Blizzcon 08: StarCraft 2 Trilogy Confirmed

[TJ rock 101]

I pray to god...and a few other things that might help that something like this does not happen to diablo III.

 

[TJ rock 101]

I only hope that in each one you can play as the other two races in skirmishes but that kinda fucks the point of handing out 3 seperate games for reasons other than loosing the majority of their fans.
I wanted there to be a cool big fight at the end where all 3 races team up to fight the xel'naga and the hybrids (drool) but this kicked my idea out the building of hope (that is currently on fire and in need of help)

This better not happen to diablo III or somebody if gonna get murdered.

 

[Rankao]

I donno I kept buying Dawn of War Stand Alongs for the longest time.

 

[Blind0bserver]

From what I'm able to understand from the article, they really only have finished(or at least almost have) the Terran campaign and only have rough ideas for the other two. So, to meet their pre-announced deadline, they're releasing what they have now so they can work on the rest of it later.

It makes sense, but it doesn't change the fact that it's kinda shameless and, more importantly, it kinda sucks that your being forced to buy the campaign for each race.

 

[CmdrGoob]

Three full priced games would be ridiculous money grabbing.

Are you kidding me? Starcraft is still fun to play. It's still easy to find an online game of starcraft. Starcraft 1 was made in 1998. Do you know other games that have a multiplayer lifespan like that?

The longevity and play value that you get from a blizzard game changes the dynamic. I'm guessing, from the track record of blizzard, that each separate game will be of sufficient size to warrant the price, unlike half life episodes. If this turns out not to be the case then, yes, we have a problem.

Why would I be kidding you?

Starcraft 1 rocks to this day but only because of multiplayer. Blizzard say you'll be able to play multiplayer with all three races with just Starcraft 2 part 1, so why should Blizzard expect me to pay full price for the other two when they're just essentially single player add-ons? Once upon a time, they'd call that an expansion pack and an expansion didn't cost full price. No, this is worse than an expansion. Take Brood War as an example. You got more single player content and a bunch of new units to play with for less than a full game. In this 'trilogy' you won't even get new units. Maybe you're ready to bend over and pay full price for something that's less than a expansion, but I'm not that desperate. So they damn well better not be full price.

 

[Uszi]

does everthing have to be a trilogy?

Yes.
Man Law #4,562

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

I don't care about the trilogy thing, if it's good I'll pay whatever they want within reason BUT, I do have a problem with the strategy.

Let me ask you all this, which would you rather do:
-Play 30 missions as Terran, then 30 missions as Zerg, then 30 missions as Protoss
--OR--
-Play 10 missions as Terran, then Zerg, then Protoss, and repeat with two expansions.

Personally, I don't see why they didn't just go the second route, it would be like any of their other Warcraft/Starcraft games, with one extra expansion.

 

[John Funk]

I'm wary of it myself, but if there's any company I trust to do it and not botch it, it's Blizzard.

Diablo 3 - now THERE'S sexiness. Mmmm. Even the demo level was tons of fun.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I'm wary of it myself, but if there's any company I trust to do it and not botch it, it's Blizzard.

Diablo 3 - now THERE'S sexiness. Mmmm. Even the demo level was tons of fun.

There's a demo out?

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html

Gamespy article which features an interview with a Blizzard employee, answering alot of our questions and concerns. You may not be happy about what they say about price though. But from the sounds of it, they're doing ALOT more then 'just' creating a Singleplayer campaign.

 

[Ralackk]

Thanks for the link TsunamiWombat, It put my mind to ease a little. It will still depend entirely on if they stick to what they say but it doesn't sound so much like money grubbing.

 

[John Funk]

there's a demo on the Blizzcon show floor, yeah

 

[TsunamiWombat]

there's a demo on the Blizzcon show floor, yeah

*shakes fist at people who get to go*

 

[asiepshtain]

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html

Gamespy article which features an interview with a Blizzard employee, answering alot of our questions and concerns. You may not be happy about what they say about price though. But from the sounds of it, they're doing ALOT more then 'just' creating a Singleplayer campaign.

I Read the article and I think the most major thing to notice there is that they want completely diffrent single player mechanics for each race. An economy model for the terrans, an evolutional one for the zerg and some kind of exclusion mechanic for the protoss. This makes the decision to break it up much clearer. Even thou I still think that a game with 30 terran missions isn't a good idea. Starcraft was successful becuase it had diversity, I hope they know what they're doing.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I'm hard pressed to believe that making a game longer is going to make it better. I'd talk s*** but hey, I'm gonna be buying it. You're gonna be buying it. It's Starcraft 2.

 

[nightfish]

Do we really want 30 missions a side? I just think its way over the top and theres going to be so much repetition.

 

[Ralackk]

If they are no longer sticking with the single player game play mimicking the multiplayer aspect of the game then you could easily have 30 missions and all of them be vastly different. I'm not saying they all will be different from the basic RTS game play as that is why most will buy the game, but they can borrow from the use map settings style of game play for a few of the missions to mix it up.

 

[Dommyboy]

They are just rushing to get the game out earlier and get more monies.

 

[Capo Taco]

Why would I be kidding you?

Starcraft 1 rocks to this day but only because of multiplayer. Blizzard say you'll be able to play multiplayer with all three races with just Starcraft 2 part 1, so why should Blizzard expect me to pay full price for the other two when they're just essentially single player add-ons? Once upon a time, they'd call that an expansion pack and an expansion didn't cost full price. No, this is worse than an expansion. Take Brood War as an example. You got more single player content and a bunch of new units to play with for less than a full game. In this 'trilogy' you won't even get new units. Maybe you're ready to bend over and pay full price for something that's less than a expansion, but I'm not that desperate. So they damn well better not be full price.

CmdrGoob, Vanguard: Then don't buy it. Just because they're offering an additional product is hardly extortion or money grubbing. I don't know yet it I'll buy any additional games after the terran campaign, I say it depends on the quality of the terran campaign. I'm really only buying it for the multiplayer in the first place, anyways.

I just want Blizzard to kill all the rumor mongering at once. They just need to release an official statement explaining everything.

Rob Pardo said it in an interview. The one that this thread links to. He said that all three races would be available for multiplayer on the terran release. That makes it official.

 

[Thoma]

If they are going to do it the cheap-and-short-and-frequent way, then I guess it's okay. Otherwise I smell some greed here to be honest. Probably they just want to release the first one before the Christmas rush so they can make tons of money.

By the way, did you notice that all three titles have the word 'of' in them? Very epic.