What Are You Watching?

[Nissa]

^ So? A lot of guys in real life are exactly like what you just described. Some people are just not into romance or are "weird" when confronted with it. One could have worse flaws...

I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, I'm just saying it's one of the reasons Picard is not my favorite. And it's also a demonstration of Roddenberry's inability to have real relationships. He was a complete slut, and honestly, I'm more comfortable with captains not written by him.

[Turalyon]

^ Well, I'm not sure if Rodenberry wrote absolutely everything about Picard, so he shouldn't shoulder all the blame. Anyhow, Picard is one of the ultra rare introverted heroes one would ever see in any popular fiction, so I can let slide some of the peculiarities.

[Mislagnissa]

Talking about the subjective feels/what it evokes here. Sc1 has stronger themes and weight than Sc2 does. Much like earlier Trek compared to modern Trek.

Besides, nostalgia ain't a bad thing to have when there's nothing else. Something has to be half-way decent in order for nostalgia to even begin to take root in the first place. I don't see anyone being nostalgic about Sc2 and yet people still do for Sc1. It means for all it's faults, something worked. Like Trek. Something about them worked/persisted despite their hamfisted acting and pretentious stories, whereas modern Trek has none of this charm and only just uses the aesthetics of Trek for generic action plots.

Something certainly worked for me.

I loved playing SC as a child, and I was too dumb to analyze the story or lore at the time. As an adult with matured tastes in military science fiction, SC no longer holds the same allure and I wish it had done things very differently.

Unfortunately for me, no other SC fans share my tastes and there aren't any other SC-like games for me to focus my interest on.

I'm sorry for being such a crappy person. I wish there was a game that scratched my itch, but there isn't and that makes me sad.

[ragnarok]

Something certainly worked for me.

I loved playing SC as a child, and I was too dumb to analyze the story or lore at the time. As an adult with matured tastes in military science fiction, SC no longer holds the same allure and I wish it had done things very differently.

Unfortunately for me, no other SC fans share my tastes and there aren't any other SC-like games for me to focus my interest on.

I'm sorry for being such a crappy person. I wish there was a game that scratched my itch, but there isn't and that makes me sad.

Because you're too much of a perfectionist, which isn't achievable. I'm curious though, since I noticed you commented on the Last of Us 2 game, how did you think the Last of Us 1?

[Mislagnissa]

Because you're too much of a perfectionist, which isn't achievable. I'm curious though, since I noticed you commented on the Last of Us 2 game, how did you think the Last of Us 1?

Thinking “the psi-emitter was a lazy plot contrivance” and “it’s silly for a twenty something woman to be the bug messiah” does not make me a perfectionist. What is your standard for these kinds of stories? Have you ever read military science fiction? When was the last time you critically analyzed fiction?

The story and world building of Starcraft is sloppy. I had this conversation numerous times. Pretty much any person who isn’t blinded by nostalgia for the original game will acknowledge this.

Kerry is a special snowflake in the first game. The zerg invaded terran space to capture her and left as soon as they did. They followed the psi-emitter like moths to a flame despite their supposed intelligence and the fact they used psychic lures themselves. They didn’t try to capture every other person in the sector with even trace psychic genes.

None of this makes sense if you’re trying to create a serious/realistic/rationalist/whatever military scifi setting. It might work for space opera, but even then it still feels really silly to me.

Thinking all that doesn’t make me a perfectionist. These should be very basic expectations when it comes to world building and plotting out the war narrative between humans and psychic space bugs.

The thought process that went into the zerg story is clearly flawed.

What is the zerg’s shtick? They eat planets, exterminate all species they encounter, galactic space monster etc.

What do the zerg want in terran space? To capture psychics, acquire the psychic mutations present throughout the population, to devise armies of new warrior creatures.

What keeps them from immediately getting what they want? Time, distance, lack of resources, lack of numbers, enemy resistance, research & development, logistics, etc.

What do they do in the final game? They follow blatant lures on a wild goose, capture one woman, and then they leave the terrans alone.

That isn’t a satisfactory trajectory to their arc. It sloppy and unbelievable.

This is very simple stuff. The sort of stuff that all world builders and story tellers go thru. How could you possibly think that thinking this very simple stuff makes me a perfectionist? What standard are you using?

[ragnarok]

This is just another one of your "Everything sucks" crap lecture. Boring.

[Mislagnissa]

This is just another one of your "Everything sucks" crap lecture. Boring.

I admire your honesty.

Look, I see flaws in Starcraft's story and everybody else tells me that I'm wrong. I feel like I am insane or that something is wrong with me.

I'm not trying to lecture crap. I'm trying to understand why everybody else thinks SC1 is the pinnacle of storytelling even though I can't see it.

[ragnarok]

The reason some of the people on the battlenet forums got along with me despite the fact I wasn't as critical of the SC2 story (and for that matter the SC1 story as well) is because I tried my best to make sense out of the lore problems Blizzard made.

Of course, they said that made Blizzard's problem even more glaring because it's not supposed to be up to the lore nerd to try to make sense of the story in that kind of detail....

[Mislagnissa]

The reason some of the people on the battlenet forums got along with me despite the fact I wasn't as critical of the SC2 story (and for that matter the SC1 story as well) is because I tried my best to make sense out of the lore problems Blizzard made.

Of course, they said that made Blizzard's problem even more glaring because it's not supposed to be up to the lore nerd to try to make sense of the story in that kind of detail....

What I wouldn’t give to just make a new game without all that baggage attached.

[ragnarok]

What I wouldn’t give to just make a new game without all that baggage attached.

Then you should have chosen the game designer path, and then be prepared to face criticism from the audience.