bit-gamer.net

StarCraft 2 to be split into a trilogy

StarCraft 2 to be split into a trilogy

Blizzard has now announced plans to split StarCraft 2 into three standalone games, each focusing on one campaign.

Activision Blizzard has announced that the upcoming StarCraft 2 is to be split into three different games, with one game focusing on each of the three campaigns in the story.

The decision, which was made at the very end of last year according to StarCraft 2, will mean that the games should be released later, but more regularly. The series will be titled Terrans: Wings of Liberty, Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, and Protoss: Legacy of the Void.

According to Blizzard the decision to release the game in this way was something that had nothing to do with the Activision merger which and was more to do with the fact that, if Blizzard hoped to release StarCraft 2 as a single game then more and more cuts were going to be needed.

Terrans: Wings of Liberty will be the first game in the series to be released, with Blizzard saying that it could be a year or more between each title. Bear in mind that that's in Blizzard Time however - in normal time that could translate into decades.

Blizzard has promised that each game will be utterly standalone and will include around 26-30 singleplayer missions. Each game will also have a standalone multiplayer element and will also have unique units and multiplayer expansions. The release date for the game is still a vague 'next year'.

Does the split into three sound good to you, or would you have preferred to have a single, larger release? A benefit for better gameplay or simply more money grabbing by Blizzard? Let us know what you think in the forums.

53 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
UncertainGod 14th October 2008, 09:43 Quote
That doesn't sound very good to me at all.
Orca 14th October 2008, 09:58 Quote
As much as I want Starcraft 2, no way am I buying it 3 times. Guess I'll wait for the "complete" edition after the 3rd one is out or something... sigh.
mclean007 14th October 2008, 10:18 Quote
I guess it's ok if they price each part fairly based on its length. Paying £30 three times is a big outlay, so I'd expect each part to have as much content as all the campaigns of, say, a C&C or Warcraft game combined, and there had better be some originality and minimal "filler" missions. On the other hand, if it's £12-18 a pop (unlikely), they can get away with a more episodic length.
p3n 14th October 2008, 11:07 Quote
bah just want the MP really, way to french up a decent game blizzard.
Cobalt 14th October 2008, 11:13 Quote
I can only hope that they include all three races in the multiplayer section of every game and its only the campaign that gets split up. Otherwise what's the point of starcraft if you can't zerg rush? :-p
Skepsis 14th October 2008, 12:04 Quote
So how would multiplayer work? :(
Jordan Wise 14th October 2008, 12:06 Quote
i love that picture
UrbanMarine 14th October 2008, 12:43 Quote
If it's pay for the first one and the rest are free then fine. Otherwise I'd rather have one giant install or download (D2D).
Delphium 14th October 2008, 12:50 Quote
Quote:
Blizzard saying that it could be a year or more between each title.
noooooooooooooooo, as if we not waited long enough already!!!

Cant say im pleased by this move, as you just KNOW they will make you pay for each campaign :( :(
Bungle 14th October 2008, 13:02 Quote
Any other company and I may have reaised an Eyebrow, but Blizzard are a solid developer, so will be looking forward to it when it's out.
hobbs 14th October 2008, 13:02 Quote
Looks like if you want to play MP your going to buy all 3

"Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer."

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/10/11/starcraft_ii_lead_producer_on_the_split_single_player_campaign-2.html
GoodBytes 14th October 2008, 13:10 Quote
Pfff, I dot' care how good this game is. As a StarCraft fan, I am disappointed. I'll guess I'll buy it, when they release all-in-one package.

And I have a feeling that they will simply do the same after 3 years with the expansion packs. So you will have to wait 6 years before you get the full game. This means one thing: "We did not finish the game yet, and we want to cash in as soon as possible."
pizan 14th October 2008, 13:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan Wise
i love that picture
+1
Teq 14th October 2008, 13:30 Quote
If its priced reasonably then I'll still be buying it, I'd rather all the content spread across 3 releases than a half arsed hack of the three, of course I will be less than happy if the first release feels like an instalment and not a game in its own right, that will ultimately affect my decision for the future...
TreeDude 14th October 2008, 13:31 Quote
I would imagine all 3 races will be in there of multiplayer. I think this is just a single player focus. I would not worry. They would not leave out 2 of the 3 main races in the game. Especially if there is a year between releases. They are not that dumb.
GoodBytes 14th October 2008, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDude
I would imagine all 3 races will be in there of multiplayer. I think this is just a single player focus. I would not worry.

Unless they sell teh 3 trilogy, and if you want to play Multilayer, you need to to buy a fourth one.
Gunsmith 14th October 2008, 13:56 Quote
am i the only one who thinks blizzard games are hugely overrated?
Ninja_182 14th October 2008, 14:21 Quote
So long as each part of the trilogy is as long as the entire 1st Starcraft or each part costs a third of the going price for a PC game im not fusses either way.
Jasio 14th October 2008, 14:27 Quote
Terrans: Wings of Liberty, 49.99
Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, 39.99
Protoss: Legacy of the Void, 39.99

... enjoy the price gouging. I guess this is what happens when you can't turn Starcraft into a monthly subscription style game -- just charge them *per race* and make them wait up to 2 years to get to play it all.

Sorry, not gonna buy. And then companies ponder "Why do you crazy people pirate our games?!".
mrb_no1 14th October 2008, 14:52 Quote
i quite like the idea, as it means races are more extensively played as mp gaming limits unit use due to rush tactics and things so games are over in 30 mins. Whilst i dont agree with their time frame, the idea is good.

Jasio, is that pricing drawn from somewhere or are you spewing babble? I'd personally have thought that they'd price them alot lower.

peace

fatman
MrMonroe 14th October 2008, 14:56 Quote
It will be worth it if the multiplayer is complete in the first one and the other two are $15 expansions.

Not that I would buy them if I had complete multiplayer. Of course, the two expansions will doubtless have unique units so anyone who doesn't buy them would either be unable to play with people who have the expansion or would just receive free superfluous anuses any time they tried to play someone with the expansion.
DuskBolter 14th October 2008, 15:12 Quote
I was a big fan of Blizzard and am somewhat still, with SC2 being split up stating due to dev reasons (behind) in the above Kotaku article and costing seperately..it still hurts a bit. I have heard a nasty little rumor that Blizzard is talking about charging monthly to use battlenet (havnt confirmed), just rumors are surfacing about this.

If this happens, I will have no choice but to not to play SC2...as well as THQ / Relic release of Dawn of war 2 is right around the corner (which I was buying both anyway)..but it pushes me to favor them over Blizzard in what I call the top two companies for RTS.

It dissapoints me a bit that Blizzard split up, but I know it will still be a quality product ..
DuskBolter 14th October 2008, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuskBolter
I was a big fan of Blizzard and am somewhat still, with SC2 being split up stating due to dev reasons (behind) in the above Kotaku article and costing seperately..it still hurts a bit. I have heard a nasty little rumor that Blizzard is talking about charging monthly to use battlenet (havnt confirmed), just rumors are surfacing about this.

If this happens, I will have no choice but to not to play SC2...as well as THQ / Relic release of Dawn of war 2 is right around the corner (which I was buying both anyway)..but it pushes me to favor them over Blizzard in what I call the top two companies for RTS.

Maybe they will release the following expanisons as patches, just as they did for WoW (wouldnt be the 1st time they pushed out a 1GB patch)

It dissapoints me a bit that Blizzard split it up, but I know it will still be a quality product ..
DarkLord7854 14th October 2008, 15:25 Quote
So what about custom games.. does this mean that for MP, the first few years, it'll only be Terran vs Terran?

Either way, if it's going to take 6 years to get the full campaign, then you know what, screw it. I'm not going to bother buying it nor even playing it.

By the time the final campaign is released, the game's engine will be heavily outdated.
Ninja_182 14th October 2008, 15:50 Quote
Bum clouds about the pricing. Is that dollars or pounds? They had better be long campaigns then. They better release the Zerg campaign first (blatantly not going to happen) before the engine is outdated and I lose interest. Although that never happened with Source.
Redbeaver 14th October 2008, 16:13 Quote
i'm starting to get sick of waiting for them too.

screw it. i'll play diablo 2 instead.
ZERO <ibis> 14th October 2008, 17:25 Quote
I do like the idea that this will bring about a much more full campaign mode to each of the three races but it taking a few extra years to complete bs. Wtf are they doing in that time. They better all be like $20 each or every new one better have some "amazing" new feature that makes it worth my money. But hey they are talking about future $$ at this rate $50 could buy you a gallon of milk so it could end up being a good deal... All I can say is that if it ends up being a scam for money Korea might invade.
Jasio 14th October 2008, 17:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrb_no1
i quite like the idea, as it means races are more extensively played as mp gaming limits unit use due to rush tactics and things so games are over in 30 mins. Whilst i dont agree with their time frame, the idea is good.

Jasio, is that pricing drawn from somewhere or are you spewing babble? I'd personally have thought that they'd price them alot lower.

peace

fatman

You can pre-order Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty for $49.99 at GameStop and EB-Games.

As far as the other packs? Blizzard made it clear that *each* campaign will have about the same number of missions (25-30).

So give me a good reason as to *why* they should charge $10 or $20 for the other games? Seriously folks. Stop living in "La La Land". This is Blizzard, the King of Gouging -- if WoW is any indicator -- then Starcraft II and its expansions will undoubtedly be priced at close-to/full retail price which is usually $50 here. How about WoW's expansions? They weren't $10 or $20... they weren't full size games on their own either, and yet that didn't stop Blizzard selling it at close to full retail price of a stand-alone game.

Spewing babble? Wake up boy. The dream is over.
hobbs 14th October 2008, 17:52 Quote
They were also talking about making battle.net paid insted of free.
pendragon 14th October 2008, 18:09 Quote
as long as each of the games is decently long, this sounds awesome to me! .. blizzard's games generally don't disappoint IMHO.
Jasio 14th October 2008, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pendragon
as long as each of the games is decently long, this sounds awesome to me! .. blizzard's games generally don't disappoint IMHO.

Yeap, that's true. The argument by most users is against the pricing scheme -- not the content of the game. I'm sure the title will be excellent, as there haven't been any Blizzard titles that have disappointed.

Making Battle.net paid... that's something new to me. But I wouldn't be surprised really. Blizzard continues to make great titles -- they've just realized that they can demand exuberant amounts of money for their level of "quality".
capnPedro 14th October 2008, 18:20 Quote
Episodic gaming hasn't exactly worked perfectly this far, but maybe Blizzard will get it right?
pistol_pete 14th October 2008, 20:02 Quote
I don't care how much it costs, I just want it!

Good to see some full length single player action going on, it would have been easy for them just to focus on the multiplayer.
MajestiX 14th October 2008, 20:54 Quote
the reason behind blizzard greatness for games is the lore and taking advice from the user community.

they're just trying to give you the full story with out cut downs. It just seems like each story is an expansion. You will get access to all the races for multi player just you will only get 1 campaign at a time with more units as each campaign rolls out.

and if bnet becomes subscription, it'll be simple people will move onto khali or similar programs which was why bnet was created.

the only thing that bugs me about this is with every expansion blizzard makes everything you did previously was zilch screwed nada zero
Cadillac Ferd 14th October 2008, 22:40 Quote
I was really, really, really, excited for this game when they announced it but more and more I'm feeling genuinely disinterested. I wasn't really looking forward to the campaign all that much, multi-player was really what I was looking forward to this whole time. I'm not really excited about probably having to spend more than I normally would for just a small expansion to have the most up to date multiplayer build. Seeing as how I'm primarily a LAN gamer this more than likely will lead to me not wanting to spend much on future Blizzard products at all...

On the plus side though this means that maybe the first game will be released earlier than anticipated (so by any other company's standards... only a few months late). If Diablo III manages somehow to get released before Starcraft 2: 1 I'm going to be upset.
impar 14th October 2008, 22:56 Quote
Greetings!

I am more worried with the "monetization" of battle.net:
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/BlizzCon-08-New-Battle-Net-Will-Have-Fees-12751.html
Jasio 14th October 2008, 23:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadillac Ferd
If Diablo III manages somehow to get released before Starcraft 2: 1 I'm going to be upset.

That just might happen: http://www.battleforums.com/newscomments.php?id=28
Horizon 15th October 2008, 07:15 Quote
I'll buy one copy, pirate the other two.
Nature 15th October 2008, 07:23 Quote
Does anyone think this is good?
r4tch3t 15th October 2008, 09:23 Quote
I think it is good, I enjoyed playing the campaigns of the first one. If it is released as 3 separate games, then there will be 3 full game length campaign instead of three 1/3 game length campaigns.
impar 15th October 2008, 09:23 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature
Does anyone think this is good?
I do believe the triology concept is good. For Blizzard.
strjms72 15th October 2008, 09:46 Quote
I only play Starcraft for the multiplayer - so for me this isnt that exciting unless they release a couple new units for each side - per expansion. I'll only buy the first part otherwise.
impar 15th October 2008, 09:57 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by strjms72
... they release a couple new units for each side - per expansion.
Thats Blizzard idea.
Pay once, pay twice and pay again.
koola 15th October 2008, 13:45 Quote
It seems that you get to play all races for multi-player and only one race per expansion, so for the people who just play bnet it's still a good buy.

I'm still a little vexed that blizzard decided to go this route as I did enjoy the race campains. I just hope this really delivers.
Jasio 15th October 2008, 19:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

I do believe the triology concept is good. For Blizzard.

You and George Lucas should get together and talk about Star Wars Episode 1, 2 and 3. I hear that was a "good concept" too...

Allow me to demonstrate:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/050531.jpg
impar 15th October 2008, 20:27 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasio
You and George Lucas should get together and talk about Star Wars Episode 1, 2 and 3. I hear that was a "good concept" too...
Noticed my full post? :p
DXR_13KE 16th October 2008, 00:53 Quote
bad idea IMHO
Blassster 18th October 2008, 05:32 Quote
I'm not looking forward to this anymore.

I guess I want Diablo 3 more, anyway.
NoMod 25th October 2008, 10:31 Quote
So basically, they have only really written the Terran campaign, and that STILL isn't finished - when what they should be focusing on is the multiplayer as that is what everyone is waiting for (really, once you had played the single player campaign from SC1, did you replay it again & again...no)

So they are gonna rush up the multiplayer balance to fit the release date with the completion of the terran campain so they can get the game out and stop people losing interest - Probably leaving Zerg half finished & Protoss woefully unbalanced - Then, forget about it for another decade or two and release a half-arsed Zerg/Protoss fix/campaign once people have stopped paying for the privalige of playing the game online that they already paid for and are expected to pay for another two times! *breathe*

This makes me REALLY mad...SC1 is my favorite game of all time, when they said they were doing SC2 I nealy fainted with excitement - all they had to do was make SC1 with better graphics, overhaul the interface and units & add/replace some new units (which up to now is what they have done, and it looks REALLY good)- EVERYONE (nearly) would have been happy with that, REALLY, if I have to buy the game 3 times to get all the multiplayer units and for them to have the balance just right (& 3 campaigns I will only play once) I am gonna be mad...take a leaf out of COD4's book - single player campign great, but short, to the point, played it once, now I cannot stop playing online, really I'm addicted - that's where they will sell copies, not through campigns, through addictive multiplayer action (& no-ones gonna play if they have to pay MORE to go online & the two non-focus races are unbalanced/crap)- I can't help but feel they are neglecting that to add the single player...

...I am very very very cross.

* rant over *
rollo 5th November 2008, 20:48 Quote
starcraft had a brilliant single player game when orginally released nomod though

I like the idea 30 + single player missiions per disk

for what is basically pocket money to some kids these days

if you cant aford £30 a year what are you doing in pc gaming

as this isnt the place for you

please leave now

Door that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
itazura 5th November 2008, 21:00 Quote
i'm getting tired of being bummed for cash when it comes to buying games, i have to admit. just because blizzard can get away with it for world of warcraft seems to make them think they'll get away with it for anything.

my interest in starcraft 2 wasn't that high to begin with. now i know i'll not bother. i'm still looking forward to diablo 3 though... until they (probably) mess that up as well, urgh.
NoMod 6th November 2008, 13:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
starcraft had a brilliant single player game when orginally released nomod though

I like the idea 30 + single player missiions per disk

for what is basically pocket money to some kids these days

if you cant aford £30 a year what are you doing in pc gaming

as this isnt the place for you

please leave now

Door that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

:? Er thanks...lol...ok, so i ranted a bit when I found out they were splitting it...

I have plenty of money for buying games (and probably many other titles I'll wanna buy than SCII) I just don't see why I should buy the same game 3 times to get all the multiplayer stuff, which is primarily what I am interested in...so please don't just flame me like some kid just coz I vented my opinion a bit, I never said the single player was bad, I played, loved it, but I wouldn't play it twice. Maybe they should also release the multiplayer game as a download at a reduced price so those who like the MP can play it without having to pay £90! Seeing as how we are probably gonna be expected to pay for online play too...

;)
r4tch3t 7th November 2008, 00:33 Quote
Did you pay for Broodwars? That enhanced multiplayer too you know. Now instead of having three small campaigns for each race, they have three full game campaigns for each race. Just think of them as expansions.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums