Blizzard Explains Tough Decisions Behind StarCraft II Trilogy

[Firetaffer]

snip

The vast majority of those missions were complete and utter filler that did nothing to further the story. Not to mention, a lot of them were shorter than 20 minutes long. Did you really not see that?

It depends on what difficulty you were playing on and whether you wanted to get the bonus objectives completed.

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.

Not sure if it is just me, but Starcraft 2 has always given off a b-grade movie impression. So I enjoy the cliches, they fit well into the universe.

 

[Parnage]

Blind Blizzard hatred! This is the majority of these comments and quite frankly a majority of these guys need to take off the monocle and stop trying to be critic. Your doing it wrong stop it!

I don't know what game you've played but the game I played Called Wings of Liberty had me hyped up on every mission but one(untill the end!) it lead me around and made me have fun on every damn mission. The story the units(campaign unique and multi) the hidden gems of items scattered about the ship. Seriously it is a game of the year contender. Deal with it. Not that it matters because if Broodwar is -any- indicator this game will still be going strong for years and years.

The game is a full game the expansions will be surprise! Full GAMES! And they will most likely make Wings of Libery a stepping stone of awesome. Yeah I am glad with what they did and any blind hatred is just that at this point.

Half of these comments could be replaced with "Waaah Blizzard is evilz and wants $$ LOOK AT ME BEING CRITICAL OF THEM" and no one would know the difference. I am disgusted.

On a unrelated note, seriously guys get some photo from the release version however epic that particular beta photo looks.

 

[carpathic]

I find the most interesting thing about the escapist sometimes are the peeks behind the scenes and how and why game decisions are made. THanks for the insight!

 

[fulano]

I wonder how many of the people who whine on this thread actually bought the game...

 

[Uber Waddles]

Whats all the complaining about?

Seriously. StarCraft 2's first campaign was fairly long, well worth the $60 if you were to omit multiplayer. It was an interesting story, and lasted for HOURS.

Blizzard wasnt done with the campaign for the other races, and Blizzard has a strict "its finished when its finished" policy. If we wanted the game to be squeezed into one giant package, we'd probably have to wait till 2014.

-OR-

Blizzard could release the game in Episodes, with the first set containing the Multiplayer. That way all the squirming fans who LOVED StarCraft could get a nice heaping dose of StarCraft 2, and its mod features, custom features, etc.

I have no problem paying $60 for a game that will last me 20+ hours. How many expansions do you know of that last for more then 8 hours? (excluding MMO's) Each game will play like a stand alone GAME. I dont see what the issue is: games tell storys over multiple titles ALL the time. Is it just wrong because they arent changing the title with every new entry, and thus it MUST be treated as an expansion pack?

Blizzard isn't a company that would milk its fanbase; they care and respect their consumers more then most game companies I know. (Ever been hacked in FF11 and try to get your account back? Compare that to being hacked in WoW, you'll see a difference). They don't release shoddy products, and take their time to ensure the game is good. Not to mention that their games get constant updates and tweaks to ensure they dont suck.

The way I see it, they make MORE then enough money off of WoW, and WoW alone. Its not like they're straved for money. If it were almost ANY other company, I would say they're trying to rip us off. But with Blizzards track record? I have a feeling my money is well invested.

 

[Altherix]

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.

Agree, I'm still waiting for the, "EPIC GAME" Blizzard promised all fans when they announced they were splitting it into three games.

WoL, so far the score is B.S.(We want more money) 1 Blizzard 0.

I don't hold it against them, it's a business, but to coin a phrase, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

 

[mooncalf]

Bioware have been releasing the same Action RPG over again with KOTOR2, ME, ME2 and DA:O since KOTOR and nobody's criticised them for that (not me, either.)

 

[Caliostro]

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.

Don't know where you buy your games, but normal price for a PC game is 49.99, which rounds up to 50. 3x50 = 150. 120 is almost 150... It's more than twice (100) almost three times (150).

If you wanna be pedantic it's 240.0480096% of the original price. Happy now?

 

[deadxero]

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. I've played many RTS that don't have anywhere near the content that Wings of Liberty does. If the Zerg/Protoss editions are just as good, it's all win.

 

[Zer_]

Whats all the complaining about?

Seriously. StarCraft 2's first campaign was fairly long, well worth the $60 if you were to omit multiplayer. It was an interesting story, and lasted for HOURS.

Blizzard wasnt done with the campaign for the other races, and Blizzard has a strict "its finished when its finished" policy. If we wanted the game to be squeezed into one giant package, we'd probably have to wait till 2014.

-OR-

Blizzard could release the game in Episodes, with the first set containing the Multiplayer. That way all the squirming fans who LOVED StarCraft could get a nice heaping dose of StarCraft 2, and its mod features, custom features, etc.

I have no problem paying $60 for a game that will last me 20+ hours. How many expansions do you know of that last for more then 8 hours? (excluding MMO's) Each game will play like a stand alone GAME. I dont see what the issue is: games tell storys over multiple titles ALL the time. Is it just wrong because they arent changing the title with every new entry, and thus it MUST be treated as an expansion pack?

Blizzard isn't a company that would milk its fanbase; they care and respect their consumers more then most game companies I know. (Ever been hacked in FF11 and try to get your account back? Compare that to being hacked in WoW, you'll see a difference). They don't release shoddy products, and take their time to ensure the game is good. Not to mention that their games get constant updates and tweaks to ensure they dont suck.

The way I see it, they make MORE then enough money off of WoW, and WoW alone. Its not like they're straved for money. If it were almost ANY other company, I would say they're trying to rip us off. But with Blizzards track record? I have a feeling my money is well invested.

Pretty much this. I enjoyed WoL, and I eagerly await Heart of the Swarm. Screw the haters, I don't give a crap.

 

[Rack]

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.

Somewhat true but one of the better things about Starcraft 1 was that you got 2-3 new toys each mission and in the Expansion you started off with a full complement. SC2 feels very backwards by comparison.

 

[BoogieManFL]

I think it's going to be a big load of BS if they all cost $60 each. The next two should be $40 tops.

If they are also 60 bucks, then I think the greed was more of a factor than the need aspect of the decision to split the game.

 

[John Funk]

Haters gonna hate. This was obvious to anyone who didn't go into SC2 already angry about the trilogy.

SC2's campaign was cheesy, but it was cheesy fun and with way more content than SC1 ever had. There's no way that this is not a full game, and frankly, I'm just glad to be playing it before 2014. If Blizzard delivers on wholly unique mechanics for the other two expansions (RPG and Diplomacy), the sad part is that the people who have already made up their mind are still going to just be shouting into the wind while the rest of us enjoy our game.

SC1 was The Hobbit. SC2:T is Fellowship of the Rings - a whole story, yes, but the first (huge) part of an even huger whole.

I still think that if you're angry about the SC2 thing and don't equally rage about every other thing planned as a trilogy (movies, games, books), you're being a tremendous hypocrite. THREE Star Wars movies? What a scam! BioWare's planned a Mass Effect trilogy from the start? A ripoff!

 

[Cynical skeptic]

-snip-

Wow dude, that was some pretty aggressive quibbling.

Its tempting to not even dignify it with a response, but lack of response is invariably interpreted as "victory" on these, the digital seas. So I'll just do my best to ignore the way you dropped back to pre-crash products and companies in order to lend credence to your arguments.

Games used to be designed as progressively upward trending challenges with considerably smaller margins for error. Now they're designed as a series of vicarious spectacles, which the game holds your hand all the way through, making sure you don't get lost or hurt.

As such, I would argue that pac-man is more complex than most games made today. In order to actually "beat" it, one needed to learn the behavior of all the ghosts and apply that knowledge until the game bugged out. Whereas, nowadays, people consider a game "beaten" if they've facerolled through the single player campaign on the lowest difficulty (which have simply gotten easier since their first implementation in arcade settings screens).

Then, even if you attempt to argue that "deep" games are a relatively recent phenomena, and even if I agreed with you, its still hard to argue their continued presence. There was practically a glut (a peak, if you will) of such games around the period you speak, but now they're non-existent.

Also, I like the self-contradictory nature of holding up a small handful of "modern" games as evidence against my assertion that gaming, over the years, is a progressive drop in all aspects (except price) and using the exact opposite argument to say "the past suxx!!"

I'd go so far as to say you're looking at the present through eyes tainted by hype, while accusing anyone who points this out of looking to the past with overly romanticized nostalgia.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

Whats all the complaining about?

Seriously. StarCraft 2's first campaign was fairly long, well worth the $60 if you were to omit multiplayer. It was an interesting story, and lasted for HOURS.

Blizzard wasnt done with the campaign for the other races, and Blizzard has a strict "its finished when its finished" policy. If we wanted the game to be squeezed into one giant package, we'd probably have to wait till 2014.

-OR-

Blizzard could release the game in Episodes, with the first set containing the Multiplayer. That way all the squirming fans who LOVED StarCraft could get a nice heaping dose of StarCraft 2, and its mod features, custom features, etc.

I have no problem paying $60 for a game that will last me 20+ hours. How many expansions do you know of that last for more then 8 hours? (excluding MMO's) Each game will play like a stand alone GAME. I dont see what the issue is: games tell storys over multiple titles ALL the time. Is it just wrong because they arent changing the title with every new entry, and thus it MUST be treated as an expansion pack?

Blizzard isn't a company that would milk its fanbase; they care and respect their consumers more then most game companies I know. (Ever been hacked in FF11 and try to get your account back? Compare that to being hacked in WoW, you'll see a difference). They don't release shoddy products, and take their time to ensure the game is good. Not to mention that their games get constant updates and tweaks to ensure they dont suck.

The way I see it, they make MORE then enough money off of WoW, and WoW alone. Its not like they're straved for money. If it were almost ANY other company, I would say they're trying to rip us off. But with Blizzards track record? I have a feeling my money is well invested.

You worded it quite nicely. This.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

Anybody know if there's a drinking game you can play with announcements like these?

 

[ecoho]

Whats all the complaining about?

Seriously. StarCraft 2's first campaign was fairly long, well worth the $60 if you were to omit multiplayer. It was an interesting story, and lasted for HOURS.

Blizzard wasnt done with the campaign for the other races, and Blizzard has a strict "its finished when its finished" policy. If we wanted the game to be squeezed into one giant package, we'd probably have to wait till 2014.

-OR-

Blizzard could release the game in Episodes, with the first set containing the Multiplayer. That way all the squirming fans who LOVED StarCraft could get a nice heaping dose of StarCraft 2, and its mod features, custom features, etc.

I have no problem paying $60 for a game that will last me 20+ hours. How many expansions do you know of that last for more then 8 hours? (excluding MMO's) Each game will play like a stand alone GAME. I dont see what the issue is: games tell storys over multiple titles ALL the time. Is it just wrong because they arent changing the title with every new entry, and thus it MUST be treated as an expansion pack?

Blizzard isn't a company that would milk its fanbase; they care and respect their consumers more then most game companies I know. (Ever been hacked in FF11 and try to get your account back? Compare that to being hacked in WoW, you'll see a difference). They don't release shoddy products, and take their time to ensure the game is good. Not to mention that their games get constant updates and tweaks to ensure they dont suck.

The way I see it, they make MORE then enough money off of WoW, and WoW alone. Its not like they're straved for money. If it were almost ANY other company, I would say they're trying to rip us off. But with Blizzards track record? I have a feeling my money is well invested.

you and

Haters gonna hate. This was obvious to anyone who didn't go into SC2 already angry about the trilogy.

SC2's campaign was cheesy, but it was cheesy fun and with way more content than SC1 ever had. There's no way that this is not a full game, and frankly, I'm just glad to be playing it before 2014. If Blizzard delivers on wholly unique mechanics for the other two expansions (RPG and Diplomacy), the sad part is that the people who have already made up their mind are still going to just be shouting into the wind while the rest of us enjoy our game.

SC1 was The Hobbit. SC2:T is Fellowship of the Rings - a whole story, yes, but the first (huge) part of an even huger whole.

I still think that if you're angry about the SC2 thing and don't equally rage about every other thing planned as a trilogy (movies, games, books), you're being a tremendous hypocrite. THREE Star Wars movies? What a scam! BioWare's planned a Mass Effect trilogy from the start? A ripoff!

you are the voices of reason i hope everyone lisions to you.(and if they actualy read your posts they will

 

[John Funk]

Whats all the complaining about?

Seriously. StarCraft 2's first campaign was fairly long, well worth the $60 if you were to omit multiplayer. It was an interesting story, and lasted for HOURS.

Blizzard wasnt done with the campaign for the other races, and Blizzard has a strict "its finished when its finished" policy. If we wanted the game to be squeezed into one giant package, we'd probably have to wait till 2014.

-OR-

Blizzard could release the game in Episodes, with the first set containing the Multiplayer. That way all the squirming fans who LOVED StarCraft could get a nice heaping dose of StarCraft 2, and its mod features, custom features, etc.

I have no problem paying $60 for a game that will last me 20+ hours. How many expansions do you know of that last for more then 8 hours? (excluding MMO's) Each game will play like a stand alone GAME. I dont see what the issue is: games tell storys over multiple titles ALL the time. Is it just wrong because they arent changing the title with every new entry, and thus it MUST be treated as an expansion pack?

Blizzard isn't a company that would milk its fanbase; they care and respect their consumers more then most game companies I know. (Ever been hacked in FF11 and try to get your account back? Compare that to being hacked in WoW, you'll see a difference). They don't release shoddy products, and take their time to ensure the game is good. Not to mention that their games get constant updates and tweaks to ensure they dont suck.

The way I see it, they make MORE then enough money off of WoW, and WoW alone. Its not like they're straved for money. If it were almost ANY other company, I would say they're trying to rip us off. But with Blizzards track record? I have a feeling my money is well invested.

It's actually very interesting to me. Given how long StarCraft 2's development was, and how much it costs to pay for an entire team over that length of time, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that SC2 makes very little, if any profit.

Not that it matters given the money-printing machine that is WoW.