Metzen and his team should retire?

[Eligor]

You raise some excellent points. However, I would argue that a chunk of the problem is that "adventure stories written primarily to be adventure stories, without an underlying social commentary or philosophical inference" might no longer be enough. There's a reason WC2 was followed by LOTR and not the other way around. It's impossible to appreciate the full extent of what LOTR has to offer at a young age. If you read it at 12, you might pick up the environmentalist subtext. If you read it at 14, you might pick up on the Christian subtext. If you read it at 16, you might pick up on how conflicted that Christian subtext is. If you read it at 18, you might pick up on the undeniably British aspects of the work. And so on, to the point where my latest reading has opened up a whole layer of literary depth that I didn't even know existed in the book.

And then I go back to the WC, or in this case, the SC universe. Not after SC1, but after 1984, after Dune, after A Clockwork Orange and Watchmen and Battlestar Galactica. Which, it's very possible, have SC to thank for getting us into them, to some extent. But now we're grown up. It's not unnatural to want the SC universe to grow up and mature with us. It might be unfair (ie, "if you want Watchmen go read Watchmen") but that's only true if StarCraft continues to be "theme-less" deliberately and because those themes would somehow get in the way of a bigger, grander adventure. And I don't think that's true. And, truth be told, I'm not sure that Blizzard has the writing talent to be ABLE to discern whether that's true or not, which is, I suppose, where this thread comes in.

You'll note that in my first post in this thread I said that my solution wouldn't be to leave Metzen out of the equation (for the same reasons you describe), but rather to add new talent in.

I perfectly agree with you and that is why I believe that the Blizzard writing team should treat the universe they're dealing with (and the way their audience perceives it) much more seriously. I am very leery of self conscious attempts to introduce "deep" or "mature" themes into one's work, but I fully believe that if you treat the universe you're writing in as if it really existed and hold your writing in it to a high standard, essentially fully believe in what you write, the deep themes would come themselves, unbidden. Books like Stevenson's "Treasure Island" or for that matter "The Lord of the Rings" are good examples of that.

The impression I get from Blizzard writers (Metzen included) is that they haven't really seriously thought about what makes the characters appealing or interesting (so we get the mis-written Zeratul and the no less mis-written Kerrigan) and yet are prone to conceits on the subject which are quite out of touch with the audience (Metzen's idea of Jim and Kerrigan as "the two loneliest people in the world" is a good example, it's there in the subtext and it's a wonderful subtext that deserves to be maintained in the writing but it's not the over-riding theme of the story, nor (in spite of what Metzen may think) the main attraction). In short, the writing team seems to have confused conceit with serious approach, and somehow forgot amid all those high abstract ideas about characters that there should be an exciting plot moving things forward, and events should unfold and things happen that involve the player in the story. Mengsk's media campaign against Raynor, the relationships between Raynor and his crew, they're all wonderfully reasoned out by the writing team during convention interviews, but that's the problem with them, there's far too much reasoning out and too little excitement for or belief in the StarCraft Universe itself. Fiction is a game, like "Robbers and Cowboys", it's based on pretending and believing (for a while) in the pretension, and like any such game it should be treated with the utmost seriousness while it lasts, or the illusion is broken. And I suspect that what lies at the root of it all is that Blizzard writers lack that utmost seriousness, that would certainly explain the extensive retcons to the original StarCraft and Brood War, the refusal to play by the "rules" already established (even if by mistake or artistic compromise) and the wish to have "definitive novel versions" of the events, which hardly live up to the actual experience of playing the original StarCraft. And that's how "theme-less" stories happen, not through an attempt to write a grand adventure but through a lack of belief in both the adventure and the grandness. If anything, if one is fully committed to the task, then a grand adventure story is practically impossible to write without having to deal with profoundities (whether of philosophical or social nature).

[DemolitionSquid]

Please leave "underlying social commentary or philosophical inference" out of my movies. I read books for that.

Oops?

You seem to be under the impression that I want argumentative rants that'd make Ayn Rand proud, and I'm not sure what it is I said that could have left that impression. Not all social commentary is intrusive.

Ever heard of Bioshock?

Thank you. Thank you SO much.

[pure.Wasted]

I agree whole-heartedly.

Battlestar Galactica (I wonder how familiar with it you are) is a perfect mainstream example of effortless vs. effort-ful theme-dropping. S3 has an amazing mini-arc (New Caprica) that explores themes of colonialism, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, civil liberties, basically everything under the Sun... but it does this by focusing on a twisting plot and characters whose motivations we've come to care about, not by going on irrelevant rants about "meaningful" and "significant" ideas. When Colonel Tigh condones terrorism and even killing innocent civilians it's not because of some deeply thought out philosophy, it's because he frakking hates Baltar's guts, and even if the viewer doesn't agree at least he can understand.

Which is a perfect contrast with the latter half of S4, which crams "deep" ideas about religion and destiny and coming-togetherness down the viewer's gullets at the EXPENSE of the characters. The characters become walking, talking mouth-pieces, the plot suffers, and the ideas feel hollow and unnatural.

The impression I get from Blizzard writers (Metzen included) is that they haven't really seriously thought about what makes the characters appealing or interesting (so we get the mis-written Zeratul and the no less mis-written Kerrigan) and yet are prone to conceits on the subject which are quite out of touch with the audience (Metzen's idea of Jim and Kerrigan as "the two loneliest people in the world" is a good example, it's there in the subtext and it's a wonderful subtext that deserves to be maintained in the writing but it's not the over-riding theme of the story, nor (in spite of what Metzen may think) the main attraction).

You're spot on here. There's nothing wrong about Metzen's interpretation of the Raynor/Kerrigan romance, the only problem is when that is allowed to become the only driving question in the story. Why is that allowed to become the driving question? Because the plot is one-dimensional enough to allow that to happen. If more complicated plot elements were introduced through peripheral characters (Mengsk, Valerian, Tosh, new characters), if the struggle for goodness and justice became less black-and-white (in the final game, it turns out that the choice Raynor makes is the ONLY correct choice; the only conflict was whether he was going to continue wallowing in self-pity or not), their romance would naturally have been pushed to its appropriate place. Which isn't to say that that place wouldn't have included a cinematic at the very end of the game just like what we got... maybe it would have... but that cinematic would have been tempered by everything that had come before.

[Eligor]

I agree whole-heartedly.

There's nothing wrong about Metzen's interpretation of the Raynor/Kerrigan romance, the only problem is when that is allowed to become the only driving question in the story. Why is that allowed to become the driving question? Because the plot is one-dimensional enough to allow that to happen. If more complicated plot elements were introduced through peripheral characters (Mengsk, Valerian, Tosh, new characters), if the struggle for goodness and justice became less black-and-white (in the final game, it turns out that the choice Raynor makes is the ONLY correct choice; the only conflict was whether he was going to continue wallowing in self-pity or not), their romance would naturally have been pushed to its appropriate place. Which isn't to say that that place wouldn't have included a cinematic at the very end of the game just like what we got... maybe it would have... but that cinematic would have been tempered by everything that had come before.

Couldn't agree more, you've pretty much put the finger on it (at this rate, the thread threatens to devolve into us confirming each other's posts, now if only the guys at Blizzard read it).

The sad thing that there are some really good character scenes lost in that mess, and with the actors at their disposal, it all could've been much, much more.

[TheEconomist]

@pure.Wasted: I wasn't responding directly to you, therefore, I was not under the impression of anything pertaining to you. I was just giving a general statement concerning a topic you had brought up. If I had aimed that directly at you, I probably would've quoted what was responding to. I understood what you were saying and I also understand that some social commentary can be unintrusive such as, well, how just about every Terran character except Jim Raynor can demonstrate flaws in things such as arrogance, greed, callousness, or whatever else.

The point is that, I don't want Blizzard's writers to go out of their way to have these social commentaries. If it happens, it happens. But don't alter the plot for it. They need to focus on the string of events which bring the most epic battles, twists, and character progression; not something that'll tell me something about "teh real world". As long as there's characters that have depth, there's going to SOME social commentary or philosophical inference.

PS: How was "games" supposed to be "movies" according to you You were saying that you wanted StarCraft to grow up with you and I said I didn't really want that if it distracted from the plot which brought out the "gameplay-plot" elements. I believe you even said something similar so we're in agreement on that.

Thank you. Thank you SO much.

What exactly is it that this man did for you to be so appreciative?

----

Also, the emphasis on the romance between Jim Raynor and Kerrigan was the most disappointing thing about StarCraft 2 in my opinion. Even after all of these years, I've never been able to care about Raynor x Kerrigan. Of course, I'm not much for romance in games anyways.

[Louis]

But can we even be certain that it was a romantic relationship to begin with? I had the impression that it was strictly partners/friendzone (which was apparantly more according to WoL) from the conversation that they had before Tarsonis, and wasn't Zeratuls intervention sort of intended to imply that Jim would have executed her if not for the warning? Seems a bit unclear to me whether Jim was still "romantic" or just had a guilty conscience (I mean, it's not like his hands are clean. He did enable Kerrigan to defeat the UED, Fenix and kill billions) and just wanted to make sure she was no longer a threat. It is also possible that I am reading too much into it or am in denial

[dustinbrowder]

I agree whole-heartedly.

Battlestar Galactica (I wonder how familiar with it you are) is a perfect mainstream example of effortless vs. effort-ful theme-dropping. S3 has an amazing mini-arc (New Caprica) that explores themes of colonialism, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, civil liberties, basically everything under the Sun... but it does this by focusing on a twisting plot and characters whose motivations we've come to care about, not by going on irrelevant rants about "meaningful" and "significant" ideas. When Colonel Tigh condones terrorism and even killing innocent civilians it's not because of some deeply thought out philosophy, it's because he frakking hates Baltar's guts, and even if the viewer doesn't agree at least he can understand.

Which is a perfect contrast with the latter half of S4, which crams "deep" ideas about religion and destiny and coming-togetherness down the viewer's gullets at the EXPENSE of the characters. The characters become walking, talking mouth-pieces, the plot suffers, and the ideas feel hollow and unnatural.



You're spot on here. There's nothing wrong about Metzen's interpretation of the Raynor/Kerrigan romance, the only problem is when that is allowed to become the only driving question in the story. Why is that allowed to become the driving question? Because the plot is one-dimensional enough to allow that to happen. If more complicated plot elements were introduced through peripheral characters (Mengsk, Valerian, Tosh, new characters), if the struggle for goodness and justice became less black-and-white (in the final game, it turns out that the choice Raynor makes is the ONLY correct choice; the only conflict was whether he was going to continue wallowing in self-pity or not), their romance would naturally have been pushed to its appropriate place. Which isn't to say that that place wouldn't have included a cinematic at the very end of the game just like what we got... maybe it would have... but that cinematic would have been tempered by everything that had come before.

Agreed. That's why I even brought up this topic. I would also add that the gameplay and missions seemed to determine the story, rather than the other way around. It seemed like the whole story revolved around the missions and in that sense feels detached from any meaningful plot.

If the story is going to get any better we need it to be treated in a more meaningful and serious way. I mean the boys who played SC and BW are now 20, 30 years old man and possibly woman. We need a story that is more than just childish, cheesy things and return to its roots.

I mean SC1 story may not have been as mature, but it certainly wasn't cheese fest and bedtime'ish story. It can betrayal, death, friendship, enemies, war, struggle, suicide.
SC2 had nice friends and not so nice friends and war and that is it. Where are all the rest components?

[Zeraszana]

Agreed. That's why I even brought up this topic. I would also add that the gameplay and missions seemed to determine the story, rather than the other way around. It seemed like the whole story revolved around the missions and in that sense feels detached from any meaningful plot.

SC2 had nice friends and not so nice friends and war and that is it. Where are all the rest components?

this i totally agree with

[pure.Wasted]

They need to focus on the string of events which bring the most epic battles, twists, and character progression; not something that'll tell me something about "teh real world". As long as there's characters that have depth, there's going to SOME social commentary or philosophical inference.

It's not about telling something about the real world, it's about showing. And that's not just a semantics game. I explained this with my Battlestar example. The former is at its heart saying "this is how simple the answer to everything is," whereas the latter is all about saying, "this is how complicated things in life get." They are diametrically opposed.

When you say things like "[bringing] the most epic battles" -- in a Terran-focused game doesn't that IMMEDIATELY make you think of how well-suited this campaign was for exploring Terran politics? Not to make statements about global poverty and the need to vote, but to have a story that is mature enough to address these issues on the fly while it tackles a richer weaving plot.

PS: How was "games" supposed to be "movies" according to you You were saying that you wanted StarCraft to grow up with you and I said I didn't really want that if it distracted from the plot which brought out the "gameplay-plot" elements. I believe you even said something similar so we're in agreement on that.

You made it sound as though games should remain childish and simplistic, and if you wanted more challenging entertainment you knew where to find it (books). A hundred years ago the exact same argument could have been made for movies. Of course, that would have been a very silly thing to say given how many amazing non-childish and non-simplistic movies we've had, many of which are not only mature but ALSO exciting (TDK being the all-too easy example?).

There's no need to limit what games should or shouldn't be doing.

[TheEconomist]

My point isn't whether or not these thematic elements should or should not be there, my point is that it shouldn't be a focus. If it happens at all, it should happen on accident, if you will. If statements about things such as global poverty or the need to vote happen to be made without trying to, so be it.

Also, the argument isn't whether or not games should remain simplistic, but rather that they should remain gameplay focused with the plot as a mechanism to further the gameplay. For example, the most interesting aspect of StarCraft to me pertains to the Xel'Naga. There's almost no real-life connections you can make and, if there are, they're accidental. They are simply a gameplay-plot mechanism.

Another point I was making was that a game should be a game. I remember before I had Netflix, I also loved long cutscenes in games. Now, I have Netflix and, if I'm in the mood for cutscenes, I watch a movie. That has severely diminished my patience with cutscenes because I get my "cutscene fix" through movies.. which is fine. You can't interact with a movie; you can a game. Let books be about higher thinking and imagining the world, let movies be more about telling (showing if you must) these higher thinking elements in a visual format, and let games remain games and gameplay oriented. Games are meant to be the interactive format and the plot furthers the gameplay. That's why, say, there's so many henchman of a protagonist; there needs to be mini-bosses spread out through the game. A game has to have, say, these epic battles because it makes the game interesting. Picture the difference between God Of War and, say, an video game version of, say, 'Hereafter'. Just wouldn't work.

I don't want a game to have forced ideas just for the hell of it. If an antagonist just so happens to give an example of the pitfalls of, say, arrogance, then so be it. But, dont set out to create a character just to show this.

--

Also, there's no difference between "telling" and "showing" quite simply because it was the first word that came to mind and there was no more meaning attached to the word choice. I meant the same thing that you are speaking about.