I found the amount of missions dealing with Char, or the "final area" to be severely lacking. Especially when you're supposed to have this epic rally speech implying how long and hard you have struggled to get to where you are.

There needed to be more substance at the end. Either 2 or more missions, or a 10 minute movie of battle action.

boon2537

United States905 Posts

October 29 2011 03:32 GMT

#142

Does this means that we're going to pay the same full priced game for less content ?
I think WoL campaign, aside the story, is perfect. Every mission brings something new to the table and the pacing is top notch. I would hate to see Blizz dump down HotS campaign just because some people are not patient enough to finish the campaign. I guess you can't please everyone, huh ?

Noro

Canada991 Posts

October 29 2011 03:35 GMT

#143

Weird, I loved the length of WoL single player, the missions were challenging and fun.

Meta

United States6225 Posts

October 29 2011 04:18 GMT

#144

Length was fine (perhaps a bit short, compared to the SC1 and BW campaigns), gameplay was great, story was shit. I definitely did NOT think the campaign was too long, I beat it in under 48 hours after release and never touched it again. I'd rather have more front end campaign stuff, it's such a tiny part of the game overall anyway.

envisioN .

United States552 Posts

October 29 2011 04:30 GMT

#145

This seems like a biased poll to me... I mean you are posting it in a forum of people who love the Single Player. Do you expect them to say anything other than they want more?

For me personally I liked the Single Player but I felt like there were too many missions in the middle, getting all the units, and not enough for the end missions (all Char missions)

nitdkim

1264 Posts

October 29 2011 05:45 GMT

#146

maybe it was too long for people playing at normal speed and playing 2-3 times per mission because they lose to computers... lol

Crisium

United States1618 Posts

October 29 2011 06:00 GMT

#147

I think it's just an excuse by Blizzard to only give us 20 missions. Sure a lot of the missions were ultimately irrelevant to the story at hand, but the gameplay and level design for most missions was quite good.

SEA KarMa

Australia452 Posts

October 29 2011 06:13 GMT

#148

As if they were too long. The campaign was easy even on Brutal difficulty, and the hardest mission must have taken what, like two tries max to complete? The achievements for campaign were also very easy, they just took a little extra time. I don't know why they think it was too long. I mean, playing on casual, you could finish it easily in under 5 hours.

Demonhunter04

1530 Posts

October 29 2011 07:32 GMT

#149

On October 27 2011 04:05 jeeeeohn wrote:
The WoL campaign was the best RTS campaign I've ever played, and I've played WCIII, WCIII: FT, Red Alert 2, Stronghold, Stronghold Crusader, Rome: Total War, etc etc.

Seriously Blizzard, it should have been LONGER. HARDER. FASTER. I think I've played through this campaign about 4 times now (including my other account), and I just started brutal (it's easier than I thought it would be).

It's really not fair that you make an awesome 29 mission long Terran campaign then skimp on the Zerg content, not fair at all.

Warcraft III and TFT's campaigns were far better. Not commenting on the units and gameplay as much as in the story. Each mission felt very important. The same goes for most missions in SC1.

askTeivospy

1525 Posts

October 29 2011 09:17 GMT

#150

On October 29 2011 16:32 Demonhunter04 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Warcraft III and TFT's campaigns were far better. Not commenting on the units and gameplay as much as in the story. Each mission felt very important. The same goes for most missions in SC1.

WC3 TFT and SC1 and SCBW had amazing campaigns

SC2 was a joke, i used to like jim raynor but they ruined him for me with that stupid story

on topic: obvious excuse for blizzard to devote less time to singleplayer and try to make it seem like "they're doing it for us". When can any singleplayer ever be too long? Only too short.

trinxified

Canada7774 Posts

October 29 2011 11:11 GMT

#151

Don't worry.. The campaign will feel just as long or even longer even with shorter missions because you play as Zerg this time.

No more marine/medic breeze to victory.

I just hope they do something similar to putting a few missions with a different race, like the Zeratul visions.

AutomatonOmega

United States706 Posts

October 29 2011 11:43 GMT

#152

They crammed 3 games worth of one race's campaign into one game, that's the whole strategy behind SC2 vs SC1/BW.

I thought the length was fine. Hell, WC3 felt longer.

1hpBuiltForLove

Canada89 Posts

October 29 2011 12:38 GMT

#153

Some achievements are too difficult. I think WoL was a fine single player game.

MrTortoise

1388 Posts

October 29 2011 14:26 GMT

#154

my one ciriticism of single player is that it is of no value in getting you ready fro multiplayer - wghich is what my friends expected from it.

LastWish

2013 Posts

October 29 2011 14:51 GMT

#155

I strongly believe this to be either a lie or a misreading of statistical data.
Sure I didn't get many achievements as well because I was born in the age where achievements weren't necessary for a player to spend long term quality-time on a game.

What needs to be done is to have only 3 difficulties - there is no need for more really.
Easy difficulty should be for players who just want to see the videos and storyline.
Normal difficulty for casual players who want to have some challenge but don't want to spend hours repeating the same mission over again.
Hard difficulty for hardcore players who want to have their missions tough - so that you need to repeat a mission until you get the strategy/nuances right and some of the missions should last an hour or more. Every mission could then be considered an achievement.

MrTortoise

1388 Posts

October 29 2011 14:55 GMT

#156

there is a huge difference in skill between playes.

Brutal was hard for me yet i am infinitley better than a lot of my friends. Yet it was easy for the hardcore guys on here.

I was out of practise at rts when i cam back to the sc world.

Madkipz

Norway1643 Posts

October 29 2011 15:34 GMT

#157

On October 29 2011 18:17 askTeivospy wrote:

Show nested quote +

XD.

Not enough people completed our cheesey campain with Jim and his butt buddies romping around the galaxy for an artifact while being chased by ex girlfriends and boyfriends alike.

Solution:

Lets not improve our shitty script but rather just make our campain shorter that way more people will suffer trough the entire story and we can brag about a bigger % of players that completed our campain.

On October 29 2011 23:55 MrTortoise wrote:
there is a huge difference in skill between playes.

Brutal was hard for me yet i am infinitley better than a lot of my friends. Yet it was easy for the hardcore guys on here.

I was out of practise at rts when i cam back to the sc world.

and? Its supposed to be BRUTAL. Its the highest tier of difficulty and if its not difficult then. -.-

Antithesis

Germany1205 Posts

October 29 2011 15:49 GMT

#158

In general, a 30 mission campaign isn't too long; however the story didn't provide material for this number, so too many missions just felt like time filler.

Duka08

3391 Posts

October 29 2011 16:13 GMT

#159

LOL @ Blizz thinking SC2 was too long, after beautifully crafting the WC3+TFT and SC+BW campaigns in the past

poor newb

United States1879 Posts

October 29 2011 16:26 GMT

#160

just making excuses for their poorly designed story with characters that doesn't even make sense, and which the vast majority of the missions contribute nothing to the story and are just there to waste time, at least 10x more stuff has happened storywise in either expansions of sc1 than in sc2 wol, just bs-ing your way into 30 missions with so little content is just bad