-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Starcraft 2 is now a trilogy
- Thread starter Link648099
- Start date
I guess my only amazement in this whole ordeal is this - If any developer deserved the benefit of the doubt for trying something new, it's Blizzard. I think it's amazing how fans who expect so much are tolerating so little and demonstrating so little confidence.
No one will know how these games will actually turn out in the end, but for Blizzard, you have to be incredibly jaded to be pessimistic about the situation.
No one will know how these games will actually turn out in the end, but for Blizzard, you have to be incredibly jaded to be pessimistic about the situation.
Zzoram said:
Damn it all to hell. If those are my options I would have to pick B (Go Big or go Home) as well.
My question is what happens in 2012 when all of the campaigns are out. It is probably going to take them 3 years from whenever the Terran campaign releases to actually release the Zerg and Protoss campaigns. Are we not supposed to expect expansions to the story after that? Because by then I'm sure people will want to see the next chapter in the Terran's story.
Lostconfused
Member
Pachinko said:
Or you can just find 25 cents on the street every day and you are all set.
Lostconfused
Member
Kintaro said:
Rockstar != Blizzard. Live and learn.
Won said:
If you tried to fit easter egg missions and branching paths into a 10 mission campaign, it won't be any good. The idea to expand the campaigns is a better one overall.
Reviewers are terrible at online RTS, especially one as competitive as Starcraft. They will hate online because if they play against anyone who is actually good (most of the people still playing Broodwar), they will feel horribly embarassed. That plus reviewers will love to complain about how it's too similar to Broodwar. As a result, these games will likely be largely reviewed on their campaigns, so Blizzard has to do an impressive job on them to get good scores and attract the casual audience.
Won said:
That's the thing, they wouldn't be able to, and they knew this. An attempt to try to squeeze it into 15 (or that is what I judge by option C) and release with all three campaigns... it probably would've felt incomplete or lacking, like anything Lionhead Studios does. Alternatively release a game with a story that's only a small step up from the original, quality wise. Which... some people might be satisfied with if they didn't know better. But...
dLMN8R said:
Wow. Way to put words in my mouth. My point is no company is above skepticism. No company, no matter how good their track record is. Nintendo has put out quality products for much longer than Blizzard has for many different generations of gamers. Surely that puts them above skepticism? No.
Of course, I'll wait to see what they do. We've been waiting for over 10 years. Doesn't mean I have to swallow what they feed me with a smile when I don't really dig the idea.
And if it wasn't clear before, this annoucment pretty much confirms that the new next-gen MMO that Blizzard has in production is Starcraft related. Now that we know Starcraft II is going to be freaking huge undertaking with more locations and characters than ever before. Blizzard would be stupid not to use Starcraft II to enrich and expand the universe so that there is more to explore when the MMO comes out. If fans were excited for a Starcraft MMO just from the introduction that Starcraft I/Brood War provided; they're going to be salivating for an Starcraft MMO when Starcraft II's story arc ends.
Kintaro said:
Nintendo has their name on tons of crap things though, it comes from not only being a developer but a console manufacturer.
Blizzard doesn't have their name on a lot of crap things... in fact I think most anything they've touched that hasn't been good was made before they were known as Blizzard.
Either way, what are they making you swallow exactly? It's not like you can even pre-order yet.
MoxManiac said:
The campaigns will each be 26-30 missions in total. There will be branching paths in the middle. There will be many in-engine cutscenes and pre-rendered cutscenes. The different races will have very different gameplay, and single player will feature many units and upgrades that are not in mulitplayer.
http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html
Browder said:
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
echoshifting said:
Please donate it to Edmonton Alberta Kidney Foundation Canada
Lostconfused
Member
HK-47 said:
Haha, new mmo. They might as well tell everyone to quit playing wow right now.
No Means Nomad
Banned
Do people really think this will have no impact on multiplayer?
For new players or people getting back into the genre(which seems like it'll be high since it's been like ten years since the last Starcraft), the single player will be what they do first.
Terran might end up being played too much in comparison to the other races. There shouldn't be a chronological focus on the races like this.
For new players or people getting back into the genre(which seems like it'll be high since it's been like ten years since the last Starcraft), the single player will be what they do first.
Terran might end up being played too much in comparison to the other races. There shouldn't be a chronological focus on the races like this.
Lostconfused
Member
Comic said:
Single player experience that is focused on story? Is that really so shocking?
No, I meant the actual gameplay mechanics. Units and abilities that'll be in the single player, but not in the multiplayer. Goes beyond civilians, but actual combat units.
It'd be like you could only make a firebat or medic in single player, not multiplayer.
See: http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html
Though they're quick to say nothing is in stone. Like the Cobra unit WAS in multiplayer, but isn't now.
It'd be like you could only make a firebat or medic in single player, not multiplayer.
See: http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html
Though they're quick to say nothing is in stone. Like the Cobra unit WAS in multiplayer, but isn't now.
Lostconfused
Member
Comic said:
Right, except you assume that multiplayer will be balanced in such a way that they expect you to have a medic even though its impossible. Or maybe you just assume blizzard doesn't give a rats ass about filthy mongrels that play multiplayer. Or it could just be a hero unit in the campaign that could single handedly slaughter the opponent without any back up. You really don't know, nor does anyone else outside of blizzard.
woxel1 said:
Like Dustin Browder (Starcraft II Lead Designer) said, even if you master the campaign levels and hone your skills on different difficulty levels you're still going to get your ass handed to you online. So if there is going to be a disconnect between the single player and the multiplayer online mode no matter what what Blizzard does. Why then should they shackle the single player campaign to the multiplayer mechanics.
woxel1 said:
It is, because that's why single player campaigns in RTS suck balls. They try to teach you multiplayer, but they fail, and have a bad story.
CoH's campaign was garbage, it was so forgettable. I played it 2 years ago but I don't remember the name of a single character or even the story. I can remember pretty much every detail of the stories from Starcraft and Broodwar campaigns I beat almost a decade ago, but some of the missions still sucked balls.
There is no way a campaign can teach you multiplayer because there is no way to predict what kind of strategies and micro tricks will develop in the game online. I'm sure Blizzard *thinks* units will be used a certain way, but it's the pros that will show them what units are really good for, and they won't know that until after the game is on shelves. There is no way they could've made a mission in Broodwar to teach players how to muta micro like Jaedong.
They want to make campaign a wholey separate experience, with different units and upgrades. You'll still get the general idea of how online will work. Besides, noob strategies against the campaign AI is never applicable to playing against humans.
Lostconfused
Member
Then why bother with single player in the first place. Yes it probably is an outdated concept that gets in the way of game design.woxel1 said: