Starcraft 2: Redux

Being aggressive while cooperating is pretty much Human Modus Operandi.

Why are we even discussing this?

We work together to get at the other guys all the time.

It’s pretty deeply ingrained in our brains.
It’s the primary reason, why people play and cheer for football (both kinds this time).

I mean… example of this very forum.

Me and Mar against redheads or Sayian, me and Bart against people who say incorrect things about dwarves, me and Gradius against Phlynch.

Working together, while being jerks to someone else.

4 Likes

Eventually they meet 5 hunters who hunted 9 deers and took their 3 deers, because why not.

Because you can make a group of 7 hunters, which is better.

As has been repeatedly said, cooperation is not the opposite of aggression. Also, historically, access to land has been the primary limiter on food supply. Cooperation wont turn a swamp into fertile farmland no matter how many people you involve. Likewise, it wont turn two deer into three deer.

But we are talking Neanderthal versus Ho-mo Sapiens. There weren’t any agricultural or farmland. It’s about hunting a herd of deer.

Moreover, you’re right the access to land is a problem. However, you still need a lot of manpower to tend to the farm so cooperation is still important.

Now, I’m not the expert in all this enough to say it one way or the other, but it’s quite possible that it wasn’t until recently like a couple century ago that we have more mouths and hands then land to feed and tend.

It’s not. However, being aggressive make it harder to form a large group of cooperative hunter. Just think about MOBA or any other team game. It’s better to have a team of player who understand the teamwork and like to support each other than those who trash talk, calling his/her teammates noob and go out to earn more kill/point for his own glory, right?

I always think an aggressive player is worst when compare to cooperative player even if the latter has lessor skill. (But this is totally my opinion.)

I actually ask a friend who work in this department and actually the original owner of the idea. (I’m not trying to convince you with his degree. He is not here, so he might as well be made up.) He is able to gather some that he has on hand for the Neanderthal and google the ant.

Anyway, here you go.

https:/ /www.pnas.org/content/pnas/99/9/6444.full.pdf

https:/ /journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424

http:/ /www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2014vol92/Peresani/25020018.pdf

https:/ /cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/argentine-ant

https:/ /pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6e9e/63d37d240e638c8d266f2e270a569943cf74.pdf

Before you asked; no, I didn’t read any of this. I just listen to my friend recap and trust his reasoning.

Why. Those 5 hunters have 7 children and they want as many as possible to grow into big strong adults.

Numbers are not the issue, they will have numbers if they provide.

And… one unpopular opinion. In nature you often think short term.

It is absolutely not better. It can be better but it can be worse. Cooperation favors mostly the weak, imagine if the five hunters were working for forty other people who didn’t do much, but were family and friends. Working with them would mean that you have to do more for a smaller share. In which case you are cooperating with a bigger group, but you are screwing yourself over.

On the flip side, if those five hunters provided enough food for 40 people who then spent their newfound free time developing, say, construction and agriculture, things would turn out pretty well.

2 Likes

If and when, yes. I find it hard to imagine five people feeding forty to start with, but unless those people really work for themselves it’ll be bad. Imagine dragging infants and old people behind you.

1 Like

But then we come back to 5 hunters needing to have enough deer (or whatever) available to feed 40 people. Which takes hunting room, which takes elimination of rivals.

@Bart

We stealin’ right?

True, but the underlying point remains, cooperation allows for specialization, and specialization has been one of the driving forces that has allowed for human societies to be successful.

1 Like

To a point, sure, but that is again not really relevant to the fact that aggression leads to extra resources, which is a necessary prerequisite in achieving that kind of specialization.

Well, yeah, which is why this whole conversation is a false dichotomy. Most organisms use both tactics to varying degrees. Elephants are intelligent, cooperative and protective within their family group, but if they see you as a threat they will absolutely kill the crap out of you.

I’ll note though that most of the animals humans categorize as the most intelligent are quite social.

2 Likes

Unless you’re a train of course.

Definitely!

On the other hand most of the great animals that are really successful from an evolutionary standpoint - that is to say unchanged for a long time - are solitary predators. Sharks and crocodiles are great examples.

What do you not like about it? Cause I played it as a kid too and I think it’s still decently well written and entertaining.

Also nobody should be comparing Firefly to the dumpster fire that is SC2.

Don’t go down this route. It doesn’t lead anywhere.

Trick is obsessed with Starcraft through some fascinating hate-love-hate-hate-love-hate-hate relationship.
He also has a tendency to crap on stuff people like without saying why it’s actually bad.

2 Likes

It’s mediocre. This should be obvious.

I’ve actually explained why I think Starcraft is bad many, many times. Every single time I was dismissed in bad faith.

I’ll tell you if you promise to accept my points in good faith, rather than arbitrarily dismissing me as stupid garbage like everyone has so far.

Where to begin with SC1’s storytelling problems?

Firstly, it’s an inchoate mess of random cool ideas. The lore/story is meandering, inconsistent, full of plot devices, characters that come out of nowhere, poor or absent explanation, bad structure, bad world building, general silliness…

It was written by a young adult (at the time) author with no prior experience. It’s on the same level as typical trashy wattpad fiction. If you can’t already see these flaws for yourself then nothing I saw will convince you it has them.

Moving to specific plot points…

The overall plot trajectory of the three episodes is a mess of convolution. Plot points and characters come out of nowhere with little explanation. The first episode is about terran rebellion, then the next two episodes are zerg/protoss war. It should really have been a simple “humans and good aliens team up against bad aliens,” since that’s clearly what the author wanted all along. It’s way too ambitious and squeezes too much into its limited runtime. Interesting ideas are introduced then immediately discarded.

In episode 1, you basically rebel and overthrow a government. The story doesn’t establish the stakes involved or the motivations in depth so it’s difficult to care or get invested. The characters are cardboard cutouts. The manual backstory only vaguely explains any of the background and is largely superfluous anyway since its lore is just meaningless flavor text. The zerg and protoss are just background plot devices without any real agency. The zerg are just a plot device strung along by the psi-emitter plot device to fulfill the rebellion with little effort, then magically go away when their usefulness is ended.

The following two episodes are largely detached and don’t make a lot of sense even after reading the manual. They’re largely forgettable. Even Blizzard summarizes the events of SC1 with a few lines in SC2, showing how little it matters. That time Blizzard says Kerry was a Dominion ghost suggests they’re prone to forgetting those events happened or retconned the Dominion as always existing. If you watch the recap in LotV, the summary of SC1 is phrased in such a way that it sounds like Raynor was rebelling against the Dominion.

But I digress.

I have great difficulty articulating my points and it doesn’t help that my audience doesn’t care to listen to begin with.

I’m going to stop here because I don’t know how to continue. I also fully expect that my criticism will be dismissed as usual, so I can’t really muster the effort when I know it won’t matter.