HOTS: Branch vs. Linear

[spychi]

Sorry, but you're already busted. Huge, huge aspects of the games are still being developed. For one thing, as of 4-5 months ago they still weren't sure if they were going to bring Tychus back. And that's just one thing we've heard of explicitly.

because they said so?
how can you belive them and trust every word they say?
simple example, before the WWI 2007 they said that they are not working on StarCraft 2 or any StarCraft universe game period

I also think that they already have the whole plot for the other two expansions and they probably won't change much in it

for me the SP was rushed, there is no excuse in what they did with the story in WoL, it's really really below any level of good storytelling
\
Nicolas Bolas posted about non linear story telling

I totally blame them. BioWare has been doing this for a decade+ now. All you have to do is play their games and you know how to do a non-linear campaign. Also, they made nifty tools you could use to practice, like NWN's editor (and NWN2's editor for a more modern version, but that's by Obsidian). They could easily have taken a few months to use these tools to make some non-linear campaigns as practice.

I just can't accept inexperience as a valid excuse. I certainly understand it, but it doesn't excuse the problems. Especially when, as you rightfully point out, the parallels between the arcs are achingly close to one another.

I will almost completly agree with him, but in the last line there is something that bothers me
it isn't inexperience, it's just playing stupid, let's face it the whole god damn StarCraft 2 game was all about multiplayer from the start, they didn't care about the whole epic experience with the campaign, they wanted to achive millions of sold copies so that everyone would play the multiplayer and Blizzard would secure it's dominance in worldwide online gaming, it never was about the campaign

if they would really care about the campaign and about fans, they would hire Glynn like everyone wanted, they would do what fans wanted from them to do with the campaign
instead they only cared about multiplayer gameplay balance and complains how the Void Ray is OP
when I end up the campaign I was like: WTF all this waiting and all those promises about how epic the sp will be and I get shit on a gold plate"

[pure.Wasted]

because they said so?
how can you belive them and trust every word they say?

...because saying this makes them look STUPID? Blizzard just admitted "we realize that we just deliberately killed a character, and that bringing characters back to life trivializes death, but uh... we're THINKING OF bringing this guy back already anyway." This does not buy them brownie points with the fans.

Not just brownie points, anyway.

I'm not defending Blizzard. I'm just criticizing from a completely different direction. I'd much rather they'd had a plan worked out from the get-go, because then ridiculous things like this wouldn't have happened.

But they obviously don't, so BnetGamer is incorrect.

[BnetGamer77]

So, I'm incorrect because they "might" bring back a character that wont even change the main story, hence my post is moot...correct?

I'm predicting a bad out-come based on what I've seen so far, and you're predicting a "main story can change" out-come based on
speculation they *might* bring back a character they killed off, or at least appear to kill off.

If he was to return to the game, it'd only be to tie into what main plot lines they already have planed out, it wont extend the campaign's overall plot.

The topic in regards to Linear and Branch is void, at least for me, due to and part that even if you weave all WoL missions into a linear product,
I'd of still be disappointed by the lack of a truly amazing story; as mentioned plenty through this thread by others, I too felt a lot of the missions
had nothing to do with the bigger picture or at least didn't feel they were 'big' enough to take up 2-3 missions of the campaign.

So in truth, you never discredited my prediction by stating he'd possibly come back, you just add to my theory that they are trying to think up ways
to add filler content around the main story, or maybe again to add characters into the main story...while not directly affecting the overall length or conclusion to it.

[pure.Wasted]

The topic in regards to Linear and Branch is void, at least for me, due to and part that even if you weave all WoL missions into a linear product,
I'd of still be disappointed by the lack of a truly amazing story; as mentioned plenty through this thread by others, I too felt a lot of the missions
had nothing to do with the bigger picture or at least didn't feel they were 'big' enough to take up 2-3 missions of the campaign.

If the game was linear it wouldn't have the same plot. There's a REASON the midsection is filler while the opening segment and the ending segment has plot progression with every single mission; and it's no coincidence that the midsection is the one that has branching and the opening and closing segments are the ones that don't.

If he was to return to the game, it'd only be to tie into what main plot lines they already have planed out, it wont extend the campaign's overall plot.

Now look who's making unfounded assumptions. I've brought up a fact -- a major character may be up for resurrection, which was obviously not the original idea; you've brought up no facts other than your gut impression of what's going on behind the scenes.

Want more facts? The game started development in 2003. Not until 2007 was Tychus invented as a character. Valerian Mengsk's personality wasn't finalized until 2006/2007. Not until 2008/2009 (when the in-game cinematics were being done) was Tychus's role in the campaign defined, as a lot of it was being done on-the-fly.

So... I'm pretty sure they have no idea. If all you're trying to say is "they knew Raynor would save Kerrigan," (and the corresponding finales of the other two expansions) well, that's likely, but there's a LOT more (non-filler) plot to WOL than that.

The true issue that is before us, is that this WoL story implies that it's main progression plot line could of been 1/3 of SC2's
story,(if it came out as one product) just as it was for SC1 and BW.

Ironically enough, I've been saying this would be the case since a few days before the game's release. That it is not that we're getting 3 StarCrafts, but we're getting 1 StarCraft broken up into 3 parts.

That doesn't mean I don't expect better -- much better -- from the expansions.

[BnetGamer77]

I'm not following your concept of how making WoL linear would of changed the main plot, it would of simply placed the "branching side missions"
in-between the main plot advancing missions as non-optional; least that's all we can assume sense the game is out - the damage has been done,
and can not be taken back.

Now look who's making unfounded assumptions. I've brought up a fact -- a major character may be up for resurrection, which was
obviously not the original idea; you've brought up no facts other than your gut impression of what's going on behind the scenes.

Hrm, I'm not counting that as a fact(in the sense you're using it to dis-count my post) because it is not proven yet to actually happen.
Also, are you not making your own unfounded assumption that it will change the game's main plot in anyway if he is brought back? Cause ultimately
that's what both of us can do, make guesses at what will happen, as well remark what we would like to see happen.

Want more facts? The game started development in 2003. Not until 2007 was Tychus invented as a character. Valerian Mengsk's
personality wasn't finalized until 2006/2007.

Not worth noting, these elements didn't make a difference in the overall story - they if anything added to the polishing or in-depth parts of the game.

Not until 2008/2009 (when the in-game cinematics were being done) was Tychus's role in the campaign defined, as a lot of it was being done on-the-fly.

Again, this doesn't shock me nor does it help your case...He was an element in the game that you could have replaced and still accomplished what the
WoL main plot set out to do. If he wasn't in the game, all they would of had to do was find a source for Jim's motivation to go out and hunt for these
relics...the rest of his lines and parts in the campaign were unneeded, but not unwanted ether. (Jim could of ended the campaign with out Tychus there
...it never changed the main plot, just Tychus's role in it)

So by all that I'm trying to communicate to you that a lot of these late added elements where still based on the main story...they didn't change it from my
perspective, and could have been done other ways with out them.

So... I'm pretty sure they have no idea. If all you're trying to say is "they knew Raynor would save Kerrigan," (and the corresponding finales of the
other two expansions) well, that's likely, but there's a LOT more (non-filler) plot to WOL than that.

You seem to be taking it extra easy on them then, cause I played the same game, and I didn't feel interested until Zeratul showed up and until the plot takes
the turn towards Char. The other missions aside of the Mar Sara missions, had no impact on me nor my interest on the over all campaign. The Mengsk side
quests I'll give you, but the way it was done disappointed me...I personally could care less what the "people's opinions" are of Jim Raynor or Mengsk was/is...
I just wanted Jim to settle the score with Mengsk through death or some other form of suffering...and having a bad public image doesn't count imo as a worse
form of suffering then death.

Ironically enough, I've been saying this would be the case since a few days before the game's release. That it is not that we're getting 3 StarCrafts, but we're
getting 1 StarCraft broken up into 3 parts.

Prior to the game release I would of ignored such a post, because I expected good results from Blizzard, they had yet to let me down...now, unlike your feelings stated here:

That doesn't mean I don't expect better -- much better -- from the expansions.

I expect the same feel as WoL...I would want better, but I'm not going into them expecting to be blown away this time around...I just don't see them scraping
their original plans and going all out on a crazy intense near-all main plot mission based campaign. (Though at least I won't be mad this time if I'm wrong)


I will apologies if it feels I'm trying to ether derail your thread or bicker for the sake of bickering, I just took your responses as ones aimed
to render my comments mislead and unneeded.

-

[pure.Wasted]

I'm not following your concept of how making WoL linear would of changed the main plot, it would of simply placed the "branching side missions"

I didn't mean making WOL linear now. I meant making WOL linear to begin with. As (many of) the narrative problems are obviously linked to the branched nature of the campaign, had the campaign been linear, we wouldn't have had (many of) those narrative problems. Simple as that.

Hrm, I'm not counting that as a fact(in the sense you're using it to dis-count my post) because it is not proven yet to actually happen.
Also, are you not making your own unfounded assumption that it will change the game's main plot in anyway if he is brought back? Cause ultimately
that's what both of us can do, make guesses at what will happen, as well remark what we would like to see happen.

It doesn't need to happen. The fact that they DON'T KNOW is enough to PROVE that they... don't know. Your argument rests on the fact that they have the campaign figured out. It doesn't matter whether Tychus comes back or stays dead. If they've already said they don't know, then they don't. Unless that was some elaborate Xanatos Gambit to fool the fans? Hidden innocuously in a single Director's Commentary for one random cinematic? Yeah, doubt it.

Not worth noting, these elements didn't make a difference in the overall story - they if anything added to the polishing or in-depth parts of the game.

Excuse me, Valerian Mengsk makes no difference to the overall story? Valerian Mengsk is the reason Raynor has the resources to stage an invasion of Char. Without him, none of this would have been possible. How in the world does he make no difference...?

Again, this doesn't shock me nor does it help your case...He was an element in the game that you could have replaced and still accomplished what the
WoL main plot set out to do. If he wasn't in the game, all they would of had to do was find a source for Jim's motivation to go out and hunt for these
relics...the rest of his lines and parts in the campaign were unneeded, but not unwanted ether. [i](Jim could of ended the campaign with out Tychus there

Following that logic, the Overmind in SC1 could have been replaced with a non-corporeal collective consciousness with no voice, and NOTHING about the campaign would have changed. Tassadar could have just blown up a big Zerg base for all the good it did anyone.

Your definition of "irreplaceable" elements of fiction borders on the useless, because practically anything could be substituted for something simpler, thereby cutting 'filler' or non-essential bits. Ever heard of the expression "the journey matters more than the destination"?

So by all that I'm trying to communicate to you that a lot of these late added elements where still based on the main story...they didn't change it from my
perspective, and could have been done other ways with out them.

Bogus counter-argument: we could have completely cut the UED from the Brood War expansion, and instead made the New Overmind into the Big Bad. The main story (minus the Terran campaign, which could have been easily replaced by anything, anything at all) would have remained perfectly intact. I guess the UED didn't change the main story either, and BW could have been done other ways without them.

See how ridiculous that is? The UED is worthwhile not merely because of its role in the plot, but because it is enjoyable by itself on its own merits. The same goes for Tychus. He is the kind of character who makes a story more interesting without trying, simply by virtue of being in it. Let alone all of the functions he did perform, which are not as many as they could have been, but not insignificant either.

You seem to be taking it extra easy on them then, cause I played the same game, and I didn't feel interested until Zeratul showed up and until the plot takes
the turn towards Char. The other missions aside of the Mar Sara missions, had no impact on me nor my interest on the over all campaign. The Mengsk side
quests I'll give you, but the way it was done disappointed me...I personally could care less what the "people's opinions" are of Jim Raynor or Mengsk was/is...
I just wanted Jim to settle the score with Mengsk through death or some other form of suffering...and having a bad public image doesn't count imo as a worse
form of suffering then death.

I'm not "taking it extra easy on them;" it's what I genuinely believe. And the Zeratul missions -- less his romp across Aiur -- were some of the least interesting and redundant ones in the game. They could have been replaced by a single one-paragraph account from Zeratul while he was still aboard the Hyperion. We already knew that Hybrids exist and are bad (Brood War!), but spend TWO missions going over this fact. We already knew that Kerrigan must be saved (because he said this!), but spend an entire mission going over this (without going into ANY more detail than what he originally said). And these are the missions you felt progressed the plot?

I expect the same feel as WoL...I would want better, but I'm not going into them expecting to be blown away this time around...I just don't see them scraping
their original plans and going all out on a crazy intense near-all main plot mission based campaign. (Though at least I won't be mad this time if I'm wrong)

You still haven't explained what it is you feel Blizzard has planned out. If all they have planned is the ending cinematics, then that leaves a LOT of room for improvisation, and no original plans need to be scrapped. (Just imagine they're writing TFT and all they have is "Arthas will beat Illidan and ascend the Throne" and you'll see how much is left to write.) If you think the plans are more detailed than that... I look forward to any actual evidence you have to back up this thought.

[Noctis]

I think the main problem was the presentation of the optional missions, if you look at RPG's and whatnot there are many sub-missions/plots but they never take away from the focus of the main story. That's where Blizzard stumbled if anything, it's not branching it's basically how the branching is presented to the player.

[BnetGamer77]

Seemingly this is going no where. If I were to continue this at the rate it's going, it'll become one big of text after another.
Every now and again I encounter a thread where any amount of text just doesn't help get across the point I want to make.
Your reply's while sensible are just nit-picking what you perceive I'm trying to imply...and it's becoming a headache trying to
communicate to you what my thoughts on the matter are; in fairness I'm no different, as I can't fathom what half your points
are, hence I may reply to them missing the whole purpose of your post.


To try to summarize/simplify my response to this thread...Linear or Branch the campaign, it does not matter in
the end if the story's main focus is not expanded upon. Ether one can be done correctly, or be done horribly...so it matters
little to me which is done. (It doesn't help the case that they try this branching system out for once and it completely flops,
so everyone assumes that going back to linear fixes it all)

In ether case,(Linear or Branch style) they can create missions that act as detours/side quests, or even take 3-4 missions
like the Protoss ones in WoL where as it could of merely been one, or as you implied not a mission at all; again, this issue can
occur in linear or branch...they need to improve the story on a whole to make up for the fact they took a complete one, and broke
it up into 3 separate games.

In regards to Protoss mission: I was intrigued by those missions because at the time they where moving the story along, as
bland as the information may of been, I was more entertained with the thought of the over all picture of the story then aiding Tosh,
the Doc or even trying to spread the *truth* of Mengsk rise to power.

I wouldn't of mind those side quests if they didn't take up space for actual missions to move the story along. There were certainly
missions in SC1-BW that could have been cut out or simplified into less missions, but overall the story felt as though it kept moving
from each victory page, where as WoL I didn't have that feeling of progression.

[pure.Wasted]

To try to summarize/simplify my response to this thread...Linear or Branch the campaign, it does not matter in
the end if the story's main focus is not expanded upon. Ether one can be done correctly, or be done horribly...so it matters
little to me which is done. (It doesn't help the case that they try this branching system out for once and it completely flops,
so everyone assumes that going back to linear fixes it all)

If the point you want to convey really does boil down to "anything could work with enough competent effort put into it," then I agree whole-heartedly. I only hesitate because your earlier posts made it sound like you feel there is genuine reason to suspect that Blizzard is incapable of doing the story "right" due to commitments to some over-arching set-in-stone plans for the future.

It's mainly that claim I've found fault with and expected some sort of proof for... because I believe that whatever commitments they may already have are slight, and leave more than enough room to do the story justice overall.

The reason I would personally prefer going the Linear route is that it plays to many of Blizzard's strengths as writers, and it's simply tried-and-true. In a sense, it's playing it safe, although after WOL maybe playing it safe wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[BnetGamer77]

I only hesitate because your earlier posts made it sound like you feel there is genuine reason to suspect that Blizzard is incapable
of doing the story "right" due to commitments to some over-arching set-in-stone plans for the future.

Yes and no, partly because as I mentioned earlier, I encounter threads where when trying to voice my concern or opinion, I ramble on for
far to long and people don't get my points at all; my fault, not theirs. (least I have my sig. quote to tell people I'm aware of it too ^_^)

At this moment in time I don't believe they can finish up the other 2 in a way that would be similar to the effect the story presented through
SC1 as well BW. I'm basing it on what I've seen through WoL and no, no facts to back it up...I'm just not expecting a huge change in their
approach to the next 2 installments as far as Single Player campaign goes.

because I believe that whatever commitments they may already have are slight, and leave more than enough room to do the story justice overall.

Personally I feel the commitment to break the story up over 3 installments will be the crippling blow. I would feel more secure if I knew*
they originally planned to make it 3 installments day 1 when they started story boarding. But I have seen WoL and it creeps in the fear
they never originally planned to do it this way, and it's making their task of stretching out 1 race campaigns into actual whole campaigns a mess.

The reason I would personally prefer going the Linear route is that it plays to many of Blizzard's strengths as writers, and it's simply tried-and-true.
In a sense, it's playing it safe, although after WOL maybe playing it safe wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I'll give you that one. Though, again where we differ is you feel they can still redeem them selves and pull a 360 after WoL's campaign. I feel unless
they scrap their plans entirely and write out a new storyboard for the remaining campaigns, they wont have enough to truly hold a linear story where
each mission feels like you're actually moving the game forward rather then making detours or playing several missions that could of been summed into 1.

I'm being unfair and holding them to very high standards due to WoL's campaign. I understand that...but I'm not used to being dissapointed(is this really not a word?)
by Blizzard, and that's perhaps playing a role in my reaction and future expectations.

-

-