sting771's StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (PC) review

  • Score:
  • sting771 wrote this review on .
  • 3 out of 18 Giant Bomb users found it helpful.

Starcraft 2 sucks (single player review)

Note this review is for singleplayer only:  This review contains spoilers, so don't read it if you can't deal with knowing everything about the game. 
  
Warning : This review is  for people who can actually see the flaws of the game and can speak about them openly given that everyone knows starcraft 2 is going to bring out the fanboys and their hatred, they would love shit in a box if it had the blizzard name on it. 

Note this is not a fanboy review, if you have never played starcraft 1 and are under the age of 33 this review is not for you!  The exception is - if you too thought Starcraft 2 was a big letdown.
  
First the story aspects... After 12 years all I can say is... 
 
What the hell happened?  It seems to me that blizzard was extremely scared to mess with the starcraft formula and were out to lunch about all their competitors in the RTS scene.  The problem with being #1 is that you get an inflated sense of your worth and become lazy.  Starcraft 2 is probably the biggest let-down in gaming history, despite the blind fanboy praise everyone and the paid off journalists are heaping on it.
 
Starcraft was a great RTS - 12 years ago.  The problem is that other games like Company of heroes, Supreme commander and Dawn of war have been released since that time.  SC2 still has some maddenning bugs in the gameplay, for instance you can't grab a group of battlecruisers and have them all use the yamato at the same time, nor can you grab a big group of templar and have them merge into archons at the same time. Little bugs like that in the interface that will irk you.    
 
There's a lot less micro in Starcraft 2.  Some of it is positive but for the most part they tried to remove micro from starcraft 2 for casual gamers, beyond tactfully moving certain units that are made for micro heavy players like the reaper.    
 
Micro can be a good thing when done well, but they tried to reduce micro in SC2 as much as possible which means the game has a more macro level feel to it but without the macro depth - i.e. you spend a lot of your time doing nothing interesting.
 
Blizzard single handedly ruined the potential for the story of SC1 in Starcraft 2. They did this by giving everything away and at the wrong times and in the dumbest and most inane of ways.  There is no build up with each revealing item in the story, they forcefully spell out the obvious from the beginning in such an obnoxious and overt manner that they waste their voice acting talent because the script is so bad.
 
The new characters are all flat and throw-away, you won't care about any of them really.  The only decent one is tychus but even then he's not very fleshed out. You always remembered the name of every character in SC1 and broodwar, Duran, Kerrigan, Overmind, Tassadar, Fenix, raynor, etc. 
 
Most of the new characters you will see you will barely remember years from now.  It either appears Blizzard succeeded by a fluke in the story of the original Starcraft or that all the original SC1 developers are gone and therefore the cool things they had in store for us for SC2 are lost to history. Since it's been 12 years and the original SC1 dev's are long gone. 
 
The voice acting is probably the worst part about SC2.  They had to change the voice actors for all the characters and the characters they did bring back (zeratul) just had the lamest script ever.  In SC1  Zeratul was a badass, he killed his own matriarch!  in SC2 the script they give him in the overmind tendril mission is just awful and reduces him in everyway. 
 
Here's what happens with zeratul:
-Zeratul gives Raynor a crystal to re-experience zeratuls memories (basically it's an excuse to play out what zeratul experienced in campaign missions, except - the missions are lame)
-Zeratul spends a mission getting "pieces of the prophecy" (but the prophecy mission was awful, you meet another new character in the mission but the in-game cutscene and dialogue is just bad)  
-Zeratul encounters on the next mission a "protoss zerg hybrid".  But there is absolutely no explanation or build up of the hybrid characters themselves, and some protoss there are corrupted with no explanation.
-Zeratul revisits the dead overmind to see what he can learn and Tassadar shows up out of nowhere and just reveals everything and ruins a huge part of the story!    
 
The fact they bring tassadar back and in the most lamest of ways was just what really killed it for me.
 
-With Tassadar you find out (as he spells it fricking out for you) he is now "immortal" and "alive" and he shares the vision the overmind gave him, you learn the zerg were forced to be slaves and that the overmind was "courageous" for creating kerrigan, kerrigan was the overminds plan to stop the zerg's enslavement at the hand of the xel'naga.  
  
This could have all been a ok plot point but the way they revealed it all at once with tassadar showing up out of the blue to reveal it all was just the lamest thing in a video game ever.   
 
They even gave tassadar lines to tell you what had happened to him. To SPELL IT ALL OUT.... like why he was back out of the blue.  It was so forced and didn't fit with the story of the original which made it all so damn lame!   The developers must have known that they fucked up the story bad and couldn't think of anything else to stick there so they bring back tassadar... stupid.
 
The next plot point they ruined was Raynor/kerrigan... they ruined these characters so badly in SC2.  Here's what happens, note that they spell it out for you all game that tychus is going to turn on you at the end with kerrigan. 
 
 Breakdown of the plot flow of raynor rescuing kerrigan. 

-You get tychus marine early on supposedly a bud of raynor (totally new character and kinda lame but ok Voice acting) 
-Matt Horner (the revolutionary, staff officer) says theres a transponder rigged in tychus suit to explode.  This is the huge give-away that tychus is working for mengsk on threat of death. 
 
This should NOT have been revealed until after the betrayal... betrayals are only good if you don't see them coming!  But they tell you it is coming all game... this is just awful storytelling. 

-Tychus betrays raynor at the end when they save kerrigan after kerrigan has been rehumanized somewhat with use of the artifact, although her zerg hair in the last cutscene seems to tell us she has to stay a hybrid human/zerg. 
 
-Kerrigan is supposedly the savior of them all...  
 
Just the way all of it was handled was off the charts bad.
 
There is just so much wrong with all of this - kerrigan was supposed to be your enemy, queen badass.  You were supposed to take her down.  Now they have to make her and the zerg into the good guys?   It just doesn't wash... in SC1 they speak of the overmind out-growing the influence of Xel'naga and their enslavement.  They talked about in brood war the cerebrates left over afterwards forming a new overmind, kerrigan spent most of brood war dealing with these rogue cerebrates before they could become  a new overmind and take control of the swarm.    
 
At the end of SC1 jimmy wanted to kill kerrigan big time.  Since she had killed so many of his friends.  He had no love for this girl, the way that they artificially give jimmy feelings for kerrigan in starcraft 2 when kerrigan and jimmy had like no love interest in the first game was just off the wall.   Kerrigan had one line where she mentioned that Jimmy thought naughty thoughts about kerrigan and that was it, wanting to have sex with a girl is different then being in love with her. Somehow fanboys in other reviews construed this as "love".  Shows how much most reviewers were not paying attention to the story - sheer idiocy.
 
The protoss in the first game were religious and fought a lot amongst themselves but you knew they were the "protectors"  - the good guys...  the way they handled the story and characters in SC2 was just such a huge disappointment.
 
So after all the cool conversation and character betrayals and shenanigans of SC1.   it's obvious that the people who are behind SC2 have no idea what they are doing storywise.  Even the cheezy out-of-story moments in SC1 missions had flavor all their own but did not take down the entire story with them.
 
This has to be the lamest thing I've ever seen coming from blizzard, especially after all the cool story telling they did in SC1 and in warcraft 3.  The story in starcraft 2 just doesn't add up at all. 
  
Story 2/5 - Bad 

-- The gameplay -- 
 
What has changed in 12 years? 
 
The answer is not much.  The single player campaign missions are interesting enough but they will get old fast.  If you do not believe this, consider that DOTA, Hero arena (warcraft 3) and other user made mods are more fun then starcraft 2's single player campaign by leaps and bounds.  So anyone who disagree's with this review, how is it that user made mods from the mod community from years ago are better then the retail campaign made by developers?  So the real action will be online with user made maps and the excellent map editor.   The single player campaign learned nothing from the mod community at all, and is not very interesting compared to what you can find today made by the user community for older games in the series (SC1, Warcraft 3) and newer ones like Heroes of newerth.
 
The way story is revealed during single player missions is pretty lame most of the time.  You'll not have any cool missions like the one in broodwar where you are looking for stukov and before dural kills him.  The mission with all the humorous chatter of the marines while you're pressing the buttons to get to stukov, that kind of fun is all gone in Starcraft 2.
 
Even though the many in game cutscenes in SC1 were limited by the technology of the time.  The voice acting and miniature portraits did enough to draw you in, the same can't be said in starcraft 2 because the side characters in your missions don't have any real dialogue at all, which makes the world feel really dead.  The story/conversations during missions and after missions is the weakest point of SC2's single player campaign.  
 
Overall the game is just a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics and slightly reskinned/retooled units (medic becomes dropship medic) and also a lamer story.  But the design of the RTS feels stale after 12 years with other games like suprem commander having brought new additions to the RTS genre like patrol waypoints, strategic zoom and infinite queing.  Then there is also the plethora of mods for SC1 and Warcraft 3 from the mapping community like DOTA, Heroe arena and plenty of others.   There is also the lack of interactivity in the map environments - that is, there is practically none. There's no cover or buildings to hide in or anything like that or anything interesting to do besides just navigate your units around, they couldn't come up with anything in 12 years even though the mod community has come up with great stuff that's heads and shoulders above Starcraft 2's single player campaign.  In SC2 the environment merely acts as a wall/barrier as it did in SC1 a mere setpiece.  The only thing you can do in SC2 is move and shoot other guys on the map, the map and objects on the map play no real strategic role in your being able to interact with it at all. 
 
2.5/5 or 3/5  
 
After 12 years Starcraft 2 could have been way better, I feel that the desire to chop the game into three games really hurt starcraft 2 since they had to come up with filler for the terran campaign because they want to milk the Starcraft franchise for all the money they can. 
 
It's a sad day in gaming, blizzard has really let us down.

23 Comments
Edited by TMThomsen

Why do you say it sucks and give it 3 stars? You obviously have some sort of strong attachment to the story of the first game and don't like the story of the second game didn't turn out as you had hoped.
 
Sorry, but I can't recommend this review. The notions about the story are a bit weak, and the criticisms of the gameplay are weird.

Edited by sting771

TMThomsen, you are absolute proof most gamers are idiots.  I'm an expert gamer, I know what I'm talking about here.  Note also it's a single player review, and most people see RTS campaign as throw-away.  RTS single player games are never really that fun because there is very little interactivity.  It's just send blob of units A to point B, repeat until done.   So most people doing single player run through them for the story. 
 
Company of heroes had interactive environment, capturing waypoints and had hiding in buildings/using cover, not to mention the high quality cutscenes in-game, think of the artilery fire and shelling in the single player missions, or the planes flying over the field in the dark as AA shoots at them adding atmopshere, or the first mission on the beach. The levels that made it a stellar experience.   
 
Starcraft 2 has none of this.   Starcraft has changed nothing in twelve years, the environment is mostly a setpiece, they could have added all they wanted to the environment in the single player campaign in terms of interactivity but they did nothing.   Everything in the single player missions are merely props, they don't add anything to game.

Edited by Flaime

Are you also an Action Expert? 
 
Also, go replay StarCraft again, and then see if you can return and say that nothing has changed between the two games.

Edited by sting771

 
@Flaime  
  
You just said nothing, you couldn't even MENTION what was so "significant" that changed, you just implied it which means you don't have much to put up as evidence that "so much changed".  Put up what you feel has really changed significantly in terms of the gameplay in single player, otherwise you're a part of the fanboy club who can't create coherent thoughts.
 
Company of heroes had interactive environment - capture points, cover, taking cover in buildings, etc.  The environment in SC2 is just there as a setpiece.

Posted by PJ

So this review is meant for ppl who think exactly like you? Okey.

Edited by Flaime

Every mission is quite unique, each giving you a certain threats to deals with. The in-between-missions with the armory, the tech lab, and so on, puts a nice twist to the progression through the story, you feel like you are developing and entire army and making it more badass the more you progress.
 
You can't compare Company of Heroes to StarCraft, other than saying they both have resources and units in them, and that you click on stuff, even those aspects are quite different between the two games. The gameplay of CoH is very tactile and depends a lot on strategy, while StarCraft is heavily on the skils of the player, how to react on certain situations, how to manage resource while reacting to your opponents moves and so on. CoH is part of the "Relic-formula" while StarCraft is a more traditional strategy game, these are very different.
 
You don't compare Arma II to Unreal Tournament either.

Posted by sting771
@PJ said:
" So this review is meant for ppl who think exactly like you? Okey. "
No, it's for people who can actually see the flaws of the game and can speak about them openly given that everyone knows starcraft 2 is going to bring out the fanboys and their hatred, they would love shit in a box if it had the blizzard name on the box.
Edited by sting771

@Flaime 
 
"   You can't compare Company of Heroes to StarCraft," 
 
Yes you can it has been TWELVE years, and they are in the same genre RTS.  In fact Warcraft was originally going to be based on Warhammer and they changed it due to liscensing, Starcraft draws heavily from many influences, one of them is warhammer, stuff that eventually went into Dawn of war.  Compare the tyranids with the zerg for instance, huge overlap there. 
 
As for this comment  "The in-between-missions with the armory, the tech lab, and so on, puts a nice twist to the progression through the story, you feel like you are developing and entire army and making it more badass the more you progress. " 
 
This is hardly a major change and has nothing to do with interactivity, this is not a "huge groundbreaking change" from SC1.  You manage these macro choices outside the missions.  Most of these upgrades are extremely minor addition to the game, in fact they are upgrades that should have been on the buildings inside the game.  It just looks like they added stuff by removing upgrades and placing them outside the missions, to give the appearance of "change".  They most likely should have been merely upgrades off the buildings inside the game.  This is not "game changing" stuff here, this is minor tweaking.

Posted by Flaime
@sting771 said:
" @Flaime  "   You can't compare Company of Heroes to StarCraft,"  Yes you can it has been TWELVE years, and they are in the same genre RTS.  In fact Warcraft was originally going to be based on Warhammer and they changed it due to liscensing, Starcraft draws heavily from many influences, one of them is warhammer, stuff that eventualyl went into Dawn of war.  Compare the tyranids with the zerg for instance, huge overlap there."
How does that change anything I said?
 
@sting771 said:
"This has nothing to do with interactivity, this is not a "huge groundbreaking change" from SC1.  You manage these macro choices outside the missions.  Most of these upgrades are extremely minor addition to the game, they could have been merely upgrades off the buildings inside the game.  They just took these upgrades and stuck them outside of the missons, this is not "game changing" stuff here, this is minor tweaking. "
I fail to see where you're going with this. Do you want StarCraft 2 to have "game changeing" mechanichs like garrison units in buildings, cover systems and stuff like that? If so, you clearly don't know that you are talking about. I mean, it's pretty obvious that this game is just more StarCraft, but with minor tweaks, right? This game is not meant to be a genre-changing sequel. It's meant to be a slightly different StarCraft experience; StarCraft 2. Adding mechanics that doesn't fit with the StarCraft gameplay would be fatal and catastrophic, the core gameplay from StarCraft still needs to be there.
Edited by sting771

@ flaime 
 
You just don't get it man sorry. In the single player game they have more freedom to modify the gameplay, i.e. to keep it seperate from mutliplayer.  In no way would additions "break" sc2, since most single player portions of RTS games are not that fun to begin with.  Most people only play them for the story before moving on to multi, hence why the single player portions of most RTS are stale and most in need of innovation.   The problem is that other games have shown it is possible to take RTS games to the next level in their single player portions, SC2 just remade SC1 with the most minor tweaks.  They had a lot of freedom for single player that the didn't use.

Edited by TMThomsen
@sting771 said:

" TMThomsen, you are absolute proof most gamers are idiots.  I'm an expert gamer, I know what I'm talking about here.   

Can't come up with a rational response to this, so I'm just gonna leave it.
 

Note also it's a single player review, and most people see RTS campaign as throw-away.  RTS single player games are never really that fun because there is very little interactivity.  It's just send blob of units A to point B, repeat until done.   So most people doing single player run through them for the story.   

The whole RTS genre is about sending units from point A to B. The whole racing genre is getting in 1st place. The whole FPS genre is about shooting dudes in the face. What are you getting at?
If anything, StarCraft 2 actually contained one of the most varied RTS campaigns I've tried (and yes, I have played through Relic's great games).
 

Company of heroes had interactive environment, capturing waypoints and had hiding in buildings/using cover, not to mention the high quality cutscenes in-game, think of the artilery fire and shelling in the single player missions, or the planes flying over the field in the dark as AA shoots at them adding atmopshere, or the first mission on the beach. The levels that made it a stellar experience.    Starcraft 2 has none of this.    

Here you are stating that adding cover in an RTS game automatically makes it better. How does that make sense? If it fits the universe and gameplay, sure go ahead and add it. Personally, I see Starcraft as a very macro-oriented game where you're required to constantly pump out units. Creating a cover feature would change the game's flow too much. 
I have no idea how you can claim that CoH's cutscenes, great as they are, are better than Blizzard's crazy detailed pre-rendered cutscenes. I mean.. that's almost factual wrong.
 

Starcraft has changed nothing in twelve years, the environment is mostly a setpiece, they could have added all they wanted to the environment in the single player campaign in terms of interactivity but they did nothing.   Everything in the single player missions are merely props, they don't add anything to game. "

Do you expect every new game to somehow revolutionize a genre? We can quickly agree on that Starcraft II has a lot in common with the first Starcraft, but what does it really matter to the gameplay?
 
  
If you're trolling, you got me. You won.
Posted by sting771

"   Do you expect every new game to somehow revolutionize a genre?" 
 
You come up with so many excuses for everything you're not engaging in discussion.  The review I made was for SINGLE PLAYER, why can't they go nuts on single player?  That's right there is no reason not to go nuts considering the low bar set by most RTS single player campaigns. We're talking about a 12 year gap here, this just isn't "any new game" this is the game that established what was possible in RTS games.  I think you seem to forget that the balance and differentation between races in every RTS game prior to starcraft were almost mirror's of one another.  Starcraft was the first game to totally break this convention and establish genuine differences between factions. 
 
It was a huge genre making game at the time that broke new ground, you seem to forget this completely.  Why wouldn't we expect that from the sequel given the huge 12 year gap after the first game?

Posted by No0b0rAmA
@sting771 said:
" I'm an expert gamer, I know what I'm talking about here. 
Good god, can you be more of a smug asshole?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying Starcraft 2 is a much worse game than Company of Heroes because it lacks a cover system and in game cut scenes? Starcraft 2 is a completely different kind of RTS than Company of Heroes. It would be like comparing Modern Warfare to ARMA 2. Are these games both first person shooters? Yes they are. But that doesn't make them two games you can directly compare side by side.  
 
Just because the first game was so groundbreaking, doesn't mean the second game needs to be. Team Fortress 2 wasn't ground breaking in the FPS genre, but it was a extremly fun game.  Your argument is pretty flawed.
Posted by sting771

"   Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying Starcraft 2 is a much worse game than Company of Heroes because" 
 
No. I'm saying that blizzard had twelve fucking years to think of new ideas to take the genre to the next level but just remade starcraft 1, this was really lame.  Especially since so many games have been released since then attempting to take the genre forward.  My review is regarding the single player and campaign, they could have went nuts for the single player. 
 
You're missing the point completely, the whole point is that - they didn't do a very good job with the single player portion of the game for a 12 year gap.  It's the same game it was 12 years ago, and for a sequel to one of the best games of all time and merely rehashing the same game with minor tweaks is crap. 
 
With SC2 because it is blizzard you get all the fanboys out, there is no balance in the reviews, you see idiots lathering on 5/5, 10/10 when they can't even put a coherent sentence together regarding the single player experience because they are incapable of criticizing the game.  
 
Most reviews read like idiots who are incapable of seeing the games flaws.  They will say hugely negative things about the game, and then try to convince themselves that it is good and still give it 5/5 it just insane to see the amount of fanboys brainwashing themselves in regards to SC2.
 
I criticize because I love the game, no one gets passionate about a game and franchise they dislike.  And the story was handled badly considering how excellent SC1's story was by comparison.

Posted by No0b0rAmA
@sting771:  Brad is a fanboy??!??!
 But really, the missions in the single player are actually pretty fresh considering the type of game Starcraft is. In Company of Heroes, not to many things varied from mission to mission and you could generally use at least a remotely same strategy between missions. In SC2, there's plenty of missions that give you different challenges that keep the game interesting, at least in my opinion. 
 
I also think your getting the idea that blizzard has been working on SC2 since 1998. They've had so many other projects (Warcraft 3, WOW, SC:Ghost (I want to play this)).
 
And what other RTS game (in a story mode) gives you such a good pre-mission interface. Because of different choices you can make, there is a huge replay value. I'm trying my best not to sound like a Starcraft fan boy (I'm Korean), but in my opinon, this is probably one of my favorite RTS single player campaigns (with a story).
Posted by TMThomsen
@sting771:  I am one of your idiots who will give Starcraft 2 a 5/5. I fail to see how the development time has anything to do with the experience the game gave me. Starcraft II's singleplayer is clearly the best RTS single-player campaing I've ever tried, and I couldn't care less about if it's missing new features or adding revolutionizing elements. 
 
I fully respect if you don't think it's the best, but the reasons you stated for it being bad were weird.
Edited by sting771
@TMThomsen said:

" @sting771:  I am one of your idiots who will give Starcraft 2 a 5/5. I fail to see how the development time has anything to do with the experience the game gave me. Starcraft II's singleplayer is clearly the best RTS single-player campaing I've ever tried, and I couldn't care less about if it's missing new features or adding revolutionizing elements.   I fully respect if you don't think it's the best, but the reasons you stated for it being bad were weird. "

There was nothing weird about it... 
 
Starcraft 2 brings nothing new to the table, it's a remake of SC1, the units are almost reskins and remakes of old units - medic becomes "air medic ship" . 
 
As I said before your brain is incapable of forming any kind of valid criticism of the game, the fact that you'd give SC2 a 5/5 is proof that you are completely braindead. There is nothing "weird" about my review, you have not formed any kind of coherent intelligent sentence or backed up any of your claims besides "I am a fanboy who loves sc2" well good for you! But you clearly aren't capable of criticizing the flaws of the game - in other words your review has no weight because you are incapable of coherent thought and sound judgement.   Other RTS games have made headway in the genre, Starcraft 2 takes us back to 1998 and in a bad way.
Edited by sting771
@No0b0rAmA said:

" @sting771:  Brad is a fanboy??!??! But really, the missions in the single player are actually pretty fresh considering the type of game Starcraft is. In Company of Heroes, not to many things varied from mission to mission and you could generally use at least a remotely same strategy between missions. In SC2, there's plenty of missions that give you different challenges that keep the game interesting, at least in my opinion.   I also think your getting the idea that blizzard has been working on SC2 since 1998. They've had so many other projects (Warcraft 3, WOW, SC:Ghost (I want to play this)).  And what other RTS game (in a story mode) gives you such a good pre-mission interface. Because of different choices you can make, there is a huge replay value. I'm trying my best not to sound like a Starcraft fan boy (I'm Korean), but in my opinon, this is probably one of my favorite RTS single player campaigns (with a story). "

You miss the point though, you can't even specifically state anything specific you say "Starcraft single player is pretty fresh" ?? uhh no, hero arena, DOTA, and custom UMS maps made by the community are much better then SC2's single player campaign, this says a lot about you as a gamer.
 
There is a fundamental problem in RTS games that mods like DOTA, Hero arena mod (Warcraft 3) and other new games like Heroes of newerth reveal about the old RTS mechanics:  The focus on having too many units takes away fun from the game and refocusing the game on a single unit with powers and extra's adds fun back into it, this is why DOTA and HoN are so popular, and why user made maps became full fledged games themselves.   It's also why RTS design is so stale, blizzard learned nothing from their user community.
 
Mods like DOTA and games like Heroes of newerth actually put the fun back in RTS games, this is the fundamental issue you all are missing, the fun in a game comes from your participation in it, an rts where your attention is diluted to a bunch of throw away weaker units and microing an army of weaker units isn't as fun as something like DOTA, Heroes of newerth, etc. 
  
After so much has been unearthed about game design by the modding community, you think blizzard would have gotten a clue.  You guys clearly haven't been paying attention to where you've been having the most fun or haven't been in the RTS community at all which makes what you guys say sound silly, like you don't play these games to any degree.
Posted by No0b0rAmA
@sting771: 
The thing is, you don't need to mass produce units in starcraft, you can completely micro manage your way through the campaign (and there are hero units in the campaign) . And if starcraft makes the changes your talking about, it would no longer be starcraft. It would be a completely different game. 
Posted by TMThomsen
@sting771 said:
" @TMThomsen said:

" @sting771:  I am one of your idiots who will give Starcraft 2 a 5/5. I fail to see how the development time has anything to do with the experience the game gave me. Starcraft II's singleplayer is clearly the best RTS single-player campaing I've ever tried, and I couldn't care less about if it's missing new features or adding revolutionizing elements.   I fully respect if you don't think it's the best, but the reasons you stated for it being bad were weird. "

There was nothing weird about it...  Starcraft 2 brings nothing new to the table, it's a remake of SC1, the units are almost reskins and remakes of old units - medic becomes "air medic ship" .  As I said before your brain is incapable of forming any kind of valid criticism of the game, the fact that you'd give SC2 a 5/5 is proof that you are completely braindead. There is nothing "weird" about my review, you have not formed any kind of coherent intelligent sentence or backed up any of your claims besides "I am a fanboy who loves sc2" well good for you! But you clearly aren't capable of criticizing the flaws of the game - in other words your review has no weight because you are incapable of coherent thought and sound judgement.   Other RTS games have made headway in the genre, Starcraft 2 takes us back to 1998 and in a bad way. "
Why the hell should I criticize the game just for the sake of it? No game is flawless, but you make it seem like Starcraft II is a terrible game and I couldn't disagree more. It's great the world have elite pro gamers as yourself who are able to tell us what is wrong with things we like. Thank you.
 
The thing is: I really enjoyed the game. Did it bring anything new to the default RTS gameplay? No, but it brought balance and great craftsmanship. I don't care that the game doesn't bring anything new to the table and why should I? I play games to have fun and Starcraft 2 did not disappoint me in any way.
 
The weirdness I talk about in your review is that the reasons you present for why the game is bad are invalid. You state that the game is bad because it did not introduce new revolutionizing features. You state the game should have been revolutionizing because the first installment in the franchise came 12 years ago. How the hell are those valid points of criticism?
 
What I value in Starcraft II, is what the game actually offer me. Not what it is not. That's like saying you hate Company of Heroes because you can't play as the Russian forces.
 
Opinions. I like the game. You don't. I found your review bad - NOT because I disagree, but because the logic is flawed throughout. You come through as a hater who just want to hate. Then you called me a braindead moron, and meanwhile present yourself as an elite gamer (as if that should have any merit), and you continue to speak down to everyone. Worst of all, it appears you only made a user to get the rage off your chest (hence the reason for me suspecting you to be a troll.)
Posted by sting771

@TMThomsen 
 
"   The weirdness I talk about in your review is that the reasons you present for why the game is bad are invalid. " 
 
You are proof that most gamers are stupid, none of my reasons are invalid all of yours are though please do not reply again, seriously, you have not justified or backed up anything you've said except with blather, you are incapable of criticizing the game. 
 
The single player campaign was not that great, compared to the amount of fun you're having in others, we rate games on the fun we're having not "what it brings", if what it brings is the same and you've already experienced it then it's going to get boring right? SC2 brought nothing more then updated graphics, and you want to give it a 5/5?  This is the issue, fundametanally SC2, is just the same game with a new coat of paint, and that's the problem - it gets boring fast. 
 
There is nothing weird about my review you are just an idiot who's trying to defend his enthusiasm the game, enthusiasm is not an argument, reviews are about peoples reactions to the game itself.  They don't have to logically justify themselves - games are about instincts, am I having fun or is this boring?  If people tried to justify why a game was worth a 5/5 based on your twisted "logic" no one would be having any fun. 
 
Games are about fun, lets not lose sight of this.

Posted by TMThomsen

Games are about fun, lets not lose sight of this.  

Finally! :D
 
Been fun chatting with ya'.
Edited by Jeust

I agree wit you.  
 

 Kerrigan had one line where she mentioned that Jimmy thought naughty thoughts about kerrigan and that was it, wanting to have sex with a girl is different then being in love with her.    

There was also the companionship from their missions together in SC1 till Mengsk's backstab. Still making *love* rise up from it, especially with all that happened in between was both unexpected and tacked-on to make a classic good ending.  
 
I weep for Blizzard and gaming. 

Other reviews for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (PC)

    Not Just a Fresh Coat of Paint 0

      Starcraft 2 is a game that’s been a long time coming.   It’s also a game that’s gotten a whole mess of negative sentiment from what I can only hope is the usual vocal minority on the internet who condemn games like this based on some weird bizzaro-world metric for what makes games fun.   That said, let’s go ahead and get those concerns out of the way.   Starcraft 2 is not Starcraft 1 with a shiny new coat of paint.   When you buy Starcraft 2, you are not paying $60 for 1/3 of a game.   If thos...

    81 out of 92 found this review helpful.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.