Support NeoGAF

[CharminUltra]

No matter how awesome the multiplayer component/Terran campaign are Starcraft II is incomplete without the Protoss and Zerg campaigns.

Um, that's like saying Halo 3 was "incomplete" because it lacked the Arbiter levels. Did you get "less game" because they removed one of the playable characters?

How about waiting until the game is released and judging it based on it's own merits rather than, you know, jumping the gun?

 

[Akia]

word of advice to those of you wanting a "complete" game. Wait till the other 2 expansions are released and buy them all at the same time. It will be like this announcement never took place.

I think I'm just going to play the multiplayer until all the campaigns come out. The problem with that is that I won't be able to anticipate in future Blizzard conferences. Because all of the conferences after the Starcraft II comes out will be full of teasers for future campaigns.

I'm pretty much forced to either play the Terran campaign on release or completely detach myself from the future Blizzard press conferences for 2 years (aka. lose myself in scII multiplayer). Which would be almost impossible because I really want to keep up-to-date on the multiplayer updates to the game. I'm pretty much screwed. You think Valve is bad with their Episode release schedule. We're probably going to be waiting a good 2 years after original release for the Zerg Campaign.

 

[HK-47]

If by 'free' you mean '$15 monthly', then yes.


Lazyness is definitely not what delays Blizzard games...
(Or 99.999% of games, for that matter).

yeah you totally pay 15 dollars a month just for patches...

 

[HK-47]

Huh? Dude, wake up, take a shower, and have some coffee. WoW is now at 10 gajillion subscribers and that game's got some of the shittiest graphics I've ever seen. Regular customer's don't give a shit about graphics period, they want fun, and they're willing to pay for it.

Things have changed my ass. Quality gameplay never goes out of style.

WoW holds up pretty well for a 2004 MMO. Thanks to the art direction and usage of color

 

[CharminUltra]

WoW holds up pretty well for a 2004 MMO. Thanks to the art direction and usage of color

Well, by shitty graphics I meant "technically unimpressive", but I have to agree that, while not exactly a fan of the game (not into the MMO genre), it does have a very distinctive art style, rather pleasing I would say

 

[Akia]

Um, that's like saying Halo 3 was "incomplete" because it lacked the Arbiter levels.

Did Bungie first say that they were going to have Arbiter levels in Halo 3 and then decide to cut the Arbiter levels out so that they could charge extra for them? I'm not too familiar with the Halo 3's pre-release build up but I'm assuming that Bungie didn't. Instead they came out with a full product* with Halo 3 and now they are announced what essentially is an expansion pack to Halo 3 with an all-new campaign + updates to multiplayer. Which is exactly what Blizzard should do with Starcraft II.

*again I'm not too familiar with Halo 3's pre-launch build up.

 

[KHarvey16]

I can only look at this with skepticism, since Blizzard has obviously never been known for making awesome games. We have no reason to trust them at all.

 

[bdouble]

I think I'm just going to play the multiplayer until all the campaigns come out. The problem with that is that I won't be able to anticipate in future Blizzard conferences. Because all of the conferences after the Starcraft II comes out will be full of teasers for future campaigns.

I'm pretty much forced to either play the Terran campaign on release or completely detach myself from the future Blizzard press conferences for 2 years (aka. lose myself in scII multiplayer). Which would be almost impossible because I really want to keep up-to-date on the multiplayer updates to the game. I'm pretty much screwed. You think Valve is bad with their Episode release schedule. We're probably going to be waiting a good 2 years after original release for the Zerg Campaign.

Wait so your worried you will see spoilers or something?

How is the storyline kept intact if you can pick missions individually?
There is a static storyline as its outlined. If we play the same campaign, though, we might have different experiences. There are several subplots that can open during the campaigns and while we will have the same ending, we may reach that ending differently, and solve the challenges differently.

 

[Vieo]

Ah' who cares about Rock-Paper-Scissors 2 anyway?

Diablo 3 is where it's gonna be at!

 

[Xabora]

Ah' who cares about Rock-Paper-Scissors 2 anyway?

Diablo 3 is where it's gonna be at!

Beat the same baddies up 3?

 

[HK-47]

Beat the same baddies up 3?

With frost axes!

 

[Akia]

Wait so your worried you will see spoilers or something?

Well yeah essentically. The post original release teasers for the Zerg campaign at future Blizzard conferences will probably be littered with Terran campaign spoilers. The key part of the piece you posted is that the endings will be the same.

 

[Milabrega]

Is everyone forgetting that adding units in Broodwar made Starcraft MORE balanced? It's not like they toss in new stuff for shits and giggles. They look at the current balance situation, and design new units to improve it.

BroodWar's release split the multiplayer community though.

"Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. The main difference here is that instead of giving you a tacked-on extension of the single-player experience as you often find in an RTS expansion, each title comes with a fully realized campaign."

Now will these upgrades and changes to the multiplayer become available to everyone with the initial Starcraft 2 release starter pack? Or will you be required to buy the Zerg SP expansion or Protoss SP expansion to use these new units/upgrades/changes in multiplayer therefore creating a segmented community like we have now with Vanilla SC players and BW players.

That question needs to be answered before we can cry wolf or lamb.

 

[freddy]

I'm really starting to think Blizzard is not that good of a developer.
I mean its not like Starcraft 2 will be THAT different than the original and 10 years to work on it?? Pretty ridiculous to me, Blizzard are just taking showers in their wow money
and imo being outright lazy.

Wtf is this shit?

 

[bdouble]

BroodWar's release split the multiplayer community though.

Now will these upgrades and changes to the multiplayer become available to everyone with the initial Starcraft 2 release starter pack? Or will you be required to buy the Zerg SP expansion or Protoss SP expansion to use these new units/upgrades/changes in multiplayer therefore creating a segmented community like we have now with Vanilla SC players and BW players.

That question needs to be answered before we can cry wolf or lamb.

So you expected those updates to be free now when we have paid for them before?

 

[JayDubya]

These had better be much more robust and lengthier campaigns than in any other Blizzard RTS thus far...

 

[echoshifting]

I have...mixed feelings about this. To say the least. I need more information.

These need to be some fucking incredible campaigns. Will each expansion introduce new units?

Pricing is not a big concern for me as I am an unabashed Blizzard whore and I will totally shell out whatever they ask for these, but having to wait a year for a zerg campaign and another for a protoss campaign is a lot to ask of the rabid fanbase.

 

[Zzoram]

I just really hope the two other games come in a timely fashion. Ideally 4-6 months, but realistically every year.

 

[Minsc]

and pricing

What the hell is with this price argument? Did GAF go broke? Are there dozens of AAA PC games coming out every month all of a sudden which makes it hard to spend under what probably amount to $1 an hour (not even counting multi) on the sequel to one of the most successful RTS games ever?

The entire set will be available for purchase for $40-$80 around 6-12 months after the last expansion is out, like every other PC game / expansion set ever released in the last ten years. Save your money and buy it all at once in 3-4 years if it bothers you that much that you can't spend $30-50 a year on AAA PC games. Don't even pretend it won't go on sale for less than $60/$40/$40 either. Hell, the Witcher Enchanced Edition which just came out less than a month ago is only like $35 already (shipped no less).

The price argument is almost as sad as the incomplete game argument. All Blizzard games are incomplete without their expansions. This is no exception, the only difference is there's a second expansion, something people have wanted for a long time in Blizzard games.

It doesn't take a whole lot to make me cynical, but all I see here is opportunity, lots of it. Pound for pound it will cost the same if not less (unless you solely play multi, which no one complaining seems to), and the chance of it ending up better now sure beats waiting another ten years for another try with Starcraft 3.

These need to be some fucking incredible campaigns. Will each expansion introduce new units?

It was posted earlier (on page 4 or 5) that yes, each expansion will introduce new units just like Brood Wars did.

 

[Zzoram]

Ya price arguments are stupid. You get more value out of a Blizzard game and expansion packs than you do out of anything else you can buy. I have played more hours of Blizzard games than I probably have of all other games combined, ever (and I don't play WoW). I think I have 400 hours of Broodwar over the last 2 years, and I haven't been playing it anywhere near as much as I used to back in the early 2000s since it's older and I was finishing my BSc. I think I may have played Warcraft III and Diablo 1&2 even more, and Blizzard titles ate incredible portions of my teenage years. I literally spent several summers, probably 12 hours a day playing Blizzard games for the entire summer.

 

[Cirekiller]

These had better be much more robust and lengthier campaigns than in any other Blizzard RTS thus far...

Seems like it will be, at least once all 3 are released.

 

[Tain]

I like the thought of SC2 enough to buy a game, but I just don't care enough to buy three. And that means I'm not gonna get to play campaigns as all three races.

whoa lawd.

 

[Zzoram]

I like the thought of SC2 enough to buy a game, but I just don't care enough to buy three. And that means I'm not gonna get to play campaigns as all three races.

whoa lawd.

Then the question is, which race campaign do you care to play the most?

 

[Akia]

The game is pretty far from release I'm sure Blizzard will come up with a more managable soultion to the problem before the game comes out.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

I just really hope the two other games come in a timely fashion. Ideally 4-6 months, but realistically every year.

That, quite frankly, is unacceptable. If Blizzard is going to spend five years and counting on development, retain a "it's done when it's done motto" and then fail to release a completed game instead offering only a third then most of the team deserves to be axed. I don't enjoy being milked and I hate being strung along.

I was initially more positive but it has become quite clear that Blizzard will fail to release the other "games" on an acceptable time table and that is the greatest sin this game could make. I waited ten years only to hear that the game is going to be split into three parts and sold likely a year to 18 months apart, I'd rather they delay all of it just for the sake of letting me have my game rather than a piece of it and then being told what a great idea this is.

I hope that Blizzcon is just ruined so thoroughly tomorrow with bitching (continuing for the next few months) that Blizzard will back down.

 

[echoshifting]

It was posted earlier (on page 4 or 5) that yes, each expansion will introduce new units just like Brood Wars did.

My understanding after reading through those pages and just educating myself a bit more in general is that there will definitely be new units in the single player and "changes and updates" to the multiplayer. That doesn't necessarily mean there will be new multiplayer units in each expansion.

To further support this, I've read elsewhere that each version will be able to play against other versions, so you don't have to buy all three to keep playing the multiplayer if you don't want to. If they truly intend to run with that they would have to provide new units to the multiplayer game in a free patch, and I can't see them doing that.

I would theorize that there won't be new units for the multiplayer built into this system...which sucks. If they are going to update the multiplayer game with additional units they must be planning to do it some other way.

I might end up being surprised, though, and Blizzard might offer more units for free in a patch. Who knows.

 

[Struct09]

Three full single player games from Blizzard rather than just one? Yes please.

 

[JayDubya]

Seems like it will be, at least once all 3 are released.

Then you've missed my point entirely.

Each campaign needs to come with at least 2x the playtime of the original SC campaigns.

Actually, it should be 3x. SC and WC original games and expansion packs have always included a campaign for all factions. SC and WC III used this as a plot device to tell a cohesive story from the perspective of all sides, which worked out amazingly well.

Unless these are budget titles, Blizzard would be expecting the same or more money for less content. Unless they did as I suggested above, making each campaign much more robust and lengthier than any other single faction campaign they have ever released before ("robust" in this context referring to a certain requisite level of varied missions and original game design such that added length does not make the experience stale).

 

[DreamMachine]

I don't think gaf is the only place that is complaining about this move.. several other sites are.. so it's gonna be the talk of the industry..

 

[Kintaro]

Then the question is, which race campaign do you care to play the most?

Actually, the real question is, will they require you to buy one to play the other?

 

[HK-47]

Then you've missed my point entirely.

Each campaign needs to come with at least 2x the playtime of the original SC campaigns.

Actually, it should be 3x. SC and WC original games and expansion packs have always included a campaign for all factions. SC and WC III used this as a plot device to tell a cohesive story from the perspective of all sides, which worked out amazingly well.

Unless these are budget titles, Blizzard would be expecting the same or more money for less content. Unless they did as I suggested above, making each campaign much more robust and lengthier than any other single faction campaign they have ever released before ("robust" in this context referring to a certain requisite level of varied missions and original game design such that added length does not make the experience stale).

Selfish arent we

 

[Cirekiller]

Then you've missed my point entirely.

Each campaign needs to come with at least 2x the playtime of the original SC campaigns.

Actually, it should be 3x. SC and WC original games and expansion packs have always included a campaign for all factions. SC and WC III used this as a plot device to tell a cohesive story from the perspective of all sides, which worked out amazingly well.

Unless these are budget titles, Blizzard would be expecting the same or more money for less content. Unless they did as I suggested above, making each campaign much more robust and lengthier than any other single faction campaign they have ever released before ("robust" in this context referring to a certain requisite level of varied missions and original game design such that added length does not make the experience stale).

They already said it was going to be lengthier. You'll still get the same amount of playtime.

 

[echoshifting]

Then you've missed my point entirely.

Each campaign needs to come with at least 2x the playtime of the original SC campaigns.

Actually, it should be 3x. SC and WC original games and expansion packs have always included a campaign for all factions. SC and WC III used this as a plot device to tell a cohesive story from the perspective of all sides, which worked out amazingly well.

I've read in several places that each campaign will have 26-30 missions; this seems to be confirmed. The original Starcraft had 30 missions.

 

[aznpxdd]

The game is pretty far from release I'm sure Blizzard will come up with a more managable situation before the game comes out.

Nah...seems the reason Blizz is doing this is to get the game out ASAP. I think SC2 will come out sooner than we thought now that they've announced this.

 

[HK-47]

That, quite frankly, is unacceptable. If Blizzard is going to spend five years and counting on development, retain a "it's done when it's done motto" and then fail to release a completed game instead offering only a third then most of the team deserves to be axed. I don't enjoy being milked and I hate being strung along.

I was initially more positive but it has become quite clear that Blizzard will fail to release the other "games" on an acceptable time table and that is the greatest sin this game could make. I waited ten years only to hear that the game is going to be split into three parts and sold likely a year to 18 months apart, I'd rather they delay all of it just for the sake of letting me have my game rather than a piece of it and then being told what a great idea this is.

I hope that Blizzcon is just ruined so thoroughly tomorrow with bitching (continuing for the next few months) that Blizzard will back down.

I hope they dont. Just so I can laugh. Most of the people complaining buy plenty of other games with far less polsih and length than SCII's three games are going to have.

 

[fallengorn]

Unless these are budget titles, Blizzard would be expecting the same or more money for less content. Unless they did as I suggested above, making each campaign much more robust and lengthier than any other single faction campaign they have ever released before ("robust" in this context referring to a certain requisite level of varied missions and original game design such that added length does not make the experience stale).

It sounds like that's what they plan on doing, but I doubt each campaign will amount to same as previous games which housed all three.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

I don't think gaf is the only place that is complaining about this move.. several other sites are.. so it's gonna be the talk of the industry..

They deserve to be laughed at for this, public shaming is the only thing that will possibly stop them.

I don't care about the pricing, I really don't, but I've waited ten years and I can wait years longer but I'm not being strung along buying thirds of the game I wanted. If they do this, I won't buy it until all three are available regardless of how long that takes.

This is not even an issue of polish or estimated utility vs. pricing. This is just having some respect for the consumer who has patiently waited for the game, who has followed its development with baited breath and who has now been slapped in the face by a total restructuring of the product. Blizzard owes me nothing, but I'm not going to accept being screwed over, I'll buy it only when StarCraft II as a full product is available.

 

[Tain]

Then the question is, which race campaign do you care to play the most?

Luckily, Terran!

but i wanted the changes of pace

 

[fallengorn]

Nah...seems the reason Blizz is doing this is to get the game out ASAP. I think SC2 will come out sooner than we thought now that they've announced this.

Right. It sounds like design went out of control and they're just trying to rein it in some. If it wasn't Blizzard, things would've been cut out or we'd be buying buggy games.

 

[JayDubya]

I've read in several places that each campaign will have 26-30 missions; this seems to be confirmed. The original Starcraft had 30 missions.

This would be acceptable. This is what I would expect. Pay for a full price game with a single faction; expect a full price campaign for that faction.

 

[Akia]

I waited ten years only to hear that the game is going to be split into three parts and sold likely a year to 18 months apart, I'd rather they delay all of it just for the sake of letting me have my game rather than a piece of it and then being told what a great idea this is.

I hope that Blizzcon is just ruined so thoroughly tomorrow with bitching (continuing for the next few months) that Blizzard will back down.

I love you. Finally someone who feels the same way. Just delay the game till its done.

Korea can wait.

 

[KHarvey16]

You know, this thread sounds an awful lot like normally intelligent people finding more sophisticated ways of fucking crying.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

Right. It sounds like design went out of control and they're just trying to rein it in some. If it wasn't Blizzard, things would've been cut out or we'd be buying buggy games.

Really if it was Blizzard they would have delayed it until it was completed in keeping with their standard "when it's done" motto. This stinks of the game being behind, with Blizzard being egged to get something out by Activision, in order to combat Red Alert 3 and Dawn of War II.

 

[TheExodu5]

Did Mister Chef just say WoW's one of the worst looking games he's seen? It's a pretty damn good looking MMO, and looks fantastic in WotLK. Looks better than the new MMOs released this year.

 

[echoshifting]

I don't care about the pricing, I really don't, but I've waited ten years and I can wait years longer but I'm not being strung along buying thirds of the game I wanted. If they do this, I won't buy it until all three are available regardless of how long that takes.

This is not even an issue of polish or estimated utility vs. pricing. This is just having some respect for the consumer who has patiently waited for the game, who has followed its development with baited breath and who has now been slapped in the face by a total restructuring of the product. Blizzard owes me nothing, but I'm not going to accept being screwed over, I'll buy it only when StarCraft II as a full product is available.

I honestly have to say this is what I'm leaning towards. =/ The wait might kill me but I loved the way Starcraft's campaigns wove together and I especially loved the "reward" of learning to use a new unit in each mission as I went along. If I buy the Terran campaign I'll just end up jumping into the Zerg/Protoss multiplayer full throttle and the "unwrapping" of those factions will be ruined. I'll try to hold off but we're talking about Blizzard, the wait will be too long to avoid playing those factions in multiplayer. I think I'd rather wait for all three.

Pricing isn't an issue for me either, this just feels like the right response to their decision. I don't expect to be among the masses in this.

 

[HK-47]

Really if it was Blizzard they would have delayed it until it was completed in keeping with their standard "when it's done" motto. This stinks of the game being behind, with Blizzard being egged to get something out by Activision, in order to combat Red Alert 3 and Dawn of War II.

Activision doesnt control Blizzard, for those who have not realized it by now

 

[Zzoram]

Really if it was Blizzard they would have delayed it until it was completed in keeping with their standard "when it's done" motto. This stinks of the game being behind, with Blizzard being egged to get something out by Activision, in order to combat Red Alert 3 and Dawn of War II.

I dunno, even Blizzard might have a problem with announcing that they've been working on this since 2003, and that it won't be ready until 2011.

 

[woxel1]

Just think of it like Half-Life 2 episodes, without the "Half-Life 2."

 

[HK-47]

I honestly have to say this is what I'm leaning towards. =/ The wait might kill me but I loved the way Starcraft's campaigns wove together and I especially loved the "reward" of learning to use a new unit in each mission as I went along. If I buy the Terran campaign I'll just end up jumping into the Zerg/Protoss multiplayer full throttle and the "unwrapping" of those factions will be ruined. I'll try to hold off but we're talking about Blizzard, the wait will be too long to avoid playing those factions in multiplayer. I think I'd rather wait for all three.

Pricing isn't an issue for me either, this just feels like the right response to their decision. I don't expect to be among the masses in this.

Blizzard gets your money either way. =|

 

[HK-47]

Just think of it like Half-Life 2 episodes, without the "Half-Life 2."

Its pretty much Half-Life 3