Topic: Starcraft 2 is a trilogy

[idolminds]

Say wha?

Blizzard today announced that StarCraft II will be released as a trilogy of separate games, each concentrating on one of the universe's three factions.

The first game in the trilogy will consist of the Terran campaign, and is set to be titled "Terrans: Wings of Liberty."

The second Zerg-focused title will be "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm," with the third game being "Protoss: Legacy of the Void."

"[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.

Each campaign will be very different, with Pardo saying the Zerg campaign will contain RPG elements. The Protoss campaigin will likewise be differentiated by elements of diplomacy. In addition, the Terran campaign will contain a Protoss mini-campaign./quote]

[Cobra951]

Why take $50 for one game when you can get $150?

[scottws]

Those fuckers.  Better not be $50 apiece.

You know though, I really think this is one game that could get away with it though.  The thought of spending $150 chills me to the bone, but Starcraft is my favorite game of all time so I'm pretty sure I'd do it.

[MysterD]

So, how long were all of the separate campaigns in Starcraft per piece?

[sirean_syan]

I imagine after coming off of WoW, Blizzard is wondering how they could possibly get the same sort of revenue despite a game being "normal."

Still, maybe this really just like announcing expansion pack way early. You know they were coming anyways. If they're priced like expansion, no major foul I suppose.

[Quemaqua]

Depends entirely on the quantity and quality of the content, but... this doesn't bode well considering the recent comment they made about monetizing certain unknown features of Diablo 3 because they "have to".  I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a very bad sign.

[MysterD]

If one race's campaign is the length/same size of all three put together from the original Starcraft, I doubt anybody would complain.

So....when's the SC2: Battle Chest coming?

[Pugnate]

Wait, the original StarCraft had only one campaign?

I have a feeling this will help them make the release timely.

Also, as long as the campaigns are properly fleshed out in terms of length, it is OK I guess. But Que is correct, it is a bit scary.

[gpw11]

The original had three if I remember correctly.  I never finished any of them (I didn't play PC games then, and my experience with the game comes from a few years ago...but I never got fully into it), but I think they added up to a pretty long game.

[Pugnate]

I just read that press conference they gave. Basically they said each of the campaigns would be as long as all of the original Starcraft.

[Quemaqua]

If that's the case, I've got no issue there.  And that's pretty impressive.  It also means you can count me out... I barely made it through 2/3 of the first game before getting completely, utterly bored.  That's no knock on the game, as I'm really not a big RTS guy, but still... I guess I won't be playing this.  That's more than I can handle.

[Pugnate]

Well that other link said, "About as long..."

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html

The original StarCraft, according to Pardo, had 32 missions; 12 for the Terrans, and 10 each for the Zerg and the Protoss. According to Blizzard, each of these StarCraft II games will consist of more than 30 missions.

Pardo explained that the multiplayer remains relatively unchanged; each StarCraft II game will have a fully functioning multiplayer suite with all three races playable. "[In] the shipping product, all three races will be fully featured and balanced in gameplay and also in content," he said. We asked whether that meant the multiplayer suite in each game would be exactly the same, and he said, "More than likely, the successive products will add multiplayer content; we haven't decided right now what that is." That brought up the question as to how multiplayer would work if some players only buy the first game while others only buy the second or third games. He said that they haven't made any determinations yet as to how that would work.

You guys should check out the comments section of that article.

Also, while I am excited about the deeper story etc., I have to agree with Que a bit. I am a big RTS fan, but I too am worried about exhaustion. Will they really be able to keep up the intensity if they split the game into three massive bits?

[MysterD]

Well that other link said, "About as long..."

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html

You guys should check out the comments section of that article.

Also, while I am excited about the deeper story etc., I have to agree with Que a bit. I am a big RTS fan, but I too am worried about exhaustion. Will they really be able to keep up the intensity if they split the game into three massive bits?

As long as they can keep doing different things, probably adding units as you go along, and variety galore, it can be done, I bet.

[Dragonlor]

If they can keep the story going for the trilogy that's good enough for me.  When I finished broodwar(SC exp) I was very sad at how it ended with a dead end teasing me.  and they might be splitting it just so they can get all the story in without having to have to do expansions for the game.

[MysterD]

Here's more on the SC2 Trilogy.
They are saying they think for each campaign, since it's going to be a full campaign for each one (instead of expansions), they are going to possibly be released years apart.

StarCraft 2 Trilogy Releases May Be Years Apart

by Chris Faylor Oct 13, 2008 9:52am CST tags: StarCraft 2, BlizzCon 08
With the single-player portions of StarCraft 2 now split into three distinct games, Blizzard lead producer Chris Sigaty and VP Rob Pardo have revealed that the individual titles will ideally be released at least a year apart from one another.

"With any luck, it would be like a year for each successive one, but that's going to be a target date, that's not a promise," Pardo noted in a Joystiq interview.

"In a lot of ways, you should think about the follow-ups as being kind of expansion sets to the original," Pardo explained. "It's just that the campaigns are not going to feel like expansions, they're going to feel like full, independent stories."

"I don't know how long it's going to take...it could be [a year or more between each one]," producer Sigaty revealed to MTV Multplayer. "We want to hit the shortest amount of time possible."

"Let's spin that in a positive light," he laughed, attributing the uncertainty to the time it takes to complete each story made and their respective in-engine cinematics. Sigaty also noted that the team has yet to discuss pricing details for the individual games.

Though Blizzard has yet to say when the PC real-time strategy trilogy will start making its way into stores, the first release, Terrans: Wings of Liberty, will feature the main Terran campaign and a Protoss mini-campaign.

The second release, Zerg: Heart of the Swarm will contain some RPG elements, with the third entry, Protoss: Legacy of the Void sporting some diplomatic gameplay.

StarCraft 2's multiplayer component is said to be unchanged by the split, though some units will be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer.

I don't know, but they should just drop the "2" for SC2 now. With all these games being full-sized campaigns per piece in actual size, it just seems like the most logical step (to me).

What do y'all think?

[scottws]

Also, while I am excited about the deeper story etc., I have to agree with Que a bit. I am a big RTS fan, but I too am worried about exhaustion. Will they really be able to keep up the intensity if they split the game into three massive bits?

Who knows, but there is a large framework to work with in the Starcraft universe.  I thought they sullied it a bit with the whole United Earth Directorate in the expansion, but the story in the original game was simply a masterpiece.  If they can come anywhere close, I think it can only spell good things.

[Pugnate]

Yes, regardless, I will be purchasing the game.

D, I think they will release the first campaign under the StarCraft II label, while the next two will be sold as expansions. I just hope they are faster than Valve at releasing their titles.

[MysterD]

Looks like B-Net 2.0 will be FREE for those who buy StarCraft 2 at Retail.

[ren]

They should price each game at $40 instead of $50 and sell them 6 to 8 months apart. People will feel like they're getting a sweet deal.

[Pugnate]

In this case, I think the full price is fine. Each SC2 game will be longer than the first.

[MysterD]

In this case, I think the full price is fine. Each SC2 game will be longer than the first.

Well, each SC2 "Campaign" is going as long as ALL of the SC1 Campaigns put together, right?
So, each race is going to be pretty epic to me, if they can pull that off...

[MysterD]

NO LAN support for SC2.
You got ONLY Battle.net for the MP portion.

[Xessive]

Well that sucks.

[Pugnate]

Fuck off you greedy fucks.

[sirean_syan]

Still. We have to remember the LAN party is a thing of the past. Getting everyone together was a pain, but it was all in the name of a good time that couldn't be had otherwise because modem speeds wouldn't allow it. I imagine that if people were to still get together the experience would be nearly identical even without a LAN.* The only people who still really benefit from it are unfortunates like Idol. Clearly, the gaming community hasn't cared about the likes of him for some time now.

Of course, the other side of the coin is the programing multiplayer stuff for a LAN has to be one of the easiest things to do if there is any multiplayer at all. It's not like you have to worry about being efficient with data or anything.

[Quemaqua]

Sorry Sy, but that's bullshit, and it makes me pretty sure that you've never been to a LAN party.  At least not a good one.  A lot of the games we used to play back in the day didn't require super fast net connections to get a decent game going, and people still went to LAN parties.  People still do now in the age of broadband, not to mention BYOC tournaments and such.  Aside from that, LAN is far from being strictly a "party" thing.  Lots of people have home networks and like to play games over them, either with siblings, parents, friends, what have you.  So... sorry, but you can't write this one off as a Blizzard fan or otherwise.  I'm a fan too, but this is just plain stinking bullshit.  No other description will fit.

I'm not even all that interested in the game, but this makes me extremely disappointed.  I wonder if it has anything to do with the popularity of things like Hamachi and Gameranger.

[sirean_syan]

That's true. My LAN experiences were my year in the dorms and that was pretty great. UT matches and such were a lot of fun. We did play a couple games of Starcraft too, but there was one guy who was actually on a competitive level that made it completely not fun for the rest of us, so we only did that twice or so.

I can't take credit for the though since I've read it at other places, but this move probably has do with wanting  to turn Battle.net into something on the level of Steam and Impulse. Wasn't there talk about doing that a few months back and changes were made (or will be made) with how people log into WoW? I can't see programs like Hamachi bugging a developer because then it's essentially like letting people play with a LAN. If you're already providing that option, then who cares. But if you're locking people into something like Steam, then you can also push more downloadable content or even microtransactions. There was also talk of that associated with Starcraft, for things likes sanctioned tournaments or maybe even leagues.

This is a shitty move on their part. Like I said, I can't imagine LAN being withheld because of time constraints or unwillingness to do the work. I still want the game, but multiplayer never really enters that want very much. If a couple of us have it, I'm sure I'd play it with you all, but that's the extent of it all.

[scottws]

I guess it might be shitty for some people but I don't really care.  I was at two LAN parties and both of them consisted of:

"Let's play game X."
"I have that, but not installed."
"Me too."
"I have it installed, I'm good."
"Here I'll work on setting up the server."
"Wow, I forgot how long it takes to install this."
"I forgot the server's defaults suck, but I forget what commands and switches are used on the clan server.  Let me research that."
"Aw crap.  I forgot I'm not patched up to the newest version.  OMG the patch is 500 MB!  Well, I better get started."
"Damn, the server map download isn't working right.  Hold on guys."
"The patch takes almost as long to install as the game itself!"

*finally everyone gets on the requsite version and the server is installed and running*

"This game is a lot more fun with more people."

Of course, this is not the fault of LAN parties themselves but rather the lack of organization.  Still, it's been my experience so I could give a rat's ass about LAN play.

[angrykeebler]

I've never been to a LAN party either. Neither do I want to go to a LAN party.

[Ghandi]

I've never been to a LAN party either. Neither do I want to go to a LAN party.

Don't lie. It's a well known fact that asians are required to go to LAN parties once a month.

[Quemaqua]

You guys make me sad.

[Pugnate]

I look at the LAN option a little like split screen co-op on a console game or something. I have a few computers in my house, and play a lot of Company of Heroes on LAN with my sister. That's not all. We played Titan Quest, C&C, World in Conflict etc etc. When my cousins or my brother is visiting, we play games like UT, R6Vegas etc etc.

I've bought all of these games legally, and look at being able to use them on two comps for a bit of LAN coop, as something that I paid for.

My internet connection is good, but not brilliant. It would be ridiculous to have two comps connect to B.Net to play each other, when they are sitting next to each other.

The other thing is that I'd end up having to buy two copies of each Blizzard title, which isn't a good outcome, when I can share all my console purchases with my family.

What is worse is what this means for the future. More than Starcraft, I was looking forward to playing Diablo 3 on LAN at home, and this is just terrible.

You guys may remember my city had a huge power problem last year. Fortunately the new democratic government has resolved that issue, though we still have a random issue every month.

That was the other thing about playing on LAN. I never needed to connect to the net. It just feels silly. Imagine Que sitting in one bedroom of his house, with his wife in the other, and the government forcing them to use cellular video conferencing to communicate with each other, rather than walking across the hall.

I do understand that you lose a lot of sales with people using one copy for a 100 LAN events, but they could have implemented a system where LAN was limited to two comps per copy or something.

And it is a pity you guys haven't been to proper LAN parties. There is nothing like them... especially when you know the people you are playing with.

[idolminds]

Huh?

Well, it's definitely true. Blizzard has killed LAN support in the upcoming StarCraft II, and here's the official word from Bob Colayco at Blizzard PR:

"We don't currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games. While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.

Several Battle.net features like advanced communication options, achievements, stat-tracking, and more, require players to be connected to the service, so we're encouraging everyone to use Battle.net as much as possible to get the most out of StarCraft II. We're looking forward to sharing more details about Battle.net and online functionality for StarCraft II in the near future."

Its like they don't understand what LAN is for. Ok, so B.net is all improved and great but people don't want to have everyone connect to b.net at a LAN party. Even if you have a connection fast enough to handle everyones bandwidth (doubtful), why add lag by sending data out to a server only to have it come back to another PC in the same freaking room?

[Xessive]

"...directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy."

I think that's what they really meant to say.

[MysterD]

If they are so worried about piracy and letting people play on a LAN not having legit copies, why don't they let LAN portion of the game require disc in the drive?

[Xessive]

If they are so worried about piracy and letting people play on a LAN not having legit copies, why don't they let LAN portion of the game require disc in the drive?

There's a good chance a no-cd crack could go around that. It seems to me that they're trying to figure out a way to manage it without officially saying "DRM."

I guess an alternate way would be to require players to log in to Battle.net to access the multiplayer then choose online or LAN.

[idolminds]

I was reminded of this article written by Soren Johnson, lead designer on Civ4.

6. Anti-piracy paranoia

The damage that piracy does to our industry is impossible to calculate but also impossible to ignore. Few company heads can be as brave as Stardock’s Brad Wardell, who chose to leave out copy protection altogether for the Galactic Civilization series (They encourage paying customers by providing on-line updates to players with legitimate serial numbers.).

Having some sort of mechanism to stop casual piracy is a given in the industry, but what is not a given is the hoops companies will make their customers jump through just to be able to start the game. The most important question to ask is “will this added security layer actually increase our sales?”

A good place to be lenient, for example, is with local multi-player games -- in other words, can players without the CD join a multi-player game hosted by a legitimate copy. Starcraft let you “spawn” extra copies of the game that could only join local multi-player games.

Allowing unlimited LAN play was our unofficial policy for Civ 4 as well. The game does a disk check when opening the executable but not when you actually launch the game; thus, a group of 4 friends could just pass one disk around for local multiplayer games.

We do not believe players are willing to buy extra discs just for LAN parties, which are rare events. However, we would love for new players to be introduced to Civ in these environments, encouraged by their friends who are already fans. At some point, they are going to want to try single-player -- in which case, it is time for a trip down to the local retailer to buy their own copy.

[angrykeebler]

you guys are making mountains out of molehills. LAN parties??? wtf come on.

[PyroMenace]

Keeb has a point, it kinda stinks but its not THAT big of a deal. Plus we really dont know how BNet is going to be and its Blizzard, it obviously isnt going to be shit.

[beo]

sucks, but what are the chances that there's going to be a client that bypasses bnet and allows lan play released with .3 seconds of the games official release? i mean, if you play on a lan, it's always pirated versions anyway - how else can you get everybody involved?

it sucks on principle, but that actually means jack shit in real terms.