Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
I was speaking of Kerrigan's character arc in this case. True the Protoss and Dominion still don't like her but this development weakens it by making it clear they are wrong to hate her since she wasn't responsible for her actions.
Except they haven't. WoL, it was not forgotten that Kerrigan was a mass murderer that could put every other one in human history to shame, though it was glossed over. Was she in control or not? I've seen no reason to think she wasn't.
Quote:
True, perhaps I should state that it is an assumption and I could (In fact I hope!) be wrong. There was that leaking cinematic (and this
image) not to mention the corruption points in HOTS. Since HOTS will be about Kerrigan regaining control of the swarm (another plot convolution: use DEM to make her lose the swarm so she can regain it immediately afterwards) and since it is reasonable to assume that it will be about accepting her place as zerg and leaving humanity behind I find it hard to believe that she will remain as she is at the beginning of HOTS since it means that the zerg are going to be run by a human with zerg tentacle hair!
To be fair, in order for HOTS to work, Kerrigan and the Zerg had to be defeated somehow, else the campaign would be boring since Kerrigan was at the peak of her power in WoL, both in terms of her personal strength and the Zerg's strength. Where do you take the character when they're already about as powerful as they can be and no force in the sector can oppose them? Either Kerrigan needed to be de-powered and/or lose control of the Zerg, or the Zerg themselves needed to be wiped out en masse.
As for that cinematic, I still don't believe it's real, and even if it were, could just be a conceptual piece and not what's actually going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phazonjunkie
From what we've seen up until now, it's probably the only place they CAN take her....At least the only way they could develop her that would make any kind of logical sense based on what we know so far about the SC2 trilogy and HOTS in particular.
It's a possibility, yes, but not a certainty. Kerrigan may remain as she is now, a hybrid of the two races, no longer the Queen of Blades but also not human.
As I recall I said before, let's wait for the story to actually be revealed before we start hating it.
To try and bring a positive spin to the thread, a challenge I put forth - how would you construct WoL and HoTS then? A greater villain is rising on the horizon and Kerrigan needs to remain alive in order for there to be a chance of stopping him. If not for Raynor and the artifact, how do you set that up?
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
Until he actually makes good of said 'promise', the "sector being burnt to ashes around me" can (there is always doubt however unlikely that may be) be treated as any other exaggerated threat/rant you might give someone when they've wronged you in a meaningful (to you that is) way.
I take it you weren't upset that Raynor ignored his vow to kill Kerrigan?
Also you don't seem to think it is relevant that Mengsk makes no grand statement about Raynor or Kerrigan betraying the Revolution or Humanity by questioning his actions or justifing the Tarsonis genocide was for the Greater Good? His response instead is pure megalomania?
Quote:
All that I'm trying to illustrate is that Mengsk had the capacity to be more than a two-bit selfish villain he is later revealed to be and that it was much richer for it.
This line of discussion because you disputed my assertion that Rebel Yell was about replacing one tyranny with another. It seems you don't actually disagree so why are we discussing this? I'm not sure your disagreements with how Mengsk was written is relevant to a discussion about how about how Mengsk is in fact a bad guy.
Quote:
The difference is that there is the possibility that Mengsks actions may have a benefit for the Terrans in the long-term (unifying the Terrans against another threat)
Terrans don't seem anymore united then they were before.
Quote:
because it is not known at large that he's not directly responsible for it and therefore there is a benefit beyond being solely for his own gain. The Confeds have no such alibi.
Of course once the truth leaks out he is in serious trouble. That is the problem with lying about mass genocide.
Quote:
Mengsk may have wanted to capitalise on this particular solution much like Ozymandias in Watchmen.
Except that is your own interpretation?
Quote:
Besides, everything that people do is selfish (being selfish does not necessarily imply a negative connotation) in one way or another, otherwise why do people do anything at all?
This of course proves how utilitarianism or "the greater good" is a bunch of nonsense.
Quote:
Not quite, you can still formulate a reasoned argument for Mengsk being a strict utilitarian even with his rant. The matter of it being convincing is another thing, however :D
One can formulate a reasoned argument that any bad guy is actually a good guy. They don't have to be convincing.
Quote:
Remember I'm not explicitly stating that Mengsk is a utilitarian but he can be reasonably defended as one based on the information in SC1.
True, except that you would be wrong.:p
Quote:
If you can play devil's advocate like I've been doing with the whole "Mengsk being a possible utilitarian" angle and reasonably justify the Confederates as being just as (or more) utilitarian than Mengsk, I'd like to hear it. The risk in talking about the Confed doing things for 'greater good' of the Terran majority' is that it's more obviously skewed that the 'greater good' is really themselves. With Mengsk, yes it's obvious that the 'greater good' heavily implies himself but there is at least the possibility that it could also mean the real 'greater good' for the remaining Terrans.
So your basic argument is that Mengsk's self interest might lead to unintended good consequences but the Confederacy's can't for no other reason other than that your argument won't work if they do?
There is also the fact that the Confederacy lasted for 175 years and Mengsk was overthrown after a few months. He will most likely be killed in HOTS so his grand regime will last 4 years. Also by making the regime so personal it can't possibly survive once he is dead.
Quote:
On a curious side note, have you read Watchmen (the movie's a bit more iffy when it comes to characterisation)? What are your thoughts on Ozymandias?
No, I haven't read Watchmen. I think murdering innocents is a bad thing. Also any sort of reasoning that justifies murdering innocents for the greater good can only end in a genocidal tyranny since as you said before humans are selfish. Historically this has proven to be a bad thing. Notice that he is named for a Shelley poem about how all empires and leaders completely decay in time.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drake Clawfang
Except they haven't. WoL, it was not forgotten that Kerrigan was a mass murderer that could put every other one in human history to shame, though it was glossed over. Was she in control or not? I've seen no reason to think she wasn't.
They are giving her a split personality or something. They are portraying the Queen of Blades as not really her (a being of rage or something like that) which means she is not really responsible for those mass murders.
Quote:
To be fair, in order for HOTS to work, Kerrigan and the Zerg had to be defeated somehow, else the campaign would be boring since Kerrigan was at the peak of her power in WoL, both in terms of her personal strength and the Zerg's strength. Where do you take the character when they're already about as powerful as they can be and no force in the sector can oppose them? Either Kerrigan needed to be de-powered and/or lose control of the Zerg, or the Zerg themselves needed to be wiped out en masse.
Well it's more of the fault of BW for putting the story in a situation were the zerg were going to devour everyone and they had to make Kerrigan and/or the zerg "good" in order to prevent the zerg this and the zerg being wiped out en masse. And the writers of SC2 couldn't figure out a logical way to make this happen, hence the DV retcon, the prophecy, Kerrigan's split personality and the artifacts.
Also they couldn't think of a logical way to deinfest so they created the artifact...only to have her regain control of the swarm. Again. Since they couldn't think of a logical reason for her to do this they had to create the prophecy. This whole series of events is based on DEMs and not logical story progression.
Quote:
It's a possibility, yes, but not a certainty. Kerrigan may remain as she is now, a hybrid of the two races, no longer the Queen of Blades but also not human.
Unless she returns to humanity (possible, but I doubt it?), she is going to be zerg and having a terran with zerg tentacle hair ruling the swarm would be rather strange?
Quote:
To try and bring a positive spin to the thread, a challenge I put forth - how would you construct WoL and HoTS then? A greater villain is rising on the horizon and Kerrigan needs to remain alive in order for there to be a chance of stopping him. If not for Raynor and the artifact, how do you set that up?
You could also construct WOL and HOTS without the greater villain and Kerrigan being needed to stop it.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
I went back and played through the campaign again, and it's a lot better than I remember it being.
The characters have lots of personality, the plot moves along at a fairly brisk pace. The Tosh and Hanson missions are UTTERLY superfluous, but other than that they're a fun distraction. They don't bring the game down or anything.
The Horner missions don't amount to as much as I would like, but they're still very climactic and interesting and well done.
The Dr. Narud mission is kind of hilarious in that we find out absolutely nothing about him or the Moebius Foundation at all. And later on we find out that Valerian Mengsk owns it.... it's not a major flaw, it's not even a plot hole. And I don't think it's something they NEED to spend TOO much time on, but SOME development on it would have been really nice. Kerrigan should have talked a lot more in that mission too... there's a lot of dialogue, but nobody really says anything. Nobody answers any questions. It's all very limp-wristed and half-assed in a way. They don't take risks, they don't commit.
It's one of the biggest let-downs in the campaign I think. That the Tyrador mission isn't more confrontational and isn't more enlightening.
Now I haven't gotten to the things I really disliked about WoL originally. The ending and the Protoss campaign. So when I get to those I'll be able to make a more... thorough analysis of whether or not I liked the campaign.
But so far I've really enjoyed revisiting it. The Matt Horner missions in particular were much more impactful than I remembered them being, and the UNN stuff isn't as annoying as I remember it being either.
Hell, my biggest concern for HotS right now is that Kerrigan isn't going to be bitchy enough. Like, all her dialogue is so... serious. Where's that overconfidence? That swagger? That smarmy sense of humour? If she's going to be all grumpy, serious, revenge the whole time I'm going to be pretty disappointed.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
The characters have lots of personality, the plot moves along at a fairly brisk pace. The Tosh and Hanson missions are UTTERLY superfluous, but other than that they're a fun distraction. They don't bring the game down or anything.
I think its superfluousness is the very reason why some people bash those storylines - they come out of nowhere and lead to nowhere; i.e. cutting them out would have made zero impact on the story.
That said, I think the biggest failure of Wings of Liberty as a video game story is in how it tells the story; namely the game's reliance on cinematics and mission briefings. In fact, you can skip the gameplay in its entirety and still understand the story just by watching the cinematics and mission briefings. The story grinds to a halt during the actual missions themselves. This is shockingly bad design, especially for a game released this side of 2000. This is supposed to be a video game not a movie! And the worst part of it all? This was deliberate design by Blizzard, who view story of getting in the way of mission design and vice versa.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
I take it you weren't upset that Raynor ignored his vow to kill Kerrigan?
Raynor "ignoring his vow" has other issues regarding flow and continuity of the character. Either way this is a different matter and rather beside the point I was trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Also you don't seem to think it is relevant that Mengsk makes no grand statement about Raynor or Kerrigan betraying the Revolution or Humanity by questioning his actions or justifing the Tarsonis genocide was for the Greater Good? His response instead is pure megalomania?
Perhaps he realises that Raynor and Kerrigan are beyond being reasoned with. They don't have the stones to finish what they started and now they even start to hinder, disrupt and possibly prevent any good (for him and for all) that what he was doing would ever come from his actions. It's hard not to take it personally, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
This line of discussion because you disputed my assertion that Rebel Yell was about replacing one tyranny with another. It seems you don't actually disagree so why are we discussing this? I'm not sure your disagreements with how Mengsk was written is relevant to a discussion about how about how Mengsk is in fact a bad guy.
Really? I thought I had skillfully moved the goalposts :p to talk about the nature of Mengsk's evil and that sometimes evil is necessary and somewhat justified since there isn't any real meat-on-the-bones for the topic/discussion of Mengsk being a 'bad' guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Except that is your own interpretation?
Perhaps. It is also speculation but it can also be a reasonable possible scenario, too. That's what I find interesting - there is room for interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
This of course proves how utilitarianism or "the greater good" is a bunch of nonsense.
To each their own. Utilitarianism is meant to be NOT all-inclusive, but it would be nice to be inclusive as much as possible and therefore has to include some self-interest (preferably your own obviously). You seem to mistake self-interest in all regards as being bad when that is not necessarily true.
Only a cynic would find true utilitarianism is nonsense and explain it away as being truly guided only by self-interest. It's like saying a health system (which is utilitarian in that it has the primary conceit of working for the 'greater good') is evil because it is still largely responsible for a number of preventable deaths and yet ready access to it is limited unless you can pay. If everyone was to dismiss there utilitarian efforts as just selfish, money grabbing exploits with no real guarantees of success, then there is no hope for anyone at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
So your basic argument is that Mengsk's self interest might lead to unintended good consequences but the Confederacy's can't for no other reason other than that your argument won't work if they do?
As I asked earlier, please play devil's advocate and give me some reasoned and logical arguments that the Confeds are just as or more utilitarian (in the strictest definition with the greater good being the whole Terran race not just the Confeds and those allied with them). You may not be convinced by the reasoning presented for Mengsk, but I highly doubt anyone can make the same reasoned argument for the Confeds and be more convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
There is also the fact that the Confederacy lasted for 175 years and Mengsk was overthrown after a few months. He will most likely be killed in HOTS so his grand regime will last 4 years. Also by making the regime so personal it can't possibly survive once he is dead.
This just proves that Mengsk is really nothing at all but a nincompoop. :p
That's why BW and WoL do a disservice to Mengsk as a character because there is no pretense or doubt about his nature. They've rendered him down into a cardboard cut-out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
No, I haven't read Watchmen. I think murdering innocents is a bad thing. Also any sort of reasoning that justifies murdering innocents for the greater good can only end in a genocidal tyranny since as you said before humans are selfish. Historically this has proven to be a bad thing. Notice that he is named for a Shelley poem about how all empires and leaders completely decay in time.
I can't explain the Watchmen scenario without spoiling it for others but it does make you think about the validity of your bolded statement. It'll have to suffice to say that it is possible to do actual good (as well as preventing an even greater evil in comparison) with tremendous evil as long as that evil is never exposed.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
Raynor "ignoring his vow" has other issues regarding flow and continuity of the character. Either way this is a different matter and rather beside the point I was trying to make.
Actually it is a perfect comparison. You argue that Mengsk's vow to burn to sector can be ignored because he was mad and didn't necessarily mean it and guess what others have argued that Raynor vowed to kill Kerrigan because he was mad and didn't necessarily mean it. Also he was in no position to make good on it. Why have you accepted this line of reasoning in one case and not in the other?
Quote:
I thought I had skillfully moved the goalposts :p
So you admit your whole argument is using fallacious reasoning? Nice.
Quote:
there is room for interpretation.
Except there isn't, unless you twist the story beyond recognition.
Quote:
To each their own. Utilitarianism is meant to be NOT all-inclusive, but it would be nice to be inclusive as much as possible and therefore has to include some self-interest (preferably your own obviously). You seem to mistake self-interest in all regards as being bad when that is not necessarily true.
It's more that any claim to be for the greater good in suppressing indiviudal rights by its very nature leads to atrocities and since the politicians are by their very nature self interested these atrocities will benefit them.
Quote:
As I asked earlier, please play devil's advocate and give me some reasoned and logical arguments that the Confeds are just as or more utilitarian (in the strictest definition with the greater good being the whole Terran race not just the Confeds and those allied with them). You may not be convinced by the reasoning presented for Mengsk, but I highly doubt anyone can make the same reasoned argument for the Confeds and be more convincing.
Irrelevant. Mengsk can't be proven to be a utilitarian and the Confederacy is irrelevant in this respect. You have to prove that Mengsk is a utilitarian and you haven't since you have to ignore BW and WOL and twist his lines in the Hammer Falls using reasoning that you don't accept when criticizing WOL.
Quote:
They've rendered him down into a cardboard cut-out.
Which is what he always was? The Heroic Rebel Leader is in fact evil?
Quote:
It'll have to suffice to say that it is possible to do actual good (as well as preventing an even greater evil in comparison) with tremendous evil as long as that evil is never exposed.
Completely fictional scenario with no possibility of actually occuring. And irrelevant since there is no indication that Mengsk is trying something similar.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
You argue that Mengsk's vow to burn to sector can be ignored because he was mad and didn't necessarily mean it and guess what others have argued that Raynor vowed to kill Kerrigan because he was mad and didn't necessarily mean it. Also he was in no position to make good on it. Why have you accepted this line of reasoning in one case and not in the other?
First of all I wasn't arguing anything, if you looked at my response in its entirety, the "Mengsk didnt mean it" part was just a throwaway rebuke to your statement (that was not really meant to stand-up to being attacked anyway) to illustrate the pointlessness of trying to make someone understand an alternative point-of-view when they are too entrenched in their own views.
If you really want to fish for an explanation, I'll bite... Mengsk's rant (at the time) can still be incorporated and defended from a utilitarian perspective. As I mentioned before (remember I'm assuming Mengsk from a utilitarian stance here) being utilitarian means doing the good for the greater majority. Because Mengsk himself is part of the greater good and the instigator of the utilitarian work, an attack on him is a possible attack on any perceived greater good that might arise from his work. Cue the rebuttal :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
So you admit your whole argument is using fallacious reasoning? Nice.
No. Nice way to single out this one (admittedly jokey) part and take that out of context which in itself is a fallacy of its own. I was just trying to explain that I initially wanted to redirect the issue because the current one that you still seem to keep going on (Mengsk is evil - well, duh?) about has exhausted all avenues of interesting discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Except there isn't, unless you twist the story beyond recognition.
There is if you want to look for it. I think the reason you feel that it "twists the story beyond recognition" is because you're too pre-occupied with your own interpretation of the story. For me, it really isn't that hard to understand a different interpretation of the story without changing the fundamentals of it, compromising your own view of it nor necessarily accepting it. This is what I'm attempting to do by explaining the rationale behind interpreting Mengsk as a utilitarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
It's more that any claim to be for the greater good in suppressing indiviudal rights by its very nature leads to atrocities and since the politicians are by their very nature self interested these atrocities will benefit them.
This I cannot deny as history is replete of such example but what if it didn't necessarily lead down to that path? Afterall, this is a fictional set-up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Completely fictional scenario with no possibility of actually occuring. And irrelevant since there is no indication that Mengsk is trying something similar.
Don't pull this one on. You slam me for being fallacious and here you are doing it yourself. Are you now saying the setup for Mengsk (or even Sc as a whole) is not a fictional scenario too or that it's a more real one and therefore the example is not relevant? What a hoot.
By the way, just because there is no obvious indication that something isn't there doesn't mean that there isn't something at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Mengsk can't be proven to be a utilitarian and the Confederacy is irrelevant in this respect. You have to prove that Mengsk is a utilitarian and you haven't since you have to ignore BW and WOL and twist his lines in the Hammer Falls using reasoning that you don't accept when criticizing WOL.
It is relevant because my previous statement was in reply for you asking why the Confeds can't be just as or more utilitarian than how Mengsk can be interpreted. Your question was loaded with you intimating that you knew better and that's why I asked you to humour me.
Based on Sc1 alone, you can only prove Mengsk is a utilitarian or a complete selfish git with circumstantial evidence. From this point the story can actually go on further to highlight Mengsk's selfish desire, utilitarian desires or tread the line with both (the current point of contention). Right there is the richness in scope of SC1's storytelling and what is lacking (and prohibitive) in WoL. We could also go on discussing how the Protoss Conclave (or even the Overmind itself) was also justifiably reasonable in their actions as well. It's not just the twists and turns and the "who did what to whom" stuff alone that makes SC's story memorable since those storytelling aspects are de riguer and indeed, are the more mundane aspects of an already fairly simple story.
The fact that BW and WoL have proven beyond a doubt that he is only and always selfish defeats the purpose of discussing selfish vs utilitarian at all, which is why you can only have the discussion at all with only Sc1's content in mind (I made this restriction clear from the start I thought). I was ultimately trying to use the discussion itself to highlight the fact that the subsequent installments have, as a result of removing varying interpretations (be they convincing to you or not - I don't really mind), limited the possible scope of that character and the story but you kept derailing me with minutiae about the validity of an example speculative theory. You've made me indulge myself too much on this diversion such that I eventually wondered whether I was going to get back on topic. I doubt such a varied discussion of the magnitude we've been having would ever arise from WoL's story.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
This I cannot deny as history is replete of such example but what if it didn't necessarily lead down to that path? Afterall, this is a fictional set-up.
I suppose they could, I wouldn't find it very realistic though. And it would be rather disturbing. But then again this a world with aliens and telepaths and people still talking and acting like early 21th century people from the American South.
Quote:
Don't pull this one on. You slam me for being fallacious and here you are doing it yourself. Are you now saying the setup for Mengsk (or even Sc as a whole) is not a fictional scenario too or that it's a more real one and therefore the example is not relevant? What a hoot.
I was speaking more from my personal perspective rather than refering to to its relevance to Mengsk being utilitarian. Both scenarios aren't remotely real.
Quote:
It is relevant because my previous statement was in reply for you asking why the Confeds can't be just as or more utilitarian than how Mengsk can be interpreted. Your question was loaded with you intimating that you knew better and that's why I asked you to humour me.
I'll be honest I shouldn't have gone on about the Confederacy since it is not relevant to Mengsk being a utilitarian or not. And whether or not Mengsk's rule is better is a different argument. And whether Confederacy being utilitarian and how this might prove that utilitarianism isn't a particularily good idea are different arguments as well.
If you really want me to make a case for the Confederacy's utilitarianism well I can (since I could be accused of wimping out by not). They are a regime that lasted close to 2 centuries despite god knows what how many crises they faced which means something, especially since Arcturus is gonna get killed after only 4 years. They ruled over a period of immense prosperity, technological and cultural advancement and stability. They were quite willing to take extreme measures to insure unity and suppress rebellion. They made sure that the public wasn't agitated by any of these events. They appear to have some kind of Democracy rather than a one man monarchial dictatorship. Yes the ruling elite may not have been very great but who's to say that the other Terrans weren't better off than before or after? Also their military wasn't greatly affected by the overthrow and their veterans were instrumental in fighting the zerg so they can take some credit. They also weren't responsible for the destruction of the center of Terran culture.
They only fell because they were betrayed by a disgruntled member of the ruling class who wanted to create his own dictatorship and treacherously used aliens against his own kind. Not to mention a top general from the ruling class who wanted to save his skin and wanted power, a criminal deserter who rejoined the Confederacy he betrayed to benefit himself only to betray them again because he was insubordinate and destroyed Confederate property and a top special ops soldier who betrayed the very people who trained her from youth to become something greater and kept her psionic powers in check.
Now I don't actually believe most of this but what of it?
Quote:
I doubt such a varied discussion of the magnitude we've been having would ever arise from WoL's story.
LOL, true most likely.
Eh, I think we ought to end this. I'm not really too sure what we are arguing about anymore? :o Okay I agree that Mengsk can be interpreted as a utiliarian in SC1 or in BW or WOL for that matter (but I don't agree that he was ever utilitarian), It's possible his regime might be preferable to Confederacy (I don't really think so). If you want to interpret it that way it's fine (just like I can interpret the DV as some guy who is killing everyone for their own good;)). If you think that utilitarianism is good (either in fiction or in real life) well I disagree. If you think the story would have better if they had made Mengsk a more pragmatic or utilitarian tyrant type, Well I suppose you very well may be right!
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
You know what I don't understand? When did Raynor start a rebellion against Mengsk? He left him after he left Kerrigan to die, but he never actively fought him after that. If anything, the next time they met after that they were working together.
I mean he obviously didn't LIKE Mengsk or want to work with him at all, but I don't get when he became a big freedom fighter and started up a rebellion. In the original game and Brood War he just seemed to be more concerned with surviving and hiding out.
I mean I guess eventually that could be his end-goal, I'd just have liked to see more of that transition from outlaw to rebel.
Quote:
I think its superfluousness is the very reason why some people bash those storylines - they come out of nowhere and lead to nowhere; i.e. cutting them out would have made zero impact on the story.
I don't see why that matters... not everything needs to be hugely impactful. Goodness knows Brood War had it's share of pretty superfluous missions. Not quite as many, and there was usually SOMETHING that was important, but I dunno. I don't mind having a FEW missions which don't serve much of a purpose except to expand the universe.
Quote:
That said, I think the biggest failure of Wings of Liberty as a video game story is in how it tells the story; namely the game's reliance on cinematics and mission briefings. In fact, you can skip the gameplay in its entirety and still understand the story just by watching the cinematics and mission briefings. The story grinds to a halt during the actual missions themselves. This is shockingly bad design, especially for a game released this side of 2000. This is supposed to be a video game not a movie! And the worst part of it all? This was deliberate design by Blizzard, who view story of getting in the way of mission design and vice versa.
Well I don't think that's entirely true. (Most of the 'installation' missions for example had some sort of narrative to speak of.) But they could have done a lot more with it, especially since they were limited to a single POV for the entire campaign. I think that's one of the reasons Mengsk, Kerrigan and Zeratul came across a little flat. (Well Zeratul came across flat because he was a glorified plot device I think) They just didn't explore their characters very much outside of weird news broadcasts and having Kerrigan constantly taunt you through your missions.
I mean she SAYS nothing. Even in the cinematics she's in she doesn't provide any real insight or do much of anything except talk big, and the dialogue for that isn't even that good because it just sounds so empty. She's one step behind ALL the time. She doesn't make a single working plan in the entire campaign. She just throws her massive super-army around.
What happened to the Kerrigan that was if not cunning at the very least COMPETENT?
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
You know what I don't understand? When did Raynor start a rebellion against Mengsk? He left him after he left Kerrigan to die, but he never actively fought him after that. If anything, the next time they met after that they were working together.
I mean he obviously didn't LIKE Mengsk or want to work with him at all, but I don't get when he became a big freedom fighter and started up a rebellion. In the original game and Brood War he just seemed to be more concerned with surviving and hiding out.
I think that the beginning of WOL is supposed to be Raynor starting the Rebellion. Kicking it into overdrive and all. I guess the idea is supposed to be that he spent the time after BW (and SC1 I guess?) hiding and surviving and conducting a low key rebellion against Mengsk and now he decides (for some reason) to start a serious rebellion.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
I'll be honest I shouldn't have gone on about the Confederacy since it is not relevant to Mengsk being a utilitarian or not. And whether or not Mengsk's rule is better is a different argument. And whether Confederacy being utilitarian and how this might prove that utilitarianism isn't a particularily good idea are different arguments as well.
...Now I don't actually believe most of this but what of it?
Not a bad attempt, but I was hoping that you'd actually include some of the Confeds atrocities and try to spin them into a utilitarian light. For example, let's compare the personal/selfish gain to the gain obtained for the greater majority of Terrans for the annihilation of Korhal and Tasonis since they are the two worst atrocities committed by the Confeds and Mengsk respectively.
With the Confeds and the Korhal incident, the 'gain' appears to be much more personally/selfishly relevant to the Confeds only. The 'greater good' in this case is largely representative of the Confeds only because the real, objective greater majority (all Terrans and not just the Confeds and those aligned with them) suffer in one of two ways as consequence of Korhal's annihilation: they must restrict themselves and conform to only one (the Confederate) standard and leave themselves open to Confed authority (be it good, bad or indifference to times of crises) or try to resist further thereby creating more division within Terran ranks and risk facing another annihilation attempt like at Korhal. The Confed aligned colonies would suffer the most from the first consequence, whilst the unaligned Terran colonies from the likes of the KM Combine and the Umojan Protectorate could potentially suffer the second consequence. This is the typical set-up for tyrants worldwide, where their actions are more heavily weighted for selfish gain and where the 'greater good' they talk about really means themselves.
With Mengsk and the Tarsonis incident we have the same issues as the above, but there are important differences to consider. Even as Mengsk has selfish designs and ultimately all his actions are revealed to be wholly selfishly motivated, the destruction of Tarsonis does have a benefit for the greater number of remaining Terrans. First, it removes the selfish and domineering control of the Confeds that was hindering the Terran through the aforementioned consequences of their own actions (see above). Secondly and possibly as flow on from the first, it now potentially (given that the downcast Terrans are hardy lot and don't tend to roll-over when the odds are against them) allows the willing co-operation of all Terran agencies to to come together (whereas it was impossible before now due to the Confederates wanting things only their way throughout the past 100 years and more) and work against the newly discovered and very powerful common enemies (Zerg and Protoss) who are nonchalantly destroying their worlds and possibly their entire species for all they know. These two benefits are utilitarian in nature even in spite of Mengsk pulling the entire thing off for selfish reasons.
In comparing the major two atrocities, it is easier (still doesn't make it 'right' any sense of the word though) to see Mengsk's destruction of Tarsonis as being more truthfully utilitarian than the Confed's destruction of Korhal. To make things more brain-bending, revealing that Mengsk's destruction of Tarsonis was actually motivated by selfish reasons to the entire Terran populace would be detrimental for the greater good of the Terran race at the time since that will surely create division and outrage among the Terrans even more than before. This would possibly result in them to not only be leaderless as a whole but far more vulnerable to be picked off by the invading aliens and possibly ensuring the destruction of the entire Terran population in the sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Eh, I think we ought to end this. I'm not really too sure what we are arguing about anymore? :o Okay I agree that Mengsk can be interpreted as a utiliarian in SC1 or in BW or WOL for that matter (but I don't agree that he was ever utilitarian), It's possible his regime might be preferable to Confederacy (I don't really think so). If you want to interpret it that way it's fine (just like I can interpret the DV as some guy who is killing everyone for their own good;)). If you think that utilitarianism is good (either in fiction or in real life) well I disagree. If you think the story would have better if they had made Mengsk a more pragmatic or utilitarian tyrant type, Well I suppose you very well may be right!
Just to clear things up about my position on whether utilitarianism is good or not, I feel that utilitarianism, as with any other philosophy, only look their best and work as intended on paper/ in theory. Human nature is always the spanner in the works for such things in reality...
I wasn't looking to convince you that Mengsk was "this or that" (which I admittedly got myself bogged down into doing) but rather to show you that it's possible to have different and reasonable interpretations within the confines of Sc1 story and why it helped that story resonate more because of its unexpected and possibly unintended "varied applicability" (as Tolkien put it aptly). I would struggle mightily to describe WoL's story using that same term, however. :)
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
You know what I don't understand? When did Raynor start a rebellion against Mengsk? He left him after he left Kerrigan to die, but he never actively fought him after that. If anything, the next time they met after that they were working together.
I mean I guess eventually that could be his end-goal, I'd just have liked to see more of that transition from outlaw to rebel.
We have to chalk this up to the "4 years has passed and anything can happen in that time" reason. It's but one more gripe along with the other complaints about characters changing too markedly or not all and why almost nothing of import has happened in that time.
For a sequel and continuation of the story, lacking adequate transition and leaving it up to one's imagination is just plain lazy storytelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
She just throws her massive super-army around.
What happened to the Kerrigan that was if not cunning at the very least COMPETENT?
To be fair, all Kerrigan did in BW was throw around her army too and bully people. However, I do agree with you on how ineffective she proves to be in WoL, given that she became "top dog" in BW and supposedly still is going into WoL. Don't you just love the incongruity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
I think that the beginning of WOL is supposed to be Raynor starting the Rebellion. Kicking it into overdrive and all. I guess the idea is supposed to be that he spent the time after BW (and SC1 I guess?) hiding and surviving and conducting a low key rebellion against Mengsk and now he decides (for some reason) to start a serious rebellion.
Hmmm, the manual, official backstory and some in-game tidbits reveal that Raynor's Raiders had been fighting a losing guerilla war against Mengsk over the past 4 years. This hints that any serious rebellion Raynor did start may well have already been squashed by the time we see him at WoL's start. This could explain why he only has access to Marines only at the start as his forces have been depleted and why he's depressed. I doubt that Raynor could've survived for the past 4 years using just marines (even though in-game they own pretty much anything) from the beginning - not to mention he had access to a lot of Terran hardware throughout BW which you'd assumed he would still have.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
To be fair, all Kerrigan did in BW was throw around her army too and bully people.
Huh? She manipulated the Protoss into killing her enemies, she tricked the UED into killing it's vice-admiral and almost destroying one of the biggest threats in the sector to her rule. She convinced Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix to work for her and betrayed them, she got Zeratul to kill the Overmind for her, and when it was all over she wiped out the three strongest fleets in the sector.
Granted she had a lot of help from Duran with a lot of that, but it wasn't like Duran was holding her hand through all of that. She had some good ideas too. In WoL she just seems like kind of a raving idiot.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
Huh? She manipulated the Protoss into killing her enemies, she tricked the UED into killing it's vice-admiral and almost destroying one of the biggest threats in the sector to her rule. She convinced Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix to work for her and betrayed them, she got Zeratul to kill the Overmind for her, and when it was all over she wiped out the three strongest fleets in the sector.
Granted she had a lot of help from Duran with a lot of that, but it wasn't like Duran was holding her hand through all of that. She had some good ideas too. In WoL she just seems like kind of a raving idiot.
Not to take anything away from Kerrigan's achievements in BW but consider the following:
Can we be sure Kerrigan is to be credited for Stukov's death when it its revealed Duran was not really Kerrigan's pawn to begin with?
Kerrigan didn't have to convince or manipulate the Protoss to kill the Cerebrates on Shakuras - they would've done that on their own soon enough since it is their last remaining homeworld (as far as we know :rolleyes:).
Kerrigan's successful "manipulation" of Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix can be attributed to the stupidity of the aforementioned parties (especially in Mengsks' case) in believing her convenient lies based on hearsay. Then again, the initial lie of being free of the Overmind and the possibility of therefore being good again does have merit as there was no precedent for this until now. That being said it could've gone either way since there was no real evidence that Kerrigan was good again apart from her saying it was so.
Zeratul believing Kerrigan's words a second time (freeing the matriarch after killing the new Overmind for her) after she betrayed him in their earlier dealing with Aldaris but from reason hoping she'll keep her word is odd. How much is this attributed to Kerrigan's cunning and how much is this attributed to Zeratul being stupid and falling for it? As they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
Either way, at least Kerrigan is proactive in BW whereas in WoL she is largely reactive and poorer for it as you said ("she's one step behind ALL the time").
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Can we be sure Kerrigan is to be credited for Stukov's death when it its revealed Duran was not really Kerrigan's pawn to begin with?
She was definitely involved in some capacity. Duran was working for Kerrigan even if he wasn't as loyal as he appeared.
Quote:
Kerrigan didn't have to convince or manipulate the Protoss to kill the Cerebrates on Shakuras - they would've done that on their own soon enough since it is their last remaining homeworld (as far as we know ).
Yeah and she helped them do it. Kerrigan was pretty good at that, making sure she shared her enemies' goals in some way or another.
Quote:
Kerrigan's successful "manipulation" of Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix can be attributed to the stupidity of the aforementioned parties (especially in Mengsks' case) in believing her convenient lies based on hearsay. Then again, the initial lie of being free of the Overmind and the possibility of therefore being good again does have merit.
She convinced them to work with her, I don't think it was stupid of them (she gave all three of them pretty lucrative offers that would be hard to pass up even if she betrayed them), and while it wasn't particularly smart of Kerrigan, it was something that took more intelligence than anything she did in Wings of Liberty.
Quote:
Zeratul believing Kerrigan's words a second time (freeing the matriarch after killing the new Overmind for her) after she betrayed him in their earlier dealing with Aldaris but from reason hoping she'll keep her word is odd. How much is this attributed to Kerrigan's cunning and how much is this attributed to Zeratul being stupid and falling for it? As they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
She kidnapped the Matriarch. That was fairly clever. Zeratul had to respond to that somehow. And if you'll remember he DIDN'T trust her, Raszagal had to convince him that killing the Overmind was a good idea regardless of how things turned out with Kerrigan.
Which -- was another idea of Kerrigan's.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
Hmmm, the manual, official backstory and some in-game tidbits reveal that Raynor's Raiders had been fighting a losing guerilla war against Mengsk over the past 4 years. This hints that any serious rebellion Raynor did start may well have already been squashed by the time we see him at WoL's start. This could explain why he only has access to Marines only at the start as his forces have been depleted and why he's depressed. I doubt that Raynor could've survived for the past 4 years using just marines (even though in-game they own pretty much anything) from the beginning - not to mention he had access to a lot of Terran hardware throughout BW which you'd assumed he would still have.
Makes me wonder since Raynor's fight hasn't gone very well (especially if he made a previous serious attempt against Mengsk that failed) then why is he is in a position to launch a serious revolt against Mengsk and why does he do so well?
Also judging by StarCraft: Frontline: Homecoming it appears that right before WOL he visited Mar Sara to look back on his life. And that the Dominion has just annexed Mar Sara (good thing they didn't look for Raynor's old home or bar!). Of course none of this actually appears in game so we get the feeling that he is at some bar in Mar Sara for some reason and he rebels because Mengsk called him names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
These two benefits are utilitarian in nature even in spite of Mengsk pulling the entire thing off for selfish reasons.
Not sure if one can call selfish actions that unintentionally (If that is what you think that is?) cause good can be called utilitarian since you are not actually looking out for the greater good. Arguing Mengsk's actions as doing good, intentionally or not, is not necessarily the same as him being utilitarian.
Quote:
To make things more brain-bending, revealing that Mengsk's destruction of Tarsonis was actually motivated by selfish reasons to the entire Terran populace would be detrimental for the greater good of the Terran race at the time since that will surely create division and outrage among the Terrans even more than before. This would possibly result in them to not only be leaderless as a whole but far more vulnerable to be picked off by the invading aliens and possibly ensuring the destruction of the entire Terran population in the sector.
Of course you could say the fact that not revealing it could have worse consequences since Mengsk is clearly selfish, incompetent, divisive and not looking out for the interests of Terrans so keeping it under wraps is not looking out for the greater good and will allow him to keep committing selfish atrocities. And that covering up heinous acts will lead to worse consequences down the road since the coverup is usually always worse than the actual act. Also by its very nature any sort of dissent causes division and outrage so you can justify suppressing every sort of dissent which usually is disastrous since incompetence and corruption are never exposed which will hamper any effort to defeat the alien threat. Also by covering up his atrocities he is committing a selfish act since it benefits him personally. This line of argument also assumes that Mengsk's interest are the Terran's own when that is clearly not the case.
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Makes me wonder since Raynor's fight hasn't gone very well (especially if he made a previous serious attempt against Mengsk that failed) then why is he is in a position to launch a serious revolt against Mengsk and why does he do so well?
That is a good question. There are no hints or possible explanations found in WoL to properly explain it except perhaps when Tychus finds Raynor later and I assume he came by with some funding from Moebius to help Raynor. The rest is up to us to fancon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Of course none of this actually appears in game so we get the feeling that he is at some bar in Mar Sara for some reason and he rebels because Mengsk called him names.
That's about right. Don't you just hate it when someone insults you while you're having a drink? RAAAAAAGE!! :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Not sure if one can call selfish actions that unintentionally (If that is what you think that is?) cause good can be called utilitarian since you are not actually looking out for the greater good.
The definition of utilitarian does not require a statement of intent (for good or ill) of an individual's actions. Still, my statement was an attempt at trying to incorporate your belief and the knowledge that Mengsk is and always was a selfish ass, which was hitherto unknown at the time, into the context of his actions being possibly utilitarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Arguing Mengsk's actions as doing good, intentionally or not, is not necessarily the same as him being utilitarian.
You might need to define some of your terms for me here. If you mean "doing good" as "achieving a specific benefit for the greater majority" than the sentence doesn't make sense because that is indeed being utilitarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Of course you could say the fact that not revealing it could have worse consequences since Mengsk is clearly selfish, incompetent, divisive and not looking out for the interests of Terrans so keeping it under wraps is not looking out for the greater good and will allow him to keep committing selfish atrocities. And that covering up heinous acts will lead to worse consequences down the road since the coverup is usually always worse than the actual act. Also by its very nature any sort of dissent causes division and outrage so you can justify suppressing every sort of dissent which usually is disastrous since incompetence and corruption are never exposed which will hamper any effort to defeat the alien threat. Also by covering up his atrocities he is committing a selfish act since it benefits him personally. This line of argument also assumes that Mengsk's interest are the Terran's own when that is clearly not the case.
This is all a real possibility (and pretty much fact now considering WoL's portrayal of Mengsk) which I had already taken as a given. Once again, I'm attempting to demonstrate a possible flip-side with the assumption that Mengsk is utilitarian.
In Sc1 it is also reasonable to ask whether Mengsk's seemingly 'out-of character' rant really is proper evidence for the case of him being a "totally selfish and monomaniacal person from the start" since it is only one incident, appears last (therefore being memorable), could be misconstrued and possibly hearsay. And yes, I know that last sentence is bullcrap and apologetic to Mengsk given what we know about him now, but in order to wrap your head around him being possibly utilitarian you cannot even approach it and understand it by thinking secretly that he's still really just a "selfish evil bastard" (even when it is proven to be true later on).
Therefore, from a maintained utilitarian perspective of Mengsk, what you've mentioned above would not happen unless Mengsk misjudged peoples motivation and the overall situation regarding Terran affairs (which is entirely possible as well but that is discussing something else entirely again!).
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turalyon
You might need to define some of your terms for me here. If you mean "doing good" as "achieving a specific benefit for the greater majority" than the sentence doesn't make sense because that is indeed being utilitarian.
Well I mean did he deliberately intend these results that supposedly benefited the greater majority? And did he intend them to benefit the greater majority?
Quote:
The definition of utilitarian does not require a statement of intent (for good or ill) of an individual's actions.
True, but otherwise an utilitarian can become vague and meaningless if they don't have an intent to benefit the greater majority as supposed to his personal desires. The whole concept can pretty much mean anything.
Quote:
In Sc1 it is also reasonable to ask whether Mengsk's seemingly 'out-of character' rant really is proper evidence for the case of him being a "totally selfish and monomaniacal person from the start" since it is only one incident, appears last (therefore being memorable), could be misconstrued and possibly hearsay. And yes, I know that last sentence is bullcrap and apologetic to Mengsk given what we know about him now, but in order to wrap your head around him being possibly utilitarian you cannot even approach it and understand it by thinking secretly that he's still really just a "selfish evil bastard" (even when it is proven to be true later on).
Therefore, from a maintained utilitarian perspective of Mengsk, what you've mentioned above would not happen unless Mengsk misjudged peoples motivation and the overall situation regarding Terran affairs (which is entirely possible as well but that is discussing something else entirely again!).
I suppose, I'm just not very sure of the purpose of this discussion anymore? Yes if you want to think of Mengsk as utilitarian in the first game you can interpret all of his actions in that way, some reasonably, others less so. I don't agree with this line of argument but you can make it. Not sure what else I can add?
Re: How did they screw up the single player that bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
Well I mean did he deliberately intend these results that supposedly benefited the greater majority? And did he intend them to benefit the greater majority?
Until BW and WoL cemented that Mengsk is and most likely was only ever out for himself there is enough space to argue both ways, which I've been trying to demonstrate to you over the past few posts.
Mengsk's plans and rise to power (which is not necessarily a bad thing from a neutral perspective) does need the support of the greater majority. Like any real politician, the easiest and quickest method to do this is to divert attention to something else that is of more pressing (and you'd hope legitimate) concern. The Zerg and Protoss genocide of Humanity fits that bill quite nicely in all regards.
Afterall, there's no point in gaining power over an un-unified and disparate mess with it's head cut-off without having a plan to unite them since the whole Terran's future survival is currently at stake and that it'll just be the same as when the Confeds were in charge with o further action. As you can see, there is the potential for Tarsonis' destruction to suit both the greater majority and Mengsk's personal desires regardless of Mengsk's actual intent. Until BW and WoL furthered the "personal desire" angle of Mengsk, it could've went either way back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
True, but otherwise an utilitarian can become vague and meaningless if they don't have an intent to benefit the greater majority as supposed to his personal desires. The whole concept can pretty much mean anything.
Someone doing utilitarian work does not necessarily mean they're altruistic, too (although you'd hope and wish them to be). Since being utilitarian involves the concept of some "greater good/ benefit/ majority" you do have to look at the operative word "greater". This alone implies that one's intent cannot be for the whole majority but for those you can help. Also, as I've said before, you have to expect that the "greater majority" would most likely include the person doing the utilitarian work as well.
Ideally, a person doing utilitarian work would have the same benefit (not more or greater) as the greater majority/good they are working for. Realistically, this is never the case. Because of this, you do have to somewhat weigh and compare the expected benefit of the action for the "greater majority" with the "selfish desire". If the potential weight (on an objective scale) is heavier for the benefit of the greater majority than it may still be classified as being utilitarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Laurentian
I suppose, I'm just not very sure of the purpose of this discussion anymore? Yes if you want to think of Mengsk as utilitarian in the first game you can interpret all of his actions in that way, some reasonably, others less so. I don't agree with this line of argument but you can make it. Not sure what else I can add?
I've stated my ultimate intent earlier. I'm just clarifying and expanding on our tangent discussion of "Mengsk as a utilitarian". I don't expect you to agree on anything nor am I wanting you to. That is all :)
