Starcraft II Catch-All

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The single-player campaign has always been a sort of ramp-up and trainer for multiplayer. Now you'll have a game that I'm assuming will have all 3 races in multiplayer, but only teaches you the ins-and-outs of one race.

Not for everyone. I imagine a significant number of players never go online with RTS games, because experience has taught them that most "competitive" RTS players are obnoxious twits. This may have changed over the years, but I know it was the case with earlier RTS games, where the huge sales figures dwarfed the number of online players.

With respect to the money-grubbing scum that are running Actard, how stupid do they think people are to not recognize what a blatant cash grab this is? "Blah blah, gigantic scope, blah blah, earlier release, blah blah meta-game." Sorry, I'm not buying it. Even though, well, I probably am actually going to buy it.

Well my first reaction was the same as the rest, still time will tell. However, I am more excited for DoW II for my next RTS anyway.

BadKen wrote:

Not for everyone. I imagine a significant number of players never go online with RTS games, because experience has taught them that most "competitive" RTS players are obnoxious twits. This may have changed over the years, but I know it was the case with earlier RTS games, where the huge sales figures dwarfed the number of online players.

Oh yeah, I mean, I totally agree here. And see, I'm not a fan of competitive online RTS players either. I've probably played like 1 or 2 onling Starcraft games online against pubtards. Still, I like playing skirmish mode against the computer, I like playing co-op with friends, I like occasionally designing maps.

Hold on a second guys. I understand your frustration, but I'm not too worried about it just yet.

Here's why. When I had the time to reflect on the days spent playing WoW, I was always pretty impressed with my general skill. Each class has a list of 30 to 40 abilities, but an average WoW player is capable of making a decision of which skill to use, and when to use it, depending on the situation. You may feel brain dead when you're going through that heroic dungeon for the 10th time this month, but hand the control over to the newbie next to you, and he will not have an idea on the first thing to do.

My point is that without actually realizing it, most WoW players, even some of the bad ones, are in fact exceedingly competent. The reason for that, I believe, is all the experience they've accumulated through the long grind from level 1 to 60. I'm not just talking about the act of downing mobs after mobs, but the more sophisticated part of the game - understanding the mechanics between tank, healer, and dps, timing and managing your spells of different ranks, creating macros suited to your specific tasks... These are all things that we've struggled to learn and are now considered common, even necessary, for the average WoW player. More importantly, WoW paces itself to complement our experience. It introduces new elements to the players at a controlled pace, and gives them enough time to absorb and experiment with their new options so that at no point do they feel overwhelmed. It's the case for both abilities and encounters. Sometimes, the two go along with each other. I remember tanking didn't become truly needed until level 30 instances, which matches the moment when tanks began to find some true depth in their assortment of tanking tools. If the end game in WoW is considered the true game, the journey from level 1 to 60 is just an extremely sophisticated, but effective, tutorial program.

Here is where Starcraft and most other games come in. Why not use this same concept on difficult games? I know that I've always wanted to learn how to really play an RTS, but the single player campaigns and skirmishes only ever go so far. To learn the game, I need to get online and suffer the humiliation. When my opponent's skill level is way above mine, I may even finish without actually learning anything.

I began to see Blizzard going in this direction when they first revealed the general structure of their single-player campaign. Units and upgrades are gradually introduced to the players, this time at their own choosing. Players also have an assortment of missions to choose from, so they can pick the scenerio best suited to their current setup. Now, with these new pieces of information, I am even more convinced that the single player campaigns in Starcraft are simply meant to teach players how to play the game competitively. At 20-30 missions per race, I expect there to be enough variety and timesink to allow players to learn, evaluate, and counter a good assortment of difficult challenges, all of which are likely to appear in competitive play. I believe Blizzard is good enough to create just such a variety of missions.

It is just possible that there is enough content in each race's campaign to justify their status as independent games. When you're picking your campaign, you're really picking the race you want to go with online. Those are my predictions anyway. Time will tell if this ends up being a good move. Right now, I'll just cross my fingers and wait.

I was going to get this, but now I'll just wait for it to be released in a single package that includes all three parts. Which means I'll have to wait for one of Blizzards "Battlechests."

EDIT: I posted this after the Thirteenth, but somehow missed his post. So the following is in response to that.

You make a very valid point, and looking at it... seems pretty plausible they'd do that. But they still should have left all three campaigns in the same game. In all honesty, I could careless about SC2's online mode. I want to play though the story. That's what I enjoyed about the first game. That's why I reinstall it to this day. I enjoyed the story. I love seeing the different races take on each other. That's what really grabbed my attention when I palyed Starcraft for the first time. At the time that was something really new to me. Starcaft was my first RTS ever. It blew me away as a kid. (sorry. Not trying to make anyone feel old here. :P) The multiplayer was fun, but it never kept my attention. Online RTS gaming is just something that you need to dedicate yourself to to become good at. And in all honesty, I'd rather play other games than spend my time with just one trying to perfect myself in an online arena. They shouldn't assume that I'll come out of the single player saying, "Man! That last mission was a beast! I should go online and see what I can do with my skills there." They should assume I come out of the last mission going, "Okay... well that was fun." I want the story more than anything. As a SC fan, that's all I want out of SC2. The story. They just need to put that in one easy to purchase package. Not make it a hassle for me and my wallet.

Assuming what you're saying is ture, then I don't think Blizzard should just cater to the thought that we all want to play one single race on Battle.Net instead of play around and find which one we play best as. If I want to play the Protoss side of the story I should be able to buy "Starcraft 2" and call it a day not "Starcraft 2: THE PROTOSS EDITION" or whatever. It's kind of unfair and just makes Blizzard look like money grubbing jerks.

Hmm..you turn your back on the internet for a few hours and all kind of crazy happens

This doesn't sound all that dissimilar to the way the first Dawn of War ended up (first game was a -short- space marine campaign with all races available for multiplayer, and then they expanded that base with different-style campaigns and new races in expansions later, etc).

I dunno...Starcraft was never really my thing to begin with, and even then I only ever played it for the single player stuff. If there's enough content to justify buying it three times I'll probably give it a look.

If not...think I'll be waiting for the inevitable "Starcraft 2 Trilogy Boxed Set".

Freeagent wrote:
indy wrote:

Starcraft 2 campaigns split into three seperate games

Not sure how I feel about that news. If they really deliver a full games worth of content in each one, that I'm all for it, depending on the price. $150 would be kind of hard to swallow.

Wow, this just went from "must buy" to "will not buy" THAT fast. It's not like Blizzard doesn't have enough money. I swear, game companies just seem to think that that customers are the dumbest things on the planet. Decisions like this make me think about taking up building models again as my hobby.

I honestly wasn't even that interested in multiplayer after my lackluster play session at GenCon. Now, I'm not even sure I'm going to buy the thing. So sad to see so much potential wasted.

GaleRaiser wrote:

Assuming what you're saying is ture, then I don't think Blizzard should just cater to the thought that we all want to play one single race on Battle.Net instead of play around and find which one we play best as. If I want to play the Protoss side of the story I should be able to buy "Starcraft 2" and call it a day not "Starcraft 2: THE PROTOSS EDITION" or whatever. It's kind of unfair and just makes Blizzard look like money grubbing jerks.

Pretty sure you can play as all three races in multiplayer, well I know I can at the moment each side has full units both ground and air.

Heres a shocker! what if the game is really good on its own? Would it matter then that the other races got split out into separate products? What if it felt worth $50 on its own?

Heres a shocker! what if the game is really good on its own? Would it matter then that the other races got split out into separate products? What if it felt worth $50 on its own?

Precisely. If this means that each side's campaign is a deeper experience, then sign me up.

*Sigh* I really wish I could say more about this whole SC2 thing but I can't. What I can say is that 3 DVD's of content is worth the price. The game looks beautiful on so many levels and the matches we play at work are pretty crazy. As it was reported on Kotaku there is just too much stuff for the game the push back would be too long. For those saying that blizzard has never had issues delaying a game that's correct but would you have an issue paying 120 bucks for a "complete game" where Terran,zerg, and protoss were all in the same box? I don't think people are seeing this on it's merit. How many times have you played a game and have been satisfied but wished there was something more? Take all three races and make them circles each one represents a full experience Now you lay them down til there is equal overlap. What is in the overlap is what you would get as far as content, say the trilogy was released in that manner of 1 DVD 50 bucks. It would feel as if you got cheated at that point or maybe you wouldn't because you didn't know there was more available.

I guess the point I'm making is that i believe that you will get the value of your dollar with these games. It's not as if you are spending a lump sum at the beginning but in stages if anything it will save you from buying crappy games and justifying your purchase IE. games like shadowrun, Brothers in arms 2, Too Human.

I'm sure I'll get the " you're bias to it all" maybe I am slightly but I also have a hands on experience with the title I've seen what it can do and that gives me understanding to this decision.

buzzvang wrote:
Heres a shocker! what if the game is really good on its own? Would it matter then that the other races got split out into separate products? What if it felt worth $50 on its own?

Precisely. If this means that each side's campaign is a deeper experience, then sign me up.

Jesus thank you! No one wants to think on the positive side of things. Just how good this can really be.

Spawn more overlords!

I think if it truly delivers the experience that Blizz is stating it will, people will pay the money without blinking an eye. If not, they won't.

Freeagent wrote:
indy wrote:

Starcraft 2 campaigns split into three seperate games

Not sure how I feel about that news. If they really deliver a full games worth of content in each one, that I'm all for it, depending on the price. $150 would be kind of hard to swallow.

Wow, this just went from "must buy" to "will not buy" THAT fast. It's not like Blizzard doesn't have enough money. I swear, game companies just seem to think that that customers are the dumbest things on the planet. Decisions like this make me think about taking up building models again as my hobby.

Well I just think of it this way, what if it's possible that the game will still be fully featured and who knows maybe the terran campaign will be as long as the original starcraft campaign, plus [/i]If the Protoss and Zerg Campaigns are fully freshed out single player games with longer than the original starcraft campaign, I also don't think that they will be full price when the two other campaigns are released but it's one of those things.

This could be really a good move in the long run, I guess we will see what happens but I still will support blizzard.

Ugh the real kick in the balls will be if they tie expansion units to the 2 other titles. As a person who leans multiplayer depending on the price I would definitely be skipping the other 2 expansions if all they offered was an in depth campaign that I would only play once through.

I'm really looking forward to SC2, but mostly for the story. I really enjoyed the SC universe the first time around and I'm hungry for more of that (hell, I've been banging my knife and fork on my plate for ten years now!). At first I was a little taken-aback by the split, but then I considered: if the Blizz devs have 90-120 missions for story exposition over the three games, rather than over 30-45 missions in a standard game (10-15 missions per race), then I'm a happy camper. At this point, Blizzard is one of the few gaming companies that I trust to buy their games sight-unseen. While I understand that there's a segment of our gaming population that like to go into paroxysms over every little bit of announced news, I'd counsel a cooler head and a "let's see what they come up with" approach.

Devmani wrote:
buzzvang wrote:
Heres a shocker! what if the game is really good on its own? Would it matter then that the other races got split out into separate products? What if it felt worth $50 on its own?

Precisely. If this means that each side's campaign is a deeper experience, then sign me up.

Jesus thank you! No one wants to think on the positive side of things. Just how good this can really be.

I think a lot of people understand this. However, as you pointed out, people are having a very, very hard time swallowing $120-150 for StarCraft 2. I myself am one of them, to be perfectly frank. I've been waiting for Starcraft 2 since I played through the 'secret' mission in Starcraft what, 10 years ago? This announcement, regardless of all positive implications is really, really disheartening to a lot of people. Blizzard has given certain expectations with regards to their product, and to be quite frank, this kind of shatters a lot of them.

souldaddy wrote:

We're taking gamer fatigue here. I just don't want to play that much Starcraft campaign. Dress it up with RPG and diplomacy elements, ranch dressing, whatever. Would you read the first book of a trilogy if you didn't plan to read the other 2 books? You wouldn't read any of them.

I feel the same way. I'm not a big RTS fan... I occasionally will play a very good RTS, but even then I just want to play a little with each race and a few multiplayer matches with friends. I'm not interested in an epic.

bnpederson wrote:
Shadout wrote:

The really SC2 obsessed people are likely in it for the multiplayer though, and thus the separate campaigns wont matter for them, unless Blizz do make them real expansions with new units, balance etc, which of course is likely, but they wouldnt comment on that yet.

They commented to Kotaku. That is in fact the case.

Here's what should raise your eyebrow:

Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer.

So instead of patches to balance and improve multiplayer, now you have to buy the next game like a WoW expansion if you want to hang with the cool kids?

Rat Boy wrote:
Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer.

So instead of patches to balance and improve multiplayer, now you have to buy the next game like a WoW expansion if you want to hang with the cool kids?

Wow. I hadn't even thought about that. Yea, this move is actually more dickish than I'd originally thought.

AnimeJ wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:
Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer.

So instead of patches to balance and improve multiplayer, now you have to buy the next game like a WoW expansion if you want to hang with the cool kids?

Wow. I hadn't even thought about that. Yea, this move is actually more dickish than I'd originally thought.

That's pretty much how all strategy expansions work, though. Once Brood Wars came out pretty much everyone in multiplayer Starcraft wanted to play with the medics and Valkyrie.

I don't buy the "wait n see" argument. If you aren't happy with the announcement, now is the time to let Blizzard know. Now if battle.net would just let me sign in...

Switchbreak wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:
Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer.

So instead of patches to balance and improve multiplayer, now you have to buy the next game like a WoW expansion if you want to hang with the cool kids?

Wow. I hadn't even thought about that. Yea, this move is actually more dickish than I'd originally thought.

That's pretty much how all strategy expansions work, though. Once Brood Wars came out pretty much everyone in multiplayer Starcraft wanted to play with the medics and Valkyrie.

See and they don't need to do that! Just give me it all in one package so I can play through the whole story and call it a day.

Worst gaming news of the year.

GaleRaiser wrote:
Switchbreak wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:
Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer.

So instead of patches to balance and improve multiplayer, now you have to buy the next game like a WoW expansion if you want to hang with the cool kids?

Wow. I hadn't even thought about that. Yea, this move is actually more dickish than I'd originally thought.

That's pretty much how all strategy expansions work, though. Once Brood Wars came out pretty much everyone in multiplayer Starcraft wanted to play with the medics and Valkyrie.

See and they don't need to do that! Just give me it all in one package so I can play through the whole story and call it a day.

Worst gaming news of the year. :(

This is pretty much my thought. Splitting the core game into three parts is crap. Calling them expansions is crap. As for 'wait and see', I agree that it's all we can do, but it doesn't mean we can't let Blizzard know that we're not real happy about this announcement.

Ask yourself this, "When is the last time Blizzard released a bad product"?

Devmani wrote:

Ask yourself this, "When is the last time Blizzard released a bad product"?

Mr. Spock wrote:

For everything there is a first time.

Not much of an rts multiplayer man, so I'll just wait for the batllechest. I'm sure I'll find other things to amuse myself with in the meantime.

Devmani wrote:

Ask yourself this, "When is the last time Blizzard released a bad product"?

I don't think anyone here is saying the game will actually be bad just were irked that its going to be good and they are going to milk us nicely for it. Personally I thought Bliz was going to make their extra $$ on this by somehow justifying charging for Bnet and I would probably of preferred that TBH.

jowner wrote:
Devmani wrote:

Ask yourself this, "When is the last time Blizzard released a bad product"?

I don't think anyone here is saying the game will actually be bad just were irked that its going to be good and they are going to milk us nicely for it. Personally I thought Bliz was going to make their extra $$ on this by somehow justifying charging for Bnet and I would probably of preferred that TBH.

I agree that SC2 could still be good, it's just that I think this is a really bad move on their part for a company that's treated its customers like gold for more than a decade.