StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Teaser Trailer Leaked

Midnight Crossroads

New member
Jul 17, 2010
1,912
0
0
Finally, the good campaign. I'm just a little upset that the Protoss are last. That's basically Blizzard for "the Protoss will win."

Also, Nova appearance! Anything that even hints at a possibility of Starcraft: Ghost is good to me.
 

daz_O_O

Click me I'm here!
Aug 27, 2008
172
0
0
Dectilon said:
The sc2-campaign was fun to play. The story was unstructured pandering shite. I doubt this will change in the expansion. Now tell me what new units we poor zergs are getting :(
I play Zerg, we're not the UP race any more dude. ZvP is funny now we have the roach/ling all in and the infestor/BL/corrupter deathball and ZvT's pretty doable on these bigger maps. Only our scouting is broken.

That said, NEW UNITS PL0X BLIZZARD! I'm so hyped for the multiplayer aspect of HotS.
 

Fearzone

Boyz! Boyz! Boyz!
Dec 3, 2008
1,241
0
0
Good ol' Blizzard "leaks."

Looks good though. I hope they do more than add more story. Like free camera rotation and panning. Get with the times, Blizzard.
 

Reyalsfeihc

New member
Jun 12, 2010
352
0
0
Inkidu said:
Exort said:
ZeppMan217 said:
Gotta handle it to Mr. Kotick - he sure knows how to cut development costs.
Hell, that Activision/Blizzard merge was so successful: no more thoughtful stories, less gorgeous CGIs, shit ass region locks, 3x60$ for what should've been one damn MIND BLOWING experience etc.
The game got more and better CGI...
Blizzard got the best CGI in-house studio in the game industry, even Pixel praise them in a interview after they visit Blizzard's CGI studio.
Also Starcraft 2: HotS and Starcraft 2: LotV are called expansion packs and are charged as expansions. (confirmed)

Inkidu said:
You know, I'm sure it's full priced. Wow, I thought only EA and the Sims had the audacity to charge full price for an expansion pack.

I heard that "Heart of the Swarm" is supposed to come out next year. Now, considering that Starcraft II took what, thirteen years to come out and this one is only taking two. It's easy to tell when they're milking the good-old fan-base udder.

Blizzard takes to long for me to care.
Blizzard already confirmed it is charged as expansion in Q&A at Blizzcon.
At least do some research please?
Well, gee do you think you'd actually have to tell me what charged as an expansion pack entails? That could be feasibly anywhere from $30 American to $60 dollars American. Seeing as there's no defined, arbitrary rule as to what expansion pack go for!. So for all you know they're talking out their asses to make it seem like a good deal when they charge you $50 dollars a pack. That would mean the average of ten dollars saved is marginalized.

However, all this, and your reply is moot. Because if I actually still cared about Blizzard I would have check Blizzcon news, but seeing as I kind of grew up in the last thirteen or so years, I've been decidedly had by Blizzard. Even if I suddenly had an interest in SC 2 I couldn't play it. I can't stay hooked up to the internet.
Maybe instead of raging you could just admit you were wrong for once instead of getting your panties in a bunch. When Blizzard said they were releasing the next two games as expansions with expansion prices they said it would likely range from $30-40. They can't price an expansion at $50 because that's the retail price for almost all new released FULL games on the PC.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Hammeroj said:
John Funk said:
Hammeroj said:
lacktheknack said:
Why not? They've never put out anything short of excellent before.
On the front of story, Starcraft 2 is a short, padded piece of shit compared to their earlier endeavours. And it's disjointed to top it off thanks to the wonderful(-ly unnecessary) mission structure. I've gone over the exact points of it dozens of times, and I'm kind of tired of regurgitating the same points over and over. Do you want me to?
If StarCraft 2 is a "short, padded piece of shit," then what the hell does it make SC1? SC2 was longer with a mission design structure that beats the pants off of any other RTS mission design we've ever seen.

Yes, the story and writing were "meh," but Blizzard has *never* had good story and writing. FFS, they've had this problem since Warcraft 2 - I don't see why people are all of a sudden complaining now :p Their credo is "gameplay first," and it shows. The games are fantastic, the stories are mediocre and always have been.

People complaining about the trilogy being a ripoff have absolutely no leg to stand on after SC2 came out and the campaign was easily as fleshed-out and long as SC1 and WC3 were. So it's getting two expansion packs, so what? Are we going to complain about Brood War and Frozen Throne, now? Are we going to yell at Peter Jackson for making THREE LotR movies when he could have just made the one?

There are few baseless complaints that get my goat as much as the "Wahhhh the game has two expansion packs, such a ripoff" one.
I was more comparing it to War3 and its expansion, considering it's not an archaic RTS that's a pain in the ass to play, as the original SC is. I'm still going to say, though, that a lot more happens in the original SC from my memories of it than in SC2, making it a whole lot less short and padded in the story aspect of it.

And I don't really care about mission design when talking about the story of the game, what I meant was the completely unnecessary ability of the player to choose which mission they want to do first, all which did was make the dialog aboard the Hyperion make no sense from time to time, as it's obviously tied to the mission you just came from.

Just because War2 had a mediocre story, especially being a game from their early years of development, does not pardon them from making mediocre or just plain bad stories now, when they're the most well funded developer out there, and when they have done much, much better.

And here's where your argument falls on its ass. SC2's story is not fleshed out. At all. There is almost no lore around Starcraft 2 and they don't even try for a second to create any, making this a pretty damn shallow universe by today's standards; there is either not enough dialogue in the game or it's used plain wrong, since not a single character besides Raynor himself is fleshed out in the slightest. Cardboard cut-outs at best, and non-characters at worst, all of them. One of the worst parts about it is the villains. Kerrigan is almost entirely limited to lines that are almost exactly this: "I'll get you next time, Raynor!" and Arcturus is even more pathetic. He's literally a joke through this entire game. Neither of them feel like a threat at any level. Do we really need to compare these to Archimonde and Arthas?

Severe plotholes and retcons to what was regarded the most important aspect to Jim and Kerrigan's relationship I won't even touch on besides mentioning.

Since you quoted me, am I to understand that I'm saying they're ripping us off by making a trilogy? Because I made no such statement. In fact, if they had a half decent writer in their staff, I think this would be the best thing they could do with reincarnating Starcraft. As it is now, the story is quite literally the length of one War3 campaign, padded out by missions that simply don't advance the story at all or do by very, very little. Either way, I haven't complained about the expansion yet, hell, it may even be better in the story department (because doing worse would be quite a feat). Maybe they've learned something. But make no mistake, this, in terms of story, is still a third of a game, and not a good one at that.
Apologies, I should have made things more clear - the bit about the trilogy was not directed at you, but rather at a generic group of people who were complaining (as seen in this thread).

And I'll just say that I found the SC2 story to be cheesy sci-fi pulp, which was exactly what I was expecting. I think people look back at SC1 and WC3 with rose-tinted glasses; the stories there weren't mind-blowingly great, either. But to each his own.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
Inkidu said:
You know, I'm sure it's full priced. Wow, I thought only EA and the Sims had the audacity to charge full price for an expansion pack.

I heard that "Heart of the Swarm" is supposed to come out next year. Now, considering that Starcraft II took what, thirteen years to come out and this one is only taking two. It's easy to tell when they're milking the good-old fan-base udder.

Blizzard takes to long for me to care.
It's expansion priced, which as a rule of thumb is cheaper than the full game, I can't think of a single expansion that's been the same price as the first game, or at least certainly not from Blizzard. Also if you think that making sc2 from scratch and making heart of the swarm are equal in workload, you're a complete idiot. I usually like to have well thought out responses but what you said was just so completely without thought, you don't deserve a good response. You blatenly don't understand the premise of making a game.

Realitycrash said:
Wilson Driesens said:
Hammeroj said:
Arkhangelsk said:
Inkidu said:
Milking the fan-base udder? If you actually played it, you'd see that they sort of have to charge for the Zerg campaign. If you look at the original Starcraft, they had all three campaigns in one game. In this, if they put all three campaigns in one game, they wouldn't be profiting, they'd be creating between 2-3 games at the cost of one. The appeal of the Starcraft story is the angles it takes on, are you saying you'd rather want them to leave the franchise with two unfinished stories, or to compress all three so tightly you would have three loosely tied together campaigns?
Dude, there's almost no story to SC2. It could easily - easily - have been condensed into one campaign.
*Twitch* *twitch*.

How can you say that there's no story to SCII? Have you divined the future, and gotten the story from WikiLeaks? Because as far as I know, only Blizzard writers have the full story even slightly planned out, and probably not even completely. What story SCII has had so far is 1/3 of the total story they're doing. So, if you don't know the story, how can you say that it could be condensed into one 8-hour game?

Maybe you're right, maybe the Zerg and Protoss campaigns will have terrible, shitty stories. But I can't for the life of me figure out how you would have knowledge of that now.
Yes, there's a story. Sow hat? We got what-.Twenty four missions? Compared to what in Starcraft? Three times as many?
I paid full money for something I played through in pretty much two days, i.e Starcraft with one only one campaign and a decent graphics upgrade. Fuck, I'd rather see this game with Starcraft graphics but full campaign-mode, i.e ALL OF THE RACES.
Wings of Liberty has 29 missions, Starcaft 1 had 30. Granted 3 of them were alternate versions of the same mission but you can still play all 29, don't just make shit up like "There's 72 missions in sc1!!11!".
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,915
0
0
Grey_Focks said:
I swear to god if I see one more person complain about the story, I'm going to be quite unhappy. It's BLIZZARD, people, they don't tell stories, they make games that put gameplay first, and I for one, along with their millions of fans, prefer it that way. They have NEVER cared about telling good stories, why do you expect them to start now?
Nobody was expecting Starcraft 2 to have an amazing story, but I was at least expecting it to be on par with the original. Instead they somehow managed to make it worse when the original was just talking heads in a box for most of the time.

Call me crazy but I want my Zerg campaign to be about consuming shit and destroying the galaxy. You know, like the Zerg are supposed to be. Instead it's setting up for a story in which the Zerg are the good guys with Raynor and Kerrigan constantly barking orders at you. Lame.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Trailers don't leak...

game footage leaks, info leaks, but trailers are always "leaked" by the companies as a marketing ploy to get people to scamble to see it
 

Ilyak1986

New member
Dec 16, 2010
109
0
0
Internet Kraken said:
Grey_Focks said:
I swear to god if I see one more person complain about the story, I'm going to be quite unhappy. It's BLIZZARD, people, they don't tell stories, they make games that put gameplay first, and I for one, along with their millions of fans, prefer it that way. They have NEVER cared about telling good stories, why do you expect them to start now?
Nobody was expecting Starcraft 2 to have an amazing story, but I was at least expecting it to be on par with the original. Instead they somehow managed to make it worse when the original was just talking heads in a box for most of the time.

Call me crazy but I want my Zerg campaign to be about consuming shit and destroying the galaxy. You know, like the Zerg are supposed to be. Instead it's setting up for a story in which the Zerg are the good guys with Raynor and Kerrigan constantly barking orders at you. Lame.
Actually, considering that you more or less *were* Raynor, or at least following him around in WoL, now you'll do the same for Sarah! SARAH! Sarah...

As for "Zerg going around destroying the galaxy", there may still very well be those, now that we have hybrids and Narud and other evil forces around to do that. Sarah's no longer the queen ***** of the universe. So what? I suppose if they develop whichever villain as richly as they did Kerrigan, we'll have nothing to complain over.

But then again, the Dark Voice seems to just be "LOL I AM EEEEEEEEEVIL!"

But hey, let's wait for the game.
 

MetalGenocide

New member
Dec 2, 2009
494
0
0
Where is my zerg rush?....
I wanted terrans to be last....
Dat ass....
Nova getting schooled by Kerri?....


 

Exort

New member
Oct 11, 2010
647
0
0
Nurb said:
Trailers don't leak...

game footage leaks, info leaks, but trailers are always "leaked" by the companies as a marketing ploy to get people to scamble to see it
So gametrailer is working for Blizzard now? Since they are the one they put it on online for awhile before taking it down.
Anyways, according to forum the NDA for this Teaser is suppose to end at june 1st.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Exort said:
Nurb said:
Trailers don't leak...

game footage leaks, info leaks, but trailers are always "leaked" by the companies as a marketing ploy to get people to scamble to see it
So gametrailer is working for Blizzard now? Since they are the one they put it on online for awhile before taking it down.
Anyways, according to forum the NDA for this Teaser is suppose to end at june 1st.
Advertizements aren't exactly on a "Need to know" basis. It's like how movie studios try viral marketing by paying websites to post links to a "leaked trailer".
 

SonofSeth

New member
Dec 16, 2007
205
0
0
Hammeroj said:
John Funk said:
Yeah, I had that idea. No clue why I replied to that point.

Maybe the stories weren't mind-blowingly great, after all, you're allowed to say it, but please don't do them the dishonor of calling them just as mediocre as SC2's, because next to no aspects of it come even close to holding up to Warcraft 3's. Compare the depth of the characters and the setting, for one, this being a pretty much objective criterion, and be honest about it. There's no comparing the two.
As someone who replayed W3 just recently after not playing it for years, I can say with full confidence that Warcraft 3 story, while not as mediocre as Starcraft 2 story has nowhere near the depth you are claiming it has. It's full of cheesy dialog and cringe worthy moments.

It's pulp, all of it is just pulp, only thing that changed is the audience, as we got older, our tastes changed and all we remember from the good old days is how we felt back then.

Starcraft is sci fi pop fiction that borrows from everyone and everywhere and it's starting to show. Good thing for me that I still enjoy their brand of pop fiction. Same thing goes for Warcraft. All their games have this self aware brand of humor that makes the whole experience work.

Your agenda for some reason seems to be to prove how awful the story in Starcraft 2 campaign is, which is the only thing in the game that isn't of AAA+ quality. I will go as far as to say the story really isn't this amazing oscar worthy experience, but it certainly is an enjoyable popcorn action flick with bigger than life characters, amazing CGI and lots of exploding stuff.
 

LandoCristo

New member
Apr 2, 2010
560
0
0
Hammeroj said:
Wilson Driesens said:
*Twitch* *twitch*.

How can you say that there's no story to SCII? Have you divined the future, and gotten the story from WikiLeaks? Because as far as I know, only Blizzard writers have the full story even slightly planned out, and probably not even completely. What story SCII has had so far is 1/3 of the total story they're doing. So, if you don't know the story, how can you say that it could be condensed into one 8-hour game?

Maybe you're right, maybe the Zerg and Protoss campaigns will have terrible, shitty stories. But I can't for the life of me figure out how you would have knowledge of that now.
When I say SC2, I mean the SC2 that's been released. How could that not be obvious?
So when you say, and I quote, "Dude, there's almost no story to SC2. It could easily - easily - have been condensed into one campaign" what you're saying is that the story from one campaign could be condensed into one campaign? Because that's the only other possible way I can look at what you're saying, and it makes even less sense that way. Are you saying that the story from WoL was crappy, and not worth a full game? Because that's a valid opinion if you want to say that, but I'll disagree with that.


SonofSeth said:
Hammeroj said:
John Funk said:
Yeah, I had that idea. No clue why I replied to that point.

Maybe the stories weren't mind-blowingly great, after all, you're allowed to say it, but please don't do them the dishonor of calling them just as mediocre as SC2's, because next to no aspects of it come even close to holding up to Warcraft 3's. Compare the depth of the characters and the setting, for one, this being a pretty much objective criterion, and be honest about it. There's no comparing the two.
As someone who replayed W3 just recently after not playing it for years, I can say with full confidence that Warcraft 3 story, while not as mediocre as Starcraft 2 story has nowhere near the depth you are claiming it has. It's full of cheesy dialog and cringe worthy moments.

It's pulp, all of it is just pulp, only thing that changed is the audience, as we got older, our tastes changed and all we remember from the good old days is how we felt back then.

Starcraft is sci fi pop fiction that borrows from everyone and everywhere and it's starting to show. Good thing for me that I still enjoy their brand of pop fiction. Same thing goes for Warcraft. All their games have this self aware brand of humor that makes the whole experience work.

Your agenda for some reason seems to be to prove how awful the story in Starcraft 2 campaign is, which is the only thing in the game that isn't of AAA+ quality. I will go as far as to say the story really isn't this amazing oscar worthy experience, but it certainly is an enjoyable popcorn action flick with bigger than life characters, amazing CGI and lots of exploding stuff.
Agreed. The campaign missions were fun to play, and although the story wasn't the most heart-rending piece of art ever, but it was certainly better than any CoD game's story besides the first MW, and those sell like hotcakes.