I havent played SC2 in literally years. I stopped playing right before the first expansion dropped. I recently decided I wanted to get back into it, is it worth $60 or so to get the 2 newest expansions and play it again?
>>321148306
Only if you want to get into the multiplayer which has been going downhill slowly. since launch
>>321149378
Well of course, multiplayer is the only thing that is interesting about the game
No, it's not worth it. Plot is as bad as in SC2, if not worse, singleplayer missions are a bit worse, if only they are mostly just repeated of what SC2 had to offer. Custom games are still not fixed.
And, well, if you're going in for multiplayer... It's the same thing with more units. Do you want to play 60 dollars to play the thing you stopped playing?
>>321149681
I stopped playing mostly because I got busy, i never really made a conscious decision to stop.
The single player campaigns have been absolutely fantastic. It's pretty impressive how well they can tell an engaging story with an RTS engine. I have LotV collector's edition sitting on my shelf, waiting to be played once I finish Fallout 4.
>>321149837
Well, I did offer my opinion on everything but multiplayer. I myself never could accept Starcraft multiplayer, simply because empty mechanical skill is rewarded times more than any tactics and strategy.
>>321149920
Is... is this one of them bait posts?
IIRC, LotV is standalone. It comes with the past campaigns and the latest multiplayer. If anything, just dick around with the f2p Starter Edition.
>>321150169
So I wouldn't need to get the second expansion? I could just get the newest one?
>>321150265
Yarp. Still 40 buckaroos tho.
>>321150351
That's not too terrible. If he counts each half hour as a dollar he would only have to play 20 hours to get his money's worth
>buy starcraft 2
>the 2 other campaigns are expansions
>hots comes around
>buy hots on sale for 30 euro
>they suddenly announce lotv is standalone
>surely we who own the first 2 games gets a deep discount
>full price
t t.... t-thanks blizzard
>>321152268
Your fault for buying the expansion. After shit they did with WoL it was clear their only aim to collect money from you.
Been replaying WC3 camaign recently. It's absolutely ridiculous how much better and fun mission design in SC 2 is. 90% of WC 3 missions are
>Build up base
>Get more dudes
>Clear map
SC2 actually has missions with fun objectives that make you leave the base and move around the map more AND doesn't punish you for it. Legacy of the Void goes a bit overboard with this though, to the point it feels like some of the missions are on a timer. Do X before too many of Y spawn, or you'll be overwhelmed, etc.
That said, the cringe in SC2 story is real. Absolutely cannot stand any of the voice actors and dialogues. WC3 compensates for this by having less of it. And heroes are always fun.
You can just get LotV if you don't give a shit about the campaign. HotS has fun missions but the plot is pants-on-read retarded and it's not really worth the extra $20. If you just want the multiplayer and new co-op missions which are fun, it's worth dropping the $40. Multiplayer is better than ever, but it's even harder than it was before
>>321152720
It's generally agreed that SC2 has god tier singleplayer gameplay. Although I myself think that the quality of that still goes down hard with every expansion.
>>321152268
Eh, 20/40 dollars every two or three years is good value. Meanwhile on Hearthstone...
>>321149497
If MP is all you want it for, yeah you will get $60 worth of fun and then some from it. The campaigns are ok but get progressively easier and Legacy of the Void is next to no challenge at all, I had to do brutal and go for achieves at the same time to make it a challenge.
this is the best of the three in terms of campaign. the multiplayer, while it will need polish has potential to be the best yet
>>321153072
Money spent: 0.
Hours enjoyed: hundreds.
