By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Starcraft II campaign split into 3 separate SKU's!

shio on 11 October 2008
twesterm said:
cwbys21 said:
Each game will have the full multiplayer, and each will have up to 30 missions for the story line. Thats right, 30 missions per faction for the single player campaign. I did a quick look around to other game sites and it is quite humorous looking at some of the ignorant comments. This is shaping up to be three full games, not like a third of the game as the kotaku article implies. Hopefully there will be 3 different sets of maps along with 90 missions.

 

No, I promise you it is in fact three 1/3's of games (or one full game).  Telling me those are three full games is like telling me Gears of War isn't a full game and FFXII should really be split into three games.

Shut up. Each SC2 campaign will be as bigger than all SC1 campaigns put together, or bigger than the entire Halo series.

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Around the Network
shio on 11 October 2008
twesterm said:
cwbys21 said:
twesterm said:
cwbys21 said:
Each game will have the full multiplayer, and each will have up to 30 missions for the story line. Thats right, 30 missions per faction for the single player campaign. I did a quick look around to other game sites and it is quite humorous looking at some of the ignorant comments. This is shaping up to be three full games, not like a third of the game as the kotaku article implies. Hopefully there will be 3 different sets of maps along with 90 missions.

 

No, I promise you it is in fact three 1/3's of games (or one full game).  Telling me those are three full games is like telling me Gears of War isn't a full game and FFXII should really be split into three games.

The original Starcraft had about 10 missions per faction, for a total of 30 missions or so.  Each of these will have 30 missions for their faction, for a total of 90 missions.  The kotaku article didn't talk about it but after looking around I found this out at gamespot.  I didn't see anything about the online, hopefully like I said there will be new maps for each one, but these will be full games and Blizzard will probably charge atleast $40 for them.  I'm not pleased at the idea, but whatever.

 

 

So the original Gears of war had, what, 8 chapters?  If the new game had 16 chapers but made you buy it twice you'd be fine with that?

There's no excuse for their bullshit rising of the price.  If they couldn't justify putting it in a single package they should have just cut back on scope.

Considering SC2 would have a campaign far bigger than Gears of War 1 & 2 combined, I'm not sure where the "wrong" is.

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
vlad321 on 11 October 2008
shio said:
twesterm said:

And confirmed here that you will in fact have to buy the game 3 times if you want to play all three campaigns.

To put it simply: this is bullshit.  Fuck Blizzard.

I'm sure they could sell each one for $15-20 but I have the funny feeling the first one is going to be sold for $40-50 and then next two 'expansions' will be $15-20 each.

It's like they want people to pirate their game.

Are you an idiot? Think, each campaign will be as big or bigger than SC1's AND factoring how Blizzard is pushing the story-telling in the RTS genre, with adventure and RPG likeness AND non-linearity you will have a campaign that will totally crap on "shitty" stories like Gears of War and Halo 3.

And each of the campaigns will be seperate of each other, it won't ruin your single-player experience or leave it cliff hanging. So tell me, how is changing from 3 small campaigns to 1 Big campaign (as big as all 3) that not only has several innovations like non-linearity, adventure elements and a RPG parts that will help the progression and a far better replay value, be a bad change?

Hey, how about that Halo 3: Recon ehh?? It is going to have a campaign as "awesome" as Halo 3's??? lol

I asked this question before, if each is a complete single-player experience, then how are they gonna make the campaigns mesh together? I loved playing as Kerrigan/Arthas in their previous games and then having to fix all the shit I did from another point of view. Seems like they are throwing all that away now so they can save themselves from cliff hangers.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

shio on 11 October 2008
twesterm said:
And forgot to mention that after even angrier after reading that.

Each expansion means new changes to the multiplayer. Great. So now they're not only screwing over the people that like the campaigns, they're making the people that just want multiplayer buy all the expansions too.

Well, at least they're screwing over everyone equally.

Sorry, but how is that different from what Blizzard does usually? Blizzard has always done that.

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Yojimbo on 11 October 2008

Shio you are the Blizzard Defence Force. If you are going to accept to be treated like this by a game company so be it.



 
Around the Network
NightstrikerX on 11 October 2008

I'm a hardcore blizzard fan. I loved every game they put out, even old school games like Blackthorne, The Lost Vikings. I've owned every warcraft + expansion pack to date and beaten them all. But I can't accept this, I could accept what they did to warcraft by making it a MMORPG so they can make more money, they are a company first afterall. I played WoW a bit, didn't like it and quit.

But now they are ruining my RTS enjoyment by making me fish out MORE cash just to see how these stories interact? I'd rather read how it goes for free from wikipedia or something. With the economy the way it is, and if it continues down this path. Blizzard is gonna see record low sales for starcraft 2.

It truly saddens me to see what has happened to blizzard as of late. I feel another Sierra's Black Monday coming on...

 

Edit - Changed FPS to RTS... I got RTS's on the mind for some reason...



Why must JRPG female leads suck so bad?

shio on 11 October 2008
Yojimbo said:
Shio you are the Blizzard Defence Force. If you are going to accept to be treated like this by a game company so be it.

So tell me, how is changing from 3 small campaigns to 1 huge campaign and non-linear be a bad exchange? I didn't see anyone complain to Relic when they did it with Dawn of War and Company of heroes.

And the other 2 campaigns will be optional, you are not forced to buy it. It's a win-win situation Imo.

Explain to me why is it bad?



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Rath on 11 October 2008
shio said:
Yojimbo said:
Shio you are the Blizzard Defence Force. If you are going to accept to be treated like this by a game company so be it.

So tell me, how is changing from 3 small campaigns to 1 huge campaign and non-linear be a bad exchange? I didn't see anyone complain to Relic when they did it with Dawn of War and Company of heroes.

And the other 2 campaigns will be optional, you are not forced to buy it. It's a win-win situation Imo.

Explain to me why is it bad?

Because the other 2 campaigns aren't optional. This game is essentially made for the online play and they said that they're modifying the online with each new campaign. This can be translated as "Hey, we're going to make your version of the game obsolete occasionally and force you to buy it again, enjoy" or alternatively as "We're going to rape your wallet".

 



SeriousWB on 11 October 2008

Blah I wanted SCII for the story, there are many other great online alternatives around now in comparison to the days of the original.

I'll either buy the Zerg or Protoss campaign.  I suppose the pricing is an important question I need answering.



shio on 11 October 2008
Rath said:
shio said:
Yojimbo said:
Shio you are the Blizzard Defence Force. If you are going to accept to be treated like this by a game company so be it.

So tell me, how is changing from 3 small campaigns to 1 huge campaign and non-linear be a bad exchange? I didn't see anyone complain to Relic when they did it with Dawn of War and Company of heroes.

And the other 2 campaigns will be optional, you are not forced to buy it. It's a win-win situation Imo.

Explain to me why is it bad?

Because the other 2 campaigns aren't optional. This game is essentially made for the online play and they said that they're modifying the online with each new campaign. This can be translated as "Hey, we're going to make your version of the game obsolete occasionally and force you to buy it again, enjoy" or alternatively as "We're going to rape your wallet".

 

what the hell.... so your problem is that Blizzard is making expansions????????? Dude, just about every big game on PC has expansions, and every Blizzard game had expansions.

And another thing, expansions would only make SC2 obsolete for the professional players, because for the average joe it won't make SC2 worse if you dont buy expansions...

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg