BlizzCon 2008: Starcraft II lore panel

To start off the panel, they ran through a few of the folks we'll meet in the Terran campaign. Dr. Hanson is a "Dr. Lady with glasses (so she looks really cute)," said Chambers -- originally she was designed to be a male citizen kind of person (someone the player just helps to make their way through the campaign), but they moved on to try and make Jim Raynor (Starcraft's protagionist) a sort of romantic interest. As much of a romantic interest as a hard-bitten mercenary can have, anyway.
Lots more from the SC2 lore panel below.

Rory Swann is the ship's engineer, a rough and tumble New York accented guy who's running Raynor's ship (the main hub for most of the Terran missions). Raynor got the ship in the Starcraft novel the Queen of Blades, and Swann is the real soul of the vehicle that flies around the universe at faster-than-light. They showed off 3D renders of all the characters, used in the ingame cinematics. They aren't quite as good as the actual prerendered cinematic models, but they did look good. And Chambers told us that they could actually use the models in a game, if shrunken down to match the size of the RTS designs.
\

Tosh is an arms dealer on Raynor's ship -- he's a rough Jamaican dude with a sniper rifle. He's got a connection to another popular Starcraft character, Nova, who was meant to be the main character of the canceled Starcraft: Ghost game. Metzen described him as a Boba Fett-type character, "although," he said, "Boba Fett wasn't really used that well anyway."
Tychus Findlay is an old buddy of Raynor's -- we saw him in the cinematics shown at the gameplay panel yesterday. He's important as a key to Raynor's past (he and Raynor were "thick as thieves," before Findlay went to jail and Raynor became a marshall on a far-out planet). Plus, said Chambers, "we can show a big chunky guy in marine armor. Which is important to us." Metzen realized with regret that when it comes to Starcraft names, they're usually dependent on just a few letters: "It's either A or T names with us. Dammit!"

Matt Horner is another figure in the Terran campaign, a ship captain who's straitlaced and heroic, kind of a good angel on Raynor's shoulder as opposed to the bad influences of Tosh and Tychus. Horner is a young guy, but they wanted him to be very military, so they borrowed inspiration from old fascist uniforms.
Finally, Valerian Mengsk, son of Starcraft's famous Arturus Mengsk, also gives some missions to Raynor as he goes along on the Terran campaign. Arturus, says Metzen, is pretty much lost -- he's leading the Dominion, he's got too much history with Raynor to be a part of the campaign. But Valerian is not quite sold on his father's empire, and he's willing to deal with Raynor... for now.
Those were all the characters they showed. A Q&A session followed, and Metzen and Chambers answers all kinds of questions about the story of Starcraft. One fan asked if there would be minicampaigns in each of the games (as announced yesterday), and both authors said that yes, there will be multiple divergences in all of the campaigns, where you'll get to try out other races. They talked about influences as well -- Metzen admitted that both Firefly and Dune have set up a lot of the universe that Starcraft II inhabits (though he admitted that Starcraft did "rednecks in space" way before Joss Whedon ever tried it).
The Xel'naga were mentioned -- Metzen confirmed that the ancient race will be part of the backbone of the trilogy. The Terran and Zerg campaigns will poke around the overarching story, but it will really come to fruition only in the Protoss campaign game. They also told an entertaining story about Kerrigan, Starcraft's alien queen (who used to be a Terran Ghost): while trying to come up with characters for the original Starcraft, Metzen and his partner were playing a lot of Command and Conquer, and in that game, they have a female secret operative named Tanya, apparently. So when Metzen was naming his female secret operative, he though of a few figure skaters who'd been dueling at a time, and the Ghost who would eventually become Starcraft II's big bad was named.
Finally, Metzen answered a question that's on most fans' minds about the big reveal this weekend: was it the right decision to split the games up? Metzen thinks it was. "As a fictional event," he said, "we can make it like the coolest science fiction thing ever seen in a videogame. Did I just say that?" he asked, and the crowd in attendance applauded. "The freedom is amazing. And you guys are really going to see it. This stuff that we're doing now, Diablo 3 and Starcraft II, is easily the best stuff we've ever done as a virtual experience... Warcraft III doesn't even rate as a Saturday morning cartoon to the themes we're dealing with in these games. I think it's great, and I hope you all agree when it comes out."











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ed @ Oct 12th 2008 9:13AM
Given all the BS over monetized online play and paying separately for each class I don't really give much a shit about Starcraft 2 any more.
Soz
Haggard (Mr.ESC resurrected on a... thursday?!) @ Oct 12th 2008 9:42AM
Wait, it's pay to play online?
WiiFTW @ Oct 12th 2008 9:57AM
If the pay-to-play/1 games in 3 end up as gay as they sounds, I will no longer ♥ Blizzard.
mutd1999 @ Oct 12th 2008 10:14AM
No...they just they are looking into some aspects of Battle.net they could monetize. They did NOT say you had to pay to play online. And, I highly doubt that will be the case.
Coldbrand @ Oct 12th 2008 10:08AM
It's like I'm really hearing some guy talk about how he ripped off Warhammer 40,000!
JoeTheBlow @ Oct 12th 2008 10:34AM
This article to me just now reads like:
"We've got delusions of grandeur, and have gone well overboard with the budget and deadlines, so heres why you are paying for 3 games instead of the Starcraft sequel you were all expecting"
Mike @ Oct 12th 2008 11:29PM
If you guys were in Korea, there would be a wall of people at your home right now with pitch forks and torches! They might be so angered as to make a trip back to the states for you! Remember this: Smell kim chee, fear the reaper.
Oh no, I smell kim chee! It WASN'T MEEEEEEEE!!!
Oh wait thats just my mom bringing me some food.
coyotej @ Oct 12th 2008 10:41AM
Ringo? Is that you? lol.
AdmiralSnackbar @ Oct 12th 2008 10:53AM
Andy Chambers was a designer for Games Workshop just a few years ago. I love that he's working on StarCraft now, only because it confirms Blizzards status as the most prestigious plagiarizers in the industry.
I love Blizzard games. I'm not happy with the company now. Monetized Battle.net, three campaigns as possibly full priced games, an MMO that hasn't put a single step forward in years and sacrificing game mechanics/balance to release WotLK faster.
Old Blizzard would NEVER have done that. WotLK would have been pushed back if this was two years ago. Now they're under the yoke of Activision, and seem cheerful about it. Despite maintaining appearances, they've lost their soul. This merger was awful.
NoHitHair @ Oct 12th 2008 2:41PM
You're absolutely right. I'm ecstatic that there are other posters on here with a brain - it's highly unusual.
Blizzard's acquisition has really gotten me down and I'm assuming the other diehard fans feel screwed as well. WoW's devolution into watered-down casual gaming was worrying but I doubted they'd let something as precious as the SC franchise be affected by any outside sources. That they'd even consider that to be tainted proves that nothing is precious.
Like so many other gaming companies, Blizzard has succumbed to the will of their stock-minded overseers and has entirely forgotten the fans who helped put them there. Sierra's dead, Rare's dead (real Rare), Nintendo's given up on customer service and durable hardware in favor of cheap Apple-like curvature... I can't think of a single company that's worth trusting anymore.
ZeroCorpse @ Oct 12th 2008 1:03PM
Oh, come on people! Can't you see what's happening here? Blizzard (and Activision) saw the kind of money they make from WoW, and they've decided it's better to make customers pay to play their games. They think the die-hards will log on to the "advanced" features of a pay-to-play Battle.net and so they're using Starcraft to shift toward that business model. They also see the value in micro-transactions and episodic content, which is why you're getting Starcraft in three parts (maybe more!) instead of one full game.
Think WoW here. How many expansion packs are there? How big were the sales of those upgrades? How many people shell out a subscription fee to do what we used to be able to do for free?
Blizzard has always been about maximizing their ability to take clones of other, better games and make a profit off of them. Warcraft was a rip-off of other games. Starcraft was just a sci-fi translation of Warcraft. WoW was a clone of Everquest. Diablo is just Gauntlet with better graphics. They don't have ONE original idea in their entire library-- It's all jacked from other companies and just given that Blizzard spit-n-polish.
Wake up and smell the opportunism, folks... Blizzard has never been about "The gamers". It's always been about taking another company's idea and then rehashing it with a little added "attitude" to market it to rabid fanboys who thought Blizzard was "on their side". Well, here's news folks-- THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE. They exist to get your money, and if they can nickel and dime you to death, they will.
Enjoy paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for for the privilege of playing Starcraft in bite-sized increments.
smartguy1600 @ Oct 12th 2008 1:42PM
Did you feel this way before, or AFTER Blizzard announced that Starcraft 2 was going to be three titles? Feeling a little hurt are we?
Every company *obviously* wants our money. If we thought they didn't then yes we are delusional. But I'd still like to think that Blizzard is a developer who puts game quality first.
So let's think of it in a different perspective: They have this huge story with lots to tell and more game development to complete. Gamers have waiting 10 years. Pushing it back to make it one large game would take even longer. And as a company, they have to offset the costs of producing all of the content for the games. Today's industry leans more and more towards trilogy titles before they even know if the game is going to be good/sell or not. But I trust Blizzard to make good games. And I'm still with them in this.
If Battle.net costs money to play, then I won't play it. I'll just play through single player. If parts are free, then I will utilize those parts. I highly doubt the whole service will be pay-to-play. We know how well that went with XBox Live on PC.
Also, could you cite a specific game Warcraft ripped off? Please? I'd like to know the exact one. Is it because it's an RTS? Because if it's just mechanics, it still executed them incredibly well. And your just spouting hellfire at that point. And again, WoW, Diablo 2. Sure, they are similar, but arguably much BETTER than anything you could compare them to. I mean what about Titan Quest? It's basically just Diablo with Mythology and I thought it was a great game. Dungeon Siege was just Diablo with more emphasis on the RPG aspect. Same game really. You can't expect everything to be original all the time, but Blizzard is successful because of their quality.
Until I start seeing their franchises ported to consoles, with a new sequel every year, I'm going to save my judgment on Blizzard "Selling out"
NoHitHair @ Oct 12th 2008 2:44PM
ZeroCorpse is clearly right. Blizzard has always been aware of how easily milked the SC franchise could be. The difference is that the Blizzard of yesteryear would've never considered abusing that to make a couple extra bucks.
smartguy1600 @ Oct 13th 2008 11:43AM
My point is he talks about Blizzard as if they ALWAYS were like this. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until I start seeing Starcraft: Aerosmith.
Falcon6 @ Oct 12th 2008 1:27PM
I didn't realize the strategy games before Warcraft thought up the whole "Orcs v. humans" stuff.
I also didn't realize that a game company is in it for the money. I am shocked!
It's amazing how cheap gamers are sometimes. They complain about $20 XBLA games, they complain about this trilogy nonsense, and now they complain about Battle.net, despite the fact that they have no idea exactly WHAT will be charged.
If the product is good, I'll buy it. That's all I need to care about. WoW is good, so I pay for it. If Starcraft II ends up being as good as people say it is, I'll buy it. If Diablo III is good, I'll buy it.
If Blizzard's track record is any indication, they WILL be good. Their money-making ideas aside, they're a good game company. If not for this trilogy and Battle.net nonsense, people would be drooling at Starcraft II. I guarantee you that.
ogvor @ Oct 12th 2008 1:41PM
The thing I want to know about the Trilogy thing is are they really expansion packs? Is the first full featured game 50$ and the next two 30$ expansions or are they going to make us buy the whole game 3 times? And don't expansion packs usually see things like new units? That would turn this whole thing from being a massive nickle and diming scheme into an awesome addition of new content.
NoHitHair @ Oct 12th 2008 2:30PM
Arturus Mengsk? Don't you mean ArCturus Mengsk?
Sorry - I love SC and that bothered me.
mbt @ Oct 13th 2008 1:39AM
Swann as in swan song?
Tosh??? as in Posh Spice Girls???!
Matt Horner??? as in Matt Horny (like a porn actor????
Wat da Fark!!!
In the Original SC we had real touch names that you didn't laugh at, not fairy names.
First they screw up the gameplay by splitting up original SC units into more unnecessary units (e.g., Dragoon into 2 different dragoons). Then they take away terrain elevation advantages by making units that can walk and jump over them--what's the point of getting high ground then???
Gawd, I hate that Sigarty guy. He doesn't even belong on SC2. He made Command and Conquer crap which sucked balls.
2nd, they take away rendered beautiful CGI and give us blocky in game 3d animation instead. And they claim this is the reason why SC2 will take longer to finish and have to charge 3x the price??? Since when is blocky 3d characters harder to animate than CGI rendered movies???? This is pure bull propaganda that they are feeding us.
3rd, they split up 1 game into 3 and charge full price for each. I gaurantee it will be full price by the way they are going about it. Only a blind fanboy or blizzard plant will try to lie to us and hope we forget when they do charge us full price over and over again. Remember, history tends to repeat itself ... people have weak memories ... never learn so many will fall for Blizz's lie.
4th, multiplayer will be incomplete and watered down until all 3 games come out and you will have to pay for all 3 games to play all 3 races. $150-$180 for a RTS??? But that's not all the money it will take, read below.
5th, they are talking about monetizing battlenet which means ONLY 1 thing. Monthly payments to get onto to battlenet. This is how they reward SC1 players who made it one of the tops selling games ... by charging for battlenet when it used to be free and blizzard had no problems with it before. This ain't no WOW with changing content and chaning characters and items. This is RTS where the units are permanent ... only minor balance tweaking is involved in updates ... which was free in SC1.
They lie about how Activision had no influence on them. Bull. Employees in anonymity mention their management began forcing these new anti-consumer strategies on them to make the Activision merger happen. Which means Activision asked Blizzard to milk SC2 like never before (and hence screw consumers) or else they wouldn't merge.
FACK Blizz for Facking SC2 up bigtime. Well, that's it SC2 has caused me to give up games finally ... I can stop wasting time because there is no more good games and game companies anymore. I guess that's a good thing. See some of you intelligent guys in the real world. Thank blizzard for waking some of us up.
capefeather @ Oct 14th 2008 2:25PM
HAHAHA! Your anger is hilarious.
"In the Original SC we had real touch names that you didn't laugh at, not fairy names."
You're complaining about their names!? Most of the names are dumb, anyway.
"First they screw up the gameplay..."
It's called replacing units that are unpopular in competitive play. And we'll see how your mass Reapers/Colossi strategy works in actual gameplay.
"2nd, they take away rendered beautiful CGI and give us blocky in game 3d animation instead..."
Um... Maybe because there are more of them?
"3rd, they split up 1 game into 3 and charge full price for each. I gaurantee it will be full price by the way they are going about it."
LOL. Blizzard never lied about anything. They said they didn't know. And there are plenty of ways around this, like making each game completely stand-alone (i.e. you could buy LotV only and it will still word).
"4th, multiplayer will be incomplete and watered down..."
Again, your biased attitude shows. One person's trash really is another's treasure. WoL will be a complete product, and if they think of anything else to put into HotS and then LotV, they'll put it in.
"5th, they are talking about monetizing battlenet which means ONLY 1 thing. Monthly payments to get onto to battlenet."
Wow. You really are talking out of your *** now (dunno much about terms of use here). Looks like you're the one spewing propaganda.
The sad truth is that we have something called inflation in real life. Deal with it. I suppose you've stopped filling up on gas since it went above $1/gal?
I'm not "just another fanboy", if you're going to use that pitiful excuse for an argument. I'm going to give Blizzard, as with any other company, the benefit of the doubt because life is just less pessimistic that way. You should try it.