<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Starcraft 2 is a what?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://weekendgamer.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/starcraft-2-is-a-what/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://weekendgamer.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/starcraft-2-is-a-what/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on gaming culture, living among non-gamers, and growing up in the nintendo generation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:14:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://weekendgamer.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/starcraft-2-is-a-what/#comment-1993</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://weekendgamer.wordpress.com/?p=546#comment-1993</guid>
		<description>Isn&#039;t the heart of the original Starcraft the multiplayer?  I mean, I&#039;ve always gravitated toward single-player, and I&#039;m sure there are plenty of gamers like me. But what made Starcraft the phenomenon that it became is the competitive multiplayer.

And, according to Blizzard, the multiplayer aspect will remain the same between Starcraft 2 campaigns, right?  They&#039;ll probably make adjustments between the first and last, but those will be patched in. So Blizzard seems to be basing their strategy almost entirely on the Starcraft fanatics who simply &lt;i&gt;must&lt;/i&gt; own every Starcraft game ever made. Right?

I don&#039;t know about this idea. It could make sense if people who buy one of the three don&#039;t have to pay a full 50 bucks for the other two. And since they decided to split the game after having already basically designed the game and starting the alternate campaigns, the main cost to Blizzard is in the packaging and distribution, rather than design.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t the heart of the original Starcraft the multiplayer?  I mean, I&#8217;ve always gravitated toward single-player, and I&#8217;m sure there are plenty of gamers like me. But what made Starcraft the phenomenon that it became is the competitive multiplayer.</p>
<p>And, according to Blizzard, the multiplayer aspect will remain the same between Starcraft 2 campaigns, right?  They&#8217;ll probably make adjustments between the first and last, but those will be patched in. So Blizzard seems to be basing their strategy almost entirely on the Starcraft fanatics who simply <i>must</i> own every Starcraft game ever made. Right?</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know about this idea. It could make sense if people who buy one of the three don&#8217;t have to pay a full 50 bucks for the other two. And since they decided to split the game after having already basically designed the game and starting the alternate campaigns, the main cost to Blizzard is in the packaging and distribution, rather than design.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
