No, that's fine, I appreciate being corrected. You can tell I'm not very good at the game, but I do like learning. The two units we're talking about still strike me as too similar in that they're both large fliers that attack from a distance, making them ideal for dismantingly entrenched opponents.
You are everything wrong with this world. Game is great. Don't listen to this a$$ hat
What a useless review.
I could go in depth as to why, but I'd hate to spend more time on this post than you did on your review.
This is not a serious review. It is simply an attempt to draw attention to this otherwise unheard-of website.
Just ignore it and move on :)
the worst review i have ever read.
Hey Tom,
It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on the competitive side of Starcraft 2 if you have a chance to catch any of the MLG Starcraft Tournament this weekend.
This tournament should be special -- it's the first major test of Heart of the Swarm. Nobody knows what to expect! The game balance might be completely broken -- quite possibly we will see a secretive Korean team deploy an absolutely unstoppable strategy prompting a quick nerf from Blizzard. This is really the most exciting time to watch a tournament like this.
You will certainly see tons Zerg vipers: snatching colossi into hydras, snatching their own units and depositing them on the high ground, snatching widow mines so they explode inside the Terran's own army, ... who knows what people come up with.
Check it out!
Just about everyone posting here represents what's wrong with gaming journalism. A guy writes an honest review about his thoughts on the game, but because he doesn't shower it with praise you crap all over him. You know what message that sends to reviewers? It tells them it's easier to just give everything a high score because it a)reaffirms what you already believe, and b) keeps the readers who can't think for themselves satiated. God forbid someone points out the flaws in these games. Seriously, the story is crap. The extra units are forgettable. The online play is the best part of StarCraft but was a $40 expansion really necessary for any of the multiplayer component. The answer is no.
These are the guys who gave Halo 4 a 20%, like the only reviewers out there that gave it a bad score. Obviously desperate for hits, I'm never coming back to this site.
As many have already stated, worst review I have read in a long time.... I loved SC1, but I find SC2 to be superior in everything. I even love the story, I really don't see what is wrong with it, it has great acting and it is over the top and just up my alley.
I have never played any other RTS with a better story or story telling than SC2.... Most RTS games have crappy stories, and I almost never play anything but skrimish or MP.... But SC2 it is about the story first for me...
But I do have one complaint about the SP in HoTS, which is the fact that most missions have some sort of time limit... I usually want to relax and build my base etc... Last mission was the best mission for me.
To me, SC2 is fast becoming my favorite RTS of all time, both in story and gameplay. But it is hard to beat Age of Empires 2 when it comes to gameplay.
It's not an honest review- it's a cynical attempt to generate website traffic with hits from people wondering how they could be so stupid. This isn't the first triple-A game they have given a horrible score for this purpose. As of today on Metacritic, 87 review sites have given Halo 4 a score- and this the only one (singular) that had given that game a poor score. The only one. I would bet money they are the only one to give SC2: HotS such a poor score as well.
Clearly you lie, because you posted another reply (also about Halo 4, I sense a trend developing!) about 30 minutes later. If you're going to threaten to leave, at least follow through like a man.
Man, haters comin' out of the woodwork. I thought this was a thoughtful review from someone willing to question Blizzard's choices instead of swallow them hook, line and sinker.
Isnt this the same guy who gave Halo 4 a 1 right?yep this guy cant be trusted
+1 for removing this piece of shit in metacritic
Honestly, you don't understand multiplayer well enough to write a review on this. Your criticisms of the new units are flawed. Bad review, at least do some research next time.
Tom "trollololo" Chick strikes again.
It baffles me how people hold you in such high regard, when you write short, superficial drivel like this and the Journey review. Seriously, it's 700 words; this is high school level writing, not something anyone would expect from a so called "highly esteemed" video game writer.
I just hope this review doesn't affect our alliance with South Korea during this time of instability!
Eat penis, shitstick, this review is biased and a ton of crap.
Find a new job, you suck at this one.
Also die.
Preferrably in shit.
You told him, you Internet hero, you!
Why do people care about Metacritic scores so much?! If Toms reviews didn't show up there and contribute to the overall (and meaningless!) percentage, people wouldn't care that he didn't enjoy a game as much as they did. Everytime this happens, Tom, I shake my head in bewilderment. I appreciate that you're critical and care about certain elements (like narrative) that others don't. I certainly don't always agree with you, but I couldn't care less that your 1 and 2 star reviews "ruin" the percentage on Metacritic. Have you ever considered going the way of RPS and just not using stars or score at all?
Just how can you rate this game without really talking about multiplayer?
And even for the campain , a 40? Are you fucking serious?