| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
It's true that the scenario with a bit slow and too fast at the end. I don't mind if there is 20missions. But make a descent scenario. SC and BW were awesome. But i wouldn't mind 20missions and like triple that in side quests missions. (i don't know how to say it in english). I mean like in mass effect you can end the game by doing the campaign missions but you can do a lot of other missions as well if you want to. Is there a Blizzard thread where we can be heard by any blue posts ? | ||
|
Brett
Australia3822 Posts
Basically it's Blizzard looking for ways to justify less effort being put into the development of the expansions (i.e. cutting costs). I usually do not criticise Blizzard, but this is ridiculous. | ||
|
UkGracken
United Kingdom129 Posts
you know the usual corporate mumbojumbo Logic dictates people would be happyer with more then less, even if its a lot more. | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
2. WOL campaign has maybe 10 missions that actually contribute to the plot and about 20 filler missions. 3. Now HOTS will only have 20 missions. I've been saying it for a long time now. This isn't Blizzard. It's Activision. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10382 Posts
I mean yeah for an RTS game it might be a bit long, but it's engaging and I didn't feel any of it was boring or anything. And there were side missions too that you didn't even need to do. I think it's good as it is o.o Either that or make it even more non-linear (or at least, easier to see the "main" path that you need to just get to the ending) and keep the same 25-30 missions and just make more side missions or something... sort of disappointing  If they can make those missions juicier though, and keep as many cutscenes/story etc., then I guess it won't be too bad. It might also be because Zerg has a couple less units than Terran, so that's like a couple (or a few?) less missions xD On November 26 2011 09:13 writer22816 wrote: 1. Blizzard justifies splitting SC2 into 3 by promising to have 3 full length campaigns. 2. WOL campaign has maybe 10 missions that actually contribute to the plot and about 20 filler missions. 3. Now HOTS will only have 20 missions. I've been saying it for a long time now. This isn't Blizzard. It's Activision. I've been saying it forever, too ^^. Though I will have to say, as long as they keep it the same content as WoL (30 missions or equivalent) then I'm fine, because they do have one good point, which is that if you can only play 1 race/campaign per installment, they can work on cool things like the Hyperion and the hub and the research upgrades, etc. etc., which I think are interesting. | ||
|
Omnidroid
New Zealand214 Posts
Also most of the missions had something to do with the main plot. In WOL, the side missions were rather uninteresting, since you basically did them to unlock X unit. Would much prefer if the side missions actually built on the story. | ||
|
TheSwamp
United States1497 Posts
On November 25 2011 21:01 Brett wrote: This is horse shit being fed to us... Basically it's Blizzard looking for ways to justify less effort being put into the development of the expansions (i.e. cutting costs). I usually do not criticise Blizzard, but this is ridiculous. You have to understand that the majority of gamers are casuals. They don't long for every achievement like some of us do. It sucks that it affects the people who would kill for a campaign twice as long but it's the truth. they implemented the placement match for every season just for this reason. | ||
|
DisaFear
Australia4074 Posts
| ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On November 26 2011 11:22 TheSwamp wrote: You have to understand that the majority of gamers are casuals. They don't long for every achievement like some of us do. It sucks that it affects the people who would kill for a campaign twice as long but it's the truth. they implemented the placement match for every season just for this reason. Well "casual" is not the right word for it. A lot of pro gamers for example (well the times I viewed their accounts) do not bother doing single player. Even Artosis hasn't completed SP yet last I remembered >.>. You have to take into account the single player people vs the multiplayer only people vs the both people. The multiplayer only people I would not call casual, they're just the multiplayer only people. (See the difference in size from SC2 gen discussion to SC2 single player discussion in TL for example.) IMO Blizzard probably saw the multiplayer only people (which is larger than the single player or both people) barely finishing the campaign (not unlocking achievements, etc) then found an excuse to do this (even though they "referenced" actual people's thoughts on it). Also several people (most noticeable pro gamers) have several accounts. Usually they do it for a name change, because they changed clans, or whatever (for example). The problem is those accounts are never really used for single player (since they probably finished it already or don't really care about reobtaining achievements for every account) but Blizzard still sees them as different users (even though it's one user with multiple accounts). tl;dr - There is single player only people, the multiplayer only people (who do not care about SP), and the both people. The MP only people outnumber the SP and both people which means Blizzard sees this as an excuse to be lazy. Though I do have to admit Blizzard is taking their time (sort of) with the expansion. Two years is already huge for most people (regarding expansion packs) so I can't fault Blizzard too much for not wanting to take longer to release it with more stuff I guess. | ||
|
stratmatt
United States913 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10382 Posts
On November 27 2011 12:49 Goldfish wrote: Well "casual" is not the right word for it. A lot of pro gamers for example (well the times I viewed their accounts) do not bother doing single player. Even Artosis hasn't completed SP yet last I remembered >.>. You have to take into account the single player people vs the multiplayer only people vs the both people. The multiplayer only people I would not call casual, they're just the multiplayer only people. (See the difference in size from SC2 gen discussion to SC2 single player discussion in TL for example.) IMO Blizzard probably saw the multiplayer only people (which is larger than the single player or both people) barely finishing the campaign (not unlocking achievements, etc) then found an excuse to do this (even though they "referenced" actual people's thoughts on it). Also several people (most noticeable pro gamers) have several accounts. Usually they do it for a name change, because they changed clans, or whatever (for example). The problem is those accounts are never really used for single player (since they probably finished it already or don't really care about reobtaining achievements for every account) but Blizzard still sees them as different users (even though it's one user with multiple accounts). tl;dr - There is single player only people, the multiplayer only people (who do not care about SP), and the both people. The MP only people outnumber the SP and both people which means Blizzard sees this as an excuse to be lazy. Though I do have to admit Blizzard is taking their time (sort of) with the expansion. Two years is already huge for most people (regarding expansion packs) so I can't fault Blizzard too much for not wanting to take longer to release it with more stuff I guess. yea like BW was actually released just 6 or so months after SC1 o.o | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
| ||
|
NekoFlandre
United States497 Posts
| ||
|
Eschaton
United States1245 Posts
On November 26 2011 09:13 writer22816 wrote: 1. Blizzard justifies splitting SC2 into 3 by promising to have 3 full length campaigns. 2. WOL campaign has maybe 10 missions that actually contribute to the plot and about 20 filler missions. 3. Now HOTS will only have 20 missions. I've been saying it for a long time now. This isn't Blizzard. It's Activision. Exactly. We don't play the SP for the awesome gameplay because let's face it, it wasn't that good in SC/BW/SC2:WoL. But There was a pretty decent story going, with good characters. Now when many of the missions seem to have very little to do with advancing that plot, and are just an excuse to excuse terrible units that aren't even in MP like the Diamondback, the draw just isn't going to be there for most people. The draw is the story, and if you don't have that, we won't play it. The campaign wasn't too long, Bliz, you had a terrible and very thin story and no one cared to see it through. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
I feel like announcing and completely getting behind the fact that HotS is 10 missions shorter is just bad for Blizzard. They know their casual base is only buying the game for story mode and maybe some UMS, reducing the campaign length by 1/3 is just shooting themselves in the foot. Ladder players would have bought HotS if it didn't have any missions, so they obviously aren't a factor here. There's also a grand total of like 5 missions in WoL that are actually relevant to the plot. I wonder if this whole bastardized zerg-protoss hybrids taking over the universe plot is being saved for SC3. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
lowkontrast
United States855 Posts
| ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
| ||
|
Canicus
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
Tal0n
United States175 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Big Brain Bouts
Garitos vs ArT
Lambo vs Percival
TriGGeR vs ByuN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Mixu vs TBD
Spirit vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
Patches Events
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Shuttle
BeSt vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs ggaemo
Jaedong vs Queen
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
