EPTPersonally I feel Safe Haven would be better if you tried to save the non-infested colonists from the infested one without wiping out the infested colonists. Perhaps it could be a timed mission where you wait for Dr Hanson's vaccine to take effect and cure the infested colonists you didn't kill.
Confused about Haven
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
uanime5
19 Posts
Personally I feel Safe Haven would be better if you tried to save the non-infested colonists from the infested one without wiping out the infested colonists. Perhaps it could be a timed mission where you wait for Dr Hanson's vaccine to take effect and cure the infested colonists you didn't kill. | ||
|
blitzkrieger
United States512 Posts
There is no cure for the Zerg. Don't you think the Protoss would have figured that out by now if there was? | ||
|
jambam
United States324 Posts
On September 12 2010 11:18 blitzkrieger wrote: They are killing the colonists because they are just food for the zerg, the same they did on all the other colony planets that were infected. Just because they are human now doesn't mean in a few hours they will be monsters. Its much easier to kill the weak humans now then try to stop a fullblown infection. There is no cure for the Zerg. Don't you think the Protoss would have figured that out by now if there was? I wonder what side you chose ^^ | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
If you cleanse Haven, Hanson becomes infested shortly, and the colonists are being actively infested by Zerg structures. No cure is mentioned, and the future of the colony is also not mentioned since it's possible to allow all colonists on the map to be infested, so the plot must assume this worst-case scenario. If you defend Haven, you never witness Hanson or any of the colonists displaying signs of infestation. No cure is mentioned, and the plot seems to indicate that the colony's future is safe and sound, but in no certain terms. Essentially, it's as if the colonists are under no threat of being infested at all, whereas in the other path, they are all rapidly turning into Zerg. | ||
|
Deleted User 55994
949 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + You get the same hints about Hanson's infection pre-mission regardless of what you pick. At the end of Safe Haven, If you know the alternate ending and the warnings from Tosh/Tychus, i'd say it's implied that the planet ends up infested and Hanson wanted to save it so that she could save the others who are infested/be with them/whatever it is zerg like to do. There's a reason she leaves after that mission and I don't think it's because she wants to live a quiet life happily ever after on a nice new planet. It's because shes becoming zerg. | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
Char and Kerrigan These were filler missions, nothing more. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
| ||
|
uanime5
19 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
|
chuky500
France473 Posts
On September 12 2010 11:18 blitzkrieger wrote: They are killing the colonists because they are just food for the zerg, the same they did on all the other colony planets that were infected. Just because they are human now doesn't mean in a few hours they will be monsters. Its much easier to kill the weak humans now then try to stop a fullblown infection. There is no cure for the Zerg. Don't you think the Protoss would have figured that out by now if there was? I haven't finished the campaign but in the Lab in the zerg samples notes it says Zerg can use dead meat and turn it into flesh that's why Zerg can't really die. I think it's the last but one Zerg upgrade or maybe the one before. This isn't really consistent with the whole story, even with the starcraft 1 story. But if you think about it why do the Zerg even fight, why don't they just infect a few buildings on a planet and just wait a few months if no one can cure that virus. All they have to do is infect a few things here and there and the galaxy is theirs. | ||
|
blitzkrieger
United States512 Posts
On September 13 2010 01:56 chuky500 wrote: I haven't finished the campaign but in the Lab in the zerg samples notes it says Zerg can use dead meat and turn it into flesh that's why Zerg can't really die. I think it's the last but one Zerg upgrade or maybe the one before. This isn't really consistent with the whole story, even with the starcraft 1 story. But if you think about it why do the Zerg even fight, why don't they just infect a few buildings on a planet and just wait a few months if no one can cure that virus. All they have to do is infect a few things here and there and the galaxy is theirs. You do realize the Protoss burn the entire planet right? Same thing Covenant did in Halo. You can contain a small infection. There is usually a critical point where an infection becomes unstoppable, in fact thats what most movies about viruses are. Take any movie about virus/zombies and apply that logic here. | ||
|
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
On September 12 2010 19:24 iaguz wrote: Yup. Definitely one shitty part of the storytelling in this game is that there was no 'wrong' choice with the optionals. Not simply because of the complete story turnaround (well, technically Hanson could still be infested and the colonists are totally about to get buttfucked sooner or later.) but because it takes the morality away from the decision. These could have been very difficult decisions (like the spectres and the way they're supposed to be serial killers, but in the Tosh ending they're just normal dudes) but in the end it's just RAYNOR IS EIN SUPERHERO. Not necessarily. Look at Mass Effect for example, in that game there's no wrong choice beecause your choices shapes your character. If you think the protoss are right that there's no cure possible then obviously you should side with the protoss, but if you agree with Hanson that there might be a cure then you need to defend the colonists from the protoss. The first choise is rather nihilistic, while the latter choice is an optimist's choice. Which type of person are you? | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On September 13 2010 08:34 Dionyseus wrote: Not necessarily. Look at Mass Effect for example, in that game there's no wrong choice beecause your choices shapes your character. If you think the protoss are right that there's no cure possible then obviously you should side with the protoss, but if you agree with Hanson that there might be a cure then you need to defend the colonists from the protoss. The first choise is rather nihilistic, while the latter choice is an optimist's choice. Which type of person are you? Yes, but the point that is being made is that in real life there *would* be a correct choice, either the colonists are infested or they aren't, and having a definite answer after you made the choice (e.g. the colonists could have been saved but you didn't or you went into the trouble of defeating the protoss only to have the plagued colonists slaughter everyone who isn't infected on the planet) would have made that choice have value, knowing that no matter what you choose Raynor will be right, makes all other decisions irrelevant as you *know* Raynor will be right. That means you'll choose based on what tangible benefits you get as opposed to what you think the appropriate choice for the character (e.g I chose to exterminate the colonists not because I wanted the protoss research [i was already maxed in that field but not in zerg] but because I thought it was what a cynical battle hardened Raynor would choose, so of course after finding out the choice was irrelevant when the nova/tosh mission rolled around I chose specters because I thought them cooler, rather than ghosts, which is what I think Raynor would have chosen) | ||
|
Superdog
10 Posts
| ||
|
Tracil
Australia505 Posts
| ||
|
Chronopolis
Canada1484 Posts
| ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
On September 12 2010 19:24 iaguz wrote: Yup. Definitely one shitty part of the storytelling in this game is that there was no 'wrong' choice with the optionals. You don't know this while playing through it the first time. You find out by playing again and choosing the other path, and if you're doing that I don't see how you're pissed about being denied your moral choice when you were replaying it to go the opposite way, totally negating your original choice. Or yeah you just wanted to see the other mission and now feel cheated when you find out your excellent choice of the correct path was preordained by both paths being "correct" but still, that's almost always going to be something you find out after having experienced the campaign already and I think it's an effective design choice for that initial playthrough. | ||
|
Tictock
United States6052 Posts
The Protoss are indiscriminate when it comes to wiping out the Zerg. If yer a Terran on a planet infested by Zerg and the Toss come calling don't expect salvation... This was how the Protoss were first introduced in SC (not BW) as destroying any planet with zerg so as to not risk further spread. So in that respect the story makes sense in Safe Haven. It's pretty clear Blizz dropped the ball a little bit in the story telling in WoL, though I suppose most of it comes from the non-linear mission style. It would have been alot cooler for your decisions on Haven's Mission and the Ghost/Spector missions had of an impact than just unit choice or Research choice. Notice how no one has mentioned the 2nd Char mission here? Kus it actually impacts the game play of the last mission. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
blizzard is losing their "creativity" .. | ||
| ||
