|
On August 26 2010 05:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:10 xnub wrote:
can't compare them yet. SC1 hade all 3 parts zerg terran and toss. SC2 has part 1 terran if you compare the terran part in SC1 with terran part in SC2 i think SC2 is better.
But again you can't tell yet as a whole. Yes, you can compare them. This is a BS argument because they had 26 missions and they had less story than 10 did in the classic SC. Stop throwing this out. WoL is a stand-alone game and it is expected that it gives us a quality story worth $60, not some piece of trash story that's out-classed by its predecessor that was made 12 years ago. Show nested quote +You should be comparing the overall plot arch to the plain SC1 Terran campaign. You get about as much story, but with more character development and depth. It's nearly three times longer and has quite a bit more than three times as much dialogue. SC2 WoL has more dialogue than the three chapters of SC1 combined. While less has happened total in the game, more has happened overall for the characters.
SC1's story was meant to give a very quick overview of what was going on. It was more or less a generic sci fi excuse to give some meaning to missions. SC2 is character driven. It's not just "Zeratul tells Raynor to save Kerrigan, so he does." It's about why he does, his crew, how he gets there, etc. SC1 had a memorable story, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't deep either. Trying to write up little one paragraph descriptions is simplistic at best and really doesn't represent the story at all. Was the dialogue cheesy? Yes, but no more than SC1. Seriously, you should go back and play SC1 if you want to make the comparison.
I mean really, the game is based on a character who can best be summed up by this line: Glad to see you, boys. Time to kick some serious butt.
What were you expecting? I was expecting the game to actually deliver. You say that WoL was supposed to do those things, but it doesn't do any of those things at all. Not only was the writing terrible, they failed on the execution.
Lol the first 10 missions of SC1 did not have more then the first part of the SC2 trilogy. Also it is not a BS argument it was made to be just like sc1 with part 1,2 and 3 this is just part one and is not a stand alone game. only diff is they made it split to get more game play and more units and never things down the road for MP. But really its like saying you read one third of a book and calling it bad.
|
We have only 1/3rd of the SC2 story. Thats like comparing sc2 to just the terran and zerg campaign from classic SC........
|
On August 01 2010 10:41 Zato-1 wrote:SC + BW story summarized: + Show Spoiler [Story] +There are three races: Terran, Protoss and Zerg. Terrans are fighting between themselves, Zerg want to devour everything else, Protoss want to stop them.
On the Terran side, the Sons of Korhal, led by Arcturus Mengsk, overthrow the Confederacy and establish the Dominion. Later on, the United Earth Directorate overthrows the Dominion.
The Protoss kill Zerg Cerebrate Zasz, but lose their homeworld of Aiur. They then flee into the Dark Templar world of Shakuras, which is also being overrun, but they manage to cleanse it of the Zerg.
The Zerg take over a few planets and infest the Terran hero, Sarah Kerrigan. The Overmind is destroyed by Tassadar, and Kerrigan takes over the Zerg Swarm. She then proceeds to single-handedly tear through all possible opposition, annihilating the UED in the process and letting Mengsk rebuild his Dominion. There, all the storyline of SC and BW summarized in 11 lines. It really isn't that spectacular. It's not bad, mind you- I enjoyed it. It's just that the narrative in SC2 is incomparably better, because it's fleshed out a lot better. That's my opinion. I find overall no RTS has ever really had a good story since it's probably an innate characteristic that is hard to change.
Aside form the cool cutscenes (which usually weren't directly related to story), I found that sc1 didn't really give much quality story. It's good overall, like the plot and stuff, but it's simply not a game you get immersed in like most adventure adventure or RPG games.
Both SC2 and SC1 had their downsides. SC2 was rather dumbed down (not that SC1 was sophisticated) with regards to some of the story telling; SC1 had almost nothing except conversation telling the story, and it's not like there was loads of good conversation either — much of it was just filler stuff, equivalent to the briefings of sc2.
|
Terran Campaign in SC wasnt that good, Zerg and especially Prottos made Singeplayer a great experience.
If it is gonne be the same as in original SC , we can expect a lot from next expansions.
So basicly i agree its too early to judge sc2 story, we need a full shape.
|
On August 26 2010 05:46 xnub wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 26 2010 04:10 xnub wrote:
can't compare them yet. SC1 hade all 3 parts zerg terran and toss. SC2 has part 1 terran if you compare the terran part in SC1 with terran part in SC2 i think SC2 is better.
But again you can't tell yet as a whole. Yes, you can compare them. This is a BS argument because they had 26 missions and they had less story than 10 did in the classic SC. Stop throwing this out. WoL is a stand-alone game and it is expected that it gives us a quality story worth $60, not some piece of trash story that's out-classed by its predecessor that was made 12 years ago. You should be comparing the overall plot arch to the plain SC1 Terran campaign. You get about as much story, but with more character development and depth. It's nearly three times longer and has quite a bit more than three times as much dialogue. SC2 WoL has more dialogue than the three chapters of SC1 combined. While less has happened total in the game, more has happened overall for the characters.
SC1's story was meant to give a very quick overview of what was going on. It was more or less a generic sci fi excuse to give some meaning to missions. SC2 is character driven. It's not just "Zeratul tells Raynor to save Kerrigan, so he does." It's about why he does, his crew, how he gets there, etc. SC1 had a memorable story, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't deep either. Trying to write up little one paragraph descriptions is simplistic at best and really doesn't represent the story at all. Was the dialogue cheesy? Yes, but no more than SC1. Seriously, you should go back and play SC1 if you want to make the comparison.
I mean really, the game is based on a character who can best be summed up by this line: Glad to see you, boys. Time to kick some serious butt.
What were you expecting? I was expecting the game to actually deliver. You say that WoL was supposed to do those things, but it doesn't do any of those things at all. Not only was the writing terrible, they failed on the execution. Lol the first 10 missions of SC1 did not have more then the first part of the SC2 trilogy. Also it is not a BS argument it was made to be just like sc1 with part 1,2 and 3 this is just part one and is not a stand alone game. only diff is they made it split to get more game play and more units and never things down the road for MP. But really its like saying you read one third of a book and calling it bad.
Did Blizzard spend several years making WoL?
Did it cost me $60 ($100 for the Collector's)?
Then yes, it is a full game. Stop buying into this trilogy bullshit. If Fellowship of the Ring was a P.o.S. story, this excuse wouldn't fly for it either.
And yes, more happened in Episode I than all of WoL - there was basically nothing worth noting that happened except for the Artifacts + Char. The rest of the missions were useless filler that didn't even influence the story in any way.
|
Playing SC1+BW the two weeks before SC2's release I feel like SC1+BW is nothing extraordinary in comparison to SC2. The entire BW Terran campaign was painfully boring to me and I didn't care about any of the characters one bit. Except maybe Duran but I knew he was going to backstab the UED almost immediately so it just felt blah to me. All of BW was briefings and mission dialogue which was pretty lame to never get a cinematic throughout the duration of the chapter until the end. Also the dialogue in SC1+BW is not anything special so I don't really see how people complain so much about the SC2 dialogue. This is pretty negative so I should say overall I loved SC1+BW's campaign but I feel the need to play Devil's Advocate here.
I felt more engaged in the SC2 storyline even if it was a less complex portion of the story because of all the extras you got after each and every mission. I don't really feel like the missions are fillers either. You're goal is to network with other people to take down the Dominion and you start with nothing. Every mission you were picking at the Dominion's propaganda machine and it finally comes to a head when you finish Media Blitz. Then you have to go to Char so it kind of left the fate of the Dominion hanging in the balance for the future of SC2. Completing the entire SC2 campaign really fleshes out Raynor's character in my opinion even if it was cheesy at times.
They were all enjoyable and each one progresses the story. SC1+BW packed more storyline into the game but there are periods in it where I honestly just did not care about what the briefings were saying to me. SC2's story has less meat but completing each mission gave you some tidbits in the Hyperion before you got briefed on your next mission which I think gave it the extra immersion that brings it up to SC1+BW level.
Overall I'd say there's really no point in arguing over this. Enjoy them for what they are as a progression of the StarCraft universe.
|
WoL was such a disappointment. I kinda had a feeling going in that it couldn't live up to expectations, but Blizzard has never let me down before, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore.
The flaws have already been mentioned: cheesy, cliche dialogue, one-dimensional characters, disjointed pacing, and weak execution. I'm baffled at how some people could think this is actually better than the original...
It could be possible that the next two installments are drastically better than this one (although I doubt it), but even then, WoL will still be a disappointment to me. The execution was just not on par with what I've come to expect from a Blizzard game. *crosses fingers for D3*
|
both are pretty bad tbh, but bw has a slightly better plot.
|
Most of the WoL missions are tangential or completely independent of the main plot. Summary:
Mengsk is evil and powerful. We must stop him by revealing how evil he is. Awesome, we did it. Oh look, Valerian can cure Kerrigan, let's do that.
|
On August 26 2010 05:47 Sanguinarius wrote:
We have only 1/3rd of the SC2 story. Thats like comparing sc2 to just the terran and zerg campaign from classic SC........
That is a fair thing to say. If we compare WoL to the original terran campaign(comparing 26 missions to 10), then sc easily wins. There was much better character development and storytelling in the original sc. There was also not a lot of fluff and filler in the original sc when compared to sc2. Most of the sc2 campaign can be cut out and you wouldnt know it if you had never played it before.
|
$60 should stand on its own without the expansions....
Sure its 1/3, but does that mean first game/movie/book/etc in a trilogy can be crap?
|
SC1 had a good plot and nice character development. BW had a decent plot (better towards the end, slow start imo though).
SC2 has no plot worth mentioning, aside from "Kerrigan becomes human at the end, with the help of Raynor". Everything else had nothing to do with anything really. We have very flat characters with poor motives, such as emo Raynor bent on the destruction of Mengsk's 1984-like regieme, and spending 90% of the campaign focusing on it. Suddenly, he goes "oh, we can go meet up with Kerrigan on char, yeah, lets do that.. wait, what about Mengsk? oh who cares". Meanwhile the story introduces some meaningless side characters, plot holes and pointless plot choices that have no bearing on the actual storyline.
And it is fair to compare SC2 WoL to SC (or BW), though not both together imo. Still, both SC and BW had a lot more development than WoL.
|
"Raynor is kick-ass" this is the reason why Blizzard made it into this type of storytelling in SC2 .. the filler characters like Tosh, that lady scientist, damn pansy Horner are like lame dudes..
SC:Original was more like Epic tale of 3 races clash together: SC:original - Last Mission .. a Tale of sacrifice, new but shady future, and freedom .. and doesn't have that pansy Matt Horner .. so yeah
BW was just a sequel for kerrigan IMO and the terran arch there sucked .. its was like a massive massive FILLER ..
and these people about 1/3 of the story?? WTF are you guys high?
its about storytelling .. and the storytelling in SC2 are full of filler and one-liners .. now compare that to SC:original, use just any arch .. lets say protoss or terran. NO FILLERS .. FULL OF PSI BLADES SLICING GAUSS RIFLE BLAZING ACTION PUMPED STORY TELLING .. no pansy ass Horner bitching about revolution ..
|
SC1 had a better storyline by far.
The best part of SC2 is located in the protoss missions.
F.
|
even if u compare the terran missions in the original, its still a better story than sc2 so far. any1 who says otherwise luv disney movie too much
|
On August 26 2010 09:09 Franco wrote:
SC1 had a better storyline by far.
The best part of SC2 is located in the protoss missions.
F.
So true .. plus to Dark Void has that line from John Hannibal Smith kekekekeke
On August 26 2010 09:19 Lightswarm wrote:
even if u compare the terran missions in the original, its still a better story than sc2 so far. any1 who says otherwise luv disney movie too much
LOL
|
On August 01 2010 06:13 mrkent wrote:
SC2 WoL entire story is summed as follows.
Zeratul tells Raynor that he needs to save Kerrigan. Raynor saves Kerrigan.
Every other character was not essential to the story. In other words, it sucks.
Also, how the fuck did Kerrigan get beat by a small army when the UED, Dominion, and Artanis combined could not defeat her in the end of Broodwar?
Tychus sort of was, but yeah, it was a little stripped and basic. You can't reduce the sc1 story that simply because it basically had a more intricate plot.
|
On August 01 2010 06:13 mrkent wrote:
Also, how the fuck did Kerrigan get beat by a small army when the UED, Dominion, and Artanis combined could not defeat her in the end of Broodwar?
simple .. THEY DIDN'T HAVE RAYNOR ..
|
I LOVED playing the SC2 campaign but was absolutely appalled at the story. It was completely linear, contrived, bland, and even with all the missions it seemed very uneventful. Almost none of the campaign missions actually seemed to affect anything, the reasoning behind many aspects of the campaign are never explained, there is no depth to the characters but the campaign seems to expect you to feel for/relate to them (Like when General Warfield decides to join Raynor's cause. IIRC the only time you ever saw him before that was in one of those News Report videos that you may not have even watched and then they just throw him in with the group at Char), and there was so little interaction between the other races. Yeah Mengsk was around but you only ever communicate with him ONCE. The only times you communicate with Kerrigan she says like 2 sentences "I forgot how resourceful you were Jim, I won't make that mistake again." and then she just leaves. It felt like you were alone in the Koprulu sector with just the Hyperion crew.
I think what disappointed me most was the dialogue. God, it was so simple and at times it felt like they just threw in some big words to make it sound more intelligent but really just made it sound awkward. Jim Raynor is a fucking idiot in WoL, anyone who hasn't played SC1 campaigns should be wondering "How the fuck did this guy become a commander? He's just a drunk baffoon." The characters and dialogue in the original were so much stronger and interesting with all the backstabbing and switching sides. (Like with Stukov & Duran and the affect it had on Dugall, that final cinematic was sooooo good, unlike the final one in WoL.) Sometimes I would just start a mission up, watch the intro conversation between characters and then cancel and go on to the next mission without actually playing the level(or power overwhelming and blaze through for the in-game stuff). It was like watching a movie.
Also, as Last Romantic describes:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2010 10:10 Last Romantic wrote:
More stuff happens in the Terran campaign of SC1 than in the entire SC2 campaign...
Turned out by the Confederacy, Raynor takes up with a terrorist outfit and meets Kerrigan. They do morally questionable things [largely lacking in sc2] in order to overthrow the Confederacy, but Mengsk betrays Kerrigan to the Zerg. Raynor then escapes Mengsk in order to start his own revolution.
There you have multiple betrayals [you cause the death of millions of innocents, also] and SHIT HAPPENS. in 10 missions.
The missions in SC1 campain were so meaty. Every mission drove the story forward, every mission was essential for continuing the plot (Except the intro L2Play missions) or developing the characters. The WoL Campaign was about as long mission-wise as the whole SC and BW campaigns but it felt like nothing really happened! Just look at Kerrigan, she's supposed to be mostly human now but she still has Zerg dreads and all that Zerg acne.
That last part was a joke but seriously, no comparison between the plots of SC1 &SC2. Vanilla SC wins hands down.
|
we should wait to see the expansions, the storyline till now looks great, but not great enough as SC or BW separated, an aspect to remark for me is that WoL is pretty predictable, while sc or bw were so damn changeable that you could expect anything from any character, almost unpredictable when played by first time, many important and trasendent conversations, while WoL almost only 3 or 4 were really important, but still have to wait to take a veredict to doom sc2 or to raise it equal or above sc1.
By the moment, I dont expect sc2 to be above to sc1 in plots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
