Evil Avatar reports that Blizzard’s just-released Starcraft 2 is getting some heat from consumers, who’ve criticized the game for being “unfinished” – in the sense that this first installment, Wings of Liberty, only represents the human campaign. The Protoss and Zerg campaigns will ship as their own games, at $60 apiece, like this one.
Of course, everyone’s known about this for at least a year. There’s also the point that Wings of Liberty looks pretty comprehensive to me – there are I think 30 single-player missions, possibly more. That’s full-game sized. So is the complaint that they have to buy three games, or that there aren’t three campaigns in one box? World in Conflict had only one campaign and it was totally worth it at 14 missions.
I bought Starcraft 2 by accident yesterday (I was at Best Buy buying a headset and the box somehow wound up in my hand), and played a fair portion last night. I’ve asked Dobry to do First Impressions, because the game deserves his wit. Overall my general reaction is pretty positive.
One thing that’s kind of shocking is that Starcraft 2 is Starcraft. I mean, they changed NOTHING, except adding some external research and unit upgrades. When you consider the evolutionary leap between Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3, you kind of expect something similar here. But you don’t get it. Now, I really liked Starcraft, so reusing the exact same formula doesn’t bother me too much, but it’s really kind of amazing how much of a throwback this game is. When you consider where RTS has gone since Starcraft – in the direction of Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, etc. – you recognize that the mechanics and style of Starcraft, while still solid, are woefully dated.
It’s like a horse.
Horses are still a perfectly effective method of transportation, but most people wouldn’t use a horse when they could use a car. There’s nothing wrong with the horse, or with using it to get around, but the car is more advanced. Starcraft 2 is a horse.
That’s where the complaint really should lie. I mean, it does seem greedy to release three games instead of one, but if they’re all full sized games, I can’t really complain too much. I’m more interested in what the reaction to its anachronism will be.
Email the author of this post at email@example.com.
I think I might pass on this one or at least wait until it drops significantly in price. I was never the biggest RTS fan. I liked the original “Starcraft” well enough, but I have other games I should play and have 3 more on pre-order. The idea of playing an old-school style RTS doesn’t do much for me.
I have zero interest in multi-player.
This is where I disagree with almost everyone. This game is like the original only in a superficial sense. Beyond that it *feels* NOTHING like Starcraft. It’s like a movie that gets a sequel made by a different director.
I only recently heard about this game from an unlikely source. The VP of operations in the factory where I work told me about it a few months ago while I was in taking texture reference pix. He isn’t much of a gamer at all but apparrently Starcraft is his weakness. It was funny ’cause he all looked around to make sure we were alone and asked me all quiet like if I had seen the game yet.
I probably won’t buy it myself. I always get my ass handed to me by the computer in an RTS, and other players are even more evil.
I disagree with you, obviously, but I’d like to hear more about your perspective. What is it about the game that makes you feel it has such a different flavor than the original? When I play, all I notice are the similarities.
Having only ever played the original Starcraft for minutes, but as a crazy fan of strategy games, I’ll be picking this up.
Don’t forget there will be an entirely new audience never having touched Starcraft…
Alax19 sums up my feelings on this. I really have nothing to add to it. Except, back to Mount and Blade!
Like I’ve said, I’m going to wait for the inevitable Starcraft 2 battle chest so I can play all 3 campaigns for the price of one. I think this doesn’t bother a substantial part of the purchasers because they’re in it for the multiplayer, whereas I only like the offline campaigns.
Kerrigan For the win!
Xtal, if you get it too we should have a little Tap multiplayer sesh!! 🙂
As long as I “know” the people with whom I’m playing it’s all fine and dandy. It’s the 12-year-old from South Korea that insults my apparently shitty life because I can’t defend a zergling rush that really tries my patience with the online portion.
So yeah, in 2 yrs or so hit me up! Until then, Tappers should unite for a game of Alien Swarm. It’s free!
I’ve got Alien Swarm! Add me to steam!!:)
I’m with GJAIF on the state of reviews of it. They’re not very enlightening.
Oh well! In any case the cost is a bit too much for me (and if it is still micro heavy, I’ll likely stick more to DOW2 and COH still), also I’ve still got Borderlands to finish.
It’s a tough sell if it is a horse, but then again things don’t necessarily need to change vastly if they were good to start with…varying definitions of good go here 😉
And it is good. There’s actually nothing bad about it. It’s absolutely a horse, that’s the only drawback.
Like Ajax I have no interest in multi unless I’m with friends (I’m on Steam too! Still have to try Alien Swarm), so I bought it specifically for the single player. And so far, despite being a horse, I’ve had a lot of fun with it. Still, I can definitely sympathize with players who are reluctant to shell out $180 for the “full” game.
Saying the mechanics are dated, that I can understand. Disagree with, but understand. But style? You’re going to evaluate a style on a linear scale from dated to modern? Really?
What made Starcraft 1 special wasn’t just the three different racial playing styles and balance between them – it was the razor efficiency of the whole design. Every single unit (except for the Devourer), almost every single ability, was important to beating your opponent. There was nothing superfluous about anything in the game (especially following the tweaks made by Brood War and subsequent patches). Even the dumb 12 unit group gaffe was designed with a specific purpose in mind (an overreaction to the early effectiveness of rushes). You call it dated, I call it deceptively simple.
With Starcraft II? While the story/dialogue is excruciatingly bad, there’s that same razor efficiency. You’re right, they didn’t change very much – they realized they weren’t going to be struck by lightning twice and changed as much as they could without screwing up the system of checks and balances that made Starcraft so special.
You think Starcraft is a horse. I think it’s chess, classical music. As in it’s timeless. A good style always is. World in Conflict is a masterpiece, but the complexity of modern games mean that there will always be something that can give you a headache playing it that the designers couldn’t have anticipated. I loved WiC. I played through the campaign three times, did some multi, and got bored of it after less than a year. I’ve played SC for ten years now. I’m not even a Blizzard fan. I just enjoy playing the game. There’s something to be said for deceptive simplicity.
Agreed on all counts, Arouet, and you might want to reread some of my remarks like “overall my reaction is pretty positive,” and ” there’s actually nothing bad about it,” and “there’s nothing wrong with a horse,” before you make what sounds like an assumption that I’m some horse-hating anti-SC2 player.
The debate becomes one of economics. Are you or are you not willing to shell out $180 for a game that some argue should be $60? Are these three complete games, as Blizzard says, or will it turn out that 2/3 of the total really should have been trimmed? Only time will tell.
Oh I think making us play $180 for the full story is absurd. They could at least give us a discount on the other two games if we bought the one. And I didn’t think you were a hater. I was just challenging your characterization of Starcraft as “dated.”
I think I’m one of the few that has never played the original Starcraft. If I were in S. Korea, I’d probably be tarred and feathered for saying that! Granted, RTS games are well down the list in my preferred genre of games to play, but I did play through the Warcraft games. The first Starcraft seemed like one of those special games for many people that just packed in a ton of gameplay in one package. So the fact that the sequel only has 1 of the three compaigns in it would be disappointing when comparing to the original. Still, games at this tier require so much development time, resources, and money, that I can sorta see why Blizzard is doing this. It’s like looking at Mass Effect and seeing how the story arc is taking place across 3 games, each one taking 15-25 hours to complete. Why aren’t people complaining about that? Couldn’t they have combined all 3 episodes of Mass Effect into one fantabulous game that would be highlighted as a shining star in RPG history? Not to say it won’t be under their current plan, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.
[…] can’t stop talking about it. Nat isn’t the only one who felt that the game was “unfinished” in the sense that it’s only 1/3rd of game. So it’s unfinished and, oh, it can […]