If you think that all funny stories begin with the words “Once upon a time we are in the country …”, then I will grieve you. No funny and, moreover, an interesting story does not begin like this. Any at least any entertaining story is born in conflict. Whether it is a fiery confrontation between plywood and stove or a fight of two drunkards in your yard, no matter. It is important that the conflict should be present in any story that tries to seem at least a little interesting, and the more complicated the conflict, the more fascinating it will be.
Betman v Joker
Betman and Joker can serve as a good example.
At the first sliding gaze, their conflict is ordinary comic showing, where a good bat runs after a bad clown. But this is only at first glance. That I really like in the relationship of these two guys, this is what is there to see. And the point here is far from the entertainment or the fascination of their confrontation, the matter in chemistry that arises between them. Over the years of the existence of comics with each new release, the scriptwriters carefully processed the images of the heroes, dragged them for each other so that they could be put into a single whole, like the details of the puzzle.
An interesting and not without irony moment in their relationship is the starting point. Betman fighting with crime, without realizing, becomes the reason for the birth of evil so large that the dark knight is hardly able to stop him. Joker personifies a kind of spontaneous disaster, the approach of which we can find out in advance, but it will be too late to prevent it. Such inevitability and uncertainty come from the depths of the Joker as a character. We know little about his past, and what we know about the present is not enough for a complete understanding of the goals that he pursues. You can say that he is completely crazy and there can be no talk of any specific goals and talk. But it seems to me that everything is not so simple.
No matter how strange it may sound, I think the Joker wants to bring a part of himself to every person. Show the world, and most importantly Betman that everyone can become a clown in a purple suit, even the dark knight himself. This can be understood from what the Joker uses. For example, he uses a whole herbarium of a variety of coarsely prepared poisons, the whole essence of which lies in one thing – that a person died in bouts of laughter and with a terrifying smile on his face. If you look at the Joker from such an angle, it turns out that their conflict lies in nothing other than in different points of view …
Simple and brilliant, isn’t it? https://nonukgamblingsites.co.uk/review/winit-casino/ Each of the parties tries to prove its point of view. Joker, that he is not an exception to the rules, but the very rule, but Betman is the unshakability of the human spirit. This is what does not allow the dark knight to deal with the clown and stop those rivers of blood that they shed. Of course, there were cases when Betman dealt with the Joker tired of the awareness of the number of people killed through his fault. But whether he won with such an outcome in the conflict?
Which side to see … With one, the Dark Knight once and for all saved the world from the most dangerous criminal, and on the other, he himself is likened to Joker, whom he tried to stop all this time. Probably, there is no unambiguous outcome of their conflict, and such uncertainty tells us about the set and many possibilities of the existence of different interpretations of their chemistry. I will not be surprised if in the comments there are a dozen other versions of the reasons for their confrontation.
Assassins V Templaires
Unfortunately, there are not only good local conflicts, but also bad global. I’m talking about a fairly weak confrontation between assassins and Templars.
Why weak? Because it does not have that zest that should make us enjoy the conflict. There is no spark that should enrich the desire to get to the true essence of their enmity. Perhaps this is due to the fact that from the first minutes of any part of any part of Assassins Creed it pops up like a foam, and if in the case of Betman and Joker it can and should even be interpreted differently, then everything is extremely unambiguous. Each of the parties wants to achieve the ideal world, they only see a utopian future in different ways: the Templars want complete control, and the assassins of complete freedom, and there is nothing in their struggle, to make the player really think about what is happening.
But this is not the only and far from the main problem of the conflict. A significant hole in the case of all this boring confrontation is not a passion for a player in it. We, as, perhaps, the developers themselves, is deeply uninteresting from which their conflict began once long ago and how it will someday end or whether it will end at all. The developers shamelessly use the enmity of the poor assassins and Templars as the foundation for the next game of the series, not developing it in any way, or lazily complementing it again by no interesting details. Is it worth it after all this to be surprised that the game, where this conflict is devoted as little time as possible, is perceived by players almost better than all the previous parts.
I ducked a little, saying that there is nothing to think about. You can think about anything, even in such a flat confrontation, but is it worth doing in this case? Well, rather no than yes. Of course, we can think for a long time, what does all these apples are Eden and the rest of the forerunners, but let’s abstract from all this divine trash and think over a rather obvious, but still interesting issue. What is the right side of the right?
“Assassins”, ”the player is not particularly interested in what is happening. Of course, this will be the right opinion from his point of view, but whether the point of view will be true? There is no true or wrong point of view, there is another, and if you look from the other side, it turns out that no one in this conflict is not right. Judge for themselves, both sides want to achieve one thing, but do it in different ways, and these same methods depend on the point of view from which people look at the world, and since there is no only correct point of view, then there is no good and evil side in this struggle.
Why did I say that you do not need to try to think about anything in this conflict? Everything is simple (in fact not). Because without pacifying his violent stream of thoughts, the player can reach a fairly simple, but, nevertheless, destructive truth. Since there is no right and guilty conflict in this conflict, and both sides are trying to create an ideal, which means utopian, the world, which in turn means unattainable, the conflict will never be completed, and everything that happens is committed in vain. And since what we do in games will not lead to anything, then why do we even spend our time on this? Indeed, why are the games about the paired in the hoods are so popular?
Perhaps the player has been attracted not by the global conflict that the scriptwriters from Ubisoft offered him, but the local conflict that history itself gave him? Whether it’s the time of the third crusade or an industrial revolution in London. Always the conflict that took place in the scenery turned out to be more interesting than the conflict occurring on the scene itself, and no matter how the scriptwriters tried to ruin the story with their apples of Edem and the rest of the unknown nonsense, they did not do not do it, although I admit, the attempts were damn good.
Of course, everything considered here is subjectively – these are only possible options and they are not necessarily true, because we do not know exactly that the authors wanted to put in the images of the characters, and we will also not be able to get into the heads of the heroes. I just want to show how the conflict affects the work, and that there is no only true point of view with which you can look at things. That is, you will never know something for sure. This makes the conflicts so exciting, namely that they do not have a certain answer, anyone can interpret what he saw as soon as he wants. So look at the world with your own eyes, but in order not to get into the conflict, remember that you can look at the same things from different sides.