My dick is too long and too wide. However the campaign wasn't either. I played through it on normal,hard & brutal. Got all achieves and have been waiting for HOtS ever since. Show me ONE player who couldn't finnish the campaign between WOL and HOtS. I mean it's been over a year. You really telling me people cannot finnish 3 missions in a month? A single parent with 3 kids & 2 jobs who doesn't even own a computer has time to do that.

Gingerninja

United Kingdom1339 Posts

October 30 2011 22:09 GMT

#183

Thanks to the achievements you can see how many people actually finished the game, so they can make their decisions based on that. If 75% of the players only got 50% of the way through (pulling numbers out the air) then that's a lot of content being wasted that resources could have been used elsewhere.

I didn't finish it. Got halfway through, got bored.. played multiplayer with friends instead. I'll prob try and finish it before Hots, but it's not high on my priority list at the moment.

coolcor

520 Posts

October 30 2011 22:24 GMT

#184

most players don't finish any game sc2 isn't special.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/08/17/finishing.videogames.snow/index.html

One expert estimates 90% of players who start a game will never see the end of it
Only one of every 10 gamers finished the 2010 consensus "Game of the Year" (not sc2 lol)
Time-pressed gamers are already warming to the idea of shorter games

EienShinwa

United States655 Posts

October 30 2011 22:35 GMT

#185

Well, we knew how to weed out the fans from the wannabe fans... I guess we won't be able to in HotS

Hier

2391 Posts

October 31 2011 04:54 GMT

#186

This is obviously intended as an excuse to do less work for HotS single player.

WoL single player too long? Are people in a hurry to finish it? It doesn't have to be finished in one sitting; potentially 30 or more sittings is more like it. I don't buy the fact that a single person remotely interested in the single player campaign could, with a straight face, say that they want less missions. Pretty much every mission had a unique objective, and if you ignore the trashy story line, I'd say the single player campaign of WoL was brilliantly designed.

Also, what oZe and Lunchador said.

GGTeMpLaR

United States7226 Posts

October 31 2011 06:36 GMT

#187

Oh my god, the more I hear the more convinced I am that they really do have no idea what their fans think of the game and that all success is merely lucky guessing (which isn't necessarily the worst thing until the lucky guessing goes unlucky).

I can't believe they're considering making HotS shorter than WoL =/

FlyingZergling

81 Posts

October 31 2011 07:09 GMT

#188

People weren't making it to the end of the WoL campaign? Jesus christ, setting it on casual and making marine medic was too difficult? Other gamers I know could probably do runs of Hard without saving mid-mission. But to get to the point, why are they making it shorter? The entire fun and appeal of the WoL campaign was how long it felt and how every single upgrade and section seemed to matter. When you picked up even something as simple as a bunker upgrade, it really felt like that was an investment that someone(s) like Raynor and Swann would actually come up with- some kind of technological trick that wouldn't normally be part of the arsenal (multiplayer) that made the game feel "yours" as you played it. And after beating it more than once, and doing the achievement for beating it far too quickly, it actually feels too short now. Now I know when the Protoss missions begin, and that doing all of them immediately is the right choice for a smoother run through the rest of the story (because you jump up so many tiers on the research lines.) Now I know exactly what upgrades I want to research. Now I know what units I want for what mission, and therefore what order to do them in. There's suddenly no longevity anymore. I want more, dammit- not less.

(For those looking for a cheap reason or two to replay, unlock Hanson as fast as possible and then never do the final colonist mission- she has some commentary after some of the other missions are done the same way everyone else does, it's just you may have inadvertently given her up too soon. Same goes for Tosh- if you didn't take him along the first time, get him asap and do so- he also has some fun commentary.)

Maybe I can have some faith, and this was information leaked on purpose to bum us out and then suddenly there's like 30 missions and they laugh at us as we hop up and down with glee. Or maybe there's only 20 or so missions, but they're these giant epic maps filled with resets and locale changes and all sorts of amazing things that make them all ultra long and epic and the campaign as a whole equivalent or more to the first. Maybe they'll have more ways to upgrade and specialize the units- the research tech line was kind of iffy (in most cases there's one that's just flat out better depending on the player) and you only got two choices per unit and usually you decked out your entire chosen army comp by the end anyway. Perhaps as zerg, creatures that are supposed to have near-infinite evolution capabilities, these choices are so broad that they'll radically alter the game enough to make up for it.

I can only hope. -.-

SpoR

United States1542 Posts

October 31 2011 22:23 GMT

#189

Well the way games are desgined these days the best thing to do is just to make it short and sweet. Then go back and add replayablity via achievements and the like to fill the need for people who enjoy the campaign and/or it's challenges.

Slusher

United States19143 Posts

October 31 2011 22:46 GMT

#190

On October 31 2011 07:09 Gingerninja wrote:
Thanks to the achievements you can see how many people actually finished the game, so they can make their decisions based on that. If 75% of the players only got 50% of the way through (pulling numbers out the air) then that's a lot of content being wasted that resources could have been used elsewhere.

I didn't finish it. Got halfway through, got bored.. played multiplayer with friends instead. I'll prob try and finish it before Hots, but it's not high on my priority list at the moment.

are they taking into account smurf accounts? what about people who just didn't find the hidden mission, you don't get a campaign complete achievement unless you found it.

Steel

Japan2283 Posts

November 01 2011 00:45 GMT

#191

SC2 Single Player = Best way too cool off after frustrating ladder games. I beat it like 3 times with all achievements just by messing around in between games. Make it longer!!

nerak

Brazil256 Posts

November 01 2011 01:26 GMT

#192

I thought a way to please both the players that would rather play a short SP campaign and those like us who thrive for more SP content. I posted it here and I would enjoy feedback

aztrorisk

United States896 Posts

November 01 2011 01:55 GMT

#193

I don't mind if they make the SP shorter but in turn, they have to make the game much cheaper.

Imalengrat

Australia365 Posts

November 01 2011 09:55 GMT

#194

I thought the length was perfect. Not too long. Not too short.

phyre112

United States3090 Posts

November 01 2011 15:41 GMT

#195

Voted in the poll that WoL was absolutely too short at the end; so many exposition missions that did not really matter, and then all of a sudden I'm on char and that's that. The single player needs to be based around moving the story line FIRST, and everything else can come as it falls in to place. I don't need more than one mission teaching me how to build units - and I certainly don't need a new "filler" mission to introduce tanks, banshees, vikings, hellions, razorbacks, etc. etc. Separately.

khaosis

Canada96 Posts

November 01 2011 15:49 GMT

#196

I didn't feel like the campaign was long at all, in fact I feel like I wanted more.

The story itself wasn't particularly amazing, but I found the length to be just right.

Mafe

Germany5966 Posts

November 01 2011 20:46 GMT

#197

Well the campaign was long and mostly fun to play. I would like to have an at least as long campaign in HotS, but if I had to choose between a long campaign or a campaign with a good story, I would definitely choose the latter. Cause I think the "sidequests" with tosh and hanson did contribute much to the story; imho they were just fillers for a ratherthin main storyline (collect the artifact and cleanse char). Contrary to SC(BW) when it felt like everything you did gave the story a new turn of events.

nVusPip

United Kingdom260 Posts

November 01 2011 20:59 GMT

#198

I'm quite shocked as to begin with I was fairly new to begin with (placing bronze in beta lol) and I still found the campaign fairly short compared to other games on hard difficulty so I suppose each to their own. But I would love for there to be more campaign!

Shackadeemus

Ireland247 Posts

November 01 2011 22:46 GMT

#199

A game can NEVER be too long. Unless it's a pile of crap leading to an epic finale.

Dyme

Germany523 Posts

November 01 2011 23:14 GMT

#200

I know some people who just don't care about Singleplayer when buying RTS.
They bought it for the competetive aspect and the competetive aspect only.
Some people may have bought sc2 and didn't even like it.
Some might have not "enough" time to play all the great games that get released. But I don't think those would be more willing to buy the game if it was shorter?!

Having an achievement for beating the whole campaign in ~5 hours (most of it being the Siegetank mission...), doesn't exactly indicate a too long campaign.
If I don't misremember the WC3 campaign was way longer, and I can't remember the last time I wished for less content from Blizzard in general.

My conclusion is: If Blizzard doesn't want to make a decent Singleplayer because we will all buy HotS no matter what, that's okay. But they shouldn't lie. No one thinks "If it has 10 missions, I'll buy it; if it has 20, I won't".