Are critics influenced by SC2's hype?

I was reading through some reviews for Starcraft 2 and it seems like some critics are giving it a much higher score because of the hype factor. Many of the reviews that give the game a 10/10 say that it doesn't innovate or move the genre forward in any way, and say that it basically plays exactly the same as SC1. If that's the case, does the game really deserve a perfect review score? One critic even goes as far as to say that SC2 is the first truly great RTS game released since the original SC.

What are your opinions? Does Starcraft 2 deserve the praise, or is it just a bit overrated so far?

I was reading through some reviews for Starcraft 2 and it seems like some critics are giving it a much higher score because of the hype factor. Many of the reviews that give the game a 10/10 say that it doesn't innovate or move the genre forward in any way, and say that it basically plays exactly the same as SC1. If that's the case, does the game really deserve a perfect review score? One critic even goes as far as to say that SC2 is the first truly great RTS game released since the original SC.

What are your opinions? Does Starcraft 2 deserve the praise, or is it just a bit overrated so far?

saruman354

The hype wins 50% of the battle. The other 50% all depends on what it actually is.

Also after 10 years, I think they poured their heart and soul into this game, especially the storyline because it's fantastic. You guys should also check out what you can do using the Starcraft 2 Editor. It's insane and a lot of people already have tons of new maps and mods using the SC2 editor.

[QUOTE="saruman354"]

I was reading through some reviews for Starcraft 2 and it seems like some critics are giving it a much higher score because of the hype factor. Many of the reviews that give the game a 10/10 say that it doesn't innovate or move the genre forward in any way, and say that it basically plays exactly the same as SC1. If that's the case, does the game really deserve a perfect review score? One critic even goes as far as to say that SC2 is the first truly great RTS game released since the original SC.

What are your opinions? Does Starcraft 2 deserve the praise, or is it just a bit overrated so far?

PredatorRules

Personally, I don't think a game can ever be perfect, so I would never give a 10/10. For SC2 I would give it a 9.5 just because of a few annoying things. James00715

If you were a reviewer, your readers wouldunderstand that 9.5 is your 10.

The maximum score is reserved for the best game of its time, not for perfection. I think everybody knows this.

NO!!
Its just an awesome amazing game.

I dont like RTS much at all but this game is just fantastic.

Good game is good.

Yea, I think so. It's natural with so much buzz surrounding it.

Not saying it isn't fantastic (not that I would know, haven't played yet :(), but I think we'll get more accurate reviews with Heart of the Swarm.

no game is free of flaws technically a 9.5 should be the highest score they could give as no game is just that truly perfect. to suggest different is your own fanboyism coming up from the briney depths to scare us.

It manages to keep what made SC1 so great in the first place: Three very distinct races that are very balanced. How many RTS games can you say accomplish this? Not many at all. So no, it doesn't innovate much at all, but it gets the basics down very solidly. Most RTS games dont do that.

What Kozzy said is true. I was not much of an RTS lover till I started playing Starcraft 2.

This Starcraft2 is just such a crazy total package its nuts. They could honestly sell each part of this game on its own (multiplayer, editor and campaign).

Compared to other games I own that got AAA reviews like Oblivion, Assassins Creed and GTA IV, this just blows it away in every aspect.. even though I like the genres of Oblivion, Assassins Creed and GTA IV way more then RTS genre.

Everyone has there own opinions but for me there is no way this is below a 9/10.

Amazing production values, great storytelling, very balanced gameplay, fantastic voice acting, great online, fantastic campaign, a wicked editor that almsot anyone can use.

This game offers as much replay value and bang for your buck as any game this gen imo. They really stepped up the storytelling game for RTS genre with this game to.

If you would have said last year that I wuold really enjoy Starcraft2 I probably would have laughed a bit, I was not expecting this good of a game.

ASeems like the only RTS games ive enjoyed since DUNE2 have been Total War (which isnt even reallyt RTS), Age of Empire and company of heroes (starcraft1 was fun but not nearly as awesome as part2 imo).

Anyways, just a random honest rant from a random gamer lol

Of course they are. Certain developers often get a free pass and are not criticized for things that other, smaller developers, often are. Blizzard is one of a few developers who enjoy such privileges (Bioware, Bethesda, and Rockstar are others that spring immediately to mind).

But who cares? Play what you like and don't worry about the opinions of others, especially when the opinions are coming from the so-called professional reviewers. If you like a game, great, and if you dislike a game that's ok too. No one opinion is more correct than another especially when we're talking about something as subjective a reviews.

There are also I believe other factors that probably play into review scores like advertising dollars and developer access (i.e. If you want to preview developer X's next big game then you had better give them a favorable review on their last game).

It's a business and developers, publishers, and the critics/magazines/websites have all become way too cozy with on another and they all enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship so anything even remotely resembling objectivity is very difficult establish. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Be careful I got a point loss and banned for 3 days from making a thread like this. I then created an alt account and trolled dawn of war, company of heroes and other rts games blatently insulting the users and trolling and nothing happened to that account. Even Gamespot mods are wowed by the hype that they look the other way to RTS bashing but when it comes to SC they lay down the banhammer

KeithFerns

Being almost the same as the first game isn't a bad thing, if Command & Conquer would have done the same (it was the wish of most c&c fans including myself) they would have a larger fanbase and instead its almost dead now.

yeah, but look around the forum. There's at least 6 "starcraft 2 is better than..." boards. All by the same 3 people (seems like alt accounts). I get that they REALLY Love the game, but this is pathetic and very sad. Even the console boards now seem so mature. I don't recall dow 2 or company of heroes or any other rts in general generating such stupid fanboyism filled forums.malebog123

And what exactly is your "constructive contribution" doing? All im seeing is pissing and whining about it as if its going to change the actions you dislike.

no sc2 is just too much fun. innovative games are usually frustrating.

Being almost the same as the first game isn't a bad thing, if Command & Conquer would have done the same (it was the wish of most c&c fans including myself) they would have a larger fanbase and instead its almost dead now.

Tuzolord

What I find interesting about this is that Fallout fans were basically derided and told to "suck it up and get with the times" when they complained about the direction Bethesda was taking the franchise (taking an isometric turn-based RPG and turning it into a FPS).

Double standards, perhaps?

[QUOTE="saruman354"]

I was reading through some reviews for Starcraft 2 and it seems like some critics are giving it a much higher score because of the hype factor. Many of the reviews that give the game a 10/10 say that it doesn't innovate or move the genre forward in any way, and say that it basically plays exactly the same as SC1. If that's the case, does the game really deserve a perfect review score? One critic even goes as far as to say that SC2 is the first truly great RTS game released since the original SC.

What are your opinions? Does Starcraft 2 deserve the praise, or is it just a bit overrated so far?

PredatorRules

This Starcraft2 is just such a crazy total package its nuts. They could honestly sell each part of this game on its own (multiplayer, editor and campaign).

Compared to other games I own that got AAA reviews like Oblivion, Assassins Creed and GTA IV, this just blows it away in every aspect.. even though I like the genres of Oblivion, Assassins Creed and GTA IV way more then RTS genre.

Everyone has there own opinions but for me there is no way this is below a 9/10.

Amazing production values, great storytelling, very balanced gameplay, fantastic voice acting, great online, fantastic campaign, a wicked editor that almsot anyone can use.

This game offers as much replay value and bang for your buck as any game this gen imo. They really stepped up the storytelling game for RTS genre with this game to.

If you would have said last year that I wuold really enjoy Starcraft2 I probably would have laughed a bit, I was not expecting this good of a game.

ASeems like the only RTS games ive enjoyed since DUNE2 have been Total War (which isnt even reallyt RTS), Age of Empire and company of heroes (starcraft1 was fun but not nearly as awesome as part2 imo).

Anyways, just a random honest rant from a random gamer lol

kozzy1234

Dang , Kozzy . i may even buy it after your post :/

[QUOTE="PredatorRules"][QUOTE="saruman354"]

I was reading through some reviews for Starcraft 2 and it seems like some critics are giving it a much higher score because of the hype factor. Many of the reviews that give the game a 10/10 say that it doesn't innovate or move the genre forward in any way, and say that it basically plays exactly the same as SC1. If that's the case, does the game really deserve a perfect review score? One critic even goes as far as to say that SC2 is the first truly great RTS game released since the original SC.

What are your opinions? Does Starcraft 2 deserve the praise, or is it just a bit overrated so far?

Daytona_178

It manages to keep what made SC1 so great in the first place: Three very distinct races that are very balanced. How many RTS games can you say accomplish this? Not many at all. So no, it doesn't innovate much at all, but it gets the basics down very solidly. Most RTS games dont do that.

XaosII

I haven't played it yet, but I will eventually. Though I believe the game deserves much of it's score! As With any hyped game, (hype, does play a role) but every review is biased to a degree, they are glorified opinions, and should be viewed as such!

Well Blizzard has some of the biggest fanboys ever, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the reviewers are riding Blizzards you- know -what.

Blizzard didn't hype the game, people who played the beta did.

With that being said, the hype existed because the beta was magnificent.

Prior to its release everyone already knew it was an awesome multiplayer game. THe only actual question was how good was the single player going to be.

And I am tired of people bringing up WiC, that game sucks, woohoo ctf rts. As far as I am concerned no base building = not rts.

Well Blizzard has some of the biggest fanboys ever, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the reviewers are riding Blizzards you- know -what.

SilentSoprano

You get fanboys by being awesome. blizz is awesome, thus has many fanboys, I wasn't going to get SC2 until I played the beta.

[QUOTE="SilentSoprano"]

Well Blizzard has some of the biggest fanboys ever, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the reviewers are riding Blizzards you- know -what.

GummiRaccoon

You get fanboys by being awesome. blizz is awesome, thus has many fanboys, I wasn't going to get SC2 until I played the beta.

I don't remember Modern Warfare 2 being awesome, yet there are plenty of fanboys for it. I don't mind that a lot of people like Blizzard, it's just if you go onto the WoW forums, and somebody pots something remotely negative about the game or Blizzard, they get ripped to shreds for it. It's ridiculous because it makes all those people look like Blizzard's sheep; in their eyes Bl;izzard can never do wrong.

Yeah most sites have been paid off to give it good scores and to promote it. Thats the real reason why ign and GS havent put up a review. Then you have people say well they got the game the same day as we did. People would believe anything.

There human so they probably are if they had any sort of relationship with the series

In my opinion there are just a few games that deserves a 10 andmost of em belong to Blizzard.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="SilentSoprano"]

Well Blizzard has some of the biggest fanboys ever, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the reviewers are riding Blizzards you- know -what.

SilentSoprano

You get fanboys by being awesome. blizz is awesome, thus has many fanboys, I wasn't going to get SC2 until I played the beta.

I don't remember Modern Warfare 2 being awesome, yet there are plenty of fanboys for it. I don't mind that a lot of people like Blizzard, it's just if you go onto the WoW forums, and somebody pots something remotely negative about the game or Blizzard, they get ripped to shreds for it. It's ridiculous because it makes all those people look like Blizzard's sheep; in their eyes Bl;izzard can never do wrong.

especially the storyline because it's fantastic.mhofever

:lol:

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="SilentSoprano"]

Well Blizzard has some of the biggest fanboys ever, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the reviewers are riding Blizzards you- know -what.

SilentSoprano

You get fanboys by being awesome. blizz is awesome, thus has many fanboys, I wasn't going to get SC2 until I played the beta.

I don't remember Modern Warfare 2 being awesome, yet there are plenty of fanboys for it. I don't mind that a lot of people like Blizzard, it's just if you go onto the WoW forums, and somebody pots something remotely negative about the game or Blizzard, they get ripped to shreds for it. It's ridiculous because it makes all those people look like Blizzard's sheep; in their eyes Bl;izzard can never do wrong.

I don't know what wow forums you post on, but the entire wow community is very vocal about every aspect of the game they are displeased with.

Yeah most sites have been paid off to give it good scores and to promote it. Thats the real reason why ign and GS havent put up a review. Then you have people say well they got the game the same day as we did. People would believe anything.J-REAL

That's just silly fiction. Blizzard sent StarCraft II to publications so that they received it the day before the game's retail release--nor could we even play it until the Battle.Net servers went live. (The game couldn't even be installed.) In other words--we couldn't play this game until everyone else could. This isn't some vast attempt of thousands of individuals in the games industry top pull the wool over peoples' eyes. In fact, most sites--including us--were extremely honest and forthcoming.

This may shock you, but I completed the campaign and vast amounts of multiplayer over the week and weekend so I could deliver a review today--which is exactly what I would have done for any game with the exact same features. It's actually a very simple and honest occurrence, and I have been very forthcoming about it. This isn't a great conspiracy of paid off journalists, attempting to dupe consumers across the globe. Conspiracy fiction is fun, but please don't make things up and pass them off as having any basis in reality.

I rarely even pay attention to pre-release coverage. Obviously, we don't live in a hole, and I get legitimately excited for games I expect will be good. But I almost never read previews, because I want to approach every game fresh, and without expectations. In any case, reviews as a rule reflect the evaluation of the reviewer. I know that such simplicity flies in the face of silly made-up stories, but at the end of the day, I write what I think. "Paid off reviewers" is a nice campfire story, but I had to scrounge bus money today; if I am being paid off, my pocketbook is remarkably light!

Blizzard didn't hype the game, people who played the beta did.

With that being said, the hype existed because the beta was magnificent.

Prior to its release everyone already knew it was an awesome multiplayer game. THe only actual question was how good was the single player going to be.

And I am tired of people bringing up WiC, that game sucks, woohoo ctf rts. As far as I am concerned no base building = not rts.

GummiRaccoon

As far as I'm concerned SC II sucks, that game sucks, woohoo 50 minute base building rts. See I can do it to.