Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
54 
Denunciar este mensaje
I think that's why I prefer GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire as an adult, it's way more mature and the characters dying only adds to the stakes of the story. Martin himself explains it perfectly here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cspPt3-PFjw .
Or if they do die, it's almost always "offscreen". Figures like Bombur that went to go explore the mines of Moria after the war only to never be heard from again. While it doesn't ham up their deaths for drama, it also cheapens their deaths by not allowing the audience to properly witness it and grieve.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. You do realize that in a small party, your odds of living are greater than if you are in a massive army standing in ranks, doing battle, right?
The idea here is that people do die, and in that trilogy, many people DID die, but the story is about those that did not die. You can literally do this with real life events, like WWII. There were instances where a group of people did all survive, when you would expect that not to happen. So now their story is worth telling.
Sure, if you are talking about an entire group of 100,000 men on the front lines, it would be ridiculous to expect that none of them die. But what about one squad, in one platoon, in one company, in that 100,000 man army? What if they were sent behind the lines, to stealth in, destroy some artillery, and then get out? Things like that happened. Meanwhile, many on the front line did die.
It's the fact that you are telling the story of one small group, not the entire army. Death was all around them in Lord of the Rings, but the main party except Borimir, lived.
From a story telling perspective, this makes sense. Why? Because it takes time to get you to even care about a character. This is partly why The Walking Dead died. After awhile, I just stopped caring about characters. It was bad writing using death of main characters as a crutch.
Meanwhile, many characters I did like, were killed off, to create drama, but now I had less reason to watch, and that just kept getting more and more true.
Look at Star Trek. Tell me in what way it would have made the original series better, if Spock, Bones, Sulu, or one of the other small amount of the main cast, had been killed, and then later that season, another was killed. Next season, another dies. The season after that, two more die. How does that allow you to connect with the characters? It doesn't. Characters you loved, are replaced. Spock dies? Well, going to need a new science officer. Except now it's not Spock. Yeah no. Sorry, that would have sucked.
Just look at Aragorn for example. We as readers know that Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, the rightful king of Gondor and the last hope for the Men of the West, yet he effortlessly beats every threat he ever comes across without ever receiving as much as a scratch. How realistic is that? And when you know that the main characters have that much plot armor, it just becomes rather boring and predictable to figure out how the story is going to end. There is nothing keeping you at the edge of your seat, nothing keeping you invested in the story.
Contrast that to ASOIAF, Eddard Stark is by all accounts the guy you would view as the hero, yet he dies relatively quickly in the story and in a way that reflects how it would actually go for an honorable man with noble intentions who finds himself in a world of intrigue. When the characters you come to love have a very real possibility to be killed during any bad situation they find themselves in, the story automatically becomes more gripping and interesting, because it creates tension and you're nervous to turn the page in fear of what may be the death of your beloved character. That's much more powerful than a fairy tale where the good guys are going to win and you know it way before the ending.
I can't speak for @N7_Shadow, but what I read his statement as was "Boromir died. Oh, and Gandalf died--but he got better."
I've also had arguments with people in the past who thought Boromir was not part of the Fellowship due to his attempted betrayal or relatively short time of travelling with the party. Or they just forgot about him since his death was rather anti-climactic. An ambush in the woods in a small skirmish, not a major memorable battle.
That said, one guy died permanently, one guy was only mostly dead temporarily but got better.
You are using logic, and logically, it makes sense. But so too does NOT killing them, since you only have so much time to get the viewer/reader/player to care about these characters. Di eshor ribly actually highlights this. Did you actually care that Borimir died? I didn't.
Now, think about this logic. Why do people watch shows over, and over, or play Mass Effect over and over, or read a novel, more than once? You know what is going to happen, so being on the edge of your seat isn't the be-all, end-all for what makes a story great. In fact, think about this. The first time you watched, or read LotR, did you know that nobody else would die? How many close calls did they all have? How many times did you thing, "this might be it for Frodo. I mean, the Spider did stab him and cocoon him in web.
What about the other characters? Were you sure that they would never die? No. So you in fact, were on the edge of your seat many times, the first time you read or watched.
But I've also read many books, The Belgariad and Mallorean, for instance. 10 books in total. But the party was small, so I was pretty sure nobody was ever going to die, but there were times that supposition was tested. But regardless, I couldn't put the books down.
Playing Mass Effect many many times, I'm still very much engaged, and enjoying myself, even though I know exactly what's going to happen.
There is in fact a problem with many creatives. They hate doing the same thing over and over, and yet the Hero's Journey ALWAYS works, if a competent writer or writing team is on the job. Movies often suck when they try to get too cute,trying to do something different. No, when Spock died in the Star Trek movie, there was literally only ONE way to do it. He had to die a hero's death. Nothing else was going to work. And it worked. I was a diehard Trek fan, and I darn near cried. It was hugely emotional.
In my humble opinion, the best writers would mix it up just a bit, to keep you guessing. But the death would be used judiciously, when it will have the most impact. And you shouldn't expect it.
It can become just as boring and predictable, if the author always kills somebody off in the main cast. How would that be interesting. You go into it knowing somebody will die, so what you really do is start trying to figure out who will be the ones that die, instead of just enjoying the ride.
I know I didn't care about Boromir too much. I only brought him up because I love playing Devil's Advocate and being the "Well, actually..." guy.
It's like God-Corporal L. Jenkins (praise be his name) in ME1. 5 minutes into the game and he dies, setting the stakes for the rest of the series that yes, anyone can die at pretty much any time.
Did I care? Not really, I knew Jenkins for all of a 15 second conversation. Plus he died to a scout drone. Lame and unimpressive. Boromir had a more heroic death.
Rewatches/rereads/replays have their place, especially when you're dealing with something as lore-rich as LOTR, it's practically impossible to retain everything without rereading/rewatching. However, nothing comes close to experiencing a book, film or video game for the first time. The first time is crucial in making or breaking that material you're viewing, which is why it has to be interesting enough to make you want to bother experiencing it a second, third, fourth time and so on. Usually, when the main characters have a ton of plot armor and you know they're going to win in the end, the entire story loses its meaning. Any book/film/game where you can reliably predict the ending before you're even half-way through is just lacking, imo.
Nah, not really. I knew there was no way Frodo was gonna die, because then the good guys would be screwed and even as a kid, I knew the good guys always win in these sorts of scenarios lol. Tbh I was never really at the edge of my seat with LOTR, the members of the fellowship who regularly found themselves in danger were so overpowered compared to said dangers they were facing or had so much plot armor that it was genuinely impossible for me to worry about their fates.
As do I, because the OT, despite its shortcomings, was still one of the top RPG series I had ever played. That doesn't mean I enjoy every single thing about it, I actually think there are plenty of flaws with it, but overall it is one of those series that, if you liked it the first time, it warrants multiple replays.
The "hero's journey" done right can be quite alright, but the problem is that very few people do it right. They usually give said hero a ton of plot armor while making their antagonists seem like incompetent buffoons who fail at every turn to inflict even a little bit of damage on the hero and his allies, to where it becomes just another boring fairy tale where the good guys wins against insurmountable odds and gets to ride off into the sunset in the end. That's the epitome of cliche garbage to me.
Well, in my opinion, main character deaths are a prerequisite when you're building a quality war story. You can't have war without losses on the side of the good guys, otherwise it isn't really war, it's a farce. Without significant losses, the main characters are not really tested, so their victory ends up ultimately ringing hollow. Why did I need to go through the entire journey just to see the good guys kick the bad guys' butts and get to go home and live happily ever after? Where is the intrigue in a story as cliche as that? I might as well read a fairy tale and put myself to sleep.
I guess it boils down to how much realism you like in your fiction. I personally almost always find myself rooting for the villain/antagonist, precisely because villains are a lot more real as characters than heroes/protagonists. I'd hazard a guess we will never see eye to eye in this, so better leave it here. We already derailed quite a bit with this back and forth, I'd rather not scare OP off their own topic further.
P.S. As an adult, I find the Silmarillion a hundred times more interesting than LOTR. Make of that what you will.
A theory that the next game will be more "Space Detective" than "Space Marine". Less open warfare, more espionage and sleuthing around. A less extreme version of Spectre duties.
Bioware released some stats a while back on how players chose to end their games on a first playthrough (Superbia will probably get a laugh out of part of this):
45% chose Destroy in some fashion, low to high MS. 30% chose Synthesis, 17% chose Control, and the remaining 8% actually chose Refuse (here's the lols). 80% of players chose to blow up the Collector base. 60% of players chose to rescue the Rachni queen the first time around, and 60% chose to kill her in ME3. *70% chose to save the Council. Anderson got 80% of the player votes for council member. (Screw Udina)
If the 700 year skip is accurate it would place the timeline somewhere around 2886, some 70 years after the events of Andromeda.
If you're bored and want to hear something cool that relates to the wormhole theory, search for "nasa black hole sonification". You can "hear" what a black hole sounds like.
Bioware was semi-obsessed with it in 2022, and it connects to our real world physics projections for the Rosen-Einstein Bridge theory of using black holes to travel to alternate dimensions or through time.
Amusingly enough, the only theoretical challenges to doing so is travelling fast enough to escape the gravitic forces of a black hole... something like reducing mass to achieve faster than light travel.... one could call such a thing a "Mass Effect".
The second challenge is making the wormhole connecting two black holes stable, which requires a theoretical negative energy source. Such a thing is present in Andromeda with the Ketos black hole, surrounded by the Scourge which functions as that negative energy source (Dark Energy).
Just some more things to chew on anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tXhBLg3Wng
He certainly did. And what I think is hard for people to wrap their heads around in the contemporary age is that Boromir's death is redemptive.
Boromir spends his time in the Fellowship obsessing over what the power of the Ring could do to save his beloved Minas Tirith and Gondor more broadly. He can't wrap his head around the utter corruption that using the Ring entails, as Gollum's graphically-visual corruption so poignantly underlines (of course we haven't yet met Gollum at this point).
Finally he decides to--literally--take matters into his own hands and tries to take the Ring from Frodo. Ultimately this leads to his death in an otherwise insignificant skirmish, but let's be clear--Boromir chooses to die. No one is forcing Boromir to cover the flight of Frodo and Samwise: he does so out of an innate sense of honor, but perhaps more importantly, out of the recognition that he is the one who has put them--and the larger objectives of the Fellowship--at risk by his thoughtless and obsessive craving for the power the Ring can bring.
So to me, Boromir's death is aspirational: it's the way one would choose to die, giving one's life to save others.
And that is what imbues it with significance.
And before you try to argue that Andromeda counts as ME4, no. No it does not.
I went for destroy, as only the reaper are the problems not synthetics in generel. That he forces to choose, where red destroys the geth is blackmail. He can deactivate the cruisble anytime he likes (see refuse, or waiting glong). And he chooses to continue firing, instead of accepting a cease fire. So i want the reaper to be gone for good.
Luckily shepard survives with high enought war assets. And of course after that he has children with her loved one. MEHEM Mod and the mod that places the crew party AFTER the end, is the perfect cut. Fans have spoken back to bioware with this.
After current news on ME5, removing even more writters, to me the new interesting projects are where good writers are, which seems to be Kindcom Come, CD Project Red and Exodus Traveller, with the latter having the most former Bioware writers.
You understood nothing of the game if you think the Reapers are the problem. The problem the series tackles is the conflict between organics and synthetics and the inevitable cycle. Organics create synthetics to help them with mundane tasks. Synthetics are alive and soon enough they recognize that they're superior in every way to the organics who created them, so they exercise their free will. Organics don't like that and they try to violently suppress synthetics, which prompts synthetics to wipe out the organics. The Reapers were created to find a solution to this problem, which they did.
That's fanfic. Shepard dies in ME3, there is no "perfect" ending, that's just cope. It's an easter egg of him taking one last breath. There is no way Shepard could survive what happens to him at the end of ME3, nor should he survive. If he did somehow make it, that would significantly cheapen the entire trilogy and make it all meaningless.
As I said, it's ME4, not ME5. And no, ME4 will likely be terrible, so don't get your hopes up.
I do understand the game. Synthetics are not the problem. The reapers are. But feel free to have the imagination that EDI or the Geth, or newbuild A.I. would kill everyone if thats your interpretaion. I like the Geth more then the Vorcha.
I stick to destroy the guys firing at EVERYONS ships. They ARE the problem, destroy is for me the perfect solution against them.