Slashdot Mirror
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."
First Post!
every surface chitinous, every hole infested
Sounds like my ex-wife!
Are they charging a full game price for it? Or expansion pricing?
From reading the FAQ, no.
crazy dynamite monkey
god mode will be enabled by default, this should add new dimensions to play...
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.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
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.
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.
Wings of Liberty works fine in Wine. At least until last week or so.
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.
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)
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.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
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.
And the NOCD patch,I assume in this case it is NONETWORK too :)
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.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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
"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.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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.
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.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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
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.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
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.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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!
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).
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.
Meh. Something about the Updater broke when I upgraded to 1.3.20. I downgraded, deleted my .wine folder, and started anew. No dice.
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.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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?
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.
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.
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...
That's pretty much what he said: "When Starcraft 2 came out last year I felt cheated that it only contained the Terran campaign."
yeah I have to wonder if he played it. It doesn't sound like he did.
good luck bringing the console ppl on board with that.
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.
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.
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com