|
A good review, I guess.
But there's a reason I just don't over analyze each and every bit of every pixle on the screen, there's flaws to be had left and right, and you're better off just enjoying what's to enjoy and let a few things slide.
I think my biggest gripe is how the zerg kerrigan in HotS isn't the same persona as the BW one. She's just the ghost kerrigan in a new getup. So you have good kerrigan, evul kerrigan, and good zerg kerrigan...
Not saying it's a problem, people just seem to expect the same things fromt HotS queen as they did BW queen.
So, Rayor dislikes BW Kerrigan for what she did, but when she's back to her old self it's all good, cause she was a different persona enterily during most of BW. Wich is why I didn't have a problem with him accepting her in the end, as all she's done is suited back into the zerg suit, without the crazy bw queen personality.
Anyways! Overall I enjoyed the campagain, story is well cheesy I'd say but nothing to get up in arms about.
|
Read through the whole thing, and you pretty much mentioned everything I subconsciously found "wrong" in the game. I mean, my Zerg-fan bias tried to suspend disbelief for some of the story elements, but I guess I overlooked a lot of inconsistencies.
|
On March 21 2013 08:38 Grumbels wrote:
Anyone knows of a good criticism of the Diablo III story, similarly comprehensive to the OP of this thread? I personally never understood why that game's story received so much hate, especially since nobody I encounter can articulate what they dislike about it, but I'm open to other perspectives.
Oh, and here's a source.
http://www.gamefront.com/diablo-3s-story-what-went-wrong/
Not comprehensive, like the OP, but it's a good start.
|
On March 20 2013 22:51 Champloo wrote:
What a whiny review this is.
Heart of the Swarm is a complete success in my book. The launch went well, no connection problems etc. The campaign was fun to play and the multiplayer games are so much more fun to play and watch. This has been by far the best release of Blizzard since Warcraft III The Frozen Throne.
User was warned for this post
I'm in agreement with him, why was he warned? he let people know his opinion and he is warned? my opinion is the same, the story was meh but the gameplay was great and I don't really care that much to be honest. Childhood is going to get ruined no matter what these days, just let the nostalgia of the olden blizzard games go.
OP, you must be one of those people who just sees shit every wherever he goes, it's going to hurt you in life.
User was warned for this post
|
I caught many of the contradictions in lore that you caught. However, reading your post just made me even more depressed.
I thought the story was fucking terrible. Absolutely garbage. To the point they were taking a dump on the Starcraft universe. Reading this only reinforces my belief.
|
This is perhaps the single most perfect encapsulation of my own feelings. I have had a growing unease with the narrative arcs of Blizzard games, which stand in stark contrast to the stories that inspired my fanatical devotion in games such as Starcraft, Broodwar and Warcraft 2.
I have a point to add that I felt was ignored and I believe to be a serious part of the flawed nature of Starcraft 2's story. The original campaigns, in both Starcraft and Broodwar, had two limitations that in retrospect contributed to the crafting of a coherent narrative: the fact that the original campaign sections of each race were limited, so as to allow equal time for each race to be played, and the fact that with the release of Starcraft, Blizzard was in affect introducing the world to its new game, including the units and macro oriented structure. These two ideas are crucial to understanding the reasons behind many of Blizzard's narrative choices.
The original Starcraft campaign was meant to be the entire game, not an extension of the multiplayer experience that Starcraft 2 has become. This is clearly the case as each mission begins with an often painfully long experience of building up your forces, upgrading your units, and expanding to new locations. The exact experience that we now associate primarily with the multiplayer experience of Starcraft 2 was the central experience of the original Starcraft. Each mission allowed you to "play the game" and in a slow and methodical manner new units were added and explained along the way. This led to missions that were forced to include a unit introduction as part of the story. In Starcraft 2, new units are used as filler, using a Diamondback to take down a train or a Thor (Odin) to destroy an entire cities garrison. You never need use the unit again, it is simply an exciting extension of the mission and henceforth the "plans" are now in your back pocket to use at your discretion. In the original Starcraft the introduction of a unit was forced to serve the story. Acquiring Battlecruisers set you out to capture a crucially important production platform or acquiring Dark Templar required escaping from a ruined home world to join with a previously shunned group of Protoss. These kinds of decisions are engaging, enhancing the connection you feel to the game and the units you are utilizing. In WOL and HOTS new units are either "plans" or "essence" easily aquired and inconsequential. Raynor is supposedly leading a rag tag band of rebels that can find the "plans" for a Battlecruiser and then henceforth produce them easily. Units are no longer a part of story because the game of Starcraft is no longer what Blizzard intends you to play. In HOTS I often wondered if Blizzard was afraid to allow a simple build, expand, and conquer type of mission because it is too similar to the multiplayer experience. I love Starcraft, I want to play the game that Blizzard hooked me with, not engage in boss battles, space themed mini games, and an endless parade of single base-limited-resource-attack-the baddie-right-this-moment missions. WOL and HOTS are intended to be unique experiences because we already know what to expect from Starcraft, as most of the units are essentially identical to the previous game. Blizzard is trying to offer something new, but as an RTS fanatic, I am desperate for the basic tried and true RTS campaigns of old and the functional and game enhancing stories that go with it. But as the OP said, Blizzard doesn't make games for me.
Which bring me to the second problem. A key limitation forced on original Starcraft is that all three races had to be playable within one game. By forcing the narrative for each race to be expressed into a scant 10 or so missions Blizzard was unable to present anything but its best and most coherent content. I suspect due the limited amount of dialogue even possible in the original Starcraft (considering that every conversation resulted in watching floating heads talk over a paused game) the designers were extremely critical of each piece of content. In contrast WOL and HOTS are full of missions that are intended to be entertaining, but leave difficult and endlessly long periods of time in which the story has to come to a screeching halt. The major plots points become repetitious so as to fill time, collecting artifacts, defeating Primal Zerg clans, and other inane tasks. When each section of the story must be compressed into a few missions the overall narrative is pushed towards quick, and meaningful experiences. This is further supported by the fact that when each faction is allowed a section of the narrative a new perspective is allowed. In HOTS Kerrigan is surrounded by useless side characters that are attempting to create a perspective on the story outside of Kerrigan. In Broodwar specifically, the alternate views of Kerrigan, and her interactions in each section of the story are what made her such an interesting and compelling villian/anti-hero. Blizzard has fallen into the classic pitfall of narrative, that more is better, and judging by the story that has been presented through WOL and HOTS this is clearly not the case.
By being handicapped in these instances Blizzard was pushed into a situation that allowed for a concise and engaging story to develop. Game design and story cannot be separated, especially with a game like Starcraft, and the complete change in Blizzard's attitude towards game design has completely altered their ability to tell a compelling story.
Once again, the OP is amazing and I loved this article. I hope my two cents added something of value to the conversation.
|
After playing some of the Black Isle games I really find it hard getting excited about story lines in games, especially Blizzard games who have never really made a game with a truly great story as of yet. I am an old school gamer and go back in RTS to original C&C. I have to say although it was nice when SC1 brought some nice lore to RTS it was never the story back then which was the determining factor to whether an RTS game was a success but more the units, mission, gameplay and even for me the music and sound effects was more important.
I found HotS a good RTS campaign, although not a classic I certainly enjoyed it. I have to agree the story was not the best lol. Writers could do with maybe some inspiration at Blizzard although they may well be instructed to write stories in a certain way to appeal to a broad playerbase.
|
On March 21 2013 06:09 ToT)OjKa( wrote:
Reading that just makes me even more sad at how fucking bad blizzard has become.
There is not one game developer I have faith in any more. Bioware went to shit, Blizzard's quality gone downhill...
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MA NIGGAS BULLFROG
BULLFROG 4 LYFE
(another murder victim by EA)
<3 Bullfrog
|
On March 21 2013 10:41 Hungry Cerberus wrote:
I love Starcraft, I want to play the game that Blizzard hooked me with, not engage in boss battles, space themed mini games, and an endless parade of single base-limited-resource-attack-the baddie-right-this-moment missions. WOL and HOTS are intended to be unique experiences because we already know what to expect from Starcraft, as most of the units are essentially identical to the previous game. Blizzard is trying to offer something new, but as an RTS fanatic, I am desperate for the basic tried and true RTS campaigns of old and the functional and game enhancing stories that go with it. But as the OP said, Blizzard doesn't make games for me.
It feels to me like the single player seeks to draw in a casual audience that recognizes Kerrigan on the cover. The function of the campaign then is to hammer home the identity of the main characters, to ensure that newer generations will keep finding them iconic and as a result will buy more Blizzard games in the future. Therefore the campaign is primarily designed to not be too offensive, it's not supposed to really challenge anyone, it just has to somewhat entertain people for a couple of hours, while they absorb the atmosphere and learn to recognize the characters.
This becomes obvious when half of the missions aren't even an RTS. It's almost like Blizzard is ashamed of the game's core gameplay and tries to hide it behind mini games and excursions into more fashionable genres like MOBAs and RPGs. And the actual Starcraft that you can play in the single player is rather simplistic. I was thinking about how novices to RTS games would feel about it based on their experience with HotS's single player. In most of the missions you can start out establishing an economy, this is a rather trivial task in itself; then you produce the unit of your choice; then you attack move and kill the enemy. There is just nothing to it, all parts of this are extremely simple. This simplicity works very well in multiplayer because there your opponent can fight back and more complex dynamics emerge, but the computer just sits still and doesn't put any pressure on you, so what's the point?
|
On March 21 2013 10:34 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2013 22:51 Champloo wrote:
What a whiny review this is.
Heart of the Swarm is a complete success in my book. The launch went well, no connection problems etc. The campaign was fun to play and the multiplayer games are so much more fun to play and watch. This has been by far the best release of Blizzard since Warcraft III The Frozen Throne.
User was warned for this post I'm in agreement with him, why was he warned? he let people know his opinion and he is warned? my opinion is the same, the story was meh but the gameplay was great and I don't really care that much to be honest. Childhood is going to get ruined no matter what these days, just let the nostalgia of the olden blizzard games go. OP, you must be one of those people who just sees shit every wherever he goes, it's going to hurt you in life.
It isn't really hard to figure out why. The OP had nothing to do with the launch, the connection, how fun the campaign was to play or how much multiplayer games are to play or watch.
It had to do with the story, which you admit yourself was "meh."
|
On March 21 2013 11:07 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 10:41 Hungry Cerberus wrote:
I love Starcraft, I want to play the game that Blizzard hooked me with, not engage in boss battles, space themed mini games, and an endless parade of single base-limited-resource-attack-the baddie-right-this-moment missions. WOL and HOTS are intended to be unique experiences because we already know what to expect from Starcraft, as most of the units are essentially identical to the previous game. Blizzard is trying to offer something new, but as an RTS fanatic, I am desperate for the basic tried and true RTS campaigns of old and the functional and game enhancing stories that go with it. But as the OP said, Blizzard doesn't make games for me.
It feels to me like the single player seeks to draw in a casual audience that recognizes Kerrigan on the cover. The function of the campaign then is to hammer home the identity of the main characters, to ensure that newer generations will keep finding them iconic and as a result will buy more Blizzard games in the future. Therefore the campaign is primarily designed to not be too offensive, it's not supposed to really challenge anyone, it just has to somewhat entertain people for a couple of hours, while they absorb the atmosphere and learn to recognize the characters. This becomes obvious when half of the missions aren't even an RTS. It's almost like Blizzard is ashamed of the game's core gameplay and tries to hide it behind mini games and excursions into more fashionable genres like MOBAs and RPGs. And the actual Starcraft that you can play in the single player is rather simplistic. I was thinking about how novices to RTS games would feel about it based on their experience with HotS's single player. In most of the missions you can start out establishing an economy, this is a rather trivial task in itself; then you produce the unit of your choice; then you attack move and kill the enemy. There is just nothing to it, all parts of this are extremely simple. This simplicity works very well in multiplayer because there your opponent can fight back and more complex dynamics emerge, but the computer just sits still and doesn't put any pressure on you, so what's the point?
Ashamed? Gameplay wise Starcraft 2 has the best single player in an RTS exactly because it so varied. Having 30 missions of "you build base and kill enemy" is so silly. You want that? Do skirmish against the AI or multiplayer.
This is exactly what Blizzard tried to prevent and i applaud them for it.
|
thank you Sir, for an extremely detailed review of the story. I played SC1 and BW back in the day when I didn't understand a single word of English. Now it's all become clear. Very interesting read =)
|
On March 21 2013 11:47 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 11:07 Grumbels wrote:On March 21 2013 10:41 Hungry Cerberus wrote:
I love Starcraft, I want to play the game that Blizzard hooked me with, not engage in boss battles, space themed mini games, and an endless parade of single base-limited-resource-attack-the baddie-right-this-moment missions. WOL and HOTS are intended to be unique experiences because we already know what to expect from Starcraft, as most of the units are essentially identical to the previous game. Blizzard is trying to offer something new, but as an RTS fanatic, I am desperate for the basic tried and true RTS campaigns of old and the functional and game enhancing stories that go with it. But as the OP said, Blizzard doesn't make games for me.
It feels to me like the single player seeks to draw in a casual audience that recognizes Kerrigan on the cover. The function of the campaign then is to hammer home the identity of the main characters, to ensure that newer generations will keep finding them iconic and as a result will buy more Blizzard games in the future. Therefore the campaign is primarily designed to not be too offensive, it's not supposed to really challenge anyone, it just has to somewhat entertain people for a couple of hours, while they absorb the atmosphere and learn to recognize the characters. This becomes obvious when half of the missions aren't even an RTS. It's almost like Blizzard is ashamed of the game's core gameplay and tries to hide it behind mini games and excursions into more fashionable genres like MOBAs and RPGs. And the actual Starcraft that you can play in the single player is rather simplistic. I was thinking about how novices to RTS games would feel about it based on their experience with HotS's single player. In most of the missions you can start out establishing an economy, this is a rather trivial task in itself; then you produce the unit of your choice; then you attack move and kill the enemy. There is just nothing to it, all parts of this are extremely simple. This simplicity works very well in multiplayer because there your opponent can fight back and more complex dynamics emerge, but the computer just sits still and doesn't put any pressure on you, so what's the point? Ashamed? Gameplay wise Starcraft 2 has the best single player in an RTS exactly because it so varied. Having 30 missions of "you build base and kill enemy" is so silly. You want that? Do skirmish against the AI or multiplayer. This is exactly what Blizzard tried to prevent and i applaud them for it.
While the SC2 campaigns have been fun gamplay-wise, I can think of many RTS's that have had more enjoyable campaigns.
Examples:
Homeworld (and expansion)
Homeworld 2
Sacrifice
Warcraft 3 (and expansion)
Warlords Battlecry 2
Starcraft (and expansion)
Dawn of War (and expansions)
Dawn of War 2 (and expansions)
Battle for Middle Earth 2
Why? Because all of these actually have you playing an RTS (instead of throwing in cheesy RPG-esque fights), they are actually difficult, and they come with writing that isn't so incredibly insulting to the brain that it forcefully pulls you out of the gameplay experience.
|
On March 21 2013 11:47 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 11:07 Grumbels wrote:On March 21 2013 10:41 Hungry Cerberus wrote:
I love Starcraft, I want to play the game that Blizzard hooked me with, not engage in boss battles, space themed mini games, and an endless parade of single base-limited-resource-attack-the baddie-right-this-moment missions. WOL and HOTS are intended to be unique experiences because we already know what to expect from Starcraft, as most of the units are essentially identical to the previous game. Blizzard is trying to offer something new, but as an RTS fanatic, I am desperate for the basic tried and true RTS campaigns of old and the functional and game enhancing stories that go with it. But as the OP said, Blizzard doesn't make games for me.
It feels to me like the single player seeks to draw in a casual audience that recognizes Kerrigan on the cover. The function of the campaign then is to hammer home the identity of the main characters, to ensure that newer generations will keep finding them iconic and as a result will buy more Blizzard games in the future. Therefore the campaign is primarily designed to not be too offensive, it's not supposed to really challenge anyone, it just has to somewhat entertain people for a couple of hours, while they absorb the atmosphere and learn to recognize the characters. This becomes obvious when half of the missions aren't even an RTS. It's almost like Blizzard is ashamed of the game's core gameplay and tries to hide it behind mini games and excursions into more fashionable genres like MOBAs and RPGs. And the actual Starcraft that you can play in the single player is rather simplistic. I was thinking about how novices to RTS games would feel about it based on their experience with HotS's single player. In most of the missions you can start out establishing an economy, this is a rather trivial task in itself; then you produce the unit of your choice; then you attack move and kill the enemy. There is just nothing to it, all parts of this are extremely simple. This simplicity works very well in multiplayer because there your opponent can fight back and more complex dynamics emerge, but the computer just sits still and doesn't put any pressure on you, so what's the point? Ashamed? Gameplay wise Starcraft 2 has the best single player in an RTS exactly because it so varied. Having 30 missions of "you build base and kill enemy" is so silly. You want that? Do skirmish against the AI or multiplayer. This is exactly what Blizzard tried to prevent and i applaud them for it.
If I wanted an RPG and not an RTS I would have bought a bloody RPG... When you in all missions have an immortal superhero who even on brutal can damn near solo the game in an RTS there is something wrong imo. But I guess that we will have to agree to disagree as this is a subjective thing unlike the story which can objectively be recognised as terrible.
|
@OP While I dare not attempt to address the entire post I found the most critical part at the end. Sadly as a 24 year old I also could help but to find the story too childish. I was also very confused about why Kerrigan attacked Z'tul.
I thought BW was extremely well writen- though the whole Toss issue with the prophecy was a little much, and was sad to see how they really took the low road in the quality department.
I do disagree about the romanace. I knew it exsisted, by the end of BW to me it was there- but I can understand your concern and your points are very valid.
Hopefully Blizzard remembers their core audience and makes the needed changes before LotV.
I hope time reduces your feelings, and you'll give LotV a chance- even only to bring closure to the story.
|
With the exception of Jimmy somehow having his revolver in his cell (yeah, what was up with that?), I feel like this is one of those reviews that's intent was to be entirely critical. You may say "Well no shit captain obvious," but frankly I feel like this negative attitude towards what is plausibly supposed to only be entertainment is simply becoming a mannerism for most of our society now. Just as you have those who immediately accept it for being God's gift to the gaming world, you have those who will immediately condemn it as a failure to all gamedom.
I don't feel like there's much for me to talk about before the ending, since you bring up many valid points that could have just as many valid answers. I'll simply talk about how a lot of people really, REALLY dislike the ending, yourself included. For starters, the problem I have with the common criticism of "WTF IS WITH KERRIGAN FLYING" is that in all her Psionic capacity, wouldn't you think she could fly? It honestly didn't surprise me that she could given who the hell she is and the high level of power she has. Technical, she levitated before to confront Narud and kill Zerus' Ancient One. I feel like that is one of those criticisms made simply to criticize.
Then there's Mengsk's death, which I thought was quite fantastic. Think of all the ways Kerrigan has killed a character in the games? Has she ever literally pinned someone against a wall, sent psionic energy into their bodies, then cause them to explode at such a force that it blew up part of a building? It may not have been a gruesome, Zerg way to kill someone, but it was definitely a special and planned execution from Kerrigan. You also state that it was censored and that ruined the death sequence. Once again, I feel like this criticism was meant for the sake of being critical to be critical about anything. Showing Mengsk's body exploding would have made little difference; in fact, it would have been extraneous to the viewer. Sure it was dumbed down for the sake of the younger crowd or for the ESRB (I don't know, point being you state it was dumbed down because Blizzard is playing towards the Teen crowd), but if you have to have intense gore or intense death sequences to understand/enjoy a cinematic where the protagonist vanquishes the antagonist then I think you're really ruining some stuff for yourself.
Finally, we have the whole controversy with Jim Raynor being a total ham the entire story. He went out of his way to change Kerrigan back for a second chance at humanity, then he was incarcerated, then she went out of her way to become more Zerg-like then before to destroy Mengsk and tackle Amon, then he finds out after being broken out of jail by her (which the hallucination could also be a result of alcohol withdrawal mind you) and is super pissed like we all think he would, then later he realizes Kerrigan is an antihero performing evil to destroy the greater evil when she agrees not to kill civilians if she can, and finally he realizes that regardless of what she is she is still Sarah Kerrigan. Yeah it's cheesy, but who's to say that couldn't happen? Jim has been exposed to and involved in more than any single man probably has in the entire series. He has also relived the Prophecy Zeratul gave him, something he probably realized was true upon Kerrigan's change from a blood-thirsty tyrant trying to kill another tyrant to a calculating empress trying to tie off a loose end to fight a greater monstrosity.
One thing Blizzard has mentioned time and time again is that these characters have been through hell and back numerous times, continuing to do so psychological on a regular basis. In fact, human beings are ALWAYS CHANGING some part of who they are. If anything the climax and conclusion were more so realism than a melodramatic spectacle like many make it out to be. I'm not saying wrong or wrong for criticizing the story, but I am saying that you're being almost overcritical. You mention redlettermedia and the reviews on the prequels, which completely warranted being shat upon for their inconsistencies. Heart of the Swarm, however, is nothing like that. It may not be incredibly elaborate or flawless by any means, but given what we got out of it and given how it is still very entertaining for what it is (which is what it's trying to accomplish here), I feel like a lot of the hate on the series storyline and Blizzard is truly overdramatic or unwarranted.
On a bright note, this review is very well written. Best regards to whatever career you pursue or are pursuing!
|
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/20/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm-review
When IGN isn't paid enough to praise a big name company's story, you know the story is pretty awful.
One thing Blizzard has mentioned time and time again is that these characters have been through hell and back numerous times, continuing to do so psychological on a regular basis. In fact, human beings are ALWAYS CHANGING some part of who they are. If anything the climax and conclusion were more so realism than a melodramatic spectacle like many make it out to be. I'm not saying wrong or wrong for criticizing the story, but I am saying that you're being almost overcritical. You mention redlettermedia and the reviews on the prequels, which completely warranted being shat upon for their inconsistencies. Heart of the Swarm, however, is nothing like that. It may not be incredibly elaborate or flawless by any means, but given what we got out of it and given how it is still very entertaining for what it is (which is what it's trying to accomplish here), I feel like a lot of the hate on the series storyline and Blizzard is truly overdramatic or unwarranted.
You say that HotS doesn't deserve the criticism that the SW prequels got because HotS is nothing like those inconsistencies. The problem is that it is. This is exactly what the OP and countless other posts are saying. SC2 has a massive number of plot holes and (using your example) not character developments/changes, but character inconsistencies. This happens when a character acts completely foreign or contrary to their past nature without a plausible (or ANY) explanation as to why.
And all of this criticism is entirely deserved. This isn't meant to be some cheap, McDonald's level quality entertainment. Blizzard actually tries with this stuff. Watch the interviews, watch the lore panels, watch the behind-the-scenes DVD's (I did just recently). They put the money, time, and effort into making this story and trying to actually make it good. The problem is, they've failed.
|
On March 21 2013 12:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 11:47 Assirra wrote:On March 21 2013 11:07 Grumbels wrote:On March 21 2013 10:41 Hungry Cerberus wrote:
I love Starcraft, I want to play the game that Blizzard hooked me with, not engage in boss battles, space themed mini games, and an endless parade of single base-limited-resource-attack-the baddie-right-this-moment missions. WOL and HOTS are intended to be unique experiences because we already know what to expect from Starcraft, as most of the units are essentially identical to the previous game. Blizzard is trying to offer something new, but as an RTS fanatic, I am desperate for the basic tried and true RTS campaigns of old and the functional and game enhancing stories that go with it. But as the OP said, Blizzard doesn't make games for me.
It feels to me like the single player seeks to draw in a casual audience that recognizes Kerrigan on the cover. The function of the campaign then is to hammer home the identity of the main characters, to ensure that newer generations will keep finding them iconic and as a result will buy more Blizzard games in the future. Therefore the campaign is primarily designed to not be too offensive, it's not supposed to really challenge anyone, it just has to somewhat entertain people for a couple of hours, while they absorb the atmosphere and learn to recognize the characters. This becomes obvious when half of the missions aren't even an RTS. It's almost like Blizzard is ashamed of the game's core gameplay and tries to hide it behind mini games and excursions into more fashionable genres like MOBAs and RPGs. And the actual Starcraft that you can play in the single player is rather simplistic. I was thinking about how novices to RTS games would feel about it based on their experience with HotS's single player. In most of the missions you can start out establishing an economy, this is a rather trivial task in itself; then you produce the unit of your choice; then you attack move and kill the enemy. There is just nothing to it, all parts of this are extremely simple. This simplicity works very well in multiplayer because there your opponent can fight back and more complex dynamics emerge, but the computer just sits still and doesn't put any pressure on you, so what's the point? Ashamed? Gameplay wise Starcraft 2 has the best single player in an RTS exactly because it so varied. Having 30 missions of "you build base and kill enemy" is so silly. You want that? Do skirmish against the AI or multiplayer. This is exactly what Blizzard tried to prevent and i applaud them for it. While the SC2 campaigns have been fun gamplay-wise, I can think of many RTS's that have had more enjoyable campaigns. Examples: Homeworld (and expansion) Homeworld 2 Sacrifice Warcraft 3 (and expansion) Warlords Battlecry 2 Starcraft (and expansion) Dawn of War (and expansions) Dawn of War 2 (and expansions) Battle for Middle Earth 2 Why? Because all of these actually have you playing an RTS (instead of throwing in cheesy RPG-esque fights), they are actually difficult, and they come with writing that isn't so incredibly insulting to the brain that it forcefully pulls you out of the gameplay experience.
Apart from wc3 and sc1 I am not sure I would any others of that list ahead of of HotS tbh as there are some pretty mediocre games on it. Total Annihilation, wc2, some titles from the C&C series and AoE1&2 would have been some better ones to choose from the RTS genre.
|
I think you could either pick at the story line as a book and critique the heck out of it. Or look at HotS as an entire different chick flick spinoff which I found quite entertaining, if you allow your emotions to float around with Kerrigan.
|
To be fair, he never reviewed the story at all in that review, only the gameplay.
On March 21 2013 12:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:
You say that HotS doesn't deserve the criticism that the SW prequels got because HotS is nothing like those inconsistencies. The problem is that it is. This is exactly what the OP and countless other posts are saying. SC2 has a massive number of plot holes and (using your example) not character developments/changes, but character inconsistencies. This happens when a character acts completely foreign or contrary to their past nature without a plausible (or ANY) explanation as to why.
And all of this criticism is entirely deserved. This isn't meant to be some cheap, McDonald's level quality entertainment. Blizzard actually tries with this stuff. Watch the interviews, watch the lore panels, watch the behind-the-scenes DVD's (I did just recently). They put the money, time, and effort into making this story and trying to actually make it good. The problem is, they've failed.
Criticism is most always deserved, that's part of producing, but that doesn't mean it can't be overdramatic or unwarranted. No, I simply disagree that SC2 is anything like what the Prequels were, primarily because you can surmise valid fillings to any plot holes you find minus a few (such as Raynor magically having his revolver). Blizzard has also stated that they were capitalizing on character inconsistencies because of what all of these characters have gone through. The way I see it, they've all gone through such trauma that inconsistency is more of an understatement. Regardless, they have roles they must fill and find ways to cope with the trauma to fulfill those roles. Yes, they are inconsistent, but aren't people inconsistent in real life for whatever reasons? That's my point: the inconsistencies are qualified by how inconsistent people can be in real life. Hence, that is why I mentioned realism versus melodrama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
