[Spoilers] What the heck is this Kerrigan video all about????

[BusinessMonkey]

To me the big problem is that the cinematics and in general the storytelling does one major basic mistake. We've all heard it and we might hate using the term, but what they're doing in SC2 as opposed to what they did in SC1 is that they're "Telling it, not showing it."

All or at least most cinematics in SC1 didn't tell it the way it was or summed anything up. They just either STATED (like the inaguration and the brood war intro) or shut the hell up and SHOWED some cool shit, which INDIRECTLY always was related to the development of the story. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) We're never told that Fenix is taken down by Zerg in Antioch. We're just shown a Protoss zealot being ambushed in a gloomy and sinister way (with very subtle comedy on the side). What NOT EXPLAINING does is that it leaves the imagination of the viewer run free. You're not DECODING as much info, so you're focusing on what you CAN DECODE. Images, and if those images are made cool, they're going to be felt even cooler when trying to get decoded by the brain.

It's a very, very basic storytelling trick, and thinking about it earlier on, it kinda occurred to me that all the damn cinematics (both in-game and pre-rendered) explain the crap out of the story. It becomes onedimensional since the brain is allowed to decode in a specific way instead of running through all possible referencepoints familiar to the given scene and therefore stimulating the viewer in a more fantastic way.
What this TELLING of story also suffers a lot from is the fact that during WoL, we're constantly TOLD a bunh of different and even contradicting stuff. We're never really seeing the stuff, only in the (ironically) very obviously explaining TV Reports who really go for the lowest common IQ availible in order to TELL stuff about recent events in the galaxy. Many like Kate Lockwell and Donnie Vermillion, even to the (actually realistic) spin on FoxNews, but still. Kate Lockwell is ONE HELL OF A BIASED AND ONE SIDED REPORTER as well, so dumbing down the very inconsistent FACTS we're TOLD kinda ruins the gameexperience even more.

It's the same with Zeratul's awful lines of monologue. Compare that with the sheer mystery that was the SC1 Intro. The panic and destruction the unexplainable "thing" did to the "poor" salvagers in space. Now some might say it's abstract, but I'd say THAT'S STORYTELLING.

Oh, and BTW. There's a theory created by a german literary theorist by the name of Wolfgang Iser about "empty spots" which are needed in stories, since they during the hermeneutic process that f.ex. a reading is, in order to let some undefined elements exist in the story in order to actually make the story interesting. Too few and the story feels predictable and less interesting, too many and the story becomes too vague and too demanding for the brain to decode any concrete references.
By for example showing a kid with bruises who twitches around his father, you can SHOW without having said anything, that the father hits his kid or might. "Might" being here the "empty spot" which draws our attention toward some element in the story.

Sorry for the long crap, but yeah. To me that's basically it. StarCraft's storytelling (and partly story) failed completely due to the fact that the writers didn't do what they'd done in SC1 and just showed cool stuff and let it speak for itself.

An image holds a thousand words... :P

[Randobob]

To me, the major problem is the video has been removed, and i didn't get to see it. Seems like it was cool since there is already 17 pages of comments on this thread.

[Baneling]

And last but not least, despite logical inconsistencies that creak under the weight of close scrutiny the story of StarCraft and Brood War was fun, and exciting (I'm losing count for the many times I've used this word now, but this is really what a story should be, first and foremost), and it hit all the right notes in depicting a dark, grimy and war-torn sci-fi universe that despite being conceptually derivative still had its own unique feel and flavour. SC 2 failed in one way or another on all these counts.

In my heart I know you are right. I loved the SC1 story. To the point that I remember reading and re-reading the manual back story. I think that a lot of the arguments in this thread fit your definition of minor, however the plot as a whole failed to capture my attention... which is too bad, because I actually believe that the single player game play and the multi-play are better than SC1.

[RussianSpy27]

To me, the major problem is the video has been removed, and i didn't get to see it. Seems like it was cool since there is already 17 pages of comments on this thread.

See my OP - a (still) working link is there.

[flak4321]

This video struck me at first as fake, but in light of certain arguments, granting it status as "concept video" seems appropriate. Given the numerous inconsistencies and issues in SC2's plot, it wouldn't surprise me if this did come up real. The probability seems awful high given all the evidence to this point.

I'd like to cite part of a character bio from the transformers fan universe who may be a newly discovered Blizz staff writer, we can only hope:

Please welcome: PlotHole.

Profile: ...Little is known about PlotHole's travels prior to now. It is said that he's best known for creating 'focal points' in history; whispering into the ears of those who would listen, and touching upon Heroes who will rise up in their race's darkest hour.

Abilities: Due to his travels, PlotHole accounts for most unknown characters in the Transformers Universe; thus plugging numerous 'plot holes' in the timeline...

Link to full profile. (Scroll down. )

At the very least, we now know what he's using to make his plugs.

[Eligor]

To me the big problem is that the cinematics and in general the storytelling does one major basic mistake. We've all heard it and we might hate using the term, but what they're doing in SC2 as opposed to what they did in SC1 is that they're "Telling it, not showing it."

All or at least most cinematics in SC1 didn't tell it the way it was or summed anything up. They just either STATED (like the inaguration and the brood war intro) or shut the hell up and SHOWED some cool shit, which INDIRECTLY always was related to the development of the story. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) We're never told that Fenix is taken down by Zerg in Antioch. We're just shown a Protoss zealot being ambushed in a gloomy and sinister way (with very subtle comedy on the side). What NOT EXPLAINING does is that it leaves the imagination of the viewer run free. You're not DECODING as much info, so you're focusing on what you CAN DECODE. Images, and if those images are made cool, they're going to be felt even cooler when trying to get decoded by the brain.

It's a very, very basic storytelling trick, and thinking about it earlier on, it kinda occurred to me that all the damn cinematics (both in-game and pre-rendered) explain the crap out of the story. It becomes onedimensional since the brain is allowed to decode in a specific way instead of running through all possible referencepoints familiar to the given scene and therefore stimulating the viewer in a more fantastic way.
What this TELLING of story also suffers a lot from is the fact that during WoL, we're constantly TOLD a bunh of different and even contradicting stuff. We're never really seeing the stuff, only in the (ironically) very obviously explaining TV Reports who really go for the lowest common IQ availible in order to TELL stuff about recent events in the galaxy. Many like Kate Lockwell and Donnie Vermillion, even to the (actually realistic) spin on FoxNews, but still. Kate Lockwell is ONE HELL OF A BIASED AND ONE SIDED REPORTER as well, so dumbing down the very inconsistent FACTS we're TOLD kinda ruins the gameexperience even more.

It's the same with Zeratul's awful lines of monologue. Compare that with the sheer mystery that was the SC1 Intro. The panic and destruction the unexplainable "thing" did to the "poor" salvagers in space. Now some might say it's abstract, but I'd say THAT'S STORYTELLING.

Oh, and BTW. There's a theory created by a german literary theorist by the name of Wolfgang Iser about "empty spots" which are needed in stories, since they during the hermeneutic process that f.ex. a reading is, in order to let some undefined elements exist in the story in order to actually make the story interesting. Too few and the story feels predictable and less interesting, too many and the story becomes too vague and too demanding for the brain to decode any concrete references.
By for example showing a kid with bruises who twitches around his father, you can SHOW without having said anything, that the father hits his kid or might. "Might" being here the "empty spot" which draws our attention toward some element in the story.

Sorry for the long crap, but yeah. To me that's basically it. StarCraft's storytelling (and partly story) failed completely due to the fact that the writers didn't do what they'd done in SC1 and just showed cool stuff and let it speak for itself.

An image holds a thousand words... :P

I couldn't agree more. Any well told story must engage the viewers'/readers' active participation in its telling, and there must be mysteries and ambiguities and references to untold events to discuss and ponder over later. StarCraft and Brood War had all of that in spades.

I think that a lot of the arguments in this thread fit your definition of minor,

I wouldn't say. When it comes to characters, their interactions and motives any problem that crops up is a major one, especially when the characters are as well established as Raynor, Kerrigan and Mengsk. And the inconsistencies of Tychus' being in Mengsk's pay and Valerian's advancement of terms to Raynor, not to mention the almost non-existent and messy plot structure, are far from minor. And never did I say that I liked the SC 2 story, quite the opposite in fact.

[imdrunkontea]

My biggest two gripes with this "ending" are 1) Mengsk's failsafe (why didn't he just use that before? stupid) and 2) the cheesy dialogue.

Also, if Kerrigan is so powerful psionically, why didn't she just mind-control Mengsk or something when she broke in? or perhaps read his mind and realize that he had the failsafe device ready.

[spychi]

My biggest two gripes with this "ending" are 1) Mengsk's failsafe (why didn't he just use that before? stupid) and 2) the cheesy dialogue.

Also, if Kerrigan is so powerful psionically, why didn't she just mind-control Mengsk or something when she broke in? or perhaps read his mind and realize that he had the failsafe device ready.

admit that this is actually more belivable than assault on char with a battlecruiser, handful of dominion and using an artifact bomb to de-infest zerry Kerri by Holy Raynor

[imdrunkontea]

admit that this is actually more belivable than assault on char with a battlecruiser, handful of dominion and using an artifact bomb to de-infest zerry Kerri by Holy Raynor

Well I always had the impression that Raynor+Valerian assaulted right when Kerrigan's forces were still on their way home from attacking the Dominion worlds. Considering that half of the entire Dominion navy was part of the force (pretty effing huge), it's believable that they were able to make a surgical landing and hold their ground for a day or two, before they clearly began getting overwhelmed.

[Caliban113]

Boy, the things I miss when I'n not on here regularly.....is this vid available anywhere?