Perhaps I should have said "downward spiral" for tragedy. I meant a slow but steady fall from grace — a collapse where you end at the bottom — not an immediate fall from which a character needs to build themselves back up. [b] [/b] I see disempowering a character more as a gameplay mechanic than a plot point. For example, in [i]Final Fantasy VI[/i], Tera is a half-human half-esper. Celes is a genetically enhanced magiteck knight. Even so, they both start off at the same level and are really no more powerful gameplay wise than anyone else. Conversely, Sabin, a strong guy but still just a normal human, can suplex a train. In [i]NieR:Automata[/i], there's no power progression in terms of story (except for 9S). 2B and A2 were badasses from the get-go. Levels and the ability to equip more chips are purely a gameplay mechanic. Throughout [i]The Witcher[/i] series, Geralt has killed countless monsters and aquired some pretty spiffy gear. He still starts [i]The Witcher 3[/i] at level 1 with basic gear though. In [i]Horizon Zero Dawn[/i], Aloy's skills are already honed by the beginning of the story. Sje learns more about her enemies but her aim never improves (nor does it need to). Level and gear are purely for the player's sense of progression. The game even has a "story mode" where you can effectively bypass all non-plot related combat. [b] [/b] I guess it really depends on how you define empowering vs disempowering. [i]Skyrim[/i] and [i]Dark Souls[/i] are both games where you start off relatively weak but can overlevel and make things trivial. The Dragonborn and Chosen Undead are both destined to take out gods. On paper, they both seem like disempowering games. The only real difference is, the Chosen Undead is immortal while the Dragonborn is not. In theory, the Chosen Undead cannot fail. He/She will just keep coming back until they succeed, much in the same way a room of infinite monkeys on typewriters typing indefinitely will inevitably create the entire works of Shakespeare. Your final choice will matter, but you will inevitably reach it. in contrast, the Dragonborn could theoretically be killed, thus failing in their quest. In terms of plot, the Chosen Undead is Jason or Michael Meyers while the Dragonborn is King Arthur, making the Chosen Dead seemingly the more empowered character, at least initially. However, [i]Dark Souls[/i] would likely be considered the "disempowering" game whereas [i]Skyrim[/i] would be the "empowering" game. Why? Simply because it's easier to level in Skyrim. It's purely a design choice, disassociated with the plot. If you swapped the gameplay, how would it affect the plot? Theoretically, not at all. However, [i]Skyrim[/i] would become an open world slog and [i]Dark Souls[/i] would be a linear hack'n'slash. The games would feel so different they'd be pretty unrecognizable. Gameplay has no bearing on how well written the plot is, but it VERY much impacts how a player connects with it. Lore wise, they're both rich and amazing. The only difference is [i]Skyrim[/i]'s "empowering" gameplay allows you to explore the world without the game dragging on through artificial difficulty whereas [i]Dark Souls[/i]'s "disempowering" gameplay personalizes each fight. So as which game is a better written, I wouldn't say there's a definitively "better" story, or style for that matter. I see it like comparing [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] and [i]A Quiet Place[/i]. One is a broad, wide story encompassing many character and plotlines. You cut through orcs like they're nothing... a lot. But that's a good thing because the story isn't about fighting orcs. The other is a very personal story. It's quite minimalist, but that's OK because what's going on outside the now doesn't really matter. If anything, it's a distraction. So which is "better written"? Apples and oranges.