Forum Archive. A read-only snapshot of the Warfare Incorporated forums (2003–2020), preserved for historical purposes.  ·  warfareincorporated.com
Warfare Incorporated Forum

What's better...?
Author Message
Verdagon
Veteran Member
Joined: 05 Oct 2003
Posts: 1047
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:31 pm  Post subject: What's better...?

What do you think is better? (See poll above)

By different, I mean like the challenge missions. They are in no way related to each other, but they are still fun.
By campaign, I mean a bunch of related missions.

Which do you think is better?
goblin_merchant
Established Forum User


Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 79
Location: Somewhere, out there...
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:53 pm  

Big campaigns seem more solid. I respect makers of big campaigns (no offense to anyone) more because I as a mapmaker know that campaigns are much harder to do than single missions.
knelson
Established Forum User


Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Hobart, IN
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:08 am  

I think big campaigns or better because they keep you coming back until you complete the entire campaign. The sense of accomplishing the end goal is very fulfilling. I do agree that it is harder to put together a big campaign. You have to put a lot of thought upfront about what the objectives are and then follow through on every mission.
PhillipEarl
Mega-Poster


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 329
Location: Charlotte, NC
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:54 am  

Big campaigns can be fun, and are certainly worthy of a hefty amount of respect, but for my part, I'd rather see a superbly written one or two mission campaign that I'll go back and play repeatedly, verses a large campaign I'll only play once.

I don't think there's any way to judge which is better, since so much about this topic is relative to the user. Those of us with limited amounts of time would probably prefer to wrap up a well-written plot in a short amount of time, while those of us with more time on their hands may want a more immersive experience. Which is better depends solely upon who is playing.

In any case, I lean more towards the shorter campaigns, because the authors have more time to work out all the bugs in the code and the key points in the plot to make it more interesting. That's not to say that well written campaigns with many missions don't exist, though. Verdagon, your mission pack on the return of Fox is proof of that.

The point I'm making is that if you publish a mission, make it a well written mission, regardless of how long or short it is, and people will play it. :wink:
scottlu
WI Founder


Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 1773
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:05 pm  

PhillipEarl wrote:
[...]The point I'm making is that if you publish a mission, make it a well written mission, regardless of how long or short it is, and people will play it. :wink:


Agreed. The key ingredient is high quality over quantity. If you have both, then great.
goblin_merchant
Established Forum User


Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 79
Location: Somewhere, out there...
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:48 pm  

If you can have both quantity and quality, then warfare incorporated is not your ground. You would be doing Warcraft III or something like that