Here it is, AusGamers looks at The Evil Within, and just what you can expect from grandaddy horror creator Shinji Mikami
The Evil Within Review
We chat with Blizzard's Tom Chilton on all things World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor
Talking World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor with Tom Chilton
We take the open-world of fictional Kyrat for a spin.
Far Cry 4 Open-World Hands-On Preview
We take on the Dark Lord and his minions in Monolith's epic action-adventure romp
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Review
Post by Dan @ 12:57pm 16/10/08 | 54 Comments
Following the BlizzCon 2008 announcement that StarCraft 2 is being planned as a trilogy (an initial release followed by 2 expansions), fans were somewhat confused as to what would be included in each package.

To explain things a little better, Blizzard have sent along this detailed Q&A explaining their intentions and what we can expect to see in the initial StarCraft 2 release and the following 2 expansions.



starcraft 2trilogy





Latest Comments
infi
Posted 01:05pm 16/10/08
I am trying to get excited. I really am...
infi
Posted 01:08pm 16/10/08
If I buy StarCraft II but dont buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?

Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.


In CoH, if you don't have the expansion you can play as the original factions but can also be matched against the expansion factions. Is this what they mean or are they talking about totally different lobbies for the different levels of expansion? If the latter, that sucks.
Hogfather
Posted 01:18pm 16/10/08
Seperate. Expansion people can't play with non expac povos.
demon
Posted 01:24pm 16/10/08
lame. one game for the price of 3! unique storytelling my arse. this way they can release the game early with only a third of the content complete & then get the fanboiz to pay twice more as the developers finish up the rest of the content.
infi
Posted 01:25pm 16/10/08
90 missions is a lot of missions.
Dan
Posted 02:16pm 16/10/08
IMO, it's really no different to how they did StarCraft and Broodwars, only difference is that they've announced expansion plans before the base game has even launched. I reckon it's a bit of a silly move because it was always going to spark the kind of comments in the above posts.
Khel
Posted 02:43pm 16/10/08
Its pretty different because Starcraft was a complete game by itself, with campaigns for each race, as was brood wars.

I can't help feeling this is a move pushed on them by the Activision half of the new Activision Blizzard. The Blizzard of old wouldn't have cared about delaying the game so they could deliver the whole thing, but I'm sure the money grubbing Activision half aren't too happy with that plan, especially when they could make 3 times as much money by doing it this way.
Dan
Posted 02:48pm 16/10/08
Seriously? I find it hard to believe that Blizzard would accept any form of creative control from the Activision side.

I don't think it's different, because while the base game might only have one race's campaign, it seems likely that it will be around the same length as all of the original StarCraft's campaigns put together.
demon
Posted 04:17pm 16/10/08
but it's more content release control... not content creative control innit?

i get the impression from the faq that if you wanted to play some single player skirmish vs the ai, with just the basic release, you won't have access to all the units. which would be s*** if that's the case imo.
Thundercracker
Posted 04:56pm 16/10/08
Yes! From the beginning, StarCraft II will be a fully featured multiplayer game, and all three races will be available for competitive play.


and

StarCraft IIs terran campaign will consist of approximately 26 to 30 missions


I'm going to be all over it.
Hogfather
Posted 05:10pm 16/10/08
i get the impression from the faq that if you wanted to play some single player skirmish vs the ai, with just the basic release, you won't have access to all the units. which would be s*** if that's the case imo.


I doubt that'd be the case? I think they are just talking about campaigns (sory mode) purely from the Terran perspective. Extra units etc will be added in the second two instalments / expansions.
demon
Posted 05:19pm 16/10/08
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps

seeing as skirmish mode was pretty much multiplayer but vs the ai... this quote gave me the impression that not all units would be avialable if you just had the basic install... i would be happy if i am wrong tho! :D

i didnt play all the original starcraft campain mission.. they were pretty boring imo. so it doesn't really thrill me that there will be heaps of campain missions. it was all about the multi & skirmish vs ai imo.
TiT
Posted 05:21pm 16/10/08
the first total annihilation had 30 core and 30 arm mission if i was not mistaken?

BTW i was TA fan not star craft fan back then....
paveway
Posted 05:23pm 16/10/08
i reckon this game will be s*** like command and conquer 2 and red alert 2

man TA, there is a money box waiting to be opened if anyone manned up and made a sequel
Dan
Posted 05:39pm 16/10/08
man TA, there is a money box waiting to be opened if anyone manned up and made a sequel
It's called Supreme Commander and it's as close to a real sequel as we're ever going to get because neither Chris Taylor, (original TA creator and Sup Comm creator) nor THQ control the T.A IP, Atari does.
demon
Posted 06:02pm 16/10/08
there was also ta:kingdoms which was cavedog (i think) before total commander... but it had 3 races & one was just totally superior to the other 2 which made it a one race game which was boring as hell.
greazy
Posted 06:04pm 16/10/08
This is pretty much an expansion similar to Broodwar expansion. For example Broodwar added new campaign/new units for each race, this time around the first expansion (zerg one I think) will add a new zerg campaign only and will add new units for each race.

The end result will be pretty much the same.

Khel I love how you think Blizzard isn't a money grubbing company but Activision is.
syzc
Posted 06:22pm 16/10/08
I really don't get what all the tears are about your still getting the same amount of content in SP as the first game, and you cant possibly compare TA's 60 missions to Starcrafts story.

They clearly states the MP will feature all 3 races as will skirmish, your not getting cheated out of money or milked in anyway
FaceMan
Posted 06:29pm 16/10/08
If SC2 blows they wont be selling many expansions.
I think this means the original game will be very good.

Also there will be Battlenet Ver:2
SHould be some nice extras involved with Bnet 2

I cant wait.
Im gonna give up girls and drugs and booz to play SC2.

well maybe not booze.
CSIRAC
Posted 06:34pm 16/10/08
Pretty much confirmed the s*** i said in the other SC2 thread. Whores. But ill still buy it coz i'm a sucker :(

i reckon this game will be s*** like command and conquer 2 and red alert 2

whens the last game blizzard made that was s***? (not by your own personal opinion, but by the uptake of the game by players) the odds are against you!
Khel
Posted 10:34pm 16/10/08
Khel I love how you think Blizzard isn't a money grubbing company but Activision is.


Well I'm sure Blizzard loves making money, who doesn't love making money, my point was historically their decisions haven't been primarily driven by the bottom line, whereas Activision have a much longer track record of cranking out yearly sequels to games to make the financial reports look impressive.

I got nothing to back me up, its just a feeling I can't shake. In the past Blizzard haven't thought twice about delaying a game for months or years to make it the game they really want it to be. And its not just this Starcraft 2 thing, the new WoW expansion is coming out before its completely finished, even the Blizzard devs who post on the WoW forums admit it isn't finished, but they're releasing it anyway. A couple of years ago Burning Crusade was due to come out in November at about the same time, and a month or two before it was due to come out, Blizzard decided it wasn't going to be finished in time and needed more time so they delayed it until January the next year. Yet this time they're going ahead and releasing it unfinished? Seems very un-Blizzard-like to me.


last edited by Khel at 21:34:23 16/Oct/08
trog
Posted 10:32pm 16/10/08
Khel I love how you think Blizzard isn't a money grubbing company but Activision is.
Well I'm sure Blizzard loves making money, who doesn't love making money, my point was historically their decisions haven't been primarily driven by the bottom line, whereas Activision have a much longer track record of cranking out yearly sequels to games to make the financial reports look impressive.
It's an interesting thing; I reckon you could make a case that Blizzard's actions are driven by the bottom line - they just are one of the few developers that realise that long-term commitment to their games will actually make them MORE money than year after year of schlocky cash-ins.
CSIRAC
Posted 11:13pm 16/10/08
Unfortunately khel, as delayed as TBC and even WoW was; when the 2 games came out they were still unfinished. Their motto that "its done when its done" has gotten very loose since the incarnation of WoW.
sLaps_Forehead
Posted 12:33am 17/10/08
Times are tough.

If Blizzard thinks that uber tigh-arses such as myself are going to pay teh dorrahs for 1/3 of a game in these harsh economic times, they are smokin teh crackpipe.
syzc
Posted 11:34am 17/10/08
God your not paying for 1/3 of a game its a full game just 1/3 of its story its like saying that any one of the Star Wars movie is only 1/6 of a film compared to other movies, your still getting all the intended content for MP which is the games driving point. They just giving each races SP campaign a whole games worth of content and cinematics and so forth imo making each one more epic and who doesn't love more blizzard cinematics

Also you cant say its been rushed out the games been in production since 2003 and they have made numerous graphic changes and unit removals over just this last year purely to the communities feedback, if they where trying to rush the game out I highly doubt they would worry about little things like that if they where going for a early money grubbing release
kos
Posted 11:34am 17/10/08
People just like to complain I think.

The point here is that with SC2 you are going to get exactly the same amount of content as you did in the original SC, but all the SP campaigns will be all as terran. Similarly with the SC2 Expansions you will get exactly the same as you did with Brood Wars except the SP campaigns will only be as Zerg, and then Protoss.

The only reason they are announcing it now is so people don't go "WTF WER R DA OTHA RACES 4 SP?!" when they release SC2.

Personally I like the idea as I was always well entertained by the SP stories, while similarly being obsessed with the full MP experience, and extra units with expansions were always great fun to explore new dynamics.

Also, does anyone really think Blizzard is desperate for money while they have that money-from-a-tap device called WoW?
paveway
Posted 11:46am 17/10/08
like you even know anything kos
kos
Posted 11:47am 17/10/08
its like saying that any one of the Star Wars movie is only 1/6 of a film compared to other movies

In before someone saying that the "first" three movies actually were 1/6 of a film compared to other movies!
CSIRAC
Posted 11:54am 17/10/08
your still getting all the intended content for MP which is the games driving point.


How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay? The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.


what?
syzc
Posted 12:01pm 17/10/08
NEW CONTENT

as in like every other blizzard expack that added new classes or units, not content that was intended for the initial release blizzard already stated the amount of units they wanted the game to ship with which would be the same cap as the first orig SC did and then improve on that like BW did with additional units, I really cant understand why people cant get their heads around this
Khel
Posted 12:06pm 17/10/08
The thing is, even if you only want to play multiplayer, you'll still have to buy all 3 otherwise you wont be able to keep up with everyone else and play against everyone else.
CSIRAC
Posted 12:08pm 17/10/08
^
syzc
Posted 12:12pm 17/10/08
ehh u mean like with any other game that releases Expacks? with the exception of DoW/CoH

you guys are acting like Blizzard supporting the game in the long run with more content to keep the game fun and fresh is a sin or something
demon
Posted 12:20pm 17/10/08
as in like every other blizzard expack that added new classes or units, not content that was intended for the initial release blizzard already stated the amount of units they wanted the game to ship with which would be the same cap as the first orig SC did and then improve on that like BW did with additional units, I really cant understand why people cant get their heads around this

bollucks. the orignal starcraft had all the units... broodwars added like 7 more units because it was a real expansion pack... ie: it wasn't intended at the inital release of starcraft, it was released much later when blizzard realised they had a winner with starcraft.
blizzard are announcing the starcraft2 'expansion packs' before it's even released! that's not expansion packs imo... thats different games.
syzc
Posted 12:32pm 17/10/08
So your upset the Blizzard is announcing the expacks prior to the games release ??? there was always going to be an expansion for SC2 whether they told us now or later everyone knew, what game has Blizzard made that didn't have an expansion.

And didn't you read my post clearly I said SC2 is going to ship with the same amount of units as SC did the expacks will add more units just as BW did theres no difference
casa
Posted 02:11pm 17/10/08
I hope the hud takes up 3/4 of the screen like it did in starcraft, forcing me into considering the game as a complete heap of s***.
demon
Posted 02:14pm 17/10/08
yeh. if they are announcing them before the initial release of the game then they always planned to have that content as part of the overall game. whereas the original starcraft broodwars expansion wasn't originally intended when starcraft came out. saying that all blizzard games have expansion packs isn't even relevant.

& yeh i read your post about starcraft2 having the exact same number of units as starcraft did & the expansion packs having the same number of units as well... so starcraft2 expansion pack 1 will have exactly 7 units? how do you know this?
Draxy
Posted 02:52pm 17/10/08
While watching BlizzCon, I saw the live announcement of the game being split into three. He said they were taking a gamble, but he told the audience the 3 options they had. They could cut back the content and put all three campaigns in, but the game would be missing a lot of story. They could break it into 3 individual releases, but the single player would consist of one race each release. Or they could delay release and come up with other compromises that would mean less single player content. All three options would include full races for skirmish and multiplayer. He gave the crowd each option and gauged the response. The crowd cheered dramatically louder for the second option. He said that was the option they had chosen.
From a dev point of view, I can see why the designers were fighting to have their story in its entirety. Marketing would be happy either way in this situation as it gave them more SKU options. But I personally don't think it was money making reasons that the 3 campaigns were separated. The passion the Dev Team at Blizzard have is very evident.
I will enjoy the single player, but I'm more in it for the multiplayer. And frankly, single player doesnt give you the multiplayer skills (but it is good for some of the basics). So thinking you have to get all three to keep up with other multiplayer players is not the case at all.
Cyas on the new B.net =]
Mr Hardware
Posted 03:17pm 17/10/08
where there's starcraft, there's draxy.
greazy
Posted 05:53pm 17/10/08
The thing is, even if you only want to play multiplayer, you'll still have to buy all 3 otherwise you wont be able to keep up with everyone else and play against everyone else.
The same goes for any expansion out there that adds new multiplayer elements, so your point is nullified.
whereas the original starcraft broodwars expansion wasn't originally intended when starcraft came out. saying that all blizzard games have expansion packs isn't even relevant.
How the hell would you know that? Can you prove it?

Like I said the end result will be the same so stop whining.

last edited by greazy at 16:53:24 17/Oct/08
CSIRAC
Posted 03:50pm 17/10/08
So thinking you have to get all three to keep up with other multiplayer players is not the case at all.


But..you will have to get all 3 to keep up. Seeing as new units will be availble at every "expansion", and as such the community will uptake them and set it as standard.

Do you see normal starcraft being played in competitions over BW?

edit: and yes, it sounds dumb that you would expect not to be left behind come an expansion, but its an expansion on a game that is not whole. bottom line, they saw the game had too much value for the standard game price. It was either charging $150 for a game; which would have been a marketing nightmare, or announce multiple pre-planned expansions. I guess they didn't have much choice, which is a shame.

last edited by CSIRAC at 14:50:43 17/Oct/08
Khel
Posted 05:19pm 17/10/08
The same goes for any expansion out there that adds new multiplayer elements, so your point is nullified.


But these aren't expansions, they're being marketted as three entire games, so I'm sure you'll pay entire game price, not expansion price.
Dan
Posted 05:24pm 17/10/08
But these aren't expansions, they're being marketted as three entire games, so I'm sure you'll pay entire game price, not expansion price.
You read the FAQ right?
The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets.
It's like the first sentence.
Draxy
Posted 05:53pm 17/10/08
CSIRAC, yer sorry I think I was misinterpreting what was originally said. You will need the expansions to get the new units in multiplayer. I'm guessing the time in between each release will allow months of play on each iteration. But to stay with the majority of players, you will need to get each one as it comes out.
Khel
Posted 05:58pm 17/10/08
Hrmm, fair enough, I hadn't bothered to read that, was just going by how it was presented at Blizzcon where they were saying you wouldn't necessarily need the first game to play the others. That sounded to me like they were all stand alone games rather than expansions.
Hogfather
Posted 06:07pm 17/10/08
Its possible that they will package the Zerg and Terran as standalone games, an release the upgrade as a digital download, or box both the expansion and the original + expansion as seperate boxes.

I don;t think that if you own Terran you'll buy a full game over and over toget Protoss and Zerg. That would be an awesome $ move though and with the legions of Blizzard fappers (myself included) they could probably pull it off!
demon
Posted 06:23pm 17/10/08
How the hell would you know that?

it was obvious if you were around when the games came out. starcraft got released in late 98, then there was a 3rd party expansion pack called incursion or something, then like years later the broodwar expansion.
Like I said the end result will be the same so stop whining.

time to start realising that no one on this forum listens to a word you say. :D

syzc
Posted 06:24pm 17/10/08
I think its also pretty certain that BW itself was planned either during the making of SC or shortly after, as it features units like the Dark Templar as an addition even though they where in original SP campaign only.

Secondly Starcraft didn't come to fame in esports until after BWs release when they got balancing a lot better so you cant say that they held back the content on waiting to see if the game was a success, because also if that was the case why didn't they make anymore expansions and really milk it??
syzc
Posted 06:28pm 17/10/08
also demon Starcraft came out in March of 98 and Brood War came out in November of 98 not " years later "

greazy
Posted 07:07pm 17/10/08
it was obvious if you were around when the games came out. starcraft got released in late 98, then there was a 3rd party expansion pack called incursion or something, then like years later the broodwar expansion.
Haha it was clearly obvious if you were around, except clearly you weren't. As syzc said it, Broodwar was released 8 months after Starcraft.
Spock
Posted 08:12pm 17/10/08
he's talking about insurrection
greazy
Posted 11:11pm 17/10/08
he's talking about insurrection

time to start realising that no one on this forum listens to a word you say. :D
it was obvious if you were around when the games came out. starcraft got released in late 98, then there was a 3rd party expansion pack called incursion or something, then like years later the broodwar expansion.

Insurrection was actually released 4 months after Starcraft.

last edited by greazy at 22:11:09 17/Oct/08
sLaps_Forehead
Posted 11:21pm 17/10/08
I still wont buy it until I can buy the complete set at a reasonable price. I like SC but hey I'm not Sth Korean!

I blame the fools at Blizzard who make all their future product decisions by a show of hands by a room full of nerds.

Also using the 1/6 of Star Wars as a comparison is a fail because anyone with half a brain knows there are only 3 Star Wars movies worth mentioning.

syzc
Posted 12:50pm 18/10/08
yea I really should have seen that one coming back to bite me in the ass hahaha
Commenting has been locked for this item.
54 Comments
Show