We all knew that something big was coming out of Blizzard when all the press were directed to the StarCraft 2 Gameplay panel. But even the biggest StarCraft fans, myself included, were certainly not expecting anything like this.
Blizzard announced today that StarCraft 2 will be released as three separate expansions, one for each race. The expansions will be chronological and will go in the following order; Wings of Liberty (Terran), Heart of the Swarm (Zerg), and Legacy of the Void (Protoss).
This unexpected move was a result of the design team's ambitions to create an "epic" feel for each campaign. Blizzard VP of Game Development Rob Pardo explained that separate expansions will allow for more in-depth and longer campaigns for each race rather than a truncated version that would occur with a single release
Lets hope the execution is better than Half Life 2: actually shorter development cycles and more net content.
We all knew that something big was coming out of Blizzard when all the press were directed to the StarCraft 2 Gameplay panel. But even the biggest StarCraft fans, myself included, were certainly not expecting anything like this.
Blizzard announced today that StarCraft 2 will be released as three separate expansions, one for each race. The expansions will be chronological and will go in the following order; Wings of Liberty (Terran), Heart of the Swarm (Zerg), and Legacy of the Void (Protoss).
This unexpected move was a result of the design team's ambitions to create an "epic" feel for each campaign. Blizzard VP of Game Development Rob Pardo explained that separate expansions will allow for more in-depth and longer campaigns for each race rather than a truncated version that would occur with a single release
Lets hope the execution is better than Half Life 2: actually shorter development cycles and more net content.
Kinda hoping they don't charge full price for them too. I'd buy them anyway though.
Bah, i suppose that is a good idea, if like you said, they actually invest some time in each one. But then they have to work it out so their completely compatible so if I'm playing the terran one and your playing the zerg, we can still play against eachother.
Best thing they could do imo is to make each CD be able to create a spawn copy on another computer like the original. Would spread like wildfire through lan parties where people who wouldn't otherwise pay for it would get hooked and buy it. If they pull the same bull as Steam did for HL and force you to go online in order to play I will be most displeased.
Lets wait for the pricing. I am not going to play 50$ three times because they wanted to make larger campaigns.
I fear blizzard became some kind of money addict after wow. They seem to be even discussing about whether diablos multiplayer part will cost some kind of subsciption fee.
Pricing is rumored to be 50/30/30 for Terran/Zerg/'Toss. The later versions will have "extensive multiplayer enhancements", which means you will need to buy them all to keep playing online...
Also b.net may be going to a "monetary system for use."
Bodyless wrote:Lets wait for the pricing. I am not going to play 50$ three times because they wanted to make larger campaigns.
I fear Blizzard became some kind of money addict after wow. They seem to be even discussing about whether diablos multiplayer part will cost some kind of subsciption fee.
Activision-Blizzard... Well technically Vivendi-Activision-Blizzard...
Sierra got dragged out back and shot because of the merger IIRC. 23 years of great gaming comes to a close on November 1st.
TormakSaber wrote:Pricing is rumored to be 50/30/30 for Terran/Zerg/'Toss. The later versions will have "extensive multiplayer enhancements", which means you will need to buy them all to keep playing online...
Also b.net may be going to a "monetary system for use."
The fact that multiplayer might be defendant on the other expansions is something I could accept since I was going to buy all 3 anyway.
But if they start charging for multiplayer? Yea good luck with getting me to buy the games then. I'll just pirate the suckers and they won't get a cent out of me.
My main problem is that it's not like SC 1. This isn't some EPIC 90 mission campaign.
You're playing the same campaign 3 times. Each campaign happens during the same timeframe. IT's not like the first game where switching sides kept the "timeline" moving. THAT'S what really nags me.
The official word was that "all campaigns happen simultaneously". So there's wiggle room, but it's still the same timeframe. I'm not very confident in it all, to be honest.
The campaign itself will be so much better than SC1's campaign in terms of content and gameplay anyway that comparing them and calling SC1's campagin superior is kinda silly.
I don't see how playing through the same scope of events from three different perspectives can be a bad thing in of itself.
However, I do see that it is possible to fail hard on some of these points:
-Comprehensive Coverage vs Rehash:
Each play through with each faction reveals more plot and leads to more development versus play the same maps level by level with the only difference being whose butt you're kicking.
-Character/Faction/Motivational Development:
Subsequent plays will explain and rationalize the actions taken by the main actors of the stage. Missions and their objectives/event that take place at roughly the same time will make more sense as goals and driving forces are discovered.
-Simultaneous Operations that affected past / will affect future:
A meta-aspect. You might end up indirectly fighting with your terran/zerg/protoss counterpart or perhaps be responsible for setting up scenarios that you've played or will play through eventually. Always room for the script writers to blow away players' minds with morsels of clarity.
This IS Blizzard we're talking about; they rarely fail as far as I know. It seems that the dangerously complex path they've taken with this concurrent timeline gimmick can easily lead to crap replay value OR immensely satisfying campaigns with all angles covered.
