Malf on 11/10/2008 at 20:14
Starcraft 2 just went from "Must buy" to "Eh, wait for all 3 episodes to hit budget".
catbarf on 11/10/2008 at 20:33
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
I own 4 legit copies of Starcraft... If blizzard charges $150 for the trilogy and/or makes me wait more than a month or so for each new installment, I won't be owning a single legit copy of SCII. :grr:
Quote Posted by Malf
Starcraft 2 just went from "Must buy" to "Eh, wait for all 3 episodes to hit budget".
Agree with these two. Honestly, I don't care about playing multiplayer against asshats who just spam one kind of unit or rush me two minutes into the game. I prefer single-player, so I 'm sure as hell not going to go and drop $50 on a game and get 1/3 of a storyline and SP campaign.
Sulphur on 11/10/2008 at 21:16
I wonder how Actard didn't see the uproar coming. They claim that each expandalone will be a fully fleshed out campaign, but that seems a pretty poor justification.
The shit's already hit the collective fan; just imagine what would happen if Actard decides to release each installment at full price.
JohnnyTheWolf on 11/10/2008 at 21:18
Yeah, but if it's a hell of a campaign, with huge replayability and lots of memorable missions and characters, it might not be such a bad idea after all.
Sulphur on 11/10/2008 at 21:23
Sure, but you've got to agree that the original Starcraft delivered a lot of that across three different races in a single game at a single price point (Brood War notwithstanding).
TF on 11/10/2008 at 21:35
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Sure, but you've got to agree that the original Starcraft delivered a lot of that across three different races in a single game at a single price point (Brood War notwithstanding).
I wouldn't call the replayability very strong at all, which is something that would be improved in 2.
JohnnyTheWolf on 11/10/2008 at 22:01
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Sure, but you've got to agree that the original Starcraft delivered a lot of that across three different races in a single game at a single price point (Brood War notwithstanding).
I agree with TF. SC1 has okay replayability. However, there was only one difficulty setting, the campaigns in original SC were not very hard (especially the first Zerg campaign). They were also very linear, save for a couple of instances in BW. Finally, Blizzard didn't have enough time to flesh out all the characters.
Also, some missions had to be cut in order to fit the 10-mission format, which is a shame, since one of them was actually pretty memorable (it can be extracted with MPQ tools).
Koki on 12/10/2008 at 06:19
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I wonder how Actard didn't see the uproar coming. They claim that each expandalone will be a fully fleshed out campaign, but that seems a pretty poor justification.
How the hell is that a poor justification? Assuming there really will be ~30 missions per side, with Starcraft quality of writing, I fail to see how they're grabbing any money. And they already stated in an interview that they're doing that because they really DID have that much content so far that they didn't want to just cut half of it to fit it into your standard ~10. They also said that since "singleplayer campaign is a training for multiplayer" never, ever works, they're not going to do it which gives them more creative freedom as well. Probably.
Story was always at least good in Blizzard's RTSes, so who knows, they might just be able to pull it off.
raevol on 12/10/2008 at 06:23
I'd just like to say that I've always found blizzard storytelling to be shallow and tacky. Maybe it's just me. The gameplay of their games is always what brings me back, not the "oh noes one of the good guys went BAD!!1!" plotlines.
Sulphur on 12/10/2008 at 07:08
Quote Posted by TF
I wouldn't call the replayability very strong at all, which is something that would be improved in 2.
Quote Posted by JohnnyTheWolf
I agree with TF. SC1 has okay replayability. However, there was only one difficulty setting, the campaigns in original SC were not very hard (especially the first Zerg campaign). They were also very linear, save for a couple of instances in BW. Finally, Blizzard didn't have enough time to flesh out all the characters.
I'll agree that the missions in SC didn't have the most replayable maps ever, and were quite linear. Fixing those would be a good thing.
However, I don't think those two features alone bring enough to the table to justify full price. Unless we're talking a large number of missions at your disposal per faction... like say 30. Speaking of which...
Quote Posted by Koki
How the hell is that a poor justification? Assuming there really will be ~30 missions per side, with Starcraft quality of writing, I fail to see how they're grabbing any money...
.
Story was always at least good in Blizzard's RTSes, so who knows, they might just be able to pull it off.
If there's actually going to be 30 fully fleshed-out missions per side, I will be perfectly happy to shut up, eat my hat, look contrite etc. However, we're
assuming this, so until we actually know more, I won't be holding my breath.
Also, I find it incredibly amusing that we've reversed our usual positions on an issue here. It's nice to see you show some optimism, actually. :)
