Review

Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Review

  • First Released Nov 10, 2015
    released
  • 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
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 clichés. 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.
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.

Back To Top

The Good

  • Delightfully campy campaign
  • Excellent mission structure and pacing
  • Technically masterful
  • Improved accessibility

The Bad

  • Competitive play is brutally complex

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.
125 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for cboye18
cboye18

4118

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

I miss Age of Empires :/

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Alurit
Alurit

1002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cboye18: there was a new expansion for aoe ii like 2 weeks ago

Upvote • 
Avatar image for arrowhead927
arrowhead927

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

@cboye18: ages of empires 2:HD

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ganondorf77
ganondorf77

630

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

18898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bobbo888
bobbo888

648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@calo: where was that said

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Cataclysmic0001
Cataclysmic0001

149

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

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?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zheega
zheega

6

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By 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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hudathan
Hudathan

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bobbo888
bobbo888

648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jindro
jindro

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jophy
jophy

41

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for The_Tron
The_Tron

287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@jophy: that's a very good point. And I like how you said depth. As that is something that blizzard is amazing at. Making games seem simplistic but have a lot of depth. I've played other RTS games which are way more "complicated" on the surface but in the end usually resort to getting mass of unit A before enemy faction can get more of their A unit and roflstomp them. While StarCraft actually has a ton of different viable strategies. I find it weird that "brutally complex" is a negative, while maybe the game isn't perfect (imo 8 or 9 is fine, it's only a number who cares?) the fact that it is deep should not be considered a negative.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for 4kgamer_lmxxx
4KGamer_LMXXX

275

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davidsworld3
davidsworld3

3523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Sollet
Sollet

8282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

"Competitive play is brutally complex"

What...?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for asmoddeuss
asmoddeuss

623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

Edited By asmoddeuss

"Competitive play is brutally complex"

Lol wut?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for conquerorsaint
conquerorsaint

1338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

no video review?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for CageMidwell
CageMidwell

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for 5443Thomas
5443Thomas

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"competitive is complex"

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Poidad
Poidad

184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for archav3n
archav3n

578

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Cloud_imperium
Cloud_imperium

15146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 103

User Lists: 8

This is the shortest review I've ever read.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for adsparky
adsparky

2572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

Looks like a fitting conclusion.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Cloud_imperium
Cloud_imperium

15146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 103

User Lists: 8

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

@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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for CptJohnnyRico
CptJohnnyRico

378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Worst story line in history

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Poidad
Poidad

184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By Gelugon_baat

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davidsworld3
davidsworld3

3523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Edited By davidsworld3

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By 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. :\

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By 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 ****-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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bobbo888
bobbo888

648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@Gelugon_baat: It "irks" me when people bug out and provide no reason why. It irks me when people use the term "polished turd."

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kalgert
Kalgert

205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@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 :(

Upvote • 
Avatar image for d-man
D-Man

409

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@Gelugon_baat: Oh lighten up, toots.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

Edited By 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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kalgert
Kalgert

205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@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.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
jhonMalcovich

7090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Gamespot is becoming a bunch of casual pussies.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davidsworld3
davidsworld3

3523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

@jhonMalcovich: I bet you play cod all the time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

24247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 656

User Lists: 4

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xsonicchaos
xsonicchaos

1389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for etphonehome
ETPhoneHome

108

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@xsonicchaos: Then, as he eats his breakfast, He speedruns Super Meat Boy.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Pelezinho777
Pelezinho777

1520

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

Too much void. 2/10.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lordshifu
lordshifu

319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@Pelezinho777: your comment has a nice pun :D i like it Mr Moody :)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Stesilaus
Stesilaus

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

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

:-(

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lordshifu
lordshifu

319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

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

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davidsworld3
davidsworld3

3523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

@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.

Upvote •