|
I was looking so forward to this game, i LOVE SC1 and brood-war, the stories in them seemed amazing, and on top of that each game had really extensive campaigns, wasn't something you could sit down and play through in 1 sitting. It gave you the feeling that it was happening over a long period of time.
Does anyone else remember the words "Im pretty much queen bitch of the universe right now" something i will never forget, and something i didnt get out of SC2WoL
When i purhased SC2 at a midnight release i immediately took it home, and played through the campaign in 12 hours, doing all the missions including the secret mission, albeit i was playing fast so i could find out what happened. I feel like the actually time that went by in the game was less than a week, i mean you can even sum up the story in a paragraph
Raynor encounters tychus in a bar, tychus offers him jobs with mobieus, Raynor makes a ton of money funding his rebellion. then zeratul warns him not to kill kerrigan, because she's the only 1 that can contest the "dark voice" so he then sets out to make her human again, so shes not the queen controlling the swarm. prince Mensgk's son has the same interests.
Kerrigan is now human and raynor walks off into the sunset with her in his arms.
I payed $60 for that.
$60 is worth more than 12 hours of gameplay, i understand the multiplayer value of starcraft2 but i was so looking forward to an immersive campaign that would take days to complete.
Ill admit, the end of WoL has me psyched, I want to know what happens so bad, i want to know where duran went too! I want to know what happens to kerrigan, and if Raynors invasion of char caused mengsk to resign and have his son become the new emperor! so many question for Heart of the Swarm, but i feel the answers are going to be like a 30 minute episode of a show where very little happens and i get another 12 hour campaign that is not emmersive and plainly feels like little effort was put into it.
Does anyone else share this frustration with me?
Another short point i want to adress, i recently bought final fantasy 10, im not usually into turn based games but i figured i'd give it a shot, i spent more than 50 hours on the game just to beat it and find out what happens and everything. The game cost me $15
the value of it was extreme, i felt like that $15 had sent me on an adventure through an entire world, compared to my $60 of what felt like a cheesy addictive TV show that ended about 10 ft after it started.
I would really love to hear other peoples thoughts on what they think the length of SC2 did to its campaign, also the awesome units you finally spend money on and upgrade, in the end you only got to use some of them for about 2 or 3 missions.
I FEEL SO RIPPED OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TL DR: why is the campaign so short for a $60 game?
|
Are you seriously ignoring how much effort went into the UI, the pro scene, the BETA, the testing, the balance, the multiplayer, the competitive korean scene and a whole bunch of other shit? You're ignoring this and falsely stating that the single player costs* sixty dollars, and it doesn't. The GAME costs sixty dollars.
Also, rushing through the game and just... playing it takes twelve hours. Playing through it and leaving some time (sleeping/eating) to ponder the plot and the cliffhanger of the last mission gives a greater experience. taking your time and really thinking deep about the plot makes it much more significant.
|
i feel if u play it in one sitting it will feel like it happened over a lesser period of time, and you cant say 60$ is the price for the Campaign because multiplayer is added too and the multiplayer is well worth more than 60$
|
On April 16 2011 15:51 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Are you seriously ignoring how much effort went into the UI, the pro scene, the BETA, the testing, the balance, the multiplayer, the competitive korean scene and a whole bunch of other shit? You're ignoring this and falsely stating that the single player costs* sixty dollars, and it doesn't. The GAME costs sixty dollars.
Also, rushing through the game and just... playing it takes twelve hours. Playing through it and leaving some time (sleeping/eating) to ponder the plot and the cliffhanger of the last mission gives a greater experience. taking your time and really thinking deep about the plot makes it much more significant.
Well first of all, the battle.net ui was not made by blizzard, activision used the same person that made Xbox live for that. the testing and balancing of the game was just them collecting numbers while they kept the beta up, and tweaked numbers until all the races were about 50% win/loss ratio in most leagues.
As far as the Korean pro gaming scene goes, they didnt even add Lan play to this game, if you follow the pro gaming, Not just in korea but across the world you'll have noticed that theres been several times where the local internet has had issues and they could not complete the game, so they had to pause and wait for it to subside so they could continue with a live broadcast tournament. I didnt just buy the game for the multiplay, or just for the singleplayer. i bought it for both, but it still doesnt change the story was short and not well done.
When starcraft and broodwar came out i bought those the day they came out and played straight through them as well, it wasnt something that was easy, and the story had a depth that you could consider, in WoL its pretty much childrens story book level of depth which is hard to sit and ponder when you're spoon fed all the info and then told theres more afterwards.
|
On April 16 2011 16:03 btd978 wrote:
i feel if u play it in one sitting it will feel like it happened over a lesser period of time, and you cant say 60$ is the price for the Campaign because multiplayer is added too and the multiplayer is well worth more than 60$
So you're saying the singleplayer is just a nice addition to this "multiplayer" game, the story isnt a big part of Starcraft nowadays?
|
I do agree that it was just a little short, especially if you don't consider the alternate levels to add more length to the campaign. WC3 and SC1 were longer by a few missions (amount and time-wise), around.
About the FF10 thing, well you should still consider it as $50 or $60, or whatever the price was when it was released. And yeah, RPGs have really awesome storylines; after all, they should because single-player is all the games revolve around. Hopefully you'll find yourself wanting to play more FF and such 
Anyways, I think the campaign was a little short, but compared to the quantity over quality games like CoD (and anything else by Activision these days), 12 hours is a lot. I mean, the campaigns in each CoD is like, what... a few hours long? (correct me if I'm wrong)
Basically, it could have been longer but I think the length and quality of the campaign was enough considering the Multiplayer is so important.
|
On April 16 2011 16:10 Metalfire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:03 btd978 wrote:
i feel if u play it in one sitting it will feel like it happened over a lesser period of time, and you cant say 60$ is the price for the Campaign because multiplayer is added too and the multiplayer is well worth more than 60$ So you're saying the singleplayer is just a nice addition to this "multiplayer" game, the story isnt a big part of Starcraft nowadays?
Yes. The story isn't why the game is made, it's just a part of it.
|
...You bought at release and beat it almost one day... and then you complain just now???
|
While I agree with to some degree I think you exaggerate the problem.
Compare SC2WoL to SC Vanilla. BW is an Add-on.
Half the Terran campaign in sc is like a tutorial and you have the same thing with the zerg campaign.
It may take longer, but it is not playtime you really enjoy. 2 months ago I played the sc, sc bw and then sc2 campaign and while sc+scbw took me longer it wasn't that much fun. For every race you can just mass 2-3 units and win.
In sc2 they apparently first thought about cool units, then about cool missions and at last about the story.
You notice that because the story really is split in different little stories, but the gameplay is much more entertaining I think.
I agree that the story was not very elaborate and i had to cringe several times, but if I have to choose which campaign to play, i' d rather play sc2 than scbw just because of the gameplay.
The story also may seem more dense because you just play one race/one character.
In Wc3 and sc/bw you play 3-4 different races with different protagonists, so it may seem more stretched out than it really is. You see the same situation from different perspectives and play all parties involved, but overall it's not a very long time.
You also forgot the challenges^^. They are part of the Singleplayer and I admit they don't take too long. It's still a nice feature.
Overall I liked the WC3 campaign the most of all blizzards rts games of the last 13 years because although they copied missions from sc/bw it was fun to play probably because of the hero system and some new entertaining mission ideas interweaved into a well told compelling story.
About the price: FF10 is not a new game so you shouldn't compare it's price with the one of sc2. Also after beating singleplayer, multiplayer experience depends on the platform you can play it on and how many people really play it. I think battle.net isn't very good in many aspects, but the matchmaking systems seems to work pretty well and there are a lot of peolple playing sc2.
About the difficulty: Sc2 is in no way easier than sc/bw or Wc3. Just play all of them again. After I did I realized how easy all games are.
While I think you definitely have a point and I hope the Addons will be better I still disagree with you on many points.
|
I recommend you play the next expansion in Brutal, it definitely took me way more then 12 hours to complete the game, and when i did,it felt damn awesome.And as many people above sad, u add multiplayer +editor, and its sure worth all i paid.
|
Actually the huge part of it is that for the online play it is free unlike a ton of other games where you have to pay a monthly fee. Also the campaign/single-player mode was not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. It is in total like 30 missions + achievements + in-game challenges and Lost Vikings.
I know it might not seem like so much, but all of the single-player stuff added to free online play with friends and communities is well worth it to me. I will not pay for a game that I have to keep paying for to play, so I love it.
EDIT: Also, if I remember correctly, there were three campaigns in the first SC1, with 10 levels each making for about 30 levels, the same that are in SC2 WoL. Then when BW came out it added another 10 levels for each race. Also, it was more exciting when it first came out because it was a new game overall. By now a lot of the excitement we felt has worn off for the campaign because we know the story and game already.
|
I don't know what you're talking about... I've gotten hundreds of hours out of my 60 dollar investment. If you want a game that takes 200 hours just to get through the plot, play Baldur's Gate 2. Even then that game can be completed in 20 minutes (with some very creative planning). What you get out of it is about what you put in to it. If you need more plot, read some fan-fiction.
|
Going thru single player for the story, then going back for achievements+brutal. And challenges.
You did not do this in 12 hours.
If you did not do all this, you still have stuff to get from your singleplayer 60 bucks.
Now do you want a list of 60-70$ games that ONLY have single player and actually have around 7-8 gameplay hours?
No you don't want a list of that, because you don't want to be sitting here and reading a list for the next 3 weeks straight.
Now lets see, compared to most games there's actually more than average amount of content. The story is quite entertaining, not the most complex but hey, Blizzard did ask the crowd at blizzcon if they prefered a shrinked version in 1 package, or the full thing in 3 games.
The crowd cheered for the whole thing in 3 games.
Yes that was all planned but at least we have been warned.
So now we have the first 1/3 of the story. Does it have to be utterly complicated right off the bat? Would you rather have an extremely long intro that doesn't really get anywhere fun? (LotR anyone?)
Or maybe something so deep and well thought that whatever comes after it is literally empty? (Matrix wooo)
So here's the deal. You haven't seen the whole thing yet. Why even bother comparing?
I would also like to send a friendly "LOL" to whoever talked about RPGs having a good story. There are some, but DEFINITELY not enough to generalize. FF13 was rated V for Vomit.
|
Others mentioned it already, but indeed: SC2 is more than just the campaign. Though I can imagine your disappointment to some degree, compared to other games I think you got bang for your buck with a 12 hour single player game (and even more if you complete the online solo achievement stuff and/or campaign achievement stuff). Owning a console and paying a similar (or perhaps a bit less) price for am 8 hour max FPS/Action Adventure campaign seems to be standard from what friends tell me.
The great multiplayer SC2 offers is a solid - but really the main - part of the game. If you choose to not play that part, it's up to you. I enjoyed playing the campaign, getting the achievements and finishing it on Brutal difficulty. But to this very day the main reason I bought SC2, and why I can enjoy it still (since july 2010) is the awesomeness of multiplayer. I bought the collector's edition, so I paid even more, but compared to other games it's the best cash/playime game I got.
|
On April 16 2011 15:41 Metalfire wrote:
i mean you can even sum up the story in a paragraph
Almost all good stories can be summed up in a condensed format. The fact you are able to roughly summarise the events in one paragraph (of unspecified length) doesn't tell you anything about the actual depth and quality of the story.
|
personnaly, i'm not into RTS, i'm more of a FPS guy, i started to watch Husky's and HD's casts, they made me wanna buy SC2.
I started the campaign, i finished it in every difficulty level possible (took me some times... way more than 12hours)... Trying to get the achievements was really hard as well
Then i did the "hurry up it's raid night"... and so on...
Finally i did the 1v1 achievement against the AI, still haven't finished it...
i also play some custom maps games...
so for $60, i don't feel robbed at all... honnestly, it's a great game in my opinion.
|
I honestly think the opposite is true; it was long enough but the story lacked depth (i.e. who the hell are the Tal'Darim).
One thing that might interest you regarding duran: duran = narud backwards. I don't know if that means anything but it was likely done on purpose, so just throwing it out there.
|
I spent $700 last time I went out with friends between booze and food. $60 for 12 hours of entertainment is pretty good. PC games are definitely one of the cheapest forms of entertainment out there.
I've also played many DAYS of online games so yea... $60 is worth it for sure.
|
SC has 30 missions, SC2 has 29(you have to choose between 2 missions 3 times, so it's 26 for a full playthrough), they aren't really different in length.
The story wasn't that good, but the campaign is not shorter than the typical RTS campaign, and the gameplay is a lot better than average.
In most RTS games you get around the same or even less amount of missions, which consist of massing tanks and a-moving at the end to win(or something similar), SC2's campaign is certainly better than that.
You're comparing the price with a game that launched a DECADE ago. Buy SC2 in 2020 and it will also be $15(or less).
RPGs also feature a lot of grinding, just because it is long doesn't mean it's good, there's plenty of bad RPGs that are super long.
An article about this topic in general: http://www.destructoid.com/oh-no-sixty-dollars-for-eight-hours-just-shut-up-192908.phtml
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 16 2011 15:41 Metalfire wrote:
I was looking so forward to this game, i LOVE SC1 and brood-war, the stories in them seemed amazing, and on top of that each game had really extensive campaigns, wasn't something you could sit down and play through in 1 sitting. It gave you the feeling that it was happening over a long period of time.
Does anyone else remember the words "Im pretty much queen bitch of the universe right now" something i will never forget, and something i didnt get out of SC2WoL
When i purhased SC2 at a midnight release i immediately took it home, and played through the campaign in 12 hours, doing all the missions including the secret mission, albeit i was playing fast so i could find out what happened. I feel like the actually time that went by in the game was less than a week, i mean you can even sum up the story in a paragraph
Raynor encounters tychus in a bar, tychus offers him jobs with mobieus, Raynor makes a ton of money funding his rebellion. then zeratul warns him not to kill kerrigan, because she's the only 1 that can contest the "dark voice" so he then sets out to make her human again, so shes not the queen controlling the swarm. prince Mensgk's son has the same interests.
Kerrigan is now human and raynor walks off into the sunset with her in his arms.
I payed $60 for that.
$60 is worth more than 12 hours of gameplay, i understand the multiplayer value of starcraft2 but i was so looking forward to an immersive campaign that would take days to complete.
Ill admit, the end of WoL has me psyched, I want to know what happens so bad, i want to know where duran went too! I want to know what happens to kerrigan, and if Raynors invasion of char caused mengsk to resign and have his son become the new emperor! so many question for Heart of the Swarm, but i feel the answers are going to be like a 30 minute episode of a show where very little happens and i get another 12 hour campaign that is not emmersive and plainly feels like little effort was put into it.
Does anyone else share this frustration with me?
Another short point i want to adress, i recently bought final fantasy 10, im not usually into turn based games but i figured i'd give it a shot, i spent more than 50 hours on the game just to beat it and find out what happens and everything. The game cost me $15
the value of it was extreme, i felt like that $15 had sent me on an adventure through an entire world, compared to my $60 of what felt like a cheesy addictive TV show that ended about 10 ft after it started.
I would really love to hear other peoples thoughts on what they think the length of SC2 did to its campaign, also the awesome units you finally spend money on and upgrade, in the end you only got to use some of them for about 2 or 3 missions.
I FEEL SO RIPPED OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TL DR: why is the campaign so short for a $60 game?
I beat it on 2 different difficulty settings. I have all the achievements except one lost viking one -_-'. I have beat it 5-6 times (3 times on Brutal). And I play multiplayer a ton. This is seriously more than I gotten out of almost any other game I have ever played.
Most importantly I'm eagerly awaiting the next two and the different multiplayer experience they may bring, as well as the story unfolding.
|
I paid 39 bucks when they released it, so...
|
try those challenges that TL users have suggested, like marines only on brutal, mercenaries only, etc.
|
Yea of course if you set it at easy you can roll trought the campain in few hours.... don't tell me you did all the missions at Brutal in 12 hours. Almost single player campain from any games can be done in few hours when you set the difficulty at easy or whatever it is called in the game.
(Yes I know maybe really good people might be able to actually do it at Burtal in 12 hours ish but I don't think anyone could have done that the day sc2 came out without knowing the missions and less sc2 experiences.)
Edit: Oh and I paid 100$ for the collector edition and as a fan just the single player campain by itself worth the price for me. Can't wait for Heart of the Swarm!!!
|
On April 17 2011 09:02 Beatus wrote:
Yea of course if you set it at easy you can roll trought the campain in few hours.... don't tell me you did all the missions at Brutal in 12 hours. Almost single player campain from any games can be done in few hours when you set the difficulty at easy or whatever it is called in the game.
I beat all of the Brutal levels up to All-in on my first sitting, though admittedly I have a lot of BW experience, played a ton of beta, and stayed up all night playing a 10-12 hour marathon. I lost a few times on All-in, then went to bed because I was exhausted, and beat All-in whenever I woke up the next day. It's not particularly hard to do if you're good at the game and are willing to sit around playing a marathon.
|
you're comparing RPGs, known as one of the longest, if not THE longest single-player genre, to an RTS campaign that you rushed through. show me the logic in that. So if Fallout 3 takes the average player 100 hrs to get the most out of the story and only costs $30 dollars now, 2 years after launch, Does that mean a brand new game like Portal 2, which will probably have 12 hrs of gameplay, cost only $3 because it is approximately 10x shorter? Seriously apart from RPGs and RTSs, have u played other games?? If so, you would know that 12 hrs is a pretty decent length in any other genre other than RPG. also you rushed through the game and probably didn't do all that was possible in the game like unlocking the achievements (many of which are actually quite fun to do), getting and trying all the abilities, and the secret mission. Also FFX is a PS2 era game and is very old, so of course it costs $15 to buy. Is it surprising to you that games go down in price the longer its been out?? How can you even make that kind of comparison?
|
I don't get why you would be mad. I paid full price for HL2 and beat it in 3 hours as soon as it was unlocked on steam...
I still love HL2 and was happy I could cruise through it, get to the awesome cliff hanger and then go onto mods.
|
Too be honest, although it was short/easy (even on Brutal, albeit I had to use "special tactics" on the last mission); what disappointed me the most was the Story--it was god awful and packed full of the most retarded retconns.
|
On April 17 2011 07:58 brale wrote:
I paid 39 bucks when they released it, so...
Well, that is mostly because our bucks are worth more than the american bucks. If you live in Korea, you probably spend a few thousand bucks on it.
|
On April 17 2011 11:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 07:58 brale wrote:
I paid 39 bucks when they released it, so... Well, that is mostly because our bucks are worth more than the american bucks. If you live in Korea, you probably spend a few thousand bucks on it.
naw... our american versions are so much better... the can of sardines you know
|
OP's post reminds me of when Woody Allen read War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy in one sitting. When he had finished, he was asked what he thought of the book. He said, "It was about Russia".
Try to take more time when experiencing any story and you might appreciate it more. I recall that it took me around a month to finish the WC3 campaign when it first came out. I was a meganoob back then and the way I played all the undead missions was to push with spirit towers across the entire map, so that each level took like 3 hours to finish because I spent all my time waiting for the damn things to build. But man did I LOVE doing that shit. I still go back and play the WC3 campaign like that from time to time just because of the good memories.
TL;DR Take more time OP.
|
On April 17 2011 10:53 Kralic wrote:
I don't get why you would be mad. I paid full price for HL2 and beat it in 3 hours as soon as it was unlocked on steam...
I still love HL2 and was happy I could cruise through it get the awesome cliff hanger and then go onto mods.
Quality>Quantity
|
$60 (£35 for me) is still damn good value for 12 hours of gameplay just in the single player. Few games can come close to that nowadays, particularly those with multiplayer components. Also, for sheer entertainment value, that's $5 an hour, a movie is easily more than that. Yes, WOL doesn't come close to SC1 and BW for the length and epicness of the campaign, and that is a shame, an unfortunate testament to the general direction that the games industry is moving towards.
But Blizzard has me hooked regardless, and I'm preordering HOTS and LOTV whenever they come out. Unless the world ends first.
|
Ok, i am seeing alot of peoples points more clearly, i get that you can get alot out of the game, but im mostly angry about the length of the story. not the length of just the play, was using that more as a reference.
I am looking so forward to heart of the swarm, the possibities of how they will implement the upgrades thing for the strange zerg units, but i would still like them to just throw in 5-10 extra mission so you can use your fully upgraded units just a little bit more.
|
The story was fun took me a week to beat it trying to get some achievements, but the challenge is my favoirte
|
On April 16 2011 16:10 Metalfire wrote:
So you're saying the singleplayer is just a nice addition to this "multiplayer" game, the story isnt a big part of Starcraft nowadays?
That's at least how I would think of looking at it, seeing how they designed it to become an "E-Sport", the single player is a "nice addition" to what is the biggest e-sport the world has seen.
|
Short? I think the campaign length is very reasonable for an RTS game.
Red Alert 2 had around 24 missions. Command and Conquer 3 had 36 missions. Age of Empires 3 had 24 missions. Supreme Commander had 18 missions. Company of Heroes had 15 missions.
Granted, some of the other games had longer missions just by level design, therefore extending their total play time by a bit depending on difficulty setting.
However, I do agree on your point that the disappointment mainly came from the length of the story. I think SC2 fell into the same trap plaguing many modern RPGs where a weak main story is fluffed up by tons of side quests. Break the SC2 campaign down only to story-essential missions, and the campaign length would pretty much be almost halved without all the "side quest" missions.
IMO, Starcraft 1 had a much better, more epic story that definitely was worth 30 missions. SC2 WoL's story is worth 10 missions, but inflated with side quests to almost 30 missions. Nevertheless, I think the SC2 campaign's real strength lies with its varied level design, which is much better than the constantly repetitive "build base, kill enemy base" level design of SC1 and BW to an extent.
Luckily, I think Blizzard is one of the better companies who does a decent job of addressing complaints in their expansion packs. I think they are probably working on the HotS campaign with our storyline QQ in mind.
|
I do tend to agree with OP.
Most people i know are seriously unimpressed with the single player story.
The missions are good, the presentation is good - I like the way there are things you can explore a little with character interaction.
However the story itself I think was best summed up by a thread on the sc2 forums (which i can't find) which basically featured a fat cigar smoking exec who knew nothing about the game wanting to turn it into a love story. Its just well predictable ... enough of the god damn love stories already.
To be fair i don't think the arguemnt about the multiplayer environment around the game is included in the price of the game is valid in any way shape or form. A very large proportion of users will not play this game multiplayer ever - hard to believe but is true. a large proportion who do play multiplayer will not play more than 20 games. It is only recently that players average play time for a game exceeded 8 hours. You have to remember that for every person who is on here and put in serious time there are many who played 4-5 missions, got stuck and never player it again.
Moreover a lot of the multiplayer stuff happens *after* sale and is not in each individuals interest. I didn't want KA taken out as I feel people are not reacting properly to TA builds but it happened. So their changes do not NECESSARILY ADD VALUE. I just use this as an example ... the point is that the changes help stimulate the community which is what helps new sales of the game. IE they are working ont he game because peopel are still buying it. being able to say patch 1.3 is coming is also a marketing tool.
Beta tests are largley marketing tools also as they up the prerelease sales figures ... yeah they get lots of stats from them but really the first game any beta tester plays probably gives them 95% of the data they need fromt hat person - ie the game works on their config. Its not like they can use game data from 95% of people for balance anyway. I have bought loads of games in beta and hardly played the release version simply due to having played my fill of it.
Would starcraft 2 be this big if starcraft 1 and its community didnt exist? I think probably not ... look at all the work EA did on cac3 - therefor most of blizzards time has gone into converting sc1 players. Also their intense legal action also backs this up ... they want people to stop playing sc1 so they can make money.
You will probably find that if portal 2 sales drop off quick its price *will* drop fast for the very reason talked about - or get bundled with some other release. There are many, many more people willing/able to buy a game when you knock 50% off it. consider non western economies.
|
On April 16 2011 15:41 Metalfire wrote:
i mean you can even sum up the story in a paragraph
Iliad: Greeks go to war because the Trojans stole Agamemnon's wife (because of some Goddesses' stupid bet). Achilles kills lots of Trojans, but gets angry at Agamemnon and refuses to fight anymore. His boyfriend decides to disguise himself as Achilles instead and gets killed. Achilles takes revenge. Eventually Achilles gets shot by a poisoned arrow in the only part of his body which is not invincible and dies. The war drags on until Odysseus comes up with a clever plot to open the gate. A wooden horse with Greek warriors is left while all the ships sail off. Trojans celebrate and drage the horse inside the gates. Greek warriors jump out, slay the few guards, open the gates and the army swarms in, raping and pillaging all of Troy. The end.
You see, even one of the greatest epic tales ever can be summarized in a paragraph. Does this do justice to the story? Hell no.
On April 16 2011 15:41 Metalfire wrote:
I FEEL SO RIPPED OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You bought the game at release, played through the campaign in 12 straight hours and then waited about 8 months to make your angry post? Yeah... I smell a troll!
|
haha ^^ when i was lil bw was pretty awesome and fearfully hard at the end, now its pretty easy to flip through the missions within minutes. especially the terran ones as soon as you got vessels lol.
I guess if you made the mistake not to start on brutal you pretty much ruined your single player, you know where everything is what to expect mostly etc etc ... so brutal will be a damn lot easier then it would usually be. I mean blizzard did alot of work so brutal is a bit more different from normal, but the most parts are still the same ^^ .
PS: funny note in my region sc2 was 39 euro when it was released, 2 weeks later it was 49 euro and till now its still at 49 euro xD.
|
The game is definetly worth its price. The single-player story mode doesnt just determine the price. There are a lot of other factors such as marketing, servers for multiplayer, multiplayer, UI, and other great features that some take for granted.
|
What I don't like about SC2 is the unrealistic storyline.
+ Show Spoiler +In BW Kerrigan smashes every other power in the sector then bides her time for some years to get even more ahead... then loses against one attack. I thought the zerg were a superpower but half of Dominions fleet did pretty well against their homeworld.
Also, what's up with Zerg being defeated by Deus Ex-Machina thingamajings... again? First at Aiur, now at Char the heroes just activate a Xel'Naga artifact and boom, instant victory. Now that's unbalanced and overpowered all at once!
Another thing is Raynor's boarding of Valerian's ship. How the hell does 1 battlecruiser get close enough to board a fleet's flagship?
And what's up with these prophesies? Who the hell was the prophet? How did he know these things? Mystical mumbo-jumbo is the amateur way to create plots. And protoss just keeps having these "forbidden planets". Why are they forbidden and why should the guys there be any more knowledgeable of some random prophecy that Zeratul pretty much dug out of his hat?
Final thing that comes to mind: Kerrigan is deinfested? What kind of fairy tale is this? This "the princess is awakened from her sleep" bullshit doesn't belong in a wargame. I admit, the ending leaves a possibility for a good follow up, but still... it's just so cliché. I just hope to god she doesn't become emo in the next part.
Everything just hurts my suspension of disbelief 
I wanted to see a realistic and gritty storyline but the storytelling and style are pretty mediocre.
|
This is a little off-topic, but since we're talking about storylines and realism, I advise those who didn't like WoL's story to buy the novel Starcraft II: Heaven's Devils. It is not related to WoL, as it happens during the Guild Wars, but it shows the first encounters between Raynor and Tychus, and I found it far more convincing than many of the franchise novels. It is a sci-fi war novel I would have enjoyed even if it hadn't been Starcraft, I found the plot to be solid, no blantant contradiction with anything. Propaganda is sometimes true, sometimes false. Characters behave as you would expect given their position, motivation and intellect.
IMO, a good sci-fi book.
|
If the campaign was longer they would have probley delayed the game for another 6 months to a year and this would have made our wait even worse, On the bright side you got another 2 SC games in the future complete with their own campaigns.
|
On April 19 2011 01:27 samboi wrote:
If the campaign was longer they would have probley delayed the game for another 6 months to a year and this would have made our wait even worse, On the bright side you got another 2 SC games in the future complete with their own campaigns.
I thought they finished working with single player way before they released the game.
|
Well, if StarCraft was even just a little bit more of a single player game as it is right now, may be you could complain about "only" 12 hours of single player campaign for 60$.
But seriously, for a multiplayer-focused game like StarCraft, I was already overjoyed when I saw such a long and well done single player campaign. Try any of the CoD campaign, and you'll understand what I mean... 6hours MAX for the campaign, and that's if you set it to hardest difficulty, and restart some missions...
Seriously, I'm already up to more than 1200hours on StarCraft2(well, according to xfire), I don't see the pace decreasing anytime soon, and I don't think I paid such a low $/hour for any game in the last 5years or so...
So yeah, if you bought the game only for the single player campaign, yes it was quite expensive, but if you even played only a hundred of multiplayer games, the game would still be pretty cheap for what it offers.
|
FF10 was $50 when it was first released. Wait half a dozen years and you'll get your money's worth from SC2 when it drops down to $15.
|
Dunno if it was answered, but the Dominions fleet didn't take it "pretty well" against their homeworld. And you have to consider that the majority of the swarm was NOT on Char, they were all over the sector which forced Kerrigan to pull all the Zerg back to Char, so Raynor could manage to hold the little waves off. But i don't know how Raynor could hold off Kerrigan herself from destroying this blue stick. Metzen said she could destroy a whole fleet with her mind, so why she didn't manage to kill a few tanks and 2 Battlecruisers?
It's a bit strange, how a Battlecruiser could dock to another, but Raynor mentioned that, so Blizzard didn't overlook this step.
Yeah, gameplay first, (i only mean the gameplay in the campaign) so that the story is completely screwed and the actions are illogical.
Hope Blizzard makes the HotS campaign a bit more realistic and more interesting, though they said HotS will be as epic as WoL... but wait? WoL wasn't epic at any time, there were little conflicts among Raynor and other Characters, but you didn't really noticed the real "epic" thing (the massive zerg invasion) in the whole campaign, you hadn't the feeling that you should have but blah, we can't change neither the length of the campaign nor the story, so just let's hope they'll make HotS better. Does anyone have an idea what we could do to "support" the story?
|
Doing just what we're doing I suppose. Discuss the story, give our own humble opinion about it, and hope they take a few things into consideration. They're reading us, apparently, there was a blue answer on the US forum saying they agreed with some, though not all, of the criticism.
|
y, but this site is not the official sc2 site, i don't think they rid THIS thread =(
|
On April 19 2011 03:36 Denda Reloaded wrote:
Hope Blizzard makes the HotS campaign a bit more realistic and more interesting, though they said HotS will be as epic as WoL... but wait? WoL wasn't epic at any time, there were little conflicts among Raynor and other Characters, but you didn't really noticed the real "epic" thing (the massive zerg invasion) in the whole campaign, you hadn't the feeling that you should have but blah, we can't change neither the length of the campaign nor the story, so just let's hope they'll make HotS better. Does anyone have an idea what we could do to "support" the story?
ow... I mean, come on...
How many insects do you see evolve from a larva to either a small hovering 4feet tall drone or an f.ing monster 10floors high with blades on their chin that are ultralisks?
Ever saw a siege tank being lift up from the ground by a small glowing blue beam?
And what about mutalisks, using their wings to fly into space?
I mean, if you want to speak about realism, don't do so about a Science-Fiction video game... You'll obviously be disappointed...
Of course, the queen of blades, with the powers she's supposed to have, could've wiped terran's forces extremely easily. But that would've been quite a boring campaign, if each time you were on the same planet as Kerrigan, you'd simply explode because she's that powerful/awesome/sexy in her ZergRan suit.
|
her sexiness (?) blows minds, right?
Mutas flap their wings because they like it, okay?
Phoenixes have to be imba, so yes, a blue beam can take of a tank :D
But with "more realistic" i just ment that the realism in one mission and that in another was incoherent. SO IF Kerrigan invades the whole sector and no one can stop her, why do a few tanks can do? If drones/ultralisks a morved always from larvae, it's kinda usual, because it was always so, because sci-fi is always a bit unrealistic, but i want Blizzard to keep the realism through the whole franchise at the same level... sorry if expressed myself wrong
|
On April 19 2011 05:05 Denda Reloaded wrote:
her sexiness (?) blows minds, right?
Mutas flap their wings because they like it, okay?
Phoenixes have to be imba, so yes, a blue beam can take of a tank :D
But with "more realistic" i just ment that the realism in one mission and that in another was incoherent. SO IF Kerrigan invades the whole sector and no one can stop her, why do a few tanks can do? If drones/ultralisks a morved always from larvae, it's kinda usual, because it was always so, because sci-fi is always a bit unrealistic, but i want Blizzard to keep the realism through the whole franchise at the same level... sorry if expressed myself wrong
There's only one reason I see for all of this :
Else we would never fight Kerrigan in-game, and they wanted it to happen.
That's all I can see.
But yeah, I understand your point, sorry if I replied as a smart ass in my last post
|
|
|
If you want a good, in-depth story for a decent cost, why not buy a book?
|
|
|
Maybe you shouldn´t only play the single player beacause the Multiplayer is so huge and you can spend hundreds of hours into it.
Look at all those tournaments like GSL, TSL, NASL, IPL...
In germany it costs 40€ and for example CoD costs 60€ and so i think it is a good price for such a good game.
mfg banana
|
|
|
I like the campain pretty much.
Blizz put a lot of effort into the cutszenes.
And the "battleship-Menu" is also pretty cool.
Ya it could take more missions and it would be great if they had squeezed in a Zerg mini-campaign.
But more missions don't make it necessarily better.
The story is simple.
But it's told clearly.
Everyone understands it without digging deep into the SC universe.
@johanngrunt
Ya this topic pops up from time to time.
But seriously classic games been much more straight forward.
More of the same missions/level type over and over again.
Modern games have much more twists, shock moments, interesting level architecture and better way of story telling.
What is better? I don't know ;o)
|
I'd like to ask you how much value you get out of a game like mario kart where there's no storyline and a crappy "race here to here" gameplay.
Now compare it to starcraft II.
I know that based on the genre you'd expect more, but the campaign isnt that bad. The game was made considering a wide target audience. Play the game as if you were a beginner in RTS, someone with previous experience, and a pro and you'll see the differences. You can finish CoD games in 12 hours if you've got enough skills to do so :\
Additionally, you don't need to buy the game to play the campaign - you can use a 14 day trial and then uninstall the game, so I have NO IDEA why you're complaining.
But that's just me. I'm not trying to be a dick here so please dont take offence <3
|
On April 16 2011 19:31 iStarKraft wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 15:41 Metalfire wrote:
i mean you can even sum up the story in a paragraph
Almost all good stories can be summed up in a condensed format. The fact you are able to roughly summarise the events in one paragraph (of unspecified length) doesn't tell you anything about the actual depth and quality of the story.
The Lord of the Rings: Abridged Version -
Frodo gets a ring of power from his uncle and goes with Gandalf Sam and some other hobbits to Rivendell where a council decides the ring must be destroyed to beat Sauron and so Frodo and his crew start their journey towards Mt Doom but after going through Moria Gandalf falls down a chasm to save the others from the Balrog and then they meet some more crazy elves in the woods and they almost get to the Human's city but they get attacked by orcs and Frodo and Sam split up from the rest of the group and head to Mt. Doom alone but soon they are joined by Gollum who secretly wants to kill Frodo and take his ring back; meanwhile the others led by Aragorn help defend Rohan from Saruman at Helm's Deep and Aragorn recruits a bunch of dead guys who owe his family a debt and Gandalf comes back as Gandalf the white and there's a big ass battle on the plains where a Rohan princess kills the head witch-king of Sauron and Aragorns undead buddies clean up the rest and during all this Frodo and Sam almost get eaten by a big ass spider and disguise themselves as orcs to sneak up on Mount Doom and destroy the ring but when they get there Frodo has second thoughts because the ring's evil power has taken a hold on him but Gollum tries to steal it and Frodo and Gollum fight and Gollum falls into the lava with the ring, destroying it and Sauron and then everyone goes home happy and Frodo and Bilbo get on a boat with some elves to go across the western sea and Sam marries a fat chick.
|
*pokes the artifact that works on zergs like catnip* really wonder why kerrigan didn't killed everyone with something around disrupting her power.
And stop this omg its a prophecy thing. If you hated prophecy's in scifi settings, you didn't had a good scifi game since freespace 1 xD. (well there were a few good ones without prophecys, mostly because they weren't so far in the future to have one, but still far enough to be scifi heh, but in general 70% of the scifi games have a prophecy ^^; )
And compared to other rts games in the last time, i would say best design story etc etc goes to sc2  .
|
The single player campaign is longer than the original SC1 campaign. Not including achievements.
If you really want to see a short single player campaign, go buy Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 2. the single player takes about 4-6 hours.
|
SC1 campaign was far, far harder. The last mission or two of each race was more difficult than all but maybe "All In" with Zerg Air and "Welcome To the Jungle" from SC2.
However, OP, don't you feel that SC1's SP gameplay was pretty repetitive in comparison? SC2 had a lot of unique missions (fire eating the map on a timer/L4D-style survival/Zeratul missions/Underground mission with Tychus/Raynor heroes/etc).
Still, I will agree that the plot was a lot more grand as presented in that game. Time will tell, though, this is only the first of 3 games, remember.
|
My Starcraft 2 campaign review:
+ Fun and unique mission designs
+ The ship and persistent upgrades
+ Lost vikings
- Story sucked
- Time on Char was way too short. (Literally 2 missions wtf). It felt 95% of the campaign was filler missions building up to Char, then once you get there there are only 2 missions!
If they had like 6-8 epic missions on Char then it wouldve been perfect.
|
i got way more than 12 hours of gameplay out of this campaign. by the time HotS swarm comes out, i'll probably have played it more than vanilla/brood war's campaign, and i've played them an awful lot of times. did you just make a B-line for the end of the game on hard mode or something? it's 29 missions, not sure if you knew that.
|
On April 16 2011 15:51 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Are you seriously ignoring how much effort went into the UI, the pro scene, the BETA, the testing, the balance, the multiplayer, the competitive korean scene and a whole bunch of other shit? You're ignoring this and falsely stating that the single player costs* sixty dollars, and it doesn't. The GAME costs sixty dollars.
Also, rushing through the game and just... playing it takes twelve hours. Playing through it and leaving some time (sleeping/eating) to ponder the plot and the cliffhanger of the last mission gives a greater experience. taking your time and really thinking deep about the plot makes it much more significant.
Wait wait you said blizzard and balance in one sentence...... thats imposibble
Story is rather short i agree but was great imo. SC1 was kind of a everyone keeps backstabbing everyone alliance/enemy change every few missions tbh i think 1 was to long.
|
Personally I would have been okay with no campaign whatsoever. It's nice to have it there though, and it was a lot of fun to play through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
