StarCraft II

[Ingmar]

Startlingly few of you showing up on my SC2 friends list playing this.

[Trippy]

I don't remember SC2's plot at all. I think I need to replay it for HOTS.

Boy meets girl, boy loses girl (SC + BW). Boy gets girl back (SC II).

[Miasma]

I thought there would be more posts here.  Don't know if it's because the game is so engrossing they are too busy playing or if fewer people bought it than I would have expected.

[Phildo]

The game is pretty tight, I've got no complaints so far aside from wondering if my actions in the first game actually had an impact.

[calapine]

Can they have a difference?

I mean you'd have to reload a savegame for that, no?

[Ragnoros]

Startlingly few of you showing up on my SC2 friends list playing this.

I thought there would be more posts here.  Don't know if it's because the game is so engrossing they are too busy playing or if fewer people bought it than I would have expected.

Blizzard has lost their no fail status. First game of theirs I am not purchasing (if you don't count MoP). The promise of a thriving custom map community never appeared, and while the single player is fun, I can get more fun out of my 40 bucks elsewhere--Steam sales ho!

[Megrim]

Yea, I'm not picking this up. The story has never been more than filler to me, and the current iteration of multiplayer has too many things wrong with it for me to want to sink time, effort and money into it.

[rk47]

Playing RTS for the story is a little bit 'weird' territory in modern games for me.
I still cannot remember the last time i cared about the story in modern RTS.
There was Westwood with Dune 2, Command & Conquer - but EA killed it off eventually.
Starcraft was decent attempt. Memorable marine vids and intros.

Still, when you talk about modern RTS, storyline is pretty much last priority. Except for King Arthur: the RPG Wargame, every RTS since then seems to just 'play it for the gameplay' for me. 

In next-gen RTS, narratives gets in the way of the game. Remember the classic X-Com? The story line didn't get in the way, in fact, I didn't need to be told I fucked up badly by the cutscenes. I knew when I failed two terrors in a row, the numbers are in the negatives. I'm fucked. I screwed up. The next mission better be a good one or else they'll cut the funding. I fail, I try again. 

Now look at the modern X-Com remake and FEEL THE STORY GETTING IN THE WAY OF YOUR FUCKING FACE EVERY FIVE MINUTES.
BUILD SOMETHING - WATCH CUTSCENE.
EXECUTE ORDER SOMETHING - LISTEN TO RADIOS.
LAUNCH TO MISSION - WATCH CUTSCENE.
LOADING MISSION - LISTEN TO GENERIC BRIEFING
RESEARCH SOMETHING - LISTEN TO RESEARCHER BLAB.
FIGHT NEW ALIEN TYPE - LISTEN TO COMMENTARY BY BASE CREW. "WHERE DOES THE MACHINE ENDS AND THE ALIEN BEGINS BLAH BLAH"

Holy shit man.
Get the fuck out of my game.
I dropped XCOM Story Mode and just loaded up Crusader Kings II - 100 hours later, guess what? There's barely a cutscene thrown in my face, but there's MUCH MORE going on. I was concerned about my kingdom. How and where I am in the world is important to me. Is my next heir going to be a good one? Is the next in line going to be assassinated? Why is my vassal unhappy? Can I be stronger? This is a much better game than being bombarded with cutscenes every 5 seconds that hardly add anything.

If you still want example of narrative RTS failures, look no further than Tiberium Twilight. Dat ending.

[Rendakor]

Now look at the modern X-Com remake and FEEL THE STORY GETTING IN THE WAY OF YOUR FUCKING FACE EVERY FIVE MINUTES.
BUILD SOMETHING - WATCH CUTSCENE.
EXECUTE ORDER SOMETHING - LISTEN TO RADIOS.
LAUNCH TO MISSION - WATCH CUTSCENE.
LOADING MISSION - LISTEN TO GENERIC BRIEFING
RESEARCH SOMETHING - LISTEN TO RESEARCHER BLAB.
FIGHT NEW ALIEN TYPE - LISTEN TO COMMENTARY BY BASE CREW. "WHERE DOES THE MACHINE ENDS AND THE ALIEN BEGINS BLAH BLAH"

Holy shit man.
Get the fuck out of my game.

It's not just RTS games; this nails my exact problem with Metal Gear Rising.

I bought this because a friend insisted, but he's busy so we won't be playing until next week.

[Trippy]

Can they have a difference?

I mean you'd have to reload a savegame for that, no?

Blizzard keeps track of your WoL campaign progress and achievements on b.net. Not sure if there's anything in there they are using for HotS, though.

[Malakili]

Ok, I sat here all day and just beat single player (don't judge me!).  Major spoilers ahead, you are warned.


Non spoiler stuff:

I thought the missions were really enjoyable gameplay wise.

I also really liked the customization of units.  They were stupidly over powered, but should be for a single player campaign, particularly with zerg.  They really made it feel like you are controlling a swarm.

The maps where you don't do base building were way better than similar maps in previous iterations of starcraft in my opinion.

Kerrigan is a really fun hero to play as.  They even default her abilities to QWER for moba muscle memory.

[Teleku]

Now look at the modern X-Com remake and FEEL THE STORY GETTING IN THE WAY OF YOUR FUCKING FACE EVERY FIVE MINUTES.
BUILD SOMETHING - WATCH CUTSCENE.
EXECUTE ORDER SOMETHING - LISTEN TO RADIOS.
LAUNCH TO MISSION - WATCH CUTSCENE.
LOADING MISSION - LISTEN TO GENERIC BRIEFING
RESEARCH SOMETHING - LISTEN TO RESEARCHER BLAB.
FIGHT NEW ALIEN TYPE - LISTEN TO COMMENTARY BY BASE CREW. "WHERE DOES THE MACHINE ENDS AND THE ALIEN BEGINS BLAH BLAH"

Holy shit man.
Get the fuck out of my game.

Eh, I'm just going to have to disagree here.  I thougth the new XCOM was in many ways far superior to the first one.  Maybe a game that was somewhere between the two would have been best, but I lean towards the new one being a better game at this point (I've sure as hell put an ungodly amount of hours into it, and have enjoyed it non-stope that entire time).  I felt putting it all into a narrative with some story direction, but still sand box'ish, really helped the game.

And as others have said, many of us do care about the story in RTS games.  In some of them it doesn't really matter, but the story does matter to me quite a bit when playing most of them (it was very memorable in the SC games and early C&C games).  Shitty story really detracts from my enjoyment of an RTS usually.  Though frankly I havent played many new ones other than Dawn of War (which is also incredibly story centric).

[rk47]

Different ppl diff strokes. I concede C&C & DoW series still hits the good spot. But C&C 4 is ass in both story and gameplay dept.
XCOM remake being an improvement of the classic formula is a no-no. I respect that they removed some 'ammo' and inventory management hell but seeing a lot of the streamlining decisions and downscaled encounters just dampen my enthusiasm a lot. I felt very angry when I realized carrying grenades is a decision between a stun gun or a med kit. Why?

And replacing the movement point system with 2-phase move is just no-no. No way that's an improvement.

[Miasma]

Xcom barely had a story, I thought that was even acknowledged in some interview they did where the devs said they chose gameplay over plot, dialogue etc.  Last I heard they were making some dlc that actually does have a story to satisfy people.  I mean most of the things in that list took less than ten seconds.

[Malakili]

Can they have a difference?

I mean you'd have to reload a savegame for that, no?

Blizzard keeps track of your WoL campaign progress and achievements on b.net. Not sure if there's anything in there they are using for HotS, though.

It seems problematic. I've played through WoL several times, and it didn't ask me which campaign file I would want to use or something.  I know what parts have spurred this discussion, but my feeling is that there was a "canon decision" that was made regardless of what you did in WoL.

[Korachia]

Meh. Not buying this. Not enough new interesting stuff, and its pretty much same old shit, and that makes it boring. The cutscenes, which I always liked, I can just watch on youtube anyway. Plus for the pricetag, I can get more challenging and original games elsewhere.

[rk47]

Last I heard they were making some dlc that actually does have a story to satisfy people. 

Wow, that will improve the base game a lot. Will buy and revisit it.

[bhodi]

Passing on this until it's a more reasonable $20. I've felt like the last few blizzard purchases have not brought enough enjoyment for their full pricetag.

[Paelos]

I didn't like the original game, so this is a no-go.

Then again I got the original game for free as a gift because I didn't think I'd like it.

[Merusk]

Different ppl diff strokes. I concede C&C & DoW series still hits the good spot. But C&C 4 is ass in both story and gameplay dept.
XCOM remake being an improvement of the classic formula is a no-no. I respect that they removed some 'ammo' and inventory management hell but seeing a lot of the streamlining decisions and downscaled encounters just dampen my enthusiasm a lot. I felt very angry when I realized carrying grenades is a decision between a stun gun or a med kit. Why?

And replacing the movement point system with 2-phase move is just no-no. No way that's an improvement.

While I agree that some of the 'flavor' (and c'mon that's what it was, not story) cutscenes get in the way and the inventory was a cock-up, I disagree on the 2-phase move.  I dislike movement point systems because you get stupid situations like "oh I grabbed and pulled the pin and now I'll just stand here for a whole turn."

[Ironwood]

Passing on this until it's a more reasonable $20. I've felt like the last few blizzard purchases have not brought enough enjoyment for their full pricetag.

Yup.

[Phildo]

It seems problematic. I've played through WoL several times, and it didn't ask me which campaign file I would want to use or something.  I know what parts have spurred this discussion, but my feeling is that there was a "canon decision" that was made regardless of what you did in WoL.

That's my though as well, though my last playthrough reflected what happened in the new campaign, hence my uncertainty.

And so far, the single player has been one of the most enjoyable AAA purchases I've made in the last year.

[Maledict]

Roughly half way through.

The actual missions and evolution design is great - fun, varied, interesting and challenging enough on hard for me.

The actual storyline is one of the most non-sensical pieces of gibberish ever. It's embarrassing how much they have ret-conned from the original game and it just makes no *sense*.

[Ingmar]

Different ppl diff strokes. I concede C&C & DoW series still hits the good spot. But C&C 4 is ass in both story and gameplay dept.
XCOM remake being an improvement of the classic formula is a no-no. I respect that they removed some 'ammo' and inventory management hell but seeing a lot of the streamlining decisions and downscaled encounters just dampen my enthusiasm a lot. I felt very angry when I realized carrying grenades is a decision between a stun gun or a med kit. Why?

And replacing the movement point system with 2-phase move is just no-no. No way that's an improvement.

While I agree that some of the 'flavor' (and c'mon that's what it was, not story) cutscenes get in the way and the inventory was a cock-up, I disagree on the 2-phase move.  I dislike movement point systems because you get stupid situations like "oh I grabbed and pulled the pin and now I'll just stand here for a whole turn."

Yeah, I prefer 2 action turns to MPs.

[Malakili]

Roughly half way through.

The actual missions and evolution design is great - fun, varied, interesting and challenging enough on hard for me.

The actual storyline is one of the most non-sensical pieces of gibberish ever. It's embarrassing how much they have ret-conned from the original game and it just makes no *sense*.

It makes sense as a sequel to Starcraft 2: WoL, but they retconned a lot in the first place.  I actually think story wise it is a step up from Wings of Liberty, but that isn't exactly saying much.

[Ingmar]

Even as a sequel there's incoherent shit going on, although I'm only a little ways in.

[Kail]

Ignorant question: why would I buy this?  I mean, like, literally, what are they selling me?  What did they add?  I haven't been keeping close tabs on this game, but I'm not seeing much new here.

I liked SC2 okay, but dipping a toe in the competitive scene was enough to tell that it wasn't the game for me.  Looking over the Wikipedia entry for this, it looks like the game consists of some minor tweaks to a few units that won't matter much to anyone who doesn't play competitively, and the new campaign, which looks to be the same as the old one but with the Zerg this time.  Is there more to it that I'm not seeing, or what, because while I thought SC2 was fine, I'm not really eager to shell out full price just to watch the next episode of this soap opera.

EDIT: I suppose this post sounds kind of retarded in retrospect: "I didn't like SC2, so will I like this expansion for SC2" or something, but it just seems incongruous to me to be charging $40.00 for what amounts to a mission pack.  I'm just not sure if I'm not seeing the full product, or if I am and I'm just disagreeing with Blizzard on how much it's worth.

[Malakili]

Ignorant question: why would I buy this?  I mean, like, literally, what are they selling me?  What did they add?  I haven't been keeping close tabs on this game, but I'm not seeing much new here.

I liked SC2 okay, but dipping a toe in the competitive scene was enough to tell that it wasn't the game for me.  Looking over the Wikipedia entry for this, it looks like the game consists of some minor tweaks to a few units that won't matter much to anyone who doesn't play competitively, and the new campaign, which looks to be the same as the old one but with the Zerg this time.  Is there more to it that I'm not seeing, or what, because while I thought SC2 was fine, I'm not really eager to shell out full price just to watch the next episode of this soap opera.

At base, it is 24 new missions to play as zerg (which advance the story line of the SC2 trilogy).  Kerrigan is a FAR more developed hero (at least in terms of mechanics) to play as than we've seen in any other Blizzard RTS, if you like the idea of some RPG elements (she levels up, gains different passive and active abilities which you can select between missions, etc).  There are also some new units and mutations of existing units which are quite fun.  Jumping banelings are super fun to use, for example.

You said you don't like competition, but I will say they've improved the custom maps area quite a bit, although these changes are available in the WoL client as well I believe.  I am not sure about compatibility for custom maps with HotS and WoL, but I assume they aren't.  There is also unranked matchmaking now, for people who want equally skilled players to play against but find ladder stressful or otherwise unenjoyable.

If all you care about is playing the campaign, I'd wait until you can get it cheaper.

[Ingmar]

27 missions is what my counter says.

[Malakili]

Oh yeah, I skipped some evolution missions.

[Teugeus]

Well I normally play RTS nowadays for the single player campaign rather than to play multiplayerbut HotS has flipped this on it's head. I'm having so much fun with the new Widow Mines in unranked matches that I haven't even started the campaign yet.

[rk47]

Different ppl diff strokes. I concede C&C & DoW series still hits the good spot. But C&C 4 is ass in both story and gameplay dept.
XCOM remake being an improvement of the classic formula is a no-no. I respect that they removed some 'ammo' and inventory management hell but seeing a lot of the streamlining decisions and downscaled encounters just dampen my enthusiasm a lot. I felt very angry when I realized carrying grenades is a decision between a stun gun or a med kit. Why?

And replacing the movement point system with 2-phase move is just no-no. No way that's an improvement.

While I agree that some of the 'flavor' (and c'mon that's what it was, not story) cutscenes get in the way and the inventory was a cock-up, I disagree on the 2-phase move.  I dislike movement point systems because you get stupid situations like "oh I grabbed and pulled the pin and now I'll just stand here for a whole turn."

Jagged Alliance 2 proved it can be done.
And it even has the perfect cutscene when you sent that dictator a bouquet of roses.

[Ingmar]

Now that I'm farther in... Kerrigan's voice acting is bad. Even setting aside that the dialogue is terrible, her delivery is horrible and there's no emotion in her voice at all, even when she's talking about how much rage she has. Voice director really fell down on the job on this one.

[Malakili]

The more I've thought about the storyline since I finished it the more I dislike it actually.  I would still maintain that it is slightly better than Sc2:WoL and Diablo 3, but that is not saying much. 

[dalien]

The game is pretty tight, I've got no complaints so far aside from wondering if my actions in the first game actually had an impact.

I was wondering the same thing.  Now that I've finished the campaign I'm free to go searching, and no, it changes a line or two of dialogue but the end results are the same.