Blizzard Explains Tough Decisions Behind StarCraft II Trilogy

[wulfy42]

If they are released as expansion packs at a lower price range I wouldn't say that is too bad...if it adds more options to the entire game.

If they are released as full games and are required to make custom maps and play as the other races online...then that is crazy.

Right now you can play the other races in multiplayer so really it's only the single player campaign that is missing the other races. That blows a bit but it's not a huge deal and I can understand that they want to release the other single player campaigns by themselves (so they have time to fully create them).

If you have to buy the game 3 times to fully play multiplayer and have full use of the other races though that will be a rip off. That is of course where most of the meat of the game exists in starcraft...there is only so many times you can play single player campaigns....eventually you go online and play custom maps and with other players.

If you have to pay for the game 3 times to do that...it's a rip off. If you don't care about the single player campaigns but can still get the full content for multiplayer etc as a cheap upgrade/download or something then that will be fine.

If they are saying you need to pay for the game 3 times though just because they need to spend extra time making single player maps...that is just rediculous in my opinion.

 

[ZeoAssassin]

It's funny, all the talk about Zerg and Protoss players getting the short end of the stick just isn't true.. TERRAN players will be getting the short end of the stick in the end.. All the innovations that come out of the Terran Pack and influence innovations in the later Packs won't be retroactively added to the Terran Pack.. by the time we get "Life for Aiur" or whatever the Protoss one is called, the Terran Pack may actually need a facelift that it will never get..

not necessarily, considering all the protoss players(like me) got to have a mission pack of protoss missions in WoL (mainly BECAUSE legacy of the void will be the last installment), its not unreasonable for a few Terran missions to be in the last expansion. not to mention that since its the finale Terran Protoss and Zerg will have to be all involved some how.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I've never really played much Starcraft, but I liek the idea of having such long campaigns. Loads of strategy games have too short campaigns so the war they're attempting to portray doesn't feel as serious and important. It's as if WW2 was about 3 months long.

 

[Altorin]

wow, there's a lot of intentional or unintentional trolling here. I'm not going to feed it any further, but damn. I thought we were better then this.

 

[GoGo_Boy]

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.

100 points to the winner.

They said it right at announcement, it makes a lot of sense and... it doesn't matter for the pathetic whiners.

Because pathetic whiners whine pathetically, as you can see in this thread
After all Blizzard is all bad and evil and greedy and and and. You get my point.

Edit:
Even every review out there says how fucking much content there is in Starcraft 2. And I mean, there is a fucking lot. Huge campaign with a LOT cutscenes (~34mins in-engine, 14mins pre-rendered CGI), huge multiplayer part with ladder, matchmaking, oh an challenges, a tons of achievements and rewards in form of portraits and decals oh and please don't forget the map editor which is bigger than people may think (See what can be done [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rhExoAUNzE]).

But hey.. as I said, pathetic whiners...

 

[strum4h]

Wings of Liberty had as many missions as the original StarCraft, so I don't see the problem.

Pretty much that right there. I dont mind shelling out the extra couple bucks for more awesome.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

no point in this. There is nothing they can say to make people stop what they think.

personally 30 missions is a full game to me. The first game only had 30. So to expect this one to have 90 is unfair of people. then again I play primarily for single player, I guess people who only play for multi-player may think otherwise.

Considering the eleven years between broodwars and starcraft 2, I'm pretty sure it'd be perfectly reasonable to expect something in the realm of 347 campaign missions in a single game.

I mean, it used to be if something took eleven years to make, there was an actual fucking reason beyond, "couldn't be arsed."

I mean, I do understand how people who could barely talk eleven years ago wouldn't be too bothered by this. They've been willingly taking it up the ass their entire lives.

 

[Grubnar]

Sounds good to me. So can we please all stop saying that we're paying three times for one game now?

No. I will belive Im getting a "full" and proper game when I see it.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

wow, there's a lot of intentional or unintentional trolling here. I'm not going to feed it any further, but damn. I thought we were better then this.

By definition, trolling cannot be unintentional.

Just because its pissing you off, doesn't mean its trolling.

And have it end up like Duke Nukem? No thanks.

It makes perfect sense what they're saying. They released the game in 3 parts would have taken bloody ages, when you're buying for the same price. Finally, they ARE full games. The original Starcraft had 30 missions too. They're saying the next one will have more.

No one complained about Brood War. It's exactly the same thing.

... uh, hun, duke nukem forever and 3D realms was crushed under the weight of it's own incompetence. They wanted to make the best game ever, but they simply lacked the talent or ability to do anything but copy whatever the most successful game of the year was doing. Which meant they jumped from engine to engine, from perspective to perspective, from gametype to gametype almost completely randomly. Then, at the end, when 3D realms went bankrupt, only had twelve half-finished levels to show for it.

Also, no one complained about broodwars because it was $20 new. Heart of the swarm and [the third one] will operate like expansion packs, but will cost, at least, $59.99. Bullshit.

I mean, it used to be if something took eleven years to make, there was an actual fucking reason beyond, "couldn't be arsed."

Or maybe they weren't making Starcraft 2 non-stop since 1999? Just a thought.

... yea... moving along...

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I'm sorry Tom. You tried. But the failboys, they know no logic.*patpat*

NOW RELEASE SWARM DAMNIT!

 

[Dendio]

Everyone seems so negative. After playing starcraft 2 me and my buddies cant wait for the expansions. More of a good thing is defiantly worth paying for ;-)

 

[mad825]

eleven years + 3-4 more years doesn't make any difference, they could've brought the game out in full.

but seeing as we are talking business here, I guess it didn't seem feasible. lets say that there was an approx amount of 32GBs of data in total, bringing it out in one package would've made it seem to be more expensive (quality/quantity:cost ratio)and thus it will be taking risks (as we know they don't like taking risks) Also cutting the game down into parts easily tricks the idiots.

 

[Zeetchmen]

Ah bli$$ard and activ$ion, you never cease to show your greed

 

[level250geek]

While, as far as game play goes, one may be buying three separate games and getting content that is worth as much, it's still one complete narrative split over three volumes. Now, in the book industry, publishers are constantly splitting a complete story over multiple volumes: that's why you see brand-new books with the label "Book 1 of the [insert name of trilogy] Trilogy" on the cover. People who buy lots of books don't seem to have a problem with this; perhaps people who buy lots of games are spoiled?

In all honesty, my knee-jerk reaction to this was the same as most gamers: one game for the price of three! BOO! However, seeing that the first game alone is a truly complete package (I don't have first-hand experience, but I've heard and read nothing but good things), I'm not quite as put off by their decision, especially when you consider that the after paying for the development of three games, it's not like Blizzard is going to making thrice the money.

 

[procyonlotor]

Given the current state of the campaign I'd have rather gone for a 3-race campaign with 12 missions each that this clusterfrak of a storyline.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The StarCraft II trilogy was developed to add more fun to the game, not for profit, according to Blizzard.

So, the fact they make three times as much on a product that they themselves raised the price on while saying they want people to pay more money for is ENTIRELY for the fun?

Oh Blizzard, you slay me.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Given the current state of the campaign I'd have rather gone for a 3-race campaign with 12 missions each that this clusterfrak of a storyline.

Wait... wuts wrong wit it? I mean, I like the storyline and everything, just $180 is pretty fucking steep for a single game.

 

[Dectilon]

After playing through the campaign I can safely say I give no fucks. If the writing is this terrible in the Terran campaign, which really must be the easiest to write, how terrible won't the other two be? Fortunately the actual game is great and the expansions will hopefully bring the same sort of improvements to the main game that Brood War did for Starcraft.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

After playing through the campaign I can safely say I give no fucks. If the writing is this terrible in the Terran campaign, which really must be the easiest to write, how terrible won't the other two be? Fortunately the actual game is great and the expansions will hopefully bring the same sort of improvements to the main game that Brood War did for Starcraft.

... whats wrong with it? Please, for the love of god, don't say plotholes. It is a third of a game, remember?

I'm sorry Tom. You tried. They know no logic.*patpat*

NOW RELEASE SWARM DAMNIT!

Logic? Where? All I see is sniveling apologetics.