Starcraft 2 To Be a Trilogy 253
The Starcraft 2 gameplay panel was an eventful one at Blizzcon today. The developers faced an obstacle when designing the game; the plans they had were just too massive to implement in a single game on anything approaching a reasonable timeline. Their solution was to divide the game up into three separate, stand-alone titles: Terran: Wings of Libery, Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, and Protoss: Legacy of the Void. Read on for further details.
Each campaign will have on the order of 26-30 missions. The path players take through the missions can vary — the storyline branches frequently — but they will end in the same place. The games will run alongside each other; there will not be cliffhanger endings leading from one to another, and each game will focus on a different part of the story. The Terran campaign will focus on Jim Raynor, and the Zerg campaign will be all about Kerrigan. Multiplayer functionality will be in place for all three races from the start.
Zeratul (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shenanigans. (Score:2, Insightful)
[...] they really do need most customers to buy the whole game for $150 a pop.
Where did it say that they were charging full price for each one? For all we know, they could charge $50 for the first game, and $20 for each "expansion" campaign you buy (or some other form of arbitrary numbers).
Even more like Warhammer 40k (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it's all a big ripoff of Warhammer 40k, so they might as well take even more inspiration from Games Workshop by soaking their loyal customers for triple damage in the wallet.
Linux Support? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have intentionally stayed the hell away from anything about the game in the press. I loved SC1 and _still_ play it. Does anyone know if there will be Linux support this time around? I haven't had a box running Windows for many, many years. I don't want to have to buy Cedega on top of it, but I guess I may have to.
Also, is there a release date yet?
I ask here because I DON'T want to go to the website and get everything spoiled before I even get the game.:(
Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (Score:4, Insightful)
SC
Starcraft came out and turned out to be a success.
People wanted more, Blizzard saw that it was selling, Blizzard made more of SC to sell.
With more story, better AI and strategy, tweaks and new units.
SCII
Blizzard announces game.
People say "Well its about time" and "Give it to us".
Blizzard says "Hey! How about instead of 1 disk, we sell you 3 disks instead? We got the idea even before the game was completed. And which we have fluffed-out enough with video and audio so it fits onto 3 discs instead of 1, so that you could buy 3 discs instead of 1."
Its a strategy game.
There is no practical reason why all 3 of it's announced campaigns should now be able to fit on a single disk and come out at the same time.
Its not like there are months or years of development left once they release the first one. Its a bloody MAP PACK!
Multiplayer being "functional from the start" and "games running alongside each other" means no new units or functionality with campaign 2 and 3.
They are making 3 of them JUST SO they could sell 3 of them, 3 times.
Plain and simple.
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just lame. Game companies seem to be coming up with more and more ways to gouge consumers. Now releasing THREE Starcraft titles... Sorry Blizz, you just lost a sale. What? Making an expansion pack doesn't make you enough money any more? Making 75 million plus a month off WOW isn't good enough? Activision must owe some loansharks.
"How can we make more money?"
"Well screw it. We pay the writers very little. Just have them write longer stories and VOILA! One game, but three sales for the whole thing!"
"Jenkins, you're a genius! You'll find a whore and some gin waiting on your car when you leave."
Ah well, one less game to buy. Or three actually.
Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Blizzard says "Hey! How about instead of 1 disk, we sell you 3 disks instead? We got the idea even before the game was completed. And which we have fluffed-out enough with video and audio so it fits onto 3 discs instead of 1, so that you could buy 3 discs instead of 1."
Blizzard says, "Hey! This is going to take a long time to produce to meet our quality expectations, and quite frankly designing a massive branching campaign with multiplayer in mind is a challenge.. we can either take from here until some time in 2015 to complete all three campaigns for one game..."
You see where I'm going for this?
> They are making 3 of them JUST SO they could sell 3 of them, 3 times.
> Plain and simple.
No. The game has a massive following. They're producing an equally massive sequel to it.
> They are making 3 of them JUST SO they could sell 3 of them, 3 times.
> Plain and simple.
Yup. Rowling made seven books just so that you'd have to buy it seven times.
. . .
No. She told her story how she wanted it told. How is this any different?
Re:Shenanigans. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did it say that they were charging full price for each one?
It didn't, the summary was thankfully terse on what would have been interesting details.
I think I'm going to buy all of their new titles, just on general principles whether I play them or not. Blizzard is #1 in the industry at the moment. Blizzard supports Mac OS X out of the box and their developers worked with the Linux wine guys so the Warden didn't kick out people who want to play on Linux.
I'm sick and tired of people who claim Linux and Mac OS X are worthless because no one does games for them, but someone does. I, for one, am going to welcome Gaming Overlord Blizzard right where it counts - in giving them new sales.
Advance news of GotY and you still complain? (Score:3, Insightful)
I also find it interesting that I see so many World of Warcraft advertisements on slashdot pages...
The Wrath of the Lich King expansion if it makes its release date will be Game of the Year this year. Otherwise if it misses and comes next January, it will be Game of the Year next year.
Most of the time, people complain about things being posted here too late, like say after it appeared on digg a week ago. Consider the WotLK ads to be the PTB's at slashdot apology for all the late articles we've been given.
I think they're wasting money on their ads. Unlike Microsofties and Microsoft Vista, us WoWers are looking forward with great anticipation to the next expansion. It's Blizzard. They have a track record for quality and it WILL be awesome. Just like BC.
Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Starcraft II is exactly the same, and yet, people are whining now...? Am I missing something?
You're new here. Whining is a way of life with us.
What people are not thinking about it is that the real reason Blizzard is breaking this apart into pieces is prevent it from becoming Duke Nukem Forever II, instead of Starcraft 2.
Re:Zeratul (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is, to keep up with everyone else in multiplayer, you'll now have to buy three whole Starcraft games for one multiplayer experience. You're paying three times. It just...sucks. You say we'll be getting two more worthy games, but we're actually getting minor expansion packs that finish the original game.
Re:Shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
>And certainly better than some overbloated Blizztard crap that, despite their assurance it doesn't end with a cliffhanger, will >most assuredly end in a cliffhanger, just like every other game they've ever made.
How can you call starcraft bloated after being a fan of CoH and DoW.
The whole game design is specifically anti-bloat where if a unit is not important enough to gameplay it gets cut so the number of units per team stay near the ideal number of 12.
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're paying $50 for an engine and a campaign. Then you're paying $100 for 2 more campaigns.
Right... except normally you'd pay $50-60 for 2 more campaigns, in boxes called 'expansions' normally for between 19 and 29 bucks, instead of the price of a full game.
Remind me why I need 3 copies of the game engine? They only developed it once, why do I need to pay for it 3 times?
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Insightful)
That's largely my thought, if they have enough material to justify several games, I'd rather have several games rather than one mega sized mega priced game.
Historically additional content that uses the same engine is called an expansion. All they're doing is bundling the engine with the expansions and charging full price for them.
They develop the engine once, you pay for it 3 times. Sucker.
Me, I'll just wait until they release a 'box set' with all 3 for what a regular game costs; it probably won't take more than 6-12 months after release.
Re:Zeratul (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that you only plan to buy three more games in your lifetime, and you don't want the other two titles to be Starcraft related? Why did you even bother to buy BroodWar when you already paid for Starcraft???
It shouldn't matter if Blizzard decides to release three games focusing on an individual race. What should matter is whether each game, with its sets of tweaks, would be worth paying $50-75 each. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Re:Zeratul (Score:2, Insightful)
But then most new games seem to cost around the same amount when released, no matter what if they suck, is short, or whatever.
So what's wrong with paying more for something which is actually worth it?
If they then happen to charge you 3 times $50 instead of $150 so what?
Of course the later will lead to more sales (more money depends on how many buy the expansion.)
Also all the MMORPGs with subscription fees are already incredible expensive, at least with RTS games you don't pay for a subscription.
I'll buy em all (Score:4, Insightful)
I loved Starcraft. Played it regularly for many years, often going through bouts where my girlfriend, later wife, and I would play every weekend for 8-10 weeks in a row. We played through the single player, and it certainly was compelling, but multiplayer was "where it's at". I've put more time into Starcraft than any other game, hands down. Possibly more than every other game I've played put together, although you might have to take Starflight [wikipedia.org] and its sequels [wikipedia.org] out [wikipedia.org].
I can easily look at Starcraft 2 and justify buying all three races the same way a WoW player can say "$15/month is cheaper entertainment than anything else I can do". I am totally sold on the new visual direction they're going in, even making single player more muted and dirty than bright and easy to distinguish multiplayer. I love the characters I'm supposed to love and I have the characters I'm supposed to hate.
I just wonder how much money this is going to cost me in babysitting and white chocolate mochas at my local wifi-enabled coffee house. 3 discs may be the cheapest part.
Re:Zeratul (Score:2, Insightful)
They develop the engine once, you pay for it 3 times. Sucker.
Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale 2, and Planescape Torment all ran on the same game engine with different graphics and story added.
The Doom, Quake, and Unreal engines were heavily reused for other things. Reusing a game engine for another game is hardly a new thing.
Re:Zeratul (Score:4, Insightful)
Like a smoker, or a motorist, you know exactly what will happen. You will make a crapload of noise about how stupid it is that these things are so expensive. You will vow to all within earshot that you will never surrender your hard earned money to such a blatant cash grab.
And then you will walk into the store within 3 days of its release and purchase all three games, probably pre-ordering them.
You will complain. You will whine. And in the end you will buy all three within days of their release. And ultimately you will enjoy them.
I know this because your not complaining that Starcraft sucks or is over rated. Your just angry that you are being gouged for something you know you will probably pay for no matter what.
END COMMUNICATION
What you're all overlooking (Score:3, Insightful)
Starcraft (and Brood War) came out in 1998. Since then, Blizzard's been providing online play AND a continued stream of patches and updates, completely free of charge. Even if you paid full price for each piece back when they launched (let's say $50 each), I think you've gotten your money's worth out of the game over the past decade.
Yes, Starcraft 2 may cost more up front by being packaged this way, but if Blizzard's past is any indication, the game's going to give you years of play, with the online support free for the duration. This, of course, is on top of the game itself, which (again, judging from the past) is going to be polished, balanced, and a blast to play.
Blizzard's doing the smart thing here - if they were to rush the game and risk the content being broken or unbalanced even slightly, they'd get ripped apart for this. Even if people bitch now, giving the chunks of the game more development time will lead to a better product...and let's face it, probably 95%+ of the people here whining are going to buy the game and its expansions as soon as they're able to.
And for the record, Starcraft was March '98, and Brood War was November '98. The game and its expansion pack were eight months apart - that's not exactly a long time between the two of them, and, given how long development and marketing take, I'm willing to bet that Brood War wasn't conceived after they'd had time to digest the sales figures from Starcraft for a while. Same goes for Retribution and Insurrection - more content, sold separately, mere months after the release of Starcraft.
Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (Score:3, Insightful)
But if each one of those has a full game's worth of content, and the second two are priced like expansions/upgrades, then it would be worth it to most people. I don't understand the indignation when we don't even know the pricing scheme. Blizzard isn't stupid, they're not going to price themselves out of this. They want Starcraft 2 to sell 10 million copies.