StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinions
StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinions
Table of contents
1.0 – Introduction
2.0 – Wings of Liberty
2.1 – Introduction
2.2 – Story structure
2.3 – Characters
2.4 – Story analysis
2.4 – Themes
2.5 – Inconsistencies, plot holes, retcons, and the like
2.6 – Presentation
3.0 - Heart of the Swarm
3.1 Speculations: what comes next?
4.0 - Legacy of the Void
4.1 Speculations: what comes next?
Note: the entire article is not written, and will likely be quite big, so the table of contents might change. I will release it in fragments, mainly for practical reasons (easier to comment and discuss, and more fitting to the forum post length restrictions). Perhaps, in the future, HotS and LotV will be included too.
1.0 - Introduction
Since I enjoy writing and since I enjoy writing about things I like, I figured I could put some of my thoughts and opinions on StarCraft 2 on (artificial) paper. I was planning to do some on the original campaign, but FT did such a good job on that, so I figured, “Why not just limit myself to the second game? It’s what everyone’s talking about, anyway”.
Note that I am somewhat of a Blizzard semi-fanboy. I have played many of their games since I was very young, and they are all in various degrees dear to me, with the original StarCraft always having been my favorite, mostly because of the gameplay, but also largely because of the story. It has involving characters and an engaging plot that draws me in and teases me with its hints of coming events (I can’t tell you how many times I have played Dark Origin).
When it comes to atmosphere, StarCraft lands somewhere between WarCraft and Diablo. The former is arguably the least gritty, as it presents even its darkest moments in the same way as traditional middle age movies and games usually do. Its colors are bright and the shades between good and evil are usually pretty clear (though there are some exceptions, with characters such as Grom Hellscream, for example). Diablo, on the other hand, while having an even clearer separation between good and evil, is explicitly the darkest of the three series. One needs look no longer than introduction to the first entry, where the corpses of humans hang from trees in ropes in a deep fog, to see this.
StarCraft is not as dark as Diablo, but there is a lot of pessimism among the few moments of hope, and the characters are less black and white. Though factions such as the Zerg Swarm match the demons from Diablo and WarCraft, they are not necessarily presented as evil in the same way. They are scary, yes, and even bloodthirsty, but it would wrong to call them evil, I think, because they are only this when viewed from the perspective of the Terrans and the Protoss. But the Zerg have more missions than the other two races (20 compared to 18), and it is safe to say that we share so much time with them that it would be correct to say that the StarCraft universe doesn’t deal in good and evil, just self-preservation. Will the introduction of a greater threat, specifically the Dark Voice and his hybrids, change this? Personally, I’m not so sure. I doubt the possibility of a Terran/Protoss/Zerg alliance in the style of WarCraft III, and in Legacy of the Void, I think we will see once more how (especially) the Protoss will still find ways to quarrel with each other even in times where death and destruction is knocking on the door.
Anyway, my point is this: I will undoubtedly come off as more positive in my assessment than some of you guys here. Many have criticized StarCraft 2’s story, and although I can nod in agreement to some of that criticism, I ultimately remain positive to the story. The crucial point to make is that I am at my most critical when reading about the story, as what is written usually has an agenda that wants to convince me too to be as critical as the writers. However, when I play the game, I either forget the criticism or realize that I not only disagree with it, but also find the bad parts that I do agree exist to be so small they are of no significance to how I perceive the game’s story. So yes, I am positive to Wings of Liberty. Now, let’s go on to what I think, already.
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
2.0 - Wings of Liberty
2.1 - Introduction
As all of you know, Brood War ended with the destruction of the second Overmind, the defeat of the UED, and the rise of Kerrigan, who ultimately became the leader of the most powerful faction in the Koprulu sector. Four years have passed, and things have been very quiet. Kerrigan is gone, and the other races have been left for themselves to build up their worlds, whilst always knowing that the disruption of the calm can be around the corner at any times.
In WoL, our main character is Raynor, who’s been with us ever since the very first mission. He is a broken man, leading a revolution against his arch nemesis, Arcturus Mengsk, who is now the emperor of a rebuilt Dominion that terrorizes its inhabitants. Raynor doesn’t have the spirit of other revolutionaries, and there is none of the spark that fueled someone like, say, Che Guevara in his prime. Part of that, I think, is because of Raynor’s motivations for going after Mengsk. While he certainly sympathizes with the Dominion’s citizens, his purpose is ultimately not to create a better tomorrow (that is Matt Horner’s ultimate purpose), but to get revenge. Raynor does occasionally sell himself as one who “stands up for the little”, but when he does it, it’s almost as if he kids himself with it. It’s not that he doesn’t want to help (why else would he go to Agria?), but he probably wouldn’t be a revolutionary if it if he had no prior relationship with Mengsk.
Note that Raynor when gets his spirit back, it is when the possibility of Kerrigan returning to becoming human again appears. It’s when Valerian has come with his artifact that he gives his speech to the crew, and Kachinsky says, “Now that’s the commander I’ve been waitin’ for”. Raynor is smart enough to sell the invasion of Char as a means of stopping the Zerg, and not as a means to get his girl back. Knowing this is important to understanding Raynor. He is good guy, and he isn’t selling out his crew, because the motivation for going to Char he gives to the crew is worthy, but his own motivation is somewhat selfish. However, this doesn’t make him unsympathetic, because the player is intimate with Raynor’s past, and know he’s been through a lot of hard times.
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
2.2 – Story structure
The storyline in Wings of Liberty is branched, a choice by Blizzard which drew both praise and criticism. The praise came namely from the fact that it made the gameplay more interesting, as you weren’t forced to follow the story in a straight line (which, admittedly, can be boring in some cases). The criticism, on its side, focused on the fact that it hurt the flow of the story. It has been mentioned that the branching storylines make the plot feel jumpy, with Raynor’s moods changing abruptly. I don’t agree with that. Raynor’s mood is dependent on each mission, and if he is enthusiastic after completing one of the Rebellion missions (which is the storyline where the Raiders make most progress), and then neck deep in beer bottles after the Moebius Factor mission, it’s because the latter mission again confronts him with what Kerrigan has become (he dreams of her after she appears in person in Tyrador). I don’t see this being in conflict in how human beings behave. Let me explain how.
The Sopranos drew some criticism for the hypocrisy of some of the characters, and how some of them, particularly Carmela Soprano, could one day be mad as hell with her husband for cheating on her, and then be perfectly happy the other. The criticism was met with arguments I agree with, namely that The Sopranos so perfectly captures real life (more than most TV shows), in the sense that human beings actually tend to be “jumpy” when it comes to behavior. It’s quite possible to be happy one day, sad the next, and then happy again on the third day. It all depends on what happens on each day.
Now, while I don’t think the storyline is “jumpy”, I do think there is some criticism to be made, namely that the plot branches out, but not in again. What I mean by that is that the side missions (those concerning Hanson and Tosh) have no real significance on the main missions (those concerning Horner and Tychus). True, you earn cash and get new units that make the rebellion easier, which of course is realistic (I’ve always praised the story writers for bringing the importance of finance into war), but the impact on the main storyline is non-existent. And it’s not that Blizzard is incapable of it being otherwise. After all, what are the Tychus missions at first, if not side missions? Whereas Hanson and Tosh influence Raynor and the crew, Tychus’ missions only exist because of the need for cash. But when the true purpose artifact fragments is revealed, the Tychus missions become part of the main storyline. Couldn’t the Hanson and Tosh missions have been molded the same way?
I will say this, though: While the Hanson and Tosh missions might not be considered entirely successful because their link with the main storyline is weak, they can still be considered successful. Why? Because it is possible to view them on their own, separate from the other missions. And if you isolate them, they become much stronger. Hanson’s story is in my opinion one that is very great, and it has not only one, but two endings that in each their way conclude the story in a manner that I am engaged by. Tosh’ story is not as engaging (it is harder to get engaged in the fate of renegade soldiers than the fate of helpless people in search of a home), but it too has two great endings; one that is extremely humorous, and one which is extremely pessimistic, and simultaneously, beautifully made.
Now, is there way to consider the side missions as being positive when they are not viewed isolated? I believe so, and I say this for two reasons. The first is that there is no absolutely no requirement for each part of a story to be vital to the ultimate outcome and ending. Yes, if you make a two-hour movie, it is probably best to make sure every part of the story is relevant, as time is limited, but StarCraft is a game, not a movie. We only demand that detours (like the Hanson and Tosh storylines) ultimately are of significance to the main storyline because of tradition. There is no requirement in the theory of storytelling that says you can’t branch out into smaller storylines that exist separately for themselves. Why? Because storytelling can in no way be an obstacle in coming up with new ways to tell a story, because that would hurt storytelling. Also: theory only describes what has gone before, not what might come later. While Blizzard might not be inventing the wheel with a branched storyline, they did try something that was new and different to the StarCraft universe. You might not like it, but you can still appreciate the attempt (or not, which depends entirely on the eye of the beholder). I personally liked it. Blizzard said from the get-go that they wanted to create branched storylines, and should therefore not be held responsible for not weaving the side stories into the main stories just because they could. They created branched storylines, just as said they would.
The second reason that the side missions being detours can be justified, is that it’s possible to evaluate them from a perspective that is not plot-related. If you look at them from a plot perspective, then yes, they might be considered weak. But what if you consider them from a character perspective? I don’t know if anyone of you has seen the movie Taxi Driver, but I want to mention it anyway to make a point. Taxi Driver is a film that is fairly light on plot. Things happen, yes, but they happen more because they tell us things about the main character, not because they advance the story. Many scenes in the film could be cut without the plot being hurt. But cutting them would hurt our perspective of the main character, and that would be bad, as the film is just as much (if not more) a character study than it is a story. In the same way, the existence of the Hanson and Tosh missions can be justified because they tell us things about the characters. Tychus, for example, is revealed to be selfish and too short sighted to see the reason for helping the people of Agria, whilst Horner’s intelligence is augmented, as he manages to see the motivation for helping Hanson and her people from a wider respective (as the story will frequently show, Horner is very focused on the events that happen after they dethrone Mengsk, should they manage to do that). Raynor too, is fleshed out a lot in the side missions, and we get to know him quite a bit in them. We can even decide how he will turn out by choosing who we want to side with.
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
good read :)
good job Eivind, i completely agree with your points, cant wait to see your other points, keep it up!
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
Nothing wrong with a positively slanted assessment, Eivind. Keep it up. I'm genuinely interested in what the complete thing will look like.
I'm not going to debate with you about the finer points you have addressed here, opinions will be opinions at the end of day, but you might want to consider addressing the issue of pacing and flow of narrative in your "Story Structure".
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
Thanks, guys. Glad you took the effort to read the damn thing (it's quite long).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
I'm not going to debate with you about the finer points you have addressed here, opinions will be opinions at the end of day, but you might want to consider addressing the issue of pacing and flow of narrative in your "Story Structure".
I guess I could slip it under "story analysis", but I have to ask: is there any specific thing you are refering to? I mean, I know what pacing and flow is, but is there a point you personally have that you want to see adressed?
Now, could someone tell me how to make it say "opinions" instead of "opinons"? It's bugging me!
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eivind
I guess I could slip it under "story analysis", but I have to ask: is there any specific thing you are refering to? I mean, I know what pacing and flow is, but is there a point you personally have that you want to see adressed?
I guess it's more an expansion of what you were saying about the story (not) being jumpy and the Tosh and Hanson missions being weakly linked to the main story. Some detractors say that the majority WoL has no "vision" or is aimless and that the real story only happens when Valerian spills the beans and then we finally get to the Char missions. There seems to be no build-up to this climax. Also, some feel that the nature of randomly choosing your own missions kills the pacing when you can hopscotch to different planets and different missions paths at any time - there's no feeling of urgency (up until the end that is).
How do you feel about the fact that the entire Prophecy arc can (although you shouldn't) can be completely bypassed? This has also caused a lot of debate about the clarity of Raynor's motivation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eivind
Now, could someone tell me how to make it say "opinions" instead of "opinons"? It's bugging me!
Can't you just edit the original and 'go advanced' to change the title?
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
I guess it's more an expansion of what you were saying about the story (not) being jumpy and the Tosh and Hanson missions being weakly linked to the main story. Some detractors say that the majority WoL has no "vision" or is aimless and that the real story only happens when Valerian spills the beans and then we finally get to the Char missions. There seems to be no build-up to this climax.
I might have a thing or two to say about that, but I'll save that for the story analysis, even though, as you say, it can fit into the story structure section as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
Also, some feel that the nature of randomly choosing your own missions kills the pacing when you can hopscotch to different planets and different missions paths at any time - there's no feeling of urgency (up until the end that is).
This one I can adress right now. I don't think the pacing is ruined at all. I'm not sure there is supposed to be a feeling of urgency either. The crew has little money, and actually needs to take their time.
Let's say you steal the Odin, and then, instead of using it on Korhal, you go do The Dig instead. I think of this as you being Raynor choosing to get more funds and siege tanks (or something like that), and when you finally go to Korhal, you are more prepared. Or, if you postpone The Dig and go straight to Korhal, it's because you think you are ready, or that outing Mengsk is too important for you to wait.
I'm trying to argue intellectually, and yet the best argument I can offer is actually an emotional one. When I played the campaign the first time, and chose to switch between the "stories", I never personally felt it was jumpy. I can understand how some could feel that way, but I personally didn't, and so it's not really a problem to me. I still don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
How do you feel about the fact that the entire Prophecy arc can (although you shouldn't) can be completely bypassed? This has also caused a lot of debate about the clarity of Raynor's motivation.
Well, if I was Metzen, I would have made it required, but I think you have to view the story as if you completed every mission. In other words, when HotS begins, Raynor has outed Mengsk, seen the prophecy, and rescued Kerrigan, no matter what you chose to do. It's a bit odd, I'll admit that, but I personally don't really think it's too much to get fuzzed up about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
Can't you just edit the original and 'go advanced' to change the title
No, doesn't work.
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eivind
Let's say you steal the Odin, and then, instead of using it on Korhal, you go do The Dig instead. I think of this as you being Raynor choosing to get more funds and siege tanks (or something like that), and when you finally go to Korhal, you are more prepared. Or, if you postpone The Dig and go straight to Korhal, it's because you think you are ready, or that outing Mengsk is too important for you to wait.
I'm trying to argue intellectually, and yet the best argument I can offer is actually an emotional one. When I played the campaign the first time, and chose to switch between the "stories", I never personally felt it was jumpy. I can understand how some could feel that way, but I personally didn't, and so it's not really a problem to me. I still don't.
I don't have problem with that at all as long as you've addressed it.
I shouldn't nitpick because it's kinda beside the point for your whole exercise here, but although your example is quite clear the same logic cannot be applied for the Hanson mission choice: Haven's fall or Safe Haven. The whole idea of this mission choice instills a sense of urgency (infestation is overruning the colony), but it can somehow safely wait until you get around to doing it? Just some food for thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eivind
Well, if I was Metzen, I would have made it required, but I think you have to view the story as if you completed every mission. In other words, when HotS begins, Raynor has outed Mengsk, seen the prophecy, and rescued Kerrigan, no matter what you chose to do. It's a bit odd, I'll admit that, but I personally don't really think it's too much to get fuzzed up about.
You could still address this in the story/ character analysis because this 'structural' issue does play a role in determining the final impetus/motivation behind Raynor's actions to save Kerrigan (was it pure love, the advice from Zeratul's vision, a combination of both? It can be unclear to someone who has not done the Prophecy missions).
Re: StarCraft 2 Campaign: Personal thoughts and opinons
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
I shouldn't nitpick because it's kinda beside the point for your whole exercise here, but although your example is quite clear the same logic cannot be applied for the Hanson mission choice: Haven's fall or Safe Haven. The whole idea of this mission choice instills a sense of urgency (infestation is overruning the colony), but it can somehow safely wait until you get around to doing it? Just some food for thought.
In Haven's Fall/Safe Haven, the situation was set up so that Raynor arrives onto the scene just as the Protoss are about to begin purging the planet. Therefore, it can be postponed since narrative-wise, the Protoss don't arrive until just before Raynor does. A better example of time inconsistency would be the Evacuation since Raynor is responding to a distress signal yet he can wait as long as he wants to before responding to it and still be in time to help Hanson.
As for the lack of urgency and/or tension, I feel the reason for this is because Raynor and his crew are almost always the ones taking the initiative and going on the offensive. In addition, Raynor (and other central named characters) aren't directly involved to boot, as the ones doing the fighting are almost always just nameless Raiders. Hence, that's why we, the player, who are supposed to identify with Raynor, don't feel like we're in much jeopardy during those missions.
