A Starcraft 2 Trilogy?

From what I read, they are making Stand-alone Single Player Campaigns as Expansion for each race.

Meaning, they will have 3 CD/DVD games of Starcraft 2, 1 game each race...

The benefit about that is it gives you 36-40 mission each campaign.

Though, for me, its confusing and annoying.

Why not have the game onto 1 CD/DVD or 3 CD/DVD games in 1 box?

I go to the store, pick up Terran Campaigns and wait months to years later for Protoss and Zerg Campaigns, thats ridiculous! Even if all 3 were there, the fact is it would cost money for each campaign...

Your opinions, or disagreements.

It really is probably so they actually have something to release sooner rather than later. Also, I'm sure the merger with Activision has something to do with it. When you know people will gladly give you money over and over and over then you will give them the option to do so.

Here's some info from the lead designer on the split:

Tracey John of MTV Multiplayer said:

Here are the basics:

* Each product is a full-scale title that contains between 26-30 single-player missions per game.
* The timing of the releases could be a year between each game — or longer.
* Though each game will make references to the others, it’s not necessary to own all three to enjoy the single-player experience.
* However, if you want particular units for the multiplayer portion, you’ll need to buy the product that has those units.
* Sigaty maintained the decision wasn’t made to make more money or due to pressure from the Activision merger; the decision was made at the end of last year.

Click to expand...

The full article can be found here

blackgravity said:

Here's some info from the lead designer on the split:

Tracey John of MTV Multiplayer said:

Here are the basics:

[...]

* However, if you want particular units for the multiplayer portion, you’ll need to buy the product that has those units.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Epic. Fail.

In order to compete online, you'll have to shell out an estimated $150 USD? And if you're only interested in multiplayer (and not the single-player campaign), should Blizzard really expect you to pay $50 for a few new units to use in online matches?

And what is that going to do to the competitive community? Will tournaments, leagues, and ladders ban units only available through a second and third purchase? How do they keep the playing field even between those who can afford to shell out 50 bucks for a few more units and those who need that money to pay the bills?

I had read previously that every episode would include the full multiplayer game. Blizzard might be withholding units from players who only purchase one version to combat piracy.

Because let's face it: If you only need to buy one episode to play multiplayer with all units, a lot of people are just going to pirate the second and third episodes.

I think Blizzard just risked Starcraft II losing the "next big thing in RTS" honor to Dawn of War 2 or Red Alert 3 with this one announcement. People vote by their wallets and SC2, which I had assumed would unite the majority of the slumbering RTS community, might lose this campaign.

The only thing that could save this plan is pricing. If the second and third episodes are sold at a greatly reduced cost (say, $20 each), I think people would be willing to get on board. Paying $90 ($50 + $20 + $20) for a game with tremendous longevity is painful, but not unreasonable. Paying $150, on the other hand, is getting ridiculous.

Valve sold players the Orange Box (Team Fortress 2, Portal, AND Half-Life 2: Episode 2) at $45 on release. Atlus sold Persona 3 FES, which has an estimated 130 hours of gameplay, for the Playstation 2 for $30. Does Blizzard really think people are going to put up with paying $150 for a single game, even if it is the "next big thing in RTS"?

EDIT: It's also going to stink to wait 2 years between episodes. (This is Blizzard we're talking about; I think 2 years to release a new product, even if it's the second or third part of a trilogy, is a fair estimate.) Even if the first episode ends with a wicked cliffhanger, people are going to be less excited about paying $50 to continue the story 2 years later.

Don't get me wrong: I love Blizzard. I love Starcraft. I never cared much for Diablo or World of Warcraft and I wasn't thrilled by Warcraft III's multiplayer, but I recognize they're one of the top developers in the industry. Still, $150 and 2 years between episodes is a lot to ask of fans who've already been waiting 10 years for a sequel.

EDIT: Oh, one more thing: Most player learned how to use each race's units in Starcraft by playing the single-player campaign. I have to believe it will be much more frustrating for the average player to learn Protoss and Zerg by trial and error on Battle.net (read: getting rushed by gosu players over and over and over again) than through a single-player campaign.

I kinda thought the "year or longer" between releases was pretty bad myself.

I don't think it's a bad thing.

Strange, totally, but I admire Blizzard's flexibility. This decision is a big risk, but ultimately people are going to buy the games they like. If the first chapter is a big hit, people will probably buy the others. Or, at the least, people will buy the chapters they specifically want to play, such as Zerg or whatever. It's not a loss financially to Blizzard, and it's not even a loss to the players. So even though many people don't see it is a win/win situation, I don't see how it can be interpreted as a bad move on their part.

After hearing the news, I'm especially looking forward to this release. The announcement means that Blizzard will pack more content into each chapter. Even though I'll have to wait for the rest to be release, I'll be perfectly content playing a part of the game that can stand on its own (because it's more or less designed to do just that). I'm excited to see the new things that StarCraft II has for us, although I'm wondering how the expansions will effect the multiplayer.

-Bowser

If players can forgive Valve for delaying Half-Life 2 repeatedly AND the abomination that was Steam in its early days, I suppose players can learn to forgive Blizzard for this decision as well.

Half-Life 2 was amazing and Steam is FAR improved from what it was when it was first released, so maybe Blizzard can turn this whole PR mess around, too. People tend to assume the worst--especially when Activision, perhaps the second most hated company in the industry (second only to EA) is involved.

But even if players aren't angry that they'll have to shell out money for 3 games when they expected to only have to purchase one, they may not be able to afford $50 for another computer game when the time comes. With the world economy in the state it's in, companies can't afford to assume people will have sufficient expendable income to purchase multiple games, let alone spend $50 of it on the second episode of one they already own. If they can afford the $50 for a game, they might be more likely to spend it on an entirely different game.

EDIT: I'd love to be wrong here. I'd be thrilled to see Blizzard announce that the second and third episodes will only cost $20 each (like Half-Life 2: Episode 1 and Episode 2) or that owners of the Terran episode will receive a fair rebate on the second and third episodes.

I want to be wrong because I was, until a few days ago, very excited about Starcraft II. I hadn't even looked at Red Alert 3 or Dawn of War 2 as of last Monday and now I'm seriously considering jumping ship to a different RTS.

Also, since each game is each race, most people prefer their favorites than the others.

I see, Terran first, then Zerg and Protoss.

[edited]

That pretty much answered my questions.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html

Wings of Liberty, the game's first campaign, will be shipping with a full and complete multiplayer suite with all three races available.

Click to expand...

"A lot of games try to use the single-player campaign to teach the players how to play multiplayer. The problem with that is, no matter how good a player is at the single-player portion, there's no way to eliminate that gap between being good enough to finish the final mission and winning online. Eventually everyone who ventures online for the first time finds their butts getting kicked by real people."

Click to expand...

Among the other goodies awaiting players of the single-player campaign are the possible return of the Goliath, the Wraith and the medic units from the original StarCraft. "The rationale is that Jim Raynor's been around for a while and a lot of this older technology is cheaper and would be the kind of thing a guy like him would have access to."

Click to expand...

Cool!

Tek7 said:

But even if players aren't angry that they'll have to shell out money for 3 games when they expected to only have to purchase one, they may not be able to afford $50 for another computer game when the time comes. With the world economy in the state it's in, companies can't afford to assume people will have sufficient expendable income to purchase multiple games, let alone spend $50 of it on the second episode of one they already own. If they can afford the $50 for a game, they might be more likely to spend it on an entirely different game.

EDIT: I'd love to be wrong here. I'd be thrilled to see Blizzard announce that the second and third episodes will only cost $20 each (like Half-Life 2: Episode 1 and Episode 2) or that owners of the Terran episode will receive a fair rebate on the second and third episodes.

I want to be wrong because I was, until a few days ago, very excited about Starcraft II. I hadn't even looked at Red Alert 3 or Dawn of War 2 as of last Monday and now I'm seriously considering jumping ship to a different RTS.

Click to expand...

Q F T ! ! !

But still taking a wait and see attitude.

I'll wait and see as well, but this lowers my anticipation for Starcraft 2 a great deal. I may just be too cynical, but I see this more as a way for Blizzard to milk more money out of fans than anything, because they know die-hard fans will buy the games.

If the 2nd and 3rd games will be lower-cost expansions that helps, but I still don't want to have to buy three boxes to get the full experience of the game (what we expect of Starcraft).

I think Blizzard has gotten too big for their britches.

Looks like the plan is going to be to release all units in the first release so you can do full multiplayer. And then with each consecutive release, you will get new units added.

Gods_Peon said:

Looks like the plan is going to be to release all units in the first release so you can do full multiplayer. And then with each consecutive release, you will get new units added.

Click to expand...

Technically, their new StarEdit can create your own units.

Such as the April fools joke of Tauren Marines.

http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/taurenmarine.xml

If someone wanted, they could create a game that includes all the units from Starcraft - Starcraft II.

The tauren marine was an april fool's joke? Man, what a letdown!

Bowser said:

The tauren marine was an april fool's joke? Man, what a letdown!

Click to expand...

They already did all the work to create the unit for the April Fool's Day video, so they'll probably include it in the game as an easter egg.

Seeing that they are making it a Trilogy, some of you, who have favorable to Protoss and Zerg, are willing to wait Or buy the Terran one, first chance it comes and play multiplayer games immediately?

26-30 missions does seem a long time to beat, without cheating!

Roughly took me a couple of weeks to beat Starcraft and 75% of Brood War.
(Beaten Protoss, close to end for Terran and Zerg)

When I get the Terran, I'd try to play till the end of the Campaign and if not, learn the basics of Terran's units, buildings and strategies.

hmm, feels like their are doing something more then this trilogy (involving SC)

Umm... it really isn't spending $150 to play a game.

It's basically going to be like any other expansion, since the reason they are making a trilogy is so that they can flesh out each campaign to be the equivalent of a full-blown campaign for a game.

I wouldn't expect the second part of the trilogy to be released until at least a year after the original is released. By then, you know if you got your $50 worth for the original game and want to plunk down another $X amount to get the next one. That really isn't different from any other game/expansion... It's not like they want people to pay for all three all at once, and you can still keep playing the original even after the second/third releases happen. People still play vanilla Starcraft to this day.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the number of units added through the expansions is unusually small (or perhaps even non-existent). Realistically, it's impossible to add more than 1-2 units to each race without having overlapping roles and redundancies/obsolescences. A goal for the dev team has been to keep unit counts low to make sure each has a well-defined role, which is why each additional unit has meant removing one of the old units. So it might not even make a difference in terms of multiplayer capability.

Starcraft never appealed to me. Limited units, pretty much the same old tactics, and it was boring. That's why I play Command and Conquer. But still, three packs is kinda... lame?

Sorry, but the C&C series is far more notorious as a one-tactic game in comparison to Starcraft. Starcraft at anything beyond the 3v3/4v4 team and comp stomp on money/fast maps is very deep. Every C&C game has always been about tank rushes, and it's the only strategy used in competitive play.

I should add though that C&C: Generals/Zero Hour was an exception, and although I never played it, a lot of people have said that it was a decent RTS with reasonably deep gameplay.