Kerrigan and Zeratul's Encounter: Method Behind Madness?

[RussianSpy27]

I have more questions on the scene of Zeratul and Kerrigan that Gradius started questioning in his thread here: http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8633

Check this out:

The Prophecy cinematic introduces the most friendly conversation between Zeratul and Kerrigan.

It's as if she started thinking about the "greater scheme of things" (to quote Druan from BW) - about hybrids, "The End" etc. Z attacked her while she was trying to be civil with Z and not battle. That's why she tells him "our conflicts mean nothing now." Then she allows him to slowly climb out of the cave, though she could have easily killed him.

Given the message in the cinematic, why then do we find in Z's missions (happening just moments later) that she is racing him to find the prophecies, calls him an "old fool" and actually sends Zerg forces in to fight/kill him? Was she giving him a "head start" in the cave like to DuGalle at the end of BW? Seems unlikely from their conversation where she almost tried being friends with Z. Was she being noble and respectful and thought to let this be a fair race? Seems naive.

She did let him go once before after he killed Razagal, but did so in a sadistic and bitter way "Go on warrior and sulk over your mommy DT for the rest of your life now - that's my punishment -" this was not the case here.

Notice how she also says "I knew you'd find your way here, eventually," which alludes to her waiting/knowing about his arrival. What was the point of the conversation and the rat race to pieces of prophecies?

Could it be:

(A) Kerrigan has schemed something behind our backs, purposely lured Z in to show him something and pretended to race him to it, while there is a grander plan unfolding?

(B) Simply another one of WOL writers' blunders that shouldn't be read into. The statement of K to Z about him finding his way there was just a "catchy phrase" according to the writers. They also needed an "epic" scene with Z killing of Hydras - Aliens vs. Predator style action (cool scene on its own, but that's not the point), then added poorly thought out dialogue without thinking of how it would reflect on the missions?

I aspire choice A to be right (as the ingenious BW Kerrigan would scheme up something to this effect), but unfortunately, B is probably the case, given how the rescued damsel Kerrigan is not presented with any of her BW qualities in WOL

What do you think?

[Louis]

Kerrigna had no reason to dislplay BW qualities in WoL. Pay attention to her attitude in SCI, back when the Zerg were in their prime. WoL puts the Zerg back to square one, so having infested Kerrigan go back to been brutal and a lot less careful is kind of fitting. I don't believe for a second that Kerrigan is capable of planning as far ahead as your implying. Too much help from Duran, too many easy blunders like the ones one Shakuras etc.

[RussianSpy27]

Kerrigna had no reason to dislplay BW qualities in WoL. Pay attention to her attitude in SCI, back when the Zerg were in their prime. WoL puts the Zerg back to square one, so having infested Kerrigan go back to been brutal and a lot less careful is kind of fitting. I don't believe for a second that Kerrigan is capable of planning as far ahead as your implying. Too much help from Duran, too many easy blunders like the ones one Shakuras etc.

OK and why did she had the "let's be friend and focus on the big threat together" attitude with Z before apparently changing it all around in the missions themselves?

[Louis]

Split personality disorder. She showed signs of it in BW too whenever she spared Jim and in the aftermath of killing Fenix. This and the cinematic implied that Kerrigan was trying to resist whatever conditioning that the enslaved overmind had been programmed to give her. I don't believe mental domination had anything to do with it though, because she was said to have had free will from the get go.

[Turalyon]

OK and why did she had the "let's be friend and focus on the big threat together" attitude with Z before apparently changing it all around in the missions themselves?

I wouldn't say split personality as Louis put it. She's just fickle because she's depressed about her 'vision' I guess. Maybe she doesn't really care what happens to Zeratul, she's just toying with him because he's the only visitor that has come by for a chat over the past 4 years.

You can't really put it against her. She's been top-dog for a long time with no-one to talk to except snarling animals. So I think option C) she's just gone crazy. It's the simplest way to account for all the randomness of her personality.

[RussianSpy27]

I wouldn't say split personality as Louis put it. She's just fickle because she's depressed about her 'vision' I guess. Maybe she doesn't really care what happens to Zeratul, she's just toying with him because he's the only visitor that has come by for a chat over the past 4 years.

You can't really put it against her. She's been top-dog for a long time with no-one to talk to except snarling animals. So I think option C) she's just gone crazy. It's the simplest way to account for all the randomness of her personality.

I understand what you're saying but how are we, players, to assume that the illogical behavior is due to craziness?

She spared Jim perhaps because some tiny human part of her had recollections, however tiny, of positive feelings for him - that's how I always bought it.

The WOL Z & K conversation seemed to offer no progression. She seems to tell him that she's been on that secret prophecy planet for a long time and his arrival was expected. What was she doing there then? Was she excavating the ground for a year before Z came over to chat?

I think a Blizzard writer once said in an interview (I have to find the youtube link) that not every good writing is based on logical analysis of character's moves because it somehow leaves less room for emotional progression. While he may be right that creative writing is not a thesis paper on chemistry, if what comes out of it is some kind of "this sounds like a good phrase" but the character's words have no meaning, then what does that portray to the viewer? To me, it portrays lazy writing - it's like writing drunken prose that consists of some nice phrases here and there without any connection or meaning - "oh that phrase that Z would find his way to the planet eventually sounds poetic...yay!!!!!"

[Turalyon]

Sorry RussianSpy, you were taking my reply a little more seriously than I intended...

I agree that the writing in WOL does leave a lot to be desired because there are so many ways in which you can interpret why the events of WoL occurred the way they did - just look at all the pro WoL arguments defending it. Leaving certain story points open to anyone's interpretation is not necessarily a bad thing but it gives the message to the audience that there was no clear direction and that there was never intended to be one.

This is the feeling I get from the K & Z show/ cinematic. So in truth it's B)

I understand what you're saying but how are we, players, to assume that the illogical behavior is due to craziness?

Haven't you just answered your own question? Does not your explanation of her irrational behaviour provide conclusive evidence of her insanity? There's always method behind madness if you care to look/assume but in the end it's still madness.

[RussianSpy27]

Sorry RussianSpy, you were taking my reply a little more seriously than I intended...

I agree that the writing in WOL does leave a lot to be desired because there are so many ways in which you can interpret why the events of WoL occurred the way they did - just look at all the pro WoL arguments defending it. Leaving certain story points open to anyone's interpretation is not necessarily a bad thing but it gives the message to the audience that there was no clear direction and that there was never intended to be one.

This is the feeling I get from the K & Z show/ cinematic. So in truth it's B)



Haven't you just answered your own question? Does not your explanation of her irrational behaviour provide conclusive evidence of her insanity? There's always method behind madness if you care to look/assume but in the end it's still madness.

True that, my friend. Here is the reason of why I "took your post too seriously" as you correctly point out: Part of me is living in a delusional world where I hope that there is something hidden, some logically creative and brilliantly emotional concept out there that makes WoL (or the scene with Z and K in particular) make sense and the story actually good.

However, you're right and finding salvation for it proves ultimately useless. Sad stuff...

[RussianSpy27]

Found the interview with Brian - http://g4tv.com/videos/46003/starcra...ian-kindregan/

Whoever doesn't want to listen to it in full, go to minute 4 and the key phrase is at the end where he says he hopes people will be so immersed as not to think about the game logically but rather emotionally.

Firstly, it's not good when a reader/viewer feels dots/progression does not connect logically. However, what Brian said could work, but only if the emotional creation of characters is so high as to lessen one's analytical stand on a work of fiction.

Think of it as Diablo's two vessels - manna and health. Connecting the dots and advancing the story and characters and a way that connects the dots and flows without holes is like the life bar. At the same time, just like with amazing magical spells you can put a shield around your character or cast reviving spells if your hero's health is low, you can make a story with some holes work because of a strong emotional component.

Brood War's UED (with all of its plot holes of logistics and omnipotent knowledge of the Sector's events) pulled the emotional part extremely well - to the point where many logistical blunders are easily overlooked. The finale of the TV show LOST is another such example.

IMO, very ironically to Brian's good intentions, it did NOT work for WOL.

[Turalyon]

Whoever doesn't want to listen to it in full, go to minute 4 and the key phrase is at the end where he says he hopes people will be so immersed as not to think about the game logically but rather emotionally.

Even if you could mentally blot out the inconsistencies and inanity of the various plot happenings, what is there about Raynor (or anyone in WoL's story) to emotionally attach to that hasn't already been touched on in previous installments?

Brian is right about what he hoped it would be in a way. While playing WoLs campaign, I felt equal amounts of indifference and hatred while fluctuating between those two at various points in WoLs "story".