Starcraft 2 bloated reviews?

It seems all the reviews for starcraft 2 are a little to generous when it comes to the game. they all follow the same format in which they give it a perfect 10 for everything except for graphics which they give a 9.8. Which doesnt seem right at all and their ignoring their own review formula because of the game's hype.

Graphics

The graphics are subpar even for games from 5 years ago and lacks any sort of phyiscs and engine and animations are nothing special yet they give it a 9.8; which is probably higher than empire total war, dow2 and company of heroes recieved despite being graphic juggarnaughts and despite coming out after SC2 they look 10x better. Really the game just looks a little better than WC3.

Sound

10 really? Sure if we maybe just consider the cutscenes but we have to judge the whole game. It has some of the worse sounds ever with a distinct lack of idle sounds such as tank engines, chatter etc. Also guns and tank cannons sounds pretty week when compared with the standard, hell I thought SC1 had better gun sounds. Again compared to game like company of heroes where the guns and tank roars sound incredibly well done and the sounds change depending on how far you are from what you are viewing.

Gameplay

While gameplay still boost the classical SC formula, there is nothing new here. 10s are usually reserved for genre changing formulas while this is the same game from 98.

I dont know what would be a fair review but imo it would be 7 for GFX, 8 for Sound (saved by the cutscenes and voiceacting), and 9 for the gameplay. Which in the end would still work out to a pretty good score especially if you threw in a value category in which the game would probably get a 10 because of the editor.

Have you played it?

Guess pass baby

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

It seems all the reviews for starcraft 2 are a little to generous when it comes to the game. they all follow the same format in which they give it a perfect 10 for everything except for graphics which they give a 9.8. Which doesnt seem right at all and their ignoring their own review formula because of the game's hype.

Graphics

The graphics are subpar even for games from 5 years ago and lacks any sort of phyiscs and engine and animations are nothing special yet they give it a 9.8; which is probably higher than empire total war, dow2 and company of heroes recieved despite being graphic juggarnaughts and despite coming out after SC2 they look 10x better. Really the game just looks a little better than WC3.

Sound

10 really? Sure if we maybe just consider the cutscenes but we have to judge the whole game. It has some of the worse sounds ever with a distinct lack of idle sounds such as tank engines, chatter etc. Also guns and tank cannons sounds pretty week when compared with the standard, hell I thought SC1 had better gun sounds. Again compared to game like company of heroes where the guns and tank roars sound incredibly well done and the sounds change depending on how far you are from what you are viewing.

Gameplay

While gameplay still boost the classical SC formula, there is nothing new here. 10s are usually reserved for genre changing formulas while this is the same game from 98.

I dont know what would be a fair review but imo it would be 7 for GFX, 8 for Sound (saved by the cutscenes and voiceacting), and 9 for the gameplay. Which in the end would still work out to a pretty good score especially if you threw in a value category in which the game would probably get a 10 because of the editor.

brettlee01

Graphics 7 ? graphics is not about pixels there is an other thing called artwork. Also have you looked at the game cinematics ? So super mario galaxy got 10 so you say super mario galaxys graphics are not even par with crysis or other games ?

Yeah it got a 7 because of the cinema, also the art style is arguable there are many people out there who hate it because it doesnt represent the gritty world that is starcraft.

Also I do not see why SC2 should get a higher score than SC1 despite the gameplay being the same. SC1 innovated the genre and its gfx were on par with other RTS games and not behind them.

How about using the sticky instead of posting abrand new thread to bash the game.millerlight89

I wouldn't call this bashing, it's just an opinion on overinflated review scores. But reviews are subjective so there is really not much use in bringing them up.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]How about using the sticky instead of posting abrand new thread to bash the game.True_Sounds

I wouldn't call this bashing. It's just an opinion on overinflated reviews.

I am not some crazy StarCraft fanboy as this is my first in the series tbh, but to say some of the things he said is well a bit exagerated.

I will just say this, reviewers are biased period, and that is a fact.

GTA4 got a PERFECT 10 out of 10, yet in the same exact review stated: "the game is not without its flaws"

I will just say this, reviewers are biased period, and that is a fact.

GTA4 got a PERFECT 10 out of 10, yet in the same exact review stated: "the game is not without its flaws"

Someone is hurt that reviewers are enjoying this game more than his favourites and that causes in him an inexplicable and excruciating need to make a thread about it, filling it with made up crap that make it seem like you haven't even played the game...interesting course of action.

I would have done the same. If I was 10 years old, that is.

"10s are usually reserved for genre changing formulas while this is the same game from 98." Yeah go tell that to OOT, MGS4, GTA4 and SMG2. /facepalm

i sort of agree.... everyone is getting too caught up in the fact that it is SC2.... and not that honestly, it isnt that great compared to other RTS's on the market today. COH, DOW2, and several other RTS games have gone much further to advance the genre. SC2 just kinda.... does everything an RTS did 5+ years ago, and nothing RTS games are doing today.... would have loved to have seen a cover mechanic in SC2, persistant bodies on the battlefield.... and probably better physics. sadly we get none of those.Roland123_basic

And i disagree. Although those RTS games are great there are two main things those RTS you mention suffer from: Those races/factions are too similar and they suffer from balance issues. Starcraft manages to keep what made part 1 so great: Distinct races that are still balanced.

It doesnt matter so much what those other RTSs may have advanced when they cant get the most important and basic principle of a strategy game down pat.

Exaggerated reviews? Bloated reviews? For a Blizzard game? Nah, that would never happen... ;)

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

I will just say this, reviewers are biased period, and that is a fact.

GTA4 got a PERFECT 10 out of 10, yet in the same exact review stated: "the game is not without its flaws"

millerlight89

Then it is measured by perception then my friend. Cause 10 out of 10, can easily logically mean perfect!

But it should be an obvious acknowledgement that reviewers are biased. Especially if they work for a major company.

Now Im not bashing SC2, actually I am looking forward to it, but I wont get it till next year.

Sorry TC i totally dissagree. I have already stated on this site i prefer CoH and DoW2 to SC 2 yet i would score this game 9.5 easily. Even 10. The graphics look fantastic on my rig @ 1080p. The music is brilliant, the game itself whilst hardly groundbreaking is great nonetheless. Games dont have to be inventive or indroduce new elements to a genre to be great. SC2 is a great game, production values like no other RTS before it.

Someone is hurt that reviewers are enjoying this game more than his favourites and that causes in him an inexplicable and excruciating need to make a thread about it, filling it with made up crap that make it seem like you haven't even played the game...interesting course of action.

I would have done the same. If I was 10 years old, that is.

"10s are usually reserved for genre changing formulas while this is the same game from 98." Yeah go tell that to OOT, MGS4, GTA4 and SMG2. /facepalm

Mograine

LOL, i just realised the TC hasonly played the guest pass, sorry lost all crediblility imo. 7 hours is not enough time to make such astatement.

10s are usually reserved for genre changing formulas...NanoMan88

Oh oh oh haters are afraid Starcraft 2 is going a better score than their favorite!!!

Dow 2 is trying to be innovative but the polish is just not enough.

Empire: Total War is just the same.

Great but not good enough

POLISH POLISH POLISH.

NO polish is not easy. Thinking up new idea is easy.

You want Innovation? Try Archon. Way more innovative than you Dow2.

Im a massive Relic fan, I also love everything W40k, even though i like Relics games more i can see SC2 is a better game. Deserves every high score it gets.

LOL, i just realised the TC hasonly played the guest pass, sorry lost all crediblility imo. 7 hours is not enough time to make such astatement.

Frozzik

7 hours is not enough to judge the gfx and sfx? I think those can be judged in the first 10 min of gameplay. As for the game, it remains the same! same gameplay and SC players wouldn't have it any other way. I dont need to be playing the game for 500 hours to notice genre changing gameplay changes. I don't see why your complaining the game would still get a 9 instead of a 9.8 or whatever.

Also like i said again, why should SC2 get a better review than SC1?

Exaggerated reviews? Bloated reviews? For a Blizzard game? Nah, that would never happen... ;)

-wildflower-

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

LOL, i just realised the TC hasonly played the guest pass, sorry lost all crediblility imo. 7 hours is not enough time to make such astatement.

NanoMan88

7 hours is not enough to judge the gfx and sfx? I think those can be judged in the first 10 min of gameplay. As for the game, it remains the same! same gameplay and SC players wouldn't have it any other way. I dont need to be playing the game for 500 hours to notice genre changing gameplay changes. I don't see why your complaining the game would still get a 9 instead of a 9.8 or whatever.

Also like i said again, why should SC2 get a better review than SC1?

Yes ok, you are right. Hey everybody, Nanoman88 is right. All the game reviewers, gamers and people using other guest passes are wrong!!!!!!!

Thanks for opening my eyes that your opinion is fact.

7 hours is not enough to judge the gfx and sfx? I think those can be judged in the first 10 min of gameplay. As for the game, it remains the same! same gameplay and SC players wouldn't have it any other way. I dont need to be playing the game for 500 hours to notice genre changing gameplay changes. I don't see why your complaining the game would still get a 9 instead of a 9.8 or whatever.

Also like i said again, why should SC2 get a better review than SC1?

NanoMan88

Go tell that to Jaedong, Savior, SlayerS_BoxerS and Bisu with a straight face. See if you can walk out of that room without having millions of koreans laughing at you.

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

Who said those games deserved 10s?

Typical Blizzard fanboy rushes to the rescue of his company ignoring all reason and reality.

Mograine

Which goes as a further proof that you are only a butthurt Blizzard hater ;)

You yourself said

10s are usually reserved for genre changing formulas while this is the same game from 98.NanoMan88

while, in fact, no game that has followed YOUR logic has got a 10.

You either start making sense or stop posting.

LOL do you know what your talking about kid?

im a blizz hater cause i think your a blizz fanboy? Your not part of Blizzard and you never will be so I dont see how insulting you is hating on Blizzard

Also I never said those games deserved 10s and I doubt anyone here thinks those games deserve 10s

These threads are nothing more than a "my toy is better than your toy!" rant. Immature non-sense...anything a kid doesn't like or if they see people enjoying something more than they do they compulsively need to try and tear it down to boost their egos. Kids are mean and they get pleasure in trying to make other people feel bad. It's all it really is...let's not feed it because no matter what you say or whatever facts you bring to light it won't make a difference. This is not a thread where the TC is looking for debate...he is trying to slam something to get reactions and ram his opinions down everyone's throat.Renevent42

But funny thing is that isn't a kid trait. I see just as many "adults" even real old people, that pull the very same crap. (its actually the basis for competitive marketing/advertising) I think SC2 will be great, Im not looking forward to it inventing something new for the genre or whatever, I would just like for it to do all the things it has, just better, and more of it. I am waiting a while before I get it, for many reasons.

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

LOL, i just realised the TC hasonly played the guest pass, sorry lost all crediblility imo. 7 hours is not enough time to make such astatement.

Frozzik

7 hours is not enough to judge the gfx and sfx? I think those can be judged in the first 10 min of gameplay. As for the game, it remains the same! same gameplay and SC players wouldn't have it any other way. I dont need to be playing the game for 500 hours to notice genre changing gameplay changes. I don't see why your complaining the game would still get a 9 instead of a 9.8 or whatever.

Also like i said again, why should SC2 get a better review than SC1?

Yes ok, you are right. Hey everybody, Nanoman88 is right. All the game reviewers, gamers and people using other guest passes are wrong!!!!!!!

Thanks for opening my eyes that your opinion is fact.

I dont know what would be a fair review but imo

Thanks to proving to everyone you cannot read

The graphics are subpar even for games from 5 years ago and lacks any sort of phyiscs and engine and animations are nothing special yet they give it a 9.8; which is probably higher than empire total war, dow2 and company of heroes recieved despite being graphic juggarnaughts and despite coming out after SC2 they look 10x better. Really the game just looks a little better than WC3.

NanoMan88

Also I never said those games deserved 10s and I doubt anyone here thinks those games deserve 10s

NanoMan88

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

Who said those games deserved 10s?

Typical Blizzard fanboy rushes to the rescue of his company ignoring all reason and reality.

NanoMan88

Which goes as a further proof that you are only a butthurt Blizzard hater ;)

You yourself said

10s are usually reserved for genre changing formulas while this is the same game from 98.NanoMan88

while, in fact, no game that has followed YOUR logic has got a 10.

You either start making sense or stop posting.

LOL do you know what your talking about kid?

im a blizz hater cause i think your a blizz fanboy? Your not part of Blizzard and you never will be so I dont see how insulting you is hating on Blizzard

Also I never said those games deserved 10s and I doubt anyone here thinks those games deserve 10s

You're the one who does not know what he's talking about.

You're a Blizzard hater because you are trying to put sheer quality below gimmicks implementation, and jump on calling me a "Blizzard fanboy that jumps to the rescue without reason and reality" while in fact YOU are the one who's saying bull****.

You even said "10s are usually reserved for games that change the formula". No game that has "changed the formula" has got a 10. EVER. Now, you're saying that none of the games that got a 10, deserve a 10. You are cannibalizing your own point post after post.

While you're at it, would you mind giving your assumptions a sharp conic shape, then sit on them?

These threads are nothing more than a "my toy is better than your toy!" rant. Immature non-sense...anything a kid doesn't like or if they see people enjoying something more than they do they compulsively need to try and tear it down to boost their egos. Kids are mean and they get pleasure in trying to make other people feel bad. It's all it really is...let's not feed it because no matter what you say or whatever facts you bring to light it won't make a difference. This is not a thread where the TC is looking for debate...he is trying to slam something to get reactions and ram his opinions down everyone's throat.Renevent42

I never said DOW2 or COH or whatever was better than SC2 but in the catagories i mentioned such as sound and gfx yes they are and good luck finding someone who disagrees with that (unless they are a total fanboy).

I disagree, I think the game is fantastic so far. Even if the formula is the same one they have been using since WC3 and SC1, it is a timeless formula IMO. You may not agree with what ther reviewers say but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

[QUOTE="Roland123_basic"]i sort of agree.... everyone is getting too caught up in the fact that it is SC2.... and not that honestly, it isnt that great compared to other RTS's on the market today. COH, DOW2, and several other RTS games have gone much further to advance the genre. SC2 just kinda.... does everything an RTS did 5+ years ago, and nothing RTS games are doing today.... would have loved to have seen a cover mechanic in SC2, persistant bodies on the battlefield.... and probably better physics. sadly we get none of those.XaosII

And i disagree. Although those RTS games are great there are two main things those RTS you mention suffer from: Those races/factions are too similar and they suffer from balance issues. Starcraft manages to keep what made part 1 so great: Distinct races that are still balanced.

It doesnt matter so much what those other RTSs may have advanced when they cant get the most important and basic principle of a strategy game down pat.

I disagree, I think the game is fantastic so far. Even if the formula is the same one they have been using since WC3 and SC1, it is a timeless formula IMO. You may not agree with what ther reviewers say but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

BrickMcStick

[QUOTE="BrickMcStick"]

I disagree, I think the game is fantastic so far. Even if the formula is the same one they have been using since WC3 and SC1, it is a timeless formula IMO. You may not agree with what ther reviewers say but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

StopThePresses

Poisoning the well already?

We don't need revolution for a game to score highly. The mechanics of Starcraft worked well, why would it need to be changed massively? It didn't. It needed a few tweaks, but on a fundamental level the game didn't need changing.

"Old school" does not mean "bad" or "inferior".

So I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this is that once some formula is used in a game, it should never be used again no matter how good that game was, especially in SEQUELS. :lol:StopThePresses

Tell that to Armies of Exigo :D

Yes according to you the formula should never be used again because it recieved a 9 instead of a 10 and any game that gets a 9 instead of a 10 should be destroyed and everyone who made it should be killed.

Wow you are stupid; who says I am going by gamespot reviews? Why would I use gamespot reviews when there is no gamespot review of SC2? especially when gamespot reviews are terrible. Try metacrtic. Again I do not believe these games deserve a 10. Even SC1 did not get a 10 for gameplay, but SC2 did; does that mean SC1 is better than Sc2?

Also yes I called you a shameless Blizzard fanboy because only a shameless fanboy would greet a non hostile post by calling the poster a 10 year old.

NanoMan88

Sure, enjoy your little world of delusions ;)

In the meanwhile, I'm going to play my outdated, overrated, not-innovative, crap copy of SC2.

[QUOTE="BrickMcStick"]

I disagree, I think the game is fantastic so far. Even if the formula is the same one they have been using since WC3 and SC1, it is a timeless formula IMO. You may not agree with what ther reviewers say but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

StopThePresses

They have the same mechanics, I don't want to start an argument but they do use the same type of mechanics. The way units are trained, the way units are upgraded, the things you need to make to make more units (Supply Depos in SC2 for Terran). They don't necessarily play the same but they do share a lot of similarites in the game mechanics, night elves are kind of like Zerg in that they kill themselves when they build, Undead are like Protoss because they don't need to really build but "warp" (IDK what thats called in WC3), and Orcs and Humans are like Terran in the way they play. They are different but they do have a lot of game mechanics in common.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="BrickMcStick"]

I disagree, I think the game is fantastic so far. Even if the formula is the same one they have been using since WC3 and SC1, it is a timeless formula IMO. You may not agree with what ther reviewers say but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

schu

Problem I have with threads of these nature is this: There are two camps to a game. Those who like and those who dislike the game. It's very typical to see someone who views a game with disdain (however small) to suddenly cry foul when "professional" reviewers give that game in particular high praise. And it's typically the opposite with those who like the game. It's not much different from political debates you can drudge up on any news website that allows comments from its readers. If the material is not aligned with the way they think, they have to get defensive and denounce any opinion that differs from their own. It's why I laugh whenever I hear somebody cry out, "Oh that reviewer just got bribed by the publisher to say that!" and they think it's the only logical reason behind the review because they can't fathom anybody with a different opinion.

It's fine to feel differently about a game and post your thoughts on how you reacted to it, but to rant about bloated reviews, hype, and all this other nonsense to explain why reviews differ from your personal views is stupid. People will either like the game, hate the game, or fall somewhere in the middle and that's how it will be with every game.

[QUOTE="schu"][QUOTE="StopThePresses"] Warcraft III does not play anything like Starcraft. It obviously borrowed a lot of ideas from StarCraft with regards to how things are built, and they both use a two resource economic model, but other than that, no.StopThePresses

what about the 3d camera (sure other games have had it since then, but WC3 was one of the first RTS with it right?