Yay! We finally have a release date for the upcoming expansion to Starcraft II. Can't wait!
more info: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/6512880/
more info: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/6512880/
Too expensive.
I don't care what is in it. Starcraft 2 was criminally short as-is. Somehow they made Starcraft (the original)- which had all three species in it and took a bloody long time to finish... And yet SC2 had to be split up so they could charge you $60 + $40 + $40.
$140 for a complete game?
No thanks.
-SC
Too expensive.
I don't care what is in it. Starcraft 2 was criminally short as-is. Somehow they made Starcraft (the original)- which had all three species in it and took a bloody long time to finish... And yet SC2 had to be split up so they could charge you $60 + $40 + $40.
$140 for a complete game?
No thanks.
-SC
$140 for a complete game?
No thanks.
This argument came up all the time when Blizzard announced their SC2 expansion plans, and I don't get it. "Criminally short"? SC2 had 29 missions, SC1 had 30. Splitting them up means they can devote the resources to making full-length campaigns for each race.
What don't you get?
Heart of the Swarm is actually $60 for a boxed copy in Canada here. That's the same price as Starcraft 2 when it launched (which is now $40).
So you're telling me it's OK for them to charge FULL POP for an add-on, but still require that you own SC2 first in order to play?
I'd be OK if they said "Hey, it's $30 if you already own SC2". I'd even be OK if they were selling it as a standalone game for $60, because after all- they're the ones who told us we should expect "separate games" (~30 missions/piece) and sit around waiting for not one but three full development cycles to complete.
But that's not how it is. It's an overpriced add-on pack, especially when you consider the current price of SC2 and the fact that it is a requisite to playing HOTS. I'm sure the Protoss pack will require SC2 and HOTS before you can play it. Tell me how that's not being unnecessarily greedy?
-SC
I will probably buy it anyway but I hope they have put more effort into the story and missions than in WoL and they need to stop Hollywoodising it.
SCI was much better value though, three well thought out stories with good dialogue and I felt there were less gimmicks in the missions.
EDIT: Morale to this story, if you couldn't do it better yourself, then don't complain.
translation: Wahhh wah wah wahh wah wah! I'm a buzzkill! Waaahhhh.
Having played SC and SC2, I think SC2 is easily the better game. And I don't play Multiplayer. The missions were much more interesting and fun, and the story was fine. SC2 was never going to be Amnesia: The Dark Descent, and expecting it to have a fantastic story was always going to be foolish. The plot was good enough to link the missions together, which was all it needed.
EDIT: Morale to this story, if you couldn't do it better yourself, then don't complain.
I disagree. SC1 had a great story with three very interesting species that tied together in a grand plot. IMO if your gonna do a game with a story driven campaign it needs to be at least consistent which the SC universe no longer is. It has been Lucased - endless books.
You often were defeated during the missions. In SC2 your always victorious, everyone is a genius and it rips off Firefly way too much - SC2 has no tone.
You are judging the plot, when it's only one third done.
Ripping off Firefly is a GODD thing. If only everything would take some style from Firefly...
And if you want to be defeated in missions, play at a higher difficulty setting. It's not hard, and takes about two mouse clicks.
On a side note, how many flaws did the first Lord of the Rings movie have in it? Still a good movie.