Simpler, more realistic Thor model?

[Kacaier]

No, it's not. How do you know what everyone is worried about?

StarCraft is a sci-fi game. If we are to base a conclusion on the "realism" that Blizzard intends to put into StarCraft 2, we ought to look towards StarCraft 1—or, of course, what they've shown of SC2. I don't believe I need to be the one to list the innumerable impossibilities found within the StarCraft franchise.

But I don't have to (hopefully). It's a game. It's soft science fiction. It's alright for it to be unrealistic. There were several threads in the Lore section outlining some of the stuff that makes no sense in the universe. To argue that Blizzard seeks realism to the nth degree is an undefendable position.

Again, I'm sure though, an argument of the degrees of the suspension of belief are what is in debate, rather than absolute realism. However, I think even that can be technobabbled easily:

Anti-gravity is used in the Thor's upper body. Anti-gravity is seen used many times in the case of the Vulture, air units hovering, and Terran buildings. It's not a wholly floating unit because it might be less energy taxing to at least have some physical weight bearings. It's not fully walking/tank, because that would take too much ground space to maneuver (the Thor is a huge machine).

That uses existing StarCraft mechanics and it not outlandish to imagine if you accept the positions of Terran artificial gravity and practicality. In my opinion, it'll be queer to complain that one's suspension of belief is broken. I suspect instead that the aesthetics are in question, rather than realism or suspension of belief.

It may not be.

I definitely don't want to bring up another discussion on the practicality of bipedal mechs.

Unless you're actually postulating mechs are feasible (realistically, real-world, the universe that we reside in) machines, then I could reasonably say that you're in the minority. I am absolutely confident that the majority people enjoy mechs for its rule of cool rather than it being a smart war machine. If, however, this is something you absolutely believe in and are not just pulling this to just discredit a part of my post, then I will be happy to debate the practicality of bipedal 'mechs' in the Lore or Off-Topic forum with you.

By no means is that silly. You are suggesting that Blizzard shouldn't change anything? Like no change to first Siege tank model, no change to Infestor? That's your opinion and it's just as silly as ours.

True enough, I concur with you. Some things Blizzard should have changed. But this was more through popular outburst (original Siege Tank, Soul Hunter, Stalker). Perhaps I was wrong to call the opposition 'silly.' I'll retract that opinion.

However, I remain stalwart in saying, Thor ought to stay as is. I don't believe there is enough opposition to warrant a Thor change. Now, if there was, it wouldn't matter what I would argue anyhow. But I am part of the 'static movement' concerning the Thor that represents a large opposition from a sweeping popularity for change.

Also, my overall sentiment in the quoted segment, was that people are suggesting the Thor should be 'this' or 'that', thus representing multiple different opinions on what they see the Thor as. I argued that if Blizzard chose to go with 'Macross-like Thor', then 'Mechwarrior-like Thor' and 'Terminator-like Thor' guys would still complain. There's no obvious concerted movement in the regard of what the Thor should be (though I suppose you could label them all for change).

Evidently everyone has his own opinion what is cool and what is not.

What I said was a hyperbole. I am very well aware there are personal views on what is cool. What that statement was more along the lines of Blizzard designing with that virtue in mind. Plus it was my conclusion reinforcing the fact that realism should not be a concern.

[Asfastasican]

I think if the legs were larger or if the model were scaled down and smaller, people wouldn't pick on this stupid unit so much.

I personally feel like they were trying too hard when they made a Thor. It doesn't feel like Starcraft, and yet somehow the Goliath really felt like Starcraft.

[DemolitionSquid]

It doesn't feel like Starcraft, and yet somehow the Goliath really felt like Starcraft.

The Goliath only feels like SC because it was in SC. If the Goliath had never existed in SC1 and suddenly the Viking was introduced in SC2 everyone would be like "Transformers and Mechs don't feel like SC."

[electricmole]

^ goliath is a low tech kind of mech. lets move on people, this is sc2 we don't want to make the terran to mediocre of a scifi race thus the thor and viking.

The thor is big or fat because all the terran armor seems like that, they don't seem to sleek except only for the ghost. Just take a look at the marine not sleek looking at all but very bulky like.

I like the thor only problem is its weapon choice. Projectiles? Flak canons? Please, the terran has already too much of those and the thor needs something way different and better. The year is 2500, other mech would pwnd this thor mech easily with their all around arsenals including energy weapons. Improvised and mount some of those bc laser technology to the thor and we have the most impressive terran ground unit. Right now, the way it shoots is just bland, the marauder power rockets looks more impressive and devastating.

[MattII]

Personally I've never liked the Thor's mech design and I've always thought it could do with an overhaul, be it to the Mass Effect Leviathan that Woland proposed or the Terminator HK Tank that Romla proposed doesn't really matter, just as long as they lose the mech.

[Triceron]

Side topic - What do people think about combinable mechs?

Not to the extent of say Voltron/Power Rangers, but more like Archer + Hippogryph combination.

Say two smaller vehicles or mechs that combined into a bigger mech. Is it too sci-fi and not very Terran?

[MattII]

Don't like it much, but then I find mechs as a whole to be a bit deplorable on a battlefield.

[Romla]

To Kacaier:
1. I am absolutely aware of the absurdities in Starcraft Lore, but that doesn't mean every monstrosity must be automatically accepted.
2. You have completely ignored my suggestion - to get rid of the bipedal Thor for good. Or at least make him smaller, because giant skyscraper on two legs certainly isn't something what I find interesting or even cool.
3. People would still complain isn't any argument. Some people will always complain. I am not so sure if the Thor is really so popular as you say. Definitely there is a lot of debate about him.
4. If reality should not be a concern then flying hamburgers and talking squirrels can easily be in Protoss war arsenal. Reality must be a concern - to a certain extent. It only matters what is someone willing to tolerate and what not. I will survive if the Thor stays as it is, but if that can change I am definitely for it.

[Kacaier]

1. I am absolutely aware of the absurdities in Starcraft Lore, but that doesn't mean every monstrosity must be automatically accepted.

No, but then there's no basis in realism for it to be denied either. That's the point I'm trying to make.

2. You have completely ignored my suggestion - to get rid of the bipedal Thor for good. Or at least make him smaller, because giant skyscraper on two legs certainly isn't something what I find interesting or even cool.

Apologies. I merely only scanned the suggestions through the thread. Specifically I was replying to your individual post and the overall sentiment within the thread.

In my original post to this thread, I also was open to entirely replacing the Thor as well—as so long as it was kept in the single player portion in its full glory.

3. People would still complain isn't any argument. Some people will always complain. I am not so sure if the Thor is really so popular as you say. Definitely there is a lot of debate about him.

I believe it is a valid argument if 'some' people complain is a valid argument.

On the terms of popularity, I don't think the polarity of the Thor was as wide as any other remodeled unit, say the Infestor, Stalker, or Siege tank. It would definitely have been nice to add a poll to this thread so we wouldn't just argue in ambiguity. However, SC:L isn't the only fan community either. It may be entirely fruitless to debate majority of SC2 fan community, except on what Blizzard decides what is majority.

4. If reality should not be a concern then flying hamburgers and talking squirrels can easily be in Protoss war arsenal. Reality must be a concern - to a certain extent. It only matters what is someone willing to tolerate and what not. I will survive if the Thor stays as it is, but if that can change I am definitely for it.

Reductio ad absurdum. There is, of course, always a limit to everything. However, I pointedly argued the degrees of the suspension of belief, and easily solved the issue with some technobabble, which Blizzard does anyhow. I doubt it would be possible to argue for "flying hamburgers and talking squirrels."

And as my per my previous post, it is most likely less of an issue in the case of realism, and more in the opinion of pure aestheticism. In this case, it is merely personal opinion and popular opinion. There is definitely no basis for the Thor argued against merely because of the argument of realism.

[ArcherofAiur]

The Thor needs more guns.