SC: RM Feedback/Inconsistencies Mega-Thread

[GnaReffotsirk]

I found this as well: http://tip2006.deviantart.com/art/Dark-Archon-263532789

Apparently, the Dark Archon always had a hood now.

CEEEEEEERRRRRRNNNNN!

[TheEconomist]

For once since the entire mind-fuck started, I've been on the side of remembering how it is in this universe. I fear much more of this and my brain shall split in two!

[GnaReffotsirk]

Don't worry. Just turn on the TV, pop open a bottle of JOHNNIE WALKER, and watch an episode or two of the FLINSTONES. You'll never go insane like LOONEY TUNES are.

[TheEconomist]

I would go mad in a world where Flinstones was the correct spelling *shivers*

[Undeadprotoss]

So I was looking at the Dark Archon/Archon portraits (the latter is animated, used by Pete Stilwell), and I noticed a small detail.

In the original portraits, you didn't actually see any Protoss facial features. Rather, you saw a vague outline of a Protoss that was heavily obscured by smoke. Compare that to the Attachment 2499. The latter is much more defined, and you can clearly make out the eyes and facial features, and even some expression. The same is true of the original Dark Archon versus the remastered Dark Archon

To me, the former Archon portraits are much more mysterious and awe-inducing. The fact that you cannot ascertain exactly what is behind that outline implies it to be otherwordly, unnatural, or even godlike. Consider the description of regular Archons from the SC1 manual:

These swirling, burning effigies of the Protoss spirit
radiate incalculable power, and their devastating psionic
storms can be unleashed against cowering enemy forces
both in the air and on the ground. Although the Protoss
are loathe to sacrifice valuable Templar, those that do
achieve this final level of commitment are honored in
the annals of the Templar Archives.

And the description of the Dark Archon from the little-known Brood War manual

The burning, crimson effigy of the Dark Archon
spreads fear across any battlefield. These powerful
creatures of living psionic energy embody the eternal
wrath of the Dark Templar. Created by the merging
of any two Dark Templar warriors, the Dark Archon
can wield the mysterious energies of void. These
dire, volatile beings are so powerful that the Dark
Templar have outlawed their creation for a thousand
years. After the Zerg Swarm destroyed the plant Aiur,
the Dark Templar have realized the necessity of their
greatest weapons.

Both of them paint the picture of the Archons as otherworldly, implacable, and enigmatic. The lines between physical and spiritual are even blurred in their description. You're supposed to be in awe of the Archons, you're supposed to see them as incredibly powerful units that you get only in the most dire of circumstances. Regardless of how that worked in in-game, that's the picture that was painted. The remastered Archons are badasses, but they're not the right badasses for this job. They're too personal, and it'd be very difficult to imagine the old Archon audio playing with both of those guys.

[GnaReffotsirk]

The absence of eyes, and being "drowned" in psionic smoke makes the Archon somewhat a remainder, or shadow, or apparition, peaking through from the "other side".

Like a spirit/ghost almost.

I always thought of archons not as was depicted in the LotV cinematic, but as an entity in another dimension manifesting in this dimension through the energy around it.

Like a burning lint in the flame, ever fading, holding energy to itself.

[TheEconomist]

Yeah, I always thought of the Archons as more than just beefed up, armor Protoss submerged in energy.

[Undeadprotoss]

The absence of eyes, and being "drowned" in psionic smoke makes the Archon somewhat a remainder, or shadow, or apparition, peaking through from the "other side".

Like a spirit/ghost almost.

I always thought of archons not as was depicted in the LotV cinematic, but as an entity in another dimension manifesting in this dimension through the energy around it.

Like a burning lint in the flame, ever fading, holding energy to itself.

Yeah that's just the thing, they're not supposed to feel material, they're supposed to feel otherwordly. I think the original developers kept it vague on purpose to achieve that effect.

[TheEconomist]

It's funny that they went the fantasy, abstract, otherwordly route with everything else, but then decided to make what should be and has always been otherwordly into more material.

[Undeadprotoss]

It is weird, it's almost like StarCraft 1 is the inverse of all of that. We always talk about the gritty, hard-sci element of SC, but there are plenty of straight-up references to souls, spirits of ancestors, etc in the manual and elsewhere. I think SC found that sweet spot where you make the fantastical, abstract, etc seem more intriguing because you place it in the context of a universe that feels more realistic.