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" .. | ||
|
Rozza
United Kingdom45 Posts
On September 13 2010 10:23 GMarshal wrote: 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) in real life this situation wouldnt exist. gg p.s i dont see how your predictions on raynor's reactions based on his in game portryal has any bearing or relativity to the morality of the mission. | ||
|
TechDeft
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
SCdinner
Canada516 Posts
| ||
|
lazerwizz
Hungary53 Posts
| ||
|
DuneBug
United States668 Posts
With Tosh you at least have the choice of spectres or ghosts. Which is kind of cool. (But personally I didn't use them the rest of the game) But if you think about the tosh mission you're siding with the dominion ghost squad, seems like your crew might not be too happy about that. And in regards to hanson's mission as far as i know you either get protoss research or zerg research, like that really makes a big deal. It'd be nice if there was a bigger consequence/reward. | ||
|
Bluebirrd
Norway13 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. It says Zerg doesn't die of aging, because the way their cells reproduce maintains the quality of the cells. This does not mean they can't be killed. Sorry for being sliiightly off topic, but the ending cutscene confused me a great deal. Tychus is planning to kill Kerrigan, because then he will go free. Did I miss something? Free how? He's cruising around in Raynor's flagship and basically doing whatever he wants. | ||
|
Rozza
United Kingdom45 Posts
analogy to loaded gun pointed at head. freedom = gun is no longer loaded or pointed at your head | ||
|
Bluebirrd
Norway13 Posts
On September 14 2010 23:29 Rozza wrote: free as in free from the marine suit which can instantly shut down his vital organs. analogy to loaded gun pointed at head. freedom = gun is no longer loaded or pointed at your head I see. Well if the suit has that control over him, it's very suspicious to have him appear out of nowhere while still in the suit, isn't it? Instead it's good ol' times. I see this as a hole in the story anyways. | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
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 Would there really be a correct choice? There are many ways to reach the same conclusion through different means. If the colonists are infected and you choose to save them, maybe Hanson had found or [will find before it takes over] the "cure" in the lab while optimistically bolstered by the fact that you had belief in her. In the other scenario she loses hope in finding a cure and you successfully cleanse a planet of rampant Zerg. What if the decisions are both complete shit? On one hand you could save them just to have them turn into zerg, but on the other hand Hanson could just kill Raynor when he returns to his ship. Blizzard putting some "why don't you think for yourself" scenarios in the campaign is apparently bad story telling? I personally like being able to make up my own story for the filler. Your big problem is assuming Raynor is always right or that there is always some correct decision to make. This makes me think of the whole "if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power..." question. Is there really a *correct* response? | ||
|
vectorix108
United States4633 Posts
| ||
|
EsbenPM
Denmark364 Posts
On September 14 2010 19:40 Bluebirrd wrote: It says Zerg doesn't die of aging, because the way their cells reproduce maintains the quality of the cells. This does not mean they can't be killed. Sorry for being sliiightly off topic, but the ending cutscene confused me a great deal. Tychus is planning to kill Kerrigan, because then he will go free. Did I miss something? Free how? He's cruising around in Raynor's flagship and basically doing whatever he wants. + Show Spoiler + His suit has a kill switch which will... yeah kill him ímmediately if he doesn't follow the orders given to him by Mengsk. It's not a coincedemce he has been released | ||
|
Kin~Slayer
Canada56 Posts
I would have preferred a mission where you have BOTH Infestations to cleanse and the Purifier to defeat in a big map 3 way FFA. The Purifier would cleanse both infested and uninfested bases, while the zerg would assault your base and the Protoss Nexi. You could choose in the mission what to do. Defend while the Zerg and Protoss wear each other down, help evacuate the colonists from the path of the Purifier or assault the Zerg bases... or both! I think that would be really intense and crazy fun. Just my 2 cents | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
The fact that no consequences ever result from the 'good' option (the infestation takes over the planet, for example) just tries to force the issue of what the 'right' choice is. | ||
|
silentsaint
Germany540 Posts
On September 13 2010 10:23 GMarshal wrote: Yes, but the point that is being made is that in real life there *would* be a correct choice you are really assuming that there is a definite correct choice in reallife in a real situation? oO Aren't most decisions in reallife uncertain and can play out in ways you have never imagined in the future? Isn't this the exact thing most people are looking for in roleplaying games because they know it from their reallife? In "the witcher" for example a "good decision" like saving someone from being murdered can turn into a "bad decsion" a lot later then this saved person goes on a killing spree in a city. | ||
|
Rozza
United Kingdom45 Posts
On September 15 2010 14:42 silentsaint wrote: you are really assuming that there is a definite correct choice in reallife in a real situation? oO Aren't most decisions in reallife uncertain and can play out in ways you have never imagined in the future? Isn't this the exact thing most people are looking for in roleplaying games because they know it from their reallife? In "the witcher" for example a "good decision" like saving someone from being murdered can turn into a "bad decsion" a lot later then this saved person goes on a killing spree in a city. i really dont understand why you talk about real life and use a videogame example. in real life every action causes a reaction/consequence, yes? therefore we dont know what the long term consequences are, but in real life we follow the path that our personality and instinct define for us, so therefore ANY decison you take is the correct decison aslong as it is consistent with you're personality, and as long as you FEEL you'v made the correct decison | ||
|
Tracil
Australia505 Posts
The consequences for your actions remain the same, no matter what. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
On September 14 2010 04:08 lazerwizz wrote: Lets hope the choices you make will have an effect in HoTS.................... Let's just hope HoTS doens't involve all those "deus ex machinae(sp?)" :p *New mission* "Oh hey, I got the schematics for these siege tanks, which is coincidentally very nice because we need to siege stuff in this mission." "Oh hey, you know those artifacts that we're collecting and that never were mentioned in BW? Yeah well apparently they are very convenient to use for us. Just the type of stuff we need." The story seems shaky to me  | ||
|
mucker
United States1120 Posts
Overall it was just a really lazily designed part of the campaign, like they forced having a choice just so they could say there are choices. A mission in which there was a zerg infestation you had to clear out AND the protoss were destroying infested and clean colonies alike would have been interesting. | ||
|
H. Guderian
United States18 Posts
Out of all the choices I first sided with the Protoss. On my second playthrough I went the other course. I figured if I saved Ariel's colony she might've finished the vaccine and I'd have someone toa dd extra comments to talk to around the ship for the rest of the game! (The Hyperion is such a sausage party...) However she just up and leaves. I thought it woulda aided the campaign's feel that Raynor was recruiting the best and the brightest by just being a good fella. I mean. You've got a nerdy kid as the -lead- scientist for the entire Rebellion? He's reverse engineering Protoss tech? The saucey experienced Doc lady though. Can't have her contribute. | ||
| ||
