Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm "99% Done"

"We are 99 percent done," StarCraft II lead designer Dustin Browder told Kotaku when asked about progress on the upcoming Heart of the Swarm expansion for their science fiction RTS sequel. However, he makes it sound like one of those progress bars that will sit at 99% for a while, adding: "but that last one percent's a bitch." He goes on to explain that all the units are in place, but this next phase is open-ended: "It's the tuning and polish that really takes us a long time, and that's where we get into the unknowns."

View
52 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

52. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm "99% Done" Jun 18, 2012, 09:52 Verno
 
I found Starcraft 2 to be pretty samey and I thought the campaign was far too long. Don't get me wrong, I wanted a long campaign but too much of it is spent introducing units at a glacial pace and too little of it is spent letting you actually put everything into motion. I felt like I only got to actually play the last three or four missions and use everything at my disposal, everything else was an extended tutorial.

The multiplayer was fun enough but I just couldn't compete in the higher tiers without committing a massive chunk of my life to the game so I kinda gave up.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Alien Isolation, Legend of Grimrock 2, Super Mario 3D World
Watching: A Good Marriage, The Knick, Gotham
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 17, 2012, 23:08 MattyC
 
Flatline wrote on Jun 17, 2012, 19:21:
MattyC wrote on Jun 17, 2012, 11:17:
I can't see most of your images. It just errors out with forbidden. However SC2 looks way better than WarCraft 3. I have both on my PC atm and can fire them up. SC2 just looks much better. Your StarCraft 2 screenshots (not sure why you picked low res ones, but it doesn't matter) clearly look better than anything I saw in WarCraft 3.

I am not sure why you threw in the strawman Call of Duty bit. I don't like Call of Duty and unlike the FPS market, the RTS market is fairly barren. Particularly for 'pure' or old style RTS games.

E.g. Company of Heroes, I know a lot of people liked that game, but for me it was a bore. It had no mechanics, no real macro. Maybe I am stuck in the past, but I like that in my RTS. I have had a bit of fun with that style of game like Warhammer DoW and World in Conflict, but it isn't really new (Microsoft's Close Combat).

On release dates? I guess if you cherry pick or are fairly young. StarCraft was in development for quite a while. They even did a full engine rebuild (it originally was more or less WarCraft 2 in space). They also totally canned their adventure game after quite a while in development. And your mentioned Diablo 2? Was in development quite some time. I was hoping to find my original StarCraft jewel case which, IIRC, had some overly ambitious release date for Diablo 2 on it; but I cannot locate it.


Either way I would prefer quality of over quantity. To follow your own comment I don't need my annual Generic War Shooter 20<xx> Men of Wary Brotherly Valor Honor.

My criteria on the screen caps were to find the best looking screenshots, resolution not withstanding, on the first page of Google Image Search. I wasn't about to go through and host all the photos.

And my point wasn't that SC2 looks the same as WC3, my point was that 8 years had past and you saw only iterative improvement over WC3.

The Call of Duty reference is appropriate and amusing, since you find generic war shooters to be shit, but generic RTS games that are 95% copies of previous RTS games to be just fine.

And... wait... You're saying Starcraft was a macro game? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. SC is *purely* about micromanagement. Anyway, I wasn't talking about Company of Heroes gameplay, I was talking about it's graphics engine, which is 4 years older than SC2, and pumps out far better visuals than SC2. Maybe I should have used pictures of Red Alert 3, which came out 2 years before SC2, uses the same isometric view, and manages to look better than SC2.

Way to try to change the topic and move the goalposts.

And yeah, I'm really cherry picking release dates. I just covered fucking Blizzard's release catalog for 15 YEARS. And my point is still valid, because my original complaint was that 2+ years for a SC2 expansion is bullshit. For proof, I turn to Blizzard's past history, where expansions for just about anything shy of WoW took a year or less to publish. But seriously, 2-3 years to push out a bunch of single player missions and a half dozen new units? That's psychotic, especially when we all know that within the first month all that "polishing" is going right out the window when they rebalance things to reflect reality.

Your credibility is pretty much nil on this argument dude. You say you prefer quality, but let's face it, SC2 is 95% the clone of SC1 with a new graphics engine that would look dated in 2008. SC1 could have released a high rez texture pack/engine patch and a new expansion pack and been 99% of what SC2 was.

10 years for that isn't quality, it's lazy bullshit, and if it was *anyone* other than blizzard, you'd be calling foul on it and you know it. And I reiterate. In the time it took to "create" Starcraft 2, Blizzard also put out the entirity of content for World of Warcraft, from inception to cataclysm. And they still had to patch the living bejeebus out of it to balance things.

Blizzard has never ever catered to the super high system req oh other games. I noted that. I think Sc2 looks good. If you disagree that is fine.

RTS games are far rarer than FPS games, you ignored that point.


Yes SC2 requires macro. I like that. It makes watching and playing the game more fun. Again if you don't like that, fine. I like it and see it as an added skill required element. I changed no 'goalposts'. I was just saying why I liked SC2.

Blizzard, like Valve have their own 'time'. If you haven't noticed this... sorry. It is well acknowledged.

I never asked for credibility, and no SC2 is not that much like SC1 unless you never played it.. :/

Furthermore I have no idea when Blizzard started on Sc2. You can't go off the last release date and say 'yeah bru they were totally working on it since then'. Even if you could, I have no reason to hate on SC2 because of release date. I like the game. You may no, and that is fine. I, however, do and that is just what it is. I am not the Lord of Gaming. I may have fun with some titles you do not and you may have fun with some things I did not. It is just opinion.


That said, calling Sc2 lazy bs is a laugh. Sorry, but that is what it is. SC2 is a solid game.

@shinchan0s I agree that they need a new IP REALLY badly. While I like the remakes, they cannot go on forever.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 17, 2012, 19:21 Flatline
 
MattyC wrote on Jun 17, 2012, 11:17:
I can't see most of your images. It just errors out with forbidden. However SC2 looks way better than WarCraft 3. I have both on my PC atm and can fire them up. SC2 just looks much better. Your StarCraft 2 screenshots (not sure why you picked low res ones, but it doesn't matter) clearly look better than anything I saw in WarCraft 3.

I am not sure why you threw in the strawman Call of Duty bit. I don't like Call of Duty and unlike the FPS market, the RTS market is fairly barren. Particularly for 'pure' or old style RTS games.

E.g. Company of Heroes, I know a lot of people liked that game, but for me it was a bore. It had no mechanics, no real macro. Maybe I am stuck in the past, but I like that in my RTS. I have had a bit of fun with that style of game like Warhammer DoW and World in Conflict, but it isn't really new (Microsoft's Close Combat).

On release dates? I guess if you cherry pick or are fairly young. StarCraft was in development for quite a while. They even did a full engine rebuild (it originally was more or less WarCraft 2 in space). They also totally canned their adventure game after quite a while in development. And your mentioned Diablo 2? Was in development quite some time. I was hoping to find my original StarCraft jewel case which, IIRC, had some overly ambitious release date for Diablo 2 on it; but I cannot locate it.


Either way I would prefer quality of over quantity. To follow your own comment I don't need my annual Generic War Shooter 20<xx> Men of Wary Brotherly Valor Honor.

My criteria on the screen caps were to find the best looking screenshots, resolution not withstanding, on the first page of Google Image Search. I wasn't about to go through and host all the photos.

And my point wasn't that SC2 looks the same as WC3, my point was that 8 years had past and you saw only iterative improvement over WC3.

The Call of Duty reference is appropriate and amusing, since you find generic war shooters to be shit, but generic RTS games that are 95% copies of previous RTS games to be just fine.

And... wait... You're saying Starcraft was a macro game? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. SC is *purely* about micromanagement. Anyway, I wasn't talking about Company of Heroes gameplay, I was talking about it's graphics engine, which is 4 years older than SC2, and pumps out far better visuals than SC2. Maybe I should have used pictures of Red Alert 3, which came out 2 years before SC2, uses the same isometric view, and manages to look better than SC2.

Way to try to change the topic and move the goalposts.

And yeah, I'm really cherry picking release dates. I just covered fucking Blizzard's release catalog for 15 YEARS. And my point is still valid, because my original complaint was that 2+ years for a SC2 expansion is bullshit. For proof, I turn to Blizzard's past history, where expansions for just about anything shy of WoW took a year or less to publish. But seriously, 2-3 years to push out a bunch of single player missions and a half dozen new units? That's psychotic, especially when we all know that within the first month all that "polishing" is going right out the window when they rebalance things to reflect reality.

Your credibility is pretty much nil on this argument dude. You say you prefer quality, but let's face it, SC2 is 95% the clone of SC1 with a new graphics engine that would look dated in 2008. SC1 could have released a high rez texture pack/engine patch and a new expansion pack and been 99% of what SC2 was.

10 years for that isn't quality, it's lazy bullshit, and if it was *anyone* other than blizzard, you'd be calling foul on it and you know it. And I reiterate. In the time it took to "create" Starcraft 2, Blizzard also put out the entirity of content for World of Warcraft, from inception to cataclysm. And they still had to patch the living bejeebus out of it to balance things.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 17, 2012, 17:19 shinchan0s
 
MattyC, Starcraft (2+ years) and Diablo 2's (3-4 years) development times don't compare to their sequels. You don't think Diablo3's 10+ years was at all excessive? In that timeframe Bethesda released THREE Elder Scrolls games (not to mention Fallout and the expansions).

I like the quality from Blizzard games too, but enough's enough man. I could see 10 years being needed for a very ambitious, genre-busting game, but pretty soon "playing it safe" is going to bite them in the ass if they continue along at the same pace they're going now. None of my friends bought Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2. We played the crap out of the old games. Inevitably though, fresher games came along that made us lose interest. That's what I see happening unless Blizzard's Titan becomes that new killer IP. I have my doubts. They've been riding that huge wave from the 90's for too long.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm "99% Done" Jun 17, 2012, 16:04 Gruntstein
 
I'm not at all interested in StarCraft 2, but I am interested in Blizzard's take on Dota. If they can ease the barrier of entry and smooth over the rough edges, the end result could be far more interesting than StarCraft 2.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm "99% Done" Jun 17, 2012, 11:17 MattyC
 
I can't see most of your images. It just errors out with forbidden. However SC2 looks way better than WarCraft 3. I have both on my PC atm and can fire them up. SC2 just looks much better. Your StarCraft 2 screenshots (not sure why you picked low res ones, but it doesn't matter) clearly look better than anything I saw in WarCraft 3.

I am not sure why you threw in the strawman Call of Duty bit. I don't like Call of Duty and unlike the FPS market, the RTS market is fairly barren. Particularly for 'pure' or old style RTS games.

E.g. Company of Heroes, I know a lot of people liked that game, but for me it was a bore. It had no mechanics, no real macro. Maybe I am stuck in the past, but I like that in my RTS. I have had a bit of fun with that style of game like Warhammer DoW and World in Conflict, but it isn't really new (Microsoft's Close Combat).

On release dates? I guess if you cherry pick or are fairly young. StarCraft was in development for quite a while. They even did a full engine rebuild (it originally was more or less WarCraft 2 in space). They also totally canned their adventure game after quite a while in development. And your mentioned Diablo 2? Was in development quite some time. I was hoping to find my original StarCraft jewel case which, IIRC, had some overly ambitious release date for Diablo 2 on it; but I cannot locate it.


Either way I would prefer quality of over quantity. To follow your own comment I don't need my annual Generic War Shooter 20<xx> Men of Wary Brotherly Valor Honor.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 17, 2012, 04:41 Flatline
 
MattyC wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 23:17:
I also don't mind that it didn't revolutionize the genre. In fact I was getting bored with all the 'revolutionary' RTS titles. I just wanted a good, solid, fun RTS. Blizzard gave me that. Easily one of the best RTS games I have played with a solid online ladder. I guess we just have to agree to disagree, because I had a blast with it and am looking forward to HOTS.

And folks, this is precisely the thinking that makes it lucrative to crank out another Call of Duty every 11 months. "Fuck it. It's new and shiny as long as I don't scratch it with my fingernail. WOOHOO!"

Also if you think SC2 was a 'moderate graphics overhaul' then you either never played Brood War or played SC2 on something you constructed out of sticks and bits of pocket lint. It isn't the most beautiful game ever made (Blizzard has never been a Crysis style graphics thing - fine by me, I hated Crysis) but come on... Moderate? Really?

Yes. Really.

And I played Brood War, and SC2 (on a machine that could run max settings).

Let's play comparison here...

Company of Heroes, release date 2006 (and this is representative of what it looks like max'd out, and was one of the better shots on the first page of GIS):

http://tinyurl.com/cvr6jwf

Starcraft 2, released 2010 (I went for the best 2 looking pictures on page 1 of GIS):
http://tinyurl.com/c3g5mmu
http://tinyurl.com/7qu9msk

And for shits and giggles to prove how moderate the upgrade is... Warcraft 3 (release date 2002):

http://tinyurl.com/d6kekqb

And Starcraft 1 (release date 1998) to round things out:

http://tinyurl.com/876kpft

So aside from transparencies and some additional lighting and maybe a 25% bump in model geometry, the game itself is barely iterative from WC3, and as I said, moderately improved over SC1. Yes, the jump from sprites to models was significant, but still lagging behind old technology.

Perhaps I should refine my statements. In between missions, the engine pushed out some really pretty visuals. In-game itself, the engine was not used to anywhere near it's full potential.

And as far as being slower than molasses, Blizzard pushed out Starcraft on March 31st of 1998 and pushed out Brood Wars... November 30th 1998.

Diablo 2- June 30th 2000, Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction June 27th 2001, pretty much one year later.

Warcraft 3: Launched July 3rd 2002, Frozen Throne: July 1st, 2003.

Noticing a pattern here? When you have 99% of the art assets, gameplay, engine, and everything else you need, an expansion *used* to take Blizzard about a year to put out.

Dev time for World of Warcraft Vanilla? Hard to say, but it was announced in 2001, had been worked on for about a year by that point, and was launched in 2004. So let's say 4 years. Burning Crusade took 3 more years to develop, and after that Lich King took about a year. Cataclysm took 2 years to develop.

Diablo 3? Five years of development before being announced in 2008 (according to an interview on Kotaku), and another 5 years after that, or twice the time than it took to create World of Warcraft. Wait, let's put this into further perspective. It took longer to make Diablo 3 than it took to make ALL OF THE CONTENT IN WOW.

Starcraft 2? From what I can find, the consensus is around 7 years of development. Again, that's the same amount of time as all the content in WoW up through Lich King.

Blizzard moving molasses-in-winter slow isn't something they've always done. It's not even something they started with WoW. It's entirely new to SC2 and D3. I suspect these teams are surrounded by *so* much money, that "it's done when it's done" is becoming a hindrance. It's a well known business concept that when you set a deadline for people they tend to meet said deadline, or at least work towards it. Set a task without a deadline and your productivity will drop like a stone. I present D3 and SC2 as proof: decent games that probably could have been made just as good in half the time if someone was cracking a whip.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm "99% Done" Jun 17, 2012, 04:01 raVen
 
If Blizzard also releases MoP this year, I will definitely have Blizzard fatigue.
I really wanted to love SC2, and even D3. Maybe my tastes are changing?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 23:17 MattyC
 
Flatline wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 14:29:
MattyC wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 01:40:

SC2 was fun if you liked RTS games and has a large online community.

I've played, and loved, RTS games since Dune 2.

SC2 could have been pumped out in less than 2 years by a competent studio, given how much of the game was redundant. It's an average RTS, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table, and not even refining what it *did* bring to the table beyond a moderate graphics overhaul.

Considering that the "expansion" will hit 2 years of dev time next month, to add new SP missions and like 6 units. In reality, I suspect a holiday 2012 release, if not a 2013 release, because Blizzard has no idea how to work with alacrity any more.

And finally, "polishing and balancing" the game is bullshit. We all know in the first week or two everything will be nerfed/overhauled/changed anyway. Open up a public beta on a few different maps for a week and record everything about those games and then use that to balance shit. Spending more than a few months in private testing for "balance" purposes is bullshit and idiotic these days. It's fine for bugging, terrible for balancing.

I don't really care how long it took them or why. Blizzard has never EVER been fast on their feet with releases; no idea what you mean by anymore. I am fine with that. I also don't mind that it didn't revolutionize the genre. In fact I was getting bored with all the 'revolutionary' RTS titles. I just wanted a good, solid, fun RTS. Blizzard gave me that. Easily one of the best RTS games I have played with a solid online ladder. I guess we just have to agree to disagree, because I had a blast with it and am looking forward to HOTS.

Also if you think SC2 was a 'moderate graphics overhaul' then you either never played Brood War or played SC2 on something you constructed out of sticks and bits of pocket lint. It isn't the most beautiful game ever made (Blizzard has never been a Crysis style graphics thing - fine by me, I hated Crysis) but come on... Moderate? Really?
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 19:21 Jivaro
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 16:49:
Flatline wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 14:29:
MattyC wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 01:40:

SC2 was fun if you liked RTS games and has a large online community.

I've played, and loved, RTS games since Dune 2.

SC2 could have been pumped out in less than 2 years by a competent studio, given how much of the game was redundant. It's an average RTS, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table, and not even refining what it *did* bring to the table beyond a moderate graphics overhaul.

Considering that the "expansion" will hit 2 years of dev time next month, to add new SP missions and like 6 units. In reality, I suspect a holiday 2012 release, if not a 2013 release, because Blizzard has no idea how to work with alacrity any more.

And finally, "polishing and balancing" the game is bullshit. We all know in the first week or two everything will be nerfed/overhauled/changed anyway. Open up a public beta on a few different maps for a week and record everything about those games and then use that to balance shit. Spending more than a few months in private testing for "balance" purposes is bullshit and idiotic these days. It's fine for bugging, terrible for balancing.

+10000 Blizzard either has the worse project management in the world, or really is full of just incompetent developers at this point.
There is zero reason they should need 2 years to do a handful of zerg single player missions and add a few new units to multiplayer.

I blame the interns.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 16:49 RollinThundr
 
Flatline wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 14:29:
MattyC wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 01:40:

SC2 was fun if you liked RTS games and has a large online community.

I've played, and loved, RTS games since Dune 2.

SC2 could have been pumped out in less than 2 years by a competent studio, given how much of the game was redundant. It's an average RTS, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table, and not even refining what it *did* bring to the table beyond a moderate graphics overhaul.

Considering that the "expansion" will hit 2 years of dev time next month, to add new SP missions and like 6 units. In reality, I suspect a holiday 2012 release, if not a 2013 release, because Blizzard has no idea how to work with alacrity any more.

And finally, "polishing and balancing" the game is bullshit. We all know in the first week or two everything will be nerfed/overhauled/changed anyway. Open up a public beta on a few different maps for a week and record everything about those games and then use that to balance shit. Spending more than a few months in private testing for "balance" purposes is bullshit and idiotic these days. It's fine for bugging, terrible for balancing.

+10000 Blizzard either has the worse project management in the world, or really is full of just incompetent developers at this point.
There is zero reason they should need 2 years to do a handful of zerg single player missions and add a few new units to multiplayer.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 14:29 Flatline
 
MattyC wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 01:40:

SC2 was fun if you liked RTS games and has a large online community.

I've played, and loved, RTS games since Dune 2.

SC2 could have been pumped out in less than 2 years by a competent studio, given how much of the game was redundant. It's an average RTS, bringing absolutely nothing new to the table, and not even refining what it *did* bring to the table beyond a moderate graphics overhaul.

Considering that the "expansion" will hit 2 years of dev time next month, to add new SP missions and like 6 units. In reality, I suspect a holiday 2012 release, if not a 2013 release, because Blizzard has no idea how to work with alacrity any more.

And finally, "polishing and balancing" the game is bullshit. We all know in the first week or two everything will be nerfed/overhauled/changed anyway. Open up a public beta on a few different maps for a week and record everything about those games and then use that to balance shit. Spending more than a few months in private testing for "balance" purposes is bullshit and idiotic these days. It's fine for bugging, terrible for balancing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 14:27 nin
 
Seriously...40 bucks for an expansion?

I was under the impression all their expansions had been $40 for awhile now. This isn't anything new...

 
http://store.nin.com/index.php?cPath=10
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 14:24 Slashman
 
Jivaro wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 14:15:
Seriously...40 bucks for an expansion? Does it make me sandwiches and bring me beer? If it doesn't, Blizzard can F off. I realize they can price it that way because their are plenty of people who will pay it, but that doesn't make it any more sensible to those of us that don't pray to a Zerg plastic figurine every morning. Had Starcraft 2 been more then just a higher resolution version of the original, maybe my opinion would be swayed. Probably not though.

In reality, there is no way that SC2 could have been anything else. The Koreans would probably have declared war on Blizzard if they made it into anything other than the next esport sensation.

Blizzard probably has no idea how to innovate anything at this point. They've been staunchly avoiding it for so long that I doubt it it is within their capability to do something new.

I was honestly hoping that SC2 would at least have gameplay as interesting as DOW(not the stupid sequel) but more expanded. Cool unit abilities and over the top stuff. But it was just ho-hum...an upgraded Starcraft.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 14:15 Jivaro
 
Creston wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 13:50:
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 04:22:
Creston wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 03:07:
I know. And they won't even price this as an expansion anyway. 50 or 60 bucks guaranteed.

At which price, they can happily go fuck themselves.

Creston

HotS for $40

Talking out of your ass much? It was one thing when the announced that they were splitting the game into three and didn't really define what the meant by that. But now, when you can actually preorder the damned thing for $40, I find it rather shocking that people still insist on saying that "IT WILL BE FULL PRICE OMFG!!!".

Oh, I'm sorry I got something wrong, jackass, and that I insulted your precious Blizzard in the process. It's gotta be bad to bring you out of your lurking.

I stand corrected. 40 bucks for an expansion. Woot Blizzard! Rolleyes

Creston

Seriously...40 bucks for an expansion? Does it make me sandwiches and bring me beer? If it doesn't, Blizzard can F off. I realize they can price it that way because their are plenty of people who will pay it, but that doesn't make it any more sensible to those of us that don't pray to a Zerg plastic figurine every morning. Had Starcraft 2 been more then just a higher resolution version of the original, maybe my opinion would be swayed. Probably not though.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 13:50 Creston
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 04:22:
Creston wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 03:07:
I know. And they won't even price this as an expansion anyway. 50 or 60 bucks guaranteed.

At which price, they can happily go fuck themselves.

Creston

HotS for $40

Talking out of your ass much? It was one thing when the announced that they were splitting the game into three and didn't really define what the meant by that. But now, when you can actually preorder the damned thing for $40, I find it rather shocking that people still insist on saying that "IT WILL BE FULL PRICE OMFG!!!".

Oh, I'm sorry I got something wrong, jackass, and that I insulted your precious Blizzard in the process. It's gotta be bad to bring you out of your lurking.

I stand corrected. 40 bucks for an expansion. Woot Blizzard! Rolleyes

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 12:12 Dev
 
Trainwreck wrote on Jun 16, 2012, 11:35:
Wings of Liberty did have all three races; it just had one campaign. And that one campaign was longer than the original StarCraft campaign.
Original had campaigns that were about 10 missions for each race. I don't know that WoL has a longer campaign than the original 3 combined. It did have a lot more cinematics though.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 12:03 DukeFNukem
 
@RollinThundr

To say that SC2 isnt fun because people rush 5 mins into the game is just silly. Rushing is a strategy that has been around since the original Starcraft. And I was addicted to the original Starcraft for awhile. If you don't know how to defend against one learn to play better.

I downloaded and tried SC2 for about 5 minutes. The graphics and animations seemed lame. The original Starcraft is still a hell of a lot of fun. Starcraft 2 just sucks for the reasons I stated above.

Warcraft III is one of the funnest games ever made. I guess odds are something that nobody can escape. When you make so many games, they can't all be wonderful, can they?

Get on with Warcraft IV already. That I would be looking very forward too. Just please look at the polished turd that is Starcraft 2 and please learn from it "before" you begin development on Warcraft IV.
 
Just because you aren't afraid of something doesn't it mean it can't kill you...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 11:35 Trainwreck
 
Wings of Liberty did have all three races; it just had one campaign. And that one campaign was longer than the original StarCraft campaign.

I was as shocked as anyone when they announced they'd be splitting the game into three installments, but honestly, they're doing a bang-up job so far in delivering content for the cash. I'm no Blizzard apologist (I'm not bashful in my criticism of Diablo III's DRM and World of Warcraft in general), but I don't feel fleeced by their treatment of StarCraft.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Jun 16, 2012, 10:33 Dades
 
I don't really like the inflation argument when it comes to videogames. The market drastically increased in size, that's why the price of games has been relatively stable. They aren't doing us a favor or something, they sell a lot more units than they used to. It will depend on how much content the game delivers for the asking price.

I was really disappointed that the original release did not even have two out of the three playable races when the original game had all of them. I found the human campaign to be weirdly paced with far too much tutorial style content, it seemed like it could have been a lot shorter.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo