Advertisement
StarCraft II split into a trilogy News
PC News by Robert Purchese
Blizzard plans to break StarCraft II into a trilogy of games focusing on the three factions and their stories: Terrans: Wings of Liberty, Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, and Protoss: Legacy of the Void.
The decision was made at the end of last year and nothing to do with the Activision merger, according to lead producer Chris Sigatay (talking to MTV Multiplayer). Apparently more and more cuts were needed to fit all of the stories into one game - something at odds with what Blizzard wanted to do.
The developer said expansions were something it always "intended" to do, anyway - now they're simply set in stone.
Terrans: Wings of Liberty will be the first game released, and Sigatay said there could be a year or more between subsequent instalments. Each game will feature around 26-30 missions and be a full, standalone product in its own right.
And while multiplayer will not require all three games to work, each release will seek to expand the options and units available - a similar sort of system to World of Warcraft and its expansions.
StarCraft II is due out sometime next year. Pop over to Eurogamer TV for a fancy new StarCraft II cinematic trailer.
Advertisement
Are you excited about StarCraft II: Protoss - Legacy of the Void on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty
Zerg: Heart of the Swarm
StarCraft II: Protoss - Legacy of the Void
Latest Features
-
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty Hands On [39]
-
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty Interview [47]
-
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty Hands On [40]
-
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty Interview [13]
-
StarCraft II: Terrans - Wings of Liberty Interview [50]
Latest Videos
Starcraft II Battle Report 4 [2] 20 October, 2009
StarCraft II - Extended cinematic [2] 18 August, 2009
Latest News
-
StarCraft II website inundated with info [4]
-
Diablo III, new MMO in "next few years" [40]
-
BlizzCon moving to Vegas in July? [2]
-
No StarCraft II beta until next year [11]
-
StarCraft II on track for next spring [9]
Latest Screenshots
29 June, 2009 [2]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-45 of 45 in total
Poster
|
PearOfAnguish
13/10/08 @ 11:04
0
How nice for Blizzard. Now they can charge you three times for the same game.
|
|
CaptCastle
13/10/08 @ 11:04
0
Why not just charge £100 for it and put it on three DVDs?
It's the same thing no? |
|
KingOfIceland
13/10/08 @ 11:05
0
Yo Blizzrad, this is what we on the streets call MAD STUPID!
Fix it |
|
0
How can you say its greedy? No one is making you buy it / them!
I didn't see anyone complaining that GoW was not released in one massive game, but each new one a year apart??? Same for mass effect etc etc... Stop making mountains out of mole hills! Edit : Most people play Star Craft for the multiplayer anyway, which will be fully functional!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 13/10/08 @ 12:44
|
|
HyperShadow
13/10/08 @ 11:53
0
@bengray66 : Those games were announced as trilogy's though, this is one game that has been split into three, which is a slight difference.
|
|
Britesparc
13/10/08 @ 11:55
0
Sounds more like Half-Life's episodes One, Two, and Three to me. Although they're not full-price, I guess.
Still, don't know what everyone's whinging about. It's not really like one game split into three small chunks, it's more like three full games. |
|
0
Ah yes, they'll make each game 'full length' by fleshing it out with dull, quick to make base rush missions and drip feeding new units. It's not hard to make missions for these games, most of the time it's a case of determining how long the game should be before people start getting fed up.
They've said each new 'game' will add new units so that means, to effectively play multiplayer, you'll need all three. Once the game engine is in place and the balance is sorted, it costs very little to make an expansion. Paying full price for the second and first games is a rip off. |
|
PearOfAnguish
13/10/08 @ 12:30
0
"How can you say its greedy? No one is making you buy it / them!"
Just because we're not forced to buy it, doesn't change the fact that it's greedy. "Edit : Most people play Star Craft for the multiplayer anyway, which will be fully functional!" And how functional will the multiplayer be if each subsequent package adds more units? What if your friend bought the second but you only have the first? How's it going to work with a community split over three different games? "It's not really like one game split into three small chunks, it's more like three full games." But once you've got the tech for an RTS in place there's relatively little work involved in pumping out new missions. They just need a couple of guys to produce some maps (that's a simplification, of course). And the difference with this and HL2 eps is that it's made very clear the episodes are shorter expansions, which is reflected in the price.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 13/10/08 @ 13:48
|
|
pervertron
13/10/08 @ 12:33
0
Does this mean that you won't be able to play all three races in multiplayer until the last game is released?
|
|
0
I dont see the problem. Each game is as long as the a whole game would have been if they had combined Missions. E.G The new games will ahve 30 missions per race per game instead of 10 missions per race on the one game. Also they havnt even began the other 2 SP missions yet, but the are a fair bith through the Terran SP so its getting released first - which means we get the game sooner and have the other two to look forward to. Its sort of like Episodic content like Half - Life is doing as they are sort of expansions - but are also standalone titles and each are as long as the original. Its not greedy as you dont have to buy it, and this way we get 3 great games instead of one, and we wont need to wait 10 years between each.
|
|
PearOfAnguish
13/10/08 @ 12:46
0
"Nearly all RTS games release expansion packs. Why is this suddenly a problem?
The only difference here is that Blizzard are announcing it pre-release rather than 6 months after the first release." They're not expansion packs though, they are full price. |
|
PearOfAnguish
13/10/08 @ 12:49
0
"Each game will feature around 26-30 missions and be a full, standalone product in its own right. "
That says to me 'full price'. If that's not what they mean it's been very badly worded. |
|
ChthonicEcho
13/10/08 @ 12:56
0
And how functional will the multiplayer be if each subsequent package adds more units? What if your friend bought the second but you only have the first? How's it going to work with a community split over three different games?
Are you living in the NES era? There's a fair amount of (multiplayer) games out there that have more than one expansion pack (Command & Conquer 3, Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 come to mind), and nobody's complaining about that. It's not like they're splitting a single game into three separate ones. They're making three StarCrafts and all people do is complain? I've never even played Starcraft, ergo I'm not a fan, but if I were one, I'd be celebrating, rather than complaining. Furthermore, an expansion pack is the best incentive for a developer to improve a game. Patches usually just fix what's broken and on rare occasion re-apply make-up, whereas expansion packs may potentially better the game(play). |
|
HyperShadow
13/10/08 @ 13:21
0
It's not like they're splitting a single game into three separate ones. They're making three StarCrafts and all people do is complain? I've never even played Starcraft, ergo I'm not a fan, but if I were one, I'd be celebrating, rather than complaining.
Erm, yes they are. Thats what the whole uproar is about. Each release is a retelling of the same story, not expanding on it, but the same story, and hence same resolution, for each game. In short, its not Starcraft 2, 3 and 4, but Starcraft 2 in three managable installments of £30 each. |
|
PearOfAnguish
13/10/08 @ 13:23
0
"Furthermore, an expansion pack is the best incentive for a developer to improve a game. Patches usually just fix what's broken and on rare occasion re-apply make-up, whereas expansion packs may potentially better the game(play)."
Maybe I'm just stuck in the NES era, but charging full price for a campaign that's usually part of a game is not an 'expansion pack'. It's an attempt to suck your rabid fanbase dry. Actually, I don't even like Starcraft, so fuck 'em. |
|
0
Do we really need a full length game for each race? Couldn't they just have made a few more cutscenes and stuck with 10 missions each? It's not like the plot gets significantly advanced during an RTS mission anyway. I'm not sure Starcraft fans will like the idea of having to wait 3 years or longer before being able to play the Protoss in anything other than skirmish mode.
It strikes me that Blizzard are trying to stretch Starcraft the way they have stretched WoW. This is a necessity for an MMO, but just comes across as greedy in an RTS. |
|
0
Where are you getting your details? From what I've seen, the Zerg and Protoss ones actually are the expansion packs, particularly considering they reckon there'll be at least a year between them. It looks like they've just announced the expansion packs before release, really, and I can't find anywhere dictating they'll be full price (but various places hinting at expansion pack prices...) or even that it's the same story retold each time; considering the way the plots in Blizz games worked since Starcraft, that'd be a step backwards. Not least considering the Terran campaign apparently has a Protoss mini-campaign inside it.
'"[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products," said Blizzard's Rob Pardo.' |
|
0
I'll wait and see how complete the expansions are. I know I was delighted to be able to get Frozen Throne for Warcraft III because I love the single player campaign there. I'd prefer if they were planning on doing the same as the Warcraft campaigns where you got a campaigns for each race with about 10 missions each that interleaved and progressed the story, but I'm sure they know what they're doing.
@CaptCastle "Why not just charge £100 for it and put it on three DVDs?" Because then they'd sell about 1/10th of the copies they would be able to sell at £30 and we'd be waiting a lot longer. This ties into the "story just wouldn't fit in one game" thing, now we can all see that, on the surface at least, that's just nonsense: a game is not a finite size, you don't have to cram bits in or else the PC will just refuse it. What they mean is; we would have to charge so much to cover development that it would put people off buying it. Breaking it up will allow them to make the game they want and sell it. (Two very important considerations). |
|
0
Too many console peeps here not understanding the expansion concept. There's a lot more to it than 'just' creating some extra maps, they only have sketches/mockups/ideas atm for Zerg and Protoss campaigns. If you actually watched those StarCraft II BlizzCon panels then you'd know what other things are included (like a 3D adventure mode between missions you choose yourself etc.).
From Joystiq talking to Rob Pardo: Do you know what the pricing on it will be? People are bristling at the thought of having to pay for a game three times. We would do the retail price based on the value that we're putting in the box. So, if the value in the box is less than the original, then we're going to price it like that. We're not just trying to get people to pay full price for something that's less, if the followups end up having the feature set of an expansion, then that's how they'll get priced. |
|
hiddenranbir
13/10/08 @ 19:54
0
Actually it would fit into one game, they just realised we're willing to pay them three times over.
|
|
0
They were taking so long that they didn't want us to forget that they were making it.
"Jim, we haven't quite 'gotten it' yet - there's still something missing". "Okay Chris, what do you suggest we do?" "Well Jim - I've been thinking about adding an extra 15 floors to my place and I've come up with a good idea to get it and still grow my fortune by 319% per month" "Really Chris - how does that help you 'get it'?" "Well Jim - it doesn't. It's just another cool way that we can milk our ""fanbase"". lol" |
|
stallion185
14/10/08 @ 04:38
0
Haha. Complaining already and nothing that is actually being complained about has been confirmed to an extent worthy of complaints.
The games haven't been priced yet, let alone released, and people are whining about how much the games cost and about each installment being a repetitive bunch of crap. I mean, seriously... just fucking wait and see. If you don't like things when it all comes out then you actually have a right to complain about something. |
|
0
"And while multiplayer will not require all three games to work, each release will seek to expand the options and units available - a similar sort of system to World of Warcraft and its expansions."
Also a bit like the system employed by, you know, Starcraft, Warcraft II and Warcraft III, no? About the issue, I think it's a bit cheeky. It's not the experience I have come to love and expect from Blizzard. What I want to know, is whether or not each game will have missions with all of the races, or whether each race will be featured in each game. The way I always initially learned the mechanics of all the races was through single player -then- multiplayer; aren't we likely to see large amounts of people playing the race they've figured out in the campaign (if it is indeed 1 race's campaign per game)? If the individual games -are- actually all full fledged and now just largely hollow and churned out, I'll be a little bit consoled. |
Comments: 1-45 of 45 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
