|
On April 08 2012 01:44 DoubleReed wrote:
I mean if you're going to insult the story, at least make valid criticisms.
Wow wow wow. Let's calm down. I'm not insulting the story. I like Starcraft II, a lot. I agree with you, the gameplay is awesome, the best RTS game so far, in my opinion. The immersion in the SC universe is frankly much more than we we asking for. Two wins. But the story itself? It had great things, but something was missing.
The best thing in the story is Raynor's character development. No, it would not be possible to develop the character so well in just 10-15 chapters. I know, this part of the story itself good have been better, as you pointed out yourself. And still, it's the very best part of the whole game. Not every video game asks you to think about it, as Raynor's personal story does that. You have to think about it to notice how cool his story is.
So, I'll repeat myself to make everything clear: expanding WoL from 10-15 to almost 30 missions was great for Raynor's development, for the gameplay, and for the immersion. But something felt missing.
I think we could have everything - Raynor's development, the Spectre storyline, the civilian drama, the quest for McGuffin, the Rebelion, and Char invasion - is maybe... 20 missions or so. Of course 30 missions is great for gameplay, 50 missions would be even better, but my question is, how much stuff actually happen in the game? Sure, plenty of stuff, but was it stuff enough to keep almos 30 missions relevant story wise?
I don't believe that I could tell "mission X is relevant, mission Y is irrelevant". That's not how story telling works. Missions could had been fused, or divided, for a better effect. But don't you think that sometimes there are too many missions dedicated to tell a story?
For example, Tosh's storyline has 3 parts: "gather resources", "gather resources", and "choose your side". Would you excuse me to analyse them, story-wise? Remember it's just my opinion.
"Gather Resources I" introduces you to Gabriel Tosh. Shows Raynor is willing to ally with underworld types. Btw, shows there's a lot going on in the Dominion's underworld. Shows that Tosh needs Raynor's help to gather he's resources. It gives personality to Raynor as it shows his peculiarities.
When we talk about "Gather Resources II" we're talking about a polemic subject... because many SC2-haters hate this mission specially. But let's say everything is ok about it, at least for now, because I'm not trying to tell if missions are good for story, I'm trying to tell if they're necessary to story. So, what do we know from Gather Resources II that we didn't know from the previous mission? Maybe, the existence of another resource that Tosh needs. It's part of a series of events that makes the Tal'Darim hate Raynor more and more. As far as I remember it doesn't even gives more personality to Raynor, but even if it does, it's to little to justify a whole mission for it.
Then we have "Choose your side", pretty good mission, not only with fun gameplay, but also with big BIG relevance to the Spectre storyline. Some people are mad because it doen't change anything in the general plot, and they're right to be so, but we can agree that it matters a lot to Tosh and Nova.
So my whole point is: Was "Gather Resources II" really necessary? Actually no. The facts that Tosh needed something else and that Raynor helped him again could have been showed in dialogue lines; and there are plenty of other situations where Raynor faced the Tal'Darim. That's a mission I'd call a "filler".
"But Terrazine is a big thing in SC lore", some would say; yes, they're right! But what about the mineral, jorium? Maybe we could have a mission to gather terrazine, but why is a jorium mission even needed? The fact is, the story didn't need 3 missions to tell Tosh's tale.
Some goes for other storylines. Did the Artifact really need to have all those parts, or couldn't some parts be with Moebius already? I love the Hanson storyline, all missions are fun, and I love being the good guy - or the guy who does the thing that needs to be done - but story-wise, there are two missions were we do the same thing. And I'll be a little softer on Mar Sara missions, after all, three missions to learn how to play the game is fair enough. Still, I don't know, maybe we could see a little more story going on. But maybe not.
Do I want a 20-mission long WoL? No! Do I want a 20-mission long HotS? Three times NO! But as I said, while myself I could spend 50 missions just fooling around in WoL, because that's how much I love SC universe, in my opinion, they just didn't have story enough for so many chapters.
No, I don't think they should have cut some missions... they should have made them more relevant. But how?
That's the problem. I can only imagine how to make each mission more relevant to storyline. As missions were relevant in SC/BW - where a single missions could change the whole balance of power or of character relationships. But would these solutions I imagine really work? Maybe not, because maybe there was no way to put more characters, cliffhangers, events and whatever in the story. Maybe there is only a limited amount of things that can happen in Jim Raynor's tale.
That's why I understand why they're making only 20-so missions in HotS. I think its too little for my zerg-hunger, but at least it means story isn't going to go at a slow pace - which is what happened to WoL, where I felt I was never in a hurry, always taking my time...
What did I really want? In a perfect world, HotS would have the 30 missions want. But they would try to make them all story-relevant, and if they couldn't, instead of making "filler" missions, they would do actual "optional" missions. For example, "Welcome to the Jungle" is, by my standards, a filler mission; it adds nothing to story, but you must play it to know what happens to Tosh, get credits and units, etc. But "Piercing the Veil" is a optional mission: you don't need to play it to know what happen to the core characters, to get game resources, etc. You just play it to get extra info on the storyline. Ok, Piercing the Veil is awesome, maybe one of the best missions in the game; but just think, what if "Welcome to the Jungle" was optional? It wouldn't be as awesome as "Veil", but it would be my nicer if Tosh said, "I can handle this myself Ray-nor, but you're invited if you want to". You get no units, no credits, it's something you'd play just for fun and extra info on the characters.
Do you get what I mean? We can have less filler with equal amounts of game-hours and lore immersion. That's how HotS is in my dreams.
|
gather resources 2 inroduces Nova unless im getting my time line wrong, and the effect that Terrazine has on the mind is important part of Novas argument to get Raynor on her side
|
Nova was "introduced" in a message Matt passes on and only REALLY gets introduced at the begining of ghost of a chance/breakout so that isn't entirely relevant and to be honest the terrazine info was only mentioned by hanson in an optional dialog so it was quite possible for nova to convince raynor without him even knowing about the whole effects on psionic powers stuff.
So i have to agree that the second tosh mission could really have been left out and the story put in some other place since really what did it actually do for either real story elements or to have fun gameplay? it didn't even have an interesting mechanic like the mission on redstone
|
On April 08 2012 04:55 Forikorder wrote:
gather resources 2 inroduces Nova unless im getting my time line wrong, and the effect that Terrazine has on the mind is important part of Novas argument to get Raynor on her side
Ok, you didn't read the whole post, but I understand 
TL;DR: I don't mean they should have cut out the mission. The information about Terrazine could be in another mission, or in a dialog, or the two Tosh missions could be one, or maybe the mission that could be discarted is the Jorium mission, and the mechanics could be used elsewhere. What I mean is, all that could be told in one mission. There was no need for two missions. Please read the ending of my post too.
|
On April 08 2012 06:13 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:55 Forikorder wrote:
gather resources 2 inroduces Nova unless im getting my time line wrong, and the effect that Terrazine has on the mind is important part of Novas argument to get Raynor on her side Ok, you didn't read the whole post, but I understand TL;DR: I don't mean they should have cut out the mission. The information about Terrazine could be in another mission, or in a dialog, or the two Tosh missions could be one, or maybe the mission that could be discarted is the Jorium mission, and the mechanics could be used elsewhere. What I mean is, all that could be told in one mission. There was no need for two missions. Please read the ending of my post too.
i DID read the entire post, obviously they decided that theyd have an interesting enough mission with gathering the Terrazine and no other mission arc needed a mission enough to justify cutting a mission from the Tosh arc
|
obviously they decided that theyd have an interesting enough mission with gathering the Terrazine and no other mission arc needed a mission enough to justify cutting a mission from the Tosh arc
Sure, but that's not the point. They thought the mission was interesting enough, and the mission in itself may be. But the story line as a whole misses pace. When a story lacks rhythm, it doesn't matter if every part is relevant; you just have to cut/modify something. Yes, writing hurts. You have to hurt your baby all the time, and Blizzard writers know that; they probably made it several times.
The problem is... fans were expecting at least 30 missions. They couldn't deliver much less than that. And they didn't have enough to deal with cutting or condensing.
The problem here is, are you fully satisfied with WoL campaign? If you are, there is no sense we go on discussing this. Because I'm not, and I'm talking to other people who are unsatisfied but still love the game and the story. I think one of the main flaws of WoL is this lack of pace, and his is something I sincerely hope to be absent in HotS. I want 30 missions with meaning, relevance and rhythm, but if that's impossible, I would be fine with 20-ish main missions, plus 10-ish optional missions. And I won't be fine with 20-ish main missions and nothing more.
|
On April 08 2012 09:21 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +obviously they decided that theyd have an interesting enough mission with gathering the Terrazine and no other mission arc needed a mission enough to justify cutting a mission from the Tosh arc
Sure, but that's not the point. They thought the mission was interesting enough, and the mission in itself may be. But the story line as a whole misses pace. When a story lacks rhythm, it doesn't matter if every part is relevant; you just have to cut/modify something. Yes, writing hurts. You have to hurt your baby all the time, and Blizzard writers know that; they probably made it several times. The problem is... fans were expecting at least 30 missions. They couldn't deliver much less than that. And they didn't have enough to deal with cutting or condensing. The problem here is, are you fully satisfied with WoL campaign? If you are, there is no sense we go on discussing this. Because I'm not, and I'm talking to other people who are unsatisfied but still love the game and the story. I think one of the main flaws of WoL is this lack of pace, and his is something I sincerely hope to be absent in HotS. I want 30 missions with meaning, relevance and rhythm, but if that's impossible, I would be fine with 20-ish main missions, plus 10-ish optional missions. And I won't be fine with 20-ish main missions and nothing more.
so its "i have a problem with the story and if you dont your wrong and dont bother arguing"? they had a good idea for a mission, they added it in the Tosh arc, its either that mission never happens or it happens there the mission being there doesnt remove from the overall story its shows how Raynors lived the last few years by picking up odd jobs it helps shows his life
it doesnt hurt or dtract from the story and its a fun mission
|
so its "i have a problem with the story and if you dont your wrong and dont bother arguing"?
Of course not. It is "you're not going to convince me that WoL story was good enough, and I am not going to convince you that it wasn't". But if you're willing to discuss how the story could be better, we could have a good time discussing this together. But I'm not gonna argue over if WoL was disappointing or not; it'd be a waste of mine and yours time to do so.
Myself, I think WoL had many flaws, and I try to figure out how this happened, so I can give proper feedback and hopefully help this not to happen again. But in the worst scenario, I'll just give my opinion on things, which is something I like to do.
Anyway, what do you people think of we having actual side quests, instead of "side" quests you had to play? Do you think it fits a game like SC?
|
On April 08 2012 09:55 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +so its "i have a problem with the story and if you dont your wrong and dont bother arguing"? Of course not. It is "you're not going to convince me that WoL story was good enough, and I am not going to convince you that it wasn't". But if you're willing to discuss how the story could be better, we could have a good time discussing this together. But I'm not gonna argue over if WoL was disappointing or not; it'd be a waste of mine and yours time to do so. Myself, I think WoL had many flaws, and I try to figure out how this happened, so I can give proper feedback and hopefully help this not to happen again. But in the worst scenario, I'll just give my opinion on things, which is something I like to do. Anyway, what do you people think of we having actual side quests, instead of "side" quests you had to play? Do you think it fits a game like SC?
i heard until you picked between Nova and Tosh you couldnt go to Char
o wait, side quests were still side quests
there are no huge glaring flaws in WoL it was a great game with a great story the only reason people see flaws is they put SC and BW on such a high pedestal theyve completely forgotten the actual story and jsut blindy think it was so amazing it must have been written by god and anything less then abolutely goldy story must be terrible
|
Maybe they should have LAN? that might be a good idea
|
On April 08 2012 11:43 Steelflight-Rx wrote:
Maybe they should have LAN? that might be a good idea
LAN isnt in the game for good reasons
money reasons mainly
but still good reasons
|
Yea, my gripe with the storyline is usually specifically with dialogue they had or dialogue they didn't. I didnt have any issue with the set up of the missions or anything. Just maybe give tosh and the moebius foundation more context so certain missions don't feel like errands.
|
Just maybe give tosh and the moebius foundation more context so certain missions don't feel like errands.
Errands, also known as filler. To un-filler something, you can either take it out, or give it resonance in the story, relevance, depth, call it as you like. This is something I felt more missions in WoL needed.
I feel one of the reasons they will be lowering the number of missions in HotS is because they felt some missions were errand in WoL.
side quests were still side quests
Please Forikorder, don't feel like I'm picking on you. I'm not into discussing if the game was good or not, but the side quest thing is an interesting subject in my opinion.
Maybe the word I'm looking for isn't side quest. But here I go again: what happens if you don't play Tosh missions, none of them, at all?
- You don't earn 405,000 credits
- You don't earn 3 Zerg and 3 Protoss research
- You don't get Reapers, Goliaths or Ghosts/Specters
(note: you'll probably need those credits in All In)
That's from a pure mechanical POW. But if it's the first time you play, and it's the first time you see Gabriel Tosh, and you understand some of the principles of the SP campaign, you actually don't know what you're loosing. So the list gets bigger:
- You don't know if you're not getting some important unit, or some unit you'd specially like to get;
- You don't know if you are going to miss some important facts about what's going on;
- You don't know if you are going to miss some good moments;
- You won't have all units, which feels like one of the game objectives;
- You just won't let that planet be there through the whole campaign without doing anything to it, are you...?
So, it is highly unlikely you won't play those missions. I'd say that the side way is not playing these missions; and the standard way is playing all of them regardless.
So we got 2 things here: one, "if you don't play these mission, you're gonna have a bad time". Two, why not playing them?
So we got plenty of reasons, both objective and subjetive ones, that make those missions don't feel that "side"ish. I would actually like to know just one person who finished the Campaign without completing all the side quests. There must be someone out there, but most people felt those missions were obligatory.
What I would like to see in HotS? As I said before, 30 missions were none of them felt "errand".
But if this is not possible, I'd like to see 20-ish "main" missions, and half a dozen missions that wouldn't be, or feel, obligatory at all.
For example: it is given to Kerrigan the choice, do you want to just send your troops to kill those Dominion forces (it would happen "off-screen") or are you so mad you want to do it personally?
Then we would have a side mission without any real benefit - just minor ones, like extra "mutagen", or none at all - without any unit given. Maybe some symbolic reward ("the skull of a Praetor" or "an infested jukebox"). And what about the story? The missions should be obviously non-relevant, so the player knows he doesn't need to do it, that he isn't missing anything by not playing it, that Kerrigan would have to put the relevant matters aside for a moment to do it. A minigame, just like Lost Viking, except it could be used to give more personality to Kerrigan and her associates; and not necessarily character development, but maybe that too.
Ok, I know there are people who think there is not problem with WoL. I'm not going to argue with that, everyone's entitled to their opinions; but still, just picture that for a second.
Some say that some problems with WoL were: "errand" missions and the feeling that nothing was urgent, or that Raynor had ADHD, and so on. Blizzard's bitter antidote seems to be giving us fewer missions. Now come on; everybody, I say everybody who likes starcraft, whether liked the story and dialogues or not, liked the immersion in the universe. And everybody here want to be a zerg for the longer time as possible.
So why not a number of main missions where the plot happens; and a number of side quests/mini games where we still feel as zergs doing nasty things to sentient beings, but that doesn't water down the plot?
And maybe Blizzard would be more likely to give us more "minigames" than more "plot missions". It is obviously simpler to do something that has less expectations on it.
|
- You don't know if you're not getting some important unit, or some unit you'd specially like to get;
- You don't know if you are going to miss some important facts about what's going on;
- You don't know if you are going to miss some good moments;
- You won't have all units, which feels like one of the game objectives;
- You just won't let that planet be there through the whole campaign without doing anything to it, are you...?
my first run through i skipped most of the optional maps as soon as i saw Char on my mission select i couldnt resist
you only need marines to win all but one mission anyway so realyl you dont get punished at all for not doing the mission unless your a completionist who cant rest until theyve done every mission
i mean the people who did every optional mission are the same ones that will do the rewardless missions your talking about, although i dont see why someone whouldnt get a reward for completing bonus objectives, if tosh #2 didnt ahve a reward youd still be in the thread wining wbout the mission but with the added grievance taht you had to suffer through it with no reward
|
you dont get punished at all for not doing the mission unless your a completionist who cant rest until theyve done every mission
i mean the people who did every optional mission are the same ones that will do the rewardless missions your talking about
That's a very good point. But if you stop to read the Lord of the Rings to take a look at The Hobbit and the Silmarillion, it's not Tolkien's fault if the story is taking too long right? Maybe if thematically it is very clear that those are side quests and nothing more... because you're right, if you don't want to fool around and you want to go straight to Char, the story isn't going to feel too 'long' at all. But how many people play like this? How many people play differently?
Maybe people's opinions on WoL diverge so much because the game gives a very particular experience to each player. Which somehow I feel is going to be nerfed in HotS's narrative. Anyway, is this particularity good? If the game is what the player makes of it, it is a nightmare to have quality standards for it, because you have to think beforehand every possible track and make sure every one of them is interesting.
Am I getting too little "choice-friendly" in here? I don't think so. Most RPGs that offer you a lot of choice, including GTA and even WoW, gives you total freedom without watering down the plot(s). How do they achieve that? They make sure you know when you're advancing in plot X and when you're not. Doing what the arrow tells you to do so? Advancing the plot line. Hitting hookers with your car? Not advancing the plot line.
I believe that would make the game experience feel better for many players that had something against WoL.
i dont see why someone whouldnt get a reward for completing bonus objectives
Me neither... at least I don't see Blizzard doing it. I mean, you play Lost Viking just for the fun and achievements right? So I think those side missions should grant minor actual rewards, or "virtual" rewards, like I said, tokens: an infested jukebox, a pet in WoW, an item in Diablo 3, an unique profile, and so on.
But if we weren't talking about Blizzard, I think that knowing more about the story would be a reward in itself. I think I saw this in other games. Anyway, that's not Blizzard's style.
|
If by this language you mean to make me feel bad, you're achieving it. That's how gay I am. Please be civil?
coming from the guy saying "if you disagree with me dont bother posting"?
also im really not getting your argument, first your saying that the tosh missions arent side quests because... i havent actualyl figured out why you think there not side quests
for some reason your trying to say "if the tosh mission had no reward then it would be okay" but i dont see how that makes sense
i dont see how adding the second tosh mission could have at all ruined the game for anyone it was an optional mission that was fun to play i dont see how it matters if it had much lore significance
|
coming from the guy saying "if you disagree with me dont bother posting"?
I deleted this part of my comment and I was going to answer this to you by MP, because I don't want to turn this into a personal arguing.
But I just want to make clear that I never meant that you shouldn't post if you disagree. I meant that if you don't think there was something wrong in WoL, what's the use of joining an effort to figure out what was wrong with WoL? If I was debating "was WoL good or bad", we're all invited. If the debate is "if you think that WoL was bad in some aspect, how is this", there is no use joining just to say "argh, people who think WoL wasn't 100% fine are stupid".
for some reason your trying to say "if the tosh mission had no reward then it would be okay" but i dont see how that makes sense
Forget the reward. I'm thinking about narrative. If WoL is LotR, I think there is a sign over Tosh's head saying "I'm Tom Bombadill's chapter". You don't know that Tom Bombadill has nothing to do with the defeating Sauron until you read it. So will you jump this chapter? No, you are going to read it thoroughly. Now, is Tom Bombadill'd chapter a good or a bad one? You seem to think it (Tosh's storyline) was worth reading. I think it was fun, that it had nice moments, but it isn't concise. And since the book - WoL - could use some revising (in my opinion) to add a better feel to it, I think Tosh's chapter is one of the first to undergo some revision. Be it cut words, or add meaning and sense to it.
But that's not even what I'm proposing to HotS. I think we can have missions with a sign saying "I'm Tom Bombadill", that's not a problem, that can be really good. But I'd love to see some missions shouting "hey, you know me? I'm The Hobbit, I'm Silmarillion, I'm not The Lord of the Rings, and if you are going to read me, you are going to jump out of Frodo's drama for a moment and sink into other aspects of the Middle-Earth, ok?". Or being more specific, "I'm not Kerrigan's current plot of vengeance, I'm just a short story of she killing people".
TL; DR: There is a difference between reading a short chapter that isn't about the main plot because the author made you think that it was about the main plot, and reading a short chapter that isn't about the main plot knowing what it is.
|
I think he's just saying they aren't really sidequests because seriously, who's going to not do them? You feel like you're completely missing out by not doing them.
I don't really disagree with him. Calling them "filler" is just kind of weird. Some of those missions were downright awesome. Can you have awesome filler? It just sounds too derogatory.
|
On April 09 2012 11:52 nerak wrote:I deleted this part of my comment and I was going to answer this to you by MP, because I don't want to turn this into a personal arguing. But I just want to make clear that I never meant that you shouldn't post if you disagree. I meant that if you don't think there was something wrong in WoL, what's the use of joining an effort to figure out what was wrong with WoL? If I was debating "was WoL good or bad", we're all invited. If the debate is "if you think that WoL was bad in some aspect, how is this", there is no use joining just to say "argh, people who think WoL wasn't 100% fine are stupid". Show nested quote +for some reason your trying to say "if the tosh mission had no reward then it would be okay" but i dont see how that makes sense Forget the reward. I'm thinking about narrative. If WoL is LotR, I think there is a sign over Tosh's head saying "I'm Tom Bombadill's chapter". You don't know that Tom Bombadill has nothing to do with the defeating Sauron until you read it. So will you jump this chapter? No, you are going to read it thoroughly. Now, is Tom Bombadill'd chapter a good or a bad one? You seem to think it (Tosh's storyline) was worth reading. I think it was fun, that it had nice moments, but it isn't concise. And since the book - WoL - could use some revising (in my opinion) to add a better feel to it, I think Tosh's chapter is one of the first to undergo some revision. Be it cut words, or add meaning and sense to it. But that's not even what I'm proposing to HotS. I think we can have missions with a sign saying "I'm Tom Bombadill", that's not a problem, that can be really good. But I'd love to see some missions shouting "hey, you know me? I'm The Hobbit, I'm Silmarillion, I'm not The Lord of the Rings, and if you are going to read me, you are going to jump out of Frodo's drama for a moment and sink into other aspects of the Middle-Earth, ok?". Or being more specific, "I'm not Kerrigan's current plot of vengeance, I'm just a short story of she killing people". TL; DR: There is a difference between reading a short chapter that isn't about the main plot because the author made you think that it was about the main plot, and reading a short chapter that isn't about the main plot knowing what it is.
so you want some missions that before you start say
" hey dude, this mission is literally pointless to do and offers no rewards at all and you can jsut skip it like seriously, you can play this mission but it wont give you any rewards and we made it to have no lore significance at all, nothing good at all will in any way come from you playing this mission it has no achievments and doesnt count towards any achievments its literally a waste of time"
you seriously think anyones going to play that mission more then once? whats even the point of having that mission if it literally serves 0 purpose?
and i cant believe your dissing Tom Bombadil he was one of the best characters in the book
also the hobbit is not Toshs side arc the hobbit is the Zeratul missions
I think he's just saying they aren't really sidequests because seriously, who's going to not do them? You feel like you're completely missing out by not doing them.
i skipped the entire Valhalla arc on my first run through, there are people who dont really care about the side missions, but there also smart enough to just skip them instead of playing them then wining that they played an optional mission
the people who paly every mission play it for the accomplishment of palying every mission so anyone who plays every mission played the tosh mission was becuase it was there not becuase they had any obligation to
|
Calling them "filler" is just kind of weird. Some of those missions were downright awesome. Can you have awesome filler?
Awesome gameplay indeed; story-wise, narrative-wise, did we need two missions in those cases?
Yeah, "filler" gives a false impression I'm saying those missions shouldn't be there. I think they should be there, they rule, but they should have content, and I think they didn't. Instead of having 3 Tosh missions that could be 2, I mean we could have 3 Tosh missions that actually had to be 3; or instead, 2 Tosh missions, and an extra "side" question somewhere (that's what I'd like to see in HotS).
and i cant believe your dissing Tom Bombadil he was one of the best characters in the book
I can't believe you didn't understand what I meant... Tom Bombadill is awesome. It is a nice example of "obligatory sidequest" that works. I think Tosh is an "obligatory sidequest" that could had worked better. It works well as a "Tosh quest", but doesn't work that well as a "WoL chapter/theme" because it makes the game lose a little rhythm and focus. The game loses a little focus here, a little focus there, and in the end of the day, we have a "general flaw" in the game that is this lack of rhythm and focus - in my crazy opinion.
Tom Bombadill's chapter does rupture LotR's rhythm, but in a good way. Of course, rhythm is much easier to manipulate in a book than in a multi-choice game. I think Blizzard took a risky path, they're being pioneers with SC2's singleplayer. And being a pioneer sucks because pioneers always make some mistakes somewhere. I think they're brave, but as fans, we should point out where they can improve.
also the hobbit is not Toshs side arc the hobbit is the Zeratul missions
Actually that's what I mean. Thank you for this example :D But of course, both The Hobbit and Zeratul's arc happen in another time. Think of what I'm proposing as short stories. Kerrigan's quest for revenge is the novel, and there's also half a dozen short stories that help us to understand her, but that you can skip if you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
