I found it the perfect length. I finished it in 2 days watching all the movies n stuff too plus I was kinda slow at it too at first since it had been a really long time since i had played starcraft. Now I could finish it much faster and since HOTS will be shorter it'll go just that much faster since im much better at zerg than terran

Thug[ro]

Romania340 Posts

October 28 2011 09:23 GMT

#122

I don't agree. It was short GIVE ME MOARRR! I just love playing long campaigns, chilling and finding new stuff etc it's so cool....
I just want to take my time and enjoy it, so please make it longer!

Koshi

Belgium38799 Posts

October 28 2011 09:40 GMT

#123

Too long?? I finished that campaign in a weekend with EVERY achievement. I only did my last achievement were you had to finish the campaign in 6 hours or less on normal a week later.

aQuaSC

717 Posts

October 28 2011 09:54 GMT

#124

Really... I can't understand why they think it was too long, no matter how hard I try xD it was too short for me. The longer - the better, it won't be boring with that lore.

ViperPL

Poland1775 Posts

October 28 2011 10:23 GMT

#125

Seriously, campaign on normal difficulty is really quick and effortless. Brutal took some more time, but that was the whole point, more challenge. I really don't see how could anyone complain. I guess some hardcore noobs. I was greatly disappointed when they announced only 20 missions for HotS, when WoL had 29. Lame.

TheDna

Germany577 Posts

October 28 2011 11:11 GMT

#126

About 90% of the sc2 players are casual players. They never even heard of teamliquid and whatnot.
obviously those people have the majority in the blizzard polls as well

I really liked the campaign but some missions were really a bit boring and too long even for my taste.

TerransHill

Germany572 Posts

October 28 2011 12:44 GMT

#127

I think the campaign was too long. in the first missions it was just about getting money and upgrades and even later in the campain there were to many sidequests which had nothing to do with the main storyline.
A campain, especially for rts, needs to tell an interesting story which keeps me playing because I want to know what happens in the next mission. Its very hard to archieve this with 29 missions.

Warcraft III campaigns were awesome and they only had like 10 missions. There was a campaign for every race though, so it had a little more content than sc2 but it was spread over 4 different stories which made it way more interesting.

Its a much better concept than the one starcraft 2 has.

mindwarp

United States30 Posts

October 28 2011 17:46 GMT

#128

I like the long campaign time! I hope they really up the quality of the existing levels at least but i doubt blizzard will go back and alter much.

I was really looking for to have a full 30 campaign missions to play with since I main zerg.

NEOtheONE

United States2233 Posts

October 28 2011 19:15 GMT

#129

All the casual gamers were probably complaining about the length. I hope Blizzard remembers us, the more hardcore gamers and does not shorten HotS too much.

Madkipz

Norway1643 Posts

October 28 2011 19:28 GMT

#130

Well I hope at least brutal will be brutal.

Euronyme

Sweden3804 Posts

October 28 2011 20:01 GMT

#131

How can a storyline be 'too long'? Is anyone complaining about it?
Just sounds like a lousy excuse to make it shorter, because not as many people are going to get pissed because it's short.
Honestly if the campaign took a month of gameplay to complete none would still complain. What's there to complain about? -_-'

Telenil

France484 Posts

October 28 2011 20:28 GMT

#132

Presumably, they don't want to make a 200 hours campaign that would be completed by 10% of the player base. They would rather have a short campaign that is completed by 60% (arbitrary number) of their players.

Euronyme

Sweden3804 Posts

October 28 2011 21:58 GMT

#133

On October 29 2011 05:28 Telenil wrote:
Presumably, they don't want to make a 200 hours campaign that would be completed by 10% of the player base. They would rather have a short campaign that is completed by 60% (arbitrary number) of their players.

Why?

Edit. Imo how many who complete the campaign is more depending on the quality of the campaign, rather than how long it is. A long campaign often increases quality.
Look at how many people are playing mass effect and assassin's creed for instance. Super long campaign with a shit tonne of people playing.

goodpoltergeist

United States41 Posts

October 28 2011 22:06 GMT

#134

What? I've played through the WoL campaign no less than 5 times (3 on normal, 1 on hard, 1 on brutal) just to get all the achievements! There's not way that it's "too long!" Quite the contrary, there isn't enough!

Euronyme

Sweden3804 Posts

October 28 2011 22:17 GMT

#135

I loved the Nova / Tosh missions. Played them like 10 times without nukes just to play around. Hope there'll be more missions like that ^_^

crc

Australia256 Posts

October 28 2011 22:18 GMT

#136

AH come on Blizzard, look at SC1 and BW! There are a lot of missions, yes, but they were all awesome because they are all story related (even the "side-quests" are pretty awesome, eg hi-jacking battlecruisers, they relate to the story!). Oh, Raynor and Fenix escaped to Shakuras, oh now Kerrigan wants our help huh, now Artanis is infiltrating this terran base, oh now I'm retrieving these crystals, then oh Kerrigan you spoony girl. Then on the terran missions, it's like, oooh UED is here, let's infiltrate the dominion base, hijack some battlecruisers, then we defend against their onslaught, oh Stukov a traitor?? Ah but no. And now we gotta stop Duran. Hey, we may be able to control the overmind? Etc. The storyline is packed with more twists, politics, character developement and we get to see deeper into the starcraft universe.

SCII compared to this is just shallow. It feels like just one of the SC1 race campaigns, but as a full game. Quality, Blizzard. The number of missions can get reduced, but make it good! SC1 had 10 missions for one race, and you always get something exciting to do next. Learn from that. All the pretty enhancements onboard the Hyperion doesn't make the story better. AH.

Monkeyballs25

531 Posts

October 28 2011 22:51 GMT

#137

I think it had just the right amount of missions for a full game. The achievements and multiple difficulty levels and the different order the missions can be done in add a *lot* of replayability. The only thing I was disappointed about was the lack of any Zerg missions despite shoehorning in 3 or 4 Protoss ones.
One thing I really liked aswell is that the missions all feel quite distinctive, with lots more than "here's your little base, kill this giant base". I'm not sure if they could have added many more missions without diluting that aspect. And the storyline *did* get stretched pretty thin over 29 missions. It felt like Raynor was suffering from ADD
-hey let's take down Mengsk
-oooh no let's collect these artifacts first
-oooh no let's save these colonists before that
-oooh no let's help this creepy psychic voodoo guy
and so on.
They could have told the entire plot of WoL over 10 missions if they wanted to.

Jonoman92

United States9104 Posts

October 29 2011 00:42 GMT

#138

I thought the single player was just right in terms of length. Definitely wouldn't want it any shorter...

I mean, any hardcore person could finish it in a weekend. If you don't care about the story enough to finish it then who cares.

Goldfish

2230 Posts

October 29 2011 01:04 GMT

#139

- 29 missions are too long for many players, who doesnt reached the final, so HotS is intendet to be shorter
- Surveys from Blizzard revealed many negative feedback from players, the campaign was too big, even coworker's from other teams said this
- achievementrate of finished singleplayer is low too
- HotS is planned with around 20 missions, still same amount of highlights like WoL

second part is about new units, so nothing new information at all.

I cant believe this to be true as i can remember Blizzard announced WoL and the Addons will have full content and dont feel like addons cause you can only play 1 Race at Singleplayer.

I'm really curious if this survey/poll is legit or whether it was misinterpreted. People not finishing the campaign because it's too long >.>? They could have finished it easily on casual (and if it was "too easy therefore too boring" for them play on brutal).

More missions = potentially more assets for map editor = more fun stuff to use in custom maps (for map players and map editors).

I also found the campaign to be the right length.

Hopefully it lasts the same amount.

Also yes when SC2 (announced as a trilogy) was announced, they did say (Karune in a stickied topic in the old SC2 battle.net forums [you can find it on archive.org]) said that each race will have "potentially up to" 30 missions each.

So yes Blizzard did announce it at first that each of the races would have 30 missions.

SC1 had 30, BW had 28 (if you count dark origins secret mission). WC3 had maybe 30ish (I forgot) but TFT had a little bit less but there was also an Orc campaign too (where you just control Rexxar [sp?]) which lasted a decent amount.

Well we'll see. I like Blizzard but lately they've been making up excuses for things:

Diablo III on online only - Well guys there were "a lot" of people (in Diablo II) who played Single Player then were bummed to find out you couldn't play multiplayer on battle.net with friends. That's one of the reasons Diablo III is online only guys. We don't want people to accidentally click the single player button, play for hours, then find out they can't play with their friends in D3! We can't have that!

Starcraft II with no chat channels - Do you really want chat channels?

Starcraft II on name changes - Do you really want name changes?

And now this - Wings of Liberty was too long. So to do our customers a favor, we're making the game shorter!

tl;dr - Blizzard seems to like finding excuses for the things they do.

Neurosis

United States893 Posts

October 29 2011 02:49 GMT

#140

Strange. I felt the single player had just the right amount of content. The missions were fun and varied, though I could have done without some of the corny dialogue and for certain the terrible ending. But, this is about the amount of missions and I felt they had it just right.

Edit: Maybe they should reexamine their strategy. It makes more sense to me to work on the quality of the story telling a bit more rather than simply cut down on the amount of content. If people didn't finish the game because they got bored then that, to me anyways, is more a result of the lower quality story rather than the gameplay, which was truly excellent.