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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
all language nazi's will burne in heil!