WHY?sarahrp wrote...
hex23 wrote...
Charismatic villain? What is this "Twilight"? I like things the way they are. The Reapers are cold, brutal, and can't be reasoned with.
Besides, people seem to forget this is a trilogy. Saren was/is the main villain, along with the Reapers. The second game is happening because of things he set in motion.
This is a different game but it's the same story. We don't need a "main villain" to trade verbal barbs with every game.
Having said that, it's sort of obvious at some point The Illusive Man will become a "villain".
No No u don't have to kill him in the first game, and the illusive man sucks. The shadow broker is much more interresting.
Why do we need some chode villain standing atop some hill, spouting one-liners at us while we untie women from railroad tracks and save babies from being tied to bombs? Not every story needs a relatable antagonist. I mean Hell, some of the greatest stories of great trials in history did NOT have clear, approachable atagonists. The Oddessy, the Book of Job, and, just to go back to it, pretty much EVERY great epic of "humans getting screwed over" in the ancient Greek tradition.
A "personified" villain is a modern construction because it is easier to understand, easier to deconstruct, and a much more simple plot tool than an opponent which is more a malevolent, inexorable force than a conscious threat. I like that Saren was only a puppet, I like that the reapers do not have beneficiaries, they only have tools. Our enemies are not the reapers' tools, they are the reapers themselves, and they are so beyond us that there is no fathoming their will, power or means.
It is better from a purely literary standpoint.




Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut






