StarCraft 2 Goes Big: 26-30 Missions Each, 'We'll Take as Long as We Need'

Agree with previous poster, hated the original maze levels. However, if they do something like this for SC2, I hope they resurrect some of the elements from SC Ghost. Have a nice FPS experience with some elite type units for side missions. Ghost was looking awesome right up until they cancelled it.

This whole situation seem a little similar to anyone? Remember the uproar when Valve announced the Orange Box?

Does Blizzard not deserve to make more than $50 per person for their games? For the amount of detail, replayability and fun that comes with each game I will happily pay over $100 to get the full StarCraft 2 experience. Every Blizzard game gives month after month of entertainment - something thats pretty rare in this industry these days (though it does seem to be getting better again).

This is retarded.

I don't know any RTS game I've ever payed where I wasn't bored of the campaign by the 7th or 8th mission for each race.

30 Terran missions is moronic, in particular. Who even liked the Terrans? I sure as heck didn't...

Now the question is, with Blizzard ruining all of their franchises, are the fanatics still going to run out in droves to buy twenty copies of each game?

30 missions for each race is awesome! Just split those over the 3 expansions and have each release 10 missions per side. That way you still have en epic campaign, and no one can complain or get bored of one race.

This is funny, "We'll take as long as we need..."

So why in the hell do they announce such news, tidbits or even this game if it's not even close to coming out? 2010 is ridiculous when a game was announced in May 2007.

It'll be interesting how much this game gets pirated due to their marketing tactics. IMO you can only dangle a chicken in front of a lion so long before you get bored of it.

I think we should start collecting a database of all the people who are hating on both Starcraft II and Diablo III, so that we can then discount their opinions after the inevitable success of both of these titles.

In the last story about this I posted how it seemed like a PR goof. I still think it is. However, it might have been a no-win situation for their PR people.

SC2 was first announced as "StarCraft 2." That allows for certain assumptions. The first being, that you can buy a game called StarCraft 2. I think that's a legitimate step to make.

Now, however, you'll be buying a game called "Terrans: Wings of Liberty." Why wasn't that annouced at first? Do you think that decision was just made in the last couple months, or had they known about the 'split' for a long time.

Now, assume they did know from before the first SC2 announcement that there would be 3 games. Would it have been a better decision to announce "Terran: Wings of Liberty" instead of "StarCraft 2?" That's a tough call.

What I've finally decided is that Blizzard isn't making 3 games. They are making 4 games. They are making 3 singleplayer RTS games, and 1 multiplayer-only game. Buying one of the single-player games gives you access to the multi-player.

I think the fire over this will blow over rapidly, especially since it's not going to be anything close to a simultaneous release of the 3 titles. However, the confusion and resulting 'outrage' could have possibly been mitigated if they would have chosen a different method and 'turn of phrase.'

How is this any different from expansion packs from the "good ol days?"

I like the idea of even more starcraft but I have a feeling a lot of people might really be pissed or turned of by the idea that you only get one race worth of single player (argueing about the lenght is pretty pointless)

Also I loved to play through the campaigns to get to know all the races, it was a great experience fighting protoss the first time, not knowing wtf, or playing with Zerg and learning that playstyle, so that's something with the new elements that is lost (even if to a minor degree since I already know how it played in 1 and 2 will at least have the same basics)

I just hope it works out well, I wouldn't want to see this game fail at any level.

my only concern is, are all races available at launch of the first game, online ?

as far as RTS games go I think 10-12 per 'missions / levels' per race is plenty.

The point of RTS Single Player is to 'teach' you all the units for multiplayer, we don't need 30 dang levels for each race.

How many of those 30 levels will be the stupid run around with marines and a ghost through a maze levels... god i hated those

I don't know. Playing one race for hours and hours without the option to switch to another except in multiplayer seems pretty poop. Plus there could be a ton of plot spoilers in the MP section of the game (remember how the Death Knight in WC3 used the same model as Arthas?) I don't mind the idea of a trilogy but I dislike the notion that each game is based on a single race. Even in a game like SC the units don't seem varied enough to make that much gameplay interesting.

On the other hand, maybe blizzard is actually committing to a GOOD single player RTS experience, something that I don't think any game has truly been able to accomplish.

I'm going to wait for the SC2 bundle to come out in 2021.

Go big or go home!

I'll pay $50 just for the cutscenes.

Sweet Cthulhu.

Put half an hour to an hour for each mission, and you get somewhere between 45-60 hours of gameplay. In the single-player portion. Whaaaaaat!?

Awesome. Now please hurry up with the multiplayer part ktnkx.