Starcraft II split into trilogy

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Think of it this way, Elcs; you're getting SC2, SC3, and SC4 much more rapidly this way. They're just lumping them all together under SC2.

This is completely wrong. You are getting Starcraft 2 in three parts, and I bet it will show in the story.

Imagine if they took the original Starcraft. They could easily beef up each campaign with extra shallow missions that don't advance the plot and package it in three games. However, the story would suffer tremendously.

The reason Starcraft story was so great is that it flowed from perspective to perspective. This allows for a face paced plot. You are always in the seat of the race acting. However, if you play Terran for 30 missions straight, the plot can't advance too much in that 30 missions. Otherwise the viewpoints of the other races would be left out.

Also, cutting a single story arc into multiple segments rarely works. Starcraft and Broodwar each had their own story arc, covered in the three campaigns for each game. However, I think the Terran campaign by itself will be representive of only 1/3 of the Starcraft 2 storyline, thereby giving a unsatisfactory feeling at the end. Think Halo 2 or PotC 2 compared to their first parts.

I just don't see how this could be better than having a campaign for each race in the same game.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Think of it this way, Elcs; you're getting SC2, SC3, and SC4 much more rapidly this way. They're just lumping them all together under SC2.

This is completely wrong. You are getting Starcraft 2 in three parts, and I bet it will show in the story.

Imagine if they took the original Starcraft. They could easily beef up each campaign with extra shallow missions that don't advance the plot and package it in three games. However, the story would suffer tremendously.

The reason Starcraft story was so great is that it flowed from perspective to perspective. This allows for a face paced plot. You are always in the seat of the race acting. However, if you play Terran for 30 missions straight, the plot can't advance too much in that 30 missions. Otherwise the viewpoints of the other races would be left out.

Also, cutting a single story arc into multiple segments rarely works. Starcraft and Broodwar each had their own story arc, covered in the three campaigns for each game. However, I think the Terran campaign by itself will be representive of only 1/3 of the Starcraft 2 storyline, thereby giving a unsatisfactory feeling at the end. Think Halo 2 or PotC 2 compared to their first parts.

I just don't see how this could be better than having a campaign for each race in the same game.

Thanks Dumac.

You summed up my thoughts more eloquently than I put them. Blizzard should stick to the same receipe for the single player campaign.

 

[skace]

I understand what Dumac is saying, however I still think the expanded 3 game stories is going to be a bonus. And the story arc won't be 'cut up', they are most likely going to show you a war from all 3 races perspective, like they normally do, so while the various campaigns will tie into each other, each campaign will tell a story on it's own as well.

 

[Bateluer]

If they release them in rapid succession, a few months apart, for example, waiting for the next part won't be that bad. Now, if they pull a Valve with their episodic releases, it will blow up in their face.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Think of it this way, Elcs; you're getting SC2, SC3, and SC4 much more rapidly this way. They're just lumping them all together under SC2.

This is completely wrong. You are getting Starcraft 2 in three parts, and I bet it will show in the story.

Imagine if they took the original Starcraft. They could easily beef up each campaign with extra shallow missions that don't advance the plot and package it in three games. However, the story would suffer tremendously.

The reason Starcraft story was so great is that it flowed from perspective to perspective. This allows for a face paced plot. You are always in the seat of the race acting. However, if you play Terran for 30 missions straight, the plot can't advance too much in that 30 missions. Otherwise the viewpoints of the other races would be left out.

Also, cutting a single story arc into multiple segments rarely works. Starcraft and Broodwar each had their own story arc, covered in the three campaigns for each game. However, I think the Terran campaign by itself will be representive of only 1/3 of the Starcraft 2 storyline, thereby giving a unsatisfactory feeling at the end. Think Halo 2 or PotC 2 compared to their first parts.

I just don't see how this could be better than having a campaign for each race in the same game.

Well you are both on the right lines kinda... Its not starcraft 2/3/4 and its not just starcraft 2 in 3 parts either. Its 3 games instead of 1. For those of us who love starcraft thats awesome news.

Its not gonna wreck the storyline either, in fact it will be exactly the same as in the original starcraft but with a bigger delay between the next campaign and with each campaign being far more forfilling than those in the original SC. Lets face it SC1 didnt have the best campaign, it was allright but IMO wasent as fun as the C&C's of the time, this 3 game move will drastically improve on the single player game's quality.

Also just because the campaign is laballed "Terran" it dosent neccesarily mean you will play as terran every single mission and it dosent mean that every single mission will revolve around them, the core storyline will be terran but it wont be like the original sc's campaign x3.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
Blizzard isn't splitting SC2 into three games to make more money. They are doing it to put more time and work into each campaign so you don't get your typical lacklustre story across each campaign (think every other rts to date). They also did it so they could get the game out next year so whiners wouldn't t.t all over their keyboards and possibly electrocute themselves. Personally I wish they had of waited.

this is wrong, blizzard has a history of making you play the waiting game, and it has been A-OK with me...I do not mind 2 expansions on the game. I also would not mind waiting another year or two if they were to cut back on an expansion, to include it in the original, to only have one expansion.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
If they release them in rapid succession, a few months apart, for example, waiting for the next part won't be that bad. Now, if they pull a Valve with their episodic releases, it will blow up in their face.

with that i'll agree.

 

[Red Storm]

The funniest thing about all of this is that if any other game dev tried to release a game in three separate parts, there would be a huge outcry over being milked for more money, longer wait, etc. While I trust Blizzard will make three quality games/campaigns, I don't see why people are happy over the fact that you'll have to buy SC2 three times for the whole game.

The main game itself will retail for $50, and I'm guessing the other two parts will be priced at $30. $110 for the complete Starcraft II? I can't wait. :frown:

 

[natebigdawg]

I love Starcraft and played through the original campaign atleast three times. The story along with the in-game dialogue events were very engaging. The possibility of having 25~ missions per campaign is a very large undertaking for a story that will require it to be pretty epic. I think the major factor that will boost the appeal of Blizzards decision with this split-up is the fact they will be including unit-based persitance in the campaign from what I last heard. I think this is a huge thing for keeping the player interested in a long campaign. I am sure that they will include some RPG type elements such as in Warcraft III with heroes which was very cool

This makes me think of Homeworld and how it truly had an epic storyline which was intensified with mission persitance throughout. I think it had about 17 missions total and they could have easily had more to the story and it would not have felt like a drag.

As long as Blizzard focuses on the replayability factor with SC II and each of its storylines, they will most likely sucker me in the sense of the singleplayer aspect.

 

[Beev]

I'm about as big of a Blizzard fan as they come, and I hate this. However, they say that each campaign will have ~30 missions, so that's a little better. And knowing Blizzard these expansions will spaced 4 years apart, so it's not like I have to pay for all 3 at once.

 

[Liet]

I'm fine with this move, and so long as each game feels like a polished, full game, I have no problems paying full price for each.

Waiting stinks, but that's Blizzard, eh?

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: skace
I understand what Dumac is saying, however I still think the expanded 3 game stories is going to be a bonus. And the story arc won't be 'cut up', they are most likely going to show you a war from all 3 races perspective, like they normally do, so while the various campaigns will tie into each other, each campaign will tell a story on it's own as well.

This is my biggest concern. I really hope that the first game gives a satisfactory story of it's own, rather than simply a segment of the story like Halo 2 and PotC 2 did. If the story for the first game is satisfactory in itself, then I can deal with having to wait for a Zerg and Protoss campaign.

Someone mentioned unit consistency? That would be a pretty cool addition for SC.

 

[udneekgnim]

as long as they have the multiplayer fleshed out with 3 playable races, I'm fine with Blizzard's plan

 

[natebigdawg]

The other possibility is that they are fleshing out a story with enough content to launch World of Starcraft. Of course that will not be released until 2020

 

[Aikouka]

One interesting thing to note is that it seems Blizzard will not be putting any "real" DRM on SC2 as it sounds like Battle.NET will serve as their means of "policing" the SC2 crowd.

http://interviews.slashdot.org...08/10/15/1639237.shtml

Slashdot: With the recent controversy surrounding DRM, what is your take on DRM with respect to both Starcraft 2 and Battle.net?

Chris: We don't have specific plans ironed out. We are definitely aware of things that have happened with Spore, and some of the other games that have come out with big uprisings. We want to make sure that we are protected, but at the same time we want to make sure that it feels like the "right way" and not the "wrong way." Our biggest advantage is Battle.net, so I think the solution is that Battle.net is the premiere place to play, and that's where you want to be playing. So, that alone is the best sort of solution. You want to be up there and in contact with your friends, see what's going on, so there is your copy protection, essentially. As far as specifics, we haven't really worked that out. There are definitely some things to discuss still. One of the main things we are talking about is that there has to be a way for people to play offline ? on the plane or wherever ? but those are discussions that we still have to have.