Kerrigan's Infested Generals

[Aldrius]

So what exactly does that have to do with his introduction into SC2? You're suggesting instead of attempting to make something meaningful with Stukov's CANON resurrection, we should just leave the last crappy known information about him as it is?

Yes. Then I can pretend it doesn't exist and we can all move on.

Because honestly, there are about 5 worse things in that mission than Stukov coming back from the dead. Like a prescedent being set for Zerg being able to revive the dead at all. Or that deus ex machina of an infestation cure. Or Artanis and Raynor acting bizarrely out of character.

Honestly trying to rectify all this crap would be so much worse than just flat out ignoring it in the future. Even if it is 'canon'.

Honestly the only thing worse than that is if they actually USED it in some way. That would be really bad. That would be painful actually.

I agree completely with that sentiment. Which is why I insist so strongly that they do something interesting with him. They have to redeem the mess that cannot -- and will not -- ever be erased. They have to retro-justify it by doing something so awesome with him now, something that they could not do with any other character, that we'll actually look back on Resurrection and not shudder.

Oh reginald...

I DISAGREE.

*Drives off*

(Also I will never look back on Ressurection IV and not shudder. That will just never happen, no matter what they do.)

Aldrius is just complaining for the sake of complaining, he probably just dislikes Stukov.

No on both counts. I'm certainly not complaining for the sake of complaining. (No freaking clue where you got that from.) I like Dugalle more than I like Stukov but I still really liked Stukov too.

You honestly think that the reintroduction of Stukov is going to throw the whole plotline out of whack?

No, I think it'll be dumb and awkward if they try to make it too important.

They could EASILY slide him into the main part.

They could. Doesn't mean that they should.

All it takes is a 2 minute dialogue of him recounting his past to the player or an audience so that new players will know what happened to him.

Yes, 2 minutes of exposition to justify the existence of a character who's only reasonable unique purpose could be something involving Duran... and I mean I GUESS they could do that. Bring him back because he's one of the few characters in the game who actually knows Duran. But even that seems pointless because he didn't REALLY know Duran anyway. He knew a role that Duran played.

So they'd just be bringing him back because people thought he was cool really. Which is a goofy reason for raising the dead as far as I'm concerned. And I'm one of those people who thought Stukov was cool. (Though Dugalle was infinitely cooler. Weak, fragile man that he was.)

I hate this notion some of you have that "oh a character died his story his over."

Yes... how... illogical. A character ceasing to exist means their story is over. How silly.

That's total BS, and what about Raynor? Mengsk?

They're not dead.

Every other character who's still alive?

They're also not dead. I must be misunderstanding here because this connection doesn't make any sense to me.

We're not complaining about games revolving solely around these single characters?

This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We could complain about this I guess, but it's a totally different issue. Honestly, I thought they've done a pretty good job making Raynor relevant again after he played such a minor role in Brood War. Characters can go on the back burner and come back again, or they can be incredibly relevant through out (like Zeratul or Kerrigan). They're not all equal, and it'd be pretty artificial if they all were.

And yet you're complaining about sliding in 1 resurrected character, and crying foul that it will break the plot line? Give me a break.

I never said it'd break the plotline. I was mostly complaining that trying to make everything relevant (The comics, the books, a silly mission in a silly N64 port) hurts the games' main plotline rather than helps it.

Uprising is a perfect example of extraneous material done right. It's a pretty poorly written book but it does nothing but ADD to the original StarCraft's story. It feels like a huge, long prologue. And the plot and characterizations are just AWESOME and SPOT ON. But reading it isn't necessary at all for playing StarCraft, and the actual games themselves only refer to it directly ONCE. (Kerrigan and Raynor's exchange before New Gettysburg) And even then only vaguely.

If they did something like THAT with Stukov in SC2 I'd be okay with it. But if they tried to make him a major character or give him a big part it'd kinda piss me off.

[Pandonetho]

Yes. Then I can pretend it doesn't exist and we can all move on.

Pretending something doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.

Honestly trying to rectify all this crap would be so much worse than just flat out ignoring it in the future. Even if it is 'canon'.

Honestly the only thing worse than that is if they actually USED it in some way. That would be really bad. That would be painful actually.

So you think that no matter how it's done, rectifying the problem is only going to make it worse? That's not even an argument. "Shit no matter how they bring him back it's going to be a detriment to the story. NO MATTER WHAT. There's no single possible way for Stukov to be brought back without detracting from the game." That's your argument.

They could. Doesn't mean that they should.

And what argument have you presented that they shouldn't? Your own personal distaste of the idea?

Yes, 2 minutes of exposition to justify the existence of a character who's only reasonable unique purpose could be something involving Duran... and I mean I GUESS they could do that. Bring him back because he's one of the few characters in the game who actually knows Duran. But even that seems pointless because he didn't REALLY know Duran anyway. He knew a role that Duran played.

So you think the ONLY role Stukov could play would be to provide insight on Duran's position? And that's it? Really?

Yes... how... illogical. A character ceasing to exist means their story is over. How silly.

The notion itself is not illogical, it's the fact that you think that one SHOULDN'T or CAN'T resurrect someone without screwing something up. If that's your opinion fine, don't try to spin it like there's no possible way for someone to come back without being a detriment.

Which is a goofy reason for raising the dead as far as I'm concerned.

He's already canonically raised from the dead as far as I'm concerned. And as far as I'm aware, the only thing you're concerned with is ignorance of the facts.

They're not dead.

Oh, so your ONLY reason for not wanting Stukov back is merely because he died? And that's it?

I never said it'd break the plotline. I was mostly complaining that trying to make everything relevant (The comics, the books, a silly mission in a silly N64 port) hurts the games' main plotline rather than helps it.

Right, so who here exactly is complaining about Blizzard trying to make EVERYTHING relevant? You here, are just complaining about making 1 thing relevant, and exclaiming that it's going to suck for the plotline, or throw it out of whack.

So basically, all in all, your complaint is that it's going to be a detriment to the plot, and it will complicate new players even thought Stukov has potential to be an awesome character even though your limited imagination disallows it. You disregard the fact that any complications with his revival to knew players could be explained through an in game dialogue by throwing in "oh he has only 1 purpose and 1 purpose only and that is having some connection to duran." And you don't want him back because you have something against bringing back dead characters although he's ALREADY back and the way you're dealing with it is by ignoring it.

Is that all?

[Visions of Khas]

Pretending something doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.

If something isn't ever acknowledged, it's life in a story is effectively ground out. I think it solves that. It was said that Stukov's resurrection was canon, but at the same time they also lamented the idea... and all other resurrections. I think their words were, "Why oh why did we think that was a good idea?..."


Perhaps resurrecting a character has some merits, but I prefer when it doesn't happen. That detracts from the exploits and value of the character. Only on occasion do I approve of it, in such cases where it forms an part of a character, such as Fenix.

[Pandonetho]

If something isn't ever acknowledged, it's life in a story is effectively ground out. I think it solves that. It was said that Stukov's resurrection was canon, but at the same time they also lamented the idea... and all other resurrections. I think their words were, "Why oh why did we think that was a good idea?..."

I don't get it. They say they lament it, but they have all the power in the world to officially declare it NON canon, so why the hell would they say it's canon? Pretending it didn't happen does not change the fact that it happened and I find it funny that some people think that it's impossible (lol Aldrius?) to rectify a "bad" event.

Also, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Fenix.

Where it forms an part of a character? A) Fenix wasn't exactly resurrected, he went through the same process as any other Zealot who goes through battle and is injured.
B) What exactly about him coming back formed a part of his character? I don't even get what that means.

[Visions of Khas]

so why the hell would they say it's canon?

*sigh* I'm just in denial, is all. I don't like resurrection. =P

But Fenix was in effect resurrected as a character in the eyes of the player. But, I suppose you're right; he was only grievously injured, not reincarnated.

[Pandonetho]

*sigh* I'm just in denial, is all. I don't like resurrection. =P

Well I've heard many people complaining about resurrections in WoW or something and how it ruined stuff. Sure, resurrections can be detrimental if they're done bad, but that doesn't mean they're always bad.

SC never even had any resurrections (unless you consider Adun -> Tassadar as a resurrection, and if you do would you consider THAT bad?) so having a knee jerk reaction to it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be detrimental to the plot, especially when it hasn't even been explored.

But Fenix was in effect resurrected as a character in the eyes of the player. But, I suppose you're right; he was only grievously injured, not reincarnated.

Yeah, if we do consider it a resurrection then there's an example of a resurrection that no one else seemed to have a knee jerk reaction to. Was Fenix's resurrection terrible Aldrius? We all thought he died, did you go wtf? when he came back? Did it damage the plot? Or are you about to bring up some BS about how Stukov was resurrected in a relatively unknown side mission in a terrible map and thus not deserving of a introduction into SC2?

[Gradius]

B) What exactly about him coming back formed a part of his character? I don't even get what that means.

His name is Fenix, which is a homonym for Phoenix - a bird that is resurrected. Resurrection is a part of his character.

[Pandonetho]

His name is Fenix, which is a homonym for Phoenix - a bird that is resurrected. Resurrection is a part of his character.

Oh if that's what VoK was referring to then yeah I see that.

[Zero]

I don't get it. They say they lament it, but they have all the power in the world to officially declare it NON canon, so why the hell would they say it's canon? Pretending it didn't happen does not change the fact that it happened and I find it funny that some people think that it's impossible (lol Aldrius?) to rectify a "bad" event.

Like I had mentioned before, Stukov's resurrection does play an important part in the overall storyline, even if it was never widely recognized. It showed us that it was possible for there to be other intelligent infested humans, and was a foreshadowing for Kerrigan's use of infested human generals rather than the cerebrates, which were dying off, despite that information being unknown to us at the time.

Now, could it have been a different character? Of course. Did the infested human in the mission necessarily have to survive? Of course not. The whole focal point behind Resurrection IV was not Stukov, but the idea of intelligent infested humans. That's most likely why it was canonized, despite it being a weird and unexpected story.

[newcomplex]

His name is Fenix, which is a homonym for Phoenix - a bird that is resurrected. Resurrection is a part of his character.

Yeah, which is why the revived him in dragoon form.

It just seems so awfully redundant to bring him back again.

All story points bear grevity and theme beyond the original plot movement. Fenix being revived showed the glorious background of the Dragoons, warriors who sacrifice their lives several times over to secure the Protosses future. His death also sets a pace for the creation of immortals, (who have the most amazing dialogue in the game).

You could revive him as a infested protoss, and that would be fine, it would be cool, but it makes his character almost comic. We can look to WoW lore where they revive Kael Thas twice and now hes joke.

It would be a fine plot development, SC isn't known for its plot, its kinda contrived objectively speaking, but it would be a thematic move in the wrong direction, and SC theme is pretty pitch perfect.

I don't really see them bringing back any revived people besides maybe stukov, which I think was fine, if a bit odd. Sort of like a inside agent into the swarm? The rest don't have a role, maybe an unrevealed character. Tychus's character is complex enough WITHOUT having to infest him, I bet you hes going to betray anyway, and nobody else on raynors crew really have the iconic combative role to be infested...an infested horner? Horner doesn't fight, so an infested horner would be kind of thematically redundant.

(yeah I know I voted for fenix. misclick)


Infested Raynor anyone xD?