Dude...

 

To get the story of Warcraft you need to buy warcraft 1, 2, the expansion in outland, 3, frozon throne, world of warcraft, burning crusade and wrath of the lich king, now cataclysm and 6 or 7 books and some manga (although recons and stuff are weird).

The point is, I don't mind storys split into parts as long as (and here is the key) the story is worth the price!

Dragon age and Mass effect were split into three FROM THE START also! They made this annocince ment (edit: wow that was a serious spelling faliure there - announcement) because startcraft 1 has all three and people would expect that again so they said "we are splitting them up" (rather than having 3 bits of each campaign for each one).

I don't doubt they want to use the hell out of the starcraft 2 engine they developed (its pretty advanced and probably cost a lot of money).

 

Also I could be wrong here but I though that you get all the races with the first game in multiplayer right? And it would make sense if the diffrent releases are stand alone that they are playable with each other.

Yeah, you do. The other two installments add more campaigns, and probably a new unit or two. Just like Blizzard's previous expansions.

It's business as usual, only since they announced it ahead of time people act like it's some huge betrayal. Just shows the power of timing I guess, had they waited 3 months after release to say "oh yeah we're doing an expansion, it's called Legacy of the Void, and it'll have the Protoss campaign", people would be excited.

If this was my complaint, I'd be complaining that Starcraft II was a seperate retail product from the original Starcraft.  I'm not complaining that they're making a sequel or continuing the story.  Personally, I found the story of Starcraft quite interesting, and was looking forward to seeing it continued.  My complaint with Starcraft II rests with the fact that Warcraft 2, for example, was a self contained experience.  The purchase of the expansion pack was entirely optional in that if I purchased Warcraft II and then Purchased Warcraft III, I'm not missing large chucks.  I'm missing back story.


Mass Effect, one of my personal favourite Bioware games, was indeed seperated from the beginning.  However, unlike Starcraft II, they didn't release Mass Effect II as an expansion pack to Mass Effect, thus requiring the purchase of both.  Mass Effect is a trilogy, one I personally am looking forward to playing through.  Each entry is a standalone entry from a product point of view.  Starcraft II is also a trilogy, however each portion requires the purchase of the previous portions.  Now, for anyone who's interested they'll just buy all three.  My issue isn't that the game has a seperated story, its with the fact that the story was seperated in such a way as to sell more copies.


The second expansion pack will have a dependancy on the first expansion pack as each title is going to 'change the game'.  Essentially, this creates three communities within the multiplayer community.  Those with the first release, those with the first and second release, and those with the first, second and third releases.


Wait, I'm confused here, you've just re-wrote my comment.  As I said, expansion packs with multiplayer content force the multiplayer community to buy them.  Being as Starcraft II's multiplayer portion is going to be the focus in 99% of all purchases, they've ensured that the first and second expansion packs are going to be a requirement for every Starcraft II player, be it a Single Player or Multiplayer player.  It's not longer a situation of "the fans" buying the expansion packs, they've created the World of Warcraft model of requiring expansion packs as the community as a whole migrates.  I, personally, am not ok with.  Its not a matter of hating expansion packs, more of a good game is a good thing.  It's a matter of the hows and whys.  They didn't create a 'complete' game - a stand alone experience.


Actually, the comparison you should've used was 'What part of the story of Warcraft III required the purchase of The Frozen Throne to see'. The answer?  Not a whole lot.  It provided closure for fans, however if I were to step in World of Warcraft, my understand wouldn't be drastically altered, only expanded.  Hence my point.  Warcraft III's story doesn't require the purchase of The Frozen Throne to feel complete.  It's a stand alone entry.
Lord of Destruction, however, is a good example of how not to structure your story.  In order to see the completion of the Diablo II story line, I had to purchase Lord of Destruction.  The only redeeming factor is that Diablo II provided some closure, with Diablo, while setting things up for the conclusion with Baal.  I wasn't cheated, and Diablo II can, more or less, stand on its own.


Sorry, I was pretty unclear there in my descriptions, that's my fault.  I'm not saying Starcraft II is one third of a retail release in terms of the amount of content.  People always refer back to the number of missions as some kind of justification.  I'm not saying that Starcraft II is going to have 10 missions and 3 multiplayer maps.  I'm saying that Starcraft II's story is one third of the complete, stand alone experience.  It was divided into chapters that are not standalone, thus requiring the purchase of all three titles.


And I agree.  However, you're paying full price for one third of the stand-alone experience that cannot stand alone.  This is like all purchases of 'The Two Towers' requiring the purchase of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' be made before you're allowed to purchase the second one.  Yes, we understand that it's a trilogy.  Yes, we understand that's designed to go together.  However, that still doesn't make the fact that my purchase decisions are being forced any less of a slap.
It's essentially contradicting itself.  If the chapters are considered 'stand alone', then why aren't they stand alone products?  If the titles are so absolutely essential to each other, why are they even seperated?  It makes sense from a business point of view, not from an end user point of view.  That's Activision's entire business model, and hence my original comments.


Actually, Battle.net 2.0's regional division is designed into the system - they won't be removing it.

ZehDon: So you would have no issue if all the starcrafts were standalone releases not requiring each other to play (including multipleyr)?

So, back to the OP... Is there some place I can donate to the price on Kotick's head. Figure it shouldn't be too long till a (possibly slightly imbalanced) hardcore fan of one of the franchises he's trying to destroy goes to "talk" to him. I just hope they get the asswhoopin up on youtube.

In terms of Starcraft II, sure.  Blizzard labelled the Starcraft II releases as a trilogy of titles, and then proceed to announce that the additional sections would be released as expansion packs, each one requiring the purchase of the previous entries and called them standalone campaigns.  If they're stand-alone, why does the third part require the purchase of the first two?  If the sections are so critical to one another as to warrant such a shackling story wise, why are the seperating them?  Answer: money.  And frankly, it stinks.


Considering the previous games from Blizzard have all ended on a thematic conclusion with enough lose ends to link into the next title, I suspect we'll see something along these lines.  The Terrain campaign will lead to the events of the Zerg campaign, for example.  However, since it's being designed as a single story, told from the shifting perspectives, not purchasing the Zerg campaign would be essentially the same as skipping The Two Towers in Lord of the Rings trilogy, however in this case doing so physically prevents you from being able to experience the final installment.

As I said, my issue isn't with the fact that the story was been seperated, it's with the hows and whys.  I've explained that and will refrain from repeating myself.
I certainly understand that I am in the minority, as I said earier around 99% of all Starcraft II purchases will be for the multiplayer component and 1337 ePeen stroking, however it just reeks of profiteering by design, something Activision is quite famous for.  It also allows Blizzard three releases, helping to fullfill the Activision requirement of a yearly release from each of their developers.  Between Starcraft II, WoW and Diablo 3, they have 5 years worth of currently planned releases covered and thus have enough time to make another game to arrive in the 6th year, as we all know Blizzard like to take their time.  Considering that Blizzard have taken 10 years to get around to Starcraft II, the fact that we're now going to see three releases in three years makes my spidey sense tingle.
I'm sure Starcraft II will be a fantastic game, and as always its great to see the PC getting some love, however for me personally it's just another Activision-style release, so I'll refrain from purchasing.