisible (like any IM client offers), so if people want to message you, there’s no stopping them.
4. Lag. Smoothness not guaranteed on “2.0″.
5. Hacks. In spite of all of its invasive DRM, “2.0″ has not managed to maintain the integrity of its ladder for more than a week. Map hacks and disc hacks (hacks which give your opponent an unfair sight advantage, and hacks which cause your client to crash within seconds of the game starting) have already surfaced. If you played War III you know how much of an issue this was, and from the looks of it will continue to be in SC II.
6. No LAN. Once “2.0″ will be completely ruined by hacks like War III, there will be no alternative. War III had third party LAN-emulated private servers that people who were serious about the game could play on. Servers that weren’t completely destroyed by hacks. No such luck for SC II, you’re stuck with “2.0″.
7. Map publishing system is completely ridiculous. You can not host your own maps. [...] “2.0″ has to host them for you. The most popular maps are always at the top, with newer maps not being played at all, due to being buried deep down the list. There are many limitations to adhere to when trying to release a map to the “2.0″ server. It can not exceed 10MB, and your total allowance for your 5 map limit is 25MB. It rejects maps based on certain language used, as well. For example, the words “god” and “suicide” are not permitted. Are they deliberately trying to stifle the community? It seems that way to me.
8. The writing’s on the wall for DLC (downloadable content) and certain countries operate on a monthly subscription basis. Something I’m sure Kotick would like to see implemented globally. It will only get worse, not better.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
One can only respect BLIZZARD for not setting a release date before they knew they could meet it. No matter that this was the most awaited game for over a decade, they would release it “whenever it would be ready”. Well, it is ready, it is here and it rocks. Too bad they kicked the respect bucket in the end. But first things first.
THE GOOD OLD GAMEPLAY GETS THE CIGAR
Seasoned and new gamers alike will appreciate the simple yet highly enjoyable gameplay. The factions are well balanced and the units perfectly valued. You gather minerals and vespene gas, you build your defenses, you upgrade, you expand, you gather your forces – and you unleash hell. Repeat as needed until satisfied.
STARCRAFT: THE QUICKENING
The game is much faster than the original. Resource gathering, building, researching and expanding all go faster now. This is something that will appeal to most and I for one liked it. It conveys an enjoyable sense of urgency, adding to the immersion. And because the game is richer and deeper, the tension just keeps mounting.
SWARMS!
The game designers either enjoyed STARSHIP TROOPERS one times too many or they are fond of killer bees documentaries. Either way, be prepared to have to deal with a lot of swarming enemies! The plains shall be soaked in Zerg blood leaving you with a thick metallic aftertaste of accomplishment.
SPACE. SPACE IS BEAUTIFUL
Visually this game is GORGEOUS. It looks like C&C4 was supposed to (but failed miserably). The units are detailed in design yet clearly discernible whereas the environments are superbly done (although not that variable). True, I could do with somewhat more realistic graphics but I can see that this could only be done at the expense of clarity when the number of units rises. What needs a bit getting used to is how some of the buildings do not look that different. No complaints about how they look but one can easily confuse them and build the same building twice.
COME FOR THE VESPENE GAS. STAY FOR THE STORY
The story picks up just where SC-BROODWAR left off. Following each mission nicely done videos move the single player story along (no spoilers, not to worry) that, although we are given the illusion of choosing between different paths, apparently they converge towards a predestined end.
DAMN IT JIM, WHERE IS THE REST OF THE GAME?
Why only 3 stars then? Well, in a nutshell: GREED.
Apparently ACTIVISION’s influence is not very healthy to customer relations. Together with BLIZZARD they are trying to turn the StarCraft franchise into yet another World of WarCraft phenomenon – and, at the same time, using STARCRAFT II as the vehicle, turn BattleNet into the new STEAM. Unfortunately this results in a barely palatable product and using your fan-base to advance your corporate ambitions is always tacky.
Although priced even more than a full premium game, this is not a complete STARCRAFT sequel. You would not know this by its price-tag(!) but this is only A…THIRD of the game, the first part of three: you can only play the Terran campaign. The Zerg and the Protoss campaigns will be released independently later (and priced as if they were full games, one could safely bet).
To add insult to injury, one has to keep spending even more money if he wants any “premium maps” and “premium content” sold only via the BattleNet. Since this is a game that will be played mostly online don’t be quick to dismiss this if you have a competitive streak.
OK, LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT IT – BUT THERE IS A HYDRALISK IN THE ROOM, ISN’T THERE?
Much more serious is the NeverLettingGo-OnLineActivation requirement. The game will ask for activation during installation, which also includes signing up to BattleNet (and, yes, this means that even this expensive game never becomes yours to keep). But that is not all: a periodic OnLine confirmation is also required EVERY THIRTY DAYS, FOREVER. You can play offline but no more than a month between re-activating.
Unlike the latest EA and UBISOFT flops (which have an idiotic Always-OnLine requirement), with SC2, after its initial Activation, you CAN play a single player game (campaign and skirmishes) without logging on to BattleNet. Only, to do this you have to log on as a …”Guest” (I know, a Guest to your own game and your own computer…). You will be able to save your progress but you cannot tie it to your BattleNet account later, so any progress or accomplishments are lost for your online Account. After your 30 days are up you have to re-activate once more.
That is why a Broadband Internet connection is included in the minimum system requirements. You can decide if this bothers you.
SORRY TO BRING THIS UP BUT SPAWN SEEMS TO BE MISSING FROM MY COPY…
Remember how we could take our original STARCRAFT CD to a gathering of friends, Spawn it on everyone else’s PCs and start a LAN party? Now one can play with his friends only through the BattleNet – and the Spawn function has been eliminated! Yes, that means each one of your friends now has to have his own original copy of the game!
The brass at the top conveniently forgets that the ability to Spawn games was the main reason both STARCRAFT and DIABLO acquired such huge fan-bases.
Et tu, BLIZZARD?
This is a good game, one I think we will be enjoying for years – or for as long as BLIZZARD shall allow us to do so. However, I had higher hopes for BLIZZARD’s respect to its own customers.
RECOMMENDED.
Rating: 3 / 5
September 7th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Blizzard’s (now Activision-Blizzard) obvious success today was hardly a guarantee over a decade ago, and I believe two unshakable tenets of the company back then were responsible for taking them from small game developer to the huge juggernaut that they are now: polish and care. The polish is still there, but the care is gone.
Let me begin by addressing the good stuff in Starcraft 2 first, namely, how polished the game itself is.
Graphics, sound, and game play:
You have to hand it to Blizzard, their art direction is amazing. With such comparatively low polygon count for modern mainstream computer games, there is a world of details coupled with aesthetic color schemes that could make anyone smile. I really cannot stress the attention to detail enough, such as the Terrans laying down their barracks and seeing the beams and foundations go up in real time, the lighting effects of Protoss attack beams, or the reflective organic surface of Zerg bodies. It makes the game feel alive.
The musical score and sound effects aren’t fodder to the pretty graphics either; the production values are high and one can hear all of the treble and specific timbre that goes with every explosion or laser beam that gets fired with a clarity and sharpness that’s to be expected of Blizzard’s products. As any of the Starcraft veterans know, the music perfectly complements each of the three distinct races very well, from the mellow alternative rock motifs of the Terrans, to the new-age majesty of the Protoss, to the sci-fi horror-themed screeches of the Zerg. You may not personally enjoy listening to the background music per se, but it’s undeniable that the pieces fit with each race.
The single player campaign, from the missions I have played thus far, are engaging and wholly satisfying, with the feel of an epic trilogy along the veins of high-budget Hollywood trilogies. I have always adored Blizzard’s attention to story and lore, even if the same themes (betrayal, vengeance, contrition, forgiveness, etc) are used over and over again in their other franchises, but who’s to complain? They’re classic, timeless, literary themes.
The game play is fast and action-paced, save for maybe the first 3-5 minutes of the game where everyone is building up. I can’t say that Starcraft’s brand of fast-paced, high-lethality game play is for everyone, as the learning curve to be considered moderately good is quite high. Thankfully, Bnet2.0′s matching service somewhat mitigates this difference by pairing you with someone similarly skilled by considering total games played, win-loss ratio, level of opponents, etc. How well this matches players is up to debate, but so far I don’t have any complaints.
Now for the bad stuff, which may sound confusing to new players of Blizzard games, but veterans will instantly recognize the problems addressed.
Omission of obvious Bnet2.0 features, RealID support requirement, lack of LAN support, and cost:
The original Starcraft, and each subsequent rendition of [...], has several key features that is conspicuously missing from the Bnet2.0 used in Starcraft 2, namely:
-Private channel support
-Private game features missing
-Named custom games
-Regional server options
Private channel support:
Why is there no private channel support? If Activision-Blizzard were honest with their words that they wanted a [...] experience so good that we wouldn’t want to play offline or on LAN, why leave out such an obvious feature? Private channels allow clans or friends to gather in a chatroom in [...] to organize events, discuss strategies, or just shoot the breeze in general. The lack of private channel support is a huge offense, since this was a standard feature in the days of the original Starcraft, over a decade ago.
Private game features missing:
As it is currently, to join custom games, two players would have to have each other’s game ID, and add each other to their respective friends list. Not only that, ALL friends can see and join games that are created by a user on the friend list. What if you just wanted to relax and host a random custom game with complete strangers, or host a custom game with certain friends but not others? Well, you can’t easily do this, since any friend on your list can see the game you’ve made, and can subsequently join it if they wish.
Named custom games:
Anyone who has played Starcraft or Warcraft III on [...] knows that custom game names are important. “2v2 LT no rush 20min” or “DOTA Cali ALL RANDOM” tell game seekers exactly what they’re getting into when they join these games. This is no longer possible with the current Bnet2.0, as you are only privy to the game map name, and speed of the game.
Regional server options:
In the old [...] if you had friends in different parts of the world (North America, South America, Asia, Europe), you can switch your [...] server to hop over to any of those servers and play with/against them, albeit probably with much more lag, but nonetheless, the option is there. In Starcraft 2, you are locked to the region of your purchase, so there would be no way for you to change region servers. If you’re in the east coast and want to play a few [...] games at 2am and it’s too late in the night to find many games on the east coast, you would not be able to hop on over to the west coast where it’s only 11pm, and likely more players are still on.
RealID support requirement:
The Orwellian requirement to link one’s real name and location to their PUBLIC support forum profile is ridiculous; the potential for abuse is endless, as it is for anything that reveals real, personal information. I guess one could make the argument that it is in the game’s disclaimer, or just don’t buy the game altogether.
Lack of LAN support:
This cannot be stressed enough, LAN is an integral part of modern multiplayer RTS games, even if the majority of players will not be using it often. Just because most people don’t use Radians on calculators, does that mean we should get rid of it entirely and use only Degrees? The point is, LAN settings could range from fun, social gatherings with friends, to tournaments hosted at some internet cafe; being 100% reliant on [...] to be up is hardly reassuring, especially considering that tournaments require the low latency that only LAN environments can provide.
Cost:
At $60, and with all of the previous issues addressed, Starcraft 2 is too much for its worth. I hate to say it, but as much as I love the game play and the level of polish, the price tag does not justify the clear omission of certain key features.
I love Blizzard’s RTS franchises, but it seems that Activision-Blizzard has stopped caring about the long-time fans that catapulted them to their prominence today. I love Starcraft 2′s game play and level of polish, but I cannot get past some of the egregious offenses that the game possesses.
Rating: 2 / 5
September 7th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Allow me to preface my brief review by saying I don’t care about LAN; I also didn’t particularly care about the campaign being split into 3 boxes, after being told that each campaign would be long. So my negative opinion of the game came after buying it, and completing the campaign, with no predisposed hostility.
Disappointment 1) The campaign was short, uninspired, and uninteresting. I guess I won’t spoil anything, but it did not feel, to me, like a complete story (a la… Starcraft, Warcraft 1-3). So although I didn’t care before about it only being the Terran campaign, I now do.
Disappointment 2) The battlenet system is just awful. The only people I know who love Blizzard RTS games are crazy for custom maps… RPG’s, melee maps with custom units, etc… This new system disallows you from simply making/downloading a map and playing it (not to mention you pretty much can’t make maps either, unless you have a master’s in computer science). I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say you are stuck with a handful of boring maps on battlenet or the maps Blizzard included… and it didn’t include many.
Disappointment 3) I loved Starcraft and Warcraft 2′s editors. Then Warcraft 3 came and just tore those to shreds, with its ease of use and total customization power. I was expecting the next level with Starcraft 2; what I got was pretty much a gigantic excel spreadsheet full of jibberish I don’t understand. Gone are the days when one could pop open the editor and add some new units or heroes to a map. Now, if doing that is still possible, you pretty much need to go to Starcraft U, and then spend several hours doing tedious crap that will get you possibly the same result as 2-5 minutes in the WC3 editor. This single issue would have led me to not buy the game, as this is my primary interest in Blizzard RTS games.
Disappointment 4) Campaigns and custom maps aside, the game is just a complete rehash of the original with less (and less fun) units. Almost as if they held back units for future releases, which is a total cop out. Firebats, medics, wraiths, and more all appeared in the campaign, so I got complacent… only to find the actual game was completely stripped down. At this point I thought “Hmm… oh well, I guess I can just put those units back in custom maps”… oya… I can’t… see disappointment 3.
So I’m pretty much disappointed about every single aspect of this long awaited game lol. I actually stopped playing it after only 4 days (yes, I completed the campaign, challenges, and played a dozen or so matches), and got the urge to start playing WC3 again (a far better, and more complete game).
I am really hoping the editor and battlenet things are addressed sometime soon, so I haven’t completely given up hope; but this game does not measure up to any game Blizzard has produced in the past 16 years.
Rating: 2 / 5
September 7th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I’m a big starcraft fan and I’ve been waiting for this game for what… 10 years now.
And the game is no disapointment. It’s great. The problem is on how blizzard is using this great game to promote their crappy [...] platform.
If you live in the US and has only american friends, you should be more or less fine. But if you live in a different country, be prepared to:
- Play with a different language pack, often dubbed game (without the option to play with the original audio track);
- Be limited to your country servers only (you won’t be able to play with international friends);
Shame on you Blizzard.
Rating: 2 / 5
September 7th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
The game itself: the campaign is incomplete and therefore not terribly rewarding, although fun enough to play through. Multiplayer is where the longevity is, and unfortunately for that we’re reliant upon the biggest crime perpetrated against the most loyal fanbase in computer gaming history — [...] “2.0″.
What is wrong with “2.0″?
1. Region locked. 2010, regular internet user, you probably know someone in a different region you’d like to play with. This is an option only if you buy another client, for that particular region.
2. Limited to a single account. Does your family consist of more than one person? You’ll have to buy more than one copy.
3. Always online ‘experience’. Playing the campaign, watching replays, you’re visible to people who have you on their friends list (people who may have added you to their friends list without your permission). There is no option to disable messages, or be invisible (like any IM client offers), so if people want to message you, there’s no stopping them.
4. Lag. Smoothness not guaranteed on “2.0″.
5. Hacks. In spite of all of its invasive DRM, “2.0″ has not managed to maintain the integrity of its ladder for more than a week. Map hacks and disc hacks (hacks which give your opponent an unfair sight advantage, and hacks which cause your client to crash within seconds of the game starting) have already surfaced. If you played War III you know how much of an issue this was, and from the looks of it will continue to be in SC II.
6. No LAN. Once “2.0″ will be completely ruined by hacks like War III, there will be no alternative. War III had third party LAN-emulated private servers that people who were serious about the game could play on. Servers that weren’t completely destroyed by hacks. No such luck for SC II, you’re stuck with “2.0″.
7. Map publishing system is completely ridiculous. You can not host your own maps. [...] “2.0″ has to host them for you. The most popular maps are always at the top, with newer maps not being played at all, due to being buried deep down the list. There are many limitations to adhere to when trying to release a map to the “2.0″ server. It can not exceed 10MB, and your total allowance for your 5 map limit is 25MB. It rejects maps based on certain language used, as well. For example, the words “god” and “suicide” are not permitted. Are they deliberately trying to stifle the community? It seems that way to me.
8. The writing’s on the wall for DLC (downloadable content) and certain countries operate on a monthly subscription basis. Something I’m sure Kotick would like to see implemented globally. It will only get worse, not better.
9. No chat channels.
Save yourself the aggravation.
Rating: 1 / 5