I'm pretty sure he doesn't really know what a false dichotomy is, considering he's never used the word "dichotomy" before, let alone discussed a false one.
He presents the most stupid possible either or:
5 of X
vs.
1 of X
Failing to realise that a true situation is
5 of Y (where Y = 4-7)
vs.
1 of Y (Where Y = 4-7).
One of these things is a logical and fair example. He has presented a false dichotomy, pretending there would only be two options when in reality there isn't a modern RTS game that I can name with multiple races having ONE type of mission each, let alone applying this argument to Starcraft. If you can name me a single example, I'll concede his argument wasn't a false dichotomy. I cannot think of an RTS I've bought single maybe the original Dune, that had multiple races and a single mission type. Command and Conquer for example had attack, defense and commando style missions. Warcraft had a real variety in missions (actually, the original Warcraft had a wonderful selection of varied missions per race) compared with other RTS games now I think of it. If his scenario wasn't some stupid strawman and matched the actual reality of situations, I wouldn't call it a false dichotomy.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't really know what a false dichotomy is, considering he's never used the word "dichotomy" before, let alone discussed a false one.
He presents the most stupid possible either or:
5 of X
vs.
1 of X
Failing to realise that a true situation is
5 of Y (where Y = 4-7)
vs.
1 of Y (Where Y = 4-7).
One of these things is a logical and fair example. He has presented a false dichotmy, pretending there would only be two options when in reality there isn't a modern RTS game that I can name with multiple races having ONE type of mission each, let alone applying this argument to Starcraft. If you can name me a single example, I'll concede his argument wasn't a false dichotomy.
Ok, how about Starcraft 2 compared to Starcraft. Starcraft 2 will have one race but will have a branching storyline and the ability to upgrade the specific units you want, meaning different people will end up with different unit compositions that have different strengths and weaknesses, and there will be a point to multiple playthroughs, which will let you do different missions with different army make ups, as well as a variety of different types of missions, all with one race. Compared to Starcraft, where you had three different races and three or four different mission types repeated over and over and over, with one linear path, and every time you play a race it stays the same.
Edit: This isn't even the point; the point is that it's possible to create variety in different ways than just by changing races, and it's possible to create more variety overall if you focus on making a particular race very interesting and trying to do all sorts of different stuff with that one race, and working it up to its full potential. If instead there are only a few different types of missions, but you go through them with the different races, it is more varied, but the individual experiences of playing through the game with a particular race might be more stale. This is part of why the three sections might turn out to be a good idea; Blizzard can really work the different races to their full potential, then focus on working on the next race, rather than switching back and forth between the races and making it more homogeneous.
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.
I really don't feel like searching for, then sifting though the original thread where this exploded into a carbon copy of this thread. But I brought that up the battlechest then too as a solution. I'm actually wondering what exactly your argument with me is when you seem to be in agreement that the people who think Blizzard should just release all their planned content in one disk from the start is preposterous from a time/production to cost ratio. I also never once insinuated that YOU think the game should come 90 missions in one box from the start, though you seem to think so. There are however, people who do think so, and to them I say wait for the battlechest.
Your "cornflakes, cocoapuffs and fruit loops" argument falls apart simply because your assumption is that each race will be the same throughout and the only way to give it variety is to change cereals(or races as the case may be).
If it turns out that each race plays the exact same and the only type of mission is to take these peons and build however many units/buildings then kill X's base and repeat I'll eat my words. But from what I've seen from the growing variety in such a stale genre as MMO that Blizzard is attempting to change, I have some faith that they will put forth the same sort of commitment to provide the same sort of variety in SCII. A game that has far higher expectations than WoW ever did.
Ok, how about Starcraft 2 compared to Starcraft. Starcraft 2 will have one race but will have a branching storyline and the ability to upgrade the specific units you want, meaning different people will end up with different unit compositions that have different strengths and weaknesses, and there will be a point to multiple playthroughs, which will let you do different missions with different army make ups, as well as a variety of different types of missions, all with one race. Compared to Starcraft, where you had three different races and three or four different mission types repeated over and over and over, with one linear path, and every time you play a race it stays the same.
Different army makeups is the same thing I've already pointed out like "building wraiths instead of people". You seem oblivious to any of the arguments I've been making about story as well, like Khavall, which isn't going to get the same variety of viewpoints that I liked about the original. Especially because in SC, each race built upon the previous races storyline and it wasn't just playing through the same events but with a different ending ala Warcraft 2. Each campaign built on the other and provided a unique perspective.
Your "cornflakes, cocoapuffs and fruit loops" argument falls apart simply because your assumption is that each race will be the same throughout and the only way to give it variety is to change cereals(or races as the case may be).
No it doesn't. It doesn't matter if you put sugar in your cereal, it's still fundamentally the same cereal.
It also has to be the same cereal for 30 missions. I am yet to be convinced on this.
Ok, how about Starcraft 2 compared to Starcraft. Starcraft 2 will have one race but will have a branching storyline and the ability to upgrade the specific units you want, meaning different people will end up with different unit compositions that have different strengths and weaknesses, and there will be a point to multiple playthroughs, which will let you do different missions with different army make ups, as well as a variety of different types of missions, all with one race. Compared to Starcraft, where you had three different races and three or four different mission types repeated over and over and over, with one linear path, and every time you play a race it stays the same.
Different army makeups is the same thing I've already pointed out like "building wraiths instead of people". You seem oblivious to any of the arguments I've been making about story as well, like Khavall.
(I made an edit to that post by the way)
I have been reading your posts, and what I think you aren't considering is the weight you're giving to different aspects of the "variety" we're talking about. You're placing a heavier emphasis on the different race types creating variety, while not allowing for the POSSIBILITY (as in, it is not going to necessarily happen, but there is a chance that it might) that other factors that, when worked with and fleshed out enough, might actually allow for more choice and interesting stuff to happen overall.
I understand that simply swapping races is an easy way to say "hey look, you're doing the same thing, but different!" but that's not always super interesting. I had trouble playing all the way through the single player in Starcraft and Broodwar just because playing the same types of missions over and over is boring, regardless of what race I was using. Plus, since the same strategy worked on pretty much every single map, all I would do, no matter the race, was build up a super huge army then beat the crap out of everything. I was using different races, but what I had to do to win wasn't really varied or interesting.
Everyone here has seemed to forget one thing. Quantity does not equal quality.
If the quality is so great it will mean 3 separate purchases, then who the hells complaining?
You could wait for a review of all 3 games and then buy, or you can buy one game and pick the others up later.
The point is, if they all warrant a purchase, and are everything you would have expected from a starcraft game and more, whats there really to complain about?
1 epic game expanded over 3 times the content is like the hail marry of all video games.
Also, playguuuuuuuuuuuuue! 4 life. Fucking Science Vessels. Funnily enough, I knew a Toss player who would always pronounce it "plag," and who would only build goons and templars. Those were the days.
I wish I could still play SC. I've become a dota monkey.
Ok, how about Starcraft 2 compared to Starcraft. Starcraft 2 will have one race but will have a branching storyline and the ability to upgrade the specific units you want, meaning different people will end up with different unit compositions that have different strengths and weaknesses, and there will be a point to multiple playthroughs, which will let you do different missions with different army make ups, as well as a variety of different types of missions, all with one race. Compared to Starcraft, where you had three different races and three or four different mission types repeated over and over and over, with one linear path, and every time you play a race it stays the same.
Different army makeups is the same thing I've already pointed out like "building wraiths instead of people". You seem oblivious to any of the arguments I've been making about story as well, like Khavall, which isn't going to get the same variety of viewpoints that I liked about the original. Especially because in SC, each race built upon the previous races storyline and it wasn't just playing through the same events but with a different ending ala Warcraft 2. Each campaign built on the other and provided a unique perspective.
This is utterly impossible with one race.
Well, that's why they plan on having two expansions, each focusing on a different race. They're going to do everything they can with the Terrans in their campaign, and then once they've exhausted what they see as interesting, varied and fun things they can do with them, they start working on the other two races.
Lemming on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
You're placing a heavier emphasis on the different race types creating variety, while not allowing for the POSSIBILITY (as in, it is not going to necessarily happen, but there is a chance that it might) that other factors that, when worked with and fleshed out enough, might actually allow for more choice and interesting stuff to happen overall.
I disagree because if you're playing Terran with Wraiths instead of playing Terran with Valkyries, you're still ultimately only playing Terran. You're only getting the Terran point of view. You are still playing with the Terran armies base concepts. Having several branching missions is an example that works, but this has been done already and in a game with multiple races (Dawn of War: Winter Assault). You can change the odd unit in a race, it doesn't mean it's magically more different varied and interesting than playing an entirely different race. That argument just doesn't make sense.
If you're playing Zerg, you are playing with a different set of rules automatically. Same with Protoss. And same with their relevant story.
You're placing a heavier emphasis on the different race types creating variety, while not allowing for the POSSIBILITY (as in, it is not going to necessarily happen, but there is a chance that it might) that other factors that, when worked with and fleshed out enough, might actually allow for more choice and interesting stuff to happen overall.
I disagree because if you're playing Terran with Wraiths instead of playing Terran with Valkyries, you're still ultimately only playing Terran. You're only getting the Terran point of view. You are still playing with the Terran armies base concepts. Having several branching missions is an example that works, but this has been done already and in a game with multiple races (Dawn of War: Winter Assault).
If you're playing Zerg, you are playing with a different set of rules automatically. Same with Protoss. And same with their relevant story.
How are the rules any different? Build units, kill enemy. It's the same with each race. It's not like Terran kill, Zerg eat, and Protoss just will themselves to victory. You win the same way each time, and as Lemming said, the same strategy wins you every map in SC1. Just because I'm building 20 Carriers instead of 20 BCs doesn't mean I'm doing something amazingly different.
You're placing a heavier emphasis on the different race types creating variety, while not allowing for the POSSIBILITY (as in, it is not going to necessarily happen, but there is a chance that it might) that other factors that, when worked with and fleshed out enough, might actually allow for more choice and interesting stuff to happen overall.
I disagree because if you're playing Terran with Wraiths instead of playing Terran with Valkyries, you're still ultimately only playing Terran. You're only getting the Terran point of view. You are still playing with the Terran armies base concepts. Having several branching missions is an example that works, but this has been done already and in a game with multiple races (Dawn of War: Winter Assault).
If you're playing Zerg, you are playing with a different set of rules automatically. Same with Protoss. And same with their relevant story.
How are the rules any different? Build units, kill enemy. It's the same with each race. It's not like Terran kill, Zerg eat, and Protoss just will themselves to victory. You win the same way each time, and as Lemming said, the same strategy wins you every map in SC1. Just because I'm building 20 Carriers instead of 20 BCs doesn't mean I'm doing something amazingly different.
Every race has different rules, for example needing to build in certain positions or being restricted/having different advantages/disadvantages. This is again, not just where the mission variety matters (bearing in mind Starcraft is a lot older than many other modern RTS games like Company of Heroes, which the expansion I felt was perfect for what it did) but also story. Every fucking time you ignore this argument. Every time. It's not just the mission variety, but the STORY VARIETY. I wrote, earlier that 30 missions of Starcraft would have driven me stupid if it hadn't been for the race switching. Not just because of the different mechanics of playing a different race but also their story.
But yes, you do win the same way each time. How is this effect not going to be worse over 30 missions each than 10 missions each incidentally? You only make an explicit assumption completely this is somehow going to be magically fixed as a problem, because of things that games like Dawn of War: Dark Crusade already tried and with nine races.
Your "cornflakes, cocoapuffs and fruit loops" argument falls apart simply because your assumption is that each race will be the same throughout and the only way to give it variety is to change cereals(or races as the case may be).
No it doesn't. It doesn't matter if you put sugar in your cereal, it's still fundamentally the same cereal.
It does matter what you buy, you can buy frosted flakes or the single serving variety packs.
It also has to be the same cereal for 30 missions. I am yet to be convinced on this.
So the whole basis for your argument is "I don't know, so it must be ___"? You can't be convinced by something no one knows, so you are in the clear to make assumptions?
It also has to be the same cereal for 30 missions. I am yet to be convinced on this.
So the whole basis for your argument is "I don't know, so it must be ___"? You can't be convinced by something no one knows, so you are in the clear to make assumptions?
Much like you are?
Why do I not get to make assumptions, actually based on actual facts available like precedents with other RTS games (as mentioned about mission types) yet those who defend this get to make up, quite frankly, anything they like so long as it agrees with their point of view?
I've never played an RTS game with a single race that carries itself well for an absurdly high amount of missions. It's also not what I liked about the original Starcraft, which was its narrative style involving all three races. The arguments I'm seeing for why it will be varied I've seen done before, such as being able to customise units or similar. I've seen that done before as well in games like Warzone 2021 and branching mission structures in other RTS games (including the original command and conquer, which had a couple of different missions if you went to the odd other area). Even then, I don't think I ever finished Warzone 2021 (despite the wide variety of different stuff you could make) and Command and Conquer was great. 30 missions of the same thing as GDI without being able to play as Nod at all? Hmmmm.
I remain unconvinced, based actually on previous experience, this is going to add the same variety as an entirely different race and keep it up for 30 missions.
You're placing a heavier emphasis on the different race types creating variety, while not allowing for the POSSIBILITY (as in, it is not going to necessarily happen, but there is a chance that it might) that other factors that, when worked with and fleshed out enough, might actually allow for more choice and interesting stuff to happen overall.
I disagree because if you're playing Terran with Wraiths instead of playing Terran with Valkyries, you're still ultimately only playing Terran. You're only getting the Terran point of view. You are still playing with the Terran armies base concepts. Having several branching missions is an example that works, but this has been done already and in a game with multiple races (Dawn of War: Winter Assault).
If you're playing Zerg, you are playing with a different set of rules automatically. Same with Protoss. And same with their relevant story.
How are the rules any different? Build units, kill enemy. It's the same with each race. It's not like Terran kill, Zerg eat, and Protoss just will themselves to victory. You win the same way each time, and as Lemming said, the same strategy wins you every map in SC1. Just because I'm building 20 Carriers instead of 20 BCs doesn't mean I'm doing something amazingly different.
Every race has different rules, for example needing to build in certain positions or being restricted/having different advantages/disadvantages. This is again, not just where the mission variety matters (bearing in mind Starcraft is a lot older than many other modern RTS games like Company of Heroes, which the expansion I felt was perfect for what it did) but also story. Every fucking time you ignore this argument. Every time. It's not just the mission variety, but the STORY VARIETY. I wrote, earlier that 30 missions of Starcraft would have driven me stupid if it hadn't been for the race switching. Not just because of the different mechanics of playing a different race but also their story.
But yes, you do win the same way each time. How is this effect not going to be worse over 30 missions each than 10 missions each incidentally? You only make an explicit assumption completely this is somehow going to be magically fixed as a problem, because of things that games like Dawn of War: Dark Crusade already tried and with nine races.
We don't know anything about the story, so how can I say it'll be good or bad? And I don't see any reason why a story focused around one race can't have as much variety and depth as one with three. But that argument has run its course, so whatever.
And you're ignoring that mission variety may very well include playing as other races. You're ignoring that I've brought up a the Protoss mini-campaign at least a dozen times in this thread. You're ignoring that in SC1 there were many times during each campaign that you had access to the other races, were privy to what they were doing, etc. You're also working around the fact that each race will be getting its due.
And 30 missions is 30 missions, no matter how you slice it. I think it'll more interesting in SC2 because you get a lot more variety (from everything we've been told) when it comes to how you want to play each mission, maybe even if you want to play each mission. Thirty missions is an estimate, the campaign is non-linear. It may be possible to beat it in 10 missions, or to stretch it out to 50. We don't know. We do know that Blizzard wants to do something interesting, and that Blizzard seldom screws things up completely.
I predict the game will be half full, you think it will be half empty. Fair enough, but are you always this pessimistic about games that so little is known about?
We don't know anything about the story, so how can I say it'll be good or bad?
/facepalm
Oh God, kill me now.
Where the fuck did I say otherwise? I've never implied ANYTHING about the quality, MERELY THE PERSPECTIVE.
The only thing I have said, way back 47 or whatever pages ago is that it would make for an overall more cohesive narrative, eventually, but poorer individually.
And I don't see any reason why a story focused around one race can't have as much variety and depth as one with three. But that argument has run its course, so whatever.
It can't.
If you have 3 races and you present only one of them from their point of view (which from a narrative point of view means you are getting full information), then it's not the same as playing 3 races and getting their unique point of view each time.
This shouldn't require so much explanation.
And you're ignoring that mission variety may very well include playing as other races.
Hopefully that would be true, but it doesn't change my original argument. A couple of protoss or zerg missions adds a lot of variety and would be very good.
That's not what I'm arguing or asking for.
You're ignoring that in SC1 there were many times during each campaign that you had access to the other races, were privy to what they were doing, etc.
It's not the same as playing 10 missions and an entirely storyline dedicated to them solely and you know it.
You're also working around the fact that each race will be getting its due.
No, if you had read my posts (I'm convinced you don't and go off a list of talking points instead of actually reading what the other person is writing at this stage) I've pointed out over 46 pages ago that this will be the case.
In like, 2 years or so.
I just again, think you are doing your absolute best not to read what I write and treat all the arguments from people disappointed, but not in any way angry or wanting to go up to Blizzard North and shit on their lawn (or whatever the fuck it is you think) at all reasonably.
And 30 missions is 30 missions, no matter how you slice it. I think it'll more interesting in SC2 because you get a lot more variety (from everything we've been told) when it comes to how you want to play each mission
From everything we've been told I remain firmly unconvinced. I've seen things like "choosing different units" and upgrades and such done before. Warzone 2021 is a classic example and I don't think that will keep my interest in playing Terran for 30 missions. Less definitely though, if it does only take 10 missions I won't be too worried. 30 missions, even of races I love like Zerg... I'm completely unconvinced. Especially because again, what keeps me going in many RTS games has nothing to do with the missions themselves but seeing how different factions or races view things.
Command and Conquer 3 is a terrible game. But I played through it with both the GDI and NOD simply because of the ridiculous FMV cutscenes and how all the story fell together. Playing GDI only for 30 missions, even with more FMV and similar. Once again, I doubt it, even with a command and conquer generals like "army customisation" with choosing a general to add the odd new unit or whatever.
That's not enough variety by far to carry a game 30 missions.
Did you notice that those are games that are not Starcraft 2 and, as a result, Starcraft 2 could be entirely different and manage to keep your interest throughout 30 missions?
Lemming on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Did you notice that those are games that are not Starcraft 2 and, as a result, Starcraft 2 could be entirely different and manage to keep your interest throughout 30 missions?
No, I jolly-gee-whizz didn't. Thanks for pointing that out Big Ben. Shall we go down to the river and catch us some nice big trout before the winter?
Did you notice that those are games that are not Starcraft 2 and, as a result, Starcraft 2 could be entirely different and manage to keep your interest throughout 30 missions?
No, I jolly-gee-whizz didn't. Thanks for pointing that out Big Ben. Shall we go down to the river and catch us some nice big trout before the winter?
Because you were using a lot of games that weren't Starcraft 2 to try to prove that Starcraft 2 would be a certain way, which is really, really poor logic.
I think the problem is, then, that you're just different. Nothing will change that, it's fine. I love you just the way you are!
Bringing up Warzone 2021 is unfair because that game sucked a truckload of donkey balls. No amount of mission variety or whatever would have helped.
What I don't quite grasp is your exact problem with 1 race. If it's the perspective then I imagine that has a lot to do with the story. I'm not ignoring that you acknowledge the other 2 games, I'm saying you're working around it. There will be a Zerg and a Protoss campaign, so what's the problem? You want them all at once? Alright, but that's completely arbitrary and doesn't have any real bearing on whether the Terran campaign will be good for its entire ~30 missions.
I also agree that C&C3 is a terrible game. Because there were 3 different sides with 3 different terrible stories didn't make me want to play it any more than the other C&C games that only had 2 sides with 2 terrible stories. That's just the way I roll.
s_86, stop trying to make friends for me! You're not my mother!
Did you notice that those are games that are not Starcraft 2 and, as a result, Starcraft 2 could be entirely different and manage to keep your interest throughout 30 missions?
No, I jolly-gee-whizz didn't. Thanks for pointing that out Big Ben. Shall we go down to the river and catch us some nice big trout before the winter?
Because you were using a lot of games that weren't Starcraft 2 to try to prove that Starcraft 2 would be a certain way, which is really, really poor logic.
No it's not, it's just based on what games in the RTS genre that have come before. Do you not think that comparing other RTS games, all of which have faced this exact problem is invalid? Because it's not at all "poor logic" unless you want to be utterly, completely unrealistically optimistic. They face a major hurdle making a really long single player campaign with only one race. A lot of previous RTS games have attempted this and they all share common problems. Some have used solutions like having branching mission structures, having completely customisable armies and such forth. Their success and lack of success (in some cases) is fully valid.
Being able to customise your army is great in theory, but then it depends on how useful the feature is. Warzone for example allowed you to build your own army entirely from different parts, but just because I could make my own army didn't mean the game had any "variety" compared to the original Starcraft, Warcraft or similar. Actually, it ended up that the customisation mostly resulted in a few, optimal units and everything else was just pointless. So just because they "add" this doesn't mean they fix the problem at all.
Saying that "I think it's hard to keep variety for 30 missions" is poor logic.
Saying "I think it's hard to keep variety for 30 missions, because game X did this approach and it's similar to what blizzard did, but it didn't exactly work" is the polar opposite.
Some of you act like this is everyones first RTS game and that nobody else has ever actually tried anything in the RTS genre except making a game with defense missions.
Bringing up Warzone 2021 is unfair because that game sucked a truckload of donkey balls. No amount of mission variety or whatever would have helped.
Actually it was pretty good if you got the games concepts. It's one of the more challenging games I played as well because I wasn't used to having a time limit. It does suck that most peoples entire decision if that game sucked or not was the time limit, which was occasionally so unfair it wasn't even funny.
So has it actually been confirmed that each installment will be $50, or is that just rumor and hearsay? I mean I could potentially justify paying up to $90 for the set, if it meets expectations.
So has it actually been confirmed that each installment will be $50, or is that just rumor and hearsay? I mean I could potentially justify paying up to $90 for the set, if it meets expectations.
Nothing definitive has been said about the prices.
Slicer on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I don't think comparing Starcraft to other RTS games is fair.
Because it's a lot better.
IMO, SC2 is more like other RTS games than Starcraft, simply because it's annihilating one of the features I liked most. Unlike other RTS games, SC had a complete, interesting narrative from the get go and Brood war just added to it.
Now I get 1/3 of a complete narrative that won't be finished for another 2 years. So it's heavily degraded my optimism for how I feel about the SP of SC2. Plus I have to play a race I find immeasurably boring and am forced to buy it because they aren't stand alone.
Edit: I honestly don't believe all three games will be full priced on release. The first game is likely to be and the other two expansion prices.
Not to get all "by that logic..." on you, but SC1's plot wasn't that great, and it did end with a few very large cliffhangers. From what Blizzard has said, I think SC2:Teh Terran will probably have a more conclusive ending than SC1, and you can be comforted that you won't have to wait another decade to find out what happens next.
Not to get all "by that logic..." on you, but SC1's plot wasn't that great, and it did end with a few very large cliffhangers.
But I still got a complete story, going from one race all the way to the protoss. Then the same again in Brood War. That's all that mattered. Now I buy a full priced game and I only get one side of that story continuing on. This doesn't impress me at all and is far worse than a cliffhanger.
Also, I am pessimistic about 30 missions in one race because I am well aware of how easy it would be to screw it up. Being pessimistic about 30 missions sucking is the safe bet over believing that they can make 30 missions interesting with one race, then discovering it's 30 varieties of "build X", "harvest X", "Escort Y", "Defend X", "attack X" and the variants "Defend for X minutes", "attack X for W minutes to allow Y escort to escape*" and such forth.
I will cut and then shit on the next person to try and explain their point through metaphor.
like putting too much air in a balloon!
Starcraft was like a regular car that they made as good as possible. Then they realized a month later that a quick supercharge kit could totally make it awesome. Well, they couldn't just give the kit away so they sold it.
Now they're not giving you a whole car, they're trying to sell you a giant go kart, then a body kit, then the roof! And what if you don't want the moon roof option? Well tough shit, you have to pay for it because your friends only race with moon roofs. And then the spoilers or "Zerg Pack" come out and you have to get the tallest one, and the point is, it's a dick measuring contest where Blizzard takes all your money and uses it to mechanically process babies into the most luxurious seat covers you've ever felt.
Not to get all "by that logic..." on you, but SC1's plot wasn't that great, and it did end with a few very large cliffhangers.
But I still got a complete story, going from one race all the way to the protoss. Then the same again in Brood War. That's all that mattered. Now I buy a full priced game and I only get one side of that story continuing on. This doesn't impress me at all and is far worse than a cliffhanger.
Also, I am pessimistic about 30 missions in one race because I am well aware of how easy it would be to screw it up. Being pessimistic about 30 missions sucking is the safe bet over believing that they can make 30 missions interesting with one race, then discovering it's 30 varieties of "build X", "harvest X", "Escort Y", "Defend X", "attack X" and the variants "Defend for X minutes", "attack X for W minutes to allow Y escort to escape*" and such forth.
*I concede, that was novel.
Frozen Throne did a nice job of mixing the mission varieties up to include missions besides those.
Granted a lot of it was taking ideas from custom maps but it was still fun!
Slicer on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Because Blizzard don't care about the quality of their games, they only care about how much money they can spend on hookers and blow.
Because that's where all the billions of dollars from WoW are going and don't deny it. Otherwise all their games from this point on would be released for free and come with a free hooker.
Not to get all "by that logic..." on you, but SC1's plot wasn't that great, and it did end with a few very large cliffhangers.
But I still got a complete story, going from one race all the way to the protoss. Then the same again in Brood War. That's all that mattered. Now I buy a full priced game and I only get one side of that story continuing on. This doesn't impress me at all and is far worse than a cliffhanger.
Also, I am pessimistic about 30 missions in one race because I am well aware of how easy it would be to screw it up. Being pessimistic about 30 missions sucking is the safe bet over believing that they can make 30 missions interesting with one race, then discovering it's 30 varieties of "build X", "harvest X", "Escort Y", "Defend X", "attack X" and the variants "Defend for X minutes", "attack X for W minutes to allow Y escort to escape*" and such forth.
*I concede, that was novel.
Frozen Throne did a nice job of mixing the mission varieties up to include missions besides those.
Granted a lot of it was taking ideas from custom maps but it was still fun!
I despised the multiplayer in Warcraft 3 entirely, but the single player was plain awesome. I loved that mission where you had that fellow caged in the middle and you had to fight over him with DotA like gameplay and just your heroes. But again, TFT is just what I expect. It never let its gameplay get stale because it was switching up gameplay one minute, then you were playing a different faction, then you were doing something else etc. I really loved it.
Posts
He presents the most stupid possible either or:
5 of X
vs.
1 of X
Failing to realise that a true situation is
5 of Y (where Y = 4-7)
vs.
1 of Y (Where Y = 4-7).
One of these things is a logical and fair example. He has presented a false dichotomy, pretending there would only be two options when in reality there isn't a modern RTS game that I can name with multiple races having ONE type of mission each, let alone applying this argument to Starcraft. If you can name me a single example, I'll concede his argument wasn't a false dichotomy. I cannot think of an RTS I've bought single maybe the original Dune, that had multiple races and a single mission type. Command and Conquer for example had attack, defense and commando style missions. Warcraft had a real variety in missions (actually, the original Warcraft had a wonderful selection of varied missions per race) compared with other RTS games now I think of it. If his scenario wasn't some stupid strawman and matched the actual reality of situations, I wouldn't call it a false dichotomy.
Also, god help you if you're Korean. Danger hates Koreans
That's why you cut them up and put them in your fridge in the basement?
Ok, how about Starcraft 2 compared to Starcraft. Starcraft 2 will have one race but will have a branching storyline and the ability to upgrade the specific units you want, meaning different people will end up with different unit compositions that have different strengths and weaknesses, and there will be a point to multiple playthroughs, which will let you do different missions with different army make ups, as well as a variety of different types of missions, all with one race. Compared to Starcraft, where you had three different races and three or four different mission types repeated over and over and over, with one linear path, and every time you play a race it stays the same.
Edit: This isn't even the point; the point is that it's possible to create variety in different ways than just by changing races, and it's possible to create more variety overall if you focus on making a particular race very interesting and trying to do all sorts of different stuff with that one race, and working it up to its full potential. If instead there are only a few different types of missions, but you go through them with the different races, it is more varied, but the individual experiences of playing through the game with a particular race might be more stale. This is part of why the three sections might turn out to be a good idea; Blizzard can really work the different races to their full potential, then focus on working on the next race, rather than switching back and forth between the races and making it more homogeneous.
I really don't feel like searching for, then sifting though the original thread where this exploded into a carbon copy of this thread. But I brought that up the battlechest then too as a solution. I'm actually wondering what exactly your argument with me is when you seem to be in agreement that the people who think Blizzard should just release all their planned content in one disk from the start is preposterous from a time/production to cost ratio. I also never once insinuated that YOU think the game should come 90 missions in one box from the start, though you seem to think so. There are however, people who do think so, and to them I say wait for the battlechest.
Your "cornflakes, cocoapuffs and fruit loops" argument falls apart simply because your assumption is that each race will be the same throughout and the only way to give it variety is to change cereals(or races as the case may be).
If it turns out that each race plays the exact same and the only type of mission is to take these peons and build however many units/buildings then kill X's base and repeat I'll eat my words. But from what I've seen from the growing variety in such a stale genre as MMO that Blizzard is attempting to change, I have some faith that they will put forth the same sort of commitment to provide the same sort of variety in SCII. A game that has far higher expectations than WoW ever did.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
I bet StarCraft 2 doesn't come on a cross platform disc...
AND ANOTHER THING...
Different army makeups is the same thing I've already pointed out like "building wraiths instead of people". You seem oblivious to any of the arguments I've been making about story as well, like Khavall, which isn't going to get the same variety of viewpoints that I liked about the original. Especially because in SC, each race built upon the previous races storyline and it wasn't just playing through the same events but with a different ending ala Warcraft 2. Each campaign built on the other and provided a unique perspective.
This is utterly impossible with one race.
No it doesn't. It doesn't matter if you put sugar in your cereal, it's still fundamentally the same cereal.
It also has to be the same cereal for 30 missions. I am yet to be convinced on this.
Sounds like a fun thing to watch.
(I made an edit to that post by the way)
I have been reading your posts, and what I think you aren't considering is the weight you're giving to different aspects of the "variety" we're talking about. You're placing a heavier emphasis on the different race types creating variety, while not allowing for the POSSIBILITY (as in, it is not going to necessarily happen, but there is a chance that it might) that other factors that, when worked with and fleshed out enough, might actually allow for more choice and interesting stuff to happen overall.
I understand that simply swapping races is an easy way to say "hey look, you're doing the same thing, but different!" but that's not always super interesting. I had trouble playing all the way through the single player in Starcraft and Broodwar just because playing the same types of missions over and over is boring, regardless of what race I was using. Plus, since the same strategy worked on pretty much every single map, all I would do, no matter the race, was build up a super huge army then beat the crap out of everything. I was using different races, but what I had to do to win wasn't really varied or interesting.
If the quality is so great it will mean 3 separate purchases, then who the hells complaining?
You could wait for a review of all 3 games and then buy, or you can buy one game and pick the others up later.
The point is, if they all warrant a purchase, and are everything you would have expected from a starcraft game and more, whats there really to complain about?
1 epic game expanded over 3 times the content is like the hail marry of all video games.
Also, playguuuuuuuuuuuuue! 4 life. Fucking Science Vessels. Funnily enough, I knew a Toss player who would always pronounce it "plag," and who would only build goons and templars. Those were the days.
I wish I could still play SC. I've become a dota monkey.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Well, that's why they plan on having two expansions, each focusing on a different race. They're going to do everything they can with the Terrans in their campaign, and then once they've exhausted what they see as interesting, varied and fun things they can do with them, they start working on the other two races.
I disagree because if you're playing Terran with Wraiths instead of playing Terran with Valkyries, you're still ultimately only playing Terran. You're only getting the Terran point of view. You are still playing with the Terran armies base concepts. Having several branching missions is an example that works, but this has been done already and in a game with multiple races (Dawn of War: Winter Assault). You can change the odd unit in a race, it doesn't mean it's magically more different varied and interesting than playing an entirely different race. That argument just doesn't make sense.
If you're playing Zerg, you are playing with a different set of rules automatically. Same with Protoss. And same with their relevant story.
How are the rules any different? Build units, kill enemy. It's the same with each race. It's not like Terran kill, Zerg eat, and Protoss just will themselves to victory. You win the same way each time, and as Lemming said, the same strategy wins you every map in SC1. Just because I'm building 20 Carriers instead of 20 BCs doesn't mean I'm doing something amazingly different.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Every race has different rules, for example needing to build in certain positions or being restricted/having different advantages/disadvantages. This is again, not just where the mission variety matters (bearing in mind Starcraft is a lot older than many other modern RTS games like Company of Heroes, which the expansion I felt was perfect for what it did) but also story. Every fucking time you ignore this argument. Every time. It's not just the mission variety, but the STORY VARIETY. I wrote, earlier that 30 missions of Starcraft would have driven me stupid if it hadn't been for the race switching. Not just because of the different mechanics of playing a different race but also their story.
But yes, you do win the same way each time. How is this effect not going to be worse over 30 missions each than 10 missions each incidentally? You only make an explicit assumption completely this is somehow going to be magically fixed as a problem, because of things that games like Dawn of War: Dark Crusade already tried and with nine races.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
Much like you are?
Why do I not get to make assumptions, actually based on actual facts available like precedents with other RTS games (as mentioned about mission types) yet those who defend this get to make up, quite frankly, anything they like so long as it agrees with their point of view?
I've never played an RTS game with a single race that carries itself well for an absurdly high amount of missions. It's also not what I liked about the original Starcraft, which was its narrative style involving all three races. The arguments I'm seeing for why it will be varied I've seen done before, such as being able to customise units or similar. I've seen that done before as well in games like Warzone 2021 and branching mission structures in other RTS games (including the original command and conquer, which had a couple of different missions if you went to the odd other area). Even then, I don't think I ever finished Warzone 2021 (despite the wide variety of different stuff you could make) and Command and Conquer was great. 30 missions of the same thing as GDI without being able to play as Nod at all? Hmmmm.
I remain unconvinced, based actually on previous experience, this is going to add the same variety as an entirely different race and keep it up for 30 missions.
We don't know anything about the story, so how can I say it'll be good or bad? And I don't see any reason why a story focused around one race can't have as much variety and depth as one with three. But that argument has run its course, so whatever.
And you're ignoring that mission variety may very well include playing as other races. You're ignoring that I've brought up a the Protoss mini-campaign at least a dozen times in this thread. You're ignoring that in SC1 there were many times during each campaign that you had access to the other races, were privy to what they were doing, etc. You're also working around the fact that each race will be getting its due.
And 30 missions is 30 missions, no matter how you slice it. I think it'll more interesting in SC2 because you get a lot more variety (from everything we've been told) when it comes to how you want to play each mission, maybe even if you want to play each mission. Thirty missions is an estimate, the campaign is non-linear. It may be possible to beat it in 10 missions, or to stretch it out to 50. We don't know. We do know that Blizzard wants to do something interesting, and that Blizzard seldom screws things up completely.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
/facepalm
Oh God, kill me now.
Where the fuck did I say otherwise? I've never implied ANYTHING about the quality, MERELY THE PERSPECTIVE.
The only thing I have said, way back 47 or whatever pages ago is that it would make for an overall more cohesive narrative, eventually, but poorer individually.
It can't.
If you have 3 races and you present only one of them from their point of view (which from a narrative point of view means you are getting full information), then it's not the same as playing 3 races and getting their unique point of view each time.
This shouldn't require so much explanation.
Hopefully that would be true, but it doesn't change my original argument. A couple of protoss or zerg missions adds a lot of variety and would be very good.
That's not what I'm arguing or asking for.
It's not the same as playing 10 missions and an entirely storyline dedicated to them solely and you know it.
No, if you had read my posts (I'm convinced you don't and go off a list of talking points instead of actually reading what the other person is writing at this stage) I've pointed out over 46 pages ago that this will be the case.
In like, 2 years or so.
I just again, think you are doing your absolute best not to read what I write and treat all the arguments from people disappointed, but not in any way angry or wanting to go up to Blizzard North and shit on their lawn (or whatever the fuck it is you think) at all reasonably.
From everything we've been told I remain firmly unconvinced. I've seen things like "choosing different units" and upgrades and such done before. Warzone 2021 is a classic example and I don't think that will keep my interest in playing Terran for 30 missions. Less definitely though, if it does only take 10 missions I won't be too worried. 30 missions, even of races I love like Zerg... I'm completely unconvinced. Especially because again, what keeps me going in many RTS games has nothing to do with the missions themselves but seeing how different factions or races view things.
Command and Conquer 3 is a terrible game. But I played through it with both the GDI and NOD simply because of the ridiculous FMV cutscenes and how all the story fell together. Playing GDI only for 30 missions, even with more FMV and similar. Once again, I doubt it, even with a command and conquer generals like "army customisation" with choosing a general to add the odd new unit or whatever.
That's not enough variety by far to carry a game 30 missions.
No, I jolly-gee-whizz didn't. Thanks for pointing that out Big Ben. Shall we go down to the river and catch us some nice big trout before the winter?
Because you were using a lot of games that weren't Starcraft 2 to try to prove that Starcraft 2 would be a certain way, which is really, really poor logic.
Bringing up Warzone 2021 is unfair because that game sucked a truckload of donkey balls. No amount of mission variety or whatever would have helped.
What I don't quite grasp is your exact problem with 1 race. If it's the perspective then I imagine that has a lot to do with the story. I'm not ignoring that you acknowledge the other 2 games, I'm saying you're working around it. There will be a Zerg and a Protoss campaign, so what's the problem? You want them all at once? Alright, but that's completely arbitrary and doesn't have any real bearing on whether the Terran campaign will be good for its entire ~30 missions.
I also agree that C&C3 is a terrible game. Because there were 3 different sides with 3 different terrible stories didn't make me want to play it any more than the other C&C games that only had 2 sides with 2 terrible stories. That's just the way I roll.
s_86, stop trying to make friends for me! You're not my mother!
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
No it's not, it's just based on what games in the RTS genre that have come before. Do you not think that comparing other RTS games, all of which have faced this exact problem is invalid? Because it's not at all "poor logic" unless you want to be utterly, completely unrealistically optimistic. They face a major hurdle making a really long single player campaign with only one race. A lot of previous RTS games have attempted this and they all share common problems. Some have used solutions like having branching mission structures, having completely customisable armies and such forth. Their success and lack of success (in some cases) is fully valid.
Being able to customise your army is great in theory, but then it depends on how useful the feature is. Warzone for example allowed you to build your own army entirely from different parts, but just because I could make my own army didn't mean the game had any "variety" compared to the original Starcraft, Warcraft or similar. Actually, it ended up that the customisation mostly resulted in a few, optimal units and everything else was just pointless. So just because they "add" this doesn't mean they fix the problem at all.
Saying that "I think it's hard to keep variety for 30 missions" is poor logic.
Saying "I think it's hard to keep variety for 30 missions, because game X did this approach and it's similar to what blizzard did, but it didn't exactly work" is the polar opposite.
Some of you act like this is everyones first RTS game and that nobody else has ever actually tried anything in the RTS genre except making a game with defense missions.
Actually it was pretty good if you got the games concepts. It's one of the more challenging games I played as well because I wasn't used to having a time limit. It does suck that most peoples entire decision if that game sucked or not was the time limit, which was occasionally so unfair it wasn't even funny.
There, I said it.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Nothing definitive has been said about the prices.
Because it's a lot better.
IMO, SC2 is more like other RTS games than Starcraft, simply because it's annihilating one of the features I liked most. Unlike other RTS games, SC had a complete, interesting narrative from the get go and Brood war just added to it.
Now I get 1/3 of a complete narrative that won't be finished for another 2 years. So it's heavily degraded my optimism for how I feel about the SP of SC2. Plus I have to play a race I find immeasurably boring and am forced to buy it because they aren't stand alone.
Edit: I honestly don't believe all three games will be full priced on release. The first game is likely to be and the other two expansion prices.
Blizzard are not inhuman monsters.
Did I just jinx it?
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
But I still got a complete story, going from one race all the way to the protoss. Then the same again in Brood War. That's all that mattered. Now I buy a full priced game and I only get one side of that story continuing on. This doesn't impress me at all and is far worse than a cliffhanger.
Also, I am pessimistic about 30 missions in one race because I am well aware of how easy it would be to screw it up. Being pessimistic about 30 missions sucking is the safe bet over believing that they can make 30 missions interesting with one race, then discovering it's 30 varieties of "build X", "harvest X", "Escort Y", "Defend X", "attack X" and the variants "Defend for X minutes", "attack X for W minutes to allow Y escort to escape*" and such forth.
*I concede, that was novel.
Starcraft was like a regular car that they made as good as possible. Then they realized a month later that a quick supercharge kit could totally make it awesome. Well, they couldn't just give the kit away so they sold it.
Now they're not giving you a whole car, they're trying to sell you a giant go kart, then a body kit, then the roof! And what if you don't want the moon roof option? Well tough shit, you have to pay for it because your friends only race with moon roofs. And then the spoilers or "Zerg Pack" come out and you have to get the tallest one, and the point is, it's a dick measuring contest where Blizzard takes all your money and uses it to mechanically process babies into the most luxurious seat covers you've ever felt.
Frozen Throne did a nice job of mixing the mission varieties up to include missions besides those.
Granted a lot of it was taking ideas from custom maps but it was still fun!
Because that's where all the billions of dollars from WoW are going and don't deny it. Otherwise all their games from this point on would be released for free and come with a free hooker.
I despised the multiplayer in Warcraft 3 entirely, but the single player was plain awesome. I loved that mission where you had that fellow caged in the middle and you had to fight over him with DotA like gameplay and just your heroes. But again, TFT is just what I expect. It never let its gameplay get stale because it was switching up gameplay one minute, then you were playing a different faction, then you were doing something else etc. I really loved it.
Considering SC is the only RTS that has ever become a successful eSport, then for sure.
I'm hesitant to even call SC an RTS because it has a huge arcade element to it.