Unused Cinematic Clips.

[broodmywarcraft]

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.

Okay, let's try this: I am annoyed by how the Zeratul vs Kerrigan cinematic seems crammed and rushed. It annoys me to hear the directors of the cinematic talk about how they had this 175 shot version on the storyboards that they had to wittle down to 40 shots or so because IT WAS TOO HARD

Really? $60 and they couldn't have hired a couple more people. I'm not saying they should have done all 175 shots, but the whole process seemed bent on literally just getting everything out of the way for the Prophecy(which you criticized superbly in your review).

You'd think after 4 years apart, we'd get some reminiscence, perhaps goading of zeratul by kerrigan over his matriarch or inability to take up his matriarch's desire for him to be his tribe's new leader., you know something Kerrigan used to be known for before she went this:



but no, all we get is
"Please, our petty conflicts mean nothing now..."

a.k.a: Closure does not equal expansion/money.

Was that a legitimate criticism?

[mr. peasant]

The reason for this, I believe, is for conservation of detail. Blizzard made a conscious decision to keep their cinematics, while regular and frequent, short and to the point in order to keep the pace going and not slow the game down. While some people might like a long-drawn cinematic duel between Kerrigan and Zeratul, not everyone is willing to sit through it. At the same time, the message/point of the cinematic needs to be delivered (especially since it is vital to the plot).

This also relates to your specifc comment about Kerrigan's lack of goading of Zeratul. Mentioning the Matriarch, Zeratul's role in her death and the ensuing aftermath is not relevant in this game and would simply confuse new players who would be left wondering what they are talking about. Remember, the more obvious the continuity nods, the more it alienates newcomers if insufficient exposition is provided and is not part of the initial setting. Hence, that was not the time and place to mention it especially since it can be better used in LotV.

[broodmywarcraft]

The reason for this, I believe, is for conservation of detail. Blizzard made a conscious decision to keep their cinematics, while regular and frequent, short and to the point in order to keep the pace going and not slow the game down. While some people might like a long-drawn cinematic duel between Kerrigan and Zeratul, not everyone is willing to sit through it. At the same time, the message/point of the cinematic needs to be delivered (especially since it is vital to the plot).

This also relates to your specifc comment about Kerrigan's lack of goading of Zeratul. Mentioning the Matriarch, Zeratul's role in her death and the ensuing aftermath is not relevant in this game and would simply confuse new players who would be left wondering what they are talking about. Remember, the more obvious the continuity nods, the more it alienates newcomers if insufficient exposition is provided and is not part of the initial setting. Hence, that was not the time and place to mention it especially since it can be better used in LotV.

But it's a sequel, it's generally not suppose to have newcomers.

[Eligor]

The reason for this, I believe, is for conservation of detail. Blizzard made a conscious decision to keep their cinematics, while regular and frequent, short and to the point in order to keep the pace going and not slow the game down. While some people might like a long-drawn cinematic duel between Kerrigan and Zeratul, not everyone is willing to sit through it. At the same time, the message/point of the cinematic needs to be delivered (especially since it is vital to the plot).

You mean, "let's make our cinematics less cool so more people will be attracted to the game"?

Pre-rendered cinematics are all about presentation and seeing things first hand. They could've easily revealed that plot point during an ingame cutscene, but the pre-rendered cinematics are specifically there for the player to see what a fight between Kerrigan and Zeratul would be like in real life. Making it a short one defeats the whole point of the cinematic (which is to present the events in an extra detailed and dramatic way). Besides, you seriously suggest that a fight scene would have the effect of slowing the game down?

[broodmywarcraft]

You mean, "let's make our cinematics less cool so more people will be attracted to the game"?

Pre-rendered cinematics are all about presentation and seeing things first hand. They could've easily revealed that plot point during an ingame cutscene, but the pre-rendered cinematics are specifically there for the player to see what a fight between Kerrigan and Zeratul would be like in real life. Making it a short one defeats the whole point of the cinematic (which is to present the events in an extra detailed and dramatic way). Besides, you seriously suggest that a fight scene would have the effect of slowing the game down?

They were suppose to fight on the ceiling!! How could that have not been the coolest thing ever!!?

[mr. peasant]

You mean, "let's make our cinematics less cool so more people will be attracted to the game"?

Pre-rendered cinematics are all about presentation and seeing things first hand. They could've easily revealed that plot point during an ingame cutscene, but the pre-rendered cinematics are specifically there for the player to see what a fight between Kerrigan and Zeratul would be like in real life. Making it a short one defeats the whole point of the cinematic (which is to present the events in an extra detailed and dramatic way). Besides, you seriously suggest that a fight scene would have the effect of slowing the game down?

Yes, because a game is supposed to be interactive. Therefore, cinematics need to strike a careful balance between what you just described and not taking too long. Otherwise, it'd be like watching a movie instead; not that Starcraft the Movie would not be awesome but this isn't supposed to be it.

But it's a sequel, it's generally not suppose to have newcomers.

Yes, it should. Otherwise, you'd be setting yourself up for failure as you'd be dealing with an ever shrinking audience with each successive release.

[Dalarsco]

But it's a sequel, it's generally not suppose to have newcomers.

So...you expect everyone who wants to make sense of the campaign to go out and buy the original game? Of course it will have newcomers. It's not like a movie or any other game where the sequel came out a couple of years later. The original game is ancient now. A lot of people will see this new game and pick it up because the gameplay looks fun.

[spychi]

I was also really disappointed when I didn't see a great deal of the concept art implemented in any way in the game, especially the work done for Zeratul holding a dying Raszagal. And remember the Xel'Naga cavern art, with the figures in the ceiling all reaching for what may or may not have been a 'Naga? You see the same archway in "The Prophecy", but all that beautiful detail in the figures isn't show in the slightest!

cutting sp content for fast retail... hell I would wait longer if all what we have seen so far in artworks, cinematics and other stuff were put in the singleplayer

it really looks like they were doing all this voice acting, cinematics in a rush
I don't belive that they had all SP content ready a year before beta that is just playing stupid and making fun of the audience
I think that most of you guys agree that Kerrigan in WoL is the worst character, they just screwed her personality by three key moves: Trisha (thanks for EDI in ME2 but in SC2 you just suck ass ma'am), few retarded lines about how the universe ends and skipping her part of the story in WoL to the end

why the fuck they had to split the game, sp wise it's really not worth the wait and as a stand-alone product

[Visions of Khas]

I agree that Kerrigan was a weak character, but I wasn't so much concerned with Tricia's portrayal of her. I'm convinced Kerrigan was supposed to be more low-key, which is what Tricia delivered. I just don't like how she was done otherwise.

[BusinessMonkey]

I agree that Kerrigan was a weak character, but I wasn't so much concerned with Tricia's portrayal of her. I'm convinced Kerrigan was supposed to be more low-key, which is what Tricia delivered. I just don't like how she was done otherwise.

It's still just strange that the writers at Blizz would make so much out of the love story, only yo totally tone it down for 90-95% of the campaign, and even make it the ending for WoL.

If you were going to tone Kerrigan's role so much down (I still don't see how she couldn't have had those brilliant "You've all played like pawns min my game" lines, that Glynnis delivered so well in SC1 order to show just how great of a character Kerrigan is) why not just have Glynnis do the few needed lines for WoL? I think the mere feeling of Kerrigan sounding as good ol' Kerrigan, could've let Blizz get away with even less characterisation than there is now in WoL of Kerrigan.