EPTWhat SC2 Could Learn From Modern Games - Page 2
| Blogs > confusedcrib |
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
| ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
| ||
|
iamperfection
United States9645 Posts
his suggestion for a shorter campaign is that it takes up time in devlopment for making multiplayer better do we really need several of those side quest missions that really didnt add much to the story? I think a more streamlined campiagn that focused on making the main arch better would improve the story and accomplish the ops goals. | ||
|
ArcticFox
United States1092 Posts
On April 14 2012 00:52 iamperfection wrote: @arcticfox his suggestion for a shorter campaign is that it takes up time in devlopment for making multiplayer better do we really need several of those side quest missions that really didnt add much to the story? I think a more streamlined campiagn that focused on making the main arch better would improve the story and accomplish the ops goals. The storyline in SC1 was 30 missions long, none of which could really be considered "fluff." BW was 26 missions long (excluding the bonus mission), all of them with interesting things and a deep, fascinating story. I don't remember anyone complaining that those campaigns were too long. SC2's campaign was 29 missions (with at most 27 in one playthrough, and I think you can finish it in as few as 14? That number might be off but it's close.) My main beef with the SC2 campaign is that it had some missions in it that were designed specifically to be solved with units they introduced that weren't even included in multiplayer. Also, yes, THAT story could have been told in many fewer missions -- why accept that the story sucks and should be shorter, when you know they could write an epic story over 30 missions 15 years ago? Don't let them off the hook with a shorter campaign -- push for a better written one.  As it is, WoL's story was 29 missions (though you could easily argue that the story could be adequately told in 20.) HotS is projected to have 20 missions. LotV will probably also be around 20. That's 60 missions, roughly the same as SC1+BW, only spread across a 3rd game so as to suck more money out of us. Why should we expect lower quality? With that much development time, I should expect a better story, not a shorter, worse one. I think the SC1/BW model was better since it allowed for a more dynamic story to be told, plus allowed you to preview all 3 races, instead of getting used to Terran in the campaign, then jumping into multiplayer and going, "Welp....I only know Terran....let's do this!" | ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
''You suck at the game. Here, have an unlock and a promotion just because you played.'' | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
For what it's worth they made a lot of noise about adding custom matchmaking (and even ladders) to game types like desert strike before release but now are saying it won't be included until heart at least. So that's apparently on their minds, and I assume with Blizzard Dota around the corner will be a necessity at some point. | ||
|
Happylime
United States133 Posts
Call of Duty isn't fun, I don't play it at all even though I ranked up much faster than I have in Starcraft, the game is less rewarding for me, even if I have a good game and kill more people than people killing me (I'm really bad at cod ok?) it's still not very fun to play. The reason it's so popular could easily be that you can play with your friends without each having to buy the game and it's available on game consoles not just the computer. | ||
|
goldendwarf
Canada170 Posts
I disagree with the short campaign though, the WoL campaign was already short enough. | ||
|
UmiNotsuki
United States633 Posts
When you mentioned new rounds starting automatically, I thought back to playing BF3 until the wee hours simply because, yeah, it keeps going without you needing to tell it to. If the ladder did that I would play SO much more, I'm sure. "Just one more game." "Okay, that was my last game. I'll just get one more kill and then leave." "Shit, I died. I can't leave with a less-than-one kill/death ratio." ... --Game finishes-- "Okay, just one more kill." | ||
d9mmdi
Germany179 Posts
-> maybe its ok to have the rigorous ladder of sc2 and a "normal" mode on the side, with the seriuos ladder actually breeding competition and amazement. Also as totalbiscuit has criticised games should be played cause they are fun and or challenging not because of points unlocks or ranks. After a while youll feel baited like a dog and thats a demotivation. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I guess that's irrelevant to your argument tho. B.net2 fails in a lot of ways and your points are valid, but I think that when you're talking about the same company that made WoW, a game which succeeded on these addictive points and appeal to casual gamers, you're not being fair. Blizzard wanted to create an ESPORT with SC2. They certainly know how to make a casual game. I don't see it as a bad thing that they wanted to make a game for a different audience, and certainly they've succeeded in making people (who never had BW) actually want to watch other people play, something Call of Duty never did. The real place Blizzard failed for the casual gamer is the UMS front. That's what made BW so popular. Making maps and having others play on them was a huge factor to casual appeal, + the fact that those games didn't show up on your record. Untracked progress and infinite variety actually worked really well for most people, and I would dare say better than meaningless achievements and annoying unlocks that give older players an advantage over you do. I played CoD and clones a little bit and was always annoyed that other players had access to stuff I didn't, and so I never played more than 20 minutes. What always separated Blizzard titles (WC3 and BW) from other rts was the variety offered by custom maps. Why Blizzard didn't do that this time is beyond me. They took something that worked and broke it, maybe to encourage the esports side of their game more. | ||
|
synd
Bulgaria586 Posts
You try to make SC2 like CoD? CoD is probably the worst thing mankind has developed, it turned out to be nothing but a moneymaking machine with new games featuring only different characters but the same gameplay and no improvement at all. No thanks, go back to playing CoD casually | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
| ||
|
meatybacon
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
xRevelation21
United States13 Posts
As for actually getting it, it was really intimidating. But that was because of the fact that I did not know how to play. Would unlocks and a ranking system based on time convince me to play? Not really. There are portraits and the achievement point system which was a good bonus but not what convinced me to play. A game shouldn't be about tricking people into playing. It should be about the fact that it is purely enjoyable. I don't play COD cause it's not enjoyable to me, unlocks or not. I did play Bad Company 2 cause it was more enjoyable aspects of the game. But that games have unlocks! So? I hated the unlocks in Bad Company 2. I wish they didn't have them, I didn't like the stars either. It made me feel cheated when someone with a Gold Star on a revolver killed me, even though I had a Gold Star as well. Did I work for it? No... I used the revolver cause I had to. Bleh. Just in general, comparing a RTS to a FPS is dumb. Plain and Stupid. "Well I think we should be able to upgrade our units cause in Gran Turismo you can!" No. Just No. There's a reason Red Alert, Dawn of War, and Age of Empires doesn't have a strong e-sport scene compared to SCII. Even though you unlock a bunch of stuff for playing Age of Empires III. Point proven. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
GlintFox
United States275 Posts
 | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
And the amount of SC2 players who care about stuff outside the game is small. I don't see the point to do all this. People who want to feel like they are good and progressing without putting in any effort will stick to other games regardless of how well SC2 is catered to them. | ||
|
reikai
United States359 Posts
I have some ideas: --Trading bonus pool for extra dance moves for your units --Minipets a la 1v1 OBS games, but supported by Blizzard. (Maybe you would like Kerrigan to strut around your hatchery as you macro up :D) --I really like your skin idea (I guess it's kind of already been done by the "dark mercenary portrait swap" guy, but still.) --Chooseable colours for 1v1 (This would be implemented like so: You queue 1v1, choosing race and the actual 1v1 option, and also a colour. If you queue somebody with the same colour choice as you, the player with HIGHER MMR gets to repick, to give the underdog some "home advantage" mental benefit.) I can't think of more right now, but I sure hope Blizzard reads this thread :D | ||
|
theonemephisto
United States409 Posts
On April 14 2012 02:54 HwangjaeTerran wrote: I don't really care about having casuals play the game. Casuals don't provide to the competitive player pool which in turn provides for improved practice and better games. So I'm fine with them just flinging in the money through watching competitive SC2. And the amount of SC2 players who care about stuff outside the game is small. I don't see the point to do all this. People who want to feel like they are good and progressing without putting in any effort will stick to other games regardless of how well SC2 is catered to them. You don't think casual players help the competitive player pool? Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term having a large and vibrant casual player pool is the best way to recruit more competitive players. A big casual player pool also creates a much larger audience for the competitive players. Halo was such a popular competitive game not because it was particularly suited for it over other FPS's, but because it had a huge casual playerbase to draw an audience from. Without a large casual playerbase, you will never get a large audience to watch competitive play and your competitive playerbase will eventually atrophy without the new source of talent. | ||
| ||
