StarCraft 2 will launch with Protoss mini-campaign

rcf1987 said:
WHAT... that was one of blizzards best
Click to expand...

i would never say it was a bad game. Just zilch on the interesting scale for me when i picked it up. I just get into the warcraft world much easier(and no i dont play WOW either).
 
I see this assertion that the Terran Campaign will be as long as the 3 campaigns in SC1. I think somewhere 'could be' became 'will be' because I don't see a whole lot of facts supporting the idea. And I'm a little mistrusting of developer subjective statements.

The reason why I say it likely not as long is because each campaign in the old game was about as much as you could play before that race/campaign started to get old. 30 SC1 Terran missions worth of gameplay wouldn't be finished by most including many of those who played SC1 for the Single Player.

Yes, the artwork has become more intricate, but the tools to streamline generating and implementing it have become more powerful and databases of source material have also grown. For both the art and coding, they don't make these games from complete scratch.

I'm going to do what I did with Warhammer since I can't play online for long stretches, wait until there's enough single player bundled with expansion packs for a reasonable price to catch my interest. Which in this case will probably be a decade. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
rcf1987 said:
bitch bitch bitch, name one blizzard game that left you disappointed... ya thats what I thought. From what I read each campaign is like 30 hours so that sounds pretty good to me.
Click to expand...

name a blizzard game rlelased in past decade that wasnt WOW :D 2003 they released warcraft 3 but they havetn released a single game in the past 7 years. Aside form WOW.
 
dajet24 said:
name a blizzard game rlelased in past decade that wasnt WOW :D 2003 they released warcraft 3 but they havetn released a single game in the past 7 years. Aside form WOW.
Click to expand...
Diablo II (2000)
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (2001)
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (2002)
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (2003)
 
Frozen Throne expansion.. and they have patched D2 and Starcraft even a decade after their release. Starcraft Ghost would have come out if it wasn't scrapped. They have also been working on Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 for a long time. They make games slowly...

And they manufactured an epic amount of content for WoW. It requires an army of workers to consistently come up with more content like that.
 
jpm100 said:
I see this assertion that the Terran Campaign will be as long as the 3 campaigns in SC1. I think somewhere 'could be' became 'will be' because I don't see a whole lot of facts supporting the idea. And I'm a little mistrusting of developer subjective statements.
Click to expand...

That's right. What we know is purely guesstimation from the developers, which I expressed a little concern about earlier in this thread. Things such as extra optional missions being tallied to the total gameplay hours could easily inflate the length of the game. I'm sure the main story will be long, but being as long as the entiretly of SC1 seems to be a bit of a stretch these days. So we obviously won't know how long it'll be until the product is finished and in hour hands, unfortunately.
 
I'm not sure I understand the problem. The races will be very well balanced by the time this game gets released. Once you know how to play one race, the building tree is essentially the same with slightly altered hot keys. And no one ever plays online like you play during the campaign, so I really just don't understand. Who even starts by playing the campaign any way? I know I'll play online long before I even look at the campaign.
 
Makes you wonder what the heck blizzard been doing with all that cash and time they have. So long since a major release and nothing to show for it yet besides teasers and WoW updates every so often.

I will be disappointed with anything less then a state of the art RTS engine something like Source Engine but for RTS. As for Diablo 3... I have always been a fan because its been blizzard's darkest game (I hope they don't ruin it and make it more like WoW). Diablo 3 though will have to have a great multiplayer system to become a commercial success. Anything less then 8 players wont cut it especially if it does not have a PvP matchmaking system. Coop and single player modes wont cut it either unless they have a constant stream of new content added to the world. Blizzard would be best off making Diablo 3 an overhead MMORPG similar to UO.
 
I would guess that they have people working on WoW expansions, SC 2 and it's expansions, Diablo 3 and possible expansions, and their next gen MMO simultaneously. Historically, they used to work on games one at a time, and even that took a long time.
 
Decko87 said:
I'm not sure I understand the problem. The races will be very well balanced by the time this game gets released. Once you know how to play one race, the building tree is essentially the same with slightly altered hot keys. And no one ever plays online like you play during the campaign, so I really just don't understand. Who even starts by playing the campaign any way? I know I'll play online long before I even look at the campaign.
Click to expand...

Ditto, I don't think I ever even finished StarCraft 1, the Brood Wars expansion, or all of WarCraft 3 (almost on that one, but not quite), and I barely even touched the singleplayer of The Frozen Throne. However, I logged thousands of hours total between the games online ;). People on one hand say "OMG I WANT IT NOW" but they sure would complain if it were released imbalanced more than they're complaining about it "taking too long" :p.
 
It better be the most mind blowing awesome campaign for me to buy 3 games.

As long as the multiplayer is in tact I'll cut them some slack... but I think everyone knows where this 3 separate installment mentality originated... Activision-Blizzard.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
It better be the most mind blowing awesome campaign for me to buy 3 games.

As long as the multiplayer is in tact I'll cut them some slack... but I think everyone knows where this 3 separate installment mentality originated... Activision-Blizzard.
Click to expand...

This. Money grabbing bastards.:mad:
 
This really isnt that big of a deal.. you're missing 2 single player campaigns and the multi player (the whole reason people will buy this) is fully playable..
 
I've got no problem with this setup. Hell, most RTS games now-a-days don't have a single player campaign at all (Sins of a Solar Empire), and if they do its usually just 1 storyline where you can play any race (Supreme Commander), or its just 1 race's storyline (DOW).

In fact, the only series of RTS games in recent times that had a DECENT Single Player are the C&C Series and WC3. And honestly, the more recent C&C games don't really seem like their multiplayer was all that hot. Maybe I'm wrong, but judging solely from the amount of discussion on these forums, the above non-single player campaign games had a lot more staying power in their multiplayer part. Does anyone even play the C&C multiplayer much?

Basically, what I'm saying is, most RTS games now-a-days either focus on just Single Player campaigns (C&C) or just Multiplayer (the 3 listed above, and more). Its either or, rarely is it both.

So errmm, I don't know why everyone is totally fine purchasing the games mentioned above for $50 with gimped or no single player campaigns, but then when Bliz says "We're giving you a huge single player campaign for EACH race, each with a totally different story and different play style" people cry foul.

A big huge terran campaign, and then a little while later an OPTIONAL expansion pack that gives you a Zerg and then Protoss campaign of similiar size to play through? Yes please. If you're not a fan of Single player campaigns, then just don't buy the expansion packs....

And you KNOW the multiplayer aspects of SC2 are going to be pretty darn good, if not incredible. Blizzard has a LOT to live up to with this game, and so far, they have never dissapointed me. I don't expect them to start now.
 
their idea of a protoss mini campaign is one mission where you take some protoss units into a science lab.
 
I got confused. Will Starcraft 2 be divided into 3 different games, each sold at retail price, and only after getting 3 of them I'll get full story, and be able to play MP with all the 3 races?

If yes, then well, even EA has not gone that far :)
 
The game at release will have a "Long" campaign that is Terran only, and probably a sneak peek of one or two missions of the Protoss Campaign. They claim that each campaign will be as long as the entire SC1 game, so people figure on 30 missions, give or take.

In Multiplayer, you'll be able to play as all 3 races right away. The ONLY seperation here is in regards to the SINGLE PLAYER campaigns.

There will be an expansion a little while down the line, with a "Long" campaign that is all Protoss. And then a little while later, another expansion with a Zerg Campaign. Its unclear what else these expansions will bring. Maybe more units to all races? Maybe not. Who knows.
 
Direwolf20 said:
The game at release will have a "Long" campaign that is Terran only, and probably a sneak peek of one or two missions of the Protoss Campaign. They claim that each campaign will be as long as the entire SC1 game, so people figure on 30 missions, give or take.

In Multiplayer, you'll be able to play as all 3 races right away. The ONLY seperation here is in regards to the SINGLE PLAYER campaigns.

There will be an expansion a little while down the line, with a "Long" campaign that is all Protoss. And then a little while later, another expansion with a Zerg Campaign. Its unclear what else these expansions will bring. Maybe more units to all races? Maybe not. Who knows.
Click to expand...
I understood that the Protoss and Zerg weren't expansions in that they are stand alone symmetric with the Terran version.

So $50 for (Terrain Campaign + Multiplayer with All 3 Races)
$50 for Protoss Campaign + Multiplayer with All 3 Races
$50 for Zerg Campaign + Multiplayer with All 3 Races

So you pay the normal price for a SP Campaign and Multiplayer and then Pay the same price again, but only really gain the respective SP Campaign as you already have full Multi access.
 
Direwolf20 said:
A big huge terran campaign, and then a little while later an OPTIONAL expansion pack that gives you a Zerg and then Protoss campaign of similiar size to play through? Yes please. If you're not a fan of Single player campaigns, then just don't buy the expansion packs....
Click to expand...

I think that would ultimately not be a good idea either. Just like with BW, you'll be missing out on newer units and abilities in multiplayer, and be stuck with players with the same version as SC as you. Most likely, the majority of the population will migrate to the next installment, leaving the original MP in the dust.

Anyway, I don't really get why people are blaming Activision's presence in the company now (if there is a presence). Everyone probably would have said the exact same thing if Blizzard started working on WoW right now instead of before the merger (or be even more rabid because of the subscription-based model). It just seems a bit silly since Blizzard has already done things that the core fans hated and thought was "money-grubbing" in the past.
 
Are we sure the expansions will bring new units though? Maybe they won't, and it'll just be a new SP Storyline. In that case, the expansion is optional.

And I expect the expansions to cost $30, but they might be $50, no one really knows.
 
I'll have to dig up the source, but I remember that they compared it to how SC worked. If you just have the original, you won't be able to play with BW players or have access to the new units/upgrades/tilesets, leaving the player feel "left out." My guess is that SC2 will be just like SC1 with 2 expansions instead of 1. And it'll also complete the story. I'm personally expecting the expansions to be cheaper than the original because they are basically expanding on the first installment. All the core technology is there and will probably require the first installment anyway. The following two will just add more to it. But you'll never know...

Here we go, right from the official FAQ:

How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.

If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds good to me. Its still optional to buy the expansions if you don't want them.

Personally, I plan to buy all 3.
 
rcf1987 said:
bitch bitch bitch, name one blizzard game that left you disappointed... ya thats what I thought. From what I read each campaign is like 30 hours so that sounds pretty good to me.
Click to expand...

WC3, WoW, Throne of Baal. Though I liked Frozen Throne pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top