Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
We're aiming to push the boundaries of storytelling and character development in RTS games through the unique single-player campaign design of StarCraft II. Players will be able to choose their mission path and technology upgrades for their army as they advance through the campaign. In order to make these choices meaningful while creating an epic story and well-developed characters for each faction, we needed to focus on a single race for a large number of missions.
The Trilogy also allows us to create more in-game and prerendered cinematics to tell the story in between missions. There will be more interactive sets and elements for players to explore during each campaign, along with other interesting design elements to differentiate the single-player game from multiplayer matches. For example, the technology choices within the terran single-player campaign will include special upgrades and unit types that are unique to the single-player game. These could include the ability to purchase classic units such as the wraith or firebat to add to Jim Raynor's army.
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
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?
It's a different situation for many reasons. Warcraft 1 wasn't nearly as widespread as Starcraft, which still is the standard for RTS skill. There's a reason it's used for all the RTS competition things. Starcraft is still the definitively balanced RTS in the general perception.
Another reason is that Warcraft 1 and 2 had story but it wasn't even close to as crazy as the SC story. I mean, Warcraft 2 could be understood in its own right easily, but Starcraft 2 is coming from a huge story.
Khavall on
0
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
So instead of one Starcraft 2 we are getting three. That sounds awesome to me, and I love the idea they're going for with the multiple paths. If anyone can make thirty-something missions with the same race interesting, its Blizzard. I honestly don't see what there is to complain about.
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.
Variety
The quality or condition of being various or varied; diversity.
A number or collection of varied things, especially of a particular group; an assortment: brought home a variety of snacks.
A group that is distinguished from other groups by a specific characteristic or set of characteristics.
And as a side note, I'd find it absolutely hilarious if the game ends up being a branching progression, so there are only about 10 playable missions to tell the story per play through, but technically still 30 missions available total. That way, everybody gets irked.
Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
Basically, we can't get this game finished before our next WoW expansion, so we're gonna push this game out when it's 1/3 of the way done. Hey, its not like you people won't buy it right? We're fucking Blizzard!
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
Fixed.
Lets face it, Blizzard could make a game called "Let's Rape Grandma!", release it in 5 installments for $50 a pop, and still make millions.
Going back over it, SC1 had a lot of (singleplayer) problems. There wasn't much variety, besides that you were doing the same thing with a different race. It was still "defend your base, build a bunch of game-over units, kill the enemy," or, "infiltrate a facility with a limited number of units, kill some stuff, find a keycard, get to the end of the maze, win." Besides that, the missions were really unbalanced (you could beat many of the Protoss missions with your starting units, for example), and only got worse as multiplayer balance was altered. The story was passable, but nothing amazing.
What's been promised, and shown so far, in SC2, is a completely different singleplayer campaign that offers no comparison to the multiplayer. It will not be 30 missions of "build base, squash enemies." And there will be a completely new and expansive meta-game. That's what you should be excited about. Because I don't care to do 30 more "build base, squash enemy" missions, whether they're all Terran, all Zerg, or a split between all 3 races, or whatever. SC2's singleplayer will be different, and should not be judged and compared to SC1's except for quality (and we don't know what that is yet).
Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
Basically, we can't get this game finished before our next WoW expansion, so we're gonna push this game out when it's 1/3 of the way done. Hey, its not like you people won't buy it right? We're fucking Blizzard!
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
Fixed.
Lets face it, Blizzard could make a game called "Let's Rape Grandma!", release it in 5 installments for $50 a pop, and still make millions.
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.
Variety
The quality or condition of being various or varied; diversity.
A number or collection of varied things, especially of a particular group; an assortment: brought home a variety of snacks.
A group that is distinguished from other groups by a specific characteristic or set of characteristics.
And as a side note, I'd find it absolutely hilarious if the game ends up being a branching progression, so there are only about 10 playable missions to tell the story per play through, but technically still 30 missions available total. That way, everybody gets irked.
Huh, so a single player campaign with three races that together just was basically one mission 30 times would.... have more or less variety than a branching and intricate single race campaign that went through a.... variety of general mission types?
I am so stupid I don't know basic words, so maybe you can help me with this answer.
Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
We're aiming to push the boundaries of storytelling and character development in RTS games through the unique single-player campaign design of StarCraft II. Players will be able to choose their mission path and technology upgrades for their army as they advance through the campaign. In order to make these choices meaningful while creating an epic story and well-developed characters for each faction, we needed to focus on a single race for a large number of missions.
The Trilogy also allows us to create more in-game and prerendered cinematics to tell the story in between missions. There will be more interactive sets and elements for players to explore during each campaign, along with other interesting design elements to differentiate the single-player game from multiplayer matches. For example, the technology choices within the terran single-player campaign will include special upgrades and unit types that are unique to the single-player game. These could include the ability to purchase classic units such as the wraith or firebat to add to Jim Raynor's army.
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
Be that as it may, I am skeptical of their ability to maintain an interesting, varied campaign with one race...but perhaps that is unfair, and I will not pre-judge them in this regard.
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.
However, I do think you and others are ignoring the fact that some of the interest in StarCraft and WarCraft was the ability to flip over to another perspective, and immediately so. There was always that carrot dangling in front of you, that as soon as you concluded whatever campaign you were on, you would be thrown into the antagonist's shoes to continue the story. I don't think I'm alone in that that was part of what kept me going through the campaign. It certainly wasn't the campaign itself. It was the fact that soon I would be doing something fresh and new.
It's like literature. Maybe I just have ADD, but if a book only has one chapter, I probably won't even read it. I need a change of point of view now and then. I need something to look toward...mini-conclusions leading up to the main conclusion.
Focus is nice but I worry that there being only one campaign will make everything a bit one-sided and dull regardless of how spicy that campaign is in and of itself.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
It will not be 30 missions of "build base, squash enemies."
And you know this for certain?
I'd point out that 30 missions of "run around with a few units" is equally as bad also.
The problem Blizzard has is fundamentally, there are only a few "types" of missions you can do in an RTS game. Blow up this, build this, defend this etc. Variety in Starcraft was figuring out what each new races units did and how they interacted. This was part of the fun of the old games.
Keeping this up for 30 missions with one race is going to be more difficult.
I played Starcraft for 30 missions of mostly the same stuff, because 10 missions later I was a difference race, with many different gameplay mechanics that aren't shared by the previous race, with an entirely different viewpoint on the same war and such forth. If Starcraft had been 30 missions of the Terrans I would have been bored out of my tree by 12 missions in.
Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
We're aiming to push the boundaries of storytelling and character development in RTS games through the unique single-player campaign design of StarCraft II. Players will be able to choose their mission path and technology upgrades for their army as they advance through the campaign. In order to make these choices meaningful while creating an epic story and well-developed characters for each faction, we needed to focus on a single race for a large number of missions.
The Trilogy also allows us to create more in-game and prerendered cinematics to tell the story in between missions. There will be more interactive sets and elements for players to explore during each campaign, along with other interesting design elements to differentiate the single-player game from multiplayer matches. For example, the technology choices within the terran single-player campaign will include special upgrades and unit types that are unique to the single-player game. These could include the ability to purchase classic units such as the wraith or firebat to add to Jim Raynor's army.
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
Be that as it may, I am skeptical of their ability to maintain an interesting, varied campaign with one race...but perhaps that is unfair, and I will not pre-judge them in this regard.
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.
However, I do think you and others are ignoring the fact that some of the interest in StarCraft and WarCraft was the ability to flip over to another perspective, and immediately so. There was always that carrot dangling in front of you, that as soon as you concluded whatever campaign you were on, you would be thrown into the antagonist's shoes to continue the story. I don't think I'm alone in that that was part of what kept me going through the campaign. It certainly wasn't the campaign itself. It was the fact that soon I would be doing something fresh and new.
It's like literature. Maybe I just have ADD, but if a book only has one chapter, I probably won't even read it. I need a change of point of view now and then. I need something to look toward...mini-conclusions leading up to the main conclusion.
Focus is nice but I worry that there being only one campaign will make everything a bit one-sided and dull regardless of how spicy that campaign is in and of itself.
I don't know, I mean, it just seems to me that wanting three different races purely for the sake of having three different races is approaching the whole thing wrong. With the branching storyline, focus on the meta-game, what's to say that it still won't feel like different chapters, if you will?
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
Basically, we can't get this game finished before our next WoW expansion, so we're gonna push this game out when it's 1/3 of the way done. Hey, its not like you people won't buy it right? We're fucking Blizzard!
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
Fixed.
Lets face it, Blizzard could make a game called "Let's Rape Grandma!", release it in 5 installments for $50 a pop, and still make millions.
For instance, I thought the game was very sloppy in parts, but I really, really liked some of the things present in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. You basically had...four (?) races...and you switched POV from mission to mission. So in Mission 6 or so you would build a base to defend something as one race and then in Mission 7, you would go and destroy exactly what you just built as the opposing race.
I'm not saying developers need to copy each other, but I thought that was neat. And in my personal preference, what Blizzard is doing here is a step in the wrong direction, regardless of how good it is. I think varying the players POV is a good thing.
I'm sorry, but any and all expectations can be thrown out of the window the instant a game engages the player. The game doesn't have to be structured like every other game before it to be enjoyed.
Most people base their impressions of a game on having played it. Or base it off the caliber of experience versus the previous installment. But in this thread, a few people are treading awfully close to judging the quality of a game on its lack of adherence to the previous games format.
Being upset about change comes off as really juvenile. If you want to be upset that the complete game's going to cost 40~ more dollars than initially expected that's fine. But how about waiting till you play the first one or two before deciding if the expansions are a ripoff or money-grab.
It will not be 30 missions of "build base, squash enemies."
And you know this for certain?
I'd point out that 30 missions of "run around with a few units" is equally as bad also.
The problem Blizzard has is fundamentally, there are only a few "types" of missions you can do in an RTS game. Blow up this, build this, defend this etc. Variety in Starcraft was figuring out what each new races units did and how they interacted. This was part of the fun of the old games.
Keeping this up for 30 missions with one race is going to be more difficult.
So how is doing the same thing, just with 3 different races that much better? If I'm a+clicking with hydras and lings it's not that different from a+clicking with zealots and goons.
Like I said, like Blizzard has said, they're doing something different with SC2's singleplayer. How it works out is certainly open to speculation, but there will be more variety than there was in SC1, which you can tell just from the few tidbits they've let out so far.
For instance, I thought the game was very sloppy in parts, but I really, really liked some of the things present in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. You basically had...four (?) races...and you switched POV from mission to mission. So in Mission 6 or so you would build a base to defend something as one race and then in Mission 7, you would go and destroy exactly what you just built as the opposing race.
I'm not saying developers need to copy each other, but I thought that was neat. And in my personal preference, what Blizzard is doing here is a step in the wrong direction, regardless of how good it is. I think varying the players POV is a good thing.
Ok, well that's pretty cool, I love the idea of working from opposing sides in a persistent world. But I mean, I still think that really it's not an automatic mark against the game that it only has one races single player. We'll see when it comes out, maybe it'll be boring and repetitive, but it's not going to be boring and repetitive just because it's one race.
Khavall on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
We're aiming to push the boundaries of storytelling and character development in RTS games through the unique single-player campaign design of StarCraft II. Players will be able to choose their mission path and technology upgrades for their army as they advance through the campaign. In order to make these choices meaningful while creating an epic story and well-developed characters for each faction, we needed to focus on a single race for a large number of missions.
The Trilogy also allows us to create more in-game and prerendered cinematics to tell the story in between missions. There will be more interactive sets and elements for players to explore during each campaign, along with other interesting design elements to differentiate the single-player game from multiplayer matches. For example, the technology choices within the terran single-player campaign will include special upgrades and unit types that are unique to the single-player game. These could include the ability to purchase classic units such as the wraith or firebat to add to Jim Raynor's army.
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
Be that as it may, I am skeptical of their ability to maintain an interesting, varied campaign with one race...but perhaps that is unfair, and I will not pre-judge them in this regard.
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.
However, I do think you and others are ignoring the fact that some of the interest in StarCraft and WarCraft was the ability to flip over to another perspective, and immediately so. There was always that carrot dangling in front of you, that as soon as you concluded whatever campaign you were on, you would be thrown into the antagonist's shoes to continue the story. I don't think I'm alone in that that was part of what kept me going through the campaign. It certainly wasn't the campaign itself. It was the fact that soon I would be doing something fresh and new.
It's like literature. Maybe I just have ADD, but if a book only has one chapter, I probably won't even read it. I need a change of point of view now and then. I need something to look toward...mini-conclusions leading up to the main conclusion.
Focus is nice but I worry that there being only one campaign will make everything a bit one-sided and dull regardless of how spicy that campaign is in and of itself.
I don't know, I mean, it just seems to me that wanting three different races purely for the sake of having three different races is approaching the whole thing wrong. With the branching storyline, focus on the meta-game, what's to say that it still won't feel like different chapters, if you will?
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
I think you would have a point if StarCraft didn't start off in exactly this way, with access to all three races. But it did and for better or worse, as it remains to be seen which, they are definitely moving in a different direction.
"StarCraft" now represents those three races. It's not really possible to dissociate, even 10 years later, from what StarCraft means to most people aware of the game when you allude to it. They can do whatever they want, but it's silly for them and for people here to expect people NOT to expect access to all three races in a single-player fashion, or to expect people not to be a little upset by the fact that they won't have that access.
It is what it is, but instead of flipping out on people for offering a dissenting voice, maybe just take a step back and a deep breath and try to understand where that disappointment is coming from.
I'm sorry, but any and all expectations can be thrown out of the window the instant a game engages the player. The game doesn't have to be structured like every other game before it to be enjoyed.
Most people base their impressions of a game on having played it. Or base it off the caliber of experience versus the previous installment. But in this thread, a few people are treading awfully close to judging the quality of a game on its lack of adherence to the previous games format.
Being upset about change comes off as really juvenile. If you want to be upset that the complete game's going to cost 40~ more dollars than initially expected that's fine. But how about waiting till you play the first one or two before deciding if the expansions are a ripoff or money-grab.
Sorry, no. The instant a game engages the player should be, well, during the intro. The developers need to sustain that engagement, and Blizzard's ability to do so given the present data is not something I am yet confident in.
It's VERY EASY to "instantly engage" a player...and then lose them completely in an hour or two.
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
If all you want are different units and abilities, new base economics, etc., then you'll be happy as a pig in a panda shop. As I've said, the meta-game is what's really changing. You'll have access to units and abilities that aren't available in multiplayer, you'll be able to choose units and upgrades outside of the basic "I need a Starport to build my Wraiths" deal, and you'll be able to tackle missions in a more non-linear fashion. If you want to play an All Air Terran, then you can put all your upgrades into your air units, skip getting new infantry, and play that way. If you want to go all machines, you could do the same thing. There will be more variety because of that, not because you're just playing a different race.
Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?
We're aiming to push the boundaries of storytelling and character development in RTS games through the unique single-player campaign design of StarCraft II. Players will be able to choose their mission path and technology upgrades for their army as they advance through the campaign. In order to make these choices meaningful while creating an epic story and well-developed characters for each faction, we needed to focus on a single race for a large number of missions.
The Trilogy also allows us to create more in-game and prerendered cinematics to tell the story in between missions. There will be more interactive sets and elements for players to explore during each campaign, along with other interesting design elements to differentiate the single-player game from multiplayer matches. For example, the technology choices within the terran single-player campaign will include special upgrades and unit types that are unique to the single-player game. These could include the ability to purchase classic units such as the wraith or firebat to add to Jim Raynor's army.
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
Be that as it may, I am skeptical of their ability to maintain an interesting, varied campaign with one race...but perhaps that is unfair, and I will not pre-judge them in this regard.
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.
However, I do think you and others are ignoring the fact that some of the interest in StarCraft and WarCraft was the ability to flip over to another perspective, and immediately so. There was always that carrot dangling in front of you, that as soon as you concluded whatever campaign you were on, you would be thrown into the antagonist's shoes to continue the story. I don't think I'm alone in that that was part of what kept me going through the campaign. It certainly wasn't the campaign itself. It was the fact that soon I would be doing something fresh and new.
It's like literature. Maybe I just have ADD, but if a book only has one chapter, I probably won't even read it. I need a change of point of view now and then. I need something to look toward...mini-conclusions leading up to the main conclusion.
Focus is nice but I worry that there being only one campaign will make everything a bit one-sided and dull regardless of how spicy that campaign is in and of itself.
I don't know, I mean, it just seems to me that wanting three different races purely for the sake of having three different races is approaching the whole thing wrong. With the branching storyline, focus on the meta-game, what's to say that it still won't feel like different chapters, if you will?
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
That's not necessarily true. I have no idea how anybody can legitimately make that claim.
Honestly, I really can't see what all this drama is about. I thought this "I hate Blizzard for blah blah blah" crap was left behind when I quit WoW.
Great solution: buy the first game. If it sucks, or just isn't good enough to warrant the purchase of the next two, then don't buy them- very simple. I can think of 4 other popular games released with every intention of making a trilogy out of 'em (Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge). People are overreacting simply because this is Starcraft.
And don't claim that they're releasing the same damn game three times. It sounds like they'll have ample time to design new units, and tweak the gameplay as needed. There's plenty of sequels that follow the same, exact concept.
I'm hearing, from the most of the naysayers: "Oh no, Blizzard makes games good enough where I may feel like I HAVE to buy all three campaigns."
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I'm sorry, but any and all expectations can be thrown out of the window the instant a game engages the player. The game doesn't have to be structured like every other game before it to be enjoyed.
Most people base their impressions of a game on having played it. Or base it off the caliber of experience versus the previous installment. But in this thread, a few people are treading awfully close to judging the quality of a game on its lack of adherence to the previous games format.
Being upset about change comes off as really juvenile. If you want to be upset that the complete game's going to cost 40~ more dollars than initially expected that's fine. But how about waiting till you play the first one or two before deciding if the expansions are a ripoff or money-grab.
Sorry, no. The instant a game engages the player should be, well, during the intro. The developers need to sustain that engagement, and Blizzard's ability to do so given the present data is not something I am yet confident in.
It's VERY EASY to "instantly engage" a player...and then lose them completely in an hour or two.
I'm glad you put words in my mouth by implying that the game would only initially engage you then immediately loose you because it's bad. Well done.
I think you're in the substantially smaller minority in thinking that Blizzard will be unable to make a thoroughly engaging/enjoyable game.
I'm hearing, from the most of the naysayers: "Oh no, Blizzard makes games good enough where I may feel like I HAVE to buy all three campaigns."
Who wrote that? I'll be buying all three most likely, my argument has always been I'm disappointed that there will be a distinct lack of the old games "perspective" in a game featuring only the one race and that before we see how the "Zerg" interpret aspects of the games overall metaplot we'll have waited around 2 years at worst (optimistically maybe a year). A lot of people are disappointed in the way the plot will be represented in a game featuring one race, which is what we're getting where previous games show the conflict from all the sides in it and their unique perspective.
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
Probably the same reason "nobody" understands that Starcraft 2 will in fact be a different game than Starcraft. You're basing your assumption of an upcoming game based on how a 10-year-old game worked. You're assuming that what worked in Starcraft will work for the same reason in Starcraft 2, and what Starcraft 2 changes will not work because it wouldn't've in Starcraft.
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
Probably the same reason "nobody" understands that Starcraft 2 will in fact be a different game than Starcraft.
What the fuck is this "meta-game" business? There's just game.
:^: Invoking the phrase "metagame" in a post about the single-player portion made me chuckle.
You can hate buzzwords as much as you want, but Starcraft is an RTS. But in each races singleplayer out-of-mission potions will follow different non-RTS ways in which you can change how the story is experienced and how it branches out. That's a game inside of a game. Like it or not, that's called a meta game.
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
Probably the same reason "nobody" understands that Starcraft 2 will in fact be a different game than Starcraft.
/facepalm.
Generally if you're trying to explain something and nobody else can understand what you're saying, it usually has something to do with how you're going about saying it.
Besides the story, which you will be getting eventually, I don't see what your problem is? Even if it is the story, how can you say you won't be getting ideas about the other sides? As has been stated many times, you'll be playing the Protoss for at least a few missions, there's plenty of possibility for "secret" Zerg missions. That the story will be more cinematic, more detailed, and more expansive is already a given. Sure, it may be nice to get all 3 sides (and you will be getting all 3 sides), but that's not exactly a hard prerequisite to a good story.
In the single player you're just building a bunch of units and stomping an AI's base. It doesn't matter that you're doing it with lings or marines or whatever, it's the same thing. Also, that the unit and abilities in SC2 show more variety within each race than they did for pretty much all three combined in SC1.
Drez, the meta-game is what you're going to be doing between missions. There's a lot more than just watching a mission briefing now. A lot more.
I'm sorry, but any and all expectations can be thrown out of the window the instant a game engages the player. The game doesn't have to be structured like every other game before it to be enjoyed.
Most people base their impressions of a game on having played it. Or base it off the caliber of experience versus the previous installment. But in this thread, a few people are treading awfully close to judging the quality of a game on its lack of adherence to the previous games format.
Being upset about change comes off as really juvenile. If you want to be upset that the complete game's going to cost 40~ more dollars than initially expected that's fine. But how about waiting till you play the first one or two before deciding if the expansions are a ripoff or money-grab.
Sorry, no. The instant a game engages the player should be, well, during the intro. The developers need to sustain that engagement, and Blizzard's ability to do so given the present data is not something I am yet confident in.
It's VERY EASY to "instantly engage" a player...and then lose them completely in an hour or two.
I'm glad you put words in my mouth by implying that the game would only initially engage you then immediately loose you because it's bad. Well done.
I think you're in the substantially smaller minority in thinking that Blizzard will be unable to make a thoroughly engaging/enjoyable game.
I didn't put anything in your mouth. You said "the instant a game engages the player." I'm pretty sure you put those words in your own mouth because, well, you actually said those exact words. Maybe if you didn't express yourself properly you'd like to have another go at it?
It's possible for a game to engage a player and then lose the player right after. That's a fact. And you said "the instant a game engages the player." To me, that "instant" - considering the definition of "instant" - is the first moment a game engages the player.
So I was just clarifying that, no, expectations don't go out the window as soon as the player is engaged, because in a 10-30 hour game, it really doesn't matter if the developers can pull gamers into the game. Their job isn't just to attract gamers, it's to keep them interested. And if you agree, that's cool, but that's not at all what your post said.
Also, insofar as me being juvenile or in some kind of severe minority? Uh, you're introducing two logical fallacies there. Let's not do that.
Besides the story, which you will be getting eventually, I don't see what your problem is? Even if it is the story, how can you say you won't be getting ideas about the other sides? As has been stated many times, you'll be playing the Protoss for at least a few missions, there's plenty of possibility for "secret" Zerg missions. That the story will be more cinematic, more detailed, and more expansive is already a given. Sure, it may be nice to get all 3 sides (and you will be getting all 3 sides), but that's not exactly a hard prerequisite to a good story.
In the single player you're just building a bunch of units and stomping an AI's base. It doesn't matter that you're doing it with lings or marines or whatever, it's the same thing. Also, that the unit and abilities in SC2 show more variety within each race than they did for pretty much all three combined in SC1.
Drez, the meta-game is what you're going to be doing between missions. There's a lot more than just watching a mission briefing now. A lot more.
I'm not really sure that's a meta-game. It's just a part of the strategy. That's like calling the X-Com overworld a "meta-game."
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
Probably the same reason "nobody" understands that Starcraft 2 will in fact be a different game than Starcraft.
/facepalm.
Generally if you're trying to explain something and nobody else can understand what you're saying, it usually has something to do with how you're going about saying it.
No. I've put it perfectly simple from the first argument.
Why nobody can fundamentally understand that playing 1 race is NEVER going to be equivalent to playing 3 different ones and that maybe, MAYBE people find that disappointing on an entirely justified and legitimate level is just truly amazing.
Besides the story, which you will be getting eventually, I don't see what your problem is? Even if it is the story, how can you say you won't be getting ideas about the other sides? As has been stated many times, you'll be playing the Protoss for at least a few missions, there's plenty of possibility for "secret" Zerg missions. That the story will be more cinematic, more detailed, and more expansive is already a given. Sure, it may be nice to get all 3 sides (and you will be getting all 3 sides), but that's not exactly a hard prerequisite to a good story.
In the single player you're just building a bunch of units and stomping an AI's base. It doesn't matter that you're doing it with lings or marines or whatever, it's the same thing. Also, that the unit and abilities in SC2 show more variety within each race than they did for pretty much all three combined in SC1.
Drez, the meta-game is what you're going to be doing between missions. There's a lot more than just watching a mission briefing now. A lot more.
I'm not really sure that's a meta-game. It's just a part of the strategy. That's like calling the X-Com overworld a "meta-game."
Well, it's what it's being called. It's a new feature, and it's outside what is traditionally the RTS "game," so I have no problem with calling it the meta-game.
Besides the story, which you will be getting eventually, I don't see what your problem is? Even if it is the story, how can you say you won't be getting ideas about the other sides? As has been stated many times, you'll be playing the Protoss for at least a few missions, there's plenty of possibility for "secret" Zerg missions. That the story will be more cinematic, more detailed, and more expansive is already a given. Sure, it may be nice to get all 3 sides (and you will be getting all 3 sides), but that's not exactly a hard prerequisite to a good story.
In the single player you're just building a bunch of units and stomping an AI's base. It doesn't matter that you're doing it with lings or marines or whatever, it's the same thing. Also, that the unit and abilities in SC2 show more variety within each race than they did for pretty much all three combined in SC1.
Drez, the meta-game is what you're going to be doing between missions. There's a lot more than just watching a mission briefing now. A lot more.
I'm not really sure that's a meta-game. It's just a part of the strategy. That's like calling the X-Com overworld a "meta-game."
Well, it's what it's being called. It's a new feature, and it's outside what is traditionally the RTS "game," so I have no problem with calling it the meta-game.
That's what it's being called by who? Half a dozen people in this thread? Let's just nip that in the bud here, then, because it's a misnomer. It's just a part of the game. It's not a meta-game at all unless you wholly misunderstand what "meta" and "game" mean.
I'm sorry, but directing the story or whatever you've just referred to is not at all a "new feature." Maybe for StarCraft it is, but it's not some invention of Blizzard's.
No. I've put it perfectly simple from the first argument.
Why nobody can fundamentally understand that playing 1 race is NEVER going to be equivalent to playing 3 different ones and that maybe, MAYBE people find that disappointing on an entirely justified and legitimate level is just truly amazing.
Different does not exclude equal. Content-wise it'll be equal or greater. In mission variety it will be equal or greater. In story development, characters, depth, etc. it will be equal or greater.
I can see what you're saying. I can understand it on an intellectual basis. But it doesn't bother me, because just the fact that SC1 had 3 different races in the singleplayer did not make it good or bad, and the fact that SC2 is not trying to be SC1 let's me release all those expectations.
And on top of all that, the other 2 races are still coming out.
A metagame would be like telling your opponent what build you're going to use before the game, and you know him well enough that you know he'll believe you're just saying that and won't actually do it, and then you actually do it and then beat him with it.
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
Probably the same reason "nobody" understands that Starcraft 2 will in fact be a different game than Starcraft.
/facepalm.
Generally if you're trying to explain something and nobody else can understand what you're saying, it usually has something to do with how you're going about saying it.
No. I've put it perfectly simple from the first argument.
Why nobody can fundamentally understand that playing 1 race is NEVER going to be equivalent to playing 3 different ones and that maybe, MAYBE people find that disappointing on an entirely justified and legitimate level is just truly amazing.
The problem here isn't everybody else. It's your lack of imagination.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
No. I've put it perfectly simple from the first argument.
Why nobody can fundamentally understand that playing 1 race is NEVER going to be equivalent to playing 3 different ones and that maybe, MAYBE people find that disappointing on an entirely justified and legitimate level is just truly amazing.
Different does not exclude equal. Content-wise it'll be equal or greater. In mission variety it will be equal or greater. In story development, characters, depth, etc. it will be equal or greater.
/Facepalm.
Jesus fucking Christ, READ WHAT I WROTE.
I'll be buying all three most likely, my argument has always been I'm disappointed that there will be a distinct lack of the old games "perspective" in a game featuring only the one race and that before we see how the "Zerg" interpret aspects of the games overall metaplot we'll have waited around 2 years at worst (optimistically maybe a year). A lot of people are disappointed in the way the plot will be represented in a game featuring one race, which is what we're getting where previous games show the conflict from all the sides in it and their unique perspective.
I am just about frustrated enough to go all emo and pull out the lawn mower, AND CUT THE GRASS.
Posts
The FAQ should seriously be required reading for this thread.
It's a different situation for many reasons. Warcraft 1 wasn't nearly as widespread as Starcraft, which still is the standard for RTS skill. There's a reason it's used for all the RTS competition things. Starcraft is still the definitively balanced RTS in the general perception.
Another reason is that Warcraft 1 and 2 had story but it wasn't even close to as crazy as the SC story. I mean, Warcraft 2 could be understood in its own right easily, but Starcraft 2 is coming from a huge story.
Variety
The quality or condition of being various or varied; diversity.
A number or collection of varied things, especially of a particular group; an assortment: brought home a variety of snacks.
A group that is distinguished from other groups by a specific characteristic or set of characteristics.
And as a side note, I'd find it absolutely hilarious if the game ends up being a branching progression, so there are only about 10 playable missions to tell the story per play through, but technically still 30 missions available total. That way, everybody gets irked.
Fixed.
Lets face it, Blizzard could make a game called "Let's Rape Grandma!", release it in 5 installments for $50 a pop, and still make millions.
What's been promised, and shown so far, in SC2, is a completely different singleplayer campaign that offers no comparison to the multiplayer. It will not be 30 missions of "build base, squash enemies." And there will be a completely new and expansive meta-game. That's what you should be excited about. Because I don't care to do 30 more "build base, squash enemy" missions, whether they're all Terran, all Zerg, or a split between all 3 races, or whatever. SC2's singleplayer will be different, and should not be judged and compared to SC1's except for quality (and we don't know what that is yet).
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
YOU ARE NOT HELPING.
Huh, so a single player campaign with three races that together just was basically one mission 30 times would.... have more or less variety than a branching and intricate single race campaign that went through a.... variety of general mission types?
I am so stupid I don't know basic words, so maybe you can help me with this answer.
Be that as it may, I am skeptical of their ability to maintain an interesting, varied campaign with one race...but perhaps that is unfair, and I will not pre-judge them in this regard.
Khavall, I agree with this:
However, I do think you and others are ignoring the fact that some of the interest in StarCraft and WarCraft was the ability to flip over to another perspective, and immediately so. There was always that carrot dangling in front of you, that as soon as you concluded whatever campaign you were on, you would be thrown into the antagonist's shoes to continue the story. I don't think I'm alone in that that was part of what kept me going through the campaign. It certainly wasn't the campaign itself. It was the fact that soon I would be doing something fresh and new.
It's like literature. Maybe I just have ADD, but if a book only has one chapter, I probably won't even read it. I need a change of point of view now and then. I need something to look toward...mini-conclusions leading up to the main conclusion.
Focus is nice but I worry that there being only one campaign will make everything a bit one-sided and dull regardless of how spicy that campaign is in and of itself.
And you know this for certain?
I'd point out that 30 missions of "run around with a few units" is equally as bad also.
The problem Blizzard has is fundamentally, there are only a few "types" of missions you can do in an RTS game. Blow up this, build this, defend this etc. Variety in Starcraft was figuring out what each new races units did and how they interacted. This was part of the fun of the old games.
Keeping this up for 30 missions with one race is going to be more difficult.
I played Starcraft for 30 missions of mostly the same stuff, because 10 missions later I was a difference race, with many different gameplay mechanics that aren't shared by the previous race, with an entirely different viewpoint on the same war and such forth. If Starcraft had been 30 missions of the Terrans I would have been bored out of my tree by 12 missions in.
I don't know, I mean, it just seems to me that wanting three different races purely for the sake of having three different races is approaching the whole thing wrong. With the branching storyline, focus on the meta-game, what's to say that it still won't feel like different chapters, if you will?
The idea that making it one race automatically means that it'll be repetitive, and three races automatically would have huge amounts of variety, is what I have a problem with.
Ahaha
Ahahahahahahahaha
I'm not saying developers need to copy each other, but I thought that was neat. And in my personal preference, what Blizzard is doing here is a step in the wrong direction, regardless of how good it is. I think varying the players POV is a good thing.
Most people base their impressions of a game on having played it. Or base it off the caliber of experience versus the previous installment. But in this thread, a few people are treading awfully close to judging the quality of a game on its lack of adherence to the previous games format.
Being upset about change comes off as really juvenile. If you want to be upset that the complete game's going to cost 40~ more dollars than initially expected that's fine. But how about waiting till you play the first one or two before deciding if the expansions are a ripoff or money-grab.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
So how is doing the same thing, just with 3 different races that much better? If I'm a+clicking with hydras and lings it's not that different from a+clicking with zealots and goons.
Like I said, like Blizzard has said, they're doing something different with SC2's singleplayer. How it works out is certainly open to speculation, but there will be more variety than there was in SC1, which you can tell just from the few tidbits they've let out so far.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Ok, well that's pretty cool, I love the idea of working from opposing sides in a persistent world. But I mean, I still think that really it's not an automatic mark against the game that it only has one races single player. We'll see when it comes out, maybe it'll be boring and repetitive, but it's not going to be boring and repetitive just because it's one race.
Except it does. Three races in starcraft, even with arguably less mission variety (as has already been pointed out) still carried a game easily for 30 missions.
The logic is simple, the mission structure in the original is still fundamentally the same but:
The story perspective isn't (you really think you're going to get different story perspectives playing one race presented to you? Really?)
The gameplay dynamics are altered because of playing a different race
An entirely new and different set of toys to play with, that often behaved very differently
Different base economies, unit generation (even if not massively different)
etc.
It's not just the gameplay, it's also the fact playing all races lets you hear how the story is progressing uniquely from each different races viewpoint and characters.
Why nobody understands this concept even after 52 pages is amazing.
I think you would have a point if StarCraft didn't start off in exactly this way, with access to all three races. But it did and for better or worse, as it remains to be seen which, they are definitely moving in a different direction.
"StarCraft" now represents those three races. It's not really possible to dissociate, even 10 years later, from what StarCraft means to most people aware of the game when you allude to it. They can do whatever they want, but it's silly for them and for people here to expect people NOT to expect access to all three races in a single-player fashion, or to expect people not to be a little upset by the fact that they won't have that access.
It is what it is, but instead of flipping out on people for offering a dissenting voice, maybe just take a step back and a deep breath and try to understand where that disappointment is coming from.
Sorry, no. The instant a game engages the player should be, well, during the intro. The developers need to sustain that engagement, and Blizzard's ability to do so given the present data is not something I am yet confident in.
It's VERY EASY to "instantly engage" a player...and then lose them completely in an hour or two.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
That's not necessarily true. I have no idea how anybody can legitimately make that claim.
Honestly, I really can't see what all this drama is about. I thought this "I hate Blizzard for blah blah blah" crap was left behind when I quit WoW.
Great solution: buy the first game. If it sucks, or just isn't good enough to warrant the purchase of the next two, then don't buy them- very simple. I can think of 4 other popular games released with every intention of making a trilogy out of 'em (Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge). People are overreacting simply because this is Starcraft.
And don't claim that they're releasing the same damn game three times. It sounds like they'll have ample time to design new units, and tweak the gameplay as needed. There's plenty of sequels that follow the same, exact concept.
I'm hearing, from the most of the naysayers: "Oh no, Blizzard makes games good enough where I may feel like I HAVE to buy all three campaigns."
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I think you're in the substantially smaller minority in thinking that Blizzard will be unable to make a thoroughly engaging/enjoyable game.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
You.
Aren't.
Reading.
What.
I.
Am.
Writing.
Who wrote that? I'll be buying all three most likely, my argument has always been I'm disappointed that there will be a distinct lack of the old games "perspective" in a game featuring only the one race and that before we see how the "Zerg" interpret aspects of the games overall metaplot we'll have waited around 2 years at worst (optimistically maybe a year). A lot of people are disappointed in the way the plot will be represented in a game featuring one race, which is what we're getting where previous games show the conflict from all the sides in it and their unique perspective.
Can I make this in any way possible clearer?
Probably the same reason "nobody" understands that Starcraft 2 will in fact be a different game than Starcraft. You're basing your assumption of an upcoming game based on how a 10-year-old game worked. You're assuming that what worked in Starcraft will work for the same reason in Starcraft 2, and what Starcraft 2 changes will not work because it wouldn't've in Starcraft.
:^: Invoking the phrase "metagame" in a post about the single-player portion made me chuckle.
/facepalm.
You can hate buzzwords as much as you want, but Starcraft is an RTS. But in each races singleplayer out-of-mission potions will follow different non-RTS ways in which you can change how the story is experienced and how it branches out. That's a game inside of a game. Like it or not, that's called a meta game.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
Generally if you're trying to explain something and nobody else can understand what you're saying, it usually has something to do with how you're going about saying it.
Besides the story, which you will be getting eventually, I don't see what your problem is? Even if it is the story, how can you say you won't be getting ideas about the other sides? As has been stated many times, you'll be playing the Protoss for at least a few missions, there's plenty of possibility for "secret" Zerg missions. That the story will be more cinematic, more detailed, and more expansive is already a given. Sure, it may be nice to get all 3 sides (and you will be getting all 3 sides), but that's not exactly a hard prerequisite to a good story.
In the single player you're just building a bunch of units and stomping an AI's base. It doesn't matter that you're doing it with lings or marines or whatever, it's the same thing. Also, that the unit and abilities in SC2 show more variety within each race than they did for pretty much all three combined in SC1.
Drez, the meta-game is what you're going to be doing between missions. There's a lot more than just watching a mission briefing now. A lot more.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I didn't put anything in your mouth. You said "the instant a game engages the player." I'm pretty sure you put those words in your own mouth because, well, you actually said those exact words. Maybe if you didn't express yourself properly you'd like to have another go at it?
It's possible for a game to engage a player and then lose the player right after. That's a fact. And you said "the instant a game engages the player." To me, that "instant" - considering the definition of "instant" - is the first moment a game engages the player.
So I was just clarifying that, no, expectations don't go out the window as soon as the player is engaged, because in a 10-30 hour game, it really doesn't matter if the developers can pull gamers into the game. Their job isn't just to attract gamers, it's to keep them interested. And if you agree, that's cool, but that's not at all what your post said.
Also, insofar as me being juvenile or in some kind of severe minority? Uh, you're introducing two logical fallacies there. Let's not do that.
If you're not trash talking the AI, are you really even playing the game? ^^
I'm not really sure that's a meta-game. It's just a part of the strategy. That's like calling the X-Com overworld a "meta-game."
No. I've put it perfectly simple from the first argument.
Why nobody can fundamentally understand that playing 1 race is NEVER going to be equivalent to playing 3 different ones and that maybe, MAYBE people find that disappointing on an entirely justified and legitimate level is just truly amazing.
Well, it's what it's being called. It's a new feature, and it's outside what is traditionally the RTS "game," so I have no problem with calling it the meta-game.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
That's what it's being called by who? Half a dozen people in this thread? Let's just nip that in the bud here, then, because it's a misnomer. It's just a part of the game. It's not a meta-game at all unless you wholly misunderstand what "meta" and "game" mean.
I'm sorry, but directing the story or whatever you've just referred to is not at all a "new feature." Maybe for StarCraft it is, but it's not some invention of Blizzard's.
Different does not exclude equal. Content-wise it'll be equal or greater. In mission variety it will be equal or greater. In story development, characters, depth, etc. it will be equal or greater.
I can see what you're saying. I can understand it on an intellectual basis. But it doesn't bother me, because just the fact that SC1 had 3 different races in the singleplayer did not make it good or bad, and the fact that SC2 is not trying to be SC1 let's me release all those expectations.
And on top of all that, the other 2 races are still coming out.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
The problem here isn't everybody else. It's your lack of imagination.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
/Facepalm.
Jesus fucking Christ, READ WHAT I WROTE.
I am just about frustrated enough to go all emo and pull out the lawn mower, AND CUT THE GRASS.