[Spoilers] SC2 short dialog

[gigalib]

Do you think that better cinematic actually hinders character/story development? In SC2, many characters talk much less and sometimes made little sense, which I think it is to save animation cost. I actually found myself enjoy the simple dialog windows in SC1 more.

On a related note, I found it weird when Raynor mentioned about Fenix death when Kerrigan rescued him from the prison. It is like he completely forgot the old Queen of Blade, but later remember her acts when she is again QoB. He could have said: "I haven't give up on you, but why you have given up on yourself." Then Kerrigan could have reply: "I thought you were dead."

[FanaticTemplar]

Do you think that better cinematic actually hinders character/story development? In SC2, many characters talk much less and sometimes made little sense, which I think it is to save animation cost. I actually found myself enjoy the simple dialog windows in SC1 more.

I think it's the opposite, in SC2 characters talk much more. Restrictions in technology forced focus, because characters had so few opportunities to talk, it was necessary to fit so much more content in those short conversations. Restriction breeds creativity, I think.

On a related note, I found it weird when Raynor mentioned about Fenix death when Kerrigan rescued him from the prison. It is like he completely forgot the old Queen of Blade, but later remember her acts when she is again QoB. He could have said: "I haven't give up on you, but why you have given up on yourself." Then Kerrigan could have reply: "I thought you were dead."

That's probably just because Blizzard's writers were sick of hearing fans complain about Raynor "forgetting about Fenix" after Wings of Liberty. That was my thought at the time, anyway.

[Equiliari]

Do you think that better cinematic actually hinders character/story development? In SC2, many characters talk much less and sometimes made little sense, which I think it is to save animation cost. I actually found myself enjoy the simple dialog windows in SC1 more.

In a way, yes. I mean, we will never get lines as the opening lines of the overmind from SC and the dialogue between Zeratul and Duran at the end of Dark Origins from SC:BW both which I know by heart. There are no such dialogues from WoL and HotS that I would want to know by heart.
Hopefully this will change with LotV a tiny bit, as protoss don't need lip sync, just head nod.

[gigalib]

I think it's the opposite, in SC2 characters talk much more. Restrictions in technology forced focus, because characters had so few opportunities to talk, it was necessary to fit so much more content in those short conversations. Restriction breeds creativity, I think.

I would want to have more content in the conversations, at least we understand the thoughts/emotion in the characters that the writers wish to convey.

That's probably just because Blizzard's writers were sick of hearing fans complain about Raynor "forgetting about Fenix" after Wings of Liberty. That was my thought at the time, anyway.

I echo your thought, but it is still so out of place.

[Hawki]

Some of the sentiments I can share, but "some" is the key word. What I think we can agree on is that the SC2 games are far more cinematically orientated than the SC1 ones. Ergo, characters can say just as much through saying less. That's how visual mediums work. To give an example, Kerrigan doesn't need to say anything in the Warfield cinematic. Her face, her actions, they tell us everything about her thought process in that scene. The only way this could have been done in the SC1 days was to make a pre-rendered cutscene.

Overall, I find the SC2 scenes more memorable, at least in part due to their cinematic nature. I'll sooner remember Raynor's Char speech than Tassadar's Overmind one, though if the SC2 speech had been delivered in the SC1 game engine, I doubt I'd have found it as memorable. Now if you want to argue that the SC2 cinematics are indicative of a style over substance approach, you can. It's down to personal preference. Heck, there are some people in the games industry who argue that cutscenes, let alone cinematics shouldn't exist at all, and if you have to tell a story outside of game mechanics, you're bastardizing the medium.

[Telenil]

The conversation in SC2 are certainly shorter than they were in Brood War. You get to talk to a number of characters, but the whole discussion never gets longer than three short assertions from each character. The conversation in Warcraft 3 were also shorter than the Brood War briefings, but it was often because things were happening around the characters, and the interludes were far longer than any single conversation in SC2.

[gigalib]

Some of the sentiments I can share, but "some" is the key word. What I think we can agree on is that the SC2 games are far more cinematically orientated than the SC1 ones. Ergo, characters can say just as much through saying less. That's how visual mediums work. To give an example, Kerrigan doesn't need to say anything in the Warfield cinematic. Her face, her actions, they tell us everything about her thought process in that scene. The only way this could have been done in the SC1 days was to make a pre-rendered cutscene.

Overall, I find the SC2 scenes more memorable, at least in part due to their cinematic nature. I'll sooner remember Raynor's Char speech than Tassadar's Overmind one, though if the SC2 speech had been delivered in the SC1 game engine, I doubt I'd have found it as memorable. Now if you want to argue that the SC2 cinematics are indicative of a style over substance approach, you can. It's down to personal preference. Heck, there are some people in the games industry who argue that cutscenes, let alone cinematics shouldn't exist at all, and if you have to tell a story outside of game mechanics, you're bastardizing the medium.

I agree with you on "a picture paints a thousand words". I am not choosing sides either, in fact I like both in-game engine and pre-rendered cut scenes, I am saying that to produce a large amount of cinematics takes time, and sacrificing content might becomes inevitable.

The conversation in SC2 are certainly shorter than they were in Brood War. You get to talk to a number of characters, but the whole discussion never gets longer than three short assertions from each character. The conversation in Warcraft 3 were also shorter than the Brood War briefings, but it was often because things were happening around the characters, and the interludes were far longer than any single conversation in SC2.

About WC3, I think the main reason is the interludes were using in-game engine rather than pre-rendered cinematics. It takes shorter time to produce than a Blizzard-quality cinematics. I just hope they understand that visual appeal and substance are both equally important.