Blizzard vs Bioware (Escapist March mayhem)

[Nicol Bolas]

The writing in Valve games isn't exactly brilliant, either. The Half-Life story is weak at best.

There is a difference between "story" (the overall plot) and writing (the words and such used to convey information and the sequence of events). You can have the greatest plot in the world, but it doesn't mean jack squat if you can't write your way out of a paper bag.

HL2's story may not be particularly strong, but its writing very much is. Just look at the broadcasts by the badguy at the beginning of HL2.

He reads a letter on-air asking about why the Combine has shut off all human reproduction. And he goes into detail justifying this.

It tells you something about his character. His words are not bombastic or threatening. Nor are they particularly charismatic. He isn't Arcturus Mengsk issuing an edict declaring himself ruler of all humanity based on fiat and power. He absolutely wants to convince people of the truth of his words, not stomp them down with force of arms.

He is calm, rational, understanding, knowledgeable, and apparently logical. And because of all of this, it is absolutely chilling. Because he is using his calm, reason, understanding, knowledge, and apparent logic to justify something horrific.

And while the voice actor certainly deserves major props here, the writing, the words themselves are what really sells it. He is clearly evil, not because of the usual tropes and such that say, "Look at me, I'm the villain!" The game gets this across in a much more subtle way using his words.

The sequence also serves to tell the player about what's going on in the new world he has found himself in.

[Gifted]

Nicol, true that.. Very good example.

[Aldrius]

I don't think I can actually vote in this poll.

I like both companies a lot.

while BioWare has some of the best writers in the industry who for some reason can't help but keep writing the same plot over and over.

Same structure maybe, but I don't think it's the exact same PLOT over and over again. Dragon Age: Origins certainly doesn't have the same plot as ME or KOTOR. Despite having a very similar structure. (Go gather these 4-5 things and then come back and we'll meet up and fight the big bad guy.)

But then Saren is certainly not Loghain, and Sovereign is certainly not the Archdemon. And Malak isn't Loghain or Saren either.

And I think some of the nuances of Blizzard's writing makes up for it's poor dialogue from time to time. I think the writing often let's down what are some really good ideas.

[Triceron]

What Blizzard makes is good characters. They create unforgettable moments for each character that makes them special, but when you look at the plot as a whole in retrospect, it doesn't always make a lot of sense. Bioware on the otherhand tailors their stories and weaves each minute event into the bigger picture. They even give the players the option of playing different personas to show how their characters will react towards different situations. There's no real comparison with story.

[Kacaier]

He isn't Arcturus Mengsk issuing an edict declaring himself ruler of all humanity based on fiat and power. He absolutely wants to convince people of the truth of his words, not stomp them down with force of arms.

I agree with your overall assessment, but I disagree with this specific segment. Arcturus Mengsk and Dr. Breen do the same exact thing.

If you must recall, the Combine ruled over humanity in the Half Life universe whether Dr. Breen assured the citizenry or not (obviously not, considering there is a prominent resistance force). Likewise, the Dominion overtook the Terran Confederacy in its hegemony of the united Terran forces.

Mengsk's Inauguration Speech

In that speech, Mengsk is also neither bombastic nor threatening. Nowhere did Mengsk claim himself an emperor through fiat and power. The speech has an urgent tone, seeking for the consolidation of forces in the threat of external enemies. Of course he considered himself the best choice as the 'emperor' of this new force, but he of course felt himself the most qualified. It can easily be compared to Dr. Breen's broadcasts.

But we know that the speeches weren't the unifying force, no matter how convincing either were. It's just reinforcement propaganda gibberish. On one hand though, Mengsk actually has truth in his words: Without a unified Terran force, then the Zerg or internal civil war in the wake of the collapse of the Confederacy would have been annihilated the Terrans. Breen, on the other hand, is just a power-consumed puppet of the Combine empire. In my personal opinion, he doesn't actually seek the betterment of humankind. Instead, being the Administrator to Earth has power, and anyone in power tries to do anything to keep it. He really doesn't care about humans. The only thing that held both empires were the force of arms.

Though, I suppose Breen was definitely the better orator.

[TheEconomist]

I disagree. StarCraft had great writing. To give an apples to apples comparison of your example, I thought the Arcturus Mengsk speech in the Terran ending was great.

[Gradius]

When I was playing HL2 I didn't really buy Breen's words towards the end of the game. There's no way that he can create stalkers out of humans in his own citadel, watch humanity be systematically exterminated and think that any of this is rational or good for humanity. I had to assume that he was just power hungry and was lying over his broadcasts.

[DemolitionSquid]

There is only one correct answer to this question, and her name is Tali'Zorah.

[Nicol Bolas]

In that speech, Mengsk is also neither bombastic nor threatening.

He is very clearly using the threat of external powers to get people to do what he says. The problem with Mengsk's speech is that he never says why he should be in power. He's using fear of imminent death to get people to join his cause; that always implies the threat that doing anything else will result in their death.

Nowhere did Mengsk claim himself an emperor through fiat and power.

*ahem*

Out of the many, we shall forge an indivisible whole, capitulating only to a single throne! And from that throne, I shall watch over you.

This isn't exactly subtle here. Who sits in a throne? The only way you can crown yourself emperor anymore is if you're Palpatine in Episode 3.

On one hand though, Mengsk actually has truth in his words: Without a unified Terran force, then the Zerg or internal civil war in the wake of the collapse of the Confederacy would have been annihilated the Terrans.

Yeah, it's kinda disingenuous to take credit for solving the internal conflict that you caused. If he'd left the Confederacy alone, they'd have kept unity just fine. Again, Episode 3: I will bring peace, from the war I started.

Breen, on the other hand, is just a power-consumed puppet of the Combine empire. In my personal opinion, he doesn't actually seek the betterment of humankind. Instead, being the Administrator to Earth has power, and anyone in power tries to do anything to keep it. He really doesn't care about humans.

That's the thing; I never got the impression that Breen was like that. Sure, he liked being in charge, but I felt like he actually believed much of what he was saying. He probably felt that Combine rule would help improve humanity.

This is shown in part of his dialog against Gordon as Gordon infiltrates the Citadel. He asks what Freeman has built, has accomplished, other than destruction. This shows that he cares to some extent about building things, accomplishing things.

I think you're oversimplifying a complex character down too much.

[Aldrius]

He is very clearly using the threat of external powers to get people to do what he says. The problem with Mengsk's speech is that he never says why he should be in power.

Because he'll make humanity strong against the big scary aliens and the corrupt politicians. He's a real honest guy, a man of the people.

Hardly anything new, but I don't think he's quite snidely whiplash either.

Yeah, it's kinda disingenuous to take credit for solving the internal conflict that you caused. If he'd left the Confederacy alone, they'd have kept unity just fine. Again, Episode 3: I will bring peace, from the war I started.

Key difference is the war in Star Wars was fabricated. There was no genuine separatist movement, it was a facade for Emperor Palpatine to seize power by whoever wound up winning the war. With Mengsk it was a genuine claim to power, he was only behind one side and manipulated people to make sure it got done. And he was actually saying he intended to do things better than the Confederacy did. I'm almost positive he has a line about that final speech as well.

But I don't entirely disagree with you. Mengsk was an unrepentant asshole. Who wanted power and control more than anything else. Who wouldn't stand for unrulyness. I think you're oversimplifying a little bit, though. I think his backstory is fairly interesting, and I think his relationship with Kerrigan is really great. So maybe as far as the overall plot goes, he's just Hitler. But when you get into the nitty gritty of it, and consider the characterization that exists. I think he becomes a lot more than that.

But that's just Mengsk. I thought Dugalle was a better done 'villain' in Brood War personally.