Starcraft II coming in 2009!

[Dumac]

Wow, I was really excited for Starcraft 2, despite the lame graphic style, despite the lame character design, despite the lack of conclusion of a new race (I'm assuming), but this trilogy thing is really making me reconsider things.

Only a Terran campaign for the first game? I hate the Terran race. Getting through their campaign was boring as hell, but I did it with the promise of Zerg and Protoss campaigns around the corner and to get a complete grasp on the story. But a whole full fledged Terran campaign with no Protoss or Zerg campaign to go with it seems unbearable....

Plus, I love Protoss and Zerg playstyles. I was looking foward to getting introduced to the units 1 by 1 via the campaign.

I'm really unhappy about this...

 

[Molondo]

Can someone explain to me, how did SinsOf solar empire did so well without a campaign.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
I'm pleased that we're looking at 90+ levels for Starcraft 2, even if it's spread out over 3 games. Here's a question - do we have to buy each game separately? Are they downloadable expansion packs? Are they free?

No matter the scenario, count me in. Blizzard hasn't failed me yet

Edit: Also, I'm going to end up spending most of my time playing the Use Map Settings mode in multiplayer. This was my favorite mode in both SC and WC3.

In fact, those are the only two games that where I spent a lot of time playing multiplayer because it was so great.

Yep, theyre going to be three separate products, probably spaced out by months, hopefully not years. I hope its worth the $150, but if there's three separate collectors editions...

I think its a fairly safe guess that the first game will contain full multiplayer with all three races, and the other two will probably add new units and maps to the mix.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
The most expensive RTS story arc in video gaming history brought to you by one of the best developers. How nice is it, as long as you never let your fans "down" in your history you can make them buy whatever you want however you like, talk about fair business, after they do it other developers will follow and they will say "yeah because the scope of our story is so grand that one product can't handle it".

Seriously it's about the most absurd excuse I've ever heard about to get more money, and that it comes from Blizzard somehow does surprise me, and certainly disappoints to say the least.

Blizzard is known for its awesome storylines in its games, warcraft III had a great storyline and starcraft II will likely eclipse even that. I dont see thats to complain about here, the crazy foaming at the mouth multiplayer junkies get what they want, and the single player people get a far more in depth and rich experience, and for those of us who enjoy both its a win-win. Well done to blizzard on this, other devs may simply have tacked on the campaign or not bothered with it, blizzard wants to release a quality product (as they always do) and thats the right thing to do rather than scaling back or rushing it.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Molondo
Can someone explain to me, how did SinsOf solar empire did so well without a campaign.

Probably a combination of fun gameplay and no anti-piracy BS. Its also a well made game, theres a lot of things in it that just make sense, like optional automation of abilities, ability upgrades and structure placement etc. Also i think they found a niche in the market, one that was never filled properly after imperium galactica II.

They are making a campaign though, in one of their 3 mini expansaions there will be a campaign.

 

[Elcs]

Its a very bad move to be fair.

Im all for expansive campaigns but doing it as 3 separate games released over god-knows how long a time frame is not the right way to do it.

A smaller campaign for each race then build on it in the same way as usual. Give us expansions that expand the storyline for everyone, not just focus on one party.

 

[invidia]

If you won't buy the game because it doesn't contain "all" campaigns, then you are missing something. What made the original starcraft great was its multiplayer, not single play.

I don't know about the others, but I'm looking for how well the multiplayer will do in terms of balance and gameplay more so than just the single player campaigns. That is what keeps a game going for years to come.

 

[CrazyLazy]

Releasing in 3 separate parts is just a blatant money grab by blizzard. I will probably just buy the first for the multiplayer and leave it at that.

 

[Fenixgoon]

good lord some people whine too much. **IF** SC2's first campaign is as long as the entire SC or BW game, what's the problem? it certainly gives blizzard a lot more freedom.

and don't forget the endless expansion packs for Dawn of War - there have been FOUR of them, mind you.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
good lord some people whine too much. **IF** SC2's first campaign is as long as the entire SC or BW game, what's the problem? it certainly gives blizzard a lot more freedom.

and don't forget the endless expansion packs for Dawn of War - there have been FOUR of them, mind you.

I dont really see how it would give them more freedom. I think it gives them even less and it opens the way for a lot of fanbase disgruntlement.

I would have much preferred the scenario laid out by 3 SC games based on the same engine, coming out in quick succession where all 3 races have a bit of story in each. Dawn of War did something similar by releasing each additional game approximately 1 year after the previous one if memory serves me correctly. It is an overall different scenario but the principle of same engine, new game 6-12 months down the line with something new that fleshes out the universe and adds more depth.

Just semantics here but Im still not comfortable with calling Dark Crusade and Soulstorm expansion packs. They are standalone games in their own right. Winter Assault was the only true expansion pack, requiring Dawn of War to be owned and installed first.

I would concede that Soulstorm was a pointless step too far.

 

[jdelrio22]

You are right Elcs that they are stand alone but if you want to play Winter Guard or any of the other factions online, you will need the original CDs for the first and the expansion.

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
good lord some people whine too much. **IF** SC2's first campaign is as long as the entire SC or BW game, what's the problem? it certainly gives blizzard a lot more freedom.

and don't forget the endless expansion packs for Dawn of War - there have been FOUR of them, mind you.

Fenixgoon people find anything they can to whine about these days, and it gets boring.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
good lord some people whine too much. **IF** SC2's first campaign is as long as the entire SC or BW game, what's the problem? it certainly gives blizzard a lot more freedom.

and don't forget the endless expansion packs for Dawn of War - there have been FOUR of them, mind you.

Well I think the details are kind of sketchy right now, but I don't want to be waiting to play zerg and protoss campaigns. The first game might be just as long as SC or WC3, but if isn't as diverse then it isn't going to be as good...

I'd rather get a stand alone game straight up first, and then have expansions that deal with only the single races.

 

[GundamW]

From the article:

[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 announcing the Zerg campaign will contain RPG elements. The Protoss campaigin will likewise be differentiated by elements of diplomacy. In addition, the Terran campaign will feature a Protoss mini-campaign.

My guess is that the Terran game is going to be $50 and the other 2 "expansions" will be $40 or less.


From the article:

However, some units will now be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer

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.

Either you get episodic release (like HL2) or wait 2+ years for the full game.


This is good news for SP gamer like me. I finished SC & BW single player, WC3 & FF single player. Played a lot of SC mp but not as much of WC3 mp.

Just like any other game: SP for storyline and MP for game mechanic
And you can bet that Blizzard will deliver both really well.

I am more excited for this now than before.
:thumbsup:

 

[FP]

Not according to IGN:

FTA:

Regarding the games:

Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design, said that each game would be approximate in size to the original StarCraft. Each game will be a stand-alone installment ? not an expansion.

Regarding multiplayer:

[In] the shipping product, all three races will be fully featured and balanced in gameplay and also in content," he said. We asked whether that meant the multiplayer suite in each game would be exactly the same, and he said, "More than likely, the successive products will add multiplayer content; we haven't decided right now what that is." That brought up the question as to how multiplayer would work if some players only buy the first game while others only buy the second or third games. He said that they haven't made any determinations yet as to how that would work.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: binister
Not according to IGN:

FTA:

Regarding the games:

Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design, said that each game would be approximate in size to the original StarCraft. Each game will be a stand-alone installment ? not an expansion.

Regarding multiplayer:

[In] the shipping product, all three races will be fully featured and balanced in gameplay and also in content," he said. We asked whether that meant the multiplayer suite in each game would be exactly the same, and he said, "More than likely, the successive products will add multiplayer content; we haven't decided right now what that is." That brought up the question as to how multiplayer would work if some players only buy the first game while others only buy the second or third games. He said that they haven't made any determinations yet as to how that would work.

OMG.... you know what this means.... we dont just have one new starcraft game on the rader, WE HAVE THREE! Aw man im so psyched about this, this is awesome! I knew blizz would have to pull something really big off to make up for the 10 year wait and 3 SC games would do exactly that!

Im so excited!

 

[Dumac]

It seems to me that Blizzard just made a decent Terran campaign, realized it would take time an effort to make equivalent zerg and protoss campaigns, and then decided to make more money by just releasing a, in my opinion, unfinished product.

All of you single player guys are giddy over the size of the campaign, but as they said, it's the same size of te original SC campaign. Except this time, you only get to hear the terran side.

I would have liked it much better if they kept the organization like the original, which 3 campaigns for each race, and then just have to more expansions with more campaigns for each race. Exactly how Broodwar did it.

We really aren't getting that much more content. It will be like two Broodwars instead of one, which sounds good, but I really hate that each campaign comes in a different box. They didn't do it like that before, why are they doing it now? It doesn't make any sense. Sure you get to play a longer campaign straight, but that also means you don't get to play the other side of the story for such a long time story wise.

Also, how are they gonna do the level difficulties? With the way the campaigns were split up, you only had to do one or two really hard levels at the end of each campaign, then you got a break as the difficulty went down in the beginning of the next campaign. Instead, will there be 3-6 hard levels straight?

This was a must-by, and still is due to multiplayer, but I'm sad I don't get to explore the new units via a much awaited campaign. Maybe I'll just wait for a different RTS..

EDIT: Why would you be more excited now than before? They didn't add much content, and instead made the content not diverse. It'll feel less fun to me to trudge to three traditional campaigns worth of Terran maps.

EDIT2: Also, I feel like I have to mention the story. The original Story was great, the story arc stretched out upon the three different campaigns. I feel that SC2 will be like this, except each viewpoint will be a different game. Basically, it will be a story equal in depth to SC1, but stretched out across 3x as much gameplay.

I believe the story will suffer tremendously.

Also, the feeling of accomplishment will probably not be there. SC1 had a story that got you excited for the next part, but still left you with a sense of accomplishment. Halo did this, as well as the first Pirates of the Carribean. However, I'm afraid each iteration of Starcraft 2 will feel like Halo 2 or PotC 2, incomplete with no sense of satisfaction.

 

[Aikouka]

I've seen a lot of what they've done so far and essentially... if you want sc in 2-3 years then you'd not want the current trilogy system. With this new setup, I would guess that we will definately see starcraft in 2009. Mike did mention that it wasn't ready for beta yet though.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I've seen a lot of what they've done so far and essentially... if you want sc in 2-3 years then you'd not want the current trilogy system. With this new setup, I would guess that we will definately see starcraft in 2009. Mike did mention that it wasn't ready for beta yet though.

I don't see why it would take them 2 years to crank out 2 campaigns. The engine is there, the units are there, the creator is there. It shouldn't take that long, especially if they have the story already mapped.

This is an obvious ploy to make more money. Release a basically unfinished product early. Stretch a single story of 3 games. Add trivial multiplayer crap to each game so that those who play only multiplayer have to buy it.

On a side note, any mention of the Starcraft editor? Maybe someone else could make a decent Protoss/Zerg campaign. I'm assuming they are including the editor, but I wouldn't be completely surprised if they didn't (Bethesda!). It would pretty much verify that I'm not getting the game though..

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The thing is that they might have the core gameplay elements all there, but if they actually bring in new stuff just for the campaign (the RPG element mentioned for the Zerg, etc...) then it could take them legitimately longer.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Dumac
It seems to me that Blizzard just made a decent Terran campaign, realized it would take time an effort to make equivalent zerg and protoss campaigns, and then decided to make more money by just releasing a, in my opinion, unfinished product.

All of you single player guys are giddy over the size of the campaign, but as they said, it's the same size of te original SC campaign. Except this time, you only get to hear the terran side.

I would have liked it much better if they kept the organization like the original, which 3 campaigns for each race, and then just have to more expansions with more campaigns for each race. Exactly how Broodwar did it.

We really aren't getting that much more content. It will be like two Broodwars instead of one, which sounds good, but I really hate that each campaign comes in a different box. They didn't do it like that before, why are they doing it now? It doesn't make any sense. Sure you get to play a longer campaign straight, but that also means you don't get to play the other side of the story for such a long time story wise.

EDIT: Why would you be more excited now than before? They didn't add much content, and instead made the content not diverse. It'll feel less fun to me to trudge to three traditional campaigns worth of Terran maps.

Well thats not true, just to quote what binister quoted earlier:

"Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design, said that each game would be approximate in size to the original StarCraft. Each game will be a stand-alone installment ? not an expansion."

So the terran campaign will be the size of the original terran + zerg + protoss campaigns put together, making for a much larger and more in depth campaign with a deeper storyline. Same will hold true for the zerg and protoss elements, and blizz even said there will be differences between the campaigns, RPG elements etc.

What we're getting here is:

-Better story, more expansion, like what warcraft III did for the warcraft series.
-Overall much larger more involving campaigns
-No detraction from the multiplayer experience

Fooking awesome, blizzard never fails to amaze me. Its essentially Starcraft II X 3.

 

[ed21x]

While I don't mind too much that they require you to buy 3 separate games rather than the original model of buying 1 and then a further expansion, I don't like how they are separating them into distinct packages base on race. Not only will this represent the possibility that we won't be able to play with the other races (either in campaign or online) when we only have one of the three, but part of the beauty of the story arc for sc1 was the fact that the three stories do a good job of intertwining with one another, so you play all three in Starcraft, and then all three continue in Broodwars.

I would have preferred that you play a bit of each race, and then buy an expansion that builds upon the story of all three races simultaneously. This way we would have the opportunity to experience all the races to an equal amount in each expansion.

cliffs:

original SC/BW: Terran -> Zerg -> Protoss -> Protoss -> Terran -> Zerg with lots of intertwining where you can play other races as the story progresses

SC2: TERRAN -> PROTOSS -> ZERG (BOOOORING)

 

[Piuc2020]

Separating the campaigns was a weird decision, Blizzard is usually not one to rush things and this time around they are obviously rushing the game by releasing only one third of the campaign and calling it "a feature".

I wonder if the extra multiplayer content in the separate games will be included in a patch or buying all three will be the only way to have the complete core experience.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: ed21x
While I don't mind too much that they require you to buy 3 separate games rather than the original model of buying 1 and then a further expansion, I don't like how they are separating them into distinct packages base on race. Not only will this represent the possibility that we won't be able to play with the other races (either in campaign or online) when we only have one of the three, but part of the beauty of the story arc for sc1 was the fact that the three stories do a good job of intertwining with one another, so you play all three in Starcraft, and then all three continue in Broodwars.

I would have preferred that you play a bit of each race, and then buy an expansion that builds upon the story of all three races simultaneously. This way we would have the opportunity to experience all the races to an equal amount in each expansion.

cliffs:

original SC/BW: Terran -> Zerg -> Protoss -> Protoss -> Terran -> Zerg with lots of intertwining where you can play other races as the story progresses

SC2: TERRAN -> PROTOSS -> ZERG (BOOOORING)

doing that would be the dumbest move ever. blizzard HQ would be zergling rushed with angry fans like you wouldn't believe i imagine the campaign will only be terran, but any form of skirmish, multiplay, custom maps, etc. will have full access to all three races. it wouldn't make sense to do so otherwise without alienating the *entire* fanbase.

dawn of war did the same thing with DoW+Winter Assault vs. Dark Crusade vs. Soulstorm - races were accessible in SP modes, but online was limited to what you owned.

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
good lord some people whine too much. **IF** SC2's first campaign is as long as the entire SC or BW game, what's the problem? it certainly gives blizzard a lot more freedom.

and don't forget the endless expansion packs for Dawn of War - there have been FOUR of them, mind you.

Yeah, on THREE different story arcs...

By Blizzard's philosophy Relic would have had to create FOUR games for the ORIGINAL Dawn of War's story arc because there were FOUR races in that original game. Then for Winter Assault that's one. And then Dark Crusade would have needed a SECOND expansion on its own since there were TWO new races included, and then Soulstorm would have by itself needed EIGHT expansions because the total of NINE races (the first one introduced in Soulstorm) are all battling it out in the same story arc, all trapped in the same mess.

With such a philosophy we would have seen SIXTEEN different products encompassing three story arcs on a total of nine races. So comparing the actual marketing scheme to the Dawn of War series is wrong. The Dawn of War games in case you haven't played them are all following different story arcs at the risk of repeating myself. That is not what Blizzard is doing with StarCraft 2. In StarCraft 2 there is ONE story arc, and three races, and making two expansion packs or two full-fledged games just to "complete" the story arc sounds more like a failed Valve-style pseudo-episodic content type of consumer's wallets ownage.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Zenoth

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
good lord some people whine too much. **IF** SC2's first campaign is as long as the entire SC or BW game, what's the problem? it certainly gives blizzard a lot more freedom.

and don't forget the endless expansion packs for Dawn of War - there have been FOUR of them, mind you.

Yeah, on THREE different story arcs...

By Blizzard's philosophy Relic would have had to create FOUR games for the ORIGINAL Dawn of War's story arc because there were FOUR races in that original game. Then for Winter Assault that's one. And then Dark Crusade would have needed a SECOND expansion on its own since there were TWO new races included, and then Soulstorm would have by itself needed EIGHT expansions because the total of NINE races (the first one introduced in Soulstorm) are all battling it out in the same story arc, all trapped in the same mess.

With such a philosophy we would have seen SIXTEEN different products encompassing three story arcs on a total of nine races. So comparing the actual marketing scheme to the Dawn of War series is wrong. The Dawn of War games in case you haven't played them are all following different story arcs at the risk of repeating myself. That is not what Blizzard is doing with StarCraft 2. In StarCraft 2 there is ONE story arc, and three races, and making two expansion packs or two full-fledged games just to "complete" the story arc sounds more like a failed Valve-style pseudo-episodic content type of consumer's wallets ownage.

DoW (the original) had a good story arc. the rest of the games were just "people end up fighting each other" with very little story or continuity.

i'd prefer a continuation of the original DoW's over "this event caused everyone to fight each other"