Polygon Article just went up about Future of SC2

[Sheliek]

http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/6/9670176/starcraft-2-future-history-dlc-blizzard

Includes Chris Metzen admitting WoL wasn't as good in hindsight as it seemed at the time.

It also includes a big CALLED IT on my end about Amon. Spoiler alert.

[Aldrius]

http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/6/9670176/starcraft-2-future-history-dlc-blizzard

Includes Chris Metzen admitting WoL wasn't as good in hindsight as it seemed at the time.

It also includes a big CALLED IT on my end about Amon. Spoiler alert.


"At the time, the team was just like, ‘Why? It’s unnecessary,’" Metzen says. "‘I just wanna see things nuked! I want to feel badass right out of the gate.’ That’s perfectly valid. If I were writing a novel about it, it might have been great.

Holy shit.

And the explanation for why Blizzard's writing has sucked since 2004 has been realized. That sounds like it would have been way cooler/more interesting than what we got. And why Wings of Liberty is so schizophrenic.

[Sheliek]

I kinda get that mentality the whole team had TBH.

Still, if they get around to novelizing the series, WRITE IT THAT WAY. The Rebel Yell and Overmind novelizations differed rather significantly from the games, why not these ones too?

[Aldrius]

I kinda get that mentality the whole team had TBH.

Still, if they get around to novelizing the series, WRITE IT THAT WAY. The Rebel Yell and Overmind novelizations differed rather significantly from the games, why not these ones too?

The whole idea that you need a novelization to do complex ideas, or that it HAS to appeal to the lowest common denominator and be a total self-affirming masturbatory experience.

All the best video games I know have incredibly engrossing experiences that make you feel small and insignificant, but powerful and able to overcome that fact.

MGS2, MGS3, Arkham City, Silent Hill 2...

All of these put the character through the ringer and make them feel damaged and it's so much more interesting and different than just seeing the same message over and over again.

I just think it's so much more satisfying to watch a character overcome legitimate adversity than it is to see a foregone conclusion.

[Sheliek]

I said I get the logic and mentality, not that I agree with it :P. Still, they've acknowledged the problem. That bodes well for LotV and the DLC campaigns at any rate.

[TheEconomist]

"In developing these fictions for games, you gotta remember, people just want to feel powerful and effective."

I don't know whether this is incredibly retarded or dead on true. The problem with complaining about dumbing down something for the common denominator is that it just might be right.

[Aldrius]

I said I get the logic and mentality, not that I agree with it :P. Still, they've acknowledged the problem. That bodes well for LotV and the DLC campaigns at any rate.

I wasn't meaning to argue with you. Though it doesn't sound like they're acknowledging the problem so much as talking about a stage of their development where they toyed with making the hero fail, and then decided against it because it's not what people want.

Honestly, though, everything from LotV so far has been miles ahead of HotS from a story perspective, so I'm down.


I don't know whether this is incredibly retarded or dead on true. The problem with complaining about dumbing down something for the common denominator is that it just might be right.

It probably is true that that's what people THINK they want. It doesn't mean it's what they ultimately need or that it's what will make the game's story good or memorable.

[Undeadprotoss]

I don't know whether this is incredibly retarded or dead on true. The problem with complaining about dumbing down something for the common denominator is that it just might be right.

I tend to over-analyze A LOT, and so I have a lot of different possibiltes I float around in my head, and whenever one of them is somewhat true I yell "AHA GOTCHA"!

But to be honest, this was kind of what I believed, at least to an extent, I think often problems like this are a result of lack of due dilligence, I.E, not giving the characters the dialogue they need, the atmosphere, etc, and just focusing on stuff like that, that players dont' want to sit through the story, but the thing is, (and I think you're right in some ways to be sure), people often really DO sit through the story, and WON'T mind a few extra minutes of dialogue. It frustruates me to no end that this philopshy has taken root, it's extremely harmful, and ironically it ends up probably hurting the gameplay by itself in some ways because the developers constantly have to contort the missions around the story which keeps developing continuity issues.

I've been thinking about this personally, I think it's true that often the boring, non-glamorous explanation for the problem is the right one, and that its also often true that the boring, non-glamorous (perhaps initially), steady method is the one that works. So what do yoiu think (and anyone else who wants to join in PLEASE feel free) if we as a forum try to address how the plot plays out gameplay wise, so tha we can post our feedback collectively to try and maybe get ONE developer to see it, and I know it's a vague possibly false hope but maybe even Chris Metzen will see it as well, and we can slowly build up that foundation again, maybe, I'd just personally be so happy if all these story problems didn't persist, if the universe was hold and true and even outmatched the original by a mile.

To be completely honest

[Sheliek]

Sorry 'bout that. Apparently been confrontational as shit lately even when I'm not meaning to be. I was just saying, I get their logic, and them acknowledging it is a good sign.

Also, this IS me being bitchy, but not to anyone here. People are actually upset DLC campaigns that will cost thousands of dollars to make will cost money to play. That's all that needs saying.

[Visions of Khas]

Ugh. With LotV only a couple days away, I'll try to avoid any spoilers. But the history surrounding the ups and downs of the creative process are very interesting to read about.

[TheEconomist]

Having even thought about the release until now because of "reasons" but now the hype is setting in. Dare a jaded fan dream of a worthy ending?

[Gradius]

A bit of the respect I had for Metzen has been restored. I consider this a personal victory after my years of trying to get the community to adopt higher standards for storytelling.

[TheEconomist]

Also, this IS me being bitchy, but not to anyone here. People are actually upset DLC campaigns that will cost thousands of dollars to make will cost money to play. That's all that needs saying.

I'm actually kind of excited about these. Gameplay has been the most rewarding experience of the campaign. Get more of that in bite sized chunks over a period of time would be great, if they can keep it up. Holding that experience back because of a story I no longer care about is stupid. Give me more great game play wrapped up in simple mission structures and I'll be happy ... for a reasonable price.


A bit of the respect I had for Metzen has been restored. I consider this a personal victory after my years of trying to get the community to adopt higher standards for storytelling.

I told you one day your missionary work would be rewarded.

[sandwich_bird]

In my opinion, when it comes to creating intellectual property(stories in this case), you need a single vision originating from one creator. Everyone else in the team just add to that idea but never change it. I think SC2 is the perfect example of someone having a vision and then people messing around with it too much. Maybe the whole kerri + weak, alcoholic jim romance thing could have worked out. It certainly didn't with the way it was executed though.

[ragnarok]

I said I get the logic and mentality, not that I agree with it :P. Still, they've acknowledged the problem. That bodes well for LotV and the DLC campaigns at any rate.

Acknowledging the problem is only the starting point. Blizzard admitted similarly back at Blizzcon 2014

[TheEconomist]

In my opinion, when it comes to creating intellectual property(stories in this case), you need a single vision originating from one creator.

I actually used to know a guy with some indie development experience, he stresses this strongly.

[Drake Clawfang]

Speaking as a fanfic writer who's been writing for 10 years, I definitely feel for the guy. It's nothing to do with SC2's storytelling itself, it's just hindsight. You think back on your old stories and see subplots you didn't develop properly, parts you wish you had cut and cut stuff you should have included. And I know other writers who feel the same about their works. We're our own worst critics, and we put ourselves on the line with our work, and it doesn't always work out.

I agree this bodes well for the end of the series. And if nothing else, Metzen realizes SC2's story has had problems. I've always been of the opinion some of the cut systems and story elements seemed perfectly fine (like being able to purchase new units instead of just getting them willy-nilly).

[Turalyon]

It seems Metzen did actually want some seriousness and ramifications reflected off of Raynor's alcholism but the team disagreed because they wanted to make the player feel empowered. This goes to show how the concept of a player character (like in Sc1) would have solved both of these problems.

After reading this article, it's making me wonder what their recollections of HotS as a story are though. It's total absence of a reference beyond namechecking it and mentioning Kerrigan seemed odd. I found it quite peculiar how they talk about how Sc2 is about Raynor and Kerrigan - the human angle - and then acknowledging how different the Protoss can potentially be yet focus their attention on it as the last entry. The reason for this, they say, is to not rob us off the Protoss experience. I wonder if they could say that of HotS and whether that really encapsulated the Zerg experience/ethos when it really was about a particular humans angle.

Strangely enough, I'm actually in full support for the smaller story packs they're releasing after LotV. They seem to be focussing on smaller and more intimate stories that aren't universe-shaking and full of wanton epicness but contribute to the world-building more than anything else. As their short stories have shown, it seems to be a (and arguably only, insofar as what we've had tp put up with in the games themselves) particular strength they have had in terms of story development and it's wise for them to try and capitalise on that.

[Sheliek]

I actually used to know a guy with some indie development experience, he stresses this strongly.

Same, and I agree.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

Mission packs are neat.

Not going to spend a cent on them though.

I remember a spooky time when Blizzard-made campaign packs were free (you already bought the game)

Oh well.

[Drake Clawfang]

Can I ask why people are so angry about paid DLC? If you don't want it, don't buy it, simple as that. But if Blizzard is gonna keep creative guys working on SC2 for years, including making new models, bringing in voice actors, and so forth, it's stupid to expect to do it for free. People gotta eat, and people should get paid for their work.

[Sheliek]

Can I ask why people are so angry about paid DLC? If you don't want it, don't buy it, simple as that. But if Blizzard is gonna keep creative guys working on SC2 for years, including making new models, bringing in voice actors, and so forth, it's stupid to expect to do it for free. People gotta eat, and people should get paid for their work.

Because modern gamers are supremely entitled and have no idea how running a business works, I'd say. But who knows? Maybe an argument in favour of these being entirely free will come forth that is based in reality.

[TheEconomist]

Gamers are notoriously bad about economics. And, yes, they are entitled. But they also seem to think that everyone game company is rolling in the dough. Gaming is one of the lesser profitable industries of its size, actually.And only a few major companies can be so to be really making a lot of money. DLC is a way to cope with increased costs by getting revenue from the people who are willing to pay more. It's not ripping people off. Remember, NES and SNES games cost more, had far less content, and much smaller budgets. Going by that logic, NES games were highway robbery.

Gaming has reached an impasse. Gamers as a whole refuse to spend more than 60$ for a brand new AAA game, but also demand quick updates that exponentially increase the costs of gaming. How do you make up the difference? DLC, of course.

That being said. I don't buy DLC. Either I buy it when it is all released in a final physical copy or a bootleg it because fuck that shit :D

[ragnarok]

Can I ask why people are so angry about paid DLC? If you don't want it, don't buy it, simple as that. But if Blizzard is gonna keep creative guys working on SC2 for years, including making new models, bringing in voice actors, and so forth, it's stupid to expect to do it for free. People gotta eat, and people should get paid for their work.

Let's just say this can be abused WAY too easily for money grabbing and company greed.

[Sheliek]

Yeah, and if they do that, bitch, and don't buy any of it. Everything they've shown us so far suggests it's not being done that way. It's either cosmetics which you have no right to complain about spending money on because they are completely pointless (skins and advisors) or singleplayer stuff that they have every right to charge money for.

[TheEconomist]

Let's just say this can be abused WAY too easily for money grabbing and company greed.

You can chose to buy it don't. Retards buy 200$ Gucci sun glasses. I don't. Some people buy 10$ DLC. I don't. Simple.

Given the industry trend to monetize everything, and that fact that there was so many opportunities and things to monetize in SC2, the fact that they haven't is one of the few compliments I have for recent Blizzard.

Also, stop capitalizing RANDOM words. I know it's some kind of unconscious tick, but at least switch it up with bold and italics everything now and then.

[ragnarok]

Yeah, and if they do that, bitch, and don't buy any of it. Everything they've shown us so far suggests it's not being done that way. It's either cosmetics which you have no right to complain about spending money on because they are completely pointless (skins and advisors) or singleplayer stuff that they have every right to charge money for.

I don't have plans to buy it, not just yet anyways.

[TheEconomist]

You'll buy it. Don't even lie.

[sandwich_bird]

It's probably gonna be the first DLC I buy tbh or at least the first DLC I buy individually(vs being part of an ''extended edition'').

I get the whole ''devs gotta eat'' thing but I personally prefer DLC being all neatly packaged in one big expansion. Then again, I'm also the kind of person that buy stuff in bulk at costco so...

[Drake Clawfang]

I play Final Fantasy. Their Dissidia 012 game a few years ago for PSP had DLC, 99 cents for new character costumes, and 99 cents for song packs of four or five extra soundtracks for fights. I bought a few and didn't buy the rest, no problem.

Then came All The Bravest for smartphones, which allowed you to buy "premium" guest characters for 99 cents each. But when you choose to do so, the character you get is random from 35. Wanna play as a specific character? Too bad, roll the dice. They also released Theatrhythm, a rhythm game for 3DS. The 3DS has DLC songs for 99 cents each, totalling 50 bucks. The iOS port of the game, though, made almost all the songs in the base 3DS game DLC too, for a total of $150 bucks to unlock all the songs.

TL;DR - can this system be abused? No question. Does Blizzard intend to? I see no evidence of such just on the announcement alone.

[Jconant]

I buy skins from league of legends, digital deluxe editions, dlc from certain games (like the Alien Isolation xtra content). This is not going to be an expense im not unwilling to pay. Its only when its crap like Call of Duty or Starwars: old republic, that make it punishing to try to play the game for free that I'll object and bow out.

[The_Blade]

TL;DR - can this system be abused? No question. Does Blizzard intend to? I see no evidence of such just on the announcement alone.

This right here. Tim Mortem (Lead Game Producer) voiced a very strategic approach towards the monetizing of LotV. Missions Packs will try to sustain themselves. While micro-transactions and curator company shares will sustain the rest of the full game (multiplayer, co-op missions).

Certainly, Blizzard has been quite busy thinking about the future of SC2 for quite a while. They know the risks of paid content. They also know the risks of paid mods. A particular ability I admire from Blizzard is that they wait for someone else to take the first step and learn from competitor's mistakes.

My only fear lies within the Co-op missions. Maybe they will charge for early access to missions or commanders, but the game mode needs to be free if they really want to attract new casual players.

[ragnarok]

You'll buy it. Don't even lie.

No I won't. Not just yet.

[TheEconomist]

I get the whole ''devs gotta eat'' thing but I personally prefer DLC being all neatly packaged in one big expansion. Then again, I'm also the kind of person that buy stuff in bulk at costco so...

This is me in a nutshell.


No I won't. Not just yet.

Yes, yes you WILL.

[ragnarok]

Certainly, Blizzard has been quite busy thinking about the future of SC2 for quite a while. They know the risks of paid content. They also know the risks of paid mods. A particular ability I admire from Blizzard is that they wait for someone else to take the first step and learn from competitor's mistakes.


It's a shame the players don't seem to recognize this. Many I spoke to online said this is nothing more than Blizzard stalling simply for the hell of it.

[The_Blade]

It's a shame the players don't seem to recognize this. Many I spoke to online said this is nothing more than Blizzard stalling simply for the hell of it.

Yea, it's bad; but we can all relate to this feeling. I do not blame these players. Why would you trust a company's vote for change when they just became transparent after 5 years after the original release? Depending on who you are, you've been on the StarCraft II veteran train for 3-8 years. During that time: no core mechanic changed, the apparent focus of development was multiplayer, and the community only seemed to dilute.

"Legacy of the Void" is to SC2 as "Reaper of Souls" was for D3. The only difference is that we have been waiting for this for five years as opposed to two.

Personal Rant:
This interview hit home in a lot of ways. For me it was perfect, but full of nostalgia.

The latest engagements with the community and the forward attitude from Blizzard has been delightful. Everything can be related to the golden age of WoL theorycrafting, with the exception that now Blizzard is actively part of the discussion. David Kim's latest attitude is priceless. "We do not know nothing", became the unofficial multiplayer development motto. The fact that they openly changed everything about SC2 with LotV means a lot to an old fart like me.

I can not deny that the only thing I feel right now for the devs is respect for admitting they fucked up some things. However, it has not always been that way. I felt cheated because of WoL's and HotS executions. I felt entitled to think less of people who thought of their design. Metzen in particular was my focus for so many rants. I remember clearly blowing up after a Q&A where he said, "we love the way we write our games, and will not write them any other way". I've been hateful.

This interview opened my eyes to what a monster SC2 has been to develop. The changes in writers. When half of the team left to make Heroes of the Storm. When Rob Pardo left. The agonizing debate of sticking to the trilogy. The terrible attitude at MLG. The forced WCS seasons. We have always known, but I've never acknowledged it.

I believe in Blizzard and their ability to drive SC2 back into a prestige spot as a game, not an e-sport.

This article makes me so sad because it's what I dreamed of writing about when I joined the staff 5 years ago... I can only look back and see how many people we've lost. How many left SC2. How many left SCL... How many projects lie dead in a hard drive back at home. How many sites folded against Reddit's lack of personality. It's an echo of how hard it is to produce quality content for the most competitive game in the world.

I did not go to BlizzCon this year, but in a strange way I felt even more connected to the SC folks I barely know on chat logs or by a few words of RL conversation. I am away from my computer rig that allows me to mod and game. I am away from my usual game buddies. I still feel more connected to everyone else. Basically, I've been on a vacation of my tunnel vision, ladder anxiety, and procrastination. I can now see the whole picture, and it makes me happy.

*cries*

Damn it, Sarov! You were meant to bring the e-cookies next meeting...

TLDR: I am feeling like the Grinch. Still love SC.

[Drake Clawfang]

How many projects lie dead in a hard drive back at home.

Guilty as charged. If I had the mental capacity to understand SC2's editor, I'd have remade the Mar Sara Missions 4 years ago like I wanted to.

But it's not just SC2 driving people away. People grow up, they change, they move on. I still play SC2, I'm just not into the series as much as I was once. Happens all the time.

[ragnarok]

Guilty as charged. If I had the mental capacity to understand SC2's editor, I'd have remade the Mar Sara Missions 4 years ago like I wanted to.

But it's not just SC2 driving people away. People grow up, they change, they move on. I still play SC2, I'm just not into the series as much as I was once. Happens all the time.

It's also due to the incompetence of the developers. From what's been seen it appears there's only going to be 19 missions to LotV. That means instead of doing what the community wanted after HotS's 20 mission campaign was too short, they decided to do the OPPOSITE and make LotV even shorter.

[Visions of Khas]

From what's been seen it appears there's only going to be 19 missions to LotV.
I'm also worried about the number of missions. While Blizzard seems to perpetuate the claim that LotV will surpass WoL and HotS in terms of number of missions, we've been presented with very little proof of that.

[ragnarok]

I'm also worried about the number of missions. While Blizzard seems to perpetuate the claim that LotV will surpass WoL and HotS in terms of number of missions, we've been presented with very little proof of that.

The way I see it is like this: when they said it'd be longer than HotS, that meant including the 3 prologue missions and 3 epilogue missions. Therefore, if we do that, then the total would be 25. To me however, the prologue missions don't count.

[Turalyon]

I don't mind the "short" (it's rather subjective if you ask me) mission count. I think it actually suited and focused the limited story that was HotS. It moved along at a clip and was over before the poor taste could linger (for some at least). Compared to WoL, the mission bloat was fun to play through but the story was so bloated and disjointed it felt like a pointless slog until the final series of missions and exposition were just unceremoniously dumped onto you.

Here's hoping that the short mission count is accompanied with better writing in LotV.

[ragnarok]

I don't mind the "short" (it's rather subjective if you ask me) mission count. I think it actually suited and focused the limited story that was HotS. It moved along at a clip and was over before the poor taste could linger (for some at least). Compared to WoL, the mission bloat was fun to play through but the story was so bloated and disjointed it felt like a pointless slog until the final series of missions and exposition were just unceremoniously dumped onto you.

Here's hoping that the short mission count is accompanied with better writing in LotV.

I'll accept less missions for better writing as well. But I didn't hold my breath before when they began revealing some info at LotV last year, I won't hold my breath now.

[Nissa]

Less missions for better writing? I dunno about that....I'll accept more missions and less writing -- because the less writing there is, the harder it is to screw up. :D

Eh, mostly kidding. To me the story had its "midochlorians" moment back in WoL (retconning the Overmind's motivations), so I've given up on it already. It's honestly shocking how comparable this is to the Star Wars prequels. The first one was disjointed and highly questionable, the second one was right out, and the third is where they try to make things enjoyable again, but don't quite make it back into good territory.

It's hard to get mad specifically at Blizzard when I see this kind of bad writing repeat itself all over. Like original Star Wars vs the prequels, the LOTR trilogy vs the Hobbit trilogy, old Star Trek vs new, etc. In essence, this is failure in writing for main media in general, not simply in Blizzard or even gaming. It's because of the period we belong in. For the first time, visuals are technologically advanced to the point where they can intrigue people in the absence of good writing. My greatest fear is that the current generation doesn't realize how far downhill storytelling has gone, and they think all this crap is even half so interesting as the great stories of 100 years ago.

But to get down to specifics, I think gaming companies should toss the whole "relatable" thing. My enjoyment of a character doesn't depend on how like me they are. I like Mengsk and Aldaris, despite not being male, a leader, or someone with hilarious vocabulary. Maybe some characters should be relatable, but on the whole it's not even close to what makes a character or a story interesting.

[Drake Clawfang]

To me the story had its "midochlorians" moment back in WoL (retconning the Overmind's motivations), so I've given up on it already. It's honestly shocking how comparable this is to the Star Wars prequels. The first one was disjointed and highly questionable, the second one was right out, and the third is where they try to make things enjoyable again, but don't quite make it back into good territory.

And also like Star Wars, the originals were cheesy and problematic too, but people put them on a pedestal and treat their flaws like affectionate foibles. :trollface:

I think the problem with SC2 is, as Metzen said: focusing on making players feel awesome rather than tell a good story with wins, losses, setbacks, and hardship. Thus we get Raynor being the savior of humanity that never fails and never gives up, and Kerrigan that effortlessly reunites the zerg and becomes stronger than ever. Hopefully LotV solves that problem.

Also a thought occurred: how funny it is that Blizzard is doing all these short stories to fill in the missing lore of the protoss, like "oh crap, we were so focused on the Raynor-Kerrigan-Mengsk story, we forgot to include the protoss in shit!"


visuals are technologically advanced to the point where they can intrigue people in the absence of good writing.

Film-wise, yes, but we've also undergone a revolution in television with all the awesome shows on TV these days. I think it was Kevin Spacey who said "10 years ago, people got into television to act and the serious acting was the movies. These days it's reversed, actors are in movies for spectacle and paychecks, but television is where the good writing and good acting are coming back."

[Nissa]

And also like Star Wars, the originals were cheesy and problematic too, but people put them on a pedestal and treat their flaws like affectionate foibles. :trollface:

Oh hush you. Both the original trilogy and SC were good despite their flaws. The prequels/sequels sucked because their flaws outweighed their good aspects, as well as retconning information present in the originals.


I think the problem with SC2 is, as Metzen said: focusing on making players feel awesome rather than tell a good story with wins, losses, setbacks, and hardship. Thus we get Raynor being the savior of humanity that never fails and never gives up, and Kerrigan that effortlessly reunites the zerg and becomes stronger than ever. Hopefully LotV solves that problem.

Also a thought occurred: how funny it is that Blizzard is doing all these short stories to fill in the missing lore of the protoss, like "oh crap, we were so focused on the Raynor-Kerrigan-Mengsk story, we forgot to include the protoss in shit!"

The ultimate irony of that is that in the older games, all the most plot-relevant stuff was happening in the Toss/Zerg side of things, while the Terrans were usually just squabbling over their own holdings for most of their missions.

But yes, the "feelings" thing is right out. Good feelings come from good experiences, not the other way around.


Film-wise, yes, but we've also undergone a revolution in television with all the awesome shows on TV these days. I think it was Kevin Spacey who said "10 years ago, people got into television to act and the serious acting was the movies. These days it's reversed, actors are in movies for spectacle and paychecks, but television is where the good writing and good acting are coming back."

I disagree, somewhat, because I hate modern television too. I don't feel the problems with Hollywood are absent in television, but what you're saying isn't necessarily untrue either. Because shows lack the budget of blockbusters, they can't waste all their effort on visuals over writing.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

Can I ask why people are so angry about paid DLC? If you don't want it, don't buy it, simple as that. But if Blizzard is gonna keep creative guys working on SC2 for years, including making new models, bringing in voice actors, and so forth, it's stupid to expect to do it for free. People gotta eat, and people should get paid for their work.

Because it's content that should have already been in the game, having paid at least 120+ for one game (all of SC2)

And no, it's not "entitled" I hate that word and would wish that it was BANNED from the english language with the punishment of eternal torture.

that's the EZPZ shill excuse to defend corporate scumbaggery and not making full games on release or charging for extra things when you've already split the game up into three hefty priced installments

Seriously, that argument has no merit to it whatsoever.

every time I see that I wish the government would send jackbooted thugs to kidnap that person and make them "vanish"

[Visions of Khas]

Whelp, got my copy. Loading it up now. See y'all on the flip side. :D

[The_Blade]

Size alone, should help people understand the difference between an old 2 GB game from the 20-30 GB monsters we get today.

Games are made for the sole entertainment of consumers. If they were not at least decent, no one would buy them. Someone does and a lot of people agree with this. Developers earn money through them. Successful games follow successful models.

If you do not like it, that's an opinion. A very narrow opinion, because you only believe in one type of business model that died 5 years ago. Denying the validity of everything else just shows how little you understand about "capitalist pigs" and the first world gaming industry you are part of.

The fact is Blizzard might not be good at releasing great games, but they are the best in the industry at polishing them post release. Without this strategy, they would never release anything in an attempt to release a "full" game.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

If they don't want to release full games, fuck them.

I won't buy DLC and I will complain about it, whether others agree or not. unless it's a full fledged expansion pack it's shit and the company deserves the derision it gets.

people can whine and stick up for the company about how haaaaaard it is to make games these days, and all the other excuses these companies make.

I am physically unable to give a shit about how "difficult it is" to make a video game when you are a multi-million dollar company that get's a near endless stream of cash from WoW.

And after seeing LotV and it's cinematics, (and knowing the idiotic decisions and sometimes LACK of decisions made in MP) I would suggest waiting for a big 'ole price drop on this game

And I just learned there was only 19 regular missions.

holy shit, that is like the trifecta of bad.

Bad MP
Low amount of Campaign missions
In some aspects a worse story than the other two.. (IN SOME ASPECTS)

I'm going to wait until this shit is 10 bucks, fuck this.

[Visions of Khas]

The son of a bitch won't load...

[Gradius]

Because it's content that should have already been in the game, having paid at least 120+ for one game (all of SC2)

And no, it's not "entitled" I hate that word and would wish that it was BANNED from the english language with the punishment of eternal torture.

that's the EZPZ shill excuse to defend corporate scumbaggery and not making full games on release or charging for extra things when you've already split the game up into three hefty priced installments

Seriously, that argument has no merit to it whatsoever.

every time I see that I wish the government would send jackbooted thugs to kidnap that person and make them "vanish"
Screwing over loyal fans by making us pay 120 dollars over time is a dick move, but it's completely unrelated to DLC. Why exactly should a Nova mini campaign have been released with SC2? It has nothing to do with the rest of the story.

[ragnarok]

If they don't want to release full games, fuck them.

I won't buy DLC and I will complain about it, whether others agree or not. unless it's a full fledged expansion pack it's shit and the company deserves the derision it gets.

people can whine and stick up for the company about how haaaaaard it is to make games these days, and all the other excuses these companies make.

I am physically unable to give a shit about how "difficult it is" to make a video game when you are a multi-million dollar company that get's a near endless stream of cash from WoW.

And after seeing LotV and it's cinematics, (and knowing the idiotic decisions and sometimes LACK of decisions made in MP) I would suggest waiting for a big 'ole price drop on this game

And I just learned there was only 19 regular missions.

holy shit, that is like the trifecta of bad.

Bad MP
Low amount of Campaign missions
In some aspects a worse story than the other two.. (IN SOME ASPECTS)

I'm going to wait until this shit is 10 bucks, fuck this.

It's really going to be that bad? I'll still buy it soon for the sake of it all, but I'd wish you'd quit criticizing it as a total failure.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

Screwing over loyal fans by making us pay 120 dollars over time is a dick move, but it's completely unrelated to DLC. Why exactly should a Nova mini campaign have been released with SC2? It has nothing to do with the rest of the story.

Because paying for a mini campaign is bullshit.

and i'll stick to that 'till I die.

I do not support DLC, unless it's full expansion packs, especially seeing how bad all three of these campaigns were.

Options I support:
Free mini campaign
OR
Included with Game (if it takes longer so be it, I'm surprisingly patient these days)
OR
Don't bother, go make more WoW trash if you're cash strapped -_-


It's really going to be that bad? I'll still buy it soon for the sake of it all, but I'd wish you'd quit criticizing it as a total failure.

You will never get that wish.

because what I saw made me legitimately upset.

TOTAL FAILURE

I no longer consider SC2 canon, i'm going the route of the Undermind, and will just pretend SC2 was a goofy alternate universe where everyone was drinking bleach

[Nissa]

While I agree that SC2 should be banished to the bleach drinking universe, there's no point in going all up in arms about Nova's thing. To be honest, I'd take a decent game like Ghost was supposed to be. If that had come out, even with "outdated" graphics, it would be acceptable. As is, maybe they've got some cool idea for her, like a plot Metzen couldn't do.

That's the thing that really bothers me about games these days. Or gamers, technology, whatever you want to blame. People expect games to be graphical powerhouses, when to me games like Mega Man and Star Fox SNES are purely gorgeous. Sometimes I can't even tell why people are saying a game has bad graphics. Like, I seriously can't tell at all. I mean, if a game is fun to look at, then it doesn't really matter how many pixels it is, y'know? But then all these developers get caught up in the HD craze, adding a lot of graphical power that will add pretty much zero extra enjoyability to my gaming experience.

[Turalyon]

Because paying for a mini campaign is bullshit.

Kinda like how they split Sc2 into 3 parts? (Couldn't resist opening that old chestnut again.)

[ragnarok]

You will never get that wish.

because what I saw made me legitimately upset.

TOTAL FAILURE

I no longer consider SC2 canon, i'm going the route of the Undermind, and will just pretend SC2 was a goofy alternate universe where everyone was drinking bleach

I feel you're taking this too emotionally.