EPTYour proposal is interesting, from my point of view i would not understand why i would avoid a mission, if it was playable.
So, people dont play the whole game? Had an idea - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Thojorin
Germany162 Posts
Your proposal is interesting, from my point of view i would not understand why i would avoid a mission, if it was playable. | ||
|
IGotPlayguuu
Italy660 Posts
Then blizz realised that they couldn't (for some reasons) make 30 GOOD mission, so they made a bunch of very good missions, and another bunch of kinda shitty missions. Now they are already making a step back already, and they preemptively say that "WoL was to long". No, in wasn't. If Blizz actually had put more effort into the campaign development, WoL campaign would have been completely fine; but don't tell me that it was too long. If Blizz don't want to put effort into campaign development , fine. But don't hide this fact by saying that WoL was too long. BEcause we alredy know that in HotS half of the mission are going to be awesome, and the other shitty... Plus they are already showing an upgrade system too symilar and recycled from WoL one (except for Kerrigan hero system). P.S. I actually enjoyed WoL single player, but clearly it could have been better if Blizz cared a little more... | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
But some people don't like it I guess, too bad. | ||
|
dtvu
Australia687 Posts
| ||
|
Tofugrinder
Austria899 Posts
Nowadays seeminly nobody (or at least the majority) of the players just want simple, short, "action packed" missions. Where are the times when people just played a singleplayer game for 30hrs+? | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
Some side missions that don't yield such rewards would be better for skip-happy players, but they better be fun or they'd just take up hard drive space.  | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:12 IGotPlayguuu wrote: The only thing I hate about 20 mission in HotS is this: back when WoL wasn't released, blizz said that they would actually separate the game into 3 expansion packs, one for each race and with 30ish mission each. Everyone said "well, I'm ok with this cuz i'm still gonna play the same amount of mission there were in SC1 , maybe even more!" Then blizz realised that they couldn't (for some reasons) make 30 GOOD mission, so they made a bunch of very good missions, and another bunch of kinda shitty missions. Now they are already making a step back already, and they preemptively say that "WoL was to long". No, in wasn't. If Blizz actually had put more effort into the campaign development, WoL campaign would have been completely fine; but don't tell me that it was too long. If Blizz don't want to put effort into campaign development , fine. But don't hide this fact by saying that WoL was too long. BEcause we alredy know that in HotS half of the mission are going to be awesome, and the other shitty... Plus they are already showing an upgrade system too symilar and recycled from WoL one (except for Kerrigan hero system). P.S. I actually enjoyed WoL single player, but clearly it could have been better if Blizz cared a little more... Could the campaign been better? Yes, it could. Was it better then any other RTS campaign? Yes it was. Even with less missions it will still be better then anything that was done so far, at least better then any expansion for an RTS done so far. BTW, Sc1 and BW had better story (as had some other RTS games) then SC2:WoL but the total package was nowhere near. | ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
| ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
On November 08 2011 08:25 TehTemplar wrote: @Paladia No, it's not that. He is proposing extra missions that are optional along with the currently planned missions. How will that make people play more of the game? If anything, making them less rewarding would probably result in the game being played less. | ||
|
nerak
Brazil256 Posts
On November 09 2011 21:26 Paladia wrote: How will that make people play more of the game? If anything, making them less rewarding would probably result in the game being played less. Nope. You got it backwards. Blizzard wants people to end the game. Because 80 ou 90% of players doesnt. They think the solution for that is having a shorter game. Which I sorta disagree with. Some people are lore/SP fans and some people aren't. Most people won't end the SP game anyway. My thoughts about their strategy+ Show Spoiler + However, certain measures can increse the number of people finishing the game... having a better paced gameplay and a better story certainly would count. But shortening the game by 30% would obviously kind of work too. (Disclaimer: both things would make more people end the campaign, but none would make most do it) I'm sure Blizzard got the feedback about the story issues. Maybe they will try harder this time... But I don't think the story in WoL wasnt 100% because they were lazy or something. I thing they must have tried hard enough, but haven't accomplished to reach BW's quality. So, no matter how extra effort they put into the story now, what does guarantees they´re having a better story? Nothing. Sometimes you write a awesome poem in a minute, and sometimes you break your bones for days and can't write anything decent. HotS story may be better or worse than WoL, but this isnt something that is completely under their control. If they simply decide to shorten the number of missions, however, it WILL make some more people end the game. So it's an atitude they´re taking that would surely work as planned. What I mean is that there is logic in this madness. But I diverse. If Blizzard has already made its mind about shortening the game, so that more (but not most) people will end it, I'm afraid we can't make them provide us a 30 mission long zerg campaign anymore. They are aiming at a demographic (multiplayer/casual gamers) thats broader than ours (SP/lore real fans). However, our demographic, while it is not that big, is an important part of keeping the Starcraft community active (not to mention feeding Blizzard's mithic reputation). So, as a long-term decision, its a nice idea to please us too. And how do they please us, if its decided that they will shorten the game to please all the others? Well, why not give extra content that any SP fan would want to play, but that no one has to? Missions that are awesome, fun, and above all, that add depth to the story. So 20 missions doesnt seems too short. However, the only way to have them as really side missions is if people are not forced to play them. How is it an extra mission if you can't understand whats happening if you dont play it? How is it an extra mission, if by skipping it you will not have some unit or Kerrigan ability that may be necessary in the final missions? TL;DR: Think of Piercing the Veil. If you didn't play it, would it make any difference in All In? Nope. But did you skip it? No way! Because it was awesome. I want 5-10 missions like that. It should be very clear for casuals that don't have to play them. So the player decides himself if he is playing a 20-mission or a 25/30-mission game. | ||
|
Drascus
United States100 Posts
| ||
|
nerak
Brazil256 Posts
On November 10 2011 03:50 Drascus wrote: The only units you actually need to finish the campaign are marines, medics, and occasionally marauders. You get those from mandatory missions, so I don't see why you HAD to play Into the Jungle just to get a useless goliath. 1) You had to play it so you'd have acess to the fun spectre/ghost mission later. 2) If you don't play it, its like you go fight Sigma in Megaman X with only the legs and the arm parts. No chest armor nor helmet. X looks kinda weird with an uncomplete armor. Not the badass white-armored X that is shooting the octopus reploid at the game's cover... In other worlds, just having the Goliath, earning those tasty credits and unlocking the research feels good. If you go play All In without you may have no problem to win, but the fact is, no matter how useless is the helmet, X looks weird without it. 3) Hey, who is this Jamaican irisless guy... Hm, it ought to be important to play his missions. I'm probably not going to understand the story if I don't play everything... TL;DR: The helmet is useless but X looks silly without it. You won't fight Sigma until you can tear freaking bricks with your forehead. Blizzard thinks that when you force people to play 30 missions to have all the useless helmets that are in the game, it kills the casual. My proposal: ok, let all the helmets and arms parts and Zero´s sacrifices be placed within 20 missions. But give us 5-10 missions that are fun and deepen the plot without being necessary to understand it. In other words: missions that are as gameplay changing as challenges, and as plot changing as novels. And make it CLEAR so that casuals and multiplayers don't even bother with them. | ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
On November 09 2011 22:41 nerak wrote: Nope. You got it backwards. Blizzard wants people to end the game. Because 80 ou 90% of players doesnt. They think the solution for that is having a shorter game. I don't think I got it backwards, I just think it is a faulty logic. In my opinion, it is much more important that people play the game than that they "end" the game. You can always call any artificial point in the game an "end" and the rest "side missions" but the real end is to complete the game. Adding less rewards towards that goal would in my opinion have the opposite effect. | ||
|
OptimusYale
Korea (South)1005 Posts
Lets face it, the reason most people didnt complete the single player isnt because it was long, it's because there was very little flow to the game. The story was haphazard at best...and would have been a much better SP experience if it was linear. The best SP games a linear when it comes to mission based games...thats just how it has to be to keep people interested. I'm up for additional missions, optional missions...but make them fit into the story line..not just random 'cool missions' The reason most people played the Toss missions is because it did just that....it was optional, but by god the story was fucking cool as balls....the rest of the terran campaign FAILED in comparison..... | ||
|
buckyboreto
Bulgaria5 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
| ||
|
Prinny-tai
United States71 Posts
The simple fact is, a significant portion of everyone who buys almost any game won't beat it, period. | ||
|
Buffinator
United States9 Posts
| ||
| ||
