Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93

Thread: 20 years of Starcraft

  1. #71

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    I'm not sure about that. Internal bias may play a role in this case but the real problem is that she is never displayed as being demented in EP1. If anything, she sounds like just a cherry person who's trying to do what's "right".
    Yeah, but a cheery person who's trying to do what's right and can be easily morally conflicted would not be an assassin as their primary day job would they? Sure, she may not be "demented" initially but that she feels no cognitive dissonance at what she does/acts and what she believes smacks of ignorance and naivete. Such people fall hard and don't cope well when they get schooled hard, and boy, did Kerry get some schooling...

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    Yes she's a rebel assassin but it's not portrayed as being evil in the situation.
    It's not about being black and white/good and evil. It's about her compromised morality. She's supposed to be "good" minded but goes murdering people that she thinks are evil, then balks at the idea of killing a lot of other "evil" people along with some collateral innocents only to go ahead and then acquiesce, tacitly condoning actions which she is supposed to find reprehensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    But, I'd argue that Kerrigan isn't meant to be portrayed as anything other than a hero sidekick in EP1. At least, that's how I experienced it before knowing anything else about the EU. If you read about Metzen's first intention too, it makes sense. If Kerrigan is supposed to be the equivalent of Tanya in RA and she's there for the player to experience a loss, there's no reason why she'd be anything other than a "good" sidekick.
    I agree about the Doylist intent of her characters creation but that shouldn't limit one's interpretation of the character. I think Sc1 is great because of its unintended vagueness and (as Tolkien describes) varied applicability. Despite the Doylist influence over the story in terms of plot device and conceit, Sc1's events (and supposed plotholes) can be explained entirely/can exist purely on a Watsonian level/within the universe. So whilst Kerrigan is just a generic insert character to fill a role the author felt the story needed at that time (indeed she was merely included just to represent a loss for the hero character and a convenient way to personify the Zerg), the character's arc can survive Death of the Author and be something more.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    By solely playing the game, you have to assume that the infestation just messed her up real good and that's why she's evil in BW. As you say, it's not the most interesting take.
    But in BW, she does offer up some truths in True Colors in that she felt hard-done-by at Tarsonis and her subsequent forced transfiguration by the Zerg. She said she liked who she became at the time of her rebirth but the Overmind was there then and its will was dominating the Zerg and most likely hers as well (the Overmind even mentions that despite Kerrigan's designs being odd, no Zerg can stray from its will). She is out for revenge against the whole world in BW because she's realised, the hard way, that everyone is out to control or work you over (as the Confeds, Mengsk and the Overmind did to her). Having wised up to that, she ain't going to be in that position ever again since it's going to be her turn now. This particular revelation in BW about her primary motivation opens up the possibility that she is evil not because of infestation but that she has changed because of what she was forced to endure at and after Tarsonis. It's kinda tragic really.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    In breaking bad though, you clearly eventually understand the character's motivation and how he became that way. You never get that sense by only playing SC1/BW.
    Thing is, you can already determine the nature of Walter White's evil from the very first season, even though it's not overt yet. The series just goes on to clearly demonstrate that he's naturally a narcissistic, entitled person who felt shorted his whole entire life but that he constantly lies to/deludes himself to justify his actions/inaction. The inciting incident was his cancer diagnosis - it was the last straw that broke the back/ the last sick joke that life played on him yet again... just like Tarsonis would've been for Kerrigan.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    I still don't get why she's so butt hurt about Tarsonis to be honest. It's even worse when you see the SC2 cinematic. She was clearly screwed no matter what. Would have been stupid to risk forces down there to rescue her. If Raynor wanted it so bad, why didn't he take a dropship and try saving her?
    She's "butt hurt" because she was naive and deluded to think that Mengsk would "come around" and/or be as loyal as she was to him and do right by her. Given all the stuff she's done for Mengsk, to not even be dignified with a verbal response/just being ignored when she called for help probably didn't help either.

    Maybe Raynor tried but quickly realised the folly of doing so? I wonder whether we can also assume then that Raynor didn't directly and verbally respond to her calls for help either. If so, so much for his undying devotion/love for her; what an arsehole, amirite?
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  2. #72

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    Yeah, but a cheery person who's trying to do what's right and can be easily morally conflicted would not be an assassin as their primary day job would they? Sure, she may not be "demented" initially but that she feels no cognitive dissonance at what she does/acts and what she believes smacks of ignorance and naivete. Such people fall hard and don't cope well when they get schooled hard, and boy, did Kerry get some schooling...
    It's not about being black and white/good and evil. It's about her compromised morality. She's supposed to be "good" minded but goes murdering people that she thinks are evil, then balks at the idea of killing a lot of other "evil" people along with some collateral innocents only to go ahead and then acquiesce, tacitly condoning actions which she is supposed to find reprehensible.

    This is going to be a hard argument because it deals with a lot of subjective/abstracts and I have to do some detours so bare with me

    What you're saying is 100% true but where I'm getting at is that you're looking at this from a real life perspective and applying real life logic to what is happening. Though Starcraft 1 has a veil of pseudo-realism, some aspects of the story are not meant to be understood through our reality. One such aspect is the representation of Kerrigan in EP1. You're not meant to ask yourself the implication of her being an assassin or how that affects her psych. You're just meant to see her as a cool female sniper that fights for the good guys. That's not to say that you shouldn't. You can do whatever you want But again, it's like asking yourself what are the implication that killing turtles has on the psych of Mario. You're just not intended to ask yourself that question. You're just supposed to take it as it is. Mario jumps on turtle that have the sentience level of regular humans.. and that process kills them but it's OK. There's no cognitive dissonance there. He's not a psycho. Similarly, Kerrigan shoots the confeds, it's all good cause they're baddies.

    If you're following me up until there, you might ask "ok well how do you decide that I'm not supposed to ask these questions"? This is tricky to answer. If you know the author's intention, then you know what it's expected of you. If you don't though, then it's all about the presentation. In Mario, I think we can all agree that you shouldn't dig deeper than Mario is a good guy and killing turtles is of no consequences. The bright colors and the style make you think that it's all fine and there's never a hint that you should question wtf is happening. Now in Starcraft, it's harder to decide, because again, everything it's pseudo-realistic and on top of that, it sometimes actually show you morale topics. The thing is, the starcraft authors only wants you to ponder on the question that they trow at you. It's really a dual personality. You know this because the gameplay is really just a power fantasy. You yourself, as a commander, send your forces to murder confeds soldiers who probably are actually good guys forced into a war they don't want to fight. Who cares? "Go go go , rock and roll", pew pew pew, "need medical attention " , more pew pew pew, . If they wanted you to think deep, they'd make sure that you understand that what you're doing is killing and this is a war. Maybe marines could mourn the fact that they'll never see their family again as they die or something. Medics wouldn't be so enthusiastic about stitching up wounded soldiers under fire. Stuff like that would make it clear that SC is serious business. But that is not the case. You're given 2 lenses. Sometime the morally questionable one but mostly the power fantasy one.

    Now, going back to Kerrigan. In EP1, you only have 1 line regarding the deepness of her character and it's Raynor that says it. This is one of the only time that you're given the "morally questionable lens" to look at Kerrigan. Anywhere else, it's the power fantasy. "oh you pig!" "yeah I like that " pew pew pew. When that lens is on, you're supposed to enjoy whatever is given to you and not think deeply about the implications of what you're doing. Because this is the case, it's a stretch to start talking about how morally conflicted she might be and whatever else. The cool sniper moments are pure power fantasy. So then, to assume that this(being conflicted) is the reason for why she's evil in BW is a very big stretch. It's basically fanon if you only play the game and don't read the manual or any book. It's a totally fair to wonder why the hell did she turns so evil if the overmind isn't there anymore and she's never been shown through the serious lens that she's conflicted.


    But in BW, she does offer up some truths in True Colors in that she felt hard-done-by at Tarsonis and her subsequent forced transfiguration by the Zerg. She said she liked who she became at the time of her rebirth but the Overmind was there then and its will was dominating the Zerg and most likely hers as well (the Overmind even mentions that despite Kerrigan's designs being odd, no Zerg can stray from its will). She is out for revenge against the whole world in BW because she's realised, the hard way, that everyone is out to control or work you over (as the Confeds, Mengsk and the Overmind did to her). Having wised up to that, she ain't going to be in that position ever again since it's going to be her turn now. This particular revelation in BW about her primary motivation opens up the possibility that she is evil not because of infestation but that she has changed because of what she was forced to endure at and after Tarsonis. It's kinda tragic really.
    She actually never say in true color that she liked what she became. I had to go double check that. It's a nice interpretation that you have and man that would have been great and make things clear but it's a stretch from what is actually being said. if you want the transcript for convenience:

    After 6 minutes
    Marine: All units prepare for retaliation! Kerrigan caught us with our pants down, but it's time to start givin' some back!
    Kerrigan: Continue your attack, Cerebrate. Their defenses won't last long against us.

    Meet Duke
    Duke: Well, well, well. If it isn't little Kerrigan. I had a feeling we'd be meeting each other again. You've got a lot to answer for, little girl.
    Kerrigan: General Duke. You know I always wanted to have you killed. This is kind of exciting for me.
    Duke: Do your worst then, girl. You ain't taking Edmund Duke without a fight!

    Mengsk: (Duke's death) Kerrigan, you murdering bitch! We had a deal!
    Kerrigan: Oh, come on, Arcturus. Did you really think that I'd allow you to come into power again? You practically fed me to the Zerg on Tarsonis! You're directly responsible for the hell I've been through! Did you honestly think I'd let you get away with that?
    Mengsk: But you said revenge was secondary to defeating the UED!
    Kerrigan: I lied. I liberated this planet because it was the UED's primary staging point, not because I was under any obligation to you. I used you to destroy the Psi Disrupter, and now that I've got my Broods back, you're no longer necessary for my plans.
    Kerrigan: I think I'll leave you here, Arcturus, among the ashes of your precious Dominion. I want you to live to see me rise to power. And I want you to always remember in your most private moments that it was you who turned me loose in the first place.

    Meet Fenix
    Fenix: This is a betrayal most foul, Kerrigan. We were fools to have gone along with this charade!
    Kerrigan: You're right, Fenix. I used you to get the job done, and you played along just like I knew you would. You Protoss are so headstrong and predictable, You are your own worst enemies.
    Fenix: That's ironic. I can remember Tassadar teaching you a very similar lesson on Char.
    Kerrigan: I took that lesson to heart, Praetor. Now, are you ready to die a second time?
    Fenix: The Khala awaits me, Kerrigan. And although I am prepared to face my destiny, you'll not find me easy prey!
    Kerrigan: Then that shall be your epitaph.

    Raynor: (Fenix's death) Fenix! No!
    Kerrigan: (joking) What are you worried about, Jim? He died the way all Protoss hope to, in combat!
    Raynor: He died because you betrayed him. How many more noble souls do you need to consume before you're satisfied? How many more people need to die before you realize what you've become?
    Kerrigan: You don't even know what you're talking about, Jim!
    Raynor: Don't I? I'll see you dead for this, Kerrigan. For Fenix and all the others who got caught between you and your mad quest for power!
    Kerrigan: Tough talk, Jimmy. But I don't think you have what it takes to be a killer.
    Raynor: It may not be tomorrow, darlin'. It may not even happen with an army at my back. But rest assured: I'm the man who's going to kill you some day. I'll be seein' you.
    She's "butt hurt" because she was naive and deluded to think that Mengsk would "come around" and/or be as loyal as she was to him and do right by her. Given all the stuff she's done for Mengsk, to not even be dignified with a verbal response/just being ignored when she called for help probably didn't help either.

    Maybe Raynor tried but quickly realised the folly of doing so? I wonder whether we can also assume then that Raynor didn't directly and verbally respond to her calls for help either. If so, so much for his undying devotion/love for her; what an arsehole, amirite?
    Those are some dumb unrealistic expectations that Mengsk could magically dive in and save her. But I get the lack of verbal response though, that's a good point.

    Never thought about it but yeah it's pretty funny that Raynor didn't even pick up the line either. Not even a "I'm sorry honey, I did all I can but we can't help you"? Real jerk!

  3. #73

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    The writing is terrible and inconsistent, so there really is no point to arguing which interpretation is right.

    Reading the recaps in the WoL quickstart guide and the LotV story so far video is quite fascinating. There is no way to explain the details because it is nonsensical, so the new writers just gloss over everything in a way that vaguely makes some kind of sense.

    For example, WoL recap states Kerry's "allies" in BW considered the Overmind the real threat rather than the UED. Presumably it would have broke free at some point.

  4. #74

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    It's basically fanon if you only play the game and don't read the manual or any book. It's a totally fair to wonder why the hell did she turns so evil if the overmind isn't there anymore and she's never been shown through the serious lens that she's conflicted.
    I acknowledge that it's fanon and it's but one interpretation - it's the cornerstone of "Death of the Author" and when something has varied applicability - but this fanon is informed by what's been given in the game and manual though not in an overt/spoonfed way. That the game doesn't spell it out for you and lets you decide the why and wheretofores is one of its strengths, respects the intelligence of the viewer and gives the illusion of depth. Sure, you can take the lazy way out and just let it wash over you or take everything at face value but then if you ask the hard questions and then not do the slightest bit of thinking to figure it out, then who's problem is that?

    Kerrigan becoming angry and different in BW shouldn't really make "no sense" if you've been following on from the games. Even if it weren't for that, she more or less tells you the reason why she harbors such vindictiveness in True Colors (she hates everything that has been done to her up to this point). Also, people do change after going through major life events right? In uncertain terms, Kerrigan states that this was so for her ("You practically fed me to the Zerg on Tarsonis, you're directly responsible for the hell I've been through").

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    She actually never say in true color that she liked what she became.
    My bad. I was trying provide context but ended up being unclear. I said that she like who she was after her rebirth into the Swarm - as in Sc1, not BW/True Colors. She was perhaps lying there, consciously or not (given that the Overmind was still in control then).

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    Those are some dumb unrealistic expectations that Mengsk could magically dive in and save her.
    You do realise that human Kerrigan was the epitome of naivete, right? Her concept of morality is so warped and has unerring faith in a man who clearly does not share such sentiment, that "dumb unrealistic expectations" about being saved wouldn't be that far-fetched for her. It informs and potentially explains the sudden turn into bitterness, rage and anger when those expectations aren't met. I kinda see it like Kerrigan being sort of like a child in Sc1 and then a teenager in BW.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    Never thought about it but yeah it's pretty funny that Raynor didn't even pick up the line either. Not even a "I'm sorry honey, I did all I can but we can't help you"? Real jerk!
    Lol. Now that you got me thinking about that, it probably explains her coldness to Raynor in all of their later dealings in Sc1 and BW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    For example, WoL recap states Kerry's "allies" in BW considered the Overmind the real threat rather than the UED. Presumably it would have broke free at some point.
    They almost lost all to the Zerg without defeating the Overmind the first time around and the Zerg are still handing out peoples arses even without the Overmind, so the news of another Overmind probably would supersede most concerns. The UED just happen to be in a position to be controlling this new Overmind, so they have to get wiped, too.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  5. #75

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    I acknowledge that it's fanon and it's but one interpretation - it's the cornerstone of "Death of the Author" and when something has varied applicability - but this fanon is informed by what's been given in the game and manual though not in an overt/spoonfed way. That the game doesn't spell it out for you and lets you decide the why and wheretofores is one of its strengths, respects the intelligence of the viewer and gives the illusion of depth. Sure, you can take the lazy way out and just let it wash over you or take everything at face value but then if you ask the hard questions and then not do the slightest bit of thinking to figure it out, then who's problem is that?

    Kerrigan becoming angry and different in BW shouldn't really make "no sense" if you've been following on from the games. Even if it weren't for that, she more or less tells you the reason why she harbors such vindictiveness in True Colors (she hates everything that has been done to her up to this point). Also, people do change after going through major life events right? In uncertain terms, Kerrigan states that this was so for her ("You practically fed me to the Zerg on Tarsonis, you're directly responsible for the hell I've been through").

    Being angry and being a cartoon villain are different things. I don't buy the argument that being abandoned is enough to turn her into a psychopath. Seeking revenge on Mengsk, yeah ok. Committing large scale atrocities without flinching? No. It is possible but very unlikely without hints that she is already borderline psycho. Now, you say that we're supposed to assume that this is the case because she's an assassin. I claim that those hints aren't really hints because they're displayed under a thematic of power fantasy and thus cannot/shouldn't be inspected deeper through real life logic/implications. In fact, I'd say Starcraft might as well literally tell you that she's a good person because the presentation is clear on the subject. Your rebuttal to this is that you should dig deeper anyways and thus ignore the presentation and consider the story as a standalone object?

    Let me ask you this then: do you think that the "Death of the Author" point of view is an appropriate frame of interpretation in all situations? How much should we be "allowed" to interpret our own way?

    In any case, if you don't ignore the presentation(and you probably wouldn't while playing), do you agree that the most likely reason for her turning into a villain is because she was infested? And considering the presentation, would you say that someone is likely to think that Kerrigan becomes evil in BW because she always has been? And that is more probable than simply because she was infested?

  6. #76

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    I don't buy the argument that being abandoned is enough to turn her into a psychopath. Seeking revenge on Mengsk, yeah ok. Committing large scale atrocities without flinching? No.
    That's a reductive way of looking at it since the sequence of events need to be looked at as a whole and her psychopathy is not devoid of rhyme or reason as some insist. The abandonment may not be the exact trigger/cause for her psychopathy but it's the fulcrum point because without that event, she wouldn't have become psychopathic. Her time being infested and being used to kill greater numbers people with no remorse would really just be a minor extension/shift of perspective of what she did previously as a human since she was an assassin of her own free will and already tacitly condoned and knowingly assisted in warcrimes through denial, despite being supposedly aware and paying lip service about the morality of those warcrimes.

    Those she killed in her Sc1 infested state (mainly Protoss on Char) would've informed her behaviour later on in BW as well. Sure, she was forced to fight Protoss and Terrans whilst compelled by the Overmind then but she still had enough wherewithal to feel slighted and humiliated by the Protoss on Char. She got to be infested because she was manipulated by her own weakness (lack of conviction) and the Protoss then teach her a similar lesson (that she is her own worst enemy) on Char shortly afterward. In BW, she then goes on to "repay" (her "revenge") both Mengsk and the Protoss for those "lessons" with interest. At that point in BW, she's beyond caring for any higher cause because all she got whilst doing so was still being shat upon by others. The UED deserve her wrath because they're overtly all about controlling others and are a threat because they seek to use the neo-Overmind, the one thing that can enslave her again. She goes to the lengths she does on Shakuras to kill anything that can support this new Overmind. Those atrocities she commits are in the pursuit to remain, what she considers at any rate, free.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    In fact, I'd say Starcraft might as well literally tell you that she's a good person because the presentation is clear on the subject. Your rebuttal to this is that you should dig deeper anyways and thus ignore the presentation and consider the story as a standalone object?
    No. I'm saying that the presentation can be interpreted in many ways/ is not as clear as you'd like to think. That's why Sc1 feels more grey (and why Sc2 is not). There are no good or evil people in Sc1, it's just how you wish to interpret it.

    I don't mind the interpretation that Raynor and human Kerrigan in Sc1 being unassailable paragons of virtue (most fiction tend toward simple protagonist centred morality afterall), but I know that's not entirely true.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    Let me ask you this then: do you think that the "Death of the Author" point of view is an appropriate frame of interpretation in all situations? How much should we be "allowed" to interpret our own way?
    A definite no for the first question. The question of how much will vary on the work. Either way, it's helpful in allowing one to fill in subjectively important/objectively unimportant gaps, prolonging the longevity of a work and potentially engages a more varied audience.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    In any case, if you don't ignore the presentation (and you probably wouldn't while playing), do you agree that the most likely reason for her turning into a villain is because she was infested? And considering the presentation, would you say that someone is likely to think that Kerrigan becomes evil in BW because she always has been? And that is more probable than simply because she was infested?
    I get where you're coming from and would say yes; on the surface of things, Kerrigan is evil because she's tainted by infestation. Thing is, all this conversation came about due to a question about "why Kerrigan is evil/still being evil in BW" making no sense, arose. It seems that someone didn't find it as simple as the presentation suggests/supposes it to be. My response to that was that if one was willing to look beyond the presentation to still ask that question, why were they not looking beyond that initial presentation to find that answer?
    Last edited by Turalyon; 04-18-2018 at 04:57 AM.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  7. #77

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    SC2 would have you believe it is all due to brainwashing, which to be fair was the case ever since Kerry was enslaved by the Confederacy.

    The Ghost Program brainwashed her repeatedly to keep her from developing her own personality, which Arcturus took advantage of for some reason while killing other ghosts he captured. When the zerg captured her, she was probably brainwashed simply by being connected to the hive mind. Everyone who is connected to it goes insane.

    Where things get strange is in BW and the SC2 retcons to BW. In the original BW Kerry inexplicably becomes an evil overlord, which she attributes to being free of the Overmind's control. The thing was, the Overmind was not controlling her and if anything appeared to be controlled by her, especially with the QoB novel retcons that depicted her as actively trying to usurp Zasz, but let's ignore that for now. In SC2, the brood war is glossed over as Kerry reclaiming control of the feral zerg and the cerebrates seemingly retconned out of existence. Not only that, but SC2 claims the Overmind created her to take control after its death and save the zerg from the xel'naga. While that explains her presence in SC1 better than the abandoned determinant plot point in the SC1 manual, it is sabotaged in SC2 itself by then explaining she was still controlled by the xel'naga/Amon. There is no explanation how the Overmind intended to fix that, and it fell to Zeratul to do so after being told so by Ouros (who praises the Overmind despite it being, you know, a vicious zerg monster like the rest of its kind with the exact same goal as Amon).

    Anyway, QoB became the new leader of the zerg because plot convenience and she was manipulated by Duran. Then Zeratul purifies her with a plot device and her QoB memories are erased, leaving only her original human personality intact. More accurately the sliver of personality the writers made up for HotS. Kerry's last memory is of being betrayed by Arcturus, and since she is basically insane she devotes her life to killing him regardless of the collateral damage. Raynor is also crazy since he lost his wife and son and cares nothing for all the people he murdered on Antiga and Tarsonis. In any event, Arcturus is portrayed as the villain and needs to die because the plot says so.

    Also, Kerry turned back into a zerg at some point. In the development version of the story it was because the cure failed and her body reverted back, just like Stukov in his backstory (or some version of it), while in the game she went to "Zerus" and was infested again. Both of these versions are so irrelevant to the plot that you can pretend either happened and nothing would change.

    In any event, you cannot really analyze the story of Starcraft because Metzen is a shit writer who makes it up as he goes along, consistency and logic and basic rules of writing be damned.

  8. #78

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    I don't necessarily want to dive headfirst into an argument I'm not a member of, but I wanted to point out something real quick.

    I still don't get why she's so butt hurt about Tarsonis to be honest. It's even worse when you see the SC2 cinematic. She was clearly screwed no matter what. Would have been stupid to risk forces down there to rescue her. If Raynor wanted it so bad, why didn't he take a dropship and try saving her?
    You're relying too much on the SC2 cinematic, which is more or less a retcon, intentionally or not. Because of the game structure of SC1, we don't actually know if Kerrigan herself was in a rescuable position compared to the attacking Zerg. She personally might have been closer or father away. Also, she wasn't alone. Whether or not she was personally rescued, she's still responsible for the people under her command. So even if she's lost, she still will want to make sure the people around her get out, as much as she is able. Though she ends up infested, originally she did care about the lives of those people, and even as a Zerg it likely still irks her that she didn't have the power to save people she was responsible for/liked. Likewise, we don't really know the extent of Mengsk's ability to rescue people. With enough air power, he could have killed many Zerg attackers or attacked their base to lure them elsewhere. Either way, Kerrigan had the expectation that Mengsk would try, and Mengsk had the obligation to try, which he failed.


    "Seeing Fenix once more perplexes me. I feel sadness, when I should feel joy."
    - Artanis.

  9. #79

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    You're relying too much on the SC2 cinematic, which is more or less a retcon, intentionally or not.
    That was just Raynor reminiscing about the whole situation. It's not like he could have known the exact details of what happened down there. All he had known (until proven otherwise on Char) was that the zerg turned her into their chew toy.

  10. #80

    Default Re: 20 years of Starcraft

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    You're relying too much on the SC2 cinematic, which is more or less a retcon, intentionally or not. Because of the game structure of SC1, we don't actually know if Kerrigan herself was in a rescuable position compared to the attacking Zerg. She personally might have been closer or father away. Also, she wasn't alone. Whether or not she was personally rescued, she's still responsible for the people under her command. So even if she's lost, she still will want to make sure the people around her get out, as much as she is able. Though she ends up infested, originally she did care about the lives of those people, and even as a Zerg it likely still irks her that she didn't have the power to save people she was responsible for/liked. Likewise, we don't really know the extent of Mengsk's ability to rescue people. With enough air power, he could have killed many Zerg attackers or attacked their base to lure them elsewhere. Either way, Kerrigan had the expectation that Mengsk would try, and Mengsk had the obligation to try, which he failed.
    Then again, Sc1's representation of that scenario is kinda ambiguous enough for one to possibly question why Kerrigan would even bother to signal for an evac when she probably already has access to Dropships (you can build air-forces in the mission afterall) and get out on her own. I suppose that at the time for Kerrigan, it was probably not the reality of whether evac from Mengsk could realistically be possible or better than any other escape she could've devise herself but more the fact that she was totally ignored when asking for assistance.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

Similar Threads

  1. StarCraft 2 was announced 10 years ago today!
    By Alex06 in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-07-2017, 10:06 PM
  2. Starcraft - 7 years in 7 minutes
    By Aznargo in forum StarCraft: Brood War Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-14-2013, 10:03 AM
  3. Starcraft: Fifteen Years in the Koprulu Sector
    By Kaiser in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 10:43 AM
  4. StarCraft II Expansions, Diablo III Coming in "Next Few Years"
    By TheEconomist in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-26-2009, 07:05 AM
  5. Is 4 years enough?
    By Triceron in forum StarCraft Universe Lore Discussion
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 07-19-2009, 06:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •