Starcraft II: Heart Of The Swarm Teased

By Jim Rossignol on May 31st, 2011 at 9:00 am.

I'd remap her hotkeys, right.
Looks like we were too sleepy to pick up on the leaked Starcraft II: Heart Of The Swarm teaser last week, but I’ve posted it below, belatedly. We were also rudely not invited to go and play it WHICH IS FINE, BECAUSE STARCRAFT IS RUBBISH ANYWAY AND WE WERE BUSY TALKING TO GIRLS AND OTHER COOL, CREDIBLE STUFF OKAY.

Eurogamer have a preview though, which is packed full of details, and delivers this conclusion: “Heart of the Swarm is still evolution rather than revolution, of course, but it’s a crucial step for StarCraft II as a whole. That’s because, while it may be the modern king of the competitive RTS, its rank as a single-player experience is less clear. By letting you talk to the monsters, and control them as the biggest monster of all, Heart of the Swarm doesn’t just promise change – it gives the silent majority their very own god of war.” Gosh!

__________________

« | »

, , .

99 Comments »

  1. Brumisator says:

    I really really hate hero stuff in RTSs. Especially à la warcraft 3.
    If I want to play an RPG, I’ll play an RPG, damnit!
    Then again, I absolutely adored the …erm…first starcraft 2, wings of liberty, so I can’t say I’m too pessimistic about this one. Day 1 purchase all the way.

    • bookwormat says:

      I liked the hero stuff in the warcraft 3 campaign. I don’t care if they call that RPG or RTS, that’s just name-fucking.

    • DragonSix says:

      Ditto. Heroes in RTS is a pain in the ass. I want to overrun my ennemies with big swarming armies, not to constantly babysit one character stronger than the rest.

  2. karthink says:

    On the subject Eurogamer raises: How important is StarCraft’s lore to its fans?
    I’m in the minority here, but VERY. I only ever play RTSes in single-player, and the original Starcraft’s Space Operatic theme sucked me in good. (Too bad SC2′s plot was a steaming pile of cliches, though.)
    Relevant: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2011/01/24/the-awful-sexist-plot-of-starcraft-2/

    EDIT: Apparently I’m actually in the majority. That’ll teach me to skim-comment.

    • Flobulon says:

      Thanks for linking that article, hadn’t seen that before. Sadly I largely agree with it; I’m currently playing through the original Starcraft campaign again (which some brilliant internet men have ported to SC2) and story-wise it really is so much better, even if the missions are a bit stale. Kerrigan truly is the "Queen Bitch of the Universe".

    • skalpadda says:

      This idea that any portrayal of a woman in a state of weakness is automatically sexist needs to go drown itself in a lake.

      The story of Starcraft 2 is utter rubbish though.

    • Lorc says:

      Thanks for that link – that was interesting reading. Like all people trying to make a powerful point, he necessarily overstates his case. Still, there’s a lot of strong analysis there. While sexism isn’t SC2′s biggest problem, it’s certainly an up-front one.

      Storywise, the worst you could say about Starcraft 1 was that it was cliché-ridden. But it was simple and functional. Blizzard seem to do their best work with direct stories and themes that allow you to concentrate on the game mechanics. I don’t know if it’s a matter of too many cooks, serving multiple masters or just inevitable bloat, but when they try to get sophisticated it all goes to pot.

      Something similar happened with Warcraft 3 (another game where each race had simple themes and a clear direction). In its expansion and World Of Warcraft: the plots became more subtle and layered, motivations less direct and characters more conflicted. Which resulted in a bunch of confusing nonsense, swapping out distinct themes for bland mish-mashes, retcons, and every character betraying everyone else.

      I’m probably projecting at this point, but the feeling I get from Blizzard plotting is a combination of fanfic glee and desperation for authorial legitimacy. Since they’re obviously a huge successful company full of dedicated talent, I’m not in any position to call them incompetent. The lesson I’m forced to take away from it is that doing this stuff right must be bloody hard.

    • zergrush says:

      Starcraft 2 is probably my favourite game ever of all time, but I didn’t even play a third of the campaign before getting completely bored with it and can’t really give a crap about the story. Don’t really know that much about the overall plot, but the scenes I saw were just ridiculously cheesy and badly written. Mechanically the missions, upgrade systems and whatever are quite well designed, but I just couldn’t stand seeing Raynor or the Magic Negro talking anymore.
      Starcraft to me is like chess.

    • hotcod says:

      edit, wow didn’t intend to write that much and as such it’s a mess. I may come clean it up when I have more time :)

      Oh wow, a few paragraphs in to that and I’m already laughing at the guy. His trying to make a point about the game being sexist by implying stereotypical male motivation to make his point. Jim can’t be holding out hope that the personality of some one he cares for still exits and can be saved because his a man and clearly it’s all about sex!
      And I’m laughing again, the game is sexist because the goal is to remove power from a strong female character… forget that that strong female character is evil and corrupted and the fact if replaced by a male character no one would have thought twice about trying to “save” him from him self and what his turned in to. It’s clear to any one who’s played the games that Kerrigan as we first meet her would have killed the Kerrigan in SC2 in a heart beat. One of the reasons she’s been such a great bad guy is that all the good things in her nature are corrupted to become the strengths of the evil thing she ends up as. Oh and all the talk about phallic objects is the same old crap you can pull on anything ever, you go looking for it and you’ll find it. Some times a giant alien artefact is just a giant alien artefact.
      Page 2 isn’t all that bad, it’s parsing SC1 a little to much for things they then ignore being done in SC2 but on the whole they’ve got a point that the story is a little more muddy than the first game. What they then say is “they should have just not done all that and done this instead” given vague tips on structure with out dealing with how you then fit in the backstory and plot and expand on that for sc2. It’s all very easy saying “they could have done better” but with out constructive ideas as to how they could have told a story in SC2 that expanded on the universe and did not tread over the same ground all over again, well it lacks a little bite. They also seem to think that Jim is meant to be a unfalwed hero… the guy is obsessed with Karragen, he has layers of unresolved conflicting feelings about her and what has happend and has taken him self to brink, let many people die, for a chance to save her… and they think this complex character should have had this defining moment taken away from him? Jim is good by broken man, broken by what happens to Karragen and what it’s driven him to… at the moment of his victory his forced to kill a friend who is only doing what his doing because he was forced.
      And the last page is just them babbling on about how awesome they are and how sucky and sexist sc2 is for reasons they don’t every actually make clear. They keep telling me the game is about sex and marriage based on this idea that that must be Jims only motivation.
      In other words they go out looking for the game to be sexist and as such they reduce a complex and interesting male character to a 2d guy who just wants to have sex… they don’t even stop to think or look for other motivations in Jim. Yes his sexual and romantic feels are important but they are not the only thing to his character and are only one aspect that exists in part to set up a conflict between his feelings for her, his guilt over what happened, and his duty and need to save people.
      The queen of blades as we know her in SC2 has become almost mindless… the powers guiding her growth had shaped her in to a tool to be used for a war. She is both powerful and powerless, she can destroy worlds but she has no choice in doing so. She is no longer the strong female bad guy that still had something of her self in brood wars.
      At the end of sc2 she is NOT stripped of power but is being granted the ability to chose how to use it. it’s clear that she’s not fully human but it’s also clear she is no longer fully zerg. From what I’ve read of HotS so far it seems very likely that how you use that choice is going to important in HotS… we might be even allowed to turn her back to the queen of blades but a more interesting one because she would have then made a free choice to be that rather than the puppet we find out she has been.
      In other words that bit of writing does more harm than good and seems to be mostly about some one looking for ways to feel smug about pointing out sexism by misunderstanding a lot of what is going on and inisting that the male character can’t have any real depth.

  3. Olero says:

    Pff, those guns and that armor… A complete rip-off of Gears of War!*

    *I clicked on a link, looked at a teaser, and offered what I thought about it

  4. MD says:

    I talked to a girl yesterday! It wasn’t as revelatory an experience as talking to the monsters, but it was nice.

    • 4026 says:

      …maybe we could ride an elevator all the way up to the break room, and I’ll tell you about the time I talked to a girl again.

    • Althilor says:

      It is from playing Blizzard games that I came to the realization that all women wear extremely revealing clothes, are perfectly proportioned and swoon at the sight of a man, any man, not just hunky men. Not that this epiphany has served me in any capacity as one has to go outside to test it, and I dare not.

    • Stompywitch says:

      Preposterous – technology won’t allow us to talk to the “girls” for another ten years or so.

    • alexmasterson says:

      Edit: Wrong thread.

  5. Avenger says:

    I hate how they say “with added RPG mechanic”.

    RPG is NOT a mechanic. Its a GENRE. You don’t slap it onto other stuff to make it “RPGey”.

    It does not stick!

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      A few people have recently pointed out that when people say “RPG elements” it’s really just synonymous with “game elements”. So “added RPG elements” just mean it has more game.

    • julianbenson says:

      Sure you can. This post has +2 satire but fails on its reroll for having a comedy complex.

    • JackShandy says:

      Surely it’s just putting a mechanic that is commonly associated with RPG’s into a game that is not an RPG?

    • gorgol says:

      Hmm, the man has a point. An “RPG mechanic” fails to be an RPG mechanic unless its part of a role playing game. On the other hand, most games are role playing games in the strict sense of the phrase, because most have you playing a role, so actually the man doesn’t have a point. I win.

      EDIT: actually this is a similar argument to what Jim states above.

    • Thants says:

      What’s going on? Are we really debating if you can put mechanics similar to those of an RPG into another genre? Is there some elaborate joke I’m missing here?

    • lunarplasma says:

      You got a 1 on Sense Motive.

    • gorgol says:

      Nope, you’re just failing to understand the straightforward arguments that have been put forth.

      Also your nerd rage over people questioning percieved notions in game design is… pathetic.

    • Robert says:

      RPG is a shittily defined genre.

    • zipdrive says:

      Now with 35% more RPG!

    • Lilliput King says:

      Thants: Gotta be missing something, because otherwise this is the most ludicrous thread I’ve ever come across.

    • bwion says:

      I’m actually starting to come ’round to the idea that the opposite is true, that RPGs are inherently a hybrid genre, that all RPGs are really ‘Game Of Type X With RPG Elements’.

      Though I’m *really* coming around to the idea that genres are useless and serve primarily as fodder for arguments.

    • Squirrelfanatic says:

      The Witcher 2 had more RPG.

    • alexmasterson says:

      Frankly, games need more RPS elements.

    • YeOldeSnake says:

      He could also mean more Rocket Propelled Grenades

    • Brutal Deluxe says:

      There should definitely be an RPG where you can pick a mechanic as your class. ArtGod, anyone?

    • Tatourmi says:

      We seriously need some widely recognised game encyclopaedia that states clearly what mechanics define each genre and before stating that says: “Genres are impressed on games to ease conversation and do not aim at definining the games themselves.”

      Oh, and this encyclopaedia would also officially never use the term RPG, neither will it use the term MOBA.

    • Avenger says:

      Alright. I agree. It is true that “RPG Genre” is one of the least definitive terms in gaming. Technically, almost every game is a “role playing game”.

      That being said, when somebody says “there are some RPG elements in it” it is pretty clear what those elements bring into the game.

      For an adventure or shooter this usually makes a good match. But a real time strategy game? Are you trying to make D.O.T.A out of starcraft? Are you out of your mind?

      Heck, I remember the first starcraft was vaguely announced and expected as a “space simulation” at some point.

      Probably amnesia…

  6. UnravThreads says:

    Yeah, but it’s still going to be ridiculously overpriced, not drop in price and put money in Activision’s coffers.

    No sale.

    • Flobulon says:

      At this stage they say they’re treating pricing as an expansion.

    • Stijn says:

      Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty gave me over 15 hours of singleplayer fun and an incredibly deep and feature-rich multiplayer, I wouldn’t call it “overpriced”.

    • UnravThreads says:

      The game still consistently retails for £30+, and seeing it for £40 isn’t exactly a rarity. For a PC game, a launch price of £35 for a non-special edition is absolutely horrific. It’s overpriced simply by being £5-£10 more expensive than most other games on the market, yet with no reasoning behind it beyond money-grabbing.

      Activision-Blizzard, Blizzard, Activision or Vivendi – Who ever it is, they can shove the price where the sun doesn’t shine. It’s really only been their titles, i.e. Call of Duty and StarCraft, that have experienced said change and stuck at higher prices.

    • mazzratazz says:

      I’d argue that most games these days are probably underpriced, and SC2 is about right. It seems a bit odd to me that I’m generally (thanks to the likes of Amazon) paying less for a game than I was 5 or 10 years ago, while production costs have skyrocketed. No wonder triple A devs need to sell 2 million copies to break even.

    • UnravThreads says:

      But on the same side of the coin, games are selling in larger and larger numbers than they were before, thus arguably negating the higher development outlay, not to mention that with PC exclusives and Blizzard titles in paticular – Both of which Starcraft 2 is – they continue to sell for longer periods of time and more consistently so, again being a constant money earner for Blizzard.

      Relative to the PC market, Starcraft 2 is expensive. As I said, it’s not unheard of to see the game selling for £40, which is 133% the price of your average retail game. Even at £35, it’s about 116% of the price. When you factor in that we’re talking about the game *still* selling at this price 10 months after release, I fail to see how it’s *not* an overpriced, or at the very least expensive, game.

    • Werthead says:

      As mentioned above, PC game prices are probably too low. I bought MONKEY ISLAND 2 for £37.99 in 1992 and £30-£35 has been the going rate for PC games since the tail end of the 1980s, back when a team of a dozen guys could put together a triple-A release in a few months. Inflation alone should have pushed the going rate for PC games significantly up, but gaming companies have ignored that, as they’ve also ignored the steadily mounting production costs of PC gaming. So PC games have stayed the same price whilst console game prices have moved merrily ever upwards.

      In SC2′s case, Blizzard apparently spent seven years and something like $100 million making the damned thing, so I can see why they didn’t want to release it for £30 and then have it discounted to £20 five weeks later and basically stay there. The question is if the game’s lower-than-hoped-for initial sales (which were excellent, but not the barnstorming, set-the-world-on-fire figures Blizzard might have been counting on or expecting after their previous games) might have resulted from the higher price point.

      In the case of HEART OF THE SWARM, Blizzard may try releasing it for as much as £25. I’ve seen other game expansions that high, so it’d be unsurprising, but then I have to bear in mind that BROOD WAR cost £20 in 1999 and Blizzard spent a tiny fraction of the money they’ve spent on HEART OF THE SWARM on it. So it’s swings and roundabouts. How much is the game worth? If the market can support it being more expensive than the average title, it will be, and if not it won’t.

    • rocketman71 says:

      It IS overpriced because of the simple fact that they took out the most important features of the original game. Exchanging features for graphics is like exchanging liberty for security.

      No, thanks. I’ll pass.

    • Werthead says:

      “It IS overpriced because of the simple fact that they took out the most important features of the original game. Exchanging features for graphics is like exchanging liberty for security.”

      Like what? SC2 takes longer to complete, is a tougher game (if you flip up the difficulty, which you couldn’t do in the original), has the whole interactive front-end, between-mission thing going on, achievements and a whole bunch of extra co-op and skirmish stuff the original never had.

      The only thing you can really argue that they removed from the original is LAN.

  7. Ralud says:

    Is a 27.07 release too much to hope for?

    • Xocrates says:

      Given that they have said in the past that HotS won’t be out this year, 27.07 release date seems entirely feasible ;)

  8. alphager says:

    I think every single writer that presents this video as “leaked” should be “accidentally” hit with a pie. This video was released by the marketing-people at Blizzard.

  9. Caddrel says:

    Nice picture caption.

  10. subedii says:

    OK I’m seriously confused here.

    Back in Starcraft 1 I thought Kerrigan was Afro / Carribean descent what with the skin colour, dreadlocks and all.

    Then in Starcraft 2 they made her… a white redhead?

    And now they’re back to something more akin to the original look?

    I mean, is it just me seeing this or what, because nobody ever seems to comment on the way Kerrigan’s looks keep changing between games.

    • Stellar Duck says:

      Isn’t the blond one Nova or whatever her name was? It’s been a while since I played SC2 so I may be off target though.

    • subedii says:

      I was referring to the above screenshot of Kerrigan.

      Yeah I think the person you’re referring to was called Nova.

    • ColdSpiral says:

      Nope, in SC1 Kerrigan was a white redhead… until she was infested, when she became olive-brown and developed gribbly head-tentacles.

    • Flobulon says:

      Yes, two separate people. Nova (blonde) was shoehorned into SC2 after Starcraft: Ghost was cancelled.

    • Coins says:

      The blonde one is Nova, yes. I do believe Kerrigan had red hair in Starcraft as well, although it’s a bit tricky to spot. The dreads only came about as a result of her zergafication, I think.
      EDIT: well this teaches me to refresh before posting.

    • Metonymy says:

      Kerrigan’s re-imagining in the WoL cinematic was very white and and the voice was very hillbilly. (Nova was a seperate character that did not appear in a cinematic, only in the missions) I think Kerrigan was just tan or shadowed in the SC1 portrait, and this current browning the result of an extreme zerg makeover. At the risk of this (having already) been made a race issue, I’d rather see her as a hillbilly, especially since hicks are stock villains in other media, and Kerrigan at least has some development.

      All images point to the same kind of game structure as WoL, except Kerrigan is available on every mission as a hero, hopefully ressurectable so you don’t have to play ‘watch the idiot.’ The visible upgrades look unremarkable.

      While the campaign in SC1 was praised, truthfully it had very little replay, and the Brutal difficulty was (thankfully) simply a matter of learning which units to use, all the way up to the last mission. If they charge full price for this, I’m not sure how happy people will be. Activision is definitely generosity impaired, and their attempts to get WoW-level cash out of other properties could hurt Blizzard’s name.

    • FalseMyrmidon says:

      http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Sarah_Kerrigan#Sarah_Kerrigan

      Looks like red hair to me. In fact you can even see red hair on the 10 pixel high SC1 unit.

    • subedii says:

      I always thought the red hair there was just colouring, because it still looks like dreadlocks (at least from what I can see).

      Although apparently I’m not the only one who was confused over this.

      http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Kerrigan#Ethnicity_as_human.3F

      Eh, whatever, I’ll just go with the idea that she was a “tanned white” before, and apparently that’s what she is now again.

      Not that I wanted to make this an issue of race or anything, just that to me, her appearance kept changing.

    • FalseMyrmidon says:

      The hair does look like dreadlocks but that could easily be due to the fact rendering decent hair is hard and the game came out in what, 1998?

    • Tei says:

      ZOOM!, ENHANCE!..

      Wheres this algorithm to vectorize pixel art? we must run it on the 16×16 animated avatar icon.

    • MrMud says:

      @Metonymy: If you by “learning which units to use” you mean Medic, Marine for 90% of the maps then yes!

  11. wcaypahwat says:

    So apparently there is someone named Sarah. For a teaser, it doesn’t actually tease very much at all.

  12. Dreamhacker says:

    Of course Starcraft is rubbish, it’s Acitivsion-Blizzard!

    • Jade Raven says:

      This always seems to aggravate me for some reason. Its not actually Activision-Blizzard, its Vivendi.

    • Starky says:

      Indeed, it amazes me how many people don’t understand that Activision and Blizzard are separate entities and run independently.

      Both are owned by Vivendi and they were merged in order to create a more stable and attractive stock profile – Activision doesn’t run, or have any real say whatsoever in the running of Blizzard.

      Hell Mike Morhaime himself has said the only contact they have with Activision is like twice yearly meetings with Vivendi higher ups.

    • Dreamhacker says:

      Oh, right, sorry. That explains why both companies are honest paragons of virtue in the video gaming business…

    • zergrush says:

      This, a million times this. Blizzard absolutely needs to cut down on their shady business practices.

      Until recently it was ok, the games were all good enough to make me not care much about the phone calls saying that someone in my family could have an “accident” if I didn’t gave them money or whatever, and as I was going to buy them anyway I didn’t mind and it all went well, but the armenian guy threatening my dog with a chainsaw if I didn’t get Cataclysm was a little too much.

    • Starky says:

      I know right, blizzard are threatening to phone my girlfriend and tell her that I cheated on her (I didn’t it is all al lie) unless I resubscribe to WoW and buy a D3 preorder.

      I’d love to know what “shady” business practices blizzard have taken part in… worst that could be argued is greedy (selling stupid horses for stupid people in WoW, or premium services in WoW [name changes, server changes so on] – again for people with more money than sense), but I’ve never heard of them doing anything actually shady.

      Hell I remember people blaming Blizzard for following Activisions $10 price increase for PC games (£40/$60), when blizzard games have always been at that price point. Well D2 and WC3 were at least.

      Oh well, haters gonna hate in the end I guess.

  13. FalseMyrmidon says:

    I’m expecting expansion pack level pricing on this.

    • jealouspirate says:

      Don’t get your hopes up.

    • Xocrates says:

      “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.”

      Which isn’t to say it won’t be more expensive than a regular expansion, but it should at least be cheaper than a full release.

  14. JackShandy says:

    “…even this early and with the difficulty level locked on Normal it’s clear Kerrigan’s presence brings a new level of multitasking to single-player.”

    Oh. Hooray.

    I can’t be the only Starcraft player without a fully developed frontal lobe.

  15. Khemm says:

    Have they hired new writers who are actually capable of coming up with at least a decent story and whose writing isn’t atrocious?
    Honestly, Wings of Liberty was such an abomination in terms of writing and story compared to SC1… They had over a decade to think of something moderately interesting, yet disappointed me like never before – the whole game felt like it was written by a teenager during lunch break. The gameplay was fun, but I don’t think I’ll force myself to buy HotS if no improvements in this department have been made.

  16. Symitri says:

    Am I the only one who found Red Alert 3′s single player more enjoyable than Starcraft 2′s? I was let down by the huge wait for SC2 only to get a single player experience that was as bad as most modern war games. RA3 was at least honest in how over-the-top and unbelievable the story was, SC2 tried to masquerade behind something deep and meaningful.

    Any time you were offered a choice, it made no ultimate difference other than fighting different bad guys. I love morality/choice systems but it doesn’t mean that every game needs them, especially when they don’t use them to create a more interesting experience. It cheapens the experience because it promises a different experience when in reality you could blindly click and it wouldn’t matter a bit.

    The campaign’s ending was a let down because it didn’t feel like the experience was complete – the story was designed around the fact you’d have to play the expansion to complete it. I’ve always seen expansions as optional, depth-creating extras that add to the story rather than complete it. Obviously some would disagree but it feels that for the price paid for SC2, there should have been a degree of closure but there wasn’t. Put this together with the long wait between games and there isn’t a game I’m actually looking forward to less than HotS.

    • Tickers says:

      The single player campaign was terrible – the dialogue was badly written, the plot confused and the characters inconsistent cliches.All the talk in the preview of the importance of the single player experience is stuff we heard about Wings of Liberty. Maybe Blizzard will pull it out of the bag with HotS, but my hopes aren’t high.

    • Bloodloss says:

      Story wise it wasn’t very good, but game-play wise I think it was a million times better than RA3.

    • Xocrates says:

      While WoL plot turned out fairly underwhelming, the single player campaign itself was hugely varied and well designed. And to be fair I don’t think the “choices” were ever meant to be seen as moral choices, just a way of adding some replayability for the campaign by adding alternatives to some of the missions (something they had already made in Brood War).

    • ShineDog says:

      While the mission design was fantastic and varied, I’ve never been so bored going through such a clearly well built campaign before, which ultimately comes down to the fact that Starcrafts combat is so abstract that it does absolutely nothing for me.

      I’ll take CoH and it’s fuzzy random aspects that ruin competitive play any day, because every fight in that game is exciting.

    • Nevard says:

      The storyline of SC2 was nothing to write home about, especially compared to the original.
      The gameplay was vastly superior to the original campaign and pretty much any other RTS singleplayer campaign I have ever played ever.
      And frankly, while an important one, when we are talking about games then story is still just a bonus.

    • Hatsworth says:

      “As far as Battle.net improvements, one primary focus will be on getting the StarCraft Marketplace up and running at some point around the launch of Heart of the Swarm.”

      God damnit. The last time they were asked about that they said plans had been all but cancelled IIRC.

  17. Bhazor says:

    Oh gods, this means theres going to be a separate campaign for the protoss. Sweet christ, a whole dozen hours of people who use destiny as a fucking comma and who speak like a pound shop meditation tape.

  18. Nameless1 says:

    Sc2 plot and narration were the most idiotic thing they could do.
    If I think It took them 10 years (I waited) to come out with that shit (sorry but It’s the most appropriate word) after the good basis they had with sc1 and especially broodwar, I wonder how incredibly dumb and unprofessional the person responsible for it must be.
    I won’t buy a sc game again, that’s for sure. Even if necessary for multiplayer

    • DainIronfoot says:

      Thing is, where would you have gone with the story after brood war? Zerg were in a position to kill everything, protoss were pretty much no longer a threat to anyone, the dominion was just.. there and most characters were dead.

      I’m not saying they went the right way with the plot, but I’m not sure you could really do the brood war zergkilleverything again.

    • Panzeh says:

      Yeah, I kind of sympathize where they came from, considering that Kerrigan and her wacky hijinks was pretty much Brood War’s entirety.

      That being said, this offering wasn’t all that great.

      Though I will say, the mission design for SC2 is much much better than SC1′s, and people who say otherwise are looking through rose-tinted glasses. At least SC2 doesn’t fall back on missions that could have come straight out of C&C1 in 1995, glorified skirmish maps.

  19. angramainyu says:

    I really enjoyed the WoL single-player campaign, playing through twice. I played a bit of multiplayer, but I’m just not so competitively-minded to find it a lasting draw.
    After hiatus, I fired it up last week, thinking I’d find some new single-players maps or try some new maps with co-op AI. Thanks to the stupid Battle.net sandbox, that seems to not so easily done, and my interest in the SC2 expansions has dropped to the point where it will have to have both glowing reviews and a low price point to get me to buy.

    • winterwolves says:

      Yep I agree, I play RTS mostly for campaign or local skirmish. Don’t have time for long multiplayer battles. A pity there are really few good singleplayer RTS… that’s why I still play COH.

  20. mcnostril says:

    What really amazes me is that in an entire team of hundreds of people, nobody thinks her ginormous ball of hair looks bloody stupid.

    There’s a profile shot in one of the cinematics where it looks like a toothless elderly worm is trying to absorb her cranium by gently suckling on it.

  21. alexmasterson says:

    It’s a bit odd that Kerrigan seems to be black now.

  22. rocketman71 says:

    Yeah. When BNet2.0 stops being mandatory, perhaps I’ll buy. Or when hell freezes over, whichever happens sooner.

    • Thants says:

      Battle.net 1.0 was mandatory for Starcraft 1, what’s the problem?

    • Vinraith says:

      Not for single player it wasn’t.

    • Thants says:

      There’s a “guest” mode that’s basically the same deal as Starcraft’s single player. It doesn’t have the cloud-saving or achievements, but neither did the first game.

    • Vinraith says:

      When did they introduce that? It used to be you had to create a battle.net account even to play SP, and had to log in at least once a month to continue to be able to play SP. Has that changed?

    • Thants says:

      Hmm, well now I’m not sure. I know that on my copy I can log-in as a guest and not use Battle.net, but I didn’t know about having to log-in each month.

  23. vodkarn says:

    I have to admit, I didn’t think SC2 was BAD, but after beating the single player, and playing a half dozen MP matches, I haven’t touched it. SP was just.. CardboardCutoutRaynor ruining every scene possible, and the MP felt… boring. What’s bizarre is it made me want to play the original. I just have absolutely no will to play more SC2, and the idea for paying 40-50 (canadian) for an expansion is laughable to me. I beat SC1 over the course of a week or so. SC2 took me a day and a half.

    I’ll pass thanks.

  24. Wooly says:

    Izsha for romance option +1!

  25. Highstorm says:

    “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.” I have trypophobia and this quote makes me queasy. I already can’t look at swarms of burrowed units in SC2 :S I hope they have a no-holes option.

  26. Vinraith says:

    It’ll be interesting to see how HotS does compared to Wings of Liberty, really. There seem to still be a number of folks who are irrate about Blizzard’s model for SC2 (for the record, I think so long as each piece contains a legitimately full length campaign, which they seem to, it’s perfectly fine), but there are bound to be a number of people like myself who just didn’t find much to love about SC2 and so likely won’t pick up any of the other installments.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it’ll sell quite well, I’m just curious how it will compare to the first SC2 release.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>