What makes StarCraft, StarCraft?

[Undeadprotoss]

So I saw that Nissa and Gna were putting forth the noble effort of bridging the gap between Brood War and a hypothetical Starcraft 2 under a different storyline. It got me thinking though; I think in order for fan-lead efforts to succeed, fans have to be able to clearly articulate a deep understanding of the StarCraft universe. What makes it tick, what are the fundamental themes that pervade all "good" StarCraft fiction, and what are the traps that developers have currently falled into?

For the first two questions, I'll posit this:

Moral ambiguity: Unlike in WarCraft, Overwatch, and other related Blizzard IP, Brood War, and to a lesser extent, StarCraft 1, tend to have morally ambigious characters like Aldaris
Political commentary: Even if subtle, the most compelling fiction from the original StarCraft manual revovled around the collapse of western fiction, and the political struggles between the Terrans.
Viewpoint Variety: As Nissa once pointed out, "more opinions = better storytelling, to a point". One of the largest problems with SC2 now is that you have a profound lack of faction conflict. The Zerg is completely unifed under Zagara, as are the Protoss under the Daaleam (save for the Tal'Darim). If StarCraft is to have depth, a greater variety of factions, individuals, etc with varying perspectives help sell ambiguity.
Naturalistc: I can't remember for my life who first brought up this point, but I think it's spot on. StarCraft is meant to realistic, the cultures, ideologies, etc are meant to imitate real life, to a point. The careful detail put fourth in the original manual to bridge the gap between modern day earth and the alternate future that is StarCraft is part of what really makes the series compelling. I'll eloborate more on this point later.
Etc...


I think fleshing out what makes StarCraft StarCraft will not only be a valuable effort for current and future efforts to create quality community-driven story, BUT may also allow us to better articulate to the StarCraft community what Blizzard must do for the rest of SC2's efforts, Starcraft 3, a potential reboot, etc.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Themes, aesthetics, and the world.

Here are my thoughts:

Aesthetic design: Gritty Terrans
--------------------------------------

The ultra sci-fi, shiny, sleek, future depicted in SC2 is on the opposite side of what the future might look like from 1990's fiction. SC1 is in the realm of Mad Max, Captain Power and the Soldiers of the future, while the current one is on the side of Spiral Zone.

Captain Power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M678PVOf5F0
Spiral Zone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO2Cd9tyUvY

Although the Bio-dread Empire resembles that of Dark Reign the Future of War's Imperium faction, please consider the theme present in the Soldiers of the future, and the world. Mix that with Mad Max themes, and you get the feel.

Consider the angled shapes, exposed panels, grit, and wear.

Why is this important?
---------------------------

A picture paints a thousand words. What we are presented as the environment, visually, naturally carries with it the psychology of the individuals living in it. Therefore, a people living in a gritty, post-apocalyptic, scrap-ridden world will tell us something almost immediately.

Their gurus and wise men will be living in deserts, with small vineyards inside their tents. Tents made up of scraps and rusted metals. The harsh environment will make people either hard, or fantastical in their thinking. Fanatics would be common, hardened soldiers, resourcefulness, independence. Others will try to achieve self-sufficiency, while others will steal, kill, and destroy.

The synergy between the visual themes of the environment and characters is sinful when broken. So much so, that when a character in such a world would be living in an environment with a design theme similar to what we currently have in SC2's Terrans, they would definitely look detached, and perhaps, if we are brought into the story through the eyes of someone living in the gritty world, we'd definitely see them as villainous.

Example, if the Terrans would have remained gritty, the arrival of a slick, clean, polished, curvy UED will scream conflict and awe.


Theme: Barely Surviving (Terrans)
-----------------------------------------

It's like living in a third-world country. It's you against the environment, your needs, and everyone else. Yes, that includes the government.

With an environment so poor, underutilized, untapped, combined with the natural tendency of man to give himself comfort, luxury, and ease of living, and where resources are not enough to tap said resources without essentially killing millions, you'll get a government ruled by self-serving individuals, and idealists.

The realists will be caught in the middle, trying to survive themselves, keeping away from both the extremes.

We were shown, in SC1, how the terrans are a small, poor, barely able faction. They are in essence a small colony trying to get by, stranded in a foreign world. A bunch of people ship wrecked in a chain of worlds, barely surviving, growing in number without proper direction, order, or infrastructure. Outcasts setting up tents, fighting among themselves.

This is especially amplified by Tassadar's comments about the terrans. The contrast is simple: a super capable faction finds a crude, shambling one, barely standing, but dignified in its resolve to live.

[Turalyon]

Simply put, Starcraft's about how the three unique sides relate to themselves and each other. The ambiguity (which is really just an illusion of complexity) is due to how the 1st game doesn't feel overly biased toward a certain character or side (like how Sc2 is) and allows one to form their own opinions.

To borrow an idea from Tolkien, Starcraft 1 focuses more on applicability (encourages the audience to interpret what they see) whilst Starcraft 2 focuses more on allegory (encourages the audience to interpret it one way - the authors interpretation).

[Nissa]

I think the major difference between the two Starcrafts is the feel of it. I'm not terribly certain how to put this into words, but I'll try.

The nineties (and probably the eighties too, but I only really remember the nineties) were a "grungy" time. There were lots of cold, harsh science fictions, and it was a time when you could get away with a mild level of politically incorrect things. No "micro-aggression" or any of that. Our technology was good enough, in video games and films, to create new things, but not too strong to the point now where we can create anything, and thus aren't forced into styles by limitations.

In other words, the increase in technology has had a negative affect on style. I even knew it was going to happen as a kid. I clearly remember staring in horror at a video rental store display of Star Fox 64 and being horrified at the thought of graphics ruining video games.

I was right along!

Anyway, Star Fox is a great example. Star Fox SNES, the original, had blocky, sterile graphics with limited colors. It had no real voice acting, so the player spent the whole game feeling alone in a strange world of unexplained weirdness. Come Star Fox 64, which, while still a great game, felt crowded and noisy by comparison. And that trend continued, with various games in various series. Instead of trying to be meaningful, games (and movies) tried their hardest to be "cool" and "epic."

But honestly, what I want is void. A lack of people trying too hard. A lack of monologue-heavy storytelling, having to explain everything to the last little detail. Having story gaps is essential in video game storytelling, so that players can have theories. It keeps the fanbase engaged. Also, I like art that is weird for weird's sake, not trying to be "realistic" just because it can. I want things to make less sense, and that's much harder to do now that we can do anything we want with graphics.

For Starcraft specifically, what drew me in was the tension. Everything was tense. Humans surviving in a dangerous land, the Confederates turning out bad, Mengsk turning out bad, the Zerg, Protoss invasion, Kerrigan turning out bad, factional issues with the Protoss...everything just went up, and no tension came down until Tassadar destroyed the Overmind. Only for Brood War to come around and run everything up again. In BW, everyone finally, finally realizes that they need to shut up and fight the Zerg, only for the hybrids to show up out of nowhere.

I acknowledge and respect the trouble Blizzard had trying to put a sequel on that.

What's more, I like how SC glorified rednecks. Rednecks get a bad rap these days, and speaking as one who knows plenty of 'em, they're way more fascinating than the stereotypes would have you believe.

Likewise, with the Protoss, they were a complex, fascinating species with their own rich culture. I like that they were nothing really like us. I also used to love their art. I especially love how Blizzard used to portray them as different colored: brown, blue, purple, green, tan...they could be anything, and it was alright, because they're an alien species and they don't have to look like us, or like clones of each other. Protoss were originally designed as beautiful scifi beings, designed uniquely because someone back in the day liked drawing cool looking aliens. Nowadays, modern Blizz employees almost seem pissed off at whoever originally designed them, because they've all become grey-ish and ugly. Because modern technology takes so much work to be all hi-def and whatnot, they stick with boring, easier to design looks.

In other words, I want Starcraft to be created by people who love it, not simply people who want to make money off of it.


TLDR:
- Less explaining
- More artsy-art
- More tension
- Bring back old 'Toss
- Love Starcraft again.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

Pretty much everything the last two people said.

secondly with Protoss I liked all the weird psuedo-egyptian designs and the weird rod, spoon and obelisk type shapes that made up their buildings.

now every thing is over-armored asgardian looking crap.