Oh, I will. Sure to review it as a whole and give some ideas, just like your Protoss campaign. Only hope it ain't short or end abruptly, like that one did.
That was quite a nice New Years gift, Oracle. The models are promising, though I have some few things I'd like to point out shortly below, as well as the audio work is pretty well done. I'm looking forward to seeing a lot of new custom assets, particularly terrain/cliff related, if what you're promising is true.
But the models, I gotta say stuff, the first being the Protoss champion unit. The animations are nice, though the weapon itself (A bow-sword I'll call it) could use a bit more work, as well as you should make the unit's hands closed, like he's gripping those blades. Here, it sounds like he's holding with his palm and thumb and nothing else, and, in a logical sense, the weapon could quickly come out of him should he block an attack or hit something. Other than this, I like the model and the animations.
Also, on the tank, I understand the green scheme for military and stuff, pretty much modern, but I think a black color scheme would be much more imposing and effective, particularly given we're dealing with virtually a fascist government (The UPL, per say), or perhaps a more darker green, almost old olive, much like the Empire's officers in the Star Wars vanilla trilogy.
But my biggest gripe would have to be with the female hero police officer portrait - Her eyes are bug-eyed cartoonish and out of proportion, and thus kills the appeal for the character. You should make those eyes smaller and adjust the facial proportions a bit. And that Protoss building looks a bit Carbot-ish, if you know what I mean.
No offense to any model whatsoever, I understand pretty much work was put into them, I'm just trying to point out stuff to make things better, alright? Hope I was constructive here, Oracle. HNW, and I look forward to more next year, which is next days anyway. xD
That, in a way, is true - Given we've risen so much in advancements, but also in problems, and as they're shown in even bigger magnitude no thanks to modern media (Not just TV, but Internet, social networks and stuff), the situation does seem hopeless.
But I disagree that happy endings are easily forgettable, there are the ones like Killer Elite or even recently Fury Road that remain on your mind, but rather because it was on their terms and not as campy or cliche-ish. Downbeat endings do stick more but also affect some people more than others, hence why the need for a happy ending, even if it's as forced as was the conclusion of SCII, once in a while. Sometimes we can screw it up, like A.I. did (God, now I see I forgot to mention that), but if there's a bit of truth to some hypocrisy is that often the illusion of some hope is better than nothing. It gives us some energy to go through our plights and daily lives, it makes us realize there may be a better tomorrow if we work for it. Pretty much like we often review and comment here, especially to newcomers, trying to inspire people in going further and better. Of course, I just review it as objective as possible, pointing out it's positive strengths while also necessarily talking about it's flaws. Just like the Aureolin Eclipse review.
Speaking of AE, I must repeat and say that you were consistent until 09 - 10, for a couple of reasons - The first was that you just exaggerated in axing people off, and the second because of the twist that doesn't connect as much as the others did. And when the 'good ending' occurs, it feels a tad empty because of that.
1. Well, the past HBO series and Joss Whedon series adopted it, but GoT *did* make it mainstream, in a way - Given it quickly rose in popularity, it's 'bad endings' became the trademark to the point that when a TV show, even a sitcom like HIMYM, does it, it gets related to it because, in a simple way of saying, it's the current times. The said 'overkill' made it what it was.
2. I was rolling, it just came on my head. There are other examples, but I was aiming more for the big audience.
3. Glad you like it. :)
Edit: Maybe I could, but finding interesting topics would take a while and a lot of research to make. Not only this, there's also the matter of translating it in a coherent, unbiased way, especially if I'd ever touch on sensitive stuff, like, over-sexualizing female figures in video-games like it's being done more than ever, greatest offenders being Soul Calibur, DoA Extreme Volleyball and others.
Yeah, BTW, one thing I didn't notice is that the SCII epilogue ending, in a constructive view, does look a lot like what we wished out of Tiberium C&C (Before Tiberium Twilight, I mean), doesn't it? Suddenly the human military (Terran/GDI) starting to see some of the religious bull is real, it's carried out, there's an epic-scale battle and so much this military as the said 'religious zealots' (Protoss/Nod) starting to understand a bit and try to cope with the new times.
Of course, there's always a said 'big evil' (Amon/Scrin), but it shouldn't mean we had to drag on to it forever, and just because some stuff might sound stupid or pulled out of religious reference, doesn't mean that it ain't smart. In a way, you can tell that, since some of Blizzard employees worked with C&C in the past (i.e. Browder), you can tell they kind of unwittingly did the ending C&C felt it should have, and not that, in honest words, corporate middle-finger rehash.
I don't see what I spoiled as actually that big, hence why I didn't include a warning this time. It'd be spoilers, per say, if we were dealing with something too recent, like LotV was at release week, and which was a big effort, in a way, to describe opinions without spoiling any details that could ruin the experience (Like Shakuras blowing up, Fenix returning or even Kerrigan's 'butt-naked angel' form). The media I exposed is actually months, if not years or decades old, and thus talking about it isn't exactly a big spoiler, unless you, of course, never heard of it. Also, I didn't expose any actual plot details of either, just mentioned about the endings in a non-intrusive way.
Also, effort, so to say, I didn't think it should be described, as many of us, of course, know what that means - It's not only the complexity of the plot, or the development of characters or twists and turns or even how big or smart the closure is, but also making it convincing enough for us whom consumed a lot of media as we've grown up. Remember, a lot of us have been through it all, we've seen it all, and the common thing is just common, nowadays. Like IskatuMesk pointed, when talking about balance, you don't need to be insanely creative, just establish basic foundations, and then work on these foundations to deliver a solid experience, so much in gameplay as in story.
The whole point of the article was just talking about good and bad endings, and how it may seem so, but none of them actually are more favored than the other - There's just so many awful good sick-sweet endings as there are bad and obviously phoned in bad endings all just to sound deep instead of feeling deep.
Up until LotV, the said 'highest' trailer was either HotS or Warlords of Draenor, which are quite big and expansive, but that's just it. LotV, on the other hand, combined good action and some meaning to it, though it was restrained by it's 'one set'. Legion, on the other hand, used three sets (Captain's lodge, the ship and the beach-head), put in strong action and also upped even the visuals - To the point people said that the Wrynn there is much more convincing then the real actors in the WarCraft trailer. For me, and it's sad admitting it, it pushed LotV behind and with good reason.
Yeah, a lot of us pictured this would've been a lot more preferable, didn't we?
Preface
Truth be told, a lot of us have grown up, have gone into much adult material and acquired much grown up tastes. But maybe we 'grew up' a bit too much, don't we agree? Yes, most of us as children loved our cartoons, cheered when things went right and often cried when the hero was defeated or the beloved land was lost, or the villain saw his way through and/or didn't pay the price, but as we've matured, many of us often seemed more and more used to this, because we wanted something more than the usual stuff, stuff that wasn't just straight or shocking, but thought-provoking, world-rocking, stuff that'd actually slap us in the face, because we imagined a certain type of ending, but it'd ultimately end up in another.
I'm DeltaCadimus and, couple of months ago, I did the review on EivindL's Perfect Soldiers Trilogy, often criticizing it's endings while praising the strengths of it's gameplay, character development and a few enjoyable surprises. And, eventually, as I grew up a bit more and started seeing more and more 'sad' or 'phyrric' endings many media was taking, apart from Game of Thrones or House of Cards, I looked back a bit on the stories of old, the happy endings, as well as the new ones whose 'positive' outcome was often criticized. This, along with the run-in of the AE campaign, brew up a question that I feel needs some addressing, and that is: What's the issue with happy endings?
The Issue with Happy Endings
More and more, as I'm viewing all sorts of stuff which propose a good ending, EVEN comic book movies or kid flicks, I'm noticing a bit of a bigger resistance to even some solid 'good endings' attempted, like many are afraid all these endings will do is rehearse that same, old Hollywood bullshit of 'Every good person is fine, the villain gets it, the land is saved and life goes on as usual', and actually do nothing with it, just reprise it with a triumphant note. All of us have gotten tired of it as we grew up, of course, but what exactly is wrong with it other than it's just plain straight? And what makes endings like Guardians of the Galaxy work and endings like Heart of the Swarm not?
Believe it or not, this ending DOES have a meaning.
Sad endings aren't that new or innovating either, they've been in the past since Robert Wise's The Haunting, if not further. But if many born in the 80's/90's were asked of stuff that didn't have a good ending before Game of Thrones, a few would answer Terry Gilliam. Gilliam himself is mostly known for Brazil and 12 Monkeys, both of which don't have a happy ending, as well as cult classics like Time Bandits and Adventures of Baron Munchausen, the latter being the only with a said 'happy ending'. Other than that, many of his works end up with the protagonist suffering big time, but society suffers as well with worse fates, and not post-apocalyptic viruses or virtual dictatorships, but ultimately becoming a pathetic parody of societies themselves, with discussions far ahead of their time, like bureaucracy becoming commonplace and often impeding immediate action, if it were needed, excessive plastic surgery in an absurd chase for perfect beauty, logic squashing whimsical or hope for the sake of it, or how humanity can condemn itself without it even noticing, like a normal lab worker transporting virus samples around the world. All of it with some unique catchphrases and thought-provoking commentary.
Besides Gilliam, the only other which could be heavily considered in this camp is Martin Scorsese, for works like The Departed and Shutter Island, though he still did a number of said good ending movies like Hugo. Still, his good endings don't seem to go on a campy style, and are often heavy and adult-oriented, like Taxi Driver and the massacre of Gangs of New York. He often explores the life and surroundings of his characters and how events play out around them, and when the big shock on The Departed comes up, it comes up really as a big shock on how sudden it was, it was literally the LAST thing we imagined. And of course, except for Hugo, for obvious reasons, all accompanied with gruesome violence and swearing.
Didn't you play this game? You could've...
And not just on movies sad endings were employed, but video-games, as well. Of course, the old Blizzard comes to mind, particularly stuff like the first WarCraft, the first two Diablo games and Brood War, in which the said 'evil' prevails and things only get worse. But one that got closer to what we see, today, to the point of it even axing 99% of it's cast, was Traffic Department 2142. It was a simple bird-eye view shooter with a brief story of an often renegade heroine pilot facing off this apparent gang that's actually quite a big empire whose war machine is consuming the whole galaxy and eventually was aiming for her home planet, a struggle made even more obsessive given people of this empire also killed her father. Yeah, pretty much Star Wars-ish, but credit given, it was the 80's. I won't spoil much of it, but the ending axes off the majority of characters, but still delivers a proper ending on it's own terms, because unlike Star Wars, it wasn't meant to be 'the hero destroys the evil empire', but instead shows there *are* other possibilities, often less likable, and it's a difficult thing, for first-timers, to come to grips with.
But it was only with HBO's adaptation of George R. R. Martin's book series that television series started considering more and more the said 'grittiness' of sad endings and axing off favorite characters - While Joss Whedon was already an adept at it, axing off favorites in Buffy, Firefly/Serenity and Angel, the Netflix Daredevil series had it's share of deaths while House of Cards went on the complete villain route. The same can be said for AMC's Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, which exploited the characters, as well as the difficult decisions they made and some fates we really didn't expect, because we had a different mindset on media run no thanks to the past media we consumed. All of these shows were big hits and, true, the way they told their stories earned their fame. But when can so much success be a bad thing?
I won't commit the heresy of saying that either StarCraft or WoW's successes may've been too bad, they earned their fame and caught our imagination and playing hours, but the problem with massive successes is how it can spread and alter the minds of arguably less-qualified developers, writers and publishers - because, suddenly, they realize that if they follow this road, with only some slight variations, equation states that fame and fortune are guaranteed. Being fair, this is mostly done because it's been done before and proved successful, but it can often backfire doing it again and again with nothing much new or inventive to offer. Look no further than the StarCraft clones Atrox and OutLive to see what I mean.
Uh, no offense, but I think we went TOO far, this time...
The same can be said for these television shows, which even try following down the same road of their predecessors. Else, I think that, if Game of Thrones wasn't this successful, I doubt shock-meant shows like Hannibal would be able to stand for long, despite successes of the past like HBO's Oz. But massive success can't be bad alone for having other people copy it, but setting the bar too high, too, can be hazardous because it'll demand nigh-impossible standards and the need to continuously shock or impress in order to keep ratings - GoT virtually demonstrated that with it's 5th season, using needless deaths, dramas, sad endings and even longer fights, all to keep their audience. Or even Christopher Nolan, with The Dark Knight Rises: Because the predecessor was such a massive hit, he was way too pressured into making an epic and ending with a bang, which hurt the story, the characters we liked and even the action wasn't as appealing as The Dark Knight was. Or even Terry Gilliam itself, whom ultimately finished his 'Orwellian triptych' with the oddest movie you can imagine, The Zero Theorem.
But, returning to the subject, does this mean bad endings are maybe too much bad? Of course not, every once in a while, you can and should use those, because, in a way, it brings us closer to reality, but this shouldn't EVER mean that reality is a "dark, cruel place where you'll be bullied constantly and, no matter what you do, you'll always end up a pathetic twat". As the Nostalgia Critic, whom I see his videos occasionally, pointed out well, 'many times you need an extreme to understand an extreme' - The other extreme being the sick sugar-coated endings like Frozen, Maleficent, Iron Man 3, in a way, the endings for Red Alert 3, Titanfall, the newer Sonics and, of course, Heart of the Swarm, where it's all so phoned-in, so sick-sweet it makes you nauseous, so artificial you wished a 'Red Wedding' of sorts had occurred! The endings where the sacrifices actually don't have this much meaning, it's all *way* too much cliched, and you never even had any interest in the characters to begin with.
Listen to me, just take a deep breath... Slowly count to ten...
Of course, there are the said 'way too close ones', like Big Hero 6 or even the hilarious Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge endings, but, in their defense, at least they offered something of an edge, like applying humor or investing in the characters. And many times, the middle and beginning ended up being so good that we just didn't care this much about the ending, to the point of considering it a nitpick. That's where the climax of Ant-Man comes in, if you consider it's all due to Paul Rudd's efforts in keeping it afloat.
So, why do I say there ARE bad 'good' endings like Heart of the Swarm and Maleficent, and how do you relate between, if a sad ending is a good one or if a good ending hurts more the movie than what if it used a different one? I'll start with the latter and answer you can't just find it in any book or the web - It all falls to the eye of the beholder, as he or she interprets the movie and how it approaches or not their world, and if the run along, not just beginning or middle or end is worth their time investment and if their mindset is often looking for the best or for the worst. A.K.A, expectation. I literally came to Pacific Rim with high hopes I'd finally see a decent giant robot movie that challenged Michael Bay on his own ground, with much more substance than style, and I came out way disappointed. As well as I didn't look forward to seeing Age of Ultron, when I read reviews and all criticism, and by God, I was surprised on how solid it was, on how involving it was, and the climax action, I think, was even greater than the first Avengers.
Some people may not like Killer Elite, a 2011 Jason Statham assassin/spy movie, for a couple of reasons, but I think that ending was the best envisioned and I couldn't imagine any other. Without going into too much spoiler on this one, let's just say it uses the 'it was all for nothing' cliché, and nothing happens to either protagonists or said 'antagonist' which wasn't an antagonist at all, but the final lines, a pretty much unknown lesson that's given and even the soundtrack make the ending work. That ending, at least, was my proof that Statham could act beyond being a punch-giver or one-line spouter. Another ending that could be mentioned with a 'it was all nothing' cliché would be Smokin' Aces but unfortunately the rest of the movie but the ending just wasn't worth it, IMO. If it wasn't for that, I'd have changed the channel and wiped my memory clean. In the end, an ending ends up becoming nothing more than a segment, a piece of a movie or TV show or a game, or even a book like the Harry Potter series. What should matter instead, is the likeness of the characters as well as how the story goes on and how it builds up to the ending.
Arguably the BEST ending you can ever find.
An example of it is Batman: Arkham Origins, which many consider to be the lowest of the Batman Arkham games, for the typical bullshit reasoning of 'If it's not Rocksteady, it's not good', that I don't agree with one bit, as well as it wasn't as dark or complex as Arkham City was or was too hokey. I actually find it the best of Batman stories, because it invested in characters, invested in a relationship between the Batman and Commissioner Gordon that I felt it was way too needed, and demonstrated the importance of so much the protagonist himself as well as the allies surrounding him. Not only this, but also gave a lot of villains but one (Black Mask, of course) the chance to shine, in particular Bane, that I found was the first time he was ACTUALLY portrayed - All of the other films just set him up as a pure brute or a bully with some smarts, not this absolute mental, intellectual and physical threat that Batman is forced to face, just to save all that he knows and loves. And this is what makes the climax and eventual ending worthwhile and intense. Another good example? The Darksiders games, where we accompany two of the Four Horseman (And would've accompanied the other two hadn't THQ done that financial stunt which ultimately cost them) as they travel the Earth, Heaven, Hell and other realms to fight off anything and anyone in their path and make sense of the big conspiracy surrounding everyone, and the Four Horseman directly. Both the protagonists are likable and honest in their chase, the surrounding ones are of various types, despite the fact they're RPG-ish and the scenery and context opens a large variation of possibilities in both gameplay and lore, as we explore deeper various mythos surrounding the powers in these realms, the said 'circle of life' and balance, and how there's always a power play going on from all sides, even the supposed good ones.
On the other hand, touching on games not worth it, you have the Splatterhouse reboot, which even tries making something out of all the gore it was mandatory to have, but you don't give a damn about the characters, the story as a whole or the stuff you kill. The reason something gory as God of War works, if only barely, is because we can connect to an extent to the main character, his tragic past, the suffering that's left unresolved and the way he's constantly played from all directions like a puppet, and thus we can figure reasoning out of his brutality and his obsession for a conclusion. Splatterhouse, on the other hand, feels like a summer horror blockbuster you've already seen a thousand times. Another example is Killzone: Shadow Fall which clearly needed much more time to make up it's story and develop a connection with the characters, left A LOT to be explained, and it all ends with a floor crash, axing the main protagonist and you feel like it was all for nothing. It was so empty that when you play the extra mission, you don't feel any joy whatsoever of the catharsis, all because of how pissed off you got to be on the official conclusion. Finally, but not this big a case, Ryse: Son of Rome which is nothing more than a rail section rip-off from 'Gladiator', but both manage to work out pretty solid, yet because it ripped so many core elements of the movie as much as it did the HBO 'Rome' series, it still got the lackluster reception it understandably deserved.
Repeat after me: Better than Arkham City, better than Arkham City...
Is there a point to all these examples? The point that the ending's just a segment, a part of a combination of factors that makes a movie work or not. Again, mentioning Smokin' Aces, you can have a totally awful movie with the most memorable ending as much as you can have a movie like War that's good in many elements, but the ending leaves a lot to be desired. It's kind of like a chain, isn't it? No matter how strong it is as a whole, if a link is too weak, it'll break apart, nonetheless. It all comes from the story we get to see, the characters we get to connect with and the context of the situation. Endings like Wreck-It Ralph or Hunger Games work because we get to relate and like the characters, understanding the conflicts they're getting into and thus we're on their side, hoping they'll make past it fine. As well as the reason Gilliam's and Scorcese's sad endings work is because we relate to the characters but we also get to despise the surroundings around them, and when our heroes buy it, we at least see that the world's paying a heavy price for not listening or being just downright dumb.
Being more recent, why Legacy of the Void has both a solid and a much-to-be-desired ending, meaning both Artanis' campaign and the 'Into the Void' epilogue, respectively? Again, it's about how we've run through the story, the characters and their development. Because we've seen Artanis actually grow up into a leader, having him been through so much on Aiur and fighting Amon and going to difficult lengths to reunite an army and save his possessed loved ones, the ending with the Keystone and the subsequent catharsis ultimately makes all we've done back then worthwhile, as well as we accomplished some degree of unity and made the Protoss question their role in all that conflict time and again, with the discovery of their origins as well as challenging their original pre-conceptions, like both the Khala, the Rak'Shir and the Shadow Walk.
However, the 'Into the Void' epilogue not only suffered from what Heart of the Swarm and even Wings of Liberty did, but also didn't set the pace or the weight of the struggle very well and abused way too much on the religious references, Anime and even ripped-off Age of Ultron in a way. Could've it been different? I don't think so, but it could've been illustrated better than what we were given and the ending itself needed much more work and more conclusion than just Kerrigan re-appearing again. As the dude that reviewed it in Kotaku said, 'the epilogue ended with a thud', but I think it was, in an angle, much better than what I feared it could've been, which of course means either Mass Effect 3 or Command & Conquer 4. And, as I stated, it was virtually little option and we needed to shut the book on those issues, at least, so Blizzard could at least take the 'The Force Awakens' route if they ever considered making a StarCraft III. At least that's what I hope they'll do, if they ever will.
The Truest Ending you can conceive.
Conclusion
So, are happy endings bad and sad endings good? Or vice-versa? That's just too narrow, because it just all comes down to a single word - effort. Great catharsis like Inside Out and Toy Story 3, the epilogues to the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings sagas, Return of the Jedi (NO, NOT THE EWOK CRAP!), and even Captain America: The Winter Soldier all point out that there may still be hope even though all might be lost, while endings like Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Watchmen, The Departed and Arlington Road might totally break us, but we eventually cope with it because maybe we wanted too much that our 'heroes' succeeded, but we learn that's not how the world works.
And while we'll still get many sick sugar-coated clichéd stuff or rage-inducing deaths and dumb twists for a long time, there'll always be, for those whom seek it, those conclusions who'll tell us a good 'happy' or 'sad' ending will never really die, it all merely comes down to what played before and how it'll wrap it up and affect us, so much on making us think on themes we rarely consider, as well as touching our hearts, getting out a tear of Joy or Sadness. Or, ultimately dumbing it down to Matt Horner, 'Hearts and Minds, man. Just like it's always been'.
Any questions you'd like to make, any points you'd like to bring, any criticism? Leave'em down below.
Yes, I think they'd be a welcome change of pace, as well as it adds emphasizing on what the player should spend: Either a mobile force or static defenses, and there can't be room for both at their max. It also grants value to Krayen's abilities as well as the value of Swarm Queens for static defense, especially as transfuse works wonders to Zerg defense as Shield Batteries work on Photon Cannons.
I'd just leave the holdout sections untouched, they're pretty much fine as they are.
Done the mission and, I'm not gonna lie, it's about half and half. The killing the hatcheries part is just too easy, the only thing containing you being limited resources, while the defense segments were challenging at best. There's not much to grind across, given only Roach/Hydra worked mostly, there wasn't a constant threat to the main hive, like, I gotta pull back to defend it. Also, a lot of both Krayen and the Leviathan abilities were overlapping and generic. It's clear lore was the priority, and it was good, but apart from the guarding Krayen segments, there's nothing much to it, and it's a shame, given the memories of the semi-RPG mission are still fresh.
BTW, will the next maps use LotV dependencies or you'll stick to HotS to the end?
That's a good thing, if it'll come with custom skins or power variations. But that'd also be a problem, as many of the said powers would be repetitive and such, and I don't think there'd be alot of creative stuff other than buff/nerf powers, reinforcements or aoe damage stuff.
0
@Narudek: Go
Oh, I will. Sure to review it as a whole and give some ideas, just like your Protoss campaign. Only hope it ain't short or end abruptly, like that one did.
0
That was quite a nice New Years gift, Oracle. The models are promising, though I have some few things I'd like to point out shortly below, as well as the audio work is pretty well done. I'm looking forward to seeing a lot of new custom assets, particularly terrain/cliff related, if what you're promising is true.
But the models, I gotta say stuff, the first being the Protoss champion unit. The animations are nice, though the weapon itself (A bow-sword I'll call it) could use a bit more work, as well as you should make the unit's hands closed, like he's gripping those blades. Here, it sounds like he's holding with his palm and thumb and nothing else, and, in a logical sense, the weapon could quickly come out of him should he block an attack or hit something. Other than this, I like the model and the animations.
Also, on the tank, I understand the green scheme for military and stuff, pretty much modern, but I think a black color scheme would be much more imposing and effective, particularly given we're dealing with virtually a fascist government (The UPL, per say), or perhaps a more darker green, almost old olive, much like the Empire's officers in the Star Wars vanilla trilogy.
But my biggest gripe would have to be with the female hero police officer portrait - Her eyes are bug-eyed cartoonish and out of proportion, and thus kills the appeal for the character. You should make those eyes smaller and adjust the facial proportions a bit. And that Protoss building looks a bit Carbot-ish, if you know what I mean.
No offense to any model whatsoever, I understand pretty much work was put into them, I'm just trying to point out stuff to make things better, alright? Hope I was constructive here, Oracle. HNW, and I look forward to more next year, which is next days anyway. xD
0
@wargirlwargirl: Go
Don't mind him, it's the Charlie Sheen syndrome, pretty common, actually. :P
0
Oh, come now, don't be ashamed, it's just the golden rule of art - Good artists rip-off, great artists steal. Sort of. xD
0
@EivindL: Go
That, in a way, is true - Given we've risen so much in advancements, but also in problems, and as they're shown in even bigger magnitude no thanks to modern media (Not just TV, but Internet, social networks and stuff), the situation does seem hopeless.
But I disagree that happy endings are easily forgettable, there are the ones like Killer Elite or even recently Fury Road that remain on your mind, but rather because it was on their terms and not as campy or cliche-ish. Downbeat endings do stick more but also affect some people more than others, hence why the need for a happy ending, even if it's as forced as was the conclusion of SCII, once in a while. Sometimes we can screw it up, like A.I. did (God, now I see I forgot to mention that), but if there's a bit of truth to some hypocrisy is that often the illusion of some hope is better than nothing. It gives us some energy to go through our plights and daily lives, it makes us realize there may be a better tomorrow if we work for it. Pretty much like we often review and comment here, especially to newcomers, trying to inspire people in going further and better. Of course, I just review it as objective as possible, pointing out it's positive strengths while also necessarily talking about it's flaws. Just like the Aureolin Eclipse review.
Speaking of AE, I must repeat and say that you were consistent until 09 - 10, for a couple of reasons - The first was that you just exaggerated in axing people off, and the second because of the twist that doesn't connect as much as the others did. And when the 'good ending' occurs, it feels a tad empty because of that.
0
@Mozared: Go
1. Well, the past HBO series and Joss Whedon series adopted it, but GoT *did* make it mainstream, in a way - Given it quickly rose in popularity, it's 'bad endings' became the trademark to the point that when a TV show, even a sitcom like HIMYM, does it, it gets related to it because, in a simple way of saying, it's the current times. The said 'overkill' made it what it was.
2. I was rolling, it just came on my head. There are other examples, but I was aiming more for the big audience.
3. Glad you like it. :)
Edit: Maybe I could, but finding interesting topics would take a while and a lot of research to make. Not only this, there's also the matter of translating it in a coherent, unbiased way, especially if I'd ever touch on sensitive stuff, like, over-sexualizing female figures in video-games like it's being done more than ever, greatest offenders being Soul Calibur, DoA Extreme Volleyball and others.
0
@Mozared: Go
Close, it's the very Vanilla SC1, 'The Hunt for Tassadar'. And the background does look like Char from afar, which makes it more interesting.
0
@Mozared: Go
Managed to work something out today, before heading to work. Not much done, but should recall a bit of nostalgia for the old timers.
BTW, which terrain is next? It's Xel'Naga related or not?
0
@Mozared: Go
Yeah, BTW, one thing I didn't notice is that the SCII epilogue ending, in a constructive view, does look a lot like what we wished out of Tiberium C&C (Before Tiberium Twilight, I mean), doesn't it? Suddenly the human military (Terran/GDI) starting to see some of the religious bull is real, it's carried out, there's an epic-scale battle and so much this military as the said 'religious zealots' (Protoss/Nod) starting to understand a bit and try to cope with the new times.
Of course, there's always a said 'big evil' (Amon/Scrin), but it shouldn't mean we had to drag on to it forever, and just because some stuff might sound stupid or pulled out of religious reference, doesn't mean that it ain't smart. In a way, you can tell that, since some of Blizzard employees worked with C&C in the past (i.e. Browder), you can tell they kind of unwittingly did the ending C&C felt it should have, and not that, in honest words, corporate middle-finger rehash.
0
@LucidIguana: Go
I don't see what I spoiled as actually that big, hence why I didn't include a warning this time. It'd be spoilers, per say, if we were dealing with something too recent, like LotV was at release week, and which was a big effort, in a way, to describe opinions without spoiling any details that could ruin the experience (Like Shakuras blowing up, Fenix returning or even Kerrigan's 'butt-naked angel' form). The media I exposed is actually months, if not years or decades old, and thus talking about it isn't exactly a big spoiler, unless you, of course, never heard of it. Also, I didn't expose any actual plot details of either, just mentioned about the endings in a non-intrusive way.
Also, effort, so to say, I didn't think it should be described, as many of us, of course, know what that means - It's not only the complexity of the plot, or the development of characters or twists and turns or even how big or smart the closure is, but also making it convincing enough for us whom consumed a lot of media as we've grown up. Remember, a lot of us have been through it all, we've seen it all, and the common thing is just common, nowadays. Like IskatuMesk pointed, when talking about balance, you don't need to be insanely creative, just establish basic foundations, and then work on these foundations to deliver a solid experience, so much in gameplay as in story.
The whole point of the article was just talking about good and bad endings, and how it may seem so, but none of them actually are more favored than the other - There's just so many awful good sick-sweet endings as there are bad and obviously phoned in bad endings all just to sound deep instead of feeling deep.
@DEFILERRULEZ: Go
Up until LotV, the said 'highest' trailer was either HotS or Warlords of Draenor, which are quite big and expansive, but that's just it. LotV, on the other hand, combined good action and some meaning to it, though it was restrained by it's 'one set'. Legion, on the other hand, used three sets (Captain's lodge, the ship and the beach-head), put in strong action and also upped even the visuals - To the point people said that the Wrynn there is much more convincing then the real actors in the WarCraft trailer. For me, and it's sad admitting it, it pushed LotV behind and with good reason.
0
[ARTICLE] The Issue with Happy Endings
Yeah, a lot of us pictured this would've been a lot more preferable, didn't we?
Preface
Truth be told, a lot of us have grown up, have gone into much adult material and acquired much grown up tastes. But maybe we 'grew up' a bit too much, don't we agree? Yes, most of us as children loved our cartoons, cheered when things went right and often cried when the hero was defeated or the beloved land was lost, or the villain saw his way through and/or didn't pay the price, but as we've matured, many of us often seemed more and more used to this, because we wanted something more than the usual stuff, stuff that wasn't just straight or shocking, but thought-provoking, world-rocking, stuff that'd actually slap us in the face, because we imagined a certain type of ending, but it'd ultimately end up in another.
I'm DeltaCadimus and, couple of months ago, I did the review on EivindL's Perfect Soldiers Trilogy, often criticizing it's endings while praising the strengths of it's gameplay, character development and a few enjoyable surprises. And, eventually, as I grew up a bit more and started seeing more and more 'sad' or 'phyrric' endings many media was taking, apart from Game of Thrones or House of Cards, I looked back a bit on the stories of old, the happy endings, as well as the new ones whose 'positive' outcome was often criticized. This, along with the run-in of the AE campaign, brew up a question that I feel needs some addressing, and that is: What's the issue with happy endings?
The Issue with Happy Endings
More and more, as I'm viewing all sorts of stuff which propose a good ending, EVEN comic book movies or kid flicks, I'm noticing a bit of a bigger resistance to even some solid 'good endings' attempted, like many are afraid all these endings will do is rehearse that same, old Hollywood bullshit of 'Every good person is fine, the villain gets it, the land is saved and life goes on as usual', and actually do nothing with it, just reprise it with a triumphant note. All of us have gotten tired of it as we grew up, of course, but what exactly is wrong with it other than it's just plain straight? And what makes endings like Guardians of the Galaxy work and endings like Heart of the Swarm not?
Believe it or not, this ending DOES have a meaning.
Sad endings aren't that new or innovating either, they've been in the past since Robert Wise's The Haunting, if not further. But if many born in the 80's/90's were asked of stuff that didn't have a good ending before Game of Thrones, a few would answer Terry Gilliam. Gilliam himself is mostly known for Brazil and 12 Monkeys, both of which don't have a happy ending, as well as cult classics like Time Bandits and Adventures of Baron Munchausen, the latter being the only with a said 'happy ending'. Other than that, many of his works end up with the protagonist suffering big time, but society suffers as well with worse fates, and not post-apocalyptic viruses or virtual dictatorships, but ultimately becoming a pathetic parody of societies themselves, with discussions far ahead of their time, like bureaucracy becoming commonplace and often impeding immediate action, if it were needed, excessive plastic surgery in an absurd chase for perfect beauty, logic squashing whimsical or hope for the sake of it, or how humanity can condemn itself without it even noticing, like a normal lab worker transporting virus samples around the world. All of it with some unique catchphrases and thought-provoking commentary.
Besides Gilliam, the only other which could be heavily considered in this camp is Martin Scorsese, for works like The Departed and Shutter Island, though he still did a number of said good ending movies like Hugo. Still, his good endings don't seem to go on a campy style, and are often heavy and adult-oriented, like Taxi Driver and the massacre of Gangs of New York. He often explores the life and surroundings of his characters and how events play out around them, and when the big shock on The Departed comes up, it comes up really as a big shock on how sudden it was, it was literally the LAST thing we imagined. And of course, except for Hugo, for obvious reasons, all accompanied with gruesome violence and swearing.
Didn't you play this game? You could've...
And not just on movies sad endings were employed, but video-games, as well. Of course, the old Blizzard comes to mind, particularly stuff like the first WarCraft, the first two Diablo games and Brood War, in which the said 'evil' prevails and things only get worse. But one that got closer to what we see, today, to the point of it even axing 99% of it's cast, was Traffic Department 2142. It was a simple bird-eye view shooter with a brief story of an often renegade heroine pilot facing off this apparent gang that's actually quite a big empire whose war machine is consuming the whole galaxy and eventually was aiming for her home planet, a struggle made even more obsessive given people of this empire also killed her father. Yeah, pretty much Star Wars-ish, but credit given, it was the 80's. I won't spoil much of it, but the ending axes off the majority of characters, but still delivers a proper ending on it's own terms, because unlike Star Wars, it wasn't meant to be 'the hero destroys the evil empire', but instead shows there *are* other possibilities, often less likable, and it's a difficult thing, for first-timers, to come to grips with.
But it was only with HBO's adaptation of George R. R. Martin's book series that television series started considering more and more the said 'grittiness' of sad endings and axing off favorite characters - While Joss Whedon was already an adept at it, axing off favorites in Buffy, Firefly/Serenity and Angel, the Netflix Daredevil series had it's share of deaths while House of Cards went on the complete villain route. The same can be said for AMC's Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, which exploited the characters, as well as the difficult decisions they made and some fates we really didn't expect, because we had a different mindset on media run no thanks to the past media we consumed. All of these shows were big hits and, true, the way they told their stories earned their fame. But when can so much success be a bad thing?
I won't commit the heresy of saying that either StarCraft or WoW's successes may've been too bad, they earned their fame and caught our imagination and playing hours, but the problem with massive successes is how it can spread and alter the minds of arguably less-qualified developers, writers and publishers - because, suddenly, they realize that if they follow this road, with only some slight variations, equation states that fame and fortune are guaranteed. Being fair, this is mostly done because it's been done before and proved successful, but it can often backfire doing it again and again with nothing much new or inventive to offer. Look no further than the StarCraft clones Atrox and OutLive to see what I mean.
Uh, no offense, but I think we went TOO far, this time...
The same can be said for these television shows, which even try following down the same road of their predecessors. Else, I think that, if Game of Thrones wasn't this successful, I doubt shock-meant shows like Hannibal would be able to stand for long, despite successes of the past like HBO's Oz. But massive success can't be bad alone for having other people copy it, but setting the bar too high, too, can be hazardous because it'll demand nigh-impossible standards and the need to continuously shock or impress in order to keep ratings - GoT virtually demonstrated that with it's 5th season, using needless deaths, dramas, sad endings and even longer fights, all to keep their audience. Or even Christopher Nolan, with The Dark Knight Rises: Because the predecessor was such a massive hit, he was way too pressured into making an epic and ending with a bang, which hurt the story, the characters we liked and even the action wasn't as appealing as The Dark Knight was. Or even Terry Gilliam itself, whom ultimately finished his 'Orwellian triptych' with the oddest movie you can imagine, The Zero Theorem.
But, returning to the subject, does this mean bad endings are maybe too much bad? Of course not, every once in a while, you can and should use those, because, in a way, it brings us closer to reality, but this shouldn't EVER mean that reality is a "dark, cruel place where you'll be bullied constantly and, no matter what you do, you'll always end up a pathetic twat". As the Nostalgia Critic, whom I see his videos occasionally, pointed out well, 'many times you need an extreme to understand an extreme' - The other extreme being the sick sugar-coated endings like Frozen, Maleficent, Iron Man 3, in a way, the endings for Red Alert 3, Titanfall, the newer Sonics and, of course, Heart of the Swarm, where it's all so phoned-in, so sick-sweet it makes you nauseous, so artificial you wished a 'Red Wedding' of sorts had occurred! The endings where the sacrifices actually don't have this much meaning, it's all *way* too much cliched, and you never even had any interest in the characters to begin with.
Listen to me, just take a deep breath... Slowly count to ten...
Of course, there are the said 'way too close ones', like Big Hero 6 or even the hilarious Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge endings, but, in their defense, at least they offered something of an edge, like applying humor or investing in the characters. And many times, the middle and beginning ended up being so good that we just didn't care this much about the ending, to the point of considering it a nitpick. That's where the climax of Ant-Man comes in, if you consider it's all due to Paul Rudd's efforts in keeping it afloat.
So, why do I say there ARE bad 'good' endings like Heart of the Swarm and Maleficent, and how do you relate between, if a sad ending is a good one or if a good ending hurts more the movie than what if it used a different one? I'll start with the latter and answer you can't just find it in any book or the web - It all falls to the eye of the beholder, as he or she interprets the movie and how it approaches or not their world, and if the run along, not just beginning or middle or end is worth their time investment and if their mindset is often looking for the best or for the worst. A.K.A, expectation. I literally came to Pacific Rim with high hopes I'd finally see a decent giant robot movie that challenged Michael Bay on his own ground, with much more substance than style, and I came out way disappointed. As well as I didn't look forward to seeing Age of Ultron, when I read reviews and all criticism, and by God, I was surprised on how solid it was, on how involving it was, and the climax action, I think, was even greater than the first Avengers.
Some people may not like Killer Elite, a 2011 Jason Statham assassin/spy movie, for a couple of reasons, but I think that ending was the best envisioned and I couldn't imagine any other. Without going into too much spoiler on this one, let's just say it uses the 'it was all for nothing' cliché, and nothing happens to either protagonists or said 'antagonist' which wasn't an antagonist at all, but the final lines, a pretty much unknown lesson that's given and even the soundtrack make the ending work. That ending, at least, was my proof that Statham could act beyond being a punch-giver or one-line spouter. Another ending that could be mentioned with a 'it was all nothing' cliché would be Smokin' Aces but unfortunately the rest of the movie but the ending just wasn't worth it, IMO. If it wasn't for that, I'd have changed the channel and wiped my memory clean. In the end, an ending ends up becoming nothing more than a segment, a piece of a movie or TV show or a game, or even a book like the Harry Potter series. What should matter instead, is the likeness of the characters as well as how the story goes on and how it builds up to the ending.
Arguably the BEST ending you can ever find.
An example of it is Batman: Arkham Origins, which many consider to be the lowest of the Batman Arkham games, for the typical bullshit reasoning of 'If it's not Rocksteady, it's not good', that I don't agree with one bit, as well as it wasn't as dark or complex as Arkham City was or was too hokey. I actually find it the best of Batman stories, because it invested in characters, invested in a relationship between the Batman and Commissioner Gordon that I felt it was way too needed, and demonstrated the importance of so much the protagonist himself as well as the allies surrounding him. Not only this, but also gave a lot of villains but one (Black Mask, of course) the chance to shine, in particular Bane, that I found was the first time he was ACTUALLY portrayed - All of the other films just set him up as a pure brute or a bully with some smarts, not this absolute mental, intellectual and physical threat that Batman is forced to face, just to save all that he knows and loves. And this is what makes the climax and eventual ending worthwhile and intense. Another good example? The Darksiders games, where we accompany two of the Four Horseman (And would've accompanied the other two hadn't THQ done that financial stunt which ultimately cost them) as they travel the Earth, Heaven, Hell and other realms to fight off anything and anyone in their path and make sense of the big conspiracy surrounding everyone, and the Four Horseman directly. Both the protagonists are likable and honest in their chase, the surrounding ones are of various types, despite the fact they're RPG-ish and the scenery and context opens a large variation of possibilities in both gameplay and lore, as we explore deeper various mythos surrounding the powers in these realms, the said 'circle of life' and balance, and how there's always a power play going on from all sides, even the supposed good ones.
On the other hand, touching on games not worth it, you have the Splatterhouse reboot, which even tries making something out of all the gore it was mandatory to have, but you don't give a damn about the characters, the story as a whole or the stuff you kill. The reason something gory as God of War works, if only barely, is because we can connect to an extent to the main character, his tragic past, the suffering that's left unresolved and the way he's constantly played from all directions like a puppet, and thus we can figure reasoning out of his brutality and his obsession for a conclusion. Splatterhouse, on the other hand, feels like a summer horror blockbuster you've already seen a thousand times. Another example is Killzone: Shadow Fall which clearly needed much more time to make up it's story and develop a connection with the characters, left A LOT to be explained, and it all ends with a floor crash, axing the main protagonist and you feel like it was all for nothing. It was so empty that when you play the extra mission, you don't feel any joy whatsoever of the catharsis, all because of how pissed off you got to be on the official conclusion. Finally, but not this big a case, Ryse: Son of Rome which is nothing more than a rail section rip-off from 'Gladiator', but both manage to work out pretty solid, yet because it ripped so many core elements of the movie as much as it did the HBO 'Rome' series, it still got the lackluster reception it understandably deserved.
Repeat after me: Better than Arkham City, better than Arkham City...
Is there a point to all these examples? The point that the ending's just a segment, a part of a combination of factors that makes a movie work or not. Again, mentioning Smokin' Aces, you can have a totally awful movie with the most memorable ending as much as you can have a movie like War that's good in many elements, but the ending leaves a lot to be desired. It's kind of like a chain, isn't it? No matter how strong it is as a whole, if a link is too weak, it'll break apart, nonetheless. It all comes from the story we get to see, the characters we get to connect with and the context of the situation. Endings like Wreck-It Ralph or Hunger Games work because we get to relate and like the characters, understanding the conflicts they're getting into and thus we're on their side, hoping they'll make past it fine. As well as the reason Gilliam's and Scorcese's sad endings work is because we relate to the characters but we also get to despise the surroundings around them, and when our heroes buy it, we at least see that the world's paying a heavy price for not listening or being just downright dumb.
Being more recent, why Legacy of the Void has both a solid and a much-to-be-desired ending, meaning both Artanis' campaign and the 'Into the Void' epilogue, respectively? Again, it's about how we've run through the story, the characters and their development. Because we've seen Artanis actually grow up into a leader, having him been through so much on Aiur and fighting Amon and going to difficult lengths to reunite an army and save his possessed loved ones, the ending with the Keystone and the subsequent catharsis ultimately makes all we've done back then worthwhile, as well as we accomplished some degree of unity and made the Protoss question their role in all that conflict time and again, with the discovery of their origins as well as challenging their original pre-conceptions, like both the Khala, the Rak'Shir and the Shadow Walk.
However, the 'Into the Void' epilogue not only suffered from what Heart of the Swarm and even Wings of Liberty did, but also didn't set the pace or the weight of the struggle very well and abused way too much on the religious references, Anime and even ripped-off Age of Ultron in a way. Could've it been different? I don't think so, but it could've been illustrated better than what we were given and the ending itself needed much more work and more conclusion than just Kerrigan re-appearing again. As the dude that reviewed it in Kotaku said, 'the epilogue ended with a thud', but I think it was, in an angle, much better than what I feared it could've been, which of course means either Mass Effect 3 or Command & Conquer 4. And, as I stated, it was virtually little option and we needed to shut the book on those issues, at least, so Blizzard could at least take the 'The Force Awakens' route if they ever considered making a StarCraft III. At least that's what I hope they'll do, if they ever will.
The Truest Ending you can conceive.
Conclusion
So, are happy endings bad and sad endings good? Or vice-versa? That's just too narrow, because it just all comes down to a single word - effort. Great catharsis like Inside Out and Toy Story 3, the epilogues to the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings sagas, Return of the Jedi (NO, NOT THE EWOK CRAP!), and even Captain America: The Winter Soldier all point out that there may still be hope even though all might be lost, while endings like Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Watchmen, The Departed and Arlington Road might totally break us, but we eventually cope with it because maybe we wanted too much that our 'heroes' succeeded, but we learn that's not how the world works.
And while we'll still get many sick sugar-coated clichéd stuff or rage-inducing deaths and dumb twists for a long time, there'll always be, for those whom seek it, those conclusions who'll tell us a good 'happy' or 'sad' ending will never really die, it all merely comes down to what played before and how it'll wrap it up and affect us, so much on making us think on themes we rarely consider, as well as touching our hearts, getting out a tear of Joy or Sadness. Or, ultimately dumbing it down to Matt Horner, 'Hearts and Minds, man. Just like it's always been'.
Any questions you'd like to make, any points you'd like to bring, any criticism? Leave'em down below.
0
A preview of what's to come.
0
Yes, I think they'd be a welcome change of pace, as well as it adds emphasizing on what the player should spend: Either a mobile force or static defenses, and there can't be room for both at their max. It also grants value to Krayen's abilities as well as the value of Swarm Queens for static defense, especially as transfuse works wonders to Zerg defense as Shield Batteries work on Photon Cannons.
I'd just leave the holdout sections untouched, they're pretty much fine as they are.
0
@DudkiSC2: Go
Done the mission and, I'm not gonna lie, it's about half and half. The killing the hatcheries part is just too easy, the only thing containing you being limited resources, while the defense segments were challenging at best. There's not much to grind across, given only Roach/Hydra worked mostly, there wasn't a constant threat to the main hive, like, I gotta pull back to defend it. Also, a lot of both Krayen and the Leviathan abilities were overlapping and generic. It's clear lore was the priority, and it was good, but apart from the guarding Krayen segments, there's nothing much to it, and it's a shame, given the memories of the semi-RPG mission are still fresh.
BTW, will the next maps use LotV dependencies or you'll stick to HotS to the end?
0
@Crainy: Go
That's a good thing, if it'll come with custom skins or power variations. But that'd also be a problem, as many of the said powers would be repetitive and such, and I don't think there'd be alot of creative stuff other than buff/nerf powers, reinforcements or aoe damage stuff.