Starcraft 2 is Now a Trilogy [Archive]

modeps

10-10-2008, 04:31 PM

http://www.evilavatar.com/images/thumbs/starcraft2.jpg

Today, Blizzard has announced that Starcraft 2 will be split into three seperate games... one for each race's campaign. Shacknews has the story (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55267):

The first game in the trilogy will consist of the Terran campaign, and is set to be titled "Terrans: Wings of Liberty."

The second Zerg-focused title will be "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm," with the third game being "Protoss: Legacy of the Void."

"[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products," said Blizzard's Rob Pardo.

Each campaign will be very different, with Pardo saying the Zerg campaign will contain RPG elements. The Protoss campaigin will likewise be differentiated by elements of diplomacy. In addition, the Terran campaign will contain a Protoss mini-campaign.

Blizzard added that nothing has changed for the multiplayer plans. Each game is planned as a concentrated, epic storyline, with enough content to justify a full release. As a result, the games will now feature more in-game cinematics and story content.

Pardo noted that the decision was necessary to maintain the quality of the product, the alternatives either being a long delay of the game, or a scaling back of the campaigns

I'm just hoping that each 'game' will be priced properly, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing at least $40 out of each of these. What do you think of this news? Would you rather they just released it all as one game as was previously thought, waiting possibly another few years?

walkstheplanes

10-10-2008, 04:35 PM

So is that going to be $150-$180 ($50-$60 each)? Or a $60 purchase and two $30 expansions ($120)? Either way... You'd think they'd have enough money from WoW.

edit: At least we'll be getting the multiplayer a little sooner now that the single player experience is split (at least that's how I interpret it).

modeps

10-10-2008, 04:39 PM

At least we'll be getting the multiplayer a little sooner now that the single player experience is split (at least that's how I interpret it).

Yeah, I think I remember someone at somepoint basically said that the MP was effectively done already... that they wanted to get that perfected before they moved onto the single player campaign at all. Still, often I find myself playing SP instead of MP, particularly with RTS titles because I'm just not good enough to hang with other people.

tombofsoldier

10-10-2008, 04:42 PM

This is... retarded

danhoo

10-10-2008, 04:44 PM

Shacknews link has an extra http: in it?

Also, I assume they'll ship the Zerg disc first :)

walkstheplanes

10-10-2008, 04:46 PM

Yeah, I think I remember someone at somepoint basically said that the MP was effectively done already... that they wanted to get that perfected before they moved onto the single player campaign at all. Still, often I find myself playing SP instead of MP, particularly with RTS titles because I'm just not good enough to hang with other people.

True. I'm far from competitive, and despite the fact that I'm Korean, I don't see myself getting anywhere above average with Starcraft MP.

modeps

10-10-2008, 04:48 PM

Shacknews link has an extra http: in it?

Also, I assume they'll ship the Zerg disc first :)

Thanks, I fixed it. Story says that the first one to ship will be the Terrans.

Mantooth

10-10-2008, 04:56 PM

Would you care for some milk to go with your cash-grab?

Snarboo

10-10-2008, 04:56 PM

This is... retarded This.

What does this mean for MP exactly? Will you be able to play as all races in multiplayer, or will you only be able to play as whatever race comes with each chapter? And what if someone only buys two of the chapters, crazy as that sounds? This sounds like a logistical nightmare, and all for the sake of making more money.

Delenda

10-10-2008, 05:01 PM

Personally I think this kind of sucks, not because of pricing concerns, but because I usually hate long RTS campaigns. Blizzard tends to weave a really good story into their games, but thinking back to WC3, there were way too many variations on the build-a-base/defend-a-base/Diablo-lite archetypes. I would much rather have 30 missions spanned across 3 races than face some 90 mission epic over 3 games.

Then again, if they can prove to me that the time and money is going into an exciting, different kind of campaign, I'd be quite happy.

RMan

10-10-2008, 05:02 PM

I think it's a smart move, they'll definitely make more money, allows them to charge more to the people willing to pay more. I'll likely wait until the 3 game bundle is out though, I liked Starcraft, but hardly chomping at the bit to play this. I'd wager it'll be just as fun, if not slightly more so, when I play it.

danhoo

10-10-2008, 05:05 PM

Thanks, I fixed it. Story says that the first one to ship will be the Terrans.

Oh I know. I was just making a joke. You know, Zerg rush, and, umm.

Ok, it wasn't a good joke.

Delenda

10-10-2008, 05:05 PM

This.

What does this mean for MP exactly? Will you be able to play as all races in multiplayer, or will you only be able to play as whatever race comes with each chapter? And what if someone only buys two of the chapters, crazy as that sounds? This sounds like a logistical nightmare, and all for the sake of making more money.

From the linked article:

Blizzard added that the plans for the multiplayer component are unchanged by the splitting of the campaigns. However, some units will now be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer.

Ulysses

10-10-2008, 05:08 PM

I thought this was a joke at first, heh.

modeps

10-10-2008, 05:09 PM

Oh I know. I was just making a joke. You know, Zerg rush, and, umm.

Ok, it wasn't a good joke.

I've been up for over 14 hours already today. Sorry

/me makes passing motion over his head, and woosh sound

asimplehero

10-10-2008, 05:10 PM

Diplomacy in MY Starcraft? No no no no, none of this sounds good.

MJBuddy

10-10-2008, 05:33 PM

Jesus, it's three full games that won't effect your multiplayer game at all.

Boo hoo. If you don't like the single player campaigns, there's nothing saying you have to buy more than the original (yet).

Even better are the complaints at all the money they'll make making games you want to play. Fuck them! Amirite poor high school kids!?

The_Reckoning

10-10-2008, 05:36 PM

Sounds... interesting. In a retarded way...

Snarboo

10-10-2008, 05:39 PM

Even better are the complaints at all the money they'll make making games you want to play. Fuck them! Amirite poor high school kids!? Because only poor people don't want to pay $120 - $180 for a single game. This isn't even like Guitar Hero or Rockband where you get a special peripheral to play the game, it's just the same game released 3 times with different singleplayer levels.

Fonz

10-10-2008, 05:40 PM

The "Trilogy" statement is just Marketing. All they are doing is splitting the 3 campaigns you would of gotten in 1 single game into 3 and calling them separate games. This is Blizzard fucking over people to make more money. I played SC for the multiplayer, but Single Player was still great. Now because some guy in some fucking suit over at Activison-Blizzard thought "how can we fucking milk this shit more?" we have to pay for 3 incomplete games. You thought EA is fucked up? this sets a new standard.

Kem0sabe

10-10-2008, 05:40 PM

This is seriously stupid.

Sasori the Medic

10-10-2008, 05:46 PM

Paranoia

10-10-2008, 05:47 PM

This is a really...REALLY...stupid idea.

modeps

10-10-2008, 05:51 PM

They should just rename themselves to plain old Activision and quit pretending like they're the Blizzard we know and love. This is total garbage. I will withhold permanent judgement until I know the pricing scheme but I'm not spending 150 dollars on Starcraft.

As much as I hate to think this, yeah... I can see Activision having a hand in this. Because Blizzard takes their sweet time, Activision wants to recoup costs by doing this... It does make sense, and is very unfortunate if true.

Sly Marbo

10-10-2008, 06:10 PM

This is fantastic news!

chirz

10-10-2008, 06:10 PM

I love the Blizzard single player campaigns and trust their artistic ability, but this definitely has the stink of of sellout to me. I'll wait for the final products before I really judge, but for now you can call me disappointed.

BabyJesus

10-10-2008, 06:13 PM

There's another game I have to knock of my PC game list.

StGeorge

10-10-2008, 06:17 PM

Expect Diablo 3 to be split into 6 games - one for each class.

MJBuddy

10-10-2008, 06:30 PM

Because only poor people don't want to pay $120 - $180 for a single game. This isn't even like Guitar Hero or Rockband where you get a special peripheral to play the game, it's just the same game released 3 times with different singleplayer levels.

You don't want to pay 180 dollars for the same game three times?

Then don't.

agentgray

10-10-2008, 06:34 PM

Oh, so they are following the Dawn of War model? Interesting.

Snarboo

10-10-2008, 06:46 PM

Then don't. I most likely won't. :p If I do, it will be in a big bundle deal.

It's not really a big deal, though, but my cynicism leads me to believe it was done strictly to make money. I cannot say if Blizzard had any pressure from Activision, but knowing how Blizzard fans are and the general polish of their products, I'd say this isn't a bad business decision.

Azriel77

10-10-2008, 06:59 PM

Wow, so basically they created episodic content, but just gave it a different name because of the stink "Episode" Has. Ok, how far does blizzard have to go until people realize the blizzard of old is gone and dead? Blizzard isn't about making great revolutionary games anymore, its about making the most money by milking their franchises to death. When people brought up legitimate complaints about Diablo 3's art direction,the removal of classes, and the suspicion that it looks like a wow clone, the Blizzard fanatics came out in droves defending their favorite company. Now Blizzard is selling out the Starcraft franchise and charging you three times for ONE complete game. I might buy it in a few years when its a complete pachage for a reasonable price, but I am not going to get shilled three times for one game. Have fun with your incomplete game.

abso

10-10-2008, 07:10 PM

I'm not even an RTS fan, but I would have bought SC2. Now, forget it. I have no problem with episodic content, but it just doesn't make sense for an RTS. Delay the game for a year, put everything into a single game, and ship it complete. Not like Blizzard is known for keeping release dates anyway. I don't want to play the terran campaign now, and the toss campaign 18 months and even 60 dollars more later. This game will now sit idly on the shelf of a retailer until I can pick up all 3 for 15 bucks. In fact, maybe I'll buy it used, just to shaft Blizzard any proceeds.

Emabulator

10-10-2008, 07:16 PM

Count me in with the "I'll wait for the $20 Battle Chest" crowd.

Tempest261

10-10-2008, 07:29 PM

Hey if they want to give me all three games for $50 I'm cool with it...
...otherwise I'll just continue playing Company of Heroes (AKA the greatest RTS of all time).

Tempest261

10-10-2008, 07:29 PM

Hey if they want to give me all three games for $50 I'm cool with it...
...otherwise I'll just continue playing Company of Heroes (AKA the greatest RTS of all time).

P.S. But only if they put it on Steam. I only have room for one Starcraft 2 box, thanks.

Azrael

10-10-2008, 07:48 PM

Jesus, why the overreaction? your all jumping up and down like someone lit a fire under your chair and they havent even announced a pricing schedule yet! Yeah lets all get worked up over nothing...

For all we know the inital game could set you back $40 with possible $5-10 expansion delivered via a method like steam (direct download). Hell if each "chapter" has 30 missions (which was roughly the length of SC1 and War3) and a storyline & cinematic as epic as SC1 or War3 i would seriously have to consider paying the full price 3 times. I'm pretty sure that Broodwar & Frozen throne both came out at discounted prices (could be wrong)

I consider the fact that blizzard is actually tyring to get the product out there as soon as possible is a good thing. This is a very eagerly awaited game by a lot of people...

TKO

10-10-2008, 07:59 PM

Hecubus

10-10-2008, 08:07 PM

Don't care. Don't have a PC. If they brought them out for the consoles, I'd probably care. I'd likely buy 'em. No PC = No care.

If you have a PC that can play this game and make it look great, why gripe about one of the best game developers ever trying to capitalize on their fan-boy base who'll likely consume their product like Linda Lovelace on a Saturday night? Oh, I forgot. That's what you do on the intraweb... complain about useless crap like... companies trying to make money, 9/11 conspiracy theories, DRM, Batman vs. Superman, etc.

Steve_Erhardt

10-10-2008, 08:20 PM

Oh, so they are following the Dawn of War model? Interesting.

Not really following this...? Expand, please? DoW shipped as a complete game and after it's success, they followed up with three distinct, self-contained expansions. Going from what painfully little we know right now, Acti-Blizz just took a hatchet to what was clearly supposed to be a single game and are going to dole it out in three chunks over time. Hardly the same thing, IMO, but I'd certainly like to see how you arrived at your statement above. =)

My gut reaction, as with a few others already, is that Activision is probably the... inspiration... behind this cockamamie sounding scheme. However, if anybody can pull a flaming bullshit stunt like this off and leave us smiling, it's probably Blizzard, so I'm leaving my pitchfork and torch in the barn until we know more.

gojira

10-10-2008, 08:31 PM

Count me in with the "I'll wait for the $20 Battle Chest" crowd.

This.

And 10 characters.

Mister Pie

10-10-2008, 08:31 PM

Count me in the "This can't be a good idea" crowd. Unless we're talking about something like 20 bucks per expansion (ie. the old school days), I'm not sure if I see myself paying 40-50 per expansion.

Phanto

10-10-2008, 08:48 PM

Now because some guy in some fucking suit over at Activison-Blizzard thought "how can we fucking milk this shit more?" we have to pay for 3 incomplete games. You thought EA is fucked up? this sets a new standard.

And because is the all praised Starcraft franchise they think they will milk cash like crazy..

So basically what we are getting when we get out and buy SC2 (if we buy it) is the campaign of the Terrans only but for the multiplayer part we will get the three classes. And so we get a "complete" game except for the single player story which when the game is released the single story will still not be completed except for the terrans campaign only which comes with StarCraft 2.

PopoWRX

10-10-2008, 09:31 PM

MJBuddy

10-10-2008, 09:32 PM

I most likely won't. :p If I do, it will be in a big bundle deal.

It's not really a big deal, though, but my cynicism leads me to believe it was done strictly to make money. I cannot say if Blizzard had any pressure from Activision, but knowing how Blizzard fans are and the general polish of their products, I'd say this isn't a bad business decision.

Can you blame them for making money? You realize more money = more staff = faster output + better testing.

If it's worth the money, buy it. If not, don't. If you buy it, you'll get more of it down the line. If you don't, you're sending the message to not do this anymore.

Tyrant

10-10-2008, 09:37 PM

I hope the almost universal groan heard across the internet upon reading the news makes Activision/Blizzard reconsider the decision.

PopoWRX

10-10-2008, 09:54 PM

If they price the others like episodes my anger with somewhat be satiated. But if all of em are full price effin' games that all end the effin' same way....there will be problems.

I already play WoW, do you need to nickle and dime us on effin' SC2 as well?

I'm one of your most ardent supporters and you kick us in the grill with this?!

If the first game is $40-50 and the next few are cheaper downloads, sure, I'd be almost ok with that. But from hearing Pardo and the gang, they sound like all of em are considered to be separate full-fledged games. So I'm thinking something along the lines of DoW and its expansions.

So much anger at this.

After reading their reasoning and the choices they had, it seemed the way they were doing their campaigns necessitated either cutting the epic-ness and shipping it with shorter campaigns, a much longer dev-time, or releasing it in separate parts with the epic scope. Apparently there is going to be a mini-Zeratul campaign as well.

Usually Blizzard says "When its done," but I guess this time "When its done" was just too far away for them or....Activision?

My nerd rage was softened after seeing their reasoning but I'm left to wonder as others have if Activision isn't subtly poking Blizzard here.

KidNicarus

10-10-2008, 10:11 PM

I don't know...

Mixed feelings about this.

I can see both sides of the issue. Fans of the series are concerned that just to play the entire StarCraft 2 campaign could cost upwards of 150 dollars.

That being said, can anyone think of an example where Blizzard did not give you the most bang for your buck? The expansions for their products have more content than some full priced titles.

There is such a thing as making a game to big. And it is entirely possible that the single player portions aren't going to cost 50 bucks a piece.

Until I see a reason not to, I'm gonna go ahead and trust em' on this one.

Eric_T_Cheng

10-10-2008, 10:17 PM

If Blizzard comes out with a Collector's Edition, I hope it includes all three games...

Ulysses

10-10-2008, 10:26 PM

If Blizzard comes out with a Collector's Edition, I hope it includes all three games...

And it'll cost $90. :P

I'm not sure I buy the reasoning that the project grew to be too large to make into a single release. If so, that's some pretty awful design if they let the scope balloon to something unmanageable. That, and given their lack of a hard deadline (fans that accept the "when it's done"), I can't see why they couldn't trim things or so on to make it manageable or just steam on and get everything done in one package.

But oh well, if they want to milk their fanbase, that's fine. This game had better be pretty damn revolutionary though.

Judas

10-10-2008, 11:55 PM

that's activision's influence in there. taking a good thing and twisting it into a mess, hoping to get players to dole out more cash. I think it's a sad day for gamers myself. This looks to be a reason after a long life in gaming to justify seeing a curtain call to an industry i once loved, not twisted and distorted by bean-counters. What happened to the days of purist developing when it was an inspiration to make and share greatness in gaming with those who appreciated a vision. Now it appears that vision has morphed into the very monster that those same developers vowed to seperate themselves from when they were younger. Looks like those adventurers agre caught in a dungeon of their making and are seduced by the wickedness that lies therein. What will become of our heroes? Stay tuned!

ElectricMonk

10-11-2008, 12:53 AM

God this is the most retarded thing ever. Just so nobody here gets to thinking that this is a good idea, levels are the cheapest content to produce.

Azrael

10-11-2008, 01:28 AM

ElectricMonk... how long you think it takes them to make those video sequences though?

Side note how awesome would it be if blizzard made a movie similar to FF7 Advent children but set in either the Warcraft or Starcraft world (with a good storyline of course)

Azrael

10-11-2008, 01:29 AM

hmm damm i am starting to sound like a fanboy constantly sticking up for blizzard. crap!

captainstrombosis

10-11-2008, 01:55 AM

I'll buy it.

AlwaysOn222

10-11-2008, 02:10 AM

What I would like to know is how much Moneyvisoin (activision) has to answer for in this mess. Becuase it does not sound like Blizzard at all. I mean SC2 has already been in development for several years, why do I care if they take another couple of years to make it right? I have plenty of games to finish in the mean time. But no, along comes Moneyvision and decides that hey Blizzard this takes to long. Make one campaing and release the other 2 as stand alone expansions with full price. Averagejoe will buy it anyway....

Sad day for PC gaming this.

Redline

10-11-2008, 02:22 AM

Upon reading this the primary thought my brain gave unto me was: "If it ain't broke...". Starcraft ain't broke. It's structure ain't broke certainly. Doesn't crazy sales and a 10 year+ lifespan prove this to be true?

Zurik

10-11-2008, 02:27 AM

The sad part is that everyone will still buy it no matter how they break it up. If any company can make something like this work its Blizzard.

Narradisal

10-11-2008, 02:58 AM

I love Blizzard, but even I think this is stretching it a bit. It sounds like they're trying to move it into RPG elements, diplomacy elements etc, and they did the RPG bit to an extent in WC3.

Still I think this has a large margin to go horribly wrong.

I'm sure the MP wil consist of all 3 races to play etc, but the idea of having to wait months if not years for the full trilogy to come out is a kick to the balls. I love the storylines and getting told I'll only get a third of a book would piss me off.

TKO

10-11-2008, 03:13 AM

I'm sure the MP wil consist of all 3 races to play etc, but the idea of having to wait months if not years for the full trilogy to come out is a kick to the balls. I love the storylines and getting told I'll only get a third of a book would piss me off.
Then wait for the full book to be finished. ..They've already said the single-player stuff isn't done. If you want it all at once you'll have to wait. Otherwise part one will be out soon. At least with Blizzard you know it will actually be done, and not a buggy mess of beta-code to be patched later.

At least you have a choice in the matter. ..Might not be the most financially advantageous choice, but this is gaming, not rent or food .. it always costs more than it's 'worth' IMHO. :D

Duskfire

10-11-2008, 03:40 AM

I think people are overreacting a bit. What if each campiagn is as long as all the campaigns in the first put together? What if each one is an epic tale of its own? Blizzard may like money as much as anyone else, but their pc games has always been quality. Starcraft has such a rich potential for story development and I wouldnt be surprised if they could forge out a novel-like aspect.

Valve did something similiar with Half life 2. Are they cash cows? Are they wanting to screw over fans? No they did it because they didn't want to take 17 years to make a game.

Qoz

10-11-2008, 03:53 AM

I like it.
They can spend more hours into making SC2 even more great.
More SC is good for me.

I know people scream "ripoff!", but really .. think again.
It's like the LOTR trilogy.

"3 movies for one book!!! What a ripoff!! Wtf!!111"

3 movies were perfect for the book, and 3 games is probably perfect for that game also.
We get multiplayer early, AND we get more Starcraft stuff down the road.
If you dislike this business-model then you should trash-talk Valve for doing episodes also. I like the episodes even though the graphics and gameplay is almost the same.

TKO

10-11-2008, 03:57 AM

I was thinking along the same lines Duskfire. What if it's like the Lord of the Rings of movies? Sure, if you purists got it all at once, it would be great value for money .. and you always have the option to wait for the trilogy bundle. But the rest of us would much rather have each part as they were done, thankyouverymuch.

Hell, we don't even know what price they will be yet, so stop this bullshit about price-gouging. Just coz they're merged with Activision. They're not the kind of company to have to relinquish all autonomy in that merger. They probably called all the shots.

Hapless

10-11-2008, 04:10 AM

Holy shit. I almost choked to death on all the sandy vagina getting here. I really cant believe the amount of bitching going on here. When was the last time you have seen Blizzard release a shoddy product or ever take steps to price gouge it's customer. If there is anything i can say about Blizzard is that they make great games, and untill they actually prove that fact wrong by example i'll be willing to continue giving them my trust. So the single player is going to be broken into three parts but i only need one of them to play multiplayer, sign me up. Everyone is only getting it to play DoTA anyway. I doubt the other two installments will be that hard to pirate anyway.

Borys

10-11-2008, 05:05 AM

This is absolutley retarded and absolutely non-Blizzard like.

FUCK YOU ACTIVISION

FUCK YOU

Demo_Boy

10-11-2008, 06:06 AM

I don't understand why they even announce this. Just release the "first" game like normal and take your reviews. Then release the "Expansions" and take the reviews.

The original had an expand which reviewed well.

Just don't expect the reviews to gush on your game if it is incomplete.

Ya Pays your money takes your chances.

Roc Ingersol

10-11-2008, 09:03 AM

So this is how Activision taints Blizzard?

ah well. All we can do is not buy it.

Grimgrock

10-11-2008, 11:59 AM

In 20 years when the game is released, all RTS games will be doing this.

Jadedgamer

10-11-2008, 12:06 PM

I've been saying for 15 years one of the biggest problems with PC games is that the developers do NOT have a clear vision of what the game will be. Nor can they seem to bring them to market in a realistic time-frame without bugs.

We're getting what will sure to be a great game and two expansion packs that would have been ridiculously large to put into one game.

Good for Blizzard. I wasn't going to buy SC2, but now I probably will.

They want to do something really epic here, something too big for one game. Good for them and great for Starcraft fans.

If you want to bitch at someone, what about the 'Dawn of War' people who keep releasing cheesy add-ons for a good, but very short original game. Talk about milking the cash cow.

CptTripps

10-11-2008, 12:33 PM

Me no rikey...

Antdude

10-11-2008, 12:38 PM

I was actually at the Blizzcon panel where this was announced. The one thing I kept hearing in regard to an epic campaign was more story, more cool stuff (for instance, a rendered cinematic flashback on how Kerrigan was captured and mutated by the Zerg), more setup for the fights, a branching campaign tree, more planets, more rendered cinematics. More, more, more. The question kept coming back to 'how do we fit this all in one game?'

During the panel, several in-game cinematics were shown. Guys, there's a big story they want to tell here. The choice was, chop out missions and backstory, throw in everything plus the kitchen sink and delay the release even more, or break up the SP campaigns, yet get multiplayer (which is pretty much done) out there for people to play on a relaunched Battle.net.

BTW, the Terran campaign will also include a mini-Protoss campaign, similar to Warcraft III, as well. Expect to hear more about this later.

What this really means is you'll be playing the game a bit sooner, now that the campaigns are broken up, especially those of you who only care about MP. The SP campaigns will be more in-depth(about 25 missions per campaign, according to Rob Pardo, who did most of the talking). And here's my thought: If the story they want to tell is so big, isn't it possible they're just laying the groundwork for a Starcraft MMO?

P.S. They also showed a minute's worth from the completed intro movie for the game, and it looks freakin' AMAZING.

Jadedgamer

10-11-2008, 12:44 PM

This all sounds amazing. The weiners (oops, I meant whiners) who are griping about buying three games...lack vision.

When this comes out it's going to be the 'Dark Knight' of PC Games - a colossol hit.

I was actually at the Blizzcon panel where this was announced. The one thing I kept hearing in regard to an epic campaign was more story, more cool stuff (for instance, a rendered cinematic flashback on how Kerrigan was captured and mutated by the Zerg), more setup for the fights, a branching campaign tree, more planets, more rendered cinematics. More, more, more. The question kept coming back to 'how do we fit this all in one game?'

During the panel, several in-game cinematics were shown. Guys, there's a big story they want to tell here. The choice was, chop out missions and backstory, throw in everything plus the kitchen sink and delay the release even more, or break up the SP campaigns, yet get multiplayer (which is pretty much done) out there for people to play on a relaunched Battle.net.

BTW, the Terran campaign will also include a mini-Protoss campaign, similar to Warcraft III, as well. Expect to hear more about this later.

What this really means is you'll be playing the game a bit sooner, now that the campaigns are broken up, especially those of you who only care about MP. The SP campaigns will be more in-depth(about 25 missions per campaign, according to Rob Pardo, who did most of the talking). And here's my thought: If the story they want to tell is so big, isn't it possible they're just laying the groundwork for a Starcraft MMO?

P.S. They also showed a minute's worth from the completed intro movie for the game, and it looks freakin' AMAZING.

Steve Johnson

10-11-2008, 02:19 PM

How much will each game cost though? I'd don't want to pay full price for all three games, just because none of this sounds right. I really didn't expect Blizzard to split up the game like this, it really smells like Activision stepped in and worked them over.

I think I'll stick to Red Alert 3 and Dawn of War II for now.

Jadedgamer

10-11-2008, 02:43 PM

Kem0sabe

10-11-2008, 02:58 PM

Steve Johnson

10-11-2008, 03:12 PM

Dawn of War II, I'm with you on. But after the SPORE/DRM debacle I have sworn off EA games. For good.

I don't believe Red Alert 3 will suffer from DRM the way Spore has. I don't have a problem with DRM because I see where companies are coming from.

I'm willing to look past any minor DRM they have for RA3. If it's absolutely horrible, I'll just get the 360 version.

Antdude

10-11-2008, 03:27 PM

I don't believe Red Alert 3 will suffer from DRM the way Spore has. I don't have a problem with DRM because I see where companies are coming from.

I'm willing to look past any minor DRM they have for RA3. If it's absolutely horrible, I'll just get the 360 version.

RA3 currently has the usual SecuROM malware, same as Spore's. What's worse, the current install limit on the game is 5, and you cannot get an install back by uninstalling the game. Same goes for any hardware changes.

Check out EA's forums here (http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=430797&tstart=0) to get the full bloody truth. Supposedly, EA is rethinking its stance but no info after that. As far as I'm concerned, install limits of any kind are a deal-breaker. I don't see Blizzard ever trying anything like this, mostly because they don't treat their paying customers like criminals. I've lost count of how many machines and installs I've done for Starcraft alone. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about it. So Blizz gets my money by default because they've earned it.

However Blizzard releases Starcraft 2, it'll still be a fantastic game. That's the bottom line

Micasa

10-11-2008, 03:28 PM

Holy shit. I almost choked to death on all the sandy vagina getting here. I really cant believe the amount of bitching going on here. When was the last time you have seen Activision release a shoddy product or ever take steps to price gouge it's customer. If there is anything i can say about Activision is that they make great games, and untill they actually prove that fact wrong by example i'll be willing to continue giving them my trust. So the single player is going to be broken into three parts but i only need one of them to play multiplayer, sign me up. Everyone is only getting it to play DoTA anyway. I doubt the other two installments will be that hard to pirate anyway.

Wow, that really looks strange when you remember the whole merger thing.

abso

10-11-2008, 04:47 PM

@Azrael: yup, this is true internet-forums-opinion at work. Complete overreaction. I think it will be nice to see the initial release earlier so people can start getting their game on right away.

I bet, for the vast majority of buyers (ie: all of Korea), this game will have everything you want from day one. It's only the single-player people that will have to wait, and only then if they don't want to play the human campaign.

The overreaction is to the company putting an axe to expectations long held about RTSs put out by the company. They have always included the complete single-player campaign for all races. The fact that they are abandoning this model now, seemingly out of the blue, is what is leading to this veracity.

There was NO previous indication that they would be shipping 3 products. Everything indicated we would receive a single product with all of the campaigns included. Now they announce they will ship games, but give no details as to how it would all be priced. If they came out and said 50 dollars for the game, plus 10 dollars for each further campaign, I'm sure many people would go, "sure, it will be better quality in the end." But instead, they provided no information, which allows for us to all assume they will charge us 50 + 30-40 for each of the other two campaigns. That is a pretty hefty upcharge out of fucking nowhere. So until they give more information, Act-Blizz deserves every bit of venomous attention they are receiving.

Isamura

10-11-2008, 05:10 PM

I think this is great, personally. I'm not buying SC2 for the campaign, but I WILL play it. If I like the campaign a lot, I'll purchase the others. But the bottom line is, I don't want the game to be delayed, and I don't want them to cut any content. Blizzard makes great games, and I'm willing to spend the money on their games.

Multiplayer is where it's at anyways :D

Shankle Bunny

10-11-2008, 06:30 PM

I do not like this decision

at all

i'll be watching closely to see how much value is in each pack, but SC2 is no longer a day 1 purchase for me.

Mozain

10-11-2008, 07:34 PM

My only big concern is with the multiplayer. I know they have said multiplayer is done, it will ship with the first pack, and that's it. But I don't believe that they will release these other "Expansions" without including some form of multiplayer addition to it, the ammount of sales they could gain with that alone would be quite massive I believe. But I hope I eat my words.

Micasa

10-11-2008, 09:37 PM

I don't think any company other than Blizzard could have made this announcement and not had crowds with pitchforks at their door later that day.

Earth Djinn

10-12-2008, 08:00 AM

This right here is the proof that they're now Activision-Blizzard.

TheBot

10-12-2008, 08:34 AM

Who in their marketing department thought this one up? Because they should be fired. Gamers aren't going to stand for this shit. We want all 3 in 1 game like it should be, not a fucking cash cow 3 separate things to buy.

Maybe I read it wrong, but why would they separate it into 3 and not just keep it in 1? Make us wait a month or two. Seriously, we would rather do that than get ripped off having to buy 3 parts to 1 game.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

10-12-2008, 09:45 AM

TheBot

10-13-2008, 07:27 AM

They always release a version somewhere down the road that is the base game with all the expansions. I buy those, they are a great deal. The only problem is you have to wait to play them.

It becomes your choice which way you want to go. Pay the most, in several installments, to wait until you can buy the all-in-one pack in a couple of years.

I wonder if retailers will see that consumers won't buy the first pack again so they may just pack the 2. Should've thought of that before I posted, but that's only a wishful thought. I hope so.

tayaya

10-13-2008, 08:41 AM

I know a guy that isn't going to be buying Starcraft II.

Tayaya.

Wonder how we're going to react when Diablo III is a 6-volume set, one for each playable class.

SonofSeth

10-13-2008, 02:12 PM

It's nice to see some people are actually interested enough in SC to seek information before craping on Blizzard.

It's the same situation like it was with the D3 art direction, you can trust Blizzard, or you can trust internet paranoia, I still have no reason not to trust Blizzard.

F3nyx

10-13-2008, 02:54 PM

The tears of Blizzard fans are the sweetest nectar. You're all getting exactly what you deserve.

TKO

10-13-2008, 07:35 PM

@abso: I still think you guys are still whining over vague speculation. You have no idea just how much actual game is going to be in these three games, nor what the overall pricing will be. I bet you would have been whining if you were around when the first volume of The Lord of the Rings books came out. You'd be saying "Tolkien released the whole Hobbit tale in one book .. I don't want the Lord of the Rings split into three. I want it all!" blah blah blah.

This won't be three mini-games. Get over it.

TheBot

10-14-2008, 07:21 AM

I sure as hell hope they don't try this with Diablo. I'm sure they won't but still, just hold SC2 off and hire me and we'll get it done sooner.

Jadedgamer

10-14-2008, 08:52 AM

Blizzard announces they are going to make a VERY big deal out of Starcraft, with lots of features, gameplay, cut-scenes, full-length campaigns for all three races, they are going to spend years building up this franchise. So what do the fans do?

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

Any Starcraft fan should be thrilled at this news. Get a grip, people.

With friends like these, .....

If I were in the game business....I'd get out of it.

Tyrant

10-14-2008, 05:55 PM