Care Again: Heart Of The Swarm Beta Coming ‘Very Soon’

By Nathan Grayson on August 16th, 2012 at 12:00 pm.

I'm pretty sure her hair is some new breed of zerg.

I like to imagine that creating an expansion for StarCraft is like disarming a multi-megaton bomb using live lobsters instead of wirecutters. One wrong move, and the whole thing will go sky-high. Also, you are constantly being attacked. By lobsters. Who, I guess, are the fans in this metaphor. I’m not really sure anymore. At any rate, StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm is just about to start making its final zerg rush toward the finish line, and it needs your help.

Blizzard, in traditionally vague fashion, outlined both when the beta’s dropping and what it will entail in a blog post.

“We are preparing to invite testers for the Heart of the Swarm beta very soon! To be clear, this test will be for the multiplayer experience only. We will begin with a select  group, including many players who assisted us in testing Patch 1.5, as well as some pro-gamers and press. Over time, we will add more and more testers into the mix.”

“If you are interested in participating in the beta test, please make sure you are opted in for beta testing. You can do this by clicking ‘Beta Profile Settings’ under the Account Management section of your Battle.net account. Note that the opt-in doesn’t guarantee entry, but gives you a chance at joining the beta test.”

Traditionally, Blizzard’s beta tests have erred on the side of “slow and steady wins the race,” and – especially with a balance this delicate – I imagine Heart of the Swarm’s will take a similar tact. So then, odds are, you’ll have plenty of chances to burrow in and vomit acid all over everyone you meet. And in the game. So prepare yourself. Go look in a mirror and ask “Is my APM high enough? Is it really?” (Example: for me, the answer is “No [falls to knees, looks up at the sky, and begins sobbing in the rain].”)

, , , .

96 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Mayjori says:

    meh, blizzard sucks now.

    • Skull says:

      Starcraft doesn’t

      • Premium User Badge

        Ninja Dodo says:

        @Mayjori: Posting in comments to announce you do not care about a thing is as much a waste of everyone’s time (including your own) as posting “first” or “in before X”…

        • Brise Bonbons says:

          I hope that it depends on how you do it. I often post about why I feel disinterested in something despite thinking I should in fact be interested; partially in hopes someone can change my mind (which does happen pretty often), and partially because I think it’s important to not have a comment thread populated entirely by people who feel one way about the topic in question.

          Simply saying “Blizz sucks gg nore” is clearly not helpful to anyone. Whereas a comment like “I don’t find this interesting, because I really want this other sort of RTS game that no one seems to be making right now” tells us something about the comment writer and the industry as a whole.

          Maybe I’m wrong, dunno.

          • Premium User Badge

            Ninja Dodo says:

            I think to a point it does depend. It should be possible to have a reasoned debate about both good and bad points of a game and a thread of “awesomes” and “wants” isn’t very interesting either, but simply posting “meh” or “this sucks” just lowers the tone to YouTube levels.

            And people also seem to use comment threads to argue about what a game isn’t rather than what it actually is, or as an excuse to rant about their pet hate…

      • Nameless1 says:

        Single player starcraft does. Not going to buy it.

        • HexagonalBolts says:

          What on earth are you talking about? They put a gigantic amount of effort into the single player campaign, which is even more impressive when considering how enormously popular the series is for its multiplayer. In fact the very reason starcraft 2 is coming out in three parts is so they can make an exceptionally huge campaign.

          • Rovac says:

            100% agree with you, sir
            I really love the single player. Aside from not able to compete with those click masters, I love how chessy the dialogue is. It’s feels like I’m in some 80s or 90s action movie but in space!!!
            I don’t know why lots of people hate it, to me it was a brilliant idea to move in that direction. The best single player campaign in RTS, I say. Most RTS didn’t even bother adding some drama to their game.
            (C&C no longer as good as it was before)

          • Dark Nexus says:

            If only they’d put more effort into the writing…. it was painfully bad at times, especially some of the dialogue.

            But man, the actual gameplay in the campaign more than made up for the writing.

          • Groove says:

            I agree, the writing was monstrous in (most) places but you can’t fault the actual missions. They were really characterful and varied, and actually useful learning tools at times.

          • PUKED says:

            Out of curiosity, was the writing in SC1 anywhere near as bad? I remember it being kind of entertainingly cheesy (rednecks in space!), and the opening cinematic kicked some legitimate ass.

            Nothing like “Drunk McWhiskey angsts endlessly about PROPHECIES”, at least, dear god. SC2 should have won awards for the sheer awfulness of its writing.

          • Starky says:

            Yes the writing in SC1 was as bad – worse even.

            But it was from a day when people were much more forgiving about really shitty plot and dialogue than they are today, and of course nostalgia been what it is people forget/forgive the bad and remember/dote on the good.

          • benkc says:

            I agree that the single-player campaign was plenty fun; what killed it for me was that there were all these neat achievements for hard-mode, but every time I got close to completing one, the Blizzard servers would crap out for a split second which invalidates the entire play session. Worse yet, when this happens, it just displays a small message in the bottom-left for a few seconds, which is easily missed if you’re busy juggling units at the time. I think I got to within 2 achievements of the hard-mode meta-achievement, but after doing each 5 or 6 times without getting credit, I quit SC2 in disgust and have never felt the need to go back to it.

            In summary: Always-on DRM killed my single-player experience.

        • glocks4interns says:

          SC2: WoL was an amazing single player RTS. I paid $60 for the game, only spent maybe 10 hours on MP and am very happy with my purchase.

        • Nevard says:

          I adored SCII’s campaign and I await the next with great anticipation.

        • Jenks says:

          Agreed, SC2 was an insult to anyone who enjoyed the campaigns of the original and Brood War.

          • Brise Bonbons says:

            I don’t know if that’s fair, but I couldn’t bring myself to play the campaign. I get extremely frustrated by the stacked nature of single player RTS missions; the other guys should be playing by the same damn rules I do, why do they get three bases and infinite units?

            But that is my problem, not the campaign’s. I think the campaign seemed quite good, from what little I played, even though I am not generally very fond of the design direction SC2 went in. I feel like the units are balanced too conservatively: In SC1 there were units with wildly disparate power levels – ridiculously powerful in some settings, and totally useless in others. In SC2 nothing really feels that dramatic and dynamic to me. Siege Tanks are the clearest specific example I can point to.

            Anyway, I think anyone critiquing the single player in SC2 needs to be really specific about what they dislike. It’s a solid enough experience you can’t just get away with shouting insults and walking away.

      • Sic says:

        Starcraft is the last bastion, for sure.

      • grenadeh says:

        Starcraft 2 definitely sucks. I don’t know anyone who has played since it came out. It’s just not Starcraft 1, and the people who zerg with 650 of their strongest unit 4 minutes into the game ruin it. It’s not a strategy game, the same as SC1 wasn’t – it’s just a rush game.

        • Brigand says:

          Hmm, I have a feeling you may be exaggerating just a smidgen. Those rush tactics are part of the game, as is learning to scout for them and defending them. Your focus on rush tactics as the source of the games downfall is slightly perplexing though, as they are only a relatively small part of it. I have an odd feeling that someone (not naming names or anything) may have suffered a string of emotionally damaging defeats that soured their experience of the game, leading them to a somewhat biased conclusion.

        • Nevard says:

          “It’s just not Starcraft I”, good! I’m glad to know I didn’t pay $60 for a game I already owned.

        • Milky1985 says:

          So all of the games in the tournment that is currently going on at gamescom, the games that are lasted around 20 minutes are not happening then?

          Yes there are rush tactics, they are the best way to punish a player for being too greedy (going for resources for a better late game), its not the whole game.

          Also there is no way you can have 650 of your bet units. the better units have a higher supply count, that and the max supply is 200 (although one of the zerg players in the tournment managed to hit 213 :P)

          Methinks sir/Madam might be talking out of their rectum on this occassion.

        • Premium User Badge

          Lamb Chop says:

          It’s only a rush game if you lose to early pressure. :)

        • Baines says:

          I can’t comment on the state of gameplay, but I can say that no one I know played it for long. It was like Diablo 3 in that regard. A lot of hype for a very short time, then apathy. Okay, “apathy” is slightly better than what Diablo 3 managed. People just forgot about Starcraft 2 existing, while they remember that Diablo 3 disappointed them.

          • Edradour says:

            Thank you for your opinion!

            You know how many people who play video games on a regular basis? 4? 5? maybe even 6?

            Sc2 Multiplayer is possibly the hardest multiplayer you can play right now, still in the last 2 weeks i played about 10 games of the mafia custom map with friends and even some 4v4’s

            I could say the same about DayZ, we started playing it as a group of 5 people, after a week noone played it anymore………

          • Starky says:

            More to the point I’d wager something like 90% of gamers for 90% of games buy a game, then stop playing it a few months later.

            My list of games I played for a few weeks/months then never picked up again is VASTLY longer than the games I keep going back too.

            Some I complete, most I don’t.

            Most communities 6 months on are a fraction of the total copies sold (I’d wager as low as 10% in most cases for anything with a single-player component – maybe 25% for online focused games.

    • Metalfish says:

      ‘meh’ – A signifier of disinterest. But you still cared enough to share your opinion with us. Thanks for that.

      I haven’t played any Blizzard games since Diablo 2, but I understand that starcraft and warcraft are still regarded as the pinnacles of their respective sub-genres by many. I’m not sure that counts as sucking.

      • Ultra Superior says:

        It does ’cause we say so.

        What is interesting though, amidst all these beloved companies and brands failing to please their fans
        (Bioware, Blizzard, C&C) There are some that steered to the right direction:

        – CD Projekt Red –
        – Square Enix –

        I can’t believe that I own and have preordered almost everything they publish. Guess where’s mr. Garett hiding!

        • grenadeh says:

          Wait what kind of crack did you smoke?

          Square enix? Is pleasing its fans?

          Are you…..aware……of the abysmal failures that were FF14, FF13, and FF13-2? Are you aware that Square BOUGHT supreme commander, not developed it, from a company founded by the maker of Total Annihilation, one of the few strategy game makes who knows what he’s doing?

          Are you aware of how low Deus Ex 3 is ranked? Another company they bought and aren’t doing a good job with.

          The one and only thing Square Enix has going for them is Tomb Raider. Give it time and they’ll screw up again next spring.

          • SRTie4k says:

            If anyone is smoking crack, I believe it’s you. Deus Ex Human Revolution has an aggregate score of 90 on Metacritic, and is listed on page 1 of the All-Time Best PC Games page.

            It was an absolutely fantastic game, and a worthy successor to the Deus Ex franchise (despite having been almost ruined by IW).

            I can’t comment on any of the FF games however, because I just don’t care about FF.

          • Ultra Superior says:

            What he said!

            I’ll just add Just Cause 2, Hitman:Absolution (gameplay looks pretty good), Sleeping Dogs etc.

            Right direction I’d say.

            Oh and BTW, Deus Ex HR is an excellent game and a worthy successor to DX1. I have played through DX1 eleven times and it’s my all time fav so, yeah, they did please some of their most hardcore fans, which is very hard thing to do, always.

          • Totally heterosexual says:

            Haha look at how stupid you are.

  2. Milky1985 says:

    Hope they don’t screw this up, got really into SC2 recently (currently listening to the IEM masters tourney stuff that is being streamed) and enjoying it.

    But blizz have been really really bad recently with some of there decisions so hope they don’t drag this game down as well :(

    Fingers crossed

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      Well, chances are they won’t (screw it up) simply because they know Starcraft was so popular. And they also know how Starcraft 2 was received so there’s little reason for them to change it up too much (and increase the chance to Get It Wrong).

  3. BobbyDylan says:

    Looking forward to the SP. Hopedully in time for christmas? 2013?

    • Hunchback says:

      Guess so, with the beta coming soon and all…

    • skittles says:

      Sounds about right, I seem to recall beta for the original stretching on for a very VERY loooonnngg time.

  4. deadly.by.design says:

    If this is another $60 game, then Starcraft II will cost approximately $180 by the time it’s finished.

    • Subatomic says:

      They already confirmed Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will be ‘expansion priced’.

      • FCA says:

        And it will require Wings of Liberty to be played. So basically: a real expansion pack. Also from the FAQ:
        “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.” Monetization woohoo!

      • kael13 says:

        I thought this too.. But isn’t the Panda ‘expansion’ priced at £30?

        £35, even. According to play.com. Bonkers.

      • Milky1985 says:

        They are selling the newest wow expansion at £30, so saying its expansion priced doesn’t really mean much any more.

      • deadly.by.design says:

        If it’s $30, then I’m fine with it. My cynical side says $40, though.

        SC2 really impressed me, but the decision to split it into three titles still isn’t as appealing as one + expansion.

    • Calneon says:

      And that’s for three games. I fail to see the problem…

    • JackShandy says:

      By that logic, how much does WoW cost now? 200?

      • deadly.by.design says:

        If you don’t count the cumulative cost of $15/mo, then you’re pretty close. It’s so very hard to not be cynical about Blizzard these days. You would’ve found me giving them the benefit of the doubt, pre-WoW, but I just can’t stomach the way they’re handling things lately.

        It’s like Old Blizzard made games, while New Blizzard tries to make self-sustaining cash cows. (subs, D3 design/auction house cuts, SC2 being spread out more like a business plan than a game)

        Like I said above, I actually enjoyed SC2. The 3-game split still rubs me the wrong way, though.

      • Grygus says:

        Hmm. Well, to start playing now in America would set you back about $40-$60, depending on whether you get the latest expansion on sale. But if you’ve been playing all along, never let your subscription lapse, and paid full price for non-collector’s editions of all four boxes, you’ve sent Blizzard something like $1,500 at this point.

    • grenadeh says:

      Do you expect different from Activision Blizzard? The pricing model for games is to charge as much money as frequently as possible, for as little actual value as possible. Has been for at least 8 years now.

  5. Premium User Badge

    Ninja Dodo says:

    Still want to play this (Starcraft 2) at some point, but I’ll probably wait till they have the whole set. Seems like Blizzard has lost its touch a bit with storytelling though. Since (and including) Warcraft 3 it seems they’re just running through the same patterns and cliches… I really liked the story in Starcraft 1 and Brood War, but maybe this is nostalgia talking.

    Does anyone else think Kerrigan was more interesting-looking in the original Starcraft? She just looks like kinda generic super model now. It’s like the art direction was “hot chick” rather than a more detailed/believable version of the same character.

    • Vorphalack says:

      Botox enhanced lips, a cute button nose and no discernible cheek bones are all part of her Zerg evolution. Because, you know, hot sexy Zerg sells computer games : |

    • Premium User Badge

      BubuIIC says:

      I have to say that I really like the WCIII story and also think it’s well told and avoids common cliches. I mean there is no simple good or bad in the whole game. Every faction sees to their own needs and these collide with those of others. And as you play each of them you get more insight in what their motivations are.

      • grenadeh says:

        You know half of the WC3 story is literally Star Wars right? It’s nothing but star wars and lotr and the hobbit combined. The story is halfway decent in 3, yes. The story was the good part – can’t say the same for the gameplay, espcially post-tft. Nothing original about it.

      • Premium User Badge

        Ninja Dodo says:

        Maybe I’m being too harsh but I distinctly remember thinking “I guess I don’t care about the story anymore” around the middle and it briefly recapturing my interest when they get to Illidan. So it wasn’t bad, but it was not inspired either.

        Starcraft felt more subtle to me. Like how [spoilers, if anyone still hasn’t played this] you felt as betrayed as Raynor and Kerrigan when Mengsk leaves her to die, and YOU the player feel guilt because as a Terran commander you couldn’t do more to help her and then as a Zerg commander you help turn her into a monster by protecting the chrysalis (which you don’t know the significance of until it hatches). It’s not like this is high literature or anything but the interplay between story and game worked in a way that I don’t think they’ve recaptured since.

        Then again, I’m playing some Diablo 2 right now and the writing is pretty atrocious so maybe it was a fluke.

    • PUKED says:

      Yeah, not thrilled with Kerrigan here either.

      In the original she looked legitimately creepy, now it’s like they gave their fattest modeler a week to make ~my alien waifu~

  6. Belua says:

    So, Diablo 3 was… well, let’s not talk about it. But the experience with it has not exactly improved my opinion of Blizzard, and has put me off StarCraft 2, which I haven’t played yet.
    I still like the sci-fi theme though, and while I didn’t play much of the first StarCraft, I remember liking it. So, can anyone tell me if StarCraft 2 is good or not?
    Keep in mind I do not usually play strategy games in multiplayer, so it would be only for single player and maybe tower defense (or other “different” mods / gameplay styles, if any exist).

    • Subatomic says:

      I’d say try the starter edition (read: demo), it’s free and includes some singe player missions and limited online/custom play. The game is fun enough in my opinion even if you have no interest in multiplayer, though the story is definetly a bit on the cheesy side. As usual for a Blizzard RTS, there are also tons of custom maps from tower defense to MOBAs to whatever map makers can think of.

    • NathanH says:

      The SP campaign of Starcraft 2 is good, every mission has you doing new and interesting things. The only downside is that, since almost all of the mission objectives are pretty unique, you sometimes get a craving for a traditional Craft mission where the enemy has a huge base that you have to destroy.

      • Milky1985 says:

        A couple of the missions you can just ignore the objectives and do that, it gives you feats of strengths for doing so (the terrazene collection mission and hte drill mission, you can destroy the enemy bases and it will insta win the mission for you)

    • kael13 says:

      Story’s a little cheesy but the voice acting, production values and general fun of the Single Player are top notch.

    • Belua says:

      Hm, sounds okay. Now, if only the price had dropped at least a bit in the two years it’s been out, I’d be sold. I’m just not sure if I want to pay full price for a game that I’ll probably play once in singleplayer and after that at most 2-3 times a year at a LAN party. Especially if I can just wait it out and get the inevitable, cheaper bundle with the expansion (or both expansions, depending on how long I wait).

      • Xocrates says:

        It did actually. Price went from 60€ to 40€ in the EU (and I assume equivalent discount in other areas) at the start of the year.

        Of course, it’s still the cost of a near full price game two years after launch, and you can probably expect it to stay that way a couple years more.

        • Belua says:

          I live in the EU (Germany, to be exact) and I’m pretty sure I saw the game for 40 Euros right from the beginning, and that’s what I’m referring to as “full price”. If that’s wrong, I’m sorry – I’m just stupid :)

          Anyway, compared to other games, I find 40 Euros to still be a relatively high price after 2 years. And, as I’ve said before, there will inevitably be some sort of bundle, gold/silver/crap edition for probably the same price or only slightly more sooner or later. So either way, I’m going to wait a bit. Maybe when the next LAN approaches, I’ll change my mind.

      • Rao Dao Zao says:

        Hahaha, LAN play…! Battle.Net only, sunshine.

        I’ve played the campaign a couple of times and it’s mildly amusing but ultimately hollow.

        • Belua says:

          There usually is such a thing as an internet connection even when we gather for a LAN, so I see no problem there ;)

          • Milky1985 says:

            Yeah theres no problem with getting lag to the person sitting next to you because you are both using US accounts at a EU location :P

          • Belua says:

            Well, of course it’s ridiculous having to use an internet connection when playing with a person next to you. You’re right, you could very well call that a problem.
            That said, we have played our share of COD matches without experiencing noticable lag, and if it works for a shooter, it should work with an RTS. Also, while I don’t have the game, it wouldn’t be the first time the others played it together.
            The only game we experienced lag with was during our Diablo 3 sessions (in the first few weeks, before all of us got tired of the game and moved on). But in Diablo, you even have lag in “singleplayer”, so that’s a whole other story.

          • Milky1985 says:

            I’m confused as to what the hell the fact that you played cod without lag has to do with my point. If your playing cod with your mates at the lan, the host will be one of your mates… at the lan.

            So you will effectivly be playing LAN mode, this does not happen with SC2 since its hosted differently ( i believe the hosting is done by blizzard)

          • Belua says:

            Maybe I worded it badly but I was referring to Modern Warfare 2, which, as far as I know, also is online only with IWNet or whatever it’s called (unless it has some implied LAN mode?). And even if not, most of the time we were on an online server because some guys couldn’t come. Point is: even when playing via online connection with ~10 dudes, we had no more trouble with lag than we’d have with a real LAN mode.

          • mittortz says:

            @Belua
            You are correct, as long as you have a decent internet connection, you’ll be fine.

            SC2 is an excellent experience and I wholly recommend it as long as you’re willing to do a little work in the beginning to improve. The multiplayer is pretty cut-throat, but the match-making system in battle.net 2.0 is good enough to make a majority of your matches seem fair.

            If you do end up getting it, then welcome!

        • Moraven says:

          They are adding in the HotS patch better network routing for people on LANs (might not get rid of it happening, but will reduce it greatly.) The problem with no LAN is you get events like MLG and IEM and hundreds of computers online and playing along with needing the ability to stream. If it was LAN all the bandwidth needed is to stream along with no having to worrying about all those computers being secure and connected to the internet.

          MLG got crippled by this when SC2 got bigger until they added satellite trucks outside to be their lifeline for their stream.

          Also, Resume from Replay in HotS!

        • Premium User Badge

          BubuIIC says:

          Last time I checked there was a perfectly working LAN-‘let’s call it mod’ for SC2 but this might have changed with later patches. Essentially it emulates a Battle.net server on your local machine.
          It took over a year before it got usable though…

  7. kael13 says:

    I’ve recently come back to playing Starcraft 2 (never really stopped watching it) and I must say the added polish of patch 1.5 including performance and UI improvements have made it a fun experience again.

    • Stochastic says:

      I haven’t tried it yet. Did they finally address the horrible sluggishness of the menus?

      • Milky1985 says:

        A bit, it does actually take longer to log in now as it seems to do some extra authentification that slows it down a bit, menus are quicker but imo the text on the buttons at the top seems wrong.

        And the new interface is a bit confusing as well, even the pro players/casters were having issues when the patch was out because thigns behaving differently depending on what part of the system you are in.

  8. Premium User Badge

    lowprices says:

    Is that Mr. Grayson’s first “and in the game” joke? If it is, then congratulations! You truly are part of RPS now.

    If not, please disregard this and get back to work.

  9. Stochastic says:

    I sadly have very little interest in playing this. I’ll wait to see how the new units play in action before passing judgement, but from what I’ve seen so far they don’t really inspire me. Really, what SC2 needs more than anything else is a change to the clumping AI. That would probably wake me up from my apathetic stupor more than any superficial change or new unit.

  10. HisMastersVoice says:

    It’s weird how SC2 totally failed to reignite my interest in the franchise that I used to love back in the Brood Wars days. Weak SP aside (not that SC ever had good SP, or story for the matter), the online experience turned out to be nothing more than what I played almost 15 years ago.

    I tried to get excited about SC2, but failed. Then I tried the same with HotS, and failed again. And then D3 happened and smashed what was left of my good will towards Blizzard.

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      … Have you ever played a strategy game with a better story? Stories and strategy games really don’t mix. (Homeworld: Kill the baddies!, CoH: Kill the baddies! DoW: Kill the baddies! AoE: Kill the baddies!)

      • NathanH says:

        Outpost 2: Divided Destiny has a good story.

      • HisMastersVoice says:

        It doesn’t matter if another RTS has a better story. It’s just that Blizz seems to make a big deal out of SC having any story at all – a story that’s not very good.

      • Brigand says:

        Myth 1 and 2? Although that may have been down to the soldier’s journal as the means of storytelling.

      • alundra says:

        Warcraft had an excellent story, Starcraft had an excellent story.

        (*******spoilers below***********)

        Starcraft 2, the writing was so weak you could see right through the end, the son of arcturus seemingly possessed by the xel naga…kerrigan bringing the zerg to fight for the bright side of the force…and the way they ruined zeratul….

        Don’t even try going there, Blizzard magic is gone, wait, you are right, it’s story telling is now generic at most.

        • Milky1985 says:

          I think i need to reply SC2 cause I don’t remember that story at all :/

          • Starky says:

            Seconded, literally not a word of what he said happened in the game.

      • arccos says:

        I always thought Homeworld 1 actually had a pretty great story.

      • Brise Bonbons says:

        Does Crusader Kings 2 count? Because the story of my crazy duchess – she who killed her first born son’s first born in order that her favorite son inherit most of England – was by far the best story I’ve ever experienced in a strategy game to date.

        Or are we only counting silly linear stories that some writer made for us, with voice acting and that sort of nonsense?

  11. MadTinkerer says:

    “To be clear, this test will be for the multiplayer experience only.”

    My first reaction was “nah, I’m one of those weirdos who plays Starcraft for single-player missions and mods.” But then I realized if I made it my goal to be on the bottom rank, it’s totally doable! So I might join in.

  12. zestybrick says:

    Wings of Liberty had to be one of the worst purchases I’ve ever made. The single player wasn’t interesting at all and I’m just too bad at the multiplayer to enjoy it.

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      I got my money’s worth out of it, but I tried to get my group of gamer friends into playing it (seemed it would be fun to have silly free-for-all matches where we all nuked each other), and they all bounced off it and abandoned the game immediately. Out of our group of 5, I don’t think anyone got more than a few missions into the SP, and I’m the only one that played a substantial number of MP games.

      It’s a small sample size, but those aren’t very good result any way you slice them.

  13. Oasx says:

    Can someone explain to me what was wrong with Diablo 3? I thought it was fun and better than Diablo 2. But i am also not one of those hardcore players who plays on Super Nightmare Inferno mode and spend hours trying to beat a minor boss for some slightly better loot.

    • mittortz says:

      That’s basically how it works. I loved it too, got a solid 80 hrs or so out of Diablo III before I stopped playing regularly, and I would still go back just to start up a new character class and get drunk with a couple friends. It’s a ton of fun, if you’re a normal person.

      It’s the people who expected to spend $60 and get the rest of their life in a box that are unhappy. And it has gotten to the point where I hate to read any of the comments on articles about ANY blizzard game because it’s just a swarm of little no-life whiny pricks in serious need of a reality check.

      On topic: I’m really excited for HotS. If you’re new to SC2, try the starter edition for free. The single-player campaign isn’t revolutionary writing-wise, but it’s great fun if you’re looking for casual RTS gameplay. For hardcore RTS players, the multiplayer is AMAZING. I was shocked to find how much I’ve played at this point (the game client tells me it’s been 1500 games, or around 375 hrs since release). That’s the most I’ve played of any game in my life, and I’m still only around 65th percentile in terms of skill. It was discouraging in the beginning, but the beauty of the game is in the community. TeamLiquid and r/starcraft have tons of content to help new players get better. If you have an interest and don’t mind a challenge, SC2 is one of the most rewarding experiences $60 can buy.

      • GreatWizard says:

        I agree completely.
        It seems that every Blizzard related post is now attacked by hordes of haters, even though most of my friends and acquaintances (facebook, work etc) love all their games. Seems like you can’t avoid hordes of vocal haters it if you’re popular enough.

        I also find the”cash cow” complaints to be total rubbish. As if Blizzard is selling horse armor DLC, or a 1 area 10 hour expansions for 20$. The amount of Content that HoS has is similar to a full-blown game, unlike all the 20 or 30$ expansions by most companies. (Gods and Kings, and Dawnguard for two examples)