Phil writes, "In my recent interview with StarCraft II lead designer Dustin Browder, one topic that inevitably had to come up was the decision to split StarCraft II's single-player campaign into three separate releases. Though Wings of Liberty, the Terran-focused first campaign, had plenty of content, I asked Browder how far into development that decision was made. He revealed that it wasn't their plan from the start."
Jason Hall, currently an indie developer and former Blizzard employee, has been sharing some really interesting stories from his long career in the industry for a while now. Some of them are truly insightful, while others may seem depressing.
I’m a little shocked that StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty sold only around 6 million copies. The original StarCraft did over 11 million. Maybe Blizzard was too leisurely in releasing StarCraft 2? Starcraft 2 came out 12 years after it’s predecessor.
Im surprised too. Starcraft was still a huge name in 2010. It was kinda the only new RTS around and other genres like MOBAs hadn't really kicked off yet. I do remember at the time sentiment around the game was
pretty angry the game was being split into 3 but I doubt that would have impacted sales to that degree
For a long time I believed StarCraft II sold on par or better than its predecessor. There was so much hype for the game. Plus it had a pretty strong E-Sports scene for a few years.
Myself and half a dozen friends all bought StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and played it religiously for a full year. While I bought the expansions, most of my friends did not. RPGs seem to be a generally low selling genre.
I'm not shocked at all. This was an early example of Blizzard being greedy. Instead of releasing a complete experience, splitting Starcraft 2 in 3 parts so it could make us purchase it 3 times if we wanted to know the whole story and play story mode with the other races.
I originally had that stance. However, Wings of Liberty, was just as long, if not longer than StarCraft 1. The expansions were of decent length too and added a good amount of additional content.
and people wonder why we are having mtx in everything. i blame the people who actual buy them.
It's interesting he used Brazil as an example of the importance of regional pricing. Nowadays many companies on Steam are setting their prices in Brazil as high as, if not more than, their price in USA. I simply refused to buy a few games when I noticed that's the case.
The best sci-fi games ever made range from diving into the depths of humanity to finding hope among the stars.
Don't really agree on Dead Space being number one. But usually come down to preference. Alot of good games on the list. I was hoping to see Aliens vs Predator by Sierra on the list, as it was a great game. Anyways for me the number one is still Halo but Mass Effect was really good up to the infamous ending of the third game.
I would put Flashback on my list. Its got such a great tone and background design. The cutscenes were pretty good too.
DEAD SPACE 2 as number 1? Really? I've only ever played DEAD SPACE 1 (without finishing it) and, sure enough I liked it a lot, and have been yearning for getting to grips with an hd remastered trilogy for the PS4/XBox One/PS5/XBox Series X/S, but what about Deus Ex Human Revolution & Mankind Divided? Alienation (to quench our thirst for twitching fingers' top-down dual-stick shooters)? Or even Cyberpunk 2077 (once the game has been re-released and all the kinks have been ironed out)?
If not at the #1 spot, it seems to me these games deserved to be on the list somewhere.
But what really strikes me as unfair is, if you're going back to the PS3/XBox 360 era with DS2, how could you forget to mention Killzone 2 & 3? The Resistance games? When it comes to Sci-Fi FPS, it's inadequate not to pay your respects to those stellar franchises! Heck, even the Crysis trilogy should've been there IMHO.
A team of modders is working on a Starcraft Remake in Starcraft 2, and has released a brand new version of it.
...but then Bobby Kotick appeared with his butcher cleaver.
"...but then we realised we could get more money"
Everyone who kept up on the production of Starcraft 2 knows this. And honestly, if it cut down the release date, and gave us a more full fledged campaign like the one in Wings of Liberty (15+ hours), then it was worth it. Plus it gives room for new units and tech and such for multiplayer, since I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing any new units or massive changes until Heart of the Swarm is released.
Until the bean counters decided otherwise...
seriously F em. Any SC2 fans that still claim SC2 was as long as the 3 campaigns in SC1 need to uppercut themselves, it was a little longer than 1 campaign. The muliplayer traded old units for new like units, very little changes, I stopped playing it because ITS THE SAME GAME I'VE BEEN PLAYING FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS.
I'm not buying the next 2. I'll take D3 and then i'm done. Those mofos better include AA in D3, it's a PC exclusive, there is no excuse for their laziness.
In supreme commander 2 I can have 500 units on screen and get over 45 frames with maxed settings and 8aa...you'd be lucky to get that with far inferior graphics, <50 units on screen and no AA in SC2... as far as i'm concerned SC is at the bottom of the RTS ladder in terms of quality gameplay, graphics or complexity.
People juggle balls for a living....that is what professional SC tournament are, applying a degree of skill to a VERY simple game.
It's a shame indie devs have such a hard time when PC gamers shell out for a half done RTS.
They lied to us about the expansions....which will likely be full RRP when they come out, they said they would have the same units for competitive sake and that they would basically have the new campaigns and new maps...and that everyone with only 1 of the games would be able to play with the other 'expansion' players, they lied so everyone that doesn't buy the other 2 will be left behind...
http://i789.photobucket.com...