Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: Creative Development Q&A 6

  1. #41

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawki View Post
    Um, how? Unless there's an in-universe definition of what counts as a deity, we're left to our own observations. So, going by some hallmarkers, the xel'naga aren't omnibenevolent, because they put their own needs above others. They're not omnipresent, because they have a distinct point of origin. They're not omnipotent, because the zerg were able to wipe most of them out. They're not omniscient, because they were again caught unaware by the zerg.
    Neither is the Judeo-Christian god. What "hallmarkers" are you basing your qualifications of a deity on?

  2. #42
    Sheliek's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,215

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Pr0nogo View Post
    Neither is the Judeo-Christian god. What "hallmarkers" are you basing your qualifications of a deity on?
    While you're right about omnibenevolence, everything else is spot on.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Hallmarkers that could pretty much apply to any deity. If I think of a deity, the result of a real-world culture or a work of fiction, I expect them to have at least some of the traits described, or, if not depicted directly, mainstream belief in the setting that they have them.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspelli View Post
    While you're right about omnibenevolence, everything else is spot on.
    It's really up to interpretation.

    If the Judeo-Christian god is omnibenevolent, he would have not allowed Satan to fool Eve - unless he isn't omnipotent (couldn't stop it) or he isn't omniscient (didn't know about it).

    If the Judeo-Christian god is omnipotent, he would have been able to stop Satan from fooling Eve - unless he isn't omnibenevolent (didn't want to stop it) or he isn't omniscient (didn't know about it).

    If the Judeo-Christian god is omniscient, he would have known that Satan was fooling Eve, and would have stopped it from happening - unless he isn't omnibenevolent (didn't want to stop it despite knowing about it) or he isn't omnipotent (couldn't stop it despite knowing about it).

    In short, the Judeo-Christian god can't be all three of the above. It'd be a paradox.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawki View Post
    Hallmarkers that could pretty much apply to any deity. If I think of a deity, the result of a real-world culture or a work of fiction, I expect them to have at least some of the traits described, or, if not depicted directly, mainstream belief in the setting that they have them.
    There are better examples of things being godlike in mythology.

  5. #45
    Sheliek's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,215

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Pr0nogo View Post
    It's really up to interpretation.

    If the Judeo-Christian god is omnibenevolent, he would have not allowed Satan to fool Eve - unless he isn't omnipotent (couldn't stop it) or he isn't omniscient (didn't know about it).

    If the Judeo-Christian god is omnipotent, he would have been able to stop Satan from fooling Eve - unless he isn't omnibenevolent (didn't want to stop it) or he isn't omniscient (didn't know about it).

    If the Judeo-Christian god is omniscient, he would have known that Satan was fooling Eve, and would have stopped it from happening - unless he isn't omnibenevolent (didn't want to stop it despite knowing about it) or he isn't omnipotent (couldn't stop it despite knowing about it).

    In short, the Judeo-Christian god can't be all three of the above. It'd be a paradox.



    There are better examples of things being godlike in mythology.
    Hence why I said you were right on the omnibenevolence. The Desert God is clearly not benevolent, though I wouldn't go so far as to say malevolent, either.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Becoming dangerously close to religious debate, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pr0nog0
    There are better examples of things being godlike in mythology.
    Fair enough. But thinking of every deity set, from Zeus to Bonami, I can't apply those examples to the xel'naga and say they're the same. I'd sooner invoke Clarke's Third Law than 'godhood.'

    I think most of us would, really. If aliens descended from the sky tomorrow with abilities beyond our comprehension, I think most of us would call them "aliens" rather than "gods." But again, OT.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    In the realm of science fiction (where this should stay), aliens being regarded as Gods comes down to a question of semantics (unless you believe that the two are the same).

    In real life, it comes down to the individual. Some may claim gods, most would claim aliens, some wouldn't know what to think because their religion denies aliens. :/

  8. #48

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    If those people are sick of having their beliefs laughed at, they ought to get better beliefs.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawki View Post
    Um, how? Unless there's an in-universe definition of what counts as a deity, we're left to our own observations...

    I know the defintion of what counts as a god varies, but the points you raise could be applied to any hyper-advanced race...
    My initial statement wasn't really about going into semantics as much as you have. The Xel'Naga are now represented as/ having the feeling of "living gods" inasmuch as that they have a disproportionate amount of power and knowledge compared to everyone else and have this supernatural quality to them that is much more pronounced than what it initially was. Calling them hyper-advanced aliens doesn't really change the fact that they have shown god-like properties. It's like 'magic' - knowing/understanding the real secret about magic (which you'd then define as 'advanced technology' based on your rationale) doesn't necessarily make it less magical in nature.

    Besides, as Pr0nogo has pointed out, all those omni- qualities you've mentioned that qualify something as being a "god" amount to nothing more than paradoxes anyway, which would mean that that specific definition of 'god' cannot really exist. For example, the Xel'Naga not knowing that they'd be killed by the Zerg does not take away the fact that they were able to foresee the future via that prophecy/divination - a rather supernatural and god-like ability by any stretch of the imagination.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hawki View Post
    Come SC2, there's more of a sense of consequence for the xel'naga's actions far more than in the past when they were a loose plot point.

    So yeah. Long post short, show is preferable to tell.
    This is somewhat debatable. From SC1's perspective only, the Protoss and Zerg are the legacy of the Xel'Naga. Especially in regards to the Zerg (being deemed a 'success' to the Xel'Naga no less), the galaxy is now suffering the "consequence for the Xel'Naga's actions". Granted that it is not as explicit as what Sc2 is attempting, but I think Sc1 had already done a fine job showing us the hubris of Xel'Naga action already.

    I surmise that the Xel'Naga being a "loose plot point" throughout Sc1 is actually not because they wanted to keep it for later use but rather to show that the universe had (realistically) moved on from them. Looking solely at SC1 and it's manual, the Xel'Naga are sparsely referenced in any great detail which leaves us to the conclusion that they are nothing special and really shouldn't be focused on. That is probably why they told us (rather than showed as you'd like) about the Xel'Naga in the manual rather than in the game itself because the real focus is on the Protoss/Zerg/Terran dynamic, which the game itself then shows.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hawki View Post
    The lack of confrontation of demons is usually a hallmark of a static universe in the fictional sense.*** Not exactly my cup of tea, but maybe we can agree to disagree.

    An example would be W40K, how demons will never be confronted. Humanity will always be religious zealots, perverting the Emperor's original vision. The eldar will always be on the brink of extinction, the promise of Ynnead never being fulfilled. The necrons will never obtain their independence from the c'tan. And for for all the talk of how grim the stakes are, let's face it, they'll never actually change.
    I don't think Gradius is against the opportunity to fight against "one's demons" per se but rather how that opportunity comes to be in WoL. Given that SCis somewhat defined by it's quite grim and grey setting (as established by the first game), such opportunities need to come in a way that is realistic to that setting rather than coming from an idealistic/fanciful way. WoL certainly smacks of the latter, unfortunately.

    Aside from that, I agree with your sentiment. The way the lore is static in WH40K fits perfectly with it's primary focus on all-out warfare and the need to justify the inclusion of everyone's choice in choosing and playing their own armies. If the demon's could be realistically defeated, all the Chaos players will howl with discontent. Likewise, if the Ruinous Powers were to be all powerful, there'd be no need for anyone to play the other races. WH40K lore serves to provide flavour rather than provide status-quo changing events or a progressive storyline - that's for the players themselves to dream up whilst they play. It's interesting to note that by it's nature WH40K lore has a positive in that it tends to be quite robust in terms of contradictions in it's lore (whether old or new) because a player can equally disregard it as misguided opinion or accept it without any long-lasting issues to the universe itself.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  10. #50

    Default Re: Creative Development Q&A 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon
    This is somewhat debatable. From SC1's perspective only, the Protoss and Zerg are the legacy of the Xel'Naga. Especially in regards to the Zerg (being deemed a 'success' to the Xel'Naga no less), the galaxy is now suffering the "consequence for the Xel'Naga's actions". Granted that it is not as explicit as what Sc2 is attempting, but I think Sc1 had already done a fine job showing us the hubris of Xel'Naga action already.

    I surmise that the Xel'Naga being a "loose plot point" throughout Sc1 is actually not because they wanted to keep it for later use but rather to show that the universe had (realistically) moved on from them. Looking solely at SC1 and it's manual, the Xel'Naga are sparsely referenced in any great detail which leaves us to the conclusion that they are nothing special and really shouldn't be focused on. That is probably why they told us (rather than showed as you'd like) about the Xel'Naga in the manual rather than in the game itself because the real focus is on the Protoss/Zerg/Terran dynamic, which the game itself then shows.
    If SC1 was a stand-alone game, I'd agree with your sentiment in as much that I wouldn't be wondering "what about the xel'naga?" at the end of it. Of course, if that was also the case, if the game allowed me to, I'd have included at least some reflection from the zerg and protoss. Some reflection from the Overmind of "look how far we've come" or some reflection from the protoss of "those bastards, they screwed us over, now they've created something that intends to finish the job!" It's not entirely absent, but you could easily have the story function without the xel'naga at all in the backstory with only minor alterations.

    Still, SC1 wouldn't have been the game to have a xel'naga return. Don't think BW would have been either. If not for DO, BW could have ended the series easily. Yet looking at the games, there's still a steady progression. SC1, establishment of the 'big three' (and changing the status quo), xel'naga given lip service. BW, xel'naga legacy becomes slightly more prominant (the Shakuras temple, and DO). SC2, presence comes even more pronounced to the point where they form the backbone of the trilogy.

    So yes, I agree as much that the xel'naga shouldn't have been focussed on in the first game. But I can't fault it in SC2 when their presence has steadily built up in previous games, and even then their legacy in WoL is far short of them actually appearing. I guess it's poetic justice in a sense - the xel'naga start everything, the story ends with them...maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon
    Aside from that, I agree with your sentiment. The way the lore is static in WH40K fits perfectly with it's primary focus on all-out warfare and the need to justify the inclusion of everyone's choice in choosing and playing their own armies. If the demon's could be realistically defeated, all the Chaos players will howl with discontent. Likewise, if the Ruinous Powers were to be all powerful, there'd be no need for anyone to play the other races. WH40K lore serves to provide flavour rather than provide status-quo changing events or a progressive storyline - that's for the players themselves to dream up whilst they play. It's interesting to note that by it's nature WH40K lore has a positive in that it tends to be quite robust in terms of contradictions in it's lore (whether old or new) because a player can equally disregard it as misguided opinion or accept it without any long-lasting issues to the universe itself.
    Obviously no faction in 40K is going to be written out (maybe...tell that to the squats for instance) but even when global events have occurred, we generally only get lip service. Don't know if they're still held, or whether their in-universe relevance is on the same level, but I noticed with both 40K and fantasy that with their Chaos campaigns in the last decade, the amount of impact was an in-universe article or two in White Dwarf, then we got...nothing. Heck, the impact of BW in SC2 may have been marginalized, but at least it actually gets a mention.

Similar Threads

  1. Creative Development Q&A 5
    By Kimera757 in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 08:10 PM
  2. StarCraft 2 Development Cost Is False Info
    By Noctis in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-05-2011, 09:47 PM
  3. Does anyone do online advertising/web development?
    By Skyze in forum Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-19-2010, 12:52 AM
  4. Which do you think will be the most creative-friendly race?
    By PosImpos in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 12:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •