StarCraft II

[Ironwood]

Let's be honest;  if it were up to Activision, there would already be an announcement.

[K9]

I figure the 'setting up for sequel/ MMO feeling you're getting' is because you haven't seen the entire story yet.  The end of the Human campaign in WC3 didn't feel like the end of a story, either.  You had to play through the Orcs, Undead and then Night Elves to get it all.  Same thing here, only you have to wait until next year to get the Zerg bit, then the ending with the Protoss at some time after that.   

If it STILL feels like "Oh look, set-up for another game" after that I'll concede.  However, I think Blizzard has learned it's better to just come up with new IPs for MMOs so you don't have to cram stuff in that makes no sense.  Then again, Blizz isn't in charge anymore so it could be, "Hay make everything into an MMO, NOW!" time.

I did get a feeling that they were trying to flesh out more of a 'lore' background and a set of 'lore characters' who could serve as future elements in an MMO. But it might just be a hangover from WoW.

[Margalis]

However, I think Blizzard has learned it's better to just come up with new IPs for MMOs so you don't have to cram stuff in that makes no sense.

What?

WOW is the most successful MMO of all time by a large margin, the lesson they've learned from that is that new IPs are better? Huh?

[K9]

World of Lost Vikings Craft 

[fuser]

The last patch seems to have slowed down my load times, talking ~60-90 seconds now for a mission which is kinda silly.

[lamaros]

I did get a feeling that they were trying to flesh out more of a 'lore' background and a set of 'lore characters' who could serve as future elements in an MMO. But it might just be a hangover from WoW.

Yeah that was my feeling. I thought there were a lot of characters who seemed to be introduced just for the sake of fleshing out a character base for a future game. The single player experience seemed like they wanted to RPG elements into the non-game experience, and all I could feel was like "are they doing this so they can make a spectre class? so they can have a playable Protoss faction? etc?" Maybe it's just bad storytelling, though.

[Hawkbit]

They did say that their new MMO was an all new IP... take that as far as you want.  Frankly, with what Blizzard has learned about games with WoW, a SC MMO just seems natural. 

[waffel]

They did say that their new MMO was an all new IP... take that as far as you want.  Frankly, with what Blizzard has learned about games with WoW, a SC MMO just seems natural.  

Why not a Diablo MMO...?

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter to Blizzivision what IP they choose for an MMO, it's going to be a cash cow.

I could spend all day speculating, but they pretty much said its a new IP (focusing on RvR elements if I remember correctly) I don't think Blizzard would work on two MMOs while putting WoW out to pasture.

However, I am curious to see what they do with the Warcraft IP once WoW is 'done'.

[Rasix]

However, I think Blizzard has learned it's better to just come up with new IPs for MMOs so you don't have to cram stuff in that makes no sense.

What?

WOW is the most successful MMO of all time by a large margin, the lesson they've learned from that is that new IPs are better? Huh?

If anything Blizzard learned that not enough people give a shit about lore to prevent you from doing whatever the hell you want.   Spaaaaaaaaaaace goats.

I think I'd feel better about myself if the game cost $10 less.

That's about what I feel.  Pushing the $60 price tag on a rather short single player campaign when you're planning two more seems a bit distasteful.  And it was short.

Still, I figure I'll get my value eventually with the multiplayer and other aspects added in (mission achievements, challenges, custom content).  If I was just here for one trot through the single player campaign, yah, I'd feel a bit ripped off.  But really.. single player RTS isn't ever really a good value unless you get it for cheap. 

[bhodi]

Haven't been able to get Supernova on brutal yet, or kill media blitz in 20m. Grr. Supernova is tough, though. I suspect there's some trick to it.

[SurfD]

I managed to get a "Feat of Strength" on one of the missions.  Anyone else got one yet?

"The Scenic Route" - Destroy all Zerg Structures in normal Devils Playground mission.

[K9]

I got that one, there's also one for using the A.R.E.S to kill the brutalisk in the secret mission that I got.

[Ironwood]

Secret missions ?

[Surlyboi]

Horrible ending. Made the robot baby jesus cry.

[kildorn]

Haven't been able to get Supernova on brutal yet, or kill media blitz in 20m. Grr. Supernova is tough, though. I suspect there's some trick to it.

[K9]

Secret missions ?

[climbjtree]

So I looked on YouTube for a Terran strategy, and now I feel like I've got the gist. I've won a few games in a row in the beginner league now, and I think I'll give actual play a shot. Then of course I'll get stomped and this game will be no fun again.

Anyone up for some co-op?

[K9]

I have to say that the standard of play down in bronze is a lot lower than it was in beta. I'm up something like 20-12, compared to barely breaking even in beta. I've been seeing a lot of people doing basic mistakes such as rushing to carriers/battlecruisers or turtling like mad. I also assume every single zerg player is going to 10-pool me and I'm not pretty good at beating the early rush.

There are a bunch of new maps too, some good, some bad. I haven't played most of them enough yet to get a feel for things.

[Maledict]

That's about what I feel.  Pushing the $60 price tag on a rather short single player campaign when you're planning two more seems a bit distasteful.  And it was short.

Let's just be clear here though - if you think this is too short, then Starcraft 1 was too short, as was Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3. Both came with an equivalent number of missions, and starcraft 2 has a *lot* more bolted onto it for single player mode than those games did. It's not fair to suddenly start saying SC2 is weirdly short when it's longer than any other Blizzard RTS they have released, and has a lot more single player stuff in it.

Re. adding more characters to setup an MMO - it's an amusing comment because over at FoH folks were complaining they *didn't* add enough characters compared to Brood Wars. IN reality, both games had a lot of minor characters added who we haven't seen again. I didn't get any particular feel of them setting up an MMO, especially as you don't even have to pick up 2 of those characters if you don't do their missions. ((And their fates are determined by what you chose int he missions as well, so hardly conductive to an MMO).

[Rasix]

That's about what I feel.  Pushing the $60 price tag on a rather short single player campaign when you're planning two more seems a bit distasteful.  And it was short.

Let's just be clear here though - if you think this is too short, then Starcraft 1 was too short, as was Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3. Both came with an equivalent number of missions, and starcraft 2 has a *lot* more bolted onto it for single player mode than those games did. It's not fair to suddenly start saying SC2 is weirdly short when it's longer than any other Blizzard RTS they have released, and has a lot more single player stuff in it.

Really?  It may be that right now I'm just better at this game or the individual missions were shorter/easier.

And you know what's really awesome? I'm now getting Starcraft II themed phishing emails.  My Spam folder was getting a bit stale.

[K9]

I guess it's hard to compare between SC and SC2 on campaign length because frankly it's been ages. Having a single campaign means that you don't have to do three sets of 'baby steps' missions where you can only build a few of the most basic units. I felt the campaign overall was longer than SC1, especially if you discount the learning curve missions. I guess a better comparison is whether this terran campaign is longer than the SC+BW terran campaigns, and again I think it was. Feel free to correct me though.

Most missions took me about 30-40 minutes on average probably, and there are 26, which makes about 15 hours of gameplay. My actual played time was longer since I didn't one-shot everything. When you throw in the challenges, custom vs AI and co-op vs AI, and associated achievements fior each mode the "PvE" game is more substantial than SC I think. YMMV though of course. I'd happily have taken more missions, but I didn't feel that the campaign was under-length.

I'm getting my money's worth out of multiplayer though.

[Lantyssa]

That's about what I feel.  Pushing the $60 price tag on a rather short single player campaign when you're planning two more seems a bit distasteful.  And it was short.

Let's just be clear here though - if you think this is too short, then Starcraft 1 was too short, as was Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3. Both came with an equivalent number of missions, and starcraft 2 has a *lot* more bolted onto it for single player mode than those games did. It's not fair to suddenly start saying SC2 is weirdly short when it's longer than any other Blizzard RTS they have released, and has a lot more single player stuff in it.

The original wasn't $60 (personally I paid $15 for SC and Broodwars...) and in all those others, you had multple races to play through as.

[Paelos]

This one could be worth it because it brings multiplayer into the fold for $60, if you are into that sort of thing. However, if you're a multiplayer fiend, there is no reason for you to bother with the next to games. If you're a single player fiend, you'd want more than just another campaign (because let's face it, the first one on normal difficulty can easily be finished in 7 hours).

I think it's a lose-lose to do what they are doing if they continue with a $60 price point. If they move to $30-40, that would make more sense.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, it's not THIS one that bothers me much.  I'm getting my moneys worth with the challenges and multiplayer and whatnot.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is the other two games coming, full price.

I'm not paying that.  I wasn't even gonna pay for THIS one.

[Ingmar]

The original was the equivalent of $60 at the time in video game pricing though, I don't really buy that as a criticism. New games just cost $60 now. The expansions costing $60 is a better worry I think. (Especially if they also have $100 CEs, that was a bit eyebrow raising.)

As far as the not having multiple races available for play in the single player campaign, it is a little annoying but not really a deal-breaker I don't think. As mentioned they did work in some protoss missions and despite the other missions all being with terrans they avoided the 'sameness' problem they could have had pretty well, both through mission mechanics and because in single player the unit variety is much higher than in the core multiplayer. All the SC1 units that didn't make it into SC2 multiplayer (medics, firebats, reaver bikes, etc.) are available in the single player so you have a lot of choices and options as far as that goes.

Paelos: I originally thought multiplayer people wouldn't need/want the expansions as well but apparently they are going to affect multiplayer as well - new units etc. Much like any other RTS expansion I suppose.

[Ironwood]

If this thing crashes just as I'm about to complete a gold challenge ONE MORE FUCKING TIME, it's going OUT THE FUCKING WINDOW.

[Falconeer]

Had no crushes sp far, but the game refuses to quit. I click exit game and it stays there for hours, until I kill it from the task manager.

[Goreschach]

The original was the equivalent of $60 at the time in video game pricing though, I don't really buy that as a criticism. New games just cost $60 now. The expansions costing $60 is a better worry I think. (Especially if they also have $100 CEs, that was a bit eyebrow raising.)

New PC games do not cost $60.

[Malakili]

The original was the equivalent of $60 at the time in video game pricing though, I don't really buy that as a criticism. New games just cost $60 now. The expansions costing $60 is a better worry I think. (Especially if they also have $100 CEs, that was a bit eyebrow raising.)

New PC games do not cost $60.

This is true, 50 dollars is still the standard.  Console games routinely cost 60 now, but I haven't seen that translate into the PC gaming market yet, and you still even see a lot priced at 40.

[Ingmar]

They do now.  

Star Trek Online was $60 I am pretty sure (for like a whole week!), and I think Dragon Age was too. $60 is what the "AAA" stuff is going to cost now. It may take a year or so for everyone to catch up but I think now that the line has been crossed in a big way that's how it will be.

EDIT: Modern Warfare 2 was also $60 on the PC I believe?

[Maledict]

I paid £30 for Starcraft when it was launched way back 13 years ago. For SC2, I paid £35 - a £5 increase over 12 years is not a huge amount. (A £10 increase wouldn't be either).

An average PC game costs £30 in the UK, so SC2 is above that - but an average console game costs £40.

In terms of value, that £30 gets you a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of £40 purchases.

[Segoris]

They do now.  

Star Trek Online was $60 I am pretty sure (for like a whole week!), and I think Dragon Age was too. $60 is what the "AAA" stuff is going to cost now. It may take a year or so for everyone to catch up but I think now that the line has been crossed in a big way that's how it will be.

EDIT: Modern Warfare 2 was also $60 on the PC I believe?

DA:O was $65 for the Collector's Edition, $50 for standard, not $100/$60 like SC2. Both MW2 and SC2 were/are $60 on PC.

I don't think the bar is set to $60 yet, nor will it be this year, but it will be very soon. By the time the Protoss and Zerg campaigns are second expansion is out the average will most likely be $60 and I think most of the complaints of "an expansion for $60? pff!" will be gone (not all, but a lot). Though, if Steam (and other digital distributors) keep increasing their popularity, with their convenience and huge sales, the average price will take longer to hit that $60 average. Especially since the only major releases not on Steam (afaik) are Activision Blizzard releases. I know if SC2 was coming to Steam there would have been no way I would have bought it early in its release, I would have waited for a sale with Steam's Holiday sale coming up.


Edit: I thought there was 2 years between each expansion, not 1. So the next expansion will have the complaints, the last not so much.

[Demonix]

I swear the voice of that lab rat guy, Stettman, is the voice of the nerdy kid main character (Kevin) from the Adult Swim cartoon Mission Hill. Everytime I hear him all I can picture is that gawky kid doing his nerd squawk.

YES!  Thank you!  I knew I knew that voice from somewhere!

[Malakili]

They do now.  

Star Trek Online was $60 I am pretty sure (for like a whole week!), and I think Dragon Age was too. $60 is what the "AAA" stuff is going to cost now. It may take a year or so for everyone to catch up but I think now that the line has been crossed in a big way that's how it will be.

EDIT: Modern Warfare 2 was also $60 on the PC I believe?

DA:O was $65 for the Collector's Edition, $50 for standard, not $100/$60 like SC2. Both MW2 and SC2 were/are $60 on PC.

I don't think the bar is set to $60 yet, nor will it be this year, but it will be very soon. By the time the Protoss and Zerg campaigns are second expansion is out the average will most likely be $60 and I think most of the complaints of "an expansion for $60? pff!" will be gone (not all, but a lot). Though, if Steam (and other digital distributors) keep increasing their popularity, with their convenience and huge sales, the average price will take longer to hit that $60 average. Especially since the only major releases not on Steam (afaik) are Activision Blizzard releases. I know if SC2 was coming to Steam there would have been no way I would have bought it early in its release, I would have waited for a sale with Steam's Holiday sale coming up.


Edit: I thought there was 2 years between each expansion, not 1. So the next expansion will have the complaints, the last not so much.

I think you are right on point with the Steam sales thing.  I really think the PC gaming market is loathe to pay full price for games these days because of Steam.  Of course there are some games that you buy on release no matter what, but for anything you aren't champing at the bit for, you'll be waiting.

[Ratman_tf]

I'm not paying that.  I wasn't even gonna pay for THIS one.