Worth getting for single-player?

#1 Posted by GeneralMufinMan (368 posts) -

So long story short, is it worth getting if you're not interested in the multiplayer? ie just the campaign, some computer skirmishes and the occasional match with friends?

#2 Posted by neobita (258 posts) -
I finished it in 3 days, and I have got to say that the cgi, the storyline and the gameplay for single player is to die for. I mean, just think about it, an instant morphing overlord? 3 zergling in one egg? a team of swarm host that could tunnel through every base you have in the game? man..
#3 Posted by davidsworld3 (2974 posts) -

That tells us nothing or very little what the campaign is, how long an avverage play through, whether the new units are neccessary or what the improvements are...do not go by poster above...

#4 Posted by theaznfish (537 posts) -

The CGI cinematics are pretty good, however, there still is an element of Warcraft in the storyline which kind of makes the taste a bit bitter.  The campaign is approximately 20 missions- not including "side missions" where you do mini-tutorial missions to upgrade particular units and choose to give them one of two strains (ex. ultralisk > torresque (ressurection power) or toxic mutation) which take 5 minutes each.  Each main mission (depending on which difficulty you select) should take 20-40 minutes.  

The storyline itself is set at the pace of the 1st game, but there were some... "wtf" moments in how the story progresses.  Particular enemies/rivals you defeat in this game, who seemed to be so elusive or unbeatable in previous games are gimmickly beaten.  That being said, the missions themselves do have more of a storyline line focus and less of a "new unit introduction" storyline like WoL did.   As you know this is the 2nd game of 3, so when you progress through the storyline, some new entities are introduced.  Some make you go "WHOA! this is AWESOME!" and some make you go "huh? what? wtf blizzard... *facepalm*"  

One thing that really stands out is how units in the single player campaign are completely different from multiplayer (not just in lieu of the mutations you gather in game).  Most of the units are modified in one way or another (ex. infestors have an ability to permenantly control enemy units or how HP of most units are either higher or lower than they normally would be).  I can only guess that Blizzard decided that there's no real point in trying to "balance" single player as long as the enemies were strong enough to push you back or contain you.  On the plus side, the story does explain which choices in WoL are cannon [ex. did you help Nova or Tosh].  

Overall, if you're just in it for the single player, it's probably worth the buy but the game will only take 2-3 days to beat (leisurely) at most.  2-3 days for $60 bucks... it's a toss up.

#5 Posted by davidsworld3 (2974 posts) -

Thats a very good way of explaining it for me and I thank you because I might actually end up really enjoying this game once I get my email problem figured out. My main gripe is the need for having online access which bugs me. Oha nd it's just 40 bucks so not as bad as I thought, then again it is an expansion but I beleive 30 bucks would have been more fair.

#6 Posted by Caissas_Angel (3 posts) -
Davidsworld3 you need online for the achievements, and obviously multiplayer, but you can still play single player (campaign or against the computer) without a net connection after the first time. Going by this board, the campaign difficulty is a bit lower than WOL, but still reasonably tough for people who aren't RTS experts. Heroes are much better used in this campaign, with Kerrigan being an extension of the Warcraft 3 hero model - she gains experience throughout the campaign (bonus objectives give Kerrigan levels), and those levels impact abilities. Those abilities range from activatable damage dealers, like Kinetic Blast (essentially a Yamato Cannon with a cool down rather than an energy cost) to passive things like the automated refineries. Units still get upgrades as well, and a permanent evolution. Sometimes, the permanet evolution is a permanent modification (such as zerglings being either morphed instantly 3 to an egg, or getting better damage and cliffjumping powers), and othertimes it allows an evolution (Hydralisks can become either lurkers from Brood War, or Impalers which target single enemies for massive damage). The mission types seem generally similar to WOL, in that most of the missions have some kind of timer because you're trying to do something before the enemy does it, or kill certain units before the enemy reaches their goal, etc. The story progresses at a similar pace, but there's no branching missions this time - you will end up doing everything, though the order varies. This means dialogue varies since you may or may not have certain characters at a certain time. Blizzard seem to have accomodated for every possible scenario, including doing several versions of the FMVs based on characters' appearances or presence in certain scenes. If you liked WOL's campaign, there's every reason to think you'd like this one. But if not...it's unlikely to change your mind.
#7 Posted by PipeBigboss (213 posts) -

If you are a fan yes, but the story is a bit weird and isn't that good. For a single player the campaign is nice (missions) story isn't that good, sadly they are focusing the game into the esports thing

#8 Posted by davidsworld3 (2974 posts) -

Man what a bummer I would think they would have made a very compelling and epic campaign for the zerg! Damnit I better just stop while I got the chance i"m just done with this game series. I'll have to buy the old star craft games again and just play them instead, I dont care for what they are doing with it now.

Thanks for the feedback.

#9 Posted by GeneralMufinMan (368 posts) -

Bleh, yeah I'm out too. How starcraft was ever called the best RTS series I'll never really get. Thanks for the feedback guys.

#10 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -
Well, let me put it this way. It's par for the course with Blizzard. If you care about story and character development and continuity. . it's not worth it. If you want flash in the pan action. . eh. . I'd just go back and play Wings of Liberty and listen to Raynor's speech over and over for an hour. If you just want to fight AI and get some sort of background as to why you go from point A to point B, blow up enemy 1 and enemy 2. . yeah, why not. Really, you'd be better off saying you're buying it for the multiplayer.
#11 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

Bleh, yeah I'm out too. How starcraft was ever called the best RTS series I'll never really get. Thanks for the feedback guys.

GeneralMufinMan
It's amazing for the same reason Call of Duty is considered amazing. They're easy to get into and make you feel accomplished. And their fast. Also, the cinematics and graphics were really fantastic for the time. And they had all these little things like clicking on animals and causing them to explode or clicking on a unit and listening to the goofy stuff they say But. . honestly, I always preferred Command and Conquer for Story and Total Annihilation for gameplay.
#12 Posted by GeneralMufinMan (368 posts) -

[QUOTE="GeneralMufinMan"]

Bleh, yeah I'm out too. How starcraft was ever called the best RTS series I'll never really get. Thanks for the feedback guys.

AncientDozer

It's amazing for the same reason Call of Duty is considered amazing. They're easy to get into and make you feel accomplished. And their fast. Also, the cinematics and graphics were really fantastic for the time. And they had all these little things like clicking on animals and causing them to explode or clicking on a unit and listening to the goofy stuff they say But. . honestly, I always preferred Command and Conquer for Story and Total Annihilation for gameplay.

Good point, being a long-time strategy nerd I always assumed fellow strategy aficionados would be into slow-paced large-scale games rather then this <100 unit 10-min games of starcraft. Shame that just like CoD is ruining all other FPS's Starcraft is ruining all other RTS's :(

#13 Posted by Vambran (1920 posts) -

Yes it is worth it. They just don't make expansions like this anymore.

#14 Posted by KevenE (86 posts) -

Yes it is worth it. They just don't make expansions like this anymore.

Vambran

actually they just did:P

#15 Posted by Gundamned_Wing (404 posts) -

I've played through the campaign twice.
Brutal in HotS would be easy for someone moderatley experienced at RTS games.

The campaign is short, the missions have stupid objectives that feel like chores, the voice acting is cringe worthy, and the storyline is convoluted and boring. (I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest these are facts)

Prophecy? What a joke.

All in all you won't get much bang for your buck unless you play the multiplayer, which is the main empthasis of SC2, not the lame campaign. Go play SC1/Broodwar if you haven't already, those campaigns are better in every way.

#16 Edited by GIF (2961 posts) -

I highly recommend this game just to play skirmish games. Play with the Swarm Mod on any map or play the specific Swarm Maps and create an offline skirmish game.

#17 Posted by davidsworld3 (2974 posts) -

General you and me are on the same page with this. I haven't played star craft seriously in years.