EPTHeart of the Swarm: An Empire, or a Menace? - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
OPman
United States131 Posts
| ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 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 Yeah, how dare we play the "Story Mode" on the game we paid twice for and expect a good story. Do you hear yourself? | ||
|
phanto
Sweden708 Posts
| ||
|
vrok
Sweden2541 Posts
TL needs to get this guy a Blizzcon ticket so he can go to the lore panel Q&A and tear them a new asshole. Red shirt guy 2.0, except this time it's Starcraft and that's some serious fucking business! Get him a TL shirt for his appearance and there will be rationally thinking disappointed Blizzard customers flocking here in droves. :D | ||
|
WolfStar
United Kingdom155 Posts
 Sadly I don't have your enthusiasm for writing so I will not go over all your points here. But one example is your referencing Kerrigan's breakdown after finding out Jim is 'dead' as a lack of fortitude. Personally that is not how I interpreted the scene. My take was that she had seen Jim as the one thing that could possibly prevent her from going down the bloody path of revenge. Once she finds out Jim is 'dead' I don't see her crying because she has been deprived of her love, but because she has lost her only hope of avoiding what she knows will be a bloody path to her revenge against Mengsk. She may not explicitly remember her time as the queen of blades but she has a good idea how much pain and suffering she caused. I see her break down as she loses her internal struggle to not go down the bloody path and as she is crushed under the weight of realization that without Jim she is going to give in to her want for revenge and again cause suffering to many innocent people, just as she did as the queen of blades and in the knowledge that this time she can not even offer her self the excuse she is infested. She knows it is all on her, at this point she is effectively giving up her humanity for revenge and the magnitude of the decision is not lost on her. That would certainly make me have a sit down for a minute! | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
On March 22 2013 00:43 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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. Where did you get the idea that telling a story is the goal of literature? It may be sometimes. And that telling a story is the goal of film? It may be sometimes. (As of here I'm not refering to the person I responded to, just people in general) Video games are perfectly able of telling good stories, it's just uncommon, Heavy Rain for example while not being the most compelling story personally for me proves that video games are perfectly able of telling stories. Amnesia while having a simple story is a game whose ambiance is totally built around its story and while the game was terrifying for me I kept playing because I was curious of what had happened(I don't like any of the characters though, a common grievance for me). Video games have the unique advantage of letting you cruise around the ambiance of that story - it naturally makes you feel immersed, for instance Bioshock 1 tells its story not only with its dialogues but with every detail you see in the environment. Elder Scroll Series and RPGs alike may not tell one grandiose compelling story(at least for me I never like the main story in these games) but they tell a lot of smaller stories while letting you decide their outcome and that's something unique in story-telling as well. I just wish video game makers focused on the story and when they do focus on the story explored character development and character interactions with more subtlety and coherence. And yeah, they could think out of the box sometimes as well, all the same tropes are used over and over again as if anything different would physically hurt the gamer crowd. Seriously, not recognizing video-games capability in story-telling is a unhealthy mix of naivety and blindness. | ||
|
Qbyx
Romania210 Posts
Overall, nice job. Hope someone will read this from blizzard. | ||
|
VoirDire
Sweden1923 Posts
| ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On March 20 2013 21:58 wo1fwood wrote: Speaking of cropping up, guess who showed up in my game? Alexi Stukov?! Wait, didn't Duran murder him in cold blood in the Psi Distruptor years ago? Wasn't his body placed in a capsule and sent out into space? Well apparently that's not what happened. Now I can I guess from a pragmatic position see that this is a decision that could maybe be opened because hell, did we actually know %100 that his body was recovered? This is where my initial talk about Flashpoint begins to rear its head. "Look Tyrael, your old lieutenant!" | ||
|
dinosrwar
1290 Posts
On March 22 2013 00:43 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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. I think good story is secondary to gameplay for RTS. If it's there, that's great, if it's not, then I don't really mind as long as the gameplay was crisp. I remember Homeworld for its space combat, and when I get nostalgic about it, I don't want a continuation of its story, just its gameplay. Take Red Alert for example. The story was silly, campy, and terrible if you examine it from a literary perspective. But I loved the campaign's "story mode" because it was just a cheesy 80's movie made into a game, and the gameplay was completely engrossing. Similarly, Company of Heroes 2 is being looked forward to (rightly so), but the first game didn't really have a story beyond, "World War 2 stuff happens, tanks!" Obviously it's possible for a game to have great story and gameplay -- to me a recent example would be World in Conflict -- but I don't think it's necessary to have a great story for the gamplay to be fun. WIC's predecessor Ground Control I/II had an almost non-existant/cliche story, but the squad based combat was extremely pleasing and I wish they would make more simply because it's fun. So back to HotS -- yes the campaign was on the easy side, but I don't agree with difficulty = fun. If I want difficulty I'll just ladder. I had a good time leveling up Kerrigan and rolling over everything. I'm not exactly for setting a lower bar on story, but rather, I would prefer to hold the gameplay up to a higher standard. I approach RTS like I do with casual/intermediate wargames (Panzer General, and the like), and I like premade scenarios that just let me mess around with my units Like I would understand a campaign critique from a gameplay perspective (which is debatable), but to dislike it for its story feels contrary to what an RTS is to me. I barely remember the story from SC1/BW -- but I do remember the crazy doom drop I had to do in the end of the 1st terran campaign to get past the missile turrets guarding the Ion Cannon. To me, those types of moments are what make RTSs fun and good. | ||
|
Elitios
France164 Posts
First of all, I believe that this game is very good. (just to make my position clear) I noticed that your disapointment with this game seems to originate from the expectations SC1 and BW set for you, the inconsistencies in the storytelling, and the heavy use of clichés. While I believe the first source is one that impair your judgement somehow, because you're not looking at the game, you're looking at what you want the game to be, the two others are quite true. Inconsistencies are so common nowadays that most of the time it's better to ignore them entirely. I think that it is so because of the fact that a good show that is always exciting needs to bend its own setting to set a pace with the most action possible whereas a realistical show will have some dull or quiet moments (which bore most gamers I believe. ) Nonetheless, I agree that it lowers the quality of the title. But for the cliché part, not only I think that there are a lot of these in BW even if they don't appear as strongly as in WoL and Hots because of the more cartooney graphics and written story, but I also feel that it is NEEDED in a game, as it is the reward for the spectator. A twist or suprising turn of event is only good because most of the other times, you get what you expect. Most of all, if you beat a hard mission and you get cheated of the development that you tried so hard to get, you can feel frustrated with the game (at least some players will ). I know I got this feeling with a lot of titles. Overall you are mostly right, but it seems that you miss the fun of this kind of story: to get you into the action, without thinking much, and have strong emotional moments that you can cling to. And I think on that front HotS delivered. | ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
| ||
|
shadowboxer
United States224 Posts
On March 22 2013 01:25 WolfStar wrote: I would love to sit down with a pint an go over this, because while your post is very well written and you clearly have a better understanding of the technical side of story telling than I do. The whole business is at the end of the day subjective and I formed very different opinions and understandings of the story to you. You could say that I have taken what Blizzard have delivered and worked for them in my own mind to cover their errors. But I don't believe I have and if I did it certainly doesn't feel like I worked very hard Sadly I don't have your enthusiasm for writing so I will not go over all your points here. But one example is your referencing Kerrigan's breakdown after finding out Jim is 'dead' as a lack of fortitude. Personally that is not how I interpreted the scene. My take was that she had seen Jim as the one thing that could possibly prevent her from going down the bloody path of revenge. Once she finds out Jim is 'dead' I don't see her crying because she has been deprived of her love, but because she has lost her only hope of avoiding what she knows will be a bloody path to her revenge against Mengsk. She may not explicitly remember her time as the queen of blades but she has a good idea how much pain and suffering she caused. I see her break down as she loses her internal struggle to not go down the bloody path and as she is crushed under the weight of realization that without Jim she is going to give in to her want for revenge and again cause suffering to many innocent people, just as she did as the queen of blades and in the knowledge that this time she can not even offer her self the excuse she is infested. She knows it is all on her, at this point she is effectively giving up her humanity for revenge and the magnitude of the decision is not lost on her. That would certainly make me have a sit down for a minute! That's an excellent point to be honest with you. Things will be perceived differently by different people and it was interesting to read your take on it. That being said, I appreciate what the OP has done here. I agree with everything that he's saying and I mourn for what could have been an absolutely amazing story had they taken a chance on the other 75% of the demographic. These stats were mind-blowing, by the way. Suddenly I don't feel so worthless playing video games at 25 years of age. However, I did enjoy the campaign. Some of the moments were cringe-worthy and I think I had to dissociate myself from the Star 1 storyline entirely to do so. It's give and take I suppose. | ||
|
DeCoder
Finland236 Posts
| ||
|
uanime5
19 Posts
| ||
|
Meatloaf
Spain664 Posts
On March 22 2013 01:25 WolfStar wrote: My take was that she had seen Jim as the one thing that could possibly prevent her from going down the bloody path of revenge. Once she finds out Jim is 'dead' I don't see her crying because she has been deprived of her love, but because she has lost her only hope of avoiding what she knows will be a bloody path to her revenge against Mengsk. She may not explicitly remember her time as the queen of blades but she has a good idea how much pain and suffering she caused. I see her break down as she loses her internal struggle to not go down the bloody path and as she is crushed under the weight of realization that without Jim she is going to give in to her want for revenge and again cause suffering to many innocent people, just as she did as the queen of blades and in the knowledge that this time she can not even offer her self the excuse she is infested. She knows it is all on her, at this point she is effectively giving up her humanity for revenge and the magnitude of the decision is not lost on her. That would certainly make me have a sit down for a minute! I agree with that take on , but you didnt feel afterwards that she still kept quite a lot of her humanity? I mean , the end with that "thank you jim... for everything"...saving the civilians... Every action she took afterwards in regards to the terrans was a little bit underwhelming from my point of view from a character that supposedly has given away her humanity. i mean , the story could be legitimate , but one can only stand so many awkward moments before wanting to drown kerrigan deep in the ocean forever. still was better than WoL ; but the whole arc is not up to BW nor WC3 stories IMO. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 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. You have to do it current Bioware style, where each choice tells you exactly how many points your alignment swings. | ||
|
Ravensong170
United States858 Posts
I didn't buy this game expecting to find the second coming of a baldur's gate or planescape storyline. But then NO strategy game can create a truely deep storyline, its the way of the genre. The story was enteretaining. and I honestly disagree with the inability for the audience to see a relationship between Jim and Kerrigan. I played a shit ton of the BW campaign, and I always felt that the two of them had something more. No it wasn't overt, but then it was BW, so the story was told mainly through those tv screen things. It was entertaining, and I have no complaints, I think some people are way to critical of stuff. Blizzard is excellent at making an entertaining game, and they are damn well the best in the business in terms of RTS. No blizzard has NEVER written an amazing storyline. In any game. Even Brood War wasn't amazing. it was simply solid. If you want a good storyline. Play torment or BG2, don't find them in an RTS | ||
|
emesen
United States256 Posts
That isn't even the main gripe I have with the campaign and how the story is unfolding so far. Like many others I'm just appalled at the utter lack of creativity from the developers at Blizzard. For years now they have been recycling, re-appropriating and cross pollinating not just mechanics but story elements from all their franchises. The Xel'Naga from the Starcraft Universe :: The Titans from the Warcraft Universe Amon a fallen Xel'Naga and his Hybrid Army :: Sargeras the fallen Titan and his Burning Legion Amon enslaved Zerg for his own means :: Sargeras enslaved the Orcs for his own means Kerrigan infested by Zerg and eventually becomes Queen :: Arthas corrupted by the Scourge and eventually becomes King Kerrigan human/zerg rallies the zerg and sets off to fight Amon :: Thrall an orc raised by humans rallies the orcs to fight the Legion Titan is going to be a Starcraft MMO. With the way they have treated the Zerg in Heart of the Swarm it's exactly the same way the Orcs went from a demon worshipping horde of pure evil to unfortunate tools used by a greater power. Blizzard is trying to humanize the Zerg so they can be a playable race in an MMO scenario Everyone is probably familiar with Chris Mezten and his "I'm a one trick pony" line, but I'm just shocked that they don't even try to differentiate. | ||
|
DMZ
Canada51 Posts
| ||
| ||
