No LAN in my StarCraft 2

[circ]

Go fuck yourselves Blizzard, really.

That kinda proves that all those people who were saying that codex is a bunch of fags who whine for the sake of whining were right.
"Go fuck yourselves", what a nice answer to developer actually trying not to surrender to recent trends in the industry.
Well, enjoy your shitty 5 hour action games then.

Wait what? NOT trying to surrender to industry trends? What do you call making SC2 bnet exclusive to combat piracy? Or splitting a game into infinite addons? Or charging mega bux? No sir, no trends here. Allow me to fag some more. Go suck some more Blizzard cock faggot!

 

[kris]

Haha. 150 bucks for a game? What is this, return to the 90s and Neo Geo? Go fuck yourselves Blizzard, really.

It is not confirmed they will all be 50 bucks and more importantly, ever single one of them will be at least as long as any other single player game. Probably longer.

 

[Hamster]

What do you call making SC2 bnet exclusive to combat piracy?

I don't care about your multi-player problems.

Or splitting a game into infinite addons? Or charging mega bux?

I call that necessary measures. If you disagree, please suggest a better solution.

 

[Silellak]

Go fuck yourselves Blizzard, really.

That kinda proves that all those people who were saying that codex is a bunch of fags who whine for the sake of whining were right.
"Go fuck yourselves", what a nice answer to developer actually trying not to surrender to recent trends in the industry.
Well, enjoy your shitty 5 hour action games then.

I can't help but be amused by your accusing him of whining, while at the same time presenting the choice as either "$150 game from Blizzard" or "shitty 5 hour action game". Yes, every other game released is a shitty 5 hour action game. Praise be unto Blizzard for having the courage to ignore that trend and bravely releasing their game as a "trilogy" which may or may not cost as much as three full games, but at least as much as two full games, because everyone who played StarCraft was begging to have a 90-mission-long single player campaign.

They're hardly standing up to recent "trends" - expansion packs aren't exactly a new concept, Blizzard just thought "What if we make them LONGER and charge MORE? BRILLIANT. And what if we don't give people the ability to play all three races' campaigns - and see the full story - without buying the other games in the 'trilogy'? FUCK YES. MILK THAT SHIT." People wouldnt've been up-in-arms if SC2 was the same length as the first game - Starcraft wasn't exactly short.

PS -

What was World of Warcraft if not a surrender to "recent trends" in PC gaming? Do you think Blizzard would have made an MMO from their Warcraft franchise if they hadn't proved to be such big money makers? There's a reason almost every major PC exclusive is an MMO now. Yeah, Blizzard are really fighting that trend.

Blizzard isn't gaming's savior. There are plenty of decent games that don't cost $150 and last for a lot longer than 5 hours, you're just too lazy to look.

 

[Hamster]

Yes, every other game released is a shitty 5 hour action game.

Most are. And more than enough were succesfull for all developers to seriously think about why should they bother with providing more content than that. Since we are talking about RTS here, it's hard for me to remember when was the last time i saw a game where single-player campaign was not a shit second hand addition to multiplayer.

They're hardly standing up to recent "trends" - expansion packs aren't exactly a new concept, Blizzard just thought "What if we make them LONGER and charge MORE? BRILLIANT. And what if we don't give people the ability to play all three races' campaigns - and see the full story - without buying the other games in the 'trilogy'? FUCK YES. MILK THAT SHIT." People wouldnt've been up-in-arms if SC2 was the same length as the first game - Starcraft wasn't exactly short.

I am still waiting to hear a better solution.

What was World of Warcraft if not a surrender to "recent trends" in PC gaming?

Well, do you remember when Bioware first started making shit console arpg's bio fans were defending them by saying that it is just a way to gather money for proper crpg? I hope with Blizzard it will turn out to be true.

 

[Kraszu]

As for campaign it actually can be much better then what was in SC. They will offer missions with specific game mechanics, this sounds like it can be pretty good:

http://starcraft2.net.pl/portal/sc2/25/ ... netpl.html

They go more for quality then just giving 90 Terran missions, and you also will be able to skip some missions. (not sure if you will be able to play all mission in one game)

 

[Scruffy]

Go fuck yourselves Blizzard, really.

That kinda proves that all those people who were saying that codex is a bunch of fags who whine for the sake of whining were right.
"Go fuck yourselves", what a nice answer to developer actually trying not to surrender to recent trends in the industry.
Well, enjoy your shitty 5 hour action games then.

seriously
this is happening because the game industry is HUGELY profitable if your target audience are morons, as bethesda proved.
and you proved.

so really
stop the bullshit, decent developers are NOT dieing of starvation.

 

[MetalCraze]

"Go fuck yourselves", what a nice answer to developer actually trying not to surrender to recent trends in the industry.

I believe he was talking about Blizzard.

 

[racofer]

Or splitting a game into infinite addons? Or charging mega bux?

I call that necessary measures. If you disagree, please suggest a better solution.

Better solution: don't do that.

 

[Talby]

Well, that sucks. Won't be picking this one up, then.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Allow me to show you something:

http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civili ... 746&sr=8-1

This compilation probably holds... infinitely more gameplay time than all the three SC2 campaigns put together, while costing twice as less.


But oooooh, Blizzard maeks they're prizes acording to the lenght of they're gaems!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

 

[BearBomber]

Allow me to show you something:

http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civili ... 746&sr=8-1

This compilation probably holds... infinitely more gameplay time than all the three SC2 campaigns put together, while costing twice as less.


But oooooh, Blizzard maeks they're prizes acording to the lenght of they're gaems!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Authors of Civilization had luck to make core of their game back in the time when someone wanted to innovate the medium. I'd like to see them making something that's not a remake or a sequel. Of course the same could be said about Blizzard. It's sad that most of the mainstream PC games developers who make good games are just making sequels and remakes of the titles created in a better time.

 

[kris]

Allow me to show you something:

http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civili ... 746&sr=8-1

This compilation probably holds... infinitely more gameplay time than all the three SC2 campaigns put together, while costing twice as less.

But oooooh, Blizzard maeks they're prizes acording to the lenght of they're gaems!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

RTS always falls short in game time if we compare to a 4X game that is played anything but a single short game. The design is to different to compare with since a game like Civilization don't actually have a time for how long it is. Civilization could last for as short as 30 minutes or as long as two years, depending on how you play it and see it. It is just a awful comparison.

 

[Shannow]

"Go fuck yourselves", what a nice answer to developer actually trying not to surrender to recent trends in the industry.

I believe he was talking about Blizzard.

:D

 

[Major_Boobage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYoHTbAJlIU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPkCCnq_SMM

interview with Justin Browder.

It are expansions and there will be new units like BW. So you will need the latest version to really play multiplayer as the community will always change to the latest version...

 

[Hamster]

Or splitting a game into infinite addons? Or charging mega bux?

I call that necessary measures. If you disagree, please suggest a better solution.

Better solution: don't do that.

Don't do additional content and sell games with shit 6-mission campaigns? Yes, thats a solution.

 

[MetalCraze]

And Starcraft had shit 6-mission campaign.
And obviously Warcraft3 too, even though the campaign was a bit bad.
What about earlier Blizzard RTS'es? Back then they didn't need to throw HL2:Episodes and Mass Effects of RTS genre at us.
What was wrong with having campaigns for all 3 races in a one game, helping the variety, which always lacked in SC so much? But hey milk it good.

 

[Kraszu]

And Starcraft had shit 6-mission campaign.
And obviously Warcraft3 too, even though the campaign was a bit bad.
What about earlier Blizzard RTS'es? Back then they didn't need to throw HL2:Episodes and Mass Effects of RTS genre at us.
What was wrong with having campaigns for all 3 races in a one game, helping the variety, which always lacked in SC so much? But hey milk it good.

Actually the campaign looks like it could end up much more varied then all 3 SC campaigns together. There will be missions that had they own specific set of rules, there will be units that will exist only in campaign (and mods obviously). The had said that they want to move missions away from being skirmish like since that you can do in mp or against AI.

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1158

"Shack: You haven't shown much of the singleplayer component, and that may be one reason for a lot of the skepticism. Do you think the Terran campaign will catch some people by surprise?

Dustin Browder: I hope so. It's going to be pretty huge. It's really different than anything you've seen before in our titles. This is sort of a level of choice and options for the player--RTS is typically, you're on the rail man. And if you get a mission you can't beat, I guess you'd better take it back. Well, you can't take it back anymore. [laughs] I'm [thinking] of when you could take games back at [Electronics Boutique].

But you were just stuck right, and that's terrible. But now if you get stuck, you can go, "I'm going to come back to this one. I'm going to go myself something powerful and come back here and make this one suffer." At the same time, I think players--we learned a lot obviously in StarCraft, and I think this team learned even more in WarCraft III, in terms of the kinds of mechanics that you're going to get in this campaign. The kinds of things you're going to be doing in missions, I think is pretty cool stuff that maybe players aren't quite prepared for.

We've got a mission right now where every five minutes, lava rises and kills everything on the ground. Everything dies. You've got to get to the high ground or die. We've got a mission right now where infested Terrans are attacking at night, but they're hiding in the ground by day, so you need to just hold out all night long like you're in I Am Legend. Like, "I've got to live!" and then day, "Get 'em! Kill 'em while they sleep!" And you run out and you burn everything as fast as you can, and then when darkness starts coming you have to get back and hide out.

We've got missions where you're trying to defend a Terran colony that's getting infested one piece at a time, and you've got to try to put out all these fires while fighting off these infested units. We've got this mission where you are a lone ghost trying to influence the course of an entire battle. So each of these missions is like a little minigame."

 

[Silellak]

Or splitting a game into infinite addons? Or charging mega bux?

I call that necessary measures. If you disagree, please suggest a better solution.

Better solution: don't do that.

Don't do additional content and sell games with shit 6-mission campaigns? Yes, thats a solution.

Why is it a choice between "shit 6-mission campaigns" and "ridiculous $100-150 90 mission campaigns"? Are you completely unable to see a middle ground here?

What's so wrong with 10-12 missions for each race and then expansions that extend the game's story rather than complete it? Single player RTS games are tedious enough, much less playing 30 missions as the same side with the same units - I don't care how much 'variety' they introduce into the missions. Take that same variety, put in a tighter game with campaigns for all three races, and suddenly you have what could be an amazing RTS, rather than just milking the fans of the franchise and charging them $100+ just for the 'privilege' of playing all three race's campaigns.

The only SP RTS campaign I could tolerate that forced you to play a single side the entire time was Homeworld, and that was due to the at-the-time unique nature of carrying your research/units between missions, and the fantastic presentation/story.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Shack: You haven't shown much of the singleplayer component, and that may be one reason for a lot of the skepticism. Do you think the Terran campaign will catch some people by surprise?

Dustin Browder: I hope so. It's going to be pretty huge. It's really different than anything you've seen before in our titles. This is sort of a level of choice and options for the player--RTS is typically, you're on the rail man. And if you get a mission you can't beat, I guess you'd better take it back. Well, you can't take it back anymore. [laughs] I'm [thinking] of when you could take games back at [Electronics Boutique].

But you were just stuck right, and that's terrible. But now if you get stuck, you can go, "I'm going to come back to this one. I'm going to go myself something powerful and come back here and make this one suffer." At the same time, I think players--we learned a lot obviously in StarCraft, and I think this team learned even more in WarCraft III, in terms of the kinds of mechanics that you're going to get in this campaign. The kinds of things you're going to be doing in missions, I think is pretty cool stuff that maybe players aren't quite prepared for.

We've got a mission right now where every five minutes, lava rises and kills everything on the ground. Everything dies. You've got to get to the high ground or die. We've got a mission right now where infested Terrans are attacking at night, but they're hiding in the ground by day, so you need to just hold out all night long like you're in I Am Legend. Like, "I've got to live!" and then day, "Get 'em! Kill 'em while they sleep!" And you run out and you burn everything as fast as you can, and then when darkness starts coming you have to get back and hide out.

We've got missions where you're trying to defend a Terran colony that's getting infested one piece at a time, and you've got to try to put out all these fires while fighting off these infested units. We've got this mission where you are a lone ghost trying to influence the course of an entire battle. So each of these missions is like a little minigame."

Sounds fucking awesome. I'm amped for this game. I dislike the lack of LAN but these days I do 95% of my RTS multiplayer gaming online, anyway.

 

[Hamster]

Or splitting a game into infinite addons? Or charging mega bux?

I call that necessary measures. If you disagree, please suggest a better solution.

Better solution: don't do that.

Don't do additional content and sell games with shit 6-mission campaigns? Yes, thats a solution.

Why is it a choice between "shit 6-mission campaigns" and "ridiculous $100-150 90 mission campaigns"? Are you completely unable to see a middle ground here?

Why go for a middle ground? Why invest time and money into making standard 30 missions campaign when other game companies are doing well selling 6 mission shit?

 

[Silellak]

Or splitting a game into infinite addons? Or charging mega bux?

I call that necessary measures. If you disagree, please suggest a better solution.

Better solution: don't do that.

Don't do additional content and sell games with shit 6-mission campaigns? Yes, thats a solution.

Why is it a choice between "shit 6-mission campaigns" and "ridiculous $100-150 90 mission campaigns"? Are you completely unable to see a middle ground here?

Why go for a middle ground? Why invest time and money into making standard 30 missions campaign when other game companies are doing well selling 6 mission shit?

The same reason VD is making an isometric choice-and-consequences based RPG ala Fallout rather than a Mass Effect or Dragon Age clone?

A small handful of gaming companies still seem to value the art of making great games for the sake of making great games. Obviously they're still about profit in the end, but are willing to cut into a bit of their profit margin if it means a better game overall.

It's convenient to know Blizzard no longer is (or perhaps never was) one of those companies, because it will save me from having to buy their shit anymore.

Wishy-washy shit aside, let's view it from a purely business perspective. Blizzard's reputation is based pretty strongly on releasing solid, well-polished games. Not everyone may like those games, but their non-MMO games are pretty universally recognized as being well-polished and worth the price of admission. If they released Starcraft 2 with a shitty 6 mission campaign, that reputation would greatly suffer, which leads to decreased sales of not only Starcraft 2 but future games as well. Would their games still sell enough to be profitable? Certainly, but not nearly as well, and the overall worth of their brand would suffer. Pretty hefty price to pay just because they felt like being lazy for one of their big franchises.

Out of curiosity, what recent RTS games have had "shitty 6 mission" campaigns? I stopped paying attention to the genre a long time ago, but you talk as though this is now the norm, rather than the exception.

 

[MetalCraze]

@Kraszu:
It's all good, but I'd rather preferred all campaigns in one game, and what if I don't like playing terrans much? So basically for other races it's going down to the same skirmish to learn everything new about them. Until the new episode arrives that is.
Story in original SC wasn't groundbraking, but I liked that flow where before you even get fed up with one race, you get to view a story from another perspective.

Personally I don't understand what was wrong with releasing 3 campaigns for 3 races even though there were 30 missions and then releasing another 30 missions (if you absolutely need that expansion), again for 3 races. Basically the amount is the same, but the idea is better and it worked.

Out of curiosity, what recent RTS games have had "shitty 6 mission" campaigns?

Games like Total War obviously.

 

[pkt-zer0]

It's all good, but I'd rather preferred all campaigns in one game

Feel free to pick up the SC2 BattleChest when it comes out in 2012.

but I liked that flow where before you even get fed up with one race, you get to view a story from another perspective.

Or how about a more coherent storyline where the perspective doesn't have to shift every couple missions, just because they must use all races in a single game?

Basically the amount is the same, but the idea is better and it worked.

SC1 didn't have a long-term metagame or much non-linearity on top of things. Stuff like that obviously works better with longer campaigns.

 

[kris]

I think it is a valid concern though from Skyway this time. That with campaign with just one race players are not introduced to the others and may be fed up by the only one they get to play. I doubt that counts for me, but it is still a concern.