StarCraft III - Story and Storytelling

[solidsamurai]

So, better rendering takes away mystery? Huh. Guess we better stop trying to make advances in graphical technology because, you know, lower resolution=mystery.

It needs more artistry rather than just pure renderings that obey a basic format. Ie. Fatty models, beefy Jim Raynor, etc.

owever, compared to Sc1, it's harder to "take it or leave it" when it comes to these cinematics because there would be harm to the final product if they were taken away or replaced with something more inferior (such as the talking heads style of Sc1).

Again, it's all about artistry. If the talking heads were brought back, they could have more animations (ie. actual emotional reactions that relate to whatever they're saying or hearing at the time), and the background to the briefing room could be completely animated - ie. you could be auto-scrolling through a base and observing all of your race's units in high definition while you listen to characters talk.

Full bodies adds nothing to it, except to offer entirely pointless body language and limited conversations. If blizz wanted the approach that WoL took, there should've been more sidequests - or things that actually worked like sidequests with a special reward at the end of each.

I'm not saying that this makes them bad per se either, but looking back, it does bug me as to how little the cinematics actually contribute to the overall story. I'll put it this way - there are three things a cinematic can do in this type of scenario - add to character development, add to plot development and/or be self-contained.

Why does it bug you? The game made it obvious that all the primary narration is the talking heads, and that was fine back in 1998. Pretty unique actually. People only make fun of it, because they've got little else to make fun of (refer to my sig for why comedy is hard).

or it's with characters that we don't know, only end up knowing for a few minutes, and as such, can't bring ourselves to care about.

Good ol' comic relief. Cinematics were more of a reward that gave you proper perspective about the universe than actual plot development. Games need a break from plot every now and then. SC 2 did this by giving up a different plot - the mistake it made was making everything seem super important to the story, when at the end, only one of the plots would be getting resolved.

At least in games like mass effect, side quests resolved themselves. SC 2 made different plots feel like sidequests, when they don't really resolve themselves. Even the thing with Mira Han feels like a cliffhanger or a to-be-continued (if she survives, that is). Blizzard is just lazy when it comes to telling a story with any degree of open endedness - in the case of SC 2, they ended dumbing everything down in order to create a bunch of loose threads.

And other reasons SC 2 bugs me! Da da da da dum. *sitcom outro*

I admit, there are some SC2 cinematics one could cut out, such as the intros to WoL and HotS

WoL's intro was the only truly good cinematic. We must be completely different people, you and I.

[Hawki]

Full bodies adds nothing to it, except to offer entirely pointless body language and limited conversations.

There are many examples I could cite as to why body language isn't pointless, but I'll point to just one - Kerrigan killing Warfield. She never says anything, but her visual expressions, her actions, her movement - these tell her everything we need to know about her state of mind. Show, don't tell. If you're in a visual medium, and you can use visuals to tell your story, it's often better to actually use those visuals rather than just relying on dialogue.

Why does it bug you? The game made it obvious that all the primary narration is the talking heads, and that was fine back in 1998.

It bugs me for the reason I said it does - they give us nothing. No real plot, no real character insight, no self-sustaining story except in a few exceptions. It's like reading a novel, where after completing a chapter, I get a few paragraphs of people and story that's unrelated to everything I've read, and where these people and events are never mentioned again. Suppose I'm reading Fellowship of the Ring, I've just entered Moria, and then there's a mini-chapter of an orc doing something in Mordor. It's clearly in the same universe, but it's irrelevant to the actual story. And it's so short that it doesn't even work as its own mini-story.

Cinematics were more of a reward that gave you proper perspective about the universe than actual plot development. Games need a break from plot every now and then.

If they need a break from plot, that's usually in the realm of the gameplay.

I get the idea of cinematics being rewards. I can use the early Command and Conquer games as examples - end of a GDI mission, you have a few seconds of cinematic GDI kicking Nod's arse. Finish a Nod mission, the roles are reversed. These are rewards. Too many of the SC1s aren't clear rewards because they're either outside the context, or not rewarding the player. I beat the zerg at Backwater Station, then am "rewarded" with seeing two redshirts die. I defeat the zerg at Scion, only to see Fenix get killed off for the sake of comic relief. I understand that the player doesn't need to be rewarded all the time - the entire terran campaign subverts our goals at the end of it. But it isn't reward in the same way as the CnC ones because so often they feel out of place and/or context. We're given nothing for our efforts.

SC 2 did this by giving up a different plot - the mistake it made was making everything seem super important to the story, when at the end, only one of the plots would be getting resolved.

I assume you're referring to the side-story aspects. How are they not resolved? Each one has a distinct beginning and a distinct end. You can argue that the Spectre and Rebellion missions are in the context of Mengsk who isn't taken down until HotS, but they resolve their own goals at the end of each set of events.

At least in games like mass effect, side quests resolved themselves.

And in what way is that different? Multiple ones seem to lack the resolution the SC ones supposedly do. Bring Down the Sky isn't fully resolved until ME3 if you let the batarians go. Arrival doesn't have the full consequences given until ME3 either. I'd count them as resolved in both cases, in the context of their immediate presentation, but there's no real difference in the styles that I can see.

Even the thing with Mira Han feels like a cliffhanger or a to-be-continued (if she survives, that is).

How is there any doubt?

We must be completely different people, you and I.

What, you're only realizing that now?

[solidsamurai]

If they need a break from plot, that's usually in the realm of the gameplay.

Does it really matter? Gameplay or skippable cutscene? I'd go for the skippable cutscene if it isn't relevent. Skippable gameplay would feel a bit weird.

I defeat the zerg at Scion, only to see Fenix get killed off for the sake of comic relief.

That's your beef with SC 1, eh?

We're given nothing for our efforts.

Yeah, most old games are like this. The reward is you are closer to beating the game. Most 'rewards' in modern games are really just artificial hooks to keep you addicted anyway.

How are they not resolved?

They're resolved poorly. Maybe they should've handled it a bit better. I'd understand a sidequest that extends for one or two misisons, but a four or five mission arc that extends across nearly the entire game before the final mission section of Char was a bit much. It made us feel like it was important to the plot, when it really wasn't. A sidequest needs to make a point that it will be useful.

Maybe even create some replayability - you can only complete so many sidequests before the zerg invasion begins in ernest and you need to assault char, for example. The game didn't do this though - the only replayability was the different endings in the sidequests, the achievements and separate difficulty levels. There was a lot missing from it.

How is there any doubt?

Well the zerg were island hopping between terran planets at the time. Creates some doubt.

[Turalyon]

If they need a break from plot, that's usually in the realm of the gameplay.

I get the idea of cinematics being rewards. I can use the early Command and Conquer games as examples - end of a GDI mission, you have a few seconds of cinematic GDI kicking Nod's arse. Finish a Nod mission, the roles are reversed. These are rewards. Too many of the SC1s aren't clear rewards because they're either outside the context, or not rewarding the player. I beat the zerg at Backwater Station, then am "rewarded" with seeing two redshirts die. I defeat the zerg at Scion, only to see Fenix get killed off for the sake of comic relief. I understand that the player doesn't need to be rewarded all the time - the entire terran campaign subverts our goals at the end of it. But it isn't reward in the same way as the CnC ones because so often they feel out of place and/or context. We're given nothing for our efforts.

I think it would it help if you'd think of the Sc1 cinematics as Starcraft themed "commercials" or interludes instead of being a visceral, straight-up reward for your efforts. That way you can take as much or as little as you can from them. Also, not everything has to conform to one ideal of "cinematic as reward" or "cinematic has to have an underlying connection to the main story". In the end, it's a matter of taste and no matter what they tend to be, it can't be said that they objectively hamper or damage the overall sense of the story in any way.

[solidsamurai]

I think it would it help if you'd think of the Sc1 cinematics as Starcraft themed "commercials" or interludes instead of being a visceral, straight-up reward for your efforts. That way you can take as much or as little as you can from them. Also, not everything has to conform to one ideal of "cinematic as reward" or "cinematic has to have an underlying connection to the main story". In the end, it's a matter of taste and no matter what they tend to be, it can't be said that they objectively hamper or damage the overall sense of the story in any way.

And there's no reason to get rid of the amerigo cinematic, or any of them for that matter.

[FanaticTemplar]

And there's no reason to get rid of the amerigo cinematic, or any of them for that matter.

Get rid of the Fenix death by power failure cinematic.

[solidsamurai]

Well then we won't know how Fenix died! :P

It might not have been power failure - maybe he sensed that fighting the hydralisk was hopeless since there were other zerg around too (goes against his character though).

[FanaticTemplar]

Well then we won't know how Fenix died! :P

It might not have been power failure - maybe he sensed that fighting the hydralisk was hopeless since there were other zerg around too (goes against his character though).

Be careful, friend. If Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm have shown me anything, it is that this fanbase loves Fenix. I would not envy your fate if... certain people... were to learn that you insinuated Fenix would just give up because of overwhelming odds.

[Turalyon]

It wasn't a power failure. Fenix was pulling a fake-o - he really wanted to take on the Hydralisks with his bare hands! That's where Warfield got his inspiration from.

[Hawki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfIKRQ4sTfU

(What Fenix was thinking at the time)