Tassadar's Voice...

@pure.wasted:
Don't you just sometimes think that all those wiki stuff may be crap and not represent the facts more than not?

I mean seriously, I'm amazed how everyone becomes an export on something by reading a wiki that some asshole may have written it.

I'm not saying its wrong all the time or there aren't great articles there, but come on...

Base your arguments on your knowledge, not on what a wiki says.

But what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense or logic at all.

Wiki? TVTropes? Hahaha. Quoting TVTropes is something of an in-joke (meta in-joke?)... I happen to know there's a lot of posters here who frequent it, so I never pass up an opportunity to have an easy laugh. It's not really an encyclopedia, and if it is, it certainly isn't an encyclopedia of facts.

Having said that, if you actually checked out the article, you'd understand what I'm talking about. It's not "proof" and it isn't "evidence," it's just a commonly accepted truth. Portraying things "realistically" in fiction doesn't mean that viewers/readers will PERCEIVE those things to be realistic. Which may or may not have something to do with how the Protoss's appearance has been standardized.

In any event, the second paragraph offers an alternate argument that shouldn't be too complicated to follow. People don't like change. A non-standardized appearance for Protoss would necessitate change, every single time a new Protoss was introduced. Fandumb outcry would ensue.

It's not a question of making it realistic, it's a question of "getting it right" and retaining the essence of things. Which is a much more slippery and elusive target to hit, but the misses are very obvious. There was no outcry about say, the Zealot or High Templar portraits in SC 2 when they were first unveiled, though they were both markedly different from the Protoss we've seen in the original StarCraft (no Protoss appearing ingame in StarCraft or Brood War had such heavy facial ornamentaion or such a thin and elongated facial structure). And it's not "fandumb", of course there would always people who'd mutter and complain, but if there's a significant and unanimous outcry then somehow, somewhere the Blizzard artists missed the mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eligor

There was no outcry about say, the Zealot or High Templar portraits in SC 2 when they were first unveiled, though they were both markedly different from the Protoss we've seen in the original StarCraft (no Protoss appearing ingame in StarCraft or Brood War had such heavy facial ornamentaion or such a thin and elongated facial structure).

---

You don't remember the "no Egypt in my Protoss pls" comments? It wasn't as big a deal as the teleportation fiasco, but it did happen!

edit: this is all semantics. I agree that Tassadar's return was underwhelming to the max. Which isn't to say I wanted him to arrive in the nick of time as some suggested earlier in the thread. Perhaps it's to say that I didn't want him to arrive at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pure.Wasted

Perhaps it's to say that I didn't want him to arrive at all.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pure.Wasted

It's a well known fact that reality is unrealistic. It may very well be realistic for the Protoss to have skull shapes that are as different as Aldaris's and Tassadar's were from Fenix's and Artanis's (heck, maybe the differences in human skulls just happened to be miniscule, compared to other life forms in the universe)... but that doesn't mean that it's in the best interests of a science fiction work to pursue that. If the bounds of what does and does not look Protoss are not as firmly established as they have been going into WOL, it's a given that over the years we're going to get a lot of art that will push those boundaries and make us, ESPECIALLY us, with our rose-colored glasses and all, wince and say "What are you doing Blizzard?! You totally ruined the Protoss! They never looked like (mushrooms/goats/light fixtures/Arnold Schwarzenegger/wimps/whatever) before!"

The thing is SC1 doesn't present a single perfect answer to what looks Protoss. Back then we accepted it all on faith, each new image was a lesson that Protoss can indeed look like this, even though it's different from all the other ones we've seen before. SC2 does not have the buffer of being that first entry in a new franchise... we're not going to be that lenient. If Blizz came in and told us "oh and by the way Protoss can also look like this" and "this" was different for every new Protoss they introduced, I'm willing to bet the outcry would be a hundred times louder than what we had over the teleportation-upon-death crisis.

---

If you are making a work based on previous one, you better have a good reason of why the heck you modify something so obviously stablished.

If you're a writer and fail to understand that breaking your own stablished rules breaks the suspension of disbelief, and it's shocking to the reader, you are either a bad writer, or simply don't care about your work.