Printable View
That's a good question I've been pondering myself. I guess in reply, I can ask whether we are sure the Overmind was able to grab a lot of information when it absorbed the Xel'Naga?Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
Either way, it knew enough to find the general direction and was able to get to the general area Protoss space. That's no easy feat mind you, since the Zerg supposedly come from the other end of the galaxy.
2.4 – Theme(s)
Let’s get this away right from the get-go: StarCraft 2 is not the deepest of games. I am not an avid gamer, but I feel certain when I say that other games probably has a lot more to offer when it comes to that aspect. No, the game’s trump card is emotions. The creators of the games in the series have made characters that we get invested in, they have written scenes that make an impact on us, and they have constructed stories that play on our curiosity of needing to know how everything is tied up. However, just becomes the water is not high enough to drown you standing, it still isn’t shallow. In other words: StarCraft 2 might not be as deep as it could have been (or, depending on your preferences, how deep it should be), but I think it would be wrong to say that all of its qualities are superficial.
I’ll get straight to the point. The primary theme of Wings of Liberty is choice. Yes, despite the presence of a prophecy and a vision where it is stated that the survival of life as we know it depends on the survival of Sarah Kerrigan, the game’s central theme is based on the ability to choose between several alternatives. Prophecies, visions and choice don’t always go well together. While a prophecy doesn’t necessarily equal that things are set in stone, it does remove responsibility from the characters to a certain degree, and when you do that, you make your characters less interesting. How interesting is a movie about corruption if the corrupted couldn’t in any way help it? How interesting would it be if the police on the take in Serpico were forced? The answer will obviously differ from person to person, but for yours truly, the answer is certain: evil deeds are more interesting from a storytelling perspective when they are committed consciously.
Before I go on to look at how choice is such a prevalent theme in Wings of Liberty, let’s start with the part in the game that clearly plays with events set in stone and actions where choice is either limited or non-existent, the Ulaan prophecy, which goes something like this:
"In the fullness of time
The cycle shall draw to its end.
The Xel'Naga, who forged the stars,
Will transcend their creation....
Yet, the Fallen One shall remain,
Destined to cover the Void in shadow...
Before the stars wake from their
Celestial courses,
He shall break the cycle of the gods,
Devouring all light and hope.
It begins with the Great Hungerer.
It ends in utter darkness."
Though it isn’t specific on what events will occur, the prophecy does say a lot about what might happen in Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. It certainly will involve the Xel’Naga, which might come to life again after their deaths by the hands of the Overmind. This is stated in the third book in the Dark Templar Series, Twilight, by Christie Golden (I have not read it, and have gotten all my information from the game’s wiki). Apparently, this will happen through the merging of the Zerg and the Protoss, though not in the same way that the hybrids are made (as they are apparently considered perversions).
However, the Fallen One (the Dark Voice) will stop this, which we see in the mission In Utter Darkness, which is the Overmind’s vision. Apart from that, little is certain. What is probable is that Samir Duran (who needs no introduction, though some information would be nice) is somehow connected to this. The question I’m interested is this: is the prophecy set in stone, or does it simply offer one of several possible futures? If the former is the case, then choice is removed from the game is completely and we already know how the story ends, and although it could make for a nice twist that the fate we thought could be avoided is actually unavoidable, I think Zeratul is right when he says, “The prophecy is certain. There is always hope”. The prophecy doesn’t remove the choice; it just makes it easier.
Or does it? I say it makes it easier because the characters’ hands are tied if they want to rescue the world, as Kerrigan has to live for this to happen, but is this really an easy choice? As we saw in the original Protoss campaign, there were factions of individuals who would do anything to destroy the Overmind except using the only thing that actually could destroy it, the Dark Templar. It was not easy for them, not because they were stupid, but because they were blinded by their fanaticism. So when I question that choosing that Kerrigan get to live is an easy choice, it’s because there are many who would rather die than do exactly that, and I suspect this is an important part of the future installments. Raynor might have convinced himself that rescuing her was the right thing to do, and Zeratul seems to have overcome his hatred for the time being (quite the accomplishment), but the Koprulu sector is loaded with people who have things to say about Kerrigan, and waving ancient prophecies in their face might not be enough to convince them that Raynor and Zeratul are the people to listen to. So, despite prophecies and visions about predetermined events, there might still be a presence of choice when it comes to the story of the Dark Voice (which I assume is the trilogy’s main storyline), in the sense that it deals more with the difficulty of making the right choice than the difficulty of finding out what the right choice is.
But is this the only kind of choice in Wings of Liberty? Does the entire game revolve around choices where the right alternative is always certain, and where the drama comes from the good guys desperately trying to convince everyone else that they are right? Not at all. The entire game is filled with regular, prophecy-less choices. Many of them are built on a choice that was made when the game began. Let’s look at that one.
Despite having open reservations about the psi emitters, Raynor didn’t do anything to prevent them from being used in the original StarCraft, and Raynor being Raynor, he now regrets his passiveness. I think his anger on Mengsk in WoL is an unconscious attempt to remove his own responsibility when it comes to the fate of Kerrigan. Because, yes, Raynor does think it is his fault (at least partially) that she was left behind. It doesn’t matter what Horner tells him; he still believes that “we are who we choose to be”. In other words: Raynor is not necessarily fighting for good in Wings of Liberty as much as he is trying to remove his own guilt by focusing his anger on the man everybody else already knows has sole responsibility for the infestation of Kerrigan.
One has to wonder how Raynor got himself to trust Kerrigan in Brood War. Though the threat of the UED certainly played a part, I can’t help but wonder if he wanted to see the good in her, despite logic clearly telling him that this part of her was destroyed on Tarsonis. It is likely that his aforementioned guilt and self-imposed responsibility over that event can have directly resulted in his disability to see Kerrigan for what she truly was, in the sense that the moral weight of her being left behind wouldn’t have been so heavy if she didn’t turn out to be so evil. Of course, that is not the case, and so Raynor does what he think is right when he realizes this: he swears to kill her. This does not seem to be his desire anymore in Wings of Liberty. He is still angry, still depressed, but Kerrigan has become almost distant to him (which is partly caused by the fact that he hasn’t seen her in 4 years). It is never stated that he has given up on his promise to kill her, but he seems more sorry than angry with her now.
When Valerian Mengsk arrives with the promise of reversing the infestation of Kerrigan, Raynor grabs the opportunity. It seems like a paradox that he does this when you take into consideration how intent he seemed on killing Kerrigan, but there is an explanation (one that even is official): he simply hadn’t considered the possibility of turning her back into human, as the opportunity to do this never arose before this, and the means to do this presumably didn’t exist until now (this is one of the reasons why I wish Stukov’s infestation wasn’t lore, as the existence of the serum that deinfested him makes it a bit odd that Raynor could be surprised of what Valerian has to tell him when it comes to the artifact’s real power). What he got was a chance he didn’t know existed, and he took it.
Not everybody was aboard when it came to this decision. Most of the crew was suspicious of Valerian’s true intentions, and I don’t think it would be too farfetched to say that Raynor’s reason was blinded by his desire to get Kerrigan back. As I will touch upon in a minute, his decision was not without costs (not do I think he has ceased to pay the price yet). He got the crew to go with him, as he had done so many times before. One has to admire how loyal they are and simultaneously begin to wonder how egoistic Raynor is. Though he is admirable and sympathetic, it shouldn’t be slid under the carpet that he has demons so large and so many that it’s possibly he can’t see what’s good for neither himself or his friends anymore. I wouldn’t be surprised if things don’t turn out as good for Raynor in the future as they should.
The deinfestation of Kerrigan was successful, but it came at a price, as Tychus bit the bullet that was meant for Mengsk. Yes, it is in fact quite significant that Raynor shoots his friend with the same pistol he has carried with him the entire game. This was Raynor’s true test. He had included Tychus in the rebellion knowing full well that was something suspicious about him, and although the game realistically conveys that Raynor trusted and truly considered Tychus to be a comrade, it was always obvious that this choice could potentially have been a bad one. What’s interesting is that if Raynor hadn’t included Tychus, the latter could have gotten better off. Yes, I’m sure that if he couldn’t infiltrate the Raiders, Mengsk would have disposed of him, but if he were to die anyway, this would have been a better fate than to do so by the hands of a friend.
The final scene mirrors the scene with Raynor and Horner in the cantina, where the latter has to clean up after the former is too drunk to keep the bottles on the table. Raynor says that the state he is in is self-caused, and says the game’s central theme out loud: “We are who we choose to be”. In the final scene, he says something similar: “We all have our choices to make”. Choice is everywhere! If one thing is certain in StarCraft, it’s that a lot of characters make a lot of stupid and immoral choices. But whereas the first game primarily left it up to the villains and the less heroic characters to choose poorly, the sequel puts a lot of responsibility and judgment on the heroes as well (an advantage and perhaps necessity when you choose to leave the villains in the background). In the final scene, Tychus reveals that he agreed to do Mengsk’s bidding in exchange for his freedom, and although he seems intent on pulling the trigger, it is unquestionable that he is hesitating. For although it’s true that Tychus had his unsympathetic sides, it is also true that he was put in a position he didn’t deserve to be in. And yet, on the other side, he wasn’t forced, only pressured, and in the end, betraying Raynor was a conscious choice on his side.
Raynor too, had a choice. He held the life of Kerrigan in his hands, and unless he killed Tychus, she would die. If that is not a tough choice, I don’t know what is. Sure, one could argue that at this point, letting Tychus kill her would have not only been a mistake, but also an insult to everyone who left for Char (many of which died). Then again, most of the people who were on the planet were probably more interested in deinfesting Kerrigan for the purpose of ending her reign than for Raynor to get her back. For all we know, letting Kerrigan live might have been a mistake, and perhaps a moment that will have consequences for Raynor. I have no specific speculations about how this will play out in the later installments, but I do have some preferences of how I would have done it, and with that, I can be very specific.
Let me clarify. It has been speculated that Tychus might be infested, that he is not really dead, and that he now is the new leader of the Zerg. I think that is a ridiculous idea. It undermines the pathos of seeing Raynor having to kill him, and it, well… sounds idiotic. However, just because Tychus is dead doesn’t mean his character won’t continue to have meaning. And here’s what I would do: I would make it so that Raynor would have to actually think about what he has done. I would give him doubts, and I would put him in a situation where he had to face the consequences of the choice he made. For killing Tychus has made Raynor more responsible than ever. He is less a hero now than he was before. On New Gettysburg, he was a victim. He is not the villain now, but blood is on hands in a way that it wasn’t before, and I think this is the perfect opportunity for the writers to grab. I’m not saying Kerrigan should go right back to being evil, but a moment or two where she turns out to be not as squeaky clean perfect as Raynor hopes she is would be appropriate. The less noble Kerrigan is, the more weight will be on Raynor’s shoulders, and that would make the final scene in Wings of Liberty* even more poignant.
* As a side note, I think it was a mistake to end the scene as the writers did. It feels too victorious, when it's clear that killing Tychus was somewhat of a defeat. Cutting down half of the part of Raynor carrying Kerrigan could have done much. This is only a minor complaint, though.
I’m not going to speculate too much, but I’m going to slightly touch upon future events by looking at past events, with the focus being on Kerrigan. The debate has raged long on whether the Queen of Blades is one or two persons. If the former is the case, then she is to me a more interesting character. If she is two persons, then a lot of weight is lifted from her shoulders, because she can’t be held responsible for the actions she has committed in the same way. It’s not that I’m out to get her or have a strong desire to see her punished; I just argue that if she were one person, things would get more complex and, simultaneously, better. One central question that I don’t think has been answered is this (correct me if I’m wrong): did Kerrigan’s infestation make her evil, or did it just enhance feelings that were already there? It’s obvious that her turning to the Zerg means that she isn’t a hundred percent responsible for her actions, but if she acted out on feelings that already existed, though with an absence of a conscience stopping her, then the judgment of her actions will also be a judgment of her as a character. Again, we see how choice both complicates the drama and makes it better.
Raynor clearly believes that “we are who choose to be”. In other words, he is indirectly saying that everyone is responsible for himself or herself. How will that play out now that he has saved someone who is responsible for the deaths of billions? Will he still hold on to that philosophy? Or will he abandon it to justify his choice to save Kerrigan? Because I do believe his choice was largely a selfish one (that she has to be deinfested to save the world from Zerg is strangely enough the secondary argument to him – though that can be debated). I await the answers with glee.
again, If Raynor allowed tychus to kill kerrigan they were all doomed. the fact that kerrigan was artificially transformed into a monster needs to be taken into account; yes sociopaths have free will, but because they have no empathy they can only make the choices that benefit them. Kerrigan did not choose to become a monster; she was artificially warped into one. So the hypocritical dilemma isn't necissarily there. The only dark actions that I can remember is her murder of Major Rumm and considering what Rumm had done to her (abusing her physically and mentally since the age of 8, executing her love interest) I don't really blame her for trying to take vengeance. Kerrigan's choices were artificially limited due to genetic manipulation/rape of the worst kind, Raynor also displayed some growth as a character; by working with Valerian he sided with the son of the man he hated the most and whom he dedicated a great deal of his life to hunting. Swallowing his hatred and working with his foe does take a great deal of maturity and selflessness. Saving the soldiers who hunted him and his men for years on char was also an extremely mature decision. When he saved Kerrigan he put aside his lust for vengeance. Raynor needed to face his guilt and other demons; they kept him from truly being an effective leader who could make the galaxy a better place. Wings of liberty opened a new road for him. also, zeratul knows whereas the vision version of him clearly didn't. already some elements have changed, so i highly doubt that the vision is set in stone; zeratul and raynor have averted the future for the time; if kerrigan can free the zerg, then the apocalypse will be averted.
Not this old chestnut again! There is no definitive answer because it all depends on your frame of reference for what evil really is. I actually hope that there isn't a definitive answer.Quote:
One central question that I don’t think has been answered is this (correct me if I’m wrong): did Kerrigan’s infestation make her evil, or did it just enhance feelings that were already there? It’s obvious that her turning to the Zerg means that she isn’t a hundred percent responsible for her actions, but if she acted out on feelings that already existed, though with an absence of a conscience stopping her, then the judgment of her actions will also be a judgment of her as a character.
The same thing goes if you ask whether Kerrigan is responsible for all her actions up to this point. The two extremes of this position are: a) If your inclined to think she's actually two people or that her evil stems directly from infestation than she can't be held fully responsible and b) If you think she's one person or that evil is somewhat ingrained then she is fully responsible. c) is mixture of both. Therefore, judgement of her character also depends on who your asking. It would be likely that the majority of "in-universe" lay-people (except Raynor perhaps) would tend not to care if she was split personality.
Another issue that compounds the problem of this question is the alternative question of whether things would've still turned out the same way if the entity known as Kerrigan/QoB (doesn't matter) never existed? It's more of a hypothetical than anything, but if we could answer this with a yes, Kerrigan may not be fully responsible. If no, then Kerrigan maybe fully responsible for her actions regardless of whether infestation confers "evilness" or not.
It's an interesting debate, though, isn't it? I don't even need to bring counter-arguments to the table, because you provided your own.
It sure is! I love the ambiguity of the question because either argument can be just as strong as the other. How you answer it is more of a reflection of yourself than what the story/narrative is ultimately trying to say (or moralise) to you. As I mentioned, I hope they don't make a definitive answer to it because it is far more interesting if it's ambiguous.
I like the ambiguity too, and I hope they keep playing on it. But I can't deny some kind of answer would be nice.
Here's another thing, though: can they really avoid it, even if they wanted it? We are going to see what Kerrigan does now for a full game, and her actions will say a lot, I think.
I've somewhat resigned myself to the fact that they are going to put certain details about Kerrigan's nature 'in concrete'. I don't really care much for it as long as it doesn't cheapen the character's progression by reducing it into a 'neat little box with a bow on top'.
Either way, people are going to gush/hate about it if it was what they wanted it to be/ didn't want as usual.
Aren't you a little bit curious, though?
I mean, I'm a big David Lynch fan, so I have nothing against ambiguity in general, but I wonder how it would deepen Kerrigan's character. I do like the prospect of we never really figuring her out (Blizzard should play on that aspect, that I agree with), but I also have to admit that I want to find out.
I can honestly say that I would prefer not to know.
To me, it gives the character more depth when you don't know certain things, because in reality, how well do you really know anyone? It helps with immersion because it allows you to actively participate and believe in that fictional world whereas if you give concrete answers, it becomes a very passive experience where all you can do then is just say "I like it" or "I don't like it". I don't like obsessing over an ultimate payoff (the answers you are supposedly desperate to seek all throughout) because they mostly feel unsatisfactory when they do finally arrive and they cheapen the whole experience by giving it a 'tagline'.
I don't know if SC2 is going to be like that, but I won't be surprised if it does.