EPTWell huh. Sure looks like an Archon. Both there and as the Battle.net icon. StarCraft wiki says he's in an "ethereal" form.... Eh, whatevs.
No love for Fenix? - Page 12
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
Well huh. Sure looks like an Archon. Both there and as the Battle.net icon. StarCraft wiki says he's in an "ethereal" form.... Eh, whatevs. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On July 22 2012 07:48 cLAN.Anax wrote: Well huh. Sure looks like an Archon. Both there and as the Battle.net icon. StarCraft wiki says he's in an "ethereal" form.... Eh, whatevs. he doesnt look like an archon... hes got no junk in his trunk he looks jsut like a protoss thats a bit see through | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On July 22 2012 09:16 Forikorder wrote: he doesnt look like an archon... hes got no junk in his trunk he looks jsut like a protoss thats a bit see through Really? O_o Tassadar: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/9/93/TassadarEternal_SC2_Head1.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/f/f5/Archon_SC2_Head2.jpg) | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On July 22 2012 09:36 cLAN.Anax wrote: Really? O_o Tassadar: + Show Spoiler + your missing like 90% of the archon in that picture there... also they only look alike because there both still PROTOSS who all look alike, but Tassadar looks all ghost like and looks like hes just a projection while the archon looks like hes still made of flesh of blood | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
Okay, I'm getting needlessly conspiratorial now. X-D Guess we'll just have to wait for Blizzard to tell us. Given its penchant for adding betrayals and double agents and such, wouldn't surprise me to learn that it's not Tassadar at all, lol. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On June 25 2012 09:12 Forikorder wrote: i dont really see how it was set up if someone died every time someone said "ill kill you" humanity would be extinct "ill kill you" jsut means "woa i am extremely angry at what you did and would like to express my distaste of your actions with some strong language" What... If you stole my lunch money and I say "I'll kill you", then yes, I'll get over it. If I put my trust in you and you betray me and slaughter my friends in front of me and I say "I'll kill you", it means I'm going to tattoo your damn name and what you did to me on my arm and recite it every night before I go to bed and from that moment onward spend every waking moment of my life making sure yours is as short and painful as possible. Even if we used to date. How do you manage to lump those together into the same category? | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:38 starfries wrote: What... If you stole my lunch money and I say "I'll kill you", then yes, I'll get over it. If I put my trust in you and you betray me and slaughter my friends in front of me and I say "I'll kill you", it means I'm going to tattoo your damn name and what you did to me on my arm and recite it every night before I go to bed and from that moment onward spend every waking moment of my life making sure yours is as short and painful as possible. Even if we used to date. How do you manage to lump those together into the same category? i didnt, you did, you also proved my point jsut Raynor saying "ill kill you" doesnt mean he made an oath to himself that he tatood into his arm Raynors been in wars for YEARS hes used to death by now and used to seeing friends died, as you yourself stated saying "ill kill you" doesnt always mean "im going to kill you" in this case it means "i hate waht youve become and because i cant revert it ill kill you" | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On July 24 2012 09:29 Forikorder wrote: i didnt, you did, you also proved my point jsut Raynor saying "ill kill you" doesnt mean he made an oath to himself that he tatood into his arm What was your point, that I proved it? Are you arguing that Kerrigan's betrayal had about as much effect on him as you stealing my lunch money? Raynors been in wars for YEARS hes used to death by now and used to seeing friends died, as you yourself stated saying "ill kill you" doesnt always mean "im going to kill you" in this case it means "i hate waht youve become and because i cant revert it ill kill you" No, it doesn't. It means "I'm going to kill you". See, I can make assertions too. Being in war for years doesn't make you ok with betrayal. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
What was your point, that I proved it? Are you arguing that Kerrigan's betrayal had about as much effect on him as you stealing my lunch money? no you proved saying "ill kill you" has varying degrees of commitment to it based on the individual Being in war for years doesn't make you ok with betrayal. can make you numb to death (of others obviously) | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 24 2012 11:21 Forikorder wrote: no you proved saying "ill kill you" has varying degrees of commitment to it based on the individual can make you numb to death (of others obviously) Man, did you even play the BW campaign? Even *I* felt betrayed! And I was totally stomping on everybody in the zerg campaign. At the end of BW... it was 100% clear to me that Raynor was gonna kill the hell out of Kerrigan-- from the context, from his point of voice... from everything. The Sc2 storyline is NOT canon. That's my explanation. It's an alternative universe, what happened in BW is something else. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On July 25 2012 05:33 Blazinghand wrote: Man, did you even play the BW campaign? Even *I* felt betrayed! And I was totally stomping on everybody in the zerg campaign. At the end of BW... it was 100% clear to me that Raynor was gonna kill the hell out of Kerrigan-- from the context, from his point of voice... from everything. The Sc2 storyline is NOT canon. That's my explanation. It's an alternative universe, what happened in BW is something else. Well, it's been four years between BW and SC2, right? Jim's had some time to simmer down since then. Then again, he had to convince everyone that he was still sane enough to go to Char in WoL, so his feelings were still riled up. Hmmm.... Perhaps since he actually had the chance to take Kerrigan down, he rethought his options, and saving her (encouraged by his past feelings for her) sounded more and more like a possibility, even a necessary eventuality. I think Raynor (righteously) overreacted with hatred towards Kerrigan after the betrayal, but once he cooled off, he changed his mind and deluded himself into thinking she could be saved from the Zerg. | ||
|
Eviscerador
Spain286 Posts
Now that he saw he could save Sarah from the Queen of Blades, he did. (and most likely he thinks he has killed the QoB on the process) I don't see the problem here. | ||
|
BoReDWiTHLiFe
85 Posts
Swears vengeance against ex-lover/friend for becoming evil/murdering people you care about -> save person from themselves Finds a theoretical way to "save" the person from themselves (the artifact) thereby returning them to normal Is further persuaded by an old friend (Zeratul) that killing said person will doom the galaxy to eternal darkness Proceeds therefore to not kill Kerrigan. That said, I still think the SC2 storyline should've been different. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On July 26 2012 13:42 BoReDWiTHLiFe wrote: Raynor's thought process: Swears vengeance against ex-lover/friend for becoming evil/murdering people you care about -> save person from themselves Finds a theoretical way to "save" the person from themselves (the artifact) thereby returning them to normal Is further persuaded by an old friend (Zeratul) that killing said person will doom the galaxy to eternal darkness Proceeds therefore to not kill Kerrigan. That said, I still think the SC2 storyline should've been different. Oh, derp. I forgot about the whole Zertaul coming in and saying, "SHE MUSTN'T DIE IF YOU WANT TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE," thing, haha. X-D | ||
| ||
