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

Reader Comments (95)

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 7:26PM iHavePants said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eugh why? Is it because of DOW2's great abundance of single player campaigns? Oh wait there's one!!

Please explain to me your logic.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:27PM CommentSystem said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
but they call US the pirates :\

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is what they did with DoW and the expansions. I was very happy to buy all 3 expansion packs for that game, but that's because it didn't feel crippled at the start. If SC2 feels lacking then I'm not going to be interested in expansions....

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:43PM aughscreennames said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This just keeps getting dumber and dumber, I cant wait to see whats next. Rob Pardo has officially killed the franchise.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seriously WTF is wrong with Blizzard? Have they been completly Activionized or what? I mean this better be some outstanding overwhemlming fantastic megasuperduper campaings in SC2. Because if it is anything like in SC BW or WC series this split up is the biggest joke in the gaming industry. It will be very interesting indeed to see what it is that they can't do in one game... And they better live up to the hype or Blizzard will find themselfs under siege from hordes and hordes from Blizzard fans which will look a zerg brood swarm attack look like a coffe break.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 12:55PM NeoK 182 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
man at this rate Diablo 3 AND Duke Nukem forever are both going to be out before starcraft 2

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 1:18PM whtdragn101 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
never mind, not down with this any more! No protoss until 2011? what the frickin heck is that bull poop?

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 1:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If all the races are in Multi-Player, If all races appear as enemies in the game or even as playable races...Then THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!
If all the races are ready then you can release the whole game at once...to long? then put various discs! for the same price in one single release...and if you need an expansion well just release it in a year or two! If the game is as good as they/we "hope" then it'll sell millions of copies and I'm pretty sure Blizzard wont lose a dime...It seems to me they just more Buck, It's all about the Dollar, the Euro in my case the Peso but mostly the Won (South Korean Currency).

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 2:04PM AtomicPlayboy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, I don't understand why this development plan is necessary, or even possible. For the first installment to be complete, all of the units for all of the factions (even those which players cannot control) must be completed and properly balanced, right? Perhaps they'll release incomplete factions and then add more units to each as the subsequent packs are released, but if that is the case, we're looking at a development cycle of like 5-6 years for a single game! Sure, Blizzard does make some wonderful games, but I don't understand why it takes them so much longer to get their products out the door than other comparable developers.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 1:51PM Trekkie said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
making this game three titles stops me from ever buying it.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 2:12PM ZeroCorpse said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Think of it this way, Blizzard-defenders:

WHAT IF..?
Diablo 3 is released. Activision decides that you'll only be able to play the campaign as a Warrior, and then they'll release "expansion packs" every year with the other characters. You can play as a Wizard in 2014 when the Wizard campaign is released.

WHAT IF..?
Capcom announces Street Fighter IV. It's $60 and comes with Ryu as the only playable character. Every six months they'll release another "expansion" that includes a new character. Chun Li comes out in fall 2010. Blanka is out in 2012. Oh, and there will be some "pay to use" elements of the online play, too.

This has nothing to do with quality. It has to do with them being able to charge you three times for something you used to be able to buy all together in one package.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 2:35PM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Your analogy is horrible, and completely deprived of what we've heard about how this will work. Here is a better analogy.

Street Fighter IV is released with all of the playable characters. However, rather than 15 20-minute shallow single player campaigns focused around each character, the only campaign we have is a 6 hour campaign focused soley on a more in-depth story focused on Ryu. During this campaign, other characters are also playable, but Ryu is the focus of the story.

Again, it is highly unlikely that SC2 will give us 3 seperate games that add up to the same campaign length as the original SC gave us in 1 game. Rather, the 3 seperate games will likely add up to at least 3 times the size of the original SC campaign. And they have already said that all races will be playable in each of the seperate campaigns, just that the story will "focus" around one of them. Stop posting the same comments over and over and take some time to read it for yourself.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 3:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Umm, you can still skirmish using the protoss and zerg so whats the big deal? I mean I would understand if the entire race was cut. Also I know it would be ideal to have all three campaigns ready but you've got to understand that development takes a lot more time than it did when SC was released.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 3:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, it's pretty obvious that Joystiq wasn't even *at* the announcement panel throwing all of this disinformation around.

1.) There will be a Protoss Mini-Campaign (a few missions) in both the first and second game because the Protoss story is the underlying thread that branches all of the races together. So you will be able to play Protoss in the first game (and the second game). They didn't say anything about playing Zerg in the first game, however.

2.) They've said that they first Starcraft had 32 missions spread out over 3 races. The trilogy will have 26-30 missions per game, and gives them the time and resources for a lot more story/cinematics/etc.

At the panel they gave the 3 options they were working with, and the one they chose was the best one. The options were:

1. Cut a ton of content, no branching missions, no in-game cinematics, and a much less epic storyline.

2. Split it up into 3 games, keep everything, and add more.

3. Delay it indefinitely until they could finish all of the content they wanted to complete.

I don't know about you, but 2 looks like the best option for me. Sure you're going to pay more *over three years*, but you're getting a lot more.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 4:03PM cuaguy27 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Funny, I see three options too.

1) My preferred option: I pay $50-60 for a complete Starcraft game (all three races and all possible features included in the multiplayer). Since I'm a fan of Blizzard, I'd pre-order this.

2) Blizzard's preferred option: I pay more than $50-60 over the course of several years.

3) The option I'm going with: I'll wait a few more years for the entire game to be in the bargain-bin. It'll be cheaper, fully patched, and whatever computer I own will surely run it smoothly. We've waited for 10 years already, I can probably wait 10 more.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:45PM iHavePants said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Rich, did you even read about what is happening with this, or the comment you replied to? Why the hell is everyone assuming that everything will be shit all of a sudden? Why the hell are you voted up, what is wrong with the fucking internet?
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I don't doubt that in a few years they'll have a "Starcraft2 Battle Chest" that will have the whole thing for $30.

That being said, I really like the SC storyline, even if it is derivative of other works, and to me more Starcraft is better than less Starcraft. If they can provide a cinematic feel and a storyline that defines the universe a bit better by making each campaign larger, I don't see a huge issue with that.

Do I wish that they could have crammed all of the content they planned into one game without it taking many years to do so? Sure. Would I rather they grow the franchise into something bigger instead of shipping Starcraft1.5? Absolutely.

PS: I'm not sure if I'm just misreading what you said, but the multiplayer will be complete, this announcement only refers to the single player campaign. If you're not interested in the single player campaign, you don't need to buy any of the "expansions."
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 7:16PM cuaguy27 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Yes, I've read the articles, and here's why I'm ticked off at Blizzard.

Blizzard says it won't release a game until its done, and yet here they are admitting that including all three campaigns will delay the release.

Blizzard says we're going to get a lot more content in this "trilogy." This just sounds like an opportunity to stretch a story line over three commercial releases and pack in a ton of filler. I'm basing this off my opinion of WoW and the fact that SC2 was originally going to be one game with three campaigns.

With regard to multiplayer, Blizzard said it was going to "monetize" BNet. They can back-peddle all they want right now, but unless they specifically say what they're going to charge for, I'm going to be very skeptical. Again look at WoW; you pay extra for the arena tournament and for a price you can get extra content through the trading card game.

I don't hate Blizzard. But I want them to know (and I hope others share this sentiment) that based on their track record of RTS's I was going to pre-order this game and give no consideration to reviews. Now that Blizzard is trying something different, they're going to have to re-earn my money. Just as they have a right to make a profit, I have a right to be thrifty.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 7:28PM iHavePants said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So would the Lord of The Rings been better off as one movie? Same principle.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 3:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Alright, I'll start with saying that I've never played Starcraft.

Now that that's out of the way... I'm not the biggest on RTS, either.

BUT. The reason I think this is a bad move for Blizzard is that -if the same engine is retained over all 3 installations- the internet modding community will have created so much fresh content for the first game by the time that the second comes out, that the interest will surely have waned if they expect us to pay full-price for part 2, and subsequently, part 3.

Who's to say that the modders can't come up with brilliant campaigns of their own?

(Ignore this comment if this game is pretty un-moddable).

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 4:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder which one will release the Tyranids...err.

I mean the Zerg to play!

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

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Don't get started on that 40K bull crap.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 4:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For shame Joystiq, for shame!!

Don't be such dicks and report information in such way to start flame wars.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 4:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You mean report the information in the way that Blizzard tells it to us? Those are direct quotes. Congrats, you fail the internet.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kevin Kelly
I think he was referring to this: "Since SC2 won't be out until 2009, you won't be able to play the Protoss single player until at least 2011." This is a vague assertion. You won't be able to play the Protoss "expansion" until 2011, but the Protoss will be playable in the first and second game. This came up in the QA session after the panel at Blizzcon.

"Since SC2 won't be out until 2009, you won't be able to play the Zerg single player until at least 2010" would be accurate, however.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 6:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Playable in the multiplayer, sure, but not in the single-player.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Where are all the rest quotes, or is this all the information that is important for this topic?

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 6:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's everything he told us about it.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seriously?

So many people complaining, just like they did with the Diablo color scheme.

Serious Business.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's cool - sounds like you're going to get 3x the game for your dollar down the road. It's your perogative as to when you get it.

Blizzard Fan? It sounds like multiplayer is going to ship "complete" but anyone that could call themselves a Blizzard Fan knows that expansion packs are coming, and your multiplayer will be incomplete without them, once they do.

It's just expansion packs, and they're focusing on one race in each one.

B.F.D.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 5:52PM Professional Amature said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The only way I'll be happy is if the first campaign has at least a 5 level intro to the way the Zerg and 'Toss are played. Let's be honest, the first Starcraft game wasn't exactly the most challenging and can be played through relatively easily for the most part if one is careful. The Brood War expansion was a bit tougher (damn super ultralisk).

The 5 or so level intro is absolutely critical IMHO even if the first one focuses on the Terrans. The reason is that it helps to introduce players to the units and how to play the game. It acts as sort of an intro to the game and how to play it. Think back to the first Starcraft game and each campaign has a few starter level and they slowly introduce you to the tech tree and how the different units are used.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 8:53PM Michael Leung said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, great. To have to only be able to play the Terran campaign for two years, and my only satisfaction would be multiplayer is stupid. Let's hope Diablo doesn't split itself into three games.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 9:20PM Bouillestfu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In other news. StarCraft 2 is now officialy 180$.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 10:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
So, I don't get it. What's the problem with Blizzard charging us $1 each time we log into battlenet. I don't get it? What's the problem charging for a game that is finished but will be cut into 3 pieces and charged at 3 times the price? I don't get it. I mean if Blizzard charges $1,000,0000,00000,000000 for each of the 3 games, it's still worth it. I mean we don't need money and Blizzard a multi-billion dollar company that profited 1000000x over each year for WOW definitely needs more money. But we people don't need or deserve to keep our money.

I mean SC1 was too cheap. I wish it was $100000000000000 to just smell the SC1 box. I mean I don't get it.

Sarcasm aside. Is anyone that dense? Blizzard is basically testing out another way to milk SC fans. If it succeeds you can bet it will get more expensive to play games in the future from all companies. As a consumer, you do NOT want this. Only a fool and his money are soon parted. Only a complete moron would say things like I wish Blizzard charges us more and gives us less. Grow a freakin brain dork.

Blizzard does not need more money. It is doing very very very well profitwise and this is really bad treatment of SC fans. It is utterly disgusting and pure greed. Anyone who can't see that must be inhaling cyanide 24/7.

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I've been waiting 10 fucking years to play this, then I have to wait 3 years from now just to hear how the story ends!? If it even ends!?

You'd think with Blizzard's billions from WoW the least they could do is make a complete game in one edition.



10 YEARS, DAMMIT.

Posted: Oct 14th 2008 5:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Modern video games (anything newer than quake? (doom might be more appropriate)) are nothing more than rehashes of old games with new graphics.

Games have been so dwindled down to few categories, (FPS, RTS, RPG, MMO, etc..etc...) that who really cares about the gameplay and graphics anymore. Bla bla bla, spend lots of moneyon hardware watch cool new this or that yay physics k bye.

What I feel truly lacks in games these days are story lines. The art of video games seems to have lost it's way. If Blizzard does this right, and truly tells full on absorbing storylines that make us feel and live in a fantasy world, at least for a while....then this is a most excellent idea. If they are just going for triple the money...need some more company yacht's and private airplanes bullshit....well I am sure sales will reflect that. They only exist because we have paid into their company for their product.

Blizzard isnt some new kid on the block, they have developed a name for themselves for a reason. This will be a critical release for them, and I trust they understand that. Shit, havent most of us been playing WoW for the past few years? WoW is coming to an end, but they dont want to lose their customer base! They just want to move us into their newer tech. Maybe while we are busy with sc2 and d3, they will have a new mmo being developed. WoSC? hmmm....who knows! Exciting times either way k bye. Beer is gone.

Posted: Oct 14th 2008 5:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So, I buy the first game for the multiplayer and I "aquire" the other 2 for the singleplayer campaigns.

I'm fine with that.
I'm just sure as hell not paying for it.

Posted: Oct 14th 2008 10:08AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Let me get this straight, EA is putting one of their most popular franchises on the internet for free as Battlefield Heroes and not charging to play online. Blizzard, on the other hand, is going to charge for Battle.net and is splitting up a game into three parts over three years. It seems to me like EA has learned from there mistakes in the past and is actively reaching out to a fan base. On the other hand it seems that Blizzard has forgotten how the PC game business works and has fallen victim of its MMO success. Think about this, their last release of a non-MMO game was five years ago. I dare anyone to take a look at any Blizzard game vs. Crysis and tell me that Blizzard is out of the 90's yet.

Posted: Oct 14th 2008 10:16AM ElectricGrandpa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wait un
Reply

Posted: Oct 14th 2008 10:16AM ElectricGrandpa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry, meant to say wait until the game is out before you say they're behind the times.
Reply

Posted: Oct 16th 2008 10:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"We're not just trying to get people to pay full price for something that's less, if the followups end up having the feature set of an expansion, then that's how they'll get priced."

Oh boy, $40 expansions instead of $50.

Posted: Oct 18th 2008 6:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I initially didn't like this idea much either. It does feel like they're just padding out the development time and trying to milk the franchise (as if they didn't have enough money). However I thoroughly enjoyed the single player and if they flesh it out more to create a richer and deeper experience then awesome.
I'm also assuming they should be including all races in the multiplayer because if they don't then they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Price wise it would be ridiculous for them to charge full price for each part of the trilogy. Expansions usually cost about half the price anyway.
I'd love to pay $50 for the latest game, in Australia its between $90 - $120 for the latest releases.
For me I'm buying all of them, I want to see this narrative through to the end. As long as I have fun with the gameplay, and enjoy the story then booya!

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 7:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Kids are over reacting.
In essence, you can see it as the Half Life: Blue Shift, Opposing Forces, etc. You're just getting different perspectives of a shared story line.
However (wait for it), you still get to play as each of them in the single player mode (yes, read the article before jumping to conclusions).

Talking about half life omg-no-gravity-gun, no douche, it'll be as if you're playing from another perspective. And perhaps elaborating on the plot line.

E.G. The Matrix from Neo's perspective, then Agent Smith's.
Due to this story's multiple antagonists, it does not follow a linear story line, nor should it have to.

RELAX. It'll be good.

Posted: Nov 27th 2008 12:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What he is saying is that the game will be released (all three campaigns complete) all at once and that the storylines of the follow up releases will be more independent from the storylines of the original release.

Really, he was simply trying to explain that the follow up releases are going to be much better quality than expansion packs and that they are not going to be similar to the expansion packs from starcraft 1 in how they build ontop of the original release storyline.

Posted: Nov 26th 2008 11:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, that's exactly not what he's saying. From the interview, "So, you know with any luck, it would be like a year for each successive one, but that's going to be a target date, that's not a promise."

They won't be out all at once.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW