Starcraft 2 Battle Report (Specs Not Released)

[Ramor]

i doubt it would be long before the playerbase finds a way to make 95% of the monetizing that BNet may or may not plan to do useless, so i'm not too concerned either way barring super douchebaggery on blizzard's part, which i think is highly unlikely

[geno]

I dunno about the monetizing b.net stuff as while that actually could happen, I have no idea how it will end up looking.

As for the trilogy thing though, please god stop referencing it as evidence of Activision's hand in Blizzard business. I'm pretty sure they had already made that decision long before the merger had even gone through. I don't want to defend the thing again as I've done so many times in the past, but I have to reiterate here: it's a fucking good thing, stop complaining. There are literally almost no bad sides to this thing, only the unsupported points people make up in their head like "its going to cost too much" or "they are just splitting up content that could and should have been in 1 game." Read an interview, find something, ANYTHING to support your claim and then go ahead and freak out. Until then, get over your damn initial fears and realize how awesome this is.

[Ramor]

since you seem to know about the splitting up of the games, i might as well ask you
they're being released at different times correct?
say toss comes out first, will you only be able to do toss online? or will you only be limited to the toss campaign but can play anyone in a melee map?

[Correction]

As for the trilogy thing though, please god stop referencing it as evidence of Activision's hand in Blizzard business.

I'm not blaming the trilogy thing on Activision. I brought it up as an example of how Blizzard is changing its release schedule. Before it was Big Title, Big Title's Expansion 18 months later, then free content patches until Next Big Title. Now it's Big Title Winter, Big Title Spring, Big Title Summer oh and hey here's more stuff you can pay for on battle.net.

If it smells like Activision it's probably because this mirrors the strategy taken with the Guitar Hero Franchise, detailed in their May 31st webcast [link deleted]

I'm willing to believe it's a coincidence, since Blizzard has a reputation to maintain and the folks making Guitar Hero have none.

Separately, this topic: [link deleted]

is giving everyone the jitters on how much it will really cost to play these games. Activision looks at its customers now and sees "$500 more bucks, cha-ching!" Is Activision eyeing the Blizzard loyals with the same eyes? This is the only question unanswered till BlizzCon.

[Thulius]

since you seem to know about the splitting up of the games, i might as well ask you
they're being released at different times correct?
say toss comes out first, will you only be able to do toss online? or will you only be limited to the toss campaign but can play anyone in a melee map?

Terran is coming out first. If I remember correctly you get the full terran campaign plus some sort of mini-campaigns for the protoss and zerg, so you can at least get some bearing of their mechanics before going online. As for multiplayer, all 3 races will be available from the start.

Supposedly protoss and zerg campaigns will come with new units for multiplayer as well, they're more like expansions than anything. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[geno]

I'm not blaming the trilogy thing on Activision. I brought it up as an example of how Blizzard is changing its release schedule. Before it was Big Title, Big Title's Expansion 18 months later, then free content patches until Next Big Title. Now it's Big Title Winter, Big Title Spring, Big Title Summer oh and hey here's more stuff you can pay for on battle.net.

As mentioned above by thulius, its actually more like Big Title Winter, Big title's expansion #1 6-12months later, Big title's expansion #2 12-18 months later which isn't all that different from their original release schedules. I actually think they may be as spread out as BW and SC were as well, because they are adding almost identical levels of content as BW added (new full size campaign, some new units and changes in multiplayer) except in a next-gen world. I don't know where you got the idea we might actually get the next installment by Spring, I'd be happy if we got it in 2010 at all, lol.

As for the battle.net thing, I wish I knew. I'm a little worried about what they are planning and the fact that they have taken so damn long to reveal even the slightest tidbits is both exciting and worrying. I'm willing to wait it out though (not like we have a choice) and see what's actually planned before jumping to any conclusions about Activision's role in the new platform.

From the many interviews I've seen with the SC2 guys, Activision has almost no say in what they do, which is great. Unfortunately, I don't know if that's true for the Battle.net 2.0 team as well. They need to make sure their project synergizes with Blizzard's other titles which leaves plenty of room for Activision to make some "suggestions." Still, in the end I'm hoping we end up pleasantly surprised at Blizzcon (if they even reveal it then) and not unforgivably horrified.

[Ramor]

Terran is coming out first. If I remember correctly you get the full terran campaign plus some sort of mini-campaigns for the protoss and zerg, so you can at least get some bearing of their mechanics before going online. As for multiplayer, all 3 races will be available from the start.

Supposedly protoss and zerg campaigns will come with new units for multiplayer as well, they're more like expansions than anything. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

it's not a huge deal, but i did actually enjoy the storyline and having to wait for 2/3rds of it kind of sucks, but again it's not a real dealbreaker by any means.

to some extent it's like saying 'hey, come play this RPG, we'll give you 1/3rd now, and then the rest in a while". obviously not an exact proxy as RPGs are generally linear and something like starcraft can be broken up easily without too much (if any) discontinuity in storyline

[Correction]

Supposedly protoss and zerg campaigns will come with new units for multiplayer as well, they're more like expansions than anything.

What's the source on the new units for multiplayer thing? Blizzard's been pretty consistently saying the multiplayer part of SC2 will be a complete product with the terran campaign. Not saying there won't be new units by the time the final campaign comes out but they haven't delivered any hints one way or the other.

[geno]

No they have. I'll have to find a source, but I've read it in multiple interviews, usually when they are drawing comparisons to them as expansions. I'll edit in a source when I find some, but I'm like 99% sure I've seen it multiple times.
Didn't have to look that far, its in the official FAQ about the trilogy, lol:
Battle.net - English Forums -> Post BlizzCon: StarCraft II Trilogy FAQ
Actually, this FAQ has a lot of really good info. If any of you don't know too much about it, I'd definitely recommend a read.

As for breaking up the story line, thats just not how I see it. Saying they only let you see 1/3 of the SC2 storyline with this release method, is like saying they only let us see 1/2 of the SC1 storyline with Vanilla SC. I mean, technically that's correct, but each game will have a flow about them that will make each game a complete experience (just like SC1 / BW had!).

[Meian]

Would be interesting to see that if each game has the storyline that favors the said race in the end; such as this one being Terran would show them being victorious overall (same for Protoss if they were next etc).

If they stick to the normal way, then I hope Zerg isn't last (hate them =p)

[orson]

Would be interesting to see that if each game has the storyline that favors the said race in the end; such as this one being Terran would show them being victorious overall (same for Protoss if they were next etc).

If they stick to the normal way, then I hope Zerg isn't last (hate them =p)

So far they've only said that they're releasing SC 2 in parts one for each race but I'm really curious whether the Xel'naga will play a bigger role and possibly even add another race/faction down the road.

[geno]

Certainly not for multiplayer but for single player it sounds almost likely. They could do something like they did in WC3 with the Naga.

[Rulke]

If they stick to the normal way, then I hope Zerg isn't last (hate them =p)

I think I remember skimming a section on a SC forum that stated the releases were going to be Terran, then Zerg and finally Protoss.

[Meian]

I think I remember skimming a section on a SC forum that stated the releases were going to be Terran, then Zerg and finally Protoss.

If so, awesome. Can expect a decent ending =p or cliffhanger...

[Maguspk]

Battle.net will not cost money, mostly because the service is pretty much already there. I already have a battle.net acount that I have linked to all my games. It will most definitely be more 'Steam' like, in that you simply have your games on your battle.net account from which you can download/play/social network, etc. I don't think we need to fear any sort of charge for the service, that is not their style.

[Correction]

If so, awesome. Can expect a decent ending =p or cliffhanger...

They've mentioned branching storylines for the campaigns, so I'm guessing it'll just have 'everyone wins...kinda!' at the end of each campaign. I wasn't too sussed when Kerrigan wins at the end of Brood Wars.

[Ramor]

i want toss first =( i loooove protoss, they're so much more awesomerer than the other, clearly inferior, races.

TOSS PRIDE

edit: since i know sonomaa reads this thread at least a couple times, whatever happened to the SC forum skin?

[izembo]

agreed, toss > all, but i think terran game should be first

[geno]

I think they got the order perfectly, Terran>Zerg>Protoss. As for the rampant toss love here, even though I too mostly played Protoss in SC, I gotta say its only so loved because it was the easiest to play at a low level. Zerg was always my favorite even though I couldn't play it well. I loved Terran as well, but I was horrible with them. In SC2 I'll probably keep playing Protoss, but I may end up finally switching back to Zerg if I can actually play it well enough!

[Minions]

I think they got the order perfectly, Terran>Zerg>Protoss. As for the rampant toss love here, even though I too mostly played Protoss in SC, I gotta say its only so loved because it was the easiest to play at a low level. Zerg was always my favorite even though I couldn't play it well. I loved Terran as well, but I was horrible with them. In SC2 I'll probably keep playing Protoss, but I may end up finally switching back to Zerg if I can actually play it well enough!

Easy since people would stack millions of photon cannons, and starve off the computers they played.... seriously...