Idea: Making the Bengalass critter look like the Thanator

[don]

This thread is a very nice read.

On the topic of critters, I would like to see dinosaurs or dinosaur like critters in SC2. Raptors, T-Rexes, Bronchiosaurs, Triceratops.. you know, power ranger stuff.

Dinosaurs seem to have fallen out of the media lately.

[MattII]

The Bengalaas are fixed, you can't change them very much (different faces are okay, different number of legs aren't).

Also, Tolkien 'was' the foundation of the modern description of a 'orc'. The word had existed before of course, but it was a more generally used term referring often to monster, demon or giant, rather than the ones Tolkien described, which, by his own admission are based on Golblins, particularly the ones in 'The Princess And The Goblin' by George Macdonald.

If you want something that is both new and recent try D&D I'm sure you'll be able to find a few, if only because they've put out so many ideas.

[ArcherofAiur]

The Bengalaas are fixed, you can't change them very much (different faces are okay, different number of legs aren't).

Why would changing the face be ok but not the legs?

[mr. peasant]

Why would changing the face be ok but not the legs?

Simple. Different artists have different styles. Certain features may be more pronounced in one while downplayed in others. At the same time, a certain degree of consistency is required between artists. So a compromise is needed; stylistic freedom as long as the general features are maintained (predatory, feline face, etc). If you're going to change the anatomy, you might as well create a new critter.

This compromise is sensible as it is replicated in nature. There can be a considerable amount of natural variation within a species even between parent and child. However, they are often things like fur color, size, spot/stripe patterns and faces at an individual level. Outside of congenital malformations, growing extra limbs is not one of them.

[ArcherofAiur]

Simple. Different artists have different styles. Certain features may be more pronounced in one while downplayed in others. At the same time, a certain degree of consistency is required between artists. So a compromise is needed; stylistic freedom as long as the general features are maintained (predatory, feline face, etc). If you're going to change the anatomy, you might as well create a new critter.

This compromise is sensible as it is replicated in nature. There can be a considerable amount of natural variation within a species even between parent and child. However, they are often things like fur color, size, spot/stripe patterns and faces at an individual level. Outside of congenital malformations, growing extra limbs is not one of them.

How about bony plates on the head. Do those count as congenital malformations or artistic liberty? And ill point out that its not natural variation because all the protoss now have it.


There is a certain amount of artistic reimagining associated with Starcraft 2. Ideas are improved. Adding an extra pair of legs to the Bengalaas would definatly qualify (rule of cool). However, I could also see creating another critter with six legs so ill agree with you on that possibility.

[n00bonicPlague]

When it comes to originality, I don't question the capabilities of the human mind being able to come up some wild and crazy-ass stuff. The problem comes in with the limits of what the human mind can relate to with what it already knows. Things that have similarities with everyday objects are like that so people can easily get involved in the storyline.

If you look at any story, certain creatures will remind you of ones that are found here on earth. When I first saw the Thanator and Bengalass, I equated them with the "big jungle cat" generic. When I first saw the Titanassaur and Rynadron (???) I equated them with the "large thick-skinned herbivore" generic.

Sure, we could come up with completely original stuff — we could come up with an entirely different universe with entirely different physical laws — but by doing so we would have to spend much of the story (if not most of it) explaining the intricacies of the universe, leaving little room for the actual story. This is why we see things like ancient mythologies, folklore, and modern life being used as sources of inspiration. They are things that we humans already understand and can relate too. If you come up with something totally new (which you could) you will lose your audience as they try to figure out what things are.

So anyway, I don't think the devs should look directly at Avatar and say, "WE MUST COPY THEIR 1337 CREATURES!" However, I do feel that they could gain some inspiration from that as well as from other stories and work to make their creatures a bit more creative looking. Just start with something basic here on earth and remix it to make something cool.

[The_Blade]

When it comes to originality, I don't question the capabilities of the human mind being able to come up some wild and crazy-ass stuff. The problem comes in with the limits of what the human mind can relate to with what it already knows. Things that have similarities with everyday objects are like that so people can easily get involved in the storyline.

If you look at any story, certain creatures will remind you of ones that are found here on earth. When I first saw the Thanator and Bengalass, I equated them with the "big jungle cat" generic. When I first saw the Titanassaur and Rynadron (???) I equated them with the "large thick-skinned herbivore" generic.

Sure, we could come up with completely original stuff — we could come up with an entirely different universe with entirely different physical laws — but by doing so we would have to spend much of the story (if not most of it) explaining the intricacies of the universe, leaving little room for the actual story. This is why we see things like ancient mythologies, folklore, and modern life being used as sources of inspiration. They are things that we humans already understand and can relate too. If you come up with something totally new (which you could) you will lose your audience as they try to figure out what things are.

So anyway, I don't think the devs should look directly at Avatar and say, "WE MUST COPY THEIR 1337 CREATURES!" However, I do feel that they could gain some inspiration from that as well as from other stories and work to make their creatures a bit more creative looking. Just start with something basic here on earth and remix it to make something cool.

Agreed, fiction must not be far from reality in order for the general audience to understand and enjoy some movey. With a similar argument: we find our gods of humanoid or human forms; and if horses did, their gods will be horses.

On topic:

It would be fun to see powerful critters killing your army in single player, but I would hate any agressive creature on melee.

[Arkalis]

It would be fun to see powerful critters killing your army in single player, but I would hate any agressive creature on melee.

You mean like adding creeps to SC2 a la WC3 style? Maybe for campaign, as you say, would be cool but please don't make Warcraft in space

[Triceron]

I remember Tiberian Sun had uber powerful critters. There was a missle-firing hover tank that was pretty good that I made a whole bunch of, about 10 of em, and was sending em out as a raiding party. I saw a critter in a patch of Tiberium and thought 'easy pickins'. I attacked the critter, and it BARELY took any damage, while it raped my entire army.

I uninstalled the game after that.

[Crazy_Jonny]

I remember Tiberian Sun had uber powerful critters. There was a missle-firing hover tank that was pretty good that I made a whole bunch of, about 10 of em, and was sending em out as a raiding party. I saw a critter in a patch of Tiberium and thought 'easy pickins'. I attacked the critter, and it BARELY took any damage, while it raped my entire army.

I uninstalled the game after that.

Well... I guess I was proven wrong about that whole "critters wont break the game" comment.