Josson

Comparing this to KotoR opened my eyes a bit--but still not to the idea of an open-ended (akin to KotoR) Zerg campaign.

Then again, I think some of you made an excellent point: as long as the overarching story always moves forward, and thus the player is just given minor choices as to what scenery they want to see, I think this could work out very nicely.

What I dread is a total of 16 possible missions per campaign, where one will only see four of the first 12 during a single play-through, because that'd mean an 8-mission campaign. However, a campaign as long as the original Starcraft/Broodwar, with "choose map A, B, or C, which are all a bit different, but the backstory moves forward at the same pace" at numerous points, that could be really neat.

One last worry is whether this model would take away from the player feeling like he/she is the "commander" of each race--if I am the Executor of the last remaining Protoss forces, why am I forced to focus on one of three missions, instead of my subordinates taking care of the minor two and letting me take on the most important role? But, as with the arguments I agree with above, if it is such that the mission you choose is always the most important, and at the end you have pretty much the same storyline happening, I think everything should be pretty cool.

Rohsiph

ponos

Starplate

Mister Adequate

Thrillhaus

maskedaprentice

Not sure why anybody should be worried. This is BLIZZARD, who never releases stuff until it's thoroughly vetted out as excellent by people like you and me.

dcartist

That aside, I really really can't wait for this game. Too bad, knowing Bliz, I will.

(though in all fairness, I like their 'wait til it's just right' policy)

realyst2k

w0nd3r

Well, your post must not have been that clear, then. If at mission g you know the tech tree MUST have a, b, and c, then you design the level around that. Also, with open-ended gameplay comes pieces of missions that can only be done if you have certain upgrades. I'd say it's still entirely possible.

RealmRPGer

Get some manners please - no one is "whining" here. What we have here is just a difference of opinion.

"You're going under the assumption that all units are always available for purchase". Actually I made no such assumption. My comments were pretty clear I think.

Some of us have been regularly playing StarCraft since it came out, so is it really that surprising that people have opinions on this stuff? A lot of what I've seen of StarCraft II so far is very exciting, but let's be realistic here: Blizzard isn't the same company it was 15 years, and not all change is good.

I've no idea why you then proceeded to talk about multiplayer unit balance and playing on different servers etc. We're talking about the single player campaign mode here!

It's obviously a tough balance to know what to tinker with and what to leave alone with a phenomenal success like StarCraft, and there's no way to please everyone. That said, I question the merit of the open-ended approach to the campaign mode mentioned above - the changes described don't fill me with excitement, and reek of change for the sake of change.

kiigan

RealmRPGer

I find it odd how much people whine about any change whatsoever, be it mega-units or a different type of single player play. You know the story is going to be good, and you know the units will be balanced. If for some reason you find that the units AREN'T balanced, then play on servers that don't use those units.

To me, more options means better. I guess people who like a closed path share a closed mind?

RealmRPGer

When can I finalöly play it? That's all I am interested in. I will buy this asap.

Torti

seriously though, I can't wait for this game to come out

reginald

humilitybecomeshim

konch81

Jewbacca

g8or8de

fumar

Tisteldun

Some of the best missions on the Starcraft campaign (and Brood Wars too) were ones that absolutely required the level designer to know what your available technology tree was going to be. In this way the difficulty curve of the game allowed nice introduction of the different units, with missions to take advantage and showcase each unlocking area of the tech tree.

Making it all open-ended - so you pick your technology advancement and mission order etc - sounds like a colossal step backwards.

kiigan

Yes it is choose and pick your path as it goes, but really, it is a linear path. You're gonna kill your Ex-girlfriend who betrayed you at the start of the game.

How you get there in the end wount matter at all. This just means I get my nukes by the 4th mission! :D

huginn

Terinije

drifter13

Pezdispenser

Krytha

Kirbytheslayer: In-Kirby XMB

That might be fine for some games, but not for story-centric Blizzard games.

Anyone play Dawn of War: Dark Crusade? It had a fully open-ended campaign but no story whatsoever.

Hopefully Blizzard can use their magic to make a REAL Starcraft 2, not Command and Conquer 4.

Providence

But honestly, it all comes down to "In Blizzard We Trust". I have never been disappointed in a Blizzard game and I don't expect that Starcraft 2 will buck this trend.

baberg

qsceszwsxasd

RealmRPGer

Most of KotOR was spent going to the four planets in any order you chose, but there were significant parts of the game that played out in a specific way.

Most likely, you'll play a bunch of random mercenary missions and then be shunted into a much more heavily plotted mission sequence.

Wraithfighter

MetaKz

Basically, you can pick and choose missions when they aren't plot-centric (you won't choose to fight Kerrigan's end-game map I suppose) and once those are completed, the plot advances and you are presented with a new series of options? Anyway, that's one way I can imagine it working decently.

I just think it's great because... based on this, I have a feeling that each race's campaign will reflect the values of that race. The humans are scrappy mercs and these sorts of missions are suited to that. I hope it's as clear for the other races as well.

Krytha

cynopt

ubiquitous

Krytha

Sub

Rohsiph

Gouki4u