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?
- Member Since: December 30, 2004
- Posts: 258
- Member Since: March 24, 2006
- Posts: 537
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.
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.
- Member Since: February 12, 2008
- Posts: 3
- Member Since: August 15, 2006
- Posts: 213
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.
- Member Since: September 12, 2004
- Posts: 8129
- Member Since: September 12, 2004
- Posts: 8129
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.
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
[QUOTE="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.
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.
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 :(
- Member Since: December 30, 2005
- Posts: 1920
- Member Since: February 9, 2006
- Posts: 86
- Member Since: March 29, 2006
- Posts: 404
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.
- Member Since: July 17, 2003
- Posts: 2961