On March 17 2013 12:16 Brutaxilos wrote: I'm actually very curious to see if Duran actually is Narud. It's very interesting that neither Kerrigan or Stukov mentioned Duran by name in the entire campaign despite his mutual relations with both of them (and how Duran killed Stukov).
We know that they have a confirmed relationship, what if they were both servants for Amon and just had complementing names. Eh, I can only fantasize. But I didn't feel like Narud's death was fitting of Duran's badassery.
That's actually a good point. I never considered the possibility that there were two or more servants of Amon. I think it would follow well that they were separate, despite the odd coincidence with names.
I actually think that they were originally intended to be the same person, but Blizzard probably realized that a Narud death with slight mention of the character of Duran would be an unfitting end for Duran. They'll probably bring Duran back in the future because Blizzard.
It would definitely make sense if there were two or more servants of Amon. Maybe it's just a red herring- the connection between the names Narud and Duran is so obvious that Blizzard might have just wanted players to immediately associate the two, but instead will bring Duran back in LOTV (I'm not holding my breath though, given Blizzard's recent track record for writing).
However, it still seems odd that Kerrigan wouldn't even question Narud about Duran at all, given the similarity between the names and his power, so that's an issue regardless of how they resolve the Duran/Narud plot.
On March 17 2013 13:06 Brutaxilos wrote: I actually think that they were originally intended to be the same person, but Blizzard probably realized that a Narud death with slight mention of the character of Duran would be an unfitting end for Duran. They'll probably bring Duran back in the future because Blizzard.
I see a lot of people posting things like this, but they basically told everyone Narud was Duran at a blizzcon lore panel. IMO it was pretty obvious that Narud was Duran from the story. Oh well here is the link to the question....
I think Duran and Narud are two different guys, come on people Samir Duran is black and this other dude is a white boy, how could they be the same person, it doesn't make any sense.
On March 17 2013 13:37 Nevermind86 wrote: I think Duran and Narud are two different guys, come on people Samir Duran is black and this other dude is a white boy, how could they be the same person, it doesn't make any sense.
I actually think Narud and Duran are different entities, and the fact that their names are reverses of each other is simply there to throw you off (really, it's way too obvious)
On March 17 2013 13:06 Brutaxilos wrote: I actually think that they were originally intended to be the same person, but Blizzard probably realized that a Narud death with slight mention of the character of Duran would be an unfitting end for Duran. They'll probably bring Duran back in the future because Blizzard.
I see a lot of people posting things like this, but they basically told everyone Narud was Duran at a blizzcon lore panel. IMO it was pretty obvious that Narud was Duran from the story. Oh well here is the link to the question....
I've seen that. But personally, I think that they just changed their mind. Because if they were going to really confirm Duran being Narud they should have at least had Narud shapeshift to Duran during the fight with Kerrigan to throw her off. I swear, if Duran appeared during that battle, I woulda jizzed.
Also keep in mind that Kerrigan says something along the lines of "I've never felt a presence as powerful as [Narud's] before." Surely, she would have felt Duran's presence at least?
On March 17 2013 14:00 Brutaxilos wrote: I've seen that. But personally, I think that they just changed their mind. Because if they were going to really confirm Duran being Narud they should have at least had Narud shapeshift to Duran during the fight with Kerrigan to throw her off. I swear, if Duran appeared during that battle, I woulda jizzed.
Also keep in mind that Kerrigan says something along the lines of "I've never felt a presence as powerful as [Narud's] before." Surely, she would have felt Duran's presence at least?
The way I look at is there was really no reason for him to morph into Duran. Duran is probably just one of the many personalities he used over the years. Narud/Duran or "The Shapshifter" was trying to get into Kerrigan's head so what better way to do that then use the forms he used.
As for his powerful presence, wasn't he using those amplifiers that we had to destroy during that mission. It turned out he/it wasn't as powerful as she thought. Plus she is still having memory issues. Anyway anything is possible I guess. I personally think it was Duran and the only thing I could question is whether he really died or not. Actually no, he's probably dead and we can consider that story hook over.
On March 17 2013 12:34 Leopoldshark wrote: A couple small things: -I expected her transformation on Zerus to look more "primal". Instead it looks pretty much like her old look. The pool she bathed in should have been uncorrupted by Amon and would turn her into something different: not quite human, not quite Zerg, but able to better command the Swarm.
Now that you mention it... why did her Primal Transformation lead her to "become the Swarm"? The primals are unrelated to the Swarm, they are independent free spirits who only care about evolving, and have rejected the hivemind. Why should their effect on Kerrigan actually enhance her hivemind ability?
One thing that really bugged me about HotS was the whole Raynor/Kerrigan romance thing. Like I know it was there in WoL but for some reason seeing Kerrigan's side and realizing she was somehow just as much in love with Raynor as he was with her was too much. I could see Raynor being the bleeding heart, and maybe even being into Kerrigan at the end of the Terran campaign in Vanilla SC- in SC and BW he was the "good guy". But Kerrigan was always stoic, and the way she was in WoL was at least somewhat consistent with who she was by the end of BW.
Also, the whole Xel'Naga artifact thing. They totally dropped the ball on that. They should've made that the center of the story. There is such a possibility of mystery around this thing: how did it de-zerg Kerrigan? Where did all the power go? (we know it was Amon but they could've made a really good plotline out of that idea) And from there reveal Amon, and his servant Narud, but Kerrigan can tell instantly that it's Duran and then they spend some time hunting him down. And rather than make him some dumbass paper-flat character, actually make him cunning and interesting like he was in BW. Drop the whole Stukov bullshit, and the Zerus story arc. Stay near all the stuff that was set up in BW and WoL, like Tosh, Nova, Xel'Naga artifacts, Shakuras, Aiur, and the Overmind. The whole Mengsk revenge plotline was a mistake. It wasn't a terrible idea, but it was definitely an unremarkable idea, and replaced what could've been a really good story.
But for me, the amnesia was the BIGGEST mistake they could have possibly made when writing the story. It was just literary laziness. Like suddenly this interesting, vindictive character changes via a xel'naga artifact (read: deus ex machina). There is no explanation how this is possible or how this works. Then, in order to make the changes stick, it turns out she can't remember what she did as the Queen of Blades- her past identity is completely gone. There is no inner conflict for her to face which results in her changing- just a space magic changing her into someone completely different. Her motivations are weak at best, because they don't match up with our perception of who she is. In BW she was a vicious plotting cunt that fucked over everyone that got in her way, and even after spending a campaign with her you still hated her for infesting the Matriarch and killing Fenix. Even Raynor (who was supposedly in love with her) vowed that he was going to see her dead after all the fucked up shit she did. Yet when the time comes round for her to face her actions, Kerrigan gets amnesia. Raynor apparently has amnesia as well because he can't remember her killing his best Protoss friend. And she doesn't have any remorse over killing billions of terrans and almost wiping out the protoss, because she can't remember doing it. She can't face the past because she has no past. That's another major conflict waved away with an easy deus ex machina. No having to face all the terrible things she's done, no remorse, no inner conflict aside from KILL MENGSK FOR KILLING MY AMNESIAC BOYFRIEND
It's like Blizzard's writers are trying to force this Diablo III rehashed plot into starcraft, and they don't care if it doesn't make sense for any of the characters to act the way they do.
On March 17 2013 13:54 thenexusp wrote: I actually think Narud and Duran are different entities, and the fact that their names are reverses of each other is simply there to throw you off (really, it's way too obvious)
This is Blizzard. I think you are going to be very disappointed. The different looks is obviously because he can shapeshift.
On March 16 2013 20:47 levelping wrote: I also want to say that your options aren't really good to show a true positive/negative reaction. There is confusion between an objective good/bad assessment, and then there is the relative comaprison with WOL, and other Blizzard franchises. I think you should have picked either the objective or relative standards and stuck with that, as opposed to having two, and confusing people.
Thanks, that is a really good point. It's too late to change it now, but I'll remember that in future. There is definitely an art to creating good polls/surveys, and it's one I'm not particularly well versed in.
P.S. I read your whole long post, I didn't reply to it directly because I basically agreed with everything in it, but it's too bad no one from the other camp took the time to respond. It seems they would rather nitpick and split hairs over smaller issues than to redress a sweeping critique of the whole narrative direction of the series, as you've provided. Or, they simply give the "Shakespeare argument" as you coin it, which has been repeated literally dozens of times in this thread alone.
Jim apparently dies. His love, the only thing that was moving her towards redemption, makes her lose faith in humanity (the parallels between mengsk abandoning her and horner and crew abandoning jim should have been clearer. Make Sarah ask them to turn around the ship, and Horner can say "belay that order..."). Sarah sees this as a betrayal of Jim, and leaves the hyperion.
Wow, that's actually a great parallel, I hadn't even thought of it. Unfortunately, like you said it wasn't highlighted or made clear at all, and it seems it was all accidental anyway. I can't wait for someone to read this, pretend that it was intentional and that they realized it when they played the game, and tout it as example of the narrative subtly and thematic depth of HotS. Seriously, that'll be really funny.
P.P.S. "hot ghost ass" lol.
Thanks for reading. I didn't expect anyone to since it really just ran off as a rant. There are some good parallels that could have been made clearer/drawn in HOTS. But the chance was missed.
On March 15 2013 08:12 bbfg wrote: Uhm if you didn't get it from the games that they were a thing you certainly should have gotten it from the books. But really, you should have gotten it from the games, too.
Actually no. There was no indication in sc1 vanilla or brood war that they were dating or romantically involved. Go replay the games and you'll see. THey were flirting constantly but the story of them being in love was introduced in WoL.
Are you serious? The end of SC1's Terran campaign and the beginning of its Zerg campaign makes it absolutely clear that he is head over heels for her. He leads HUNDREDS of men to their deaths deep into Zerg space for a CHANCE to rescue her (and he fails anyway).
If that isn't love, then Jim Raynor is mentally retarded.
On March 16 2013 05:25 Taidanii wrote:
On March 16 2013 05:21 SI2 wrote: Well, I read a couple of pages to get where this thread is going. Some people are raging hard and some people are happy about the game.
The problem is, I feel that people who criticize would NEVER be happy no matter how the game comes out. Personnaly, I have been playing sc and bw since a child and waiting so long for SC2 it was a real treat to me see such an upgrade of the game with awesome graphics, awesome units and most of all awesome cinematics.
Because that you like the story or not, In my opinion the cinematics in the games are wonderful, they make you a lot into the story even if it's cheesy (for me anyways). Jim is an awesome character and Kerrigan is hot. The teen in me is very satisfied and I can't wait for part three....(Damn i'll be old when it comes out!)
When you typed "I feel that people who criticize would NEVER be happy no matter how the game comes out" how did you feel? Was that a joke? I'm baffled that someone could actually formulate that thought.
Of course the people that found it to be of poor quality would be happy if it was better quality. How ridiculous.
No, that's false because quality is purely subjective. Certain personalities with certain opinions will always find a way to think that X or Y is terrible, even if it was the Lord of the Rings of RTS videogame storytelling.
People in this thread are nitpicking aspects of HotS while ignoring the same (or worse) flaws in all three previous titles.
Everyone that is negatively criticizing the expansion in this thread are consistently hitting the same points: Dialogue, the plot holes, and the resolution of Duran
IE if these items were of better quality the people that have an issue with the game would be happier.
Why is it that it seems to be the purpose of some individuals to try to convince everyone else that 2+2=5 when we all know the real arithmetic
Because math isn't an opinion. How a story resonates with you is.
Story dresonates differently with people based on their intelligence level and their level of emotional maturity. If there is good dialogue and storytelling in a game that shines through for a vast majority of players. It's not about opinion, it's about the fact that some people set their standards very low. Maybe because they never experienced good storytelling before (with todays mainstream entertainment this is very possible) or they simply are to emotionally and socially immature to detect it.
The dialogue in HOTS was honestly horrendous. It was 90%+ kerrigan speaking to her zerg minions and trying to explain to them the upsides of her human side. This get very very tiring once its done 5 times in a row and it really doesn't add antyhing new to the story after the first time.
I just don't see why blizzard being once of the richest companies in game making couldn't just hire a real writer for the story and build the game around that instead of "look at all these cool units".
So now the people who hated the story are in the "emotionally mature and intelligent group," and the ones who didn't hate it are those who just aren't smart enough to understand it sucked? Stories also resonate differently with people based on their personal experiences, social attitudes, and a host of other reasons. Is it possible to have a more condescending attitude?
"It's ok little friend, you're just not smart enough to know what you like is awful. Go have a juice box and watch Spongebob."
Ridiculous.
Sorry, Spongebob is better than this. I think that if we're really honest, yes we are saying that some people in this thread don't really have a good understanding of what makes a good story. I don't blame them personally, because a lot of things in pop culture today is just disposable entertainment that doesn't challenge the user. But I am saying that yes, you could do a lot better for yourself. And further, that as a community we should not be satisfied with sub par story telling. Sorry, while there are many subjective things in art, there are also plenty of objective ways to look at a piece and consider its worth. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that Bieber sits on the same ranking as Shakespeare, and also pressuposes a completely subjective point of view (this inherently discredits your own argument since if everything is really subjective, why are you trying to argue with me that the story is good? You too are assuming certain objective measures that support your assessment of "good").
So i've gone and listened to the cinematic where kerrigan fights narud, and copied down the dialog. Then I went back to BW and took the dialog from when Kerrigan betrays Fenix and Duke. Just look at the difference in quality.
HOTS
K: Face me narud, it’s over. N: It is only beginning. Amon whispered of this from the stars. He told you of his return, he told you of ruin, extinction, the end of all things. K: Your god is dead and he is never coming back. N: It’s that what you think. K: No. N: Sarah. K: No you’re not him. You’re not Jim, you are nothing. N: I am everything you lost. I am everything you never had. You’ve already lost. Amon... you will (some crap I can’t hear).
(italics for what I think is especially cringe worthy)
BW
FENIX:
This is betrayal, most foul, Kerrigan! We were fools to have gone along with this charade!
KERRIGAN:
You're right, Fenix. I used you to get the job done, and you played along just like I knew you would. You Protoss are all so headstrong and predictable, you are your own worst enemies.
FENIX:
That's ironic. I can remember Tassadar teaching you a very similar lesson on Char.
KERRIGAN:
I took that lesson to heart, Praetor. Now, are you ready to die a second time?
FENIX:
The Khala awaits me, Kerrigan. And although I am prepared to face my destiny, you'll not find me easy prey!
KERRIGAN:
Then that shall be your epitaph.
*** Kill Fenix ***
RAYNOR:
Fenix! No!
KERRIGAN:
What are you worried, Jim? He died the way all Protoss hope to: In combat!
RAYNOR:
He died because you betrayed him. How many noble souls do you need to consume before you're satisfied? How many more people need to die before you realize what you've become?
KERRIGAN:
You don't even know what you're talking about, Jim!
RAYNOR:
Don't I? 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!
KERRIGAN:
Tough talk, Jimmy. But I don't think you have what it takes to be a killer.
RAYNOR:
It may not be tomorrow,darlin'. It may not even happen with an army at my back. But rest assured: I'm the man who's going to kill you some day. I'll be seein' you.
*** Encounter Duke ***
DUKE:
Well, well, well. If it isn't little Kerrigan. I had a feelin' we'd be meetin' each other again. You've got a lot to answer for, little girl.
KERRIGAN:
General Duke. You know I always wanted to have you killed. This is kind of exciting for me.
DUKE:
Do your worst then, girl. You ain't takin' Edmund Duke without a fight!
*** Kill Duke ***
MENGSK:
Kerrigan, you murdering bitch! We had a deal!
KERRIGAN:
Oh, come on, Arcturus. Did you really think I'd allow you to come into power again? You practically fed me to the Zerg on Tarsonis! You're directly responsible for the hell I've been through! Did you honestly think I'd let you get away with that?
MENGSK:
But you said revenge was secondary to defeating the UED!
KERRIGAN:
I lied. I liberated this planet because it was the UED's primary staging point, not because I was under any obligation to you. I used you to destroy the Psi Disrupter. And now that I've got my Broods back, you're no longer necessary for my plans. I think I'll leave you here, Arcturus, among the ashes of your precious Dominion. I want you to live to see me rise to power. And I want you to always remember in your most private moments that it was you who turned me loose in the first place.
(italics for what i think was particularly good).
The writing is just... superior. Kerrigan had an actual personality there. She was gloating, evil, and clear motivated to take power. The death of fenix, and his last words in particular, is a reason why people have such a deep impression of kerrigan as an evil character. That's not to say that it was perfect. I think the dialogue in BW at times stumbles over the exposition. And the diction slips a bit into ordinary speech and so that breaks character occasionally. But this is more than compensated for with superior voice acting.
The writing in HOTS tells us nothing, we're not sure what kerrigan is trying to do. They just throw one liners at each other. "You've already lost..." really? Is anyone serious suggesting that something like that is good? This could have been made bearable with good voice acting but what we got against leaves much to be desired. The echo effect is distracting and after a while becomes silly (if she was eating in the hyperion canteen and asked for the salt and pepper would her voice echo across the whole ship?).
(I will admit that as a matter of fairness, the script in the cinematic may have been limited by the time constraints of the cinimatic sequence. I pulled our the dialog from the BW mission primarily because in BW there's a lot of story and exposition that happens in the missions themselves (again maybe because cinematics were generaly shorter back then too). All the same, the HOTS script is still just full of bad one liners. The difference in quality of writing is stark.)
A transcript of the original storyline. Read through it and try to come back and with a straight face claim that the storyline and writing of WoL and HotS so far is in the same league.
While it's true that SC1/BW had their share of corny moments, overall I say that the level of corniness was far, FAR worse in SC2 than it ever was in the first games. Most of the silliness in SC1 was due to the fact that the story had to be told through a bunch of talking portraits, but I felt that Blizzard made up for it through much stronger writing and voice acting.
Honestly, every time I hear that counterargument I'm instantly reminded of the type of people who defend the Star Wars prequels. Yea, every Star Wars movie has its odd bit of acting, but the prequels were rightfully mocked because they took the cringe-worthy dialogue and amplified it ten times. Try finding a line of dialogue from the original trilogy that matches the awfulness of Anakin's sand metaphor. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Starcraft is pretty much the same way. Just try to find moments in SC1 that were as bad as the following moments in SC2:
Zeratul's line when he sees the vision: "Nooo, this vision. I cannot bear it. STAHP!" Zeratul's line when he sees Tassadar: "Tassadar..............................but...........................................you DIED" Kerrigan's silly attempt at bringing up moral relativism to Lassara. Yes, feel sorry for the billions of zerg who invaded the Koprulu sector purely to annihilate all living things there.
And I can go on about the numerous retcons and glaring plot holes that SC2 has as well. Kerrigan somehow reaching Zerus instantly. Zerus being a lush jungle instead of a volcanic wasteland. Primal zerg being centered around independence and acting in separate tribes with constant infighting, which is not only a blatant copy of the Dark Templar, but completely contradicts the entire reason the zerg were created in the first place (purity of essence to counter the protoss' purity of form). Arcturus never using the artifact even though he had it the whole time. The Tal'Darim worshipping Narud, which calls into question why Narud needed to give Raynor money to collect the artifacts he already owned. And so on...
How anybody can put this on the level of SC1/BW is beyond me. I know that games aren't the pinnacle of writing, but come on... Just look at 02:43-03:43 of this youtube link when it compares the dialogue between SC1 Zeratul and SC2 Zeratul. They are simply not in the same league.
I didn't mind the story all that much! And the epic feel to sit down, launch sc2 hots single player, them cut scenes.. I had a great time playing it tbh! Don't need go inception on our asses to make a enjoyable game imo.
It's a different media, guys. It's like comparing a play designed for the stage, and a movie designed for the screen. Back then, cinematics were rough and tough to make, couldn't convey that much anyway, so most of the story was in detailed dialogue declamations. That would just seem outdated in today's games. They are more like movies - visual, simple, cheesy. And if they made them any other way, they would get far worse reaction than the critique of a few elitists on TL. I also didn't like the LOTR movies, they were horrible compared to the books, but hey, apparently they need to make them so cheesy, otherwise they wouldn't sell to the masses, and they need that kind of revenue for such an epic production.
Compare the length of the Credits of the original games and the new games.
On March 17 2013 18:20 figq wrote:They are more like movies - visual, simple, cheesy.
Wait, I think we're not watching the same movies...
Hollywood blockbusters, I mean. Do you really expect Cannes/Sundance for the target (teen) group of some RTS space game, in which, by default, mutas fly in space, and marines are dressed like American footballers.
That said, some of the cinematics, though simple, were very moving. Raw and emotional. Effective. Sometimes even that's enough for recognition in acting.
On March 17 2013 18:20 figq wrote:They are more like movies - visual, simple, cheesy.
Wait, I think we're not watching the same movies...
Hollywood blockbusters, I mean. Do you really expect Cannes/Sundance for the target (teen) group of some RTS space game, in which, by default, mutas fly in space, and marines are dressed like American footballers.
Even blockbusters can have a degree of smartness to them ! I'm not really expecting some Mankiewicz-level writing, even though that would be really cool^^ Edit : I mean, honestly, I think video game is an excellent medium for storytelling, and i'm sad it's not being exploited better.
On March 17 2013 18:20 figq wrote:They are more like movies - visual, simple, cheesy.
Wait, I think we're not watching the same movies...
Hollywood blockbusters, I mean. Do you really expect Cannes/Sundance for the target (teen) group of some RTS space game, in which, by default, mutas fly in space, and marines are dressed like American footballers.
That said, some of the cinematics, though simple, were very moving. Raw and emotional. Effective. Sometimes even that's enough for recognition in acting.
Why aim for cheesy Hollywood blockbusters when quite clearly SC has had strong influences from Alien and Aliens? Touches of sci-fi horror would work even better now with the improved graphics.
EPT
Do you really expect Cannes/Sundance for the target (teen) group of some RTS space game, in which, by default, mutas fly in space, and marines are dressed like American footballers.
