Kerrigan's Infested Generals

[Roland]

Uh, sure, if you want to go down the trite cliche path.

The point in the original Brood War was that Kerrigan got what she wanted. She ruined Mengsk's life and then took control. She has no reason to want revenge on him now. Anyway, Kerrigan's revenge on Mengsk was just a side-dish of what her true plans were. Taking control of the Korpurulu sector.

Revisiting it now would just be dull.

Regardless, there are more ways to say 'revenge is bad', then just saying 'it's endless.' Kerrigan's lust for vengeance and control turned her into the very monsters that had oppressed and abused her through out her life.

Those two options really aren't mutually exclusive, it's pretty clear Blizzard plan's to explore Kerrigan's humanity, and I don't think they can do that at all without looking into the revenge/hatred aspect of things. Maybe she'll let Mengsk off the hook in the end if she's trying to relearn more positive emotions or something, but I really doubt they'll just leave it at where it fell in Brood Wars, which I assume they did because they didn't want to kill off everybody else or Kerrigan in SC1.

This is another story that they've already done. Raynor already has plenty of reason to hate Kerrigan, and he's already dealt with somebody he cares about being infested. Her infesting somebody close to him is unnecessary.

Originality does not equal quality. Wings of Liberty is focused on Raynor and his choices. I think it would be a superior choice to go with something already done, and throw Raynor into serious personal conflict by destroying one representation of his moral compass. It's not just someone close to Raynor, it's the personification of his good side that would be taken. Starcraft being the story of Raynor in many ways, that would be super-dramatic and effective. He's already poised for a serious moral lapse, and the way to make a story good is to push all possible odds against someone, and then have them pull out of it.

[Aldrius]

Unfortunately, those who are new to the SC franchise will look up Stukov while reading about Brood War, and the resurrection bits will be just as there and just as important as the Brood War bits.

No they won't be. That's just common sense. What gives them prescendence? Because StarCraft is a game series. The game's plots should be the most important thing. Most people will play the games. They'll know what happened in the games. And looking stuff up, they'll look up what happened in the games.

Thinking otherwise is pretty much what's ruined the WarCraft games' plot. Too much material, way too little control.

Unless we all swear to keep Stukov's fate a secret amongst ourselves and delete all public records of what happened to him... it's just as significant as anything else that happened to him. Especially so for those who never played SC and won't know the difference between SC/BW and Resurrection.

No, stuff from the first game will take precedence over ANYTHING else. As it should be. Why would it be any other way? Why would a random secret mission matter over a campaign that TONS of people have played? That doesn't make any sense.

Should they remove Matt Horner from the game, now?

No, because they'll reintroduce him as if he were a brand new character. That's why they had all those goofy exposition scenes with him telling Raynor 'never let you down before, sir.' in the previews. To show that they have a history. If they took for granted that everybody will know who Matt Horner is, they wouldn't have done that.

They could exposition Stukov's ressurection I guess, but that's a bit more major than introducing Horner as if he were a new character. I mean I know if I'd never come online and read all that stuff about Ressurection IV I'd be REALLY confused if Stukov showed up in StarCraft 2.

Kerrigan first attempts to infest somebody in a book. Should the infestation plotline not be continued in SC2? The Xel'Naga artifacts are first mentioned in a book. Should they not be followed up on in SC2?

Yes, but they'll be reintroduced as new concepts. Hell, they're in these books and stuff mostly as previews for the plot of SC2.

Just because something happened in a book/mini-campaign doesn't mean it can't be alluded to and explained very briefly. Movies (and games, SC2 no exception) do it all the time.

Yes, but they need to be introduced as brand new things. The game's plotline is what's important. Everything else is extraneous. And it ANNOYS me that Blizzard panders to this tertiary material so often. It dilutes and convulses everything.

And you can't introduce too much. Matt Horner is an incidental character. What happened to him in the books won't be important.

Maybe she'll let Mengsk off the hook in the end if she's trying to relearn more positive emotions or something, but I really doubt they'll just leave it at where it fell in Brood Wars, which I assume they did because they didn't want to kill off everybody else or Kerrigan in SC1.

Oh she'll never let him off the hook. She just doesn't care about him anymore. She's not going to PURSUE vengeance against him the way she used to. He's beneath her. She has no reason to dig a knife into his chest by infesting his son. After she left him on Korhal, in the ruins of his Dominion, she just forgot about him.

Originality does not equal quality.

No, but you want to avoid repeating yourself. That's good storytelling. If you have a character go through the same lessons and things then it just becomes dull. And it makes it seem like those past stories didn't even matter. If a character just goes through the same troubles and learns the same lessons.

[pure.Wasted]

Why in the world would you assume that Stukov wouldn't be re-introduced as a brand new concept? Of course he would!

Is that more work than introducing Matt Horner? Sure. But the reveal itself could be fun, as opposed to tedious, as long as the circumstances force the characters AND the audience to feel as though they're on the same page.

Hyperion bridge.

MATT
We're receiving a transmission from the incoming shuttle, Sir.

The image of a gray-bearded man in his 50s appears on the viewscreen.

MAN
This is... Alexei Stukov. You've no idea how difficult it was to get a hold of you, Commander Raynor. May I come aboard?

Tychus looks over at Raynor. Raynor's face is a mask, his thoughts indecipherable.

TYCHUS
Stukov? Vice Admiral of the fleet from Earth Stukov?

Tychus looks over at Matt, who's obviously fidgeting and shooting uncomfortable glances at Raynor.

TYCHUS
(cont'd)
They reported his death... they even hacked the UNN to air footage of his funeral, for God's sake!

Raynor sighs.

RAYNOR
No, Tychus. The UED was wrong. Their man was still alive -- if you can call what he went through living. Y'know, I'd like to say it'd be a lot simpler if I let the Vice-Admiral speak for himself... but the truth is, some stories don't make sense no matter how many times you hear 'em.

TYCHUS
(knowingly)
Or see them first-hand, huh?

RAYNOR
Or see them first-hand. Open up the front door, Matt. Let's find out why the Vice-Admiral's come calling.

Now of course that's FAR from ideal... this is a lazy hack-job that I put together in 5 minutes, with no thought as to what role Stukov actually plays in this story. But already you can see how we're seeing things through Tychus's eyes, and if we find something hard to believe, it's a safe bet he will too, and say so. Of course while this opening might work, the only (obvious) way to resolve it is through scenes of exposition, where Stukov and Jim and Tychus sit in a circle and explain just what happened... this isn't ideal.

Hence Stukov's arrival could instead be at a time when explanations aren't possible because Raynor/Stukov/people are in trouble and action is called for. And instead of expository dialogue, we could eventually get Stukov's story told in a cinematic -- ie, nightmares he experiences in his sleep. Like mr. peasant suggested at the bottom of page 1.

[Pandonetho]

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

You honestly think that the reintroduction of Stukov is going to throw the whole plotline out of whack? Get a grip. They could EASILY slide him into the main part. 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.

I hate this notion some of you have that "oh a character died his story his over."
That's total BS, and what about Raynor? Mengsk? Every other character who's still alive? We're not complaining about games revolving solely around these single characters? 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.

[flabortast]

Aldrius DOES LIKE Stukov. I love Stukov too. But we both hate how Ressurection IV ruined a great death scene.

[pure.Wasted]

Aldrius DOES LIKE Stukov. I love Stukov too. But we both hate how Ressurection IV ruined a great death scene.

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.

[Pandonetho]

Aldrius DOES LIKE Stukov. I love Stukov too. But we both hate how Ressurection IV ruined a great death scene.

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?

[Triceron]

Sometimes it's better to leave loose ends open than end up bastardizing everything the character stood for.

*Cough* Tempest Keep was only a setback *Cough*

[pure.Wasted]

Sometimes it's better to leave loose ends open than end up bastardizing everything the character stood for.

*Cough* Tempest Keep was only a setback *Cough*

Braxis was only a setback?

It's a matter of design philosophy. Pursuing a character's storyline in a game like WoW is bad enough as it is... doing so whilst making them into a raid boss is a thousand times worse. For all intents and purposes, Blizz no longer saw Kael as a character, but rather a super cool raid boss.

The whole point of bringing back Stukov would be so they would once again focus on him as a character, as opposed to a plot device (Resurrection). So I think your concern is sort of... necessarily taken care of before it can even manifest.

[flabortast]

I wouldn't mind Infested generals who are infested from the start. They could all have nick names like the Prince of Thorns or Lord of Barbs and they can all be one big "happy" family.