Final Fantasy VII debate: Aerith's........
I request that whoever accapts this debate genuenly be a fan of the game (and have played all the way through. If you are playing the game now and have not gone all the way through it yet, this debate will contain unwelcome spoilers for you. I have even made the debate title so you will not know any plot related to the game from it.
so if you have not played the game and plan to someday, leave this page now.
All right those people should be gone now. this debate title spelled in full would be Arieth's death.
The makers of the game believe they had to kill her off http://www.ff7citadel.com... and there is 100% proof out there they left no way to resserct her, no sub-plot to bring her back to life in a game with pheonix downs and Revive materia http://www.kuponut.com... the discs have been disected and there is no hidden game data to make arieth to continue to be around outside of a gameshark. even with a gameshark the game is glitchy with use of her and she never talks or shows up in story outside of her ghost apperance's.
Its the game makers belief that killing her off and not allowing for any sidequest that could bring her back is neccesary for there story.
though I love FF7 and I think it is the greatist game ever, I do not share this belief with the makers.
It will be my position to argue in this debate that arieth did not have to irrevocably die in the game, and I will even attempt to make a case that she should be kept alive or at the very least a side quest to save her.
Pro, should they accapt has the burdon of proof to show that in fact the game makers were right, for story purposes and game purposes it was best for her to die, and without option of saving her either.
Round 1: no arguments, just clarifications and accaptance of the debate
Round 2&3: new arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: no new arguments, only final conclusion and summary of arguments.
I accept. To clarify, I will not be arguing that the game makers had to kill off Aerith mid-game - obviously, the game makers could do whatever they wanted within the plot. Rather, as per the end of Con's round, I will attempt to show that killing off Aerith (with no prospect of her revival) was a better option than having her either not die or be ressurected later on. Go ahead, Con.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Oddly enough, to start my case concerning the story plot of a video game, I’m going to start out by talking about stories written for comic books.
Being a comic book fan I have observed that for the writers, bringing death upon a character is what they do when they can no longer think of anything good to do with the character story wise. Throughout a characters history the writers use them for all sorts of plot or stories they can think of to do with them, then when they hit there creative blocks they kill off the character to create a brief, to later forgotten emotional effect on another hero, like when Gwen Stacy was killed of to make Spiderman hate green goblin, or recently they decided to kill of Bruce Wayne to make superman really sad for one comic page panel. As you can see the practice has gotten out of hand since the days of Gwen’s death in comic writing history.
But thankfully some of the greatest writers out there today for the comic industry, disagree with the practice of just killing off the heroes in the stories like Grant Morrison http://www.comicbookresources.com...
When being interviewed about Batman R.I.P. he said “…But like I say, it’s so much better than death. People have killed characters in the past but to me, that kind of ends the story! I like to keep the story twisting and turning. So what I am doing is a fate worse than death. Things that no one would expect to happen to these guys at all.”
It’s hard to argue with Grant here. The logic is irrefutable, killing the character ends the story, ends that characters story, and ends there use as an active protagonist that can continue affect plot. Any more use of a character after they are dead in the story has to always draw back to referring to something that individual did before they died. But that can only last so long and eventually those kinds of plots are resolved and used up.
Back the FF7….
All of these concepts toward the plot of comic book writing apply just as much to plot for video games. Killing Arieth off made sure that any of here involvement in the plot of the 2nd and 3rd disk of the game drew back to something they discover she did while alive. Like pray an important prayer to a material they did not even understand needed that prayer to stop the meteor back when Arieth was alive. Yet somehow Aries knew more than the rest of the group about what needed done even though she had been traveling on the same adventure learning the same info as the rest of team Avalanche.
She did not need to die herself to make that prayer work, or for the gang to be sent on the chaotic quest that followed her death to get to where they were by the end of the story and the game to stop meteor. Cloud could still flip out and give Sephiroth the black material when they first northern crater the first time. The weapons would still need dealt with when they popped out of the sea. You would have still had to find where cloud got lost at, and still go on the huge matira hunt. It would have all worked out the same. Her death was in no way pivotal to get the plot to where it would eventually lead.
So what good did her death do? Did it make it personal for Cloud to kill Sephiroth like in the case with Gwen death at Green Goblins hands? Of course not, that dynamic already existed between Cloud and Sephiroth with the destruction of Clouds ENTIRE HOME TOWN. All of clouds family and friends killed, with the exception of Tifa. His home burned. It was personal since the beginning of the game, and Cloud let the rest know as much in his flashback story in Kalm. Fact is her death simply did not need to happen for this story.
And now because it has happened, use of her is severally limited to any future game installments, or the many fan-fictions out there use the game has there stories starting point. The last living ancient that did not need to be killed because of evilness by the end of the story and they killed her off. What wasted potential.
And let us not forget the story was being made for a game, and Arieth was a playable character. Surely its undesirable to permanently disable the use of team of characters until the end of the game. You kill off the character we the gamers no longer get the joy or experience of using it. We cant for bragging rights purposes finish raising the character just as high as we do all the other characters. And Arieth was an important game functional character. Her special brand of limit breaks made her a gamers’ natural ‘healer’ of the party in battle.
I think I have said enough for my opening arguments to summarize
A) Its a sign of poor writing skills when you kill off a character
B) you can no longer use characters that are dead because they are dead. stories over concerning them.
C) all the plot that followed and game quest you play through after Arieth death through to the end of the game would be the same with aries alive.
D) her death really did not contribute anything to plot really, It was arleady personal for Cloud and all the stuff invoving the 'holy' materia was done in her life, not her death.
E) plot made for video games should let you keep all your characters as useable up to the very last boss fight. espically a healing character like Arieth
Good luck to my opponent, I await your response.
Thanks to Con for the debate - I'm a big fan of the FF franchise (FF-X and below anyway). Like many other players, I was fairly taken aback when one of the main characters in the game suddenly died relatively early in the game in such a dramatic fashion. My job in this debate is to justify the choice on the game maker's behalf to have Sephiroth kill Aerith.
Before we begin: ALL BOW BEFORE SEPHIROTH. SEPHIROTH IS LORD:
Included is the theme tune for my side of the debate. All voters should listen to this music while reading my side of the debate. If they don't, Sephiroth will cut their f*cking head off.
Argument 1: Aerith's death was one of the greatest moments in gaming history:
A readers poll on Gamespy ranked Aerith's death as second in a poll of the the top cinematic moments in gaming . The website itself ranked the moment 10th, saying "Every medium has an unforgettable tragic death. Spider-Man has the death of Gwen Stacy, Star Wars has the deaths of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, and the Final Fantasy series has the death of Aeris. This scene is as dramatic as it is beautiful". GamePro ranked it the greatest moment in gaming history out of 55 other greatest moments, saying "Aeris is killed by Sepiroth in one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever in a video game.".
Numerous other gaming publications have listed Aerith's death as one of the most important moments in gaming history, lebelling it as unforgettable, hearbreaking, dramatic and cinematic. Wikipedia states "Edge called her death the "dramatic highpoint" of Final Fantasy VII, and commented reintroducing her through the related Final Fantasy VII titles "arguably undermines this great moment". In other words, trying to bring Aerith back in some way cheapens the dramatic impact and masterful storytelling surrounding Aerith's death.
Argument 2: Aerith's death was intended to defy cliché:
FF7 character designer Tetsuya Nomura has said that he was frustrated with the "perennial cliché where the protagonist loves someone very much and so has to sacrifice himself and die in a dramatic fashion to express that love" . He continues "Death should be something sudden and unexpected, and Aerith's death seemed more natural and realistic", and "When I reflect on Final Fantasy VII, the fact that fans were so offended by her sudden death probably means that we were successful with her character. If fans had simply accepted her death, that would have meant she wasn't an effective character.". This was partly in response to petitions by Japanese fans to have her resurrected. The game designers of FF7 never intended to bring Aerith back, and they had thought this decision through - Aerith's death was intended to defy the story convention of the hero sacrificing himself to save the world. The game designers intended Aerith's death to parallel death in the real world - as unexpected and often brutal and short
Yoshinori Kitase, a producer of the game argued "in the real world things are very different. You just need to look around you. Nobody wants to die that way. People die of disease and accident. Death comes suddenly and there is no notion of good or bad. It leaves, not a dramatic feeling but great emptiness. When you lose someone you loved very much you feel this big empty space and think, 'If I had known this was coming I would have done things differently.' These are the feelings I wanted to arouse in the players with Aerith's death relatively early in the game. Feelings of reality and not Hollywood." 
The producers of FF7 themselves anticipated criticism of their decision to have Sephiroth kill Aerith and responded, but history has validated their decision - Aerith's death is now considered to be one of the greatest moments in gaming history.
I will respond to the labelled summaries at the end of Con's round:
A) Just because deaths have been overused in comic book storylines doesn't mean they can't be used to great effect in stand-alone storylines like FF7 was originally intended. Some of the greatest storylines in history has included deaths. As You mentioned, Gwen Stacy's death is widely regarded as a great comic book moment. In Lord of the Rings there was Bormir's death. Batman has Wayne's parents. These classics would all be greatly diminished without deaths, so it's absurd to claim that killing characters off is the mark of a bad storyteller. Almost every classic story in history is related to death in some way.
B) This isn't true - the things they left behind can still continue to drive the plot. Besides, there was a whole cast of compelling characters in FF7. Killing Aerith by no means damaged the plot. On the contrary, it was one of the high points and would have been cheapened had she been brought back.
C) I'm not sure what to make of this argument. So what? Regardless of her death's impact on the overall story, it was an important and dramatic plot point by itself. As previously mentioned, there were good reasons the game makers included her death which aren't necessarily to do with the plot.
D) It did contribute to the plot by being an important plot point in itself. And while it might not have been solely the thing that drove Cloud to revenge, it certainly has an impact on the gamers themselves to whom Sephiroth was previously just a shadowy villian. The death showed Sephiroth as a potent threat who could kill even members of the main cast.
E) It made the game more challenging - I would argue that forcing gamers to use a less obvious character as a healer increased the tactical merit of the game.
1) Aries death was greatest….:
My opponents first case for Aries death that her death was the greatest moment in gaming history. Treating what qualifies as greatest moment in terms of story plot hopefully for the sake of relevance to this debate. But its hard to tell if that’s the point in ‘greatness’ my opponent wanted to make. I say this because his source game spy was ranking its greatest gaming moments in terms of how visually interesting, and even catchy theme tunes. The intro montage to Kingdom Hearts ranked above Aries death by there standard and though you could call that intro many things you could never call it masterful story. (Talking about just KH intro)
And as for fans voting it number one, this can be explained away in that as part of dealing with the shock of losing one of there best characters, they at least wish to think of the death itself as important, in fact the most important event ever (in games) so that maybe they can make others understand there shock and thus make others feel the shock that they did. It’s abrasive to our intellects to accept such shocking event to us in our favorite game as just random crap the game programmers decided to make happen, so we create importance where it is not to better deal with it.
But step back from that emotional investment in game we spend hours at a time playing, and take the best objective look you can muster. Her death did not affect any of the rest of the plot. The plot did not even build up to her death either. It was just thrown in there.
A) But lets roll with this for a sec…
Pro went as far as to defend that bringing Aries back to life, even in a future installation, would undermine the ‘greatness’ of her death. How? Why? Are we afraid that if she where to come back to life at any given time it would undermine the tragic ‘irrevocableness’ of death? If that is what we want for the game and for the story then I have to say the game makers did a horrible job at not undermining death. All through the game, gamers get to use Matera with the spell Life and Life2 and items called phoenix down, a summon called phoenix, and a enemy skill called angle whisper, all of which undermine the idea that death is irrevocable for our heroes of the game. Nothing could undermine the proposed point about ‘death’ the game is supposed have made through Aries death more than that.
B) Lets also consider what ‘death’ means for the FF7’s mythos. Every one everywhere across the planet, whether they live in Midgard or Cosmo Canyon knows that when they die, there soul ‘returns to the lifestream’ and they become one with the planet. The Planets ‘mako’ lifestream is like what we would consider the spiritual realm to us. Cloud went into this spiritual realm (with some temporary consequences) and then came back. With Tiffa too. Cloud gets to play around in the spirit world piecing together his forgotten memories with temporarily side effects while Aries is permanently stuck there waiting for her new mako substance to become a tree or power a Midgard generator.
2) Aries death meant to defy…
… cliché. Pro makes the case that it was the gamers desire to defy ‘cliché’, specifically the cliché of a brave hero sacrificing themselves for noble cause. Pro argues the gamers makers wanted to be more ‘real’ about death.
a) This is insulting to all soldiers who fight over seas for there country and other countries freedom, and all soldiers who have ever fought and died for the same reasons. Death does occur in real life in brave hero’s who sacrifice themselves. For causes even. It does not happen to everyone, but that does not make it any less real.
b) Who is to say the desire for it to be more ‘real’ is what’s best for ones video game story at all. Can we not agree that the best games, or books, or even movies that we love the most are the ones where the ‘escapism’ is high? The ones that take us to a ‘long time ago’ and ‘in a far, far away galaxy’. When life is ugly and frustrating, when we feel the most like nobodies we turn on the game consul and obliterate our game enemies troops, where we are the most famous pokemon trainer there is, where we save the woodland critters for Dr robotnic, and we amass more gold than people dream of seeing. Though we haven’t gotten much done in our ‘real’ lives at least we can our favorite game and admire how we have acquired every weapon, unlocked every costume, and gotten our level to its highest. For games, books, and films alike, escapism is a desirable attribute for it to have. Pointedly making death very, very real clashes with the quality of the games escapism.
c) To make another case about bringing Aries back to life, even if they needed a death scene in an abnormal character to have die, they can defy that cliché and still bring her back to life at some point, and cliché stays ‘defied’.
d) Also, what of the alternative character they considered and rejected? Barrette. Even if they couldn’t have there dying character’s death be one of heroic sacrifice, that only entails mechanism and nature of death, but not character. Barrette could be killed off suddenly like Aries was and it have the same effect as Aries dying for those reasons. The difference though in Barrette and Aries is that Barrettes role was over at that point in the game. The plot involving his past with Dyne had already played out, and he really steps aside as a leading figure after the group leaves Midgard. There is little to no reason to keep him around at the point of Aries death in the game plot wise. Aries on the other hand is the only LIVING ANCEINT (other than Sephoroth of course). Her being alive would have allowed for further exploration of what the Ancients are in future installments in ways that are unavailable now. Mysteries of the Ancients has been pretty closed off. Meanwhile Barrette offers nothing to all the latest installments, just an old buddy to the star heroes, who is raising his daughter Marlene.
Allow me to note that Con has dropped each and every one of his arguments. He is the instigator and carries a burden of proof, so not responding to my counterpoints essentially loses him the debate.
I will respond, however, to his counterpoints of my positive case, in the same format as Pro made them.
1) I argued that Aries' death was one of the greatest moments in gaming history, not the greatest. Gamespy was ranking the most 'cinematic' moments in gaming - a vague term that is not only tied with visuals or theme tunes. This point is obvious from the clip - Aries' death isn't particularly visually impressive, though the music is rather haunting. If the ranking system were only about visuals or music, other scenes from FF7 itself would have ranked higher. Rather, the scene was ranked higher for other reasons - specified in Gamespy's account as the emotional impact of Aries' death.
Con attempts a bizarre pseudo-psychological explanation of the fact that video game fans everywhere regard Aries' death as a seminal moment in gaming history - saying, essentially, that gamers are confusing their own emotional response to a good character being killed off with great storytelling. However, it is important to note that this line of argument is impossible. The main reason people often say that Aries' death was an important moment was because of the emotional toll it exacted. Because of the shock and sadness of losing the character so suddenly and brutally that storytelling moment has been praised.
Stepping back from the emotional response to the death of a main character to assess its worth as part of the plot is like burning off your own taste buds to 'objectively' assess the taste of some food. The greatness of the moment is so tied up with the emotional response it invoked that to remove oneself from that is missing the whole point.
Con says "The plot did not even build up to her death either. It was just thrown in there" That was the whole point! That's why the death was so emotionally compelling - it didn't happen for any higher purpose. There was no warning. It was just a brutal death at the hands of an evil antagonist, and therein lies the draw of the scene.
A) The answer to this is rather simple - all the spells that revive characters in the battle system revive characters that have been *knocked out* or K.O.'d, not out and out killed. Besides, what is this supposed to prove? In most RPG's there is a disconnect between what happens during cut scenes and what happens during gameplay. In the actual story people don't take turns to attack each other or drink potions to recover their 'HP'. Those are just gameplay elements that are disconnected plotwise from the overarching story.
B) I have no idea what the argument is supposed to be here. Um, interesting exposition of death mythos from FF?
2) That's about right, though I was really letting the makers themselves make the case.
a) This just misses the point - it is true, of course, that brave sacrifices do sometimes happen in real life. However, the point is that in gaming the plotlines far too often use that plot point to the point of cliché - it is overused, whereas in real life death is often brutal short and unexpected. Don't many more people die suddenly and even pointlessly in war?
b) You are, once again, missing the point - Aries' death was more natural and realistic within the context of the game. This may appear paradoxical, but it isn't really. Just because a story takes place in a fantasy world doesn't mean that it can get away with using cliché, deux ex machinas or absurd coincidences - those spoil the immersion in the fantasy world. Far from helping escapism into a video game, clichéd plotlines break immersion. Obviously Aries' death wasn't realistic in the sense that she died in a way similar to how people die in the real world - she was killed by a sword wielding genetic experiment that flew in from the sky. But that isn't the sense in which the word 'real' was being used.
c) I don't really get this point. As pointed out, bringing Aries back would cheapen the dramatic impact of the scene.
d) Frankly, I don't think that the death scene would have been nearly as emotional in Barrett had died. Barrett was a walking, mildly racist, Mr T stereotype. He might have been memorable, but he certainly wasn't as interesting or well developed a character as Aries was at that point in the game. Barrett's death simply wouldn't have had the emotional impact that Aries' death did, and it is doubtful that it would have become a classic moment in gaming history.
To begin, I defend that I did not drop anything last round. I fully intend to rebut all of my opponents counterpoints this round. This debate I wanted to challenge myself to say what needs said in fewer words with a 6,000 character limit. Like many things we are initially bad at, when we challenge ourselves to them…we are still pretty lousy at it for a while. Because I knew I said “no new arguments in round 4” I knew that rebuttal could wait, I had to get all my new cases in before then, and that took up all the space. The following is my rebuttal.
1) My opponent makes a case about her death defying cliché and yet seemed to concede killing off characters is itself an overused plot device. Overused being another term for cliché.
2) I admitted to last actions of deceased still driving some plot earlier already, and as I stated is quickly used up to its end. Besides this, it’s the plane fact that death of a character diminishes what you can do with them. Aries can no longer be developed or grow as a character, and the story tellers can not show how she would handle new situations in further plot. Because for Aries the plot is done
3) My opponent conceded that whatever kind of plot importance you put on her death it must be considered in of itself, because it had no important bearing on the rest of the plot.
4) Who are we kidding about the gamers? The gamers know all the way to the end of the game that Sephoroth will be the last boss to beat.
5) You could argue it made the game more challenging but you would fail. The game is as challenging as the gamer makes it. The last fight was a cakewalk for me but I wasted a ton of time tp create all the Master Materia. Sephorath never even got to use his best attack before he was finished off. The Great Replay ability factor in a game like a RPG is being able to go back and finish it with other means, like a different party combination for example. The more possibilities the better and all the party combinations involving Aries are locked away from us due to her irrevocable death. I can replay the game also to here a final battle speech from every character if I pare up the teams right with the exception of Cait Sith, and Aries. The game would be much better if I had the possibility of using 3 full 3 party teams against the last Boss’s 3 sides.
6) The “vagueness” of the term ‘cinematic moment’ is what undercuts the whole authority of Gamespys ranking system. If they think great moments can be judged by putting theme tune intros against plot changing twist then they clearly have no decent standard for calling something a great moment.
7) I ask the readers should I call a Slasher film good story just because it is great at instilling an emotional response of me or other viewers. Emotion stirring scenes are okay but they are like the pepper I add to a cooking burger, It may add to the flavor of the burger but I still cant call it part of the meat. In film, game or book, the emotional half of the experience reflects its entertainment value, but it can often say nothing of the other half of a story that makes up the meat of the plot, the mental intrigue. Aries death does not grip us into thinking about any of the ongoing plot, it only holds us into moment of the death itself, threatening to not let us move on.
8) The quick death of by the sword can hardly be called brutal. She died without a brews
9) My opponent admitted to a disconnect caused by the game play elements like Revive matiria. My point is if Aries death is supposed to show us anything about how ‘death really is’ then it ultimately fails because of the disconnect admittedly caused by the gameplay elements phoenix down and life2 magic and angle whisper command.
10) My point was about another disconnect (caused by story and not gameplay) in clouds breaking the barriers between the realm of life and the realm of death and yet we are to believe that Aries can’t?
11) Often in War? Does Pro have statistics to show if its often in peace? We die from long battles with lung cancer, alcohol addiction, suicidal depression, simple old age, heart attacks, accidents, ect. What makes these deaths any less ‘real’ to a reader of a story than the sudden meaningless death like Aries?
12) Death and ‘absurd coincidences’ are not of the same nature of things we want good escapism away from. Sure, I may want a game to be real enough to not have absurd coincidences in it, but if there is any factor at all that one would want to escape from in there actual life, I would say it be the things like death of a close family member or special friend you know who recently lost his life. Can we not agree that its good thing when the game I turn on can help me escape my grief for just 5 minutes without reminding me about my friend?
13) My opponent repeatedly say’s bringing Aries back to life would cheapen the death, but repeating it does not make it less a tautology. Her death, as I have stated, is cheapened regardless by gameplay elements and clouds trip to the lifestream. Even forgetting that Pro never gives us a reason why we should think the death cheapened. When I saw Aries death for the first time I did not learn until later that she does not come back, and likewise I would not know that she did if she had later on.
14) Calling Mr T a raciest stereotype is kind of raciest. All the plot elements are there for player to be affect so by Barrettes death. Founder of Avalanche, He started you on the quest to save the planet in the first thing you do at all in the game. And after his promise to not get himself killed in the Dyne incident for so he can raise Marlene the way Dyne coudn't….the tragedy behind how heroic resolutions like that can still mean nothing faced up against threats like Sephoroth is still heartbreaking.Point is more could be done with Barrettes death, though its apparent the story writers found nothing more to do with him in life. But as I have pointed out that’s not the case with Aries.
1) This is untrue. I said that the 'hero sacrifices himself to save the world' plot line is overused and cliched. It's obviously untrue that characters dying is necessarily cliched, since characters dying have made some of the best plots in storytelling.
2) If this line of argument were valid, then no characters in anything would ever die ever (except perhaps at the the very end of a franchise), so it obviously doesn't work. Besides, as I noted FF7 had a large roster of compelling characters, so killing off one character hardly diminished the overall narrative of the game. Perhaps if aries was the only good character this would be a good point, but she wasn't.
3) To be honest, I didn't bother working out the plot to see if her death was important plotwise. But saying that her death was an important plotpoint in itself is hardly a concession. If anything, that's a positive point in its favour.
4) Misses the point. Some antagonists never do anything to make the protagonists afraid throughout the whole game, and yet at the end they're supposed to be the most fearful, powerful villains in the game. By killing a main character, Sephiroth was roved to be a real threat plotwise.
5) As I recall, FF7 had a battle system that allowed anyone to equip 'materia' which gave them abilities, meaning pretty much any ability could be used by pretty much any character, with the exceptions being limit breaks (which, by the way, has lead to the side quest for hardcore gamers of getting all Aries' limit breaks before her death) so not much gameplay flexibility was lost by Aries' death anyway. Arguing that there aren't as many 'final battle speech's as there would be is Aries was alive is obviously a trivial matter.
6) Firstly, Gamespy was only one of the rankings I listed. And just because some of the criterion were vague doesn't mean the fact that many different people regard Aeries' death as a great moment had no weight. All it means is that many people can't exactly put into words what they regard as so great about the moment - though many people have.
7) This is a pseudo-metaphorical argument I can't really get my head around. I personally didn't feel that Aries' death spoiled the rest of the narrative in any significant sense - indeed, the 'meat' of the plot continued long after Aries' death and the game is famous and highly praised for events that happened after that plot moment. FF7 contained moments of both intellectual interest, plot twists and character development, and emotional punch. The two element combined made FF7 into a better game than many others, and some have praised it as one of the greatest games of all time. If Aries' death was such a mistake it is doubtful that would have happened - and the fact that many people list it as such an important moment makes that even less plausible.
8) In a fantasy world where people rarely die, and if they do it's often in obscure magical ways, being stabbed through the heart is short and brutal in contrast. Obviously it could be worse, but that would've been out of place in a non-dark fantasy game.
9) Con doesn't really acknowledge my counterpoint here. I already addressed this - characters are knocked out during combat, and the story is disconnected from the gameplay. This is just a feature of JRPG games.
10) While she's made of energy and no longer retains her sense of self? I don't think so.
11) This just completely misses the point. I'm not saying they aren't. All I'm saying is that the hero sacrificing himself is cliched, and the makers wanted to break that cliched plotline.
12) The logical conclusion of this is that we should never have a fictional media that causes us distress - this is obviously absurd. Some of the greatest works of fiction ever include dark themes such as death and pain.
13) These points are already addressed, and Aries' death is not cheapened by those things. The point is that if we learned later that Aries had a magical way to come back to life, the moment of her death would no longer retain its significance and it wouldn't have become the iconic moment it is now.
14) Again, it's simply obvious that Barrett's death would not have had the same impact. He wasn't the kind of character that would have the same emotional impact - Cloud putting Barrett to rest in the pool would hardly be as touching. Besides, as pointed out there was still a rich storyline that continued after Aries' death through the other characters, so Aries' death didn't spoil the story.
Thanks for the debate!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|