Discussion: Exactly what did Amon do to Ulnar's Solar System and why?

[Gradius]

That other question backs up my point, that the Overmind is creating a scenario from logically deducing events from existing information. That's not precognition, it's extrapolation, an ability easily available to humans and other thinking species.

Precognition and vision of the future are the same thing.

No they're not. Precognition is "a type of extrasensory perception that would involve the acquisition or effect of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and normally acquired sense-based information."

That's exactly what the Overmind didn't do. Instead he deduced a narrative through readily-available information. Not to mention that we both know it's not a vision of the future given that it's not going to happen and it changes anytime the Overmind encounters new information. That would be called extrapolation. It can't be "the 100% truth" and subject to change anytime the Overmind gets new info. That's not precognition, or at least there's no evidence that it's showing anything more than an extrapolation. You're being completely inconsistent in the way you treat this.

Anyway, I'm willing to just chalk this up to reading comprehension. If this is what you get from reading the Q&A we'll have to agree to disagree. :P

[Shadow Archon]

That other question backs up my point, that the Overmind is creating a scenario from logically deducing events from existing information. That's not precognition, it's extrapolation, an ability easily available to humans and other thinking species.

I've noticed that a lot of people think the prophecy says Kerrigan will save the universe. It doesn't. It says a few things. Among them is the fact that the Fallen One (hereafter referred to as the Dark Voice) will destroy everything. At a later point, we see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day.

The Vision shows when the Dark Voice wins. It shows us an event that happens in the future.

That is not pure extrapolation, that is indeed precognition.

No they're not. Precognition is "a type of extrasensory perception that would involve the acquisition or effect of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and normally acquired sense-based information."

Exactly.

Amon's plan doesn't include anything about what he would say, what the protoss would say, or the use of future war machines used by a faction the Overmind has never met before.

Therefore, those aspects of the vision are precog.

That's exactly what the Overmind didn't do. Instead he deduced a narrative through readily-available information.

Wrong.

Amon's plan wouldn't have all the information that we see the Overmind go through in the Vision.

Specifics on Protoss military, Protoss heroes, Kerrigan, and so on are a part of this vision. They wouldn't be in Amon's plan obviously.

Not to mention that we both know it's not a vision of the future given that it's not going to happen and it changes anytime the Overmind encounters new information.

...It's a possible future.

I'm not saying "events will play out exactly like that!"

I'm saying "Amon can do that star thing going by the vision and the prophecy, and likely will try to in the changed timeline."

That would be called extrapolation. It can't be "the 100% truth" and subject to change anytime the Overmind gets new info.

Yes it can. It was possible timeline that still exists in a parallel universe that no longer can happen.

I'm not talking at all about events like in a history book.

I'm talking about the physical mechanics of powers and abilities that happen there, that's it.

That's not precognition, or at least there's no evidence that it's showing anything more than an extrapolation. You're being completely inconsistent in the way you treat this.

The evidence is the elements that Amon wouldn't know...like Kerrigan being specifically mentioned in what is specifically the "Vision of the Overmind."

You keep saying Zeratul and Tassadar edited it, but I have seen no evidence for that at all.

Anyway, I'm willing to just chalk this up to reading comprehension. If this is what you get from reading the Q&A we'll have to agree to disagree. :P

Sure, whatever.

What? You would rather me rant and rage like all the other haters?

No.

If you have apathy about it...that means you don't care at all about what happens in Starcraft...so why do you just argue about what happens?

Besides, I wouldn't be so facetious about everything in Starcraft now if I didn't get the feeling that Blizzard was being likewise with all this hogwash in Sc2 and then asking us to treat it seriously. Monkey see, monkey do I guess.

The problem here is I don't think it's hogwash at all.

I like it.

I am invested in the story.

I spend time analyzing it.

...until they decide otherwise. In the meantime, confusion reigns.

In the meantime...those sources are accurate of what happens.

There was another thread on this somewhere so I won't get into too much detail suffice to say that you're making an assumption because the exact process of either hasn't really been fully explained. We only get hints about assimilation in the manual where the original Zerg not only hijacked their hosts but influenced their genetics over generations until they became recognised as "Zerg". This implies that assimilation takes a long time. It is also unknown whether infestation includes an original Zerg slug occupying every infested being they have.

Infestation is the subversion of other lifeforms into Zerg ones, like infested Terrans or what not.

Assimilation is the Zerg capable of creating lifeforms from those organisms, from larvae. Like Hydras are the assimilated form, the infested would have been slothien zergified.

For example, Aberrations are humans assimilated Zerg forms, born straight from larvae in HotS.

Besides, the Overmind knows it can assimilate Protoss - so why bother proclaiming that it can (heck, why did it even go there in the first place) when it really can't? Oh, that's right, it's the writer's *nudge wink* to the Overmind revelation of being a slave but not really being a slave. Makes perfect sense.

No. No. No.

He never, ever, manages to even get a hold of the Protoss before. How does he know he can't assimilate them from what he knows about them in the information he absorbed from the Xel'naga?

All he knows is they are strong lifeforms that would make the Swarm greater.

The fact he wants to assimilate them has no bearing at all on if he actually can or can't.

Ah, so you're treating everything that was originally conceived for the Overmind as being bunk then?

No.

The Overmind would never have concocted a phony story just for fooling the audience into thinking it could assimilate the Protoss when it really couldn't.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

The Overmind knows they exist from the Xel'naga, and he is extremely worried about their psionic might.

Despite innumerable victories, the
Overmind was greatly disturbed. The
Overmind was aware that the Protoss had
become a highly psionic race, able to
bend and warp the very fabric of reality
to their whims. It sought a way to counter
the awesome might of the Protoss, but
found no answers among the genetic
strains it devoured.

On the verge of despair, the Overmind
made an amazing discovery. One of its deepspace
probes had relayed the location and
vital statistics of a race that occupied a series
of nondescript worlds, right under the
shadow of the Protoss.
The new race, called Humanity, was mere
generations away from developing into a
formidable psionic power. But the Overmind
also knew that Humanity was still in its infant
stages, hardly capable of defending itself
against the ravenous Zerg. Although a shortlived
and seemingly frail species, the
Overmind knew that Humanity would be the
final determinant in its victory over the
Protoss. If it could assimilate the psionic
potential of Humanity, the Overmind would
have the ability to combat the Protoss on its
own terms.

Humanity was going to be the stepping stone into that.

If the Zerg can counter the Protoss' use of the Khala and Void, then they can be infested and assimilated.

Frontline shows this to us in the story Creep, where a Protoss was infested.

The I guess we can add "breaking the fourth wall and manipulating audience expectation retroactively" along with precognition as an ability we never knew the Overmind had.

Again, the expectations of one that thinks he is a god is in no way indicative on their true capabilities.

Hubris is a thing.

Funny how you can spot this here when you have used literally the same argument many times elsewhere to justify your theories about how certain things work in Starcraft.

No.

I specifically argue when I have evidence. When the counter-argument talks about specifics that don't have evidence, I firmly believe this "The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. "

As for FTL sensors, the only argument I can even think you are talking about, I very clearly had evidence in the matter.

So then, you agree that the issue of compatibility wasn't really a major issue that needed addressing because it was all just conjecture then and only became a "question" (that nobody asked) that got answered when the "answer" came later, right?

Pretty much.

What the overmind wanted means nothing in terms of if he can actually do it considering he never actually tried it on screen. And now we know that Protoss psionics act as a buffer.

It wasn't a major issue in the game, but in the EU and now in SC2, it has become one, so the question (which was asked by many fans actually "Where are the infested protoss if there are infested terrans?") had to be answered.

I was trying to make the point that Sc is at the point now that "any answer will do whenever it suits", hence the "why bother?" statement you responded to.

I don't believe that. I firmly believe the lore isn't crap at all, and that yes, there is specific answers to it.

I don't know about you, but I'm discussing this for the sole reason of wasting time and cos it's fun.

That answers that question.

But can you really have fun about something you don't care about? That's...a very odd thing to hear honestly. Apathy and fun never cross paths in how I live.

I could just as easily be doing something else more constructive like building an orphanage, ponder the meaning of life or something else. I'm not kidding myself that what I'm doing here is anything more than "wasting time".

Oh, sure. I'm not talking about constructive time. I'm just never even thought apathy and fun could coexist.

I should have said contrived (it is a synonym of overwrought afterall). The fact that it is telegraphed so obviously - as you have mentioned above - as a plot device is immersion breaking. Knowing when, how and where plot devices appear in story is nothing special - it's hiding them and making them not so obvious that is the trick. A trick that WoL has failed at badly.

I don't actually think like that. A plot device can be obvious or not, but as long as it doesn't break the characters or setting, it's fine.

And yes, I don't think any of the characters were broken in the transition of SC1 and SC2. Even Zeratul. (I'm a bit disturbed that Gradius thinks Blizzard did to Zeratul what those rednecks did to that guy in Deliverance.)

First of all, I understand why you assume it can be correct. You've been as clear as you possibly can in that regard.

Alright.

Second, I've already explained why the vision can be interpreted as being wrong because some people actually do feel this way. Third, I'm not looking to resolve this one way or another just trying to show you how people are justified in thinking how the vision can be fake as much as you can justify how it isn't.

But...I don't see the evidence in their thinking though.

Honestly, I don't.

The writer himself seems to think the vision is accurate in what it is displaying, not in how the end will play out, but in the whole "Amon will destroy everything" bit.

I'm talking only about the mechanics, not the event itself, if you understand what I mean. You know, specifically the void/star thing.

I see the same thing happen when the Preservers are going over the Ulaan prophecy, so all this phooey about it being a possible inaccurate display created by the Overmind isn't exactly an issue anymore considering we see it from the Xel'naga's prophecy, a definite source of precognitive information.

All we have is nothing but conjecture because the event depicted is not actually concrete, unless you believe in fate. That the vision is not going to happen because it is changeable by the in-universe characters means it's already false and worth not much more than a warning (not to mention being an untenable temporal paradox unless you start making up rules about how time travel actually works in the Sc universe). At the least, the audience knows this vision will never actually come to pass because that would mean Blizz would be ending their cash-cow franchise. I can understand how this may not be acceptable to you, but well, some people take stock in how something is written and why things are included the way there are in a story and not just content themselves with the in-universe minutia and explanations.

....Okay, I think you entirely misunderstand me.

I know the universe isn't ending.

I know that Amon will be defeated.

I know Starcraft will be a franchise that continues.

This is not what I mean about the vision being 100% accurate.

I am purely talking about what the Hybrids can do to stars. That's it really.

The capabilities of characters in a possible future still applies to what those characters can do in the actual present, as long as something has actually happened to boost or weaken their power.

Does that make sense?

For good reason. Frontline was written after the fact to have a character "foretell" that concrete happenstance. The vision is not a concrete happenstance and never will be.

But what Amon does to the stars is also in the Ulaan Prophecy, and the same stellar phenomenon happens when the Preservers go over.

That's all the debate was about in the first place.

I think you do see where I'm coming from, you just don't want to. That does not invalidate it as viable viewpoint that a lot of people hold. I'm not asking you to adopt the viewpoint, just to show you that it exists and why.

In my mind, a viewpoint that has no basis on anything but the possibility, when counter viewpoints have actual evidence, it's not exactly a viable viewpoint.

Again, this is an Argument from Ignorance.

You keep saying "Well you do it too you inconsistent person you!" yet I have no recollection of saying anything that didn't have proof backing it up, unless I clearly said I was theorizing.

Seeing is not always believing.

Of course.

The information in the Vision isn't just limited to visuals.

The very same thinking that leads to, "Well this vision could be false." could very well lead you to say "Well, Starcraft is obviously just some drunken dream JIm Raynor is having as he lives out his life as a hobo."

The writer talks about the vision in the Q&A "showing the day Amon won" which pretty much means to me, that yes, the vision is without a doubt correct in what it shows "mechanic wise."

Time has changed, so yeah, events aren't going to transpire exactly like that. This doesn't mean the Hybrids won't e doing something funky to the stars though. The timeline changing doesn't effect that.

Besides, you just undermined yourself by saying "possible" which more or less defines potential and involves a measure of uncertain - something that is not yet concrete or potentially ever will be.

That would only mean something if I was saying that day would still happen.

I'm not.

I'm saying Amon's going to rape everyone's stars. Now why would he do such a thing?

...Yes. Oh, what fun we're having.

Again, no.

I think you've misunderstood what I meant, or I've misunderstood what you meant, but again, I'm talking about the abilities of the Hybrids and the scene at the end of the vision. Not the vision as a whole.

No to the first and yes to the second. As to explaining the comment, I meant that if we had to use our own judgement to declare what is true for others (and perhaps yourself) then it's not different than just lying outright. See Obi-Wan for a classic example.

That's if you think personal judgement is used at all.

Before I saying anything else, exactly what do you think I'm saying by stating the Vision is 100% accurate?

Yeah, I'm lazy, so sue me. I would go over but I didn't see the point because a) you'd dismiss/evade it on a whim anyway as if I was trying to change your mind or something and that b) it's been stated several times in many other threads and forums other than this one such that the idea of it should have permeated to anyone who is at the slightest familiar with the Overmind retcon by now. Sorry if it sounded like I insulted you - it never was nor will be my intention.

Well, all I know is the Ovemrind retcon doesn't exist along the lines of what I've heard it.

And, you insult me by saying I would dismiss/evade it, because actually countering it legitimately is apparently not a thing

My point was that the Overmind didn't become anything more but a plot device until BW. Instead of something that you could relate to or continue experiencing as a character, the Overmind became and still is a thing that just ticks the plot along.

But the character's dead...

Any interaction with the Second Overmind or its corpse is just definition wise a plot device because interaction with the original character is impossible.

The Second Overmind was still forming still, so I'm not sure if it was even exactly like the first anyways.

Unless you assumed the Overmind was resurrecting and not an entirely different incarnation that will be a amalgam of the Cerebrates that formed it.

What's to complain about again?

Much like how Mengsk was rendered into generic villain mode to move the plot along because Blizz had felt his character had nothing more to offer or rather that it was to do with a lack of imagination on their part.

What do you mean by generic villain?

Mustache twirling?

If so, yeah, that could have been handled a lot better.

**
By the way, you don't need to respond to everything, Shadow. You know, it's tough to reply to you huge posts with me being lazy and all.

...You know, that would help...if it was at the beginning of your post.

[Gradius]

The evidence is the elements that Amon wouldn't know...like Kerrigan being specifically mentioned in what is specifically the "Vision of the Overmind."

You keep saying Zeratul and Tassadar edited it, but I have seen no evidence for that at all.

Right, but my theory is the simplest and makes the most sense, whereas yours doesn't and creates plotholes, not to mention contradicts what Brian explained. You're basically ignoring his explanation that the vision was merely a guess/hypothesis and creating your own fanon that the Overmind had an actual revelation showing him the real actual future (but not really because it's a possible future).

[Turalyon]

...You know, that would help...if it was at the beginning of your post.

That's a good point. Keep that in mind when going through this next entry of mine.

If you have apathy about it...that means you don't care at all about what happens in Starcraft...so why do you just argue about what happens?

I have apathy over the current content and direction of the lore. The details of what happens or doesn't happen within that universe now don't really appeal to me anymore. It doesn't mean I can't have other opinions on it and how it's written and presented. I still like the art and the original lore. All I'm doing is to try to explain why the "haters" potentially think the way they do about certain aspects of the game's presentation of its story. I'm not arguing to try and change your mind but to offer better understanding of the "haters" position. If I was truly apathetic about the whole thing, I wouldn't have played the game or even bother posting stuff about it.

The problem here is I don't think it's hogwash at all.

Good. I don't want you to think otherwise, unless you happen to change your own mind (or don't, it makes no difference to me). It's just that some people do think it's hogwash and there is plenty of reasons why. I'm trying to explain that side of it.

In the meantime...those sources are accurate of what happens.

Good for you. But do you understand why that might not be acceptable for others?

Infestation is the subversion of other lifeforms into Zerg ones, like infested Terrans or what not.

Assimilation is the Zerg capable of creating lifeforms from those organisms, from larvae.

Some take it that assimilation is not just the immediate subversion (which is infestation) but some alternative and slow process of incorporating a hosts genome into the Swarm. The creation of this new Zergified lifeform is the product/end-stage/result of assimilation.

He never, ever, manages to even get a hold of the Protoss before. How does he know he can't assimilate them from what he knows about them in the information he absorbed from the Xel'naga?

All he knows is they are strong lifeforms that would make the Swarm greater.

The fact he wants to assimilate them has no bearing at all on if he actually can or can't.

Fair enough. I can accept that the Overmind doesn't know it can't assimilate them (despite having access to Xel'Naga records and how they developed) until it got its hands on one and then finds out it couldn't. However, as you've pointed out, we have never seen the Overmind attempt it or capture a Protoss in the Sc1 third act The Fall, which at the time means one of either two things: it can't do it for as yet unknown reason or it can but it's not an easy or quick process. There is not enough information at the time of Sc1 to say one way or the other, but the implication that it can is going to be the default position because, you know, the story sets that up.

The EU comes in and then says it can't, which you then retroactively integrate into the story of Sc1 to explain why we didn't see the Overmind attempt at Protoss assimilation/capture a Protoss when it could've easily been the opposite: the reason we didn't see the Overmind assimilate the Protoss was because we were focusing on the Protoss story at the time and that the Overmind actually did start assimilating but given all the lengthy preparations building up to it, there wasn't enough time to complete it in such a way to show any significant results of it before the Overmind was killed. To say that it was always the case that the Overmind could not assimilate Protoss at all is due to hindsight bias.

This is partly the reason for my apathy about the current state of the lore. If things can't be simply taken for granted (like that the Overmind could have assimilated the Protoss and that the Overmind was metaphysically free) it makes one question the foundation of other things we take simply for granted in that world, for example like Raynor being metaphysically free or being human. If something can change so easily with hindsight bias, there is absolutely nothing else that is potentially exempt from such a change either. If the foundation is not solid, it's easy for one to not care as a result or be facetious about it (if they're being generous) or at the worst, being a raging hater. There is no incentive to just take things at face value if there's this undercurrent of changeability of these fundamental aspects at any time. Understand the viewpoint now?

Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Yeah, I know it's wrong. The statement seems absurd but it highlight's how one can logically come to that conclusion when incorporating that new information about the Protoss not being able to be assimilated to reassess the events in Sc1, when the original default position at the time strongly implied that it could.

I specifically argue when I have evidence. When the counter-argument talks about specifics that don't have evidence, I firmly believe this "The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. "

As for FTL sensors, the only argument I can even think you are talking about, I very clearly had evidence in the matter.

Your definition of evidence is highly debatable - even to a layperson. If there is no agreement for this fundamental aspect, anything else presented as "evidence" is pointless.

It wasn't a major issue in the game, but in the EU and now in SC2, it has become one, so the question (which was asked by many fans actually "Where are the infested protoss if there are infested terrans?") had to be answered.

Ok, good. Then, have you considered how this process (making something major when for all intents and purposes is really minor and irrelevant) can be reacted to, legitimately, in a bad way for some people? I'm not talking about how you feel about it mind you, I know that now.

I don't believe that. I firmly believe the lore isn't crap at all.

I'm not disputing your feelings towards it, I'm just highlighting to you that other people have just as legitimate and alternative views as yours.

But can you really have fun about something you don't care about? That's...a very odd thing to hear honestly. Apathy and fun never cross paths in how I live.

Look at it this way. If you take apathy as a neutral state you can either lean a bit more on the negative aspects and get potentially depressed or lean a bit more to the positive aspects and potentially have some fun, what would you do? Besides, you'll probably note that most of my responses often don't really touch much on the lore content technically (because for me that's a negative aspect) but rather on how it's presented, viewed and reacted to (I can derive some fun from this).

I'm a bit disturbed that Gradius thinks Blizzard did to Zeratul what those rednecks did to that guy in Deliverance.

Lol. I might not share that exact sentiment but I can understand the root cause for why he might come to this assessment.

The writer himself seems to think the vision is accurate in what it is displaying, not in how the end will play out, but in the whole "Amon will destroy everything" bit.

Remember that truth and lies spiel I was spouting previously and how you said something is either true or it's not? Well, apply that to that statement above. See any problems there? The vision is accurate but not how it will play out you say - how is that something wholly true according your hardline of something being either true or it's not? As a result, if part of it is a lie/false, there's nothing stopping it from actually being wholly a lie, hence the "truth from a certain point of view is an excuse for boldfaced lies" comment.

Does that make sense?

Yes. However, consider that if you view the vision as nothing but the implied threat of the Hybrids, it's not much better/different than a generic warning of danger. Why not just have it as the Overmind saying Amon exists and then back it up with current events to show the threat for real rather than relegate it to what (the precognitive vision that is) is essentially an obvious plot device? In terms of narrative and writing, the vision is really only there to provide an excuse for saving Kerrigan. The vision seems like an unnecessary and lazy way to move the plot in a certain direction.

But what Amon does to the stars is also in the Ulaan Prophecy, and the same stellar phenomenon happens when the Preservers go over.

Funny thing with prophecies (where the genuine outcome is actually unknown until time passes) is that they often always turn out in ways that are unexpected and always misinterpreted in some capacity. This is no different.

In my mind, a viewpoint that has no basis on anything but the possibility, when counter viewpoints have actual evidence, it's not exactly a viable viewpoint.

What you call "evidence" is often questionable, circumstantial and largely amount to fanon/finding connections where none exists. Besides, all viewpoints tend to stem/start from having no basis on anything but the possibility - that's why there are things in life where there are often multiple theories to explain the one thing.

That would only mean something if I was saying that day would still happen.

I'm not.

Then how can you be so sure about the seriousness of the ramifications of something that won't exist anyway. Like I said, the vision of "future events" is not that different to a dream of "future events". For example, I can use the contents of my dream to ensure that it won't happen but I have no way to say that my dream would come true if did or did not do anything. All I know that I had a dream - I have no way of verifying what I saw will happen... even if a neuroscientist arbitrarily told me that I was capable of precognition. The nature of the Overmind having precognitive ability is seemingly arbitrary.

That's if you think personal judgement is used at all.

Hold on, in that other thread you expressly mentioned that this was all we could rely on to piece the lore of Sc together.

Well, all I know is the Ovemrind retcon doesn't exist along the lines of what I've heard it.

I know that of you and I'm not questioning that. All I'm saying is that it does exist and is valid concern that some people have for some reason or another (poor writing is probably the most easiest reason)

And, you insult me by saying I would dismiss/evade it, because actually countering it legitimately is apparently not a thing

I was probably a bit harsh saying that - I more or less meant that I know enough of your style in responding and your answers in general to the haters claims that I didn't feel it necessary to continue something I will knew will only just confirm what I knew already.

But the character's dead...

Any interaction with the Second Overmind or its corpse is just definition wise a plot device because interaction with the original character is impossible.

The Second Overmind was still forming still, so I'm not sure if it was even exactly like the first anyways.

Unless you assumed the Overmind was resurrecting and not an entirely different incarnation that will be a amalgam of the Cerebrates that formed it.

What's to complain about again?

Keep up will ya?

That the second Overmind in BW is just a thing like the Psi Disruptor, Xel'Naga and Artifact was just the beginning and the preparation for explaining that the whole Overmind's existence was just a device to move the plot that we have for Sc2. The Overmind revelation potentially renders everything that the Overmind did as some sort of plot device to advance and prop the character of Amon. And yes, I know you don't agree with that because the Overmind was still a character in its own right at the time of Sc1 and that nothing can take that away. Well, it can and it does change it because that's retroactive continuity (ie: the thing that says "it's not what you thought it was") for you.

[Shadow Archon]

Good for you. But do you understand why that might not be acceptable for others?

I believe so.

An inconsistent lore, that changes pretty much on the writer's discretion, is a lore that disrespects itself, let alone how it disrespects older fans of the setting.

How ever, the point is, I disagree on where the inconsistencies lie and what are true inconsistencies.

Some take it that assimilation is not just the immediate subversion (which is infestation) but some alternative and slow process of incorporating a hosts genome into the Swarm. The creation of this new Zergified lifeform is the product/end-stage/result of assimilation.

I disagree.

I believe one leads to the other.

If one can't be done, the other can't be done as well.

There's however specific places where there are specialties, like applying the genetics of a lifeform (be they Zerg or not) to a previous strain, like Banelings, Mutalisks turning into Brood Lords or Vipers, and so on.

Fair enough. I can accept that the Overmind doesn't know it can't assimilate them (despite having access to Xel'Naga records and how they developed)

Ah, but that record doesn't include the Khala, the specific thing that prevents the Zerg from assimilating them.

Understand the viewpoint now?

I do.

I disagree about the implication though that Protoss being assimilated was a sure thing by the Overmind's hands due to his interest in humanity.

If anything, I thought Kerrigan being able to subvert Raszagal was going to lead to assimilated Protoss genetics, given she psionically overpowered her.

But, that's another discussion.

Yeah, I know it's wrong. The statement seems absurd but it highlight's how one can logically come to that conclusion when incorporating that new information about the Protoss not being able to be assimilated to reassess the events in Sc1, when the original default position at the time strongly implied that it could.

It's not logical at because it includes the 4th wall.

Besides that, I understand your viewpoint.

Your definition of evidence is highly debatable - even to a layperson. If there is no agreement for this fundamental aspect, anything else presented as "evidence" is pointless.

Well, it entirely depends upon the interpretation of what you are seeing.

And every interpretation of what we see, is valid. There's limits to that obviously, but you get the point.

Ok, good. Then, have you considered how this process (making something major when for all intents and purposes is really minor and irrelevant) can be reacted to, legitimately, in a bad way for some people? I'm not talking about how you feel about it mind you, I know that now.

Sure.

I don't see how its minor or irrelevant in the past though given the whole point of the Overmind's drive to attack the Protoss.

Remember that truth and lies spiel I was spouting previously and how you said something is either true or it's not? Well, apply that to that statement above. See any problems there? The vision is accurate but not how it will play out you say - how is that something wholly true according your hardline of something being either true or it's not? As a result, if part of it is a lie/false, there's nothing stopping it from actually being wholly a lie, hence the "truth from a certain point of view is an excuse for boldfaced lies" comment.

You aren't dividing up the vision into parts though.

The events that happen will not happen because what was going to occur to set up those events have changed.

The actual way those factions act in the SC universe, capability wise, have not been affected by that change.

When I say the vision is accurate, I'm talking about the second, not the first.

Because that's what this thread is all about. The whole star thing.

Funny thing with prophecies (where the genuine outcome is actually unknown until time passes) is that they often always turn out in ways that are unexpected and always misinterpreted in some capacity. This is no different.

But, the vision and the prophecy agree.

There's one thing about one source being unexpected, but when two agree on the same outcome, that's a bit of a stretch to assume that both are over blowing what is going to occur.

What you call "evidence" is often questionable, circumstantial and largely amount to fanon/finding connections where none exists.

Could you be specific?

Then how can you be so sure about the seriousness of the ramifications of something that won't exist anyway.

Because the Hybrids still exist.

The ability to lead to what happened on that star was witnessed by Raynor during the Castanar level.

So, given the Prophecy, the Vision, and the Writer about what he states Amon will do, I'm going to take that event seriously.

Like I said, the vision of "future events" is not that different to a dream of "future events". For example, I can use the contents of my dream to ensure that it won't happen but I have no way to say that my dream would come true if did or did not do anything. All I know that I had a dream - I have no way of verifying what I saw will happen... even if a neuroscientist arbitrarily told me that I was capable of precognition. The nature of the Overmind having precognitive ability is seemingly arbitrary.

A dream though, doesn't have a basis on reality. It can be set in a fictional worlde, it can arbitrarily control the physical laws in that dream at will, it can be shaped by physical feelings, etc.

The Vision however is based strictly in a possible future.

Even if that future isn't possible anymore, that doesn't mean the abilities that are preformed in it are impossible in the new future.

Hold on, in that other thread you expressly mentioned that this was all we could rely on to piece the lore of Sc together.

When there is a direct contradiction between two sources, yeah.

I think it's been explicitly stated that the vision is accurate by the writer, so personal judgement has little to do with that piece of lore at this point.

You disagree.

That's all there is to it, because we are not personally judging the scene at that point, but interpreting what the writer stated in different ways.

Well, it can and it does change it because that's retroactive continuity (ie: the thing that says "it's not what you thought it was") for you.

But, the retroactive continuity doesn't change anything about what happens in Starcraft with the Overmind's character...

In my mind at least.

It just adds in information that is important to SC2.

Right, but my theory is the simplest and makes the most sense, whereas yours doesn't and creates plotholes,

Going on how I'm interpreting what Brian is saying and how the vision works, there are no plotholes, and yes it makes sesne.

And it's not a theory, it's an interpretation of what happened.

Yours is just a theory.

not to mention contradicts what Brian explained.

It doesn't contradict it at all.

The Vision is still a precognitive vision, even though it was mainly constructed from information gained from Amon, based on what information was in the vision that Amon didn't even have.

You're basically ignoring his explanation that the vision was merely a guess/hypothesis and creating your own fanon that the Overmind had an actual revelation showing him the real actual future (but not really because it's a possible future).

The Vision is stated by Brian himself that it did show the future elsewhere in the Q&A. The whole "the Overmind saw the day Amon won" thing.

[Gradius]

Going on how I'm interpreting what Brian is saying and how the vision works, there are no plotholes, and yes it makes sesne.

1) Why didn't Amon take steps to ensure the Overmind never infested Kerrigan if he knew about her years in advance?
2) Why didn't Amon plug up the loophole in the Overmind's directives that allowed him to infest Kerrigan? Kerrigan was the only one who could stop Amon's plans, according to Amon in that vision. Why was the Overmind allowed to circumvent his directive? It couldn't have happened if Amon knew about it millenia in advance.
3) Why does the "100% irrefutable vision of the future" change every time the Overmind encounters new information? Because it can't be both a real vision of the future and an extrapolation like Kindregan says. You're inventing your own lore. For example, your idea that it's just a "possible" future. Such a term has no concrete meaning in StarCraft or real-life. A "possible" future is what we call a guess. If you're saying that there are other possible universes where this stuff happens, you have to prove that those universes exist, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

Your theory creates plotholes. I'm sure you'll handwaive/ignore these with whatever excuse, but the fact remains, your hypothesis does not fit with current knowledge.

And it's not a theory, it's an interpretation of what happened.

You're right, it's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis, because a hypothesis is supposed to be an educated guess that is meant to comply with the limited evidence we currently have available. It's not even that, since you're ignoring what Kindregan says: "That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces."

Yours is just a theory.

Fits with all available facts and knowledge? Yes.

The only way we can have the names of protoss heroes in the vision if it's a mental construction is if Tassadar or Zeratul added their own knowledge to the mix. This is the simplest explanation that doesn't create any plotholes. It's the logical conclusion to what Kindregan told us. Your interpretation on the other hand requires mental gymnastics to overcome plotholes that don't even need to be addressed if we simply read what Kindregan says instead of creating our own fanon.

Or hey, maybe the Overmind was visited by the reincarnation of Jesus in the form of a giant chicken who imparted this special knowledge unto him but erased his memory in the process. This is a "valid interpretation" too, and has just about as much evidence as your "valid interpretation" does.

The Vision is still a precognitive vision, even though it was mainly constructed from information gained from Amon, based on what information was in the vision that Amon didn't even have.

Where does it say the vision is precognitive? I played WoL and I read Kindregan's Q&A. I don't remember this from anywhere.

The Vision is stated by Brian himself that it did show the future elsewhere in the Q&A. The whole "the Overmind saw the day Amon won" thing.

Brian already explained that, it was a narrative that the Overmind constructed and then saw. Same way that a filmmaker can watch one of his own movies. It is not a real actual vision of the future.

[Shadow Archon]

1) Why didn't Amon take steps to ensure the Overmind never infested Kerrigan if he knew about her years in advance?

Amon never saw the future.

The Overmind did.

2) Why didn't Amon plug up the loophole in the Overmind's directives that allowed him to infest Kerrigan? Kerrigan was the only one who could stop Amon's plans, according to Amon in that vision. Why was the Overmind allowed to circumvent his directive? It couldn't have happened if Amon knew about it millenia in advance.

Again, Amon never saw the future.

The Overmind did.

3) Why does the "100% irrefutable vision of the future" change every time the Overmind encounters new information?

That implies the vision was created at a certain point in time before this new information had any affect.

We don't know when the vision was put together, so that point is null.

Because it can't be both a real vision of the future and an extrapolation like Kindregan says.

Yes it can.

Kindregan stated that the Overmind "saw the day Amon won." That explicitly means, he saw the future. He also stated that the vision originated from small bits of info he absorbed while Amon was creating him and molding his consciousness.

You're inventing your own lore.

No, I'm not.

For example, your idea that it's just a "possible" future. Such a term has no concrete meaning in StarCraft or real-life. A "possible" future is what we call a guess. If you're saying that there are other possible universes where this stuff happens, you have to prove that those universes exist, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

We already know that because the vision exists and is no longer going to happen, that different possible parallel universes exist.

This in no way means that the vision is just a guess, as Brian did state that, yes, the Overmind saw the day Amon won, in the future in his vision.

Your theory creates plotholes. I'm sure you'll handwaive/ignore these with whatever excuse, but the fact remains, your hypothesis does not fit with current knowledge.

Because, legitimately solving these "plotholes" is impossible.

Besides, it's not a hypothesis. It's pretty much explicit from the way I interpret the information.

Brian states the vision was constructed from Amon's plans.

He also states the vision saw the day Amon won.

Ergo, it may have been formed due to plans of the future, however, it was still a precognitive vision based on gaining information that Amon didn't plan, and the very fact Brian stated the Overmind saw the future.

You're right, it's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis, because a hypothesis is supposed to be an educated guess that is meant to comply with the limited evidence we currently have available. It's not even that, since you're ignoring what Kindregan says: "That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces."

And you are ignoring Brian stating " It says a few things. Among them is the fact that the Fallen One (hereafter referred to as the Dark Voice) will destroy everything. At a later point, we see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

Or "The Overmind saw a vision in which the zerg were used to kill the protoss, and only the fact that the zerg were slaves bothered it. The end of that vision showed all the zerg being sucked dry by hybrid. It represented the destruction of the zerg, and that was what the Overmind wanted to prevent."

That is an event in the future, not an extrapolation based on a plan for a future, but the future event itself, and the Overmind saw it. Ergo, precog.

Fits with all available facts and knowledge? Yes.

And mine does too, and doesn't simply make up stuff based on your own fantasy.

It's the logical conclusion to what Kindregan told us.

Seeing that you are ignoring what else he has to say about the vision...

Your interpretation on the other hand requires mental gymnastics to overcome plotholes that don't even need to be addressed if we simply read what Kindregan says instead of creating our own fanon.

No it doesn't, because as I stated. Amon doesn't see the future.

This is a "valid interpretation" too, and has just about as much evidence as your "valid interpretation" does.

No it isn't, because again, you are making up crap.

I'm not.

Brain states very clearly that the Overmind saw the future. He saw events that didn't happen yet, but would happen.

How he formed the vision from Amon's plans have no bearing on the fact he saw the future.

Where does it say the vision is precognitive? I played WoL and I read Kindregan's Q&A. I don't remember this from anywhere.

" It says a few things. Among them is the fact that the Fallen One (hereafter referred to as the Dark Voice) will destroy everything. At a later point, we see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

Or "The Overmind saw a vision in which the zerg were used to kill the protoss, and only the fact that the zerg were slaves bothered it. The end of that vision showed all the zerg being sucked dry by hybrid. It represented the destruction of the zerg, and that was what the Overmind wanted to prevent."

And where Zeratul specifically states the Vision is of the future.

Brian already explained that, it was a narrative that the Overmind constructed and then saw. Same way that a filmmaker can watch one of his own movies. It is not a real actual vision of the future.

Brain doesn't ever say the vision is not of the real future, and again, how it is constructed has no bearing on if the vision is of the future or not. This statement is merely your "opinion" on how you interpret the evidence.

He does state that:

"At a later point, we see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

Which means, he didn't see a visual construction of a plan for the future. He saw the event in the future itself.

[Gradius]

Amon never saw the future.

The Overmind did.

Again, Amon never saw the future.

The Overmind did.

Yes he did.

"That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces, and it was about all that the Overmind could glean from the time spent with the Dark Voice."

Where, pray tell, did the Overmind get this information if not from Amon? There seems to be an endless amount of holes that need plugging via your "interpretation".

That implies the vision was created at a certain point in time before this new information had any affect.

We don't know when the vision was put together, so that point is null.

Uhm, no, if you concede that the new information has an effect, then it doesn't invalidate my point at all. You just dodged it again.

The Overmind died and saw Amon win, but we all know that that's not going to happen. We also know that Kerrigan won't be killed. How exactly is this a "100% truthful pre-cognitive vision of the future"? x/

Yes it can.

Kindregan stated that the Overmind "saw the day Amon won." That explicitly means, he saw the future. He also stated that the vision originated from small bits of info he absorbed while Amon was creating him and molding his consciousness.

Yes, the player saw the narrative that the Overmind constructed too. Still not a precognitive vision of the future.

No, I'm not.

Then it should be easy to link me evidence that the Overmind saw a true vision of the future, and not a narrative that he pieced together from Amon's knowledge.

We already know that because the vision exists and is no longer going to happen, that different possible parallel universes exist.

....and now your "interpretation" demands the existence of parallel universes. All because you want to invent your own fanon by misinterpreting what Brian said, when there is an exceedingly simple and non-plothole-inducing explanation.

Seriously, please explain the logic that leads you to conclude that parallel universes exist in StarCraft? Yes, the Overmind's extrapolation turned out to be wrong. How is that proof of anything?

This in no way means that the vision is just a guess, as Brian did state that, yes, the Overmind saw the day Amon won, in the future in his vision.

Non-sequitur. I saw the day Amon won too through the narrative the Overmind constructed. It's still not a precognitive vision of the future, and it's still wrong.

Guess - estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

We both know the vision is not correct anymore, so please, by what definition of the word was the Overmind's vision not a guess?

Besides, it's not a hypothesis. It's pretty much explicit from the way I interpret the information.

Brian states the vision was constructed from Amon's plans.

He also states the vision saw the day Amon won.

Yes...because it's a narrative that the Overmind constructed. Same way a book writer can see the end of his book. Even Wings of Liberty is explicit in the fact that "the Overmind saw a vision". The fact that you think it's a 100% irrefutable vision of the future is something that you're claiming and you have to prove. Which is difficult since we both know the vision isn't going to come to fruition.

however, it was still a precognitive vision based on gaining information that Amon didn't plan,

Non-sequitur. Just because it has information that Amon didn't plan doesn't make it a precognitive vision.

And you are ignoring Brian stating " It says a few things. Among them is the fact that the Fallen One (hereafter referred to as the Dark Voice) will destroy everything. At a later point, we see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

Or "The Overmind saw a vision in which the zerg were used to kill the protoss, and only the fact that the zerg were slaves bothered it. The end of that vision showed all the zerg being sucked dry by hybrid. It represented the destruction of the zerg, and that was what the Overmind wanted to prevent."

That is an event in the future, not an extrapolation based on a plan for a future, but the future event itself, and the Overmind saw it. Ergo, precog.

Yes, the Overmind saw a vision of the future. Brian went on to clarify for you that the vision was a narrative that the Overmind pieced together from bits and pieces of Amon's knowledge. Still not seeing any evidence that it's real precognition.

Do you misinterpret everybody's words this way? When somebody tells you they've seen an event coming from a mile away, do you think to yourself "holy shit, this guy has precog!"

And mine does too, and doesn't simply make up stuff based on your own fantasy.

Right, because I'm the one proposing the existence of parallel universes and 100% accurate precognition.

Clearly, Zeratul and Tassadar knowing the names of protoss heroes is pure fantasy. Definitely a colossal stretch. Seriously, given how the vision is transmitted brain to brain, one wonders how anybody could come to a different conclusion?

No it doesn't, because as I stated. Amon doesn't see the future.

Wrong. Brian says:

"That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces, and it was about all that the Overmind could glean from the time spent with the Dark Voice."

Nowhere does Brian say "...but the Overmind later had a true vision of the future, which is completely separate from this answer I gave you that is now irrelevant".

Christ, why do you think Brian even bothered with this explanation in the first place if the Overmind ended up having a real vision of the future that has nothing to do with the info he got from the dark voice? How are you going to explain just where the heck the Overmind got this info from if not from Amon?

Why not stop making up your own fanon, and accept Brian's answer?

Brain states very clearly that the Overmind saw the future.

Yep. Even Wings of Liberty told you the Overmind saw a vision.

He saw events that didn't happen yet, but would happen.

" It says a few things. Among them is the fact that the Fallen One (hereafter referred to as the Dark Voice) will destroy everything. At a later point, we see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

Amon is not going to win, ergo it is not a valid vision of the future. Find better evidence.

How he formed the vision from Amon's plans have no bearing on the fact he saw the future.

You are proposing the existence of two different things:
1) The Overmind forming the vision from Amon's plans.
2) A completely different event where the Overmind had a precognitive "100% true" vision of the future.

Brian just told you the first. You have yet to provide evidence for the second. Your only "evidence" is an argument from ignorance that he has to have seen the future because protoss heroes are mentioned. Too bad that there are other more reasonable explanations for why the protoss heroes are there, and too bad that Brian already told us how the Overmind got his vision: "That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces."

No precognition.

Or "The Overmind saw a vision in which the zerg were used to kill the protoss, and only the fact that the zerg were slaves bothered it. The end of that vision showed all the zerg being sucked dry by hybrid. It represented the destruction of the zerg, and that was what the Overmind wanted to prevent."

And where Zeratul specifically states the Vision is of the future.

I have a vision of the future where we are all eaten by giant spaghetti monsters in an ironic twist of fate. I must have psychic powers that allow me to see the future.

Brain doesn't ever say the vision is not of the real future, and again, how it is constructed has no bearing on if the vision is of the future or not.

Argument from ignorance. He doesn't have to go out of his way to say exactly that because he probably thought he made it obvious with his original answer on the topic.

He does state that:

"At a later point, we see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

Which means, he didn't see a visual construction of a plan for the future. He saw the event in the future itself.

This is a non-sequitur. It does not mean that he didn't see a visual construction of a plan for the future. And if you honestly believe that, I invite you to reread Brian's answer: "That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces."

So...yeah, can't really accumulate any more evidence against your position than a direct quote from the lead writer telling you your interpretation is wrong.

[Shadow Archon]

Yes he did.

Where, pray tell, did the Overmind get this information if not from Amon? There seems to be an endless amount of holes that need plugging via your "interpretation".

From seeing the future.

Uhm, no, if you concede that the new information has an effect, then it doesn't invalidate my point at all. You just dodged it again.

The Overmind constructed the narrative that made the vision though, meaning that it was a static vision. It's a closed system, not an open.

The Overmind died and saw Amon win, but we all know that that's not going to happen. We also know that Kerrigan won't be killed. How exactly is this a "100% truthful pre-cognitive vision of the future"? x/

Because the Hybrids capabilities aren't going to magically change?

Yes, the player saw the narrative that the Overmind constructed too. Still not a precognitive vision of the future.

"The Day Amon won" = /= Narrative.

Yes, it is a precognitive vision of the future.

Then it should be easy to link me evidence that the Overmind saw a true vision of the future, and not a narrative that he pieced together from Amon's knowledge.

Why?

You've already ignored what I believe the evidence states for another interpretation. We are arguing personal interpretation now about how we view the evidence.

This is just a dick waving contest on who's opinion is more right now.

....and now your "interpretation" demands the existence of parallel universes. All because you want to invent your own fanon by misinterpreting what Brian said, when there is an exceedingly simple and non-plothole-inducing explanation.

I don't see the plot holes in my explanation. I do see making up shit in yours though.

Seriously, please explain the logic that leads you to conclude that parallel universes exist in StarCraft?

"It has come to the attention of this committee that one of our esteemed colleagues, Dr. Fredrica Wallis, has proposed a peculiar new theory that could shake the foundations of our very universe. A University sponsored geologic survey team returned six months ago from the icy wastes of Braxis, where they reported the discovery of a carving of immense proportions. Obviously created by sentient beings, this formation that bears some physical similarity to the word 'Blizzard' was found in a section of snow measuring approximately two miles wide. Dr. Wallis has seized this report and is holding it up as evidence of her insane theory that our universe is merely a game simulation being played upon the personal computer of a higher life form. This committee refuses to grant this lunacy even the slightest shred of support. If Ms. Wallis wishes to continue with this research, we must recommend her transfer from the Physical Sciences branch of this University to the Metaphysics laboratory. At least in that setting she can ignore reality and continue to spout irrational nonsense to her heart's content. In short, she must not be allowed to infect other students or faculty members with these heretical ideas. We are all real flesh and blood, ladies and gentlemen -- we are not just a simulation."

Partial transcript of Bian Ari's report
Physical Sciences Steering Committe

That's not exactly close enough.

Yes, the Overmind's extrapolation turned out to be wrong. How is that proof of anything?

The fact it contains true information that again, Amon couldn't have planned for.

Non-sequitur. I saw the day Amon won too through the narrative the Overmind constructed. It's still not a precognitive vision of the future, and it's still wrong.

It's not a non-sequitor.

If Brian states that the Overmind "saw the day the Dark Voice won" then yes, he didn't see the narrative, he saw the future.

Guess - estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

We both know the vision is not correct anymore, so please, by what definition of the word was the Overmind's vision not a guess?

I'm guessing you aren't even reading my posts now.

I already said, "Of course the events are not going to happen like that anymore! Someone else (plural) already saw the vision and thus changed the future by that act!"

I said "The physical capabilities are accurate in this vision of the future, because of all the other elements that make it up. There's no reason the Overmind made Hybrids blow up a star system "because!"

The actually individual mechanics are accurate, not the actual history that created the events.

Yes...because it's a narrative that the Overmind constructed. Same way a book writer can see the end of his book. Even Wings of Liberty is explicit in the fact that "the Overmind saw a vision". The fact that you think it's a 100% irrefutable vision of the future is something that you're claiming and you have to prove. Which is difficult since we both know the vision isn't going to come to fruition.

Seeing that you just straw-manned me, I don't see exactly what you think I'm trying to prove.

Non-sequitur. Just because it has information that Amon didn't plan doesn't make it a precognitive vision.

Wrong, if that information is correct going by other sources and we know the "vision is of the future" and we know the Overmind saw the "day amon won," this means, yes, it is precog.

He didn't see the narative he made, he saw the "day" Amon won. That's explicitly an event he saw in the future.

Yes, the Overmind saw a vision of the future. Brian went on to clarify for you that the vision was a narrative that the Overmind pieced together from bits and pieces of Amon's knowledge. Still not seeing any evidence that it's real precognition.

Sure, because you don't think what I think Brain said elsewhere in the Q&A means the same thing.

Do you misinterpret everybody's words this way? When somebody tells you they've seen an event coming from a mile away, do you think to yourself "holy shit, this guy has precog!"

And now you are insulting a view contrary to your's

Right, because I'm the one proposing the existence of parallel universes and 100% accurate precognition.

Because obviously parallel universes are false and precog in a universe where we know precog exists has to be wrong.

Clearly, Zeratul and Tassadar knowing the names of protoss heroes is pure fantasy. Definitely a colossal stretch. Seriously, given how the vision is transmitted brain to brain, one wonders how anybody could come to a different conclusion?

Tassadar doesn't know who Mohander is, what Void Rays are, and what Stalkers are.

It never states anywhere that Zeratul added anything to the vision either.

Wrong. Brian says:

"That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces, and it was about all that the Overmind could glean from the time spent with the Dark Voice."

Nowhere does Brian say "...but the Overmind later had a true vision of the future, which is completely separate from this answer I gave you that is now irrelevant".

And you know what else Brian says?

"We see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

It shows us the moment not the narrative of the moment or the guess of the moment, the definite moment in the future.

Christ, why do you think Brian even bothered with this explanation in the first place if the Overmind ended up having a real vision of the future that has nothing to do with the info he got from the dark voice?

To explain the understanding of where the vision originated from.

Still doesn't mean information magically appeared by Tassadar or Zeratul "editing" themselves in so it would "make more sense"

How are you going to explain just where the heck the Overmind got this info from if not from Amon?

Pretty much the Overmind saying this.

Why not stop making up your own fanon, and accept Brian's answer?

Why not stop arguing your opinion, and accept that differing interpretations on what Brian say are equally valid?

Yep. Even Wings of Liberty told you the Overmind saw a vision.

Of the future.

Amon is not going to win, ergo it is not a valid vision of the future. Find better evidence.

I kind of already did.

You are proposing the existence of two different things:
1) The Overmind forming the vision from Amon's plans.
2) A completely different event where the Overmind had a precognitive "100% true" vision of the future.

Stop it with the 100% true thing. You obviously misinterpreted what I meant.

By saying its true, I am not saying "this is what's going to happen!" I'm saying the physics still line up with the regular world, so feats are perfectly acceptable for analysis, specifically freaky Hybrid star kaboom.

Brian just told you the first. You have yet to provide evidence for the second. Your only "evidence" is an argument from ignorance that he has to have seen the future because protoss heroes are mentioned. Too bad that there are other more reasonable explanations for why the protoss heroes are there, and too bad that Brian already told us how the Overmind got his vision: "That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces."

And he also stated the vision shows us the definite, explicit moment when the Dark Voice won if Kerrigan died. Of course showing someone the future is going to change it.

No precognition.

That's pretty much where we are at right here, because we have wildly different interpretations about what Brian said and what happens in SC2.

I have a vision of the future where we are all eaten by giant spaghetti monsters in an ironic twist of fate. I must have psychic powers that allow me to see the future.

No. Because the Overmind specifically has elements in his vision that are already proven elsewhere in Starcraft, like what Hybrids look like, or Protoss military, or the existence of a Protoss Archive, or the location being shown to be a real place, or so on.

Argument from ignorance.

He already said it was of the future. Just because that future won't happen, doesn't mean the event is entirely impossible. Again, we are talking about the validity of analyzing the star thing, right?

He doesn't have to go out of his way to say exactly that because he probably thought he made it obvious with his original answer on the topic.

He also made it pretty clear the Overmind saw the future and didn't just make up a story based on an evil plan.

This is a non-sequitur. It does not mean that he didn't see a visual construction of a plan for the future. And if you honestly believe that, I invite you to reread Brian's answer: "That vision was a narrative the Overmind constructed from bits and pieces."

Bits and pieces is vague, and you can narrate real life, so again, what does that prove when Brian states the Overmind saw the future.

So...yeah, can't really accumulate any more evidence against your position than a direct quote from the lead writer telling you your interpretation is wrong.

"We see a vision that the Overmind had, which shows us the moment when the Dark Voice wins the day."

I know exactly what you mean.

[Turalyon]

Whoah, a Shadow/Gradius battle has erupted.

An inconsistent lore, that changes pretty much on the writer's discretion, is a lore that disrespects itself, let alone how it disrespects older fans of the setting.

How ever, the point is, I disagree on where the inconsistencies lie and what are true inconsistencies.

Ok, good. But not everyone has your inclination or ability to fanon everything into place to justify away these "inconsistencies". If you had to do that at all for something so simple as following the core of a story, then it's the writer's issue of not communicating something essential for your understanding of it not the audience member lack of interpreting it. Also, your conclusions do not always follow Occam's razor nor are they naturally intuitive (the cherry-picking of whatever is important/not important at a whim doesn't help because some others are not as demanding) to reach with the information presented at hand. It's often easier to say that the writing was limited - and it was (to put it mildly).

I disagree.

I know you do and not everyone does.

Ah, but that record doesn't include the Khala, the specific thing that prevents the Zerg from assimilating them.

The "Khala" is just a mystical name/religion to describe the innate biological ability (it's not midichlorians as far as I'm aware) of the communal psionic link the Protoss already had and lost contact with after the Xel'Naga's departure (leading to the Aeon of Strife). This was something that the Xel'Naga were well aware of initially.

I disagree about the implication though that Protoss being assimilated was a sure thing by the Overmind's hands due to his interest in humanity.

But you only disagreed once you knew/it was revealed later (in the EU) that it wasn't possible in the first place - hindsight bias. If you can cast yourself back when we only had Sc1 to go on, there is nothing solid to back the assertion that the Overmind could not categorically assimilate the Protoss. Such a statement would be open to possible speculation sure, but there was nothing concrete at the time to lead one to make that assertion in the first place beyond an argument of ignorance based on one not seeing it happen. It's this sort of shifting of the goal posts that is causing problems - it's why I feel no need to take stock of any current information because nothing is solid.

I don't see how its minor or irrelevant in the past though given the whole point of the Overmind's drive to attack the Protoss.

It is a "minor" or rather insignificant thing because it is naturally assumed that the Overmind can assimilate the Protoss at the time given that the Overmind knew about them through the Xel'Naga, goes to great lengths to find them and then gloat that it will assimilate the Protoss becoming perfect. Much like it is naturally assumed that the Overmind is metaphysically free at the time (and not a slave with hazy rules about being able to act in some ways but not in others) and that Raynor is a human (as opposed to a Xel'Naga or some yet unknown time-travelling meta-human with Xel'Naga). It is is "minor" because we don't really need to state it because it's taken for granted. And that's my point, if we can't take something as simple as this for granted, why bother taking anything else they tell/reveal to us for granted? That's the rub.

You aren't dividing up the vision into parts though.

But why should I? There is nothing there to tell me I should break up the vision in parts and think one way about this part and think another for the other part? How does this whole scene make this a naturally intuitive thing for the audience member to do? It doesn't.

This still doesn't rectify what I mentioned earlier about something either being wholly truth or not (as you yourself took great pains to tell me that you understood that). If one part of it is false, then how do you know the other part isn't either? If we have to break up the bits as you said, we have no idea as to which part to wholly believe or not. The only way to intuit that is to identify the whole affair as being a plot device - a contrived mechanism to try and force a plot to move a certain way - which breaks the immersion of the story (and leads to criticism) or have a mental evasion of and restructure it using fanon. Which of those two is easier to do for most people?

But, the vision and the prophecy agree.

Not really. The prophecy says "It will end in utter darkness", that is all. That alone can be interpreted in a billion different ways, of which, the vision is only but one interpretation! What you have there is a confirmation bias.

Besides, both examples follow the "prophecy" trope and are therefore usually subject to unexpected and misinterpreted results. There are such things as false prophecies (whereby most cases invariably do become at some point or another) in fiction, too, you know.

Because the Hybrids still exist.

The ability to lead to what happened on that star was witnessed by Raynor during the Castanar level.

This is a good point you make. Why need a (false) prophecy at all to give an inflated and ultimately artificial sense of danger (it's nothing more than a garish warning) when you can have the Hybrids exist as a proper threat in real-time? Really, it's plot device value is only to give a reason for Raynor to not kill Kerrigan - and even then, it's not actually required for that at all because the vision can be missed and we still conclude with the same outcome.

A dream though, doesn't have a basis on reality. It can be set in a fictional worlde, it can arbitrarily control the physical laws in that dream at will, it can be shaped by physical feelings, etc.

The Vision however is based strictly in a possible future.

Even if that future isn't possible anymore, that doesn't mean the abilities that are preformed in it are impossible in the new future.

Precognitive visions don't have a basis on reality either. They're even less real because at least we know dreams exist in the sense that we can have them in the real world. There's also nothing to suggest that something that happens in a dream cannot happen in real-life either. We just call these coincidences and not pre-cognitive visions is all.

Also, the fact that you mention the vision isn't possible" pretty much relegates the thing to being a "fictional world" anyway: a hallmark of a dream!

I think it's been explicitly stated that the vision is accurate by the writer, so personal judgement has little to do with that piece of lore at this point.

It has everything to do with it because it marks how good the writer is. Having them state it is accurate "outside" of the universe does us no good if we are to judge a piece on its own. Also, who is to say we can't interpret what the writer said as being "accurate" as really being "accurate in being false"? It may sound absurd and facetious, but only if I really were in this particular case...

But, the retroactive continuity doesn't change anything about what happens in Starcraft with the Overmind's character...

It changes what was supposed to be taken for granted at the time and how you think about a certain character and what they did. That's a big deal when trying for consistent world-building.

Sure, it doesn't really change the original but it colours the perception of how one sees something. For example, when you think of Darth Vader, do you really think that deep down he's just some whiny and lame pussy-whipped momma's boy? No of course not, because the original SW showed he was a badass! But, one comes to the realisation that this is what they (Lucas) really wanted to make us think that he is all along. That's where the bitterness and outrage comes from.