EPTThe criticism of the WoL story is (mostly) wrong - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
| ||
|
Feb
98 Posts
| ||
|
Fredoq
Sweden206 Posts
Nice work! :D | ||
|
.Storm
United States28 Posts
The character development is weak and like the others have said, the most interesting characters are basically "ousted" in an instant. There could have been so much more but before i knew it, the campaign was over and i was left with a feeling not unlike when you order a 50 dollar steak that tastes like playdo. Is important the lore is and all, it's usually the characters that drive a story and the fact is is that blizzard didn't make the story as interesting as it could be. my best example of this would be Halo 3. the master chief and arbiter pairing could've easily turned into some sort of kane and lynch bad boys toting guns story, but instead there's more character development. Blizzard instead just made raynor into a drunk has-been revenge story. It could've worked, but it's a shame that most of the story is filled with corny one-liners. tl;dr version: even a cliche story can seem awesome if the right characters have good three dimensionality, it'sjust sad that Blizzard failed to do so. but that being said, it's not like the campaign SUCKS, it just felt like it could've been more. | ||
|
Grimjim
United States395 Posts
Not to mention the horrible number of plot holes, questionable motivation, role reversals and weak character development. LOL WE'RE OUTNUMBERED, LET'S GO BOARD THEM. SURELY THEY WON'T YAMATO OUR ASSES! Grrr I'm the new Kerrigan. I have no motivation for coming back than simply to be evil. Hey, I'm Jim Raynor. I'm a snarky alcoholic. At the end of this story I'm... still a snarky alcoholic. But at least I got the girl. This thread's title is incredibly pretentious too. Everyone is wrong and you're right, huh? | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 01 2011 08:00 Grimjim wrote: As a writer and aspiring film maker, I will be the first to tell you the dialogue and plot of the game was simply mish-mash and ridiculous. I've never found myself cringing so much when characters were talking, and the cliches became so numerous I found myself predicting which crap-filled line was about to come out next. Not to mention the horrible number of plot holes, questionable motivation, role reversals and weak character development. LOL WE'RE OUTNUMBERED, LET'S GO BOARD THEM. SURELY THEY WON'T YAMATO OUR ASSES! Grrr I'm the new Kerrigan. I have no motivation for coming back than simply to be evil. Hey, I'm Jim Raynor. I'm a snarky alcoholic. At the end of this story I'm... still a snarky alcoholic. But at least I got the girl. This thread's title is incredibly pretentious too. Everyone is wrong and you're right, huh? Plot holes and cliches? Yeah, of course, it's a video game and more importantly an RTS; they all have plot holes. The main problem I have with the criticism is that people refer to SC and BW as having much better plots and writing. As was pointed out, they were just as cliche. The major "retcon" of the Overmind (even though I don't consider it to be that implausible) doesn't really bother me too much. I mean, in BW it was just a puppet for the UED and nothing more. Oh, and an appeal to authority? Kind of pretentious, right? | ||
|
Feb
98 Posts
@grimjim, don't introduce yourself as a writer and aspiring filmmaker as if this gives you greater authority on this as anyone else. the dialogue in this game isn't half as cringe worthy as star wars: episode 2 | ||
|
SCbiff
110 Posts
If you want to argue, primarily, that it doesn't matter (b/c sc2 is a fun game who cares about the story), that's a valid point. But if Blizzard (or anybody else) is going to put themselves out there to tell a story, they better do a good job of it, or else expect people to respond as some people have. And frankly, coming in saying that we should ignore the holes in the story because the game mechanics are awesome is like saying you should love all politicians because they are handsome. Lots of people do, doesn't make it right. | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
Not that one extra opinion matters but heres my pinch of salt: 1) Re orcs/Zerg being good: HAving a 'they are the goodies and those ugly ones are the baddies' is not only speciesist but even more cliche than the idea that there are sone bad guys of one race and some of the other. Plus the zerg arent even morally aware (unless Im much mistaken... ok apart from KErrigan and the Overmind) they are just animals, so its completely conceivable that should the 'controller' of the zerg is good then the zerg will follow. Having such a black and white approach to morality is really childish and oversimplified (dnd-afied maybe?). We'll just have to wait on where Blizzard go with this. 2) Re Love Story: Neither in SC/BW or in SC2 did I think it was a straight forward love story. My interpretation that the main emotion guiding Raynors actions were anger at Mengsk in SC1 for leaving Kerrigan behind to die, which then turns into guilt as has he has failed to stop Mengsk he only has himself to blame. You can read what you want into how you perceive their relationship which to me is a strength not a weakness in the plot.There was also a big distinction between Kerrigan and the Queen of Blades (hence Raynor's different feelings for both). Again, we'll have to wait and see where they go with this. 3) The dialogue was cheesy. As a matter of taste though I found that fine, as a european I still find the whole american western swagger kinda cool. And Raynor was always just a cowboy in space (Marshall, vulture=horse etc...) not Hamlet nor a character from George Orwell 4) THe prophecy thing was a little dry and stale, but the end of the universe mission redeemed it in my eyes and I totally bought into it. 5) Re: Target audience, there are three target audiences I would say. Hardcore SC1 fans, Noobs, and people who played SC1, enjoyed it but moved on to many other games. I fall into the last category and I found the storyline and campaign in general hugely satisfying. HArdcore fans (with regards to Lore) are probably the smallest proportion of its target audience, and they are also the most difficult to satisfy, they would have had to make such a complex and intricate storyline so that it would be quasi-impenetrable for the other two types of gamer without having to go through the original games. In this I believe Blizzard decided to compromise and they arent the first. If you look at the Elder Scrolls series though Oblivion had much better gameplay Morrowind had infinitely better/darker storyline. (I still loved Oblivion btw dont get me wrong). Again, this is mostly opnion (like everything else on this thread) and therefore neither more nor less valuable than the OP or anything that followed. EDIT: apologies for grammar/spelling, its 5.30 am here | ||
|
johlar
Sweden165 Posts
Although I was satisfied with the story im not surprised that others werent. Its been like that for every game, you cant please everyone. - The story doesnt state that the zerg are "good" only that they were used by a greater evil. - The prophecy, I had an easy time buying it, the protoss are a very spiritual race and I see no reason why they wouldnt believe something like this. And that raynor trusts zeratul doesnt seem that far out either. - The dialogues are very cheesy indeed. And I did too facepalm during some of them but they arent really part of the STORY. The missions were awesome, the story was fine, everything with the cantina/bridge/armory etc was very good and although the dialogues were cheesy all in all the campaign was a good experience | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On February 01 2011 14:33 froggynoddy wrote: Hello all, Not that one extra opinion matters but heres my pinch of salt: 1) Re orcs/Zerg being good: HAving a 'they are the goodies and those ugly ones are the baddies' is not only speciesist but even more cliche than the idea that there are sone bad guys of one race and some of the other. Plus the zerg arent even morally aware (unless Im much mistaken... ok apart from KErrigan and the Overmind) they are just animals, so its completely conceivable that should the 'controller' of the zerg is good then the zerg will follow. Having such a black and white approach to morality is really childish and oversimplified (dnd-afied maybe?). We'll just have to wait on where Blizzard go with this. 2) Re Love Story: Neither in SC/BW or in SC2 did I think it was a straight forward love story. My interpretation that the main emotion guiding Raynors actions were anger at Mengsk in SC1 for leaving Kerrigan behind to die, which then turns into guilt as has he has failed to stop Mengsk he only has himself to blame. You can read what you want into how you perceive their relationship which to me is a strength not a weakness in the plot.There was also a big distinction between Kerrigan and the Queen of Blades (hence Raynor's different feelings for both). Again, we'll have to wait and see where they go with this. 3) The dialogue was cheesy. As a matter of taste though I found that fine, as a european I still find the whole american western swagger kinda cool. And Raynor was always just a cowboy in space (Marshall, vulture=horse etc...) not Hamlet nor a character from George Orwell 4) THe prophecy thing was a little dry and stale, but the end of the universe mission redeemed it in my eyes and I totally bought into it. 5) Re: Target audience, there are three target audiences I would say. Hardcore SC1 fans, Noobs, and people who played SC1, enjoyed it but moved on to many other games. I fall into the last category and I found the storyline and campaign in general hugely satisfying. HArdcore fans (with regards to Lore) are probably the smallest proportion of its target audience, and they are also the most difficult to satisfy, they would have had to make such a complex and intricate storyline so that it would be quasi-impenetrable for the other two types of gamer without having to go through the original games. In this I believe Blizzard decided to compromise and they arent the first. If you look at the Elder Scrolls series though Oblivion had much better gameplay Morrowind had infinitely better/darker storyline. (I still loved Oblivion btw dont get me wrong). Again, this is mostly opnion (like everything else on this thread) and therefore neither more nor less valuable than the OP or anything that followed. EDIT: apologies for grammar/spelling, its 5.30 am here 1. When it's humans (or even hominids) we're talking about, that is correct. However, the Zerg aren't a species. They are a biological WEAPON. Your point is invalid. 2. There was definitely something going on between Raynor and Kerrigan in SC1. Replay the vanilla Terran campaign, vanilla Zerg campaign, and BW Zerg campaign if you doubt me, and watch the interactions between the two. However, on Raynor's side, it mostly died out after she became infested and completely died out once she killed Fenix. Again, replay BW Zerg. 3. You can have space cowboy lines that aren't cheesy. Once again, replay SC1. 4. That entire thing could have been played out differently. It could have been nothing more than Zeratul telling a story and his (non-mystical) predictions of the future. I miss the old hard-ass Zeratul. 5. You can give a bad target audience a good story and get a good result. All it would have taken was a few prologue missions of recap, or maybe a little opening cutscene. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On February 01 2011 08:00 Grimjim wrote: This is the backside of a non-linear campaign. Most plot holes can be filled with assuming some untold parts of the story. If you want to have a deep story, you can Planescape Torment, a story-driven RPG. WoL is a mission-driven RTS. Considering this, I consider the story ok. The somewhat lose story elements with lack of continuity even help to let you experience the uncertain fate of the revolution.Not to mention the horrible number of plot holes, questionable motivation, role reversals and weak character development. One can try to experience the campaign in a fun way. One can also try to compare it with novels and cringe at any cheesy one-liner. Since it is a game and no homework, I think I should have fun. On February 01 2011 08:00 Grimjim wrote: What did you expect? Another UED involvement?Hey, I'm Jim Raynor. I'm a snarky alcoholic. At the end of this story I'm... still a snarky alcoholic. But at least I got the girl. On February 01 2011 08:00 Grimjim wrote: I wanted to get attention and I also feel I have good arguments. tl;dr Don't compare the WoL story with novels, consider it an excuse to explain the next mission you play.This thread's title is incredibly pretentious too. Everyone is wrong and you're right, huh? | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On February 01 2011 09:52 SCbiff wrote: I don't mean to say that we should just ignore blatant plot holes. But most of them can be explained if we just assume that there are other things we don't know (yet.) I also don't think that the WoL story is worse compared to SC1/BW. But I think we cannot expect to have a deep, dense story of a Starcraft novel in a computer game. WoL is made to sell millions of copies. How many Starcraft book copies are sold?Arguing that a story being told doesn't need to be solid is a somewhat ridiculous argument, in my view. If you want to argue, primarily, that it doesn't matter (b/c sc2 is a fun game who cares about the story), that's a valid point. But if Blizzard (or anybody else) is going to put themselves out there to tell a story, they better do a good job of it, or else expect people to respond as some people have. And frankly, coming in saying that we should ignore the holes in the story because the game mechanics are awesome is like saying you should love all politicians because they are handsome. Lots of people do, doesn't make it right. Blizzard also sacrificed consistency in favour of the gameplay mechanics. For example you see all possible lab upgrades before you have the appropriate samples or artifacts. But this allowes you to plan if you pick a mission which offers zerg or which offers protoss research. Mutas flap their wings in space, in which - oddly enough - we also can hear sound (while there is no air.) Also, Kerrigan can read your mind. Who is still expecting a fully realistic explanation of everything going on? | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On February 01 2011 19:03 johlar wrote: Blizzard could easily animate how Raynor actually went through the ship instead of just cutting to the next screen if you click it. Blizzard even removed some stuff which was already included in the Alpha version (big Star Map with verbose information and pictures of each planet, a zoom out of the hyperion bridge closer to the planet which you are currently on.) They obviously did not want distract the player from the missions. But what is left in the game, is enough for me. I am much closer to characters, I can play my own story version; and once I fly to Char I get even a different mission hub setting (on the Warfield forward base.) I think these things are way more important than an Asimov-esque story. (If I want a good SF story, I prefer Stanisław Lem anyway.)The missions were awesome, the story was fine, everything with the cantina/bridge/armory etc was very good and although the dialogues were cheesy all in all the campaign was a good experience So, yes, the story serves its purpose. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On February 01 2011 01:27 thehitman wrote: The good mission gameplay is of course no excuse for an outright poorly written story. But most guys which are no hardcore-fans of SC1/BW are obviously sold. Just because the story cannot fulfill the expectations of any die-hard fan does not mean it is bad.So your argument is: SC2 story is cliche, inconsistent, cheesy, stupid, etc, etc...but this is how people in year 2010 like it? That is the worst argument I have ever heard and it borders to the level of just plain crazy! | ||
|
latan
740 Posts
| ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
The story is shit. When the cutscenes were leaked on YouTube I struggled to sit through them without getting so bored that I had half my attention diverted to other windows that were open. You could watch the Warcraft III cutscenes and not want to be doing anything else. They were fucking epic. SCII was just gayass Western cowboy cliche. And the side missions... Just makes you think - siiigh when can I get this part over and done with. SCII story sucks. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7927 Posts
On January 23 2011 16:22 Jibba wrote: Since when was Raynor in love with Kerrigan? He had the hots for her, but Blizzard went the easy (and lame) route by making it a love story. There was a lot of stupid shit in SC1 as well, but the Prophecy just falls out of place in a SC series. It plays more into fantasy than science fiction. Even in fantasy, prophecy are 99% a bad idea which sucks ass and is obviously designed to make the scenario building process easier. Worst prophecy in history is still Star Wars new trilogy's prophecy about the "one who will restablish balance in the force". That was so bad it made me laugh out loud. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
1) The story serves as a hub to get into the missions. Not the other way round. SC2 is still an RTS game, not a Warhammer 40000 RPG. Blizzard intentionally allowed some logical inconsistencies like the mechanics of the mission archive but without the story what drives the missions? The sc2 rts game is set in the star craft universe, this star craft universe was made around the time starcraft was made. If they do not abide by the laws of said universe then that is the equalent of a fanfic author buying the franchise only so he can have his fanfic named cannon. 2) Often, some official books are quoted to proof that some figure in the game acted wrong. But the games speak for them self and can be understood without reading any novel or even the short stories on the official SC2 page. Many franchises have a much deeper and complex story in their expanded universe. Yes, many franchises have a much deeper and complex story in their written universe, does that mean the games are allowed to disregard the books if they want a compelling story?4) There will always be some small errors and some greater plot holes. This is true for almost any franchise. To be honest, I am really annoyed about many contradictions in the Star Trek universe, because I will never know what “truly” happened. But it is still an inspiring franchise. Do you want to know why some (not all) of these plot holes exist? Because the authors try to give the audience a piece of something from the characters that they have grown attached to that isnt really possible by obeying the laws of their own universe. We have so fond memories of this stuff because we played it a long time ago. Not because it was actually so good. We just got used to it. tell that to the people who watched that new indiana jones movie and at the end of the day you come to a forum complaining about the complainers and telling them to accept that the WoL story is canon now. We already know that, but we liked the franchise so we will tell blizzard just what exactly we expected and what we got instead. You are calling people out for complaining about the wasted potential that is sc2 telling them to enjoy what they can. Who the fuck nitpicks at the sc1 bw lore to find inconsistensies? We dont need to do that to dislike the story. Infact if i didnt have a sc bw background i would never have looked twice at sc2. why? because the story on its own sucked. | ||
|
Fumi
529 Posts
On February 02 2011 00:59 [F_]aths wrote: Blizzard could easily animate how Raynor actually went through the ship instead of just cutting to the next screen if you click it. Blizzard even removed some stuff which was already included in the Alpha version (big Star Map with verbose information and pictures of each planet, a zoom out of the hyperion bridge closer to the planet which you are currently on.) They obviously did not want distract the player from the missions. But what is left in the game, is enough for me. I am much closer to characters, I can play my own story version; and once I fly to Char I get even a different mission hub setting (on the Warfield forward base.) I think these things are way more important than an Asimov-esque story. (If I want a good SF story, I prefer Stanisław Lem anyway.) So, yes, the story serves its purpose. No one is asking for a ridiculously deep story. SC was never supposed to be a huge explainable universe like Warcraft is, and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows it. From what I can understand, your point is basically "SC is supposed to be focused on the missions, so who cares about the story", and if that's the case, I'm sorry. Even a minor story used to give the player random missions can be charming and make sense. And as you can see here, a lot of us didn't like the silly story and that's going to be disappointing for us. And even with such a simple plot, a lot of us grew attached to certain icon characters, and waiting 12 years to see their personality and design being butchered, as well as ruining some of their deeds (Tassadar comes to mind) is simply not acceptable. I'm not gonna accept any stuff they throw at me just because story isn't the focus. In our opinion, they didn't put enough effort into the story. We gave our reasons why, you just don't seem to accept them. You should really just stop camping this thread as we're never gonna agree with each other. | ||
| ||
