• 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Phatmac (5923 posts) 2 years, 4 months ago

Poll: Is it weird to play Starcraft for just the story? (188 votes)

Yes 13%
No 87%

With the latest expansion coming out I've seen a lot of talk about the multiplayer. Starcraft is obviously a game focused about multiplayer with some focus also going to single player. I only really play those games for the story. Is that weird?

#1 Posted by FunkasaurasRex (855 posts) -

This is Jimmy

#2 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19824 posts) -

Yes, you freak.

#3 Posted by AlexanderSheen (5150 posts) -

It's weird that you think it might be weird.

#4 Edited by Demoskinos (16510 posts) -

I dunno Starcraft comes off to me the same way Call of Duty does in that Yeah, the single player is there but the meat and potatoes is and always will be the multiplayer.

#5 Posted by SlashDance (1864 posts) -

Nah. The single player campaign in Starcraft 2 is outstanding. I played a fair amount of multiplayer but that was never the main draw for me, because I suck at it.

#6 Posted by darkvare (821 posts) -

is the only thing i care of in starcraft

#7 Edited by TheSouthernDandy (4013 posts) -

No dude, I don't understand the people who complain about the story. It's nothing new but I think its rad. Raynor and Zeratul are super awesome characters as is Kerrigan. Her whole storyline is pretty great too.

#8 Posted by Zirilius (918 posts) -

I'm replaying SC2 just for the expansion. I don't care one lick about the multiplayer.

#9 Posted by Winternet (8264 posts) -

It's as weird as playing Modern Warfare for the story. And I think that's perfectly fine.

#10 Posted by Bocam (4053 posts) -

I only care about the story.

#11 Posted by dungbootle (2501 posts) -

Nah it's a pretty good story

#12 Edited by EXTomar (5040 posts) -

I can't play MP at any real competitive level but I do enjoy the campaign scenarios.

#13 Posted by EarthBowl (174 posts) -

Starcraft as a franchise was primarily embraced for it's adaptive and intuitive game mechanics within the RTS genre, but alongside this priority of game mechanics and systems, it was able to create a unique narrative and characters that grew to have it's own identity within this space. So...no.

#14 Posted by Reisz (1608 posts) -

That's the ONLY reason I play Starcraft. I really enjoyed the SCII campaign, I don't have time to get value out of the multiplayer, I have other games to play damn it. Just look at the money Blizzard spend on their cinematics, you'd be wasting your money if you didn't see all that.

#15 Edited by _Chad (999 posts) -

I said yes. I really meant no. I misread the question as "Should I play Starcraft just for the story?"

#16 Posted by Slag (5776 posts) -

the genre basically got its' start as single player so no.

#17 Posted by TheHT (12665 posts) -

Nope. That's what I do. So it can't be weird.

#18 Posted by Pr1mus (4107 posts) -

That's what i do and that's not what makes me weird.

#19 Posted by MentalDisruption (1833 posts) -

Not at all. The campaign missions are typically pretty fun as far as gameplay goes. The story itself of WoL may not have been the most amazing thing ever, but the characters are cool. Personally I'm really looking forward to the HotS campaign because I'm way more interested in playing as Kerrigan and the zerg than Raynor and the terran.

#20 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8020 posts) -

Do you play Call of Duty just for the story too?

#21 Edited by IrrelevantJohn (1159 posts) -

I play Terran and I enjoyed the single player of Star Craft 2 Vanilla, so I can see people who don't play terran hate the Single player.

But not playing the MP at all is a bit weird...

#22 Posted by Ravenlight (8057 posts) -

Naw, man. I wanna know what happens next with Jimmy, Kerrigan, and my homie Zeratul.

#23 Posted by mtcantor (966 posts) -

Not weird at all. It's the only reason I play SC. Multiplayer is a wasteland. You can get hurt out there.

#24 Posted by TooWalrus (13344 posts) -

That's probably all I'll be playing it for, too. I love the multiplayer portion in theory, but in practice... I'm scared of it.

#25 Edited by EarlessShrimp (1802 posts) -

I saw this game on sale for 20 bucks and I wondered the same thing... I'm gonna go with no and buy it!

#26 Edited by BisonHero (8626 posts) -

It didn't used to be weird to follow it for the story, when there was SOME amount of intrigue and exposition in the campaign. But as of WoL, every mission seems to be designed around a gameplay hook first, and the story justification is an afterthought. And hardly any plot advancement happens in WoL, aside from Zeratul's mission arc retconning the fuck out of a bunch of stuff.

#27 Posted by Veektarius (5456 posts) -

It's the main reason I might not be playing Heart of the Swarm, since I have no interest in the Zerg zombie apocalypse vibe for a long campaign. It'll probably make the Protoss campaign pretty confusing, though.

#28 Posted by JacDG (2138 posts) -

I've never played a Starcraft game before, should I buy Starcraft 2 even if I have no intention of playing multiplayer? I like strategy games/RTS's, but I still have a couple in my backlog that I should probably get around to playing

#29 Posted by WarlockEngineerMoreDakka (452 posts) -

It didn't used to be weird to follow it for the story, when there was SOME amount of intrigue and exposition in the campaign. But as of WoL, every mission seems to be designed around a gameplay hook first, and the story justification is an afterthought. And hardly any plot advancement happens in WoL, aside from Zeratul's mission arc retconning the fuck out of a bunch of stuff.

Pretty much this^

Given the direction WoL took the story in, I do unfortunately have to consider it pretty weird to be playing for just the story.

HOWEVER- if you had replaced 'Story' with 'Single Player' or 'Campaign,' then I would've voted No instead of Yes. Because as disappointing as the story direction became for some in WoL, the gameplay itself was still quite good. (And will hopefully be good again in HotS)

#30 Edited by haffy (681 posts) -

@jacdg said:

I've never played a Starcraft game before, should I buy Starcraft 2 even if I have no intention of playing multiplayer? I like strategy games/RTS's, but I still have a couple in my backlog that I should probably get around to playing

Out of all the RTS games I've played, I liked Starcraft the most. It's fun to play through, lot's of variety and shit load of added stuff like the news broadcasts, upgrade paths and a few people to talk to.

If you don't want to play multi player, might be worth watching a match or two.

#31 Edited by cbarnes86 (643 posts) -

I play for the story and multiplayer coop/against a friend/custom games. I never do competitive against random people as I always get my shit rocked.

#32 Edited by haffy (681 posts) -

@bisonhero said:

It didn't used to be weird to follow it for the story, when there was SOME amount of intrigue and exposition in the campaign. But as of WoL, every mission seems to be designed around a gameplay hook first, and the story justification is an afterthought. And hardly any plot advancement happens in WoL, aside from Zeratul's mission arc retconning the fuck out of a bunch of stuff.

Pretty much this^

Given the direction WoL took the story in, I do unfortunately have to consider it pretty weird to be playing for just the story.

HOWEVER- if you had replaced 'Story' with 'Single Player' or 'Campaign,' then I would've voted No instead of Yes. Because as disappointing as the story direction became for some in WoL, the gameplay itself was still quite good. (And will hopefully be good again in HotS)

I think you're forgetting it's a trilogy. If you don't like how it set up the Xel naga, Duran being in it, Zeuratul showing the destruction of the Protoss where it shows have stopped their civil war in the future, but not in the present. I don't quite understand what you want in the beginning of a trilogy. Were you hoping Shepard killed the entire Reaper force in the first Mass Effect?

#33 Posted by NicksCorner (452 posts) -

So far I have completed the campaign four times. Buying this upcoming expansion just to play single player as well.

#34 Posted by Sooty (8195 posts) -

Unlike Call of Duty the campaign isn't an afterthought.

#35 Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1970 posts) -

It's not a great story, but the things they did with the campaign in the base game were just awesome.

#36 Edited by cbarnes86 (643 posts) -

@Phatmac don't pass up on the custom games! There are a ton of single player based custom games that are really great. It is crazy what some people can do with the new building tools.

#37 Posted by mellotronrules (1533 posts) -

It's not a great story, but the things they did with the campaign in the base game were just awesome.

bam. yeah i just replayed in anticipation of tonight- the story is lame, but the production values and design are great.

#38 Edited by Fredchuckdave (7685 posts) -

No, the community isn't even close to as robust or creative as the community was for Brood War; thus multiplayer in all its myriad forms is vastly inferior. The production values in the Wings of Liberty campaign are by far the highest in any RTS and still some of the highest overall (and make Diablo 3's atrocious story look even more shitty all things considered), the plot itself was meh at best and driven by marketing decisions (can't have female antagonists) but there's something to be said for presentation in and of itself.

I will say the "Normal" difficulty was comically easy, the "Hard" difficulty is substantially easier than Brood War's campaigns, and the "Brutal" difficulty is still easier than WC3 on hard; but that didn't stop it from being fun.

#39 Edited by RenegadeDoppelganger (448 posts) -

WOL's campaign had some really interesting twists on RTS gameplay but it was extremely short and I got the impression the SP campaign was kind of an afterthought. Multiplayer is -I imagine- where a lot of Blizzard's efforts are being focused. I personally have no interest in the ongoing metagame that is SCII online, I like the game, but I'm not really ready to dedicate the time necessary to become not-embarrassingly-terrible. SP is all I want out of SCII and that's okay, because the campaign is always serviceable.

#40 Posted by WarlockEngineerMoreDakka (452 posts) -

@haffy said:

@warlockengineermoredakka said:
@bisonhero said:

It didn't used to be weird to follow it for the story, when there was SOME amount of intrigue and exposition in the campaign. But as of WoL, every mission seems to be designed around a gameplay hook first, and the story justification is an afterthought. And hardly any plot advancement happens in WoL, aside from Zeratul's mission arc retconning the fuck out of a bunch of stuff.

Pretty much this^

Given the direction WoL took the story in, I do unfortunately have to consider it pretty weird to be playing for just the story.

HOWEVER- if you had replaced 'Story' with 'Single Player' or 'Campaign,' then I would've voted No instead of Yes. Because as disappointing as the story direction became for some in WoL, the gameplay itself was still quite good. (And will hopefully be good again in HotS)

I think you're forgetting it's a trilogy. If you don't like how it set up the Xel naga, Duran being in it, Zeuratul showing the destruction of the Protoss where it shows have stopped their civil war in the future, but not in the present. I don't quite understand what you want in the beginning of a trilogy. Were you hoping Shepard killed the entire Reaper force in the first Mass Effect?

No no, its not so much its structure as the start of a trilogy... >_>

Its just that as far as I'm concerned the stuff their setting up for doesn't seem very interesting anymore. Especially since I'm one of the people who absolutely detests how they handled Kerrigan in WoL. :P (No, I'm not talking about the ending here- I'm talking about how Infested Kerrigan's character was handled. Infested Kerrigan was relatively entertaining in Brood War. In WoL though? Her character did a U-turn to boring. :( )

That and Zeratul's retcons- as bisonhero pointed out. :P

#41 Posted by TobbRobb (5243 posts) -

A little, but meh. The story is cool. I won't judge.

#42 Posted by BBAlpert (1880 posts) -

This may put me into an even smaller segment of the Starcraft playing population, but I think I spent a significant chunk of my time with WoL just playing various custom multiplayer (I still want to call them UMS) maps solo.

Online
#43 Edited by Fredchuckdave (7685 posts) -

@bbalpert: You can call them UMS if you want, but "Shitty popularity system" or "Gee I wish Indy games hadn't happened" or "Oh boy another Dota clone!" is much more accurate.

#44 Edited by Canteu (2911 posts) -

No, because fuck competitive RTS games. Starcraft 2 has the single best campaign of any RTS ever released.

#45 Edited by BisonHero (8626 posts) -

@haffy said:

@warlockengineermoredakka said:
@bisonhero said:

It didn't used to be weird to follow it for the story, when there was SOME amount of intrigue and exposition in the campaign. But as of WoL, every mission seems to be designed around a gameplay hook first, and the story justification is an afterthought. And hardly any plot advancement happens in WoL, aside from Zeratul's mission arc retconning the fuck out of a bunch of stuff.

Pretty much this^

Given the direction WoL took the story in, I do unfortunately have to consider it pretty weird to be playing for just the story.

HOWEVER- if you had replaced 'Story' with 'Single Player' or 'Campaign,' then I would've voted No instead of Yes. Because as disappointing as the story direction became for some in WoL, the gameplay itself was still quite good. (And will hopefully be good again in HotS)

I think you're forgetting it's a trilogy. If you don't like how it set up the Xel naga, Duran being in it, Zeuratul showing the destruction of the Protoss where it shows have stopped their civil war in the future, but not in the present. I don't quite understand what you want in the beginning of a trilogy. Were you hoping Shepard killed the entire Reaper force in the first Mass Effect?

I think you're completely misunderstanding where we're coming from. It being a trilogy is not part of the problem; I don't care if everything resolves in WoL or not. I just thought they did a poor job at storytelling, and the scope of the story was massively reduced. In SC and Brood War, Raynor seemed to be dealing with losing Kerrigan while also helping his Protoss buddies out, but then for all of WoL he's suddenly this sad sack of shit who is still obsessed with stopping/saving Kerrigan after like, a decade or however long it's supposed to have been in-universe.

The story integration in the missions is terrible, because most of them are just filler; hell, half the game is just you on a MacGuffin hunt for the artifacts, and each mission is just "well here's some more ancient Protoss bullshit guarding one of these artifact shards". The Zerg threat was communicated way better in the first Starcraft, but all you really see in WoL is a fake-CNN news report going "oh yeah, it's real bad" ONCE, and then otherwise Raynor's battlecruiser is never even slightly endangered by what is supposedly the entire Zerg force mobilizing off of Char, spreading throughout the system. Kerrigan and the Zerg just have zero impact or menace in the missions when they do show up. The infected-colonist and Tosh-Specters mission arcs have no relevance to anything and seem like they're filling in the vacuum left by a lack of plot.

On the other hand, the fuck-over-Mengsk mission arc, which you'd really think would be a major focus of the game, doesn't even have to be completed to finish the game, which seems silly. Same goes for the Zeratul campaign. Also, why did Zeratul even bother giving Raynor that memory crystal? To show him all the ways it is important for the future of the galaxy that Kerrigan not be allowed to die? Pro tip: while Brood War Raynor was a badass motherfucker who would've offed Kerrigan given the chance, WoL Raynor is a drunk pining over a lost girlfriend, and at no point seemed capable of or interested in killing Kerrigan. So Zeratul was kinda preaching to the choir on that one.

I'm not opposed to the mission structure of WoL's campaign, with its little side tangents. It's a decent structure if executed well, except A) the main mission arc was uninteresting and just an endless fetchquest, with the only surprise being your employer (because you'd have to be an idiot to not see Tychus coming), and B) they relegated what should've been main plotlines into side mission arcs, where players don't have to complete them, thus the final missions of the game are ambiguous about whether you've done them, so things like "Mengsk is fucked now" and "all that crazy Zerg shit Zeratul learned" aren't even openly incorporated into the finale of the game.

I think the singleplayer is reasonably fun in terms of playing it, but the story is dreadful.

#46 Posted by StarvingGamer (9285 posts) -

Not at all, especially considering that the single-player in Starcraft is leaps and bounds ahead of most other RTS's that are decidedly not focused on the multiplayer.

#47 Posted by Slag (5776 posts) -

@jacdg: yes absolutely you shoul play it. The single player campaign is great fun.

Story is a little thin compared to SC 1 and SC:BW, but still it's hard to beat single player experience in the RTS world.

#48 Posted by nerdsbeware (272 posts) -

I suck hard at the MP so single player is the only real reason I come back to Starcraft. I'll play MP with some friends against the comp, but even then I don't do much but mass produce marines and march them to their death.

Granted, I'm taking a pass on HoTS right now. Between trying to finish up Dead Space 3 and loving the hell out of Tomb Raider, with BioShock a couple weeks away, to much on my plate right now.

#49 Posted by Zekhariah (700 posts) -

I think the single player side is more fun than multi (and why I like starcraft). But it does seem a bit odd to focus on the story that seems like it exists to justify varied mission types. At least Kerrigan is a fairly long established character though; so it is not all that odd to have some level of story interest.

#50 Posted by Abendlaender (3009 posts) -

I have played every StarCraft game and maybe played 3 multiplayer matches. So, no