I'd rather read a story where someone breaks their limits and comes out victorious when they should have lost then the other way around so I'm not sure the sequel is as bad.
D
Deleted member 113259
Nah it's worse when the hero does it because you've actually been with the hero on his journey and know his power is bs. When it's the villain there's a hole bunch of stuff he could've been doing off-screen.
There are also ways to make it work with a villain (still wouldn't recommend most to try). There is no possible way to make a good story out of "The protagonist was getting his ass kicked and then won for some reason."
D
Deleted member 113259
@RepresentingEnvy It's boring for the exact same reason as the hero counterpart, just slightly less obvious in its' b.s.
Let's just agree that both are bad, but it is better for a general audience if the hero wins at the end for some reason
D
Deleted member 113259
Both are bad yes.
Why would a general audience want to see the hero win for no reason? Wouldn't it make more sense to get his ass kicked, triggering further motivation in the story?
I am referring to the ending. Most people want the hero to be victorious at the end, and if that is achieved through Deus Ex Machina many readers overlook it. But the inverse will make the story feel more unfulfilling.
It doesn't have to be at the end, an author can just write "Anon felt a prick on his neck, then blackness. He awoke in a coffin with an unbearable hunger."
You could do it the other way around "Anon never wanted to be a vampire, so he glared at Envy then walked out into the sunlight expecting to burn to ash. But despite his expectations he turned back into a question mark."