Why, Blizzard, WHY?!?!?! - Page 4

Fifthfiend · 10-17-2008, 12:14 AM

Making a Starcraft game where you can only play one race is kind of silly. That's like making a Street Fighter game where you can only play as like, Chun Li or E. Honda. "Oh but there's like, four whole games' worth of levels that you can play as Chun Li or E. Honda!" Yeah, um, no.

synkr0nized · 10-17-2008, 12:31 AM

Indeed.

Part of the fun of all of the 'craft games is being able to play and learn all of the races as well as embark on campaigns wherein events affect and interplay with the other campaigns. This seems like they are not only offering to sell you one third (potentially less?) of a product but also encouraging players to pick a race. GG, Blizzard, I am officially less excited about giving you money.

Krylo · 10-17-2008, 12:32 AM

Except you can play them all in multi-player, still, from what I understand. So it's not quite like that.

Also: Blizzard's games have always been rather plot orientated from a development stand point, if not from the consumer's standpoint. You might not care why the Terrans are fighting the Zerg, but the developers do and lots of the players do.

It's entirely possible they just couldn't figure out how to cut the plot into three parts for each faction, so they split it the other way. Plus adding stuff for multiplayer with each one, as well. Maybe new units for each race or something?

I mean, I don't actually care for RTS cames or Starcraft. RTS just isn't my bag of fun--I just believe there's a whole lot of over reaction to Blizzard being Blizzard.

01d55 · 10-17-2008, 12:37 AM

For god's sake people, they're not locking out Zerg and Protoss from multiplayer or AI skirmishes. "Terran only" is operative only with regards to the storyline campaign, and only madmen (like me) buy RTS games for the storyline campaigns. The core battle.net service that we know and love isn't getting shoved behind a subscription wall, they're going to add new stuff and charge money for the new features - the worst case scenario is Xbox Live, which last I checked was generally agreed to be the best online solution on home consoles.

They're not locking bnet behind a subscription or locking zerg and protoss out of multiplayer because that would go beyond stupid into malevolent.

Fifthfiend · 10-17-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01d55

For god's sake people, they're not locking out Zerg and Protoss from multiplayer or AI skirmishes.

See, this just seems even sillier to me. The single-player campaigns hold your interest because you're spending that time learning and being introduced to the race. How exciting is it going to be to play the expansion missions where the game is going "and now here is your mighty new unit, the Hydralisk!" when you've been playing the nuts off of Zerg and Protoss in multiplayer and AI matches for six months running?

ironymaster · 10-17-2008, 12:58 AM

See? This is why I'm not a fan of multiplayer games. The developers leave the best content enabled multiplayer only where the single players gotta suffer. Everyone makes it seem so great too, like "Whew, atleast their keeping multiplayer intact..." like thats the only reason to live for in gaming...

Jagos · 10-17-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

I could never accept battle net becomming like what they intended. I won't even bother with sc2 with the way it looks.

I have to envision B.Net trying to fight Steam. They let you buy a few games, they still give content for free, but they will charge, and they will add some much needed cash flow to their revenue stream to recoup some of those losses in WoW or something.

Quote:

"Terran only" is operative only with regards to the storyline campaign, and only madmen (like me) buy RTS games for the storyline campaigns.

Within a padded cell:

Quote:

Need a light?

I believe I gave my opinion on story in games. I'll keep it short and would see if Blizzard actually puts the 'Toss and the Zerg together along with the fourth race. They've hinted and I'm to believe that they did this with a reason (but damn I had to stop myself from blowing a gasket a few moments ago)

synkr0nized · 10-17-2008, 01:03 AM

I primarily play these games for the story, the multiplayer is merely a really, really fun addition. To force me to reach it in three separate purchases is understandably annoying, I believe.

Krylo, if that's the case (adding new units and things they couldn't fit), then wouldn't you have to purchase each game and have it tied to your account to use these units and the like in multiplayer (just as you have to be running Broodwar to use lurkers, valks, dark templar, and many maps, etc.)? If NOT, then why make separate games in lieu of some content updates? It's an inconsistent idea given customer expectations and previous behavior and functionality of Blizzard and their products or other games with patches.

I believe I get what you are suggesting, but it seems a rather weak defense of Blizzard. I'm not shocked or surprised that they plan to give us a little and work on it as it goes, but I am disappointed that the amount they seem to be giving at first here is a limited, incomplete product [at least relative to their own game releases, and certainly with respect to many game products and RTSs -- name me one where you bought a new game per race/faction?].

Fifthfiend · 10-17-2008, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Also: Blizzard's games have always been rather plot orientated from a development stand point, if not from the consumer's standpoint.

I find this to be worth noting here. Contrary to some opinions expressed here I actually don't see Blizzard's approach as a moneygrab; if anything it actually strikes me as anti-commercial. This is the kind of decision a company makes when they're in a position moneywise to make exactly what they want to make, regardless of what anyone thinks of it.

Sometimes you end up getting a work of sweeping, visionary genius that completely changes people's notions of what is and isn't possible within your genre. Sometimes you end up getting the second Star Wars trilogy, or anything DC Comics has done in the last six years.

Krylo · 10-17-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synkr0nized

I primarily play these games for the story, the multiplayer is merely a really, really fun addition. To force me to reach it in three separate purchases is understandably annoying, I believe.

Krylo, if that's the case (adding new units and things they couldn't fit), then wouldn't you have to purchase each game and have it tied to your account to use these units and the like in multiplayer (just as you have to be running Broodwar to use lurkers, valks, dark templar, and many maps, etc.)? If NOT, then why make separate games in lieu of some content updates? It's an inconsistent idea given customer expectations and previous behavior and functionality of Blizzard and their products or other games with patches.

I believe I get what you are suggesting, but it seems a rather weak defense of Blizzard. I'm not shocked or surprised that they plan to give us a little and work on it as it goes, but I am disappointed that the amount they seem to be giving at first here is a limited, incomplete product [at least relative to their own game releases, and certainly with respect to many game products and RTSs -- name me one where you bought a new game per race/faction?].

To be honest I have no issue with your reaction.

It may not have been the best move, and I can't really speak on that as I don't really like the games in the first place.

What I was speaking against was: "I'm never buying another Blizzard and/or Activision product again."

Or, in other words, the massive over reaction to something we don't even know everything about yet.

Yes, in most RTS games they give you all the races at once.

However--if you stop looking at it as one game split into three, and rather as three different games which give opposing views of the same thing, it's a bit less offensive--and content wise, that's exactly what it's supposed to be.

Yes, you'll have to buy three games to get the full content/storyline, and that sucks.

On the other hand, you'll have three full games worth of content, and that's less sucky. Blizzard just decided that instead of cutting story/levels or not releasing the game until 2011, that they would break it into three games that are each being released a year apart.

It's not GOOD news for a gamer to hear about a game they've been waiting for. Indeed, it's bad news. It is not, however, "OH GOD I HAVE BEEN BETRAYED AND SHALL NEVER BUY ANOTHER BLIZZARD PRODUCT AGAIN" news.

EDIT: Also what Fifth said. He summarized part of my point that I can't really put into words much easier than I could.

10-17-2008, 12:14 AM	#31
Fifthfiend for all seasons Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 19,409	Making a Starcraft game where you can only play one race is kind of silly. That's like making a Street Fighter game where you can only play as like, Chun Li or E. Honda. "Oh but there's like, four whole games' worth of levels that you can play as Chun Li or E. Honda!" Yeah, um, no. __________________ check out my buttspresso

10-17-2008, 12:31 AM	#32
synkr0nized synk-ism Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: throughout the Wired Posts: 6,857	I'd still pay for World of Starcraft. Indeed. Part of the fun of all of the 'craft games is being able to play and learn all of the races as well as embark on campaigns wherein events affect and interplay with the other campaigns. This seems like they are not only offering to sell you one third (potentially less?) of a product but also encouraging players to pick a race. GG, Blizzard, I am officially less excited about giving you money. __________________ Find love.

10-17-2008, 12:32 AM	#33
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	Except you can play them all in multi-player, still, from what I understand. So it's not quite like that. Also: Blizzard's games have always been rather plot orientated from a development stand point, if not from the consumer's standpoint. You might not care why the Terrans are fighting the Zerg, but the developers do and lots of the players do. It's entirely possible they just couldn't figure out how to cut the plot into three parts for each faction, so they split it the other way. Plus adding stuff for multiplayer with each one, as well. Maybe new units for each race or something? I mean, I don't actually care for RTS cames or Starcraft. RTS just isn't my bag of fun--I just believe there's a whole lot of over reaction to Blizzard being Blizzard. __________________ I am very tired.

10-17-2008, 12:58 AM	#36
ironymaster The eye knows... Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: On a giant robot... Posts: 421	See? This is why I'm not a fan of multiplayer games. The developers leave the best content enabled multiplayer only where the single players gotta suffer. Everyone makes it seem so great too, like "Whew, atleast their keeping multiplayer intact..." like thats the only reason to live for in gaming... __________________ My myspace page!

10-17-2008, 01:03 AM	#38
synkr0nized synk-ism Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: throughout the Wired Posts: 6,857	I primarily play these games for the story, the multiplayer is merely a really, really fun addition. To force me to reach it in three separate purchases is understandably annoying, I believe. Krylo, if that's the case (adding new units and things they couldn't fit), then wouldn't you have to purchase each game and have it tied to your account to use these units and the like in multiplayer (just as you have to be running Broodwar to use lurkers, valks, dark templar, and many maps, etc.)? If NOT, then why make separate games in lieu of some content updates? It's an inconsistent idea given customer expectations and previous behavior and functionality of Blizzard and their products or other games with patches. I believe I get what you are suggesting, but it seems a rather weak defense of Blizzard. I'm not shocked or surprised that they plan to give us a little and work on it as it goes, but I am disappointed that the amount they seem to be giving at first here is a limited, incomplete product [at least relative to their own game releases, and certainly with respect to many game products and RTSs -- name me one where you bought a new game per race/faction?]. __________________ Find love.

10-17-2008, 12:37 AM	#34
01d55 Not 55 years old. Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,098	For god's sake people, they're not locking out Zerg and Protoss from multiplayer or AI skirmishes. "Terran only" is operative only with regards to the storyline campaign, and only madmen (like me) buy RTS games for the storyline campaigns. The core battle.net service that we know and love isn't getting shoved behind a subscription wall, they're going to add new stuff and charge money for the new features - the worst case scenario is Xbox Live, which last I checked was generally agreed to be the best online solution on home consoles. They're not locking bnet behind a subscription or locking zerg and protoss out of multiplayer because that would go beyond stupid into malevolent.