Blizzard Explains Tough Decisions Behind StarCraft II Trilogy

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Shaoken said:
Nazulu said:
Would of felt like a full game with all race campaigns instead of all 3 released separately. That's why all previous RTS games did it, because it was a much better method. Then they could continue the story or make a completely new story in a expansion. That's why your still full of shit Blizzard.
Bullshit. Dawn of War was considered a great RTS, but the first one only gave you a Marine campaign. If you wanted to play as other factions you had to buy expansion packs. Halo Wars only had a UNSC campaign, Command and Conquer 3 didn't let you play as the Scrin, Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge had no Yuri campaign, etc. etc.

And how is it a much better method? Again, Dawn of War was a great game because of the balance between the races, you didn't need to give ever race it's own campaign to tell a story. Was Lord of the Rings any less of a story because they didn't devote half of it to telling the Orcs story? Was Mass Effect story bad because you didn't get to play as Saren? Of course not, they were still great stories and no less complete for not including other factions as protagonists. Devoting more attention to just one side means you can tell more of a story, whereas the multi-race model condenses everything into a shortened experience. For instance, there are plenty of side-plots in SC2, but only one in SC1 (Duran and his hybrids).
Devoting more attention to just one side doesn't automatically mean the story will be more interesting. In fact, I hate the new Terran story line since it's so cliche' it hurts.

I haven't played all those games you mentioned but I'm pretty sure they had more than one race campaign, didn't they? If I'm going to spend $100 on a fucking RTS game then I would like a sample of all races in the campaign. It's not difficult at all, if they want to fit in more story then put in more missions or make them bigger, or you could just continue it in a bloody expansion.
 

Orcus The Ultimate

New member
Nov 22, 2009
3,216
0
0
cursedseishi said:
Maze1125 said:
They explained all that at the time they originally announced it. It didn't stop people saying it then, so I doubt it will now.
exactly, move along nothing new to read here. I'm still calling BS, no matter how many times they try to throw this out. We still have to pay for each game, which boils down to having to pay thrice for the whole experience, considering that the stories are linked.
I agree with both of you guys ! games aren't meant to become Marketing strategies !
 

beema

New member
Aug 19, 2009
944
0
0
I'd like to hear a pricing plan. Having to pay for a full-priced game each time is bogus.

I think for those who bought WoL already, each further campaign should be no more than $15. If you don't already own the first one, then you can buy the next one which includes both campaigns for full price. Anything else is bullshit.

Tough decision? This blurb didn't explain what was so tough about it. It's Blizzard -- they can string people around as much as they want because their fanbase has faith they will deliver the goods. Everyone was shocked when SCII came out so quick. Plus, it's already been 11 years since SC1. Sp another year = who cares. Yeah... real tough to decide to make 3x more money off of one product.

Will anything new be added to multiplayer either? When Brood War came out (which wasn't as much as a full price game) it added to all parts of the experience.

Feels more like Activi$ion pulling the strings on this one.

So can we please all stop saying that we're paying three times for one game now?
Why should people stop? They are still going to have to pay three times for essentially one game. This paltry "article" didn't explain anything to the contrary.

The comparison to LOTR is absurd. Film and computer games are completely different mediums, mostly by the way which they are "consumed." You couldn't have had all LOTR films as one solid movie because NOBODY would sit in a movie theatre for 10+ hours straight. However with a game, you stop and come back at various intervals, and people can easily spend 40 hours or more over the course of a couple weeks playing it.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
I for one quite like this. We are getting Starcraft II for a longer stretch of time with new things to look forward to that will add to the story, as well as meatier portions with each chapter.
Those of you who would rather cry foul about having to pay for three games and blame it all on the company only wanting to make money, you should really study up what goes into making a game of this scale.
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there is a deal that comes with the further chapters for those who already have Wings of Liberty.
 

ZeoAssassin

New member
Sep 16, 2009
388
0
0
Credge said:
The sign of a good game is not wanting an expansion a month or two after it was released.

well i guess by that logic i have NEVER played a good game ever in my entire life, its been nothing but years and years of disappointment. I should just throw my PC and Xbox in the trash =p

seriously how is wanting MORE of a certain game a sign that its bad? it could be a massive 40hour campaign like Dragon Age: Origins and fans would still want more after they finish it?

edit: also, im a BIG assassin's creed fan (look left), and the very second i finished AC1 i screamed "That was fun, I cant wait for AC2!!", and after waiting 2 years and playing AC2 the second i finished it i again screamed "THAT was fun, now i can't wait for AC3 (or brotherhood in this case)", and come November when i play AC: Brotherhood just take a guess as too what i will scream when i finish THAT game?

why would i keep paying Ubisoft money if i didn't think the AC series was a good set of games? and they are all FULL games as well.
 

Shaoken

New member
May 15, 2009
336
0
0
Nazulu said:
Devoting more attention to just one side doesn't automatically mean the story will be more interesting. In fact, I hate the new Terran story line since it's so cliche' it hurts.
Cliches are not automatically bad. Hell Starcraft 1's story was incredibly cliche; the revolutionary becomes the dictator, the bad guys are in the strongest position at the end of the second part, the exiles teach the main society the error of their ways, etc. etc.

I haven't played all those games you mentioned but I'm pretty sure they had more than one race campaign, didn't they?
Dawn of War: Space Marine Campaign, nothing else.
Red Alert 2 - Yuri's Revenge: Allied and Soviet, just like in the base game. No Yuri campaign.
Halo Wars: UNSC campaign, no chance to play as the Covenant besides multiplayer.



If I'm going to spend $100 on a fucking RTS game then I would like a sample of all races in the campaign. It's not difficult at all, if they want to fit in more story then put in more missions or make them bigger, or you could just continue it in a bloody expansion.
They already fit a Protoss mini-campaign into WoL. And considering their approach it would have been very-fucking-difficult. They already put the upgrade and research features into the Terran Campaign, and now you're asking them to throw in the Zerg's RPG-style system too?

Blizzard decided "Hey, instead of just cutting most of the content out let's really pull out all the stops here, and make each campaign unique and different." And believe it or not that takes a lot of time and effort. A standard RTS has thirty missions, so that means each race only gets 10 missions each. So at most you'd get maybe 3 research choices, 6 upgrades for units, and maybe 2 mercs. Kerrigan's leveling up in Heart of the Swarm would be pathetic; it wouldn't make any real difference so why put it in if you don't have the time to really make the choices matter. And Legacy of the Void's diplomatic feature....well you'd need at least 3 missions at the end to wrap the story up, and two to introduce everything at the start. So that leaves five missions to handle diplomacy. Considering that in order to make it mean something some choices will lock you out of others, basically you'd only get three real choices.

Now your solution was to add in more missions, at which point I have to ask you what the fuck you think a full game is? Because WoL already had 45 minutes of pre-and-ingame rendered cutscenes, full voice overs, detailed models for the inbetween mission segments, branching mission tree, and 29 missions. Believe it or not it actually takes a lot of work to create all those things even after you've created the engine and finalised the multiplayer component; you have to create a script, go through several drafts, sketch designs for single-player exclusive elements, work on level design, decide what you want to do with the level, design and create it, test it to see if it does what you want, take it back to the design phase and make alterations to it, take it back to the testing phase, spend hours looking for things that slipped through the design phase, fix them, take it back to testing to make sure it's fun to play, modify it, then complete it. And that's just one level. In the grand scheme of things you also have to make sure that no one segment of the game greatly overshadows the rest of it.

So making a good campaign takes a lot of time and effort that you don't seem to realise or appreciate. It took them years to make just one campaign of 29 missions connected by a system of buying upgrades, mercs and using research points to develop new technology while being able to talk to major characters inbetween missions with full voice over work as well as a mini-protoss campaign. The only way they could have put the other two races campaigns in as well would be to either drastically reduce the Terran campaign and cut a lot of the extra units and features for it as well as what they were planning for hte Zerg and Protoss, or to give the Zerg their full 30 missions and the Protoss their full 30 missions, bringing the total count of missions for hte game to 89 fucking missions. In case this hasn't been drilled into your skull, that would be three times the effort put into one game then any other RTS company puts into their campaigns.

Is any of this getting through to you? You either cut out features or you ask Blizzard to do three times the work of their compiters just to please you.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
Nazulu said:
Would of felt like a full game with all race campaigns instead of all 3 released separately. That's why all previous RTS games did it, because it was a much better method. Then they could continue the story or make a completely new story in a expansion. That's why your still full of shit Blizzard.

Meh, I'm not getting them anyway. I gave SC2 a go and found it was pretty pathetic, they've definitely lost their magic touch.
realy you liked the origenal better? (which i will point out was very lacking in story) I call bullshit right there. Starcraft 2 was 10 times better then the orginal it had better graphics, better story, and hell the multiplayer is so much better. If you want crapy story with a bunch of different races to play as in campain go play something else but if you want a GOOD story go back and play starcraft 2 WOL.

Now for all you whiners and trolls out there, EPICS are useualy triligiys. i mean look at film and books if it doesnt get at lest a 3rd its kinda lack luster.

Oh and people out there who arnt trolling please follow the guid lines report and move on as i plan to:)

EDIT: omg the guy above me just explaned everything to you guys if you still whine about it i will consider you all mindless zombie haters and trolls and follow the forum rules on how to deal with you:)
 

ZeoAssassin

New member
Sep 16, 2009
388
0
0
id also like to point out that the latest WoW EXPANSION, cataclysm has been priced at EXPANSION price. http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?sku=647652&loc=homert_wow

so despite the fact that no official price has been announced is it really that crazy to assume that HotS and LotV will be priced properly compared to WoL which was the FULL game? honestly people...
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
Thing is the SC2 campaign was terribly boring as a result of this decision, so I can't believe they did it to make a better game because it so apparently made a worse one. 29 missions in SC2 and 25 of them were just "here's your new unit, spam it for the win!" SC1 was the same of course but at least Brood War let you play with all the toys pretty much right from the start.
 

Tim_Buoy

New member
Jul 7, 2010
568
0
0
i hope theres collector editions of heart of the swarm and legacy of the void. i really want cool zerg and protoss themed stuff with the new releases. like maybe the zerg one will come with a zergling shaped flashdrive or maybe a zergling plush cant wait for it. (if you cant already tell i'm nuts over starcraft it was the first pc game i played 12 years ago and i cant stop playing it now.) /fanboy overload
OT: i dont really see what the problem is WoL had tons of content come with the game the challenges and achievments are fun and im still trying to get them all. and the story was pretty interesting oh and the little bonus shooter game in the cantina was loads of fun
 

Aurgelmir

WAAAAGH!
Nov 11, 2009
1,566
0
0
Tom Goldman said:
Sounds good to me. So can we please all stop saying that we're paying three times for one game now?
I never did, considering how kick ass Wings of Liberty is :)

And where is it written that an RTS always MUST have a campaign per each faction?


Now what I am wondering is:

Will SC2 get expansions? :p
 

AngelOfBlueRoses

The Cerulean Prince
Nov 5, 2008
418
0
0
Caliostro said:
lacktheknack said:
Caliostro said:
Polock said:
All of you buy sequels all the time. All I see here is hypocrisy.
And yet I never bought 1 game, divided in 3, all at full price + absurdly high inflation just because they felt like it.
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH NO.
First of all, I'd be willing to bet it will be around the 50 bucks mark, and there's still no confirmation that it won't be, but even if it is 30 bucks, here's the rundown: 60 (70 in some places) + 30 + 30 = 120 bucks. Ok, so, in a best case scenario which I honestly don't see happening, you're ONLY paying almost three times as much for one game. Much better!

Edit: Derp.
Derp. You've still got a math fail, there. "almost three times as much." I think that you mean two, right? If you didn't mean two, then that's like trying to say, "Guys, guys, guys! I just paid sixty bucks, the normal price for a new game, for a brand spanking new copy of [Insert Game Here]! But, what really pisses me off was that it was ALMOST the price of two games in one!" I guess I can forgive you if it's late where you are and you've had a lack of sleep, but what does annoy me is that you originally had it right before you edited it. Did you edit one math fail to only derp on another on purpose or something?

OT: I played the entire campaign and it felt like a full experience to me, but I also don't have a lot of love for Starcraft, too, so I can understand when some people say that they're only getting told one-third of the story they wanted to hear. Granted, I didn't pay for Starcraft 2 as I had played it while spending a few nights at a friend's house, but I did have fun and my gaming tummy was full by the end of it.
 

Shaoken

New member
May 15, 2009
336
0
0
Rack said:
Thing is the SC2 campaign was terribly boring as a result of this decision, so I can't believe they did it to make a better game because it so apparently made a worse one. 29 missions in SC2 and 25 of them were just "here's your new unit, spam it for the win!" SC1 was the same of course but at least Brood War let you play with all the toys pretty much right from the start.
Yeah, but pretty much every RTS breaks down to "Here's your new toy, it just so happens to be the perfect thing for winning this mission, so be sure to use it!" Not to mention that there are only a few cases where you need the new unit. I just used Firebats instead of the hellions in the second colonist mission, siege tanks and bunkers were good for stopping trains, I had more marines than firebats in the first colonist mission, etc.
 

gring

New member
Sep 14, 2010
115
0
0
I understand there being a lot of missions in starcraft 2, but there is really very little relevant depth to the story. yes i played and beat the game and while the game is top quality, in some ways I was disappointed, let me explain.

SPOILERS:

in the 2nd mission you get one piece of the artifact to use against kerrigan, and everything in between is really just filler. whats the story of the terrans? seriously? get the artifact, use it on kerrigan. umm, ya, i saw there was other story bits, but seriously did we really need 27 or whatever missions of filler? no we didnt. really, the terran campaign could have easily been shortened down to fit the 10 mission model.

also, sometimes "more content" isnt exactly what the average gamer wants. GTA4 sold like crazy but the DLC sold poorly because not many people even beat the original story, why? because most people dont have that much free time. im a pretty heavy gamer, and my interest in starcraft is high enough to buy it, but I like the ___craft games from blizzard cause they tell a whole story, in one game, and you get to play as every race so you get the entire experience. imagine warcraft 3 with a really long human campaign... yeah.

so what do you do when you dont really care about online multiplayer, which is waaaay more people then blizzard can admit, and you really love zerg and protoss missions? you gotta wait, and if you care about good complete stories? gotta wait for that too.
 

smitteee329

New member
Sep 13, 2008
25
0
0
chemicalfire said:
I personally felt like I was playing a fully-fledged game with Wings of Liberty. I've gotten plenty of play timeout of the campaign and challenges, and I'm still working on them. I'm sure Heart of the Swarm and Loins of the Protoss (I don't know the actual title for that one) will have larger campaigns and mre challenge missions to make up for the fact that the multiplayer already came with Wings.
This. Absolutely this. Why do people have to keep bitching? It's not like they're skimping on the content for any one of the campaigns.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
ecoho said:
Nazulu said:
Would of felt like a full game with all race campaigns instead of all 3 released separately. That's why all previous RTS games did it, because it was a much better method. Then they could continue the story or make a completely new story in a expansion. That's why your still full of shit Blizzard.

Meh, I'm not getting them anyway. I gave SC2 a go and found it was pretty pathetic, they've definitely lost their magic touch.
realy you liked the origenal better? (which i will point out was very lacking in story) I call bullshit right there. Starcraft 2 was 10 times better then the orginal it had better graphics, better story, and hell the multiplayer is so much better. If you want crapy story with a bunch of different races to play as in campain go play something else but if you want a GOOD story go back and play starcraft 2 WOL.

Now for all you whiners and trolls out there, EPICS are useualy triligiys. i mean look at film and books if it doesnt get at lest a 3rd its kinda lack luster.

Oh and people out there who arnt trolling please follow the guid lines report and move on as i plan to:)

EDIT: omg the guy above me just explaned everything to you guys if you still whine about it i will consider you all mindless zombie haters and trolls and follow the forum rules on how to deal with you:)
Yeah, I preferred the original more since it was a big improvement from Warcraft 2, while Starcraft 2 is 75% the same game with a shit story, shit characters and and super cliche' dialogue.

Your so defendant of this game to call everyone you disagree with a troll? Your not convincing in any way and you are quite aggravating, your pretty much the troll here buddy.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Shaoken said:
Nazulu said:
Devoting more attention to just one side doesn't automatically mean the story will be more interesting. In fact, I hate the new Terran story line since it's so cliche' it hurts.
Cliches are not automatically bad. Hell Starcraft 1's story was incredibly cliche; the revolutionary becomes the dictator, the bad guys are in the strongest position at the end of the second part, the exiles teach the main society the error of their ways, etc. etc.
Nowhere as cliche' as Starcraft 2. I couldn't even watch the cinematic's because I rolled my eye's so often they were about to fall right out of my skull. It's like they didn't even try, I would of if $100 million was going into the project, to me it was just dull or stupid.

Shaoken said:
I haven't played all those games you mentioned but I'm pretty sure they had more than one race campaign, didn't they?
Dawn of War: Space Marine Campaign, nothing else.
Red Alert 2 - Yuri's Revenge: Allied and Soviet, just like in the base game. No Yuri campaign.
Halo Wars: UNSC campaign, no chance to play as the Covenant besides multiplayer.
Well I disagree with Dawn of Wars and Halo Wars approach then. As for Yuri's Revenge, well it's an expansion and it was pretty cheap at that. Yuri's team was more than a bonus any way.

Shaoken said:
If I'm going to spend $100 on a fucking RTS game then I would like a sample of all races in the campaign. It's not difficult at all, if they want to fit in more story then put in more missions or make them bigger, or you could just continue it in a bloody expansion.
They already fit a Protoss mini-campaign into WoL. And considering their approach it would have been very-fucking-difficult. They already put the upgrade and research features into the Terran Campaign, and now you're asking them to throw in the Zerg's RPG-style system too?
It's too late now of course. I was already making complaints about this before it's release. I will never ever agree with this method, if I'm going to buy a game for more than 40$, then I want to see more campaigns.