Awesome article concerning Xel Naga

[newcomplex]

Found this amazing fan article written about the Xel naga on a foreign fansite

It's in french, but french translates fairly well to english so no worries :P

It rehashes a lot of info we already know, but the Author does some cool research and produced stuff like this




Original article
http://www.starcraft2france.com/Le-c...rs.7847.0.html

Translation
http://translate.google.com/translat...&sl=auto&tl=en

[Kimera757]

Well, I read it, but I didn't see anything there that wasn't in Legacy's article or Roland's article.

Although that's not a surprise, given it's the same topic with the same sources

[Gradius]

That thing isn't a Xel'Naga. Blizz stated they had no art for the Xel'Naga far after that cinematic was released. It might be a hybrid though.

[newcomplex]

That thing isn't a Xel'Naga. Blizz stated they had no art for the Xel'Naga far after that cinematic was released. It might be a hybrid though.

They were probably referring to concept art. That thing represents a Xel Naga, but aesthetically it only defines basic features (Has wings, etc.). It doesn't define in depth how a Xel naga actually looks.

I mean, look at the Archon, and the concept art of an Archon, that Archon bears almost no resemblance to an actual archon, it is merely art that represents an Archon.

Well, I read it, but I didn't see anything there that wasn't in Legacy's article or Roland's article.

Although that's not a surprise, given it's the same topic with the same sources

I figured as much, but I posted almost solely because of that picture, which nobody else had ever pieced together before.

[Gradius]

They were probably referring to concept art. That thing represents a Xel Naga, but aesthetically it only defines basic features (Has wings, etc.). It doesn't define in depth how a Xel naga actually looks.

No. The question asked how the Xel'Naga are artistically different from the Protoss. They said "They're different because they don't have any art. we haven't really gone too far into defining Xel'Naga other than defining a few temples and things."

And they are talking about the actual beings, because they later say they want to leave their options open, and don't want to regret any designs they would make, such as giving them mushroom heads.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGjTKRubGIw

@ 1:20

[Kimera757]

An old temple with pictures of modern breeds like zerglings doesn't even make sense.

However, apparently Zeratul picked up some future-seeing artifacts in Wings of Liberty. You start to wonder... if the xel'naga could see the future, why couldn't they avoid it?

[newcomplex]

No. The question asked how the Xel'Naga are artistically different from the Protoss. They said "They're different because they don't have any art. we haven't really gone too far into defining Xel'Naga other than defining a few temples and things."

And they are talking about the actual beings, because they later say they want to leave their options open, and don't want to regret any designs they would make, such as giving them mushroom heads.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGjTKRubGIw

@ 1:20

Well thats kind of my point.

Xel'Naga other than defining a few temples and things."

Isn't that what this is? And it makes sense in that context, because thats what I was saying, they don't have any rigidly defined concept arts yet, just a general ideal or representation of a Xel naga in the form of a "temple thing"

[Gradius]

Isn't that what this is? And it makes sense in that context, because thats what I was saying, they don't have any rigidly defined concept arts yet, just a general ideal or representation of a Xel naga in the form of a "temple thing"

Everybody loves to fight me on this despite the fact that I give irrefutable evidence from a Blizz employee in a video saying that Xel'Naga beings have not been defined anywhere. I remember a similar debate with Santrega, where he told me "when you really dislike something, you tend to refuse to believe it at all costs, and thats fine."

Anyway, if your interpretation of that sentence is that they drew a Xel'Naga onto the carvings on that rock, then that sentence would be grammatically incorrect (a xel'naga cannot be a temple, makes no sense). Clearly, he was talking about Xel'Naga art in general. They go on to talk about the actual beings, so that should dispel any more confusion on this topic. Watch the video.

There's absolutely no reason for them to show what a Xel'Naga from the previous cycle looked like, as well as what modern zerglings look like in the same picture. Everybody wants to believe that Blizz revealed the Xel'Naga in this cinematic right under our noses, and that later when we find out that it was a Xel'Naga all along we will all facepalm ourselves for not seeing it earlier, but that's simply not the case.

[newcomplex]

Everybody loves to fight me on this despite the fact that I give irrefutable evidence from a Blizz employee in a video saying that Xel'Naga beings have not been defined anywhere. I remember a similar debate with Santrega, where he told me "when you really dislike something, you tend to refuse to believe it at all costs, and thats fine."

Anyway, if your interpretation of that sentence is that they drew a Xel'Naga onto the carvings on that rock, then that sentence would be grammatically incorrect (a xel'naga cannot be a temple, makes no sense). Clearly, he was talking about Xel'Naga art in general. They go on to talk about the actual beings, so that should dispel any more confusion on this topic. Watch the video.

There's absolutely no reason for them to show what a Xel'Naga from the previous cycle looked like, as well as what modern zerglings look like in the same picture. Everybody wants to believe that Blizz revealed the Xel'Naga in this cinematic right under our noses, and that later when we find out that it was a Xel'Naga all along we will all facepalm ourselves for not seeing it earlier, but that's simply not the case.

Well um, Santrega's seems to have put it harshly, and incorrectly, the evidence is far from conclusive. It can be argued either way.

But your argument isn't conclusive either. Blizzard states "we don't want to showcase exactly what a Xel Naga is. "Temples and stuff".

That picture doesn't define what exactly what a Xel Naga is, it gives a framework. A point of reference, a representation.

Look at that picture of an Archon. Could we determine the artistic design of the protoss from that picture of an archon if we had never seen a protoss before? Does that show us "exactly" what a Protoss is?

No, of course not. Blizzards statement states that they still have a lot of artistic freedom with the Xel Naga, the specific intent of not having any pictures beyond "temple and things". That picture, of a thing inside a temple, leaves them with just that, a lot of artistic freedom. It also handily falls into the exceptions of an "exactly" what a Xel Naga is AND belonging in the "Temple and things" category.

Regardless, Its just a matter of fan interpretation of whether thats a Xel Naga or not. The statement from browder can be as much as in favor of it being a Xel Naga as it is against it.

[Visions of Khas]

An old temple with pictures of modern breeds like zerglings doesn't even make sense.

I'm of the opinion that the cavern was constructed by either ancient protoss or another creation of the Xel'Naga, rather than the 'Naga themselves, and may have served as a store-house for Xel'Naga artifacts. (Maybe it was an ancient colony lost during the Aeon of Strife?) That would mean protoss seers had foreseen the coming apocalypse, not the Xel'Naga, though if they could foresee the future I don't see why the Naga couldn't. All the same, prophecy and fortune telling are whacky things that you can't put too much stock into.