Starcraft 2: Will you pay full price for 1/3 of a game?

Recommended Videos

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
Xzi said:
Cody211282 said:
And I would be willing to wait another 3 years for it to all come out as one, that would be fine, i just don't want to play $140 for 60 hours of play, hell Dragon age was 60 hours and only $50.
RPGs tend to be a lot longer than any other genre. But I assume you already knew that and are just grasping at straws now.
Yes I knew that, I was making a point, if your game is 20 hours long, and you have other content in development for it, why not just wait and put that in the game as well?
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
Iwata said:
Xzi said:
Cody211282 said:
And I would be willing to wait another 3 years for it to all come out as one, that would be fine, i just don't want to play $140 for 60 hours of play, hell Dragon age was 60 hours and only $50.
RPGs tend to be a lot longer than any other genre. But I assume you already knew that and are just grasping at straws now.
Dude, seriously... get over yourself.
Well since he chose to ignore my comment on how DOW2 was around 40 or so hours for me and expected SC2 to be about the same I think he is just missing the point, or he is a hopeless cheerleader who can't stand someone not liking blizzard milking them for money.
 

MetallicaRulez0

New member
Aug 27, 2008
2,503
0
0
Wings of Liberty is plenty long to warrant full purchase price. People seem to think that they made a game called Starcraft 2, which was of normal video game length (10-20 hours) and then just divided it into 3 parts. That's not true at all. It's 1 full, lengthy experience (including all of the multiplayer) and 2 full-featured expansion packs.
 

Luke Cartner

New member
May 6, 2010
317
0
0
Given that I was mainly interested in playing the zerg campaign, this was enough to make me want to wait until the entirety of this is in the discount bin.
 

Luke Cartner

New member
May 6, 2010
317
0
0
Xzi said:
Cody211282 said:
And I would be willing to wait another 3 years for it to all come out as one, that would be fine, i just don't want to play $140 for 60 hours of play, hell Dragon age was 60 hours and only $50.
RPGs tend to be a lot longer than any other genre. But I assume you already knew that and are just grasping at straws now.
Ummn rpg's tend to be longer than console games, I would argue however RTS's are as long if not longer than rpg's.
Personally if there is not 60-80 hours of single player play in start craft 2, its not the full release.
 

Arothel

New member
Feb 13, 2010
21
0
0
SyphonX said:
I won't be paying for it period. I never personally got into the Starcraft fanaticism.. different strokes for different folks. Even having said that, I believe the Starcraft ship has sailed a long time ago, and even as a non-fan, I can't simply come to terms with understanding how anyone would throw a fit over this game. I mean, it's such an old franchise with no installments since the first, which was many years ago. Starcraft wasn't even innovative back then, it was just popular for various reasons. Personally, it was everything I hated about RTS games.. specifically, the strategic importance of the "Zerg".

Games that use any sort of zergin' strategy, or allow it, do not get my attention for very long. It eliminates strategy, makes everything seem ridiculous.

Die-hard fans I 'spose.
Wait, what? You are faulting a real time strategy game for requiring strategy? If you think the zerg was just mass units and go then you never played against good players. Starcraft is one of the most balanced RTS' on the market, that is why it has withstood the test of time.
You are right about it not being incredibly innovative. Blizzard doesn't really do innovative all that often. They make excellent games that are balanced and polished.
And for the record, Starcraft 1 is only one of a very few games from 12 years ago that is still sold new in retail stores. The only other game that old I've seen on those shelves is another Blizzard game: Diablo 2.
It's fine to not like a game because it doesn't speak to you, but don't consider it a bad game because you didn't like it.
 

Franky 2.0

New member
Jul 4, 2010
7
0
0
There are many reasons not to get Starcraft 2 as-it-is, but lets stick to the topic at hand. Will you pay full price for 1/3 of a game? the answer is...No, of course not. Since I do not know yet how blizzard is telling there 3 part epic story, I will go out on a branch and say that Starcraft 2:Wings of Liberty is not, I repeat NOT, 1/3 of a game. It's 1/3rd of a story, its like the Gears of War series; where both games set you up for another round of fighting alien bad guys behind chest-high walls while continuing where the other left off.
 

zombays

New member
Apr 12, 2010
306
0
0
Whoever was the idiot that said there have been no installments after the first one back from 1998 OBVIOUSLY hasn't heard of brood war. It's a good game, yeah, not many people enjoy it cause it actually requires SKILL but, minor details, minor details :D
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
Not gonna buy it anyway. Not my sort of game, though I do love the idea of zerglings.
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
GamesB2 said:
I'm actually not convinced... I need to go play Starcraft 1 and try and get into it because i played the beta a bit but I was left confused and a little disappointed.
Watch TB's "I Suck at Starcraft 2". When I played the beta I sucked as I'd never played the original and I play less micro intensive RTS's. But after watching two episodes and watching all my replays I got way better and I really enjoy it.
 

19

New member
Feb 25, 2009
127
0
0
Oh my god, THANK YOU!
I was beggining to suspect that noone but me had fiqured that out and then there you go, summing it all up in one paragraph.
So yes, I agree. When they bundle it and sell it for a somewhat reasonable price, MAYBE I'll buy it (if something better isn't on the horizon by then), but until then I'll be completely ignoring this giant dick-move of a game.
 

Anticitizen_Two

New member
Jan 18, 2010
1,371
0
0
It's really more like paying for 1/3 of a game that is the length of 3 games. And haven't they announced they won't all be $60?
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
Nimzabaat said:
I know this may be a rehash but honestly, dividing one game into three parts and selling each part for full price? Blizzard you greedy bastards. The next step is releasing Diablo in four parts because you have to buy each class. (I hope Blizzard isn't reading this and going "hey, great idea!"). Am i buying Starcraft 2? Yes. When they release all three campaigns in one box and it's under 60 dollars. Until then, plenty of good games out there.
They are doing this I believe to side step the trap that game with three campaigns like Alien Vs. Predator had, with the game spreading it self to thin. Having it split into three games allows for a lot more wiggle room for each of the stories and the mechanics of each race.

Besides, your not just getting the campaign, you get the multiplayer that has been refined and balanced after a long Beta process, plus a few protoss missions to preview the next expansion pack, plus all the custom maps, and GAMES the galaxy editor has and will be allowed to make (I seen everything from side scrollers to first person shooters to bullet-hells).
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
Xzi said:
Cody211282 said:
Xzi said:
Cody211282 said:
And I would be willing to wait another 3 years for it to all come out as one, that would be fine, i just don't want to play $140 for 60 hours of play, hell Dragon age was 60 hours and only $50.
RPGs tend to be a lot longer than any other genre. But I assume you already knew that and are just grasping at straws now.
Yes I knew that, I was making a point, if your game is 20 hours long, and you have other content in development for it, why not just wait and put that in the game as well?
LOL hell no. I'm not waiting another three years for SC2. Blizzard's plan was always to have three installments. Just like Bioware didn't wait to put Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 all into one game.
So you would rather pay $140 now rather then $60 later, yea your good with money.
Xzi said:
Luke Cartner said:
Xzi said:
Cody211282 said:
And I would be willing to wait another 3 years for it to all come out as one, that would be fine, i just don't want to play $140 for 60 hours of play, hell Dragon age was 60 hours and only $50.
RPGs tend to be a lot longer than any other genre. But I assume you already knew that and are just grasping at straws now.
Ummn rpg's tend to be longer than console games, I would argue however RTS's are as long if not longer than rpg's.
Personally if there is not 60-80 hours of single player play in start craft 2, its not the full release.
I really hope that you're aware that you're BSing here. Because it would be pretty sad otherwise. Give me one example of an RTS (without expansions) that's longer than 40 hours. Obviously DOW doesn't count since one dude in this thread is saying he beat it in 8 hours, while another is claiming it's 40 hours long.

And Starcraft 2 will be 60+ hours with both expansions, so yea.
Hes not BSing he's right, as I said for me DOW 2 was 40 hours +, SC1 was 30-40, WC3 was 30-40 as well, now they are expecting $60 for a 20 hour game and to shell out for expansions?