EPT[Story spoilers!!] Heart of the HOTS - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GreyKnight
United States4720 Posts
| ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
One part I liked was that Kerrigan actually kept some of her humanity after becoming primal Queen. Kept it more personal and understandable with the whole revenge plot, as the BW kerrigan really didn't give much of a shit about the atrocities that befell her at the hands of mensk. I enjoyed partaking in her rise to power and journey of vengeance. It was rewarding on some level. | ||
|
Strut
United States182 Posts
Why does every mission with a base always come set up and usually has some timers involved? Why not throw in a few old fashion RTS campaign missions where you have to build a base from scratch against an AI opponent that's already developed and entrenched. Was getting sick of all those WC3 style missions, where you just control a hero and a few units and jump over gaps etc. Some are okay.. but this was like every other mission. | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
On March 14 2013 14:53 Serpest wrote: Baldur's Gate series. Planescape Torment. And one extra note (which I know was mentioned earlier in this thread): Remember, Kerrigan killed Mengsk's parents. When she was a ghost. It was stated as one of the reasons why Mengsk left Kerrigan back on Tarsonis. So I don't see why Kerrigan should be mad Mengsk tried to kill her. Especially after she defeated him at the end of Brood War (after betraying their tenuous alliance by having samir duran and the player kill Fenix and Duke.) It just boggles my mind how we could get hots and wol after sc and scbw. I had a sudden crave for the goodness of some good zerg stories and i found this old video. That scbw's kerrigan was my love: I almost don't remember how amazing the story of scbw because how WoL changed the story completely. The rare times that i agree with many comments from a youtube video. | ||
|
GizmoPT
Portugal3040 Posts
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFR9c6NCUAEK9Kr.png) | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 14 2013 18:02 Strut wrote: I didn't mind the story nearly as much as I minded the easy game play and overuse of the Kerrigan hero in nearly every mission. Roach/hydra with the right mutations/evolution completely dominate in this game and there wasn't nearly enough base building. Why does every mission with a base always come set up and usually has some timers involved? Why not throw in a few old fashion RTS campaign missions where you have to build a base from scratch against an AI opponent that's already developed and entrenched. Was getting sick of all those WC3 style missions, where you just control a hero and a few units and jump over gaps etc. Some are okay.. but this was like every other mission. There was a base in almost every mission. 15 out of 20. | ||
|
Gatesleeper
Canada300 Posts
On March 14 2013 19:06 paralleluniverse wrote: There was a base in almost every mission. 15 out of 20. He's complaining that the bases you get in missions are already set up, as opposed to multiplayer where you start with 1 hatch, 1 overlord, 6 drones, and that's it. Not really something to complain about though, the majority of missions start you off with 1 hatchery, some drones, maybe a spine and a spore and a spawning pool, plus the tech building relevant to that mission. I think the last mission you start with 2 hatcheries, but other than that, nothing crazy... | ||
|
iLikeRain
Denmark504 Posts
On March 14 2013 09:43 Gatesleeper wrote: If you thought the story/plot/characters/themes in Heart of the Swarm were good, that it was well written and thought out, enjoyable, and believable, then yes, I would wager that you are an idiot. If someone tells me that God created the earth in 7 days, or that gay marriage is wrong and should be illegal, or that they think the Star Wars prequel trilogy was better than the original, then I immediately write them off as stupid and leave it at that. That's how strongly I believe that the HotS story is rubbish. You can try to tell me that I'm wrong, that the HotS campaign was actually really deep and meaningful, but for me, that's like trying to tell me that the world is flat. User was warned for this post This is some of the worst logic I have ever read on a forum. So you're basically comparing whether someone finds a story good with someone who genuinely believes in flying spaghetti monsters? One of those is the belief of supernatural beings without any tangible evidence, while the other is valuing different parameters in what constitutes "good". You may find that a good story requires plot twists, lots of deep meaningful conversations, while others prefer simpleness, a predictable story with stereotypical characters. But does that make it any less good simply because they have a different opinion and taste? If you really judge people negatively merely because their opinion of enjoyment is vastly different than yours, I feel sorry for you and those around you. | ||
|
NVRLand
Sweden203 Posts
Damn the story took quite some time. So, what annoyed me the most in hots was how much I fought zerg. I know that it was some kind of different zerg (primal) but I was always like... the terran is our main opponent but 70% of the missions are fighting zerg? And being a protoss on the ladder I was disappointed to see how little they were involved in the campaign. It felt like a big zvz with a tvz ending. One of the thing I enjoyed the most in WoL was the ability to choose how to do a mission. There weren't many and they didn't affect the story THAT much but I loved that I could either take Nova's side and destroy the spectres or go with Tosh and rescue them (I went with Tosh) and also that I got to choose whether I wanted to take out the air zerg or the nydus worms for the final mission. That was awesome and when I started hots campaign and got to choose between using gas and using zerglings to clear the first mission I was like "Oh man, THIS is going to be awesome with a lot of choices!" but there were like none... And it was almost always linear. I got to choose mission very rarely, felt like they held my hand from the beginning to the end. But well, I played it for 11 hours so if I hadn't enjoyed I wouldn't have played it. Despite these things I wanted to know what was going to happen! Also, I played on Hard which was a little bit easy. I had to do the boss primal zergs like 2 times each but other than that I barely restarted any mission (except for that damn Sukov mission where I had 2 seconds left on shutting down the final temple when he died and my base was wept clean by some damn void rays...) | ||
|
Gh0s7[5thf]
Romania27 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
-___- I give up starcraft II's story is nothing like BW. It's like badly written fan fiction. | ||
|
BurgerFreak
Denmark37 Posts
This is how you make an ending to a campaign.... holy shit... :-O This is from 1997.. and it still blows anything from 2013 out of the water..... | ||
|
Tommyth
Poland117 Posts
On March 14 2013 18:04 BurningSera wrote: I had a sudden crave for the goodness of some good zerg stories and i found this old video. That scbw's kerrigan was my love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bI7nUlsu9Y I almost don't remember how amazing the story of scbw because how WoL changed the story completely. The rare times that i agree with many comments from a youtube video. Ehh... the times when Zeratul was a badass protoss warrior.. I think my greatest complain about sc2 is the whole prophecy stuff and how they downgraded Zeratul into shit tier. Chris Metzen, wtf happened to you? | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3426 Posts
Do you need any educational background? Writing experience? Do you just pitch an idea to a developer hoping they'll get onboard? Why do companies keep reusing the same hackneyed concepts for key elements of the plot? Blizzard seems to like unions and final battles, Bioware can't get enough of party assembling, every company out there wants to push a love story down our throats these days (which they badly fail at and that is the problem). Again, what the fuck? | ||
|
CYFAWS
Sweden275 Posts
On March 14 2013 21:37 True_Spike wrote: I always wondered, how do you become a game story writer? 90% of current AAA titles' plots seem downright retarded. I do get that most of the time, unfortunately, the story isn't much of a focus and is just a vessel through which gameplay mechanics are incorporated into the game, perhaps something that loosely ties said mechanics together and propels the player to continue. The thing is, you don't really need additional resources to make the plot better, just solid writing will suffice the vast majority of the time. Especially in the case of SC, when you're writing fiction based on an already established world, this seems to be a fairly easy job to do. So what the fuck? Do you need any educational background? Writing experience? Do you just pitch an idea to a developer hoping they'll get onboard? Why do companies keep reusing the same hackneyed concepts for key elements of the plot? Blizzard seems to like unions and final battles, Bioware can't get enough of party assembling, every company out there wants to push a love story down our throats these days (which they badly fail at and that is the problem). Again, what the fuck? AAA companies need to sell much; they sell less if they have "interesting" or "intelligent" plots and characters. Sad fact. The average customer is not like us SCfetischists on TL, and they will ALWAYS prioritize the average customer. Unless they happened to have balls, which blizz clearly do not. | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3426 Posts
On March 14 2013 21:54 CYFAWS wrote: AAA companies need to sell much; they sell less if they have "interesting" or "intelligent" plots and characters. Sad fact. The average customer is not like us SCfetischists on TL, and they will ALWAYS prioritize the average customer. Unless they happened to have balls, which blizz clearly do not. People keep saying that, but I just don't believe that to be true. Games fail, because they're bad and the gameplay is lacking or they don't work as intended. Are there any examples of games with a great plot that failed specifically because they had a great plot? No. Like I said, the plot doesn't have to be a priority in order for it to be at least decent. And having a game with a nice plot is a great thing, because it's something that competition (other AAA titles in a given genre) most likely won't have. I'm not saying "screw gameplay, give me a coherent plot". I'm saying "concentrate on gameplay, but don't forget the plot". Look at the first Mass Effect. Plot-wise, it was very good. It established a rich, interesting world, a cryptic enemy. The dialogue was decent, for the most part, and it had some plot twists and hard choices. It was paced ok, too. Couple that with good gameplat design (for the most part) and you have a success. And then came ME2, which didn't make any sense and didn't change a thing and a (mostly) strong ME3 that destroyed everything the games have been building up to in a matter of minutes. | ||
|
CYFAWS
Sweden275 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:06 True_Spike wrote: People keep saying that, but I just don't believe that to be true. Games fail, because they're bad and the gameplay is lacking or they don't work as intended. Are there any examples of games with a great plot that failed specifically because they had a great plot? No. Like I said, the plot doesn't have to be a priority in order for it to be at least decent. And having a game with a nice plot is a great thing, because it's something that competition (other AAA titles in a given genre) most likely won't have. I'm not saying "screw gameplay, give me a coherent plot". I'm saying "concentrate on gameplay, but don't forget the plot". Look at the first Mass Effect. Plot-wise, it was very good. It established a rich, interesting world, a cryptic enemy. The dialogue was decent, for the most part, and it had some plot twists and hard choices. It was paced ok, too. Couple that with good gameplat design (for the most part) and you have a success. And then came ME2, which didn't make any sense and didn't change a thing and a (mostly) strong ME3 that destroyed everything the games have been building up to in a matter of minutes. Well. The companies make probing tests where they specifically elect small midwestern cities and average joes to rate their plots and characters. I don't work in the business but i'm a student and we have the guys from all the large companies in sweden over quite often; this is directly from their mouths. Average Joe relates better to a simpler, more recognizable, story; as soon as a title reaches a certain magnitude they will have to put the main focus on average joe. This isn't really any kind of conspiracy, but sad facts of the money hungry AAA-model. (yes, european companies make their tests in the US; eu customers have too high tolerance for non-conformity in comparison. Also directly from the AAA-dudes) | ||
|
BurgerFreak
Denmark37 Posts
If you're actually anywhere past middle school and this story doesn't make you embarrassed for everyone involved, you should be ashamed of yourself. OP is right. If ever there could be said to be an objectively terrible story, this is it. I was honestly completely unable to enjoy an otherwise decent campaign because the writing was so insufferable. Who are all of these ridiculous Zerg characters coming out of the woodwork and why should I care about them? Is this Chris Metzen's idea of characterization? Why is Stukov back from the dead? We literally saw him explode into a pool of blood in BW with a tragic death scene, and he does nothing of significance here. Did someone in the office just suggest that it would be cool and then everyone realized they hadn't retconned a dead character in this game yet? How could Duran be resolved so terribly? I just run into him randomly in a space station, he tells me that I suck and can never win, and then I have to blow up temples so Kerrigan can win in a battle of psychic hadokens? And then we get fantasy scene #9001 where a shapeshifter turns into the form of someone important to you and you fall for it even though you know they're a shapeshifter, twice in the same scene? what the !@#$ is this %^-* How freaking cowardly is it to retcon the Tal'Darim to be servants of the Dark Voice once everyone points out that Jim Raynor was basically an imperialist supervillain in WoL? Like, "Oh by the way, you shouldn't feel bad about invading their world and violently robbing them of the objects of their faith because surprise, they were possessed by Satan! the whole time!" And for that matter, how does it make any sense at all that the Tal'Darim were working for Narud if Narud repeatedly commissioned Raynor to steal Xel'Naga artifacts *from* the Tal'Darim in WoL? Why does Kerrigan need so much power to kill Mengsk? He is JUST A GUY. She got the better of him several times in BW with her regular "power level." Everything we see in both the story and game mechanics suggests she could just take her brood, attack Korhal, and kill him. She was able to kill billions within a few hours in her initial invasion in WoL. Why does killing Mengsk demand that she reinfest herself, undoing the only thing of significance that happened in WoL? Why are they so insistent on pushing this theme that she'll do anything for power that she doesn't appear to need to accomplish her goals? Why do the game's antagonists have no speaking lines that say anything other than "you suck and you'll never beat me?" Why are Jim and Kerrigan so hot for each other all of a sudden in SC2? I don't think we ever got anything more than a debatable implication that they were an item in the BW story. But they're exchanging sloppy makeouts within the first twenty minutes of this story. Is it just like, there is an attractive man and an attractive woman on screen, of course they have to be all over each other? Why do the writers have such an elementary school command of prose? what am i reading? god, this is barely even scratching the surface. the story is childish, trite and doesn't make any sense. characters are introduced for no reason whatsoever. It doesn't succeed on the conventional level, on a deliberately broad-strokes sci-fi epic level, on a B movie level, on a "so bad it's good" level. It just completely, unequivocally sucks. Oh, and could we ditch the name "Queen of Blades" already? It sounds freaking idiotic and doesn't signify anything about the character except that hurr durr blades are pretty cool and so is Kerrigan I guess. He hits the nail on the head | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:06 True_Spike wrote: People keep saying that, but I just don't believe that to be true. Games fail, because they're bad and the gameplay is lacking or they don't work as intended. Are there any examples of games with a great plot that failed specifically because they had a great plot? No. Like I said, the plot doesn't have to be a priority in order for it to be at least decent. And having a game with a nice plot is a great thing, because it's something that competition (other AAA titles in a given genre) most likely won't have. I'm not saying "screw gameplay, give me a coherent plot". I'm saying "concentrate on gameplay, but don't forget the plot". Umm..Planescape Torment? This game was a colossal failure (commercially), because most people didn't get the story, which was the main reason for playing the game (which is not to say it would have done well with a simpler story, although it likely would have done better, without the story there was no game). | ||
| ||
