On November 08 2011 23:26 Xpace wrote:
Not inciting anything here, but is Blizzard questioning 'casuals' on how to move on with their franchises yet again?

They seem to be obsessed lately with completion statistics, ignoring the vast number of players who don't care about that particular aspect of the game and never will. Singleplayer campaign in SC2, raiding in WoW; it's not like there's some magical formula that will make people want to play it who had no interest before when it was sitting right in front of them.

NeThZOR

South Africa7387 Posts

November 20 2011 19:21 GMT

#265

It seems to me like Blizzard just wants a reason to not have to do much work on HotS singleplayer. My take on this is that yes, they should definitely make more missions but not just to add playtime, but quality to the story as well. I really hope that the campaign (the multiplayer for that matter as well) will be worth it once Heart of the Swarm releases.

starcraft911

Korea (South)1263 Posts

November 20 2011 20:23 GMT

#266

I don't believe that Blizzard truly believes this. They want to make it shorter to save time and money. That's it. I beat the single player game in about 15 or so hours on the hardest difficulty after opening the box. I really hope it's not too short.

Simple

United States801 Posts

November 21 2011 04:02 GMT

#267

i dont feel it was too long at all. yeah sure there were some missions that felt like filler, but its a single-player campaign. as long as we get our main story im fine with it. if they feel like they need 50 missions to tell the story, by all means please. the biggest reason i was so hyped for sc2 wasnt for the multiplayer, but for the continuation of the storyline.

Nightshade_

United States549 Posts

November 21 2011 06:44 GMT

#268

took me 2 days like 6 hours each sit through to beat the game on brutal -.-

KinosJourney2

Sweden1811 Posts

November 21 2011 09:59 GMT

#269

Lol at this thread, how can a singleplayer campaign be too long? Are the game developing business degenerating so much that you can actually have a too good of a product? :/

Fuck that, give us a campaign that takes 2 days to play through WHEN skipping side quests. With side quests it should take atleast 3-4 days. Long campaigns = more content = more replayability = more fun = more money for Blizzard. What are they thinking?

PolSC2

United States634 Posts

November 21 2011 17:25 GMT

#270

I never played singleplayer, not even the first mission. Went straight to multi-player.

Hikko

United States1126 Posts

November 21 2011 20:36 GMT

#271

I played through the Tosh missions to get the Tosh portrait, and by that point I was just bored with the campaign

iloveav

Poland1484 Posts

November 21 2011 23:42 GMT

#272

I think most of us will agree that SC2 is a bit crappy in singleplayer. When i got it, i was playing broodwar and i decided "hell, if i can play ICCup at C+ level, i should go brutal".After some missions, i realized that the game was very, very poor. First of all, some units are simply overpowered for some missions, while are 100% not needed. Marines and medics works just fine in almost every single mission.

I was increadibly dissapointed by this as its so simple to crank up marine medic with upgrades, and keep splitting them.
I have to say the last mission on brutal was a bit hard with marine+medic (i killed air), but still, 4th try was the charn, once i noticed that the NOVA thing should be used about 20 seconds after kerrigan starts hitting your defences.

Since WoW, Blizzard has made many strange decisions (since Activision joined up).
note that they make games compatible for consoles... requirements for D3 are simply ridiculous. Now the fun part:
Blizzard said some tiem ago if im not mistaken:

If you buy WoL You dont need to buy the other expansions to play multi. Does that mean that if we want to play HoS "version" we have to? or that multi will be changed for everyone? Is the price of expansions actually BE an expansion price?

Since Companies make games in 1 year many times nowdays where a long ago it took them 4 to get a game going, im not going to expect muchfor... the next 5 years maybe. Good i still love my broodwar, Balduus Gate, etc...

Im guessing enought people will buy the expansion anyway to make a considerable profit for Blizzard anyway.

AzureD

United States320 Posts

November 22 2011 00:39 GMT

#273

I want to see some third party verification on their feedback. I think this is just an excuse for them to do less work. Basically I am calling bullshit or selective feedback.

gigalib

16 Posts

November 22 2011 17:13 GMT

#274

I always have respect for Blizzard for making such good games, till now. They said sc2 is so epic and long and decided to break it into 3 parts; now they are telling me that the game is too long and want to reduce the missions?

SCSbonkers

United States32 Posts

November 22 2011 17:24 GMT

#275

The lengthy campaign in SC2 gave me a sense of accomplishment after I finally finished the 29 missions. It really made it seem like they put the effort of making the story intense and memorable. I even played through it again on brutal. If anything I'd say they should add a couple missions in HoTS, if someone doesn't want to play the campaign due to length, then they don't need to.

sodapop

Sweden189 Posts

November 22 2011 20:50 GMT

#276

How many missions were actually not completely uninteresting side quests? I'm shocked by the amount of votes for the "pro-side quest" alternative in the poll.

Having to make a shorter game just means not being able to make an interesting game/story. Unfortunately I think they are correct in their thinking that they cant provide enough interesting material.

MaV_gGSC

Canada1345 Posts

November 23 2011 03:44 GMT

#277

Too long? O_o

Valon

United States329 Posts

November 23 2011 04:52 GMT

#278

I wouldn't mind a shorter campaign as long as there are plenty of side missions. Like 20 missions of Kerrigan pursuing Mengsk but then another 10-15 of side missions like the Tosh or Protoss Missions.

Buffinator

United States9 Posts

November 23 2011 05:50 GMT

#279

Im interested in how the rest of the game turns out but I don't actually understand why they didn't make it so you could have all 3 races in campaine one game and then for expansions do something different like they did for Broodwar.

ironchef

Canada1350 Posts

November 23 2011 08:06 GMT

#280

I dont think it was long in an absolute sense, but it didn't have good momentum. I'll play through 50 missions if you give me a good enough reason to. Many missions were boring, plot wasn't compelling. I beat it, but anyone that rushed straight to multi didn't miss much, so in that sense there were 29 missions too many. (Exaggerating ofcourse, there were some really fun missions worth playing).

That said, it's totally ok to design around multiplayer being the main feature. In that sense, "too long" would be correct, if the purpose of SP is to just get your toe wet before going on to multiplayer. I'm not sure that was their goal though.