Star Craft II- Is there anyone who will not be getting this game?

[John Funk]

Uh, it's going to be as much the "same story told from three different perspectives" as the first game was? Zerg campaign picks up where Terran campaign ends, Protoss campaign follows suit - maybe with a little bit of overlap?

It's an intentional logical fallacy, because I think the argument itself is weak. Intentionally absurdist, if you will.

I don't know if they changed anything about it, but as far as I remember this is what they stated back in the day: http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy

Each campaign is treated as a fully fleshed out game, with each title ending the same way. The change will allow for more characters, more missions, and more complete experiences overall.

Yeah, it has changed - I don't have the link with me unfortunately, but I remember reading a Blizzcon interview last year with Samwise where he talked about playing a mission as the Terrans on a world, and then in the Zerg campaign maybe coming back to the same world and finding it changed/terraformed. Which indicates some sort of time-passing between the stories.

That, and the inclusion of a Protoss mini-campaign in SC2T, tells me that at some point they moved back to the SC1 style.

It wasn't an argument. It was a couple of people saying they didn't like something. A personal opinion on something that ultimately doesn't matter, then you spazzed the fuck out like they punched your mother in the face.

... seriously?

"I find the argument (that SC2 is one complete game just conveniently bisected into thirds) to be weak." There we go. Is that better now?

And I hardly think having a little fun with sarcasm counts as that. Keep it polite, by the way.

 

[park92]

i'll get it because it has custom map editor

 

[Sartan0]

i'll get it because it has custom map editor

Oh, soooo true. I wasted hours making maps in WCIII. Some of them were even good.

 

[Jedoro]

I won't. I'm just not the general-type, I only enjoy commanding a small unit.

 

[QuickDEMOL1SHER]

I won't.

I would LOVE to, but my computer (laptop) is a piece of ass and I don't feel like upgrading for one game.

 

[Cody211282]

I have yet to pay for a game that's $60, Passed up MW2, played Diablo 2 at a friends house for 30 min before deciding it wasn't really worth it(basically just Diablo 1 with a few new classes), and I got WC3 from my uncle after he was done playing it about 2 or 3 years after it came out.

So short awnser is no. Also why would I pay $60 for 1/3rd of a game that by the developers own admission is going to be 90% of the same stuff of the first game?


And I think you ask me this every time I say something about it.

If you have something against $60 games, then by all means more power to you. I'm just pointing out that this is, unlike how some would claim, not new territory for Blizzard. They've been doing it since D2.

And hell, at least it's not like the N64 days when games cost $80

It isn't 1/3rd of a game, and where did they say that? They're expanding on the concept of the first game's singleplayer tremendously. I've been nothing but pleased with what I've seen of SC2's singleplayer. It could be smoke and mirrors, but I seriously doubt it.

The bad parts of SC2 now are the lack of LAN and Battle.net 2.0. The game itself is shaping up fantastic.

What I was trying to say is the single player will be mostly the same as the first game, I remember them saying they wanted to keep what worked the same(and lets face it that was damn near everything). Also I'm going to just point out that what LordNue said about it being 1/3rd of a full game is true. They took the full game, cut it up, and are having it come out in 3 parts. That's not a trilogy it's just a fragmented game. Fromw hat I can tell the good old days of blizzard being a company that actually cared is far over, they are up there with Activision for trying to screw people out of money.

Except... it won't. When did SC1 have a (somewhat) branching storyline? When were you able to fulfill alternate objectives during missions in order to research upgrades and tech for your units in SC1? When were you able to hire mercenaries that include units you couldn't ordinarily build yourselves? (Okay, okay, WC3, fine).

It may have started as one game, but that was a very old design plan. I would be very surprised if they'd even moved beyond general concepting on how they're going to do the Zerg expansion.

It's one full game with two full-length expansions.

I mean, I hate to pull the "industry" card because it does seem like a cheap trick, but every time I've talked with the Blizzard guys I've come away with nothing but the impression that they genuinely think this is the best way to do the game quality-wise. And designers/artists/etc aren't very good at doublespeak - that's what PR people are for

SC1 had a something like that, in the Terran campaign of the expansion(you got to choose if you killed the nukes or the battlecruisers and had to fight off the others in the next mission, not exactly a good example but still it was an idea they have had for a time). Unless this is Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol like branching story lines, then it's probably nothing all that hard to implement.

Of course they think it's a good idea, hell most people probably want an eternity to fine polish the game, but guess what as Duke Nukem Forever showed us, you don't get forever(and they have had just about the same amount of time). At this point they are just breaking the game up into 3 parts because they know it will still sell like weed at a Bob Marly concert even if they broke it down in to 6 parts. And no it's not a game and 2 expansions, it's one game over 3 parts, nothing new is added, all they are doing is not letting you play the Protoss and Zerg campaigns because gamers in general will pay damn near anything for one of their games. Thank god Valve doesn't think like them(but does work about as fast).

 

[Weaver]

The "trilogy" doesn't bother me at all. IMO if each provides a really long and interesting campaign I'd happily pay for them. If each campaign is like 5 hours and costs $60 then we're going to have some issues.

Didn't they say each will be like 30 missions? That's a total of 90 missions, I'm down with that.

 

[Cody211282]

Uh, it's going to be as much the "same story told from three different perspectives" as the first game was? Zerg campaign picks up where Terran campaign ends, Protoss campaign follows suit - maybe with a little bit of overlap?

It's an intentional logical fallacy, because I think the argument itself is weak. Intentionally absurdist, if you will.

I don't know if they changed anything about it, but as far as I remember this is what they stated back in the day: http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy

Each campaign is treated as a fully fleshed out game, with each title ending the same way. The change will allow for more characters, more missions, and more complete experiences overall.

Yeah, it has changed - I don't have the link with me unfortunately, but I remember reading a Blizzcon interview last year with Samwise where he talked about playing a mission as the Terrans on a world, and then in the Zerg campaign maybe coming back to the same world and finding it changed/terraformed. Which indicates some sort of time-passing between the stories.

That, and the inclusion of a Protoss mini-campaign in SC2T, tells me that at some point they moved back to the SC1 style.

It wasn't an argument. It was a couple of people saying they didn't like something. A personal opinion on something that ultimately doesn't matter, then you spazzed the fuck out like they punched your mother in the face.

... seriously?

"I find the argument (that SC2 is one complete game just conveniently bisected into thirds) to be weak." There we go. Is that better now?

And I hardly think having a little fun with sarcasm counts as that. Keep it polite, by the way.

That's pretty much what happened, as far as we've been told and one guy has even quoted it, it's just one game cut into thirds with different perspectives. If you have any proof otherwise then please share it.
But really dude, chill. People just said they don't like the whole 3 games thing and you jumped down their throats like and alien face hugger. No one really attacked you or your precious game, no need to be an ass over video games.

In his defense I did attack the game by saying blizzard could suck a giant cocksicle.

 

[John Funk]

That's pretty much what happened, as far as we've been told and one guy has even quoted it, it's just one game cut into thirds with different perspectives. If you have any proof otherwise then please share it.
But really dude, chill. People just said they don't like the whole 3 games thing and you jumped down their throats like and alien face hugger. No one really attacked you or your precious game, no need to be an ass over video games.

They've also said that they're not even thinking about (well, probably THINKING about, but not working on) the Zerg and Protoss campaigns until SC2T is out the door. Which is pretty poor form if they were just chopping up one game into three pieces.

Nobody's attacking anyone. It's an argument that I find tiresome, and posted my thoughts as others posted theirs. Read into them whatever you will, but if you want to yell at people to 'chill' you're barking up the wrong tree. Slightly facetious civility is still civility.

 

[Dango]

Me, I will not be getting it very soon I don't think, I will instead be buying BlazBlue: Continuum Shift, although I still have high hopes for Star Craft 2, as I may buy it later on

 

[Shoggoth2588]

*raises hand*

I'm not an RTS fan to begin with but then I saw a teaser trailer which featured no gameplay. That teaser made me think, 'wow: This would be a sweet freaking FPS or, 3rd person action game!'

I'm just going to try finding a wormhole that will lead me to the alternate reality where Starcraft: Ghost was released.

 

[Belvadier]

i will not be.

i have played the old one a few times, it was fun, but just too time consuming for a strategy game, if im gonna pour time into a game its gonna be an rpg for sure.

so no i will not be, plus all the koreans raped on me when i played the few times online and not against my friend

Dunno if when you say time consuming you are talking about single player or multiplayer but having played the beta I can definitely say that the multiplayer matches usually go by much faster than original SC so it may not be quite the investment that you remember it being.

Also, these koreans you mention SHOULD be playing on their own area's multiplayer servers unless they get the US version of the game, if I understand correctly. So that shouldn't be an issue anymore (at least I think...)

 

[Ashsaver]

I planed on getting Starcraft 2 then have a blast with my friends,but i heard rumor about Starcraft 2 won't have Lan support,and that's pretty much holding me back from "definitely gonna get it"

 

[The Madman]

Of course they think it's a good idea, hell most people probably want an eternity to fine polish the game, but guess what as Duke Nukem Forever showed us, you don't get forever(and they have had just about the same amount of time). At this point they are just breaking the game up into 3 parts because they know it will still sell like weed at a Bob Marly concert even if they broke it down in to 6 parts. And no it's not a game and 2 expansions, it's one game over 3 parts, nothing new is added, all they are doing is not letting you play the Protoss and Zerg campaigns because gamers in general will pay damn near anything for one of their games. Thank god Valve doesn't think like them(but does work about as fast).

Name your sources, because otherwise it just sounds like you're making things up for the sake of generic internet rage fodder. How do you know the expansions will add nothing new? Give links, sources, proof.

Have you played the game? Talked to the developers? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't? Because otherwise I'm more inclined to believe the people who actually have talked with the developers and seen the full product, and they all seem to say otherwise.

 

[Kouen]

i wont be, not my thing.

never been a rts fan

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i will not be.

i have played the old one a few times, it was fun, but just too time consuming for a strategy game, if im gonna pour time into a game its gonna be an rpg for sure.

so no i will not be, plus all the koreans raped on me when i played the few times online and not against my friend

Dunno if when you say time consuming you are talking about single player or multiplayer but having played the beta I can definitely say that the multiplayer matches usually go by much faster than original SC so it may not be quite the investment that you remember it being.

Also, these koreans you mention SHOULD be playing on their own area's multiplayer servers unless they get the US version of the game, if I understand correctly. So that shouldn't be an issue anymore (at least I think...)

oh i see.

even then, starcraft is just not the strategy game for me, i much prefer empire earth/age of empire/civilization to starcraft, idk what it is, but i just do.

and for the most part, this is the order that i buy games

rpgs >> shooters >> action adventure >> strategy >> horror

so strategy ranks pretty low usually...

i do enjoy it, dont get me wrong, but just not necesarrily my thing, ya know?

so more power to all you starcrafters but its just not exactly my thing