It wasn't because the ending video was leaked it was because the foreshadowing was blatantly obvious and the story was over foreshadowed. It's also because the story is very rehash and we have seen the exact plot devices used in HOTS used over and over again.
The "I'm dead but not really", " I'm mad but I'll change my mind and come back to help later", "Oh no we have to escape, better not get separated...", "We have your friend and we'll kill him if you come for us, but he's being held in a prison somewhere that you can save him in.", "Hey there's this prophesy you better do you job and fulfill it!", "I love you but we can't be together because I have a duty to save the universe."
I mean all of these are very cliche and almost at the amateur level of writing. They can only be used sparingly once in a while or everyone start to see a trend and start to expect what will happen.
After beating the campaign I find myself feeling a little bit underwhelmed and I'm not entirely sure why... I think one thing that attribute to it is that the story was incredibly straight forward and I saw everything coming, I knew Jim Raynor didn't die, I knew even though he got mad he would come back in the end mission, I knew Kerrigan was going to live even though she impaled herself. I never had that moment where I was at the edge of my seat completely unsure as to what was going to happen next. I would have liked to have been shocked a little bit with something I didn't see coming or an epic plot twist, but at the end I found the ending to be a little anti climactic. I just found that Blizzard played it to safe, even with Kerrigan's transformation she comes out looking identical to her old self, no genetic differences?
And Mengsk is killed with the very original light flashing out the eyes and mouth then exploding that has been used over and over again in movies and video games, probably because it's the only pretty way to make someone explode. This was done in Indian Jone 4 and Dues EX,
I could go on but what I'm getting at is that the story could have taken many more risks that would have made it epic but instead kind of sits on the edge of epic. It would have been perfect if it just had a really good twist at the end and I think Blizzard missed a huge opportunity to really take the game to the next level.
@fritfrat - Thanks for bringing this to my attention. At the time you wrote this - a few players were entrusted with access to beta game features. This mode is necessary because we can't test some features offline or without multiple players. The players that had access were supposed to use this strictly in private clan games - but it sounds like it was also used outside of that. You'll be happy to know that direct access to these features has been removed and a new voting system has been installed in its place so we can accomplish the same level of testing.
Sun does not have access to the map. We've gotten many requests from RISK players who would prefer lower in-game unit stats to slow down the game adding more micro, at this point Sun has voluenteered the new unit stats and that's why he had access to test the feature. If anyone else would like to voluenteer a set of unit stats and other ideas, we're open to consider all feedback and possible feature requests.
As far as the bugs you encounter - I think I've resolved the bonus units issue after players leave. Also - the victory code was just rewrote so if you encounter this or any other error - please post it here. Thanks :)
I actually agree with Tainted, maps should always be free, it would create too many problems if maps were paid including the fact that it would become unfair to older map makers.
To force people to pay money on a map that were previously free is unfair and to exempt older makes from being paid for is unfair, so either way someone gets screwed.
While we would all like some money, the world does not pay you for your hobbies and that's what map making is. No one is forcing you to work for free on a map so it is really your choice to work on it because you want to. The satisfaction of making a good map and being proud of it should be enough, this is why things like Wikipedia and Linux exists, because people want something to make them feel accomplished and that is more valuable than money.
It is possible, but basically you have to think a little differently... You need to have all of your units face the ground, or up if they are enemies (Using SiteOPs), then increase their height to as high as possible, then change the camera to face down at the ground of the map. To give the illusion of moving through space you then move by progressively changing the units height toward the ground. A space background looks great with this and give you the illusion of moving when it's actually triggers doing the moving for you.
I made a map that does it just haven't had time to make levels and enemies and all that.
Some of those sound a little odd, especially the dropship one. I'll try to look into them right away. I'm actually working a patch atm to fix a few other bugs I've noticed, like the new tech charts acting funny and flip flopping between units. I will say this none of those things you mentioned are intentional so I will be fixing them when I get a new patch done.
Right now I'm figuring out how to implement a new Mode, so I'll probably try to get that going. Might take a little bit but I'm hoping to get it done and out of the way so I can start to work on some other stuff :)
You can't build a good map without first having the skills to do it right.
Besides you were the one who originally put me down for a trigger based growth system. But it really doesn't matter because I now have the map and in the end it doesn't really matter who has access to the map but rather who has the ability and persistence to complete it and make it great. Whether you achieve that through data or triggers is up to you but you might find yourself limited by your ability.
@DarkForce9999
I appreciate you open up your map and I will look into it and see what I can build off of and how I can improve it :) I will probably PM you so I can speak to you directly without interruption.
Well I really loved that map and was sad when it died :( (I really love playing Harvest Moon on SNES) I was considering making another Harvest Earth also. I created a very nice trigger system for growing plants. Actually if you would want to reopen the project I would be very happy to polish it up and continue to work on it if you don't have the time.
The problem with this statement is that I did originally give the units to computer players, for a while after the maps was published players units were given to computer players and I got a lot of negative feedback from people about it. People that I played with found that the game became dull and most would be confused at why they hadn't won the game.
So yes I did actually have a live version where the units were given to a computer player and I got negative feedback regarding it. I realize that it's frustrating to you but I can't change something of that magnitude about the game until I have at least a few other people express the same concerns.
Also I find your use of the term unbalanced to be rather unbalanced. I have included many of the suggestions you've made and seen them as all very necessary, but I can't allow myself to just change things at a whim when it come to things that are really just gameplay preferences. To many other good maps have become bad over time because they tried to appease everyone. Now I will try to make the majority happy but I know for a fact that I cannot make everyone happy, if you can prove to me that the majority wants this change I will implement it but I will not act based solely off of the preference of one individual.
You have stated that I am penalizing 95% of players for the sake of 5% in regards to not making this change, but the problem with this statement is that you can't claim to be the 95% when you are one of the only people in this thread that has stated that it needs to change. It kinda make you look like the 5% actually...
If you can prove to me that you are the 95% then I will consider implementing what you suggest.
I strongly believe mineral counts should stay private- keeping up a supply of mins to defend attackers is a very effective strategy. Do this enough and people won't attack you, even if you have 0 mins, because they think you do. Making this knowledge public just decreases depth and adds very little in return. Please add a vote to allow this if public mins are implemented!
Personally, I think displaying minerals takes away from the manipulation, diplomacy in risk.
You will be happy to know that I've decided not to implement public minerals in the current mode. The original map did include public mineral and gas displays but I believe that it would detract from the advantage of saving and springing units on the enemy.
I did however in the most recent patch (Patch 2.1.2013) include a Tech Display that will show you the amount of upgrades (of any kind) an enemy has if you select one of his units. I implemented this because some upgrades are not very noticeable, health in particular. Hopefully this will make newer players more aware of the power of upgrades.
The choke between SA and Africa I think shouldn't be made smaller, but it can be extended out so it is thinner farther into Africa, allowing Africa to more easily (but not too easily) defend both Europe and SA with that one choke point. SA is already a very strong continent that doesn't need any more bonuses, imo.
I thinned the choke slightly and added a mountain in between the two. Let me know what you think of it in the new patch.
0
@Gorandor: Go
Yeah could have used some more suspense as well, I mean I hate to say this but I felt more suspension in Super Metroid then in HOTS.
@progammer: Go
It wasn't because the ending video was leaked it was because the foreshadowing was blatantly obvious and the story was over foreshadowed. It's also because the story is very rehash and we have seen the exact plot devices used in HOTS used over and over again.
The "I'm dead but not really", " I'm mad but I'll change my mind and come back to help later", "Oh no we have to escape, better not get separated...", "We have your friend and we'll kill him if you come for us, but he's being held in a prison somewhere that you can save him in.", "Hey there's this prophesy you better do you job and fulfill it!", "I love you but we can't be together because I have a duty to save the universe."
I mean all of these are very cliche and almost at the amateur level of writing. They can only be used sparingly once in a while or everyone start to see a trend and start to expect what will happen.
0
After beating the campaign I find myself feeling a little bit underwhelmed and I'm not entirely sure why... I think one thing that attribute to it is that the story was incredibly straight forward and I saw everything coming, I knew Jim Raynor didn't die, I knew even though he got mad he would come back in the end mission, I knew Kerrigan was going to live even though she impaled herself. I never had that moment where I was at the edge of my seat completely unsure as to what was going to happen next. I would have liked to have been shocked a little bit with something I didn't see coming or an epic plot twist, but at the end I found the ending to be a little anti climactic. I just found that Blizzard played it to safe, even with Kerrigan's transformation she comes out looking identical to her old self, no genetic differences?
And Mengsk is killed with the very original light flashing out the eyes and mouth then exploding that has been used over and over again in movies and video games, probably because it's the only pretty way to make someone explode. This was done in Indian Jone 4 and Dues EX,
I could go on but what I'm getting at is that the story could have taken many more risks that would have made it epic but instead kind of sits on the edge of epic. It would have been perfect if it just had a really good twist at the end and I think Blizzard missed a huge opportunity to really take the game to the next level.
0
I can't get over Kerrigan's face in those comics... I mean you can tell they worked hard but the style just looks to masculine.
0
@fritfrat: Go
@fritfrat - Thanks for bringing this to my attention. At the time you wrote this - a few players were entrusted with access to beta game features. This mode is necessary because we can't test some features offline or without multiple players. The players that had access were supposed to use this strictly in private clan games - but it sounds like it was also used outside of that. You'll be happy to know that direct access to these features has been removed and a new voting system has been installed in its place so we can accomplish the same level of testing.
Sun does not have access to the map. We've gotten many requests from RISK players who would prefer lower in-game unit stats to slow down the game adding more micro, at this point Sun has voluenteered the new unit stats and that's why he had access to test the feature. If anyone else would like to voluenteer a set of unit stats and other ideas, we're open to consider all feedback and possible feature requests.
As far as the bugs you encounter - I think I've resolved the bonus units issue after players leave. Also - the victory code was just rewrote so if you encounter this or any other error - please post it here. Thanks :)
0
@Nebuli2: Go
I actually agree with Tainted, maps should always be free, it would create too many problems if maps were paid including the fact that it would become unfair to older map makers.
To force people to pay money on a map that were previously free is unfair and to exempt older makes from being paid for is unfair, so either way someone gets screwed.
While we would all like some money, the world does not pay you for your hobbies and that's what map making is. No one is forcing you to work for free on a map so it is really your choice to work on it because you want to. The satisfaction of making a good map and being proud of it should be enough, this is why things like Wikipedia and Linux exists, because people want something to make them feel accomplished and that is more valuable than money.
0
Why would anyone install windows 8?
0
@Gaelidan: Go
It is possible, but basically you have to think a little differently... You need to have all of your units face the ground, or up if they are enemies (Using SiteOPs), then increase their height to as high as possible, then change the camera to face down at the ground of the map. To give the illusion of moving through space you then move by progressively changing the units height toward the ground. A space background looks great with this and give you the illusion of moving when it's actually triggers doing the moving for you.
I made a map that does it just haven't had time to make levels and enemies and all that.
0
@fritfrat: Go
Some of those sound a little odd, especially the dropship one. I'll try to look into them right away. I'm actually working a patch atm to fix a few other bugs I've noticed, like the new tech charts acting funny and flip flopping between units. I will say this none of those things you mentioned are intentional so I will be fixing them when I get a new patch done.
Right now I'm figuring out how to implement a new Mode, so I'll probably try to get that going. Might take a little bit but I'm hoping to get it done and out of the way so I can start to work on some other stuff :)
0
@A52BcE: Go
You can't build a good map without first having the skills to do it right.
Besides you were the one who originally put me down for a trigger based growth system. But it really doesn't matter because I now have the map and in the end it doesn't really matter who has access to the map but rather who has the ability and persistence to complete it and make it great. Whether you achieve that through data or triggers is up to you but you might find yourself limited by your ability.
@DarkForce9999
I appreciate you open up your map and I will look into it and see what I can build off of and how I can improve it :) I will probably PM you so I can speak to you directly without interruption.
0
@A52BcE: Go
I'm sorry but you only get a screen full of red errors when you don't know what you're doing...
0
@DarkForce9999: Go
Well I really loved that map and was sad when it died :( (I really love playing Harvest Moon on SNES) I was considering making another Harvest Earth also. I created a very nice trigger system for growing plants. Actually if you would want to reopen the project I would be very happy to polish it up and continue to work on it if you don't have the time.
0
I think it's sexiest to believe woman can't wear ties too!
0
@bobby8934: Go
The problem with this statement is that I did originally give the units to computer players, for a while after the maps was published players units were given to computer players and I got a lot of negative feedback from people about it. People that I played with found that the game became dull and most would be confused at why they hadn't won the game.
So yes I did actually have a live version where the units were given to a computer player and I got negative feedback regarding it. I realize that it's frustrating to you but I can't change something of that magnitude about the game until I have at least a few other people express the same concerns.
Also I find your use of the term unbalanced to be rather unbalanced. I have included many of the suggestions you've made and seen them as all very necessary, but I can't allow myself to just change things at a whim when it come to things that are really just gameplay preferences. To many other good maps have become bad over time because they tried to appease everyone. Now I will try to make the majority happy but I know for a fact that I cannot make everyone happy, if you can prove to me that the majority wants this change I will implement it but I will not act based solely off of the preference of one individual.
You have stated that I am penalizing 95% of players for the sake of 5% in regards to not making this change, but the problem with this statement is that you can't claim to be the 95% when you are one of the only people in this thread that has stated that it needs to change. It kinda make you look like the 5% actually...
If you can prove to me that you are the 95% then I will consider implementing what you suggest.
0
I would be willing to do your terrain, I really like doing terrain but there is a catch.
I will make you terrain only after I see that you have a majority of the data and triggers working, you can PM me if you want to talk about it more :)
Also if you require screenshots of some of my terrain I'd be willing to post them.
0
You will be happy to know that I've decided not to implement public minerals in the current mode. The original map did include public mineral and gas displays but I believe that it would detract from the advantage of saving and springing units on the enemy.
I did however in the most recent patch (Patch 2.1.2013) include a Tech Display that will show you the amount of upgrades (of any kind) an enemy has if you select one of his units. I implemented this because some upgrades are not very noticeable, health in particular. Hopefully this will make newer players more aware of the power of upgrades.
I thinned the choke slightly and added a mountain in between the two. Let me know what you think of it in the new patch.