|
If you ignore the story of BroodWar and re-evaluate the characters based upon what you see then I think you come away from the SC2 campaign with a good feeling.
I have friends from TF2 who never player BroodWar and they absolutely loved the story.
However, like me they found a lot of the missions in the middle a grind. Only the ending really lived up to the epicness we were expecting.
My thought on the matter is the problem is the non-linear story.
When events follow a set pattern there is a momentum and drive to the plot. It's something that's hard to describe, but just consider what it was like doing the last few missions of SC2 compared with the ones in the middle.
In the middle you essentially had a mass of "filler" missions. There was no real incentive to do them. Peripheral characters that you can ignore are just that... characters that you can ignore. You know they won't have any real impact on the plot and for that reason the missions become boring and repetitive. Blizzard's good attempt at making the scenarios unique didn't do enough to stop them being boring because of their non-essential nature.
The downside is that you can get stuck on a mission that's particularly hard. However, since you are able to adjust the difficulty this shouldn't really be a problem.
Their is still scope for choice and selection during the missions. A lot of the characters are pretty interchangeable. For instance it wouldn't be hard to simply exchange spectres and ghosts depending upon a choice in a mission.
Whether you side with the Protoss or the Doctor could also be put into the same mission. Giving you options without taking away from the plot too much.
But maybe you disagree?
Should the next expansion focus more on essential plot driven missions and less on optional and ultimately unnecesary choice missions?
Poll: More essential plot driven missions?Yes (177) 89% No (21) 11% 198 total votes Your vote: More essential plot driven missions? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
Agree with what you said, i voted yes
|
I voted yes. I felt like not a lot happened in Wings of Liberty's story, because so many of the missions were side-quests. On top of that, it felt like your side-quest completion had little to no effect on the overall direction the game went. + Show Spoiler +Threatening the rule of Arcturus and thus his son's chances of becoming Emperor didn't seem to bother him that much, for example.
|
Yes.
I would prefer a strong linear story to a dull non-linear campaign.
I want the next expansion to start off strong with tough missions and keep that up for the entire campaign. While i did enjoy collecting units, looking back it just arbitrarily slowed down the game. I would have preferred 29 missions with full armies instead of majority of the missions having a specific unit spotlight.
|
10387 Posts
Non-linearity is overrated. Unless you can take multiple different mission paths that are still strongly story driven, I'd rather just play a linear set of missions with a great story.
I feel as if it's really obvious that SC2 was meant to have a campaign w/ a Terran/Zerg/Protoss episode.. And then someone in the upper executive levels decided to make the Terran campaign the first game, so then the game designers ended up throwing in a bunch of filler instead of expanding on their original draft of the story. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake in the subsequent expansions w/ filler missions.
|
I agree, non-linearity is great to an extent, and so is the choice-based last mission, but a lot of the missions are kind of boring in that they're not really adding to the plot. That's not to say playing the mission is not fun or challenging, it's just feels like xp grinding on RPGs (gaining units and credits in this case), rather than producing plot elements.
|
I felt the non-linearity suited the idea that Raynor's Raiders were a ramshackle mercenary group, they have to do irrelevant missions to make ends meet and keep the Hyperion in the air/void or whatever.
The story missions were my favourites still, however.
If Raynor were to just constantly fight Mengsk with no reliable source of income then he'd be dead in the water within a week.
I doubt Heart of the Swarm will be as non-linear, maybe some extra planets sprinkled in for extra evolution points (upgrading Kerrigan's abilities and whatnot) but all in all I imagine it should be more story driven.
|
I was never bored during the missions, even if they were non-story related they were usually very creative and fun to play.
Plus the main story was so cheesy and boring that it didnt make much of a difference to me.
So I'd say, just make a good story next time, if that story itself has more missions, I'd welcome that alot as well of course. But if the main story sucks I dont care much and will just play for the gameplay.
Oh and please, more rendered cinematics next time, seemed like 60% of what we saw had already been seen in the trailers  ((
|
couldn't agree more, the missions I liked the best were the Protoss ones (with the exception of the hybrid hero one which was just retarded on brutal) and they feelt the most linear to me.
|
I loved the Zeratul side missions! Everything else was still good but not as great.
|
yeah the option to do the missions in any order does kinda dilute the story. you're probably better off playing them mostly in order (colonist, covert, rebellion etc etc) in terms of the story. don't think it makes the missions boring though just cos they're so well designed. i'll take these over the 200/200 A-move of BW pretty much any day.
also i thought the choices were actually pretty interesting and tough. obviously they couldn't affect the plot TOO much but if youre at all immersed in the fictional world then they're not simple decisions.
|
On August 06 2010 02:42 JunZ wrote:
I loved the Zeratul side missions! Everything else was still good but not as great.
Yeah, they were interesting in that they were almost a plot in and of themselves. Sadly the rewards they gave were pretty lame, and I kept trying to Chrono Boost out colossi.
|
I disagree a bit. While the side missions were inconsequential to the main story line, they did a very good job at fleshing out the story, and the characters that followed you on the Hyperion had a lot of interesting things to say between missions. I guess you kinda need to be a "lore nut" to appreciate that the story stretches far beyond the scope of the game. The Rebellion missions lacked a feeling of actual "impact" on the story imo, but the secret mission made up for it.
As for incentives to do them, additional reasearch and credits was enough for me 
|
there's nothing wrong with non-linear storylines, but i agree, they didn't do it that well here. the idea fits, with raynor's raiders taking opportunistic jobs to stay afloat, but the missions i truly enjoyed the most were the toss missions and the ending on char - both had a distinct story to the missions, which made in utter darkness and all-in truly epic in the story.
|
Filler:
Tosh/Nova
Ariel/Selendis
Zeratul (should be protoss)
Acturus crap (debatable)
Not filler:
Mar Sara (debateable), 4 missions
Artifact stuff: 4 missions?
Char: 3 missions
Total: 10-11, right on the money for a starcraft or starcraft BW terran campaign.
Sounds like ol' Bobby is working hard!
|
I think the way the missions are set up would potentially make for more interesting gameplay. Unfortunately I think that Blizz kinda dropped the ball on that one (how many maps make drops a good idea, for example? Pretty much only the one where you get medivacs. I feel like this is done because you might not have medivacs for the other missions. That's the most obvious thing, but honestly I feel like the missions play out pretty much the same regardless of the order you do them in).
I couldn't care less about video game story stuff, so I won't comment on that.
|
On August 06 2010 02:03 Opinion wrote:
Yes.
I would prefer a strong linear story to a dull non-linear campaign.
I want the next expansion to start off strong with tough missions and keep that up for the entire campaign. While i did enjoy collecting units, looking back it just arbitrarily slowed down the game. I would have preferred 29 missions with full armies instead of majority of the missions having a specific unit spotlight.
The SP campaign is designed as a sidepiece to the multiplayer battles (in other words, MP is the main course, not the side dish, as is typical in an RTS). The very reason for the specific-unit focus in each mission is that each unit (even the mercenary units) fits into the overall structure like pieces in a puzzle. Also, there are certain tradeoffs by choosing specific research/upgrade paths (for example, I specifically *avoided* the research path that would lead to the Orbital Command upgrade, and did it on purpose). The impact of those choices (against relatively safe computer opposition) is the entire point behind the single-player campaign (as there is little or no emphasis on traditional *skirmish*)
|
I think it was neat how you had to pick what you wanted to do and how it was impossible to get everything (all the upgrades / research). But some of the choices were just plain stupid since 1 was clearly superior over the other. For example, stuff like buildings repairing themselves, extra banshee / ghost energy or drop pods vs. new reactors. Some of the choices were just silly. The decisions that were really well done were the ones that affected later mission like choosing between taking out nydus or taking out air for the last mission.
I would have liked some missions to punish you more based on your choices. For example, giving us a very gas-intensive mission involving lots of geysers and fewer minerals. That would make picking between sci vessels and ravens, and picking between the refineries auto-mining vs free depot construction stand out more.
It just seems like Blizzard did a real slop-shed job, the campaign had a lot of potential.
|
On August 06 2010 04:13 PGHammer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:03 Opinion wrote:
Yes.
I would prefer a strong linear story to a dull non-linear campaign.
I want the next expansion to start off strong with tough missions and keep that up for the entire campaign. While i did enjoy collecting units, looking back it just arbitrarily slowed down the game. I would have preferred 29 missions with full armies instead of majority of the missions having a specific unit spotlight.
The SP campaign is designed as a sidepiece to the multiplayer battles (in other words, MP is the main course, not the side dish, as is typical in an RTS). The very reason for the specific-unit focus in each mission is that each unit (even the mercenary units) fits into the overall structure like pieces in a puzzle. Also, there are certain tradeoffs by choosing specific research/upgrade paths (for example, I specifically *avoided* the research path that would lead to the Orbital Command upgrade, and did it on purpose). The impact of those choices (against relatively safe computer opposition) is the entire point behind the single-player campaign (as there is little or no emphasis on traditional *skirmish*)
I would disagree. I remember reading somewhere that 2/3 of SC1 keys never logged onto Battle.net (sorry, I can't find a source). A lot of people don't want to invest time into getting good at online play and simply enjoy the game for its story and campaign.
My complaint is that your choices can either make things very easy or completely screw you over but have very little impact on the story itself. For example, would it be really that difficult to have + Show Spoiler +Hanson come back and try to screw you over/help you later in the campaign (depending on your choice) rather than get killed immediately
Now, the individual missions were awesome and I enjoyed every one of them. However, most of the time, I never felt I was really working towards some final goal and I had trouble seeing how what I was doing fit into the big picture, leaving me quite unsatisfied. Even the Zeratul missions I thought were pretty bland and uninspiring. I still have the last 3 missions left. I hope these will leave something to remember.
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
This is exactly my complaint on western-style story driven games. I.e. mass effect, dragon age, even oblivion. All these games have at most maybe ~35% of total missions that cater to the main story. the remaining 65% of missions is fluff. Why the hell do western games focus so much on side missions?
When I see games advertise "OVER 500 SIDE MISSIONS" I just facepalm. Instead of having a main storyline that takes <10 hours and have 20 hours of side missions, wouldn't a 30 hour main mission have a much more capability to produce epic stories?
Compare that with the excellent Final Fantasy series. FF4/5/6 all had an overwhelming majority of their quests devoted to the main story. Thus we can literally have five different versions of the main map, before and after apocalypse, etc etc - instead of getting distracted by side missions. We can also understand much more in terms of character development and how they relate to the main story. This is how it should be done.
|
On August 06 2010 04:48 orgolove wrote:
This is exactly my complaint on western-style story driven games. I.e. mass effect, dragon age, even oblivion. All these games have at most maybe ~35% of total missions that cater to the main story. the remaining 65% of missions is fluff. Why the hell do western games focus so much on side missions?
When I see games advertise "OVER 500 SIDE MISSIONS" I just facepalm. Instead of having a main storyline that takes <10 hours and have 20 hours of side missions, wouldn't a 30 hour main mission have a much more capability to produce epic stories?
Compare that with the excellent Final Fantasy series. FF4/5/6 all had an overwhelming majority of their quests devoted to the main story. Thus we can literally have five different versions of the main map, before and after apocalypse, etc etc - instead of getting distracted by side missions. We can also understand much more in terms of character development and how they relate to the main story. This is how it should be done.
YES, 100% yes! This is why I can't stand western RPGs, their stories are all so bland and all over the place! People complain that ff13 was too linear, but it was 100% character development and not 100% universe development! And guess what, I liked Vanille a lot more than I liked Shepard, any way you spin it... Another example of a western "rpg" with like 30 hours of side missions would be FFTA2, which could have been a fun game but the story was bland, the characters were bland, the game play wasn't as good as FFT or FFTA, but hey, at least we had all those side missions. Give me a FF or a Star Ocean any day...
|
On August 06 2010 04:55 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 04:48 orgolove wrote:
This is exactly my complaint on western-style story driven games. I.e. mass effect, dragon age, even oblivion. All these games have at most maybe ~35% of total missions that cater to the main story. the remaining 65% of missions is fluff. Why the hell do western games focus so much on side missions?
When I see games advertise "OVER 500 SIDE MISSIONS" I just facepalm. Instead of having a main storyline that takes <10 hours and have 20 hours of side missions, wouldn't a 30 hour main mission have a much more capability to produce epic stories?
Compare that with the excellent Final Fantasy series. FF4/5/6 all had an overwhelming majority of their quests devoted to the main story. Thus we can literally have five different versions of the main map, before and after apocalypse, etc etc - instead of getting distracted by side missions. We can also understand much more in terms of character development and how they relate to the main story. This is how it should be done. YES, 100% yes! This is why I can't stand western RPGs, their stories are all so bland and all over the place! People complain that ff13 was too linear, but it was 100% character development and not 100% universe development! And guess what, I liked Vanille a lot more than I liked Shepard, any way you spin it... Another example of a western "rpg" with like 30 hours of side missions would be FFTA2, which could have been a fun game but the story was bland, the characters were bland, the game play wasn't as good as FFT or FFTA, but hey, at least we had all those side missions. Give me a FF or a Star Ocean any day...
I think the side quests cater to gamers' desire to customize their characters get everything they possibly can in a game. But I agree that writers should devote more attention to the main storyline rather than 500 side quests.
I like it when the side quests reveal stories about the characters or their pasts, but some games take it too far. In particular, I get really annoyed when the game get impossibly difficult without having gotten items and goods from side quests. I mean, if the game is designed so that "side quests" are in fact, necessary, why not just make the main quest longer?...
|
On August 06 2010 04:48 orgolove wrote:
This is exactly my complaint on western-style story driven games. I.e. mass effect, dragon age, even oblivion. All these games have at most maybe ~35% of total missions that cater to the main story. the remaining 65% of missions is fluff. Why the hell do western games focus so much on side missions?
When I see games advertise "OVER 500 SIDE MISSIONS" I just facepalm. Instead of having a main storyline that takes <10 hours and have 20 hours of side missions, wouldn't a 30 hour main mission have a much more capability to produce epic stories?
Compare that with the excellent Final Fantasy series. FF4/5/6 all had an overwhelming majority of their quests devoted to the main story. Thus we can literally have five different versions of the main map, before and after apocalypse, etc etc - instead of getting distracted by side missions. We can also understand much more in terms of character development and how they relate to the main story. This is how it should be done.
orgolove, do those titles that have an extensive single-player campaign have *any* multiplayer to speak of, or have multiplayer at all? (AFAIK, *none* of the FF PC titles has any MP; however, I have no idea if this is true of the Sony console versions.) ME and ME2 have some multiplayer (however, the first title does have a pretty well-developed single-player campaign, complete with branching), and I have not played DA or Oblivion.
SC2: WoL has a problem, and a major one; by concentrating mostly on a single race (the Terrans), yet supporting multiplayer (including having all three races being playable), how the heck do you introduce new game-players to the Protoss and/or Zerg during the single-player campaign? That is what that entire Zeratul *backstory* sub-branch is designed to do; give new players a real option rather than *just* playing as Terrans in multiplayer. (I have no idea as to whether or not there is a similar Zerg-based sub-branch.)
Lastly, you missed my other comment regarding the importance of the side/backstory to the whole of the plot (as well as linking SC, BW, and SC2). We suspected (because of what we knew in SC/BW) that Sarah Kerrigan was well and truly screwed over by Arcturus Mengsk (as was Jim Raynor). Not only did that get confirmation, we find out that Kerrigan/Raynor/the Confederacy were not even the biggest screwees; if anything, the ZERG (the bugs Terrans and Protoss have loved to hate) were screwed over the most (yes; even more so than Sarah Kerrigan). (We also find that certain tribes of Protoss got the BOHICA Treatment as well.) While this side/backstory does tie up loose ends for those of us familiar with SC/BW, it's critical as *backstory* for those of us with no previous SC/BW history! Without it, it's like coming into the story in the middle.
|
Your poll is essentially "Do you want it better or not?" Of course no one is going to vote no.
That being said I found the missions much more enjoyable than I originally anticipated, and only found myself 'disliking' a select few. A handful of the missions I found absolutely brilliant, such as a few of the zeratul missions as well as the "blow up the tunnels" mission.
The story wasn't a problem for me until I stopped playing missions and tried to piece the story together. There are a lot of holes, and a lot of super cheesy moments/decision.
I did experience a little bit of that "grind" feeling, but mostly because I burned through the campaign on brutal in three nights. I kind of deserve it! Overall though I believe the "interest level" of the missions themselves were much higher on average than blizzard's other games. The story itself was the wince worthy part for me, and I've since found that to be the popular opinion on these boards as well.
EDIT: Also there as been a startling relation between difficulty level and fun level. Most folks who played brutal had a blast, where as most the folks on easier difficulties thought it was "ok" or even disliked it.
|
I absolutely PREFER games that are heavily linear and give you a few choices around 60% of the way through the game but around 85% they forcefully reconvene you back to a linear state.
I felt the story was absolute TRASH in SC2 compared to the first one. I felt like there was no significance these random Protoss we we killing. They weren't part of hte main protoss force we were fighting or anything, just random ass Protoss fantatics apparently worshipping some shit or no real apparent reason. Kerrigan seemed not as devious, there was no driving force really, rather "we need moey, let's go to this random place and get some credits."
I hated the storyline, as far as I'm concerned as a successfor from BW the story was around a 3/10. No repercussions for releasing spectres, etc. No real relations or connections between teh races at all. Even the relation between Raynor and Mengsk felt weak to me, unlike SC1 and BW.
|
On August 06 2010 04:55 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 04:48 orgolove wrote:
This is exactly my complaint on western-style story driven games. I.e. mass effect, dragon age, even oblivion. All these games have at most maybe ~35% of total missions that cater to the main story. the remaining 65% of missions is fluff. Why the hell do western games focus so much on side missions?
When I see games advertise "OVER 500 SIDE MISSIONS" I just facepalm. Instead of having a main storyline that takes <10 hours and have 20 hours of side missions, wouldn't a 30 hour main mission have a much more capability to produce epic stories?
Compare that with the excellent Final Fantasy series. FF4/5/6 all had an overwhelming majority of their quests devoted to the main story. Thus we can literally have five different versions of the main map, before and after apocalypse, etc etc - instead of getting distracted by side missions. We can also understand much more in terms of character development and how they relate to the main story. This is how it should be done. YES, 100% yes! This is why I can't stand western RPGs, their stories are all so bland and all over the place! People complain that ff13 was too linear, but it was 100% character development and not 100% universe development! And guess what, I liked Vanille a lot more than I liked Shepard, any way you spin it... Another example of a western "rpg" with like 30 hours of side missions would be FFTA2, which could have been a fun game but the story was bland, the characters were bland, the game play wasn't as good as FFT or FFTA, but hey, at least we had all those side missions. Give me a FF or a Star Ocean any day...
100% agreed. Linear is so much better. I didn't like Dragon Age's story that much because the side quests took so much time, I barely remembered the main story once I finished doing the side quests.
I really wished they made the campaign linear. I did the Zeratul crystal missions, had Raynor talk to his crew about them, then when it was time to invade Char, nobody else remembered why they needed Kerrigan alive in the first place.
|
There were plenty of filler missions in SC1 too that had little to do with the overall arc of the story. Either way, people will complain. I ALWAYS see complaints about linear games and how they should be less-so. Blizzard can't please everyone.
|
On August 06 2010 05:09 B1nary wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 04:55 Endymion wrote:On August 06 2010 04:48 orgolove wrote:
This is exactly my complaint on western-style story driven games. I.e. mass effect, dragon age, even oblivion. All these games have at most maybe ~35% of total missions that cater to the main story. the remaining 65% of missions is fluff. Why the hell do western games focus so much on side missions?
When I see games advertise "OVER 500 SIDE MISSIONS" I just facepalm. Instead of having a main storyline that takes <10 hours and have 20 hours of side missions, wouldn't a 30 hour main mission have a much more capability to produce epic stories?
Compare that with the excellent Final Fantasy series. FF4/5/6 all had an overwhelming majority of their quests devoted to the main story. Thus we can literally have five different versions of the main map, before and after apocalypse, etc etc - instead of getting distracted by side missions. We can also understand much more in terms of character development and how they relate to the main story. This is how it should be done. YES, 100% yes! This is why I can't stand western RPGs, their stories are all so bland and all over the place! People complain that ff13 was too linear, but it was 100% character development and not 100% universe development! And guess what, I liked Vanille a lot more than I liked Shepard, any way you spin it... Another example of a western "rpg" with like 30 hours of side missions would be FFTA2, which could have been a fun game but the story was bland, the characters were bland, the game play wasn't as good as FFT or FFTA, but hey, at least we had all those side missions. Give me a FF or a Star Ocean any day... I think the side quests cater to gamers' desire to customize their characters get everything they possibly can in a game. But I agree that writers should devote more attention to the main storyline rather than 500 side quests. I like it when the side quests reveal stories about the characters or their pasts, but some games take it too far. In particular, I get really annoyed when the game get impossibly difficult without having gotten items and goods from side quests. I mean, if the game is designed so that "side quests" are in fact, necessary, why not just make the main quest longer?...
I dunno, I just don't agree with character customization in terms of personality in a game, it's very hard for writers to make a good story out of what you chose (assuming there are more than one variables in the story line). So for every change, you need a whole different story and ending, or else it just ends up feeling cheap. I'm all for customizing gameplay and character attributes/abilities, as well as changing things about local lore (not game changing lore).
A good example would be going into a town in Chrono Trigger (just using CT because it's so popular), and deciding if Chrono should help a fleeing criminal or help catch him. If you helped him it could be beneficial, but it could also be beneficial to help catch him. However, once you chose, it shouldn't have a major impact on the game. Having it effect your experience in the next town is a good idea (maybe it's a thieve's den, maybe the criminal's brother is there), but making the criminal a piece of Lavos is probably not a good idea (or in any serious relation to an important antagonist), because it would change Lavos's opinion of you, and you have potential multiple endings (or an ending that doesn't fit the main story).
Thats why Western RPGs can't have a single story or a single ending, because they spend the whole game trying to figure out who the main character is instead of building the story around him.
It's almost a game of 20 questions (is your chacter good, is he evil, is he straight ect).
Jrpg- "Ok, we have a red headed character from Guardia, he is going to meet a blonde princess at the Guardia fair and X + Y will happen, causing Z plot event to move the story forward."
Western-"Ok, we have a player created character from where ever the player decides, he can go where ever he wants and decide what to do. He will have plot decision A(+-1) and B(+-1). If he choses to do the moral decision on A, we will call it A1, same with B. Depending on A and B choices he can meet Marle(A1B1), Robo(A1B-1), Magus(A-1B1), or Lucca(A-1B-1). Each character will have a different path deemed C D E F, each with different plot fulcrums."
Westerns would work if you had a different writer for each story path, but it's unreasonable to pay that many writers. So instead of 5/1 (5 writers divided by one story) you end up with 5/x (x being the amount of story variables). It speaks for itself that Jrpgs tend to have better stories, they have more writers working on a single piece.
In Starcraft 2 its different though, there is only one ending, so Tosh's missions and the Doctor's missions feel like "filler," which is completely understandable. You just have to look at it from Raynor's perspective, why is he helping these people? For money to upgrade his army, or for new units to eventually use against the Zerg? Or maybe it's just to get in the Doctor's pants, it's all up to what you want to think. The point is that it doesn't matter what you think because you are doing them anyways, for which ever end you think your trying to meet. Thats the genius of Starcraft 2's campaign, immerse yourself and you'll have fun. Look at it clinically, and you won't get the same result. Thats how I see it anyways.
|
The missions from a story perspective were pretty weak. As far as I can remember they were all just "Let's go get some money, Jimmy!" or "Oh noes, my colonists!" Pretty weak stuff.
I would like them to keep the upgrade, tech, mercenary elements (with changes just so the campaigns aren't all the same). Those were a lot of fun, and I enjoyed customizing my army to my play style.
What I could with more of is the "choice" missions, in particular the penultimate mission in which you decide to sabotage ground or air for Zerg. That is to say, a linear storyline with some simple forks that could affect some or all of the succeeding missions, either through enemy strength or the capabilities of the player's forces. I think that is a lot more fun than have 20 missions that everyone does anyway, but just having them done in whatever order ( I will admit that the unit unlocking method did make things a little interesting).
|
On August 06 2010 05:57 Cofo wrote:
There were plenty of filler missions in SC1 too that had little to do with the overall arc of the story. Either way, people will complain. I ALWAYS see complaints about linear games and how they should be less-so. Blizzard can't please everyone.
But at least the BW missions were consistent and flowed naturally. In the SC2 campaign for example, if you did the Zeratul missions, no one ever mentions the prophecies or what not ever again. What missions you did had no bearing whatsoever on the game beyond the the second last mission.
|
I enjoyed the missions and did not find them boring, but I do agree that the story could of been told much better. Most of the campaign can be removed and you wouldnt lose anything as far as the story goes, which is disappointing for me. Starcraft and Broodwar had so much story packed into those small campaigns, but sc2 is half filler missions(but still fun for me).
|
i won't deny a portion the missions lacked something to make me actually care about the plot behind them. frankly the plot itself wasn't all that engaging to me. i felt like batman answering the call to save the day from the evil bad guys in most of them, except raynor isn't nearly as awesome as batman and the bad guys aren't nearly as clever as batman's bad guys. the zerg and terran forces were really boring to fight in general, the only time i even liked going against zerg was on char and on that one escort civilians mission because they came in big enough waves for it to actually be somewhat challenging. 6 zerglings and like 2 hydras and 2 roaches is not going to freak me out too much no matter how you spin it.
the protoss missions were awesome, as soon as i got them i wanted to immediately do all of them over the terran ones because it was all very relevent to the story and the missions were almost all different from standard mass harvesters, mass imba SP units, crush idiotic AI missions. zeratul was fun to use too, and tosh as well for that matter, and i wish they gave you more hero missions because the only ones i even remember pretty much all involved a hero (prison break with tosh, tychus in the odin, zeratul's memories, etc).
i thought the actual story-telling itself was great and even though the terran campaign had moments of dull plot, they did good to avoid MP style missions in SP, and the narration within the missions made me feel like i wasn't just grinding, even if i knew that not every mission was significant. it was fun for me to play single player, and that's happened in exactly 0 RTS games for me. but no, it definitely doesn't hold a candle to what i'd expect out of a well-developed RPG story in terms of having an epic story. i didn't expect it to, in terms of expectations it met and exceeded them and the only reason i'd complain is because i agreed with the minor point this thread made.
|
I voted no.
The problem is not the side missions: i actually enjoy them. There are other things that happen in the universe while you are trying to collect various artifacts and the side characters adds to
If you dont like the side missions then simply skip them.
The problem I find is:
- Weak main plot: collect artifact pieces, invade char (in 2.5 missions), then blow it up on char.
- Over used plot mechanic: 3/4 artifact piece is guarded by the same protoss group
- Side story can have a little more influence on the main plot beside granting you access to units.
You take a look at the campaign of sc1 and wc3 and they offer a large progression in storyline. I guess I expected much much more after they cut sc2 into 3 games.
|
A-fuckin-greed. Nonlinear games fucking blow and have 0 story, typically. Dragon Age I never beat but it seemed to be pretty epicly nonlinear, but SC2's story fucking SUCKED.
|
ya kinda felt the whole campaign was a filler lol
|
Didn't Blizzard want WOL to have more of a 'mercenary buy upgrades, get troops' feel?
And then HOTS was suppose to be more RPG orientated?
|
Strong linear story is the best way to convey a story. Look at the Final Fantasty series as stated by an above user. More importantly look at COD4 with its seamless integration of cut scenes and action. Blizzard should take COD4 as an exmaple of what the campaign should have been
|
On August 06 2010 04:48 orgolove wrote:
This is exactly my complaint on western-style story driven games. I.e. mass effect, dragon age, even oblivion. All these games have at most maybe ~35% of total missions that cater to the main story. the remaining 65% of missions is fluff. Why the hell do western games focus so much on side missions?
When I see games advertise "OVER 500 SIDE MISSIONS" I just facepalm. Instead of having a main storyline that takes <10 hours and have 20 hours of side missions, wouldn't a 30 hour main mission have a much more capability to produce epic stories?
Compare that with the excellent Final Fantasy series. FF4/5/6 all had an overwhelming majority of their quests devoted to the main story. Thus we can literally have five different versions of the main map, before and after apocalypse, etc etc - instead of getting distracted by side missions. We can also understand much more in terms of character development and how they relate to the main story. This is how it should be done.
I would disagree. The way you want the story like FF series is the the main reason the lastest FF13 fail miserably. Not all game should have main story get mayor of the game and side quests should provide the terms of char development. They can do what ever they want as long as it keep you interesting most of the time and give you the sense of caring for the characters, well this is what SC2 has done nicely.
I just say non-linear story is nothing wrong. It's just the way of SC2 didn't fit some people taste. Or maybe it's really poor handle.
|
I don't mind the non-linearity. I didn't mind the filler missions (they were fun!) or the filler characters - what I disliked was the marked lack of continuity created by the non-linearity. Matt Horner is a particularly glaring example.
+ Show Spoiler +Do the protoss missions. Talk with Matt. He knows that Kerrigan (possibly) is necessary for the survival of the human race.
Do the artifact missions. Matt blows up on you about Kerrigan and Mengsk. Also, Jim goes wacko. Swann may say something similar, I don't quite recall.
Finish Media Blitz. Another complete change.
I think if they had managed to integrate just that one aspect - 'knowledge that Kerrigan is needed' - which may have required a few more cinematics (Matt could even say that the prophecy is rubbish or something, maybe a trick by the overmind), it wouldn't have had that suddenly jarring, shattering of my suspension of disbelief.
I have other complaints about the storyline, but everyone's already discussed those enough.
|
Take Baldur's Gate. Take Icewind Dale. Some of the greatest RPGs of all time. And both had tons of side-quests. I agree that these are RPG's, and we are in the RTS land, but I believe that what Blizzard tried to do is really great. You can't be ALWAYS saving the galaxy. The side-quests add feeling, spice and realism to the whole story. It is easier to emphasize with the story and characters that way.
Personally, I am right there sitting at the Cantina bar next to Raynor with a whiskey in my hand, listening to Suspicious Minds, every time I finish a mission  .
|
On August 06 2010 03:33 Slayer91 wrote:
Filler:
Tosh/Nova
Ariel/Selendis
Zeratul (should be protoss)
Acturus crap (debatable)
Not filler:
Mar Sara (debateable), 4 missions
Artifact stuff: 4 missions?
Char: 3 missions
Total: 10-11, right on the money for a starcraft or starcraft BW terran campaign.
Sounds like ol' Bobby is working hard!
Zeratul missions filler wtf? That's where the story went from "herp-de derp im on a rebellion" to "holy shit the apocolypse, hybrids, ahhh, this is important"
|
the non-linearity does kinda dilute the story, since they have to tiptoe around certain plot points lest they spoil it for a different mission
|
The game gives you a nightmare/flashback sequence TWICE to the key moment on Tarsonis (the old adjutant and a cinematic) when Mengsk abandons Kerrigan. This is THE defining event for Raynors character. Remember after the original Terran campaign the next thing he does is follow Kerrigans "lure" where he discovers her Transformation. This motivates him to aid the Protoss in defeating the Overmind. In the Brood wars he has to realise that the Queen of Blades is no longer Kerrigan but a monster with her face and declares that he needs to finish the issue. He still blames himself (and Arcturus) for the events on Tarsonis.
After Broodwars he can´t really do anything about Kerrigan so he keeps himself busy with his revenge against Arcturus with limited success initially.
The Wol story actually picks up on all these points: Especially in the "Horner" Missions it´s evident that he considers stopping the current goverment (Mengsk) his concern but building a new "better" one Matt Horners. Matt knows this but disagrees - cue the "we are waiting for you" conversations.
His position on Zerg infestation is handled in the Colonist Subplot, the conflict of revenge against Arcturus no matter the cost to what is "best" for the Population.
It´s a similar Matter as well with Tychus, he is Raynors best friend but he also is contra Kerrigan the whole time. Despite certain weak motivations (they need to plant a bomb in his suit to make him "kill Kerrigan or die") the point in the end is that Raynor choses Kerrigan over him.
With all the above the "Story" fits and develops Raynors character rather well even if they fail to connect the plot (both due to irrelevance of the events to each other and the free missionchoice which weakens the building of Tension). What they did very well however is the consistency between Plot and Missionevents, there is no longer the player wiping the map but the cutscene showing the Heroes barely escaping. Also the few Missions without "options" (the first and last 3 each) are great about connecting the events and building tension.
The Protoss minicampaign however is a PROTOSS campaign, yes they put it in context to Raynor but it actually relates to how the Protoss get a warning of their "gods" as told by one of their greatest Heroes. The narrative with heroic sacrifices, ancient prophecys and "the end of the universe" doesn´t fit at all with the Space western Terrans but it DOES fit with the Mystic and ancient Protoss.
I think of it as a sequence from Legacy of the Void that they snuck into WoL to have Protoss in the campaign - which only appear otherwise as Selendis cameo and Superflat bad guys the Tal´darim. Remember in the Prophecy itself the Protoss are blaming themselves for killing Kerrigan. Raynor isn´t mentioned AT ALL, there is no reason for Zeratul to talk to Raynor about it but some off screen relevation about it. And for how important it appears to be - why don´t any Protoss show up, neither to help fight Kerrigan or even to protect her?
The prophecy is "problematic" because it´s outside the Terran campaigns plot and story. The other sidequests are "merely" outside the plot.
Raynors character isn´t in conflict between killing Kerrigan and preventing the Prophecy -that´s the Protoss, he is in conflict between saving his comrade (lover?) and killing the monster that wears her Face.
|
I really hate linear missions in RTS campaigns, and in BW I just used the 'skip level' cheat on like 50% of missions to progress the story because it got really boring. In SC2 I played through every mission and enjoyed most of it, never feeling it was a grind. I think we can agree it's personal choice, and if you're the kind of person who sits down and plays the campaign all in one or two sittings you can't complain. I found it much more enjoyable doing 3-5 missions at a time over a week or two and never once did it feel like a grind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
