LotV Trailer!

[TheEconomist]

James Phinney cowrote SC1. Metzen wrote BW by himself, which, incidentally, was a lot worse.

Anyone know how much he's been doing with the newer WoW stuff? Been out of the loop since 2008 or so. Spent some time on YouTube catching up on the lore. It's half-way decent. Makes me think Metzen has retired, for the most part.

[ragnarok]

James Phinney cowrote SC1. Metzen wrote BW by himself, which, incidentally, was a lot worse.

Didn't know that. I thought there were still other writers working with him for it....

[Hawki]

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. A faction is political.

Not necessarily. A faction can be based on ideology, but politics doesn't have to factor into it. Every branch of the(insert faith of choice here) faith can be considered a faction, but it's a divide that stems from religious ideology rather than political divide.

But here's my point - SC1 was, in my mind, never a political story. RY, it comes close, but Mengsk never presents a view to counter the system of the Confederacy, he only opposes the Confederacy himself. That, and it's a motivation driven by vengeance. Overmind is never political, the zerg do as they do, it's not even ideological. The Fall touches on ideological divide, but reading into it, it's a divide that stems from dogma (Conclave) vs. reason (necessity of the Nerazim). Come BW, that's repeated again thematically (disunion between Khalai and Nerazim, the joining of their powers defeating the zerg...again). The UED might be construed as a political story, but we have no idea how they would have administered the K-sector, if anything, it's a story of hubris. UED comes in with the confidence that they'll succeed, they don't, and it's DuGalle's hubris that costs him a lot (psi disruptor, Stukov, entire fleet). And Kerigan's story sure isn't political, when it's based on revenge more than anything else (and desire for power, but again, the zerg aren't political by nature).

So no. I've never seen SC as being political. Ideological, maybe. We've seen that in SC1 (Khalai and Nerazim), HotS (Swarm and primal zerg), and possibly LotV (Daelaam unification hurdles). But never political.

Nobody really gets to "defy the odds". Raynor never got to replace the corrupt government he grew up with with a better one. The protoss never got to save their planet. Fenix and the Overmind never got to live. Raynor never got to save Kerrigan.

It's the circumstances that break all suspension of disbelief for me. Sure, Raynor wants to right all his wrongs and deinfest Kerrigan. Doesn't mean he should be allowed to. Sure, it'd be nice if a small, underfunded rebel group could break open the most highly guarded prison in the sector or defeat the Fleet of the Executor, but that shouldn't be possible either. Except it does happen, because Raynor is Metzen's favorite character. Like some fairy tale, reality warps around him to fit his whims and desires, and that's not a true test of character, it's just player aggrandizement.

I've combined this together because it touches on the same point.

First of all, it's an arbitrary distinction. The SoK "defies the odds" by overthrowing the Confederacy at all. The zerg arguably defy the odds by invading Aiur successfully, a premise that the Overmind had low hopes for prior to finding Kerrigan. The protoss sure as hell defy the odds by defeating the Overmind at all. They do it again in BW. The UED, despite a small fleet, overthrows the Dominion and enslaves the Overmind. Even Kerrigan defies the odds at the end of BW at Char Aleph.

And yet suddenly, this is a problem in WoL. Up until this point, I've suspended disbelief (like all fiction) on the premise that the characters were skilled enough to do as they do. Same reason why James Bond is still alive or kicking, or Luke wasn't shot by a Stormtrooper. Mengsk was intelligent enough to orchestrate the Confederacy's demise. Tassadar and co. are skilled/smart enough to deal with Aldaris and defeat the zerg. Artanis and co. are able to retrieve Uraj and Khalis despite the latter being on bloody Char. DuGalle is skilled enough to plan a campaign that succeeds up to Char. Kerrigan is smart enough to manipulate everyone around her to do her bidding. Suddenly though, Raynor being smart enough or skilled enough to accomplish his goals is deemed unbelievable. And since the "underfunded" part has been brought up, every example given is at a point where the Raiders are in a position to be getting credits, hiring mercenaries, and getting tech as well.

To bring someone back just to satisfy a character motivation? Well, it's definitely something Blizz would do.

Except Stukov was brought back well prior to HotS.

Not having morality = evil.

That's amorality, not immorality.

How could he have Raynor swear to kill Kerrigan and then make him love sick for her in SC2?

A) Because the romance was there from the start.

B) That vow was a third juror moment.

Yes, someone's going to call BS on both those claims, but, well, I'll be honest, the second version is what gets to me a lot, the idea that Raynor was going to fulfill this "vow" to kill Kerrigan. I've seen it written that the moment was meant to be a character defining moment for Raynor. IMO, it isn't. It's Raynor at his lowest, the point where claiming I'll kill you is so pathetic because he has no means of doing so, and given by the end of BW, no will either. All I can say is that excluding everything that happens between BW and WoL, seeing Raynor at the start of WoL was exactly where I'd have expected him to be (at least psychologically).

[TheEconomist]

That's amorality, not immorality.

Hawki +1

[ragnarok]

A) Because the romance was there from the start.

B) That vow was a third juror moment.

Yes, someone's going to call BS on both those claims, but, well, I'll be honest, the second version is what gets to me a lot, the idea that Raynor was going to fulfill this "vow" to kill Kerrigan. I've seen it written that the moment was meant to be a character defining moment for Raynor. IMO, it isn't. It's Raynor at his lowest, the point where claiming I'll kill you is so pathetic because he has no means of doing so, and given by the end of BW, no will either. All I can say is that excluding everything that happens between BW and WoL, seeing Raynor at the start of WoL was exactly where I'd have expected him to be (at least psychologically).

This is why Kerrigan called him out in that he didn't have what it took to be a killer. She was confident his threats are largely hollow, as were those of her enemies.

For Raynor to be at where he was at the beginning of WoL, but the main problem was that a lot of people felt we didn't SEE Raynor's anger turn to guilt and everything. Personally I don't think that's the case. We all saw back even in The Hammer Falls mission where Raynor blamed himself for what happened on Tarsonis.

And yet suddenly, this is a problem in WoL. Up until this point, I've suspended disbelief (like all fiction) on the premise that the characters were skilled enough to do as they do. Same reason why James Bond is still alive or kicking, or Luke wasn't shot by a Stormtrooper. Mengsk was intelligent enough to orchestrate the Confederacy's demise. Tassadar and co. are skilled/smart enough to deal with Aldaris and defeat the zerg. Artanis and co. are able to retrieve Uraj and Khalis despite the latter being on bloody Char. DuGalle is skilled enough to plan a campaign that succeeds up to Char. Kerrigan is smart enough to manipulate everyone around her to do her bidding. Suddenly though, Raynor being smart enough or skilled enough to accomplish his goals is deemed unbelievable. And since the "underfunded" part has been brought up, every example given is at a point where the Raiders are in a position to be getting credits, hiring mercenaries, and getting tech as well.

You have to remember that Raynor had been a valuable asset to the SoK. Mengsk specifically said just that from the Flashpoint book flashbacks. Mengsk's intelligence deteriorated greatly after the Confederacy fell and the Dominion was established. At that point, he felt with Duke at his disposal, he had a far better commander and everything. This was confirmed in the True Colors mission, where Kerrigan was telling Duran that once Duke is taken care of, Mengsk is easy to deal with, whereas Raynor and Fenix are far more resourceful.

Yet she forgot this in WoL, only having to bring it back up on Monlyth when Raynor beat her to the race for the artifact.

[DonnyZeDoof]

But here's my point - SC1 was, in my mind, never a political story. RY, it comes close, but Mengsk never presents a view to counter the system of the Confederacy, he only opposes the Confederacy himself. That, and it's a motivation driven by vengeance.

But Raynor presents an opposing political view. The only reason he joins Mengsk is so he can help free the Koprulu Sector of the wrath of ruthless self-centered dictators. Even the way Mengsk manipulates him and everyone else is through politics i.e. The zerg are the Confederacy's weapons of mass destruction.

The UED might be construed as a political story, but we have no idea how they would have administered the K-sector, if anything, it's a story of hubris. UED comes in with the confidence that they'll succeed, they don't, and it's DuGalle's hubris that costs him a lot (psi disruptor, Stukov, entire fleet).

Have to disagree here because the only reason their failed expedition began in the first place is due to their fear that the Protoss and Zerg would overtake the Koprulu Sector and then use it as a base to launch an attack on Earth. That's not much different from the current political situation with ISIS.

Also I think we already know that the UED would mistreat the Koprulu Sector. Didn't they unleash zerg upon a Dominion colony in the opening cinematic?

And Kerigan's story sure isn't political, when it's based on revenge more than anything else (and desire for power, but again, the zerg aren't political by nature).

Well Kerrigan did change the way the Swarm was run by killing the cerebrates so that can be considered political in nature.

A) Because the romance was there from the start.

B) That vow was a third juror moment.

Yes, someone's going to call BS on both those claims, but, well, I'll be honest, the second version is what gets to me a lot, the idea that Raynor was going to fulfill this "vow" to kill Kerrigan. I've seen it written that the moment was meant to be a character defining moment for Raynor. IMO, it isn't. It's Raynor at his lowest, the point where claiming I'll kill you is so pathetic because he has no means of doing so, and given by the end of BW, no will either. All I can say is that excluding everything that happens between BW and WoL, seeing Raynor at the start of WoL was exactly where I'd have expected him to be (at least psychologically).

I have trouble buying how Raynor could still be so much in love with her. She's a mass murderer. She's worse than Mengsk. Even if he thought she had good looks, there was no way he could have been so much in love with her. It's just unrealistic. I would be able to buy all of Raynor's drinking if it were for someone else like Fenix but Kerrigan? No way.

- - - Updated - - -

But here's my point - SC1 was, in my mind, never a political story. RY, it comes close, but Mengsk never presents a view to counter the system of the Confederacy, he only opposes the Confederacy himself. That, and it's a motivation driven by vengeance.

But Raynor presents an opposing political view. The only reason he joins Mengsk is so he can help free the Koprulu Sector of the wrath of ruthless self-centered dictators. Even the way Mengsk manipulates him and everyone else is through politics i.e. The zerg are the Confederacy's weapons of mass destruction.

The UED might be construed as a political story, but we have no idea how they would have administered the K-sector, if anything, it's a story of hubris. UED comes in with the confidence that they'll succeed, they don't, and it's DuGalle's hubris that costs him a lot (psi disruptor, Stukov, entire fleet).

Have to disagree here because the only reason their failed expedition began in the first place is due to their fear that the Protoss and Zerg would overtake the Koprulu Sector and then use it as a base to launch an attack on Earth. That's not much different from the current political situation with ISIS.

Also I think we already know that the UED would mistreat the Koprulu Sector. Didn't they unleash zerg upon a Dominion colony in the opening cinematic?

And Kerigan's story sure isn't political, when it's based on revenge more than anything else (and desire for power, but again, the zerg aren't political by nature).

Well Kerrigan did change the way the Swarm was run by killing the cerebrates so that can be considered political in nature.

A) Because the romance was there from the start.

B) That vow was a third juror moment.

Yes, someone's going to call BS on both those claims, but, well, I'll be honest, the second version is what gets to me a lot, the idea that Raynor was going to fulfill this "vow" to kill Kerrigan. I've seen it written that the moment was meant to be a character defining moment for Raynor. IMO, it isn't. It's Raynor at his lowest, the point where claiming I'll kill you is so pathetic because he has no means of doing so, and given by the end of BW, no will either. All I can say is that excluding everything that happens between BW and WoL, seeing Raynor at the start of WoL was exactly where I'd have expected him to be (at least psychologically).

I have trouble buying how Raynor could still be so much in love with her. She's a mass murderer. She's worse than Mengsk. Even if he thought she had good looks, there was no way he could have been so much in love with her. It's just unrealistic. I would be able to buy all of Raynor's drinking if it were for someone else like Fenix but Kerrigan? No way.

[NikoMyCousin]

I have trouble buying how Raynor could still be so much in love with her. She's a mass murderer. She's worse than Mengsk. Even if he thought she had good looks, there was no way he could have been so much in love with her. It's just unrealistic. I would be able to buy all of Raynor's drinking if it were for someone else like Fenix but Kerrigan? No way.

Devil's advocate: What if the Dominion twisted the casualty number from the zerg attack in WoL and it ended up being far lower than it was so that it paled in comparison to Tarsonis?

[DonnyZeDoof]

Devil's advocate: What if the Dominion twisted the casualty number from the zerg attack in WoL and it ended up being far lower than it was so that it paled in comparison to Tarsonis?

Why do that though? The more casualties = the less competent the Dominion is in dealing with the zerg.

If there were fewer casualties, it's more likely they would have honestly reported it.

- - - Updated - - -

Devil's advocate: What if the Dominion twisted the casualty number from the zerg attack in WoL and it ended up being far lower than it was so that it paled in comparison to Tarsonis?

Why do that though? The more casualties = the less competent the Dominion is in dealing with the zerg.

If there were fewer casualties, it's more likely they would have honestly reported it.

[Nissa]

That's amorality, not immorality.

Amorality = immorality. The absence of morals is the excuse and reason for tyranny and selfishness. See: Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin.

And Donny, please don't talk about ISIS like that. Them beheading people is nothing like Starcraft, and neither are they a strong enough group to muster that kind of attack. Please, let's not go there.

As for the general point about Starcraft being political....eh, not really. It's more, I don't know, cultural rather than political. It's a clash of mindsets, from the ordinary sense of Raynor, the grandiose self-service of Mengsk, the righteous passion of Tassadar, etc. Since Starcraft is about leadership, as in, basically every character in it is a leader of some kind, there's a political angle, but I don't know if it's strong enough to render the entire game an exercise in politics.

[DonnyZeDoof]

In regards to ISIS, I was merely pointing out how the US were making a pre-emptive attack on them when the organisation have yet to make a strike on them. And no, beheading people is not a valid reason for making an attack on ISIS. Saudi Arabia, USA's oil partner, has behaded more people than ISIS but you don't see the US doing a thing to stop them.

- - - Updated - - -

In regards to ISIS, I was merely pointing out how the US were making a pre-emptive attack on them when the organisation have yet to make a strike on them. And no, beheading people is not a valid reason for making an attack on ISIS. Saudi Arabia, USA's oil partner, has behaded more people than ISIS but you don't see the US doing a thing to stop them.