StarCraft III - Story and Storytelling

[Hawki]

Wait, so we are continuing this after all? Fine.

Honestly, I'd be happy to stop. Again, I disagree with all your points below, but if you want to end like gentlemen, I'm happy to. Partly because I'm tired of the argument, partly because to continue it, I'd have to look up Fellowship of the Ring and quote verbatim.

[Turalyon]

Now that Hawki has finally agreed to stop, we can back to the topic of Starcraft 3's story and story-telling. Where were we again? I remember saying something to the effect of if SC3 comes around, it'll most likely just be another rehash or another contrived escalation to justify showcasing another war between the races and/or against another common enemy. Hawki said something about it possibly not having to be either and still be able to be compelling as if that somehow is supposed to stave off sequel decay/sequelitis - something that is already evident in Sc2. It's one thing to actually be compelling (your mileage will vary if one would claim Sc2's current story to be such a case) but if the intent for Sc3 is the continuation of the story (which I would highly doubt) it would be better served by being written as novels instead of making another game.

Huh, guess there wasn't that much to the initial topic afterall. I guess that frees Hawki up to continue arguing again with FT about the minutiae of LotR now.

[DarthYam]

actually the legion needed an arcane site to get onto azeroth. The Night elves didn't use arcane magic and wouldn't fall for it AGAIN, so they needed to dupe some other arcane using society to let them in. The high elves and dalaran knew about the legion (since the high elves were descended from the pawns who had defected the first time), and the other humans could have ganged up if they just tried sneaking into Dalaran and trying to open a portal there. They landed on the wrong continent entirely by design, because they needed to actually generate a gateway to enter the planet.

[solidsamurai]

To me personally, the cinematics of SC2 are so superior to SC1 that I find it very difficult to comprehend how people can think otherwise.

Okay, well... considering SC 2 has a 12 year advantage, that's like tying a man down before you punch him in the gut. SC 2 is shit because well... its 12 years, and starcraft 1's cut scenes still feel better. SC 2 is flamboyant and silly and wastes it's superior technology on stupid things like fight scenes and explaining how things work (ie. tychus' armor assembly) yet retconning other things.

The in-game engine renders the stuff going on in the hyperion and the between mission dialogue. The actual cinematics are flamboyant, and cool at first, but they aren't something I wanted to view again and again. They felt very predictable in their execution - of course, a person is going to be rendered in full, spoiling any mystery that the starcraft universe originally contained. No need for technical manuals describing each unit in full - just have a silly one liner tacked on, and a bit of tongue-in-cheek made up on the spot history for every unit description.

And the realism also gets thrown in the gutter because fight scenes need choreographing! We need to make it as michael bay as possible with pretty glowy explosions, that don't feel real or consequential - they just light up like easy-to-dodge fireballs, like in any hollywood action flick.

Bringing this back to SC3, in SC3, I want them to try. I don't want them to abandon anything about Starcraft's gameplay, but, you know, you could hide the fact that your maps are all just sets of tiles a bit more. Warcraft 3 was a huge step up from Starcraft in making the maps feel like organic environments. SC2 was a step... nowhere. Give me maps and terrain in the missions that look more like, say Halo Wars, and less like Warcraft 3, and maybe I'll be able to take the cinematics/in-between mission sequences more seriously as being part of the same game. It doesn't have to be all about realistic graphics, but it could at least let me forget how it's just a bunch of wall segments next to each other instead of a real cliff.

I wish that after all these months, I had the intelligence to phrase it that way. Good on you, sir!

Even the forcefields in SC 2 were hexes - the game was deliberately telling us 'this is a tile based game'. And don't use the e-sports excuse. Professionals can recognize what a cliff looks like well enough - they're god damned progamers, for chris' japanese sake.

[Hawki]

Okay, well... considering SC 2 has a 12 year advantage, that's like tying a man down before you punch him in the gut. SC 2 is shit because well... its 12 years, and starcraft 1's cut scenes still feel better. SC 2 is flamboyant and silly and wastes it's superior technology on stupid things like fight scenes and explaining how things work (ie. tychus' armor assembly) yet retconning other things.

You're using very strange logic here. You claim SC2 "wastes its time" on things like fight scenes and how things work. So how does that excuse the cinematics of SC1? Apart from the end cinematics of each campaign, each one is completely surperfluous and outside the main plot. The Amerigo is a pretty fight scene but it doesn't contribute anything. The warp space wormhole shows us how the zerg travel through warp space, but it isn't required viewing. Lester and Sarge dying are in the same camp as the terrans who prod the protoss - redshirts who die humorously, are never mentioned again, and add nothing.

The in-game engine renders the stuff going on in the hyperion and the between mission dialogue. The actual cinematics are flamboyant, and cool at first, but they aren't something I wanted to view again and again. They felt very predictable in their execution - of course, a person is going to be rendered in full, spoiling any mystery that the starcraft universe originally contained.

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

No need for technical manuals describing each unit in full - just have a silly one liner tacked on, and a bit of tongue-in-cheek made up on the spot history for every unit description.

Except, you know, all the armoury and evolution pit descriptions. And site descriptions. And everything else.

[Turalyon]

So we're back to talking about the cinematics then.

I'm actually not bothered how SC1 or Sc2 use their cinematics because each have a different approach to why they use them the way they did. In Sc1, they are supposed to be a "waste of time" in terms of relating to the story going on at the moment largely because the story's "meat" (as governed by the limitations of the tech at the time) had to be rendered through text and non-descript talking heads. They are used to give a wider view of the SC universe at hand and are supposed to give a "now for something a little different" feel to it. You can take it or leave it - whether it is a real waste of time depends on your perspective because you either appreciate the extra side flavour or you don't. Either way, no harm is done if you want to include or ignore them and that's kind of nice in a way.

In Sc2, the cinematics are used largely to do away with the non-descript talking heads aspect that was in Sc1. It has the benefit of making character interaction more palpable and also allows one to make the dialogue more palatable because you get a double treat in seeing and hearing what's going on. There's a great deal more immersive benefit from this approach. The "waste of time" aspect of this approach makes senses in that it potentially make things more boated than necessary especially when a lot of it maybe showing flavour and superfluous characterisation that is irrelevant to the main story. This is not even mentioning the argument that games shouldn't be too cinematic since players would rather be involved in someone's developing characterisation in the moment during gameplay (this is perhaps the hardest thing to do) rather than passively watching something unfold before them. However, 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).

[Laurentian]

And the realism also gets thrown in the gutter because fight scenes need choreographing!

Um...I'm pretty sure that any fight scene, "realistic" or not, requires choreography.

[solidsamurai]

You're using very strange logic here. You claim SC2 "wastes its time" on things like fight scenes and how things work. So how does that excuse the cinematics of SC1? Apart from the end cinematics of each campaign, each one is completely surperfluous and outside the main plot. The Amerigo is a pretty fight scene but it doesn't contribute anything. The warp space wormhole shows us how the zerg travel through warp space, but it isn't required viewing. Lester and Sarge dying are in the same camp as the terrans who prod the protoss - redshirts who die humorously, are never mentioned again, and add nothing.

SC 1 doesn't need to be excused - the cinematics are self-contained and awesome.

As for SC 2, 'wastes its time' might not be the right words - it's not unecessary. I just found the cinematics to be flashy and expected. Nothing new was attempted. It was just 'standard acrobatic fight scene on top of action close up hydralisk punch fight scene'. It wasn't much of a stretch.

SC 1 took great advantage of the animation limitations. The lighting was amazing, and things that could be done realistically at the time (ie. clinking glassware) were fully exploited. The CGI intro to Event Horizon was also similarly good (clinking glassware, rolex watches that don't fold, but float about in zero G realistically). It did what it could and it was amazing.

There's nothing to excuse SC 1 of - they didn't make any mistakes. They're worth admiration to this day. I'm not saying they're infinitely superior, but there's no reason to hate them.

[Hawki]

SC 1 doesn't need to be excused - the cinematics are self-contained

And that, IMO, is part of the problem.

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.

From a character development standpoint, some of the cinematics serve this purpose, but apart from the ending cinematics and the Brood War intro, none of them do so - either character development is absent, 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. For plot development, every ending cinematic is relevant, but that still leaves a lot that aren't, and arguably, just end up punching holes in the setting. Why do the protoss attack the salvagers? Why are Lester and Sarge so remiss about the zerg this far into the invasion of Mar Sara? There are a few exceptions, such as Kerrigan's dream sequence or seeing the protoss ships and the Hyperion return to Aiur, but as they only last a few seconds, they don't make much of an impact on the plot.

So, that leaves option 3, and that's to be self-contained. IMO, the only ones to do this are the Amerigo cinematic, and the intro to Brood War. I think anyone could watch the former, get a sense of what was going on, and enjoy the suspense and action. It's a cinematic that, IMO, stands up to this day. Likewise, the Brood War intro. It gets extra points for Stukov/DuGalle character development/establishment, but I think it works quite well on its own as well. The average viewer might not know why these insect-like creatures are attacking humans, but they can still get the sense of how humanity can be just as cruel and callous in its own way. These cinematics still stand up today IMO. But again, they're exceptions to the rule.

I admit, there are some SC2 cinematics one could cut out, such as the intros to WoL and HotS. The former is arguably tech porn more than anything, and the latter, while it kind of serves a similar purpose to the BW intro (the actions of DuGalle and Kerrigan coming full circle), that cycle of character development isn't as evident here. But they're still exceptions. Otherwise, SC2 cinematics are devoted to plot and/or character development. You can cut some out, but one (or at least me) usually gets something out of them in these areas.

I'm not saying they're infinitely superior, but there's no reason to hate them.

That, though, I also agree with. I'm not fond of their style, but I don't actively dislike them. At the least, if I were playing through the old games, I could easily skip them if I wanted to.

[Turalyon]

Why do the protoss attack the salvagers?

What makes you think the Protoss were actively aiming for the salvagers? Surely they'd just send a scout if that's what they wanted to do.

I've always taken the huge frickin laser beam as being meant for the colony of Chau Sara since the Terran campaign more or less starts shortly after it's destruction (as mentioned in the prologue).

Sure, one could say it was highly unlikely for them to be directly under that laser cannon in that instance but well, that's (un)luck for you.