Matrix Games Forums

DL the demo yesterday. All I can say is WOW! The graphics are unbelievably well done! Just wish I could say the same thing about the three campaign missions in the demo. Pretty much a yawn fest so far. [>:]

Has anyone played the full solo campaign yet? Is it any good? I have to say the first three missions aren't that imaginative. [:(]

Yup. It's well worth the money. The campaign is somewhere around 23-26 missions if I remember correctly. There's cinematics between each one and you can do some pretty cool things in between missions on your ship. Also, there's an upgrade path you can take in the solo campaign. You can upgrade weaponry or improve defenses in different areas.

It's a very well balanced game and the AI also gives you a run for your money. I'd say the skirmishes against the AI are harder than the solo campaign missions as they are somewhat scripted. But it still puts up one helluva fight.

Has anyone played the full solo campaign yet?

It`s finishable in 24 hours. Most your time is waiting for in-game counters to count down on missions IIRC. Anyhow, they tried to get a little more creative by trying to make the story a little more interactive, though it`s really just a gimmick. However, at least I give them credits for trying.

I am generally not a fan of RTS but I did do SC for nostalgia purposes. My last RTS I purchased was CoH mainly only because all my asian friends seem to be so hard-core into WWII over the last few years, and of course I got bribed into becoming a team-mate for on-line games.

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

Has anyone played the full solo campaign yet?

It`s finishable in 24 hours. Most your time is waiting for in-game counters to count down on missions IIRC. Anyhow, they tried to get a little more creative by trying to make the story a little more interactive, though it`s really just a gimmick. However, at least I give them credits for trying.

I am generally not a fan of RTS but I did do SC for nostalgia purposes. My last RTS I purchased was CoH mainly only because all my asian friends seem to be so hard-core into WWII over the last few years, and of course I got bribed into becoming a team-mate for on-line games.

Wow. That is sad. I would hope to get more entertainment for my money than 24 hours worth. [X(]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

Has anyone played the full solo campaign yet?

It`s finishable in 24 hours. Most your time is waiting for in-game counters to count down on missions IIRC. Anyhow, they tried to get a little more creative by trying to make the story a little more interactive, though it`s really just a gimmick. However, at least I give them credits for trying.

I am generally not a fan of RTS but I did do SC for nostalgia purposes. My last RTS I purchased was CoH mainly only because all my asian friends seem to be so hard-core into WWII over the last few years, and of course I got bribed into becoming a team-mate for on-line games.

Wow. That is sad. I would hope to get more entertainment for my money than 24 hours worth. [X(]

Not these days...Attention span of a gnat come to mind when it comes to the majority of gamers?

Plus throw in the ever-lovable DLC...........

I still think it's worth the asking price. I do agree that it doesn't take a long time to get through the campaign. If that's all your after in the game, it might not be for you.

Wow. That is sad. I would hope to get more entertainment for my money than 24 hours worth.

Well, Blizzard has realized there is more money to be made by selling 3 smaller games instead of 1 long one. The counter-arguement is that you should only be using it for the on-line play anyway, and that missions against AI are just too old-school to be taken seriously anymore.

I believe, when you do the math, it comes around to just under 2$ an hour if you want to do the campaign only, so in that case Knavery is probably right, in that it`s worth it. After all, nostalgia can be worth huge prices.

Let me give you some perspective of where I'm coming from. I had pre-ordered the game from a local Game Stop. Then I was put off about them splitting the campaigns up and got my money back. Then I started researching and reading reviews for about a good solid week. I then decided to purchase it and am glad I did.

Although the campaign doesn't take a long time to get through, there is just a lot to the game. It is a full game for the price you paid. And 24 hours isn't really that bad for an RTS campaign. That's an hour a mission, which is pretty good. We're not talking about a game of WiTE here.

With that said, there are a ton of other things you can do. There are just a ton of accomplishments to earn through single player campaigns, single player skirmishes, multiplayer games etc. In addition, a lot of these accomplishments unlock items like avatar portraits and other things.

I play a lot of RTS games and it really is a very good game. I'm pretty hard to please and would be the first person to state otherwise if I thought it was true. But everyone has a different opinion on it.

For the reccord, CoH was finished in much less than 24 hours IIRC. I think it only came with 12 missions or so. The STORY wasn`t anything memoriable either BTW.

Does anyone know how many missions are in the single player campaign?

Thanks.

From looking online, looks like 26-30 depending on how you do on some missions.

I've been reading up on "achievements" for SC2. From what I can tell they are entirely superfluous to the game and are just little cosmetic badges you can brandish to your fellow geeky friends on battle.net or something like that. I take it these things are utterly worthless in practical gaming terms? I originally thought that the "achievements" would unlock new units or something of some value or interest but it appears they don't even do that. I'm guessing chasing after "achievements" is a waste of time unless you think it will impress girls on battle.net who can't see your pimples? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I've been reading up on "achievements" for SC2. From what I can tell they are entirely superfluous to the game and are just little cosmetic badges you can brandish to your fellow geeky friends on battle.net or something like that. I take it these things are utterly worthless in practical gaming terms? I originally thought that the "achievements" would unlock new units or something of some value or interest but it appears they don't even do that. I'm guessing chasing after "achievements" is a waste of time unless you think it will impress girls on battle.net who can't see your pimples? [:D]

I don't know. I've only played a couple of Battle.net games. I look at them as personal achievements--not something to flash around. That's what my good looks are for.

But what good do they do? I mean, you could go the whole campaign without earning a single "achievement" and it won't hinder you in any way. Right? It really doesn't make any practical difference whether you complete the requisites for the "achievements" or not. Right?

I would think it would be more interesting if "achievements" unlocked special game features like units or abilities or something practical. Then it would actually be a good idea to earn "achievements" as they could help you with the next mission or something. [&:]

I bought the collectors edition. It was pretty good. Not just standard artbook and music-cd.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

But what good do they do? I mean, you could go the whole campaign without earning a single "achievement" and it won't hinder you in any way. Right? It really doesn't make any practical difference whether you complete the requisites for the "achievements" or not. Right?

I would think it would be more interesting if "achievements" unlocked special game features like units or abilities or something practical. Then it would actually be a good idea to earn "achievements" as they could help you with the next mission or something. [&:]

You have to remember that Starcraft II is heavily developed for it's multi player (with good reason, since the original sold enormously because the MP caught on), so any sort of special achievement units and the like would throw MP balance in to absolute disarray.

Most achievements I've seen have zero impact on game play and are merely personal satisfaction and/or bragging rights.  I've only seen a couple of games that gave in game rewards for achievements (me1 & me2 come to mind).  I've also seen rewards that are unlocked for some mmo's for accomplishing achievements (or whatever their called in the particular game)
 

From what I can tell they are entirely superfluous to the game and are just little cosmetic badges you can brandish to your fellow geeky friends on battle.net or something like that. I take it these things are utterly worthless in practical gaming terms?

That's pretty much what a lot of it is. Companies seem to never find silly gimmicks to keep some players interested. And then there are achievements people pay, just to show off because they are achievements you can only get by paying extra $$$.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

But what good do they do? I mean, you could go the whole campaign without earning a single "achievement" and it won't hinder you in any way. Right? It really doesn't make any practical difference whether you complete the requisites for the "achievements" or not. Right?

I would think it would be more interesting if "achievements" unlocked special game features like units or abilities or something practical. Then it would actually be a good idea to earn "achievements" as they could help you with the next mission or something. [&:]

Achievements should not give you an upperhand to be fair to new commers. It does play a part in replay value for those people who want to complete all achievements. It's just a badge to tell the world about your skill (actually your addiction). Achievements is common in console gaming (XBox, PS3, it's also in some iPhone games). Acievements mean a lot to youngsters who care too much about their online presence.

It's the same in the military. Go ask a soldier if all his medals and campaign ribbons give him special powers.

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

But what good do they do? I mean, you could go the whole campaign without earning a single "achievement" and it won't hinder you in any way. Right? It really doesn't make any practical difference whether you complete the requisites for the "achievements" or not. Right?

I would think it would be more interesting if "achievements" unlocked special game features like units or abilities or something practical. Then it would actually be a good idea to earn "achievements" as they could help you with the next mission or something. [&:]

Achievements should not give you an upperhand to be fair to new commers. It does play a part in replay value for those people who want to complete all achievements. It's just a badge to tell the world about your skill (actually your addiction). Achievements is common in console gaming (XBox, PS3, it's also in some iPhone games). Acievements mean a lot to youngsters who care too much about their online presence.

It's the same in the military. Go ask a soldier if all his medals and campaign ribbons give him special powers.

You're right. To me it does nothing for the game but let those who enjoy "achievements" have their fun. It doesn't detract from the game. In the end, as long as the rest of the game is enjoyable, that is all that counts. [:)]