StarCraft® II

Thoughts on SC1 vs SC2

Posts: 58
Criticism: SC2 dialogue is inferior to SC1's
I definitely agree, however, I think it is excusable. Starcraft 1 is hardly a cinematic experience in anyway, every mission had to be set up using a (looking back on it) boring, extremely long, mission briefing sequence. The dialogue had better be damn good if we have to sit through that. Thanks to the magic of cutscenes I find the need for long winded conversations filled with 10 dollar words to be considerably less, and in all honesty a welcome change.

Criticism: Cliches
The Overmind: Inexplicably evil master bent on destroying his enemy
Mengsk: Rebel leader who turns out to be a tyrannical douche willing to do anything to gain power
Raynor: Charming small town guy who turns out to have a much larger role in the grand scheme
Infested Kerrigan: Manipulative all around !@#$% (fellas?)
The Protoss: A zealous and close minded race completely resistant to change
Duke: Hardass general
Fenix: Hardcore warrior
Stukov and Dugalle: kind of the definition of cliche
Aldaris: Close minded leader who eventually causes great problems for his people due to his stubbornness

Criticism: Simple/dull plot
Looking at the original 3 campaigns
Rebel Yell: Group of rebels attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government
Zerg Campaign: The sole goal is practically just to annihilate the protoss
Protoss Campaign: Attempting to push back the invaders while simultaneously fighting your own cultures ineptitude

All 3 are nothing to special. Additionally, many people like to talk about sc1's political intrigue but there really wasn't anything beyond characters with simple alterior motives.
Reply Quote
Posts: 661
*Puts on best Romanian accent.* "Strike surer path and see point reached."

Seriously though, you're making a lot of claims, with very little evidence, and you're leaving the claims there to float, so even if they were proven true, (Which I don't believe they can be.) the question remains; what exactly are you trying to say?
Reply Quote
Posts: 413
Criticism: SC2 dialogue is inferior to SC1's
I agree that SC2's dialogue is seemingly poor compared to SC1s and I also agree that it is kind've excusable. Since seeing two unit sprites talking is no where near immersive, having long, drawn out and almost over the top dialogue helped out a lot. However I'd like to add that just over all, the SC1 character interactions seemed far more zealous and alive entirely. even the Briefing missions, which were quite short in most cases; each character seemed to have a lot of beef against something and portrayed it in their speech. SC1 was written when Metzen was having relationship troubles. Hence why Kerrigan was thrown in when the game was nearing completion. End result? A lot of angry poetry added to the dialogue which made it seem more "serious" when in actuality? Looking at it now it's quite immature and over exaggerated. But none the less, still good for what it was.

Criticism: Cliches
The Overmind: Even before SC2s retconning of the Overmind, this character probably had the most potential to have some serious depth. In SC1, the Zerg were not innately evil, just animals doing what their programmed instinct told them too: assimilate and evolve; to seek biological perfection. The Overmind was the only character aside from Raynor and Tassadar who actually showed a caring personality I might add. Despite Kerrigan getting Zasz killed, the Overmind still protected her and sought to let her grow. He almost had Paternal instincts to her.
Mengsk: Easiest cliche to keep serious and realistic. Why? Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. Mengsk is one cliche character I could do with; as long as he remained intellegent and maniacle; both of which he doesn't do so well in SC2. He does in HotS a little but is only active about it with Jim being arrested and in the invasion of Korhal. In SC1 he was far less passive.
Raynor: Yes. I'll agree. He's the good ol' boy. I don't think there is anything we can do to avoid this. I thought Red Dead Redemption was amazing but basically the main character is here too. Rough past but a good heart. Unavoidable.
Infested Kerrigan: Another absolute power corrupting absolutely. She's the continouation of a cycle of hatred. What Megnsk wish in vengeance by leaving her to die, she returns in favor to kill him later.
The Protoss: Elves in Space.
Duke: Yeah this guy is a cardboard character. He's simply the face of a henchman, nothing more. Only has a name so we can associate him to a group and give that said group a leader.
Fenix: In other words, Gimli. Most willing to bash heads in and also the most loyal friend. We've seen him since the times of Sparta.
Stukov and Dugalle: One of the first in the game industry to show a gay relationship?
Aldaris: Stubborn religious nut. Aldaris had some depth though. There was potential here to build on the culture of the Protoss, despite how cliche it may have been. One of the things about SC1 that was OK compared to SC2 is that all groups, including Aldaris's? Was never really wrong nor right. It was in the grey of morality. Aldaris was fighting to protect his people the way he thought was best. It wasn't like he was entirely racist. In fact he could have been redeemed if it havn't of been for Kerri killing him.
Lets not forget:
Zeratul: Mystical old fart who seems to bare ancient knowledge. Might as well be Gandalf, Cain or Medivh's plot inspiration for WC3 later on (in fact, he was).

Criticism: Simple/dull plot
For SC1? I wouldn't say it was simple. It had many angles because each race had their plot versus the over all epic, as well as their own internal one. That is already more than what SC2 has with the damned prophecy bull crap. Dull? I can see that. Simple? Not as simple as SC2s. I'll elaborate.
Rebel Yell: Good ol' boy standing up against a tyrannical force, joins a rebel force and eventually fights them directly all while watching his new charismatic leader become no worse than the enemy he wishes to supplant AND at the cost of his lover.
Overmind: Yes this one is quite straight forward, but Kerrigan is part of the spotlight here. Her plot line is what leaves the end of SC1 wide open for BW. Also, the fact she is allowed to keep her free will creates an interesting clash between the Zerg's logical approach to things (like how Abathur is in HotS) against her newly found vengeance. The Overmind seeks to train her to be one with the Swarm while she seeks to use the Zerg as mere tools.
The Fall: The game at this points starts to feel like Lord of the Rings. its all about getting the alliances you can to stop the Overmind. However like I said with Aldaris, it's one of those points where more intrigue could've been added with Aldaris and the Protoss culture. I think this part of SC1 was my least favorite.
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
I'll bite!

Criticism: SC2 dialogue is inferior to SC1's
I definitely agree, however, I think it is excusable. Starcraft 1 is hardly a cinematic experience in anyway, every mission had to be set up using a (looking back on it) boring, extremely long, mission briefing sequence. The dialogue had better be damn good if we have to sit through that. Thanks to the magic of cutscenes I find the need for long winded conversations filled with 10 dollar words to be considerably less, and in all honesty a welcome change.


I can respect this opinion. I personally prefer the 'boring, extremely long, mission briefing sequence' with the cutscenes acting more as the comic relief/glimpse into the universe to the cutscenes themselves telling the story. Though this is coming from a guy who also likes to read the extended LOTR universe materials like the Silmirillion and Unfinished Tales that often reads more like a history text than a novel.

Criticism: Cliches
The Overmind: Inexplicably evil master bent on destroying his enemy
Mengsk: Rebel leader who turns out to be a tyrannical douche willing to do anything to gain power
Raynor: Charming small town guy who turns out to have a much larger role in the grand scheme
Infested Kerrigan: Manipulative all around !@#$% (fellas?)
The Protoss: A zealous and close minded race completely resistant to change
Duke: Hardass general
Fenix: Hardcore warrior
Stukov and Dugalle: kind of the definition of cliche
Aldaris: Close minded leader who eventually causes great problems for his people due to his stubbornness


I won't argue that there were not a lot of clichés in SC1, especially when it came to characters. SC1 was focused more on macro level/species wide interactions with the characters acting as a way to interact with the story.

I do, however, seem to disagree with your conceptualization of 'cliché' and how you apply to to a few of the characters. Frankly, you seem to be using a conceptualization so wide that every character ever written in any story could be considered cliché.

I'll just use the three examples. I do not at all see the Overmind as some evil master bent of destroying his enemy. Destroying his enemy is a side point entirely. His goal is to evolve and achieve perfection, and 'destroying his enemy' is mainly a means to an end.

Raynor does not have a large role in the grand scheme. In fact, he has quite a small role and is never (until WoL) a main plot-mover (is that even a term? lol). He mainly just tried his best with what little he has available to him, whether that means doing good deeds or bad deeds.

Infested Kerrigan is Kerrigan. You can't just differentiate the characters. What made her interesting is that she went from being relatively good yet willing to do horrible things as a servant, to gaining power and ultimately choosing to embrace that power, while still having a part of that relative good lingering.

But all in all, again, the characters were used more in terms to moving forward the plight of the 3 races and numerous factions. Is was a story about the large scale wars with some interesting sub plots going on with the characters.
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
Criticism: Simple/dull plot
Looking at the original 3 campaigns
Rebel Yell: Group of rebels attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government
Zerg Campaign: The sole goal is practically just to annihilate the protoss
Protoss Campaign: Attempting to push back the invaders while simultaneously fighting your own cultures ineptitude


Once again, if you want to be this simplistic, you can do that with any story ever written. The devil is in the details.

Rebel Yell: Group of rebels attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government

It also incorporated the introduction of the Protoss glassing planets, setting the stage for the Protoss campaign (Tassadar going AWOL), and introducing the Zerg as some experiment of the confederacy just to find out later the Zerg were pretty much playing them all along. The context of the rebellion also made a lot of sense with the previous destruction of Korhal (giving the SoK & Mengsk good motive) while being able to use the Zerg in a logical way (they weren't trying to overthrow the government during a large scale alien invasion; the aliens were a weapon to be used by both/either side in the rebellion)

Zerg Campaign: The sole goal is practically just to annihilate the protoss

The goal has little to do with annihilating the Protoss. The goals is to create the perfect race by assimilating the Protoss. This is a significant distinction that gives a real purpose to the war rather than simply destroying because they want to destroy. It also demonstrated how they pretty much toyed with the Terrans in that the Terrans thought they were controlling the Zerg through Psi Emitters when in reality the zerg had a specific reason to be following them. (Assimiliating the psionic potential of terrans, realized in the form of Kerrigan)

Protoss Campaign: Attempting to push back the invaders while simultaneously fighting your own cultures ineptitude

Yes, they had to overcome thousands of years of beliefs that were established to end the bloodiest era their species had ever known. It was a complete upheaval of their civilization, as if a bunch of communists came to the US and told them the only way to defeat foreign invaders was to ditch democracy and embrace communism (this wouldn’t even be nearly enough to match what the Protoss were going through, but it gives an idea).
Reply Quote
Posts: 661
Einharjar posted the same thing in the thread just above this one about noticing Raynor's gun. I responded with a lengthy post, and Ursula K. Le Guin's own intro to her book, The Left Hand of Darkness, which explains the purpose of science fiction. I'm sure he'll see it there.

I also take issue with a lot of the analysis of the characters, too much for me to go into detail, (That would take up multiple 5k character posts.) So I'll focus on the one that was off the mark enough to make me a little angry, and that is Kerrigan. Nothing, anywhere, ever, in Kerrigan's story, from her intro in Rebel Yell, all the way to where we are now, could even be remotely misconstrued to say her character is about the corrupting effects of power. I would also go so far as to say that people who say power corrupts don't understand what power is, or what it does. If power corrupted, we'd all be corrupt, whatever corrupt means. Power exposes.
Edited by Joshua on 3/31/2013 7:47 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,878
Though this is coming from a guy who also likes to read the extended LOTR universe materials like the Silmirillion and Unfinished Tales that often reads more like a history text than a novel.

That's 'cause, you know, they ARE history texts for the LotR universe. Sorry, just wanted to say that.
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
That's 'cause, you know, they ARE history texts for the LotR universe. Sorry, just wanted to say that.


They are somewhere between novel and history texts, but yea. I mentioned it for people who may not be aware of how it reads.

I would also go so far as to say that people who say power corrupts don't understand what power is, or what it does. If power corrupted, we'd all be corrupt, whatever corrupt means. Power exposes.


Power corrupts in the sense that once you have it, you do not want to relinquish it. You can see it in pretty much all forms of power. You can easily find examples in politics, military, business, bureaucracy, etc.

Politicians have to make sure they retain power, even if it means doing things they do not believe in. This happens in pretty much every form of government, from democracy to dictatorships. The entire American political system is based on this. If you want to make a difference, you have to have power. If you want power, you need votes. To get votes you have to say and do whatever will get you those votes. Once you are in power, do you raise taxes and/or cut spending to balance a budget or do you pander to the voters to make sure you win the next election?

Money wise, people who are rich tend to be less generous than those who are poor. Why? Because of fear of losing power. Money is power. Once you have it you do not want to relinquish it.

Bureaucracy's have power of their own and fight tooth and nail to keep that power, whether or not they actually deserve to have it. Your losing relevance and are on the verge of getting shut down? Invent new reasons for why you should exist and keep insisting that some catastrophe is going to happen if you lose funding.

Or we could look at something like racism or sexism (or any other type of ism). People who are privileged in systems typically try to maintain the status quo in order to maintain their power within the system. The greater the power, the more power can be lost, the more invested interest they have in maintaining the system.

So when you say we'd all be corrupt, you are closer to the mark than you think. It is incredibly difficult to find people in positions of power who hold to the same level of morality and goodness as those who are not, particularly in situations where the source of their power is directly threatened.

03/31/2013 07:42 PMPosted by Joshua
So I'll focus on the one that was off the mark enough to make me a little angry, and that is Kerrigan. Nothing, anywhere, ever, in Kerrigan's story, from her intro in Rebel Yell, all the way to where we are now, could even be remotely misconstrued to say her character is about the corrupting effects of power.


I won't go so far as to claim that her character is 'about' the corrupting effects of power, but only that she was corrupted by it. One of the main purposes of BW, in terms of characters, was to show how Kerrigan was now free from the overmind and made the conscious choice to embrace who she was as Zerg.

Some people make the claim that this is inconsistent with her human personality and use it as justification for why Kerrigan =/= QoB, even though BW was about demonstrating that Kerrigan does indeed = QoB and every character believed it was so. Power is the missing link. Once Kerrigan got this great power and freedom, she was reluctant to give it up, as most people are when faced with losing their source of power.
Reply Quote
Posts: 661
If you're going to make the claim that Kerrigan was corrupted by power, then you're going to have to define the word "corruption" there, and then you're going to have to tell me what sort of power it was that had "corrupted" her.

Also, she could have just not done what she did in BW, and still retained her power. She didn't have to lose anything by not doing all of those horrible things. I don't remember anywhere where fear of her losing her power was a motivating factor for anything she did.

You can't just hand-wave the inconsistencies between QoB and Kerrigan, even in Brood War. Of course the current version of her would say what she did, because self likes to look after self. The original Kerrigan probably would have disagreed with what QoB said. Personally I never thought she was who she was originally after that infestation, not until the end of WoL anyway.

Oh, another thing I missed in Ein's post. Starcraft was not about morality. It doesn't matter that what Aldaris thought he was doing was right. The fact is he was a fool. His intentions may have been good but his actions did nothing but damage. Call that whatever morality you want. He still caused a bunch of entirely unnecessary deaths of people that he and others cared about.
Edited by Joshua on 3/31/2013 11:38 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
Here is my logic for kerrigan:

Background:

Kerrigan was always a servant. First with the confederacy where they specifically limited her capabilities, and later with Mengsk. She was trained to be an assassin. To kill in cold blood. She demonstrated in the SC1 terran campaign that although she was hesitant about killing innocents, it was something she was willing to do.

SC1 Zerg:

The first thing she did was tell Raynor she likes what she became and that he could not imagine how it feels. What could she be referring to other than power? She likes the feeling of having an exoskeleton?

I was. While I was in the Chrysalis, I
instinctively reached out to you and
Arcturus telepathically. Apparently, Arcturus
sent Duke here to reclaim me. But that was
then, Jim. I'm one of the Zerg, now. And I
like what I am. You can't imagine how this feels...


Ultimately she let Raynor go, demonstrating that at least part of her old personality is still intact. The very next mission is going to the amerigo to unlock more power. After that she confront Tassdar and talks about...power.

Do not presume to judge me,
Templar. You'll find my powers to be
more than a match for yours. In
fact, I sense that your vaunted
power has diminished since last we met


SCBW Protoss:

Our introduction to Kerrigan is that she is no longer under control of the overmind. It is set up right from the start that one of the main things that is being explored character wise is what Kerrigan will do now that she is free.

Because, Zeratul, I'm no longer the
mindless murderess whom you
fought on Char. The Overmind is
dead. Whatever warped control it
once had over me is gone. I know
that this is a lot to take in all at
once, but you've got to believe me!
There's more at a stake here than-


She continues to say that her fears is that she will once again enslaved by the new overmind. Her power is threatened two fold: Freedom is one of the main sources of power she has acquired since she was human. She is being threatened with the possibility of losing said power. The second is the potential power of being the sole ruler of the swarm. Essentially the ultimate power in the known universe. (This becomes more apparent later when it become clear that is her goal)

Look, I don't need to tell you all
what might happen if that thing
reaches maturity. I can guarantee
you that should it awaken, it'll take
full control of me just like it did
before. I don't want that to happen,
and I'm pretty sure you don't want
it to happen either.


Notice too how her speach pattern has changed drastically from that of SC1 zerg campaign. While there she was fierce and largely single minded, she is now speaking with a lot more clarity. Another sign she is indeed in her right mind.
Edited by LovelyMines on 4/7/2013 5:45 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
SCBW Zerg:

In our first introduction we once again see the idea of exploring whether or not Kerrigan is on the level:

Still suspicious of my motives, Jimmy?

Then we go on and talk about Mengsk. She is very much aware of his betrayal and that she may very well want revenge. More dialgue pointing to the idea that we are exploring what Kerrigan will do now that she is free.

Are you still suspicious that I'll kill
him for abandoning me to the Zerg?
I've gotten over it, Jim. We can't
afford to let petty hatreds
jeopardize our plans for the UED.

Then there is more dialogue about whether or not she is trustworthy

Now that the Psi Disrupter has
been destroyed and Kerrigan has
regained control of her minions, I
fear that she will forget our pact
and turn on us.


Raynor :

I know what you mean, Fenix. I'd love
to believe that she's on the level,
but there's a part of me that just
knows better. However, I do believe
that she's serious about taking out
the UED. The only real question left
is what happens to us when she
wins.

Mengsk :

If you ask me, she's completely
untrustworthy. But, so long as she'll
help me retake Korhal, I'll work with
her.

Raynor :

Shut up, Arcturus. If I wanted your
damn opinion, I would've beaten it
out of ya'. And in case you forgot,
you're the reason she became what
she is in the first place!


She later makes it clear that she has a goal of gaining/regaining power and that everything she has been doing has been to eliminate threats to her power.

Cerebrate, Duran, the time has
come to separate the chaff from
the wheat. Now that the UED's
power base is broken on this world,
only their forces on Char pose any
significant threat to me. It's time
to move to the second phase of my plan

Then we get into Raynors dialogue after Fenix' death. He makes statements that makes it seem like he's talking to a person in control of her actions. A person who is making a concious choice. He also directly talks about her 'mad quest for power.'

He died because you betrayed him. How many noble
souls do you need to consume before you're satisfied?
How many more people need to die before you realize

Don't I? I'll see you dead for this, Kerrigan. For Fenix
and all the others who got caught between you and
your mad quest for power


Then we have the dialoge with Mengsk and her revenge, saying that he is directly responsible for the hell she has been through. Would she really be calling it hell if she was not fully aware and in control? She was also completely aware of her desires for revenge.

Oh, come on, Arcturus. Did you really think I'd allow you
to come into power again? You practically fed me to the
Zerg on Tarsonis! You're directly responsible for the hell
I've been through! Did you honestly think I'd let you get
away with that?

Conversing with Zeratul she refers to her power yet agan

All right, Zeratul, you've got me. I made your Matriarch my
slave long before I joined you on Shakuras. She made the
mistake of underestimating my power just like everyone else
did. And now she's paid the price.


And then of course we have the epilogue that says "Sarah Kerrigan, the Queen of Blades," which is making is clear it is the same person (The Queen of Blades being a descriptive title between commas).

And alone, floating on a dark platform above
the burnt-out planet of Char, Sarah Kerrigan,
the Queen of Blades, sat and lorded over the
ravenous Swarms. Unable to shake the feeling
that a great threat loomed just over the
horizon, Kerrigan could only stare off into the
vastness of space where she beheld a great
void. Or perhaps a reflection of a hollow
victory and of the trials yet to come...


So all in all, when I mean 'corrupted by power', I am referring to the supposed change in her personality from human Kerrigan to Zerg Kerrigan. As a human she had her power limited and she was a servant. When she became Zerg she got a taste of freedom (not full freedom) and greater power. Upon being freed of the influence of the overmind she still retained the experiences of having power, along with the experiences of servitude both as a human and a a zerg. As such, she did not want to relinquish her new found power of both freedom and rote power, resulting in being a treacherous !@#$%.

So my argument is based on 3 things: Kerrigan got power and freedom through being infested. Kerrigan was in her right mind during BW (Kerrigan = QoB). Kerrigan chose to fight against threats to her newfound power.
Edited by LovelyMines on 4/7/2013 5:44 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 661
Going to start this off by thanking the poster for responding to me in a clear, thought-out, and non-jerkass way like some of the other posters on these forums would have.

I would also go so far as to say that people who say power corrupts don't understand what power is, or what it does. If power corrupted, we'd all be corrupt, whatever corrupt means. Power exposes.


03/31/2013 10:34 PMPosted by LovelyMines
Power corrupts in the sense that once you have it, you do not want to relinquish it.


So this corruption you speak of is a good thing then. Color me corrupt then, because I do have power, and if someone tried to take it form me, I'd fight back. Probably with lethal force. And I would hope that anyone who comes across someone who would take their power would do the same.

You can see it in pretty much all forms of power. You can easily find examples in politics, military, business, bureaucracy, etc.

Politicians have to make sure they retain power, even if it means doing things they do not believe in. This happens in pretty much every form of government, from democracy to dictatorships. The entire American political system is based on this. If you want to make a difference, you have to have power. If you want power, you need votes. To get votes you have to say and do whatever will get you those votes. Once you are in power, do you raise taxes and/or cut spending to balance a budget or do you pander to the voters to make sure you win the next election?

Money wise, people who are rich tend to be less generous than those who are poor. Why? Because of fear of losing power. Money is power. Once you have it you do not want to relinquish it.

Bureaucracy's have power of their own and fight tooth and nail to keep that power, whether or not they actually deserve to have it. Your losing relevance and are on the verge of getting shut down? Invent new reasons for why you should exist and keep insisting that some catastrophe is going to happen if you lose funding.

Or we could look at something like racism or sexism (or any other type of ism). People who are privileged in systems typically try to maintain the status quo in order to maintain their power within the system. The greater the power, the more power can be lost, the more invested interest they have in maintaining the system.


That's something like what I expected you to say. Power exists apart from all of those things. I'll go on to say that the vast majority of individuals out there do not realize just how much power they actually possess, and if they did, they'd be far too terrified of it to actually use it.

So when you say we'd all be corrupt, you are closer to the mark than you think. It is incredibly difficult to find people in positions of power who hold to the same level of morality and goodness as those who are not, particularly in situations where the source of their power is directly threatened.


So it's not moral to fight to hold on to what you have if someone tries to take it away from you? Assuming it isn't moral, I'd argue that power isn't the source of the behavior, but the desire of the person is the source of that behavior, and the source of the desire is not the power, but the nature of the person. Power doesn't corrupt, it exposes. Now, again, assuming power does corrupt, I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. In fact, from how you've described it so far, if power really did corrupt, I think there would probably be less suffering in the world.

Let me ask you something. if you had power, what would you do with it?
Edited by Joshua on 4/1/2013 1:12 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 661
So all in all, when I mean 'corrupted by power', I am referring to the supposed change in her personality from human Kerrigan to Zerg Kerrigan. As a human she had her power limited and she was a servant. When she became Zerg she got a taste of freedom (not full freedom) and greater power. Upon being freed of the influence of the overmind she still retained the experiences of having power, along with the experiences of servitude both as a human and a a zerg. As such, she did not want to relinquish her new found power of both freedom and rote power, resulting in being a treacherous !@#$%.

So my argument is based on 3 things: Kerrigan got power and freedom through being infested. Kerrigan was in her right mind during BW (Kerrigan = QoB). Kerrigan chose to fight against threats to her newfound power.


That's actually not a bad argument. If the actual physical make-up of her brain wasn't altered by the infestation, I'd probably buy it, in fact. But just because she isn't mind-controlled anymore, and she's starting to sound like her old self, doesn't mean she's back in her right mind.

But, given the obvious and glaring changes made to the rest of her body, it seems highly unlikely to me that her brain wasn't equally altered. Given what we know of the hyperevolutionary virus, altered toward more cunning, aggression, and paranoia seems to make sense, and would explain her behavior.

This honestly makes a lot more sense to me than her randomly turning so malevolent after being such a caring person, because a simple increase in strength and ability does not turn people malevolent. At absolute best, it exposes something nasty that was already there to begin with. Tell me, does Kerrigan strike you as the type?

There also was no threats to her newfound power anyway. Even if she wanted to preserve her power, what would she be preserving her power against by hurting Raynor and making herself an enemy of the protoss? It makes no sense. No, it's far more likely that the physical changes made to her brain were responsible for her strange behavior.
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
Going to start this off by thanking the poster for responding to me in a clear, thought-out, and non-jerkass way like some of the other posters on these forums would have.


Ditto.

So this corruption you speak of is a good thing then. Color me corrupt then, because I do have power, and if someone tried to take it form me, I'd fight back. Probably with lethal force. And I would hope that anyone who comes across someone who would take their power would do the same.


It depends on your conception of 'good' I suppose. For the individual, I suppose trying to keep power can be construed as a good thing. In general, the idea of being corrupted is in terms of morality, which is usually based on social values as a whole. Killing someone is usually seen as an immoral act.

An example I would give is that of a dictator. Few people become dictators because they love power and want to oppress people, but rather that they want to create a better society/country. It is only when they realize that people are not going to just follow what they say that they get oppressive and violent. It is the threat to their power that leads them to order arrests or killing political opponents and squashing unrest. Another good line is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

So is this good or bad? From the perspective of the dictator as an individual I guess you could say that it is 'good' he behaved that way, but for the rest of society it would be said he has been corrupted by the power. He is no longer following the ideals he initially wanted to implement, instead doing whatever is necessary to maintain the power, even if it means doing the exact opposite of his initial intentions.

So it's not moral to fight to hold on to what you have if someone tries to take it away from you? Assuming it isn't moral, I'd argue that power isn't the source of the behavior, but the desire of the person is the source of that behavior, and the source of the desire is not the power, but the nature of the person. Power doesn't corrupt, it exposes. Now, again, assuming power does corrupt, I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. In fact, from how you've described it so far, if power really did corrupt, I think there would probably be less suffering in the world.


In the same vein as the previous bit, power corrupts in the sense that people who might hold certain moral beliefs will bend or straight up break those moral beliefs when their power is threatened.

I can definitely agree that the 'nature of the person' is important for determining just how much a person will bend their morals, but typically, anyone will react in an increasingly negative way than their usual morals when their power is threatened. The more power that is at stake, the more a person will be willing to bend/break.

Let me ask you something. if you had power, what would you do with it?


Power comes in many shapes and sizes. You would have to be more specific. Are we talking being rich? Being the leader of a democratic country? Being a dictator of a poor country? Being a dictator of a rich country? Being the head of a household? Being big and buff?...being a white male?

04/01/2013 01:12 AMPosted by Joshua
This honestly makes a lot more sense to me than her randomly turning so malevolent after being such a caring person, because a simple increase in strength and ability does not turn people malevolent. At absolute best, it exposes something nasty that was already there to begin with. Tell me, does Kerrigan strike you as the type?


To be honest, yes. She was bred as a cold hearted assassin. She showed that she had some hesitation with large scale mass murder...but she still went along with it. I don't know how a person can be described as caring when they accept a plan that kills billions of people. It is not a stretch to say that once she gained more power, it was not all that hard to go from "ok, I've been involved in mass murder" to "What's a few more deaths to get/keep my power?".

04/01/2013 01:12 AMPosted by Joshua
There also was no threats to her newfound power anyway. Even if she wanted to preserve her power, what would she be preserving her power against by hurting Raynor and making herself an enemy of the protoss? It makes no sense.


Well, her power lies in being a leader of the swarm. To be that, she needed to have the new overmind destroyed. Beyond that, would the Protoss have just let her take control of the swarm and leave her alone? Doubtful. They were a threat to her power. As for hurting Raynor, she did not physically hurt him and his feelings were not particularly important anymore. He was a part of her past that she looked back on fondly so she did not want to hurt him directly, but beyond that he meant little to her. She was beyond him. (which is one of the reasons why this whole white knight-love story thing does not really work for a lot of people)
Edited by LovelyMines on 4/1/2013 11:09 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
That's actually not a bad argument. If the actual physical make-up of her brain wasn't altered by the infestation, I'd probably buy it, in fact. But just because she isn't mind-controlled anymore, and she's starting to sound like her old self, doesn't mean she's back in her right mind.

But, given the obvious and glaring changes made to the rest of her body, it seems highly unlikely to me that her brain wasn't equally altered. Given what we know of the hyperevolutionary virus, altered toward more cunning, aggression, and paranoia seems to make sense, and would explain her behavior.


Ok, here I have to make a distinction. I agree that biologically we can make arguments for why she was not completely free or what not in BW. I will not try to say that argument does not work, because it does.

However, what I am arguing is from a literary perspective. As I tried to point out using dialogue from SC1/BW, the literary perspective being taken in BW was that Kerrigan=QoB. BW explored many of the same things HotS explores.

- What will Kerrigan do now that she is free
- Can Kerrigan be trusted
- Will Kerrigan seek revenge against Mengsk?
- Does Kerrigan still care about Raynor?

All of these questions were asked in BW and we got answers to all of them. BW was the story of a free Kerrigan and all of these plot points were ended with BW.

- Kerrigan wanted power and control over the swarm.
- No, Kerrigan cannot be trusted.
- Yes, Kerrigan got her revenge against Mengsk
- No, Kerrigan does not really care about Rynor anymore

Some people have argued that this does not make sense because of how Kerrigan's personality has changed from human Kerrigan to infested Kerrigan and that Kerrigan in fact =/= the QoB.

There seems to be two main ways to view this personality change. One is that she was biologically changed resulting in a changed personality. Essentially that there was a break in the continuity of the character in that you can point to a 'pre-infested' Kerrigan and a 'post-infested' Kerrigan. What I am attempting to demonstrate is that if we take the perspective that there was no jump in personality, but rather an accumulation of experiences that resulted in a natural change of her personality, BW makes sense in terms of Kerrigan being free and in her right mind (as the literary purpose made clear was the case).

The basis of this argument lies in power, and how once she experienced true, free, power it altered her goals and perceptions. She went from servant to master. From a damsel in distress to the queen !@#$% of the universe. Once she was free she did not want to give it up. She wanted to gain control of the swarm for herself and to hell with anyone who stood in her way.
Edited by LovelyMines on 4/1/2013 10:52 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 600
no reply? :(
Reply Quote
Posts: 195
Nobody loves you. :P

Or you won the argument. Accept the silent glory. :D
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,689
no reply? :(


He probably missed the post. However, i do have a thought on this kerrigan thing.

Based on what happened in HotS, i would say that the only things i think affected kerrigan (brain wise) was her ability to love someone romantically. After all, what do zerg need love for if they dont reproduce that way?

Nobody loves you. :P

Or you won the argument. Accept the silent glory. :D


I'm not sure there was a contest, more of a discussion =)
Edited by Brathearon on 4/3/2013 7:13 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 195
NO. IT'S VICTORY OR NOTHING. O.O

See my scowl and tremble... -.-
Reply Quote
Posts: 661
no reply? :(


I'm really sorry, sometimes I lose track of threads. Someone pointed me back to this thread, typing up reply now.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]