Tendo City

NAme one eh? Syberia. No fights at all, and it's not boring because it's puzzle driven. The entire thing is specially crafted so every single aspect represents something. The story just involves a lady searching for the last heir to a toy company so it can be bought out, and eventually you find the guy in the most lackluster way possible :D, but the entire journey is one of the best things I've ever seen.

Oh yes, I hate it when people say that there can never be as good a movie, book, whatever, as some classic. If it can never get that good again, why even try?

What, Cyan didn't develop as a character? Terra frickin' changed completely by the end of the game, don't tell me she didn't! And um, perhaps the entire frickin' PLANET becoming a wasteland had a slight effect on the character? Okay, not Sabin, and most of the changes had to be reversed, but it was there. There is a lot of depth there.

Darth Vadar as God? OB1, is that accurate? Did Lucas state that's what he intended Vader to be?

I guess Lazy has never played an adventure game... even when they have violence it's usually disposed of either very simply or with a puzzle... (Monkey Island, TLJ, Grim Fandango, etc).

Quote:Don't. Repeating yourself won't make it any more true that games without that are the worse off for it.

Great rebuttal.

Quote:It's Tornquist (with dots over the o.) and Schaefer.

They spelled it "Shafer" in that article.




No, Vader isn't supposed to be God. :) At least that's not how Lucas intended it. Inspiration from Star Wars, according to George Lucas, came from these things:

-Ancient mythology, be it Greek, Roman, Chinese, Japanese, you name it.
-History. WWII and the rise of Hitler especially
-Old scifi serials (Flash Gordon and the like)
-Samurai movies. The Kurosawa ones especially.
-His own life. As he describes it in the Episode I making-of documentary (on the dvd), Star Wars is about his life, himself. It's not just some story that he likes, the movie is him. I interpret that to mean that the themes and messages in the movie (how the choices we make in life are determined by our priorities and how wisely we decide what is most important, redemption, love, and passion) are taken from his own beliefs and personal experiences.


Lazy, I know what you're saying and where you're coming from, but you have to admit that you're looking at this from a film perspective. Games are not movies, like you said. Because of that, stories in games should not be bound by the same rules that dictate films and even books. If you want a game with a captivating story that is told in a very uniquely game-like way, play ICO.

As I said before, game designers are still trying to figure out how to tell stories in games. Because of the constantly changing possibilities and restrictions of the medium, it is going to take a while before gamemakers truly figure out great ways to tell stories in this medium. There are already some examples of great storytelling in games, but the percentage is so small and it's still not quite standard-perfect, so you just have to give the designers some time. It is ridiculous to claim that videogames are inherently poor storytelling mediums simply because nobody has figured out the perfect method just yet.

For the record though, I don't think that any of the FF games had great stories. They had atmosphere and the simple stories made them more fun. That's all, IMO.

DJ you have no idea what you're talking about, you didn't even understand what I said.

OB1 I agree with you completely, but I think ytou misunderstood me, video games cannot be movies and should not try to be (we agree with that), story telling in video games will always be krap if they try to emulate actual story telling (using the traditional guidelines), video games call for a new breed of story telling and the only people doing that in my opinion are the devs who design gameplay mechanics that are fun and then throw a story over it as long as it doesn't get in the way of the game. Mario 64 is the most pure example of it.

Dark Vader has a son who must carry the burden of freeing his people and bring about the end of suffering by trusting in the force.

I see context of Moses and/or Jesus and faith in God. Dark Vader is an immaculate conception, the only time this has ever happened in any lore or any type of mythos is when that child is the son of a God and since George is Christian I can only assume he was thinking of the Christian ideal of God and created a Star Wars counterpart of it. To say that Star Wars has no religous overtones or that Vader has no context of God or Jesus (at the very least, in a mild sense) is a false statement.

Of course there are religious overtones in Star Wars, but not what you're thinking. At least, what you're thinking isn't what Lucas was thinking. The immaculate conception part was actually taken from several ancient myths, where the hero was born of a virgin mother. That wasn't taken exclusively from the story of Christ. It's your interpretation, and that's fine. People are supposed to intepret stories and art for themselves.


I consider Mario 64 to be the gaming equivalent of The General. It's all about pure fun, not story. I think that you can make a game where the story compliments the gameplay, and is integrated into the gameplay itself. ICO is one such game, where the story is pretty much told through the actual relationship between you and the girl, which is the gameplay itself. It's a simple story, but told very well on an emotional and visual level. It's something that will draw blank stares from someone who has never played the game, since it is a concept that has no real comparison in any other medium and has to be experienced to understand.

ICO is a gameplay design with a story thrown on it to make it more interesting. It's still nothing more than something like LoLo, which is a proven game formula from the 8-bit days. The character driven diaologue between the characters is cool, but the story is rediculous and only works in the context of a video game where a story can manifest itself as long as there's gameplay to back it up.

And like I said, it's not my interpratation it's Lucas himself that said that he wanted to bring the stories of the bible in to Star Wars when he first began it in highschool. What I said is that Darth Vader could be viewed as Jesus or as God with Luke being his son. Being that the film series has obvious religous overtones it doesn't take rocket science put those two together. And yes, as I also said, there are many mythos where a child is born in an immaculate conception but in every one of those cases it is a hero born of a God, like Hercules for example. But Lucas is using the Bible in his hidden meanings and context. So again, Darth Vader, seeing as how he was born in an immaculate conception could be a nod to Jesus in the story of the bible or be viewed as an all powerful God fighting his son's ideals of a perfect world, the son being Jesus. There are many passages in the bible where Jesus fought God on principals and ideals, that could translate very well to Star Wars. It was one of the films (as a series) we had to study at film school.

Except Darth Vader is pure EVIL :D.

How about compairing Gone with the Wind to the likes of Moby Dick? It's dreary overdramatic selfinterested tones completely kick the arse out of every movie to date, if you try to see in what ways movies are done that are not at all like good book tellin'.

Quote:They spelled it "Shafer" in that article.

I looked at the article, we're both wrong. :)

Quote: Tim Schafer

Quote:Great rebuttal.

Haven't we covered just about every possible element of that arguement already?

Quote:Lazy, I know what you're saying and where you're coming from, but you have to admit that you're looking at this from a film perspective. Games are not movies, like you said. Because of that, stories in games should not be bound by the same rules that dictate films and even books. If you want a game with a captivating story that is told in a very uniquely game-like way, play ICO.

As I said before, game designers are still trying to figure out how to tell stories in games. Because of the constantly changing possibilities and restrictions of the medium, it is going to take a while before gamemakers truly figure out great ways to tell stories in this medium. There are already some examples of great storytelling in games, but the percentage is so small and it's still not quite standard-perfect, so you just have to give the designers some time. It is ridiculous to claim that videogames are inherently poor storytelling mediums simply because nobody has figured out the perfect method just yet.

Yeah... games are not films. But OB1, what is the best model, then? How should games be done that is not like film and that you like? You're clear on disliking any idea I have, but I'm not so sure about what you want...

Quote:OB1 I agree with you completely, but I think ytou misunderstood me, video games cannot be movies and should not try to be (we agree with that), story telling in video games will always be krap if they try to emulate actual story telling (using the traditional guidelines), video games call for a new breed of story telling and the only people doing that in my opinion are the devs who design gameplay mechanics that are fun and then throw a story over it as long as it doesn't get in the way of the game. Mario 64 is the most pure example of it.

As I said to OB1, if you think that, either you haven't played many games with great stories, or you dislike the presentation and translate that over to disliking the whole story... because it's unquestionable that some games have had great stories. As great as the best films? Perhaps not. But games are a lot younger than films are.

Quote:FF6 does not have a good story, it is trite 'save the world' backyard mythology with an inate hero fighting inate evil with no character driven plot. You walk around and get in fights to boost your stats so you can fight more difficult enemies and progress through the game in that way, occasionally having bits of story thrown at you that seem more random than crafted. The entire story element is built around the idea of exploring strange new worlds and dealing with circumstances and conflicts within each new area, in essense a collection of tiny stories to make one large one. RPG's (and most video games in general) have to be designed around that otherwise it gets boring. Unfortunately it's that sub-plot after sub-plot that makes the entire story trite sense those sub-plots aren't even that good to begin with because they were built around the idea of gameplay which in an RPG is building stats and strategically fighting enemies with a team of extremes.

Games have to be dramatically longer than films. Thus, you cannot do as straightforward a story as you can in a film (focusing just on one thing), because you've got to spread it out over a lot more time... so either you add more complexity, sidequests, plot twists, whatever, or you make it have a very thin story with lots of time in between each story part. Complaining about RPGs having too many sidequests seems silly to me... given the length of a game, you couldn't really make just the main quest good enough to fill up so much time! Games aren't movies...

Quote:A fighting type person, a healing type person, a person who only uses long-range weapons, a defensive person, etc. Each one comes from a different town and has an extreme personality to go with their extreme visage. The fighter is overly heroic with a strong body and mad sword skills, the healer is usually a cute woman with a weak body against attacks and so on. They do this so it's more fun to play the game.

The more true this is the more standard it is... and yes, most games like to use stereotypical characters. I wouldn't say they do it because it's more fun... not all game conventions are there because they're more fun. They're mostly there, I think, because of either just so much time is behind them that they're hard to change or because the designers don't want to spend the time and effort to come up with something more interesting... and yes, maybe because they know the gamers will expect certain stereotypes from the characters.

Quote:But this is krap story telling, this is comic book-writen by a 12 year old-bullshit story telling where there's no guidelines, it simply happens because "It's cool". Your progress is blocked and you cant reach the next town, you must accomplish these goals and defeat this enemy. The enemy is a horrible one-eyed tentacle monster that lives in the north cave and eats puppies (unlike the last town that had a horrible one-eyed tentacle monster that eats ham), however in this fight you will have the added features of your new magic skills and a new character on your team. Okay, did you learn your lesson? Good, you are now set up for the next major boss battle you may progress to the next town or area.

The primary goal of a game is to be fun. If this is best achieved by using stereotypes and stories or sidequests you've seen many times before, so be it... sure, that makes those parts of those games less innovative and perhaps less interesting story-wise, but still... the point of a game is to be fun. Stereotypical situations aren't necessarially less fun than innovative ones.

And I really do think you ignore the fact that there definitely are games out there that are innovative and different in their stories and their story-telling... not everything is as formulaic as you say.

Quote:Silent Hill has an awesome story that fits well with gameplay. It has hidden meanings and subtextual design, a 3 act paradigm, an already existing character that evolves through trial. A hook, an expo, and a resolution. All of it scoped in to a web of complimenting sub-plots, characters and scenary that are based on the STORY not the main character. This is the first mistake most video games make with their story design. Yes, i'm going to play as this character for the entire game but the story doesn't have to revolve around him; You need antagonists to cause change to the CHARACTER, that's what story telling is! In FF6 there are no antagonists, just monsters that you go find and pick fights with because they're eating the children or poisoning the water, you're playing as the antagonist; You're the one causing the change and that my friends is bad story telling but excellent game design.

If you weren't the antagonist, you wouldn't have a video game. You'd sit around waiting for something to happen to you. YOU have to go find the conflict and cause change in the characters and environment around you.

With most kinds of game design, it's kind of hard to not have the main character be proactive about wanting to discover things, or move on, or defeat evil, or whatever... some games do do that (more often in text/graphic adventure games (since the prototypical adventure game character is "the normal person"), I'd definitely say), but in most of the other genres... yeah, not too often.

Still, you bring up an interesting question. Perhaps more games could be designed without the main character being an protagonist, but it'd be a lot harder... but yes, they could try. Take Tales of Symphonia -- did it really need a "main character"? I'm not so sure... and Lloyd is annoying. :D

Quote:ICO is a gameplay design with a story thrown on it to make it more interesting. It's still nothing more than something like LoLo, which is a proven game formula from the 8-bit days. The character driven diaologue between the characters is cool, but the story is rediculous and only works in the context of a video game where a story can manifest itself as long as there's gameplay to back it up.

"The story is ridiculous"? It's about a boy who gets cast away from his village because he has strange horns. They bring him to a castle where he's locked away in a coffin, which he then escapes and comes to meet a princess trapped in a cage. He decides to leave the castle with her, and comes across strange creatures and a Queen bent on keeping the princess in the castle. I won't tell you why, and I won't tell you what happens at the end (or who the creatures are) since I doubt you played the game for more than a few moments. The story could have easily been done as say, a feature-length Miyazaki film, but of course it was made for a video game.

That's the basic premise of the game, but the real emotional depth comes from your relationship with Yorda. She's not just some NPC that you have to drag all over the place (though I'm sure many gamers thought of it that way), she's a character that has a bond with the role you play, ICO. Needless to say, later on in the game when you get separated from her and have to rush through caverns and waterfalls to get back to her is one of the more anxiety-filled and heart-wrenching moments I've ever witnessed in a video game before. And the ending, with its revelations... man. It simply doesn't get any better than that. However, these words do not do the game justice. It can only be understood by playing the game (and for more than a few minutes), beginning to end. And if you don't "get it", well, then too bad for you.

Quote:And like I said, it's not my interpratation it's Lucas himself that said that he wanted to bring the stories of the bible in to Star Wars when he first began it in highschool. What I said is that Darth Vader could be viewed as Jesus or as God with Luke being his son. Being that the film series has obvious religous overtones it doesn't take rocket science put those two together. And yes, as I also said, there are many mythos where a child is born in an immaculate conception but in every one of those cases it is a hero born of a God, like Hercules for example. But Lucas is using the Bible in his hidden meanings and context. So again, Darth Vader, seeing as how he was born in an immaculate conception could be a nod to Jesus in the story of the bible or be viewed as an all powerful God fighting his son's ideals of a perfect world, the son being Jesus. There are many passages in the bible where Jesus fought God on principals and ideals, that could translate very well to Star Wars. It was one of the films (as a series) we had to study at film school.

Vader is not supposed to be God. By all means, show me where Lucas said that.

Quote:Yeah... games are not films. But OB1, what is the best model, then? How should games be done that is not like film and that you like? You're clear on disliking any idea I have, but I'm not so sure about what you want...

I know what's not the best model.

Quote:I know what's not the best model.

Way to do the exact opposite of what I asked...

Quote:"The story is ridiculous"? It's about a boy who gets cast away from his village because he has strange horns. They bring him to a castle where he's locked away in a coffin, which he then escapes and comes to meet a princess trapped in a cage. He decides to leave the castle with her, and comes across strange creatures and a Queen bent on keeping the princess in the castle. I won't tell you why, and I won't tell you what happens at the end (or who the creatures are) since I doubt you played the game for more than a few moments. The story could have easily been done as say, a feature-length Miyazaki film, but of course it was made for a video game.

That's the basic premise of the game, but the real emotional depth comes from your relationship with Yorda. She's not just some NPC that you have to drag all over the place (though I'm sure many gamers thought of it that way), she's a character that has a bond with the role you play, ICO. Needless to say, later on in the game when you get separated from her and have to rush through caverns and waterfalls to get back to her is one of the more anxiety-filled and heart-wrenching moments I've ever witnessed in a video game before. And the ending, with its revelations... man. It simply doesn't get any better than that. However, these words do not do the game justice. It can only be understood by playing the game (and for more than a few minutes), beginning to end. And if you don't "get it", well, then too bad for you.

Just because he doesn't 'get' what you see doesn't automatically mean he has only played the game for a few moments...

Actually I'm saying that because he doesn't have a PS2.

No, Vader is supposed to be Vader, hidden context and subtextual meanings are just that. They're there for creative writing principals. All i'm saying is that Vader and Luke share an extremely close relationship to God and Jesus in the Bible and George Lucas has said on countless occasions that he used ancient stories, including the bible, to engineer the Star Wars stories.

To say "yes of course Star Wars has religous overtones" and then say "Vader and Luke are not comparable to God and Jesus" is a huge contradiction, especially since it's so obvious.

DJ Darth Vader wasn't evil, remember the end? Vader was being controlled by Palpatine and doing what he thought was best, Vader kills Palpatine and his son opened his eyes (litteraly) to what he has done and Vader thanks him and apologized for his actions. We then see the spirit of Luke's father among his mentors. Like I said there also many passages in the bible where God could be viewed as evil for allowing or even causing horrible things to happen but it has purpose for the greater good. In this case of Star Wars it was destined that Anakin would bring balance to the Force by killing Palps (since Palps is the reason the Force was unbalanced in the first place).

Like I said before, these are simply your interpretations, and there's nothing wrong with that. Lucas himself never said anything about Vader being like God and Luke being like Jesus, or even anything close to that analogy. And there's nothing contradictory with saying that there are religious overtones but not agreeing with your very specific interpretation.

Exactly, and honestly when I say Vader was evil, I don't mean to say he actually thought "I am going to harm all that is". Most people who are evil really think they are doing what's right. I'm just calling what he does evil despite what he thinks about it, or rather, maybe BECAUSE he was able to rationalize it. lazy has a tendancy to assume a LOT of VERY specific depth when he looks at a story. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't get that specific when I look for depth. I look at a general meaning. Vader being God? There is a lot wrong with that there. Basically the only thing I can see to make that work is the part where Luke exists because of him. Palpatine as God works better than Vader as God! Vader as the anti-christ, NOW we are getting somewhere :D.

I have a hard time compairing great books to great movies myself, because they are, in general, so different. Of course you need focus in a movie, because in that time if you take time to show something else, it actually takes away the impact of the main storyline. However, in a good book I'd like them to go into all manner of subplots at every single opportunity.

I mean, Lord of the Rings reads EXACTLY like an RPG (well, they are based on this work when you get down to it). Our favorite hobbits constantly go on sub quests that have nothing to do with the main storyline. Well, there's a relation if you go back far enough, but as far as story structure often it's just not relevant. In a movie, fine, toss out all the parts where the crew meets Tom Bombadil or gets their legendary weapons from a mini-boss battle in those misty hills. In a book, GIMME THE DETAILS! By the same token, give me those details in games too. Sure, Whelp the stupid snail boss really isn't needed in a movie, at all, and to focus on every single dumb boss battle in one would make for a pretty freakin' stupid movie. When you HAVE all the time in the world though, it's good to expand the story as much as you possibly can. Oh and, yes a lot of those battles don't even do anything for the story in ANY sense, and ARE there for fun and nothing more. That's okay though, it doesn't ruin anything for me.

Here's what I find weird. lazy used to think the story of FF6 was freakin' awesome. He used his depth analysis on it to tell me that the story of FF6 was the story of World War 2, with Kefka as Hitler and Ghestaul as Stalin, or something like that. Somewhere along the lines, lazy either "woke up" and realized it sucked, or as I see it, he "was brainwashed" and "realized" it sucked. I mean, Terra has a great storyline. They could have focused entirely on her, but I would rather they didn't. When they switched focus to other characters, it was nice to expand on them. I liked finding out a lot about the people around Terra, because it made her character better. And, after "the event", Celes suddenly became the star. Now, that's the one part that sorta throws one for a loop. What story suddenly throws away the main character to the side lines to bring out a new one? They really could have eased her into that place with a LOT more forshadowing so you sort of see it coming, that's probably the worst part of the story, that transition there, but AFTER it they do a really good job with her too. "Terra, a scared woman trying to find out her past, fights for selfish reasons at first until her past is revealed. She continues to fight to save the world, but doesn't truly understand the nature of selfless fighting and is still fighting for somewhat selfish goals. After the cataclysm, she becomes afraid to fight at all and simply wishes to take care of a village of children lost after the event. Soon though, after Celes shows her selfless courage, she burns with a fire brighter than she ever had before the event." That's how I saw it anyway, that she changes like twice during the story and it ends with her willing to let go of the very thing she was searching for for most of the first part of the game.

I'm not trying to knock lazy's interpretation of Star Wars, I'm just saying that George Lucas never said anything like that. As I said before, everyone is free to intepret stories or art however they see fit.

Lucas recetly said that in Episode III, Anakin basically makes a deal with the devil (Palpatine), which of course doesn't work out as he had hoped (you'll see why). And the final duel with Obi-Wan is basically in hell (the lava planet). It's all figurative and symbolic.

Then in that case maybe a much more obvious connection should be made. Darth Vader looks like Robo-Death 2000, or da Grim Reaper. That one guy, um, Dooku? I'm not sure how that's spelled, he's a COUNT who talks and dresses like a vampire. And um, Maul? The pathetic one shot villian only there as a plot device? He looks like a demon.

But what about Grevious?

...who?

Maul was great! He was "pathetic" because he had little screen time and was only there for purposes of the plot? Um... DJ? I hope you realize that--


GR: Dude, just give up.

Me: But she just--

GR: FORGET ABOUT IT! SHE CANNOT BE TAUGHTED!!!

Me: ... what?

GR: NEVER MIND!!!

Me: FINE!!

Oh OB1.. I wanted to read your explaination. :(

Really?

Well okay.

Of course Maul was a plot device. He was there to let the Jedi know that the Sith were "back" and to make for a cool laser sword fight. Just because he had little screen time and was there to serve the plot makes him "pathetic"? That's what a minor character is! It's like DJ has never witnessed a fictional story before..

But he just felt tacked on, meaning they must have done something wrong in the execution. I wouldn't have felt that otherwise.

hahaha :D

DJ/ i still think FF6 has a good story for a video game, but it's when you compare it to films or books that it becomes transparent. But there are plenty of krap movies and books out there though.

Abd I have to argue with you about your definition of evil. if you dont know what you're doing is evil then you are not evil. it's when you purposely do things for the purposes of evil that you are indeed evil :D Lucifer came to be seen as having been second in command to God himself; he was the highest archangel in heaven, but he was motivated by pride and greed to rebel against God and was cast out of heaven with the angels who followed his lead. Lucy wanted God to love him more than he loved humans and fought God in a massive war. God won and sent thousands of his beloved children out of heaven, twisting them in to demons.

the act that Lucifer and his followers commited was not evil in itself, but when he was cast down, he swore hatered for God and humans, and then sought revenge. That is his evil; he exists for the sole purpose of making our lives miserable hoping to destroy us.

God commits similar acts of what seems like torture to humans but he does it in the hopes of making us stronger and to weed out the trouble makers. He does this because he believes it to be ultimately good and so it is. Lucy does it in the belief that it is destructive and so it is as well.

In story telling, when a character does something evil in the hopes of doing something for the greater good he is either pittied or feared because the audience knows he is driven by a good idea with a horrible excecution - that character is not evil, he's simply confused. That's the base character of Darth Vader. God as well seems evil at times, destroying a city and killing its inhabitants or murdering thousands of children, all for the 'greater good'.

In the case of Darth Vader, he realized that he was being led by a Lucifer and Darth Vader died at the exact moment he threw Palps down that hole and became Anakin again. He redeemed himself, and thus became the ultimate hero of the Star Wars saga by killing the ultimate evil of the universe.

Interesting perspective, for sure, but again that wasn't what Lucas was going for. Unless he told something to you in private about it. ;)

Quote:But he just felt tacked on, meaning they must have done something wrong in the execution. I wouldn't have felt that otherwise.

He was there for one very simple purpose, and didn't need to have any more screen time.

Yes, exactly. Wait, is that Grevious thing actually what's left of him? That would be something...

Quote:Wait, is that Grevious thing actually what's left of him?

No.

Grevious:

All I see is mostly robotitude, and some flesh behind those eyes. Looks like the guy from the cartoon (by the way, they finally boosted the time to something worth actually watching), which I guess means... so what, they harvested the brain of Malak and put it in a robot, or is this a totally new guy, basically not using a perfectly good opportunity to use a sci-fi cliche.

Malak? That's EU, and thousands of years before the movies. And KOTOR's story is kinda lame anyhow, so...

Greivous is Greivous.

EU is canon unless it's directly contradicted, I'd say. :)

As for KotOR, it's got a decent story, but yeah, nothing fantastic... though the backstories can be interesting (esp. of the worlds -- the Sandpeople lorekeeper, etc).

For the longest time there was a rumor that Grievous was a half machine, half man built from the body and mind of Qui Gon Jin, then another rumor that it's Darth Maul, but I think those rumors are dead now.

Grievous is a Darth Vader prototype, he was once a man that died and was ressurected as a machine. But no one knows who he was.

I meant Maul, but oh well, it was just a thinga...

lazyfatbum Wrote:For the longest time there was a rumor that Grievous was a half machine, half man built from the body and mind of Qui Gon Jin, then another rumor that it's Darth Maul, but I think those rumors are dead now.

Grievous is a Darth Vader prototype, he was once a man that died and was ressurected as a machine. But no one knows who he was.

He was General Greivous. That's it. You're right about him basically being a Vader prototype though. You can find out about Greivous' history in his comic.

Wait a sec, there's a comic book?

Okay *clap* I'm out...

To explain the backstory of a minor character in Episode III. It's not essential reading by any means.

Oh, he's minor? Oh, never mind them.

Yeah.