Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm Released

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the now-with-more-zerg dept.

Real Time Strategy (Games) 271

Today Blizzard launched its first expansion to StarCraft 2, titled Heart of the Swarm. When initially developing StarCraft 2, Blizzard made the decision to split the game into three parts, each with a campaign as long as the original StarCraft. The initial release in 2010, Wings of Liberty, centered on the story of the Terrans. The newly-released Heart of the Swarm is focused on the Zerg. The final release, Legacy of the Void, will dedicate its campaign to the Protoss (and does not have a projected release timeframe yet). In addition to the new campaign, new units have been introduced for multiplayer and new maps have been added, which ought to shake things up in the competitive landscape. Blizzard has also made long-awaited improvements to the social system, including support for groups and clans.

cancel ×

271 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why am I at work? (4, Funny)

neonv (803374) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153623)

Here I am working, when I could be playing. Thanks Slashdot, now I'm going to have to kill my productivity and go home and kill some zerg!

Re:Why am I at work? (5, Funny)

Tukz (664339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153643)

You got it all wrong, this campaign is played as zerg.
Go home and kill some marines!

Re:Why am I at work? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153775)

No, he's right. He just gets scv rushed by the terrains every game. He didn't say the zerg weren't his.

Re:Why am I at work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153785)

He just plays poorly. That's why he's going to be killing some zerg.

Re:Why am I at work? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153827)

You got it all wrong, this campaign is played as zerg.

No, he could be right. Perhaps he just isn't a very good player! ;)

Re:Why am I at work? (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153937)

In the first few missions, you play as Kerrigan trying to get back control of the swarm. So killing other Zerg is part of it.

Re:Why am I at work? (0)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154507)

gawd, spoilers!!!

Re:Why am I at work? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154973)

My understanding of the storyline is Sarah has to take back her brood. She'll need to kill zerg again like the zerg campaign in the original.

Re:Why am I at work? (5, Funny)

joeyadams (1724334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153807)

Here I am working, when I could be playing. Thanks Slashdot, now I'm going to have to kill my ...

Please get help. You have so much to live for.

... kill my productivity and go home and kill some zerg!

Ohh, nevermind. Knock yourself out.

Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1, Troll)

ExecutorElassus (1202245) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153641)

So, does this one, like the previous, require an always-on Internet connection to Blizzard's authentication servers, the ones that are tied to all their games? Because I really don't like the idea of not being able to play a single-player game just because some recent update to WoW is overloading their servers.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (2)

Tukz (664339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153667)

The previous one doesn't require you to be alway-on.
They removed that in one of the first patches.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153687)

So, in other words, it did? I mean, how else could they remove it if it wasn't there in the first place?

AT RELEASE it did. So the question is, since this is another "AT RELEASE" moment, whether this does, too. Just 'cause they realized that they did something wrong doesn't mean they won't repeat it.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (5, Informative)

ildon (413912) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153767)

"AT RELEASE", SC2: Wings of Liberty had an offline "guest" mode that could play single player and custom maps, but could not play any multiplayer (no LAN support). It continues to behave in exactly this way.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153797)

You could say that no-LAN is StarCraft 2's Heart of the DRM.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154119)

You could say that no-LAN is StarCraft 2's Heart of the DRM.

Yeah, I could, but since I have at least a shred of dignity left in me, I won't, and simply allow you to claim you said it, as you just did.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153863)

Reallly? I'd heard that since patch 1.5, Guest mode went away.

Many people here [battle.net] seem to agree.

The system requirements for HOTS indicate that Broadband internet + a Battle.Net account are required.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153959)

If you check later on in the topic you've linked, you'll see that it was officially confirmed as a bug. Whether or not they're fixing it is an open question, of course, since at this time it appears to still be an issue.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (3, Informative)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154075)

Yep...I first saw that thread last year, but never went back to read the entire follow up.

It's definitely a bug [battle.net] , and mostly fixed at that.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153965)

No LAN = no buy

I'll play minecraft instead.
With the right mods, it has nukes [youtube.com] .

Play minetest instead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154029)

That way you can always fork if c55 decides to DRM it :D

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (2)

razorshark (2843829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154161)

Not quite. Ever since the 2.0.4 update the Guest button has disappeared. The "workaround" is to disconnect from the net (I tend to just disable the network device in Windows), start SC2, log in using your account and when it fails due to a lack of net connection, you just click Play Offline. Previous you only had to click Guest and pick a guest account and off you'd go.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154197)

Really? Cause they indicate that that problem was resolved [battle.net] in 1.5.4.

Currently the only outstanding bugs they have listed with regards to offline mode is that you need to go online once after patching, and you must fully download the game prior to going offline.

Gonna check when I get home. Actually, screw that....gonna kill me some Terrans for a while...then check.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

razorshark (2843829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154361)

The bits about needing to go online once after patching and needing the game fully downloaded to go offline are true, yet. But the guest button definitely does not exist anymore - it did in the early versions, it did in 1.5.4 (even if it was buggy and locked out it was still physically there), but it's completely absent in 2.0.4.

Having said that, I've never actually bought the game. I just use a dummy Battle.net account, offline cache files supplied by someone on a SC2 cracking site and a license generator. I have no interest in multiplayer and only care about the campaign and the occasional skirmish game.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (0, Troll)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154887)

Having said that, I've never actually bought the game. I just use a dummy Battle.net account, offline cache files supplied by someone on a SC2 cracking site and a license generator.

Asshole

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

ildon (413912) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153787)

Actually, now that I loaded the client, I think they removed the offline mode in some patch.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Tukz (664339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153845)

There was a glitch in patch 1.5, you need to delete Battle.net.MPQ and try again.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

ildon (413912) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153823)

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6679638021?page=2#26 [battle.net]

Ok, I guess the implication is that offline mode is only available if the game fails to connect to Blizzard's servers? I don't feel like turning off my internet or blocking a port or whatever to check.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (4, Informative)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153931)

No...after more research, it was a bug, and it is mostly fixed. See here [battle.net] for details.

TL;DR:
Blizzard screwed up offline mode at one point.

Currently to go offline, you must have:
1) The game fully downloaded (makes sense)
2) Go online once after patching (they are working on fixing this).

So right now if you are a hermit in a cave with no online connectivity, but you happened to pick up the open wi-fi of a passing hiker and patch SC2, but then did not go online after the patch....then you are screwed.

Otherwise, yes, you can apparently play the campaign offline.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (0, Flamebait)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153673)

So, does this one, like the previous, require an always-on Internet connection to Blizzard's authentication servers

Yes

Because I really don't like the idea of not being able to play a single-player game just because some recent update to WoW is overloading their servers.

Then don't buy it.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153943)

Sorry...I was incorrect. I thought they had removed offline mode in some previous patch, but apparently it was just a bug [battle.net]

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Aserrann (1029174) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154111)

Posting to undo mod. Modded based on your incorrect info, but then you had to go and be all decent and correct yourself.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (4, Funny)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154205)

Sorry...I'll try to be more indecent in the future.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154041)

So, does this one, like the previous, require an always-on Internet connection to Blizzard's authentication servers

Yes

Incorrect, at least as far as the previous game is concerned.

Wings of Liberty has had an offline mode for playing through the campaign (a.k.a. guest mode) from day one. There was a bug with the 1.5 patch to the game that caused the feature to break (for only some users?), but it's been acknowledged as a bug, an official workaround was posted months ago (delete a particular .mpq file), and your connection is only checked when the game first launches (i.e. not always-on).

Now, I can't speak towards Heart of the Swarm, but WoL has never required an always-on connection.

Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154055)

Just reloaded the page and saw your response to yourself. Sorry about the redundant post to correct you.

Short Answer: No (1)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154217)

Long Answer: There's an offline mode that you can use to play campaign & custom maps. The caveat is that you need to log in using your battle.net account once every 30 days for it to work.
My internet's been down for the last hour or so and I've been playing the campaign without a problem.

I just wish ... (3, Insightful)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153647)

I just wish blizz would split Starcraft into the two games it clearly is : Single- and Multi-player.

I thoroughly enough the campaign missions, the overarching story, and everything else associated with the single player mode, but have zero interest in multiplayer. I've got plenty of other PvP games. I'd wager that there are plenty of people in my camp, as well as people who never touch the campaign, instead favoring multiplayer.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153675)

If you don't want to play the multiplayer you can play the campaign. Actually there are a lot of stuff in the campaigns that are not available in MP.

The only bad thing about this game is the ridiculous always online DRM Blizzard decided to implement even for single player mode.

Re:I just wish ... (4, Insightful)

Tukz (664339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153681)

Don't play multiplayer then?
I really don't see the issue here, the campaign is standalone singleplayer missions.

Re:I just wish ... (1, Interesting)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153815)

The issue here is cost

I'm cheap and I'd rather not pay for content I have no interest in using. Especially in this instance, where that extra content is virtually identical to the extra content I already purchased two years ago.

Probably a losing battle though, in the age of full-retail-price map packs for Call of Modern Battlefield, and full-retail-price roster updates for Madden n+1

Re:I just wish ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153895)

Looks like the choice is clear. Take your money somewhere else.

Cost addition for multiplayer is not that much (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154607)

I'm cheap and I'd rather not pay for content I have no interest in using.

Why would you be?

All of the content (like art assets) is used by both multi and single player modes.

The only thing you are in theory paying for and not using, is the code that allows a human to control the opposing forces instead of the computer, and some additional map design.

But the large bulk of effort that you paid for goes for the game you can play single player.

Re:I just wish ... (4, Insightful)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154625)

While I think you're justified to have your gripes, in this case I feel it's a bit excessive. RTS games have had single player and multiplayer components almost since the very beginning. Granted, the multiplayer aspect has been far more significant lately, but I don't think it's been at a cost of a weaker single player. I kind of feel like your complaints are like griping about the passenger seat you had to buy in your car even though you'll never sit in it.

HOTS is at least priced as an expansion rather than a "full price game," unlike CoD and the sports games.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154947)

RTS games have had single player and multiplayer components almost since the very beginning

I'm not so sure about that...I don't remember a multiplayer component for Dune 2.

Now you kids....get off my lawn!

Re:I just wish ... (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154831)

What? It would cost more to do it your way.
You wold need to make a complete game out of both, instead of one game with 2 features. In the end it would cost exactly the same.

It's a features I don't use in know way means it would cost less without the feature.

If you are going to be cheapo, then also be knowledgeable, else you will just bite yourself in the ass in an effort to save a penny.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155021)

There is more content in the campaign than in multiplayer. There are no cut scenes and a lot less voice acting in multiplayer. No one had to write a story line either.

Re:I just wish ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154703)

Cost is the issue. $40 for an expansion is bunk if you have no interest in the multiplayer.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153777)

Maybe. But I'd worry that the multiplayer would sell well enough that Blizzard would realize there is no point in developing a single player game.

I'm guessing that the Single player version development costs are 4-5 times those of the multiplayer, but the single-player only people likely do not represent 80-90% of the users....

Re:I just wish ... (2)

ADRA (37398) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154021)

Everyone I know who bought SCII bought it for single player, and could count their multi-player games on one hand (including me). Obviously this isn't a perfect representation of the community, but I'm sure you'll find that there's far more single-player only gamers than you'd like to believe. Plus, without the single player mode, you'd have a substantially large number of very weak introductory players that would need some sort of introduction to the game. This is one of the biggest weaknesses of on-line only games like DOTA 2 for instance, where the learning curve to reach 'competent' multi-player is quite high.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154139)

Agreed...and everyone I know bought it for the single player campaign as well (although a handful of us have wasted a lot of time on cooperative online games).

That being said, the sheer popularity of multiplayer in Asia makes me wonder if Campaign-only players aren't in the minority.

The later SC2 patches included a very reasonable multiplayer tutorial and AI bot "ranking" matches to ease you into the game.

I'd also argue that the Campaign is a terrible way to learn to play multiplayer. Many of the maps in the Campaign are fairly specific objective based, and unreasonably unbalanced towards one side or the other. As well, many of the Campaign units and upgrades are unavailable in multiplayer.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

Punto (100573) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153805)

It is split, the multiplayer game is vastly different from the single player (different units, stats, mecanics, etc). They design each mode separately.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154025)

All multiplayer units and abilities are in single player. There is simply less units and abilities in multiplayer. You are correct that the stats are different but that is probably due to the constant race balancing updates they do.

Re:I just wish ... (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153857)

I just wish blizz would split Starcraft into the two games it clearly is : Single- and Multi-player.

Or, they could just release the game people want.

Remember Starcraft? The one that was such a big success? The one with local LAN games and dedicated servers?

It made plenty money.

But the days of companies giving customers what they want are gone forever. Now, you get what you get and STFU.

Re:I just wish ... (3, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154533)

Remember Starcraft? The one that was such a big success? The one with local LAN games and dedicated servers?

Fun facts; SCII is a big success as well, at least in terms of amount of players and amount of profit made. Further, I remember Starcraft, I enjoyed it (not as much as TA, but still), and never once played it on a LAN. I did play on Battle.net, though, even with my friends in same city. So, really, Blizzard game me what I wanted. Sure, not you, but perhaps its time to realize that you're a minority, and companies have no reason whatsoever to cater to your wishes.

LAN is irrelevant these days. There is no real reason for a majority of people to want it anymore. If it has a LAN feature, a miniscule fraction of people would use it, so why bother? Sure, I could lug my giant computer to a friends house, and futz with networks... or I could just hop into a game with them, over my more than adequate internet connection. Which would I rather do? The quick and easy one. I can still lug my computer to their house and play, by the way. LAN gives no real benefit over the internet these days. When the original Starcraft came out, my internet sucked, this isn't true for the majority of people (or at least people who can blow $60 on a game, and $600+ on a rig that can play it) anymore.

Sure, I'd prefer it, more options and more features are always good. But in this day and age constant internet access is pretty much a given.

Re:I just wish ... (5, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154601)

I guess you have never been to a LAN party without internet.

Re:I just wish ... (0)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154877)

I suspect he's never been to a LAN party. or any party, really.

Re:I just wish ... (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154867)

"LAN is irrelevant these days. "
not really.
For example. this weekend I will be renting a house at the coast for 4 days with 15 other gamers. we do it 4 times a year, or so.
Internet connection at these rentals run the gambit from shit, to crap.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between being online with someone and being in the same room is pretty damn sad.
I would also add, when doing team play, being in the same room as your team is a hell of a lot easier to communicate then a headset. Not that it applies to many people.

Re:I just wish ... (4, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154369)

Not *exactly* the same thing, but...

A huge number of WoW players wish that Blizzard would split WoW into two games... PvE and PvP.

One of the biggest factors behind PvE players quitting the game is Blizzard's complete inability to stop tweaking and sometimes fundamentally redesigning classes. This is only very rarely driven by PvE or quality-of-game issues. More normally, it's because the changes were needed to correct a PvP imbalance. Having to relearn your class because some people you never talk to playing a version of the game you have no interest in have found an interesting way to exploit the game-rules is no fun. But it happens all the time.

There's a real tension in Blizzard between the people who know how to make a fun game and the people who spend years worrying about multiplayer balance. They both have a role, but they both need to be kept completely separate.

Re:I just wish ... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155015)

I haven't played for eons, but I started after it first came out and the Hunter class was so weak people would advertise quests and say "no hunters" like people said "no Irish" in the 19th century. Then a year or so later when I returned, the Hunter's specs were completely redone and they were boss. I think the tweaks are an attempt to fix bugs and balance the classes

Nuclear Options? (5, Funny)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153683)

If we really want to deter North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, we need to preemptively deploy SC2.

Re:Nuclear Options? (3, Informative)

matrim99 (123693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153839)

North Korea and South Korea are two different countries.

Re:Nuclear Options? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154155)

North Korea and South Korea are two different countries.

No, wrong. As any red-blooded, God-fearing REAL American knows, the nation of "Foreign" simply has a lot of different names because they're jealous of us.

Re:Nuclear Options? (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154529)

You must be from Dakota or Carolina.
Or are you from Charleston, Virginia?

Re:Nuclear Options? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154279)

Ahem.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/north_south_korea

DRM RULEZ BABY !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153695)

I want my DRM !!

Make me pay like the swine I am and you want me to be !!

And do it as a playfore slashvertizement to get me going !! Then DO ME !!

So far it's pretty good (4, Interesting)

DaemonDan (2773445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153701)

I started playing the campaign for Heart of the Swarm today, and am very pleased with it so far. The cinematic sequences are really well done, and it has a great storyline so far.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153743)

Great, a $40 expansion from Blizzard who decided they were too cheap to include the content in the original $60 game. Between this expansion and the next, Starcraft 2 has become a $140 game.

DO NOT WANT.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

vawarayer (1035638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153803)

Keep in mind that some other dudes want you to pay a recurrent monthly fee for playing on their servers. All Blizzard titles provide free access to battle.net and a replayability that I have yet to find in other games. I have had played SC 1 for several years before SC 2 came out. I think I have good zerg-bang for my protoss-bucks.

Re:Who cares? (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154383)

Monthly fees fund ongoing game development and server maintenance. For a matchmaking-only service like Starcraft 2, that's just not relevant. HotS should be able to meet its own costs on box-sales. Something like Mists of Pandaria can't.

For MMOs, the monthly fee is VASTLY preferable to the pay-to-win model.

Re:Who cares? (2)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153901)

Have you played the Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty campaign? It is a full game all by itself. Starcraft 2: Wings of Libery + Starcraft 2: Heart of Swarm + Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void, = 3 Games. Most triple-A companies would charge you $60 per game which comes out to $180 for the series. Assuming the final game is also $40, Blizzard is charging you $140. They are $40 cheaper than most triple-A companies.

Re:Who cares? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154107)

the art and music is the same as Wings
you're paying for the new missions which took work

Re:Who cares? (2)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154411)

To expand a bit on this...

Wings of Liberty has a campaign that takes around 20 hours, plus a few "skirmish" modes and multiplayer.

Heart of the Swarm has a campaign that - going off early reports - is around the same length as WoL's. It is built on the same engine, so fewer development costs there. However, it has entirely new cinematics, voice work etc (a good chunk of the costs), new mission design and a radically designed multiplayer.

As a standalone, Wings of Liberty is roughly equivalent value to... say... the original Dawn of War, at the time of its release. It's a good length singleplayer campaign (albeit where you only play as one faction), plus skirmish and multiplayer. And it has generally higher production values than Dawn of War (which isn't intended as a slight on that game - I loved it).

Heart of the Swarm also justifies its cost, on the basis of everything I've seen so far. The technological platform is aging a bit now, though; if they want to put the third installment out at the same price point, then they probably need a much smaller release-gap to avoid justifiable rip-off allegations.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154421)

Have you played the Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty campaign? It is a full game all by itself. Starcraft 2: Wings of Libery + Starcraft 2: Heart of Swarm + Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void, = 3 Games.

No. I count one game and two fairly expensive expansion packs. They include a few extra units, some multiplayer tweaks, and a map pack.

Most triple-A companies would charge you $60 per game which comes out to $180 for the series. Assuming the final game is also $40, Blizzard is charging you $140.

How much koolaid did you drink?

Re:Who cares? (2)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154649)

No. I count one game and two fairly expensive expansion packs. They include a few extra units, some multiplayer tweaks, and a map pack.

And a full length single player campaign.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154785)

Welcome to 2013 where consumers are grateful to be able to buy a product, instead of customers being grateful to sell a product.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155057)

No. I count one game and two fairly expensive expansion packs. They include a few extra units, some multiplayer tweaks, and a map pack.

Command and Conquer, another RTS series, regularly sold sequels and expansions to their games for $40-50. The expansions almost always had the same units; the sequels within a "universe" (Red Alert or Tiberium) often had similar units if they weren't completely identical. This is kind of an RTS standby at this point: if you think it's not worth it, don't buy the game, but if units were undergoing massive changes between sequels and expansions, the competitive and multiplayer customers would throw a shit fit.

Re:Who cares? (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154715)

Have you played the Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty campaign? It is a full game all by itself. Starcraft 2: Wings of Libery + Starcraft 2: Heart of Swarm + Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void, = 3 Games. Most triple-A companies would charge you $60 per game which comes out to $180 for the series. Assuming the final game is also $40, Blizzard is charging you $140. They are $40 cheaper than most triple-A companies.

$60, Luxury.

In Australia they charge you A$90 (US$91). Starcraft 2 was A$44 (so $40 + 10% GST).

Re:Who cares? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154757)

$40 for some new missions in the already developed level editor on the already developed engine and a few new multiplayer maps.

About the only thing that actually had to be done special is the voice work and any cinematics for the campaign.

Some people think $40 for an expansion based on 95% of content they already own is reaching a bit far.

Re:Who cares? (1, Insightful)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154035)

So they give a new interface, new multiplayer game modes, new units, new game replay features, new maps, new matchmaking, new grouping/clan features, new cinematics, and an entirely new full-length campaign....but it's just an expansion?!?

Please explain how this is any less of a full game than Assasin's Creed 2? Halo 2? Call of Duty Anything?

Re:Who cares? (1)

Wyzard (110714) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154473)

Brood War had a new campaign, units, maps, and cinematics too. It's an expansion in the sense that you can't buy and play it by itself: you have to own the base game already.

Re:Who cares? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154605)

new multiplayer game modes, new units, new game replay features, new maps, new matchmaking, new grouping/clan features, new cinematics, and an entirely new full-length campaign....but it's just an expansion?!?

Yes.

It is telling that StarCraft 1 included 3 campaigns, and multiplayer, right out of the gate, one for each race. And the campaigns for starcraft 2 are not 3x as good nor 3x as long.

Finally, I fully expect some time after StarCraft's 3rd expansion is released, I'll be able to buy them as a single integrated "StarCraft 2: The whole game"

Please explain how this is any less of a full game than Assasin's Creed 2? Halo 2? Call of Duty Anything?

StarCraft's one integrated game in 3 pieces.

Assasin's Creed 2 is not integrated with 1 in any way.

Plus with starcraft 2 they designed it and what would be in it and each expac before the first game was released, for starters. I doubt they had Assassin's Creed mapped out before they started cutting code on Assassin's creed.

You make a good argument re "CoD anything" But then I'd say you were duped into over paying for rehashed sequels there.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155091)

Plus with starcraft 2 they designed it and what would be in it and each expac before the first game was release

Really? Never heard that....source? It seems unlikely given the amount of change that goes on even during the beta's
And even if they did, not sure what it has to do with them being 3 games or not. Is the Lord of the Rings series one movie cause they filmed them at the same time?

the campaigns for starcraft 2 are not 3x as good nor 3x as long.

3x as good is relative (I happen to disagree...I found some of the missions in SC2 to be quite inspired and original for an RTS (day/night mission, lava rising, flame wall).

I suspect the total length of all 3 campaigns in SC2 will be 2-2.5 times the length of SC1.

No, Assassin's creed 2 is not "integrated", but it fairly obviously uses much of the code, models, engine from AC1.

Never actually bought CoD anything (Actually I might own CoD 3), but my son buy's all of them. I can't tell which one he's playing by watching.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154787)

They might have had better PR if they just announced StarCraft 2, StarCraft 3, and StarCraft 4, and released them all as standalones.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154567)

So you'd have rather either waited an extra year or two, or accepted around 1/3 less content for the same price?

Pretty rational, if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, Blizzard has been on my shit-list for a while now, and I probably won't be buying this expansion, but I really can't complain. Its a full length game, as big as the original, for less money. Back before this DLC bullshit that we accept now, games released giant $40 expansions, as opposed to miniscule $10 DLC. This was an accepted practice. And it is a practice I wish we could return to.

Huh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153755)

Why is this here? Every single person who gives a damn knew this already.

Re:Huh (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153791)

Why is this here? Every single person who gives a damn knew this already.

Such insight, I don't think I've ever seen...

At least, not from an AC.

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154251)

Every single person who gives a damn knew this already.

Speak for yourself, if it wasn't for /. I wouldn't have heard about this until I read Google news tomorrow morning. Just because someone enjoys games doesn't mean they sit refreshing RPS every thirty seconds you know.

Slashdot-Blizzard exclusivity deal? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153831)

Why does Slashdot have an article as soon as Blizzard release something, but barely any for any other games?

Re:Slashdot-Blizzard exclusivity deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43153971)

Because Blizzard is awesome?

Re:Slashdot-Blizzard exclusivity deal? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154069)

Not in my book. They were awesome in the Warcraft2/Starcraft1/Diablo1 era and that's about it. Starcraft2 is the only good game they released in over 10 years. WoW is just a way to milk money out of the less intelligent gamer mass (selling textures for mounts with real money really?) and Diablo3 was a pure fail (gameplay/story/drm). It takes then an eternity to do anything and battle.net accounts get hacked frequently and the only excuse they have is "you didn't buy an authenticator so it's your fault". really? Fuck Blizzard.

Re:Slashdot-Blizzard exclusivity deal? (1)

feddas (1979736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154443)

Hey now, WoW was good until EA bought Blizzard. After that things took a bit of a downturn.

Re:Slashdot-Blizzard exclusivity deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154689)

Weak troll or dumb? Activision bought Blizzard, not EA.

Re:Slashdot-Blizzard exclusivity deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154287)

Because people will flock to make a comment whether they're going to buy it or not, just like you did.
Posting AC because I can't remember how to turn off the karma bonus.

Can anyone play the game? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153869)

I only ask because in this day simply being able to play the game on release day is reason for joy

Re:Can anyone play the game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154247)

If you don't have arms, hands or a copy of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, you will find the game nearly impossible to play.

Hey, awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154145)

Do I own the expansion pack I'm buying? Can I play it anywhere I want, any time, and do whatever I want in the single player mission without fear of being banned and losing everything I've paid for?

No?

Fine, I'll take my $60 elsewhere.

One Good Bug Deserves Another. (1)

bobwalt (2500092) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154261)

Now if it just wouldn't crash the computer. To be completely fair it is seems like a known bug that will be fixed in a future patch. However, that is little consolation to those who can not play it.

split the game into three parts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154277)

triple the revenues!

(10 years ago it would've been released as a single game AND at half the price of a single part AND would not have had a single-use activation code)

Yawn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43154765)

Yawn

Mac OS X Lion/Moutain Lion required (3)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154771)

I paid for that game and now I can't play anymore. What the hell?

Meh, ruined it (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155001)

I'm not a Starcraft fan, but my bro is, and they ruined it for anyone that doesn't play online. The entire single player campaign was one long tutorial mission to get you ready to play online, My bro spent 4 hours on a level because he kept trying to play it with different tactics than what the designers wanted him to learn. Not do, learn. Plus it was buggy out the door, but since this is an expansion I can't imagine it's busted. Still, come on. With so much money couldn't they have made a good freakin' single player game? I bought it to get him mind off all the shit in the world and it really, really didn't help.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?