한국   대만   중국   일본 
Starcraft II: Legacy of the Void Review - GameSpot
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20151122205255/http://www.gamespot.com:80/reviews/starcraft-2-legacy-of-the-void-review/1900-6416314/
Review

Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Review

  • First Released
    released
  • Reviewed
  • PC

Power overwhelming

Over its 17-year run, the Starcraft series has become a cultural touchstone for the gaming public. The new expansion, Legacy of the Void, is the fifth release overall and the third in Starcraft II's sub-trilogy. With that mantle comes an extraordinary amount of pressure. The stories of Raynor's Raiders, Sarah Kerrigan, Zeratul, and countless other characters from this massive series await concrete resolution. Furthermore, Blizzard's stuck in the unenviable position of trying to update Starcraft's competitive foundation without overburdening a system that's largely been unchanged for almost two decades. We've seen the stage, we know the cast, and we've read the scripts. All that remains is to see it all come together as we ask one final question: Is this what we've all been waiting for? The answer is: absolutely.

Everything starts with the campaign, which is intended to tie up the bulky story of the game's three races: the human-inspired Terrans, the insectoid Zerg, and the hyper-advanced Protoss. These three factions have been at odds in an almost-constant war for quite some time. But as these things go, a new, more potent threat has emerged: Amon. He comes from an ancient race of beings that created both the Zerg and Protoss. He wants to unite all life by morphing them into chimeric hybrids through cross-breeding and extreme genetic engineering. His experiments and the corrupted minds of many of his followers are the focus of Legacy of the Void's story mode. With the help of old guard Protoss heroes Zeratul and Artanis, your goal is to dismantle Amon's massive armies and prevent his twisted vision of “perfection” from taking over the galaxy.

Legacy of the Void's missions use a series of unusual objectives, often with some additional challenge or complication to mix up the usual "build up base then attack" model of strategy game play.

The whole adventure is riddled with familiar scenarios and, at times, is pretty goofy, but the game's voice cast sells their roles with such gravitas and conviction that it comes off as admirable camp instead a long list of eye-rolling cliches. Massive strategic battles often end with grand speeches about fighting for a cause, and Artanis and Zeratul consistently stand against teeming hordes of foes only to conquer them through braggadocio and strength of will. Their continued success and eventual victory is always assured, but it comes with such bombast that the adventure is endearing more often than not.

Structurally, the campaign also helps reinforce the idea that you're fighting a losing war against an overwhelming force. In many missions, you are outnumbered by enormous margins, and each mission plays faster than those in previous games in the series. After fights, you're often treated to beautiful, well-acted (albeit not terribly well-written) cut scenes that give detailed form to game's battlefields.

While most of the single-player missions are excellent, they're not quite as diverse as they were in 2010's Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty. Most still come down to conquering specific points, protecting key areas, or holding out against an onslaught of foes for a set amount of time. What's included here is still more interesting than the missions from the last Starcraft II release, Heart of the Swarm. But it is disappointing that Blizzard, for all its tenacious attention to detail, didn't change up the proceedings a bit more. Where the characteristic Blizzard craftsmanship does come into play, though, is the revamped multiplayer modes.

What's included here is still more interesting than the missions from the last Starcraft II release, Heart of the Swarm.

Anyone who's been playing strategy games for a while can often provide a pretty consistent list of grievances against the genre. In games with others, the first two or three minutes (or longer) are very important, but they're largely the same match to match. That, combined with longer skirmishes in general, leads to frustrations about openers for lots of people. If Legacy of the Void makes one critical change, it is that players now start with many more resource gatherers, and the abilities of each race's starting base have been tweaked slightly to smooth out that opening and help people get to the meat of the game faster.

This makes the game a bit less forgiving for new players, but it evens out a problem that has plagued the series and strategy games in general for decades. To balance out the abrasiveness-for-new-players problem, Legacy of the Void adds a new mode named after one of the game's most iconic units: Archon.

Archon mode puts two players together and has them share one base, one pool of resources, e.t.c. The hope here is twofold. Those not familiar with Starcraft's hulking and often merciless competitive multiplayer modes can have an experienced player show off different pieces of the game and guide them through a match. On the higher level, though, it opens up two elements of play: macro- and micromanagement. Hypothetically, this should allow two experienced players to handle a lot more than they normally could. One can focus on maintaining the economy, gathering resources, and keeping up with upgrades and research, while the other can focus on the minute, precise movements necessary for optimal troop management. This lowers the total skill ceiling for multiplayer matches in general and helps players specialize.

Like the previous two Starcraft II games, you'll be able to change up your units for missions, refocusing their abilities to meet specific objectives.

In my experience, Archon handily succeeds at both. I've helped guide newbies to keep them from feeling lost or overwhelmed by the nuance and complexity inherent in competitive Starcraft, and I've worked with friends to take on much better players than any of us could handle otherwise. I've always been great at keeping supplies running smoothly, but I'm rubbish when it comes to directing individual soldiers, so having someone else take up that load helped me focus on not only what I was good at but also the parts of the game I enjoy most.

New units and subtler changes to the multiplayer game are also surprisingly valuable additions to Starcraft's stable of warriors. The Protoss get Adepts, ranged masters who can teleport, bypassing stationary defenses. Like the Terrans' Reaper--added previously in Wings of Liberty--the Adept are intended to harass fortified positions and disrupt your opponents' plans. Disruptors fill another key role in the grand Protoss line-up. They are walking bombs for clearing tight clusters of foes--much like the Zerg Baneling.

Those looking for some resolution to the conflicts that started way back in 1998 will almost certainly come away satisfied.

Terrans, for their part, get Cyclones and Liberators, new medium-armored ground and air units with automated turrets to target foes. Zerg get the Ravager, an evolution of the Roach. They are slow but effective artillery. Finally, the Zerg Lurker from Starcraft: Brood War also makes its long-awaited return. Each of these units has held up over months of beta play-testing, and they offer valuable additions to new strategies or new threats that players will need to cope with. The only problem I've seen so far is that after steadily adding new units and features for the past 17 years, Starcraft is getting a little big for itself, and there's often too much to manage--a complaint Blizzard seems to have predicted with the Archon mode. Surely, plenty of people can handle the new, larger game, but I struggled with higher-level play when I didn't have a friend along to help.

It's hard to say whether this suite of changes will help keep Starcraft II abreast of more popular eSports competitors, such as League of Legends or Dota 2, but it's clear that Blizzard's trying to offer something to everyone. High-end players get the additional challenge of managing or adapting to six new units and compensating for one of the biggest changes competitive play has yet seen--faster match openings and splitting macro- and micromanagement with Archon mode. Newbies have plenty of new ways to acclimate themselves to the most refined version of Blizzard's classic strategy series yet.

Those looking for some resolution to the conflicts that started way back in 1998 will almost certainly come away satisfied, even if Starcraft's writing has become comically weighty in recent years. Legacy of the Void doesn't quite manage the brilliance of Wings of Liberty, but it's a worthy note to leave the franchise on.

Did you enjoy this review?

  • The Good
    Delightfully campy campaign
    Excellent mission structure and pacing
    Technically masterful
    Improved accessibility
    The Bad
    Competitive play is brutally complex
    8
    Great
    About GameSpot's Reviews

    About the Author

    Daniel Starkey's been a rabid Starcraft fan since one fateful LAN party back in 2000. He traded an old audio card for a copy of the game and its expansion, and has since purchased the game five more times just to satisfy cravings. He spent 50 hours over a week running through the campaign, training against AI, and then breaking into ranked matches for the purposes of this review.
    90 Comments     Refresh Sorted By  
    verysalt

    Dude took X-Box controller in his hands then he realised he can't play with it so he concluded: "Competitive play is brutally complex".

    oflow

    welcome to 8Spot can I take your order?

    Jako998

    So 1 negative thing and its a 8 ???? but Fallout had like 3+ negatives and gets a 9 ??? wow gamespot this is stupid

    Xanitra

    @jako998 : Fallout 4 is a better game, has more players, plain and simple. They ruined Starcraft 2 with the previous expansion and continue to do so here it seems. Campaign is awesome of course, but once that is over, it is uninstall.

    NothingForMoney

    @jako998 : That's not how the scoring system works

    Mogan

    @jako998 : That's not how the review system works. It's not math.

    magul

    When will SC3 come :P I miss those times that I can play all the night till the morning sun! Campaign is good but online gaming requires to much practice to win which means too much time which I don't have. But I still love this game and I hope the series continues!

    Mogan

    @magul : Blizzard has apparently talked about releasing mission packs as DLC for Starcraft II of a semi regular basis. They don't do anything quickly though, so I'd get comfy.

    kresa3333

    I still didnt play it but i sure i wont agree with an 8 because i heard its just like the other 2 story wise and even better, so i think at least a 9 would be more reasonable, honestly i never played a strategy game that gives you so much interactions and different missions and unique cool features and even RPG elements like Starcraft 2. And the world and the voice acting it all can give alot of immersion, and the story itself isnt worth an Oscar but its more then decent enough to carry the campaign forward and have a blast.
    I dont think that its multiplayer is enough to lower it to an 8, there are many people like me who never touch it anyhow ^^.

    GH05T-666

    xel'naga kerrigan

    quickshooterMk2

    AN 8?! COMPETATIVE PLAY IS TOO HARD???!

    WOW gamespot reviews have gone from payed off--to borderline retarded

    i sincerly hope whoever wrote this will die in a car accident or get aids.

    Mogan
    Ezioprez9709

    @quickshooterMk2 : Review it yourself then, prove that you are capable of taking control of a job at Gamespot.

    Unless you're a troll, my money is on that...

    quickshooterMk2

    @Ezioprez9709 : i did

    and honestly if you played starcraft 2 you don't even need to read the review

    simply go out and buy it

    as for newcomers, i made a very "accessable" review, this game is simply perfect

    the only "mild" thing that annoyed me there was... well... some cutscenes get you super pumped up but then they just end abruptly with a black screen

    some of them could've been longer, but it's a minor complaint, i've haven't found anything bad or glitchy with the campaign, infact i'm actually shocked that a day-1 edition didn't bug or glitch on me

    simply a masterpiece was released without a hitch.

    Itzsfo0
    kresa3333
    NL_Skipper

    I thought this site was leaning toward more video content... but they still upload so few video reviews, what's up with that?

    Gomtor

    Great game, but one thing I do not like about the campaign this time is that most missions are time based in one way or the other. I like starcraft campaign for the massive armies you can build and play how you like. By introducing all these time limitations, it feels as if I am just rushing through by way of design. Still, a solid 8.

    altairdarius

    Thanks to Blizzard for his determination to uphold the series of games and also THE STORY LINE!!!

    Most of the games keep forgetting that the gamers are fans of the characters related by their actions in history.

    Take a look at Battlefront... Star Wars franchise doesn't need that bullshit.

    If only Blizzard could have made it a tactical strategy game like StarCraft ;)))

    cboye18

    I miss Age of Empires :/

    arrowhead927
    Online
    ganondorf77

    @cboye18 : Not even a shadow of Warcraft or Starcraft. Perhaps you can have equal fun. But that's all.

    Calo

    are you like super retarded

    "competitive is too complex to my brain"

    Mogan

    @calo : Well, the reviewer knows how to work his shift and punctuation keys, while your keyboard knowledge appears to stop at M. So I'd say he's got you beat either way. : p

    bobbo888
    Cataclysmic0001

    When I played Wings of Liberty it had an excellent matchmaking system for putting you in a league where you didn't feel like a complete idiot. If that philosophy hasn't been done away with then I can't see how the complexity of competitive play can be a negative. Perhaps "less accessible to beginners" due to the changes in gameplay you mentioned might have been a better way to word it?

    zheega

    So you don't like that multiplayer is hard? Starcraft is an e-sports title, and it is supposed to be very hard. Why don't you look at the game's context and target audience? That is why it is much harder than (for example) League of Legends, a MOBA title that exists only because of Starcraft 1. Yes, that is how MOBA games got started. In Starcraft1 MOBA was a more casual multi-player mode for that started sometimes in the year 2000, so that the players could relax after playing competitive Starcraft. Yes, Starcraft2 multiplayer is HARD, but that is how it is meant to be. It may have a smaller fanbase because of that, but if it was easy it would defeat its own purpose. People who like the COMPLEXITY can enjoy Starcraft, people who like something simpler have MANY other games that are simpler. You should praise Starcraft for being that one title, that doesn't give in to casual players (who are much much more numerous and bring in a lot more money), but instead tries to be hard and competitive. That is the whole point of competitive play. And the game that started esports back in 1998 deserves to stay competitive trough all its sequels.

    That is like criticizing football for being very hard because you have to run a lot. Well, if the game was much easier, it wouldn't be very "competitive", now would it? If anyone can do it with ease, then it is by definition not competitive. People who like something less competitive can still play less competitive sports or games. But the most competitive games and sports should be praised for requiring high skills, even if that alienates some more casual people.

    Hudathan

    So brutally complex that millions have been playing it competitively since the late 90's and still do?

    bobbo888

    @Hudathan : You can't deny that it has a huge huge learning curve, more than many games. The multiplayer can be overwhelming for new players. Even people in bronze league know what they're doing.

    jindro

    Why is it a bad thing a game is complex, i think you guys need to put more pro gamers on pay roll then. Its not a bad thing if something is hard. Its like saying in dark souls games that you die to often or it is brutally hard. I think you guys need to re-review the game.

    jophy

    no wonder every game franchise is becoming casual, even reviewers regard complexity and depth as a negativity.

    4KGamer_LMXXX

    So now gamespot is gonna let newbies do reviews on major titles? Ok then...

    davidsworld3

    Meh I was hoping they were gonna do a new amazing engine for this game series one that put any other strategy game like this to shame. 17 years for this? Really?

    I'll pass.

    Sollet

    "Competitive play is brutally complex"

    What...?

    asmoddeuss

    "Competitive play is brutally complex"

    Lol wut?

    conquerorsaint

    no video review?

    KungfuKitten

    If you need to play 100 hours to feel competent at the game online, I can see that as a negative. You can pick up a game like Battlefront or Blops3 today and feel like you're doing OK immediately. 100 hours is longer than most of us play one game of any kind.

    CageMidwell

    @KungfuKitten : You don't need 100 hours to play online though, the match making pairs you with players of equal skill after your placement games, if you are new and suck you will face players similar to yourself.

    5443Thomas

    "competitive is complex"

    no sh*t sherlock, is this your first RTS game?

    Poidad

    I found Heart of the Swarm to be much more entertaining, so I'm disappointed that this game the same score as that, but otherwise it was a great game.

    archav3n

    competitive play being complex is a bad? ffs.. why they ask a casual to review an RTS game?

    Cloud_imperium

    This is the shortest review I've ever read.

    Online
    adsparky

    Looks like a fitting conclusion.

    Cloud_imperium

    @adsparky : Yeah,,, the game is really good. Finished it recently.

    Online
    Gelugon_baat

    @DanCStarkey:

    I don't know if you have answered this question before, but aren't you irked by the lack of any infrastructure for LAN matches in Starcraft 2 , even up to today? This seems like a step-down from the aspect of product versatility.

    CptJohnnyRico

    Worst story line in history

    Poidad

    @CptJohnnyRico : Yeah i was disappointed with where they went with the story too, I thought it must have been just me though.

    Gelugon_baat

    @CptJohnnyRico : Oh, it's bad, but I have seen worse - the latter Command & Conquer titles in the Tiberium line, for example.

    davidsworld3

    @Gelugon_baat : at least they didn't take almost 20 fucking years to conclude the sorry story.

    Gelugon_baat

    @davidsworld3 : It still took 15 years - 15 years of campy-ass real-life acting that didn't go nowhere near how entertainingly awful the Red Alert line was. :\

    Gelugon_baat

    It irks me to know that the only high-profile RTS title that did not go in awful directions such as having tedious progression systems, having fuck-loads of DLC and/or having "free-to-play" models is Blizzard's polished turd, which in itself have doles of issues which are not in the consumer's favor.

    Kalgert

    @Gelugon_baat : I can't say I disagree with you. I personally find Starcraft 2 to be a bit meh compared to the other Blizzard RTS known as Warcraft, Warcraft 3 in particular (Being my first RTS game), which I found to have a stronger storyline to it, and also have a more enjoyable gameplay system to it (Being more of a melee-focused kind of game rather than amassing an army of burly shootie-guys, or have melee units serve as cannon fodder, excluding the Zealots because they were durable in the frontlines), but I welcome Starcraft 2 to the world, it's still a good game overall. It is pretty and enjoyable, but I still find myself looking at Warcraft 3 and say to myself "I sure wish I could play this Online".

    I actually have the game, only it's graphics broke on me, so it's not really that playable anymore :(

    D-Man
    Gelugon_baat

    Those of you bashing the reviewer here for making that remark about "brutally complex competitive play" might want to know that other people would call you out for being anal-retentive nerds.

    Also, if you are doing that because you like Starcraft, you are supporting stagnancy in the real-time strategy game genre. Blizzard's franchise is the epitome of how much this genre is stuck in the past in its core gameplay, and you are part of the problem.

    Kalgert

    @Gelugon_baat : I think the main problem is that Starcraft 2 is probably one of those modern day RTS games that do it right. Not saying that there are other RTS games that do the idea of economy management really well, but they don't really advertise themselves as much, or they are trapped in the uncomfortable situation of being either really, really old, or being re-released with minor upgrades, like being on a higher resolution

    Not to mention that many strategy games that are competent that come out are, alas, 4X games, and while there is an appeal for that, I don't want a 4X game, I want a game where I can manage resources and amass a proper army to lay waste on the enemy!

    Oh well.. At least we have something to play... Warcraft 3, or turn on some older games.

    jhonMalcovich

    Gamespot is becoming a bunch of casual pussies.

    davidsworld3
    Gelugon_baat

    @jhonMalcovich : Maybe you should tell others what games you yourself play before you even make that remark.

    xsonicchaos

    @Gelugon_baat : He starts every morning with a speedrun of Demon's Souls. Blindfolded.

    Pelezinho777

    Too much void. 2/10.

    lordshifu
    50cratez

    8 is about right. couldve been better. there are no memorable moments or memorable quotes. Could've been better

    Stesilaus

    A text-only review for a Blizzard game confirms my fears that the world, as we know it, is coming to an end.

    :-(

    lordshifu

    @Stesilaus : oh I thought the war with ISIS was to serve as a promulgation for that kind of fact..... my bad!

    davidsworld3

    @Stesilaus : More likely they just haven't uploaded it yet but for it to be this short tells me they didn't get a big enough pay check to bother with a real in depth review. Why I find this site to be very lack luster and pretty much a waste of my time anymore.

    arturfc123

    i would say the brutally complex multiplayer is actually a good thing. The sense of reward when u manage to defend your base and attack and keep your economy and army production going while thinking about an strategy to counter what you previously scouted, when you manage to last 10min doing so many actions you feel stressed and almost too umcomfortable to keep doing it to see that VICTORY screen at the end its just worth it.

    santinegrete

    What?! I didn't know this was coming out! I feel as dumb as when Resistance 3 was released!

    Do you know if there's an offer to get HoTS and this?

    TimmyDKJR

    @santinegrete : Last I checked there was a bundle for all 3 games at 60USD. Separately I think it's 40 USD for LotV and 10USD each for the other 2.

    Keaze_

    Ok I'm sorry but Legacy of the Void made pretty much everything about the game better and all the reviewers agree on that.

    Competitive play is brutally complex? First of all, how is that negative? Secondly, it's not necessarily true. You can win any match with one single type of unit (-any- type of unit) if you know what you're doing.

    Imo and in many reviewers' opinion, Blizzard pretty much hit the nail on the head and the game is as strong as it's ever been.

    Daniel Starkey I think you are just not experienced enough with Starcraft and they should have chosen a reviewer who is.

    TimmyDKJR

    @Keaze_ : Need to take into the consideration that the reviewer is doing the review for all types of Starcraft 2 or RTS fans, not just the competitive ones. I'm guessing that is a negative, because less people will find it more accessible.

    ScottOakley

    @Keaze_ : I don't see the problem, he gave it an 8. It fits perfectly cause they didn't make any huge changes just added some things.

    Yams1980

    it looks playable. If the only negative is the online aspect, it means nothing since i never play these online because of this very reason. I could never compete with anyone online its such a high learning curve to be good.

    hiphops_savior

    Ded gaem am confirmed /s

    Skinon

    You finally piss out a review well after the games released. You say your a hardcore SC fan and smashed hours and hours into it? I say your a liar.

    Atragon

    By Brutally Complex I assume he really means a skills/microing clickfest. It's more demanding than it is complex..Too demanding of clicks and not of strategy.

    CageMidwell

    @Atragon : Actually not really true, this is more of a meme than reality, APM has no correlation to victory if players are within a % Δ of each other. The idea APM is more valuable than decision making is misinformtion from those who mostly don't play the game.

    Neurogia

    @CageMidwell : Although, if two players are of similar skill level, then APM would be a factor in determining a winner. APM may not be a full correlation to victory, but it definitely should be a variable.

    CageMidwell

    @neurogia : Oh I agree and APM plays a role, I was just saying those who feel it's the main factor are incorrect, but it still a factor.

    CageMidwell

    Wait so being complex and competitive is bad? Can't imagine what score Chess would get.

    Prats93

    @CageMidwell : Except Chess is easy to pick up and only hard to master. Starcraft 2 on the other hand is just unintuitive and overly complicated.

    CageMidwell

    @prats93 : If SC2 is not intuitive than no RTS game is. Either that or you struggle with learning. SC2 has a very high ceiling but also has a low floor.

    Prats1993

    @CageMidwell : No you're right. No RTS game is intuitive, that's why they're dead and have been completely eclipsed by TBS games like XCOM or Fire Emblem. Even Julian Gollop, the legendary designer of the original XCOM admitted that playing an RTS is always a battle between you and the interface. Strategy games don't work well when they're in real time and try to be action games.

    Mogan

    @Prats1993 : If they've been eclipsed, it was by MOBAs.

    CageMidwell

    @Prats1993 : Not sure what you mean by "try to be action games" but they aren't dead, especially when you compare them to XCOM or FE (both great) because SC2 has outsold both those series.

    TheLeftHandDoom

    "competitive play is brutally complex."

    and,

    Pizza tastes too good.

    Beagles are too cute.

    Alexandria Daddario is too hot.

    AfterShave219

    "Competitive play is brutally complex"

    "Daniel Starkey's been a rabid Starcraft fan"

    Somehow I doubt that.

    Mlee6659
    verysalt

    Competitive play is brutally complex.... This argument is SO flawed.

    Dude go to review minecraft if deep strategies are too hard for you.

    That's what happens when Bronze league player reviews LotV. If you are bad in playing piano and chess - blame complexity, right ?

    SC2 - is rightfully the deepest and hardest E-SPORT game.

    ps. You claim to follow SC franchise since SC:BW, haven't you hear that "SC is easy to learn, hard to master"?

    riotinto876

    I cannot believe they put high competitive level as a bad thing. Oh gamespot...

    Starcraft II: Legacy of the Void More Info

    Follow
  • First Released
    released
    • Macintosh
    • PC
    Blizzard's sci-fi real-time strategy sequel consists of three separate games: The third, Legacy of the Void, will focus on the Protoss.
    9.5
    Average Rating 29 Rating(s)
    Please Sign In to rate Starcraft II: Legacy of the Void
    Developed by:
    Blizzard Entertainment
    Published by:
    Blizzard Entertainment , Activision Blizzard
    Genre(s):
    Strategy , Real-Time
    Theme(s):
    Sci-Fi
    Content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language.
    Teen
    All Platforms
    Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Suggestive Themes, Violence