Starcraft II Cheesy? The Original Isn't Exactly Shakespeare.

I want to get this off my chest, because I'm still seeing people (not just here) complaining about SC2's story. It's cliched, it's cheesy, characterization is bad, etc.

I don't deny, the sequel has problems in all these areas. But to quote the topic title - the original game wasn't exactly Shakespeare, either.

Cheesy sterotypes and cliches? Two words - Terran Confederacy. So southern even Texas thinks they need to tone it down. Bad writing? The Confederacy lets the zerg infest their worlds and pretty much does nothing to stop it. Characterization? I guess Raynor *really* hated the Confederates, because all it takes is a one-mission break and maybe three days to take him from Marshall to rebel gunning down Confederate troops. And of course Kerrigan and Raynor share about three conversations, yet even in the original game and Brood War their apparent love is a crux of the plot.

The zerg campaign is fine, though I will bring up - we never find out why it is only dark templar can kill cerebrates. How does reincarnation work, anyway?

I will note at this point that my version of the original Starcraft was a jewel case with no manual of any sort, so I had no idea what the dark templar are, how protoss society worked, or anything of the sort. And ho boy, with that in mind, let us take a moment to reflect the awful writing of the protoss campaign. Shall we discuss that half the campaign consists of a civil war when their homeworld is in the middle of a zerg invasion? How about the very expository and telly dialogue Aldaris and Tassadar spout? "I know you were reluctant to leave Aiur in this dark hour, and that you still grieve for the loss of your comrade Fenix." Sure, if you say so, I mean he was cool, but I'm not exactly in mourning for a guy I've known for three missions. "The Judicator have long since steered the actions of the Templar to their own ends. It's time we acted of our own accord!" Again, if you say so. Do I even need to be here? It occurs to me I don't actually get a choice in this, in the first two campaigns you're just along for the ride doing as you're told, but apparently we suddenly have autonomy forced on us and must pick a side. Or rather, are told which side we pick. What if I the player don't trust Tassadar and want to arrest him? NO YOU DON'T, THE NARRATIVE SAYS YOU HELP HIM!

On to Brood War. Let's start with the retcon "the dark templar haven't been nomads for centuries, we totally have a homeworld," and "oh yeah, this super awesome crystal is on Char, it's really powerful and stuff, which is why not one person mentioned it in the base game." And of course Aldaris' rebellion, I don't need to go into detail there, because no one can defend that plot point as anything other than idiocy.

The UED campaign. Why is Stukov only the vice-admiral when DuGalle has his head up his own ass and makes one terrible decision after the other? Destroy the Psi Disruptor, let's make sure the only thing Mengsk can do is nuke us and then not have any defenses ready. Stukov's death, again, no one can defend that plot point as not being stupid. By the way, remember those 18 battlecruisers we steal in the second mission? I do, they sure would have come in handy in the rest of the campaign. I'll take even a token reference to them because without one that mission was a waste of our time in-universe and out.

Episode VI... really, the plot of Brood War as a whole can be summed up as "everyone except Kerrigan, Duran, and to a lesser extent Stukov, acts like an idiot." Everyone trusts Kerrigan or allows her to manipulate them, inevitably and predictably she betrays them, and because of it she rises to the top. Oh, and if we're gonna mention cheesy and cliched dialogue, I'd be remiss to leave out these gems of Kerrigan's. "They're siding with the evil they know over the evil they don't... They simply don't yet realize what it will cost them." After that Kerrigan holds her pinkie finger up to her mouth and laughs evilly. "Not all of your little soldiers or space ships will stand in my way again." I'll get you, DuGalle, and your little fleet, too!

And let's be honest - does anyone really think Blizzard had this hybrid-Duran stuff planned 10 years ago? Dark Origin was basically there to be cool and mysterious, but there isn't any substance to it when you think about it on its own. Ooooo, there are hybrids and they're evil because... Zeratul says so. Bad things, bad hybrid, ew. And this mysterious character who works for a higher power is behind them, because... I guess he was bored and they didn't have video games in the K-Sector.

I'm not just ranting, it'd be nice if someone can explain to me why these problems are overlooked in the original game but make people angry at the sequel. I love the sequel and original game fine, but the sequel's problems have been present sine Day 1. I guess the original gets a pass thanks to nostalgia goggles? Both the sequel and original have their moments of bad writing, cheesy dialogue, and dumb characters, but also have a lot of humor, fun, and epicness. So, what's up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

I want to get this off my chest, because I'm still seeing people (not just here) complaining about SC2's story. It's cliched, it's cheesy, characterization is bad, etc.

I don't deny, the sequel has problems in all these areas. But to quote the topic title - the original game wasn't exactly Shakespeare, either.

---

It's still better than SC2.

Quote:

---

Two words - Terran Confederacy. So southern even Texas thinks they need to tone it down.

---

It served to add to the ramshackle atmosphere that made the Terrans so unique, yet insignificant when compared to the zerg or protoss. More importantly, it didn't try to pretend to be anything other than what it was, unlike Raynor's speech in Wings of Liberty that tries so hard to be epic yet comes off as completely cheeseball due to the writing and sunlight streaming in through the clouds. The lack of self-awareness is just one of SC2's many problems.

Quote:

---

Bad writing? The Confederacy lets the zerg infest their worlds and pretty much does nothing to stop it.

---

Explained in the game:

Arcturus Mengsk
The Confederacy used these Psi Emitters to lure the Zerg into isolated containment areas. Your colony-Mar Sara-Commander, was one such location.

Jim Raynor
What are you saying?

Arcturus Mengsk
I'm saying the Zerg are a secret weapon developed by the Confederacy. I'm saying you were all subjects of a Confederate weapons test.

In SC1, Mar Sara wasn't an important Confederate core world. It was an insignificant fringe colony, which Duke seemed to despise because they didn't know where their loyalties lie.

Quote:

---

Characterization? I guess Raynor *really* hated the Confederates, because all it takes is a one-mission break and maybe three days to take him from Marshall to rebel gunning down Confederate troops.

---

He was arrested and the game made it clear the Confederates weren't putting in their maximum effort to save civilians.

Quote:

---

And of course Kerrigan and Raynor share about three conversations, yet even in the original game and Brood War their apparent love is a crux of the plot.

---

Not for me.

Their few flirting lines only served to cement their camaraderie and pour salt on the wound when Kerrigan was infested, which was made even more raw when Raynor promised to kill her at the end of BW. She's a disgusting bug monster and mass murderer. I see no love story here. :$

Quote:

---

The zerg campaign is fine, though I will bring up - we never find out why it is only dark templar can kill cerebrates. How does reincarnation work, anyway?

---

"For the Protoss who murdered Zasz are unlike anything we have faced before. These Dark Templar radiate energies that are much like my own, and it is by these energies that they have caused me harm."

Quote:

---

I will note at this point that my version of the original Starcraft was a jewel case with no manual of any sort, so I had no idea what the dark templar are, how protoss society worked, or anything of the sort.

---

So what? For all we know you bought a disk at a garage sale.

Where's SC2's manual? Oh right, it doesn't have one. :P

With Blizzard's massive resources now compared to 1999, you'd think there'd be a giant book that ships with each copy of the game. Instead we get...nothing! :o

Quote:

---

Shall we discuss that half the campaign consists of a civil war when their homeworld is in the middle of a zerg invasion?

---

That's kind of the point. Literally every character realizes this.

How does this compare to any of the problems in SC2? There are no characters that actually acknowledge the flaws in the game. Tychus never says "Oh shit, I hope Mengsk doesn't mind that I'm embarassing him on his own homeworld and kills me with the kill-switch that I have in my suit."

Quote:

---

How about the very expository and telly dialogue Aldaris and Tassadar spout? "I know you were reluctant to leave Aiur in this dark hour, and that you still grieve for the loss of your comrade Fenix." Sure, if you say so, I mean he was cool, but I'm not exactly in mourning for a guy I've known for three missions.

---

You're playing as another character. It hints at hidden depths.

Quote:

---

"The Judicator have long since steered the actions of the Templar to their own ends. It's time we acted of our own accord!" Again, if you say so. Do I even need to be here? It occurs to me I don't actually get a choice in this, in the first two campaigns you're just along for the ride doing as you're told, but apparently we suddenly have autonomy forced on us and must pick a side. Or rather, are told which side we pick. What if I the player don't trust Tassadar and want to arrest him? NO YOU DON'T, THE NARRATIVE SAYS YOU HELP HIM!

---

"You're playing as another character."

SC2 does the same exact thing. I don't want to work with Valerian. I don't want to trust Tychus, etc. SC2 is worse in fact, because while in 1999 we didn't have the luxury of branching missions with different narratives, in 2010, not only do we have that, but when Blizzard tried to implement it, reality itself shifted so that Raynor could do no wrong and the plot went where the writers wanted anyway. Side with the Protoss on Haven? Whoa, the entire planet is infested with zerg. Side with Hanson? Hey, it turns out nobody's infested except a few guys in cages in the back of our base.

Quote:

---

On to Brood War. Let's start with the retcon "the dark templar haven't been nomads for centuries, we totally have a homeworld,"

---

How is that a retcon? It's inconceivable that they'd have warp blade technology and space travel without some sort of center of civilization. What do you think they do, just miracle their amazing technology into existence?

Quote:

---

and "oh yeah, this super awesome crystal is on Char, it's really powerful and stuff, which is why not one person mentioned it in the base game."

---

It's actually worthless without the xel'naga temple, but ok.

Quote:

---

And of course Aldaris' rebellion, I don't need to go into detail there, because no one can defend that plot point as anything other than idiocy.

---

It's stupid for sure, and yet we can easily see why a bigot who has been trained to hate an entire group of people his entire life is going to do something extreme when presented with evidence that he thinks confirms his lifelong beliefs. Especially after giving a sincere effort to change the first time around.

Compare this to SC2 where every character just loses 50 IQ points, like Mengsk using the most ineffective double agent in the universe, or failing to deny easily-faked evidence. We can discuss Aldaris's psychology all day long. But there's nothing to discuss in SC2 other than how bad the writing is. That's what all SC lore discussion has devolved into these days, which is sad, but there's a reason for that.

Quote:

---

Destroy the Psi Disruptor, let's make sure the only thing Mengsk can do is nuke us and then not have any defenses ready.

---

"Though we know how to compensate for Mengsk's defenses, we don't have enough time to follow through on them both. "

Quote:

---

Stukov's death, again, no one can defend that plot point as not being stupid.

---

It's a valid point, and yet Duran's infested voice change implies to players that are paying attention that something more is going on here than just stupidity. Now, it's still bad writing because the casual audience member isn't going to notice something like that, yet the attention to detail here far surpasses the blatant laziness prevalent in all of SC2.

Quote:

---

I do, they sure would have come in handy in the rest of the campaign. I'll take even a token reference to them because without one that mission was a waste of our time in-universe and out.

---

Cinematic of Char with the fleet of battlecruisers?

Quote:

---

Episode VI... really, the plot of Brood War as a whole can be summed up as "everyone except Kerrigan, Duran, and to a lesser extent Stukov, acts like an idiot." Everyone trusts Kerrigan or allows her to manipulate them, inevitably and predictably she betrays them, and because of it she rises to the top.

---

Again, not a secret to any character in the game:

"Fenix
Now that the Psi Disrupter has been destroyed and Kerrigan has regained control of her minions, I fear that she will forget our pact and turn on us.

Jim Raynor
I know what you mean, Fenix. I'd love to believe that she's on the level, but there's a part of me that just knows better. However, I do believe that she's serious about taking out the UED. The only real question left is what happens to us when she wins.

Arcturus Mengsk
If you ask me, she's completely untrustworthy. But, so long as she'll help me retake Korhal, I'll work with her."

"Samir Duran
Do you think they suspect anything, my Queen?

Infested Kerrigan
Of course. They aren't stupid, Duran. "

It's made patently obvious that they're only working with her because they have no choice. The critique is still valid, but not to that large of a degree. The biggest offenders are Zeratul letting her leave Shakuras after she tells him her evil plan, and the UED not fortifying the psi disruptor after she tells them her plan to destroy it. That's some Azmodan-level failure right there. But the other characters? No. What the hell were they supposed to do?

Quote:

---

Oh, and if we're gonna mention cheesy and cliched dialogue, I'd be remiss to leave out these gems of Kerrigan's. "They're siding with the evil they know over the evil they don't... They simply don't yet realize what it will cost them." After that Kerrigan holds her pinkie finger up to her mouth and laughs evilly. "Not all of your little soldiers or space ships will stand in my way again." I'll get you, DuGalle, and your little fleet, too!

---

Kerrigan's sarcastic wit was the best thing about her. It's what made this line in HoTS awesome and not cheesy: "Nice quote Arcturus. I'll have it engraved on your tombstone."

Those lines aren't that cheesy. If I had time I'd find quotes on par if not worse from HoTS.

Quote:

---

And let's be honest - does anyone really think Blizzard had this hybrid-Duran stuff planned 10 years ago? Dark Origin was basically there to be cool and mysterious, but there isn't any substance to it when you think about it on its own. Ooooo, there are hybrids and they're evil because... Zeratul says so. Bad things, bad hybrid, ew. And this mysterious character who works for a higher power is behind them, because... I guess he was bored and they didn't have video games in the K-Sector.

---

Before SC2 came out, there were dozens of permutations floating around the forums of Duran and Hybrid storylines that didn't involved Lord Voldemort killing everyone for no apparent reason so that he can clone himself. Granted, the original idea didn't have much mileage to it, but they picked a god-awful storyline for it with the least amount of intelligent sci-fi as possible.

Quote:

---

I'm not just ranting, it'd be nice if someone can explain to me why these problems are overlooked in the original game but make people angry at the sequel. I love the sequel and original game fine, but the sequel's problems have been present sine Day 1.

---

It's the magnitude and severity of the flaws in SC2 which severely outweigh those in SC1. Nobody is overlooking anything. BW was a worse product because the co-writer for SC1 (James Phinney) didn't work on it, and Metzen isn't actually that great of a storyteller.

These articles go into further depth about SC2's failures:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/374721415#1
https://starcraftiitroubles.wordpress.com/
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8198642155
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/10160956386

Quote:

---

I guess the original gets a pass thanks to nostalgia goggles?

---

Nope. I can watch a Saturday morning cartoon that I'm nostalgic for and recognize the crap writing behind it. Just like how I replayed SC1BW in Mass Recall a few months ago and it's still decent, whereas SC2 is still shit.

When somebody critiques a Transformers film for the terrible story, I'm not going to gloss over flaws just because I happen to enjoy those movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Arcturus Mengsk
The Confederacy used these Psi Emitters to lure the Zerg into isolated containment areas. Your colony-Mar Sara-Commander, was one such location.

Jim Raynor
What are you saying?

Arcturus Mengsk
I'm saying the Zerg are a secret weapon developed by the Confederacy. I'm saying you were all subjects of a Confederate weapons test.

In SC1, Mar Sara wasn't an important Confederate core world. It was an insignificant fringe colony, which Duke seemed to despise because they didn't know where their loyalties lie.

---

Mengsk also said the Confederates are breeding the zerg. I presumed he was lying about the use of the emitters to make them angrier so they'd go along with his plans a while longer.

Quote:

---

Their few flirting lines only served to cement their camaraderie and pour salt on the wound when Kerrigan was infested, which was made even more raw when Raynor promised to kill her at the end of BW. She's a disgusting bug monster and mass murderer. I see no love story here. :$

---

Their romance is the major reason Raynor defects and later allies with Kerrigan.

"Dammit! I shouldn't have let her go alone."

Quote:

---

"For the Protoss who murdered Zasz are unlike anything we have faced before. These Dark Templar radiate energies that are much like my own, and it is by these energies that they have caused me harm."

---

Yeah, but that's not an explanation. That's "it's magic/psionics, we don't have to explain it."

Quote:

---

So what? For all we know you bought a disk at a garage sale.

Where's SC2's manual? Oh right, it doesn't have one. :P

---

So far it hasn't needed one. Having read the DT Saga, most of the stuff it talks about is actually irrelevant to SC2. I'm just making the manual comment to explain how badly the protoss campaign is written that, without prior knowledge of the lore, it makes no sense.

Quote:

---

That's kind of the point. Literally every character realizes this.

---

To borrow a quote, "acknowledging your plot is cliched and stupid doesn't change the fact your plot is cliched and stupid."

Quote:

---

SC2 does the same exact thing. I don't want to work with Valerian. I don't want to trust Tychus, etc. SC2 is worse in fact, because while in 1999 we didn't have the luxury of branching missions with different narratives, in 2010, not only do we have that, but when Blizzard tried to implement it, reality itself shifted so that Raynor could do no wrong and the plot went where the writers wanted anyway. Side with the Protoss on Haven? Whoa, the entire planet is infested with zerg. Side with Hanson? Hey, it turns out nobody's infested except a few guys in cages in the back of our base.

---

Okay, but that's the difference. SC1 puts you into the story, and then gives you no control over it. SC2 dispenses with that pretense. You are not the character in the story, you are just experiencing the story through someone else's eyes. No one talks to you or addresses you, they talk to Raynor or Kerrigan or Artanis. Your decisions are a non-entity because you are a non-entity. The original game tried to do it halfway and it doesn't work.

Quote:

---

It's actually worthless without the xel'naga temple, but ok.

---

It's an important protoss artifact on a zerg world. I'd think retrieving it is important, especially if the dark templar know all along what it is for. Did Raszagal just never tell Zeratul about the crystals, so he saw this thing and didn't recognize its significance? I guess not, because he says in BW that when he was first on Char, he recognized it.

Quote:

---

It's stupid for sure, and yet we can easily see why a bigot who has been trained to hate an entire group of people his entire life is going to do something extreme when presented with evidence that he thinks confirms his lifelong beliefs. Especially after giving a sincere effort to change the first time around.

---

Nope. Aldaris didn't trust Kerrigan, but while they were gone he found out Raszagal was controlled by Kerrigan. Did he attempt to tell Artanis or Zeratul this before Kerrigan stuck a claw in his back? Nope, he chooses to spend the mission taunting you. Even if they wouldn't believe him, tell them so at least they know!

Quote:

---

"Though we know how to compensate for Mengsk's defenses, we don't have enough time to follow through on them both.

---

Literally four marines and a comsat station could have stopped the ghosts. I think the UED could have made a better effort. Once the ghosts were actually nuking, those nifty reinforcements sure arrived pretty quick... and without detection. Oops.

Quote:

---

Cinematic of Char with the fleet of battlecruisers?

---

And where were they in the UED's campaign?

I can solve this problem in one line of dialogue.

"Captain, our battlecruiser fleet are holding orbit over Korhal to prevent any Dominion reinforcements from interfering, and our planetside troops are ready to begin our invasion of the Dominion."

Boom.

Quote:

---

Again, not a secret to any character in the game

---

Again, "acknowledging your plot is cliched and stupid doesn't change the fact your plot is cliched and stupid."

Quote:

---

It's made patently obvious that they're only working with her because they have no choice... But the other characters? No. What the hell were they supposed to do?

---

Mengsk? Well, let's see, without Raynor and Fenix, he would be sitting in a cell. That aside, he called in a bunch of "favors" to rally a fleet to attack Kerrigan at the end of Brood War.

As for Raynor and Fenix, they should head to Shakuras. Apparently they can fly to Korhal, and don't tell me they don't know where Shakuras is, the warp gate probably has the coordinates, and even if not they use the warp gate later on to flee Aiur. They could use it to send one damn zealot to Shakuras, tell the protoss what's going on with the UED, and then come back with coordinates for the planet's location so Raynor and Fenix can take the long way there in the Hyperion.

Remember also, the alliance happened during the Korhal invasion, possibly beforehand given the time frame. Kerrigan approached them first, and they accepted her deal long before the UED took control of the Overmind. That's a conversation I'd like to see - Kerrigan convincing Raynor and Fenix to ally with her and rescue Mengsk when they have no reason at the time to do either of those things.

Quote:

---

It's the magnitude and severity of the flaws in SC2 which severely outweigh those in SC1. Nobody is overlooking anything.

---

Except they are. I see it everywhere, "the original Starcraft's story was so awesome, SC2's sucks." If it is just the point "the original game was cheesy, but SC2 overdoes it," I would actually agree with that, because that's my opinion in a nutshell. I enjoy both games, but oh yes, SC2 is not as good story-wise as SC1. It is more cliched and cheesier, but the original game had the same problems. But I don't see anyone say "man this series got too cheesy," I see people praise the original game's plot and hate the sequel's. They're not that far apart.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...iseOriginalSin

Such long replies. I'll read them after I do dishes, but for now I'll just say that yes, SC2 was super cheesy. While SC1 wasn't perfect, you don't have to be perfect to be better than the cheesefest of SC2.

The main reason is tension. In Starcraft 1, the tension constantly rose. You had the Protoss blasting planets, the Zerg showing up, the Confederacy turning out bad, Mengsk turning out bad, Kerrigan becoming a Zerg, Aiur being invaded, etc. The tension just kept going up and making things exciting.

In SC2, Mengsk is a bland baby, the Tal'darim are a joke, the Protoss are almost absent (LotV aside), Kerrigan being more melodramatic than deadly, Mengsk dies, etc. Simply put, there's nothing to fear in SC2. There's no stakes. And stakes made all the difference.

Okay, so I'm not quite sure I want to dive right into a debate between you two, particularly since Gradius should be the one to support his own arguments -- I don't want to speak for him. However, I do have some things to comment on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Mengsk also said the Confederates are breeding the zerg. I presumed he was lying about the use of the emitters to make them angrier so they'd go along with his plans a while longer.

---

It is entirely possible that the Confederates were breeding the Zerg. They were using the outer colonies (such as Mar Sara) for experimentation on what the Zerg were capable of. Also, there is a mission in SC1 where Raynor infiltrates a Confederate facility and finds Zerg being contained there. While Mengsk is an unreliable source of information, the best liars always try to use the truth for their own ends rather than lie outright. Given how dirty the Confeds were, it would be easy for Mengsk to simply take advantage of their immorality.

That, and as I recall, the line was "...they may even be breeding the things." Hence, it's more of a supposition on Mengsk's part rather than a direct statement.

Quote:

---

Their romance is the major reason Raynor defects and later allies with Kerrigan.

"Dammit! I shouldn't have let her go alone."

---

That only establishes that Raynor cared about her, not that he had romantic feelings for her. Raynor would have done the same for a war buddy as well, and it was his respect for her as a soldier that allowed him to stay away -- if he were really in love with her, he would not have been capable of leaving her there. That, and Glynnis Campbell, the original Kerrigan voice, denied romance between the two.

Quote:

---

So far it hasn't needed one. Having read the DT Saga, most of the stuff it talks about is actually irrelevant to SC2. I'm just making the manual comment to explain how badly the protoss campaign is written that, without prior knowledge of the lore, it makes no sense.

---

Please don't use the DT Saga as a source. Besides being poorly written, it also retcons much of Protoss lore. For example, the writings that Khas found (as described in the SC1 manual) were turned into magical crystals that he touched. The manual also claimed that Khas' original name was lost to time, and yet the DT Saga has a preserver remember his "real" name, Savassan. And even if the book were well-written and not retcon heavy, it was clearly never intended to be a manual for the SC2 game.

That, and there's nothing wrong with a game having world details in the manual. It surprises me that you say the Protoss campaign makes no sense. How confusing can it be? One faction has long since exiled another from their world, and one Templar ends up trying to unite the two. It's a pretty basic story.

Quote:

---

Okay, but that's the difference. SC1 puts you into the story, and then gives you no control over it. SC2 dispenses with that pretense. You are not the character in the story, you are just experiencing the story through someone else's eyes. No one talks to you or addresses you, they talk to Raynor or Kerrigan or Artanis. Your decisions are a non-entity because you are a non-entity. The original game tried to do it halfway and it doesn't work.

---

Funny, I thought the first game worked just fine with the player being a character. It gave the other characters a reason to state mission briefings without looking like they're talking to themselves. This seems like more of a matter of an opinion than anything else. After all, most people feel the perspective worked fine in SC1. That, and the problem with SC2 was never perspective. Some (including myself) think that the sequel should have had the same perspective as the first games, but in the end it's neither here nor there. Whether the player is the character or not doesn't make either game good or bad.

Quote:

---

Nope. Aldaris didn't trust Kerrigan, but while they were gone he found out Raszagal was controlled by Kerrigan. Did he attempt to tell Artanis or Zeratul this before Kerrigan stuck a claw in his back? Nope, he chooses to spend the mission taunting you. Even if they wouldn't believe him, tell them so at least they know!

---

That's not really the point. See, Aldaris is a stubborn, bigoted person. He respected the Dark Templar when he believed that they were safe, but because of years of discrimination, all it took was Kerrigan's interference for him to revert back to old habits. He gave them a chance, and they failed him. Just look at how Raszagal dissed him in front of Kerrigan. Aldaris, as a high-ranking Judicator, would have spent years being respected. To be snapped at like that is bound to hurt his ego.

In essence, Aldaris is being the quick-tempered fool, not the writers. Were his decisions good? No, but they were in line with his past behavior.

Quote:

---

Except they are. I see it everywhere, "the original Starcraft's story was so awesome, SC2's sucks." If it is just the point "the original game was cheesy, but SC2 overdoes it," I would actually agree with that, because that's my opinion in a nutshell. I enjoy both games, but oh yes, SC2 is not as good story-wise as SC1. It is more cliched and cheesier, but the original game had the same problems. But I don't see anyone say "man this series got too cheesy," I see people praise the original game's plot and hate the sequel's. They're not that far apart.

---

They are to me. The real linchpin here is tone. That is, how the story is supposed to feel. SC1 felt like science fiction. It was gritty, intense, and the characters felt real. SC2, on the other hand, ditched the science fiction for drama, inane prophecies, and "a constant state of evolution." Think about...Star Fox. Look at Starfox SNES compared to Star Fox Adventures. SF SNES is to SF Adventures as SC1 is to SC2 -- the latter of both changed the tone, character basis, and feel of the entire series. When you have an audience that fell in love with one, but is forced to accept just about the opposite, people are bound to have a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

It surprises me that you say the Protoss campaign makes no sense. How confusing can it be?

---

What's the Khala? What's a praetor, an Executor? I presume they're military ranks, but like, does Fenix outrank me? What's the Conclave and what's the difference between the Conclave and the Judicators, both seem to be the ones in charge. What's the Templar Caste and why apparently do they not get along with the Judicator? Are we just an organization of High Templar, I don't think so because Aldaris said Fenix was a Templar, but he was a Zealot. Why were the dark templar banished and why are they such a big deal the Conclave will go to war with them to keep them from Aiur? What's the history between Fenix and Tassadar that the former will betray the Conclave to help him. Why is Raynor paling around with the protoss when they blew up his homeworld? And where the heck did Raynor get his own battlecruiser, he sure didn't have that before.

I know all this has an explanation in lore, ofc, but not in the campaign. When you play the original campaign by itself, you find yourself asking these questions. The campaign's story hinges on friction between the different bodies of protoss government and society, so you'd better know about them. Imagine someone in Europe who knows nothing about American politics or pop culture watching The Colbert Report. "Who are the Republicans? I guess they're the bad guys. And this guy doesn't like them, but he's a Republican too? Uh, okay. Haha, that is so like Donald Trump? I guess so, if the host says it is."

Quote:

---

The main reason is tension. In Starcraft 1, the tension constantly rose. You had the Protoss blasting planets, the Zerg showing up, the Confederacy turning out bad, Mengsk turning out bad, Kerrigan becoming a Zerg, Aiur being invaded, etc. The tension just kept going up and making things exciting.

---

SC2 has tension too. WoL alone - are your allies trustworthy, what are they up to, the zerg are back and there's no protoss ready to stop them this time, what are the artifacts and what are they doing, why does Moebius want them, and then ofc the secret mission and all its questions.

The difference is that SC2 is more optimistic - the heroes can win once in a while without having two of their general die and half their army destroyed. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

The real linchpin here is tone. That is, how the story is supposed to feel. SC1 felt like science fiction. It was gritty, intense, and the characters felt real. SC2, on the other hand, ditched the science fiction for drama, inane prophecies, and "a constant state of evolution."

---

I will give you that SC2 is leaning more to the fantasy side of science-fantasy, and if you like that more or less that's your opinion.

But otherwise, the first Starcraft's tone wasn't all that different. "Gritty and intense," not really. Sometimes, maybe, but eh. I think on the first three missions of the Terran campaign in either game and they gel fairly well. SC2 just has a more elaborate presentation because the technology is better.

Frankly, I always thought the original Starcraft was limiting to the writers. It was obvious all over the place that Blizzard had more complex stories in mind than the game allowed them to represent, topics and events are constantly referred to that are not explained in the game. And that does help establish the universe, that there's a larger story going on than just what we see, but it also results in stuff like the protoss campaign. The abundance of novels (don't complain, I'm just saying) is proof that they have more story in mind than what was in the original game. A story like the Dark Templar Saga could not be told in a mission chain like the original Starcraft's, not without heavily contorting it to fit a gameplay structure.

SC2, now, with its different presentation and engine, is allowing them to show us that story. You *could* tell the DT Saga story in SC2's system, heck, Zeratul's crystal to Raynor is pretty much his take on Zamara giving Jake memories. I guess though, now that Blizzard can show off the SC universe in the detail they want, fans don't like it anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

What's the Khala? What's a praetor, an Executor? I presume they're military ranks, but like, does Fenix outrank me? What's the Conclave and what's the difference between the Conclave and the Judicators, both seem to be the ones in charge. What's the Templar Caste and why apparently do they not get along with the Judicator? Are we just an organization of High Templar, I don't think so because Aldaris said Fenix was a Templar, but he was a Zealot. Why were the dark templar banished and why are they such a big deal the Conclave will go to war with them to keep them from Aiur? What's the history between Fenix and Tassadar that the former will betray the Conclave to help him. Why is Raynor paling around with the protoss when they blew up his homeworld? And where the heck did Raynor get his own battlecruiser, he sure didn't have that before.

I know all this has an explanation in lore, ofc, but not in the campaign. When you play the original campaign by itself, you find yourself asking these questions. The campaign's story hinges on friction between the different bodies of protoss government and society, so you'd better know about them. Imagine someone in Europe who knows nothing about American politics or pop culture watching The Colbert Report. "Who are the Republicans? I guess they're the bad guys. And this guy doesn't like them, but he's a Republican too? Uh, okay. Haha, that is so like Donald Trump? I guess so, if the host says it is."

---

...I think that's a bit of a strange example. It's really a stretch to compare the Protoss to Republicans. You might be able to compare them to Ireland's rough history (British domination vs independent Irish), but even that is more of a fun thought exercise than something relevant to the game.

I think you're also getting caught up on vocabulary. "Praetor" and "Judicator" are really just labels for ordinary jobs. You don't need to know what rank Fenix is to understand the story. Actually, I kinda like that not everything is explained. More room for the imagination, then.

Quote:

---

SC2 has tension too. WoL alone - are your allies trustworthy, what are they up to, the zerg are back and there's no protoss ready to stop them this time, what are the artifacts and what are they doing, why does Moebius want them, and then ofc the secret mission and all its questions.

---

Yeesh...it's not tension if the Tal'darim are generic fanatic tropes, Raynor's killing them for money, and the whole Tychus betrayal thing strains credulity. If I can't take the characters seriously, then I won't believe them as threats.

Quote:

---

The difference is that SC2 is more optimistic - the heroes can win once in a while without having two of their general die and half their army destroyed. And there's nothing wrong with that.

---

That's not the difference at all. The difference is better dialogue in the original, and characters that didn't come off the trope truck. Keep in mind that I'm not saying a story should be depressing, I'm simply saying that a character's path to a goal is more rewarding if it's difficult and the enemies seem genuinely like big bads.

Quote:

---

I will give you that SC2 is leaning more to the fantasy side of science-fantasy, and if you like that more or less that's your opinion.

---

Ugh, ten point penalty for saying "science fantasy." That phrase turns my stomach. That, and there's no "science" at all. It's pure space opera fantasy.

Quote:

---

But otherwise, the first Starcraft's tone wasn't all that different. "Gritty and intense," not really. Sometimes, maybe, but eh. I think on the first three missions of the Terran campaign in either game and they gel fairly well. SC2 just has a more elaborate presentation because the technology is better.

---

You must be young. Tech=/=tone. Graphics matter little at all to what I'm talking about. It's not the game's look that's the problem (although I have problems with that), it's the way that the story seems silly and frivolous.

Quote:

---

Frankly, I always thought the original Starcraft was limiting to the writers. It was obvious all over the place that Blizzard had more complex stories in mind than the game allowed them to represent, topics and events are constantly referred to that are not explained in the game. And that does help establish the universe, that there's a larger story going on than just what we see, but it also results in stuff like the protoss campaign. The abundance of novels (don't complain, I'm just saying) is proof that they have more story in mind than what was in the original game. A story like the Dark Templar Saga could not be told in a mission chain like the original Starcraft's, not without heavily contorting it to fit a gameplay structure.

SC2, now, with its different presentation and engine, is allowing them to show us that story. You *could* tell the DT Saga story in SC2's system, heck, Zeratul's crystal to Raynor is pretty much his take on Zamara giving Jake memories. I guess though, now that Blizzard can show off the SC universe in the detail they want, fans don't like it anymore?

---

You must be young. Before I continue, allow me to say that you should enjoy SC2 as much as you like, if it's to your taste. However, be a sweet young gentleman and allow this old fogey at heart to explain what she means.

Graphics and technology mean nothing to storytelling.

I grew up in the days of NES/SNES, and in those times there was of course limited technology. And better storytelling. Because of game limitations, the developers were forced to leave many things to the player's imagination. It worked out great. For example, the developers of Donkey Kong Country 2 silently told the story of Diddy and Dixie by making the world and overworld maps illustrate their journey to rescue Donkey Kong. They start on a boat, circle around a volcano, and go through a swamp before they begin to ascend the mountain to K. Rool's castle. Without a word of dialogue, the game tells the player of an epic adventure.

My point is this. You don't need advanced technology with pretty pictures to tell a story. I'll take 16-bit backgrounds any day over bland cutscenes with bad dialogue that waste developer time. A storyteller can speak volumes with silence. We also have to remember that this is a game. Games are not generally meant to tell stories. They are there for gameplay. The natural gaps that exist because of the structure of SC1 -- they can't tell a part of a story if it has no relevance to the mission at hand -- means that the fans have a lot of room for imagination and speculation. And in an industry that is all about individual control, that means a lot.

That, and the DT Saga sucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

You must be young. Before I continue, allow me to say that you should enjoy SC2 as much as you like, if it's to your taste. However, be a sweet young gentleman and allow this old fogey at heart to explain what she means.

---

My mistake, I thought you wanted to discuss the story of the series like a reasonable, rational human being. If you wanted to just be a patronizing self-righteous dickhead, you should have said so and I wouldn't have wasted time replying to you in the first place.

I would love to go into the minutaie but given that I'm prone to massive posts and that Grad and Nissa have covered some of it, I don't want to make this any (much) worse. So, I'll just simply address the following quote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

I'm not just ranting, it'd be nice if someone can explain to me why these problems are overlooked in the original game but make people angry at the sequel. I love the sequel and original game fine, but the sequel's problems have been present sine Day 1. I guess the original gets a pass thanks to nostalgia goggles? Both the sequel and original have their moments of bad writing, cheesy dialogue, and dumb characters, but also have a lot of humor, fun, and epicness. So, what's up?

---

For me at any rate, I don't think the majority of critics hinge their arguments on comparing the two. The criticisms of Sc2 are pretty self-evident without the need for such comparison really and the criticisms of Sc2 should therefore be looked at in isolation. This is not to say that Sc1 was flawless since I'm sure there were critics of Sc1 back-in-the-day and like you, I can rip into it just as easily. The reason I don't because it's old hat and what we're really talking about now is Sc2's flaws not Sc1's.

However, given that we're also talking about a sequel, comparisons can't be helped and that's where Nissa's talk about the tone and consistency of it is important. Sc1 sets up a fairly cynical and grounded universe that doesn't align well with Sc2 seemingly more frivolous attitude and unrealistic (in the context of what has been established in this fictional universe that is) turn of events. Characters that had well-defined motivations that could've been viewed separately from plot mechanics/concerns or the usual trappings/tropes of a sci-fi universe became seemingly simplistic and rote due to such motivations being more obviously trapped/tied up by those very things I mentioned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly Drake, you once made a parody of Sc1 by spinning all those events into a humourous light by exposing the foibles and narative conceits of the story, right? I loved it because some of those jabs were legitimate even though they were not obviously apparent. In contrast, a parody of Sc2's events on the other hand would be unnecessary since most of it's conceits and foibles are very obvious/undisguised from the get-go (ie: the artifact might as well as be called "generic plot device" as far as I'm concerned) and yet we are supposed to take such things seriously, as opposed to lauighing at them. What you get is cognitive dissonance.

It would've been fine if such surreality was commonplace beforehand in Sc1 thereby giving some sort of consistency, but it largely wasn't. Though saying that now, BW did start to "stretching" things toward that direction which leads to my last point about the argument that Sc1 and Sc2 are roughly the same so therefore one shouldn't complain. That argument is unusual in that it doesn't invalidate criticism like Grad said with his example of Transformers films (I too enjoy the visceral nature of it but that doesn't stop me from lambasting the travesty of it's storytelling - if one can call it that). It is also somewhat reductive and harmful since it just encourages future stories to be more lazily inspired than anything else. The perspective shift to not that "Sc2 is worse" but "Sc2 is bad because Sc1 is bad" is not very different since it still has the connotation that Sc2 is bad in general. To me, that one should be content with that not changing in a sequel for the better after 12 years kind of contrasts unfavourably to one just simply wanting things being better, which is what the criticism is largely about (and not just focusing on negatives for the sake of it as others would try to misunderstand it to be).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

Sc1 sets up a fairly cynical and grounded universe that doesn't align well with Sc2 seemingly more frivolous attitude and unrealistic (in the context of what has been established in this fictional universe that is) turn of events. Characters that had well-defined motivations that could've been viewed separately from plot mechanics/concerns or the usual trappings/tropes of a sci-fi universe became seemingly simplistic and rote due to such motivations being more obviously trapped/tied up by those very things I mentioned.

---

Could you elaborate?

Quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly Drake, you once made a parody of Sc1 by spinning all those events into a humourous light by exposing the foibles and narative conceits of the story, right? I loved it because some of those jabs were legitimate even though they were not obviously apparent. In contrast, a parody of Sc2's events on the other hand would be unnecessary since most of it's conceits and foibles are very obvious/undisguised from the get-go (ie: the artifact might as well as be called "generic plot device" as far as I'm concerned) and yet we are supposed to take such things seriously, as opposed to lauighing at them. What you get is cognitive dissonance.

---

I did, and did parodies of SC2, as well. I found it hilarious that several people didn't care for my mocking the plot holes, contrivances, and skewed characterization of the original game, then applauded me for doing the same with the sequel.

My personal favorite joke for the Ep I parody, which was not mentioned in the OP: Raynor and Kerrigan pretty much laugh at the idea of Duke being shot down behind zerg lines and grumble about being sent to rescue him, then the very next mission Kerrigan is like "no one deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them". True, there is a difference there in that the entire planet will be overrun and not just the Confederates, but it's still a very hollow and hypocritical sentiment.

Quote:

---

It is also somewhat reductive and harmful since it just encourages future stories to be more lazily inspired than anything else.

---

That's true, and SC1's story having problems does not automatically excuse SC2 from having the same. However, having taken a closer look at SC1, and read most of the novels for the series that came before SC2, I'm of the opinion this is just the sort of universe it is and the story Starcraft wants to tell, and I go with that. If it wants to be cheesy and cliche, fine, I'll take it for what it is. It's like Yugioh in that sense - sure, it's stupid when compared to other things, fighting wars with playing cards, but internally that's just how the franchise is, and either that works for you or doesn't.

Quote:

---

The perspective shift to not that "Sc2 is worse" but "Sc2 is bad because Sc1 is bad" is not very different since it still has the connotation that Sc2 is bad in general. To me, that one should be content with that not changing in a sequel for the better after 12 years kind of contrasts unfavourably to one just simply wanting things being better, which is what the criticism is largely about (and not just focusing on negatives for the sake of it as others would try to misunderstand it to be).

---

Fair enough. However, SC2 does try to take itself seriously at times, and it is telling a big story in its own right. In addition to the overarcing plot of the xel'naga returning and the hybrids, we have Kerrigan's character arc where she becomes a shifty but more heroic Queen of Blades, we're going to see Artanis trying to reunite the protoss who were already internally barely held together, the fall of Arcturus, Raynor's struggle between idealism and cynicism, and Valerian Mengsk's development from an upstart snot to a noble emperor.

The problem with SC2's story is more the execution than the concepts. The developers have tried to be more serious, to tell a larger and more epic story. They've just botched it. For instance, Kerrigan in HotS - nix the amnesia subplot in favor of "the zerg mutagen shifted her personality, now that she's free she's her own person again" (this is canonically established by her original infestation and Stukov), and reword some of the more painful dialogue, and I think her character arc is perfectly serviceable. A woman with nothing left in her life but vengeance turns her back on redemption to pursue it, to give herself purpose again, but when there is hope for she begins to pull back, and in the spirit of the original SC1 zerg, recognizes the race is not evil, it was her, and they have the potential to be something better than the mindless horde of alien locusts, if she can lead them to it.

Valerian, I genuinely like the kid, like I said he grows from an arrogant upstart snot in WoL to a proper emperor in HotS.

Of course, that the concepts are solid does not change the fact the execution is bad. But there is still good stuff in SC2's story, and some of the ideas are still good even if they weren't carried out as good as they should have been.

If there's something I want people to take away from reading this discussion it's this - "yeah, SC2's story has problems. But it still has its great moments, and the original game wasn't as good in the story department as a lot of people remember, anyway."