StarCraft Wiki
StarCraft Wiki
Canon redirects here. For the StarCraft comic character see Senator Elliot Canon.

This page is a StarCraft Wiki Policy.

The shortcut link for this page is POL:CANON.

Canon is defined by the StarCraft Wiki as material that Blizzard Entertainment considers as part of the StarCraft universe. The wiki is predominantly concerned with the presentation of this material.

Blizzard Entertainment rarely used words such as canon and has no official policy on many aspects. Blizzard has discussed canon as of 2007 when StarCraft II was announced[1], using the term unambiguously in several interviews[2][3] and even developing an internal policy for their games[4]. In 2012 Brian Kindregan stated that everything that Blizzard releases except RPGs and mods are canon[5] and that cut content is not canon.[6]

This policy is developed for the StarCraft Wiki and is not official Blizzard Entertainment policy.

The wiki has a separate policy for fan-made content.



Software products[]

In general, the StarCraft games released by Blizzard are canon.

The bonus campaigns and missions, StarCraft: Enslavers, Dark Origin, the StarCraft 64 bonus map, Resurrection IV, and StarCraft: Enslavers II have been referred to as canon by Chris Metzen (he chose the ending where Alan Schezar and Ulrezaj use the powerful EMP generator as the "canonical" branch).[2] Metzen later referred to the Enslavers campaigns as "quasi-canonical".[7]

Dark Origin is explicitly canon[8], and its events have been mentioned numerous times by Blizzard Entertainment.[1][9] Downloaded maps are considered generally official by Blizzard.[8]

However, mods such as Aiur Chef are not canon, even when provided by Blizzard.[10]

Game Manuals[]

Material from the game manuals are canon.

Official Non-Software[]

Some of the Blizzard Entertainment authorized fiction is actually published by Blizzard Entertainment employees. These include StarCraft: Uprising and StarCraft: Hybrid (authored by Blizzard employee Micky Neilson) and StarCraft: Revelations (authored by Blizzard employee Chris Metzen). Blizzard Entertainment employees have access to material other authors will never see, so their material is considered more reliable. Note that StarCraft map series available on the site fall into this category (namely StarCraft: Loomings, Deception and Mercenaries II).

Blizzard Comments on Lore[]

Chris Metzen said that Blizzard is "essentially intending to novelize the first three campaigns in the core game. We're going to novelize Brood War at some point just so we have the definitive take on those stories."[1]

Blizzard Logo1.gif BlizzCon 2007 Lore Panel

by Chris Metzen and Andy Chambers

Question: Will you be referencing any of the character development like, say, Queen of Blades towards the ending in any of the upcoming games like StarCraft II... do you kind of say the books were the books and the game is the game?

Chris Metzen: These books specifically are kind of the definitive take in my mind, which means we got a chance in Queen of Blades to show you a lot of scenes we could not show in the game. When does Raynor actually meet these guys? When does [sic] Tassadar and Zeratul actually hook up and meet? That's a huge part of the game that we never show. How does Tassadar, this Executor of the Protoss, this really talented, driven guy, get jumped into this whacked cult that his bosses hate and by the end of it become this Twilight Messiah and take down the monster alien of the galaxy. How did that all happen? We never actually touch any of it in the game. I don't even know if it occurred to me that we didn't when we published it... talk about a galaxy-sized hole.

So, the books have been our chance to fill in some of those gaps, and try and tell more the story, make it make sense more [sic].

But of course, like Liberty's Crusade wasn't quite as full. There were events in the game that we didn't cover in that book, but the soul of the book is true, like the idea that there were small interaction with Raynor and Kerrigan that we didn't see in the game. A lot of times, so we're trying to tell a story, and it's a wargame, which was difficult to do back in the day, thus our pretty new story mode, but the idea was that you couldn't always get all the beats in that you wanted, even the beats that really make it make sense in a linear fashion and from a thematic standpoint. We actually didn't always get to say everything we needed to say. Surprisingly, the game held up pretty well, like you know, what it was in the day, we're still very very proud of it, but it's almost like despite the technology, we always had a lot of frustrations... we were not able to get everything in, so I guess what I'm trying to say with way too many words is the fact that the books are our chance at redemption and telling the whole tale, so my hope is that they do it well.

Andy Chambers: Well, as I mentioned earlier on, we're also taking the opportunity to take characters who may be appearing in the books and put them into the game of StarCraft II, like Matt Horner, as an example, never appeared in StarCraft, but he's there in Queen of Blades... he's a pretty cool guy, we should really use that character. That's all part of trying to make everything together into this grand universe ideal, which I what I trying to shoot for. It's like it doesn't matter how obscure the reference is, if it's out there its got some role that crosses over to the rest. I'm not a big fan myself of "well, they're in the novels, they have nothing to do with the game"... It's a big living breathing universe ... every time you put a brick on the wall it becomes a part of the universe.

Chris Metzen also had this to say:

Blizzard Logo1.gif BlizzCon 2007 Lore Panel

by Chris Metzen

...We didn't want to answer the big questions. I knew that this sequel was not going to materialize for many years. We had a lot of projects ahead of us, and I didn't want to get ahead of the bus. I wanted to pick nice, safe little books that would be cool stories in and of themselves but wouldn't necessarily put us in a bad spot and set up questions that we weren't prepared to answer.

Metzen also spoke about how some parts of novels might not be considered canon, when discussing the World of Warcraft comic series at San Diego Comic Con in 2007.

Blizzard Logo1.gif San Diego Comic Con 2007

by Chris Metzen

Yeah, the novels are pretty much considered canon, um, the funny thing is some things are less canon, we shoot for canon...typically the characters in novels are canon... (35:21)

In 2011 Micky Neilson, the publishing lead, confirmed that all novels and graphic novels are canon.[11]

The Dark Templar Saga[]

Christie Golden: "Considering the nature of some of the events that are portrayed, I can safely say that yes, Starcraft: The Dark Templar series is going to be considered canon"[12]. In addition, the Dark Templar Saga was written concurrently with the StarCraft II storyline.[1]

Blizzard had this to say about its canonical status:

Blizzard Logo1.gif BlizzCon 2007 Lore Panel

by Chris Metzen and Andy Chambers

Chris Metzen: ...We didn't want to answer the big questions. I knew that this sequel was not going to materialize for many years. We had a lot of projects ahead of us, and I didn't want to get ahead of the bus. I wanted to pick nice, safe little books that would be cool stories in and of themselves but wouldn't necessarily put us in a bad spot and set up questions that we weren't prepared to answer.

So what's been cool lately, Christie Golden has been doing the Dark Templar trilogy, which at its base is an attempt to tell more of the Protoss history, but at the same time, get the engines lit for this sequel, and begin to set up some plotlines.

Andy Chambers: Yeah, we've taken that opportunity to actually start building in and foreshadowing some of the events that are going to happen in StarCraft II. It's been a lot of fun...

Chris Metzen: It's cool 'cause we're kind of developing them concurrently.

Blizzard manga has been explicitly confirmed as being canon.[13][11]

RPG Commentary[]

In 2012, Brian Kindregan said that the RPG does not count as canon (and neither do mods).[5]

Eyonix, a former community manager for the World of Warcraft forums, responded to assertions that literature not directly produced by Blizzard were not valid sources of lore:

Blizzard Logo1.gif Could you please stop with the RPG books?

by Eyonix

Any piece of literature authorized and licensed by Blizzard Entertainment is in-fact, official. The book series written by Richard A. Knaak in particular is an excellent example of real 'Azerothian' history and lore available outside of our game software. We work closely with authors that help us expand our game universe, and the material should be considered official.

In a more recent statement, a community developer said the Warcraft RPG products are not canon, although Blizzard generates some of their content and some ideas from the RPGs make their way into the game. [14]

Blizzard Employee Statements[]

Statements by Blizzard Entertainment employees are viewed as official when they do not conflict with other published sources. They may also trump information older than the quote.

For instance, information on the United Earth Directorate after the Brood War was revealed in an interview with Blizzard Entertainment employees. This information does not contradict any previous material.[15]

However, given the off-the-cuff nature of and contradictions between some of these statements, they do not necessarily rank higher than information from published sources.

For instance, on the topic of infested protoss, Chris Metzen has said in June of 2009 that "there are no infested protoss, period"[16] and Dustin Browder has said "based on the lore, the Protoss do not become infested"[17]. However, Blizzard has also contradicted this statement in July 2009.[18]

The end result is the wiki has no official policy on the existence of infested protoss.


There is material owned or licensed by Blizzard that may be notably StarCraft-related. Whether they are canon or not may be determined on a case-to-case basis, and it may be necessary for the material to be marked by appropriate templates and categorization.


These include authorized map packs and third-party expansions, like StarCraft: Insurrection and StarCraft: Retribution.

Blizzard hasn't made a final decision, but suggested they are not canon. [19]

Cut material[]

Cut material is a form of material owned by Blizzard but may not be considered part of the universe as depicted in final products. This may come from a variety of sources:

If this material does not contradict more up-to-date material, it may be permissible to use it as if it were canon. Where such material is contradicted, they should be added in distinct sections or articles clearly marked by appropriate templates (if format permits).

Blizzard specifically declared StarCraft: Ghost to not be canon.[6]

Easter Eggs[]

"Easter eggs" are material present in released products but not meant to be taken seriously. They are frequently of an amusing nature. They are not considered canon and have no relevance in lore articles.

Heroes of the Storm[]

Heroes of the Storm is an amalgamation of various Blizzard franchises, including StarCraft. Heroes of the Storm has been stated to not be linked canonically to any of those franchises in question. However, certain elements of the game do have lore that pertain to StarCraft directly. It is generally permissible to add this information under the following provisos:

  • Information should be designated, whenever possible, with {{AmbigCanon|Heroes of the Storm}}.
  • Original material may be incorporated into the wiki's database. Examples include Alabama Kowalski (an original character), and the executor's regalia—neither of these elements inherently contradict any element of the StarCraft universe, and may thus be included, provided that there is no contradiction.
  • Heroes of the Storm material can broadly be divided into the "serious" and "silly." As a general rule, the "serious" is allowed, while the "silly" isn't, in as much as article creation/incorporation operates. Exceptions may exist provided that the article is designated as "silly" (e.g. murlocs).
  • Heroes of the Storm operates on the premise of alternate realities in the case of some skins and backgrounds. This kind of material should not be the basis of article creation/incorporation, with the exception of notes that exist outside the main body of the article. For instance, Heroes of the Storm has a skin for Tychus Findlay that depicts him as having been infested in the aftermath of Wings of Liberty. This information should not be incorporated into the Tychus Findlay article, as the skin's universe of origin is suspect, and is a diversion from current canon understanding that Findlay is indeed deceased. Kowalski's War World III skin is another example.


Since the first release of StarCraft, Blizzard has steadily added to and revised the universe's background with new products. While Blizzard may have a coherent picture of the universe internally, this material may not be released to the public in an equally coherent fashion. To outside parties, this manifests as contradictions between products/releases.

The wiki constant attempts to detect superseded and/or obsolescent material and revise accordingly. The following discusses some of the challenges involved.


Blizzard Entertainment sometimes applies "retcons" to their universe. As these retcons are rarely announced as such, this wiki uses guidelines to determine what counts as a retcon. If changed information is consistently repeated, it may be considered the subject of a retcon. For instance, the population of Korhal when it was attacked by the Terran Confederacy was 4 million in the manual but has been consistently described as 25 million in multiple later sources.

More recent information is more likely to be accurate. For instance, Artanis and Zeratul both underwent eye color changes in Queen of Blades. Artanis eye color was confirmed in StarCraft: The Dark Templar Saga: Twilight and Zeratul's eye color was confirmed in numerous places, including videos from StarCraft II itself.

Clearer information is preferable. Information from just one source should be considered "clearer" than information pieced together from more than one source.

Dealing with Contradictions[]

In the event of a conflict between otherwise valid resources, the preferred approach is that the conflict should be noted in a notes or reference notes section. But to the greatest extent possible valid resources should be construed so as not to be in conflict. The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances.

In the event that two valid resources (for example, two spoken lines of dialogue; a spoken line and a graphic) conflict, either can be referenced as a valid resource, provided the other is also included in some manner in the article and the conflict noted. Explanations of the conflict (for example, suggestions for reconciliation) and the reason for the selection of one resource over another can appear on a discussion page.

In writing articles contributors should be guided by the principle that a valid resource with a higher precedence can (but does not have to) be given slightly greater evidentiary weight for purposes of writing the article from a StarCraft universe standpoint than the valid resource with a lower precedence. The conflict still needs to be noted in the article, though.

For instance, Liberty's Crusade and StarCraft: Precursor conflict on the matter of Edmund Duke's movements shortly before the destruction of Chau Sara. Liberty's Crusade has him aboard the Norad II, roaming around the Terran Confederacy for three months before warping to Chau Sara as a result of the protoss attack. In contrast, Precursor has Duke personally directing troops on Chau Sara in November 2499 (only one month before the attack on Chau Sara). The latter example is clearly timestamped, so should hold more evidentiary weight. Even so, lore conflicts should be noted in the relevant articles.

When two equally valid "highest weight" sources conflict, whichever position has the most supporting evidence from "lower weight" sources should be used.


There are two ways of establishing dates in the StarCraft universe.

The first involves information plainly and clearly presented with timestamps. For instance, Rebel Yell plainly starts in December 2499 (this is clearly stated in pre-mission splash screens for Boot Camp and Wasteland), and the StarCraft II: Heaven's Devils timeline plainly presents The Dark Templar Saga as taking place in 2503. Timestamps from published material takes precedence over timestamps from unpublished material (such as dates plainly stated in Biting the Bullet).

The second method involves derived or conjectural dates which are approximated, for example through inference. Timeline information from such sources should have reference notes labeled with "[time/date] based on [fill in the blank]". For instance, the Battle of Backwater Station can be determined to have taken place on December 16, 2499, as it's possible to measure the time between the destruction of Chau Sara and the battle in the novel Liberty's Crusade.

Less clear information can still be used if it doesn't conflict with other clearer sources of information, especially if it corroborates a clearer source of information. For instance, the time between the Fall of Mar Sara and the activation of the psi emitter on Antiga Prime can be considered six months, due to an interplay of various sources:

StarCraft: Ghost: Nova has the Fall of Mar Sara and the beginning of the Battle of Antiga Prime in Part 1. Part 3 takes place six months later, and has the Confederacy reporting on the defeat of its forces there.
Most of StarCraft: Issue 1 takes place in June 2500, which is clearly timestamped. According to an interview with the author, this takes place during or slightly after the use of the psi emitter on Antiga Prime.

Such information includes at least some timestamping, and so is valid provided it does not conflict with clearer information sources.

Dates derived from "relative timing" should still use an approximate timestamp as a starting point, such as an important event in the StarCraft universe. An extremely vague approximate timestamp, such as Arcturus Mengsk's statement that "I saw Zerg within Confederate holding pens myself, and that was over a year ago." in The Jacobs Installation should not be regarded as sufficient.

This wiki made a mistake on that very topic. The events Mengsk described took place in StarCraft: Uprising, and the wiki used to time Uprising as taking place in 2498 as a result of that comment. Dates of other events in the same novel, such as the Destruction of Korhal, were based on this inference. However, StarCraft: I, Mengsk made it fairly clear that the Destruction of Korhal occurred in 2491, a whole seven years earlier. The Heaven's Devils timeline very clearly timestamped the event as taking place in 2491.

The clear timestamp method takes precedence over the second "relative timing" method when sources present conflicting information. For instance, using information derived from the original manual, the timing of the settlement of the Koprulu Sector by terrans was estimated at 2298 (based on approximate measurements of Earth technological development, and the age of the Terran Confederacy, listed as about two centuries). The Heaven's Devils timeline clearly timestamps this event as taking place in 2259 (thirty-nine years earlier). One clear timestamp outweighs several vague inferences.

Storyline Branching[]

Storyline branching occurs when a player may choose which campaign missions to play. The choices made may influence plot progression; events arising from one set of choices may conflict with those portrayed arising from yet another set of choices.

In such situations, information may be divided into two categories:

  1. Invariant
  2. Variant

Blizzard Entertainment has claimed to ignore branch paths when it comes to canon[3]. However, this statement has been contradicted numerous times by specification (see below).


Variant information derived from storyline branches should be split into two categories: storyline information (eg what has happened) and lore information (eg "facts").

"Storyline" information should only be considered valid if it's from the a "main", non-branched mission. Whatever Jim Raynor does in Zero Hour is fine, since it's a mission you have to play. However, saying he attacked Castanar's space platform without designation is not fine, since that's a choice made by the player, not by Blizzard Entertainment. For these situations, an appropriate template should be used.


Invariant information is information that may come from any branch but can be reasonably expected to apply to all branches.

Using "factual" variant information taken from branch missions is okay. For instance, information regarding events that happen before the campaign but may only be revealed in certain branches. As an example, we learn that Dr. Ariel Hanson is a scientist from Agria in the mission The Evacuation. It's okay to add that information to articles.

Storyline information which is identical in both branches can be added to articles. For instance, regardless of which version of Emperor's Fall is played, the United Earth Directorate defeats the Terran Dominion, and the same dialog occurs, so all that information can be used in an unrestricted way in any article.

Making a Branch Canon[]

Blizzard Entertainment can choose to make one branch canonical. For instance, one branch of the StarCraft: Enslavers campaign was made canon in introductory material for its sequel, StarCraft: Enslavers II.[20]

StarCraft: Enslavers II itself had two branches, and years after its publication Chris Metzen chose one branch to be canonical.[21] Similarly, if supporting evidence, such as from a novel or later mission, supports only one branch, then that branch has "higher evidentiary weight". In this situation, the branches should be distinguished through using template:PlotBranchBrack. Put the canon branch first, and include a brief note stating why that particular branch is canon, then put the second branch on the same page.

The Behind the Scenes DVD suggests the choices made by Jim Raynor in some instances (sides with Gabriel Tosh and Ariel Hanson over Nova and Selendis respectively, meaning Breakout is considered higher canon than Ghost of a Chance and Safe Haven is considered higher canon than Haven's Fall)[22]. Another DVD adaptation of these events is being planned by Activision.[23]

In regards to Wings of Liberty, Blizzard said it would not discuss choices made by the player and these choices will not carry on into Heart of the Swarm, revealed in an interview released almost two months after the release of Wings of Liberty[3]. Blizzard decided not to branch the story based off player choices. [24]

However, later on they chose Raynor siding with Tosh and Ariel Hanson as "canon" choices [25]. When deciding between Belly of the Beast and Shatter the Sky, they initially chose Shatter the Sky, but later made Belly of the Beast the "A" canon choice.[26]

Blizzard has clarified their position on canon, stating that while the "A" choice is canon, they wrote things later so a player's choice is never invalidated.

Blizzard Logo1.gif Blizzcon: Interview with StarCraft 2 Lead Writer Brian Kindregan

by Brian Kindregan

We’ve had a discussion about that and there’s a couple ways we’d like to handle it but we have to have canon in that this is the definite choice. So what we’ve come up with is what we call the “A” choice is always canon. So in that case it would be siding with Hanson so that she is alive. Siding with Tosh and choosing on Char to take out the air platform.

However, we’re trying not to actively deny that your experience has never happened. So what we’re doing is, if we ever need to reference something, we have a canon version. But the truth is, my preference is to just avoid those topics all together so that your experience is never invalidated. So you play Wings of Liberty and you make certain choices as you go forward in the StarCraft Universe. You don’t run into anything that invalidates your previous choices.

Blizzard will use the A canon storyline in Heart of the Swarm, unless they can devise software to detect which choice a player made in Wings of Liberty. In the latter case, if the player did not make a choice in Wings of Liberty, A canon will be used.[26]

Optional Missions[]

In Wings of Liberty, a number of missions (Colonist Missions, Covert Missions and Rebellion Missions) are optional and a player can beat the campaign without completing them.

Variant information from these optional missions should be denoted with the appropriate template: template:Colonist Missions for Colonist Missions, template:Covert Missions for Covert Missions and template:Rebellion Missions for Rebellion Missions.

The Colonist Missions and Covert Missions ended with branch points, meaning such information should be first marked with the appropriate template, then template:PlotBranchBrack used to divide the choices.

An example follows:


This article or section contains information from the optional Covert Missions in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.

Gabriel Tosh convinced Jim Raynor to let him on his ship.

Plot branch : Raynor's Raiders continue helping Tosh.

They got along really well. Raynor helped Tosh free his comrades.

Plot branch ends here
Plot branch : Raynor's Raiders side with Nova against Tosh

Raynor didn't trust Tosh. He sided with Nova instead.

Plot branch ends here

Always put the "A" choice first, if possible.


Co-op Missions is an example of both variant, and invariant narrative. Under the premise that everything that Blizzard releases bar mods and RPGs are canon, the missions of Co-op Missions can be treated as distinctly occurring in-universe. However, it is up to the player as to which commanders of which species take part in the missions themselves. In such cases, general terms such as "allied forces" should be used to describe events, without drawing specific reference to the commanders/species taking part in said events (as per their optional presence in gameplay).

External Links/References[]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Metzen, Chris; Chambers, Andy; Masterboo. 2007-08-31. BlizzCon 2007 StarCraft Lore Panel Editorial. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2007-12-02.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2007-10-08. SC:L Metzen Interview - Lore Exclusive. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2007-10-08.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, StarCraft Legacy staff. 2010-04-22. April 19th Wings of Liberty Fansite QA Session. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2010-04-23.
  4. Brian Kindregan, Eldorian. 2010-10-28. Blizzcon: Interview with StarCraft 2 Lead Writer Brian Kindregan. Blizzplanet. Accessed 2010-10-31.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Blizzard Entertainment. 2012-11-26. StarCraft II Creative Development Q&A - Part 6. Blizzard Entertainment. Accessed 2012-11-26.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Brian T. Kindregan. 2012-12-24. StarCraft II Creative Development Q&A - Part 10. Blizzard Entertainment. Accessed 2012-12-24.
  7. Chris Metzen, Micky Neilson, Blizzplanet. 2009-02-09. Chris Metzen & Micky Neilson Pocket Star Books Lore Q&A Video Interview. Blizzplanet. Accessed 2009-02-09.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Dustin Browder, Rob Pardo, Pillars. Blizzard Community RTS Summit Part 2. Accessed 2008-06-25.
  9. Blizzard Entertainment staff. 2008-04-16. The Story so Far... Part 2: The Brood War. Blizzard Entertainment. Accessed 2008-04-16.
  10. Blizzard Entertainment. 2013-01-15. StarCraft II Creative Development Q&A - Part 12. Blizzard Entertainment. Accessed 2013-01-15.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Medievaldragon. 2011-07-23. SDCC 2011 – Gallery Books Reveals Warcraft, StarCraft and Diablo Books Line-Up (video). Blizzplanet. Accessed 2011-07-23.
  12. Christie Golden, Medievaldragon. (2007-06-06). Starcraft: Dark Templar Trilogy - Book One: Firstborn Q&A with Christie Golden. Blizzplanet.
  13. 2011-06-22, Q&A With Blizzard's Manga Team. Cryptozoic, accessed on 2011-07-13
  14. Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?
    A: No. The RPG books were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience, which sometimes required diverging from the established video game canon. Blizzard helped generate a great deal of the content within the RPG books, so there will be times when ideas from the RPG will make their way into the game and official lore, but you are much better off considering the RPG books non-canonical unless otherwise stated.
    Bashiok. 2011-06-23. Ask Creative Development -- Round II Answers. World of Warcraft Story Forum. Accessed 2011-07-19.
  15. StarCraft Legacy staff. 2009-04-04. Post BlizzCon StarCraft II FAQ. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2009-05-19.
  16. Dustin Browder. 2009-06-30. Wywiad z Dustinem Browderem dla Accessed 2009-07-01.
  17. Dustin Browder, staff. 2009-07-23. StarCraft II Exclusive Fansite Q&A - Accessed 2009-07-03.
  18. I'm trying to think if there are specific fictional answers to that, I could have sworn we had a story or two like that in the manga recently. But I'm spacing out... I feel like I wanna take the 5th on that too. It's a weird one. Off the top of your head you'd think "sure!" Chris Metzen, StarCraft Legacy staff. 2009-07-20 July 20, 2009 Metzen Interview. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2009-09-07.
  19. Hi, first I got a really really simple yes or no question. The official sort of Insurrection/Retribution campaigns from the original StarCraft, are those canon or not? And then more importantly, what is going on with Samir Duran? Because we didn’t see him at all in WoL, although we did see the fruits of his labors.

    Chris Metzen: So to the first point, I don’t know! My instinct tells me that they should not be canon, but I'd have to look at them again because there's probably good DNA there that might be useful. Chris Metzen, Brian Kindregan, StarCraft Legacy staff. 2010-10-23. BlizzCon 2010 StarCraft II Lore Panel. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2010-10-25.
  20. Canonical branch taken from information supporting the sequel, StarCraft: Enslavers II. "Though Protoss and Dominion heroes banded together and put an end to his schemes by destroying his strongholds, Schezar himself was never found". That information pertains to the canonical branch. 1999-02-05. Enslavers: Dark Vengeance Episode I: The Rescue. StarCraft Compendium Map Archives. Accessed 2007-12-15.
  21. Chris Metzen, StarCraft Legacy staff. 2009-04-03. SC:L Metzen Interview - Lore Exclusive. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2009-05-18.
  22. ((July 27, 2010) Blizzard Entertainment. StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty: Behind the Scenes bonus DVD (in English).
  23. 2010-09-15, Activision 'Likely' To Sell Game Cutscene Movies. IGN, accessed on 2010-09-17
  24. Was there ever any plan or had you ever discussed having the story branch off more based off the player’s choices?

    We did, and there were a couple of factors that went into why we decided not to go that route. One of them, of course, was simply the cinematics we’d have to do. If we had a really widely varying game, we’d have to create multiple end cinematics, and if we wanted those to be pre-renders, that wouldn’t have been feasibly possible for us. At that point, they could have been in-game cutscenes, of course, which I think look pretty good. That’s an option we could have chosen.

    But the second factor is more of a creative choice. We’re even now struggling with this a little bit with what has happened in Wings of Liberty. There isn’t really a canon. We felt like a lot of our players and we ourselves wanted to know what happened. We wanted to have that sense of story. While other games – Mass Effect being a great example – do embrace that sort of player-chosen story, and that’s really one of the core hooks for their entire game – that’s really what their game is about – we didn’t feel like that made as much sense for our game. We felt like people want to know, “How did StarCraft end?” not “Which ending did you get?”
    Dustin Browder, Phil Kollar. 2010-09-19. Afterwords: StarCraft II. Game Informer. Accessed 2010-09-21.
  25. Sure, yea I can say that we do say that the A choice that you made, was the canon decision. So, in terms of the SC canon, Raynor sided with Tosh and Raynor helped the colonists against Selendis. That said, I really would like to not have any player feel like their choice has been invalidated. In general, except for when the implications become overpowering, I think I'm going to try to stay away from going back and examining that stuff except when we really need to, so that you can play the game and really feel like your choices are being carried forward, and we do have the technology to check your save-game by the way. Chris Metzen, Brian Kindregan, StarCraft Legacy staff. 2010-10-23. BlizzCon 2010 StarCraft II Lore Panel. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2010-10-25.
  26. 26.0 26.1 SoMuchMass. 2011-10-22. BlizzCon 2011 - Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm - Campaign and Lore Panel (Full). Youtube. Accessed 2011-10-22.