EPTBlizzard says: SC2 Singleplayer was too long - Page 6
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
xZiGGY
United Kingdom801 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
Sounds like epic bullshit to me if they then decide to make the campaigns shorter, which were the given reason for cutting up SC2 in three pieces in the first place. | ||
|
BadgerBadger8264
Netherlands409 Posts
They have announced that it will be priced as an expansion, which means it will likely be 40$ (if WoW expansions are anything to go by). I'd be very surprised if it was 50$, and it most certainly won't be 60$. But it probably won't be under 40$ either. | ||
|
Greggle
United States1131 Posts
Who plays a game they enjoy and then says to themselves "Man, I just wish there wasn't so much game here."? Dumbasses like this are the reason there was never an Ogre Battle 64 sequel. | ||
|
Soleron
United Kingdom1324 Posts
Very few finished Mario or Metroid or Zelda, especially given the first two's save systems. I think they were better games for it, it felt like they had endless content to explore despite being only NES size. | ||
|
MaV_gGSC
Canada1345 Posts
| ||
|
mutantmagnet
United States3806 Posts
Also Blizzard should cope with the reality more than half of gamers don't finish a single player campaign they purchased. If their online monitoring says something like 80% of players who started the campaign didn't reach the end then I could understand their concern about the mission length. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On October 28 2011 06:52 Greggle wrote: How the hell can it be too long? Are people that used to wasting money on shitty shooters with a 3 hour campaign? Who plays a game they enjoy and then says to themselves "Man, I just wish there wasn't so much game here."? Dumbasses like this are the reason there was never an Ogre Battle 64 sequel. Dont make me sad T_T I like long games, but well 20 missions from 29 ish(which 2-3 were just reskins for the decisions) doesn't seem that bad. Especially if they have some replay value. I do agree with what Blizzard said that the pacing of the missions was pretty wonky, a lot of downtime doing nothing.But to be faqir I do think that was a problem with W3 and SC1 missions. Its not really that bad if they decide to make those missions really fun and we get a more focused story. Just my 2 cents | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
| ||
|
edc
United States666 Posts
| ||
|
WightyCity
Canada887 Posts
 | ||
|
DMKraft
476 Posts
 | ||
|
Billy_
461 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBoxSC
United States582 Posts
I bought SC2 the day it came out as my first RTS, with no prior exposure to any StarCraft game. I did play WoW and Diablo though. xD Anyways, I played through the campaign on casual straight away, and unlocked all of the achievements that are doable for that difficulty within three days. And I wanted more. The Zerg and Protoss inside of me are extremely disappointed that Blizzard feels that cutting out more and more content will somehow make their game more better received by us. I'm actually offended that they would grant the Terran such an awesome campaign (and I'm Terran as I say this) and skimp out on the Zerg and Protoss. That's not even fair on so many levels. But hey, it's their game, so who really cares? | ||
|
Greggle
United States1131 Posts
On October 28 2011 09:51 windsupernova wrote: Dont make me sad T_T I like long games, but well 20 missions from 29 ish(which 2-3 were just reskins for the decisions) doesn't seem that bad. Especially if they have some replay value. I do agree with what Blizzard said that the pacing of the missions was pretty wonky, a lot of downtime doing nothing.But to be faqir I do think that was a problem with W3 and SC1 missions. Its not really that bad if they decide to make those missions really fun and we get a more focused story. Just my 2 cents Know what my favorite part of Ogre Battle 64 was? By the time you had access to every class in the game you still had like 15 missions left to get to explore and experiment with them all. I feel like for as long as they're still introducing new units it's still basically the tutorial. It's like Diablo 2 where the real game doesn't even start until Nightmare and you have access to all your skills already. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
Sandtrout
243 Posts
On October 28 2011 09:56 teamsolid wrote: I think people who thought the campaign was too long were just not very good at this game (understandable since not everyone is a BW/RTS vet). They'd probably try to macro off of 1 rax + 1 factory all game long and even then barely so. Thus, what should have been a 10 min map becomes 30 min for them, and what should have been a 15-20 hr campaign becomes 60 hr. Well, when I first played the campaign I had no RTS experience whatsoever. So yeah, I needed at lot of time to beat it. But it was still awesome and I would have loved to play 30 more missions right after that. It definitely wasn't too long and I mean, you didn't have to play all missions if you just wanted to reach the end of the campaign. | ||
|
potatomash3r
Australia417 Posts
| ||
|
LXR
357 Posts
| ||
|
Kyrth
United States101 Posts
It's kind of stupid though, even in Starcraft 1 many people didn't finish the campaign just because multiplayer was there. Just because some people don't finish it doesn't mean they rest of us don't want to have a full-length single player experience. | ||
| ||
