EPTHeart of the Swarm: An Empire, or a Menace? - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
`phobiA
51 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On March 21 2013 03:58 [F_]aths wrote: Just because you don't like to have love in this universe doesn't automatically not fitting. While the OP is very well written (which I admit even though I don't agree to some points) many postings in this thread are not. I see a lot of bitter nerds here, not able to stand a love cliche in the SC2 story line. An RTS is a game about CONFLICT and STRATEGY; love is about "happy times", getting together and having fun and those are kinda the opposite to each other. So they dont fit and its not just "my preference" ... unless you can come up with an explanation of why people who love each other (but never actually were together) would rip apart a lot of planets in the process. The key is in the telling and that whole "Oh Jim" part of Kettigan is too much. They could have done the same campaign with an "I'll rescue that Raynor guy because he was nice to me" reasoning behind it and everything would be fine, but nooo they had to have their stupid and cheap dialogues / monologues instead. With the focus on the love story Mengsk had to take a full backseat and that was really terrible, because he became the two-dimensional cardboard villain instead of the scheming and manipulating badass we knew from SC1 ... | ||
|
baba1
Canada355 Posts
I didn't buy hots for its story/campaign because I agree that Blizzard makes their story super cheesy and predictable. On the other hand, I'm having a blast online ! Ok we don't need a Shakespear story for hots but if you are gonna make a story might as well make it as good as possible, not jsut good enough. Good read  | ||
|
Penev
28483 Posts
| ||
|
alhazrel
98 Posts
Could you edit it so there are fewer instances of unnecessary repetition, misuse of words, inconsistent tenses and incoherent commas please? User was warned for this post | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On March 21 2013 04:47 alhazrel wrote: misuse of words On March 21 2013 04:47 alhazrel wrote: incoherent commas | ||
|
Disengaged
United States6994 Posts
On March 21 2013 04:45 Penev wrote: Wow, that was quite the read and I agree with most of it. It's so strange to witness time and time again this "aiming for younger audiences and the masses" by game developers and movie makers alike. It's a completely wrong approach too because the older original works were much better and they were the ones that made the franchises in the first place. Why not just make these stories enjoyable for everyone. The people who don't see the difference don't care anyway and you don't lose the interest of the rest. So strange.. Did they just forget how to write and present a good story? No, I highly doubt that they forgot how to tell a good story. Its been like 13-14 years since the first two games and times change. The audience changes. I believe that even if Blizzard kept their style with WoL and HOTS as they did with the first two games that the audience from back then wouldn't be good enough for good business. They aren't stupid and are pretty damn smart. Its just that that need more people to buy their game to make it seem justifiable in my opinion. I loved WoL and HOTS and had huge fun in both games. The story isn't great but it isn't bad either like all of these other people are making it out to be. Can it be better? Obviously, and Blizzard can do it too, but they rather not because they don't want to take the risk. Is it possible they will take the risk on Legacy of the Void? I doubt it but anything can happen. I enjoyed WoL and HOTS story for what they were and that was a decent continuation from the first two games. And yes, I've played SC1 and Brood War. | ||
|
alhazrel
98 Posts
I think you're wrong but feel free to explain. | ||
|
justinpal
United States3810 Posts
On March 21 2013 04:52 Disengaged wrote: No, I highly doubt that forgot how to tell a good story. Its been like 13-14 years since the first two games and times change. The audience changes. I believe that even if Blizzard kept their style with WoL and HOTS as they did with the first two games that the audience from back then wouldn't be good enough for good business. They aren't stupid and are pretty damn smart. Its just that that need more people to buy their game to make it seem justifiable in my opinion. I loved WoL and HOTS and had huge fun in both games. The story isn't great but it isn't bad either like all of these other people are making it out to be. Can it be better? Obviously, and Blizzard can do it too, but they rather not because they don't want to take the risk. Is it possible they will take the risk on Legacy of the Void? I doubt it but anything can happen. I enjoyed WoL and HOTS story for what they were and that was a decent continuation from the first two games. And yes, I've played SC1 and Brood War. I disagree. If Blizzard made a game called SC2 and it was just a repackaged Space Invaders with a picture book story many people would have bought it anyway. The original made their sales for them. I know I only bought it because SC:BW captured my imagination and drew me into an RTS. Now, the market is being pioneered by the personalities that emerged from the advent of livestreaming. A lot of what makes SC2 successful has nothing at all to do with the gameplay: single player or multi-player. | ||
|
Penev
28483 Posts
On March 21 2013 04:52 Disengaged wrote: No, I highly doubt that forgot how to tell a good story. Its been like 13-14 years since the first two games and times change. The audience changes. I believe that even if Blizzard kept their style with WoL and HOTS as they did with the first two games that the audience from back then wouldn't be good enough for good business. They aren't stupid and are pretty damn smart. Its just that that need more people to buy their game to make it seem justifiable in my opinion. I loved WoL and HOTS and had huge fun in both games. The story isn't great but it isn't bad either like all of these other people are making it out to be. Can it be better? Obviously, and Blizzard can do it too, but they rather not because they don't want to take the risk. Is it possible they will take the risk on Legacy of the Void? I doubt it but anything can happen. I enjoyed WoL and HOTS story for what they were and that was a decent continuation from the first two games. And yes, I've played SC1 and Brood War. If both the SC2 stories would have been written/ presented better the sales would've been the same is what I was trying to say in my post. Maybe even better but at least the same. Audiences didn't change, the producers did. They are wrong but it doesn't matter as long as sales are good (enough) sadly. | ||
|
Nirel
Israel1526 Posts
What I care about is that at least for now(I haven't finished the campaign) it seems fun and dynamic. Much better then Dune2 if anyone remembers lol | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Starcraft, like most action sci-fi stories, is such a load of horseshit at every turn that it's ridiculous to criticize it on its own level. If you focus on problems with the portrayal of gender, other stereotypes, blah blah, fine that's a social messaging problem worth discussing. But at no point can the story be taken seriously, so why bother? When we were kids, sure it was fun and even captivating. That's because the motivations are bite-sized since they are meant to explain game missions; perfect for young or thoughtless players. The arc is meant to lead to epic cut scenes, not shattering revelations on the human condition. If there happens to be a resemblance, kudos to the writers for pulling one off. Blockbuster games are not a medium for deep or subtle expression. They're a great medium for storytelling. "Art games" strive for and sometimes achieve what we expect of "art". But even then it cannot compare to a good novel for shear mass, and I'm not sure if it ever will. | ||
ObeseHydra
Brazil196 Posts
I agree with (almost) everything you say about the plot and personality changes, but I really don't mind because wasn't expecting anything better, to be honest. Blizzard was never a good storyteller, even when the lore behind these stories are great. And... I play the game much more because of it's gameplay and fun, where SC delivers a lot. | ||
|
antelope591
Canada820 Posts
| ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
Interesting post. | ||
|
Quixotic_tv
Germany130 Posts
So, could you please define "mature" in this context? What is a mature story? Romeo and Juliet, where two teenagers from rivaling clans fall in love with each other? What about Faust, where the Devil is betting with God on a guy who thinks is really clever? Or Don Quijote, a crazy nobleman who is travelling through a post-mediaeval spanish region, thinking he is a knight? All these, and I can bring up dozens of more stories if you wish, have extreme simple plots at first. Even more, I claim those stories are only successful because their protagonists behave romantic, which in essence is childish. To summarize, I do not know a "mature story", because there are only successful stories that are not mature. Well-written, or well-narrated stories with extreme childish plots. To span the arc to SC: The SC story was never ever in range of the examples above. Also in my opinion the BW story was the worst part of the SC universe that was made. Feel free to hate me now for killing your sacred cow, but if you look at all parts of SC, the development from SC to BW is confusing, narrow, far-fetched, and, sorry, childish. Look at those things you yourself point out, all those dialogue examples lead to this point. But I really enjoyed it, with one exception: The UED, the reasons for this have been pointed out a lot of times before. Now to SC2: Raynor and Kerrigan both act sometimes like children, you are right. But it makes sense. If you think about it and throw away your nostalgia, they do not act like grown-ups, as you say, no, they don't. Why is this bad? Literature is full of similar behaviour. Stories start to become interesting when people behave like this. Also you say there are some things in the SC2 story that are not made clear in BW or new or transformed characters that do not make sense. OK? Could you point out the problem with this? Is Frodo a far-fetched character, because Tolkien did not mention him in The Hobbit? Let us stay with Middle Earth: Is The One Ring a strange, idiotic, or even scary transformation from the simple magic item in The Hobbit? Not to me, because it is a sequel! In my opinion you are missing some crucial points, and forget to compare the story to other stories. I also played Blizzard RTS games from the beginning, from WC: Orcs and Human to HotS. So I feel free to say: Stop poking meee! In other words: No matter how elabourated your post is, a lot of other people on this forum who share your opinion like to make us, who like the story, feel bad. Also, I do not like Game Of Thrones, although I like Lena Headey and Sibel Kekili. No matter how I disagree with you, I thank you for your long and interesting post. | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
ToT)OjKa(
Korea (South)2437 Posts
There is not one game developer I have faith in any more. Bioware went to shit, Blizzard's quality gone downhill... WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MA NIGGAS BULLFROG BULLFROG 4 LYFE (another murder victim by EA) | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
That being said, I need to remind you that if one wants an original story, one can read the bible, the ramayana or any mythology compendium. All Mankind is written there. | ||
|
1handsomE
United States199 Posts
I am going to agree with you on Starcraft II writing, but for many different reasons. I can tell that you based this review somewhat on the Plinkett reviews of the original Star Wars trilogy (Nice!). You even mention it in the OP (again, Nice!). Although this post is filled with a lot of the same diction Plinkett uses, you actually take an entirely different approach than he does.Your approach is somewhat complex, his approach is quite simple. At one point he has non-star wars nerds describe the characters in the prequel trilogy without mentioning their look/wardrobe, and he does the same for the original trilogy. The effect is hilarious, because many people are unable to describe the prequel characters. Starcraft II does not have this problem. Many of the protagonists are easily described (Raynor: Rebel/Virtuous/Hick (Han Solo role), Kerrigan: Smart/Mad/Bad-A/Witty/Sexy (Leia Role etc.))etc. etc. The problem with Starcraft II is the quality of the antagonists (which I don't think you mention). I don't care about Mengsk, he's freaking boring. He is completely devoid of character. I can't describe him. I also don't care about Amon or Duran or whoever. I don't know a thing about them. And I am not afraid of them (which is the biggest deal). Plinkett would probably compare this to Darth Maul, who is powerful, but void of personality. So I wasn't face palming at Kerrigan's love for Raynor (which may be unwarranted, but is a hell-of-a-lot more interesting), I was face palming at her desire for revenge. She's mad cause she was betrayed and became zerg right? So why does she willingly make herself Zerg? (I'm sure you agree there, but I didn't see you mention it). You also mention a lot of the reasons why this is incompatible with Starcraft and Brood War. I don't think Plinkett is as concerned with this. He mentions the new Star Trek movie as a good example of writing, which is cringe inducing to many Trekkies because of retcon and other things (like how fast the elevator moves and how it is much more like sci fantasy then sci fiction). Even though you are right (and so are the Trekkies), it is still possible for Starcraft II to completely ignore Starcraft I and be a good story on its own (in the same way Star Trek was a good story on its own). Because of that, I disagree with the points you made about its inconsistencies with Brood War. I think the main reason Starcraft II is badly written is because the main tragedy doesn't make sense. I don't care about Mengsk, and I certainly don't want Kerrigan to become a Zerg again, yet she becomes one anyways and for no reason (or apparent gain). The only part I was emotionally involved in was when she was searching for Raynor (because I care about him), and the reveal was a let down (as you said). The ending also is a let down, as Mengsk dieing is not the emotional high note (because who cares about Mengsk). As someone who cares about Kerrigan and Raynor, I am not satisfied unless their story is resolved (and I am not even talking about Love, it's whether or not they are friends/allies or enemies sworn on killing each other). In the end she says thank you and he says my pleasure and they go their separate ways. I'm like what are they business partners now? Also, I am gonna say something that might offend a lot of people (including you, forgive me!): the writing in Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War is also not good. I say this for many different reasons, but I think the penultimate one is that it's boring. It just has a lot of exposition and very little happening, really the exact reason why the prequels weren't good. Because Brood War also has issues, I don't think this game (StarCraft II) necessitates a Plinkett review. If anything, StarCraft II has improved upon the story telling of Brood War (as it is atleast an attempt at making the story interesting). Though honestly, if we're going to be super literary about good story telling, than we should be comparing the works to something like The Great Gatsby, which is start to finish a masterpiece and near perfection. I think many works of likable fiction fall short compared to Gatsby, but I think it's really easy to find problems in stories when comparing. Again, I liked your post, but I am going to respectfully kinda disagree. Warm Regards! | ||
| ||
