PDA

View Full Version : [PC] - StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty SP Review


modeps
09-07-2010, 11:01 AM
Title: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
Platform: PC
Platform Reviewed: PC
Developer: Blizzard Entertainment (http://blizzard.com/)
Publisher: Blizzard Entertainment (http://blizzard.com)
MSRP: $59.99
Writer: James 'modeps' Hunter

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty SP Review

Easy Tychus, this isn't science fiction.

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is effectively two completely separate games in one package. First, you've got that thing that all South Koreans have been clammoring the past twelve years for: the updated competitive multiplayer. Then you've got the campaign. The following review will focus on this single player element, and should provide some clarity and interest to those who just ignore the game thinking that there's nothing here for them. Guess what? There's certainly something here for you.

Jimmy Raynor's lady friend was completely screwed over in the original StarCraft. She was a totally kick-ass Ghost soldier and second in command to Arcturus Mengsk, but he decided he wanted complete power and sacrificed her to the Zerg. Instead of killing her though, the Zerg decided to make her one of them and thus was born The Queen of Blades. StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty takes place four years after the events of the first game, and if you didn't play that one or played it twelve years ago and completely forgot EVERYTHING about the story (like myself), not to worry! Just make sure you pay attention to the game's installer. It gives you a good synopsis about all the important Terran events from the previous game, ensuring you know what's up with the motivations of some key characters.

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/SC2_1.jpg

The campaign itself throws you into the shoes of one James Raynor, focusing on the human (Terran) struggle in the overarching war. Jimmy is now an outlaw and the victim of a political smear campaign by the now-Emperor, Arcturus Mengsk. Despite all the naysaying, Raynor's reputation on the battlefield has granted him the luxury of having plenty of loyalists, including old time friend and convict, Tychus Findley.

One thing that Blizzard RTS titles have never been great about is conveying their story through anything more than talking heads during gameplay and CGI cutscenes but this time around, those issues have been mostly resolved. Sure you've still got the in-mission chatter from key characters on the battlefield, but in-between the action you'll spend most of your time on an interactive battleship. Before and after each mission, you'll generally get an in-engine cutscene either explaining your next action, or wrapping up what just took place. Despite these being rendered within the game itself, if your machine can handle the "ultra" settings, the character detail is really sweet.

The battleship is basically your hub section of the game with multiple locations to visit and characters to talk to. You'll be able to use credits earned from missions for different improvements to your units and structures from the very dwarf-like Engineer Rory Swann, or to hire different mercenary troupes. Mercenaries are like your regular units, but more bad ass and without any build time. Additionally, you'll gain research points on both Zerg and Protoss races by completing optional objectives within missions. For every five points you have on each race, you'll get to choose one of two upgrades. Picking one locks out it's alternative, so you'll want to think hard about what you feel is more your style. While none of these specific upgrades are super necessary, each can provide a handy ability or convenience that'll make you want to ensure you fill out each tech path. My personal favorites were the ability to call in supply depots from orbit (bypassing their build phase) and the auto-collecting Vespene factories, but being able to permanently mind-control attacking Ultralisks was also really rad.

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/SC2_2.jpg

The greatest strength in the campaign is how Blizzard has managed to not just make it feel like a bunch of AI multiplayer skirmishes. So many other real time strategy games do this almost as a primer to the multiplayer coming off feeling completely hollow with a story that is ancillarilly unimportant. Each mission here has their own special objectives and goals that tie into the story and you'll rarely be in the position of "Duh, build big base and kill other guy." Let me say that again, each mission has their own special objectives. You'll get to assist a prison break, train robbery, weapons heist, and even a media blitz throughout the 25 mission campaign playthrough. The impressive variety in the missions here almost makes me think that Blizzard may have blew their wad already on that aspect of the trilogy. It's really that awesome.

Once you bust through the campaign, you also get a set of single player challenges that are geared to get you more skilled in some of the nuances of unit and base management. You'll learn what units are best against what and most importantly, how to start using hotkeys. These are certainly geared for higher level play and are tactics essential for multiplayer, but like the rest of the game, they're full of those Blizzard achievements if you're into the whole meta-game thing. Cap off that stuff with your AI skirmish modes, as well as a host of new single player focused mods that are being posted to Battle.NET and this is one hell of a package to take into the fortress of solitude.

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/SC2_3.jpg

Blizzard has managed to do something that most other RTS developers have failed to do and that's make the single player actually feel like a single player campaign. The writing isn't the best in the business, but the story is completely gripping, full of "holy shit" moments, and comes to a satisfying conclusion making you itch for the Zerg-centric StarCraft II: Heart of the Storm. Even if the multiplayer isn't your thing and you don't feel like maximizing your build orders against some human computers, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is certainly worth your investment.

Score: 5 out of 5
http://evavhost.com/public/5.gif

The Good Tons of awesome moments within a gripping, albeit summer blockbuster style storyline. Scales well on plenty of hardware and remains looking great all the way. Thor.
The Bad At some point, the game does end. Some of the dialog is kind of painful.
The Ugly Oversexualized Medics saying "Where does it hurt?"

modeps
09-07-2010, 11:02 AM
Writer's Notes
Playing through the single player campaign's missions on normal difficulty took roughly fifteen hours.


Screenshots
(Courtesy of Blizzard Entertainment)

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/extra/SC2_x_1.jpg

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/extra/SC2_x_2.jpg

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/extra/SC2_x_3.jpg

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/extra/SC2_x_4.jpg

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/extra/SC2_x_5.jpg

http://evavhost.com/i/reviews/extra/SC2_x_6.jpg

Netami
09-07-2010, 11:08 AM
Damn, jimmeh.

I agree with this review 100%. I ate that story up like a goddamn puppy.

Stooby
09-07-2010, 11:27 AM
Nice review. I agree with it completely. More RTS need to have a real single player campaign. I usually hate playing RTS campaigns, but loved SC2.

brandonjclark
09-07-2010, 11:50 AM
I haven't seen a game this polished since Bioshock.

gzsfrk
09-07-2010, 12:07 PM
I haven't seen a game this polished since Bioshock.

Goes to show what 12 years of development time can do. Seriously--StarCraft 2 is second only to Duke Nukem on the scale of ridiculously over-long dev cycle. While I'm all for polish and being bug free (? (http://www.epagini.com/2010/08/starcraft-ii-causes-cpu-overheating/)), developers/publishers really need to find a better balance between the two. I'd think a new entry in a popular series once every 3 to 4 years would be reasonable. Once a year is too much, and one every 10+ is certainly just plain bad business sense (and likewise does little to maintain your fanbase).

modeps
09-07-2010, 12:12 PM
Goes to show what 12 years of development time can do. Seriously--StarCraft 2 is second only to Duke Nukem on the scale of ridiculously over-long dev cycle. While I'm all for polish and being bug free (? (http://www.epagini.com/2010/08/starcraft-ii-causes-cpu-overheating/)), developers/publishers really need to find a better balance between the two. I'd think a new entry in a popular series once every 3 to 4 years would be reasonable. Once a year is too much, and one every 10+ is certainly just plain bad business sense (and likewise does little to maintain your fanbase).

From what I understand they "started" in 2003, but didn't actually ramp up till 2004. Either way, it's not 12 years.

White667
09-07-2010, 12:26 PM
Cool review, seems like basically what all my mates have been telling me but worded better.

Shame I completely suck at it though, I'm not willing to throw down the cost of this considering I got absolutely no joy outa' the multiplayer at all. The whole time I played the demo I just felt that I'd rather play ona' my other games.

gzsfrk
09-07-2010, 01:02 PM
From what I understand they "started" in 2003, but didn't actually ramp up till 2004. Either way, it's not 12 years.

That may be the "official" timeline. But the fact is, StarCraft was a huge hit right out the gate, and thus I refuse to believe that they didn't immediately begin planning and laying the groundwork for a sequel within 2 years after its release, probably even while they were working on Brood War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft:_Brood_War) (which also came out in 98).

modeps
09-07-2010, 01:08 PM
That may be the "official" timeline. But the fact is, StarCraft was a huge hit right out the gate, and thus I refuse to believe that they didn't immediately begin planning and laying the groundwork for a sequel within 2 years after its release, probably even while they were working on Brood War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft:_Brood_War) (which also came out in 98).

Welp, they also released a few games and expansions between StarCraft: Brood War and StarCraft II... like Diablo II + Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, Warcraft III + Reign of Chaos, and that ridiculous World of Warcraft game + 2 expansions. They may be huge, but they're still just one studio.

Wyrm
09-07-2010, 02:03 PM
I'm a junkie. Diamond ranked player here. Someone, please, help.

gzsfrk
09-07-2010, 02:08 PM
Welp, they also released a few games and expansions between StarCraft: Brood War and StarCraft II... like Diablo II + Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, Warcraft III + Reign of Chaos, and that ridiculous World of Warcraft game + 2 expansions. They may be huge, but they're still just one studio.

I suppose there's an argument to be made about not over-extending (and it's certainly difficult to criticize Blizzard using success as the metric). But I maintain that going 12 years between releases in a wildly popular series is nothing short of poor execution from a business stand-point. It's major missed opportunity.

NickAragua
09-07-2010, 02:41 PM
I don't know, Blizzard seems to have done just fine for themselves.

Duskfire
09-07-2010, 04:15 PM
I suppose there's an argument to be made about not over-extending (and it's certainly difficult to criticize Blizzard using success as the metric). But I maintain that going 12 years between releases in a wildly popular series is nothing short of poor execution from a business stand-point. It's major missed opportunity.

Yeah 12 years is a long long time. at the time however they probably had the resources to really concentrate on one series and Warcraft was that series. Since WoW has been released and gained them chunk loads of money, they have then been able to expand and focus on multiple titles (the Activision merger probably helped as well.)

I think its more impressive how after 12 years people still give a crap about the Starcraft Universe.

Reverend Meta
09-07-2010, 05:33 PM
Man this sounds great.

Modeps, will you buy me a new PC so I can play this?

pwnophobia
09-07-2010, 05:34 PM
Welp, they also released a few games and expansions between StarCraft: Brood War and StarCraft II... like Diablo II + Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, Warcraft III + Reign of Chaos, and that ridiculous World of Warcraft game + 2 expansions. They may be huge, but they're still just one studio.

Don't forget when they announced SC2 but cancelled it for (the now debunk) Starcraft: Ghost!

Paranoia
09-07-2010, 06:57 PM
Single Player absolutely rocks. Probably justified Blizzard for releasing the other 2 races seperately.

Emabulator
09-07-2010, 08:56 PM
I agree 100% with Jim. The campaign was epic.

Bludgums
09-08-2010, 11:15 AM
Anyone out there playing Multiplayer. I need a Protoss and Zerg practice partner.

Marticus
09-08-2010, 11:05 PM
Loved the single player, and even more so with the multi-player.

Anyone out there playing Multiplayer. I need a Protoss and Zerg practice partner.

What league are you in? Or whats your average APM after 5 minutes of gameplay?

Fizzl
09-09-2010, 05:00 AM
The Ugly Oversexualized Medics saying "Where does it hurt?"

At least that is something a medic might say... every time I clicked on an SCV I got "In the rear with the gear" O_o

derjester
09-09-2010, 11:14 AM
Welp, they also released a few games and expansions between StarCraft: Brood War and StarCraft II... like Diablo II + Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, Warcraft III + Reign of Chaos, and that ridiculous World of Warcraft game + 2 expansions. They may be huge, but they're still just one studio.

Except they haven't been "just one studio" for a long time. Diablo was developed by Blizzard North which used to be in San Mateo, Ca which Blizzard is in Irvine, Ca. Starcraft, Diablo, and Warcraft franchises are all developed by different internal teams. There's probably cross over for certain tasks (art, cinematics, battle.net etc) but saying their just one studio is disingenuous.

It probably took so long because they didn't want to just create "Starcraft 2." They wanted to update and create a newer experience. Similar to the changes from Warcraft 1&2 to Warcraft 3. Unlike a lot of developers, they had the luxury of being able to take all the time they wanted because they weren't reliant on a publisher making sure everyone gets a paycheck.

I do have to say, they really didn't spend any time writing the script. It was absolute crap. The game is outstanding. All the dialog between playing is absolute crap. I really didn't care about Jim and his revolution, or his girlfriend, or Tychus. It was just so god awful I'm not sure if I could stomach another play through.

Freelancer
09-15-2010, 02:35 PM
I loved the original campaigns (both sc vanilla and sc: bw). Love the sc2 single player, but not yet sure if it holds the replay value for me that the original had.