Not to be the guy who barges in and tells everyone to stop enjoying things, but while there's a thread, I'd just like to leave my feedback.
My issues aren't with the cinematic on its own, but the way it fits together with the rest of the story. In WoL, it was established that, essentially, Kerrigan can't die until Amon is taken care of. Maybe she can die defeating him, maybe she can die after setting the stage for his defeat, but not before then. Otherwise, the whole universe gets a bad end, and I'm pretty confident that that's not the ending Blizzard wants this story to have.
Because of this, any mortal danger Kerrigan is in just feels null. At least to me, but maybe I'm too cynical. When she put his gun to her head, I couldn't feel any tension, I didn't feel for a second that he would actually shoot her. Even when he pulls the trigger, and we can't see her, I thought "oh, he's shooting the wall or something." It just felt like nothing was at risk and I couldn't feel anything.
When the stakes are too high, to the degree that the story can't afford to lose what's at risk, then it's hard to feel that anything's actually at risk. What I could feel something for was seeing Jim lose all respect for her, because that's something that can be lost without destroying the universe, so it had a bigger impact on me.
But I don't want to be entirely negative here, and would like to comment on which cinematic was my favorite, personally. When Kerrigan kills Warfield. When she's standing there, looking at him, letting him squirm and curse all he wants, and she doesn't even say a word. She doesn't even react until he reminds her of that news broadcast about Jim. That felt, to me, like the moment she was letting go of her humanity again, and it felt like a strong moment.
So there's my feedback. Not trying to say Blizzard needs to change their writing staff to fit what I like or whatever, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here anyway. Just leaving my feedback on a game I enjoyed and want to see do even better.
That all assumes that the survival of the setting does in fact depend on Kerrigan's survival. Just because some of the characters in the setting think it does, doesn't mean it actually does. The point wasn't to set the audience on uncertain ground by threatening her life, the point was to show us something about Kerrigan and Jim.
Now, I do agree that any mortal danger she gets in would feel like it isn't a real threat, but that's only because Kerrigan has been hyped as the main character for HotS for so long. She absolutely could not have been allowed to die until her story was finished.
With that out of the way, I have an entirely different take on the meaning of the Warfield cut-scene. I don't think that was a moment of her letting go of her humanity, I think that was a moment of her holding onto it. Zerg have no loves other than the basic life process. Likewise they don't have any seething hatred either.
Kerrigan's desires to kill Warfield in that cut-scene was one of her more human moments, for sure. Maybe not a pretty moment but being human isn't always pleasant. Right before that she didn't seem to respond much to any stimuli, almost like she was on auto-pilot. The thought of Raynor seemed to almost snap her back to who she was, and I honestly believe it was those feelings for Raynor that caused her to spare the retreating soldiers.
I enjoyed it, it was a very strong scene.
I did think "Conscious" was better though. It told a story through the scene as opposed to dialogue, where the invincible Kerrigan, who just overran a planet, is brought to see what she's becoming just by a few words. Plus it was a pretty good sendoff for Warfield, though I wish he stayed longer.
Agreed, this one is by far my favorite. Believe in me was decent, but Conscience was just fantastic.
If only it hadn't been preceded by Warfield being portrayed as a complete idiot during "Fire in the Sky." There's no way any leader ever would be so stupid as to keep relying on the Gorgons after Kerrigan kept destroying them.
Stubborn old war leaders who can't learn to change up their tactics and losing battles for it isn't exactly out of the realm of realism. There was a while back where someone thought that they key to winning a certain war was bigger tanks that needed more gas when gas was in short supply. This failed, precisely because they didn't have the fuel, so naturally they built even bigger tanks that guzzled even more gas.