Tasha vas Nar Rayya wrote...
The style of Bioware is to leave choices like this in the hands of the player. Why they would make an exception in this case I don't know.
People say that Thane has to die as it is the only way that his character can conclude. Does that mean that his illness defines his entire character? Because it doesn't. Even if you don't romance him, you would know that his career as an assassin has influenced him far more than his Keprel's syndrome. He has so many facets to his personality that I am confused when people believe that the only thing to Thane is his terminal illness.
I am not asking for a magical cure. And most Thane fans don't want that. Just a way to prolong his life in some way. Bioware can be creative, there is a lot they can do in the sci-fi context of ME3.
Thane's fate isn't as black and white as 'magical cure' or 'die.'
Why do I feel as if this discussion has stagnated? We have been going around in circles arguing the same damn thing, and not just on this thread! It's also in the Thane thread and to a lesser extent the other LI threads as well.
For the record, I agree with Tasha (boy I've been saying that a lot today). A person's illness doesn't define them in real life, so why should it in the arts, mmm? Art immitates life; life is the foundation of art. Art cannot accurately portray life by focusing solely on one aspect of a single individual's character because that's not what happens
in real life.
So let me tell you all about a little thing in the industries called "suspension of disbelief". It is what allows the reader/viewer/player to put aside their preconceived notions of reality and become "Immersed" in the tale being told. And having characters defined solely by one aspect of their character
does not allow suspension! It creates flat, dull, lifeless immitations of characters that no one likes, and in videogames relegates them to the role of very-rarely-seen-and-never-interacted-with npcs. We see them as shades, weak immitations of real people, because they are not fully realised as three-dimensional-characters. If an art doesn't immitate life fully, then the artist/s has/have failed. Plain and simple.
Thane is not a token npc. he is a viable character with more depth than a lot of the others. He is not a disease, he is an individual, and killing him off solely because of a disease just because that's what most people define him as is an extreme disservice, not only to the fans, the players, or even Thane himself. It's a disservice to the people who WRITE HIM! Honestly, these people created Thane in the first place. Do you really think that they are so stupid as to forget to flesh him out? To make him a fully-realised three-dimensional character in the third game, since they had already done it in the second?
Okay I think I've gotten off topic so I'll end here. Sorry if I sound ****y. It's just getting really,
really boring having to listen to the same weak arguments. In the end, I wasn't sure if I should post this. But I put it up here anyway. Hopefully this adds some new material to the argument, and hopefully the "games as art" debate as well.
Modifié par mythlover20, 24 novembre 2011 - 10:12 .
.
Retour en haut
There will be kind of talks regarding the love scenes from the previous game...<3 In ME3, Khalisa Al-Jilani will know Kung-Fu. Renegade Shepard will get to kick the Turian Counselor in the ass.
