Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Starcraft 2's advertisement and game launch data deleted?

I don't know what the hell tildes is but I am Yaguer, good enough.

I posted a paragraph underneath it explaining how it was listed in an PC list of game dates from GameStop, plus a Youtube video of a recording of an conversation by people inside the game industry aware of Starcraft 2's releases and all that.

So why was it deleted? I backed myself up with that video and its possible for me to get a picture of that list also.

It is an unreleased game article but anything in it could be speculation, yet I backed up mine with good sources so whats the dealio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaguer (talk • contribs) 16:13, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

A tilde is ~ which you do by pressing Shift+` (the key left of 1). Four tildes (~~~~) sign your post with your username and the date and time of the post.

As for why it was deleted, I can see a few problems with it. First, the only linked reference is a video. Videos do not make good references because people don't want to watch ten minutes of video to see the five seconds you're referencing, especially if they have slow connections. Textual references are much more searchable. If no gaming site respects the source of the video enough to do a text piece on it, it's not verifiable. Second, you reference GameSpot without giving a link to where on GameSpot we can find this information to verify it. Third, I can't tell if this is just GameSpot speculating or if they got this from Blizzard, or how concrete Blizzard was on these dates if they did come directly from the horse's mouth.

If you post a good link to a page where it says this in text, it might be acceptable (it depends on if the information seems to come from Blizzard, and how concrete the data is). If you think the edit may be reverted again, post the text that you are trying to insert here on the talk page, along with where you got the information, and we'll try to evaluate it to see whether it's just a rumour or whether it's worth inserting into the article.

Thanks for your contribution! Nimelennar 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We've addressed this before, see [1] --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with Nimelennar's point, the "Videos are bad references" argument he uses is blatantly false. The way the information can be accessed (unless restricted to particular groups, like subscribers of the New York Times or employees of a certain company) is of no importance to the validity of the reference. Textual references are indeed better, but that does not mean a video cannot be used. The "slow connection" point is invalid too - references to books are even encouraged, and in that case one has to buy a book to search for the reference. Like a reference to a book, however, it is important to enable the reader to find the specific reference. In other words, as one does with a page number, note the exact time the information appears in a video. User:Krator (t c) 12:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Video can be used if 1) it is verifiable (such as officially produced by Blizzard, a news piece by a major gaming magazine or mainstream TV news, etc.) and not just "some guy with a camera, and 2) A proper citation, including the time the reference is for, is included. There's no reason to make someone watch a 20 minute podcast for a one-line quote that's being cited, when it takes little effort to point out the time the quote occurs. Just like we don't expect someone to read an entire book just for a single one-line reference, we have to cite page numbers. Oh, and 3) proper credit must be given in the citation, which is often nonexistent for non-professionally produced video. We also have to be careful of video that uses copyrighted material that the video creator does not own. For those reasons, a majority of video cites fail. -- Kesh 15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, note that the rule in WP:RS on self published sources applies to videos as well: when it concerns an expert discussing his field of study (i.e. the person being interviewed in the video is an expert), self published material can be excused. It is debatable if self-made videos of game developers talking fall under this exemption. User:Krator (t c) 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So even if some person with a video camera was there recording it live at blizzcon you guys would say "its not good enough of a source"..Theres a line between stupidity and smart and obviously its been crossed at some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS covers this issue. Some random guy at blizzcon is not a reliable enough source. He could have doctored the video. Some news agency at blizzcon is probably reliable enough. WP:RS talks about editorial oversight and stuff like that. "some random guy at blizzcon" is different than "gamespot's news guy at blizzcon", "MrZealot's blog" is a grey area. Does that clear things up some? McKay (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blizzcon Demo

So did the people that went to Blizzcon get a sc2 demo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.54.15 (talk) 15:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

People that went to Blizzcon 2007 got to play a demo/preview version of SC2 (which is now mentioned in the article). If you're asking whether they got a copy to take home, no they didn't, and were never intended to get a copy. XMog 17:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New StarCraft II section online

The Terran section for StarCraft II is online at the official site; if anyone is interested in adding information from that section into the article here feel free to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen it but its under construction. Also the Zerg units section is available January 1? Is the game coming out in July or April next year?(TougHHead 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Linux

I talked to a Blizzard Representative in Blizzard Tech Support on battle.net awhile ago, and he said there is currently no word as to whether StarCraft II will be released on Linux platforms. I do not have a screenshot; however, I do have a logged recording of this conversation. The contents are as follows.

<twocows> I would like to know if there are currently any plans to make StarCraft 2 compatible with any of the Linux Operating Systems, as I plan to begin solely using Linux next year.

<KenD.Support@Blizzard> twocows@USWest: wow you type fast. haha

<twocows> i prewrite my questions. :)

<KenD.Support@Blizzard> twocows@USWest: That is a very good question, and not one that any of us know as of yet

<twocows> when it's decided, will there be any word on the main site?

<KenD.Support@Blizzard> twocows@USWest: Yes, very much so. =)

<twocows> ok.

However, since that's not a concrete citation, I placed a {{Fact}} tag after the statement. HoCkEy PUCK 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Release date

I have a good friend who is working on this game over at Blizzard and he has been told from the higher ups that it will be released on December 19th of this year. So, we should change the date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.217.240 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. --- RockMFR 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I do apreaciate the info :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blizzard doesn't work that way so something got lost in the translation. They have loose targets this far out, not firm release dates. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blizzard are Notorious for pushing back dates.**BM** 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Iceage6891 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me three different examples, or are you just still pissed about Starcraft: Ghost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Almost every single one of their games has been delayed. Not that it really matters, it's all for the best. bob rulz (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's at least notable that they're aiming for a 2008 release. Can't remember where I saw that, but i believe it was their SC2 site. DT777 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

EBGames has a ship date of December 3, 2008 Dom316 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Game stores aren't reliable for release dates; usually it's just the pre-order date that they list. bob rulz (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the Newegg.com website, and they have it available for pre-order. Delivery date that they list is December 3, 2008. Here's the link, or search yourself. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832127003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.213.117 (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates posted from retailers are never reliable. They always print "something" on their pre-orders page, but historically are almost always educated guesses at best. p.s. anyone find it funny that this topic originally said the game would be released in Dec '07? I guess his "friend" wasn't that good of a source after all.157.174.221.168 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I pre=ordered it and they sent me the email from bestbuy.com taht its gonna come to the stores in 02/28/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.29.31 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC) This is all terribly amusing, if only because all of these dates have come to pass and there is no real release date. This goes to show that Wikipedia should post no release date until a genuine source releases one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.77.82 (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The release date posted now cites sources that do not claim any estimates on release date, at least the second source it is citing, #4 does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.84.249 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional Section for Fan Input?

You have to admit, when you see all the Q&A sessions on the battle.net forums, as well as the many times Karune himself has directly addressed the posters, Blizzard is keeping the fan base heavily involved in the development process. I doubt we would have seen the return of the Carrier and Firebat if there wasn't such a strong connection. I'm not trying to advertise, but in an age where consumer involvement is a premium, we should at least mention Blizzard's superb handling so far. Just a thought. --Tarage 08:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question is, how much influence has fan input made on the game's development? Blizzard certainly does maintain open communication with fans. However, we would need sources to establish exactly what this input has achieved. If we do not have sources, we cannot claim such strong things such as the inclusion of specific units. --Scottie_theNerd 10:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% that it would be nice to have documentation, but I myself am unable to take the time to find it, hence why this is just a suggestion, and I didn't actually add the section myself. A good starting point would be the Q&A sessions however, as they do mention the changes in regards to Carrier and Firebat, as well as the fan attachment to both units. That and there is an active thread asking for input on units, this time the Mothership here: http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=sc2-general&t=20895&p=1&#post20895 --Tarage 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the Newegg.com website, and they have it available for pre-order. Delivery date that they list is December 3, 2008. Here's the link, or search yourself. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832127003

Hidden message copy request

Would any object to post a copy of the hidden message in the section titled "units"? A quick glance at the history suggests that most of the unit lists added to the page have been done in this section, the addition of another hidden message here may help alleviate the problem some. Sine the previous hidden messages were deleted last time I added them I'm bring the issue up here first to gain a consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a hidden message? - Sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.224.18 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a message that is added to an article using a special code so that it doesn't appear to those who are reading the article, only to those who edit the article. In the case of this article (assuming nothing has changed) clicking on the edit tab at the top of the article would reveal a hidden message asking editors to add sources to the information added to the article and to refrain from adding any lists of units or structures. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken forum citations

This may have already been mentioned, but the forum citation links are broken, so the facts they cite are no longer verifiable. Ideally we would have copied and quoted the relevant bit of text (or at least the subject line), but we really need to find new references for these facts now (or find an old copy) - not that I doubt that the sources once supported them, but it's important to have verifiable sources. Dcoetzee 08:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Try recalling the page by searching the the Internet Archive website, they store past versions of pages and may have a copy of the forum page on site that we can link to. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 and PS3 release

Hey, how come every time i put in "Starcraft II will not be released on the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3." it gets deleted. Blizzard already said that it will not be shipping for consoles. Care to enlighten me? GlassDesk —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassDesk (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How does the reader check that Blizzard said this? You fail to provide sources for your assessment, and therefore it is removed. We are an encyclopaedia, not a forum where the words "Blizzard said..." signify truth. User:Krator (t c) 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this mentality that every single thing has to be sourced the moment it's put in? Instead of deleting information that needs sourcing, just put a {{Fact}} tag next to it. It lets them know that "if you don't source it, we'll delete it, but we'll give you time to put a source in for it." bob rulz (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The mentality depends on the kind of content. "StarCraft II is being developed for the SNES" would warrant immediate removal - I would not think of a {{fact}} tag there. This case is borderline. My judgement above was partly based on a Google search which found no sources that confirmed it, beyond sources that stated "PC - yes. Mac - yes. Rest - maybe/no answer/etc." User:Krator (t c) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way I think it might be best to not even mention them. If it's not released for any consoles it would be obvious from the fact that we don't mention it in the article. In that case I think it would be redundant to mention that it's not going to be released to any consoles. bob rulz (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. User:Krator (t c) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of strategy video gamesI heard it was confirmed for 360.75.68.165.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Someone on Altgn found a bit of information on the Microsoft Retail Zone that said that the Xbox 360 game "Universe at War" would have "Tactical dynamics [that] create the best RTS until StarCraft II." [2] People misread that as "best RTS for Xbox 360 until StarCraft II" and things just spiralled downhill from there. Other than that quote (which says nothing about SC II coming to Xbox), there's nothing to confirm anything of the sort. Nimelennar (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft Series Article?

I suggest a starcraft series article since now there are 3 versions of starcraft (one of them is bw expansion pack so that doesnt count). If not possible, somehow merge this idea to StarCraft universe SUGGESTION btw so vote please --Storkian aka iSoroush ^Talk 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:S@bre is way ahead of you. StarCraft series. The Clawed One 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, it should be ready soon. A couple of tweaks and it should, with luck, be out later today, replacing StarCraft universe. -- Sabre 09:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, heh didn't see it. It's because most of the series games I played will automatically say Series rather than the version name. for example if i type mortal kombat, it will redirect to Mortal Kombat Series. There should be some sort of merge or redirect or disambiguation. --Storkian aka iSoroush ^Talk 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Battle.net references

The three Battle.net references listed no longer take you to functional threads. Maybe that's just me of course but an archive link of some sort or another reference all-together would be appreciated. 71.132.159.36 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Places like the ScraftWiki.com keeps some of the more important ones, such as Q & A Batches. --Leord (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the links (Batch 13) seems to work perfectly. I fixed the one for Batch 7 by linking to the Batch 1-10 Archive on the same forum, but the info from the remaining one (by date, it would have been Batch 8) was apparently in the preamble to that Q&A, and thus was not saved when archived. I recommend that reference be removed, unless you want to source it from elsewhere. Nimelennar (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

External Links

This sections has changed on numerous occasions, from including a few big fansites, random fansites or just the official pages. I agree that we could keep fansites out of it, but perhaps linking to the other Wikis that deal with StarCraft 2 at least? I know the ScraftWiki.com is good, and the Wikia one is decent. It would be very nice to have some place to go for further reading on game specifics. --Leord (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft wiki was removed as it was deemed not a particularly reliable wiki. I trust the editor who made that judgement, but if you have evidence it is reliable (for example, 50+ contributors on a daily basis) then it can be re-added. User:Krator (t c) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the amount of contributors doesn't make a difference. SC Wikia is painfully unreliable, lacking sources for a lot of stuff, containing too many misleading and incorrect details and making (often completely wrong) deductions based on circumstantial evidence. And that makes it just as reliable as a fansite. I know the main editor over there (the user Kimera over here) is trying to clean up its act but it is not currently in any state to fully comply with WP:EL. The best example for reliable(ish) wikia I can think of is something like the Star Trek Memory Alpha site, and SC Wiki isn't anywhere near that quality at this moment in time. -- Sabre (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "will be"

I think the {{newsrelease}} tag up top is added mostly because of the tons of "will be..." constructions in the prose. Just try to convert them into "is..." instead. User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, but its a bit pointless since the "will be" shows the game hasn't been completed yet and the new wording can imply that its already out. Given the fact that there is only limited information available with a game pre-release, its more likely the guy who added it doesn't understand the purpose of the template, especially given the lack of editing experience. -- Sabre (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Release Date (2)

So I'm guessing (and hoping with all of my heart and more) that the new release date (1st Jan 2020) is a joke and not real, but could someone please chech on that and remove if necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blizzard's FAQ for Starcraft II¹ is currently stating that the release date is unannounced, however Best Buy is taking pre-release orders and saying that it will be shipped on 12/3/08². Other computer game distributers also post the same date³. I don't know the difference between pre-release orders and pre-orders, if there is one. EB Games also had this to say, "Pre-order to receive release date change notifications."³ So I'm guessing this is saying that 12/3/08 is the estimate that Blizzard has given stores? [3] [4] [5] --75.71.18.24 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:VG/DATE: "For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out; always look for corroborating statements from reliable sources to confirm these dates." --Silver Edge (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a PR stunt. More people will go and pre-order the game if they think it will come out sooner than later. When the game actually comes out doesn't matter since they already hav people signed up at their pre-order.

Release Date Announced (not kidding)

Starcraft 2 is confirmed to ship 2008. link: http://www.starcrafttwo.com/starcraft-2-news/starcraft-2-to-ship-on-2008/ 98.212.49.204 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --Silver Edge (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's '08

I would just like to remind everyone that tomorrow is April Fool's Day, and Blizzard has a tradition of releasing fake data on this day each year. So if any new information should become available within the next 48 hours, it should be disregarded unless it can be conclusively verified on or after April 2. Nimelennar (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you mean like that RIDICULOUS looking terran terra-tron? It's kind of like a transformers spoof. http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/terratron.xml Mzanime (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of gameplay video

I added the relevant gameplay video [6] which was reverted [7] by User:Daniel.Cardenas without explanation.

These gameplay videos are the best original source material for StarCraft II at the moment and should be included in the article as such, I'm putting them back until someone can come up with a better reason than an automated revert message for why they shouldn't be there. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, WP:EL. The links are not necessary for the understanding of the subject, and if they were then they are already part of the official website, and are far more appropriately left for a reader to access there rather than through third-party video sites such as youtube. We are not here to show how the game is played. We are here to cover the article in an encyclopedic format, and the videos are not necessary for that. -- Sabre (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The videos should definitely be linked to. They are the best way to get a feel for the game. Thue | talk 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't a fansite. We're not here to give a "feel for the game", when the videos are happily available from the official site. That's the whole point of the external links. -- Sabre (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The video should not be here. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or gaming site. Mzanime (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Task force

In case anyone is interested, Sabre has started a StarCraft task force. Please take a look. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 19:06

Release Date on Newegg

Newegg has the game for preorder and states the release date is December 03, 2008. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832127003 Smeggysmeg (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Passive release date "announcements" on third-party websites are not good sources for upcoming games. --- RockMFR 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

this seems to be collaborated: http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/06/rumor-starcraft.html, bestbuy, circuit city and gamestop have added dec 3 release dates. it may be worth mentioning that dec 3rd is a speculative release date, since numerous retailers are using it. --Pennstatephil (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So what? Gameplay GB claims that the game will be released in 63 days on 29th August. None of these dates are officially confirmed. Bilge [TC] 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I added commentary from a Blizzard vice president at the WWI regarding the release date, so that should settle it for a while at least.--Finalnight (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add another piece of evidence to debunk this. Dec. 3rd is a Wednesday, and its incredibly rare for a video game to launch on a Wednesday. Its almost always Tuesday with the occasional Friday release. Until Blizzard themselves give out dates, its worthless.157.174.221.168 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Release date (3)

I am tired of constantly reverting release date additions, so I amended the hidden note at the top of the article to say that unless the release date is cited to Blizzard we are going to revert any such date on site. I assume there won't be any objections, but I am leaving a message here as fair notice to those who more actively watch the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a possibility that StarCraft II either will enter Beta at december, which means the game will be out around 3-4 months after that. Or they will have info on the new Bnet features. Either way its minimum another halfyear before the game is released. The Odds are that it might take one more year. If not more. They will definitly not release Starcraft II in december. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.65.215 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no info regarding beta. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of my post was that rather looking after a release date look at a date when Beta or the next update of SC II, namely the new battleNet features will be released. The announcement of the bew Bnet features and/or Beta will be announced before the announcement of the actuall game, and odds are it will be during decemeber. 89.160.65.215 (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Blizzard Entertainment, Activision Blizzard, Vivendi Games or Vivendi?

I was under the impression that the Blizzard Activision Merger didn't affect Blizzard Entertainment's branding and very little of how they would produce games. I know in light of recent developments there'd be some geeks who like to think they know something the rest of us don't, but if your gonna say its made by Activision Blizzard, why stop there? Also, it says on the bottom of the Official Website "Blizzard Entertainment", with their logo, and no mention of Activision Blizzard. If Blizzard Entertainment maintain their branding, and how they make games, why not keep it as Blizzard Entertainment? --139.80.123.38 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be made by Blizzard, as you say the merge does not affect Blizzard's branding or development process. If someone puts Activision Blizzard in the developer field, remove it. As for the publisher field, I was under the impression that Activision was also retaining its branding, which could mean that what ends up on the box won't be the Activision Blizzard logo, but just the Activision one for the publisher. However, the full deal of which company or sub-company of Activision Blizzard will publish it (Blizzard has published their own titles in the past) has not yet been made. Ideally, we shouldn't even have the publisher field active at the moment, because its mostly speculative that it will ship as published by Activision Blizzard and not Blizzard Entertainment or Activision. -- Sabre (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

lol, yeah probably a good idea, considering it even says on their source that it's made by 'Blizzard', thats probably a good idea. Isn't the game published by Blizzard Entertainment as well, since publishing is release, and i recall reading that Blizzard Entertainment will continue to brand and release there games largely independently of Activision? At the moment, it looks largely like a political stunt, where the new companies share holders will receive joint profits, and a 'sharing' of expertise, rather than joint development and publishing of all games, since all their staff and development stays in their respective offices? But this is all pretty much speculation. --139.80.123.38 (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

2009

I just added that the game will be released in 2009. According to:

• starcraftwire.net The Announcement was made at the Activision Blizzard Asia conference in Auckland, New Zealand.
• IGN
• Tech2

Calendar (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I read on Gamespot that it was due out by Chrismas time, with 2 months before and after for possible release date. If I can find the article if it was even there Il post the link here because you guys go crazy when IPs write stuff.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.216.89 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm deeming the reference release date as unreliable, here is why:

The Activision Blizzard Asia conference in Auckland, New Zealand. was a meeting for the stockholders of Activision Blizzard. The focus of that meeting was about the financial future of Activision Blizzard AKA PR and promotion for WHY people should keep investing in their company. On this meeting they presentet their newest investment, namely Blizzard. They were talking about how much money this company would make for Activision Blizzard, reason for this newly attained money was WOW and the upcoming Starcraft II which are the most popular games in their genre, and thus will draw allot of people and therefore equals allot of cash. Now, on this meeting they said that Starcraft II "Should" be released during 2009, note they said "Should", not that it will be or that Blizzard which is the actuall company that works with Starcraft II has told them or confirmed this. Reason why they said this date was because they wanted to show that the game would be released within a realtive short frame, within a year. It doesn't mean that it will be relased early 2009 or middle 2009 etc. Activision Blizzard has nothing to do with the creation of Starcraft II, they have NO knowledge of the progress. It's Blizzard who is actually making the game. Blizzard themselfs, who are actually making the game, has stated many times that they do not have an release date and they do not stand for the claimes from other sources then themselves. These outside sources includes, websites that sells games, information websites and companies such as Activision Blizzard. Activision Blizzard has in the past stated really strange things in these kinds of meetings: one was that the company would focus heavily on MMORPG games (which was denied by Blizzard) That WOTLK was suppose to be released months ago (Also denied by Blizzard which said that Blizzard would need atleast 4 another months for Beta testing).

If you guys still think this so called release date is valid then keep it.I doubt however that there are any stockholders that uses Wikipedia to determine the finacial strength of Activision Blizzard. Because they are the only group of people that find this information useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.65.215 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Link Correction

Can someone please change the Internode reference link (#33) from http://games.internode.on.net/content.php?mode=news&id=3317 to http://games.on.net/article/3317/StarCraft_II_-_Not_happening_in_2008 - and replace "Internode" with "Games On Net" - thanks! -- 150.101.30.226 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

System requirements

Might be good to add what's known of the system specs. I know shader is already mentioned, but we also know that they are aiming to support "a wide range of hardware, ATI Radeon 9800/NVIDIA GeForce FX’s to the ATI Radeon HD 4800s and NVIDIA GeForce G200s". Linky. (edited link appearance) --Leord (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be added once there is some real concrete data. Currently all we have is broad generalities (like you referenced) and assumptions.157.174.221.168 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Character links

Would it be possible for links to characters referenced in the article to be referenced only once during the Synopsis section, since if someone were interested in the characters he/she would generally register that interests sometime during that section. I'm aware that it's the general rule of thumb to link at first instance, and only then, but throughout the article I'm getting the impression that there are links in paragraphs simply because they can be, as the linked article doesn't really follow the same 'theme'. Put simply, could we have character links referenced at first instance in the synopsis section instead? Also 'BlizzCon', 'conventions' and are almost more part of development, and even some of the 'development themed' material in the game play section, which affects game play, but the additional information (while relevant to Starcraft 2, isn't really relevant to game play) isn't exactly on the readers mind when seeking information about game play. To sum up; I'm not suggesting that we completely rework the whole article, just move the links to more relevant parts of the article and keeping the word unlinked to preserve flow and context .And I am yet to see why referencing a date or year is relevant in nearly every case... This is not a historically pivotal event, the date it was released/shown/started development has no relevance. Right now there are almost more blue links than normal text?--139.80.123.34 (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Trilogy and new cut scenes

• http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918896p1.html
• http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55266
• http://fidgit.com/archives/2008/10/starcraft-ii-to-be-released-as.php

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering do we have to have 3 separate articles?.

• StarCraft II Terrans: Wings of Liberty
• StarCraft II Zerg: Heart of the Swarm
• StarCraft II Protoss: Legacy of the Void?. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no reason to split it off at present. It can all be happily accomodated here, especially when this article's development section is already rather lacking. I can't see that there will be much need to spin the articles out until at least after the first release, as otherwise the real-world information simply won't be there to sustain the article. Keep it centralised for the moment. -- Sabre (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We can split them off later, agreed. This article lacks already, lets not have four articles lacking.--XatuNatu (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bit dubious. I have read the cited references (which are mostly game blogs) and watched a few interviews with Dustin Browder. The wording "StarCraft II would ship as three episodic games" is very misleading. Browder said directly in an interview that StarCraft II is a game which will be released with a campaign mode focusing on the Terrans called Wings of Liberty.

Then, Blizzard will release an EXPANSION to that game focusing on a Zerg story line. This will be an expansion like other Blizzard RTS expansions, in that it will feature a picking up the last story with new units, new tile sets, new doodads, and all sorts of tweaks. It will not be a stand alone game, but it will "feel" like one. In other words, it's an expansion with lots of great stuff in it i.e. "a big story"

Then again, Blizzard will release yet another EXPANSION, picking up from the last expainsion, but focusing on the Protoss. Same things ... new story picking up from the last, new units, new tile sets, new doodads, and all sorts of tweaks again. Plent of stuff for map makers to play with.

The way the article stands now, it leave the reader with the impression that Blizzard is making three stand alone StarCraft II games. This is not what is happening, it's just like how they normally release RTS games, except the story mode is gonna be really big and focus on a single faction. Other than that, it's one game, with an expansion to follow, and then another expansion. Sysrpl (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go ahead and change the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We should probably mention it, but there is no need for individual articles or sections at the moment. Once wings of liberty comes out, then we can start splitting.--XatuNatu (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, blizzard has stated that these are stand alone "expansion" or whatever there trying to shove into us, you don't need the first game to install the other 2. Basicly DoW expansions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.244.29 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please cite where anyone from Blizzard has stated that "you don't need the first game to install the other 2". Dustin Browder specifically said in this [8] interview that the extra games will be expansions with new stories, extra units, and gameplay tweaks (much like their prior RTS expansions). Sysrpl (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.126.134 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sysrpl read the IGN link you understand few things. I think we have separate article for each game once there is more information. Until then this will do. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification about Starcraft II Trilogy

I felt a bit of consistency was needed.

In an attempt to shorten the release delay Blizzard has decided to release starcraft II overtime instead of everything at once, hence it's name, "Starcraft II Trilogy". Starcraft II Trilogy will consist of three parts, these are:

• StarCraft II Terrans: Wings of Liberty
• StarCraft II Zerg: Heart of the Swarm
• StarCraft II Protoss: Legacy of the Void

Each pak will be released separate, where as Wings of Liberty will be released first and Legacy of the Void will be released last.

The first pak, Wings of Liberty will contain:

• The Core of the Starcraft II Trilogy game.
• Battle.net
• The Terran Campaign.

In short, the first pak is the actual game that requires you to play it.

The two remaning paks only contains additional units and campaigns, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN WHAT IS IN THE FIRST PAK LIKE THE CORE PART OR BATTLE.NET.

What does means is that to play the game you need the first pak since it is the actual game. The other two paks only gives more missions and new units for singleplay. The paks will NOT affect the multiplay aspect. The Battle.net Function and the units that can be used will only be changed by Patches from Blizzard that can be used by anyone. The paks WILL NOT AFFECT THIS.

In short like some people already pointed out. Pak2 and Pak3 will be expansions for pak1, only difference is that pak2 and pak3 won't give additional units for Battle.net like it did to starcraft1. Hope this clears things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.65.215 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

89.160.65.215 did you check the links, Blizzard even said the 3 games will be stand alone meaning that there will be no requirements to owning the 3, you can just buy em.

Please check your information before posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

89.160.65.215 is correct. StarCraft II Terrans: Wings of Liberty will contain the actual game. The other two remaining games are simply addons, If you don't have the first game you will not be able to play them. 130.236.188.106 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? or are you just stating your own personal opinion? 209.169.244.29 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually they will be full expansion a-la Brood War, with new units and everything: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=11226742562&sid=3000 193.226.105.89 (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Trilogy: The Definitive Word

Official clarification in blue [10]

As I said before in my post starting with "all a bit dubious". I have read the official references and watched the interviews with Dustin Browder. IGN reporting aside, the game will NOT be three stand alone products. It will be ONE game, followed up by expansions like all other Blizzard RTS games.

These expansions will feature a new single player campaign, and new game assets such as artwork, tilesets, doodads, and units. You will still be able to play any each race in multiplayer or single player skirmish or single player use map settings mode, but the campaign for the game and each expansion with have a story focused on a particular faction.

I am going to remove wording related to each game being a stand alone product again. Please do not add it again without discussion. Sysrpl (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a more stable link to the same FAQ's: http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml StevePrutz (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article since it's no longer "Starcraft II"

A question regarding the name.

The current Name, Starcraft II is no longer accurate since it now is the first part of the 3 part series called "Starcraft II Trilogy". Now if this article only focus is on part 1 and not the entire "Starcraft II Trilogy" shouldn't the name of this article be the name of the first part of "Starcraft II Trilogy" which is "Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty".Salle79 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources still list it as StarCraft II. Its also been made clear by Karune that Wings of Liberty is only a working title and is subject to change. Leave it as StarCraft II, which is still perfectly valid, until closer to release when everything's totally clear as to what's happening. Its far to early to start changing names hot off the heels of BlizzCon. -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the website the game is never referred to as "Starcraft II Trilogy" (that name would be positively abhorrent), but the game Starcraft II is referred to as being a trilogy. Definitely not the same thing. Barnsoldat91 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Media

I read in the infobox that the game will be released on DVD (not on CD), which makes sense, but do we have a reliable source for that assumption? Thanks to post a copy of your answer on my talk page (do not hesistate posting there in English). — MetalGearLiquid ^[chat] 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would we need a source on how the game is going to get released?. Blizzard has officialy stopped using CD in upcoming wow expansion so it is safe to say that StarCraft 2 won't be coming in CD. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewording gameplay paragraph

Since i am not a major contributor to this page, I'd figure, I would let someone else insert what I am about to write into the page. With this, however, the gameplay paragraph probably will need some editing.

Starcraft II's first release, Wings of Liberty will place players in a mercenary style campaign, as Jim Raynor upgrades his army through each progressive mission. The second release, the Zerg campaign Heart of the Swarm, will have RPG elements. The player will level up his queen throughout the missions. The last expansion, the Protoss campaign Legacy of the Void, will have a campaign with diplomatic and political aspects. Each campaign should span 26-30 missions.

Oldag07 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, although there is no reason you couldn't have done it yourself, you don't need to be a major contributor. -- Sabre (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Return of StarCraft Wiki?

Some time ago, the link to the StarCraft Wiki was deleted because it was claimed that it was too unstable or something to that extent. However, I think the situation has changed. The wiki is still exploding, but the focus is on old StarCraft info now. The wiki has solid policies and it has improved massively since its link disappeared from this article. Besides, I've seen far worse wikis get link time on Wikipedia. Capefeather (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem was not that it was linked, but that people were using it as a source for otherwise unfounded statements.157.174.221.167 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me there should be a hidden warning not to use the wiki as a source. Other wikipedia game articles (eg Command & Conquer, WoWwiki, etc) have links to more specific wikis and don't have this problem. Kimera757 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No wiki should ever be used as a source. They - and Wikipedia itself - aren't considered reliable. The use of it as an external link should be done on a case-by-case basis, just because other articles here spam wikia sites doesn't mean that they should be everywhere in this topic. Indeed, WP:EL discourages the use of other wikis in external links. The pages on the wikis should only be linked to when they provide unencyclopedic information that can't be included in the article but that a general reader may find useful or interesting (that's not a clear run to link to anything unencyclopedic, such as game guide content). If StarCraft Wiki was to return, it would have to be limited. Its certainly not needed for the game or product articles, but could assist a couple of the fiction articles. For instance, the article on Raynor contains various appearance and speculative bits not appropriate to the encyclopedia article, but which could be interesting to the general reader, making that a possible candidate for inclusion. My skepticism with SC Wiki though is its tendency to on occasion try to define canon by filling in the holes itself, as opposed to noting that the speculation is indeed speculation rather than presenting it as fact. This can be misleading to people who follow the links from here. -- Sabre (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the unit list articles? I believe that is quite encyclopedic and limited, and it's something that has been previously requested, even on this talk page archive. Kimera757 (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:VGSCOPE, based on WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:IINFO. Lists of units are not encyclopedic, no matter how many people want to add that information, they only hold information relevant to players, not the general reader, so shouldn't be on Wikipedia either as articles or external links. -- Sabre (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"My skepticism with SC Wiki though is its tendency to on occasion try to define canon by filling in the holes itself, as opposed to noting that the speculation is indeed speculation rather than presenting it as fact."

There is a speculation policy at that wiki, as well as a canon policy. I'd like to hear more on your thoughts, though, as ther'es no point of misleading visitors. (I'd also like to know what you consider speculative on the Jim Raynor article.) Kimera757 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jim Raynor article isn't that bad from the speculation/fact distinction point of view (though I think you could probably improve quite a bit with a similar article presentation style to that used by Memory Alpha, if you're following this idea of writing as though the database is inside the universe). Its good to know that there is are specific policies on that stuff there now, the site used to be a lot worse. I've added links to some of the fiction articles—as previously stated, they aren't needed for the games themselves, the appropriate links there would be for places like IGN, but wikias are usually good for the smaller plot details that are overlooked by necessity in Wikipedia. Some negative bits still remain on the site though, disguised as sourced stuff. Bits like the introduction to the Terran article, which although only minor points, would be a textbook case of WP:SYN on Wikipedia—using sources to put forward a particular point of view that in some circumstances could mislead readers. -- Sabre (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should take a look at what I have unleashed.

1. Regarding use of wikis as a source, no one really advocated that, anyway, at least not if I correctly understand what an external link is.
2. The wikia link thing was more of an afterthought than a main supporting argument.
3. I suppose I know now why it was removed based on "instability". In any case, it seems I was a little mistaken on what Wikia was meant to do. I figured that ideally, a wiki would be a kind of extension to the same topic on Wikipedia, such that it would be appropriate to link them to each other. Capefeather (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

The article says that it shall have the same number of units as the original Star-Craft does that mean the number of units in Brood War or the base game? Jamhaw (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)jamhaw

Release dates (Again)

Does Blizzard plan to release the game in every country the same day? The official website and blizzard are a bit vague. Plenty of retailers expecting an April 2009 release for UK but i am still sure USA and Korea are its main arrival points? Anyone help out with that as i still think were all being vague on the "2009" tag.--CorrectlyContentious 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So far, we've only been given an estimate of 2009. We don't even know when in 2009, let alone how the releases will take place around the world. Retailers often make assumptions on game releases long before an actual release date is announced (plenty of retailers had a release date for December 2008), so we can't really go on them. -- Sabre (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry to ask just wondered as i remember the old Starcraft releases were scattered and i know i cant use retailers assumptions. None the less if i find something ill comment here to gain consensus, thanks Sabre.--CorrectlyContentious 08:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see Amazon.co.uk is showing release date: 26 September 2009 and allowing pre-ordering at 29.99GBP. AtomicMass (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Retailers aren't considered reliable sources for this purpose. They simply want people to buy in advance, and estimate a release date. Most retailers had a release date for December 2008 before that past. -- Sabre (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the speculated release date. If you go to StarCraft 2's official website, there is no release date as of yet and anything otherwise is speculation, even if it comes from Blizzards parent company.137.244.215.51 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove Protected Status

I think it's safe to remove the protected status now, it's been over half a year and I always feel that protected articles discourage the open nature of Wikipedia. Thoughts? -Jaardon (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Split?

Apparently it's splitting into three games: http://pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html Chastayo (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye, we've known since October. One game and two expansion packs, its already noted in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why we aren't starting a new page because there isn't enough information on the 2nd and 3rd games to really justify creating 2 new articles. Oldag07 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's 2008

Should we add in the Starcraft II 2008 April Fool's Joke? The one about the Tauren Marine? http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/taurenmarine.xml

No. We're not including every other unit, so why would we add this one? --XatuGravelz (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New logo

|thumb|right|"new design" thumb|left|"old design" I am not trying to start an edit war, but I see no evidence that any new sort of design replaced the old logo.

• See Starcraft2.com. The logo on the top shows no smoky haze like the "new design". Take special notice to the very tip of the roman numerals 2. there it is transparent at the very bottom. that seems to suggest, that with any new sort of logo, the smoky haze is not part of the logo design.
• The title "Transparent Logo" suggests that someone went into photoshop and edited the picture. I assume this came from the "fansite kit". The picture from the kit is by default a black background. only when you turn off the black layer that one gets all that smoke.
• I personally can work with photoshop. see Sam Houston. That is an image in the public domain. and I can make edits to that level. Starcraft 2 is a registered trademark. That means make you should make as few changes as you can. This logo is up because of the fair use doctrine. This would legally only allow for very minor changes to the logo.

Oldag07 (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• And oh yea, the fansite kit still includes the "old verson" Oldag07 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Engine Anlysis

why link to http://ati.amd.com/developer/SIGGRAPH08/Siggraph2008-Advances_in_Real-Time_Rendering_Course.pdf was removed ? it has a detailed ofiicial engine analysis (Idot (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Beats me, it is a good document. Written by Blizzard graphics artists, professionally published. Should be referenced 81.111.115.63 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Release Date is June 2nd 2009 (6/2/09)

According to Gamestop, they said that the release date for Starcraft is June 2nd 2009 and they confirmed it. I found this when I typed "Starcraft" in google news. So add this to the article if anyone wants to.

There are some Source link:

• http://www.zergwatch.com/Newsfeed-117868/wandering-goblin-starcraft-ii-to-be-released-june-2nd.html
• http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/03/04/starcraft-2-out-in-june-according-to-gamestop/
• http://www.geek.com/articles/games/gamestop-pegs-starcraft-2-release-date-in-june-2009035/

-- leeV18 (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.70.158 (talk)

What a retailer thinks is unreliable, half the retailers out there said the game would be out in December, it wasn't. Wait for official Blizzard word. -- Sabre (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Several retailers of the past have announced release dates as early as late 2008. I know. I want the game too. . . Oldag07 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)