Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm

[Angrist]

Is anyone else excited about the second chapter (or expansion) of Starcraft 2??

View the trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG_3R9BoVvg
BlizzCon is being held now and they're revealing lots of new stuff. :D Like new units for the 3 races.

[Bube]

Hmm, I'm guessing there's not much interest in SC2 here :(

I'm pretty excited about the exp, but I really don't want new multiplayer units - I'm already having a hard time with what is currently available :D

[Professor S]

I enjoyed the quality of SC2, but in my opinion the game has changed for strategy games. Like in 3 rd person shooters, I have a hard time investing a lot of time in a game that doesn't include a cover system. Without it, I feel like I'm playing Math: The Game.

[Angrist]

So what do you miss in SC2? Because at first I was afraid SC2 would be too much like SC1... but now I realize it's close to perfect. Adding more stuff to the multiplayer would break the game severely.

That doesn't mean that the single player campaign doesn't contain lots of fun stuff. :)

[Professor S]

So what do you miss in SC2?

1) Destructible environments
2) Truly persistent unit customization in the campaign.
3) A cover system based on the environment. Why in the world can't you use building to fire from cover and height, or use a boulder or burned out vehicle for protection?

SC2 is a good game, but it is the perfected version of SC, and not truly an advancement in RTS gameplay. IMO, Company of Heroes and Dawn of War are 1 - 2 generations beyond SC.

[Angrist]

So what you're looking for is realism. It's just not something SC wants to do. SC2 is going for competition and balance.

[Professor S]

So what you're looking for is realism. It's just not something SC wants to do. SC2 is going for competition and balance.

And not being able to achieve competition and balance using next level strategy and gameplay that other developers have been using for a decade is a failure of imagination.

[Angrist]

Again: it's not what they're going for. They stick to what they do best and I don't mind.

[Professor S]

Again: it's not what they're going for. They stick to what they do best and I don't mind.

Ok, you don't mind, but you asked ME what I didn't like about SC2 and I told you. What Blizzard was "going for" is irrelevant to me. If you "go for" for mediocre game play and strategy (IMO), you'll hit it pretty easily. CoH and DoW (mde by Relic) have left SC in the dust, IMO.

Let me add another glaring problem: Even the storyline was driven by a point and click interface that was straight out of 1990's Wing Commander games.

The entire experience of SC2 was more of an homage to how games used to be, but with exceptional presentation. Still a good game, but not worth repeated plays or on-line participation IMO.

[Angrist]

I know it's your opinion, but mediocre game play and strategy? :confused:

[Professor S]

I know it's your opinion, but mediocre game play and strategy? :confused:

Yes, for the reasons I illustrated. Let me explain my opinion this way:

At one point in time regular cell phones were the best thing ever invented. Then Apple invented the iPhone and the game changed forever. Meanwhile, Samsung decides to create the most perfect old-school cell phone ever made, but I'm still not going to go buy it because a lousy smart phone is still better than a perfect cell phone.

SC2 is perfect for what it is, but what it perfects I no longer care about. I have moved on the further generations of RTS game play that Blizzard has simply refused to acknowledge. True, they have sold millions of copies of old tech that many people still think is the greatest thing ever... just not me.

Still enjoyed the experience, but once I beat it I was done and underwhelmed considering the hype.

[Angrist]

What you mention has nothing to do with gameplay or strategy.

Gameplay is not defined by technological possibilities. This is demonstrated by millions of people who still think the first Marios have better gameplay than the newer games, even though Super Mario Galaxy has advanced the series a lot.

Do you think chess has mediocre strategy? I don't play it myself, but when I see people of all ages breaking their head over it, I assume it's not mediocre. It's timeless.

Yes, there are strategy games that offer a cover system, destructable environments, etc. If you value those options more than the refinement of SC2, then that's fine. ^_^

Anyway, thanks for explaining. :)