If you’ve read my blog for a while, you may know that I’ve been anxiously awaiting the launch of StarCraft II since the game was announced in May 2007.
Now, I just read on Wikipedia that StarCraft II is being set four years after the events of the first StarCraft installments. Why would Blizzard set it four years after when releasing the sequel 12 years after the first?
Anyone else find this odd? Why not set the new story 12 years later, and have some correlation with the time that’s passed? I’m 12 years older than when I planted my first Spawning Pool on a field of creep. Why has Jim Raynor gotten away with growing only four years older? How are we supposed to relate to him? (joking)
I am curious to know what you think of this. I like when game and movie sequels are set the same number of years in the future as it’s been since the original was released (in real-world years). It’s a nice touch.
Yeah, it make sense sometimes…but what if I see the movies/games years after they were originally made? Then the time lines don’t make sense.
If it can be worked in, then go for it. But if it is being forced, then I don’t think it is worth it.
Especially when you are looking at sci-fi and fantasy – often even the events in these books span hundreds or thousands of years.
I agree totally. Sometimes it just doesn’t work. One example of a movie series I really like (showing my sappy side) is the Before Sunrise/Sunset series by Richard Linklater.
They were released nine years apart, and they take place nine years apart. But it works, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy have both aged as much as their characters have.
Fantastic movies, if you ask me. Great characters, great dialogue and the settings are great.