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.
But I contend that SC1 was good, at least in some measure, because it had three races that you switched from after an appropriate length of time.
No, not solely or "just" because of that, but it was a factor.
I'm not going to outright conclude that the initial release of StarCraft 2 will be bad without this feature, but I think it's crazy not to consider it a significant value-add feature of the original game, and I think it's even crazier not to understand why the lack of this feature gives many people pause about StarCraft 2.
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.
Yes.
That's pretty much what meta-gaming would be.
A game feature within the game itself is not 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.
It's new to SC, and I daresay they'll be doing a few things that are new to the genre.
Meta-game is somewhat of a misnomer, but it's less confusing for most than strategy vs. tactics, I'd think. I found it descriptive enough, and understood exactly what was being talked about. If you can come up with a better term I'll be glad to use it.
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.
No, a metagame is a portion of the game that is completely outside of the ruleset of the game itself. I'm kind of struggling to think how you could ever apply that to a single-player campaign.
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.
It's new to SC, and I daresay they'll be doing a few things that are new to the genre.
Meta-game is somewhat of a misnomer, but it's less confusing for most than strategy vs. tactics, I'd think. I found it descriptive enough, and understood exactly what was being talked about. If you can come up with a better term I'll be glad to use it.
Not to go off on a tangent, but when certain descriptive words already exist, I don't see the point in using different, wrong words, to describe things.
I think it's more confusing to use wrong words when you can use correct ones.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "tactics portion" to discuss what you do between missions. Or "preparation phase" or something. I mean..."meta-game" really just is not correct. And such between-mission things have existed since war games have existed, since the early 80s.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Khavall on
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Well then whats the point of buying the 2nd and 3rd games? I mean, if Blizzard is putting that much variety into 30 mission, how can you tell me we'll have another 60 missions that will provide just as much variety.
And how can that be just plain wrong? Its actually pretty simple. 3 very distinct races, 10 levels each. Vs 1 race with 30 levels and promise of "oh don't worry, they'll be different"
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.
No, a metagame is a portion of the game that is completely outside of the ruleset of the game itself. I'm kind of struggling to think how you could ever apply that to a single-player campaign.
Because the singleplayer non-RTS portion of the story mode is "completely outside the ruleset of the game" game. The GAME is an RTS, the meta game is the soldier for hire, money spent or whichever units you want in any order all tied together through open-ended branching paths.
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.
It's new to SC, and I daresay they'll be doing a few things that are new to the genre.
Meta-game is somewhat of a misnomer, but it's less confusing for most than strategy vs. tactics, I'd think. I found it descriptive enough, and understood exactly what was being talked about. If you can come up with a better term I'll be glad to use it.
Not to go off on a tangent, but when certain descriptive words already exist, I don't see the point in using different, wrong words, to describe things.
I think it's more confusing to use wrong words when you can use correct ones.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "tactics portion" to discuss what you do between missions. Or "preparation phase" or something. I mean..."meta-game" really just is not correct. And such between-mission things have existed since war games have existed, since the early 80s.
I understand. I mean, I play games competitively and I understand exactly what metagame actually is. I also know that the difference between strategy and tactics isn't always obvious to people, and I'm not interested in clearing up yet another confusion every 3 pages.
But you're right, strategy and tactics may be more accurate. I don't know, it's a little more than that. The between missions segments? There's more to it than just organizing units and buying upgrades. It's not quite a preparation phase, either. I'll stop with the meta-game, though.
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.
No, a metagame is a portion of the game that is completely outside of the ruleset of the game itself. I'm kind of struggling to think how you could ever apply that to a single-player campaign.
Because the singleplayer non-RTS portion of the story mode is "completely outside the ruleset of the game" game. The GAME is an RTS, the meta game is the soldier for hire, money spent or whichever units you want in any order all tied together through open-ended branching paths.
No it's not. The ruleset of the game includes everything in the game. If there was a bejeweled mini-game within the game where you could level up your firebats, that still wouldn't be a meta-game, it would just be part of the game. And various people have already relayed the correct definition of meta-game. Go educate yourself on this term, stop using it to describe actual game elements of StarCraft 2, and stop being such a nincompoop while you're at it.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Metagame means things that are "outside" of the game or external to it. The entire "game" of SC2 is anything in it. A diplomacy or tech upgrading part is not a metagame, it's a part of the actual game. Things that are examples of metagaming would be using walkthroughs, maphacks or anything else that exploit the fact Starcraft 2 is, in fact, actually a 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.
It's new to SC, and I daresay they'll be doing a few things that are new to the genre.
Meta-game is somewhat of a misnomer, but it's less confusing for most than strategy vs. tactics, I'd think. I found it descriptive enough, and understood exactly what was being talked about. If you can come up with a better term I'll be glad to use it.
Not to go off on a tangent, but when certain descriptive words already exist, I don't see the point in using different, wrong words, to describe things.
I think it's more confusing to use wrong words when you can use correct ones.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "tactics portion" to discuss what you do between missions. Or "preparation phase" or something. I mean..."meta-game" really just is not correct. And such between-mission things have existed since war games have existed, since the early 80s.
I understand. I mean, I play games competitively and I understand exactly what metagame actually is. I also know that the difference between strategy and tactics isn't always obvious to people, and I'm not interested in clearing up yet another confusion every 3 pages.
But you're right, strategy and tactics may be more accurate. I don't know, it's a little more than that. The between missions segments? There's more too it than just organizing units and buying upgrades. It's not quite a preparation phase, either. I'll stop with the meta-game, though.
I dunno. I don't think we really need to label it anyway...just refer to it as "between missions" like you said.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Well then whats the point of buying the 2nd and 3rd games? I mean, if Blizzard is putting that much variety into 30 mission, how can you tell me we'll have another 60 missions that will provide just as much variety.
And how can that be just plain wrong? Its actually pretty simple. 3 very distinct races, 10 levels each. Vs 1 race with 30 levels and promise of "oh don't worry, they'll be different"
The fact of the matter is that you don't know anything about how varied the SCII singleplayer campaign will be. But because no one does you use that as basis for the idea that it will be worse. Based simply on the "fact" that 3 things are more different than one. Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. Three is more than one, but does not mean 3 is greater than one. You have to be pants-on-head retarded to believe fundamentally 3 paintings are better than 1 simply by the fact that 3 is more than 1.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
I must disagree with you. Sure, focusing as just one race will not necessarily give you the same variety in single-player gameplay and in the narrative, but there is a tradeoff that has both positive and negative elements. Focusing on one specific branch of the storyline could allow for a more focused and cohesive (that isn't the best word for, but the only one that came to mind) experience. It will allow you to focus on one set of characters for an extended period of time and will closely follow their story instead of showing you the whole overarching plot.
According to what Blizzard has said, they are splitting up the games so they can focus on creating interesting elements that pertain to each race and creating an in depth campaign for the Terran, Protoss, and Zerg. Releasing this content under one game would require immense amounts of time, pushing the release date back and would be a steal for the consumers. It would be like selling 3 new games for the price of one. Of course, there is always the option that it is really just about money.
Your point on gameplay is a valid one. You will not have the same sort of singleplayer campaign variety. But there are games like Company of Heroes, where you play essentially the same "race" and it is still fun. So, maybe that is a little bit of a letdown, but hardly a deal breaker. Your point on story though, is something I completely disagree with. That is like saying a movie or book in which they focus on just one character (just about any book written in first person) is bad simply because of the fact that it doesn't have multiple stories running at the same time. That's just crazy.
da newb on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Sure, focusing as just one race will not necessarily give you the same variety in single-player gameplay and in the narrative, but there is a tradeoff that has both positive and negative elements.
this is not the relevant part of the argument.
At all.
Of course, there is always the option that it is really just about money.
I doubt this, because Blizzard have enough of it as it is so I again, fail to see why they would bother doing this unless they genuinely felt like it would improve the game.
But there are games like Company of Heroes, where you play essentially the same "race" and it is still fun.
Company of Heroes doesn't try to extend its Single Player into 30 missions of just playing the Americans and the expansion let you play as both the British and the Panzer Elite, who also, incidentally play substantially differently both to one another and to the original American/Wermacht.
Edit: CoH has 15 missions. I definitely was getting bored by the end of that. Minding, the mission variety in the game was pretty good in general, it was more the fact that I wanted to play as the Germans for a while after about mission 8.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
I must disagree with you. Sure, focusing as just one race will not necessarily give you the same variety in single-player gameplay and in the narrative, but there is a tradeoff that has both positive and negative elements. Focusing on one specific branch of the storyline could allow for a more focused and cohesive (that isn't the best word for, but the only one that came to mind) experience. It will allow you to focus on one set of characters for an extended period of time and will closely follow their story instead of showing you the whole overarching plot.
According to what Blizzard has said, they are splitting up the games so they can focus on creating interesting elements that pertain to each race and creating an in depth campaign for the Terran, Protoss, and Zerg. Releasing this content under one game would require immense amounts of time, pushing the release date back and would be a steal for the consumers. It would be like selling 3 new games for the price of one. Of course, there is always the option that it is really just about money.
Your point on gameplay is a valid one. You will not have the same sort of singleplayer campaign variety. But there are games like Company of Heroes, where you play essentially the same "race" and it is still fun. So, maybe that is a little bit of a letdown, but hardly a deal breaker. Your point on story though, is something I completely disagree with. That is like saying a movie or book in which they focus on just one character (just about any book written in first person) is bad simply because of the fact that it doesn't have multiple stories running at the same time. That's just crazy.
I hate to say it, but even Company of Heroes bored me after awhile.
And I have to just offer my perspective on your last comment. I'm a writer myself, or am trying to be. And I read a lot. And while there are many novels that focus on a single character throughout the book, very few of them have the ability to interest me for the entire book. Obviously, most novels written in first person have no choice, but, more often than not, I tend to prefer books that vary up the point of view every once in a while to books that don't.
Look at A Song of Ice and Fire. One of its main draws is how it stitches together multiple points of view.
I'm not saying that a story, book, movie, or game that does this is, by default, better than one that doesn't, because it's not true. Not true at all. However, I do think many people are ignoring the immense draw of such a thing and the fact that it is a very engaging method of storytelling when done right. So it should be understandable for people to be a bit dismayed or upset at not having that feature right off the bat in StarCraft 2, regardless of what concessions exist in place of it.
Yes, StarCraft 2 might end up being better for it. None of us know this yet. But as it stands, the fact that there were three playable races and that they were available right off the bat in the first StarCraft was a major draw to the game for many people. And that doesn't seem to be a possibility here, which is a bit saddening.
That's really all we're trying to say. Maybe it'll be just fine. Nobody knows. But it's not invalid to say "I wish the sequel kept this element of the first game."
Before I sound crazy, though, of course many very excellent novels (and by "many" I mean thousands upon thousands) do not have a shifting point of view. All I'm trying to say is that you cannot dismiss this particular method of storytelling as irrelevant to the discussion, because it really isn't. It's a valid thing to desire in SC2, and a valid feature to discuss the finer points of.
The fact of the matter is that you don't know anything about how varied the SCII singleplayer campaign will be.
That's certainly funny, because you appear to know all about it.
I know what I don't know, which is enough to know that there isn't enough information out there to make a conclusion either way. But apparently the 3 is better than 1 people seem to know more than they're putting off.
You have to be pants-on-head retarded to believe fundamentally 3 paintings are better than 1 simply by the fact that 3 is more than 1.
It should be pointed out that this is the primary defense of making 3 games over just the one.
Just so you know.
Yeah, I should just make one gigantic bowl to eat cereal out of rather than just 3 regular sized bowls. Plus I'm sure it will cost the same too.
Also there is a 3 in 1 version of Starcraft 2, it's called the battlechest.
The fact of the matter is that you don't know anything about how varied the SCII singleplayer campaign will be.
That's certainly funny, because you appear to know all about it.
I know what I don't know, which is enough to know that there isn't enough information out there to make a conclusion either way. But apparently the 3 is better than 1 people seem to know more than they're putting off.
We can agree there.
Oh, you aren't referring to the people defending the decision to split it into three games?
Yeah, I should just make one gigantic bowl to eat cereal out of rather than just 3 regular sized bowls. Plus I'm sure it will cost the same too.
/facepalm.
Great of you to miss the point though. Went right over your head.
Hypocrisy is fun for all the family though.
Also there is a 3 in 1 version of Starcraft 2, it's called the battlechest.
You need a new meme, this one seems to have been run into the ground.
The idea that Blizzard should just make the game 90 missions long and charge 50 bucks makes sense in only that posters fantasy land where game companies are charities. People who want to experience the zerg protoss and terran all at once do have an option. Wait as long as they would have if Blizzard decided to out of the goodness of their hearts to concede and make the game 90 missions at once.
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.
The problem with that, however, is... it goes without saying, that if it's bad, it'll be bad.
"They could mess this up or not" is not anything remotely close to an argument against or even for this decision. That's a simple fact that applies to every game ever made.
JamesKeenan on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
You need a new meme, this one seems to have been run into the ground.
Ok, let me quote you and change your argument to something you'll hopefully understand.
You came out with this (what I am assuming was supposed to be witty) retort:
Yeah, I should just make one gigantic bowl to eat cereal out of rather than just 3 regular sized bowls. Plus I'm sure it will cost the same too.
Of course, nowhere did I state it should cost the same or be 90 missions long. Again, because I've noticed a certain side of this argument just never bothers reading what the other writes.
So, let me put it this way:
Yeah, I should just make three gigantic bowls of cereal to eat instead of 1 regular sized bowl that has some cornflakes, cocoapuffs and fruit loops. Plus I'm sure people won't mind that it will cost them three times more too. Of course, I'm not actually sure if each of the three gigantic bowls of cereal is what I actually want, because they are much larger portions than normal and I'm not sure if I'll get sick of eating all this single brand of cereal before I can finish the whole bowl where I can easily finish the bowl of three different kinds of cereal.
Do you understand yet? Your argument you presented is just as applicable to anything written FOR splitting it into three games.
Actually, probably moreso.
The idea that Blizzard should just make the game 90 missions long and charge 50 bucks makes sense
Quote me where I ever said that. Go ahead. Make my day by proving you can't read what I write by forcing yourself to mangle something completely unrelated to make it seem like I ever said that anywhere at all.
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.
The problem with that, however, is... it goes without saying, that if it's bad, it'll be bad.
"They could mess this up or not" is not anything remotely close to an argument against or even for this decision. That's a simple fact that applies to every game ever made.
I was implying this:
a) They succeeded with a certain formula in the first StarCraft.
b) Part of that success was the way the original campaign was structured.
c) Therefore, I am more uncertain about StarCraft 2's quality than if they had stuck to the original StarCraft formula.
Mind you, I'm not really arguing in favor of duplicating a 10-year-old formula T-for-T either, but the excision of this feature in particular is dismaying because I happen to like that particular feature of the original game even over many of its many other features.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
Game 1: This game has 5 races, each with their own mission. They all play differently.
Mission 1: Race 1 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Race 2 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 3: Race 3 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 4: Race 4 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 5: Race 5 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Game 2: One race, 5 missions.
Mission 1: Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Attack another base
Mission 3: Use limited resources with your races specific strengths to overcome another enemy on an equal field
Mission 4: Build a bridge of firebases to create a corridor of defense between two points
Mission 5: Use only air units to overtake a small sub-base that is supported by a main base.
You are trying to say that Game 1 is more varied than game 2? And will always be?
I don't even know how to argue with you when you cannot accept that variation has something to do with anything other than "THREE RACES" Like how can you not see that the number of races is not the sole determining factor of variety.
Khavall on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Also, just to pick this argument out specifically:
People who want to experience the zerg protoss and terran all at once do have an option. Wait as long as they would have if Blizzard decided to out of the goodness of their hearts to concede and make the game 90 missions at once.
Inevitably that's what you'll end up with (just one big all together package for whatever) and many people will probably buy that and be perfectly happy. It's just another 2 or so years on top of the time the game has already taken etc.
Before I sound crazy, though, of course many very excellent novels (and by "many" I mean thousands upon thousands) do not have a shifting point of view. All I'm trying to say is that you cannot dismiss this particular method of storytelling as irrelevant to the discussion, because it really isn't. It's a valid thing to desire in SC2, and a valid feature to discuss the finer points of.
But also investing too much in the method of storytelling is just as bad.
I mean, look at Aegeri. He seems to be absolutely refusing to believe that any other mission structure than three races could possibly be as varied as three races, and that's just so far off the mark it's not even funny.
Khavall on
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
Game 1: This game has 5 races, each with their own mission. They all play differently.
Mission 1: Race 1 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Race 2 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 3: Race 3 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 4: Race 4 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 5: Race 5 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Game 2: One race, 5 missions.
Mission 1: Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Attack another base
Mission 3: Use limited resources with your races specific strengths to overcome another enemy on an equal field
Mission 4: Build a bridge of firebases to create a corridor of defense between two points
Mission 5: Use only air units to overtake a small sub-base that is supported by a main base.
You are trying to say that Game 1 is more varied than game 2? And will always be?
I don't even know how to argue with you when you cannot accept that variation has something to do with anything other than "THREE RACES"
When all 5 races play fundamentally differently it can indeed. In fact, having other races is just as viable a way of making variety as different missions. Also, in your example of one race there are at least only 3 different types of mission in there. Using limited resources is both mission 3 and 5, defending something is both mission 1 and 4. You seem to think there is some amazing difference but there isn't.
There can be just as much variation playing different races as you have there with variations on basic mission ideas in an RTS.
I mean, look at Aegeri. He seems to be absolutely refusing to believe that any other mission structure than three races could possibly be as varied as three races, and that's just so far off the mark it's not even funny.
Much like you and the opposite argument eh?
Because you're still wrong, especially when you make delightful strawman arguments.
I mean, look at Aegeri. He seems to be absolutely refusing to believe that any other mission structure than three races could possibly be as varied as three races, and that's just so far off the mark it's not even funny.
The only diversity is diversity in skin color, too.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
Game 1: This game has 5 races, each with their own mission. They all play differently.
Mission 1: Race 1 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Race 2 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 3: Race 3 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 4: Race 4 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 5: Race 5 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Game 2: One race, 5 missions.
Mission 1: Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Attack another base
Mission 3: Use limited resources with your races specific strengths to overcome another enemy on an equal field
Mission 4: Build a bridge of firebases to create a corridor of defense between two points
Mission 5: Use only air units to overtake a small sub-base that is supported by a main base.
You are trying to say that Game 1 is more varied than game 2? And will always be?
I don't even know how to argue with you when you cannot accept that variation has something to do with anything other than "THREE RACES" Like how can you not see that the number of races is not the sole determining factor of variety.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
Game 1: This game has 5 races, each with their own mission. They all play differently.
Mission 1: Race 1 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Race 2 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 3: Race 3 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 4: Race 4 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 5: Race 5 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Game 2: One race, 5 missions.
Mission 1: Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Attack another base
Mission 3: Use limited resources with your races specific strengths to overcome another enemy on an equal field
Mission 4: Build a bridge of firebases to create a corridor of defense between two points
Mission 5: Use only air units to overtake a small sub-base that is supported by a main base.
You are trying to say that Game 1 is more varied than game 2? And will always be?
I don't even know how to argue with you when you cannot accept that variation has something to do with anything other than "THREE RACES"
When all 5 races play fundamentally differently it can indeed. In fact, having other races is just as viable a way of making variety as different missions. Also, in your example of one race there are at least only 3 different types of mission in there. Using limited resources is both mission 3 and 5, defending something is both mission 1 and 4. You seem to think there is some amazing difference but there isn't.
There can be just as much variation playing different races as you have there with variations on basic mission ideas in an RTS.
I haven't been saying that three races aren't going to be as varied as one race, I'm saying that one race can be as varied as three races.
Khavall on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I haven't been saying that three races aren't going to be as varied as one race, I'm saying that one race can be as varied as three races.
No it can't.
We can keep going around like this though, but 3 races with 3 mission types is more varied than 1 race with 3 mission types. If each race has to approach a different mission type with particular strengths and weaknesses, it's more varied than a single race.
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.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
Game 1: This game has 5 races, each with their own mission. They all play differently.
Mission 1: Race 1 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Race 2 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 3: Race 3 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 4: Race 4 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 5: Race 5 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Game 2: One race, 5 missions.
Mission 1: Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Attack another base
Mission 3: Use limited resources with your races specific strengths to overcome another enemy on an equal field
Mission 4: Build a bridge of firebases to create a corridor of defense between two points
Mission 5: Use only air units to overtake a small sub-base that is supported by a main base.
You are trying to say that Game 1 is more varied than game 2? And will always be?
I don't even know how to argue with you when you cannot accept that variation has something to do with anything other than "THREE RACES" Like how can you not see that the number of races is not the sole determining factor of variety.
False dichotomy, but continue. You're amusing me.
I'm providing an example, not saying that there are only two ways of going about things, how thick are you?
I haven't been saying that three races aren't going to be as varied as one race, I'm saying that one race can be as varied as three races.
No it can't.
We can keep going around like this though, but 3 races with 3 mission types is more varied than 1 race with 3 mission types. If each race has to approach a different mission type with particular strengths and weaknesses, it's more varied than a single race.
What about 3 races with one mission type versus 1 race with 5 mission types? What if my earlier hypothetical only had three races? Would it still be more varied?
I just can't believe you are so set in this one factor that you can't see just how dumb it is to assume that it is the only factor. It is like trying to convince a child that there exists other food than pizza.
True, but he's saying that one race, with well designed missions, can be more varied than many races with fewer mission types.
Which I agree with. Dark Crusade really bummed me out, I tried all races, found that almost every mission was the same. Got tired of the single player.
MechMantis on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I'm providing an example, not saying that there are only two ways of going about things, how thick are you?
Perhaps you should have made an example that wasn't so obviously a false dichotomy then that can be shot down with simple logic?
Tell me, if you have 5 races and 9 types of missions, do you get more or less variety than 1 race with 9 types of mission. You curiously dodge that argument, because part of the problem with RTS games is they have relatively few actual mission types. This isn't too bad, because RTS games solved this a long time ago with things like "commando" missions, limited resource missions and by, wait for this, having multiple sides with different ways of playing.
Ultimately, they will be relying on their story to carry the game 30 missions. But I'm not interested in 30 missions of Terran story. I've explained this over and over and if we can't cease arguing past one another on this there can't be any way of going forward.
Posts
But I contend that SC1 was good, at least in some measure, because it had three races that you switched from after an appropriate length of time.
No, not solely or "just" because of that, but it was a factor.
I'm not going to outright conclude that the initial release of StarCraft 2 will be bad without this feature, but I think it's crazy not to consider it a significant value-add feature of the original game, and I think it's even crazier not to understand why the lack of this feature gives many people pause about StarCraft 2.
Yes.
That's pretty much what meta-gaming would be.
A game feature within the game itself is not meta-game.
It's new to SC, and I daresay they'll be doing a few things that are new to the genre.
Meta-game is somewhat of a misnomer, but it's less confusing for most than strategy vs. tactics, I'd think. I found it descriptive enough, and understood exactly what was being talked about. If you can come up with a better term I'll be glad to use it.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
No, a metagame is a portion of the game that is completely outside of the ruleset of the game itself. I'm kind of struggling to think how you could ever apply that to a single-player campaign.
Not to go off on a tangent, but when certain descriptive words already exist, I don't see the point in using different, wrong words, to describe things.
I think it's more confusing to use wrong words when you can use correct ones.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "tactics portion" to discuss what you do between missions. Or "preparation phase" or something. I mean..."meta-game" really just is not correct. And such between-mission things have existed since war games have existed, since the early 80s.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
Here, you're just plain incorrect.
Well then whats the point of buying the 2nd and 3rd games? I mean, if Blizzard is putting that much variety into 30 mission, how can you tell me we'll have another 60 missions that will provide just as much variety.
And how can that be just plain wrong? Its actually pretty simple. 3 very distinct races, 10 levels each. Vs 1 race with 30 levels and promise of "oh don't worry, they'll be different"
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Because the singleplayer non-RTS portion of the story mode is "completely outside the ruleset of the game" game. The GAME is an RTS, the meta game is the soldier for hire, money spent or whichever units you want in any order all tied together through open-ended branching paths.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
I understand. I mean, I play games competitively and I understand exactly what metagame actually is. I also know that the difference between strategy and tactics isn't always obvious to people, and I'm not interested in clearing up yet another confusion every 3 pages.
But you're right, strategy and tactics may be more accurate. I don't know, it's a little more than that. The between missions segments? There's more to it than just organizing units and buying upgrades. It's not quite a preparation phase, either. I'll stop with the meta-game, though.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
No it's not. The ruleset of the game includes everything in the game. If there was a bejeweled mini-game within the game where you could level up your firebats, that still wouldn't be a meta-game, it would just be part of the game. And various people have already relayed the correct definition of meta-game. Go educate yourself on this term, stop using it to describe actual game elements of StarCraft 2, and stop being such a nincompoop while you're at it.
I dunno. I don't think we really need to label it anyway...just refer to it as "between missions" like you said.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
I must disagree with you. Sure, focusing as just one race will not necessarily give you the same variety in single-player gameplay and in the narrative, but there is a tradeoff that has both positive and negative elements. Focusing on one specific branch of the storyline could allow for a more focused and cohesive (that isn't the best word for, but the only one that came to mind) experience. It will allow you to focus on one set of characters for an extended period of time and will closely follow their story instead of showing you the whole overarching plot.
According to what Blizzard has said, they are splitting up the games so they can focus on creating interesting elements that pertain to each race and creating an in depth campaign for the Terran, Protoss, and Zerg. Releasing this content under one game would require immense amounts of time, pushing the release date back and would be a steal for the consumers. It would be like selling 3 new games for the price of one. Of course, there is always the option that it is really just about money.
Your point on gameplay is a valid one. You will not have the same sort of singleplayer campaign variety. But there are games like Company of Heroes, where you play essentially the same "race" and it is still fun. So, maybe that is a little bit of a letdown, but hardly a deal breaker. Your point on story though, is something I completely disagree with. That is like saying a movie or book in which they focus on just one character (just about any book written in first person) is bad simply because of the fact that it doesn't have multiple stories running at the same time. That's just crazy.
That's certainly funny, because you appear to know all about it.
It should be pointed out that this is the primary defense of making 3 games over just the one.
Just so you know.
this is not the relevant part of the argument.
At all.
I doubt this, because Blizzard have enough of it as it is so I again, fail to see why they would bother doing this unless they genuinely felt like it would improve the game.
Company of Heroes doesn't try to extend its Single Player into 30 missions of just playing the Americans and the expansion let you play as both the British and the Panzer Elite, who also, incidentally play substantially differently both to one another and to the original American/Wermacht.
Edit: CoH has 15 missions. I definitely was getting bored by the end of that. Minding, the mission variety in the game was pretty good in general, it was more the fact that I wanted to play as the Germans for a while after about mission 8.
I hate to say it, but even Company of Heroes bored me after awhile.
And I have to just offer my perspective on your last comment. I'm a writer myself, or am trying to be. And I read a lot. And while there are many novels that focus on a single character throughout the book, very few of them have the ability to interest me for the entire book. Obviously, most novels written in first person have no choice, but, more often than not, I tend to prefer books that vary up the point of view every once in a while to books that don't.
Look at A Song of Ice and Fire. One of its main draws is how it stitches together multiple points of view.
I'm not saying that a story, book, movie, or game that does this is, by default, better than one that doesn't, because it's not true. Not true at all. However, I do think many people are ignoring the immense draw of such a thing and the fact that it is a very engaging method of storytelling when done right. So it should be understandable for people to be a bit dismayed or upset at not having that feature right off the bat in StarCraft 2, regardless of what concessions exist in place of it.
Yes, StarCraft 2 might end up being better for it. None of us know this yet. But as it stands, the fact that there were three playable races and that they were available right off the bat in the first StarCraft was a major draw to the game for many people. And that doesn't seem to be a possibility here, which is a bit saddening.
That's really all we're trying to say. Maybe it'll be just fine. Nobody knows. But it's not invalid to say "I wish the sequel kept this element of the first game."
Yeah, I should just make one gigantic bowl to eat cereal out of rather than just 3 regular sized bowls. Plus I'm sure it will cost the same too.
Also there is a 3 in 1 version of Starcraft 2, it's called the battlechest.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
We can agree there.
Oh, you aren't referring to the people defending the decision to split it into three games?
/facepalm.
Great of you to miss the point though. Went right over your head.
Hypocrisy is fun for all the family though.
/facepalm
Drez is absolutely right on this issue.
You need a new meme, this one seems to have been run into the ground.
The idea that Blizzard should just make the game 90 missions long and charge 50 bucks makes sense in only that posters fantasy land where game companies are charities. People who want to experience the zerg protoss and terran all at once do have an option. Wait as long as they would have if Blizzard decided to out of the goodness of their hearts to concede and make the game 90 missions at once.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
And then there are most reasoned arguments, like this.
The problem with that, however, is... it goes without saying, that if it's bad, it'll be bad.
"They could mess this up or not" is not anything remotely close to an argument against or even for this decision. That's a simple fact that applies to every game ever made.
Ok, let me quote you and change your argument to something you'll hopefully understand.
You came out with this (what I am assuming was supposed to be witty) retort:
Of course, nowhere did I state it should cost the same or be 90 missions long. Again, because I've noticed a certain side of this argument just never bothers reading what the other writes.
So, let me put it this way:
Yeah, I should just make three gigantic bowls of cereal to eat instead of 1 regular sized bowl that has some cornflakes, cocoapuffs and fruit loops. Plus I'm sure people won't mind that it will cost them three times more too. Of course, I'm not actually sure if each of the three gigantic bowls of cereal is what I actually want, because they are much larger portions than normal and I'm not sure if I'll get sick of eating all this single brand of cereal before I can finish the whole bowl where I can easily finish the bowl of three different kinds of cereal.
Do you understand yet? Your argument you presented is just as applicable to anything written FOR splitting it into three games.
Actually, probably moreso.
Quote me where I ever said that. Go ahead. Make my day by proving you can't read what I write by forcing yourself to mangle something completely unrelated to make it seem like I ever said that anywhere at all.
I was implying this:
a) They succeeded with a certain formula in the first StarCraft.
b) Part of that success was the way the original campaign was structured.
c) Therefore, I am more uncertain about StarCraft 2's quality than if they had stuck to the original StarCraft formula.
Mind you, I'm not really arguing in favor of duplicating a 10-year-old formula T-for-T either, but the excision of this feature in particular is dismaying because I happen to like that particular feature of the original game even over many of its many other features.
Does...that make more sense?
:rotate:
I have faith it won't be terrible. I'm readily prepared for it to be mediocre and disappointing, though. But that goes for most things.
Game 1: This game has 5 races, each with their own mission. They all play differently.
Mission 1: Race 1 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Race 2 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 3: Race 3 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 4: Race 4 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 5: Race 5 - Defend your base from an onslaught
Game 2: One race, 5 missions.
Mission 1: Defend your base from an onslaught
Mission 2: Attack another base
Mission 3: Use limited resources with your races specific strengths to overcome another enemy on an equal field
Mission 4: Build a bridge of firebases to create a corridor of defense between two points
Mission 5: Use only air units to overtake a small sub-base that is supported by a main base.
You are trying to say that Game 1 is more varied than game 2? And will always be?
I don't even know how to argue with you when you cannot accept that variation has something to do with anything other than "THREE RACES" Like how can you not see that the number of races is not the sole determining factor of variety.
I beat you to the punch to this 46 pages ago.
Beaten to the punch by a bazillion pages etc..
But also investing too much in the method of storytelling is just as bad.
I mean, look at Aegeri. He seems to be absolutely refusing to believe that any other mission structure than three races could possibly be as varied as three races, and that's just so far off the mark it's not even funny.
When all 5 races play fundamentally differently it can indeed. In fact, having other races is just as viable a way of making variety as different missions. Also, in your example of one race there are at least only 3 different types of mission in there. Using limited resources is both mission 3 and 5, defending something is both mission 1 and 4. You seem to think there is some amazing difference but there isn't.
There can be just as much variation playing different races as you have there with variations on basic mission ideas in an RTS.
Much like you and the opposite argument eh?
Because you're still wrong, especially when you make delightful strawman arguments.
The only diversity is diversity in skin color, too.
False dichotomy, but continue. You're amusing me.
No it can't.
We can keep going around like this though, but 3 races with 3 mission types is more varied than 1 race with 3 mission types. If each race has to approach a different mission type with particular strengths and weaknesses, it's more varied than a single race.
I'm providing an example, not saying that there are only two ways of going about things, how thick are you?
What about 3 races with one mission type versus 1 race with 5 mission types? What if my earlier hypothetical only had three races? Would it still be more varied?
I just can't believe you are so set in this one factor that you can't see just how dumb it is to assume that it is the only factor. It is like trying to convince a child that there exists other food than pizza.
Which I agree with. Dark Crusade really bummed me out, I tried all races, found that almost every mission was the same. Got tired of the single player.
Perhaps you should have made an example that wasn't so obviously a false dichotomy then that can be shot down with simple logic?
Tell me, if you have 5 races and 9 types of missions, do you get more or less variety than 1 race with 9 types of mission. You curiously dodge that argument, because part of the problem with RTS games is they have relatively few actual mission types. This isn't too bad, because RTS games solved this a long time ago with things like "commando" missions, limited resource missions and by, wait for this, having multiple sides with different ways of playing.
Ultimately, they will be relying on their story to carry the game 30 missions. But I'm not interested in 30 missions of Terran story. I've explained this over and over and if we can't cease arguing past one another on this there can't be any way of going forward.