Jump to content

Talk:StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Why is the link to the European web page? It is an American game developer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.157.200 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/4833874/Developer_Update_Heart_of_the_Swarm_Multiplayer-4_11_2012#blog

According to game designer Dustin Browder there are some recent changes made to HOTS. Namely the removal of the Shredder and the replicator. Also the zerg overseer unit is now being included in the current build and is not yet removed. The tempest is also being reworked as well as the viper as their roles have changed. The viper is now a pure caster and the tempest can do air and ground damage from great distances.

74.81.4.51 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 release is official from Blizzard

[edit]

I was at EB Games today, they have *official* box covers for Heart of the Swarm as well as Mists of Pandaria, each with "2012" printed on the front. I am therefore changing the release date from "TBA" to 2012. Davez621 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sources have been inaccurate in the past. Unless we have a RS directly from Blizzard, we should just leave it as 'TBA'. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  11:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Battle.net advertisements for the expansion, including for reserve a copy pre-release advertise it will be released on March 12, 2013. 173.66.18.144 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unit changes section

[edit]

The unit changes section, as it's written, requires the the user to have the context of knowing what units were planned to be added at different times in the past and what they were supposed to do. That's a lot to ask of the reader. Take this sentence: "The Protoss Replicant has been cut due to its tendency to stifle unit diversity, but the Oracle and Tempest remain." That's three units that most people have never heard of, with no explanation of what they are or why the one had a tendency to stifle diversity. The section should either be cut down to simply the most up-to-date delta from Wings of Liberty, or expanded to include fuller histories of units and changes that were planned and rejected. 173.52.131.87 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am a moderately experienced player and have no idea what this means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221bbaker (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Story: two years after? NO!

[edit]

Is there any not wiki-based source that claims HotS takes place two years after WoL? It doesn't sound right, and I haven't found any source of that! Iivarius (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure, but its more like days to weeks presumably. But surely not 2 years. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

There is a line in the "Reception" section that says "Among fans there is an ongoing debate about the quality of the story and the way it is told within the game, which is perceived to be immature and trite by roughly one third of the players.[35]" I removed this recently, but it was added again. This should be removed permanently, as it is not encyclopedic material. The results of a forum pole is a very poor representation of the game's reception as a whole due to a small and biased sample. Judging by other more credible sources (such as established review sites), the reception to Heart of the Swarm was fairly comparable to that of Wings of Liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.168.22 (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added it again. It was a poll done on a major starcraft website so I do not see the problem. Established review sites? What is that? Good journalism resides elsewhere. 88.71.59.155 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing it again. The sources look iffy and likely fail WP:RS, it doesn't say anything that the GameSpot quote doesn't, and it's just not a very encyclopaedic statement; to me, it just looks like complaining, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. "Established review sites" typically refers to the major gaming sites, which are used as sources because they are considered reliable, while random blogs post or forum polls are not. Whitecroc (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't specifically call a review site that reliable, mostly its reviewers that have played the game a few times in order to get a jist of it. Ultimately, in such case, the pro-scene of players are the best reliance when looking at the whole of them, becuase they have to most intimate and detailed experience of the game, not some random reviewer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Summary of revision 571812946 on 2013-09-06

[edit]

Hi.

In revision 571812946, I applied the following changes:

  1. Reduced the plot summary size to that of allowed word count. It is currently at 568 words, as opposed to the original 1087
  2. Removed intricate plot details. These are largely not allowed in Wikipedia because of their purposelessly nature and failure to adhere to neutral point of view. For instance:
    • Indiscriminate info: Simple one-time mention of names like Abathur and Izsha only make sense to those who have played the game once. But such people do not need to read the plot summary. For those who do need, however, these names just add unnecessary reading burden. "Izsha" is a pronunciation dilemma too.
    • POV info: As an example, the account of Kerrigan killing Warfield was pro-Warfield. One can argue that Warfield did not exactly plead (in fact, demanded impolitely) and tried to fire on Kerrigan before dying; and Kerrigan did not kill any civilian during the mission either. But again, Wikipedia is not a tabloid to cover a special sensational story of either kind.

- However, Kerrigan had no reason to attack Warfield to begin with, since Warfield was not actively opposing her. And you're forgetting that Warfield lost his right arm fighting to set Kerrigan free in Wings of Liberty; she owes him, not the other way around. And she slaughtered thousands of civilians throughout the game, starting with the Protoss colony on Kaldir. The point that has been made is that Kerrigan is not meant to be viewed as a heroic figure. Compared to Jim Raynor and Artanis, the Terran and Protoss protagonists of StarCraft II, she fought not for justice, but for her own revenge, and didn't care who she killed in order to get it. And in the process she destroyed her relationship with Jim, and made sure the Protoss would not help her in Legacy of the Void.

  1. Wikilinked every possible name in Casts section

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrigan doesn't specifically need a reason. Nor does it matter for this article. Her actions are her own, and its like she said to Lassara during the Kaldir missions, everyone has blood on their hands, for one reason or another. And your claim about the relation ship with either the Protoss or Jim is also untrue. They never really had a realtionship to begin with. And ever since she was turned into the Queen of Blades Raynor only hoped to bring Sarah back, but also more to comfort his own feelings. Remeber the last mission, Raynor and Kerrigan ultimately back each other up if needed. And the Protoss, you can't speak for that since Legacy is even out yet. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List

[edit]

I did read the regulations regarding this. But way I see it. its total bullcrap. I've read the article on Bioshock which is mentioned there as a "Good example" And having read through 2 paragraphs of text to mention a few people who've ultimately worked as voice casters..... and then a short list of the most notable characters is NOT appropriate?? In what world are we living in??? Wikipedia rules start to make less and less sence by the minute. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my reply from Talk:StarCraft_II: Wings of Liberty#Cast_List - BioShock Infinite has prose that is backed by reliable sources covering the cast in detail. This is different than an indiscriminate list of cast with no context or sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:StarCraft_II:_Heart_of_the_Swarm&oldid=1203832756"