Fenix - Character Analysis

[Turalyon]

I know what 'concise' means.

I never said otherwise. I was just implying that using the "I am the authority" card to reinforce your position on something that is really only determined by consensus (such as definitions of words) and not solely by "authorities" will tend to do the exact opposite. At the worst, it usually is an open invitation to mockery too - not that I think FT is doing exactly that deliberately. His occasional biting (but harmless) snarks are really only to mirror the flaws in one's arguments. Don't take it personally.

Already having been introduced as Duran's mysterious master in Brood War gave him a solid foundation to be slowly introduced into the game. If you cut out the Zeratul missions from Wings of Liberty and keep only Piercing the Shroud, then it could have made for excellent, slow build up of the character. In fact, with that mission establishing a connection between Amon and Arcturus Mengsk, then it leads to a number of possibilities for revealing Amon at the conclusion of Heart of the Swarm, when Kerrigan takes down Mengsk.

This scenario of only having Piercing the Shroud as the means to introduce his threat in WoL would mean that it would be paramount to have Amon have some direct influence/apperance over HotS though. Unfortunately, what we got with HotS as it is now, the threat of Amon is still very diffuse, hardly felt at all and not much more beyond saying he's a threat - thanks to the storyline being swallowed whole by an unworthy villain in Mengsk. Simply removing the Zeratul missions in WoL would not be enough to build Amon if we keep in mind what HotS actually gives us. All in all, emphasising the build-up of the threat in Amon is pretty much impossible unless HotS is totally rewritten. I think it's going to be the most likely reason why LotV will feel 'strange' to some when it seemingly goes "off-track" to focus suddenly on fighting this nebulous and arbitrary big bad. When one thinks about the two installments so far, does it really indicate that Amon and the Xel'Naga legacy is what the whole trilogy is or supposed to be about?

Of course, the best thing to do about Amon would be to change his motivation. Completing the experiments of the Xel'Naga could lead to a ton of conflict beyond simply 'annihilating the world'. Or maybe Amon is not the source of conflict, he just creates the Hybrids, goes around shouting "I am a genius!" for a while, then leaves. And the Hybrids produce their own conflict.

With what we have so far, I'm not entirely sure that reworking Amon's motivation would change things that much because the Overmind's motivation was hardly that complex either since when viewed by any perspective other than Zerg, the Zerg motivation really just boils down to wiping out other life, too. I think the most obvious problem is more of a structural thing of having Amon or his representatives in the the form of the Hybrids be more visible as a threat to sell the trilogy as telling one cohesive story about the Xel'Naga legacy. Of course, reworking Amon's motivation will probably go some way in the right direction in covering up the banality (which is what all good writers really do given the lack of true originality) of what is essentially another "fight the big bad" scenario.

[FanaticTemplar]

This scenario of only having Piercing the Shroud as the means to introduce his threat in WoL would mean that it would be paramount to have Amon have some direct influence/apperance over HotS though. Unfortunately, what we got with HotS as it is now, the threat of Amon is still very diffuse, hardly felt at all and not much more beyond saying he's a threat - thanks to the storyline being swallowed whole by an unworthy villain in Mengsk. Simply removing the Zeratul missions in WoL would not be enough to build Amon if we keep in mind what HotS actually gives us. All in all, emphasising the build-up of the threat in Amon is pretty much impossible unless HotS is totally rewritten. I think it's going to be the most likely reason why LotV will feel 'strange' to some when it seemingly goes "off-track" to focus suddenly on fighting this nebulous and arbitrary big bad. When one thinks about the two installments so far, does it really indicate that Amon and the Xel'Naga legacy is what the whole trilogy is or supposed to be about?

Quite right. StarCraft has always had that one campaign that feels completely distinct from the overall narrative. Until now it was the first one though. It's going to be really weird to have a climax unrelated to the rest of the story.

With what we have so far, I'm not entirely sure that reworking Amon's motivation would change things that much because the Overmind's motivation was hardly that complex either since when viewed by any perspective other than Zerg, the Zerg motivation really just boils down to wiping out other life, too. I think the most obvious problem is more of a structural thing of having Amon or his representatives in the the form of the Hybrids be more visible as a threat to sell the trilogy as telling one cohesive story about the Xel'Naga legacy. Of course, reworking Amon's motivation will probably go some way in the right direction in covering up the banality (which is what all good writers really do given the lack of true originality) of what is essentially another "fight the big bad" scenario.

Yes, it would only be the beginning, but at least it would allow him to have some impact beyond just being the threat of the day. Even the Overmind had to be eliminated at the end of StarCraft, because he was established as a conquer the universe villain. It's one of the reasons Mengsk could be a more enduring villain - he might also want to rule the universe, but he doesn't have the power to actually do it.

[TSCR]

I never said otherwise. I was just implying that using the "I am the authority" card to reinforce your position on something that is really only determined by consensus (such as definitions of words) and not solely by "authorities" will tend to do the exact opposite. At the worst, it usually is an open invitation to mockery too - not that I think FT is doing exactly that deliberately. His occasional biting (but harmless) snarks are really only to mirror the flaws in one's arguments. Don't take it personally.

No

Appeal to authority is when you're appealing to authority which does not possess valid knowledge on the subject. I do but FnaticTemplar doesn't so the fact that he seems to think that reading a definition out of a definition dictionary is enough to teach him how to use an apply and use a word better than me is a joke.

And you call this a simple inductive process from what we see of Duran only in BW? As I said, it's no more justifiable as saying Duran is an "alien" because there are a tonne of unknowns either way. It's actually simpler if Duran was an alien, because you can chalk all the grey/fuzzy areas about him as being "alien" and unknown. Why was there no other mention of this other alien species? Easy, that's because they're hidden like Duran would've been if we hadn't manage to find the secret mission and known otherwise (in short, aliens hidden in plain sight).

No, in your OPINION, this is the best answer. In my opinion it is not. Opinion not FACT, so don't try to state your opinion as fact. If you disagree with my opinion then why continue responding? Unlike FnaticTemplar, I don't attack people with different opinions from me.

[topsecret221]

Unlike FnaticTemplar, I don't attack people with different opinions from me.

You're attacking Turalyon by saying this, because he's presenting an opinion different from yours . Not necessarily consciously, but looks to me like you're lashing out against him and his opinion.

I don't think I've ever seen Tur attack someone. He's gotten riled up over the horrid writing, but never an all-out attack.

[Turalyon]

Appeal to authority is when you're appealing to authority which does not possess valid knowledge on the subject. I do but FnaticTemplar doesn't so the fact that he seems to think that reading a definition out of a definition dictionary is enough to teach him how to use an apply and use a word better than me is a joke.

Slippery slope here. What makes you the ultimate authority to deride the dictionary as a meaningless source for word definitions when such things have been collated/created (by experts one would imagine) on the express basis of creating a consensus for the generalised use of such words?

Besides, the "appeal to authority" fallacy also includes assuming consensus amongst experts. You are but one "expert".

No, in your OPINION, this is the best answer. In my opinion it is not. Opinion not FACT, so don't try to state your opinion as fact.

Why do you feel the need to say this? I'm fully aware at all times that when I post, I'm giving an opinion in response to someone else's (your) opinion for you to consider not for you to adopt. So, no need to get so huffy about it.

If you disagree with my opinion then why continue responding? Unlike FnaticTemplar, I don't attack people with different opinions from me.

Discussions revolve around dissenting opinions - otherwise, there is no discussion. Also, don't confuse the pointing out of logic gaps in one's opinion as a personal attack.