Starcraft II Catch-All

Overreacting, etc, etc.

I'm still in.

To play devil's advocate:

We all loved and think highly of Dawn of War. But I recall that single player campaign was roughly what, 10 hours?

I'm not thrilled about the Blizzard news but I know they will do better than that and we shouldn't hold them to drastically higher standards.

fangblackbone wrote:

To play devil's advocate:

We all loved and think highly of Dawn of War. But I recall that single player campaign was roughly what, 10 hours?

I'm not thrilled about the Blizzard news but I know they will do better than that and we shouldn't hold them to drastically higher standards.

Honestly, I don't think anyone is holding them to some drastically high standard. Yes, the DoW campaign was very, very short. But just because it was shouldn't mean we hold Blizzard to a lesser standard than we have in the past.

Hmm.. the internets didnt implode with this announcement.. must be all the Diablo 3 news.

I'm still in. I think people are blowing this a little out of proportion. The major issue is that you don't get campaigns for each race on day one, not that they're trying to gouge money out of you. Honestly, this is almost no different than if they released Starcraft 2, then announced an expansion and released it a year later, and then announced another expansion for the year after that. No different from the way most expansions are done and how Blizzard has done them in the past.

Personally I hope they go the episodic route with these expansions, say something in the $15-25 price range that would only add on to the single player and wouldn't touch multi-player. And yes, it would of course be nice if any changes they make to multi-player would be released for free, Valve style. But if they're going with the standard expansion model this probably won't be the case. But in that case I wouldn't mind because there'll be plenty of time between expansions to enjoy the multi-player game before it's changed, and by the time the expansions does come out I'll gladly pay for it.

To put it another way, if there were three Starcraft games released in the past ten years since the release of the original, would I have bought all of them? Yes. Yes I would have.

Latrine wrote:

I'm still in. I think people are blowing this a little out of proportion. The major issue is that you don't get campaigns for each race on day one, not that they're trying to gouge money out of you. Honestly, this is almost no different than if they released Starcraft 2, then announced an expansion and released it a year later, and then announced another expansion for the year after that. No different from the way most expansions are done and how Blizzard has done them in the past.

Personally I hope they go the episodic route with these expansions, say something in the $15-25 price range that would only add on to the single player and wouldn't touch multi-player. And yes, it would of course be nice if any changes they make to multi-player would be released for free, Valve style. But if they're going with the standard expansion model this probably won't be the case. But in that case I wouldn't mind because there'll be plenty of time between expansions to enjoy the multi-player game before it's changed, and by the time the expansions does come out I'll gladly pay for it.

To put it another way, if there were three Starcraft games released in the past ten years since the release of the original, would I have bought all of them? Yes. Yes I would have.

I wouldn't expect anything episodic. The announcement stated 3 full size games, which strongly indicates that you're going to see 3 full games, at full price of $40-60 each.

I think folks will eventually come to terms with this, but it's not going to happen overnight, and it won't be easy for anyone. It will sell extraordinarily well, because it's a Blizzard game. But even those of us who are complaining here who buy it, will die a little inside doing so, simply because from their perspective, Blizzard, the company who has treated gamers like customers and not criminals, is leeching their wallets for profit.

I'm worried about this starting a trend of a la carte games. Remember how the old C&C games used to be? One faction's single-player campaign was on one disk and the other on the second? Now imagine if those disks were sold separately.

AnimeJ wrote:

The announcement stated...

I know what the announcement stated but I wouldn't be surprised if they were pressured by the backlash from the announcement to rethink their plans. I don't think they expected this kind of negative reaction and it might force them to re-factor their plans.

Still, I don't think it's as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Like I said, they're basically just pre-announcing two Brood War style expansions for Starcraft 2. Each with a full length campaign and a few changes (probably in the form of new units) for multiplayer. I thought Brood War was pretty good as far as expansions go and wouldn't mind having two expansions for SC2. And remember, it's very likely the game and the expansions will be years apart from each other.

Latrine wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

The announcement stated...

I know what the announcement stated but I wouldn't be surprised if they were pressured by the backlash from the announcement to rethink their plans. I don't think they expected this kind of negative reaction and it might force them to re-factor their plans.

Still, I don't think it's as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Like I said, they're basically just pre-announcing two Brood War style expansions for Starcraft 2. Each with a full length campaign and a few changes (probably in the form of new units) for multiplayer. I thought Brood War was pretty good as far as expansions go and wouldn't mind having two expansions for SC2. And remember, it's very likely the game and the expansions will be years apart from each other.

I wouldn't mind having two or more expansions for SC2 either. I just don't want them to be what should have been in the original box.

The real question is how much does this delay World of Starcraft?

The real question is how much does this delay World of Starcraft?

Inquiring minds want to know.

But just because it was shouldn't mean we hold Blizzard to a lesser standard than we have in the past.

I'm not saying hold them to a lesser standard. Blizzard has a reputation that merits them higher standards that they often meet. Don't make the standard astronomical so that reasonable expectations would dictate a 2020 launch.

AnimeJ wrote:

I wouldn't mind having two or more expansions for SC2 either. I just don't want them to be what should have been in the original box.

Content-wise, I'm looking at it like they're doing a shuffle-and-redeal of campaigns. Think 9 "standard-size" campaigns spread out as 3 per faction over 3 games. The normal model is 1 campaign x 3 factions per box, here they're essentially doing 3 campaigns (in the form of one very long one) x 1 faction per box.

My main worry, as others have said, is faction fatigue. It sounds like they're putting a lot of effort into the story, but after 30 missions with the same units... *shrugs* Time will tell. I'm giving Blizzard the benefit of the doubt here. I was initally skeptical about the colour in D3, and I've completely come around to the company line on that one.

Really, I'm only grouchy because I found the Terrans to be the least interesting faction in the original game.

I'm not saying it's the end of the world, just that I was primarily interested in the single player story because of the horrible interface from 1997 Starcraft II still has, and now I've got to wait a year in between episodes? Honestly I'll probably just pass until I either hear it blows everyone's mind and it cures cancer, or all three are out so I can play them all at the same time.

I can see how the multiplayer junkies are still all about it and don't care, but it does put a damper on things to have to wait that long in between pieces of the story.

I like Michael Zenke's view on this:

http://www.mmognation.com/2008/10/11...

StarCraft II

Here’s the deal with this announcement, with notes from MTV Multiplayer:

Each product is a full-scale title that contains between 26-30 single-player missions per game. The timing of the releases could be a year between each game — or longer. Though each game will make references to the others, it’s not necessary to own all three to enjoy the single-player experience. However, if you want particular units for the multiplayer portion, you’ll need to buy the product that has those units. The decision wasn’t made to make more money or due to pressure from the Activision merger; the decision was made at the end of last year.

Don’t look at StarCraft II ‘requiring’ three purchases to complete. That’s completely the wrong way to look at this. Instead, look at this as the franchise expansion that Blizzard is really moving on here. Blizzard is taking these games that were (previously) just single releases whenever they got the chance to put one out, and turning them into full-on franchise releases. Just as with World of Warcraft, which features regular updates and yearly for-cost expansions, these games are now going concerns for Blizzard. StarCraft II is now a several-year-long product.

Is this a great cash grab for Blizzard? Yes, no question. But more importantly, this is a good decision for Blizzard fans. Instead of waiting years and years for new content, we’re going to get a StarCraft campaign a year for the next three years! That’s awesome! As the campaigns release the multiplayer component will change and twist. It’s a fantastic acknowledgment that players have a devotion to these fantasy races. That players are invested enough in the Protoss, Zerg, and Terrans to actually want an entirely tailored experience. I can’t *wait* to buy the Protoss box. Honestly, this is what I’ve wanted since the first game; the other races are fine, but if I could have an entirely Protoss-oriented experience I’d be a happy guy.

This is a great move by Blizzard for Blizzard, and for us. Love it.

Jadawin wrote:

The real question is how much does this delay World of Starcraft?

One of the devs at Blizzcon said that the "next-gen MMO" that has been so secretive is a new IP.

One of the devs at Blizzcon said that the "next-gen MMO" that has been so secretive is a new IP.

Hmmm... are there any other gamesworkshop ips left to pillage?

Ooh, how about that gothic spaceship game?

I think a lot of the outrage can justifiably traced to the fact that everyone was expecting to get all three campaigns in one game like the original. Any leftovers would have been moved to an expansion. Now we're being asked to pay possibly full price three times to get what was originally promised to be in one game. I'm sure the diehard Blizzard fanatics will be willing to pay through the nose to get the complete SC2 experience, but I think Blizzard runs the risk of alienating the bulk of gamers by going down this route. Chances are that this latter group (myself included) will only buy the first edition and not get the rest just because we'll (allegedly) get a good Starcraft experience with the first release with little incentive to keep shelling out cash for the next two.

Well I figure, I'd rather have three games with 40 missions each than one game with 10 missions for each faction.

Rat Boy wrote:

Now we're being asked to pay possibly full price three times to get what was originally promised to be in one game.

To be fair, they never explicitly said that. We just assumed it would be done that way because that's how the first game was.

Rat Boy wrote:

... but I think Blizzard runs the risk of alienating the bulk of gamers by going down this route. Chances are that this latter group (myself included) will only buy the first edition and not get the rest just because we'll (allegedly) get a good Starcraft experience with the first release with little incentive to keep shelling out cash for the next two.

Yeah. You're spot on with this. I'm not sure weather to poop or run here with this announcement. I'm not a fan of having to spend excessive amounts of money for video games. I mean, I can do $10 extra for a special edition of a game. But making me shell out a few $100 for a full experience is a bit much. I mean... I already bought a computer (or console) powerful enough to run your game on, what more do you want out of me? I already support this industry enough as it is. Gamers aren't your typical consumers. I mean, there's a site dedicated to finding the cheapest gaming deals. Why would they think we want to spend more money?

I'm hoping this'll be Blizzards first big faux pas and that they see the fans don't like this decision and learn from it.

And I'm still going to wait for a compilation or a Battlechest.

I don't like this idea a single bit. What was great, as another posted said, was that in the first Starcraft you didn't get faction fatigue. Now 20+ missions with the Terrans that I don't like looks tedious to me. Personally, I was a Protoss fan and I played their campaigns many times, Zergs twice and the Terrans only once in Starcraft and then Broodwar. Is Blizzard (let's pretend) telling me that if they release the Protoss expansion last, then it means I won't be able to play the single player protoss for an extra 2 years? And what about multiplayer?

This sounds like an attempt at a money grab and I don't like it at all. Personnally, this annoucement made me go from psyched about the game to underwhelmed. I've waited 10 years for this sequel. If this is how they want to sell me this game, so be it. I'll simply play something else.

Going to have to see how things play out. If each game really is an excellent campaign, it could be very good. The faction-fatigue thing, though... yeah, that's kind of a pain. Still, if anybody can come up with a way to put enough variety in each faction's campaign to keep things fresh, it's Blizzard.

This is still the one game in the universe I'm most anticipating, but as has been pointed out I'm concerned with faction fatigue.

I'd prefer a Starcraft 2 trilogy, each volume having part of each factions story. But I'm willing to give Blizzard the chance to either carry this concept, or hang themselves.

So do you guys think if they announced that the first part was Protoss instead of Terran, people wouldn't be so upset?

I think I'd be a little frustrated if they did this to Diablo 3. However, as long as the first part was the Wizard's story, I'd manage =P

fangblackbone wrote:

So do you guys think if they announced that the first part was Protoss instead of Terran, people wouldn't be so upset?

Could you elaborate?

Thirteenth wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So do you guys think if they announced that the first part was Protoss instead of Terran, people wouldn't be so upset?

Could you elaborate?

Terrans are the most boring of the races so saying the first single player campaign is Terran only for 30 missions sounds pretty tedious to people.

PyromanFO wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So do you guys think if they announced that the first part was Protoss instead of Terran, people wouldn't be so upset?

Could you elaborate?

Terrans are the most boring of the races so saying the first single player campaign is Terran only for 30 missions sounds pretty tedious to people.

They are a pretty boring race in gameplay terms, but I found the campaign story to be pretty powerful. Hell, I finished Diablo 2 because of the story, the game bored me to tears.

So do you guys think if they announced that the first part was Protoss instead of Terran, people wouldn't be so upset?

Well, I'd be lessed pissed, because I'd obviously get my favorite race right away. But then it wouldn't be right for other people who preferred other races. Plus, whatt I thought was unique about Starcraft was how cool it was to play a story in 3 arcs and see how each carried the story forward.

The only cool thing to me that could be cool about this announcement is that since one faction is probably going to lose (since the campaigns all take place at the same time according to Blizzard), you'll probably get to play something in order to lose, which might turn into something very special.

On the worries of campaign fatigue, what makes me hopeful is what they've shown so far of the Terran campaign (which, admittedly, is not much compared to what they've shown of the skirmish gameplay). A dynamic campaign where you can choose where to go from a full galactic map, an adventure-game style game in your ship between missions where you can walk around and talk to people and use money earned from missions to upgrade your troops - it looks very different and much larger than what was considered a campaign in the original Starcraft. I'm willing to believe for now that they've put in enough to do to keep me interested for a full game's worth of missions.

I actually like Terran so them first doesn't bother me but pile me on to the group talking about getting bored of one faction.

I remember the old C&C games where it was a piss off that you had to trudge through the campaign just to get to use Mammoth tanks and then only for one 1-2 missions! obviously theres lots of room for improvement in campaign quality/story but 30hrs of campaign gameplay as one race doesn't get me excited. Thats going to have to be one great story and to be blunt I never played these games for their story first as the Starcraft/Warcraft lore is all blur to me anyways as I never played the campaigns through more then 2-3 times. Going to admit though some of the SC cutscenes were amazing. The Terran vs Zerg fight in the observer was amazing for its time.

As someone who's going to be spending 99% on Bnet this shouldn't bother me but it definitely rubs me the wrong way. Honestly I think the clincher for them may have been they couldn't realistically dress up a Bnet monthly charge without calling it a money grab (also it wouldn't net any money from non Bnet players) and this way they get 3 releases out of SC:2 instead of the 2 they would normally get with an initial and expansion release. Its really twisted genius by them. People who play for the campaign and single player are locked in as each game will deliver (its Blizzard come on) and all the online players will want the new cool units so they are locked in even if they might never finish the campaigns. Wonder if they took the queue from DoW that you can actually just keep releasing expansions to the same game and people will buy it if the quality and franchise is strong enough. There they go again stealing from GW

fangblackbone wrote:

So do you guys think if they announced that the first part was Protoss instead of Terran, people wouldn't be so upset?

Obviously, Zerg and Protoss fans are going to be upset by the ordering of the release schedule. Even if you reshuffled it, the fans of whatever race that doesn't come out first is going to be disappointed, especially if the time between releases is the better part of a year.