StarCraft II: How to completely rob Korea in three easy steps.

[D-Rider]

What the fuck, Blizzard.

I guess it's good that they're letting you play multiplayer with all three races, but this whole "three stand-alone games" has me scratching my head.  Do people really want thirty campaign missions per faction?  I could barely get through Warcraft 3's nine or ten without getting majorly bored. :P

[Roger S. Huxley]

No mention of the price? I doubt they'll cost 40$ each, now that would be a ripoff.

[John]

Having played StarCraft II at BlizzCon:

I'll buy it.

All of it.

Twice.

[Hidoshi]

So will all of Korea and the rest of the world, which will shortly become knowing AS Korea due to a slavish obeisance to our new digital master race.

Except North Korea. Starcraft II shall be declared an illegal insurgent device designed to deceive people into thinking The Party is an evil entity. Clearly The Party is represented by the Zerg, and the Zerg are the enemy, therefore Starcraft wants you to believe The Party is the enemy and therefore evil. It must be expunged.

The minute North Korea institutes its tyrannical ban of Starcraft II, there will be four BILLION simultaneous rebellions which will cause the entire country to collapse like a flan in a cupboard and Kim Jong Il's head to explode into one massive bad hairdo.

[Serene Prophet]

Im not a big fan of multiplayer with RTS, in fact the only thing I like about them are the Single Player campaigns, and I loved the original Starcraft and Brood War campaigns, so for me, this is great news.

[Raze]

Yeah, same here. I like war/starcraft single player a lot. I never did get into the multiplayer much. I like to play defensively and that's just not what wins. Yeah, I'd like to turtle up and prepare a fleet of battleships and get my Admiral Adama on, but those hydralisks are going to be here long before that happens.

 So good news for me, but I think the majority wants the multiplayer and while blizz is sounding a bit vague in that article it sounds like they're getting the shaft on this.

[Hathen]

Much the same kind of player Raze is here, I build up a large base and send in the super-troops, and that never works online. Every time I've played a Blizzard RTS online it was under custom maps like TD or DotA.

As long as they keep the story at a good pace, instead of taking a story and stretching it over 30 missions instead of 10, I'm game.

[Serene Prophet]

Yeah im the same.  When I played, I almost always died first, in fact if it wasnt a custom map (like RE, or Lord of the Rings, or something) I died first.  Im just horrble at it.  But I think multiplayer are getting a good deal from what ive read.  You get the full mutliplayer with the first one, and each game will add some new units, but I doubt players with the new units can play with htose who dont, and they said they will price things based on what they feel its worth.  So if it feels like an expanion, then they will price it as an expansion, and granted Blizz is part of activision now, I think they can commit to something like that.

[Roger S. Huxley]

I always sucked against human player at Starcraft. I don't even know if I've ever won a battle when playing alone on b.net. I still liked the game, despite my suckage.

I was pretty good on Warcraft 3 though... and then DOTA came and ruined b.net.

[Lard]

I never could stand Starcraft. I played single player and I Koreans try and teach me to play. (I should be awesome! But I still suck at it!)

This just smacks of opportunism and greed. With that and monetising Battle.net, ActiBlizzard seems like they're sucking up all the money they can.