StarCraft® II

starcraft 2 had a terrible story

Posts: 5
I thought the entire story of the campaign sucked for wings of liberty! Cuz tell me how is it that there was an entire campaign on the UED where there whole campaign centered around invading char and defeating the overmind(who is infinitly times more incompetent than Kerrigan) and then there is the Starcraft 2 campaign where they decide its darn licken time to invade them dern zerg and that they are just gonna gather a posse and defeat the zerg in 2 missions. Starcraft brood war's campaign was infinitly better and it saddens me that blizzard is to busy with making WoW's rather than actually trying to get a solid story in really any of there games actually.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,106
it's already been established that Blizzard aren't exactly the greatest of storytellers...

*waves flag* Welcome to the club.


Which is EXACTLY why they should stop pumping so much money into useless PvE content and fix all the damn classes. Arena competitiveness and participation are at an all time low. There's no such thing as a successful skillcomp anymore, because most of the classes have been completely dumbed down. And cataclysm has made the one decently balanced bracket (3s) a total pos.

As for this thread, I thought the SC2 campaign was pretty impressive and was more impressed by it's story and cinematic feel than any other sci-fi entity to date. Blizzard fails pretty hard in the dialogue and writing department but it wasn't as bad as the dialogue in WoW and there were enough bells and whistles to really bring the campaign to life.

Obviously SWTOR will crush all of the PvE content in SC2 and WoW + PvP content in WoW. So I'm not that worried.
Edited by Glassjaw on 7/16/2011 1:45 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,813
There arent nearly the same amount of forces there used to be back then. Do you want them to pull another UED expedition? lol

07/15/2011 02:11 PMPosted by sasquatch
then there is the Starcraft 2 campaign where they decide its darn licken time to invade them dern zerg and that they are just gonna gather a posse and defeat the zerg in 2 missions


if they invaded sooner, they would have been slaughtered.
Reply Quote
Posts: 80
i've always liked the stories in blizzard games. I read the books and everything. Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft. you name it I have the book. kinda wanting a new diablo book though. Sin War Trilogy is gonna be hard to top.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,701
I'm satisfied with the story...

Yeah, there are some points that lack resolution for me, but the way I see it, Blizzard is probably trying to leave things open enough to allow them room to breath while writing the rest of the story in the upcoming expansions.
Reply Quote
Posts: 29
I thought the story was ok, but wish there had been more of a focus to it.

Raynor is just kinda chilling, collecting artifacts for money when Mensk son comes out of no-where to say "Hey, if you put the pieces together it creates a big kill-zerg button!"
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,701
That's the kind of feeling we're left with when we condense a story line... the finer details have to be sacrificed out of necessity to attempt to provide the major points of a story so quickly.

Plenty of focus to go around... The story is just trying to handle so many issues at one time. [Raynor & Kerrigan; Raynor & Mengsk; Raynor & Tychus; Raynor & his crew; Raynor & Zeratul... Wow! It just keeps goin' like an Energizer... XD]
Reply Quote
Posts: 331
.
Edited by Luca on 6/16/2014 10:48 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 51
WoL's story had a lot going for it, but it addressed the whole of the plot rather loosly.

I for one only heard about the games in the series, but the novels, comics, other story sources, etc that came inbetween the games over the 15-year span between Brood War and WoL are stuff I never would have found out about without looking up details of the WoL campaign online.

I say the WoL campaign was loose because it had 3 branches that decide the outcome of not only plot branches, but the outcome of who Jim Raynor really is. Each branch has a totally abstract resolve for the same conflict. And both options for branches are each taken for the right choice afterwards which is the epitome of why I think this campaign is more loose thn the HotS campaign.

The only problem I have with the campaign other than that is the fact that it seems to take certain research and upgrade options for some brutal missions and other research and upgrade options for other ones meaning a lot of campaign restarts.
Reply Quote
Posts: 25
I guess ***SPOILERS*** are rather obvious at this point, but marking anyway.

It (the story) wasn't awful. It was cliched at times as all get out, but I could still appreciate it, and I'm even playing through the campaign again just to experience it (and collect achievements). Mind you, I'm not a person who ever really appreciates or welcomes any type of storyline in my video games, but I still derived enjoyment from the plot of SC.

Was it great? Absolutely not. Did it run me through every possible emotion? Not even close. But did it engage me at times, and drive me to continue to see how it played out? It certainly did, and that's good enough for me.

The end sort of blew it for me. I never finished the story until HotS came out (slow like that), but the whole, "save Kerrigan, because you can reverse zergism" garbage kinda put me off a little bit, especially since it seemed intentionally written in for the expansion, which I didn't appreciate at all. It may as well have said, "TO BE CONTINUED" for what it was worth. When Raynor shot Tychus? Yeah, I was surprised, even though in hindsight it should have been obvious. When the nurse... woman... whatever turned zerg and Raynor put her down, it was surprising, but it wasn't at the same time. Her constant pleas for mercy and insistence she could cure the infected made me believe she MIGHT have been on to something, but again, the whole, "we can fix the Queen of Blades" thing kinda threw a wrench in that.

Getting turned into a zerg seems like it's more of a permanent thing, which made the ending so much worse for me. There should be an aspect wherein people think, believe, and TRY to fix it, but... I don't know. When a person is infested and ends up being the leader of all the zerg, one would think you've crossed the point of no return, which made the ending sting that much more.

The story was far from being terrible. It wasn't great, but not terrible. I know I've been ragging on it a bit, but since the topic is mainly focused around the faults, I thought I'd contribute to those. Really, quite a few times between beginning to end I was really compelled to see how it all played out.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,477
04/28/2014 01:43 PMPosted by ComradeNasty
I'm not a person who ever really appreciates or welcomes any type of storyline in my video games


I guess games such as Silent Hill, Dark Souls, and other games would be pretty much be absent of story to you then.

I know a good few books and movies that don't have a very good storyline either, but you don't see me criticizing any of the media about it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 25
04/28/2014 04:04 PMPosted by ToxicDefiler
04/28/2014 01:43 PMPosted by ComradeNasty
I'm not a person who ever really appreciates or welcomes any type of storyline in my video games


I guess games such as Silent Hill, Dark Souls, and other games would be pretty much be absent of story to you then.

I know a good few books and movies that don't have a very good storyline either, but you don't see me criticizing any of the media about it.


You'll have to excuse me. I was unaware I wasn't allowed to play games primarily for the gameplay. I guess when I bought the game with the intent of enjoying some real-time strategic gameplay I was buying it for all the wrong reasons. I was under the impression video games existed largely to be played, so my assumption led me to believe the gameplay should take center stage, and a good story was simply a nice bonus, but clearly I was wrong.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,477
04/29/2014 04:12 AMPosted by ComradeNasty
You'll have to excuse me. I was unaware I wasn't allowed to play games primarily for the gameplay.


No, but your quote represents you defining Games should have little to no Strong Story in its gameplay, leaving it to other medias.

And games can have as much strong plot and setting as movies and books have had WEAK plot and setting.

04/29/2014 04:12 AMPosted by ComradeNasty
I was under the impression video games existed largely to be played, so my assumption led me to believe the gameplay should take center stage, and a good story was simply a nice bonus, but clearly I was wrong.


By your argument I would say that Books are just there to be read, and they don't need a strong plot or story in general as long as I am reading. Or movies are just there to be watched, and the listening/watching of story and plot is second to none within the media.

As Reading and Watching/Listening is part of their media, so to is gameplay. It does nto mean ANY sort of media should lack strong story.
Reply Quote
Posts: 25
04/29/2014 05:44 AMPosted by ToxicDefiler
By your argument I would say that Books are just there to be read, and they don't need a strong plot or story in general as long as I am reading. Or movies are just there to be watched, and the listening/watching of story and plot is second to none within the media.

As Reading and Watching/Listening is part of their media, so to is gameplay. It does nto mean ANY sort of media should lack strong story.


Never said that, and that's why I qualified it with, "... and a good story was simply a nice bonus."

Bottom line, we buy video games to play, because we can buy books and movies for significantly less than $60. Video games don't fall into the same category as books and movies because books and movies don't have a strong interaction with the audience. They're expected to have a good story because it's the ONLY thing they have to offer, whereas a video game in an interactive medium. Super Mario Brothers didn't have a great, arching story, but it was played by many for years, so unless you think the story about a princess being in another castle is gripping, there must have been another reason for its popularity.

Am I saying the SHOULDN'T have stories in games? Obviously not, so why are you trying to put me on the spot for speaking the truth? Games are primarily responsible for entertaining through interaction, and if it contains a great story, fine. Are games like Silent Hill built story first, and base the entertainment from that primarily? Yes, but they are the exception to the rule, and games like SC are typically on the polar opposite of that spectrum, which was why I was surprised and often delighted by the SC story.

Does that clear everything up?
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,477
You just gave the vibe that Story in Games can be lesser than Stories and Books, which is not true in my opinion.

Case in point, as you stated that games give more interaction within and thus a more connected immersion in which players CAn (for some games... as said with bad books and movies, bad games exist too), players can reach an immersion where they are IN the game, a lot more IN that a player can with books (which are imagination, and usually gives the reader a POV that is NOT the same feeling as the POV you play as being YOU) and Movies (which removes interaction/imgaination, in which case gives the LESS amount of story that can be as so lovingly conveyed as the other two mentioned medias can... usually. Transformers doesn't really give much in terms of immersion, but some movies have given viewers such... and that does not include 3D glasses -_-).

Games, perhaps better than the other two, have a greater chance and a greater say for story interaction. Movies don't need to tell a story, and as I have read Books don't necessarily have to tell a story either that is in depth or the main point of the media.

Games BRING the person into a world better than simple imagination or just simply showing you (which the other two medias depend on) can, in which case games are able to tell a story where the person IS INDEED part of the world, and therefore can reach an immersion and thus experience story greater than the other two medias can reach in contrast, in many cases (there are always a few that neglect, of course). A good few games that exist have conveyed such immersion where the player is part of the story, and the storys in games (not Resident Evil) have shown GREAT depth and lore within the universe. Of course a good few have contradictions, however movies and books have had such contradictions and errors within their own media as well.

If you ARE going to pay 60 bucks, which is not the price for all games (if you were patient enough, and didn't own an Xbox or an MMO... the MMOs can be money chewers), the price can be less. Yet even then, the price of games can exceed PAST the price that they are, since in many cases games are able to be played over and over in greater capacity than movies and books usually can, and such reasons for some games can tie to the story (not Call of Duty). People played Silent Hill for over a Decade. Not the new games, the old games from the early 2000s. Same goes with Starcraft, where people played for almost 1.5 decades.

Above all esle, I think games have as much, if not more right, than the other two medias to have a indepth story. Not all games, but a good few. I don't see why Books or Movies have to depend on such, and games can't.
Reply Quote
Posts: 25
04/29/2014 07:33 AMPosted by ToxicDefiler
You just gave the vibe that Story in Games can be lesser than Stories and Books, which is not true in my opinion.


And I would have to completely agree with you. Nothing states stories in games are worse than books and movies, nor shouldn't be present. If a story is good in a game, I'm thrilled. If not, I'm not surprised, and in most cases just wish it wasn't there to interrupt gameplay.

I don't see why Books or Movies have to depend on such (story), and games can't.


Because books and movies have nothing else to really offer in most cases aside from a great story, which pressures directors and authors to write epic stories.

A game can survive and be considered good even in the complete absence of story. A game can still fall back on the way it plays to deliver an enjoyable experience, which isn't the same for a movie. Nobody ever looked at a movie and said, "Well, it was terrible, but the disc makes a great frisbee!" or, "This book was pretty dull, but the pages make great paper airplanes!" Games are typically given the benefit of the doubt because even if the story is garbage, it can still be fun to play. One of my favorite games was, "Blue Dragon" which had a pretty awful and cliched story, and most unlikeable and annoying characters in the history of gaming. Didn't bother me though, because it was still a blast to play. That's what I mean when I say often the stories are unwelcome to me, because it seems most developers don't particularly want to write a great story to begin with, and in some cases ("Metal Gear Solid") the story is poorly written yet still a great interference to the (also poor) gameplay.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,477
04/29/2014 08:04 AMPosted by ComradeNasty
That's what I mean when I say often the stories are unwelcome to me, because it seems most developers don't particularly want to write a great story to begin with, and in some cases ("Metal Gear Solid") the story is poorly written yet still a great interference to the (also poor) gameplay.


Don't tell the writer of the MGS series, he might go ape !@#$ :D

But I agree. The only one I enjoyed was the first MGS game. The others were meh gameplay wise, adn the story for MGS felt to be a generic... I don't know, similar to a Mission Impossible type game, where it is a lone agent(s) against other greateer agencies or nemesii.

Similar to how Resident Evil is a B-rated Horror/Action film since the first game. And people say that Japanese people are the only ones that can make story/universes with depth. Shows some faliures in terms of high depth and immersion within the story itself. You might argue otherwise, but Mass Effect, even though I don't generically LIKE the Universe, can not be denied that the Story is indeed greatly important and part of the game, and I think is a good success of such. For a direct story telling. Some games do better with indirect storytelling as well at times, where the information is show more than tell.

I do agree however that there are BAD writers. I can also argue that there are bad writers in all media, and yet people still clammier for BAD writing for some reason and call it great. Take it as you will, I have played a good few games where games that make story that is part of the game important, and yet fail terribly to deliver. Playing Final Fantasy games have shown to have a story, considering the GAMEPLAY for such isn't exactly... interactive or immersive, as other games (random minimum/maximum damages, no control of combat except the select of the attack, a dice form of combat that isn't as real or drawing as a regular combat that is more direct, etc.), along with other games such as some particular horror games and immersive games that depend on the story and fail, and its really annoying... or the story from certain games such as Homefront(?), where the story is shoved in your mouth over and over again... a lot of games prefer to shove the tutorials down your throat, which doesn't really speak volumes as better, but for some reason they see us as goldfish and also want to help non-gamers know how to play the game... I recall a time when we found out the buttons of our characters by either the manual in the box or just moving the character around for awhile before going into real combat/interaction within the game that requires more than a move. (I think games that still try to teach you how to move with the right analog stick on a console is a serious crime for any form of trust).

I can say that some games are better without story, as much as movies and books aren't exactly 100% the story has more to it, especially movies (I don't recall such as Pacific Rim, Cloverfield, Dawn o the Dead, Sharktopus, and Transformers being exactly story dependent). There are a good few games that have shown that true storytelling, immersive storytelling where we don't have to listen to horrible or childish dialogue and plots are enjoyable and have shown to be vastly greater than movies and books... and considering games can now have books and movies within itself, movies and books don't really have that luxury of adding other medias into itself.

Hell... Fallout 3 introduced a radio station within the game. Of course it was scripted, but if people tried I am sure people can refine games to have radios playing hundreds of different dialogues and music within a game, Games can also have books within itself (of course I would rather prefer books to be placed in APPROPRIATE games, including solving games such as mystery, horror, science fiction, and so forth), and games are famous for including Cinematics. Cinematics that usually shun the movie industry in many cases. And boy, I can say that MGS4 was pretty much a movie game on its own...

Games have a lot more... diversity. Its safe to say that Games will perhaps evolve to make movies and books to be somewhat relunctant and secondary in perhaps the future if innovated correctly.
Reply Quote
Posts: 51
The problem with stories is that words are needed for confirmation and visuals are needced to help audiences "see" the gist of the plot.

Words are time-consuming and visuals are bi-lingual in a sense.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]