FF7 - Is it just me...

[Kasz216]

Borkachev said:

I mean... it'd be hard to find a more straight forward piece of literature then Hamlet. Maybe Last Action Hero the novelization.

The only reason some critics argue about some aspects of Shakespeares plays is that they weren't meant to be read. They were meant to be performed... and it's been a long time since they were performed and Shakespeare could instruct the actors what emotions they were directly supposed to be displaying. Had videotapes existed when Shakespeare and his gang put on his plays there would be no debates.

You have a point to a certain extent, but it's a little more complicated than that. Hamlet's plot is very straightforward; the depth comes from ambiguity in things like motivation, symbolism, and meaning. There's a lot more to it than just "Hamlet is supposed to be angry when he says this." There are questions like "What do these events and this dialogue really mean?" "Is Hamlet hesitating because he's afraid, or does he represent modernity rebelling against the ancient ways? (or insert any x versus y symbols)" "And what the hell is up with him and his mother?" Even with Shakespeare alive to answer these things, that doesn't mean that there's only one valid interpretation, or even that Shakespeare's is it (but now I'm getting in a little too deep for a gaming forum).

FFVII, by contrast, has more of its ambiguity in the events of the plot itself. "Why did Holy fail?" "What exactly was Aeris' involvement in the events of the last chapter?" "Was humanity wiped out?" Both of these approaches add depth and value to the narrative.

It's basically where they got the story from... also like 70% of the graphics and gameplay. It's a much better story then FF Tactics which was basically "ZOMG Christianity is EVIL and demons are doing stuff but we'll vaguely hide the fact that it's Christianity."

That's not even remotely what it's about.

I'm thinking about doing a literary analysis piece on FFTactics. Maybe you'll be able to find it on Gamefaqs someday and see what I mean.

 The only reason it's there is because their is no record as to how Shakespeare played it.  Also saying that the Authors intention isn't always the right one and that's why it's great literature is incredibly stupid.

The Authors intention is the only valid one since he created it.  If what comes across wasn't the authors intention that doesn't make the story a classic... that makes the story a poorly written piece of work since the author couldn't even properly convey his own artistic vision.  This doesn't hold true for plays since you can't really state your characters emotions or intentions... 

Heck the limitation of the play is one of the main reasons Shakespeare so liberally used asides.