Conventions in Fiction & Kerrigan's "deaths"

[TcheQuevara]

Hehe, five stars! Thanks everyone who read, and everyone who commented.

Frankly, I don't see Kerrigan's resurrections being part of the lore as a bad thing. In fact, I think it has the potential to be quite cool. Riddled with so much guilt, yet even if she wants to she can't die, because the swarm will just build her a new body? Awesome. Plus it has dramatic potential for when someone finally finds a way to kill her for real.

Indeed, I think that idea has potential to be well done. If it is, great. But there's always the risk that it sucks... and even Browder didn't seem too convinced of how making it cool in lore. If they're not confident about such unnecessary thing, they shouldn't do it.

Vision of Khas, don't talk about the leaked ending like that without using spoiler tags

I don't see a problem with this. The Kerrigan resurrection thing is not much different from any other example of the "gameplay and story segregation" trope and if we're going down that path, we might as well say the entire concept of the gameplay is nonsensical in terms of lore.

As Hawki and Gardius have mentioned, it can easily be hand-waved as Kerrigan just retreating and regenerating to fight another day having sustained critical damage and not actually dying at all. I think there are many other things within Starcraft's story itself (independent of their gameplay representation) so far that are more potentially "lore-breaking" than this.

easy mite. That's exactly what I meant I think this mechanic is great. It is just like War 3 actually. No need to explain it in lore.

So folks, any suggestions to improve the argument? Like ways to make it clearer, which seems to be an issue?

PS: I just edited the TL;DR. I'll edit the whole text soon, maybe monday; I plan to post it in BNet forums maybe on Wednesday...

[Alar]

If she doesn't at least have Cloak from the start, I don't understand how she can call herself a Ghost. :l

Even Infested Kerrigan had it.