|
I thought the zerg BECAME an "ancient Lovecraftian race" after the Xel'Naga modified with them? The original zerg was always supposed to be a small and unassuming parasite - basically the larva - which just lived on its home planet and didn't do anything special.
I am actually not that interested in the lore itself (I really CBB with reading all the pulpy novels, and also I don't see the point since they will inevitably retcon everything yet again in the next iteration). And the actual story... it's really not THAT important.
What I appreciate is the atmosphere. The immersiveness. The actual story can be total crap as long as they nail the atmosphere right. In Brood War I felt I was a part of the larger conflict, I felt the overall grittiness and desperation. Just check out the intro for Brood War:
+ Show Spoiler +
Do I *really* care about the story nuances? No. But I dig the atmosphere, I relish in the fact that the game I'm gonna play is set in this dark, depressing world where everyone is at each other throats and the future is bleak no matter who comes out on top.
SC2 has nothing, NOTHING from that atmosphere. It feels like a saturday morning cartoon. You never feel as anything is at stake, even when the game is desperate in trying to convince you how epic everything is. You are merrily hopping around various planets, enjoying some sightseeing, meeting colorful creatures and doing odd jobs. Even when something supposedly "tragic" happens it just feels tame and mechanical. The re-infestation of Kerrigan has as little impact as you switching an option in the menu to give her an alternate skin texture.
This is basically my biggest gripe with SC2. Warcraft was supposed to be one with the "kiddie-friendly" vibe. Diablo and Starcraft were never scared to be more adult and to push the player into a depressive, bleak setting. Starcraft 2 feels as if it was made for kids, and that by itself is not so bad, I guess. But in making this new kid-friendly cartoony Starcraft they completely destroyed the extremely effective setting of the "old" Starcraft, which in my opinion would have made for a largely superior game. If you want silly stories about love triangles, simplistic vengeance stories and dinosaurs... just make Warcraft 4 or something. They could have kept at least one franchise for us older than twelve.
It actually baffles me...why make a sequel for a game and then make it cater almost exclusively to folks who do not have any sort of connection with the original?
|
On March 18 2013 19:07 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 14:22 Rabiator wrote:On March 18 2013 14:16 Coolness53 wrote:
I thought the story was ok. Gameplay was really fun for a RTS game. People complain about the story of Starcraft II but they go watch Walking Dead aka Walking Nowhere. Walking Dead is just as bad as Grey's Anatomy both soap operas. But popular thing to do is bash blizzard stories now. Starcraft is made for the multiplayer first please remember that. Replay Broodwar the story was meh. The thing is people EXPECT NOTHING from soap operas, but they EXPECT A GOOD STORY from Starcraft 2. You can do both ... All this "Amon = god" is going on my nerves ... isnt he simply one of the Xel'Naga (who might be super-powerful but that isnt the same as being a god)? Did people ever really expect a good story from Starcraft 2? This is a game that caters to competition and multiplayer gaming— people never bought it for a single player game, and it's obviously no interactive novel. While there's huge differences, I'd say that all the SC games have had similar overall story quality, and it's not a large concern considering what the focus of the game is about. I don't know who you're referring to when you talk about the amon=god thing (the fact it was mentioned in the game?), but how is it an issue? God is a variable/subjective thing with no particular definition; generally many people would consider it to be some maximally-powerful being, and logic would rule that it has to be something that can actually exist without being contradictory ( i.e. having intelligence without having any form of manifestation, being omnipotent, etc.). Also to defend it plainly: many people consider god to mean a creator, and that's what the Xel'Naga have supposedly done.
At least half of the copies bought sold for the single player.
Anyway, i enjoyed it.
Yea, i just said that, sue me.
|
On March 18 2013 22:05 baba44713 wrote:Show nested quote +
I thought the zerg BECAME an "ancient Lovecraftian race" after the Xel'Naga modified with them? The original zerg was always supposed to be a small and unassuming parasite - basically the larva - which just lived on its home planet and didn't do anything special.
I am actually not that interested in the lore itself (I really CBB with reading all the pulpy novels, and also I don't see the point since they will inevitably retcon everything yet again in the next iteration). And the actual story... it's really not THAT important. What I appreciate is the atmosphere. The immersiveness. The actual story can be total crap as long as they nail the atmosphere right. In Brood War I felt I was a part of the larger conflict, I felt the overall grittiness and desperation. Just check out the intro for Brood War: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOEGudEoSW4 Do I *really* care about the story nuances? No. But I dig the atmosphere, I relish in the fact that the game I'm gonna play is set in this dark, depressing world where everyone is at each other throats and the future is bleak no matter who comes out on top. SC2 has nothing, NOTHING from that atmosphere. It feels like a saturday morning cartoon. You never feel as anything is at stake, even when the game is desperate in trying to convince you how epic everything is. You are merrily hopping around various planets, enjoying some sightseeing, meeting colorful creatures and doing odd jobs. Even when something supposedly "tragic" happens it just feels tame and mechanical. The re-infestation of Kerrigan has as little impact as you switching an option in the menu to give her an alternate skin texture. This is basically my biggest gripe with SC2. Warcraft was supposed to be one with the "kiddie-friendly" vibe. Diablo and Starcraft were never scared to be more adult and to push the player into a depressive, bleak setting. Starcraft 2 feels as if it was made for kids, and that by itself is not so bad, I guess. Cheese, childish storylines may still be enjoyable to an extent, especially if they provide a nice foundation for fun gameplay. But in making this new kid-friendly cartoony Starcraft they completely destroyed the extremely effective setting of the "old" Starcraft, which in my opinion would have made for a largely superior game. If you want silly stories about love triangles, simplistic vengeance stories and dinosaurs... just make Warcraft 4 or something. Keep at least one franchise for us older than 12. It actually baffles me...why make a sequel for a game and then make it cater almost exclusively to folks who do not have any sort of connection with the original?
I agree... Both the intro and outro to Brood War are nothing short of spectacular... even with the 1998 graphics, the cinematics FAR FAR FAR surpass the current SC2 ones in terms of gritt, style, dark and serious tone of the setting.. and just the overall dialogue and story... even the colours..
Check out Mengsk' victory speech cinematic.. it's so fucking epic too at the end of the terran SC1 campaign..
|
On March 18 2013 21:50 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 07:34 WhiteSatin wrote:
in my humble opinion the story was absolutely terrible... if not total trash.
when nowadays you have cool storylines and plots like uncharted, deus ex etc. it's just sad to think that's the best blizzard has done for SC2, considering BW story was actually good.
but i am not surprised as i was expecting it - i lost interest in the single-player aspect of SC2 pretty much with WoL - i thought that was pretty awful too, and since then had super low expectations..
whoever handled story and the b.net design at blizzard should make everyone a favor and get a job somewhere else -,- Whereas then you had cool storylines and plots like Chrono Trigger and Metal Gear Solid, it's just sad to think that's the best Blizzard has done for BW. It's not easy to make a good story. It's impossible to create a story which everyone will like. Stop pretending like it is. Not saying that I enjoyed the story of HotS all that much. I just think there's way too much nostalgic hype for SC1 and BW.
It's impossible to make something everyone will like (some people don't like Shakespeare), but there are relatively objective standards for writing; this is what literary critiques are for. SC2 just completely fails on every count.
Two other things.
1) For those of you that are saying, "Well everything is explained in the books! You need to read the extra lore!" First, that is a sorry excuse for poor storytelling. When the medium is video games, the story should at least be consistent between your video games; books and whatnot are extra background story. They shouldn't be necessary to keep the plot consistent. Second, the books are fucking terrible. Every book written for one of Blizzard's universes since the War of the Ancients/Sin War/the Dark Templar trilogies have been utter trash.
2) The mere fact that it takes this absolutely colossal effort of backflips and contorting just to make the SC2 story cohesive, let alone decent, is a testament to the fact that it's poorly done and ill-conceive writing.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 18 2013 23:11 BurgerFreak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 22:05 baba44713 wrote:
I thought the zerg BECAME an "ancient Lovecraftian race" after the Xel'Naga modified with them? The original zerg was always supposed to be a small and unassuming parasite - basically the larva - which just lived on its home planet and didn't do anything special.
I am actually not that interested in the lore itself (I really CBB with reading all the pulpy novels, and also I don't see the point since they will inevitably retcon everything yet again in the next iteration). And the actual story... it's really not THAT important. What I appreciate is the atmosphere. The immersiveness. The actual story can be total crap as long as they nail the atmosphere right. In Brood War I felt I was a part of the larger conflict, I felt the overall grittiness and desperation. Just check out the intro for Brood War: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOEGudEoSW4 Do I *really* care about the story nuances? No. But I dig the atmosphere, I relish in the fact that the game I'm gonna play is set in this dark, depressing world where everyone is at each other throats and the future is bleak no matter who comes out on top. SC2 has nothing, NOTHING from that atmosphere. It feels like a saturday morning cartoon. You never feel as anything is at stake, even when the game is desperate in trying to convince you how epic everything is. You are merrily hopping around various planets, enjoying some sightseeing, meeting colorful creatures and doing odd jobs. Even when something supposedly "tragic" happens it just feels tame and mechanical. The re-infestation of Kerrigan has as little impact as you switching an option in the menu to give her an alternate skin texture. This is basically my biggest gripe with SC2. Warcraft was supposed to be one with the "kiddie-friendly" vibe. Diablo and Starcraft were never scared to be more adult and to push the player into a depressive, bleak setting. Starcraft 2 feels as if it was made for kids, and that by itself is not so bad, I guess. Cheese, childish storylines may still be enjoyable to an extent, especially if they provide a nice foundation for fun gameplay. But in making this new kid-friendly cartoony Starcraft they completely destroyed the extremely effective setting of the "old" Starcraft, which in my opinion would have made for a largely superior game. If you want silly stories about love triangles, simplistic vengeance stories and dinosaurs... just make Warcraft 4 or something. Keep at least one franchise for us older than 12. It actually baffles me...why make a sequel for a game and then make it cater almost exclusively to folks who do not have any sort of connection with the original? I agree... Both the intro and outro to Brood War are nothing short of spectacular... even with the 1998 graphics, the cinematics FAR FAR FAR surpass the current SC2 ones in terms of gritt, style, dark and serious tone of the setting.. and just the overall dialogue and story... even the colours.. Check out Mengsk' victory speech cinematic.. it's so fucking epic too at the end of the terran SC1 campaign.. This was the case for Diablo 3 as well. They abandoned the well directed, story telling cinematics from D2 and just gave us flashy fight scenes. Not unlike most $0.50 anime or Michael Bay movies.
Yet tons of people like Michael Bay movies and tons of people like Stephanie Meyer books, so here we are. :|
|
You guys just have to face the fact that most people nowadays prefer a happy ending and simpler, less dark toned story. Since 95% of the BW veterans (me included here) will play the campaign anyway / buy game for multiplayer, it's just common sense Blizzard would go for a more disney'esque story in order to attract more newcomers.
That said I enjoyed the hell the SC/BW campaigns but also the WoL/HotS and actually enjoyed some scenes from HotS a lot of people are calling twilight'eque (like the kerri rescue raynor scene or the final "my pleasure darlin, always was" scenes). They actually made me feel for poor Raynor, guy can't get a break, getting cockblocked since for ever:D
So do I wish Blizzard did things differently? Yes. Did I enjoy the way they did it ? Also yes.
|
I enjoyed the story. Most of my friends enjoyed the story. Does that mean it was high art? No. But it was enjoyable.
|
United States22883 Posts
You can do happy endings with decent writing and story telling. Spiderman 2 is the quintessential super hero movie (not best, but most typical), and even there, there's far less cheesy dialogue than in either SC2 game. The impactful moments are actually set up well, and the hokiest lines are paced so that they don't overload you at the start and hit only at critical moments. In the SC2 universe, they go full throttle 100% on hokie lines as soon as each story opens up.
It's the difference between starting a game with "I never gave up on you, Sarah. Don't you give up on us!" and only getting worse from there, and saving a line like that for the end after you've set up the characters as reasonable, non-romance novel characters.
|
On March 18 2013 23:47 Jibba wrote:
You can do happy endings with decent writing and story telling. Spiderman 2 is the quintessential super hero movie (not best, but most typical), and even there, there's far less cheesy dialogue than in either SC2 game. The impactful moments are actually set up well, and the hokiest lines are paced so that they don't overload you at the start and hit only at critical moments. In the SC2 universe, they go full throttle 100% on hokie lines as soon as each story opens up.
It's the difference between starting a game with "I never gave up on you, Sarah. Don't you give up on us!" and only getting worse from there, and saving a line like that for the end after you've set up the characters as reasonable, non-romance novel characters.
Well I think since this is the continuation to WoL I think the characters involved there are already set up, so not much to do from there. And I think that the whole don't give up on us and that kiss from the start was Blizzard trying to say that Sarah was starting to think there is a chance she can just give up on vengeance and shit and chill with Raynor, then Mengsk "killing" Raynor would be the tipping point that would push Kerri into the "do anything for vengeance" phase.
Not to say this is good writing or anything. But I do see the point they're trying to make, and again since I'm not looking for Game of Thrones in a RTS video game, I think it's enjoyable enough.
|
I think many who are familiar with the BW storyline found the re-framing of Jim and Sarah's relationship as so focused on romance pretty jarring and out of place, so that might explain why there are people who believe that the "setup" in HotS with regards to their relationship was insufficient.
Personally, I found that line a little out of place when it was delivered ingame. The whole conversation felt like a series of well-worn "epic" punchlines that you see in action movies instead of a real dialogue between people. In general, I remember thinking "nobody actually talks like this" a couple of times in the campaign, so I don't think this is just an isolated incident.
|
On March 18 2013 23:41 Velinath wrote:
I enjoyed the story. Most of my friends enjoyed the story. Does that mean it was high art? No. But it was enjoyable.
Pretty much this. No one has to win a Nobel Prize for Literature to make an entertaining book.
I liked the story, the human feelings Kerrigan now shows, the desparate love Raynor feels towards her. Also some dialogues were pretty funny. The broodmother pitying the Terrans for being always alone and her will to end their misery
through integrating them into the Swarm. Nice. Not a genius' idea, just nice.
By the way, I hated the BW story when it came out. The UED story was way too far-fetched to me. I'd have preferred a Koprulu sector with those stranded humans only. Instead a UED coming from earth with exactly the same technology as the Koprulu Humans have. Well. I didn't like it.
|
On March 18 2013 23:47 Jibba wrote:
You can do happy endings with decent writing and story telling. Spiderman 2 is the quintessential super hero movie (not best, but most typical), and even there, there's far less cheesy dialogue than in either SC2 game. The impactful moments are actually set up well, and the hokiest lines are paced so that they don't overload you at the start and hit only at critical moments. In the SC2 universe, they go full throttle 100% on hokie lines as soon as each story opens up.
It's the difference between starting a game with "I never gave up on you, Sarah. Don't you give up on us!" and only getting worse from there, and saving a line like that for the end after you've set up the characters as reasonable, non-romance novel characters.
Explain to me how that is a cheesy, hokie line? You say that HotS is full of such lines. What are they? Where are your examples?
I don't think the writing for HotS was stellar, but it wasn't that bad, and it's better than WoL. The only really cheesy, horrible writing I can think of is the talk about "vision". It seems so artificial, as if anyone would ever just say: "I won because I have vision, and you can win too if you have vision". Not only does the notion make no sense, it's not explained, it's vague, and it sounds phony. That's why it's cheesy.
But it's no worse than Zeratul's awful line in SC1 about "birth of negative suns" and "entropy of entire realities", which has been held up as a benchmark of good writing. What? This is cheesy gibberish. It makes zero sense. Negative sun? WTF Is a negative sun? Entropy of realities? How can you see the entropy of reality. An entropy is not a physical thing. Yes, SC1 had nonsense writing like this. Better that we have SC2 characters talking in plainspeak than this utter nonsense.
|
On March 18 2013 23:34 Gh0s7[5thf] wrote:
You guys just have to face the fact that most people nowadays prefer a happy ending and simpler, less dark toned story. .
Do you have any data to back this up? Any whatsoever?
Because my current (also highly subjective) feeling I got from the forums as well as reviews is that most people feel the story is cheesy, underwhelming and unsatisfying, and that it is by far the weakest aspect of the game.
Also, they could have went the "more light-hearted and simpler" route while still keeping at least some integrity and a reasonable agree of quality. But why turn the greatest antagonist you have into an ill-fitting protagonist? Why revive dead characters if they do not contribute anything to the story? Why ignore half of the stuff that happened in the first game, and completely retcon the other half? If you find it problematic to continue the story without heavily rewriting the original story... well why the hell are you continuing it in the first place?
On March 18 2013 23:41 Velinath wrote:
I enjoyed the story. Most of my friends enjoyed the story. Does that mean it was high art? No. But it was enjoyable.
Nobody expects "high art". Starcraft is and it always been a Warcraft in space/Warhammer rip-off. The thing is that they managed to use the hokey-cheesy-space-opera setting and actually create something that surpasses its origins. When you watch SC:BW, you actually feel that effort, even accounting for the inevitable nostalgia factor. What I got from SC2 story is just the need to cater to lowest common denominator, nothing else.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 19 2013 00:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 23:47 Jibba wrote:
You can do happy endings with decent writing and story telling. Spiderman 2 is the quintessential super hero movie (not best, but most typical), and even there, there's far less cheesy dialogue than in either SC2 game. The impactful moments are actually set up well, and the hokiest lines are paced so that they don't overload you at the start and hit only at critical moments. In the SC2 universe, they go full throttle 100% on hokie lines as soon as each story opens up.
It's the difference between starting a game with "I never gave up on you, Sarah. Don't you give up on us!" and only getting worse from there, and saving a line like that for the end after you've set up the characters as reasonable, non-romance novel characters. Explain to me how that is a cheesy, hokie line? You say that HotS is full of such lines. What are they? Where are your examples? I don't think the writing for HotS was stellar, but it wasn't that bad, and it's better than WoL. The only really cheesy, horrible writing I can think of is the talk about "vision". It seems so artificial, as if anyone would ever just say: "I won because I have vision, and you can win too if you have vision". Not only does the notion make no sense, it's not explained, it's vague, and it sounds phony. That's why it's cheesy. But it's no worse than Zeratul's awful line in SC1 about "birth of negative suns" and "entropy of entire realities", which has been held up as a benchmark of good writing. What? This is cheesy gibberish. It makes zero sense. Negative sun? WTF Is a negative sun? Entropy of realities? How can you see the entropy of reality. An entropy is not a physical thing. Yes, SC1 had nonsense writing like this. Better that we have SC2 characters talking in plainspeak than this utter nonsense.
How is that plainspeak? No one talks like that. Do you really think "Don't give up on us!" is something actual human beings say? It's an invention from bad romance novels. Even the opening cinematic: "Vengeance shall be mine!" This is Saturday morning cartoon stuff.
SC1 had a lot of problems, but BW cleaned it up a lot. It's even worse when you consider how much video game stories and storytelling have advanced since then. People want to talk about video games as a budding art form, but this kind of writing is what makes that notion easy to sneer at.
|
On March 18 2013 21:53 Gh0s7[5thf] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 21:41 Nekovivie wrote:
Only thing that made me wtf in the story was Jim having a gun in his prisoner cell. How on earth did they overlook that in the QA? It's never explicit that Jim had the gun in his cell. Kerri just fought dominion soldiers there so she might have brought the gun to Jim. It might also be a game Mensk was playing, letting Jim have his gun on purpose after Kerri boarded the prison ship and hoping Jim would kill her in rage of her turning back to zerg.
If you watch the cinematic carefully you can see that when Kerrigan enters the cell she doesn't have anything in her hands. If people have to come up with so many theories and speculations about various aspects of the campaign for them to make basic sense; it seems obvious to me this was not a well planned out story.
|
On March 19 2013 00:28 baba44713 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 23:34 Gh0s7[5thf] wrote:
You guys just have to face the fact that most people nowadays prefer a happy ending and simpler, less dark toned story. . Do you have any data to back this up? Any whatsoever? Because my current (also highly subjective) feeling I got from the forums as well as reviews is that most people feel the story is cheesy, underwhelming and unsatisfying, and that it is by far the weakest aspect of the game.
Just look at the tendencies in any other genre: simple fun plot movies like Avatar, Avengers making tons of money while deeper 'oscar'-worthy movies never getting there. Hell even a crappy movies like Twilight nowadays makes a shit lot of money. Now let's take music: Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga (no comments here) etc. I'm far from a fan of the above (well I like the hell out of Avatar and Avengers but the rest I consider close to crap :D ) but it's just the tendencies of the youth of today. Why do you think gaming industry would go in any different direction?
Keep in mind people from forums like TL are mostly BW players, so we are mostly past the 12-20 age which I think are the main consumer market for video games nowadays. It's just good business from Blizzard's part IMO. Focus on the multiplayer for hardcore gamers / veterans and give a simple, sappy single-player for the rest of your target. I don't get why they would do things different. They don't want to keep the same people from SC/BW by using the singleplayer, they are trying to attract the new Justin Bieber people with it.
|
On March 19 2013 00:40 Gh0s7[5thf] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 00:28 baba44713 wrote:On March 18 2013 23:34 Gh0s7[5thf] wrote:
You guys just have to face the fact that most people nowadays prefer a happy ending and simpler, less dark toned story. . Do you have any data to back this up? Any whatsoever? Because my current (also highly subjective) feeling I got from the forums as well as reviews is that most people feel the story is cheesy, underwhelming and unsatisfying, and that it is by far the weakest aspect of the game. Just look at the tendencies in any other genre: simple fun plot movies like Avatar, Avengers making tons of money while deeper 'oscar'-worthy movies never getting there. Hell even a crappy movies like Twilight nowadays makes a shit lot of money. Now let's take music: Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga (no comments here) etc. I'm far from a fan of the above (well I like the hell out of Avatar and Avengers but the rest I consider close to crap :D ) but it's just the tendencies of the youth of today. Why do you think gaming industry would go in any different direction?
Because we are not talking about any gaming company, we are talking about Blizzard.. which actually meant for something before.
And if you are going for analogies, Starcraft 2 is not Twilight. It's frikking Indiana Jones 4. Poor Kerrigan is definitely getting nuked in a hell of a lot of fridges in SC2.
|
On March 19 2013 00:42 baba44713 wrote:
Because we are not talking about any gaming company, we are talking about Blizzard.. which actually meant for something before.
Well Blizzard is a exactly that, a company, that needs profit, so it needs to adapt to the market. 10 years is a lot of time, hell if you consider the average gamer 12-20y old it's more that one whole generation. Blizzard is still giving us excellent cinematics, graphics and gameplay (since those will still be a must for video games even 50y from now probably), so IMO it's quality did not change at all, they just adapted their story to the market of today.
|
To be honest, the original (SC + BW) campaigns also have a little bit of cheesiness and hollywood-style excessive arrogance. At some points the characters are quite annoying. While they sometimes have clever machiavellian dialogue that looks like a (cool) chess game, you could also say that all the main characters are too alike in this aspect - as though they are the same eloquent person put in different roles. Being almost childish with megalomania and in need of being taught some humility.
The new (simpler) versions of the characters are at least more down to earth and don't try to talk like Churchill/Stalin/Truman. I did enjoy a lot the old campaigns, but the times were different back then, the cold war has only ended relatively recently and the cultural influence surrounding the game was affected by that. It was cool then, but it wouldn't be cool now. Now I still enjoy the original campaigns, but don't need the same style for the new ones, it wouldn't fit the time. The culture today is different.
|
I think we need to accept that Blizzard really is "any game studio" nowadays, at least when it comes to creating single player campaigns. They have lived on their well earned reputation from BW,D2,WC3 etc long enough. The single player experience in all the games that have been released after these games have been nothing but big disappointments for me.
Quality, eye for detail, astonishing creativity, amazing story telling are all attributes that Blizzard once deserved, but not any more in my opinion. It is really sad, but Blizzard is just another game company for me now, they were something much more before.
emo rant over 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
