Vote for SC2!

[DemolitionSquid]

Butthurt detected.

I was going to give a more detailed reply, but after thinking up an analogy that had something to do with fan forums and conclave judicator Aldaris, I thought better of it.

But really, are any of you people protoss irl? I've always wanted to meet one.

You can tell who's a Protoss because they're mute.

<_<

>_>

>_<

[Zeraszana]

Why would I vote for SC2? It was garbage. We should ignore it to let Blizzard know they dropped the ball.

because sc2 consists of 3 parts arse...i would rather wait and see if they learned something and give us again epic stuff then judge by a single failure (personally i don't give 2 shits since its terran campaign but whatever, at least we can hope that they learn from their mistakes and make the heart and legacy something to be remembered for ages)

[DemolitionSquid]

because sc2 consists of 3 parts arse...i would rather wait and see if they learned something and give us again epic stuff then judge by a single failure (personally i don't give 2 shits since its terran campaign but whatever, at least we can hope that they learn from their mistakes and make the heart and legacy something to be remembered for ages)

I'm judging the game by itself, just like I would judge any other trilogy one game at a time. If by LotV its a great series, I will acknowledge so.

[spychi]

you can't judge the whole trilogy if you don't have all episoded
yet you can judge the ones that are already out, which in this case is WoL which is a failure so DS is right again

[Norfindel]

Why would I vote for SC2? It was garbage. We should ignore it to let Blizzard know they dropped the ball.

^^^ This, if they want me to vote for the game, they need to put a lot more effort in their story/dialog. Hell, i don't even plan to buy HotS, unless i see good comments about it.

[Norfindel]

because sc2 consists of 3 parts arse...i would rather wait and see if they learned something and give us again epic stuff then judge by a single failure (personally i don't give 2 shits since its terran campaign but whatever, at least we can hope that they learn from their mistakes and make the heart and legacy something to be remembered for ages)

It's funny to see how Blizzard defenders consider WoL a complete game or one part of a more expensive game as they see fit

Seriously, if we are to consider this like 1/3 of SC2, it must be one of the most expensive games ever. They said the other two were expansions, anyways, so this is to be judged as a whole game.

There was a very easy way of making the 3 parts epic by themselves: use one enemy per game, and try to not show greater enemies until the next part. For example: the Queen of Blades could had been the enemy in WoL, instead of been an useless character.

They could even do the artifact stuff if they wanted, but Kerrigan been alive after that could be a surprise. They would use it so that the attack on Char is possible. It wouldn't be a bad idea if they use it in orbit to survive the attack of the flyers, and have time to land, and have an excuse for it to be uncharged when they land (there was none in the game, IIRC). Then they wouldn't need the Protoss part at all, and could concentrate on the fight against Kerrigan/Mengsk better.

Even if you consider this only a part, the fact that a lot of missions are filler, "choices" don't impact the story much (and that's an understatement) and dialogue was crap, can be judged the same. It doesn't makes any difference about that.

[Hawki]

If there wasn't any mention of the Dark Voice or the like, there was a lot less reason to keep Kerrigan alive. Anyway, I'll probably be flamed for this, but:

-The missions didn't feel filler to me at all. Each of them felt unique in a gameplay sense and each formed their own arcs rather than being individual side-quests.

-I'm glad that there wasn't an open choice thing in the same way as other RPGs, how it went more along the lines of Wing Commander or FreeSpace with choices rather than Mass Effect or Dragon Age, where choices don't jeporadize the core story. In essence, I felt WoL was a good mix of Origin-style choices and Luasarts-style canon (a/b canon policy) rather than the "no canon" policy that Bioware tried to follow and in the cases of Redemption, Inquisition and Witch Hunt, effectively failed to uphold.

It doesn't mean I dislike choice in games, I just prefer a core story to remain without going off on insubstantial tangents to the extent that no-one knows what the true story is.

[TheEconomist]

Why would I vote for SC2? It was garbage. We should ignore it to let Blizzard know they dropped the ball.

Multiplayer says hi

[pure.Wasted]

-The missions didn't feel filler to me at all. Each of them felt unique in a gameplay sense and each formed their own arcs rather than being individual side-quests.

The gameplay of the missions was very creative and fun. The problem is that too much of the focus was on the gameplay. The missions feel like mini-games that you must complete in order to continue the story. The story almost never progresses during the stories themselves.

Remember that mission in TFT where Maiev and Tyrande are hunting for Illidan in Lordaeron and they come across Kael'thas and his Blood Elves, and then Tyrande is ambushed by the Scourge and Maiev manipulates Malfurion into fighting Illidan by suggesting that Tyrande is dead, which Kael contradicts, making Malfurion get angry at Maiev and even ally with Illidan? Then Kael, introduced and characterized during that mission, goes on to become a hugely important character just a few missions down the line.

Missions felt alive back then, because they were unpredictable and were used to introduce and further character and plot developments. In SC2, 99% of that happens between missions, and that makes the missions themselves seem like an afterthought.


That said, I voted for SC2. I've never played Reach and I only played Halo (the original Halo) once or twice, but making an FPS and making an RTS are two different beasts altogether. Blizzard deserves kudos for tackling a project of this difficulty and scope, if not for doing so successfully in all respects. And even WOL's story, which is in some ways the biggest disappointment, revolutionizes Blizzard's approach to RTS and paves the way for amazing things to come (not just in SC2 at that). At the end of the day, Halo: Reach may be an awesome game, but it's just a game. Ten years from now the difference between it and another Halo title, or some GoW title, or some Killzone title, will be imperceptible. SC2 is above that, faults and all.

If I can help get even 1 more person interested in competitive SC2 by helping SC2 win this vote and making it look good... I'll be happy. And if the vote doesn't matter to people, then it certainly doesn't matter to Blizzard, so voting either way won't change a thing.

[Hawki]

You make a good point actually, how insight into characters wasn't provided that often within missions, but rather between them. The banter between Kael, Maiev and Tyrane in The Frozen Throne is indeed a good example of character development within missions. Still, Warcraft III had the benefit of heroes always being in missions, whilst in Wings of Liberty it's the exception rather than the rule. It's difficult to characterize when the individuals are far removed from the mission. Throwing them in might have made it better, but I think it suited the game that heroes weren't universally used, but felt suited to the missions they were in (Tychus in the Odin and Belly of the Beast I think are two good examples of 'hero missions' within the game).

Still, it all comes down to opinion. I'm glad it's possible to have conversation without resorting to caps or flaming.