I think I figured out what was missing from the Single Player Experience

It appears too me that everyone agrees that SOMETHING was missing from the SC2 singleplayer experience that was included in the SC1 singleplayer experience. I have heard many theories but I think I figured it out:


In SC1 when the level was a winter wasteland, I felt like I was in a winter wasteland; and when a desert, I felt like I was really in a desert, likewise in space - space, jungle - jungle, and so forth.

In SC2 I do not.


In SC1 when I was defending I truly felt like I was in peril and defending for my life. When I was attacking and trying to take over a world, or an area, it truly felt like an uphill battle.

In SC2 I always feel like I have the upper hand, even in missions where I wasn't supposed to feel that way.


In SC1 when I won I felt the loss that it took to get there and when I won I didn't always feel like I won (the Protoss are forced to fight each other and I feel bad, or Fenix dies, etc.)

In SC2 when I won I felt like I won never felt that way except when 1 thing and that was when the Doctor becomes Infested, and that can be avoided.


In SC1 there were many twists and turns, nothing ever turned out the way it was "supposed to" or was "expected to" (Raynor revolts from Mengsk, but he helped him get to power, or Fenix dies, or Zasz dies, Kerrigan become leader of the swarm, she betrays people, and on and on).

In SC2 the only that that comes close to that is if you decided to Kill Tosh, there’s really the only twist that meant anything, the joining with the Emperor's Son wasn't the hugest thing in the world, and didn't defy too much expectation.


Do you guys agree?


*Now we must of course keep in mind we have only seen 1/3 of the game so perhaps we should only compare the Singlplayer to the first or second Terran Campaign.

Dunno, to my mind sc1 mission at some point were too long so that I was bored to death and was forced to use cheats to get faster to the cinematics/story.
sc2 seems fine to me.

I agree with all the points. Here are mainly the reasons for this:

Starcraft 1 was based on realistic, dystopian designs. Things were dirty, and raggity. The Protoss weren't shiny, they were sort of a predatorial race, akin to the Predators. The Zerg were more akin to Alien, a very organic race.

In Starcraft 2, none of these really work here. The art style is very close to World of Warcraft in anyway you want to put it. It is merely the next generation of the World of Warcraft art style. Units are big are bulky, often times unnecessarily bulky like the marine. Ships don't feel utlilitarian, and moreso cartoonish. Battlecruisers in Starcraft 1 felt like their were built to endure years of fighting. Battlecruisers in Starcraft 2, even the cinematic ones, look like an artist's wet dream or silly with it's bulging bridge and fat sides.

The protoss turned from a predatorial race, to a futuristic generic shiny Egyptian race. This ultimately strips the Protoss of any alien like features because everything they have feels very much Egyptian in nature or "Dark Elves" in nature.

Look at the original carrier, very alien, very organic even, very out of this world like:
http://i.min.us/ibBGJ8.jpg

Look at Starcraft 2's carrier, very humanistic, overly majestic and full of royal family kind of designs - lots humanistic features. It also has a lot of frivolous useless things on it like wings or structural things that doesn't help with anything.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/...21629d7dab.jpg

Lets compare the battlecruiser:
http://starcraft2-blog.com/wp-conten..._cruiser_2.jpg
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1...iser_super.jpg
The polygons have gotten higher but not better. The new battle cruiser again has frivolous useless parts. The old battle cruiser felt like death incarnate. It was cold, dark and sinister. The new battlecruiser has shiny lights, nice decorated egyptian looking icons and other odd design attributes. It's also a hell of a lot fatter.

Also the original Starcraft battlecruiser image shows off a lot more emotion than the new image. Break, unwaver vs everything in your face kind of feel.

So there's not a lot in Starcraft 2 to associate with, since none of the units / races feel utilitarian, none of them feel believable. They're all over designed with frivolous things that doesn't really work.

Hell, even the Wraith lost its sleek-ness to become a overly cartoony version:
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/20...zo-d332pxe.jpg
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...Rebellion1.jpg

You can clearly see from these images that the original Starcraft was much more human, and real and less of science fantasy and more science fiction. Units didn't have frivolous things, and people behaved as you expect them to behave or have motives that made a lot of sense.

Starcraft 2 team decided to make the game look like a game, and less like a real depiction of what was happening in this fictional universe. They botched on effects like shaders to an area where there really doesn't have any reflection. I don't understand why sand has a shader effect, sand pretty much dulls all effects, and should be the best time to stop using any shader effects. Except in Starcraft 2, everything has a nice shiny reflective shader to it. Everything is shiny, Battlecruisers, which have gone through years of hardship is shiny! Marines, the grunt of the army... is shiny! Even siege tanks are shiny. I don't think tanks reflect any shine off them other than off their scopes.

Another reason is the people in the game. None of them have any real character nor does if feel like a struggle. This is probably because most of Blizzard has the same kind of feeling. When they made SC1, they didn't have much cash, and quality had to be top notch. A lot of those people were incredibly talented and demanded perfection.

Literally there are entire scenes where the heroes have blank stares on their faces. It's just ridiculously sad how bad some of the animations are, compared to all the work being done elsewhere.

Even Mass effect didn't have such bland expressions and characters are that SOO boring. For example, Rory Swann, what a suck up, one dimensional New York guy. There isn't much more to him than that. Igon Stetman, stuttering shy nerd guy, that's IT. I can sum up nearly every single side character in Starcraft 2 with one or two words. In Starcraft 1, you could write volumes, and people have certainly done so.

I hope they learned a lot of lessons from WoL and put them in HotS, but I'm still expecting Attack of the Clones style sequel.

Let's ask ourselves an important question:
Was Starcraft I focusing more on story and single player than Starcraft II??

I would answer yes. Starcraft II feels like an amazing multiplayer with a mediocre single player attached. Starcraft I feels like an epic singleplayer with an amazing multiplayer attached.

Can't really blame Blizzard for what they did. They know that the multiplayer of Starcraft was what sold so many copies. So obviously for the sequel the multiplayer should be the most important thing. The singleplayer suffered for it but really Blizzard did what any smart developer would do. Focus on the aspect that made their original game huge and last over 10 years.

So Blizzard will do the same thing with the expansions. Focus on the multiplayer and how each expansion will add to SC2's multiplayer experience. Starcraft has become a franchise focused on the multiplayer. For any game franchise like this it means singleplayer suffers. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is. The obvious sign of it is this: most companies release a "demo" before release to build up hype. This shows what the game is focused on. Blizzard didn't release some special prequel missions to hype up SC2's singleplayer. They had a huge beta test to get everyone excited about multiplayer.

That is why I find it surprising so many people get so emotional and critical of SC2's story. If we all gave it some thought it would have been obvious when they opened the beta that the singleplayer wouldn't match up to Starcraft I.

Nah, the missions them self were nice. Only the way the branching missions and story was handled was bad. (not the story from start to end, but the story in between)

Wankey, I have a few questions to ask:
1) The original carrier, does it even resemble the ingame version? To me, that just looks like a banana, it has no shape at all even when compared to the carrier that exists in BW. From what I recall, many people were wondering if that was even a carrier or if it was a planet destroyer or something... right?
2) You are telling me you dont feel threatened by the SC2 BC? It makes more sense logically. It has lots of firepower from different areas, and a hugely powerful yamato cannon and is a BATTLE CRUISER that has huge amounts of people onboard. When I see the SC2 BC I see something that is advanced, expensive, and absurdly powerful. When I see the BW BC I see something that is created on a fringe world with a limited budget that is powerful.
3) How can you compare an ingame model of the wraith with a cinematic version of the wraith? Honestly? You cant be serious here, and are grasping at straws.

Anyways, I have said it before, and I can say it again. I enjoyed the SC2 single player. I agree that I didnt really like the branching style, but everything else was good. I liked that I could pick upgrades, I liked that there was enough content, I liked the general story and the humor involved, I liked that each mission has extra stuff that you can do/find.

PS: To the Programer, what difficulty did you play as the first time through? Personally, playing through on hard/brutal the first time made the missions quite fun. If you played on normal/easy and have these feelings then its only your own fault. The first time through in particular is important because your 2nd time through will naturally be easier, which makes hard/brutal easier.

Apologies for the hyperbolic style, but I couldn't disagree more with your counter-arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRabidDeer

Wankey, I have a few questions to ask:
1) The original carrier, does it even resemble the ingame version? To me, that just looks like a banana, it has no shape at all even when compared to the carrier that exists in BW. From what I recall, many people were wondering if that was even a carrier or if it was a planet destroyer or something... right?

---

It doesn't matter whether it resembles the in-game carrier 100 % or not (for that matter, the Carriers in SC 2 concept art resemble the in-game model even less!). The quality of an image is not necessarily determind by exact/precise/mathematic resemblance to something (unless it's a plan for building something), a crappy 8-bit picture may offer a more faithful representation of the in-game Carrier yet you would hardly say it's a better image.

What matters is that it's a superb image with a level of atmosphere and impact not found in any of the imagery in SC 2. I realize that such things may be subjective and debatable, but give me one image from SC 2 that as menacing, atmospheric and memorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRabidDeer

2) You are telling me you dont feel threatened by the SC2 BC? It makes more sense logically. It has lots of firepower from different areas, and a hugely powerful yamato cannon and is a BATTLE CRUISER that has huge amounts of people onboard. When I see the SC2 BC I see something that is advanced, expensive, and absurdly powerful.

---

Have you ever seen any large piece of military technology before? Sure the SC 2 image has a slightly (ever so slightly) greater amount of detail, but even the plain texture of the armour plating looks fake and plastic, while the plating in the StarCraft image looks like dull, yet still metallic (and very THICK) steel armour (all done with technically inferior graphics, yet looking much more real), very much of the sort you can see on a large modern naval battleship. And would any builder of a ship put those huge glowing parts on it that INSTANTLY make it a such ready target (even Protoss ships in the original StarCraft didn't GLOW)? And finally, do you really find the colour palette of overtly saturated pinkish hues and neon glows threatening? Or tasteful? The more I look at Blizzard art the more I conclude that post WoW they shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near digital colouring!

The SC 2 Battlecruiser does look expensive though, precisely like a large Leisure Cruise ship would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRabidDeer

3) How can you compare an ingame model of the wraith with a cinematic version of the wraith? Honestly? You cant be serious here, and are grasping at straws.

---

Er, no. The comparison is actually between the original StarCraft model of the Wraith and the SC 2 ingame model of the Wraith insofar as they resemble the cinematic/reaslistic representation, or not look like an inflated balloon version of the original craft (what the SC 2 model is guilty of).

Eligor, its obvious we dont see things the same way. Personally, I dont see how you can find the SC2 BC to be perceived as being made out of plastic and not menacing, but you see the flat seemingly weaponless BC of BW to be terror inducing.

I also dont see how the lacking of a few details in the wraith in the SC2 ingame model in comparison to the original SC model from what appears to be a cinematic makes the wraith different. If you added a few more details to the ingame model version they would be identical (apart from the larger weapons on the wings in the SC2 ingame version).

In regards to the carrier, I personally dont think that a giant whale is very menacing and it doesnt present much atmosphere. When I see that picture of the super-carrier I think of some kind of giant tame animal passing by posing no threat to anything around it. You might have a different opinion of it because of the background you inherently know about it.

All in all, the comparisons presented are there with bias. Carriers is cinematic vs concept art. BC is a decently fair one, though I dont know where the SC2 picture came from. Wraith is ingame model vs cinematic. They are hardly an even grounds of comparing between the two. Even aside from that, everything said is just personal opinion and cant really be argued about. Its possible to question why people feel that way, but honestly what you and wankey describe just makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRabidDeer

Eligor, its obvious we dont see things the same way. Personally, I dont see how you can find the SC2 BC to be perceived as being made out of plastic and not menacing, but you see the flat seemingly weaponless BC of BW to be terror inducing.

I also dont see how the lacking of a few details in the wraith in the SC2 ingame model in comparison to the original SC model from what appears to be a cinematic makes the wraith different. If you added a few more details to the ingame model version they would be identical (apart from the larger weapons on the wings in the SC2 ingame version).

In regards to the carrier, I personally dont think that a giant whale is very menacing and it doesnt present much atmosphere. When I see that picture of the super-carrier I think of some kind of giant tame animal passing by posing no threat to anything around it. You might have a different opinion of it because of the background you inherently know about it.

All in all, the comparisons presented are there with bias. Carriers is cinematic vs concept art. BC is a decently fair one, though I dont know where the SC2 picture came from. Wraith is ingame model vs cinematic. They are hardly an even grounds of comparing between the two. Even aside from that, everything said is just personal opinion and cant really be argued about. Its possible to question why people feel that way, but honestly what you and wankey describe just makes no sense to me.

---

You start your arguments at the details, while Wankey's critique is about the whole tone and spirit of the thing being off (and how it's expressed in those details). The SC 2 wraith model may objectively and inedepently be a very good and well made 3D model, but when compared to the SC 1 sprite as a representation of what a Wraith is supposed to look and feel like, it loses badly.

As for the Carrier, for me just how it hangs in the air "the way bricks don't" (to quote Douglas Adams), the almost organic yet still metallic nature of its texture, the fog, the framing branches, the luminous clouds and the silhouettes of mountains behind and the strange Protoss structures in the distance are enough to make it a beautifully eerie and yet uncomfortable image. It's a picture that opens a window on another world, and that you want to step through, it implies things existsing beyond the horizon. There's no image in SC 2 that carries so much atmosphere and narrative import in it, and this is just a single image (I don't know who the guy making these loading screens were, but he's hands down the best artist Blizzard ever had).

Of course, de gustibus non est disputandum, but hell, SC and SC 2 are two separate universes! And Blizzard clearly cares little for what it did a decade ago and is set on pursuing a path that I (personally) don't find as exciting or worthwhile.

The one thing I disliked the most about the campaign is that most of the missions, with the exception of the last ones are just: mass the unit introduced in this mission to win, also, it doesn't encourage players to expand, most of the missions you just have to turtle and build whatever Swann brought in this time. I know many of the missions in vanilla and BW also were about turtling, but you needed to have more variety to your army, at least that's how I felt. I'm against the idea that most of the missions need an specific gimmick but most people seemed to like it.

Side note: You're comparing a standard Battlecruiser (IIRC) to the Hyperion (most advanced Battlecruiser there is). Not quite like comparing apples to apples :D

@Nenol: LOL, play on Brutal :D Turtling or otherwise not rushing to the goal is a sure way to get you killed.

So I'll be the ruiner of the party.
I prefer SC2 missions over SC1 missions any given minute. The reason is simple:

Almost every mission in SC1 could be won by turtling, building a massive attack force and steamrolling the AI base.

Sure it was a while ago, but I do remember myself going bunker+tank @ base with massive BC on attack. For protoss missions that would be cannon turtle and mass carriers.

In SC2, on the other hand, I can count such missions on one hand's fingers, and if you try to get all the achievements then not even that. Because in SC2 the clock is always ticking.

They're talking about the story, atmosphere, etc. Not the gameplay. It's pretty much unanimous that SC2's gameplays is generations ahead of SC1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRabidDeer

PS: To the Programer, what difficulty did you play as the first time through? Personally, playing through on hard/brutal the first time made the missions quite fun. If you played on normal/easy and have these feelings then its only your own fault. The first time through in particular is important because your 2nd time through will naturally be easier, which makes hard/brutal easier.

---

I played it on normal and party way though found it to easy and put I on the next difficulty up (hard me thinks it's called). Afterwords went through on brutal, that's a good point maybe if my first playthrough was on brutal I woudl of felt more of the things I lacked that I talked about in my OP.

Brutal immensely improves enoyability if you can play at that level.

Trust me, once you beat it on Brutal you'll never want to go lower unless you're feeling lazy or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nenol-phoenix

The one thing I disliked the most about the campaign is that most of the missions, with the exception of the last ones are just: mass the unit introduced in this mission to win, also, it doesn't encourage players to expand, most of the missions you just have to turtle and build whatever Swann brought in this time. I know many of the missions in vanilla and BW also were about turtling, but you needed to have more variety to your army, at least that's how I felt. I'm against the idea that most of the missions need an specific gimmick but most people seemed to like it.

---

Alot of what you said here makes sence. I did enjoy the gimmicks but I did miss those missions where you needed variety. You know what I think would make me love the singleplayer perhpas twice as much as I already do (I love this series and this game to a vast extenent I can't express here) is if there was missions spread out here and there where there were no gimmicks and you had to use technoloogy you already had gotten from previous missions to beat it (the char missions minus the nydus tunnel mission did this). You know kinda like that mission where you had to drop off the PSI emmiter in the Terran base in SC1, you needed to use a varety of things and expand! I personally used tanks/goliaths, but you could have used marines and wriaths and sci vessles and vultures too. This would of been a great addition to singleplayer and if I could tell blizzard one thing to change about WOL this is what it would be.

I rarely used the units each mission gives. The only notable exception that I can think of off the top of my head is the Train mission, for obvious reasons :D

The StarCraft 2 campaign was missing fun.

Imo, the story mode area had too much space. The hyperion thingy I mean. We were left to feel what we wanted to feel as the game progressed.

I agree that there isn't much "Oh, shit. What are we going to do now?" in there.

It's like we were not in the thick of battle or something. Like, Jim wouldn't even brag about what just happened and what they did.

Also, Jim was like smoking something. He was like, "whoa!" and like, "whoa!", and like, "cool", and like, "that was smooth, baby. Smooooth."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

Side note: You're comparing a standard Battlecruiser (IIRC) to the Hyperion (most advanced Battlecruiser there is). Not quite like comparing apples to apples :D

@Nenol: LOL, play on Brutal :D Turtling or otherwise not rushing to the goal is a sure way to get you killed.

---

It's clear that that is not the hyperion battlecruiser as all battlecruisers in the cutscene part of the game look the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The StarCraft 2 campaign was missing fun.

---

That's actually the one thing it succeeded at in meeting my expectations.

Quote:

---

That's actually the one thing it succeeded at in meeting my expectations.

---

Yeah same here, I didn't like the story much or care for it, but the gameplay was definitely satisfying for me, could've been better of course, but it wasn't a disappointment (except certain missions).

Just IMHO, SC1 had better graphics, music, sound effects, speech; better everything.

I'm sorry, but SC2 just did not appeal to me at all. I will not be buying any of the future expansions. If Diablo III turns out the same way, I will not buy that either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilebill

Just IMHO, SC1 had better graphics, music, sound effects, speech; better everything.

---

I call troll. better graphics? really? I mean I can't play the game on ultra, but even with the shaders all but off it clearly has better graphics it's still better than SC1. I agree that zerg and protoss music is....lacking, but not bad. Variety is the spice of life after all!

Hero speech I agree with, the lines were delivered poorly, but individual units are still pretty good.

The only sound effect I can really say I really don't like is the attack for the hydralisk, its hard to hear, and sometimes I miss it.


but alas, you are free to your opinion, even if its full of shit.

The art direction is what sucks, not the graphics. I hate the warcraft-ish art direction, but the graphics in the pre-rendered and story-mode was amazing, and it's really hard not to enjoy something which had so much work poured into it. This entire game looks like a painting.

@Wankey's post. I'd say half those complaints are nostalgia. I agree that Protoss look less alien in SC2, but when I read "predatorial race" the first thing I think of is Zeratul stalking through CGI caverns & killing hydralisks.

Haha, I still remember people saying there was gonna be a unique Hyperion model for the game cuz the cinematic version looked so different from the in-game one. It's somewhat of a shame they didn't, when they easily could, but even if they had I don't think it'd be even close to solving all the issues with singleplayer and graphics overall. I mean who knew they would bastardize something as sacred as Tassadar with a generic portrait and model?

Yeah that's one thing that irks me. For all the unique models they had, one of the most important ones is arguably the Hyperion, which looked exactly like Dominion cruisers (or rather, Dominion cruisers looked like the Hyperion, since they didn't have the protruding bridge that's seen in the in game model).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheProgramer

It appears too me that everyone agrees that SOMETHING was missing from the SC2 singleplayer experience that was included in the SC1 singleplayer experience. I have heard many theories but I think I figured it out:


In SC1 when the level was a winter wasteland, I felt like I was in a winter wasteland; and when a desert, I felt like I was really in a desert, likewise in space - space, jungle - jungle, and so forth.

In SC2 I do not.


In SC1 when I was defending I truly felt like I was in peril and defending for my life. When I was attacking and trying to take over a world, or an area, it truly felt like an uphill battle.

In SC2 I always feel like I have the upper hand, even in missions where I wasn't supposed to feel that way.


In SC1 when I won I felt the loss that it took to get there and when I won I didn't always feel like I won (the Protoss are forced to fight each other and I feel bad, or Fenix dies, etc.)

In SC2 when I won I felt like I won never felt that way except when 1 thing and that was when the Doctor becomes Infested, and that can be avoided.


In SC1 there were many twists and turns, nothing ever turned out the way it was "supposed to" or was "expected to" (Raynor revolts from Mengsk, but he helped him get to power, or Fenix dies, or Zasz dies, Kerrigan become leader of the swarm, she betrays people, and on and on).

In SC2 the only that that comes close to that is if you decided to Kill Tosh, there’s really the only twist that meant anything, the joining with the Emperor's Son wasn't the hugest thing in the world, and didn't defy too much expectation.


Do you guys agree?


*Now we must of course keep in mind we have only seen 1/3 of the game so perhaps we should only compare the Singlplayer to the first or second Terran Campaign.

---

Well if you're anything like me the first game was more impressive because I didn't have a precedent for what I expected or what I wanted out of the game. I was 10 when I first played the SC1 campaign and I was 22 when I first played the SC2 campaign. My child like imagination has gone down and my cynicism has increased. I think we all suffer from this quasi-nostalgia complex when it comes to Starcraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

The art direction is what sucks, not the graphics. I hate the warcraft-ish art direction, but the graphics in the pre-rendered and story-mode was amazing, and it's really hard not to enjoy something which had so much work poured into it. This entire game looks like a painting.

@Wankey's post. I'd say half those complaints are nostalgia. I agree that Protoss look less alien in SC2, but when I read "predatorial race" the first thing I think of is Zeratul stalking through CGI caverns & killing hydralisks.

---

*this entire game looks like a painting* I find that this seems to be the way Blizzard is going looking at Diablo 3.

As for Zeratul running around "stalking"... That's exactly NOT what I felt. He was merely being cautious because he was in a very precarious place. None of that stuff is stalking. Stalking is finding your prey, and hiding. All he did was crouch while walking about, and defended himself when hydralisks showed up. His fight against Kerrigan was very quick and didn't really have much of the fight which was flashed in the intro sequence.

I would say that CGI portion was one of the highlights of the game, however, the dialogue was still absolute shiite.

To be honest, what should've happened with Starcraft 2 is this:

#1 thing, you are NOT Jim Raynor, Sarah Kerrigan or Zeratul. You are just a player witnessing the universe happen.
#2 TEN years have passed, not 4, TEN real time years since the game was released ten years ago.

Completely new Starcraft 2 intro cinematic. I cannot believe they used the hell it's about time intro cinematic. What a load of bullshit. Starcraft was all about the grand epic scale of a space strategy game. They should've done something smiliar to beginning of Brood war and did an intro to the entire universe.

Instead, they put that intro in the INSTALLER of ALL things. It really pisses me off that big name media project (Matrix Sequels I'm looking at you) puts the explanation or intro to the universe in a seperate medium (f'ing ANIME?!?) and doing a bullshit way to intro the actual movie.

Do a 5 minute, full CGI intro to Starcraft 2, hell we've waited long enough. Quickly shift through what happened in Brood War, and then finish with a focus on the main bar in the first mission introducing our main protagonist, Jim Raynor.

Jim is sad, he is sad because he's lost all his friends, some of his closest, (cue in Tychus Findlay) are locked up in prison by the maniac Arcturus Minsk. He decides that it is time to break his friends out and finish what he started. He shoots the screen and says, I need your help (you the player):

mission 1-3: Rescue Tychus Finday, find matt horner get the hyperion out of the mothballs.

Tychus is secured in a maximum security holding cell. This level is at first outside, then moves to inside. There are various puzzles / traps you do to get him out. Cue - Hell, it's about time video (WITHOUT THE FLASHING VIDEOS)

Once reunited, Jim and tychus find Matt Horner, who is now the captain of the Hyperion. They need to restart the rebellion against Minsk.

Once you obtain the Hyperion, you are free to roam about. That's right, YOU, a confederate officer. You can speak to Jim, listen in on Jim's and Matt's old banterings or enjoy Tychus tell a few jokes. You are the player experiencing this world through your own eyes.

Missions 4-8: Rebellion! Sabotage tv stations, free political prisoners (great time to introduce interesting characters here), gather support for your cause (this is a great character builder in many games I feel and has a lot of RPG addicting qualities), Steal blue prints to help out the rebellion (aka Starwars?)
Cue in a few rebellion missions, sabotaging tv stations etc all at the same time. There are syngistic benefits. If you sabotage tv stations first, you get vikings in another mission. But if you choose another mission first, sabotaging the TV station gains you more gold etc etc. That kind of reward program works far better than choices that have no consequences.

Make Jim and Tychus your devils and your angels. Jim would tell you to rescue so and so, Tychus would be like screw that, help the protoss eliminate them blah blah.

Missions 8-10: Take on minsk!
8/9 are alternating, similar to the final mission of SC2. You can either assault the Minsk palace grounds or strike at his floating fortress headquarters. Each will have its benefits

Mission 10: Assault on Minsk's forces. With your built up troops, assault Minsk. This is kind of like a reverse last mission of Sc2. Lots of great dialogue here etc etc.

Mission 10: introduce Minsk' son, who comes to help defy against his father, proving that his father is an evil tyrant.

Minsk escapes as you close in on his ship, to remain to be seen later.

As things wind down after mission 10, you get a little breather.

Mission 11: THE ZERG REAPPEAR!!!!

Cue in the flash movie where there are nukes going off in the background and marines on a last stand. Times are dire, zerg have attacked all main worlds, and with the civil war causing chaos in the galaxy, most of the worlds have been left defenseless. Because of the lack of conventional warfare, the remaining forces of the dominion have resorted to using nuclear weaponry. Hence, the amazing cinematics of those. You also see mutalisks flying about etc etc, epic cinematics go here.

Mission 12/13: Calling for help

Jim Raynor must seek out the protoss, who have also gone into hiding since the last war. He seeks the help of Nova, who has found some relics that point to where the protoss are hiding.

Show off some seriously gorgeous space imagery, use great words like Tanhauser Gate or Eye of Shakuras (Maelstrom black hole entity)

In Mission 12, you must pilot the hyperion and its escorts through a maze of black holes while being chased by mutas and corruptors. Once you reach the end of mission 12, you are transported directly into a world, where you must locate the homing beacon. The world is infested with zerg, and you have limited forces.

MIssion 13: Find the homing beacon. This is pretty much nova's mission.

Mission 14: Help the protoss complete their super weapon, find the terazine gas

Once the homing beacon is established, it creates a warp matrix into the new protoss homeworld. The protoss have rebuilt in a short amount of time using their warp technology and are now a thriving civilization again, although limited in numbers.

Introduce the grant protoss society, where high and dark templar races are now one. Design entirely new environments for you to walk around in during the pre-game scenes. You use blink technology to walk to various parts.

The protoss are well aware of the Zerg reappearing, and have been watching the coverage. You get caught up with what's going on with the rest of the galaxy here through flashes of news. It's clear that both your rebllion forces and the dominion forces are losing a quick war against the zerg.

The mission here is to harvest terazine gas for the protoss, because it is on a world where protoss technology does not work, and is guarded by ancient guardians known as the... ZELNAGA (boom boom boom que long back story about them... like the prophecy etc etc)

Mission 15: Zerg have found the super weapon!

Defend the super weapon until it is complete (this is akin to the defend mission in SC2 campaign where you have to defend until the hyperion arrives) but the scenery is far more interesting as the super weapon is as big as the overmind itself

Miaaion 16: Back to kopruplu sector

MASSIVE destruction. The Zerg are no longer infesting, they are merely wiping planets clean and moving on. Unknown why they are doing this, etc. Create nausiating waves of display. use adagio for strings, give that Homeworld esque mood when you return to Kharak, make it 10 fold worse as all your friends are killed. The characters that were created during the rebellion misisons are all dead. Tell interesting stories about how you remember them, while being sad at the same time.

Mission 17-21: alternative missions where if you complete one, you don't have to complete the other. Each mission has a benefit (similar to the research capabilities). Each mission gives you a completely brand new campaign unit.

What each mission is is you're rescuing the veteran defenders or you're going in as a squad to take out a hive junction.

Each mission is on a planet, and you can select it. The objective is char, and there are 2-3 planets in the way to beat. Once you get to char, and set up warp in placements The protoss can warp in the super weapon and the final SC2 mission can begin. You are commanding mainly terran forces but there are Zeratul forces controlled by AI and other Toss forces to help you out occasionally (same as the Toss last mission)


This mission is pretty much unbeatable, and when you reach 80% charged, and most of your bases are pretty much overrun, the protoss high command warps in with the mothership as the final piece (fifth element style).

It fits snuggingly into the middle of the super weapon and the screen goes black.

EPIC CGI OMFG HERE.

As the mothership is getting ready to fire, BILLIONS upon BILLIONS OF ZERG START crowding it like bees. Once the weapon fires, it only kills the zerg around it. Kerrigan manages a way to sabotage it or whatever (creative story writing here plz)

In a rage of fury, Zeratul (INCREDIBLY POWERFUL HERE) obliterates all zerg around kerrigan and goes into mortal combat with her. Cue in the deleted scenes of them fighting, with each blow pretty much destroying the scenery.

But Kerrigan is too strong, zeratul is slowly badly hurt. Eventurally, his psi blades shut off and kerrigan is about to strike her fatal blow until

JIM RAYNOR STEPS INTO CAMERA AND SHOUTS "No SARAH!"

The miniscule shred of humanity inside sarah kerrigan hesitates, giving zeratul that split second to power his psi blade and stab kerrigan through the heart.

Surprised, kerrigan kicks her self off the blade, near death looks at Jim once more, and is muffed b ythe billions of zerg who surround her (a la, Star Gate when the kids surround the Guauld) and take her away

We never see what happens to kerrigan... drop ships land. Tychus findlay runs out, and says the last lines of the game as they wisk Zeratul's near death body onto the medivac.

As Jim looks up, the sky slowly fills with zerg... as he steps onto the remaining dropship.

FADE TO BLACK

TO BE CONTINUED...

Fuck Blizzard.

That would have been epic.

You guys are missing the a key thing too.

Starcraft 2 lacked a strong antagonist.


Having your "Best friend" Tychus and Valerian/Mengsk as quasi-antagonists does not cut it.
In the end, Tychus was what he was. A dumbass being used again (first time being used by Raynor - though maybe not intentionally)
The game had no driving force or motivation. You really were just a marauding Battlecruiser fledgling around the Koprulu sector sippin whisky and listening to Sweet Home Alabama on your juke box...


P.S. I'm really pissed off my Collectors edition StarCraft OST did not come with that Sweet Home Alabama Cover. God damn it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyde

You guys are missing the a key thing too.

Starcraft 2 lacked a strong antagonist.

---

Who was the antagonist in the vanilla terran campaign?

I really felt that, though there were indeed many problems, one was definitely the pacing. IN SCI and BW, You played a mission, then went either to an epic cinematic or straight back into discussing the results of the mission and planning the next mission, and then, suddenly, it was the next mission.

SCII, you play a mission, and then you are on the bridge of the Hyperion. You can walk around and talk to people, some of whom will talk about the last mission. Then you spend points for upgrades, etc., and then you go out to the mission tab, where you get to select from multiple missions, causing each one to have less meaning. The simple ability to sit around without doing a mission removes some urgency from what should be an urgent situation; the fact that you can play entire missions while Dr. Ariel sits on Agria and defends the community against the zerg indefinitely not only removes urgency from the story, but removes the player as well. If there were a time limit to how long you could spend doing a mission before you the time would run out and the mission would be impossible to complete would put back this urgency. Putting an arbitrary time on how long it takes until the Agria colony can hold ut no longer is better than letting them hold out forever, which doesn't make any sense for colonists who are apparently trying to evacuate ASAP. You could even put in mutually exclusive missions, where you could not finish one and have time for another. Some missions could have an indefinite period of time for which to accomplish them, like the first Tosh mission, and some would be necessary to propel the story, such as all the story missions. You would have to prioritize in order to figure out how to get everything done, and it would encourage the player to not laze around in the cantina watching terrible newscasts and listening to crappy covers on the jukebox. But without a time limit, you have to come up with another way to decide when and what mission to do next. I made sure I listened to what everyone had to say so I didn't miss an achievement before I would move on. Choosing missions, at least for me, came down to what unit I would be getting next, followed by whether I needed Zerg or Protoss points at that time.

Occasionally, the units unlocked by the mission were tied back to the story, as the Reaper and BCs, showed, but other than that, it was just Swan either mysteriously acquiring or re-uploading some plans, and BAM. Storywise, you got the units because you needed them for the mission, where in reality, you did the mission to get the units.

Motivation is definitely a big factor in making the story more important. In SCI, and BW especially, there were countless alliances and betrayals, involving discussions between characters from different races. In SCI, we were just an observer, watching the real leaders make the decisions. Being Jim Raynor in SCII, which we were told would feature a branching story, one could imagine making decisions of who to ally with to get a mission done, and whether or not to betray them when it came time. Instead, there is a single choice to ally or battle with the Protoss in a mission, and allying with Valerian, a tough decision that breeds intense dislike among the crew, is made by Jim, but not the player. The player could actually make decisions of who they would ally with: An old ally who is able to offer some, but not much, assistance, or a untrustworthy person like Mengsk, who can offer ships like BCs, or perhaps valuable information pertaining to the artifacts, but you get the feeling will betray you eventually. This combined with time limits on when you can begin a mission would involve the player more in decision making, and add more weight to each of the missions, thus bringing the player deeper into the story.

Then you'd just have to make SCII have a good story, and you're done!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Who was the antagonist in the vanilla terran campaign?

---

The Confederacy and, finally, Mengsk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MulletBen

I really felt that, though there were indeed many problems, one was definitely the pacing. IN SCI and BW, You played a mission, then went either to an epic cinematic or straight back into discussing the results of the mission and planning the next mission, and then, suddenly, it was the next mission.

SCII, you play a mission, and then you are on the bridge of the Hyperion. You can walk around and talk to people, some of whom will talk about the last mission. Then you spend points for upgrades, etc., and then you go out to the mission tab, where you get to select from multiple missions, causing each one to have less meaning. The simple ability to sit around without doing a mission removes some urgency from what should be an urgent situation; the fact that you can play entire missions while Dr. Ariel sits on Agria and defends the community against the zerg indefinitely not only removes urgency from the story, but removes the player as well. If there were a time limit to how long you could spend doing a mission before you the time would run out and the mission would be impossible to complete would put back this urgency. Putting an arbitrary time on how long it takes until the Agria colony can hold ut no longer is better than letting them hold out forever, which doesn't make any sense for colonists who are apparently trying to evacuate ASAP. You could even put in mutually exclusive missions, where you could not finish one and have time for another. Some missions could have an indefinite period of time for which to accomplish them, like the first Tosh mission, and some would be necessary to propel the story, such as all the story missions. You would have to prioritize in order to figure out how to get everything done, and it would encourage the player to not laze around in the cantina watching terrible newscasts and listening to crappy covers on the jukebox. But without a time limit, you have to come up with another way to decide when and what mission to do next. I made sure I listened to what everyone had to say so I didn't miss an achievement before I would move on. Choosing missions, at least for me, came down to what unit I would be getting next, followed by whether I needed Zerg or Protoss points at that time.

Occasionally, the units unlocked by the mission were tied back to the story, as the Reaper and BCs, showed, but other than that, it was just Swan either mysteriously acquiring or re-uploading some plans, and BAM. Storywise, you got the units because you needed them for the mission, where in reality, you did the mission to get the units.

Motivation is definitely a big factor in making the story more important. In SCI, and BW especially, there were countless alliances and betrayals, involving discussions between characters from different races. In SCI, we were just an observer, watching the real leaders make the decisions. Being Jim Raynor in SCII, which we were told would feature a branching story, one could imagine making decisions of who to ally with to get a mission done, and whether or not to betray them when it came time. Instead, there is a single choice to ally or battle with the Protoss in a mission, and allying with Valerian, a tough decision that breeds intense dislike among the crew, is made by Jim, but not the player. The player could actually make decisions of who they would ally with: An old ally who is able to offer some, but not much, assistance, or a untrustworthy person like Mengsk, who can offer ships like BCs, or perhaps valuable information pertaining to the artifacts, but you get the feeling will betray you eventually. This combined with time limits on when you can begin a mission would involve the player more in decision making, and add more weight to each of the missions, thus bringing the player deeper into the story.

Then you'd just have to make SCII have a good story, and you're done!

---

I think the pacing completely killed it. On my first place through, I finished a mission. yay. I never understood the subttitle that was written for each scene. It was like "Hyperion Bridge" and then a cinematic

then "Hyperion Canteen" cinematic

Then fade to black and either a hyperion bridge or canteen 4 minutes later subtext. Why do you need to tell us? Do you realize how poor your game design is if we can't realize that we're on the bridge or in the canteen?

Furthermore, the fact that each character has a "name tag" compeltely dumbs the game down even further. OMG, I don't know that the blue marine in the back is Tychus Findlay!

Blizzard pretty much treated their audience as retards and thus made the story feel dumb.

What they need to do with HotS is rip out the whole idling part, each mission will have a beginning and an end cinematic that is action oriented or has good dialogue back to back to back. Finishing one mission will move over to another rather than idling around a space ship as if nothing happened.

The "Hyperion Cantina" and "Hyperion Bridge" thing is a classic Starcraft thing. In every Starcraft Cinematic there was a line of text explaining the location.

Don't forget the fact that there was hardly any story progression during actual missions. All the character and story development happened in-between missions (Hyperion stuff and cinematics). Each mission can be thoroughly summarised as "this thing happened" with not much else story progression despite them taking up the majority of "story" time - most of the campaign is just gameplay with a disjointed story draped onto the missions.

Anybody that dislikes the pacing of the game can blame games such as mass effect. It is the cool new thing to do, to allow the player to explore things and get little bits of info or whatever at their own pace.

Personally, I do hope that they go back to a more traditional style where its mission to mission without the "exploration". Perhaps have a branching style where the decisions are made during the mission instead of picking which mission to do (yes, this would mean you will miss things the first time through). If they did that, the game would be amazing, or even perfect.

Also, Wankey... the name tag is there to indicate that they have something to say, not necessarily to show their name. After you click them and watch the interaction, the tag goes away. Its there to let you know what there is to interact with and if you have already interacted (there are some smaller things that have the same tag, like some medals/pictures on the walls in the cantina or the TV).

Sounds kind of strange, but each time I replay the campaign, I like it more and more. I'm gradually becoming less and less disappoined by it. Who knows, maybe most of my discontent was nostalgia. I know a lot of it was the fact that if you've kept up with news and read the books, there was pretty much nothing new in the game, so that seems to becoming less and less of an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

Sounds kind of strange, but each time I replay the campaign, I like it more and more. I'm gradually becoming less and less disappoined by it. Who knows, maybe most of my discontent was nostalgia. I know a lot of it was the fact that if you've kept up with news and read the books, there was pretty much nothing new in the game, so that seems to becoming less and less of an issue.

---

Agree 100% with all you just said. Especialy the last half.