Printable View
And why would he? You think Tychus or Horner would buy that a random Protoss came aboard the ship completely undetected and told Raynor that Kerrigan couldn't die? Do you think that they would have given a damn what this Protoss said even if they believed him?Quote:
Not once does Raynor talk about the prophecy to anyone outside of the subplot itself.
No; it's best that Raynor stayed quiet about that one.
He could just show the crystal as proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Proof that Zeratul was on the ship, yes. Assuming the crystal would work for them at all (I figured Zeratul coded it so that it would only work for Raynor, or only work once or something), what does Horner care about some silly Overmind prophecy? It's just a bunch of silly Protoss superstition; who's to say it's real or not? And Tychus is Mengsk's puppet; what he believes of it is irrelevant, as he still has to kill her.Quote:
He could just show the crystal as proof.
Remember: Raynor's the one who knows and trusts Zeratul; not Horner or Tychus. Or anybody else on Raynor's ship, for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Hasn't it been mentioned that Horner was with Raynor ever since Mengsk used the psi-emitters on Tarsonis? If so, then he would have participated in the events of the first game and as such be familiar with Zeratul and his relationship with Raynor. Of all people on the ship, at least he would understand the importance of Zeratul's advice.
The game gives you a nightmare/flashback sequence TWICE to the key moment on Tarsonis (the old adjutant and a cinematic) when Mengsk abandons Kerrigan. This is THE defining event for Raynors character. Remember after the original Terran campaign the next thing he does is follow Kerrigans "lure" where he discovers her Transformation. This motivates him to aid the Protoss in defeating the Overmind. In the Brood wars he has to realise that the Queen of Blades is no longer Kerrigan but a monster with her face and declares that he needs to finish the issue. He still blames himself (and Arcturus) for the events on Tarsonis.
After Broodwars he canīt really do anything about Kerrigan so he keeps himself busy with his revenge against Arcturus with limited success initially.
The Wol story actually picks up on all these points: Especially in the "Horner" Missions itīs evident that he considers stopping the current goverment (Mengsk) his concern but building a new "better" one Matt Horners. Matt knows this but disagrees - cue the "we are waiting for you" conversations.
His position on Zerg infestation is handled in the Colonist Subplot, the conflict of revenge against Arcturus no matter the cost to what is "best" for the Population.
Itīs a similar Matter as well with Tychus, he is Raynors best friend but he also is contra Kerrigan the whole time. Despite certain weak motivations (they need to plant a bomb in his suit to make him "kill Kerrigan or die") the point in the end is that Raynor choses Kerrigan over him.
With all the above the "Story" fits and develops Raynors character rather well even if they fail to connect the plot (both due to irrelevance of the events to each other and the free missionchoice which weakens the building of Tension). What they did very well however is the consistency between Plot and Missionevents, there is no longer the player wiping the map but the cutscene showing the Heroes barely escaping. Also the few Missions without "options" (the first and last 3 each) are great about connecting the events and building tension.
The Protoss minicampaign however is a PROTOSS campaign, yes they put it in context to Raynor but it actually relates to how the Protoss get a warning of their "gods" as told by one of their greatest Heroes. The narrative with heroic sacrifices, ancient prophecys and "the end of the universe" doesnīt fit at all with the Space western Terrans but it DOES fit with the Mystic and ancient Protoss.
I think of it as a sequence from Legacy of the Void that they snuck into WoL to have Protoss in the campaign - which only appear otherwise as Selendis cameo and Superflat bad guys the Talīdarim. Remember in the Prophecy itself the Protoss are blaming themselves for killing Kerrigan. Raynor isnīt mentioned AT ALL, there is no reason for Zeratul to talk to Raynor about it but some off screen relevation about it. And for how important it appears to be - why donīt any Protoss show up, neither to help fight Kerrigan or even to protect her?
The prophecy is "problematic" because itīs outside the Terran campaigns plot and story. The other sidequests are "merely" outside the plot.
Raynors character isnīt in conflict between killing Kerrigan and preventing the Prophecy -thatīs the Protoss, he is in conflict between saving his comrade (lover?) and killing the monster that wears her Face.
Nicely explained, but the fact that it doesn't show itself during the storytelling, shows how poorly the SP campaign is presented in-game.Quote:
Originally Posted by unentschieden
Which paradoxically enough is against the same argument that they used at Blizzcon to explain why Blizz wanted to divide the story into 3 "separate" chapters.
Including the protoss minicampaign in WoL, is only confusing and ends up ruining a great part of the terran campaign, as these missions could've been used to delve more into the terran characters, even though I think 4 missions couldn't have avoided fully the "superficial" feeling you get when playing through the missions.
My idea woul've been to make the Zeratul missions into the SC2 DEMO.
That's not a paradox, unless it was the splitting that caused the poor writing. Which it wasn't.Quote:
Nicely explained, but the fact that it doesn't show itself during the storytelling, shows how poorly the SP campaign is presented in-game.
Which paradoxically enough is against the same argument that they used at Blizzcon to explain why Blizz wanted to divide the story into 3 "separate" chapters.
Splitting was the right thing to do, because it allowed them to do more. It made the gameplay better for certain; more varied missions even with just the Terrans, etc. The fact that Blizzard's writers couldn't take advantage of the format very well does not make the format itself a problem.
WoL's singleplayer gameplay is much more solid than SC1/BW's. It builds progressively, unlike the way the SC1/BW campaigns have to stop and teach you how to use the new race every 10 missions. It allows you to make decisions at the mission level that have gameplay effects. You purchase upgrades for the units you intend to use, and purchase merc contracts for them as well. You select missions based in part on what units you want. And so forth.
This is all because of the new format, not in spite of it. Dustin Browder did his part as game designer to take advantage of the possibilities that the one-race-per-expansion format provides.
The fact that the writers suck isn't his fault or the fault of the format.
^ Agreed. I really like the format of the game, and how the order of missions affects which units you'll have for future missions.
Depends how far you take it. The writers couldnīt take advantage of the format because the Mission designers wouldnīt let them. This made the Gameplay great and no one complained about THAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
A good Story in a Game has to incorporate the Gameplay. What this means is that you use the Gameplay itself as Storytelling device, give emphasis, meaning and context.
Here are a few choice parts of the Interview with Brian Kindregan, the Lead Writer for SC2.
I just think they "overvalued" Gameplay in regards to this balance. For optimal Gameplay the Writers were not allowed to interfere with the Missions to use them as Storytellingdevice. Remember the Cenarius Mission in WC3? In it your Orcs get hammered by a invinceble Cenarius and you witness the plottwist that Doomhammer makes a pact with Demons to turn the situation around.Quote:
Originally Posted by iahGames
From a storytelling perspective itīs great, not only is there a nice twist, the Player can "connect" with it because itīs his units that canīt stop Cenarius so the urgency is communicated directly.
From a gameplay perspective however itīs a "Tomato Suprise". Twists in Storytelling are great when handled well but that rarely translates to a good Gameplayresult: In the mission in question the pact changes all your units. Most importantly it makes supportunits, Shamans into combat powerhouses, Warlocks. That means a Player that plays the mission a 2nd time aproaches it completely differently than a first time player.
Itīs something where Gameplay and Storytelling can come in conflict with each other and I donīt think Blizzards solutions to these conflicts in WoL were ideal.
Iīd Blizzard should have let their writers say more "No Boss, we need that scene here.". Or in WoLs case it might have even be enough to let them say "Donīt let the player SKIP missions, we want to use all the material we had in the subplot within the Finale".
No it doesn't. There have been plenty of great games that completely separate gameplay from story; they manage to tell a good story too. Now, it might make for better storytelling if they integrated them, but nothing stops you from having them be fairly separate.Quote:
A good Story in a Game has to incorporate the Gameplay.
I'm trying to see where this has anything to do with what happened in SC2, but I'm not getting it.Quote:
For optimal Gameplay the Writers were not allowed to interfere with the Missions to use them as Storytellingdevice.
Decision making is decision making, whether it is in a mission or out of one. Decision making is the core of gameplay, so any time that the user makes a choice of relevance (ie: has consequences), it constitutes gameplay.
You can easily justify that on gameplay grounds too. Like, you know, "We want the player to play all the missions so that they have all the units before the drop on Char." Indeed, it seems more likely that it was a story decision to make various mission threads optional. Namely that the other missions don't lead to artifacts or connect to artifact missions, so all the player needs to do is complete the artifact missions.Quote:
Or in WoLs case it might have even be enough to let them say "Donīt let the player SKIP missions, we want to use all the material we had in the subplot within the Finale".
See, the problem with the story isn't the mission separation. It's the separation of the storylines that connect the missions.
Take BioWare games, for example. The way they handle subquests and main quests is clever. In order to keep the main quest well-paced, you have to keep coming back to it. You have to keep progressing with it. Therefore, when you get dropped in a new area, you're quickly told what your main quest objectives are. However, if you visit the local town (or whatever) and talk to people, you'll get a number of side quests.
The resolution of most of these side quests requires going into one or more dungeons. The same dungeons that completing the main quests requires you to go in. In short, the side quests do not inhibit the progression of the main quest; you happen to be in the neighborhood on business, so you do them.
By segregating side quests from the main quests, such that progression in a side quest doesn't help your main quest progression at all, you lose pacing. You don't talk about the main quest much anymore; it drops into the background.
You can imagine that the original 10-mission version of WoL was basically the artifact missions and maybe one or two of the sidequest missions. Maybe some of the Horner ones and one or two from Hanson and Tosh. Perhaps there were only 4 artifacts instead of 5. Whatever.
When they expanded it, they expanded it wrong in terms of story. They didn't want to change their story, so instead they just made larger, more involved side-stories. That's not the way to tell a bigger story; that just tells a wider, more diffuse one. The side quests needed to be involved in the main quest to greater degrees.