Wow, 14 pages. I feel sufficiently familiar with the arguments to skip reading them, and just comment on the OP.
I notice there is a suggestion of Ol' Harby presenting some choices to the player. But why end the game on some "epic" choice at all? Various endings should just flow from the choices made during the game. The "choose your epilogue" thing is a false choice, meant to break up the fictional setting, that's all.
I recall Warren Spector once meditating on choice in games, saying that a choice in a game is meaningful to the extent that the player has to live with the consequences of their choices. The problem with the final choice is that we never get to live with the consequences in the game, so we have to live with them outside of it. For someone who can't accept any of the choices, this is a problem. It's not like reading a book or seeing a movie that had a twist ending. This is a series that has solicited our direct participation and identification over a period of years. That makes it different. How exactly we are still in the process of determining.
Before anyone with a self-awarded honorary doctorate in the fine arts launches into the whole song and dance of how totally deep it is to elicit a reaction, I'm just gonna point out that standing on the street and randomly punching people in the face will elicit a reaction too. Sucker punches that violate established norms for shock value do, but they usually end up alienating the audience from whatever the practitioner of the pugilistic approach theoretically wishes to convey.
Bottom line: Not only is the Kid unnecessary (and indeed game-breakingly awful), so is this "choice" he is pushing.
Modifié par SpamBot2000, 07 mai 2013 - 06:45 .
Retour en haut
