StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm Released 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.
I just wish ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't play multiplayer then?
I really don't see the issue here, the campaign is standalone singleplayer missions.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I just wish ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:I just wish ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I just wish ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I just wish ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I just wish ... (Score:5, Insightful)
HOTS is at least priced as an expansion rather than a "full price game," unlike CoD and the sports games.
Re:I just wish ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not since the early 2000s, and even then it was there, but only in the form of dial-up. Later they were all in college, with a very decent university connection. Oddly, then we'd all play mostly online, but in the same set of rooms (two dorm rooms with a shared bathroom, one room for one team, the other for the other). Though this devolved into doing WoW crap together, but in the same vicinity.
Generally if I'm somewhere without internet I've got better things to do than play games. And if internet isn't available I have board games and a well stocked cooler of beer.
Re:So far it's pretty good (Score:3, Insightful)
You're only allowed to bitch about it. Slashnerds are incapable of appreciation. It's a bizarre phenomenon.