|
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.
What you said bio ball whit medics could smash through allmost evry mission maybe the people who dident finish the game dident actualy like it.
But cutting the campaign and useing that as a reason is just bullshit to me but beig honest and saying cba to spend more money on development would be bad advertisemnt i guess.
|
It was the right length.
Any shorter will be too short.
|
I really hope the overall time of the singleplayer won't be shorter.
What the could do, is making the main plot shorter and having a bunch of side stories. That would make the singleplayer shorter for those who complain, but that i don't understand, i mean if you find it too long, just don't do it/finish it, and the overall time of the singleplayer, as in getting 100% would give enough gameplay hours to make me happy.
|
I swear this is a troll, am I the only one who when I finished it the first time, wanted more.
Sc1-30 missions
wc3 ROC 40 missions
sc2-30 missions
BW an expansion, as well as TFT...... An expansion had 30 missions + each. And not one person I have ever asked/talked to/played them that enjoyed the campaign complained about length. If anything games these days are too short. I grew up playing final fantasies and other rpgs, they took for fuckin ever and I loved them for it. This past week alone I beat bastion and space marine each taking mere hours (bastion was rad btw, wished it was longer =( )
|
If people can't beat a game on a coffee break it's too long for the ADD generation that infest the gaming market today.
IMO If a game takes LESS then 50 hours to complete it's too short and not worth full price.
Also I do not care for MP one single bit so that gives me nothing.
|
I'm certain the actual physical length of the game wasn't the issue, rather, that most of the missions were useless filler. SC1 was ridiculously long but every single mission drew you into the story, unlike SC2.
I worry about this piece of news because I'm sure there will be just as much filler in the HotS campaign, and by shortening the missions, means there will be less story probably. Sucks.
|
United Kingdom20314 Posts
On October 26 2011 07:15 PraetorialGamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 06:36 Seiniyta wrote:
I think the players found the campaign too long because of the slow pacing of it, there just didn't happen alot in most of the missions. In normal and in hard, to a lesser degree. Brutal is very panicky and dynamic, and so people complaining about nothing happening should try ramping up the difficulty.
Completing the game on brutal, even with great micro/macro etc, requires numerous saves and restarts (often 20 units just walk into your base and its gg becuase you didnt know they were coming and didnt have bunkers up for example)
Sometimes you have to use guides for the gimmicky stuff like walling in with DT's on that protoss mission, and the mission is near impossible without it, requiring 20+ attempts
|
Too long? What demographic are Blizzard attempting to market SC to? The foaming-at-the-mouth players of multiplayer CoD? I felt the campaign wasn't long enough , probably because of all the fluff and lack of plot-driven missions.
I think it should be longer. You hardly ever had to expand at all, which is retarded.
Edited for puph*
|
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 
Yeah.. wow. What happened to videogames you couldn't beat in one weekend?
On October 26 2011 11:44 Arterial wrote:
Too long? What demographic are Blizzard attempting to market SC to? The foaming-at-the-mouth players of multiplayer CoD? I felt the campaign wasn't long enough , probably because of all the fluff and lack of plot-driven missions.
I think it should be longer. You never had to expand at all, which is retarded.
Expanding is essential on certain difficulties and missions
|
People probably felt the campaign was too long because they simply didn't like it and wanted it to be over with already. My favorite game on console was final fantasy tactics and I loved it because the story line was better than most movies, even though it's an old game.
|
I found the campaign too long to be honest, although it was mostly due to the shitty pacing and content of the story.
Edit: playing through the story feeling like nothing in the campaign mattered, certainly made the playthrough like a chore compared to the drastic galaxy-changing feel of the SC1 and BW storylines.
|
I hope they don't shorten the campaign for HotS. I've really been looking forward to playing the zerg and protoss campaigns after WoL. I would say that I enjoyed the experience overall, although it did feel like a chore at certain times. I enjoyed some of the side missions, but only did others for the sake of dat cash and dem upgrades.
I would say, as in most things, the enjoyment of the campaigns is entirely dependent on personal preference. I really like the style/flavor/art direction of Blizzard games so I've always enjoyed the cheesy(tongue-in-cheek cheesy) stories along with the excellent gameplay. I also really like the fact that I get to play around with the StarCraft mechanics and units in a way that is so drastically different from the multiplayer.
And the final reason the love the campaign: TECH-REACTOR FIREBATS!!!!!!!!!! I play zerg and even I love it 
P.S. is there any way we can get this rumor checked out???
|
On October 26 2011 09:38 Callobono wrote:Show nested quote +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. What you said bio ball whit medics could smash through allmost evry mission maybe the people who dident finish the game dident actualy like it. But cutting the campaign and useing that as a reason is just bullshit to me but beig honest and saying cba to spend more money on development would be bad advertisemnt i guess.
Also keep in mind that many people play the SP but not the MP so aren't as good as your average person on TL.
|
Interesting discussion - I think its too long simply because, unlike Starcraft and BW, it focuses on one story line. The actual amount of singleplayer content isn't really that much.
If they hadn't gone for one race per expansion then they could have had a much more intense campaign (or set of campaigns) in each one.
As for the low achievement rate - its probably just because the multiplayer experience is just so damn good and the story line and plot holes are pretty bad (or at least, not up to that standard)
|
The problem wasn't the length, around 30 missions is fine, but it needs good story to fill that, and Blizzard just didn't have good story. It also would have been better if it was more linear, they could have told it better that way imo.
On October 26 2011 11:46 Puph wrote:Show nested quote +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 Yeah.. wow. What happened to videogames you couldn't beat in one weekend? Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:44 Arterial wrote:
Too long? What demographic are Blizzard attempting to market SC to? The foaming-at-the-mouth players of multiplayer CoD? I felt the campaign wasn't long enough , probably because of all the fluff and lack of plot-driven missions.
I think it should be longer. You never had to expand at all, which is retarded. Expanding is essential on certain difficulties and missions
With the exception of the one where you get siege tanks, I don't think I expanded at all...
And I'm gold level.
|
In the WoL campaign there was waaaaaaaaaaay too much fluff, not enough story, and to add to that, the rare story-driven missions were just 'defend X for X', 'wait for X', and the ubiquitous 'wait for extraction!11!11!!'.
|
I agree with Cyber_Cheese, the thing that really hurt WoL from a story perspective was actually the ability to choose missions more or less at will. You have all these different story arcs going on and they're more or less self contained. An arc has to play from start to finish, but at its conclusion it doesn't have any effect on the larger story, with the exception of Artifact.
Of course, this makes the game much more interesting to play through given the impacts that mission choice has on campaign strategy, it's a great experience that is quite re-playable, but the story has been written like a book where all the chapters between 4 and 25 could go in any order with some thrown out and it makes no difference.
Frankly I'm not surprised to hear players tuned out and got bored near the end.
|
it's too long for 1 race
split it into 10 missions for each race then everything would become much more focused, but Blizzard just wants to just focus on 1 race at a time for SC2 and its expansion packs
|
This is just a sad excuse for them to make more money.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
How a game that i can playthrough in two-three days can be long?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
