StarCraft III - Story and Storytelling

[Turalyon]

I'm not disputing that point. What I am disputing is that that's a negative.

Huh? What? I thought you were disputing the point. I don't recall FT being all 'negative' about it nor 'whining' about something being marginalised.

I'm not sure what to say about all those examples you've provided aside from what you seem to be talking about is something else entirely...

It's just the way the story goes, and unlike some other examples (again with Generals/Zero Hour...wish I had something else, but I'm stumped), the campaign isn't made irrelevant by default.

I have no idea which (terran specific?) campaign you are referring to here.

[Hawki]

Huh? What? I thought you were disputing the point. I don't recall FT being all 'negative' about it nor 'whining' about something being marginalised.

I'm not sure what to say about all those examples you've provided aside from what you seem to be talking about is something else entirely...

Maybe it's gone off the rails as we all seem to be talking about different things.

I have no idea which (terran specific?) campaign you are referring to here.

Generals and Zero Hour are Command and Conquer games, ones that also used a campaign trilogy format.

[FanaticTemplar]

In Brood War, I could remove the protoss campaign,

You say this like I'm not a guy who hates The Stand more than any other campaign in StarCraft, excepting only the Protoss missions of Wings of Liberty .

have the protoss still be on Aiur for the UED mission, replace Talematros with some city on Aiur and Raszagal with another character, and get a similar story.

But now you're adapting things. You can removed the Horde from WarCraft III and change nothing and still get the full story.

The same applies to RTS campaigns that run parallel to each other, such as Tiberium Wars or Winter Assault. Playing more than one campaign can give a bigger picture, but each campaign is able to stand on its own.

Obviously this is a different circumstance if the campaigns are designed to stand alone. Which is what they did in The Frozen Throne, for example.

So yes, I could remove the Sentinel campaign completely, have Grom be corrupted off-screen, and then replace the Sentinel campaign with a mixed Horde/Alliance one. I could remove both Horde campaigns, focus on Jaina's trials in Kalimdor, and keep night elf/"outlander" tensions intact. There's a lot of things I can do. But I could remove the terran campaign of SC1 also, just say the Overmind found a psionic that we didn't need to know, then carry on the story from there, as the fall of the Confederacy/foundation of the Dominion is never mentioned by the zerg or protoss themselves. If this is a problem, it's one that applies to the RTS genre as a whole.

Again, you're adapting the story.

[Hawki]

But now you're adapting things. You can removed the Horde from WarCraft III and change nothing and still get the full story.

Except the story would still need to be changed, as:

-We would have no idea what happens to the Eastern Kingdoms post-Archimonde summoning

-We would never learn of Jaina's arrival in Kalimdor until well after it had occurred.

-Cenarius would never be killed. Which would dictate how campaign 4 plays out, both in regards to the night elves' stance on the "outlanders," and with Cenarius on their side, the campaign would play very differently.

Are these minor changes? Maybe. But it still beats Rebel Yell in this regard where I could cut the campaign out entirely and just start the zerg one and get an overall story. Or again, the Generals/Zero Hour analogy.

Again, you're adapting the story.

Well, that goes to show, doesn't it? If I just cut out the Horde campaign, the Sentinel one would fall apart within minutes from a narrative sense. Within seconds if one considers the mission 1 intro text. I have to adapt the story somehow to make it make sense.

Edit: Because of all the misconceptions, I'll try to make things clear in regards to stance:

Question 1: Could Reign of Chaos's story remain 100% intact if both Horde campaigns were removed.

Answer 1: No. The Sentinel campaign immediately falls apart narratively otherwise.

Question 2: Could the story of Reign of Chaos be adapted to have the same overall structure by cutting out a Horde campaign?

Answer 2: Yes. I could have an Alliance campaign in Kalimdor that gets the same net results (e.g. have a lieutenant of Jaina kill Cenarius rather than Grom), then move onto the overall narrative of the Sentinel campaign.

Question 3: Are the Horde campaigns the only ones that can be removed?

Answer 3: No. I could structure the story so that we start off with a Scourge campaign and cut out Arthas's transformation history, make Horde campaign 2 focus on Jaina's journeys instead, then move onto the Sentinels.

Question 4: If any of these alterations were made, would we get World of Warcraft?

Answer 4: Not as we know it. Cutting out every other "what if?", if we didn't get the Horde campaigns of Reign of Chaos, then that effectively removes three of the initial Horde factions, or at least, ever giving them the narrative precedent to come together.

[FanaticTemplar]

Except the story would still need to be changed, as:

-We would have no idea what happens to the Eastern Kingdoms post-Archimonde summoning

Do we learn anything about the Eastern Kingdoms in the Horde Campaign? All I recall is the one cutscene where Mannoroth and Tichrondrius discuss how the humans pose no resistance because we already wiped them out in the Scourge campaign. There's really no new information there, we already know that Lordaeron, Quel'thalas and Dalaran were wiped out because we did that during the Scourge campaign. We learn nothing new here.

-We would never learn of Jaina's arrival in Kalimdor until well after it had occurred.

Which changes the story in no way. We learned of Jaina's arrival in Kalimdor after it occurred anyway, since they're already fighting Grom when we first see them. But there's really nothing missing in the progression if the last time we saw Jaina she was hearing Medivh's warning and then the next time you see her she's already on Kalimdor, because that's exactly what we already have.

-Cenarius would never be killed. Which would dictate how campaign 4 plays out, both in regards to the night elves' stance on the "outlanders," and with Cenarius on their side, the campaign would play very differently.

As I said, killing Cenarius is the only thing the Horde actually do in the campaign. Cenarius is a character with no history created specifically for this game. This is the only reason the Horde matters in a WarCraft game. But even if you did remove the Horde and left everything else unchanged, that still wouldn't significantly alter the story, it'd only leave you wondering why Shandris calls the Alliance 'greenskins'.

Are these minor changes? Maybe. But it still beats Rebel Yell in this regard where I could cut the campaign out entirely and just start the zerg one and get an overall story.

For one thing, I didn't just say cut out the Horde campaign, I said cut out the Horde entirely. Taking the Terrans out of StarCraft entirely means no Kerrigan, no Kerrigan/Tassadar confrontation, no infesting humans searching for the 'determinant', no Koprulu Expedition Fleet and no Jim Raynor in The Fall. But even if you're only cutting out Rebel Yell, it also significantly changes without background for Infested Kerrigan, and it means explaining the remnants of the Confederacy on Tarsonis, Arcturus Mengsk and Jim Raynor going after Kerrigan, why Kerrigan has some human tinkering about her mind...

[Hawki]

Do we learn anything about the Eastern Kingdoms in the Horde Campaign? All I recall is the one cutscene where Mannoroth and Tichrondrius discuss how the humans pose no resistance because we already wiped them out in the Scourge campaign. There's really no new information there, we already know that Lordaeron, Quel'thalas and Dalaran were wiped out because we did that during the Scourge campaign. We learn nothing new here.

We know that Quel'thalas and Dalaran are wiped out, Lordaeron's still essentially standing by the end of the Scourge campaign. And that still leaves every other human kingdom to deal with.

As I said, killing Cenarius is the only thing the Horde actually do in the campaign.

I know you said that, and I still call bullshit. Let's chalk down some Horde accomplishments:

-Liberate an internment camp.

-Rescue the Darkspear trolls from the murlocs

-Rescue the tauren from the centaur

-Defeat Alliance forces on Kalimdor

-Kill Cenarius

-Defeat Mannaroth, ending the blood curse

So basically, the Horde go from refuges in the Eastern Kingdoms to being free from their blood curse, and find a place to call their own in the Barrens. It seems that your approach is that only achievements against the other three main factions count. But there's something else to remember, that if not for Mannaroth's presence, the Alliance/Horde forces probably wouldn't have even moved into Ashenvale, as it's established that they're looking to see if any more demons are around. Without killing Cenarius, the Sentinels have no reason to be hostile. Without the presence of Mannaroth, the Alliance/Horde has no reason to head north again.

But even if you did remove the Horde and left everything else unchanged, that still wouldn't significantly alter the story, it'd only leave you wondering why Shandris calls the Alliance 'greenskins'.

Except the Alliance didn't kill Cenarius, period. So not only is Shandris getting the skin colour wrong, but also the very race/faction in question. The only reason the Sentinels attack the Alliance at all in their campaign is that they assume they're part of the same overall faction as the Horde.

[FanaticTemplar]

We know that Quel'thalas and Dalaran are wiped out, Lordaeron's still essentially standing by the end of the Scourge campaign. And that still leaves every other human kingdom to deal with.

And this gets addressed in the Horde Campaign?

I know you said that, and I still call bullshit. Let's chalk down some Horde accomplishments:

-Liberate an internment camp.

Internal.

-Rescue the Darkspear trolls from the murlocs

I don't remember that at all. And from what you say, it sounds like 'helping the Tauren with the Centaurs' so internal.

-Rescue the tauren from the centaur

Internal.

-Defeat Alliance forces on Kalimdor

Irrelevant.

-Kill Cenarius

As previously mentioned.

-Defeat Mannaroth, ending the blood curse

Internal.

So basically, the Horde go from refuges in the Eastern Kingdoms to being free from their blood curse, and find a place to call their own in the Barrens. It seems that your approach is that only achievements against the other three main factions count. But there's something else to remember, that if not for Mannaroth's presence, the Alliance/Horde forces probably wouldn't have even moved into Ashenvale, as it's established that they're looking to see if any more demons are around.

Rain of Infernals? Also, there is no reason that requires them to have landed in the Barrens rather than Ashenvale in the first place.

Without killing Cenarius, the Sentinels have no reason to be hostile.

You do remember that the Night Elves were hostile before Cenarius died?

Except the Alliance didn't kill Cenarius, period.

And you'd deduce that how, given that the Horde campaign has been removed?

[Hawki]

And this gets addressed in the Horde Campaign?

Considering that the scene between Tichondrius and Mannaroth takes place in Lordaeron, yes.

You do remember that the Night Elves were hostile before Cenarius died?

Yes, because the orcs are invading their forests.

And you'd deduce that how, given that the Horde campaign has been removed?

There's no reason for the Alliance to move up to Ashenvale bar what they learn from the Horde's presence in Kalimdor, what with Mannaroth. Cenarius wouldn't be as hostile to the Alliance as the orcs because unlike the orcs, they have no demonic influence. Mannaroth would have no means or motive to trigger bloodlust in Alliance soldiers. And without shamans like the orcs had, it's debatable that they'd even detect the pool in the first place. The notion of the Alliance killing Cenarius is flimsy because both sides lack means and motive unless you adapt the storyline of the campaign, in which case, we're back to adaptation rather than removal.

[FanaticTemplar]

Considering that the scene between Tichondrius and Mannaroth takes place in Lordaeron, yes.

I fail to understand how seeing Undead and demons wrecking Andorhal settles things for you in a way that every other wrecking of Andorhal didn't. I especially fail to understand how it answers questions relating to "every other human kingdom".

Yes, because the orcs are invading their forests.

Exactly my point.

There's no reason for the Alliance to move up to Ashenvale bar what they learn from the Horde's presence in Kalimdor, what with Mannaroth.

I really don't understand how you consider a transition from Archimonde destroying Dalaran to the exiles on the Barrens reasonable, but a transition from Archimonde destroying Dalaran to the exiles in Ashenvale unreasonable.

Cenarius wouldn't be as hostile to the Alliance as the orcs because unlike the orcs, they have no demonic influence. Mannaroth would have no means or motive to trigger bloodlust in Alliance soldiers. And without shamans like the orcs had, it's debatable that they'd even detect the pool in the first place.

All this information comes from the campaign we removed from the game, remember? You can't say removing the campaign would be problematic because it would conflict with information from the campaign being removed. Since that campaign has been removed, the information it conflicts with no longer exists.

[Hawki]

I fail to understand how seeing Undead and demons wrecking Andorhal settles things for you in a way that every other wrecking of Andorhal didn't. I especially fail to understand how it answers questions relating to "every other human kingdom".

It's called signpost storytelling. Didn't think the town in the campaign 3 scene was Andorhal but I could be wrong. It basically serves as a microcosm for everything else that's going on.

I really don't understand how you consider a transition from Archimonde destroying Dalaran to the exiles on the Barrens reasonable, but a transition from Archimonde destroying Dalaran to the exiles in Ashenvale unreasonable.

I never said it was unreasonable. I pointed out in my contentions post that the campaign can be adapted. It could be adapted to have the exiles arrive in Ashenvale. But your line of argument has been that we can remove the Horde campaign only, leave everything else in place, and get the same story. Which isn't possible. The removal of the Horde campaign doesn't change the fact that Jaina's forces arrive in the Barrens. It does change the fact that Jaina's forces interact with them. Ergo, the chain of cause and effect to prompt them to head north is removed unless you further alter stuff, in which case, wholesale removal = same effect is rendered null.

All this information comes from the campaign we removed from the game, remember? You can't say removing the campaign would be problematic because it would conflict with information from the campaign being removed. Since that campaign has been removed, the information it conflicts with no longer exists.

I didn't say that, I said removing material from that campaign makes things problematic in the next campaign. If the orc campaign no longer exists, then the events in it no longer exist, so the situation in the next campaign must be altered. It seems your line of thought is that if one branch of history is removed, the timeline remains the same anyway. If not for the orcs, Cenarius wouldn't be dead. If Cenarius isn't dead, then the Sentinels have no reason to react the way they do in their own campaign. The Alliance takes no part whatsoever in Cenarius's death, so a different history is necessitated. Ergo, you can't remove the Horde campaign and get the same events.