Entire Forrester house will die out in the last episode?
That would be my theory based on Game of Thrones not having any happy endings. Look at the Whitehills outside the gates of Ironrath in the pictures provided by Telltale for the ending episode.. Something tells me they are somewhat fucked. I also bet that we might get one whitehill with us before everyone is wiped out.. What do you lot think about it?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I think that it will be a happy ending for some of them
I also think there will be a happy ending but it will be close it may be that the Whitehills are winning and the Forresters just manage to turn it around at the last second.
Everyone dies except for Gared
He comes back to Ironrath all like "Hey guys I survived the Wall, found the North Grove, and fought my way back to save everyo-"
If TellTale kills off the entire house Forrester, it will show me that they don't understand what ASOIAF is all about, that they think it is about killing everybody for shock effect. If that's the case, I will be pretty disappointed.
And how are you sure that it isn't for the shock effect that ASOIAF does it? Certainly there are no logic behind all of the character deaths.
Yes, there is logic behind every single death in ASOIAF. The character either made a mistake (or a series of mistakes) that led to their death or they were close to someone that made said mistake. If you pay attention to what you are reading, no death actually comes as a shock - what comes as a shock is a character surviving despite their dumb decisions.
Then again death shouldn't always be about logic. I understand that in storytelling "random" or "shocking" deaths shouldn't be overused, but it's only natural that sometimes death gets you even if you haven't made "dumb decisions". And many who defend the deaths of the books being logical often get angry about some deaths in the show for example and easily overlook the fact that there are reasons in the show (and same with this game as well I guess - at least usually) why those deaths happen - some just don't want to see those reasons (because they are different from books?) and judge those deaths "cheap shock value yadda yadda".
That all written, all Forresters dying... Well it must be executed with very good storytelling to make me like that idea.
Except they can't because I'm going to fashion Talia some plot armour out of my tears. ;_;
That would be unfortunate - I'm really hoping for Talia to be a POV in Season 2.
I disagree that they shouldn't be about logic. Death and survival in a well-written series should be about logic. Every single event in a well-written series must follow a logical path. Being able to prepare terrain for what is to come and to be true to your characters' personalities and abilities (so that they won't suddenly do something that doesn't look natural for them to do) are marks of a good writer.
If you get illogical deaths, you have deaths purely for plot convenience/shock value. If you get illogical survival, you have plot armor. I don't know about the show, I don't watch it, I just read the books. And the deaths in the books are logical. Not everybody that dies made dumb decision, as I said, they also die when they are near someone that made dumb decisions (that happens a lot with minor characters). It's a game of chess, and that's what is interesting about the series.
So far, I think TellTale did stay true to the spirits of the series with the deaths. I won't say that every death in the game have good reason behind them, but they have some reason. That's something.
I understand that most deaths should be as you described. However, saying that every single death should be logical, I just don't agree. I mean you describe the story as "game of chess", but is life really game of chess? I'm just saying that as much as story must follow the "rules" of story-telling I personally like when those rules are now and then broken. GRRM likes to break rules too, just looking at the amount of named characters he has tells that. Don't get me wrong though, "random death" should be used very sparingly and so that it has a value to the story - to set the mood for example or to have effect on the development of the characters around the one who dies.
Okay, perhaps I could give an example: story begins with 3-5 people who can be considered main characters. The writer makes the reader think he/she knows where this is going - then by fairly soon killing one or two of those main characters in a shocking manner the writer totally turns the tables and sets the story to a whole new, surprising direction. This can of course be done so that the character who dies makes a mistake that leads to his/her death, and that can be very good story-telling, but in my opinion it being just bad luck doesn't necessarily make it any worse. As I said before, it's a device that writer should use very sparingly, but I see no reason to make it a no-no.
Personally, I see it is a no-no. As a cheap way to catch the reader's attention and to set the mood, and it just leaves me disappointed.
Imagine reading all 7 Harry Potter books, and then as he and his friends are passing through a muggle neighborhood, Ron is is hit in the head by a stray bullet. Just like that. That happens in real life, but it is a pretty bad storytelling device and comes across as a way to get ridden of a character in a quick manner, as if as an afterthought.
Besides, "bad luck" can be used in the way it is used in ASOIAF: The character is near someone that did something that set the chains of events that resulted on the character's death in motion, and that character dies even though he did nothing wrong. That's how bad luck should be used, in my opinion.
GRRM did a great job with the deaths because he used a logical death to set the mood. In most pieces of fiction, a character like Ned Stark would still be alive, but he used his death to show us that main characters couldn't just waltz into the Throne Room and tell the king he is no true king just because they are the main characters. It is what made me want to keep reading to begin with.
It's easy to give examples of bad ways to use the device, like the one you told
I'd say this device is anything but the cheap and easy way. It's a hard way, because it challenges the writer and the reader and could easily go wrong. I mean of course you can use it "cheaply" but then you are doing it wrong. It is not a device that should be used to just get rid of a character. It's a device that a good story-teller can use for making the story feel authentic and bring the theme of death always being near. And I have to say "random death" should probably be used more in the first half of the story as something that sets up the game, not as a game changer in the end - at least not with a main character.
Have you watched Fargo tv-show? I think Noah Hawley is very good at both "logical" and "random" deaths - of course the logical ones are used more as it should be
No, I never watched Fargo, but I saw that it is a black comedy-crime drama series. Comedies get away with much more for the sake of comedy, however, as surprise and breaking the expectation is one of the elements of comedy.
That's not the case with ASOIAF, in which the political intrigues and the consequences to the characters' choices are a central point of the plot.(it is what the series is all about, really). When you commit to this kind of plot orientation, throwing random deaths in break the natural flow of the narrative.
And this is the last episode of the game, and the thread is talking about main characters, which only adds to the "nope".
Ehh, yeah, Fargo does have dark comedy as one of its elements, but it's really not just comedy, and those "random deaths" at it aren't really comedic deaths. There were that kind of deaths in the latest episode - two characters were killed at the beginning of a conflict due to a reckless move from the enemy, but the characters who died were killed on a point that wasn't "logical" for them - they nor anyone near them had really made a mistake, it came as a random and shocking event that turned the tables and set the story to new direction.
And I get your point about political intrigues etc. being the main element of ASOIAF, but is it necessarily good story-telling that life is this game where as long as your choices are good you are safe and death is always because you or someone close to you fucked up?
Oh, and I'm not debating for all the Forresters, or any of them, to have random deaths
I just grabbed to the theme because it's interesting.
I can't really see that happening, but I won't be disappointed either way, because if the Forresters win! Then Great! But if the Whitehills win, I wouldn't mind playing as the Whitehills in season 2. And I don't mean Gryff and Ludd, I mean the other siblings that are mentioned and maybe even Gwyn.
I would have to watch to see if these deaths really were this random, but if that's really the case, that would piss me off (unless illogical shit happening is a staple in the series, then I would be like "eh, that's what I signed up for anyway"). That's my personal opinion, though. Maybe because I never saw a single instance of a random death doing any good for the plot.
And yes, logic is a characteristic of good storytelling indeed. Survival also must be logical, not only death. Putting the character in a terrible situation and then getting them out of it through a series of coincidences is plot armor, and unfortunately there is at least one character in ASOIAF that has it, that being Tyrion (post-escape from King's Landing. That's why I don't like Tyrion, by the way. Yes, sue me). Death is just the example here because the OP is talking about it, but every event in the story must be logical.
The whole ASOIAF plot is made of decisions, and they are not 100% polarized in good or bad ones (with some exceptions). There are, however, the decisions that will make the reader think "that's risky", and that's when you can come to expect that character's death (or not. I mean, some people are still used to main characters having plot armor so they ignore this and end up being surprised, like all the reactions to the Red Wedding). So far, the only death in the books that surprised me was Ned's, and that's because up until that happened I wasn't aware of how this series worked.
And then we go back to what I was arguing to begin with. Random deaths for shock value is not how ASOIAF works. If TellTale does that on the last episode, they will disappoint me greatly, as that wouldn't be true to the source material. Way too many fans think ASOIAF is about slaughtering all the likable characters. The last thing we need is TellTale to think that's the case too.
If Telltale bothers to just kill everyone and let the villians live, then this game is played for nothing.
There actually are some "Random" or "Coincidental" deaths in the pre-series of ASOIAF. Like how the eleven or twelve people ahead of Egg all died (Except Aemon), mostly from illness or random causes, though you do have Aerion and Daeron the Drunken dying from their own mistakes, like GRRM tends to do. But in the main series, we don't tend to see these random deaths because killing a character with no warning is not GRRM's style. Most every major character death is foreshadowed in some way, like Ned, Robb, Viserys, Jon, etc, and even the ones that appear "shocking", once you go back, you see that there were clues.
The deaths by illness were not really random. There was an epidemy going on. Catching a disease, just like dying of old age, isn't random. I'm pretty sure that if we were following these characters, we would have hints like "the handmaiden wasn't feeling so well" before these characters actually got ill and died. It is a pretty logical thing to happen given the circumstances. The closest I can think of a random death was of Rhaegel's, since he choked on a pie. He was only mentioned, though, and he died long before the prequel takes place. Because, as you said, GRRM doesn't kill a character with no warning.
From the last achievement in the sixth episode titled 'Sentinel' I can speculate that there will be a few Forresters standing at the end who will keep the house running after the battle with the Whitehills.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from and I do enjoy for example Ned's storyline as it is, revolving around all those choices. I guess my point is just that the world shouldn't be presented too logical in a story, because it really isn't - random shit happens and a story-teller shouldn't shy away from bringing that side of the world to the stories, as long as he can do it without ruining the story.
The random, or coincidental, aspect I was referring to was that eleven people died of these normal things. It may not be random for a few people to die from the Great Spring Sickness (and only Valarr, Matarys and King Daeron actually did), but it is when all the other Targaryen royals die from accidents. Like Baelor dying from an injury in the Trial of Seven, or Rhaegel choking. So, the coincidence was more that they all died over a span of ten - twenty years, which is why Egg is Called Aegon the Unlikely in the first place.
Gared is just screaming I GOT US A DRAGON WE ARE GOING TO WI...........
Everyone is dead
Well back to the wall, the Wildlings are about to get captured anyways and WInter has been coming for years now, ah well.
For example Ramsay Snow Screw Logic Just kick him off a cliff, flay him, feather and tar him( I don't care how just make tar) Drown him, then flay the tar
We all know Talia or Ryon will die, UGH just which one. they better not make me choose. If they make me choose I choose to resurrect Ethan and fashion a giant plot armor
Look at the last achievements of all the episodes and see how they relate to the ending. Then guess part of the ending.
It's got a lot to do with shock as well because there are characters which really ought to be dead by now but is still very much alive. I'll give the Boltons as an example of that. No one really likes them and they make a ton of mistakes and yet manages to survive. Another one is Jaime, Tyrion and Daenarys who ought to have died a very long time ago. Iẗ́'s not all about logic.
None of them "should have died a very long time ago". If you think that, that's your opinion mate. Every single time any of them was in a risky situation, there was a reason for them not to be killed. Tyrion has plot armor, yes, because his reasons to escape are worse than the others and sometimes include a few coincidences, but in almost all the dangerous situations he get in, he gets out using his wits.
Boltons: Are allied with the Crown, and are one of the most powerful families at the moment, Roose being the Ward of the North and everything. Roose is actually wise, and he still didn't get in a situation that could get him killed. Ramsay did, but he expertly traded places with the former Reek and escaped. Smarts gets you pretty far.
Jaime: Is a Lannister. Can be used to be traded with the Crown, and his captors are aware of that. Like the Boltons, is a good example of what being in a position of power means.
Daenerys: She was never alone in a situation of peril. She has people that would die for her, and three dragons. She never escapes "just because", and surely "shouldn't have died a long time ago".
It's all about logic.
Grow up no dragon is coming and even if there was which there is zero chance of how could Gared tame it and fly it back over the Wall and over the entire North without anyone seeing.
It was a joke. We have already determined there will be no dragon. Literally everone knows. Grow up.