Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg Review

[Strategyinformer]

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/strategiccommand2blitzkrieg/review.html

[JerseyJohn]

A bit harsh but, overall, not a bad review. You didn't mention the tiles, an opening remark made it sound as though the game is hex based.

I'm not a fan of game music so the lack of soundtrack doesn't me. In fact, I like the idea that I can click Music / Sounds to off and hear nothing at all. I've got a hard drive loaded with music and prefer listening to that. Under no circumstances do I want to hear rumbling tanks, aircraft engines, swoosing water or bomb blasts. But a lot of people do like to have a soundtrack so that's an important point to consider.

As for graphics, well, it's basically a chess game, so I doubt many of us hardcore types miss it.

[Panzerkeil]

Agreed. Content before graphics is preferred. Now, if we can only get the MTV generation to agree.

[Panzerkeil]

Did the reviewer actually play the game? I wondered that after reading this line: "The computer easily provides you a challenging adversary."

[jon_j_rambo]

Strategy Informer, sux. That's my review of them. Think for yourself.

[Retributar]

I concur Jersey John...the Review---'A bit harsh'... obviously, this commentator doesn't care for this type of game at all!.

He mentions that the graphics are lacking???...maybey as far as comparing SC2's graphics to 'Rome Total War',BUT!,for a turn-based-wargame...the graphic's i think...are spectacular!.

I don't need 'Mind Numbing Repititious' music to give me some unknown inspiring purpose or result in life!. He seem's to think it necessary???.

His finale' recant is!...

Overall this game really is for the hardcore of turn-based strategists as otherwise you could soon be finding yourself turned away by the lack of visual and audio passion in Strategic Command 2. Not being one myself, I struggled to keep interest and left my Axis domination of Europe on hold …indefinitely.

Above Rant from a 'Brain Dead Mental Midget'!... who obviously has no background or past experience with this type of Gaming Genre'.

[Panzerkeil]

Maybe if HC put this on a PS2 platform and set it to a hip-hop soundtrack it would be more up his alley?

[Blashy]

Very poor view of the game.

1- These types of games are not about Graphics.

2- These types of games are not about Sounds.

The reivew is 75% based on those two criterias...

Someone needs to do their homework.

[Timskorn]

The problem is stated in the above line, in that the reviewer himself doesn't enjoy these kinds of games. I have no idea why these review sites have people review genre's they don't like.

Let's have someone who dislikes chocolate rate how good a Hershey bar is.

[Curry]

Jersey is always a nice guy. The review is not a bit harsh, its Too Harsh!

Poor review in my mind.

I am still waiting on my hard copy to get into the game but the little I have looked at it I really like. Although - when I do reflect back on SC1 I think it was the best priced game I ever bought for the time and enjoyment I got out of it. IF SCII even comes close it will be worth the price.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Retributar:

He mentions that the graphics are lacking???...maybey as far as comparing SC2's graphics to 'Rome Total War',BUT!,for a turn-based-wargame...the graphic's i think...are spectacular!.

Then you have very low standards!

RTW covers the same area pretty much, and is sooooooo much prettier....and that IS for the turn based aspect of that game.

Even Medieval total War was prettier.

I can understand "content over visuals" - indeed I'm all in favour of it.

But to say that SC2 has spectacular visuals for a turn based game is pretty silly IMO.

....'Brain Dead Mental Midget'.....

Now that's really showing off your intellectual superiority!!

Face it folks - this guy isn't into WW2 games - so of course he doesn't like it much - why should he?

He's spot on as far as his comments on who would like it go - it's for grogs not the great unwashed!

[zmoney]

Not enough bells and whistle's for that fellow I guess.

I love the game. I originally wasn't going to buy the game but after the demo and the wife's ok I got it and have been staying up until 01:30 in the am even though I have to go to work early in the morning.

Good job HC, looking forward to the patch's.

[Liam]

What a dimwit, writing up game reviews. I happened to have read the reviews on games like World At War, they raved about it. Meanwhile I actually played the game out, I sold it and give the game 1 thumb down and half thumb up..maybe 1 thumb up if they had anything to offer. These are the same fools that voted Ages of Empires III the 2nd or 3rd best game of last year. Why is that AOEII is still for sale? Because it's better

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by zmoney:

I love the game. I originally wasn't going to buy the game but after the demo and the wife's ok I got it and have been staying up until 01:30 in the am even though I have to go to work early in the morning.

My earliest night this week was 12.30am last night - before then it was 2.30 ....since last Saturday.......I'm surviving mostly on "V" at work 'cos I don't drink coffee.....

[Dulak]

Ya the review was a bit off;

the thing I dont agree on is the computer AI giving you a good game. In all honesty I havnt played a game in almost 2 weeks because of the weak AI (I really hope HC gets a decent patch soon).

I'm dissapointed with the AI; some people like myself prefer to fight the AI.

The comparrison to RTW was a bit strange since these are totally differnt games. But one thing I have to say the total war series is just plane awesome if you like those types of games.

[Guest Mike]

I think the comparison between TW and SC is reasonable in the map graphics area - their maps cover almost exactly the same area after all.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Panzerkiel:

Did the reviewer actually play the game? I wondered that after reading this line: "The computer easily provides you a challenging adversary."

He seems to have gone off in a huff half-way through, as the Axis with Europe at his feet but too graphics and sound deprived to actually finish. Kind of like writing a book review with your page-marker stuck around chapter three. But many reviewers have been know to put the thumbs down on books they haven't even seen, so at least this one started it.

My own feelings about the review are closest to what Stalin's Organist said. It's for grogs, not someone like this reviewer. Further, as our NZ friend stated, there's no reason for this reviewer to have liked the game and, considering that, he tried his best to make some positive remarks. When it dropped to the visuals and bells and whistle level it became apparent that he didn't have a clue.

His positive assessment of the AI (the rest of us know better from experience) will get people interested in the game, so that was a good point.

The worst part is he never mentioned the really great game editor. To me that's the part of this thing, the ability to turn it into virtually any war you want a game on.

-- He wasn't actually negative, just not very positive, that's all. So now he's off somewhere playing Total War Whatever, enjoying all the whistles and bells and whatever else it is he was looking for.

Thank you Curry for saying I'm always being nice. A lot of people hold the opposite view, but I tend to agree with your opinions.

[hellraiser]

"I have no idea why these review sites have people review genre's they don't like."

It would be better to have as objective reviewers as possible, a fan or someone who hates the genre would be biased by default.

That review is a joke because it is biased.

I can understand that graphics&sound are important parts in 99% of the junk cranked out every year and sold to us as 'games' but turn based strategy games were never acclaimed for stunning graphics or symphonic sounds... I think the fair way to write a review is to analyze if the game satisfies its goal first of all then analyze other aspects.

'A little more glamour' (ref graphics) means increased system requirements.A lot of strategy freaks (who btw use mostly their brains rather than wrist when playing games) don't spend cash on getting 7900GTX and Athlon FX60 or i don't know what kick ass specs. SC2 is a strategy game thus it targets this category of gamers rather than the eye candy FPS players.

I think one of the most strongest points of SC2 is that it is not a 'grognard' type of game. It has simple rules, game plays out pretty easy, it's fun, a few graphic improvements thus it can be appealing both to hardcore strategy players and novice ones.

IMO the game reached its goal - to provide a simple gaming experience as well as a very entertaining.. But maybe I am a little bit biased, eh?

[ May 04, 2006, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: hellraiser ]

[Moon]

"I have no idea why these review sites have people review genre's they don't like."

Bingo. You can argue about a lot of different things in reviews, but this one aspect makes the review as a whole rather useless. It's as if I would write up a review about, uh, the latest skateboard game. I don't think that many people interested in that game would be interested to hear what I think about it

Now if this reviewer came from some no-name gaming site geared 90% to consoles, I wouldn't really be surprised... but from a site called Strategyinformer??

As for graphics... no dispute there that Total War is prettier. Nobody expected 10 points in that category for SC2.

The music itself rocks! It's really a great piece, but it could be played more often (e.g. as background music), agreed.

Anyway, soon we will open the official review page with what I believe are more balanced reviews. We got a few in the 9+ range, and there are some in the 7+ range, and all of them have a little more content than "it's not my cup of tea"...

Martin

[pzgndr]

Strategy Informer, sux.

Wow. On this, rambo and I can agree. I never heard of these nimrods until somebody at Wargamer posted a link last week to Alex Jeffrey's review of Birth or America. This guy Simon was no better, except he lacked the vitriol of "Ms Alex the wargaming expert."

SI appears to be fascinated by graphics and sound effects and real-time action to the exclusion of any thought-provoking exercise of one's mind. Having read 2 and only 2 of SI's "wargame reviews" and being thoroughly unimpressed by their staff, I plan to avoid them in the future.

[Exel]

Finland's most prestigeous games magazine Pelit reviewed SC2 in its latest issue. It noted that the price of SC2 is "a cheap ticket to strategy heaven". :cool:

It also wasn't any mini review usually given to these kind of games, but rather a full two-page in-depth report (for comparison, HOI2 was given 1 and Elder Scrolls Oblivion 3 pages).

[Capt Andrew]

I almost felt like I was reading a review about a different game. Hexagons? Challenging AI? (j/k HC) My favorite quote, "Each unit can move a maximum number of spaces each turn so don’t expect an armoured division from Paris to reach Moscow in a single go." :eek: You think? There's some deep insight and review material there! I feel strategically informed!

What concerns me is that lazy reviewers for reputable gaming sites will Google for SC2 reviews, and let this review influence their own evaluation. This review never mentions that SC2 is a compilation of the gaming community's (us!) input from SC1. There's no mention of all the new playability features, such as amphib landings, weather effects, Lend-Lease, convoys, nothing. No mention of all the different campaigns. And Blashy would be quick to point out the complete lack of anything dealing with the Editor! This kind of review is like showing up with Jessica Simpson as a prom date, and someone says, "Did you see her toenail polish?" In-depth review, eh?

I almost felt obliged to add my own review under theirs (its an option some of you verbose writers may want to do), but I've changed my mind. I'm afraid that it may only validate a website run by a couple of ill-informed 18 year old "gamers" from Croatia. But they do have some cajones for posting an obvious flame review on BF's website.

I agree with Bill...all this review has done is sealed the fact that I will discount and fully dismiss any review or information from that "gaming source". Waste of html code...

[JerseyJohn]

It's possible to read things into something like this that aren't really there.

The reviewer admits he's never even played a full game! His tone is off the cuff and not sincere. People interested in this genre will recognize that an will not be influenced by his judgements, especially when he compares SC to an almost totally different game to the point of nearly confusing the two.

Meanwhile he did add some positives and more people will be directed to SC-2 than will be turned off by the faulty reviewer. And those who will be turned off will probably not have come here in the first place.

A case of there being no such thing as bad publicity. It would be wrong for people who like the game to go to that site and dump on their reviewer. I agree with those who say it's best to just leave it alone.

The site and game will doubtless attract a few new members and hopefully some of them will clarify the issue with the crowd that hangs out at that place.

Anyway, I can't imagine taking a review seriously when the author admits to leaving his own game against the AI unfinished. Uh-huh, what's that about? It says much more about the reviewer than about the game he was too lazy to fully research.

As I said, how seriously would you take a book review when the commentator admits to not having read the work in question?

[jon_j_rambo]

A college professor told me once,"I just don't believe that book". I kindly asked,"Have you ever read it?". He said,"No!". I laughed.

[Hubert Cater]

Exel, do you know if the review is contained within the website somewhere? I've taken a look but I have a hard time getting through the pages without knowing any Finnish

If so can you forward a link to me? Thanks!