|
On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth.
Where's the depth? Oh right, there is none.
BW wasn't fantastic, but it was cohesive and passable. Point out the "shallow and cliche" storytelling elements so we can see your reasoning, or so we can realize that you're just making shit up.
Oh, and the UED was fine. You're just grasping at straws.
|
On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth.
Everything you said there is no more than an opinion built out of misconceptions or misunderstandings. Its typical of the supporter of things like this to try to dismantle the current "standard" as if theirs somehow even qualifies as a decent work in the company of such legendary examples (See "Twilight" scenario for similar situation taking place in the literary world). The truth is still the same as its always been and its very different from what you're mentally concocting.
I don't like that if you dont absolutely hate it then you must be stupid and love it.
This isn't the case either. Its fine to like the game and its new story arc they're passing as "the main arc", but it does in fact (without any consideration for useless things like emotions) mean people that don't dislike or even preferred it must find qualities like "simplistic", "incongruous" and "disappointingly predictable" to be favorable.
There's a million examples just like Starcraft where awaited sequels brought complete shame on a brand and alienated huge portions of their old fanbase throughout media all across the board. It happens. There's still a fanbase and it might even have attracted enough new ones to outnumber the old ones, but it doesn't change the fact that the product is something completely different than the original and has no base anymore.
|
On March 28 2013 01:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Where's the depth? Oh right, there is none. BW wasn't fantastic, but it was cohesive and passable. Point out the "shallow and cliche" storytelling elements so we can see your reasoning, or so we can realize that you're just making shit up. Oh, and the UED was fine. You're just grasping at straws.
Kerrigan's characterization - her decision to be "human" or "zerg" as well as the overall theme of "what is 'human'?" were very well done and had quite a bit of depth to them.
And no, the UED was stupid as balls.
Edit:
On March 28 2013 01:13 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Everything you said there is no more than an opinion built out of misconceptions or misunderstandings. Its typical of the supporter of things like this to try to dismantle the current "standard" as if theirs somehow even qualifies as a decent work in the company of such legendary examples (See "Twilight" scenario for similar situation taking place in the literary world). The truth is still the same as its always been and its very different from what you're mentally concocting.
My mental concoctions are generally pretty good. What's 'the truth' in this case that I'm so far out from?
|
On March 28 2013 01:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 01:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Where's the depth? Oh right, there is none. BW wasn't fantastic, but it was cohesive and passable. Point out the "shallow and cliche" storytelling elements so we can see your reasoning, or so we can realize that you're just making shit up. Oh, and the UED was fine. You're just grasping at straws. Kerrigan's characterization - her decision to be "human" or "zerg" as well as the overall theme of "what is 'human'?" were very well done and had quite a bit of depth to them. And no, the UED was stupid as balls. Edit: Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 01:13 sCCrooked wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Everything you said there is no more than an opinion built out of misconceptions or misunderstandings. Its typical of the supporter of things like this to try to dismantle the current "standard" as if theirs somehow even qualifies as a decent work in the company of such legendary examples (See "Twilight" scenario for similar situation taking place in the literary world). The truth is still the same as its always been and its very different from what you're mentally concocting. My mental concoctions are generally pretty good. What's 'the truth' in this case that I'm so far out from?
Kerrigan is responsible for the deaths of billions of innocents, yet she conveniently doesn't need to engage in any self-reflection because she has amnesia. She has no qualms simply continuing with controlling zerg and reinfesting herself, similarly she also slaughters many protoss and terran on her campaign of revenge against Mengsk. By all accounts she is a terrible person, yet the game never acknowledges this. And as far as we know, the only real difference between Brood War Kerrigan and HotS Kerrigan is that she lost her memory and hence forgot about many of her evil actions. Her actions since, the ease with which she turned into the queen of blades again and all that comes with that position, show that given a somewhat blank slate (amnesia) she makes many of the same decisions as she did in BW.
|
On March 28 2013 05:02 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 01:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2013 01:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Where's the depth? Oh right, there is none. BW wasn't fantastic, but it was cohesive and passable. Point out the "shallow and cliche" storytelling elements so we can see your reasoning, or so we can realize that you're just making shit up. Oh, and the UED was fine. You're just grasping at straws. Kerrigan's characterization - her decision to be "human" or "zerg" as well as the overall theme of "what is 'human'?" were very well done and had quite a bit of depth to them. And no, the UED was stupid as balls. Edit: On March 28 2013 01:13 sCCrooked wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Everything you said there is no more than an opinion built out of misconceptions or misunderstandings. Its typical of the supporter of things like this to try to dismantle the current "standard" as if theirs somehow even qualifies as a decent work in the company of such legendary examples (See "Twilight" scenario for similar situation taking place in the literary world). The truth is still the same as its always been and its very different from what you're mentally concocting. My mental concoctions are generally pretty good. What's 'the truth' in this case that I'm so far out from? Kerrigan is responsible for the deaths of billions of innocents, yet she conveniently doesn't need to engage in any self-reflection because she has amnesia. She has no qualms simply continuing with controlling zerg and reinfesting herself, similarly she also slaughters many protoss and terran on her campaign of revenge against Mengsk. By all accounts she is a terrible person, yet the game never acknowledges this. And as far as we know, the only real difference between Brood War Kerrigan and HotS Kerrigan is that she lost her memory and hence forgot about many of her evil actions. Her actions since, the ease with which she turned into the queen of blades again and all that comes with that position, show that given a somewhat blank slate (amnesia) she makes many of the same decisions as she did in BW.
Well, the terrans she killed were Dominion troops, so it can kinda be covered by the revenge part. Also, using that as an argument is kind of senseless in my opinion, because without the combat you don't really have much of a game. Though, this may be because I'm not creative enough to think of something else, so I'd love to hear how you guys would improve it. (These improvements are often interesting to read to be honest. I remember I read an alternate ending to HotS that would have been arguably better than the one we got, so if you have any suggestions, feel free to share). The same premise really goes for the protoss. Excluding them would have lead to people feeling that the protoss are deliberately being left behind (there is a thread specifically talking about how protoss are neglected and simply portrayed as pansies, so maybe there should have been more protoss?). Blizzard explain the protoss killing using the Tal'Darim, who seek to ressurect Amon, so they are essentially evil and must be removed. Doing such heroic deeds can't really be attributed to the old Queen of Blades. The events on Kaldir were in self-defence, so you have to cut Kerrigan some slack there.
EDIT: I'll admit that it's kind of weak, but it's what we got from Blizzard.
I think one of the problems that people have with SC2 is that it's not the story of the terrans, the protoss or the zerg. It's the story of Raynor, Kerrigan and Zerathul (assuming he's gonna be the main character in LotV). Having this perspective you naturally lose the epic proportions that were in BW. Someone complained that we didn't know what the protoss or the terran Dominion were up to, but this is only follows the established narrative. Personally, I don't mind the strong focus on these individual characters, but then again I haven't played through BW, so I may be missing out on something much better.
|
On March 28 2013 05:24 Gogo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 05:02 Grumbels wrote:On March 28 2013 01:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2013 01:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Where's the depth? Oh right, there is none. BW wasn't fantastic, but it was cohesive and passable. Point out the "shallow and cliche" storytelling elements so we can see your reasoning, or so we can realize that you're just making shit up. Oh, and the UED was fine. You're just grasping at straws. Kerrigan's characterization - her decision to be "human" or "zerg" as well as the overall theme of "what is 'human'?" were very well done and had quite a bit of depth to them. And no, the UED was stupid as balls. Edit: On March 28 2013 01:13 sCCrooked wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Everything you said there is no more than an opinion built out of misconceptions or misunderstandings. Its typical of the supporter of things like this to try to dismantle the current "standard" as if theirs somehow even qualifies as a decent work in the company of such legendary examples (See "Twilight" scenario for similar situation taking place in the literary world). The truth is still the same as its always been and its very different from what you're mentally concocting. My mental concoctions are generally pretty good. What's 'the truth' in this case that I'm so far out from? Kerrigan is responsible for the deaths of billions of innocents, yet she conveniently doesn't need to engage in any self-reflection because she has amnesia. She has no qualms simply continuing with controlling zerg and reinfesting herself, similarly she also slaughters many protoss and terran on her campaign of revenge against Mengsk. By all accounts she is a terrible person, yet the game never acknowledges this. And as far as we know, the only real difference between Brood War Kerrigan and HotS Kerrigan is that she lost her memory and hence forgot about many of her evil actions. Her actions since, the ease with which she turned into the queen of blades again and all that comes with that position, show that given a somewhat blank slate (amnesia) she makes many of the same decisions as she did in BW. Well, the terrans she killed were Dominion troops, so it can kinda be covered by the revenge part. Also, using that as an argument is kind of senseless in my opinion, because without the combat you don't really have much of a game. Though, this may be because I'm not creative enough to think of something else, so I'd love to hear how you guys would improve it. (These improvements are often interesting to read to be honest. I remember I read an alternate ending to HotS that would have been arguably better than the one we got, so if you have any suggestions, feel free to share). The same premise really goes for the protoss. Excluding them would have lead to people feeling that the protoss are deliberately being left behind (there is a thread specifically talking about how protoss are neglected and simply portrayed as pansies, so maybe there should have been more protoss?). Blizzard explain the protoss killing using the Tal'Darim, who seek to ressurect Amon, so they are essentially evil and must be removed. Doing such heroic deeds can't really be attributed to the old Queen of Blades. The events on Kaldir were in self-defence, so you have to cut Kerrigan some slack there. EDIT: I'll admit that it's kind of weak, but it's what we got from Blizzard. I think one of the problems that people have with SC2 is that it's not the story of the terrans, the protoss or the zerg. It's the story of Raynor, Kerrigan and Zerathul (assuming he's gonna be the main character in LotV). Having this perspective you naturally lose the epic proportions that were in BW. Someone complained that we didn't know what the protoss or the terran Dominion were up to, but this is only follows the established narrative. Personally, I don't mind the strong focus on these individual characters, but then again I haven't played through BW, so I may be missing out on something much better.
I kind of think that using zerg to slaughter dominion troops, many of whom are only enlisting in the military to protect humanity against the zerg to begin with, is something that should give Kerrigan pause, but it hardly ever does in HotS. She makes a few concessions to avoid some of the casualties, but she is mostly using her vendetta against Mengsk to excuse a lot of horrible actions.
And Blizzard is still going to redeem her in the end with the prophecy story line...
|
I see your point of it possibly being a bit too much of the "dominion bad, must kill" side, but we also do see that Kerrigan does care about people. After the missions on Char, she lets those marines go, but perhaps the biggest example is how she allowed millions of people to be evacuated from Korhal. Personally, I think this is enough, but at that point we simply have conflicting opinions.
|
On March 28 2013 05:24 Gogo1 wrote:
Well, the terrans she killed were Dominion troops, so it can kinda be covered by the revenge part. Also, using that as an argument is kind of senseless in my opinion, because without the combat you don't really have much of a game. Though, this may be because I'm not creative enough to think of something else, so I'd love to hear how you guys would improve it. (These improvements are often interesting to read to be honest. I remember I read an alternate ending to HotS that would have been arguably better than the one we got, so if you have any suggestions, feel free to share). Assuming the point is to have a reformed Kerrigan, have Abathur test the new strains against other Swarm creatures, rather than Protoss who didn't threaten her. If you need more ZvP action, have the Golden Armada actually attack the Swarm. No one would blink if Artanis and Selendis launched an offensive, and you can a few lines with Kerrigan saying "well, now we are ready to face them" to have Kaldir make a real difference.
Speaking of Kaldir, Lessara is absolutely right when you start thinking about it : Kerrigan could have fled Kaldir. This means that the Protoss would be after her, but since her next move is to go to Char and have Terran shout her name on all frequencies, it was going to happen anyway. So I wouldn't consider that self-defense, especially since we didn't see the time Kerrigan gained make any difference either...
but perhaps the biggest example is how she allowed millions of people to be evacuated from Korhal. Personally, I think this is enough, but at that point we simply have conflicting opinions. Well it's not as simple as that: she was ready to have millions die in the crossfire without blinking an eye, just to get a tactical advantage. She only changed her mind, reluctantly, because Valerian insisted. It's still something, it is not the same as if she had spontaneously made the suggestion.
|
On March 28 2013 06:42 Telenil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 05:24 Gogo1 wrote:
Well, the terrans she killed were Dominion troops, so it can kinda be covered by the revenge part. Also, using that as an argument is kind of senseless in my opinion, because without the combat you don't really have much of a game. Though, this may be because I'm not creative enough to think of something else, so I'd love to hear how you guys would improve it. (These improvements are often interesting to read to be honest. I remember I read an alternate ending to HotS that would have been arguably better than the one we got, so if you have any suggestions, feel free to share). Assuming the point is to have a reformed Kerrigan, have Abathur test the new strains against other Swarm creatures, rather than Protoss who didn't threaten her. If you need more ZvP action, have the Golden Armada actually attack the Swarm. No one would blink if Artanis and Selendis launched an offensive, and you can a few lines with Kerrigan saying "well, now we are ready to face them" to have Kaldir make a real difference. Speaking of Kaldir, Lessara is absolutely right when you start thinking about it : Kerrigan could have fled Kaldir. This means that the Protoss would be after her, but since her next move is to go to Char and have Terran shout her name on all frequencies, it was going to happen anyway. So I wouldn't consider that self-defense, especially since we didn't see the time Kerrigan gained make any difference either... Show nested quote +but perhaps the biggest example is how she allowed millions of people to be evacuated from Korhal. Personally, I think this is enough, but at that point we simply have conflicting opinions. Well it's not as simple as that: she was ready to have millions die in the crossfire without blinking an eye, just to get a tactical advantage. She only changed her mind, reluctantly, because Valerian insisted. It's still something, it is not the same as if she had spontaneously made the suggestion.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you suggesting that instead of having protoss on Kaldir, they should just have had some random creatures whose genetics Abathur could weave into the swarm? Also, having the Golden Armada attacking the Swarm may not have been such a bad idea, but wouldn't that leave the protoss basically defenseless? I don't know Starcraft lore in detail, so I don't really know how that would work out. And you'd also have the people who enjoy the protoss race cry over how their epic army gets beaten by Kerrigan.
And you do have a point about what happens on Korhal. She was willing to just ignore the civilians, as she saw the notion of helping them as yet another obstacle in getting to Mengsk. But, note how she changes her mind when Valarian reminds her that these are people, not just random objects. I think that's the important part in that conversation.
|
On March 28 2013 05:02 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 01:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2013 01:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Where's the depth? Oh right, there is none. BW wasn't fantastic, but it was cohesive and passable. Point out the "shallow and cliche" storytelling elements so we can see your reasoning, or so we can realize that you're just making shit up. Oh, and the UED was fine. You're just grasping at straws. Kerrigan's characterization - her decision to be "human" or "zerg" as well as the overall theme of "what is 'human'?" were very well done and had quite a bit of depth to them. And no, the UED was stupid as balls. Edit: On March 28 2013 01:13 sCCrooked wrote:On March 28 2013 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 27 2013 21:58 sCCrooked wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 mprs wrote:On March 27 2013 20:35 baba44713 wrote:
I'll put my condescension hat for a moment.
When you are young, like in your early or even late teens, your criteria is often pretty non-discriminating. It's extremely easy to be a fan of something and be completely oblivious of its flaws. Especially when the content you get is precisely catered to your age and wrapped up in a shiny, highly produced package.
Then a decade goes by and you get a chance to look back to stuff you were once so enamored with. And you realize that all that stuff pretty much falls in two categories. The first one is something that actually WAS good - you can still see the quality in it, you can still enjoy it - if it's a book, it's still a fine read, if it's a movie it's still a joy to watch, and if it's a game you can still experience it and find it satisfying. Ok, maybe you now find it childish or simplistic or it just didn't age too well but at least you understand why you loved it so much back in the time. ...aaaand than there's the other category. Things that you revisit and which make you say ... oh my God what was I thinking - this is embarrassing! I was a fan of THIS?
I can almost guarantee you that SC2 storyline will for many of you who now love it in a decade or so very neatly land square-center in the latter category. I don't think SC/BW escaped SC2's fate. Let's not be dishonest, we collectively have a huge nostalgic bias towards SC/BW. Some of that dialogue and plot was cringeworthy by today's standards. I'm pretty tired of seeing this outright lie being used as a response everywhere as if it were proving something. BW's writing is far superior. Words you might use to describe it are "cohesive", "encompassing" and "byzantine" whereas SC2's writing would be described with words such as "convoluted", "vague" and "estranging". There's no debate when the scripts are publicly available and you have to start putting adjectives to them just like any academic piece gets reviewed and scrutinized. Liking it is not the issue, its when people can't even understand the definitions of words and realize its not them that's being discussed but a script that possesses these qualities whether they want to admit those adjectives are their preferences or not. BW's story wasn't that good. It hurt the SC lore in some respects (UED never should have been involved) and the story telling was shallow and cliche. HOTS has its weak points as well (on Leviathan dialogue, some lore issues) but the main storyline was easily the best so far in terms of characterization and depth. Everything you said there is no more than an opinion built out of misconceptions or misunderstandings. Its typical of the supporter of things like this to try to dismantle the current "standard" as if theirs somehow even qualifies as a decent work in the company of such legendary examples (See "Twilight" scenario for similar situation taking place in the literary world). The truth is still the same as its always been and its very different from what you're mentally concocting. My mental concoctions are generally pretty good. What's 'the truth' in this case that I'm so far out from? Kerrigan is responsible for the deaths of billions of innocents, yet she conveniently doesn't need to engage in any self-reflection because she has amnesia. She has no qualms simply continuing with controlling zerg and reinfesting herself, similarly she also slaughters many protoss and terran on her campaign of revenge against Mengsk. By all accounts she is a terrible person, yet the game never acknowledges this. And as far as we know, the only real difference between Brood War Kerrigan and HotS Kerrigan is that she lost her memory and hence forgot about many of her evil actions. Her actions since, the ease with which she turned into the queen of blades again and all that comes with that position, show that given a somewhat blank slate (amnesia) she makes many of the same decisions as she did in BW.
Kerrigan isn't really given the chance for a lot of self reflection. She wakes up in a research lab, gets put through tests and is then attacked by the Dominion. I'm not sure why having that scene would be better than not having it... self-reflection (or at least acknowledgement of her past) does happen, just not all at once.
Kerrigan absolutely does have qualms over controlling the Zerg. The entire first mission is her pissed that Valarian wants her to test out her Zerg controling powers. She only returns to the Zerg because she has no where else to go. When she found out that Jim 'died' she felt alone (who would accept her) until she realized that cute puppy dog zerglings still loved her.
Kerrigan certainly was a terrible person as the Queen of Blades and the game acknowledges that. Kerrigan says that everyone's hands are bloody - including hers. She also says that everyone is a monster - including herself. Also, the Protoss and Terrans aren't about to make peace with the Zerg. It's kill or be killed and the Zerg have just as much a right to life as the other two races.
While Kerrigan turns back into the Queen of Blades she's not the same. This time she has her humanity. For example, she will now avoid fighting in civilian zones because it's the "right" thing to do - even though it will cost more Zerg soldiers their lives.
|
On March 28 2013 06:58 Gogo1 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you suggesting that instead of having protoss on Kaldir, they should just have had some random creatures whose genetics Abathur could weave into the swarm? I wasn't very clear, but I was refering to evolution missions. There are some levels when you get new DNA, and Kerrigan says "hey, what about slaughtering these Protoss over there!" That's where Abathur could put Swarm creatures against each other instead.
I only start talking about Kaldir in the second paragraph.
Also, having the Golden Armada attacking the Swarm may not have been such a bad idea, but wouldn't that leave the protoss basically defenseless? I don't know Starcraft lore in detail, so I don't really know how that would work out. And you'd also have the people who enjoy the protoss race cry over how their epic army gets beaten by Kerrigan. Obviously, but I am kind of a Protoss fan myself and I wouldn't expect the Protoss to defeat the entire Swarm on their own either. You can have them kill a Brood Mother, force Kerrigan to re-deploy her forces to face them, and generally have the attack disrupt her plans. There is a big difference between "the Golden Armada shows up and gets stomped", and "the Protoss do good damage before being forced to retreat at the end of 2-3 missions".
The problem some people have with Protoss in Starcraft is not that they get defeated, it is more like they don't seem to ever be a threat. They come at the start of the level, get rolled over and die without being much more than a nuisance.
|
On March 28 2013 05:02 Grumbels wrote: And as far as we know, the only real difference between Brood War Kerrigan and HotS Kerrigan is that she lost her memory and hence forgot about many of her evil actions.
Well...there's also the painted-on bodysuit, organically grown high heels and a tendency to strike dramatic poses, don't forget those.
|
On March 28 2013 07:08 Telenil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 06:58 Gogo1 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you suggesting that instead of having protoss on Kaldir, they should just have had some random creatures whose genetics Abathur could weave into the swarm? I wasn't very clear, but I was refering to evolution missions. There are some levels when you get new DNA, and Kerrigan says "hey, what about slaughtering these Protoss over there!" That's where Abathur could put Swarm creatures against each other instead.
The evolution missions are filler, so it's tempting to see them as inconsequential to the main plot. I don't think any of these missions take place on recognizable worlds or are even referred to later on. Yet they very much happen and it constantly has Kerrigan telling her forces to kill a random group of terran or protoss that are off at some remote planet for the purposes of experimentation. I would say that Kerrigan is being evil in these cases. (I forgot if she ever attacks any protoss during the evolution missions, I didn't play all of them myself)
I only start talking about Kaldir in the second paragraph. Show nested quote +Also, having the Golden Armada attacking the Swarm may not have been such a bad idea, but wouldn't that leave the protoss basically defenseless? I don't know Starcraft lore in detail, so I don't really know how that would work out. And you'd also have the people who enjoy the protoss race cry over how their epic army gets beaten by Kerrigan. Obviously, but I am kind of a Protoss fan myself and I wouldn't expect the Protoss to defeat the entire Swarm on their own either. You can have them kill a Brood Mother, force Kerrigan to re-deploy her forces to face them, and generally have the attack disrupt her plans. There is a big difference between "the Golden Armada shows up and gets stomped", and "the Protoss do good damage before being forced to retreat at the end of 2-3 missions". The problem some people have with Protoss in Starcraft is not that they get defeated, it is more like they don't seem to ever be a threat. They come at the start of the level, get rolled over and die without being much more than a nuisance.
The only race that is allowed to win is the player's race. At the same time, over the course of the trilogy, all three races have to be equally awesome and victorious, hence the need for the recycled Archimonde attacks the world tree plot that is inevitably going to happen. It will allow all races to win.
|
On March 28 2013 07:41 Grumbels wrote:
The only race that is allowed to win is the player's race. At the same time, over the course of the trilogy, all three races have to be equally awesome and victorious, hence the need for the recycled Archimonde attacks the world tree plot that is inevitably going to happen. It will allow all races to win.
Because that's what we all truly want. For all races to hug each other, make up and have a giant party. If they could throw in some Ewoks for good measure, too, it would be the most phenomenal ending in video game history.
|
On March 28 2013 07:41 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 07:08 Telenil wrote:On March 28 2013 06:58 Gogo1 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you suggesting that instead of having protoss on Kaldir, they should just have had some random creatures whose genetics Abathur could weave into the swarm? I wasn't very clear, but I was refering to evolution missions. There are some levels when you get new DNA, and Kerrigan says "hey, what about slaughtering these Protoss over there!" That's where Abathur could put Swarm creatures against each other instead. The evolution missions are filler, so it's tempting to see them as inconsequential to the main plot. I don't think any of these missions take place on recognizable worlds or are even referred to later on. Yet they very much happen and it constantly has Kerrigan telling her forces to kill a random group of terran or protoss that are off at some remote planet for the purposes of experimentation. I would say that Kerrigan is being evil in these cases. (I forgot if she ever attacks any protoss during the evolution missions, I didn't play all of them myself) Show nested quote +I only start talking about Kaldir in the second paragraph. Also, having the Golden Armada attacking the Swarm may not have been such a bad idea, but wouldn't that leave the protoss basically defenseless? I don't know Starcraft lore in detail, so I don't really know how that would work out. And you'd also have the people who enjoy the protoss race cry over how their epic army gets beaten by Kerrigan. Obviously, but I am kind of a Protoss fan myself and I wouldn't expect the Protoss to defeat the entire Swarm on their own either. You can have them kill a Brood Mother, force Kerrigan to re-deploy her forces to face them, and generally have the attack disrupt her plans. There is a big difference between "the Golden Armada shows up and gets stomped", and "the Protoss do good damage before being forced to retreat at the end of 2-3 missions". The problem some people have with Protoss in Starcraft is not that they get defeated, it is more like they don't seem to ever be a threat. They come at the start of the level, get rolled over and die without being much more than a nuisance. The only race that is allowed to win is the player's race. At the same time, over the course of the trilogy, all three races have to be equally awesome and victorious, hence the need for the recycled Archimonde attacks the world tree plot that is inevitably going to happen. It will allow all races to win.
Two things:
First,
The evolution missions are not filler. They're just not essential to the main plot.
Kerrigan attacking these "worlds" is the same as the Brood queens joining Kerrigan and being told to attack such and such planet.
Its terribly executed, like most of the campaign, but she wasn't killing Terrans and Protoss willy nilly. It was her mind being one with the swarm, she was attacking those planets at the same time she's on zerus, or char, or any of the other planets shes on.
Second,
The entire point of the ice planet mission was to show that Kerrigan did not want to have a fight with the protoss because how strong they are. She attacks a random colony and then spends the next 2-3 missions doing everything she can to stop the actual protoss army from showing up.
Once again, it's presented and executed poorly. But it technically has a purpose.
|
Don't forget what the evolution mission were supposed to accomplish in the first place. They weren't supposed to be part of the main plot at all. They included them to fix one of the problems people had with WoL: the research upgrades. I read somewhere (I forget where, unfortunately) that people had to look up online what to pick, because they couldn't really tell what was good. So what Blizzard decided - and in my opinion it was a good way of solving the issue - was that you have these mini-missions that aren't important, but they highlight what the evolution / research does. That way you have more of a basis to choose from, instead of just estimation.
EDIT: Just realized I really like starting paragraphs with "I think"... Changed that.
|
On March 28 2013 08:29 Gogo1 wrote:
I think people forget what the evolution mission were about. They weren't supposed to be part of the main plot at all. They included them to fix one of the problems people had with WoL: the research upgrades. I read somewhere (I forget where, unfortunately) that people had to look up online what to pick, because they couldn't really tell what was good. So what Blizzard decided - and in my opinion it was a good way of solving the issue - was that you have these mini-missions that aren't important, but they highlight what the evolution / research does. That way you have more of a basis to choose from, instead of just estimation.
those decisions weren't really important.. it was more about how YOU want to play the game. or maybe just a little slaying part which many player seem to enjoy (diablo).
|
On March 28 2013 08:36 Anta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 08:29 Gogo1 wrote:
I think people forget what the evolution mission were about. They weren't supposed to be part of the main plot at all. They included them to fix one of the problems people had with WoL: the research upgrades. I read somewhere (I forget where, unfortunately) that people had to look up online what to pick, because they couldn't really tell what was good. So what Blizzard decided - and in my opinion it was a good way of solving the issue - was that you have these mini-missions that aren't important, but they highlight what the evolution / research does. That way you have more of a basis to choose from, instead of just estimation. those decisions weren't really important.. it was more about how YOU want to play the game.
Sure, but I read somewhere that people found it to be an issue that they didn't know what was objectively stronger. It probably has something to do with them struggling on Brutal or something. Either way, that's why Blizzard made these mission. And like I said, I liked them. It's nice to see both evolutions in effect, and then make a decision from there.
|
On March 28 2013 08:38 Gogo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 08:36 Anta wrote:On March 28 2013 08:29 Gogo1 wrote:
I think people forget what the evolution mission were about. They weren't supposed to be part of the main plot at all. They included them to fix one of the problems people had with WoL: the research upgrades. I read somewhere (I forget where, unfortunately) that people had to look up online what to pick, because they couldn't really tell what was good. So what Blizzard decided - and in my opinion it was a good way of solving the issue - was that you have these mini-missions that aren't important, but they highlight what the evolution / research does. That way you have more of a basis to choose from, instead of just estimation. those decisions weren't really important.. it was more about how YOU want to play the game. Sure, but I read somewhere that people found it to be an issue that they didn't know what was objectively stronger. It probably has something to do with them struggling on Brutal or something. Either way, that's why Blizzard made these mission. And like I said, I liked them. It's nice to see both evolutions in effect, and then make a decision from there.
yup and either way you decide, you can move on and solve the next mission. you just have to adapt your playstyle or adapt your decisions upon your playstlye. nothing is just wrong.
edit just watch day9 playing the campaign on brutal.
|
On March 28 2013 08:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 07:41 Grumbels wrote:On March 28 2013 07:08 Telenil wrote:On March 28 2013 06:58 Gogo1 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you suggesting that instead of having protoss on Kaldir, they should just have had some random creatures whose genetics Abathur could weave into the swarm? I wasn't very clear, but I was refering to evolution missions. There are some levels when you get new DNA, and Kerrigan says "hey, what about slaughtering these Protoss over there!" That's where Abathur could put Swarm creatures against each other instead. The evolution missions are filler, so it's tempting to see them as inconsequential to the main plot. I don't think any of these missions take place on recognizable worlds or are even referred to later on. Yet they very much happen and it constantly has Kerrigan telling her forces to kill a random group of terran or protoss that are off at some remote planet for the purposes of experimentation. I would say that Kerrigan is being evil in these cases. (I forgot if she ever attacks any protoss during the evolution missions, I didn't play all of them myself) I only start talking about Kaldir in the second paragraph. Also, having the Golden Armada attacking the Swarm may not have been such a bad idea, but wouldn't that leave the protoss basically defenseless? I don't know Starcraft lore in detail, so I don't really know how that would work out. And you'd also have the people who enjoy the protoss race cry over how their epic army gets beaten by Kerrigan. Obviously, but I am kind of a Protoss fan myself and I wouldn't expect the Protoss to defeat the entire Swarm on their own either. You can have them kill a Brood Mother, force Kerrigan to re-deploy her forces to face them, and generally have the attack disrupt her plans. There is a big difference between "the Golden Armada shows up and gets stomped", and "the Protoss do good damage before being forced to retreat at the end of 2-3 missions". The problem some people have with Protoss in Starcraft is not that they get defeated, it is more like they don't seem to ever be a threat. They come at the start of the level, get rolled over and die without being much more than a nuisance. The only race that is allowed to win is the player's race. At the same time, over the course of the trilogy, all three races have to be equally awesome and victorious, hence the need for the recycled Archimonde attacks the world tree plot that is inevitably going to happen. It will allow all races to win. Two things: First, The evolution missions are not filler. They're just not essential to the main plot.
uh... you just said its not filler and then went on to describe their purpose by pretty much giving the dictionary definition of what "filler" is. Just pointing that out in your thought processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
