Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

  1. #41

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    I am whining again. I apologize. Starcraft is indeed my favorite franchise and thinking about its treatment by Blizzard constantly sends me into apoplectic fits.

    I am bowing out of this topic and urge you to steer it back on track. Have a nice day.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    I'm okay with that. Sc1 wasn't perfect and serviceable at the worst but I'm happy with what I got. I didn't really want the story to continue past BW nor did I think it needed it back then either. Sc2 ended up vindicating that opinion in the end. So, I guess that means there's no more Sc for me then. Boohoo.
    That surprises me, Tura. Assuming in the future they decided to remake the SC2 storyline and make the current SC2 story non-canon and asked you for some ideas, you wouldn't bother giving any at all?

  3. #43

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    I'd say the problem stems from you assuming that the first game at the time was always going to be successful enough to become a franchise. Back then, the developers sure would've liked the surety of knowing it would've gone gangbusters but they didn't, so they put everything on the table to get the best thing out at the time in case they don't get another chance and it shows. Sc1 is complete in that it had a setup, a story that continued from that premise and a well-paced and engaging plot that wrapped everything up neatly in the end, which is all one can really hope to get with any new IP. It didn't need to be continued and that's awesome if the game didn't do well. But... it did do well, so continuation/sequels were a no-brainer. "Luckily", they put in sequel-bait to justify churning out more.
    Ideally, there should have been a second expansion set, released in 1999 or 2000, which would end the arc. If you think about it, SC and BW are two-thirds of the traditional three act structure, where act 1 is the setup, act 2 is where everything goes wrong and the story is at its darkest point, and act 3 is where everything works out. So what we should have had is a wrap up that brings things to a neutral state, then SC:Ghost the first person shooter. Honestly, ending things at BW is kind of like ending the original Star Wars trilogy right after The Empire Strikes Back.

    Then again, I would have been okay spending the rest of my life imagining SC2 in my head. Those post-BW days were honestly wonderful. I miss them.


    "Seeing Fenix once more perplexes me. I feel sadness, when I should feel joy."
    - Artanis.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
    That surprises me, Tura. Assuming in the future they decided to remake the SC2 storyline and make the current SC2 story non-canon and asked you for some ideas, you wouldn't bother giving any at all?
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Ideally, there should have been a second expansion set, released in 1999 or 2000, which would end the arc. If you think about it, SC and BW are two-thirds of the traditional three act structure, where act 1 is the setup, act 2 is where everything goes wrong and the story is at its darkest point, and act 3 is where everything works out.
    Eh, SC alone easily fulfills that 3 act structure you're talking about. BW was hardly necessary since it, too, kinda aped SC's three act structure in that it had a mostly superfluous setup first act, a second act that ended up where the main antagonist was in a seemingly unassailable lead, and a third act that resolved everything (it's just in SC, it was a typically good/happy end whereas in BW, it was an atypical for the time bad/depressing end). Another entry after BW evoking this same setup and resolving everything in a good/happy way again would be even less necessary since Sc1 already did this first all on its own. I would hardly call SC as being "setup" or a natural first part of a story trilogy.

    Also, the sequel hooks for both Sc1 (Kerrigan) and BW (Hybrid) were kinda just disconnected loose-ends that didn't really need nor beg for resolution since you could excise them and the storylines would still be fulfilling and complete. It's interesting to note that these throwaway mentions then become hyper-inflated in their importance and role in their respective sequels (BW is a "sequel" in the sense that it chronologically continues/comes after the previous entry) to justify the focus on them. Just another sign of sequelitis....

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Honestly, ending things at BW is kind of like ending the original Star Wars trilogy right after The Empire Strikes Back.
    Yeah, then we got Return of the Jedi... yay? Lol, I suppose one can equate the disappointment of that with what we got (Sc2) as the ending for Sc?
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  5. #45

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    I know I said I would bow out, but you guys have continued on this tangent.

    I agree with Turalyon that SC1 does not lend itself well to sequels and that the sequels all rehash the same narrative structure (and I have said so many times). I know SC2 gets a bad rep, but SC1 and BW are not paragons of good writing. BW is full of plot holes (as I have gone over many times).

    SC1 has its own flaws that are typically ignored by fans. The campaigns are largely disjointed from one another aside from cameos and setting up plot points for following campaigns. The terran campaign is superfluous to the following campaigns and is only necessary to explain where the terran characters came from; on the positive side, it stands alone as far as stories go. The zerg campaign does not even try to make its plot or characters stand alone; it meanders and serves only to segue into the protoss campaign. The protoss campaign is utterly opaque unless you read the manual to explain the context, whereas the previous two campaigns were easy to get into (this is not my personal complaint, but I saw it come up a lot from people who played the game but lacked the manual, and they didn't even know how the terrans got to Koprulu... this is unbelievably common for some reason).

    Overall, it is obvious that SC1 had put a fair amount of thought into plotting the terran campaign and then spent far less time and effort on the zerg and protoss campaigns since they feel far less coherent in comparison. Judging by the shared structures, I suspect that there was a mandate each campaign would feature installation and space platform tilesets, fight each of the three races, and possibly other things I cannot recall. While the terran campaign wove these into its narrative very well, the zerg and protoss campaigns feel forced, meandering and random in their mission structure. Part of this I would attribute to the alien campaigns being forced to be sequels and feature the same characters, but even then the structural choices are far sloppier than they could be with more effort. The end result is that the zerg and protoss campaigns feel more like filler and padding, at least compared to the preceding terran campaign.

    A key mistake is that Rebel Yell neatly ties up it story by the end, which forces the following campaigns to shoehorn new conflicts and narratives that are much weaker when the manual had already foreshadowed the terran sympathizer movement among the protoss which would only have been relevant during the war in the Koprulu sector. The zerg campaign is entirely filler that just sets up the Overmind's demise, whereas the protoss campaign is utterly unconnected from the narrative of the terran campaign aside from cameos.

    The underlying narrative problem is that the overarching story does not have a coherent point to it. I would say that the point of Starcraft was exploring a shared set of themes like freedom versus control, unity versus diversity, etc that fit the established politics, but the game story loses sight of this after Rebel Yell. The writer got bogged down in things like sloppily adhering to the mandates I mentioned, trying to shoehorn cameos when that was wholly unnecessary, and performing contradictory actions like neatly severing major plot threads while simultaneously trying to write a shared plot across otherwise unconnected campaigns that would benefit from not severing said plot threads.

    Compare this to the plot of Insurrection. While not stellar and full of questionable writing choices (and hilarious voice acting), it is much more coherently plotted than the base campaign. It hits all of the same highlights as the base campaign but executes them in a far more organic fashion. It is a decent example of how to write a story about the first contact war that showcases the essential features of the Starcraft setting, assuming you play the remastered version which fixes all the bugs and adds redacted dialogue.

    If Starcraft were produced in 2018, in the era of planned sequels and modern interfaces and blah blah, I highly doubt it would turn out the way it did in 1998. The writers probably would have done more to make each campaign stand out, tied the plot together with far more care, introduced major recurring characters (particularly memorable zerg characters) for the inevitable sequels, and probably closed on an open-ended ending rather than killing the main antagonist of the franchise immediately. At least, if Blizzard’s handling of Starcraft 2 is anything to go by.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    I know SC2 gets a bad rep, but SC1 and BW are not paragons of good writing.
    No-one has ever seriously claimed that they are. I don't know why you'd (or the Sc2 defenders who use this very same argument) presume this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    SC1 has its own flaws that are typically ignored by fans.
    There's a reason for this. It's simply because "First Installment Wins". With a new IP, there's no expectations and one's more prone to forgiving foibles in the story. There's just enough world-building and things left open in SC to invest and compel someone through the story the first time around. Sure, after some time you may experience fridge logic about certain things, but what story in all existence is ever immune to this? I think that part of what makes a good story "good" are ones those that can mask or delay their apparent fridge logic whilst your experiencing that story. "Bad" stories are those that fail to invest you into that fiction such that the inherent flaws and fridge logic are seemingly glaring right at you as you're experiencing the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    Judging by the shared structures, I suspect that there was a mandate each campaign would feature installation and space platform tilesets, fight each of the three races, and possibly other things I cannot recall.
    I think this is more apparent in Sc2 and BW to a lesser extent than it is in Sc1. Most of the missions in Sc are gimmick free, and changes in tilesets within each campaign are kept fairly minimal or are in-line with the current plot progression unlike in BW where one can be on a different planet on the very next mission.

    The issue of forcing of each race to fight the other and even themselves is an expected conceit to be sure, but it feels less forced/mostly justified. For the most part, Rebel Yell is about Terrans fighting other Terrans where the Zerg and the limited use of the Protoss are used as a plot device in service of that. The Protoss inclusion in Rebel Yell is gimmicky and sticks out but it's important in setting up later plot developments. In Overmind, the Zerg start off going through what's left of the Terrans but are largely focused against the Protoss for the most part. The Zerg vs Zerg is a gimmicky inclusion, but that is important in showing us how the Zerg can be defeated. The story of The Fall is less about the Protoss vs Zerg than it is about Protoss vs Protoss and that's because it's informed by the manual backstory of the Protoss race. The Protoss engage the Zerg in an obligatory way because the Zerg forced the issue in the first place, but the Zerg aren't really the focus. There are no forced Protoss vs Terran engagements in that campaign (the incident with Duke can be easily sidestepped/not triggered) either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    The underlying narrative problem is that the overarching story does not have a coherent point to it.
    The point of the story is to have the three races engage each other by exploring the nature of each of the races through a focused lens. That's it. The story isn't supposed to be a thesis or musing on grand themes even though there are bits of this to add flavour/foster the illusion of depth to some of the goings-on in the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    If Starcraft were produced in 2018, in the era of planned sequels and modern interfaces and blah blah, I highly doubt it would turn out the way it did in 1998.
    Well, duh... It's kind of needless to say that it was a product of its time but it seems like I do need to point that out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    The writers probably would have done more to make each campaign stand out, tied the plot together with far more care, introduced major recurring characters (particularly memorable zerg characters) for the inevitable sequels, and probably closed on an open-ended ending rather than killing the main antagonist of the franchise immediately. At least, if Blizzard’s handling of Starcraft 2 is anything to go by.
    It's interesting that you mentioned Sc2 here because I'm pretty sure that all those sensibilities you've mentioned were thought to be genuinely incorporated into what we have now as Sc2. As much as we tend to criticise Sc2 for its failings, I do believe that the developers actually had all of this in mind and thought they were doing all of this stuff. To be fair, even though the effectiveness of each is prone to subjective bias Sc2 did actually do all this stuff (they dedicated time to make entries for each race, they tied the plot together with this growing Hybrid threat, introduced some memorable characters in each entry and kept it's first entry, WoL, open ended rather than killing the main antagonist immediately) and yet the story still turned out to be pretty hackneyed in the end anyway. It's much sadder to think that they genuinely tried and failed, which is why us fans like to instead rage and say they did all this shit on purpose and that they're all just hacks.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  7. #47

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    Eh, SC alone easily fulfills that 3 act structure you're talking about. BW was hardly necessary since it, too, kinda aped SC's three act structure in that it had a mostly superfluous setup first act, a second act that ended up where the main antagonist was in a seemingly unassailable lead, and a third act that resolved everything (it's just in SC, it was a typically good/happy end whereas in BW, it was an atypical for the time bad/depressing end). Another entry after BW evoking this same setup and resolving everything in a good/happy way again would be even less necessary since Sc1 already did this first all on its own. I would hardly call SC as being "setup" or a natural first part of a story trilogy.
    Ah, I wasn't quite sure where you were drawing the line. I was thinking you meant after SC, but I didn't want to assume. Anyway, no, I respectfully disagree that SC vanilla could have stood on its own. Its third act did not resolve everything I mean, it would have been okay imo (similar to me being okay with things ending after BW), but the Protoss still have a pile of unresolved issues, the Terran-Protoss issues haven't been worked out, and clearly, to judge by the inclusion of Kerrigan, they always intended a sequel. Or rather, a world, a place they could draw from to create games well into the future, rather like Command and Conquer...only that didn't work out for them, for reasons I assume had to do with turnover, and the post 2000 entropic state that is California-based writing.

    Also, don't misread me. I didn't say the story should have a happy ending, I said that it should have an ending, one where most of the main plot threads are wrapped up, for better or worse, and the universe can get to a neutral setup for later games. Come on, man, I've mentioned this before.

    I wouldn't call vanilla a start for a trilogy either, I'd call it Blizzard's attempt to create a space world for future video games. The only reason I say "trilogy" is because with SC and BW together, having a second expansion pack is better than simply creating a sequel with better graphics. If there had been no BW, the story flow would be better to go straight into an advanced sequel. That, and Blizz went with SC Ghost, thus creating the big gap to SC2 as it is now. In other words, my use of the term "trilogy" is really more a matter of a hindsight scenario than anything Blizzard intended from the get go.


    Also, the sequel hooks for both Sc1 (Kerrigan) and BW (Hybrid) were kinda just disconnected loose-ends that didn't really need nor beg for resolution since you could excise them and the storylines would still be fulfilling and complete. It's interesting to note that these throwaway mentions then become hyper-inflated in their importance and role in their respective sequels (BW is a "sequel" in the sense that it chronologically continues/comes after the previous entry) to justify the focus on them. Just another sign of sequelitis....
    You're acting like it wasn't inevitable that SC would get a sequel. It's pretty clear that Blizzard wanted to create a new world setting for their games. That, and no, SC would not have been fulfilling and complete. There's still DT/Khala drama, Mengsk is still a tyrant who wants to pwn everybody, and the Zerg were not fully destroyed. I the fan would not have been pleased if the story ended there. Only in hindsight am I okay with ending things with BW, and that's primarily because I remember those happy times before SC2, when the Starcraft community was alive and theorizing happily. Ending with BW's end of second act climax is surprisingly fun, because it leaves the ending open to the fans.


    Yeah, then we got Return of the Jedi... yay? Lol, I suppose one can equate the disappointment of that with what we got (Sc2) as the ending for Sc?
    Gag. Lol, my entire argument is that we never got Starcraft's Return of the Jedi. It's like we went straight from Empire to The Last Jedi.


    "Seeing Fenix once more perplexes me. I feel sadness, when I should feel joy."
    - Artanis.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    I'm surprised by you, Tura. I thought you would have wanted the SC series to continue even if they made SC2's story non-canon and remade the trilogy

  9. #49

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Anyway, no, I respectfully disagree that SC vanilla could have stood on its own. Its third act did not resolve everything I mean, it would have been okay imo (similar to me being okay with things ending after BW), but the Protoss still have a pile of unresolved issues, the Terran-Protoss issues haven't been worked out, and clearly, to judge by the inclusion of Kerrigan, they always intended a sequel.
    All those things you mentioned are definitely sequel bait and "excuses" for a sequel, but they are hardly necessary to get a complete picture of what Sc was about. What's resolved is the premise of these factions engaging each other, fighting to a natural end point and getting to an equilibrium of sorts. That you feel "it's ok" for it to not continue (from both the end of Sc and the end of BW) means that there was enough resolution/that there's an adequate conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Or rather, a world, a place they could draw from to create games well into the future, rather like Command and Conquer...only that didn't work out for them, for reasons I assume had to do with turnover, and the post 2000 entropic state that is California-based writing.
    Oh, C&C! I feel the same way about that as I do Sc. The first C&C doesn't have a typical ending where everything is closed off, but there's enough resolution at the end of each of the factions campaigns to make the story effectively complete. With GDI, Nod is effectively destroyed with the death of Kane. With Nod, GDI is effectively "destroyed" or at least neutered in its capability to oppose Nod due to sabotage eroding their support. The sequel follow on from GDI victory and they do that by undoing the very thing that conclusive ended the first game: reviving Kane!

    As such, Tiberian Sun feels far removed from C&C as a sequel in terms due to it's heavier leaning on science-fiction and its associated tropes. Whereas the first was more grounded with its portrayal of modern warfare and politics whilst the near-future and sci-fi elements being somewhat cursory, Tiberian Sun goes hardcore into its more fantastical sci-fi elements and visions of dystopia. It kinda mirrors how Sc turned out ironically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Also, don't misread me. I didn't say the story should have a happy ending, I said that it should have an ending, one where most of the main plot threads are wrapped up, for better or worse, and the universe can get to a neutral setup for later games.
    Huh? I wasn't intimating that you felt stories should have "happy" endings. Having a happy/unhappy ending is largely irrelevent as long as that ending seems naturally built toward it/within context/not forced. Having the proposed third entry in Sc2 having an ending to "resolve everything (of immediate significance)" usually falls into the camp of it being a "happy" ending generally and that's kinda superfluous since Sc1 already kinda did that. Even if this third entry were instead to "resolve everything (of immediate significance)" in an unhappy manner, that too is superfluous since BW did that already. I was more denying your claim that Sc1 didn't have an ending like you just described in the above quote. I was saying that Sc1 does indeed have that ending as described in that above quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    You're acting like it wasn't inevitable that SC would get a sequel.
    Of course. I doubt that this is what the developers thought at the time when creating the game (they had to scrap and restart everything since the initial make of it was derided as Warcraft in Space). Sure, they would've liked to think it was going to become successful enough to make sequels but I reckon they were all there just to try and make an awesome product as if this was their one and only chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    That, and no, SC would not have been fulfilling and complete. There's still DT/Khala drama, Mengsk is still a tyrant who wants to pwn everybody, and the Zerg were not fully destroyed. I the fan would not have been pleased if the story ended there.
    I meant fulfilling and complete in that the story it presents (which, in a reductionist way, is not much more than "baddies come and then are defeated") is resolved. The rest are non-crucial (albeit interesting) details/fluff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Ending with BW's end of second act climax is surprisingly fun, because it leaves the ending open to the fans.
    I feel the opposite is true. Sc1's ending is a lot more open than BWs since the Zerg defeat, whilst definitive, is not complete. BW feels more like a definitive and conclusive end because of the massive change in status quo that Omega depicts and how the Zerg are constantly portrayed as being OP despite "supposedly" being at their weakest. Most stories end with the status quo shifting seemingly irreversibly in a specific direction (whether that be the hero/good guys vanquishing the villain/bad guys and obtaining a seemingly unassailable position) and BW ends with Kerrigan in such a demonstrative dominant position whilst displaying intent on eventually taking everything, that the only conclusion one can realistically draw is that everyone besides the Zerg are fucked. The only way to stop this is to employ artifice/plot device - lo and behold this is what Sc2 does to justify the existence of a sequel (by having her literally do nothing up until it is required for her to only so that a plot device can then handle her shortly thereafter).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Lol, my entire argument is that we never got Starcraft's Return of the Jedi. It's like we went straight from Empire to The Last Jedi.
    I take it that your reference to The Last Jedi is in regard to it being seen by the majority (or what seems like) as the shittest SWs movie ever?

    I was jokingly referring to the idea/concept of Sc2 as being supposed to be Starcrafts ROTJ in that ROTJ was considered the most deficient entry of the trilogy at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
    I'm surprised by you, Tura. I thought you would have wanted the SC series to continue even if they made SC2's story non-canon and remade the trilogy
    Shows what you know about me, huh. I've always had an ambivalence toward the idea of a Sc sequel ever since BW was released and have said so several times.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  10. #50

    Default Re: Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    I think this is more apparent in Sc2 and BW to a lesser extent than it is in Sc1. Most of the missions in Sc are gimmick free, and changes in tilesets within each campaign are kept fairly minimal or are in-line with the current plot progression unlike in BW where one can be on a different planet on the very next mission.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    The point of the story is to have the three races engage each other by exploring the nature of each of the races through a focused lens. That's it. The story isn't supposed to be a thesis or musing on grand themes even though there are bits of this to add flavour/foster the illusion of depth to some of the goings-on in the story.
    To write a good story composed of multiple episodes showing different perspectives, the episodes should not only contribute to the overarching narrative but also stand on their own with strong plots. SC1 may follow a logical A to B progression, but that is not the same as telling a satisfying story. Episode 1 has a solid progression from beginning to end, but Episodes 2 and 3 do not. They meander, insert filler, and generally feel like the writer did not know what to do with them other than adhere to the tileset mandates, tie into the attached cinematics (which were composed separately from the script), and tie together inter-episode plot points. I am sure this could have been done well, but the result we got feels sloppy.

    (In fact, episode 1 did not tie into most of its cinematics besides the last one depicting the rise of the Dominion. Episodes 2 and 3 tried to tie very closely into all of their cinematics, and I suspect that played a key role in why they feel far less organic than episode 1. The Amerigo mission is a very obvious example of weakly justified filler intended solely to connect with the associated cinematic and showcase the installation tileset.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    Ah, I wasn't quite sure where you were drawing the line. I was thinking you meant after SC, but I didn't want to assume. Anyway, no, I respectfully disagree that SC vanilla could have stood on its own. Its third act did not resolve everything I mean, it would have been okay imo (similar to me being okay with things ending after BW), but the Protoss still have a pile of unresolved issues, the Terran-Protoss issues haven't been worked out, and clearly, to judge by the inclusion of Kerrigan, they always intended a sequel. Or rather, a world, a place they could draw from to create games well into the future, rather like Command and Conquer...only that didn't work out for them, for reasons I assume had to do with turnover, and the post 2000 entropic state that is California-based writing.
    SC1 did not leave potential sequels much to work with. The backstory was carefully contrived to to pit the three races against one another and themselves, but the plot of SC1 neatly destroys those justifications.

    Since the determinant plot never paid off (barring ad hoc rationalizations that Kerry was it or that it never existed or whatever don't bring it up it isn't worth it to go on another stupid tangent), there is no reason for the zerg and protoss to enter terran space and war with the terrans. The entire point of the determinant was to justify the three races fighting, and now it is gone and you cannot replace it without looking stupid (as shown by the sequels). Terrans still have plenty of reasons to fight each other since the Dominion has not resolved the long-standing issues that turned the Umojan Protectorate, Sons of Korhal and Kel-Morian Combine against the Confederacy.

    The Overmind was set up as a galactic space monster that wanted nothing less than to devour the universe. It was killed off, robbing the zerg of their whole shtick and reason to exist. Replacing it with Kerry sabotaged the entire shtick of the zerg and set off their degeneration into slaves and hippies. Immediately resurrecting it or replacing it with a knock-off feels cheap and defeats the point of killing it off in the first place. The Overmind either should never had been killed off or, better yet, it should have been established as an inherent part of the zerg so that the series can never end unless the zerg are all destroyed (similar to the grave mind in Halo, the brethren moons in Dead Space, etc).

    The protoss actually had several valid reasons to fight each other but these were either quickly resolved or ignored. The manual established that the protoss would come into conflict over the fate of the terrans during the zerg invasion, with callous exterminators on one side and terran sympathizers on the other. Aside from writer fiat forcing Raynor and Tass to become best friends (despite the history of genocide, Raynor and friends having better things to do with their time, Kerry's forced presence as the zerg hero because Metzen thought she was pretty when this contradicts the zerg's previously established modus operandi, etc), this conflict was never explored outside the obscure licensed expansion Insurrection. The conflict between the khalai and dark templar plays some role but it is largely glossed over and the judicator's whiny reasoning for ignoring the zerg threat to wage civil war is never adequately explained and comes off as writer fiat to make them the unambiguous villains. (Compare this to Syndrea from Insurrection, who is basically a female version of Judge Dredd.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
    I'm surprised by you, Tura. I thought you would have wanted the SC series to continue even if they made SC2's story non-canon and remade the trilogy
    As I said, SC and BW did not leave a strong foundation to work with. SC1 sabotaged any attempts at sequels by neatly severing key plot threats (like the justifications for war in the first place!), and BW had a nonsensical plot which introduced pointless retcons, massive plot holes, and inexplicable plot devices that further sabotaged potential sequels.

    That is why I advocate that a reboot start over from the First Contact War and use that as the basis for the franchise, as introduced in the manual, rather than sabotaging themselves by killing the Confederacy, Overmind and Conclave who drive all the major conflicts. I am not saying you cannot advance the timeline, but for something like this it makes more sense to plan the franchise as a series of wars with a definite beginning and end to set anthologies within rather than making things up as you go along and focusing on a tiny cast of literal galactic heroes.

Similar Threads

  1. Restorations of "Project Bellwood" and "Templar Census" for your viewing pleasure!
    By Mislagnissa in forum StarCraft Universe Lore Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2018, 04:15 PM
  2. Grand Survey of Starcraft "results" lore and story + breakdown.
    By Undeadprotoss in forum StarCraft Universe Lore Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-01-2016, 11:34 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2014, 12:40 PM
  4. What are your thoughts on being "overpowered" or "underpowered"?
    By Gifted in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 01:22 AM
  5. Blizzard:"No plans for "specific" chatrooms, crossrealm play"
    By ArcherofAiur in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 06-06-2010, 11:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •