Comments on: Starcraft 2 Is Now A Trilogy, Footage

By: Silverblade

Silverblade — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:28:15 +0000

well the thing I want to know when is SC2 gonna come out in Korea.
I really really want to play it but it’s kind of stupid how there’s two more expansions and it’s gonna come out in about two more years, also you can’t really say that the expansions are gonna be something like 50 dollars. I just want to know what happeneds and stuff and try out SC2.(SIGH)

By: JayeRandom

JayeRandom — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:04:53 +0000

Sigh. When I first heard of SC2 I was sure I wanted to play it, but the more I read about, and the more I watch the absolutely uninspiring gameplay videos, the less and less interested I become.

By: Camel

Camel — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:19:39 +0000

Gotta love christian hypocrits from the great and haggard USA! Piracy is bad mmmkay, morale is a set of rules and laws! If I’m a goody two shoes then everyone else ought to be as well! Laws, morales, high values of mine, certainly should be enacted as laws as I for one don’t jaywalk.

I for one hope I never find such a bunch in my local pub.

By: Megamaj

Megamaj — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:09:58 +0000

I wish Gamevideo trailers would work, so I wouldn’t have to leave the RPS page to search for this trailer somewhere else … :/

By: Dreamhacker

Dreamhacker — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:35:36 +0000

When companies do these kinds of releases, I immediately think: Oh, they’re short on cash?

But this time it’s Blizzard, probably the richest gamedev in the world. Meaning this is just pure greed.

I, for one, will BOYCOTT all things Bli$$ard.

By: Cataclysm

Cataclysm — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:15:12 +0000

I don’t agree with this extreme money milking method but I do think it will be interesting to find out sales % of each expandalone.

Which Racial campaign is the most prefered?

As far as this method goes, when is content “too big for one game”? Its silly.

A game doesn’t have boundaries for length!

If thats the case, Halo 2 (though a very good game) took me very little time to complete so wheres my second half of it? And I’m yet to complete Oblivion, so they should break it into 2 sections at the very least. (/sarcasm)

I understand this method with a film, as you have to sit and watch it for its full length, and anything over a certain amount of time and peoples minds shut down, (LOTR Trilogy for example would be silly as 1 film) but not a bloody game! Press SAVE and exit!

Sigh.

By: ScornfulPanda

ScornfulPanda — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:16:38 +0000

Bad move!
I really liked the first SC because the story really drew me in. I really like how you got to play each side to unravel the whole story. 3 games instead of one equals cancelling my preorder and wait for the gold box.
SC2 was also very good but I prefered AoK at the time and nowadays we have been spoiled with the likes of CoH and World in Conflict.
Anyway this one will wait and see and when it comes to it vote with his wallet. ;)

By: Anthony Damiani

Anthony Damiani — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:31:08 +0000

Well, this depends on how the multiplayer and skirmish is. This kind of radical move seriously jeopardizes the chances of SC2 enjoying the same success of its predecessor.

By: Ian Kiigan

Ian Kiigan — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:00:42 +0000

Calm down folks, none of you have any idea how substantial the single player campaign will be and whether or not the expansions will be good value for money or not. Reserve your anger until you know some of the details.

Speaking as an actual Starcraft fan – someone who still plays the original game all the time – this is great news. It’s more Starcraft!

By: Duoae

Duoae — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:40:07 +0000

I’m not interested in buying 3 versions of the game over a prolonged period. The SP in the original was good and all but i was getting bored of each race just as they moved onto the next one – a good gameplay design decision. Having 30 missions of the same gameplay/race seems like a bad design decision because i’m going to be stuck with the same units, same gameplay tactics…. if i bought the game i know i’d be bored – there are only a certain number of gameplay permutations you can have each level for an RTS:

1. Escort
2. Build base from scratch
3. Find and repair base
4. Lone unit or few units moving through an enemy infested map.
5. Fortify and hold position against a horde

Maybe i’m just limited in my imagination but there’s a reason why we haven’t seen different variations on those themes in RTSs since Command and Conquer came out…

By: perilisk

perilisk — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:22:54 +0000

Eh, I don’t know that I would like a game with a campaign for only one side. I don’t really play MP, and from playing SC recently, I think I would start to get bored of one faction by 1/3 of the game. They’ll going to be rationing out new units much more tightly this time around, I guess.

I don’t know why they didn’t do a smaller campaign for each side, and then release a couple of expansions. It’s their traditional model and it works. It’s also the HL2 model, really. They had shooting, driving, puzzles, all interspersed to keep you from burning out. The episodes also had a good mix of gameplay, and introduced new mechanics. If HL2 was released the way SC2 is supposed to be, the original would be a straight up run and gun FPS, episode 1 would be a portal-like puzzle game, and episode 2 would be a city-17 themed racing game. True, different missions will have somewhat different mechanics, but the really interesting differences are between the factions and their unit mix and resource structure.

By: malkav11

malkav11 — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 03:54:32 +0000

I wouldn’t need to play every side in an RTS campaign if there were only one side playable, period, like in an FPS. But if you’re going to go to the work of providing a fully playable faction with its own nuances and strategies, they need a singleplayer campaign. Nothing in RTSes is more frustrating to me than being forced to play boring, flavorless skirmishes in order to play with half of the cool toys in the game.