Stormgate - sci-fi/fantasy RTS from ex-Blizzard devs

[ghardy]

I wouldn't say I like that soft, cartoony art style; looks like they're trying to make it look like DOTA 2.

Agree. I find Stormgate looks unappealing.

 

[Harthwain]

I imagine that the story is gonna be torn to shreds because it doesn’t live up to the nostalgic idealized childhood memories of yesteryear. Story in a video game is as irrelevant as story in a porno, sure, but I would’ve liked having a new universe to invest in after the extensive rot in the current crop.

I could name a dozen of games in which the story is an important aspect, including RTS games. I revisited Starcraft (1) and Warcraft (2 & 3) recently and these games hold really well as far as providing a story that gives good enough context for maps combat takes place in. Another excellent mix of story and gameplay would be Emperor: Battle for Dune. Yes, you could have the game without the story component, but I'd argue these games wouldn't be as interesting, especially in their singeplayer aspect.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

I imagine that the story is gonna be torn to shreds because it doesn’t live up to the nostalgic idealized childhood memories of yesteryear. Story in a video game is as irrelevant as story in a porno, sure, but I would’ve liked having a new universe to invest in after the extensive rot in the current crop.

I could name a dozen of games in which the story is an important aspect, including RTS games. I revisited Starcraft (1) and Warcraft (2 & 3) recently and these games hold really well as far as providing a story that gives good enough context for maps combat takes place in. Another excellent mix of story and gameplay would be Emperor: Battle for Dune. Yes, you could have the game without the story component, but I'd argue these games wouldn't be as interesting, especially in their singeplayer aspect.

I’ve already explained why the Blizz stories are bad multiple times.
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=20150

 

[Harthwain]

I’ve already explained why the Blizz stories are bad multiple times.
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=20150

I am SPECIFICALLY not talking about Starcraft 2 (hence why I used "(1)" in my post when mentioning Starcraft), so using that pile of shit as your argument is a miss.

 

[ArchAngel]

I’ve already explained why the Blizz stories are bad multiple times.
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=20150

I am SPECIFICALLY not talking about Starcraft 2 (hence why I used "(1)" in my post when mentioning Starcraft), so using that pile of shit as your argument is a miss.

Here we go again.. he hates all SC games. And no point arguing with him. He hates is because Raynor chose to stop the Zerg over being faithful to Terrans or some such similar shit

 

[RaggleFraggle]

I am SPECIFICALLY not talking about Starcraft 2 (hence why I used "(1)" in my post when mentioning Starcraft), so using that pile of shit as your argument is a miss.

The article is talking about Starcraft 1. The writing in that game is mediocre at best. I've explained multiple times why. You can see one explanation below.

He hates is becuse Raynor chose to stop the Zerg over being faithful to Terrans lol

Raynor stole the plans for the psi-emitter and placed emitters on multiple inhabited planets specifically to lure the zerg there, where the zerg went on to kill about 90% of the human population of the entire sector (alongside Tassadar glassing the planets and their inhabitants after the zerg arrived).

After the terran campaign ended, Raynor contributed nothing meaningful to the plot besides cameos in the following two campaigns. He was written to be the main character, but because the perspective shifted in each campaign, he was shoehorned into unnecessary cameos.

In BW, he helped Kerry take over the zerg despite knowing she would betray him. He literally says she would betray him in one mission. She publicly murdered a protoss head of state in front of hundreds of witnesses, specifically because he discovered her treachery, and somehow got off with a slap on the wrist (wtf?). Then when she does predictably betray Raynor, he acts surprised and has to run away with his tail between his legs. He and his protoss friends took zero precautions even after she revealed her true colors multiple times. She then proceeds to butcher millions more terrans and protoss for funzies. (How many people even live in the sector? These numbers make no sense.) He never chose to stop the zerg, he chose to be faithful to Kerry over his own species and his protoss friends. He's an idiot.

By contrast, the UED were trying to stop the zerg from invading other planets like Earth by enslaving them. The protoss had already killed the previous Overmind, but still got overrun anyway, so their plan has a point here. Indeed, the UED deploys psi-disruptors at the same time specifically to prevent the zerg from running amuck even though this makes their slaves way less efficient. The UED doesn't actually do anything particularly evil on screen, but Raynor allies with Mengsk (who he hates for previously betraying him) against them anyway because of some bad stuff that happened centuries ago and clearly isn't relevant anymore. Plenty of fans think the UED are cool good guys even though they're supposed to be evil, since they never actually do anything villainous or unjustifiable by the circumstances. They tell the protoss and dominion to surrender peacefully and allow anyone who wants to join them to do so, such as the confederate remnants. It's the protoss and dominion who attack them first.

Raynor is an asshole. He is directly responsible for billions of human deaths, but never takes responsibility or expresses remorse. He doesn't even hate Mengsk for being involved in the genocides, but only hates him for betraying his girlfriend. Raynor would've gladly run away with his girlfriend and let Mengsk burn the sector to the ground if Mengsk hadn't betrayed her, as he explained in briefing before Mengsk betrayed them. He's an idiot, because he choses to ally with known enemies instead of the diplomatic UED. He choses to help Kerry take over the zerg instead of helping the UED do so, as if she was remotely trustworthy when she clearly isn't. Even if he didn't like the UED for nonsensical reasons, he should've killed Kerry, put her in a protoss psi-prison, or used protoss mind control to ensure her compliance rather than take her word after she revealed her treachery multiple times. We already know the protoss can just use their own crystals to enslave zerg, as was done by Schezar and Ulrezaj in the Enslaver campaigns packaged with the game, so they never needed her involvement.

This writing is terrible. While writer Metzen might've intended to say one thing, the text actually says quite another. You have to ignore the actual events in order for Metzen's intent to be valid here.

How many times do I have to recap the plot before the bad writing becomes evident? It should be painfully obvious to anyone with eyes and half a brain.

 

[ArchAngel]

Why does Raynor need to be the good guy? Who cares. This is not a story about good guys, nobody is good guy except maybe Dark Templar Protoss that seemed to be treated unfairly by other Protoss.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Why does Raynor need to be the good guy? Who cares. This is not a story about good guys, nobody is good guy except maybe Dark Templar Protoss that seemed to be treated unfairly by other Protoss.

If the story acknowledged that Raynor was a psychopath responsible for billions of innocent people being eaten and incinerated, then I wouldn’t have a problem. The thing is, the writers and fanboys think he’s an unambiguous hero and fawn over him. They cyberbullied me for pointing out all the contradictions, driving me out of the fandom.

The dark templar almost destroyed their home planet one time. Caused planetwide storms that wrecked cities and killed untold numbers of innocent people. They’re hardly innocent and the mistreatment makes perfect sense. The writer forgot what he wrote to shoehorn a hamfisted prejudice story.

It’s still bad writing full of plot holes, retcons and insufferable soap opera drama. People keep bringing it up as an example of good storytelling, when it’s not. I really have to wonder if there’s an epidemic of blindness or brainrot that I missed.

Another excellent mix of story and gameplay would be Emperor: Battle for Dune. Yes, you could have the game without the story component, but I'd argue these games wouldn't be as interesting, especially in their singeplayer aspect.

EB4D is what I consider the bare minimum when it comes to RTS story. Right off the bat, it focuses on the factions and emphasizes their ideologies with neat little intro videos. The leaders are exemplars of their faction values, not hijackers with inconsistent motives. The story is about the houses first and foremost. This is how you write an RTS story!

 

[Harthwain]

The article is talking about Starcraft 1.

Is it?:

Starcraft 2: Story Time​

It has been suggested by some that the campaign story in Starcraft 2 is hammy, obvious, and slathered in thick, cheesy melodrama.

And then we get to Starcraft 2…

In Starcraft 2, we’re no longer constrained by the graphical and budgetary limitations of 1998. Blizzard has heaps of riches, tons of skill, and lots of processor power to throw at the problem. If they want their story to look like a movie, it can. It does.

The way I look at it, the focus is on Starcraft 2. There is some using of Starcraft 1 as a backdrop, but it comes off as being better than Starcraft 2 as a result of the comparison.

By the way, I disagree with "I don’t think Blizzard’s storytelling has gotten any worse", because it obviously did get worse. Maybe I will discuss the story of Starcraft 1 later (the article does a good job of dealing with Stacraft 2).

 

[RaggleFraggle]

By the way, I disagree with "I don’t think Blizzard’s storytelling has gotten any worse", because it obviously did get worse.

I'd tell you to ask Shamus to write a review of the sc1 story to explain its flaws, but he's dead. In any case, I agree with him.

It got more obvious with the increased visuals, but Metzen was always a bad writer. Read the novelization of the terran campaign. I'll wait.

The plot only seems to make sense because Blizz didn't have the visual fidelity at the time, so they left a lot of stuff vague and thus easy for your brain to gloss over with headcanon. But at the end of the day, you're doing the writer's work for them. That's not how you evaluate writing. You judge writing based on what the writer wrote, not the amazing story you imagined in your head.

Maybe I will discuss the story of Starcraft 1 later (the article does a good job of dealing with Stacraft 2).

I spent years looking, but there simply isn't a critique of the writing anywhere online. Would you like me to do a mission by mission breakdown, a breakdown of the manual, and a breakdown of how the lore evolved over time during the early days?

 

[Harthwain]

It got more obvious with the increased visuals, but Metzen was always a bad writer. Read the novelization of the terran campaign. I'll wait.

Do you mean Starcraft: Shadow of the Xel Naga? Yeah, that was awful. I am really glad I found it in a library, because it would be horrible to waste money on that. That said, I found Starcraft: Liberty's Crusade by Jeff Grubb to be fairly enjoyable (Mostly. In some places even excellent, by that I mean the short bits between the chapters), although it has its share of issues and overall is rather unremarkable novel for someone who isn't fan of Starcraft.

The plot only seems to make sense because Blizz didn't have the visual fidelity at the time, so they left a lot of stuff vague and thus easy for your brain to gloss over with headcanon. But at the end of the day, you're doing the writer's work for them. That's not how you evaluate writing.

This is true only to a degree ("less is more" is the part I agree with). I know the script by heart and in my opinion "what the writer wrote" is solid on its own. The good voice acting only helps to reinforce that.

You judge writing based on what the writer wrote, not the amazing story you imagined in your head.

I guess it is a good thing we have "what the writer wrote" in terms of dialogue/script/whatever and don't need to imagine anything, huh?

Will you criticize the script or just accept it as good uncritically? I spent years looking, but there simply isn't a critique of the writing anywhere online. Would you like me to do a mission by mission breakdown, a breakdown of the manual, and a breakdown of how the lore evolved over time during the early days?

I will mostly answer what you already posted in #506 and #508, maybe use that as jump-off point for counter-arguments of the story. So you could add to that, if you want. I don't think there is need for breakdown of the lore or the manual though. The manual's role is not as important as it was for Warcraft 2 in terms of establishing the setting, because it is shown well enough in the game itself via the campaign.

Will that be more likely to convince you than the many other explanations I have already given?

I don't think so. In fact, I am going to address some of the points you've already made (probably on Saturday).

 

[RaggleFraggle]

although it has its share of issues and overall is rather unremarkable novel for someone who isn't fan of Starcraft.

I think the same of the game script it is adapted from. It’s a weak story that doesn’t stand on its own.

The novel Queen of Blades is even worse, somehow.

The manual's role is not as important as it was for Warcraft 2 in terms of establishing the setting, because it is shown well enough in the game itself via the campaign.

I would say it does so very rushed and poorly. The manual painted the broad strokes of a much longer and larger war. The game script rapidly burns through all the plot hooks introduced, does not give proper breathing room, then starts making shit up and retconning things when the expansion rolls around.

I don't think so.

Well, I can’t say I didn’t try.

At the end of day, starcraft 1 is a mediocre story and a poor execution of its universe’s potential. It was always a terrible foundation for a franchise and always would’ve turned out poorly in sequels. People can pretend it’s better than it actually is, but I suppose none of that matters anyway since SC2 was so awful that it killed what little fandom the story had.

In fact, I am going to address some of the points you've already made (probably on Saturday).

Okay, but that’s not gonna convince me that anything I said is wrong. I’ve spent the years since LotV released examining the scripts and coming to the conclusion that they’re terrible. Rather than picking at plot points and rebutting your coming rebuttals of my criticism of a decades old game script, which sounds like a headache of epic proportions, I would much rather describe what I wish starcraft had done instead.

 

[Johannes]

Spending years examining vidya scripts

 

[ghardy]

I would much rather describe what I wish starcraft had done instead.

Do tell, please.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Spending years examining vidya scripts

On and off. I probably only spent about twenty hours per year actually reading, if that. And I stopped doing it around 2020 after becoming too frustrated with stupid people online.

In fact, I really shouldn’t be arguing over this because I already know it’s pointless. I’ve gone thru this song and dance routine before many times. “You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink.” I’ve made most of the points that I could make. If someone don’t find any of that compelling, then nothing will convince their stubborn ass of anything. I find that frustrating, like bashing my head against cinderblocks, so I’m not wasting my energy further. Really I should’ve done that dozens of posts ago.

I would much rather describe what I wish starcraft had done instead.

Do tell, please.

Thanks for asking! I find that so much more constructive and fun.

I’ll break this down by race:

Terrans: the terrans are an interstellar cyberpunk dystopia, divided into numerous competing mining guilds with their own militias. They took the concept of the mobile drilling rig and modeled all their infrastructure after that, moving from site to site, planet to planet, strip mining everything in their path and leaving environmental devastation in their wake. The valuable minerals they collect are sent back to resource hungry core worlds, like Earth, in exchange for lucrative amounts of money. Now the consortiums intrude on protoss space, drawn by the resource rich garden worlds of their neighbors. The protoss, as hippie environmentalists, are having none of it. Then the horrific zerg invade, forcing the terrans to defend themselves and throwing the delicate balance of their economies into chaos. While most fear the zerg as the nightmarish invaders they are, some corpos see the invasion as an opportunity to reverse-engineer their biotech for lucrative applications in fields like adhesives, batteries, solvents, clothing, and cosmetics. Oh, and bioweapons too, I guess.

Protoss: the protoss empire are space romans who seek to enforce their vision of peace, harmony and environmentalism on the rest of the galaxy. The foundation of their infrastructure is khala, a grid that powers their tech like shields and plasma swords, a telepathic internet that controls their tech, shares their feelings, and lets them talk to deceased ancestors. The empire claims an 8th of galaxy on the galactic rim and has many allies and clients. They can even induct other species into their khala through training and bionic implants. They’re dedicated environmentalists who are disgusted by the terrans’ ceaseless expansion and exploitation, so the two are destined to come into conflict. Then the zerg invade, forcing the protoss military to resort to extreme measures like planet glassing, while empathetic schismatics argue for uniting with the terrans against the xenomorphic threat.

Zerg: the zerg are an ancient horror that seeks to consume all biomass in the universe and has been expanding from their origin in the galactic core for countless millennia. They’re a sentient ecosystem that sees all other life as tools, food for their offspring, raw materials for their creations. They consume worlds, consume whole species, and use what they learn to create better biotech killing machines. They’ve identified the protoss as the most advanced civilization in the galaxy and the largest threat to the zerg’s existence. After spying on protoss for centuries, they’ve calculated that the zerg would be destroyed in a prolonged war. So they’ve been searching for useful mutations to give them a trump card, which they have found in the terran colonies, spying on them for decades before making a move. The terrans have engaged in their own genetic engineering efforts, granting individuals various mutations like telepathy or enhanced senses. They could perhaps rival the protoss after a few more generations. So the zerg have invaded terran colonies and abducted people by the millions, processing their victims and using what they learn to create legions of new horrific creatures to deploy in combat. This invasion has alerted the protoss prematurely, but the zerg calculate that they have time to prepare…

There’s other complications I could add, but that’s the gist.

I wouldn’t end the war in one game. That’s stupidly shortsighted. I’d use it as the ongoing backdrop for a multitude of campaigns, similar to 40k. The focus of the universe would be on the factions, not any particular characters. There would be characters in individual campaigns, sure, but the universe itself wouldn’t revolve around any particular person. There’s no overarching hero or villain for the entire universe, except maybe the zerg.

 

[-M-]

The bar for video game writing is so low that most people are willing to overlook the flaws in anything that contains half a semblance of logic and structure.

For Starcraft, this only applies to the first game. Brood War gets by on gameplay and mission design, but it's impossible to ignore the idiocy of the writing.

SC2 takes everything dumb with Brood War and ramps it up to 11. The mission design gets stale after Wings of Liberty and there's only a few bright spots in the subsequent campaigns, but not enough to save the whole.

 

[ArchAngel]

That would work but Sc1 story works as well. It is only with Sc2 that things got screwed up a lot with needless addition of 4th faction which are basically space demons or space infernals from Warcraft.

Also your version would make this much bigger war which is not what original wanted, it would be a different game. Maybe they chose to make it smaller so it looks less like WH40K that they were already being accused of stealing from.
Also a bigger war makes it more similar to C&C games and TA and they wanted to make a different narrative that felt different to play.
I was young but Kerrigan being left behind and Raynor being mad and wanting revenge made me feel something compared to C&C and Red Alert which was all most for laughs.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

The bar for video game writing is so low that most people are willing to overlook the flaws in anything that contains half a semblance of logic and structure.

Ain’t that the truth?

That would work but Sc1 story works as well. It is only with Sc2 that things got screwed up a lot with needless addition of 4th faction which are basically space demons or space infernals from Warcraft.

Also your version would make this much bigger war which is not what original wanted, it would be a different game. Maybe they chose to make it smaller so it looks less like WH40K that they were already being accused of stealing from.
Also a bigger war makes it more similar to C&C games and TA and they wanted to make a different narrative that felt different to play.
I was young but Kerrigan being left behind and Raynor being mad and wanting revenge made me feel something compared to C&C and Red Alert which was all most for laughs.

Unless the war is large in extent and time, with preplanning, then it will run into the sequelitis problem. After Merzen exhausted all the plot hooks from the manual, in very rushed and unsatisfying ways imo, he started pulling stuff out of his ass.

You can still personal stories against that larger backdrop. That’s one of the perks of milscifi. Those personal stories just wouldn’t take over the entire universe to the detriment and exclusion of everything else, including the actual factions.

You can still tell the story of Mengsk betraying Kerry in my setting, it just wouldn’t be the main story of the entire universe. It would just be one story out of many. And a lot of the details would be different because Metzen doesn’t use consistent logic or coherent scales.

Also your version would make this much bigger war which is not what original wanted, it would be a different game.

Exactly. I don’t agree with Blizz’s creative decisions. Why are you surprised?

Also, how big do you think Koprulu is supposed to be and why?

I was young but Kerrigan being left behind and Raynor being mad and wanting revenge made me feel something compared to C&C and Red Alert which was all most for laughs.

In the moment sure, but that was due to the decent voice acting and you being young at the time. Metzen’s writing still relies on huge leaps of logic and inconsistent world building. Just because young you was impressed doesn’t mean the writing is good. I loved The Magic Voyage as a child, but I’ll be the first to admit it’s bad. Children have poor taste and lack critical thinking skills, it’s just how things are.

I’m making a story for adults, not children. I’m respecting my audience’s intelligence by world building coherently and with forethought, rather than making things up on the fly like Blizz admits to doing in interviews.

For Starcraft, this only applies to the first game. Brood War gets by on gameplay and mission design, but it's impossible to ignore the idiocy of the writing.

It is a miracle that sc1 og even has the illusion of coherence that it does, since it was thrown together by a first time writer who had to work around studio mandates and decisions by the design team.

Did you know that the cinematic team made the cinematics without consulting Metzen, so that he had to rewrite his scripts to try accommodating them? He didn’t originally intend to kill Tassadar and Overmind either, but was told to by the design team so they’d have an epic climax.

There’s even some indications that, in an earlier draft, Zeratul and Raynor would’ve killed Kerry on Char in the protoss campaign when she tried to stop them from going to Aiur.

 

[DoWhocares]

I’m making a story for adults, not children. I’m respecting my audience’s intelligence by world building coherently and with forethought, rather than making things up on the fly like Blizz admits to doing in interviews.

While a lot of your criticisms of blizzard storytelling are sensible, I do hope you realize that you deciding that the story of starcraft should be about factions and grand wars is completely arbitrary. Your personal strain of autism simply imprinted on some promotional booklet you read 20 years ago and you imagined in your head how things should go and when they didn't go how you imagined, you got extremely butthurt and started your grand crusade against Metzen or whatever. You undermine your own positions by getting distracted by completely irrelevant things.

Here's a fitting quote from a guy smarter than either of us:

“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

And as for RTS stories - they don't need to be deep or meticulous. They just need to setup cool battles, build atmosphere through visuals/audio, and let your mind fill in the blanks. SC1 does all that and that's why it's beloved. Also, as a general rule you should just accept that people will always prefer interesting characters to nebulous factions.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Also, as a general rule you should just accept that people will always prefer interesting characters to nebulous factions.

At least until Blizzard drove their IPs into the ground. Whatever good people saw in the past is now pointless because of all the crap that came later.

Look, I’m not saying that characters shouldn’t exist. I’m saying that they shouldn’t supersede the factions in importance. I don’t play RTS for capeshit. That is why Blizzard drove all their IPs into the ground with bad writing, while 40k is still going strong even with bad writing. Blizz factions are shallow window dressing that aren’t worth investing in, whereas 40k factions are actual civilizations with cultures, ideologies, and biological distinctions that don’t go away just because of the actions of one character.

I do hope you realize that you deciding that the story of starcraft should be about factions and grand wars is completely arbitrary.

The success of 40k by doing exactly that begs to differ. Not that it matters now, since Blizz drove their IPs into the ground.

Here's a fitting quote from a guy smarter than either of us:

This thread is full of people criticizing Stormgate for being seemingly aimed at children.

You know what I mean. There’s a difference between children’s stories that you can still appreciate in adulthood, or appreciate even better as an adult, versus stories written by hacks that think children are dumb.

The Last Unicorn resonates far more deeply with me in adulthood, for example. It stands the test of time.

 

[DoWhocares]

You know what I mean. There’s a difference between children’s stories that you can still appreciate in adulthood, or appreciate even better as an adult, versus stories written by hacks that think children are dumb.

And that's why I say a lot of your criticisms are on point. It's just the insistence on factions as the be all end all, and the whole 'character x should've done this instead of that' that consistently miss the mark. Even C&C that you bring up as the opposite to blizzard stuff, no one cares about the factions or knows what NOD or GDI stand for. But everyone has fond memories of Kane, Yuri, and communist Tim Curry going into space. So it's not about factions, it's about the hacks writing them.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Alright, I admit I can be overzealous and miss the forest for the trees.

it's about the hacks writing them

So are there RTS writers who aren’t hacks? Who can balance writing interesting factions with cultures and ideologies that stand on their own complemented by interesting characters to populate them?

 

[RaggleFraggle]

I can be overzealous and miss the forest for the trees. That said, I don’t think other critics here are unbiased in comparison.

I have two points to make in this post: 1) I think RTS is held to inconsistent standards, and 2) I think factions are far more important to the genre, or at least it’s unexploited potential, than they’re given credit for.

---

From what I can see, Stormgate is closely emulating Warcraft 3, but gets way more flack than I’ve ever seen Warcraft 3 get. Few people (some, but few) criticize Warcraft 3 despite the ample amounts of nonsensical cliches, and it’s commonly cited as “the bestest evah” of RTS stories, but Stormgate seems to be almost universally criticized.

As much as you (in the generic sense) say factions don’t matter and what matters is memorable characters, I feel like you’re holding RTS to a different (and lower) standard than we hold other stories like movies, books, and other game genres. If a story didn’t make logical sense but was just trying to inspire specific emotions or feel epic or memorable at certain moments, then people would still criticize that as a flaw. If a story’s world building, such as politics and scaling and cultures, didn’t make sense, then people would still criticize that. If you liked a story as a child, but noticed flaws as an adult, then people would note those flaws and criticize them. If a character’s motivations aren’t consistent or their actions seem idiotic for their supposed intelligence, then that would be criticized. If a story had tons of individually cool moments, but the connective tissue was nonsensical, then that would be criticized. I see those things criticized all the time in books and movies and shows and video games, but for certain genres like RTS it feels like the standards suddenly become much lower for no apparent reason.

Furthermore, your standards seem to shift depending on the era a game is from. Stories in older games subject to worse technical limitations are given higher ratings than newer stories with better graphics. I can’t help but feel that these criticisms are biased and the gulf in story quality is far smaller than stated, that’s there a nostalgia filter that holds these games to different (and lower) standard depending on your age when you first encountered them.

---

I think the assertion that characters are more important than factions, that factions are completely irrelevant, is just boneheaded and wrong. Why play RTS at all then? Why not play an RPG or dating sim instead? That’s a far better format for giving characters breathing space.

40k is popular specifically because of its factions, because of all the detail devoted to their cultures, ideologies, and technology. Players and collectors buy armies and paint them. Sure, there are characters, buy they’re not the money makers.

Middle Earth, and its various nations like Gondor and Rohan, is hugely popular despite not being a person.

Hogwarts, and its houses, is hugely popular despite not being a person.

Many authors have created amazing settings and organizations that stand on their own outside of any particular characters.

Just because no RTS has yet managed to create memorable factions in the same way, or at least aren’t perceived as having done so, doesn’t mean that nobody should try. From the examples I’ve given, it’s hardly impossible.

 

[DoWhocares]

I don't really see Stormgate's story criticized that much on account of us not having seen that story yet. It's criticized for its art style - that's bad - and mechanics - that somehow manage to displease both the WC3 and SC2 people at the same time. What does get flak with Stormgate's narrative side are the bits of cutscenes we got in trailers that make it seem like another Blizzard story. Cliches aren't bad and they worked well for WC3, hence as you say people having fond memories of it. When Blizzard then went ahead and told the exact same cliched story in SC2 (but worse), that's where people rebelled against them. And now it looks like another company that tries to ape Blizzard is actually trying to sell us the exact same cliched story again. And it's hard not to mock that.

Your problems with conenctive tissue not making sense are disregarded precisely because it's an RTS. You're not experiencing a continuous story. Instead it's a series of missions with who knows what happening in between them. So it's less a novel and more a collection of short stories. No one gets on Robert Howard's ass when in one story Conan is a thief and in the next a pirate. Same principle applies to RTS storytelling.

As for the potential being there for a good RTS that focuses on deep faction dynamics? No one's denying that, and if someone did that, I imagine a lot of people would really be into that. But criticizing games not even attempting to focus on factions for not focusing on factions, that's just silly. That's like coming to mcdonalds and then complaining to the manager that they're not selling you a pizza.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

I don't really see Stormgate's story criticized that much on account of us not having seen that story yet. It's criticized for its art style - that's bad - and mechanics - that somehow manage to displease both the WC3 and SC2 people at the same time. What does get flak with Stormgate's narrative side are the bits of cutscenes we got in trailers that make it seem like another Blizzard story. Cliches aren't bad and they worked well for WC3, hence as you say people having fond memories of it. When Blizzard then went ahead and told the exact same cliched story in SC2 (but worse), that's where people rebelled against them. And now it looks like another company that tries to ape Blizzard is actually trying to sell us the exact same cliched story again. And it's hard not to mock that.

It sounds to me like you guys subconsciously apply different standards to past games due to childhood nostalgia and are upset that the genre’s writing hasn’t grown up with you even as technology has advanced, rather than the writing genuinely getting worse over time.

I could be wrong about this, certainly, but nobody has yet given me a compelling rebuttal.

Like, what kind of story do you expect/want?

Your problems with conenctive tissue not making sense are disregarded precisely because it's an RTS. You're not experiencing a continuous story. Instead it's a series of missions with who knows what happening in between them. So it's less a novel and more a collection of short stories. No one gets on Robert Howard's ass when in one story Conan is a thief and in the next a pirate. Same principle applies to RTS storytelling.

This argument is a non-sequitur. The campaigns are continuous episodes, comparable to a television show. They’re not disconnected in the way that Conan vignettes are.

This lack of structure certainly applies to Age of Empires and Warcraft 2, but not to Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2, or most other RTS games that came out when continuous stories told across missions came into vogue.

As for the potential being there for a good RTS that focuses on deep faction dynamics? No one's denying that, and if someone did that, I imagine a lot of people would really be into that. But criticizing games not even attempting to focus on factions for not focusing on factions, that's just silly. That's like coming to mcdonalds and then complaining to the manager that they're not selling you a pizza.

This is another very odd thing to say. I would say it’s like going to mcdonalds and ordering a burger, only for them to give you a romance novel instead.

The entire point of RTS is that you play competing factions. It makes no sense to ignore them when they’re the point of the game.

Why do writers choose to write stories about interpersonal soap opera drama to the detriment and exclusion of the actual factions? That feels completely inappropriate to the format. Why not write an rpg or dating sim instead? I think it’s completely valid to criticize writers for this.

---

In general, I get a very different perspective from your statements compared to what I assume you’re thinking. As I see things: you’re criticizing modern RTS for all the same things I criticize (bad characterization, bad world building, bad plotting, etc), but then turn around and excuse older RTS for doing the same things, for reasons I can only assume are nostalgia goggles. Nothing you’ve said has convinced me otherwise.