Top
210°

Split StarCraft II campaigns 'allow for storytelling freedom'

TVGB: "Splitting StarCraft II's single-player campaign into three different boxed products is not among Blizzard's most popular choices, but a necessary one to achieve the level of story-telling freedom the developer says to expect."

Read Full Story >>
thatvideogameblog.com
The story is too old to be commented.
facepalm2705d ago

It also allows for outrageous wallet damage as well...

OrganicMachine2705d ago

especially when there's activision involve

can you fvcking believe it? $60 for the standard edition game?

wtf..

badz1492705d ago

instead of 1 complete game, they break it into 3 with each cost a full game or just slightly below that! storytelling freedom my ass! enough with the PR BS already! I really love to have the complete starcraft II experience but I can't see myself buying 3 games that should have been all-in-one! screw Activision Blizzard! among all the milkings they've been doing, this is the most ridiculous IMO!

Megaton2705d ago

It allows for 3 $60 price tags, and nothing more. There's no reason why they couldn't split them like the did with the original or just include all 3 discs in the box. Pure greed, driven by the chance to rape and pillage all the fans who have been waiting a decade for the next Starcraft. Disgusted with Blizzard.

ThanatosDMC2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

I loved the campaign mode of SC1 since it taught me about how to use each units properly. It sucks that it'll only be Terrans. I wanted for it to have a Zerg campaign.

By the way, the Beta's not that appealing. I feel the maps are ridiculously small. But it is a fast RTS. Usually it's the first one who doesnt use their resources properly that loses since it's completely limited.

I really thought the queens were gonna be useful defenders but one on one against a zealot and the queen gets slaughtered. She does have her useful ability though of creating more creep and 4 more larvae per hatchery.

Terrans feel underwhelming and always ALWAYS need to rely on nukes near end game.

The campaign better be 50+ maps long since SC2 maps are small.

jdktech20102705d ago

Have you actually played?

Terran has the best late game options of the three that I've found so far. Zerg are very limited to late game with corrupters and brood lords since ultras are too expensive to really rely on while Terran have Cruisers, Vikings and Banshees or Nukes.

Plus, in all honesty most games don't even get that far before a winner is introduced. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the maps are plenty large for a game to be played unless you guys are just turtling and taking up 4 bases each which is not the norm.

As for splitting it up, they have already said the expansions won't be the same price as WOL and every indication gives a 40 dollar price tag for the 2 expansions at the most. Blizzard has their free reign in Activision-Blizzard and Acti doesn't really control blizzard much at all.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2705d ago
kasasensei2705d ago

And more cash.
Dont get us wrong, blizzard....

Obama2705d ago

well the single campaign coming this year better be LONG. I have been waiting for this game for a decade.

Cernunnos2705d ago

What you guys fail to understand is the fact that they would have made expansions, split storyline or not. They could have had 10 missions for each race in each game, instead of 30 missions for one race in each game. I favour what they are doing because it allows for much deeper storytelling. Also, no expansions would mean a monthly subscription or so, since this game has been expensive to develop.

jdktech20102705d ago

Yep, you mean I'm gonna have to deal with a 30 mission rpg type system with Kerrigan for round two and a diplomacy type game with the Protoss?

You mean they're actually gonna bring something different to the RTS genre single player? How dare they? What, there's 30 missions and you're saying that's as many as the original starcraft had in the first place? DSLFKSLDKJFSK, that's so overpriced

chak_2705d ago (Edited 2705d ago )

I'm starting to dislike you blizzard.

Cash milking on wow, spliting SC in 3, no lan, diablo 3 coming in at least 1 year, with no lan either...

Well, I don't have much to wait for actually.

New IP maybe? take some risks? You have sh*ttons of money, use it damnit !§

on top of that you tell us we're somehow stupid with your PR talk

magicwalnuts2705d ago

Your damn stupid. Cause Blizzard obviously makes crappy games that have unnecessarily long development cycles right? Starcraft set a new bar previously set by Westwood for storytelling in RTS games, Warcraft III set that bar higher with RPG characters that progressed not only powerwise but storywise as well. Starcraft II is raising the bar again with 3 full length campaigns that are equal the length of the original respectively. If you think that's a bad deal that I don't know what the hell you want them to do? Tell a gimped story after ten whole years of waiting for a resolution to that wtf ending of Broodwar? Yeah, it'll net them a ton of cash but if you don't like Starcraft's story and universe than just pick up Wings of Liberty and you've got the MP right there. Not to mention that each segment offers its own persistant meta-game, and if you haven't seen videos or screenshots of the Hyperion meta-game then you're missing out cause it looks damn cool. It's like all of you forgot Blizzard's calibre as a developer, yeah WoW is lame as hell and they charge up the ass for useless stuff they know people will buy, but that doesn't mean that they forgot how to make RTS games and action RPG games. The reason for no new ip's is because each of their games is heavily story based and they spend so much time in development, not because their incompetant, but because they're perfectionists.