Blizzard Explains Tough Decisions Behind StarCraft II Trilogy

[Kelethor]

Expansions are good. Ill cut of my left leg if thats what it costs. Dont like it, Tough shits. its not like the expansions are gonna be shitty, there good quality games. we pay for quality.

 

[GothmogII]

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..

Umm, why exactly do you think this? If anything, they'll probably -add- new units for Terran in the next two games, if not at least trying to add certain Terran units that aren't currently available for multiplayer but already there, like the Diamondback.

If you haven't heard, multiplayer for SCII is a -very- big deal in certain places, and Blizzard aren't going to do something stupid like focus entirely on the Zerg or Protoss at the expense of the Terrans.

 

[Icehearted]

This is what folk in 'the biz' call spin. One way to look at it is that it's a trilogy, the right way to look at it is that it's a game they broke into three pieces and called a trilogy. And since when is a sequel a trilogy? I didn't (thankfully) have to buy GTA4 one island at a time. Why not? Rockstar could have just as easily decided to release the GTA4 'Trilogy' as well. My guess, they care about giving gamers their money's worth, and not about 'let's see what else we can cram into this thing to justify making them shell out through the nose for it'. Well, that or they just didn't think of it first.

I don't mean to be negative, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.... which by duck I mean Blizzard milking the customers for all they can.

The only thing I imagine they were "throwing" when they decided to to make a one shot payday into a triple payday were high-fives.

 

[Therumancer]

The truth is still that Blizzard is charging people three times for one game.

No. They. Are. Not. Do. Some. Damn. Research.

Done plenty of it.

I mean it's fine if you want do disagree, but from everything I've seen, and read, including this article with Blizard making a case directly, I still think they are charging for the game three times.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they haven't done research, or in some way ignorant. It just means they don't agree with you.

What's more the entire point of this getting an Escapist article is that there are plenty of people who think the same thing. Probably more of them than agree with you if Blizzard feels the need to issue statements to begin with. If it was a minor bit of dissent that wasn't affecting anything they wouldn't have bothered.

The general consensus is that the expansion packs are thirty dollars.

And also, Blizzard is treating them as expansion packs.

The story wasn't the game's strong point, the multiplayer was.

Multiplayer is in the main game, in full.

Thus, it appears that people who don't care enough about the story to buy a hundred more scenarios don't have to, and everyone will be happy.

Oh, of course they won't. This is the internet.

Actually you'd be incorrect on the multiplayer, aside from the general doctrine that games need to be able to stand on single player, Starcraft became a franchise because of it's storyline, with the books, action figures, and other merchandise keeping it alive in the minds of the fans. Characters like Kerrigan didn't become geek icons due to the multiplayer mode, even if Korea turned it into a sport.

That said, fanboy consensus means nothing. When I see things from Blizzard they continuously talk about this being a trilogy. That means three games, not a game with two expansion packs. What's more this article alone claims that to finish the storyline they feel they would need a 10-12 year old development period, which is partially how they are defending breaking it into three games so they could release something now as opposed to allegedly waiting until like 2020 to release the entire thing as a complete package.... yeah, I know that sounds crazy especially if you look at the game itself (it's good, but not all that), but that is what Blizzard itself is saying.

If you believe what the company just said, basically what they are saying is that we should have 4 or so years between each release, and frankly that doesn't sound like a timeframe talking about expansion packs.

Of course in the end I think all of it is is complete BS, and we'll see the next parts long before the end of the decade, especially if one of the many balls Blizzard is keeping in the air crashes and they need some immediate cash. I think they simply decided their fans were enough of a group of fanatical addicts that they could split up the game, give any story that they wanted (because people love Blizzard!) and make three times the profits off of a single project.

Why only get paid once for a job, if you can get paid three times?

I understand why people want to believe the best of Blizzard, they make some good stuff, but I think the entire Starcraft 2 thing is a flat out jerk move, motivated by base greed. Even if one says it's Kotick responsible instead of Blizzard itself, it doesn't change what it is.

 

[Naheal]

So long as I get my Zerg campaign, I'm a happy player.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The amount of content is more or less irrelevent to this.

A point of consideration here is that "Dragon Age: Origins" and "Mass Effect 2" both told complete stories and came to an overall resolution. Both could stand alone more or less on their own, even allowing for "Mass Effect" having a direct cliffhanger being part of a trilogy.

The thing here is that "Starcraft 2" is only telling part of an entire story that is "Starcraft 2" but in doing so it's requiring you to effectively buy "Starcraft 2" three times each with a differant subtitle added to the end of it. Starcraft 2 effectively being Starcraft 2, 3, and 4... but using the Starcraft 2 name and none of the products being able to stand on it's own in any form. At least with "Mass Effect" each story is self contained and each new chapter is a proper sequel carrying an additional number.

A lot of people appreciate "Starcraft" for the storyline and the single player experience, and despite it's popularity, don't care that much about the multiplayer and such. While okay, the storyline for "Starcraft 2: Wings Of Liberty" does not resolve the central conflicts of the story and pretty much stops part way through, which is what the other chapters are for. It doesn't "close" like a Mass Effect 2 does (which can be enjoyed entirely on it's own with internal consistincy and resolution).

What's more, while people talk about the content, that mostly comes down to arguements about the fact that it has a multiplayer mode (albiet a ridiculously popular one). The number of missions being somewhat irrelevent in the overall scheme of things because as many people have pointed out some of them are very short, and do nothing to progress the overall storyline. While the original Starcraft had less missions, the ones it did have were pretty decent and meaningful.

Generally speaking, Blizzard should have developed all three campaigns, released them together, and been happy with it. They did not because there is more money to be made from stringing a fanatical fanbase along.

The excuses in this article make this rather clear, unless you really believe that it was going to take 10-12 years to do it. If you believe that, you also believe your not going to be seeing the end oif this story until around 2020, in which case you should be POed for entirely differant reasons if you bought this game, even if you disagree with me on a lot of this. Besides, while good, SC2 isn't all that, a game of this level shouldn't be taking a time frame of a decade to have 3 chapters. If like me you smell BS there, you should be doubting all of it.

The narrative in Wings of Liberty is nicely self contained. A revolution is begun and the zerg begin their invasion anew. In the course of fighting the zerg, an ultimate weapon against their brutal leader is made and it is revealed that she must survive or the galaxy is doomed. A plan is hatched where the terrans desperately throw themselves at the very seat of zerg power in an attempt to halt the swarm once and for all and the gambit pays off. Jim is reuinted with Kerrigan, the traitor in the midst is revealed and dispatched, the threat of the zerg invasion is halted and the galaxy has hope once again.

The entire plot has not been resolved of course, but then this is common enough that it hardly represents a notable event. Look at Star Wars - by the end of the first movie, the rebellion simply managed to win a critical victory but the empire still stood. In the Matrix the one was revealed but the machines were firmly in control. In The Terminator Sarah Connor was saved but judgement day and the rise of the machines approached regardless. In Halo, the flood were slowed and the covenant suffered a major defeat but the genocidal war carried on.

I can agree that the stated timetable is, quite simply, far to long. Sure, the cinematics take time to make and all but the game I was delivered doesn't seem to be particularly special for all the time spent on it. Yes, it was well made. Yes, it was well polished. But did it really need to take so very long? What is it about the Blizzard process that makes these things take so very long? World of Warcraft, an effort that was almost certainly larger in every respect, had a shorter development cycle. It almost seems to be that the Blizzard took their time for no reason other than that they have the luxury to do so.

 

[Zyst]

Am I the only one who isn't a cheap ass and doesn't mind having a trilogy? Seriously guys, stop whining. WC3 was Reigns of Chaos -> Frozen Throne, and Starcraft also had an expansion, why would you whine about one more.

 

[lacktheknack]

If you believe what the company just said, basically what they are saying is that we should have 4 or so years between each release, and frankly that doesn't sound like a timeframe talking about expansion packs.

I certainly hope they lied/hyperbolized in this article, because they have leaked elsewhere that there'll only be about an 18 month wait in between.

And I'll pay thirty bucks for them, because they'll theoretically have 50 scenarios each.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Altorin]

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..

Umm, why exactly do you think this? If anything, they'll probably -add- new units for Terran in the next two games, if not at least trying to add certain Terran units that aren't currently available for multiplayer but already there, like the Diamondback.

If you haven't heard, multiplayer for SCII is a -very- big deal in certain places, and Blizzard aren't going to do something stupid like focus entirely on the Zerg or Protoss at the expense of the Terrans.

I think that because this sort of thing hasn't been done before. There's no precedent for it. I'm not even talking about new units and multiplayer. That's a completely different can of worms. I'm talking only about the single player campaigns. I thought that was clear when I made references to Zerg and Protoss getting the short end of the stick - in multiplayer there's no stick to get the short end of. Starcraft 2 has all 3 races for multiplayer.

The Terran campaign will end up being the worst of them all, because it was made without the benefit referencing itself only for ideas that worked. It had to innovate all on its own. The Zerg Campaign will take elements of the Terran Campaign that worked, and improve upon them. The Protoss will look at both campaigns and improve on them all.

Noones released a strategy game in this way before, where each expansion has only the campaign for a single race.

 

[Caliostro]

probably, and I'm really glad you didn't start mouth breathing down my neck like some nerdy dragon. It was actually a good natured joke, although that doesn't come through well in text

Yeah, tone is rather difficult to bring to text and such. Sadly every so often a lot is "lost in translation".

That said, why would I be mad either ways? Was my own mistake.

 

[Jesus Phish]

These people may stop at the point at they have played Heart of the Swam (since pretty much all sc players will buy it). If it actually is as big as Blizzard says, then they should be happy and they might just shut up on the topic. And continue ranting on the Protoss game. It might be smaller.

I dont think all SC2 players will buy it.

SC2 has a pretty large portion of players who dont give a rats about the story and only play it for the multiplayer. They have what they want and thats all they need. They'll have to try include something bigger to the multiplayer besides maps to try sell to them.

 

[AliMck]

Hm I bought a game it had a start middle and end to its (albeit slightly cheesy) story. I enjoyed the single player that the MP is still good. And I'll get the sequels which will expand the story line further.

And while I wait on them I'll eat my popcorn and laugh at some peoples over inflated sense of what they are entitled to.

Anyone care to join me?

 

[GothmogII]

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..

Umm, why exactly do you think this? If anything, they'll probably -add- new units for Terran in the next two games, if not at least trying to add certain Terran units that aren't currently available for multiplayer but already there, like the Diamondback.

If you haven't heard, multiplayer for SCII is a -very- big deal in certain places, and Blizzard aren't going to do something stupid like focus entirely on the Zerg or Protoss at the expense of the Terrans.

I think that because this sort of thing hasn't been done before. There's no precedent for it. I'm not even talking about new units and multiplayer. That's a completely different can of worms. I'm talking only about the single player campaigns. I thought that was clear when I made references to Zerg and Protoss getting the short end of the stick - in multiplayer there's no stick to get the short end of. Starcraft 2 has all 3 races for multiplayer.

The Terran campaign will end up being the worst of them all, because it was made without the benefit referencing itself only for ideas that worked. It had to innovate all on its own. The Zerg Campaign will take elements of the Terran Campaign that worked, and improve upon them. The Protoss will look at both campaigns and improve on them all.

Noones released a strategy game in this way before, where each expansion has only the campaign for a single race.

I'm afraid I don't really see the issue...why would we expect them to go back and update the single player aspect in that same way? I can't think of many games that have released an expansion and also gone back and redone aspects of the original content and don't really see why Starcraft 2 should be any different. The Terran single player campaign for the time being is complete, storywise, (although obviously they'll probably show up in the Zerg and Protoss games somehow) and adding units and patching or updating and the like in later games wouldn't do anything to the narrative of the original campaign.

It could as you say, change how the single player gameplay works...but I doubt it would be significantly.

As for the Terran campaign being the 'worst', that's quite possible. But that depends entirely on how good the next two are. For all we know the Protoss campaign could be the worst (I know I wasn't overly fond of them in the original game).

 

[FinalHeart95]

If the content for each pack is the same as a normal game would have, I don't see what the problem is. You can't EXPECT a company to have three games for the price of one.

 

[Scrythe]

I stopped saying it was one game for the price of three when I realized the Wings of Liberty actually had an ending.

On top of that, and ending that has me hanging on the edge of my anus for Heart of the Swarm.

 

[Traun]

That's right, especially cause he is the one that is wrong xD
The most Blizzard said about the pricing is (as has already been posted) that they "haven't been determined" yet and I think some people will have a rude awakening when they are

True, the only thing they have said was that they decided that they will charge for an expansion and not a full game, and even so, they did say that a long time ago. Anyway, I expect ~40$.

 

[tautologico]

Every big, successful game (or franchise) has its haters. People will hate something just for being successful and popular, and never think through about the reason for it.

It's no use trying to convince the haters not to hate. This thread has shown plenty of examples.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

If each campaign is going to cost another 60$ I'm going to be very angry. A campaign and the whole multiplayer experience is worth 60$, a single campaign is not. I'm willing to pay around 30$ for each additional campaign, but even that's pushing it.