Starcraft 2 splitting into a trilogy. Good news, it "may" not as be bad as it sounds

[Newuser]

Starcraft 2 splitting into a trilogy. Good news, it's not as be bad as it sounds

Any admins or mods - Can you just lock this topic, I have a new topic that I have a reason for making here is the new topic.

Not an early/late April Fool's joke.

Anyway, it seems that this year Blizzcon really have huge surprises.

Starcraft 2 will be split into 3 separate games, they haven't really released much info besides that.

However, each game will apparently have the full game, the editor, and multiplayer support, it's just that campaigns are separated.

So you can think of it as "Starcraft 2 and the two expansion packs" instead of a trilogy.

Well, we'll just see what's official on how they're going to do this.

 

[Bob27]

I hope that they do make them as expansions, rather then stand alone games. Buying just one game can be way to expensive sometimes, let alone three games. I would be very disappointed if I had to pay full price for three different games, basically just so I could get a new campaign.

 

[Linaze]

Sounds both good and bad, seems like there's gonna be LONG campaigns, resulting in possibilities for a sweet storyline. Problem is that you need to buy three games, thus becoming x3 the price. Bah.

 

[LordDz]

So.. Will they be cheaper?

As what game do I need to play online? Do I need the Terran part to play Terran or can I play all?

I fear its gonna be gay..

AND WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS WITH US WHO PREORDERED THE GAME?!

 

[redmarine]

So.. Will they be cheaper?

As what game do I need to play online? Do I need the Terran part to play Terran or can I play all?

I fear its gonna be gay..

AND WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS WITH US WHO PREORDERED THE GAME?!

No, the multiplayer will not be changed. In all the games the multiplayer willl feature all the races, and no matter what you choose to buy you'll be able to play along with the other standalone versions.

Blizzard knows what they are doing.

Btw I got this info from their trilogy announcement.

Please add more info on the OP because you'll start a shitload of romours which has already created chaos on the Battle.net forums because of lach of willingness to actually check it for themselves.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

They mentioned each game will contain the corresponding race's campaign, and that campaign will be the length of the full Starcraft game.

So we get 3 campaigns, with fleshed out story lines each of them equal to all 3 of the campaigns that were in the original starcraft.

Thats 3x more starcraft, how is this bad? Thats some major win.

But um.. I guess I've lost hope for a mid 2009 release.

 

[Martin Barbov]

How is this bad?¿ Well...
Blizzard are going to make one game and sell it THREE times. I know they are the best and they know what they're doing but that's too much. What next - Sell units one by one. 5$ - zergling. 50$ - Battlecruisser. And the best offer - Marine + Firebat for only 10$(plus you get free Steampack for each one).

 

[Serbianbeast]

Now I get it, they were like:
"Oh look at those poor ppl desperately waiting for our game, they'll do anything to get it. I know, let's see if they're gonna pay triple price?"
Really, classic blizzard way, the greedy way

 

[LordDz]

In whatever case, they got to have the non-CD out asap. I don't wanna switch between three CDs just to play a different campaign.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

/agree with LordDz

In any case, as said, it's not entirely bad. While we spend a little more money (little being an understatement), we get to enjoy a campaign three times as long! And if it's anything like what Blizzard has given us in terms of storyline, I think I'll be thoroughly enjoying it.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Obviously a way to make money. However it may benifit mappers. As they each have separate campaigns, it will mean each will have different model, icon and other such recources available for use.

If not then they should have the campaigns sold separatly at reduced price or altleast that you do not needs a unique CDkey for each.

I mean if me and my brother were to play at the same time it would come to 6 CD keys needed which is not cheap. Honestly they should make it if it will be a trilogy that each person only needs 1 unique key.

 

[BoneBreaker]

This has some major pros, but some shifty cons. The best pro will be that SCII, Wings of Liberty (Terran campaign), will be released very soon, which means we get the game much sooner than everyone expected. If we had to wait for the other two campaigns to be created, as well, we would be really stuffed.

 

[Zombie]

This IS bad. Doesn't Blizzard have already enough money? Buying three seperate games will totally ruin the gameplay experience and empty people's pockets. (Eg. I've been saving for SC2, and now I'll have to buy 3 of it D Imo, it would be much better to make 1 really long game out of it instead of seperating them. People would say "K, this game was awesome, and really long too, it was perfect." Imagine HL2 torn into three seperate parts.

 

[BoneBreaker]

...

1. HL2 is a completely different genre.
2. All 3 of them would be the same price (basically) as buying them all in one.
3. Would you want to wait until late 2010 for them to finish the Zerg and Protoss campaigns, or get the game in early 2009 (Terran campaign is already finished and in a playable state)? I think you would prefer the latter.

 

[redmarine]

It's annoying that people are wining because they are broke.

 

[LordDz]

Hey... Will this give me three cdkeys? Aka: 3 keys to play online with? Great for lans and stuff

 

[Tyranid]

...
3. Would you want to wait until late 2010 for them to finish the Zerg and Protoss campaigns, or get the game in early 2009 (Terran campaign is already finished and in a playable state)? I think you would prefer the latter.

Yes I would rather than paying three times the normal cost for a single game!

 

[Eleandor]

They've said somewhere that the main reason for the trilogy is that each campaign needs a huge amount of new graphical content.

Which brings me to the question: How are mods going to work? I mean, really, it's gonna be a real bummer if you need e.g. the Protoss campaign in order to be able to play a certain map. And yes, this is a pretty big issue IMO because most of the zerg doodads and such will probably be released with the zerg campaign and only be available when you have bought it.

 

[redmarine]

They've said somewhere that the main reason for the trilogy is that each campaign needs a huge amount of new graphical content.

Which brings me to the question: How are mods going to work? I mean, really, it's gonna be a real bummer if you need e.g. the Protoss campaign in order to be able to play a certain map. And yes, this is a pretty big issue IMO because most of the zerg doodads and such will probably be released with the zerg campaign and only be available when you have bought it.

Dude, only the campaign will be seperated not the multiplayer content. If they need to do that they could just update the other games. It ain't that hard.

 

[Razorbrain]

26-30 missions a piece?

HELL YEAH!!!!!

 

[Mechanical Man]

This is fucking dumb. Let's assume that buying 3 games is not a problem. You now must play a campaign with a single race 30 missions. But meanwhile you get bored playing this race and you want to play from another perspective aka with other races. But for this you will have to finish with this race and wait for the expansion. After you get hands of one of those "expansions", you'll be forced to play long time solely with this race, wanting you to play a campaign with first race, but you already finished everything with it. The most important, you won't be able to play the twists in the story. The problem also lies in techtree, usually in RTS campaigns the avalaible techtree grows by progressing the campaign, but this way it will be capped in let's say level 10, and from then everything will be unlocked, but it could be cut again in some missions, but that is annoying. This also hinders the ability to add new units in the expansions which would balance races (like necessary medic for terrans and lurker for zerg in sc), this is too big content to just include in patches and adding 3rd expansion is fail.

This system works for games featuring a lot of races, like Dawn of war, adding some races with each expansion (yes, space marine only campaign is lame, I know). But starcraft will always feature only those 3 races.

Having 3 separate games featuring each races campaigns in stacraft game would be fine, so in this case I wouldn't mind 2 expansions.

 

[redmarine]

We're not even sure if those are expansions at all.

 

[Callahan]

It's a weird idea.They'd better make 1 original game and 2 expansion instead of 3 stand-alone.Even from a greedy marketing point of view.
If you make expansion you're forced to own the original game while stand-alone as name says stand alone.

And spliting each campaign in 3 stand-alone is very frustrating.It would be better to include 1/3 of each campaign in each of 3 stand-alone me says.

And manufacturing 3 games that are almost the same considering that customers probably won't buy 3 time the same game with just a different campaign changed but 1 or 2 especially if they aim casual players.And some will buy it for only mp and editor.
I strongly doubt of the success of this idea.

But it's financial crisis they must survive.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

Hm. I figure I have a different path that Blizzard could take:

Have 4 games instead of 3. But wait, isn't that just more games? No. You have 3 campaign packs and the base game. The base game lets you play online, while the campaign packs feature one race's campaign.

For the first "release," you package together the base game and the 1st campaign pack. For the 2nd, release both the campaign pack on its own and the 2nd campaign + core game combo. Repeat for the third. Voila. This way, you can charge $40 for the base game and $20 for each campaign pack. I don't think people would complain as much this way. But that's just my take on it. In theory, you would only have to spend $100 for the base game and all three campaigns.

 

[redmarine]

Angry_Bovine, that would just anger some of the campaigners even more.

 

[Tyranid]

Hm. I figure I have a different path that Blizzard could take:

Have 4 games instead of 3. But wait, isn't that just more games? No. You have 3 campaign packs and the base game. The base game lets you play online, while the campaign packs feature one race's campaign.

For the first "release," you package together the base game and the 1st campaign pack. For the 2nd, release both the campaign pack on its own and the 2nd campaign + core game combo. Repeat for the third. Voila. This way, you can charge $40 for the base game and $20 for each campaign pack. I don't think people would complain as much this way. But that's just my take on it. In theory, you would only have to spend $100 for the base game and all three campaigns.

Or how about, you know, they delay the game and give us a finished product?

 

[Angry_Bovine]

Okay, nevermind. I'll shutup now. Blizzard should just give us a full game for $50.

 

[Serbianbeast]

The lamest possible way to make us buy all of them would be separating doodads, adding new units (models) and stuff like that, so that with one game your maps would have to be based on it.

 

[PurplePoot]

Serbianbeast, they're expansions, so that wouldn't be a problem either way.

 

[Arcmage]

Personally I think blizzard is just responding to all the fans who want the game to come out quickly if you wold rather wait to get a full product for less just wait untell the game deprecates value its basicly the same thing if the game comes out in 2009 and you wait tell 2011 when it probably would come out you can buy it on e-bay for 20$ and I dont think the expansions will cost as much as the original but if your penny pinching why not wait a while to buy those to?