Glynnis Talken and Robert Clotworthy Will Not Be Returning

Not necessarily, because in essence he didn't get the chance to audition and since the only source is coming from him I could understand his response being a tad bit biased.

Apology accepted, thank you.

That's true but usually the fans don't do the interviewing. The interviewer could ask why was it that the original voice actors weren't asked to come back for their role a second time? Blizzard could either give them a good response expaining their actions or "see the main focus of this game is going to be battle.net" in which case they would be side stepping the question completely and thus we'd have our answer. But we don't have that crucial interview unfortunately, which is why both sides of this argument can hold themselves up rather well.

sorry should have specified, I was referring to their other choices not Rob or Glynnis. In which case they would be the exception.

Personally I don't see this as much of a decision of value. The stand in imo doesn't mean anything the Blizzard execs could have got their kids to do it really. I don't think it says anything about the quality of their casting.

EDIT:
Looking back to the beginning of this thread I was in here debating before you were, as soon as you jumped in I was in the current argument that we are in. Dunno how that can be misunderstood really but whatever. like you said it isn't really relevant.

 

Actually, my mistake, that news wasn't from him, it was from Blizzplanet. He only did the interview. So it's still a valid source.

See above - the blizzplanet news wasn't an interview, just some information that they managed to attain.

http://www.starcraftwire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7856&postcount=4
http://www.n4g.com/pc/News-185655.aspx

And again, it's not the quality of the stand-ins that I'm talking about - it's the decisions. The new Raynor VA for example had the horrible southern accent because he was supposed to be based on some character from Texas Ranger. The Kerrigan/Queen in the Zerg Reveal Trailer sounded like as big of a downgrade as the Warcraft examples IMO. The only thing I've enjoyed so far is Zeratul's voice actor (though it's definitely not like the old one it does seem very fitting for the character) and Glynnis's VO of the Kerrigan Reveal Trailer.

 

Alright, well I'm still reluctant personally. I'm not saying it's not a valid source of information. Just saying that the information provided is vague at best. *shrug*

Yeah I know, I wasn't saying it was an interview I said they could interview them in the future, a crucial question which would clear up this entire debate.

That makes more sense, I understand your point now. But didn't Robert also have the same accent? Perhaps not as bad but still he definitely had a southern accent.

 

No, that's not what it's like at all. It's a specious poll. If you vote 'no', then that means you hated all of the original characters. It offers no insight into the decision, especially when we haven't heard the new voices, so there's no comparison to draw. In other words, it's just pure opinion of the original actors. Not being opposed to their return does not mean being opposed to a change.

Don't worry. Action will be taken against anyone who continues this in an aggressive manner. It shouldn't have gotten this out-of-hand in the first place, and I apologise for that.

Speaking of getting out of hand, this had as well. I had to track it back to remind myself what we were actually referring to. To remind us both it was about speculation and me bringing nothing else to the table other than 'I disagree'.

To put it quickly, BAM!

To elaborate, I was the first to lay down my views. I'm not saying this to try and gain any high ground or to say that you've just been disagreeing for the sake of it, but to show I haven't just been here to disagree, as I was the first to present my case.

How doesn't it apply? It relates directly to both the nostalgia and characterisation of the characters being replaced. Both Raynor and Grom's original voices are nostalgic, but their newer voices provide more, potential, characterisation and development. That shouldn't be hindered for the sake of nostalgia.

I couldn't find any link of the interview. On top of that, I can't imagine anyone in the interview saying this.

Just because auditions have already happened doesn't mean that they've been cast or that we've heard their voices.

Yes, we've seen the direction, but the majority of what we've seen has been based on the voice itself, like you saying Raynor is too much of a hink, or previously when you, or someone else, said he sounded awful. We haven't actually heard Raynor speak, so we cannot pass judgement on his voice.

And again, with Kerrigan, that's subjective, and there's nothing to say that she didn't do that voice as well, only that she did do the voice of Kerrigan herself.

Not necessarily. There are still two more expansions to be released, so if the public reaction to the new voice is honestly that bad, then it will still be able to be changed for StarCraft2 as a whole. I do feel that any appeal to the voices, if they are indeed bad, would have been more effective if this irrational uproar had not taken place.

It's also idle speculation that the new voice actor will be horrible, that the character won't be identified with the Raynor of StarCraft1, that by changing the voice actor Blizzard will require a radically different voice, and that Raynor would have been able to take the character in the desired direction.

Well do you believe that Raynor's voice will be terrible or don't you? If you do, then it's not a straw man. If you don't, then there's nothing to actually discuss, and we should both wait until we hear the actual voices.

Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void, if I remember the names correctly, will be separate opportunities for Blizzard to do something if it's that bad.

And the dice weren't meant to represent luck, just an unknown, or a definition that hasn't been revealed yet.

Basically responded to this just then, but if by the other factors you mean nostalgia, then it can again be applied to the voice of Grom. If nostalgia was deemed more important that characterisation, then whenever we heard him speak in WarCraft3 we'd hear Yoda, high on caffeine.

Wouldn't the analogy be more along the lines of leaving a place that you knew was safe? It doesn't mean you're going to walk into the middle of a gang war.

And again, this is representing chance, not an unknown. It's risky to put your stuff down here, but it's not 'risky' to replace an old voice actor.

You say that as though Raynor's voice is going to be a persistent and constant factor in your life. It's just for the campaigns, and there's nothing to say you can't listen to the old character again. And if you found something you like more, why would you want to go back to having something you don't like as much?

And why shouldn't we accept the new voice actors? Why should we dismiss them before we've heard them? That's like walking out on a movie before they've even stopped showing the coming attractions.

Glynnis, yes. You'll probably assume I've simply got a bias, but I didn't find any of her characters to be particularly deep. Robert, no. That said, I hated Raynor in StarCraft1 and he didn't even portray the true character of Raynor correctly.

Yes, I've said they should have, though it doesn't add up. I don't see how they could have prohibit him from auditioning without physically obstructing the door.

...But it does show how they were unable to properly characterise their old characters correctly, and that they'd it'd only be detrimental to the game if they chose not to correct such mistakes. It also shows that it's not always good to have elements of the original character's voice in the new one.

Again, you're talking subjectively, which is what you'd wanted to avoid. The fact that it's a small character means it's not necessary for the original actor to return, especially if they want a change.

Hey, we're talking about the differences between complaining and giving a critical response, here, not about the subjectivity of a critical response. Of course there's going to be subjectivity. There's subjectivity in the two examples I provided as well.

Well that may be, but 'complain' is definitely a strongly implicit word.

That's not exactly how it works. The exact same thing could be said about you needing to disprove all of my points before saying we do have a right to complain. If I remember correctly, you only replied to a could of points, some of which still haven't been settled, and more have been raised.

 

Quite a back and forth we have going here lol. We should get paid for this.

 

You do. In minerals.

 

I'm not sure what exactly you took "their return" to mean? What, did you think we just wanted them to hang around Blizz HQ or something?

Yes, but in that post you are arguing against the outcry of the fans. You asked "so what is it you're actually complaining about?" - and I've listed all the things in bulletpoints.

I'm just saying that some people don't think that the decisions made behind selecting the stand-in VAs does anything for characterization.

What am I supposed to say here? I can easily find the direct quote in both of the links. Now I just think you're being difficult. And it's not an interview.

The voice actor could have easily lost the ridiculous accent - which he was forced by Blizzard to take up. No matter how well he speaks he will have the ridiculous accent if the developers have their way.

What are you saying? They'll go back and patch Wings of Liberty with the new voices when we're playing Heart of the Swarm and realize that the voices suck? I really doubt that.

Like what? Petitions don't work. Politely saying "we want the old voice actors back" clearly hasn't been working this whole time.

The desired direction sucks - that's what we don't like.

That's like saying we should avoid all discussion of StarCraft II because the game is in alpha. Why complain about gameplay mechanics? They're not final - you haven't seen anything yet. Why was there such an "irrational response" to the Infestor? The art isn't finished till the game ships right?

I'm not sure if I made this clear enough in my previous posts so I'll elaborate more on it. Nobody is saying that characterization is more important than nostalgia - we just disagree that the decisions behind selecting the new VAs/stand-ins doesn't reflect good characterization/judgement. For example, Raynor was given the hideous accent because he's supposed to be some character from Texas Ranger. Kerrigan/Queen in the voice acting is the same step down in voice acting as shown in the WoW examples (IMO). In addition, the Warcraft examples show that Blizzard is biased towards hiring new worse VAs in favor of the old voice actors, which is illogical. Just as illogical as the fact that they didn't let Clotworthy audition.

These are simply patterns that we're seeing and are worried about. It's no reflection of the quality of SC2's upcoming voice actors, but such decisions will hamper it nonetheless i.e. telling the Raynor stand-in to use the overblown accent. Why should we be optimistic given the stuff I highlighted in my bulletpoints? Why shouldn't we raise an outcry if the deadline for changing the VAs is fast approaching? And it's not like we're living in the past or anything, as I for example like Zeratul's voice and Raynor's in BC 07.

Given the trends I highlighted earlier, it is.

Because the same flavor of ice cream gets boring. Listening to the same Raynor voice for 10 years has also gotten boring, but that's why I was looking forward to the campaign - it's a chance for Clotworthy to expand on his Raynor character and read new lines.

Maybe they saw his application or something and rejected it. What matters is that they didn't let him audition.

Well, I'm speaking for the people that don't like his voice obviously, but since you're so much against the outcry of the fans you have to provide a reason why it's wrong to not like him.

Is it your original post you're referring to?
1) Has been settled.
2) Is pure opinion.
3) True, but they should have at least let Clotworthy audition. There's no logic in not letting him.
4) Is pure opinion.
5) Explained earlier in this post.

Complaining is the default position. It's what we all do on these forums on a daily basis. As I've said, a "critical response" to voice acting can not necessarily be given - we can just give our opinions. If you want to prevent what we do on these forums on a daily basis then you should be the one to find proof for why we're all mistaken and raising an alarm over nothing. Otherwise you can't really tell people that "this has gone too far".

The only thing that's "gone too far" is this entire thread (9 pages).

 

I've been monitoring this argument since it first started and i just have to ask you guys, how long are you going to keep this up? Really it's obvious that nothing will stop Aedus1160 from arguing. The rest of you are just being drawn into an argument that neither of you can win. Don't you have something better to do then to argue a point that have already argued to death. I can see what Auedus is seeing, I see what the rest of you are saying, move on now this is just pointless to argue anymore.

 

Who made you the arbiter of this debate? This debate is still perfectly valid, and I read it avidly.

 

I'm asking them to make peace, I'm not demanding they make peace. You are right I don't have that power, but that doesn't mean I can't ask. If it is against the rules to ask people to stop arguing on this forum then I sincerely apologize, if it isn't then I stand by what I said in asking for them to get along.

 

I have no clue what you're on about here. Their return means their return. As in, returning to do the voices in StarCraft2.

Again, to put it simply, not being against something doesn't mean you're for it.

Asking a question doesn't result in me only disagreeing with everyone else. Yes, I'm aware you've listed your points. That doesn't debunk what I last said.

Firstly, that's because they're stand ins. Secondly, the original Raynor didn't. Thirdly, it's subjective.

Then do you mind linking it instead of making me have to search for it? I just keep finding your original link. If I've asked for the original context, and you can find it so easily, why not link it?

And what do you mean it's not an interview? You said yourself:

In that case, your quarrel is with the placeholder, not Raynor himself, is it not? Also, subjective, and where’s your source saying they forced him?

No, I said if the voice actor really is that bad, they could change it for Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void.

That’s because it's about as relevant as complaining about the StarCraft1 alpha graphics before they'd been released. If people waited until they could make a valid judgement, then yes, voicing their opinions would be more effective.

Do you want to discuss subjectivity or do you not want to discuss it?

I honestly hope you can identify the differences between what's happened and this proposed situation.

Firstly, we know the things we're talking about in StarCraft2 that relates to gameplay mechanics and whatnot. If the reaction to the voices were to be applied to the discussion of gameplay, it’d be like Blizzard only telling us that the Queen’s got an new ability, and us all complaining about how it sucks.

As for the Infester, there's a massive difference between 'art' and design. Just because the art was not, and is not, finalised, it does not mean that the design wouldn't've been. As with the vast majority of all units in the game, their art is changing, their design is not. And again, we knew what we were talking about here.

The decisions behind selecting a new voice actor is based on characterisation. How can the decisions behind selecting a new voice reflect poor characterisation? The decisions behind it have next to nothing to to with the characterisation of the character. Poor judgement, perhaps, but we haven't actually seen anything that we can viably base that judgement off. Again, all we know is that he's fallen on hard times.

And if you think that developing Raynor's character so that he actually resembles what he's meant to resemble is a bad thing, then I don't know what to say.

I've already responded about the accent, and as for the voice in the trailer, subjective. I do find it funny however that no-one appeared to express much dislike of it at the time. The trailer itself was very well received. Everyone here loved it and the comments on YouTube show that people loved the voice.

I've responded to your WarCraft examples already. Either discuss it in full, regardless of the subjectivity, or don't keep bringing it up. Massive changes took place in all characters.

And again, I've already said that they should have let Raynor audition, and that it sounds fishy that he was 'not allowed' to.

A trend doesn't mean the new voice is terrible. Wait until you've heard it, otherwise your opinion holds no merit. You have to know what you're talking about before you can judge it.

There's no need to be optimistic about the change, and I never said there was. Again, it's just like the poll from earlier, just because you're not pessimistic it doesn't mean you're optimistic.

And should Blizzard be forbidden from having any new voices now, all because you don't like some of the changes in World of WarCraft?

And you're not necessarily living in the past, but you are refusing to move onwards.

So Blizzard replacing an actor means it will be bad? Again, should they be forbidden from making any changes ever again?

It's still the same voice you've been listening to for the past ten years that's gotten boring. Saying that listening to him read new lines will be fun and exciting is like saying chocolate ice cream has gotten boring over the years, so now you're looking forwards to having chocolate ice cream in a waffle cone. It's still the same thing. And just as it's a chance for Clotworthy to expand on the character, it's an equal chance for someone else to. It isn't Clotworthy's presence that expands the character.

The audition is the application for such a part. It's not like they could describe their range of voices and ability on a resume. Again, I'd like to see the original source before discussing this further as it doesn't seem to add up.

This is still what you, yourself, wanted to avoid. It's subjective. There is nothing objective to show that there's something wrong with the voice, just as there isn't anything objective to show that there isn't.

This why are you still bringing up that he didn't get an interview?

Not entirely. Firstly, they were both budget actors, and there's no denying that Kerrigan's voice was borderline robotic.

Yes. I know. I've agreed.

Questions are opinions now?

Ditto.

Complaining is by far the default position. The default position should be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and we have no true evidence of Raynor's new voice actor yet.

Giving opinions does not mean you're complaining. Going back to my essay and feedback examples, you're expressing your opinions. You are not complaining. And I don't want to prevent from doing what they do on these forums. I think I of almost everyone here would have the greatest understanding of that.

And yes, it's gone to far and is alarm over nothing. If you can't identify what's wrong with Raynor's new voice actor, which we haven't heard so can't identify its problems.

I don't see how having a lengthy discussion is 'going too far'. Seriously, people must have a phobia of discussions like this. I remember once someone asked for a long discussion to be moved to Space Junk, which made no sense on any level.

 

And 100% of the people voted for their return. So I have no clue what you're on about here. What else could you possibly take this to mean?

It seems that you're just grasping at straws, I think it's pretty obvious what the poll suggested. Either way, take it or leave it, there are many other places that show the majority want the old voice actors back and I'm no longer interested in arguing semantics.

No need to play games. You've made it clear that you're opposed to the outcry of the fans - I can find a more direct quote of you saying this if you'd like.

And again, if you admit that this is all subjective then you have no right to tell people that their opinions of the voice acting "has gone too far".

I've already explained twice in this thread - the blizzplanet link is down because they had a server move. You should email the webmaster if you want the original article.

Then I was wrong, it's not interview - just some info Blizzplanet managed to attain. Bare with me here, I was arguing with like 3 people at a time. At the very least you could have clicked on the links yourself.

No. It's not. As I've said before, the placeholder talked just fine in Blizzcon 07.

Uhm, people did complain about the sc1 alpha graphics. That's why we're not playing it with alpha graphics...

Again with the irrelevant analogies? I already explained that we're not complaining about the quality of the voice acting:

No, we do not. Blizzard has already said that that's not the case. They themselves said that we don't see the whole picture and that's why they have to filter our complaints. Furthermore, no amount of analyzing will give you a feel of how the metagame plays out - therefore any opinions that you may have of a current ability may end up being useless in real gameplay. Finding all these discrepancies is what beta is for.

 

So that's an excuse for him to adopt a new redneck accent? There's a limit to the amount that in-universe lore can be used to justify certain voice-acting decisions.

In other words, a new character, not the one we played in StarCraft. If this is how you feel, then fine. But again, that's no grounds to tell people that they are going too far.

No, people liked the BlizzCon '07 voice. And what comments on YouTube? These?

Again, if it's the bandwagon fallacy that you plan on using rest assured that I have more right to use it than you.

Discuss it in full? I'm talking about WoW, not War3. And it's irrelevant if they still keep some actors as the new habit is still there.

Then your and everyone else's opinion on SC2 art, gameplay and lore also holds no merit. Sorry, but you can't cherry pick what is or is not valid to argue about.

Dude, the poll only has two choices. There is no in-between. Either they come back and do the voices or they don't. No hanging around in Blizz HQ or whatever else you took "their return" to mean. I really cannot comprehend what else you think the poll implies.

The trends that I didn't like in World of Warcraft are present in the Jim Raynor & Zerg Reveal Trailer voices, not in all of the voices.

Onwards to a grim future for sc2 voice acting.

Why should someone else expand on his character? Only he knows how he originally voiced Jim Raynor, and he would know how to best expand him. But he didn't even get to audition.

That's right. But an audition is a performance. They probably rejected his application & didn't let him audition.

Same goes for all of StarCraft II. Let's just all greet Blizzard's decisions with joy. No sense in complaining. Innocent until proven guilty right? We haven't even played the game yet!

And again:

Obvious conclusion: the new voice actor will also have an overblown accent because some guy at Blizzard wants to stretch his creative muscles. Only difference between me & you is that it doesn't bother you. It clearly bothers many of the hardcore fans though, and telling people to leave it alone just because you disagree is ridiculous.

It's because we've stated our points multiple times and if we haven't made them by now then by god we'll never make them.

 

I think a few things need to be addressed here. First off the Beta isn't even out yet, there's plenty of opportunities to change just about anything when it goes into Beta, the majority (which ever they choose) will have the chance to voice their opinion in plenty of time to "save the game." I think a lot of the VA problems can be solved that way, because we all know that if there's enough of a stink about a voice they will hire someone else and change it. Voices are by far the easiest thing to replace and change, there's no programing involved, just a different person talking into a mic. Blizzard works long and hard to perfect their games, they won't leave it for road kill.

Pretty sure that's his point, now if the poll said vote for one of the following.
- A new voice actor showing lots of talent and a good grasp on the character we wish to portray.
-The previous actor that portrayed Jim Raynor from Starcraft.
The poll would come out much different, not that I could predict the outcome but it certainly wouldn't be 100% to 0%.

Exactly, and on this subject not only do we not see the whole picture we barley see a portion. Seeing as such all the fuss anyone is raising right now is just lost in the wind.

That's one way of looking at it...

In a poll asking if your favorite color is red or blue which would you chose? What if your favorite color is purple? That poll is just a biased question in the form where everyone would answer the exact same way because of the limited responses allowed.

Blizzard would know best how to expand him, a voice actor is nothing without direction. He doesn't study his character and come back with a bunch of ideas to present to Blizzard. They tell him what to do and he does it.

Exactly the point, Beta hasn't even come out yet. You're screaming at an unfinished blueprint, why not wait till there is a working model (not the finished product) to pass judgment?

Except we've seen the art, gameplay and lore... We cannot say the same for the voices. A stand in alone doesn't hold enough weight to base a habit, trend, or overall decline in talent.

 

Proper voice acting can take weeks. These guys aren't just reading lines into the mic - they redo certain lines many times.

There are only 2 choices in real life and in the poll - either they do it or they don't. Your first choice would fall into "no" - the fact that Blizzard might have better actors than the ones we've seen is obvious & goes without saying, as a result it gets bundled into that choice, which is why a 3rd option wasn't added or another one was reworded. But 100% of the people voted yes.

I can see why you might label the poll as specious, especially since 57/57 people voted for one option. But I really don't think that it's because the poll is specious or biased.

Like they did with the hideous (IMO) WoW examples?

Because by then it will be too late. People that complain about gameplay have the luxury to wait until beta where they can unravel the metagame.

Now if you want to convince me that it won't be too late, that's something I'd love to be convinced of.

Says who? And I've offered up plenty more evidence than just people's opinion of a stand-in. Give me more credit than that.

 

I was not entirely addressing the discussion. I was addressing your handling of it. Throughout the entire thing, you've been stating opinions as facts. Four people have already commented on this that I've seen so far so it's not just me. For verification, that's two in this topic, one on my profile page, and then me. So, by no means am I the only one nor by any means does this observation come from bias.

I didn't want to get in this with you because it never goes anywhere. But, it's too late now.

Only on certain minor things like the Dark Templar models. Of course, there are a few major things that they take into consideration when the out cry from the fan base is large enough (like the so called WarCraft-y look) and, sure, the old Blizzard listened to their fans (because they had too). But, now, they know that they know what's best so they stick to what they do. Other than the beta, I don't see them ever really taking into consideration the opinions of the minority when it's based on preconceieved notions and fear of change. If they did this then StarCraft 2, Diablo 3, and all future Blizzard games would be complete trash compared to what they could be.

That's the thing. 99% of things discussed here and the opinions shown Blizzard should take with a grain of salt (WARNING: Hyperbolized made up percentage). That's including the posts that come from the best of us and that includes me.

No, you're also here to tell us things like "you can't relate to the character", "there's no denying this", and how we should look at a situation. These are opinions; not facts. They are completely subjective but you treat them as if they were some scientific fact or mathematical statements. And, it was this that I was commenting on.

Here's an interesting quote:

If I am trolling you then why is it that I haven't once been labeled as a troll by anyone that didn't already have it out for me? You've actually been labeled as a troll. The truth is that I just got some more rep for this topic

You've been doing this since day one anyway. There would be no difference if you "started" doing this. But, either way, this is MY TOPIC so I am not "budging" in on anything. If anything, you are. But, I opened this topic for discussion and I'm going to keep it that way. Also, this is an open forum. There is no "budging" into a conversation when it is public.

No. That was Joneagle_X who probably only read one of the later short posts and was done with the whole thing. That's doesn't count. The other people knew very clearly what I was arguing for because they posted so in the topic, in my visitor page, and paraphrased exactly what it was I was saying.

*points to above quote by TychusFindlay*

I get rep all the time for posting information. Believe what you want to though. That seems to be what you've been doing all along.

So that's what you meant? Well then all I've got to say is this; Jim Raynor's change will be explained in StarCraft 2. Therefore, there's nothing for you to complain about that I can see. If what you say is true then you must know that you haven't even been introduced to the "new" character. Furthermore, Jim Raynor does exist as how we "do not know him". The lore of the universe is not limited to what you know. That's like saying the lore for Halo 3 doesn't exist because you haven't played it. It makes no sense. The Jim Raynor that is being extrapolated on in StarCraft 2 was in the hidden missions on the original discs so your point is moot either way. Jim Raynor is the same that he has always been. It's just that some of the missions that portrayed him in such a way were deleted to make each campaign a round ten missions (rumored). The Jim Raynor you thought you knew is damn close to a lie.

You type the words. I just quote them. You wouldn't have used words like "there's no denying this" and "No one can relate" if you were only talking about yourself. Clearly, these statements include more than just yourself.

No. Everyone who has said something about your post has agreed with me. So far, that's four people. And, as it turns out, that's all of the posters that have posted on the subject thus far. So, that's 100% in our favor.

I was given rep, congratulated, given "Thank You!"'s, and you were labeled a troll from there on. I don't see how that "made me look like a fool". I'll throw you a bone here. Let's just say I was wrong about everything I said and you were completely right in all of your points. I still didn't look like a fool because everyone was on my side regardless. So, even if I was wrong, I did not look like a fool. Quite the opposite.

That's not what the discussion was about, obviously, and you know that. ItzaHexGor is clearly on the same level I am so it's not like I'm way off base here. I'll even post a quote:

Basically, what you're saying is that StarCraft 2's voice changes are, by default, bad simply because they are different. Yet, you have no problem with WarCraft 3's voices which had the exact same thing happen. I know you've already said you haven't played WarCraft 2 but that doesn't matter. Being against changes in one game when you aren't in other is a double standard. Now, let's turn the tables around. What if you hadn't played StarCraft but had played WarCraft 3. Would you be against the voice changes in StarCraft 2 even though they might be widely regarded as better? I doubt it. Anyways, that's what happened with WarCraft 2 > WarCraft 3 but you didn't have a problem with that. That's where the double standard comes from.

And, don't come at me with your World Of WarCraft comparisons against because I actually like the new voices better. Illidan's in particular. The original voice actor's voice was annoying, in my opinion, even though the actual quality of his acting was great. Either way, my point stands. What you have is a double standard - there's no denying this

I gave you Wikipedia articles, SCLegacy links, and probably more. You didn't accept them so I mentioned that it might be in a BlizzCast. That's it. I'm shocked that the BlizzCast mentioning is all that you remember.

Classic. Absolutely classic.

I know, right He's been stalking me for months now trying to do the same to me

But, to get back on-topic, Aedu1160, where in your links does it say "Blizzard said". Give me the exact quote. Until then what you are saying is unproven and no better than what you accuse me of doing in the past.

As of right now, I haven't followed anything else in the conversation because, quite frankly, I don't care and I've got other interests at the moment. Plus, I've already been contacted by a few people saying that I need to calm down. They said that they agree with me and have told me that they don't think you're worth the time I have given you so I am satisfied. I've been given rep and told that I am not in the wrong. So, I'm done with you. I didn't realize it before but now that I've re-read some of my past posts I really was treading dangerously. It's so easy to get wrapped up in countering your obviously wrong statements that sometimes I forget what I'm actually saying. It's actually quite uncharacteristic of me.

 

That's only true for the example where I said "this cannot be denied", and that's because I thought people would be able to extract the true meaning. Other than that I've been speaking for the people who want the old voice actors back, and when I state my opinions it's fine to use them in that context.

Bandwagon is not a valid debate tactic.

That's not what my stance is; see previous posts.

Great. Then there's no room for people to say that we're overreacting to this situation.

Right, that was after you changed your position. It's not what you were originally saying, as I proved here.

Well this is amusing. Apparently you're only labeled as a troll by people that have it out for you. Since it's inconceivable that it might be their honest opinion.

By who? I'm sure they didn't understand my original stance, or yours.

No, I haven't.

Budging into a conversation means going into it and attacking somebody while not understanding their actual stance.

Oh yeah, they knew what you were talking about in that NEW thread after you had already switched your stance to the correct one.

*points to place where I proved otherwise.

There's a limit to the amount that in-universe lore can be used to justify certain voice-acting decisions, such as the ridiculous accent & new voice. You think the Jim Raynor from StarCraft was a lie? Furthermore, that's all irrelevant, since the change in his character is not what I'm complaining about.

Because I'm the only one arguing for my stance. This wouldn't be the case if we were on any other forum. Again, bandwagon is not a valid debate tactic. sorry.

I'd rather not get any rep and be right than get rep under the false-pretenses of adopting a position that was not my own. In the end it's all about being right.

Nope.

The new Blizzard habit of dropping their old talented VAs in favor of worse ones (IMO) wasn't present in War3.

The voices won't be regarded as better according to current trends.

I could care less. The fact is that many people don't, and we're seeing the same kind of downgrade there as we are now in some of SC2's voice acting decisions.

You gave links to things which affirmed MY position, not yours. In fact, you misread the wikipedia link - you thought it was referring to ALL SC & BW units, that's why you were so hasty to attack me.

This makes absolutely no sense. Blizzard will not say it. The whole point of this update is that the fans had to find this out for themselves instead of hearing it from Blizzard.

After you changed your stance to the correct one (mine), you weren't wrong.

Me too. In fact, a moderator sent the same exact message to me as he did to you. The difference is that I'm too good to actually try to use this as leverage in a debate.

That's becoming exceedingly obvious.

 

Ahh, ok. You know, I think you can disagree, and still get along? Not many people seem to be familiar with the concept, however...

 

No. The Jim Raynor you think you know isn't necessarily the same Jim Raynor from StarCraft.

I'm not talking about your stance, damnit. How many times do I have to tell you? I was talking about your handling of your stance and your misunderstanding of opinion and fact.

Again, this is an opinion. You keep using your opinion as leverage for your stance as if it was fact. You keep saying "Blizzard sucks at voice acting now so anything they chose will be terrible". I disagree with you there so your point is moot by default but mine still stands. You have a double standard.

And, for clarification, I wasn't using bandwagon appeal. You were saying that I was the only one misunderstanding what you said when clearly that's not the truth since four people have gotten the same thing out of your post as I have.

This is an O P I N I O N. You just keep demonstrating further what I've been saying. You confuse fact and opinion.

Once you take away a few instances of World Of WarCraft voice acting being "worse" (I actually think they're better) then all that is left is you being opposed to a change in voice acting in one series but being all for it in another.

So, it's not backed up by anything tangible? Great source you got there.

I didn't say a single thing about a moderator. I'm talking about POSTERS here. You're confusing the PM conversation with this one. I didn't say a thing about ItzaHexGor.

===

If I had changed my stance there would be evidence everywhere and you would have capitalized on it by providing quotes... yet you haven't.

Then, tell me why I never once said that all units would be in the editor. None of your interpretations are backed up by anything I actually said. Again, you would have been more than happy to give quotes if there were any. This problem comes from your misinterpretation which I've been trying to correct since then, but, to no avail.

How would it be their honest opinion when they admitted to not even knowing what the debate was about? They even said they didn't read a single post. Therefore, they're opinion is invalid. That's ignoring their past actions. That would be like you coming into another conversation and saying "I haven't read what TychusFindlay said but regardless of the content of his post he is a wrong and is trolling".

 

For the millionth time, not being opposed to their return does not mean you're opposed to change. Just because everyone is in favour it doesn't mean they're opposed to change.

It's not semantics, the poll is specious. Superficially plausible but actually fallacious.

Dude, so what? I could get a quote about you being opposed to the change. What on Earth does it prove? This sheds no light onto what I originally said about those arguments being idle speculation. If you're still going down the first-to-disagree line, then it's the fans who first disagreed with Blizzard.

It has not gone too far because of subjectivity, it has gone too far being of the irrationality. We haven't even heard the new voices and people are saying they're horrible. That is what has gone to far.

Well if you can't locate your source, it's really not valid. I don't see why I should go around validating your sources. That's like quoting something that's not cited from Wikipedia and expecting whoever you're talking to to find out that it's true.

I did. None of them had the original context of the quote.

And that means that this is the finalised Raynor, why? He's got the same accent in both anyway.

Read, dude. Before they'd been released. People complaining now are like people complaining before they'd seen the screenshots.

Firstly, that's not an analogy. Secondly, I've already replied to that. We're going in circles.

Well if you're saying that we shouldn't complain until we've used the mechanics, then it could be equally said that you shouldn't complain until you've finished the campaigns. Otherwise no amount of analysing will see how well the voice works in the context of the story.

On top of that, there's still the art side to the discussion. We don't complain until we've seen it.

No, it's a reason to reserve judgement until we know what we're talking about and have heard the final voice actors.

No, a refined character. And yes, it's gone to far because people don't even know what they're objecting to.

Nice change of context there. You do realise that we were talking about the Zerg Reveal trailer, don't you? And I guess that while you were at it you overlooked this:

"They can't bring back the same VA, but Blizzard has been made aware that the majority of fans don't like the southern accent. This video is almost two years old, there've been a lot of changes since then."

No, it's not. I'm saying that not only are there people who love the voice just as much as others hate it, but that the main outcries against even the voices we'd already heard have been since we've been physically told about the change.

You were talking about World of WarCraft in relation to WarCraft3 and dismissed it as being subjective, even saying "End of story". Either talk about it or don't.

That's not the case. We see art, we watch the mechanics, we listen to battle reports, hear personal accounts of people who've played, etc, etc. It is not an unknown. With mechanics, sure, we might not have played with them, but we can still make a judgement on them, just like you're able to judge how much you'd enjoy a sport after only watching it. That's not the case for the voices.

Exactly, there are only two options, making it a highly specious poll. Only people have to hate all the original voices to vote 'no', ensuring a large 'support' for the original actors, where there's nothing to say that they're opposed to a change. Just because they're in favour of having the original actors it doesn't mean they're opposed to a change. It's just like the pessimism example. Just because you're not pessimistic it doesn't mean you're optimistic. You can't simply have two options while lumping all actors together.

It's specious.

You still haven't heard the actual voices, so that doesn't answer the quesion.

If I didn't know better I'd say you're just trolling now. Again, this is going against both the thing you said, yourself, that you did not want to discuss. Subjectivity and idle speculation.

Because it's not his character. It's Blizzard's character. If it was his character, then it'd be he who would have to approve and or write all those books involving Raynor, etc, etc. It's Blizzard's character, so they should be the ones expanding on his character. The Grom example works perfectly here.

And seriously, stop bringing up the fact that he didn't get to audition. It's been settled countless times. If you're continuously going to bring it up like this as supposed 'evidence' when it was already settled in my original post, and while you're unable to back up that one quote of yours, then you're simply trolling.

How about finding your original source and finding out instead of proposing more idle speculation?

Not playing the game does not mean we do not know about it. I've said this before, too. And again, not greeting it with hatred does not mean you have to great it with joy.

I've already replied to that. Complain is a highly implicit word, almost so implicit that its technical definition no longer holds.

Again, when you were scouring for YouTube comments you obviously overlooked any that didn't apply. Read the one I posted earlier. And again, just because I'm not against the change doesn't mean I'm not a hardcore fan, just as being against the change doesn't mean you are. A lot of people may not like it, but a lot of people do.

Well, and I don't mean to point fingers here, but you are the one who's raising issues that have already been dropped and settled, and also raising aspects that you've said you do not want to discuss. You can't accept that not being one thing doesn't mean you're the opposite, and are complaining about a completely unknown factor, which is very dissimilar to simply having not played the game. As I said, you should reserve your judgement until you've heard what you're saying is terrible. If all fans did that, their response would be a heck of a lot stronger and carry more meaning than it does now.