|
On April 18 2012 03:17 Tamburlaine wrote:
A little late, but still very accurate. So many jarring jumps from gritty sci-fi to cheesy action movie, pointless "moral dilemma" wankery, character motivations that are less "mysterious" and more "you're a god damn idiot"...
I LOLed...thank you.
I don't know why are people always saying she experimented on herself.
I agree that Raynor's choices change reality; but sometimes I try hard to believe that Raynor's insensibility upset Hanson so much she couldn't find the cure in time. But no matter how hard I try there is no way the story can be understood this way...
Experimenting on herself was the only ethical thing to do. She needs somebody to experiment on and she's not going to infect an innocent person for a desperate cause, and capturing a live infested terran is not something raynor can do, since Raynor wants them all dead before they can cause more harm. Then there's also logic. The competing theory that she was infested along with the colonists is less likely because: a) the colonists turn before she does and b) she's on the hyperion the whole time. Less exposure time to the virus, and more time to actually notice that she's getting infested. If infestation is a slow process, then they'd have seen signs. If it is a fast process then she would have turned alot earlier.
I thought the plot suggestions were absolutely ridiculous. Apparently they've never played a Blizzard game before, because the Underdog always wins all the time. This has actually been rather consistent in Blizzard. Saying that it's silly that Raynor could have bested all these people who supposedly outmatch him is idiotic. We're the underdog.
1) Go back and read the comparison between the BW losses to the WoL losses again. No idea why you're so intent on ignoring the differences.
2) So what if it's in previous Blizzard games? Seriously, so what? Should we be held to the low standards set in previous Blizzard games just because?
How about the last mission of Brood War, where Kerrigan is the underdog? She fights off three fleets while completely out of position. How about the last mission of WC3: FT? Arthas was supposedly "evenly-matched" at the end of WC3: RoC, and now Illidian has become more demonic and stolen the Eye of Sargeras as well as the Skull of Gul'dan, and yet Arthas now beats Illidian? Well of course, because he's the underdog. It is perfectly acceptable to have the underdog win in these stories, and in fact, I think it's rather necessary to have a fun campaign.
No, prove that Kerrigan is the underdog. We are not given information on the relative strengths of the three fleets. Kerrigan says "It'll take more than your three little fleets to bring me down." Obviously Kerrigan does not feel threatened by these shadows of their former power in the first place. You're only basing your opinion off a gameplay perspective. Too bad that virtually every single build and destroy mission ever has opponents that start off with many more units than you. That's the point of that type of mission.
As for what happened in Warcraft, I really could care less.
Valerian instead of Raynor? What a bizarre suggestion. Especially as that would make you not the underdog, and would reveal far too much far too quickly. It's really a faulty idea, and doesn't make any sense. Artanis instead of Zeratul? Why? Both could work perfectly fine. His reasoning is stupid and nonsensical. It just makes him sound like an arrogant prick.
How is "that would make you not the underdog" a valid reason for not using Valerian? Does every single campaign have to boil down to you being an unstoppable prodigy? And how did you jump to that conclusion in the first place? Valerian doesn't have to start off with half the Dominion fleet.
He makes some valid points, but after reading those I was simply inclined to disagree because I didn't like him.
Perhaps you should worry less about being offended and whether what is being said is true: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323990
This article was not intended as a jab at the writers. Whether they got bogged down by disorginzation or just took risks that didn't work, they're capable of better. Brian Kindregarn was a writer for some of mass effect's characters after all.
He also insults Tricia Helfer totally randomly. What was his problem with her performance? I honestly don't know, because he doesn't tell us. The author just apparently wanted to insult her. Shrug.
I said I do not see the subtle nuances that she added to the character. She sounds just like the AI she voiced in mass effect and adds nothing to the role that Glynnis did not other than broken continuity. I felt that elaborating on a topic as subjective as voice acting is futile.
The Zerg were incredibly frightening in WoL, even if Kerrigan may have gotten a downgrade. In nearly every mission they were portrayed as some unstoppable swarm that is constantly attacking everywhere at once. I'm surprised he criticized that as I felt they were some of the best world-building that WoL had.
And again, this is nothing more than Blizzard's info dump. The swarm did not claim any real victories. Simply having Zerg in a mission or saying "billions are dead" does not SHOW the player that the swarm is competent.
The Overmind was not trashed like so many people seem to claim. The entire idea that the Overmind was a slave to the Xel'Naga was grossly hinted at throughout the lore and throughout the series. I have absolutely no idea why people consider this a retcon. It is probably one of the most blatantly canon ideas out there and always has been. The Overmind in SC1 had the exact same goal that the Xel'Naga had: Merge the Zerg and the Protoss together (he even mentions the Purity of Essence and Purity of Form in the campaign FFS). Apparently people want this to be a coincidence? This was the Overmind's singular purpose, and this is why he does everything that he does in SC1 (except for Kerrigan, obviously). This was no retcon. I honestly think this was planned in SC1, and am very shocked that people consider that a retcon of any sort.
I don't know what to say.
Criticizing the Dark Voice when we don't know anything about him is stupid. Obviously he's supposed to be mysterious, so the question becomes "do we want to know more about him?" The answer is yes, we want to know more. Therefore he is as successful as he can be in the first installment. It'd be like criticizing Emperor Palpatine after only watching A New Hope.
That's why I said "it remains to be seen". There's also a limit on what he can do in future expansions based on what his stated goals are, but I didn't think this needed explaining. The Reapers still use the same weak theme at the end of mass effect 3 even when we got to know their intentions. The DV may be the best thing ever in later products, but the character presented in THIS product is extremely shallow. Just ask yourself if SC2 wasn't a blizzard e-sports title but a single player game made by a random company. Who in their right mind would greenlight a second installment?
His criticism of the newscasts was weird. They actually did a pretty good job of not re-using the joke too much and varying it a bit. I didn't understand his criticism at all.
I will agree that they tried to vary the joke. :/
The criticism of the artifact is total fucking bullshit. You cannot claim that Kerrigan is now good because she's human when we have not even seen her be human! You can't claim this shifts things from a grey morality to a black-and-white morality when we haven't seen it! What the fuck kind of assumption is that? That's the stupidest criticism in the whole thing. If anything, the transformation from Kerrigan to human raises all sorts of awesome moral questions! You don't just get to say "Oh well now that she's human, she's a good guy" when that hasn't been shown or even implied in the story!
Newsflash: I did not say she was good. I complained about the fact that they chose to use the artifact to facilitate her redemption instead of actual character development.
The artifact allows her redemption to occur, but it makes it clear that she is the victim now, whereas in Brood War the reason Raynor promised to kill her is because he believed that Kerrigan was responsible for her actions.
|
^weird, DoubleReed. I disagree with every single part of your post, except for dark voice's.
We are the underdog & we lose in original sc1 terran campaign. We are the favorite going into the zerg campaign. Protoss? Yes, we're the underdog there & we win, and it's a hard victory where a lot was lost.
As far as BW is concerned, Kerrigan was the underdog after the overmind went down, and she skillfuly screws everyone across multiple campaigns. Which is good.
In SC2, we have a total idiot for Mengsk, Tal'Darim and Kerrigan. Seriously, pretty much nothing that they attempt to do in SC2 even makes sense(or makes sense and is executed horribly). SC1 campaign opponents were competent, at least.
The power situation in Dominion is indeed ignoring BW completely. Dominion was royally screwed by the end of BW. At least a reasonable explanation for its resurgence should've been present.
Overmind was botched as bad as Kerrigan(who turned from an evil manipulator queen bitch of the universe to a whiny emo kid with legions of zerg and nothing else). He was supposed to be entity that destroyed/absorbed most known Xel'Naga, and figured to do the same to protoss as well, for the sake of further advancement. Now it's revealed that he's just a muppet.
Zeratul has undergone changes, similar to Kerrigan's. More whine&prophecy, less badass ninja; that isn't good. I won't even start on Raynor.
People who thought of the artifact and prophecy should be kept away from HoTS. That's just bullshit that isn't even necessary.
I could go on, but the article already does a decent job. SC2 campaign after BW campaign's felt to me like going from Song of Ice and Fire to something like The Hobbit(at best, and some random generic kid book at worst)
|
How is "that would make you not the underdog" a valid reason for not using Valerian? Does every single campaign have to boil down to you being an unstoppable prodigy? And how did you jump to that conclusion in the first place? Valerian doesn't have to start off with half the Dominion fleet.
I dunno. The underdog gives the entire campaign more tension and more of an arc? It's not dramatic to be on top and... stay on top. I mean the last campaign in BW has Kerrigan uniting all the swarms and becoming the queen of the swarm. It's totally awesome.
Every single campaign in Starcraft, Warcraft, and etc. boils down to you being an unstoppable prodigy. So yes, sure, that's what it should be.
Perhaps you should worry less about being offended and whether what is being said is true: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323990This article was not intended as a jab at the writers. Whether they got bogged down by disorginzation or just took risks that didn't work, they're capable of better. Brian Kindregarn was a writer for some of mass effect's characters after all.
Of course. That's why I didn't comment on the things I thought you had decent points on, like the Tal'Darim. Because after reading the article, I didn't want to agree with you, even if I did.
That's not the sort of reaction I expect that you want from people reading your article. So it is a valid criticism of your article if I say that you are.
I said I do not see the subtle nuances that she added to the character. She sounds just like the AI she voiced in mass effect and adds nothing to the role that Glynnis did not other than broken continuity. I felt that elaborating on a topic as subjective as voice acting is futile.
Then why mention it? It's just a useless, petty jab. If you want to come across as giving valid criticisms, then this sort of thing lowers the status of the entire article.
And I have no idea how voice acting is any more subjective than storytelling. Of course there's objective things you can criticize in voice acting. You just didn't do it. You can't use the 'subjective' argument when you toss it out in your own article.
I don't know what to say.
Yes me neither. I'm not really sure why people are calling the Overmind a "good guy," now. That's not implied. It seems like people are forcing black-and-white morality on something that is distinctly grey. The Overmind is exactly as menacing and awesome as he always was. I have no idea why people consider his role in WoL to be bad in any way. Still seems pretty awesome to be.
Edit: Seriously, play the second campaign in Starcraft I (and revel in the awesome voice of the Overmind, because it's sooo good). Play Dark Origin and listen to what Duran says. Are we really supposed to believe that the Xel'Naga were wiped out by the Zerg, and this was not somehow planned by them? Maybe I just have a magical ability to predict retcons, because I saw that whole thing coming.
|
On April 19 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote:
I dunno. The underdog gives the entire campaign more tension and more of an arc? It's not dramatic to be on top and... stay on top. I mean the last campaign in BW has Kerrigan uniting all the swarms and becoming the queen of the swarm. It's totally awesome.
Every single campaign in Starcraft, Warcraft, and etc. boils down to you being an unstoppable prodigy. So yes, sure, that's what it should be.
Well, except for the UED. They came out of nowhere, having suffered zero losses in vanilla SC1, with one of the largest known empires. And it's hard for me to call Brood War protoss underdogs: broken, certainly, but "underdog" implies that there is a much stronger enemy, and everyone they faced was severely weakened and wracked by in-fighting.
And the protoss and maybe even zerg campaigns in vanilla SC1. The protoss were at peak friggin' strength when you started playing as them.
The Diablo series has a recurring theme of, "Underdog is victorious, but his success just fucks everything up even more."
I will confess to ignorance with regards to much of Warcraft.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Can you name all of these people?
Of course i can, there's default portrait 1, and default portrait 2, then i think the guy on the left might be portrait unlocked from campaign or maybe default portrait 3
See, they are totally likable and memorable characters, Even starcraft pro's who never played the campaign can identify them!
+ Show Spoiler +Yeah, its sad the only way you recognize this picture is from the game interface portraits...
I like this article.
|
On April 19 2012 03:26 Tamburlaine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote:
I dunno. The underdog gives the entire campaign more tension and more of an arc? It's not dramatic to be on top and... stay on top. I mean the last campaign in BW has Kerrigan uniting all the swarms and becoming the queen of the swarm. It's totally awesome.
Every single campaign in Starcraft, Warcraft, and etc. boils down to you being an unstoppable prodigy. So yes, sure, that's what it should be.
Well, except for the UED. They came out of nowhere, having suffered zero losses in vanilla SC1, with one of the largest known empires. And it's hard for me to call Brood War protoss underdogs: broken, certainly, but "underdog" implies that there is a much stronger enemy, and everyone they faced was severely weakened and wracked by in-fighting. And the protoss and maybe even zerg campaigns in vanilla SC1. The protoss were at peak friggin' strength when you started playing as them. The Diablo series has a recurring theme of, "Underdog is victorious, but his success just fucks everything up even more." I will confess to ignorance with regards to much of Warcraft.
UED, fine. But even they had to deal with the fledgling Overmind and were not prepared for the Protoss/Terran alliance.
Protoss were at strength, but not the people you were playing as. You quickly became an outcast and lost everything.
Zerg you started as an adorable baby cerebrate, finding his place in this crazy ol' mixed up world of ours. Hell, you end up fighting another really large Brood, which again is another "ridiculous underdog battle."
|
I partially agree with DoubleReed about the Overmind. The retcon doesn't make it a good. Anyway, Gradius, don't you think it would be wise to wait for HotS?
About you magical abilities, DoubleReed, I don't know. Let's say you're Metzen, why wouldn't you throw all your awesome cards at once? Why would you keep some of them for a sequel that may never happen? In the other hand, I know that when they launched Starcraft, Warcraft 3 lore was already being created. They were already trying to create a wider and deeper world.
And let's not forget that, in those 10 years waiting for SC2, everybody has been theorizing like conspiracy theorists in the forums about the Xel'Naga and Duran. Ironically that's one of the things that may have keept lore-lovers thrilled for so much time. So just because someone's theory is right, it doesn't mean Metzen had thought about that in '98...
Storytelling is subjective. But it's not the same as voice acting.
I dislike a lot of actors. I just can't see them doing their jobs. Acting is much more personal than storytelling.
So many people won't like WoL just because. Just because it ain't their kind of storytelling.
Even so, why so many Starcraft fans felt that something was weird about WoL? I think that Blizzard either 1) Forgot what Starcraft is about or 2) Didn't forgot what Starcraft is about but failed into communicating those aspects.
For example: they either forgot about gray morality, or actually tried to give the game the same gray tone, but failed.
|
On April 19 2012 02:26 Gradius wrote:Show nested quote +I don't know why are people always saying she experimented on herself.
I agree that Raynor's choices change reality; but sometimes I try hard to believe that Raynor's insensibility upset Hanson so much she couldn't find the cure in time. But no matter how hard I try there is no way the story can be understood this way... Experimenting on herself was the only ethical thing to do. She needs somebody to experiment on and she's not going to infect an innocent person for a desperate cause, and capturing a live infested terran is not something raynor can do, since Raynor wants them all dead before they can cause more harm. Then there's also logic. The competing theory that she was infested along with the colonists is less likely because: a) the colonists turn before she does and b) she's on the hyperion the whole time. Less exposure time to the virus, and more time to actually notice that she's getting infested. If infestation is a slow process, then they'd have seen signs. If it is a fast process then she would have turned alot earlier.
Well, the colonists that went to Haven were infected on Meinhoff, at the latest, and they still didn't turn into zerg until after they settled on Haven.
Why would she experiment on anyone at all? If the thing is supposed to be a cure and not a vaccine, she should have captured a few infested and try the thing on them. Injecting the most dangerous virus ever to anyone and hope the first cure will work sounds weird.
True, Hanson's infestation would have taken longer than normal, but I personnally find it more rational than trying the still-untested cure on herself.
I also like to think that she tried to turn Raynor against Selendis because the "zerg" part of her was taking over. Nothing really implies it in the game, but I like the idea.
UED, fine. But even they had to deal with the fledgling Overmind and were not prepared for the Protoss/Terran alliance.
Protoss were at strength, but not the people you were playing as. You quickly became an outcast and lost everything.
Zerg you started as an adorable baby cerebrate, finding his place in this crazy ol' mixed up world of ours. Hell, you end up fighting another really large Brood, which again is another "ridiculous underdog battle." You know, no matter how you try to twist the original game, Arcturus, the Overmind, Tassadar, Artanis, DuGalle and Kerrigan all had an army that was much, much larger than a single battlecruiser...
|
Show nested quote +UED, fine. But even they had to deal with the fledgling Overmind and were not prepared for the Protoss/Terran alliance.
Protoss were at strength, but not the people you were playing as. You quickly became an outcast and lost everything.
Zerg you started as an adorable baby cerebrate, finding his place in this crazy ol' mixed up world of ours. Hell, you end up fighting another really large Brood, which again is another "ridiculous underdog battle." You know, no matter how you try to twist the original game, Arcturus, the Overmind, Tassadar, Artanis, DuGalle and Kerrigan all had an army that was much, much larger than a single battlecruiser...
Oh, I just figured that the Hyperion was just their flagship. But I guess they didn't show any others so I guess that's valid? I mean it does seem clear that Raynor has an army, and like can build bases and such. At the very least, they could have had transport ships. Shrug.
Excuse my characterization of the zerg campaign. I see the Zerg a little differently.
About you magical abilities, DoubleReed, I don't know. Let's say you're Metzen, why wouldn't you throw all your awesome cards at once? Why would you keep some of them for a sequel that may never happen? In the other hand, I know that when they launched Starcraft, Warcraft 3 lore was already being created. They were already trying to create a wider and deeper world.
And let's not forget that, in those 10 years waiting for SC2, everybody has been theorizing like conspiracy theorists in the forums about the Xel'Naga and Duran. Ironically that's one of the things that may have keept lore-lovers thrilled for so much time. So just because someone's theory is right, it doesn't mean Metzen had thought about that in '98...
Certainly, but then it's not a retcon. A retcon, by definition, is something that can't be predicted because it conflicts with previous lore. The whole thing being a huge plan by the Xel'Naga or the false Xel'Naga or whatever is completely supported by the lore, and that includes the Overmind being a slave.
Storytelling is subjective. But it's not the same as voice acting.
I dislike a lot of actors. I just can't see them doing their jobs. Acting is much more personal than storytelling.
So many people won't like WoL just because. Just because it ain't their kind of storytelling.
Gradius isn't one of those people though. He explains in the first part of his article that there are objective criticisms of storytelling. This is all he says about voice acting:
As for the voice-acting however, the “subtle nuances” that Tricia Helfer apparently added to the voice are inconspicuously missing. Glynnis Campbell’s original performance is sorely missed.
I mean come on, there's no explanation, valid criticisms, or attempts at improvement here. It's not like he colors it with "this is just my opinion but" or something. That kind of thing annoys me. It's just being a hater.
|
I mean come on, there's no explanation, valid criticisms, or attempts at improvement here. It's not like he colors it with "this is just my opinion but" or something. That kind of thing annoys me. It's just being a hater.
Agreed. Gradius should take that as a constructive critic. Try again with less F-bombs ^^ Because that Stephen Fry nonsense? That's bullshit. Or out of context. People should try not to offend and not to be offended; that's how a community works.
But what I'm trying to say here is that if you try to communicate something and not everybody gets it... who's fault is that?
Surely many fans doesn't feel there is anything missing in WoL. But as many didn't. I think it is a sign they have to work harder.
And yeah... that's something kind of cynic of saying. "Just do again, better". Maybe they can't. And if they can't, we shouldn't flame them. But the reason why I criticize WoL so much is because I'm certain they could had done better. It wasn't lack of talent, just wrong decisions (IMO).
|
It's just being a hater. I've discussed Starcraft and Warcraft lore on forums for nearly a decade, and I've seen a corresponding number of haters. If any of them had even half the arguments and (relative) detachment Gradius had in his post, I can guarantee that the discussions would have been far more constructive.
You may or may not agree with Gradius, but being a hater is not his review. Your post at the end of page 2 was more agressive than the editorial.
Certainly, but then it's not a retcon. A retcon, by definition, is something that can't be predicted because it conflicts with previous lore. The whole thing being a huge plan by the Xel'Naga or the false Xel'Naga or whatever is completely supported by the lore, and that includes the Overmind being a slave. Out of curiosity, could you quote a single thing in the original Starcraft that remotely implies that the Overmind doesn't have its free will, or is at least slightly disturbed by the idea of invading Aiur and slaughtering the Protoss?
I suspect you don't see the retcon because you don't have all of the previous lore in mind. We are directly told what the thoughts of the Overmind are in three distinct occasions: when Zeratul and Tassadar describes what Zeratul read in its mind, during the Zerg campaign (the Cerebrate is nothing but a part of the Overmind), and in the Starcraft 1 manual. In all three, the Overmind is said to be willing and eager to slay and assimilate the Protoss in order to improve the Swarm, specifically. That doesn't fit with it knowing that the hybrids will kill the zerg, much less the notion that he "screamed and raged" in his mind.
You also mentionned purity of form and essence, they were philosophical concepts in the original. The Xel'Naga only came up with them to theorize their failure with the Protoss, after they turned against them.
TBH, claiming the Overmind being a slaved was "grossly hinted throughout the series" is misremembering at best and bad faith at worst.
|
What Telenil said. The new information on the Overmind contradicts previous ones, so it is a retcon - unless we are told that the Overmind was somehow lying to the Cerebrates. I hope Blizzard takes good care of this part of the lore, because I believe this retcon can end up being a very good thing and make the OM an ever better character.
I also just noticed that Raynor's criminal past is almost a retcon too.
|
On April 19 2012 05:31 Telenil wrote:I've discussed Starcraft and Warcraft lore on forums for nearly a decade, and I've seen a corresponding number of haters. If any of them had even half the arguments and (relative) detachment Gradius had in his post, I can guarantee that the discussions would have been far more constructive. You may or may not agree with Gradius, but being a hater is not his review. Your post at the end of page 2 was more agressive than the editorial.
I'm saying a hater of Tricia Helfer, not of SC2.
So my post was aggressive. Did I not explain my aggression?
Show nested quote +Certainly, but then it's not a retcon. A retcon, by definition, is something that can't be predicted because it conflicts with previous lore. The whole thing being a huge plan by the Xel'Naga or the false Xel'Naga or whatever is completely supported by the lore, and that includes the Overmind being a slave. Out of curiosity, could you quote a single thing in the original Starcraft that remotely implies that the Overmind doesn't have its free will, or is at least slightly disturbed by the idea of invading Aiur and slaughtering the Protoss? I suspect you don't see the retcon because you don't have all of the previous lore in mind. We are directly told what the thoughts of the Overmind are in three distinct occasions: when Zeratul and Tassadar describes what Zeratul read in its mind, during the Zerg campaign (the Cerebrate is nothing but a part of the Overmind), and in the Starcraft 1 manual. In all three, the Overmind is said to be willing and eager to slay and assimilate the Protoss in order to improve the Swarm, specifically. That doesn't fit with it knowing that the hybrids will kill the zerg, much less the notion that he "screamed and raged" in his mind. You also mentionned purity of form and essence, they were philosophical concepts in the original. The Xel'Naga only came up with them to theorize their failure with the Protoss, after they turned against them. TBH, claiming the Overmind being a slaved was "grossly hinted throughout the series" is misremembering at best and bad faith at worst.
Why wouldn't the Overmind want to assimilate the Protoss? It's his entire purpose. It advances his swarm. It would be the single greatest achievement of the swarm. I mentioned Purity of Form and Essence because the Overmind mentions it in the campaign. He talks about merging Purity of Form and Purity of Essence as the ultimate goal. As far as wants and desires are concerned, it's everything that he wants. He's still The Overmind.
Obviously, he doesn't want the swarm itself to die though, because it's all about advancing the swarm. That's where the whole Kerrigan thing comes in. You could even argue it 'retcons' the idiotic decision of the Overmind going to Aiur in starcraft vanilla as a suicidal ploy. I'll admit, this is a little extreme, but it does make the Overmind even more awesome than he was before if he intended himself to die in a badass gambit.
I'm sorry, I just don't see the conflict.
Well, I should say it's grossly hinted at if you assume that the Xel'Naga planned to be destroyed by zerg. Because once you realize that the Xel'Naga and the Overmind had literally the exact same plan, (merging the zerg and protoss), it just becomes far too big a coincidence.
|
On April 19 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote:
I dunno. The underdog gives the entire campaign more tension and more of an arc? It's not dramatic to be on top and... stay on top. I mean the last campaign in BW has Kerrigan uniting all the swarms and becoming the queen of the swarm. It's totally awesome.
Every single campaign in Starcraft, Warcraft, and etc. boils down to you being an unstoppable prodigy. So yes, sure, that's what it should be.
I disagree about BW:
Rebel Yell - You were good, but you basically lost the campaign by switching one corrupt government for another.
The Fall - You were at the height of the protoss' power, but it cost you everything but your life.
The Stand - You were the underdog, and at the end you were still pretty screwed.
Iron Fist - You were on top, and were still on top at the end, yet this was one of my favorite campaigns.
Queen of Blades - You were the underdog and rose to power, but at least you commanded a decent portion of the zerg swarms, so it was somewhat believable.
Wings of Liberty - You were the underdog and facestomped the entire sector.
Of course. That's why I didn't comment on the things I thought you had decent points on, like the Tal'Darim. Because after reading the article, I didn't want to agree with you, even if I did.
That's not the sort of reaction I expect that you want from people reading your article. So it is a valid criticism of your article if I say that you are.
Sorry, I'm not going to make my article any more friendly, because frankly this is something that really needs to be said. Every interview with Blizzard seems to go like "our fans really enjoyed the story and blah blah blah" Or at BlizzCons you'll have some fan come up to stroke the writers' egos with "brilliant plot twist at the end there!" "Oh, yeah, did you like it?" "It was unbelievable".
Seriously, am I the only one who notices the flaws from my article? I can only imagine what HoTS will be like when the writers went into it with that kind of attitude. Again, the article is meant to be a reality-check for the writers, not a jab at their skills.
As for you, I bet the only reason you got offended was because you liked the story and/or blizzard campaigns, and this review wasn't full of praise and asskissing like reviews are supposed to be.
Then why mention it? It's just a useless, petty jab. If you want to come across as giving valid criticisms, then this sort of thing lowers the status of the entire article.
I basically said she was miscast and that the reason given for casting her in the first place (subtle nuances) are missing. I can't make my criticism any clearer than that. =/
Yes me neither. I'm not really sure why people are calling the Overmind a "good guy," now. That's not implied. It seems like people are forcing black-and-white morality on something that is distinctly grey.
Sure, if you willfully ignore Tassadar's lines:
"I have come to tell you of this creature's... courage."
"Not always. The zerg were... altered." - Tassadar does not think the Zerg were abominations
"The Overmind was formed with thought and reason" - a creature with reason according to Tassadar would not be evil
"It screamed and raged within the prison of its own mind." - implying that it did not want to kill the protoss
"Only she can free the zerg from slavery -- and in so doing, save all that is... from the flame." - implying that the overmind wants this too
"Overmind
On a distant, shadowed world, the protoss will make their final stand. Their heroes will gather, their forces will be marshaled, and they will die bravely. But still, they will die." - why does the Overmind bring this up if he only cares about himself and his zerg? the very fact that the overmind is willing to die even for the zerg shows that he is selfless.
Seriously, play the second campaign in Starcraft I (and revel in the awesome voice of the Overmind, because it's sooo good). Play Dark Origin and listen to what Duran says. Are we really supposed to believe that the Xel'Naga were wiped out by the Zerg, and this was not somehow planned by them? Maybe I just have a magical ability to predict retcons, because I saw that whole thing coming.
1) The Overmind was attempting to create a true merging of purity of form and essence: incorporating the protoss's DNA into the all zerg strains, and vice-versa. Duran is creating a half-assed gene splice. Just because two different factions want to abuse the same weapon does not mean they're working together. The fact that Duran does not fit into the zerg command structure (given his ability to escape kerrigan's control) proves that they ARE different factions.
2) The Xel'Naga are not behind any of this anyway. The extended lore shows that they are wholly benevolent, which irrefutably proves that the Overmind was also wholly benevolent since they are the ones that created him. It's only the dark voice that is evil. Another example of SC's new black vs. white morality.
On April 19 2012 04:24 Telenil wrote:Why would she experiment on anyone at all? If the thing is supposed to be a cure and not a vaccine, she should have captured a few infested and try the thing on them. Injecting the most dangerous virus ever to anyone and hope the first cure will work sounds weird.
She can't capture any infested because Raynor is not working with her in that arc - he wants to just cull all the infested, let alone bring one on the Hyperion, which would be crazy. She needs to experiment on somebody so that she knows it actually works, and ethically, the only one she can do so on is herself. Her fate is tied to the colonists, if she can't rescue herself in time, then the colonists are doomed as well.
On April 19 2012 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:
Certainly, but then it's not a retcon. A retcon, by definition, is something that can't be predicted because it conflicts with previous lore. The whole thing being a huge plan by the Xel'Naga or the false Xel'Naga or whatever is completely supported by the lore, and that includes the Overmind being a slave.
It does. The article explains it very clearly:
1) When Zeratul linked minds with him in StarCraft, the Overmind conveniently hid all the information about his enslavement by the Dark Voice even though Zeratul looked like right at the Overmind’s origins, where you would expect that information to be.
2) The Cerebrates in StarCraft are actually a part of the Overmind. The death of Zasz stunned the Overmind because Zasz was a part of the Overmind. The death of the Cerebrates in the “Shadow Hunters” StarCraft mission stunned the Overmind and broods next to him again, allowing the Protoss to get close. Despite this, neither the Cerebrates nor the Cerebrate player-character seemed to notice the Overmind raging or screaming "in the prison of his mind".
This is a direct contradiction of Zeratul's line that the Overmind came to finish the experiments the Xel'Naga began so long ago. Either way, a retcon does not need to be any kind of contradiction. Broadly speaking, whatever changes the interpretation of previous facts can still be considered a retcon by most definitions.
Well, I should say it's grossly hinted at if you assume that the Xel'Naga planned to be destroyed by zerg. Because once you realize that the Xel'Naga and the Overmind had literally the exact same plan, (merging the zerg and protoss), it just becomes far too big a coincidence.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the lore. The DV is a rogue Xel'Naga. The Xel'Naga themselves were wholly benevolent (this is explained in the DT saga), but you can deduce it from the fact that the Overmind was created with thought and reason, and was then enslaved by an outside force during its creation as Tassadar explains. If this weren't the case then Tassadar would have just said "the Overmind was created to destroy the protoss".
|
I agree that the WOL story's terrible; I haven't thought about it much beyond that, but my general feeling is that the main reason it's bad is that it doesn't have anything compelling in it, rather than because of particular problem with the content it does have (though you do do a pretty good job of identifying why the elements it has are not compelling).
|
Great review Gradius.
One thing I wondered about was the section on picking mission order.
Lack of Weight in Choices
First off, it is our suggestion that the designers never allow the player to pick the actual order of missions ever again. StarCraft is not an RPG, and this “pick your mission” gimmick kills any attempts to manage tension, which simply cannot exist under such an approach. It also makes it difficult to have a coherent plot. It is largely this design decision that contributed to the “smorgasbord” feel of Wings of Liberty’s plot. It requires that all missions be random and unrelated events. There is no value in pursuing this approach in the expansions at all.
I agree with every critism of how it was done in WoL and what the problems were. But there is a 'live in hope' part of me that thinks that if it was done properly then it could really add to HotS. Inside a mission you make choices on which part of a map to attack first, why not the mission order itself if two valid options present themselves?
I would say "There is no value in pursuing this approach in the expansions at all if Blizzard does it the same way as WoL." There would be value if all the pitfalls were avoided (choices have profound effect, sense of cohesion maintained, etc). I'm kinda doing a high level look rather than detail because I don't want to derail the thread but maybe an example from another game which exhibited both success and failure.
Mission order in Skyrim makes little difference and can even detract from immersion. Throughout every story arc characters say they'll sod off and wait for you indefinitely at some godforsaken location just in case you have better things to do. But then the Civil War plot and Dragonborn plot have profound effects on each other. I went through one way and then found other people talking about a treaty settlement which I'd never experienced.
So both pitfalls and triumphs of choosing mission order exist in Skyrim. WoL problem, imho, is that only pitfalls exist and there is not a single redeeming feature.
Are you able to edit one part? It's just a typo but it really threw me when I was reading:
+ Show Spoiler +
Tosh
Although another walking stereotype, Tosh is one of the few characters without characterization flaws. Dave Fennoy did a good job bringing this rebel pirate to life.
The only problem however, is with the story arc. After spending our time performing mundane and trivial assignments for him, we are then presented with the following choice:
A) Side with Nova, an agent of your sworn enemy who just called you up five seconds ago to try and convince you that Tosh is about to betray you, with no evidence whatsoever.
B) Stick with the person who has been helping you all game and will continue helping you and your rebellion.
Now, the only reason anybody would pick choice B is because they want to see what the other mission is like or because Nova is a hot female instead of a big burly black guy with dreadlocks. Tosh has not wronged Raynor in any way, and it’s difficult for the player to not feel like he is stabbing one of his friends in the back if he picks the B choice.
Should be: The only reason anybody wouldn't pick choice B... He is stabbing one of his friends in the back if he picks the A choice
|
On April 19 2012 07:52 Gradius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote:
I dunno. The underdog gives the entire campaign more tension and more of an arc? It's not dramatic to be on top and... stay on top. I mean the last campaign in BW has Kerrigan uniting all the swarms and becoming the queen of the swarm. It's totally awesome.
Every single campaign in Starcraft, Warcraft, and etc. boils down to you being an unstoppable prodigy. So yes, sure, that's what it should be. I disagree about BW: Rebel Yell - You were good, but you basically lost the campaign by switching one corrupt government for another. The Fall - You were at the height of the protoss' power, but it cost you everything but your life. The Stand - You were the underdog, and at the end you were still pretty screwed. Iron Fist - You were on top, and were still on top at the end, yet this was one of my favorite campaigns. Queen of Blades - You were the underdog and rose to power, but at least you commanded a decent portion of the zerg swarms, so it was somewhat believable. Wings of Liberty - You were the underdog and facestomped the entire sector.
Eh, most of the time in Wings of Liberty it's just surgical strikes to obtain certain goals though. There's only a few times where it's said to be any sort of direct assault.
Show nested quote +Of course. That's why I didn't comment on the things I thought you had decent points on, like the Tal'Darim. Because after reading the article, I didn't want to agree with you, even if I did.
That's not the sort of reaction I expect that you want from people reading your article. So it is a valid criticism of your article if I say that you are. Sorry, I'm not going to make my article any more friendly, because frankly this is something that really needs to be said. Every interview with Blizzard seems to go like "our fans really enjoyed the story and blah blah blah" Or at BlizzCons you'll have some fan come up to stroke the writers' egos with "brilliant plot twist at the end there!" "Oh, yeah, did you like it?" "It was unbelievable". Seriously, am I the only one who notices the flaws from my article? I can only imagine what HoTS will be like when the writers went into it with that kind of attitude. Again, the article is meant to be a reality-check for the writers, not a jab at their skills. As for you, I bet the only reason you got offended was because you liked the story and/or blizzard campaigns, and this review wasn't full of praise and asskissing like reviews are supposed to be.
No, the reason for my offendedness is that you talked about what the story should have been, rather than "perhaps it could have worked this way or that way in order to avoid this issue." Apparently, it's supposed to go your way. It reeks of arrogance and it's off-putting. There is little humor, positivity, or humility. It's not a pleasant read.
As I said, I agree begrudgingly with many of your points. But why would I want to agree with you? You don't need to be an "asskisser" in order to not come off as so arrogant.
Show nested quote +Then why mention it? It's just a useless, petty jab. If you want to come across as giving valid criticisms, then this sort of thing lowers the status of the entire article. I basically said she was miscast and that the reason given for casting her in the first place (subtle nuances) are missing. I can't make my criticism any clearer than that. =/
You can't make your criticism any clearer than that? So you can't articulate any issue you had with her voice acting whatsoever? Sheesh. Once again I question why you are commenting on it at all. It is in stark contrast to everything else in the article which is much more thought-out.
Show nested quote +Yes me neither. I'm not really sure why people are calling the Overmind a "good guy," now. That's not implied. It seems like people are forcing black-and-white morality on something that is distinctly grey. Sure, if you willfully ignore Tassadar's lines: "I have come to tell you of this creature's... courage." "Not always. The zerg were... altered." - Tassadar does not think the Zerg were abominations "The Overmind was formed with thought and reason" - a creature with reason according to Tassadar would not be evil "It screamed and raged within the prison of its own mind." - implying that it did not want to kill the protoss "Only she can free the zerg from slavery -- and in so doing, save all that is... from the flame." - implying that the overmind wants this too "Overmind On a distant, shadowed world, the protoss will make their final stand. Their heroes will gather, their forces will be marshaled, and they will die bravely. But still, they will die." - why does the Overmind bring this up if he only cares about himself and his zerg? the very fact that the overmind is willing to die even for the zerg shows that he is selfless. Show nested quote +Seriously, play the second campaign in Starcraft I (and revel in the awesome voice of the Overmind, because it's sooo good). Play Dark Origin and listen to what Duran says. Are we really supposed to believe that the Xel'Naga were wiped out by the Zerg, and this was not somehow planned by them? Maybe I just have a magical ability to predict retcons, because I saw that whole thing coming. 1) The Overmind was attempting to create a true merging of purity of form and essence: incorporating the protoss's DNA into the all zerg strains, and vice-versa. Duran is creating a half-assed gene splice. Just because two different factions want to abuse the same weapon does not mean they're working together. The fact that Duran does not fit into the zerg command structure (given his ability to escape kerrigan's control) proves that they ARE different factions. 2) The Xel'Naga are not behind any of this anyway. The extended lore shows that they are wholly benevolent, which irrefutably proves that the Overmind was also wholly benevolent since they are the ones that created him. It's only the dark voice that is evil. Another example of SC's new black vs. white morality.
Eh, I took it more than the Overmind was raging against his enslavement, not about killing the Protoss. Why would the Overmind care about the Protoss?
The Overmind's goal is still the same as the true Xel'Naga, which sounds fine and dandy to me. I dunno, I have to think about that for a bit.
So do you think the true Xel'Naga will make an appearance in any of the expansions?
|
I loved the campaign! It's replayable unlike the SC/BW campaign. I'm actually looking forward to the Zerg and Protoss campaigns unlike in Starcraft 1 where I refused to play the rest of the campaign for a long time after playing the Terran campaign.
|
Japan11286 Posts
The Overmind was not trashed like so many people seem to claim. The entire idea that the Overmind was a slave to the Xel'Naga was grossly hinted at throughout the lore and throughout the series. I have absolutely no idea why people consider this a retcon. It is probably one of the most blatantly canon ideas out there and always has been. The Overmind in SC1 had the exact same goal that the Xel'Naga had: Merge the Zerg and the Protoss together (he even mentions the Purity of Essence and Purity of Form in the campaign FFS). Apparently people want this to be a coincidence? This was the Overmind's singular purpose, and this is why he does everything that he does in SC1 (except for Kerrigan, obviously). This was no retcon. I honestly think this was planned in SC1, and am very shocked that people consider that a retcon of any sort.
Please read the lore sir. You have it wrong here.
And it's not about the player being the underdog, but the fact that 40, yes forty people onboard a single ship did everything they did. Look up the strength of their enemies and you'll see how ridiculous it is.
How about the last mission of Brood War, where Kerrigan is the underdog? She fights off three fleets while completely out of position. How about the last mission of WC3: FT? Arthas was supposedly "evenly-matched" at the end of WC3: RoC, and now Illidian has become more demonic and stolen the Eye of Sargeras as well as the Skull of Gul'dan, and yet Arthas now beats Illidian? Well of course, because he's the underdog. It is perfectly acceptable to have the underdog win in these stories, and in fact, I think it's rather necessary to have a fun campaign.
Kerrigan is not the underdog here, it's the last mission, she has consolidated her power throughout the sector. The challenge is that she is caught on Char Aleph with the majority of her forces still in Char.
Criticizing the Dark Voice when we don't know anything about him is stupid. Obviously he's supposed to be mysterious, so the question becomes "do we want to know more about him?" The answer is yes, we want to know more. Therefore he is as successful as he can be in the first installment. It'd be like criticizing Emperor Palpatine after only watching A New Hope.
I agree.
The Protoss and the Zerg were on equal footing going into the Battle of Aiur. The protoss have crushed countless species that led them to believe that they are the most powerful race in the galaxy while the zerg have ravaged every star system they've come across in their search for Aiur.
|
On April 19 2012 14:06 DoubleReed wrote:
No, the reason for my offendedness is that you talked about what the story should have been, rather than "perhaps it could have worked this way or that way in order to avoid this issue." Apparently, it's supposed to go your way. It reeks of arrogance and it's off-putting. There is little humor, positivity, or humility. It's not a pleasant read.
As I said, I agree begrudgingly with many of your points. But why would I want to agree with you? You don't need to be an "asskisser" in order to not come off as so arrogant.
Those two paragraphs apply equally well to you, tovarishch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://sclegacy.com/features/editorials/wingsoflibertyreview/crew.jpg)
