Unused Cinematic Clips.

[pure.Wasted]

You notice how the Zeratul/Kerrigan cinematic has the same problem.
"You're presence defies this place Kerrigan"

"Do you hear them Zeratul..."

God damn, when you see this, you noticed how cut to the chase it was a.k.a. bad transition.

Uhm, the Zeratul/Kerrigan cinematic suffers from many things, but poor transitions isn't one of them. Not until the very end, anyway...

Dialogue you don't like =! rough transition.

[Visions of Khas]

I've noticed a few inconsistencies in some of the cinematics, most notably the rescue of Warfield. In it, Raynor pops out the round to his left, but it sails to the right. Moreover, you can clearly see the ground deform right before it hits the dirt.

Also, in Prophecy, Kerrigan is standing on rockier terrain in the end than when she is attacked by Zeratul.

Small things, really, and trivial, but they annoyed me.

[broodmywarcraft]

Uhm, the Zeratul/Kerrigan cinematic suffers from many things, but poor transitions isn't one of them. Not until the very end, anyway...

Dialogue you don't like =! rough transition.

i mean how quickly the shot cut to Kerrigan after Zeratul spoke.

[broodmywarcraft]

I've noticed a few inconsistencies in some of the cinematics, most notably the rescue of Warfield. In it, Raynor pops out the round to his left, but it sails to the right. Moreover, you can clearly see the ground deform right before it hits the dirt.

Also, in Prophecy, Kerrigan is standing on rockier terrain in the end than when she is attacked by Zeratul.

Small things, really, and trivial, but they annoyed me.

Whoa! I just realized all those...wow, that's lazy...

[Visions of Khas]

"HEV shells are surrounded in a highly energetic field of electromagnetism, propelled at fantastic speeds by their gauss cannons. This same field also erodes away at their environment, deforms terrains, and causes mild coughing, runny nose, rash, and explosive decompression."

[pure.Wasted]

i mean how quickly the shot cut to Kerrigan after Zeratul spoke.

That still isn't a bad transition. This is simply a cut that irked you personally that lots of people didn't or wouldn't give a second thought to, ever.

That and the genuinely questionable (albeit defensible) transition between different scenes in "Heir Apparent" are nothing alike.

Whoa! I just realized all those...wow, that's lazy...

You don't know anything about animation... do you?

Here's a page for all the goofs in The Incredibles. Pixar admitted 1 goof into The Incredibles for every 5,3/4 minutes of animation. And Pixar is an acclaimed, award-winning animation studio that has a huge team that does nothing but work on movies.

For SC2 to be ON PAR with Pixar's 'laziness', you have to find 7 goofs total (45 minute running time for the cinematics).

In other words... get over yourself.

[broodmywarcraft]

That still isn't a bad transition. This is simply a cut that irked you personally that lots of people didn't or wouldn't give a second thought to, ever.

That and the genuinely questionable (albeit defensible) transition between different scenes in "Heir Apparent" are nothing alike.



You don't know anything about animation... do you?

Here's a page for all the goofs in The Incredibles. Pixar admitted 1 goof into The Incredibles for every 5,3/4 minutes of animation. And Pixar is an acclaimed, award-winning animation studio that has a huge team that does nothing but work on movies.

For SC2 to be ON PAR with Pixar's 'laziness', you have to find 7 goofs total (45 minute running time for the cinematics).

In other words... get over yourself.

Wow...that is pompous...

[Nicol Bolas]

Wow...that is pompous...

The truth always has the right to be pompus.

[broodmywarcraft]

So, what did I do to deserve that 'truth'? So I made some criticisms, what of it?

[pure.Wasted]

So, what did I do to deserve that 'truth'? So I made some criticisms, what of it?

There's nothing wrong with criticism. WOL has many issues that deserve to be brought to Blizzard's attention. The thing is...

1. They need to be presented constructively. (NOT: "Blizzard is lazy!")
2. They need to be valid. (NOT: "Blizz made 2 continuity gaffs over 45 minutes of animation, they need to do better!")

Look at the original post in which VoK outlined the continuity gaffs, to which you later tagged along. He admits that these are "small things" and "trivial" -- read: inconsequential, insignificant, not a valid criticism -- and then points out that HE was annoyed by them.

See the difference? "Blizzard is lazy" vs. "I am annoyed by something". The former is a knee-jerk, unwarranted, baseless reaction presented as fact. The latter is simply the expression of personal feelings; no attempts to speak for others, no attempts to judge Blizzard.

Just because we're on the internet doesn't mean it's really cool and hip to bash Blizzard from the safety of anonymity.