StarCraft® II

Campaign uncreative

Posts: 553
Dont get me wrong, the missions, characters, story were all creative. But the overall design of scripted missions has been done time and time again. Meybe incorporating true RPG elements and decisions that can heavily change the game. This is probably not a majority opinion.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,393
You're going to have to be a bit more specific, but they sort of did and it really hurt the campaign. The whole idea of bonus objectives was to level a character, and while it was fun it didn't have the same feeling of Wings of Liberty with allocating resources to improve individual units and favoring upgrades. I never had that feeling of joy when I finished a mission because "oh boy, I get to spend all this money and make that unit I want to use better!" I guess you could argue that those are RTS elements, but the idea of leveling a single character in a series centered around building up an army just felt eh to me.

But really it's an RTS, there's only so much you can do. Decisions were in WoL but they were awkwardly incorporated and felt out of place in a linear game. Mission design's been fine, I understand that they were trying to go for a "reverse of missions you played in WoL" appeal and it might have made a few of the missions feel like carbon copies.
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,769
06/21/2013 01:15 PMPosted by ManCheese
Meybe incorporating true RPG elements and decisions that can heavily change the game.

If I am reading this right, you are probably spot on to the problem. Many missions were heavily focused/balanced around kerrigan, but these types of mechanics are not very entertaining on their own.

Of course, trying to have missions that focus on the entire army also may not work in this case because they made kerrigan so much more powerful than the troops. I think in the end, they should have just made kerrigan a lot weaker.
Reply Quote
Posts: 181
I'm rather annoyed at the 256x256 map size (Which was used for 2 or 3 missions?), we already had that in SC:BW, why not 512x512 this time or 1024x1204? It's not the late 1990's here. (Or god more than 12 people in a multiplayer map, which was the norm back then anyways?)

The maps were so tiny, it's personally frustrating to find the maps entertaining because they were so short. The only thing holding me back was the fact that I was stuck with 2 bases on 98% of the maps. 3, 4, 5 bases I would be cranking 200 banelings every minute to roll over them.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,734
A bigger map generally means more unused space, looser pacing as well as an increase in performance drops.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 6/23/2013 3:38 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,738
To be honest, I felt the map sizes were fine. Giant maps do indeed force developers to work harder to ensure the majority of the map is used and even then, there's a lot of empty areas.

I feel HotS could have benefited from using more "subtle" missions alongside the "rush" missions. Old Soldiers and The Reckoning were fun, don't get me wrong. But, Enemy Within had its own charm.

The majority of missions could basically be approached by sending endless waves of Lings and Aberrations. The fact we had Kerrigan for most of the campaign also made the game fairly easy tbh.
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

Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel