By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Borkachev said:
That reason isn't greatness. It's past popularity.

No, it's greatness. You're arguing that the only reason people are still reading these things is because people in the past enjoyed them? No one reading them today appreciates them? What kind of masochistic society do we live in that we torture ourselves with works of literature we hate just because somebody else apparently liked them once?

There are endless examples of classic works that weren't appreciated in their time, and only gained an audience later. Moby Dick. Most of the writings of Edgar Allen Poe. Hundreds of cult movies that flopped at the box office. All of these were panned and passed over by contemporary audiences at large, and only recognized as works of genius afterward.

The analogy to movies was to this extent. Many movies that received five stars 10 years ago would likely not receive such today. You also don't define what you consider relevance so it's immaterial.

This isn't even close to being true. I would be very interested in seeing some evidence, because critics almost universally praise old classics. In fact, they hardly shut up about them.

As for "Relevance," it's the applicability of an artwork's themes and subjects to its audience. To go back to Shakespeare, for instance, many of his plays dealt with things like the role of the monarchy, the issue of bastardy, and the control of women, which are no longer relevant. But his insights into human nature, his poetic dialogue, and his mastery of narrative structure are timeless and contribute to the "greatness" of his works.

But wait, why am I still debating this? I still have no idea what any of this has to do with this conversation!

I very much disagree that "it could have been written yesterday and it would have the same effect." I would actually argue that the era in which it was born was a keyrole in its popularity. Getting the widespread attention Shakespear received is no longer as feasible as it likely once was.

You're 100% right, but you had to change my quote to make that point. I didn't say "it would have the same effect," I said "it would be the same." By that I mean that the play would be just as good if it were written now, or if it were only read by three people. Great works are great regardless of popular opinion (this thread is proof of that).

They're not contradictory at all. One is the cause of the other. Because you need to take away player control to have the characters express their personalities, the extent to which you can have them express their personalities and still provide the player with the enjoyment of playing the game is limited.

This I can follow, but I don't see how the original quote was saying that. You said that reducing player involvement allows the characters to be given depth, but also limits their development. "Character depth" and "character development" to me are almost synonymous, so that would be contradictory.

But it doesn't matter, if this is what you meant. What I'm more interested in is how you feel this issue applies to FFVII. Do you mean that the game focused too heavily on passive story sequences at the expense of gameplay, or the other way around?

The fact that games are the only medium where the audience is in control of the characters and is indeed more than a simple audience is what differenciates games! Remember how I said games were a medium unto itself? There you go.

In theory, maybe. In reality, "interactive storytelling" where the player actually controls the events of the story is still a pipe dream. The furthest we've gotten is "choose your own adventure" type stories where different choices lead to different pre-scripted outcomes. And FFVII doesn't even do that (except in one very limited instance).

I think your last sentence here also defines what many perceive as a problem with some FF games.

Fair enough. That's a matter of personal taste. I'm someone who likes cutscene-heavy games, but I can appreciate that not everybody does. Good storytelling, on the other hand, is 80% objective and can be judged as such by anyone who knows how to do it. That's why I won't compromise on what I know about the quality of the story.

I'm not saying that normal literature does not limit the reader's perspective. I'm saying that video games must limit far more because the player is in control. If the reader knows something the book's characters do not, the story cannot change. If the player knows something that the characters do not, the player can affect the future of the characters to that extent.

I'd like to hear examples of this. As I said above, games are still entirely pre-scripted, just like every other medium. If the player knows something the characters do not, it makes no difference. If you've played FFVII before, you know where you have to go and who's going to die when you get there. But does that change anything? No. If the flag is active, you'll see a cutscene. If it's not, you won't. You have to go back and do things in the proper order before you can progress. Hell, even in a book you can at least skip ahead.

That's a nice way of dodging the discussion. Do you think the PS3 is in a different market than the Wii by any chance?

I don't think I understand what you're implying here.

Anyway, no, I don't think I'm dodging the discussion. I wanted to get my opinion of FFVI out in the open from the start so that anyone who wanted to debate me would know exactly where I stand on it. I can take the next move if you like, by sharing an experience with it:

For years I'd heard about how amazing and wonderful the "FFVI Opera Scene" was. "Best scene in a video game ever," everyone said. When I actually played the game and got to it, it was a laughable disappointment. The music was great and the performance was kind of touching, sure. But it had no point! It was a ridiculous, contrived scene with no relevance to the story as a whole. (Okay now, this general lady is the spitting image of a famous opera singer, and also happens to be a world-class opera singer herself. Oh! And we need you to fill in for her tonight!) Then it's capped off with some dialogue that sounds like something I might have written in a third-grade short story, and you fight a purple talking octopus for some reason, and get an airship. It's a classic nonsense JRPG quest.

And then later she jumps off a cliff and is nursed back to health by... a duck, or something? I forget. Honestly, how did people convince themselves this was a great epic story?

But. I've only played FFVI once, and I'm not as familiar with it as with FFVII. So if someone can sit me down and walk me through what makes it great, I'm willing to change my mind. Eager, even. I'd love to see what others see in it, because to me right now it's pretty much a joke.

Oh, and I also think Xenogears is a convoluted, incompetent mess (with moments of brilliance), FFVIII is a really poorly written soap opera, and FFIX starts out great but falls apart after the first disk. Just in case anybody's in the mood to take offense.

Well... a duck... or the scientist who genetically altered her and felt incredibilty guilty about it as he saw her like a daugher. A Man who nursed her back to health in an attempt to make up for his past sins. Also, this is all that keeps him going, as the several other people on the island with them committed suicide because of how badly Kefka screwed up the world. Suicide by the way... definitly a big theme in "whimsy" games.

Also by several. I mean all of them. They all killed themselves except for Cid who was taking care of Celes. Who as far as he knew would never wake up.

Cid can live or die... and if he dies. She attempts suicide. Which ends up being pretty big as she is the one who ends up rallying everyone else and getting them through their own problems.

Why is it so great? Character development. The game had three/four times the characters as FF7 and yet each character had as much if not more character develoment.  (Aside from Gogo... and possibly Umaro.)

The Opera scene actually also developed the relationship between Celes and Locke. Which gave her a moment to let her guard down after pretty much having been on guard and fighting for... pretty much since she was introduced.