Getting a Grasp on Starcraft
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:40 pm
Right now, at SB.com, the big topic on the versus forum is figuring out the exact ability of various Starcraft forces. The problem being that there is no accepted canon policy whatsoever regarding Starcraft, official or fan consensus. Making matters worse, nothing in Starcraft particularly support each and there are many contradictions. For instance, the manual says that marines uses gauss rifles that fire hypersonic bullets but the in-game cutscene support the claim that they are convention firearms. Zerglings can do everything from shrug off streams of bullets or get taken out by pitchforks. Firepower figures for most larger weapon systems are wildly inconsistent as well.
Obviously, that doesn't bode well for any versus debate regarding Starcraft, and consequently it has descended into a flamewar at SB.com. So let's try to make sense of it all here, and hopefully the much smaller userbase right now at this place will make the discussion a bit friendlier.
The main problem is the issue of canon: What can we actually consider to be the "valid" Starcraft? Seeing the endless debate going on at SB.com, I dispute that there even is a valid version of Starcraft. Cutscenes and in-game and books all have highly differing claims about Starcraft firepower figures. For instance, if we go by cut-scenes and say that Marines only use conventional firearms, then we are left with the major logical problem of futuristic soldiers having so weak firearms. Given the fact that they wear massively large power armor, there's no way that they can conduct meaningful warfare against each other with guns that weak. Instead, if you go by the gauss rifle claim in the manual, Starcraft marines would be far more logical. However, since Starcraft is more Space Opera than science fiction, we can to an extent assume that they are just that weak for sake of storytelling. Since both arguments are pretty convincing, I support that we have to simple divide Starcraft into multiple canons. One from the manual, another for the cutscenes, and another for the books.
Obviously, that doesn't bode well for any versus debate regarding Starcraft, and consequently it has descended into a flamewar at SB.com. So let's try to make sense of it all here, and hopefully the much smaller userbase right now at this place will make the discussion a bit friendlier.
The main problem is the issue of canon: What can we actually consider to be the "valid" Starcraft? Seeing the endless debate going on at SB.com, I dispute that there even is a valid version of Starcraft. Cutscenes and in-game and books all have highly differing claims about Starcraft firepower figures. For instance, if we go by cut-scenes and say that Marines only use conventional firearms, then we are left with the major logical problem of futuristic soldiers having so weak firearms. Given the fact that they wear massively large power armor, there's no way that they can conduct meaningful warfare against each other with guns that weak. Instead, if you go by the gauss rifle claim in the manual, Starcraft marines would be far more logical. However, since Starcraft is more Space Opera than science fiction, we can to an extent assume that they are just that weak for sake of storytelling. Since both arguments are pretty convincing, I support that we have to simple divide Starcraft into multiple canons. One from the manual, another for the cutscenes, and another for the books.