I'm sad because my wife got murdered so I'm going to go back in time and murder her before she could get murdered is just stupid, imo. Even if he didn't know who the beast was, he could have invested his time in, y'know, finding that out and stopping him before he ever gained powers.
No, he went back because he realized that his desire to only save his wife and kids caused the world to die, and his wife still died in the end. He killed Trish ahead of time to teach his younger self the "Wrath of Khan" lesson (look it up), and prevent him from getting worried about Trish if they only had broke up.
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." — James D. Nicoll
Edit: To clarify, I'd have no problem with a long lost evil twin brother plot, as long as they do a couple things. First, enough foreshadowing to prevent it from being an *** pull. Second, enough motivation for his actions to prevent it from being an excuse plot. Third, it needs to fit together with a story that draws me in before the reveal.
So you think that anything that fits in the story, has foreshadowing and motivation instantly qualifies as a "good" story?
If the story is good before the reveal and all those conditions are met, then yeah, pretty much.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Because that just makes me think that the real problem is that my standards are much, much higher than yours. :/ If that's the case, then there isn't really any possible reconciliation.
I don't think it's an issue of higher standards. I think it's an issue of liking a particular trope(for lack of a better word). I tend to think that a particular story element isn't bad if it fits, and you seem to think this particular story element is instant poison to any story.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm sad because my wife got murdered so I'm going to go back in time and murder her before she could get murdered is just stupid, imo. Even if he didn't know who the beast was, he could have invested his time in, y'know, finding that out and stopping him before he ever gained powers.
It's not about his wife though. It's about his failure. He felt he failed and wanted to make sure that his younger self wouldn't, no matter the cost. His wife is secondary to what he considers most important, not letting the beast rampage and wipe out the entire human race, and if she could potentially make it so that Cole didn't do what was necessary, then she had to die. Kessler's not exactly a rational person. He has one all consuming goal, and he's not gonna let anything stop him.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And I disagree that it was done well, simply because of the changing the game past thing. I can't get past that. If they needed to do that, then they failed at creating the story.
That's the thing though. They didn't change the past. Trish dies because he knew what you were going to choose. Just because you can load an older save game and go back and make a different choice doesn't change the fact that he still knew what you were going to do. Besides, even if Kessler needed to change things in the past to make sure you fail...he DOES have time travel powers. If someone who can time travel goes back and changes the past, that's not necessarily poor story, since he could do it in universe even if Cole did something that completely surprised him. I really think you're determined for that part to be a deal breaker and aren't looking at the ways it completely fits.
I don't think it's an issue of higher standards. I think it's an issue of liking a particular trope(for lack of a better word). I tend to think that a particular story element isn't bad if it fits, and you seem to think this particular story element is instant poison to any story.
My problem with it is that it essentially destroys the value of the protagonist as a person. Once the effects of free will are taken out of their actions (by some other force being able to control them through omniscience), they lose all value as anything but a tool of that higher person.
Quote:
That's the thing though. They didn't change the past. Trish dies because he knew what you were going to choose. Just because you can load an older save game and go back and make a different choice doesn't change the fact that he still knew what you were going to do. Besides, even if Kessler needed to change things in the past to make sure you fail...he DOES have time travel powers. If someone who can time travel goes back and changes the past, that's not necessarily poor story, since he could do it in universe even if Cole did something that completely surprised him. I really think you're determined for that part to be a deal breaker and aren't looking at the ways it completely fits.
I think you are failing to see my point.
For one thing, it's absolutely impossible for both situations to be true. But they give the player the illusion of having a choice there. This in part ties into my previous comment. But my largest issue here isn't that Kessler knew what would happen, it's that they let the player have the illusion of choice and then changed the game history to bring about that end anyway. I don't care WHY they did it, the fact that they did it IS a deal-breaker for me.
My problem isn't even that they make your choice irrelevant--because the choice still has value in that case. Like the Joker in TDK with the boats. He fully intended to blow them up even if each group made the right choice to spare the other. That's totally different from what they did here. Had Kessler just murdered Trish immediately after you saved her, then it would have been a completely different story.
And, as I said, I think the idea that Kessler could know what choice Cole would make is so completely impossible that it doesn't even remotely seem like a plausible excuse to me.
You're right that I think the fact that they gave you, the player, a false choice is a deal breaker. Even if there was a story excuse I would accept, that would still be the case.
To create a game that's centered on choice, and also have one of the single most poignant choices in the entire story be completely and totally worthless, is horrible design. Yeah, you wouldn't know that unless you played through the scenario twice.
If you don't want me to be able to fulfill my goal of X, fine. Create a plot device that would stop me from succeeding. Don't make two irreconcilable histories and use either to fit your needs. That's crap.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
To create a game that's centered on choice, and also have one of the single most poignant choices in the entire story be completely and totally worthless, is horrible design. Yeah, you wouldn't know that unless you played through the scenario twice.
I don't know that the game is centered on choice. I think it's about reactions to circumstances and character growth through hardship. And sometimes, the circumstance is that you simply don't have a choice, no matter how much you wish to believe you do.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I think you are failing to see my point.
For one thing, it's absolutely impossible for both situations to be true. But they give the player the illusion of having a choice there. This in part ties into my previous comment. But my largest issue here isn't that Kessler knew what would happen, it's that they let the player have the illusion of choice and then changed the game history to bring about that end anyway. I don't care WHY they did it, the fact that they did it IS a deal-breaker for me.
And I think you're failing to see mine. Both situations aren't true. Only one is. The moment Cole makes his choice, the other situation is no longer true. You're looking at it as a game with variable outcomes. I see it as a story with only one. No matter what choices you make, the other choice no longer exists. The tale is told. You can't go back and change decisions. Any attempt to do so is a completely different story.
Ultimately, I think we can argue in circles for days and while I'll admit that's good for the postcount, it's probably not worth it. Agree to disagree before we turn into Alma and Gbaji?
Both situations aren't true. Only one is. The moment Cole makes his choice, the other situation is no longer true.
But there's a BIG difference between the OUTCOME of that choice not being true, and the situation of the world before the choice was made no longer being true.
A really, really, really big difference.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
And the stupidest part, imo? Kessler could have just gone back in time and killed The Beast before he ever awoke to his powers. Then Cole would have had the life he wanted, free from the desolation. Instead... he destroyed any chance Cole had of a happy future and ensured that the Beast lived on?
...and that would cause a paradox. Kessler can't go back in time to do anything if Cole lives a happy life and never gets powers. Also, maybe you just consume way more crappy media than I do, but I can't think of a single instance in which the villain is the future self of the hero other than this game.
And the stupidest part, imo? Kessler could have just gone back in time and killed The Beast before he ever awoke to his powers. Then Cole would have had the life he wanted, free from the desolation. Instead... he destroyed any chance Cole had of a happy future and ensured that the Beast lived on?
...and that would cause a paradox. Kessler can't go back in time to do anything if Cole lives a happy life and never gets powers. Also, maybe you just consume way more crappy media than I do, but I can't think of a single instance in which the villain is the future self of the hero other than this game.
Edited, Jul 27th 2011 7:10pm by Turin
Doctor Who (60's version), he goes back in time to stop the beginning of the Time War with the Daleks and ends up starting it.
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." — James D. Nicoll
That paradox is created in ANY situation in which we are to believe that Kessler travels to his own world's past in an effort to change it. That sort of time travel is fundamentally illogical--you cannot change the past.
The only way to make sense of this story is to suppose that he traveled to an alternate reality and is ensuring that things in that world go differently.
Either we are expected to ignore the paradox and believe he's traveled back to his own past (in which case, the paradox objection to him killing the beast and living a happy life REALLY doesn't hold any weight), or we accept the scenario that is logically possible.
Oh, and your comment is also stupid because Cole McGrath is naturally a conduit. All Kessler does is ensure that he gets his powers sooner. The actual story suggests that Kessler could have defeated the Beast when he appeared, but chose to flee with his family instead.
Edited, Jul 27th 2011 8:40pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
That paradox is created in ANY situation in which we are to believe that Kessler travels to his own world's past in an effort to change it. That sort of time travel is fundamentally illogical--you cannot change the past.
False. A paradox only arises if, in the course of changing the past, you remove the imperative for time travel in the first place. Ergo I could go back in time and change what I ate for breakfast yesterday, but I could not go back and prevent myself from inventing the time machine. Even if Kessler does change his past, it's clear that his time travel powers will still arise through time alone, and not through any motivation from the Beast.
So it's possible to time travel into the past, but impossible to kill yourself in that past? What happens if you stab your past self in the heart, you live on?
Frankly, that's absurd. There's no plausible explanation for how certain actions may be sanctioned while time-traveling when others are prohibited. The fact that applying time-travel (of this model) to simple reality suggests that time-travel itself is a paradox. Sure, if you only assume one of the possible variables, you can avoid it. But anything that allows for paradoxes is inherently paradoxical.
It's similar (though obviously still very different) to how String Theory and Relativity (in their current incarnations) cannot both be correct. They function properly within specific boundaries, but give contrary answers outside of those boundaries. But it's absurd to think that the paradox only exists when you evaluate those instances--the paradox always exists, you just aren't immediately aware of it.
And what happens if Kessler changes the past enough for it to stop the time's cole from time traveling in the future? Does Kessler pop out of existence? I mean, his temporal history is in the future--some cause needed to bring him here. Or is he now existing in this universe literally without a cause? So what if he disappears? Does the universe revert to how it was before he intervened? But now time is stuck in a loop, because he will ALWAYS travel back in time, but time will ALWAYS revert.
But what if he doesn't change the past enough to prevent Cole from coming back? He's still fundamentally changed the past--his own history. So why does Kessler remember a life with his wife and kids? He SHOULD remember a life where his own future self killed Trish.
But WAIT! If Cole is always traveling back in time, what the hell happens to Cole? Is he stuck in some massive time loop? Is the rest of time able to progress without him? But that doesn't really make sense, since the entire future is constantly being fundamentally altered by his travels--how can it possibly progress? I mean, it seems as if each time Kessler travels, he changes history--his own history possessed a Kessler with history X, then Cole had history Y and would influence the next Cole according to his own history, etc.
Sorry, but no. Time travel, when defined as going back into your own past with the capacity to change it is illogical and paradoxical.
f*ck it, I'll just put a spoiler tag on the whole thing.
Edited, Jul 29th 2011 2:23am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
