I've seen people speculating about which order should the campaign mode follow (i.e. Terran, Zerg, Protoss like the first). Well, I was thinking: what if it doesn't? Follow an order that is. Since the first demo trailer, we've seen that Zeratul meets with Raynor, right? At that point, Protoss and Terran campaigns cross paths. It also seems like it's on early missions. What if you can follow which ever storyline you want, being that each race you pick to advance with reveals a new aspect of the story that only they saw. If they choose Terran at first, we know they're not gonna win at the end. By the time you meet the second race in line, you know who's gonna make the final move (as the Protoss did in the original and as Kerrigan did in BW). By enabling missions with each race at same time, there's no way to know what happens in the end. And some of the progress could be restrained until you meet that part with another race. Like a mission that has Protoss carrying a certain relic, but can't be stolen by Terrans until you acquire that relic with the Protoss. Since story involves all three, making all three simultaneously act would make sense to me. What you guys say?
The way the orignal campaigns were structured that could've happened as well. So far I think there are more relevent cons to this structure than pros. The drawbacks to your idea is that there is less cohesion in learning the game. The campaign is essentially the tutorial for newcomers and since the game is being redesigned in various ways beyond units maintaining the same race for a given length is more important for the learning process. The other drawback is that it becomes harder in telling a good story. Swapping in and out of races could've telegraphed plot points like Kerrigan's and Duran's intended betrayals or the corruption of Razsagal. Making an interesting story in this way may not be that much harder when cutting inbetween races but I think more work is involved. That being said it would be refreshing if the campaign structure was less predictable in how it would flow if it didn't follow the way things were done in SC and BW.
If you start an easy campaign in each new race, that would make sense concerning learning: each race involves a different learning anyway. Why make an order between them? And concerning a good story, have you seen Wild Arms 3 storyline? I'll describe it: it starts with an event, involving several characters reaching a room at the same time. Each character can be picked randomly, and you'll follow his story until reaching that particular point. If, let's say, you place different aspects of the final scenario to be revealed in details in each of the characters (in SC case, races), this "key-scene" will take a different perspective the more you develop the story, the more you find out about it's characters and what happened to them involving that place and time. Shredding pieces of story without giving anything away would surely require much more labor input, but I don't think it would be less interesting. By seeing only one side of the events, you can be led to believe one thing, when what happened was very different. To truly understand the events, one would have to finish all three campaigns. This way, even if you pick a different order, that wouldn't be a spoiler like it was on the first SC to do so.
I like the idea of 3 separate but linked stories that each show a piece of the story but happen at the same time. They did that in C&C 3 and it worked well. You got the basic story (war between Nod and GDI) and many missions are linked (eg a Nod mission involves taking the White House a GDI mission involves taking it back). The backstory and flow of events would be the same but to get the whole story you have to play all 3 campaigns. Also many of the missions would feature events experienced only in one campaign. Perhaps the Zerg attack a Umojan outpost. You would do this as the Zerg but as the Terrans you might hear about it on the news but it won't be a major story element and you would not have a mission for it
I think you should play one mission with protoss and next with zerg and then with terran... So the story would go equally for all the races.
I like Birdofprey's idea, it's exactly what I had in mind. But it would be, imo, harder for Blizzard to make shocking suprise twists in the story if they chose to make the campaign that way. Which means that the story probably wouldn't be as thrilling as it could be, even if it was masterfully made.
I think it would be even more intriguing, as you wouldn't know who gets scr%¨&d (pardon my english) later on. Every race you play, would feel like the other 2 must be better than you are. But all of them have twists of their own and loose a lot of what it had somehow. Even if it is more troublesome to get the storyline going without spoilers, it's worthy imo. Nothing would fit the equal balance of races better than independent, although interconnected, campaigns.
Raynor and protoss crossed paths, and we get to play both but mainly protoss first. WC3 undead wasn't first and they won in the end. There will be expansions and winning is overrated because it will never last unless we're pretty sure this is the last game, even then. (*cough* Halo 3) Also, the campaign is ALWAYS independent yet interconnected, it always has been in Blizzard games. The time period happens when you play against another race. It would be stupid to fight the same war twice. The protoss must defend shakuras and they win, but at the same time zerg must conquer shakuras then you plays as zerg and beat protoss... wait... what happened here? I think I get what you're saying but I think it would be better to just stick to a race throughout a campaign because of the meaning of campaign. Also, with upgraded AI I would love to see allies in the campaign similar to WC3 storyline. It is superfluous in my opinion to switch between races for the player and causes confusion with little benefit that could not be otherwise reaped.
I think they should just follow the Terran, Zerg, Protoss order like they did in the original. That way they can have the story end so that the Zerg lose. I dislike the play one race and then another and then the other because there would be a lack of cohesion in the story and play feel. BTW I like your Elfen Lied sig SD-Count
i´ve got an idea taking consideration to most of you. you can play any race at any time, so you wont know who will win, but you dont really get to play the last mission until you´ve completed all the races "sub-last" missions. So, first you play lets say Terran. You play and finishes it, but the campaign end before the final battle and you are like "OMG WHAT WILL HAPPEN?!?!?!? I CANT HANDLE THE PRESSURE!!!!!!" and then you have to complete every campaign to play the last mission, making everything tense and exciting. Sort of.
I didn't mean you would have to play in a mixed race order. Unless the player wanted to. I only meant to suggest an independent yet interconnected storytelling that allows the players to pick which race's campaign to follow first. And Gasmaskguy's idea is very good for promoting the completion of all three race's campaigns. Each race could have somewhat of a closure, but leave an open edge for a final battle only accessible after you've extensively played all three races. I wouldn't mind if it was the last mission only.
If we use the BW Protoss campaign as an example you play the same person as Protoss and do the missions the same but as Zerg instead you would play as the Cerebrates that come to Shakira's. A few missions as Zerg will involve you attacking DT settlements and taking over the planet. This will take place at the sae time as the Missions where you get the Uraj and Khalis crystals in the 'toss campaign. After the mission where you take the temple as the Zerg you play a mission where you have to hold off a Protoss attack long enough for you and the rest of the Cerabrits to escape. When the mission is over it shows a cutscene of the 'toss taking back the temple then activating it. You then are put into the next part of the campaign where Kerrigan is having you attack the USED then after another major battle you are to the part where Kerrigan wants you ti take out the Psi disruptor and the Zerg campaign carries on as it had in the original. So the stories would intersect on Shakira's but the whole story would not be told. You would have to play the Protoss campaign to know about Aldaris being killed and the Zerg to know what the Zerg are doing back at the temple after being forced away in one of the early 'toss missions.
i would like to add one thing to my idea above; when the last mission is unlocked, you can choose what race to play as! You can win the mission with all races(the mission also includes all races(ofcourse)). But the outcome is still the same. Lets say that the hole story is leaning towards zergs defeat. Then, if you play zerg, the mission will be defencive, and you would have to survive attacks long enough to escape. If you play as Terran, you would lead the attacks against the zerg base using some kind of artefact recieved from zeratul or something (this is all just examples) and if you play protoss, your job is to obtain the artefact that you later on share with the Terrans to destroy zerg once and for all. That way, you dont need to win with the finaly played race, but you can choose to play with your favorite one. I always found it annoying in sc to play as protoss in the final, most challenging missions. i think that the last mission should be the hardest, but that you have the choice to play with the race you are best with.
