Skip to main content
Report this ad

Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty review

/replicate/EXID892/slideshows/SC2_1.jpg

Comments

  • Matthew "Floyd" Clough 5 years ago

    Fellow PC game examiner here - really enjoyed your review. I've been trying to not suck so much at SC2 since Tuesday but it's going painfully slow.

    Cheers!

  • IronClad1o9 5 years ago

    loved the review...

    TERRAN FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Carmesi 5 years ago

    I am still very skeptical. I do understand that if you change to much, then an entire country will be upet and possibly send literal nukes towards blizzard HQ. BUT I have waited a decade for this game, and it seems like (at least in multipalyer) that I am playing the exact same thing I played 10 years ago. It wont take long for the newness to wear off and then I'll be bored of it faster than any RTS I have ever played. And why is the screen so zoomed in now? I wish i could see more map at once. its annoying. The graphics are understandably cartoonish, but kind of have to be in an RTS. but really, it is just SC1 re-released to fanatics 10 years later. Can someone tell me whats much better besides single player? I play mostly Zerg, and so far, there are a couple new units and thats it, same buildings, same tech tree, same units, same game.

  • Golddigga 5 years ago

    @Carmesi

    "If it aint broken don't fix it"

    Have you even played the game yet?
    You don't wanna change too much in a RTS. Especially an RTS thats so popular and has stayed popular for 10 years straight. You're argument lacks substance.

  • Golddigga 5 years ago

    @Carmesi

    "If it aint broken don't fix it"

    Have you even played the game yet?
    You don't wanna change too much in a RTS. Especially an RTS thats so popular and has stayed popular for 10 years straight. You're argument lacks substance.

  • carmesi 5 years ago

    @golddigga,
    I obviosuly have the game if i am complaining about specifics. Why would I waiste my time if I didnt. I still really really enjor the single player and do not get me wrong, I am not bashing what works, but with that argument, you could say why even make a sequal? just play the 1st one that works so well. You are right, SC is a great RTS, but if we are spending 60 dollars for a new game, I would hope they could come up with something new and still be as great or better. I feel more like they were to scared or nervous to take any risks with anything new. There is substance, I gave specific examples, then asked the question of what makes it so much better. You didnt give an answer. so, i ask again. What makes it so much better than SC1? why should i spend $64 (with tax) to play the same great game I have owned for 12 years? then pay more later to get the 2 expansions? It feels like a scheme to sucker in loyalists. like apple people with their Ipods (I must have the new one!)

  • carmesi 5 years ago

    "if it aint broken, dont buy a new one!"

  • Bryan Edge-Salois 5 years ago

    Thanks for reading! I have to confess it's been tough pulling myself away from the game every night (technically, it's usually morning by the time I do...)

    @Carmesi -- I understand your skepticism. I was a little skeptical myself when they first announced the game and how it would stay true to the original. Regardless, the game reels you in and doesn't let go. Missions have more variety, and there is just so much more to do in the game in general -- and that's just single-player, too! I'll be curious to see how they handle the same elements for the Zerg and Protoss.

  • carmesi 5 years ago

    absolutley agree about the single player. I love it. Im about 2/3 the way through. I am just dissapointed in multiplayer (which is what kept SC1 as a top playing game for so long). It really is the same game. my first online multipayer match, I was Zerg. I did exactly what I did when I play SC1 to succeed. And I did. That is a problem. Only because I already feel like I dont want to spend much online time with this game. There is nothing much to learn. It is not a new expirience. Luckily it is worth the single player, or I would have been on the phone with Blizzard demanding a refund. But when I go to play online, I will probably end up playing something I new to me like Supreme Commander 2 and Age of Empires 3. Give me a challange! (which brings up another cool thing I do like in SC2, the challenges are great fun, but again are single player)

  • Bryan Edge-Salois 5 years ago

    @Carmesi -- Totally understand your point, and it's a good one. But with two more SC2's to go -- not to mention likely expansions, updates, and who knows what else -- I wouldn't give up on SC2 multiplayer just yet. :) OTOH, messing too much with the MP side would likely have likely turned off a lot of fans. And destroy South Korea, which doesn't look good on a resume.

  • carmesi 5 years ago

    absolutley agree about the single player. I love it. Im about 2/3 the way through. I am just dissapointed in multiplayer (which is what kept SC1 as a top playing game for so long). It really is the same game. my first online multipayer match, I was Zerg. I did exactly what I did when I play SC1 to succeed. And I did. That is a problem. Only because I already feel like I dont want to spend much online time with this game. There is nothing much to learn. It is not a new expirience. Luckily it is worth the single player, or I would have been on the phone with Blizzard demanding a refund. But when I go to play online, I will probably end up playing something I new to me like Supreme Commander 2 and Age of Empires 3. Give me a challange! (which brings up another cool thing I do like in SC2, the challenges are great fun, but again are single player)

  • Anonymous 3 years ago

    protoss FTW

Report this ad