And right off the bat we get this:
In the case of questions about the plot or character motivations in Wings of Liberty, my answers are based entirely on clues, subtext, and events in the game, so these answers can be deduced directly from the source. In a few cases, the clues are there, but we were probably too obscure in the way we layered them in.
"Hey, it's not our fault you guys weren't clever enough
to deduce our brilliant hidden subtext in the scene where Valerian allows Raynor to murder the crew of a battlecruiser so that he can talk to him, rather than, say, opening communications."
Okay, so that was my first impression from the series of articles, and I had a good number of issues with the things that this fellow said, and the way that he said them. I don't have time to specifically say which right now, though. But at the same time, this does
actually give me hope about HotS. A lot of this Q and A thing involves acknowledging that a LOT of things went wrong in the narrative of WoL. Some of the answers miss the point, but overall I feel like this:
So, did we make mistakes? You bet. Did the story suffer in some ways? Yes. Do I regret it? No. I think we have learned from those mistakes, and our storytelling has grown stronger as a result.
Is a good sign that maybe
the story of HotS will be slightly less terrible than WoL? Can't be much worse, I suppose.