Starcraft 2

Professor S · 07-28-2010, 11:59 PM

So far I like the game, but I'm not seeing what everyone else is raving about. Its just a very solid, good looking, and well balanced RTS. The real strength in the single player game is great mission design. Its not just build and rush, but you have to employ the specialized units and think to complete them with the best success. But in the end, there just isn't any real progress in game play. After playing DOW2, and how they used interactive environments (buildings to garrison, rubble to use as cover, etc.) as part of the strategy, the gameplay in SC2 just feels... old. Honestly, it feels like a really good XBLA release of the original game when you are playing the missions.

The Wing Commander style "search for story" breaks in between missions are also well done, but again, very dated. 1990's dated. That said, I'll be playing this game for a while. It feels old, but it is still just so well executed, and fun, but I expected paradigm breaking game play from Blizzard, not an excellent homage.

Best:

Progressive upgrades
Good characters and story
Great looking
Incredibly well balanced

Worst:

Dated game play
Dated story delivery

Grade so far: B+*

*Note: I don't play PC games online.

Fox 6 · 07-29-2010, 02:12 AM

Not sure i would be playing this online either, so is it really worth it just for the campaign, knowing that i would have to buy it again twice more?

Typhoid · 07-29-2010, 02:59 AM

I haven't played or seen anything from this game other than images online.

Me and my friend played Starcraft all the time when I was 12-13ish.
I have no "go out and buy it" feelings towards this game. I'll watch a friend play it, but I have no real desire to get it or spend any time on it.

Xantar · 07-30-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

So far I like the game, but I'm not seeing what everyone else is raving about. Its just a very solid, good looking, and well balanced RTS. The real strength in the single player game is great mission design. Its not just build and rush, but you have to employ the specialized units and think to complete them with the best success. But in the end, there just isn't any real progress in game play. After playing DOW2, and how they used interactive environments (buildings to garrison, rubble to use as cover, etc.) as part of the strategy, the gameplay in SC2 just feels... old. Honestly, it feels like a really good XBLA release of the original game when you are playing the missions.

The Wing Commander style "search for story" breaks in between missions are also well done, but again, very dated. 1990's dated. That said, I'll be playing this game for a while. It feels old, but it is still just so well executed, and fun, but I expected paradigm breaking game play from Blizzard, not an excellent homage.

I didn't read the reviews for the game, so I don't know what everybody is raving about either. But I would point out that Blizzard games have never really been paradigm breaking or even super-innovative. The RTS genre was invented by Westwood's Command and Conquer games, after all. World of Warcraft was far from the first MMORPG, and even its biggest fans acknowledge that it merely took the MMORPG genre and did it really well. And Diablo? That gameplay was dated even when it came out.

That said, I would be just as disappointed as you if I had been expecting a fundamental change to Starcraft 2. I'm actually playing the game because I want to see what happens next in the story (and if it's good enough, I'll continue to play the next two games).

TheSlyMoogle · 07-30-2010, 06:56 PM

Well Diablo was really a stepping stone to Diablo 2. Diablo 2 added a lot of fun stuff to the hack n slash genre. That being said, it was just a really well done hack n slash in essence.

Blizzard just has a knack for creating really well done games, and taking genres and getting them spot on perfect. That's most of the fun.

That being said I never liked the original SC, so doubt I will enjoy this one. I prefer the Warcraft setting and such. However Zergs, those dudes are baller.

Fox 6 · 07-31-2010, 06:52 PM

Figure I may pick this up eventually. My Mac is a couple of years old now, but i shouldnt have any problems running it if i dont use the highest performance level, right?

System requirements
2.6 GHz Intel Pentium (Dual core recommended)
2 GB RAM (4 GB Recommended)
ATI Radeon X1600 for Mac
OS X 10.5.8+

My System
2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro
OS X 10.5.8