Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg Review

[Moon]

Hubert, I am just finishing the scan for ya

It arrived in mail today. 90 points. I don't understand one word beyond that, though (some of the words look like they span more than one page)

Martin

[Hubert Cater]

Too funny! Thanks

[Exel]

Hubert: The reviews are posted on the net only for subscribers, and only in Finnish. But here's the English summary directly from the magazine:

"[sC2] is an excellent war game. Blitzkrieg fixes almost all of the problems the first game had (a small Africa etc.). The AI could still be better, though." 90/100

The review itself praises the improved tech system, working and meaningful diplomacy and the reduced "luck factor" in R&D. It also stresses that the game is good for everyone, not just hardcore strategists. What it criticizes is the interface, isometric view (as opposed to top-down view SC1 style) and the lack of zoom on the map. It also notes that the game engine isn't really suitable for the smaller scenarios (Market Garden) due to lack of more detailed terrain features. The reviewer suggests that the minor nations should also benefit from the tech development of the majors for both historical and gameplay reasons.

[Liam]

Just one last thing to say, you all remeber Computer Gaming World when they had a decent Wargaming section at the end it was because one fo the Writers for the magazine was devotee Wargamer. That was back some time ago, these pathetic kids today pop in Civ4 or AOEIII and think it's an instant hit. They're already a passay genre

Civ4 has limited playability, the AI can only be tweaked to be stronger by terms of Building more and faster it isn't smarter

AOE3 is a waste, I was expecting what SC2 provided..a better SC

AOE3 is like 20 other RTS games that turned out really bad and there are no honest write-ups. that is 50 bucks really thrown down the drain

so far I've played SC2 more than any other game since Europa Unversalis II and WW2online Blitzkrieg. There is crap in Wargames and PC games today and the writers are probably 22 years old. Bunch of kids expecting Doom XXI

Sorry if I'm strong opinionated but I am and I'm so bored with what I crack open at the local best buy, I am afraid to buy any games. I'm afraid to spend. I have bought 10 wargames in the past 2 years, all are sold

P.S. If I want a glittery game with graphics I'll get an Xbox

[LampCord]

Originally posted by Retributar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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'. </font>

[murks]

No wonder the Finns are giving SC2 a good review, considering that Finnland is much more useful in SC2 than it was in SC1. I guess spanish game mags will rate SC2 high, too, provided the reviewer understands the diplomacy element well enough to make Spain join.

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by 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.

Having been a reviewer, I need to point out that sometimes you don't get a choice - the game needs reviewng and if your genre specialist (assuming you HAVE a genre specialist) is already working on something else then you get the job and do the best you can.

While I don't like the review any more than anyone else, it is clear that the reviewer (and thus his intended audience) has a different set of yardsticks for measuring a game than we do. I'm afraid we are going to have to get used it - let's face it, turn-based strategy is a niche market now so we are going to get compared unfavorably to the finger-twitchers and splatter-fests that saturate the current market. I suspect that once SC2 gets into the mainstream review sites and magazines we are going to get a lot assessments like this one - "deep gameplay and so-so music/graphics".

Their loss.

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by murks:

No wonder the Finns are giving SC2 a good review, considering that Finnland is much more useful in SC2 than it was in SC1. I guess spanish game mags will rate SC2 high, too, provided the reviewer understands the diplomacy element well enough to make Spain join.

LOL!

[Liam]

Originally posted by murks:

No wonder the Finns are giving SC2 a good review, considering that Finnland is much more useful in SC2 than it was in SC1. I guess spanish game mags will rate SC2 high, too, provided the reviewer understands the diplomacy element well enough to make Spain join.

Finns do get an HQ, the only nation that does that is a minor besides Spain. Franco was a well known military Commander and I think Mannerheim was also. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria had leaders, Greece had them. I think the difference is that both Finland and Spain have enough units to warrant an HQ, Finland can field 4 units?

Sweden, Turkey and perhaps Greece should also have an HQ, generic.

[Timskorn]

CP: That may be true, but at a place called Strategy Informer? Not only does he not enjoy these kind of strategy games but he failed to inform as well. I can see a place like Gamespot, IGN or PC Gamer giving it a bad review but even they have reviewed these kinds of games favorably. There was some hardcore hex-based 2D wargame that came out recently, set around D-day I believe, that seemed to get great reviews. A place like SI makes it sound like they specialize in strategy game reviews, which they do not.

[Dulak]

I concur I wasnt excited about AOE 3 at all either ... and I have been a fan of the series for a long time; often was in the top 25 online (mutiplayer).

In all honesty the AOE etc games have been really good strategy games. You had to have excellent reflaxes, quick fingers and knew how to outthink your opponenet.

Problem with those games thou there was always imbalances which turned me away from the games.

[janbo]

Originally posted by Moon

I don't understand one word beyond that, though (some of the words look like they span more than one page) [smile]

Hehe, couldn't help laughing at this one. If my memory doesn't quite betray me, I think our longest word is epäjärjestelmällistymättömyydelläänsäkäänköhän

[LampCord]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

CP: That may be true, but at a place called Strategy Informer?

Exactly. That was my point. Change the name to 'RTS Clickfest Informer' if that's what you review and stick to reviewing games you like and know.

It kind of bites that out of a grand total of 2 online mags that have bothered to review the game, one of them had to be a mag that doesn't know or care about these kinds of games. Seems like everyone would have been better served had they not reviewed it at all. I'm sure the reviewer would have preferred that based on his comments.

[JerseyJohn]

But the thing is, anyone reading that piece will see right away that the review was a half-hearted effort and the emphasis was placed on things that have nothing to do with strategy -- bells and whistles.

The game is actually better off with that review because people who might not otherwise have heard about SC-2 will read it and their curiosity will be piqued. I came to SC-1 after reading a review didn't give the game raves of enthusiasm. It accurately said the Battle of the Atlantic flat out didn't work! I was disappointed to read that but followed the link to this website and, after reading the game description here, I immediately bought the game.

After it arrived a few days later I immediately joined the site and began screeching about how the Atlantic was too narrow, Canada isn't an island (yet, but give it time ) etc & so on.

Meanwhile, unintentionally I'm sure, the reviewer said the game has a challenging A. I.. That ought to be a very good lure; strategy gamers are much more concerned about AI than graphics and sound.

[Exel]

Originally posted by murks:

No wonder the Finns are giving SC2 a good review, considering that Finnland is much more useful in SC2 than it was in SC1.

Heh. Well the same mag rated SC1 worth 80-sumthin out of 100. In fact it was what introduced me to SC and made me download the demo in the first place. So any complaints of me being here can be directed to the editors.