EPTHeart of the Swarm: An Empire, or a Menace? - Page 34
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PlatinumPaladin
4 Posts
| ||
|
FecalTank
United States70 Posts
Obviously it has to do with marketing, and apparently the fact that Blizzard thinks everyone playing their games can't handle a well-written story. | ||
|
schwarzer
Argentina25 Posts
I had minimal hopes after playing WoL. But after seeing some teaser material in 2011, I tought it was a perfect chance for Blizzard to go back to its storytelling origins. Sadly, they ignored 90% of the feedback and took the same direction they did on Diablo III: cheese, forced and inconsistent stories. Letting away the cheese and some retcons (no problem, I can live with Zerus being a jungle and with Raynor and Kerrigan loving each other in SC), the point that bothered me the most was how forced the story was, mainly regarding the new Kerrigan character. Something I really dislike was the amnesia thing. To me, it felt very noisy because how forced and selective (plot convenience) was. Regarding how evil she was and how many people she murdered, she has total amnesia. That was very convenient plot wise because that made her exempt of all her crimes, so she could resume his love story with Raynor at the last point it was (otherwise the love story couldn't have resumed, because Raynor hates the old QoB - by the way, why Raynor has 100% trust on her without even discover her new personality?). But on the other hand, she is still evil, she still knows how to control zerg armies, she wipes entire planets without a second tought (something the old QoB would do), she has bloodlust against the protoss (like the old QoB), she has revenge desire against Mengsk (old QoB), she had no problem using the zerg as a weapon (old QoB, and something the human Sarah was against to!). Contradictorily, she is in love with Raynor (the exact same state she was before her first infestation) and would do everything for him, she doesn't like murdering, and she saves a bunch civillians two times. Not to mention: why she is so upset with Mengsk? Her last memories was getting surrounded by zerg in Tarsonis! She realized Mengsk betrayal being the QoB, so how did she even had anger towards Mengsk? Also, how she remember who Zeratul is, and the hatred she had with him and the protoss? And, this is very subjective, but why she had all her human memories when she was first infested, but she doesn't had any of her being the QoB when she was deinfested? That's why I think the amnesia thing was totally forced, and anti-climatic. She remembers or forgets selectively things according to if it was convenient for the plot or not. Artifact felt way too fantastic (in the bad way, maybe good for a Warcraft game but not here) to me. Other thing I felt really bland was the fact that almost everything you do was for revenge's sake (gathering broods, reinfestation, the attack on the hybrid's lab). First, that made the new Kerrigan totally unidimensional and boring. And second, invading Mengk again, Blizzard? C'mon, he was stomped so many times in the entire SC story, it gets old having to attack him again. It's a shame, it was a pretty good chance to Blizzard to improve the story. But ok, I've already know a while ago that I won't buy any other of his games for the story. Fortunately there's still a very good multiplayer  . | ||
|
dejavue
Germany47 Posts
But I have one gripe with your work: You talk a lot about Kerrigan's and Raynor's psychological reasons for what they're doing and most of the time you keep to the material at hand and interpret it your way (which is absolutely fine). At some point you start psychologizing the characters beyond what we ever see or hear in any of the campaign (specifically Raynor's guilt) - points which are alluded to but never actually put in the open. Since these characters are fictional and the writers behind them/their story have most probably not lived through what their characters have, this psychological component is highly speculative and can lead to all the wrong conclusions. Personally I agree with your interpretation(s), but the first thing I learnt about literary theory is that it is a terrible mistake to psychologize. All in all, just a little detail that caught my eye. Overall I found your comments on the campaign to be mostly spot on and was very sad to read that you won't write up another one for LotV. | ||
|
Mystgun
Hong Kong311 Posts
| ||
|
KnowNothing
69 Posts
I commend your patient analysis of such drivel! | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
I agree and am pretty mad about the fact that they drop so much potential by never letting kerrigan have a moment of thinking things through and by loosing her memories, her character had lots of unused potential. On the other hand most of the game is happening in cutscenes, which are a bad medium for a monologue. The result are lots of scenes where the player might think that she is sad (like the moment after she frees raynor and the zergs are asking because she closed her connection to them), but it never really becomes clear. Her story is full of desperation and struggle and while they try to present that in the first two or three cutscenes, her reacton on raynor's escape is really underwhelming. I think the gun in the prison scene is a gun she brings from outside. She puts it into his hand. Imo the deciding fact in the raynor-kerrigan relationship in the later part is that kerrigan is not the qob anymore, but kerrigan with qob-powers. Her character didnt change at all after her transformation on Zerus, which is showcased e.g. when valerion bids for more time, which is the deciding factor for raynor swinging back again. I also agree on the fact that the ending is disappointing. The explosion scene is unsatisfying, as is her artificial weakness in front of the artifact (which doesnt make sence considering that she is a primal zerg now and is just there to redeem her for her upcoming murder). I think the overall result that can be seen at hots is what we see in lots of games: the fact that a flashy presentation nowadays is more important (for developpers and sells) than the story itself. | ||
|
Xerxes Wrath
48 Posts
| ||
|
AzureSpectre
United States6 Posts
The whole "monster" exchange between Mengsk and Kerrigan made no sense at all, and the flying was like "wtf...?" I enjoyed the story so long as I didn't think about it and just went with w/e, but as a lore guy that just doesn't cut it. :/ | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
There were several moments in the game where I actually cared about the characters (namely Kerrigan), something that didn't really happen in WoL, BW or 99% of the games I play. Frankly, the biggest thing I picked up from this review is you. You start off by telling us how disappointed you were in some other Blizzard games. That should have sent out huge red flags. That's like reading a restaurant review that starts out with the writer talking about how much they hate snooty French chefs. The rest of the article reads the same way. I'm not trying to single out the OP; as you can see there are 30+ pages of this, and, frankly, I think this is the result of a population that has long outstayed itself in a particular medium. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
On April 13 2013 17:09 Blackfeather wrote:+ Show Spoiler + It's pretty clear that the intent is that she does put the gun into his hand (even though they don't exactly directly show this) as that is a device to non-vebally show her intent within the scene, but it still begs the question as to where the gun came from? If you look closely it is Raynor's gun (the etchings on the barrel and cylinder), not some random firearm from a dead marine. If you look real closely though you can see what looks like its outline in his holster when he stands up in the cell, though this isn't really clear enough (also where would Kerrigan have the gun on her, telekenetically floating behind her?)i really like your deep analysis and agree to most of it, thank you for your work. I have to say that i disagree on some points though. I dont think that kerrigan's breakdown in the early phase is out of character, because essentially kerrigan is currently lost. Raynor was her anchor and she lost him, so she is clueless of what to do and desperate, in addition to the fact that controlling the zerg cant be a pleasant ability for her, because even though she lost her memory, she must have heard of what she did as the qob. That is also why Raynor doesnt question her in the beginning. I agree and am pretty mad about the fact that they drop so much potential by never letting kerrigan have a moment of thinking things through and by loosing her memories, her character had lots of unused potential. On the other hand most of the game is happening in cutscenes, which are a bad medium for a monologue. The result are lots of scenes where the player might think that she is sad (like the moment after she frees raynor and the zergs are asking because she closed her connection to them), but it never really becomes clear. Her story is full of desperation and struggle and while they try to present that in the first two or three cutscenes, her reacton on raynor's escape is really underwhelming. I think the gun in the prison scene is a gun she brings from outside. She puts it into his hand. Imo the deciding fact in the raynor-kerrigan relationship in the later part is that kerrigan is not the qob anymore, but kerrigan with qob-powers. Her character didnt change at all after her transformation on Zerus, which is showcased e.g. when valerion bids for more time, which is the deciding factor for raynor swinging back again. I also agree on the fact that the ending is disappointing. The explosion scene is unsatisfying, as is her artificial weakness in front of the artifact (which doesnt make sence considering that she is a primal zerg now and is just there to redeem her for her upcoming murder). I think the overall result that can be seen at hots is what we see in lots of games: the fact that a flashy presentation nowadays is more important (for developpers and sells) than the story itself. On April 09 2013 22:38 dejavue wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I would agree that my thoughts on what Raynor feels or his own personal motivations are my own gleaning from his character portrayal (it an be a slippery slope when a character isn't as fleshed out early on). While there is a certain amount of leeway in how to approach this, I spent some time thinking about and trying to get into the head of Jim Raynor to understand the 'why'. I eventually landed on this because of a number of subtle clues strewn around the world already (as well as the execution from the actor), but also in that this direction seemed to play into or greatly enhance some of the character developments that would come later on down the road (in that they set up additional ironies or perspectives beyond the most obvious ones presented).To be honest, I agree with the general point you are making about HotS. I too was disappointed by the story, especially since I had just replayed the whole SC1 and BW campaign (SC2BW yay!) before release. But I have one gripe with your work: You talk a lot about Kerrigan's and Raynor's psychological reasons for what they're doing and most of the time you keep to the material at hand and interpret it your way (which is absolutely fine). At some point you start psychologizing the characters beyond what we ever see or hear in any of the campaign (specifically Raynor's guilt) - points which are alluded to but never actually put in the open. Since these characters are fictional and the writers behind them/their story have most probably not lived through what their characters have, this psychological component is highly speculative and can lead to all the wrong conclusions. Personally I agree with your interpretation(s), but the first thing I learnt about literary theory is that it is a terrible mistake to psychologize. All in all, just a little detail that caught my eye. Overall I found your comments on the campaign to be mostly spot on and was very sad to read that you won't write up another one for LotV. On April 16 2013 14:35 Jerubaal wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Really? There's a rather large difference between 'shitting' on something for the sake of being negative (discrediting for the sake of that), which I would agree, does happen often... and a carefully thought out or well reasoned analysis of a less than great product or idea. Additionally, the irony of your first sentence does not escape me.Shitting on everything that's popular is fashionable, I get it. There were several moments in the game where I actually cared about the characters (namely Kerrigan), something that didn't really happen in WoL, BW or 99% of the games I play. Frankly, the biggest thing I picked up from this review is you. You start off by telling us how disappointed you were in some other Blizzard games. That should have sent out huge red flags. That's like reading a restaurant review that starts out with the writer talking about how much they hate snooty French chefs. The rest of the article reads the same way. I'm not trying to single out the OP; as you can see there are 30+ pages of this, and, frankly, I think this is the result of a population that has long outstayed itself in a particular medium. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 17 2013 00:55 wo1fwood wrote: It's pretty clear that the intent is that she does put the gun into his hand (even though they don't exactly directly show this) as that is a device to non-vebally show her intent within the scene, but it still begs the question as to where the gun came from? If you look closely it is Raynor's gun (the etchings on the barrel and cylinder), not some random firearm from a dead marine. If you look real closely though you can see what looks like its outline in his holster when he stands up in the cell, though this isn't really clear enough (also where would Kerrigan have the gun on her, telekenetically floating behind her?) I would agree that my thoughts on what Raynor feels or his own personal motivations are my own gleaning from his character portrayal (it an be a slippery slope when a character isn't as fleshed out early on). While there is a certain amount of leeway in how to approach this, I spent some time thinking about and trying to get into the head of Jim Raynor to understand the 'why'. I eventually landed on this because of a number of subtle clues strewn around the world already (as well as the execution from the actor), but also in that this direction seemed to play into or greatly enhance some of the character developments that would come later on down the road (in that they set up additional ironies or perspectives beyond the most obvious ones presented). Really? There's a rather large difference between 'shitting' on something for the sake of being negative (discrediting for the sake of that), which I would agree, does happen often... and a carefully thought out or well reasoned analysis of a less than great product or idea. Additionally, the irony of your first sentence does not escape me. Not that I disagree with his conclusion--but just because the OP is long doesn't mean it's a well reasoned analysis of a product... He specifically wants to ignore canonical works because it disagrees with what his arguments and conclusions are. He points out how "easy" the game is and how overly powerful and untouchable Kerrigan feels without pointing out how much easier and less complex the campaign was in BW where the enemy almost never attacks, and when it does it attacks with about 1-3 units tops. He points out to all these supposed plot points in BW that took 50-60 missions to say compared to the 30ish missions in HotS He brings up the weirdness of magic artifacts but ignores the magic crystals of the BW He brings up how we ignore the "macro story" of the starcraft universe when that's exactly what we do in the Protoss campaign in BW AND half of the zerg campaign in SC1 I could go on but he makes a LOT of analytical mistakes in his efforts to whine about a product he dislikes. And I'm not saying I disagree with his conclusions--but calling it well fleshed out is pretty damn silly. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
Regarding the canon works, and I suspect you initial problem with this position. If you are referring to canonical works as being novels, or books, I would love to see a convincing reason as to why the use of or reference to this material is acceptable and a good idea in telling a convincing story. The problem is, not one person in these 34 pages has come up with a convincing argument to explain why referencing these other materials and their potential benefits outweigh the problems that relying on these things create (in fact, if Blizzard is trying to reach as wide an audience as possible using this canon material actually undermines this very principle by forcibly excluding a certain demographic of people). You can disagree with this just fine, but until you tell us why you disagree, your statement doesn't mean anything. Additionally, If you are going to refute someone's argument or position you need to actually refute that position through evidence, and not through attempts at misdirection. What I mean by this is that many people who have disagreed with whomever in this thread have simply brought up or asked subsequent questions to try to seed doubt into the original argument, but this doesn't refute anything at all until you yourself have convincingly answered this question (all aspects of this question, which regarding your quip on the khaydarin crystals you have as of yet not done), and then presented your ideas. It's like saying "ooo, shiny object!" while conspicuously not answering or refuting the position originally stated. It's a lazy attempt at misdirection, it's entirely vapid, a less than subtle ad hominem, and quite honestly needs to stop. Edit: I should add that you are not the only person who does this as the internet is full of this behavior, but regardless it still doesn't add anything substantive to a discussion and is precisely why I asked in the OP to specifically not do this. | ||
|
Pandonetho
Canada321 Posts
On April 06 2013 09:53 convention wrote: I could probably lift you, but there is no way I could ever lift myself. You're not a crazy telekenetic and your logic is flawed. You can't 'lift' yourself because you're obviously not psychic. Kerrigan is, she didn't physically lift Valerian. If she can use her mind to lift Valerian, she can use her mind to lift herself. Which she, in fact, does at the end of the game. So there's no reason why she could not either lift Raynor across the bridge, or go to him herself. | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
| ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
BW was a very mature story, but it really did not go into any deep character development. On the other hand SC2 did develop some characters (unfortunately only Raynor and Kerrigan), but the story lacked that dark tone we enjoyed from SC1. I also think that rather then introducing tons of new characters, they should have developed older ones, rather then dropping random classic SC1 charecters into the story(Stukov and Duran a.k.a. Narud). | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
On April 17 2013 09:40 Pandonetho wrote: You're not a crazy telekenetic and your logic is flawed. You can't 'lift' yourself because you're obviously not psychic. Kerrigan is, she didn't physically lift Valerian. If she can use her mind to lift Valerian, she can use her mind to lift herself. Which she, in fact, does at the end of the game. So there's no reason why she could not either lift Raynor across the bridge, or go to him herself. Well if i remember both lifts happened after she got zerged again. Her powers are limited back when she was part human like during the first mission. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
 | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
My second concern is that some of your problems can be solved by having a complete view of what has happened in the universe, i.e. reading Flashpoint. I do agree with your main point that Brood War was a more mature story, but not having all of your facts correct when you're arguing about how badly presented a story is hurts your argument when you voluntarily use incomplete information. | ||
|
Pandonetho
Canada321 Posts
On April 17 2013 11:45 Assirra wrote: Well if i remember both lifts happened after she got zerged again. Her powers are limited back when she was part human like during the first mission. She lifts Valerian, and then 2 fully armored Marines at the same time in the cutscene immediately after they leave Raynor behind. Yeah, I'm pretty sure she's more than capable of lifting either herself or Raynor. | ||
| ||
