What can i say... I know too well that were something wrong with Tychus, but still i didn't know what was planning...
I did, ever since I saw the first trailer I knew his goal. the only question was whether they would kill him off at the end or not :/ was disappointed tjey killed one of their best.
Tychus' death was as much stupid as was ridiculous and a waste of a good character. If there's a cliche worst than typical villain deaths or exposed treason, even one we saw since the freaking intro, is the old 'Bros before Hoes' thing. Here, all of them were applied, not to mention the scene itself was depressing. Perhaps a twist could've been in order, even a non-sense one like Tychus shooting himself instead of Kerrigan in an attempt at self-redemption, but not even that was done.
Also, don't forget that the only reason the WoL campaign is not worst than HotS was because Tychus practically carried it in the back. He was something we could call a character, even though a plastic one. So much him as Tosh seemed to be the only characters developed and represented adequately.
I don't really see how Tychus made the WoL campaign work. Ye he was a cool character with some depth to 'm, but in my opinion it's to simple to say that he was what made WoL better than HoTS. The overall problem with SCII campaigns in my opinion is the amount of missions you have to play. It just doesn't leave that much room for true character development.
@Crazio: Go Well, SC1 had only 10~ missions per campaign, which left even less space for character development (total of 60~ missions compared to a total of 90~ or so), but it was pulled off better than in SC2 (imo). It also didn't have any hub like the Hyperion and the Leviathan, which are a pretty good source for some more char development.
Tychus, as I said, apart from not being that great or such, he could easily mask the faulty designs in other characters (Raynor's unnerving optimism, Horner's plastic idealism, Hanson's unbearable do-gooder persona, Kerrigan's plastic villain, Mengsk's 'sci-fi Khaddafi' behavior, Zeratul's lack of depth, among others). Tychus, as a character, may be the traditional 'best friend/traitor' character, but judging by that would be superficial. He's meant to be a badass guy with a chaingun or an Odin walking around, delivering devastation and such, but he's also got some drama aura too, with the rigged suit, the hesitation and fear on Char and the apparent regret that he knew he'd have to end up backstabbing Raynor, even though he knew that it'd be a one-way trip, a.k.a his death. The only other person whom could come close to it is Tosh, but his character is only overshadowed by his 'desire for revenge' acting, that sounds somehow much more solid than Kerrigan's ever was in HotS.
Absolutely agreed on that. Apart from the mechanics of the time (No cutscenes or 3D, just briefing room and in-game events, which was understandable due to the lack of technology in '98), StarCraft's history managed to advance considerably more on narrative than WoL or HotS. It was all a matter of effort in telling the story. Whatever else that couldn't be added because it simply couldn't be or would drag the 10-mission limit was left to the books. Today, the Hyperion and Leviathan were only as useful for interactivity, and even then it wasn't much developed. You couldn't talk further with secondary characters, you couldn't choose dialogue, the dialogue and/or actions in missions wouldn't affect the crew's morale, and there's also the liberal-yet-linear timeline that plagued so much mission selection for WoL as well as HotS.
I don't think the main draw of the campaign should be the story, but mission variety and lots of different unit types and abilities to have fun and experiment with. That said, I really don't think Tychus was a wasted character. He's a very bad man, a thief and a murderer, and he probably didn't deserve better than he got, but you still feel sorry for him because he's being forced to betray the only man he ever thought of as a friend and you can clearly see that he doesn't want to. Now, for him to have been wasted, he'd need to be like Arcturus Mengsk, who has a lot of backstory and character development that you only get in supplementary materials such as the books. To me, Mengsk, who spent most of his life being hunted by the confederacy and ended up becoming the very thing he hated, should have had a death that felt every bit as tragic if not moreso than Tychus'. In the end even his own son is against him.
Also, I like the atmosphere and campaign style of Starcraft 2 better than the original. I don't mean the tone or the story, since SC and BW did those better. Before you jump on me, let me explain what I mean and why I feel this way. The flora and fauna in SC2 stick out a lot more than in the original. The presence of colonists, gas stations, and miscellaneous vehicles make the game more immersive to me because I feel like the world wasn't just put there so I would have somewhere for my units to fight, even though it really was. (Although I have to admit, during the Korhal mission, my immersion was broken when my Thors were blasting a dominion base that was by the side of the road and one car was still trying to through them. I like to think he either has really huge balls or maybe he just really, really, really needed to get somewhere.) Sorry for getting off track there.
Anyways, there's also some of the subplots and things in the background. For example, there's Egon's subplot. He's not important to the main plot at all. He doesn't even have any dialogue, and he's just there so that you'll have someone to run the lab after Dr. Hanson leaves. But if you read the notes he keeps on the zerg and protoss research, you see he's actually got his own story going on where you can't see it, where he's trying to understand how the crystals are affecting the ship while keeping an eye on the zerg specimen while keeping all of this a secret from Raynor and the others. There was nothing like that in the original game, and I wish they could've done something similar with the crew's mutiny instead of relegating that to one cutscene and resolving it before anything interesting happens.
I also liked the relationship between Kerrigan and Zagara, with Kerrigan teaching her to be more strategic. During those conversations Kerrigan actually sounded like her old self and I feel that it did a lot for Zagara's character.
So the campaign is not meant to tell a good story? You kidding?? SCII Campaigns have easy and funny missions (especially for casual gamers) but the story should have been the most important thing of the campaign, playing WoL i was immersed... Playing hots campaign i wasn't immersed, all was so cheap and predictable...
Ok, but i have a different opinion, personally the story on a campaign is really important but... De Gustibus ...
Well you're welcome to your opinion. We can disagree and not be enemies. And I think we only really disagree a little anyway. One of my favorite custom campaigns right now is Marauders, which hardly even has any story.
I love it too !!!! Let's kick some ass! Other project i love are Crimson Moon and Amber Sun for gameplay and the incredible story, there are other good campaign, all of Custom Campaign Initiative and some individual campaigns
I don't think the main draw of the campaign should be the story, but mission variety and lots of different unit types and abilities to have fun and experiment with.
Completely disagree. There's nothing more disappointing than watching developers adopt this attitude in a self-fulfilling prophecy that degrades the story and in which you get things like dialog going off during gameplay instead of a cinematic, as if the player's valuable and precious time is wasted by listening to mediocre exposition instead of mashing buttons.
Quote:
Also, I like the atmosphere and campaign style of Starcraft 2 better than the original. I don't mean the tone or the story, since SC and BW did those better. Before you jump on me, let me explain what I mean and why I feel this way. The flora and fauna in SC2 stick out a lot more than in the original. The presence of colonists, gas stations, and miscellaneous vehicles make the game more immersive to me because I feel like the world wasn't just put there so I would have somewhere for my units to fight, even though it really was. (Although I have to admit, during the Korhal mission, my immersion was broken when my Thors were blasting a dominion base that was by the side of the road and one car was still trying to through them. I like to think he either has really huge balls or maybe he just really, really, really needed to get somewhere.) Sorry for getting off track there.
Well I'm sure everyone likes the extra depth and immersion. But that's more a question of production quality than overall quality. If SC1 was made in 2010 and not 1999, it would have had those things as well.
One of my favorite custom campaigns right now is Marauders, which hardly even has any story.
My favorite is the SC1 campaign, which has great story and pretty mediocre gameplay. It's held up as a classic. In the meantime, WoL and HoTS keep receiving flak, even though the gameplay was 10x better.
There's a reason people upload playthroughs and cinematics to youtube. If it was just the gameplay, then nobody would watch those videos. I don't care if a game doesn't have any story in it, but my personal philosophy is that if you're going to bother with telling a story in the first place then that needs to be your priority. If you put gameplay first, why did you even bother having a story?
SC1's story was nothing special, at all, it was just done right, if you ask me. It was full of clichés and references, the love story, evil race vs good one, but these were put some effort as to not sound so disgustingly plastic as they are today.
"If you put gameplay first, why did you even bother having a story?"
You have to ask it to CoD and BF :D
And their new brother StarCraft 2
You know the campaign is a touch to say "yes our game have a story, have a soul, doesn't matter if i writed it on the toilet...
Best story ever ? "The last of Us", the story itself is nothing too special or too different from "i am legend", but the narration... So much depth! Really intense, never seen a story so immersive ! Blizzard should learn to it instead to do story that says "player you are strong!!! No one can stop you !!! Are you happy now? Do you want a candy?", i am reading your WoL and HotS analysis Gradius... So much depression... So much waste of Potential... Ok there are more details, but so nonsense and kiddish sense of "i am the best, enemy die alwais = i am real good" :/
I repeat myself, WoL was still enjoyable, hots not, a void story, that's my opinion :)
I hope LotV will be done better and we will see more sexy female protoss lolol Dat Alien Lasarra chestburster, i watched Alien (1979) some weeks ago... So magic! And Dat xenomorph it kick ass !
Completely disagree. There's nothing more disappointing than watching developers adopt this attitude in a self-fulfilling prophecy that degrades the story and in which you get things like dialog going off during gameplay instead of a cinematic, as if the player's valuable and precious time is wasted by listening to mediocre exposition instead of mashing buttons.
Is it bad that I don't have a problem with that at all?
Man the problem is that the success of starcraft was done also by his great story, not only because he became a great e-sport, i don't understand your point, What's wrong if a Game want to tell a story... The problem is when SHs focus the Game on the esport and do slutty campaigns only to don't lose singleplayer fans, that was happen with 99% of FPS and sc2 itself, the story doesn't matter, competitive comes first
Man the problem is that the success of starcraft was done also by his great story, not only because he became a great e-sport, i don't understand your point, What's wrong if a Game want to tell a story... The problem is when SHs focus the Game on the esport and do slutty campaigns only to don't lose singleplayer fans, that was happen with 99% of FPS and sc2 itself, the story doesn't matter, competitive comes first
Exactly. SC2 tried too hard to be an e-sport, instead of just trying hard to be a good/fun game and then evolving into an esport.
SC1's story was nothing special, at all, it was just done right, if you ask me.
Agreed. It definitely has its own share of non-sequiturs, but the atmosphere and worldbuilding are, at least in my opinion, among the best in video games.
Quote:
It was full of clichés and references, the love story, evil race vs good one, but these were put some effort as to not sound so disgustingly plastic as they are today.
It's not necessarily that those things are bad, but they stuck out like a sore thumb in SC2. Look at mass effect. It has all the above (in moderation), yet manages to create a respectable and enjoyable story (well, up until the ending).
"If you put gameplay first, why did you even bother having a story?"
You have to ask it to CoD and BF :D
And their new brother StarCraft 2
Don't remember much about CoD's campaign and never played BF, but if they skimped on the story like SC2's writers did because they knew e-sports and hype would sell the game for them, then that's a problem. :P
Well there's this thing called esports. Also lots of people upload and watch videos of games that take a lot of skill and show off.
True. But like I said, I don't care if a game doesn't have any story in it. Gameplay has its own value in and of itself. It's just my opinion that the more story a game has, the more the author is obligated to make that his focus.
And personally I always found watching games much more boring than playing them myself. I used to watch casts and streams, but I stopped after getting to master league and playing SC2 all-together.
I see your point, but you could also say if you're gonna put story first, why have a game?
For immersion. I could watch all of mass effect on youtube if I wanted, but it's more immersive for me to walk around, read transmissions, fight enemies, and talk to people. When I do those things, I start to give a crap about the world and its characters more than if I was just watching it on my TV as a detached spectator. That's why it's depressing to hear about story being sacrificed for gameplay all the time when instead authors should be harnessing the power of games as a storytelling medium. Video game stories should not suck, they should be amazing.
That's one thing that worked in WoL's favor. I'm sure if you guys had watched it on youtube first instead of playing it firsthand, your initial reaction would be similar to mine.
I guess HoTS could have been a lot better (more towards WOL) if they did put some more effort in developing the story around the xel naga and how Zerg was used by Amon. I felt like they stuck to much to the relationship between raynor and kerrigan and the rebellion vs Mengks. The Primal zerg story line is a bit meh. Could have been a lot better if they stated more about how when what happened with the primal zerg. Though I must say, i did enjoy the mini boss fights. Thought that was a really fun thing they added.
I just hope LotV will add some braincracking story lines or something really unexpected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What can i say... I know too well that were something wrong with Tychus, but still i didn't know what was planning...
I did, ever since I saw the first trailer I knew his goal. the only question was whether they would kill him off at the end or not :/ was disappointed tjey killed one of their best.
@SearingChicken: Go
Killing of their best is what can make a story good imo. Not to cliche etc.
@Crazio: Go
Tychus' death was as much stupid as was ridiculous and a waste of a good character. If there's a cliche worst than typical villain deaths or exposed treason, even one we saw since the freaking intro, is the old 'Bros before Hoes' thing. Here, all of them were applied, not to mention the scene itself was depressing. Perhaps a twist could've been in order, even a non-sense one like Tychus shooting himself instead of Kerrigan in an attempt at self-redemption, but not even that was done.
Also, don't forget that the only reason the WoL campaign is not worst than HotS was because Tychus practically carried it in the back. He was something we could call a character, even though a plastic one. So much him as Tosh seemed to be the only characters developed and represented adequately.
@DeltaCadimus: Go
I don't really see how Tychus made the WoL campaign work. Ye he was a cool character with some depth to 'm, but in my opinion it's to simple to say that he was what made WoL better than HoTS. The overall problem with SCII campaigns in my opinion is the amount of missions you have to play. It just doesn't leave that much room for true character development.
@Crazio: Go Well, SC1 had only 10~ missions per campaign, which left even less space for character development (total of 60~ missions compared to a total of 90~ or so), but it was pulled off better than in SC2 (imo). It also didn't have any hub like the Hyperion and the Leviathan, which are a pretty good source for some more char development.
@Crazio: Go
Tychus, as I said, apart from not being that great or such, he could easily mask the faulty designs in other characters (Raynor's unnerving optimism, Horner's plastic idealism, Hanson's unbearable do-gooder persona, Kerrigan's plastic villain, Mengsk's 'sci-fi Khaddafi' behavior, Zeratul's lack of depth, among others). Tychus, as a character, may be the traditional 'best friend/traitor' character, but judging by that would be superficial. He's meant to be a badass guy with a chaingun or an Odin walking around, delivering devastation and such, but he's also got some drama aura too, with the rigged suit, the hesitation and fear on Char and the apparent regret that he knew he'd have to end up backstabbing Raynor, even though he knew that it'd be a one-way trip, a.k.a his death. The only other person whom could come close to it is Tosh, but his character is only overshadowed by his 'desire for revenge' acting, that sounds somehow much more solid than Kerrigan's ever was in HotS.
@StealthToast: Go
Absolutely agreed on that. Apart from the mechanics of the time (No cutscenes or 3D, just briefing room and in-game events, which was understandable due to the lack of technology in '98), StarCraft's history managed to advance considerably more on narrative than WoL or HotS. It was all a matter of effort in telling the story. Whatever else that couldn't be added because it simply couldn't be or would drag the 10-mission limit was left to the books. Today, the Hyperion and Leviathan were only as useful for interactivity, and even then it wasn't much developed. You couldn't talk further with secondary characters, you couldn't choose dialogue, the dialogue and/or actions in missions wouldn't affect the crew's morale, and there's also the liberal-yet-linear timeline that plagued so much mission selection for WoL as well as HotS.
I don't think the main draw of the campaign should be the story, but mission variety and lots of different unit types and abilities to have fun and experiment with. That said, I really don't think Tychus was a wasted character. He's a very bad man, a thief and a murderer, and he probably didn't deserve better than he got, but you still feel sorry for him because he's being forced to betray the only man he ever thought of as a friend and you can clearly see that he doesn't want to. Now, for him to have been wasted, he'd need to be like Arcturus Mengsk, who has a lot of backstory and character development that you only get in supplementary materials such as the books. To me, Mengsk, who spent most of his life being hunted by the confederacy and ended up becoming the very thing he hated, should have had a death that felt every bit as tragic if not moreso than Tychus'. In the end even his own son is against him.
Also, I like the atmosphere and campaign style of Starcraft 2 better than the original. I don't mean the tone or the story, since SC and BW did those better. Before you jump on me, let me explain what I mean and why I feel this way. The flora and fauna in SC2 stick out a lot more than in the original. The presence of colonists, gas stations, and miscellaneous vehicles make the game more immersive to me because I feel like the world wasn't just put there so I would have somewhere for my units to fight, even though it really was. (Although I have to admit, during the Korhal mission, my immersion was broken when my Thors were blasting a dominion base that was by the side of the road and one car was still trying to through them. I like to think he either has really huge balls or maybe he just really, really, really needed to get somewhere.) Sorry for getting off track there.
Anyways, there's also some of the subplots and things in the background. For example, there's Egon's subplot. He's not important to the main plot at all. He doesn't even have any dialogue, and he's just there so that you'll have someone to run the lab after Dr. Hanson leaves. But if you read the notes he keeps on the zerg and protoss research, you see he's actually got his own story going on where you can't see it, where he's trying to understand how the crystals are affecting the ship while keeping an eye on the zerg specimen while keeping all of this a secret from Raynor and the others. There was nothing like that in the original game, and I wish they could've done something similar with the crew's mutiny instead of relegating that to one cutscene and resolving it before anything interesting happens.
I also liked the relationship between Kerrigan and Zagara, with Kerrigan teaching her to be more strategic. During those conversations Kerrigan actually sounded like her old self and I feel that it did a lot for Zagara's character.
So the campaign is not meant to tell a good story? You kidding?? SCII Campaigns have easy and funny missions (especially for casual gamers) but the story should have been the most important thing of the campaign, playing WoL i was immersed... Playing hots campaign i wasn't immersed, all was so cheap and predictable...
Come on, that's not what I said.
Ok, but i have a different opinion, personally the story on a campaign is really important but... De Gustibus ...
Well you're welcome to your opinion. We can disagree and not be enemies. And I think we only really disagree a little anyway. One of my favorite custom campaigns right now is Marauders, which hardly even has any story.
I love it too !!!! Let's kick some ass! Other project i love are Crimson Moon and Amber Sun for gameplay and the incredible story, there are other good campaign, all of Custom Campaign Initiative and some individual campaigns
Completely disagree. There's nothing more disappointing than watching developers adopt this attitude in a self-fulfilling prophecy that degrades the story and in which you get things like dialog going off during gameplay instead of a cinematic, as if the player's valuable and precious time is wasted by listening to mediocre exposition instead of mashing buttons.
Well I'm sure everyone likes the extra depth and immersion. But that's more a question of production quality than overall quality. If SC1 was made in 2010 and not 1999, it would have had those things as well.
My favorite is the SC1 campaign, which has great story and pretty mediocre gameplay. It's held up as a classic. In the meantime, WoL and HoTS keep receiving flak, even though the gameplay was 10x better.
There's a reason people upload playthroughs and cinematics to youtube. If it was just the gameplay, then nobody would watch those videos. I don't care if a game doesn't have any story in it, but my personal philosophy is that if you're going to bother with telling a story in the first place then that needs to be your priority. If you put gameplay first, why did you even bother having a story?
@Gradius12: Go
SC1's story was nothing special, at all, it was just done right, if you ask me. It was full of clichés and references, the love story, evil race vs good one, but these were put some effort as to not sound so disgustingly plastic as they are today.
"If you put gameplay first, why did you even bother having a story?"
Is it bad that I don't have a problem with that at all?
Well there's this thing called esports. Also lots of people upload and watch videos of games that take a lot of skill and show off.
I see your point, but you could also say if you're gonna put story first, why have a game?
Man the problem is that the success of starcraft was done also by his great story, not only because he became a great e-sport, i don't understand your point, What's wrong if a Game want to tell a story... The problem is when SHs focus the Game on the esport and do slutty campaigns only to don't lose singleplayer fans, that was happen with 99% of FPS and sc2 itself, the story doesn't matter, competitive comes first
Exactly. SC2 tried too hard to be an e-sport, instead of just trying hard to be a good/fun game and then evolving into an esport.
Agreed. It definitely has its own share of non-sequiturs, but the atmosphere and worldbuilding are, at least in my opinion, among the best in video games.
It's not necessarily that those things are bad, but they stuck out like a sore thumb in SC2. Look at mass effect. It has all the above (in moderation), yet manages to create a respectable and enjoyable story (well, up until the ending).
Don't remember much about CoD's campaign and never played BF, but if they skimped on the story like SC2's writers did because they knew e-sports and hype would sell the game for them, then that's a problem. :P
True. But like I said, I don't care if a game doesn't have any story in it. Gameplay has its own value in and of itself. It's just my opinion that the more story a game has, the more the author is obligated to make that his focus.
And personally I always found watching games much more boring than playing them myself. I used to watch casts and streams, but I stopped after getting to master league and playing SC2 all-together.
For immersion. I could watch all of mass effect on youtube if I wanted, but it's more immersive for me to walk around, read transmissions, fight enemies, and talk to people. When I do those things, I start to give a crap about the world and its characters more than if I was just watching it on my TV as a detached spectator. That's why it's depressing to hear about story being sacrificed for gameplay all the time when instead authors should be harnessing the power of games as a storytelling medium. Video game stories should not suck, they should be amazing.
That's one thing that worked in WoL's favor. I'm sure if you guys had watched it on youtube first instead of playing it firsthand, your initial reaction would be similar to mine.
I guess HoTS could have been a lot better (more towards WOL) if they did put some more effort in developing the story around the xel naga and how Zerg was used by Amon. I felt like they stuck to much to the relationship between raynor and kerrigan and the rebellion vs Mengks. The Primal zerg story line is a bit meh. Could have been a lot better if they stated more about how when what happened with the primal zerg. Though I must say, i did enjoy the mini boss fights. Thought that was a really fun thing they added.
I just hope LotV will add some braincracking story lines or something really unexpected.