GameTavern - Starcraft 2

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)

- Video Gaming (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- - Starcraft 2 (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21145)

Seriously? We don't have a thread about this yet? Although I guess maybe you guys are just too busy playing the game to post on the forums.

I myself do not play online, but it looks like there's plenty of content in the single player for a completionist like me to work through. Although the fact that I'm already halfway through the main campaign is depressing.

So far, I'm not sure I like the new units. They all seem really specialized. Most of the time, I just pump out lots of marines, medics, and siege tanks. Other than the Ghost, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to use any of the other infantry units, and the vehicles are only sporadically useful so far.

I do like the mildly branching storyline and the system of progressive upgrades, though.

Also: so that's what happened to Starcraft: Ghost!

Is it true that this is being released as 3 different games instead of having all 3 campaigns in one?

Quite the cash grab.

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.

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?

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.

I have a question: Think this game would run decent on my Dad's computer? Here are the specs:

AMD Athlon x3 2900mhz.
Integrated ATI Radeon HD 4200 (This is what im worried about)
6MB RAM.

Thoughts?

My buddy gave me his seven hour trial card for the game. Have Starcraft II installed but no CD key...

I wonder if the pirates have found a way yet...

I kind of want this, but I suck at RTS's...will probably pass.

Looks really fun if you're good at the genre though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S (Post 271320)

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).

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.

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

You'll be fine. It's actually running on my iMac with a 1.8 Ghz Intel Core Duo. It chugs from time to time, but it's playable.

This quote from Penny-Arcade sums up my thoughts on StarCraft 2:

Quote:

They say you can't go home again, but you can, actually, if your home is an imaginary world infested with xenomorphs. I was under the impression that the genre had moved past this and into squads, cover, and co-op. Maybe it has. But what they've done here - that is, to realize a worthy nostalgia that doesn't merely trade on sentimentality - bears itself with a regal charm.

I am happily disappointed in this game, if that is possible. The game play is old, but the design around it is magnificent. I still have a hard time suspending disbelief when my marines just stand there taking fire when there is plenty of cover to be had, but this cover is just atmospheric. To me, this removes a layer of strategy and thoughtful game play that is inherent to my enjoyment of an RTS, but somehow SC2 makes me forget that for a while, and just continues to dazzle me with its balance, production value and incredible mission design.

That said, I doubt I'll play through again. I've experienced the game, and without the added layers of environmental interactivity, I'm not seeing a lot of replayability in the single player.

This is a last, glorious finale to classic RTSs we all grew up with, but to me it is still a finale. Relic and Creative Assembly have picked up the torch, and I hope they continue to run with it.

I don't get that Penny Arcade comment. Squads and cover (Dawn of War) and "traditional rts" themes of building a faceless army and various control structures seem like two entirely different game types to me. I would go as far as to say you can enjoy one and not the other.

Bought this game a couple days ago.

It's pretty good!