StarCraft® II

Why the illogical Kaldir Mission?


Somehow I picture you as the man who nitpicks a story ad infinitum and feels superior for it. Looking for cracks in the logic of a work of science FICTION (in case you did not notice, I want to emphasize the FICTION part) is something any seven-year-old can do.

Purposefully taking yourself out of a story because it is "illogical" is not a mark of superiority, but an early indication of Asperger's Syndrome.

(Or being a Vulcan.)

So wanting a story that makes sense is an indication of mental disease? Gotcha.

If a 7 year old can pick out the flaws in this "epic sci-fi" that you love so much, then that's not a good sign. You ARE Blizzard's target audience. Congratulations.

06/21/2013 12:06 PMPosted by Reanimation
as soon as they come on here to say something positive about the game, they're met with cynical responses as to why that's not the case

I know right? Logic is such a drag. Ruins everything! ><

06/21/2013 12:06 PMPosted by Reanimation
There's just so much negativity surrounding what is one pretty damn good product, it's amazing.

The art is amazing. The gameplay is amazing. The editor is amazing. The people who worked on the story had nothing to do with the above things. They had one job. They (yes, there is more than one writer) got paid full salaries to think about the story for months/years on end. The end result was a childish amalgamation of cliches, bad retcons and fridge logic. Ridiculous. They were probably too busy rolling around in cash to take five minutes to read the SC1 manual.

Nobody would say anything if people didn't incessantly deny flaws and use fallacies/non-sequiturs/lies to defend what they clearly consider to be a cherished piece of work. It would be cool if criticism was openly accepted instead of compared to a mental disease. Unfortunately, Blizzard's easily-placated fanbase considers feedback to be "rude", and as such, the HoTS story showed little to no improvement over WoL.
Reply Quote
06/21/2013 03:04 PMPosted by Gradius
The art is amazing. The gameplay is amazing. The editor is amazing. The people who worked on the story had nothing to do with the above things. They had one job. They (yes, there is more than one writer) got paid full salaries to think about the story for months/years on end. The end result was a childish amalgamation of cliches, bad retcons and fridge logic. Ridiculous. They were probably too busy rolling around in cash to take five minutes to read the SC1 manual.
Reply Quote
I know right? Logic is such a drag. Ruins everything! ><

My point was that instead of hounding and harrassing those who enjoyed the game, and attempting to show them that they're wrong in liking it, you could/should just leave them alone. You don't always need to show them why you think they're wrong. There's been countless negative topics and posts, if someone starts a positive topic, or posts something positive about SC2, you don't need to attack them- leave them be!
And your 'logical analyses' of the game's flaws have been, more or less, nitpicking fests, which you can do to essentially any work of fiction ever written. I gave the example of Terminator 2, a highly regarded sci-fi sequel, which can be torn to shreds in the same manner you love to do with SC2.
The art is amazing. The gameplay is amazing. The editor is amazing. The people who worked on the story had nothing to do with the above things.

My "it's amazing" was in reference to the endless negativity surrounding this game, not the game itself (although I did think it was worthy of that description ;)).
They had one job. They (yes, there is more than one writer) got paid full salaries to think about the story for months/years on end. The end result was a childish amalgamation of cliches, bad retcons and fridge logic. Ridiculous. They were probably too busy rolling around in cash to take five minutes to read the SC1 manual.

Oh dear, there you go again. Get over the manual. For god's sake. Not even SC1 lined up 100% perfectly with what was written in the manual. Saying that is like saying that James Cameron should have taken 5 minutes to read the Terminator 1 script, then he would know that there was only one Terminator sent back through time, not two like he writes in Terminator 2 (to reinforce that point again- one of the best received, most highly regarded sci-fi movies of all time is based on a retcon- the entire premise of it). Or that Kojima should have taken 5 minutes to read the manuals and scripts from Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2, then he would know Big Boss was in his 50s when Solid and Liquid were cloned from his stolen DNA, not in his 30s as Kojima's later games now assert. Instead of allowing themselves to be bound entirely by every single minor detail from their earlier works, these authors have instead tweaked their story as time passed, allowing them to take their stories in directions that wouldn't have otherwise been possible (whether this has resulted in the storyline of each franchise becoming better or worse is up to the individual's interpretation). I know I'm incredibly glad T2 exists and is the way it is, and that Big Boss was able to be the star of two incredible MGS titles (with a third on the way that's most dependent on this retcon) thanks to his age tweak- I also really enjoyed SC2!

Nobody would say anything if people didn't incessantly deny flaws and use fallacies/non-sequiturs/lies to defend what they clearly consider to be a cherished piece of work. It would be cool if criticism was openly accepted instead of compared to a mental disease. Unfortunately, Blizzard's easily-placated fanbase considers feedback to be "rude", and as such, the HoTS story showed little to no improvement over WoL.

I'm fine with the game being criticised, but the lengths that some people on this forum go to criticise it are simply unbelievable. I didn't think that HotS or WoL's stories were perfect, they were flawed, but they were also very enjoyable. Some of the criticisms of SC2 are just downright silly though.

I also love how you're shocked and horrified that people would defend something that they enjoyed and not agree with every single relentless criticism of it- it's just unbelievable!
Reply Quote

My point was that instead of hounding and harrassing those who enjoyed the game, and attempting to show them that they're wrong in liking it, you could/should just leave them alone. You don't always need to show them why you think they're wrong.

I'm fine with the game being criticised

This might come as a shocker, but people come to this forum to discuss the game. Your position basically boils down to "stop ruining my gameplay experience with your logic".

I gave the example of Terminator 2, a highly regarded sci-fi sequel, which can be torn to shreds in the same manner you love to do with SC2.

I don't think so. Terminator 2 was actually decent and didn't treat its audience like children. It's disingenuous to pretend that Terminator 2 has anywhere near the amount of flaws as SC2. You're basically trying to dismiss & handwaive away countless of well thought out arguments because you don't like criticism, and it should be considered a form of trolling.

(to reinforce that point again- one of the best received, most highly regarded sci-fi movies of all time is based on a retcon- the entire premise of it

1) Terminator 2 is a cheesy 80's movie, not an "epic sci-fi" as Blizzard keeps calling SC2 at BlizzCons. Arnold movies are basically comedy relief, and people are simply going to not care about retcons. This is completely different from the zergs' entire backstory being rewritten.
2) Nobody denies the existence of retcons in T2. And if they do, what, should we ignore them because telling them that they're wrong is "rude" or "harassment"? Good god, it's not like we're telling children that Santa Claus doesn't exist. -_-
3) T2 wasn't perfect, and maybe James Cameron should have taken five minutes to read the T1 script. It's not like popularity is any indicator of quality, so stop pretending that it is. His latest movie (Avatar) is a testament to this fact.

It's fine if you like the story, but even you can admit that it's not improving. And because of people such as yourself who consider feedback to be rude, it never will.

these authors have instead tweaked their story as time passed, allowing them to take their stories in directions that wouldn't have otherwise been possible

All it tells me is that these authors are lazy. It's not difficult to create a logical sequel without resorting to retcons. Turns out you have to spend some time thinking about the story. I can tell the same story in T2 or SC2 without resorting to contradictions.

I also love how you're shocked and horrified that people would defend something that they enjoyed and not agree with every single relentless criticism of it- it's just unbelievable!

I love how you're surprised that people criticize SC2. It's just unbelievable!
Reply Quote
people writing an essay per second over her , I'll just read them ...

for mentioning : I side with Gradius

:p
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 06:36 AMPosted by Reanimation
I know I'm incredibly glad T2 exists and is the way it is, and that Big Boss was able to be the star of two incredible MGS titles


2? MGS3, but what is the other one you are talking about?

06/22/2013 07:11 AMPosted by Gradius
This might come as a shocker, but people come to this forum to discuss the game. Your position basically boils down to "stop ruining my gameplay experience with your logic".


Its not about that, its statements like this.

06/22/2013 07:11 AMPosted by Gradius
I don't think so. Terminator 2 was actually decent and didn't treat its audience like children.


When clearly SC2 treats its audience as if they were more mature than the SC1 audience. You are basically saying that anyone who likes SC2 is a child.

06/22/2013 07:11 AMPosted by Gradius
It's not like popularity is any indicator of quality, so stop pretending that it is.


um, what? How not?
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 09:07 AMPosted by Brathearon
You are basically saying that anyone who likes SC2 is a child.

In other words, you don't like me because you have reading comprehension problems. Got it.
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 09:07 AMPosted by Brathearon
When clearly SC2 treats its audience as if they were more mature than the SC1 audience.


That is a load of bullcr@p Brath. Quit trolling.
Edited by Retloclive on 6/22/2013 9:34 AM PDT
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 07:11 AMPosted by Gradius
This might come as a shocker, but people come to this forum to discuss the game. Your position basically boils down to "stop ruining my gameplay experience with your logic".

No, it doesn't. I don't think you should try and ruin the experience for people who enjoyed it. I'm fine with discussing the flaws of the game, but when it's turning the entire forum into a negative cesspit, then something's up. People shouldn't feel like they can't say that they really enjoyed a certain character, or moment etc without someone ramming their opinions as to why said character or moment was terribly done down their throat. As I've said, there are other franchises out there with stories that have as many, or even more problems than SC, but the fanbases simply aren't anywhere near as negative as this game's fanbase. It's quite bemusing as a relative outsider looking in.
I don't think so. Terminator 2 was actually decent and didn't treat its audience like children. It's disingenuous to pretend that Terminator 2 has anywhere near the amount of flaws as SC2. You're basically trying to dismiss & handwaive away countless of well thought out arguments because you don't like criticism, and it should be considered a form of trolling.

In other words, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion."T2 was actually decent", yeah well people think SC2 is actually decent too! I also don't think the SC2 story treated me like a child. I've never tried to say that they have an equal amount of flaws, I was simply pointing out that if you can bore into a genre classic like T2 and nitpick away at tiny details like you do with SC2, then it makes a lot of your concerns look silly and petty.
I'm not trying to handwave away arguments, I've addressed a lot of what you've had to say on other topics in other threads (some of which you just dropped, e.g. our discussion of the manual and SC1), my concern remains, which is my point, over just how ridiculously critical you are. It's fine to be critical, but to take it to the extreme in nitpicking at every last detail of a story, that's going beyond criticism into outright hate.
And trolling? Yeah, not even going to bother arguing such a ridiculous throwaway statement.
1) Terminator 2 is a cheesy 80's movie, not an "epic sci-fi" as Blizzard keeps calling SC2 at BlizzCons. Arnold movies are basically comedy relief, and people are simply going to not care about retcons. This is completely different from the zergs' entire backstory being rewritten.

See, you have this position because of how ridiculously invested you are into the franchise. You view T2 as a cheesy 80's movie (even though it's from '91)? The fans of the franchise certainly don't. Neither does the director, who views it as an exploration of humanity; human values and what it means to be human. What do most people view it as? A kickass sci-fi action movie with Arnold beating the crap out of everyone. Most people wouldn't even be aware of how Cameron sees the movie himself, neither would people be aware of how Blizzard describes SC2. Nor, for that point, are Blizzard going to describe SC2 as "a hokey sequel with a crappy story, don't buy it lololol". Of course they're going to do their best to sell it.
To most people out there, SC is that game where space rednecks, mystical space elf things and rip-offs of the Xenomorph from Alien fight each other. I.e. they think it's pretty cheesy.
2) Nobody denies the existence of retcons in T2. And if they do, what, should we ignore them because telling them that they're wrong is "rude" or "harassment"? Good god, it's not like we're telling children that Santa Claus doesn't exist. -_-

No, nobody does, but there also isn't a section of the fanbase continuallywhining over the fact that they exist and that the movie is based on a retcon.
3) T2 wasn't perfect, and maybe James Cameron should have taken five minutes to read the T1 script. It's not like popularity is any indicator of quality, so stop pretending that it is. His latest movie (Avatar) is a testament to this fact.

I'm not only referring to popularity, it's loved by critics, sci-fi fans, action movie fans etc.- it's considered a sci-fi classic. Avatar's a great example of what T2 isn't- Avatar's reviled by a lot of sci-fi fans despite its general populatrity, T2 isn't.
And no, T2 wasn't perfect- that's the point. It's widely loved despite being flawed (yes, less so than SC2), despite its retcons, character breaking moments, cheesy dialogue etc.
Reply Quote
It's fine if you like the story, but even you can admit that it's not improving. And because of people such as yourself who consider feedback to be rude, it never will.

I don't consider feedback to be rude. I think the story can still improve, but I'm also willing to acknowledge what was good about it and what I enjoyed. I just don't think relentlessly hating on every last aspect of the game does anyone any good.
All it tells me is that these authors are lazy. It's not difficult to create a logical sequel without resorting to retcons. Turns out you have to spend some time thinking about the story. I can tell the same story in T2 or SC2 without resorting to contradictions.

Ok, get out there and write a multi-million dollar franchise into existence then. Shouldn't be too hard, right? Especially with all these mug writers like James Cameron and Hideo Kojima throwing out retcons left, right and centre! Get out there and show those terrible, lazy writers how it's done!
I love how you're surprised that people criticize SC2. It's just unbelievable!

I'm not surprised at all, look, I'll do it- the Amon element of the story is, so far, poorly done. More exposition as to his motives and backstory is sorely needed to elevate him above being a generic Big Bad.
See- I will gladly acknowledge that SC2 is flawed, but I really enjoyed it.
Reply Quote
You are basically saying that anyone who likes SC2 is a child.

In other words, you don't like me because you have reading comprehension problems. Got it.


It has nothing to do with reading comprehension problems. You clearly see anyone liking SC2 negatively with statements such as these.

06/21/2013 03:04 PMPosted by Gradius
Blizzard's easily-placated fanbase


When clearly SC2 treats its audience as if they were more mature than the SC1 audience.


That is a load of bullcr@p and you know it Brath. Quit trolling.


Starcraft 2 has extremely poor role models and much more heavy drinking/smoking than SC1. It even comes from the main protagonist. It also does not have moral values that are clearly enforced.

SC1 however, is much more child friendly with common moral themes that children are often exposed to. There are also clear indicators of who is bad and who is good. SC2 however, has even the good side protagonist having negative qualities, and bad-side protagonist having good qualities.
Edited by Brathearon on 6/22/2013 9:45 AM PDT
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 09:07 AMPosted by Brathearon
2? MGS3, but what is the other one you are talking about?


Peace Walker. Get the HD collection and play it if you haven't played it yet. It's well worth it. It's tied with MGS3 as my favourite in the series.
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 09:35 AMPosted by Reanimation
And no, T2 wasn't perfect- that's the point.

06/22/2013 09:35 AMPosted by Reanimation
despite its retcons


Totally off topic here, but what WAS the retcon T2 had over T1?

I'm finding myself incredibly curious here since Reanimation isn't the first person I've seen here to use T2 as some means of a justification for why retconning SC lore in SC2 isn't a problem.
Edited by Retloclive on 6/22/2013 9:57 AM PDT
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 09:56 AMPosted by Retloclive
And no, T2 wasn't perfect- that's the point.

despite its retcons


Totally off topic here, but what WAS the retcon T2 had over T1?

I'm finding myself incredibly curious here since Reanimation isn't the first person I've seen here to use T2 as some means of a justification for why retconning SC lore in SC2 isn't a problem.


REESE
...it had no choice. The defensive grid was smashed. We'd won. Taking out Connor then would make no difference. Skynet had to wipe out his entire existence.

SILBERMAN
Is that when you captured the lab complex and found that.. um.. what was it called.. the Time Displacement Equipment?

REESE
..That's right. The Terminator had already gone through. Connor sent me to intercept then they blew the whole place.

SILBERMAN
Then how are you supposed to get back?

REESE
I can't. Nobody goes home. Nobody else comes through. It's just him and me.

Flash forward to Terminator 2.

SARAH CONNOR: [narrating]: Three billion human lives ended on August 29th, 1997. The survivors of the nuclear fire called the war Judgment Day. They lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines. The computer which controlled the machines, Skynet, sent two Terminators back through time. Their mission: to destroy the leader of the human resistance, John Connor, my son. The first Terminator was programmed to strike at me in the year 1984, before John was born. It failed. The second was set to strike at John himself when he was still a child. As before, the Resistance was able to send a lone warrior, a protector for John. It was just a question of which one of them would reach him first.
Reply Quote
2) Nobody denies the existence of retcons in T2. And if they do, what, should we ignore them because telling them that they're wrong is "rude" or "harassment"? Good god, it's not like we're telling children that Santa Claus doesn't exist. -_-

No, nobody does

Then there you go. You found the difference between SC2 and your false T2 analogy.


In other words, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion.

No. Read my reviews:
http://sclegacy.com/editorials/7-reviews/1134-scl-reviews-wings-of-liberty
http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?15543-Gradius-s-HoTS-Story-Review

And trolling? Yeah, not even going to bother arguing such a ridiculous throwaway statement.

That's pretty much what you're doing though, dismissing everyone's well thought-out-critiques with blanket hand-waives that require no thought on your part. i.e. "opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion."

See, you have this position because of how ridiculously invested you are into the franchise.

How? I don't talk about the books, comics and other add-ons that the SC universe has. I mention nothing that anybody who has played the games hasn't seen. Manuals were an important part of game lore back in 1999.

Yeah I'm taking things way too seriously because I played through the games and paid attention. -_-

I'm not only referring to popularity, it's loved by critics, sci-fi fans, action movie fans etc.- it's considered a sci-fi classic. Avatar's a great example of what T2 isn't- Avatar's reviled by a lot of sci-fi fans despite its general populatrity, T2 isn't.

T2 is not universally loved by critics. Avatar has better critic reviews than T2.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/avatar/critic-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/terminator-2-judgment-day/critic-reviews

I've addressed a lot of what you've had to say on other topics in other threads (some of which you just dropped, e.g. our discussion of the manual and SC1

I dropped it because I'm not as invested in badmouthing the lore as you think I am. Your notion that the zerg should understand computer coordinates and have known where Aiur is is just plain bunk. They knew the general area of Aiur and began heading in that direction. Even if they knew the exact location, stellar drift would have ensured that after at least 60 years of traveling there they'd have still gotten it wrong. You're trying to invent contradictions where none exist. It's called confirmation bias.

To most people out there, SC is that game where space rednecks, mystical space elf things and rip-offs of the Xenomorph from Alien fight each other. I.e. they think it's pretty cheesy.

Yes, SC is merely "ok". Which is why WoL and HoTS have been such a huge disappointment for many people. It takes a special kind of failure to screw up SC.
Edited by Gradius on 6/22/2013 11:41 AM PDT
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 10:11 AMPosted by Reanimation



Totally off topic here, but what WAS the retcon T2 had over T1?

I'm finding myself incredibly curious here since Reanimation isn't the first person I've seen here to use T2 as some means of a justification for why retconning SC lore in SC2 isn't a problem.


REESE
...it had no choice. The defensive grid was smashed. We'd won. Taking out Connor then would make no difference. Skynet had to wipe out his entire existence.

SILBERMAN
Is that when you captured the lab complex and found that.. um.. what was it called.. the Time Displacement Equipment?

REESE
..That's right. The Terminator had already gone through. Connor sent me to intercept then they blew the whole place.

SILBERMAN
Then how are you supposed to get back?

REESE
I can't. Nobody goes home. Nobody else comes through. It's just him and me.

Flash forward to Terminator 2.

SARAH CONNOR: [narrating]: Three billion human lives ended on August 29th, 1997. The survivors of the nuclear fire called the war Judgment Day. They lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines. The computer which controlled the machines, Skynet, sent two Terminators back through time. Their mission: to destroy the leader of the human resistance, John Connor, my son. The first Terminator was programmed to strike at me in the year 1984, before John was born. It failed. The second was set to strike at John himself when he was still a child. As before, the Resistance was able to send a lone warrior, a protector for John. It was just a question of which one of them would reach him first.


I think their explanation for this was that the timeline was changed by Arnie's arm being found by that black dude.

@Gradius

For Avatar
Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 83% of 291 professional critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.4 out of 10.


For T2
and garnering 98% "certified fresh" rating from 44 critics—an average rating of 8.4 out of 10—on Rotten Tomatoes, whose assessment reads: "T2 features thrilling action sequences and eye-popping visual effects, but what takes this sci-fi/ action landmark to the next level is the depth of the human (and cyborg) characters."


Just another sample for you to use, using only one sample is never a good idea.
Reply Quote
Rotten tomatoes uses a flawed scoring system. There's only two options, good or bad, and a mildly entertaining movie that didn't suck gets a score of 100%. Metacritic actually assigns each review its own score (or at least it tries).

But still, if you go by rotten tomatoes, then in that case, the audience enjoyed Avatar (92%) more than T2 (88%).
Edited by Gradius on 6/22/2013 1:26 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Rotten tomatoes uses a flawed scoring system. There's only two options, good or bad, and a mildly entertaining movie that didn't suck gets a score of 100%. Metacritic actually assigns each review its own score (or at least it tries).

But still, if you go by rotten tomatoes, then in that case, the audience enjoyed Avatar (92%) more than T2 (88%).


But it quoted the critical review, not the viewer's review.
Reply Quote
06/22/2013 11:33 AMPosted by Gradius
Then there you go. You found the difference between SC2 and your false T2 analogy.

Really, how many people here actually completely deny the existence of retcons in the story? Is this like how you continually claim that the game's fanbase denies flaws in the story, despite numerous people who liked the game continually saying over and over that they acknowledge that the story has flaws? I can see people arguing what were retcons or not, what constitutes a retcon and how many there were etc, but to completely deny the existence of any retcons whatsoever, then I would most definitely side with you and call these people idiots. Where are they though?
No. Read my reviews.

That's pretty much what you're doing though, dismissing everyone's well thought-out-critiques with blanket hand-waives that require no thought on your part. i.e. "opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion."

All you had written there was "I don't think so. Terminator 2 was actually decent and didn't treat its audience like children. It's disingenuous to pretend that Terminator 2 has anywhere near the amount of flaws as SC2. You're basically trying to dismiss & handwaive away countless of well thought out arguments because you don't like criticism, and it should be considered a form of trolling."

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that qualifies as a well thought-out critique, you threw out blanket statements loaded with personal opinion, and then when I point that out, you get all "don't you know who I am!" and link me to your reviews. No, they weren't what you wrote there.
How? I don't talk about the books, comics and other add-ons that the SC universe has. I mention nothing that anybody who has played the games hasn't seen. Manuals were an important part of game lore back in 1999.

Yeah I'm taking things way too seriously because I played through the games and paid attention. -_-

Yes, I love that part in SC2 where Metzen and co. talk about how the next instalment in the saga will be epic sci-fi at Blizzcon. Great part of the game.
T2 is not universally loved by critics. Avatar has better critic reviews than T2.

Where did I claim that every single critic that reviewed it, loved it? And way to cherry pick, as DarthCadeus pointed out, there are other review metrics that have T2 ahead on critic reviews, nor would every review of T2 be available (how many 4-5 star reviews from newspapers from '91 aren't around to view online anymore?).

But really, go ahead and try and find how many top 10 or 20 sci-fi movies of all time lists (both written by critics and fans) that don't feature T2 you can find. The answer will be bugger all.
This is ignoring my point though, which was that T2 is widely loved and thought of highly despite being based on a retcon, and despite featuring numerous character breaking moments, cheesy dialogue etc.
I dropped it because I'm not as invested in badmouthing the lore as you think I am. Your notion that the zerg should understand computer coordinates and have known where Aiur is is just plain bunk. They knew the general area of Aiur and began heading in that direction. Even if they knew the exact location, stellar drift would have ensured that after at least 60 years of traveling there they'd have still gotten it wrong. You're trying to invent contradictions where none exist. It's called confirmation bias.

Plain bunk because it disagrees with your views. I pointed out that the Overmind had access to the Xel'Naga's memories and hence their understanding of the universe. You're the one who loves to go on about how intelligent the Overmind was- he had access to the Xel'Naga's memories and took his time digesting them, coming out the other side with knowledge far, far beyond what he had before. You find the notion of the Overmind learning from the Xel'Naga how coordinates work ludicrous, yet he's able to learn and pull from their memories how advanced Xel'Naga tech such as Khaydarin Crystals work. Yes, ludicrous.
And 'stellar drift'? Yes, I'm sure the Xel'Naga had no idea of how such a thing worked, or how to travel taking such a thing into account, or how it affected Aiur's position relative to the rest of the universe. If it's even a factor that is. Is it even a factor in SC, where is stellar drift even mentioned as being a factor in space travel in SC? Or are you reading in your own justifications in order to make SC1 work again(i.e. confirmation bias)?
Yes, SC is merely "ok". Which is why WoL and HoTS have been such a huge disappointment for many people. It takes a special kind of failure to screw up SC.

You wouldn't think so, going by the way some people go on. You'd think the original was in the same league as War & Peace, Lord of the Rings and Dune/1984 (or whichever highly regarded sci-fi book series you prefer). I think SC1 and SC2 are both more than ok, btw. ;)
Reply Quote

Really, how many people here actually completely deny the existence of retcons in the story? Is this like how you continually claim that the game's fanbase denies flaws in the story, despite numerous people who liked the game continually saying over and over that they acknowledge that the story has flaws?

There are plenty of people here who deny facts from the game when you get into a debate with them. There are also people who deny flaws only on the basis that "SC1BW was worse". I never said there were people who deny all retcons (might be a few people here who shall remain nameless, but still I can be a pedant too).


I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that qualifies as a well thought-out critique, you threw out blanket statements loaded with personal opinion, and then when I point that out, you get all "don't you know who I am!" and link me to your reviews. No, they weren't what you wrote there.

Are you daft or something? Do you really think my entire position boils down to "I like SC2 more than T2"? There you go again trying to trivialize/marginalize critics' positions with mindless handwaives. I said SC2 had more flaws than T2. I linked you to a review explaining why. That was hard.

Yes, I love that part in SC2 where Metzen and co. talk about how the next instalment in the saga will be epic sci-fi at Blizzcon. Great part of the game.

I love the part of your post where you actually address my argument.


And way to cherry pick, as DarthCadeus pointed out, there are other review metrics that have T2 ahead on critic reviews, nor would every review of T2 be available (how many 4-5 star reviews from newspapers from '91 aren't around to view online anymore?).

*facepalm

I linked you to a review aggregator (a more accurate one than rotten tomatoes that only includes professional reviews). How is that cherrypicking? You cite 4-5 star reviews that aren't around anymore. I can cite 1-2 star reviews that aren't around anymore. Great argument.


This is ignoring my point though, which was that T2 is widely loved and thought of highly despite being based on a retcon, and despite featuring numerous character breaking moments, cheesy dialogue etc.

Yes I'm aware of your myriad logical fallacies you make by justifying SC2's awful campaign using an Arnold movie.

Reanimation's guide to mindlessly defending any story, no matter how godawful it is:
1) Myriad retcons? Not a problem. T2 had retcons.
2) Dubious character motivations? That's ok. If T2 has them, then it's not a problem.
3) Cheesy dialog? T2 had cheesy dialog. Not a problem.
4) Numerous logical contradictions? T2 again.

Wow that was hard. You really had to rack your brain there to come up with all these clever justifications. For the record, I know crap about terminator lore, but if a sizable portion of the community isn't up in arms about how godawful the story is, then it's probably better than SC2.

Newsflash: when the most memorable line from the movie is "hasta la vista baby", people might take the movie less seriously and retcons/fallacies/flaws might become less important/jarring. But since you think T2 and SC2 are the same exact thing, it's pointless to try and elucidate these differences to you.


Plain bunk because it disagrees with your views. I pointed out that the Overmind had access to the Xel'Naga's memories and hence their understanding of the universe. You're the one who loves to go on about how intelligent the Overmind was- he had access to the Xel'Naga's memories and took his time digesting them, coming out the other side with knowledge far, far beyond what he had before. You find the notion of the Overmind learning from the Xel'Naga how coordinates work ludicrous, yet he's able to learn and pull from their memories how advanced Xel'Naga tech such as Khaydarin Crystals work. Yes, ludicrous.

If you can't understand why zerg can't use computers to store coordinates and calculate stellar drift (especially after destroying the entire xel'naga race & fleet), then I don't know what to say. Hint: Abathur tells you exactly why zerg can't hack into Dominion systems in HoTS. Another hint: the khaydarin crystals work via psionics, and zerg have psionics....not computers.

I'm sorry, this "critique" is just plain stupid. I don't know why you and Blizzard's writers have so many problems with the manual. It's really not a difficult piece of fiction.

I think SC1 and SC2 are both more than ok, btw. ;)

Well that's nice, but my articles clearly explain why you're wrong. :P

j/k
Edited by Gradius on 6/23/2013 8:56 AM PDT
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]