StarCraft Retrospective

[Undeadprotoss]

So I came across this fantastic hour long video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r0RCLa8crg) which analyzes the story, development, gameplay, etc of SC1 and SC2. I'm personally not a fan of how he characterizes the Protoss ("The one-dimensonally noble Tassadar" grrr), but I have to commend him for making what he says is a 24 page, 12 font, single-spaced script, which is more or less engaging from beginning to end. I'd highly recommend watching this, and as time goes on, I might post cool articles in this thread.

EDIT: I'd also add that I think he's being far too generous to elements of SC2, in general his best content in the video is on the cinematic aspects of the StarCraft franchise. He called SC1 Kerrigan one dimensionally evil but seems to admire HOTS Kerrigan. There's a lot of stuff like that, but it's very much worth watching and is a great video overall.

[Nissa]

Just reading what you're saying hurts me. Analysis is fun, but it's clear even from your brief description that he's coming on from the wrong angle.

I can see why he thinks Tassadar is flat, but honestly, what I love about Tass is that he's a play on the really common 80s/90s rebel trope, wherein the story goes way out of its way to make the relatively low-powered rebel more morally right and pragmatically successful than the authorities. Y'know, people like John McClane from Die Hard, Ferris Beuller, and Kirk and Co. in Star Trek 3. Tass is much in this same vein, but he's also deeply flawed, as he's so emotional he ruins his chances to be convincing (snapping at Aldaris when trying to get Aldy to do what he wants) and puts his own followers in danger by needlessly provoking a human force when a diplomatic route could have saved him trouble (snapping at Duke when he's the one at fault). Tassadar's youth and defiance enable him to be a hero, but also enable him to be hugely defiant in unnecessary ways.

[TheEconomist]

Tassadar was the definition of one-dimensional, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Three-dimensional dumb shits are overrated these days.

[Turalyon]

He called SC1 Kerrigan one dimensionally evil but seems to admire HOTS Kerrigan.

From the premise that Sc2 puts forth, Sc1/BW Kerrigan was supposedly under the influence of Amon to some unspecified degree, so it's reasonable for him to judge her as being dimensionally evil then. It also probably informs why he likes HotS Kerrigan. Because she's apparently free-for-reals-this-time and has individual agency in HotS, it supposedly helps highlight and separates her endeavours against the general goals of the Zerg collective mindset to just consume and destroy.

[TheEconomist]

So, I guess, using that logic, Cercei is more one-dimensional than Ursula (from The Little Mermaid) because in some non-headcanon spinoffs she changed character?


(ugggh, I actually had to research a female Disney villain that changed sides... ugh..)

[KaiserStratosTygo]

Obviously HotS Kerrigan is a better character.

unlike BW Kerrigan she murders people and protoss for her own personal reasons and....

...

SHE CRIES AT SOME POINT, THAT'S DEVELOPMENT RIGHT!?

Dude must love the transformers films if he thinks anything in HotS was good writing.

[sandwich_bird]

So, I guess, using that logic, Cercei is more one-dimensional than Ursula (from The Little Mermaid) because in some non-headcanon spinoffs she changed character?


(ugggh, I actually had to research a female Disney villain that changed sides... ugh..)

Ursula changed side in a spin-off? Thought she was dead after being stabbed in the boob by a boat

[TheEconomist]

She became less 'evil .. somehow .. Or at least a top ten Disney villain flip flops in straight-to-video releases told me ...

If it doesn't work, replace her with any other villain with a change of heart. I'm no Disney scholar.


EDIT: I did some research .. *sigh* ... Apparently, she has an alter ego named Vanessa who isn't that bad ... or something ... Apparently, all Ursula wanted was to be young and pretty ... So maybe the comparison to Kerrigan works better than I thought, haha

[Turalyon]

So, I guess, using that logic, Cercei is more one-dimensional than Ursula (from The Little Mermaid) because in some non-headcanon spinoffs she changed character?

Not really. Cercei isn't and wasn't (as far as we know) under the influence of some ancient god for one thing.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Off topic, just to spice things up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHbZLjDXoOs

In before CERN.

[TheEconomist]

Not really. Cercei isn't and wasn't (as far as we know) under the influence of some ancient god for one thing.

You're missing the point. One is a ruthless, mutlifaceted character with complex motivations, demonstrated cunning, and is highly unpredictable. The other is a Disney villain.

I'll let you take over from here.

[Turalyon]

You're missing the point. One is a ruthless, mutlifaceted character with complex motivations, demonstrated cunning, and is highly unpredictable. The other is a Disney villain.

I'll let you take over from here.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Still, not really sure the analogy fits with how the guy assesses Kerrigans character as a whole within Starcraft.

One can argue that BW Kerrigan is indeed ruthless, multifaceted, unpredictable with demonstrable cunning or that she's just a two-bit villain who is evil for the sake of evil, where things fall into place for her because of writers conceit/artifice (ie: other characters being dumb). In other words, some see BW Kerrigan having full agency/being characterised well and others do not/being characterised poorly. The guy seems to think it's the latter. Because of that, the HotS reveal of her not really having agency back then due to Amon's influence explains away that perceived issue of her poor characterisation in BW. Keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree though I will concede it is a cogent position for him to take.

[TheEconomist]

Analogies are imperfect, especially under the limited time I am willing to give the discussion. You get the idea .. or you don't

Kerrigan was a better character in Brood War. Agree or disagree, don't really care.

[Turalyon]

Kerrigan was a better character in Brood War. Agree or disagree, don't really care.

Eh, the guy's essentially saying the same thing, but with "HotS" replacing "Brood War". He does clarify in what he deems as "better" in this case at the least.

[TheEconomist]

So the guy has more time on his hands/cares more about this than me. Great!

[Turalyon]

^ Uh, yeah, that was kinda the point of him doing an hour long retrospective on Starcraft. The guy's youtube channel has retrospectives on other games, too, it seems. Must be an audience for that type of thing I suppose. *shrug*

[NikoMyCousin]

I honestly think that the only reason BW has a better story(?) is simply because its not told in a cinematic structure like SC2 is. And as such the gameplay can just freeze and 2 characters could exchange lines of dialogue for 4 minutes without having to worry about stuffing in action scenes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_lcMXQOjaE). The plot gets moved forward disregarding that.

So with that in mind, I'm not beholden to BW's story at all. SC1 on the other hand, is still awesome.

[Turalyon]

^ It's not only that. BWs story is more concise and has more stuff happening with significant consequence during it's 30 missions than the entirety of Sc2, let alone in each installment. The status quo of the fictional universe changes markedly in BW whereas it remains relatively unchanged by the end of Sc2.

WoL has Kerrigan become human in the last mission only to have it reversed in HotS. HotS kills Mengsk and the Dominion is still there and the Terrans have no real bearing on LotV. LotV has some vague all-powerful supervillain, who was introduced supposedly for the sole purpose of the sequel, only to make nary an appearance until much later and is summarily smacked down all within the same installment. The UED sometimes gets the valid criticism of being just a tacked on antagonist for BW, but at least they had a presence that was felt. In terms of utility, Amon is similar to the UED in that regard but Amon has no real presence making all the action feel like "noise" that ultimately signifies nothing.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

Well unlike Amon, we got to play as the UED, that's another failure of SC2, they didn't allow you to play as the series antagonist and as such your connection with them and their agenda is null.

with the UED I wanted to pursue their goals of conquest.

Amon I couldn't give less of a toss about, they should've had him be the player character and faction in HotS, instead of ripping off Episode VI and somehow making it worse.

[Nissa]

I agree with you two. Not just about Amon, either, because we really don't feel any tension in SC2 from any antagonistic character. The Tal'darim are just a cult, Mengsk is a shadow of his former self, Valerian's some kid that wants everyone to like him, etc.

Yeah, the UED plotline was weak, but they were doing something that makes sense for the universe in which this story is being told.