Apologies if you felt I was being condescending; I used that example to illustrate that I find the argument at hand very silly. I understand that it's from a heartfelt, well-meaning place, but I just don't see how it holds up.
Obviously, there's no way to tell what exactly SC2Z will be like, since Blizzard hasn't even started making it yet. However, from the little we do know, it should actually be less like SC2T than you're expecting - they've talked before about how you can't just slap a creepy-crawly skin on it and call it a day, because the entire framework of the campaign is different. Jim Raynor walks around the Hyperion, gets missions from his crew members, talks with engineering and science about optional objectives to upgrade units. Kerrigan won't be doing any of that.
They've also mentioned that they've tossed the idea around of having SC2Z have "RPG elements," whatever that means - so clearly, the entire framework AROUND the single-player missions is going to be different. You'll have different units, etc, but you're right that the baseline SC2 gameplay probably won't change all that much. Then again, the baseline Mass Effect gameplay didn't change all that much, either. Many of the same fundamentals were still there, they were just tweaked (in many cases to make them not suck).
We can quibble over "oh, Game X changed MORE than Game Y, but Game Y didn't need as much changing as Game X in the first place" all we want, but the concept still remains the same. Hell, one could argue that Mass Effect is worse in a way, because the amount of people who play BioWare games for the story is probably more than the number of people who will be buying SC2 for the story and not the excellent multiplayer. And you won't get all the perks without playing prior games in the series.
Xzi said:
But these aren't actual expansions. There are one single player campaign split into three pieces.*
Take Warcraft III, as you mention Blizzard and their expansions, and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne.
In Warcraft III you have one single player campaign. In Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne you have another single player campaign.
Yes, Warcraft III spanned a lot of missions, and different races, but it was one campaign, just like Starcraft II and it's "expansions" are. Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne followed this beastmaster half-ogre whose name I simply cannot recal in this moment - it started with R.
That's an example of an expansion done right. You have one campaign in the original game. The campaign is closed. Over. Then the expansion provides another campaign.
That's the difference.
That's what I'm against.
Also @ John Funk.
If you want to compare it to something, I'll also compare it to something.
Starcraft II in 3 parts would have been the same as if Diablo II had three acts, and then splitting each of these into a separate game.**
You cannot compare movies to games. Stop doing that. We cannot compare apples to oranges.
*Again, you're making an awfully large assumption here. You have no idea what the plot will be like or how SC2T will end, or how SC2Z and SC2P will follow from it. WC3TFT clearly followed the plot from WC3, but WC3 had its own conclusion. I fully expect SC2T to do the same.
Many of your arguments rely on assumptions. You cannot say SC2's campaign won't be done right until it's out - all you're doing is arguing on speculation.
**Er, you mean like how Diablo II's final act came in an expansion? If you beat D2 when it first came out, yes you fought Diablo but there was still notably one brother left over. Now, just imagine that Diablo II had a second expansion and an Act VI (which would probably have required Tyrael not destroy the world stone but now I'm getting ahead of myself). This is the same thing.
ark Crusade- Added Tau and Necrons to the game, changed from a linear campaign to a risk type board that let you pick were to fight and what perks to go after, and your buildings would be saved to each map, also added new units.
