Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Q&A 12

  1. #61

    Default Re: Q&A 12

    Quote Originally Posted by Visions of Khas View Post
    I was always under the impression that Raynor realized Mengsk wanted Kerrigan dead by the mere fact that he sent her down there without reinforcements. The result was predictable, and Raynor was just as mad at himself as he was with Mengsk. There was probably no way to rescue her, but Mengsk meant for things to turn out that way. He sacrificed one of the murderers of his family as well as disposed of a lieutenant whose faith had become compromised.
    Interestingly enough - and as has been stated previously - while she did question Mengsk's actions, she still carried out his orders anyway; the latter of which was what ultimately (would have) killed her. Which, to me, doesn't send the message that questioning Mengsk will get you killed. Rather, it sends the message that following Mengsk's orders will get you killed. Which is the total opposite of Blizzard's stated objective for Mengsk's actions.

  2. #62

    Default Re: Q&A 12

    Rather, it sends the message that following Mengsk's orders will get you killed. Which is the total opposite of Blizzard's stated objective for Mengsk's actions.
    That wasn't the case until Mengsk's attack on Tarsonis. For all intents and purposes he was a man of the people. He risked his soldiers, sure -- every military leader does -- but he didn't sacrifice them until Tarsonis. On the precipice of total domination, Mengsk felt it was time to eliminate a potential threat and enact a plan of revenge years in the making. He became what he fought so hard to destroy.

    I'm not saying Mengsk wasn't a ruthless bastard until Tarsonis, that's just when he let his mask slip and stopped being so careful.


    BUT -- my previous post was just my impression of events upon my initial playthrough of the campaign.
    Aaand sold.


    Be it through hallowed grounds or lands of sorrow
    The Forger's wake is bereft and fallow

    Is the residuum worth the cost of destruction and maiming;
    Or is the shaping a culling and exercise in taming?

    The road's goal is the Origin of Being
    But be wary through what thickets it winds.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Q&A 12

    Quote Originally Posted by Visions of Khas View Post
    That wasn't the case until Mengsk's attack on Tarsonis. For all intents and purposes he was a man of the people. He risked his soldiers, sure -- every military leader does -- but he didn't sacrifice them until Tarsonis. On the precipice of total domination, Mengsk felt it was time to eliminate a potential threat and enact a plan of revenge years in the making. He became what he fought so hard to destroy.

    I'm not saying Mengsk wasn't a ruthless bastard until Tarsonis, that's just when he let his mask slip and stopped being so careful.


    BUT -- my previous post was just my impression of events upon my initial playthrough of the campaign.
    That's my point - that his sacrificing his troops on Tarsonis sent the complete opposite message to what Blizzard intended. Namely, that instead of conveying that questioning Mengsk would get you killed, it conveyed that following his orders despite reservations is what will get you killed.

  4. #64

    Default Re: Q&A 12

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. peasant View Post
    That's my point - that his sacrificing his troops on Tarsonis sent the complete opposite message to what Blizzard intended. Namely, that instead of conveying that questioning Mengsk would get you killed, it conveyed that following his orders despite reservations is what will get you killed.
    Computer problem is back again. In Ghost Academy, units that followed Mengsk's orders to leave Tarsonis's system were branded "wimps".
    StarCraft wiki; a complete and referenced database on the StarCraft game series, StarCraft II, Lore, Characters and Gameplay, and member of the StarCraft II Fansite Program.

    "Do you hear them whispering from the stars? The galaxy will burn with their coming."

  5. #65
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Q&A 12

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. peasant View Post
    Interestingly enough - and as has been stated previously - while she did question Mengsk's actions, she still carried out his orders anyway; the latter of which was what ultimately (would have) killed her. Which, to me, doesn't send the message that questioning Mengsk will get you killed. Rather, it sends the message that following Mengsk's orders will get you killed. Which is the total opposite of Blizzard's stated objective for Mengsk's actions.
    True, although in that case they were soldiers. If they are sent to an exremely dangerous but critical mission, they go anyway. I agree that it doesn't give the feeling that following orders will get you killed; in that context, the meaning is more that Mengsk won't rescue his men if they are cornered by an overwhelming force. That's essentially what you said, only more limited in scope than "following orders will get you killed".
    Last edited by Telenil; 01-24-2013 at 04:42 AM.

  6. #66

    Default Re: Q&A 12

    Quote Originally Posted by Visions of Khas View Post
    That wasn't the case until Mengsk's attack on Tarsonis. For all intents and purposes he was a man of the people. He risked his soldiers, sure -- every military leader does -- but he didn't sacrifice them until Tarsonis. On the precipice of total domination, Mengsk felt it was time to eliminate a potential threat and enact a plan of revenge years in the making. He became what he fought so hard to destroy.
    Something's not right here. How can Mengsk actually be truly a "man of the people" first and then become what "he fought so hard to destroy" the instant he "sacrificed" Kerrigan if he already harbored selfish tendencies, as you suggest by his planning to kill Kerrigan and becoming a tyrant, from the start? The answer has to be "he can't" or "never was" which then renders Mengsk into the black and white territory of villainy. This goes back to what I said previously about post Sc1 stuff squashing the possibility that Mengsk was ever altruistic at all, how it colours how you perceive his actions throughout Rebel Yell retrospectively and why it ultimately makes him into the boring and (stereo)typical villain he is presented as now.

    Sacrificing ones soldiers is not really different than plainly (if one could ever call it that) risking ones soldiers in a battle when you consider that the circumstances are different for both. Compared to a regular military engagement, New Gettysburg/Tarsonis was the ultimate goal about to be imminently realised and what it needed to be fulfilled was nothing short of a sacrifice. In SC1, there is insufficient evidence to say for sure that Mengsk purposefully created/patiently waited for a suicide situation expressly so that he could kill Kerrigan (if he indeed really wanted to kill her at all...). To say that Mengsk killed Kerrigan for questioning his orders implies (amongst other things, such as him wanting to kill her regardless) that Kerrigan was somewhat forced into that suicidal situation and unaccountable for her own death. This is not what the game shows us. Kerrigan's naivete, blind trust and inability to really think on her own got her killed (as peasant says "following orders will get you killed") just as much as it was Mengsk presenting her with a suicidal situation irrespective of whether or not he intended to kill her at all. See now just how gray SC1 was?
    Last edited by Turalyon; 01-24-2013 at 08:12 AM.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  7. #67

    Default Re: Q&A 12

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    True, although in that case they were soldiers. If they are sent to an exremely dangerous but critical mission, they go anyway. I agree that it doesn't give the feeling that following orders will get you killed; in that context, the meaning is more that Mengsk won't rescue his men if they are cornered by an overwhelming force. That's essentially what you said, only more limited in scope than "following orders will get you killed".
    My comment about "following orders will get you killed" was more in the context of Blizzard's explanation of Mengsk's rationale - and how it didn't quite fit. In their response, they said that Mengsk wanted to make an example of her and send a message to the rest of the SoK that "the cause was now an established idea and their belief was no longer required—only their obedience".

    Yet, if anyone so much as thought about it, it's plain to see that Kerrigan's actual obedience was the more direct cause of her 'death'. To elaborate, she no longer believed wholly and unquestioningly in Mengsk but was nonetheless still obedient; and as a result, she 'died'. As such, wouldn't the conclusion that comes to mind instead to not be obedient?

    Now, if Mengsk had decided to shoot her himself immediately the moment she questioned his decisions, instead of dispatching her on a suicide mission, THEN the message would have come across as 'obey me or suffer the consequences'.

Posting Permissions

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