Your opinion on starcraft 2 split into 3 games?

[theshadowiscast]

Hello everyone. Recently I have read that starcraft 2 has been split into 3 seperate games for each of the races involved. According to Blizzard this was done to add more depth to the campaigns for the terrans, protoss, and zerg. I did not read if the games were going to be sold at the usual $49.99 price for each one.

Personally, I'm appraoching this with cautious optimism based upon Blizzard delivering well made games (in my opinion) but I'll be disappointed if the games do sell for $49.99 each and if the race selection for multiplayer depends upon which version you own.

I'm curious what other people think about Blizzard splitting starcraft 2 into 3 seperate games. My apologies if this topic has been done already but I did not see one when I searched the forums.

 

[scnj]

Seems like a quick way to get more money to me. Make one game and charge triple the price. That merger with Activision taught them a few things.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Seems like a quick way to get more money to me. Make one game and charge triple the price. That merger with Activision taught them a few things.

They must have picked it up when they released Guitar Hero:________

 

[Teachingaddict]

Hmmm, sorry to the OP, but nothing personal, these threads annoy me. When Dawn of War came out, no one complained that every few months or so an expansion came out, most paying full price for each one. However, Blizzard kindly lets us know they are doing it this way, to improve the game, and everyone kicks off.


Whats the difference...pray tell?

EDIT: Also recently announced, the first game will have atleast 30 missions. Not many RTS can claim to have 30 missions for one story, most have 30 across 2 or 3.

 

[Pandalisk]

Depends if they are released all at once or over a period of time between each release, it seems kinda of pointless they can improve it all on one game why make three? there just milking us like a cash cow if thats the case,if its memory limitations then by all means i have nothing wrong with it. Its like Dawn Of Wars Expansions. but they were months between each other

 

[scnj]

Seems like a quick way to get more money to me. Make one game and charge triple the price. That merger with Activision taught them a few things.

They must have picked it up when they released Guitar Hero:________

Don't get me started. I used to love Guitar Hero, but Activision have ruined it.

 

[Anachronism]

I'll be honest, it does seem to me like an attempt to get as much money as they can out of it. They're learning from Activision, I guess. And the thing is, they know they'll get away with it, because no matter how much they complain about it, we all know that the rabid StarCraft fans will buy all three parts.

I'll be disappointed if the games do sell for $49.99 each and if the race selection for multiplayer depends upon which version you own.

I don't think that's how it's going to work. I think each part is basically each race's campaign; so, of the three parts, one will be the Protoss campaign, another the Zerg campaign, and the last the Terran campaign. Regardless of which part you have, though, I think you get access to all the races in multiplayer.

 

[Same River New Water]

We'll have to wait and see what's in each game. If the two subsequent games are like expansion packs, and priced accordingly, then that's fair. If all three are like full games and priced like it, then that's fair.

Here's my prediction: the first game will wow everyone with its depth and quality for a reasonable price. The two follow-up games will add a little bit to that, but mostly just be extension to the campaigns, and be priced lower. And as soon as the first sequel comes out, a lot of people will complain that it's a rip-off because it's not as amazingly good value as the first one.

That's assuming it's a good game etc.

 

[The Madman]

One game, two expansions. Why the hell is everyone going into a frenzy over this amazing news? Every Blizzard game to date has had an expansion, Starcraft 2 will just happen to have two. And rather than the expansion being mandatory for multiplayer like they usually are, it's instead simply a continuation of the story for those interested and optional for everyone else. Oh Noes!

Oh wait, this is the internet where every tiny detail must be over-analyzed and examined to such a point where it's ridiculous. Where people wait in the proverbial dark corners of the internet to pounce on any announcement so that they may twist and subvert it to their perverted pleasures; See Diablo 3 'color' fiasco for proof of this.

Blizzards only mistake was announcing it and expecting people to be reasonable and to take their statement at face value. Clearly Blizzard success with World of Warcraft have made them all blind optimists. What Blizzard *should* have said is: "Starcraft will ship with a Terran singleplayer campaign at launch, and we're throwing everything we got into making it as amazing as possible. Worry not however fans of the other two races, there will likely be an expansion or two just like with all our games."

 

[veloper]

all hail our overlords at blizzard.

 

[microhive]

90+ fully unliniar campaigns! WOO HOO! BLIZZARD GOGOGO! lol.

EDIT: he campaign order is Terran > Zerg > Protoss

Btw, Battle.net 2.0 will be free to play. Just got confirmed.

 

[gibboss28]

Looking forward to it. It being split into three games doesn't bother me, the same way that the half life episodic content didn't

 

[Ushario]

90+ fully unliniar campaigns! WOO HOO! BLIZZARD GOGOGO! lol.

EDIT: he campaign order is Terran > Zerg > Protoss

Btw, Battle.net 2.0 will be free to play. Just got confirmed.

If it wasn't even the fanboys would start the boycotting.

 

[Heegu]

It's just for the good of the game. Since the two other parts act like expansions they won't cost too much. Blizzard has stated multiple times that ramming all the campaigns into a single game would just hurt the story.

 

[mangus]

I was wholeheartedly opposed to this until I heard that each episode was going to be a hefty chunk of game anyway. Now my only problem is that blizzard takes forever at non-WoW and the terrans aren't that cool.

 

[Inco]

I say that its better this way, cause if they did it all at once either
1) The Story will take a massive hit in quality
2) It wont be released for ages and might suffer the above
3) It might Cost additional anyway. (might)
4) if 2 occurs, then korea might band together and nuke blizzard.

 

[not a zaar]

Hmmm, sorry to the OP, but nothing personal, these threads annoy me. When Dawn of War came out, no one complained that every few months or so an expansion came out, most paying full price for each one. However, Blizzard kindly lets us know they are doing it this way, to improve the game, and everyone kicks off.


Whats the difference...pray tell?

EDIT: Also recently announced, the first game will have atleast 30 missions. Not many RTS can claim to have 30 missions for one story, most have 30 across 2 or 3.

That's not necessarily a good thing though, as the number of missions goes up the quality of each one goes down, and you're bound to end up with a few really short ones or outright stinkers. It's the same problem as when an RPG developer claims to have a 60+ hour game, and you just know it's going to be chock full of copy-pasted dungeons and palette swapped monsters.

 

[Andy_Panthro]

I don't view it as too bad a thing, but only because I tend to only complete an RTS with one of the available factions.

I do hope that they release them at a reasonable price point, but I would imagine they'll try and keep the price as high as they can get away with.