Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
This is the key when writing for science fiction. If you write literal character development and conflict stories, your stories will become soulless and will lose their magic. Science fiction in inherently symbolic...and a way of communicating inherently un-sci-fi concepts cloaked sci-fi clothing. Whether it is Lucas admitting Star Wars was an abstraction for the Vietnam War or Gene Roddenberry admitting one of his secrets was for story development was to model almost all his ideas on complex/creative ideas that he couldn't get away with writing about conventionally.
This is something I definitely agree with. Both fantasy and sci-fi IMO is about far more than the story being told. Every part of the universe/world/whatever, whether or not it is relevant to the main story being told, can be a reflection of something (a theme, a real world event, a philosophy, etc). These sorts of imagined worlds can open up so many possibilities. Being too focused and straight forward on a particular story can damage what can be learned from other aspects of the world.
Im basing this conversation solely off of information from SC1/BW (or prior). The argument is that BW took the perspective that Kerrigan=QoB, and that later information (such as flashpoint) is a change from the literary purpose/spirit of BW (a sort of retcon [yes, retcon is the wrong word in this case, but its the general idea; a change of intent])
Edited by LovelyMines on 4/7/2013 12:32 PM PDT
My argument is based on the literary intent of BW. The evidence for my interpretation is on page 1 of this thread. Please refer to it if you would like to discuss it.
And yes, I have of course seen people influenced by drugs (or excessive alcohol which is...a drug...) and also know how different drugs influence you at the neuronal/synaptic level.
If you have read the thread, I have not at all dismissed the biological explanation. In fact, I have explicitly said that it works quite fine.
Edited by LovelyMines on 4/7/2013 2:45 PM PDT
you are too impressed by graphics kid, sc1 was the best
Well except the laughably bad UI, and lack of true unit and user control.
And the predictable story in BW.
And the semi weak characters.
But yes it was indeed amazing for an RTS. The only other RTS i've played that comes close/beats it in story is/was Command and Conquer.
Then C&C 4 came out...
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.