Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/47099
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

A big piece of criticism I've seen directed at the last season of _Game of Thrones_ was the fact that

> they killed the Night King before the finale, and the last episodes had Cersei, a mere mortal, as the enemy. Considering the Night King wanted to instate an eternal night, and Cersei just wanted to continue her tyranny,

it is safe to say the former villain brought a lot more stakes to the table.

Personally, I didn't have much of a problem with exactly the downscaling of stakes. I don't care that much about stakes.

> With Cersei, there was A LOT more emotional investment than with the one-dimensional Night King, so I found it to still be compelling when she came around to be the center antagonist.

Though the fact remains, many did not like the progression. And I have heard that the standard progression is always higher stakes in sequels to come. First the hero might be saving the streets, then the country, then the world, then the universe, etc. So, if I create my story in a way that the stakes are lower with the last villain, will that make it less compelling?

Also, what are the implications of this with spin-offs?

Original score: 23