May 2011 Heart of the Swarm Coverage

[Crazy_Jonny]

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.

[TheEconomist]

Besides, WoW is a solid game, don't go knocking it for no good reason.

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.

[DemolitionSquid]

I agree with Johnny. Less is more, it seems.

And Blizzard does less very well.

[Romla]

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.

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.

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.

[Crazy_Jonny]

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.

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.

[Sheliek]

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.

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.

[Romla]

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?

[Gifted]

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.

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.

A better comparison is this:

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.

[Romla]

A better comparison is this:

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.

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?

[Gifted]

That is not a good comparison at all, because there were only one expansion, now we will have two.

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)

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.

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?

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...

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.

I don't like it, why do you?

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.

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.