flemm wrote...
It's true that Galactus is a good model for how these things should work. It's funny how a fairly wonky concept like that, created decades ago, can still fundamentally work in ways the Reapers never will (anymore, at least).
It has to be done in broad strokes, I think. Which doesn't mean it's dumb. But to the extent that a concept like Galactus means anything (and I think it does), what it means is that the character is like the personification of primal fears about our insignificance to the universe, our lack of importance in the scheme of things.
Galactus is a character who represents that asteroid that crashes into the planet, destroying all civilisation. Just knowing it could happen, or maybe happened to somebody else, is scary enough. Why us? Why now? How can we be brushed aside like this? Don't our lives *mean* anything?, etc. The universe never answers. "Galactus must feed."
The Reapers should probably have worked more like that.
That may work as a concept in a different media but not in a videogame and definitely not in Galactus as well who is defeated constantly. For this concept to work, then this personification must be as invicible and inevitable as death or magnetism. If it is not, if the protagonists discover a way of avoiding it, then the theme doesn't work and it is better if the story then focus on desmitifying these cosmic powers and either bringing them down to our level or raising us to theirs.
The former can work but the story will, inevitably, be terribly bleak and while that doesn't equate with bad writing; in fact, bleakness is what gives color to a story; the controversia over the originals endings show that videogames are not the best place to convey a story about the insignificance of life and the inevitability of death.
You play a game to win, afterall.
Modifié par MisterJB, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:52 .
Retour en haut
