HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

[The_Blade]

SC2 is just about useless characters and plot twists. SC2 story so far and I'm only on like mission 15 is so horrible. It doesn't even have a story. They just throw random garbage at you.

Useless characters? Tosh and Hanson are a great example of USEFULL characters, but as you don't care I will not state why.

Mission 15... I don't remember a mission with that name. Would you be so kind to tell us the name of the mission in order to discuss it?

Random Garbage... Really?

[BusinessMonkey]

Useless characters? Tosh and Hanson are a great example of USEFULL characters, but as you don't care I will not state why.

Mission 15... I don't remember a mission with that name. Would you be so kind to tell us the name of the mission in order to discuss it?

Random Garbage... Really?

I care, would you like to state how Tosh and Hanson are useful for the story development?

Also he means he's done 15 missions, he's not referring to a specific one.

And I also believe that when he uses the words random garbage, it's to describe how there are too many small and superficial elements in SC2. Blizz ended up doing what they set out to avoid with their "we'll divide the chapters in 3 parts to avoid getting superficial" argument they presented at Blizzcon.

[pure.Wasted]

Blizz ended up doing what they set out to avoid with their "we'll divide the chapters in 3 parts to avoid getting superficial" argument they presented at Blizzcon.

Care to provide a quote? I'm pretty sure you have it exactly backwards.

When you put plots together (1 game instead of 3), you end up with less room for superficial details (Dr. Hanson, say) because the plot has to be gotten through. When you spread a story out across 3 installments, you end up with a lot of room to fill with new things. Filler cropping up is always a danger.

That's just common sense.

[broodmywarcraft]

Linear!!

[BusinessMonkey]

Care to provide a quote? I'm pretty sure you have it exactly backwards.

When you put plots together (1 game instead of 3), you end up with less room for superficial details (Dr. Hanson, say) because the plot has to be gotten through. When you spread a story out across 3 installments, you end up with a lot of room to fill with new things. Filler cropping up is always a danger.

That's just common sense.

It's been so much time since I read about that, yet it stuck with me, because I could really understand why they would do like that. I thought there was a video, but I wasn't able to find it, so here's the link the the SC:Legacy coverage instead.
It should be enough to prove my point. Anyways, I'm just trying to point out that Blizz ended up going against their own goals in the production of SC2 (I have to go out now, so I'll check again later for some more proof.)
http://sclegacy.com/feature/33-bc-08...gameplay-panel

[spychi]

It's interesting that you would bring that up in this thread, of all places. While I haven't played ME, I can attest to the fact that at least in Bioshock (widely hailed for its story) BioWare didn't have to fight the branching feature in telling their tale, and Pixar ... being in the business of FILM making ... never, ever, ever has to deal with branching.

Bioware didn't make Bioshock or I misunderstand something

[Warsaw]

Useless characters? Tosh and Hanson are a great example of USEFULL characters, but as you don't care I will not state why.

Mission 15... I don't remember a mission with that name. Would you be so kind to tell us the name of the mission in order to discuss it?

Random Garbage... Really?

Hanson is an okay character, but he is still doesn't fit in. All of the characters are so flat and static. Tosh is just... the stupid bones and voodoo crap. Zomg it's a black guy. -.- I don't HATE tosh, but as far as quality goes this isn't the quality of game I wanted .

All those side quests did was take away from the main story. Why? Because they were in some books? Blizzard tries in every single way to please every single person so they can make a product and in this fashion they destroy their game. Not in the sense that you can't play the game, but there is so much going on that there is nothing going on.

[The_Blade]

Hanson is an okay character, but he is still doesn't fit in. All of the characters are so flat and static. Tosh is just... the stupid bones and voodoo crap. Zomg it's a black guy. -.- I don't HATE tosh, but as far as quality goes this isn't the quality of game I wanted .

All those side quests did was take away from the main story. Why? Because they were in some books? Blizzard tries in every single way to please every single person so they can make a product and in this fashion they destroy their game. Not in the sense that you can't play the game, but there is so much going on that there is nothing going on.

That's what I wanted to hear ^^

Tosh is not exactly the timeline accurate guy I wanted to see in SC2, but he's original purpose as the leader of the Spectre army was the aspect that boosted his story. I just feel that unlike locking down Hansons storyline by branching the resolution of their ministories into a "I will never see her again" end, Tosh purpose and character were both trashed out. But not only trashed out, they just stuck one end with a probable comback and the other one to his death. Hanson boosted Raynor's internal conflict to a certain extention. There was also a hovering idea that she might create an baccine for the Zerg virus. For those reasons I see that both characters were usefull to the storyline.

I have to agree with the aspect that the storyline had close to no debth, till the end. I wouldn't care for alternative roads in the storyline if the plot was forced into a deeper level.

Blizzard made a comment during an interview or some statement that suggested that Tosh/tychus would contrast Hanson/horner. And they did, but not to an extent or interaction that I would like to see in order to create an interesting conflict. Every story was just branching out parrallel to each other with no mayor changes. Now that I think about it, you never really took Raynor into a bad character or a good character; Blizzard just wanted you to think that you did, when nothing really happened in the end. He was the same cheese Raynor.

[Hamshank]

Linear.

Linear.

Linear.

Linear.

I'd actually post why, but who cares. Anyone with have a brain should know why and considering from the poll results I don't really have a lot of people who disagree with me. :P Main reason, it just takes away from the story. SC2 is just about useless characters and plot twists. SC2 story so far and I'm only on like mission 15 is so horrible. It doesn't even have a story. They just throw random garbage at you.

Sexy.
Sexy.
Sexy.
Sexy.

You've got it right on brotha. QFT. The presentation style in Sc2 would have been impossible in SC1, yet it utterly fails.

[nautilus]

Sorta torn over this. I like the means by which the branching story allowed for units to be unlocked. However, this did backfire, at least for me, on a few occasions. I thought it was a clever'ish' mechanic to introduce. However, I do feel like it does take away from the story, due to the 3 branches.

I think HoTS could stand to be linear, and the branching style could stick with WoL. It would also make sense, because of the nature of the campaign that Raynor is leading. Due to the situation he is in, he has to tackle multiple things at once, like gathering funds for his rebellion and fighting the zerg. This might not be the same in HoTS, and it might be more appropriate to introduce a linear storyline.