People talking about "stakes." Well, here are the stakes: if Bolas had won, the Multiverse would have been his forever, and he would reign over infinite Planes and infinite lives with an iron fist for eternity.
Who lives and who dies on Ravnica are not the stakes. The stakes aren't the number of named Planeswalkers we lose in this battle. The stakes are what happens if Bolas wins.
Now, we can debate whether or not our losses on Ravnica reflected, emotionally, the GRAVITY of those stakes. But the stakes in MTG's story have never been higher. Not even in Apocalypse.
Now, let's compare War of the Spark to other MTG finales.
Mirrodin: No heroes truly died in the final battle with Memnarch. Slobad lived, Raksha lived, Bruenna lived. Main heroine Glissa died briefly but came back. The world ended, but everyone came out okay. Bosh died back in Darksteel, but that was 5 years before the final clash.
Kamigawa: Widely considered to be one of the best blocks story-wise. Toshi, Michiko, Kyodai... All the good guys live. All of them. The only deaths in the finale were baddies; O-Kagachi and Mochi. Big Bad Konda didn't technically die, but I'll include him here anyway because he still got destroyed. But among the good guys, even randos like Pearl-Ear, Riko, and Sharp-Ear -- everyone comes out of the big final battle okay.
Ravnica Block: Kos dies in book 2, but his ghost is back as the main character in Book 3 so it doesn't really count. Feather, Pivlic, Faun, And Jarad all come out at the end. Jarad as a zombie, granted, but he's around. The only serious deaths in the final book are Nephilim and villains like Augustin, Momir, and Lyzolda.
Coldsnap (End of the Ice Age Block): Just the villain and Lovisa Coldeyes, but admittedly Lovisa's kind of hurt. (She went out like a badass, though. )
Time Spiral: Along with Apocalypse and War of the Spark, this is the Big One, with the whole Multiverse at stake and a vast host of heroes arrayed against the big threat. But really, among the heroes, only Freyalise and Jeska die. Windgrace sacrifices his spark.
Alara: Big huge planar war, but if I recall correctly, all the good guys live. Jazal dies, but that's at the beginning, and key to kicking off the actual plot.
Zendikar (Both blocks): No carded characters die save for villains Ulamog and Kozilek.
...I could go on through each and every block, but this post is already stretching long and you all likely get the idea. So let's go back to Apocalypse, the Big One that people love to bring up.
Villains Yawgmoth and Crovax both die. Among the heroes, we lose Urza and Gerrard, who are extremely significant. But after that... Who? Bo Levar and Commander Guff? I guarantee you that more people care about Dack dying than ever cared about those two. Eladmiri and Lin Sivvi go as well, if I recall, but those are legendary creatures, and in War of The Spark we can balance them off with the corruption (and perhaps... destruction?) of other beloved legends like the God-Eternals, esp. Oketra.
More named characters die in Apocalypse than in War of the Spark, certainly. But not by all that much.
----
In the end, War of the Spark delivers the casualty of the hero, which is something that (if my memory is complete) only Apocalypse and Time Spiral Block can claim as well. Gideon, meanwhile, was not just a member of the Gatewatch. He was the leader, and along with Liliana, one of the two heroes of this final story.
Would I have liked to see Nissa, Vivien, Jaya, and Jace bite it as well? Absolutely. But the fact that they don't doesn't ruin the story for me. It would just have made it better if they had.
But in the end, Magic stories have always have a pattern of most of the cast walking out of even the most apocalyptic cataclysms intact.
I just want to say that this is the worst example and the greatest reach that I've seen so far.
You're comparing this story to the older ones and yet you choose to exclude the entirety of the Urza saga, focusing only on the ending, to try to prove a point. Apocalypse is being brought up because it is the end of a years long saga, just like WAR is.
Time Spiral: Along with Apocalypse and War of the Spark, this is the Big One, with the whole Multiverse at stake and a vast host of heroes arrayed against the big threat. But really, among the heroes, only Freyalise and Jeska die. Windgrace sacrifices his spark.
Windgrace did more than sacrifice his spark. He turned into a giant panther's head after putting a slice of himself in the soil of Urborg, and attacked/chomped the rift above Urborg with such fury, until both Windgrace and rift devoured each other. Windgrace died.
I won't go into the other story points because it's easy to diminish certain story points and elevate others in order to make an argument.
---
As the guy who brought up Rogue One, I want to retirerate that Rogue One, along with (Yule Brenner) Magnificent Seven and Lord of the Rings, were brought up to show the cost/stakes for good guys in trying to defeat overwhelming bad guys. I defined 'stakes' for myself this way. Arguing that I want the story of Rogue One (all new characters dying) is intellectually dishonest and willfully misrepresenting my point.
---
I would also compare the Bolas arc favorably, in fact very favorably, to Yawgmoth's arc, as far as their similarities. Both involve extremely powerful entities with 'outcast-y' origins, who are seeking to reattain that which they lost at any cost, across any number of planes. Yawgmoth was plane-bound. Bolas was not. Both caused untild suffering among many in order to achieve their goals. Both used a side-plane that they structured for themselves to facilitate and assist their invasion of another plane (Rath/Amonkhet). Both used powerful individuals to work through. Both, ultimately, failed.
Both also threatened to destroy the plane upon which their final fight was to take place.
I already listed them in a previous post, but Yawgmoth's arc ended with at least 8 planeswalkers losing their lives, and very many named non-walker characters dying (including the hero). Bolas (to be fair; I endeavor to be a straight-shooter) is responsible for a lot of death for the entirety of his arc. Without question.
The issue for me is that the majority of deaths for Yawgmoth, according to the story, of named characters occurred in the end of the story, during the invasion and apocalypse. And it should have.
Was Bolas' invasion of Ravnica different? Yes. It wasn't an overlay of the whole plane, and was centered in the middle of the city. But his purpose was explicitly to kill and drain planeswalkers. Yawgmoth's was to conquer Dominaria and kill everything if he had to.
So my issue remains, if Bolas' explicit purpose was to kill walkers, and only three walkers we know died, how is that not a cop out? They didn't have to write it that walkers had to die to be drained. But they chose to, and then killed almost no one. That's not our fault.
Yawgmoth set a high bar. He's the Ineffable (why is Ugin called the Ineffable? That was a very well-known Yawgmoth title). I don't expect all the walkers to die. I just expect that if Wizards decides draining a walker requires the walkers dying, and Bolas' plan was to kill as many walkers as possible, then only three deaths is ridiculous.
I'm not bloodthirsty, I just want them to follow through on their hype.
---
It's Easter weekend, so I won't likely be responding much. For much of this, it's agree to disagree. We don't have to hate each other over this.
Ugin gets to be called “the Ineffable” because it’s an appropriate title for him. Nothing more to it. It’s not like Yawgmoth gets to lay claim to the title, especially as he’s already dead. It’s not even referencing anything exclusive.
And Bolas killed plenty of walkers, just not named ones. No reason for him to kill named ones either. The story doesn’t require it and it doesn’t make the story better.
Look do we need death, I think we do but lets say we don't its not like these planes take permanent irreversible damage that seriously changes them. Dominaria is the same, the only difference is Zhalfir is gone even after the Phyrexian Invasion and Time Spiral. Nothing Fundamental has changed and the same looks to have occurred for Zendikar, Innistrad and Ravnica. Cause some planes are too popular for major changes. So if you cannot significantly change the planes and you cannot kill a significant amount of characters...how are these Ultimate Evils suppose to do anything of note in the story.
Why do the Ultimate Evil’s need to kill off half the cast and radically alter the planes? And I’d argue Bolas has done exactly the latter in regards to Amonkhet, and killed meaningful characters.
We never saw Amonkhet before so to me it was always Bolas World and I have little reason to care. Then what are the stakes if Bolas and the Eldrazi Titans cannot kill a significant number of named walkers or majorly alter the planes they fight on then where are the stakes in the story? If they fail at both I cannot take the story seriously.
You seem to be fine with a bunch of no names dying but for some of that doesn't work.
Why do the Ultimate Evil’s need to kill off half the cast and radically alter the planes? And I’d argue Bolas has done exactly the latter in regards to Amonkhet, and killed meaningful characters.
Agree. I think Amonkhet and Innistrad were good examples of the villain getting a strong win. If you're following the lore the deaths on those planes (the gods and major angels on Innistrad) were impactful. Gideon's death will likely have even bigger ripples than Avacyn's or the Amonkhet gods' which were all emotional deaths.
Also both those planes experienced major catacylsmic events with minimal major character deaths. So the body count at the end of WOTS is around the same. If anything Emrakul's influence on Innistrad should have resulted in far more death but it didn't.
In fact we don't know what non-planeswalker characters may have died in this story do we? The spoilers mostly focused on the planeswalkers. What if some legendary creatures died? The spoilers that have leaked haven't covered the whole story. Trostani for instance is unaccounted for and they and Mat'Selesnya must have been affected by the animation of Vitu-Ghazi and its destruction.
I'm excited to read the whole novel. Since all we have right now are the major pieces but there has to be more.
And not remotely in agreement on the writing but I don’t really use number of bodies as a metric for quality.
It's not a direct line from "body count" -> "quality". Rather quality of a piece of entertainment is measured by enjoyment, which in turn is influenced by immersion, emotional investment etc.
The issue is that for alot of people a high stakes conflict with out-of-proportion consequences is not only immersion breaking, as it pulls you out of the narrative, but also the emotions felt during the story have been changed or cut entirely. Amonkhet set up Bolas as a major villain, a serious threat, in a way a mastermind as he was several steps ahead. I can only speak from my own personal viewpoint here, but to me Bolas switched from a mere antagonist to a real villain with Hour of Devastation. I suddenly felt for the gatewatch and the characters involved in the plot, because the threat Bolas posed became palpable.
The same feeling was there when previews for WotS started. I knew Bolas would lose one way or another, but I didn't expect him to just flounder around uselessly. He didn't even manage to kill Gideon. He sacrificed himself. The plot has now retroactively been made worse, because now my emotional reaction to Bolas is that he's completely incompetent. A gloating villain, even if they lose in the end, should earn their arrogance. If they come across as some dip*****, the entire plot, including the protagonists suffer from it, because all they fight against is some petulant child, not some scheming mastermind. And honestly if the heroes' achievement is put a petulant child into place, why call them heroes?
They turned Bolas from a serious threat to a complete buffoon. That is the problem, not the body count itself.
We never saw Amonkhet before so to me it was always Bolas World and I have little reason to care. Then what are the stakes if Bolas and the Eldrazi Titans cannot kill a significant number of named walkers or majorly alter the planes they fight on then where are the stakes in the story? If they fail at both I cannot take the story seriously.
You seem to be fine with a bunch of no names dying but for some of that doesn't work.
You don’t need to see the world before Bolas to feel loss for the destruction in Hour of Devastation. It’s simply a matter of empathy. Amonkhet and Innistrad are radically different from their points of introduction, as are Alara and likely other planes I can think of because of Bolas and the Eldrazi. Let alone what happened to Mirrodin with regards to Phyrexia.
Maybe if we are doing an analogy, Harry Potter would be more adequate?? Look at the trauma it took to defeat Voldemort.
I mean, none of the main characters died permanently so War is doing better on that front. Not like Hermione or Ron died.
And Harry Potter isn’t good for killing off a bunch of people at the climax. That’s one of the down points of it. And again, not saying that killing people by the dozens isn’t possible in stories, but it’s far from the only way. It’s not like LotR killed a bunch of major heroes at the end.
Maybe if we are doing an analogy, Harry Potter would be more adequate?? Look at the trauma it took to defeat Voldemort.
I mean, none of the main characters died permanently so War is doing better on that front. Not like Hermione or Ron died.
And Harry Potter isn’t good for killing off a bunch of people at the climax. That’s one of the down points of it. And again, not saying that killing people by the dozens isn’t possible in stories, but it’s far from the only way. It’s not like LotR killed a bunch of major heroes at the end.
You know what I've noticed? All of your posts are about telling everyone that they are wrong, but none of your posts are about why you are right. The conversation has been like this: A bunch of people complain about the low number of deaths, a low number that was contradictory to the tone and concept of the story and which was pretty clearly and cynically dictated not by what was right for the story but by marketing (as evidenced by MARO's response, and he knows better), and they give reasons why they feel like that, and then you, telling them they are wrong, without actually giving reasons as to why you approve of the choices made. Your arguments have been hollow. "Not everybody has to die" is a strawman. "Killing characters doesn't make a story good" is so broad as to be meaningless. Killing characters just to kill them and be edgy doesn't make a story better, but killing characters when the story calls for it DOES. Killing characters when there is narrative reason to do so DOES. Bolas' plan revolved around killing walkers and draining sparks, and he only nails 2 walkers that we know of, one of which he only nailed because Bolas betrayed him (Domri). He literally only got Dack. Gideon doesn't even count as a get for Bolas. He was dogpiled by eternals and it literally didn't matter because he's invulnerable. He only died because Lili betrayed Bolas and then Gideon took her contract.
"But a bunch of no name walkers we never meet die offscreen!" So? You've never bothered to make an argument as to why this is a good narrative choice, because it clearly isn't. We aren't invested at all in these walkers. Because they are fictional, they literally never existed. Their deaths are literally a number pulled out of Creative's ass, completely meaningless, lazy, and cheap. It also violates the basic tenet of show don't tell. We see very few consequences as a result of this invasion that was 14 years in the making. Gideon is it. Lets compare it to Marvel, because its clear that Creative just tries to copy whatever is popular at the moment. Gideon dying is like Captain America dying: a major hit. Domri dying is like Squidworth from the Black Hand dying in Infinity War: he was the villain's mook, and he died like a mook. Dack dying would be like Happy dying, a minor character that has some minor resonance but who most people forgot existed. That was Bolas' get, Happy Hogan. That's part of why Bolas comes out of this looking like a putz.
People have posted, repeatedly, characters that could have died and made narrative sense to die, whose deaths would have not only added gravitas to the story, but moved the plot forward and added to the quality of the work. All you've been able to add as a retort is "nuh uh" and "your all just bloodthirsty jeez." Those aren't arguments. And that is what has been frustrating in trying to talk to you, you don't actually make arguments, you just tell people that they are wrong and make no attempt at all to explain your position. You haven't given a single reason why the low number of deaths is good, only stated that you don't like a lot of death. You haven't given any reasons why you think the recent story has been good, you just say anyone who disagrees is wrong. You never gave any reasons why you think Urza's saga is bad, you just said you didn't like it without any explanation and then invited people to give you reasons why its good, before dismissing them in advance as unlikely to convince you because you've heard it all. What results is a bunch of posters responding to you with their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and you denigrating those opinions out of hand without any attempt to defend your own opinions. That puts you in a position where you are free to critique the opinions of others, but you don't open your own opinions up to the same critique, because you don't ever actually try to give reasons for them. Its a terrible style of argument. I'm not going to say you are trolling, but that is a style of argument that trolls love to employ.
And I want to be very clear, this only applies to you, not to other posters who are arguing in favor of the plot choices, because they actually have explained what about the plot choices appeal to them and why.
And one last thing about Lord of the Rings: it didn't kill off many characters because it didn't have many characters to begin with.
I count Gandalf as both dead and alive, as he does legit die, and is resurrected as Gandalf the White. His nature changes as a result of this process.
The rest of the Fellowship, except Boromir, lives. so 7 alive 1 dead.
Elrond and Arwen live: 9 to 1
Eomer and Eowyn live, but Theoden dies (nobody gives a ***** about his son, he doesn't count): 11 to 2
All the villains die, Sauron, Saruman, The Witch King (I won't count the other Nazghul, only the Witch King is a real character), Gollum,Grima Wormtounge, all dead: 11 to 7
Denethor dies, but Faramir lives: 12 to 8.
Maybe count Shelob? 13 to 8.
Galadriel lives. 14 to 8
That's a lot of dead characters considering how few characters there are to begin with. Even if you reach for some of the more obscure characters, your only getting to about 20 to 8, a little more than a 2 to 1 ratio of living to dead.
Here's the thing: lots of those deaths were villains. But that's OK! Villain deaths count! Of course, they don't count as much as hero deaths unless they are major villains. But compare it to WAR, and only 1 villain dies. Domri was Wormtounge level.
Comparing WAR to LotR is laughable. If LotR went like WAR, Wormtounge and Theodan would have died, and maybe Prince Imrahil. Sauron wouldn't have died (or totally lost his form and became a weak ass spirit which is as close to death as his kind get), he would have instead been trapped in Mirkwood with Gandalf watching over him. Saruman wouldn't have died ("died" like Sauron), he'd have gotten away to start just as much trouble somewhere else (not putz around the Shire before getting stabbed like a *****).
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
1. I’m not a troll. That you’re painting me as one, inadvertently or not, is an ad hominem. You should know better than to try to use an insult as an argument, which at least how I read it. “He’s wrong because he’s trolling.”
2. I’m not talking about my opinions because they aren’t related to why I’m arguing. My feeling on the matter are irrelevant. You are right in that I’m not talking about my opinions, but that’s because I’m involved only because people are claiming the story is bad because it doesn’t cater to their specific tastes. If they spoke less broadly I wouldn’t terribly care and would probably talk about something else.
3. I have actually given reasons for why I feel the way I do on all those matters. That they get lost in the general bustle of discussion isn’t terribly surprising.
4. So far the only deaths thrown at me seem to stem from a lack of creativity, which isn’t a valid reason for me to kill a character. That people think Samut and Vivien should drop dead now that Bolas is taken out doesn’t mean I agree. There are other routes their stories can take, which is why I’ve said I can pull out stories with a revenge element that doesn’t end once that’s over. Beyond that the other examples just seem to be the same basic flaw of a lack of creativity in directions they can go.
4. I haven’t really said much of anything of note with regards to non named walkers dying beyond they existed.
5. I think those were the main points, I’m adding this as a specific point so you don’t think I’m ignoring any additional points you may have made, I just may not have seen them as terribly relevant or done other reason for why I didn’t comment on them.
I'd argue that comparing LotR to MtG is unfair because both exist in different thematic contexts. LotR does not allow a lot of wiggle room between good and evil, if any. It's built around the notion and good and evil exists and that everyone gets what they deserve, resulting in good triumphing over evil in the end (even if it doesn't look like it temporarily). Even Gandalf who died, was resurrected, because he was on the good side. He didn't go through any real character development. He was just popped back into existence and given a more powerful role. It's a rigid take on what it means to do the right thing.
MtG on the other hand is much more "modern" in its take on good vs evil. Shades of grey exist everywhere and there are numerous conflicts where it is hard to say who is the villain and the hero, or whether these distinctions are meaningful in the first place. The feud between Sorin and Nahiri comes to mind, but also Vraska's and Liliana's entire story arcs. MtG dabbles in all sorts of shades of grey, mostly because of the colour pie and the fact that each colour has positive and negative aspects. It also frequently uses "tragic" endings, like Amonkhet and New Phyrexia, which clash with the "the just will triumph over evil" approaches of more traditional fantasy.
Saying that MtG could get away with an "everyone (or at least most) gets a happy ending" ending because LotR did it too is completely ignoring that they both operate on fundamentally different levels beneath the narrative surface.
I’m... kind of baffled that a couple characters somehow make MtG Gray vs Grey in comparison to LotR. Magic, at least post Urza, is pretty clear on who the good guys and bad guys are. Not being absolutely good or evil doesn’t really prevent a happy ending either.
1. I’m not a troll. That you’re painting me as one, inadvertently or not, is an ad hominem. You should know better than to try to use an insult as an argument, which at least how I read it. “He’s wrong because he’s trolling.”
2. I’m not talking about my opinions because they aren’t related to why I’m arguing. My feeling on the matter are irrelevant. You are right in that I’m not talking about my opinions, but that’s because I’m involved only because people are claiming the story is bad because it doesn’t cater to their specific tastes. If they spoke less broadly I wouldn’t terribly care and would probably talk about something else.
3. I have actually given reasons for why I feel the way I do on all those matters. That they get lost in the general bustle of discussion isn’t terribly surprising.
4. So far the only deaths thrown at me seem to stem from a lack of creativity, which isn’t a valid reason for me to kill a character. That people think Samut and Vivien should drop dead now that Bolas is taken out doesn’t mean I agree. There are other routes their stories can take, which is why I’ve said I can pull out stories with a revenge element that doesn’t end once that’s over. Beyond that the other examples just seem to be the same basic flaw of a lack of creativity in directions they can go.
4. I haven’t really said much of anything of note with regards to non named walkers dying beyond they existed.
5. I think those were the main points, I’m adding this as a specific point so you don’t think I’m ignoring any additional points you may have made, I just may not have seen them as terribly relevant or done other reason for why I didn’t comment on them.
1. No, I'm saying that you are conveniently only telling people they are wrong without saying why you are right. That's not an argument for you being wrong, as I specifically said it only applies to you and not anyone else in the thread that likes the plot and has actually backed up why. It has no bearing on the merits of your position. Its an argument that your discussion style is frustrating because its hollow, and an expression of frustration that you have taken on an argument style that allows you to be dismissive of other people's reasoning without having the fortitude to defend your own position.
2. Bull*****. People are saying that the story is bad and why. If you want to say it isn't, you need to give reasons why it isn't, as in reasons its actually good. So far all you've offered is that stories don't have to have death to be good (and you haven't even touched on all the other reasons people are griping about the plot). Making broad statements that don't actually address the material being discussed is useless, which is what you have done.
3. You really haven't. You've given broad reasons why you disagree with others, but you haven't actually given reasons why the plot choices are good for the story. Strawman arguments aren't reasons. Quoting authors without understanding what they are talking about isn't a reason. You've made no attempt to explain why, say, Nicol Bolas not dying is a good choice, while others have explained why it isn't. You haven't explained why making the Vraska sleeper agent plot point irrelevant was a good choice, while others have given reasons why they thought it wasn't. You haven't explained why you think minimal character deaths in a war story is a good choice beyond saying you think characters dying isn't good story telling (which, again, is a broad statement that doesn't reflect the material being discussed) while others have explained, at length, why minimal character deaths in a story hyped up to be a bloody war is a cop out.
4. You tried to play this off as an excuse for named characters not dying.
5. Fair
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'd argue that comparing LotR to MtG is unfair because both exist in different thematic contexts. LotR does not allow a lot of wiggle room between good and evil, if any. It's built around the notion and good and evil exists and that everyone gets what they deserve, resulting in good triumphing over evil in the end (even if it doesn't look like it temporarily). Even Gandalf who died, was resurrected, because he was on the good side. He didn't go through any real character development. He was just popped back into existence and given a more powerful role. It's a rigid take on what it means to do the right thing.
MtG on the other hand is much more "modern" in its take on good vs evil. Shades of grey exist everywhere and there are numerous conflicts where it is hard to say who is the villain and the hero, or whether these distinctions are meaningful in the first place. The feud between Sorin and Nahiri comes to mind, but also Vraska's and Liliana's entire story arcs. MtG dabbles in all sorts of shades of grey, mostly because of the colour pie and the fact that each colour has positive and negative aspects. It also frequently uses "tragic" endings, like Amonkhet and New Phyrexia, which clash with the "the just will triumph over evil" approaches of more traditional fantasy.
Saying that MtG could get away with an "everyone (or at least most) gets a happy ending" ending because LotR did it too is completely ignoring that they both operate on fundamentally different levels beneath the narrative surface.
Well, LotR has plenty of grey characters running about, and once you expand beyond that to the Hobbit and the Silmarillion there are plenty of grey characters. The universe has a clear demarcation between good and evil, but individuals don't always share that. The ending of LotR is also more bittersweet than happy. Sauron is defeated, as is Saruman the world is saved, orcs are driven off, and Aragorn becomes Elessar expanding Gondor to reclaim Arnor. But all this comes at a great price: magic will leave the world. Rivendell, Lorien, the Grey Havens, will all come to an end, their splendor fading with the destruction of the One Ring and the subsequent deactivation of the Three that maintained the works of the Noldor. Even Greenwood, nee Mirkwood, will fade, as all the elves of middle earth are doomed to leave or fade, taking all their works with them. The Dwarves, too, will dwindle, their great halls and treasures being lost to time. The Ents are without Entwives and will become Huorns in time, little more than great old trees. Everything that makes Middle Earth special, everything that makes it magical, fades away, even the Shire. Only Man will be left in the end, with all our petty squabbles and faults, a mundane world, stripped of its splendor and wonder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
People talking about "stakes." Well, here are the stakes: if Bolas had won, the Multiverse would have been his forever, and he would reign over infinite Planes and infinite lives with an iron fist for eternity.
Who lives and who dies on Ravnica are not the stakes. The stakes aren't the number of named Planeswalkers we lose in this battle. The stakes are what happens if Bolas wins.
Now, we can debate whether or not our losses on Ravnica reflected, emotionally, the GRAVITY of those stakes. But the stakes in MTG's story have never been higher. Not even in Apocalypse.
Now, let's compare War of the Spark to other MTG finales.
Mirrodin: No heroes truly died in the final battle with Memnarch. Slobad lived, Raksha lived, Bruenna lived. Main heroine Glissa died briefly but came back. The world ended, but everyone came out okay. Bosh died back in Darksteel, but that was 5 years before the final clash.
Kamigawa: Widely considered to be one of the best blocks story-wise. Toshi, Michiko, Kyodai... All the good guys live. All of them. The only deaths in the finale were baddies; O-Kagachi and Mochi. Big Bad Konda didn't technically die, but I'll include him here anyway because he still got destroyed. But among the good guys, even randos like Pearl-Ear, Riko, and Sharp-Ear -- everyone comes out of the big final battle okay.
Ravnica Block: Kos dies in book 2, but his ghost is back as the main character in Book 3 so it doesn't really count. Feather, Pivlic, Faun, And Jarad all come out at the end. Jarad as a zombie, granted, but he's around. The only serious deaths in the final book are Nephilim and villains like Augustin, Momir, and Lyzolda.
Coldsnap (End of the Ice Age Block): Just the villain and Lovisa Coldeyes, but admittedly Lovisa's kind of hurt. (She went out like a badass, though. )
Time Spiral: Along with Apocalypse and War of the Spark, this is the Big One, with the whole Multiverse at stake and a vast host of heroes arrayed against the big threat. But really, among the heroes, only Freyalise and Jeska die. Windgrace sacrifices his spark.
Alara: Big huge planar war, but if I recall correctly, all the good guys live. Jazal dies, but that's at the beginning, and key to kicking off the actual plot.
Zendikar (Both blocks): No carded characters die save for villains Ulamog and Kozilek.
...I could go on through each and every block, but this post is already stretching long and you all likely get the idea. So let's go back to Apocalypse, the Big One that people love to bring up.
Villains Yawgmoth and Crovax both die. Among the heroes, we lose Urza and Gerrard, who are extremely significant. But after that... Who? Bo Levar and Commander Guff? I guarantee you that more people care about Dack dying than ever cared about those two. Eladmiri and Lin Sivvi go as well, if I recall, but those are legendary creatures, and in War of The Spark we can balance them off with the corruption (and perhaps... destruction?) of other beloved legends like the God-Eternals, esp. Oketra.
More named characters die in Apocalypse than in War of the Spark, certainly. But not by all that much.
----
In the end, War of the Spark delivers the casualty of the hero, which is something that (if my memory is complete) only Apocalypse and Time Spiral Block can claim as well. Gideon, meanwhile, was not just a member of the Gatewatch. He was the leader, and along with Liliana, one of the two heroes of this final story.
Would I have liked to see Nissa, Vivien, Jaya, and Jace bite it as well? Absolutely. But the fact that they don't doesn't ruin the story for me. It would just have made it better if they had.
But in the end, Magic stories have always have a pattern of most of the cast walking out of even the most apocalyptic cataclysms intact.
I just want to say that this is the worst example and the greatest reach that I've seen so far.
You're comparing this story to the older ones and yet you choose to exclude the entirety of the Urza saga, focusing only on the ending, to try to prove a point. Apocalypse is being brought up because it is the end of a years long saga, just like WAR is.
I explicitly said, multiple times, that I was only comparing finales. Why would I compare War of the Spark to the entirety of the Urza/Weatherlight Saga? That would be stupid.
I'm comparing War (the final act in this saga) vs. the final acts in other MTG sagas (Apocalypse, Fifth Dawn, Saviors of Kamigawa, dissension, Future Sight, etc.)
Though I just realized Freyalise and Windgrace sacrificed themselves in Planar Chaos. So the only good guy we really lost in Fifth Dawn was Jeska. Leshrac and Dinne, two of the villains, also died. But if memory serves, those three were it for that finale.
1. I’m not a troll. That you’re painting me as one, inadvertently or not, is an ad hominem. You should know better than to try to use an insult as an argument, which at least how I read it. “He’s wrong because he’s trolling.”
2. I’m not talking about my opinions because they aren’t related to why I’m arguing. My feeling on the matter are irrelevant. You are right in that I’m not talking about my opinions, but that’s because I’m involved only because people are claiming the story is bad because it doesn’t cater to their specific tastes. If they spoke less broadly I wouldn’t terribly care and would probably talk about something else.
3. I have actually given reasons for why I feel the way I do on all those matters. That they get lost in the general bustle of discussion isn’t terribly surprising.
4. So far the only deaths thrown at me seem to stem from a lack of creativity, which isn’t a valid reason for me to kill a character. That people think Samut and Vivien should drop dead now that Bolas is taken out doesn’t mean I agree. There are other routes their stories can take, which is why I’ve said I can pull out stories with a revenge element that doesn’t end once that’s over. Beyond that the other examples just seem to be the same basic flaw of a lack of creativity in directions they can go.
4. I haven’t really said much of anything of note with regards to non named walkers dying beyond they existed.
5. I think those were the main points, I’m adding this as a specific point so you don’t think I’m ignoring any additional points you may have made, I just may not have seen them as terribly relevant or done other reason for why I didn’t comment on them.
1. No, I'm saying that you are conveniently only telling people they are wrong without saying why you are right. That's not an argument for you being wrong, as I specifically said it only applies to you and not anyone else in the thread that likes the plot and has actually backed up why. It has no bearing on the merits of your position. Its an argument that your discussion style is frustrating because its hollow, and an expression of frustration that you have taken on an argument style that allows you to be dismissive of other people's reasoning without having the fortitude to defend your own position.
2. Bull*****. People are saying that the story is bad and why. If you want to say it isn't, you need to give reasons why it isn't, as in reasons its actually good. So far all you've offered is that stories don't have to have death to be good (and you haven't even touched on all the other reasons people are griping about the plot). Making broad statements that don't actually address the material being discussed is useless, which is what you have done.
3. You really haven't. You've given broad reasons why you disagree with others, but you haven't actually given reasons why the plot choices are good for the story. Strawman arguments aren't reasons. Quoting authors without understanding what they are talking about isn't a reason. You've made no attempt to explain why, say, Nicol Bolas not dying is a good choice, while others have explained why it isn't. You haven't explained why making the Vraska sleeper agent plot point irrelevant was a good choice, while others have given reasons why they thought it wasn't. You haven't explained why you think minimal character deaths in a war story is a good choice beyond saying you think characters dying isn't good story telling (which, again, is a broad statement that doesn't reflect the material being discussed) while others have explained, at length, why minimal character deaths in a story hyped up to be a bloody war is a cop out.
4. You tried to play this off as an excuse for named characters not dying.
5. Fair
1. This implies that I'm trying to make myself out to be right, which isn't the case. And as I said, again, it's not really related to my own position.
2. I have made the statements I needed to in order to address what was said. As most of it has been focused on the amount of dead people, and that's why I originally got involved, that's all I have really focused on. I wasn't really going into it to defend the story broadly, but since you're suggesting that is what I should be doing I'm fine doing so. I'm confused on why you'd want me to argue on more points than just the one I was focused on, but to each their own.
3. As I said, I did make statements on all of those. That you feel they didn't cover enough doesn't change that statements were made.
3a. Nicol Bolas not dying is a good choice because it doesn't remove him from the story or lead to tedious resurrection to bring him back. It's also the closest thing to a legitimate punishment for him. I suppose you could kill him and trap his spirit but that just seems like an even worse idea. Trapped and impotent though is very much a fitting fate for Bolas.
3b. Unless people are actually quoting the book we really can't say what is going on. It's also possibly something that the book isn't going to cover (because of the time frame) and instead is covered in some other material. Given that I wouldn't judge the book in isolation but instead in relation to all other forms of media at this juncture saying it didn't have any bearing is premature. Further it did play an element, rather obviously, in the form of the Golgari not siding with Bolas, more to it isn't necessary.
3c. Killing characters who still have potential is just wasting said potential, plain and simple. And so far no one has really suggested anyone that has no potential. Unless you're wanting to make stories where you bring people back from the dead regularly and trivialize death there isn't any merit in offing someone early on. There really isn't much merit in killing people in general, because using death as the only way to make meaningful impact in a story is cheap as well and loses its edge if done to the extent suggested here.
4. Would you like to quote the specific point? Because my guess is you're misunderstanding the point I was making but I don't know what you're specifically referring to without context.
The thing about killing Bolas is that it just wouldn't be enough retribution. He has 25,000 years of atrocities to answer for, dozens of enslaved/destroyed worlds, and deaths on his hands numbering at least into the billions. Cutting him down with a sword and just ending him in a moment of righteous justice would feel good for a minute, but then ring hollow.
Bolas has to feel his defeat. He has to know he is beaten, pathetic, and impotent forevermore. His infinite atrocities merit an infinite punishment. Now his victims can begin to have justice.
Add in the fact that Ugin and Bolas end together as they began, and I really do love this closure to their story.
If Bolas were have his soul devoured by the Blackblade, I agree that would have been kind of cool, but ultimately way too simple and straightforward. Nothing of him would exist to experience his defeat. Now he gets to experience it forever, or until his lifespan runs out (which it eventually will, with him no longer being an oldwalker or a god).
Satan's true punishment following his fall in Paradise Lost is that, having once tasted the joy of Heaven and even the dream of Godhood itself, he has to suffer for eternity with the knowledge of everything he has lost. The flames of hell do burn him, but nothing compared to the agony of that loss. If Bolas falling from Oldwalker to Neowalker status was enough to obsess, enrage, and consume him, how much more will his fall to total and complete impotence torment him.
Better for him had he actually perished on Gideon's Blackblade - and died just once. Yet Bolas deserves not to die just once, but to die again every single day forever.
Killing characters who still have potential is just wasting said potential, plain and simple.
Or its just closing a chapter on their life/unlife. Keeping a character around forever under the pretense that death is 'wasting their potential' can also be wasting their potential as the character is stuck in writing purgatory, that even if the character was beloved at first it may overstay its welcome.
And so far no one has really suggested anyone that has no potential.
That you don't agree with. There was also that tangent with Vivian and how an actual case was made that her death would mean more to the story.
Unless you're wanting to make stories where you bring people back from the dead regularly and trivialize death
Which very rarely gets used in MTG.
there isn't any merit in offing someone early on.
That would be part of setting the tone of the story. Showing a death early clues people in that what is at stake even if no more deaths for the heroes occured.
There really isn't much merit in killing people in general,
Correction, when it doesn't actually serve the story is when a death is bad.
because using death as the only way to make meaningful impact in a story is cheap as well and loses its edge if done to the extent suggested here.
Death of planeswalkers rarely gets used. Venser's death is in 2011, Elspeth and Xenagos's deaths are in 2014, finally Dack and Domri and Gideon's death's are 2019. Each set is also in the month of May, which give or take a few a days, is 3 years and then 5 years.
You want the actual reason for Dack's death? Because Wizards didn't fully own the rights to his character, IDW did. So they basically gave him a farewell with this set. However the set wasn't originally designed with that in mind so that is why Dack Fayden doesn't appear on flavor text or on cards except for the Ravnica Allegiances mythic edition, this was also after they consolidated a two-set block for War of the Spark into one set. To accommodate this extra planeswalker, there was two teams that handled Dack, the people who handled the trailer and the writing team. The trailer team simply had to come-up with a model and textures and rigging and effects for Dack from 0:40 to 0:56 (16 seconds). For writing they had Greg Weisman, the author of the book, fit Dack in as one of the POV characters. The kicker is that this isn't the first time this has happened either. Similar situation, like deja vu, happened with Armada Comics way back since the publishing company had the rights to Taysir of Rabiah and Kristina of the Woods for example. Their deaths occurred when they were part of the Nine Titans team.
I will see myself out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks: Dredge (Vintage), Burn (Legacy), Hydra Tribal (Modern), Kruphix (Multiplayer EDH), Leovold (1v1 EDH),
Sorceress Queen (Pauper EDH), Zahid (Brawl), Tron (Pauper), Selesnya Slivers (Peasant), Blue Tempo (Standard)
1. And so far no characters are currently at risk for that. You can always unceremoniously off characters like you're proposing without the pretext of War if you're that worried about it anyways. I also don't think I've seen any noteworthy number of people be upset that a character stayed too long, as opposed to just disliking that character or the like.
2. Yes, that's kind of inherent in the statement. You're just being overly pedantic at this point. And Vivien is included in that statement. That people can't find anything to do with her with Bolas out of the way doesn't mean I agree with that lack of creativity.
3. That was kind of why I mentioned it, yes. Because it's rarely used you don't want to pull a trigger you can't take back.
4. And look, we have Dack dying in the trailer for the set. Mission accomplished.
5. No, I stand by that. Killing people in general doesn't serve much merit. It's just kind of a cheap attempt at emotional manipulation at best. I'll add that this is in the context of named heroes specifically, not in general. Death is a natural part of life and all that.
6. I know fully well who all has and hasn't died, not sure why you're listing it. Doesn't really change my point there. It's used sparingly and actually carries meaning right now.
You want the actual reason for Dack's death? Because Wizards didn't fully own the rights to his character, IDW did. So they basically gave him a farewell with this set. However the set wasn't originally designed with that in mind so that is why Dack Fayden doesn't appear on flavor text or on cards except for the Ravnica Allegiances mythic edition, this was also after they consolidated a two-set block for War of the Spark into one set. To accommodate this extra planeswalker, there was two teams that handled Dack, the people who handled the trailer and the writing team. The trailer team simply had to come-up with a model and textures and rigging and effects for Dack from 0:40 to 0:56 (16 seconds). For writing they had Greg Weisman, the author of the book, fit Dack in as one of the POV characters. The kicker is that this isn't the first time this has happened either. Similar situation, like deja vu, happened with Armada Comics way back since the publishing company had the rights to Taysir of Rabiah and Kristina of the Woods for example. Their deaths occurred when they were part of the Nine Titans team.
I will see myself out.
Source for that? I've never heard that Dack is still owned by IDW.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just want to say that this is the worst example and the greatest reach that I've seen so far.
You're comparing this story to the older ones and yet you choose to exclude the entirety of the Urza saga, focusing only on the ending, to try to prove a point. Apocalypse is being brought up because it is the end of a years long saga, just like WAR is.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
Amazon
Windgrace did more than sacrifice his spark. He turned into a giant panther's head after putting a slice of himself in the soil of Urborg, and attacked/chomped the rift above Urborg with such fury, until both Windgrace and rift devoured each other. Windgrace died.
I won't go into the other story points because it's easy to diminish certain story points and elevate others in order to make an argument.
---
As the guy who brought up Rogue One, I want to retirerate that Rogue One, along with (Yule Brenner) Magnificent Seven and Lord of the Rings, were brought up to show the cost/stakes for good guys in trying to defeat overwhelming bad guys. I defined 'stakes' for myself this way. Arguing that I want the story of Rogue One (all new characters dying) is intellectually dishonest and willfully misrepresenting my point.
---
I would also compare the Bolas arc favorably, in fact very favorably, to Yawgmoth's arc, as far as their similarities. Both involve extremely powerful entities with 'outcast-y' origins, who are seeking to reattain that which they lost at any cost, across any number of planes. Yawgmoth was plane-bound. Bolas was not. Both caused untild suffering among many in order to achieve their goals. Both used a side-plane that they structured for themselves to facilitate and assist their invasion of another plane (Rath/Amonkhet). Both used powerful individuals to work through. Both, ultimately, failed.
Both also threatened to destroy the plane upon which their final fight was to take place.
I already listed them in a previous post, but Yawgmoth's arc ended with at least 8 planeswalkers losing their lives, and very many named non-walker characters dying (including the hero). Bolas (to be fair; I endeavor to be a straight-shooter) is responsible for a lot of death for the entirety of his arc. Without question.
The issue for me is that the majority of deaths for Yawgmoth, according to the story, of named characters occurred in the end of the story, during the invasion and apocalypse. And it should have.
Was Bolas' invasion of Ravnica different? Yes. It wasn't an overlay of the whole plane, and was centered in the middle of the city. But his purpose was explicitly to kill and drain planeswalkers. Yawgmoth's was to conquer Dominaria and kill everything if he had to.
So my issue remains, if Bolas' explicit purpose was to kill walkers, and only three walkers we know died, how is that not a cop out? They didn't have to write it that walkers had to die to be drained. But they chose to, and then killed almost no one. That's not our fault.
Yawgmoth set a high bar. He's the Ineffable (why is Ugin called the Ineffable? That was a very well-known Yawgmoth title). I don't expect all the walkers to die. I just expect that if Wizards decides draining a walker requires the walkers dying, and Bolas' plan was to kill as many walkers as possible, then only three deaths is ridiculous.
I'm not bloodthirsty, I just want them to follow through on their hype.
---
It's Easter weekend, so I won't likely be responding much. For much of this, it's agree to disagree. We don't have to hate each other over this.
And Bolas killed plenty of walkers, just not named ones. No reason for him to kill named ones either. The story doesn’t require it and it doesn’t make the story better.
Unnamed character deaths don't count.
You seem to be fine with a bunch of no names dying but for some of that doesn't work.
Agree. I think Amonkhet and Innistrad were good examples of the villain getting a strong win. If you're following the lore the deaths on those planes (the gods and major angels on Innistrad) were impactful. Gideon's death will likely have even bigger ripples than Avacyn's or the Amonkhet gods' which were all emotional deaths.
Also both those planes experienced major catacylsmic events with minimal major character deaths. So the body count at the end of WOTS is around the same. If anything Emrakul's influence on Innistrad should have resulted in far more death but it didn't.
In fact we don't know what non-planeswalker characters may have died in this story do we? The spoilers mostly focused on the planeswalkers. What if some legendary creatures died? The spoilers that have leaked haven't covered the whole story. Trostani for instance is unaccounted for and they and Mat'Selesnya must have been affected by the animation of Vitu-Ghazi and its destruction.
I'm excited to read the whole novel. Since all we have right now are the major pieces but there has to be more.
It's not a direct line from "body count" -> "quality". Rather quality of a piece of entertainment is measured by enjoyment, which in turn is influenced by immersion, emotional investment etc.
The issue is that for alot of people a high stakes conflict with out-of-proportion consequences is not only immersion breaking, as it pulls you out of the narrative, but also the emotions felt during the story have been changed or cut entirely. Amonkhet set up Bolas as a major villain, a serious threat, in a way a mastermind as he was several steps ahead. I can only speak from my own personal viewpoint here, but to me Bolas switched from a mere antagonist to a real villain with Hour of Devastation. I suddenly felt for the gatewatch and the characters involved in the plot, because the threat Bolas posed became palpable.
The same feeling was there when previews for WotS started. I knew Bolas would lose one way or another, but I didn't expect him to just flounder around uselessly. He didn't even manage to kill Gideon. He sacrificed himself. The plot has now retroactively been made worse, because now my emotional reaction to Bolas is that he's completely incompetent. A gloating villain, even if they lose in the end, should earn their arrogance. If they come across as some dip*****, the entire plot, including the protagonists suffer from it, because all they fight against is some petulant child, not some scheming mastermind. And honestly if the heroes' achievement is put a petulant child into place, why call them heroes?
They turned Bolas from a serious threat to a complete buffoon. That is the problem, not the body count itself.
You don’t need to see the world before Bolas to feel loss for the destruction in Hour of Devastation. It’s simply a matter of empathy. Amonkhet and Innistrad are radically different from their points of introduction, as are Alara and likely other planes I can think of because of Bolas and the Eldrazi. Let alone what happened to Mirrodin with regards to Phyrexia.
I mean, none of the main characters died permanently so War is doing better on that front. Not like Hermione or Ron died.
And Harry Potter isn’t good for killing off a bunch of people at the climax. That’s one of the down points of it. And again, not saying that killing people by the dozens isn’t possible in stories, but it’s far from the only way. It’s not like LotR killed a bunch of major heroes at the end.
You know what I've noticed? All of your posts are about telling everyone that they are wrong, but none of your posts are about why you are right. The conversation has been like this: A bunch of people complain about the low number of deaths, a low number that was contradictory to the tone and concept of the story and which was pretty clearly and cynically dictated not by what was right for the story but by marketing (as evidenced by MARO's response, and he knows better), and they give reasons why they feel like that, and then you, telling them they are wrong, without actually giving reasons as to why you approve of the choices made. Your arguments have been hollow. "Not everybody has to die" is a strawman. "Killing characters doesn't make a story good" is so broad as to be meaningless. Killing characters just to kill them and be edgy doesn't make a story better, but killing characters when the story calls for it DOES. Killing characters when there is narrative reason to do so DOES. Bolas' plan revolved around killing walkers and draining sparks, and he only nails 2 walkers that we know of, one of which he only nailed because Bolas betrayed him (Domri). He literally only got Dack. Gideon doesn't even count as a get for Bolas. He was dogpiled by eternals and it literally didn't matter because he's invulnerable. He only died because Lili betrayed Bolas and then Gideon took her contract.
"But a bunch of no name walkers we never meet die offscreen!" So? You've never bothered to make an argument as to why this is a good narrative choice, because it clearly isn't. We aren't invested at all in these walkers. Because they are fictional, they literally never existed. Their deaths are literally a number pulled out of Creative's ass, completely meaningless, lazy, and cheap. It also violates the basic tenet of show don't tell. We see very few consequences as a result of this invasion that was 14 years in the making. Gideon is it. Lets compare it to Marvel, because its clear that Creative just tries to copy whatever is popular at the moment. Gideon dying is like Captain America dying: a major hit. Domri dying is like Squidworth from the Black Hand dying in Infinity War: he was the villain's mook, and he died like a mook. Dack dying would be like Happy dying, a minor character that has some minor resonance but who most people forgot existed. That was Bolas' get, Happy Hogan. That's part of why Bolas comes out of this looking like a putz.
People have posted, repeatedly, characters that could have died and made narrative sense to die, whose deaths would have not only added gravitas to the story, but moved the plot forward and added to the quality of the work. All you've been able to add as a retort is "nuh uh" and "your all just bloodthirsty jeez." Those aren't arguments. And that is what has been frustrating in trying to talk to you, you don't actually make arguments, you just tell people that they are wrong and make no attempt at all to explain your position. You haven't given a single reason why the low number of deaths is good, only stated that you don't like a lot of death. You haven't given any reasons why you think the recent story has been good, you just say anyone who disagrees is wrong. You never gave any reasons why you think Urza's saga is bad, you just said you didn't like it without any explanation and then invited people to give you reasons why its good, before dismissing them in advance as unlikely to convince you because you've heard it all. What results is a bunch of posters responding to you with their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and you denigrating those opinions out of hand without any attempt to defend your own opinions. That puts you in a position where you are free to critique the opinions of others, but you don't open your own opinions up to the same critique, because you don't ever actually try to give reasons for them. Its a terrible style of argument. I'm not going to say you are trolling, but that is a style of argument that trolls love to employ.
And I want to be very clear, this only applies to you, not to other posters who are arguing in favor of the plot choices, because they actually have explained what about the plot choices appeal to them and why.
And one last thing about Lord of the Rings: it didn't kill off many characters because it didn't have many characters to begin with.
I count Gandalf as both dead and alive, as he does legit die, and is resurrected as Gandalf the White. His nature changes as a result of this process.
The rest of the Fellowship, except Boromir, lives. so 7 alive 1 dead.
Elrond and Arwen live: 9 to 1
Eomer and Eowyn live, but Theoden dies (nobody gives a ***** about his son, he doesn't count): 11 to 2
All the villains die, Sauron, Saruman, The Witch King (I won't count the other Nazghul, only the Witch King is a real character), Gollum,Grima Wormtounge, all dead: 11 to 7
Denethor dies, but Faramir lives: 12 to 8.
Maybe count Shelob? 13 to 8.
Galadriel lives. 14 to 8
That's a lot of dead characters considering how few characters there are to begin with. Even if you reach for some of the more obscure characters, your only getting to about 20 to 8, a little more than a 2 to 1 ratio of living to dead.
Here's the thing: lots of those deaths were villains. But that's OK! Villain deaths count! Of course, they don't count as much as hero deaths unless they are major villains. But compare it to WAR, and only 1 villain dies. Domri was Wormtounge level.
Comparing WAR to LotR is laughable. If LotR went like WAR, Wormtounge and Theodan would have died, and maybe Prince Imrahil. Sauron wouldn't have died (or totally lost his form and became a weak ass spirit which is as close to death as his kind get), he would have instead been trapped in Mirkwood with Gandalf watching over him. Saruman wouldn't have died ("died" like Sauron), he'd have gotten away to start just as much trouble somewhere else (not putz around the Shire before getting stabbed like a *****).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
2. I’m not talking about my opinions because they aren’t related to why I’m arguing. My feeling on the matter are irrelevant. You are right in that I’m not talking about my opinions, but that’s because I’m involved only because people are claiming the story is bad because it doesn’t cater to their specific tastes. If they spoke less broadly I wouldn’t terribly care and would probably talk about something else.
3. I have actually given reasons for why I feel the way I do on all those matters. That they get lost in the general bustle of discussion isn’t terribly surprising.
4. So far the only deaths thrown at me seem to stem from a lack of creativity, which isn’t a valid reason for me to kill a character. That people think Samut and Vivien should drop dead now that Bolas is taken out doesn’t mean I agree. There are other routes their stories can take, which is why I’ve said I can pull out stories with a revenge element that doesn’t end once that’s over. Beyond that the other examples just seem to be the same basic flaw of a lack of creativity in directions they can go.
4. I haven’t really said much of anything of note with regards to non named walkers dying beyond they existed.
5. I think those were the main points, I’m adding this as a specific point so you don’t think I’m ignoring any additional points you may have made, I just may not have seen them as terribly relevant or done other reason for why I didn’t comment on them.
MtG on the other hand is much more "modern" in its take on good vs evil. Shades of grey exist everywhere and there are numerous conflicts where it is hard to say who is the villain and the hero, or whether these distinctions are meaningful in the first place. The feud between Sorin and Nahiri comes to mind, but also Vraska's and Liliana's entire story arcs. MtG dabbles in all sorts of shades of grey, mostly because of the colour pie and the fact that each colour has positive and negative aspects. It also frequently uses "tragic" endings, like Amonkhet and New Phyrexia, which clash with the "the just will triumph over evil" approaches of more traditional fantasy.
Saying that MtG could get away with an "everyone (or at least most) gets a happy ending" ending because LotR did it too is completely ignoring that they both operate on fundamentally different levels beneath the narrative surface.
1. No, I'm saying that you are conveniently only telling people they are wrong without saying why you are right. That's not an argument for you being wrong, as I specifically said it only applies to you and not anyone else in the thread that likes the plot and has actually backed up why. It has no bearing on the merits of your position. Its an argument that your discussion style is frustrating because its hollow, and an expression of frustration that you have taken on an argument style that allows you to be dismissive of other people's reasoning without having the fortitude to defend your own position.
2. Bull*****. People are saying that the story is bad and why. If you want to say it isn't, you need to give reasons why it isn't, as in reasons its actually good. So far all you've offered is that stories don't have to have death to be good (and you haven't even touched on all the other reasons people are griping about the plot). Making broad statements that don't actually address the material being discussed is useless, which is what you have done.
3. You really haven't. You've given broad reasons why you disagree with others, but you haven't actually given reasons why the plot choices are good for the story. Strawman arguments aren't reasons. Quoting authors without understanding what they are talking about isn't a reason. You've made no attempt to explain why, say, Nicol Bolas not dying is a good choice, while others have explained why it isn't. You haven't explained why making the Vraska sleeper agent plot point irrelevant was a good choice, while others have given reasons why they thought it wasn't. You haven't explained why you think minimal character deaths in a war story is a good choice beyond saying you think characters dying isn't good story telling (which, again, is a broad statement that doesn't reflect the material being discussed) while others have explained, at length, why minimal character deaths in a story hyped up to be a bloody war is a cop out.
4. You tried to play this off as an excuse for named characters not dying.
5. Fair
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Well, LotR has plenty of grey characters running about, and once you expand beyond that to the Hobbit and the Silmarillion there are plenty of grey characters. The universe has a clear demarcation between good and evil, but individuals don't always share that. The ending of LotR is also more bittersweet than happy. Sauron is defeated, as is Saruman the world is saved, orcs are driven off, and Aragorn becomes Elessar expanding Gondor to reclaim Arnor. But all this comes at a great price: magic will leave the world. Rivendell, Lorien, the Grey Havens, will all come to an end, their splendor fading with the destruction of the One Ring and the subsequent deactivation of the Three that maintained the works of the Noldor. Even Greenwood, nee Mirkwood, will fade, as all the elves of middle earth are doomed to leave or fade, taking all their works with them. The Dwarves, too, will dwindle, their great halls and treasures being lost to time. The Ents are without Entwives and will become Huorns in time, little more than great old trees. Everything that makes Middle Earth special, everything that makes it magical, fades away, even the Shire. Only Man will be left in the end, with all our petty squabbles and faults, a mundane world, stripped of its splendor and wonder.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I explicitly said, multiple times, that I was only comparing finales. Why would I compare War of the Spark to the entirety of the Urza/Weatherlight Saga? That would be stupid.
I'm comparing War (the final act in this saga) vs. the final acts in other MTG sagas (Apocalypse, Fifth Dawn, Saviors of Kamigawa, dissension, Future Sight, etc.)
Though I just realized Freyalise and Windgrace sacrificed themselves in Planar Chaos. So the only good guy we really lost in Fifth Dawn was Jeska. Leshrac and Dinne, two of the villains, also died. But if memory serves, those three were it for that finale.
1. This implies that I'm trying to make myself out to be right, which isn't the case. And as I said, again, it's not really related to my own position.
2. I have made the statements I needed to in order to address what was said. As most of it has been focused on the amount of dead people, and that's why I originally got involved, that's all I have really focused on. I wasn't really going into it to defend the story broadly, but since you're suggesting that is what I should be doing I'm fine doing so. I'm confused on why you'd want me to argue on more points than just the one I was focused on, but to each their own.
3. As I said, I did make statements on all of those. That you feel they didn't cover enough doesn't change that statements were made.
3a. Nicol Bolas not dying is a good choice because it doesn't remove him from the story or lead to tedious resurrection to bring him back. It's also the closest thing to a legitimate punishment for him. I suppose you could kill him and trap his spirit but that just seems like an even worse idea. Trapped and impotent though is very much a fitting fate for Bolas.
3b. Unless people are actually quoting the book we really can't say what is going on. It's also possibly something that the book isn't going to cover (because of the time frame) and instead is covered in some other material. Given that I wouldn't judge the book in isolation but instead in relation to all other forms of media at this juncture saying it didn't have any bearing is premature. Further it did play an element, rather obviously, in the form of the Golgari not siding with Bolas, more to it isn't necessary.
3c. Killing characters who still have potential is just wasting said potential, plain and simple. And so far no one has really suggested anyone that has no potential. Unless you're wanting to make stories where you bring people back from the dead regularly and trivialize death there isn't any merit in offing someone early on. There really isn't much merit in killing people in general, because using death as the only way to make meaningful impact in a story is cheap as well and loses its edge if done to the extent suggested here.
4. Would you like to quote the specific point? Because my guess is you're misunderstanding the point I was making but I don't know what you're specifically referring to without context.
5. Basically the same as point five before.
Add in the fact that Ugin and Bolas end together as they began, and I really do love this closure to their story.
If Bolas were have his soul devoured by the Blackblade, I agree that would have been kind of cool, but ultimately way too simple and straightforward. Nothing of him would exist to experience his defeat. Now he gets to experience it forever, or until his lifespan runs out (which it eventually will, with him no longer being an oldwalker or a god).
Satan's true punishment following his fall in Paradise Lost is that, having once tasted the joy of Heaven and even the dream of Godhood itself, he has to suffer for eternity with the knowledge of everything he has lost. The flames of hell do burn him, but nothing compared to the agony of that loss. If Bolas falling from Oldwalker to Neowalker status was enough to obsess, enrage, and consume him, how much more will his fall to total and complete impotence torment him.
Better for him had he actually perished on Gideon's Blackblade - and died just once. Yet Bolas deserves not to die just once, but to die again every single day forever.
That you don't agree with. There was also that tangent with Vivian and how an actual case was made that her death would mean more to the story.
Which very rarely gets used in MTG.
That would be part of setting the tone of the story. Showing a death early clues people in that what is at stake even if no more deaths for the heroes occured.
Correction, when it doesn't actually serve the story is when a death is bad.
Death of planeswalkers rarely gets used. Venser's death is in 2011, Elspeth and Xenagos's deaths are in 2014, finally Dack and Domri and Gideon's death's are 2019. Each set is also in the month of May, which give or take a few a days, is 3 years and then 5 years.
You want the actual reason for Dack's death? Because Wizards didn't fully own the rights to his character, IDW did. So they basically gave him a farewell with this set. However the set wasn't originally designed with that in mind so that is why Dack Fayden doesn't appear on flavor text or on cards except for the Ravnica Allegiances mythic edition, this was also after they consolidated a two-set block for War of the Spark into one set. To accommodate this extra planeswalker, there was two teams that handled Dack, the people who handled the trailer and the writing team. The trailer team simply had to come-up with a model and textures and rigging and effects for Dack from 0:40 to 0:56 (16 seconds). For writing they had Greg Weisman, the author of the book, fit Dack in as one of the POV characters. The kicker is that this isn't the first time this has happened either. Similar situation, like deja vu, happened with Armada Comics way back since the publishing company had the rights to Taysir of Rabiah and Kristina of the Woods for example. Their deaths occurred when they were part of the Nine Titans team.
I will see myself out.
Sorceress Queen (Pauper EDH), Zahid (Brawl), Tron (Pauper), Selesnya Slivers (Peasant), Blue Tempo (Standard)
2. Yes, that's kind of inherent in the statement. You're just being overly pedantic at this point. And Vivien is included in that statement. That people can't find anything to do with her with Bolas out of the way doesn't mean I agree with that lack of creativity.
3. That was kind of why I mentioned it, yes. Because it's rarely used you don't want to pull a trigger you can't take back.
4. And look, we have Dack dying in the trailer for the set. Mission accomplished.
5. No, I stand by that. Killing people in general doesn't serve much merit. It's just kind of a cheap attempt at emotional manipulation at best. I'll add that this is in the context of named heroes specifically, not in general. Death is a natural part of life and all that.
6. I know fully well who all has and hasn't died, not sure why you're listing it. Doesn't really change my point there. It's used sparingly and actually carries meaning right now.
Source for that? I've never heard that Dack is still owned by IDW.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"