To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
The way the singleplay campaigns are going to work will be completely different for each race.
Oh, come on. There's only so much you can do to make a an RTS campaign unique.
So quit your bitching then.
Whether you believe it or not, the metagame for each race will be functionally different. Not to mention that each campaign is bigger than SC1, and probably BW, too, if you take into account extra missions and the like. There's also a mini Protoss campaign with the first release. Blizzard knows what they're doing.
Edit: The point is that Blizzard is putting in more work than for just one game. They're making 3x the singleplayer content, at least, and there is almost guaranteed to be multiplayer extras as well.
I'm actually looking forward to the extra multiplayer content. Since it's practically certain that all three won't come out at once, it will be interesting to adjust to new strategies, especially if they change things around (Anyone who played Warcraft 3 back in the day before Frozen Throne knows about the large amount of changes they made to the game).
The way the singleplay campaigns are going to work will be completely different for each race.
Oh, come on. There's only so much you can do to make a an RTS campaign unique.
So quit your bitching then.
Whether you believe it or not, the metagame for each race will be functionally different. Not to mention that each campaign is bigger than SC1, and probably BW, too, if you take into account extra missions and the like. There's also a mini Protoss campaign with the first release. Blizzard knows what they're doing.
and they're going to be swimming in money because of it.
Blizzard is making a lot of money by making three great games.
Therefore, they must have decided to release three games in order to make money, and not because of a design choice?
Is this the random analogies thread? Ok, let me come up with one.
Ok, there's a dragon, right? And he can breath fire, ice, and electricity. And you have to go kill it, and you then you get his treasure horde. Then maybe there's an expansion pack dragon that still breathes fire, ice, and electricity, and then you get another treasure horde of about the same size.
Then, you go to the next town, and you hear there are 3 dragons, though a couple are out of town for a while, so you can't attack them and take their shit yet. The only dragon in town only breathes fire, but his treasure horde is just as big. The second dragon will come back in about a year and breathes electricity, and the third a year later than that than breathes ice. Each one is a fully realized dragon, but is more limited in its elements, but more specialized and skillful in what it focuses in.
Me, this is where I go, "FUCK THE DRAGONS" and get drunk, but that's just me.
the metagame for each race will be functionally different.
See, I'm inclined to disagree.
You're entitles to be wrong.
From 1up.com:
Different Game Types -- One intriguing twist that the three separate games bring is the possibility of different game types. In the aforementioned podcast interview, Pardo explained that the company wants the races to have meta-gameplay concepts differentiating them from each other's core gameplay. Terrans, for example, will be mercenaries using money to purchase upgrades and new units for Jim Raynor's army. The Zerg may have more RPG-like elements as they try to upgrade their Queen. And the Protoss campaign is said to somehow focus more on politics and diplomacy. This could bring three very different game types all under the StarCraft 2 umbrella.
Size and Scope -- During the development of StarCraft 2, Blizzard's scope eventually outreached its means to press it all to one disc. Each campaign is now set to be as large as the entire first game, with each game spanning 26-30 missions. The trilogy structure means each game's story will lead into the next one with cleverly-placed cliffhangers. In addition, splitting the games into three parts will allow Blizzard to tell a more in-depth story for each race, as well as developing meta-game concepts like the mercenary Terrans mentioned above.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
Your question which seems to think that naming conventions are indicative of anything other than the name of the game?
I am almost 100% sure that Starcraft 2s different campaigns will have different names, yes. They probably won't be numbered sequentially, no.
I fail to see how that makes any difference in anything other than their names.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
You didn't ask a question. Also, you act as if appended numerals are the actual dividing line between one product and another. I would call these games more different than Pokemon Red and Blue, and less different than Quake 2 to Quake 3, though probably more different than Fallout 2 was from Fallout 1. I'd ballpark it around the differences between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast.
Look, I don't want to buy the strawberries THEN the cake, THEN the cream. I JUST WANT A FUCKING STRAWBERRY SHORTCAKE MOTHERFUCKER.
This has actually just degenerated into me wanting to see more insane comparisons.
What if it weren't just a strawberry, a cake, and cream, but a specially prepared chocolate-covered strawberry, followed by a decedant angel food cake, and then a creamy chocolate mousse? Each dish has it's own fundamental properties that work alone, but in the end also add up to a delicious set-up at the end? Would you feel that is acceptable?
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
Foolish Chaos on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
What if it weren't just a strawberry, a cake, and cream, but a specially prepared chocolate-covered strawberry, followed by a decedant angel food cake, and then a creamy chocolate mousse? Each dish has it's own fundamental properties that work alone, but in the end also add up to a delicious set-up at the end? Would you feel that is acceptable?
No, I'd feel like I just ate like a pig and need to spend 10 hours on a treadmill.
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
You didn't ask a question. Also, you act as if appended numerals are the actual dividing line between one product and another. I would call these games more different than Pokemon Red and Blue, and less different than Quake 2 to Quake 3, though probably more different than Fallout 2 was from Fallout 1. I'd ballpark it around the differences between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast.
Edit Well you did but it was dumb.
There's more of a difference between Quake 3 and Quake 2 than between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast? O_o
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
If you only need to buy one for multiplayer thats fine.
But I don't see how they are going to sell nearly as many copies of the subsequent iterations
The way the singleplay campaigns are going to work will be completely different for each race.
Oh, come on. There's only so much you can do to make a an RTS campaign unique.
So quit your bitching then.
Whether you believe it or not, the metagame for each race will be functionally different. Not to mention that each campaign is bigger than SC1, and probably BW, too, if you take into account extra missions and the like. There's also a mini Protoss campaign with the first release. Blizzard knows what they're doing.
and they're going to be swimming in money because of it.
Blizzard is making a lot of money by making three great games.
Therefore, they must have decided to release three games in order to make money, and not because of a design choice?
That's your logic?
The logic behind it is that we've already seen RTS' and TBS' delivered, in one package, with separate factions available. Games such as Command and Conquer, the original Starcraft, Heroes of Might and Magic series. The list goes on.
There isn't anything to warrant having them split into 3 separate titles considering the campaign elements are usually already lengthy and have some degree of repetition.
Unless they have Michal fucking Ironside coming on and telling me that I need to man up and lead my troops to victory, it's a cash grab.
The fact that Paul Sams says it isn't makes him a shitbag and if you're buying into it, you have my pity.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
Your question which seems to think that naming conventions are indicative of anything other than the name of the game?
I am almost 100% sure that Starcraft 2s different campaigns will have different names, yes. They probably won't be numbered sequentially, no.
I fail to see how that makes any difference in anything other than their names.
If they are three separate games, then they should just release them as such and not call them Starcraft 2, which implies that they are supposed to be one game.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
You didn't ask a question. Also, you act as if appended numerals are the actual dividing line between one product and another. I would call these games more different than Pokemon Red and Blue, and less different than Quake 2 to Quake 3, though probably more different than Fallout 2 was from Fallout 1. I'd ballpark it around the differences between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast.
Edit Well you did but it was dumb.
There's more of a difference between Quake 3 and Quake 2 than between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast? O_o
I guess what I was trying to say is that Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast were both iD-tech 3, while Quake 2 wasn't.
Edit And there's a pretty big difference between Quake 2 and Quake 3 in that there was a single player for Quake 2 that wasn't bot mode, but there was also a single player in Jedi Outcast, so maybe Jedi Outcast was closer to Quake 2 than Quake 3.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
Your question which seems to think that naming conventions are indicative of anything other than the name of the game?
I am almost 100% sure that Starcraft 2s different campaigns will have different names, yes. They probably won't be numbered sequentially, no.
I fail to see how that makes any difference in anything other than their names.
If they are three separate games, then they should just release them as such and not call them Starcraft 2, which implies that they are supposed to be one game.
Like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, and Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus?
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
Each game has a different name. Each game will have 6+ months between release. Blizzard hasn't even started working on the Zerg campaign (which comes after the Terran campaign) yet, they'll start after SC2 is out.
Also, the stories are sequential, as far as anyone knows, so all the "same story from different perspectives" analogies fail even harder than they already did.
Honestly all it makes me do is not give a shit about the story of Starcraft anymore. It doesn't seem like story is as important as sales anymore anyway--given the lore mangling that happened with Warcraft.
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that each "expansion" will have a years difference or so.
My problem with it is in the original starcraft you got zerg, Protoss, and Terran. Now they are cutting it up and being heres the campaign for one, heres some units and the campaign for another etc. If they had starcraft 2 have all the races, but than released expansions that increased one or the other races campaign length a bit and added some new units I would be fine with it. This just pisses me off however.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
You didn't ask a question. Also, you act as if appended numerals are the actual dividing line between one product and another. I would call these games more different than Pokemon Red and Blue, and less different than Quake 2 to Quake 3, though probably more different than Fallout 2 was from Fallout 1. I'd ballpark it around the differences between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast.
Edit Well you did but it was dumb.
There's more of a difference between Quake 3 and Quake 2 than between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast? O_o
I guess what I was trying to say is that Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast were both iD-tech 3, while Quake 2 wasn't.
Edit And there's a pretty big difference between Quake 2 and Quake 3 in that there was a single player for Quake 2 that wasn't bot mode, but there was also a single player in Jedi Outcast, so maybe Jedi Outcast was closer to Quake 2 than Quake 3.
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that each "expansion" will have a years difference or so.
That wouldn't surprise me. That seems to be the usual amount of time Blizzard takes for expansions.
thats like 25 escort missions--25 base defense missions--and lets say 40 attack missions
How many missions do you want to play? 30-ish?
If only there was some way to get Starcraft 2 but with only 30 missions or so.
Yeah. Too bad there isn't a way to enjoy the story- that is to say, the story from every perspective- without paying for three games.
It's just like the outrage over Gears of War making you only see things from Marcus Fenix's perspective.
Stupid Epic.
It would be like that, if Blizzard had only ever released starcraft games where you play one race and Epic had waited until many months after announcing the game and leading people to believe that you would be able to play Gears from multiple perspectives before telling you that they had scrapped that idea in favor of three different games
Posts
And that's why I throw a hissy fit whenever I have to pay for RTSs I want to play when I already payed good money for Warcraft.
There's only so much they can do to make the game unique.
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
The only thing they gained is 1 more expansion beyond the already guaranteed single expansion that no doubt would have happened.
I'll wait and see how good the single player experience is in the first game before I decide if I got jiped out of a full game experience.
Go back to rabble rousing, lighting those torches and gathering those pitchforks.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
I'm actually looking forward to the extra multiplayer content. Since it's practically certain that all three won't come out at once, it will be interesting to adjust to new strategies, especially if they change things around (Anyone who played Warcraft 3 back in the day before Frozen Throne knows about the large amount of changes they made to the game).
I'm trying but these guys are making it awfully hard
Therefore, they must have decided to release three games in order to make money, and not because of a design choice?
That's your logic?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Ok, there's a dragon, right? And he can breath fire, ice, and electricity. And you have to go kill it, and you then you get his treasure horde. Then maybe there's an expansion pack dragon that still breathes fire, ice, and electricity, and then you get another treasure horde of about the same size.
Then, you go to the next town, and you hear there are 3 dragons, though a couple are out of town for a while, so you can't attack them and take their shit yet. The only dragon in town only breathes fire, but his treasure horde is just as big. The second dragon will come back in about a year and breathes electricity, and the third a year later than that than breathes ice. Each one is a fully realized dragon, but is more limited in its elements, but more specialized and skillful in what it focuses in.
Me, this is where I go, "FUCK THE DRAGONS" and get drunk, but that's just me.
THANK YOU
You're entitles to be wrong.
From 1up.com:
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
thats like 25 escort missions--25 base defense missions--and lets say 40 attack missions
Supposed to?
Your question which seems to think that naming conventions are indicative of anything other than the name of the game?
I am almost 100% sure that Starcraft 2s different campaigns will have different names, yes. They probably won't be numbered sequentially, no.
I fail to see how that makes any difference in anything other than their names.
You didn't ask a question. Also, you act as if appended numerals are the actual dividing line between one product and another. I would call these games more different than Pokemon Red and Blue, and less different than Quake 2 to Quake 3, though probably more different than Fallout 2 was from Fallout 1. I'd ballpark it around the differences between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast.
Edit Well you did but it was dumb.
I hate cleverly placed cliffhangers.
*raises hand*
Granted, I intend to skip the Zerg campaign and just buy Terran and Protoss.
By the time Protoss comes out I figure I'll be in the mood again.
How many missions do you want to play? 30-ish?
If only there was some way to get Starcraft 2 but with only 30 missions or so.
What if it weren't just a strawberry, a cake, and cream, but a specially prepared chocolate-covered strawberry, followed by a decedant angel food cake, and then a creamy chocolate mousse? Each dish has it's own fundamental properties that work alone, but in the end also add up to a delicious set-up at the end? Would you feel that is acceptable?
: /
Yeah. Too bad there isn't a way to enjoy the story- that is to say, the story from every perspective- without paying for three games.
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
No, I'd feel like I just ate like a pig and need to spend 10 hours on a treadmill.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
There's more of a difference between Quake 3 and Quake 2 than between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast? O_o
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
If you only need to buy one for multiplayer thats fine.
But I don't see how they are going to sell nearly as many copies of the subsequent iterations
The logic behind it is that we've already seen RTS' and TBS' delivered, in one package, with separate factions available. Games such as Command and Conquer, the original Starcraft, Heroes of Might and Magic series. The list goes on.
There isn't anything to warrant having them split into 3 separate titles considering the campaign elements are usually already lengthy and have some degree of repetition.
Unless they have Michal fucking Ironside coming on and telling me that I need to man up and lead my troops to victory, it's a cash grab.
The fact that Paul Sams says it isn't makes him a shitbag and if you're buying into it, you have my pity.
If they are three separate games, then they should just release them as such and not call them Starcraft 2, which implies that they are supposed to be one game.
It's just like the outrage over Gears of War making you only see things from Marcus Fenix's perspective.
Stupid Epic.
I guess what I was trying to say is that Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast were both iD-tech 3, while Quake 2 wasn't.
Edit And there's a pretty big difference between Quake 2 and Quake 3 in that there was a single player for Quake 2 that wasn't bot mode, but there was also a single player in Jedi Outcast, so maybe Jedi Outcast was closer to Quake 2 than Quake 3.
Like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, and Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus?
Each game has a different name. Each game will have 6+ months between release. Blizzard hasn't even started working on the Zerg campaign (which comes after the Terran campaign) yet, they'll start after SC2 is out.
Also, the stories are sequential, as far as anyone knows, so all the "same story from different perspectives" analogies fail even harder than they already did.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that each "expansion" will have a years difference or so.
Same engine, completely different gameplay.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
That wouldn't surprise me. That seems to be the usual amount of time Blizzard takes for expansions.
It would be like that, if Blizzard had only ever released starcraft games where you play one race and Epic had waited until many months after announcing the game and leading people to believe that you would be able to play Gears from multiple perspectives before telling you that they had scrapped that idea in favor of three different games