Starcraft II campaign split into 3 separate SKU's!

[Final-Fan]

Punisher said:
@Final-Fan

Do you mean the one it quoted earlier ?

I'll quote it again, different way this time.

"I agree with DKII that playing 30 missions with one race is, all else being equal, less worthwhile than 10 missions with each of three races, but it's hardly the end of the world."

...

"Also, you really reach in places. Are you seriously concerned that Terran players will be at a significant advantage because they've played through a campaign while Zerg players haven't? I can't be alone in thinking that the campaigns in typical RTSs (and Blizzard's games are no exception) are relatively poor preparation for multiplayer battles. Skirmishes against the computer aren't even great practice, but they're much, much better than playing the story mode (and they'll be available from the get-go)."

As i stated i'm not that interested in Mp/Bnet playing.

"On the first page, you denounce them for saying that each expansion will make changes to the multiplayer. But isn't that what expansions are for?  Beyond the Dark Portal, Brood War, and The Frozen Throne all added new units and abilities to each race. You seem to be attacking the very idea of expansion packs here."

This isn't same kind of "expansion pack" we are talking here. In every one of those real expansion packs we did get to play with every race. (Or almost)

Final-Fan:  Non sequitur.  Neither he nor twesterm (whom he is responding to) were talking about the issue of only the Terrans being in the first SKU in this part. 

"It occurs to me that the rage from various people could just be the weird hatred of 'incompleteness' that you see in the gaming world. Is that what's going on here? Expansion packs are only okay as long as the developer pretends like it's not planning them until after the main game releases? People are way too inclined to think of games as art and game makers as artists, and to feel betrayed when the developer has an idea for making a game better"

That depends from point of view.

Those who want MP/Bnet-playing would still get it, even if there were 10 campaign missions for every race, opposed to poor choice to release Terran in 2009, Zerg (maybe) in 2010 and Protoss (maybe) in 2011.

"Gamers need to realize that, given a game and its eventual expansion, it's often impossible to determine which of the expansion's modifications were conceived before the release of the main game - the actual content that you're getting is identical."

That would work for the multiplayer only.

As stated earlier, they would those balancing patches either way so, it shouldn't concern them that much.

But us minority (i take we are minority), who like to play this game for it's story, opposed to mp/Bnet playing, would like to play all races equally and see how story develops, in the same time in every race.

If your main concern is the single-player campaign, then why does your response COMPLETELY IGNORE the part of the post devoted to that topic? 

"I agree with DKII that playing 30 missions with one race is, all else being equal, less worthwhile than 10 missions with each of three races, but it's hardly the end of the world. With what we know now, it's very possible that, when all is said and done, we'll have a main game and two expansion packs' worth of single- and multiplayer content for the price of one main game and two expansion packs. It's entirely possible that what we're getting is the same amount of value that we always get from Blizzard RTSs, just distributed differently across SKUs. While I prefer WC3 the way it is, if the original game had included all of the Human and Undead single player content found in both releases while the expansion pack included all of the Orc and Night Elf single player content found in both releases, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

"While this is a curious and, on face, suboptimal design decision, there are a few possible reasons for them to do this. The most obvious is that they've learned a lesson from Warcraft 3 and The Frozen Throne. If you'll recall, the Orc Frozen Throne 'campaign' was largely tacked on. The Orcs couldn't easily be incorporated into the larger story and so they got a glorified custom map. Perhaps, in working out the plot of SC2, Blizzard encountered a similar problem - perhaps the Terrans are bit players in the arc planned for the second or third expansion. What if the Orc campaign in WC3 had been twice as long at the expense of another race's campaign (which then had a double-length campaign in Frozen Throne)? That presents problems with the WC3 story as it was presented, but, if that had been the design goal from the beginning, perhaps the Orc Frozen Throne dilemma could have been avoided."

Perhaps you have real disagreements with what this person said about SC2's single-player, but don't pretend he ignored the issue.  In fact, YOU ignored HIM. 

P.S.  I am VERY interested in the campaign mode.  Y'know, just in case you were lumping me into that alleged group of people who only care about the Battle.net side, too.