Blizzard: Please buy Starcraft 2 three times

[Durwyn]

I'll torrent it All-In-One

You always intended to torrent it anyway, so shut the fuck up.

Oh... you knows me really good. But now I'll torrent it three times just to rape their asses out of money.

 

[pkt-zer0]

Don't really care. I'll just buy the Battlechest in 2011, anyway.

I don't really get the complaints about the split, if the games will indeed feature as much content as they should. It's simply that there are now two expansions instead of one.

 

[Topher]

I just can't shake the feeling that this is all a bullshit bid for more cash.

 

[Shannow]

Ah well, that's that then.

*waiting for SC2+expansions+dlc+D3+expansions pack for 15 bucks in the bargain bin*

 

[Kingston]

Wonder if the Activision merger has anything to do with these new developments.

Anyhoo, I guess we'll be getting SC2 multiplayer sooner.

 

[JarlFrank]

Seeing the order of the campaigns it seems this time the Zerg wont be the big winners. Terrans will get their ass kicked though.

It's the same order of campaigns like in the original Starcraft. The Zerg only became the big winners in the expansion.

 

[VonVentrue]

I'll torrent it All-In-One

You always intended to torrent it anyway, so shut the fuck up.

Oh... you knows me really good. But now I'll torrent it three times just to rape their asses out of money.

Listen... I, too, am not too fond of the idea.
However, the Terran campaign is supposed to have as much content as the entire campaign in SC (unless they're lying to us) - which justifies the decision.

 

[Durwyn]

I dunno... It still remindes me of breaking game into episodes just to milk us up. It's like breaking diablo into acts and selling them separatly... I just don't like the idea, no matter how much content they will add. I would prefer three campaigns in one game, 10-15 missions each one, than three separate games even with 20 missions.

 

[catfood]

Man, this blows hard. What a dirty move.And I was thinking about preordering it aswell..
I'll buy it anyways rather than torrenting it because I want to play on bnet, but only after a few years it comes out with a bundle pack or something.

I would prefer three campaigns in one game, 10-15 missions each one, than three separate games even with 20 missions.

Yep, exactly. SC had like 10 missions per campaign at most, yet they were lengthy enough and well designed.
In strategy games I always first finish the campaigns and then jump into skirmish mode. It gives me a nice feeling of discovery, and they also serve to familiarize the players with each of the races. And I don't think I'm the only one.

 

[VonVentrue]

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html

According to Dustin Browder, StarCraft II's design team never intended to break the game up into three separate parts. "This decision was all about trying to get enough choices and options into the game," Browder said as we began our discussion about the "trilogy." "We got to a really bad place in developing the campaign where the story had become too big. There were too many things we wanted to do, too many characters we felt needed to be in there and 25 or 30 missions we'd need to provide enough variety."

More importantly in the decision making process, according to Browder, was the sinking feeling the development team got when they started cutting campaign features to squeeze the whole thing into one product. "We didn't want to tread water with this game and just give the fans something slightly better than Warcraft III. It felt like we were going backwards."

(...)

Looking back now, Browder can see that in a weird way, this particular decision was inevitable given the development team's attitude about the single-player portion of the game. "A lot of games try to use the single-player campaign to teach the players how to play multiplayer. The problem with that is, no matter how good a player is at the single-player portion, there's no way to eliminate that gap between being good enough to finish the final mission and winning online. Eventually everyone who ventures online for the first time finds their butts getting kicked by real people." That's why the development team decided that the single-player portion of the game would need to stand on its own and would have to be divorced from multiplayer.

They do have a point, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

You are Atrokkus, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Durwyn]

On the second thought... Blizzard is propably the only one left company that still makes quality pc-only titles with great gameplay, so maybe I'll give them a credit this time...

 

[racofer]

Oh fuck. Now I'm gonna have to torrent this shit three times instead of one. There goes my bandwidth. Damn you Blizzard.

 

[Chefe]

I must have missed the part where they said you would need all three games to play online, and the other two games were not massive single player campaigns.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Blizzard is propably the only one left company that still makes quality pc-only titles with great gameplay

Name them!

 

[racofer]

Blizzard is propably the only one left company that still makes quality pc-only titles with great gameplay

Name them!

frozen throne, d2, WoW

R00fles LULFles

 

[Emotional Vampire]

don't be such a fucking tool.

 

[JarlFrank]

Blizzard actually do make quality fun games. They're not extremely deep or revolutionary, but they're simply the best and most polished in their respective subgenre.

 

[Elwro]

I wasn't going to buy this, but now I'm not going to buy this 3 times BWAHAHAHA TAKE THAT BLIZZARD! Instead of $50 loss it'll be a $150 loss for them, right?

$300 now.

KEEP'EM COMING GUYS WE'LL BRING THEM DOWN

 

[Skankster]

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918963p1.html

According to Dustin Browder, StarCraft II's design team never intended to break the game up into three separate parts. "This decision was all about trying to get enough choices and options into the game," Browder said as we began our discussion about the "trilogy." "We got to a really bad place in developing the campaign where the story had become too big. There were too many things we wanted to do, too many characters we felt needed to be in there and 25 or 30 missions we'd need to provide enough variety."

More importantly in the decision making process, according to Browder, was the sinking feeling the development team got when they started cutting campaign features to squeeze the whole thing into one product. "We didn't want to tread water with this game and just give the fans something slightly better than Warcraft III. It felt like we were going backwards."

(...)

Looking back now, Browder can see that in a weird way, this particular decision was inevitable given the development team's attitude about the single-player portion of the game. "A lot of games try to use the single-player campaign to teach the players how to play multiplayer. The problem with that is, no matter how good a player is at the single-player portion, there's no way to eliminate that gap between being good enough to finish the final mission and winning online. Eventually everyone who ventures online for the first time finds their butts getting kicked by real people." That's why the development team decided that the single-player portion of the game would need to stand on its own and would have to be divorced from multiplayer.

They do have a point, as far as I'm concerned.

So Arcanum should have been sold in 6-8 installments? It has a shitload more content than most other games that sold for the same price after all.

 

[AzraelCC]

Well, if they are expansions, meaning there will be new units and features, why not? Then it is just a way to bring starcraft 2 out quicker. Still, it sucks not being able to continue the story immediately. There's also the issue of Blizzard just planning way to much instead of actually getting a feel for the problems bound to arrive once the game hits the shelves and then addressing them through the expansions.

It still doesn't make sense to cite 'monetary' issues, since Blizzard is anything but struggling financially.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I don't get the point of this. Couldn't they just release all three campaigns in reduced form and then expand and intertwine each of them with subsequent releases? I remember already getting bored with each race by the end of each (short) campaign in the original Starcraft. I couldn't imagine having to play Terran for 30 missions straight and then wait for the expansion to play something else. Epic fail from Blizzard's part.

 

[Sirus]

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

 

[Sirus]

 

[Kingston]

I don't get the point of this. Couldn't they just release all three campaigns in reduced form and then expand and intertwine each of them with subsequent releases? I remember already getting bored with each race by the end of each (short) campaign in the original Starcraft. I couldn't imagine having to play Terran for 30 missions straight and then wait for the expansion to play something else. Epic fail from Blizzard's part.

Indeed. The campaign better be extremely good because I can't be arsed to play 30 mission of any race.