This forum is full of professional story critics

[GnaReffotsirk]

edit: It's pointless.

[Dark-Slayer]

LOL

Also, completely agreed with Jackhammer.

[The_Blade]

heh I don't think we are professional in any sence, but as JackhammerIV said I guess we have the right to make a critic out of the plot of a game we love. Some seem to be more professional than others though.

It is sad that most threads with a topic around the development of plot in StarCraft II are negative. I guess we are indeed full of nerdrage because we saw something that seemed cheesy on first sight. After I watched that thing over I seriously started to think... "Well, Blizzard still needs to link Wings of Liberty to THIS." I still have hopes that Blizzard will deliver a good story for its following games.

As for actually making a critic of the plot: I may state something and so may many of you, but that won't make it the absolute truth. Actually what I have taken out of my clases of literature analysis and story development is that there are a lot of variables which make your statements as valid or invalid. Historical context is probably one of the strongest. It just states that time will change the perspective of a critic... That said I really just take these teachings as basics, but they still show the depth needed to analyse something through literary or non-literary aspects.

PS: I actually hate those clases, because each year a new teacher arrives and says, "What you learned last year means shit, so move on!".

[hyde]

I'm not sure if Gradius's comment is sarcastic or a mocking blow.
We are certainly not professional critics nor did we ever claim to be professional critics.
I for one have strong opinions on the entire SC2 story, for the most part they are negative.

I've provided ample support my arguments and so have others.
To name a few
1) Loophole: Mengsk knows where Tychus is at all times yet they board Valerian's ship and infiltrate Korhal
2) Cliche: WoL and HOTS end cinematics are cliche riddled. From cowbow showdowns to lines like "THIS IS NOT VENGEANCE... THIS IS JUUUUUSTTIIICEEE" - Kerrigan
300 Much?


Back to topic: More and more people are listening to customers for opinions. Taking professional critics as the holy grail for grading media is stupid in it own self , but even more stupid with today's internet/communication abilities.
Aggregate scoring from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? Obvious money related bias from larger review sites such as IGN. Why should I trust commercial review web pages. The fact that IGN's review of a big game can make or break sales from simply giving it an 8.5 or a 9.0 is a good indicator of how "sheep" like most consumers are.

You should always take a review with a grain of salt, but with the increasing power of the "internet voice" from the masses - it's ignorant to be oblivious to a large amount of criticism.


As a long time critic of the graphics, gameplay, and the story, I have always expected a certain amount of fanboy renouncement of my opinions. Which is fine, because it adds to the forum and debate. But it's trivial when your arguments are not considered or addressed. It's like coming into a religious building and telling them their faith is a lie. I don't think anyone has the right to do that.
But this isn't a religious gathering and yet I am seeing the same type of replies I would get if I ran into a Mosque and defaced their Prophet.
I (and the others) are not just "marching into" SCLEGACY forums and spouting unsupported crap. Although we do disagree and put the game in a negative light, we have much reason to - because we're caring fans.

[SuperKiller]

and football fans are all professional coaches

[Eligor]

Well, "professional story critics" or not, I think that the fact that most people agree on the existence of pretty specific flaws in the WoL campaign is telling.

And any kind of honest, meticulous and intelligent feedback is very valuable (even if it is largely negative). And even in the case where it is fully ignored by the writers at Blizzard, it's still quite a useful discussion for those participating. Personally it made me think and learn about what makes or breaks a story much more intensely than I had before, and introduced me to some wonderful ideas about narrative in games. Some of the discussions going on were much more vigorous and exacting and informative than most creative writing workshops and lit classes out there.

Hell, maybe WoL is actually an underappreciated classic like Melville's "Moby Dick" and future gaming generations would truly understand it for what it is, but most of the criticism I've seen here has been sincere, and intelligent and written out of true passion for narrative in games and for this little in-game universe called StarCraft in particular, and that counts for much more than many a soulless, snobbish and self-aggrandizing review by "professional critics".

[Louis]

1) Loophole: Mengsk knows where Tychus is at all times yet they board Valerian's ship and infiltrate Korhal

That was the suggestion, but I don't remember any signs of contact between the very beginning and the very end. Wouldn't it be just as easy to assume that Matt was suspicious enough of Tychus to use some futuristic comm disruption? He did manage to silence the whole of the Odin facility after all, so that gives the theory some plausibility. I have other issues, but I'm not sure about the Tychus one.

Well, "professional story critics" or not, I think that the fact that most people agree on the existence of pretty specific flaws in the WoL campaign is telling.

Yeah. If there are two things that I want from HotS it's to go all linear and to emphasise Jims dark side to hopefully give some of his morally questionable actions in WoL some strength.

[DemolitionSquid]

Professional? Hardly.
Critics? Of course. Isn't that what a forum is for, discussing and critiquing ideas?

[Gradius]

As the tone on this forum in regards to anything story-related has become more and more negative, my purpose with this thread was to lighten up the mood a little so that we wouldn't take ourselves so seriously. I'm starting to see more knee-jerk responses on this forum which automatically assume that the writers are incompetent, that anything they do is bad, or even that they're just not trying or listening.

I think it's just full of fanboy nerdrage.

I invite you to read my posts on the topic:

Also, we've established that the storyline was monkey hurlage months ago - so what's the point of all the QQ?

Back when the game came out, the tone wasn't nearly as negative as it is now. So I suppose I'm wondering what happened. I'd like to remind everybody that this story was made for a very general audience, and it's not surprising that long time SC fans or even "professional story critics" might not like it.

Either way, I've enjoyed reading the replies here, but since my sense of humor isn't for everybody - thread = closed.