SC2: one game for the price of three!

[Lord Kelvin]

Yay for episodic content. (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/10/starcraft-2-to-be-released-as-a-trilogy/)

As much as this really puts me off, I'm going to wait and see just exactly how much content is going to be in each series, and how much each one will cost. I seriously hope that it'll be worth it for each episode, otherwise I may have to forgo buying it...

[HarryB]

I wasn't going to buy it anyway. It just looked like Blizzards usual "rehash the last game with better graphics and charge full price" that they like to do.

[RudeThaiDude]

Seems like they're taking a page from EA in the "HAY GUYS LET'S GET EVERY1 2 HATE US" chapter with the whole release approach.

[Ch33zy]

If it's 3 episodes, I'm expecting each one to be the full length of a game if it's priced anymore than 20 dollars.

[Towelie]

I wasn't going to buy it anyway. It just looked like Blizzards usual "rehash the last game with better graphics and charge full price" that they like to do.

Wait WHAT?

Are you implying they did that between Diablo 1 and Diablo 2, and between Warcraft 1, 2 and 3?

If so you've obviously never played any of the games. D1 and D2 are similar in genre alone, nowhere near the same game, and each of the Warcraft series has been significantly different from the previous.

If you just meant that they charge full price for expansions, then ya, I agree that they should be cheaper.

But ya, I don't like the idea of episodic gaming at all and am bummed that blizz is taking that route.

[Agent Law]

Each episode will have 26-30 missions. A full game. If you just want the MP, only buy the first one. Easy as that.

I would assume different concepts as well. While the Terrain campaign has the mercenary angle, the other two will play out differently.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/10/11/starcraft2_trilogy/

[kreket]

Well, at least we are going to get all three box covers this time... ...not exactly in the way I pictured it, though.


So what they are saying is, the singleplayer alone is going to be THAT good?

[Lord Kelvin]

I've read quite a bit of the stuff on this decision, and to be honest it's not a completely shitty decision. They've decided to give full multiplayer to anyone who buys any one part of the trilogy, so what you're really buying with each episode is single-player campaign with the occasional add-on. The real reason that I'm pissed is because I really wanted to follow the story after the end of Brood War, and now I might have to buy the game three times just for that.

[Vatek]

Yay for episodic content. (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/10/starcraft-2-to-be-released-as-a-trilogy/)

As much as this really puts me off, I'm going to wait and see just exactly how much content is going to be in each series, and how much each one will cost. I seriously hope that it'll be worth it for each episode, otherwise I may have to forgo buying it...

As long as each campaign is as long as the 3 original SC campaigns combined...

[HodgeMASHEEN MkIII]

I've read quite a bit of the stuff on this decision, and to be honest it's not a completely shitty decision. They've decided to give full multiplayer to anyone who buys any one part of the trilogy, so what you're really buying with each episode is single-player campaign with the occasional add-on. The real reason that I'm pissed is because I really wanted to follow the story after the end of Brood War, and now I might have to buy the game three times just for that.
Yeah. This is just more faggotry to go along with Sierra shutting down all of those MP servers.

[MeanPatrick]

If it's 3 episodes, I'm expecting each one to be the full length of a game if it's priced anymore than 20 dollars.

A-god damn-men!

[Agent Law]

Each campaign will consist of between 26 to 30 missions, and the total single player experience will be three to four times larger than the original StarCraft.
*Ahem.*

[Vatek]

Win.

[HarryB]

Wait WHAT?

Are you implying they did that between Diablo 1 and Diablo 2, and between Warcraft 1, 2 and 3?

If so you've obviously never played any of the games. D1 and D2 are similar in genre alone, nowhere near the same game, and each of the Warcraft series has been significantly different from the previous.

If you just meant that they charge full price for expansions, then ya, I agree that they should be cheaper.

But ya, I don't like the idea of episodic gaming at all and am bummed that blizz is taking that route.

No I'm referring to Diablo 3. Though if you want to get into it, Diablo 2 was just Diablo 1 in a different place with different characters. The gameplay was exactly the same. Same thing for Diablo 3. It looks like it's going to be the exact same gameplay in a different place with different class, but slightly prettier.

Then there is the abortion that is WoW. When they brought out Burning Crusades, I was hoping they would help alleviate the most of the horrible grinding and raid boredom. Nope, they just move it to a new place with new characters with the exact same gameplay. Nothing really improved. From the looks of WoTLK, it looks like they're doing the exact same thing again.

Now StarCraft 2 looks EXACTLY like Starcraft 1 with a slightly pretty paint job. All the units react the same. The gameplay looks exactly the same. There is nothing that stands out like it's going to be anything other than Starcraft 1 IN 3D. After playing games like Company of Heros and Supreme Commander, this game looks completely underwhelming.

Blizzard has gotten into the position of EA where they can rehash the exact same game with a different paint job, and will make millions from their white knights.

[CaptCommy]

Yeah seriously. I love when people can't read a thread. If it's 30 missions a box, I'm fine with it. I paid full price for that many missions in SC1 and Brood War. I'll pay it for each 30 mission box.

Plus, think how epic that mission 90 will be!


Edit: Diablo 2 was like Diablo 1 in the sense that Half-Life 2 was Half-Life 1. Yeah, there's similarities, but a LOT changed. Now I too am a little worried SC2 will be too samey to SC1, but really, I play for the storyline. SC skirmish bores me to tears.

[Lord Kelvin]

I've been following SC2 ever since it was announced, and it does look to be vastly different from SC1. Eye candy and bread-and-butter units like Marines and Zealots notwithstanding, the IK system that the Reaper and Colossus use, by itself, could make for interesting play if they make more than just a few units able to take advantage of it.

[Agent Law]

I think the idea is that they DON'T want it to be vastly different from its predecessor. They expect a certain feel and aesthetic within a series.

People see StarCraft 2, they want it to play like Starcraft, not "FOMG! INNOVATIVE GAMEPLAY!!!!"

It's the same way with C&C3 and SupCom. You expect them to play like the original C&C and TA. (Unless you think there's something innovative about SupCom. lol) If C&C3 played like Generals, then the fans would not have been happy.

[Modest Genius]

If it's 30 missions a box, I'm fine with it. I paid full price for that many missions in SC1 and Brood War. I'll pay it for each 30 mission box.
agreed

plus I'll probably leave it a couple of years until they release a 'gold' or 'game of the year' edition with everything in it

[HodgeMASHEEN MkIII]

The each of those 30 missions better be fully fleshed out, with dialogue/cutscenes and scripted events and not just 2-3 skirmish missions between the "real" missions. Blizzard has been real good with this, in their games so far, but those campaigns were only 10 missions or so. The RTS that comes to mind with 30 mission campaigns was the first Blitzkrieg title, which had a a half dozen theaters or so per campaign, with one "boss-level" mission per theater, whereas all the other missions in a theater were just "randomly" generated maps, which were just "attack village, then attack supply depot".

[Tuulos]

From my memory, Starcraft 1 had the problem of requiring you to build your base from scratch every time and then destroying your enemy. Although it's been a long time since I last played it so I might be wrong.

[Agent Law]

Like most RTS?

[Tuulos]

Yes.

[Lord Kelvin]

From my memory, Starcraft 1 had the problem of requiring you to build your base from scratch every time and then destroying your enemy. Although it's been a long time since I last played it so I might be wrong.

Not compared to multiplayer where you started with only a base and four workers. Besides, it wouldn't be very fun if you could just zerg with the units you had in the beginning and beat the level in five minutes flat...

[HodgeMASHEEN MkIII]

Or if you kept units that survived a mission and started with those in the next mission, and the enemy force was scaled accordingly, so the player isn't 'starting over' each mission

[Lord Kelvin]

HW2 had the same general idea, but it was sort of pointless since people would just recycle all their units at the end of the mission, then use the accumulated pile of money to build a massive army at the start of the next one...

[Agent Law]

Why would you want all your damaged units for the next mission, anyway? What if you had a space platform battle before, and built a ton of battlecruisers (maxing out your resources), but the next map has the ground littered with batteries of turrets and goliaths?

[Loké]

Depends how they do it. I've never played Starcraft (Gasps of horror from everyone else in this thread) because I got utterly hooked on Total Annihilation, but from what it looks like to me, they seem to be releasing three full single player games.
I remember recalling an interview somewhere that no matter what game you buy in multiplayer you'll have access to everything.

[HodgeMASHEEN MkIII]

Depends how they do it. I've never played Starcraft (Gasps of horror from everyone else in this thread)
:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o

[ScAvenger001]

From my memory, Starcraft 1 had the problem of requiring you to build your base from scratch every time and then destroying your enemy. Although it's been a long time since I last played it so I might be wrong.

Back in 98 or whatever that wasn't considered a problem.

HW2 had the same general idea, but it was sort of pointless since people would just recycle all their units at the end of the mission, then use the accumulated pile of money to build a massive army at the start of the next one...

Er, iirc the reason everyone would recycle all of their units is because Relic completely fucked up the scaling difficulty system in the campaign, so that if you started the mission with a pair of destroyers the enemy would start with 12 destroyers and three battlecruisers. Whereas if you started with zero ships plus a handful of bombers and a bunch of resources the enemy would have a much more reasonable fleet, one that you actually had a chance in hell of defeating.

Although the first Homeworld had kind of the opposite problem, since you could potentially enter the last level with something like 200 ion frigates if you did a lot of capturing.

[Lord Kelvin]

Although the first Homeworld had kind of the opposite problem, since you could potentially enter the last level with something like 200 ion frigates if you did a lot of capturing.

Haha, I actually tried that once in the second-to-last mission, but my game kept hanging since all your ships move into formation with your mothership before you jump, and I ended up getting a long-ass line of ion cannon frigates that stretched to the edge of the map, and it wouldn't let me jump until that last ship was in position, which it couldn't reach since that was outside of the map...

So I just decided to recycle all of them and just jump into battle with everything else.