Get StarCraft 2 at $39.99 USD for a Limited Time

[danawesome89]

Well, can't really fault you there. If all I did was play the single player campaign for SC1 and 2, I'd probably feel like I was getting ripped off too.

I still don't see the complaint about the single player. I thought the campaign was brilliantly designed, and it's only short if you play it on too easy of a difficulty setting. If you are a veteran of SC1, or a good RTS player, then of course "normal" will be pretty quick and easy. Getting all of the achievements in the campaign is quite fun as well (which you can't do on just normal difficulty). Then there are tons of single player "challenge" missions which are quite good as well. Not too mention the really fun "lost viking" mini game hidden in the single player.

Honestly, the single player is just as long as SC1, but is better designed, and has way more replay value. There are even a few missions that you can't get it in just one play-through, or missions that change dramatically based on earlier choices. So with the different difficulty levels, upgrade choices, alternate missions, hidden mini-games, fun achievements, and challenge missions, how is it possible to call it only 1/3 of a campaign and a disappointment? Go back and play SC1 and Brood War, then play SC2 and give me an honest evaluation of the length, depth, and quality of the campaign.

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]Kryan[/nom]This is exclusive to the US. Blizzard EU still wants 39.99 EUROS! Ripoff of the century. Oh, no wait, Diablo III is[/citation]
Why buy from Blizzard (ever)?!??!

Street price is below that most of the time, and you get a DVD. Or if you are impacient, you can still buy keys online.

PS
Yeah, pricey. I also wonder why is that Europeance have to pay TWICE as much (59 Euro vs 39 $) for the "Heart of the Swarm" expansion)

 

[Guest]

I got SC2 at Best Buy 2 weeks ago. It was on sale for $29.99.
Not sure if it is still the same price. Glad I scored it when I did.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]danawesome89[/nom]I still don't see the complaint about the single player. I thought the campaign was brilliantly designed, and it's only short if you play it on too easy of a difficulty setting. If you are a veteran of SC1, or a good RTS player, then of course "normal" will be pretty quick and easy. Getting all of the achievements in the campaign is quite fun as well (which you can't do on just normal difficulty). Then there are tons of single player "challenge" missions which are quite good as well. Not too mention the really fun "lost viking" mini game hidden in the single player.Honestly, the single player is just as long as SC1, but is better designed, and has way more replay value. There are even a few missions that you can't get it in just one play-through, or missions that change dramatically based on earlier choices. So with the different difficulty levels, upgrade choices, alternate missions, hidden mini-games, fun achievements, and challenge missions, how is it possible to call it only 1/3 of a campaign and a disappointment? Go back and play SC1 and Brood War, then play SC2 and give me an honest evaluation of the length, depth, and quality of the campaign.[/citation]
I'm not complaining about the single-player campaign, nor am I calling it 1/3 of a campaign. If you read my previous comment, I'm actually making a very similar argument to your own. I thought the single player campaign was very good and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm saying that for me, very little of the replay value in SC comes from the campaign. I played through it once and went straight to multi-player, and after experiencing multi-player I honestly feel no desire to run through the single-player campaign again.

 

[danawesome89]

I'm not complaining about the single-player campaign, nor am I calling it 1/3 of a campaign. If you read my previous comment, I'm actually making a very similar argument to your own. I thought the single player campaign was very good and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm saying that for me, very little of the replay value in SC comes from the campaign. I played through it once and went straight to multi-player, and after experiencing multi-player I honestly feel no desire to run through the single-player campaign again.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood and thought you were somehow siding with the other guy who was complaining about the campaign.

Yeah, I agree that multiplayer is totally where it's at with Starcraft, but I just felt like I had to defend the campaign, because it really is a fantastic campaign. But I agree that the multiplayer is so brilliant that the single player is kind of irrelevant once you get hooked on laddering lol.

 

[nhat11]

[citation][nom]s3anister[/nom]I still think this is too much for a game that's missing 2/3 of the campaign.[/citation]

It has as many missions as the original SC1 COMBINED with terran/zerg/protoss.

Also in the end most of your time will be online where most people spend dozen of hours on it.

Some people play Call of Duty single player missions but most people get the most out of the game playing multiplayer.

 

[djscribbles]

Are the custom maps as good and plentiful as WC3? I don't really like multiplayer strategy much, but love tower defense and other customs from WC3.