StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html

At the BlizzCon 2008 StarCraft II gameplay panel, Blizzard's VP of game design Rob Pardo dropped a bombshell on the attendees. Apparently faced with the choice of delaying StarCraft II or drastically scaling back the single-player portion of the product, the design team decided to do neither. Instead they're going to be breaking the single-player portion of the game into three different products.

If it were any other company I'd be joining the masses in calling them money grabbing bastards. As it's Blizzard, while there's still some element of money grabbing bastards, I'm also giving them the beenfit of the doubt, they do tend to only release a game when it's good and ready.

What, are they going to pull a Dawn of War on us?

I have some respect for Blizzard too, but let's not forget that they are a part of Vivendi, and I wouldn't put it past them (or any other of their kind) to try a money grab.

This will only be forgiven if the single player campaigns are breath-taking, although, of course, the multiplayer crowd won't care, unless they don't include the map editor until the final expansion or something.

You're right, it's Blizzard...so I will join the masses in calling them money grubbing bastards. What kind of idiots do they have to be to expect us to pay triple for a single game?

What possible excuse do they have here? If it's too big to fit on one disk, put out three disks in one box. It's not as if they have to be worried that they won't make back enough money to pay for making the single-player; they're Blizzard. And also since they're Blizzard, it's not as if they are too concerned with getting the game out the door early.

So, seriously, is there even any way to pretend that this isn't about getting three times the money?

In that case I guess I'll wait until they release a Battlechest version of Starcraft 2 two years down the road. I know it's not necessarily right thinking, but I'd rather get the entire campaign done in one fell swoop than have to wait for each portion to be released.

LordOskuro wrote:
I have some respect for Blizzard too, but let's not forget that they are a part of Vivendi,

They're part of Activision-Blizzard now and seeing how Activision makes the old EA look like a force for good, with their business practices, I can't say I'm really surprised.

So instead of supporting this shit I will instead invest my money in Dawn of War 2 and wait for the Battlechest like RazorOutlaw

Molyneux wrote:You're right, it's Blizzard...so I will join the masses in calling them money grubbing bastards. What kind of idiots do they have to be to expect us to pay triple for a single game?

Korean idiots, I bet.

I was more interested in the Story anyway and I got the original starcraft when it was in a battle chest, I will wait for the battlechest again, just like before. I am more interested in Diablo 3 anyways and that does not appeared for now to effected with Garbage.

starfury wrote:I was more interested in the Story anyway and I got the original starcraft when it was in a battle chest, I will wait for the battlechest again, just like before. I am more interested in Diablo 3 anyways and that does not appeared for now to effected with Garbage.

I'll save you the money.

Story Summary:

Zerg, Protoss, Humans fight. Xel'Naga return. Everyone loses. GRIMDARK. The end? Sequel!

Spoiler:

Kerrigan dies

I can't believe they're doing this. I cannot imagine what the fuck they're thinking of, but I bet it's asinine. I mean, really--okay, so you have an epic storyline. That's nice--why are you now delaying me being able to play all four races just because you couldn't squeeze in more singleplayer story? It's a smokescreen. We always knew they were going to have expansions, that's completely without doubt. They had them for Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is looking to be a huge cash cow.

So we knew there'd be expansions, so why the big hooplah just because, like with any expansion, they decided to continue the singleplayer version in it? Worst yet, the first fucking game is all Terrans? I like the Zerg! So now I need to wait until number 3? That's very frustrating for me. I know they see this as a business and are marketing it accordingly, but goddamn. I'm not stupid. Paying full price for two expansions that sound like they add, what, like... ten more missions each? You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Seems like someone in the Starcraft team is trying to copy Warhammer 40K, just not that grimdark.

So is are the racial campaigns set chronologically in Terran, Zerg, Protoss like Starcraft, or are they all simultaneous?

I would hate for a repeat of the first game.

I'll see how much they charge before passing judgment. 30 missions per game sounds like a lot to me.

Seems like someone in the Starcraft team is trying to copy Warhammer 40K, just not that grimdark.

, Pretty Ironic, when One consider How much the original Dawn of war was made to be Different from the Warhammer 40k Table-TOp for Precisely the same Exact reason, so as not scare away people with the feeling having to buy hundreds worths of miniatures to be able play.

Pelranius wrote:So is are the racial campaigns set chronologically in Terran, Zerg, Protoss like Starcraft, or are they all simultaneous?

I would hate for a repeat of the first game.

I'll see how much they charge before passing judgment. 30 missions per game sounds like a lot to me.

The way I read it, they wanted 30ish missions for their storyline, which they've now decided to spread across 3 games. Which averages out to about 10 missions per game! Let's say they throw in a few more to up it to 15. Okay. 15 missions for a 50-60 dollar game, THREE TIMES. What the crap is that? It's just a goddamn singleplayer mission! I'm gonna be able to beat it basically just as easily as a skirmish anyway. I know they want to make it different, but 'cmon. All that means is that they'll make me jump through hoops rather than just make a pile of men and have some epic waaagh go on, which is not always an ideal trade.

BlizzCon Website wrote:Attendees of the StarCraft II Gameplay Panel got to hear big news about the single-player campaign first-hand: The epic story of StarCraft II will span a trilogy of games, with each game’s single-player campaign focusing on a different race. The first game will go into great depth telling the tale of Jim Raynor and the terrans. Two expansion packs will continue the story, delving separately into the saga of Kerrigan and the zerg, and that of the mystic protoss. By structuring the story this way, each campaign can be substantial, lengthy, and include meaningful choices for the player. Each campaign can also include more missions (the developers are targeting 26 to 30 for the first game alone), more interactive settings for players to explore, and more pre-rendered and in-game cinematics than would have been possible within a single game.

So at least they plan to make the first one similar length to SC.

Covenant wrote: The way I read it, they wanted 30ish missions for their storyline, which they've now decided to spread across 3 games. Which averages out to about 10 missions per game! Let's say they throw in a few more to up it to 15. Okay. 15 missions for a 50-60 dollar game, THREE TIMES. What the crap is that? It's just a goddamn singleplayer mission! I'm gonna be able to beat it basically just as easily as a skirmish anyway. I know they want to make it different, but 'cmon. All that means is that they'll make me jump through hoops rather than just make a pile of men and have some epic waaagh go on, which is not always an ideal trade.

According to the interview at Blizzcon 2008 it was 25-30 missions just for the Terran campaign.

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918974p2.html

Apparently at 25-30 missions, the Terran campaign required three to four times as much artwork and team effort as the ones in Warcraft III.

And you only need one of the installments to get the full multiplayer and skirmish.

I reiterate, they are pulling a Dawn of War on us. Remember that the original DoW only had the Space Marine campaign? It wasn't until Dark Crusade that they implemented some sort of campaing for every race.

Anyway, this is dissapointing, and I second the "so if I like X race I'll have to wait for the 2nd/3rd installment?" feeling. Maybe they should, dunno, split each faction's storyline in three, and put the smaller versions together in each installment (expansion) so there's a chunk of each race in every game (I'm assuming 2 expansions to the basic game).

The only real campaigns were in DoW and Winter Assault. Those other two expansion packs didn't have campaigns.

Hawkwings wrote:The only real campaigns were in DoW and Winter Assault. Those other two expansion packs didn't have campaigns.

Indeed, only Risk-like conquer the world/star system campaigns with story elements thrown in.
And I very much preferred it to the dull Space Marine campaign and the unbalanced Imperial Guard/Eldar & Chaos/Orks campaigns.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:What possible excuse do they have here? If it's too big to fit on one disk, put out three disks in one box. It's not as if they have to be worried that they won't make back enough money to pay for making the single-player; they're Blizzard. And also since they're Blizzard, it's not as if they are too concerned with getting the game out the door early.

So, seriously, is there even any way to pretend that this isn't about getting three times the money?

Really...

This is no different to announcing in advance that there will be two expansion packs.

Except that up until this point they've led everyone to believe that we'd get the whole story in one game.

Zac Naloen wrote:Really...

This is no different to announcing in advance that there will be two expansion packs.

The last time an expansion pack only added new campaign missions that I can remember was Warcraft II. And this isn't even adding a new storyline with expansions, but rather simply finishing the one started in the base game.

If the second and third releases are cheap, it wouldn't be too bad, but the wording of the article leads me to believe they'll be full-priced expansions or possibly even full games (Starcraft II: Terran Edition, etc.).

SylasGaunt wrote:Except that up until this point they've led everyone to believe that we'd get the whole story in one game.

That probably has something to do with this quote

Game Spy wrote:According to Dustin Browder, StarCraft II's design team never intended to break the game up into three separate parts.

The last time an expansion pack only added new campaign missions that I can remember was Warcraft II. And this isn't even adding a new storyline with expansions, but rather simply finishing the one started in the base game.

It also has additions for the multiplayer part of the game (i.e new units)

GameSpy wrote:The subsequent titles will add campaigns for the Zerg and Protoss races and both will carry additions for the multiplayer portion.

If the second and third releases are cheap, it wouldn't be too bad, but the wording of the article leads me to believe they'll be full-priced expansions or possibly even full games (Starcraft II: Terran Edition, etc.).

Did you read the full article? It sounds just like most expansion packs. New units, New missions, continued story.

Preplanned expansion packs aren't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it means that they don't feel unnecessarily tacked on like most expansions do.

Looks like they are waiting to find out how the other packs pan out before deciding on price....

Gamespy wrote:While no price point has been set yet, Browder stated that if the follow-up games feel like full-featured games, they'll be priced accordingly. If they don't they'll probably be priced around the average expansion pack price.

...So price is still very much up in the air.

People need to stop jumping to conclusions on this.

Until the game is released and the single player campaign is just 8 missions i'm going to be giving to be giving blizzard the benefit of the doubt, the companies history with this type of game gives them that.

Zac Naloen wrote:Did you read the full article?

I'll admit I didn't, as Gamespy refusing to load for me lately. I was going by the exerpts in here as well as this article which didn't mention the new multiplayer stuff.

So it's not as bad as I'd thought it was. Still, their justification for this appears to just be time, unless there's something in the Gamespy article that contradicts that. It just seems rather suspect that Blizzard of all companies would start worrying about release dates.

It possibly has something to do with getting burnt with ghost and having to cancel it after several years of development.

The game split isn't that shocking - it is like announcing 2 expansion packs. The other news that they are gonna start charging for Battlenet, that is shocking. link

Speaking at yesterday's Diablo III Gameplay panel, Blizzard's Jay Wilson was asked one of the questions that's been hiding in the back of all of our brains, "Is Battle.Net going to remain free?"

His response probably wasn't what you'd want to hear. "We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features," said Wilson. "We kind of have to." He went on to say that they do recognize that everyone loves having it as a free service, and that they don't have a strong desire to make a subscription-based game.

What does that mean for our beloved free online gaming service? We're hoping to find out when we talk to Blizzard bigwig Rob Pardo later this afternoon.