I get the impression that hes refering not so much to a poor story, but in fact that the electronic game can typicly be more than book or movie.

If the story is so linnear in nature why make it a game at all? and if the game is what's important why make a story at all?

Having linear stories in video games these days is partially making up for the decline in reading(atleast where I live).

Originally, game developers made stories linear either out of necessity due to limited hardware (Ultima, Phantasy Star) or because the developers wanted their product to stand out from the other games on the market (Final Fantasy, Mother, etc).  Now adays, 'linear' story is up to the eyes of the beholder, but often times comes about due to the developers wanting to focus on either the story or graphics over gameplay.  Many a successful gaming series has been made because they put emphasis on high production values and a very linear storyline, and not just RPGs.  The argument can be made that many action games or adventure games now adays follow a linear storyline.  Stuff like God of War, Metal Gear Solid, even Uncharted where the majority of story is dictated by mini cutscenes and triggered gameplay events.

Sure, you could make these into books or a movie, but games are big business now.  Many games can do MUCH better than a movie and infinitely better than a book.  And plus, many game developers still enjoy making games, even if some of them border on the amount of reading you find in the avg. novel and have far less actual 'action' you'd expect.

I am fond for the Kingdom Hearts story.Even though some would argue that it seems pretty "cliché".About a boy who is trying to save his friends.I still feel that the story  is deep and charming.Futhermore it has Disney character which is always a plus.

I will repeat it especially o people who keep repeating MGS or FF KH etc. Read Count of Monte Cristo it will blow your mind if you find those stories even mildly good.

@Khuutra
Yes he's dead, so what? The book is friken epic.

There's nothing wrong with a story being cliche.  There's countless stories which are very popular (and still good) which are cliche.  Look at Hajime no Ippo fro mAnime or The Legend of Zelda from gaming.  The bigger problem for Kingdom Hearts is its similarities to Final Fantasy storylines.  What I call 'Betrayal, Death and Diologue'.  Nearly every Final Fantasy, and especially even more since FFVII, has emphasized a major secondary character betraying the main character(s).  Then someone (usually many people) have to die.  And finally, we have hours upon hours of long diologue sequences.  After you know....dozens of games like this....you sense a pattern and it really just becomes as cliche as Tom chasing Jerry.

Now, to my knowledge, nobody has died in Kingdom Hearts.  But they seem to be playing out the rest of the formula perfectly.  And they sure are playing up many of the other SquareEnix stereotypes, including dragging out the storyline (its already had 5 main games and 2 cell phone games with another new game in production) and infusing, in my opinion, a rather weak and pointless love story.

I agree with you to a certain extend.Sure Riku is the "emo kid" of the story who has darkness in his heart.Sora is the silent protagonist and Kairi is the damsel in distress.But in my opinion Kingdom Hearts is more like a shonen manga story.Since it is more focus on friendship(a trait that is included in every shonen manga).In the case of Final Fantasy I cannot really comment,due to the fact that I have never played a FF game before.

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read about The Prince. There are different interpretations of Maquiavelli, but there is also some common ground. Almost everyone agree that he has a realistic view of the world and a negative view of human nature. Now lets see all the nonsense you wrote:

1) Machiavelli did not despise mankind, at least not outlining it so in The Prince

2) Getting people to love you is the greatest weapon of all.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

The above should be enough, but I will offer more:

If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this non-observance. Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best.

There is first to note that, whereas in other principalities the ambition of the nobles and the insolence of the people only have to be contended with, the Roman emperors had a third difficulty in having to put up with the cruelty and avarice of their soldiers, a matter so beset with difficulties that it was the ruin of many; for it was a hard thing to give satisfaction both to soldiers and people; because the people loved peace, and for this reason they loved the unaspiring prince, whilst the soldiers loved the warlike prince who was bold, cruel, and rapacious, which qualities they were quite willing he should exercise upon the people, so that they could get double pay and give vent to their own greed and cruelty. Hence it arose that those emperors were always overthrown who, either by birth or training, had no great authority, and most of them, especially those who came new to the principality, recognizing the difficulty of these two opposing humours, were inclined to give satisfaction to the soldiers, caring little about injuring the people. Which course was necessary, because, as princes cannot help being hated by someone, they ought, in the first place, to avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they ought to endeavour with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the most powerful. Therefore, those emperors who through inexperience had need of special favour adhered more readily to the soldiers than to the people; a course which turned out advantageous to them or not, accordingly as the prince knew how to maintain authority over them.

From these causes it arose that Marcus, Pertinax, and Alexander, being all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant, came to a sad end except Marcus; he alone lived and died honoured, because he had succeeded to the throne by hereditary title, and owed nothing either to the soldiers or the people; and afterwards, being possessed of many virtues which made him respected, he always kept both orders in their places whilst he lived, and was neither hated nor despised.

His negative view of mankind is everywhere in The Prince. One must be a real idiot or totally clueless to state otherwise. I have seen texts that state his negative view is limited to Prince and that it was not what he really believed. That is the opposite of what you said.

If anything Machiavelli said the prince should avoid hatred, not seek love. He even says that the love of your subjects can lead to ruin. There is nothing about love being the most important thing. Hell, he praises the guys that can succeed despite being hated. That is the whole point of virtu, overcoming any hardships lady luck throws at you.

3) Condescension, or anything that would cause a person to become embroiled in an argument, was not acceptable: it is xactly (sic) why he holds lies as being so powerful

I dont remember anything about this. I think this is bullshit. A prince is prince why would he not be condescending with his subjects and soldiers? That is what being a prince is all about. You are on a higher plane and must act so. Who would respect a prince that act like a peasant? That would be his ruin. Would you show me some quote that state otherwise?

This is not a matter of opinion, semantics or interpretation. You are wrong about Machiavelli. For me it seems you have not read the book at all. It seems like someone had a class about The Prince and them told you something that you misinterpreted. I bet you dont even know to why the book was written, who was it for and what was Machiavelli purpose. That is what make the condescension part so absurd.

I wont even bother if you cant argument with quotes of the book.

The highest standpoint from which to rule was both love and fear; I believe that was in your original post quoting him. The two in balance were considered ideal because too much of one without the other would lead to hatred, which is what leads to revolt. he whole point was to instruct a prince in how to keep control of the kingdom that was in his power.

You spend a lot of time saying potentially short things.

Being hated was a bad idea - if your subjects hated you, they would revolt, which means you had failed. One of the points that he made clear was that there was a different between fear and hate.

You are free to rant all you like about my interpretations and so on and so forth, but might I suggest that it not be here? You are persisting in being off-topic and I am loathe to contribute to this flagrant waiving of the rules.

Moving on.

Guys, you're ruining a great thread. Let's talk shit about how stupid video games are, and how awesome they could and should be.

And all the best stories in games probably came out BEFORE 1995, since that's when this "cinematic gaming experience" bullshit took over the medium. The logical extension of cinematic gaming is making... a movie.