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.
Why am I at work? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
You got it all wrong, this campaign is played as zerg.
Go home and kill some marines!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, he's right. He just gets scv rushed by the terrains every game. He didn't say the zerg weren't his.
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
The previous one doesn't require you to be alway-on.
They removed that in one of the first patches.
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
"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: (Score:2)
You could say that no-LAN is StarCraft 2's Heart of the DRM.
Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (Score:4, Interesting)
no lan ability is honestly why I haven't bought Starcraft 2. We still play Starcraft 1 at LANs and for a more modern strategy game it usually falls to Sins of a Solar Empire... Starcraft II doesn't even enter into the list due to the connection requirements. My house connection can't handle the retarded protocols with 8 computers going at it even with a 75mbit connection just due to the latency increases. My internal LAN doesn't even bat an eyelash at it though.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How am I stealing anything? I haven't taken anything and left one less copy in anyone's inventory. I wouldn't have paid for it anyway - if it was impossible to pirate, I just wouldn't have played it. Either way no money would have changed hands.
Am I dishonest? ABSOLUTELY. Does it matter? Depends. I used to feel the same way about principles, but getting older I've learnt that sticking to being legal all the time ultimately fucks you over. Companies still treat the buying like shit with continually more aggr
Re: (Score:3)
Just to back up what others have said:
"Does Steam Trading mean I can sell my used games?
No, only games that have been bought as a gift, and thus have never been played, can be traded. Once the Steam Gift is opened and added to your game library, you won't be able to trade it again."
That was quoted from the link you referenced.
Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not trying to rationalize here.
Stop lying to yourself and everybody else. Somebody called you an asshole and you tried to justify yourself by claiming you didn't want to support Blizzard's business model.
Thing is (and you're free to not believe me) I'm not a habitual pirate.
So you aren't trying to rationalize by saying this?
I don't even really pirate that much since a lot of AAA games don't really interest me.
Ah, so you only pirate the AAA games you really like. Bravo?
Given that I really doubt Blizzard is going to go backrupt because of little ol' me.
Still not rationalizing? Isn't everybody entitled to that sentiment? Why should anybody pay, when somebody else can?
You can be legit most of the time and bend the rules on occasion. It's FINE not to be black and while all the time people.
Is what you are doing FINE? I thought you weren't rationalizing?
Re:Hope the Auth Servers are Running! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, now that I loaded the client, I think they removed the offline mode in some patch.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a glitch in patch 1.5, you need to delete Battle.net.MPQ and try again.
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Short Answer: No (Score:2)
My internet's been down for the last hour or so and I've been playing the campaign without a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry...I'll try to be more indecent in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Just reloaded the page and saw your response to yourself. Sorry about the redundant post to correct you.
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: (Score:2)
The only bad thing about this game is the ridiculous always online DRM Blizzard decided to implement even for single player mode.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't require always on. If the net cuts off, you don't get the 'awards' function, but hey.. The game works and saves just fine.
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Cost addition for multiplayer is not that much (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Blizzard go to great lengths to ensure competitive balance between the three races?
Yes but you have to do that anyway, so that a player playing any given race doesn't swamp the AI with some overly cheap move. Game balance is just as important for single player only games as it is for multiplayer to make the game enjoyable.
balancing single-player only seems inherently less complicated.
Actually it's way more complicated because you are testing all facets of the AI that controls other races and units.
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Of course you can. You just don't have these 'radical' features in the multiplayer part, and indeed this is how it is in SC2: there are units and abilities in the campaign that just don't exist in multiplayer.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It is split, the multiplayer game is vastly different from the single player (different units, stats, mecanics, etc). They design each mode separately.
Re: (Score:2)
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: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:I just wish ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
In my experience, most LAN parties (both small and large LANs) have had net access for several years. The reason? Steam.
It was easier once - just have a shared drive with the latest patches for popular games so everyone who was out of date could just grab what they needed. No Internet required. Nowadays you cannot ensure people are fully updated to the latest version of something, or that Steam's offline mode would work properly for everyone (which it often doesn't). So having net access ended up becoming a
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: (Score:2)
not really.
Yes, it really is. Just because some people do it, doesn't mean that the majority (or even sizable minority) do it. You have a fringe case there, probably. It sounds fun, though.
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 don't? Could you please point to where I said that. I didn't. I play games with people in the room, though these are generally console or board games. I haven't really done that LAN thing since back when FPS didn't suck (Q3A, and UT were mainstays) I could, if I wanted to, play Starcraft II with someone in the room as well,
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
In vanilla WoW you had lots of amateurs starting as hunters and not knowing how to play the class. In higher level raids in vanilla, there were dungeons that favored hunters especially good ones. They could get out of combat and replenish their mana which no other mana class could. This came in handy for long fights. Also a good hunter could kite mobs one at a time so that the raid didn't have to engage multiple enemies at once. Also hunters had a special quest line that if completed showed that they k
Re: (Score:3)
Once you progress beyond the noob skill level, your success is almost entirely a product of your twitch, with less than a half dozen cookie-cutter strategies you must blindly follow as fast as you possibly can if you are to have any hope of success.
That's really bullshit. I've watched a lot of high-level games on channels like HuskyStarcraft or HDstarcraft, and if all you can do is blindly follow half a dozen cookie cutter strategies, your play is extremely limited. Yes, twitch is huge, but strategy is pretty deep.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I should have qualified that particular comment with mid to mid-high level games.
Strategy applies to those to. It seems to me you never did any serious watching of high-level games and tried to apply the same analysis to your games. There's much more than deciding at what supply to make a barracks. Casters like Husky, HD, or Psy are not "absolute top end", but they have some really interesting things to say about strategy.
I mean more of, early expansion or no, early units or teching, harassment vs. assault, etc. Are there really many more than a half dozen viable choices of this sort to make?
The map-specific choices already lead to more than 6.
As a reminder, specifically excluded from the commonly accepted definition of 'strategy' is anything 'tactical', i.e. techniques for conducting any one battle.
The line between tactics and strategy is often blurry. For example, if you decide to kill off a certain unit and t
Nuclear Options? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nuclear Options? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the box the game comes in is high in calories.
So far it's pretty good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're only allowed to bitch about it. Slashnerds are incapable of appreciation. It's a bizarre phenomenon.
Can anyone play the game? (Score:2)
I only ask because in this day simply being able to play the game on release day is reason for joy
Re: (Score:3)
Mac OS X Lion/Moutain Lion required (Score:4)
I paid for that game and now I can't play anymore. What the hell?
Meh, ruined it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
All Blizzard titles provide free access to battle.net
Like WoW?
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
the art and music is the same as Wings
you're paying for the new missions which took work
Re: (Score:3)
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.
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got SC2 WoL release day for approx $70AUD by walking into a brick and mortar store in Melbourne, no preorder. $90? You got ripped off.
Where did I say I paid that for SC2. I paid $68 for that at JB HiFi.
Nope, $90 is the average price of a new game, or more accurately $89, which I just read as $90 these days.
I was pointing out that Blizzard is bucking the trend of expensive games AND price discrimination in Australia.
BTW, I usually buy my games from the US, UK or Hong Kong for around A$40 for a PC game. SC is one of the few games I dont want to wait for.
Re: (Score:2)
$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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Spoken by someone who's never had to do voice overs.
You have no idea how expensive and time consuming voice works and pre-rendered cinematic's are.
Also if you think the engine in HOTS is exactly the same as the engine that was released in WOL, you need your head examined. There's been continual patching. I've only played the first 5 levels of HOTS but you can spot a lot of work put into level design, they haven't simply slapped together some new maps with voiceovers. This isn't COD and EA for fucks sake, they actually put some work into it.
Frankly $40 for an expansion pack (yes, it's an expansion pack, like what we used to have in the Good Old Days(TM) before DLC) that has almost as much content as the original is a godsend when they charge $5 for a hat and $15 for a single map DLC.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 int
Re: (Score:2)
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?
3x as good is relative (I happen to disagree...I fo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
3x as good? No, they were roughly comparable. 3x as long? Approximately, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
They might have had better PR if they just announced StarCraft 2, StarCraft 3, and StarCraft 4, and released them all as standalones.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how this is any less of a full game than Assasin's Creed 2? Halo 2? Call of Duty Anything?
For those of us who've been gaming since before the original starcraft (first started gaming on a C64), this is what we expect in an expansion pack. Same engine with new levels, units and cinematics. Back in the 90's this was considered the norm for an expansion pack. Not like today where we get charged $5 for a hat and $15 for a single map.
BTW, I dont consider COD, Halo, et al. to be full games and refuse to buy them.
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: (Score:3)
By those terms, you can't own a condo either.