StarCraft 2 Trilogy

#1 Posted by KindGalaxy (429 posts) -

So most StarCraft fans have heard that they're splitting the singleplayer campaign into 3 different boxed retail games, each singleplayer campaign shall be 26-30 missions long but of course, now, if you want what most perceive to be the full singleplayer experience you'll be buying 3 boxed games instead of just one.
The first benefit of this should be obvious however, the original StarCraft's singleplayer campaigns comprised of 10 missions per race, now we are getting nearly triple that count per race.
There is very little different with this Trilogy idea than Half-Life 2's Episodes or even Halo 3's Recon, or the Mini-Expansions of Sins of a Solar Empire.
From a development standpoint, the Terran singleplayer experience we know has a mercenary element to it, you pick planets to go to, missions to do, but that makes sense for the Scavenger-mentality that is the Terrans in the storyline, the Zerg and Protoss singleplayer experiences would not, could not, handle in this way. So, instead of developing both a shortened overall 3 races 30 mission campaign with a simplistic across-the-board mission initiation method similar to the original StarCraft we are getting almost 90 missions and unique storytelling elements per race.
For a game franchise that sees a release every 10 years there is no consumer cost-cutting or compromising in this development plan.

#2 Edited by banned8921 (1246 posts) -

Yay I get to pay 150$ for starcraft. 








J/k im not buying this game anyway. 
Edit: actually I like modding wc3 so much I might buy the first starcraft 2 box just to make some turret defences.
#3 Posted by jakob187 (21665 posts) -
Sorry...I already bought Guns 'n' Roses' Use Your Illusion twice before.  I think I'll definitely skip out on this one.
#4 Posted by hazelnutman (1097 posts) -

But the multiplayer component will be solidly the same?

#5 Posted by Pibo47 (3166 posts) -

Jesus, i have to fork over around $160 to finish the starcraft story? AAHHHHH!

#6 Edited by xruntime (1920 posts) -

Money making scheme!

Not the first blizzard game that term could be applied to (read: World of Warcraft)

Now, I don't know that much about the original Starcraft, but I was thinking about buying this game just because of the multiplayer. I wasn't even giving the single player a thought. Should I?

#7 Edited by KindGalaxy (429 posts) -
xruntime said:
"Money making scheme!

Not the first blizzard game that term could be applied to (read: World of Warcraft)

Now, I don't know that much about the original Starcraft, but I was thinking about buying this game just because of the multiplayer. I wasn't even giving the single player a thought. Should I?"
Well God Forbid a stock-market listed company wishes to make money. I'd be interested in the singleplayer, the gameplay elements Blizzard introduced in StarCraft, as well as its' expansion pack which was one of the first expansion packs that did not merely tac on multiplayer maps but had a new singleplayer campaign, new units etc. shows what Blizzard can do for the genre in terms of streamlining execution of gameplay really make for some interesting encounters in a singleplayer environment.

hazelnutman said:
But the multiplayer component will be solidly the same?
Yes, the game is shipping with the full multiplayer component, with all three races.

The only thing that is changing is the initial retail product will ship with a 26-30 Singleplayer Missions solely from the Terran perspective, with future releases at retail being the Zerg and Protoss Singleplayer Campaigns, unknown at this point if they're going to be classified as Expansion Packs or stand-alones with the multiplayer component in them.

Stand Alones with the multiplayer component have come before, Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts and several Dawn of War expansions were stand alone expansions, not requiring the first game. Of course the major difference was Relic introduced new races and factions to their stand alones, Blizzard has already stated that StarCraft 2 shall have the same 3 races, no additional factions, so if you buy the initial retail product and then someone you know buys just the second retail product as a stand alone you both have full access to multiplayer but unless you buy that second retail product you won't be able to play the Zerg or Protoss singleplayer campaigns and your friend won't be able to play the Terran singleplayer campaign.


Edit: Kotaku talked with the Lead Producer of StarCraft 2 who said this,

Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. The main difference here is that instead of giving you a tacked-on extension of the single-player experience as you often find in an RTS expansion, each title comes with a fully realized campaign.

Chris explained that each of the three installments would play a bit differently as well, with different meta-game types in each. The initial campaign would feature Terran Jim Raynor, with a meta game that involves upgrading technologies. The second focuses on the Zerg, with a meta-element involving diplomacy. I mentioned Star Control, and Chris said that that sort of gameplay element had been discussed.

So why the change? It really comes down to scope. "We always start with this really gigantic scope", Sigaty explained. Basically StarCraft II got bigger than they expected. They have a huge, solid Terran campaign that needs a bit of fleshing out at this point, and once you figure out the dev time needed for the other two campaigns it would have delayed the game for years. After months of discussion, this was their solution.

#8 Edited by OGCartman (4354 posts) -

Jesus Christ i cant wait!

And this 3 box thing is just fucking awesome. Its 3 SC2's pretty much.

Damn this game is gonna be EPIC

#9 Posted by MisoRonery (468 posts) -

Depending on the amount of content in each retail box being satisfying for the price, this could either be absolutely stabbing the consumer in the heart, or be the fucking most awesome thing ever to come out of Awesome Town.

I'm going with Awesome Town, because its Blizzard and I actually trust them.

#10 Edited by banned8921 (1246 posts) -
MisoRonery said:
"because its Blizzard and I actually trust them."
The same people who charge 25 dollars to change servers in wow?
#11 Posted by giyanks22 (2681 posts) -

All i'll say is that this Starcraft is one the best games ever, and based on the amount of time I put into Starcraft I'd say it was worth $140, and Starcraft II looks even better. My friends brother works for Blizzard, and he says this game is going to be one of the best games ever made for any platform...

#12 Posted by Pibo47 (3166 posts) -
Levio91 said:
"MisoRonery said:
"because its Blizzard and I actually trust them."
The same people who charge 25 dollars to change servers in wow?"
Lol good point.
#13 Edited by Knives (711 posts) -

As long as they don't wait a year for each expansion to be released and don't charge $50, I'm happy with it. Both of which seem unlikely.

#14 Posted by MisoRonery (468 posts) -
Pibo47 said:
"Levio91 said:
"MisoRonery said:
"because its Blizzard and I actually trust them."
The same people who charge 25 dollars to change servers in wow?"
Lol good point."
I'm not even going to respond to Levio because he has the mental capacity of a gnat. 

Pibo, I trust their ability to make a quality product that I will feel happy about paying retail price for.  I never needed a server transfer in the time I played WoW, and I can understand their wanting to make it prohibitively expensive to keep ninja-looters, or just assholes in general,  from jumping servers every time people catch onto their bullshit.  And who minds them making a few extra bucks off of server transfers?  What is this communist Russia?  If people pay the price you set for it, you sure as hell don't lower it. 

Anyhow, they make great games is all I'm saying.
#15 Posted by MisterSpiffy (880 posts) -

I'm actually pretty comfortable with this method.  It's like three separate games, and the campaigns should have a fair bit of meat to them.

#16 Edited by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -

It matters.  Is it $150 or $90? 
And since you mentioned Halo: Recon- how much will that cost considering its more of a sideproject.  Bungie has said they're looking at a possible budget title

Personally, I think Blizzard may be milking it here abit though- im really using this of the fact that wow is $15 per month and has a good amount of expansions. 

#17 Posted by Cube (4366 posts) -

I'm torn on it. I want SC2 but 3 games? No thank you.

#18 Posted by Dr_Feelgood38 (1550 posts) -

I never really cared for the campaign in Starcraft before. I blasted through it without paying attention to the story and started playing multiplayer right after. So if multiplayer is still intact, then I guess I'm only buying one box.

#19 Posted by Relys (984 posts) -

/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device

#20 Posted by serbsta (1867 posts) -

This is Blizzards second strike for the day. 1, they are adding a fee to Battle.net 2.0 and now 2, they want even more money so they split this thing into 3, im very disappointed.

#21 Posted by Rowr (5544 posts) -
KindGalaxy said:
"So most StarCraft fans have heard that they're splitting the singleplayer campaign into 3 different boxed retail games, each singleplayer campaign shall be 26-30 missions long but of course, now, if you want what most perceive to be the full singleplayer experience you'll be buying 3 boxed games instead of just one.
The first benefit of this should be obvious however, the original StarCraft's singleplayer campaigns comprised of 10 missions per race, now we are getting nearly triple that count per race.
There is very little different with this Trilogy idea than Half-Life 2's Episodes or even Halo 3's Recon, or the Mini-Expansions of Sins of a Solar Empire.
From a development standpoint, the Terran singleplayer experience we know has a mercenary element to it, you pick planets to go to, missions to do, but that makes sense for the Scavenger-mentality that is the Terrans in the storyline, the Zerg and Protoss singleplayer experiences would not, could not, handle in this way. So, instead of developing both a shortened overall 3 races 30 mission campaign with a simplistic across-the-board mission initiation method similar to the original StarCraft we are getting almost 90 missions and unique storytelling elements per race.
For a game franchise that sees a release every 10 years there is no consumer cost-cutting or compromising in this development plan."
The worst thing is if they go through with this, as Australians its will likely cost us $300 for all three games.

I dont like the idea of only playing one race either. They are going to have to make it pretty fucking special to keep me interested with one race over the course of 26-30 missions.
#22 Edited by Knives (711 posts) -
Relys said:
"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"
/laughs at you when you can't enjoy any multiplayer because the two expansions add too many additional features.
#23 Posted by Rowr (5544 posts) -
Knives said:
"Relys said:
"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"
/laughs at you when you can't enjoy any multiplayer because the two expansions add too many additional features."
the multiplayer will be the same across all versions i thought?
#24 Edited by Rowr (5544 posts) -
Knives said:
"Rowr said:
"Knives said:
"Relys said:
"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"
/laughs at you when you can't enjoy any multiplayer because the two expansions add too many additional features."
the multiplayer will be the same across all versions i thought?"
"Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. ""
fuck this is even worse than i thought, especially if serbsta's claims are true.

Since when do Blizzard need more money?

Its not as if they wont make a few bucks going the standard route. At this stage they stand to make nothing off me.

edit - Having some flooding issues i see knives  ;)
#25 Edited by Knives (711 posts) -
Rowr said:
"Knives said:
"Rowr said:
"Knives said:
"Relys said:
"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"
/laughs at you when you can't enjoy any multiplayer because the two expansions add too many additional features."
the multiplayer will be the same across all versions i thought?"
"Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. ""
fuck this is even worse than i thought, especially if serbsta's claims are true.

Since when do Blizzard need more money?

Its not as if they wont make a few bucks going the standard route. At this stage they stand to make nothing off me.

edit - Having some flooding issues i see knives  ;)"
Well, I don't think it's about money. I guess I'm the only one that believes Blizzard when they say it's about development time. They made the Terran campaign longer than expected, so in order to make the other campaigns just as deep and extensive, it would end up taking too much time. The game would get pushed back well into 2010. But I don't think even Blizzard knows how it's going to do multiplayer at this point, other than including it with the retail product.
#26 Posted by KindGalaxy (429 posts) -

Even though I love this idea, and understand why they're doing it this way I do want to say one thing.

Of course it is about money. The very fact that they have people saying 'Shit, now I gotta spend $150 to get the whole story? FUCK YOU Blizzard?' is a great indication on their target consumer for their product. They know they'll make more money doing this, and as a business; that is smart planning. Blizzard have alot to show Activision that their aquisition is going to continue to be not only as profitable as it was for Vivendi but an increasing money earner for shareholders.

Still, going to be great to see these releases coming out.

#27 Posted by xruntime (1920 posts) -
KindGalaxy said:
"xruntime said:
"Money making scheme!

Not the first blizzard game that term could be applied to (read: World of Warcraft)

Now, I don't know that much about the original Starcraft, but I was thinking about buying this game just because of the multiplayer. I wasn't even giving the single player a thought. Should I?"
Well God Forbid a stock-market listed company wishes to make money. I'd be interested in the singleplayer, the gameplay elements Blizzard introduced in StarCraft, as well as its' expansion pack which was one of the first expansion packs that did not merely tac on multiplayer maps but had a new singleplayer campaign, new units etc. shows what Blizzard can do for the genre in terms of streamlining execution of gameplay really make for some interesting encounters in a singleplayer environment."
Well, everyone parades Blizzard as the consumer-advocate, always thinking about the customers, when that's not as true as they'd like it to be...
#28 Posted by Tordah (2478 posts) -

This is great news for me since my main interest in the game are the single-player campaigns. I just suck too much at RTS games in general to have any interest in multi-player. I'd just get owned by all hardcore Koreans anyway. :(

#29 Edited by Knives (711 posts) -
KindGalaxy said:
"Even though I love this idea, and understand why they're doing it this way I do want to say one thing.

Of course it is about money. The very fact that they have people saying 'Shit, now I gotta spend $150 to get the whole story? FUCK YOU Blizzard?' is a great indication on their target consumer for their product. They know they'll make more money doing this, and as a business; that is smart planning. Blizzard have alot to show Activision that their aquisition is going to continue to be not only as profitable as it was for Vivendi but an increasing money earner for shareholders.

Still, going to be great to see these releases coming out."
Alright, let me put it this way. It's not just about money. Think of it as a bonus for them at this point. They've made the game too big and in order to finish it would delay the game indefiantely. And you probably won't have to pay $150. My guess is $130. :P
#30 Posted by Rowr (5544 posts) -

my guess is $300

at least that will be retail in aus.

(im to the understanding kindgalaxy is aus.)

#31 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -

What a crock of assbutter.

#32 Posted by Discorsi (1390 posts) -

I wouldn't really call it a trilogy but yea I'll still buy at least one of those.  I'll try to get some Korean like skills at multiplayer hopefully.  Not sure which campaingn to choose but I'll probably just pick up the first one taht is available.

#33 Posted by KindGalaxy (429 posts) -
Rowr said:
"my guess is $300

at least that will be retail in aus.

(im to the understanding kindgalaxy is aus.)"
 Yeah, but I always convert money to US on here :)
Though, price has not been discussed at all, nor has digital distribution for the two additional packs; if that was a possibility with their BlizzStore.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl was a full priced product, however the second game, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky was released at $39.99
Crysis was a full priced product, however the second game, Crysis Warhead was released at $29.99
Sid Meier's Civilization IV was released as a full priced product, but the latest game; which is a standalone, Civ IV: Colonization, was $29.99
Company of Heroes was released as a full priced product, but the standalone expansion was released at $29.99
Dawn of War was released as a full priced product, but the expansion packs for them were released cheaper, the last one, Soulstorm was $29.99 and standalone.

So there are enough precedents here to show that the followup StarCraft 2 packs will not be full priced products, with their different campaign styles; Zerg Campaign supposedly more like a RPG and Protoss campaign with more Diplomacy options as well as this enabling Blizzard to further extend the StarCraft 2 line in terms of technical support (we know that Blizzard are great tech supporters in the past, but under Activision Blizzard this could become a monetary-to-support requirement), not to mention the multiplayer component is fully available in the initial product, this is merely a restructuring on the concept of what contitutes an expansion pack's features and details.
#34 Posted by StaticFalconar (4849 posts) -

I'll say this outright, blizzard wants our money. Just like any other company does.

BUT, I cannot predict the future so I am going along with this idea (much like any trilogies) of wait and see. Now, to get the entire starwars/Harry potter/lordof the rings/matrix experience, you had to shell out more money for each volume in the trilogy. But, you would only be paying the full $150 if you like it enough to keep going. Otherwise you would just enjoy the first one and say fuck it, I ain't giving you any more money leaving you still paying the same 50 bucks that you normally would have.


For people that complain about sheliing out all the money, you know you want to get the full experience (but is too FN cheap to buy it)
For people that say they will probably get one game and go MP forever (you ain't spending more than what you normally would have anyway)


This is a trilogy, so as long as blizzard keep wowing me with each campaign I'll keep buying them.

#35 Posted by Cribba (290 posts) -

Three full priced games? is that official?

Anyway, I would be ok with paying full price for the first game and then get the two other ones as cheaper DLC.

#36 Posted by coakroach (2490 posts) -

If the campaign is as in-depth as they say i'm cool with it

#37 Posted by giyanks22 (2681 posts) -
MisoRonery said:
"Pibo47 said:
"Levio91 said:
"MisoRonery said:
"because its Blizzard and I actually trust them."
The same people who charge 25 dollars to change servers in wow?"
Lol good point."
I'm not even going to respond to Levio because he has the mental capacity of a gnat. 

Pibo, I trust their ability to make a quality product that I will feel happy about paying retail price for.  I never needed a server transfer in the time I played WoW, and I can understand their wanting to make it prohibitively expensive to keep ninja-looters, or just assholes in general,  from jumping servers every time people catch onto their bullshit.  And who minds them making a few extra bucks off of server transfers?  What is this communist Russia?  If people pay the price you set for it, you sure as hell don't lower it. 

Anyhow, they make great games is all I'm saying."
I trust Blizzard in the sense that the game will be worth $150 in terms of time spent in the game. Like I would've payed $100 for COD4, and I think that if Starcraft II brings out three campaigns, and has unique multi player then it will be worth $150.
#38 Posted by xxNBxx (973 posts) -

Blizz needs to be carefull with this.  They need to not over charge 50 for the first and 30 for the other two seems fair enough.  More important they need to release the other parts with in a years time other wise graphics and relavents will suffer.

#39 Posted by Overwatch (267 posts) -

I don't see the problem in money, unlike most people. Will the ultimate cost be around 150 bucks? So what? It Will be 150 $ over probably 4 years. 150 $ for 3, full length games? With fully featured singleplayer campaign? With new features to multiplayer? Absolutely no problem paying 50 $ for each product.

#40 Posted by daniel_beck_90 (3159 posts) -

as I said before it is a cheap policy for earning more money  !!!!!!!!!!!!!

#41 Edited by Overwatch (267 posts) -
daniel_beck_90 said:
"as I said before it is a cheap policy for earning more money  !!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Nobody forces you to buy it. You can wait and buy some "StarCraft II Trilogy Complete Collection", or whatever the name of the "complete experience in one box" will be. And this StarCraft II Battle Chest will probably be priced like one game, not three. And let's not forget that we don't know the price tag for any part of the Trilogy...
#42 Posted by Mooshu (486 posts) -

STARCRAFT II TRILOGY

STARCRAFT: CRITICAL MASS
STARCRAFT: PROVING GROUNDS
STARCRAFT: CHAIN REACTION

#43 Posted by daniel_beck_90 (3159 posts) -
Overwatch said:
"daniel_beck_90 said:
"as I said before it is a cheap policy for earning more money  !!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Nobody forces you to buy it. You can wait and buy some "StarCraft II Trilogy Complete Collection", or whatever the name of the "complete experience in one box" will be. And this StarCraft II Battle Chest will probably be priced like one game, not three. And let's not forget that we don't know the price tag for any part of the Trilogy..."
Hope they 'd release a Complete pack or something, that would be better 
#44 Posted by Overwatch (267 posts) -
daniel_beck_90 said:
Hope they 'd release a Complete pack or something, that would be better "
I belive they will release something like that, makes sense. And Blizzard is always releasing Battle Chest edition of their games.
#45 Posted by daniel_beck_90 (3159 posts) -
Overwatch said:
"daniel_beck_90 said:
Hope they 'd release a Complete pack or something, that would be better "
I belive they will release something like that, makes sense. And Blizzard is always releasing Battle Chest edition of their games."
I really Hope so !!!!
#46 Posted by Cribba (290 posts) -
Giant Bomb interview:
You talk about subsequent products adding value into the overall experience. For instance, are we going to get new Terran units out of the Zerg experience that will roll back into multiplayer?

Both: Yes.
This sucks, I could see them doing this "three full priced games" for the single player but for everyone who's in to multiplayer only - this sucks balls. Unless there will be a cheaper multiplayer content DLC for the games, wich I doubt, I don't think anyone will be very happy about this.
#47 Posted by Overwatch (267 posts) -
Cribba said:
This sucks, I could see them doing this "three full priced games" for the single player but for everyone who's in to multiplayer only - this sucks balls. Unless there will be a cheaper multiplayer content DLC for the games, wich I doubt, I don't think anyone will be very happy about this.
"
Well, if there'd be an expansion for StarCraft II, I mean like standard expansion, you would have to buy it too, even if you are only into multiplayer. It would have new units, new balance for the old units etc. I doubt there will be any DLC like units too. And they said they were talking about two expansions for this game from the begining. So as far as multiplayer "behaviour", nothing changes there.
#48 Posted by Cribba (290 posts) -
Overwatch said:
"Cribba said:
This sucks, I could see them doing this "three full priced games" for the single player but for everyone who's in to multiplayer only - this sucks balls. Unless there will be a cheaper multiplayer content DLC for the games, wich I doubt, I don't think anyone will be very happy about this.
"
Well, if there'd be an expansion for StarCraft II, I mean like standard expansion, you would have to buy it too, even if you are only into multiplayer. It would have new units, new balance for the old units etc. I doubt there will be any DLC like units too. And they said they were talking about two expansions for this game from the begining. So as far as multiplayer "behaviour", nothing changes there."
This is different since these are two full priced games though, unlike Brood War and The Frozen Throne, wich didn't cost nearly as much.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.