EPTHeart of the Swarm: An Empire, or a Menace? - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DavoS
United States4605 Posts
| ||
|
Jt4096
Australia78 Posts
Treating with the Heart of Children In continuing my thoughts on storytelling problems or issues, throughout all of this conceptualization I have been trying to wrestle into words the reason that the stories of Diablo III and Wings, and now Swarm were/are such spectacular failures, and I have been left after much pondering with but one inevitable conclusion. Blizzard is not designing games for me, and haven't for a good long while now. What, me specifically? Well, allow me to explain this. The first clue is that along with their marketing tactics and press statements, there is a less discussed and more subtle issue with their 'brand'. Their style of storytelling is specifically aimed at reaching and hooking non-adults (likely the 16 and younger crowd). This business practice in fact looks conspicuously like the tobacco industry who continually market to children because of the saying "once you get them early..." And this seems to be Blizzards modus operandi exactly, and can be directly witnessed in how their stories are presented to the audience. They lack depth, they use tropes of all kinds and clichéd techniques in every possible place they can, and generally lack the maturity and subtle nuances in behavior or character motivations, or story aesthetics. To a younger and inexperienced mind, many of these things can be great tools at portraying types of character motivations or the reasoning behind character actions. Look at children's programming or cartoons and you'll see these executions all over the place. They can clearly set up certain elements that can be easily parsed out by a young mind, they can even be humorous and fun while still retaining a measure of seriousness... and this works for this demographic. However, here is where I take serious umbrage with this mo. I started gaming when I was 5. My first games included the Legend of Zelda, Duck Hunt, Ultima I-IV, Pool of Radiance, Super Mario Bros., Battletoads, and a laundry list of now ostensibly 'classic' video games. I've been around a long enough time to have developed highly sophisticated tastes in what I watch, like to play, and additionally developed a good eye for detail and nuance in narrative ideas along the way. But Blizzard doesn't design games for me. I'm 30, too old for their demographic, am past the age where I would be a seri....wait, hold on a tic... So in postulating this question it dawned on me to go look at the gamer demographics, and how they look in today's terms. I found something rather unsettling in looking at this data. Remember how I mentioned that Blizzard is designing and catering their games to teens? Well apparently, and any of us who are older have probably cued on to this already, but the average gamer demographics have drastically changed since Blizzard Entertainment was founded. According to TeamLiquid's own 2010-11 census, the average user age is around 21 with a major chunk between 17 and 26, but this does not show the bigger picture. In looking at studies from ESA the average age of gamers has shifted in a monumental way in the last 2 1/2 decades that I have been playing games. The average age for gamers today is around 33 years old, but perhaps more telling, is that more than %15-20 of the total gamers are over 50 years old now. There is certainly some wildly swinging data (in that only a few years ago the annual study showed the average age to be 37) but it still shows, and quite clearly, that by catering to teenagers companies are, or could be, ignoring the tastes of more than %75 of the total population of gamers. That is frightening, and so disheartening on a personal note. I grew up with Blizzard. The first game I ever played of theirs was Warcraft 1, and I played Diablo 1-2, War2-3, and Star1 as soon as they came out. Now? Well I'm an adult now and I don't play games anymore because I have a job, and a real life that takes up so much of my time and...oh wait... Now the biggest issue (that I would be remiss in not mentioning) in trying to reach an audience or target is trying to guess what they want, and especially with younger audiences it can be tricky. But I wanted to point out one last thing of interest. Browsing TeamLiquid.net you know that a lot of people are pretty enamored of HBO's Game of Thrones. The reason I bring this up is because the story elements in that show (and books) are rather mature and most definitely nuanced, and yet people love it. Clearly the 18 and older demographic likes their stories to have a measure of depth and for entertainment to not pull punches or placate their audiences, so I am left confused as to why this business operation was originally agreed upon, and I'm not sure that I can appropriately answer this question as there are too many unknowns here, at least in my current position. ... In retrospect, looking at and playing through Swarm has been like riding the Tower of Terror, whereas my equilibrium has been violently thrown around in the hopes of confusing and arousing me. I appreciate the all the technical expertise that went into making this game, and I would be remiss not to mention that technically speaking Blizzard is still quite capable as a company, but suffice it to say that without a literary and story-centric expertise, Heart of the Swarm has done something that I had not thought was possible with my relationship with games; a slow but methodical psychological dissociation with a story (that I used to love) to the point where I no longer care. Kerrigan has flown away, and so to have my expectations of Blizzard's ability to write from this point onward. Please remember that his has been a look into the single player portion of this game and I have not, nor will I ever write a Op Ed on multiplayer as I simply do not have the expertise to make the proper types of value judgments on balance decisions. I have my own feelings, but they are a far cry from a measured and objective analysis at this point. Also thanks to a few guys on TL for pointing out some story related things that I had initially missed. I'm one of the numerous lurkers on TL, but your blog prompted me to lend my support to your ideas. I seem to be in a very similar situation to you - I'm 27 and grew up on Blizzard games (War 1,2 and 3, BW, D1 and 2, and WoW). I only read the last part of your blog (haven't played HOTS yet) but figured I would lend my voice in support of your post. All I can hope is that someone somewhere within Blizzard reads this and that they can change. It's late at night and I'm tired after just submitting my PhD, so this post is rather short, but thank you for writing concisely and eloquently what I (and probably a LOT of other gamers young and old alike) have been thinking for a while. I want games that are fun due to good content, not because their developer is telling us what they think is fun. Hopefully this message sinks through to the people who have the power to make changes, but the sceptic in me thinks this might only happen if their future titles flop. | ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
I get that some people are not impressed because they wanted something more. I don't get those people who, for some reason, think SC:BW story was a work of art. That's just silly. I can't find any plot hole in SC2 bigger than UED in BW. | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
However when HotS came out I played it non-stop until I finished the campaign, and I would say that I had a lot of fun. Could the story have been a lot better? Yes probably, but did the shaky story ruin the campaign? No it didn't. To be honest it's been so long since i played sc1 that i wasnt really clear on the storyline anyway. The primal zerg homeworld was a really cool idea and i don't think it should have been left out just for the sake of lore that makes sense. Stukov turning up was a bit uncalled-for, but he did at least have a great Russian accent, so that made up for it somewhat. The Belial fight was a bit silly but it must be hard to think up a truly original bossfight these days. Especially one that works for players on both Brutal and Easy mode. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
| ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
Can games get to this point, if most people just think that cookie cutter material is fine? Going the safe route does indeed generate revenue, but in the end it cannot be art. I used to think that games could be art, but many recurring thread responses have convinced me otherwise. No, games can not be considered art in this current abominable form, in a industry purely driven for profit, Starcraft 2 is not art, it is a popcorn flick. Yes, at the end of the day I did have fun, but the characters are forgettable. Which is a regret for me, seeing as Kerrigan, Mengsk, and Duran were characters I could appreciate even a decade ago. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 21 2013 22:08 Spidinko wrote: I don't know. I loved HoTS campaign and found story to be pretty good, considering it's an RTS game. I get that some people are not impressed because they wanted something more. I don't get those people who, for some reason, think SC:BW story was a work of art. That's just silly. I can't find any plot hole in SC2 bigger than UED in BW. Then you're being willfully ignorant. The UED isn't even a plot hole. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On March 21 2013 09:03 disciple wrote: bioware should make the single player of void and blizzard the multi Zeratul: Raynor, we have to leave now or we'll be stranded here forever! Raynor Poll: Respond How about it, Zeratul? You, me, eternity...? (10) Let's go. (4) Hold on a minute! (0) We can't leave. Not with the device. (0) 14 total votes Your vote: Respond (Vote): Let's go. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On March 21 2013 22:00 Jt4096 wrote: I'm one of the numerous lurkers on TL, but your blog prompted me to lend my support to your ideas. I seem to be in a very similar situation to you - I'm 27 and grew up on Blizzard games (War 1,2 and 3, BW, D1 and 2, and WoW). I only read the last part of your blog (haven't played HOTS yet) but figured I would lend my voice in support of your post. All I can hope is that someone somewhere within Blizzard reads this and that they can change. It's late at night and I'm tired after just submitting my PhD, so this post is rather short, but thank you for writing concisely and eloquently what I (and probably a LOT of other gamers young and old alike) have been thinking for a while. I want games that are fun due to good content, not because their developer is telling us what they think is fun. Hopefully this message sinks through to the people who have the power to make changes, but the sceptic in me thinks this might only happen if their future titles flop. This has been my feeling for a long while as well. I'm 29 and I grew up playing videogames. I keep hearing statistics from the ESA and the gaming media about how the average age of gamers is in the 30s, even 40s sometimes and how around half are women. I look around and all I can say to that is "BULLSHIT!" Maybe they include cell phone games, online Hearts and other games like that. But there's no way the average age of the current crop of AAA titles even approaches 30. I'd say WoW is an exception as there are plenty of older gamers playing it. But SC2? D3? The innumerable amount of FPS games in the market? It's in the low 20s. I'd say even late teens for the CoD and Halo crowd. I doubt there's enough indie games with older players to swing these averages as high as the ESA is claiming. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On March 21 2013 23:35 andrewlt wrote: This has been my feeling for a long while as well. I'm 29 and I grew up playing videogames. I keep hearing statistics from the ESA and the gaming media about how the average age of gamers is in the 30s, even 40s sometimes and how around half are women. I look around and all I can say to that is "BULLSHIT!" Maybe they include cell phone games, online Hearts and other games like that. But there's no way the average age of the current crop of AAA titles even approaches 30. I'd say WoW is an exception as there are plenty of older gamers playing it. But SC2? D3? The innumerable amount of FPS games in the market? It's in the low 20s. I'd say even late teens for the CoD and Halo crowd. I doubt there's enough indie games with older players to swing these averages as high as the ESA is claiming. I suspect those stats would be different if they would use weighted averages, such as taking into account how much people game instead of only if people game. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
| ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On March 21 2013 23:32 urashimakt wrote: Zeratul: Raynor, we have to leave now or we'll be stranded here forever! Raynor Poll: Respond How about it, Zeratul? You, me, eternity...? (10) Let's go. (4) Hold on a minute! (0) We can't leave. Not with the device. (0) 14 total votes Your vote: Respond (Vote): Let's go. One of them sounds like a total bromance. I like it. | ||
|
dinosrwar
1290 Posts
Have you seen this interview with Tom Bissel about storytelling in games? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/03/gears-of-war-writer-tom-bissell-on-video-games-and-storytelling.html | ||
|
Knee_of_Justice
United States388 Posts
On March 21 2013 04:15 [F_]aths wrote: I also thought about it, she had high heels in Wol already. A transparent trick to make her more sexy despite her zerg appearance. It still is one of the thing I can live with, even though it *is* ridiculous. As are the woman in every historical hollywood movie. The girl always fits the fashion of the time, she never looks like a contemporary woman. Absolute BS. But Starcraft design is over the top anyways, so I accepted natural high heels for the queen of blades even though they make absolutely no sense. Stuff can evolve because it allows the organism to mate more effectively. Like a peacock tail. Kerrigan's heels allow her to bewitch Jim into forgetting everything she did as the queen of blades in broodwar and is the ultimate sex trait in this regard. However, it also serves as a potent weapon (in the WoL cinematic, you can see a scene in which she is clearly kicking Zeratul) + Show Spoiler + Yes, I'm being facetious. The story was crap and it completely ruined the lore. That said, it was a fun campaign and I consider it worth $40 even regardless of all the awfulness. My expectations were so low after WoL that this actually seemed ok. In my opinion, WoL was the Phantom Menace while HotS is the Attack of the Clones: not any better storywise, but at least it wasnt responsible for setting (and ruining) the entire story. It also had better visuals (hello intro cinematic) and music and stuff and had some decent potential (some have mentioned that Jim's death, kerrigan's reinfestation, zagara's challenge/learning, Stukov, Narud/Duran etc could, in the hands of a competent writer, been very powerful moments for Starcraft). My biggest concern is that WoL and HotS do not even attempt to emulate the spirit of their predecessors. The mission briefing room, while unwieldy and likely unsuitable for today's audiences in its SC1 form, should have been the essence of these games (and could have been, if the hyperion bridge/communicator had been the focus instead of the stupid star map). Multiple people, multiple perspectives, all arguing and fighting amongst each other for control of their corner of space. Terrans against Terrans, Zerg against Terrans, Zerg against Protoss. The diplomatic and private and personal interactions of all these numerous characters: that is Starcraft. SC2 had so much potential with a zerg swarm that could finally begin to think and become more human, offering the promise of a zerg presence in the briefing room beyond simply Kerrigan. And that was the overmind's vision of the swarm, realized at last through kerrigan: a zerg swarm that benefited from the addition of humanity and their psionic potential to its ranks. It would have been fucking terrifying to see more infested ghosts like duran (even though this ultimately wasnt the case), controlling the swarm like cerebrates. And the idea that they alluded to briefly about the swarm evolving too much (to the point where kerrigan might lose control of the queens because they developed too much independence) might have been an interesting angle for a work that has always been obsessed with the idea of independence and authority (hint, hint, Wings of LIBERTY). And that would ultimately call into question the entire premise of the zerg: that without an overmind, their true ruler (is it the heart? or the mind?), they are no longer a perfect hive mind, but one capable of infighting and political intrigue of its own, with the strongest and most cunning coming out on top. That, after all, is evolution at its finest. And that could make an immensely interesting story if you throw it into a world that is rife with this constant battling for supremacy. And most importantly, the zerg would not be orcs. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On March 21 2013 23:59 Knee_of_Justice wrote: Stuff can evolve because it allows the organism to mate more effectively. Like a peacock tail. Kerrigan's heels allow her to bewitch Jim into forgetting everything she did as the queen of blades in broodwar and is the ultimate sex trait in this regard. However, it also serves as a potent weapon (in the WoL cinematic, you can see a scene in which she is clearly kicking Zeratul) + Show Spoiler + Yes, I'm being facetious. The story was crap and it completely ruined the lore. That said, it was a fun campaign and I consider it worth $40 even regardless of all the awfulness. My expectations were so low after WoL that this actually seemed ok. In my opinion, WoL was the Phantom Menace while HotS is the Attack of the Clones: not any better storywise, but at least it wasnt responsible for setting (and ruining) the entire story. It also had better visuals (hello intro cinematic) and music and stuff and had some decent potential (some have mentioned that Jim's death, kerrigan's reinfestation, zagara's challenge/learning, Stukov, Narud/Duran etc could, in the hands of a competent writer, been very powerful moments for Starcraft). Man I almost got in trouble for laughing in class... LOLOL you're brilliant. But actually I wonder if LOTV will be Star Wars: Episode III? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10801 Posts
| ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On March 22 2013 00:11 Velr wrote: Raynor becomes Darth Vader? I thought that was closer to Stukov, someone who underestimated a certain power and then became what he tried to destroy after his body was almost destroyed. | ||
|
Xahhk
Canada540 Posts
The only thing they seem to be able to do well, is short stories like the ones they've been releasing. | ||
|
GizmoPT
Portugal3040 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 21 2013 23:57 dinosrwar wrote: I'm surprised you didn't enjoy the campaign on a gameplay level (the Diablo 3 boss fight not withstanding). It was very fun, as a zerg player, to basically go "Screw you" to the usual anti-zerg obstacles. Siegetanks? Permanent mind control. Stim marines? Slow roaches. Etc. etc. I think your mistake is you are playing an RTS and expecting a story, whereas the goal of an RTS is not primarily a story telling medium, but a gameplay one. And from a gameplay standpoint, I found HotS succeeded quite well. Have you seen this interview with Tom Bissel about storytelling in games? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/03/gears-of-war-writer-tom-bissell-on-video-games-and-storytelling.html You're making assumptions that aren't intrinsic to what an RTS is. Plenty of RTS's have a fantastic story and are entirely story-driven (example, Homeworld, one of the greatest RTS's ever made). Furthermore, all of those cool things you mentioned were cool, but took ALL difficulty out of the entire campaign. To the story-telling debate: obviously, the primary goal of a video game isn't to tell a story. That is the primary goal of literature and literature alone. However, you'd be crazy to suggest that story isn't important to film, and that isn't the primary purpose of film. Just because it isn't literature doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't be a quality story-telling medium. Video games have fantastic potential to tell a story in a different manner than literature or film, but idiot writers are fucking it up by setting the bar too low. | ||
| ||
