Printable View
But on the other side of the balance scale, everything else of the Stalker is mechanical. So, why not the head as well? It's a coin toss between those two. Difference between us is which side we've opted to go with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Because the head doesnt look mechanical. The rest of the stalkers shell is clearly mechanical but the head is obviously not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
I fully agree with you, but I made that post as n00bonicPlague and ArcherofAiur do not accept that line of reasoning. Therefore, my only choice was to state something that would make sense. I think the Stalker looks awesome. People are too stuck in functionality. If I wanted that, I'd look at modern technology (which I do).Quote:
Originally Posted by newcomplex
An optimal siege tank would be as flat as possible, for less targeting surface (M-1 Abrams), mechs are nonviable and therefore should not be built, and Terrans should just nuke everyone with hyperspace-based Apocalypse missiles. Anyhow, while no one would really seriously argue that for that, I'm glad Blizzard artists use imagination and artistic flare.
But alas, because this is the Lore section, we can argue anything we want. Therefore, my reasoning still stands on the protruding head, mobility, and shields. :p
This goes back to the rule of cool. It not what makes the most realistic sense. Its whats coolest. Realism can play a part in that but Blizzard isnt really in the buisness of making lifelike battle simulations. They are not going to make the stalker head a prop because of worries over head shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kacaier
Its like questioning why high templars go into battle with so little protective armour. Because its cooler that way. They are supposed to evoke lightly clad battle mages. Similarly stalkers are supposed to evoke cybernetic ninjas. The head has been infused into a machine to augment the dark templars powers.
Thats kind of the thing about fantasy and science fiction. The science/lore/explaination is supposed to make the cool stuff more believable. Not the other way around.
Its
"oh this helmetless zealot is cool! Lets come up with a reason he doesnt have a helmet."
Not
"hmmm it makes the most sense for zealots to have helmets to protect them. Lets give them helmets."
Like I said, difference in what's being stressed. For you, it's 'His body is mechanical but his head isn't because it looks somewhat real'. I use somewhat real due to the stylized nature of Blizzard's design. For me, it's 'His head a tad bit real but it's probably mechanical since he's a machine'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
What do you mean tad bit real?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
Do you agree that his head by all visual standards looks like flesh?
Do you agree that scratching is something done for a real head and not a mechanical head?
No. Because there isn't enough detail on it, it's stylized CGI and there are minor, though explainable, difference with its anatomy compared to a normal Protoss head such as the lack of a double crest at the back, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Do you agree that there is actually a goldfish swimming inside the Immortal?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
You can see the crest behind the front plate. It connects with the first major metal ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
XSOLDIERX posted the concept art which showed by all means a very real looking head.
If you're talking about this one, it seems very metallic to me (meaning it is plated with a helmet at the very least).
I'm talking lore-wise. If that's a yes again, I don't know what else to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur