Game News Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm shows exactly where all that WoW money went into

[laclongquan]

It's "Warp!" not "Erp!", you dingus.

It's not worth the full "Derp!" utterance. That's how bad WH40K is.

 

[Konjad]

At least it shows the current balance of sc2. Zerg op, viking suck shit in both air and on ground, tank damage is laughable and zerg can just a-move through sieged terran position.
And of course the human master-race gets the least new toys to play with.

zerg op? I dunno what changed since last time I played, but I always played terrans in team dm, if there were 3 terrans on one side (and one or less on the other) it usually was a quick win (well, protoss could still screw us over sometimes).

Though 1v1 as zerg in silver league was banal shit boring, gold league was more difficult and more balanced (to my skill) and people there actually knew how to play, so I think races were quite balanced and defeats were more of player's lack of planning.

 

[Irenaeus]

I was impressed with WC3's cutscenes at the time, to me they were majestic. However, when SC2 arrived, it just wasn't the same thing. It doesn't help the campaign story was banal and infantile (at least for the first seven scenarios or so, before I abandoned the whole thing). My brother played the campaign till the end and every time I squinted to look, it seemed more and more uninteresting.

Never played the MP seriously after being disappointed with the campaign, it could still be awesome. Though that's not what I heard here and there in the internet.

 

[DeepOcean]

I tried to like SC2 but the single-player is dissapointing ( it wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't decided to do 3 games instead of one), there are some really good missions (that mission where you have to defend from the zerg at night and attack at morning is awesome) but most missions are the typical RTS stuff, sometimes with a little gimmick, and the story is incredible stupid, on SC 1 the story was about the humans and Protoss trying to survive and the zerg raping everything, in SC 2 the story is about saving Kerrigan with an artifact that the writer took from his ass. The guy who wrote the SC 1 manual, and SC 1story is the same who wrote SC 2 story? If it is, something really bad happened with him.

 

[Zed]

At least it shows the current balance of sc2. Zerg op, viking suck shit in both air and on ground, tank damage is laughable and zerg can just a-move through sieged terran position.
And of course the human master-race gets the least new toys to play with.

yup. I used to watch a lot of SC2 stuff like GSL, but now it's boring to watch because of Zerg. Even if it wasn't for Infestors being broken, it would still be boring to watch because of Zerg. zerglings, roach, hydra, broodlords... all a-move units.

 

[Spectacle]

Does anybody still actually care about Starcraft?

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

DeepOcean, Well Chris Metzen has still holds a leading position at Blizzard I think, however I believe the main person responsible for lore and art direction now is the panda-obsessed furrytard Samwise Dider.

 

[aris]

I tried to like SC2 but the single-player is dissapointing ( it wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't decided to do 3 games instead of one), there are some really good missions (that mission where you have to defend from the zerg at night and attack at morning is awesome) but most missions are the typical RTS stuff, sometimes with a little gimmick, and the story is incredible stupid, on SC 1 the story was about the humans and Protoss trying to survive and the zerg raping everything, in SC 2 the story is about saving Kerrigan with an artifact that the writer took from his ass. The guy who wrote the SC 1 manual, and SC 1story is the same who wrote SC 2 story? If it is, something really bad happened with him.

Well. SC2 isn't actually made for it's story. It was made to be an e-sport game. That said, SC2s was one of the best story outings they've had in a long while: They went for a straight up action film story, and they did that well. Compare that to Diablo 3 with it's childish stupid story, with over-expository dialogs and stupid cartoony villains informing you at every turn what their next move was and that even though you stopped x y and z, you're certainly not going to stop w! Or WC3s story which was almost equally stupid, and with annoying characters I hated with a passion, such as the warden, or the moon priestess. Not saying that it had a fantastic story, but at least it achieved what it set out to do.

 

[Irenaeus]

(...) SC2s was one of the best story outings they've had in a long while. (...) Or WC3s story which was almost equally stupid, and with annoying characters I hated with a passion, such as the warden, or the moon priestess. (...)

 

[DeepOcean]

SC2 isn't actually made for it's story. It was made to be an e-sport game. That said, SC2s was one of the best story outings they've had in a long while: They went for a straight up action film story, and they did that well. Compare that to Diablo 3 with it's childish stupid story, with over-expository dialogs and stupid cartoony villains informing you at every turn what their next move was and that even though you stopped x y and z, you're certainly not going to stop w! Or WC3s story which was almost equally stupid, and with annoying characters I hated with a passion, such as the warden, or the moon priestess. Not saying that it had a fantastic story, but at least it achieved what it set out to do.

Well, I could say that SC 2 has a less shitty story than Diablo 3 (almost anything can have a less shitty story than Diablo 3), and SC2 is an e-sport game, I know, but they are going to make 3 games and the official excuse was that they had an amazing story to tell and one game wasn't enough (Maybe the story in Heart of the Swarm is better? I don't know.) and SC 1 was an e-sport game too and had a decent story ( It wasn't Oscar winning stuff, but worked). Every time I buy a RTS game, I play first the single-player then I play multiplayer ( on Starcraft 2 I played the full demo version first because I wasn't sure if the game was good) after playing it isn't shitty but I felt unimpressed I had a huge feeling of 'meh' and man , if you are going to make a shitty story it is better to don't do one. I would be completely happy if they decided to make the sigle player a serie of skirmish scenarios with no story, every time a mission ended I couldn't stand those douchebags on the Raynor ship.

 

[aris]

I know, but they are going to make 3 games and the official excuse was that they had an amazing story to tell and one game wasn't enough

That's a pretty good point. Though note that SC2 is the only game here, with two upcoming expansions continuing the story from the viewpoint of zerg and protoss. Not three games.

 

[evdk]

That's a pretty good point. Though note that SC2 is the only game here, with two upcoming expansions continuing the story from the viewpoint of zerg and protoss. Not three games.

That's certainly the line Blizzard's PR is pushing hard.

 

[aris]

That's a pretty good point. Though note that SC2 is the only game here, with two upcoming expansions continuing the story from the viewpoint of zerg and protoss. Not three games.

That's certainly the line Blizzard's PR is pushing hard.

Well, you can't really say that it's "three different games", when it has a) the content of an expansion and b) is priced like an expansion.

 

[Trash]

I enjoyed SCII's story for the pulp it was. Basically because expecting much from the story is retarded since the story has been a parody since day one. Not to mention that the lore for each and every game they've made has been gleefully retarded. The only thing really standing out has always been the quality of their CGI. They've been better at that in the past. Much better.

SCII was fun for the campaign, the pulpy story, the side-missions, the stuff going on at the ship and the whole extensive polish that came off of it. I'm looking forward to this expansion.

 

[evdk]

My problem with SC2 story is that it feels to me like they started to buy into their own bullshit and forgot that it was all a parody in the beginning (incidentally the same problem W40k has) and then proceeded to create an overblown grimdark mess. But hey, at least it was a well polished mess, I guess.

 

[Irenaeus]

I haven't played much of SC because back then I was an Age of Empires fanatic and I didn't play much of Diablo due recognizing its popemole soul even then. So my first contact with Blizzard was with WC3, whose story I thought it was rather well executed, even with the cliched parts. I wasn't aware that WC story and lore was retarded since day one, I thought that was only true about WoW, which I never played also. So, when I was faced with SC2 without much information, I was ultimately disgusted with a campaign aimed for kids without even tongue-in-cheek qualities. And then the cinematics, while decent, failed to impress me. Guess I should have learned from the abomination that was the AoE3 campaign and focused on skirmishes from the start.

 

[EruDaan]

Not saying that it had a fantastic story, but at least it achieved what it set out to do.

That's like saying that the new car I buyed and which is made of cardbox with wooden wheels coloured and painied to look like a real car is actually good, because it's a car and the company who made it has achieved their goal... to build and sell a car.

 

[aris]

Not saying that it had a fantastic story, but at least it achieved what it set out to do.

That's like saying that the new car I buyed and which is made of cardbox with wooden wheels coloured and painied to look like a real car is actually good, because it's a car and the company who made it has achieved their goal... to build and sell a car.

Generally, yes. But not in this case. They set out to make a generic action film plot, that succeeded at it, it's exactly what I expected going into the story, and I thought it was good for that. That's what I meant. You don't go to Jean Claude Van Damme movies for deep philosophical musings, do you?

 

[EruDaan]

That might be true... but I wouldn't complain either. But it's imho a little bit too cheap to say "if you don't like, don't buy it"? What is it that prevents game/music/movie producers of putting some deeper meaning into their works? The fear that instead of selling 2 million copies they only might sell 1 million?

 

[aris]

But it's imho a little bit too cheap to say "if you don't like, don't buy it"?

I think that's entirely fair, that's what nice products are for. Though sc2 isn't exactly a niche product (though in a way, it also is). Not everything needs a deeper meaning. A chair is a chair, and is designed for sitting. It doesn't need to function like anything else.

 

[DeepOcean]

But it's imho a little bit too cheap to say "if you don't like, don't buy it"?

I think that's entirely fair, that's what nice products are for. Though sc2 isn't exactly a niche product (though in a way, it also is). Not everything needs a deeper meaning. A chair is a chair, and is designed for sitting. It doesn't need to function like anything else.

If they had decided to do SC2 without story (maybe only a small text explaining what is going on before each mission), I could agree with you, the problem is that they made a weak and cliche story and to me a shitty story is like I'm buyng a chair with metal spikes on it, tecnichally I could sit on it , but it would be an uncomfortable experience. They do shitty stories but don't know about it (There are alot of expensive cutscenes on SC2, if they didn't care about the story, why waste money making them? Most people is going to play only multiplayer anyway.).

 

[EruDaan]

But it's imho a little bit too cheap to say "if you don't like, don't buy it"?

I think that's entirely fair, that's what nice products are for. Though sc2 isn't exactly a niche product (though in a way, it also is). Not everything needs a deeper meaning. A chair is a chair, and is designed for sitting. It doesn't need to function like anything else.

Yeees... but I'd rather sit in a comfy chair and not on some wooden contraption.

 

[aris]

I get the feeling that my analogy didn't quite get across. What I meant was, that when the purpose of making SC2 was to make an e-sport game, something that it succeeds in very well, so well in fact that it has pretty much has taken over as the esport in south korea - a feat not to be taken lightly. When that is the purpose, it doesn't need to also have a good story. That would be nice gravy, but it's not the point of the game.

 

[Irenaeus]

Yeah, as I said earlier, I should have gone directly to the skirmishes. However, differently from you, I liked the WC3 story, ignored the WoW phenomena, so I expected something nice from Blizzard. Call me out of touch.

 

[aris]

I wouldn't call you out of touch, since I've ignored the entirety of WoW too. I would call you weird for liking the WC3 story though, but each to his taste.

 

[Irenaeus]

I would call you weird for liking the WC3 story though, but each to his taste.

I liked the Demons and Ilidan arcs. Prince Arthas early stuff, not so much, only in Frozen Throne. De gustibus non est disputandum, I guess.