| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (95)

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:03AM Levi said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
like they haven't had enough time to finish the whole game already???

I think Duke Nukem Forever might come out before this full game does XD
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:25AM MrHashbrown said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sadly, I think I'd believe that.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:06AM acefondu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ugh, I'll wait for the box set of all three games at this rate. I'm sorry but I'm quite upset this is coming out in such a method. There is no need to make each race to have their own game. And what is it going to be $50 a pop? I sure hope not, then instead of the box set I'll be waiting for the bargain bin set.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:13PM BigD145 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
SC2 is now off my radar for the next 4 years.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The amount of time [the average user] will spend on this game (100+ hours, assuming that its as good as #1 or better) will probably be well worth it in comparison to average FPS's which you only spend around 4 hours on for the same price.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 1:24PM Ghen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a big fan of the campaign, not so much about the online so this news is depressing to say the least.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:06AM lgndk11r said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If it's just two years between releases, then I'm alright with paying. Kind of like the Half-life 2 episodes.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:57AM ZaxCG2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When you put it that way it makes it easier to swallow.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:46PM aughscreennames said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Except HL2 episodes were cheap and werent an integral part of the main game, theyre bonus content. This is more like them taking HL2 and making you wait 3 years before you can use the gravity gun.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:11AM SeriouslyNow said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I think Activision might be crapping all over my favorite developers. I might end up remembering fondly their early days and ignoring their present, ala the Sonic games.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:28AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Stopped reading after "Activision".Hello, Blizzard's been going down around the time they've revived Illidian in WoW and brought out a multi-dimensional spacefaring race that couldn't drive their own fucking spaceship in WoW:BC.

More dedicated(or wary)players will go as far as saying Blizzard went down since W3, so I don't think we really need to get Activision involved.I can safely bet Blizzard planned it at least a year in advance and simply waited till BlizzCon to announce it.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 3:52PM Haggard said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You try keeping that thing steady at 88mph
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:11AM crhennen said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Is he saying they will be seperate products? I dont think so, i think he clarified that they are not going to be seperate products.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
They have already announced officially that the game will be a "trilogy."
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:15AM whatthegeek said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So the two follow ups are expansions.... but they'll FEEL like full games.... the pricing will be based on the content in the product.... does that mean they'll FEEL like charging full retail for the expansions?

Yea, I'm still suspicious of this - they haven't sold me yet.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:18AM acefondu said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Exactly!
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 7:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ah yes, the truthiness of the scenario.

If you THINK about it, maybe the games are just expansion packs. But doesn't charging full price FEEL like the right thing to do?
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If it works out as three full games, then i'm not sure that'll work... cos it'll be more boring having each campaign be too long.

Yet if it works out as only expansion packs, i'm not sure if the hardcore fans will want to wait a year for each pack.

Seems risky either way...
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think one thing Blizzard is forgetting is that, although I'm sure they feel like a bunch of brilliant game designers working on the best game ever, how many of us are going to feel like paying for and playing through a very long Starcraft II campaign three times? It's going to start to feel like the same shit/different race.
Reply

Posted: Oct 17th 2008 6:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's basically what you paid for before, with WarCraft and StarCraft expansions. Except now there's an actual difference in the gameplay between each one.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:29AM MrHashbrown said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
This just hit me: if each race has their own game, then who will the player fight in the single-player campaign? Themselves???
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:51AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I haven't been following this closely (since I realized not long ago that I like RTS, I just stink, and therefore should not buy them) but it sounded to me almost like one story, but from three points of view.

Again, I've only looked at a bit of info on this, so I may be way off.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Each race has a game...meaning each game has a different race as the focal point for the player's control. That doesn't mean the other races are excluded from showing up as enemies in the game...or even as playable races. They've already said that each game would have one race as the focus, but that wouldn't exclude the other races from being playable.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:14PM 343 Guilty Fart said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wait, what's going on with multiplayer? Will all races be available in MP with just one disc? Cause frankly I couldn't give a crap about the campaign (ok, i kid) but for me MP is where it's at and I don't want to have to wait 3 years just to play as Protoss. Can someone confirm?
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 2:22PM Xelloss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@343 Guilty Fart

Multiplayer will be on every game unchanged, with campaign you will play as the terran in the game, but you have to be fighting the zerg or protoss.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 2:25PM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Obviously all 3 races will be available for the multiplayer from the get-go.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
as long as we can play as all three races in online multiplayer in the first one that releases I fail to see a real problem
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 2:00PM ZeroCorpse said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Some people don't get off on multiplayer. That's why. We should not have to wait to play the other races in three separate games, when the previous game had everything in ONE game. This is basically making us pay three times for one full game.

All anybody wanted was a version of Starcraft that played on modern systems and didn't look like ass. Instead, they're taking it as an opportunity to nickel & dime us with episodic content and pay-to-play features. They've gone WoW-model on us.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 2:27PM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Every indication is that all 3 races will still be playable in the campaign in each of the 3 releases, just that the story will "focus" around a different one in each.

If you spent half the time reading about it that you do complaining about it you would have seen this by now.

I fully expect each of the three games to have a campaign that is as long as the campaign in the first one. It's doubtful that you'll be getting the same game for 3x the price, but rather 3x the game for 3x the price, with the option for less if you don't want it.
Reply

Posted: Oct 14th 2008 10:15AM ElectricGrandpa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vcize is 100% right. People need to realize that they will still get to play all 3 races in the campaign, but it'll FOCUS on a single race. I think it's awesome.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Come on people, have some faith in Blizzard..
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No kidding, people take every single bit of news in the most negative way. I for one, am happy that I'll be getting 3 times more starcraft than I was originally expecting
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:37AM cjshrader said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now that the initial shock of this is over, I really don't see the problem. The people who just want to play the multiplayer are not affected at all. The people interested in the story, like me, are getting a ton more story in each release than we would in all of Starcraft. Additionally, they're throwing in more high-quality scenematics and new gameplay elements (Doing missions and such) and I'm sold.

They've even said that you'll get to play as other races in each version, they just won't be the focus of the campaign. I think a lot of people are (unsurprisingly) overreacting.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:38AM cjshrader said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Did I really write "scenematics"? What is wrong with me?
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:30AM Zertoss said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Spend enough time on the internet, and your spelling goes down the tubes.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:13PM Vcize said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I thought that was a pun...
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Scrap these games!!! Build a Starcraft MMO First-person shooter! I want ships that require multiple players to operate. I want Zerg players that have adjustable AI goons that follow them to simulate swarm numbers. I want different progression systems for each race: terran weapons licensing, zerg evolution tech based on what they consume, and a series of unchangeable decisions for the protoss. I want seamless PvE and PvP play combined. And, I want it in a couple years, so get started on this Blizzard!
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
When has Blizzard released crap?

Ever?

Have a little faith folks.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 1:19PM Deatharea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They have, it's called WoW
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 1:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sure, the most successful game ever is total crap.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:00AM ZaxCG2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hope they're taking forever because they're making sure its EXTREMELY balanced for multiplayer.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't understand why people are so upset.
I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but Blizzard is giving us three times the singleplayer experience we might've expected, and soaking it with lore. If you're a multiplayer guy, you can just get the first pack, and if you're singleplayer, aren't you happy that there's a full campaign every year that you can rely upon to be incredibly polished and well done? I mean, given some of the crap that's passed off for $60, I'm glad that I'll be able to shell out for a game I know will be worth it.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:22AM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cause I don't want to wait until 2012 to play the Protoss single player?
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah man, that brings up another interesting point. Retail games, PC or console, tend to all fall at the same price point regardless of quality. It isn't usually until after release that the bad games prices go down to a more appropriate level. I'm not really a huge fan of Starcraft, but I'd be willing to bet that if there were a way to measure the value-to-price ratio of games (I don't think ratings/scores help much), all three of these games bundled for the same price as a single game would be off the chart.

Unfortunately, with games you don't always "get what you pay for" since for the most part all games, regardless of quality, launch at the same price point; whatever is standard on the platform. It isn't until weeks or months after a launch that the actual value of a bad game will be reflected in the price, if this happens at all. If gamers were used to games launching with the price that reflected their quality, there might not be as much dissension about a developer/publisher wanting to put out a much higher quality game than the standard (assuming, this may turn out not to be true) and charge more for it.

But of course, they're only charging more to those who want to play all the single player campaigns. They're giving gamers the option, which is really smart. If they tried to charge more for the higher quality (again, assuming) in a single box and it cost $100+, it'd be a tough sell to the less-than-diehard fans.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:28PM WiredKnight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No. No they aren't. Anyone who played the first one knows it was divided into three parts, one for each race. It is unreasonable to think that fans of the original would expect them to be separated into three titles, rather than included in the same package.

The original was "incredibly polished and well done," and still had lengthy campaigns. And they released them as one game. There's absolutely no reason they can't do it again.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:41PM iHavePants said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, yeh there is. By the sounds of it they've completely redefined how the singleplayer campaign works, made each factions campaign a lot longer and more in depth.

We will see when we play Wings of Liberty, until then everyone really can't complain because we don't have enough information either way yet.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:34AM FChavez82 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The expansions better be contain extra characters and stuff for MP, I ain't paying $50 or $60 every year, just for new SP campaings and the same MP experience. And with all those rumors of Bnet being monetized...I don't like where this is going...
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They may contain extra MP stuff, but the additional games are primarily about long, involved, and hopefully fun SP campaigns focusing on one particular race. If that's the kind of thing that interests you, then buy it. Otherwise, if you really like the MP more than the SP, you only need to buy one...

As far as BNet being monetized, they did an interview with the same guy who said it wasn't going to be subscription based, but he didn't really say much else other than alluding to the possibility of charging for optional services.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
geez, i dont even care about Starcraft but that is a fucking terrible idea.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:49AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Goodbye StarCraft 2...

Hello Dawn of War 2!
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Portabliss: Sticky Bees (iOS)

Posted on Feb 6th 2012 9:00PM

Now Playing: February 6-12, 2012

Posted on Feb 6th 2012 5:45PM

Sanctum 2 defends PC, consoles in 2013

Posted on Feb 6th 2012 9:00AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW