StarCraft 2 Trashed by Gamers, Called Incomplete

[sahil]

people will never be satisfied with what they get, they will always complain. if you dont wanna buy it, dont. no one is forcing you to.

the game is great and superb in every way, the part about it being incomplete? the next two expansions will have 25-30 missions each, they will be worth the money.

 

[nicklasd87]

I guess no one but me bought it because of the mammoth amount of custom games that this will support. I'm already playing some TD, and I'm looking forward to a starcraft version of wintermaul wars

 

[pollom]

i need a crack for change the game language, my game is in Spanish and is terrible 🙁

 

[techguy911]

I agree the graphics engine is horrible for 2010, other rts i have bought make this game look like the game was made in 1999.
Blizzard did not listen to customers sony tried that with swg and look what happened, no lan,constant internet connection well ill skip this game and buy another rts.
After seeing game play on video it might have been acceptable 10 years ago.

 

[accolite]

I'm waiting for the reviews to come out before I even touch this crap, who knows what they are trying to hide.

One more thing the reason everyone is whining is because they are charging you for more and giving you less in return, if you are happy with less that's fine but don't be telling the rest of us to stop whining, I'm not gonna stop dammit.

 

[Poisoner]

[citation][nom]sysnoop[/nom]title should be SC2 trashed by pirates and whiners.If no lan, 3 episodic format, and classic RTS format wasn't widely known and was just sprung at release I can understand.it's obvious all the whiners already know about these issues but are just whining for whining sake. if you whine and still bought it and still continue to whine, you're just pathetic.[/citation]
Nobody said anything about piracy. Put your trumpet down.

 

[Guest]

None of my friends play this game (they are all into MW2), and I have an always on DSL connection (dialup is for sissies), so the thing about having to be connected to the internet to play is fine with me.

So both of those "problems" (no LAN play and always on internet) are not even issues, for me anyways.

As for the "terrible graphics", they are generations ahead of SC1, and even WC3. If Blizzard released a game where the graphics were so spectacular that only people with $1500 gamer computers could play it, how well do you think that game would sell? Games that have great graphics like Mass Effect 2 (and to a lesser extent MW2) sell so well because they are available on both systems AND computers, so people with crappy computers can play them on their Xbox 360s or PS3s, and then people with kickass computers can play them on their computers. Since SC2 is a PC exclusive, Blizzard needed to make the graphics as adaptable as possible, so the game can be played smoothly on an older computer but still look pretty good on a brand new computer.

 

[Burodsx]

I think the game is amazing. You can tell this game was developed well just by the intense campaign missions. If the remaining installments are this quality then it's WELL WORTH THE PRICE.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Well, the fact that the graphics are "dated" explains why I wasn't chosen for Beta. and I really think they should fix the internet connection issue.

I have not purchased it for a reason. That and it
s addictive. I've got too many problems to be distracted by it.

 

[Sashmo99]

[citation][nom]jefe323[/nom]All of the issues brought up in the player reviews were brought up long before the game was released...shoulda done their research before buying[/citation]

Agreed. There can be no complaints.

Meanwhile, I do feel bad for our military personnel abroad. Perhaps Blizzard can find some time to create / send our troops a LAN Enabled BETA patch that will eventually be patched to the rest of us

How's that for fanciful thinking.

 

[triculious]

[citation][nom]pollom[/nom]The Latin American version cost $165 usd and only have the option to install in Portuguese or Spanish, the sound is terrible the shortcuts changed and no option to play world wide or English install! Spanish/Portuguese translated sux !![/citation]
WTH?! when did that happen?!
last night it was priced 60 usd... I live in Mexico and it only changed currencies if I wanted to play the Lating American version or the US version
if you paid 165 for the game, not only were you ripped, it was a very bad move on your side seeing how Blizzard sells it for 60usd online

I'll agree that usually their dubbing sux big time, though

and here I am, not willing to spend 60 bucks in a game that looks quite fun to play, yet I don't agree on it being only 1 race for campaign, the play on battle.net or don't play at all and no LAN support (quite a big deal when your ISP is both slow and expensive)... but that's just my choice and opinion, I will pass on a product I don't think is worth 60 bucks, that's the power I have as a consumer, others will think it is well worth it and good for them! enjoy the game as I certainly did enjoy the beta. I still think it's quite enjoyable just no, you know, 60 dollars enjoyable

 

[Guest]

I pre-ordered the collectors edition paid the $100 well worth it. Love the game though I've been playing the beta for months. if you can't afford the measly $60 for the basic, then get a job. The graphics look much better than SC1 if you have it cranked to Ultra settings and your system can handle it, again though it is an RTS the most important thing in an RTS is balance and game play.

 

[bollwerk]

I bought the Collector's Edition and love it. No regrets. I don't consider myself a Blizzard fanboi, but I do enjoy most of their games.

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]OHWHATDA[/nom]Pretty much all of the whining is coming from people who haven't even played the game and/or just have completely false information:...[/citation]
LOL, way to get the facts wrong yourself.

I agree with 1 and 2. But you get it all wrong from there. First off, the ARTICLE YOU JUST COMMENTED ON, said a "constant need for an Internet connection--required even for the single-player campaign--". Therefore, if a constant connection is NOT required, the author is incorrect, and people are just responding to what he said.

Second, not everyone lives in an area with constant or reliable internet connections. As other posters have pointed out, maybe you live in the boonies, or maybe you are currently deployed in Afghanistan. Maybe your college actively blocks the connection to Battle.Net. There are tons of ways you may not have a connection to the Battle.Net for multiplayer. True, this was known before hand, that still doesn't mean its not a bad idea (especially if the single-player internet rumor is true).

Finally, an embargo cannot be enforced when the game is readily available at retail. Again, the author didn't say he simply didn't have enough time to review it, he said that an embargo was in place. What self-respecting game reviewer didn't get the game at midnight and play it through to the end? Its been 40 hours since release (in my time-zone), that should be plenty to get out an initial review. We aren't asking for a plot synopsis, we want a review of the graphics, gameplay (both single player and multiplayer), etc.. etc..

 

[pollom]

[citation][nom]triculious[/nom]WTH?! when did that happen?!last night it was priced 60 usd... I live in Mexico and it only changed currencies if I wanted to play the Lating American version or the US versionif you paid 165 for the game, not only were you ripped, it was a very bad move on your side seeing how Blizzard sells it for 60usd onlineI'll agree that usually their dubbing sux big time, thoughand here I am, not willing to spend 60 bucks in a game that looks quite fun to play, yet I don't agree on it being only 1 race for campaign, the play on battle.net or don't play at all and no LAN support (quite a big deal when your ISP is both slow and expensive)... but that's just my choice and opinion, I will pass on a product I don't think is worth 60 bucks, that's the power I have as a consumer, others will think it is well worth it and good for them! enjoy the game as I certainly did enjoy the beta. I still think it's quite enjoyable just no, you know, 60 dollars enjoyable[/citation]

@ gamerush, preoreder

 

[Guest]

Im enjoying the game SIngle player and multiplayer is nice, enjoying the story, and playing it all through on hard makes it even more interesting.

 

[plightman]

Blizzard released the game to the media and reviewers the same day as the rest of the public got the game. They didn't want the freakin media messing up the story telling aspect of the game because the campaign is just beautiful. It's like a movie. Kevin Parrish, your little article is terrible. Why don't you get a copy and review the game and give us your score. I've been playing the game and it's wonderful. And the mulitplayer is going to be nonstop for years. $60.00.....it's really not a concern to me.

 

[braneman]

I bought it the single player campaign is awesome, lots of mission variety, not too many single track "there they are go kill them" missions. no lan is a downer yes but somebody already made a third person shooter level... I'd say the campaign is setting a new standard for rts games, probably will spawn a lot of clones which will be profitable because they have lan. not weather or not they are good games. also if flyinfinni is to be believed scII has lan. also you don't need to be connected to battlenet to play.

 

[Guest]

"An Internet connection should be required for registration, but optional thereafter for the single-player campaign."

That's exactly how it works now... you only need internet to register before playing single player.

 

[pollom]

but why Blizzar dosnt allow to play STC2 in English, at Latino America, I am frustrated, if you try to run SC2 in English the game show a error saying "you need an authorized language pack from blizzard entertainment to use this language"

 

[Guest]

The campaign has about the same number of missions as all 3 campaigns combined from the original Starcraft. It wasn't a secret that only the Terran campaign was included in this release, so people complaining about it being incomplete are being idiots.

 

[Guest]

Having to have an internet connection to play single player is the most asinine thing I have ever seen in a blizzard game. Ditch the requirement Blizzard, plain and simple.

If the other upcoming single player games are any more than 20.00 you're not getting it from me.

The game is okay, nothing more.

 

[Guest]

1)
It's not a review "embargo": they created a system where none of the activation keys would work before 7/27/10. So, even though the press got their games early, they had to wait until 7/27 to play, like everyone else. Reviewers calling it an "embargo" are probably the same reviewers that whine about the lines at Comic Con, when everyone else takes the lines as part of the experience. Sorry you guys have to wait with the rest of us.

2) The single player has more and longer missions than the original Starcraft, with better character development than any of the previous games (at least for Raynor and Findley). What morons are crying "incomplete"? If you want to play Protoss and Zerg, then play multiplayer or the challenges. If you want to get more story, well, that's because Blizzard makes good games, and you shouldn't trash them for your impatience.

 

[Strider-Hiryu_79]

I haven't bought the game yet due to lack of modern rig build.

But if I bought the game. I wouldn't really complain because I'm aware that this was the first installment of the SC2 trilogy. You know this is something that was announced many months ago; that SC2 would be released in 3 installments.

Another reason I wouldn't complain is because just like SC1 and WC3 there is another addictive aspect to playing those games and the same will now hold true for SC2: Custom maps.

Blizzard's 'trigger' language map editing tools have always been fun because there are many custom scenario type maps that users can play/develop e.g. such as " defense"

These maps can be addictive in themselves. Far more addictive than the single player campaigns.

Most of these "gamers" in the article are probably people who have little to know experience with blizzard rts games. Either that or live in caves.

Because how can you be so ignorant to not realize that you're shelling out 60$-99$ for the game that is just part 1 of 3 installments. Of course it's incomplete.

The level editor in SC2 is more robust and more in-depth than it's predecessors. Can't wait to see what the next "user map settings" map's going to be.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]I agree the graphics engine is horrible for 2010, other rts i have bought make this game look like the game was made in 1999.Blizzard did not listen to customers sony tried that with swg and look what happened, no lan,constant internet connection well ill skip this game and buy another rts.After seeing game play on video it might have been acceptable 10 years ago.[/citation]
Everyone complaining about the in-game graphics needs to learn a little more about the evolution of game engine technology and graphics capabilities over the past decade. Being a little more observant could help too. Let me guess, you're one of the people who thought the "Ghosts of the Past" trailer was made up of entirely pre-rendered cinematic cut scenes. Or you're the kind of person who doesn't think graphics have improved much since 2003. I encourage you, and all your fellow ignorant critics to take a closer look, check again, and read a little more.

There's no way SC2 looks like it's dated to 1999, especially when high end PC's from just five years ago would have trouble running it properly. Besides the fact that the game engine is now entirely 3D (lol), it also takes full advantage of DX9c and incorporates many advanced visual features, none of which were available a decade ago, such as depth of field, volumetric lighting, real time shadows, bump mapping, and much more. The game looks dynamic, detailed, up to date, and all in all one of the best looking DX9 based games ever produced. It definitely could have looked better if DX10/11 were used, but those extra graphical enhancements would've cut out everyone still running older DX9 cards, and many people running 1st gen or lower end DX10 cards. Blizzard has always been PC centric and has always shot for wider compatibility and a large user base.

The end result is a game that looks far superior to the original SC and even the DX8 based WC3... well, to those with at least a minimal and general understanding of CG.