| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
vicariouscheese
United States589 Posts
On August 26 2010 01:00 CROrens wrote: where in sc2 you hear or see narud? people here keep talking about him and i didnt see him anywhere in the campaign... in the mission the moebius factor | ||
|
hack41
21 Posts
| ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On August 04 2010 19:24 Unentschieden wrote: Well there is the fact that Blizzard ALWAYS has Heroes get corrupted, but never before do these guys and gals have to deal with their sins. Diablo? Main character, gets killed in Diablo 2 Warcraft? Arthas, gets killed in WoW. Starcraft? Kerrigan, ISN´T dead (yet). Kerrigan is dead to me. . .  I honestly do not like the direction that the story is going and I am not sure how keen I am about having to spend time on the Hyperion again (for the Zerg campaign of all things.) Blizzard better have something completely awesome cooked up or I will have lost every ounce of faith that I once had as a starry eyed boy. Kerrigan was a constant evil in the Starcraft saga and now she is trying to be Mary-Sue'd into becoming a good guy (or gal if you are particular.) They didn't show the body of Tychus, (who was killed inside the main hive of char *wink wink nudge nudge,*) so it is possible that we might play as him in HOTS. If Kerrigan is still the ruler of the Zerg I will be sick to my stomach. I really hope something comes up that does not have us playing a Terran version of my favorite character in Starcraft lore. | ||
|
FoggyFishburne
Sweden11 Posts
One thing I don't understand is: Why did they go for such a safe, macho, boring route of telling a story? It's SC2! Wouldn't people buy it regardless? Maybe I'm wrong. I just thought that Blizzard hade some faith in their loyal fans. And that they would deliver a story like none other told in an RTS. Shame, we didn't get that | ||
|
PoopLord
537 Posts
| ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
what they made out of him is a laughable comicbook superhero. they really overdid it with their blizzard-trademark buff look, he looks like a fucking super-bodybuilder all the other characters dont look and feel at all like in the original either. the protoss are fucking space-elves now is this a bad thing? not really, because the story for sc1 was already really shitty. face it ppl, blizz might get the settings right but the stories to their games are just a mess. anyone remember war3 expansion? this is where sc2 is going. | ||
|
lordmordor
United States209 Posts
I'm willing to hold off judgement on Kerrigan until we see what becomes of her, but one thing that i really don't like is the revelation that the Overmind didn't actually want to do some of the things that it did, and was instead forced by some outside force. I really liked the idea that the zerg were literally an experiment that grew beyond the Xel-Naga's control, and have since become basically the Borg of the SC universe, constantly seeking to further perfect themselves and devouring all they come across. Tassadar actually praising the courage of the Overmind for attempting to find a potential way out of what it was being focred to do (Kerrigan) was to much for me | ||
|
nemanja1503
Serbia49 Posts
I gotta agree about the muscle part, I was just watching a cinematic and noticed how Raynor's arm is larger than my thigh, and I am a 2 meter tall fat guy. I have recently read the Dark Templar trilogy, and it sheds a lot of light on the event's of SCII, also I have read "Heaven's Devils" which also helps, but to think that you must buy 4 books to be able to properly understand a video game is not alright imo. What you learn in the books are the origins of the Tal'darim, more about the prophecy, and in the book "Heaven's Devils" you learn more about Raynor's past and his relationship with Tychus, there may be more things that I missed but you get the point. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On September 05 2010 18:16 hack41 wrote: Here's something quite interesting and entertaining. Some of you are probably familiar with Mr Plinkett's reviews of Star Wars. Well, some guy is blatantly imitating Mr Plinket in his multi-part review of StarCraft II! Don't be put off by the overt imitation, though, he does really make a lot of good points. There's great background info on the development process (apparently the director for the SC2 program is a former EA guy!), and Part 3 has a nice bit on why prophecies are stupid story telling devices. Have a look! haha thanks for this, I really liked part 3 as it mirrors a lot of how I felt (although the space balls clip was really getting tiring at the end haha). I think his story idea for how it should've played out would've been a whole lot better than what it is now. The part where Chris Metzen says starcraft "is really about a boy and a girl at the end of the day" has made me lose all hope for this thing to turn around.  | ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 Posts
The first thing we have to keep in mind is how little of a story writers actually had to work with. Apart from mission briefs and a few animated cut scenes there really wasn't much. We essentially had a time-line of events within the missions and dialogue so brief that only the most basic character-building took place. Much of what we enjoyed of the SC1 storyline is based on the Starcraft Universe fans created, not necessarily Blizzard. The first thing that jumped out at me was Raynor's love interest in Kerrigan. You know from the first campaign that they worked together, he thought she was attractive, he flirted a bit, and he violently opposed her abandonment. You have to dig really deep between the lines to find a love interest versus attraction. By the end of BW he flat-out loathes what she's become. However, you read in the SC2 manual that he had romantic intentions, but that's the first place we see it. From that point I took the viewpoints of SC2 as canon while ignoring my take on the story from SC1. You can build character a whole lot better when you have great animations, real-time facial expressions, good voice-acting, and an interactive environment (SC1 only really had the voice actors). Raynor may have his plot holes, but he is not a stale character. Tychus on the other hand was very flat and anyone who didn't predict his treachery from the voice of Mengsk in the very first scene (right before he utters "Hell, it's about time") should have picked up on it through Raynor's unconditional trust. On a different note, the predictability could be seen positively by game creators. I've watched a lot of film in the last few years. Most movies meant for casual audiences and pure entertainment is extremely predictable and after you've seen enough of them you can predict the movie while it's happening (my girlfriend requested I stop telling her what's going to happen in movies we're both watching for the first time together). SC2 is no exception. It isn't meant to have a vastly complex storyline; the game play has always been the hallmark of any of Blizzard's big titles. The major twists aren't hard to predict. If the trailer didn't give away Kerrigan's un-festation then Raynor's discussions with Dr. Hansen about a zerg virus cure made his intentions and ulterior motives very clear. I feel that, within the mainstream, a predictable storyline leads to further enjoyment by audience members. Why else do you think movies like Hottub Time Machine and and The Hangover make millions? It's intended for a more casual audience that doesn't want to think. I have several friends that think Borat is the pinnacle of cinema and good writing is the ending we want to happen. I also place the SC2 in the camp of those who don't want to think, but enjoy. Even though I'm defending it, I felt the plot suffered several holes that incessantly bothered me (strangely enough, showing the New Gettysburg reenactment on Tarsonis rather than a space platform was my biggest peeve), but I find solace knowing that several other points (end of the world vision, Tassadar "alive", fighting against Selendis, etc.) came as a surprise. If you want to crucify SC2 as having a horrible story, then you need to aim your canons at SC1 as well. Let's take BW, for instance. In episode 5 Dugalle takes in Duran and gives him high commanding authority despite both him and Stukov warning him on several occasions to mind his rank (it would seem that the commanding authority would go hand in hand with strategic planning). It's very transparent that Duran is not what he seems, yet Stukov is the only one who sees it. You'd think for the leader of an intergalactic army representing Earth they'd pick a general who could at least judge character better. If anything else, you'd expect the leader NOT to order Duran to kill Stukov with the "damning" evidence of his betrayal, rather, get the second side of the story before declaring the faulty evidence as "incontrovertible". Let's also take episode 6. Kerrigan, in a weakened state after losing almost her entire army to the controlled overmind convinces Raynor, Mengsk, and Fenix to help her. She is able to play it off as a gain for both sides, but there is little mystery or surprise when she turns on them 4 missions later. And what about the very last mission? "Sorry, but all my forces are on the planet surface, we're on this space platform, and you have to defend yourself from three huge armies alone." It doesn't make a ton of sense that a so-called 'base of operations' is without adequate protection, especially considering the death of the overmind freeing up an entire planet's worth of fighters. It's clear this is a deliberate tool to fight an epic last battle, seal a victory against two armies and close the storyline of the last. I could go on picking at each of the 6 episodes, but my point is that the SC1storyline is just as transparent and full of holes as SC2. I like the saying "It is what it is" when thinking of the SC2 storyline. The bottom line is I had a great time playing through the campaign and appreciated the story despite glaring holes the OP already pointed out. I agree that the ending is a giant cliffhanger, and I have my predictions about the next SC2 title, but until then I'm content in casually laddering, a brutal no-upgrades run, and accumulating some achievements. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
On August 06 2010 09:46 Stratos_speAr wrote: Google "Deus ex machina". Super weapons don't count as "Making sense", or good story telling in general. Uraj / Khalis (and to some extent the Gantrithor) Stop acting like this xel'naga artifact is somehow worse than the magical crystals that cleared Shakuras of all zerg | ||
|
nemanja1503
Serbia49 Posts
On September 06 2010 15:08 Servius_Fulvius wrote: Having just played through it, I didn't feel the plot was that bad. It wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't bad. The first thing we have to keep in mind is how little of a story writers actually had to work with. Apart from mission briefs and a few animated cut scenes there really wasn't much. We essentially had a time-line of events within the missions and dialogue so brief that only the most basic character-building took place. Much of what we enjoyed of the SC1 storyline is based on the Starcraft Universe fans created, not necessarily Blizzard. The first thing that jumped out at me was Raynor's love interest in Kerrigan. You know from the first campaign that they worked together, he thought she was attractive, he flirted a bit, and he violently opposed her abandonment. You have to dig really deep between the lines to find a love interest versus attraction. By the end of BW he flat-out loathes what she's become. However, you read in the SC2 manual that he had romantic intentions, but that's the first place we see it. From that point I took the viewpoints of SC2 as canon while ignoring my take on the story from SC1. You can build character a whole lot better when you have great animations, real-time facial expressions, good voice-acting, and an interactive environment (SC1 only really had the voice actors). Raynor may have his plot holes, but he is not a stale character. Tychus on the other hand was very flat and anyone who didn't predict his treachery from the voice of Mengsk in the very first scene (right before he utters "Hell, it's about time") should have picked up on it through Raynor's unconditional trust. On a different note, the predictability could be seen positively by game creators. I've watched a lot of film in the last few years. Most movies meant for casual audiences and pure entertainment is extremely predictable and after you've seen enough of them you can predict the movie while it's happening (my girlfriend requested I stop telling her what's going to happen in movies we're both watching for the first time together). SC2 is no exception. It isn't meant to have a vastly complex storyline; the game play has always been the hallmark of any of Blizzard's big titles. The major twists aren't hard to predict. If the trailer didn't give away Kerrigan's un-festation then Raynor's discussions with Dr. Hansen about a zerg virus cure made his intentions and ulterior motives very clear. I feel that, within the mainstream, a predictable storyline leads to further enjoyment by audience members. Why else do you think movies like Hottub Time Machine and and The Hangover make millions? It's intended for a more casual audience that doesn't want to think. I have several friends that think Borat is the pinnacle of cinema and good writing is the ending we want to happen. I also place the SC2 in the camp of those who don't want to think, but enjoy. Even though I'm defending it, I felt the plot suffered several holes that incessantly bothered me (strangely enough, showing the New Gettysburg reenactment on Tarsonis rather than a space platform was my biggest peeve), but I find solace knowing that several other points (end of the world vision, Tassadar "alive", fighting against Selendis, etc.) came as a surprise. If you want to crucify SC2 as having a horrible story, then you need to aim your canons at SC1 as well. Let's take BW, for instance. In episode 5 Dugalle takes in Duran and gives him high commanding authority despite both him and Stukov warning him on several occasions to mind his rank (it would seem that the commanding authority would go hand in hand with strategic planning). It's very transparent that Duran is not what he seems, yet Stukov is the only one who sees it. You'd think for the leader of an intergalactic army representing Earth they'd pick a general who could at least judge character better. If anything else, you'd expect the leader NOT to order Duran to kill Stukov with the "damning" evidence of his betrayal, rather, get the second side of the story before declaring the faulty evidence as "incontrovertible". Let's also take episode 6. Kerrigan, in a weakened state after losing almost her entire army to the controlled overmind convinces Raynor, Mengsk, and Fenix to help her. She is able to play it off as a gain for both sides, but there is little mystery or surprise when she turns on them 4 missions later. And what about the very last mission? "Sorry, but all my forces are on the planet surface, we're on this space platform, and you have to defend yourself from three huge armies alone." It doesn't make a ton of sense that a so-called 'base of operations' is without adequate protection, especially considering the death of the overmind freeing up an entire planet's worth of fighters. It's clear this is a deliberate tool to fight an epic last battle, seal a victory against two armies and close the storyline of the last. I could go on picking at each of the 6 episodes, but my point is that the SC1storyline is just as transparent and full of holes as SC2. I like the saying "It is what it is" when thinking of the SC2 storyline. The bottom line is I had a great time playing through the campaign and appreciated the story despite glaring holes the OP already pointed out. I agree that the ending is a giant cliffhanger, and I have my predictions about the next SC2 title, but until then I'm content in casually laddering, a brutal no-upgrades run, and accumulating some achievements. But do you SEE people poking at SC's story's shortcomings? No. It is because it had something to counter it, some underlying quality, those simple moving images that had this mixture of monologue/dialogue do in fact convey the drama better than the much more expensive 3D cutscenes we see in SCII. And if I wanted a brain dead game I would go play Hello Kitty or watch some of the movies you mentioned, this game should keep the standards of it's predecessor. Also one small thing, Dugalle sent Duran to capture Stukov, Duran killing him was a betrayal. | ||
|
hack41
21 Posts
On September 06 2010 14:01 strongwind wrote: The part where Chris Metzen says starcraft "is really about a boy and a girl at the end of the day" has made me lose all hope for this thing to turn around. Right. That's why the Mr Plinkett imitation is so appropriate, I found: Just like George Lucas doesn't understand Star Wars (hence the millions of drawn-out, emotionless lightsabre duels, "Star Wars? Yeah, that's the one about lightsabres, right?"), Chris Metzen doesn't understand StarCraft ("StarCraft? Yeah, that's the one about a boy and a girl, right?"). This is a truly shocking realisation. Just because someone created something great in the past apparently does not mean that they understood why it was great, and probably would have fucked it up if they had had the same technological freedom and power of control as they have now. On September 06 2010 15:08 Servius_Fulvius wrote: If you want to crucify SC2 as having a horrible story, then you need to aim your canons at SC1 as well. I don't actually want to crucify SC2 for its story. I know others do, and you may be justified to do so, but I think that's missing a much bigger problem that's right in front of us: I want to crucify SC2's campaign for being awfully written, terribly narrated and lazily designed. I posted a longer explanation of this earlier, but to summarise: The narrative had no build-up towards its conclusion; the pacing was terrible; the player's investment in the story does not pay off at the end, when the solution is handed to you out of nowhere; the introduction of ancient prophecies and alien artifacts ruins the audience's ability to relate to the events and care for them; the non-linear structure distracts from the ultimate goal and has no pay-off; the choices aren't choices (they change the past, not the future), etc. etc. And don't nobody say "you've only seen one third so far". Nonsense. After the first campaign of SC1, I was excited and thrilled. The story was very well told and kept me interested all along, and all the campaign built up to the conclusion. I was loving it, and that's why I wanted to play another campaign. SC2/WoL had me feel empty and baffled at the end. (Where did all my time go? Was I fighting for this all the time?) Are you saying that if I play more of this it'll suddenly get good? Same for novels and extended universe. Don't nobody throw arguments like "You can't criticise it without having read the books" in my face! I call bullshit on that. The reason that some fiction franchises have extended universes is because the original piece was good. The original Star Wars was good, so people want to read more about it. An extended universe does not develop to justify or improve a crappy film or game retrospectively! "You didn't like Howard the Duck? How dare you say that, have you read all the novels that show you how great it is?" Sorry, going off-topic here... On September 06 2010 15:08 Servius_Fulvius wrote: I like the saying "It is what it is" when thinking of the SC2 storyline. Well, if you liked it, good for you. But as has been pointed better out elsewhere: If you are being served shit and you are grateful for it, you will be getting served more shit. It is blindingly obvious that the media industries are trying to get away with as little effort as they can while still raking in profits. I think everyone here appreciates how well most of the game is designed and how great a game it is, but the point of this thread is to express that Blizzard did a poor job writing the campaign, that we had expected a lot better and that lots of us would be very unhappy if Blizzard were to consider good writing as an expendable extra. | ||
|
abrasion
Australia722 Posts
I never 'felt like I was travelling the galaxy' - it's all on the ship, there's like one cutscene with it going in to hyperdrive :/ I could've been playing a simulator on the ship for all I know! :/ Also can't believe what they did to Kerrigan at the end?! I thought for SURE that ending would be at the 3'rd game not the first of 3! | ||
|
Rawenkeke
Norway350 Posts
| ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 Posts
On September 06 2010 19:34 hack41 wrote: [...]but the point of this thread is to express that Blizzard did a poor job writing the campaign, that we had expected a lot better and that lots of us would be very unhappy if Blizzard were to consider good writing as an expendable extra. Now THAT I agree with! I personally feel that the SC2 campaign was written like the BW campaign. I argued earlier that the BW campaign wasn't done very well from a story-telling aspect. Feel free to agree or disagree, but either way it ends with the SC2 campaign story needing better execution. I will also note that I didn't feel as personally connected to the story despite the graphics package conveying the character buildup a lot better. In SC1 you played a commander, executor, or cerebrate being ordered around by the main characters. In SC2 you played Raynor, but he still did his own thing anyway. I think the story of SC2 tried to take on too much. I think it could have been better if an animation sequence and more dialogue took place between the main characters and those suffering under Mengsk's rule. The point of the rebellion just seemed like an effort to oust a corrupt leader the main characters didn't like instead of an effort to rid a tyrant that is more harm to the general public than good (could be explained better by those suffering under his rule, which I suppose is the point of the Dr. Hansen story-line, but that turned into a love interest/zerg virus cure tangent). However, fully explaining and providing enough opportunities for the player to grasp the point of the rebellion would take on some extra work. Combine that with all the little aspects that could have made each story arc better and it adds up to a ton of extra content that may be too much. i intend to play through the campaign a second time on a self-imposed 'challenge run'. I'll see if I feel differently after seeing the story fresh for a second time. | ||
|
Psycs
Algeria15 Posts
On August 13 2010 06:19 Stoli wrote: This, and the ops post really highlight many problems with the campaign that I didn't realize, and imo they aren't too bad on first playthrough, but if you look at the time, money and hype blizzard put into the campaign, it's dissapointing they let the storyline slip so much. It wouldn't be such an issue if bnet 2.0 was fully featured and perfect, but it's barely functioning and if the campaign is going to have lasting value, storyline is 90% of that. | ||
|
hack41
21 Posts
On September 07 2010 03:56 Servius_Fulvius wrote: Now THAT I agree with! I personally feel that the SC2 campaign was written like the BW campaign. I argued earlier that the BW campaign wasn't done very well from a story-telling aspect. Well, perhaps we can discuss that a bit. You mentioned earlier that you found some aspects of BW implausible, but do you really think the storytelling was bad in BW? Storytelling has to keep the audience interested, engaged and entertained, first and foremost. Plausibility and consistency are important, but their lack may be forgivable if the story is well told. Similarly, a perfectly plausible and consistent story may be told in a totally boring and unsatisfying way. So how then would you compare BW to WoL? I claim that the narrative of BW was constantly driving at something; there was always something at stake; and all parts of the game engage the player and ultimately reward her for her investment with a nice pay-off in each episode finale. Let's go through it: In the Protoss campaign, the player is part of the failing Protoss conclave who must flee from Aiur and fight for nothing short of their survival. The campaign opens with instant tension and pressure: Run. Survive. There's a small breather as we reach Shakuras, but oh no! the Zerg have followed. The plot thickens as we meet the Dark Templar and Razhagal. There's a plot device in the form of the two crystals, but those are merely incidental to the final conclusion: The defeat of the Zerg on Shakuras, and the player is rewarded by having her Protoss be safe at last in their new home. The Terran campaign has a very different tone, but it is told equally well. The UED arrive in the Koprulu sector. The UED fleet is an expeditionary force, they don't have detailed orders yet as they are basically a recon force that's supposed to find out what's been going on, and quell the 'uprising' of Mengsk's Dominion. In the process, they discover that they can take on the Zerg, and after a few twists involving Duran the UED succeed in subjugating the Terran Dominion (which by the way is equally unliked by the UED and by the player!) and surprisingly also in capturing the Zerg Overmind! As part of the UED chain of command, the player is intimately involved in the process of going from "find out what's going on" to achieving two major strikes, and the reward is a glorious victory celebration for the UED and a cool video for the player. Finally, the Zerg campaign, yet again different in tone, and probably the most alien of the three -- again, much like the Zerg themselves. In the role of a rogue Cerebrate that comes under Kerrigan's control, the player is taken along through Kerrigan's mad schemes. Again there are twists and surprises, and a lot of fun (remember True Colors?), and again everything builds up perfectly to a massive final encounter with everything and everyone we have met so far. Not just a great episode finale, but also a truly deserving finish for six great episodes of StarCraft. Sure, not everything in the story makes sense, and there are plot holes, plot devices and McGuffins, and even talk of a prophecy if you insist. But the point is that all of those are entirely incidental to the well-narrated story, which engages the player, truly makes the player feel part of what's going on and ultimately rewards her for the investment. All of this is missing in Wings of Liberty. A lot of stuff happens, yes, but you must always ask yourself: Why should I care? Telling a story is not just getting the facts of what happened across. It's first and foremost about engaging and entertaining the audience and making them feel that their time has been well spent. I would love to hear from you if or how you think WoL was similar to SC/BW in that respect. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On September 05 2010 18:16 hack41 wrote: Here's something quite interesting and entertaining. Some of you are probably familiar with Mr Plinkett's reviews of Star Wars. Well, some guy is blatantly imitating Mr Plinket in his multi-part review of StarCraft II! Don't be put off by the overt imitation, though, he does really make a lot of good points. There's great background info on the development process (apparently the director for the SC2 program is a former EA guy!), and Part 3 has a nice bit on why prophecies are stupid story telling devices. Have a look! LOL this is actually really funny and insightful...WHERE THE FUCK IS THE BARTENDER??? | ||
|
casualman
United States1198 Posts
Honestly, Blizzard's never been good at storytelling through singleplayer, they really shouldn't even implement SP in their games anymore. Just a waste of everybody's time. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
SHIN vs sOs
Reynor vs Zoun
herO vs Classic
Solar vs Reynor
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros |
|
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
|
|
|
EPT
