How did they screw up the single player that bad?

[DemolitionSquid]

What problems have you actually fixed? It's extremely easy to be an armchair critic (1); it is much harder to actually conceptually fix the problem and then follow-through with the solution. Before you say that you aren't good at mapping or modding or whatever and that you're an idea man. Please refer to point one.

~LoA

Not my fault Blizzard doesn't use my solutions. I could go work for Blizzard and actually implement my fixes myself, but why on Satan's black earth would I want to be a slave to Bobby Kotick?

[LordofAscension]

Not my fault Blizzard doesn't use my solutions. I could go work for Blizzard and actually implement my fixes myself, but why on Satan's black earth would I want to be a slave to Bobby Kotick?

Create a fanmod. Seriously, you're arguement is just an attempt at justifying trolling. And read what you wrote above - if you don't want to, then why troll "fixes"? Seems pointless to me. Also, your above comment totally reflects your complete lack of understanding of the Blizzard/Activision relationship.

~LoA

[TheEconomist]

My gift, is criticizing and nitpicking every little fault.

If only half of your criticisms were actually problems and your solutions actually worked, you could say that.

Any idea is awesome until tested. Chew on that.

[QuesterPro]

I had a thought about this last night, and it was focused primarily on the scene where raynor rescues warfield.

I thought, the story much in the same way, displayed this flaw. There's just not enough focus, exposition, or the "setup, revelation, conflict, resolution" that a story must be meaty with one step to the next from act 1 to 3.

Well you have to remember that StarCraft II is part 1 of a trilogy.

[QuesterPro]

Create a fanmod. Seriously, you're arguement is just an attempt at justifying trolling. And read what you wrote above - if you don't want to, then why troll "fixes"? Seems pointless to me. Also, your above comment totally reflects your complete lack of understanding of the Blizzard/Activision relationship.

~LoA

Agreed.

[Turalyon]

Well you have to remember that StarCraft II is part 1 of a trilogy.

Sure, the expansions will provide (hopefully) more context from what we see in WoL. It's the least they can do but I don't think that's the problem GnaR is talking about.

The execution of the story is quite poor in WoL (currently and hopefully only in WoL). Even with proper context, the expansions stories will never make the meandering and unfocused story that is in WoL any less meandering and unfocused.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Can somebody stitch up a video for WoL cutting the game part and just the dialog, cutscenes, etc. so we can see it in a linear fashion?

[TheEconomist]

Friendly reminder: reading the books before hand helps a bit with the context.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Tych, your post is a trap man. It's a trap.

[Turalyon]

Can somebody stitch up a video for WoL cutting the game part and just the dialog, cutscenes, etc. so we can see it in a linear fashion?

Do you mean canonical when you say linear? I don't think there's an official timeline or sequence of WoL's events yet, aside from what you experience from your own play through.

To me, most (not all!) of the in-between mission dialogues/ news reports are not really that important to story progression which then just leaves the cutscenes. You could view these at anytime in whatever order you wish once you've finished the campaign.