×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Starcraft 2 To Be a Trilogy

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the three-is-better-than-one dept.

Real Time Strategy (Games) 253

The Starcraft 2 gameplay panel was an eventful one at Blizzcon today. The developers faced an obstacle when designing the game; the plans they had were just too massive to implement in a single game on anything approaching a reasonable timeline. Their solution was to divide the game up into three separate, stand-alone titles: Terran: Wings of Libery, Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, and Protoss: Legacy of the Void. Read on for further details.Each campaign will have on the order of 26-30 missions. The path players take through the missions can vary — the storyline branches frequently — but they will end in the same place. The games will run alongside each other; there will not be cliffhanger endings leading from one to another, and each game will focus on a different part of the story. The Terran campaign will focus on Jim Raynor, and the Zerg campaign will be all about Kerrigan. Multiplayer functionality will be in place for all three races from the start.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

253 comments

Zeratul (1, Insightful)

antizeus (47491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334235)

I assume the Protoss game will be about Zeratul. Maybe there will be some Xel'Naga backstory.

Re:Zeratul (4, Insightful)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335257)

This is just lame. Game companies seem to be coming up with more and more ways to gouge consumers. Now releasing THREE Starcraft titles... Sorry Blizz, you just lost a sale. What? Making an expansion pack doesn't make you enough money any more? Making 75 million plus a month off WOW isn't good enough? Activision must owe some loansharks.

"How can we make more money?"
"Well screw it. We pay the writers very little. Just have them write longer stories and VOILA! One game, but three sales for the whole thing!"
"Jenkins, you're a genius! You'll find a whore and some gin waiting on your car when you leave."

Ah well, one less game to buy. Or three actually.

Re:Zeratul (3, Interesting)

basscomm (122302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335483)

This isn't exactly a new development. Remember Diablo II? Its 'expansion' was really just the end of the story started in the main game, a.k.a. Act V. The same could be said about Warcraft III and its expansion.

Re:Zeratul (4, Interesting)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335687)

I said "What, are expansion packs not making your enough money?" I mean we already know multiple game developers remove stuff from their games (latest example: Plant creator in "Spore") so they can put them in the expansion. So yes, I'm fully aware this is done. Marketing three different standalone games is ridiculous. I guarantee there will be some reason, some hook to force folk into buying all 3. Whereas all races are activated for multiplayer supposedly, I would expect each version will have something like skirmish maps exclusive too each version which you can only play if you own said version, or something similar along those lines. Some way to force all but the most ardent resistor to buy all three.

Re:Zeratul (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335493)

No, what's lame is bitching about it without knowing the full fucking details, fuck-tard. Honestly, do we know how long the campaign on each will last? No. This is an RTS, not some bull shit RPG where you spend countless fucking hours dry-humping every mob you find.

So if you want to not buy a fucking game or three because of opinions based on absolutely nothing other than sheer idiocy, you can fuck off, douche bag.

Re:Zeratul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335665)

Wow, you are so brave for posting that with your real account...

Oh, wait...

Re:Zeratul (5, Interesting)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335537)

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this is actually a good thing? What blizzard is saying is that their massive team of elite game developers simply do not have the time to fit the enormous amount of content they want to put in. This means that there will most likely be 2 more WELL-WORTH games that follow the series coming out. I know how much I wanted to go to blizzard and say "can you make another?" when it came to the brood war expansion. If there were only campaigns that came with the expansions, then people would just pirate it and buy the cd-keys for cheep online. Chances are, the expansions will have more units/buildings, more areas, more neutral objects, and possibly new functions to the old units/buildings. And chances are each one will redefine the way the game is played, and lead to many more hours of good gaming, which is much more than you can say about a whole lot of other expansions.

Re:Zeratul (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336027)

That's largely my thought, if they have enough material to justify several games, I'd rather have several games rather than one mega sized mega priced game.

It's really more a matter of how good the game is and how much time I'd spend playing it for the money. Considering Blizzard, it's almost certain to be worth the cost in the end, if for no other reason than the online play.

Speaking of Multiplayer (-1, Redundant)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334245)

Will we be able to play as Zerg/Protoss in multi-player if we only buy the Terran game?

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (2, Funny)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334305)

I just wish I could beat you over the head with the SUMMARY that you didn't even bother to read before blasting off a comment.

Go back to youtube

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (3, Insightful)

athdemo (1153305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334351)

We've gone from RTFA to RTFS, now. Do people on /. actually read anything?

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (2, Funny)

DocHoncho (1198543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334551)

i was going to make some kind of contextual reply to your comment, but i just couldn't bring myself to read it.

i only read the story tags.

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335241)

Tags are too verbose for me. I only look at the topic picture.

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335425)

Agreed, this Ogre/Joystick looks crap, i prefer the Telephone/Blackboard.

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (4, Funny)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336225)

Wow. I'm lazy, I just blindly click the page and mash the keyboard now and then. I don't even speak English, I'm just very, very improbable.

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335325)

blizzcon starcraft starcraft2 games rts story

There are 5 other tags for you to read. Why limit yourself to the last one?

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334603)

Holy crap you could not be more wrong. Sarah Palin is the biggest idiot to ever appear on TV.

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (3, Funny)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334605)

We've gone from RTFA to RTFS, now.

Do people on /. actually read anything?

I read your comment. I can has cookie?

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334641)

Soon there will be RTFHeadline flames.

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335015)

I didn't even read your f**king comment.

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335873)

Nope. And thank God for the color scheme they are using in the beta index and firehose which makes even article titles unreadable. We don't have to read anything now! W00t!

Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334317)

That is what "Multiplayer functionality will be in place for all three races from the start. " seems to imply. Come on, there's not even an article. Is the summary too much to read? (and no, i'm not new here. My UID is 666, so there!)

Stand-along Titles? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334257)

You mean like Sing-along titles?

Shenanigans. (3, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334299)

Well, no link to read, so I'm going to go with the summary.

This is stupid.

"...the plans they had were just too massive to implement in a single game on anything approaching a reasonable timeline..."

Ludicrous. The "no cliffhangers" thing suggests that these will be released more or less simultaneously, which means the decision to package them separately has nothing to do with how long it would take to make them. It's a naked grab for cash.

Now, it's entirely possible that they've put so much money into this that they really do need most customers to buy the whole game for $150 a pop. Let's face it, video game pricing hasn't really kept up with the cost of making games. I'm happy to acknowledge that. But do they really need to pretend this is somehow mandated by the "massiveness" of the game itself?

I haven't really been into RTSs since Starcraft 1, and I was kind of looking forward to coming back. But this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Boo.

Re:Shenanigans. (2, Insightful)

Sparton (1358159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334381)

[...] they really do need most customers to buy the whole game for $150 a pop.

Where did it say that they were charging full price for each one? For all we know, they could charge $50 for the first game, and $20 for each "expansion" campaign you buy (or some other form of arbitrary numbers).

Re:Shenanigans. (4, Insightful)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335955)

Where did it say that they were charging full price for each one?

It didn't, the summary was thankfully terse on what would have been interesting details.

I think I'm going to buy all of their new titles, just on general principles whether I play them or not. Blizzard is #1 in the industry at the moment. Blizzard supports Mac OS X out of the box and their developers worked with the Linux wine guys so the Warden didn't kick out people who want to play on Linux.

I'm sick and tired of people who claim Linux and Mac OS X are worthless because no one does games for them, but someone does. I, for one, am going to welcome Gaming Overlord Blizzard right where it counts - in giving them new sales.

Re:Shenanigans. (3, Informative)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336093)

Trust me, in Australia, we will be paying $99-$120 per pack, as always.

Re:Shenanigans. (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336281)

If they charge 15-20 bucks for each campaign, that'd be fair. I couldn't give a shit about the protoss, but a few years down the line when they're in the bargain bin I might drop 10 bucks to see how the story from SC1 turned out for the terrans in the end.

Re:Shenanigans. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335029)

It's a naked grab for cash.

What a freakin' great idea for a gameshow!

Re:Shenanigans. (2, Informative)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335287)

I do not see how "no cliffhangers" logically leads to "simultaneous release".

If you remember Starcraft 1 at all, you should see how easily the game could be broken up like this, and yet how badly is would affect the story telling to force it into cliffhangers. Part of what was great about StarCraft 1 was how the different plot lines wrapped together.

Re:Shenanigans. (2, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335387)

What I don't understand is, if each game is going to include the full multiplayer component (the primary draw for Starcraft), that means the last two titles are just single player missions that won't include new units or buildings. Doesn't that just make them mission packs that shouldn't cost more than $15-20?

I just don't understand why they would part out the least wanted aspect of the game as if it's the most important. Multiplayer is the primary feature people are waiting for.

Information Here (4, Informative)

Alaren (682568) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335437)

Well, looks like further information is available here [kotaku.com], though it's about as clear as mud.

It looks like the "expansions" will be released one at a time, not all at once. And they will change the multiplayer experience, like Brood War, but also have a "full" (which apparently means 1/3) single-player campaign included as well.

I'm beginning to think that the biggest problem here is not Blizzard's greed (though that is a contributing factor!) but rather their apparent inability to communicate clearly just what it is they are trying to pull here.

Re:Shenanigans. (1)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335455)

Let's face it, video game pricing hasn't really kept up with the cost of making games. I'm happy to acknowledge that.

Ok, reasoning seems a little odd here. If a movie that just came out were to have cost Millions or even Billions more than a movie that came out yesterday, it would then be 'ok' to charge 3x the price to see it? If the development of a movie or game costs X amounts of dollars and it isn't scrapped then the volume of sales at current market price should damn well be worth the risk. There are a few exceptions that go above the current market price, and those in themselves are gambles, you had better be sure that it's a big hit.
As you said it's just a money grab, no excuses.

Re:Shenanigans. (0, Troll)

kesuki (321456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335835)

"Ok, reasoning seems a little odd here. If a movie that just came out were to have cost Millions or even Billions more than a movie that came out yesterday, it would then be 'ok' to charge 3x the price to see it? If the development of a movie or game costs X amounts of dollars and it isn't scrapped then the volume of sales at current market price should damn well be worth the risk. There are a few exceptions that go above the current market price, and those in themselves are gambles, you had better be sure that it's a big hit.
As you said it's just a money grab, no excuses."

since you brought in movies we'll start there.

let's get things clear here, you saw the blair witch project movie, right? the one done for $2000 with only one paid actress that got $500? right? that is an example of how cheaply a movie can be made, the same director he got what millions to produce blair witch 2? and nobody saw that one right, it sucked, it bombed, the guy couldn't handle the money and make a decent movie. right, the point being, making something worth watching isn't just throwing money at it. somethings should only be done once.

and how much money does hollywood spend on a big movie? millions, tons of money, and yet at one point in time it cost little more than actor salaries, and options on the screenplay. the cost of producing movies has gone up as long as you rely on technology instead of storyline, and the same thing is happening with games. I have a wonderful laptop that i bought happily in 1997, I paid $1,199 for it, you know what? that system can run a few basic games, like civilization 1, wolfenstein 3-d etc, i mean come on it's a pentium 120 mhz with the F00F bug, and 48 megabytes of ram, and a small hard drive, and a floppy, no cd-rom. the types of games that were huge in 1995 cost almost nothing to code and develop and yet some of them had wonderful game play, all while fitting on a few 1.44 mb floppy diskettes. but i tell you what, nobody buys simple games. if i coded a game that could run on a pentium 120 nobody would buy it. they might go to a website with ads to play it, but they wouldn't buy it.

and now blockbuster video games are running into a major problem, they're running into the hollywood effect. it takes a game with the latest sound and graphic capabilities, to woo customers into initial purchase, and yet most games are going to be below the satisfaction level for them to tell all their friends "you gotta get this game and play me online dude!" this is really really driving up the cost of developing game engines, and game content. at some point someone has to wake up and realize, if games get any more expensive to make, nobody is going to make enough money, and the market will collapse. it already has, to a certain point. coding game engines that require 1600 pixel processing units, just doesn't offer the ROI especially in a down economy.

and yet, if someone makes a game like crysis that requires 1600 pixel processing units to run 'at max' settings, there are people, comparing screen shots of crysis running on a 1600 pixel processing unit setup, vs 'our game engine' that maybe runs fine on a card with 32 pixel processing units, and instantly saying 'that our game engine game sucks, look at how pretty crysis is with a $4,000 alienware* dude'. it's a tough job trying to make a game engine and market it, and still make money, especially in an economy where people are going to rent or warez, instead of buying.

to tie this all together, to a certain point, it's easier to 'make a prettier' game than anyone else, or a better special effects blockbuster on hollywood, than it is to really come across a storyline and tell it just right, and release it at the right time, to get everyone telling their friend to go see this movie. it doesn't cost a lot of money to make a really good movie, and i know a lot of people who play sudoku, which is the simplest popular game i can think of... it doesn't take $$$ to make a winning game concept or a winning movie concept, but the throwing money strategy is infinitely easier that the 'do it on a shoestring and come up with solid gold' approach, it's really hard to reproduce success that isn't based on something you can just throw money at and it'll get better(to a point).

anyways, there is a really easy way to produce good, mass market appeal fiction books, it's called a formula, this doesn't translate well to movies or games, it does okay in comic books as well. one of my favorite authors piers Anthony uses a formula to write xanth novels, it only takes him 3 months to write a xanth novel, it's a great formula, not everyone respects authors who use a formula, but to be so good and consistent with a formula is harder than it looks! i've tried writing novels and short stories many times, anyone who can come up with a decent formula and stick with it for 30 years is amazing.

but the cost to produce a novel has gone down, the cost of producing hollywood movies and video games are going up. there has been rampant production of all things marvel into movies and television lately, because reproducing someone else's success is considered easier than succeeding on your own.

*= just an example, i roll my own systems, costs much less and i control the quality of every part.

Re:Shenanigans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335667)

I haven't really been into RTSs since Starcraft 1, and I was kind of looking forward to coming back. But this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

But this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Oh don't worry about that. That's just Blizzard's awesomesauce. It's a bit salty, but really, what isn't these days?

Re:Shenanigans. (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336069)

That's not how I interpret it at all. I suspect that the three plotlines are running in parallel - there's no cliffhangers because they all run from the beginning of the Starcraft 2 plotline to the end of the Starcraft 2 plotline, they just focus on different races.

I'm going to invent some hypothetical plotline here: perhaps one part of the Terran side's ending involves some allied Protoss buddies showing up and saying "hey hey, we successfully managed our side mission, which we're not going to talk about in detail, let's do the end battle now!". Later, when they release the Protoss game, you'd get to play that side mission, and later you'd also play a detachment of Protoss defending against an unexpected attack that would have slaughtered the first "end battle" group (which you never knew of the existence of the first time you played through, but hey!)

There's lots of ways to structure this that lets them release three games in series, and still not have any cliffhangers. Instead of extending the original plotline, you just layer extra stuff on top of it. As long as you're reasonably careful beforehand you can pull this off without needing to retcon anything.

As I see it, they really want to make a series of games called "Starcraft 2". So there's Starcraft 2 1, Starcraft 2 2, and Starcraft 2 3. Each one, I suspect, is going to be the size of a full-fledged game.

Re:Shenanigans. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336187)

Probably not.
Think about it. You 50 bucks usually buys about X amount of hours.
There making x times 3 amount of hours. Three games.

Of course, if each game is 10 stinkin' hours, then yeah there just milking there fan base.
I have a high degree of confidence they will be over 10 hours each.
Blizzards quality has earned my confidence.

Re:Shenanigans. (2, Informative)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336265)

Meh. I don't even like RTS games that much, though I enjoy certain aspects of single player. I hate multiplayer RTS. That said, I _LOVE_ the first three titles in the Warhammer 40k Dawn of War series. When they gave up on making content for their expansions and started bulding the bulk of the gameplay out of their skirmish mode I stopped playing, but those guys know how to make a fun RTS.

They're also the ones who made Company of Heroes, which I never would have tried if I hadn't played DoW first, and which ended up being one of my favorite games ever.

If you have some cash to spare and want something different from your normal gaming fare, hop on steam and buy the Company of Heroes or the Dawn of War value bundles (the ones that come with base game + many expansions). Definitely worth your gaming dollar.

And certainly better than some overbloated Blizztard crap that, despite their assurance it doesn't end with a cliffhanger, will most assuredly end in a cliffhanger, just like every other game they've ever made.

Released seperately, or all at once? (1)

Sparton (1358159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334301)

The distinct disadvantage of this, of course, is if they try to stagger the releases of this (easier for development, spread out profits, add in new bug fixes and balances with each release), you might not get to play your favourite race's campaign for quite a while.

On the other hand, if they release it all at once, then you have a huge amount of (awesome) content to play with, but it'll likely feel like they've charged you more than is reasonable for content that should all be in one package.

Re:Released seperately, or all at once? (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334873)

Or they could release 5 or so missions for each race with each "episode", so you can play as your favorite race right away (at least for a little while) while they work on the next episode's missions.

Re:Released seperately, or all at once? (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336061)

if they try to stagger the releases of this (easier for development, spread out profits, add in new bug fixes and balances with each release)

My take as a developer, though not a game developer. I've bolded the parts where you answer your own question. I think it will be staggered.

Give these guys a break. Sure they make great profit (which isn't a crime yet, when done honestly like Blizzard has done) and they deserve it! They make awesome and fun games and they take extremely good care of their customers. The easiest entertainment money I ever spent was setting up a second WoW account for my wife.

3 separate games? (1)

dr_wheel (671305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334303)

So does that mean that we get to pay $39.99 three times to get to play the entire game instead of a one-time fee of $49.99?

Sign me up!

Re:3 separate games? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335205)

$39.99? They'll probably charge the $59.99 that console games have gone to.

Allow me to translate... (5, Funny)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334329)

"We at Blizzard Entertainment value you, the wallet mounted on the back of an entranced magpie. As such, we wanted to ensure that StarCraft 2 was the highest quality money sink possible, while still extracting money from you soon. As such, it will be released in installments for the low, low price of $59.99 each. Naturally, each new installment will break multiplayer with previous ones. We hope you enjoy playing our games as much as we enjoy taking your money!"

Am I the only one? (1, Redundant)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334339)

Am I the only one who sees this as nothing more than an attempt to sell 3x as many retail boxes?

Re:Am I the only one? (5, Funny)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334383)

Perhaps you should have taken a moment to confirm that indeed, every other post in the thread says the exact same thing.

Including this one; their stated reason is untrue, this is a marketing ploy to sell more units.

Re:Am I the only one? (1, Interesting)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334533)

Perhaps you should have taken a moment to confirm that indeed, every other post in the thread says the exact same thing.

They didn't exist when I started my post, but thanks for your thoughtful insight.

Kerrigan (0, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334359)

that bitch had it coming for 10 years now.

ill give her a lesson on .... you know

Re:Kerrigan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334981)

a lesson on how to shave her beaver? Because I don't want to floss my teeth when I go down on her delicious cunt.

More Blizzard News? (1)

Yeorwned (1233604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334369)

I don't think there's enough Blizzard news on Slashdot...I also find it interesting that I see so many World of Warcraft advertisements on slashdot pages...

Advance news of GotY and you still complain? (2, Insightful)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336165)

I also find it interesting that I see so many World of Warcraft advertisements on slashdot pages...

The Wrath of the Lich King expansion if it makes its release date will be Game of the Year this year. Otherwise if it misses and comes next January, it will be Game of the Year next year.

Most of the time, people complain about things being posted here too late, like say after it appeared on digg a week ago. Consider the WotLK ads to be the PTB's at slashdot apology for all the late articles we've been given.

I think they're wasting money on their ads. Unlike Microsofties and Microsoft Vista, us WoWers are looking forward with great anticipation to the next expansion. It's Blizzard. They have a track record for quality and it WILL be awesome. Just like BC.

Effing brilliant (4, Funny)

rk (6314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334379)

Those jackholes are going to make me shell out 150 to 200 dollars for this game, aren't they?

God, Blizzard is evil!

Single Player -- Yawn. (-1, Redundant)

aspx (808539) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334473)

The beauty of Starcraft is multiplayer anyway. What I want to know is, can I still join 7 vs 1 comp stomp games and then kill all my allies?

pricing: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334537)

each installment is yours for $65 or grab the extended super amazing battle.net chest gold version for $200 with a collectors mouse pad and protoss boxers*

* for a limited time only.

Re:pricing: (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335817)

Nah, they'll sell you that once the sales of the individual installments start to drop off. Then, all the hardcore fans will have to get the gold version to supplement their installments. If Blizzard really wanted to rake people over the coals, they'd give some special unlockable that requires all three installments plus the gold edition.

Re:pricing: (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336335)

Damn, each unsubstantiated claim of retail price has built on the last one so far. First, it was $150 for all three. Then "the low, low price of $59.99 each" and now $65. If we keep this thread going, the price will grow so massive that it collapses in on itself and we can afford it again.

Uh, why the whine over three games...? (5, Interesting)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334597)

For those of you whining about "whaaaa 300% markup"..

Each campaign has 36 missions. That's more than the original Starcraft. Further, the campaign will be branched (ie, you'll have choices that actually effect what happens, which missions are selected, what happens). It might also feature co-op multiplayer, not sure on that one yet.

Or, what they announced, was a game called Starcraft II and the following two expansions to it. You know that's how it'll work. They won't just ship new missions and charge you retail for it, it will feature new units, balance, etc.

Starcraft was released, people were happy. Brood War was released, and people didn't whine about Blizzard "ripping them off" because hey, this expansion also had content.

Starcraft II is exactly the same, and yet, people are whining now...? Am I missing something?

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (3, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335137)

Starcraft was released, people were happy. Brood War was released, and people didn't whine about Blizzard "ripping them off" because hey, this expansion also had content.

Starcraft II is exactly the same, and yet, people are whining now...? Am I missing something?

SC
Starcraft came out and turned out to be a success.
People wanted more, Blizzard saw that it was selling, Blizzard made more of SC to sell.
With more story, better AI and strategy, tweaks and new units.

SCII
Blizzard announces game.
People say "Well its about time" and "Give it to us".
Blizzard says "Hey! How about instead of 1 disk, we sell you 3 disks instead? We got the idea even before the game was completed. And which we have fluffed-out enough with video and audio so it fits onto 3 discs instead of 1, so that you could buy 3 discs instead of 1."

Its a strategy game.
There is no practical reason why all 3 of it's announced campaigns should now be able to fit on a single disk and come out at the same time.
Its not like there are months or years of development left once they release the first one. Its a bloody MAP PACK!
Multiplayer being "functional from the start" and "games running alongside each other" means no new units or functionality with campaign 2 and 3.

They are making 3 of them JUST SO they could sell 3 of them, 3 times.
Plain and simple.

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (2, Insightful)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335471)

> Blizzard says "Hey! How about instead of 1 disk, we sell you 3 disks instead? We got the idea even before the game was completed. And which we have fluffed-out enough with video and audio so it fits onto 3 discs instead of 1, so that you could buy 3 discs instead of 1."

Blizzard says, "Hey! This is going to take a long time to produce to meet our quality expectations, and quite frankly designing a massive branching campaign with multiplayer in mind is a challenge.. we can either take from here until some time in 2015 to complete all three campaigns for one game..."

You see where I'm going for this?

> They are making 3 of them JUST SO they could sell 3 of them, 3 times.
> Plain and simple.

No. The game has a massive following. They're producing an equally massive sequel to it.

> They are making 3 of them JUST SO they could sell 3 of them, 3 times.
> Plain and simple.

Yup. Rowling made seven books just so that you'd have to buy it seven times.

. . .

No. She told her story how she wanted it told. How is this any different?

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336257)

Blizzard says, "Hey! This is going to take a long time to produce to meet our quality expectations, and quite frankly designing a massive branching campaign with multiplayer in mind is a challenge.. we can either take from here until some time in 2015 to complete all three campaigns for one game..."

Dang, I just posted the same thing above and did not see your comment.

You are exactly correct. No Duke Nukem Forever IIs from Blizzard ...

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336237)

The "strategy game" is the multiplayer component which will be fully playable as all 3 races with the customer only having to buy one box.

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336255)

Oh yeah, for a better comparison, see Half-Life 2 and its "expansions" Episode 1 and Episode 2.

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (1)

andy9701 (112808) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335175)

The one difference is that the base package doesn't contain a campaign for each race - you need to buy that separately. I don't know about anyone else, but I was assuming that Starcraft 2 would follow the Starcraft 1 model of having a campaign for each race.

Of course, the downside to that is that you can kind of tell the outcome of the story by the order of the campaigns (i.e. you knew the Protoss "won" in the original, since their campaign was last...or at least that's what I assumed when I was playing through it back in the day).

While I'm not pleased by this turn of events, I'm going to hold off judging it until we get more info. If all three are the cost of a full game, that would be bad. If you can buy one of the three, and get the other two for the price of an expansion each, that wouldn't be so bad. In any event, having longer campaigns is a nice improvement.

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335277)

Actually, some people were pissed at Blizzard when Broodwar came out. When they started hacking Starcraft they found traces of I believe the Lurker in the code and I believe a few other of the six new units.

So some people actually believe they held back units for an expansion.

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335415)

Each campaign has 36 missions.

Uh yeah and how many of those will be tutorial missions? Half the missions in each of the campaigns in the original Starcraft were tutorial missions.

They won't just ship new missions and charge you retail for it, it will feature new units, balance, etc.

Uh, they just said that the multiplayer will feature all 3 races and be 100% out of the box. If they add new units, doesn't that defeat the purpose of claiming that the multiplayer is "complete"?

Nobody complained about Brood Wars because it was $30 on release and the new units were far from game changing (who the hell uses Valkyries or Devourers outside of money and custom maps?). The Brood Wars campaign was just fluff since it basically ended with the situation being what it was at the end of Starcraft, only with a few name changes. (Terrans are weak, scrappy frontier survivors AGAIN, Zerg are dominating the galaxy AGAIN, and the Protoss are on the run AGAIN)

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (1)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335499)

> Uh yeah and how many of those will be tutorial missions? Half the missions in each of the campaigns in the original Starcraft were tutorial missions.

Uh, SC had one tutorial. From there it was a gradual ramp up in terms of what units they allowed you access to.

> Uh, they just said that the multiplayer will feature all 3 races and be 100% out of the box. If they add new units, doesn't that defeat the purpose of claiming that the multiplayer is "complete"?

Games change. They want each product to stand on it's own. No where did they say that the units and balance would stay identical from game to game to game.

> Nobody complained about Brood Wars because it was $30 on release and the new units were far from game changing (who the hell uses Valkyries or Devourers outside of money and custom maps?).

I'd like to tell you to learn to play, but you posted as AC so that makes it somewhat hard.

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (1)

powerspike (729889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336109)

implement in a single game on anything approaching a reasonable timeline

The path players take through the missions can vary â" the storyline branches frequently â" but they will end in the same place

Yes, they are saying they are doing it as 3 different games because the stories are to big, to fit together.
1) They say they won't affect each other
2) The stories are too big to put together
3) They are been released at the same time
Now, to me, it'd take a hell of alot more time, to break it up into 3 titles (which includes artwork altering code to stop access to other races etc), then one title. This is an absolute grab for cash, absolutey no excuse for it. Look i know, this day and age, more then 3 levels on an rts is going over bored, but stating that 26-30 missions is two long is absolute b*llshit...

Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (2, Insightful)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336227)

Starcraft II is exactly the same, and yet, people are whining now...? Am I missing something?

You're new here. Whining is a way of life with us.

What people are not thinking about it is that the real reason Blizzard is breaking this apart into pieces is prevent it from becoming Duke Nukem Forever II, instead of Starcraft 2.

Even more like Warhammer 40k (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334663)

Well, it's all a big ripoff of Warhammer 40k, so they might as well take even more inspiration from Games Workshop by soaking their loyal customers for triple damage in the wallet.

Does Blizzard have to steal everything from WH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334729)

This is perhaps the one thing I really didn't like about DoW. The original release only had the Space Marine campaign. Looks to be the same for SC2.

Linux Support? (3, Insightful)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334755)

I have intentionally stayed the hell away from anything about the game in the press. I loved SC1 and _still_ play it. Does anyone know if there will be Linux support this time around? I haven't had a box running Windows for many, many years. I don't want to have to buy Cedega on top of it, but I guess I may have to.

Also, is there a release date yet?

I ask here because I DON'T want to go to the website and get everything spoiled before I even get the game.:(

Re:Linux Support? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334853)

In the Ghetto Part IV

Reza gazed into the bathroom mirror. The sense of despair overwhelmed her. Vlad's nightly visits to Marticock the Gurgling Penis Socket had been torturing her for weeks. She hadn't slept at all and it was beginning to show. The bags under her eyes were dark and full. Her eyes were red from constant crying. She even thought she could see some wrinkles appearing in her puffy face. She had to do something.

She opened the mirror to reveal a series of shelves. She found Vlad's razor and took it with her shaking hand. She closed the mirror again and stared deeply into her own eyes. Did she really want to do this? Was this the only way out of this mess? She heard the front door slam, followed by a loud belch and fart. Those three sounds that used to bring her so much comfort. She decided she must end it now.

In the living room of the double-wide, Vlad threw his empty Budweiser can onto the floor. He plunged his hand down the back of his pants to fish desperately for a ball of crust caught in his anal hairs that had been plaguing him all day. He moaned deeply as he plucked the nugget from his anus, taking along a few assorted hairs with it.

"Hey, bitch, where's my dinner?" Vlad screamed.

He heard a crashing sound in the bathroom, followed by a thud and a large splash.

"Fucking cunt," he spluttered.

Vlad trudged into the kitchen and liberated another Budweiser from the bottom shelf. He opened the can and drank half the contents, signifying his approval with an enormous belch. Suddenly, he heard more splashing and riff-raff in the bathroom. He wallowed across the room and into the hallway and opened the bathroom door.

Vlad was shocked. Reza was laying in the tub, completely bald. Not only were her legs hairless for the first time in years, but so were her armpits! The hair on her upper lip had been completely removed, as well as the ratty hair that covered her scalp. Vlad's mind reeled. How could she have managed to reach her legs with all of that lard in the way?

"Look, Vlad! I am Marticock!" Reza said with a hint of hope in her voice, "you can molest me now!"

Vlad farted, "Marticock?"

Reza nodded, "Ummmm-hmmmm!"

Vlad shook his head. He noticed the comforting gurgling sound in the room down the hall, "Marticock..."

Vlad turned and stumbled down the hallway to Marticock's room. He opened the creaking, paper-thin door, "daddy's home, Marticock! Open wide!"

Reza cried so hard that she deficated in the tub.

Re:Linux Support? (1)

Matthew Weigel (888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335597)

Errrr, how are you playing Starcraft - WINE, right? What makes you think SC2 won't run in WINE?

Re:Linux Support? (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335853)

Well, there are a few games these days with native Linux support, and some others with *official* Wine support. I doubt SC2 will have either one, but it would be nice. And I imagine it will run on Wine, but it may be a while before it works well.

There is really no reason to buy Cedega anymore, wine is getting pretty good. If anything, buy Crossover Games, as they actually give back to Wine, unlike Cedega's broken promises.

Re:Linux Support? (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25336333)

Does anyone know if there will be Linux support this time around?

I submitted that question in the Ask Blizzard at Blizzcon article recently.

Blizzard supports Mac OS X out of the box. The support is *outstanding*. So there is no reason why they could not support a native Linux install with little additional cost to them.

Anyone who is seriously interested in breaking the monopoly on computer gaming, should buy Blizzard games and play them on Macs or Linux with Wine and make sure Blizzard knows that. I have done that.

Blizzard is #1 at the moment and they are receptive to us, so if you care, vote with your pocket book.

Blizzdot is in full swing! (2, Interesting)

Satanboy (253169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25334783)

Now that Blizzcon is in full swing, I can look forward to every announcement by blizzard being slashdotted and front paged for the next few days. . . .

replacement for spawn copies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25334905)

I have not seen any mention of spawn copies which helped to make Starcraft so popular at lan game events. With one legit copy could legally allow several others to also join the game. My understanding was that they were not going to return to this model for Starcraft 2.

Perhaps this trilogy system is going to cancel this out. With only needing the disc of one of the versions to play in multilayer. Depending on the if these sub-versions are separate and stand alone, or if they're merely expansion packs that is.

Operation CWAL? (1)

BobSixtyFour (967533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335177)

"..the plans they had were just too massive to implement in a single game on anything approaching a reasonable timeline."

What happened to Operation CWAL?

We can't do it... There is no way (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335747)

to fit all this content on one DVD-ROM... If only there was a way to ship 2 DVD-ROMs. But alas it's not possible. We'll just have to sell the other one for another $50.

They're missing the point (4, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335775)

Part of the inherent coolness of StarCraft was that you got to experience all three races with very three different play mechanisms across the game.

Now they want to make each campaign a separate game? It just doesn't sound nearly as interesting to me, no matter how big the campaigns are or what sort of "metagame" they add to it. It won't cover for the fact that, conceptually, it still feels like a step down.

Obviously, the world isn't coming to an end here - but I wonder if Blizzard's near perpetual success is leading to a bit of disconnect here with the fans. When you can do no wrong for so long, you might start to believe that you can do no wrong even when you're doing wrong.

to many assumptions with out any real details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335787)

you guys are complaining about some an awful lot for something you really know very little about. from the sounds of it, it will play as 3 separate games that come together on b.net for the full exp, and lets face it, online play is the only thing that matters.

  and you can't really say it's a marketing gimmick, i really may just be that huge of a game, and in order to offset the cost of a onetime purchase, they release in 3 parts. remember games like phantasmagora that came out on 7 discs? diablo 2 came out with 3 seperate disc's for installation and blizz likes to push things, if you can't fit it one dvd-rom what do you expect them to do, alienate it's customer base by releasing them on blu-ray discs requiring you to buy a blu-ray drive?

  you guys are making to big of a deal about something that i entirely based on an assumption

Victim of WoW's success (5, Funny)

Stickerboy (61554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335857)

I can see the conversation now at Blizzard's headquarters:

Bean counter: "Hey, we're making money hand over fist with World of Warcraft! How can you justify diverting money into an expensive new project without subscriptions?"
Developer: "We could put subscriptions into multiplayer."
Bean counter: "No, that could take away from our golden cash cow."
Developer: "We... could split the single player into three map packs and charge for all three?"
Bean counter: "Won't consumers feel gipped? Could that cut into sales?"
Developer: "We'll add more 'mine X resource, build Y units and rush the enemy base' missions to fluff it out. Total gameplay hours will be 3 times as long!"
Bean counter: "Brilliant!"

Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25335903)

I paid retail for the original Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Tides of Darkness, Starcraft, Brood Wars, Diablo2, Lord of Destruction, and Warcraft 3. I've been waiting for Starcraft 2 for ages, but there's no way I'll put up $180 to play it.

Call me when the trilogy goes to the bargain bin so I can pick it up for $60 ($20 each).

How does this work? (1)

LuNa7ic (991615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25335921)

Does this mean they'll be released separately, or just run separately(think Mediaeval TW:Kingdoms)?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...