|
On December 06 2011 06:59 Share_The_Land wrote:
I agree, I honestly don't get where or who the f*** they talk to when they are getting opinions about things like this
All they have to do is check the drop-off point of player achievements. If a significant number of players are not obtaining the achievement for the last mission, then players are not completing the game for some reason. I'm almost 100% sure this is where Blizzard is getting their "opinions" from.
While there may be other reason psychological or design reasons for players not completing the game, it is most likely the fact that the game is simply too long. People usually stop playing a game halfway through because the gameplay stopped being new and interesting for that person (or the game did not abuse skinnerbox mechanics properly). If a significant number of your players behave this way, this means the game is objectively too long and has content that needs to be removed because it is not engaging enough.
Despite what so many people seem to think, it is possible to make a game too long. The best games are short with interesting, new and fresh content the entire way through the game (i.e. Portal, Amnesia, etc...). 70+ hour games do not give you new and engaging content the entire way through. Those 70+ hour games are mostly a dull rehash of the content you have already experienced. And though I personally enjoyed them, this was generally the case for many of the WoL missions.
Blizzard wants to design an engaging RTS game that a large number of people can complete and enjoy in its entirety. They are creating a game for everyone, not just for one person who likes length X. Everyone.
|
I think I've already posted on this thread, but it was bumped. I shall (re) iterate:
Blizzard need to get off their lazy asses and make the HotS campaign even longer, and stop throwing their non-democratic "statistics" in my face when they force people to buy additional copies of the game to play on other servers, or even to have a different username past the first 'free' name change. Obviously people don't play the campaign on 100% of clients. They own 6 copies of the bloody game!
|
It was only too long because the missions weren't very good. It was all "Here's this new unit, in this mission you use the new unit" over and over again. It doesn't help that many of those unit's aren't in the multiplayer. So if the HotS campaign is going to have "This is roach. Here, use it to burrow behind the siege tank lines..." I don't think I'm going to finish that no matter how short.
|
I would love a long campaign. I guess one thing they could do would be to have more side and extra missions, and have the main story missions a bit shorter? I'm looking forward to the HotS campaign so much ;_;
|
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.
Just be happy they aren't rushing the multiplayer
|
On December 06 2011 14:06 Demnogonis wrote:
It was only too long because the missions weren't very good. It was all "Here's this new unit, in this mission you use the new unit" over and over again. It doesn't help that many of those unit's aren't in the multiplayer. So if the HotS campaign is going to have "This is roach. Here, use it to burrow behind the siege tank lines..." I don't think I'm going to finish that no matter how short.
What are you on about? The missions was the only good part about the champaign..the story certainly was not. I though the missions was very well thought out varied enough to keep me through.
|
I can't think of any game that was good that had the criticism of "single player too long".... maybe some of the final fantasy series/snes console rpgs from 1994, but that's it. And certainly sc2 was not too long.
|
On December 07 2011 13:24 Drowsy wrote:
I can't think of any game that was good that had the criticism of "single player too long".... maybe some of the final fantasy series/snes console rpgs from 1994, but that's it. And certainly sc2 was not too long. While I feel the same, lets consider the bigger picture. A family man who purchased Starcraft gets into the single player and needs to play through 20+ missions unless the story really picks up (invasion on Char.) For him it would be nicer to have all the action packed within fewer missions. Since Blizzard need proper sale figures to pay their staff I can understand that they optimize the campaign to the average player and add replayability for us nerds.
|
I don't really care how long it is. I'd rather have 20 missions that are filled with stuff I don't want to miss than 50 missions filled with stuff to pass the time.
|
Most console action games are 6-10 hours. SC2, WoL, single player is only probably around 8-12, right?
Just seems like an excuse to go back on their promise of each campaign being as long.
|
Blizzard is running out of ideas for campaignlevels. Most missions could be done with just marinemedicball. And some themed maps for like vikings.
I remember trying out a lot of shit with the broodwar campaign. This was with 3 races I admit. But it felt less linear even with no choice in what will the next mission.. Just sweep the map with your army in sc2. Combined arms and adapting to the map was more prominent in BW.
The storyline was also cheesy in WOL but had less humor. Like it took itself too seriously. Oh yeah Kerrigan was less badass in WOL dispite the final level in WOL. Like she got dumbed down along with getting zerg high heels. In broodwar the storyline unfolded in the missions with no sidequests so you got pulled in. They couldn't fit all the missions in the main story because the main story was too thin and stretched.
The missions weren't played till the end by lacking appeal an most bought it for Multiplayer anyway.
|
And the final reason the love the campaign: TECH-REACTOR FIREBATS!!!!!!!!!! I play zerg and even I love it 
I'm a Terran player since Starcraft 1, and I don't remember to have ever trained a single firebat. Like ever.
|
Sounds like an excuse to do less work and make more money if you ask me. In my opinion, if the campaign of anything seemed too long (never the case) I would just lower the difficulty so I could glide through the missions a lot quicker. I don't think this is legitimate and I don't think they should even consider shortening the game to fit some of "ideas" they have "heard".
|
Didn't like the Wings of Liberty story. Brood War had more punch. Hopefully they improve it and actually focus on the core story.
But then again, I got SC2 for the multiplayer experience.
Only played the campaign when the net was down.
|
I think i know what Blizzard is taking about and it can be fixed easily. As far as i know the Normal and Casual modes for the campaign run on normal or fast game speed. Therefore i believe playing it in that difficulty takes longer than playing on hard or brutal. They should generally change that to faster for all difficulty levels. That way new players wont be overburdened when they play ladder for their first time.
|
On December 06 2011 05:17 jungsu wrote:
If anything the campaign was too linear.
"Hey we need to attack Char."
"Ok let's go attack Char."
"Cool we won"
I STILL think they could use a mode like a full game in Star Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Control_1_strategic_game.png) and have each planet give certain tech etc. They sort of did that with the mission splits, but it could be better imo
So instead of "Choose Planet A or B" you can choose to harvest more economy or search for tech, run from enemy fleet, and get to do more strategy with the planets you pick. More of a ME2 feel is what I'm getting at... but let the computer move too. As Blizzard showed some thinks like the old Starmap in the Alpha, I dreamt of similar things. For example I would have liked it if planets develop according to the mission tree progress. Let's say you can do the mission on the planet now, having little alien resistance, or later with better tech, but a larger alien force which already took some more parts of the map.
However that kind of metagame would move the focus away from the actual missions, but Blizzard obviously wanted them to shine. They removed a lot of RPG / metagame stuff they already implemented, like multiple choice dialogs and so on.
|
I actually found the campaign very enjoyable and the story alright. Of course, alright is nothing in comparison to the feelings about the sc1 and broodwar campaigns where the story was just epic. Think putting in more sidequests and shortening the main story would be the best option if there really is any other reason for this other than avarice.
|
On December 09 2011 19:52 Fusil wrote:
I actually found the campaign very enjoyable and the story alright. Of course, alright is nothing in comparison to the feelings about the sc1 and broodwar campaigns where the story was just epic. Think putting in more sidequests and shortening the main story would be the best option if there really is any other reason for this other than avarice.
I think there is mostly nostalgic reasons behind that and the fact that we all were 13 years younger. Compare the experience you had when playing SC and SCII the first time. That are two different worlds in my opinion.
|
On December 09 2011 09:21 Clairval wrote:Show nested quote +And the final reason the love the campaign: TECH-REACTOR FIREBATS!!!!!!!!!! I play zerg and even I love it I'm a Terran player since Starcraft 1, and I don't remember to have ever trained a single firebat. Like ever.
I wonder how good your tvz was then ;o, I too enjoyed the retro sc1 appearances during the campaign.
But yeah blizz is getting more and more ridiculous, 1 name change for a 60€ game, 1 server option, and now they plan on nerfing the single player of the expansions? How is shorter ever better? The mentality of the company is just shooting down hill, their games are still great but they just want more and more from the fans... Starting to get annoying  .
|
Okay, this makes no sense whatsoever.
Can anyone please explain to me how this logic works.
Pay X amount of dollars for product A
Pay X amount of dollars for product B
Product B is inferiour in quantity to product A
Product A and B are equal in quality
Consumers want product B.
That''s only possible with branding and advertisment in play.......but
DOES NOT COMPUTE !
What people have they surveyed !?
In what way is making a shorter game, ie, less game for your money, in any way desirable ?
Who are these people?, we must find and murder them with great zeal as I think they are at the root of a lot of things that are wrong in this world !
EDIT: I think Blizzard pulled a survey out of their collective asses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
