Starcraft II Catch-All

Hard to say what's good or bad about it yet, without knowing many details. It's up to personal preference anyway. For example:

I'd love for Blizzard to change their campaign design. The current one -- kneecapped skirmishes painted by a thin veneer of (sorry for the editorial) dull words & plot -- doesn't do much for me. After a while I skipped the rest and went straight to multi-player. If we can expect more of this, with more missions packed in per campaign, I'll buy the first package only and give the story a miss.

On the other hand, if they create an actual game, in which customized missions play a central but not dominating role, we may have an interesting (to me) game on our hands. Star Control 2 kept me glued to chair long after one versus match after another would've become old.

Sonicator wrote:

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.

That is what I hope they avoid with SC2, more of the same. I wouldn't exactly be disappointed, since I loved Starcraft even with the forgettable single-player. But I'd prefer to be amazed.

Sota wrote:

On the other hand, if they create an actual game, in which customized missions play a central but not dominating role, we may have an interesting (to me) game on our hands. Star Control 2 kept me glued to chair long after one versus match after another would've become old.

You should really watch the 4-part video they did on the Terran campaign in 2007. What they're doing with the single player here looks like a huge, awesome departure from the previous games. It looks almost like a simplified Mass Effect with RTS combat.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Using number of races as a game metric reminds me of the old marketing ploy of advertising the number of rooms in a text adventure. "200 rooms!" Thing is, it's not a measure of quality.

Quality in a game is the level of enjoyment you get from playing it and how long that enjoyment lasts. Now if your enjoyment depends on the number of factions, okay, that's fine. Enjoyment is very subjective. I don't feel the same, so let's not argue that Blizzard needs to consider it as some kind of objective standard.

Do I worry that Starcraft II's campaign won't be able to deliver a good number of hours of enjoyment? Yes. It has nothing to do with the number of races though. It's something I worry about with every game.

I agree to a point for example the Tau and Necrons in DoW really didn't do much for me and I was never so hot on the Eldar. But using DoW:2 in comparison alone I get all three SC races + space Orks! My point was more that if the races are fun and interesting 4 > 3 for replay value in custom single player games alone. From the most recent gameplay trailer of DoW:2 also they already have heavy RPG elements (exp for skills and items) in the campaign from the get go.

Like I said before if this was going down the 3+3+3 path of mini campaigns of all races in each game + expansions I doubt many people come moaning. I honestly don't see why they couldn't go down that path and just resolve the main plot line and leave us as they always do with the obvious cliffhanger to bridge in the expansion. Instead now its a 30hour Terran story with a mini Protoss campaign? Then a 30hr Zerg campaign with rpg elements? Then a 30hr Protoss campaign with diplomacy whatever that means? My brain doesn't compute this.

Devmani wrote:

Defensive nah just playing the devil's advocate, bringing up viewpoints that haven't been discussed before. You say I'm being patronizing when that is not my intent and you are personally insulted so you are taking something to heart when the statement wasn't directed to anyone in general but to the open forum. So while you are attempting to not be snarky also attempt to not be insulted because I didn't affix a name to my previous post. Next time just shoot me a PM and please don't try to call me out on a public forum without provocation.

I didn't say your post was directed towards me and I'm not sure where you got that from. I said your post seemed to be written with a patronizing tone, which I still feel it was regardless of your intent. Comments such as "Wow, X has never been done... oh wait! It has! When Y did it!" Well, I read comments like that as patronizing towards those who weren't agreeing with you and a bit hostile. Not necessarily towards me specifically but that doesn't really change the tone any.

The defensive comment was totally my assumption and I probably should have cut it, but the rest? No, I feel it was completely legitimate.

As far as a two tiered Bnet, I agree it's possible. I think anything outside of paying for tournament play or microtransations to make your avatar look neat would significantly put me off the online multiplayer aspect of either Diablo III or StarCraft II. I can't say I'm representative of anything except myself, but that's how I feel.

At this point the good StarCraft II news just isn't as loud as the iffy to bad StarCraft II news. Maybe that'll change, they've got a year or so, but at this point scales tip towards "wait for battlechest."

And Mondays are just another day for me. I don't really have a weekend, per se.

Devmani, you are such a punk

TheGameguru wrote:

http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/1...

You hear that? That's the sound of money being banked! KA-CHING!

:)

Not mine.

Quotes from Blizzard's SC2 FAQ:

Will we still be able to play multiplayer matches of StarCraft II with all three races?
Yes! From the beginning, StarCraft II will be a fully featured multiplayer game, and all three races will be available for competitive play.

So far, so good.

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.

Won't be popular, but we all paid for Frozen Throne and Brood War.

Still only very vague words about the "single player experience".

Sota wrote:

Won't be popular, but we all paid for Frozen Throne and Brood War.

We don't know if they'll charge the same as Frozen Throne and Brood War for the other parts of the trilogy, though.

Who cares? You're stressing over the price point of a product that's likely over two years away from release.

buzzvang wrote:

Who cares? You're stressing over the price point of a product that's likely over two years away from release.

Well, crap. So you're saying it's going to be even MORE expensive?

Honestly, having thought about it some more, I think all the rage over this is because this is Blizzard's 'BIG BIG BIGBIGBIGBIGBIG' Announcement. Kinda like Diablo 3 was at the last thingy they did. The Europe thing. You know what I mean, right? People see this as them saying 'Hey! You know our big announcement? We're making you buy Starcraft 2 THREE TIMES! That's right, if you want all 3 races campaigns, you have to buy it 3 times!'

People are understandably pissed that instead of hearing about awesome new IP, they're being told that to get the whole single player experience(which is in parallel, not sequence like SC1), they buy it three times. Then get to watch the same ending all three times. Arguing over the price point may be very niggling of us, but given everything else associated with the announcement, I'd say we're entitled to gripe about it. IMO.

Honostly I'm not too concerned with the decision they made. Considering their track record I'm fairly confident that in the years to come they will have figured out a way to do it that will make all of this conversation null and void. At the moment though it does seem like they've got a pretty big ego.

People are understandably pissed that instead of hearing about awesome new IP, they're being told that to get the whole single player experience(which is in parallel, not sequence like SC1), they buy it three times. Then get to watch the same ending all three times. Arguing over the price point may be very niggling of us, but given everything else associated with the announcement, I'd say we're entitled to gripe about it. IMO.

I could see this argument holding true if the Terran campaign was around the same size as it was in the original SC.. then yeah.. I'd feel shortchanged.. but the entire story from Blizzard has been so far that they have expanded the scope and size of each campaign into a full fledged games worth of content. So the real argument should be.. do you want smaller sized campaigns but all 3 races in one game or much more detailed and varied campaigns for each race spread out over 3 games?

I'm not sure your point on the ending bit.. but I might have missed some announcement from Blizzard.

TheGameguru wrote:
People are understandably pissed that instead of hearing about awesome new IP, they're being told that to get the whole single player experience(which is in parallel, not sequence like SC1), they buy it three times. Then get to watch the same ending all three times. Arguing over the price point may be very niggling of us, but given everything else associated with the announcement, I'd say we're entitled to gripe about it. IMO.

I could see this argument holding true if the Terran campaign was around the same size as it was in the original SC.. then yeah.. I'd feel shortchanged.. but the entire story from Blizzard has been so far that they have expanded the scope and size of each campaign into a full fledged games worth of content. So the real argument should be.. do you want smaller sized campaigns but all 3 races in one game or much more detailed and varied campaigns for each race spread out over 3 games?

I'm not sure your point on the ending bit.. but I might have missed some announcement from Blizzard.

Smaller sized campaigns but all 3 races. I watched the videos of their 'story mode' and honestly that's not the content I want. I could care less if Raynor shoots the sh*t with people on the bridge or there's a side plot that he isn't paying his crew. Clicking the crane and moving it does nothing for me. Clicking the view of space and seeing outside not much either. Obviously I can't project what I want over on other people but others here have also echoed that they really are not interested in a 1 race 20 mission campaign or whatever it turns out to be. So yea so far story mode meh and 1 long 1 race campaign meh^2.

TheGameguru wrote:
People are understandably pissed that instead of hearing about awesome new IP, they're being told that to get the whole single player experience(which is in parallel, not sequence like SC1), they buy it three times. Then get to watch the same ending all three times. Arguing over the price point may be very niggling of us, but given everything else associated with the announcement, I'd say we're entitled to gripe about it. IMO.

I could see this argument holding true if the Terran campaign was around the same size as it was in the original SC.. then yeah.. I'd feel shortchanged.. but the entire story from Blizzard has been so far that they have expanded the scope and size of each campaign into a full fledged games worth of content. So the real argument should be.. do you want smaller sized campaigns but all 3 races in one game or much more detailed and varied campaigns for each race spread out over 3 games?

I'm not sure your point on the ending bit.. but I might have missed some announcement from Blizzard.

First, I think that some news site said Blizz reported that the stories in each game would run parallel and the ending to all three would be the same. To be honest, I don't see how that'd work if they expected to launch new units with each game so I'll have to look it up a little more.

Second, I agree with you on the length. Starcraft had 10 missions for each race, with Brood War adding an additional 8 for each race. Now they were saying that the Terran campaign alone would contain 30 or so missions. So that in itself is the size of the first Starcraft. Plus, they talk about each race's campaign being in a different style. (Terran being your classic RTS, Zerg having some RPG elements, and Protoss having some diplomatic elements). I would rather one game be dedicated to each race instead of having each story spread across 3 games, with just 10 missions per race per game. Reason being is that if you just set each race to it's own game release, then Blizzard has more time to refine the gameplay style for each race in singleplayer.

jowner wrote:

Smaller sized campaigns but all 3 races. I watched the videos of their 'story mode' and honestly that's not the content I want. I could care less if Raynor shoots the sh*t with people on the bridge or there's a side plot that he isn't paying his crew. Clicking the crane and moving it does nothing for me. Clicking the view of space and seeing outside not much either. Obviously I can't project what I want over on other people but others here have also echoed that they really are not interested in a 1 race 20 mission campaign or whatever it turns out to be. So yea so far story mode meh and 1 long 1 race campaign meh^2.

You're making a lot of assumptions.

Based on having seen more "sandboxy" campaign modes in other games (I'm thinking Rise of Legends explicitly right now, but it's been done elsewhere), this sort of thing can be done really really poorly. At the same time, I can imagine it being done really really well. They've explicitly mentioned Mass Effect and other RPGs as an example of what they're going for, and I think that's a pretty powerful model. If they can pull it off. The example videos they showed let us know what direction they're going, and the kinds of toys around on the "ship". But they didn't really show us what the gameplay part of things is going to be like.

Is there any guarantee they can make this work well? No. But there's also no guarantee that they're going to fail. The trick will be how to give multiple options on where to go in campaign mode without compromising the story—and my experience with Blizzard makes me think that they would back off on their new ideas before letting the story fall short.

Anyway, what I figure is this: We're going to have to wait for the game to come out, and see if it's worth buying. Just like *gasp* any other game. Blizzard's got a lot of brand loyalty from me, which means I'm going to assume they've got something good going, up until they prove otherwise. But if the game comes out and reviewers are "meh", I'm not going to buy it.

But, well... honestly, Blizzard knows that. So again: why would they make this big gamble if it looked likely to squander the immense goodwill they have from their fans?

I guess I've been rambling, so the short form: There's no reason to assume that Blizzard hasn't already figured out how to make this "new idea" work, and every reason to assume that they have. If you're the kind of person who'll take what "they say" at face value, be optimistic and look forward to buying the game—and enjoy speculating about how they're going to make it work. If you're the kind of person who assumes that this is a money-grubbing move from a bunch of real bastards, shut the hell up and wait for the reviews that will inevitably prove you right, and go post somewhere else about the games you are actually looking forward to.

Hypatian wrote:

If you're the kind of person who assumes that this is a money-grubbing move from a bunch of real bastards, shut the hell up and wait for the reviews that will inevitably prove you right, and go post somewhere else about the games you are actually looking forward to.

Because this is the "Starcraft II No Negative Posts Catch-all" right?

I was really looking forward to Starcraft II, but I only care about the single player. This move is a kick in the nuts to me, because I like the variety of playing everything in the single player game, not just skirmishes. The way this played out makes it seem like the Activision merger has insinuated itself into Blizzard's PR machine. That's clearly a stumble from the point of view of those who see this as a money grab. If Blizzard's outstanding PR reputation can be sullied, one wonders if the same sort of thing might happen in the game design and development realms.

Nah, it's more that it's the "people talk about SCII" thread and not the "people whine and moan about a game they haven't seen" thread. It's fine to speculate that this is going to suck, and point out why--but there's just not enough information out there (in my opinion) to make that claim, yet. We don't know what the game is going to be like. We can say "If the game is like X, it will suck" and "If the game is like Y, it will not suck" all we like, but we don't know one way or the other. Hence: saying that "This move is a kick in the nuts to me" is premature.

Once we have a more substantial idea of what the gameplay is going to be like, sure. But none of us can do anything but make up fantasies about how we imagine the game working. But since neither one of us can argue that our flights of fancy are more grounded in reality, that's just... pointless.

I guess my final point of view is this: I'd rather not keep reading this thread expecting it to have new info in it just to see more groundless ranting about how Actizard is a giant money-pit. ;>

Curiously, the potential revelation that the games take place in parallel has me less interested in buying anything more than the first one that comes out.

I seriously doubt I'll care about playing the same story from a different perspective... a year later.

Tyrian wrote:

Curiously, the potential revelation that the games take place in parallel has me less interested in buying anything more than the first one that comes out.

I seriously doubt I'll care about playing the same story from a different perspective... a year later.

That is my biggest concern too. I really don't have an issue with the first game being nothing but Terran, the second being Zerg or Protoss and the third being the other. Instead I have an issue with it being the exact same story but from a different perspective. If each on continued where the previous left off, I'd be looking forward to the expansions more.

Tyrian wrote:

Curiously, the potential revelation that the games take place in parallel has me less interested in buying anything more than the first one that comes out.

I seriously doubt I'll care about playing the same story from a different perspective... a year later.

Where did you hear that the stories are parallel? That's not really what they made it sound like in the BlizzCon announcement

Switchbreak wrote:
Tyrian wrote:

Curiously, the potential revelation that the games take place in parallel has me less interested in buying anything more than the first one that comes out.

I seriously doubt I'll care about playing the same story from a different perspective... a year later.

Where did you hear that the stories are parallel? That's not really what they made it sound like in the BlizzCon announcement :?

Well, the Blizzcon announcement said that all 3 games have a set ending. That can certainly be looked at to mean same ending in all three cases. However, if they make the subsequent games like oversize, full price expansion packs, then they'll have a continuing story through all three games. In that respect, I don't think anyone would terribly mind more game for the extra money.

I've heard in an interview with Chris Sigaty and Dustin Browder and they said pretty definitively that each campaign follows the next chronologically. So first Terran, then Zerg, then Protoss. (Although this bit doesn't seem to be included in the transcript.)

Link: http://www.giantbomb.com/news/qa-the...

The most interesting bit out of the interview is that they're no longer looking at single player as a tutorial for multiplayer, which was a concern earlier in the thread, but as it's own experience. Personally I think it's a good decision because practically speaking, playing through RTS campaigns is poor training for multiplayer and just doesn't emphasize the skill set needed for competitive multiplayer. If they can design a really good and unique single player experience, despite playing as mostly one race throughout each campaign, then they've got a winner.

The games are not taking place in parallel. "Set ending" just means that Blizzard knows how each chapter will end, but isn't sure about the individual missions in the 2nd and 3rd games. They know what story they want to tell, the gameplay isn't determined.

1Up is reporting that Blizzard producer Chris Sigaty wants his mom to be able to play Starcraft 2. Specifically, he wants to do something about micromanagement.

Give me a f***ing break. This is a game so hardcore it's a televised sport in some places. Well, OK, just South Korea, but still. I get it, the casual market is the "big thing," but can't the hardcore at LEAST have one of the definitively hardcore games? RTS's are intrinsically hardcore!

Why not? Micromanagement is hardcore boring bullsh*t - it's like being the general of an all Down syndrome army. If they can keep the fun of moving around troops sans the frantic mouseclicking and build queue memorization, I'll buy all three games.

And besides, they did it for MMOs and it seems there's plenty of hobbyist games playing those.

Why? Why!? Because why should they have it so easy when I cut my teeth on Command & Conquer and Warcraft 1!?

LobsterMobster wrote:

RTS's are intrinsically hardcore!

Nuh uh! Stop being such a poopoo head.

Staats wrote:

Why not? Micromanagement is hardcore boring bullsh*t - it's like being the general of an all Down syndrome army. If they can keep the fun of moving around troops sans the frantic mouseclicking and build queue memorization, I'll buy all three games.

Agreed. I'd really like to see some RTS games with awesome unit AI. The real trick for that would be designing a UI that would allow for relatively complex orders to be given in a simple way. For example: "hold and fortify position X until (UNIT-HEALTH < 50%) or (CLOSE-VICINITY-ENEMY-STRENGTH > (2 * UNIT-STRENGTH)) then retreat to position Y and fortify". It sounds complex when written out, but could be accomplished with a hot-key and a draggable arrow between the two positions. Having units that are smart enough to retreat to fortified positions, or use appropriate weaponry against enemy units (rifles, grenades, rockets) would be awesome from a tactical stand-point. I think CoH took a nice step in that direction with squad-level command and automatic use of cover.

The downside to the proposition would be that some folks might feel less involved with the combat, but those of us with a god-complex would love it.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Why? Why!? Because why should they have it so easy when I cut my teeth on Command & Conquer and Warcraft 1!? ;)

Command and Conquer? You had it easy! Real men started on Dune 2, before you could select more than one unit at a time!

It's an interesting statement that he made - I can see why they want to make it more forgiving to newcomers, but they'll need the depth in there to maintain longevity. I see difficulty having two major flavours:

1) Difficult = challenging, typically in the form of meaningful complexity (see: Chess, Go, Politics, Economics), and;

2) Difficult = hard to use, due to something being cumbersome, unhelpful or badly designed (see: sledgehammers, automated phone answering systems, real estate agents, donkeys.)

I'm sure they're intending to focus on the latter. The former type of difficulty is enjoyable, and allows people to display a range of real skill levels. The other is barrier to fun, and acts as an artificial distinction between levels of experience.

And yes, I'm extremely bad at micromanagement-heavy games.

Sonicator wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Why? Why!? Because why should they have it so easy when I cut my teeth on Command & Conquer and Warcraft 1!? ;)

Command and Conquer? You had it easy! Real men started on Dune 2, before you could select more than one unit at a time! ;)

This man knows much.

Dune 2 was my favorite PC game right up until the moment when Command & Conquer hit my CD tray. Those games singlehandedly got me started on PC gaming.