How did they screw up the single player that bad?

[Laurentian]

Precisely; hence, the difference between presentation (i.e. Blizzard's official interpretation - clear 'good' and 'evil' camps) and an objective assessment of what went down; which is less clear cut (i.e. there is room to debate and question). In other words, truth is in how you present the facts.

Hmm, if "truth is in how you present the facts" than how can any objective assessment exist?

Also you are not making an objective assessment but quite a subjective one since you are assuming that committing acts that cause "unity" and the "greater good" are in fact good things and that the Confederacy is as bad the game itself says.

[Laurentian]

A pure utilitarian does what is necessary for the greater majority.

I was refering more to him being selfish would prove that he is not in fact doing what he thinks is best for the majority(assuming the latter is in of itself of good thing)? You after all claimed that Arcuturus knows that he is doing what is best for humanity. Reaping the seeds of a new empire and wanting the sector to burn if he can't rule it doesn't strike me as what one who thinks he doing what is best for humanity would say as supposed to for himself and his underlings .

I would actually find it interesting for someone to try and explain Palpatine or Sauron in a similar light given that their whole conception has always been from a "selfish evil" perspective with no discernibly objective utilitarian methods.

Here and here . Mr. Last's article in particular makes very similiar arguments to Mr. peasant and yourself.

The Confeds have a history of already creating disunity, being self-serving through their numerous atrocious acts (starting a war in the early days of the first 3 colonies, the annihilation of Korhal and finally inviting the Zerg to attack their own colonies just to see what happens and/or as a means to control them more thereby potentially inviting the destruction of their entire race in the whole process).

This is different from Arcturus how? You also assuming that unity is in of itself a good thing.

There was no outside alien threat to unite against then. All these displays of power are just (and quite obvious to boot) to fuel the self-serving needs of the Confederacy. At the least, Mengsk has a more legitimate excuse than the Confeds.

But they still are being used for the self serving needs of Mengsk. You know overthrowing a government only to preach the need for unity and crush dissent strikes me as extremely self serving. And again you are assuming that unity is a good thing.

Keep in mind that I'm only specifically looking at SC1 in terms of Mengsk's actions as being utilitarian.

This is a pretty dubious way to look at the game since it pretty much requires that you to stop the game at New Gettysburg. Since you don't think that BW and SC2 should be ignored when discussing Mengsk then ignoring them when trying to make look Mengsk look like a utilitarian is rather dubious. Or the fact that you are interpreting the Confederacy in bad light (not taking an objective view are we?) for the same things that Mengsk is supposedly a good guy for doing.

The pre-BW SC1 Mengsk was more interesting in that he could have been written as a more utilitarian leader (where the means can be morally wrong but are objectively justifiable to reach the ends) and made for a much more interesting enemy for Raynor to fight in WoL.

More like pre-New Gettysburg. Also he wasn't written as a utilitarian or pragmatic leader, even in SC1. It's not like this a retcon or anything. Why don't you ask James Phinney?

Personally I wouldn't have minded if they had portrayed him as a pragmatic and utilitarian tyrant since as you can see I absolutely depise those types.

[mr. peasant]

Hmm, if "truth is in how you present the facts" than how can any objective assessment exist?

Also you are not making an objective assessment but quite a subjective one since you are assuming that committing acts that cause "unity" and the "greater good" are in fact good things and that the Confederacy is as bad the game itself says.

Just to be clear, I never said that Mengsk's actions in SC1 are 'good' but that they are defensible. It should illicit a varied response from people (the players); depending on whether they feel the deaths necessary, there was another way, or that the prize/outcome was worth the cost. That's the entire point of grey morality - dividing people's opinions (or leaving them on the fence). The pieces were all in place, the various factions each having opposing yet understandable motivations/beliefs; which is why I feel it's a shame that Blizzard chose not to go that route by not even acknowledging, never mind exploring, the rationale of the so-called antagonists.

Instead, upon wanting the de-vilify Kerrigan and the Zerg, Blizzard did so by rewriting/reinterpreting their backgrounds so as to absolve their responsibility over their previous actions. For instance, it wasn't Kerrigan's fault; it was all the 'Queen of Blades' persona, who is a separate identity from her, etc.

[Laurentian]

Just to be clear, I never said that Mengsk's actions in SC1 are 'good' but that they are defensible.

Well I would agree that his actions have some sense to them (unleashing the zerg on Tarsonis makes the Confederacy's overthrow easier afterall), I would not say they were defensible.

It should illicit a varied response

Why?

The pieces were all in place, the various factions each having opposing yet understandable motivations/beliefs; which is why I feel it's a shame that Blizzard chose not to go that route by not even acknowledging, never mind exploring, the rationale of the so-called antagonists.

Well the problem is that I don't think having understandable motivations/beliefs makes someone not evil or being pragmatic/utilitarian is necessarily a good thing or defensible or whatever.

Instead, upon wanting the de-vilify Kerrigan and the Zerg, Blizzard did so by rewriting/reinterpreting their backgrounds so as to absolve their responsibility over their previous actions. For instance, it wasn't Kerrigan's fault; it was all the 'Queen of Blades' persona, who is a separate identity from her, etc.

Honestly I'm not fond of this. Seems they needed some reason to not kill off the zerg/have them kill everyone else (since either of these would end the StarCraft storyline) so they have to de-vilify Kerrigan (thanks to a DEM) and retcon the Overmind into being the puppet of an even Bigger Bad to get around it. Magically absolving them makes this process much easier and it allows Kerrigan to remain in control of the swarm so they won't have to think up of a new zerg leader.

Also Kerrigan's redemption involves her being "cured" by a DEM rather than proper character development. Not to mention that Kerrigan is apparently still going to lead the swarm so magically absolving her of previous actions as zerg leader is rather unsatisfactory. Also this is being done through the needlessly convoluted method of "Deinfest her so she can be reinfested."

[mr. peasant]

Why?

Because disagreement promotes discussion and debate; thereby increasing the work's literary value. Having only one perspective to work with means there is less to analyse. Compare, for instance, Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire. Both created well developed worlds to explore and critique. However, the uncertain morality in the latter adds an extra dimension from which to comment on.

Well the problem is that I don't think having understandable motivations/beliefs makes someone not evil or being pragmatic/utilitarian is necessarily a good thing or defensible or whatever.

Yes, it doesn't make someone pragmatic/not evil/etc by default. However, it can be used as a means to make them so. Take Snape from the Harry Potter series for example. He's considered a 'good guy' despite having murdered Dumbledore in cold blood, watched on as Voldemort tortured and murdered people, participated in said torture, and numerous other misdeeds. The reason for this is because he did so in order to maintain his cover as a spy and thereby continue to ultimately undermine Voldemort. Take that motivation away and he would be a villain. Moreover, he would become a much, much flatter character since it raises and subsequently explores the question of what made him turn double agent in the first place.

[Drake Clawfang]

Also Kerrigan's redemption involves her being "cured" by a DEM rather than proper character development. Not to mention that Kerrigan is apparently still going to lead the swarm so magically absolving her of previous actions as zerg leader is rather unsatisfactory. Also this is being done through the needlessly convoluted method of "Deinfest her so she can be reinfested."

Having not followed this thread for a while I'm behind, but two things here stand out to me.

"Kerrigan is apparently still going to lead the swarm so magically absolving her of previous actions as zerg leader is rather unsatisfactory" - except they aren't, obviously the Dominion and Protoss still hate her and want her dead. It's only Raynor that this has been done with.

"Also this is being done through the needlessly convoluted method of "Deinfest her so she can be reinfested." - You don't know that's where they're taking her.

[Laurentian]

Because disagreement promotes discussion and debate; thereby increasing the work's literary value. Having only one perspective to work with means there is less to analyse. Compare, for instance, Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire. Both created well developed worlds to explore and critique. However, the uncertain morality in the latter adds an extra dimension from which to comment on.

You appear to be assuming that having uncertain morality automatically makes a work better. Or that disagreement makes something better. Does the discussion over WOL's story increase its artistic value? Also why should SC have such morality? If it doesn't should we just pretend it does because we prefer it that way?

Yes, it doesn't make someone pragmatic/not evil/etc by default. However, it can be used as a means to make them so. Take Snape from the Harry Potter series for example. He's considered a 'good guy' despite having murdered Dumbledore in cold blood, watched on as Voldemort tortured and murdered people, participated in said torture, and numerous other misdeeds. The reason for this is because he did so in order to maintain his cover as a spy and thereby continue to ultimately undermine Voldemort. Take that motivation away and he would be a villain. Moreover, he would become a much, much flatter character since it raises and subsequently explores the question of what made him turn double agent in the first place.

Well I haven't read Harry Potter but what we have been arguing about is more the equivalent of arguing that Voldemort isn't such a bad guy.

"Kerrigan is apparently still going to lead the swarm so magically absolving her of previous actions as zerg leader is rather unsatisfactory" - except they aren't, obviously the Dominion and Protoss still hate her and want her dead. It's only Raynor that this has been done with.

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.

You don't know that's where they're taking her.

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!

[phazonjunkie]

"Also this is being done through the needlessly convoluted method of "Deinfest her so she can be reinfested." - You don't know that's where they're taking her.

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.

[Laurentian]

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.

Yes, and the fact that they had to create the artifact in order to put her in this situation shows how needless convoluted her character arc is.

[Turalyon]

You after all claimed that Arcuturus knows that he is doing what is best for humanity. Reaping the seeds of a new empire and wanting the sector to burn if he can't rule it doesn't strike me as what one who thinks he doing what is best for humanity would say as supposed to for himself and his underlings.

We can go around circles all day. I could just as well say the following in response:

There is nothing inherently or morally wrong with "sowing the seeds of a new empire". On its own, there is only as much evil there as you want to see.

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.

You'd then respond in kind about how Mengsk really is selfish and we'd be getting further away from the point. Keep in mind, I actually fully agree with you that he is nothing more than a tyrant. This is due, in part, to the 'clarity of vision' (if you can call it that ) of Mengsk's character that the later installments of SC impart. 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 is different from Arcturus how? You also assuming that unity is in of itself a good thing.

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) 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.

You must look at the benefit of Terran unity in context with which the story is told. At the start of SC, the Terrans seem to be a disenfranchised bunch that are too pre-occupied with in-fighting. Because of this separation and lack of 'unity', they are ripe victims for any major, co-ordinated force against them as a whole (Zerg and Protoss in this particular case). It is quite clear that nothing short of a major disaster that would affect all Terrans will ever make them a unified front against a common enemy. Would you not agree that a unified defense is a much better than a disparate one? Mengsk may have wanted to capitalise on this particular solution much like Ozymandias in Watchmen.

But they still are being used for the self serving needs of Mengsk. You know overthrowing a government only to preach the need for unity and crush dissent strikes me as extremely self serving. And again you are assuming that unity is a good thing.

You're taking a simplistic approach to the matter. Mengsk isn't just overthrowing any government and you know that. Part of being utilitarian is doing what would benefit the greater majority. If you were Mengsk, wouldn't you include yourself within this greater majority? 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 is a pretty dubious way to look at the game since it pretty much requires that you to stop the game at New Gettysburg.

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

Since you don't think that BW and SC2 should be ignored when discussing Mengsk then ignoring them when trying to make look Mengsk look like a utilitarian is rather dubious. Or the fact that you are interpreting the Confederacy in bad light (not taking an objective view are we?) for the same things that Mengsk is supposedly a good guy for doing.

The extra information from BW and Sc2 no longer paints Mengsk in utilitarian light at all, hence the purposeful narrowing of the focus. 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.

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.

Personally I wouldn't have minded if they had portrayed him as a pragmatic and utilitarian tyrant since as you can see I absolutely depise those types.

"Love to hate" characters can be tricky to write as they tend to come off as cartoonish and too "on-the-nose". Well done ones really earn your hate which is quite fascinating in itself.



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?