Does Spawn Infested Terrans break your suspension of disbelief?

[Gradius]

If Marines shooting down a BC doesn't damage your suspension of disbelief, then I fail to see how Spawn Infested Terrans can.

No, I never said that. But there are things in StarCraft which damage my suspension of disbelief, and hence, damage my enjoyment of the game (at least at first). But these things are few and far between - enough that I overlook them once I "enter the realm of the hardcore". This idea that "they can do whatever arbitrary thing they want" and that competitive games need absolutely no suspension of disbelief is wrong and comes purely from your low opinion of StarCraft's single player & graphics.

Sure, they have lots of leeway with suspension of disbelief, but if they chocked the game completely full of bizarre/nonsensical things, I can guarantee you that nobody would stick around to "enter the realm of the hardcore." It's like saying that since people eat many strange or unhealthy foods that they can therefore eat whatever arbitrary things they want.

My point is that a competitive game doesn't have any disbelief to be suspended. It's just the rules.

As long as we're clear that this is only your opinion. Believe it or not, there are people out there that see a Terran Siege Tank and actually picture a tank in their minds.

OK, here are two scenarios that stretch suspension of disbelief in a Loony Toons cartoon:

1: The gag where the Road Runner is standing on the edge of a cliff with the Coyote on the anchored side. Then an anvil falls and breaks the part of the cliff between them. And then the Coyote's side falls, against all logic.

2: The gag where the Coyote paints a picture of the road on a cliff, then lures the Road Runner to run into it. However, the Road Runner runs through it as though it were actual road. The Coyote, shocked at this turn of events, attempts to follow, but runs into a solid cliff face.

Saying that Marines downing a BC is easier to accept than Spawn Infested Terrans is like saying that #1 makes more sense than #2. They're both nonsense.

It's not that simple. The point is that there are certain things people are willing to accept. Marines shooting down BCs for example is the least of SC's problems. It's not really a good example because it depends on your assumption that the Marine doesn't have enough firepower to penetrate through the BC's neosteel.

Take, for example, the idea that a Terran Marine in the game never runs out of ammo. Many people find this reasonable enough. Then compare that to the idea that the Infestor spews out an unlimited # of Infested Terrans with armor. Are they both nonsensical? Yes. But that doesn't stop most people overlooking the former yet having problems with the latter. You can't just say "they both don't make sense, so the former is just as bizarre as the latter." Most of StarCraft's problems are akin to the former. But it doesn't matter if it's nonsensical - it matters if the player is able to suspend his disbelief.

[Lupino]

So, to summarize: The fans said that they wanted infestation to be available in all match-ups but at the same time, Infested Protoss was not acceptable. See the Catch-22 here?

Bull, Raszagal was infested, that's why she turned on the Protoss. It's clearly possible for Protoss to be infested, which would solve part of this problem, but irrational fans hang their entire argument on a single spoken line like it's gospel.

As for SoD, it does break mine when Infestors spawn them willy-nilly. Sure, you got dead bodies lying around and you need a quick fix, that's one thing. But why the hell would they just carry dead Terran bodies around to random planets, just to turn them into weak temporary warriors, when it would make more sense to just digest the corpse and use its nutrients to make something worthwhile? Of course, Blizzard doesn't give really care that much about fluff when it gets in the way of their biased focus on turning the game into an e-sport, and there's far more erroneous examples to bitch about (like silly transforming mecha > dedicated fighter craft).

It's not that simple. The point is that there are certain things people are willing to accept. Marines shooting down BCs for example is the least of SC's problems. It's not really a good example because it depends on your assumption that the Marine doesn't have enough firepower to penetrate through the BC's neosteel.

Unless the BC had paper for armor, it's not just improbable, it'd be impossible. Go try and sink an Iowa with a couple of M-16s, see how far that'll get you. Some things have to be sacrificed because Blizzard (and more importantly, its fans) are just not willing to play a game based on realism, but on the other hand there has to be some logic to how the game acts, otherwise you might as well go play a different arbitrary strategy game like Go or Chess.

[Kacaier]

I think if 40% of people think Infested Marines are ridiculous we have a problem...

As you may or may not be a US citizen, the US presidential elections normally runs on a very close margin from 45% to 51% in both the realms popular vote and electoral votes. It doesn't invalidate the president anymore, just because he didn't gain super majority.

I think if it does make it through the game, many of the players will come to accept it. Though I'm sure a smaller percentage will still despise it. Surely had this been a discussion on StarCraft 1, I bet the Terran Vulture would have a massive uproar with around 30-40% disliking it. Heck, even at the release of the game, many people still saw it as a poor vehicle. But its use and ability soon (after pro use) gave it more acceptance.

While I don't always agree, just because 60% like it that we should disregard the minority thoughts, I don't see it as THAT ridiculous. Our argument eventually reached into the realm of pure opinions rather than factual substantiation. And from there, that tells me that it is less of a substantive error and more of an aesthetic one.

[Pandonetho]

Bull, Raszagal was infested, that's why she turned on the Protoss. It's clearly possible for Protoss to be infested, which would solve part of this problem, but irrational fans hang their entire argument on a single spoken line like it's gospel.

She wasn't infested. Protoss can't be infested, the Khala prevents it from happening, but she was somehow manipulated by Kerrigan.

[Aldrius]

Bull, Raszagal was infested, that's why she turned on the Protoss.

She was mentally controlled by Kerrigan, not infested. I mean, Kerrigan has trouble infesting Terrans post-Brood War, she couldn't do it at all during the Brood War. So how on earth could she have infested a Protoss Matriarch of all things?

So, to summarize: The fans said that they wanted infestation to be available in all match-ups but at the same time, Infested Protoss was not acceptable. See the Catch-22 here?

Yes, which is why I've always suggested they replace them with some sort of Broodling creature. Maintain the lore, make the ability still interesting (in TvZ) but still useful in all three match-ups.

IMO it's win-win.

[ArcherofAiur]

Say through a Neural Parasite maybe

[Nicol Bolas]

To be frank, anything is possible.

No, it isn't.

What exactly about the Zerg is impossible? As impossible as creating matter?

We've had this conversation before. Basically, it boils down to the idea of a species that can, at a cellular level, hijack the genetic material of any life form in the universe. You can't even do that with all of the life on Earth, because many organisms use rather different genetic codes (a sequence of DNA coding for one protein would code for a different one if used by a different organism). And the particular genetic code is what everything in the protein synthesis machinery of that cell is built around.

Indeed, certain modern theories of Abiogenesis suggest that the earliest life didn't use DNA at all; it was purely RNA-based, with RNA holding the genetic code and RNA doing the main work in a cell. How would the Zerg handle that?

And even all of that assumes that every form of life in the universe will be based on right-handed DNA holding the genetic code, right-handed RNA used as transport and mediation, and amino acids as the basic building blocks of most of the functional units of a cell. Even a small change, like using left-handed DNA and RNA, would be massive; proteins designed for right-handed DNA would be completely incompatible.

Life is chemistry. And chemistry is a very well understood discipline, particularly biochemistry.

Take, for example, the idea that a Terran Marine in the game never runs out of ammo. Many people find this reasonable enough. Then compare that to the idea that the Infestor spews out an unlimited # of Infested Terrans with armor. Are they both nonsensical? Yes. But that doesn't stop most people overlooking the former yet having problems with the latter. You can't just say "they both don't make sense, so the former is just as bizarre as the latter." Most of StarCraft's problems are akin to the former. But it doesn't matter if it's nonsensical - it matters if the player is able to suspend his disbelief.

By equating the two as being equally unreasonable, you just said that your inability to suspend your disbelief at one but not the other is completely irrational. If you can't justify why you suspend your disbelief at one thing but not the other, then I'd have to say that its your problem, not the game's problem. If you actually stop and think about it, you will find that there is no reason to accept one and reject the other.

[Triceron]

So if one of the portraits of the Terrans was a 2D big eyed anime character, your belief wouldn't be suspended because marines shooting down BCs and such is acceptable?

[Nicol Bolas]

So if one of the portraits of the Terrans was a 2D big eyed anime character, your belief wouldn't be suspended because marines shooting down BCs and such is acceptable?

But there is a legitimate difference there. A "2D big eyed anime character" is a conflict of styles compared to the generally realistic rendering of the game.

[Aldrius]

If you actually stop and think about it, you will find that there is no reason to accept one and reject the other.

There's plenty of reason to accept the former and reject the latter. The former is a logistics thing. There is no way to have Marines received bullets on the field without slowing down the whole game, so we can assume they're sharing clips, that they have enough to last through an entire match, that they're receiving more from nearby dropships or whatever. There are tiny things we can do to justify such a thing. It's a simple gap in logic, we can come up with the explanation ourselves.

But the Infestor growing infested marines in it's stomach with guns and armor to send them out into the battlefield? The Zerg have never been established to grow guns with their biology. It just doesn't fit. It's not about how logical it is for them to be able to do that, it's not even about what is scientifically possible. It's about the rules that StarCraft has established. And in those rules it's not possible for the Zerg to grow and adapt technological matter like that.

Even if it'd be possible if the Zerg were real, it doesn't make sense with the way the StarCraft universe works. It goes against what's been established. Heck, it goes against MOST fictional universes, where biology and environmental components are kept separate from technological ones.

If you don't care, because nothing they've done is based in scientific bedrock, so they're free to do whatever they want, then that's your prerogative to do so.