StarCraft III - Story and Storytelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

It's called signpost storytelling. Didn't think the town in the campaign 3 scene was Andorhal but I could be wrong. It basically serves as a microcosm for everything else that's going on.

---

I still don't understand how having the Scourge overrun Lordaeron, Quel'thalas and Dalaran, kill King Terenas, Antonidas and Uther the Lightbringer, and actually have a discussion between Arthas and Kel'thuzad about how the Scourge exists to wipe out opposition to the Burning Legion "like the forces of Lordaeron... or the High Elves" leaves you with a hole in the storyline of Reign of Chaos, which only seeing demons ravage a piece of human countryside while discussing their plans can resolve for you. I'm not trying to mock you here, I really don't understand. Please explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I never said it was unreasonable. I pointed out in my contentions post that the campaign can be adapted. It could be adapted to have the exiles arrive in Ashenvale. But your line of argument has been that we can remove the Horde campaign only, leave everything else in place, and get the same story. Which isn't possible. The removal of the Horde campaign doesn't change the fact that Jaina's forces arrive in the Barrens. It does change the fact that Jaina's forces interact with them. Ergo, the chain of cause and effect to prompt them to head north is removed unless you further alter stuff, in which case, wholesale removal = same effect is rendered null.

---

Why not? If the campaign did not exist, why would the events of the campaign still have to exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I didn't say that, I said removing material from that campaign makes things problematic in the next campaign. If the orc campaign no longer exists, then the events in it no longer exist, so the situation in the next campaign must be altered. It seems your line of thought is that if one branch of history is removed, the timeline remains the same anyway. If not for the orcs, Cenarius wouldn't be dead. If Cenarius isn't dead, then the Sentinels have no reason to react the way they do in their own campaign. The Alliance takes no part whatsoever in Cenarius's death, so a different history is necessitated. Ergo, you can't remove the Horde campaign and get the same events.

---

Why? What I'm saying is that if you removed the Horde from Reign of Chaos entirely and made someone who never played WarCraft III play this version instead, they would get the exact same story that any of us did. I said that the Horde was entirely irrelevant to the storyline of WarCraft III (except for killing Cenarius, which is incredibly minor). I wasn't talking about an Azeroth where the Horde campaign didn't happen, I'm talking about the real world if the Horde campaign didn't exist. I'm talking about the player's experience of the narrative. And the Horde is utterly insignificant to the narrative of Reign of Chaos.

I'm saying that you could remove the Protoss from StarCraft II and the story would be unchanged. It would still be about Raynor and Kerrigan's relationship, and their hatred of Arcturus Mengsk, and so forth. You're arguing that the Protoss are actually really important because without the Protoss, Zeratul wouldn't have been there to guide Kerrigan to Zerus where she wouldn't have been reinfested and therefore Raynor wouldn't have gotten pissed when he saw her in the prison ship. This does not make the Protoss a relevant part of the story. And killing Cenarius, a character with no history for the player and one in-game appearance in Reign of Chaos itself does not make the Horde in any way relevant to the story of WarCraft III.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

I still don't understand how having the Scourge overrun Lordaeron, Quel'thalas and Dalaran, kill King Terenas, Antonidas and Uther the Lightbringer, and actually have a discussion between Arthas and Kel'thuzad about how the Scourge exists to wipe out opposition to the Burning Legion "like the forces of Lordaeron... or the High Elves" leaves you with a hole in the storyline of Reign of Chaos, which only seeing demons ravage a piece of human countryside while discussing their plans can resolve for you. I'm not trying to mock you here, I really don't understand. Please explain.

---

Because there's otherwise no confirmation that the Legion even bothers with Lordaeron. It also ties in with Archimonde's kingdom comments at Mt Hyjal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Why not? If the campaign did not exist, why would the events of the campaign still have to exist?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Why? What I'm saying is that if you removed the Horde from Reign of Chaos entirely and made someone who never played WarCraft III play this version instead, they would get the exact same story that any of us did. I said that the Horde was entirely irrelevant to the storyline of WarCraft III (except for killing Cenarius, which is incredibly minor). I wasn't talking about an Azeroth where the Horde campaign didn't happen, I'm talking about the real world if the Horde campaign didn't exist. I'm talking about the player's experience of the narrative. And the Horde is utterly insignificant to the narrative of Reign of Chaos.

---

I'll try and make this as simple as possible:

-Fact: Changing the events of the present does not change events of the past. The removal of any Horde campaign does not alter the fact that Jaina and her forces travel to Kalimdor.

-Fact: The Horde kills Cenarius. The Alliance has no means or motive to do so.

-Fact: The killing of Cenarius dictates the Sentinel response to the "outlanders" and Burning Legion throughout their entire campaign.

So, if the Horde is removed, it triggers a chain of events that would be different. The Sentinel campaign cannot exist in its real-world form without the events of the previous campaign. If it did, the following problems would arise:

-There is no good reason for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

-There is no good reason for Tyrande or Cenarius to attack them, which lasts practically the entire campaign.

-There is no reason the guardians of the Horn of Cenarius would try to stop Tyrande from awakening Malfurion.

You can't have the Sentinel campaign word for word, scene for scene without previous events. Not without making the characters come across as schizophrenic psychopaths. If I skipped the Horde campaign and went straight to the Sentinels one, the narrative would fall apart within seconds if it remained exactly the same. You've already pointed out the greenskins comment being an issue. An identical campaign without a Horde one would have the Sentinel characters talking about stuff that never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

I'm saying that you could remove the Protoss from StarCraft II and the story would be unchanged. It would still be about Raynor and Kerrigan's relationship, and their hatred of Arcturus Mengsk, and so forth. You're arguing that the Protoss are actually really important because without the Protoss, Zeratul wouldn't have been there to guide Kerrigan to Zerus where she wouldn't have been reinfested and therefore Raynor wouldn't have gotten pissed when he saw her in the prison ship. This does not make the Protoss a relevant part of the story.

---

When did I even argue this? When did I even bring this up? And why is this even an issue? Why is it suddenly a requirement for every faction in an RTS to be shoehorned into a single overriding story? Why is the lack of Daelaam protoss appearences an issue when the Dominion is treated the same after the terran campaign in SC1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I didn't say that, I said removing material from that campaign makes things problematic in the next campaign. If the orc campaign no longer exists, then the events in it no longer exist, so the situation in the next campaign must be altered. It seems your line of thought is that if one branch of history is removed, the timeline remains the same anyway. If not for the orcs, Cenarius wouldn't be dead. If Cenarius isn't dead, then the Sentinels have no reason to react the way they do in their own campaign. The Alliance takes no part whatsoever in Cenarius's death, so a different history is necessitated. Ergo, you can't remove the Horde campaign and get the same events.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I'll try and make this as simple as possible:

-Fact: Changing the events of the present does not change events of the past. The removal of any Horde campaign does not alter the fact that Jaina and her forces travel to Kalimdor.

-Fact: The Horde kills Cenarius. The Alliance has no means or motive to do so.

-Fact: The killing of Cenarius dictates the Sentinel response to the "outlanders" and Burning Legion throughout their entire campaign.

So, if the Horde is removed, it triggers a chain of events that would be different. The Sentinel campaign cannot exist in its real-world form without the events of the previous campaign. If it did, the following problems would arise:

-There is no good reason for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

-There is no good reason for Tyrande or Cenarius to attack them, which lasts practically the entire campaign.

-There is no reason the guardians of the Horn of Cenarius would try to stop Tyrande from awakening Malfurion.

---

Sorry to butt in, but Cenarius was created for the Orc campaign. Without the Orc campaign, Cenarius wouldn't exist. As for why the Night Elves would distrust the Humans, you don't really need a reason for an isolated group to distrust strange, foreign outsiders invading your land other than the fact that they are strange, foreign outsiders invading your land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

Because there's otherwise no confirmation that the Legion even bothers with Lordaeron. It also ties in with Archimonde's kingdom comments at Mt Hyjal.

---

And this is important because?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

-Fact: Changing the events of the present does not change events of the past. The removal of any Horde campaign does not alter the fact that Jaina and her forces travel to Kalimdor.

---

That's an interesting perspective, and certainly not one I would agree with. For example, I always believed that the fact that Biting the Bullet and Operation Silent Scream were removed from Rebel Yell means the events never happened. Does this mean that Psi Emitters were planted on Tarsonis twice? Or, in the Prophecy sequence of Wings of Liberty, Zeratul and Kerrigan are discussing a prophecy that calls for the annihilation of their species, which is clearly the same prophecy that Zeratul gets from the Overmind later on. How do you explain Zeratul being so surprised the second time he learns of it?

How does your perspective account for paradox?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

-Fact: The Horde kills Cenarius. The Alliance has no means or motive to do so.

---

The Horde killed Cenarius because Cenarius attacked them because they were intruding upon Ashenvale. There is indeed to motive unless the Alliance were to intrude upon Ashenvale. But really, what are the odds of that? As for means, Cenarius isn't the first or last unit to have divine armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

-Fact: The killing of Cenarius dictates the Sentinel response to the "outlanders" and Burning Legion throughout their entire campaign.

---

Not really. They were hostile to the intruders because they killed Cenarius, but as we've already established, they and Cenarius were already hostile to intruders for being intruders. And again, I've already said multiple times that this was the only way the Horde was relevant to WarCraft III, so I don't know what you're trying to gain here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

-There is no reason the guardians of the Horn of Cenarius would try to stop Tyrande from awakening Malfurion.

---

Actually, I don't even remember why they did try to stop her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

You can't have the Sentinel campaign word for word, scene for scene without previous events. Not without making the characters come across as schizophrenic psychopaths. If I skipped the Horde campaign and went straight to the Sentinels one, the narrative would fall apart within seconds if it remained exactly the same. You've already pointed out the greenskins comment being an issue. An identical campaign without a Horde one would have the Sentinel characters talking about stuff that never happened.

---

Oh, I did say that it would leave you with bizarre dialogue. This is why you consider the Horde important to WarCraft III? Because people occasionally talk about or to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

When did I even argue this? When did I even bring this up? And why is this even an issue? Why is it suddenly a requirement for every faction in an RTS to be shoehorned into a single overriding story? Why is the lack of Daelaam protoss appearences an issue when the Dominion is treated the same after the terran campaign in SC1?

---

It's not the Daelaam Protoss that's the point, it's any Protoss we have any reason to be interested in that is the point. While the Dominion only shows in a few missions after Rebel Yell (and none during []Rebel Yell[/i], so I don't know why you made the distinction) the events that occurred during that campaign make a difference to the overall story and Kerrigan, a character whose story is the direct consequence of that campaign, is a crucial part of the overall story. That's the difference.

As for 'shoehorning them into a single overriding story', you were asking if retconning a game about Orcs and Humans into a game about Demons and Night Elves would upset me, and the answer is yes because the faction we are invested in have been marginalised in favour of completely unrelated stories that pop out of nowhere. This is why it matters that the Horde is inconsequential and that the Alliance is an accident. People who followed the series did so because they liked those factions. And now the story is just going 'forget about these guys, look at these awesome new dudes we just made up!' If you weren't going to build on the established history of the franchise and instead just throw it aside, then you shouldn't have written your story in this setting, but just created a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasent

Sorry to butt in, but Cenarius was created for the Orc campaign. Without the Orc campaign, Cenarius wouldn't exist.

---

You're treading a slippery slope there. I can just as easily argue that Arthas was created for the Scourge campaign, and without that necessity, the Alliance campaign wouldn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

That's an interesting perspective, and certainly not one I would agree with. For example, I always believed that the fact that Biting the Bullet and Operation Silent Scream were removed from Rebel Yell means the events never happened.

---

Except we know from Liberty's Crusade and Queen of Blades that they did happen. They don't even contradict anything - O: SS occurs simultaniously as The Big Push.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Or, in the Prophecy sequence of Wings of Liberty, Zeratul and Kerrigan are discussing a prophecy that calls for the annihilation of their species, which is clearly the same prophecy that Zeratul gets from the Overmind later on. How do you explain Zeratul being so surprised the second time he learns of it?

---

I don't really see a contradiction. The prophecy Zeratul gets is very general (look it up at http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Prop...Interpretation). The Overmind just adds to the picture. I admit, it's been awhile since I've played hte missions so I can't really go in-depth with Zeratul's reaction, but since he's already apparently forgotten about Duran, maybe he has short-term memory loss as well.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

The Horde killed Cenarius because Cenarius attacked them because they were intruding upon Ashenvale. There is indeed to motive unless the Alliance were to intrude upon Ashenvale. But really, what are the odds of that? As for means, Cenarius isn't the first or last unit to have divine armour.

---

You need to work on your grammar because I don't know what you're saying. What I assume you're saying is that the campaign can remain exactly intact without the Horde. Only the Horde gets the Alliance into Ashenvale. You're either talking effect without cause, or going down the path of "what if?" which is just plain speculation. As for means, like I said, the entire burning blood thing is based on the orcs being orcs. There's no reason to assume it would work on non-orcs, that Jaina would allow it, or that the Alliance would even detect it when orc/troll shamans do, and the Alliance doesn't have any of those. Maybe they could, but maybe isn't hard fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Not really. They were hostile to the intruders because they killed Cenarius, but as we've already established, they and Cenarius were already hostile to intruders for being intruders. And again, I've already said multiple times that this was the only way the Horde was relevant to WarCraft III, so I don't know what you're trying to gain here.

---

They were hostile to the orcs for cutting down their trees, and, depending on how you play the mission, striking first.

I've said ages ago that you could adapt the story to remove the Horde. But you're still going by the notion that the Sentinel campaign can play out verbatim and get the same result, and you still haven't pointed out those idiosyncracies, nor established a chain of cause and effect for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Oh, I did say that it would leave you with bizarre dialogue. This is why you consider the Horde important to WarCraft III? Because people occasionally talk about or to them?

---

So you do agree with me. Why are you still arguing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

It's not the Daelaam Protoss that's the point, it's any Protoss we have any reason to be interested in that is the point.

---

Who's "we?" I'm interested in the Tal'darim because of their backstory. I'm interested in Zeratul's journey because of the revelations. I'm interested in the flash-forward because holy crap, that was an awesome mission both in gameplay and tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

While the Dominion only shows in a few missions after Rebel Yell (and none during []Rebel Yell[/i], so I don't know why you made the distinction) the events that occurred during that campaign make a difference to the overall story and Kerrigan, a character whose story is the direct consequence of that campaign, is a crucial part of the overall story. That's the difference.

---

So you cite Kerrigan as being important to the terrans as a whole, but not Zeratul as being important to the protoss as a whole, even when in both cases, their major interactions have been outside their own race.

There's also the fact that the terran campaign comes first in SC1, while we haven't had a bona fide protoss campaign in SC2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

As for 'shoehorning them into a single overriding story', you were asking if retconning a game about Orcs and Humans into a game about Demons and Night Elves would upset me, and the answer is yes because the faction we are invested in have been marginalised in favour of completely unrelated stories that pop out of nowhere. This is why it matters that the Horde is inconsequential and that the Alliance is an accident.

---

Okay...

-Demons/Burning Legion don't "pop out of nowhere." Demons made their first appearence in WC1. The groundwork for the Burning Legion first appeared in WC2, both in the manual, and the Tomb of Sargeras dictates the flow of the Horde campaign in a major way.

-Night elves you can have more leeway with, but even they were first foreshadowed in Dawn of the Dragon

-We seem to have different perspectives of "inconsequential." Even if you argue that the Horde is irrelevant to the overall plot of Reign of Chaos, you can't argue that its overall actions are inconsequential.

-The Alliance is an accident by definition. Horde invades, Alliance is formed. You'd get the same result with any invading force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

People who followed the series did so because they liked those factions. And now the story is just going 'forget about these guys, look at these awesome new dudes we just made up!'

---

Again, demons/Burning Legion were part of the setting ages ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

If you weren't going to build on the established history of the franchise

---

...the hell? How can you possibly argue that WC3 can exist in any shape or form without the events of the previous games? Heck, the entire Scourge and Alliance factions wouldn't exist if not for those previous games. The entire Horde campaign in The Frozen Throne is based on the mere fact that Tides of Darkness actually happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

If you weren't going to build on the established history of the franchise and instead just throw it aside, then you shouldn't have written your story in this setting, but just created a new one.

---

I'm sorry, this is just rediculous. It seems that your line of thought is the notion that if faction x is irrelevant to story y, then faction x becomes irrelevant to the entire setting by default. I could argue that the scrin invalidate GDI, the Forgotten, and Nod due to their overshadowing appearence in Tiberium Wars, casting past games in their light. I could argue that Lord of the Rings invalidates The Hobbit and The Silmarrilion invalidates Lord of the Rings because each installment dealt with a larger picture where it was revealed the previous installment was a smaller part of. I could argue that the Illidari and Scourge factions are "forgotten" in World of Warcraft because I never get to play as them. Heck, World of Warcraft invalidates the argument completely because the Alliance and Horde are the two main, and only playable factions bar a bit of early pandaren questing. You'd have an easier time arguing the Sentinels and Forsaken are marginalized by being merged into the Alliance and Horde rather than being factions of their own.

I'm sorry, but the more I think about this, the more absurd this line of argument feels. If the line of argument is that if past events are revealed as part of a larger picture then that invalidates them, then that's a hell of a lot of invalidation going on in fiction. The examples I mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg.

We all have our notions I guess. But I'm through discussing them. The line of discussion has gone so off-topic that I can't even see the rails anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

Except we know from Liberty's Crusade and Queen of Blades that they did happen. They don't even contradict anything - O: SS occurs simultaniously as The Big Push.

---

Really? How unfortunate. Having the Terrans and Protoss fight side by side at this point of the story is such an unfortunate choice. Blizzard made the correct call to remove them, I am saddened to learn they decided to reinstate it. Of course, I'll continue to ignore it until it gets a mention in the games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I don't really see a contradiction. The prophecy Zeratul gets is very general (look it up at http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Prop...Interpretation). The Overmind just adds to the picture. I admit, it's been awhile since I've played hte missions so I can't really go in-depth with Zeratul's reaction, but since he's already apparently forgotten about Duran, maybe he has short-term memory loss as well.:rolleyes:

---

Not that prophecy. Zeratul was specifically trying to keep that prophecy out of the hands of Kerrigan. However, they were discussing another prophecy throughout the mission, and the previous cinematic.

Kerrigan
Please. Our petty conflicts mean nothing now. A storm is coming that CANNOT be stopped. Fitting - that we should face oblivion together.

Zeratul
Never!

Kerrigan
FATE cannot be changed. The END comes. And when it finds me... I shall embrace it at last.

Zeratul
The prophecy is uncertain. There is always hope.

and

Kerrigan (telepathic - in his head)
Why not surrender yourself to oblivion, Zeratul? Wouldn't it be better to end your struggle now than witness the final agonizing moments of your species?

Zeratul
The foreboding prophecy weighs heavily on my heart. I'd best reach the remaining shrines before she reconsiders letting me live.

Again, this mysterious prophecy foretells the extinction of the Protoss species. I wonder what it could be?

Kerrigan
You might peel away the prophecy's layers, Zeratul - but you cannot outrun the doom that awaits us all!

And to remind you, this is not the prophecy you linked to:

Zeratul
Kerrigan and I were both drawn here to uncover an ancient prophecy. With your aid, I pray we can discover it before her.

and

Karass
Most ominous. But if the Queen of Blades seeks this prophecy, we must keep it from her.

Then consider that both the cinematic and the mission end up with Zeratul escaping from Kerrigan after retrieving a prophecy. And that he gets wounded here, and collapses from said wound inside the Hyperion when contacting Raynor... it is obvious that the scenes were intended to be in immediate succession (and I do believe they were revealed at a similar time back in 2008, I think it was?) after he learned of the Overmind's vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

You need to work on your grammar because I don't know what you're saying. What I assume you're saying is that the campaign can remain exactly intact without the Horde. Only the Horde gets the Alliance into Ashenvale. You're either talking effect without cause, or going down the path of "what if?" which is just plain speculation. As for means, like I said, the entire burning blood thing is based on the orcs being orcs. There's no reason to assume it would work on non-orcs, that Jaina would allow it, or that the Alliance would even detect it when orc/troll shamans do, and the Alliance doesn't have any of those. Maybe they could, but maybe isn't hard fact.

---

You're having a lot of trouble with this "remove the Horde campaign from the game" concept. You keep saying it wouldn't work because it conflicts with information from the campaign that has been removed. It doesn't matter. If the removal of the campaign conflicts with information that has been removed, then the conflict has also been removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

They were hostile to the orcs for cutting down their trees, and, depending on how you play the mission, striking first.

I've said ages ago that you could adapt the story to remove the Horde. But you're still going by the notion that the Sentinel campaign can play out verbatim and get the same result, and you still haven't pointed out those idiosyncracies, nor established a chain of cause and effect for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

---

I'd be pleased to.
1- Medivh tells Jaina to bring her people across the ocean because he has cryptic warnings.
2- Jaina thinks this is a wise course of action.
3- Jaina brings her people west across the ocean.
4- Ashenvale is west of Lordaeron, and on the other side of that very ocean.
5- Jaina's forces are in Ashenvale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

So you do agree with me. Why are you still arguing?

---

I don't agree with you. Just because you think that it makes a faction important that you could remove them from the story entirely and only know they were gone by a few quirky phrases does not mean that I agree with you. I had simply not realised until now that you believed such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

Who's "we?" I'm interested in the Tal'darim because of their backstory. I'm interested in Zeratul's journey because of the revelations. I'm interested in the flash-forward because holy crap, that was an awesome mission both in gameplay and tone.

---

"We" is anybody who didn't know of (or care about) the Tal'darim until they showed up, but had played StarCraft before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

So you cite Kerrigan as being important to the terrans as a whole, but not Zeratul as being important to the protoss as a whole, even when in both cases, their major interactions have been outside their own race.

---

Who said Zeratul wasn't important? If he'd played as much of a role in StarCraft II as Kerrigan did in the original, I wouldn't be complaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

-Demons/Burning Legion don't "pop out of nowhere." Demons made their first appearence in WC1. The groundwork for the Burning Legion first appeared in WC2, both in the manual, and the Tomb of Sargeras dictates the flow of the Horde campaign in a major way.

---

I said "unrelated stories that pop out of nowhere". "Demons exist" isn't "this game only exists because we weren't able to find a portal on the continent we were actually aiming for."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

-The Alliance is an accident by definition. Horde invades, Alliance is formed. You'd get the same result with any invading force.

---

The invasion itself is accidental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I could argue that Lord of the Rings invalidates The Hobbit and The Silmarrilion invalidates Lord of the Rings because each installment dealt with a larger picture where it was revealed the previous installment was a smaller part of.

---

Which is the opposite of what WarCraft III did. The Lord of the Rings takes an element of The Hobbit and builds upon it. Same with the Silmarillion. It increased the scope of the world. It's the opposite of what I'm complaining about. By making all of history part of one story, you're reducing all of history to one story. What we're talking about here is if it had been revealed in The Lord of the Rings that Gandalf had tricked Bilbo into going on his adventure because he was planning for Bilbo to come upon the Ring so he could afterward send him or his heir to Orodruin. The Lord of the Rings expanded the world beyond the scope any Hobbit had ever conceived or would ever have gotten involved in, except that because of the events of The Hobbit, they now had to. It took Bilbo's adventure from the story of a hobbit and some exiled dwarves going on an adventure and turned it into the first step into an epic that would shape the fate of the world. WarCraft III does the opposite. It takes all the stories that came before and says "these were inconsequential because this is what was really going on and these are the real players." It takes one of the settings' central players and says "these guys shouldn't even be involved". This is not a new story built upon the previous ones, as The Lord of the Rings was. It is a rewriting of the same story. It doesn't take the Horde invasion of Azeroth and use it to start something new, it takes something new and tells us "this is why the Horde actually invaded Azeroth". It's backward.

Is it time to vote for who won the argument now? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

Is it time to vote for who won the argument now? :p

---

I don't think it is wise to encourage the idea that anybody won here :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Not that prophecy. Zeratul was specifically trying to keep that prophecy out of the hands of Kerrigan. However, they were discussing another prophecy throughout the mission, and the previous cinematic.

---

No, it's the same prophecy. Zeratul retrieves the prophecy fragments from Ulaan, takes them to Zhakul, has it interpreted by the preservers, who give him the link I gave you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

You're having a lot of trouble with this "remove the Horde campaign from the game" concept. You keep saying it wouldn't work because it conflicts with information from the campaign that has been removed. It doesn't matter. If the removal of the campaign conflicts with information that has been removed, then the conflict has also been removed.

---

No, I keep saying it contradicts information from the next campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

I'd be pleased to.
1- Medivh tells Jaina to bring her people across the ocean because he has cryptic warnings.
2- Jaina thinks this is a wise course of action.
3- Jaina brings her people west across the ocean.
4- Ashenvale is west of Lordaeron, and on the other side of that very ocean.
5- Jaina's forces are in Ashenvale.

---

So basically you're not going down the path of cause and effect, and are going down the path of "what if?" You have to alter events in the past (Alliance campaign) to have events of the present (Horde campaign) lead to a different set of events in the future (Sentinel campaign). Not only is your verbatim point still null, but you're adapting the campaign, not leaving it otherwise intact from selective extraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

The invasion itself is accidental.

---

I think you're using a very liberal interpretation of "accidental." The Horde invaded Azeroth because Medivh could open the portal from the other side. Medivh was possessed by Sargeras who tricked Aegwynn. Sargeras possessed Aegwynn because he needed another portal to Azeroth (the world), and the night elves aren't going to fall for the same trick twice.

And before you go "but this is all new," the only thing that WC3 revealed in that was that he'd tried it before via the night elves. Sargeras, Aegwynn, Medivh, this was all introduced in WC2. Come to think of it, the Horde was already moving away from corruption by that stage due to Doomhammer's slaughtering of the Shadow Council and bringing Gul'dan to heal, wiping out the necrolytes. And again, this is from WC2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Which is the opposite of what WarCraft III did. The Lord of the Rings takes an element of The Hobbit and builds upon it. Same with the Silmarillion. It increased the scope of the world. It's the opposite of what I'm complaining about.

---

Not sure how "scope of the world" is in opposite of anything since WC3 effectively doubled the size of the world as well, but whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

By making all of history part of one story, you're reducing all of history to one story. What we're talking about here is if it had been revealed in The Lord of the Rings that Gandalf had tricked Bilbo into going on his adventure because he was planning for Bilbo to come upon the Ring so he could afterward send him or his heir to Orodruin. The Lord of the Rings expanded the world beyond the scope any Hobbit had ever conceived or would ever have gotten involved in, except that because of the events of The Hobbit, they now had to. It took Bilbo's adventure from the story of a hobbit and some exiled dwarves going on an adventure and turned it into the first step into an epic that would shape the fate of the world. WarCraft III does the opposite. It takes all the stories that came before and says "these were inconsequential because this is what was really going on and these are the real players." It takes one of the settings' central players and says "these guys shouldn't even be involved". This is not a new story built upon the previous ones, as The Lord of the Rings was. It is a rewriting of the same story. It doesn't take the Horde invasion of Azeroth and use it to start something new, it takes something new and tells us "this is why the Horde actually invaded Azeroth". It's backward.

---

I can only assume we had very different reading experiences because what you're saying doesn't jell with LOTR at all. Consider the differences of what we knew:

-Hobbit: Dwarves go on an adventure with Bilbo, Bilbo finds the One Ring, Battle of the Five Armies is heralded as a turning point for the fortunes of the north (along with the death of Smaug), Gandalf also defeats the Necromancer but he's otherwise irrelevant to the story.

-LOTR: One Ring is an end, not a means. Battle of the Five Armies outright stated to be just a blip, otherwise irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Necromancer turns out to be Sauron, driving him out of Dol Guldur is just as important, if not moreso, than battle. Revealed that the only reason Gandalf went after Smaug was because he was afraid of what would happen if Sauron used him.

This is spelled out explicitly in both the introduction to The Fellowship of the Ring and the appendecies of Return of the King. It takes The Hobbit and diminishes its importance in the greater scheme of things, casting it in an entirely new light. However, I don't resent it for this. I like the world created in LOTR, even if I'm not too fond of the writing. And The Hobbit, while it's made smaller in the greater scheme of things, is still an enjoyable story.

Wait, so we are continuing this after all? Fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

No, it's the same prophecy. Zeratul retrieves the prophecy fragments from Ulaan, takes them to Zhakul, has it interpreted by the preservers, who give him the link I gave you.

---

That is impossible.

1- Zeratul is discussing this prophecy with Kerrigan before he has even learned of it, either by gathering the three fragments from Ulaan or by having them deciphered by the preservers.
2- Kerrigan is discussing this prophecy with Zeratul even though Zeratul constantly tells us that this prophecy cannot be allowed to fall into Kerrigan's hands, therefore she cannot know this prophecy.

The only reasonable option is that they are discussing another prophecy. One that makes mention of the annihilation of the Protoss. Can you guess what this is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

So basically you're not going down the path of cause and effect, and are going down the path of "what if?" You have to alter events in the past (Alliance campaign) to have events of the present (Horde campaign) lead to a different set of events in the future (Sentinel campaign). Not only is your verbatim point still null, but you're adapting the campaign, not leaving it otherwise intact from selective extraction.

---

Wait, what? What have I altered?

1- Medivh tells Jaina to bring her people across the ocean because he has cryptic warnings.
2- Jaina thinks this is a wise course of action.
3- Jaina brings her people west across the ocean.
4- Ashenvale is west of Lordaeron, and on the other side of that very ocean.
5- Jaina's forces are in Ashenvale.

I'm pretty sure this all happened. Care to be specific about which of these points you disagree with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I think you're using a very liberal interpretation of "accidental." The Horde invaded Azeroth because Medivh could open the portal from the other side. Medivh was possessed by Sargeras who tricked Aegwynn. Sargeras possessed Aegwynn because he needed another portal to Azeroth (the world), and the night elves aren't going to fall for the same trick twice.

---

Accident. An event that happens by chance, without intent or deliberate cause. The Orcs were intended to invade Kalimdor. It was not the Legion's intent that they waste their time fighting Humans on the wrong side of the planet. It was not the Humans' intent to be invaded by extradimensional monsters. It happened only because, by chance, the Burning Legion were unable to find someone capable of opening the Dark Portal on the desired continent. Therefore, accidental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

I can only assume we had very different reading experiences because what you're saying doesn't jell with LOTR at all.

---

This seems true. For example, your reading provides:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

Battle of the Five Armies outright stated to be just a blip, otherwise irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

---

Whereas mine provides:

Among many cares [Gandalf] was troubled in mind by the perilous state of the North; because he knew then already that Sauron was plotting war, and intended, as soon as he felt strong enough, to attack Rivendell. But to resist any attempt from the East to regain the lands of Angmar and the northern passes in the mountains there were now only the Dwarves of the Iron Hills. And beyond them lay the desolation of the Dragon. The Dragon Sauron might use with terrible effect. How then could the end of Smaug be achieved?
[...]
'Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from the victory here only to ruin and ash. But that has been averted - because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring in Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth.'

That sounds to me like it's stating The Hobbit to be far more important than originally believed, not less. Same with the Ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

Necromancer turns out to be Sauron, driving him out of Dol Guldur is just as important, if not moreso, than battle.

---

Not as much text, but: 2941 - The White Council meets, Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur, since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur.

Doesn't sound like this was much of a blow to Sauron, especially since Dol Guldur remained powerful enough to launch three attacks on Lórien. But even if this were the case, how would this change anything to the value of the story of The Hobbit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

Revealed that the only reason Gandalf went after Smaug was because he was afraid of what would happen if Sauron used him.

---

Here we draw to something actually relevant. In The Lord of the Rings Gandalf's motivation gets retconned in service of the new story. You are correct that this would upset me, however Gandalf wasn't the one who went after Smaug. And keep in mind that even after this retcon, Thorin was the one who came to Gandalf. Thorin's motivations remain unchanged, as do Bilbo's. And while Gandalf's motives get changed, he is still a minor character in that story. The new information doesn't cast the old story as being meaningless in the scope of the new story, but instead makes the old story even more significant in how it contributes to the new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar

Wait, so we are continuing this after all? Fine.

---

Honestly, I'd be happy to stop. Again, I disagree with all your points below, but if you want to end like gentlemen, I'm happy to. Partly because I'm tired of the argument, partly because to continue it, I'd have to look up Fellowship of the Ring and quote verbatim.

Now that Hawki has finally agreed to stop, we can back to the topic of Starcraft 3's story and story-telling. Where were we again? I remember saying something to the effect of if SC3 comes around, it'll most likely just be another rehash or another contrived escalation to justify showcasing another war between the races and/or against another common enemy. Hawki said something about it possibly not having to be either and still be able to be compelling as if that somehow is supposed to stave off sequel decay/sequelitis - something that is already evident in Sc2. It's one thing to actually be compelling (your mileage will vary if one would claim Sc2's current story to be such a case) but if the intent for Sc3 is the continuation of the story (which I would highly doubt) it would be better served by being written as novels instead of making another game.

Huh, guess there wasn't that much to the initial topic afterall. I guess that frees Hawki up to continue arguing again with FT about the minutiae of LotR now. :D

actually the legion needed an arcane site to get onto azeroth. The Night elves didn't use arcane magic and wouldn't fall for it AGAIN, so they needed to dupe some other arcane using society to let them in. The high elves and dalaran knew about the legion (since the high elves were descended from the pawns who had defected the first time), and the other humans could have ganged up if they just tried sneaking into Dalaran and trying to open a portal there. They landed on the wrong continent entirely by design, because they needed to actually generate a gateway to enter the planet.

Quote:

---

To me personally, the cinematics of SC2 are so superior to SC1 that I find it very difficult to comprehend how people can think otherwise.

---

Okay, well... considering SC 2 has a 12 year advantage, that's like tying a man down before you punch him in the gut. SC 2 is shit because well... its 12 years, and starcraft 1's cut scenes still feel better. SC 2 is flamboyant and silly and wastes it's superior technology on stupid things like fight scenes and explaining how things work (ie. tychus' armor assembly) yet retconning other things.

The in-game engine renders the stuff going on in the hyperion and the between mission dialogue. The actual cinematics are flamboyant, and cool at first, but they aren't something I wanted to view again and again. They felt very predictable in their execution - of course, a person is going to be rendered in full, spoiling any mystery that the starcraft universe originally contained. No need for technical manuals describing each unit in full - just have a silly one liner tacked on, and a bit of tongue-in-cheek made up on the spot history for every unit description.

And the realism also gets thrown in the gutter because fight scenes need choreographing! We need to make it as michael bay as possible with pretty glowy explosions, that don't feel real or consequential - they just light up like easy-to-dodge fireballs, like in any hollywood action flick.

Quote:

---

Bringing this back to SC3, in SC3, I want them to try. I don't want them to abandon anything about Starcraft's gameplay, but, you know, you could hide the fact that your maps are all just sets of tiles a bit more. Warcraft 3 was a huge step up from Starcraft in making the maps feel like organic environments. SC2 was a step... nowhere. Give me maps and terrain in the missions that look more like, say Halo Wars, and less like Warcraft 3, and maybe I'll be able to take the cinematics/in-between mission sequences more seriously as being part of the same game. It doesn't have to be all about realistic graphics, but it could at least let me forget how it's just a bunch of wall segments next to each other instead of a real cliff.

---

I wish that after all these months, I had the intelligence to phrase it that way. Good on you, sir!

Even the forcefields in SC 2 were hexes - the game was deliberately telling us 'this is a tile based game'. And don't use the e-sports excuse. Professionals can recognize what a cliff looks like well enough - they're god damned progamers, for chris' japanese sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

Okay, well... considering SC 2 has a 12 year advantage, that's like tying a man down before you punch him in the gut. SC 2 is shit because well... its 12 years, and starcraft 1's cut scenes still feel better. SC 2 is flamboyant and silly and wastes it's superior technology on stupid things like fight scenes and explaining how things work (ie. tychus' armor assembly) yet retconning other things.

---

You're using very strange logic here. You claim SC2 "wastes its time" on things like fight scenes and how things work. So how does that excuse the cinematics of SC1? Apart from the end cinematics of each campaign, each one is completely surperfluous and outside the main plot. The Amerigo is a pretty fight scene but it doesn't contribute anything. The warp space wormhole shows us how the zerg travel through warp space, but it isn't required viewing. Lester and Sarge dying are in the same camp as the terrans who prod the protoss - redshirts who die humorously, are never mentioned again, and add nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

The in-game engine renders the stuff going on in the hyperion and the between mission dialogue. The actual cinematics are flamboyant, and cool at first, but they aren't something I wanted to view again and again. They felt very predictable in their execution - of course, a person is going to be rendered in full, spoiling any mystery that the starcraft universe originally contained.

---

So, better rendering takes away mystery? Huh. Guess we better stop trying to make advances in graphical technology because, you know, lower resolution=mystery.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

No need for technical manuals describing each unit in full - just have a silly one liner tacked on, and a bit of tongue-in-cheek made up on the spot history for every unit description.

---

Except, you know, all the armoury and evolution pit descriptions. And site descriptions. And everything else.

So we're back to talking about the cinematics then.

I'm actually not bothered how SC1 or Sc2 use their cinematics because each have a different approach to why they use them the way they did. In Sc1, they are supposed to be a "waste of time" in terms of relating to the story going on at the moment largely because the story's "meat" (as governed by the limitations of the tech at the time) had to be rendered through text and non-descript talking heads. They are used to give a wider view of the SC universe at hand and are supposed to give a "now for something a little different" feel to it. You can take it or leave it - whether it is a real waste of time depends on your perspective because you either appreciate the extra side flavour or you don't. Either way, no harm is done if you want to include or ignore them and that's kind of nice in a way.

In Sc2, the cinematics are used largely to do away with the non-descript talking heads aspect that was in Sc1. It has the benefit of making character interaction more palpable and also allows one to make the dialogue more palatable because you get a double treat in seeing and hearing what's going on. There's a great deal more immersive benefit from this approach. The "waste of time" aspect of this approach makes senses in that it potentially make things more boated than necessary especially when a lot of it maybe showing flavour and superfluous characterisation that is irrelevant to the main story. This is not even mentioning the argument that games shouldn't be too cinematic since players would rather be involved in someone's developing characterisation in the moment during gameplay (this is perhaps the hardest thing to do) rather than passively watching something unfold before them. However, compared to Sc1, it's harder to "take it or leave it" when it comes to these cinematics because there would be harm to the final product if they were taken away or replaced with something more inferior (such as the talking heads style of Sc1).

Quote:

---

And the realism also gets thrown in the gutter because fight scenes need choreographing!

---

Um...I'm pretty sure that any fight scene, "realistic" or not, requires choreography.

Quote:

---

You're using very strange logic here. You claim SC2 "wastes its time" on things like fight scenes and how things work. So how does that excuse the cinematics of SC1? Apart from the end cinematics of each campaign, each one is completely surperfluous and outside the main plot. The Amerigo is a pretty fight scene but it doesn't contribute anything. The warp space wormhole shows us how the zerg travel through warp space, but it isn't required viewing. Lester and Sarge dying are in the same camp as the terrans who prod the protoss - redshirts who die humorously, are never mentioned again, and add nothing.

---

SC 1 doesn't need to be excused - the cinematics are self-contained and awesome.

As for SC 2, 'wastes its time' might not be the right words - it's not unecessary. I just found the cinematics to be flashy and expected. Nothing new was attempted. It was just 'standard acrobatic fight scene on top of action close up hydralisk punch fight scene'. It wasn't much of a stretch.

SC 1 took great advantage of the animation limitations. The lighting was amazing, and things that could be done realistically at the time (ie. clinking glassware) were fully exploited. The CGI intro to Event Horizon was also similarly good (clinking glassware, rolex watches that don't fold, but float about in zero G realistically). It did what it could and it was amazing.

There's nothing to excuse SC 1 of - they didn't make any mistakes. They're worth admiration to this day. I'm not saying they're infinitely superior, but there's no reason to hate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

SC 1 doesn't need to be excused - the cinematics are self-contained

---

And that, IMO, is part of the problem.

I'm not saying that this makes them bad per se either, but looking back, it does bug me as to how little the cinematics actually contribute to the overall story. I'll put it this way - there are three things a cinematic can do in this type of scenario - add to character development, add to plot development and/or be self-contained.

From a character development standpoint, some of the cinematics serve this purpose, but apart from the ending cinematics and the Brood War intro, none of them do so - either character development is absent, or it's with characters that we don't know, only end up knowing for a few minutes, and as such, can't bring ourselves to care about. For plot development, every ending cinematic is relevant, but that still leaves a lot that aren't, and arguably, just end up punching holes in the setting. Why do the protoss attack the salvagers? Why are Lester and Sarge so remiss about the zerg this far into the invasion of Mar Sara? There are a few exceptions, such as Kerrigan's dream sequence or seeing the protoss ships and the Hyperion return to Aiur, but as they only last a few seconds, they don't make much of an impact on the plot.

So, that leaves option 3, and that's to be self-contained. IMO, the only ones to do this are the Amerigo cinematic, and the intro to Brood War. I think anyone could watch the former, get a sense of what was going on, and enjoy the suspense and action. It's a cinematic that, IMO, stands up to this day. Likewise, the Brood War intro. It gets extra points for Stukov/DuGalle character development/establishment, but I think it works quite well on its own as well. The average viewer might not know why these insect-like creatures are attacking humans, but they can still get the sense of how humanity can be just as cruel and callous in its own way. These cinematics still stand up today IMO. But again, they're exceptions to the rule.

I admit, there are some SC2 cinematics one could cut out, such as the intros to WoL and HotS. The former is arguably tech porn more than anything, and the latter, while it kind of serves a similar purpose to the BW intro (the actions of DuGalle and Kerrigan coming full circle), that cycle of character development isn't as evident here. But they're still exceptions. Otherwise, SC2 cinematics are devoted to plot and/or character development. You can cut some out, but one (or at least me) usually gets something out of them in these areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

I'm not saying they're infinitely superior, but there's no reason to hate them.

---

That, though, I also agree with. I'm not fond of their style, but I don't actively dislike them. At the least, if I were playing through the old games, I could easily skip them if I wanted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

Why do the protoss attack the salvagers?

---

What makes you think the Protoss were actively aiming for the salvagers? Surely they'd just send a scout if that's what they wanted to do.

I've always taken the huge frickin laser beam as being meant for the colony of Chau Sara since the Terran campaign more or less starts shortly after it's destruction (as mentioned in the prologue).

Sure, one could say it was highly unlikely for them to be directly under that laser cannon in that instance but well, that's (un)luck for you.

Quote:

---

So, better rendering takes away mystery? Huh. Guess we better stop trying to make advances in graphical technology because, you know, lower resolution=mystery.http://sclegacy.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

---

It needs more artistry rather than just pure renderings that obey a basic format. Ie. Fatty models, beefy Jim Raynor, etc.

Quote:

---

owever, compared to Sc1, it's harder to "take it or leave it" when it comes to these cinematics because there would be harm to the final product if they were taken away or replaced with something more inferior (such as the talking heads style of Sc1).

---

Again, it's all about artistry. If the talking heads were brought back, they could have more animations (ie. actual emotional reactions that relate to whatever they're saying or hearing at the time), and the background to the briefing room could be completely animated - ie. you could be auto-scrolling through a base and observing all of your race's units in high definition while you listen to characters talk.

Full bodies adds nothing to it, except to offer entirely pointless body language and limited conversations. If blizz wanted the approach that WoL took, there should've been more sidequests - or things that actually worked like sidequests with a special reward at the end of each.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that this makes them bad per se either, but looking back, it does bug me as to how little the cinematics actually contribute to the overall story. I'll put it this way - there are three things a cinematic can do in this type of scenario - add to character development, add to plot development and/or be self-contained.

---

Why does it bug you? The game made it obvious that all the primary narration is the talking heads, and that was fine back in 1998. Pretty unique actually. People only make fun of it, because they've got little else to make fun of (refer to my sig for why comedy is hard).

Quote:

---

or it's with characters that we don't know, only end up knowing for a few minutes, and as such, can't bring ourselves to care about.

---

Good ol' comic relief. Cinematics were more of a reward that gave you proper perspective about the universe than actual plot development. Games need a break from plot every now and then. SC 2 did this by giving up a different plot - the mistake it made was making everything seem super important to the story, when at the end, only one of the plots would be getting resolved.

At least in games like mass effect, side quests resolved themselves. SC 2 made different plots feel like sidequests, when they don't really resolve themselves. Even the thing with Mira Han feels like a cliffhanger or a to-be-continued (if she survives, that is). Blizzard is just lazy when it comes to telling a story with any degree of open endedness - in the case of SC 2, they ended dumbing everything down in order to create a bunch of loose threads.

And other reasons SC 2 bugs me! Da da da da dum. *sitcom outro*

Quote:

---

I admit, there are some SC2 cinematics one could cut out, such as the intros to WoL and HotS

---

WoL's intro was the only truly good cinematic. We must be completely different people, you and I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

Full bodies adds nothing to it, except to offer entirely pointless body language and limited conversations.

---

There are many examples I could cite as to why body language isn't pointless, but I'll point to just one - Kerrigan killing Warfield. She never says anything, but her visual expressions, her actions, her movement - these tell her everything we need to know about her state of mind. Show, don't tell. If you're in a visual medium, and you can use visuals to tell your story, it's often better to actually use those visuals rather than just relying on dialogue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

Why does it bug you? The game made it obvious that all the primary narration is the talking heads, and that was fine back in 1998.

---

It bugs me for the reason I said it does - they give us nothing. No real plot, no real character insight, no self-sustaining story except in a few exceptions. It's like reading a novel, where after completing a chapter, I get a few paragraphs of people and story that's unrelated to everything I've read, and where these people and events are never mentioned again. Suppose I'm reading Fellowship of the Ring, I've just entered Moria, and then there's a mini-chapter of an orc doing something in Mordor. It's clearly in the same universe, but it's irrelevant to the actual story. And it's so short that it doesn't even work as its own mini-story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

Cinematics were more of a reward that gave you proper perspective about the universe than actual plot development. Games need a break from plot every now and then.

---

If they need a break from plot, that's usually in the realm of the gameplay.

I get the idea of cinematics being rewards. I can use the early Command and Conquer games as examples - end of a GDI mission, you have a few seconds of cinematic GDI kicking Nod's arse. Finish a Nod mission, the roles are reversed. These are rewards. Too many of the SC1s aren't clear rewards because they're either outside the context, or not rewarding the player. I beat the zerg at Backwater Station, then am "rewarded" with seeing two redshirts die. I defeat the zerg at Scion, only to see Fenix get killed off for the sake of comic relief. I understand that the player doesn't need to be rewarded all the time - the entire terran campaign subverts our goals at the end of it. But it isn't reward in the same way as the CnC ones because so often they feel out of place and/or context. We're given nothing for our efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

SC 2 did this by giving up a different plot - the mistake it made was making everything seem super important to the story, when at the end, only one of the plots would be getting resolved.

---

I assume you're referring to the side-story aspects. How are they not resolved? Each one has a distinct beginning and a distinct end. You can argue that the Spectre and Rebellion missions are in the context of Mengsk who isn't taken down until HotS, but they resolve their own goals at the end of each set of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

At least in games like mass effect, side quests resolved themselves.

---

And in what way is that different? Multiple ones seem to lack the resolution the SC ones supposedly do. Bring Down the Sky isn't fully resolved until ME3 if you let the batarians go. Arrival doesn't have the full consequences given until ME3 either. I'd count them as resolved in both cases, in the context of their immediate presentation, but there's no real difference in the styles that I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

Even the thing with Mira Han feels like a cliffhanger or a to-be-continued (if she survives, that is).

---

How is there any doubt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

We must be completely different people, you and I.

---

What, you're only realizing that now?:p

Quote:

---

If they need a break from plot, that's usually in the realm of the gameplay.

---

Does it really matter? Gameplay or skippable cutscene? I'd go for the skippable cutscene if it isn't relevent. Skippable gameplay would feel a bit weird.

Quote:

---

I defeat the zerg at Scion, only to see Fenix get killed off for the sake of comic relief.

---

That's your beef with SC 1, eh?

Quote:

---

We're given nothing for our efforts.

---

Yeah, most old games are like this. The reward is you are closer to beating the game. Most 'rewards' in modern games are really just artificial hooks to keep you addicted anyway.

Quote:

---

How are they not resolved?

---

They're resolved poorly. Maybe they should've handled it a bit better. I'd understand a sidequest that extends for one or two misisons, but a four or five mission arc that extends across nearly the entire game before the final mission section of Char was a bit much. It made us feel like it was important to the plot, when it really wasn't. A sidequest needs to make a point that it will be useful.

Maybe even create some replayability - you can only complete so many sidequests before the zerg invasion begins in ernest and you need to assault char, for example. The game didn't do this though - the only replayability was the different endings in the sidequests, the achievements and separate difficulty levels. There was a lot missing from it.

Quote:

---

How is there any doubt?

---

Well the zerg were island hopping between terran planets at the time. Creates some doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawki

If they need a break from plot, that's usually in the realm of the gameplay.

I get the idea of cinematics being rewards. I can use the early Command and Conquer games as examples - end of a GDI mission, you have a few seconds of cinematic GDI kicking Nod's arse. Finish a Nod mission, the roles are reversed. These are rewards. Too many of the SC1s aren't clear rewards because they're either outside the context, or not rewarding the player. I beat the zerg at Backwater Station, then am "rewarded" with seeing two redshirts die. I defeat the zerg at Scion, only to see Fenix get killed off for the sake of comic relief. I understand that the player doesn't need to be rewarded all the time - the entire terran campaign subverts our goals at the end of it. But it isn't reward in the same way as the CnC ones because so often they feel out of place and/or context. We're given nothing for our efforts.

---

I think it would it help if you'd think of the Sc1 cinematics as Starcraft themed "commercials" or interludes instead of being a visceral, straight-up reward for your efforts. That way you can take as much or as little as you can from them. Also, not everything has to conform to one ideal of "cinematic as reward" or "cinematic has to have an underlying connection to the main story". In the end, it's a matter of taste and no matter what they tend to be, it can't be said that they objectively hamper or damage the overall sense of the story in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

I think it would it help if you'd think of the Sc1 cinematics as Starcraft themed "commercials" or interludes instead of being a visceral, straight-up reward for your efforts. That way you can take as much or as little as you can from them. Also, not everything has to conform to one ideal of "cinematic as reward" or "cinematic has to have an underlying connection to the main story". In the end, it's a matter of taste and no matter what they tend to be, it can't be said that they objectively hamper or damage the overall sense of the story in any way.

---

And there's no reason to get rid of the amerigo cinematic, or any of them for that matter. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

And there's no reason to get rid of the amerigo cinematic, or any of them for that matter. :)

---

Get rid of the Fenix death by power failure cinematic.

Well then we won't know how Fenix died! :P

It might not have been power failure - maybe he sensed that fighting the hydralisk was hopeless since there were other zerg around too (goes against his character though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solidsamurai

Well then we won't know how Fenix died! :P

It might not have been power failure - maybe he sensed that fighting the hydralisk was hopeless since there were other zerg around too (goes against his character though).

---

Be careful, friend. If Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm have shown me anything, it is that this fanbase loves Fenix. I would not envy your fate if... certain people... were to learn that you insinuated Fenix would just give up because of overwhelming odds.

;)

It wasn't a power failure. Fenix was pulling a fake-o - he really wanted to take on the Hydralisks with his bare hands! That's where Warfield got his inspiration from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfIKRQ4sTfU

(What Fenix was thinking at the time)