|
Gradius, I think that DoubleReed has a point.
I know you said in the review that it comes from a loyal fan and it intends to help; but haven't you notice, how many people who liked WoL's story liked your review?
It is indeed a constructive criticism of your article: its negativity isn't noticed by people who agree with it, but makes people who disagree cringe. I myself, in some points of your review, thought that you were overdoing the sarcasm/nagativity thing. I've been reading your forum posts for some months now and indeed, sometimes you go to negative and that makes people react negatively. And hostility ensues.
Some people will always be mad at people who disagree with them, but if you communicate differently you will have different reactions. I agree with your review about most things, but DoubleReed's criticism of it is valid.
Raynor's story really did have potential when you elaborate on it. I think some good themes which could have been explored with Valerian were:
Three of the themes you thought of are typical of the Journey of the Hero. Archetypes are powerful, and most of time more powerful than the writers/creators who try to handle them. It's hard to scape from their gravity. If you couldn't yourself (I can't think in too much non-Journey-of-the-Hero stuff for Val either), how could Metzen and the other Blizz writers? If they Hollywood-ized someone like Raynor, what would they do to Valerian?
I still think that having Raynor with numerous minor factions would be not only realistic but would add conflict and deepness to the story. But they did it already with Tosh. Hm... instead of those "gather resources" and "gather resources II" missions, they could have at least one mission about helping Tosh (or another rebel) to deal with some politician or some crimelord. Unfortunately, I think it is another example of how Post-September 11th wars affected Starcraft. The writers probably didn't want, or didn't even considered, doing anything that would make Raynor seem anything like a real terrorist.
But you know what, when I started playing the game, it took me many missions to actually believe that Raynor's revolution hadn't any base, any outpost. That they were literally a bunch of pirates sailing in their pirate ship. Would it be so hard to make Raynor a real revolutionary, with supporters and resources scatettered everywhere? Stil much less than the Sons of Korhal had? Fair, if they want it this way. But one battlecruiser? I don't even want two battlecruisers, just an actual army come on...
And if they're just "rebelion seeders", well that's pretty unusual, and would deserve some exposing.
|
On April 21 2012 02:54 DoubleReed wrote:
Excuse me, but Gradius did not have anything to back him up. Therefore, I don't need anything to back me up, and my statement is just as valid as his. And now you see why it actually isn't a constructive discussion, but instead something dull and boring.
Maybe if Gradius had well-thought out criticism, with possibly an example, THEN we could have a constructive discussion, because I would have to provide the same in order to discuss it. It's unfair for you to ask me to and not ask Gradius to do the same.
It is not constructive criticism. However, notice that my point is constructive criticism of his article. You know what I read? "He doesn't give any argument, so his review sucks. So I don't give any argument, but my review of his review is constructive."
If you are both giving equally unspported opinions, you have no right to criticise him - you can agree to disagree, but that's about it. If you have arguments and he doesn't, you win. If none of you has any arguments, you didn't proove he was wrong.
I'm not being ironic or luring you into a trap; although I agree with most of Gradius' review, I don't have anything against Helfer's acting (her lines are an other story, but she's not the one writing them).
It is indeed a constructive criticism of your article: its negativity isn't noticed by people who agree with it, but makes people who disagree cringe. I myself, in some points of your review, thought that you were overdoing the sarcasm/nagativity thing. I've been reading your forum posts for some months now and indeed, sometimes you go to negative and that makes people react negatively. And hostility ensues.
Some people will always be mad at people who disagree with them, but if you communicate differently you will have different reactions. I agree with your review about most things, but DoubleReed's criticism of it is valid. Pretty much the same here: if you look at the actual text, it is expressing a very negative opinion about the story, but there isn't much to say about the way it is told. The author isn't rude, he criticises the story and not the author, and he begins and ends with "I love the Starcraft universe". You can disagree with his opinion because it is very negative, but negative doesn't equal unfair.
To illustrate, compare the SC:L review with Broodmywarcraft's videos. They are the textbook example of a negative review that has valid points but is expressed with unnecessary hostility, to say the least, and to which your remark would totally apply. The SC:L review is not this.
|
On April 15 2012 13:21 Toastmold wrote:
Why would you try to campaign for Tassadar's cardboard stand-in to replace Zeratul as the main character of the third expansion. That is like casting Matthew Broderick instead of Bruce Willis in a Die Hard movie. That putz flew a scout! A SCOUT!
Hehe!
I second this motion. He flew A SCOUT.
|
Pretty much the same here: if you look at the actual text, it is expressing a very negative opinion about the story, but there isn't much to say about the way it is told. The author isn't rude, he criticises the story and not the author, and he begins and ends with "I love the Starcraft universe". You can disagree with his opinion because it is very negative, but negative doesn't equal unfair.
reminds me of the ballad of ricky bobby
jsut becuase you say "i love the starcraft universe" then use the rest of your article to do nothing but point out how terrible it is doesnt mean you actually love the starcraft universe
it would be like walking up to a lady and saying "i think your beautiful, but your face looks like a dogs but, your fat and it makes me nauseated just looking at you, but remember i think your beautiful"
|
it would be like walking up to a lady and saying "i think your beautiful, but your face looks like a dogs but, your fat and it makes me nauseated just looking at you, but remember i think your beautiful"
If you'd ever been in a relationship you know that that's exactly the way it plays. You gotta tell people you love how much they suck. Hurts them and you but must be done.
(Of course you won't tell anybody the person is ugly :/ )
Telling Blizzard what's wrong with SC2 is important to improve the game. But as I told you before, the problem here isn't that you think that Gradius was insulting or something. You dislike any criticism of SC2 because you liked it, and you think that anyone who doesn't is wrong and shouldn't be talking about it. Gradius is much more rational than you. He criticizes a game but doesn't insult people directly.
|
On April 21 2012 03:40 Telenil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 02:54 DoubleReed wrote:
Excuse me, but Gradius did not have anything to back him up. Therefore, I don't need anything to back me up, and my statement is just as valid as his. And now you see why it actually isn't a constructive discussion, but instead something dull and boring.
Maybe if Gradius had well-thought out criticism, with possibly an example, THEN we could have a constructive discussion, because I would have to provide the same in order to discuss it. It's unfair for you to ask me to and not ask Gradius to do the same.
It is not constructive criticism. However, notice that my point is constructive criticism of his article. You know what I read? "He doesn't give any argument, so his review sucks. So I don't give any argument, but my review of his review is constructive." If you are both giving equally unspported opinions, you have no right to criticise him - you can agree to disagree, but that's about it. If you have arguments and he doesn't, you win. If none of you has any arguments, you didn't proove he was wrong. I'm not being ironic or luring you into a trap; although I agree with most of Gradius' review, I don't have anything against Helfer's acting (her lines are an other story, but she's not the one writing them).
Okay, so I don't have anything against Helfer's acting either. I honestly haven't really thought about it. I don't even know if I disagree or agree with him about it. That's not what I'm arguing about.
My opinion is that that part of the review needlessly and randomly insults a voice actress, and it is in stark contrast to the rest of the well thought-out review. It's one of the things that made me instantly dislike the author. Even now, I have no idea what exactly Gradius' problem with Helfer's voice acting (unless you honestly consider "lack of subtle nuance" a valid complaint). That's my opinion, and is perfectly well supported by me simply posting exactly what Gradius said about her 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.
This is not constructive criticism. This is not helpful or seeking to improve the quality of the series. It's incredibly vague, harsh, and random. It does not belong in the article, or should be improved to actually have substance.
There. That's my support and my argument.
|
If you'd ever been in a relationship you know that that's exactly the way it plays. You gotta tell people you love how much they suck. Hurts them and you but must be done.
guess i was a bit to nice then
the review is like walking up to a person and saying "hey i really like you, but your an ugly terrible person who has no redeeming qualities at all and if i saw you on the road i wouldnt stop" then spit on them and leave
Telling Blizzard what's wrong with SC2 is important to improve the game. But as I told you before, the problem here isn't that you think that Gradius was insulting or something. You dislike any criticism of SC2 because you liked it, and you think that anyone who doesn't is wrong and shouldn't be talking about it. Gradius is much more rational than you. He criticizes a game but doesn't insult people directly.
i dont think ive insulted anyone yet, ive only offered my opinion
|
Even now, I have no idea what exactly Gradius' problem with Helfer's voice acting (unless you honestly consider "lack of subtle nuance" a valid complaint)
I agree that it an example of the parts of the article that just feels like ranting rather then reviewing.
But I think that what Gradius meant was "They fired Glynnis and said it was because they found a better actress; but I did not see no better acting". I would say he's not being subjective, but precise about that. Helfer showed no acting whatsoever. She couldn't, given the her lines were few and senseless.
What I think Gradius missed about Helfer is that 1) Glynnis' Kerrigan is the Kerrigan of our youths, but isn't the Kerrigan Blizzard wanted since the beginning, and they stated that; and 2) Helfer was casted to be new Sarah Kerrigan, not to be the Queen of Blades. She had half a dozen lines as the QoB but will have a game worth of acting in HotS. She will have as much oportunity to show if she's good as Robert Clothworthy had. And I think tha Clothworthy delivered an amazing work. Myself, I never saw any acting so good in a game before.
the review is like walking up to a person and saying
does it? let's see
"hey i really like you,
affirmative, Gradius says that
but your an ugly terrible person who has no redeeming qualities at all
More like "you've been doing ugly terrible things and people haven't been telling you the truth". For the "no redeeming qualities at all" part I think this is fair criticism of the review
and if i saw you on the road i wouldnt stop"
But he stopped didn't he? Instead of giving up Starcraft and Blizzard, Gradius has offered a lot of his time planning and writing this review with the intention of giving constructive criticism. He totally "stopped". You could accuse Gradius of being an equivalent of an abusive boyfriend, but not of a quiter or a mere hater.
then spit on them and leave
Then again, he didn't leave at all. He's here and will remain here to buy all the books, all the comics and all the expansions. So maybe, "spit and stay", and I would disagree with the "spit", but I see you have reasons to believe he is "spitting" on Blizzard. But leaving, he ain't. What I mean, objectivelly, is that these opinions are opinions of loyal fans, not of haters.
|
But he stopped didn't he? Instead of giving up Starcraft and Blizzard, Gradius has offered a lot of his time planning and writing this review with the intention of giving constructive criticism. He totally "stopped". You could accuse Gradius of being an equivalent of an abusive boyfriend, but not of a quiter or a mere hater.
if that counts as constructive critisicm then beating up someone for being overweight should count as constructive critisiscm since there was nothing contrstructive in the review just him letting everyone know why he hates starcraft 2
Then again, he didn't leave at all. He's here and will remain here to buy all the books, all the comics and all the expansions. So maybe, "spit and stay", and I would disagree with the "spit", but I see you have reasons to believe he is "spitting" on Blizzard. But leaving, he ain't. What I mean, objectivelly, is that these opinions are opinions of loyal fans, not of haters.
jsut to nitpick here, the leaving part is where you cant apply the metaphor literally, were all on the internet its not technically possible to leave since were never together in the first place just sitting in front of our screens
just like in the metaphor i never said the two people never met or talked to each other again, im not saying gladius has no plans to associate with blizzard ever again
|
if that counts as constructive critisicm then beating up someone for being overweight should count as constructive critisiscm since there was nothing contrstructive in the review just him letting everyone know why he hates starcraft 2
I think it counts as constructive criticism in a context were most of the press reviews were favorable to the campaign, while most of the fanbase (but I'll agree that not the "vast marjority") didn't like the story.
If I had to bet, I'd say taht 30% of the fans were fully satisfied with WoL and 70% were in a spectrum varying from "something is missing" to "this is a betrayal to all that is Starcraft".
So Gradius' review is extremely valid. Even if we disagree wether it is respectful or not, construictive or not, there is no doubt it reflects the way a big part of the community feels, and nobody had expressed it so nicely up to now. Let's add to that it carries the "SC:L" brand and because of that it may actually be read.
I sincerely think that people who disagree with Gradius and the rest of us should use these discussion to further develop their perceptions and arguments, and then write a "Why HotS should be just like WoL" article.
|
On April 21 2012 08:02 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +
if that counts as constructive critisicm then beating up someone for being overweight should count as constructive critisiscm since there was nothing contrstructive in the review just him letting everyone know why he hates starcraft 2
I think it counts as constructive criticism in a context were most of the press reviews were favorable to the campaign, while most of the fanbase (but I'll agree that not the "vast marjority") didn't like the story. If I had to bet, I'd say taht 30% of the fans were fully satisfied with WoL and 70% were in a spectrum varying from "something is missing" to "this is a betrayal to all that is Starcraft". So Gradius' review is extremely valid. Even if we disagree wether it is respectful or not, construictive or not, there is no doubt it reflects the way a big part of the community feels, and nobody had expressed it so nicely up to now. Let's add to that it carries the "SC:L" brand and because of that it may actually be read. I sincerely think that people who disagree with Gradius and the rest of us should use these discussion to further develop their perceptions and arguments, and then write a "Why HotS should be just like WoL" article.
i didnt see any original content in his review, every argument in his review ive seen posted 100 times
i probable coul dhave made his review by copying other peoples posts and pasting them in one big post
|
I have a theory I'd like to propose: the reason people are offended is because they have a serious emotional investment in this game for whatever reason, not necessarily because I said anything particularly harsh in my review. Let's snap back to reality for a second. A critique is supposed to be critical, and maybe even arrogant, that's kind of the point. If the writer has a suggestion for what he would have or would not have done, then the premise that it is superior to what is currently there is kind of a given. Like Telenil said, go watch broodmywarcraft's videos, or read the metatorial starcraft review, or really any British critique if you want something to be "offended" about and then get back to me.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EX5v4.jpg)
On April 21 2012 03:30 nerak wrote:
Gradius, I think that DoubleReed has a point.
I know you said in the review that it comes from a loyal fan and it intends to help; but haven't you notice, how many people who liked WoL's story liked your review?
It is indeed a constructive criticism of your article: its negativity isn't noticed by people who agree with it, but makes people who disagree cringe. I myself, in some points of your review, thought that you were overdoing the sarcasm/nagativity thing. I've been reading your forum posts for some months now and indeed, sometimes you go to negative and that makes people react negatively. And hostility ensues.
Some people will always be mad at people who disagree with them, but if you communicate differently you will have different reactions. I agree with your review about most things, but DoubleReed's criticism of it is valid.
Is my review sarcastic and perhaps even arrogant? Sure. Is this a valid criticism of my article? Sure, why not. However, is it something I care about or plan on changing? Absolutely not. Another person got offended by the first line of my plot section so much that he stopped reading the review. If I can't even say that the plot is unfocused, then how exactly do I go about not offending people? Clearly the only way to appease the people that are so offended is to praise the game endlessly like most reviews have the courtesy of doing. Sorry, but I am not going to make any more accommodations, and I stand by what I wrote. People will have to learn to get over their emotional hangups with the story and learn to take the review for what it is, a critique of the writing.
People need to consider the fact that they are reacting emotionally instead of rationally, that is all I ask.
On April 21 2012 05:49 Forikorder wrote:
reminds me of the ballad of ricky bobby
jsut becuase you say "i love the starcraft universe" then use the rest of your article to do nothing but point out how terrible it is doesnt mean you actually love the starcraft universe
it would be like walking up to a lady and saying "i think your beautiful, but your face looks like a dogs but, your fat and it makes me nauseated just looking at you, but remember i think your beautiful"
Try for a second to not have such a simplistic world-view. Clearly if I spend all that time talking about things I don't like, it's because I want these issues to be known so that they can be fixed, otherwise I would just leave. Way to blow everything out of proportion and act like my review was "offensive" when I spent the entire time discussing the writing.
On April 21 2012 03:30 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +Raynor's story really did have potential when you elaborate on it. I think some good themes which could have been explored with Valerian were: Three of the themes you thought of are typical of the Journey of the Hero. Archetypes are powerful, and most of time more powerful than the writers/creators who try to handle them. It's hard to scape from their gravity. If you couldn't yourself (I can't think in too much non-Journey-of-the-Hero stuff for Val either), how could Metzen and the other Blizz writers? If they Hollywood-ized someone like Raynor, what would they do to Valerian?
I guess I can't comment on this if we agree that Blizzard is going to ruin whatever they touch. My suggestions to improve some of the problems only go so far. Maybe if the campaign was at least believable then the theme wouldn't matter too much, or maybe not.
On April 21 2012 02:43 Forikorder wrote:
ive been arguing about the story with people pretty mcuh since WoL came out and all i ever hear is the same tired arguments repeated over and over as they completely ignore everything i say
---
even earlier in this thread, the review made clear grievances at how they felt Raynor was taking out forces he shouldtn have been able to but when i point out the sons of korhal did the exact same thing then its OK for them to do it since they did it first
or people say acturus's remarks at the end of the press conference was completely out of character yet i point out he pretty mcuh said the exact thing to Raynor when raynor left the sons of korhal
people see Sc/BW with rose tinted glasses and forget all of the things that were wrong or could ahve been done better and treat it as some flawless masterpiece and then say WoL is bad in comparison
It sounds like you're the one that's been ignoring arguments. I've dismantled the sons of korhal are the same as raynor's raiders myth. They are totally different factions and in SC the SoK was shown to have actual power unlike the Raiders.
Arcturus's remarks are out of character because he's supposed to be intelligent and someone who can control himself, not explode at a press event when he knows it's going to ruin his reputation.
The nostalgia argument has been brought up many times and it's getting very tiresome. I only compared WoL to BW because it was the predecessor and an RTS game. I'd have rather talked about Mass Effect, but some people thought I should have stuck to BW only.
On April 20 2012 12:03 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +1) The size of the Sons of Korhal was not specified. They are a faction just like the Confederacy and the Fleet of the Executor. WoL on the other hand lists the size of the raiders as a capital ship plus a handful of volunteers and does not go on to elaborate after that. the sons was never compared to the main army of a race, it was only reffered to as jsut another rebel force and never called an especially big one either
Nice argument from ignorance. The fact is that it is not specified anywhere in the game, so it's not up for the critique. The only thing that is specified is that the Sons of Korhal power was growing, which is NOT what happens in Wings of Liberty until at least the end of the Tosh mission.
wow they got a general who was alone and abandoned on a world desperately waiting for the confederacy to send reinforcements
he had 2 bunkers a couple marines and some goliaths, dont make it sound like he had this huge force
How about: "Well, the Confederates have Omega and Delta Squadron troops defending the platform. They're nothing compared to my Alpha Squadron boys."
or:
"MENGSK
Jim, enough! I'll handle this.The Confederacy is falling apart, Duke. Its colonies are in open revolt."
The game makes it blatantly obvious how strong you are. You can keep ignoring this for as long as you wish as long as you don't keep bringing up this old and tired "nostalgia" argument, as it that's ever a justification for a story's shortcomings. I could easily just call you a fanboy & a sheep as a counter and we'd be nowhere.
Show nested quote +3) As such, the Sons of Korhal never defeated armies that were larger than them. Mengsk manipulated the zerg into killing his enemies. just like Raynor never took on anything bigger then him
The official lore says the Raiders had 40 people after the events of StarCraft, and given the Raiders latest string of defeats they should have even less. Count the number of missions where you faced a faction that had more than 40 people and then get back to me.
Show nested quote +They already found all the artifacts and handed them over, so that should have been it. And that's not the point. The point is that Tosh gives Raynor obvious warnings which he ignores. must ahve missed the point where Tosh saids "yo you know Tychus is working for mengsk right?" and the part where he uses some source aside from his half insane vodoo powers
Must have missed the part where a scanner confirms that someone has a gun to Tychus's head and where Tosh's "half insane voodoo powers" are actually telepathy that allows him to actually read minds in-universe...
These justifications for the absurdities of WoL are really getting sad now.
Show nested quote +Except that analogy is not what happened in Brood War. Brood War made it clear that Raynor thinks Kerrigan is responsible for her own actions. That's why he promised to kill her. Wings of Liberty has decided that no, she's the victim now and needs rescuing. no he promised to kill the Queen of Blades not kerrigan
"I'll see you dead for this, Kerrigan. For Fenix and all the others who got caught between you and your mad quest for power!"
the Zerg are trying to take down the dark voice for self-preservation they still plan to consume the universe after hes gone
Where does it say that they still plan to consume the universe? Especially when the game makes it clear that the dark voice is making them do all this in the first place. Your arguments rely way too much on baseless assumptions.
Show nested quote +...did you read the rest of the paragraph? That explanation makes no sense either. How is Mengsk supposed to know Raynor would get close to the Queen of Blades, let alone go along with Moebius/Tychus's plan? Did Mengsk know what the artifacts did? If yes, just how the heck would he know that, and why didn't he work with his son or try to assemble them himself? Can Mengsk see the future like the Overmind can? right cause its not like his son was the one who figured out what the artifacts do or anything
....why are you even replying when I just gave you a link to a blizzcon lore panel that proves that you're wrong. You're obviously replying just for the hell of it and are arguing from emotion instead of logic, and I don't really feel bothered to respond to the rest of your post.
On April 21 2012 02:01 DoubleReed wrote:
Yes, and that paragraph in the first part of the review is what lead me to actually read the review instead of ignoring it. And then the review disappointed me. I have no problem with people saying negative things about the campaign, but that entire Plot section is filled with "they should have done this" and "shouldn't have done that." That is what gives me the impression that things are supposed to go your way. You give very specific suggestions that simply don't need to be that specific. That whole section is all about what you think the story should be.
I've gotten criticisms that I don't offer enough of my own suggestions but only attack the writing. Clearly you can't make everyone happy.
Oh come on, that's pretty shitty criticism and I can't believe you're still defending it. All I have to say to counter you is "Well, I did in fact hear Tricia's subtle nuances in her voice" and we're left at a standstill. I don't know why you seem completely unable (or unwilling) to describe someone's voice acting. Unless you think "lacking subtle nuance" is a description. Was she too wooden? Was she too sultry, smokey, hammy, happy, fierce, boring, simple for you? Would you like to give examples to show what you mean (like every other criticism in the review)? Saying "Glynnis Campbell’s original performance is sorely missed" is a pretty strong statement. It simply does not follow from "Man, this voice is really lacking subtle nuance!"
By now, I really thought you would have said "Yea, I didn't do a good job describing my issues with the voice acting," but I guess I may have put you too far on the defensive.
If I told you she was "too sultry, smokey, hammy, happy, fierce, boring, simple" then you would use the "All I have to say to counter you is _____" argument again. I pointed out that voice acting and storytelling are different, and that the former is far more subjective, but again, it's hard to argue with someone who's only argument is "I am offended". Tricia Helfer has certainly endured way worse criticism than this.
Both you and Forikorder need to let go of whatever emotional hangup you have about the story and just accept StarCraft II for what it is, a great game with a crappy single player story, and accept my review for what it is, an in-depth critique that while sarcastic and maybe even arrogant, was meant only to improve the franchise.
Otherwise if you actually enjoyed the vapid and juvenile story we got in Wings of Liberty then by all means keep doing what you're doing and discouraging criticism.
|
Let's snap back to reality for a second
so once again, if anyone is against you there living in some dream world?
It sounds like you're the one that's been ignoring arguments. I've dismantled the sons of korhal are the same as raynor's raiders myth. They are totally different factions and in SC the SoK was shown to have actual power unlike the Raiders.
oh okay, i suppsoe the sons of korhal (whos exact size is never mentioned) is clearly bigger then raynors raiders (whos size is never mentioned) that makes total sense
Arcturus's remarks are out of character because he's supposed to be intelligent and someone who can control himself, not explode at a press event when he knows it's going to ruin his reputation.
which is so different from exploding at Raynor when he knows its going to ruin his reputation
if he had been civil, calm and in control when Raynor decided to leave instead of throwing a hissy fit and trying to blow him out of the sky with the ion cannon maybe raynor doesnt start a rebellion against mengsk
but Mengsk doesnt at all control himself and he explodes as soon as someone starts critisizing him
if you cant see that Mengsk has acted in SC2 exactly like he did in vanilla your jsut covering your eyes and shouting as loud as you can
Nice argument from ignorance. The fact is that it is not specified anywhere in the game, so it's not up for the critique. The only thing that is specified is that the Sons of Korhal power was growing, which is NOT what happens in Wings of Liberty until at least the end of the Tosh mission.
when is it ever specified that raynor never recruits more soldiers? oh right, no where
The official lore says the Raiders had 40 people after the events of StarCraft, and given the Raiders latest string of defeats they should have even less. Count the number of missions where you faced a faction that had more than 40 people and then get back to me .
1. lets see a source
2. its pretty obvious that at some point they must have recruited more people since 40 people isnt enough to do diddly squat
i mean you probably get close to 40 units in the very first mission
Must have missed the part where a scanner confirms that someone has a gun to Tychus's head and where Tosh's "half insane voodoo powers" are actually telepathy that allows him to actually read minds in-universe...
Tychus explained the suit to Jim, it was insurance from moebius to make sure he doesnt cut and run
Jim doesnt trust Tosh, hes practically insane he wears a voodoo doll around his neck he never at any point proven he can be trusted and keeps secrets and when there found out jsut saids "ya i got secrets so what?"
besides he had the most vague accusation ever all he said was "someones working for mengsk on this ship, i can feel it" and "Tychus doesnt want to do something hes doing" which is pretty obvious since tychus has been bitching since he first set foot on the hyperion
"I'll see you dead for this, Kerrigan. For Fenix and all the others who got caught between you and your mad quest for power!"
well since i dont remember him saying that in vanilla, he must have been talking to THE QUEEN OF BLADES in case you hadnt noticed the queen of blades didnt really stick she was pretty mcuh the only person to call herself that
Where does it say that they still plan to consume the universe? Especially when the game makes it clear that the dark voice is making them do all this in the first place. Your arguments rely way too much on baseless assumptions.
so do yours, since we have no details about what level of control or how he controlled him exactly we cant say for sure
BUT
from the second that the Xel'Naga started experimenting with them, long before the overmind, the zerg were still obsessed with eating any race thy could catch and assimilating them, i see no reason to think that that behaviour would stop after the dark voice is dead and gone
and jsut to be clear, i have no problem if someone feels like attacking the story i honestly couldnt care less, as long as they dont say something obviously and completely wrong
as long as they dont make up facts and create double standards then i couldnt care less
|
Gradius, when I was talking about Valerian I wasn't talking about the review anymore. Just chattering. 
But I this is way I think Blizzard made some good choices. Raynor was a good choice. And his arc is great. I at least love it, and as you could see, I can give "objective" reasons why I love it. Just saying that they succeeded in some points, even in the story, and though WoL's story was mostly a disapointment, I'd want them to keep some of what they did. So what I want? WoL's protagonist + SC/BW worldbuildin. But that's my feedback to improve the game.
let go of whatever emotional hangup you have about the story and just accept StarCraft II for what it is, a great game with a crappy single player story
Sorry Gradius. That's mine and your opinion but not theirs. You can objectively prove that a story has flaws or qualities but not objectively prove that a story is "great" or "crappy". That's up to taste. I'm not saying that a work's quality is 100% subjective either. I just mean people have different reactions to the same things. So you're wrong here, they don't have to accept SC2 is has a "crappy story", no matter what arguments you have.
accept my review for what it is, an in-depth critique that while sarcastic and maybe even arrogant, was meant only to improve the franchise.
Otherwise if you actually enjoyed the vapid and juvenile story we got in Wings of Liberty then by all means keep doing what you're doing and discouraging criticism.
Agreed.
But also be aware of not discouraging "positive criticism". A well-thought article like yours from the other side is something I would really like to see.
|
On April 21 2012 08:44 Forikorder wrote:
so once again, if anyone is against you there living in some dream world?
It's a figure of speech buddy. Are you so desperate that these wild exaggerations is all you have left?
oh okay, i suppsoe the sons of korhal (whos exact size is never mentioned) is clearly bigger then raynors raiders (whos size is never mentioned) that makes total sense
Right, the Raiders size is never mentioned other than that one quote which has been reiterated multiple times:
"Raynor
There's no way we can stop an alien invasion with one capital ship and a handful of volunteers."
if he had been civil, calm and in control when Raynor decided to leave instead of throwing a hissy fit and trying to blow him out of the sky with the ion cannon maybe raynor doesnt start a rebellion against mengsk
That is....exactly what he did.
"Arcturus Mengsk
Gentlemen, you've done very well, but remember that we've still got a job to do. The seeds of a new Empire have been sewn, and if we hope to reap -
Jim Raynor
Aw, to hell with you!"
I suggest you replay the games before getting into a debate.
Show nested quote +Nice argument from ignorance. The fact is that it is not specified anywhere in the game, so it's not up for the critique. The only thing that is specified is that the Sons of Korhal power was growing, which is NOT what happens in Wings of Liberty until at least the end of the Tosh mission. when is it ever specified that raynor never recruits more soldiers? oh right, no where
Another argument from ignorance? Are you trying to set a record for most fallacies committed in one thread?
It doesn't matter if Raynor had recruited thousands more. The Dominion still controls more planets than he does and has "billions", the Fleet of the Executor should still be more powerful, and so should the Zerg. It is outright incongruous that he wins all the time.
Show nested quote +The official lore says the Raiders had 40 people after the events of StarCraft, and given the Raiders latest string of defeats they should have even less. Count the number of missions where you faced a faction that had more than 40 people and then get back to me . 1. lets see a source 2. its pretty obvious that at some point they must have recruited more people since 40 people isnt enough to do diddly squat i mean you probably get close to 40 units in the very first mission
1. No idea why you couldn't find this yourself but it's right here: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Raynor's_Raiders
From the Queen of Blades novel.
2. Right, but the game always portrays them as a very small faction and never shows that they grew in strength since the "one capital ship" quote. It is the opposite of SC where the SoK forces are always growing.
Show nested quote +Must have missed the part where a scanner confirms that someone has a gun to Tychus's head and where Tosh's "half insane voodoo powers" are actually telepathy that allows him to actually read minds in-universe... Tychus explained the suit to Jim, it was insurance from moebius to make sure he doesnt cut and run Jim doesnt trust Tosh, hes practically insane he wears a voodoo doll around his neck he never at any point proven he can be trusted and keeps secrets and when there found out jsut saids "ya i got secrets so what?" besides he had the most vague accusation ever all he said was "someones working for mengsk on this ship, i can feel it" and "Tychus doesnt want to do something hes doing" which is pretty obvious since tychus has been bitching since he first set foot on the hyperion
If that's what the suit did why wasn't it removed after the artifacts were handed over? At what point is it ok that Raynor ignores Tychus's plight? I certainly hope this isn't how you'd treat your best friend if you found out somebody was blackmailing him.
well since i dont remember him saying that in vanilla, he must have been talking to THE QUEEN OF BLADES in case you hadnt noticed the queen of blades didnt really stick she was pretty mcuh the only person to call herself that
If you don't remember the quote, why are you even discussing it? Raynor was obviously serious about his promise to kill her and obviously thought that she alone was responsible for her actions.
so do yours, since we have no details about what level of control or how he controlled him exactly we cant say for sure
I've presented multiple arguments which you seem to ignore. Tassadar puts his faith in the Overmind's intentions. The Xel'Naga are totally benevolent according to the dark templar saga, and therefore so is the Overmind, and therefore so are the rest of the zerg.
and jsut to be clear, i have no problem if someone feels like attacking the story i honestly couldnt care less, as long as they dont say something obviously and completely wrong
as long as they dont make up facts and create double standards then i couldnt care less
Your argument basically boils down to "NO U". Not everything in WoL is a copy of Brood War, and even if it is that is absolutely no excuse to stick your head in the ground and ignore the flaws of WoL.
Plus you just need to replay all the games because it sounds like you have little idea of what you're talking about.
On April 21 2012 09:14 nerak wrote:Gradius, when I was talking about Valerian I wasn't talking about the review anymore. Just chattering. But I this is way I think Blizzard made some good choices. Raynor was a good choice. And his arc is great. I at least love it, and as you could see, I can give "objective" reasons why I love it. Just saying that they succeeded in some points, even in the story, and though WoL's story was mostly a disapointment, I'd want them to keep some of what they did. So what I want? WoL's protagonist + SC/BW worldbuildin. But that's my feedback to improve the game.
If Raynor had an actual army and Blizzard didn't paint themselves into a corner when the novels decided he only has 40 people, then yeah
Sorry Gradius. That's mine and your opinion but not theirs. You can objectively prove that a story has flaws or qualities but not objectively prove that a story is "great" or "crappy". That's up to taste. I'm not saying that a work's quality is 100% subjective either. I just mean people have different reactions to the same things. So you're wrong here, they don't have to accept SC2 is has a "crappy story", no matter what arguments you have.
There is no need to be patronizing. Seems that everything here needs to be taken literally and figures of speech are not allowed. I've already said that I don't care whether people like the story or not. I was just trying to make a point: don't let whatever emotional attachment you have prevent you from seeing the flawed narrative.
|
Right, the Raiders size is never mentioned other than that one quote which has been reiterated multiple times:
"Raynor
There's no way we can stop an alien invasion with one capital ship and a handful of volunteers."
looked like alot more than that after they busted open new folsom, maybe that was jsuta figure of speech
FYI raynor isnt actually a cowboy
That is....exactly what he did.
"Arcturus Mengsk
Gentlemen, you've done very well, but remember that we've still got a job to do. The seeds of a new Empire have been sewn, and if we hope to reap -
Jim Raynor
Aw, to hell with you!"
I suggest you replay the games before getting into a debate.
and then he launchs into this big huge speech about how awesome he is and how noone can ever stop him
hes just like he was in SC, hes nice to people who like him but critisize him and he blows up on you
Another argument from ignorance? Are you trying to set a record for most fallacies committed in one thread?
you got the first post so at msot ill always be second best
It doesn't matter if Raynor had recruited thousands more. The Dominion still controls more planets than he does and has "billions", the Fleet of the Executor should still be more powerful, and so should the Zerg. It is outright incongruous that he wins all the time.
yet its not at all incongrous that Mengsk won all the time
im sorry but i simply dont consider the books cannon and personally im pretty sure Blizz doesnt either *cough* taldarim *cough* despite what they had to say in public jsut becuase some book author decided to overexagerate raynors forces doesnt mean metzen give 2 pennys about it
2. Right, but the game always portrays them as a very small faction and never shows that they grew in strength since the "one capital ship" quote. It is the opposite of SC where the SoK forces are always growing.
except the SoK are never shown growing
If that's what the suit did why wasn't it removed after the artifacts were handed over? At what point is it ok that Raynor ignores Tychus's plight? I certainly hope this isn't how you'd treat your best friend if you found out somebody was blackmailing him.
its not blackmail it was an honest deal, as soon as Tychus was done his job and there was a giant threat to the entire secter and a wa to be fought and they had the chance to theyd remove the suit
Tychus could have taken a shuttle to moebius, he CHOSE to go to char, obviously they wouldnt be able to remove his suit on char, and why would they? its still good armour not like anyone would remove there armour on char
If you don't remember the quote, why are you even discussing it? Raynor was obviously serious about his promise to kill her and obviously thought that she alone was responsible for her actions.
of course, just not the Sarah Kerrigan he fell in love with the Sarah Kerrigan being controlled by the Zerg
I've presented multiple arguments which you seem to ignore. Tassadar puts his faith in the Overmind's intentions. The Xel'Naga are totally benevolent according to the dark templar saga, and therefore so is the Overmind, and therefore so are the rest of the zerg.
you completely ignored everything i said
since the Zerg were created they were essentially the incarnation of hunger
and tassadar did not put his faith in the overminds intentions thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard and to be honest i cant even comprehend why you think that enough to come with a rebuttal
its like you just looked me in the eye told me the sky is green and expect me to prove you wrong
Your argument basically boils down to "NO U". Not everything in WoL is a copy of Brood War, and even if it is that is absolutely no excuse to stick your head in the ground and ignore the flaws of WoL.
where am i ignoring all the flaws? where am i ever saying "the story telling was absolutely perfect and there should ahve been no changes"? where am i saying i loved the multiple mission choices? where am i saying i think they did everything perfectly?
im not, i pointed out where i think your completely wrong and correcting you on those points only
|
On April 21 2012 10:16 Forikorder wrote:im sorry but i simply dont consider the books cannon and personally im pretty sure Blizz doesnt either *cough* taldarim *cough* despite what they had to say in public jsut becuase some book author decided to overexagerate raynors forces doesnt mean metzen give 2 pennys about it
So the entire argument over Raynor and The Sons of Korhol and the Overmind and everything regarding plot improvements boils down to Gradius looking at all of Blizzard's worldbuilding and you saying "I don't count the books as canon".
On April 21 2012 10:16 Forikorder wrote:
im not, i pointed out where i think your completely wrong and correcting you on those points only
The corrections are you first defining what does and doesn't count in order to create your rebuttal. Only you didn't do it first, you waited until PAGE 5 to say that you don't count the books. But Gradius is supposed to take into account your explanation of how everything makes sense, which of course make sense if you first don't count the things that don't make sense.
Well, the review was offered to improve the game, and I'm just going to pretend that the reviews of the review were offered to improve Gradius' next attempt; so I will now offer a review of a review of the review:
The next time you disagree on a fundamental assumption that underpins the entire argument,
don't wait until page 5 to give it.
I think that will really help.
|
So the entire argument over Raynor and The Sons of Korhol and the Overmind and everything regarding plot improvements boils down to Gradius looking at all of Blizzard's worldbuilding and you saying "I don't count the books as canon".
i dont see how the books have anything to do with canon discussions since as far as i know nothing important from the books has been prven as canon and blizzard pretty much straight out said "yo you know the taldarim introduced in the books? ya jsut ignore them they dont exist heres the real taldarim"
plus theres Toshs and Novas relationship
and i refuse to believe in the canon of anything that includes something as rediculous as the new ghost academy
The corrections are you first defining what does and doesn't count in order to create your rebuttal. Only you didn't do it first, you waited until PAGE 5 to say that you don't count the books. But Gradius is supposed to take into account your explanation of how everything makes sense, which of course make sense if you first don't count the things that don't make sense.
Well, the review was offered to improve the game, and I'm just going to pretend that the reviews of the review were offered to improve Gradius' next attempt; so I will now offer a review of a review of the review:
The next time you disagree on a fundamental assumption that underpins the entire argument,
don't wait until page 5 to give it.
I think that will really help.
well i didnt actually join the conversation until last page so i dont see how this being page 5 has to do with anything since this is the first time the books are actually brought up
i mean if someone can actually bring up some major lore point brought up in the books that was reinforced in the game ill accept it but my policy is assume the books are not completely cannon unless reinforced by the game
|
You guys need to stop arguing.
Blizzard decides what happens in their universe. If Raynor suddenly changes his mind about killing Kerrigan after four years, that's their call. That goes for every other pointless discussion going on in this thread. Blizzard doesn't care what we think. They get to tell the story, and we'll see where it goes.
As for the review, it was fantastic. I can't comment on whether or not everything was true, since I blazed through the originals with cheats and didn't take the time to really dig into the story.
|
On April 21 2012 13:28 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +So the entire argument over Raynor and The Sons of Korhol and the Overmind and everything regarding plot improvements boils down to Gradius looking at all of Blizzard's worldbuilding and you saying "I don't count the books as canon". i dont see how the books have anything to do with canon discussions since as far as i know nothing important from the books has been prven as canon and blizzard pretty much straight out said "yo you know the taldarim introduced in the books? ya jsut ignore them they dont exist heres the real taldarim" plus theres Toshs and Novas relationship Show nested quote +and i refuse to believe in the canon of anything that includes something as rediculous as the new ghost academy
The corrections are you first defining what does and doesn't count in order to create your rebuttal. Only you didn't do it first, you waited until PAGE 5 to say that you don't count the books. But Gradius is supposed to take into account your explanation of how everything makes sense, which of course make sense if you first don't count the things that don't make sense.
Well, the review was offered to improve the game, and I'm just going to pretend that the reviews of the review were offered to improve Gradius' next attempt; so I will now offer a review of a review of the review:
The next time you disagree on a fundamental assumption that underpins the entire argument,
don't wait until page 5 to give it.
I think that will really help. well i didnt actually join the conversation until last page so i dont see how this being page 5 has to do with anything since this is the first time the books are actually brought up i mean if someone can actually bring up some major lore point brought up in the books that was reinforced in the game ill accept it but my policy is assume the books are not completely cannon unless reinforced by the game
Matt Horner is a character taken from the very same book.
Besides, Blizzard has already said the books are canon, not that it is remotely central to the argument I've been making.
"These books specifically are kind of the definitive take in my mind, which means we got a chance in Queen of Blades to show you a lot of scenes we could not show in the game."
http://www.sclegacy.com/content/editorials-8/blizzcon-2007-starcraft-lore-panel-editorial-44/
This interview a Blizz writers confirms they are all canon: http://www.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/sdcc-2011-gallery-books-reveals-warcraft-starcraft-and-diablo-books-line-up
As for the small fleet at the end of the Tosh missions, it looks like it is Tosh's fleet to me. That's why I said your forces don't actually grow until the end of the Tosh missions where the spectres join you and you see that you have more than 1 ship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
