For all our sakes

[Norfindel]

You were expecting the sequel to one of the greatest and biggest esports games to deliver that?
SC2 is a multiplayer game with a single-player component, not the other way around

SC1 had an excellent story. That was what made the game so popular and made people play it to begin with. It's obvious that if the first had such an awesome story, people are going to expect the same for the 2nd game, and be dissapointed if it isn't good.

[flak4321]

Having replayed a portion of the campaign, I'm just going to say what I and many others have said: SC2 has, in most points, a good story plagued by substandard execution, as do many rts games these days. The only part of the story I was a little disappointed in was the protoss side story. In this area, SC1's effective and efficient use of cliche sci fi lines and stories totally abandoned the franchise. I guess after the rest of the campaign mistakes, it just up and left.

[Louis]

SC1 had an excellent story. That was what made the game so popular and made people play it to begin with.

What?

I think you give the SP story too much credit. SC MP would have been as popular simply for the quality of the MP. Or would it? Maybe the MP was shit on launch day? I don't know, but if that was the way it was then your statement may be justified.

[CrowToss]

We have a enough of these threads already don't you think?

This. We KNOW the story was disappointing to a lot of people, myself included. Can we please talk about something else?

[Gradius]

We have a enough of these threads already don't you think?

+rep.

[Blazur]

Hey Spychi, I think it's time we kick this negativity into overdrive.

[ooZer0]

What?

I think you give the SP story too much credit. SC MP would have been as popular simply for the quality of the MP. Or would it? Maybe the MP was shit on launch day? I don't know, but if that was the way it was then your statement may be justified.

I actually agree with Flak.

It had high presentation values, good narratives, solid gameplay, a solid albeit, cliche', story. What made it fall flat was it's execution and that all comes from the branching missions. If they committed to either a good solid linear format, or a epic sweeping branch of missions, it would have been better. But they did a kinda half-half thing, with not enough solid connection between missions like a linear game, nor the large number of missions and defined consequences that a branching storyline needed.

Did you choose to hijack Terrazine before going to save the colonist? It doesn't matter, because the colonists will still be there in the same state if you chose the opposite. There is no consequence.

If you chose to side with the Protoss and kill the infested Colonist in Haven, rather then help Hansen, there are no real consequences or backlash for it. If you help the Protoss, Haven is completely over-run by the zerg virus. Yet if you chose to help Hansen, magically there are no infested on the planet. It's ludicrous!

And once you do make your decision, Hansen leaves one way or the other, dead or retirement, depending on your chose. Yet in the end, she still leaves and you and your crew are no different. The only way you even know other people knew Hansen even existed is one dialog that Jim and Tychus have after she leaves. Nobody else cares, they don't bring up the situation later down the road, and nobody looks or reacts to you differently if you chose to discard her or help her. There is no feeling, no emotion, no immersion.

Instead of having us WATCH Jim kill the Infested Hansen in the cinematic, there should have been a mission, of you controlling Jim and a few other hero crew members, hunting the ship for the Infested Hansen, finally culminating in you cornering her in her lab and killing her. Not only would this have made the game longer, but it would have made the player really feel like their decisions have consequences.

It was the poorly executed branching mission system that made WoL shoot itself in the foot. Either go all the way and make it fully branching with real decisions that have an effect, or make it all the way linear and make the missions solidly lead into one another.

[TheEconomist]

SP isn't that bad Disappointing, yes. Disown-worthy, no.

Also, SC fed off of WC2 hype in the same way that WC3 and SC2 fed off of SCBW. The SP had relatively little to do with how popular the MP was, in my opinion. It just kept the casuals coming in.

[RussianSpy27]

Good spot to quote my favorite line of Gradius from my signature line yet again and say:

"We've established that the storyline was monkey hurlage months ago - so what's the point of all the QQ?"

[Godless]

The point of the QQ is so that Blizzard might hopefully get the point, and hopefully not deliver a trilogy as bad as Star Wars Episodes I-III.