It's one thing to say that something can be done better. It's another thing to prove it. Back when WOL just came out, we were dishing out a lot of feedback, and there was the heaps of praise and the heaps of complaints, but over-all it was pretty balanced. But as they say, people who are happy have no reason to say anything, so as time passed everyone who's perfectly satisfied has gone away to keep playing their game, and the only people left are those who have a bone to pick. I don't think that creates a good environment for fostering productive, constructive criticism, so I decided to go a little bit above and beyond the norm. I decided to rewrite Wings of Liberty.
First, some of my goals:
-Utilize missions for more than fun gameplay and basic plot progression.
I can think of five WOL missions that have genuinely unpredictable moments -- out of 25! (For anyone who's keeping track, I'm talking about Cutthroat, The Moebius Factor, Gates of Hell, A Sinister Turn, and Echoes of the Future) Think of WC3: Arthas kills Muradin and the mission takes a completely different turn. Maiev watches Tyrande float away downriver and the mission takes a completely different turn. Over and over. In WOL, every single other mission involves a Briefing where the player is told what will happen, and then a mission where the player executes the plan from the Briefing. In effect, the missions are entirely skippable filler (despite being as enjoyable as they are). Character development takes place entirely off-mission. I want to show that not taking advantage of in-mission events to cause conflict and development is a mistake.
-Provide a sense of scale and demonstrate the full extent of the war.
This is apparently the "Second Great War" we're fighting, but the only mission that feels remotely like it, outside of the ones set on Char, is The Moebius Factor. Which is strange in and of itself given that Raynor shouldn't have an army big enough to fight a war yet. I want to show that, despite the fact that Raynor is only engaging in guerilla tactics, there is a massive war effort going on all around him. That means going out of your way to remind players about it all the time.
-Portray Kerrigan and the Dominion as credible, fearsome antagonists, and emphasize the small scale of Raynor's guerilla warfare.
Part of the problem with predictable mission design is that you feel like you're always winning. If the objective doesn't change, you go in knowing what you need to do, and you come out having succeeded in that. It inadvertently makes the player character seem omnipotent, and the antagonists weak and incompetent. I want to show that it's necessary to go out of your way to show just how credible an antagonist is, so that the stakes feel appropriately high.
-Make every side-story feed into the primary story in a meaningful way.
Not only did WOL feature a whole slew of side plots (Hanson, Tosh) that went nowhere, it had two separate main stories (Mengsk, Kerrigan) that weren't even that well connected. My goal is to demonstrate how easy it is to weave these plot strands together and use the time allotted to each character's development wisely.
-Force Raynor and the other characters into situations where their morals are put to the test.
A WOL cinematic, "Who We Choose To Be" has Matt admonishing Raynor for drinking heavily as of late. He implies that the drinking has affected Raynor's judgment. First, we haven't seen any of the drinking. Second, Raynor hasn't made any bad calls, which means Matt is just being a dick. There's nothing wrong with a protagonist who makes mistakes because he's forced to act with no time to consider all the implications of his actions. But if he's wrong, he should be wrong, and there should be consequences for it. If Raynor is drinking on the job, somebody should lose their life over it. He should be drunk when he talks to Selendis, making her think twice about respecting his opinion (and him) over Haven's fate. Otherwise, it's just a lot of movement on the same spot.
To make this exercise have some measure of value (so it isn't pure fanwank), I decided to restrict my abilities in re-writing the campaign. My rationale here is, the more things I change, the easier it is to say "well sure you could make a fantasy campaign that's perfect, but under the conditions for WOL that just wasn't possible." My goal is to show that it WAS possible, so I will make as few fundamental changes as possible. Here are some of the restrictions:
-Missions must introduce new units.
Blizzard obviously set "fun gameplay" as a top priority, so I won't compromise that. Every mission (with a few exceptions, just like WOL 1.0) will introduce a brand new unit and will feature some gameplay element tailored to it.
-Same number of missions and cinematics.
Pretty obvious here, yeah the campaign could be better if only we had a trillion cinematics, but that's not realistic. Going under isn't really a danger, but going over is, and I'll make sure not to do that.
-No subtractions from the plot, only additions.
This is the big one. The really big one. I can't just cut Hanson because I think she's taking up time we'd rather spend with Valerian. I have to find a way to make her story meaningful, rather than sidestep the issue completely. This is just to emphasize that the tools to create a superior campaign were already available to Blizzard. The other side of this is... you guessed it, if the original had a Prophecy in it, so will mine. Yeah. Sucks. I know. But, first of all, I have no idea how important a role the Prophecy (or Plot_Device_234) will be in upcoming expansions, so I can't just nix something that's absolutely essential to what's around the corner. Second, and more importantly, I'm not here to tell the story of my SC2. I'm here to tell the story of Blizzard's SC2... hopefully, better. So Galaxy-consuming evils are still in, Prophecies are still in, Kerrigan's deinfestation is still in. If Mengsk didn't die in Blizzard's WOL, he can't die in mine.
-No switching the focus off of Raynor.
It's tempting to say that "if only we'd had more face time with important characters as opposed to nobodies like Stettman and Graven Hill, the campaign would have been so much better!" It might even be accurate. But, as above, it wouldn't be Blizzard's WOL campaign. I'm here to show how little (of the RIGHT KIND of) work it takes to do what they were trying to do right. Not to prove that what they were trying to do was wrong to begin with. (Although this is in some respects true, and I'll be following up this re-write with an analysis of flaws I've found to be inherent to WOL's fundamental concepts.)
The one thing you might note is suspiciously absent from this list of restrictions is sticking to the "choose your own destiny" approach to campaign design. Because that is the one and only thing I am doing away with completely. There's no getting around it, Blizzard screwed this bit up real bad. If you want player choice, you have to find a way to make the story feel dynamic (as opposed to WOL's characters running in circles from one plot to the next), you have to find a way to make characters develop, you have to find a way to keep the stakes high, you have to find a way to make the choices seem meaningful as opposed to "choice for the sake of choice." It's a big headache, and I'm going to work with a strictly linear narrative. You can see now why I'm so hesitant to not work with restrictions. "Well OF COURSE you can make a great campaign without player choice, anyone can do that," just comes immediately to mind, doesn't it? Thankfully, that's not entirely true in this case. Even if we imagine a fully linear, good campaign, with all that that implies, at best that can only hope to auto-solves my goals 4 and 5. 1, 2, and 3 are not affected in the slightest, and they are just as (if not more) important to what I've set out to do.
Naturally, feedback of all sorts is welcome. It's not going to be perfect, it's not even going to be perfectly consistent with the goals I set out for myself. But I'm just one guy writing this over a couple of evenings. I don't get paid to spend months thinking about it. The point isn't to say "this is the best thing ever," it's to showcase a lot of subtler changes and to view WOL's successes, and failures, through their lens.




Reply With Quote



