Why are they splitting Starcraft 2 up into 3 seperate games??

Thats 180 dollars to buy all 3 sorry ill wait for the battle chest...

money my friend

money my friend

Chris_Williams

Because they can have better games this way.

I find it interesting that Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 1, Dawn of War 2, Age of Empires 3, and sevreal other titles provided campaigns for only one or a subset of the total sides/races/factions. Other games like Civ 4, Supreme Commander, Empire/Napolean: Total War make the sides so similar that having a generic campaign works fine.

But Blizzard creating a campaign to only one race thats longer than most of the other games listed at significantly higher quality? OMG ALERTS THE PRESS OF DER EVILS.

Give me a ****ing break.

Have fun not enjoying this great game. :)

I'm noticing something ... people will drop $60 for a game with a 5-hour single-player campaign but they get upset when an absolutey top-notch 15 hour plus single-player campaign gets released. Go figure.

Isn't each campaign running at 10-15 hours? Also is the last two titles priced at $39.99? If that's the case I do not mind paying $140 bucks for SC2.

Isn't each campaign running at 10-15 hours? Also is the last two titles priced at $39.99? If that's the case I do not mind paying $140 bucks for SC2.

jasonharris48

That is actually crap value. It took me 48 hours to beat Dragon Age: Origins and I paid $25 for that. Even when Dragon Age is not on sale it is only $49.99 on PC. You would be paying $140 for what you admit would be at most 45 hours. Not to mention that the first game is $59.99 which is a price gouge to PC gamers and you have to log into Battle net even for offline which is pretty much the same DRM as Ubisoft. I won't be picking up SC2 but to each their own.

Have fun not enjoying this great game. :)

I'm noticing something ... people will drop $60 for a game with a 5-hour single-player campaign but they get upset when an absolutey top-notch 15 hour plus single-player campaign gets released. Go figure.

Dire_Weasel

Sorry, but there's more than one genre on the shelves...RPGs last up to 80 hours and cost less.

To make more money. There really isn't any other reason. Why make $50-60 from one game, or $100 from one game and two expansions, when you can make $180 from three?

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

Have fun not enjoying this great game. :)

I'm noticing something ... people will drop $60 for a game with a 5-hour single-player campaign but they get upset when an absolutey top-notch 15 hour plus single-player campaign gets released. Go figure.

topsemag55

Sorry, but there's more than one genre on the shelves...RPGs last up to 80 hours and cost less.

No need to apologize, I'm not the one missing out on a great game. :)

The single-player game is 15 hours, the first time through. Then there are challenges, creative acheivements, and various gametypes, including co-op, vs the AI.

Of course the meat of the game, the thing that people will be playing for the next decade, is the multiplayer. I haven't finished the campaign because I've been playing the league this week. It's deep, it's polished and it's good.

But as I said, feel free to miss out on it because you think it's some sort of rip-off. No skin off of my back. :)

To make more money. There really isn't any other reason. Why make $50-60 from one game, or $100 from one game and two expansions, when you can make $180 from three?

foxhound_fox

Why is it that when Blizzard separates a title into three consecutive parts the whole gaming industry explodes, but when valve does it nobody bats an eyelash.Im_single

Why is it that when Blizzard separates a title into three consecutive parts the whole gaming industry explodes, but when valve does it nobody bats an eyelash.Im_single

The original Starcraft had about 30 single-player missions divided among 3 races. The expansion was similar in that it offered shorter campaigns for all 3 races.

Starcraft 2 has about 30 missions dedicated soley to the terran faction. The expansions will focus on the zerg and the protoss and once again offer about 30 missions.

I do not understand how I got ripped off for buying Starcraft. There were always going to be expansions to the game, so what is different this time?

The original Starcraft had about 30 single-player missions divided among 3 races. The expansion was similar in that it offered shorter campaigns for all 3 races.

Starcraft 2 has about 30 missions dedicated soley to the terran faction. The expansions will focus on the zerg and the protoss and once again offer about 30 missions.

I do not understand how I got ripped off for buying Starcraft. There were always going to be expansions to the game, so what is different this time?

AtomicTangerine

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

Isn't each campaign running at 10-15 hours? Also is the last two titles priced at $39.99? If that's the case I do not mind paying $140 bucks for SC2.

PublicNuisance

That is actually crap value. It took me 48 hours to beat Dragon Age: Origins and I paid $25 for that. Even when Dragon Age is not on sale it is only $49.99 on PC. You would be paying $140 for what you admit would be at most 45 hours. Not to mention that the first game is $59.99 which is a price gouge to PC gamers and you have to log into Battle net even for offline which is pretty much the same DRM as Ubisoft. I won't be picking up SC2 but to each their own.

I'd rather play SCII for 1 hour than Dragon Age for 10... just saying...

[QUOTE="Im_single"]Why is it that when Blizzard separates a title into three consecutive parts the whole gaming industry explodes, but when valve does it nobody bats an eyelash.DJ_Lae

Perhaps, but it would take a lot of work into making 3 campaigns of 26-30 missions each (depending on choices) with completely different structure. You are talking about 90ish missions and 3 completely different stories, the way you prepare for the missions is completely different for each faction in addition to a multiplayer with high replay value.

Thats 180 dollars to buy all 3 sorry ill wait for the battle chest...

lastchancejames

[QUOTE="PublicNuisance"]

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

Isn't each campaign running at 10-15 hours? Also is the last two titles priced at $39.99? If that's the case I do not mind paying $140 bucks for SC2.

MajorGamer531

That is actually crap value. It took me 48 hours to beat Dragon Age: Origins and I paid $25 for that. Even when Dragon Age is not on sale it is only $49.99 on PC. You would be paying $140 for what you admit would be at most 45 hours. Not to mention that the first game is $59.99 which is a price gouge to PC gamers and you have to log into Battle net even for offline which is pretty much the same DRM as Ubisoft. I won't be picking up SC2 but to each their own.

I'd rather play SCII for 1 hour than Dragon Age for 10... just saying...

Like I said to each their own. I don't play the online, that's just me. There are those who will play the online for 500 hours but I am not one of them. I am strictly looking at the offline campaign which is horrible value in my eyes. 90 missions over 3 games. Even if they are 2 hours each that is $0.77 per hour. Not bad but Dragon Age, which I did enjoy, was only $0.52 per hour and it did not require me to log into an online service to play offline, and it didn't price gouge me at $59.99 which Wings of Libertry does. Now in comparison I paid $59.99 for Mass Effect 2 and beat it in 34 hours which is $1.77 an hour so you can feel free to call me a hypocrite but ME2 still didn't force me to log into an online service to play offline and also Mass Effect is my crack. I gave that game one of the few 10s I have given and I doubt I would do the same to SC2.

So they can pay for all the CGI cutscenes.inoperativeRS

you do of course realize that the MAJORITY of the cutscenes in the game are in-engine. I still cant believe how good they look tho. Some of the action sequences later on would have been prerendered 3 years ago.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

When it comes to people relating to the 3 seperate campaigns, there are only two types:

Ones who haven't played the current campaign. And ones who have, and can't wait for the Protoss campaign.

It's the best decision that Blizzard could've made, as anyone's who's actually played the current Campaign that focuses on Jim Raynor and the Terran's side of the story know it's anything but less varied or fun or less lengthy.

The game not only sets a new standard for RTS single player modes but also borders on being Bioware cinematic in story. I know these sound like outrageous claims, especially the last one, but again it's amazing how people are throwing their opinions on something that they haven't played yet. I know it's hard not to see this as a grab for more money, but just play what's here now and you won't be disappointed. :)

When it comes to the people relating to the 3 seperate campaigns, there are only two types:

Ones who haven't played the current campaign. And ones who have, and can't wait for the Protoss campaign.

It's the best decision that Blizzard could've made, as anyone's who's actually played the current Campaign that focuses on Jim Raynor and the Terran's side of the story know it's anything but less varied or fun or less lengthy.

The game not only sets a new standard for RTS single player modes but also borders on being Bioware cinematic in story. I know these sound like outrageous claims, especially the last one, but again it's amazing how people are throwing their opinions on something that they haven't played yet. I know it's hard notto see this as a grab for more money, but just play what's here now and you won't be disappointed. :)

Roris0A

Maybe those who don't get what you are saying because we haven't played could ease our worries by playing the single-player demo......oh wait they never released one. I refuse to shell out $59.99, which is already ludicrous, on a hunch.

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]PublicNuisance

Maybe those who don't get what you are saying because we haven't played could ease our worries by playing the single-player demo......oh wait they never released one.

[QUOTE="PublicNuisance"]

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]Roris0A

Maybe those who don't get what you are saying because we haven't played could ease our worries by playing the single-player demo......oh wait they never released one.

I would only play it for offline so no worries there. Sure I'll take it. Thanks a lot. Hopefully I enjoy it.

Here's the thing, Blizzard has stated that the price of the next two SC games will be $39,99, so they are expansion priced. There are so many misconceptions about this, people should research before talking out of their ass.Im_single

[QUOTE="Im_single"] Here's the thing, Blizzard has stated that the price of the next two SC games will be $39,99, so they are expansion priced. There are so many misconceptions about this, people should research before talking out of their ass.foxhound_fox

If this is true, then I'm fine with waiting 5+ years for the Battlechest to come out. I'm only interested in the SP anyway.

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

When it comes to the people relating to the 3 seperate campaigns, there are only two types:

Ones who haven't played the current campaign. And ones who have, and can't wait for the Protoss campaign.

It's the best decision that Blizzard could've made, as anyone's who's actually played the current Campaign that focuses on Jim Raynor and the Terran's side of the story know it's anything but less varied or fun or less lengthy.

The game not only sets a new standard for RTS single player modes but also borders on being Bioware cinematic in story. I know these sound like outrageous claims, especially the last one, but again it's amazing how people are throwing their opinions on something that they haven't played yet. I know it's hard notto see this as a grab for more money, but just play what's here now and you won't be disappointed. :)

PublicNuisance

Maybe those who don't get what you are saying because we haven't played could ease our worries by playing the single-player demo......oh wait they never released one. I refuse to shell out $59.99, which is already ludicrous, on a hunch.

You could listen to all the reviewers and all the people currently enjoying the game.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the only nay-sayers are the ones complaining about the way the campaign was split or the "lack of lan play". They haven't actually played the game itself, of course.

*PS - You can lug all your computers together and play in someone's basement on a lan, you just need to have an internet connection that you can share. You know, with a $30 router that does NAT. Like that.

Thats 180 dollars to buy all 3 sorry ill wait for the battle chest...

lastchancejames

You'll be waiting a good 5 years.

The Campaign for LoW took me about 20 hours.....worth every penny and thats not including the multiplayer i have yet dive into.

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]So they can pay for all the CGI cutscenes.Tahnit

you do of course realize that the MAJORITY of the cutscenes in the game are in-engine. I still cant believe how good they look tho. Some of the action sequences later on would have been prerendered 3 years ago.

Why is it that when Blizzard separates a title into three consecutive parts the whole gaming industry explodes, but when valve does it nobody bats an eyelash.Im_single

getting over £80 million (dollars if you must) a month, you would expect them to put them all together.

You'll be waiting a good 5 years.Ballroompirate

Valve did?

XXI_World

Because they can have better games this way.

I find it interesting that Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 1, Dawn of War 2, Age of Empires 3, and sevreal other titles provided campaigns for only one or a subset of the total sides/races/factions. Other games like Civ 4, Supreme Commander, Empire/Napolean: Total War make the sides so similar that having a generic campaign works fine.

But Blizzard creating a campaign to only one race thats longer than most of the other games listed at significantly higher quality? OMG ALERTS THE PRESS OF DER EVILS.

Give me a ****ing break.

XaosII

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]You'll be waiting a good 5 years.foxhound_fox

Valve did?

XXI_World

I think you're wrong. Completely wrong to believe Blizzard to be that disingenous. But i'll humor your views with my own question:

What is the problem? It seems to me like its standard business practice that would have been doen by any other game company.

There is also the issue of how much did they hold back for this release so they could add it in and charge for it in subsequent releases (in terms of units, buildings, maps, etc.)?

foxhound_fox

The game doesn't feel like they held back anything. Every mission seems to feature a new unit and really cool specialized terrain.

I think every terran unit from Starcraft, Brood War and the Starcraft 2 multiplayer makes an appearance. Well, except for the corsair. Plus there are quite a few "one-shot" units for specific scenarios.

Plenty of maps, plus of course all the user-created maps and game types rolling in. Starcraft 2 absolutely does not lack in content in any way.

More money i guest.

Would it have been better if they told you WoL was Starcraft 2 and the next 2 expansion packs they calledSC 3 and SC 4? Does that make you feel better.

sure.... just wondering why they split it up will probably buy it but all well

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]You'll be waiting a good 5 years.foxhound_fox

Valve did?

XXI_World

I really doubt the next 2 SC2 campaigns will come out within the same year, specially when blizzard already has to release Cata (wow expansion), Diablo 3 and their next MMO. I would easily say before they release their next campaign Heart of the swarm, i see a release date of maybe 2013, 2012 if we are lucky.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"] Funny you say that... because I doubt it'll take 5 years for all three iterations to come out, nor will Blizzard miss out on the opportunity to make bundles of the first and second game. I wouldn't doubt there will be a three game bundle SKU when the third game comes out available for $120 (or more) alongside the third game standalone.

[QUOTE="XXI_World"]Valve did?

Ballroompirate

I really doubt the next 2 SC2 campaigns will come out within the same year, specially when blizzard already has to release Cata (wow expansion), Diablo 3 and their next MMO. I would easily say before they release their next campaign Heart of the swarm, i see a release date of maybe 2013, 2012 if we are lucky.

Well, just saying, but I do believe there's different teams for all their projects and each of the teams will usually focus on one game at a time. And, I would think that releasing the following games won't take terribly long. Like he already said, they already have the engine built and I imagine that's what took up the largest of the two or so year development chunk of time.

yet to play the single player and i've had it since release. couldn't care less to be honest