Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[imagist42]

Yes. That is why they are two $20 value products. Not two products, together worth $20. I am not saying Valve totally butt-raped us for our money, but there was still an upset. It was a darker world, which knew not how awesome Portal truly would be (and back then we figured it was worth $10 at the most, since they wouldn't even sell it on its own to give us a more accurate price).

[maxusy3k]

It all comes down to the quality at the end of the day. Brood War, if I remember correctly, went on sale at 'full price' despite 'only' being an expansion to the original, but the single player campaign was every bit as epic as the original, if a little shorter. While I can't pretend to have been on the internets when it came out, I don't remember there being much of an uproar about it.

I'll be buying SC2, that's for sure. Whether I buy SC2 Part 2 or whatever they're going to call it entirely depends on what they produce. If a single campaign has as much playtime and involvement as any single standalone game, I have no problem shelling out for additional content. You could look at it as an expansion, but similarly you could look at any triology, games, movies or books, as simple 'expansions' on an established product. I paid full price for three LoTR DVDs even though it was the same 'thing' each time, but the content was of sufficient quality and length to warrant it.

In short, if they release SC2 and 2 expansions and expect people to shell out full price three times, they can suck a cock. If they release three games with equal or similar length, depth and involvement, then it's three games capable of standing on their own feet. You don't have to buy them all.

[satsugaikaze]

That's a valid point. In the end the only real verdict should be on whether the released campaigns have enough merit and epic substance to warrant having it released in individual games. And they'd better be worth it.

[Ozymandias]

Yes. That is why they are two $20 value products. Not two products, together worth $20. I am not saying Valve totally butt-raped us for our money, but there was still an upset. It was a darker world, which knew not how awesome Portal truly would be (and back then we figured it was worth $10 at the most, since they wouldn't even sell it on its own to give us a more accurate price).

And, I think, in retrospect, both of them are worth the $20 (and the entire box was worth way more than $50)

Which is why I want to know more than ZOMG BLIZZARD IS ASSRAPING US before making a snap judgment, however, it's still entirely possible they are.

[Alex C]

I'm sure Blizzard is fully aware that they've handed the gaming masses a whole crate of axes to grind. If anything, I'm excited to see how this turns out.

[Chesire Cat]

it begs the question of what the fuck they've been doing with all that time unless they split these games up and spread them apart to get people to pay for them individually.

Maybe having their dev forces split, some working on WoW others not.  Maybe the designers got a little carried away and realised that the cost benefit assessment would have actually meant they had to remove content in all three campaigns to keep everything within budget and along their projections?  So knowing their customers love the product so much that splitting it into three stand-alone games would benefit the community more than a, cheaper in cost and value, single release game.  You are so convinced that this is a malicious cash grabbed designed to hurt you.  Maybe, a company that has never in its past dicked over its client base isnt about to start now.  Why are you so adamant about not giving them benefit of the doubt?

[Jackie Blue]

Yeah, it's a pretty blatant cash grab. If you guys think that these are going to be priced like expansion packs, you're also fooling yourselves. They're going to charge the full 50 for all three games, because they can get away with it.

But if all three campaign modes are the length of a full game, then what's the problem?

EDIT: Also I love Warcraft 3 and its expansion.  Though I have never once even attempted to play it non-campaign; I can't imagine it being a very fun human-vs-human RTS.

[Johnny C]

heh, guess i'll bookmark torrentspy.com 

[Johnny C]

THIS IS THE FBI. WE HAVE SEIZED JOHNNY C'S ACCOUNT. STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO BRING HIM INTO CUSTODY. THIS PAGE IS TO BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. THANK YOU AND HAVE A PLEASANT DAY.

[FireAarro]

EDIT: Also I love Warcraft 3 and its expansion.  Though I have never once even attempted to play it non-campaign; I can't imagine it being a very fun human-vs-human RTS.

Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA.

Disclaimer: I don't actually play/like DotA that much. But I guess something significant Warcraft III brought to the table was a heavily moddable RTS with a hero system and excellent map editor?

[satsugaikaze]

They don't know when to stop with the DotA releases.

The moddability and extensive map editing is pretty much the only thing I'd like to see taken from Warcraft III and applied to Starcraft II. "Excellent map editors" are commonplace in many RTS games (I especially loved C&C General's one with custom gradient mapping and everything) but they're not common enough.

And the hero system, well, I don't know enough to say anything about that. Damage types have been implemented in Blizzards RTSes for yonks, even perhaps before Starcraft. Nothing special there.

[FireAarro]

The hero system means you have units which play like RPG characters, which gain experience, level up and have abilities you can invest skill points in.

[MusicScribbles]

Doesn't this bother anyone?! Johnny has been seized! Guys, get it together! We're in trouble, and our resident Canadian has been kidnapped!

[Boro_Bandito]

Yeah, for you haters of Warcraft III, before world of warcrack there was warcrack three. I had hours of fun online in the modded maps, tower defenses, DotA, summoner games, dawn of the dead mods, and even good ol' fashioned online ranked ladder matches. I love the entire single player campaigns and storyline and found the cinematics to be epic in scope. Honestly, pretty much every single game put out by Blizzard I've loved, the last being one I loved so much that I have to struggle daily to not pay for it or play it any more, so in the end knowing that there is three games worth of starcraft out there in my future is only a good thing. As long as there are countless hours of storyline and the excellent cinematics, I'm okay with it in the end. Since I seem to be the minority in this thread, I'll stop posting in it and let your nerdrage battle go on about a game you're probably going to pirate anyway.

[MusicScribbles]

Your negativity is encouraging.

[ackblom12]

I actually have no intention of pirating this and unless the pricing scheme is a bit different than seems likely, I'm not going to be buying it either.

You also have to remember Phil that we aren't denying Blizzard's good history of development, some of us are questioning this specific move that I think is pretty dick since you have to pay full price for each races campaign. I'm also saying that any other company would get railed on by pretty much everyone if they attempted something like this. The fact some of dislike WC3 was just a point that not everyone, even long time Blizzard fans (which I am), has liked everything they've done.

I'm still curious about whether or not you will have to buy all 3 campaigns to get all of the multiplayer content.

[Jackie Blue]

Wow, I've never heard of DotA before.

Crap, now I have to hunt down a copy of WC3 again (I lost mine last time I moved).

[satsugaikaze]

DotA is a mod.

Go get the original game then download the mod.


But anyway, I have no intention of pirating this either. My internet sucks and has a crappy capping limit, so it's just not an option. And the article stated that all three games have the full multiplayer content, meaning apparently all three games will be compatible with each other on Battle.net.
The developing of three games was purely for the purposes of the single-player campaigns.

[Spluff]

Honestly, BAAAAWWWWW.

[FireAarro]

DotA is a custom map for online play. I wouldn't call it a mod, IIRC it doesn't really modify much of the game.

[Jackie Blue]

This kind of reminds me of people who were pissed off that Vice City was a full-price game.

I mean, seriously, do we know much about the campaigns yet?  Isn't it entirely possible - or even probable given the development time involved - that each race's campaign will be as epic and different from each other's as GTA3, VC and San Andreas?

I just have a hard time blaming a company for not letting me play three 20-30 hour campaigns for the price of one.

Also, you know, isn't it good news that you can play the campaigns in any order you want?  I got so impatient my first playthrough of WC3 waiting to get to the Night Elf campaign.

[satsugaikaze]

You could play the campaigns in the original Starcraft in any order too, and the releases for the different Starcraft 2 games are spaced apart in probably a year or so.

The epic-ness will decide whether this move was worth it or not. Smart people are reserving their full judgement.

[Storm Rider]

Honestly, BAAAAWWWWW.

Contrast this with your posts in the Fallout thread for added hilarity.

[est]

I am finding it really hard to get cut up about this.

[clockworkjames]

Honestly, BAAAAWWWWW.

Contrast this with your posts in the Fallout thread for added hilarity.

That's concept art (good too, craig mullins is awesome) . The above was a screenshot from an interview.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 06:32:47 AM by Spluff »
 

[imagist42]

You could play the campaigns in the original Starcraft in any order too

Did... did you play Starcraft? Cause like, I guess you could do that, but not without beating them in the order it allows you to first.

[Chesire Cat]

Im going to go on record right now as never having ever played Starcraft, ever, not even once, at all, in my life.  Never.

[Jackie Blue]

You could play the campaigns in the original Starcraft in any order too

Uh.  Only after you had beat them all in the order the game forced on you.   

The epic-ness will decide whether this move was worth it or not. Smart people are reserving their full judgement.

I'm reserving my judgement.  Smart people don't get all snooty within their first 50 posts on a forum.

[Chesire Cat]

Yeah we tend to freeze those people out with our dickcicles

[Ozymandias]

Did... did you play Starcraft? Cause like, I guess you could do that, but not without beating them in the order it allows you to first.

Er, no. You can play them in any order. If you go out of order, it just asks if you really want to do that first.

[Jackie Blue]

Er, no. You can play them in any order. If you go out of order, it just asks if you really want to do that first.

...what?  My copy won't let me do that.

[Ozymandias]

Maybe they changed it in later versions, but I know I played the Zerg campaign before I finished the Terran campaign.

[Thaes]

I´m 100% certain that my copy of Brood Wars lets one do that. Not so sure about how it was in my copy of the original, though.

[imagist42]

Yeah, um, they're right. 

[Jackie Blue]

Just tested this on my copy of Brood War and it won't let me do it there, either.

Must be a version thing, I guess.

[Surgoshan]

You can play any of the three campaigns... within those campaigns, you have to play them in order.  That's my recollection.  Just in case people are confusing different ideas under the umbrella of nomenclature.

That is to say, maybe we're having a vocab crossfire.

[ackblom12]

I definitely played the campaigns out of order cause I always hated playing as the Terrans.

[Statik]

Did anyone besides the OP actually READ THE ARTICLE?

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.

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.

I have to kind of side with the pro-blizzard people.  Even if you don't like the games they make, they don't put shitty content, and while you could concievably make an argument that they charge a bit too much, I would say their quality level is high enough that they can get away with it. 

it begs the question of what the fuck they've been doing with all that time unless they split these games up and spread them apart to get people to pay for them individually.

 Maybe the designers got a little carried away and realised that the cost benefit assessment would have actually meant they had to remove content in all three campaigns to keep everything within budget and along their projections?  So knowing their customers love the product so much that splitting it into three stand-alone games would benefit the community more than a, cheaper in cost and value, single release game. 

Storm Rider... just a thought, but, why not read the article/interview before typing out things like that.  The interviewee specifically stated what their time is spent doing and what they've done so far.

What Chesire said.  (Even though he didn't read the article either)

[Boro_Bandito]

Yeah, I admit I was wondering if people had read the article either, because earlier when I posted that it implied that there would be new content such as new untis possibly and someone said that there absolutely wouldn't be
 

"More than likely, the successive products will add multiplayer content; we haven't decided right now what that is."

It's a possibility, damnit. The Terran game will include the Terran campaign and the full 3 race multiplayer online content, and the successive games will have the other campaigns and more than likely have new content. Which probably as well as the free maps that they've made that they released online and the maps and mods made by the community will likely have new map packs, units, or tilesets (or all of the above) like they released for Brood War. if they charge full price, they aren't gonna just tell you to bend over and take it, they'll make you want to.

[imagist42]

I guess I am basing that off other articles I have read that claimed pretty flatly each game would ship with the same complete, unchanging multiplayer? But then it seems every article on this subject is claiming entirely separate things ("expansions" vs. "standalones/not expansions," etc.). It does make me wonder (as the article claims they "haven't figured out yet") how it would work to play online with each version adding new stuff to the mutiplayer package. Like, would it be an original Starcraft vs. Brood War split, where you can't play with people who don't have your exact version? Or would they add the new stuff in to all owners via a patch with each new release (as WoW adds some expansion-related content to the game even for players who don't buy the expansions)?

[KvP]

if they charge full price, they aren't gonna just tell you to bend over and take it, they'll make you want to.

I don't doubt that they would (to what extent is the question) but the view that I and others seem to be taking is that if they in fact told us to bend over and take it, a great many of us would gladly do so. Blizzard doesn't have to put extra muscle into anything, the success of Starcraft 2 is foregone no matter what they do. They could add microtransaction'd units and maps and people would buy them.

[Boro_Bandito]

"God damnit I want the firebats so bad, but 15 bucks and my soul? But its sooooo worth it."

[KvP]

I don't know why you'd buy Firebats, the only less useful terran unit is the Wraith.

[Catfish_Man]

Uh... my zerglings got *annihilated* by firebats yesterday. They're fantastic against all things melee (true, that's only three units, but two of those units are common, and one is one of the best units in the game).

[Jackie Blue]

I don't know why you'd buy Firebats, the only less useful terran unit is the Wraith.

 

[Surgoshan]

I trust Blizzard.

If the new campaigns add multiplayer content then that multiplayer content will be added to the previous games as a patch.

If that turns out to not be the case, then I'll no longer trust Blizzard and I won't buy from them any more.

[Alex C]

I understand why people hate using Wraiths (they're so damn fragile and their damage kinda sucks), but until they cease being a necessary evil in mirror matches, I can't rank them below other Terran units. If anything, I'd say the Goliath, Firebat and Valkyrie are all fighting it out at the bottom of the shit pile, but even they all have their place.

[Spluff]

Honestly, BAAAAWWWWW.

Contrast this with your posts in the Fallout thread for added hilarity.

The difference is, Blizzard is developer with a flawless development history and a reputation for producing good game after good game. They are providing us with three 30 hour+ games that each come with multiplayer, whilst COD4 had a 4 hour campaign and multiplayer, and it was touted as game of the year.

On the other hand Bethesda has a history of releasing buggy, crappy games that need to be heavily modded to become playable.

[est]

I have won games with a fleet of Wraiths.  I don't understand.

Anyway, I am only mildly excited about Starcraft 2 news in general.  I am really anxiously awaiting D3, but I am sure I'll probably get SC2 when it comes out too, regardless of the 3-game thing.  Maybe I'll wait a bit and get the nigh-inevitable 3-pack once it comes out.  Maybe there will be 3 initial games plus the usual expansion?  Who knows!  It is a delicious mystery.  Unlike some of you I don't abhor what Bliz have been doing with WC3 and WoW (I enjoyed playing WC3 and have played WoW on and off since it came out), so I am pretty sure I will like what they do with SC2 also.

[ArcAirbender]

This is what happens when blizzard decides to give a piece of news in an incomplete form. (as it is their usual way)

I know it's the hardest for the zealots to believe, but Activision is probably not to be blamed.
Is amazing how fast people tend to forget. This is not the first time blizzard has shafted their beloved audience. Who remembers Lord of the Clans? Who remembers Starcraft Ghost? Who can remember "this MMO will be like no other you'll ever experience, with one, continuos, organic and moldable world" .... and then they spammed a gazillion identical, non canonical, non deformable worlds, on top of that, they charge you if you want to change from server to server.

What most people are unarticulately trying to say is that, even though NO CHARGE SCHEME has been brought to the table, it is most likely that blizzard will be charging the same price for each of those 3 games. And correctly so, the plebs are starting to sharp their pitchforks and oiling their torches.

If bliz decides to charge the same price for each game, then we will be paying twice or trice for some aspects of the game -arguably, the most important ones, the game engine and the multiplayer game-; because lets be realistic here, NORMAL PEOPLE are not going to play the single campaing every night for the next 3-4 years... Normal people will play the campaign once, maybe twice, and then bury it until a moment of nostalgia strikes, 1, 2, 3, n years from launchday.

Let's say for a moment that bliz is not giving us the Company of Heroes move (THE D1CK MOVE), and all Races will be playable from the start:  Does this mean that a single, non campaign game will also be available for a fraction of the price? Because that will be the fair thing to do, after this fiasco.

On the other hand, isn't it unfairthat the gamers are left wanting? I might be completely off on this one, but wouldn't it be better to have a WHOLE experience out of a game, even if this means to have LESS longevity? You know, quality over quantity?
How about a 70 dollar game with 2 dvds and all the missions you can possibly add in a 16 gb total storage space? (without the complications of having to re-copy all the engine and multiplayer elements?) takes too much time? PLEASE! SC2 has been in the works for over 3 1/2 years (maybe more). How about working on the story from day 1, even if the technical parts are at a stall because all the other proyects?  As some said before me, what have they been doing?

Lets, for the sake of it, collapse schrodinger's cat and create a fantastic world where, when you purchase one of the games, the second disc gets a discount / a price correction; lets say 30 dlls for the second one, 15 dlls for the third one...
Wouldn't it be a total catastrophe for bliz if people just lend or exchange games one another, so we can all enjoy the complete experience? What about the resale from stores like EBgames? it's certainly allowed by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine first sale rule. And I'm not even bringing up the pirated copies to the table.
All in all, it just sounds like more work for blizzard, more frustration for us, with less revenue overall for them. Plus, they are putting at risk the entire universe by, maybe, telling a shitty story because all they really want is to enlarge it as much as possible... you know, lets bring all the things we just eliminated to the editors room and just paste it in.

Blizzard is slowly -but surely- becoming the industry's diva; lets hope no DRM software is waiting to nail us on the cross; look at spore and their splintered-shaft no-vaseline root kit, and then take a look at any torrent site of your choice. Yea, that worked allright.

You know who are the ONLY ones who have a big grin in their faces after this news, no matter what happens?The illegal downloaders.
Yes bliz, keep making more single player idiocity, keep demanding more money for your titles, and please start charging for using the most spamful, viced, unstable, ugly online peer-to-peer network convieced; that way it will be no time before someone creates a "custom" server for sc2 and we all play like it WAS MEANT to be played... in our minds.
Torpedo yourself into oblivion.