zerus

[FanaticTemplar]

The former. The latter's longer than Raszagal's been alive, and Zeratul's YOB has been repeatedly given as 1865. There's no ambiguity there.

And yet: Matriarch, I have served you for many millennia. I have always valued your wisdom and strength. From the last mission of The Stand.

So, what do you do? Cover your ears?

Facts are still facts at the end of the day. You can dislike them all you want, and in some cases, you can ignore them.

Wait, you can? What are you arguing about, then?

Looking back, I'm not sure what "it" is. Is it the 2000 years figure, which is wrong?

Just so. At this point, I feel the need to point out that you're the one who had a problem with my post, not the other way 'round. It's kind of strange for you to get upset at me for not desiring to learn about the timeframe of the Zerg's history when you clearly have no problem arguing with me without learning what it was you were objecting to.

Yes to the first, no to the second. Worldbuilding can provide the means to make stories, but should not arbitrarily "suggest them." If stories are suggested post ending, then it takes away from the sense of closure.

Not a fan of Dark Origins then? How about the original StarCraft ending on the note that Kerrigan knew that the time of her ascension had arrived? But that's fine. I wasn't talking about deriving from the main storyline, I was talking about worldbuilding. And setting backstory. WIthout the suggestion of other stories, then your story doesn't have a setting it exists in a vacuum. A setting is by nature intended to be a place where the story happens in. By that definition it must be larger than the story. There must be other things that happen in it but your story.

And when you don't provide answers you're denying a sense of narrative closure, and other types as well depending on the situation (e.g. emotional). For example, the series has been teasing at bona fide species other than the "big three" for fifteen years, and we've never actually seen one. We've never seen a tagal or kalathi, the elder races might as well not exist, the tribal aliens have probably been forgotten about, and the chances of the space vampire concept being revived into something fitting of the setting are between slim and nil. But no, it's "good worldbuilding" to never actually answer questions, just raise more and more. Least with SC2 we're getting answers to the hybrids and xel'naga. Are you saying it would be better if we never actually learned anything, that the threads were still left dangling?

A lot of questions about the Xel'Naga would have been better left unanswered, yes. But it's not that questions can't be answered. It's that answering questions shouldn't be the aim, and answers should provide new questions. Events that happened in the past are every bit as complex as they are today, everything that happened then, as it does now, did so due to multiple causes. Detailing past events should bring attention to the depth of the setting's backstory. If all it does is provide answers, then it is merely shutting down avenues of inspiration until either your backstory has been exhausted and you have no ideas left to draw upon, or you are forced to retcon your own backstory continually because you didn't leave yourself anything to work with.

The Hybrids aren't part of the backstory though. They're part of the present story. They draw upon those events of the past to bring us new stories.

Define "smaller." Worldbuilding by definition makes a setting larger, as in, more content, the 'mass' increases, etc. If you're arguing "smaller" as in actual size though, then yes - there's a big jump to Zerus and Earth, but it still conforms to the principle of making a galaxy larger over time. Star Trek ended with every quadrant known about in some form or another, as opposed to the 1/2 we started out with. It isn't good worldbuilding to not expand something over time, especially when you're steadily providing the means for it (better warp drives and all that).

Smaller as in the the number of stories that can be told in the setting. Smaller as in the depth and complexity of the setting. As I previously explained, a situation unresolved allows for many possibilities. The setting is vast because it can accommodate all these possibilities. A situation resolved allows for only one possibility. The world is small, because it only needs to satisfy the one.

Um, as opposed to the past? The future? Last I checked, we could only carry out actions in the present. Unless you're Q. He trolls the laws of physics like that.

As opposed to the past, yes. This is precisely what we are discussing. Prime example: who were the Xel'Naga? Why did they want to create the perfect beings? These questions were unresolved back in StarCraft, and yet they now are. And still it is the past.

[Hawki]

And yet: Matriarch, I have served you for many millennia. I have always valued your wisdom and strength. From the last mission of The Stand.

So, what do you do? Cover your ears?

No, I consider both. Common sense dictates it can't be millennia, but even throwing that aside, Zeratul's date has been established time and time again. It's the same reason why I no longer debate on the timeline when it was compressed.

Wait, you can? What are you arguing about, then?

"You can" as in, on the personal/individual level. People will decide what's canon and what isn't if they want - it's what the concept of headcanon is. They're entitled to do that, and can do so creatively if they want - write, draw, film, etc. But when it comes to facts, well, facts are facts. Again with the kalathi - I don't like the fact that they were knocked back to the stone age. I can hypothetically create headcanon where they aren't. But I have no valid argument in saying "ignore this fact" if I was arguing for their inclusion for instance.

Not a fan of Dark Origins then? How about the original StarCraft ending on the note that Kerrigan knew that the time of her ascension had arrived?

I was more referring to an ending, as in, the ending of an entire series. You can argue the pros and cons of sequel bait, but if an entire series is ending, I'd like to get some closure.

A lot of questions about the Xel'Naga would have been better left unanswered, yes. But it's not that questions can't be answered. It's that answering questions shouldn't be the aim, and answers should provide new questions.

To an extent. But if we're continuously getting more questions then answers, then the level of disatisfaction is liable to grow.

Maybe it can go both ways. Answer too many questions, it's hard to continue. Ask too many questions, and the ending becomes rushed (Lost is an example I've often seen cited of the latter).

As opposed to the past, yes. This is precisely what we are discussing. Prime example: who were the Xel'Naga? Why did they want to create the perfect beings? These questions were unresolved back in StarCraft, and yet they now are.

Except we do know why they wanted to create perfect beings. You may not like the answer, but that doesn't change the fact that the answer exists.

[FanaticTemplar]

No, I consider both. Common sense dictates it can't be millennia, but even throwing that aside, Zeratul's date has been established time and time again. It's the same reason why I no longer debate on the timeline when it was compressed.

So when I ignore something I think is absurd, it's "covering my ears".
When you ignore something you think is absurd, it's "considering both and using common sense."

That just sounds like using semantics to defend your biases to me.

"You can" as in, on the personal/individual level. People will decide what's canon and what isn't if they want - it's what the concept of headcanon is. They're entitled to do that, and can do so creatively if they want - write, draw, film, etc. But when it comes to facts, well, facts are facts. Again with the kalathi - I don't like the fact that they were knocked back to the stone age. I can hypothetically create headcanon where they aren't. But I have no valid argument in saying "ignore this fact" if I was arguing for their inclusion for instance.

And have I argued anything like that?

To an extent. But if we're continuously getting more questions then answers, then the level of disatisfaction is liable to grow.

Depends. If you get major questions, then you obviously need to answer them, otherwise you're stringing along your audience. But some questions don't require answers. We never needed to know what the Xel'Naga were about, to keep our example. Keep in mind that I am talking about backstory and worldbuilding here, not main narrative.

Except we do know why they wanted to create perfect beings. You may not like the answer, but that doesn't change the fact that the answer exists.

Erm... maybe you should reread what you're replying to? Specifically the "now they [the questions] are [resolved]" part?

[Hawki]

So when I ignore something I think is absurd, it's "covering my ears".
When you ignore something you think is absurd, it's "considering both and using common sense."

No, I'm not ignoring it, I'm taking it into account and making an informed judgement based on two pieces of information. What I call absurd is along the lines of "don't tell me x, I don't want to know."

And have I argued anything like that?

It comes across as such. Maybe it's not the intent, but it's the impression.

We never needed to know what the Xel'Naga were about,

Same as we never needed to learn about Earth or the UED pre-Brood War.

Course what one wants to learn about and what they don't varies, but the moment the manual said the "greater whole" of the xel'naga were consumed rather than just saying they were wiped out, alarm bells started triggering in my head.

[FanaticTemplar]

No, I'm not ignoring it, I'm taking it into account and making an informed judgement based on two pieces of information. What I call absurd is along the lines of "don't tell me x, I don't want to know."

And I am taking into account the importance, relevance and usefulness the information in question would have and making an informed judgment on the worth of adding it to my existing knowledge. The conclusion is that it is worthless, and therefore I do not need nor want to know about it.

It comes across as such. Maybe it's not the intent, but it's the impression.

Nonesense. Not once have I ever suggested that anybody should ignore the current facts in accordance with my opinions or preferences. I said I did not want to know information that was entirely in the domain of minutia and was inevitably going to cause more harm than good. That I would expect anybody else to likewise avoid the information, or ignore it if they ever learned it, is a pure product of your imagination.

Same as we never needed to learn about Earth or the UED pre-Brood War.

Precisely.