StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm Details Released

trawg writes "Blizzard has lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm at a recent media event held at Blizzard HQ in California, where press were treated to a hands-on preview of the game. Gamers can expect 20 new single-player missions with Kerrigan as a playable hero, and while they're tight-lipped about multiplayer they have confirmed in a FAQ that there will be new units and maps." Eurogamer's detailed preview sums up the expansion's relation to Wings of Liberty thus: "Heart of the Swarm is still evolution rather than revolution," adding, "What they've clearly got right is the atmosphere. The hubs between missions, and the whole look of Heart of the Swarm's interface and environment, are infused with the moist and creeping personality of the Zerg, every surface chitinous, every hole infested."

Comments

Zergling Rush!

[Dr_Terminus]

First Post!

I'm still waiting for the collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I haven't even finished StarCraft, let alone the Warcraft franchise. So I'll wait till a discounted collection comes out.

I did notice that Gamestop had put Diablo 2 Collection on clearance, I guess I should have bought one of them. Oh well, I'm not missing anything, I only played through Diablo 1 once.

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[marcovje]

And the NOCD patch,I assume in this case it is NONETWORK too :)

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[iamhassi]

You have plenty of time, Heart of the Swarm won't come out until 2012 at the earliest.

When Starcraft 2 came out last year I felt cheated that it only contained the Terran campaign but was still eager to shell out $$$ for the Zerg and Protoss additional campaigns. Now I don't care, they've taken too long, I definitely won't be standing in line at midnight to buy Heart of the Swarm. In fact, unless it's cheap (~$20), I'll probably just wait and find a copy of it somewhere.

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[N0Man74]

When Starcraft 2 came out last year I felt cheated that it only contained the Terran campaign but was still eager to shell out $$$ for the Zerg and Protoss additional campaigns.

Indeed! What a freaking ripoff that SC2 only came out with 29 Missions for Terran, while the original SC came out with 10 missions for each of the 3 races, for a total of 30 missions! How unacceptable! I can't believe there isn't more whining over this travesty!

You know, there are some legitimate things one could moan and complain about regarding SC2, but whenever I hear yet another parrot this exact same asinine statement, I can't help but roll my eyes.

If you had said you were disappointing because you really wanted to play a Zerg or Protoss campaign, I'd understand. If you complained about ditching LAN support, I'd sympathize. However, when one claims that they were cheated compared to the old version, because the original included 3 campaigns, while the sequel only contains one campaign (that's about 3 times as long), it just sounds foolish.

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[chargersfan420]

but whenever I hear yet another parrot this exact same asinine statement, I can't help but roll my eyes.

Amen brother. Although the parent didn't really make that specific argument, it sounded like they just wanted to get their Zerg on.

You know, there are some legitimate things one could moan and complain about regarding SC2

I'd like to throw something out there. In SC1 I always wanted the ability to zoom OUT and see more of the battlefield at once. With the ability to select more than 12 units at a time this would have been a great feature for SC2. But what did they do instead? They added the ability to zoom IN. What the fuck is the point of that? I don't need to see how graphically detailed these units are. And with all of the things going on in the game, who has time to admire the scenery?

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[TheSambassador]

Besides the fact that the game was just as long, if not longer, than the original Starcraft (29 missions with lots of customization vs 30 linear missions with no choice), did you miss the fact that there are parts of SC2 that you play as the other races? There are Protoss missions within the Terran campaign. Just because it's focused on the Terran part of the story doesn't mean that the others get left out entirely.

It's fine that you don't want to buy it, but it seems like your reasons were just plain wrong.

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[bonch]

If you had said you were disappointing because you really wanted to play a Zerg or Protoss campaign, I'd understand.

That's pretty much what he said: "When Starcraft 2 came out last year I felt cheated that it only contained the Terran campaign."

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[filthpickle]

yeah I have to wonder if he played it. It doesn't sound like he did.

Re:I'm still waiting for the collection

[rsilvergun]

Yeah, but at $60 dollars for a game built on an 8 year old engine (Warcraft III), I guess we were expecting the whole game. I don't play RTS games, but my bro did, and he plowed though all 30 missions in about 8 hours. He's not that good. A SC1 playthough is still about twice that, and that's with knowing exactly how to beat each level....

Oh, and it was the first blizzard game I've ever seen crash. Lots. They fixed it after launch, but I was pissed cause I bought the game to get his mind off all the crap in his life and then he ended up troubleshooting their damn game.

So yeah, I expected more.

Sounds familiar...

[Anonymous Coward]

every surface chitinous, every hole infested

Sounds like my ex-wife!

Re:Sounds familiar...

[DWMorse]

every surface chitinous, every hole infested

Sounds like my ex-wife!

Need. Mod points. +1 Funny.

Re:Sounds familiar...

[alienzed]

Leave Barbara out of this! She wasn't the one who lost her job due to her Starcraft addiction!

Re:Sounds familiar...

[praxis]

Need. Mod points. +1 Funny.

Shatner, is that you?

Re:Sounds familiar...

[repka]

Well that's your fault anyway, you shoulda saved her off Antiga Prime zerg swarms the other day...

I have but two questions:

[snarfies]

1) Has LAN play been restored?
2) Can I stay 100% offline at ALL times, including during installation and single-player gameplay?

If the answer to either question is "no," I'm not buying. I'm actually perilously close to switching to Linux full-time, since I've already skipped GTA4, Civ 5, the first SC2, Fallout New Vegas, and several other games over similar issues, thereby knocking out my last reasons for using Windows (gaming).

Re:I have but two questions:

[decipher_saint]

From reading the FAQ, no.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. No
2. No

Please switch to Linux immediately so the rest of us can be spared these inane comments. The realities of the modern gaming world are not about to change. The industry is making piles of money, they do not give a shit about the .5% of people with your ideals.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

0.5% yeah right. Some of us live out in BFE where there is no internet beyond dialup or we like to travel to places and have fun with friends in the wee hours of the morning when most things are closed.

If it's not possible to play offline, it is not a purchased game.
It's a glorified rental that will cease to exist when the company fails.

Activision/Blizzard may be near the top right now, but that doesn't mean they will stay there.
Hundreds of shops have closed or been acquired by larger companies that cease legacy support.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Sparhawk2k]

While I would personally LOVE for games to change to be less obnoxious, I think you're right. .5% is WAY to high of a number if you're looking at people who actually refuse to purchase a game they could otherwise play because it wants them to be online.

Re:I have but two questions:

[tlhIngan]

Perhaps you missed the "Activision" part of Activision-Blizzard. Besides squeezing all the money they can, they also want to control everything. (See paid subscriptions for MW3)

Which is why I'll probablly be skipping this game as well. Bad memories of the Bnet2.0 issues that kept me from progressing far in SC2, and by the time it was resolved, it was only a month away from Halo Reach (SC2 was to entertain me until then), and I'd lost interest.

Also why I've lost interest in Diablo 3 as well. Activision has screwed things up so horribly.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Tubal-Cain]

Wings of Liberty works fine in Wine. At least until last week or so.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

It works perfectly, except you have to turn down the graphics settings. Otherwise it is entirely playable. I haven't ever had any serious issues.

Re:I have but two questions:

[eL-gring0]

Makes sense in some ways - if there's no LAN play, there's no pirated Hamachi or VPN or what have you networks popping up to play. I think that can turn a bunch of pirated games into effectively SP games.

I don't think that's going to get them any extra purchases (obviously it might cost them some, or at least yours), but the customer-as-criminal mindset is pervasive today.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Raenex]

Perhaps you missed the "Activision" part of Activision-Blizzard. Besides squeezing all the money they can, they also want to control everything.

Blizzard acted like a bunch of douchebags before Activision came along (reference: bnetd among other lawsuits)

Re:I have but two questions:

[Mongoose Disciple]

Le grande beating-a-dead-horse sigh.

We get it; some people are still surly that SC2 doesn't have LAN play. There are valid reasons to feel that way. We still don't need to hear about it in each and every Starcraft-related story.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so except the two of you, no one else gives a fucking shit. Just shut up or move to a place that matters.

Re:I have but two questions:

[toastar]

If it's not possible to play offline, it is not a purchased game. It's a glorified rental that will cease to exist when the company fails.

If the company fails there is no one to sue you for hacking your own bnet server

Re:I have but two questions:

[iamhassi]

"0.5% yeah right. Some of us live out in BFE where there is no internet beyond dialup"

No access to broadband? No access to 3G? Yeah, I'd say you're the last 0.5% of the population, and that the other 99.5% have access to either broadband or 3G.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

Dual boot?

Re:I have but two questions:

[morari]

I think you need to move out of the suburbs and take a real look at the state of broadband through the country. There are tons of people that want broadband but can't get it. Of course, I wouldn't expect a yuppie like you to realize that... I'm sure you're too busy mowing your lawn and waxing your SUV.

Re:I have but two questions:

[VickiM]

It's strange how we think what happens in our house is the same as the rest of the country. According to PEW Internet, only 66% of homes in the US have broadband. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Home-Broadband-2010.aspx

Re:I have but two questions:

[drakaan]

I disagree.

For the same reason that complaining about graphics or a paucity of new online content or performance is relevant to each and every discussion about SC-II likes and dislikes, complaining about the lack of LAN play is relevant.

Each of those topics address an area of the game that affects its perceived depth and long-term playability. If it wasn't a big deal to people who dearly love(d) playing the original, then I'd maybe agree with you, but clearly, it is still a big deal.

Just as with other things that we'd like to see improved in some way, it "needs" to be talked about until the franchise is done with, or the problem is fixed.

Re:I have but two questions:

[elsurexiste]

Le grande beating-a-dead-horse sigh.

We get it; some people are still surly that SC2 doesn't have LAN play. There are valid reasons to feel that way. We still don't need to hear about it in each and every Starcraft-related story.

Sure we need to! An unsatisfied customer that doesn't complain can't help companies provide a better product.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when those that spouted "if you don't like it don't buy it" for years are now pissed we are implementing the "don't buy it solution" they suggested to us.

Re:I have but two questions:

[StikyPad]

Yes we do. Silence is exactly what these companies want. They want us (and everyone else) to ignore the abuse of the customer so they can provide ever less value for more money. Soon games will shift entirely to services, not products, and if you want to play, you'll pay, and pay, and pay. Many, like those who admonish us to STFU, will pay willingly and gladly, and these are the people who are truly ruining it for everyone by making this sort of crap profitable.

The problem is that people do not naturally act in concert, and are too often unwilling to sacrifice even a small amount by denying themselves the latest gaming indulgence (even if only until there's a price drop, to show they're unwilling to be fleeced), because they believe it will be ineffective. And without cooperation, it will. Corporations know this all too well. Many gamers have been jaded by the relentless march of overbearing software publishers, their allies in hardware manufacturing, and a complicit legislature willing to bend over backwards to meet the demands of the entertainment industry.

What we need is the consumer equivalent of a union, a collective to bargain on behalf of those without enough of a voice to bargain on their own, to involve itself in both purchasing and policy. With sufficient numbers, such an organization could force the inclusion of some features (freely moddable content; the ability to play on private networks), while disallowing others (DRM, required network connection). It needn't limit itself to gaming either: the cellular, ISP, and cable/satellite industries are ripe for customer pushback as well. It could lobby Congress to stop passing onerous IP laws and to repeal or modify existing law. Being vocal in online forums can only accomplish so much, especially when the audience either already knows (Slashdot), consists of fanboys (publisher forums), or doesn't care (more general forums). To really make our voices heard, we need to unite.

Re:I have but two questions:

[emanem]

I've been playing on Linux since it came out. Apart setting the shaders "low" (which is beneficial for multiplayer) never had any issue at all. Cheers!

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one am glad that people in residing in "a place that matters" spend more time gaming than turning a profit - seems kind of like nature's balance to level what matters.

Re:I have but two questions:

[praxis]

Isn't the suburbs where people mow their lawns and wax their SUVs? I know zero people in my neighbourhood that have an SUV (though some do have lawns).

Re:I have but two questions:

[Tubal-Cain]

Meh. Something about the Updater broke when I upgraded to 1.3.20. I downgraded, deleted my .wine folder, and started anew. No dice.

Re:I have but two questions:

[billcopc]

I'd like to add laptops to the list of places where you can't play SC2 without internet. I have a little 3G internet stick, but it's not always in signal range, and frankly I shouldn't need to connect to that slow, lossy network just to play a game I already have installed. If I'm on a 2-hour bus/train ride, I'd certainly like the ability to play some SC2 to kill time, on my $2500 gaming-grade laptop. This arbitrary restriction means I have to use a cracked version, which is rather offensive given that I have PAID for the damn game, on launch day no less.

The guys who did "The Witcher 2" got it right. DRM is only marginally usefull up to the launch date (or launch week), beyond that, all software will get cracked anyway, so might as well ditch the DRM. If it helped prevent a prerelease leak, it's already done its job, because that's the one time where you're actually "losing" sales. If there's a leak, and people badly want your game but can't even buy it yet, they will download the leaked version instead. Post-release, the ones who are downloading it, they weren't going to pay for it anyway.

Re:I have but two questions:

[dasherjan]

I know I wont buy a game if it requires me to be online for single player. I play most of my games while stuck at small airports while waiting around.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Sparhawk2k]

I'm not saying there aren't VERY valid reasons for that. But I also think we're not representative of the market as a whole and to try to extrapolate totals based on conversations on here isn't the best approach. I would like to think that people at these companies have done their research...

Re:I have but two questions:

[filthpickle]

good luck bringing the console ppl on board with that.

Re:I have but two questions:

[perlchild]

The patent troll that dued them out of existence can. Let's get the bad business models out of the way now.

The need to be online to "install" will probably work, the rest has to go.

Re:I have but two questions:

[innerweb]

I don't want gaming companies to stop what they are doing. I am saving so much money and both of my children spend a lot more time in the real world. I used to buy ~$500 in games a year. And more for consoles and game rigs. It was a lot of fun, but the stuff coming out is less and less appealing, and the communities are more and more like some big city slum middle school playground. I get more fun out of writing stored procedure for business shills.

So, thank you to EA, Atari and others for writing crappier games and making them more inaccessible. Thank you for pandering the lowest common denominator as much as you can.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that be http://www.savetheinternet.com/ ?

Re:I have but two questions:

[Luckyo]

Whoever buys their IP can sue you just as well. IP generally doesn't vanish if company goes under, it just gets bought up by someone else.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with having consumer protections in a lot of these games is, a great many American child is too far gone already to be saved. One would think upon intuitions that a child of the age of 11 could be subverted from turning into a useless, fat, ignorant asshole, but combine the culture and other parts of the environment that have already taken hold with the notion that genetics may be 0.6 to 0.8 of intelligence, and you get a certain result.

The video game system is roughly analogous to the prison and school systems: ideally, the undesirable chaff is kept out of the way, put in a place tailored for their particular deficiency, so the rest of us don't have to listen to their say.

In the past year, Blizzard had an excellent idea that was quite unfortunately backed down from: Real ID. The main benefit behind this would be to locate intelligent females with the proper physical attractiveness who have fallen through the cracks, and could be plucked and shuttled away to the elites. They would reproduce and take a stipend, and these children would receive the most effective education that could be thought up.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Mongoose Disciple]

It's like this: in voting with your wallet, as in other forms of democracy, sometimes what you want isn't what 99%+ of the voters want.

Beating the same dead horse again and again in this case isn't winning anyone over. People either care about LAN play or they don't, and most people don't and will never be persuaded by anything you can say to care.

Sometimes being vocal can win people over; in other cases it takes something different. This is one of those latter cases.

Re:I have but two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have a point with things like cellular and ISP services, which are goods/services that are becoming more and more essential to everyday life, or IP laws which affect our rights and freedoms... ... but video games are simply entertainment, and what's entertaining is subjective - which means the price on that entertainment is also subjective

As such, no collective should exist to decide on behalf of individual consumers on what they find entertaining, or whether the price of that entertainment is worthwhile. No collective could decide anyway. To put it bluntly: you can't decide for other people what they find fun, and how much they're willing to pay for that fun.

Intervention should occur sparingly (if any), like if one person's fun has significant negative impact on somebody else. And by significant negative impact, I don't mean "omg he beat me in a video game now my feelings are hurt", or a trend I'm seeing more these days: "he's having fun and I hate that! Stop him from having fun!" (which as I said: you can't decide for other people what they find fun)

Re:I have but two questions:

[Lundse]

It's like this: in voting with your wallet, as in other forms of democracy...

Just a quick voting with your wallet is not democracy. At best, it is a really broadly enfranchised oligarchy with a continuum of degrees of participation.

The important part...

[jaymz666]

Are they charging a full game price for it? Or expansion pricing?

Re:The important part...

[MBGMorden]

Full game - these are being billed as all different "chapters" rather than Wings of Liberty being a full game and the others expansions.

And honestly, it makes sense. Businesses charge what people will pay, and Blizzard can charge full game pricing and still sell a ton of copies. The people that won't pay the full game price but would pay expansion will probably just wait till later to buy it and they'll still make their money.

Re:The important part...

[Tukz]

They previously said it's a stand-alone game, so expect full game price for it.
Blizzard is part of Activision, so what'd ya expect? Greedy bastards.

Re:The important part...

[Coffee Warlord]

They previously said it's a stand-alone game, so expect full game price for it.
Blizzard is part of Activision, so what'd ya expect? Greedy bastards.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/60020/blizzard-on-starcraft-2-expansions

""We effectively look at it internally as expansions," said Sigaty. "So we'll see what that means for the price--we're not just going to raise it and call it that for the purposes of that. We would need to offer the same content.""

Of course, more than a few people figured this was bullshit to begin with. As someone said above, they can price it at 60 bucks and still make boatloads - hence they will.

Re:The important part...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA: Wings of Liberty is required to play Heart of the Swarm.

Re:The important part...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFFAQ:

Q: How much will Heart of the Swarm cost?

A: We typically don't provide details about pricing until the game is closer to release. We do view Heart of the Swarm as an expansion set, so for the regions that have a standard box business model such as North America and Europe, we will price accordingly. For other regions that have alternative business models, we’ll provide details at a later date.

Re:The important part...

[Dan667]

I honestly did not think it was that great to pay full game price for an expansion. Guess I will wait till it goes on sale on Steam for $5.

Re:The important part...

[Zironic]

"A: We typically don't provide details about pricing until the game is closer to release. We do view Heart of the Swarm as an expansion set, so for the regions that have a standard box business model such as North America and Europe, we will price accordingly. For other regions that have alternative business models, weâ(TM)ll provide details at a later date. "

Re:The important part...

[jandrese]

You will probably have a long wait given that even Wings of Liberty isn't available on Steam. Between Activision and Blizzard, someone over there doesn't like Steam apparently.

Re:The important part...

[gid]

You might be waiting a while, Blizzard doesn't release their games on Steam as they have battle.net, and from what I remember, they only go on sale after quite a while has passed.

Re:The important part...

[damburger]

Thats good to know. I wonder if people who haven't bought WoL will be able to play the game on its own, or do you require both?

Re:The important part...

[insnprsn]

Please provide a source for this.... given that I know there isn't and many others have provided sources to the contrary I'm guessing that you are one of the 0.5% previously referenced and are sore about what amount to baseless complaints, so you make up stories to suit your view of reality.

And before you retort with "fanboy" comments, let me save you the time
I am a Blizzard fanboy, after 20 years of awesome I believe they deserve it.

Re:The important part...

[Bengie]

Why would Blizzard even want to use Steam? It would be annoying to have to log into Steam, only to then log into SC2/WoW/etc.

Because of NDAs, current rumors are Steam charges ~30% of the sale price. I don't think Blizzard would be willing to had over that kind of money when they already have the infrastructure.

Re:The important part...

[perlchild]

I'm wondering if their "countries where we have alternate business models" means Korea, and if so, it means they want to make it an expansion priced like a full-game there...?

Re:The important part...

[Mt._Honkey]

Even more importantly, will we be able to keep playing Wings of Liberty multiplayer without buying Heart of the Swarm? I couldn't find an answer to this in any of the links. If we can't and they charge $60 for the expansion, you can bet I'll never buy anything from Blizzard again.

Re:The important part...

[Anonymous Coward]

they stated years ago, all three will be full mgame rpiced, or near it, which is in-line with hostory. All Blzzard games going back to warcraft 1 have been $60 at launch and $40 dollers for the expo. This isn't much different

Re:The important part...

[Miaomiao]

Yes, Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm will also be on separate ladders as well.

RTFFAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How much will Heart of the Swarm cost?

A: We typically don't provide details about pricing until the game is closer to release. We do view Heart of the Swarm as an expansion set, so for the regions that have a standard box business model such as North America and Europe, we will price accordingly. For other regions that have alternative business models, we’ll provide details at a later date.

and in the third installment.

[Truekaiser]

god mode will be enabled by default, this should add new dimensions to play...

Last Time I Looked

[twmcneil]

We were playing Brood War yesterday on the airplane with no internet connection and no cd drive.

Can't do that with WoL as far as I know.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[Anonymous Coward]

We were playing Brood War yesterday on the airplane with no internet connection and no cd drive.

Can't do that with WoL as far as I know.

You can. Run it in offline mode.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we (implying multiplayer) play together in offline mode?

Re:Last Time I Looked

[Anonymous Coward]

And play a 1v1 match on a wfifi ad-hoc connection? Doubtful.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[MBGMorden]

That's getting into such a niche market segment though that the percentage of people who would both do that in the first place AND care enough about it to not purchase the game based on it is minuscule.

Very few people plan LAN matches anymore. And no, "But I still do!" doesn't refute that. "Very few" does not mean "no one", but it does imply a number low enough that a business doesn't care about it any longer.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[toastar]

Very few people plan LAN matches anymore.

How do you know??

I mean it's true from the perspective that they don't allow it. But I can think of way more times where War3 was played on lan then online. I'm pretty sure this would be the case for SC2 As well if it were allowed. I've definitely had one instance where we played Supreme commander BC we couldn't play SC2.

But anecdotes aside, My point is how do you have statistics on who plays what on LAN, if you are playing without internet, How do usage statistics get phoned home?

Re:Last Time I Looked

[Anonymous Coward]

But there really isn't a great reason to deny that niche. Judging by all the torrent links it's very clear that if you wish to play in this manner you can, you just have to pirate it. So why shouldn't Blizzard discourage piracy by providing the product that people want? It's a trivial change and really they would only have to change it because they went to the effort to exclude it in the first place.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[filthpickle]

he probably meant "we were playing brood war with one copy of the game", and I don't think you can do that with WoL.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[Bengie]

One side of me says "who cares, such a small percentage of LAN gamers" but the other side of me says "I grew up playing Warcraft/Warcraft2/Doom/Quake/Counter-strike/etc on LAN and it was the atmosphere of it all".

I'll stick with the GTFO Activision.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[Anonymous Coward]

How do stats get phoned home?

Simple, it did not FAIL COMMERCIALLY without Lan play, therefore, lan play was irrelevant, next question.

Hence, next time a legendary franchise does something you despise, either send them a notarized letter saying why you did not buy their broken game, or some other activity that WILL cost you more than the cost of the game to do, or just expect things to get worse.

Re:Last Time I Looked

[Chaosrains]

Sure you can, on both counts. I've done it countless times when my Internet went down for any number of reasons. By default SC2 does not require the CD after installation, and you are able to play single-player offline. You just can't get achievements offline.

I will wait

[Ogive17]

I'm going to wait until all 3 are out. After a few months they will release the "bundle", probably for the price of 1. At least that's what I hope.

Re:I will wait

[MBGMorden]

No real issue with that, but personally holding off on playing a good game(s) for the 6-7 years it's probably going to take between the the release of Wings of Liberty and the final bundle just to save $75 or so seems like a waste.

Re:I will wait

[i_b_don]

Then you're missing out. IMHO, the real special thing about SC2 has been the online multiplayer (both coop and vs random internet folks). The single player game was fun and all, but only barely worth the price of admission, but when you look internet play alone I'm down to under a buck an hour of fantastically fun game play. Getting together with friends online, joining with them to play some good 3v3's, 4v4's, etc is where it's at. Simply waiting until the game is on sale means you're waiting for everyone to get bored and move on to another game before you get all excited about it yourself. Totally not worth it for a online multiplayer game.

A games social value is very time specific and by waiting you're missing out.

d

Re:I will wait

[BLToday]

I'm not exactly holding off playing it. I just don't have the time to play games anymore. I just finished Bad Company 2. I still haven't finish Mass Effect 1.

Re:I will wait

[Moridineas]

I have no idea where you are in life, but here's where I am. I loved starcraft1 and played the hell out of it in highschool and into college. Played with friends online, at lan parties, had a hangout channel, etc.

I'm in my late 20s now, married, and have a kid.

Playing games online with friends--real or internet-only--has moved far down my list of fun activities! It sounds boggling, but taking my son to the park is pretty much more fun than I've had playing video games online in years.

Not to say I don't like video games! I'm working my way through Fallout NV, have played through DA:O several times, am _still_ playing Civ:Revolution on my DS, etc. It's just the huge time investment to maintain online relationships, meet up with people online to play games (many of whom are in the same stage of life as I am now) becomes a lot more complicated! Playing Civ:Rev for 10 minutes, Dragon Age for 30 minutes, etc, is much easier, and as a result--for me personally--more fulfilling.

I, like the OP, will buy Starcraft 2 one day, and I'm sure I'll love the single player. Doubt I'll ever play the multiplayer. The "social" aspect is just completely irrelevant to me.

Re:I will wait

[slyrat]

Then you're missing out. IMHO, the real special thing about SC2 has been the online multiplayer (both coop and vs random internet folks). The single player game was fun and all, but only barely worth the price of admission, but when you look internet play alone I'm down to under a buck an hour of fantastically fun game play. Getting together with friends online, joining with them to play some good 3v3's, 4v4's, etc is where it's at. Simply waiting until the game is on sale means you're waiting for everyone to get bored and move on to another game before you get all excited about it yourself. Totally not worth it for a online multiplayer game.

A games social value is very time specific and by waiting you're missing out.

d

Very true, but I'm sure there will be quite a bit of people, myself included, that will get on to play these games for the first time when the bundle happens. I am a fan of Protoss and want to play when the stand alone for it comes out. I also know that the majority of people I game with do the same for these pricey games. So everyone I know will be playing when the bundle happens. So the multiplayer, at the moment, has no appeal to me. It will have appeal to me when people I know jump in.

Re:I will wait

[i_b_don]

So I'm 37 with three young kids (oldest is 5yrs), and yet I still find time to play multiplayer video games. Granted my time is limited to after 9pm at night when all the kids go to sleep, but my friends are scattered around the country and if we didn't play video games together we wouldn't really talk (because guys don't tend to pick up the phone and call each other to just shoot the shit).

Out of the poeple I game with, I have two friends in Seattle, one near Washington DC, one in LA, and I'm in SF bay area. We talk several times a week and only because we play games online together. It's a great way to keep in touch with friends from high school, college, and former co-workers when you're no longer geographically connected. Yeah, my free time is very limited with three kids, so instead of watching TV I do something cooperatively with my friends, that's social, constructive, and mentally challenging. I know most people don't have a social group like mine, but I've found online gaming it to be a great way to keep friendships alive.

d

Re:I will wait

[pavon]

Simply waiting until the game is on sale means you're waiting for everyone to get bored and move on to another game before you get all excited about it yourself.

If Starcraft 2 anything like Starcraft, then this couldn't be farther from the truth. It will continue to be played for the next decade.

Re:I will wait

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm holding out until they release a starcraft games that's better than starcraft 1, not just a better looking starcraft 1.

Re:I will wait

[Ogive17]

I don't like multi-player RTS... probably because I was never very good. I play slow and like to build up everything. Therefore I enjoy the RTS single player missions.

Re:I will wait

[i_b_don]

I didn't either... until I started playing SC2. I never liked the feeling of the unknown pressure that someone out in the dark fog of war was building up and I was falling behind and the dreaded sinking feeling of seeing their army of massive early units while I'd been busy teching up and expanding. However I found that when playing with my friends, we could scout the maps and find out what was going on well enough that my initial fears and dreads didn't come about and our strategizing before and analysis after about getting our asses kicked or kicking ass made the game a blast to play. Also, the battle-net match making system works pretty well in matching you up against like skilled players so your win loss ration is typically pretty close to 50%. All of that put together has made SC2 one of my favorite games despite me also not liking multiplayer RTS games previously to SC2.

but hey, I wasn't trying to turn this into a SC2 advertisement, I'm just trying to say that I would have missed out on the social experience with my friends if I'd waited 2 or 3 years to buy the game.

d

The Multiplayer and Competetive Scenes

[Eulogistics]

This is interesting. By adding new units, Blizzard just destroyed the multiplayer scene. Will different games be able to play each other (my copy of WoL versus a HoTS copy)? If not, will multiplayer split into the WoL, HoTS and whatever-the-protoss-one-is-called scenes? This is gonna get pretty interesting to watch. On another note, I'm not sure if I'll be getting this or the next game. I bought WoL on my personal love of James Raynor, and while he didn't disappoint me as a character in SC2, the overall story is fully fucked over. I liked 3 factions all with their own interests, vying for supremacy, but now it seems to be turning into a generic "Good versus Evil" thing and following Warcraft into fluff hell.

Re:The Multiplayer and Competetive Scenes

[Vaphell]

same thing happened with broodwar - competitive scene will hop the the latest thing. But in sc1 it happened once and rather quickly, now it will happen twice and be stretched in time so i think many will drop out in the mean time.

story quality - agreed. it's the worst single player campaign blizzard ever produced (i am not talking about technical side of SP). They pissed all over the lore established in sc1, turned sc2 into a venezuelan soap opera about a tragic love, riding on prophecies and greater ancient evils carbon-copied straight from warcraft universe.

Re:The Multiplayer and Competetive Scenes

[Anonymous Coward]

well after what they did to Warcraft what did you expect? it's the same hacks writing the lore for both games (all their games even)!

Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

yes but, will it run on Linux?

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they really screw up, it will run perfectly (under Wine) just like Wings of Liberty. If anyone can convince them to offer an OpenGL option under Windows (and therefore under Wine), the graphics performance will probably be nearly identical to a native setup.

Don't care - Blizzard blew it!

[kupekhaize]

Personally I have no intention at all of buying this game. I bought the first game without realizing what i was getting in for. There are a thousand things about SC2 that piss me off and make me wish I'd never purchased it. No offline multiplayer, no true LAN games, no more spawn copies, having to type in my fucking name and password each time I want to play a single player game, buying the same game full price 3 times just to get all 3 races, an awful in game map management system, awful online play, and a company that stopped caring about their players a long time ago make this

Blizzard dropped the ball with Starcraft 2. They've become nothing but money-grubbing corporate monsters, and I strongly encourage everyone to avoid their games like the proverbial plague.

P.S. I LOVE the starcraft series. I *still* play Starcraft 1 constantly. I prefer version 1 (on 640x480 graphics) to Starcraft 2 on a monitor that runs 1920x1080 by default; the graphics are poor, but it's still a thousand times more fun then anything I've gotten out of Starcraft 2. Sc2 is awful, awful, awful compared to Starcraft 1, and not worth the money. Go pick up 6 indy games for the same price that Blizzard wants to charge for this DRM fest. Or 18 games for the price blizzard wants to charge for all 3 "chapters" of their 1 mediocre game.

I mean, seriously. $180 by the time I am done for Starcraft 2? Get fucking real.

Re:Don't care - Blizzard blew it!

[Galmok]

I certainly agree with your comments. Personally, I downloaded a "trial" of SC2 and played it for an hour but I just didn't like what I saw. I was expecting a similar game to SC1, only updated in graphics and better AI, but Blizzard put in a login (which the "trial" version doesn't show which makes the hacked game better than the original), between games sceenes that I seriously dislike, no LAN and especially no offline play. I wont get together with my buddies to play SC2 and rely on a single Internet connection that may break down. Goodbye to that weekend. And that is the only multiplayer setup I want. I do not want to play against random strangers and I do not want Blizzard to know when I am playing SC2. I like the original Starcraft as well and still play it (even though I have access to the hacked SC2). I may pick it up in some years, but I honestly do not expect to. And I'll most likely also stay away from Diablo 3 for the same reason (played Diablo 2 a lot). I do however play WoW but in nature, it is a different type of game, requiring interaction with others to experience all the content.

Re:Don't care - Blizzard blew it!

[brkello]

Ugh, you are so wrong in a million ways. The Starcraft 2 missions are a million times better than the first Starcraft. Each mission is unique instead of you just building a base and then trying to grow and destroy another base. The ability to choose your mission to get your favorite units earlier or later is great. The fact that you can choose upgrades to fit your play style is brilliant. Battle.net is a million times better and I have never had an issue other than something on my side going down. The story is not good vs evil. Did you not play the Zeratul missions? Did you not get at first you were out to destroy but then were meant to save since they are going to be your only chance of survival? The zerg wanted to destroy everything in the first starcraft....there was no good there. You get just as many missions with WoL as you did with the original SC...I just don't get it. SC2 is my #1 game of all time...it is like you didn't even play it.

Their FAQ is a wealth of information

[drwav]

When is it coming out?
A: We're not saying.

How much will it cost?
A: We're not saying.

Those are the only things I care about so fuck you, Blizzard, fuck you.

Re:Their FAQ is a wealth of information

[Chaosrains]

If you knew anything about Blizzard you'd know they don't announce these things until they are dead certain of them. They never announce specific dates, only time-frames like "this fall" or "next spring". When they are more certain they won't have to delay, they give a specific date, and then they announce the price.

Here's all the details you need: still no LAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

No LAN, no buy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion