sc2 review embargo

[court12b]

so the embargo lasts to the end of the week? is that... normal?

[pwnophobia]

so the embargo lasts to the end of the week? is that... normal?

APB did something similar which is odd in terms of embargos.

[court12b]

I can't even find "first impression" posts anywhere.

I know it's mf'ing sc2, but I don't throw away $60 on ANYTHING sight unseen.

[walkstheplanes]

Take a look at a few gameplay videos on youtube. you can find a good variety of lower level players and higher tier (just look up copper, silver, or platinum games).

[ÜberJumper]

How can there be a "review embargo" on this game? If I buy it and post a review of it, how can they stop me? Was there something in the EULA I missed?

It's definately worth 60 bucks, but the combat gameplay's not as good (in my opinion) as recent titles from other developers (notably Relic). There's a lot of content and the game's super polished. There's a lot of ... how to describe... amatuer writing... in *some* of the gameplay stories. But overall it seems interesting.

At a high level (not high SKILL level, just high level gameplay), the game's still about disposable units and resource management. Watching games between players with High Skill levels shows how much depth you can get out of multiplayer, but that takes a lot of time and energy to get good at.

[court12b]

so how much am I going to have to pay, all told, for the full storyline? $180 plus tax?

[Chimpbot]

so how much am I going to have to pay, all told, for the full storyline? $180 plus tax?

That would depend on how they treat the next installments; if they're expansions, I doubt they'd charge a full $60. If they're standalone...that's a different story.

I'm anticipating $40-50 price tags on the Sergeant and Protoss installments.

[court12b]

That would depend on how they treat the next installments; if they're expansions, I doubt they'd charge a full $60. If they're standalone...that's a different story.

I'm anticipating $40-50 price tags on the Sergeant and Protoss installments.

So you think, best case, that the whole story will cost $140? Dunno about anybody else but I personally find this unacceptable.

This has Kotick's stench all over it.

[Hagetaka]

So you think, best case, that the whole story will cost $140? Dunno about anybody else but I personally find this unacceptable.

This has Kotick's stench all over it.

These are expansions. Games have been doing this forever. Seriously, how have you not noticed?

How many expansions did WoW have? 3, Dawn of War? 3. I mean honestly. Isn't the list of games in which you can't enjoy the entire game without buying additional content much, much bigger than the list that does not?

You have not made a very compelling argument. You're parroting.

[Reaping_Ant]

So you think, best case, that the whole story will cost $140? Dunno about anybody else but I personally find this unacceptable.

I don't think it's fair to judge the game on future content. As it is, the game delivers a lot of gameplay for its price tag. And if the expansions each offer another campaign as good as SCII's, I'll gladly pay 40 bucks each.

By the way: The game is actually pretty cheap here in Germany. While its MSRP is €60, lots of retailers are selling it at €40 (most PC games are in the €45 area). At this rate I'd be surprised if the expansions cost more than €30; €100 for three campaigns with close to 30 missions each and excellent multiplayer isn't all that bad.

I'm not keen on waiting for the story to be continued either, but I've waited for almost 12 years since Brood War.

As for the reviews: As far as I'm aware there is no embargo, the reviewers just didn't get to play any earlier than the general public.

EDIT: By the way, there already are some reviews: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/starcraft2. How you can review a game like this within two days is beyond me, however.

[JazGalaxy]

So you think, best case, that the whole story will cost $140? Dunno about anybody else but I personally find this unacceptable.

This has Kotick's stench all over it.

That's incredibly arbitrary. You have no idea how long the games are.

[randir14]

So far I've played about 8 hours and I've only finished 10 missions and two optional missions. Seems around the same length as other RTS games but with more content. Selling the game in 3 parts doesn't seem so bad, but I won't buy the others since I only like playing the terrans.

[Emabulator]

Saddle brook, nj, us 07/29/2010 5:13 a.m. Out for delivery

[vallor]

Finished the campaign tonight, 25% on normal, 25% on hard, 50% on casual. I started on Hard, then restarted to correct what I felt was a game killing selection in the Zerg tech tree. I played normal to speed progress up to where I left off, but the repetition started wearing me down and I just wanted to see the rest of the cinematics so switched to casual.

All told it took me about 30 hours, so not bad value on my personal dollar:hour played ratio.

Here is my 5 minute spoiler free impression of the product:

The game has zero replayability for me; the campaign story was too predictable and didn't leave me wanting to for the next installment. They spilled the beans on so much of the upcoming story I feel like the next installments are just going to be an exercise in grinding through the missions so I can confirm my thoughts.

The focus of Multiplayer is decidedly slanted to competitive (based on the achievements and tasks required to get rewards). They've transplanted the "We've got our hardcore audience, then there are the unwashed masses" philosophy they have from WoW into this product. I'm sad to see it go that direction particularly since I can't (and don't want to) complete at that level. That said, if competitive MP is your forte, this is the product for you. Your success will be frequently rewarded, the systems are high quality and built from the ground up to support your style of gameplay. Community and competition have clearly been given the same 5 star feature treatment as the SP campaign and MP modes.

Polish, presentation, and production values are unbelievable (Blizzard sets the bar everytime), number of missions is high, but the retro gameplay and lack of meaningful gameplay choices or gameplay innovation surprised me. I'm not sure what I expected and I'm still processing the story but SC2 didn't scratch the itch. There were some standout sections, like the Zurtual section, but the rest were either cheap gimmicks or ho-hum.

One thing about the SP campaign that was particularly surprising is that I felt they left a lot of the tone from the first one on the cutting room floor in favor of a full on melodramtic, overwraught, Sci-Fi/love story. The first had all these semi-related scenes that, IMO, gave a lot of flavor... like the rednecks hitting the zerg with their truck, that was missing. Outside of the News stuff everything here was really heavy. The reality of the story is heavy, but the first still made room for levity.

I'm hoping that with a little time in reflection some of the story parts stick with me, or some of the missions resonate as something "really special" for the genre that will elevate the game into the same air the first exists in for me.

Summary:
The quality of the game is second-to-none. Despite that my butt twitches at the $60 pricetag; $60 PC games are't a precident I'm willing to see set yet.

The question I'm trying to answer for myself is "was the 'experience' of the game at the same level of the quality?"

Not sure yet...

[Emabulator]

Now that the embargo has ended StarCraft II is holding at a metascore of 97 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/starcraft2) with a little over 20 reviews online so far.

[pwnophobia]

Now that the embargo has ended StarCraft II is holding at a metascore of 97 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/starcraft2) with a little over 20 reviews online so far.

The game could have glaring flaws and it'd still score stupid high. I'm not saying it isn't deserving of the amazing scores (I'm overly confident that we'd score it a 5/5 too) but a lot of blogs like to suckle at Blizzard's teet.

So what I'm trying to say is: This is one game I wouldn't read a review for :p.

[Emabulator]

The game could have glaring flaws and it'd still score stupid high. I'm not saying it isn't deserving of the amazing scores (I'm overly confident that we'd score it a 5/5 too) but a lot of blogs like to suckle at Blizzard's teet.

So what I'm trying to say is: This is one game I wouldn't read a review for :p.Agreed. I did not wait for reviews.

It's the first game I pre-ordered in a long time. When Blizzard releases a game, I buy it.

[ElPresidente]

How can there be a "review embargo" on this game? If I buy it and post a review of it, how can they stop me? Was there something in the EULA I missed?

Because there was no review embargo present for Starcraft 2.

As you have rightly alluded to embargoes are only in place when the publisher has given the media agency early access to the title and even then the embargo can't last past the game's public release. As you say - if you buy it and post a review of it, how can they stop you.

The reason reviews were slow out of the gate for Starcraft 2 is because media outlets had to wait until the same day as everyone else to get their hands on the finished product. In short - no one got advanced copies of the game.

Major pain in the arse for print outlets like us. Our review won't hit stands until next month. :(