View Poll Results: Would you like Branching or Linear?

Voters
83. You may not vote on this poll
  • Branching

    17 20.48%
  • Linear

    60 72.29%
  • Other (explain pls)

    6 7.23%
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 81

Thread: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

  1. #61

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    The Linearity did hurt the narrative, but I think they just didn't try hard enough. They could have improved the story a helluva lot more just workin within the context of a branching narrative.

    Like you fight Tal'Darim 5 times and you don't even know anything about them. That isn't an issue with narrative structure, thats just stupid storytelling.

    So I voted "Other".

    View Post
    I think we can agree the storytelling was the weakest part of the game.

    I've said it before: Blizzard needs storytelling lessons from Bioware and Pixar.
    The last thing they need is more Bioware influence. The entirety of SC2 storytelling felt like a bad clone of ME2. They need to adapt their original style from WC3 into a new narrative model.

    I mean even the missions were like ME2-Semi-Pointless missions to serve as fillers for character development to shittily written and incredibly archetypical characters.

    And I don't see what Pixar has any relevance to video game narratives lol. UP was kinda coo tho...

    And their lead writer was a former Bioware writer. Explains a lot doesn't it?
    Last edited by newcomplex; 08-11-2010 at 10:44 AM.

  2. #62
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    161

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    Quote Originally Posted by newcomplex View Post
    The Linearity did hurt the narrative, but I think they just didn't try hard enough. They could have improved the story a helluva lot more just workin within the context of a branching narrative.

    Like you fight Tal'Darim 5 times and you don't even know anything about them. That isn't an issue with narrative structure, thats just stupid storytelling.

    So I voted "Other".



    The last thing they need is more Bioware influence. The entirety of SC2 storytelling felt like a bad clone of ME2. They need to adapt their original style from WC3 into a new narrative model.

    I mean even the missions were like ME2-Semi-Pointless missions to serve as fillers for character development to shittily written and incredibly archetypical characters.

    And I don't see what Pixar has any relevance to video game narratives lol. UP was kinda coo tho...

    And their lead writer was a former Bioware writer. Explains a lot doesn't it?
    The whole point of this conversation is that SC2's plot is ME2, just done terribly. ME2 had superb writing, great pacing and a non-linear mission line as well.

    Secondly, Blizzard does not respect their own lore. That's the bigger pet peeve of mine. They put out a wonderfully crafted world 12 years ago then absolutely ignore that lore when it comes time to build a sequel. Blizzard trotted out every tired trope in WoL and with no attempt to innovate.
    Last edited by 0mar; 08-11-2010 at 11:36 AM.

  3. #63
    spychi's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,224

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    Mass Effect has a great story, the greatest game story-wise
    Mass Effect 2 has more action in it (by that I mean more fights) and the plot is also superbly done yet one loyalty mission is soo messed up that I have mixed feelings about it, Jack's loyalty mission; the return to peruggia, cerberus training facility for gifted kids that went rouge, there also few others, yet alot of mission are great various in numbers
    Last edited by spychi; 08-11-2010 at 12:12 PM.

    Mass Effect Universe Fan, I support Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 for Game of the year award! ME2 still is being the best rated game this year! Keep it up

  4. #64

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    Even in a best case scenario a RTS wouldnīt be able to provide a Story similarly to a RPG for a number of reasons.
    For me personally I prefered the Homeworld aproaches. But in Homeworld you can count the individuals with names on one hand and no one has a face. There effectivly are no characters, the story is told via ingame-events and a few superminimalistic black-white cutscenes.
    Starcraft 2 in comparison has the Hyperion especially for Characters. Most missions are build around their "gimmick" which isnīt "interrupted" by storytelling.

    I still enjoyed the SC2 campaign a lot and itīs the best in terms of gameplay I have yet seen in a RTS. But they are not there yet with Storytelling.

  5. #65

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    Quote Originally Posted by spychi View Post
    well I don't like the feel of a cock in my mouth (not that I know how it feels) yet some people might enjoy it, pretend that everything is awesome and SC2 WoL needs a 10/10
    sure right...not by my standards
    You're being unreasonable.

    Flabortast did not say the game was good, he said that it had more content in it than it would have otherwise. The quality of said content is a separate issue altogether.

    Following on the steps of your implication, it's possible to accuse Blizzard of intentionally deceiving their customers. In fact, that's pretty much the only thing they can't be blamed for.

    Even in a best case scenario a RTS wouldnīt be able to provide a Story similarly to a RPG for a number of reasons.
    I think Blizzard agrees. That's probably why they favored such an RPG-heavy approach in making SC2. I only expect this trend to continue (and grow more sophisticated) in the future.
    http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7699/commun1.png

  6. #66
    spychi's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,224

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    don't get me wrong guys
    in my opinion the writing is bad not the missions themselfs, the idea of Hyperion being a briefing room is good and varierty of missions is big yet it's all being powned by bad narration in few key missions, voice acting and it all feels like things were cut here and there alot of times just to skip to Kerrigan's de-infestation

    Mass Effect Universe Fan, I support Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 for Game of the year award! ME2 still is being the best rated game this year! Keep it up

  7. #67

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    Quote Originally Posted by spychi View Post
    don't get me wrong guys
    in my opinion the writing is bad not the missions themselfs, the idea of Hyperion being a briefing room is good and varierty of missions is big yet it's all being powned by bad narration in few key missions, voice acting and it all feels like things were cut here and there alot of times just to skip to Kerrigan's de-infestation
    Agreed

  8. #68

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    Quote Originally Posted by spychi View Post
    don't get me wrong guys
    in my opinion the writing is bad not the missions themselfs, the idea of Hyperion being a briefing room is good and varierty of missions is big yet it's all being powned by bad narration in few key missions, voice acting and it all feels like things were cut here and there alot of times just to skip to Kerrigan's de-infestation
    Doubly Agreed.

  9. #69

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    I'm sure I'm not the only one aware of this, but the odds of them changing the main story for HOTS as well LOTV will not happen.


    I'm coming to this said conclusion that they more then likely wrote up the general story of how they want the events to go,
    and the only thing up for change is how they tell that story. (or more specifically how they will drag it out/create non-plot
    missions around the main ones)


    The true issue that is before us, is that this WoL story implies that it's main progression plot line could of been 1/3 of SC2's
    story,(if it came out as one product) just as it was for SC1 and BW.

    If I've lost you, or seem to be rambling, my point is that they broke it up into 3 games but didn't "add" to the story,
    but instead will be adding bonus/unneeded elements as filler missions.
    (Missions I wouldn't mind, if they didn't take up space
    for ones that could have focused on expanding upon the main plot)


    I'm not an extreme critic of Blizzard, least I haven't been in the past, but this has been the first game I've bought from
    them starting from warcraft 1 that I felt let down. (least in a story driven sense)

    This whole topic in regards to changing the way the story is "told" won't hide the fact the story will be the same in the end.
    It'll all come down to it being obvious, that by cutting out the unneeded non-story progressing missions you could have placed
    this game's main story with the other 2 for one decent and likely bad ass story/experience like that of SC1-BW. (again,
    I'm referring to it being 1 product in story rather then being 3 installments)


    I was ignorant at the start of the campaign, and not paying any attention that it would actually not progress during
    several missions, and once I started encountering these missions - I felt as though they aimed purely on making the missions
    them selves "different/unique" but dropping the ball on presenting an entertaining campaign story.

    Ironically I would of accepted this story if it was 1/3 of the whole picture in one* game purchase, but because it
    was the other way around. I'm now painfully aware I'll have to pay money for the other 2 parts of the bigger plot line, I feel a bit insulted.

    Just, truly ignorant that they were going to present an amazing story in all 26-30 missions per game package...I suppose if I count
    the missions that progress the main plot however, we're looking at a very lackluster experience. (Repetitive, but I can't help it -
    in the end, I'll likely be pleased with the combined* story of all 3 games, but the fact I had to pay for them as such and
    even wait is the real quarrel I have with it all)



    For the record, I have loved every single Blizzard product, but this experience will dampen any hopes I have for SC2's main story
    to be told better in the coming expansions. It's already written, and I'll unhappily predict the same out come of 10-14ish main-story
    progression missions vs the other half being unwanted filler missions, Linear or not

    -
    Last edited by BnetGamer77; 08-11-2010 at 11:39 PM.
    "...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." -Quote from Billy Madison (Movie)

  10. #70

    Default Re: HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

    Quote Originally Posted by BnetGamer77 View Post
    I'm coming to this said conclusion that they more then likely wrote up the general story of how they want the events to go,
    and the only thing up for change is how they tell that story.
    Sorry, but you're already busted. Huge, huge aspects of the games are still being developed. For one thing, as of 4-5 months ago they still weren't sure if they were going to bring Tychus back. And that's just one thing we've heard of explicitly.
    http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7699/commun1.png

Similar Threads

  1. soo...when HotS?
    By spychi in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 08-05-2010, 03:17 PM
  2. Well if Kerrigan will still be Kerrigan in HotS...
    By Crazy_Jonny in forum StarCraft Universe Lore Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-28-2010, 02:55 AM

Posting Permissions

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