EPTI think BW campaign was a little let down after the original one, but it still had a lot of decent moments and in general it didn't wreck the original legacy like SC2 does.
[Poll]SC1 vs SC2: Best plot? - Page 12
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Bacillus
Finland1917 Posts
I think BW campaign was a little let down after the original one, but it still had a lot of decent moments and in general it didn't wreck the original legacy like SC2 does. | ||
|
Billy_
461 Posts
On October 05 2010 16:03 Bacillus wrote: Basically WoL had a chance to be less rushed storyline. Too bad it never went anywhere with it. They went big with the mission count and then tried to spread the storyline extremely thin all over it. I think BW campaign was a little let down after the original one, but it still had a lot of decent moments and in general it didn't wreck the original legacy like SC2 does. I can agree on that it was spread thin, but I had fun playing it, and it made more sense than some parts of BW which I've mentioned more than once. It had character and plot development. It involved a rebellion against Arcturuses leadership which seems to have been succesful and I like where it appears to be going. Logically HotS will involve Kerrigans revenge against Mengsk, and Valarian stepping up as the new leader. And we don't know who Kerrigan is anymore, but that artifact has an interesting history behind it If Hansens speculation is correct. As to whether or not it wrecks the legacy of the original, well that sounds like a subjective opinion. I can go into various reasons why BW might have subjectively ruined the original too, but I can't make you agree with me. | ||
|
kudlaty_true
Poland158 Posts
On October 04 2010 21:52 Stratos_speAr wrote: This point has been brought up many times and it's been thoroughly explained that this is an absolutely terrible excuse. This game was sold as a stand-alone game with as many mission as either SC or BW and took significantly longer to make with a much higher budget and a lot better resources/technology available. This makes your point a terrible excuse to try to justify a bad story. Yes, well, I'm still holding my ground. This game was sold as a stand alone version, although this shouldn't have to be brought up, because it STILL isn't the whole single player scenario. They said it right then with the "3 parts" announcement. "We will be selling this game as a 3 parter" or some crap like that. Don't remember exactly. Basically the message was from the very begining: You want multiplayer in it's entirety? Buy basic game. You want single player in its entirety? But three parts. Period. End of story. That's why this argument have never had any significance. That's why this poll is lacking, and the campaign AIN'T. (Because it's lacking the ending, lol) | ||
|
Pandonetho
Canada321 Posts
You want multiplayer in it's entirety? Buy basic game And if you want to buy it for the multiplayer, you are going to need all 3 games. Or are you daft enough to think Blizzard isn't adding anything new with each expansion? | ||
|
ghostunit
61 Posts
In terms of single-player, it won't be worth buying because the story sucks and will continue sucking. In terms of multiplayer, judging from the extremely conservative approach Blizzard took to design SC2, I doubt there will be any major or interesting changes to the game, and paying 60$ just for a couple more units doesn't sound appealing at all. They may be riding on nothing more than fanboyism and brand recognition by then. Now, if the expansions add stuff like a 4th race and new game mechanics then yeah, it will be worth paying for. But really, what are the chances of that? | ||
|
Pandonetho
Canada321 Posts
And adding a 4th race? Really? Do you honestly WANT that? Now, if the expansions add stuff like a 4th race and new game mechanics then yeah, it will be worth paying for Yeah, too bad BW didn't add a 4th race, Guess BW wasn't all that great either. | ||
|
Strayline
United States330 Posts
The protoss heroes making a pointless last stand on the edge of the universe felt like... well it felt like I was playing SC1 again. Ofc even during that sequence, they had to really really obviously over and over again telegraph the fact that you needed to save Kerrigan and ally with the Zerg or else "behold or future Jim Raynor." | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On October 06 2010 08:29 Strayline wrote: Ofc even during that sequence, they had to really really obviously over and over again telegraph the fact that you needed to save Kerrigan and ally with the Zerg or else "behold or future Jim Raynor." The funny thing is I recall at least one thread where the OP believes this is canon. | ||
|
Wargizmo
Australia1237 Posts
Hard question to answer for me because I think Sc1's overall plot is superior, but the dialogue, voice acting and execution of Sc2's plot blows it out of the water. | ||
|
Billy_
461 Posts
On October 06 2010 18:23 Wargizmo wrote: Hard question to answer for me because I think Sc1's overall plot is superior, but the dialogue, voice acting and execution of Sc2's plot blows it out of the water. SCII is merely a continuation of the plot which was foreshadowed in BW. they both had extreme lows (half of Jims dialogue of WoL, the one liners and UNN, and most of the protoss campaign of BW which was just plain awful for so many reasons) I think that the main things that SCII does fails at compared to the original as a story is the general lack of urgency and pacing which is kind of natural when it comes to non-linear RPG light games. First one was darker and grittier, and SCII toned it down in some areas, which can mostly be blamed on the CNN parody. The protoss, colonist and Char missions gave me the old SCI feeling, so at least SCII had it where it counted the most. This coming from someone who is barely versed in the supplementals of SC such as the manuals and novels. I don't really consider any of it cannon by default, and don't care much about how serious blizzard are about novel and manual continuity. | ||
|
TSM
Great Britain584 Posts
| ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:21 Billy_ wrote: ... Honestly, you could remove a lot of the Broodwar campaign and it wouldn't mean much. Most of the long term character and plot development came in the final third of BW. It's where all of the damage that the UED had done had been undone. It's where all of the great tragedies and betrayals happened, and I didn't feel like that the UED and Shakuras chapters did enough to justify their existence when compared to SCI. In my opinion. ... Honestly you could remove a lot of SC2 campaign and it would mean much in getting rid of lot of messy things. In next campaign Arcturus should wake up and realizing WoL was just his bad dream. Or maybe it's Raynor who should wake up and realize it's an Inception! | ||
|
Billy_
461 Posts
On October 06 2010 23:18 LastWish wrote: Honestly you could remove a lot of SC2 campaign and it would mean much in getting rid of lot of messy things. In next campaign Arcturus should wake up and realizing WoL was just his bad dream. Or maybe it's Raynor who should wake up and realize it's an Inception! An easy way of improving BW? Not having the SC ending spoil the ending for us "Kerrigans time of ascension has come" (paraphrased). Look, I'm not saying that BW was awful or something, just that too much of the game passed by with hardly anything to show for it in the end. The UED were nothing but some threat that the protagonists were fighting against like the confederacy, or the renegade broods, or the Tal'darim. What we got in the Terran campagin was essentially the equivilent of spending a SCII campaign as the Tal'Darim, running around space and making life a little bit less convienient for Jim by taking artifact pieces. Was it really neccesary to get the UED point of view only to annhilate any chance of them having a lasting legacy? | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
SC2 seems much less epic than SC1, and a lot less genuine as well. So much more happened in SC1 and it was just better all around. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On October 07 2010 00:01 Billy_ wrote: An easy way of improving BW? Not having the SC ending spoil the ending for us "Kerrigans time of ascension has come" (paraphrased). Look, I'm not saying that BW was awful or something, just that too much of the game passed by with hardly anything to show for it in the end. The UED were nothing but some threat that the protagonists were fighting against like the confederacy, or the renegade broods, or the Tal'darim. What we got in the Terran campagin was essentially the equivilent of spending a SCII campaign as the Tal'Darim, running around space and making life a little bit less convienient for Jim by taking artifact pieces. Was it really neccesary to get the UED point of view only to annhilate any chance of them having a lasting legacy? Yes, it was a great experience. Nothing lasts forever and I actually don't like how they try to attach you so much to one side in SC2. The greatest part about sc1/bw was that there were many many sides, and each of them were equally represented, leaving the player the choice to decide their favorite, who was good/bad, right/wrong. SC2 is a pretty cheesy black-and-white narrative. The only real complexity I thought was Tychus. I also don't like how you played a small rebel force practically the entire game, it lacked epicness. It was totally cheesy how you landed on the Dominion Capital and fought them on their capital, let alone the invasion of Char with only half the dominion fleet? hahahahaha get real blizzard in SC1 you started out small and ended up controlling entire nations. it was almost like every mission you completed earned you a promotion to control a larger portion of the military. in SC2 you started out small, and finished small | ||
|
Billy_
461 Posts
On October 07 2010 00:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Yes, it was a great experience. Nothing lasts forever and I actually don't like how they try to attach you so much to one side in SC2. The greatest part about sc1/bw was that there were many many sides, and each of them were equally represented, leaving the player the choice to decide their favorite, who was good/bad, right/wrong. SC2 is a pretty cheesy black-and-white narrative. Yeah, it was a pretty fun experience and I liked meeting Duran. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I do not like the idea of taking control of the UED when they were destined to become nothing more than the next confederacy/renegade zerg/taldarim to be swept aside. I think that Warfield and Tychus were meant to add some ambiguity to the black/white narrative. Tychus wouldn't have hesitated to leave the marines for dead back on Mar Sara, or answer Hansens distress call. And Warfield turned out to be a pretty good guy. These characters were both very much the opposites of Jim and Arcturus, and still they were fighting for the same cause. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Not only is the story completely asinine and rape the shit out of lore (I almost broke my monitor during the Overmind cutscenes) but the dialogue crossed a territory beyond cheesy/fun into plain stupidity. It made the Expendables seem like East of Eden. I honestly don't understand how you go from grey with the UED/Duke/Mensk, etc. in BW to completely black/white in SC2. Not to mention the cut scenes were hugely disappointing and filled with non sequitur. HOW IS TYCHUS GOING TO RAPE SOMEONE WHEN HE'S STUCK IN A SUIT? EDIT: Before SC2 released, I went back and rewatched the entire BW story play out and it honestly wasn't very good either. I think most people have blinders about it. Metzen is perpetually an awful story teller. Duran is like the only thing that really stands out. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On October 07 2010 04:15 Jibba wrote: EDIT: Before SC2 released, I went back and rewatched the entire BW story play out and it honestly wasn't very good either. I think most people have blinders about it. Metzen is perpetually an awful story teller. Duran is like the only thing that really stands out. what did you find not very good about it? I'm curious because I had the exact opposite reaction. Compared to most games I play nowadays, SC1's story resonates pretty strongly with me still. Ironically, Duran was probably the one person I actually forgot through the years. The things that stuck with me most were the presentation, music, and dialogue. It just had this gravitas to it that made it feel so much cooler than most games I play now. Most games either try too hard and fail or don't try at all. | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
| ||
|
Billy_
461 Posts
On October 07 2010 04:39 strongwind wrote: what did you find not very good about it? I'm curious because I had the exact opposite reaction. Compared to most games I play nowadays, SC1's story resonates pretty strongly with me still. Ironically, Duran was probably the one person I actually forgot through the years. The things that stuck with me most were the presentation, music, and dialogue. It just had this gravitas to it that made it feel so much cooler than most games I play now. Most games either try too hard and fail or don't try at all. Broodwar had some nice briefing room dialogue and atmosphere. But Duran and Kerrigan definitely had to carry a lot of the story. The rest of BW was average at best. However I did like the profound character development that Razagal had on Zeratul who doesn't seem to want to become the new patriarch. I'm betting money on Zeratul becoming to the SC series what Aragorn was to LotR. | ||
| ||
