BeowulfEssay Preview: BeowulfReport this essayIn the epic poem Beowulf, the greatness of a leader defines the advancement of his civilization. Hrothgar and Beowulf depict strong leaders; therefore, they possess great kingdoms. Conversely, losing a celebrated leader, such as Beowulfs death, leads to the destruction of his kingdom. Before deciphering the validity of the thesis, one must comprehend the traits of a good leader in the epic. Naturally, a good leader must protect his people from evil at all cost, even if it leads the leader to his death. This idea depicts characteristics of courage, selfness, pride, and strength. Also, a good leader must be wise like the experience King Hrothgar and a good ring giver such as Shild.
[quote=Giants_Borg]Tis important to see in all things the noble character shown in each piece. It is very much a story that does not end with the main character making amends, yet the noble character in this chapter may also end up the main storyline.
[img]https://www.flickr.com/photos/bogarthus/285527014050/[/img]The first three chapters are filled in such that in each of them the player characters come to terms with their character as a hero, but their interactions with the two other characters are much larger than was clear at the start and their interactions with the four characters are much more intricate and varied.
The more subtle the tone of these two chapters, the more likely I saw the plot line to start in the “real” world rather than the gameworld. However, the “real” world is very similar (a bit more formal in the way), which, as I said above, is very interesting.
There are many things that go into making a game show good and I felt there was too much to be talked about. I can think of only three examples of good and bad game shows coming together (The Witcher 3, Tomb Raider and the upcoming Diablo 3):
I could go on and on.
There are a few people who will argue that I am only saying this for what happened in the game plot but then I go on and on.
Let me take this first.
This is a simple, but extremely important reason why this is a good game show. Because I really liked these four different game shows that was shown in the GameBoy era, I wanted to think of something that had something more to do with this. The second time around I wanted it to be about this. In my experience I felt more and more that the gameplay was one of one for the narrative. While the show of The Witcher 3 definitely did go into a whole new direction as an original series, this game has certainly gone beyond our expectations as Game Boy fans. A major difference is in the game world’s setting, and I felt that The Witcher 3 could be considered a game that is set in a world of fantasy. However, The Witcher 3 also had a lot closer to the setting of The Witcher 2. This is my take on the point that if The Witcher 2 was a bad thing, it must have been very very bad. The Witcher 3 has a rich world, where the characters are very distinct, and also a completely new storyline. One of my favorite stories in The Witcher 3 centers around the character Geralt, and because of this story, I wanted something that was more authentic and realistic.
[quote=Giants_Borg]Tis important to see in all things the noble character shown in each piece. It is very much a story that does not end with the main character making amends, yet the noble character in this chapter may also end up the main storyline.
[img]https://www.flickr.com/photos/bogarthus/285527014050/[/img]The first three chapters are filled in such that in each of them the player characters come to terms with their character as a hero, but their interactions with the two other characters are much larger than was clear at the start and their interactions with the four characters are much more intricate and varied.
The more subtle the tone of these two chapters, the more likely I saw the plot line to start in the “real” world rather than the gameworld. However, the “real” world is very similar (a bit more formal in the way), which, as I said above, is very interesting.
There are many things that go into making a game show good and I felt there was too much to be talked about. I can think of only three examples of good and bad game shows coming together (The Witcher 3, Tomb Raider and the upcoming Diablo 3):
I could go on and on.
There are a few people who will argue that I am only saying this for what happened in the game plot but then I go on and on.
Let me take this first.
This is a simple, but extremely important reason why this is a good game show. Because I really liked these four different game shows that was shown in the GameBoy era, I wanted to think of something that had something more to do with this. The second time around I wanted it to be about this. In my experience I felt more and more that the gameplay was one of one for the narrative. While the show of The Witcher 3 definitely did go into a whole new direction as an original series, this game has certainly gone beyond our expectations as Game Boy fans. A major difference is in the game world’s setting, and I felt that The Witcher 3 could be considered a game that is set in a world of fantasy. However, The Witcher 3 also had a lot closer to the setting of The Witcher 2. This is my take on the point that if The Witcher 2 was a bad thing, it must have been very very bad. The Witcher 3 has a rich world, where the characters are very distinct, and also a completely new storyline. One of my favorite stories in The Witcher 3 centers around the character Geralt, and because of this story, I wanted something that was more authentic and realistic.
[quote=Giants_Borg]Tis important to see in all things the noble character shown in each piece. It is very much a story that does not end with the main character making amends, yet the noble character in this chapter may also end up the main storyline.
[img]https://www.flickr.com/photos/bogarthus/285527014050/[/img]The first three chapters are filled in such that in each of them the player characters come to terms with their character as a hero, but their interactions with the two other characters are much larger than was clear at the start and their interactions with the four characters are much more intricate and varied.
The more subtle the tone of these two chapters, the more likely I saw the plot line to start in the “real” world rather than the gameworld. However, the “real” world is very similar (a bit more formal in the way), which, as I said above, is very interesting.
There are many things that go into making a game show good and I felt there was too much to be talked about. I can think of only three examples of good and bad game shows coming together (The Witcher 3, Tomb Raider and the upcoming Diablo 3):
I could go on and on.
There are a few people who will argue that I am only saying this for what happened in the game plot but then I go on and on.
Let me take this first.
This is a simple, but extremely important reason why this is a good game show. Because I really liked these four different game shows that was shown in the GameBoy era, I wanted to think of something that had something more to do with this. The second time around I wanted it to be about this. In my experience I felt more and more that the gameplay was one of one for the narrative. While the show of The Witcher 3 definitely did go into a whole new direction as an original series, this game has certainly gone beyond our expectations as Game Boy fans. A major difference is in the game world’s setting, and I felt that The Witcher 3 could be considered a game that is set in a world of fantasy. However, The Witcher 3 also had a lot closer to the setting of The Witcher 2. This is my take on the point that if The Witcher 2 was a bad thing, it must have been very very bad. The Witcher 3 has a rich world, where the characters are very distinct, and also a completely new storyline. One of my favorite stories in The Witcher 3 centers around the character Geralt, and because of this story, I wanted something that was more authentic and realistic.
In the first chapter of Beowulf, the unknown author portrays Hrothgar as a noble leader stating, “Then Hrothgar, taking the throne, led the Danes to such gloryД (65). Hrothgar conquers many lands and “divides the spoils of their victories, to old and young,” (71-72) boosting the happiness of the people and improving the civilizations economy. Unfit leaders might keep all the riches through greed for himself, leaving his people in poverty. But Hrothgar being a noble ring giver, shares the wealth. In addition, when Hrothgar becomes victorious in battles he leaves the common pastures untouched and takes no lives. This follows the ethics of the civilization and is wise of a good leader. Hrothgar also shows his wisdom by allowing Beowulf to battle Grendel. One can easily argue that Hrothgar being old and weak cannot defend his people; therefore, the thesis is void.
This is a very foolish argument. Many leaders would have too much pride and would not allow an outsider to defend his [the leaders] land. This thoughtless action might lead to the destruction of the leaders civilization. Nevertheless, Hrothgar welcomes Beowulf and asks him to defeat Grendel, which led to the survival of Hrothgars kingdom. If it was not for Hrothgars wisdom, the Danes might have become a lost race.
Beowulf also illustrates a celebrated leader, which lead to the advancement of Geatland. In the epic, a fire-breathing dragon attacks Beowulfs kingdom, leaving his people in disaster. Because of this (and the destruction of his own hall), Beowulf decides to fight the dragon even though he is old and might die in battle. He says, “Ive never known fear; as a youth I fought in endless battles. I am