Some sites like Acegamers gave WoW:Lich king 100 while Starcraft 2 95 Game zone gave WoW:Lich King 95 while Starcraft 90. This hurts the Metascore of Sc2 which supposed to be with Super Mario Galaxy 2 at 97. Read Dead Redemption got 96 while it is inferior overall. Now,Sc2 is 95. very unfair. Stupid sites gave a WoW expansion a high review while giving a full, superior quality game a lower score. Stupid. It seems like PC gaming site tend not to give 10 like 360 sites/magazine.(which explain why Me 2 Pc=94 while Me 360=96 while the PC version is superior)
No they are stupid. How come an expansion with doubtful quality is better than quite possibly the most polished PC game in the recent years?
Because it's their opinion and they're entitled to it just like you're entitled to your opinion that disagrees with theirs. Why bother getting all worked up over it? If it bothers you, then stop going there.
What? Read again dude. Post Merge: [time]1280843811[/time] Starcraft 2 being the most polished PC game in years is a fact.
And how does one evaluate "polish" such that it may be effectively compared across products? Besides that, why must a review be based solely upon "polish" rather than the entertainment or enjoyment the reviewer personally experienced while playing a particular game?
gamespot rated every monster hunter for PSP a 7 and below. and those games were awesome that do deserve a 9. I think metacritic should deal with user reviews than site reviews.
Sorry to say this, but seriously, CRY MORE. Everyone has different opinions on games, God forbid RDR or SMG 2 get a tiny bit higher score on your metacritic god site that people rely too much on. In the end it's always better to rely on Personal Opinion then review sites. It's just a game bud.
Because the expect something else. Maybe he is used to Dawn of War(unpolished by the way) or get his ass handed to much.
Nope guy. It's just because of nostalgia. Sure Sc2 is more streamlined and changed quite a bit that its hallmark remains. Sure it is still not as balanced as the first one but the first one took years of patching to become the most balance RTS/game ever. Sc2 at launch is already more balance than most RTS out there and certainly more balance than Sc when it was released back in 1998. Maybe your friend dislike the introduction of several mechanics like auto mining, auto surround, auto formation, smart pathfinding, action-queue (by holding shift and click), high-ground advantage, watch tower, destructible rock, etc.
Given the number of years I've known him I'd sooner go by his opinion than yours, no offense. You're sounding like a fanboy.
I never really trust gaming critics. Though I should have listened before downloading the ATHF Zombie Pro-Arm for the PS2...that game is horrible...and horribly boring. I never have played Star Craft, so I don't know if it's any good...though from reading what Loony said, it may not be as good as the first. I can't play it anyways.
Dude, just accept it not everyone fucking likes Starcraft 2, Jesus. Just because you think its the best game ever, doesn't mean everyone needs to follow suites. Calling people fanboys because they don't like it, Crying over damn reviews because they score it a few points lower then other games, Grow the hell up. It's getting to the point of stupidity. It's a game, not everyone is gonna like it, suck it up.
Agree, some poeple may wait 13 years for the starcraft 2 and when they don't get it, they say the game sucks and game reviews suck anyway, you must try for the game yourself and not what people think.
