Are Dragoons "Realistic?"

[ragnarok]

Shows what you know about me, huh. I've always had an ambivalence toward the idea of a Sc sequel ever since BW was released and have said so several times.

And yet you've also implied about how the SC2 trilogy should be made non-canon and remade. Interesting.

[Turalyon]

To write a good story composed of multiple episodes showing different perspectives, the episodes should not only contribute to the overarching narrative but also stand on their own with strong plots.

Depends on what one qualifies as "good". Most people tend to think WoL is the best story of Sc2 when it really has the most confused, meandering narrative and a weak plot that is driven by artifice when compared to the later two. There was obviously something that was satisfying/"good" in that story for people to judge it more favourably.

SC1 did not leave potential sequels much to work with. The backstory was carefully contrived to to pit the three races against one another and themselves, but the plot of SC1 neatly destroys those justifications.

This implies that the story was written to have a resolution/no intent to have sequels.

Since the determinant plot never paid off (barring ad hoc rationalizations that Kerry was it or that it never existed or whatever don't bring it up it isn't worth it to go on another stupid tangent), there is no reason for the zerg and protoss to enter terran space and war with the terrans.

Why does the determinant plot not paying off somehow cancel the initial intent and motivation of going there in the first place? What's important about the determinant is not the objective thing (whatever shape it's supposed to take) itself, but the motivation it instills in the Overmind to take action/invade Terran space. Anyhow, the determinant plot never paying off should actually be a good thing since if it ever is achieved, then the Zerg will well and truly have no further motivation to focus their efforts on them.

The Overmind was set up as a galactic space monster that wanted nothing less than to devour the universe. It was killed off, robbing the zerg of their whole shtick and reason to exist.

Which is partly why Sc1, as a story, is resolved/can be seen as fully complete/not needing a sequel.

The Overmind either should never had been killed off or, better yet, it should have been established as an inherent part of the zerg so that the series can never end unless the zerg are all destroyed (similar to the grave mind in Halo, the brethren moons in Dead Space, etc).

This brings me back to my back-in-the-day fanon theory of the Overmind not actually being killed on Aiur. I had thought the Overmind was not restricted being in one-body given that it was bodiless and what was actually destroyed in Sc1 and BW was just one (of many) large control node that allowed the Zerg to connect and communicate over vast interstellar distances in some huge network (with the Overmind being the network/cloud rather than some single entity contained in a body). My fanon reason for why it landed on Aiur was to act like a beacon to rally all the other Zerg that were spread out looking for Protoss or finding other races to assimilate to this point.

The protoss actually had several valid reasons to fight each other but these were either quickly resolved or ignored. The manual established that the protoss would come into conflict over the fate of the terrans during the zerg invasion, with callous exterminators on one side and terran sympathizers on the other.

It's hard for the Protoss to fight each other because in the current state we see them in, they've got the Khala (as a doctrine) and their adherence to it that stops such conflict. The character of Tassadar encapsulates both the inner Protos conflict because he is one of those callous exterminators that then chooses to become a Terran sympathiser and the outer Protoss conflict, as he willingly sets aside the mandates of the Khala, consorts with the ancestors of those who were responsible for almost bringing their whole race to the brink of annihilation and incites back an age-old civil war that the majority of Protoss have never really recovered from (as the subsequent emergence of and adherence to the Khala, whilst a solution to their predicament at the time, was just a reactionary response to them trying to suppress the rise of individual ego - the cause and motivation for continuing the Aeon of Strife in the first place).

The conflict between the khalai and dark templar plays some role but it is largely glossed over and the judicator's whiny reasoning for ignoring the zerg threat to wage civil war is never adequately explained and comes off as writer fiat to make them the unambiguous villains.

Aldaris may be an antagonist but he's hardly an unambiguous villain. Part of why Sc1 is so often recognised as being "grey", is that the heroes or villains presented are anything but simply just that. The game actually gives no reason for us to doubt Aldaris' POV - he's fully justified in his convictions despite his manner. When it's said that Protoss feel they can handle the Zerg and go off to search for Tass, we have nothing to suggest that the Protoss are not so we have to take the narration at its word. Sure, there was no significant advantageous consequence of killing the cerebrate but that they were able to engage the Zerg and attack a well-defended target with force of arms proves the Protoss are more than capable of fighting the Zerg. Sure, a named character died in a recent conflict but that's hardly anything to go by since there are other Protoss with names too who have died in other battles that we don't know about. Sure, they lost a region they recently took over, but war often does have a lot of back and forth in its progress.

And yet you've also implied about how the SC2 trilogy should be made non-canon and remade. Interesting.

It could also be because you misinterpret and presume incorrect things about people intent. You are known for doing this.

[ragnarok]

It could also be because you misinterpret and presume incorrect things about people intent. You are known for doing this.

Considering all the times you've pointed out to all the problems in the SC2 lore, I see little reason you'd just want the whole thing to end it right there

[Turalyon]

I see little reason you'd just want the whole thing to end it right there

You've just proven my previous point. Pointing out problems in the story of Sc2 could also just as easily mean that I didn't want the continuation of the story in the first place.

[Nissa]

All those things you mentioned are definitely sequel bait and "excuses" for a sequel, but they are hardly necessary to get a complete picture of what Sc was about. What's resolved is the premise of these factions engaging each other, fighting to a natural end point and getting to an equilibrium of sorts. That you feel "it's ok" for it to not continue (from both the end of Sc and the end of BW) means that there was enough resolution/that there's an adequate conclusion.

No, no it's not. Emotions do as they please. If it had ended right there, my past self would have been furious that there was no sequel (as would all the fans at the time). The only, ONLY reason I am okay with it is because SC2 was a pile of garbage, and I prefer having no SC2 to the SC2 we got. Emotions are irrelevant to the objective facts of storytelling. The story wasn't told. My emotions are simply compensating for the disappointment of SC2, much in the same way a person might cope with a disappointment in life. Just because a person copes doesn't mean the disappointment didn't happen.

Oh, C&C! I feel the same way about that as I do Sc. The first C&C doesn't have a typical ending where everything is closed off, but there's enough resolution at the end of each of the factions campaigns to make the story effectively complete. With GDI, Nod is effectively destroyed with the death of Kane. With Nod, GDI is effectively "destroyed" or at least neutered in its capability to oppose Nod due to sabotage eroding their support. The sequel follow on from GDI victory and they do that by undoing the very thing that conclusive ended the first game: reviving Kane!

As such, Tiberian Sun feels far removed from C&C as a sequel in terms due to it's heavier leaning on science-fiction and its associated tropes. Whereas the first was more grounded with its portrayal of modern warfare and politics whilst the near-future and sci-fi elements being somewhat cursory, Tiberian Sun goes hardcore into its more fantastical sci-fi elements and visions of dystopia. It kinda mirrors how Sc turned out ironically.

Ha, I don't know if it "mirrors" Starcraft as much as it too is another casualty of the failure state of mainstream media writing. Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Fox, Doctor Who, and probably dozens of things I don't even know about have all gone through similar things. I think it has something to do with a consistent insistence on pandering to a new, imaginary market, rather than trying to keep a consistent feel in the franchise.

Huh? I wasn't intimating that you felt stories should have "happy" endings. Having a happy/unhappy ending is largely irrelevent as long as that ending seems naturally built toward it/within context/not forced. Having the proposed third entry in Sc2 having an ending to "resolve everything (of immediate significance)" usually falls into the camp of it being a "happy" ending generally and that's kinda superfluous since Sc1 already kinda did that. Even if this third entry were instead to "resolve everything (of immediate significance)" in an unhappy manner, that too is superfluous since BW did that already. I was more denying your claim that Sc1 didn't have an ending like you just described in the above quote. I was saying that Sc1 does indeed have that ending as described in that above quote.

Well, you said "happy" ending, so I thought that was what you meant. In any case, no, BW didn't resolve crap. It made things worse. The Protoss are still struggling to survive, and Khalai vs DT tension is on the rise from Aldaris' somewhat justified rebellion and its causes. Mengsk's empire is in chaos (even assuming he was still able to have an empire) and the UED are now players in the game who could potentially come to do more mischief. Raynor is in a vengeful state, Mengsk is too, and Kerrigan has basically pissed off everybody. And of course the hybrids/Duran. The only "resolution" the game offers is Kerrigan's choice to rest and wait, which is really either her being suspicious of Duran or going through feelings of regret. The thing about this choice is that at any time she can choose to end her rest and fight.

If you think that BW resolved the story...well...I'll just respectfully leave that sentence unfinished.

Anyway, I'm happy (read: coping) with leaving things at BW, well, because they left things unfinished at such a point of high tension. Us fans could theorize about it all day. Good times...good times...

Of course. I doubt that this is what the developers thought at the time when creating the game (they had to scrap and restart everything since the initial make of it was derided as Warcraft in Space). Sure, they would've liked to think it was going to become successful enough to make sequels but I reckon they were all there just to try and make an awesome product as if this was their one and only chance.

I don't know, you're kinda assuming a lot on their motivations. Of course a gaming company wants to make a franchise. It's pretty obvious with all the effort they made. That, and I remember reading somewhere that they wanted a change after Warcraft/Diablo.

I meant fulfilling and complete in that the story it presents (which, in a reductionist way, is not much more than "baddies come and then are defeated") is resolved. The rest are non-crucial (albeit interesting) details/fluff.

Mengsk being a crazyhead tyrant who would rather see his homeworld burned than ruled by anyone else is "fluff"? Protoss national tensions being unresolved is "fluff"? The fact that humanity still hates the Protoss for blowing up their planets is "fluff"? (And no, Raynor's Raiders doesn't count because it's just a small faction)

You'se a crazy boy. Jus crazy!

I feel the opposite is true. Sc1's ending is a lot more open than BWs since the Zerg defeat, whilst definitive, is not complete. BW feels more like a definitive and conclusive end because of the massive change in status quo that Omega depicts and how the Zerg are constantly portrayed as being OP despite "supposedly" being at their weakest. Most stories end with the status quo shifting seemingly irreversibly in a specific direction (whether that be the hero/good guys vanquishing the villain/bad guys and obtaining a seemingly unassailable position) and BW ends with Kerrigan in such a demonstrative dominant position whilst displaying intent on eventually taking everything, that the only conclusion one can realistically draw is that everyone besides the Zerg are fucked. The only way to stop this is to employ artifice/plot device - lo and behold this is what Sc2 does to justify the existence of a sequel (by having her literally do nothing up until it is required for her to only so that a plot device can then handle her shortly thereafter).

If you feel that vanilla was more open-ended than BW, okay. Sure, why not? You appear to mean that vanilla could have gone in any direction at that point, and well, that's true. But the thing is, that's also true of every story -- the earlier a point in a story, the more options that given story has to do various wild and crazy things that become impossible later. This is because the further a story goes along, the more choices the story will have made, and the more it has to keep up with the consequences of those choices. In short, a story will always be narrower at the end than at the beginning. It's why shows like Lost or X Files always add mystery on top of mystery without actually resolving anything. It's because they know that the more they answer the mystery, the fewer options they have and the less tension they have.

But all good stories have to end, and they have to resolve their problems. Otherwise they end up with stupid, unsatisfying endings like Lost, or become alternate universe nightmares like comic book incarnations. There was always going to be a point in the story where the Zerg are dominant. They are the least rational, relatable race, the one most bent on conquering and pwning all. Therefore, the highest state of tension exists when the Zerg are dominant. That's why I call BW the second act of a greater trilogy. BW ends at the darkest point, much like The Empire Strikes Back.

Also, though, the Zerg are not at their strongest in BW. Kerrigan is not as super powerful and dominant as you seem to think. I'm going to post a thread about this later, so I'm not going to go into it here, but the base idea is that Kerri got her dominance through trickery, and using other people's forces to do what she could not do for herself.

I take it that your reference to The Last Jedi is in regard to it being seen by the majority (or what seems like) as the shittest SWs movie ever?

I was jokingly referring to the idea/concept of Sc2 as being supposed to be Starcrafts ROTJ in that ROTJ was considered the most deficient entry of the trilogy at the time.

Yeah, I know. Um, I haven't seen it yet (I absolutely do not wish to give that franchise any money at this point), but I've seen/heard enough reviews to know that they utterly trashed the characters and plot. Just like SC2.

Why can't we have nice things anymore?

Shows what you know about me, huh. I've always had an ambivalence toward the idea of a Sc sequel ever since BW was released and have said so several times.

I never claimed to know you. Anyways, I'm just saying that I prefer no sequel to SC2, but I prefer a good sequel to both.

[ragnarok]

You've just proven my previous point. Pointing out problems in the story of Sc2 could also just as easily mean that I didn't want the continuation of the story in the first place.

Then did you even see Blizzard was trying to leave room for a sequel at the end of BW?

[Visions of Khas]

Then did you even see Blizzard was trying to leave room for a sequel at the end of BW?

Welllll... given that Kerrigan, in her victory, sensed a growing darkness over the horizon...

Yeah, Blizzard wanted that sequel.

[ragnarok]

Welllll... given that Kerrigan, in her victory, sensed a growing darkness over the horizon...

Yeah, Blizzard wanted that sequel.

Unless Blizzard expected the players simply to draw the conclusion she was only hallucinating

[Turalyon]

Emotions are irrelevant to the objective facts of storytelling. The story wasn't told.

I agree with the former but not the latter, especially when considering the former. Objectively, the story in Sc1 did what it set out to do. Sure, the story could go on, but it doesn't really need to. Endings to a story doesn't always imply that the fictional universe that it is set up in just disappears nor that one should feel it to be ok for it to just disappear at that end, they just mean that the current story set in that universe has finished.

Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Fox, Doctor Who, and probably dozens of things I don't even know about have all gone through similar things. I think it has something to do with a consistent insistence on pandering to a new, imaginary market, rather than trying to keep a consistent feel in the franchise.

Of these, Doctor Who is probably the most resilient and adaptive to changes, pandering and modernisation. Whilst most of these fictional universes are a product of the specific time in which they were made, part of Doctor Who's flexibility is in the in-built artifice of it being made into a product of any specific time.

In any case, no, BW didn't resolve crap. It made things worse.

But that is still a resolution/an ending. Just like what I said about it being irrelevent that endings are happy/unhappy, being "worse" as you say is also irrelevent.

BW's story, on a broad level, is about Kerrigan's ascent and by it's end, this story resolves that premise. It goes one further than Sc1 though in that the ending is far more conclusive and definitive in that it establishes what appears to be a permanent change in status quo - that the Zerg are the undisputed winners and in an unassailable lead position. Nothing short of contrivance could justify a "realistic" continuation in which the Zerg do not come out on top. This is why BW feels like the end because anything else would just feel like either personal/subjective fancy, authorial intent or an excuse to continue for the sake of continuing/sequelitis. Course, I'm not denying your right for personal/subjective fancy to continue it (as I have been prone to doing that, too) but that is a different matter cos I'm talking about it on an objective level.

I don't know, you're kinda assuming a lot on their motivations. Of course a gaming company wants to make a franchise. It's pretty obvious with all the effort they made. That, and I remember reading somewhere that they wanted a change after Warcraft/Diablo.

If you've read anything about the development of Sc, it was troubled from the get-go. It was basically a reskinned Warcraft II when they first announced it and it got harsh initial reviews which led them to go back to the drawing board and redesign the thing from scratch. Even then, progress was slow and it was delayed multiple times. I'm pretty definite that all they were concentrating on at the time was making the game as good as it can be and hoping that their work was good enough to pass muster. The thoughts/presumptions of it going to be an instant hit and going on to generate sequels would've been secondary if not far from their minds when creating it at the time, I'd wager.

Mengsk being a crazyhead tyrant who would rather see his homeworld burned than ruled by anyone else is "fluff"? Protoss national tensions being unresolved is "fluff"? The fact that humanity still hates the Protoss for blowing up their planets is "fluff"? (And no, Raynor's Raiders doesn't count because it's just a small faction)

You'se a crazy boy. Jus crazy!

Hey, I did say they were interesting! I was being bluntly objective there. I know this may be hard for you...

If you feel that vanilla was more open-ended than BW, okay. Sure, why not? You appear to mean that vanilla could have gone in any direction at that point, and well, that's true. But the thing is, that's also true of every story -- the earlier a point in a story, the more options that given story has to do various wild and crazy things that become impossible later.

Yeah, but Sc1 is not and should not be thought of as the "beginning" of something (ie: a trilogy or many other expanded works). It should be seen as an isolated piece of work and in that it holds up (it don't mean its perfect now though, as some others will try to misconstrue this as).

Sc1 is more open-ended in that the status quo is back to normal and the sides being equalised to a degree albeit with massive damage incurred by all, but the story that it set out to tell is still complete in that the premise of the three side meeting each other and fighting to a standstill is achieved. Like I said earlier, you can even render the story of Sc even more simply as "baddies come and then they are defeated" and the story does indeed conclude as stated.

But all good stories have to end, and they have to resolve their problems.

Sc1 does this on a broad level. The "problem" you speak of in the isolated story of Sc is the existential threat of the Zerg. This problem is satisfactorily resolved with the death of the Overmind.

There was always going to be a point in the story where the Zerg are dominant. They are the least rational, relatable race, the one most bent on conquering and pwning all. Therefore, the highest state of tension exists when the Zerg are dominant. That's why I call BW the second act of a greater trilogy. BW ends at the darkest point, much like The Empire Strikes Back.

Yeah, but this already happened in Sc1. We have the Overmind campaign where it ends with the Overmind gloating that it's going to soon achieve its goal of obtaining enough power so that all will feel the wrath of the eternal Swarm!

In BW, the Zerg are not so much dominant insofar that it's Kerrigan who is dominant. Kerrigan's motivations are more understandable (she seeks power over others so that others cannot hold power over her), if not relatable or rational than the "true" Zerg (as represented by the Overmind). I get where Misla comes from in this regard in that the Zerg are not really Zerg anymore in BW though I'm not as militant in that sentiment as he is.

Also, though, the Zerg are not at their strongest in BW. Kerrigan is not as super powerful and dominant as you seem to think.

Nowhere in BW does it suggest any of this. The Zerg being apparently feral/weak is hearsay as all other indications say otherwise. Despite supposedly being weaker without the Overmind, they are able to become active threats on Shakuras (the home of the only true threat to the Zerg at the time), can reform the Overmind at will and still need a plot-device/Psi Disruptor to weaken them further.

Kerrigan is powerful as the author dictates in that she gets off scot free with her schemes and exibits levels of OPness in strategic warfare that rival the OPness of the feral Zerg on Shakuras culminating in the crowning achievement of the battle depicted in Omega.

Yeah, I know. Um, I haven't seen it yet (I absolutely do not wish to give that franchise any money at this point), but I've seen/heard enough reviews to know that they utterly trashed the characters and plot. Just like SC2.

Strangely enough, I'm one of those filthy outliers that actually didn't mind TLJ. I kind of inwardly grinned at all the subversion of expectation taking place in the movie and thought how funny the uproar would be from the fans when they saw it.

I never claimed to know you. Anyways, I'm just saying that I prefer no sequel to SC2, but I prefer a good sequel to both.

You're responding to a reply that was intended for Rag.

Then did you even see Blizzard was trying to leave room for a sequel at the end of BW?

You obviously haven't been following my posts before you make presumptions of me since I clearly acknowledged there were sequel hooks a couple of posts before (#44) and after (#49) your initial response (#48).

[Nissa]

I agree with the former but not the latter, especially when considering the former. Objectively, the story in Sc1 did what it set out to do. Sure, the story could go on, but it doesn't really need to. Endings to a story doesn't always imply that the fictional universe that it is set up in just disappears nor that one should feel it to be ok for it to just disappear at that end, they just mean that the current story set in that universe has finished.

Bear in mind that I was responding to your statement that claimed my emotional response was the basis for confirming that the story ended properly at SC1. The story hadn't finished, and whether or not I am okay with that fact has no bearing on the fact that the story wasn't finished.

Of these, Doctor Who is probably the most resilient and adaptive to changes, pandering and modernisation. Whilst most of these fictional universes are a product of the specific time in which they were made, part of Doctor Who's flexibility is in the in-built artifice of it being made into a product of any specific time.

All I'm saying is that DW is one of those shows that got ruined by the modern obsession of stating the writer's beliefs/being jokey rather than telling a good story.

But that is still a resolution/an ending. Just like what I said about it being irrelevent that endings are happy/unhappy, being "worse" as you say is also irrelevent.

You do know what I'm talking about, right? "Ending" as in an end to the current storylines, not "ending" as in the place where the writing stopped. Also, "worse" was not a statement of the quality of the ending, but a comment on the state of the K Sector -- there's tension in every single direction, nothing at all is resolved. If the end of BW is a real ending, then Star Wars could have just stopped at the end of The Empire Strikes Back, according to your logic, and everything would have been fine. Or LOTR could have stopped at the Two Towers. Or any given novelist could stop their story 2/3 of the way through.

The true end of a story is where the tensions are resolved to some degree to the point where the conflict between protagonist and antagonist can no longer continue. The protagonist is the one who propels the story by having goals, and the antagonist is the one who gets in the way of those goals. So long as the protagonist has goals and the ability/will to try for them and the antagonist has reason to stop those goals and has the ability/will to try and stop them, then the story isn't really over. Yes, Starcraft has many protagonists and antagonists, but the fact of the matter is, all of them still have the ability to act, and given that the survival of the races is what's at stake, and the survival of all races is threatened, then there is no rational, logical way of calling BW an ending.

BW's story, on a broad level, is about Kerrigan's ascent and by it's end, this story resolves that premise. It goes one further than Sc1 though in that the ending is far more conclusive and definitive in that it establishes what appears to be a permanent change in status quo - that the Zerg are the undisputed winners and in an unassailable lead position. Nothing short of contrivance could justify a "realistic" continuation in which the Zerg do not come out on top. This is why BW feels like the end because anything else would just feel like either personal/subjective fancy, authorial intent or an excuse to continue for the sake of continuing/sequelitis. Course, I'm not denying your right for personal/subjective fancy to continue it (as I have been prone to doing that, too) but that is a different matter cos I'm talking about it on an objective level.

I am not stating subjective feeling. It is an objective fact that at the end of BW Mengsk is driven by revenge and dominance, Raynor is driven by revenge, Kerrigan's rule over the Zerg is threatened by revenge/hybrids, the Protoss are on the brink of both internal and outer disaster, the hybrids are a massive wild card that can do anything, and we still don't know what Duran is capable of. All of these sources of tension are objective proof that the story isn't over. Unless, again, you think that LOTR could have ended with Sam trying and failing to save Frodo from the orcs that have captured him.

If you've read anything about the development of Sc, it was troubled from the get-go. It was basically a reskinned Warcraft II when they first announced it and it got harsh initial reviews which led them to go back to the drawing board and redesign the thing from scratch. Even then, progress was slow and it was delayed multiple times. I'm pretty definite that all they were concentrating on at the time was making the game as good as it can be and hoping that their work was good enough to pass muster. The thoughts/presumptions of it going to be an instant hit and going on to generate sequels would've been secondary if not far from their minds when creating it at the time, I'd wager.

Yeah, but no. The fact that they even tried proved that they wanted to. After all, they'd been pretty tired of working on Warcraft (as I've read) and wanting to do something different. Also, "I'd wager" is no basis for an objective argument. Saying that a concept is "far from their minds" of a large group of people with an inevitable variety of opinions is reaching. You can't know that for sure, and even if some of them weren't thinking of creating a world, it's only logical of any gaming company to want to produce a game-bearing franchise, because that means they get future work/profits. Speaking as someone who has been through business classes, you don't get to have a successful business if you're only thinking about the right now.

Hey, I did say they were interesting! I was being bluntly objective there. I know this may be hard for you...

Oh please, Mr. "The Story Ended at BW." There was plenty of tension left, plenty of untold stories left. Again, just because you call yourself objective, doesn't mean you are. :P

Yeah, but Sc1 is not and should not be thought of as the "beginning" of something (ie: a trilogy or many other expanded works). It should be seen as an isolated piece of work and in that it holds up (it don't mean its perfect now though, as some others will try to misconstrue this as).

Sc1 is more open-ended in that the status quo is back to normal and the sides being equalised to a degree albeit with massive damage incurred by all, but the story that it set out to tell is still complete in that the premise of the three side meeting each other and fighting to a standstill is achieved. Like I said earlier, you can even render the story of Sc even more simply as "baddies come and then they are defeated" and the story does indeed conclude as stated.

Uh, technically speaking it should be thought of as both a stand alone and a part one. Yeah sure, some books have planned-in sequels, but many good one part stories are ripe for sequels. That, and because there are sequels now, we do have to think about how it led into the others.

Sc1 does this on a broad level. The "problem" you speak of in the isolated story of Sc is the existential threat of the Zerg. This problem is satisfactorily resolved with the death of the Overmind.

Ah yes, because a feral, all-conquering, multi-world holding race with sentient blob cerebrates who have already gotten some Khaydarin crystals automatically disappears if the big baddie is gone. I didn't know you were such a big fan of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

Yeah, but this already happened in Sc1. We have the Overmind campaign where it ends with the Overmind gloating that it's going to soon achieve its goal of obtaining enough power so that all will feel the wrath of the eternal Swarm!

In BW, the Zerg are not so much dominant insofar that it's Kerrigan who is dominant. Kerrigan's motivations are more understandable (she seeks power over others so that others cannot hold power over her), if not relatable or rational than the "true" Zerg (as represented by the Overmind). I get where Misla comes from in this regard in that the Zerg are not really Zerg anymore in BW though I'm not as militant in that sentiment as he is.

Well, you have to bear in mind that in SC1 the Zerg were dominating the Protoss, not everybody. Granted, them taking Aiur probably would have had really bad consequences for everyone, but that was just Aiur at that point.

Hm...maybe you have a point with that, I don't know. That's really the inherent trouble with the Zerg as a race -- they are a reflection of whoever happens to be leading them at the time. As much as you say the Zerg are basically Kerrigan in BW, the Zerg are basically the Overmind in SC1, if you think about it. Beasts aren't really in charge of their own fate. That's one of those topics that can be taken in many different ways, and in a proper ending to the SC1 story arcs, the Zerg would go from Kerrigan's to some other, hopefully interesting state.

Nowhere in BW does it suggest any of this. The Zerg being apparently feral/weak is hearsay as all other indications say otherwise. Despite supposedly being weaker without the Overmind, they are able to become active threats on Shakuras (the home of the only true threat to the Zerg at the time), can reform the Overmind at will and still need a plot-device/Psi Disruptor to weaken them further.

Yeah sure, they're "active threats", but that doesn't mean that they're the be-all, end all. And the fact that people can even make a psi distruptor to take over the junior Overmind basically proves that the Zerg weren't all that.

But uh, sorry, I misspoke. I meant primarily to say that Kerrigan specifically wasn't the invincible person many here have claimed she was. I didn't mean to refer to all the Zerg in general.

Kerrigan is powerful as the author dictates in that she gets off scot free with her schemes and exibits levels of OPness in strategic warfare that rival the OPness of the feral Zerg on Shakuras culminating in the crowning achievement of the battle depicted in Omega.

She is not OP. She tricked other people into fighting for her, weakening all factions in the process. In the Protoss missions, all she does (as far as using her own forces goes) is pick up some Zerg on Char to help the 'Toss get the Khalis, fight by herself to get the Uraj, and use a few Zerg to kill Aldaris, because Zer and Artie have already done the bulk of the work for her. She basically just put the minimal amount of effort in to insure that her desires were the ultimate outcome. She then allowed the Protoss to destroy the Zerg on Shakuras, because those Zerg are her rivals.

In the Terran missions, she allows the UED to weaken Mengsk and gets Duran to manipulate the UED into stupid things (and not to mention, fails to stop the UED from getting the psi disruptor). She might have used some Zerg to cover Raynor and Fenix's escape, but there is no proof that those (or at least some of them) weren't other, non-affiliated Zerg factions. Given her need for the psi emitters in the Zerg missions, it's a fair likelihood that this is the case. Kerri then throws some forces at the UED at the end of the Terran missions, but this appears to be done for dramatic effect, and possibly represents her failure to stop them from getting the Overmind.

In the Zerg missions, Kerri gets Raynor, Fenix, and Mengsk to do her dirty work, uses psi emitters instead of her own abilities to gain more Zerg, and thus retakes a Korhal that was already previously weakened by the UED. She uses Zeratul to destroy the Overmind in the hands of a weakened UED. Her primary personal achievements are killing some scientists and killing her own allies, and killing some stray Protoss. Then of course, you have the fight at the end against the three allies she had previously weakened. That, to me, was her only real achievement. She fought long and hard...but remember where she fought. On Char. With homefield advantage, on a world the Zerg and no other race was adapted to, against weakened foes. And as much as she pretended to Mengsk's face that she was confident, right before she came on, she was panicking because Duran picked up and left and she wasn't ready for an invasion.

Kerri didn't conquer the entire K Sector. She gained control of the Zerg, weakened her enemies, and managed to survive an attack that could have put an end to everything right there. There are still human and Protoss planets out there. There are still people who hate her. As much as her pause was motivated by her emotions, Kerri's Zerg half surely would have realized that the Zerg too need time to recoup the cost of her conquest.

Strangely enough, I'm one of those filthy outliers that actually didn't mind TLJ. I kind of inwardly grinned at all the subversion of expectation taking

Lol, that's not fan enjoyment, that's troll enjoyment. Hey, if that's how you get your kicks. It's fine. I too don't care all that much about Star Wars, except as a reflection of the state of writing in general.

You obviously haven't been following my posts before you make presumptions of me since I clearly acknowledged there were sequel hooks a couple of posts before (#44) and after (#49) your initial response (#48).

Boy does sir like to assume. I did see that you mentioned "sequel hooks." My argument is that the game has more than sequel hooks, but a real level of tension that required its questions to be answered.