Releasing only the single player

Posts: 296
They say the game has been 99% finished for awhile now with only the multiplayer holding it back. Would it be that appalling to the masses if the single player campaign was just released first, with the current multiplayer continuing until they were ready to release the Hots multiplayer? I like the campaign enough to buy the game so I would def get it. What do you guys think?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,974
08/18/2012 11:05 AMPosted by Battlecat
They say the game has been 99% finished for awhile now with only the multiplayer holding it back. Would it be that appalling to the masses if the single player campaign was just released first, with the current multiplayer continuing until they were ready to release the Hots multiplayer? I like the campaign enough to buy the game so I would def get it. What do you guys think?


They have a sorry history of bad patches and adding as many glitches as they solve.

No.
Reply Quote
Posts: 421
I say why not.



They have a sorry history of bad patches and adding as many glitches as they solve.

No.

way to squeeze in some of that QQ'ing hate into this thread.
Reply Quote
Posts: 37
Blizzard wont do that. They wont...
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,062
The multiplayer is as much the selling point of HotS as the campaign. Arguably I'd say the multiplayer definitely is more favorable than the campaign. WoL's campaign wasn't bad but it just didn't meet my expectations. The dialogue, non-linear plot, and a handful of obnoxious voice actors ruined a lot of it. I've some faith in Blizzard so I'll play through HotS's campaign before making a call on the plot.
I will say that Tricia Helfer is the worst thing to happen to Starcraft. However, despite the face the more casual crowd will be pleased with the campaign alone, it isn't a good idea. The content will feel incomplete and half-assed. It will either ship with both or not at all. That is how it is going to go, besides the B.net features and multiplayer go hand in hand.

Pretty much it is a guarantee that HotS wouldn't meet with as much success without its multiplayer component. We don't need to hear more complaints, save that for the Diablo forums. Anyhow, it would be a bad idea and thankfully isn't going to happen that way.
Reply Quote
Posts: 296
I wasn't really complaining just asking a legitimate question as to what people would think of releasing the campaign first. Myself and many other will take 2 months or so just playing the single player anyway even when the whole xpac is released. If the campaign is done, how will it feel incomplete or half assed? I wasnt saying never release the multiplayer, just give us something to play in the meantime.
Reply Quote
Posts: 300
08/19/2012 12:10 AMPosted by Pain
I'll play through HotS's campaign before making a call on the plot.


Or maybe you could wait until the story ends? That's like saying that you'd rate SC1s story based off of only the Terran campaign (if you did that, the games story would seem bad). You need all 3 expansions before you can rate it. What if an element in LotV makes some of the "bad" story points in WoL or HotS seem great?
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,230
Heart of the Swarm already looks like the best Zerg campaign so far storywise: if it gets me to at last root for Kerrigan (which the previous campaigns failed to), then I'll be a happy customer, at least storywise.

I'm still crossing my fingers that the campaign will be better balanced and less messy than WoL, though.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,660
08/18/2012 11:05 AMPosted by Battlecat
Would it be that appalling to the masses if the single player campaign was just released first, with the current multiplayer continuing until they were ready to release the Hots multiplayer?


I see two good reasons why there will be a multiplayer beta and not a campaign one. First is that about 1 day after the hypothetical campaign beta is released, Youtube would be flooded with all the cut-scenes and mission walk-throughs. There are plenty of not-so-nice people on the forums as well, who would type the ending in big bold letters on the front page of this site (e.g. MENGSK DIES) This would be a massive spoiler and ruin the experience for many players.

Second is that the multiplayer has many new units that need testing before the actual game is released. While the campaign will probably be pretty final, the multiplayer will go through many changes, especially concerning the new units, until the beta closes.
Reply Quote
Posts: 801
08/20/2012 04:37 AMPosted by BallsOfSteel
Would it be that appalling to the masses if the single player campaign was just released first, with the current multiplayer continuing until they were ready to release the Hots multiplayer?


I see two good reasons why there will be a multiplayer beta and not a campaign one. First is that about 1 day after the hypothetical campaign beta is released, Youtube would be flooded with all the cut-scenes and mission walk-throughs. There are plenty of not-so-nice people on the forums as well, who would type the ending in big bold letters on the front page of this site (e.g. MENGSK DIES) This would be a massive spoiler and ruin the experience for many players.

Second is that the multiplayer has many new units that need testing before the actual game is released. While the campaign will probably be pretty final, the multiplayer will go through many changes, especially concerning the new units, until the beta closes.


You...bloody...fool.
Edited by Alexander on 8/20/2012 7:59 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 432
What do you mean Blizzard wouldn't do that? Once upon a time, I would have agreed. However, they released this game called Diablo 3, with no pvp so they could get the game out sooner. I do doubt they will do that with this game, but it certainly doesn't mean that Blizzard hasn't done it before.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,230
People don't play Diablo or its competitors for PVP, hence why Blizzard could afford releasing it later.

The same cannot be said about StarCraft's multiplayer, which is arguably the game's biggest draw.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 8/20/2012 3:41 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3
I think that if they wanted to make more money, they could sell the campaign and the multi separate and have each be around $30. But because the multilayer is the mentally challenging part due to all of the interesting strategies people make.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,230
An interesting idea, but alas bound to create confusion among both customers and developers, as it would mean that there would be ultimately six different games to keep track of. Plus there's no guarantee that the single-player component alone would sell well enough; sure, it could prove to be a good way to verify its popularity, but there's a reason why game companies release single-player and multiplayer together.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 8/23/2012 7:51 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,062
08/19/2012 12:40 PMPosted by Battlecat
I wasn't really complaining just asking a legitimate question as to what people would think of releasing the campaign first. Myself and many other will take 2 months or so just playing the single player anyway even when the whole xpac is released. If the campaign is done, how will it feel incomplete or half assed? I wasnt saying never release the multiplayer, just give us something to play in the meantime.


As someone who personally plays the campaign extensively before multiplayer, I can tell you I'm not casual biased. By any standards I'm quite casual based on how few 1v1 games I've in my SCII career. However, you cannot deny the obvious, the competitive portion of Starcraft is what gives it longevity and sustains it.
Without the multiplayer not only is the selling potential of HotS crippled astronomically, but the product would feel incomplete. We have to face how the industry has evolved, few games are bought exclusively for the story. Story is on the back burner these days in favor of gameplay in particular with increased focus on multiplayer.

HotS wouldn't feel complete without it having a functional multiplayer released with it. I've a feeling few people would bother buying the game until its multiplayer component was available. So in the meantime, why the hell would the pros or any other competitive player bother with it until then? With Diablo III there was an understanding and certain expectation that gave it a different longevity. (the problems Blizz has had since aside) Starcraft II's eSports compatibility is sustaining the game, it doesn't make any more revenue or benefit from casual players.
Blizzard games are expensive these days. They need a steady source of revenue to ensure sustainability and maintenance for the servers as well as expenses for patching. This is where the tournament cuts Blizzard receives comes into play. People are ravenous as it is without constant information on multiplayer, they storm these forums like Hell itself erupted without multiplayer at HotS' launch.

There is already a certain expectation especially since the multiplayer is what is being covered in news updates. To be honest, I wouldn't even consider picking up HotS if it was only for the story. Blizzard hasn't exactly had a memorable story with any of their franchises since Warcraft III.
Actually I'm planning on becoming competitive when HotS lands due to how more complete the races are going to fill and the greater diversity of strategies. For $40 and a maybe a 10 hour or less campaign isn't a real selling spot since everyone knows Starcraft has greater focus on multiplayer than its single player content. Eventually I'd buy it if they cut 10 dollars off, but there is a new dimension of entertainment from the multiplayer side of things.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,062
08/19/2012 12:56 PMPosted by Hydra
I'll play through HotS's campaign before making a call on the plot.


Or maybe you could wait until the story ends? That's like saying that you'd rate SC1s story based off of only the Terran campaign (if you did that, the games story would seem bad). You need all 3 expansions before you can rate it. What if an element in LotV makes some of the "bad" story points in WoL or HotS seem great?


With Starcraft despite the races each having their own focus there is still a formula. Terran campaign serves as the exposition, the Zerg campaign as the rising action, and finally the climax and resolution with the Protoss campaign. The fact I'm going to be putting up with hearing Tricia Helfer's god awful voice the entire time is torture enough.
However, if HotS doesn't pick up the pace like Chris Metzen and crew promise, I've no faith left for LotV. Jack Ritschel would be turning in his grave if he could hear the voice of his replacement. The story and its presentation (voice acting, dialogue, etc.) are considerably weak by comparison to the franchises' older entries.

There were so many inconsistencies in Blizzard's old games, but nonetheless at least their primary plot was thrilling. I'm just disappointed how the dialogue has degenerated, they used to speak in full paragraphs and had more complex vocabularies, with WoL that virtually disappeared. I still love the plot of Starcraft and Brood War despite their faults due to what they did right.
I wasn't a fan of the whole prophecy thing, but neither was I damning it like everyone in the weeks after launch. It just kind of makes the Zerg lose that intimidation and viciousness they once had. Trying to top the Overmind wasn't necessary, Duran or some less ungodly OP hybrids would have filled the space fine.

It is fine if the hybrids are stronger than conventional foes, but not if they practically gods by comparison. The Swarm gameplay wise feels much stronger than before, but lore wise they just aren't putting up much a fight like they used to. Damn shame especially since I'm a Zerg player and always was fascinated by the Zerg.
Back to my initial argument, if the rising action is underwhelming, how can a poorly supported climax be all that fantastic? It is like reading a book that has only a few rises but nothing that really stirs you from your somber demeanor. If you read half way through the book and you don't like it, why expect the *supposed* high point to be any grander that what came before?

You might as well settle with the fact the book isn't for you. I'll buy LotV regardless for the multiplayer changes and just to see what happens with the story. Mostly I'm just committed to see it through than any interest assuming HotS doesn't have significantly better plot. I can guarantee you this, there is not going to be something in LotV that'll suddenly flip something that was poorly executed in the base game. It'll feel cliche or forced neither of which is good for a plot.
I suppose there is always waiting another decade for Starcraft III to be released if it doesn't pick up. Starcarft is my favorite Blizzard franchise and I dread seeing any more harm come to it. If it wasn't apparent enough I'm still pissed about Blizzard replacing Kerrigan's original voice actress, Glynnis Talken Campbell.

Blizzard hasn't impressed with story for ages. Warcraft lore has been cut too thin and lacks any timely development due to the new MMO status of the franchise. Starcraft's has degraded but surprisingly is in the best shape of the three franchises. Diablo... I don't know what the hell happened there. It was like it got hit by a bus, dragged along for a few miles then finally fell off a cliff.
I was so disappointed with Diablo III's plot. It was too cliche and predictable and has been criticized the world over. Honestly, I don't think Blizzard actually cares about what we have to say about the game. So long as their new customers are happy, veterans be damned. In this case veterans only have the multiplayer to remind them of what was to great about the original Starcraft and Brood War.

I want the story to improve to be considered a worthy successor, however, I've some of my faith shaken. As the release date draws nearer, my anxiety will only increase as I desperately hope they don't make it anymore cliche or atrocious. Gameplay wise the campaign of WoL was a hundred times more interesting that Starcraft/Brood War, but the interesting cast of characters and objectives were better in WoL's predecessors.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,230
Hopefully, it will disappoint you so much that you will stop caring about it altogether.

Then, you will find out that no bloody video game in this world is worth stressing over.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,062
I forgot, you have a bad reputation for trolling the Story forums, Johnny.

At any rate I don't need you to patronize me. It is called having a little enthusiasm and expectation, things WoL failed at. This isn't stressing, it is being truthful and a brief breakdown of the the problems that caused the lore to end up like this.
Reply Quote
Posts: 6,585
"voice acting, dialogue, etc"

I disagree COMPLETELY, the VA's aside from Zeratul's are better, than before.

Terran Campaign Dialogue is lame in all three Terran campaigns, well lame isn't the right word, more like "ok"
Reply Quote
Posts: 6,585
I forgot, you have a bad reputation for trolling the Story forums, Johnny.

At any rate I don't need you to patronize me. It is called having a little enthusiasm and expectation, things WoL failed at. This isn't stressing, it is being truthful and a brief breakdown of the the problems that caused the lore to end up like this.


He's a troll because he disagrees with you?

How dishonest and pathetic.

The Lore is fine, you act like it's a fact that "Wol SUXORZ" Not a fact.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]