Jump to content

Starcraft II - THE TRILOGY?!


Antipode
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I heard savage isn't that good compared to the HL mod Natural Selection.

Check that game out if your looking for a mix of RTS/FPS, I've been playing this game for years and it's a lot of fun.

http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/

Why a game this good, is not popular escapes me.

Oh and it's free if you got a copy of half life 1 and some versions of counter-strike.

About starcraft, in 3 parts? Well, they are already corrupted billionaires, what do you expect, to make friends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this only applies to the campaign and each "installment" has full multiplayer...

I foresee a LOT of customers buying one of them and pirating the other two.

They're not being released concurrently. Humans first, and the other two are expansions that are coming out later.

First one is still going to have full multiplayer, and expansions are going to add new units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know' date=' I think if Blizzard would have just said "We're already planning on two expansion sets." instead of what they did, the fans wouldn't have taken it as badly.

EDIT: And holy crap, how did a game like Savage slip under the radar?[/quote']

Well, it does sound a bit better, but I rather not even know about it before the game comes out! It mostly sounds like : We have more ideas but we want to make you wait so that we can make money out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize there's a lot being said right now, as well as a lot of misinformation floating about. But I personally find it an iffy choice to split the game up, whether it's via expansions, three full games, or whatever. Going from three sides to one side to play as in a game, no matter how many missions are in it, feels like some of the game's been stripped away and held back until the makers decide you're ready to get to experience it. We know there are three sides (at least) to the SCII story, but two of them are being locked away right off the bat so that they can be released later. No explanation is going to wash away that "cash run" smell for a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone familiar with Total Annihilation Kingdoms?

It's starting to sound like Blizzard is doing what Cavedog did for that game, in that the campaign was one long story where each mission featured the race that was most pertient at that point in time, even if it meant switching from the "good side" to the "evil side" in the following stage. In StarCraft's case, the Terran episode may primarily focus on Terran missions, but offer some Protoss/Zerg missions when they apply to the story as it unfolds.

In the first StarCraft, all three campaigns were essentially one story in three acts, wherein most other RTS's the campaigns are alternate versions of the other (in C&C, either GDI wins the war or NOD wins, you pick). If Blizzard interconnected the three sides too much, the original format of the campaigns would make arranging missions too complicated.

Although that doesn't explain why they couldn't put everything in one set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not being released concurrently. Humans first, and the other two are expansions that are coming out later.

First one is still going to have full multiplayer, and expansions are going to add new units.

Will the new units be available to those that stick with the first release even after the Zerg and Protoss boxes are released? Perhaps a patch could just install those new units into the existing directory?

As long as the player can have the full, complete multiplayer experience with just one purchase, I agree that many people will pirate the other two simply for the sake of the single player.

Anyone that's in it for the multiplayer alone should not have to shell out x amount of money for two extra games/discs/expansions/whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is an easy one to cover the news of the convention on. There was really only one big announcement, and if you're anything like me you won't like it. StarCraft 2 is now a trilogy of games. That's right, three separate products, three separate SKUs, three separate price tags, spread over a three year window. Each race's campaign is being fleshed out to "full game length." While a small part of me is a little happy about this news, it is a VERY small part. Sure, 26-30 missions per campaign instead of 10-12 sounds great. But paying $50 (plus tax, and this figure is pure speculation on my part as no price point was announced) three times just so I can play all 3 campaigns does NOT, in ANY way, make me even remotely happy. And it really hurts people like me more than anyone. I don't play RTSes for the multiplayer, which for the record, if you do; you'll be fine as all three products will ship with all three races fully implemented for multiplayer skirmishes. I play them for the story, for the campaign. And I really feel sorry for the hardcore Protoss fans; their campaign is dead last, so welcome to your 3+ year wait.

From MMORPG.com This is going to be very intresting. If they are being spaced at those intervals and that its a 30 mission campaign with a full story i could justify 50 dollars easily. Especially for this story. The size of the combined game could easily be over 60 gigs It would be a multi dvd install for one game. Hell they might have to use multiple blu-ray if it was one game. I was frustrated at first but now that i have been able to get an idea of the overall scope i cant blame blizzard. It could be considered a money grab however a few things people need to remember

DVD: 4 gigs of space approximately

Age of conan 26 gigs of space. And not due to crappy coding either a large part of the game has not been made accessible.

Each chapter of SC2 could well be on the order of 15-20 gig per section depending on detail level army sizes and cut scenes. To release the full game in one box could equal a small CD binder's worth of disks. I can not call this a money grab any more. This is a necessary move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the new units be available to those that stick with the first release even after the Zerg and Protoss boxes are released? Perhaps a patch could just install those new units into the existing directory?

As long as the player can have the full, complete multiplayer experience with just one purchase, I agree that many people will pirate the other two simply for the sake of the single player.

Anyone that's in it for the multiplayer alone should not have to shell out x amount of money for two extra games/discs/expansions/whatever.

I dunno. How did Brood War work?

I don't play SC, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brood War was treated like a completely separate game. You had bnet servers for StarCraft and those for Brood War, and the two respective groups of players could mingle in the chat room but SC players could only play SC players and BW players the same. Units like the medic were only available to BW players.

I'm almost positive that Starcraft II's online capabilities will not limit each player to the respective game that they use. All Terran owners that do not buy the "expansions" should be able to play with those who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm almost positive that Starcraft II's online capabilities will not limit each player to the respective game that they use. All Terran owners that do not buy the "expansions" should be able to play with those who do.

Uh. Why would that be? They've already said that each new "expansion" will add to the metagame of the multiplayer, which could likely include new units for all three races. It wouldn't make any sense if an owner of all three games, with all the new stuff that comes with them, to be able to play an opponent who is essentially using an outdated version. As you said Blizzard already established a precedent for this with Brood War.

The only way it could work would be if the multiplayer content was released in free patches with each new game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh. Why would that be? They've already said that each new "expansion" will add to the metagame of the multiplayer, which could likely include new units for all three races. It wouldn't make any sense if an owner of all three games, with all the new stuff that comes with them, to be able to play an opponent who is essentially using an outdated version. As you said Blizzard already established a precedent for this with Brood War.

The only way it could work would be if the multiplayer content was released in free patches with each new game.

Yes, but Brood War is an expansion set. It is unplayable without having the original SC installed on your computer. These are not expansions. Each game has it's own complete, unique single player campaign and the multiplayer is to be shipped complete with each game.

When the Zerg/Protoss games do come out, the Terran game will in no way be outdated. There will be many players that buy the Terran game and choose not to purchase the other two, and probably some players that choose not to buy the Terran game at all and just wait for the other ones.

This is only my speculation, of course. We'll see how things go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they are.

From the OP article:

"Each game will be a stand-alone installment – not an expansion."

Regardless, we still have time until the game comes out and theres really no way to say for sure what is or is not an expansion, full game, blah blah

If I'm missing something here or if you have some solid facts please let me know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Mr. Sigaty here is telling us that they will be treating these as expansions, but does that mean that the player must have Terran installed in order to play Zerg or Protoss?

An expansion pack would be defined as simply that, an expansion to the original game. If the Zerg or Protoss games are playable without having the Terran installed then that would classify them as a stand-alone game in this trilogy of theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also stated that gamers could think of the two subsequent products as expansion packs, but that Blizzard would be treating them as full-fledged games.

"[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products," said Blizzard's Rob Pardo.

Those are the first two articles I read on the subject (before IGN's or Kotaku's were even published), so I don't know where you're getting this "everyone but IGN says expansions" bit, Darke. They are talking the expansion line to appetize the sort of people who would think "OMG they are just making me pay full price for each 1/3rd of the same game!" But considering they are also stressing that multiplayer will come standard with each game, meaning you can pick up any one of the three and play with other folks online rather than having to have one "core" copy of the game and then additional expanded versions on top of that, I think it is pretty clear that the key phrase here is that Zerg and Protoss campaigns "will be like expansion packs."

EDIT: Also, IGN's article is short on details? And instead you referred to Kotaku's? Maybe we are not reading the same two articles, dude, because that is pretty backward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually read what you quoted. They want the gamers to treat them as expansions; Blizzard is approaching them as stand-alone games, in terms of how much content they're going to have.

Plus the releases are going to be spaced out by a year each. These aren't being released simultaneously. It's not Pokémon Terran, Pokémon Zerg, and Pokémon Protoss here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I wrote a huge post talking about how the articles used phrases like "gamers could think of the games" as expansion packs, and "they will be like" or "effectively" expansion packs, which made it seem as though they weren't really. I also showed how each and every one of these articles posted has been contradictory in some minor detail or another, and said that I would wait for some kind of press release from Blizzard before getting too worked up about them.

Then I went looking for said press release and saw that the official FAQ at http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml has been updated with a whole new section headlined "Trilogy."

The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets. StarCraft II is subtitled Wings of Liberty (working title) and will include a lengthy single-player campaign that focuses on the terrans and puts players in the role of Jim Raynor, one of the series' main heroes. The first expansion set, Heart of the Swarm (working title), will follow later and include a single-player campaign focusing on the zerg and Kerrigan, Queen of Blades. The second expansion set, Legacy of the Void (working title), will continue the story experience with a single-player campaign centered on the protoss.

Fuck, guys. This whole thing really does seem like a dick move, now. Because basically, if you want to play the Protoss or Zerg campaigns, you are being raped by the cost of the Terran game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...