Battle.net

I agree with this. More missions+good lore in them=more fun playing.
Some people play only multiplayer and don't care about lore. They do the campaign only for achievements. OK you will have multiplayer but the story is more important. Its what makes the game. HotS needs more missions really.

PS: Guys vote up for thread so blizz can hear us.

A shame, I would have assumed it would be at least 30 missions or more.

29/02/2012 15:12Posted by Fadewhisper

A shame, I would have assumed it would be at least 30 missions or more.

Well, that's what they initially said in 2008 (between 26 and 30 missions), but they then retracted that statement because, according to them, "the players prefer shorter campaigns". My guess is that they discovered that they don't have any good idea anymore, and that they would be able to sell the game without a real campaign anyway.

I've completed the WoL campaign so far 4 times, and I don't get where this short campaign idea is coming from. I've done the normal version in about 5 hours, that of course was rushing through everything, but just proof that the current campaign is far from long.

03/03/2012 19:04Posted by Rokoz

I've completed the WoL campaign so far 4 times, and I don't get where this short campaign idea is coming from. I've done the normal version in about 5 hours, that of course was rushing through everything, but just proof that the current campaign is far from long.

It's long from the perspective of casual player based on Blizzard statistics. I noticed that many games nowadays have only 6 to 10 hours playtime. If you look 10 years back the standard was about 30 to 40 hours average (of course this depends much on the game genre).

Gaming industry has been corporatized and casualized and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, maybe except buying their games.

Yeah, it's inevitable that game industry changes. However, I wish Blizzard will still make SC2 as beloved game as Brood War was. I don't see SC2 lasting 14 years like BW if we have too short campaign and then nothing else except ladder.

03/03/2012 19:51Posted by Mojko

If you look 10 years back the standard was about 30 to 40 hours average

Yes but now we can take the details of graphics and sound in consideration. These take longer (I think but I may be mistaken) to create than they used to.

03/03/2012 23:01Posted by AlexOdhin

Yes but now we can take the details of graphics and sound in consideration. These take longer (I think but I may be mistaken) to create than they used to.

Maybe, but is this really what's the most important on a game for players?

04/03/2012 14:36Posted by Mojko

Maybe, but is this really what's the most important on a game for players?

To me the story and music make the game.

04/03/2012 19:33Posted by AlexOdhin

To me the story and music make the game.

Well, I hate to tell you this, but we are both in a complete minority in this. I think Blizzard's business plan was simple:

- dumbed down single player for even the most casual player to understand

- perfectly balanced multiplayer for eSports

They achieved their goals, I think.

29/02/2012 16:00Posted by Jack

according to them, "the players prefer shorter campaigns"

BULL!@#$ how can they even say so... they dont care for the %^-*ing lore anymore. If im to accept this i am requesting from blizzard that it must be PERFECT. if they continue with this theyr gonna lose the "real" players.... and im one of em..





ive already posted here but il do it again because im pissed and i want blizzard to hear this.

04/03/2012 21:44Posted by BorlingS

according to them, "the players prefer shorter campaigns"

BULL!@#$ how can they even say so... they dont care for the %^-*ing lore anymore. If im to accept this i am requesting from blizzard that it must be PERFECT. if they continue with this theyr gonna lose the "real" players.... and im one of em..





ive already posted here but il do it again because im pissed and i want blizzard to hear this.

It's mostly people like you and me who want longer campaigns.

I've completed the WoL campaign so far 4 times, and I don't get where this short campaign idea is coming from. I've done the normal version in about 5 hours, that of course was rushing through everything, but just proof that the current campaign is far from long.

It's long from the perspective of casual player based on Blizzard statistics. I noticed that many games nowadays have only 6 to 10 hours playtime. If you look 10 years back the standard was about 30 to 40 hours average (of course this depends much on the game genre).

Gaming industry has been corporatized and casualized and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, maybe except buying their games.

Let's put this into perspective. In the 90's, the age of the average gamer was between 15 and 18, while 10 years ago they were mostly in their early to mid 20's, and so had plenty of time to sink into gaming. Nowadays, the age of the average gamer is 37. At 37, you have a job during the daytime, which you need to do in order to make a living. Even after work, most people at that age have a wife/husband and kids who they need to spend time with. From where do you think they will get the time to do the same amount of gaming?

As much as you or I personally want longer games, and believe me when I say that I'm really disappointed that HotS is shorter, the above describes how the situation is for most other gamers in 2012. That's why they want shorter games.

08/03/2012 11:38Posted by Jono

Let's put this into perspective. In the 90's, the age of the average gamer was between 15 and 18, while 10 years ago they were mostly in their early to mid 20's, and so had plenty of time to sink into gaming. Nowadays, the age of the average gamer is 37. At 37, you have a job during the daytime, which you need to do in order to make a living. Even after work, most people at that age have a wife/husband and kids who they need to spend time with. From where do you think they will get the time to do the same amount of gaming?

Play properly, or don't play at all. The casualisation of game industry is terrible. I wonder if in time "normal" games will no longer be produced, thus producing only dumbed down short versions of their former selves.

Let's just see if the missions take much time to play, and maybe there are some branching ones too that will increase the total mission number.

I'd be in favour of shorter campiagns... IF they made several campaigns per xpac.

Think of back in SC1, we'd have 10 scenarios on average per campaign (I think?), but we also had 3 campaigns per game, leading up to 30 maps in total, but with greater diversity by way of being played with three different races rather than just a single one.

Honestly, Blizz's "three games = moar story" idea is flawed. If they wanted to produce three games, then they should've made three campaigns for each, giving us nine campaigns in total. Note that the total number of maps would've been the same, though, so it wouldn't've actually meant more work for them, it'd merely be better delivered.

P.S. I miss my HoMaM3. ten campaigns, each with about five scenarios each, each of which would take at least two hours to complete... those were the days... /dreamy

WarCraft III had that idea going on. But WoL has those maps where you explore the Hyperion. I guess it took some time to make them all.

09/03/2012 18:01Posted by theJ

.S. I miss my HoMaM3.

Were you referring to Heroes of Might & Magic III ? If so, some of the levels were very difficult and starting them over again was pretty boring and disturbing (playing hours and hours again....).

@AlexOdhin:
Yes, I was refering to Heroes of Might and Magic. Yes, it was quite annoying to restart until you learned to save at the right moments.

Still, the structure of the campaigns was by far better than what we're seeing in WoL, which is what I was commenting on.

I especially liked the idea of having multiple campaigns for each faction. Switching back and forth between them helped keep the game fresh.

For comparison, if Starcraft2 used the same system, we might've seen separate campaigns for Raynor's Raiders and the Dominion(Warfield?) (giving us the perspectives of both sides), full campaigns for Zeratul, Selendis and possibly one for the Tal'darim, as well, not to mention several Zerg campaigns (one for contesting the artifacts, one for assaulting the Dominion and one for defending Char?)
Each of these would've had its own set of characters, its own few cutscenes and its own style.

10/03/2012 06:30Posted by theJ

Still, the structure of the campaigns was by far better than what we're seeing in WoL, which is what I was commenting on.

I agree. Instead of this we got a tutorial mission for each new unit that Raynor had received.

10/03/2012 06:30Posted by theJ

For comparison, if Starcraft2 used the same system, we might've seen separate campaigns for Raynor's Raiders and the Dominion(Warfield?) (giving us the perspectives of both sides), full campaigns for Zeratul, Selendis and possibly one for the Tal'darim, as well, not to mention several Zerg campaigns (one for contesting the artifacts, one for assaulting the Dominion and one for defending Char?)

This is indeed an intense approach of what could make the game a neverdying colossus.