Anyone else buying Starcraft 2 to just play the singleplayer campaign?

[dighn]

Im gonna get it eventually to play SP and move on. I don't have enough gaming time to get into MP.

 

[Pia]

Buying for both. Muscles is right BTW. The matchmaking worked fine in the beta and it'll work better after launch because there will be more people with a wider skill distribution. If you always got stomped in RTS multiplayer and hated it, this game is for you because you'll get matched against equally nub players and win a decent percentage of games. You no longer need to exceed any particular skill level to make the game "worth playing" as was the case with old SC.

 

[HendrixFan]

The only reason I would buy SC2 is for the UMS Multiplayer. Turret/tower defense, hero defense, etc, are all still some of my fondest SC1/WC3 memories.

Playing multiplayer SC2 is just more of the same as multiplayer SC1. The gap in skill is just so wide I either feel like I'm smashing some poor 7 year old kid, or getting absolutely obliterated by some 300 APM Korean on cocaine and redbull. I'm not exaggerating, either, I played some 500 games in SC2 beta and 95%+ of them left me feeling either no accomplishment or completely destroyed, I barely remember ANY games where I thought there was a equal skill level on both sides and one of us simply played JUST a little better and won.. ie, I seldom ever felt like a game was a good or even fun game.. not to mention probably 75% of the games I played ended in 5 mins or so after a rush decided who would win/lose.

Not having fun defeats the purpose. SC2 is boring. UMS is where it's at.

I felt that way for quite a while in the beta, but I think that was due to their matchmaking system. Everytime they patched the game the ladder was reset, and I think towards the end the matchmaking got better.

 

[Athadeus]

I am buying it primarily for the MP. I am getting it on launch day, and will probably end up buying a second copy for friends to use. The beta player community has been fantastic so far (I am speaking about in match manners and encouragement), and I sure hope that it stays good with release.

I know that I have a couple friends who will be buying it for and playing MP. I am really hoping that a couple others will join in earlier rather than a few years down the road (hint hint Luca).

 

[mav451]

Yeah, singe player here and perhaps some UMS games. I cheated my way through SC and BW. Does being 12 count as an excuse?

Meh I was 13 - no excuses are accepted

That said, I was MUCH dumber when I was younger. I got pwned by Warcraft2: Beyond the Dark Portal missions. Playing them now, however, it's just way too easy. Ditto with the SC/BW campaign. The only challenging ones are the last 3 or so Zerg BW missions. I hope Blizz has matched that kind of difficulty for this release.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I would love to play more MP, but I know my ass is going to get handed to me. I suck at pretty much all RTS games. With W3, I was lucky enough to hold a 1:1 ratio of win/lose.

 

[Sahakiel]

Single player, then run around customs if there's anything interesting.

Starcraft completely killed competitive multiplayer. Warcraft 3 beat the horse dead, but with heroes. Starcraft II didn't help any and doesn't seem as if they care to.

I got sick of 5 min rushes and memorizing build orders. Strategy (and I use that term loosely) was little more than rote memorization based on race matchup. If you got lucky, the other guy guessed wrong and you rape him. If you get unlucky, he built correctly and after a quick fight he's razing your base. Balancing was little more than unit A rapes unit B, which rapes unit C, which in turn rapes A. So you always built units A and B, used A frontline to rape and pillage, switched B to the forefront if you run into unit C, then switched back to A when C is gone.

For RTS type gameplay, I prefer long, drawn-out fights. Units should be able to hold their ground long enough for reinforcements, no matter the match up, not be so badly overpowered you simply left them to die if they run into certain units. Infantry, for example, may always end up on the losing side against heavy armor, but they should at least be able to dig in long enough for you to bring in anti-armor units. The player base wants five minute wins, not hour long slugfests, so standard versus maps are unlikely to hold my interest at all.

Starcraft refined the quick-kill and it's not going away anytime soon.

 

[yhelothar]

I totally sympathize with you guys on SC1. It takes some serious dedication just to be decent enough not to get totally owned on bnet. But SC2 game matching system is sooo good. It ranks you so that most people win about half their games so that you're challenged enough that it doesn't feel like you're just owning n00bs all the time, yet it's not so hard that you feel overwhelmed.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I am excited for both the singleplayer and online multiplayer. Once I finish the campaign and get tired of getting my ass handed to me in ladder games I will have endless fun with custom map games. IMO the previous games were worth it for the custom maps alone, and with the more powerful editor in SC2 custom maps should be even better.

Maybe the new ranking system will fix the ladder-rape, but I'm not sure I really like playing this style of RTS anymore. I prefer DoW2/CoH.

 

[lupi]

Yep, in a 5 years when it's finally released.

 

[Sylvanas]

Yep, buying for SP here. MP doesn't really interest me (in any game). SC and Brood War had one of the best SP campaigns I've ever played- especially in the context of when it was made, unmatched.

 

[bullbert]

No, not at release. But will get the GOTY version with MP *and* all three campaigns when it hits the clearance bin for $10 or less.

If it is packaged like the WCIII battlechest which even included a full manual and 2 strategy guides, I might even be willing to bump up the $10 ceiling to $15-20 depending on scheduling and other included DLC. I think I paid less than $20 for that WCIII battlechest during a Target sale, way back in the day, maybe 6 or 7 years ago, and that was even pre-clearance pricing.

 

[BTA]

Yes, I enjoyed the SC1 single player campaigns quite a bit, and play through them every couple years.

I'll be primarily playing the single player and only MP with friends most likely. I couldn't care less about the competitive MP scene.

 

[Anubis]

You could always play co-op vs AI, or the HUUUUGE assortment of custom games, like tower defense, base defense, and a billion other things.

co-op vs AI is not person v person so yea obviously that would be fine, and ill prob play a few random games with people i know like my brother but ill most likely never even do the placement games. UMS games can be fun, i used to play the fuck out of the DBZ madness map back in SC1

 

[Fingolfin269]

I was looking forward to the SP but for some reason I just don't care now. D3 is a different matter.

 

[KMFJD]

No, not at release. But will get the GOTY version with MP *and* all three campaigns when it hits the clearance bin for $10 or less.

If it is packaged like the WCIII battlechest which even included a full manual and 2 strategy guides, I might even be willing to bump up the $10 ceiling to $15-20 depending on scheduling and other included DLC. I think I paid less than $20 for that WCIII battlechest during a Target sale, way back in the day, maybe 6 or 7 years ago, and that was even pre-clearance pricing.

lol

 

[Ancalagon44]

Buying it for the SP is a hard sell because the campaign is not likely to be longer than 10-20 hours in length, and thus quite expensive. I love the StarCraft story, but I'm not sure its worth THAT much to me.

The MP is also quite a sell, because it doesnt support LAN play. With our connection issues in South Africa and no local battle.net, playing MP kinda goes out the window unless someone makes a crack. Funny how I would have to wait for the pirates to allow me to use software I legally paid for. Thanks ActiBlizzard.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

No, not at release. But will get the GOTY version with MP *and* all three campaigns when it hits the clearance bin for $10 or less.

If the world ends in 2012, you're totally gonna miss out.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Buying it for the SP is a hard sell because the campaign is not likely to be longer than 10-20 hours in length, and thus quite expensive. I love the StarCraft story, but I'm not sure its worth THAT much to me.

If it's 10 good hours, that seems like plenty to me, I've paid $60 for less.

If it's 20 good hours, that would just be all kinds of awesome.

 

[Dorkenstein]

Blizzard is claiming they made this their longest campaign in terms of content. Might be that they're referring to all three games as one, but they mentioned the former fact in a preview video for Wings of Liberty.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

I can't imagine the single player campaign for SC2:WoL being anything less than 20 hours.

Didn't Blizzard say that EACH installment of the trilogy will have 26-30 campaign missions? How on earth are you going to beat 30 campaign missions in under 20 hours? That would be 40 minutes per mission, and then you have to factor in the cutscenes.

SC2:WoL will be a 20+ hour game. Bet on it.

 

[lupi]

Blizzard is claiming they made this their longest campaign in terms of content. Might be that they're referring to all three games as one, but they mentioned the former fact in a preview video for Wings of Liberty.

But what would blizz have stated of they didn't have the vivendi/activision titles above their name.

 

[Pia]

I got sick of 5 min rushes and memorizing build orders. Strategy (and I use that term loosely) was little more than rote memorization based on race matchup. If you got lucky, the other guy guessed wrong and you rape him. If you get unlucky, he built correctly and after a quick fight he's razing your base.

To me this says you didn't scout properly and chose to do risky rushes yourself rather than stick with solid economic play and slowly beating your opponent.

For RTS type gameplay, I prefer long, drawn-out fights. Units should be able to hold their ground long enough for reinforcements, no matter the match up, not be so badly overpowered you simply left them to die if they run into certain units. Infantry, for example, may always end up on the losing side against heavy armor, but they should at least be able to dig in long enough for you to bring in anti-armor units.

Most units in Starcraft do not get hard countered unless you screw up. Standing your ground with an inferior force is just bad play on the level of WWI mass infantry tactics. Delaying/harassing, using advantageous terrain, flanking, hitting their bases via a runby or drop are all possible.

The player base wants five minute wins, not hour long slugfests, so standard versus maps are unlikely to hold my interest at all.

The player base wants to win. If the opponent is much better than you or vice versa, the winner might find a decisive advantage in five minutes. If you are evenly matched, it might take an hour. A "slugfest" is just what happens when two players are evenly matched, both scout enough and do not do suicidal all-ins. What you seem to be asking for is a game where two badly mismatched players would have to play for half an hour when the outcome is clear after five minutes. That would be a poor game.

I played plenty of half-an-hour games in the beta. Looking at my latest replays, I played one that was 35min just before the beta closed. Not once (in ~200 games?) did anyone rush me and quit after the rush failed, which is what someone solely concerned with five-minute wins would do.

 

[lupi]

I didn't bother with the beta as their are superior RTS's to play, but it's the devs themselves that talked about designing the MP around a 15 minute per game experience.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Can you imagine DOTA mod for SC2? whoa that'd be awesome.

it will still suck because of leavers.
there's no stat tracking (disco's) and reconnecting built into the game like HoN. its a shame since i like wc3 dota so much more than HoN.