Fuck Diablo 3. Path Of Exile is the true successor to D2 and surpasses D3 in every possible way.
- - - Updated - - -
Fuck Diablo 3. Path Of Exile is the true successor to D2 and surpasses D3 in every possible way.
Printable View
Fuck Diablo 3. Path Of Exile is the true successor to D2 and surpasses D3 in every possible way.
- - - Updated - - -
Fuck Diablo 3. Path Of Exile is the true successor to D2 and surpasses D3 in every possible way.
Sorry, I was saying that years ago. Sadly, you never finish first, except when she doesn't want you to.
Ew, Starcraft novels are crap. I've been reading them to review on my blog, and they're just awful. Most of them manage to have at least one positive aspect, but which get drowned out by all the bad. The best one I've read so far is SC Ghost: Nova, which had half of an interesting plot, but very terrible writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
I've just seen the Dark Templar Saga at my work (a used bookstore) so now I'm going to read those.
I've come to the conclusion that you must be a masochist, Nissa. Either that, or you must be a "hatewatcher/reader". :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
I'm proud to say that I haven't read any of those books, but I hear that a lot of what is shite in Sc2 is partly due to the influence of the DT series.
It's not quite that. My blog is sort of for learning to write better, and so I use bad books as examples. That, and I love nitpickery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
However, it has reached a level of masochism as far as Starcraft novels go. I keep hoping I'm going to read one that is good, but then....ugh.
All of the books aren't that bad. There's several shit ones ('Shadow of the Xel'Naga" and "Liberty's Crusade") and my least favorite was actually what I read of Ghost: Nova. Only StarCraft novel I never finished after starting and that was before I knew how shit the games would get. 'Speed of Darkness', 'I, Mengsk', and especially the Dark Templar Saga are actually pretty decent books for what they are. If you want something more, you're in the wrong place, just like you're in the wrong universe to begin with. StarCraft is for people who don't want more complex sci fi or are denialist hanger-ons from the glory days of StarCraft ... or, well, I don't know what else other than masochism.
The story arc was created by Blizzard. Christie Golden even had to redo a lot of the third novel a few times because Blizzard kept changing their mind. I actually wrote an email to her asking why every release date she posted on her blog would be set back. See, I was an amateur news poster, or something, back then. So .. no .... Also, the Dark Templar Saga would have improved StarCraft 2 if it had had more influence since it focuses on the best parts of StarCraft and leaves the rest alone. It was precisely because StarCraft 2 was nothing like the Dark Templar Saga that I was so disappointed.Quote:
I'm proud to say that I haven't read any of those books, but I hear that a lot of what is shite in Sc2 is partly due to the influence of the DT series.
Also, I really, really don't understand how you can spend so much time talking about StarCraft lore and not read the books. Just doesn't make sense to me but, then again, most of your actions, my own included, don't make sense to me.
Which ones have you read? I only read the old ones. If you're talking about them, then that's fine, I know what I'm getting into with the news. If you're talking about the new ones, maybe they've gotten even worse.Quote:
I keep hoping I'm going to read one that is good, but then....ugh.
I thought SCG Nova was awful. She's the definition of a Mary Sue. All the bullshit about Fagin and the gutter was such a boring chore to push through. I also hate the slang words the author invented.
I Mengsk is probably my favorite. DT saga was good but Golden helped ruin sc lore. Or maybe it was Blizzard, I dunno.
Thankfully, after all the low blows I've taken, I now have balls of steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
It was definitely Blizzard. The way she explained it, Blizzard was constantly flip flopping on the story arc contained in the Dark Templar Saga, so, to me, that shows have little power she had. Either way, the fact that it dealt with actual sci fi elements, as opposed to, well, you know the shit I complain out, made it an improvement over the game. However, as I said before, I should have noticed more signs that the story was going to crap because the Xel'Naga and that whole mess had become considerably more simplified. Why they did this to that poor StarCraft manual, I don't know.Quote:
Or maybe it was Blizzard, I dunno.
I actually respect him in that. The books suck and contradict in-game lore, so therefore they are to be ignored. I'm a firm believer that only the original media of a franchise (video games for Starcraft, television/non-JJ Abrams movies for Star Trek) counts as canon. Usually that's because the fan novels of any franchise are more about a writer trying to gain readers from a known franchise rather than writing a good story.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
I don't know which ones are old or new, though I'm pretty sure most of the ones I've read are old. I can read them for free at my used bookstore, so they're more likely to be old.Quote:
Which ones have you read? I only read the old ones. If you're talking about them, then that's fine, I know what I'm getting into with the news. If you're talking about the new ones, maybe they've gotten even worse.
SCG: Nova -- While you guys dislike this book, I like it because unlike most of the other novels, it actually has a few ideas that work. These few ideas make it a bit more fun than the others, and also this story has essentially zero impact on the canon. That makes me slightly fond of it despite the absolutely atrocious narrative. You guys were rightfully turned off by the terrible narrative, by all likelihood, but it's got more charm than most SC books.
Speed of Darkness -- Great beginning, half decent narrative, but very, very boring middle to end. Like SCG: Nova, it had some good ideas, but they weren't presented in an interesting way. None of the characters were well defined, and it ended up feeling like an exercise in moving cliches around.
Heaven's Devils -- Absolute rot. I didn't finish it. For one, the narrative was stiff, and for two, it added nothing to Starcraft worth adding. It was supposed to explain how Raynor ended up as a Marshall, but it basically said that some guy in a goliath came up to Raynor's farm and said, "hey, join the military" and Raynor went "Uh, mm'kay." That, and his dad lectured him like he was a ten year old in an after school special. Bad ideas, bad narrative, no go.
Liberty's Crusade -- There is no reason for this book to exist. SC novels tend to appeal to people who have actually played the game and want to know more about the Starcraft universe, but this is just a retelling of the first Terran missions. You'd think they'd tell these missions from the perspective of an established character so we learn their perspective, but they don't. They instead insert a dull OC who's about as interesting as a newbie's OC on fanfiction.net, jamming him in dialogues from the game despite him not having been there. I once mailed this book to a curious SC fan so he wouldn't have to spend money on it.
Shadow of the Xel'Naga -- My vote for worst SC novel ever. It's very clear that the writers (a husband and wife wrote it under a pseudonym) had no clue what Starcraft was or how the plot went. They have a Judicator being comically bigoted despite this being set after original Starcraft, and the Dark Templar had already sheltered a bunch of Khalai Protoss at that point. General Duke, for no reason, says horrible things in front of people he really shouldn't despite the fact that that's stupid. The one Dark Templar in this book seems actually glad that a Xel'Nagan god-mode monster zapped up all the other Protoss. The Xel'Naga apparently created a creature that only feeds on other Xel'Nagan beings, ensuring that the Xel'Naga's own work gets destroyed for this thing to live. Kinda wasteful if you're a supreme scientist race, no? That, and the narrative sucked and the characters were about as interesting as dirt.
I still haven't started on the DT Saga. It's making me nervous...
You can't really judge the books until you've read the Dark Templar Saga and I, Mengsk considering those are the best. If I were to make a list of the worst StarCraft novels, that would be the list of the books you've read, minus Heaven's Devils since I haven't read that. Shadow of the Xel'Naga, however, I've been saying for the longest time is one of the worst books I've ever read. Unfortunately, it was the first StarCraft novel (because of the cover) I read back in like 2003 and I'm surprised I continued at all with the books.
Either way, like I've told people many times here, just read some real sci fi. Like seriously, why bother with this shit. I just don't get it. Unless you have some attachment to the lore outside of itself (like Gradius and his campaigns, or the various people here who do StarCraft artwork), I just don't get why everyone here hasn't abandoned ship.
Not sure you understand the situation. He's not being a lore purist, that would be more like me and Gradius who mostly stick to the old, best parts of StarCraft and bitch about or ignore the bad stuff. Turalyon, while complaining as much as we do, still seems to take the new lore seriously instead of just disregarding it. To put it simply, in my mind, I'm still waiting for StarCraft 2 to be released. That's an exaggeration, but I don't feel like writing more walls of text. Turalyon, however, will give many, many walls of text about the new, shitty lore like its nothing. That's why I'm confused about why he wouldn't read the books.Quote:
I actually respect him in that.
I haven't read the news ones, but the old ones stick to the lore and feeling of StarCraft much better than the game did. I would take 'I, Mengsk' or 'Dark Templar Saga' over StarCraft 2 any day.Quote:
The books suck and contradict in-game lore, so therefore they are to be ignored.
I can't judge the books until I've read I, Mengks and the DT Saga? I'm just mentioning how I find them so far, and what their individual entertainment values are to me. Quite frankly, I think I've read a large enough portion of the books to make a judgement on how Blizzard treats its official fiction.
As far as the books you mention being good, I still haven't read them. Heh, I doubt I'll like them better than SC2. For the record, I don't call SC2 canon either. It feels like they took one of the official fiction novelists and told him to write a game.
I knew what you meant but we're not talking about how Blizzard treats anything. It's pretty well established around here that Blizzard loves to shit on its universes. In fact, you'd have to go to the official forums just to find some people that even slightly disagree with that given that its something like the last bastion of Blizzard fans. SCLegacy is basically the exact opposite of that. You come here for honest but harsh criticism. If you want to bash the new Blizzard, you've come to the right place. And I'm something like king shit on turd mountain when it comes to that although I share land with Gradius whose mound has a few feet more shit piled onto it.
All I was saying is that you shouldn't assume all of the novels are bad since, unfortunately, you've managed to pick out the absolute worst of the bunch.
Yeah when the guy in charge basically tells you that SC is at its core a love story between a boy and a girl, it explains alot. :P
Still, here's to hoping Metzen gets fired one day and somebody competent takes the reins.
Meh. It felt like fan-fiction to me quite honestly. Even Uprising had more "charm" and replicated the old-school SC1 feel to a degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
Honestly I forget most of what happened in this book other than me being bored for the majority of it. I did like the explanation of upgrades and resoc however. This is what add-on books to a universe should do. Solve problems instead of make more.Quote:
Speed of Darkness -- Great beginning, half decent narrative, but very, very boring middle to end. Like SCG: Nova, it had some good ideas, but they weren't presented in an interesting way. None of the characters were well defined, and it ended up feeling like an exercise in moving cliches around.
Agreed.Quote:
Heaven's Devils -- Absolute rot.
Queen of Blades has the same problem. Raynor gets shoehorned into situations he doesn't belong, usually listening to the zerg hive mind peeking from behind a mountain, crag, or hidden crevice. It's completely contrived.Quote:
Liberty's Crusade -- There is no reason for this book to exist. SC novels tend to appeal to people who have actually played the game and want to know more about the Starcraft universe, but this is just a retelling of the first Terran missions. You'd think they'd tell these missions from the perspective of an established character so we learn their perspective, but they don't. They instead insert a dull OC who's about as interesting as a newbie's OC on fanfiction.net, jamming him in dialogues from the game despite him not having been there. I once mailed this book to a curious SC fan so he wouldn't have to spend money on it.
That being said, I'll be the odd man out and say I enjoyed Liberty's crusade. Jeff Grubb seems to get the universe and actually expanded the characters. Duke wasn't a total moron, just a dislikable jackass like in the original game.
Agreed. I think you'll like DT saga, just be aware that Golden isn't the best sci-fi writer, and has to rely on crystals and magic. Go in with that knowledge and you'll have a good time.Quote:
Shadow of the Xel'Naga -- My vote for worst SC novel ever. It's very clear that the writers (a husband and wife wrote it under a pseudonym) had no clue what Starcraft was or how the plot went. They have a Judicator being comically bigoted despite this being set after original Starcraft, and the Dark Templar had already sheltered a bunch of Khalai Protoss at that point. General Duke, for no reason, says horrible things in front of people he really shouldn't despite the fact that that's stupid. The one Dark Templar in this book seems actually glad that a Xel'Nagan god-mode monster zapped up all the other Protoss. The Xel'Naga apparently created a creature that only feeds on other Xel'Nagan beings, ensuring that the Xel'Naga's own work gets destroyed for this thing to live. Kinda wasteful if you're a supreme scientist race, no? That, and the narrative sucked and the characters were about as interesting as dirt.
I still haven't started on the DT Saga. It's making me nervous...
And then, in response to massive fan back lash, defends his position with one of the douchiest responses I've ever seen from a developer, "We have to differentiate ourselves from all of the competition." *facesmack* I don't even feel like go into how much this fails.Quote:
Yeah when the guy in charge basically tells you that SC is at its core a love story between a boy and a girl, it explains alot. :P
'Speed of Darkness' I enjoyed simply because I happened to have been in the mood for a first-person military kind of experience. If you aren't in the mood for that, I can easily see how you'd get bored. I only get in the mood for one of those books seldomly, otherwise I'd rather play a FPS, but I keep a book or two of the genre on standby.
I think her experience in the Ravenloft universe helped draw me in with the archaelogical dig portions of the first book, but, yeah, it bugged me that complex technology had been devolved into magic and crystals. I ignored it when I was reading but, looking back, it's one of those signs I was talking about that should have warned me that I was in for disappointment. But, the fact that it dealt with something other than a love story and cliched archetypal villainry, I still hold it up as one of the high points of post-Brood War lore.Quote:
I think you'll like DT saga, just be aware that Golden isn't the best sci-fi writer, and has to rely on crystals and magic.
As for Queen of Blades and Liberty's Crusade, I honestly can't remember a damn thing about the books. Maybe because they blend in so well with the campaign, I kind of meshed them, but, if they were crap or good, I really, honestly can't remember. Weird.
That's what I love about this forum. There's few people here, but there's so much to talk about.
I'm making a logical inference based on the books I've read. I'm still willing to let Blizzard change my mind, but it's still a logical inference that I can't expect too much in the way of quality for Starcraft official fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
I sort of get this statement. No, Starcraft isn't a romance, but Raynor and Kerrigan are the main characters. Kerrigan appeared in all the Starcraft and BW missions, with only the first Protoss missions as an exception. Raynor appeared in all mission sets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
They're still dumb for making it a romance, though.
If you feel that way, sure. There's definitely a fanfiction-y feel to it. I just like that some characters had actual depth and that the writer really was trying to do something interesting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Nova was a good book, I'm just saying it didn't piss me off, unlike almost all the others I read.Quote:
Meh. It felt like fan-fiction to me quite honestly. Even Uprising had more "charm" and replicated the old-school SC1 feel to a degree.
*adds Uprising to the list of books to look for*
Expanded the characters? Pffft. Raynor and Kerri were as generic as they come, and Duke was just annoying. He had none of his redneck attitude. You can't tell me Jeff Grubb expanded the characters when he made Raynor's swearing "Samuel [so and so] on a bike." Raynor would never say that.Quote:
That being said, I'll be the odd man out and say I enjoyed Liberty's crusade. Jeff Grubb seems to get the universe and actually expanded the characters. Duke wasn't a total moron, just a dislikable jackass like in the original game.
It's too late. Someone already mentioned that the DT Saga is responsible for SC2, and so now I'm expecting the worst.Quote:
I think you'll like DT saga, just be aware that Golden isn't the best sci-fi writer, and has to rely on crystals and magic. Go in with that knowledge and you'll have a good time.
It's a masochist adventure!
I actually liked Speed of Darkness. It just had really poorly written narrative, and at no point did I feel like I was with a military unit. Tracy Hickman really should have read some Tom Clancy nonfiction before writing it. Also, the climax of the book happens too soon. Really, the concept was very good, but the execution was poor. Except at the beginnng. The beginning was really good.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Lol. There's nothing to remember about Liberty's Crusade. It adds nothing to the lore besides an annoying OC.Quote:
As for Queen of Blades and Liberty's Crusade, I honestly can't remember a damn thing about the books. Maybe because they blend in so well with the campaign, I kind of meshed them, but, if they were crap or good, I really, honestly can't remember. Weird.
I believe that's what LotV is going to be centred on. It doesn't matter even it is the "best part", the bad writing will mostly screw this aspect over, too. The Protoss portion in WoL may have been the most interesting in terms of sci-fi pulp and is perhaps the most important aspect of Sc2 but it was an absolute dog's mess in how it was written/conveyed such that it made me not want to care about it when I really should have. That is what is most depressing about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
It's easy. There's a tonne of potential and depth in the original lore for me to talk about without even having to go into the expanded universe or Sc2 at all really. If you look at most of my posts regarding "lore", it's usually from the perspective of knowing what was in Sc1 only anyway. Other than that, I tend to harp more on how the things was written, how effectively it's presented than actual lore stuff and how badly it compares to the later stuff. Why do I do this? I guess I just care too much and time to waste waxing lyrical. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Who are you confusing me with? These statements make me think you've never read any of my posts. I've only ever taken the new lore seriously insofar as defining the position on why it is labelled trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Aaaaaaah!!
I just started reading the first DT Saga book, and already it's heavily referencing the weakest SC novel: Shadow of the Xel'Naga. That book disregarded lore, insulted the intelligence of the reader, and had terrible characters and narrative, and it's forming the basis of another story? Who decides these things? For now I'll go along with it....but....terrible choices lead to terrible books.
Oh, and this book needs a new title: "Attack of the Purple Prose." Yeesh.
In economics, we call that a black swan fallacy. It is the most logical and assured inferences which have a habit of biting you in the ass the hardest. This is in reference to ancient Latin philosophers hearing of a "rare black swan in a far off land" and dismissing it as nonsense because they had never seen a white swan. In fact, no European had ever seen a black swan. It wasn't until the colonization of Australia by Europeans that black swans were discovered, an event which, very understandably so, was considered a statistical impossibility because all previously seen swans were white and I'm sure the number of white swan sightings numbered in the millions. So its understandable to assume that were no black swans yet that's only because its impossible to observe all swans. Sounds simple, but when applied to complex institutions in economics it gets much more complicated, but all of that is irrelevant here. All of this is simply to say that, you are making a logical inference from your end, which is fine, but, from my end, I have additional knowledge outside of your experience which changes the nature of your inference. Of course, we're talking about opinions here, not facts, so it gets a bit murky from there. But, you get the point. This is all semantics and basically debating about absolutely nothing.Quote:
I'm making a logical inference based on the books I've read. I'm still willing to let Blizzard change my mind, but it's still a logical inference that I can't expect too much in the way of quality for Starcraft official fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Still not saying you'll enjoy the other books, just saying that, to use an example already in use, judging the original Star Wars movies by the prequels is kind of missing the point, you know? My money's still on you not liking them though. I only read them to begin with because, for one, I was blissfully ignorant of how much better 'real' sci fi was, and two, I was hyped about StarCraft 2. I think the best way to describe my experience with them (much like SC2 itself) is that I barely remember it all. While I find myself day dreaming and analysing the many levels of meaning in books like 'Hyperion', 'Revelation Space', or 'Pandora's Star', I haven't thought about these books since I read them and only revisit them when I need to cite some lore, usually to bitch about. So, don't confuse me with a defender of the books, or the lore, just saying, you've read the worst and it has the potential to get a bit better. But only a bit :D
Sure, trust the guy who's never read the book over the ex-news poster that actually talked with the author. I assure you, Golden, whether or not you like her writing style or not, was not responsible enough for the story arc of the trilogy to be blamed for the lameness of StarCraft 2. You have to blame Blizzard for that and probably more specifically Chris Metzen. In fact, DTS has very little in common with StarCraft 2. We'll have to wait until LotV to even know if its all been retconned or not.Quote:
Someone already mentioned that the DT Saga is responsible for SC2, and so now I'm expecting the worst.
You mean the temples and the energy creature? That lore doesn't come from the book, it's just that the book was meant to flesh it out. Speculating about the meaning of the ending almost ten years before StarCraft 2 was released was the only benefit I got from reading the book.Quote:
just started reading the first DT Saga book, and already it's heavily referencing the weakest SC novel: Shadow of the Xel'Naga.
@Turalyon: You say you ignore most of the new lore and I'll take your word for it. It's quite possible that, since I don't directly take part in the discussions myself much anymore, that I am meshing your posts with someone else's post (such as Shadow Archon or Hawki) and confusing your intentions. However, to be clear, I'm not saying that you enjoy the lore (I can remember at least a dozen posts of you bashing the lore in a way I would), I'm saying that you talk about it, which I just don't understand. Clearly, you recognize it is awful, so why put yourself through it? There's sooooo many excellent sci fi universes to help you forget all about this StarCraft 2 mess that I really think you're doing yourself a disservice by hanging on, unless you've got some attachment to the universe outside of the lore like I've said about Gradius and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
My dear Economist, clearly you are a Sensor. I, however, am an iNtuitive, and frequently intuit things about movies, books, or even people. Basically, I always know if I'll like something or not. Even before reading much about the DT Saga, I knew it was going to have strange lore and a non-Starcraft feel. What I gathered from the other books was simply that Blizzard can't tell the difference between good and bad narrative, and isn't very picky about who they associate with their franchise.
It's sort of like when people say "you can't possibly know if you'll like a guy if you don't go out with him." So very untrue. I don't have to know a guy all that well before knowing he's no good for me, or simply incompatible for whatever reason.
Eh, it's not so much trust as I've been scared off, to some degree. Purely emotional reaction.Quote:
Sure, trust the guy who's never read the book over the ex-news poster that actually talked with the author. I assure you, Golden, whether or not you like her writing style or not, was not responsible enough for the story arc of the trilogy to be blamed for the lameness of StarCraft 2. You have to blame Blizzard for that and probably more specifically Chris Metzen. In fact, DTS has very little in common with StarCraft 2. We'll have to wait until LotV to even know if its all been retconned or not.
What, really? That lore started somewhere else? Where did it come from?Quote:
You mean the temples and the energy creature? That lore doesn't come from the book, it's just that the book was meant to flesh it out. Speculating about the meaning of the ending almost ten years before StarCraft 2 was released was the only benefit I got from reading the book.
What you're doing is more like having a bad dating experience with a basketball player (the starcraft books you've read) and then assuming all basketball players (all the starcraft books you haven't read) are bad for you because the share the common trait of basketball (being in the starcraft universe). You see, in your example, you know very little about the guy except for very superficial traits, kind of like you know very little about the books except what is in the blurb and what you can infer from other books in the universe. You can say it's not worth the risk because the basketball player might hurt you (the book might be bad) but you can't say that the basketball players you haven't dated (the books you haven't read) are bad.Quote:
It's sort of like when people say "you can't possibly know if you'll like a guy if you don't go out with him."
Again, all semantics and arguing about trivial word usages and nuances. We aren't really disagreeing so on to the next.
We're talking here about you taking the word of Turalyon that DTS started some of the problems in SC2. So, emotions have nothing to do with it since we're debating a fact based on the available information. You being understandably scared off is only of relevance to whether you will read the book or not, not whether you believe that Christie Golden single handedly killed StarCraft which requires backing up with facts, not feelings.Quote:
Eh, it's not so much trust as I've been scared off, to some degree. Purely emotional reaction.
Econ, ....what are you even saying? Your second comments make no sense, and it feels like you're attributing an argument to me I'm not participating in. All I'm saying is that someone commented and said that the DT Saga led to SC2. Whether this claim is true or not, the fact that someone would say it does not speak well of the saga. Now can we please drop that topic? You're weirdin' me out.
Would you be a doll and answer the question I asked? It wasn't sarcastic, I really do want to know where the Xel'Naga egg thing came from, if not from Shadow of the Xel'Naga. :P
I made it to page 183 of Firstborn, and well....all of my negativity is justified. Not so much the SC2 comment, but yeah, it's pretty bad. The narrative repeatedly describes already described characters, the author constantly tries to tell the reader how to feel without showing it....I have literally just read an amateur novel that was so much more intriguing than this. And far less creepy. And that novel involved a guy using mental control of a girl to look at her naked.
I'm referring to this statement. Just saying that you can't blame an author who was told what to write for the mistakes of the people in charge of the story development. Other than that, all I said was that the fact that Christie had to constantly change large portions of the book at the whims of Blizzard shows that she was not in control of the story making process enough to be blamed for it.Quote:
Someone already mentioned that the DT Saga is responsible for SC2, and so now I'm expecting the worst.
Probably from a crack pipe or the voices in Metzen's head. I don't know. Like I said, Shadow of the Xel'Naga is the only place I've seen it really attempted to be fleshed out other than some artwork and some early developer comments or something. The first I heard about it was somewhere on infoceptor.net in the early 2000's, before the release of the books, when we were speculating on what it meant for the universe. So that doesn't mean "Gabriel Mesta" created the lore itself as was hinted at when you stated that the book was referencing SOTX and not referencing the lore itself.Quote:
I really do want to know where the Xel'Naga egg thing came from, if not from Shadow of the Xel'Naga. :P
In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that the blame rests on Blizzard, not the authors, who are only responsible for the shitty/bad/mediocre writing, not the stupid story arcs.
I've been trying to drop it for several posts now. You keep coming back to it though.Quote:
Now can we please drop that topic? You're weirdin' me out.
http://www4.in.tum.de/~blanchet/nitp...te-on-pink.png
Economist, in a word.
Hypocrite. How very Khristian of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
I tried to stop it but you kept being like "I'm all iNtuitive and shit! AND OH YEAH BE A DOLL AND LATCH ON AD NAUSEUM TO THIS USELESS ARGUMENT YOU TRIED TO MOVE PAST"
But, I digress. Let's try again on something else. Like, say, I dunno, a book you actually like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
Econ, I love ya, but if you were really interested in dropping a topic, you wouldn't be trying to prove a point like this.
When I asked you to answer the question, it was only for the source of the whole Xel'Nagan energy being thing, it wasn't for anything else.
Are you still mad at me for not liking Neil Patrick Harris?
If you were really interested in dropping a topic, you wouldn't keep bringing it up.Quote:
if you were really interested in dropping a topic, you wouldn't be trying to prove a point like this.
Not sure I can think of a phrase to adequately describe the sheer ataraxia I feel towards the whole thing.Quote:
Are you still mad at me for not liking Neil Patrick Harris?
No need for me to be so polite from now on so feel free to continue to talk to yourself about your beloved nitpickings. On to contemplating the real problems of the world.
*cries*
Oh Econ, I wasn't trying to piss you off. I was just....well, odded out by you making really elaborate, complex posts that didn't seem to have much to do with what I said. I clearly didn't understand what you were saying.
Please understand that anything I said was meant in humor or in the tone we've always been discussing Starcraft things. I don't feel the need to be right, I just don't want to argue with someone who I really think is cool.
Well, that's nice to hear at least.
But, again, let's just move on. What books do you like?
I like.....nothing. Every book ever sucks.
Just kidding. I really love most anything written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as he has great narrative. The Gulag Archipelago is perhaps the 20th century's greatest book. Life after Life by Ray Moody is real good, as it's a doctor's research about what people see when they die but are recussitated by doctors. Ethnic America by Thomas Sowell is pretty good too, as it's a no-holds-barred story of how each ethnicity was treated as they made it to America. Dude, as an economist, you really should read it. It talks about how social circumstance leads to economic perspective, and you'd probably be all over that.
Looks like the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
Well, I'll be a Zerling's uncle. A Thomas Sowell reader. I've read several of his books and have always planned to read more. Mostly his economics books although I did read "Intellectuals and Society" because it came bundled with his book on Marxism. I also read 'The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective' which sounds like basically the same thing as Ethnic America except applied internationally. It goes very in-depth about many groups living as minorities in other groups. Very interesting stuff. But, being the gambling, Economist I am, what I am most impressed by in regards to Thomas Sowell was his predictions in 1975 about what the results of welfare and government intervention would be on blacks and minorities. He was spot on to the letter but, of course, was called an Uncle Tom and what not (and still is). I never ceases to amaze me how the people who are able to predict events far into the future (thereby proving their superior knowledge) are ignored because the truth is so harsh. But, alas, such is human nature.
I could go on and on about Thomas Sowell, and I probably will, but its getting late here, I wake up at 5 am now, so it's time to sleep :D
Well, Thomas Sowell is good. Looking at what you listed, I don't think you need to read Ethnic America if you don't want to. It came out in the early eighties, so you may have already read a more updated book.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
@Gradius. Dude, man, don't even get me started. You can't say that at all. Firstborn has awful narrative, the kind that explains motivations instead of showing them, uses overly fancy words, makes the golden ratio something mystic and important, and has Protoss characters rejoicing over drawing in the dirt. They are literally celebrating as though the Xel'Naga themselves had come down and blessed them, as they scrawl pictures of themselves in sand. "This is water! This is me!" I'm not joking.
To the book's credit, it actually has a storyline. One thing does lead to another, and when the book isn't on flashbacks that make Protoss look like idiots, I actually care what happens next.
In short, the book is enjoyably stupid.
This is a pretty vague and meaningless critique. I can say that about almost any novel. I'm serious. Pick one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
lol, like what?Quote:
uses overly fancy words
It is kind of important. :PQuote:
makes the golden ratio something mystic and important
It's also not surprising that an alien race might value something like this more than humans would. I appreciate the attempt at verisimilitude.
I thought it was a nice touch. Writing has the potential to transform civilizations, and they saw that.Quote:
and has Protoss characters rejoicing over drawing in the dirt. They are literally celebrating as though the Xel'Naga themselves had come down and blessed them, as they scrawl pictures of themselves in sand. "This is water! This is me!" I'm not joking.
I invite you to play SC2, because Firstborn doesn't come close to the stupidity the protoss have to trudge through in the actual games.Quote:
flashbacks that make Protoss look like idiots
Basically, Protoss are now the comic relief of SC instead of the terrans.
See, you might enjoy it if you don't let bias get in the way. :)Quote:
To the book's credit, it actually has a storyline. One thing does lead to another, and when the book isn't on flashbacks that make Protoss look like idiots, I actually care what happens next.
In short, the book is enjoyably stupid.
I'm just saying, all you talked about here was how you're going to hate the book. Now, it turns out you hate the book. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Anyone? Anyone?
Sorry for derailing. Thought Eco deserved a response to his earlier statement.
That's what I thought. I spent most of my time trying to balance out their bias that the new lore was "good". It was partly to try and give them another perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
I only discuss Sc2 in terms of it's presentation of its lore, how it's written and not really about the lore per se. I can see how they can be conceived of as being the same thing but really, that's the difference for me. The lore itself I can take it or leave it as being part of the conceit of the genre. You'd find that when people start talking about the entrenched hardcore lore aspects like the Xel'Naga cycle stuff, energy beings and all that minutiae in the EU and Sc2 (you know, the stuff that'd make even the initiated eye-roll in it actual inanity), I pretty much shut down, say "Is that so?" and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
I enjoy the original lore and that is what I mostly talk about (eg: the Overmind as conceived originally, the vagaries of Protoss society etc.). However, I admit that I do suffer from a clear case of First Installment Wins bias. I try not to make generalisations about the new lore but I sometimes get caught out making snide remarks about it only for them to be taken seriously. I don't generally pile on the hate like most "haters". I prefer to make light of it, that way, I can at least get some modicum of enjoyment out of it.
Also, the difference between now and then is that the original did not really need to lean so heavily on the lore to tell a capable and compelling story whereas everything in later iterations has steadily built up this reliance on lore gimmickry in order to sell this compulsion. The open nature of the lore in the original Sc is what still keeps me talking about it even after more than a decade.
I'm here to offer an opinion. I don't expect anything else beyond others offering their opinions and then comparing them. I'm also looking for a "defenders" opinion that is as well considered, reasoned and defensible as the "hater's" arguments. It's actually a pretty low investment for me at any rate such that I down feel like I'm putting myself through anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
This could not be more true. I used to be in awe of the awesome mysteries of the Protoss. Now, I just shake my head. Even when the Protoss were being dumb, like with Aldaris, there was reasoning, even if extreme hard-headedness, behind. Now it's all incompetence. I used to always joke that, if the game were realistic, the Protoss would have annihilated everyone because of their technology and the superiority that implies. Blizzard seemed to have taken that to heart. Instead of holding them back by their own stubborness or other more meaningful developments, they just decided to make them incompetent. I mean, seriously, what in the fuck was with that Protoss ship infiltration mission in HotS. If that's all it takes to take Protoss out then without the obligatory deus ex machina which I'm sure will come just in the nick of time, they're fucked.Quote:
Basically, Protoss are now the comic relief of SC instead of the terrans.
I am shocked, shocked to find that negativity is going on in here.Quote:
I'm just saying, all you talked about here was how you're going to hate the book. Now, it turns out you hate the book. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Anyone? Anyone?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EfUAFljXsF...ed+shocked.png
As for the rest, I'm going to have to side with Gradius here. It does seem like your problems with the book are coming from the perspective of someone looking for problems. I actually enjoyed the dig portions, the golden mean connections, and the flashbacks. The golden mean ratio thing in particular I don't understand. The Protoss are "religious" so I'm sure the Xel'Naga had certain "religious" qualities to them as well (you know, whole maker/creation relationship, although I'm not going to bother to think about what the retcons have changed about that). And since pretty much all religions can be broken down into attaching mystical attributes to what would otherwise be fairly mundane or ordinary (meditation/prayer). The golden mean is something found through out nature and it would mae sense that the architects of species would know of and cherish it since nature itself cherishes it and the Xel'Naga are attempting to surpass nature.
Either way, I think things like that just show how much better StarCraft 2 would have been if it were a bit more like DTS. You get NOTHING with even that much thought put into it in StarCraft 2. Little things like that that make you think about the larger picture of life are what makes complex sci fi great. StarCraft used to have it, but it was all retconned for some stupid shit.
Y'all are mean. *waaah*
Nah, but seriously, it's pretty meh. I did finish it last night, and the ending is much better than the beginning and middle. Though it was pretty stupid that humans, having no nerve cords, can experience the Khala. After all, that's why the DT cut theirs off, right?
If there's an explanation for that in the later books, don't tell me. I don't want to be spoiled.
No, it's not. It's actually very specific. I guess I could have made my point a little more clear, but I'm saving any hard critique for it from my blog. Basically what I was saying is that this book is a huge violator of the term "show, don't tell." For example, Rosemary's toughness is repeated over and over again by the general narrative -- not by dialogue, or by actions, but by the writer putting on the page something like "she was very, very deadly".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
Well, keep in mind I don't necessarily mean forty dollar words (except in a couple of cases), but rather that Golden tries way too hard to be fancy and elaborate, making everything feel melodramatic. Like the entire prologue, for example, is so filled with purple prose that there's literally no real way of know what any of it means. It could have been cut from the book entirely.Quote:
lol, like what?
I'll post a link to my blog later if you really want to see when I get into the narrative. All will become clear then, and it's difficult to explain my point without examples.
...I just realized that this book goes nuts on the golden ratio, and the author's last name is Golden. Coincidence?
Um, no. I mean, sure, if it were simply the password to open that door in the crystal structure, that would be fine. A bit too mystic for something as simple as math, but fine. But that everything in the universe corresponds to the Fibonacci sequence, and that's the most beautiful thing ever? They make it the secret of the universe, when really there's a lot in nature that doesn't conform to the golden ratio. It feels really stupid that someone would flip out about math that way, and it makes the Khala feel overly simplistic.Quote:
It is kind of important. :P
It's also not surprising that an alien race might value something like this more than humans would. I appreciate the attempt at verisimilitude.
Again, if this gets explained later, don't spoil it for me. I just think it's really dumb that all life is explained by a sequence of numbers.
You're on crack, you know that? ;)Quote:
I thought it was a nice touch. Writing has the potential to transform civilizations, and they saw that.
For one, writing doesn't equal drawing oneself in the dirt. For another, it was really creepy that one would be "piss yourself" excited over a simple drawing. The Protoss would have to be complete idiots not to know that it's possible to draw, unless the Xel'Naga created their "perfect race" to be stupid. They are literally freaking out over something a five year old can do.
*throws a yellow flag* Personal foul, offense! You can't defend a book by saying something else is dumber than it. There are a lot of books dumber than Firstborn, but that doesn't mean Firstborn gets a pass. Yes, the games are dumb, but that doesn't give anything else a right to be. That's like saying "oh, SC2 was dumb, so we can get away with making a spin-off sequel game that's equally dumb."Quote:
I invite you to play SC2, because Firstborn doesn't come close to the stupidity the protoss have to trudge through in the actual games.
Basically, Protoss are now the comic relief of SC instead of the terrans.
And come on, making any race comic relief is too silly for serious science fiction. And it's arguable that the Terrans were actually comic relief, besides a few cutscenes in original Starcraft that had little to do with the overall plot. Basically, some of the Terrans were, not all.
It wasn't bias. It was just a bad impression, made by the other books, knowledge of Blizzard slipping, and my own intuition. Golden had every opportunity to change my mind, and she did a good job at the end of the book. Also, keep in mind that pointing out errors doesn't mean I didn't enjoy a book, or that I thought this was the worst book ever. In short, I don't hate the book.Quote:
See, you might enjoy it if you don't let bias get in the way. :)
I'm just saying, all you talked about here was how you're going to hate the book. Now, it turns out you hate the book. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Anyone? Anyone?
I don't think you really understand "show, don't tell". It's a guideline and writing choice, not some infallible law that turns a book into pure shit if it's broken. Telling can be useful, and even necessary at times. Really, it's only a problem when you get the "As you know Johnson" dialogs of people repeating what they already know for the audiences' benefit. But that's not what you see in the DT Saga; you see characters remark on things from their own perspective, and every single novel does that. Take the Nova book that you love for example; almost every other passage has the author telling us how strong Nova is or how her life went to shit. Pick another novel. I'll be happy to point out how it violated this mantra.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
That's true. But if you want to fire a writer for using colorful and empty jargon, then fire whoever wrote Zeratul's monologue in SC1:Quote:
Well, keep in mind I don't necessarily mean forty dollar words (except in a couple of cases), but rather that Golden tries way too hard to be fancy and elaborate, making everything feel melodramatic. Like the entire prologue, for example, is so filled with purple prose that there's literally no real way of know what any of it means. It could have been cut from the book entirely.
I'll post a link to my blog later if you really want to see when I get into the narrative. All will become clear then, and it's difficult to explain my point without examples.
"I have journeyed through the darkness between the most distant stars. I have beheld the births of negative-suns and borne witness to the entropy of entire realities.."
Negative suns? What the hell does that even mean? Personally, I enjoy it in both cases. One of the few ways to give flavor to an unknowable and enigmatic superior alien race. But that's just me.
Yeah....I'm pretty sure you might be exaggerating things a bit here.Quote:
Um, no. I mean, sure, if it were simply the password to open that door in the crystal structure, that would be fine. A bit too mystic for something as simple as math, but fine. But that everything in the universe corresponds to the Fibonacci sequence, and that's the most beautiful thing ever? They make it the secret of the universe, when really there's a lot in nature that doesn't conform to the golden ratio. It feels really stupid that someone would flip out about math that way, and it makes the Khala feel overly simplistic.
Again, if this gets explained later, don't spoil it for me. I just think it's really dumb that all life is explained by a sequence of numbers.
The protoss are in the middle of a cataclysmic war with cavemen levels of technology where entire generations get slaughtered wholesale. So no, it's clearly not obvious to them that they can draw.Quote:
You're on crack, you know that? ;)
For one, writing doesn't equal drawing oneself in the dirt. For another, it was really creepy that one would be "piss yourself" excited over a simple drawing. The Protoss would have to be complete idiots not to know that it's possible to draw, unless the Xel'Naga created their "perfect race" to be stupid. They are literally freaking out over something a five year old can do.
Modern humans have existed for 200000+ years. The earliest caveman drawings are 30000 years old. Are humans idiots by definition as well?
What can I say. I got "enthusiastic" or "eager" out of the book not "piss yourself excited". I think this is another case of you projecting your pre-conceived biases onto the book.Quote:
For another, it was really creepy that one would be "piss yourself" excited over a simple drawing.
The point is that your evidence has been pretty lacking. I mean, your argument basically boils down to "the protoss figured out drawing/writing. Therefore they are idiots." That makes no sense. You get that this was a flashback to when the protoss were at a stone age level, yes?Quote:
*throws a yellow flag* Personal foul, offense! You can't defend a book by saying something else is dumber than it. There are a lot of books dumber than Firstborn, but that doesn't mean Firstborn gets a pass. Yes, the games are dumb, but that doesn't give anything else a right to be. That's like saying "oh, SC2 was dumb, so we can get away with making a spin-off sequel game that's equally dumb."
And honestly, yes, you do kind of have to consider the medium here. EU material for SC isn't exactly known for its literary excellence, and nothing will ever be as bad as Shadow of the Xel'Naga. I guess I'm saying that my standards have been sufficiently lowered.
Ah, your standards are lower. That explains a lot. :D
Nah, the human race isn't that old. That concludes my taking of the bait.
Look, dude, the narrative really is bad at the beginning, particularly the prologue. At the ending it gets better, because it's more present tense, more oriented towards what is happening than overexplaining things. Look, if you like the plot so much the narrative doesn't bother you, that's cool. But you can't tell me that the prologue was anything other than purple prose, useless to the overall story.
Yeah can't you tell? I'm reading SC novels like SCG Nova. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
Uh huh... :$Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
So was Zeratul's monologue in SC1. I'm not sure you actually understand the difference between a bad story and an aesthetic choice:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissa
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PurpleProse
"Bear in mind that Tropes Are Tools. Some of the examples below are intentional: the Purple Prose is a stylistic choice, a comedic turn or in aid of characterisation."