|
On March 14 2013 23:02 althaz wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Read what I wrote. Planescape: Torment failed, because it was lacking in the area of gameplay. Story-wise it was fantastic and overall it is one of the most memorable gaming experiences of my life, but as a *game* (not simply a form of media to convey the story) it blew. Besides, it was not a failure, because it did make a profit, albeit a small one.
|
As much as I truly enjoyed the campaign for HOTS, Planescape: Torment, with its unnerving mechanics and old graphics, has some of the best video game writing around.
|
If you want to argue generalities then gameplay is infinite more important than the story and has been for a long time. Heck, for a long time games barely had much story at all during the 80's and 90's. Naturally no one wants a bad story, but when I go back to some of my favorite games ever and actually take some time into thinking about the plot, most of them are full of contradictions and weird twists and turns (if you compare it to something like a critically acclaimed book), usually hiding it with awesome gameplay mechanics and just an enjoyable experience. Of course there's exceptions with story driven games, rpgs and other cinematic driven games but I'd say that's the general rule. That doesn't mean devs should get a free pass in this regard but if the choice is between story and gameplay I take gameplay any day of the week.
|
On March 15 2013 00:10 nihlon wrote: if the choice is between story and gameplay I take gameplay any day of the week.
There is no such choice; It's not like you make your programmers/designers finish the mechanical part of the game as fast as possible and then turn them into storywriters; There are different teams, and sadly, Blizzard's storytelling team is failing.
|
On March 14 2013 23:02 althaz wrote:Show nested quote +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).
No it wasn't a failure because people didn't get the story. It was a failure because of the gameplay, it's super shit and I love PS:T.
There were also a lot of bugs at the release, story had nothing to do with its failure.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2013 23:01 BurgerFreak wrote:
This is stolen from b.net forums.. from a guy who calls himself Zoomacroom:
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
That's pretty harsh, but yeah, that kinda hits the nail on the head. Which doesn't mean the campaign wasn't enjoyable.
For my part, I felt the story was told in a much MUCH better way than WoL - not 100% linear but you are compelled to go on ; everything is not a filler.
Story wise this is a disaster of course.
In your list, you didn't mention one thing that bugs me: why the hell does Jim help Kerrigan in the last mission ? No, this is not heroic at all. In fact, he decides instead of the population that thousands and thousands will die (let's be honest: it will be the case even if Kerrigan will try to "care") in exchange of removing the dictator. A choice that basically nobody made in the the whole earth history because they don't care about abstract concepts and the "games of thrones" - they riot for economical reason and want to live in peace and in maximum wealth possible. But that's another subject anyway. My point is that he helps the public ennemy N°1 to butcher the population to get a personnal revenge.
Guess what ? If I were the next leader of Korhal (why would it be Valerian anyway ? Did he do anything in the last battle ? Why the son of the ex-dictator ?), you can be sure that I would make sure Raynor ends in trial and is prosecuted to the full extent of the law... I am quite sick of this Hollywood-style where the hero shoots everyone and never faces the consequences of his acts because he is the good guy by essence.
|
Pedestrian story from a conservative, market-centered developer.
I work in film and tv project development, and am very experienced with the many reasons a writing team can go sour. If only the Freedom of Information Act applied to their internal e-mails exchanging story notes, perhaps we'd know the culprit.
I had a fetish for SC story, but I stopped caring when WoL turned out bum...
According to Metzen, "darker" story meant the lead's dialogue is threatening and aggressive rather than hickish and elementary.
And why the hell does Zeratul let Kerrigan kick the shit outta him? I really hope LotV redeems Zeratul to his status of the most badass character in the franchise...
|
I really don't want to be Blizzard (or even worse - Chris Metzen) apologist but... there's one thing folks are kinda disregarding when it comes to the storyline.
First... the Starcraft story was pretty much a tie-in to the gameplay and theme from day one. Starcraft borrowed heavily from both Warhammer and Alien franchise and the story was there mostly to state "hey guys, this is not Warcraft In Space, and it most definitely is not Warhammer or Aliens". Also, and even more importantly, the story's purpose was to tie all the campaign missions together, and gameplay directed that you needed to play through all three races and during that playthrough each race needs to be constantly switching the race it fights - especially paramount since content-wise all the missions were basically variations of "kill the enemy base". So by necessity the story needed to rationalize why the hell is everyone fighting everyone, and let's face it, it does so rather clumsily. Kerrigan herself was initially a throw-away character whose role only expanded after subsequent rewrites.
But the jist is - SC and SC:BW's story wasn't necessarily complex and overarching because the creators were intent on making a good story - but rather because it needed to be because the format of the gameplay required it to.
So it's now a decade later. Starcraft 2 is in the works. Ask yourself what the creative devs have to deal with. The nostalgia factor. The lore nuts. The novels. The completely unpredictable and heterogenous fanbase (with business dictating that the most profits lie in catering to the 12-25 crowd). And... perhaps the most importantly - the game format. Instead of a campaign which goes through all three races but offers a rather simplistic gameplay, you have a game which goes through just one race but needs to offer as much variety per mission as possible. Settings needs to be as varied as possible, goals have to be flashy and interesting, sense of progression needs to be integrated in the story itself but the missions all need to make a cohesive whole AND be story-driven... when you put everything down, you don't really get huge potential for a big, complex, overarching storyline.
My opinion is that in these circumstances the best, safest bet you can go with is.... try to get away with the most simplistic, cliche-ridden story you can think of. Why? Two reasons - it is safe, and it works. Masses like simplistic stories if they are wrapped in nice packages (Avatar anyone?). And as I said - relying on simplistic tropes is easy and safe. Prince goes out to save a damsel in distress. There's a mysterious McGuffin which is Very Important and everyone wants to get it. A character is wronged, and wants to exact revenge. There's a reason why Hollywood does this stuff all the time!
So bottom line - yes, Starcraft 2 story is crap. It's pulpy trite of the worst kind. But taking the big picture into account, you cannot really blame Metzen and the rest of the creative gang THAT much. They most probably didn't do it out of spite, or cause they don't care. They did it out of necessity.
|
On March 15 2013 00:10 nihlon wrote:
If you want to argue generalities then gameplay is infinite more important than the story and has been for a long time. Heck, for a long time games barely had much story at all during the 80's and 90's. Naturally no one wants a bad story, but when I go back to some of my favorite games ever and actually take some time into thinking about the plot, most of them are full of contradictions and weird twists and turns (if you compare it to something like a critically acclaimed book), usually hiding it with awesome gameplay mechanics and just an enjoyable experience. Of course there's exceptions with story driven games, rpgs and other cinematic driven games but I'd say that's the general rule. That doesn't mean devs should get a free pass in this regard but if the choice is between story and gameplay I take gameplay any day of the week.
Dude, you're not wrong, but this is also not the 80's anymore. AND on top of that, they had the responsibility of a huge franchise and they threw it all to shit.
You can't just add some random 2D/3D faces to a game and call it story&setting, not anymore.
But whatever, in the end, I'm stupid for buying it, not they for selling it.
|
@LingsAreBunnies
1. The extent to which she knew about him helping Jim is not disclosed.
Her anger is pretty straight forward. Whenever something that hurt her in her past comes up, she gets angry. Inhumanly so, mind you. He mentioned Jim and her past and she squashed him.
2. He boarded her vessel and got to her. She didn't know about his presence until he was near her. She assumed the worst and defended herself. After she defeated him, she was sure he pose her no more threat at that point. That's when you don't kill them and you rather ask questions. She didn't even kill that random protoss they captured. Killing him at that point made no sense.
3. She pretty much caused the deaths of thousands of civilians at the end. The difference is she went out of her way to make her mission harder in order to spare millions. Doesn't seem inconsistent.
|
I was actually hoping that some crew members from the hyperion would betray raynor, could have been a nice cutscene or mission. I mean, how did raynor tell them that they would invade korhal? "K guys, look, we gonna join our greatest enemy and go kill your familys and millions ppl of our race so i can get my revenge and help this hot chick we saved some months ago. Oh btw she leads the zerg now". I think its not very well writen story wise why raynor helps kerrigan hut atleast i can understand it. But why the fuck has nobody on the entire ship a problem with destroying korhal??
|
Russian Federation3 Posts
It's cool that Narud after dreadfull experiments made Stukov near ideal hybrid of zerg-terran, and Stukov became second in power after Primal Queen.
|
If there was a Golden Raspberry Award for video games, than StarCraft 2 is winning one for story. Not a single thing makes sense...
|
On March 14 2013 13:49 Gatesleeper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:04 Slaughter wrote:On March 14 2013 11:13 Gatesleeper wrote:On March 14 2013 10:56 Slaughter wrote:
Honestly in the context of video game stories, it is pretty good. Please tell me of any truly "amazing" game stories. Because according to the standards that some of you are judging HotS you would think that every other game story was personally written by a famed novelist. It's true, video game writing is and has always been bad. The problem is, up until WoW/D3/SC2, Blizzard was one of those few gaming companies that made good stories and had good writing. Here are some games with good writing/stories: Most Valve games (HL 1 and 2, Portal) Most Bioware games (but not ME3, good god) Bioshock 1 (not 2) Silent Hill 2 Indigo Prophecy Dreamfall: The Longest Journey Some of the Fire Emblem games Hotel Dusk: Room 215 Braid (even with all its pretentiousness) I haven't played these, but have heard good things: Planescape: Torment Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem Grim Fandango Xenogears Deus Ex Beyond Good and Evil For the games on this list that I know, each still had 1000000x people bitching about the writing/storytelling. Man I take my time to give you a list of good stories in video games and you brush them all off with a line like this. Why do people use arguments like this? Is it even an argument? What are you saying here? Which games are you talking about? Because I can guarantee you that none of these games had over a million people complain about its story, because many of these games not more than a million people played, ever. But anyway, what you're saying is that no matter how good something is, there will always be detractors and naysayers. That's granted, and obvious. What's your point though? What are you trying to say about SC2? That it had a good story despite all the people in here that say otherwise? What do you want me to say? That HotS had a better plot than Call of Duty or Gears of War or whatever? Fine, it did. Heart of the Swarm, however bad, still had a better story than a lot of mainstream video games. But that doesn't mean we should give it a pat on the back and call it a day. I'm holding Starcraft to a higher standard, one set by SC1 and Blizzard's other games in the past. By those standards, HotS is drivel, and just because it's more or less on par for video game plotlines, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to say that. Just because other games are trash doesn't make HotS good, and just because better games have had detractors doesn't mean HotS is as good as them.
My point was that you seem to be arbitrarily hating on SC2's plot and holding it to a higher standard then any other game, even SC1 and BW. So many people for some reason see BW's story as close to as good as it gets in video game writing when it really wasn't much better then SC2s. All those "twists": and depth they pretty much slammed you with in the face before they happened. It wasn't good writing they just introduced the characters we all love in them and now people just don't like some of Blizzards choices in where they are taking those characters, which IS an subjective taste preference. Blizzards writing has been pretty consistent (maybe a bit more cliched out in SC2) but there isn't this massive drop off from SC/BW than everyone is saying. The only thing BW did better is that it had a lot more diversity of cooler characters, ones that they killed off and haven't really replaced in SC2.
|
On March 15 2013 02:57 Slaughter wrote:
My point was that you seem to be arbitrarily hating on SC2's plot and holding it to a higher standard then any other game, even SC1 and BW. So many people for some reason see BW's story as close to as good as it gets in video game writing when it really wasn't much better then SC2s. All those "twists": and depth they pretty much slammed you with in the face before they happened. It wasn't good writing they just introduced the characters we all love in them and now people just don't like some of Blizzards choices in where they are taking those characters, which IS an subjective taste preference. Blizzards writing has been pretty consistent (maybe a bit more cliched out in SC2) but there isn't this massive drop off from SC/BW than everyone is saying. The only thing BW did better is that it had a lot more diversity of cooler characters, ones that they killed off and haven't really replaced in SC2.
But there IS a massive drop off. Two of the biggest problems are Blizzard's inability to acknowledge previous plotlines and the level of vision and perspective given to the player.
First, think about the Dominion - You kick Mengsk's ass as the UED. Then you kick Mengsk's ass as Kerrigan, twice. Then you kick Mengsk's ass as Raynor. Then you finally kill Mengsk at long last at the end of HotS. It's like a character that keeps fighting with about 30 bullet holes in them it doesn't make any sense.
I also can't believe how much the HotS storyline walked all over the importance of WoL. They seriously undid WoL in the first 1/4 of HotS? When it takes that much storytelling to mold your character into the one you want maybe you should just introduce a new character.
For my comment about perspective I mean this. In SC/BW we as the player knew the general overall strengths of the factions and could see how our actions affected the power balance. In WoL the Dominion is a juggernaut, but Raynor defeats them consistently. Also in WoL Kerrigan seems able to kill the Terran at will, but is content to sit around Char doing nothing for the most part. I never got a good grasp of who was stronger, Kerrigan or the Dominion, but if I watch the closing cinematic of BW I know exactly what the deal is.
|
I don't think the story is godawful, but it does rub a lot of fans the wrong way
because it seems like the SC2 developers never played or understood the wonderful and elegant story of BW.
I knew the starcraft story was pretty dead by the end of WoL, but it's officially so with HotS.
It's best to consider SC1/BW and SC2 to be completely different from one another.
|
This thread is a great example of how good the story was because it has inspired us to come and share our feelings and opinions. Art should inspire these feelings and opinions and I say bravo to you, Blizzard! I would like to add three things to this discussion.
1. HotS - Main theme - I think many people assume that this is only a revenge story. To me, the main theme of this expansion is what the zerg have always been about: purity of essence. Some of us need a refresher on why/how the zerg were created, according to Starcraft 1 lore.
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Zerg_history
HotS is a journey of one character to refine and improve her essence (and consequently, her strength and power and the strength of the Zerg swarm). The writers are drawing interesting parallels to the new big baddie (we know that Amon wants to consume all essence, but to what end? Did Amon also start out like the Zerg, trying to consume more and more essence in order to reach perfection/purity?)
2. We should have seen Amon coming.
At the end of Broodwars, we learn via Zeratul/Duran that there is a greater danger to the universe out there. I drew the conclusion that it would involve the Xel'naga in SOME capacity. I think the writers had two approaches to re-introduce the Xel'naga: either villainize one of them, or all of them. By singling out one villain, we now have the chance to get to know a new character from an awesome universe. If the Xel'naga were geneticists, how did one of them become so powerful? I think Legacy of the Void will explore the Xel'naga a lot more than we have before.
If Blizzard had made the whole race of Xel'naga to be villains, then we would have a Halo 4 situation with humanity battling the Forerunners. I'm sure it would have been fine, but creating a villain out of the Xel'naga protects the identity of the Xel'naga as a benevolent race.
3. Jim helping Kerrigan take down Mengsk was VERY appropriate.
I've read a lot of discussion about how wrong it is for the Terrans to be killing each other. I don't agree with this view. Raynor has been a freedom fighter all along, resisting and killing other Terrans in every Starcraft game. Jim has just as much invested in the revenge plot as Kerrigan does, but Kerrigan has the army to pull it off. Remember, Mengsk hunted them both and tried to kill them both over and over. I also feel that the way Jim and Sarah parted at the end was appropriate, because they both knew that Sarah has bigger fish to fry before they can settle down together. I think we can still hope that they will get a happy ending.
Thanks for all the great discussion, and thank you to Existor! Long live the Swarm!
|
On March 15 2013 02:57 Slaughter wrote:
My point was that you seem to be arbitrarily hating on SC2's plot and holding it to a higher standard then any other game, even SC1 and BW. So many people for some reason see BW's story as close to as good as it gets in video game writing when it really wasn't much better then SC2s.
Blah blah blah... much of talking and no concrets. We (story haters) pointed many times what makes SC2 story horrible. Resurected Stukov and Tassadar's ghost alone makes SC2 much more riddiculus. I dont want even talk about forgetable (new-old and new) characters [yes, this one is actually subjective point of wiev], their inconsistent behavior and motives, "warcraftesque" zergs, ALL BACKGROUND BECOMING MORE AND MORE INSANE MESS, retcons from original, general lack of sense in events like "Tychus released by Mengsk and join RAYNOR to KILL KERRIGAN"...
I dont even...
On March 15 2013 03:55 Xizore wrote:
This thread is a great example of how good the story was because it has inspired us to come and share our feelings and opinions. Art should inspire these feelings and opinions and I say bravo to you, Blizzard!
Even Far Cry 3 story was more inspiring than this crap...at last it had some cool villains. I say whoever wrote story for SC2, is for me Uwe Boll of video games right now. I did read better fanworks than that.
|
On March 15 2013 01:16 BlackCompany wrote:
I was actually hoping that some crew members from the hyperion would betray raynor, could have been a nice cutscene or mission. I mean, how did raynor tell them that they would invade korhal? "K guys, look, we gonna join our greatest enemy and go kill your familys and millions ppl of our race so i can get my revenge and help this hot chick we saved some months ago. Oh btw she leads the zerg now". I think its not very well writen story wise why raynor helps kerrigan hut atleast i can understand it. But why the fuck has nobody on the entire ship a problem with destroying korhal??
Remember, Raynor's raiders are a rebel group that exists to fight and resist the Dominion. They have ONE battlecruiser and not much of a plan on how to actually stop Mengsk. They basically end up running every time the Dominion shows up in force. In WoL, they had a temporary alliance with some Dominion soldiers because Jim had a chance to take down Kerrigan.
|
Finished the campaign, and while I didn't have any high expectations, it really was quite bad. Blizzard really needs to revamp their entire story department, it's embarrassing how childish blizzard games are, it's like their main target audience is 12 year olds or your grandma. Every single blizzard game is on thematurity level of pandaren.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
