EPTMaybe more missions on hard or brutal while slimming down the normal difficulty?
Keep the fanboys and casuals alike happy
Blizzard says: SC2 Singleplayer was too long - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
annYeong(o11)
Canada784 Posts
Maybe more missions on hard or brutal while slimming down the normal difficulty? Keep the fanboys and casuals alike happy | ||
|
Hakker
United States1360 Posts
| ||
|
vol_
Australia1608 Posts
On October 26 2011 08:51 Kurr wrote: Rofl. How else would they get people to buy 1 game + 2 expansions at 60$ each? Start with high expectations (each their own game, battle.net the same no matter which one you own, each 30 missions because they only have 1 race). Now : -It's an expansion -Different ladders if you only own WoL -Less missions -Still the same price as if it was a standalone game. Come on.. They have not announced the price. | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
Why?? Simple, compared with the vanilla sc, it feel totally un-epic. Mission to use a ion cannon?? Mission to mine and lift when lava goes up?? Mission to evac some people?? And so. WTF! Sooo many "meh" missions. I want more epic missionss!! Like the last one, like the last two from zeratul missions, like the one in bw when kerrigan kill duke and fenix, like the one in bw when u can use prtoss and zergs to crush the celebrates....More epicness pleasee!! | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
|
Khalum
Austria831 Posts
| ||
|
Sokalo
United States375 Posts
On October 27 2011 14:54 Itsmedudeman wrote: Too long? First of all, I've never heard of someone complain about a game that was too long. Second, no it wasn't. I think "too long" is a valid complaint for like every game Japan has ever produced. WoL wasn't though. After SC1 and War2/War3 I found it disappointing in length and satisfaction. (In before that's what she said.) Even brutal was meh. I think more than anything I missed the divided campaigns/chapters. WoL was just scattered everywhere and once I finished I kind of wondered where my game went. | ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
ok joking aside, i think the campaign was good, anything less would've made it feel short to me. i dont mind if the story develops a little bit target then having multiple epic turn of events every mission. slower story development really does a better job of sucking people into the story then a short paced story that is unsatisfying to finish due to It's shortness. besides that, i cant imagine why people find the length a problemen. if you just wanna shoot stuff play on bnet or vs a.i.. campaign should be for people that love the story and want to take their time to enjoy itand not breeze throgh it in one evening for the damn achievements. | ||
|
SpaceAnt
Spain64 Posts
I actually was shocked we're only getting bout 20 missions in HotS. And when they are saying it will be about 20 missions then most likely will end up with like 18 or 19 at best. With SC1 it was like 30 missions in base game and not many less missions in the expansion, and now with the game being more expensive they are still cutting missions ... I hope they gonna be at least really good and swarmish. Oh, yes, and obviously this :D : On October 27 2011 21:38 B.I.G. wrote: obviously the people who say the campaign is too long are terrible persons who torture small animals and worship satan. | ||
|
Handuke
Sweden48 Posts
Honestly I don't buy the argument that the game was too long. If I enjoy playing a game it's great if it's long. If I don't enjoy it length doesn't matter much. I got a few friends who bought sc2 and never played it much, but a shorter single player campaign wouldn't have made them play the game more. Something that could have made them log in and play more is chat channels, there was a few evenings when we managed to get people online and play some great custom games but without an in game community platform it took some effort. That train left the station by now though, people wont buy an expansion to a game they never played much. A shorter campaign is more likely an adjustment to the industry standard. Why spend money on developing stuff you can leave out without hurting sales? That's just bad business. | ||
|
SpaceAnt
Spain64 Posts
On October 27 2011 22:08 Handuke wrote: A shorter campaign is more likely an adjustment to the industry standard. Why spend money on developing stuff you can leave out without hurting sales? That's just bad business. Nowadays "Industry standard" is to get a new title out for 50 bucks, complain about it's poor sales to the pirates, 3 monts later they lower the price to 20 $ and sell it in holiday sales on steam for 2,50 $. If ppl stay with blizzard's games it's because they doing quality and not EA standard crap. | ||
|
TheLOLas
United States646 Posts
| ||
|
grappasc
Belgium86 Posts
edit: btw I'd drop that "blizz quality" thing entirely... that's history. quality isn't a top priority when you make money. marketing and glittery crap like achievements are. I also think it's absolutely brilliant of them to explain this by saying "oh, but this is what you want" | ||
|
Galleon.frigate
Canada721 Posts
If blizzard says most / a lot of people didn't finish the game, they are almost certanly right. If they throw out 20 more focused and epic missions for 30 (not 50) bucks I'm down with it. even if I would rather have 100 missions. | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
| ||
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
The singleplayer is nice to have, and i really enjoyed playing it (twice), but it is not the main reason to buy SC2. | ||
|
Zeon0
Austria2995 Posts
but it might be too much for casuals -.- | ||
|
Cenja
Sweden498 Posts
Probably some bullshit excuse to make less missions... T_T | ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
Edit: Please show this thread to Blizz btw, so that they'll see that the biggest SC forum disagrees with shortening it... | ||
|
ShinyCoin
Bulgaria28 Posts
| ||
| ||
