Starcraft - Heart of the Swarm Announced!

[NikolaeVarius]

If I had to try and crystallize it, I'd say it's because SC set such a high bar, it was likely going to be impossible to do something equally impressive in a followup. SC2 seemed like it was largely a warmed over SC, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but after a decade I would have expected something a little bit more impressive. If SC2 had come out more or less immediately after WC3, it'd probably be easier to overlook some of these things.

So I'd say it was the combination of SC setting a very high bar, the protracted period of time between SC and SC2, and finally the fact that SC2 didn't really add much beyond modestly improved graphics.

Also the story sucked ass.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I'm totally down. I loved SC2 campaign. $40 is easy come easy go, no problems with paying it.

Exactly. Multiplayer is way way too hardcore for my full time employee life, but I loved the campaign.

 

[acheron]

I played a bit of SC2 multi, but I thought the single-player campaign was fantastic. Will definitely jump on this even without planning to do any MP.

 

[Grooveriding]

Never been big on RTS, but I enjoyed SC2. Some of the complaints about it don't jive for me. I think what made SC2 decent was it was a lot like SC1 with updated graphics. To me that was the right move to make; an updated refined version of the previous instalment.

What made Diablo 3 such a failure was that it was such a departure from Diablo 2. The idiots who made that game thought they could reinvent the wheel and ended up shitting out a big old turd.

 

[Liamgamer55]

Honestly I think diablo 3 has THE best gameplay of any rpg so I certainly wouldn't call it a failure. It also sold 13 million copies so it certainly wasn't a failure commercially (let alone who knows how much money they've made from AH royalties).

That said, the best bits of diablo 2 for me was the story, the music and the sound effects. IMO the story in diablo 3 went between alright, and terribly cheesy. I think the music was alright, it wasn't boring but it didn't even remotely stand out, no way is it wouldn't even fit in the top 50% music wise for all the games I've played and the sound effects were extremely boring compared to the diablo 2 ones. Not badly recorded or anything but not very fantasy esque. Also the voice actors were extremely generic rather than having a magical sortof fantasy sound that the diablo 2 ones had.

Gameplay wise... one of the best games ever... atmosphere wise... pretty average, and diablo 2 for me at least was most memorable for it's atmosphere so in some ways that makes d3 not a worthy sequal.

That said, I bought starcraft 2 full price and diablo 3 full price which I have no regrets with at all. Blizzard always makes really excellent quality games (whether or not they used to make better games).

I thought starcraft 2 was an improvement over SCBW gameplay wise. In particular a lot of the annoying elements of multiplayer in SCBW just aren't in starcraft 2. The main two I can think of is TVZ late game (flying spellcasters who just sortof pick at you being the only weapon terran actually has... vs slow dark swarm crawl), and siege tanks being extremely powerful and annoying. I can't really think of any units that are quite that annoying in starcraft 2 and yet the gameplay is still plenty interesting.

I also thought the Starcraft 2 campaign was pretty well done, apart from the story being absolutely crap. Especially compared to warcraft 3 which IMO has one of the top 5 stories in a game ever. My reaction to the sc2 story was more like "ehh" or "oh god that bit's cheesy, please go away where's the skip cutscene button".

 

[Martimus]

Would it be a good idea to buy the first episode of Starcraft 2 just to play single player. I avoided it due to the always online requirement, but I would like to try it out eventually.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Would it be a good idea to buy the first episode of Starcraft 2 just to play single player. I avoided it due to the always online requirement, but I would like to try it out eventually.

If you can get it for cheap, then yes, it's worth it. I think normal retail prices for SC2:WOL is $39.99, but maybe during BF you could get it for $19.99 or something.

 

[Aikouka]

I dont think the campaign was worth fifty bucks though, and getting called a lovely human 40 times in 20 minutes kinda turned me off the MP.

I haven't played SC2 multi-player in awhile, but I never had a huge problem with rude people. Most people were actually quite civil, which is a huge change from the MOBA scene.

 

[thespyder]

Exactly. Multiplayer is way way too hardcore for my full time employee life, but I loved the campaign.

Pretty much. I very much enjoyed the campaign. When I tried Multi-player I either encountered players who had a whole lot more time on their hands than I did, or rude people. or both.

 

[EDUSAN]

yeah... sc2 mp is just for playing with friends... or go SERIOUS about competitive...

its the opposite to casual and having fun

its the dota effect. If you got a dota2 invite and try a couple matches casually you get trashed inmediately by people from dota1 that consider that if you are playing dota2 you are pro and should know everything

 

[thespyder]

yeah... sc2 mp is just for playing with friends... or go SERIOUS about competitive...

its the opposite to casual and having fun

its the dota effect. If you got a dota2 invite and try a couple matches casually you get trashed inmediately by people from dota1 that consider that if you are playing dota2 you are pro and should know everything

I am not sure that they "Assume" anything. I think that at least some of them feel that they have to justify their own existence and superiority by beating down others who don't have 15 hours a day to sit in their parent's basement and play the game. or am I being bitter? LOL.

Silly me for actually having SEX with a woman instead of working on my Star Craft 2 skills.

 

[EDUSAN]

yeah

silly you

having sex when you could be playing 1v1 o 2v2 sc2 matches with your gf

 

[thespyder]

yeah

silly you

having sex when you could be playing 1v1 o 2v2 sc2 matches with your gf

Alas, my current GF is not a gamer. She is, on the other hand, quite an avid Sex partner.

 

[cl-scott]

I agree but I still enjoyed myself.

I dont think the campaign was worth fifty bucks though, and getting called a lovely human 40 times in 20 minutes kinda turned me off the MP.

I liked the game just fine. In particular I was amused by the level where Tychus(?) steals that giant mech, and then takes regular beer breaks. Sure it was a little juvenile humor wise, but it was also a nice bit of levity in an otherwise heavy story.

And just as an aside... There's a SC book out called I, Mengsk, that tells the story of the Angus Mengsk, Arcturus' father, follows Arcturus from a teenager all the way up to events between SC and BW, and tells about Valerian and his mother. Anyone who's a Warhammer (40K) literature fan will recognize the author of the book, only for a change McNeil has an actual ending to the book. It doesn't just sort of end as things are getting good. It also largely avoids rehashing the events of SC.

 

[thespyder]

I think that most particular about the Story line of WoL was Tricia doing the voice of Sarah Karrigan. And that is what I most am looking for in HoS.

To bad she doesn't wear the red dress anymore.

 

[irishScott]

Also the story sucked ass.

If you can't enjoy a campy sci-fi story that's your problem.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

If you can't enjoy a campy sci-fi story that's your problem.

Starcraft 1 had an campy yet amazing story.

Starcraft 2 had a campy yet crappy story that shits on the SC1 lore and basically all the development that Raynor had throughout the game.

Raynor vowed that he would never forgive Kerrigan for the atrocities she had committed and that he would seek vengeance until the day he died for the billions of humans and protoss she willingly killed. Starcraft 1 ended with the "queen bitch of the universe" enacting a massive holocaust against every non zerg living thing in the sector. She was dead to him on that day.

This story of revenge turned into a hollywood love story complete with into the sunset ending in less than one game with absolutely zero reason as to why it happened. "Sometimes, I think it would have been better if you had died that day." No, what? Did Raynor suddenly forget that he had enacted an eternal vengeance against Kerrigan for her series of betrayals and the dozen of times she tried to kill him, and the millions of humans and protess that she had killed? Apparently he did, and he also forgot his eternal oath.

Its almost funny to think that people consider SC2 to be a "heavy" story game. The entire game was modeled into a funny space western. There are stupid jokes and crap everywhere, starting from the first mission. SC1 was a serious space western. It had funny parts to it, but in a extremely dark way.

Nothing in SC2 competes with the cutscene involving the assault on the science vessel infested with zerg which starts off dramatic, has a funny scene, then suddenly devolves to pure horror, or the scene where a hundred dragoons warp onto a outpost, or hell the ending of brood war with the record player and the admirals sad letter to his wife. Now THAT was a dark and heavy game.

 

[Schfifty Five]

I think that most particular about the Story line of WoL was Tricia doing the voice of Sarah Karrigan. And that is what I most am looking for in HoS.

To bad she doesn't wear the red dress anymore.

Who?

Edit: Oh she's the BSG chick right?

 

[irishScott]

Starcraft 1 had an campy yet amazing story.

Starcraft 2 had a campy yet crappy story that shits on the SC1 lore and basically all the development that Raynor had throughout the game.

Raynor vowed that he would never forgive Kerrigan for the atrocities she had committed and that he would seek vengeance until the day he died for the billions of humans and protoss she willingly killed. Starcraft 1 ended with the "queen bitch of the universe" enacting a massive holocaust against every non zerg living thing in the sector.

This story of revenge turned into a hollywood love story complete with into the sunset ending in less than one game with absolutely zero reason as to why it happened.

Yeah, so you as an outlaw rebel with one ship vow to kill the leader of an alien superpower who happens to be your former lover.

Rage is fleeting. I'm guessing he figured out how futile that objective was with his limited resources and refocused on Mengsk, especially since Mengsk is the direct cause of Kerrigan's transformation. Raynor's a rational guy, so this makes perfect sense. Going your route, we'd be playing a character who banged his head against the wall until he died.

Also, I fail to see how a Hollywood revenge story is somehow better than a Hollywood love story.

Finally, the story isn't over yet. There may well be explanations in the next two games that haven't been covered.

 

[thespyder]

Who?

Edit: Oh she's the BSG chick right?

Yep.

 

[thespyder]

Yeah, so you as an outlaw rebel with one ship vow to kill the leader of an alien superpower who happens to be your former lover.

Rage is fleeting. I'm guessing he figured out how futile that objective was with his limited resources and refocused on Mengsk, especially since Mengsk is the direct cause of Kerrigan's transformation. Raynor's a rational guy, so this makes perfect sense. Going your route, we'd be playing a character who banged his head against the wall until he died.

Also, I fail to see how a Hollywood revenge story is somehow better than a Hollywood love story.

Finally, the story isn't over yet. There may well be explanations in the next two games that haven't been covered.

I gotta kind of agree. The Rayner from SC1 was a bit sophomoric and one dimensional. The Rayner in SC2 realized that Kerrigan was basically doing what the Zerg in her nature made her into. not out of some hatred of humanity. He also realized that Mensk was the real enemy.

Not that either story is any less "Hollywood". Merely that I thought the execution of SC2 was slightly less cardboard. IMHO.

 

[Maximilian]

Starcraft 1 had an campy yet amazing story.

Starcraft 2 had a campy yet crappy story that shits on the SC1 lore and basically all the development that Raynor had throughout the game.

Raynor vowed that he would never forgive Kerrigan for the atrocities she had committed and that he would seek vengeance until the day he died for the billions of humans and protoss she willingly killed. Starcraft 1 ended with the "queen bitch of the universe" enacting a massive holocaust against every non zerg living thing in the sector. She was dead to him on that day.

This story of revenge turned into a hollywood love story complete with into the sunset ending in less than one game with absolutely zero reason as to why it happened. "Sometimes, I think it would have been better if you had died that day." No, what? Did Raynor suddenly forget that he had enacted an eternal vengeance against Kerrigan for her series of betrayals and the dozen of times she tried to kill him, and the millions of humans and protess that she had killed? Apparently he did, and he also forgot his eternal oath.

Its almost funny to think that people consider SC2 to be a "heavy" story game. The entire game was modeled into a funny space western. There are stupid jokes and crap everywhere, starting from the first mission. SC1 was a serious space western. It had funny parts to it, but in a extremely dark way.

Nothing in SC2 competes with the cutscene involving the assault on the science vessel infested with zerg which starts off dramatic, has a funny scene, then suddenly devolves to pure horror, or the scene where a hundred dragoons warp onto a outpost, or hell the ending of brood war with the record player and the admirals sad letter to his wife. Now THAT was a dark and heavy game.

Have to agree with this. A lot of stuff in SC1 drew from Aliens (1986) and it helped set the atmosphere. The way the marines are snatched into the air ducts by the zerg during that cinematic you mention for example. SC2 never regains the same atmosphere.

SC2s story was okay, but compared with SC1 it was rather lacking, personally my main beef was with how they turned the overmind from one of the best villians into effectively a good guy. It really detracts from the overminds badassery in SC1 knowing its every action was influenced by some douche from the shadows and it had no free will... lame...

 

[magomago]

See unlike Diablo 3, I'd say the SC2's story is still salvageable if you pull Metzen away from it. There was almost no significant talk about the Hybrids, Samir (who, if you went to last year's BlizzConn, apparently made an appearance somewhere in SC2), or details about enemies of the dark origin. The real enemy remains nebulous & poorly understood. All we learned was that ONLY KERRIGAN can stop the "Evil", which doesn't really change the game, because, again, we know so little.

So given the true story arc, we find that not much really happened in SC2 to build towards that. It was a bunch of small story arcs that do significantly change the immediate lives of the characters, but nothing that even dents the main arc of this game.

In fact, SC and SC:BW were the same thing: the main story arc was introduced fairly late (Samir and Hybrids) and we learned little to nothing. Up till then, we thought the game was all about either killing/defeating/or brining back Kerrigan.

That isn't to discount Kerrigan's importance. She is THE keystone Character. However, if you played the Single Play beta at BlizzConn last year, you know that the demo starts you off with Kerrigan trying to rebuild the Zerg...which fundamentally creates a similar state to the end of the first game (albiet with potentially different intentions, but the same actions).


Now Diablo 3 on the other hand lol...that story was ruined However, I don't think it was because of a bad story or bad multiplayer experience, or because greedy blizzard pissed off people who didn't want to use RMAH....Its simply a game that doesn't have that staying power for most.

If it was truly about greed, then Valve and TF2 hats is the clearest and most explicit money grab I can think of; Blizzard isn't even selling better "weapons" - they still make people find it, and its their choice to buy it.

When you sell 10+ million copies you expect many to stop playing once they beat the game. I had little to no intention to play much longer after beating Diablo 3, and that exactly what happened.

Is that a symptom of "A CRAPPY GAME" or "MP IS BORKED NEED FIXED?" or "RMAH SUCKS"....Nope.

For almost ANY game that has a 'beginning and end', do you expect people to keep doing the exact thing over and over for multiple of months on end? The only place we have that staying power is TF2, COD, CS, DOTA2, LOL, HON and select MMOs....games that rely zero on story and are focused on the collaboration with others (maybe not COD lol) to create that experience. Diablo 3 doesn't rely on playing with others to create new fun experiences. It relies on the concepts of slot machines to keep a certain select population addicted....and it works best on them
The core group of people will always stay and everyone else will leave, but it doesn't mean its a bad game. Besides, who, outside of the core group of people that love D2, still even play? Even then, I'd assume the vast majority that have wonderful memories of D2 don't even play D2...

 

[thespyder]

Now Diablo 3 on the other hand lol...that story was ruined However, I don't think it was because of a bad story or bad multiplayer experience, or because greedy blizzard pissed off people who didn't want to use RMAH....Its simply a game that doesn't have that staying power for most.

If it was truly about greed, then Valve and TF2 hats is the clearest and most explicit money grab I can think of; Blizzard isn't even selling better "weapons" - they still make people find it, and its their choice to buy it.

When you sell 10+ million copies you expect many to stop playing once they beat the game. I had little to no intention to play much longer after beating Diablo 3, and that exactly what happened.

Is that a symptom of "A CRAPPY GAME" or "MP IS BORKED NEED FIXED?" or "RMAH SUCKS"....Nope.

For almost ANY game that has a 'beginning and end', do you expect people to keep doing the exact thing over and over for multiple of months on end? The only place we have that staying power is TF2, COD, CS, DOTA2, LOL, HON and select MMOs....games that rely zero on story and are focused on the collaboration with others (maybe not COD lol) to create that experience. Diablo 3 doesn't rely on playing with others to create new fun experiences. It relies on the concepts of slot machines to keep a certain select population addicted....and it works best on them
The core group of people will always stay and everyone else will leave, but it doesn't mean its a bad game. Besides, who, outside of the core group of people that love D2, still even play? Even then, I'd assume the vast majority that have wonderful memories of D2 don't even play D2...

I think you are missing several key factors here. You indicate that "The only place we have that staying power is TF2, COD, CS, DOTA2, LOL, HON and select MMOs... yet you discount D2 entirely. And the fact that the formula that made it so popular spawned bunches of clones including Titan Quest and Torchlight.

The second thing you aren't considering is that, "Is that a symptom of "A CRAPPY GAME" or "MP IS BORKED NEED FIXED?" or "RMAH SUCKS"....Nope. Actually, it is all of these things. But then this is a perfect summation of D3. Poor game play elements, Always online requirement, even for single player. Not very satisfying MP. And a huge and pervasive focus on making the RMAH 'The Driving Force' behind the game, that actually made the game not very fun to play.

Where D2 was about finding the new upgrades, D3 is about buying them from other players, and giving a percentage of the profits to Blizzard. In D2, you had to actually choose a path for your character development. And that path actually had meaning and consequences. With Diablo 3, there is no reason to play more than one Demon Hunter or Monk or Barbarian. In D2, there were dozens of 'Builds' to experiment with, thus adding replayability. D3 did away with all of that entirely. Now, in D3 it is 100% about the loot and that is primarily driven by RMAH.

D2 does/did have a core audience. But it was (and probably still is) a MUCH wider audience than D3 precisely for the reasons you list. Not despite those reasons.

 

[PowerYoga]

I don't see why people keep saying RMAH is a driving force behind the game... IT'S NOT.

Most people don't use it, and there's only a few good items on the RMAH. The vast majority of the game still revolves around the gold AH, which is only a step up from the bartering system they had in D2. RMAH is overhyped and if people wanted to sell the godly gg items, they do it OUTSIDE of the RMAH because there's a $250 limit. And even then the vast majority of the gg items are sold IN GAME via the trade channel or on the gold ah: just like you would do normally in D2.

And there's multiple viable builds for DH, barbs, and wizards that are gear dependent just like in D2. I'd say doing away with the skill tree isn't necessarily bad, its just different. Don't play WD or monk myself so I can't say. I suspect the builds will diversify even more as PVP is introduced.

I played D2 to death and D3 in its current state is infinitely better than vanilla D2 without the expansion pack.