Print

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

[KvP]

The random textual affectations don't really help you. Imagine somebody talking like you're typing.

[ArcAirbender]

The random textual affectations don't really help you. Imagine somebody talking like you're typing.

Noted.

[satsugaikaze]

None of us have argued that Blizzard can't deliver on good goods. =P

It's just that sometimes their method of delivering these good goods has been questionable.

But really, it all comes down to when the first game is released, and the buyers decide whether splitting it up was really worth it or not. Fears are it isn't and it's just a money whoring technique, hopes are it is and it was a good move.

[Statik]

IT AR FACT, BLIZ HATES US ALL, BLAH BLAH BLOO BLOO

You didn't read the article.
You didn't read the thread.
You made an illogical poorly thought through post.

Because seriously... did Blizz employees come over to your house and shit in your living room or something?  Also how did you get shafted by Blizz canceling games?  You were looking forward to them?  Whoopdy-fucking-do.

[supersheep]

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.

Seriously? This is pretty much impossible. To provide a world that is mouldable by players' actions beyond a certain level would require ridiculous things. Sure, I want a MMORPG where my actions have a lasting effect on the world, but unless you're talking about PvP content, can you imagine how hard this would be? They'd need to be adding new content every day, or something similar. The only MMO I can think of where player actions have serious effects is EVE, and that's such a completely different model to any othe MMO I can think of. Even then, players can only have certain effects on how the world is - generally in the 0.0 security zones, and really only with regard to other players. I've been bouncing around in my head ideas as to how this mouldable MMO would work, and it's so complex as to be nigh-on impossible. Imagine the balancing!

[Dimmukane]

Well, there is Love, the procedural MMO that can be altered by every player.  However, I don't know where in development this is.

[ArcAirbender]

None of us have argued that Blizzard can't deliver on good goods. =P

It's just that sometimes their method of delivering these good goods has been questionable.

But really, it all comes down to when the first game is released, and the buyers decide whether splitting it up was really worth it or not. Fears are it isn't and it's just a money whoring technique, hopes are it is and it was a good move.

Agreed. We can only speculate until the game is gold and on the shelves.

Its just that it has a really sad "warcraft 3 deja vu" feel to it, minus the 3 disc division.
phulease no micromanagement shenanigans 

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.

Seriously? This is pretty much impossible. To provide a world that is mouldable by players' actions beyond a certain level would require ridiculous things. Sure, I want a MMORPG where my actions have a lasting effect on the world, but unless you're talking about PvP content, can you imagine how hard this would be? They'd need to be adding new content every day, or something similar. The only MMO I can think of where player actions have serious effects is EVE, and that's such a completely different model to any othe MMO I can think of. Even then, players can only have certain effects on how the world is - generally in the 0.0 security zones, and really only with regard to other players. I've been bouncing around in my head ideas as to how this mouldable MMO would work, and it's so complex as to be nigh-on impossible. Imagine the balancing!

Oh and I agree completely, I was making an example of how Blizzard's F.A.Q. and own declarations change over the days, months and years, but people are left out in the cold waiting for something that will just never happend. It is easiest on the technically proficient, who can smell the scent of bullshit a mile away.
Kinda reminds me of the potatomoto comic at VGcats, when pea steve gave up his life waiting for wii-lies.

[Alex C]

I like micromanagement. It gives me more opportunities to stomp the crap out of people.

[Boro_Bandito]

I liked the mods that used the heroes powers like DotA or the Summoners or DotD, but i was terrible at micromanaging any kind of larger force. However I seem to have a preternatural amount of luck, so that was never too big a problem. If there is micromanagement to a certain degree in this game I won't mind all that much.

[Statik]

Oh and I agree completely, I was making an example of how Blizzard's F.A.Q. and own declarations change over the days, months and years, but people are left out in the cold waiting for something that will just never happend. It is easiest on the technically proficient, who can smell the scent of bullshit a mile away.
Kinda reminds me of the potatomoto comic at VGcats, when pea steve gave up his life waiting for wii-lies.

I, for one, don't remember blizz saying anything remotely close to what you claim they said about WoW.  I won't count it out, as I would expect them to have lofty goals, but I'd like to see some proof, in the context of an interview or whatever.

And you are still acting as though canceled or changed games have a large scale, far reaching effect on you or others lives.  Who exactly got "left out in the cold" waiting for what?

All developers have to change and adjust their "FAQ" (what?) over the course of development.  Things get cut, it happens.

And WTF is easiest on the technically proficient who can smell bullshit a mile away?  I'm guessing you mean "its easier to drop "promised" content halfway through production because they aren't technically proficient enough to complete the promised content."  If that is what you mean, it is wrong.  I won't crap flood the thread with reasons why.

[ArcAirbender]

I liked the mods that used the heroes powers like DotA or the Summoners or DotD, but i was terrible at micromanaging any kind of larger force. However I seem to have a preternatural amount of luck, so that was never too big a problem. If there is micromanagement to a certain degree in this game I won't mind all that much.

I like DotA very, very much, is an ingenious game; micro is great when you have to control a very small elite force, but the experience and memories I have with both warcraft 2 and starcraft was one of masive, epic battles where cleaver-yet-simple moves like flanking or a formation were more decisive than a build against certain type of hero or weapon. And please, don't get this out of context: I think W3 is a great game for certain people, and I don't take away its medals, but it will be naieve to state that W3 remained loyal to the W2 feel. Granted, games can and will evolve, and bliz owns the game, so they can do whatever the hell they want with it.
Lets see what route they will choose for Starcraft 2.

I, for one, don't remember blizz saying anything remotely close to what you claim they said about WoW.  I won't count it out, as I would expect them to have lofty goals, but I'd like to see some proof, in the context of an interview or whatever.

And you are still acting as though canceled or changed games have a large scale, far reaching effect on you or others lives.  Who exactly got "left out in the cold" waiting for what?

All developers have to change and adjust their "FAQ" (what?) over the course of development.  Things get cut, it happens.

And WTF is easiest on the technically proficient who can smell bullshit a mile away?  I'm guessing you mean "its easier to drop "promised" content halfway through production because they aren't technically proficient enough to complete the promised content."  If that is what you mean, it is wrong.  I won't crap flood the thread with reasons why.

Hi statik; please take it easy! I may sound like a prick inside your brain, but believe me when I tell you that it is not the case.
Now, I dont hate bliz, as a matter of fact, three of my top games of all time belong to them (diablo, starcraft, warcraft2). All those things I said was with the intention to establish a credibility base for their statements.

Unfortunately I did not made screenshots of what they did or did not say about world of warcraft, all those years ago. I remember it clearly because back then, I was starting college and money was scarse: my friends and I were pumped about the idea of blizzard getting in the business territory previously dominated by Lineage, Everquest, but mostly, Ultima. I'm sorry to say I have no proof beyond my word.
It shouldn't be to hard to swallow, considering all the cancelations, delays -remember all the diablo2 trailers and missed dates?- and broken promises, which brings me to my next point:

By "technically proficient" I am trying to say that people who are familiar with the current state of technology can easily defuse all those big words about moldable worlds or one big universe (instead of a bunch or servers); by defuse I mean they can build a natural amount of skepticism about it, so when the f.a.q. , spectations, statements change, they all knew it was coming.
Its as if I tell you right now that some big company is developing a game where they will simulate a galaxy of stars to colonize and mine, with thousands and thousands of worlds to explore... you immediately think: "by thousands he must be refering to several docens... maybe a hundred if we are lucky"
I should have been more specific about it.

From all this, the only thing that really annoys me (and its mostly dissapointment) is that Blizzard does all this with premeditation: They know they just can't deliver some promises, but take all the hype that is possible. As KvP said: SC2 will be a bestseller no mater what.
If that's the case, why do it anyway?
I perfectly understand what you wrote Statik: games need revisions, specially during beta testing, and some ideas go forward while some others go to the trash can, and even others get dismissed because of bliz low system requirements. I can totally understand that.
Still, why the deception?

In any case, my life is not shattered because of this, and I do not await starcraft 2 more than I await the second coming of jebus. I take this as what it is: a great subject for discussion, particularly in a slow day at the office.
All in all, it is very interesting to see the new revenue schemes Vivendi/Actiblizzard are experimenting with. Lets hope the same creativity is directed towards gameplay.

[Catfish_Man]

Blizzard has already publicly stated that they regard SC as the "huge armies" game in contrast to WC, btw.

[Chesire Cat]

I have a feeling the reputation for that post will follow you for some time.

*edit*

ArcAirBender's post that is

[Boro_Bandito]

Blizzard has already publicly stated that they regard SC as the "huge armies" game in contrast to WC, btw.

Anyone have any idea what their plans are on the unit cap for this? That's a piece of information I'd like to know. And also if this is the "huge army" game, that definitely reduces the likelihood for heavy amounts of unit mircromanagement. hopefully.

[est]

Yeah see, this is why you don't make half-cocked rants among your first posts.  Now my eyes just skim over your posts disinterestedly.

[Statik]

LOTS OF TEXT

You still sound like Blizz (or any game developer) is intentionally claiming this or that will be in the game, to build up hype? or something?  Then cuts it later.  Or that game devs make plans beyond the scope of available technology.  With few exceptions (Phantom console is a notable one) this is not the case. 

Its terrible business practice.  Granted, things can still get cut, be it for practicality, time, etc, but they simply are not making up shit at the beginning with full knowledge that they will cut it later.  Its a good way to piss off your potential customers, and by doing so, piss off your investors.

[est]

So anyway, are we done flailing about ineffectually in here yet?  I just read a couple more articles about this where Rob Pardo said "[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products" which says to me that they will be treated like expansion packs, only have a larger amount of content and be standalone, just like what the Dawn of War guys have been doing.  So I guess they have looked at the DoW guys and thought "That is a cool release model" and are running with it.  After disliking it at first I have come to appreciate the DoW model overall, as it lets people (other than me, obviously, as I have the first few games) pick up one of the new games without requiring the whole set.

Also, the expanded content they are talking about will probably be something like a couple/few unique units only available to people who own that specific campaign (like the Broodwar units).  Perhaps they'll make it more like achievements, where you'll unlock certain types of unique units for multi play while playing through the single-player campaign.  That way it'll feel less like "hurr hurr, buy this gaem 2 get uniques" and more like something you've earned.  Again, I don't really see this as being unreasonable.

[ArcAirbender]

I wish people that have the expanded content can fight against people who don't have expanded content (like company of heroes) I rather have a 2gb patch that downloads everything the expansion has multiplayerwise (and not let me paly it, because I didn't pay for it) than see the horrid image of a comunity divided in two or three chunks, depending which game/expansion you choose to buy.

Of course, that would mean a heckload of tweaking the units to make them balanced, but blizzard has a remarkably history of patching up games (even old ones) on a regular basis to get as close to perfection as possible. (exempli gratia bliz released v1.15.3 for starcraft around the middays of sept this year)

Anyone have any idea what their plans are on the unit cap for this? That's a piece of information I'd like to know. And also if this is the "huge army" game, that definitely reduces the likelihood for heavy amounts of unit mircromanagement. hopefully.

Hopefully...
To me huge army is 250+ ... do you think the havok engine can take that much? I'm  guessing there will be maps up to 8, maybe 10 players? that would be up to 2000+ units in a map! 

I also think it will be SO COOL if units could gain "veterancy" by killing enemies or surviving battles, that way it promotes careful management and survival of your units without the "micro" part. A veteran unit maybe got a weary/damaged outfit/animation. Perhaps a little defensive/attack bonus. (y'now, like leveling up, without any special skills)

Units in the original SC had a counter to know which were the ones with most kills. I don't think that affected the game anyway (I am not absolutely sure about it) but i sure made up some great stories in my mind everytime I played.

Also, I'm glad they're taking the DX9 & shaders 2.0 approach.... I'm crossing my fingers the game will play flawlessly even when aproaching critical mass clusterfuck status.

[est]

Dude, go read some of the goddamn articles.  Multiplayer will include all races out of each box, letting a player who bought Terrans play as whoever they want against a dude who bought the Protoss pack say, playing as whoever they want.  There's some talk about unique content, but for the most part it's going to all be on the game disc.

One more thing: I don't think I'll like SC2.  After going to DoW and having smaller armies and strategic points instead of resources and etc etc it seems like a backward step to go back to mining for shit and squabbling over resources and people turtling up and such.  Perhaps it will seem more interesting to me if there are more, smaller resource areas that can be more readily mined so that the war front is a more nebulous thing rather than "there's a bunch of bases, throw troops at them," but I am unsure.  DoW's smaller unit cap made you think more about what units you were making instead of racing for high tech and pumping out carriers/etc.

[Alex C]

From what I've read, it sounds like they're trying to automate and streamline the economic side of base building without eliminating the need to carefully consider how you place your defenses and the like. So you can still bone yourself by putting your pylons and turrets in stupid places but you shouldn't necessarily have to worry about being 3 seconds behind your opponent because you don't know how to "properly" select your probes at the start. Macro vs. Micro has been one of the hottest talking points amongst SC2 speculators for a while now; hopefully they'll hit the sweet spot and keep the depth while simplifying the controls enough to make it a non-issue for guys like est. After all, the original Starcraft seems intuitive enough, but when you stop to think about it, there really is tons of li'l niggling oddities like quickly assigning workers properly and being able to abuse the Patrol command with Vultures muddying up the waters. Frankly, just expanding the maximum unit selection past 12, tightening up the pathfinding and giving workers better AI in general would be enough to make me an extremely happy man.

[Catfish_Man]

Anyone have any idea what their plans are on the unit cap for this? That's a piece of information I'd like to know.

If memory serves they said (a while ago, so it may have changed, of course) that it'll be the same as starcraft.

[est]

I don't need the controls simplified, I need the game to be more interesting.  I have had awesome running battles over multiple strategic points in DoW.  In SC you are rewarded for knowing the maps, claiming the most resources, then turtling up until you've built more shit than the other guy.  There's all kinds of strategies to break that kind of thing, but the guy with the most resources has a pretty strong position and the other guys are mostly working against the clock/their own casualties.  In smaller maps where everyone was on more or less even footing and strategy was more important I would kick ass, but in the larger maps it became more like a competition of who could remember the best build queue and click buttons the fastest.  It just wasn't all that fun.

[imagist42]

So, uh.

http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml

The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets.

base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets.

base StarCraft II game

So much for "three standalone games, pick and choose which campaigns you want to play."

[satsugaikaze]

Well, it just means that the article on the front page was wrong.

The biggest problem I have with this move is that the multiplayer games will be played on separate lobbies and ladders according to whichever expansion pack (or base game) you have. Personally, I think it's kinda unneccessary, but that's just my opinion. I still think it would have been more convenient if it was all smashed into one DVD.

[imagist42]

Yeah, I was really hoping they would try to keep multiplayer together, but then I was hoping they were serious about each game being standalone instead of requiring everyone to buy at least the "core" Terran game. The question is still, how will it work with both the Zerg and Protoss expansions in place? I mean, will you only be able to play with people who have your exact combination of expansions? Would you have to sign on with either the Zerg or Protoss expansion in order to play? Or might they follow the Roller Coaster Tycoon (1) model and have the second expansion include first expansion content (at least in terms of online multiplayer)?

[est]

Has that FAQ been updated recently or what?  The articles/interviews seem to indicate that they initially started out trying to fit everything into one game, then decided to split things into separate race-based campaigns later.  Also, as I said above, Rob Pardo said straight out that they would be expansions, but that they wanted to make them feel like full games.  I take this to mean they will be standalone, much the same way that the DoW guys have been doing for their recent expansion packs.

[KvP]

If all the playable races are included via multiplayer in each xpac, I'd hope that at least we'd be able to play them all in skirmish games when we don't have other people around.

[satsugaikaze]

Yeah, I was really hoping they would try to keep multiplayer together, but then I was hoping they were serious about each game being standalone instead of requiring everyone to buy at least the "core" Terran game. The question is still, how will it work with both the Zerg and Protoss expansions in place? I mean, will you only be able to play with people who have your exact combination of expansions? Would you have to sign on with either the Zerg or Protoss expansion in order to play? Or might they follow the Roller Coaster Tycoon (1) model and have the second expansion include first expansion content (at least in terms of online multiplayer)?

It'll probably work out as such that the multiplayer lobbies and ladders will be only concerned with a specific expansion pack you use, much like Diablo or Starcraft, and that the multiplayer content only applies to one expansion pack. At least, that's what I think.

But if the last expansion pack will contain the previous content of the expansion packs and is released in the order that Blizzard wants you to play the content, then we really don't have a choice as to which order we play the campaigns =(

[ArcAirbender]

Has that FAQ been updated recently or what?

It has remained unchanged since I first registered in this forum, hence my wishing that people with the expanded content could battle people without the expanded content.

Rob Pardo said straight out that they would be expansions, but that they wanted to make them feel like full games.  I take this to mean they will be standalone, much the same way that the DoW guys have been doing for their recent expansion packs.

I think pardo was referring to the long single player experience for each expansion....26-30 missions each.


Taking into account bliz game history, its most likely the 3 games will be appart with their own ladder, mods, perhaps versions. Just like Brood War and Frozen Throne.


I still be wishin' for bliz to "unite the clans"... as william wallace said, and make a humongus 2g+ patch that can make us all fight along, despite level of purchase.

[est]

That makes absolutely no sense.  The date of the article in the original post is the 10th of Oct 08 (ie: only six days ago).  In that article they say it'll be three standalone titles with all three races playable in multiplayer:

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."

Going on past expansion packs they've really only added a small amount of extra units.  I really doubt there will be a huge path required to "unite the clans" or whatever.  It'd be more likely that someone with the Terran pack will be able to play someone with the Protoss pack, but that each will have certain unique units available only to them.

Also, I think it's pretty important to note that Pardo's also said that there will be about a year in between each release.  Terran, then #2 a year later, then #3 the year after that.  They aren't all going to hit at the same time and force people to choose which one/ones they want.

[satsugaikaze]

Again, I'd wait for a Battlechest so I could play whatever expansion thing I want.

[est]

With them saying it's gonna be a year between releases I doubt I'll wait for a Battle chest.  That'd probably be at least 6 mths after the final release, meaning I'd be waiting 2.5yrs minimum after the first one had come out in order to play them.  Doesn't sound too appealing to me.

[Roivas]

Man, IGN being wrong or posting inaccurate information? Never!

I was pretty sure that Blizzard wasn't quite stupid enough to try and release one of their longest [of their three games] missing IPs in three pieces. It would be something that some fanboys would take but I can imagine most gamers having my attitude of "Then fuck it." and move back to Starcraft original.

But they didn't get into the position they are today by being stupid developers, just highly skilled at making their low creativity work for them. Which I guess is pretty admirable.

[imagist42]

Est, did you read the section of the FAQ headlined "Trilogy"? There they say up front that Terran is the "core" game for the Zerg and Protoss expansions, and that multiplayer will be divided much like Starcraft/BroodWar and Warcraft3/FrozenThrone, so I think it is safe to say they are forcing people who want to play Zerg or Protoss (and we can only cross our fingers that you won't need Zerg to play Protoss) to buy Terran.

[Boro_Bandito]

Man, IGN being wrong or posting inaccurate information? Never!

I was pretty sure that Blizzard wasn't quite stupid enough to try and release one of their longest [of their three games] missing IPs in three pieces. It would be something that some fanboys would take but I can imagine most gamers having my attitude of "Then fuck it." and move back to Starcraft original.

But they didn't get into the position they are today by being stupid developers, just highly skilled at making their low creativity work for them. Which I guess is pretty admirable.

Every comment I've ever heard from you is extremely negative. Also, seriously doubt that most gamers at this point would move back to Starcraft original beyond fanboys themselves and Koreans.

[Jackie Blue]

OK, that is fucking retarded.  I do not want to have to wait a YEAR to play the Zerg campaign, then ANOTHER YEAR to play the Protoss.

Perhaps there has been some miscommunication and each of the three will contain 3 campaigns, it's just that each one will FOCUS on one race, but you'll have single-player MISSIONS where you play as all three in each game.

Jesus fuck, this is getting confusing.

[Ozymandias]

OKAY

So, my ridiculously connected friend who was at BlizzCon talked to some people there and the impression he got was this:

The Terran disc is the base game. It will be $50. It will have the multiplayer. In addition to being the Terran campaign (Jim Raynor), it will have a couple of mini-campaigns with Zeratul and Kerrigan, but otherwise be entirely Terran oriented. The next two games will be $30 each, expansions to the base Terran game, to continue the story form the Zerg perspective, then the Protoss perspective.

They are expansions, not individual games. It's like Warcraft 3's story. The Night Elves part makes no sense if you haven't already played the first three campaigns. So why the hell do you want to.

[est]

Why on earth would Rob Pardo say what he did if they are just going to be expansions?  I don't understand why he'd risk internubs nerdwrath over the whole deal if it's just going to be like a business as usual set of expansion packs.

[Ozymandias]

Well, dude talked to Chris Metzen. I really don't know who would know better, maybe neither. Maybe they just have no fuckin' idea what they're doing with this yet.

[Roivas]

"Every comment I've ever heard from you is extremely negative."

Try the thread on N+ a game. A game I feel is a really good concept that's well executed and a good game for the average Dave or Sally, while still being a great game for the more interred gamer.

I just think those who have a serious mashed potato jones can play Starcraft original and be pretty happy. There are new RTS games that advance the genre, but I haven't kept up well with the PC market.

Also I'm negative because I'm a dick. take that in whatever sense you like.


I was glad that the story was not true though. I think Blizzard is a cool company, though i wouldn't want to work for them, and don't like hearing them doing bad things to the PC market.

[est]

I didn't mean to put what your friend said into question, was more wondering why they would say what they did in the IGN interview and other recent articles.  It really gave the impression of 3 discrete games with a common multiplayer underpinning.

[Ozymandias]

No, I know. I really do think maybe they just don't have it together what exactly they're doing here. I don't think three entirely separate campaigns is really what they have in mind, though.

[satsugaikaze]

I hope it's not.

Because as far as we're concerned, putting a year between each release in a campaign is silly.

[imagist42]

I am fairly sure that aspect of this fiasco is not in question. The only reason they gave for the split in the first place was that they wanted to give their fans something to play sooner rather than later and still have time to do the campaigns they have in mind justice. Otherwise they would just cut the content down and release smaller campaigns all together next year, or keep everybody on edge until 2010 or '11.

Although, I think it is pretty silly that they have the multiplayer game pretty much ready to go, yet have only been working on material for the Terran campaign. You'd figure they'd have been able to plan ahead in terms of fleshing each race out simultaneously rather than going "oh woops, it's mid-2008 and we've only got a few pieces of concept art behind the Protoss and Zerg."

[Ozymandias]

I think a large part of it is that there's a major metagame component to the campaigns now. It's like an RTS within an RPG, and they have to script and make that meta game for each campaign on top of 30 huge custom maps.

Like, seriously, the more I sit down and consider this decision logically, the more I'm totally willing to accept that this will be worth the money. That by the end of the Terran game, it will have felt like a $50 game.

[snalin]

Speculation is bullshit, Starcraft is cooler than sex. OKAY? GOT IT?

 

[satsugaikaze]

Again, I'd reserve my full judgement on this issue when it's actually released. It could go either way, and to the extremes.

[ArcAirbender]

Check this out, there's a friendly chat over at GiantBomb.com over what SC2 can be, straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/qa-the-starcraft-ii-brain-trust/388/

The phrases I found most interesting:

"It's a full multiplayer game. Look at it just like Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, The Frozen Throne, and then if we'd done a third, this is exactly how we're looking at this."

" are there any differences between the units and the tech in the campaign, and what you're going to see in the multiplayer? Is there single-player-specific stuff?  Answer: ....one of the things we've done in the past....to pitch the solo campaign as a learning tool for online play. We are not doing that anymore...these two parts of the game can live separately from one another. We can have a solo play experience with its own technology choices, its own options, and then for multiplayer it's a completely different rule set."

"So what are the compatibility logistics between all these boxes? If I only have Terran, and two or three years later my friend buys Protoss, can we play together? Do you limit the available units to the products you own? How does that work?

CS: We haven't finalized those details yet. We're still talking about it. "

and this one is for SATSUGAIKAZE :p

"You're saying it's a minimum of a year between, say, Terran and Zerg. Can you peg or at least estimate what year we'll see Starcraft II Battle Chest on shelves?

CS: That's an unanswerable question. [laughs]"


All in all, this makes me think that the game is far greener than I once believed. Perhaps it will even miss the 2009 launch. (this is ALL speculation from my part)
I won't have my hopes up for a battlechest this decade =/

[satsugaikaze]

lololz of course the battlechest won't even be heard of for ages on end.

But I am a very patient man. =) Besides, Blizzard is always good at making their customers crap themselves by dropping cryptic hints that require a hacker to decipher =P

[Jackie Blue]

I still say it's shit that I won't be able to play a full Protoss campaign until 2011.

I mean Jesus did they have to start with the most boring race?