No, the real issue here for you is that anything more complicated than the protagonist walking up to the antagonist and lopping his head off with a sword might threaten the Inquisitor's reception where everyone showers him with praise for being the best person ever. We can't have that. Oh, my mistake, I mean showers you with praise. Isn't that right?
Wow, bit of a leap that.
Did you miss the part I literally just wrote where I said it doesn't matter if the rifle is a cherished tool with a long and vivid history wielded by an expert or a piece of crap wielded by a novice?
Wow, bit of a leap that.
Go back and look at his earlier posts where he absolutely slathers praise on the Inquisitor as the ultimate example of hope and faith and whatever.
Did you miss the part I literally just wrote where I said it doesn't matter if the rifle is a cherish tool with a long and vivid history wielded by an expert or a piece of crap wielded by a novice?
Then it's clear you don't know rifles. ![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Try sniping with a musket some time.
I don't understand what the substantive intersubjective difference between these two things is.
the actual death scene itself is an organic development of both the character's arc and the situations they're placed in (random serial killer posing as lover isn't really thematically satisfying).
I would say the difference is that (a) you've built up a pre-existing relationship with the character (which I don't think you actually do with Leandra) and then (
Wait ,you do build a pre-existing relation ship with Leandra.
Ridiculous. A rifle, and the protagonist's skill over it isn't thematically significant? The protagonist's steady improvement and mastery of its use isn't thematically significant? The rifle might be very personal, might have a very interesting history with the protagonist.
None of it makes any difference. None of it makes it okay to have a story with no climax, by having the protagonist shoot the antagonist in the face with no struggle. Whether the rifle is a person heirloom wielded by an expert or a piece of junk picked up 15 seconds ago by a novice. A story without a climax is a story without a climax.
Contrary to what you might think, the fact that the Anchor is stuck to the Inquisitor makes no difference. Nor the fact that's it's magic. Particularly in a world where the magical is the mundane.
No, the real issue here for you is that anything more complicated than the protagonist walking up to the antagonist and lopping his head off with a sword might threaten the Inquisitor's reception where everyone showers him with praise for being the best person ever. We can't have that. Oh, my mistake, I mean showers you with praise. Isn't that right?
Wait ,you do build a pre-existing relation ship with Leandra.
You have many interactions with her, but I don't think Bioware portrays her as a mother to you very well. She is very much a mother to Bethany and Carver - we see her pour her concerns over them. She has a tendency to blame Hawke for their misfortune. But she's not very motherly toward Hawke often, and that makes it difficult to feel for her as a mother rather than as an NPC.
I was always under the impression that Hawke was raised more directly by his father.
I was always under the impression that Hawke was raised more directly by his father.
And having the antagonist defeated with no struggle or complications, with no climax and no other conflicts is bad writing. Whether that defeat is by Excalibur or an iron pipe. Having the protagonist walk up to the antagonist and shoot him with no complications- including shooting him with a broken down rifle - is bad writing.
Now, you could have something interesting happen where maybe his standard rifle breaks for some reason, and he has to jury-rig some ancient rifle. But then it's no longer without complications, is it? It's no longer without a struggle.
You have many interactions with her, but I don't think Bioware portrays her as a mother to you very well. She is very much a mother to Bethany and Carver - we see her pour her concerns over them. She has a tendency to blame Hawke for their misfortune. But she's not very motherly toward Hawke often, and that makes it difficult to feel for her as a mother rather than as an NPC.
That's subjective and that still is building a relation ship. That does not mean the result would be always positive. Now if you were using who ever died on the way to Kirkwall, then you would have a point.
And having the antagonist defeated with no struggle or complications, with no climax and no other conflicts is bad writing. Whether that defeat is by Excalibur or an iron pipe. Having the protagonist walk up to the antagonist and shoot him with no complications- including shooting him with a broken down rifle - is bad writing.
The entire story was the conflict. the climax does not have to have the biggest struggle. And the real start of the climax was when you meet Flemeth. And the most you can say the last fight need a bigger boom but it's not badly written. The entire point with the pc's conflict with him is that you are his equal and you're surpassing him.
The entire story was the conflict. the climax does not have to have the biggest struggle.
It kind of does.
The story is the struggle. The conflict. The climax is, or should be, the highest point of it. Pretty much by definition.
It kind of does.
The story is the struggle. The conflict. The climax is, or should be, the highest point of it. Pretty much by definition.
But the fight is not the climax alone and it does not have to be the biggest struggle. It just need to be there for the close. In fact the biggest danger is the breach, not Cory.
That's true, but there's no conflict involved in closing the breach either. Or anything else.
This is a very different argument. I do see why it feels unsatisfactory that there's no effectively insurmountable obstacle after In Your Heart Shall Burn. I agree that we needed some other form of setback to overcome to make the victory at the end feel earned.And having the antagonist defeated with no struggle or complications, with no climax and no other conflicts is bad writing. Whether that defeat is by Excalibur or an iron pipe. Having the protagonist walk up to the antagonist and shoot him with no complications- including shooting him with a broken down rifle - is bad writing.
Now, you could have something interesting happen where maybe his standard rifle breaks for some reason, and he has to jury-rig some ancient rifle. But then it's no longer without complications, is it? It's no longer without a struggle.
That's true, but there's no conflict involved in closing the breach either. Or anything else.
Time is the conflict. Added the start of the climax is in the arbor wilds anyway.
I highly disagree with OP as ME3's ending was so bad it required a community uprising to demand action so it didn't completely ruin the series in the last hour of gameplay, this game comes nowhere close to that level of fail.
If BioWare was interested in going down that route, there's no point in them even having conflicts and antagonists at all. They may as well just have games that consist of 'talk to your friends about stuff' for 50 hours.
Yes, it's really bad.
Meh, I thought the same things after ME3. Why bother with the conflict if it's all going to be stood on its head by a ghost child and be rendered meaningless?
The thing about taking risks is: you risk failing. Badly. After the last few years, Bioware can't afford to take those kinds of risks anymore. They've used up their goodwill. Later, perhaps, once they've proven themselves again.
Meh, I thought the same things after ME3. Why bother with the conflict if it's all going to be stood on its head by a ghost child and be rendered meaningless?
The thing about taking risks is: you risk failing. Badly. After the last few years, Bioware can't afford to take those kinds of risks anymore. They've used up their goodwill. Later, perhaps, once they've proven themselves again.
Mass Effect 3's ending was not an example of taking risks, it was an example of poor story telling.
Mass Effect 3's ending was not an example of taking risks, it was an example of poor story telling.
And ending that blows up the entire galaxy is not a risk?
That was a heavy risk...but no prize.
Meh, I thought the same things after ME3. Why bother with the conflict if it's all going to be stood on its head by a ghost child and be rendered meaningless?
The thing about taking risks is: you risk failing. Badly. After the last few years, Bioware can't afford to take those kinds of risks anymore. They've used up their goodwill. Later, perhaps, once they've proven themselves again.
I wonder if they might have thought exactly the same thing. If they had something more interesting in mind and but someone up above canned it, saying "No, we're not having another ME 3, make sure everyone lives no matter what."
Mass Effect 3's ending was not an example of taking risks, it was an example of poor story telling.
They could have just had Shepard turning on the Crucible, the Reapers all dying, everyone going home. It would have been easy and basically impossible to screw up, writing wise. Risk free.
They didn't.
Retour en haut