Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

Here is your HUGE HIGH QUALITY SC2 Box Cover - USE IT

I don't know how to update it on the main page and I don't really feel the urge to educate my self about it. Since people working on this wiki are probably big fans of the game: Here is the link where I uploaded it http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8946/sc2m.png If you feel like mentioning my nickname its Polymorpher . Cheers. (You are welcome to delete this message when the image is included at the wiki) [July,23,2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.147.183 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the non free content criteria state that it must be at a smaller size. (Although I'll resize that image and reupload, as it has better colors. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

China?

Why isn't it going to be released in China? All of the source doesn't indicate that it isn't going to be released in China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) is a part of China 58.9.204.175 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Patches 9 & 10

I added that Patch 9 added a map editor and updated the patch count to 10 (effective about an hour or so ago). Don't know the right way to cite so copied another citation and it came out wonky. Someone should fix it. Also fix this section if I put it in wrong. thx. Slackmaster K 09:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

JUNE 15th, 2010 - European launch of Starcraft II revealed

Starcraft 2 will be available for purchase on June 15th, 2010 in Europe. This is the official European launch date. This information has been sent to various retail suppliers some days ago. I think the Wiki folks won't update the release date section in the article until a press announcement for the general public has been made, but you'll see that this info is correct. this info is incorrect.

Please fix translations INTO PORTUGUESE

The game will be translated into portuguese as well [1]

Release date announced

Check out this blog post on StarCraft 2. 192.118.11.112 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Official System Requirements?

Any one have the official system requirements? It should be for the finalized version. Iys best for it to be cited to the official website.76.21.122.234 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blizzard posted official requirements for the Beta on their website. I imagine that the requirements for the final game will be similar if not the same, but as of right now there aren't official system requirements for the retail copy.69.242.68.96 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Map editor

Ok i downloaded the patch witch allowed the map editor but how to i access it?97.81.53.142 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you managed to write a comment on Wikipedia, but failed to find the galaxy editor exe. --81.204.102.163 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

it is in the same folder as the main exe. the file that runs the editor is called starcraft 2 editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-rated in S. Korea

It appears that Blizzard has censored parts of the game (specifically, recoloured the blood and removed swearing & smoking from the cut-scenes) and got away with a 12 from the South Korean ratings board. Source. Delusibeta (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dicussion about editing of this article on another website

Just a heads up: There is discussion about editing the critisism section of this article ongoing at http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128316. Arthena^(talk) 07:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the discussion on the TeamLiquid site was on improving the criticism section to meet wikipedia's standards and to edit out any bias appearing in the text. The website is well known for giving honest and direct feedback to Blizzard including a large amount of help with the Beta version of Starcraft 2. Overall the discussion has vastly improved the new criticism section.Zuchinni one (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Taking a look at the general tone on that forum, it appears that there is general lack of happiness with some of the Blizzard's design choices from the users at that forum, as well as a stated intention to force change by boycotting the game, to voting the game as one-star on amazon, consider this thread for example. While edits to the article are encouraged from everyone, we should strive to ensure that they're of a neutral point of view, and not part of a potential campaign to use wikipedia as a soapbox or to influence a company. If we're including a reception section, we should also include posts which show the game in a favorable light to avoid giving undue weight to the criticisms. Revaluation (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

This keeps getting added and subtracted, so after watching this for the last few hours I've fully protected the article for three days so we can:

• Leave the status quo in the article as is, and
• Discuss the matter of a criticism section so we can get some consensus for its inclusion or exclusion.

I have no strong feelings on the matter, but I do want to see some decision on the matter by the time the protection ends. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that this seems to have been prompted by an external group of people from a forum, I'd advise individuals concerned read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure and Criticism sections so you're all familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and opinion on these things. "Criticism and controversy" sections can have a negative impact on neutral presentation; usually with video game articles, unless there's major unconventional issues that are covered by the core video game (IGN, GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc) or mainstream media, such points should be worked into the "development" or "reception" sections of an article, not given a special preference section (Left 4 Dead 2#Controversy would be a good example of a valid controversy section done properly).

However, points also need to be properly cited to reliable sources, see Verifiability and No original research for this—forums, fansites and other sites lacking a wider reputation outside their fanbases aren't appropriate. Incgamers, whilst the strongest source of the ones used, is borderline: it needs to be reinforced by references from better sources. -- Sabre (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Any points of controversy are best merged into the Development section, which, incidentally, already has criticisms (No LAN, no cross-server play, long development time). While I do sympathize with the writers of it, there is no justification for a new Criticism section.

In terms of reliability, I don't see anything wrong with using IncGamer's interview (primary source) to supplement/support the information in the Development section. However, opinions, such as the first sentence of the former Criticism section ("While Blizzard boasts some of the most loyal fans in the gaming industry, they have recently come under heavy criticism.") should not be included, especially considering that they refer to weak sources (e.g. forums). 24.191.123.88 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on inclusion as well. Thanks for the criticism section stuff, I sure had not read that, and am now. I just had this on my watchlist and came to try and improve it, and probably did overrate the reliability of IncGamers. It would be good for any people on that forum to figure out if they want to integrate it, and if so, how, using what reliable sources, while the page is under full protection. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have no strong feelings about where this information resides within the article ... as it's own section or as part of the Development section. But I do feel that if it is placed in the Development section then all the criticism should be consolidated into its own subsection.Zuchinni one (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The vaporware award can fit in development. The lan controversy could be in a criticism section, or in its own section. It has caused quite the uproar. Oldag07 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Their have been many many sources of criticism from the mainstream press. Among them include sites like http://kotaku.com/5304113/no-lan-play-for-starcraft-ii http://www.gossipgamers.com/blizzards-response-to-no-lan-support-for-starcraft-2/http://pc.ign.com/articles/999/999171p1.html All which address the negative Fan reaction regarding the issue Halfthought (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of the current articles that may be suitable reference material for the criticism section.

-The original Frank Pearce interview:

http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/270/blizzards-frank-pearce-interview

-An INC Gamers article on the petitions to include LAN support:

http://www.incgamers.com/News/17162/Thousands-Petition-Blizzard-For-StarCraft-LAN

-An INC Gamers article on the lack of even Semi-LAN support:

http://www.incgamers.com/News/22943/not-even-semi-lan-in-starcraft-ii

-A Game Rant article discussing the lack of LAN:

http://gamerant.com/blizzard-starcraft-2-no-lan-js-23284/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gamerant+%28Game+Rant%29

-An INC Gamers article on the region locking issue:

http://www.incgamers.com/News/22928/no-intercontinental-starcraft-ii-friendships

-A GX interview with Kevin Yu of Blizzard discussing region lock:

http://www.gx.com.sg/Blog/Blog.aspx?id=cee4cc72-d74f-4837-8e9e-d25983a2e67e

-A Gosu Gamers article discussing the lack of cross-region play & how that will effect the competitive scene. It also briefly discusses the lack of chat rooms:

http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/12068-battle-net-2-0-what-are-we-missing

-A kotaku article about the lack of LAN play:

http://kotaku.com/5304113/no-lan-play-for-starcraft-ii

-A Gossip Gamers article about lack of LAN play:

http://www.gossipgamers.com/blizzards-response-to-no-lan-support-for-starcraft-2/

-An article on Starcraft-Fans giving Blizzard's response to LAN requests:

http://www.starcraft-fans.com/page/Blizzard+Responds+to+No+LAN+Support?t=anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the best solution I see. There's no dispute that the LAN issue needs to be covered (its already touched upon in the article), this is about how it is covered. The lack of LAN is still part of the development narrative; it, the reaction to it (properly sourced) and Blizzard's response to that are all still development information. Nevertheless, I think we could get a good paragraph, possibly two, out of available sources. However, any top-level section heading that indicates weight on either positive or negative aspects in such a manner, such as the troll-magnet titles "Criticism" or "Controversy" is a very bad idea for this case, especially given that the article isn't in great condition at the moment anyway.

What I'd suggest is to put it in a sub-section heading within the development section entitled "Lack of LAN play", "Multiplayer production", or some variant on that. Doing that would provide a neutral structure, satisfying WP:NPOV, for discussing the whole LAN issue. That way, it still gets a section all to itself, but is integrated properly.

Lets have a look at sourcing:

• The IGN source posted by Halfthought is already in the article. IGN's a major video game media outlet, its perfectly acceptable. However, unlike Halfthought says, it doesn't present any criticism, it merely reports the lack of LAN. That's something key to remember about sourcing: Don't mistake simple acknowledgement for criticism. In any case, source is acceptable.
• Kotaku is also a major outlet, its all good there. Same deal as above though, it merely reports, it states nothing on response.
• Incgamers appears to be the main source of information for main media groups. That demonstrates a reputation for reliability and source checking, as required by WP policy. Thus Incgamers can be used. Just don't use what it reports for synthesis.
• Gamerant and Gossipgamers are just random internet blogs about video games. Unless they can be demonstrated to be reputable peer-reviewed sources, they're no good and shouldn't be included.
• GX is also a blog, I can't see anything that would indicate why it should be considered reliable. We can just about get away with citing the comments by Kevin Yu with it, but don't cite any of the site's own content or opinion. However, this source also has nothing to do with LAN, so I don't see why it was brought up.
• StarCraft Fans is a fansite, its not a reliable source for any academic purposes. No dice.
• Gosu Gamers is an editorial that discusses Battle.Net 2.0, not any issues with LAN. Its not particularly relevant for a section dealing with LAN; a vague reference to it in the open blurb isn't enough to make it worthwhile for this particular purpose. Plus, it would need to have its case as a reputable source demonstrated.
• While we're at it, lets deal with Team Liquid itself. As a forum, its completely unsuitable as an scholarly source (regardless of the need for registration or the amount of people involved). Forum posts aren't reliable and citing the forum poll would arguably constitute original research on the part of the forum operators. Now, if this poll result is picked up and reported on by someone such as IGN, then we can cite that third-party analysis of the poll, but citing it directly isn't any good.

That leaves IGN, Kotaku and Incgamers, and tentatively GX. There's some more decent references from GameSpot and Ars Technica in the article already as a start towards more mainstream stuff, which I'm confident exists. I'm sure something can be put together out of those. -- Sabre (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sabre for vetting the potential sources :)

I think you are correct that there should not be a top-level criticism section. The current development section would serve as a good place for a sub-topic.

The three main issues that seem to be generating the most problems are:

1) Lack of LAN play - Blizzard's reasoning for this is quite simply to prevent piracy. The fan complaints revolve around the lack of high quality of gameplay since LANs offer the least amount of lag.

2) Region locking - Blizzard has said people will need to purchase multiple copies of the game (and possibly the expansions too) in order to play in different regions. Their reasoning is that they want to provide a solid experience for the players and very low lag.

3) Lack of chat rooms - It is unclear why Blizzard has refused to include chat rooms. While this might seem like a minor issue it actually has major ramifications in terms of the social aspect of the game and there are major privacy concerns. Currently the system provides no anonymity and requires that you either share your e-mail address or Facebook page with potential friends. While this issue is one of the biggest there is very little news from reliable sources. One of the best bits of information comes from a tournament organizer who published the difficulties of a non-chat environment on youtube. But that hardly qualifies as a mainstream source.

There seems to be a decent amount of mainstream reporting on the first two issues, but it is lacking for the third.

For issue 3, the lack of chat rooms, would it be acceptable to simply explain the requirements that Blizzard has put into place for social gaming? Something along the lines of

"Unlike the original Battle.net service, the Battlenet 2.0 system does not allow anonymity and requires users to share e-mail addresses or Facebook information in order to become in-game friends."

Or would that be considered unsourced? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Given that the game hasn't launched, I don't see how we can have a Criticism, unless there's some form of controversy similar to the L4D2 article. Part of these problems may be resolved before launch (which is 2 months away). This is an article about Starcraft 2, not the Starcraft 2 beta. It seems to me that a bunch of forum users who want features implemented in the game are trying to POV push it into this article so that they can get action from Blizzard. Wikipedia is not their soapbox. I generally agree with Sabres assessment, but I don't think we need anything outside the development section. Revaluation (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The criticism has been regarding Blizzard's assertions about what will and will not be in the final release. Nothing mentioned here is in regards to the Beta. Also most of the issues which have been highly criticized were recently covered in a discussion with Frank Pearce, one of Blizzard's founders. That interview has sparked a new firestorm of protests including a drive to boycott Starcraft 2 and to rate it 1-star on Amazon. There has also been a petition signed by 250,000 people demanding changes. So I think its fair to say there is a real controversy here.Zuchinni one (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, reading guidelines on controversy, if it shows up in more reliable sources it would not be unheard of to have a dedicated criticism section. However, at this point it doesn't make sense. There is undoubtedly some bias, but as long as everyone is trying to improve the article we must take the stance of assuming good faith. As to the above, it is probably considered original research, and is not a neutral sentence. A more neutral sentence would remove the part about not allowing anonymity, but could include the requirements. Additionally, it's a little dangerous to make assertions, as Blizzard said they disabled the feature so they could more thoroughly test the facebook/email features. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is a criticism section, it should probably be a subsection of the reception section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing reception setting

This article currently lacks a reception section, which is listed as essential content in the video game article guidelines, and, after quickly skimming through the article history, it seems that it has never had such a section. Could someone with editing rights add a {{game cleanup}} tag to the article? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm declining that request for the same reason I protected the article earlier: the game hasn't come out yet. Having a reception section for the game before its release makes no greater sense than having a criticism section, and at any rate the lock is only for another 48 hours. After that you can feel free to add it to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Although the game has not been released, there is more than sufficient content for a reception section, from the release of the Beta. Though personally I feel most of the backlash is actually about the merger with Activision, rather than issues with Sc2/Bnet 2.0. 174.7.110.7 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources please. -- Sabre (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New Starcraft 2 Beta Reception Section?

It occurs to me that perhaps the best thing to do would be to write a brief bit about the reception of the Beta, which was very positive overall, as a sub-section of the Beta section. And then have a sentence or two about the criticism along with all appropriate references from RSs.

Something like:

"Overall the Beta has been very well received by the gaming community with praise for playability, artwork, and Blizzard's Map Editor. However there have also been reports of widespread disappointment at the lack of LAN play, chat rooms, and region locking."

The wording here might have too much bias so I welcome suggestions on improving it.

Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some kind of feedback on the beta might be helpful, but we need references first. Otherwise that's just completely unverifiable original research. Remember, make the prose fit what the secondary sources say, don't create the prose then try to find a way of sourcing it. A full subsection seems a bit overkill for just this bit anyway—the critical analysis will come for the final game, not so much the beta phase—it would fit better simply as a closing paragraph to the existing beta section. -- Sabre (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks S@bre. The prose suggestion above is from a wide range of articles that I know already exist, but I couldn't source off the top of my head. I'll find the refs, make sure the prose only comes from what is actually said, and add this as a subsection of the Beta. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Page notice?

I'm interested in hearing if anyone would object to creating a page notice for the article, perhaps something like:

What do y'all think? Is this worth pursuing? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Would prefer something to the tune of:

The issue with this remains, however, the fact that it is possible (now that the beta phase has ended) that large game journals, considered reliable sources could summarize the criticism, which could be integrated into the development section. However, I think this is formatted a bit better. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of absence of lan play, region locking, and absence of chat rooms

i edited the article yesterday and had my edit reverted. the subject was criticism of sc2, specifically the absence of LAN play, region locking, and no chat rooms.

i am very new to wikipedia, and i was actually just figuring out the code to use in putting refferences among other things. after communicating with the editor who reverted my work, he/she agreed that my source was valid, but suggested that i submit it to the talk page for approval of the group that is monitoring the sc2 page. the text of my edit is below. the reference is an interview with professional starcraft and starcraft 2 players, posted on the starcraft news site teamliquid. the interview was posted with the ability for teamliquid users to post comments on it ala forums, but it is not a forum post. further, the actual facts of the information like region locking and no lan play are all confirmed by blizzard and may actually already be part of the sc2 wiki article. i will be refining this edit in the near future and resubmitting it with better attribution, but i would appreciate any feedback the edit team has on this subject.

There has been extensive criticism of Blizzard and it's new owner Activision over their decision to eliminate all LAN (local area network) play, as well region locking the title so that a player with a North American copy will not be able to play against a player with an Asian copy. It is widely believed that these two decisions will tremendously hinder efforts to develop a long term Starcraft 2 community, and the absence of LAN play especially will make it impossible for the game to become a global E-sport in the style of it's predecessor.

There has also been an enormous outcry from fans about the absence of chat channels, which was later exasperated by poorly chosen comments from blizzard representatives.

source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=129301

if necessary i can dig up some blizzard sources for the features that are intentionally left out.

Jeremysaint (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(posted on behalf of Jeremysaint (talk · contribs) by TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure here. In this case, an interview of these well-known (or at least relatively) players constitutes that they have concerns. The post itself, I believe, might be considered a reliable source, and I'll look into it more. However, it becomes difficult as to say whether the edit you made is a synthesis of their opinions, and the popular opinion on the forums. I'll give everything a quick look. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Team Liquid (or any other similar site), as covered in an above section, is not a reliable source. Its a fan community forum, not a proper encyclopedic secondary source. -- Sabre (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Came to the same conclusion. Although the source may be true, it is not a reliable source per guidelines. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed and reworded to try and get this to a NPOV. Also, there was a reference to a gamespot article about petitions,etc., which just said there was no LAN. Please ensure that your source is reliable and covers the material being added to the article. Revaluation (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to start a separate Reception section now, if suitable sources can be found. Although creating a new section simply for the reception of the beta would normally be overkill, it can be expected that the section will be expanded in the next couple of weeks. Considering the prevalence and significance of the beta release, it would make sense to keep the beta reception in the article at least for the next few months. The section would start out something like "With the release of the beta version, gaming news magazines observed that..." or something like that. Later, after the retail version gets significant coverage, the second paragraph of that section would read "After the game's main retail release on July 27th, 2010, ..." continuing on to give either a supporting or contrasting reception of the final build. What we're missing now are suitable sources on the beta reception. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

online only

based on what i have found out it is online only. there is however a guest mode where people can play single player online without an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To validate the game, a battle.net account and connection is required. An offline single-player mode will be available, but only after valdation. 74.88.105.35 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) i read a faq on blizzards forums that say that it is online only. i do however understand that people refuse to believe it. most people on the hive workshop also refuse to believe that it is online only.

incorrect editor name

i have used the editor myself so i can tell that is simply called the starcraft 2 editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blizzard has confirmed that the official name for the editor will be the Galaxy Editor. What was seen was simply a title for the application window. 88.151.126.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC). the fact is that is called the starcraft 2 editor, live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's avoid some form of flame war, but here's a reliable source for the official title for the map editor in Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty being called the Galaxy Map Editor.

Read post #3, posted by a blizzard poster Furthermore, the programming language used in the editor is called Galaxy.

See question #1 I am not saying that Blizzard does not use several names for the tool used to edit the game, but the Galaxy Editor seems to be the successor to StarEdit. 75.67.82.245 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC) i currently use the editor. there isnt any galaxy in the editors name. on the european forum of the beta it is called the starcraft 2 map editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Mac and Win in the same game?

Will there be released a game for Mac OSX and one for Windows - or will there be only one release which works on both platforms? --Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One game for both operating systems Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we know if the game will come on two DVDs - one for Mac and one for Windows - or will they put the game for both OS down on one single DVD? --Lindberg (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Very likely that it'll be a single disc. Probably a dual-layer DVD. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. Is there any sources that can support that theory? --Lindberg (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but given that Blizzard have done this consistently for years I doubt they'd change it now anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that thumperward is right, the fact that the original StarCraft game did it would count as a good indication. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.99.242 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

i edited out an error.

i have used the editor in the latest beta version. i didnt need to go online to use it.

Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm

I started work on a page for the first expansion, Heart of the Swarm. Not sure exactly how to link you guys there directly, perhaps this will work well enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woolysockofdoom/StarCraft_II:_Heart_of_the_Swarm

I'd like to hear some thoughts. woolysockofdoom (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a decent introduction from which to build start the article off when we get some meat on the Heart of the Swarm bone, so good job there. Hopefully Blizzard will start talking about the expansion fairly soon after release, so we can get an article underway. -- Sabre (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We already know the game will incorporate elements of RPG like games right? You could add that. Also, It would be a safe bet that the system requirements will be similar to the ones used for SCII:WoL. That could be safely added to the in development version you have going at the moment. Just my two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

dvd drive isnt required

the system requirements shouldnt include a dvd drive because there will be a digital version which will be released on the same day but 10 am pacific time.the dvd drive should be listed as optional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboi209 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)