Revan312 wrote...
Point one, you are pandering to the happy fantasy trope displayed, as even you said, in most games, ie, the inabilty to touch the main character of the game.. however, Bioware has shown with even their last two titles, ME2 and DA:O that they're willing to kill off the main character, by decisions the player chooses, but nontheless, the main character can and does die in playthroughs of both games, one being mearly the sequal to a trilogy effectively cutting off the third for that specific character.
Two, Romeo and Juliet isn't a Greek tragedy, it's English, which borrowed heavily from the story of The Tragical tales of Romeus and Juliet, an Italian tale. And simply because it's considered a different genre doesn't mean that aspects of all genres can't be integrated into others. Tragedy isn't about "it's a bad, bad world stuff", it's about beauty, in all forms, from the deaths of characters to the events that lead them to that point.
Yes, I see that Bioware is willing to do that, but thats okay; its not what Im talking about. They gave the players a choice. Im speaking strictly as a matter linearity where there is no choice involved.
The point I was trying to make concerning Romeo and Juliet is those specific elements of people die because of this and that and woe is the situation because of whatever reason. Its like people have a fascination of making death out to be something as you would call it "beauty concerning the death of other people".
That is not fulfilling. Death is the cessation of life and what reason is there to find solace in dying if the only thing you can accomplish is the temporary removal of a great evil with no complete assurance that it would never happen that way again? That is not even counting the lesser evils that made the greater evil possible.
Games need to start moving away from playing it safe. Your quote of LotR is a perfect example of the cliches and tropes that games have used ad nausium for the last 25 years. Your character is a super hero that can't die no matter the unbelievably out of whack odds. I'm not saying that sacrifice should be the ultimate goal of a story either, but devs need to grow a pair and throw gamer opinion to the wind.
It is not that the characters in LoTR were super that could not die - its that they did live despite the odds and were still able to accomplish their purpose.
Greatest stories ever told according to English professors and literature experts. Anna Karenina, War and Peace, Hamlet, Lolita, Madame Bovary, The Great Gatsby.. All of those are considered the pinnacle of novel work throughout history and all deal with heavy themes involving death.
That is a matter of taste and opinion. Yes, a lot of people consider it such, but if I were to use your own argument - people need to grow a set and get away from "cliche" mannerisms concerning the theme of death as it is portrayed by those books.
And I agree that there doesn't need to be a sacrifice for the greater good, but much of the time there is and although, as I said before, games have had a synthetic wall concerning the approach to character death, it's something that can truly deepen the driving force and meaning of a story. It's not essential, but to me, with a story concerning sentient machines that devour trillions of people every "cycle", one that has lasted for millions upon millions of years, it should be a fairly logical outcome that Shepard isn't coming back from this without immense struggle on the part of the player to do so.
That explanation and definition of "meaning" is the crux of this entire debate and I refer back to my original underlying points as to who Shepherd represents.
According to that same logic, Shepherd could have just as easily been written to survive the collector attack and not get killed the way he was. The entire point is the way the story is written. Your basing your words on the story as presented when that story could have been different even in those portions and the rest could suppliment the change.
It's a very loose parallel to the allegory of Jesus, no doubt, but it's very.. very loose. And I'm not even talking about the philosophical debate that could be had surrounding the events of the game and biblical story structure. I'm talking about logical outcomes for a war against a foe that has been built up to the point that it has in Mass Effect. Shepard already died once and that was against the Reapers lesser minions, I can't imagine that he/she will live through the events of this final chapter without some major hoop jumping.
Those parallels is what set the overtall tone, the message behind the lines. This is the first game that has ever made such allusions that I can remember that made it so obvious as to what the main character represents and as such - it sets the meaning to the action which leads to the end and for that - players most assuredly must be given the option to allow Shepherd to live.
And how is the bolded distasteful? Really, you need to read some classic literature, much of it is riddled with character death, sorrow and tragedy along with happiness life and love. Most of the best works I've ever read, that really had an impact on my reading life, were works that balanced those aspects. Shepard dieing at the end wouldn't be distasteful unless you just can't stand your super hero being bested while still completeing their mission. I'm assuming you never played ME2 with a total failure ending where Shepard dies and leaves Joker hanging on his own.. That's a great end for that story, although incomplete from the trilogly's standpoint.
It is distasteful for the reasons I mentioned above as well as the fact that since those allusions were made to begin with, it is merely a twist of the retelling of a specific story in a unique way that needs to coincide with the ending already given.
Thats the real reason. Bioware made Shepherd into a Messiah figure in the Mass Effect universe. Well, follow suit. Just like Mass Effect 2 - give the option for the player to save the galaxy, get whatever girl/guy and live to see the fruits of his actions or allow the past descisions to kill off everyone or a mixture of the two.
What Im explicitly arguing for is not a linear forced martyrdom as canon storyline. It doesnt have to be that way and Bioware has clearly shown that they are able to make that happen.
And I never said that to have a great story you need to kill everyone off or have only a handful make it out, I was inferring that Shepard can die and it still be a great work of fiction. If the facts surrounding his survival are sound and don't seem like cop outs, I'll accept them just fine. But in the way I see this story, those better be some pretty amazing plot points to escape the gravity of the situation that he/she faces.
And I said earlier, Bioware has already had that option in both of their last two games. I'm not implying that I want it to be forced, no, that takes away from the nature and purpose of an RPG, but it should be a hell of a balancing act to come to that happy ending in my mind, which in reality would make it all the more satisfying if you managed to save everyone on your team including yourself.
Then we are merely saying the same thing, just from opposite ends of the spectrum. That means, ultimately, give an option for both; as it should be.
Bioware better pull through
Retour en haut
