SC:L Reviews Wings of Liberty

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!

Pretty much all of his dialog from the original game is invalidated. Here is a classic line from StarCraft:

My children, the hour of our victory is at hand. For upon this world of Aiur shall we incorporate the strongest known species into our fold. Then shall we be the greatest of creation's children. We shall be...Perfect.

What he means to say instead is:

My children, the hour of our loss is at hand. For once we end up achieving our goals, it will only doom us to die at the hands of the hybrid. Actually, I don't even want to be here and I hope I get killed soon.

On April 15 2012 20:51 Checkm8 wrote:


Hahaha this :D
Yeah, I mean why the heck do you want to make the scout pilot a substitute for Zeratul when it was the latter who done almost everything in BW for protoss? (with the exception of carrying the Uraj, spearheading the attack on the UED blockade, attacking Kerrigan in the final zerg mission, and being Zeratul's sidekick) In terms of being the one to reunite the protoss, why the heck would Artanis be the one to try, when it was his Conclave that made things difficult for other protoss tribes? (the dts being one)

On April 17 2012 07:26 Feb wrote:
this was pretty good, and they make several valid points, though i disagree with them on a couple (such as calling horner a good character, he contributes nothing to the plot and has no conflict with anyone and to me came off as yet another wasted opportunity.

On April 17 2012 07:26 Feb wrote:i also disagreed with their feelings about selendis, the protoss campaign of starcraft clearly demonstrated that the protoss arrogantly believe themselves superior and allow themselves to sidetrack their fight against the swarm to put tassadar on trial or be racist towards zeratul, they have little to no regard for the lives of their race (possibly due to ressurection technology), and many enjoy combat for the sake of combat (look at almost any dialogue involving fenix)).

Some of it feels a little nit-picky, such as the condemnation of the tal'darim. Blizzard wasn't being insensitive to religious folks, the tal'darim was portrayed as an extremist band...

On April 17 2012 09:54 Parnage wrote:
Good article but seems to have this confusion for why the characters care little for the men who die for them. If memory serves most of the Dominions forces are prisoners who got mind swiped for combat. Those men have no value because they are essentially already dead by the mere fact that they have been conscripted. I mean even in BroodWar the only reason Lore wise for the medic to be placed in the field as a unit was to improve marine survival by what was it two seconds?

The Terrans have no issue throwing men at the problem it seems reasonable for most of the Terran Commanders to be abit careless with the lives of the men who are already condemned.

I am surprised they made no mention of the armories most positive contribution that of reading up on all the units and the bits of lore and amusing background put in for units like Vulture Spider mines having a horror movie franchise and the Siege tanker with built in sound system.

On April 17 2012 16:23 Meatloaf wrote:
if they would have sticked to the player being a "noname" commander / cerebrate / executor... everything woulda been different.

I never heard of protoss having resurrection tech, and it's clear that they care about their lives. They may be overly zealous, but this does not give them a license to act like idiots. The main theme of the Protoss in StarCraft II is that the devastating population losses have forced them to adapt. From recalling weapons that they once thought were too powerful for them to use i.e. Mothership and Colossus, to using dishonorable tactics such as Phoenix Overload (when it still existed), to saving warriors from death by warping them back to a safe haven using their power suit, to saving warriors from death yet again by fitting them into Immortals, Dragoons and Stalkers, it is clear that Protoss place a high value on lives. Selendis in a way encompasses this new attitude as a newly elected official. She was also portrayed as highly rational and intelligent in the dark templar saga, so this behavior coming from her is utterly incongruous.

On April 18 2012 04:59 Feb wrote:


in original starcraft and brood war, dragoons were resurrected zealots, implying limited but available resurrection technology. i also feel their treatment of tassadar and the actions of aldaris (and circumstances surrounding his death), imply that a large number of the protoss population don't have a ton of regard for the lives of their people especially when faced with the threat of betrayal (which raynor's resistance could be viewed as).

On April 18 2012 10:01 TheRealDudeMan wrote:
Great read. Heart of the swarm definitely needs to bring some of the more darker concepts back. There were so many missions in Brood War where I felt as if I was defending someones honor or getting vengeance. The objectives even seemed important. Alexei Stukov was my favorite character. He was military at heart and then Duran just murders him in cold blood. Where were any of those moments in SC2?

On April 18 2012 23:37 Sbrubbles wrote:
If HotS is any good it will start off with Kerrigan returning to her BW days badassery (along with Glynnis Campbell’s voice acting) by infesting the Hyperion on mission 1. Jim wouldn't be any happier than serving his queen.

And the part about the Taldarim massacres is a marvelous identification of a sociological tendency.
The fact did not even tingle the "scenarist" there, whose point of view is ironically quite parallel to the world view of the standard american about the self-righteous invasions of the recent years for some black artifact found in the soil.

To be fair, Hanson's death was the one moment in which I felt I was in a Brood War sequel. In my mind she was the pretty, good-hearten girl that couldn't possibly be harmed given the general ambiance of the game, I really didn't it coming.
People tend to believe she was experimenting on herself, but I never quite got why. She could just as well have been infected on Agria along with some of her colonists, with the virus taking longer than usual to affect her.

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 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...

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.

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.

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.

He makes some valid points, but after reading those I was simply inclined to disagree because I didn't like him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

I don't know what to say.

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.

On April 19 2012 03:26 Tamburlaine wrote:

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.

On April 19 2012 02:26 Gradius wrote:

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.

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...

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.

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.

It's just being a hater.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

On April 19 2012 07:52 Gradius wrote:

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.

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.

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. =/

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

However, some people feel that if there is something negative to say, it shouldn’t be said at all. This is simply not true. SCLegacy especially consists of some of Blizzard’s most loyal fans. We have been enjoying this game for over a decade, and will never stop loving this franchise or trying to help improve it.

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.

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?

On April 19 2012 12:08 SixtusTheFifth wrote:
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.

On April 20 2012 07:05 Avean wrote:
Honestly you guys are analyzing the singleplayer too much. Ive played many RTS games and Starcraft 2 is the first RTS to have you interessted in completing the story. If its cheezy or hollywoodish i really dont care. I remember almost having a tear down my eye at the ending and goosebumps saving the general. For a RTS to do that ....thats perfection which ofcourse is to be expected by Blizzard.

On April 20 2012 07:10 nerak wrote:
Gradius, I just thought on something. Why Val couldn't be WoL's protagonist.

We obviously can't agree on how that hythetical campaign should be, but follow me here: you'd be Valerian Mengsk, 23 yo son of the Emperor. You'd engange on major battles, alright. Maybe could try to stop Media Blitz from happening and lose - that would be the best part of the campaign.

So a lot of potential. But it would have a major flaw... maybe not a flaw, but a disadvantage in comparison to way it was done.

You'd be the young, courageous, but something naïve prince/hero-to-be. You would have to deal with the presence of your father - probably run apart from it, alegorically or not -, quest for a magical item, have Warfield, the older warrior, as your advisor...

That would be the Journey of the Hero! We complain how un-gritty WoL got. Imagine how bright that would get it it was the story of a hero growing up. Of course, we could twist things here, there, or everywhere. But we seemed something like it right? The story of a aborted hero - Arthas. I personally think that Arthas' story is the best in War3: RoC, but this isn't Starcraft.

Starcraft is about this guy who could be a character from a Bukowski novel. He's old; he may be just 30-something, but his face tells you, he's broken already, he've seem too much, and also he's an old dog, and he won't learn any new tricks, nor get any bigger than he is. He's in a dead end. He's in a position that we, human beings, personally experience in life. But IN SPACE. And with aliens and apocalipses.

Spider Man showed us how to make a hero human by making him to have to deal with sick relatives, mad girlfriends, and lack of money. Jim Raynor is a human hero, but not because anything in physical life is like ours; he is like us in the inside. He is an everyman. He may have his "super powers" - his wit, his unrealistic prodigy, his luck - but he is someone he can't be happy because the only thing he wants is something unachieveable. When we screw up badly (and he believes he's guilty somehow), so badly that it ruin our own and a lot of people's lifes, we have two things to do: accept that and become a better person, or fight with it and break. What Raynor did? He broke. That's what most people do.

And when Valerian shows up and tells him, "I have a magical way of making this thing you want achieveble", all the things he've been telling himself and others about liberty, about fighting opression, about keeping his crew alive, he forgets about everything. There are two interesting things here. First: it is obviously dark, and it fits the Starcraft theme. Because as LordOfAscencions points out in his review, Raynor is a little like Mengsk, he will "see Sarah back to normal or burn the sector to ashes trying to do it".

Second: it fits that, contrary to what Raynor says in Char, "it is Science Fiction" we're talking about. And good science fiction, above the average science fiction. Because in average Sci-Fi, we're asked, "what if science/magic could create artificial humans?" An then investigates what happens in human society in such scenario. WoL asks: "what if science/magic could somehow fix one of the deepest existencial problems?". And then investigates (ok, for just some minutes) what happens with an individual.


How could any of that be told with Valerian as a protagonist?
The only thing I agree with you here is that I missed the macro-scale of Starcraft/BW. Not the macro-scale exactly... it could go just as fine with the micro-scale they used. The real problem was the world building. They failed so much with world-building that even when you do a macro-scale thing - in Media Blitz, and arguably in New Folson - it is still like the Hyperion travels in a paralel universe.

1) The criticisms offered here are not geek cherrypicking and overanalyzing. These are things that occur to most customers as they play the game and think about it rationally. Game developers should never assume that what they have written is “good enough” to curb the player’s suspension of disbelief so that he will will gloss over a plothole.

In StarCraft and Brood War, you played with the de-facto leaders for each race. You influenced galactic events, and that is what a game like StarCraft is supposed to be about.

yet Raynor’s stubborn dismissal of obvious warnings ruins the entire thing

Raynor has more reason to be angry at Kerrigan than he does at Mengsk

Imagine for a second your wife going on a murder spree as well as killing your best friend by stabbing him in the back with a steak knife, and then divorcing you. It would be unthinkable to forgive her just because four years went by. Even if you could remove her serial-killer tendencies, would you still pine over her picture and attempt to forgive her for the atrocities she has committed?

Though Hanson calls Stetmann's science expertise "nonexistent," he still singlehandedly manages to create technologies that even the Dominion doesn't appear to have

Mengsk freed him to spy on Raynor.

Mengsk largely takes the role of a cartoon villain in Wings of Liberty. “Curses, foiled again!” is his battle cry every time Raynor bests him. As one of the main antagonists in the game, it is a serious problem when he is portrayed as an incompetent opponent

"Our Observers detected zerg hive spores infesting the colonists. They must be purified.

This is only true if you side with the Protoss. If you side with Hanson then no colonists are actually infested in-game, and Selendis is made to look like a fool for overreacting so much.

"The only cure for zerg infestation is purification by fire. You know this to be true, James Raynor."

Now the Protoss look like fools because a Terran invented a cure during the course of several hours on some "medieval" lab on a battlecruiser.

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.

It is reminiscent of the old Alien films. Are the Zerg no longer brutal and terrifying? Are they only evil because the Dark Voice is evil?

On April 20 2012 11:00 Forikorder wrote:


ugh i hate when people say this "well when you think about it rationally" its like straight out saying "im right your wrong if you disagree your simply wrong so jsut agree with me"

except in the terran campaign of vanilla where you were a small rebel force taking out armies far larger then you with "resourcefulness" including attacking the main world of the confederacy, fighting off the fleet of the executor and... hold up that sounds familiar with what you said was the problem with WoL...

ive yet to actually find someone who can give me a good reason why Raynor doesnt just believe that Tychus was boosted by Moebius and the suit would be taken off after Char

only if he treats Kerrigan and the Queen of blades as the same person, in his mind the Queen of Blades is a false personality forced on her by the Zerg its not really Kerrigan jsut a Zerg thats like her

a better comparison would be if our wife had split personality and she asked you to pick up some pills for her but you didnt and as a result she went insane and murdered people

at that point you wouldnt consider the second personality your wife and would blame yourself for the deaths since you didnt get the pills she needed

it always annoys me when people make this assumption, Mengsk did not free Tychus and make hims a spy, he made a deal with Tychus so make contact with raynor and get in touch with moebius and to kill Kerrigan if he gets a shot, Tychus was never a spy, there is no evidence he would ahve been willing to be a spy and no proof he would actually have been able to gather and transmit any effective information safely if he had been a spy

So, It’s not that Mengsk had a constant knowledge of everything that Raynor’s Raiders was up to. What Mengsk had was a gun to Tychus’ head. And so, he would get regular reports, but the idea was that when the key moment came, when Tychus was able to do, you know, what he had to do.

there is no evidence he would ahve been willing to be a spy and no proof he would actually have been able to gather and transmit any effective information safely if he had been a spy

except Raynor did nothing to hurt mengsk, he stole his shiny new weapon and made some civvies angry at him big freaking deal its not like Raynor actually did anything to really damage mengsks control of the secter in any way

Zeratul didnt have much time and he wasnt expecting it at all hes lucky to ahve gotten ANY information its not like he had the time to take a deep long look

if your in a dark alley, and someone apears in front of you with an axe and tries to kill you, and another person comes up and kills him then kills you, is he good or evil?

TBH i had high hopes that maybe this review would be different, but i dont see any difference to all the other people condemning WoL without actually paying attention to SC and BW and without actually thinking deeply on the story and just saying there first impression

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill here, as that's a pretty unsubstantiated jump from what the paragraph says. The paragraph is simply saying that plotholes can't be ignored with the excuse that "you're just nitpicking".

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.

2) The Sons of Korhal military strength was constantly growing and was a threat to the Confederacy. From acquiring a Confederate General and his squadron, to psi emitters which can indirectly destroy planets.

3) As such, the Sons of Korhal never defeated armies that were larger than them. Mengsk manipulated the zerg into killing his enemies.

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.

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.

...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?

So what? Mengsk was still made to look like a fool for letting Raynor pierce Korhal's orbital defenses and wrecked havok on the streets of the capital city itself. Mengsk's "devious" plan to kill the Queen of Blades was foiled by Raynor as well.

This is truly grasping right here. How do you know he didn't he take a good long look? He found out everything else but the information that would have validated the new retcon.

What point are you making?

On April 20 2012 11:00 Forikorder wrote:
ugh i hate when people say this "well when you think about it rationally" its like straight out saying "im right your wrong if you disagree your simply wrong so jsut agree with me"

On April 20 2012 11:00 Forikorder wrote:
but i dont see any difference to all the other people condemning WoL without actually paying attention to SC and BW and without actually thinking deeply on the story and just saying there first impression

Ahh, you like spot the difference? Well, guess what difference I can't spot.

On April 20 2012 12:06 Forikorder wrote:

im accusing him of not looking deeply into the story and jsut palying through once and going onto the interwebs to rage

hes accusing me of not being able to think rationally

On April 20 2012 12:15 SixtusTheFifth wrote:


Your accusations as they stand:

• Gradius has played the game once.
  
• Gradius' review is the product of rage.
  
• Gradius' review does not involve deep looks at the story.
  

Obviously you typed that very quickly so I'm going to be sporting to someone who is clearly having an emotional reponse. Consider this the written equivilent of "I'm sorry, can you just say that again?"

On April 20 2012 12:16 Forikorder wrote:

i dont think Gradius actually looked deeply into the story and is just wining about misconceived problems

On April 20 2012 19:02 Telenil wrote:
That is your right, however, a vast majority of the people who read the review believe otherwise. On this subject, I for one think he looked more deeply than you did (and than I did, for that matters); I also believe you are unwilling to admit the story could be flawed in any major way, and that you will dismiss any such claim as "hating" or "whining" no matter the actual work the author put in his review.

However, I am aware that this overly simple view is probably unfair, and that it sounds a lot less pertinent when you are on receiving side of it. Therefore, I suggest we go back to the lore rather than debating which one of you thought deeply enough before posting. Such personal attacks bring nothing to the discussion; even if Gardius had raged, which he didn't, this would still be an argument about the form and not the content.

Whatever buddy. You must have missed this part at the very beginning where I make it patently obvious what the point of my suggestions and criticisms is:


Sorry if you got the impression that things are supposed to go my way or whatever, but there is nothing I can do about that. People say that this review is not relevant now, yet when Blizzard goes around in interviews saying how much the fans loved the story and how great it was, then clearly the things in this review have not been iterated enough, which makes this review alot more relevant in April of 2012 than you would think.

Alright, for the last time, "the “subtle nuances” that Tricia Helfer apparently added to the voice are inconspicuously missing". This is the voice acting criticism. Just because it is one sentence and not giant paragraphs like the rest of the review does not mean there is no criticism. "Subtle nuances" is the thing that she was supposed to add to the voice acting, yet did not. If you don't understand what this voice-acting term means, then please for gods sake don't comment on it. x)

On April 21 2012 00:19 Forikorder wrote:
kinda funny how your saying we should stop the personal attacks when you were the only one making them

On April 20 2012 19:02 Telenil wrote:
I am aware that this overly simple view is probably unfair, and that it sounds a lot less pertinent when you are on receiving side of it.

On April 21 2012 02:01 DoubleReed wrote:
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.

But I do hope that, in reality, you could possibly change your minds if some perfect argument was presented to you.

On April 21 2012 02:23 Telenil wrote:
As long as you *do* hear the subtle nuances, and can quote a few lines that illustrate your point, yeah, that's a standstill. Why is that bad though? This would be a constructive discussion, as opposed to the "oh come on, I can't believe you didn't realise the error of your ways".
If you have any examples of your own to illustrate your points, be my guest.

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:

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.

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.

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!

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.

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"

On April 21 2012 03:40 Telenil wrote:
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).

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.

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.

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)

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

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

On April 21 2012 08:02 nerak wrote:


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 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.

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"

On April 21 2012 03:30 nerak wrote:


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?

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

On April 20 2012 12:03 Forikorder wrote:


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

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

just like Raynor never took on anything bigger then him

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

no he promised to kill the Queen of Blades not kerrigan

the Zerg are trying to take down the dark voice for self-preservation they still plan to consume the universe after hes gone

right cause its not like his son was the one who figured out what the artifacts do or anything

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.

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.

Let's snap back to reality for a second

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.

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.

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

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...

"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!"

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.

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

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.

On April 21 2012 08:44 Forikorder wrote:
so once again, if anyone is against you there living in some dream world?

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

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

when is it ever specified that raynor never recruits more soldiers? oh right, no where

.

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

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

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

so do yours, since we have no details about what level of control or how he controlled him exactly we cant say for sure

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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".

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.

On April 21 2012 13:28 Forikorder wrote:


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



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.

On April 21 2012 23:25 Forikorder wrote:


so what? they copied a name from a book, until they actually do anything in one of there games to validate important lore from a book (something like the taldarim or ulrezaj) then as far as im concerned, the books are nice but not actually canon

Fine, you're entitled to believe that, but yet again I gave you a link to an interview that proves you're wrong.

On April 22 2012 00:29 Forikorder wrote:


sure they say its all canon, but the taldarim are obviously not the books taldarim
in that crappy n64 game raynor knows they find a cure for the infestation yet he never mentions it to hanson

when book lore and game lore clashs game lore wins every single time

On April 22 2012 07:29 Darknat wrote:
I think people put Starcraft 1/Brood War at too high of a pedestal. For example at the end of the Starcraft 1 Terran campaign they "kill off" Kerrigan and turn Mengsk into a throwaway character. Instead of curing Kerrigan in Brood War they have the UED show up out of nowhere for no reason.

There is no need to be patronizing.

figures of speech are not allowed

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

I do miss, however, Zeratul from part 1. What we hear in SC2 sounds like old sage, not like dark freaking ninja assassin. It was perfect back in BW - cold, dark, with a little bit of goodness and anxiety. The "dark" and "cold" part is missing completely, while there is too much of "goodness" and "anxiety" now. But, it's been 4 years, mb Zeratul aged.

can you please stop bringing up pointless things Forikorder? you dont agree with the article?its fine.

Im with Gradius in that praising blizzard for their "awesome storytelling" its not how you get things the way you want , I love the SC saga and played it since 98 , of course they can do what they want with it , its their fuckin IP , but we are free to express what we want.

The way the story is approached in WoL ends up having a shallow plot and the ramifications only help getting you out of the grand scope of things that sc1 and BW had.

In the end the only thing thats clear is that Raynor its a goddamn badass that puts the Dominion at checkmate AND stops a fucken intergalactic zerg domination with ONE (1) battlecruiser and his crew.

of course not everyone will think like this , but it expresses what some people felt when playing the game.

On April 22 2012 15:54 Wasteweiser wrote:
This review blew my mind and actually made me think about the story a little bit and how flawed it really is. The most bothersome part that stood out to me is the element of choice, how can you even bother to make a compelling story when you give players a choice that will divide the lore. + Show Spoiler +

I'd really like to see just one author come up with the plot so its consistant, it seems like a ton of blizzard empolyees are pitching in, we got authors of different books pitching it, everything just turns into a confusing fucking mess. Red shirt guy pointed out a flaw like that in WoW, which to me is a dead universe thanks to the mmorpg.

Raynor’s final words in StarCraft Brood War were the following: “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!”

On April 22 2012 09:52 nerak wrote:



I agree with you, there is no reason why Raynor's rebellion couldn't be described as bigger. But about the "40 people", there is indeed no proof the crew remained so low after the Brood War. Actually it seems that Swann, for example, joined later. So how many people joined him? I would expect at least hundreds, other people could say dozens. All we know is that we don't know how many people crew the Hyperion in 2504. All we know is that the Hyperion is all they have.

(Aren't they all convicts?)

Warcraft story (dono about WoW)

On April 23 2012 06:10 destian wrote:
To me, the biggest flaw in the campaign is related to:



Going from that attitude to "OH KERRIGAN MY LOST LOVE" was just too unbelievable. Had he had the BW attitude, and had to reconcile that she was going to be some sort of savior, that would have made an excellent, if predictable, story line.

Out of all the choices made during the campaign, Raynor's make the least sense, and that's really saying something.

On April 23 2012 06:10 destian wrote:
To me, the biggest flaw in the campaign is related to:



Going from that attitude to "OH KERRIGAN MY LOST LOVE" was just too unbelievable. Had he had the BW attitude, and had to reconcile that she was going to be some sort of savior, that would have made an excellent, if predictable, story line.

Out of all the choices made during the campaign, Raynor's make the least sense, and that's really saying something.