StarCraft 2: Legacy of the Void Needs More Work, Blizzard Says

[Terrible Opinions]

Hm, curious. At least in Starcraft 1, the Protoss did feel like each individual warrior was more powerful. I don't quite get what he means with the feel he wants to evoke, how that is supposed to work in practice, but remember that even their weakest unit, the Zealot, was more powerful and more expensive than the other races' starters. I guess that had to do with the shields rather than the hitpoints, but it felt like they were pretty tough little buggers already. What is he trying to do?

Protoss have been refluffed to "cower behind forcefields, wait for giant robot to attack enemy from out of range", I guess?

 

[Smertnik]

The issue is complex because, from a developers perspective, Protoss shouldn't be powerful in the same way Terrans or Zerg are. Unlike Heart of the Swarm, where Kerrigan could fight armies by herself, Protoss strength is based in advanced technology, not the strength of individual units. "That felt great for the goddess queen of the Zerg. But that's not what I want the Protoss to feel like," Browder said. "There's no one Protoss warrior who should be out there destroying whole armies by himself. Maybe Zeratul, but he'd have to be sneaky about it.

Did... did these guys play Starcraft 1?

Could it be a misquote of some kind? I can't imagine it being an actual quote from someone who actually takes part in Starcraft development. Protoss are all about the strength of individual units, it pretty much goes hand in hand with advanced technology and limited amount of troops. It's the other races that rely on numbers. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Skeleon]

Protoss have been refluffed to "cower behind forcefields, wait for giant robot to attack enemy from out of range", I guess?

Perhaps, although that would be a major change. Not that I dislike the concept for a high-tech race as such (it makes sense, why risk harm and death?), but the Protoss were already pretty well established. I mean, they are more like high-tech psychic warrior monks than drone-operators. Sure, they had robotic minions to supplement their forces, but it's not like they shied away from direct confrontation. I always saw the robots they had as a way to increase their very small numbers with support units, not as a way to avoid direct conflict.

 

[AldUK]

I was pretty disappointed with Heart of the Swarm. And I know because I only replayed it once, whereas Wings of Liberty I must have replayed 6 or 7 times it was that good. So they should take all the time they need to make Legacy of the Void great.

I'm not in a hurry to burn through another Starcraft campaign, they need to be satisfying.

Have to agree with this. Heart of the Swarm just didn't live up to Wing's legacy in my opinion. Although the multiplayer now feels much more fluid and balanced, the campaign was lack-luster.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Hm, curious. At least in Starcraft 1, the Protoss did feel like each individual warrior was more powerful. I don't quite get what he means with the feel he wants to evoke, how that is supposed to work in practice, but remember that even their weakest unit, the Zealot, was more powerful and more expensive than the other races' starters. I guess that had to do with the shields rather than the hitpoints, but it felt like they were pretty tough little buggers already. What is he trying to do?

I think what they're trying to say is that Kerrigan really is the Zerg in HotS. Her minions are just that, inconsequential tides that function to strength a whole but are expendable individually. This makes sense considering the one unit I never wanted to lose was Kerrigan, who made my army exponentially more powerful by being around. She was always with whatever force I needed to keep intact, where as all my skirmishers tended to be throw away units that simply did some damage and then died. Contrast this with the Protoss who are individuals that create synergy to become a whole and the importance of a single unit type really does matter. When they're talking about "that one unit" it's Kerrigan and I agree that that style doesn't really fit the Protoss feel, regardless if they have a comparable hero in Zeratul or not.

Also, the language they use lends itself to suggesting that their upgrade choices seem to be lacking as well. In WoL the Terran bought permanent upgrades, in HotS the Zerg had interchangeable evolutions as well as a more powerful permanent evolution that changed how you fought with that unit. Protoss would be an entirely new challenge in that they tend to be very upgrade centric yet the two previous systems don't lend themselves well at all to the Protoss feel. I assume they're going to have to have a system where each unit has tiered upgrade trees and you can either maximize your potential in a role or gain some balance at the cost of strength.

In the end, I'm not sure what they'll create but it's good to know that in this market there are companies that still want to take the time to get it right instead of rushing out an unfinished product.

 

[darkszero]

Not like itll be perfect when it comes out anyways, what with all the patches/nerfs/buffs they allways do.

I hate when companies do that. I just install the base game. I hate updates, on pc games, xbox games, windows operating system. I just want the thing allready. It was perfect enough for you to attach your name to it in the first place

So, there's a company that cares about it's product to go out of their way to provide fixes to bugs and improvements to their software after the release, completely for free, and you hate it?
Well, you can always choose to pick one of these many games out there that has an extensive known bugs list with no fixes at all.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

12 years later and they tell us it'll be split into 3 parts. We all know its coz well, GREED. Comes out, its SC1 with a new engine and new units. But then to charge FULL GAME PRICE for an expansion pack. And now.....more delays for an EXPANSION PACK.

I'm sorry, it seems you never played SC1 or SC2. SC2 is NOTHING like SC1, on the surface it may bear its name and have some of its units but in reality they are nothing alike. SC1 was fun, challenging and deep, SC2 is just baby's first rts . Also the story is completely awful, Raynor wanted to kill Kerrigan at the end of BW but they decided to change that into a cheesy love story? Good job Blizzard. They are just milking money out of the franchise at this point for as long as there are people looking for the next step after hours of candy crush and farmville, just like WoW.

I still love Starcraft and I got both WoL and HotS as CE.. but yeah. I dislike the story a great deal. The total redoing of the Overmind, the not-dead Tassadar, the sudden moodswing of Jim, the Kerrigan who suddenly feel bad about murdering everybody (when in SC1 we learn that she still has her independent mind..)

 

[RandV80]

Personally I bought the first one on a whim but don't like their business model here so sat out the Zerg expansion. With the advent of Steam and digital distribution I'm not paying $180 for Starcraft 2, I like it but I'm just not that big a fan.

Now while I usually approve of developers taking more time to get a game right I'm pretty skeptical on this one. Blizzard is massively profitable, should have buckets of money, and they're making a relatively low tech game here, no scratch that, an expansion to a low tech game, that is guaranteed to sell millions. I don't know what it is but something here isn't adding up. I mean what do they have like 5 people working on the game or something?

 

[Sean951]

Personally I bought the first one on a whim but don't like their business model here so sat out the Zerg expansion. With the advent of Steam and digital distribution I'm not paying $180 for Starcraft 2, I like it but I'm just not that big a fan.

Now while I usually approve of developers taking more time to get a game right I'm pretty skeptical on this one. Blizzard is massively profitable, should have buckets of money, and they're making a relatively low tech game here, no scratch that, an expansion to a low tech game, that is guaranteed to sell millions. I don't know what it is but something here isn't adding up. I mean what do they have like 5 people working on the game or something?

If you bought them all full priced at launch, it would cost $140. In the same time period, buying just the base game of CoD with each new release would run you a minimum of $240, with an additional $60 with each new year. But wait, there's more! Each of those also has map packs and DLC to buy, so to get the full game will cost you an additional... $60!

So while you may not like that the game is split (I'm fine, I like 30 missions to learn the new race and explore the characters, and yes, I do like the over the top story), it definitely doesn't qualify as greedy.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

It already took 12 years <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7939-Review-StarCraft-II>to get the first StarCraft sequel out the door, and <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118802-Analyst-Thinks-Next-Starcraft-II-Wont-Come-This-Year>Heart of the Swarm suffered its own delays.

I hate when people say things like that, because it sends the impression that people think the sequel for a game started the very moment that the first was released. Starcraft 2 did not take "12 years to get out the door". Starcraft waited 12 years before a sequel was released, sure, but the game itself didn't take much more than a few years to actually make.

Anyway, it's interesting to see something actually get said about Legacy of the Void, since this BlizzCon's announcements seemed to completely forget that there was even a second expansion coming out. I guess this is something that they talked about in the press area. Over-all though, I don't see it as bad news. As the old saying goes, a delayed game can eventually be good, but a game that's rushed out the door before its ready will be bad forever.

 

[Fireaxe]

I'm not upset with this; when blizzard rush stuff instead of doing it with good polish it ends up feeling really incomplete. I remember when the Cataclysm WoW expansion came out and parts of the world felt hardly done with no chests/non-quest mobs etc etc, Uldum was a really bad example of this.

Now while I usually approve of developers taking more time to get a game right I'm pretty skeptical on this one. Blizzard is massively profitable, should have buckets of money, and they're making a relatively low tech game here, no scratch that, an expansion to a low tech game, that is guaranteed to sell millions. I don't know what it is but something here isn't adding up. I mean what do they have like 5 people working on the game or something?

For the most part Blizzard don't have a history of lobbing money and human resources at games or expansions (especially when the expansion pretty much has to hold up as a single player experience) to get them out the door.

 

[RandV80]

Personally I bought the first one on a whim but don't like their business model here so sat out the Zerg expansion. With the advent of Steam and digital distribution I'm not paying $180 for Starcraft 2, I like it but I'm just not that big a fan.

Now while I usually approve of developers taking more time to get a game right I'm pretty skeptical on this one. Blizzard is massively profitable, should have buckets of money, and they're making a relatively low tech game here, no scratch that, an expansion to a low tech game, that is guaranteed to sell millions. I don't know what it is but something here isn't adding up. I mean what do they have like 5 people working on the game or something?

If you bought them all full priced at launch, it would cost $140. In the same time period, buying just the base game of CoD with each new release would run you a minimum of $240, with an additional $60 with each new year. But wait, there's more! Each of those also has map packs and DLC to buy, so to get the full game will cost you an additional... $60!

So while you may not like that the game is split (I'm fine, I like 30 missions to learn the new race and explore the characters, and yes, I do like the over the top story), it definitely doesn't qualify as greedy.

Well Call of Duty isn't exactly the best example here because non-MMO aside that's pretty much the most expensive game out there! And that's a console game, Starcraft is on PC. To use a better example of the high end I'm willing to go for, look at the Civilization series. New game comes out for $50, and they release 2 expansion packs for $30 each. And if you're short or don't want to pay full price, you can wait a while as the digital versions will always go on sale at some point like most other PC games. Personally I usually end up getting some part of it on sale, though my decision to not buy it now is more to do with "oh god I don't have the time to get addicted to Civ again right now!" Then I wait till Christmas or another slow period where I can throw a few weeks away! So basically my main complaint is that Blizzard hasn't followed other PC developers in depreciating the value of their games.

As for Wings of Liberty, I kind of wish it had more filler. I mean the campaign was pretty good, but it seems like they'd have a map that introduced a new toy, but then they'd take it away from you and hand you another toy for the next map. Like those cool hover car tank things, how often do you really have an opportunity to use them after the train mission? Interesting and unique maps are good, but sometimes you just want to have a base on your side, an enemy base (or 2 or 3) on the other, and leave you up to your own devices on how to beat them.

 

[ScorpionPrince]

12 years later and they tell us it'll be split into 3 parts. We all know its coz well, GREED. Comes out, its SC1 with a new engine and new units. But then to charge FULL GAME PRICE for an expansion pack. And now.....more delays for an EXPANSION PACK.

1: Wings of Liberty's campaign had about as many missions as the entirety of Starcraft 1's.
2: It's a sequel, what the hell more do you want?
3: Heart of the Swarm was priced as an expansion pack, not a full game.

1: Full Disclaimer: I've never played WoL because, like the person you quoted, I was right-proper PISSED that they broke SC2 into 3 separate games. That said, however, I have heard that it does indeed contain a good 30 missions. I've also heard that a good 20 of those missions could be cut from the game and have the story completely unaffected...meaning they're just fluff and padding, completely unnecessary. If that's true, then the bulk of the story is only told across about 10 missions...just about as many missions as each campaign had in SC and BW.
2: A game with 3 campaigns, and an expansion with 3 campaigns that expanded the story told in the three campaigns from the core title.
3: They're still charging three times for what I (and apparently others, considering Banic's post) felt should have only been one game.

I can assure you, Wings of Liberty had the single best campaign I've ever played, out of all the starcrafts, warcrafts, command & conquers, age of mythology, Rise of Nations, LOTR: battle for middle earth, Supreme commanders, total annihilations and, last and probably least: Dune. Almost every mission had something unique. You could choose how your units would progress and what units would be available. The missions had extra objectives that added a whole new dimension to the game (for example: A mission where you normally just had to survive for a set period of time, but the extra achievement required you to complete it on hard AND destroy at least 4 hatcheries) All of that wrapped up in a nice point and click adventure style interface between missions, where you could talk to the major characters that would flesh out the story.

If Wings of liberty cost 2 times as much, knowing what I know about how great the campaign is, not even mentioning the multiplayer and custom maps, I'd still buy it. It is THAT good. I can assure you that none of the missions felt as fluff or padding. I enjoyed the story, and even though the story might feel weak to others, The gameplay is what trumps it all. It is an amazingly fun game to play.

 

[Littaly]

"Legacy of the Void needs more work, Blizzard says"
"Tell us something we didn't already know, the rest of the world says"

Seriously though when Wings of Liberty came out I was pretty seriously bothered by the fact that they'd make us wait 1½ (which turned out to be 2½) year for the next part of the game. The hype and anticipation and interest had planty of time to die in that time.

But now I'm kind of fine with it. It's strarted to feel more like waiting for a new game rather than waiting for an old game to finish coming out (which is what it actually is). Besides, I can't deny, the do deliver.

 

[Sean951]

Personally I bought the first one on a whim but don't like their business model here so sat out the Zerg expansion. With the advent of Steam and digital distribution I'm not paying $180 for Starcraft 2, I like it but I'm just not that big a fan.

Now while I usually approve of developers taking more time to get a game right I'm pretty skeptical on this one. Blizzard is massively profitable, should have buckets of money, and they're making a relatively low tech game here, no scratch that, an expansion to a low tech game, that is guaranteed to sell millions. I don't know what it is but something here isn't adding up. I mean what do they have like 5 people working on the game or something?

If you bought them all full priced at launch, it would cost $140. In the same time period, buying just the base game of CoD with each new release would run you a minimum of $240, with an additional $60 with each new year. But wait, there's more! Each of those also has map packs and DLC to buy, so to get the full game will cost you an additional... $60!

So while you may not like that the game is split (I'm fine, I like 30 missions to learn the new race and explore the characters, and yes, I do like the over the top story), it definitely doesn't qualify as greedy.

Well Call of Duty isn't exactly the best example here because non-MMO aside that's pretty much the most expensive game out there! And that's a console game, Starcraft is on PC. To use a better example of the high end I'm willing to go for, look at the Civilization series. New game comes out for $50, and they release 2 expansion packs for $30 each. And if you're short or don't want to pay full price, you can wait a while as the digital versions will always go on sale at some point like most other PC games. Personally I usually end up getting some part of it on sale, though my decision to not buy it now is more to do with "oh god I don't have the time to get addicted to Civ again right now!" Then I wait till Christmas or another slow period where I can throw a few weeks away! So basically my main complaint is that Blizzard hasn't followed other PC developers in depreciating the value of their games.

As for Wings of Liberty, I kind of wish it had more filler. I mean the campaign was pretty good, but it seems like they'd have a map that introduced a new toy, but then they'd take it away from you and hand you another toy for the next map. Like those cool hover car tank things, how often do you really have an opportunity to use them after the train mission? Interesting and unique maps are good, but sometimes you just want to have a base on your side, an enemy base (or 2 or 3) on the other, and leave you up to your own devices on how to beat them.

If you want to use Civ, I'm fine with that too. Blizz charges $10 more per expansion and for the base game, for a $30 increase, however, Blizz does NOT have DLC with Starcraft, while Civ has an extra $50 or so in DLC spending. It is also possible to get Wings of Liberty quite cheap if you are willing to wait for a Black Friday sale, and I'm sure Heart of the Swarm will do the same thing either this year or next. I believe there are also launch sales, where the previous games become cheaper as a incentive to new players.