By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thranx on 10 August 2010
Edit Thread
vlad321 said:
KungKras said:
vlad321 said:

Alright so I finally have been p[laying enough of this game over the last 3 weeks to make an opinion on it.

The campaign is anything but the epic, amazing, "holy shit holy shit" deal that Blizzard was try to push. I played through it on Hard and it took me about 10 hours with he only mission I failed once being the very last one. Too easy, too short, and some arcs shouldn't have been there at all. The worst was the colonist arc, not only did it not have ANY relevance to the story and was just plain obvious filler, but the missions were also extremely boring and routine. Tosh's missions were also just plain filler, but at least some of them were pretty interesting to play through.The ending was such crap it wasn't even funny either.

Furthermore we got 4 cinematics, 3 of which we had already seen (Finlay's release, Zeratul vs Kerrigan, and Sarah being abducted) and none of them even came close to the ones that were in WC3, like the end of the Orc and Human campaigns. Everything else was some crappy in-game engine bullshit that Blizzard tried to pull off.

Multiplayer wise it's the exact same as it was in beta. Bnet2 is still a horribly shitty service due to all its missing features and restrictions on custom maps. The multiplay itself is good but it's not anywhere near SC1's, because while I wasn't all that great, it doesn't take a pro to realize that SC2 is half the game game SC1 is. The worst is that when a tactic that takes genuine skill and that annihilates me starts to emerge, Blizzard patches it out.

In the end this game is not even CLOSE to being worth $60. I would have had a hard time justifying the buy even if it was $50. With it's crappy and lackluster singleplayer, dumbed down multiplayer, and the horrible, borrible, Battle.net 2.0 SC2 is one of the biggest disappointments I have bought. It definitely trumps SPORE in "letdown" factor.

Play on brutal, or stfu about the difficulty.

I agree about the multiplayer though.

Funny part is that I have zero incentice to replay it on Brutal. The story is bad, the missions were interesting once they started but ended up being tedious towards the end (I'mlooking at you ,kill absolutely every building on the map, 144 if I remember correctly). Also yeah, the sotry is just fucking terrible and 1/3rd of the missions could have been cut without compromising its crappiness.  I also managed to get just about all but a handful of the achievments on a single playthrough on Hard. So yeah, I have zero incentive, that's how bad it is. The Kerrigan and Warfield icons are just not worth it at all either.

This isn't an L4D scenario where everything is different every time, and the hardest difficulty is indeed the true game. No this is the exact same crap each time. The funny thing is that since I know exactly where the triggers are on map now, (Have's fall for instance will have the bottom left attacked first then the middle bottom village next, etc.) I cna just park my people there wth perfect counters and even Brutal will be a joke. The only reason I failed even once was that weird swarm thing Kerrigan does that almost urdered my entire force. Obvioiusly on the 2nd go through I had no problems with it. I guess I thought it was like the devourer's blinding cloud more than it was plague but I guess I was wrong.

I completely disagree. I found the missions to be perfect! In the first one, I remember getting bored on a few missions cause they took so long, or were repetitive. I also liked the story alot, as I did in the first, and I don't think they could have taken out a third of the missions, it felt just right with how they did it, lef tme wanting more! I can't wait to play on brutal either, I haven't had the chance to yet. Hopefully i'll get into the multiplayer too. I think its the best successor to starcraft I could have imagined.