I'd have much preferred something with the quality of StarCraft portraits, but not the style. I can't find any good examples right now, but Blizzard has a lot of artwork out there that looks very smooth and polished while still fitting the WarCraft style.
This thread has convinced me: video games can never be art.
I'd have much preferred something with the quality of StarCraft portraits, but not the style. I can't find any good examples right now, but Blizzard has a lot of artwork out there that looks very smooth and polished while still fitting the WarCraft style.
Well, I am not one to argue that something can't be BETTER, I know the portraits could always have been better, I just disagree that the quality was so bad they needed to be better. I think they worked out fine, and I don't think my opinion will change on that. I do think SC2 has some of the best portraits I have seen, and even notice with the terran that the lips sync up pretty well when they talk.
It is a scene you probably saw back when the Single Player was being shown off over a year ago, but we now know it's place in the game timeline, and a much longer more detailed version of it that has a crucial revelation of future events. It is actually the scene that activates protoss missions that you will get to play during the campaign, which will be in the form of memories.
I feel I have taken part in a rather large derailment of this thread, so I am going to stop speaking about other items. I will post the video in the SC2 Beta thread, if you wish to see it.
I think the thread has accomplished it's original goal, and as thread creator I now give official license for it to be derailed as the conversation deems fit. (That said, StarCraft II discussion can certainly go in the StarCraft II thread).
I do think SC2 has some of the best portraits I have seen, and even notice with the terran that the lips sync up pretty well when they talk.
I guess I haven't played enough RTSs to know how well it usually works, but I figured if StarCraft came out something like 5 years prior to WarCraft III, the quality of the portraits there should have been pretty commonplace in RTS games by that point. The fact that the lip syncing in War3 was so bad was really distracting for me, and just don't get why it was such a step backwards. If the script in general hadn't been bad too I would have cut them some more slack, but as it was, it was just an overall bad experience.
I guess I haven't played enough RTSs to know how well it usually works, but I figured if StarCraft came out something like 5 years prior to WarCraft III, the quality of the portraits there should have been pretty commonplace in RTS games by that point. The fact that the lip syncing in War3 was so bad was really distracting for me, and just don't get why it was such a step backwards.
Be aware that SC2 is the first game they even have lip syncing. The old SC portraits were just either static or bobbing their lips, just like WC3. The only difference is that SC used pre-rendered shots that cycled, while WC3 used portraits rendered in the game engine, and had more animation cycles. Neither looked like the person talking was actually saying the words that you heard.
I do realize that, but somehow in StarCraft it actually manages to look plausible, whereas WarCraft III looked totally random. I think it had a lot to do with Warcraft 3 having much simpler faces that didn't properly open and close their mouths.
I do realize that, but somehow in StarCraft it actually manages to look plausible, whereas WarCraft III looked totally random. I think it had a lot to do with Warcraft 3 having much simpler faces that didn't properly open and close their mouths.
Ah, so this is about "plausibility"? That makes this a whole other discussion. Portraits in SC2 were designed to be basically the unit in question looking through a view screen. It made sense as the commander that you would be in communication with the units you are commanding, and that all communication would be pushed through that medium. In that regard, the idea behind portraits themselves become more plausible, but in WarCraft 3 there was no reason for the units head to pop in a little box and start gumming at you, they just put it in for familiarity. If would look awkward if they seemed like they were in some sort of viewfinder.
As for them having "simpler faces" that didn't open and close their mouths, did we play the same game? The WarCraft 3 portraits were known for being overly expressive, to almost a comic level. Here is Jimmy doing all of his animations sets. Notice how static is mostly feels, barely showing an expression during the talk cycle.
If this was WC3, like the Arch-Mage, he would be screaming around when he talks and doing head twirls. I would post a GIF, but sadly I can't find one in motion on the net.
Okay, went and found a WarCraft III video and looked up some old starcraft ones for reference
I see some strengths and weaknesses of both of them. You're right that in many ways the WarCraft ones are more expressive. I think the main difference is that WarCraft 3 tended to err on the side of having the characters move their mouths more, rather than less, and StarCraft did the opposite. This resulted in StarCraft characters looking like they were mumbling when the sync was off, whereas WarCraft characters looked like they were just completely out of sync. I can see why they made the choice they did, although a lot of characters open their mouths WAY too wide. (This is something that ONLY works if you are doing an actual lip sync).
I'm still annoyed with the overall low quality of the portaits. In some cases it was only a slight step down if you were playing on max settings (which I was unable to do), but certain key characters (Medivh in particular) had really atrocious faces.
Jaina's actually wasn't bad, looking at that clip, but Medivh... shudder.
What I mean is the only story points that matter are those we play. Backstory is just that, backstory, you never experience it, so it can be altered and changed as Blizzard sees fit to better mesh with the real meat of the story, the playable space.
Which justifies anything... hey, look, the Eredar are now Night Elves that took too much LSD and started a cult based on this Sargeras guy that was actually the nether-pizza delivery guy...
Let's go back: you said the world they made in WC3 was a great starting point for WoW, to which i asked why then they changed stuff willy nilly (like how many Dreadlords are now no longer dead?! Or even Illidan for that matter).
The Dreadlords are a bad example, since we have known for a long time that demons are not easy to kill and keep dead. The Dreadlords are even more difficult, they are the ones that created "Necromancy" in the first place. Illidan was never a retcon, and I guess you never actually paid attention to the mission to realize that. Arthas says during the mission, and you can check out the sound files under the World Editor if you don't believe me, "You are a pitiful creature Illidan, you don't even deserve death. I banish you from this world, and know this, that if you return, I will be waiting." He never killed Illidan, only wounded him, and left him to be dragged off back to Outland.
I'm pretty sure they didn't create him to kill them...
You sure you want to be spoiled? Let's just say an old Dark Templar friend of ours has learned that the Queen of Blades will be integral to the salvation of the galaxy. Whether that means she will be have a turn of face, or simply will unknowingly cause the downfall of the Xel'Naga and herself, will remain to be seen.
It's not really a spoiler if the vid is on gametrailers... but where else where they gonna go with Duran anyway... (and imo it's gonna be more of a
"kill her and the swarm will join Duran&co"
type of thing, which is what they did with the Lich King too... )
This, although it's really not an issue of being "stylized." Just bad. A cartoon can be stylized and still be smooth and beautiful. The WarCraft III portraits were just clunky and ugly. Even worse, the graphics settings for the portraits were the same as for the rest of the game, so if your computer couldn't handle higher res graphics for massive armies, you had to deal with REALLY crappy portraits.
They have changed story points, like Garona for instance, thought "a lot" would be up to interpretation. You have only pointed out one, and it was a rather frivolous change. If you wish to exaggerate to try and make a point, at least have more proof to back up that exaggeration. My point still stands that WC3 was great in it's purpose, a way to flesh out Azeroth and get it ready for WoW. Do you argue that it didn't serve that purpose?
Which justifies anything... hey, look, the Eredar are now Night Elves that took too much LSD and started a cult based on this Sargeras guy that was actually the nether-pizza delivery guy...
I notice you like to work in extremes. There is such a thing as moderation. It is one thing to change the origin of Garona to be that of a half-draenei, it is another to say she is the drug addicted cousin of Preisdent Obama sent back from the future to stop the Necrons from absorbing the Eye of Zeus. If you can't see that, then I don't really know what to tell you.
Another example of a retcon that will prove to improve the story at the loss of outdated, and rather poorly written back story, going back to the fact that all that matters is the gamespace, not the stuff written in a little manual.
but where else where they gonna go with Duran anyway... (and imo it's gonna be more of a
"kill her and the swarm will join Duran&co"
type of thing, which is what they did with the Lich King too... )
I see you have not read any of the novels. I do agree with the theory that her being in charge of the swarm will be part of the salvation, but I think it will play out a lot different then the whole Lich King storyline. It will be interesting to see what they do with Duran, but he is not being promoted as the new threat. The Xel'Naga are, and the creatures created by Duran are an abomination to the Xel'Naga design. I will explain why in a spoiler tag.
The protoss and the zerg are part of the Xel'Naga lifecycle. When they are getting ready to die, they create two races, one of purity of form, and another with purity of essence, that are designed to mature and over time assimilate, allowing the Xel'Naga to be reborn inside the newly evolved shells, a strange form of reincarnation that is as natural to them as breathing. This is supposed to happen naturally between the two seed races, but Duran is forcing the merger, which is causing abberations to be born and breaking the rebirth cycle, and thus an enemy to the Xel'Naga.
I think I am convinced that a game's Story can't be art, but I still think design can. Even with games like Portal and Super Columbine its not the story that's art, its the whole package.
I think some games' stories can be art, but just because a game has a story does not mean it is art. There are some games with amazing stories, and then there are games with stories lacking effort that happen to have some memorable moments--but even those may be based on what you're doing gameplay-wise, such as an epic boss fight.
Then there are games that should've just been anime instead of games, like Metal Gear Solid IV and Xenosaga.
I think Portal is art insofar as I believe almost all creations are art. Very good art, in that respect (this applies to the story as well as the gameplay). For the most part I would NOT say that the story itself is is "High Ar"t (i.e. art that is actually poignant), EXCEPT for the "companion cube" level. The fact that they get you to interact with a cube that you know for a fact is just a cube (the game does not even pretend otherwise) and yet it STILL produces a moment of trepidation when you must throw it into the incernator... I think that very much warrants an High Art label, both in story as well as game mechanics (in fact the entire level is a pretty perfect example of story and game mechanics coming together).
The rest of it is certainly good, and perhaps mind expanding, but I would understand those who didn't feel it was particularly valuable.
I think Portal is art insofar as I believe almost all creations are art. Very good art, in that respect (this applies to the story as well as the gameplay). For the most part I would NOT say that the story itself is is "High Ar"t (i.e. art that is actually poignant), EXCEPT for the "companion cube" level. The fact that they get you to interact with a cube that you know for a fact is just a cube (the game does not even pretend otherwise) and yet it STILL produces a moment of trepidation when you must throw it into the incernator... I think that very much warrants an High Art label, both in story as well as game mechanics (in fact the entire level is a pretty perfect example of story and game mechanics coming together).
The rest of it is certainly good, and perhaps mind expanding, but I would understand those who didn't feel it was particularly valuable.
I had much more of a reaction to GLaDOS than I did to the companion cube. When it came time to part with that box with hearts on it, I only hesitated because I wasn't sure what the game wanted me to do. I, however, hated GLaDOS. I was sick of that lying manipulative machine. Sick of the faked compassion, sick of the lies, sick of that damn voice trying to act human. Listening to "Still Alive" over the ending credits made my stomach churn. It took me a while to be able to like that song, because GLaDOS was the one singing it. Not many other games have managed to get me to actually react to the villain on an emotional level, most movies don't even do that.
They have changed story points, like Garona for instance, thought "a lot" would be up to interpretation. You have only pointed out one, and it was a rather frivolous change. If you wish to exaggerate to try and make a point, at least have more proof to back up that exaggeration.
That's the one i remembered best... because how pointless it is (the Draenei splitting off before Sargeras would have been the same thing).
But hey, how about Muradin Bronzebeard... last i heard he was alive now. And remember, just because a retcon is done well it doesn't mean it's not a retcon anymore...
As for exagerations, sure, i might not bother to be 100% accurate with the minutia, but imo the actual points stand anyway. They changed the story with little regard to what came before, so "WC3 as great setup" is something even they don't think it is.
My point still stands that WC3 was great in it's purpose, a way to flesh out Azeroth and get it ready for WoW. Do you argue that it didn't serve that purpose?
First of all, that's a BS purpose for a game, which amounts to marketing instead of making a game that stands on it's own.
Second, i'm arguing that they didn't do that, once WoW got started they just modified whatever suited them because WC3's story didn't start off with WoW in mind.
I notice you like to work in extremes. There is such a thing as moderation. It is one thing to change the origin of Garona to be that of a half-draenei, it is another to say she is the drug addicted cousin of Preisdent Obama sent back from the future to stop the Necrons from absorbing the Eye of Zeus. If you can't see that, then I don't really know what to tell you.
But they're both justifiable by they way of thinking you where talking about, the only difference being what you like or don't like.
Another example of a retcon that will prove to improve the story at the loss of outdated, and rather poorly written back story, going back to the fact that all that matters is the gamespace, not the stuff written in a little manual.
Then why even bother with the manual... or any backstory at all... look, demons trying to take over... why? just because.
I see you have not read any of the novels. I do agree with the theory that her being in charge of the swarm will be part of the salvation, but I think it will play out a lot different then the whole Lich King storyline. It will be interesting to see what they do with Duran, but he is not being promoted as the new threat. The Xel'Naga are, and the creatures created by Duran are an abomination to the Xel'Naga design. I will explain why in a spoiler tag.
The protoss and the zerg are part of the Xel'Naga lifecycle. When they are getting ready to die, they create two races, one of purity of form, and another with purity of essence, that are designed to mature and over time assimilate, allowing the Xel'Naga to be reborn inside the newly evolved shells, a strange form of reincarnation that is as natural to them as breathing. This is supposed to happen naturally between the two seed races, but Duran is forcing the merger, which is causing abberations to be born and breaking the rebirth cycle, and thus an enemy to the Xel'Naga.
Not really, it was about most of your post, they had to make do with that graphic engine so they stylized the game to make it last longer, but the portraits ended up being weird looking as a close-up isn't the same as the top-down view.
---------- Post added at 06:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 AM ----------
Damn, i knew i missed this last night:
The Dreadlords are a bad example, since we have known for a long time that demons are not easy to kill and keep dead. The Dreadlords are even more difficult, they are the ones that created "Necromancy" in the first place. Illidan was never a retcon, and I guess you never actually paid attention to the mission to realize that. Arthas says during the mission, and you can check out the sound files under the World Editor if you don't believe me, "You are a pitiful creature Illidan, you don't even deserve death. I banish you from this world, and know this, that if you return, I will be waiting." He never killed Illidan, only wounded him, and left him to be dragged off back to Outland.
Dude, the Dreadlords being hard to kill is still a retcon, probably because Mal'Ganis is too cool a name to let it go to waste...
As for Illidan, are you sure that they included that line from the start, as they did add more stuff to FT in patches... i for one don't remember it from my playthrough.
I will humor you one more time Li3n, but this will be the last time I reply to these posts. I think you are reaching, and I would like you to stick to the real reason you are angry, the dislike of retcons, rather then trying to make it out like WC3 didn't serve it's purpose.
Blizzard already confirmed a long time ago that WC3 and WoW development started at the same time, and WC3, as much as you might disagree or argue "but they must not like it because of this one sentence retcon in a 7 page backstory!", it will not make it any less true.
As for exagerations, sure, i might not bother to be 100% accurate with the minutia, but imo the actual points stand anyway. They changed the story with little regard to what came before, so "WC3 as great setup" is something even they don't think it is.
So I guess WC2 was not a good setup to WC3, and WC1 was not a good setup to WC2? Retcons happened between the three RTS games that affected way more then the Draenei/Eredar blunder or the fact a dwarf we never saw "die" is suddenly alive.
Once again, you work in extremes, and thus you weaken whatever point you try to make. Argue that retcons are bad, people will agree with you because even I would rather not see retcons. However, I do think retcons can occur should they be done about story points that are either in the background, cryptic anyways, or just plain suck.
Second, i'm arguing that they didn't do that, once WoW got started they just modified whatever suited them because WC3's story didn't start off with WoW in mind.
Like I said at the beginning of this, they did. Blizzard already admitted they started WC3 and WoW around the same time. One was being specifically designed to lead into the other. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, as it is fact.
But they're both justifiable by they way of thinking you where talking about, the only difference being what you like or don't like.
Because some of us appreciate getting an idea of what came before, whether to catch up with information or simply to get a better idea of the story we are about to see. However, that does not mean a sentence or two in that long winded backstory can't change. If retcons never happened since WC1, the humans would be worshiping God right now, and that would be rather boring.
Seriously, this is Blizzard we're talking about, they'll find a way to make it mirror another story they did, one way or the other.
Ah so this really is your real issue, you can come out and say the story itself it not original, that is fine since it isn't. It would suit you better then arguing that rather then whatever you are arguing now, since you obviously are arguing it for the sake of arguing.
As for Illidan, are you sure that they included that line from the start, as they did add more stuff to FT in patches... i for one don't remember it from my playthrough.
Go to World Builder, look up the sound files for the final mission, listen. Those sound files were there since I beat The Frozen Throne years ago, and caused much discussion over his fate. We came to the conclusion that he was alive, and that conclusion was confirmed in the RPG that came out not longer after, and was further cemented in WoW when it mentioned him being alive before Burning Crusade was even a twinkle in the distance.
Your original statement that it good enough as a set-up was unfair to WC3, as if to say that if it wasn't for WoW it wouldn't be worth anything and that it's only purpose was to set up WoW. And even if it was they didn't consider it good enough not to change... so your argument is about as good as me saying they changed half the stuff (when it probalby less).
I think you are reaching, and I would like you to stick to the real reason you are angry, the dislike of retcons, rather then trying to make it out like WC3 didn't serve it's purpose.
Blizzard already confirmed a long time ago that WC3 and WoW development started at the same time, and WC3, as much as you might disagree or argue \\"but they must not like it because of this one sentence retcon in a 7 page backstory!\\", it will not make it any less true.
Blizzard unveils an online RPG set in the familiar world of Warcraft.Blizzard chose to announce Warcraft III at the ECTS trade show in London two years ago and returned to the show this year to unveil its next game, World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has been in development for a little more than a year, but no release date will be announced during the early development process.
But i'm not angry at retcons (and not really angry either), but at the fact that most where done so they could make WoW more homogenized for the masses...
And i see you're still stuck at the Eredar retcon as if it's the only one... here's what, when i actually get the time i'll find more stuff... though i'm sure that it will not be 50% exactly...
So I guess WC2 was not a good setup to WC3, and WC1 was not a good setup to WC2?
They obviously though it wasn't, which is why they changed stuff...
If you made the same assertion about WC2 at least being a good setup for WC3 i'd pick on you the same.
Retcons happened between the three RTS games that affected way more then the Draenei/Eredar blunder or the fact a dwarf we never saw \\"die\\" is suddenly alive.
Right... nice dodge... you're still saying that they can change the backstory, but only to a certain degree, the limits of which are <insert arbitrary rules here>
Then why even bother with the manual... or any backstory at all... look, demons trying to take over... why? just because.
Because some of us appreciate getting an idea of what came before, whether to catch up with information or simply to get a better idea of the story we are about to see. However, that does not mean a sentence or two in that long winded backstory can't change. If retcons never happened since WC1, the humans would be worshiping God right now, and that would be rather boring.
Who said it can't change?! I only pointed out a flaw in your argument about WC3 being a good setup... apparently it wasn't good enough for Blizzard...
Ah so this really is your real issue, you can come out and say the story itself it not original, that is fine since it isn't. It would suit you better then arguing that rather then whatever you are arguing now, since you obviously are arguing it for the sake of arguing.
No, that was just a cheap shot... looks like you enjoyed it.
Go to World Builder, look up the sound files for the final mission, listen. Those sound files were there since I beat The Frozen Throne years ago, and caused much discussion over his fate. We came to the conclusion that he was alive, and that conclusion was confirmed in the RPG that came out not longer after, and was further cemented in WoW when it mentioned him being alive before Burning Crusade was even a twinkle in the distance.
According to Adam Loyd one of the authors of the book; Illidan didn't die on the Frozen Throne. There is even a couple missing sound bytes you can find in the World Editor where Arthas informs Illidan that he's not worth killing, and to flee to Outland to never return. Also, any references to Illidan killing Mannoroth should be turned to Magtheridon. Demon names all look the same, especially with pit lords So i guess you're wrong about it being in the game, but it was there.
:laugh: