BlizzCon 2008: Starcraft II is a Trilogy - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Prophecy · 10-11-2008, 08:35 AM

StarCraft II Lead Producer On The Split Single Player Campaign via Kotaku

StarCraft 2 Now A Trilogy, Three Campaigns to Be Split Into Separate Games via Shack News

Blizzcon 08: StarCraft II Split Into Three Games via IGN PC

Quote:

Blizzard today announced that StarCraft II will be released as a trilogy of separate games, each concentrating on one of the universe's three factions.

The first game in the trilogy will consist of the Terran campaign, and is set to be titled "Terrans: Wings of Liberty."

The second Zerg-focused title will be "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm," with the third game being "Protoss: Legacy of the Void."

"Effectively each game in the will be an expansion," lead producer Chris Sigaty explained when I told him of our reader's initial concerns about buying the same game three times with a different single player component. Think Warcraft III's The Frozen Throne, or the original StarCraft's Brood War.

Blizzard's Rob Pardo echoed his comments, "[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products." "We really wanted to emphasize player choice a lot more," he said. "We really wanted to tackle more of a branching storyline, [a] branching campaign; allow players to choose things like their own technology. And as we kind of developed [the game], we had to figure out how all there? How many missions do we actually need to tell an interesting story and what's the player's critical path to it? We have to make all of these tough design decisions about how this was going to work for us?"

"What we realized that whenever we put in the similar amount of content that we put in our previous games--as far as missions, characters, cinematics, things like that--it never really felt like the player had enough choice; it wasn't really living up to what our hopes and dreams were at first. That's when we realized we're kind of at this fork in the road. We really have to make a choice. Do we want to back away from those philosophies? Or do we maybe just delay the game a lot and kind of do a little bit more? Or do we go for it?"

The original StarCraft, according to Pardo, had 32 missions; 12 for the Terrans, and 10 each for the Zerg and the Protoss. According to Blizzard, each of these StarCraft II games will consist of more than 30 missions.

Each campaign will be very different, with Pardo announcing the Zerg campaign will contain RPG elements. The Protoss campaigin will likewise be differentiated by elements of diplomacy. In addition, the Terran campaign will feature a Protoss mini-campaign.

The campaigns are planned as concentrated, epic storylines, with enough content to justify a full release. As a result, the games will now feature more in-game cinematics and story content.

Pardo explained that the multiplayer remains relatively unchanged; each StarCraft II game will have a fully functioning multiplayer suite with all three races playable. However, some units will now be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer. "[In] the shipping product, all three races will be fully featured and balanced in gameplay and also in content," he said. We asked whether that meant the multiplayer suite in each game would be exactly the same, and he said, "More than likely, the successive products will add multiplayer content; we haven't decided right now what that is." That brought up the question as to how multiplayer would work if some players only buy the first game while others only buy the second or third games. He said that they haven't made any determinations yet as to how that would work.

Pardo noted that the decision was necessary to maintain the quality of the product, the alternatives either being a long delay of the game, or a scaling back of the campaigns.

More details may become available during BlizzCon, which continues through this weekend.

I'm not really sure what to make of this. The first game had all three races campaigns in one game, I'm sure that's what most people expected to happen this time around. I'm hoping the second and third games sell at expansion prices, $150 for the full story sounds extremely iffy. Heck, I'm already tempted to wait till the Battle Chest and no official prices have been listed. Let's hope each game's single player is really as robust as they're promising.

However, since all three races are supposedly in the multi-player and custom maps of all three games, I'll likely bite the bullet and buy the first title if not the last two. Thoughts?

Ch'i · 10-11-2008, 09:25 AM

I can appreciate their attempts at making SC2 as high quality as possible. Furthermore, I can really appreciate their attempts at not prolonging the game's release. As you said, the custom games include all three races, so its only a question of what sounds like incredible campaigns. Two expansions? No problem.

Cynthetiq · 10-11-2008, 12:03 PM

I'll wait for a battlechest price, but that's always my MO when buying games. I'm a cheap bastard.

Radio Monk33 · 10-11-2008, 12:29 PM

Hmm that's an interesting way to do it. I doubt I'll have time to play through all 3 campaigns, so I'll probably just pick up the first game to play multiplayer.

A cynical part of me thinks that this is Blizzards way to make up income withou t the subscription model.

Prophecy · 10-11-2008, 02:12 PM

Well the other thing I'm curious about is if the three versions are compatible i.e. if I buy the Protoss version and a friend buys the Terran we can still play together over Battle.net.

Nisses · 10-20-2008, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radio Monk33

A cynical part of me thinks that this is Blizzards way to make up income withou t the subscription model.

Oh good, I'm not the only one to think this.

On the other hand, the first Starcraft did provide 10y worth of gameplay. Even at 150 USD It would still be worth it I suppose.

Prophecy · 10-20-2008, 01:09 PM

Well at BlizzCon Blizzard also dropped a hint they were looking at pay to play system for Battle.net or a free MMO type deal for Battle.net to support the servers. Thankfully nothing is official and it might just be an idea that will never see the light of day.

Frosstbyte · 10-20-2008, 01:34 PM

I don't really think Blizzard is going to get drunk on power and fuck over one of the systems which made D3 and SC2 so immensely popular (i.e. Battle.net being free). They know that RTS games are not MMOs. With WoW, you're not really paying for server upkeep, so much as you're paying for ongoing development. That same sort of dev doesn't really happen with an RTS game, so I think they would get a lot of backlash if they tried to do it with SC2.

Personally, I think there's a lot of merit to expanding the games. The storylines in SC were very cramped by how few missions each race had. I think it'll be cool to draw them out more, even if I have to fork over an extra 50-100 bucks to see the whole story.

Lasereth · 10-21-2008, 04:22 AM

Each campaign is as long as all three SC1 campaigns combined. I have no problem buying it 3 times if it's good.

From what I've read there will not be expansions. Each game will be seperate, but all 3 will allow full MP mode with any faction.

byte1919 · 10-21-2008, 09:55 PM

yeh, from the way i read various articles, each version will let you play any race on multiplayer. its just the campaign you get is the box you buy, so if you wana play the whole story, u need all 3.

i still think this is a money making scam. yes each campaign has 30 levels (in comparison to 10 for each race in the original) but i dont know if its entirely necessary to have 30 levels! i'd venture many would be 'filler' levels anyway.

besides, 30 levels is not fun...it is repetitive. Imagine 30 levels of base building -> army building -> kill enemy -> win level. just give me 10 each to at least keep it different.

Lasereth · 10-22-2008, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by byte1919

yeh, from the way i read various articles, each version will let you play any race on multiplayer. its just the campaign you get is the box you buy, so if you wana play the whole story, u need all 3.

i still think this is a money making scam. yes each campaign has 30 levels (in comparison to 10 for each race in the original) but i dont know if its entirely necessary to have 30 levels! i'd venture many would be 'filler' levels anyway.

besides, 30 levels is not fun...it is repetitive. Imagine 30 levels of base building -> army building -> kill enemy -> win level. just give me 10 each to at least keep it different.

How can you say it's a scam before it even comes out?? What if it IS fun with 30 levels each. I don't get why gamers aren't giving Blizzard the benefit of the doubt even though they have pretty much never screwed up bad or released a lackluster title on their main game lines. We're not talking about EA here.

Oh, and just because a company releases a game that makes a shitload of money doesn't mean they're automatically evil. I know people love to make that connotation that huge success = evil, but it just isn't true in every case.

Jozrael · 10-22-2008, 05:14 AM

They are standalone games. I.e. someone who waited til the end could buy the protoss and have a fully functional game.

Also, the MP will -change- with each game, and not be compatible with each other. This is the one thing I don't like. With SC and BW it was never much of an issue: BW is THE game to play on multiplayer. But with three separate multiplayers, I'm a bit worried that the multiplayer may be split (especially if Koreans don't like one of the later expansions).

In regards to monetizing bnet, they say that they have to to have a profitable business model for SC2. However, they will use a subscription based service as a last resort (and far cheaper than WoW, you were right when you compared the relative costs). I think they'll probably look into making a bit of money off the e-sports scene.

Also, in regards to this campaign, they've released tiny little details, and it's going to be fucking EPIC.

For one (for the Terrans), it's a -nonlinear- story. I.e. you choose what happens, and your choices affect the story of SC. Thus no two players will have exactly the same story (well, some will, but you get the point). You also CHOOSE which units to unlock for your army in the Terran saga (and you can choose original SC1 units too!). The Zerg campaign will feature some role-playing elements, and the Protoss campaign some diplomacy ones. That's all we really know, but knowing Blizzard, this is going to be godly.

They had three options:
1: Remove a lot of the planned multiplayer (make it as long as SC1). They didn't want to do this.
2: Release the game MUCH later (they want to get their money, their fans want to get their game).
3: Do this.

Like them, I most prefer the third option. This is also not a financial difficulty for me, but if it was I wouldn't really mind saving up for each one. They'll come out years apart, anyway (I'd guess one year between games).

Lasereth · 10-22-2008, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jozrael

Also, the MP will -change- with each game, and not be compatible with each other. This is the one thing I don't like.

I read from Pardo that the MP will change slightly with each release, but they haven't figured out how to make sure people with only 1 campaign will be able to play without these additions but do plan on making it all work together. Where did you see this?

Jozrael · 10-22-2008, 07:26 AM

Just as you can continue to play both SC original and SC Brood War right now, all 3 multiplayers will be fully playable on bnet.

Just you won't be able to play a Terran MP vs. a Zerg MP, for example. A la Wings of Liberty (or w.e) won't be compatible with Heart of the Swarm, because there will be different unit listings in each game.

Thus, buying only one game will allow you to play multiplayer, but not necesarily against that of your friend if you each have only one game, and they're of different sets.

I hope one MP is vastly better than the other two so the community doesn't fragment too much.

Prophecy · 10-22-2008, 07:34 AM

I'm sure Blizzard wants all three games to be compatible with each other online. Fragmenting the player base would be bad for business. So I doubt Blizzard eliminates cross game multi-player., i.e. not allowing "Terrans: Wings of Liberty" owners to play with online with "Protoss: Legacy of the Void" owners. I see Blizzard potentially doing one of three things:

1) Blizzard releases all three games with all the single player elements from each game in the multi-player code. In turn each game's single player campaign will have certain elements turned off (RPG elements only in Zerg, diplomacy only in Protoss) so each game can remain unique beyond just offering more story. This allows all copies of the game to play with each other online with all the bells and whistles while still offering different single player experiences.

2) Blizzard removes all the special single player elements from multi-player (again the RPG elements, the diplomacy, etc). This allows all copies of the game to play with each other online, but only offers content that is the same in all three games, i.e. updated graphics, new maps & certain new units, etc. The MP is essentially built as a separate game which is streamlined just for online and is made available on all three stand alone games.

3) Blizzard locks the games. Each game is truly treated as a stand alone product. Diablo II owners couldn't play online with Warcraft III players. So "Terrans: Wings of Liberty" owners can play only with "Terrans: Wings of Liberty" owners, "Protoss: Legacy of the Void" owners can only play with other "Protoss: Legacy of the Void" owners and "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm" owners can only play with other "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm" owners.

If Blizzard goes with option #1 then that means all three games use the exact same engine, the only difference is the single player maps. No special tweaking was done to the engine for the Zerg RPG elements or the Protoss diplomacy. So why sell each game as a full stand-alone product instead of releasing the last two as expansions? All we would be getting is new story/campaigns. That does sound like a money grab if the two later games (Zerg & Protoss) are sold at full price. If anything since it's stand alone each game should be sold for slightly less than full retail. Perhaps knock $10 off three games?

However, if Blizzard goes with the second option or even the third option that means each version (Terran, Zerg & Protoss) has priority tweaks to the engine just for the single player experience. Then, perhaps the only way to allow all three games to play together online is cut what isn't in all three games. They make the single player more robust and MP is built around making all three games work together online. In the end the MP is toned down to prettier version of the original Starcraft and/or Starcraft: Broodwar. That said, just because the new MP would uniform across all games doesn't mean it couldn't be more robust than StarCraft: Broodwar.

I get the impression SC II has special tweaks for each version of the game, so I hope they do number 2 but I figure we'll get number 1 or 3.

Jozrael · 10-22-2008, 08:37 AM

I don't really understand what you're saying, but I'll make the attempt:

1: Each game will have a different singleplayer. You will have the Terran nonlinear, the Zerg RPG, and the Protoss Diplomacy game (keep in mind they're all still RTS, just slightly differentiated from one another). There will also be 'mini campaigns', a la there is a short segment of Protoss inside the Terran campaign.

2: Obviously the multiplayer will be separate from the singleplayer. The multiplayer will be like SC:BW with new units, graphics, and gameplay. It's an RTS.

3: There is NO truth to this. All three races are available in each game on multiplayer. I called it 'Terran multiplayer' because it was the game with the Terran singleplayer, but all three races will be available to be played on multiplayer. Sorry if I gave another impression.

The difference between a standalone and an expansion pack is not price, but whether it can...stand alone. Releasing them as EXPANSIONS would be the money grab. Because then that means if you want the Protoss you have to buy both the Terran and the Zerg. Not so. If you only want one of them, you only have to buy one. Releasing as expansions means you have to buy all 3 to even run the later games.

However, the new games will sell at full price: but Blizzard will not be releasing half-ass value. If they price it at 50 dollars (or 60 or whatever), it will be worth that with radically new content (and an improved multiplayer). Blizzard is not in the business of 'money grabs', they're in the business of making money by producing quality product.

I don't understand your last paragraph at all.

Lasereth · 10-22-2008, 10:42 AM

I don't get it, you say that if person A has Terran campaign, and person B has the Zerg campaign, they can't play together, even though all 3 races are available in MP on all 3 campaign sets? Surely Blizzard wouldn't make the 3 different games incompatible. Where did you read this?

Frosstbyte · 10-22-2008, 11:08 AM

My understanding of the system is exactly as Lasereth described. I think each game will feature all of the races and all of their units and buildings for multiplayer play. The only thing you gain by buying the others is new single player content. They're not planning for each to be an expansion a la Brood Wars, where two people literally couldn't play together, because the units are different.

Prophecy · 10-22-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jozrael

I don't really understand what you're saying, but I'll make the attempt...

...I don't understand your last paragraph at all...

You really missed the point of my post.

Though that was 100% my fault, posting while half asleep means no proof-reading before hitting submit and my mind tends to think one thing and the fingers type another.

So I just edited my above post and I hope it's clearer. Also, I did understand all three races would be in all three games multi-player. I believe I said so in the OP.

Jozrael · 10-22-2008, 02:02 PM

@Lasereth: StarCraft and Brood War can't be played together (I mean, u can talk in channel, but that's different). These three games will have SEPARATE multiplayers (being released years apart from one another) and will NOT be able to play in the same game as each other (as of now...Blizz's production model could always change).

@Frossbyte: Incorrect, based on the understanding of the bnet forums and the mods there. Each game WILL feature all races in its multiplayer. However, each game will 'upgrade' the multiplayer, similar to the way Brood War did (just a couple new units), and thus be incompatible.

I would LOVE for the multiplayers to be compatible, btw

. I would probably only buy the Terran game in that case (and subsequently upgrade the multiplayers however Blizz did it, probably patch). This is NOT their current production model AFAIK.

@Proph: I agree that I'd love for the games to be multiplayer-compatible, but that's not as profitable a business strategy. Thus Blizzard will introduce new singleplayer and multiplayer content in each game. If you want the MP content of the protoss game, as of now you have to buy the game to get it. You can't patch ur WoL game with the new units, unfortunately :\.

What's ironic is that with the new editor, we could PROBABLY create ourselves anything Blizz does in the later games and all just chill on the Terran game

.

Lasereth · 10-23-2008, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jozrael

These three games will have SEPARATE multiplayers (being released years apart from one another) and will NOT be able to play in the same game as each other (as of now...Blizz's production model could always change).

@Frossbyte: Incorrect, based on the understanding of the bnet forums and the mods there. Each game WILL feature all races in its multiplayer. However, each game will 'upgrade' the multiplayer, similar to the way Brood War did (just a couple new units), and thus be incompatible.

I ask for the third time (sorry), where did you read this? Can you provide a direct quote or link? I've read 3 huge press releases on this and nowhere in any of them (even the interview with Pardo) does it say this. It says the new releases will feature additional MP content but it does not say they will be incompatible.

Jozrael · 10-23-2008, 08:41 AM

Battle.net - English Forums -> Post BlizzCon: StarCraft II Trilogy FAQ

Specifically:

How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.

If I buy StarCraft II but don’t buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.

EDIT: Upon rereading, if you want to be -very, very- optimistic, I suppose they never explicitly said you can't -game- together in that last question (thought that's heavily implied by the 'similar to blah'). Perhaps they will have an option for the Z or P versions to 'downgrade' and play at the other expansion level. I highly doubt this though. It would be nice.

As an additional note, if all you want these games for is the singleplayer content, I would definitely wait for the Battle Chest offer. If you want multiplayer I'd hop in right away because the customs are going to be ROCKING. I've already begun development on some of the maps I'm going to be coding.

Lasereth · 10-23-2008, 09:22 AM

Hmm. They are acting like the Protoss and Zerg campaigns will be actually considered expansion sets or packs which is incorrect since they all have massive campaign modes and full MP.

I think it is too early to tell for sure but man it would suck if the up front buyers were penalized.

Jozrael · 10-23-2008, 03:11 PM

They are expansions, technically, but they are standalone in the sense that they aren't dependent on each other. This is a Blizzard rep speaking, so I don't think they can be 'incorrect'.

I don't see what you're talking about 'up front buyers being penalized'. You will certainly be getting a quality game for your money's worth, EACH time you choose to pay it.

10-11-2008, 12:03 PM	#3 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I'll wait for a battlechest price, but that's always my MO when buying games. I'm a cheap bastard. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-11-2008, 12:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Radio Monk33 Psycho	Hmm that's an interesting way to do it. I doubt I'll have time to play through all 3 campaigns, so I'll probably just pick up the first game to play multiplayer. A cynical part of me thinks that this is Blizzards way to make up income withou t the subscription model. __________________ "Punk rock had this cool, political personal message. It was a bit more cerebral than just stupid cock rock, you know" -Kurt Cobain

10-11-2008, 02:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
Prophecy Oracle & Apollyon Location: Limbus Patrum	Well the other thing I'm curious about is if the three versions are compatible i.e. if I buy the Protoss version and a friend buys the Terran we can still play together over Battle.net. __________________ La Disciplina È La Mia Spada, La Fede È Il Mio Schermo, Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza, E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

10-20-2008, 01:09 PM	#7 (permalink)
Prophecy Oracle & Apollyon Location: Limbus Patrum	Well at BlizzCon Blizzard also dropped a hint they were looking at pay to play system for Battle.net or a free MMO type deal for Battle.net to support the servers. Thankfully nothing is official and it might just be an idea that will never see the light of day. __________________ La Disciplina È La Mia Spada, La Fede È Il Mio Schermo, Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza, E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

10-22-2008, 05:14 AM	#12 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	They are standalone games. I.e. someone who waited til the end could buy the protoss and have a fully functional game. Also, the MP will -change- with each game, and not be compatible with each other. This is the one thing I don't like. With SC and BW it was never much of an issue: BW is THE game to play on multiplayer. But with three separate multiplayers, I'm a bit worried that the multiplayer may be split (especially if Koreans don't like one of the later expansions). In regards to monetizing bnet, they say that they have to to have a profitable business model for SC2. However, they will use a subscription based service as a last resort (and far cheaper than WoW, you were right when you compared the relative costs). I think they'll probably look into making a bit of money off the e-sports scene. Also, in regards to this campaign, they've released tiny little details, and it's going to be fucking EPIC. For one (for the Terrans), it's a -nonlinear- story. I.e. you choose what happens, and your choices affect the story of SC. Thus no two players will have exactly the same story (well, some will, but you get the point). You also CHOOSE which units to unlock for your army in the Terran saga (and you can choose original SC1 units too!). The Zerg campaign will feature some role-playing elements, and the Protoss campaign some diplomacy ones. That's all we really know, but knowing Blizzard, this is going to be godly. They had three options: 1: Remove a lot of the planned multiplayer (make it as long as SC1). They didn't want to do this. 2: Release the game MUCH later (they want to get their money, their fans want to get their game). 3: Do this. Like them, I most prefer the third option. This is also not a financial difficulty for me, but if it was I wouldn't really mind saving up for each one. They'll come out years apart, anyway (I'd guess one year between games). Last edited by Jozrael; 10-22-2008 at 05:17 AM..

10-11-2008, 09:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	I can appreciate their attempts at making SC2 as high quality as possible. Furthermore, I can really appreciate their attempts at not prolonging the game's release. As you said, the custom games include all three races, so its only a question of what sounds like incredible campaigns. Two expansions? No problem.

10-20-2008, 01:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	I don't really think Blizzard is going to get drunk on power and fuck over one of the systems which made D3 and SC2 so immensely popular (i.e. Battle.net being free). They know that RTS games are not MMOs. With WoW, you're not really paying for server upkeep, so much as you're paying for ongoing development. That same sort of dev doesn't really happen with an RTS game, so I think they would get a lot of backlash if they tried to do it with SC2. Personally, I think there's a lot of merit to expanding the games. The storylines in SC were very cramped by how few missions each race had. I think it'll be cool to draw them out more, even if I have to fork over an extra 50-100 bucks to see the whole story.

10-21-2008, 04:22 AM	#9 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	Each campaign is as long as all three SC1 campaigns combined. I have no problem buying it 3 times if it's good. From what I've read there will not be expansions. Each game will be seperate, but all 3 will allow full MP mode with any faction.

10-21-2008, 09:55 PM	#10 (permalink)
byte1919 Upright	yeh, from the way i read various articles, each version will let you play any race on multiplayer. its just the campaign you get is the box you buy, so if you wana play the whole story, u need all 3. i still think this is a money making scam. yes each campaign has 30 levels (in comparison to 10 for each race in the original) but i dont know if its entirely necessary to have 30 levels! i'd venture many would be 'filler' levels anyway. besides, 30 levels is not fun...it is repetitive. Imagine 30 levels of base building -> army building -> kill enemy -> win level. just give me 10 each to at least keep it different.

10-22-2008, 07:26 AM	#14 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	Just as you can continue to play both SC original and SC Brood War right now, all 3 multiplayers will be fully playable on bnet. Just you won't be able to play a Terran MP vs. a Zerg MP, for example. A la Wings of Liberty (or w.e) won't be compatible with Heart of the Swarm, because there will be different unit listings in each game. Thus, buying only one game will allow you to play multiplayer, but not necesarily against that of your friend if you each have only one game, and they're of different sets. I hope one MP is vastly better than the other two so the community doesn't fragment too much.

10-22-2008, 07:34 AM	#15 (permalink)
Prophecy Oracle & Apollyon Location: Limbus Patrum	I'm sure Blizzard wants all three games to be compatible with each other online. Fragmenting the player base would be bad for business. So I doubt Blizzard eliminates cross game multi-player., i.e. not allowing "Terrans: Wings of Liberty" owners to play with online with "Protoss: Legacy of the Void" owners. I see Blizzard potentially doing one of three things: 1) Blizzard releases all three games with all the single player elements from each game in the multi-player code. In turn each game's single player campaign will have certain elements turned off (RPG elements only in Zerg, diplomacy only in Protoss) so each game can remain unique beyond just offering more story. This allows all copies of the game to play with each other online with all the bells and whistles while still offering different single player experiences. 2) Blizzard removes all the special single player elements from multi-player (again the RPG elements, the diplomacy, etc). This allows all copies of the game to play with each other online, but only offers content that is the same in all three games, i.e. updated graphics, new maps & certain new units, etc. The MP is essentially built as a separate game which is streamlined just for online and is made available on all three stand alone games. 3) Blizzard locks the games. Each game is truly treated as a stand alone product. Diablo II owners couldn't play online with Warcraft III players. So "Terrans: Wings of Liberty" owners can play only with "Terrans: Wings of Liberty" owners, "Protoss: Legacy of the Void" owners can only play with other "Protoss: Legacy of the Void" owners and "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm" owners can only play with other "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm" owners. If Blizzard goes with option #1 then that means all three games use the exact same engine, the only difference is the single player maps. No special tweaking was done to the engine for the Zerg RPG elements or the Protoss diplomacy. So why sell each game as a full stand-alone product instead of releasing the last two as expansions? All we would be getting is new story/campaigns. That does sound like a money grab if the two later games (Zerg & Protoss) are sold at full price. If anything since it's stand alone each game should be sold for slightly less than full retail. Perhaps knock $10 off three games? However, if Blizzard goes with the second option or even the third option that means each version (Terran, Zerg & Protoss) has priority tweaks to the engine just for the single player experience. Then, perhaps the only way to allow all three games to play together online is cut what isn't in all three games. They make the single player more robust and MP is built around making all three games work together online. In the end the MP is toned down to prettier version of the original Starcraft and/or Starcraft: Broodwar. That said, just because the new MP would uniform across all games doesn't mean it couldn't be more robust than StarCraft: Broodwar. I get the impression SC II has special tweaks for each version of the game, so I hope they do number 2 but I figure we'll get number 1 or 3. __________________ La Disciplina È La Mia Spada, La Fede È Il Mio Schermo, Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza, E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense. Last edited by Prophecy; 10-22-2008 at 11:37 AM..

10-22-2008, 08:37 AM	#16 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	I don't really understand what you're saying, but I'll make the attempt: 1: Each game will have a different singleplayer. You will have the Terran nonlinear, the Zerg RPG, and the Protoss Diplomacy game (keep in mind they're all still RTS, just slightly differentiated from one another). There will also be 'mini campaigns', a la there is a short segment of Protoss inside the Terran campaign. 2: Obviously the multiplayer will be separate from the singleplayer. The multiplayer will be like SC:BW with new units, graphics, and gameplay. It's an RTS. 3: There is NO truth to this. All three races are available in each game on multiplayer. I called it 'Terran multiplayer' because it was the game with the Terran singleplayer, but all three races will be available to be played on multiplayer. Sorry if I gave another impression. The difference between a standalone and an expansion pack is not price, but whether it can...stand alone. Releasing them as EXPANSIONS would be the money grab. Because then that means if you want the Protoss you have to buy both the Terran and the Zerg. Not so. If you only want one of them, you only have to buy one. Releasing as expansions means you have to buy all 3 to even run the later games. However, the new games will sell at full price: but Blizzard will not be releasing half-ass value. If they price it at 50 dollars (or 60 or whatever), it will be worth that with radically new content (and an improved multiplayer). Blizzard is not in the business of 'money grabs', they're in the business of making money by producing quality product. I don't understand your last paragraph at all.

10-22-2008, 10:42 AM	#17 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I don't get it, you say that if person A has Terran campaign, and person B has the Zerg campaign, they can't play together, even though all 3 races are available in MP on all 3 campaign sets? Surely Blizzard wouldn't make the 3 different games incompatible. Where did you read this?

10-22-2008, 11:08 AM	#18 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	My understanding of the system is exactly as Lasereth described. I think each game will feature all of the races and all of their units and buildings for multiplayer play. The only thing you gain by buying the others is new single player content. They're not planning for each to be an expansion a la Brood Wars, where two people literally couldn't play together, because the units are different.

10-22-2008, 02:02 PM	#20 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	@Lasereth: StarCraft and Brood War can't be played together (I mean, u can talk in channel, but that's different). These three games will have SEPARATE multiplayers (being released years apart from one another) and will NOT be able to play in the same game as each other (as of now...Blizz's production model could always change). @Frossbyte: Incorrect, based on the understanding of the bnet forums and the mods there. Each game WILL feature all races in its multiplayer. However, each game will 'upgrade' the multiplayer, similar to the way Brood War did (just a couple new units), and thus be incompatible. I would LOVE for the multiplayers to be compatible, btw . I would probably only buy the Terran game in that case (and subsequently upgrade the multiplayers however Blizz did it, probably patch). This is NOT their current production model AFAIK. @Proph: I agree that I'd love for the games to be multiplayer-compatible, but that's not as profitable a business strategy. Thus Blizzard will introduce new singleplayer and multiplayer content in each game. If you want the MP content of the protoss game, as of now you have to buy the game to get it. You can't patch ur WoL game with the new units, unfortunately :\. What's ironic is that with the new editor, we could PROBABLY create ourselves anything Blizz does in the later games and all just chill on the Terran game .

10-23-2008, 08:41 AM	#22 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	Battle.net - English Forums -> Post BlizzCon: StarCraft II Trilogy FAQ Specifically: How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay? The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates. If I buy StarCraft II but don’t buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online? Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft. EDIT: Upon rereading, if you want to be -very, very- optimistic, I suppose they never explicitly said you can't -game- together in that last question (thought that's heavily implied by the 'similar to blah'). Perhaps they will have an option for the Z or P versions to 'downgrade' and play at the other expansion level. I highly doubt this though. It would be nice. As an additional note, if all you want these games for is the singleplayer content, I would definitely wait for the Battle Chest offer. If you want multiplayer I'd hop in right away because the customs are going to be ROCKING. I've already begun development on some of the maps I'm going to be coding. Last edited by Jozrael; 10-23-2008 at 08:50 AM..

10-23-2008, 09:22 AM	#23 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	Hmm. They are acting like the Protoss and Zerg campaigns will be actually considered expansion sets or packs which is incorrect since they all have massive campaign modes and full MP. I think it is too early to tell for sure but man it would suck if the up front buyers were penalized.

10-23-2008, 03:11 PM	#24 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	They are expansions, technically, but they are standalone in the sense that they aren't dependent on each other. This is a Blizzard rep speaking, so I don't think they can be 'incorrect'. I don't see what you're talking about 'up front buyers being penalized'. You will certainly be getting a quality game for your money's worth, EACH time you choose to pay it.