View Single Post
Old 02-19-2017, 03:33 AM
Aldrius Aldrius is offline

Site Staff - Moderator
Aldrius's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,988


Originally Posted by Ol'Yoggy View Post
You kinda did imply she was barely sane to begin with (at least that's the impression I got).
I think she's genuinely psychotic in that she has like... psychosis. I don't think she was born an axe murderer or anything, but Uprising implies that she has a violent streak.

I fully agree that Kerrigan had a darkness inside of her, however there were other factors. Her "Arcturus will do the right thing" Implies she genuinely believed in Arcturus, maybe even saw him as a father figure. She may not have loved Jim but she certainly CARED for him (in Agent of the Swarm the overmind point blank orders her to kill all the terrans, so her letting Jim and his friends go was a direct violation of his orders.) That implies that even after what happened some degree of humanity shone through. She certainly had morals even if she didn't always act on them. And you can make a case that she was genuinely fighting for a better future and to make sure no one else suffered like she did. You assume that it was purely guilt for killing Angus Mengsk but I don't think that's true and if anything is rather limiting. It might be A factor but one can make a case for idealism. She was certainly more complex than the one dimensional caricature in Brood War.
I didn't say she wasn't moral. I said she wasn't principled. Morals are having a belief, principles are having the conviction and strength to follow through on those morals. Sure, saying 'killing people is wrong' is something a lot of people can agree with. But if you're not willing to step in and put a stop to it when you're in a position to do so, how strongly do you really feel about that?

I think Kerrigan in Rebel Yell lacks autonomy. I think the Rebel Yell Kerrigan is as much Mengsk's slave as she would become the Overmind's slave later on. She does what he says. He manipulates her, she feels guilty, she sees him as a bit of a father figure for sure. But that doesn't mean it's a healthy relationship.

The issue with BW is that I fully agree that trauma would change her to a degree, and might make her bitter and angry. However they made her do TOO much of a 180. I can buy her being willing to sacrifice people for her goals, I can see her pushing regrets aside to do it. I can see her being somewhat sadistic. But given that even as a brainwashed servant of the overmind she cared for certain people (Raynor) her being as sadistic didn't ring true. In any case, it was STILL possible to argue that things like the infestation amplified an inner darkness and THAT influenced her. Genya came to that conclusion entirely on his own, so it was a more than fair interpretation. You might not AGREE with it but it was still an entirely fair conclusion to reach. There are SHADES to which a character changes due to trauma. While some change entirely, enough of the human kerrigan shown through in the Zerg Campaign that it doesn't really hold up. Some find it halfway (they abandon large parts but hold on to key elements.)
I mean, I see it. I think it makes perfectly logical sense for her to become what she did after what she went through. And that includes the physical changes.

Well of course being infested would change her psyche. Losing a limb changes someone's psyche. My issue is more that the infestation becomes kind of a scapegoat for her change in personality or for her actions when the story doesn't treat her that way and neither do any of the other characters (in Brood War mind you). The only person who even seems to think it matters that she was infested is Aldaris of all people. I think when you boil it down to mind control or a dark voice or an evil influence the characters lose a lot of their impact because it's like their decisions weren't there's to make. Heart of the Swarm BLATANTLY tries to avoid this, and I don't think it succeeds at all. (I'm referring to Kerrigan's comments about 'it never controlled me, etc. etc.") I think it really cheapens what happens in Brood War. And I think it's just lousy storytelling to chalk everything bad that happened up to an evil devil character who was lurking in the shadows, rather than what it actually was at the time: Kerrigan's hubris, Mengsk's greed, and the pathos of the situation.

I'm really not interested in responding to old SCLegacy posts, dude. That's pretty poor form.

As to her development in Queen of Blades -- I really don't wanna get into this, but I think to chalk everything down to True Colours is foolish. Revenge is something Kerrigan plainly states is part of her motivations multiple times. She pretty much spends all of the first half of Queen of Blades (which goes back to Iron Fist actually) setting up and using Mengsk so she can double cross him. Same with the Stand and Zeratul.

I mean the thread of her revenge on Mengsk is dropped in True Colours because... she got her revenge. (And it comes back in the last mission anyway) I'm not sure about her not killing Mengsk or why that's even brought up...weren't these posts in response to ones I made? So you're replaying a conversation I had with someone what... 3 years ago?

But that's another thing, the SC2 expansions all have beginning, middles and ends. Here's the villain. Here's the hero. Here's what the hero wants. Here's 16 hours of distractions until they finally get around to trying to get what they want. The end. The villains in Legacy aren't even interesting. They're practically interchangable (and until Legacy the less said about the Tal'darim the better).

SC1's campaigns (all six of them) all have multiple beginnings and endings. Iron Fist starts with the campaign against Mengsk, there's a twist in mission 5 with Raynor, then the focus becomes the relationship between Dugalle and Stukov, then it's about the Overmind. They all do that.

But then I don't even understand why Kerrigan does what she does. She's proclaimed to want revenge on Mengsk at the beginning of Heart of the Swarm, but partly because I already saw that in Brood War (and because that story was more of a direct follow up to those events) and partly because I don't think they did a great job explaining what that actually means it didn't do anything for me.

I didn't really like what that writer did with Mass Effect either, though. So maybe it's a style thing.

Even ignoring point 1, why is it taboo to have an ending that isn't bittersweet or a downer? Such endings are not inherantly superior to others. And if you use those endings over and over again, they lose impact. Going by the SC games Blizzard produced, what do we have? Precursor, bittersweet ending. StarCraft, bittersweet ending. Brood War, tragic ending. Wings of Liberty, happy ending. Heart of the Swarm, bittersweet ending.
Heart of the Swarm is really not bittersweet. It is incredibly sentimental and romantic. All three of the SC2 endings are romantic actually because at some point Metzen (and his team I guess) decided StarCraft was a love story when it never was.

Even Wings of Liberty's ending isn't necessarily happy. But they did such a poor job with Tychus's arch it's really hard to even relate or understand him. Like that scene with the juke box doesn't even make sense.

Why must every installment in a series conform to the norm, and why is deviation from a norm inherantly bad?
Because the bittersweet, darker endings where sacrifices need to be made are deviations in the first place. Having a hollywood romantic, heroic ending is so traditional.

Not all the endings are even the same. The Fall's ending doesn't have the same tone as Queen of Blades or Iron First's. (Iron Fist's ending is hilarious amidst all the tragedy.) But to have something so BLATANTLY saccharine in a series which does it's damndest to avoid BEING saccharine is pretty disingenuous.

It's not that happy things can't or shouldn't happen. But Raynor's love story with Kerrigan is hopelessly self-aggrandizing and really lays it on thick. There was more to Kerrigan and Raynor than that, and it really just boils the character down.

That's another reason why the ideas worked. If SC2 had the same nihilistic tone as BW it would be impossible to give a rats ass about what happens. Having a ray of light makes it easier to care. Having Kerrigan redeem herself was part of that and going from the "infestation suppressed natural empathy and compassion" was an entirely legitimate interpretation
I think your mistake here is that Nihilism is not equitable to dark. Nihilism just means things just... are. It doesn't mean that Kerrigan's story or what happened to her was pointless, it just doesn't judge her. I'm having trouble explaining what I mean by this.

Nihilism gets a bad rap for being sinister or apathetic, when it isn't necessarily. The point of Nihilism is that there aren't superheroic (either evil or good) forces working in the StarCraft universe to inform or decide events. Self-determination decides what happens, and people's choices (and people are not necessarily born good or evil) decide what happens. But everything in SC2 is fated, or guided by greater powers. It doesn't really fit the tone of the first game at all in that respect.

Like it bothers me so much that Zeratul is the only hero who gets an arch and dies. SC Brood War wasn't afraid to kill off characters no matter what they are or were. But SC2 only kills off it's evil, despicable, one-dimensional (TRULY one-dimensional) characters.
"The Demons did their job well. You creatures are as reckless and bloodthirsty as they ever were."

Last edited by Aldrius; 02-19-2017 at 07:57 AM..
Reply With Quote