CMR: "Blizzard will have a hit in “Starcraft 2: Wings Of Liberty” but we just expected more. We give this game a 6 out of 10 rating."
Nothing lives up to the amount of hype given to starcraft II. Nothing!
this is the worst review I have ever seen, the complaints are no LAN and it should have more playable races, sure the additional races in campaign would be nice, but its a very well fleshed out campaign that is actually larger than the original's 3 campaigns, not to mention you can play with all 3 races in the Multiplayer, which is the main area most players spend.
Yuuuup, this review is a joke. I mean, its worth noting that the LAN support was taken out. But while Im playing the campaign and online is that going to make it a worse game? Not at all.
no LAN is a biggie in my opinion. this is kinda ignoring it's roots. LAN parties have less and less choice.
Get a router and buy the game. Problem solved.
This is the most questionable review ever, each additional title won't be be full price, the single player is huge and LAN while missed is not THAT big of a deal
current-movie-reviews.com I stopped reading at the source.
didnt blizzard say the next 2 games are going to be set at expansion pack price which is like 30-39?
Dude didn't talk about gameplay at all. That one way to tell a review is worthless.
I'm not even a StarCraft fan, and I'm loving the game. The multiplayer is one of the best experiences I've had for an RTS, and the strategies that can be implemented for all 3 races are fantastic. So far, the game is about a 9.4 to me.
People who have no problem with SC 2 are new players....
Quit trolling Starcraft articles. I've been playing Blizzard games since Reign of Chaos and Starcraft II is shaping up to be my GOTY.
Implying I haven't played the first one.
Seriously a 6? No lan is MAYBE worth 1 but past that, I dont' see the other 3 taken off
I think the Starcraft 2 hate train is bigger than the hype train, and all the little kiddie reviewers always jump on the bigger train. Is quite sad really. A good thing anyone with brains won't be deterred from buying this great game by dickheads.
Worst review ever. So bad you'd think Jim Sterling wrote it.
Hahaha thumbs to you!
6/10, hah. I'd give it around 9.4 - 9.6 personally. It's my new addiction.
Lol, almost as bad as those Amazon reviews.
Yeah, gotta love those reviews saying how bad the game before it's released. You can trust those opinions for sure!
I find this so interesting some of these "negative reviews" From 1992-2000 I was more of a PC gamer than a console though the past 10 years that has switched. I play all platforms. But I wonder if a lot of this trolling of SC2 comes from console gamers that only know how to play FPS's. I really believe this is the case. I find it funny too that some call it SC 1.5. Which is bull. A. There are multiple updates and streamlines that make SC2 worthy of its name. Many differences seem hard to see but they are there. B. I find it funny that the same people that love Gears of War 2, or MW2 or Halo 3 (which are all fine games) but that they don't' criticize the fact that the games mentioned a second ago have the exact same gameplay nothing new but a few new weapons and new maps with improved graphics. I find the hypocrisy just hysterical. They act as if Halo 3 and so forth have revolutionized the industry once again. But when SC2 changes a lot but keeps its core gameplay the same they call it 1.5 and dated. SC2 is amazing, and the most important aspect is I'm having a blast and addicted. Most people I know that actually have it love it. That and the single player campaign is as long as SC1 just all terran. The expansion sets will add more story and make the single player+story 3 times as long which is good in my book. SC2 has a chance for game of the year next to Gran Turimo 5 and Mass Effect 2
One paragraph review. Haha, wow.
Looks like Blizzard is going the Activision route. I hate all the new restrictions, I see the people who don't have a problem with it never played the original Starcraft and have NO understanding of how they are screwing people over. LAN was a major reason SC did so well along with the public chats, clans, that authentication is stupid as hell. Stupid as hell, you are REQUIRED to have internet to play this game in the single player. I am starting to think Activision has a part in this. The game also caters to casual players, which is another stupid thing to be catering to. The gameplay is supposed to be 'easier' for noobies to get into.
It's amazing how just plain wrong you are everytime you troll a Starcraft article. You don't have to always have internet on. It's a one-time registration to bind your CD-Key to an account, then you are done. From there you can play the campaign offline for as long as you damn well please. And yeah, LAN is gone, but guess what - so is a lot of piracy. I think that's a win. I loved playing LAN too but all 3 of us had our own game, so all we'd have to do now is simply use Battle.net now. Do some research before your unabashed hate continues.
Newtype, I was there in 1998. I spent countless hours playing Starcraft and the expansion. I used to connect to my friends modems to play them over dial-up. I remember what it was like. Gifs were the rage and porn was so pixelated from compression you had to use more imagination than hand lotion. I can understand why they are doing it. It's not just for one reason, but a number. Sure, some of it's piracy, some of it's security, some of it's stability and some of its for reasons we don't even know or care to understand as people outside of the development community. Lan was great... in 1998. Do I think it sucks that LAN was removed? Yes. Do I think it means Blizzard has broken the game and any chance we could have fun anymore? No. The world has moved forward by-and-large. It does seem counter-intuitive to have to log on to a server 3000 miles away to play your friend who might be in the same room... but, there was a reason you got together with your friends to play in the same damn room and it wasn't just so you could tell them how much they sucked (although that was a plus). Dial-up internet. Remember that jewel of horseshit? I do. Also, all you need to do to play the single player is activate it while connected one time. ONE TIME. You don't have to be constantly connected like some games (Assassins Creed). It's simply a way for them to control their content and make sure you have actually bought the damn game. The game is the same kind of game play it was back in the 90's. So, if it caters to casual players, it does so by its very nature and ease of use. That's a testament to its design, not something to be frowned upon. The thing I don't like is if you have multiple family members who want to play, you have to get multiple copies. No Spawn. That does hurt, because that was truly a good idea they should have kept, but it would have been hard to keep with their system in place... but, not impossible. That's the only thing that gets me. Why should a father and son who both enjoy playing the game have to get two copies?
WHAT IDIOT WROTE THIS REVIEW THIS IS THE BEST RTS GAME EVER STAYED UP ALL LAST NIGHT PLAYING THE GAME!
You know, ONLY because this is more of the same. Sure there are more units, and better graphics, and of course a few more minor inhansments. Im not to suprised with this review. Dont get me wrong, i love SC, but im not going to let my love for the game give it a perfect review because its the next game in the series. There isnt Lan for the game, only 1 playable race in the campaign (i know about the whole mission structure there doing with the 3 packages) and it just feels the same as the first. Dont get me wrong, its a nice game, but because its just SO alike the first ill agree with this review. But then again thats why this is MY opinion.