|
On November 04 2010 05:56 hack41 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 00:45 Krigwin wrote:
I'm actually thinking of doing some kind of Plinkett-style review series on Youtube to thoroughly explain why exactly the game could be called bad. Hey, join the queue ;-) Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 21:51 Billy_ wrote:
Fun fact - Broodwar is very nonsensical, inconsistent and has plot holes all over the place. I'm pretty sure that any sort of in depth objective analysis can back that up. But you're missing the entire point of the complaints: Wings of Liberty was badly narrated, unengaging, unrewarding and unimaginative. StarCraft and Broodwar were not. Sure, SC/BW was full of ridiculous, made-up stuff: Humans in space. Aliens. Psychics. Magic crystals. Tentacle girls. Mutalisks flapping wings in space. But despite all that, it was very well told. Everything you did as the player was building up to the conclusion. Every campaign had a great dramatic arc with a good pay-off at the end. (Yes, every campaign -- if I stopped you after playing Episode I, or II, or IV, and asked you how the game was, chances are you would say, "Great, give me more!". You would not say, "meh, I don't know, nothing is really clear, but please do give me more since I'm sure it'll all get better later.") The pacing was great. The perspective of the player as an executive subordinate that follows important people around was a great way of introducing characters. (Following Jim around lets you get to know him slowly and gives him room for credible mystery. On the other hand, actually being Jim just makes you disappointed by what a boring creep he is.) In short, perhaps neither SC1 nor BW nor WoL are particularly original and deep, but the execution of SC/BW made those games such a great and immersive experience. By contrast, the execution of WoL is incoherent, meandering, inconsequential and lifeless, and it leaves you wondering at the end where all your time went. You didn't spend 20 missions working towards the conclusion; rather, you spent 20 missions dicking around and then got handed the conclusion. Pardon the rant, I shall stop now. You can check my original post for a somewhat more detailed argument.
Pretty sure that I've read your detailed post, and it's partly subjective like everything else but you make some good points. I don't agree with all of it, but +1 on a detailed post that isn't an emotional outburst. Well what can I say?... I didn't have most of the problems with WoL that you and some others had, so I'm not sure I see a point to arguing against it... I have seen non-linearity done better than WoL, but they were all in the RPG genre. This non-linear story driven RTS is an unusual concept for me, and I know no similar games which I can compare it to. Was WoL less dramatic and (debatably) less satisfying as a story? Well, yes, that is kind of one of the traits of non-linearity, but most people were happy with the gameplay and so you could call it a fair trade. I've only just played through WCII and TFT this week and between their amazing gameplay and WoL's, it is quite apparant that story is not Blizzards strongest trait.Blizzard story is alright, but not "OMFG AMAZING!!!", and I would be lying if I said that the non-linearity was displeasing.
As for ways in which the (adequate at worst imo) campaign of WoL could have done better... I guess that they could have included some kind of a codex in which the player can read up on relevent history and biographies removing the need to quit the game and look at the scwiki or lore page would help. I'm not sure what could have been done to increase the drama and entertainment value of the narrative, so I'll leave that to someone with more non-linear exposer. The news casts could have been removed or maybe be handled with some subtlety, but SC is hardly known for subtlety so whatever... Oh yeah, I also agree that the whole "build up our standing forces and raising funds" dragged on for too long, but they came with good missions, so it's a bit of a win/lose situation and I haven't thought a lot about how the optional missions could tie in a bit better with the rebellion.
Most of the missions in WoL were driven by the rebellion, except for the colonists, protoss and so I don't agree with your point about been handed the conclusion... you're handed a way to help Kerrigan, which also had the side effect of helping Valarian to do whatever it is that he wants. The narrative wasn't really weak imo, but Blizzard seem to have overextended themselves with the mission count.
TL;DR: SCI was story driven gameplay, and WoL was gameplay driven story. I'm totally okay with either style, but feel like Blizzard have always been better at gameplay than story.
|
Thanks for the reply!
[...] Was WoL less dramatic and (debatably) less satisfying as a story? Well, yes, that is kind of one of the traits of non-linearity, but most people were happy with the gameplay and so you could call it a fair trade.
I just want to make absolutely sure that we're on the same page here - my only concerns are about the story and the way it was told, not and never about the gameplay. I fully agree that the gameplay is excellent, very well designed and thoroughly enjoyable. Sure, SC/BW had more "wipe everything, take your time" missions while WoL had almost exclusively gimmicky missions, but that's entirely a matter of taste, and additional missions can easily be provided in abundance thanks to the map editor.
Whether one should trade story telling for gameplay... well, in any normal situation, probably yes, and I suppose the only niggle I can offer is that... I just had expected that with Blizzard I wouldn't have to make a trade.
Also, whether or not the non-linearity was good is another matter of taste. Personally, I could have done without it (since it took away the sense of scale, distance, time and progress), but if you enjoyed it, good for you. I guess if it was something where different choices had any effect on the game I would have taken more kindly to it; as it stands, the non-linear aspect of the campaign just feels needlessly tacked on for its own sake to me. But if you think it's an improvement over the linear style of the predecessor, I shan't argue with you.
Most of the missions in WoL were driven by the rebellion, except for the colonists, protoss and so I don't agree with your point about been handed the conclusion... you're handed a way to help Kerrigan, which also had the side effect of helping Valarian to do whatever it is that he wants. The narrative wasn't really weak imo, but Blizzard seem to have overextended themselves with the mission count.
Lots of people don't seem to see anything wrong with that aspect, so maybe indulge me while I elaborate: You see, the sense of achievement at the end of a narrative comes from having all the listener's (= player's) investment in everything that comes before the end pay off at the end. It's the feeling of reaching your goal and looking back marvelling at how you got there. Maybe if you had a tough childhood and you get your college degree and wonder how you ever made it against all the odds, a feeling like that. But that's because you know that at every step on the way you were trying to get somewhere. You might not always have seen the road clearly, but you always had some sort of goal, and in the end your persistence got you to something good.
That is not the same as if you just spend a lot of time doing something that has nothing to do with the goal, and more precisely doing something that doesn't come from your own drive. To stretch the above example even further, it's like if you had a tough childhood, spent your teens and twens doing drugs and petty crime in a slum, and then on your 25th birthday someone gives you an honorary doctorate. You have the doctorate, which people usually associate with a tale of success and achievement, but it is a hollow and lifeless story.
Getting back to WoL, imagine that Raynor would have known from the start that he wanted to do something about Kerrigan (in excess of staring at her photo). He might not have had any idea what to do, but imagine he had the drive. Then a mission or two where he gets a tip-off or an idea. Another mission or two following some leads. Perhaps encountering Zeratul or the Moebius Foundation. A mission to get their attention. Another mission for payment. An artifact is mentioned. Zeratul is consulted, a Protoss mission to shed light on the artifact. A mysterious prophecy crops up. Fight for another artifact. A chance is suggested that the artifact could be used on Kerrigan. But no, the prophecy tells us that she must be preserved! Moral dilemma. A choice is made. Valerian's support is required, another mission or two to secure it. Final battle. Kerrigan saved, victory? We've achieved something, but there's the looming knowledge of a greater threat.
It's top-grade teenage cheese, and I'd hate to see something silly like that, but nonetheless the structure of this hypothetical plot actually builds up to the end. (Sorry for not putting any rebellion stuff in there. I didn't get a feeling from WoL that the rebellion idea ever led anywhere, either, by the way, so it just wasn't on my mind; I'm afraid I fail entirely to see how "most missions were driven by the rebellion")
I hope that example clarifies a bit what I mean by "the ending is handed to us", and shows how it could have been done so that the campaign actually builds up to its own conclusion.
If that was too much rambling, you can try something else: Think of StarCraft, the original. Does anything memorable come to mind? Now think about Wings of Liberty - what memorable moments do you recall?
|
Are you asking me for my first impressions of SCI? I'm not not sure how I felt back in the day, but SC never really struck me as a really good story until near the end of the game starting from Zeratuls final speech to Aldaris after freeing Tassadar. I don't think that I cared much for the SCI terran campaign, and I definitely felt something for the Zerg campaign, but I'm not sure what it was. I vaguely recall a few "WTF is this crap" moments in BW, mostly for the same reasons which I've already elaborated on in other topics (and I lolled at the retcon where Blizzard placed a fully functional psi disruptor on Tarsonis. GG Blizzard) so I think my first impressions haven't changed much.
The Tosh, Tychus and Hanson mission arcs were memorable enough, the arcs just didn't stick around for anywhere near long enough for investment which could be equal to the original SC. I did find the ending cinematics of siding with Tash and Selendis to be memorable conclusions The Mar Sara, Char and dominion missions mainly worked because they were building off of all of the story we've followed from the originals, but the Matt Horner missions really needed to be played consecuatively for them to really click on an emotional level. One of the main reasons for my enjoyment was that I didn't just do a little bit here and then a little bit there. I started that particular arc, and saw it through to the end without getting side tracked. And of course, the finale of the Protoss missions and the end game were both memorable, if vague.
But yeah, like we've already said, Blizzard may have gotten carried away in sacrificing the story, but it is interesting to note that the lead writer for WoL was also a writer for Jade Empire and Mass Effect 2. The main story is never the best part of Bioware games.
Anyway, I;m not sure what else to say other than I hope that Blizzard can find a better balance between focus and non-linearity in future.
|
I hope they shy away from obvious cliches.
|
It's hard to believe SC2 cost 100 million dollars to make. Where did all that money go? Metzen's bling?
At least they could have packed the campaign with like 20-50 full-blown CGI cinematics or something. We got like 2 or 3.
|
SPOILER:
+ Show Spoiler +Tychus will be resurrected as the new Queen of Blades, seriously
|
Sc2 single player story was meant for kids 12 and under it seems, and pretty much everyone agrees that I've talked to. The lore of blizz games starting going to crap when WoW came out and they just had to make up shit as they went.
|
I enjoy the story.
/shrug
Guess we can't all speak for each other, it's as if we all have formed our own opinion on the matter like individuals.
|
IGN has written some articles with unreliable information in the past. I remember I used to get the newsletter from both IGN and Gamespot. IGN would often write stories, that according to the Gamespot newsletter which I trusted infinitely more, were nothing more than rumors. Take the IGN article with a grain of salt I would advise.
|
On October 25 2010 00:09 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2010 23:19 mustaju wrote:
I foresee an increase in only situationally effective units and bullshit mechanics to create new content. I don't get this, Weren't there situationally effective units in BW and WoL? Unless you mean like 'anti-battlecruiser turrets' or 'explodes when it's 4pm on a Thursday' lol.
X_X ommggg!!! I laughed so hard at this!!~~~ I was crying about Lurker and Reaver and Goliath for so long, but now that I think about it, putting them in is probably worse than working to refine the units they currently have.
|
Invariably all stories were unfinished at some point in time.
I highly doubt Tom Clancy had the entire 13 book Jack Ryan series "finished" in an instant.
|
On October 24 2010 23:32 HardcoreBilly wrote:J.R.R. Tolkien made up Lord of the Rings as he wrote. + Show Spoiler +It's too bad Blizzard's story writer decided to kill Tychus off. Totally unnecessary.
Maybe he's not dead?
Maybe Raynor shot him in the chest or whatever and he survived, no1 knows
|
On November 06 2010 09:04 lundell100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2010 23:32 HardcoreBilly wrote:J.R.R. Tolkien made up Lord of the Rings as he wrote. + Show Spoiler +It's too bad Blizzard's story writer decided to kill Tychus off. Totally unnecessary. Maybe he's not dead? Maybe Raynor shot him in the chest or whatever and he survived, no1 knows
Char was only a setback.
|
Well It's a pretty low possibility blizz will know how It's gonna end, They're still making it! for all we know this series could go up to Starcraft 60 or world of starcraft (highly likely on starcraft 60 but world of starcraft has a possible chance)
|
Most, if not all writers make stuff up as they go along.
|
Most, if not all writers make stuff up as they go along.
Yeah, that makes sense. The second act of a three part series is often filler. Probably because the writers/director have a strict deadline to meet and they need a lot of time to figure out how the story will end so they just make the middle as open ended an unprogressive as possible.
|
9070 Posts
yeah, I was pretty sure Blizzard have no idea what are they doing with the story
|
If Rowling knew how her series was going to end, she could've told everyone and spared us the trouble and disappointment.
|
On November 06 2010 09:04 lundell100 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2010 23:32 HardcoreBilly wrote:J.R.R. Tolkien made up Lord of the Rings as he wrote. + Show Spoiler +It's too bad Blizzard's story writer decided to kill Tychus off. Totally unnecessary. Maybe he's not dead? Maybe Raynor shot him in the chest or whatever and he survived, no1 knows
Single Player page specifically says he's dead.
|
SC/BW's storytelling was hardly top notch, most fond memories are because of nostalgia more than anything. That and people love to hate new things.
They're still putting some effort into it, but I miss the extensive backstory they had in the manual from the first game.
I think you guys are putting the old Blizzard writers (though I doubt they've changed that much) up on a pedestal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
