That said, there is something that they could do which would not require too much extra balancing and would be lore friendly. That being, adding different factions for each race, like Dominion and UED for Terrans, and the Tal'Darim for Protoss, and different Zerg broods which could maybe each have a special unit or two and some perks. Might not work too well, but it could be fun and add some variety.
Like CnC Kanes Wrath. It actually worked well in that game As you say, adds some variety and its fun.
What I liked about Wc3 is just the amount of openings you can go with in terms of hero and following with army comp.
Starcraft 2 gets very boring, You basically have specific units designed for use only against a particular race instead of being useful in a variety of situations. Like Mech for Zerg, Bio for Toss. Only.
I was going to reply to that, but the fact that some of you think Starcraft 2 has strategic depth..Well...Yea.
Dawn of War the first RTS has so many races. All felt unique, fun, and viable. Granted some things were unbalanced but thats another point. Thats a game with lore and strategy I can get immersed in.
Blizzard cant think out of the box and be original anymore. Jump on the bandwagon to defend them because neither can you, and so make whatever excuses to try and prove a point.
Also, Why dont they add a 4th race?. Warcraft 2 had a leap from 2 races to 4 races in Warcraft 3.
Where's the creativity and originality that defines Blizzard?. Yes we all like the standard 3 races, but are you really telling me we cant do something huge and set the precedent for Starcraft 3?
Add the Xel'Naga. Make the damn game fun, new and interesting. We could certainly do with less mirror matches at the very least.
Stop selling me watered down dumb games for $40. I never thought I would say this but with Mists of Pandaria, I think the WoW development team is still currently the best from all their franchises. Creativity, ingenuity and they know what exactly the player base wants/needs.
Diablo 3. The greatest game sequel of all time is coming out on consoles. Not to milk it of course, heresy!. Its so totally going to renew my love for the game. Yaaaaaaaaaay!!!
Brood War was $40 (CAD) when it came out, had less missions than vanilla SC, only a handful of models (consider that there were very few unique NPC models) and came out 10+ years earlier. I loved the campaign and the story, but just the same I've only played it through fully once and was done. The rest of the time was spent in multiplayer and custom maps.
Expansion prices are standard to me, I don't see why they are a ripoff and what standard pricing model is being compared to here (free to plays? $20 games? $1 apps?), but compared to the pricing model that Blizzard has always used, it's actually cheaper now than it was 10 years ago.
Yes but remember with Broodwar you got 3 campaigns which made up the entire story experience. Here, you're paying $40 for a portion of the story(Zerg) which has only so many additional mission to make it seem long and worth a lot content wise. But really its just dragging out the story as much as they can. I mean, you can present a campaign plot or story through 10 missions, without the need to drag it out through 20-30 just for the sake of another expansion and an additional $40.
WoL was $40?. So now for $80 you can experience 2/3's of the campaign and well multiplayer is not changing that much really. And there you have it.
Atleast Dawn of War 1, the expansions always added several races. So that was pretty big.
The expectation is that Blizzard should do more. Not play it safe/standard just for $$$.
and this is why I dont talk to you... you get butthurt and start insulting...
BTW, hots gives an entire new UI, and Physics engine...
I did not insult you. Most kids will get it off their mom's credit card, and so they dont care about the cost. I only assume your age is in that proximity and thats the whole scenario here for the reasoning if the price is worth it or not. The fact you dont even know or care how many missions you're getting in the campaign, tells a story.
A funny thing is, I dont even get slightly offended by what you say.
Almost forgot. Rag doll physics engine in the year 2013....yaaaay!!!!
says the same guy who payed 30$ for a single act and praised it as the holy grail -_-.
Diablo 2 is nothing without LoD. Same goes for the previous Blizzard games. Apart from the campaign in HoTs(which is not even hard to do for the company or revolutionary in anyway), I dont see the greed behind $40.
Oooh we have more archievments and icons and silly skins to unlock, yaaaaay!!
Also Tainted, I think you would be buying the game using your mom's credit card or something(I could be wrong..). Just a wild guess, but in such a case money is no consideration for a game or expansion no matter the details in-between. Objectively speaking.
I am probably the only one that thinks $40 is a rip off for this expansion. A campaign(with fewer levels than WoL) and throw in some new crappy gimmick units for the multiplayer, Meh.
Like CnC Kanes Wrath. It actually worked well in that game As you say, adds some variety and its fun.
What I liked about Wc3 is just the amount of openings you can go with in terms of hero and following with army comp.
Starcraft 2 gets very boring, You basically have specific units designed for use only against a particular race instead of being useful in a variety of situations. Like Mech for Zerg, Bio for Toss. Only.
@Gradius12: Go
I was going to reply to that, but the fact that some of you think Starcraft 2 has strategic depth..Well...Yea.
Dawn of War the first RTS has so many races. All felt unique, fun, and viable. Granted some things were unbalanced but thats another point. Thats a game with lore and strategy I can get immersed in.
Blizzard cant think out of the box and be original anymore. Jump on the bandwagon to defend them because neither can you, and so make whatever excuses to try and prove a point.
@EternalWraith: Go
Also, Why dont they add a 4th race?. Warcraft 2 had a leap from 2 races to 4 races in Warcraft 3.
Where's the creativity and originality that defines Blizzard?. Yes we all like the standard 3 races, but are you really telling me we cant do something huge and set the precedent for Starcraft 3?
Add the Xel'Naga. Make the damn game fun, new and interesting. We could certainly do with less mirror matches at the very least.
Stop selling me watered down dumb games for $40. I never thought I would say this but with Mists of Pandaria, I think the WoW development team is still currently the best from all their franchises. Creativity, ingenuity and they know what exactly the player base wants/needs.
...Meanwhile what is Blizzard upto?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/02/20/diablo-iii-coming-to-ps3-and-ps4/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1360-15782-26878
Diablo 3. The greatest game sequel of all time is coming out on consoles. Not to milk it of course, heresy!. Its so totally going to renew my love for the game. Yaaaaaaaaaay!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft:_Brood_War#Critical_reception
Yes but remember with Broodwar you got 3 campaigns which made up the entire story experience. Here, you're paying $40 for a portion of the story(Zerg) which has only so many additional mission to make it seem long and worth a lot content wise. But really its just dragging out the story as much as they can. I mean, you can present a campaign plot or story through 10 missions, without the need to drag it out through 20-30 just for the sake of another expansion and an additional $40.
WoL was $40?. So now for $80 you can experience 2/3's of the campaign and well multiplayer is not changing that much really. And there you have it.
Atleast Dawn of War 1, the expansions always added several races. So that was pretty big.
The expectation is that Blizzard should do more. Not play it safe/standard just for $$$.
I did not insult you. Most kids will get it off their mom's credit card, and so they dont care about the cost. I only assume your age is in that proximity and thats the whole scenario here for the reasoning if the price is worth it or not. The fact you dont even know or care how many missions you're getting in the campaign, tells a story.
A funny thing is, I dont even get slightly offended by what you say.
Almost forgot. Rag doll physics engine in the year 2013....yaaaay!!!!
True.
Diablo 2 is nothing without LoD. Same goes for the previous Blizzard games. Apart from the campaign in HoTs(which is not even hard to do for the company or revolutionary in anyway), I dont see the greed behind $40.
Oooh we have more archievments and icons and silly skins to unlock, yaaaaay!!
Also you dont know much about Lord of Destruction and how much it really added and changed the core game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II:_Lord_of_Destruction
Also Tainted, I think you would be buying the game using your mom's credit card or something(I could be wrong..). Just a wild guess, but in such a case money is no consideration for a game or expansion no matter the details in-between. Objectively speaking.
@QueenGambit: Go
I am probably the only one that thinks $40 is a rip off for this expansion. A campaign(with fewer levels than WoL) and throw in some new crappy gimmick units for the multiplayer, Meh.