|
Browsing a german website i found an article about Blizzards thoughs on SC2 SP. to sum it up a bit:
- 29 missions are too long for many players, who doesnt reached the final, so HotS is intendet to be shorter - Surveys from Blizzard revealed many negative feedback from players, the campaign was too big, even coworker's from other teams said this - achievementrate of finished singleplayer is low too - HotS is planned with around 20 missions, still same amount of highlights like WoL
second part is about new units, so nothing new information at all.
I cant believe this to be true as i can remember Blizzard announced WoL and the Addons will have full content and dont feel like addons cause you can only play 1 Race at Singleplayer.
german source: http://www.golem.de/1110/87266.html
edit 2 polls:
Poll: SC2 SP lenght wasgive me more! (2669) 78% ok for me (406) 12% a bit too long (130) 4% way too long (114) 3% short at the end (91) 3% 3410 total votes Your vote: SC2 SP lenght was (Vote): way too long (Vote): a bit too long (Vote): ok for me (Vote): short at the end (Vote): give me more!
Poll: Sidequest at Singleplayerloved them and wish there will be more next time (1738) 72% was ok, maybe a bit more connection to main story (421) 17% just random to increase playtime (136) 6% variety from normal rescue the universe (63) 3% disturbing the mainstory (54) 2% 2412 total votes Your vote: Sidequest at Singleplayer (Vote): just random to increase playtime (Vote): variety from normal rescue the universe (Vote): disturbing the mainstory (Vote): was ok, maybe a bit more connection to main story (Vote): loved them and wish there will be more next time
|
i played the campaign within 2 days, i could hurry, but i didn't want to, so i chilled, watched every cinematic, heard every dialogue etc... i think the campaign had too much of short missions, the first 2 were 3-min missions and the other were only about 20 min or so. I just hope that blizz does every mission longer and more interesting, not boring like the most missions of wol.
and of course there are those people who aren't interested in campaing and are to lazy to get the achievement, but many people, like me, like the singleplayer and are not just doing it for this cute little sign in the achieve menu. So Blizz, please, if you are to lazy for doing a campaign or not wanting to invest money in it, just say it. But from what i've seen the both missions from hots were pretty good, better then some of wol, thouhj i've never played them.
In short, i don't belive Blizzard, i don't belaive that Blizzard believes the Achiement-whores and i hope they'll keep their promise...
|
The number of missions in Wings of Liberty was fine, I completed it in about three days after installing the game. I'm really not sure why Blizzard thinks that the campaign is too long, regardless of the feedback.
|
I think the players found the campaign too long because of the slow pacing of it, there just didn't happen alot in most of the missions.
|
Aww, I like lengthy campaigns, though! Those give me feelings like I'm reading through a nice, long novel. When I'm tired, I put it down and get excited to read more of it tomorrow. I'm actually disappointed there weren't more Blizzard or user-created custom campaigns to play through (anyone remember Enslavers?).
But I'm hazarding a guess that a lot of negative feedback probably had statements saying that outside of the artifact and Char missions, everything else was filler that went nowhere (even the Rebellion missions). I could see that.
|
Well i kind of agree. I didn't really enjoy the campaign, there seemed to be too much focus on completely pointless missions that served no other purpose than introduce new unit, give You money for upgrades and points for research, along with the whole fact that the campaign had rather "cheesy" story line. Cutting the number of missions might be good idea, if the "meat" stays at about the same volume.
|
Damn. I loved the WoL single player campaign. So much so in fact that I unlocked every single achievement from it. A shorter campaign is a big disappointment to me.
|
Eh, I think the problem with the WoL campaign was not the length but rather the "fluff." The actual storyline-relevant missions are few compared to the "side-quest" missions. As others have said, there was too much emphasis on dealing with side-quests and gathering units and upgrades rather than actually dealing with the story.
Cutting down the fat and improving the storyline missions should help alleviate this problem. SC1 and BW was great because all the missions were relevant to an over-arching, epic story. WoL went way too much into side-quest mode.
It seems that HotS will deal a lot with "conquering" planets rather than going through side-quest mini-storylines, with each planet offering a small handful of missions that come with arsenal unlocks. Hopefully, the main storyline missions will be more relevant and prolific in HotS, though the "conquering planets" aspect runs the risk of ending up like the side-quest heavy WoL campaign.
|
On October 26 2011 06:36 Seiniyta wrote: I think the players found the campaign too long because of the slow pacing of it, there just didn't happen alot in most of the missions.
In normal and in hard, to a lesser degree. Brutal is very panicky and dynamic, and so people complaining about nothing happening should try ramping up the difficulty.
|
On October 26 2011 07:15 PraetorialGamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 06:36 Seiniyta wrote: I think the players found the campaign too long because of the slow pacing of it, there just didn't happen alot in most of the missions. In normal and in hard, to a lesser degree. Brutal is very panicky and dynamic, and so people complaining about nothing happening should try ramping up the difficulty.
He's not talking about action within missions, he means story pacing.
Which is a valid point, but I didn't care. I enjoyed all the missions, so I think it's a shame for there to be less content in the expansion.
|
WoL to long funny .... negative feedback is everywhere, if they go after that they shouldn't make games . The achievement part is the funniest though. Reminds me of Foamy the squirrel talking over achievements.
But i already calculated with lesser mission when people forced hots to become an expansion. They should just remove the side missions from casual difficult and everyone will be happy xD.
Anyway you got 3 achievements while reading this post ! Care about Singleplayer Being able to read Got two achievements from one post Yayness that makes 40 cookie points !
|
Too long? Wow, wouldn't have expected this from people. I thought it was just right.
|
Too long? I thought it was fine - short enough so I didn't give up with it but long enough that it took me a few days. I was able to run through it on a weekend doing brutal so I thought it was fine.
|
I thought the whole point of splitting the game into 3 parts was the long and epic storyline they had planned...
|
It was fine...
Do people really have problems with finishing a 12-20 hour campaign?(numbers atre based on my 1st playthrough)
Meh this is why we never get 300 hour games anymore
|
On October 26 2011 07:24 GentleDrill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 07:15 PraetorialGamer wrote:On October 26 2011 06:36 Seiniyta wrote: I think the players found the campaign too long because of the slow pacing of it, there just didn't happen alot in most of the missions. In normal and in hard, to a lesser degree. Brutal is very panicky and dynamic, and so people complaining about nothing happening should try ramping up the difficulty. He's not talking about action within missions, he means story pacing. Which is a valid point, but I didn't care. I enjoyed all the missions, so I think it's a shame for there to be less content in the expansion.
Ahh of he mean pacing that changes things. I don´t think the pacing dragged on, but it was a weird pacing due to the open ended mission structure. Its a fair point though
E: 20 missions is not too bad, but I´d like to have 30ish per campaign. I do play the SP from time to time
|
I really felt that many of the campaign maps were too short. Lots of 10-15 mins maps. I was hoping for some long, 30+ min maps like in BW
|
Rofl. How else would they get people to buy 1 game + 2 expansions at 60$ each? Start with high expectations (each their own game, battle.net the same no matter which one you own, each 30 missions because they only have 1 race).
Now : -It's an expansion -Different ladders if you only own WoL -Less missions -Still the same price as if it was a standalone game.
Come on..
|
I personally thought the whole starcraft 2 story was stupid and not memorable. I actually thought brood war had a lot more cool things happen which maybe makes the game seem to move faster. Who knows I guess. I dont know who said the game was too long but if it was then that person can always just turn on cheats and march through it as fast as they want but why punish the rest of us?
|
This is a joke right? The campaign took hardly any time on brutal (marine/medic lololol) and they're shortening it? As well as pricing it the same as WoL?
Bazinga, Blizzard is making some sick decisions here.
|
On October 26 2011 09:17 Mortal wrote: This is a joke right? The campaign took hardly any time on brutal (marine/medic lololol) and they're shortening it? As well as pricing it the same as WoL?
Bazinga, Blizzard is making some sick decisions here.
What you said bio ball whit medics could smash through allmost evry mission maybe the people who dident finish the game dident actualy like it. But cutting the campaign and useing that as a reason is just bullshit to me but beig honest and saying cba to spend more money on development would be bad advertisemnt i guess.
|
It was the right length.
Any shorter will be too short.
|
I really hope the overall time of the singleplayer won't be shorter.
What the could do, is making the main plot shorter and having a bunch of side stories. That would make the singleplayer shorter for those who complain, but that i don't understand, i mean if you find it too long, just don't do it/finish it, and the overall time of the singleplayer, as in getting 100% would give enough gameplay hours to make me happy.
|
I swear this is a troll, am I the only one who when I finished it the first time, wanted more.
Sc1-30 missions wc3 ROC 40 missions sc2-30 missions
BW an expansion, as well as TFT...... An expansion had 30 missions + each. And not one person I have ever asked/talked to/played them that enjoyed the campaign complained about length. If anything games these days are too short. I grew up playing final fantasies and other rpgs, they took for fuckin ever and I loved them for it. This past week alone I beat bastion and space marine each taking mere hours (bastion was rad btw, wished it was longer =( )
|
If people can't beat a game on a coffee break it's too long for the ADD generation that infest the gaming market today. IMO If a game takes LESS then 50 hours to complete it's too short and not worth full price. Also I do not care for MP one single bit so that gives me nothing.
|
I'm certain the actual physical length of the game wasn't the issue, rather, that most of the missions were useless filler. SC1 was ridiculously long but every single mission drew you into the story, unlike SC2.
I worry about this piece of news because I'm sure there will be just as much filler in the HotS campaign, and by shortening the missions, means there will be less story probably. Sucks.
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On October 26 2011 07:15 PraetorialGamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 06:36 Seiniyta wrote: I think the players found the campaign too long because of the slow pacing of it, there just didn't happen alot in most of the missions. In normal and in hard, to a lesser degree. Brutal is very panicky and dynamic, and so people complaining about nothing happening should try ramping up the difficulty.
Completing the game on brutal, even with great micro/macro etc, requires numerous saves and restarts (often 20 units just walk into your base and its gg becuase you didnt know they were coming and didnt have bunkers up for example)
Sometimes you have to use guides for the gimmicky stuff like walling in with DT's on that protoss mission, and the mission is near impossible without it, requiring 20+ attempts
|
Too long? What demographic are Blizzard attempting to market SC to? The foaming-at-the-mouth players of multiplayer CoD? I felt the campaign wasn't long enough , probably because of all the fluff and lack of plot-driven missions.
I think it should be longer. You hardly ever had to expand at all, which is retarded.
Edited for puph*
|
On October 26 2011 08:31 windsupernova wrote:It was fine... Do people really have problems with finishing a 12-20 hour campaign?(numbers atre based on my 1st playthrough) Meh this is why we never get 300 hour games anymore
Yeah.. wow. What happened to videogames you couldn't beat in one weekend?
On October 26 2011 11:44 Arterial wrote: Too long? What demographic are Blizzard attempting to market SC to? The foaming-at-the-mouth players of multiplayer CoD? I felt the campaign wasn't long enough , probably because of all the fluff and lack of plot-driven missions.
I think it should be longer. You never had to expand at all, which is retarded.
Expanding is essential on certain difficulties and missions
|
People probably felt the campaign was too long because they simply didn't like it and wanted it to be over with already. My favorite game on console was final fantasy tactics and I loved it because the story line was better than most movies, even though it's an old game.
|
I found the campaign too long to be honest, although it was mostly due to the shitty pacing and content of the story.
Edit: playing through the story feeling like nothing in the campaign mattered, certainly made the playthrough like a chore compared to the drastic galaxy-changing feel of the SC1 and BW storylines.
|
I hope they don't shorten the campaign for HotS. I've really been looking forward to playing the zerg and protoss campaigns after WoL. I would say that I enjoyed the experience overall, although it did feel like a chore at certain times. I enjoyed some of the side missions, but only did others for the sake of dat cash and dem upgrades.
I would say, as in most things, the enjoyment of the campaigns is entirely dependent on personal preference. I really like the style/flavor/art direction of Blizzard games so I've always enjoyed the cheesy(tongue-in-cheek cheesy) stories along with the excellent gameplay. I also really like the fact that I get to play around with the StarCraft mechanics and units in a way that is so drastically different from the multiplayer.
And the final reason the love the campaign: TECH-REACTOR FIREBATS!!!!!!!!!! I play zerg and even I love it
P.S. is there any way we can get this rumor checked out???
|
On October 26 2011 09:38 Callobono wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 09:17 Mortal wrote: This is a joke right? The campaign took hardly any time on brutal (marine/medic lololol) and they're shortening it? As well as pricing it the same as WoL?
Bazinga, Blizzard is making some sick decisions here. What you said bio ball whit medics could smash through allmost evry mission maybe the people who dident finish the game dident actualy like it. But cutting the campaign and useing that as a reason is just bullshit to me but beig honest and saying cba to spend more money on development would be bad advertisemnt i guess. Also keep in mind that many people play the SP but not the MP so aren't as good as your average person on TL.
|
Interesting discussion - I think its too long simply because, unlike Starcraft and BW, it focuses on one story line. The actual amount of singleplayer content isn't really that much.
If they hadn't gone for one race per expansion then they could have had a much more intense campaign (or set of campaigns) in each one.
As for the low achievement rate - its probably just because the multiplayer experience is just so damn good and the story line and plot holes are pretty bad (or at least, not up to that standard)
|
The problem wasn't the length, around 30 missions is fine, but it needs good story to fill that, and Blizzard just didn't have good story. It also would have been better if it was more linear, they could have told it better that way imo.
On October 26 2011 11:46 Puph wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 08:31 windsupernova wrote:It was fine... Do people really have problems with finishing a 12-20 hour campaign?(numbers atre based on my 1st playthrough) Meh this is why we never get 300 hour games anymore Yeah.. wow. What happened to videogames you couldn't beat in one weekend? Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:44 Arterial wrote: Too long? What demographic are Blizzard attempting to market SC to? The foaming-at-the-mouth players of multiplayer CoD? I felt the campaign wasn't long enough , probably because of all the fluff and lack of plot-driven missions.
I think it should be longer. You never had to expand at all, which is retarded. Expanding is essential on certain difficulties and missions
With the exception of the one where you get siege tanks, I don't think I expanded at all... And I'm gold level.
|
In the WoL campaign there was waaaaaaaaaaay too much fluff, not enough story, and to add to that, the rare story-driven missions were just 'defend X for X', 'wait for X', and the ubiquitous 'wait for extraction!11!11!!'.
|
I agree with Cyber_Cheese, the thing that really hurt WoL from a story perspective was actually the ability to choose missions more or less at will. You have all these different story arcs going on and they're more or less self contained. An arc has to play from start to finish, but at its conclusion it doesn't have any effect on the larger story, with the exception of Artifact.
Of course, this makes the game much more interesting to play through given the impacts that mission choice has on campaign strategy, it's a great experience that is quite re-playable, but the story has been written like a book where all the chapters between 4 and 25 could go in any order with some thrown out and it makes no difference.
Frankly I'm not surprised to hear players tuned out and got bored near the end.
|
it's too long for 1 race
split it into 10 missions for each race then everything would become much more focused, but Blizzard just wants to just focus on 1 race at a time for SC2 and its expansion packs
|
This is just a sad excuse for them to make more money.
|
Russian Federation1607 Posts
How a game that i can playthrough in two-three days can be long?
|
Can the OP poll wether or not people actually think the sp was too long? I thought it was fine. In fact I was disappointed with it being so short.
|
Rofl, took me 8-10 hours to complete. Since when is that to long for a 60 euro game........ I think that's the least they can offer. To me just sounds like an excuse for them to put less effort into single player because people purchase it anyway. Since when is it needed that people can finish a game the same day they bought it? Zzzzzzzzzzszz
Reminds me of portal 2 awesome game, but soooooo short. I loved single player and wouldn't have minded if it was double the lenght. Maybe they can make it like fallout 3 main story line 10 hours, side chains and stuff another 50+ for people who want.
|
Cutting the single player campaign is a huge disappointment for me. If some people really think the campaign is too long, they could have instead had a lot of bonus missions you could unlock or skip if you just wanted a shorter campaign. As the new campaign is the main reason I'd be buying the expansion, this is seriously making me reconsider buying it.
|
On October 26 2011 07:15 eviltomahawk wrote: Eh, I think the problem with the WoL campaign was not the length but rather the "fluff." The actual storyline-relevant missions are few compared to the "side-quest" missions. As others have said, there was too much emphasis on dealing with side-quests and gathering units and upgrades rather than actually dealing with the story.
Cutting down the fat and improving the storyline missions should help alleviate this problem. SC1 and BW was great because all the missions were relevant to an over-arching, epic story. WoL went way too much into side-quest mode.
It seems that HotS will deal a lot with "conquering" planets rather than going through side-quest mini-storylines, with each planet offering a small handful of missions that come with arsenal unlocks. Hopefully, the main storyline missions will be more relevant and prolific in HotS, though the "conquering planets" aspect runs the risk of ending up like the side-quest heavy WoL campaign.
1000000000% agree. Way too many side-quests!!
|
Lol, the problem with the campaign wasn't that it was too long, but rather because 75% of the missions are complete filler. Noone is interested in Raynor flying around raiding random toss tribes or running errands for minerals.
|
Only thing I didn't like in the WoL was that last two achievements I never got.... DAMN YOU LOST VIKING!!!
|
On October 26 2011 11:46 Puph wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 08:31 windsupernova wrote:It was fine... Do people really have problems with finishing a 12-20 hour campaign?(numbers atre based on my 1st playthrough) Meh this is why we never get 300 hour games anymore Yeah.. wow. What happened to videogames you couldn't beat in one weekend? Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:44 Arterial wrote: Too long? What demographic are Blizzard attempting to market SC to? The foaming-at-the-mouth players of multiplayer CoD? I felt the campaign wasn't long enough , probably because of all the fluff and lack of plot-driven missions.
I think it should be longer. You never had to expand at all, which is retarded. Expanding is essential on certain difficulties and missions
Expanding is essential? when I played through the campaign on Brutal I only expanded on three maps, not because I needed to but because I wanted to kill everything on the map and needed a little more income to produce units. I could have easily beaten those maps without expanding had I simply gone for the objective and nothing more.
Maps I expanded on: Maw of the Void, Welcome to the Jungle and Echoes of the Future.
|
How can they possible say the single player was too long? And why would Blizzard listen to the whiners that represent that point? I can only speak for myself, but short games arent worth buying or playing.
This is why I dont play every FPS and RPG that comes out on Xbox, but that's beside the point. This seems like a cop out by Blizzard. Pure laziness. "Yeh guys u c our fans didnt want a long game so were gunna maek it much shorter so all da children kan beat it on zuper EZ in one evening"
edit: So I agree that WoL had too many filler missions, but shortening the game is the wrong way to approach that. How about good mission design? Blizzard could give us a shorter game with MORE filler...
|
I don't think it is a problem with the length - people just enjoy the multiplayer far too much to play the singleplayer.
|
Thanks for adding the poll, proving that most people in this forum prefer a longer campaign. Then again ,unfortunately I have to admit that this poll is pretty biased since it's on the forum where SP-lovers reside :D
|
Achievements are to easy to get as it is, and they think those are to hard to get? They're called achievements for a reason... And SP was too short imo.
|
I thought the length of the campaign was absolutely fine, though I wouldn't have complained at more.
HOWEVER
I felt the story didn't really GO anywhere for a lot of quests. It really could have been improved a lot. Most of the missions seemed completely random, or pointless, and there was little/no overarching story. The story started, then we did some random miscellaneous missions, then we went and shot some zerg and the game ended. It just didn't feel linked together at all.
|
this is the first time i heard that giving less is better. No blizzard, no .. Giving more good content is always better than giving less good content . The key feature being "Good content".
if all the content is amazing, there is no possible way they can say cutting short a campaign is better, this is blizzard PR non sense to justify giving a shorter campaign.
Anyway, the length of the campaign doesn't bother me to much, as long as the price represents the content given . For my sake, i hope its around at-least 25 missions.
|
Lol, this is the way of saying "Sorry guys, we don't want to spend our time to make a proper HotS singleplayer, we are gonna slack"
|
They should by no means make the campaign shorter. I thought the length of it was perfect and I think it should be about the same in HotS. Players have been bitching about it being too short? Really??
|
I actually 100% agree. I just dicked around but it took more time than I would have liked . I don't play SC2 for the single-player. There better be some newer (harder) challenges too.
|
The campaign was not to short. The decision to make it shorter could make sens only if the mission would be longer.
|
WoL's problem was the lack of any story-relevant missions. 80% of the campaign was essentially filler, so it ended up feeling like you were dragging your feet for most of the campaign. I'd be fine if HotS at least has a more coherent and focused storyline.
|
Maybe no one finished the SP because it sucked? The length is fine, if people don't want to finish it then its a failure on Blizzard's part more than anything.
|
the WoL campaign was to short.... The WoL campaign consisted of 10 missions with 19 optional side missions that told a very boring short story and had nothing to do with the rest of the plot. even the choices in those 19 didnt matter.
IE dr hanson saving her colony. or Toshs mission chain.
the core of the story was jimmy's revolution and fighting the zerg. so basically the first 2 missions, the incredibly lame plot arc where you collect 5 artifacts that do something extremely stereotypical in a scifi story and char. and thats the only missions that form some sort of overall plot in SC2.
Now the zeratul missions were good though entirely optional, and foreshadow into the real plot that most SC fans cared about. but overall WoL was lacking drastically in the plot department.
not to mention with a 100% complete of all the missions on brutal only takes around 9 hours... which is the even sadder part... if they shorten it any further, why dont they just make a movie? and save gamers the issue of sitting through 4 hours of pointless babble by dr hanson claiming she can save her people, while the protoss say no she cant.
|
Yeah I beat it in 12 hours the night of release on normal then beat it again a few weeks later on brutal. it's hardly "too long" unless they meant it could do with less throw away beginner tutorial missions (Click to move! A click to attack move! whoa now honey don't get fancy on me!)
(Yes I understand this helps some people. Just not us)
Hit post without thinking- what I'm getting at here is there is no way the campaign was too long. Hurry up its raid night is a testament to that.
|
The WoL campaign was the best RTS campaign I've ever played, and I've played WCIII, WCIII: FT, Red Alert 2, Stronghold, Stronghold Crusader, Rome: Total War, etc etc.
Seriously Blizzard, it should have been LONGER. HARDER. FASTER. I think I've played through this campaign about 4 times now (including my other account), and I just started brutal (it's easier than I thought it would be).
It's really not fair that you make an awesome 29 mission long Terran campaign then skimp on the Zerg content, not fair at all.
|
On October 26 2011 17:57 sickle wrote: Lol, the problem with the campaign wasn't that it was too long, but rather because 75% of the missions are complete filler. Noone is interested in Raynor flying around raiding random toss tribes or running errands for minerals.
You´re so right. Also the story got no rhythm. Everytime you got your ass safe from some big trouble, the next moment your relaxing at the cantina, everything is where it was before... There only a few exceptions (after killing dr. Hanson, after unveiling the Hybrid bred by Arcturus, after friending with Valerian). And those moments are great, by the way.
As some SC:L editor said, people in WoL are too much like gameplay features, not enough like ficcional characters living a story.
Too bad WoL´s rhythm (pace) and (most) side characters were so bad. The enviroment was quite emersive. Everytime the characters actually had emotions, like when everyone is pissed of about you siding with Valerian, it was so freaking awesome I nearly pissed myself.
In a nutshell, make a good story (where things HAPPEN, btw), don´t ruin the campaing´s pace, and people will play 40 missions.
|
I truly have to disagree with their assessement of the missions, first cycle round i completed it in a few days on brutal which was far too easy for it to be the most challenging difficulty. Second time around i went for the achievement (hurry up its raid night) and done the campaign in about 5.5 hours how can that possibly be too long? WoL isnt strictly 29 missions as there are options to skip a large portion as well as some missions are one or the other, which i thought was specifically for those people that found it to be too long. I went for the achievements because i found there wasnt enough missions and they werent challenging enough, really am dissapointed that people thought the exact opposite. Forces me play multiplayer instead, which isnt a bad thing i guess :D
|
Length was not the problem, just alot of the missions felt meaningless or non important.
If it was 30 epic missions id be all for that.
protoss side missions were way better then most of the Terran imo
|
When they have an achievement for completing the campaign in under 8 hours, its hard to see how they think it is too long.
Would four hours be better?
|
your Country52796 Posts
I wish there were infinite missions. But as that's not possible, I would go with more!!!!!!!
|
Basic story line of WoL is:
Raynor
Joins Tychus in artifact shopping Helps Tosh find his drinking buddies Tries to hit on that doctor chick Goes inside Zeratul Helps Matt deal w/ his ex Breaks into TV stations to stop censorship Goes to Char to get his old gf back
Doesn't sound like much was accomplished. Kinda sounds like my typical holiday weekend.
|
This is terrible! The reason we are getting 3 seperate games is because they wanted to make a full campaign for each of the three races. Now they are not making a full campaign but still selling us 3 seperate games?
...
|
On October 27 2011 06:41 Khenra wrote: This is terrible! The reason we are getting 3 seperate games is because they wanted to make a full campaign for each of the three races. Now they are not making a full campaign but still selling us 3 seperate games?
... This is completely off-topic but your sig is awesome
|
The polls are going to be very biased. TL is a place for more hard core oriented players, perhaps the campaign is to long for the casuals? Either way, I think they should have more missions.
|
WoL was a 10 hour campaign, which i would consider a short-medium length game. I don't see how people could prefer a shorter game when it's strictly disadvantageous. If someone didn't want to play so many missions, then play the first 20/30 missions or something. Once they want to play more, they can go back and play the other ones.
|
The WoL campaign had too many missions in proportion to the amount of story it had in it. The length of SC1 with the story of SC1's Terran campaign, basically. For that reason, I did not enjoy the campaign that much, while I was blown away by SC1/Brood War.
|
The reason no one finishes the campaign is because it wasn't fun, and had a terrible story. The end.
|
Most people don't finish SP because they don't start SP, either that or they got bored of it since they're the type who ladder all day and wouldn't like SP even if it were half the length.
I personally loved the SP but thought the sidequests were kind of sporadic and didn't tie into the plot at all.
Perhaps we could go back to the SC1 days where the campaign was basically a linear campaign, none of the tangents that made no sense stuff. I could be down with 20 linear missions rather than what, 20 random sidequests and only 9 missions that have relevance to the plot.
|
SC1 and BW each took heaps longer. I mean they each had like 30 missions and the last few missions for each race could take up to an hour where as most of the SC2 missions were around that 20 min mark.
So all I can say is give me more! Even side quests with no value to the main plot are good if they have their own interesting sub plot.
|
i call that BS :S since when blizzard became such a liar?? what do they mean by 'getting alot negative feedback' from PLAYERS? We give no feedback to them and why do they care about what we think lol (look at how they treated the community's reactions so far). this company has indeed changed alot since the success of WoW.
If they really decided to cut down the SP and sell it at the same price as WoL, i am not sure that i will still get HotS. As a huge (HUGE) fan of zerg i am not gonna support blizzard's shitty attitude on finalizing this zerg expansion.
|
On October 27 2011 03:15 KiF1rE wrote: the WoL campaign was to short.... The WoL campaign consisted of 10 missions with 19 optional side missions that told a very boring short story and had nothing to do with the rest of the plot. even the choices in those 19 didnt matter.
IE dr hanson saving her colony. or Toshs mission chain.
the core of the story was jimmy's revolution and fighting the zerg. so basically the first 2 missions, the incredibly lame plot arc where you collect 5 artifacts that do something extremely stereotypical in a scifi story and char. and thats the only missions that form some sort of overall plot in SC2.
Now the zeratul missions were good though entirely optional, and foreshadow into the real plot that most SC fans cared about. but overall WoL was lacking drastically in the plot department.
not to mention with a 100% complete of all the missions on brutal only takes around 9 hours... which is the even sadder part... if they shorten it any further, why dont they just make a movie? and save gamers the issue of sitting through 4 hours of pointless babble by dr hanson claiming she can save her people, while the protoss say no she cant.
exactly my thoughts. WoL was short!
the too long BS is because they had too many side quests and made the main story look out of point and draggy. *edit* most of the missions were not fun for me, i didn't enjoy single player.
hots is priced the same as wol?? how can it be called an expansion then? doesnt blizzard know what's happening in the world economy and the US? Whatever blizzard says its doing, its not for the fans!
not 1 fan would agree with this BS they are trying to pass off.
|
It's just an excuse to make little content. It was nice of them for telling us what to think: that it was too long.
|
i was pretty hyped for sc2 single player when it came out because like in the first 6 missions in you didnt even hit the main arc yet and were doing pretty fun side missions so i was like wow if blizzard spent so much time on these little missions to make them decent then the main story is gonna rock. shows what i know. i'd prefer they spend less time doing filler and more time writing uncheesy dialogue and ruining space opera with prophecies. also no more friend raynor thanks.
|
I wouldn't mind if they kept the same length, I really don't think 8 hours is too long for people.
Maybe more missions on hard or brutal while slimming down the normal difficulty?
Keep the fanboys and casuals alike happy
|
Honestly? It felt like WoL was full of filler missions that didn't really even need to be there.
|
On October 26 2011 08:51 Kurr wrote: Rofl. How else would they get people to buy 1 game + 2 expansions at 60$ each? Start with high expectations (each their own game, battle.net the same no matter which one you own, each 30 missions because they only have 1 race).
Now : -It's an expansion -Different ladders if you only own WoL -Less missions -Still the same price as if it was a standalone game.
Come on.. They have not announced the price.
|
Wtf, is this some kind of joke?? The campaing wasnt long. Was just...CRAPPY
Why?? Simple, compared with the vanilla sc, it feel totally un-epic. Mission to use a ion cannon?? Mission to mine and lift when lava goes up?? Mission to evac some people?? And so.
WTF! Sooo many "meh" missions.
I want more epic missionss!! Like the last one, like the last two from zeratul missions, like the one in bw when kerrigan kill duke and fenix, like the one in bw when u can use prtoss and zergs to crush the celebrates....More epicness pleasee!!
|
Too long? First of all, I've never heard of someone complain about a game that was too long. Second, no it wasn't.
|
I never finished the campaign, but not because of it's length but because of it's crappyness.
|
On October 27 2011 14:54 Itsmedudeman wrote: Too long? First of all, I've never heard of someone complain about a game that was too long. Second, no it wasn't.
I think "too long" is a valid complaint for like every game Japan has ever produced. WoL wasn't though. After SC1 and War2/War3 I found it disappointing in length and satisfaction. (In before that's what she said.) Even brutal was meh.
I think more than anything I missed the divided campaigns/chapters. WoL was just scattered everywhere and once I finished I kind of wondered where my game went.
|
obviously the people who say the campaign is too long are terrible persons who torture small animals and worship satan.
ok joking aside, i think the campaign was good, anything less would've made it feel short to me. i dont mind if the story develops a little bit target then having multiple epic turn of events every mission. slower story development really does a better job of sucking people into the story then a short paced story that is unsatisfying to finish due to It's shortness. besides that, i cant imagine why people find the length a problemen. if you just wanna shoot stuff play on bnet or vs a.i.. campaign should be for people that love the story and want to take their time to enjoy itand not breeze throgh it in one evening for the damn achievements.
|
Whaaat ?!, WoL campaign too long ? no, not at all, it was somewhere inbetween ok and still too short for me.
I actually was shocked we're only getting bout 20 missions in HotS.
And when they are saying it will be about 20 missions then most likely will end up with like 18 or 19 at best. With SC1 it was like 30 missions in base game and not many less missions in the expansion, and now with the game being more expensive they are still cutting missions ...
I hope they gonna be at least really good and swarmish.
Oh, yes, and obviously this :D :
On October 27 2011 21:38 B.I.G. wrote: obviously the people who say the campaign is too long are terrible persons who torture small animals and worship satan.
|
I recieved way too much value for the money I spended on WoL!
Honestly I don't buy the argument that the game was too long. If I enjoy playing a game it's great if it's long. If I don't enjoy it length doesn't matter much.
I got a few friends who bought sc2 and never played it much, but a shorter single player campaign wouldn't have made them play the game more. Something that could have made them log in and play more is chat channels, there was a few evenings when we managed to get people online and play some great custom games but without an in game community platform it took some effort. That train left the station by now though, people wont buy an expansion to a game they never played much.
A shorter campaign is more likely an adjustment to the industry standard. Why spend money on developing stuff you can leave out without hurting sales? That's just bad business.
|
On October 27 2011 22:08 Handuke wrote:
A shorter campaign is more likely an adjustment to the industry standard. Why spend money on developing stuff you can leave out without hurting sales? That's just bad business.
Nowadays "Industry standard" is to get a new title out for 50 bucks, complain about it's poor sales to the pirates, 3 monts later they lower the price to 20 $ and sell it in holiday sales on steam for 2,50 $.
If ppl stay with blizzard's games it's because they doing quality and not EA standard crap.
|
I think everyone can agree that more content equals more happiness.
|
I can't wait to run around with zeratul in my shortened zerg campaign
edit: btw I'd drop that "blizz quality" thing entirely... that's history. quality isn't a top priority when you make money. marketing and glittery crap like achievements are. I also think it's absolutely brilliant of them to explain this by saying "oh, but this is what you want"
|
I think whats being missed here is that Blizzard through battle.net would have huge and accurate stats on how many people completed how many missions. Do 90% of the tl readers want more, finished on brutal, etc. we make up only a percentage of total gamers.
If blizzard says most / a lot of people didn't finish the game, they are almost certanly right. If they throw out 20 more focused and epic missions for 30 (not 50) bucks I'm down with it. even if I would rather have 100 missions.
|
I paid for this game and I want less content. Next time Blizzard comes around with a new game it better be no more than $1 per minute of entertainment or they'll never receive a single cent from me again ever. Who do they think they are?
|
It is only because we bought the game to paly the multiplayer, not the singleplayer. The singleplayer is nice to have, and i really enjoyed playing it (twice), but it is not the main reason to buy SC2.
|
i wish it was longer, finished it in a few days. even brutal is kinda easy, if you have some mp skills.
but it might be too much for casuals -.-
|
What? People actually don't like long games? They want less for their money? Probably some bullshit excuse to make less missions... T_T
|
People who are this negative are ruining e-sports imo. The more the merrier imo, and even those who don't think so shouldn't encourage Blizzard to have less content in the HotS SP just because they were too lazy to really give a fuck about the single player anyway, geez...
Edit: Please show this thread to Blizz btw, so that they'll see that the biggest SC forum disagrees with shortening it...
|
I loved every bit of the WoL single player experience. From the challanges all the way up to beting it on Normal/Hard/Brutal 1 playthrough at a time. Sadly once blizzard has started on something its almost set in stone.
|
100%'d, am biased, did love, was a long wait and worth it
|
I think they said their pricing will be a standard expansion price, but that still does not account for a shorter campaign, since they promised a full campaign per race that would be large. So large in fact that they had to cut it into three little pieces.
Sounds like epic bullshit to me if they then decide to make the campaigns shorter, which were the given reason for cutting up SC2 in three pieces in the first place.
|
On October 27 2011 12:57 vol_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 08:51 Kurr wrote: Rofl. How else would they get people to buy 1 game + 2 expansions at 60$ each? Start with high expectations (each their own game, battle.net the same no matter which one you own, each 30 missions because they only have 1 race).
Now : -It's an expansion -Different ladders if you only own WoL -Less missions -Still the same price as if it was a standalone game.
Come on.. They have not announced the price. They have announced that it will be priced as an expansion, which means it will likely be 40$ (if WoW expansions are anything to go by). I'd be very surprised if it was 50$, and it most certainly won't be 60$. But it probably won't be under 40$ either.
|
How the hell can it be too long? Are people that used to wasting money on shitty shooters with a 3 hour campaign?
Who plays a game they enjoy and then says to themselves "Man, I just wish there wasn't so much game here."?
Dumbasses like this are the reason there was never an Ogre Battle 64 sequel.
|
Why does Blizzard think games are there to be finished? This wasn't the case pre-Playstation.
Very few finished Mario or Metroid or Zelda, especially given the first two's save systems. I think they were better games for it, it felt like they had endless content to explore despite being only NES size.
|
Too long!? WHAT!? We need more man. come on blizzard!!!!!!
|
The campaign was too long because the story sucked.
Also Blizzard should cope with the reality more than half of gamers don't finish a single player campaign they purchased.
If their online monitoring says something like 80% of players who started the campaign didn't reach the end then I could understand their concern about the mission length.
|
On October 28 2011 06:52 Greggle wrote: How the hell can it be too long? Are people that used to wasting money on shitty shooters with a 3 hour campaign?
Who plays a game they enjoy and then says to themselves "Man, I just wish there wasn't so much game here."?
Dumbasses like this are the reason there was never an Ogre Battle 64 sequel.
Dont make me sad T_T
I like long games, but well 20 missions from 29 ish(which 2-3 were just reskins for the decisions) doesn't seem that bad. Especially if they have some replay value. I do agree with what Blizzard said that the pacing of the missions was pretty wonky, a lot of downtime doing nothing.But to be faqir I do think that was a problem with W3 and SC1 missions.
Its not really that bad if they decide to make those missions really fun and we get a more focused story. Just my 2 cents
|
I think people who thought the campaign was too long were just not very good at this game (understandable since not everyone is a BW/RTS vet). They'd probably try to macro off of 1 rax + 1 factory all game long and even then barely so. Thus, what should have been a 10 min map becomes 30 min for them, and what should have been a 15-20 hr campaign becomes 60 hr.
|
The single player was too long?! I was surprised at how fast it went by when I finished it. And why would Blizzard give a living DAMN about people's complaints on the low amount of achievements? HotS should have about 25 missions, just like WoL.
|
i think 30 missions wold be fine with me
|
Have they considered that people don't always finish SP as MP is just too awesome? Or all the people with multiple accounts due to stupid region locks like myself, took me a while to finish SP asI MP mostly and I only finished it on 1 account. I did not find it long and lots of people find MP too intimidating and are buying this purely for SP. Don't make SP shorter
|
Wings of Liberty did have too many missions, but I'd rather that some of the side quest missions were filled in with more campaign development instead of downsizing it like what they're suggesting that they'll do for HotS.
|
Wow.
I bought SC2 the day it came out as my first RTS, with no prior exposure to any StarCraft game. I did play WoW and Diablo though. xD
Anyways, I played through the campaign on casual straight away, and unlocked all of the achievements that are doable for that difficulty within three days. And I wanted more.
The Zerg and Protoss inside of me are extremely disappointed that Blizzard feels that cutting out more and more content will somehow make their game more better received by us.
I'm actually offended that they would grant the Terran such an awesome campaign (and I'm Terran as I say this) and skimp out on the Zerg and Protoss. That's not even fair on so many levels.
But hey, it's their game, so who really cares?
|
On October 28 2011 09:51 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 06:52 Greggle wrote: How the hell can it be too long? Are people that used to wasting money on shitty shooters with a 3 hour campaign?
Who plays a game they enjoy and then says to themselves "Man, I just wish there wasn't so much game here."?
Dumbasses like this are the reason there was never an Ogre Battle 64 sequel. Dont make me sad T_T I like long games, but well 20 missions from 29 ish(which 2-3 were just reskins for the decisions) doesn't seem that bad. Especially if they have some replay value. I do agree with what Blizzard said that the pacing of the missions was pretty wonky, a lot of downtime doing nothing.But to be faqir I do think that was a problem with W3 and SC1 missions. Its not really that bad if they decide to make those missions really fun and we get a more focused story. Just my 2 cents
Know what my favorite part of Ogre Battle 64 was? By the time you had access to every class in the game you still had like 15 missions left to get to explore and experiment with them all. I feel like for as long as they're still introducing new units it's still basically the tutorial. It's like Diablo 2 where the real game doesn't even start until Nightmare and you have access to all your skills already.
|
Achievements let them measure how many people beat the game. They probably showed that most people did 20 missions and no more, hence the decision to do 20 missions.
|
On October 28 2011 09:56 teamsolid wrote: I think people who thought the campaign was too long were just not very good at this game (understandable since not everyone is a BW/RTS vet). They'd probably try to macro off of 1 rax + 1 factory all game long and even then barely so. Thus, what should have been a 10 min map becomes 30 min for them, and what should have been a 15-20 hr campaign becomes 60 hr.
Well, when I first played the campaign I had no RTS experience whatsoever. So yeah, I needed at lot of time to beat it. But it was still awesome and I would have loved to play 30 more missions right after that. It definitely wasn't too long and I mean, you didn't have to play all missions if you just wanted to reach the end of the campaign.
|
The length was fine. But the story was below average, maybe that's why people didn't complete it.
|
I thought it was too long. Definitely the minority here, but i'd really like it if HOTS was about 2/3 to 1/2 the length of WoL
|
If only they'd kept to developing three races instead of one I bet more people would have had the attention span to finish the game.
It's kind of stupid though, even in Starcraft 1 many people didn't finish the campaign just because multiplayer was there. Just because some people don't finish it doesn't mean they rest of us don't want to have a full-length single player experience.
|
I found it the perfect length. I finished it in 2 days watching all the movies n stuff too plus I was kinda slow at it too at first since it had been a really long time since i had played starcraft. Now I could finish it much faster and since HOTS will be shorter it'll go just that much faster since im much better at zerg than terran
|
I don't agree. It was short GIVE ME MOARRR! I just love playing long campaigns, chilling and finding new stuff etc it's so cool.... I just want to take my time and enjoy it, so please make it longer!
|
Too long?? I finished that campaign in a weekend with EVERY achievement. I only did my last achievement were you had to finish the campaign in 6 hours or less on normal a week later.
|
Really... I can't understand why they think it was too long, no matter how hard I try xD it was too short for me. The longer - the better, it won't be boring with that lore.
|
Seriously, campaign on normal difficulty is really quick and effortless. Brutal took some more time, but that was the whole point, more challenge. I really don't see how could anyone complain. I guess some hardcore noobs. I was greatly disappointed when they announced only 20 missions for HotS, when WoL had 29. Lame.
|
About 90% of the sc2 players are casual players. They never even heard of teamliquid and whatnot. obviously those people have the majority in the blizzard polls as well
I really liked the campaign but some missions were really a bit boring and too long even for my taste.
|
I think the campaign was too long. in the first missions it was just about getting money and upgrades and even later in the campain there were to many sidequests which had nothing to do with the main storyline. A campain, especially for rts, needs to tell an interesting story which keeps me playing because I want to know what happens in the next mission. Its very hard to archieve this with 29 missions.
Warcraft III campaigns were awesome and they only had like 10 missions. There was a campaign for every race though, so it had a little more content than sc2 but it was spread over 4 different stories which made it way more interesting.
Its a much better concept than the one starcraft 2 has.
|
I like the long campaign time! I hope they really up the quality of the existing levels at least but i doubt blizzard will go back and alter much.
I was really looking for to have a full 30 campaign missions to play with since I main zerg.
|
All the casual gamers were probably complaining about the length. I hope Blizzard remembers us, the more hardcore gamers and does not shorten HotS too much.
|
Well I hope at least brutal will be brutal.
|
How can a storyline be 'too long'? Is anyone complaining about it? Just sounds like a lousy excuse to make it shorter, because not as many people are going to get pissed because it's short. Honestly if the campaign took a month of gameplay to complete none would still complain. What's there to complain about? -_-'
|
Presumably, they don't want to make a 200 hours campaign that would be completed by 10% of the player base. They would rather have a short campaign that is completed by 60% (arbitrary number) of their players.
|
On October 29 2011 05:28 Telenil wrote: Presumably, they don't want to make a 200 hours campaign that would be completed by 10% of the player base. They would rather have a short campaign that is completed by 60% (arbitrary number) of their players.
Why?
Edit. Imo how many who complete the campaign is more depending on the quality of the campaign, rather than how long it is. A long campaign often increases quality. Look at how many people are playing mass effect and assassin's creed for instance. Super long campaign with a shit tonne of people playing.
|
What? I've played through the WoL campaign no less than 5 times (3 on normal, 1 on hard, 1 on brutal) just to get all the achievements! There's not way that it's "too long!" Quite the contrary, there isn't enough!
|
I loved the Nova / Tosh missions. Played them like 10 times without nukes just to play around. Hope there'll be more missions like that ^_^
|
AH come on Blizzard, look at SC1 and BW! There are a lot of missions, yes, but they were all awesome because they are all story related (even the "side-quests" are pretty awesome, eg hi-jacking battlecruisers, they relate to the story!). Oh, Raynor and Fenix escaped to Shakuras, oh now Kerrigan wants our help huh, now Artanis is infiltrating this terran base, oh now I'm retrieving these crystals, then oh Kerrigan you spoony girl. Then on the terran missions, it's like, oooh UED is here, let's infiltrate the dominion base, hijack some battlecruisers, then we defend against their onslaught, oh Stukov a traitor?? Ah but no. And now we gotta stop Duran. Hey, we may be able to control the overmind? Etc. The storyline is packed with more twists, politics, character developement and we get to see deeper into the starcraft universe.
SCII compared to this is just shallow. It feels like just one of the SC1 race campaigns, but as a full game. Quality, Blizzard. The number of missions can get reduced, but make it good! SC1 had 10 missions for one race, and you always get something exciting to do next. Learn from that. All the pretty enhancements onboard the Hyperion doesn't make the story better. AH.
|
I think it had just the right amount of missions for a full game. The achievements and multiple difficulty levels and the different order the missions can be done in add a *lot* of replayability. The only thing I was disappointed about was the lack of any Zerg missions despite shoehorning in 3 or 4 Protoss ones. One thing I really liked aswell is that the missions all feel quite distinctive, with lots more than "here's your little base, kill this giant base". I'm not sure if they could have added many more missions without diluting that aspect. And the storyline *did* get stretched pretty thin over 29 missions. It felt like Raynor was suffering from ADD -hey let's take down Mengsk -oooh no let's collect these artifacts first -oooh no let's save these colonists before that -oooh no let's help this creepy psychic voodoo guy and so on. They could have told the entire plot of WoL over 10 missions if they wanted to.
|
I thought the single player was just right in terms of length. Definitely wouldn't want it any shorter...
I mean, any hardcore person could finish it in a weekend. If you don't care about the story enough to finish it then who cares.
|
- 29 missions are too long for many players, who doesnt reached the final, so HotS is intendet to be shorter - Surveys from Blizzard revealed many negative feedback from players, the campaign was too big, even coworker's from other teams said this - achievementrate of finished singleplayer is low too - HotS is planned with around 20 missions, still same amount of highlights like WoL
second part is about new units, so nothing new information at all.
I cant believe this to be true as i can remember Blizzard announced WoL and the Addons will have full content and dont feel like addons cause you can only play 1 Race at Singleplayer.
I'm really curious if this survey/poll is legit or whether it was misinterpreted. People not finishing the campaign because it's too long >.>? They could have finished it easily on casual (and if it was "too easy therefore too boring" for them play on brutal).
More missions = potentially more assets for map editor = more fun stuff to use in custom maps (for map players and map editors).
I also found the campaign to be the right length.
Hopefully it lasts the same amount.
Also yes when SC2 (announced as a trilogy) was announced, they did say (Karune in a stickied topic in the old SC2 battle.net forums [you can find it on archive.org]) said that each race will have "potentially up to" 30 missions each.
So yes Blizzard did announce it at first that each of the races would have 30 missions.
SC1 had 30, BW had 28 (if you count dark origins secret mission). WC3 had maybe 30ish (I forgot) but TFT had a little bit less but there was also an Orc campaign too (where you just control Rexxar [sp?]) which lasted a decent amount.
Well we'll see. I like Blizzard but lately they've been making up excuses for things:
Diablo III on online only - Well guys there were "a lot" of people (in Diablo II) who played Single Player then were bummed to find out you couldn't play multiplayer on battle.net with friends. That's one of the reasons Diablo III is online only guys. We don't want people to accidentally click the single player button, play for hours, then find out they can't play with their friends in D3! We can't have that!
Starcraft II with no chat channels - Do you really want chat channels?
Starcraft II on name changes - Do you really want name changes?
And now this - Wings of Liberty was too long. So to do our customers a favor, we're making the game shorter!
tl;dr - Blizzard seems to like finding excuses for the things they do.
|
Strange. I felt the single player had just the right amount of content. The missions were fun and varied, though I could have done without some of the corny dialogue and for certain the terrible ending. But, this is about the amount of missions and I felt they had it just right.
Edit: Maybe they should reexamine their strategy. It makes more sense to me to work on the quality of the story telling a bit more rather than simply cut down on the amount of content. If people didn't finish the game because they got bored then that, to me anyways, is more a result of the lower quality story rather than the gameplay, which was truly excellent.
|
I found the amount of missions dealing with Char, or the "final area" to be severely lacking. Especially when you're supposed to have this epic rally speech implying how long and hard you have struggled to get to where you are.
There needed to be more substance at the end. Either 2 or more missions, or a 10 minute movie of battle action.
|
Does this means that we're going to pay the same full priced game for less content ? I think WoL campaign, aside the story, is perfect. Every mission brings something new to the table and the pacing is top notch. I would hate to see Blizz dump down HotS campaign just because some people are not patient enough to finish the campaign. I guess you can't please everyone, huh ?
|
Weird, I loved the length of WoL single player, the missions were challenging and fun.
|
Length was fine (perhaps a bit short, compared to the SC1 and BW campaigns), gameplay was great, story was shit. I definitely did NOT think the campaign was too long, I beat it in under 48 hours after release and never touched it again. I'd rather have more front end campaign stuff, it's such a tiny part of the game overall anyway.
|
This seems like a biased poll to me... I mean you are posting it in a forum of people who love the Single Player. Do you expect them to say anything other than they want more?
For me personally I liked the Single Player but I felt like there were too many missions in the middle, getting all the units, and not enough for the end missions (all Char missions)
|
maybe it was too long for people playing at normal speed and playing 2-3 times per mission because they lose to computers... lol
|
I think it's just an excuse by Blizzard to only give us 20 missions. Sure a lot of the missions were ultimately irrelevant to the story at hand, but the gameplay and level design for most missions was quite good.
|
As if they were too long. The campaign was easy even on Brutal difficulty, and the hardest mission must have taken what, like two tries max to complete? The achievements for campaign were also very easy, they just took a little extra time. I don't know why they think it was too long. I mean, playing on casual, you could finish it easily in under 5 hours.
|
On October 27 2011 04:05 jeeeeohn wrote: The WoL campaign was the best RTS campaign I've ever played, and I've played WCIII, WCIII: FT, Red Alert 2, Stronghold, Stronghold Crusader, Rome: Total War, etc etc.
Seriously Blizzard, it should have been LONGER. HARDER. FASTER. I think I've played through this campaign about 4 times now (including my other account), and I just started brutal (it's easier than I thought it would be).
It's really not fair that you make an awesome 29 mission long Terran campaign then skimp on the Zerg content, not fair at all.
Warcraft III and TFT's campaigns were far better. Not commenting on the units and gameplay as much as in the story. Each mission felt very important. The same goes for most missions in SC1.
|
On October 29 2011 16:32 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 04:05 jeeeeohn wrote: The WoL campaign was the best RTS campaign I've ever played, and I've played WCIII, WCIII: FT, Red Alert 2, Stronghold, Stronghold Crusader, Rome: Total War, etc etc.
Seriously Blizzard, it should have been LONGER. HARDER. FASTER. I think I've played through this campaign about 4 times now (including my other account), and I just started brutal (it's easier than I thought it would be).
It's really not fair that you make an awesome 29 mission long Terran campaign then skimp on the Zerg content, not fair at all. Warcraft III and TFT's campaigns were far better. Not commenting on the units and gameplay as much as in the story. Each mission felt very important. The same goes for most missions in SC1.
WC3 TFT and SC1 and SCBW had amazing campaigns
SC2 was a joke, i used to like jim raynor but they ruined him for me with that stupid story
on topic: obvious excuse for blizzard to devote less time to singleplayer and try to make it seem like "they're doing it for us". When can any singleplayer ever be too long? Only too short.
|
Don't worry.. The campaign will feel just as long or even longer even with shorter missions because you play as Zerg this time.
No more marine/medic breeze to victory.
I just hope they do something similar to putting a few missions with a different race, like the Zeratul visions.
|
They crammed 3 games worth of one race's campaign into one game, that's the whole strategy behind SC2 vs SC1/BW.
I thought the length was fine. Hell, WC3 felt longer.
|
Some achievements are too difficult. I think WoL was a fine single player game.
|
my one ciriticism of single player is that it is of no value in getting you ready fro multiplayer - wghich is what my friends expected from it.
|
I strongly believe this to be either a lie or a misreading of statistical data. Sure I didn't get many achievements as well because I was born in the age where achievements weren't necessary for a player to spend long term quality-time on a game.
What needs to be done is to have only 3 difficulties - there is no need for more really. Easy difficulty should be for players who just want to see the videos and storyline. Normal difficulty for casual players who want to have some challenge but don't want to spend hours repeating the same mission over again. Hard difficulty for hardcore players who want to have their missions tough - so that you need to repeat a mission until you get the strategy/nuances right and some of the missions should last an hour or more. Every mission could then be considered an achievement.
|
there is a huge difference in skill between playes.
Brutal was hard for me yet i am infinitley better than a lot of my friends. Yet it was easy for the hardcore guys on here.
I was out of practise at rts when i cam back to the sc world.
|
On October 29 2011 18:17 askTeivospy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:32 Demonhunter04 wrote:On October 27 2011 04:05 jeeeeohn wrote: The WoL campaign was the best RTS campaign I've ever played, and I've played WCIII, WCIII: FT, Red Alert 2, Stronghold, Stronghold Crusader, Rome: Total War, etc etc.
Seriously Blizzard, it should have been LONGER. HARDER. FASTER. I think I've played through this campaign about 4 times now (including my other account), and I just started brutal (it's easier than I thought it would be).
It's really not fair that you make an awesome 29 mission long Terran campaign then skimp on the Zerg content, not fair at all. Warcraft III and TFT's campaigns were far better. Not commenting on the units and gameplay as much as in the story. Each mission felt very important. The same goes for most missions in SC1. WC3 TFT and SC1 and SCBW had amazing campaigns SC2 was a joke, i used to like jim raynor but they ruined him for me with that stupid story on topic: obvious excuse for blizzard to devote less time to singleplayer and try to make it seem like "they're doing it for us". When can any singleplayer ever be too long? Only too short.
XD.
Not enough people completed our cheesey campain with Jim and his butt buddies romping around the galaxy for an artifact while being chased by ex girlfriends and boyfriends alike.
Solution:
Lets not improve our shitty script but rather just make our campain shorter that way more people will suffer trough the entire story and we can brag about a bigger % of players that completed our campain.
On October 29 2011 23:55 MrTortoise wrote: there is a huge difference in skill between playes.
Brutal was hard for me yet i am infinitley better than a lot of my friends. Yet it was easy for the hardcore guys on here.
I was out of practise at rts when i cam back to the sc world.
and? Its supposed to be BRUTAL. Its the highest tier of difficulty and if its not difficult then. -.-
|
In general, a 30 mission campaign isn't too long; however the story didn't provide material for this number, so too many missions just felt like time filler.
|
LOL @ Blizz thinking SC2 was too long, after beautifully crafting the WC3+TFT and SC+BW campaigns in the past
|
just making excuses for their poorly designed story with characters that doesn't even make sense, and which the vast majority of the missions contribute nothing to the story and are just there to waste time, at least 10x more stuff has happened storywise in either expansions of sc1 than in sc2 wol, just bs-ing your way into 30 missions with so little content is just bad
|
I just wanted to watch the story so I made marine medic every mission and a moved. on very easy. took like 5 mins a mission,
|
On October 30 2011 02:20 Rinny wrote: I just wanted to watch the story so I made marine medic every mission and a moved. on very easy. took like 5 mins a mission,
I did the exact same thing on brutal. I'd like Blizzard to add some sort of plot to the game. This one was basically "Whoa! Save your girlfriend and help a bunch of random inconsequential losers!".
I didn't really like the scene where Valerian talks about saving Kerrigan. To me, it was a scene that was designed to generate hype but inhibit higher thought. And then Raynor gets all angsty and makes himself out as a hero working against all odds. When he actually had OP medics (just kidding, but it felt like the story arc was designed to make the player think "Wow, I didn't expect that! I wonder what will happen next" when there weren't very many plot twists).
|
I really hope they don't make the singleplayer shorter. It just seems like they are trying to get Heart of the Swarm out quicker.
I'd rather have a game with more content and time taken to develop it than a game which comes out earlier than expected.
|
What I gathered from this thread, people on a Starcraft 2 site make a poll and decide, they want to play more Starcraft 2. I'm pretty sure Blizzard has in mind the other, and predictably larger demographic of players who DON'T enjoy it as much as we do.
|
I just wanted to play more Protoss, so when I had finished the Protoss side quests I stopped playing. :p
|
for casual players who can spend 1-2 hours per day on the game its really too long
|
On October 30 2011 06:42 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: for casual players who can spend 1-2 hours per day on the game its really too long
Okay... seriously, no it isn't! Don't tell me you don't read 300+ page novels because they're too long and you only have 1-2 hours a day to read. The beauty of single-player games is they're made to be played at your own pace. This ain't no MMORPG where you have to dedicate to a tight schedule to advance your character and see more of the plot.
If it took you a whole month to finish where others would spend under a week, that's fine and dandy! The important question should be: was it enjoyable? Were you eager to keep coming back for more the next day? Or are we truly in an era where the public's attention span is limited to CoD-type short as balls games?
|
^ What Lunchador said. I had less than 1-2 a day to play WoL, because I cound´t play everyday. I took more than a month to end the game, and when I did I was "nooo, want to play more"
|
On October 26 2011 08:19 ClysmiC wrote: I thought the whole point of splitting the game into 3 parts was the long and epic storyline they had planned...
Exactly...we get to wait like 5 years or something to see the end of the game because people wanted something epic. Now we're going to get that same amount of time but get a shorter campaign like it was in SC and BW (where we got 3 races in one zip)....
Its probably the first time Im mad at blizzard but if we wait for so long and then get a shorter thing....well I have to live with it but I'll be mad and sad...and rage a little bit too.
|
Single player was too long? They pay this much money for a game and people are asking for less? Casuals are starting to ruin single player now and I find it rather unfortunate.
|
I do not get it that's like saying your d*ck is to long :s
|
Let us change the game speed from normal to faster and all the problems with the campaign being too long go away
|
I would pay $60 for another 29+ mission campaign. Custom games and ladder play aren't a big focal point of mine so I feel like the story is where I get my moneys worth.
|
On October 30 2011 06:54 Lunchador wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 06:42 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: for casual players who can spend 1-2 hours per day on the game its really too long Okay... seriously, no it isn't! Don't tell me you don't read 300+ page novels because they're too long and you only have 1-2 hours a day to read. The beauty of single-player games is they're made to be played at your own pace. This ain't no MMORPG where you have to dedicate to a tight schedule to advance your character and see more of the plot. If it took you a whole month to finish where others would spend under a week, that's fine and dandy! The important question should be: was it enjoyable? Were you eager to keep coming back for more the next day? Or are we truly in an era where the public's attention span is limited to CoD-type short as balls games? Agree, that argument is so stupid. Just because you don't have time to finish it in 3 days doesn't make it too long, you should be glad that you're one of the people lucky enough to have the awesomeness ahead of them for so much longer.
|
On October 30 2011 06:42 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: for casual players who can spend 1-2 hours per day on the game its really too long
rofl what?!?!? Are you serious?
First of all 1-2 hours a day i wouldn't call casual, but lets not get into definitions now.
Lets say for good order completing complete single player is 10hours playtime (getting some achievements too). Why is having to spend 5-10days (1-2hours a day) to much? Its a 60 euro game, why does it have to be so casual someone can finish it in 2hours?
I dont see whats wrong with people casually playing a game they enjoy and spending weeks finishing it.
|
more is better when it comes to blizzard game
|
The problem are the casuals (as always)... Blizzard said most of the players didn't played through the Singeplayer and only 0.2% have done it on Brutal. The HotS Campaign will be much more casual, bet your ass on it. But I hope Brutal will be a challenge.
|
On October 31 2011 03:36 Dreck wrote: The problem are the casuals (as always)... Blizzard said most of the players didn't played through the Singeplayer and only 0.2% have done it on Brutal. The HotS Campaign will be much more casual, bet your ass on it. But I hope Brutal will be a challenge. I highly doubt only 0.2% have done it on Brutal. It's not THAT hard. I have friends who have beaten it with no huge problems in as low leagues as Gold, without even playing Terran. Pretty sure that would cover a little more than 1/500 players -.-
Edit: More specifically, I mean that if you want to play on Brutal, most players can finish it. It's a matter of will, not skill.
|
is this a joke ? sc1 had 30 missions and nobody complained at all
|
I wouldn't say that casuals are the problem. It's either Blizzard searching for an excuse to make HotS shorter or them interpretating stats wrong... There are just so many reasons why somebody doesn't finish the campaign that aren't "it's too long", for example: some people are simply not interested in the campaign, others are disappointed by the story, yet others bought the game as their first rts and they just aren't really interested in that genre.
I'd bet that only a small percentage of people that didn't finish the campaign did so because it took them too long.
|
Who cares about SP. I just hope they bring balanced units and fun 1vs1 content.
|
My dick is too long and too wide. However the campaign wasn't either. I played through it on normal,hard & brutal. Got all achieves and have been waiting for HOtS ever since. Show me ONE player who couldn't finnish the campaign between WOL and HOtS. I mean it's been over a year. You really telling me people cannot finnish 3 missions in a month? A single parent with 3 kids & 2 jobs who doesn't even own a computer has time to do that.
|
Thanks to the achievements you can see how many people actually finished the game, so they can make their decisions based on that. If 75% of the players only got 50% of the way through (pulling numbers out the air) then that's a lot of content being wasted that resources could have been used elsewhere.
I didn't finish it. Got halfway through, got bored.. played multiplayer with friends instead. I'll prob try and finish it before Hots, but it's not high on my priority list at the moment.
|
|
Well, we knew how to weed out the fans from the wannabe fans... I guess we won't be able to in HotS
|
This is obviously intended as an excuse to do less work for HotS single player.
WoL single player too long? Are people in a hurry to finish it? It doesn't have to be finished in one sitting; potentially 30 or more sittings is more like it. I don't buy the fact that a single person remotely interested in the single player campaign could, with a straight face, say that they want less missions. Pretty much every mission had a unique objective, and if you ignore the trashy story line, I'd say the single player campaign of WoL was brilliantly designed.
Also, what oZe and Lunchador said.
|
Oh my god, the more I hear the more convinced I am that they really do have no idea what their fans think of the game and that all success is merely lucky guessing (which isn't necessarily the worst thing until the lucky guessing goes unlucky).
I can't believe they're considering making HotS shorter than WoL =/
|
People weren't making it to the end of the WoL campaign? Jesus christ, setting it on casual and making marine medic was too difficult? Other gamers I know could probably do runs of Hard without saving mid-mission. But to get to the point, why are they making it shorter? The entire fun and appeal of the WoL campaign was how long it felt and how every single upgrade and section seemed to matter. When you picked up even something as simple as a bunker upgrade, it really felt like that was an investment that someone(s) like Raynor and Swann would actually come up with- some kind of technological trick that wouldn't normally be part of the arsenal (multiplayer) that made the game feel "yours" as you played it. And after beating it more than once, and doing the achievement for beating it far too quickly, it actually feels too short now. Now I know when the Protoss missions begin, and that doing all of them immediately is the right choice for a smoother run through the rest of the story (because you jump up so many tiers on the research lines.) Now I know exactly what upgrades I want to research. Now I know what units I want for what mission, and therefore what order to do them in. There's suddenly no longevity anymore. I want more, dammit- not less.
(For those looking for a cheap reason or two to replay, unlock Hanson as fast as possible and then never do the final colonist mission- she has some commentary after some of the other missions are done the same way everyone else does, it's just you may have inadvertently given her up too soon. Same goes for Tosh- if you didn't take him along the first time, get him asap and do so- he also has some fun commentary.)
Maybe I can have some faith, and this was information leaked on purpose to bum us out and then suddenly there's like 30 missions and they laugh at us as we hop up and down with glee. Or maybe there's only 20 or so missions, but they're these giant epic maps filled with resets and locale changes and all sorts of amazing things that make them all ultra long and epic and the campaign as a whole equivalent or more to the first. Maybe they'll have more ways to upgrade and specialize the units- the research tech line was kind of iffy (in most cases there's one that's just flat out better depending on the player) and you only got two choices per unit and usually you decked out your entire chosen army comp by the end anyway. Perhaps as zerg, creatures that are supposed to have near-infinite evolution capabilities, these choices are so broad that they'll radically alter the game enough to make up for it.
I can only hope. -.-
|
Well the way games are desgined these days the best thing to do is just to make it short and sweet. Then go back and add replayablity via achievements and the like to fill the need for people who enjoy the campaign and/or it's challenges.
|
On October 31 2011 07:09 Gingerninja wrote: Thanks to the achievements you can see how many people actually finished the game, so they can make their decisions based on that. If 75% of the players only got 50% of the way through (pulling numbers out the air) then that's a lot of content being wasted that resources could have been used elsewhere.
I didn't finish it. Got halfway through, got bored.. played multiplayer with friends instead. I'll prob try and finish it before Hots, but it's not high on my priority list at the moment.
are they taking into account smurf accounts? what about people who just didn't find the hidden mission, you don't get a campaign complete achievement unless you found it.
|
SC2 Single Player = Best way too cool off after frustrating ladder games. I beat it like 3 times with all achievements just by messing around in between games. Make it longer!!
|
I thought a way to please both the players that would rather play a short SP campaign and those like us who thrive for more SP content. I posted it here and I would enjoy feedback
|
I don't mind if they make the SP shorter but in turn, they have to make the game much cheaper.
|
I thought the length was perfect. Not too long. Not too short.
|
Voted in the poll that WoL was absolutely too short at the end; so many exposition missions that did not really matter, and then all of a sudden I'm on char and that's that. The single player needs to be based around moving the story line FIRST, and everything else can come as it falls in to place. I don't need more than one mission teaching me how to build units - and I certainly don't need a new "filler" mission to introduce tanks, banshees, vikings, hellions, razorbacks, etc. etc. Separately.
|
I didn't feel like the campaign was long at all, in fact I feel like I wanted more.
The story itself wasn't particularly amazing, but I found the length to be just right.
|
Well the campaign was long and mostly fun to play. I would like to have an at least as long campaign in HotS, but if I had to choose between a long campaign or a campaign with a good story, I would definitely choose the latter. Cause I think the "sidequests" with tosh and hanson did contribute much to the story; imho they were just fillers for a ratherthin main storyline (collect the artifact and cleanse char). Contrary to SC(BW) when it felt like everything you did gave the story a new turn of events.
|
I'm quite shocked as to begin with I was fairly new to begin with (placing bronze in beta lol) and I still found the campaign fairly short compared to other games on hard difficulty so I suppose each to their own. But I would love for there to be more campaign!
|
A game can NEVER be too long. Unless it's a pile of crap leading to an epic finale.
|
I know some people who just don't care about Singleplayer when buying RTS. They bought it for the competetive aspect and the competetive aspect only. Some people may have bought sc2 and didn't even like it. Some might have not "enough" time to play all the great games that get released. But I don't think those would be more willing to buy the game if it was shorter?!
Having an achievement for beating the whole campaign in ~5 hours (most of it being the Siegetank mission...), doesn't exactly indicate a too long campaign. If I don't misremember the WC3 campaign was way longer, and I can't remember the last time I wished for less content from Blizzard in general.
My conclusion is: If Blizzard doesn't want to make a decent Singleplayer because we will all buy HotS no matter what, that's okay. But they shouldn't lie. No one thinks "If it has 10 missions, I'll buy it; if it has 20, I won't".
|
Sorry this is long but its all my ranting about the issue at hand.
Too long? WOL had 29 missions all of which you could play if you were smart on the first run through. Sc orginal had 30 and BW had 27 (optional mission with hybrids included). So WOL takes the middle ground and that's too long? When people say too long maybe what they mean its too long to only be dedicated to one race in a single player. But if that is the case blizzard should not have divided the missions up among 3 games. + Show Spoiler +Can't do anything about this anymore no use crying over spilled milk. On top of that the missions were incredibly easy with all the upgrades and stuff they gave you to use so the missions completed faster than SC1. The enemy would never try and drop you or flank you or any of that like they did in SC1 + Show Spoiler +granted if the computer in sc1 dropped you and you attacked the transport before it got to land they would turn around but in sc2 the computer doesn't even try. And even when they do you have an NPC saying hey watch out no need to to look at your minimap I'm already telling you that the computer is trying to drop you or flank you. Edit: On deeper thought there was one mission where they drop you, the mission with battlecrusiers. But they always fly in a straight line down the center of the map and are easy as hell to intercept.
Also I know this was partially their objective, as was expressed in a recent single player discussion at Blizzcon. The WOL SP campaign was supposed to to give the player the feeling of the Raiders always just making it there barely on time and pulling off miracle attacks, defenses, and grabs. Then leaving before reinforcements could arrive. But on the same token if they want to cut down single player. They could of made it where you had a limited time to get to certain missions. For example, say Haven (Viking) and The Great Train Robbery (diamondback) become unlocked at the same time you would have the option of only doing one because if you did not go to the Dominion would be done transporting the adjutant or the Protoss would have cleansed Haven by the time you finished the other mission. When I first heard how they were doing the SP in WOL back during the beta thats how I thought it was gonna work. You could have the Raider's revolution playing out differently every time but the main missions that lead you to the end result (Ie collecting the artifacts and neutralizing Kerrigan would not have a time limit and those could be done at your leisure.
|
SC2's campaign was terrible and short. Blizzard did an absolutely awful job of living up to the quality of the original and BW in that respect. They should be looking to make a lengthy campaign that's actually coherent, dramatic, and entertaining. In other words, everything WOL wasn't.
|
Single Player cant be too long. Do blizzard employees even enjoy games?
Gee, that was really fun but i sure wish there was less of it.
|
Lol, show me one person who complained WoL was too long. Fuck blizzard, you are a bunch of lazy neckbeards.
|
- 29 missions are too long for many players, who doesnt reached the final, so HotS is intendet to be shorter - Surveys from Blizzard revealed many negative feedback from players, the campaign was too big, even coworker's from other teams said this
I'm sorry but there should never be "too much" content. Always "too little". These shouldn't even be valid points.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
wow they also say that the game will probably come out ~ fall 2012. is there any reason to say it? earlier estimates pointed at Spring 2012... is it going to be delayed?
|
29 missions are too many? Hots better be alot cheaper . after all sc2 is all about the multiplayer, and anyone can add new units in the map editor, so most of the content they are selling are in the single player missions.
|
No way is it too long, if anything it should have been longer by around 10 missions and a few side ones and then I think it would be a good length, no game can ever be too long really. The more content the better.
|
How to beat brutal campaign in HOTS set rally point to enemy base get swamlings zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Well like...I feel that it was a good length overall. Honestly, you could make it longer just on difficulty alone. Also, it would make sense if HotS would be shorter since it is just an expansion.
|
United States7483 Posts
There's no such thing as too much content in a game -_-.
If I pay $60 for a game, you'd better believe I want it to be absurdly long: the more value I'll get out of my purchase.
|
I thought the length being ~that of the full sc1 campaign was the entire point of breaking them into 3 separate 'SC2s.'
Not gonna lie if they shorten it they most certainly shouldn't keep it at $60(but they will....)
Also shortening it at this point seems unfair for other races(can't think of better way to phrase that, tired). Terran will be left with the 29 mission epic campaign, Zerg and Protoss get 20 missions to flesh out the same length/amount of story(which yes, could help pacing of the story elements, but will sacrifice the amount of fun/different missions).
|
|
Just finishing the story isn't very time consuming, going after the achievements is where it actually gets challenging. I played it on normal without worrying about achievements the first time and it was a pretty good length.
I think there are more important concerns than the length of the game and I hope they're trading length for quality. I'm amazed anyone's saying it's too long though, maybe repetitive, unsatisfying and often irrelevant, but not too long.
|
The WoL campaign lenght was fine. It could even be a little bit longer because some missions are really fast.
In HotS I hope for less scripted missions that really let the player make his own decisions. In WoL some missions (like Supernova, The Dig and others) are so unidimensional that you don't have any fun playing them and you don't wish to play them again.
|
I feel like there are a lot of smurf accounts active, and people rarely play single player on smurf accounts. That would account for some of the "didn't finish single player" statistic.
|
=[ I liked all the missions. Thought the campaign was too short in fact. Not hard at all to run through the entire campaign on brutal in one day if you have the time.
Hoping that they don't cut too much.
|
They should just add more challenges or bonus missions and such. Something linked to the Achievements system like the Challenges in WoL but much more comprehensive. Maybe Co-op challenges like "Mission Impossible" customs.
|
Too long!? wtf where do they get their statistics?
|
Oh god Blizzard. What the F***. I'm tired of 6 hour single players. I dont want to even touch another Call of Duty style single player movie. I dont play games to take up a movies time. Give us a long single player!. If it's too much it's not because of the length, it's because it isnt interesting enough to warrant the time it takes to finish it. The feedback you got was garbage. Must be from a bunch of CoD and similar modern console fans who dont know what it's like to not have you hand held through a 3 hour game. If i want to watch a movie I'll watch a movie. I want to have to do work to get to that ending, and I want to work for a long period of time for it to be worth my money.
|
You know, it did not take me long to beat, but I still love campaign missions. I wish there would be more. The storytelling aspect is always fun and I have replayed the campaign many times since then as well.
|
On November 04 2011 08:42 MaverickSC wrote:Too long!? wtf where do they get their statistics?
Big Brother Blizzard knows what you´re doing at home. As achievements are linked to Battle.net, they have statistics about how many people have acomplished each one of them. Seems that achievements of the end of campaign are being performed at a low rate, therefore, people are not playing the game to the end.
But you can´t read statistics out of context... its like they´re not considering that most players are not actual "gamers" and dont play MOST games to the end. Also SC is a multiplayer game, many hardocore starcraft fans never played the campaign, even in BW.
Actually I think they do know that few people end games. They are just taking a business decision, and will not invest so hard in game content that wont be played.
What they´re not pondering is that many of those people who pay over US$100 to go to Blizzcon, buy Collector Editions and keep the game communities alive are lore whores. Pleasing those fans is a long term investment.
|
The campaign was dissapointing for me, mainly because of the cheesy lines and confusing or non-existent story. The protoss mini-campaign was better quality overall I think. I also don't like how messy replaying the campaign is, with some missions (secret mission?) being forever lost if you missed it the first time, weird mechanic for restarting the campaign after completing it, etc.
Maybe not enough people are finishing the game because instead of telling a story, they copy/pasted generic characters and forgot to add the storyline.
|
On October 26 2011 06:28 Denda Reloaded wrote: i played the campaign within 2 days, i could hurry, but i didn't want to, so i chilled, watched every cinematic, heard every dialogue etc... i think the campaign had too much of short missions, the first 2 were 3-min missions and the other were only about 20 min or so. I just hope that blizz does every mission longer and more interesting, not boring like the most missions of wol.
and of course there are those people who aren't interested in campaing and are to lazy to get the achievement, but many people, like me, like the singleplayer and are not just doing it for this cute little sign in the achieve menu. So Blizz, please, if you are to lazy for doing a campaign or not wanting to invest money in it, just say it. But from what i've seen the both missions from hots were pretty good, better then some of wol, thouhj i've never played them.
In short, i don't belive Blizzard, i don't belaive that Blizzard believes the Achiement-whores and i hope they'll keep their promise... Hard to keep content interesting for 30+ minutes,, tends to become repetitive/annoying/Frustrating. So it makes sense campaign was streamlined and diverse style in game play. Its gonna be a ton of fun if expansion is anything similar, wish more were the superhero style missions like the second to last mission
|
On November 04 2011 20:09 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 08:42 MaverickSC wrote:Too long!? wtf where do they get their statistics? Big Brother Blizzard knows what you´re doing at home. As achievements are linked to Battle.net, they have statistics about how many people have acomplished each one of them. Seems that achievements of the end of campaign are being performed at a low rate, therefore, people are not playing the game to the end. But you can´t read statistics out of context... its like they´re not considering that most players are not actual "gamers" and dont play MOST games to the end. Also SC is a multiplayer game, many hardocore starcraft fans never played the campaign, even in BW. Actually I think they do know that few people end games. They are just taking a business decision, and will not invest so hard in game content that wont be played. What they´re not pondering is that many of those people who pay over US$100 to go to Blizzcon, buy Collector Editions and keep the game communities alive are lore whores. Pleasing those fans is a long term investment.
A simple explanation: no one cared what happened to the "storyline" at the end, so no one bothered to find out. Shallow characters and plot lines tend to make this happen. To me, it was pretty clear that they intended to have 1/3 the amount of story found in SC1, so that they could stretch the game over three installments. However the initial reasoning for having three installments of SC2? "The story is too big to be told in one game." Don't tell us that and then have almost no relevant story in the entire first installment.
|
The length itself was fine (maybe even too short). The problem was that most missions were lacking in focus and immediacy in regards to the main storyline.
In short, it was a problem with the storytelling of the game, not the amount of missions.
|
alot of ppl dont buy sc2 for the single player...but they should keep it long so ppl that play single player can enjoy it.
|
I don't see how it could be considered too long. 29 missions with an average length of 30 minutes (it's probably less) is still only 15 hours of gameplay. That's too much? There were lots of cool things you could do on the side, but you certainly weren't forced to. I guess people who are complaining just died a lot, or tried for all the achievements and got frustrated when they couldn't get them. Even by today's standards, WoL is a relatively short game.
|
How is it not ok fo SC2 campaig to take 15h but wow leveling to take hundreds of hours for a casual without a guide? Not to mention that usually has to be doubled to beat the endgame bosses.
|
The only time when I have dabbled with the SC2 campaign is when I have no internet. It's decent, but really, quite boring overall. I prioritize Matchmaking>Custom Melee maps>Cool custom games>Single Player>Watching paint dry> World of Warcraft.
|
What?? This makes me sad to read! I loved the campaign so much! I have completed it 6 times now and my speedruns are nearing only 6 hours of gameplay - how can that be too long?! I want moooooooar! Blizzard single player campaigns have always been some of the best in my eyes ;D
I'd gladly pay twice the prize for the game for twice the length of the campaign =D
|
IMO this is just a total cop out by blizzard, they just don't want to put in the time to make a long campaign. I've been playing this since its release day and i've never met or heard about a single person thinking the campaign was too long - and even if some do, it must be a tiny minority. Conclusion: just a lie by blizzard so they can focus more on the multiplayer, which they'd better get on if they are serious about the replicator.
|
Too long?! I wish the campaign would've been even longer. Guess the ones who didn't want to plow through 29 missions before moving onto multiplayer could do it in chunks, you don't have to finish the campaign right away.
Disappointing announcement imo, I've never heard anyone complain about the campaign being too long, au contraire the only nay-sayers I've seen are the ones who say "I don't care for the campaign at all, so I didn't play it.", in which case the length does not matter to them.
|
Story line may have been a little too long... but I want MORE not LESS content... just make the story higher quality and then add a ton of topical missions :-)
|
I remember buying the game at 2 PM, and finishing it at 2AM with a friend, watching all the cinematics, all the extras, etc... I don't think it is too long xd
|
I'm guessing the statistics said less than a certain percent of players actually completed the campaign or haven't gone hunting for achievements and thus it's too long. That logic fails. I enjoyed the campaign, but the 'achievement' system in video games really doesn't attract me. Also, a lot of the people I know that play starcraft didn't even bother with the campaign because they're only into multiplayer, not because it was tiresome and too long.
|
wtf, they better not have charge us for $60 for this as well.
|
All I want is for them to give me a story as good as vanilla and BW had. The transition from a sci-fi epic to cowboys in space in WoL was kind of a downer.
|
How can anyone complain a game is too long? The longer it is, the more value you get out of it. The low complete rate is entirely unrelated to that, and far more closely linked to more people buying it for multiplayer than single player. I never went past about 10 missions in, at the rate I won't complete HotS either. Not becfause it's too long, but because I would rather play multiplayer.
|
On November 06 2011 04:48 IMABUNNEH wrote: How can anyone complain a game is too long? The longer it is, the more value you get out of it. The low complete rate is entirely unrelated to that, and far more closely linked to more people buying it for multiplayer than single player. I never went past about 10 missions in, at the rate I won't complete HotS either. Not becfause it's too long, but because I would rather play multiplayer.
I would agree with you, people buy this game because they like the storyline or they just want to play the multyplayer. I on the other hand like both so i payed for the full game. ^_^
|
That's a problem with gaming these days, expansions are becoming as expensive as the full games, especially with the COD series. As much as I love supporting the gaming community and programmers, blizzard is charging 60 dollars a game and it gets pretty expensive after a while. Although I get my moneys worth, in the bigger picture it could turn down the average casual gamer.
|
On October 26 2011 09:17 Mortal wrote: This is a joke right? The campaign took hardly any time on brutal (marine/medic lololol) and they're shortening it? As well as pricing it the same as WoL?
Bazinga, Blizzard is making some sick decisions here.
It's not going to be priced the same as WoL, all Blizzard expansions sell for less than the original game. The Amazon price is just Amazon's wild guess.
|
I spoiled myself on youtube watching some caster go trough all the missions so when i eventually bought the game i got bored of the campain at about the 10th mission, so maybe this is one of the reasons misleading blizzard about why people don't finish...
+ the smurf accounts maybe?
|
This is the lamest excuse I have ever heard out of any company to cut content, ever.
Seriously why don't they just go ahead and say "Yeah sorry guys but we dicked around too long on making creep growing on buildings so we'll only be able to get about 2/3rds of the missions we had planned on done. Don't worry about it though because the creep looks pretty damn cool, amirite guys?"
Or they could pull an Oblivion and say that all their mission data got wiped and they had to restart. At least then we would feel a bit more sympathetic.
|
Casual players have short attention spans, I guess. The starcraft story has always been cheesy, but I liked the campaign just for the the upgrade mechanic, there's something wonderful about being so damn overpowered.
|
I actually liked the campaign length, there was never a point where i was like 'wow, why isn't this over yet..' and i've beaten it multiple times
|
The best part of RTS games is how long they take to complete.
I love taking out a weekend to complete Starcraft or Broodwar every now and again.
|
don't care, as long as we get some better writing/voice acting.
too much cheese in the last one >,<
|
On October 26 2011 08:31 windsupernova wrote:It was fine... Do people really have problems with finishing a 12-20 hour campaign?(numbers atre based on my 1st playthrough) Meh this is why we never get 300 hour games anymore Yup.
It's a big problem for Blizzard. How can you justify spending more money on creating a substantial single player campaign when the majority of your players are not using/seeing that content?
|
I'm more concerned about difficulty and quality rather than length. If there's only 10 missions but they're incredibly challenging on brutal then that's fine by me. The problem is I fear it'll be 17 easy warmup missions then maybe a few that are actually fun at the end.
|
really enjoyed the missions, thought they were creative and well done. Didn't seem at all too long.
|
People who didn't play through the campaign either only care about multiplayer, or aren't the target audience of an RTS to begin with. Or part of some minority that Blizzard shouldn't mind.
|
Content is always good as long as the players feel like they did something worth while and enjoyable.
|
Predictable 2D characters and uninteresting storyline. Blizzard complain not enough people play it. Blizzard shorten campaign so more people play it.
Ahhh blizzard.
|
SC2 was the first RTS game I had ever played. I thought the length of the missions allowed me to learn the game play & mechanics so when I got the last missions I knew what to do. I would have liked even more missions since playing through the game a second time wasn't nearly as challenging or rewarding.
|
I liked the length of the campaign
|
First time I ever played starcraft, did almost all missions on hard, rest on normal. Too short campaign =(
|
Cinematics ownd! They were so awesome, there isn´t a word for it.
|
Yes, cinematics were incredible. Campaign itself didn't feel too long at all. But it doesn't suprise me - after all this ridiculously short games like CoD even Blizzard can't amaze me by their decisions. It's just sad.
|
What? The campaign felt short and rushed and I didnt even one shot everything because I was doing the missions on brutal difficulty right away. Now Blizzard wants to make it even shorter in HotS??
|
Not inciting anything here, but is Blizzard questioning 'casuals' on how to move on with their franchises yet again?
|
A good campaign is never too long. At the end of it, I wanted more. I always want more if it's good. Not sure about this right here.
|
i hope blizz will see this pool and realize we need at least 40 campaign missions!! please DONT make it shorter if so -- at least same lenght as WoL
|
On November 08 2011 23:26 Xpace wrote: Not inciting anything here, but is Blizzard questioning 'casuals' on how to move on with their franchises yet again?
They seem to be obsessed lately with completion statistics, ignoring the vast number of players who don't care about that particular aspect of the game and never will. Singleplayer campaign in SC2, raiding in WoW; it's not like there's some magical formula that will make people want to play it who had no interest before when it was sitting right in front of them.
|
It seems to me like Blizzard just wants a reason to not have to do much work on HotS singleplayer. My take on this is that yes, they should definitely make more missions but not just to add playtime, but quality to the story as well. I really hope that the campaign (the multiplayer for that matter as well) will be worth it once Heart of the Swarm releases.
|
I don't believe that Blizzard truly believes this. They want to make it shorter to save time and money. That's it. I beat the single player game in about 15 or so hours on the hardest difficulty after opening the box. I really hope it's not too short.
|
i dont feel it was too long at all. yeah sure there were some missions that felt like filler, but its a single-player campaign. as long as we get our main story im fine with it. if they feel like they need 50 missions to tell the story, by all means please. the biggest reason i was so hyped for sc2 wasnt for the multiplayer, but for the continuation of the storyline.
|
took me 2 days like 6 hours each sit through to beat the game on brutal -.-
|
Lol at this thread, how can a singleplayer campaign be too long? Are the game developing business degenerating so much that you can actually have a too good of a product? :/
Fuck that, give us a campaign that takes 2 days to play through WHEN skipping side quests. With side quests it should take atleast 3-4 days. Long campaigns = more content = more replayability = more fun = more money for Blizzard. What are they thinking?
|
I never played singleplayer, not even the first mission. Went straight to multi-player.
|
I played through the Tosh missions to get the Tosh portrait, and by that point I was just bored with the campaign
|
I think most of us will agree that SC2 is a bit crappy in singleplayer. When i got it, i was playing broodwar and i decided "hell, if i can play ICCup at C+ level, i should go brutal".After some missions, i realized that the game was very, very poor. First of all, some units are simply overpowered for some missions, while are 100% not needed. Marines and medics works just fine in almost every single mission.
I was increadibly dissapointed by this as its so simple to crank up marine medic with upgrades, and keep splitting them. I have to say the last mission on brutal was a bit hard with marine+medic (i killed air), but still, 4th try was the charn, once i noticed that the NOVA thing should be used about 20 seconds after kerrigan starts hitting your defences.
Since WoW, Blizzard has made many strange decisions (since Activision joined up). note that they make games compatible for consoles... requirements for D3 are simply ridiculous. Now the fun part: Blizzard said some tiem ago if im not mistaken:
If you buy WoL You dont need to buy the other expansions to play multi. Does that mean that if we want to play HoS "version" we have to? or that multi will be changed for everyone? Is the price of expansions actually BE an expansion price?
Since Companies make games in 1 year many times nowdays where a long ago it took them 4 to get a game going, im not going to expect muchfor... the next 5 years maybe. Good i still love my broodwar, Balduus Gate, etc...
Im guessing enought people will buy the expansion anyway to make a considerable profit for Blizzard anyway.
|
I want to see some third party verification on their feedback. I think this is just an excuse for them to do less work. Basically I am calling bullshit or selective feedback.
|
I always have respect for Blizzard for making such good games, till now. They said sc2 is so epic and long and decided to break it into 3 parts; now they are telling me that the game is too long and want to reduce the missions?
|
The lengthy campaign in SC2 gave me a sense of accomplishment after I finally finished the 29 missions. It really made it seem like they put the effort of making the story intense and memorable. I even played through it again on brutal. If anything I'd say they should add a couple missions in HoTS, if someone doesn't want to play the campaign due to length, then they don't need to.
|
How many missions were actually not completely uninteresting side quests? I'm shocked by the amount of votes for the "pro-side quest" alternative in the poll.
Having to make a shorter game just means not being able to make an interesting game/story. Unfortunately I think they are correct in their thinking that they cant provide enough interesting material.
|
|
I wouldn't mind a shorter campaign as long as there are plenty of side missions. Like 20 missions of Kerrigan pursuing Mengsk but then another 10-15 of side missions like the Tosh or Protoss Missions.
|
Im interested in how the rest of the game turns out but I don't actually understand why they didn't make it so you could have all 3 races in campaine one game and then for expansions do something different like they did for Broodwar.
|
I dont think it was long in an absolute sense, but it didn't have good momentum. I'll play through 50 missions if you give me a good enough reason to. Many missions were boring, plot wasn't compelling. I beat it, but anyone that rushed straight to multi didn't miss much, so in that sense there were 29 missions too many. (Exaggerating ofcourse, there were some really fun missions worth playing).
That said, it's totally ok to design around multiplayer being the main feature. In that sense, "too long" would be correct, if the purpose of SP is to just get your toe wet before going on to multiplayer. I'm not sure that was their goal though.
|
I remember being 11 years old and getting SC1 for christmas. I thought it was so INCREDIBLY HARD and was only able to complete like the first half of each campaign (probably because I trained like a maximum of 5 SCV's to conserve minerals lol). I still considered it the single coolest game I had ever played, and spent countless hours on the few campaign missions I managed to beat, in the map editor, custom games etc.
Some years later I picked up the game again and played through the whole thing.
Not finishing campaign doesn't mean casuals think it sucks :<
|
On November 21 2011 18:59 KinosJourney2 wrote: Lol at this thread, how can a singleplayer campaign be too long? Are the game developing business degenerating so much that you can actually have a too good of a product? :/
Fuck that, give us a campaign that takes 2 days to play through WHEN skipping side quests. With side quests it should take atleast 3-4 days. Long campaigns = more content = more replayability = more fun = more money for Blizzard. What are they thinking? I agree 100% with this man, wtf is wrong with people these days.... herp derp i don't want a 3hour campaign!!!!
|
The problem with the campaign, in my opinion, is that there were way too many "filler missions". It feels like the campaign was set up like a TV show with a bunch of episodes where stuff happens that doesn't really matter to the main story.
|
I found myself being bored after a while and basically continued playing the campaign for the sake of finishing it. The campaign was way too long and the missions, while varied, standard RTS fare. The lack of mission cohesion also didn't help (The universe is in danger, we must act quickly before it's too late!!! But first, let's do some side missions).
Then again, the only RTS campaigns I ever found engaging was the ones in Age of Mythology and Warcraft 3. Starcraft 1 bored me after I had finished the Terran part.
|
On November 24 2011 01:57 cmen15 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 18:59 KinosJourney2 wrote: Lol at this thread, how can a singleplayer campaign be too long? Are the game developing business degenerating so much that you can actually have a too good of a product? :/
Fuck that, give us a campaign that takes 2 days to play through WHEN skipping side quests. With side quests it should take atleast 3-4 days. Long campaigns = more content = more replayability = more fun = more money for Blizzard. What are they thinking? I agree 100% with this man, wtf is wrong with people these days.... herp derp i don't want a 3hour campaign!!!!
Thats what Blizzard WAS thinking... they they saw that most people didn't play those missions, and stopped playing the game and not more money for blizzard, which is why this article is here...
Battle.net stats show that tons of people didn't finish the game, enought to make it clear to guys that call the shots that blizz needs to change something...
|
On November 24 2011 02:50 Workforce wrote: The problem with the campaign, in my opinion, is that there were way too many "filler missions". It feels like the campaign was set up like a TV show with a bunch of episodes where stuff happens that doesn't really matter to the main story.
Blamo - but we all know the plot wasn't tight, nor was the pacing... if we get 20 SOLID missions ( ok the first 3-5 will be trainers but man I'm going for last 5 to be EPIC...) it could easily be a much better experiance over all
and how can blizzard not learn what worked and what didn't and get us even better missions this time around? blizz almost always grows and learns.
|
If they can keep it interesting, the more the better.
|
I love it.
this is blizzard's thinking:
Blizzard Director: Hmmm, let's think of a way to make more money. Employee: Let's not include lan, we save money off of piracy and development costs. Oh yea, and let's split the game into three pieces and charge 60$ for each. Blizzard Director: Good Idea. Anything others? Employee: Let's add a marketplace for custom map so we can get a small percentage of every downloaded map. Blizzard Director: Wow, you're on fire today. Any other great ideas? Employee: Let's save some money off development costs by making the campaign shorter. We can justify this by claiming that too many people claim that the campaign is too long. Best of all, we'll keep the price the same. Blizzard Director: Great Idea!
|
I still haven't beaten the campaign... I'm on last mission but cannot beat it, and I don't want to try and beat it on easy or normal
|
Assuming the price is $40... that makes $2 per mission.
|
The problem with the campaign was that a lot of the missions just felt like a grind which you had to do to unlock units without it really having a point in the storyline. The storyline was at the same time pretty terrible compared to the complexicity of SC and SC:BW - reminded one mostly of a terrible Hollywood movie with lots of "easy/convinient" solutions along the way... Obviously a lot of this can be salvaged by the next 2 expansions, but to conclude:
The problem wasn't the length as such but rather the "grind" feeling of the missions... Had the storyline been able to carry those missions it wouldn't have been a problem.
EDIT: @ Antisleep - mass marines + vikings/siegetanks + banshees depending on if you decided to take out nydus or air... Plop down a PF (or a couple of bunkers) on either side of the artifact with SCVs on autorepair and make sure to upgrade ASAP -> GG.
Works fine on hard as well as brutal without using the artifact as long as you don't make any mistakes...
|
I liked the campaign a lot. The mission design was brilliant. Only problem in my opinion was that there were some missions were you lost track of the main story line. But each mission was fun to play. I hope that Heart of the Swarm can offer a campaign like that.
The length was okay I think.
|
the only problem i had with WOL campaign was the achievement for LOST VIKINGS GOLD! that was so impossible. other than that it was great fun and i played thru it a few times and completed on brutal!
|
The campaign doesn't feel too long to me but it's also not all that thrilling, while the missions vary in objectives I can still beat most of them with mass marine + medic. The Zeratul missions are really interesting though.
|
Lost Viking game was hurtful, my poor finger from all this clicking to increase fire rate =( , but was fun though. I guess if they wouldn't have said what units we get and made it a linear path where you couldn't choose. No one ever came on the idea to complain and most of the people wouldn't even have registered that there are side stories. I actually liked the idea of splitting up the mission pathes and it didn't really hurt the missions itself. Actually increased the replay value for me. Only sad thing was that massing the unit you just got was mostly the easiest thing to do. But well thats basically how rts singleplayer games work, right unit at the right time. I liked the map where you got the vultures/banshees though, nice to build but totally not needed on the map, should have been more like these. I liked the intros in bw, corsair arrives uses disruption web to beat some static defense, here thats how the unit works ~. Or the dark archon, by the way we hate it but we can also form archons ! (and totally not needed for the mission) But with HotS we already know most units, so hopefully there will be less you need this unit maps. There is nothing wrong with maps that favor the use of a unit, but it should be tailored to be super easy with this unit.
|
Give me more!!! In WOL it took quite long to get all the single player achievements but I had a ton of fun doing it and am quite looking forward to doing so in HOTS.
|
On November 24 2011 10:47 FeyFey wrote: Lost Viking game was hurtful, my poor finger from all this clicking to increase fire rate =( , but was fun though...
Due to RSI, I mapped my keyboard to my 360 controller (with xpadder) and got the Lost Viking achievements that way. I preferred SC1's campaign to SC2's, but I don't see why it needs to be shorter... It can already be completed in under 8 hours: isn't that short enough?
|
Too long!? O_o I need more! :D
|
Totally not even close to a long campaign. I think it was just right to tell a story and give the single player people something to enjoy.
|
Some people like multiplayer, some like single player and still others like both. I think the people who enjoys single player shouldn't be cheated because a few people didn't finish. If you like the story and gameplay you'll finish it. If you just want multiplayer thats fine too.
|
Okay so 3 days to finish the whole game is too long ? How many missions SC have ? if i remember correctly it's 10 terrans, 9 zerg and 9 protoss. => So 28 And BW was like 9protoss, 9terran and 9zerg +hidden mission...
It's true that the scenario with a bit slow and too fast at the end. I don't mind if there is 20missions. But make a descent scenario. SC and BW were awesome.
But i wouldn't mind 20missions and like triple that in side quests missions. (i don't know how to say it in english). I mean like in mass effect you can end the game by doing the campaign missions but you can do a lot of other missions as well if you want to.
Is there a Blizzard thread where we can be heard by any blue posts ?
|
This is horse shit being fed to us...
Basically it's Blizzard looking for ways to justify less effort being put into the development of the expansions (i.e. cutting costs).
I usually do not criticise Blizzard, but this is ridiculous.
|
I think this is blizzards way of saying they are feeling lazy and will give us less content for more money,
you know the usual corporate mumbojumbo
Logic dictates people would be happyer with more then less, even if its a lot more.
|
1. Blizzard justifies splitting SC2 into 3 by promising to have 3 full length campaigns.
2. WOL campaign has maybe 10 missions that actually contribute to the plot and about 20 filler missions.
3. Now HOTS will only have 20 missions.
I've been saying it for a long time now. This isn't Blizzard. It's Activision.
|
im really surprised at this, no wonder they are shortening it (or at least they're using it as an excuse to save time/money? lol)
I mean yeah for an RTS game it might be a bit long, but it's engaging and I didn't feel any of it was boring or anything. And there were side missions too that you didn't even need to do.
I think it's good as it is o.o Either that or make it even more non-linear (or at least, easier to see the "main" path that you need to just get to the ending) and keep the same 25-30 missions and just make more side missions or something...
sort of disappointing
If they can make those missions juicier though, and keep as many cutscenes/story etc., then I guess it won't be too bad. It might also be because Zerg has a couple less units than Terran, so that's like a couple (or a few?) less missions xD
On November 26 2011 09:13 writer22816 wrote: 1. Blizzard justifies splitting SC2 into 3 by promising to have 3 full length campaigns.
2. WOL campaign has maybe 10 missions that actually contribute to the plot and about 20 filler missions.
3. Now HOTS will only have 20 missions.
I've been saying it for a long time now. This isn't Blizzard. It's Activision.
I've been saying it forever, too ^^. Though I will have to say, as long as they keep it the same content as WoL (30 missions or equivalent) then I'm fine, because they do have one good point, which is that if you can only play 1 race/campaign per installment, they can work on cool things like the Hyperion and the hub and the research upgrades, etc. etc., which I think are interesting.
|
No Blizzard, I'm pretty sure the 30 or so missions were a decent length, personally I very much enjoyed the Starcraft campaign, where it was you just had to build a mass of units while the computer throws waves of units against you. Maybe I'm just a simple person.
Also most of the missions had something to do with the main plot. In WOL, the side missions were rather uninteresting, since you basically did them to unlock X unit. Would much prefer if the side missions actually built on the story.
|
On November 25 2011 21:01 Brett wrote: This is horse shit being fed to us...
Basically it's Blizzard looking for ways to justify less effort being put into the development of the expansions (i.e. cutting costs).
I usually do not criticise Blizzard, but this is ridiculous.
You have to understand that the majority of gamers are casuals. They don't long for every achievement like some of us do. It sucks that it affects the people who would kill for a campaign twice as long but it's the truth. they implemented the placement match for every season just for this reason.
|
The campaign was of a decent length, was satisfied with it
|
On November 26 2011 11:22 TheSwamp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 21:01 Brett wrote: This is horse shit being fed to us...
Basically it's Blizzard looking for ways to justify less effort being put into the development of the expansions (i.e. cutting costs).
I usually do not criticise Blizzard, but this is ridiculous. You have to understand that the majority of gamers are casuals. They don't long for every achievement like some of us do. It sucks that it affects the people who would kill for a campaign twice as long but it's the truth. they implemented the placement match for every season just for this reason.
Well "casual" is not the right word for it. A lot of pro gamers for example (well the times I viewed their accounts) do not bother doing single player. Even Artosis hasn't completed SP yet last I remembered >.>.
You have to take into account the single player people vs the multiplayer only people vs the both people.
The multiplayer only people I would not call casual, they're just the multiplayer only people. (See the difference in size from SC2 gen discussion to SC2 single player discussion in TL for example.)
IMO Blizzard probably saw the multiplayer only people (which is larger than the single player or both people) barely finishing the campaign (not unlocking achievements, etc) then found an excuse to do this (even though they "referenced" actual people's thoughts on it).
Also several people (most noticeable pro gamers) have several accounts. Usually they do it for a name change, because they changed clans, or whatever (for example).
The problem is those accounts are never really used for single player (since they probably finished it already or don't really care about reobtaining achievements for every account) but Blizzard still sees them as different users (even though it's one user with multiple accounts).
tl;dr - There is single player only people, the multiplayer only people (who do not care about SP), and the both people. The MP only people outnumber the SP and both people which means Blizzard sees this as an excuse to be lazy.
Though I do have to admit Blizzard is taking their time (sort of) with the expansion. Two years is already huge for most people (regarding expansion packs) so I can't fault Blizzard too much for not wanting to take longer to release it with more stuff I guess.
|
does anybody know where i can find expansion missions of some sort? like a mod?
|
On November 27 2011 12:49 Goldfish wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 11:22 TheSwamp wrote:On November 25 2011 21:01 Brett wrote: This is horse shit being fed to us...
Basically it's Blizzard looking for ways to justify less effort being put into the development of the expansions (i.e. cutting costs).
I usually do not criticise Blizzard, but this is ridiculous. You have to understand that the majority of gamers are casuals. They don't long for every achievement like some of us do. It sucks that it affects the people who would kill for a campaign twice as long but it's the truth. they implemented the placement match for every season just for this reason. Well "casual" is not the right word for it. A lot of pro gamers for example (well the times I viewed their accounts) do not bother doing single player. Even Artosis hasn't completed SP yet last I remembered >.>. You have to take into account the single player people vs the multiplayer only people vs the both people. The multiplayer only people I would not call casual, they're just the multiplayer only people. (See the difference in size from SC2 gen discussion to SC2 single player discussion in TL for example.) IMO Blizzard probably saw the multiplayer only people (which is larger than the single player or both people) barely finishing the campaign (not unlocking achievements, etc) then found an excuse to do this (even though they "referenced" actual people's thoughts on it). Also several people (most noticeable pro gamers) have several accounts. Usually they do it for a name change, because they changed clans, or whatever (for example). The problem is those accounts are never really used for single player (since they probably finished it already or don't really care about reobtaining achievements for every account) but Blizzard still sees them as different users (even though it's one user with multiple accounts). tl;dr - There is single player only people, the multiplayer only people (who do not care about SP), and the both people. The MP only people outnumber the SP and both people which means Blizzard sees this as an excuse to be lazy.Though I do have to admit Blizzard is taking their time (sort of) with the expansion. Two years is already huge for most people (regarding expansion packs) so I can't fault Blizzard too much for not wanting to take longer to release it with more stuff I guess.
yea like BW was actually released just 6 or so months after SC1 o.o
|
there are no such things as too long campaign, so i am really baffled about this..
|
How...was it to long? That campaign was 8 hours of gameplay...which is shorter than most First Person Shooter sp's. I do hope that this is some sick joke....
|
On November 26 2011 09:13 writer22816 wrote: 1. Blizzard justifies splitting SC2 into 3 by promising to have 3 full length campaigns.
2. WOL campaign has maybe 10 missions that actually contribute to the plot and about 20 filler missions.
3. Now HOTS will only have 20 missions.
I've been saying it for a long time now. This isn't Blizzard. It's Activision.
Exactly. We don't play the SP for the awesome gameplay because let's face it, it wasn't that good in SC/BW/SC2:WoL. But There was a pretty decent story going, with good characters. Now when many of the missions seem to have very little to do with advancing that plot, and are just an excuse to excuse terrible units that aren't even in MP like the Diamondback, the draw just isn't going to be there for most people. The draw is the story, and if you don't have that, we won't play it. The campaign wasn't too long, Bliz, you had a terrible and very thin story and no one cared to see it through.
|
I don't get it. Game developers know the vast majority of players never finish story mode. This isn't specific to RTS, it applies to all games, and isn't a reason to reduce the game's length. If finishing story mode was a requisite for enjoying a game, RPGs would have died a quick death decades ago.
I feel like announcing and completely getting behind the fact that HotS is 10 missions shorter is just bad for Blizzard. They know their casual base is only buying the game for story mode and maybe some UMS, reducing the campaign length by 1/3 is just shooting themselves in the foot. Ladder players would have bought HotS if it didn't have any missions, so they obviously aren't a factor here.
There's also a grand total of like 5 missions in WoL that are actually relevant to the plot. I wonder if this whole bastardized zerg-protoss hybrids taking over the universe plot is being saved for SC3.
|
Too many missions were too similar. I wouldnt mind if it was 20 missions but there was lots of diversity and many many side missions to cover.
|
Well, I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't play the singleplayer regardless of length, so the statistics here are skewed. I played the first two missions or so. :/
|
Wow, I don't think I've ever heard complaints that a singleplayer game was "too long" before... What is wrong with people? Crying about having more game to play? Blasphemers!
|
The long campaign was wonderful though! It really makes you feel good when you finish the whole thing, and the side quests were a very enjoyable way to keep you interesting in the game without boring you with constantly shoving the main stroy line down your throat. Yes, I must admit alot of the earlier missions were very slow and boring, but they were ment to be that way so as to teach completely new players to Starcraft how to operate the mechanics. There will always be people that are not satisfied by what they get, and those people are usually the ones to yell loudest of all. Overall, the campaign was great! But I do hope Blizzard makes HotS' campaign's missions longer and more complex.
|
i think they should do the 20 missions like they announced but put a ton of side-missions. that way you can feel the satisfaction of completing the single player even as a gamer with low stamina, while hard-core fans can continue exploring.
|
I agree with the general sentiment in the thread. My problem with the campaign was with the music and story, not hte level design. I actually liked just about every level and all the little kooki scenarios they contrived. It was way more fun than BW. That said. I felt driven to finish broodwar and every arc seems epic to this day while as people have said this campaign feels herp derp shooting about for awhile until I go drop deus ex machina on Kerrigan.
|
I don't think it is even possible for a game to be "too long". At least i have never thought "Woa, this is too long, i hope it ends already". It can be too boring, sure. If i don't finish a game, it is not because it is too long, but because it is to drawn out, or because i find something more interesting to do. A game just needs a certain amount of content per time to be interesting, and as long as that ratio is kept up, the game can be as long as it want. With content i mean stuff like story, new gameplay, and so on. Sure, if they make a campaign that basically consist of 20 1v1 vs an AI without any story in between, that is too long. But it is not actually too long, it is just not enough content for the length of the game. However, if they make a hundred missions, each sufficiently unique, linked by a compelling story (preferably without prophecies), that is not too long.
So in my opinion, "too long" is not linked to the actual length of the game, but to the ratio of interesting stuff/length.
However, too short is linked to the actual length of the game. For example, a full-prized game with 3 hours of content would be too short in my opinion.
|
It's not long, I liked the campaign though. If HotS doesn't have a good campaign it'll just be an exciting patch...
|
On November 29 2011 05:31 Tal0n wrote: i think they should do the 20 missions like they announced but put a ton of side-missions. that way you can feel the satisfaction of completing the single player even as a gamer with low stamina, while hard-core fans can continue exploring.
Technically you can already complete WoL in 20 missions or less (maybe fewer, I forgot).
You only need to complete all the artifact missions. Some of the artifact missions require a few missions finished before hand though but as soon as they're unlocked, do them and you'll eventually be able to go straight to Char even if you have 5+ other missions still available (you can skip the Protoss part completely for example).
Anyway like others said - It isn't the problem of the single player but the problem that some people aren't interested in single player at all + others have multiple accounts. The statistics will be skewed greatly and (in this case) shortening of the missions won't really help.
|
I absolutely loved the Wings of Liberty campaign! It alone was worth the $60.
It was such an epic and inspiring campaign that I probably would still be willing to spend the $60 for the game even if it didn't come with multiplayer.
Please, Blizzard, don't shorten the campaign when you make Heart of the Swarm.
The problem is all the idiots out there who can't keep focused long enough to enjoy anything longer than a flash game on newgrounds. With the game industry catering to them, we're getting games that can be beaten in a single afternoon. I miss the days when an epic game took a week to beat playing straight through. Games like Turok 1 and 2 for example.
One of the things I love best about a game is a good story. So I really hope they don't cut it short just because a bunch of morons put forth a moronic opinion.
|
There was nothing wrong with the campaign length. The biggest problem I saw was that almost nothing happened in comparison to the Starcraft and BW campaigns. The scale was pretty small because Raynor has almost no control over the events going on around him. Other than the final prophesy mission and the final mission everything kinda felt very small time, which is sad since the entire war thing is supposed to be a battle for the very survival of the species involved.
|
The SP was more about teaching players than having a good storyline. Definately a drop off compared to WC3's story. Or SC1 for that matter. Hopefully HOTS will be better but i highly doubt it since their tutoring centered approach.
|
On December 02 2011 23:08 Cartel wrote: The SP was more about teaching players than having a good storyline. Definately a drop off compared to WC3's story. Or SC1 for that matter. Hopefully HOTS will be better but i highly doubt it since their tutoring centered approach.
They said the SP wasn't for teaching players. The challenges + tutorials + playing against computers + practice league are there for that.
They acknowledged that SP wasn't a good way to teach players to play (well in multiplayer anyway) which is good (they should let SP be SP and be good on its own rather than as a method for teaching players).
Also I don't get the whole the storyline is bad deal. Only real issue I had is Tassadar and the Overmind... except it will be revealed in HotS that Tassadar is really evil and has absorbed the Overmind's knowledge and power into him. He will be the main villain of SC2. In the third expansion pack (one after LotV) you'll play as the Reapers from Mass Effect (which control the Hybrids) and you'll have to face Tassadar.
Finally in The Xel'naga Strikes Back (the fourth expansion pack) you'll play as the Xel'Naga to face off against evil Tassadar and the Reapers from Mass Effect.
The true final expansion is UED Strikes Back expansion pack where you play as the UED to conquer the universe.
Yep that's how it'll go.
|
The campaign length was fine. If they wanted to make the main quest line faster and make side-quests more obvious and optional I would be okay with that. Honestly I think the people who thought it was too long probably wanted to just play through it in a single weekend...
|
They should fire whoever wrote the WoL story. It was really awful, and 80% of the missions were just missions for getting units which is a terrible idea. They had the idea that they should introcude the units in a specific way, and then they made the story after they had decided how the mission layout would be.
Screw that I say. Make a good story first, and then make the missions follow the story, not the other way around.
|
According to Electronic Boutique Games in Canada, HotS is scheduled to be released in march, as well as costing 39.99. The campaign was honestly much too short, especially on brutal. The mercenaries made the game WAY too easy. It was like I was steamrolling bronze level players. If HotS is as easy as Starcraft 2, I will be disappointed.
|
The singleplayer isn't too long... Waiting for HOTS and D3 is too long!
|
I think the length of the campaign was just fine. It gives those who don't want to jump straight into multiplayer a chance to experience Starcraft and also get to learn the lore behind it.
|
The worst part of the campaign was how every level was just a stupid gimmick IN THIS ONE THERE'S LAVA AND IN THIS ONE THERE'S TRAIN AND AND AND AND
just let me build shit plx
|
On December 05 2011 10:40 Cybren wrote: The worst part of the campaign was how every level was just a stupid gimmick IN THIS ONE THERE'S LAVA AND IN THIS ONE THERE'S TRAIN AND AND AND AND
just let me build shit plx
While I don’t think they’re an entirely terrible idea (I though The Devil’s Playground was one of the better missions) you do have a valid point, there’s very few missions that actually require you to set up an economy and defence, then build an army to concur the map like a classic RTS mission. Once the ‘gimmick’ missions novelty had worn off they were very restricting/linier and not very enjoyable. Supernova in particular was the worst for me.
On my second play-through I insisted on destroying every single unit and building on the map just out of frustration.
|
On December 05 2011 12:05 Greendotz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 10:40 Cybren wrote: The worst part of the campaign was how every level was just a stupid gimmick IN THIS ONE THERE'S LAVA AND IN THIS ONE THERE'S TRAIN AND AND AND AND
just let me build shit plx While I don’t think they’re an entirely terrible idea (I though The Devil’s Playground was one of the better missions) you do have a valid point, there’s very few missions that actually require you to set up an economy and defence, then build an army to concur the map like a classic RTS mission. Once the ‘gimmick’ missions novelty had worn off they were very restricting/linier and not very enjoyable. Supernova in particular was the worst for me. On my second play-through I insisted on destroying every single unit and building on the map just out of frustration. Calling them gimmicks is a little strong in my view. They weren't just offhand throwaway things. They were the focus of the entire mission. A gimmick implies that it's a flimsy thing only there for flash and not substance. Whether you liked them or not doesn't matter, they all made a substantial (at least mostly) differences to how you approached each mission.
|
If anything the campaign was too linear.
"Hey we need to attack Char." "Ok let's go attack Char." "Cool we won"
I STILL think they could use a mode like a full game in Star Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Control_1_strategic_game.png) and have each planet give certain tech etc. They sort of did that with the mission splits, but it could be better imo
So instead of "Choose Planet A or B" you can choose to harvest more economy or search for tech, run from enemy fleet, and get to do more strategy with the planets you pick. More of a ME2 feel is what I'm getting at... but let the computer move too.
|
On December 05 2011 12:30 brobrah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 12:05 Greendotz wrote:On December 05 2011 10:40 Cybren wrote: The worst part of the campaign was how every level was just a stupid gimmick IN THIS ONE THERE'S LAVA AND IN THIS ONE THERE'S TRAIN AND AND AND AND
just let me build shit plx While I don’t think they’re an entirely terrible idea (I though The Devil’s Playground was one of the better missions) you do have a valid point, there’s very few missions that actually require you to set up an economy and defence, then build an army to concur the map like a classic RTS mission. Once the ‘gimmick’ missions novelty had worn off they were very restricting/linier and not very enjoyable. Supernova in particular was the worst for me. On my second play-through I insisted on destroying every single unit and building on the map just out of frustration. Calling them gimmicks is a little strong in my view. They weren't just offhand throwaway things. They were the focus of the entire mission. A gimmick implies that it's a flimsy thing only there for flash and not substance. Whether you liked them or not doesn't matter, they all made a substantial (at least mostly) differences to how you approached each mission. Er, a concept that appears once, forces the entire mission to focus on them, and then is discarded afterwards is exactly what I'd define a gimmick as.
|
On October 26 2011 09:17 Mortal wrote: This is a joke right? The campaign took hardly any time on brutal (marine/medic lololol) and they're shortening it? As well as pricing it the same as WoL?
Bazinga, Blizzard is making some sick decisions here.
I agree, I honestly don't get where or who the f*** they talk to when they are getting opinions about things like this, but whoever it is does not represent the majority I can say that much. I personally thought that the campaign actually was a really good length, but by no means whatsoever was it too long. And I mean how can a single player experience be too long nowadays? This may not have been a point to bring up a while ago but seeing as even our current FPS games force an RPG type levelling/equipment gaining aspect to them, the only way the campaign can be too long in my eyes is if the actual content itself is repetitive and boring. And even then, why are you playing the game in the first place if the content is so boring?
As far as I am concerned as long as they keep thinking of interesting mission ideas and situations to put you in, make the campaign as long as you can!!
|
way too long for me to finish.
was tired of it after ~8 missions and went back to multiplayer :/
|
On December 06 2011 06:59 Share_The_Land wrote: I agree, I honestly don't get where or who the f*** they talk to when they are getting opinions about things like this
All they have to do is check the drop-off point of player achievements. If a significant number of players are not obtaining the achievement for the last mission, then players are not completing the game for some reason. I'm almost 100% sure this is where Blizzard is getting their "opinions" from.
While there may be other reason psychological or design reasons for players not completing the game, it is most likely the fact that the game is simply too long. People usually stop playing a game halfway through because the gameplay stopped being new and interesting for that person (or the game did not abuse skinnerbox mechanics properly). If a significant number of your players behave this way, this means the game is objectively too long and has content that needs to be removed because it is not engaging enough.
Despite what so many people seem to think, it is possible to make a game too long. The best games are short with interesting, new and fresh content the entire way through the game (i.e. Portal, Amnesia, etc...). 70+ hour games do not give you new and engaging content the entire way through. Those 70+ hour games are mostly a dull rehash of the content you have already experienced. And though I personally enjoyed them, this was generally the case for many of the WoL missions. Blizzard wants to design an engaging RTS game that a large number of people can complete and enjoy in its entirety. They are creating a game for everyone, not just for one person who likes length X. Everyone.
|
I think I've already posted on this thread, but it was bumped. I shall (re) iterate:
Blizzard need to get off their lazy asses and make the HotS campaign even longer, and stop throwing their non-democratic "statistics" in my face when they force people to buy additional copies of the game to play on other servers, or even to have a different username past the first 'free' name change. Obviously people don't play the campaign on 100% of clients. They own 6 copies of the bloody game!
|
It was only too long because the missions weren't very good. It was all "Here's this new unit, in this mission you use the new unit" over and over again. It doesn't help that many of those unit's aren't in the multiplayer. So if the HotS campaign is going to have "This is roach. Here, use it to burrow behind the siege tank lines..." I don't think I'm going to finish that no matter how short.
|
I would love a long campaign. I guess one thing they could do would be to have more side and extra missions, and have the main story missions a bit shorter? I'm looking forward to the HotS campaign so much ;_;
|
On November 25 2011 21:01 Brett wrote: This is horse shit being fed to us...
Basically it's Blizzard looking for ways to justify less effort being put into the development of the expansions (i.e. cutting costs).
I usually do not criticise Blizzard, but this is ridiculous. Just be happy they aren't rushing the multiplayer
|
On December 06 2011 14:06 Demnogonis wrote: It was only too long because the missions weren't very good. It was all "Here's this new unit, in this mission you use the new unit" over and over again. It doesn't help that many of those unit's aren't in the multiplayer. So if the HotS campaign is going to have "This is roach. Here, use it to burrow behind the siege tank lines..." I don't think I'm going to finish that no matter how short.
What are you on about? The missions was the only good part about the champaign..the story certainly was not. I though the missions was very well thought out varied enough to keep me through.
|
I can't think of any game that was good that had the criticism of "single player too long".... maybe some of the final fantasy series/snes console rpgs from 1994, but that's it. And certainly sc2 was not too long.
|
On December 07 2011 13:24 Drowsy wrote: I can't think of any game that was good that had the criticism of "single player too long".... maybe some of the final fantasy series/snes console rpgs from 1994, but that's it. And certainly sc2 was not too long. While I feel the same, lets consider the bigger picture. A family man who purchased Starcraft gets into the single player and needs to play through 20+ missions unless the story really picks up (invasion on Char.) For him it would be nicer to have all the action packed within fewer missions. Since Blizzard need proper sale figures to pay their staff I can understand that they optimize the campaign to the average player and add replayability for us nerds.
|
I don't really care how long it is. I'd rather have 20 missions that are filled with stuff I don't want to miss than 50 missions filled with stuff to pass the time.
|
Most console action games are 6-10 hours. SC2, WoL, single player is only probably around 8-12, right?
Just seems like an excuse to go back on their promise of each campaign being as long.
|
Blizzard is running out of ideas for campaignlevels. Most missions could be done with just marinemedicball. And some themed maps for like vikings. I remember trying out a lot of shit with the broodwar campaign. This was with 3 races I admit. But it felt less linear even with no choice in what will the next mission.. Just sweep the map with your army in sc2. Combined arms and adapting to the map was more prominent in BW.
The storyline was also cheesy in WOL but had less humor. Like it took itself too seriously. Oh yeah Kerrigan was less badass in WOL dispite the final level in WOL. Like she got dumbed down along with getting zerg high heels. In broodwar the storyline unfolded in the missions with no sidequests so you got pulled in. They couldn't fit all the missions in the main story because the main story was too thin and stretched.
The missions weren't played till the end by lacking appeal an most bought it for Multiplayer anyway.
|
And the final reason the love the campaign: TECH-REACTOR FIREBATS!!!!!!!!!! I play zerg and even I love it
I'm a Terran player since Starcraft 1, and I don't remember to have ever trained a single firebat. Like ever.
|
Sounds like an excuse to do less work and make more money if you ask me. In my opinion, if the campaign of anything seemed too long (never the case) I would just lower the difficulty so I could glide through the missions a lot quicker. I don't think this is legitimate and I don't think they should even consider shortening the game to fit some of "ideas" they have "heard".
|
Didn't like the Wings of Liberty story. Brood War had more punch. Hopefully they improve it and actually focus on the core story.
But then again, I got SC2 for the multiplayer experience.
Only played the campaign when the net was down.
|
I think i know what Blizzard is taking about and it can be fixed easily. As far as i know the Normal and Casual modes for the campaign run on normal or fast game speed. Therefore i believe playing it in that difficulty takes longer than playing on hard or brutal. They should generally change that to faster for all difficulty levels. That way new players wont be overburdened when they play ladder for their first time.
|
On December 06 2011 05:17 jungsu wrote: If anything the campaign was too linear.
"Hey we need to attack Char." "Ok let's go attack Char." "Cool we won"
I STILL think they could use a mode like a full game in Star Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Control_1_strategic_game.png) and have each planet give certain tech etc. They sort of did that with the mission splits, but it could be better imo
So instead of "Choose Planet A or B" you can choose to harvest more economy or search for tech, run from enemy fleet, and get to do more strategy with the planets you pick. More of a ME2 feel is what I'm getting at... but let the computer move too. As Blizzard showed some thinks like the old Starmap in the Alpha, I dreamt of similar things. For example I would have liked it if planets develop according to the mission tree progress. Let's say you can do the mission on the planet now, having little alien resistance, or later with better tech, but a larger alien force which already took some more parts of the map.
However that kind of metagame would move the focus away from the actual missions, but Blizzard obviously wanted them to shine. They removed a lot of RPG / metagame stuff they already implemented, like multiple choice dialogs and so on.
|
I actually found the campaign very enjoyable and the story alright. Of course, alright is nothing in comparison to the feelings about the sc1 and broodwar campaigns where the story was just epic. Think putting in more sidequests and shortening the main story would be the best option if there really is any other reason for this other than avarice.
|
On December 09 2011 19:52 Fusil wrote: I actually found the campaign very enjoyable and the story alright. Of course, alright is nothing in comparison to the feelings about the sc1 and broodwar campaigns where the story was just epic. Think putting in more sidequests and shortening the main story would be the best option if there really is any other reason for this other than avarice.
I think there is mostly nostalgic reasons behind that and the fact that we all were 13 years younger. Compare the experience you had when playing SC and SCII the first time. That are two different worlds in my opinion.
|
On December 09 2011 09:21 Clairval wrote:Show nested quote +And the final reason the love the campaign: TECH-REACTOR FIREBATS!!!!!!!!!! I play zerg and even I love it I'm a Terran player since Starcraft 1, and I don't remember to have ever trained a single firebat. Like ever.
I wonder how good your tvz was then ;o, I too enjoyed the retro sc1 appearances during the campaign. But yeah blizz is getting more and more ridiculous, 1 name change for a 60€ game, 1 server option, and now they plan on nerfing the single player of the expansions? How is shorter ever better? The mentality of the company is just shooting down hill, their games are still great but they just want more and more from the fans... Starting to get annoying .
|
Okay, this makes no sense whatsoever.
Can anyone please explain to me how this logic works.
Pay X amount of dollars for product A Pay X amount of dollars for product B Product B is inferiour in quantity to product A Product A and B are equal in quality
Consumers want product B.
That''s only possible with branding and advertisment in play.......but
DOES NOT COMPUTE !
What people have they surveyed !?
In what way is making a shorter game, ie, less game for your money, in any way desirable ? Who are these people?, we must find and murder them with great zeal as I think they are at the root of a lot of things that are wrong in this world !
EDIT: I think Blizzard pulled a survey out of their collective asses.
|
Did anyone complain that the Ocarina of Time was too long? No, because it was awesome. That's like buying a delicious pizza and complaining that it was too big for you to eat all at once.
|
On December 10 2011 11:11 Eeevil wrote: In what way is making a shorter game, ie, less game for your money, in any way desirable ? I think you mistake length for content.
|
Well it sounded like they were planning on charging full price ~$60 for HOTS so it damn well better be as big as WOL. If it's significantly less I'm going to be extremely disappointed.
|
Finishing the campaign sure felt like a chore. I am fairly certain I will complete HotS no matter what because of my established interest in Starcraft. Given that I'd rather it be short so my suffering is minimized if the campaign is as bad as WoL's.
There is also the best case scenario of a good and long game.
|
Is it too much to ask for both good content and long playtime? The original SC seemed to manage this pretty well for the price of a normal game. I'd like a bit of story in HOTS, the cutscenes in WOL were very pretty but the story was, well, lacking.
A few long missions would help too. There weren't really any 'build an base, build an army, and fight your way across a huge map' sort of missions. All the objectives and time restraints etc are nice sometimes but I think a few big maps with big fights that you can do at your own pace would go down well.
+ Show Spoiler +I know we all say SC2 shouldn't try to be BW but in this case I wish it would!
|
the campain wasnt that long i think it was a good range not to long but still took some time? imo
|
On December 11 2011 13:35 morninglightmountain wrote:Is it too much to ask for both good content and long playtime? The original SC seemed to manage this pretty well for the price of a normal game. I'd like a bit of story in HOTS, the cutscenes in WOL were very pretty but the story was, well, lacking. A few long missions would help too. There weren't really any 'build an base, build an army, and fight your way across a huge map' sort of missions. All the objectives and time restraints etc are nice sometimes but I think a few big maps with big fights that you can do at your own pace would go down well. + Show Spoiler +I know we all say SC2 shouldn't try to be BW but in this case I wish it would! This. I love such missions. I dont think there was any in WoL as its a long time since i played it.
|
I can´t wrap my head around this. People are complaining if there are not enough missions. They complain if the campaing is too long. People have no idea what they want. I enjoyed the story and the gameplay was different in many areas in terms of mission objective. Give me more without sacrificing qualitiy.
|
I'll give Blizzard a thumbs up for this one.
It's easier to understand what these guys are doing if: - you have a full-time job - you have wife and kids - you have a bunch of other things you like to do besides gaming
I realized a while ago that I do not look for long games anymore. I look for games that provide good storytelling... and the ones that are beatable in a reasonable time frame.
You may say that playing a game is just like eating a pizza and that more is always better. Well, ok, eat half of your pizza and leave rest of in a box for a week or two. Try to finish the pizza off - it just doesn't taste that good anymore. The same things happens to unfinished games - I tend to forget the storyline and bye-bye - the thrill is gone.
When i look at my steam account and my games shelves I see a certain pattern. I played some games that go for open-world exploration (essentially cRPGs like Fallout / Elder Scrolls / Witcher / Mass Effect). When I buy these kind of games I do keep in mind that they will require a lot of time - about 40 hours for every game.
And then there is a lot of other stuff - mostly FPS, racing and RTS games. I do not want any off these games to be long. I want them to pack a punch, be as non-repetitive as possible and I want a good story.
Did Wings of Liberty deliver? Not for me - in fact I remember a few moment when I thought to myself - "alright, I'll just do this mission and the next and the next one and beat this game". It is not a good sign. Also, I wasn't following the storyline as much as I did when I was playing Warcraft 3.
So yeah, I feel that making the game shorter is a step in the right direction. Making the story better would be welcome too.
The value-for-money factor for SC2 does not come from endless stream of hours of the single player campaign. It comes from a great online experience. It's free to play, noob-friendly, modable and cheater-free for the average Joe. Finally, it comes with a great e-sports / stream coverage.
HoTS is a great opportuninty to let new people learn all this good things about SC2. And a long campaign would just stand in the way.
|
Horrible idea, wol was in no way too long imo, i remember beating it and thinking "that's it!?" to scypio your crazy man no offense but you play fallout yet SC2 was too long, thats crazy
|
The only problem with the campaign was the plot. I think it was written on 'bring your kid to work' day lol
|
Another WC3:TFT length expansion pls!
|
On December 11 2011 13:35 morninglightmountain wrote: Is it too much to ask for both good content and long playtime? Good content requires a lot of time to create. Blizzard is not only giving us new missions, they also overhaul the cliff graphics for new tilesets so that the map looks less generically constructed in an editor and more life-like. As for me, I would like to have the original campaign twice as long. But how realistic is to demand the same quality per mission? As I played through the campaign five times now, I noticed that many missions support different solutions. It is fun to play around with them.
It is not that someone draw out a map layout on paper, discussed it two days and then implemented it in the map editor and after seven days of testing and tweaking – voila the mission is done. I rather have awesome missions in the expansion which fit the zerg style than generic missions like "build a base, kill everyone else".
|
too long ist just a joke, it was way too short imo... just think about sc1 and bw.. :-*(
|
On December 13 2011 06:53 qwertzi wrote: too long ist just a joke, it was way too short imo... just think about sc1 and bw.. :-*( In SC1 and BW we had essentially three missions:
- Build a base and killl all enemy bases - Lead a small group through a maze, the hero must survive - Build defenses and survive for X minutes
Playing essentially the same mission several times, just on different maps, was okay then. It would be considered bad game design today.
|
... How could people want less single player content? You can put it on easy if you're just looking to enjoy the story. More missions, more everything for single player, why would that be bad? Some games entirety is single player, and I wish SC had that to it, I'm all for more additions to single player.
|
Too long? OMG, anything which isn't a 5 hour explosionfest is now "too long" thanks to mw.
Casuals - ruining gaming since some time this century.
|
On December 13 2011 22:03 v3chr0 wrote: ... How could people want less single player content? You also confuse the number of missions for overall content.
When the expansion is out, we can value expansion price versus single player content. The number of mission alone is a poor indicator.
|
Any game that's not solely singleplayer can't be longer than a few hours nowadays.
|
In my opinion the campaign wasn't too long, hope they don't reduce the number of missions that'd be ridiculous -_-
|
yeah this is complete bullshit, everyone remember back when they announced they were splitting SC2 into a trilogy and the world freaked about getting "1/3rd" a product? I trusted blizzard when they said no, it will be three full games, but now they're pulling bullshit of "30 missions was too long so we cut it by 33% and you can expect 20 missions total in HotS."
fuck
that
fucking activision
|
Yeah it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too short. Wasn't there an achievement for beating it in 5 hours or something? I know most of SC2 is multiplayer but $60 games should have way more than a few hours of storyline.
They already butchered the length by cutting it into 3 games.
|
you can speedrun most games in a few hours ^^; , fallout 3 is probably a good example, stick to the main mission and you are through in 1 hour.
WoL had an normal length, the biggest issue probably is because it wasn't linear, which isn't to common in rts games. And people got confused + many hated on the storyline expecting an epic film or something, while there was no real positive feedback. So i guess they missjudged it, or they didn't expected so many smurfs in sc2, and thought there were alot of people that didn't played the single player . Anyway to late now, on a positive site, the map makers will be done fast and probably put into custom maps or mini campaigns and stuff ^^.
|
On December 17 2011 02:19 FeyFey wrote:you can speedrun most games in a few hours ^^; , fallout 3 is probably a good example, stick to the main mission and you are through in 1 hour. WoL had an normal length, the biggest issue probably is because it wasn't linear, which isn't to common in rts games. And people got confused + many hated on the storyline expecting an epic film or something, while there was no real positive feedback. So i guess they missjudged it, or they didn't expected so many smurfs in sc2, and thought there were alot of people that didn't played the single player . Anyway to late now, on a positive site, the map makers will be done fast and probably put into custom maps or mini campaigns and stuff ^^.
I don't think the non linear was the problem. DoW 2 is knowed for having one of the best campaign for a moder rts, and it wasn'"t linear at all.
|
I played through the campaign on hard in about 20 hours. It wasn't hard and was enjoyable for those of us who are interested in the lore of the game.
|
I hope it doenst work like sc2:wol where a patch can wipe out your single player progress. I worked hard getting to the last missions on brutal, then a patch makes me start all over. Very frustrating. I hope that doesnt happen in HOtS.
|
I believe less missions would be fine as long as there are more easter eggs and additional missions. perhaps the core missions could be easy to run through, but it's necessary to take much much more time to complete all bonus objectives.
|
like most blizzard fans, watching the cinematic.. dialogue and all that good stuff... sure it was long but who really doesnt want more? i would be glad if they did 60 missions... as long as it doesnt start getting repetitive.. we dont have to finish it in one sitting! lets go blizzard.. 100 missions GET IN THERE
|
Bliz consists of a bunch of money grubbing hoes...
|
Too long ?
what ?
U mad Blizz ?
-.-
|
On December 17 2011 03:33 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 02:19 FeyFey wrote:you can speedrun most games in a few hours ^^; , fallout 3 is probably a good example, stick to the main mission and you are through in 1 hour. WoL had an normal length, the biggest issue probably is because it wasn't linear, which isn't to common in rts games. And people got confused + many hated on the storyline expecting an epic film or something, while there was no real positive feedback. So i guess they missjudged it, or they didn't expected so many smurfs in sc2, and thought there were alot of people that didn't played the single player . Anyway to late now, on a positive site, the map makers will be done fast and probably put into custom maps or mini campaigns and stuff ^^. I don't think the non linear was the problem. DoW 2 is knowed for having one of the best campaign for a moder rts, and it wasn'"t linear at all.
So so, i wouldn't call "best campaign" when every race had the same maps with different enemies.
|
On December 13 2011 21:22 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 06:53 qwertzi wrote: too long ist just a joke, it was way too short imo... just think about sc1 and bw.. :-*( In SC1 and BW we had essentially three missions: - Build a base and killl all enemy bases - Lead a small group through a maze, the hero must survive - Build defenses and survive for X minutes
LOL! How about:
- gather enouth fuel to get to the next mission + infest as many CCs as posible? - kill specific enemy unit/building? (destroying enemy base rather essential ;P)
|
Ridiculous. I played through the campaign like 5 or six times, it's really not that long. Maybe for ultra casual players or something it is, but I think difficulty would be more of an obstacle to finishing the game than length, especially if it's enjoyable.
|
When cap my net (slowed right down to under 56kb/s) the campaign gets me through these tough times with extremely slow internet.
|
I remember years ago when they announced that Sc2 will come in 3 parts the main reason why they did that is becasue story they wanted to tell is so long that it will require at least 3 parts to cover. Ofc now everybody see that its all about the money.
|
Campaign wasn't too long. I just never played it again because of: - Horrible loading times - The need to be online - The story
|
... don't feel like paying the same amount of money to play way less contents.
|
Definitely don't buy that even Blizzard thinks it was too long. I've actually never played a game that was too long. If I enjoy a game, I'll always want more. Granted SC2 single player is nowhere near the most enjoyable gaming experiences I've had. If I don't like the game I'm not going to say its too long just to get less of it, I just won't play it. I wouldn't mind if the campaign was 10x longer. Eventually I'll finish it playing here and there. I'm in no rush to be the world's first to finish it.
|
I hope there is another set of challenges. Those were fun.
|
Wtf? It was so short, beat it in about 6 hours total.
|
The campaign was great, they should make it longer and better.
|
I think the campaign was just about right. And I'm a zerg player, so terran wasn't as fun for me. I imagine the zerg campaign will be much more interesting for me.
|
hrm, number of missions was fine in my opinion.
fnished it on hard first if i recall correctly , then did a replay for achievement whoring on hard then a brutal replay.
some missions were not easy , but on brutal even it was pretty much the same once you got the hang of it. bioball asap , quick hit and runs to cripple AI when needed , then just mop everything up.
feel like they should have made some maps with a very large playing field. Most of the time now it came down to mining your natural and then killing everything, i rarely found the need to expand other then the odd scripted mission that forced you too ( lava mission , super nova mission , battle cruiser mission). The resources were simply enough to gank the map. some maps where you actually have to do hard batlle for expands and always be on the brink of running out of resources would have been fun.
also, the char chapter was very underwhelming in my opinion. the first mission was ok but only because of the scripted intro that gave you the feeling of entering a really " hot " zone.
5-6 missions for char would have been better where you constantly had to fight to survive instead of just landing and splattering everything in the 2 missions after.
all in all i hope that if they cut down the number of missions they give the remaining ones some more depth and link to the story
|
If anything it was too short. I've finished it in 5 hours before.
|
They should hire the guys who made the Antioch Chronicles. Great fanmade campaign in broodwar. Even the guys who made the BOB-levels, lol. Some of those were plain weird but entertaining and you didn't know what to expect.
It shouldn't be hard to top the storyline and leveldesign Blizzard made. If a lot of players don't finish the levels they maybe they were boring. A wide range of tactics and unitcompositions and decisionmaking should be required to play though it. Not make a marineball and kill everything.
|
woot i love the campaigns give me moar !!! i love it that they use like upgrade + research stuff and different story that we can choose
|
The singleplayer was awesome. I'd hate it if it becomes shorter...
|
So the campaign needs to be shorter so people can finish it before they get bored with it?
|
So less singleplayer content for us, cuz of negative feedback? O_o And most people not completing it, is because there are so many hardcore ladderers who don't care for the campaign. Even though I'm very competative, I still liked the campaign a lot.
|
campaign is for noobs just like UMS and team games
|
|
|
|