STARCRAFT II!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Skyrider]

The thing about this, is the fact that you do not need it. It doesn't alter the story or anything. It just gives you a nice little thing to show off and say "Yea I bought it." I mean truly it was a great marketing project that we will probably see more of.

My point is it being really expensive (greedy) and does nothing for the gameplay at all.

 

[Viper]

Let me tell you about this little coincidence I found: some coworkers of mine got SC2 and also had WoW subscription. 3 out of 4 got into the Cata beta?
What could it mean?!

 

[The Deco]

Offers no new abilities except it's available on all your current AND future characters. Always. Second, it's not content you will "miss" if you don't buy it. Blizzard's not keeping content from people who don't buy it.

Though I'm sure Starcraft 2 is a good game, RTS is not my thing. And the 1-campaign per game decision has really been rubbing me the wrong way. I can just see Kotick's grubby moneyloving hands behind it. *******.

You mean that if I buy 1 copy of it I can only play the campaign once on that specific copy?

 

[-Origin]

I mean that Starcraft 2 does not have the Protoss or the Zerg campaign in it.

Those will be released sometime.. this year.. or something. Maybe next year.

 

[The Deco]

Then 1 campaign must be the equivalent of a few different campaigns in its length and quality.

If not, bastards.

 

[-Origin]

It's a horrible design decision in my opinion anyway.

 

[Majin_You]

Then 1 campaign must be the equivalent of a few different campaigns in its length and quality.

If not, bastards.

Like I said: a 30-mission campaign is not a trivial add-on. I believe it's been noted that the Terran campaign is Wings of Liberty is about the same length as the 3 campaigns from the original put together. I assume the same will be the case with the Zerg and Protoss campaigns.

Sorry, Sky, but you're comparing apples and oranges. A mount in WoW is nothing like an entire campaign in SC2. Also note that I said "tend to be a lot more involved". WoW, being an MMO, is not the most valid point of comparison. Think back to WC3, WC2, SC1 - all of those had a substantial expansion. That's more of what I was referring to.

 

[-Origin]

To be fair Maj, Starcraft 1 is 12 years old. I don't think we can compare the length of the games back then with the games we have now.

But what bothers me is this;

First of all, what is the next StarCraft II game?

The middle chapter of the StarCraft II saga is called Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm. It was announced at BlizzCon 2008 when Blizzard revealed that StarCraft II would be split into three parts.

Blizzard confirmed that to Kotaku today, explaining that Heart of the Swarm can be thought of as expansions, stocked with a campaign that is as substantial as Wings of Liberty's but with new content for multiplayer and a different metagame.

When will it be out?

No one can be sure yet but it is looking like it could be out in early 2012, based on an estimation of 18 months from the release of Wings of Liberty from lead producer Chris Sigaty. Blizzard won't nail this down, of course. They're not big on promising release dates this far out.

That's 1,5 years for the next Campaign (~15 hours or gameplay if I'm to believe the reports).

And finally;

How much will it cost?

There is no definite answer for this but it has been suggested by Blizzard's Rob Pardo that it will be priced as an expansion pack. If we base this off of their World of Warcraft expansion packs then we're looking at around $30 to $40.

This had better not be true. Here's how it looks to me right now;

- Starcraft 2, 1 Campaign: ~15 hours. forwhat, 50 bucks?

- Then in 1,5 years, you'll get the next bit of story and narrative. For what seems to be 30-40 bucks.

- Then there's still a 3rd Campaign unaccounted for. Another 1,5 years, maybe? And another 30-40 bucks.

See, here's the thing. I love Blizzard. I love their games and I have been a longtime fan. But it seems to me that after they became involved with Activision, everything is getting the Guitar Hero treatment and being broken up in small segments, due to release over larger periods of time. They are starting to treat every single game they release as if it's an MMO. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[Skyrider]

Sorry, Sky, but you're comparing apples and oranges. A mount in WoW is nothing like an entire campaign in SC2.

Just an example how greedy Blizzard can be.

 

[-Origin]

I'll repeat myself.

It's not Blizzard.

It's Activision. This man wants your money and your soul.

 

[Majin_You]

The $30-$40 price point is entirely hearsay, though. I refuse to condemn the product before either:

a) The details are finalized

or

b) I actually find that I don't, personally, believe that the product warrants the price tag.

with point b) being the more substantive, as, invariably, that's what this will all boil down to. I generally get brow-beaten when I call Burning Crusade or Wrath of the Lich King "a waste of money", but there are plenty who consider the $90 total of purchasing both to be reasonable (which I do not, given that the base game is, I think, $20 - $30 now).

I don't mean to suggest that splitting the campaign into a base with expansions is a great idea, or anything close, for that matter. My only argument was that stating that an additional 30 hours of gameplay (a number that I don't really care to reference, if I can avoid it - I barely ever blow through games the way reviewers do) should be a free download (Sky's contention) is absurd. Whether or not you consider the price Blizzard settles on to be exorbitant, I'd find it hard to justify that a new campaign and some additional features should be provided gratis. That's all I'm saying.

The only reason I invoked SC1, WC2, WC3 and, now that I remembered, D2 is that, in the past, I haven't found Blizzard's expansions lacking in content to the point that they aren't worth the extra investment. I cannot speak toward any of the various tidbits they've released for WoW, as I don't consider mounts an expansion, and I don't have any experience with how much (or little) the WoW expansions add because, quite frankly, I don't care enough for the game to want to buy them

 

[-Origin]

Oh Maj don't get me wrong, I completely agree with it not being free. I'm just saying that whatever extra content they release as an expansion, should be extra, and not an integral part of the actual game and story.

It seems like you're going to miss out on a hell of a lot of narrative this way. I've not played SC or SC2 so I really wouldn't know, but doesn't it generally work like this; you complete all campaigns as all playable races to complete the story?

 

[Damaera]

Can't say I agree with the actual idea of them making you pay for the two other campaigns, but if they wanted they could easily make us pay for a full price of a game just for an extra 30+ hours, so I'm fairly happy with the way they priced it. The content inside it is fairly reasonable as well. Diablo II just featured two new characters and a new act, and Frozen Throne featured a new, short campaign with a few extra units in Multiplayer. So yeah, with the amount of time that is needed to beat the campaign, I'm pretty happy.

Think of it this way, it's a decently normal sized single player game, it lasts as long as most games, if not longer, except it's based off of just one race. The other two expansions are just as long as the other campaign was, except they pick up the storyline and base it off of the Zerg, and eventually the Protoss. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the idea of the story line spanning over a game and two expansions, but regardless, the way they're doing it is fairly smart.

There will also be some new features in Multiplayer such as drawing on the screen for referees in Heart of the Swarm. (it's a pretty retarded thing imo, but whatever) I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually moved the units that are Campaign-only into Multiplayer in one of the following expansions.

 

[-Origin]

It's not about what they could do. At this point in time, Activision-Blizzard could come to your house, kick you in the balls, take your money, and you'd STILL go out and buy their products.

World of Warcraft and Starcraft have such immense fanbases, that Activision in particular is taking incredible advantage of. You could price the expansions at $50 each, and they'd still sell. That's the whole problem.

 

[The Deco]

I don't know if there prices are reasonable or not, but if they aren't then some major boycott should be arranged via the internet.

 

[-Origin]

Won't happen.

You know why? Fans will swallow it up. They could price Cataclysm at $100 at it would still sell. Maybe a million people would leave. But that still leaves 11 million.

nom nom nom consumerism

 

[Damaera]

I don't know if there prices are reasonable or not, but if they aren't then some major boycott should be arranged via the internet.

And the only thing that would happen would be the boycotter's time being wasted.

 

[The Deco]

Well, im sure if 60% of some companies serious fanboys will boycott it for like 2 years (serious, I know, but its mostly the principal that matters here). We must stand strong and show those companies we will not be exploited!

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

 

[Deathshot]

It would be a great game for me to play if I didn't get a Run Time error after a few minutes of it starting to download the installer everytime. I can't play it. -_-

 

[phrack50]

Finally got myself a copy of Starcraft II today! Woohoo!
Now I must clear my schedule and begin my campaign of single player madness.
After which, I shall celebrate by destroying all challengers I come across! Muhahahha!