StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty Will Contain Protoss "Mini-Campaign"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

CantFaketheFunk:

GothmogII:

Gildan Bladeborn:

Asehujiko:

Gildan Bladeborn:
Only in the sense that both Protoss and the Eldar use psionics, follow a strict system of mental conditioning designed to protect from the dangers of said psionics, and have a darker sub-race that rejects those controls.

You mean like every single space/fantasy warrior order in history? Because 40k does cliches too it doesn't mean 40k owns it.

No, not really, and arguing that Starcraft wasn't heavily inspired by 40K is an argument you will not win on this here interweb. The parallels between the Protoss backstory and that of the Eldar go far beyond a simple smattering of tropes they have 'coincidentally' share, and don't even get me started on the Zerg (Tyranid) aspect.

Blizzard did interesting things with them to differentiate their new universe, but it takes willful myopia not to see the extremely obvious source of their original inspiration.

See: Aliens. (Or Heinlein's Starship Troopers if you're more inclined for something older).

As for the Eldar...ELVES IN SPAAAAAACE! :P

Personally, I always figured the 40k universe took a lot of inspiration from 2000AD. You know, Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog and Rogue Trooper for example. But, then everything really just felt like they just took regular Warhammer and jazzed it up with some hard sci-fi.

As for -where- Blizzard got their inspiration from, well, you're probably right. But...that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing as the tone of a lot the 'Blizzard ripped off Warhammer!!' posts seem to imply.

I think you mean soft sci-fi. 40k's as soft as they come.

AND THEN EVERYONE FOUGHT EVERYWHERE FOREVER

I think people are confusing 'dark' sci-fi with 'hard' sci-fi again.

Gildan Bladeborn:

No, not really, and arguing that Starcraft wasn't heavily inspired by 40K is an argument you will not win on this here interweb. The parallels between the Protoss backstory and that of the Eldar go far beyond a simple smattering of tropes they have 'coincidentally' share, and don't even get me started on the Zerg (Tyranid) aspect.

Both of which are inspired by starship troopers. Once again, 40k did not invent it's cliches.

Mrsnugglesworth:
I think WoW counts as a game.

Just saying.

Really? I don't see the resemblance to be honest. Sure it's a social space that a game could exist in but it's more of a colossal chat room than anything else, there's not really anything in it that could constitute gameplay and nothing I could see that would be transferable experience in making a game.

CantFaketheFunk:

Gildan Bladeborn:
I would likewise be happy about that, but the bit where they made us wait over 10 years for a sequel and then decided to split it into 3 pieces has pretty much killed any remaining interest I have for anything Blizzard does these days. You had your chance Blizzard! My RTS needs are ably met by Relic's awesome Dawn of War games now, and I'm never going back!

If I buy Starcraft II at all it will be when it hits bargain-bin price levels.

Your loss, mate.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dawn of War 2 - I really, really did. Relic is a very talented developer, and they do RTSes well.

And then I played StarCraft II at BlizzCon, and it really knocked my socks off. By far the most fun I've had with an RTS since, well... the original StarCraft, I guess. Besides, the whole "three pieces" argument has really lost a bit of its impact, I feel - it's the same as if the original SC had two expansion packs instead of just one.

If you get the human campaign, can you play multiplayer as the other 2 races or are me and my friends gonna have to pay for 3 games EACH in order to play all 3 factions?

GothmogII:

As for -where- Blizzard got their inspiration from, well, you're probably right. But...that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing as the tone of a lot the 'Blizzard ripped off Warhammer!!' posts seem to imply.

Never claimed it was, was just suggesting there was no need to get all defensive over the comparative originality of the Protoss. Being rather heavily inspired by the Eldar doesn't stop them from being completely badass after all.

SuperFriendBFG:

Yeah? And the 40k universe took inspiration from even older sci-fi. Big whoop. Blizzard was originally developing a Warhammer game, but games workshop dropped the contract, and Blizzard thus renamed it to WarCraft. They then made WC2, and eventually SC. They basically made a 40K game better then any actual 40K game that came out. To me that's just Blizzard sticking it to those who ditched them.

Was I championing Warhammer 40,000 as a shining bastion of complete and total originality, arriving from on high? No? Well then you don't really need to tell me 40K was inspired by other stuff - everything is inspired by something, somewhere down the line - there are no truly original ideas, just new ways to tackle old ones.

Gildan Bladeborn:

GothmogII:

As for -where- Blizzard got their inspiration from, well, you're probably right. But...that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing as the tone of a lot the 'Blizzard ripped off Warhammer!!' posts seem to imply.

Never claimed it was, was just suggesting there was no need to get all defensive over the comparative originality of the Protoss. Being rather heavily inspired by the Eldar doesn't stop them from being completely badass after all.

SuperFriendBFG:

Yeah? And the 40k universe took inspiration from even older sci-fi. Big whoop. Blizzard was originally developing a Warhammer game, but games workshop dropped the contract, and Blizzard thus renamed it to WarCraft. They then made WC2, and eventually SC. They basically made a 40K game better then any actual 40K game that came out. To me that's just Blizzard sticking it to those who ditched them.

Was I championing Warhammer 40,000 as a shining bastion of complete and total originality, arriving from on high? No? Well then you don't really need to tell me 40K was inspired by other stuff - everything is inspired by something, somewhere down the line - there are no truly original ideas, just new ways to tackle old ones.

Then why bother mentioning that StarCraft borrows heavily from WH40K?

Rack:

Mrsnugglesworth:
I think WoW counts as a game.

Just saying.

Really? I don't see the resemblance to be honest. Sure it's a social space that a game could exist in but it's more of a colossal chat room than anything else, there's not really anything in it that could constitute gameplay and nothing I could see that would be transferable experience in making a game.

You don't... really believe that, do you? Really?

That just demonstrates a complete ignorance of what actually goes on in games like WoW.

Dark Templar:

CantFaketheFunk:

Gildan Bladeborn:
I would likewise be happy about that, but the bit where they made us wait over 10 years for a sequel and then decided to split it into 3 pieces has pretty much killed any remaining interest I have for anything Blizzard does these days. You had your chance Blizzard! My RTS needs are ably met by Relic's awesome Dawn of War games now, and I'm never going back!

If I buy Starcraft II at all it will be when it hits bargain-bin price levels.

Your loss, mate.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dawn of War 2 - I really, really did. Relic is a very talented developer, and they do RTSes well.

And then I played StarCraft II at BlizzCon, and it really knocked my socks off. By far the most fun I've had with an RTS since, well... the original StarCraft, I guess. Besides, the whole "three pieces" argument has really lost a bit of its impact, I feel - it's the same as if the original SC had two expansion packs instead of just one.

If you get the human campaign, can you play multiplayer as the other 2 races or are me and my friends gonna have to pay for 3 games EACH in order to play all 3 factions?

Every game contains the campaign and full multiplayer. So if you don't give two tosses about the story, you just need to get the Terran campaign and get all three races in multiplayer.

SuperFriendBFG:

Then why bother mentioning that StarCraft borrows heavily from WH40K?

Because it's true? Also because somebody asked what the Protoss were, and I was following up on the "Elves in Spaaaaaace!" response.

Starcraft is what you get when you want to make a WH40K title but couldn't get the license to do so - this is not an attack on the Starcraft franchise, merely an observation of really obvious stuff. I realize the Kharn the Betrayer avatar I'm sporting probably doesn't help me here, but observations of facts do not an attack on your beloved franchise make. I like Starcraft, I just don't feel the need to pretend it wasn't inspired by 40K, or to attack 40K's originality* to justify Starcraft's own unoriginality.

*For the record: a lot more of an original setting than Starcraft - it borrowed heavily from a myriad of sources to create a setting that is nothing like any of them taken alone. Starcraft? Not so much. Still good though!

CantFaketheFunk:

Rack:

Mrsnugglesworth:
I think WoW counts as a game.

Just saying.

Really? I don't see the resemblance to be honest. Sure it's a social space that a game could exist in but it's more of a colossal chat room than anything else, there's not really anything in it that could constitute gameplay and nothing I could see that would be transferable experience in making a game.

You don't... really believe that, do you? Really?

That just demonstrates a complete ignorance of what actually goes on in games like WoW.

Dark Templar:

CantFaketheFunk:

Gildan Bladeborn:
I would likewise be happy about that, but the bit where they made us wait over 10 years for a sequel and then decided to split it into 3 pieces has pretty much killed any remaining interest I have for anything Blizzard does these days. You had your chance Blizzard! My RTS needs are ably met by Relic's awesome Dawn of War games now, and I'm never going back!

If I buy Starcraft II at all it will be when it hits bargain-bin price levels.

Your loss, mate.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dawn of War 2 - I really, really did. Relic is a very talented developer, and they do RTSes well.

And then I played StarCraft II at BlizzCon, and it really knocked my socks off. By far the most fun I've had with an RTS since, well... the original StarCraft, I guess. Besides, the whole "three pieces" argument has really lost a bit of its impact, I feel - it's the same as if the original SC had two expansion packs instead of just one.

If you get the human campaign, can you play multiplayer as the other 2 races or are me and my friends gonna have to pay for 3 games EACH in order to play all 3 factions?

Every game contains the campaign and full multiplayer. So if you don't give two tosses about the story, you just need to get the Terran campaign and get all three races in multiplayer.

Thanks, all I needed to know.

I am now exited. :D

So I have a question and I think it's a legitimate one:

What is going to be the price of the second two "expansion game packs" and can they justify charging the same price for the second two installments if they do?

I think I can see both sides of this argument, but the argument likely also revolves around what constitutes a full game. So, they don't need to buy the Zerg and Protoss "expansions" to be able to play them in multiplayer... I'm not sure I can articulate this at all but here goes:

When buying Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, you are paying for a full single player and a full multiplayer experience. Well worth the price. Now, the second installment comes out and if it's the same price, then you're essentially paying for something that you already own: the multiplayer/battle.net function, yes? Is that really fair? I suppose that there are other variables that go into this equation like whether or not each game will stand alone and such, but I plan on getting all 3 and don't really want to pay for multiplayer 3 times over.

AquaAscension:
So I have a question and I think it's a legitimate one:

What is going to be the price of the second two "expansion game packs" and can they justify charging the same price for the second two installments if they do?

I think I can see both sides of this argument, but the argument likely also revolves around what constitutes a full game. So, they don't need to buy the Zerg and Protoss "expansions" to be able to play them in multiplayer... I'm not sure I can articulate this at all but here goes:

When buying Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, you are paying for a full single player and a full multiplayer experience. Well worth the price. Now, the second installment comes out and if it's the same price, then you're essentially paying for something that you already own: the multiplayer/battle.net function, yes? Is that really fair? I suppose that there are other variables that go into this equation like whether or not each game will stand alone and such, but I plan on getting all 3 and don't really want to pay for multiplayer 3 times over.

If Blizzard does it right, they will probably offer a discount code when you buy one of the games. You can then use that code to buy the others. That's my suggestion anyways.

CantFaketheFunk:

Rack:

Mrsnugglesworth:
I think WoW counts as a game.

Just saying.

Really? I don't see the resemblance to be honest. Sure it's a social space that a game could exist in but it's more of a colossal chat room than anything else, there's not really anything in it that could constitute gameplay and nothing I could see that would be transferable experience in making a game.

You don't... really believe that, do you? Really?

That just demonstrates a complete ignorance of what actually goes on in games like WoW.

Well, if Starcraft II does amount to pressing 1,2,3,3,4,5,6,4,4 over and over again then I really won't have any interest in it. And if it doesn't then I can't see what they'd learn from WoW aside from map design.

Rack:

CantFaketheFunk:

Rack:

Mrsnugglesworth:
I think WoW counts as a game.

Just saying.

Really? I don't see the resemblance to be honest. Sure it's a social space that a game could exist in but it's more of a colossal chat room than anything else, there's not really anything in it that could constitute gameplay and nothing I could see that would be transferable experience in making a game.

You don't... really believe that, do you? Really?

That just demonstrates a complete ignorance of what actually goes on in games like WoW.

Well, if Starcraft II does amount to pressing 1,2,3,3,4,5,6,4,4 over and over again then I really won't have any interest in it. And if it doesn't then I can't see what they'd learn from WoW aside from map design.

That's like saying that every FPS game ever made amounts to pressing LMB over and over again.

If you didn't have to move or aim in fps or there were any external considerations in WoW then you'd be right. But you do and there aren't so you're way off base.

Rack:
If you didn't have to move or aim in fps or there were any external considerations in WoW then you'd be right. But you do and there aren't so you're way off base.

Spoken like someone who never raided or PvP'd at endgame level. "No external considerations"? Really?

They are delaying the game to long

There are some odd people in this thread...

And Mr.Funk is unusually snippy as well.

Amnestic:

Rack:
If you didn't have to move or aim in fps or there were any external considerations in WoW then you'd be right. But you do and there aren't so you're way off base.

Spoken like someone who never raided or PvP'd at endgame level. "No external considerations"? Really?

External considerations like "Do I have the prerequisite 50 minutes to describe the increasingly complex plan that will be abandoned the moment the instance starts" you mean?

AceDiamond:

Amnestic:

Rack:
If you didn't have to move or aim in fps or there were any external considerations in WoW then you'd be right. But you do and there aren't so you're way off base.

Spoken like someone who never raided or PvP'd at endgame level. "No external considerations"? Really?

External considerations like "Do I have the prerequisite 50 minutes to describe the increasingly complex plan that will be abandoned the moment the instance starts" you mean?

I think his comment could apply to you just the same. There are many encounters in WoW that are very, very complex, and the strategies you need to defeat them are very rarely "abandoned the moment the instance starts."

I think I would enjoy Starcraft II. However, no lan!!? Come on. I was lanning with a friend just last night, Age3 is so much better. Any game is more fun playing with a friend. Still, having a little taste of another people does take some sting from them breaking the game into three pieces.

eh...I think I'll wait until they come out with a three in one "battle chest" kind of thing. I loved the first starcraft, but after waiting so long for a sequel I'm afraid my interest in it has decreased significantly.

expected in Q1 or Q2 2010.

Really? I wasn't aware that anyone had any expectations concerning release dates. Desperate hopes and fervent prayers, sure, but expectations are a dangerous thing to have for Blizzard release dates; they will drive you mad.

Kollega:
These news are old. Like, half a year old, if not more. I heard about this "mini-campaign" very long ago.

And i don't give a shit anyway.

Aunel:
what's Protoss?
no seriously what are they?

Space elves. Somewhat like Eldar, maybe a bit less grimdark.

Hahaha, I never pictured the protoss as "Space elves" before but now that you put it that way... It makes total sense. The only confusion lies in elves usually being technologically ill-advanced and the protoss being the the most advanced species in the game...

Though it would be interesting if they decided to make a game where medieval elves were technologically advanced. It would be a nice breather from the rehashed Tolkian norm that every developer has licked the past couple of years.

Ever notice how in medieval games, the taller you are, the less advanced your race is? Elves usually being very tall and very tree like, and gnomes and dwarves due to their ability to climb into small holes in caverns, carry the best weaponry?

Hard to feel hyped for a game my PC won't be able to run.

The DSM:
Wow.

This is the first time theres been something I have no idea about on the News Room.

Yey?

seriously? no idea?

BloodRaven13:
They are delaying the game to long

Picked up on that, huh?

AceDiamond:

Amnestic:

Rack:
If you didn't have to move or aim in fps or there were any external considerations in WoW then you'd be right. But you do and there aren't so you're way off base.

Spoken like someone who never raided or PvP'd at endgame level. "No external considerations"? Really?

External considerations like "Do I have the prerequisite 50 minutes to describe the increasingly complex plan that will be abandoned the moment the instance starts" you mean?

I think he's snippy in so much as people are roaring "SC borrows from Warhammer 40k which is unbelievably awesome rawr!" people respond with "We know, we have eyes." and the retort turns into Games workshop fanboyism.

Yes Warhammer 40k is a wonderful setting, and I like it a lot too. But your argument seems to amount to SC borrows from 40k and is thus without value on its own. The argument hinges on the idea that 40k itself is a wholly original idea, and as people have pointed out elsewhere this is not true.

If I get 90 total Starcraft 2 missions in 3 different boxes I'll be more than happy, I would only be upset if I were getting 10 mission and multi-player for the same price. Since this doesn't seem to be the case I suggest we all take a collective chill pill and wait for the game to come out before starting a flame war.

Gildan Bladeborn:

If I buy Starcraft II at all it will be when it hits bargain-bin price levels.

You are going to be waiting for a long time then buddy. The original Starcraft Battlechest is still twenty bucks.

Onyx Oblivion:
Hard to feel hyped for a game my PC won't be able to run.

You should probably upgrade from that Apple II you are running then.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.