That's a problem with gaming these days, expansions are becoming as expensive as the full games, especially with the COD series. As much as I love supporting the gaming community and programmers, blizzard is charging 60 dollars a game and it gets pretty expensive after a while. Although I get my moneys worth, in the bigger picture it could turn down the average casual gamer.

LetoAtreides82

United States1188 Posts

November 06 2011 14:01 GMT

#242

On October 26 2011 09:17 Mortal wrote:
This is a joke right? The campaign took hardly any time on brutal (marine/medic lololol) and they're shortening it? As well as pricing it the same as WoL?

Bazinga, Blizzard is making some sick decisions here.

It's not going to be priced the same as WoL, all Blizzard expansions sell for less than the original game. The Amazon price is just Amazon's wild guess.

EnderSC

62 Posts

November 06 2011 14:55 GMT

#243

I spoiled myself on youtube watching some caster go trough all the missions so when i eventually bought the game i got bored of the campain at about the 10th mission, so maybe this is one of the reasons misleading blizzard about why people don't finish...

+ the smurf accounts maybe?

Geovu

Estonia1344 Posts

November 06 2011 21:56 GMT

#244

This is the lamest excuse I have ever heard out of any company to cut content, ever.

Seriously why don't they just go ahead and say "Yeah sorry guys but we dicked around too long on making creep growing on buildings so we'll only be able to get about 2/3rds of the missions we had planned on done. Don't worry about it though because the creep looks pretty damn cool, amirite guys?"

Or they could pull an Oblivion and say that all their mission data got wiped and they had to restart. At least then we would feel a bit more sympathetic.

Caligula_II

United States5 Posts

November 07 2011 00:08 GMT

#245

Casual players have short attention spans, I guess. The starcraft story has always been cheesy, but I liked the campaign just for the the upgrade mechanic, there's something wonderful about being so damn overpowered.

Endymion

United States3701 Posts

November 07 2011 02:06 GMT

#246

I actually liked the campaign length, there was never a point where i was like 'wow, why isn't this over yet..' and i've beaten it multiple times

Arcanewinds

United Kingdom197 Posts

November 07 2011 03:10 GMT

#247

The best part of RTS games is how long they take to complete.

I love taking out a weekend to complete Starcraft or Broodwar every now and again.

Gamegene

United States8308 Posts

November 07 2011 08:41 GMT

#248

don't care, as long as we get some better writing/voice acting.

too much cheese in the last one >,<

Bobster

Germany3075 Posts

November 07 2011 08:42 GMT

#249

On October 26 2011 08:31 windsupernova wrote:
It was fine...

Do people really have problems with finishing a 12-20 hour campaign?(numbers atre based on my 1st playthrough)

Meh this is why we never get 300 hour games anymore

Yup.

It's a big problem for Blizzard. How can you justify spending more money on creating a substantial single player campaign when the majority of your players are not using/seeing that content?

Klive5ive

United Kingdom6056 Posts

November 07 2011 09:20 GMT

#250

I'm more concerned about difficulty and quality rather than length.
If there's only 10 missions but they're incredibly challenging on brutal then that's fine by me.
The problem is I fear it'll be 17 easy warmup missions then maybe a few that are actually fun at the end.

adacan

United States117 Posts

November 07 2011 14:04 GMT

#251

really enjoyed the missions, thought they were creative and well done. Didn't seem at all too long.

Tanukki

Finland579 Posts

November 07 2011 15:54 GMT

#252

People who didn't play through the campaign either only care about multiplayer, or aren't the target audience of an RTS to begin with. Or part of some minority that Blizzard shouldn't mind.

BlazeTSR

United States218 Posts

November 07 2011 18:42 GMT

#253

Content is always good as long as the players feel like they did something worth while and enjoyable.

PsyChill

Australia58 Posts

November 07 2011 22:40 GMT

#254

Predictable 2D characters and uninteresting storyline.
Blizzard complain not enough people play it.
Blizzard shorten campaign so more people play it.

Ahhh blizzard.

Zedd Althor

United States67 Posts

November 08 2011 00:43 GMT

#255

SC2 was the first RTS game I had ever played. I thought the length of the missions allowed me to learn the game play & mechanics so when I got the last missions I knew what to do. I would have liked even more missions since playing through the game a second time wasn't nearly as challenging or rewarding.

droNenn

Norway20 Posts

November 08 2011 02:00 GMT

#256

I liked the length of the campaign

Zeweig

Sweden189 Posts

November 08 2011 09:16 GMT

#257

First time I ever played starcraft, did almost all missions on hard, rest on normal.
Too short campaign =(

Zeweig

Sweden189 Posts

November 08 2011 09:17 GMT

#258

Cinematics ownd! They were so awesome, there isn´t a word for it.

Deimos0

Poland277 Posts

November 08 2011 10:52 GMT

#259

Yes, cinematics were incredible. Campaign itself didn't feel too long at all. But it doesn't suprise me - after all this ridiculously short games like CoD even Blizzard can't amaze me by their decisions. It's just sad.

eldiablo

United States10 Posts

November 08 2011 12:52 GMT

#260

What? The campaign felt short and rushed and I didnt even one shot everything because I was doing the missions on brutal difficulty right away. Now Blizzard wants to make it even shorter in HotS??