I really think that the starcraft 2 as a trilogy will make the game alot funner. So what if it Blizzard rips everyone off? You still get 3 kick-a** games.
Umm, I think that StarCraft 2 additional packs only have things like LAN etc, no new content in terms of gameplay, just chat works and LAN, Im pretty sure. So yes in a way, it's a ripoff.
Oh, and campaigns, that's pretty much it as far as I know.
Not to mention the previous functions I believe were in the previous game (I own neither, however I have read up on it), so it's not exactly better except slight graphics upgrades and maybe a little more gameplay
Umm, I think that StarCraft 2 additional packs only have things like LAN etc, no new content in terms of gameplay, just chat works and LAN, Im pretty sure. So yes in a way, it's a ripoff.
No. Both already-planned expansions that will release a year apart will cost $40, and come with an 'expansion' of the campaign, and more multiplayer units. This means you have to pay a total of $150 + just to get the full experience out of the game.
No. Both already-planned expansions that will release a year apart will cost $40, and come with an 'expansion' of the campaign, and more multiplayer units. This means you have to pay a total of $150 + just to get the full experience out of the game. Activision can burn.
I am not sure if you do get new multiplayer units as you can play all of the races in Multiplayer - I doubt they will add more in future expansions, I don't know :/
for an rts game, starcraft has an amazing story. so yes, yes it would be worth it. yeah chat works was something that i was surprised wasn't in it.
but no you don't have to get the expansion packs. i personally don't blame them for splitting out the story, the entire Wings of Liberty campaign was about the size of the entire campaign of the original starcraft.
but its your choice if you want it or not. i don't really see why my sister gets all those expansions to the sims, but its worth it to her.
I don't know Caucheka, but if that's right then it might be worth it, I just hope they update it to allow LAN etc what they had back in StarCraft 1, I'd say that's the only problem. What would be good tho is if it's done in a patch - roughly the same time of an expansions release so: 1. they don't miss out (like Cataclysm in WoW, everyone experiances it). 2. They can still properly connect to others (unless there are new units etc, which I doubt). 3. There doesn't always have to be one!
Its a rip off but what did you expect its Blizzard did you really think you were going to get a whole game, every game that they have made has a expansion pack. Execpt for diablo one.
blizzard is my favorite video game company, other top ones being bioware and riot games.
anyway, blizzard delivered way beyond my expectations on sc2. so knowing theres even more to it i would gladly pay for the expansion. i got the expansion to wc3, the first expansion to WoW (i could never make payments on time so i just stopped playing) and even the expansion to diablo 2.
yes im going to get heart of the swarm and legacy of the void. if i was playing WoW i would get cataclysm (after WotLK) and i will be getting diablo 3 and its possible expansion.
as for diablo I not having an expansion, while it wasn't created by blizzard there were add-ons being made for it, one of which brought it to 6 characters from 3, but only one of the 3 new ones on it worked.
Its a rip off but what did you expect its Blizzard did you really think you were going to get a whole game, every game that they have made has a expansion pack. Execpt for diablo one.
WarCraft series has exceptional lore, mostly due to expansion packs (Frozen Throne + WotLK = Arthas, Dark Portal + TBC = Illidan and Burning Legion, but, I haven't played any WarCraft games, only the MMO :P ), Diablo probs has expansions to help set the tale for the next one, StarCraft does as a balancing term, as most Strategy games do.
Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour did, to even out GLA Stealth technology, and some US infiltration.
Age of Empires III 2 expansions, to help learn things and to introduce a wider variety of units, I'd have to say neither are properly balanced due to the amount of gameplay there is, at low levels, British / Spanish may win easier, at levels 25 (?) it could be the Indians or Aztecs, and at highest level (all cards needed available) Sioux or w/e, in either case I'm sure it's properly balanced, but I haven't actually gotten a chance to try it :P Age of Mythology, aswell, they added The Titans and another civilization which allowed another type of gameplay (Ox Cart gathering type villagers, Greek-quality units, any unit can be heroes, very unique god improvements and myth units). Also balancing against Greek I suppose, a fair counter, but it wouldn't fair entirely well, as I think any civilization can beat another given the right tactics.
