Starcraft 2 released as a trilogy?

PC gamers will bitch about anything :rolleyes:
We do not yet know how in-depth each campaign will be or how much each will cost, in fact there is very little info except for this one rather recent announcement.

Excuse me for not immediately throwing a hissy fit and waiting to see what the finished product looks like.
 
Ill reserve judgement

IF it turns out that the single-player aspect between each trilogy is no better then say..
The extra disks that came with Dune:Emperor (3 factions having its own disc for their campeign) OR DawnOfWar expansion packs (each new one brought extra units,abilities,gameplay and ever improving single-player campeign)
THEN Blizzard are gonna fail hard! but hey it doesn't matter they can just blame pirates

For 3 full games from a RTS they had BETTER be doing something spectacular between each one!
 
This is silly, why should i have to pay for a whole new game which boils down to a glorified mission pack, just to get the game i should have gotten in the first place?

If they even think about charging more than 15-20 bucks for each one, they better have ALL sorts of new content(units, engine improvements, graphic updates, etc...), not just some shitty new missions.

Oh well, i much prefered total annihilation/supreme commander/red alert 1+2 to star craft, so im not all that irked. Ill probably end up skipping this one if its as bad as it sounds.
 
tskiller said:
This is silly, why should i have to pay for a whole new game which boils down to a glorified mission pack, just to get the game i should have gotten in the first place?

If they even think about charging more than 15-20 bucks for each one, they better have ALL sorts of new content(units, engine improvements, graphic updates, etc...), not just some shitty new missions.

Oh well, i much prefered total annihilation/supreme commander/red alert 1+2 to star craft, so im not all that irked. Ill probably end up skipping this one if its as bad as it sounds.
Click to expand...

SO basically you are bitchen about something you know nothing about.
Do you know they are going to be selling these at full price?
Do you know if they depend on the original ?
Do you know if they are not adding extra content?
 
I'll take comfort in the fact that Blizzard are master story tellers, and always do a wonderful job with single player campaigns. The preview screens (and video) I've seen of SC2 look very promising. Hopefully they won't charge more than $19.99 per "game" ...
 
eeyrjmr said:
SO basically you are bitchen about something you know nothing about.
Do you know they are going to be selling these at full price?
Do you know if they depend on the original ?
Do you know if they are not adding extra content?
Click to expand...

Using the powers of logic, reasoning, and inference, it isnt hard to tell where they are headed with this. You would be incredibly naive to think that each game is going to be as full and new as a straight up sequel, and in the original article, they essentially admit that they will be charging you full price for each game.

Remember valve's promise of episodic gaming? Similar, if not identical, concept. Remember how well that turned out? Boy i sure loved paying 50$ for the orange box when all i wanted was episode 2. Boy i sure loved getting a new game every 5-6 months as promised....oh wait. Honestly, I dont need or want a 30 mission campaign for each race. What was wrong with the length of the first starcraft?

This is essentially episodic gaming, and that has already been proven to be a failure, even with the best of developers. I dont see why we should have to go down this path again, unless its just corporate greed.
 
tskiller said:
Remember valve's promise of episodic gaming? Similar, if not identical, concept. Remember how well that turned out? Boy i sure loved paying 50$ for the orange box when all i wanted was episode 2. Boy i sure loved getting a new game every 5-6 months as promised....oh wait. Honestly, I dont need or want a 30 mission campaign for each race. What was wrong with the length of the first starcraft?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Orange Box also contained (arguably) the best single player game of the year (Portal), and the best multiplayer game of the year (Team Fortress 2). That and you basically got the original HL2 and Episode 1 for free ... with the Orange Box, you got your money's worth. You can also buy Episode 2 off Steam, separately, for $14.99. ;)
 
Until I see an OFFICIAL Blizzard launch information, I take this with huge grains of salt
 
JaYp146 said:
Yeah, but the Orange Box also contained (arguably) the best single player game of the year (Portal), and the best multiplayer game of the year (Team Fortress 2). That and you basically got the original HL2 and Episode 1 for free ... with the Orange Box, you got your money's worth. You can also buy Episode 2 off Steam, separately, for $14.99. ;)
Click to expand...

I never doubted that it was a good deal for *some* people, but i already had half life 2 and episode 1 and did not want portal or team fortress 2. Why should i have to pay for all the stuff i dont want? Also, back when it first came out if you wanted to buy at retail B&M, you had to buy them all. Call me old fashioned, but I still like having a physical disc and box of games I buy. (and when it first came out, buying episode 2 via steam was significantly more expensive than it is now. i cant remember exactly, but i think it was 30$, not exactly a good deal for the amount of game you got in ep2)
 
http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008..._split_single_player_campaign-2.html#comments

Don't think of it as a split. That's the main point StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty was trying to get across during our brief interview following the StarCraft II panel at BlizzCon where it was announced that the single player campaign would be delivered as three separate products - first Terran, then Zerg, and finally Protoss. "Effectively each game in the will be an expansion," Sigaty explained when I told him of our reader's initial concerns about buying the same game three times with a different single player component. Think Warcraft III's The Frozen Throne, or the original StarCraft's Brood War.

Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. The main difference here is that instead of giving you a tacked-on extension of the single-player experience as you often find in an RTS expansion, each title comes with a fully realised campaign.

Chris explained that each of the three installments would play a bit differently as well, with different meta-game types in each. The initial campaign would feature Terran Jim Raynor, with a meta game that involves upgrading technologies. The second focuses on the Zerg, with a meta-element involving diplomacy. I mentioned Star Control, and Chris said that that sort of gameplay element had been discussed.

So why the change? It really comes down to scope. "We always start with this really gigantic scope", Sigaty explained. Basically StarCraft II got bigger than they expected. They have a huge, solid Terran campaign that needs a bit of fleshing out at this point, and once you figure out the dev time needed for the other two campaigns it would have delayed the game for years. After months of discussion, this was their solution.

So basically, as I suggested to Chris, instead of thinking of the StarCraft Trilogy as three separate courses, think of it as three different meals, each with a different flavor.
Click to expand...

Gay...not only do you have to buy all 3 campaigns to get the full multiplayer experience, its going to take "years" to get the other two campaigns?
 
HAHA I feel for you... I really do, HAHA, man that sucks HAHA!
I'm just glad I said "fuck this [Starcraft 2]" in its early stages.

It seems WoW has taught Blizzard how to really milk a cow :D (Like it's ALL Activision's fault, really :rolleyes:)
 
wow some people are pretty dumb.

with all the crap games out today you are worried about having 3 awesome games to look forward to instead of 1? seriously..
 
Blind Man said:
wow some people are pretty dumb.

with all the crap games out today you are worried about having 3 awesome games to look forward to instead of 1? seriously..
Click to expand...

3 awesome games (and you should know, having played it and all :rolleyes:) who should've been only 1 "awesome" game. Yeah, we're pretty dumb, why pay for one when we can pay for three! Hurray!

:rolleyes:
 
tskiller said:
Honestly, I dont need or want a 30 mission campaign for each race. What was wrong with the length of the first starcraft?
Click to expand...

Yea, seriously, I thought the length of the campaigns in SC and BW were perfect. Plus, I enjoyed switching up the races every 10 missions or so. It was also refreshing to suddenly see a whole new UI skin and use new units, not to mention seeing the story from three sides without having to wait until a new campaign is released.
 
There's not enough real data to go on yet, IMHO. Just spin.

Therefore: I want a general release timeframe for Part One, which is presumably the Terran segment--this Wings of Liberty. I want a hard confirmation on its MSRP. And I want a general idea of its size. Until then, Blizzard, take your admittedly crackerjack track record and get the hell off my %#&%*! lawn.
 
am i the only one who thinks this is a cool idea?

other than the fact that you have to pay more money, i think its awesome. but only if the story mode on all of them is extreamily in depth, like 30-50 missions per trilogy part.
 
Rahburt-33 said:
am i the only one who thinks this is a cool idea?

other than the fact that you have to pay more money, i think its awesome. but only if the story mode on all of them is extreamily in depth, like 30-50 missions per trilogy part.
Click to expand...

Why not just do it like it was with Starcraft and Broodwar. 30-50 missions of one side at a time may end up to get boring.
 
The way Guild Wars is split into separate campaigns/expansions sort of comes to mind. I personally wouldn't mind if they charged up to $30 for each campaign if they are each as full-fledged as a Guild Wars campaign. However, "each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer" (as quoted by defiant007) does give me some misgivings, though that still hinges on what exactly those "upgrades and changes" are. If they consist of unique maps, interfaces, or other non-consequential things like those, then w/e. But, if each campaign includes special units/heroes (anything that goes beyond cosmetics, like unique skins) that can be used only by the owners of the specific campaigns in multiplayer, then I'd be pissed about this arrangement.

All that said, there's not nearly enough information to make any solid judgments yet, so the wait continues...
 
Lets just wait and see how things turn out. For all we know they could really be adding enough content to make it three good stand alone games. If not, then we can blast the heck out of it.
 
TheCommander said:
Why not just do it like it was with Starcraft and Broodwar. 30-50 missions of one side at a time may end up to get boring.
Click to expand...

i kinda meant they better make it worth that money

i wouldent mind it being like starcraft and broodwar though.
 
I guess, I should be glad I was never a big Starcraft fan.
 
i could care less aboutt he SP honestly...unless it ends up being mindblowing...i just couldnt get into the first games SP at all.


SC was always about the multiplayer for me...i guess ill shell out money for all 3 if the MP still delivers...but if they are charging for bnet too...i will def have to reconsider.
 
Holy moses. How cheap some people are. If the games deliver, than what's the problem people?
 
Sounds like they're too far behind in the development and need to rake in some $$ now to satisfy Activision.
I will not pay monthly fees for multiplayer.

I will undoubtedly be waiting a 2-3 years after it's out to pick it up at a discounted price (if it turns out good).
 
J Macker said:
Sounds like they're too far behind in the development and need to rake in some $$ now to satisfy Activision.
I will not pay monthly fees for multiplayer.

I will undoubtedly be waiting a 2-3 years after it's out to pick it up at a discounted price (if it turns out good).
Click to expand...
Yep, thats exactly what crossed my mind. They have a paper deadline with Activision in which they need to release the product but know very well that it won't be ready with what they want to put in it. So, they do some sort of "Episodic" release.
Does that mean they will actually release another expansion in a timely fashion or will it be like Valve where you have to wait different amounts of time between each release at which point, they say that it was taken the wrong way when they said "Episodic" in the first place.
Oh well, I'm more interested in Diablo 3 personally.
 
The thing I peeved about episodic releases is that you have to wait for an indefinite amount of time until the next chapter is release. It kind of torture for me because I like to read a good story from beginning to end without any interruptions. Actually, I didn't bother watching the first two Lord of the Rings until the third one came out.

Overall, I probably will wait until they have some sorts of "Battle Chest" package of the trilogy... hopefully at a good price.
 
I LOVE the irony.
People have been complaining for YEARS now that they wanted a SC2. There was an uproar when they announced it and people finally were getting what they spent years bitching about.


Blizzard then announces that the game will come in 3 parts (1 more expansion than SC1) and all of a sudden, people start saying that they are turning into EA.

Some people will never be happy.
 
No SC2 for me then.. geez. look what happen with hl2 episodes.. no thanks.
 
This is all quite silly...

It isn't like all three will be released at the same time. They are nothing more than expansion packs. How many people in here complained when they announced Brood War or The Frozen Throne?
 
This reminds me of the Dawn of War games. There have been 3 expansions for the original Dawn of War game since it was released. Each title brought a new gameplay type. Witer Assault was all about the Imperials which are a defensive race. Dark Crusade brought on the new Risk based gameplay and two more races then Soulstorm brought two more races and aerial combat. You can play againse dark Eldar if you only have the original game. You just can't play as the original 4 races unless you get the expansions.

With Starcraft 2 it sounds like you can play as the 3 races in multiplayer from day 1 but you have to wait for the single player campaigns which have enough content to stand on their own. Big whoop. Almost all of my friends played online only so the single player campaign didn't bother them. I'm excited to play all the campaigns and if they are 30 missions long then that is a LOT of gameplay for one of the 3 games.
 
If it is good, who cares? Valve did it with HL2, kind of, so what is the big deal?
 
WldWzl said:
If it is good, who cares? Valve did it with HL2, kind of, so what is the big deal?
Click to expand...

thats the thing, i HATED it when valve did it. they didnt deliver on their promises (more frequent releases with decent length and price), and if we bought EP2 retail we had to buy the whole damn orange box.
 
This is an example of a company expecting its fans to cater to the company, rather than the company catering to fans.

Do you think Starcraft would have been a phenomenon if it was chopped into three pieces?

Blizzard has been left in the sun too long
 
Forealz said:
Do you think Starcraft would have been a phenomenon if it was chopped into three pieces?
Click to expand...

As I remember it, the original starcraft campaign was chopped into three parts, each focusing on a particular race. In reality what Blizzard has done is not much of a stretch from the original. Instead of claiming the sky is falling I will wait to see how each part pans out. Knowing Blizzard, they will not disappoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top