Printable View
In regards to the mission numbers, when are you kids gonna learn it's quality not quantity?
I loved WOL's campaign but the first 3 missions were pretty much rehashed from the original campaign. If HotS skips most of the tutorial crap and gets started up right away I'm fine with less missions. Broodwar has less missions then vanilla and no one complained, because they were damn fun.
I'm pretty sure its in the StarCraft 2 EULA that you can't be a WoW fan and StarCraft 2 fan. Either way, the heavens decree that you choose one or the other or doom yourself to eternal torment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gifted
I agree with Johnny. Less is more, it seems.
And Blizzard does less very well.
Vanilla had 30 missions, Brood War had 26 missions, WoL had 29 missions, HotS will have 20 missions - do you see the difference, kid? Besides, I am not afraid of quality of the missions, that is the reason why I think more is definitely better. But you can have super quality 3 missions and it seems you will be happy. Futhermore many missions in HotS will be played with very few units available just like in WoL, that's another reason why more is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
EDIT: Personally I would like to see some mini-campaign like in WoL, where you are not playing as Kerrigan, because I think there will be too much Kerrigan in HotS anyway.
My point was it doesn't all come down to numbers, it's all about hours, and if those hours were well spent. If those 3 missions were each 4 hours long, yes, I would be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romla
Reminds me of some of those really short (2-5 mission) custom campaigns people have made. It seems like it'd be short, but given the difficulty or creative mission design, it feels as long as a 10 or even fifteen mission campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
I would rather have 25 shorter missions with different environments and playability than 3 painfully long missions on the same map with the same heroes. I don't like RPG at all, because it is so repeating and boring for me. I need new things all the time. That si why I am not playing multiplayer at all. I am buying SC2 just for the campaign and this is why I want it to be as good as it can be from my point of view. I know everyone has different opinion on what is good, but more of the good cannot hurt at all, or can it?
A better comparison is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Romla
The original StarCraft had a total of about 20 missions for Terran, 20 missions for zerg and 20 for protoss. The complete sequel will have 25 or so for Terran (so far), 20ish confirmed for Zerg (so far) and 5 + x (20ish?) for Protoss. While this may come in a different format, to make a comparison. There will be more missions for the sequel than the original.
That is not a good comparison at all, because there were only one expansion, now we will have two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gifted
EDIT: I don't understand why is everyone trying so blindly to justify Blizzard's attempts to deliver less content. They were talking about so much material, they need to do two expansions, but now it seems there in fact is not enough material to do two expansions and every campaign's story is strech out to the maximum. Quality of the story in SC2 is much worse than in SC1 and now we will have even the quantity of content in the same numbers like in one expansion-less original? I don't like it, why do you?
Can you elaborate how it's not as good a comparison when evaluating content? Let's face it, it may go so far as you trying to define exactly what content is and what judgement scale you are talking about (Money, time, etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by Romla
No matter what I view about the argument "There are less missions in expansion one, compare it to expansion one of BW", it only leaves me with one point. Sure, you may be right in your small example, but it avoids a much larger point that's more relevant than such a small potion of opinion on the matter.
That's why when you take a comparison that we can actually perform: "Let's compare the entire terran content of the original game versus the entire terran content of the sequel" you suddenly see it in a light that's more global, comparible and discussable. It was 24 missions vs 20. There should theoretically be no more terran content in the sequel. So this is a relevant complete comparison we can make. When you start comparing expansion for expansion, they are so different in terms of games that it's hard to get a solid point across because there are so many different variables. This will in turn create so many different views, opinions and solid points for each basis. This also creates poor discussion cause typically people will be on "different pages".
"What's better, orange or apple?" The compatible objects are just too different. This is like comparing Brood Wars to Heart of the Swarm.
"What's better, Jimmy Apple or Raynor Apple?" These objects are at least comparible. This is like comparing a racial portion from SC+all of it's expansions to SC2+ all of it's expansions.
This simple point is why I feel that comparision racial portions of both games (Complete content) is a better comparison that creates a better basis for discussion.
First, people who are opposed to your opinion are not blindly defending Blizzard. It's offensive to say so sometimes, and I bet you find it silly to hear the phrase "You're blindly defending your own opinion". With that out of the way...Quote:
EDIT: I don't understand why is everyone trying so blindly to justify Blizzard's attempts to deliver less content. They were talking about so much material, they need to do two expansions, but now it seems there in fact is not enough material to do two expansions and every campaign's story is strech out to the maximum. Quality of the story in SC2 is much worse than in SC1 and now we will have even the quantity of content in the same numbers like in one expansion-less original?
When you talk about the quality of the story of WoL versus the original, the issues with that are fundamentally different than "content". You're attacking the wrong subject with the wrong ammo. It had everything to do with design decisions. They chose to follow a story that was more open ended, and when you do that you sacrifice cohesive story in exchange for game play. In their QA they even acknowledge this a few times, showing that they're willing to consider learning from that mistake.
When you talk about content, you're also hyperfocusing on a single portion of the content of the singleplayer mission quantity. Speaking strictly on gameplay, the content of the WoL missions were fantastic and an improvement to the original, though it's hard to admit this because the part that made the original content special was it's infusion with lore, storyline and incredible writing. This was so true that it's incredibly hard for me to make a comparison by removing that. This doesn't include all the extras that never existed in the original. Hyperion/sites had a great amount of content, even if underappreciated by most. The achievement gameplay created replayability, which is an extension of content.
Because I'm able to look at something more important than mission numbers. I still smirk at the thought of some of the news broadcasts and the animosity between the newscasters. I appreciate the cut scenes that span about 30 minutes. I like the fact of upgrading units and customizing my army. Some rather fantastic music.Quote:
I don't like it, why do you?
I appreciate missions that aren't the same repetitive stuff repeatedly. Most memorable missions by far from the original? "Defend the base", "ambush the Protoss -OR- Terran base" and "Double base assault against the Overmind". Any other missions I remember based on storyline, and that's it. The rest of the missions kinda blurred together as the same style of gameplay repeated in a different fashion. I remember core storyline tenets, but the gameplay itself is not memorable content. "Build base (with new mission restrictions), Build Army (with new missions restrictions), attack red stuff on minimap. That was the core gameplay mechanics of over 50% of the missions.
If your content involves "better storyline" then yes, I agree, Blizzard needs to deliver a more solid experience than they did in WoL, and they have the message loud and clear almost universally from reviews that delve into it deep enough. But the argument you're placing, strictly on numbers without quality involved, is something that I disagree with. But ironically, this is a point of quality, not quantity. Which is almost odd cause your argument is that there should be more "quantity" of content.
This is a nice post, Gifted. You are right in many things.
You are not right in that we should compare terran, zerg and protoss content 1:1. That is not true, because now we should have 50% more of that content, because we have 50% more of expansions (3 volumes against only 2). If this could be expressed only by the number of missions, we should have about 30 missions for each race, but you are right that there is other content except those missions.
What I was trying to say, despite of my poor ability to post very long comments in English (so maybe this is also one of the reasons my comments seem so straight and harsh - I am sorry for that), was that about 25 missions would be more appropriate number than only 20, at least in that meaning that more cannot be worse than less. SC2 really had much better missions in regards of playability than SC1 and I liked them all, maybe there could be a little more missions where you were not so pushed by time, but this is irrelevant for our discussion. I was disappointed with the story of WoL and I am afraid HotS will be in many ways similar to WoL in that aspect, I was speaking about that a little in my first comment in this topic. I am absolutely not trading quality for quantity, but I admit it seemed so from my last comments. I was hoping that while the story wouldn't be the greatest in HotS, there will be at least enough content in regards of playability. But if they could raise their WoL standards in storytelling I would not mind if there would be 20 or 25 missions. But I am rather pessimist in that.
@Gifted
Better update your signature. You've got a recently new wall of text if I'm not mistaken. :D
You can also substitute the bolded for "attacking" as well. I was accused of doing a similar thing on other thread by one I shall not name and I found that a bit quaint, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gifted
@Romla:
For speaking English as a second language I have to commend you for typing it so well that I didn't have a clue. I'll keep my responses for short for that. Also your posts were perceived well, so if that's a concern then you shouldn't worry. I've viewed you as respectful so far outside the "blindly" comment. We're cool about that though.
Regarding the mission comparison:
I think the root of this is more than just numbers in your argument. For example.. why should it be judged by the same standards as the original? Is it the sake of money to content value? (The original I payed for 1 game + 1 expansion, with the new game if I pay for 1 game + 2 expansions I should have double the "extra content") Or is it simply the mentality of "this is what they did before 10 years ago, they should do it again)On the subject of other things
My opinion, which I feel we disagree on, is that too many people care to judge the sequel's decisions too much based on design decisions of the original game that's over 12 years old and had design decisions made by a much different team in a much different atmosphere in the game industry.
I do see your point that 25 couldn't hurt because it'd be equal to WoL, but then again, WoL has 4 "tutorial missions" that will probably be skipped this time around. Too many unknown variables... and they could turn out to have a number of 22 or 23 missions mind you. So all this back and forth could go oddly laughable if they decide that. (or add another 3-4 missions for a side mission track. >.<
Thanks for clarifying about the last portion of your post, we're on the same page there. ^^
@Turalyon:
While your point is very valid, it's getting into different perceptions of the same main idea at this point. I think we all are on the same page. ^_^ Respect the opinions please.
But then again, Gifted, you either get happy customers/consumers or a little bit disappointed ones.
The real issue here is that companies don't need to beg people to want to buy their games.
Yeah, I keep eluding to that when I reference the industry atmosphere and whatnot. I'm definately on the same page at you with that mentality, but it's a point that's not directly related to the conversation I was having. *nods*
Okay, I've got a question to anyone who's played the demo recently. Those were three missions iirc.
Do the missions feel like the one's we have in WoL? If so, do you think Blizzard can push them further to be more richer and satisfying?
Oh, you'll have a good place to ask those questions quite soon ^_^
@Romia: Sounds like you have more of an issue with ADD than a valid complaint against fewer missions.
ADD? You mean expansions? I have no problems with two expansions, in fact I am glad there will be two expansions because there will be more fun. And this is the same reason why I want it to be there as much missions as possible in the expansions, because I am playing just singleplayer. And I think the reason why Blizzard is giving us two expansions instead of one is that there is enough material to make two expansions - or else it is pointless. But I want these expansions to be as good as they could be - that is absolutely reasonable from customer's point of view. And these expansions will be better for me, if there will be more missions, better story presentation would be a perfect addition, but I cannot have everything and I think more missions is definitely easier for Blizzard to deliver than better story.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
EDIT: I reacted on this mission numbers topic so much only because everyone seemed so happy with only 20 missions, but in reality I don't think it is so important topic we must talk about this a whole thread. This "blind" reaction really was excessive from me.
EDIT #2: I must react on the valid complaint yet. Fewer missions = less fun. This alone is a valid complaint. But if you are perfectly happy with 20 missions it is your right. I am sorry for the blind reaction.
Can't argue with that opinion. Ultimately though it's an opinion based on speculation of information we don't fully know. (Important note: All of ours are, so it's not implying it's a bad thing)Quote:
Originally Posted by Romla
I will say that if it's 20 "adequate and full" missions I'd be happy with it. If it's 20 "iffy missions" that seem rushed out and not complete, then I can see a complaint about that. Until we know mroe about the feel of the missions themselves, it's hard to make a clear comment.Quote:
EDIT: I reacted on this mission numbers topic so much only because everyone seemed so happy with only 20 missions, but in reality I don't think it is so important topic we must talk about this a whole thread. This "blind" reaction really was excessive from me.
EDIT #2: I must react on the valid complaint yet. Fewer missions = less fun. This alone is a valid complaint. But if you are perfectly happy with 20 missions it is your right. I am sorry for the blind reaction.
I practically agree, I was not referring to exact numbers, but only saying that something about 25 would be more according to my expectations from HotS expansion. And I am counting all secret and branching missions. There were 29 missions in WoL and I was expecting something about 25 for HotS. I would like to see for example 20 missions from Kerrigan's perspective and 3 or 4 missions as some interesting mini campaign, like Zeratul's missions from WoL. That would be ideal for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gifted
EDIT: And I still don't know anything about pricing, it is obvious that if the expansion's price will be much lower than the WoL volume, then I can hardly demand the same number of missions like in WoL. But I was expecting the price will be the same or just a little bit lower. But that doesn't need to be true. I don't have this info.
I was expecting more actually according to these reasons:
1. They don't have to write the story since they did this prior to WoL's release.
2. They only have a few units to make and test.
3. They've had experience making missions/scenarios for WoL, thus more efficient this time.
4. They don't have to redo things due to changes in their tools and engine.
But it seems I was wrong.
Have you considered that they're simply holding back, so as not to released too many spoilers? Browder said about as much. Moreover, this was simply a sneak peek to select members of the community. Any major reveal would be saved for a bigger event (e.g. Blizzcon).
Yes, but then I thought to myself, why would they do so when their aim is to impress?
The same reason why they typically have multiple progress update events.. cause impressing over time is better than impressing once. It also gives opportunity to gain feedback at key project points to allow them to change directions or decisions if they feel that the feedback doesn't match what's to be expected.
Not sure if this has been posted yet....Sen talking with Browder
A TL poster gave a brief summary of it....
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...rrentpage=2#22
I'll probably watch it tomorrow.
The chinese guy says is very well. It's clear that there seems to be a mental break down on how Blizzard designs games vs the community. This entire meeting is completely useless. He says in Chinese pretty clearly, you came here to tell us somethings but you haven't told us anything, and it seems like a waste of time. The translator definitely soothed things down, but it's pretty clear.
And I'm not sure why they have Dustin Browder heading this kind of thing, because he doesn't seem to give that kind of "grandmaster game designer" vibe especially the Chinese which are grand masters of strategy gaming. I mean our entire culture is based on strategy gaming, Chinese chess is played on street sides, it's like people here play pool for recreation, we play chinese chess. It's just a completely different culture. Dustin just doesn't give off that kind of thinking, he seems like a casual gamer. Someone like Rob Pardo definitely has that genius look, but I think Rob is busy with a bigger game than Starcraft 2.
Why is Dustin Browder the laughing stock of the team? And why is he the lead then? Everything he has is HORRIBLE? In a Chinese development team, you're kicked out if that's the case.
It's just frustrating watching this. Why are they holding this? For the first half, he answers absolutely NONE of the questions,
The stupid thing is they care too much about what everyone else thinks, and that is inherently the example of a bad designer. Even if they showed the soul hunter, it gives people interest, even if it's good or bad. ANd if they cut the soul hunter, who cares?
To be honest, they shouldn't have been doing anything like this kind of media yet without actually having anything. It just makes Dustin look like a fool to many Chinese players.
Really wish Rob Pardo handles something. It's painful watching Dustin sometimes.
Oh Husky's channel there's a brief description of the new HOTS units.
It would seem that Terran's got some more versatility muscle, zerg got more brute force and Toss got more "micro those like hell just to stay alive" units. But, I actually like it, goes well with the general idea of the races.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wankey
He doesn't, and I'm being as nice as possible here, but he's actually more of a PR Figure/Game Designer.
He's openly said that when he first joined, he wanted to increase the unit cap to C&C levels. But to his disappointment, Blizzard higher ups told him strictly what he had to work with.
I figure their company works like this, Rob Pardo and higher ups tell what the game should theoretically play like. In SC2's case;
low unit cap, easy to play, hard to master; unique gameplay across all 3 races and units to give it that Blizzard simplicity but depth.
Then he goes around and does his master's bidding and does what he wants in between. Rob Pardo and etc dont tell him to make Vikings, but they tell him to make unique units.
Since he's the Public Blizzard face of SC - he has to go out and talk to these people. Why does it seem like he has no idea what he's talking about or can't say anything? Because the reality is, he's just told what he's supposed to do.
He has never been calling the shots and he won't be, he's just a game designer that's told what to do.