And you've willfully ignored the fact that my complaint about StarCraft 2 is that we're going to have to pay to play all three campaigns, where as the first benefited greatly from having all three available immediately.
Oh no, you'll be getting more content for your money. So sad for you.
First of all, yes it fucking will. Starcraft 2 is being released as a trilogy of games, meaning the title alone encompasses the terran game and the two expansion sets
StarCraft 2, when it launches, will not have more than one campaign. No matter how many times you repeat that it will, it simply won't.
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did. And otherwise, you're lying.
JamesKeenan on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
No, it does not, but it doesn't mean that it will be inherently shitty, either, and I think at this point most of us are willing to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt that they know how to make something that is awesome.
I didn't mean to that that it will be, only that I got cautious. An author can easily beef up a novel (not to say that it's easy to get a publisher to agree with it), while few developers can say "We will go fucking epic on this one". Constraints and deadlines work wonders for finding out and implementing the essentials of your creation, be it a novel, a film, a game or whatever. When you have less constraints and limits, you may feel tempted to add things because they are cool or interesting without thinking through whether these additions are truly relevant and adds to the big picture.
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
If someone plays SCII as their first RTS then my comment involving non-RTS games not always being split in three campaigns stands.
People can be disappointed. But I highly doubt that someone expecting a single-player campaign in a single game that follows a coherent storyline will be disappointed by exactly that.
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
Not necessarily, but to be fair I think a lot of people on these forums are the kind of kid that would do exactly that. I know I would- fuck, I did almost that exact thing for Final Fantasy VII (except I only really played IV V and VI). Not to mention the fact that by the time I played it, FF7 had already been out for five years and looked like a bag of lego dicks.
But I acknowledge that I was not your average 12-year old, or even your average video game 12-year old.
Snork on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
If someone plays SCII as their first RTS then my comment involving non-RTS games not always being split in three campaigns stands.
People can be disappointed. But I highly doubt that someone expecting a single-player campaign in a single game that follows a coherent storyline will be disappointed by exactly that.
Wait, so which is it? I thought your comment about people playing games with different perspectives wasn't about RTSs?
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong. Choices like that aren't made with the benefit of the consumer in mind.
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
If someone plays SCII as their first RTS then my comment involving non-RTS games not always being split in three campaigns stands.
People can be disappointed. But I highly doubt that someone expecting a single-player campaign in a single game that follows a coherent storyline will be disappointed by exactly that.
Wait, so which is it? I thought your comment about people playing game with different perspectives wasn't about RTSs?
My point was that the person coming into Starcraft 2 without playing SC1 will not necessarily be put off from the game because they only get the Terran campaign and not Terran+Zerg+'Toss. Their expectations aren't going to be getting three separate storyline fragments.
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
If someone plays SCII as their first RTS then my comment involving non-RTS games not always being split in three campaigns stands.
People can be disappointed. But I highly doubt that someone expecting a single-player campaign in a single game that follows a coherent storyline will be disappointed by exactly that.
Wait, so which is it? I thought your comment about people playing game with different perspectives wasn't about RTSs?
My point was that the person coming into Starcraft 2 without playing SC1 will not necessarily be put off from the game because they only get the Terran campaign and not Terran+Zerg+'Toss. Their expectations aren't going to be getting three separate storyline fragments.
Similarly, a person coming into Starcraft 2 wihout playing SC1 might be put off from the game because of only a Terran Campaign. These people would be the ages that missed Starcraft, but came into RTS games later.
And no, you can't use your "But starcraft is da best, so everyone haz plaid itz!" arguement here.
A thought just came to mind. If the first release comes with a mission editor aren't we pretty likely to see unnofficial Zerg and Protoss campaigns get released for free download? This is sort of an interesting idea and would really make Blizzard have to make the official campaigns a significant cut above.
Again I'd like to clarify the point that most people seem upset at the three races not having equal representation in the first release. The defining feature of the original SC, to me, was being the first big name RTS that I'm aware of (conveniently ignoring Dune) to have three well-balanced races with somewhat equal representation (besides having to play through their campaigns in order). The comparison with a new franchise like DoW doesn't work so much as the expectation for a certain feature isn't there. If anything with a WH40k game I pretty much expect it to be Imperium-focused.
1. You wouldn't get your full game now, anyway. It isn't complete yet.
2. Why would you want a lesser game sooner, than a better game later? Longer after the final chapter releases, people will still be playing Starcraft 2. By that time, would you want to be playing a better SC2, or a worse one?
3. The full set will be longer. It will be a longer game. That simple.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Edit: If you don't care much about the single player, great. I don't think less of you for it. But shouting at the top of your lungs "NUH UH YOU'LL STILL GET YOUR VARIETY FOR ONLY $60 MORE AND TWO EXTRA YEARS" isn't winning any of us over either.
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
If someone plays SCII as their first RTS then my comment involving non-RTS games not always being split in three campaigns stands.
People can be disappointed. But I highly doubt that someone expecting a single-player campaign in a single game that follows a coherent storyline will be disappointed by exactly that.
Wait, so which is it? I thought your comment about people playing game with different perspectives wasn't about RTSs?
My point was that the person coming into Starcraft 2 without playing SC1 will not necessarily be put off from the game because they only get the Terran campaign and not Terran+Zerg+'Toss. Their expectations aren't going to be getting three separate storyline fragments.
Similarly, a person coming into Starcraft 2 wihout playing SC1 might be put off from the game because of only a Terran Campaign. These people would be the ages that missed Starcraft, but came into RTS games later.
And no, you can't use your "But starcraft is da best, so everyone haz plaid itz!" arguement here.
The type of person that would be interested in SC2, a continuation of the Starcraft lore that doesn't not stand out from the pack visually, is much more likely to have played SC1 than SC2.
It's possible, but an audience of SC2 that has not played SC1 at all but has played other RTSs that had split campaigns will most likely not be a majority of SC2 players that didn't play SC1. Certainly not the majority of SC2 players.
The big divide of consumers of SC2 will be those who have heard about SC but haven't gotten into RTSs or never played the first who pick up the second, who most likely will not be expecting all three races, and therefore will not be too put off by it, and those that are RTS players who pick up SC2 and know already about the trilogy.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Edit: If you don't care much about the single player, great. I don't think less of you for it. But shouting at the top of your lungs "NUH UH YOU'LL STILL GET YOUR VARIETY FOR ONLY $60 MORE AND TWO EXTRA YEARS" isn't winning any of us over either.
In a strange paradox of sorts, StarCraft is one of the few games where I care more about the story than the gameplay.
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
Yeah but maybe a lot of us don't want 30 Terran missions up front and then have to wait [some span of time] for 30 Zerg and 30 Protoss missions.
Maybe we'd just prefer a well-rounded product with 10 or a dozen missions for each race.
And maybe our preference isn't as "wrong" as you seem to think it is. Honestly, I started to get bored after 8 or 9 missions of each campaign in the original StarCraft. I know we're just hypothesizing with these numbers, but if ANY of the campaigns in the original StarCraft even remotely approached 30, or even 20, missions, I would never have finished any of them.
As good as StarCraft is, the gameplay can only evolve over the course of a campaign to a certain degree. In fact, it really shouldn't, because StarCraft and RTSes in general is really about developing tactics that work for you. So you really have to decide if you want your audience to have a rich, different experience over the course of a long campaign, or if your campaign should introduce, build on, and then reinforce elements that produce useful tactics. Frankly, I think the latter is best. I don't need a 20 hour Terran campaign. I don't need 30 or even 20 missions. I don't even really want it, if I'm being honest. Sometimes there is such a thing as too much content, too much of "a good thing."
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
Further, SC2 is not missing any of the features of SC1, besides the 10 mission Zerg and 10 mission Protoss campaigns. In every other respect SC2 is equal to or greater than SC1.
If Valve announced that L4D2 would come in 4 parts, but part one would be larger than the whole of L4D1, and would include every other feature you'd come to expect from the genre (all the weapons, multiplayer modes, enemies, etc.), except there would be 3 other parts, each of comparable length to L4D1 and with added enemies, map types and guns (much like an expansion pack), released 9-12 months after L4D2, then your analogy would be more accurate.
But if there's anything this thread doesn't need, it's more analogies.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Why indeed would I assume using one race would be more repetitive than using three different races?
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Actually, I'm pretty sure he said that the single race method will have -more- variety, in exchange for more money and time.
As good as StarCraft is, the gameplay can only evolve over the course of a campaign to a certain degree. In fact, it really shouldn't, because StarCraft and RTSes in general is really about developing tactics that work for you. So you really have to decide if you want your audience to have a rich, different experience over the course of a long campaign, or if your campaign should introduce, build on, and then reinforce elements that produce useful tactics. Frankly, I think the latter is best. I don't need a 20 hour Terran campaign. I don't need 30 or even 20 missions. I don't even really want it, if I'm being honest. Sometimes there is such a thing as too much content, too much of "a good thing."
The SC2 singleplayer will in no way reflect the multiplayer. You likely won't even be using the same units, and I'll eat a bag of dicks if there isn't at least one mission where you have to conveniently control a number of Zerg units, or even a whole Zerg base. And there's already been a Protoss mini-campaign confirmed.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Let's be honest, Khavall.
Can you really envision 30 or even 20 missions for any of the races with gameplay that evolves drastically enough over the course of the campaign to not be called "repetitive" at all?
Because I can't.
Hell, Diablo 2 was like four times as long as Diablo 1 and the gameplay really didn't evolve much from act to act. Granted, that's Diablo, but I don't really see much evolution in even the original StarCraft or WarCraft's campaigns. Just the introduction of new ideas and tactics and types of missions, but they can all be summarized as either "defend this," "assault this," or "do something stealthy to this."
StarCraft's campaigns basically start the player off at ground zero and build them up to all the options available in multiplayer. Unless they've somehow conceived of a system I cannot conceive - which I fully admit is possible - I don't see how they can keep me interested with even 15 missions of this kind of thing.
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
Yeah but maybe a lot of us don't want 30 Terran missions up front and then have to wait [some span of time] for 30 Zerg and 30 Protoss missions.
Maybe we'd just prefer a well-rounded product with 10 or a dozen missions for each race.
And maybe our preference isn't as "wrong" as you seem to think it is. Honestly, I started to get bored after 8 or 9 missions of each campaign in the original StarCraft. I know we're just hypothesizing with these numbers, but if ANY of the campaigns in the original StarCraft even remotely approached 30, or even 20, missions, I would never have finished any of them.
As good as StarCraft is, the gameplay can only evolve over the course of a campaign to a certain degree. In fact, it really shouldn't, because StarCraft and RTSes in general is really about developing tactics that work for you. So you really have to decide if you want your audience to have a rich, different experience over the course of a long campaign, or if your campaign should introduce, build on, and then reinforce elements that produce useful tactics. Frankly, I think the latter is best. I don't need a 20 hour Terran campaign. I don't need 30 or even 20 missions. I don't even really want it, if I'm being honest. Sometimes there is such a thing as too much content, too much of "a good thing."
It's a good thing that the developers have noticed that the single player in Starcraft really wasn't that good overall so they're going to include things like a branching storyline and the ability to choose between different upgrades to make the forces available to you in the single player constantly changing and improving, and have them be different for each person based on what they want to focus on. I would be pretty bored of 30 missions for Terran in SC1, too.
Lemming on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Why indeed would I assume using one race would be more repetitive than using three different races?
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
Yeah but maybe a lot of us don't want 30 Terran missions up front and then have to wait [some span of time] for 30 Zerg and 30 Protoss missions.
Maybe we'd just prefer a well-rounded product with 10 or a dozen missions for each race.
And maybe our preference isn't as "wrong" as you seem to think it is. Honestly, I started to get bored after 8 or 9 missions of each campaign in the original StarCraft. I know we're just hypothesizing with these numbers, but if ANY of the campaigns in the original StarCraft even remotely approached 30, or even 20, missions, I would never have finished any of them.
As good as StarCraft is, the gameplay can only evolve over the course of a campaign to a certain degree. In fact, it really shouldn't, because StarCraft and RTSes in general is really about developing tactics that work for you. So you really have to decide if you want your audience to have a rich, different experience over the course of a long campaign, or if your campaign should introduce, build on, and then reinforce elements that produce useful tactics. Frankly, I think the latter is best. I don't need a 20 hour Terran campaign. I don't need 30 or even 20 missions. I don't even really want it, if I'm being honest. Sometimes there is such a thing as too much content, too much of "a good thing."
It's not "Wrong" to have that preference. I have never stated it was.
I have never insinuated it was.
If, without playing the game in any way or seeing how it works out, you feel that you would prefer all the campaigns at the same time, split up 10-10-10 per game, that's fine. Or if you would prefer that Blizzard cut out 2/3rds of the planned content, still fine.
You cannot say that it would be a better game that way, certainly not before it's released. You also cannot say that Blizzard is doing it because they're just trying to milk the franchise for money, and that they're bald-faced lying to everyone. That is what I've been arguing against, not personal preference, but people either trying to say that the game is going to suck because they're doing it this way, or people saying that Blizzard is a bunch of lying whores.
Also people who blatantly misrepresent what's going on in an attempt to make Blizzard seem like a bunch of lying whores or to make the game look like it's already objectively going to be awful.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Let's be honest, Khavall.
Can you really envision 30 or even 20 missions for any of the races with gameplay that evolves drastically enough over the course of the campaign to not be called "repetitive" at all?
Because I can't.
Hell, Diablo 2 was like four times as long as Diablo 1 and the gameplay really didn't evolve much from act to act. Granted, that's Diablo, but I don't really see much evolution in even the original StarCraft or WarCraft's campaigns. Just the introduction of new ideas and tactics and types of missions, but they can all be summarized as either "defend this," "assault this," or "do something stealthy to this."
StarCraft's campaigns basically start the player off at ground zero and build them up to all the options available in multiplayer. Unless they've somehow conceived of a system I cannot conceive - which I fully admit is possible - I don't see how they can keep me interested with even 15 missions of this kind of thing.
How much variety do you think there was in SC? Did you still enjoy it?
A thought just came to mind. If the first release comes with a mission editor aren't we pretty likely to see unnofficial Zerg and Protoss campaigns get released for free download? This is sort of an interesting idea and would really make Blizzard have to make the official campaigns a significant cut above.
Again I'd like to clarify the point that most people seem upset at the three races not having equal representation in the first release. The defining feature of the original SC, to me, was being the first big name RTS that I'm aware of (conveniently ignoring Dune) to have three well-balanced races with somewhat equal representation (besides having to play through their campaigns in order). The comparison with a new franchise like DoW doesn't work so much as the expectation for a certain feature isn't there. If anything with a WH40k game I pretty much expect it to be Imperium-focused.
I think the eventuality of people porting over the original missions is pretty exciting. Perhaps with some way to access the original assets for voicework and cinema. delicious.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Let's be honest, Khavall.
Can you really envision 30 or even 20 missions for any of the races with gameplay that evolves drastically enough over the course of the campaign to not be called "repetitive" at all?
Because I can't.
Hell, Diablo 2 was like four times as long as Diablo 1 and the gameplay really didn't evolve much from act to act. Granted, that's Diablo, but I don't really see much evolution in even the original StarCraft or WarCraft's campaigns. Just the introduction of new ideas and tactics and types of missions, but they can all be summarized as either "defend this," "assault this," or "do something stealthy to this."
StarCraft's campaigns basically start the player off at ground zero and build them up to all the options available in multiplayer. Unless they've somehow conceived of a system I cannot conceive - which I fully admit is possible - I don't see how they can keep me interested with even 15 missions of this kind of thing.
I honestly think that focusing on a single race will not intrinsicly lack more variety than three races.
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
Further, SC2 is not missing any of the features of SC1, besides the 10 mission Zerg and 10 mission Protoss campaigns. In every other respect SC2 is equal to or greater than SC1.
If Valve announced that L4D2 would come in 4 parts, but part one would be larger than the whole of L4D1, and would include every other feature you'd come to expect from the genre (all the weapons, multiplayer modes, enemies, etc.), except there would be 3 other parts, each of comparable length to L4D1 and with added enemies, map types and guns (much like an expansion pack), released 9-12 months after L4D2, then your analogy would be more accurate.
But if there's anything this thread doesn't need, it's more analogies.
The difference between Left 4 Dead and StarCraft is that StarCraft is built and centers around (thematically and mechanically) the way all three races interact with, relate to, and balance out each other. That's why it feels weird to not have access to all three races right off the bat.
I mean this whole thread is just a dance between people who think it's weird and people who don't. Nothing will be gained trying to convince the other side, I think, because it amounts to a fundamental difference in philosophy. All I can say is that Left 4 Dead isn't the kind of game where it matters if Valve wanted to do an Urban then a Suburban and then a Rural expansion instead of throwing all three in one box because it's not central to the game that you have all these locales. But StarCraft is all about the races. So a game where you don't have all three at your disposal or perusal, in single-player, feels like a neutered StarCraft, regardless of how much content is offered for that one race.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Let's be honest, Khavall.
Can you really envision 30 or even 20 missions for any of the races with gameplay that evolves drastically enough over the course of the campaign to not be called "repetitive" at all?
Because I can't.
Hell, Diablo 2 was like four times as long as Diablo 1 and the gameplay really didn't evolve much from act to act. Granted, that's Diablo, but I don't really see much evolution in even the original StarCraft or WarCraft's campaigns. Just the introduction of new ideas and tactics and types of missions, but they can all be summarized as either "defend this," "assault this," or "do something stealthy to this."
StarCraft's campaigns basically start the player off at ground zero and build them up to all the options available in multiplayer. Unless they've somehow conceived of a system I cannot conceive - which I fully admit is possible - I don't see how they can keep me interested with even 15 missions of this kind of thing.
I honestly think that focusing on a single race will intrinsicly lack more variety than three races.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Why indeed would I assume using one race would be more repetitive than using three different races?
It is a mystery.
Oh it will be if they don't make the campaign have variety.
Look, Warcraft 1 could switch races and add 50 new Warcraft 1 style races and be repetitive as all fuck.
One race doesn't mean repetitive just because it's focusing on one race.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Let's be honest, Khavall.
Can you really envision 30 or even 20 missions for any of the races with gameplay that evolves drastically enough over the course of the campaign to not be called "repetitive" at all?
Because I can't.
Hell, Diablo 2 was like four times as long as Diablo 1 and the gameplay really didn't evolve much from act to act. Granted, that's Diablo, but I don't really see much evolution in even the original StarCraft or WarCraft's campaigns. Just the introduction of new ideas and tactics and types of missions, but they can all be summarized as either "defend this," "assault this," or "do something stealthy to this."
StarCraft's campaigns basically start the player off at ground zero and build them up to all the options available in multiplayer. Unless they've somehow conceived of a system I cannot conceive - which I fully admit is possible - I don't see how they can keep me interested with even 15 missions of this kind of thing.
How much variety do you think there was in SC? Did you still enjoy it?
I didn't think there was much, and yes I did enjoy it. I felt that the campaigns were the perfect length to convey an engaging story and introduce the elements of the race and the antagonist races (depending on which race you were currently playing as) piece-by-piece, leading up to what the full power of the race suggested, at the end of the campaign.
People are unhappy because they're being charged money and time in exchange for variety in the single player campaign, which nearly every single other RTS provides for free.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
Let's be honest, Khavall.
Can you really envision 30 or even 20 missions for any of the races with gameplay that evolves drastically enough over the course of the campaign to not be called "repetitive" at all?
Because I can't.
Hell, Diablo 2 was like four times as long as Diablo 1 and the gameplay really didn't evolve much from act to act. Granted, that's Diablo, but I don't really see much evolution in even the original StarCraft or WarCraft's campaigns. Just the introduction of new ideas and tactics and types of missions, but they can all be summarized as either "defend this," "assault this," or "do something stealthy to this."
StarCraft's campaigns basically start the player off at ground zero and build them up to all the options available in multiplayer. Unless they've somehow conceived of a system I cannot conceive - which I fully admit is possible - I don't see how they can keep me interested with even 15 missions of this kind of thing.
I honestly think that focusing on a single race will intrinsicly lack more variety than three races.
Well, that brings to mind a relevant question.
Do you know what variety means?
Apparently it only means selecting a different race and there is nothing else that goes into it I guess?
Also that is "not intrinsicly". Quote before I caught it.
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did.
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
Yeah but maybe a lot of us don't want 30 Terran missions up front and then have to wait [some span of time] for 30 Zerg and 30 Protoss missions.
Maybe we'd just prefer a well-rounded product with 10 or a dozen missions for each race.
And maybe our preference isn't as "wrong" as you seem to think it is. Honestly, I started to get bored after 8 or 9 missions of each campaign in the original StarCraft. I know we're just hypothesizing with these numbers, but if ANY of the campaigns in the original StarCraft even remotely approached 30, or even 20, missions, I would never have finished any of them.
As good as StarCraft is, the gameplay can only evolve over the course of a campaign to a certain degree. In fact, it really shouldn't, because StarCraft and RTSes in general is really about developing tactics that work for you. So you really have to decide if you want your audience to have a rich, different experience over the course of a long campaign, or if your campaign should introduce, build on, and then reinforce elements that produce useful tactics. Frankly, I think the latter is best. I don't need a 20 hour Terran campaign. I don't need 30 or even 20 missions. I don't even really want it, if I'm being honest. Sometimes there is such a thing as too much content, too much of "a good thing."
It's a good thing that the developers have noticed that the single player in Starcraft really wasn't that good overall so they're going to include things like a branching storyline and the ability to choose between different upgrades to make the forces available to you in the single player constantly changing and improving, and have them be different for each person based on what they want to focus on. I would be pretty bored of 30 missions for Terran in SC1, too.
To be honest, I think I'd be bored of 30 straight missions of just about anything, no matter the quality.
After about 14/15 levels of even my favorite shit I start to say "really? Another fucking level/mission? Can't I just see some conclusion already?"
But maybe that's just me.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
The reason, by the way, that I didn't say "all RTSs" is because someone who plays RTSs enough to know the tropes of the genre most likely has played Starcraft.
Stop argueing half a statement against me, and half against someone else. Focus on one discussion at a time, because you're missing the points.
I'll repeat my 2 statements to you:
1) Its not eniterly possible someone was too young to have played the original SC. It has been a decade after all.
2) Lets try to keep our comparisons in the closest realm to apples as possible. We don't need any damn Kiwi's in here fucking things up.
Now, that said, back to the original arguement, you said its not a standard for "games" to present multiple sides. I will argue to say that it is a standard for RTS games to present multiple sides, as its been done regularly since '95.
And I argue that that still doesn't mean that there is going to be a large audience who knows the tropes of the RTS genre who has never played Starcraft, who will be disappointed in only having one races storyline without the expansions.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Hell, I have a cousin who just turned 16, and has recently become a giant computer nerd. You really think the original SC has aged well enought that he's seek it out.
How old was he when SC came out? 6.
How old was he when he actually got a computer? 14.
Why would he seek out the original SC when he has shit like Dawn of War or C&C 3 to play?
Because it's still one of the best balanced multiplayer games out there, and it has a story that'll set up SC2s plot?
Oh, and I'm sure that just comes as an agreement when you sign up on the internet?
"By accepting this internet connection, you aknowledge that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS and that you will play it"
Do you agree to these terms?
[] Yes (to use the internet)
[] No ( I don't like starcraft)
----
Seriously, do you really think every new kid who gets a computer is going to go play starcraft because it was well balanced? Shit man, kids like grafix!
Then why will they play SC2? Blizzard doesn't make games with awesome graphics, they make games that will run on a cardboard box.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
If someone plays SCII as their first RTS then my comment involving non-RTS games not always being split in three campaigns stands.
People can be disappointed. But I highly doubt that someone expecting a single-player campaign in a single game that follows a coherent storyline will be disappointed by exactly that.
Wait, so which is it? I thought your comment about people playing game with different perspectives wasn't about RTSs?
My point was that the person coming into Starcraft 2 without playing SC1 will not necessarily be put off from the game because they only get the Terran campaign and not Terran+Zerg+'Toss. Their expectations aren't going to be getting three separate storyline fragments.
Similarly, a person coming into Starcraft 2 wihout playing SC1 might be put off from the game because of only a Terran Campaign. These people would be the ages that missed Starcraft, but came into RTS games later.
And no, you can't use your "But starcraft is da best, so everyone haz plaid itz!" arguement here.
The type of person that would be interested in SC2, a continuation of the Starcraft lore that doesn't not stand out from the pack visually, is much more likely to have played SC1 than SC2.
It's possible, but an audience of SC2 that has not played SC1 at all but has played other RTSs that had split campaigns will most likely not be a majority of SC2 players that didn't play SC1. Certainly not the majority of SC2 players.
The big divide of consumers of SC2 will be those who have heard about SC but haven't gotten into RTSs or never played the first who pick up the second, who most likely will not be expecting all three races, and therefore will not be too put off by it, and those that are RTS players who pick up SC2 and know already about the trilogy.
I'm sorry, but its not that uncommon.
Hell, my first RTS was Warcraft II. Did I commit some sin I didn't know about because I didn't play Warcraft I, first?
Posts
Simply asking about them is treading into dangerous waters, Cousy.
Oh no, you'll be getting more content for your money. So sad for you.
And you still have to link me to where I said "when it launches." Because I never did. And otherwise, you're lying.
You just can't admit someone might be dissapointed, can you?
Why did anyone play WoW as their first MMO?
Why did anyone play Mario Galaxy as their first Mario game?
Because they grew up, and it was the first thing they saw when they came of (nerd)age?
Hell, if some kid sees a magazine with FFXIII on it, do you think he's going to run out and purchase and play I-XII before he lets himself touch it?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
If someone plays SCII as their first RTS then my comment involving non-RTS games not always being split in three campaigns stands.
People can be disappointed. But I highly doubt that someone expecting a single-player campaign in a single game that follows a coherent storyline will be disappointed by exactly that.
But I acknowledge that I was not your average 12-year old, or even your average video game 12-year old.
Wait, so which is it? I thought your comment about people playing games with different perspectives wasn't about RTSs?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
You may not have, but someone else carrying the "It's okay for Blizzard to do this" flag did.
Let me make an analogy.
Let's say we got Left 4 Dead last year. Everyone loved it. Great game. Was super cool and fun. Left 4 Dead comes with four "movies", otherwise known as campaigns.
Valve announces Left 4 Dead 2. It will launch with only one campaign, and you will have to pay for the other campaigns when Valve releases them. Yes, you get prettier graphics. Yes, the campaigns may even be a bit longer, but you're still out of all of the features that launched with the original game. It doesn't matter than you'll get "the complete game" with time. It will still cost more than the original and you will still have to wait to get the "full product".
This is a crappy deal for everyone but the developer. That's why Paul Sams is wrong. Choices like that aren't made with the benefit of the consumer in mind.
My point was that the person coming into Starcraft 2 without playing SC1 will not necessarily be put off from the game because they only get the Terran campaign and not Terran+Zerg+'Toss. Their expectations aren't going to be getting three separate storyline fragments.
"A bit longer" is the problem with your thinking.
It's as though L4D2 launches with only one campaign that is longer than all 4 combined campaigns in L4D1.
It is more game in one campaign than the other was in four.
I have no idea what you are saying with that video, but that is fantastic anyway.
Similarly, a person coming into Starcraft 2 wihout playing SC1 might be put off from the game because of only a Terran Campaign. These people would be the ages that missed Starcraft, but came into RTS games later.
And no, you can't use your "But starcraft is da best, so everyone haz plaid itz!" arguement here.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Again I'd like to clarify the point that most people seem upset at the three races not having equal representation in the first release. The defining feature of the original SC, to me, was being the first big name RTS that I'm aware of (conveniently ignoring Dune) to have three well-balanced races with somewhat equal representation (besides having to play through their campaigns in order). The comparison with a new franchise like DoW doesn't work so much as the expectation for a certain feature isn't there. If anything with a WH40k game I pretty much expect it to be Imperium-focused.
SoogaGames Blog
2. Why would you want a lesser game sooner, than a better game later? Longer after the final chapter releases, people will still be playing Starcraft 2. By that time, would you want to be playing a better SC2, or a worse one?
3. The full set will be longer. It will be a longer game. That simple.
I don't understand why disliking this is such anathema to others.
Edit: If you don't care much about the single player, great. I don't think less of you for it. But shouting at the top of your lungs "NUH UH YOU'LL STILL GET YOUR VARIETY FOR ONLY $60 MORE AND TWO EXTRA YEARS" isn't winning any of us over either.
The type of person that would be interested in SC2, a continuation of the Starcraft lore that doesn't not stand out from the pack visually, is much more likely to have played SC1 than SC2.
It's possible, but an audience of SC2 that has not played SC1 at all but has played other RTSs that had split campaigns will most likely not be a majority of SC2 players that didn't play SC1. Certainly not the majority of SC2 players.
The big divide of consumers of SC2 will be those who have heard about SC but haven't gotten into RTSs or never played the first who pick up the second, who most likely will not be expecting all three races, and therefore will not be too put off by it, and those that are RTS players who pick up SC2 and know already about the trilogy.
Because this is not what is happening.
Why do you assume that using a single race means the missions will be repetitive without variety?
In a strange paradox of sorts, StarCraft is one of the few games where I care more about the story than the gameplay.
Yeah but maybe a lot of us don't want 30 Terran missions up front and then have to wait [some span of time] for 30 Zerg and 30 Protoss missions.
Maybe we'd just prefer a well-rounded product with 10 or a dozen missions for each race.
And maybe our preference isn't as "wrong" as you seem to think it is. Honestly, I started to get bored after 8 or 9 missions of each campaign in the original StarCraft. I know we're just hypothesizing with these numbers, but if ANY of the campaigns in the original StarCraft even remotely approached 30, or even 20, missions, I would never have finished any of them.
As good as StarCraft is, the gameplay can only evolve over the course of a campaign to a certain degree. In fact, it really shouldn't, because StarCraft and RTSes in general is really about developing tactics that work for you. So you really have to decide if you want your audience to have a rich, different experience over the course of a long campaign, or if your campaign should introduce, build on, and then reinforce elements that produce useful tactics. Frankly, I think the latter is best. I don't need a 20 hour Terran campaign. I don't need 30 or even 20 missions. I don't even really want it, if I'm being honest. Sometimes there is such a thing as too much content, too much of "a good thing."
Further, SC2 is not missing any of the features of SC1, besides the 10 mission Zerg and 10 mission Protoss campaigns. In every other respect SC2 is equal to or greater than SC1.
If Valve announced that L4D2 would come in 4 parts, but part one would be larger than the whole of L4D1, and would include every other feature you'd come to expect from the genre (all the weapons, multiplayer modes, enemies, etc.), except there would be 3 other parts, each of comparable length to L4D1 and with added enemies, map types and guns (much like an expansion pack), released 9-12 months after L4D2, then your analogy would be more accurate.
But if there's anything this thread doesn't need, it's more analogies.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Why indeed would I assume using one race would be more repetitive than using three different races?
It is a mystery.
Actually, I'm pretty sure he said that the single race method will have -more- variety, in exchange for more money and time.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
Drez, you know I hate you (<3), and that you're totally wrong all the time, but thanks. I just thought this thread could use a laugh.
The SC2 singleplayer will in no way reflect the multiplayer. You likely won't even be using the same units, and I'll eat a bag of dicks if there isn't at least one mission where you have to conveniently control a number of Zerg units, or even a whole Zerg base. And there's already been a Protoss mini-campaign confirmed.
It's really not that bad.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Let's be honest, Khavall.
Can you really envision 30 or even 20 missions for any of the races with gameplay that evolves drastically enough over the course of the campaign to not be called "repetitive" at all?
Because I can't.
Hell, Diablo 2 was like four times as long as Diablo 1 and the gameplay really didn't evolve much from act to act. Granted, that's Diablo, but I don't really see much evolution in even the original StarCraft or WarCraft's campaigns. Just the introduction of new ideas and tactics and types of missions, but they can all be summarized as either "defend this," "assault this," or "do something stealthy to this."
StarCraft's campaigns basically start the player off at ground zero and build them up to all the options available in multiplayer. Unless they've somehow conceived of a system I cannot conceive - which I fully admit is possible - I don't see how they can keep me interested with even 15 missions of this kind of thing.
It's a good thing that the developers have noticed that the single player in Starcraft really wasn't that good overall so they're going to include things like a branching storyline and the ability to choose between different upgrades to make the forces available to you in the single player constantly changing and improving, and have them be different for each person based on what they want to focus on. I would be pretty bored of 30 missions for Terran in SC1, too.
Which is fine, considering the game costs more money to make.
I have never insinuated it was.
If, without playing the game in any way or seeing how it works out, you feel that you would prefer all the campaigns at the same time, split up 10-10-10 per game, that's fine. Or if you would prefer that Blizzard cut out 2/3rds of the planned content, still fine.
You cannot say that it would be a better game that way, certainly not before it's released. You also cannot say that Blizzard is doing it because they're just trying to milk the franchise for money, and that they're bald-faced lying to everyone. That is what I've been arguing against, not personal preference, but people either trying to say that the game is going to suck because they're doing it this way, or people saying that Blizzard is a bunch of lying whores.
Also people who blatantly misrepresent what's going on in an attempt to make Blizzard seem like a bunch of lying whores or to make the game look like it's already objectively going to be awful.
How much variety do you think there was in SC? Did you still enjoy it?
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
I think the eventuality of people porting over the original missions is pretty exciting. Perhaps with some way to access the original assets for voicework and cinema. delicious.
FFBE: 898,311,440
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/dElementalor
I honestly think that focusing on a single race will not intrinsicly lack more variety than three races.
The difference between Left 4 Dead and StarCraft is that StarCraft is built and centers around (thematically and mechanically) the way all three races interact with, relate to, and balance out each other. That's why it feels weird to not have access to all three races right off the bat.
I mean this whole thread is just a dance between people who think it's weird and people who don't. Nothing will be gained trying to convince the other side, I think, because it amounts to a fundamental difference in philosophy. All I can say is that Left 4 Dead isn't the kind of game where it matters if Valve wanted to do an Urban then a Suburban and then a Rural expansion instead of throwing all three in one box because it's not central to the game that you have all these locales. But StarCraft is all about the races. So a game where you don't have all three at your disposal or perusal, in single-player, feels like a neutered StarCraft, regardless of how much content is offered for that one race.
Well, that brings to mind a relevant question.
Do you know what variety means?
Oh it will be if they don't make the campaign have variety.
Look, Warcraft 1 could switch races and add 50 new Warcraft 1 style races and be repetitive as all fuck.
One race doesn't mean repetitive just because it's focusing on one race.
I didn't think there was much, and yes I did enjoy it. I felt that the campaigns were the perfect length to convey an engaging story and introduce the elements of the race and the antagonist races (depending on which race you were currently playing as) piece-by-piece, leading up to what the full power of the race suggested, at the end of the campaign.
Also that is "not intrinsicly". Quote before I caught it.
To be honest, I think I'd be bored of 30 straight missions of just about anything, no matter the quality.
After about 14/15 levels of even my favorite shit I start to say "really? Another fucking level/mission? Can't I just see some conclusion already?"
But maybe that's just me.
I'm sorry, but its not that uncommon.
Hell, my first RTS was Warcraft II. Did I commit some sin I didn't know about because I didn't play Warcraft I, first?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????