Joystiq Interview: StarCraft 2 Lead Producer Chris Sigaty
The big announcement at BlizzCon yesterday was the morphing of StarCraft II into a trilogy. I had the opportunity to sit down with one of the people instrumental behind this change, StarCraft II Lead Producer Chris Sigaty. I spoke with him right after the announcement was made, and we talked about how this will impact SC2, what it will mean for multiplayer games, and what challenges the developers are facing in making SC2 the best game it can be.
According to Sigaty, it took two to three months to decide to roll the game out as a trilogy. They spent that time weighing options, looking at what they wanted to do, how they wanted to do it – and all the while working on creating a game that is as large in scope as possible, he said. In the end however, according to both Sigaty and his colleague Rob Pardo (Executive Vice President of Game Design at Blizzard), the decision was made because they wanted to include everything they possibly could in SC2. They wanted to deliver a great game and tell an epic story.
In telling this story they're aiming to make changes across the board. According to Sigaty, while there are lots of familiar elements, they are "totally changing the way you play." It appears this change will be most noticeable in the differentiation between single player and multiplayer modes. In single player mode, your goal is to complete the mission, while in multiplayer mode your goal is to defeat your opponent. In the original StarCraft, the way you go about that would often be the same. You zerg in multiplayer mode, you zerg in single player mode. You use the same units, the same structures, and sometimes even the same maps. No longer.
We learned earlier in the day from Rob Pardo that there will be units in the single player mode that are not usable in the multiplayer mode. Sigaty expanded upon this a little bit; Goliaths and those six-person Terran Bunkers will not be usable in multiplayer. By removing those units, and others like it, they will change significantly the way the multiplayer game is played compared to the single player.You can't just turtle your way through a multiplayer match with bunkers anymore.
When I asked Sigaty about the different parts of the trilogy and how each part would affect the multiplayer game, he said that each campaign will add something to the multiplayer game. Of course, one of the bigger questions today, we asked if multiplayer will be fully implemented with all the races when the first part of the SC2 trilogy is released? The answer is simple: "yes." Players will be able to play each and every race, setting them against each other in massive do-or-die battles.
If the game play, units, and graphics are all implemented at the release of the first part of the trilogy, and even multiplayer is there and finished, why make three games? Sigaty described the reason behind doing a trilogy as an issue of "scope." They want to do it all and don't want to cut things. They have "extremely grand plans" and want to see them through to the very end, and that end has to be the best it can be.
"We want the ability to tell the story the way we want to," he said. While nothing is set in stone, Sigaty said that each part of the trilogy would ideally be able to played as a stand alone game. And no matter if each part of the trilogy can be played stand alone, there will be an overarching story arc which they already have mapped out. Right now the three biggest things they're working on are the graphics engine, the tools, and the cinematics. According to Sigaty, the cinematics for SC2 will be quite amazing and quite immersive.
There are plans for several large fully featured cinematics throughout the game – more than we've seen before in any other Blizzard product. And that's not all. After each mission you complete, you'll be able to view a unique news report. These news reports will dynamically change depending upon what you've just done in the story line. Earlier in the day we got to take a look at an example news report – the quality of which is on par with the Warcraft III cinematic, he said. The actual full length SC2 cinematics however are better than anything we've seen so far from Blizzard.
With StarCraft 2, Sigaty said they are trying to move away from the original's linear structure with the single-player campaign. Once you've done a few introductory missions that everyone has to do, you get the ability to choose which missions you do next . You get to select which characters in the StarCraft universe you want to interact with, and you get to choose what you want to do for them. You complete the missions, approximately 26 to 30 per campaign and eventually you end up completing a set of final missions to finish off the story of that campaign.
Sigaty described it as looking at a football. You start out at one point, then as you progress you have more and more options. Finally when you're nearing the end of the football your options become more limited until finally you only have one path to take. Everyone will have the same beginning and end game, but the middle game can be very unique to what you want your play style to be. While there is definitely new aspects of a kind of "choose your own story" to it, Sigaty said SC2 will be no-where near as non-linear of a game as World of Warcraft or Spore. But it definitely will not be your typical 1-2-3-4 type game anymore.
Throughout the whole interview with Sigaty I got the feeling that here was a guy very committed to the game and the fans. I asked him what in SC2 he was the most excited about. He said that while single player mode was very cool, he is most excited to see what fans are able to come up with in the multiplayer mode. We talked a little bit about the evolution of strategies in SC1, where at first nobody heard of zerging your enemy – and now "to zerg" someone is practically a verb in our language. This is what Sigaty is looking forward to the most, and it's good to hear that the developers of such a great universe are watching the fans closely.
Gallery: BlizzCon 2008: Starcraft II
According to Sigaty, it took two to three months to decide to roll the game out as a trilogy. They spent that time weighing options, looking at what they wanted to do, how they wanted to do it – and all the while working on creating a game that is as large in scope as possible, he said. In the end however, according to both Sigaty and his colleague Rob Pardo (Executive Vice President of Game Design at Blizzard), the decision was made because they wanted to include everything they possibly could in SC2. They wanted to deliver a great game and tell an epic story.
In telling this story they're aiming to make changes across the board. According to Sigaty, while there are lots of familiar elements, they are "totally changing the way you play." It appears this change will be most noticeable in the differentiation between single player and multiplayer modes. In single player mode, your goal is to complete the mission, while in multiplayer mode your goal is to defeat your opponent. In the original StarCraft, the way you go about that would often be the same. You zerg in multiplayer mode, you zerg in single player mode. You use the same units, the same structures, and sometimes even the same maps. No longer.
We learned earlier in the day from Rob Pardo that there will be units in the single player mode that are not usable in the multiplayer mode. |
We learned earlier in the day from Rob Pardo that there will be units in the single player mode that are not usable in the multiplayer mode. Sigaty expanded upon this a little bit; Goliaths and those six-person Terran Bunkers will not be usable in multiplayer. By removing those units, and others like it, they will change significantly the way the multiplayer game is played compared to the single player.You can't just turtle your way through a multiplayer match with bunkers anymore.
When I asked Sigaty about the different parts of the trilogy and how each part would affect the multiplayer game, he said that each campaign will add something to the multiplayer game. Of course, one of the bigger questions today, we asked if multiplayer will be fully implemented with all the races when the first part of the SC2 trilogy is released? The answer is simple: "yes." Players will be able to play each and every race, setting them against each other in massive do-or-die battles.
If the game play, units, and graphics are all implemented at the release of the first part of the trilogy, and even multiplayer is there and finished, why make three games? Sigaty described the reason behind doing a trilogy as an issue of "scope." They want to do it all and don't want to cut things. They have "extremely grand plans" and want to see them through to the very end, and that end has to be the best it can be.
"We want the ability to tell the story the way we want to," he said. While nothing is set in stone, Sigaty said that each part of the trilogy would ideally be able to played as a stand alone game. And no matter if each part of the trilogy can be played stand alone, there will be an overarching story arc which they already have mapped out. Right now the three biggest things they're working on are the graphics engine, the tools, and the cinematics. According to Sigaty, the cinematics for SC2 will be quite amazing and quite immersive.
Gallery: Starcraft II
There are plans for several large fully featured cinematics throughout the game – more than we've seen before in any other Blizzard product. And that's not all. After each mission you complete, you'll be able to view a unique news report. These news reports will dynamically change depending upon what you've just done in the story line. Earlier in the day we got to take a look at an example news report – the quality of which is on par with the Warcraft III cinematic, he said. The actual full length SC2 cinematics however are better than anything we've seen so far from Blizzard.
With StarCraft 2, Sigaty said they are trying to move away from the original's linear structure with the single-player campaign. Once you've done a few introductory missions that everyone has to do, you get the ability to choose which missions you do next . You get to select which characters in the StarCraft universe you want to interact with, and you get to choose what you want to do for them. You complete the missions, approximately 26 to 30 per campaign and eventually you end up completing a set of final missions to finish off the story of that campaign.
Everyone will have the same beginning and end game, but the middle game can be very unique to what you want your play style to be. |
Sigaty described it as looking at a football. You start out at one point, then as you progress you have more and more options. Finally when you're nearing the end of the football your options become more limited until finally you only have one path to take. Everyone will have the same beginning and end game, but the middle game can be very unique to what you want your play style to be. While there is definitely new aspects of a kind of "choose your own story" to it, Sigaty said SC2 will be no-where near as non-linear of a game as World of Warcraft or Spore. But it definitely will not be your typical 1-2-3-4 type game anymore.
Throughout the whole interview with Sigaty I got the feeling that here was a guy very committed to the game and the fans. I asked him what in SC2 he was the most excited about. He said that while single player mode was very cool, he is most excited to see what fans are able to come up with in the multiplayer mode. We talked a little bit about the evolution of strategies in SC1, where at first nobody heard of zerging your enemy – and now "to zerg" someone is practically a verb in our language. This is what Sigaty is looking forward to the most, and it's good to hear that the developers of such a great universe are watching the fans closely.






Get a WordPress.com Blog





Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Oct 11th 2008 5:07PM
Still pissed.
xblingdaddy2005x @ Oct 11th 2008 5:11PM
I'll zerg him for this trilogy bullshit.
Erik Stroud @ Oct 11th 2008 10:02PM
I like the idea of a trilogy. I mean, it's not like its any different from buying expansions. So why complain? If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Eh @ Oct 12th 2008 12:10AM
Dont worry, I dont want it and Im not going to buy this crap. Id be fine if they split all 3 campaigns into a trilogy, but Im NOT fine with only getting one campaign per game. Thats a terrible, terrible decision. I cant believe they thought this was a good idea, its probably the worst thing they could have done since theres just so many things that are going to get screwed up as they release each version, the Terran campaign is going to be garbage compared to the last box (and if its not garbage then its going to get unbalanced and not fit with the multiplayer upgrades, its a lose/lose situation no matter how you look at it).
Jeff @ Oct 11th 2008 5:26PM
I just want to know, once and for all: will we be required to buy each game to have the most up-to-date multiplayer? Why haven't any of the reviews asked this.
Otimus @ Oct 11th 2008 5:30PM
Because 99.99% of sites and magazines are absolute cowards when they interview people. Joystiq included. They will not ask tough questions, because it may put the interviewed person/company off. Hence no more interviews, maybe even the pulling of ads.
SonofSeth @ Oct 11th 2008 5:57PM
Do you need Brood War to play the most up to date version of Starcraft multiplayer?
Dave @ Oct 11th 2008 6:16PM
Jeff has a valid point. If having different versions of the single player game gives you a different multiplayer version of the game will you be able to easily "downgrade" to what others have or will the multiplayer community be fractured by everyone having different permutations of disks?
DemonGSides @ Oct 11th 2008 6:30PM
Guys, learn how to read, it says it right there; you don't need all three versions to go online, but don't expect a single player, non-melee game as the opposite races than the one you bought.
So, ie, if you bought the Terran campaign, you'll be able to play the terran campaign offline, but play online/single player melee maps online.
Titanium_Orchid @ Oct 11th 2008 7:11PM
I'm 90% sure that an article on Kotaku said that each installment will contain updates to the multiplayer
Titanium_Orchid @ Oct 11th 2008 7:31PM
oops, the following quote is from an IGN article linked from Giant Bomb.
"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."
Link to original article:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html
Jeff @ Oct 11th 2008 8:49PM
Titanium, that's what I was afraid of.
In effect, they'll hold off basic updates that we would normally get for free in order to pack it into the next game and force us to buy it.
If they're gonna do this, make it 4 versions. Terran, zerg, protoss, and multiplayer.
Titanium_Orchid @ Oct 11th 2008 10:52PM
They could still distribute tweaks and updates through free online patches... that is, if they don't want to be dicks
DemonGSides @ Oct 13th 2008 4:16PM
Do any of you still play Starcraft online? They do basically bi to tri-monthly updates, so I doubt they're going to leave the community floundering if they need something to update.
Its also been confirmed in a newer interview that all races will be playable online from day one, so there isn't that to worry about.
Multiplayer content probably means new maps and scenarios, not units and races.
Rambler @ Oct 11th 2008 5:40PM
The trilogy idea is retarded. All I have to say is that the individual copies better be cheap so that if you buy all three it will equal the average price of a new computer game. If not, I'm just going to pirate all three copies... I know its bad and i'm an A**hole for it but i'm not paying 3 times for the same multiplayer. Rethinking... I may buy i copy and pirate the other two.
Blizzard has been doing alot of stupid S**t since merging with Activision...
#28 @ Oct 11th 2008 10:05PM
+1
Reinforcements @ Oct 11th 2008 6:00PM
Each part of the trilogy had better be as long as all three campaigns of original Starcraft put together and the 2nd and 3rd parts (at least) had better be priced as expansions or this is some rip-off bullshit. Do that and I have no complaints.
And since you didn't ask - no, Rambler, thinking something is over-priced does NOT make it okay to steal it. Sorry!
Rambler @ Oct 11th 2008 7:48PM
I never said it was okay. In fact i know it is illegal and wrong and i know the consequences that go along with it but if they're going to try and rip me off, then i'm going to do the same to them.
CaramelZappa @ Oct 11th 2008 6:11PM
Blizzard customers kind of did this to themselves. Through the amount of people willing to pay $15/mo or whatever the fee is for WoW, in addition to the initial game, as well as expansions, Blizzard know KNOWS that it can charge it's customers whatever they want. So they are doing exactly that. Stop "blaming" activision. It doesn't matter who thought up the idea. The customers who allowed themselves to be nickel-n-dimed like this are the cause of it. If you're that pissed about it being split into a trilogy, don't buy it. And don't pirate it either. There are plenty of other games to play until the whole trilogy is in a $10 battle chest at your local target. If you really believe it's okay for a dev to charge you three times the price of a game, split up into three parts, then go ahead and buy it. But don't complain if you're going to suck it up and hand over the money anyways. If you think it's wrong, don't just sit here and complain in blogs comments, it's not going to matter. Just move on and don't buy the game.
As it turns out I'm not buying SCII day one like I thought, though if it turns out good I might buy it when all three games are available together for a respectable price point.
Ihavepants @ Oct 11th 2008 11:11PM
Would you buy Dawn Of War 2?
Please answer.
CaramelZappa @ Oct 12th 2008 1:51AM
No, but that's because I'm not really a warhammer fan and haven't taken any interest. I don't know much about the game aside from it being an RTS.
Schoon @ Oct 11th 2008 6:15PM
Get pissed all you want guys, but there's an unfortunate truth under all of this:
Blizzard is a public company. In a public company, the bean counters get to tell you what to do. Always. No exceptions.
Dave @ Oct 11th 2008 7:36PM
Yes, and look where that's gotten the American economy.
brokenscope @ Oct 11th 2008 9:29PM
Gratz Dave, in a single sentence you have proven to everyone that you understand nothing about the economic crisis.
bm @ Oct 11th 2008 6:20PM
I'm more worried about having to wait several years to get to play all races in single player. I enjoy going through the campaign before starting on multiplayer and going "neat" every time I got a new unit, and got to use it in little situations specifically tailored to introduce the unit.
Now, unless I don't play multiplayer at all until all three parts are out, there'll be no surprises left by the time we get the protoss campaign. It'll just feel like an afterthought. Meh.
fraxyl @ Oct 12th 2008 11:22AM
Except for the fact that they said that the single player will have unique units to single player that aren't in multiplayer.
I love how the gaming community is so cynical.
You all need to get some Life of Brian and look on the bright side, if it sucks and you don't like it, don't buy it and save some money.
The only downside I can see is that until all three are released, you can't really choose which campaign you want to start on. I kind of liked that about the C&C games.
I'm guessing that the multiplayer won't be as affected as everybody is lamenting about. My thoughts are that the campaign expansions will bring minor multiplayer updates in terms of a few new units for each side. I highly doubt that people who update will be able to join games of people without the updates.
bm @ Oct 13th 2008 4:33PM
Water getting hot yet, froggy?
Dell @ Oct 11th 2008 6:43PM
I guess this is what took them so long to decide to split it, the fan backlash that they would receive.
Let's just wait it out and see, it's quite possible they are actually selling 3 spectacular single player games all in the same engine and universe. What's wrong with that? If Blizzard makes a game that is as big as 3 regular games, why should they not be paid for it?
That is of course assuming that my assumptions are correct, I mean I'm just as livid as the next guy if each chapter is half-assed at all. But there's no need to sling mud yet.
Ihavepants @ Oct 12th 2008 2:42AM
Completely agree, I don't understand why everyone is so angry about it because we don't even have enough details to decide whether this is awesome, or this is terrible. Going on Blizzard past performance... it's most likely to be EXTREMELY AWESOMESAUCE.
theturtle363 @ Oct 11th 2008 6:59PM
ha, i can't stop laughing at how fucking huge the marine in the suit is. He looks like damn Optimus Prime compared to the other guy.
AwesomeTown @ Oct 11th 2008 7:10PM
I think the Witch Doctor from Diablo III shrunk his head.
kagai @ Oct 11th 2008 7:04PM
Is that marine sitting on a bar stool? What the hell is the stool made out of adamantium?
Mike @ Oct 11th 2008 7:44PM
If he were dedicated to the fans, then he'd be either
A. Justifying the split, not just saying "we wanna make an awesome game"
or
B. Not splitting up what should be one whole game into three SKU's for the simple purpose of rolling around in giant piles of money.
I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE that this is a valid decision, I'm just saying they haven't justified it yet. They just keep saying "well, we want to make the best game we can" like that's gonna make me go "Ohhhh I see, the best game you can make is three games!!" No - either explain it fully, giving details about what's in each game, or stick 'em back together into one WHOLE game.
JoeTheBlow @ Oct 11th 2008 7:55PM
So we have to wait YEARS, and pay for three games, just because some wannabe movie-director has a boner for shoving in dozens of hours of cutscenes.
Kinda makes Hideo Kojima look sane now.
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Oct 11th 2008 8:35PM
I'm just sayin', there's no way in Hell they're going to make me pay three times full price just for the entire game.
If that is going to be the case however, I guess that I'll have to be looking forward to Dawn of War 2 (*inserts mourning of Ensemble Studios as well*).
Ihavepants @ Oct 11th 2008 11:18PM
Your argument is filled with retardation. Dawn of War 2 comes with one campaign. Then they will most likely have expansions to add new races/campaigns for existing races. Of course you can't play against others that have the expansions if all you bought was the original game.
Sound similar at all?
The only difference is that Starcraft's campaigns are most likely going to be better.
Makeseven @ Oct 11th 2008 9:49PM
are we really thinking they are gonna charge equal for each copy people?
im really worried about this...but i do have trust in blizzard. so im not gonna jump in and say "fuck you blizzard!" just yet.
maybe it will end up like this:
game one-terran campaign, 30 hours, multiplayer 40-50$
game two-zerg campaign expasion, 30 hours, multiplayer updates, $20-30.
game three-protoss campaign expansion, 30 hours, multiplayer updates, $20-30.
a lot of people are talking about it like they are gonna release three games at once and make you buy em all. that wouldnt make any sense. maybe people are right in saying that they wanna actually let us play this game at some point so they can release it sooner and then have expansion packs, which are no big deal. people are USUALLY excited about expansion packs.
but i do hope that the multiplayer updates come as free downloads for those who only bought the terran game.
JoeTheBlow @ Oct 12th 2008 5:21AM
I don't care if they charge $10 EACH.
Because of the split we won't likely see the end of the story till 2012!
Imagine if they'd split The Dark Knight film up like that.
Falcom @ Oct 11th 2008 10:47PM
PIECE OF SH*T GAME. F*ck blizzard for pulling this. We should get to use all 3 races without buying 3 separate games. Really blows that when it comes out, we only get to use terran(or whatever comes first) in single player. Multiplayer we are left all on our own to figure out how the race plays in the new game, no help what-so-ever of the campaign introducing stuff. That will definitely turn off potential new players and also alienate existing fans. And they wonder why piracy rates are going through the roof.
Paviel @ Oct 12th 2008 1:42AM
Isn't the fact that each campaign is going to be 26-30 scenarios long (and remember StarCraft 1's campaigns had a TOTAL of 30 scenarios, and Brood War had 26) sufficient cause to justify splitting it up?
Or would you rather have all 78-90 scenarios in one box, released Adun-knows-when?
daniel =] @ Oct 12th 2008 1:43AM
I have an epic plan . Buy 1 of the games, so you can play online, pirate the other 2. I win
Tamer Brad @ Oct 12th 2008 4:13AM
i can bitch all i want, but i paid for fucking .hack so my opinion is invalid
Vlad @ Oct 12th 2008 7:47AM
For me, this is a very easy catch. I will buy the zerg. One of my friends will buy the protoss, and one will buy the terrans. Then we switch, we have all of them installed, and I doubt the cd swapping will be much of a problem. If they ask for separate cd keys for each multiplayer, I'm not gonna play online. I'm no pro, and not interested in that either. LAN, client and hamachi all the way :) .
Rikofroid @ Oct 12th 2008 1:56PM
Expansions better be downloadable.
TragicManner @ Oct 12th 2008 1:57PM
All I have to say is, I'm waiting a few years before picking this thing up. I'll play friend's copies and just get a feel for it until they release some "Battle Chest" version of the whole game. It really feels like they're gearing this up to take advantage of early players if you ask me.
mbt @ Oct 13th 2008 2:15AM
Word of advice to naive boys:
Look at action rather than words. Actions are harder to fake than words. Ever here about propaganda (public lie) and bullshot (blatant lie).
Analysis 1:
Statement: Blizzard says they are splitting it up because it takes a long time to finish.
Logical Response: If so, why not just take longer to finish it???
Analysis 2:
Statement: Blizzard says 3d game animation is the reason why it is taking so long to finish.
Logical Response: How can precreated 3d characters take longer to animate versus CGI that takes super computers days to render a few seconds?
This rational thinking can be adapted to any part of life and when you read "news." Look beyond the proganda and the bull and you can predict the future with high degree of accuracy.
And, when you do so, you will realize SC2 is f'd.
Of course, some refuse to accept reality but that's their problem ... because they will get lied and taken advantage of their whole lives and they will get angry when other people grow up and don't fall for propaganda. Some of these kids tell us: "I don't know why we don't hand over our life savings to Blizzard ... I mean we shouldn't complain ... we are not allowed to voice our thoughts ... it is the american way to give money to a corporation that is lieing and giving us a poor, watered down product." Sorry kid, I don't do stupid. Good luck in life kid.
mbt @ Oct 13th 2008 10:01PM
Another lesson in life: Never reward bad behavior ... because the jerk will just keep pushing it worse.
If you are pissed at Blizzard f-ing up SC2. Don't reward them by buying it 3x. They will know their plan worked and will do it again in the future and keep pushing it.
You have other options:
1. If you love SC1 as a RTS, keep playing that instead.
2. Get a hobby, like exercising, dating, race cars/bikes.
3. DL SC2 free of charge.
Remember, if you down't like Blizzard's actions, don't encourage them buy giving them your money. It will only make them think of other ways to screw with you. Protect your money. Show your disapproval of Blizzard by doing the 3 above actions.
You are welcome!