EmuMusicFan
Captain
Why I say some of the characterization in WC3 and WC4 was not good
[Thread under construction]
===SORRY, ORIGINAL POST DATA LOST DUE TO MISOPERATION. ===
So the discussion of the first question was rewritten.
I believe we all agree that WC3 and WC4 were the pinnacle of the series commercially and in terms of popularity. Indeed, their pioneering role in graphics real-time rendering technology, and technical experimentation in the film industry should not to be ignored.
But what I would like to talk about here are some technical problems in the literature of these two works.. I'll try to distinguish between "I don't like it" and "there are technical problems."
1. Did WC3 modify the character of Hobbes appropriately?
Let's start with the fact that (if I got the corresponding information correctly), the re-constructed Production team of WC3 did a reset of the Hobbes character. Technically, WC3's Hobbes is not the same Hobbes from WC2 and the first offical novel of Freedom Flight. WC2 team designed Hobbes to not be an Imperial spy at all.
So does this change make sense?
It's important to note that it's common for series stories to do midway revamps to characters. An example is Darth Vader in the Star Wars series:
This modification was brilliant because it made the Star Wars world more human, fleshed out the character of Darth Vader, and gave the plot more drama and tension. The line in question has become almost the most famous declaration of fatherhood in movie history.
However this is not the case with WC3's revamping of Hobbes character. It is a reverse operation. Relative to father Darth Vader's design, WC3's Hobbes is a simple, faceless character.
WC2 and Freedom Flight's Hobbes came from a high Imperial noble family, and was absorbed into the Ghorah Khar Resistance because of his conflict with the Imperial family, anger at the corruption and depravity of the Empire, and pessimism about the prospect of war, before joining the Terran Confederation Fleet to fight against the Empire's aggression.
WC3's Hobbes was simply a spy who was absolutely loyal to the Imperial family. The character almost becomes a thin piece of cardboard.
Imagine if Darth Vader had been remodeled in that direction back then, would he still have the cultural symbolism he has today?
And, regarding the personality overlay.
This is a forcefully introduced deus ex machina design.It's not something should be avoid, but it requires resonable methods.
However, the foreshadowing of so-called personality overlay in WC3 was insufficient, which resulted in the subsequent appearance of this setting being very abrupt. This is like a Sherlock Holmes novel, in its last chapter, the author suddenly tells the reader that a strange alien civilization used a portal to take away the treasure, so Sherlock Holmes's reasoning is wrong. This is not allowed in a suspense drama.
Positive examples from Disney's Zootopia:
It's dramatic to have something familiar to the audience appear in unexpected way.
WC3 didn't do a good job of that. Not to mention the personality overlay explanation was removed from the initial PC version.
Third, about another speculation on WC3 Hobbes' motivation for betraying the Confederation.
You might argue that, disregarding personality overlay, Hobbes would also have made the choice to return to the Empire because he couldn't accept the imminent destruction of his home world Kilrah, by humans.
This still doesn't make sense.
Hobbes is a high-ranking military noble of the Empire, surely he should know what a high-intensity general war means. According to the WC3 Victory Streak background manual, the historical Kilrathi Civil War resulted in the destruction of several planets.
Do you think Hobbes didn't have the realization that the war would reach Kilrah when he joined the Confederation? Or do you think he would have been so naive that he believes humans would never do indiscriminate bombing? Even if that was the case, was he portrayed psychologically relevant in the story?
Not to mention, do you think Thrakhath would trust a double traitor as his wingman in the final battle?
To summarize, I think WC3 Hobbes' character modifications are extremely implausible.
That's for now on the first question. Feel free to discuss.
==========
One additional point:
There is a point that Thrakhath's release of Ralgha from Ghorah Khar Imperial Intelligence in Freedom Flight indicates that Ralgha was his spy.
I don't think the latter conclusion necessarily follows from this result. Moreover, I have a different speculation on this point.
First, Jahkai, the officer of the Intelligence Department, was not given any evidence that Ralgha was a member of the Resistance. Thus legally, Ralgha was innocent. Under this premise, Thrakhath's use of the Crown Prince's prerogative to punish Ralgha would have come at a huge political cost, and since Thrakhath had only recently become Crown Prince, and was not yet well established, not to mention that his father's over-aggressiveness had led to an irreparable defeat, it was understandable that he would be cautious at this time.
Secondly, even if Thrakhath did not trust Ralgha, how would it benefit Thrakhath himself to designate Ralgha as a rebel? At this stage he did not have Ghorah Khar's rebels in his sights. From his perspective, the risk that Ralgha might be part of the rebellion did exist, but the cost of using his own resources to solve a possible problem for the Emperor seemed clearly too high.
Later, the Resistance ordered Ralgha to surrender his entire ship to the Confederation, an act that would have been shocking to the Empire. Comparatively, Thrakhath was not personally responsible - he simply released Ralgha as per Imperial rules. The Emperor would scold him for not being sharp enough and the chastisement might have been unpleasant for Thrakhath, but it did not materially harm his position. On the contrary, if Thrakhath had overstepped his authority and used chemical interrogation on Ralgha, then the Emperor might have immediately considered changing the heir apparent.
As for the ripple effect of Ralgha's subsequent defection, it can only be said that the Ghorah Khar Resistance leader's bold strategy went beyond what Imperial tradition could go to anticipate.
[Thread under construction]
===SORRY, ORIGINAL POST DATA LOST DUE TO MISOPERATION. ===
So the discussion of the first question was rewritten.
I believe we all agree that WC3 and WC4 were the pinnacle of the series commercially and in terms of popularity. Indeed, their pioneering role in graphics real-time rendering technology, and technical experimentation in the film industry should not to be ignored.
But what I would like to talk about here are some technical problems in the literature of these two works.. I'll try to distinguish between "I don't like it" and "there are technical problems."
1. Did WC3 modify the character of Hobbes appropriately?
Let's start with the fact that (if I got the corresponding information correctly), the re-constructed Production team of WC3 did a reset of the Hobbes character. Technically, WC3's Hobbes is not the same Hobbes from WC2 and the first offical novel of Freedom Flight. WC2 team designed Hobbes to not be an Imperial spy at all.
So does this change make sense?
It's important to note that it's common for series stories to do midway revamps to characters. An example is Darth Vader in the Star Wars series:
In the original Star Wars movie, Darth Vader was not designed as Luke's father. The paternity of Darth Vader and Luke was introduced in the second movie of the series.
This modification was brilliant because it made the Star Wars world more human, fleshed out the character of Darth Vader, and gave the plot more drama and tension. The line in question has become almost the most famous declaration of fatherhood in movie history.
However this is not the case with WC3's revamping of Hobbes character. It is a reverse operation. Relative to father Darth Vader's design, WC3's Hobbes is a simple, faceless character.
WC2 and Freedom Flight's Hobbes came from a high Imperial noble family, and was absorbed into the Ghorah Khar Resistance because of his conflict with the Imperial family, anger at the corruption and depravity of the Empire, and pessimism about the prospect of war, before joining the Terran Confederation Fleet to fight against the Empire's aggression.
WC3's Hobbes was simply a spy who was absolutely loyal to the Imperial family. The character almost becomes a thin piece of cardboard.
Imagine if Darth Vader had been remodeled in that direction back then, would he still have the cultural symbolism he has today?
And, regarding the personality overlay.
This is a forcefully introduced deus ex machina design.It's not something should be avoid, but it requires resonable methods.
However, the foreshadowing of so-called personality overlay in WC3 was insufficient, which resulted in the subsequent appearance of this setting being very abrupt. This is like a Sherlock Holmes novel, in its last chapter, the author suddenly tells the reader that a strange alien civilization used a portal to take away the treasure, so Sherlock Holmes's reasoning is wrong. This is not allowed in a suspense drama.
Positive examples from Disney's Zootopia:
1. The carrot voice recorder, which is the key prop for the final reversal to victory, appears naturally at the beginning of the story when Officer Judy is ready to take Nick, the tax evader, after being fooled by him before. And, before the final climax of the story, this recorder reappears in the scene where Nick and Judy's reconcile, deepening its impression in the audience' mind. In this way, at the end, when Officer Judy takes out the recorder which has already recorded the key testimony, the audience has the feeling of unexpected and reasonable. If the recorder suddenly appeared for the first time in the end, although the logic still makes sense, but the dramatic tension would be much worse.
2. Nick is hit by the villain's "pill", then the audience are expecting Nick to be able to use his strong will to fight against the "midnight howl" effect, but Nick "bites" Judy's neck. At this point, Judy gives the same exaggerated performance as she did in the children's theater at the beginning of the story, so that the audience will immediately understand that they are fine. Without the theater scene at the beginning of the movie, this part would have been stilted.
It's dramatic to have something familiar to the audience appear in unexpected way.
WC3 didn't do a good job of that. Not to mention the personality overlay explanation was removed from the initial PC version.
Third, about another speculation on WC3 Hobbes' motivation for betraying the Confederation.
You might argue that, disregarding personality overlay, Hobbes would also have made the choice to return to the Empire because he couldn't accept the imminent destruction of his home world Kilrah, by humans.
This still doesn't make sense.
Hobbes is a high-ranking military noble of the Empire, surely he should know what a high-intensity general war means. According to the WC3 Victory Streak background manual, the historical Kilrathi Civil War resulted in the destruction of several planets.
Do you think Hobbes didn't have the realization that the war would reach Kilrah when he joined the Confederation? Or do you think he would have been so naive that he believes humans would never do indiscriminate bombing? Even if that was the case, was he portrayed psychologically relevant in the story?
Not to mention, do you think Thrakhath would trust a double traitor as his wingman in the final battle?
To summarize, I think WC3 Hobbes' character modifications are extremely implausible.
That's for now on the first question. Feel free to discuss.
==========
One additional point:
There is a point that Thrakhath's release of Ralgha from Ghorah Khar Imperial Intelligence in Freedom Flight indicates that Ralgha was his spy.
I don't think the latter conclusion necessarily follows from this result. Moreover, I have a different speculation on this point.
First, Jahkai, the officer of the Intelligence Department, was not given any evidence that Ralgha was a member of the Resistance. Thus legally, Ralgha was innocent. Under this premise, Thrakhath's use of the Crown Prince's prerogative to punish Ralgha would have come at a huge political cost, and since Thrakhath had only recently become Crown Prince, and was not yet well established, not to mention that his father's over-aggressiveness had led to an irreparable defeat, it was understandable that he would be cautious at this time.
Secondly, even if Thrakhath did not trust Ralgha, how would it benefit Thrakhath himself to designate Ralgha as a rebel? At this stage he did not have Ghorah Khar's rebels in his sights. From his perspective, the risk that Ralgha might be part of the rebellion did exist, but the cost of using his own resources to solve a possible problem for the Emperor seemed clearly too high.
Later, the Resistance ordered Ralgha to surrender his entire ship to the Confederation, an act that would have been shocking to the Empire. Comparatively, Thrakhath was not personally responsible - he simply released Ralgha as per Imperial rules. The Emperor would scold him for not being sharp enough and the chastisement might have been unpleasant for Thrakhath, but it did not materially harm his position. On the contrary, if Thrakhath had overstepped his authority and used chemical interrogation on Ralgha, then the Emperor might have immediately considered changing the heir apparent.
As for the ripple effect of Ralgha's subsequent defection, it can only be said that the Ghorah Khar Resistance leader's bold strategy went beyond what Imperial tradition could go to anticipate.
Last edited: