Between Stories and Games

Where is the boundary between a game and a story? While it is true that it is possible to make a game without a story, there are actually very few games which do not contain at least an implicit story - a narrative situation. Indeed, these framing narratives serve to define the play of the game in many cases. What, then, is the relationship between game and story?

Let me begin by saying that I don't have an answer. Furthermore, this topic is so far from the testable that it is likely that there is no single answer to the question, and absolutely certain that the answers one will encounter will depend deeply upon the definitions of the terms 'game' and 'story'. For the sake of this  discussion, I will use our standard definition of 'game' which is a tool for entertainment with some degree of performance (this may be something tangible like a victory or end condition, or something intangible, like the satisfaction of a table-top role-playing game session that just seems to flow perfectly). For 'story' I will cast the net wide and define it as any account of events affecting one or more characters (real or fictitious), and for 'narrative', as the specific delivery of a the details of a particular story instance.

What do people mean when they say "games don't need stories"? Because clearly, there are lots of games with narrative content, and many of them (arguably) perform better in the market place through the inclusion of a narrative, so it is not much of a commercial argument to claim that games don't need stories. I think, perhaps, they mean simply that the abstract, ludic content of a game can qualify as a game without a narrative of any kind. The clearest example is Tetris, which provides no narrative material at all in general terms.

It is true that abstract games can avoid narrative entirely, but this is not equivalent to saying that "games don't need stories", so much as it is saying that there are types of games which can avoid explicit narrative content. For instance, the "games don't need stories" point of view probably supports Quake in its absence of story. (Of course, Quake does have a story - a truly awful story, perhaps the worst ever written. But it hides it in the manual so that only a few of us have had a chance to share in its appalling cheese). But it is not that Quake is devoid of narrative - rather, the narrative situation that Quake presents is so inherently intuitive (kill all monsters) that it does not require any exposition. You could not remove this implicit narrative from Quake even if you wanted to.

Even highly abstract games have implicit narratives. Chess, for instance, is built from the implicit narrative situation of two kingdoms at war. Understanding this narrative framework makes the game of Chess easier to learn - because the idea that the game ends when the King is cornered follows from this scenario quite naturally, and the exchange of pieces can be understood as an abstracted battle. (Incidentally, I personally find Chess boring because the narrative is too codified for my tastes. For me, there's just not enough differences in the story of one Chess game and the story of another).

In the field of hobby games practically all games make use of an implicit narrative to provide the backdrop of the game - with the express benefit that understanding the actions and rules of the game becomes easier, because they have been given a context. Even a mass market boxed game like Jenga has something of a narrative to it - the aleatory narrative of who will cause the tower to collapse (the innocent version of Russian roulette). Perhaps, then, even Tetris has something of a narrative to it... after all, there is the potential of telling someone the story of what happened in a particular game.

One of the key values of a story in a game is that it simplifies the process of learning what to do in a game. When Resident Evil 4 sets the narrative framework that our bland action hero is looking for the president's daughter (the modern version of the classical Princess), we already know something of what is to be expected of us. It is not necessary to flash up explicit mission instructions, because our mission is derivable from the narrative context. Indeed, one thing that the Resident Evil series has done well is to draw from archetypal horror situations thus letting the implicit elements of its narrative silently guide the player's actions.

In terms of Caillois' four types of games, games of agon can eliminate all narrative elements - except the implicit story of two individuals vying for victory. Games of alea cannot eliminate the narrative implications of 'fate' - for this is the implicit meaning of chance in games (although culturally our attitude to fate has changed recently, and we are more likely to dismiss things as 'chance', even though 'fate' and 'chance' are concepts that differ only in their mythology). Mimicry and narrative are intimately intertwined. Only ilinx - games of vertigo - seem to escape a narrative content, but even here there is potentially a counter argument that can be made, just as we was made for Tetris. Although explicit narrative elements can be removed from all games, it is much harder to remove implicit elements of narrative.

Huizinga suggests that play creates culture, and I sympathise with this view. All human activities can be expressed as a kind of game (of varying degrees of seriousness to the individuals involved). Similarly, all human activities can be recorded as a story, and Frazer, Campbell and others have suggested there is an underlying framework in our minds which is adapted to accept and create stories. Is there a sense therefore that stories and games are counterparts to each other - that games create stories, and stories frame games?

At the moment, our technology creates games whose stories are severely limited - we do not have the technological complexity to support a game with implicit narrative as rich as a literary novel, for instance. And even if we did, we lack the widespread elegance of design to present such a game for a suitable audience. We could create a game with an explicit narrative with such complexity - but then we would not be telling the story of the game, but merely combining a complex narrative and a (presumably simpler) game together. Likely the complexities of the narrative would not sit well alongside the play of such a game, though, making such an exercise fruitless.

The art of making stories and games work together is to create each such that it is the complement of the other - another place I can use the analogy of the cast and the mould of a fossil. The play of the game should naturally lead the player through the story - the story of the game should naturally lead the player through the appropriate play. The more identifiably humanlike the avatar, the more explicit a narrative the game will support. Perhaps this is the reason games like Tetris seem markedly less narrative - it has no avatar, and therefore there is no character about whom to tell a story?

Since we currently cannot make games of sufficient (accessible) complexity to rival the heights of our best storytelling, we perhaps should focus on the other side of the equation. Games produce play and implicit narrative: we can look at ways of making those implicit narrative situations tie into an explicit narrative, thus deepening the sense of involvement (and the mimicry) of a game, and (crucially) of building dynamic explicit narratives which support whichever implicit narrative situations the player chooses to favour.

The footprint of a game's implicit narrative should therefore fit the foot of the game's story - or vice versa. We do not praise the skills required to achieve this, which we have called 'narrative-integration' (or design-integrated narrative), sufficiently within the games industry. We still judge game stories by similar terms to conventional narratives. There is nothing wrong with this - but we would perhaps benefit from identifying and praising those games which achieve an appropriate relationship between their play and their narrative.

The opening picture, entitled 'I Hate Tetris', was borrowed from Sam at Exploding Dog - no copyright infringement is intended! If he objects, I'll take it down.

Comments

[James O]

"We still judge game stories by similar terms to conventional narratives. There is nothing wrong with this..."

Actually, I think there's plenty wrong with that. Stories in games can't be approached the same way that stories in linear media can, without sacrificing a large amount of gameplay and player choice, leading to an on-rails experience(eg RPGs, particularily Japanese RPGs). At what cost mimicry?

"...and (crucially) of building dynamic explicit narratives which support whichever implicit narrative situations the player chooses to favour."

I agree with this, and I think the mass market does as well (compare the sales of any CRPG against The Sims.) Emergent narrative may lack some of the strengths of linear media, but it allows for much greater exploitation of the power of the computer and player interaction with other agents (be they AI-controlled or other players.) Battlefield 2 may not have much of a plotline behind it (why is everyone fighting in the first place?) but I, and anyone else who has played that game for a reasonable length of time, can recount a number of tales of personal daring and tactical brilliance (or terrible misjudgement, as the case may be.)

[CtrlAltDelete]

Great article! It's true, stories can do more to assist games than hinder them; it isn't necessary to know your creating a star by rolling up everything in a mock genocide of the planet to pleasant, energetic J-Pop Music; but it sure makes the game more fun.

Some of the greatest storytelling has occured within RPGs, and yet the writers are barely acknowledged outside the gaming community.

What are most games but interactive storytelling?

Again, good article, man.

[James O]

"Some of the greatest storytelling has occured within RPGs, and yet the writers are barely acknowledged outside the gaming community."

The problem is that most RPGs have terrible writing, nonsensical storylines, and are beset by endless deus ex machina. They aren't recognized outside the gaming community because they're just plain bad. If we want gaming to be better recognized as a story telling media, then we ought to set higher standards for our stories then "one-dimensional naive flower-girl character is randomly killed soley to make the lead character brood even more than usual." I've seen better writing and more subtlety in an episode of "The A-Team" than in most video games.

[Chris]

Come now, James, when did you last see an episode of 'The A Team'? It's worse than you think. :) There are plenty of CRPGs with more advanced stories than that of any formula TV show. I agree with you that there's some very dodgy writing in CRPGs, but it's not *all* that bad. Of course, it depends what one is sensitive to in stories.

Either way, writing multi-threaded content for CRPGs is certainly a lot harder than writing a 44-minute linear script to a formula. Even if the stories themselves lack in many areas, there is still some skill in narrative-integration that has been applied.

[Hub]

Just to stickle for a second, Huizinga doesn't suggest that play creates culture, rather than culture is played.

It's a tiny point.

[Chris]

Yes, I wondered if I'd got my choice of words wrong there. :) I don't think the underlying point is affected - thanks for the clarification, though. (As you know, my knowledge of Huizinga is inherited second hand from Caillois).

[James O]

"Either way, writing multi-threaded content for CRPGs is certainly a lot harder than writing a 44-minute linear script to a formula."

It is (in theory,) but so many RPGs ignore the potential for nonlinear story telling as to render the point moot. I would also strongly suggest that the most succesful RPG franchises are about as formulaic as you can get (pointing primarily to the Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior series; the golden idols of many RPG fans yet also the poorest examples of storytelling.) Certainly there have been some RPGs with good writing (usually tending towards the comical, I have noticed - Disgaea, Fallout, and from what I hear, Radiata Stories) but they are sadly not the big sellers. Of course, this brings up the point, do audiences REALLY want good storytelling? Or do they just want some form of explicit narrative, no matter how bad? Or is is just that the audience for RPGs (esp. the two JRPG franchies mentioned) are willing to forgive a whole lot in their storytelling?

[Chris]

In my experience, even an entirely linear game story requires more skill to construct than an entirely linear (and formula driven) TV show. However, to be fair to TV writers, there is some skill in staying 'in bounds' regarding show length.

Never having played any of the games from the two big franchises you mention, I can't really comment on their stories. But I would hazard a guess that the audience does want and enjoy the explicit narrative in these games. In the case of Final Fantasy, high production values and seem to add to the appeal in general terms.

Is there anyone reading these comments who has enjoyed the story in a Final Fantasy game and would like to share their experience? Don't let James' personal hatred for these games stop you from sharing your opinion - he barks a lot, but he rarely bites. :)

Also: anyone want to compare the stories from FF games to, say, D&D novelisations and other pulp narratives?

[CtrlAltDelete]

Chris, absolutely. I know it's cliche to talk about Final Fantasy VII. It's looked down upon by many of the elitist gaming circles who only purchase imports and take a few years of Japanese just to fill out their understanding of the J-Pop on their Starbucks stickered iPod to which they listen while they feel better than the kids playing Lunar at the Gamestop they frequent but never patronize... but I must :)

Final Fantasy VII builds upon a universal principle of Gaia, and in it creates a reasonable explanation for everything, including death. It projects the human conditions of Pride, Love and Purity, all the while providing exposition as slow as any E.M. Forster novel. Any story that can provide a sincere balance of irrational emotion and justified terror is one worth hearing.

It was beautiful.

It was just a game, but it was well written. Characters were consistent and, with the right kind of mind, believable.

But that's just one lunatic's opinion.

[James O]

It has nothing to do with elitism, so that's not appreciated. It's about looking at a game critically, regardless of subjective feelings towards it.

Spoilers ahead, although Final Fantasy VII is so well known by now that I doubt anything here will be news to you, Chris.

Final Fantasy VII, as well as the other titles in the franchise, handle very basic story elements in a very generic non-specific fashion. Yes, it handles love/pride/purity/etc, but in such a simplistic way that could also be found in almost any fairy tale. It is, essentially, an overwrought (is that Noh-theater influence?) Frankenstein story where a man born of genetic experimentation seeks nonspecific revenge against the entire world. Dialouge is terse and often filled with profanity in lieu of content. Cheap melodrama does not make for actual character development. Character design is likewise somewhat nonsensical - Aeris is supposed to be a naive, innocent character. How is this possible when she lives in the deepest, darkest part of a megacities' ghetto? One can claim artistic license here, but that doesn't excuse poor planning on the writer's part. In any case, she serves a classic role in storytelling - the character who will obviously get knocked off early on to give the protagonist something to brood over. In many summer movies, we see the same phenomena - the hero's best friend from school/college/etc, who gets killed by the antagonist(s) to make the audience better sympathize with the hero. It's a very old, trite plot device in other media; yet in gaming circles it's hailed as the most brilliant moment in story telling. Why are our standards lower here? Is it because we have yet to see a truly well-told story in a game, or do we not intrinsically believe a game is capable of delivering a strong narrative, and thus we allow lesser fare to substitute?

Of course, individual milage may vary depending on your suspension of disbelief. Personally, while I can accept a certain degree of madness in an action game (where the narrative is not all that critical to me), but when I play a more narrative-centric game, my tolerance goes way down (when Sephiroth killed Aeris, where exactly did he come from, what was he doing there, and where did he go? etc).

Donning my Chris Crawford hat, to me, I think one of the big errors with narrative in gaming is an emphasis on plot over characters. A game with more thrilling and dramatic plot twists seems to get more attention than a game with sensitively rendered characterizations (sadly, no examples of the latter come to mind.) Big plot twists and Shock! Horror! Awe! are fine for the "summer blockbuster" style games (Quake et al) but for a genre that is ostensibly centered around its narrative, I wish that the average character designs made a little more sense (in my experience, characters in Japanese games tend to get exaggerated along certain axes to allow for a more dramatic visual design (eg. Lulu of Final Fantasy X), whereas the more 'pragmatic' designs seem to occur in Western games (eg. Alyx of Halflife 2) (not to imply that all Western character designs are sensible, as that is most certainly false.))

Ultimately, my strong personal belief is that Final Fantasy VII succeeded wildly on a number of factors that may not all relate to the actual quality of the game. The timing was certainly right - a new game by a studio with a good reputation amonst the hardcore, on a new platform, with the massive marketing muscle of SCEA behind it. The high production values were another considerable asset. These factors, as well as the more modern setting and the introduction of movie-like full motion videos, made the game much more accessible to the mainstream. Selling to the mainstream was a powerful benefit in Square's favor, as the mainstream (more or less by definition) had not played a game of this variety before; thus, they didn't have any preset expectations about the genre. I think that in turn gives the game a certain halo about it (my first RPG, my first FF game, etc) that causes some to overlook its other flaws. For the record, I had already played quite a number of RPGs before hand, and was a late-adopter to the Playstation; and I feel that that is a strong part of why I feel the way towards it that I do (I personally like to think it helps me a more distanced objective observer of the game, although I cannot deny that it also likely introduced a certain subjective negativity in that it couldn't live up to "my first RPG", which on another note is why I think the similar-quality game Final Fantasy VIII recieved much less praise than it's predecessor.) Selling the title to the mainstream was a huge coup, because now instead of having a relatively small number of gamers shouting its praises as with VI and its predecessors, you have a much larger audience that loved it even more due to its novelty to many of them.

OK, that's enough now. However, if any of my thoughts on the franchise or storytelling in games need more elaboration, I can talk a whole lot more ;)

[CtrlAltDelete]

Ah, but James, donning the Chris "ThereIsNoExpandingMarketYouBunchOfStupids" Crawford does place you somewhat in the red of the elitist spectrum, you must admit.

A game's ability to draw "subjective feelings" alone qualifies the story as powerful. I'm not a Squaresoft fan-boy by any means, VII and VIII were gems on a sharply downward pointed path.

But they were great gems.

To suggest that innocence is unattainable in a Midgar like setting is to miss the point of the character Rufus, I believe it was, who enters very quickly after the introduction of Aeris. To establish a contrast of personality that quickly directs deeper elements to Aeris than simple labels of naive innocent v. hardened urbane.

I don't believe it was the timing of FFVII that led to its popularity, but the epic value of the game itself; storytelling made it accessible to an audience that, while not plot starved, had until then lacked the momentum that VII provided.

The first disc is Midgar. One could expect from a few hours of play that Midgar could be the entire game. Then after the initial escape, an entire world opens with a network of characters on the second disc. This could never work cinematically unless it were a trilogy or a series. I reminded me more of a well set novel.

Thus is my point. Final Fantasy VII had a wonderful story, and I must disagree with you. You mention the greek modes of storytelling; there is a reason Deus Ex Machina is used so frequently, it works. How would you prefer an RPG end? With a simple flick of a sword, a quiet nod towards the denouement and silent credits rolling past the screen; or an ending deserving of such a long investment of life?

Again. I'm a lunatic, the hell do I know.

[James O]

OK, I think that's enough 'elitist' talk. I'm not going to call you part of the unwashed bourgeousies horde just because you like this game that I don't, so let's please drop the elitist nonsense.

"A game's ability to draw "subjective feelings" alone qualifies the story as powerful."

That doesn't qualify it as powerful; lots of very trite and uninspired writing can inspire some feelings. I can get emotional from an episode of "The A-Team" or any old Saturday morning cartoon; that doesn't neccessarily mean they have very good writing. It's not just about that it draws feelings; its about which feelings and what degree of specificity/intensity it brings them to. A game that makes you mad at rich people is not a game that is as powerful as one that makes you disgusted at the class imbalances in a capitalist society and the implict caste system a free market brings about et al. FFVII is a little bit limited in theme; the only real theme that it leaves the player with is a pro-environmental view. While that's certainly better than nothing, it's a little bit cliche (especially for Japanese games, which very frequently feature that theme.) I think that games can full well be as powerful as Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and such in terms of theme. I think there is certainly room for commercial fare like Final Fantasy, but I think it's unhealthy for the industry to accept that as the acme of story telling in games.

"To establish a contrast of personality that quickly directs deeper elements to Aeris than simple labels of naive innocent v. hardened urbane."

The thing is here, that's a very simple dichotomy and one that is not rendered in much detail. Rufus is basically just evil, Aeris is basically all good. There is no street-wise side to Aeris, nor does she ever grow in that way; and it's the same in Rufus. The characters are largely static and fairly one-dimensional. They have a single defining characteristic, and that encompasses the whole of their design (now, don't get me wrong, this certainly isn't unique to the JRPG or Japanese games in general, as Mr. Nuke'Em can attest to.)

"I don't believe it was the timing of FFVII that led to its popularity, but the epic value of the game itself; storytelling made it accessible to an audience that, while not plot starved, had until then lacked the momentum that VII provided."

I'm going to have to disagree here. I think it's impossible to divorce any game from it's release timing and the marketing forces behind it, and to do so is, in my opinion, a huge misjudgement. The context of the game's release must be kept in mind at all times, as with all art.

Your comment also leads to the question, why VII? What did it have that VI lacked? They certainly had equal levels of production values (for their respective timeframes) and had very similar stories. I think the simplest answer as to why FF7 succeeded with the mainstream is that it was simply sold well to them with many advertisements in print and other media. I don't think any of the prior Square games had a fraction of the marketing budget that VII did, and the way Sony marketed their Playstation as a more "serious" and accessible (to the mainstream) console (vice the more "gamey" N64) helped widen the potential market.

"This could never work cinematically unless it were a trilogy or a series. I reminded me more of a well set novel."

I'm not exactly sure about the point you're making here. Yes, VII was epic in scope, but so were the prior games (although the prior games had the feature of having a "hidden length", in VII you knew how far you were along based on how many CDs were remaining - I think multi-disc/cart games are a huge suspense killer and ought to be avoided.) I don't see how that proves it to be well-written, however. Sure, there are many well done novels that feature an epic scope (Dune, Tolkien's work, etc) but there are also many other (perhaps better written) novels that have much smaller scales as well (Beloved).

"You mention the greek modes of storytelling; there is a reason Deus Ex Machina is used so frequently, it works. How would you prefer an RPG end? "

I think you may be misunderstanding the term? Near as I can tell, deus ex machina refers to a very arbitrary occurence in a story in order to close some plot hole. I suppose you could say it "works", but it is very inelegant and ends up feeling like a cheap cop out, and exposes poor planning by the writer.

[CtrlAltDelete]

All right, fair enough-

"I think that games can full well be as powerful as Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and such in terms of theme."

It's been awhile since I read Sinclair, but if I remember right it ends with a march where the people declare Socialism to be the true way of the worker. There are many heavy anti-capitalist messages within FFVII and the interpretation of them, while not as explicit as The Jungle, can cause one to think a bit without declaring true evil one way or the other. Think of the Gold Saucer for instance, a Casino Resort full of rich fun and obediant service directly above a prison surrounded by the desert. If that isn't a metaphor for a class system I don't know one. An inescapable platform where the class hierarchy is evident by altitude, including the one way out which leads to a desolate town resembling the failing industrial centers such as the Midlands in the U.K., or the Rust Belt in the States.

Or Chocobo breeding for instance, in which a genetically selective process weeds out those not fit for competition, where only the absolute best (how perfect is it that it's gold) can reach the most powerful elements within the game.

I think FFVII invoked a lot more thought than you give it credit.

"..why VII? What did it have that VI lacked?"

Again, momentum. VI fell short in the center, just when an RPG should be at its best. VII was a crescendo that increased with energy as the game went on; the situation becoming more serious the characters becoming aware of their mortality; the impossibility of achieving a necessary end... all with a final battle.

"The characters are largely static and fairly one-dimensional. They have a single defining characteristic, and that encompasses the whole of their design.."

I disagree with you that Aeris is one-dimensional, so I'll look at it as though she was; think of it- she would be a martyr in the purest sense of the word. How extrodinary is that. True innocence, absolute good in the face of everything, the streets of Midgar, a horrifying journey; and she still must die, thus absolute good is impossible.

I tend to think of it more in a tactical way, in that Aeris knows much more than she allows shown, but attempts to keep the group going, but even if she was completely one-dimensional it serves a purpose within the story.

"I think multi-disc/cart games are a huge suspense killer"

You're right there, I completely agree. However, the moments of pause where you change discs are appropriately handled and not jarring. They are moments that use the suspension of the game well.

"deus ex machina refers to a very arbitrary occurence in a story in order to close some plot hole"

Yes, I know. Deus ex machina refers to the theater apparatus that hoists an actor above the stage, representing a diety with powers to alter any condition within the plot. Everybody's at war? Poof! War is over. I understand the term. But rather than looking at it from the position of a writer, that it's used as a cop out; look at it from the perspective of the audience- waiting for some power, some ultimate, beautiful figure with the power to set things right. When done well, as I think it was in FFVII, it works well, and not a cop-out but a sign of hope, and this could be any number of mechanisms it doesn't have to be a god or "bacteria the aliens can't handle" (H.G. Wells did well on that one.)

When everyone turns into a Hippopotomus for no reason, it doesn't work. It can be a poorly used device, but it can also be great.

I apologize for not spellchecking.

[James O]

"Think of the Gold Saucer for instance..."

This goes back to what I said earlier about nonspecificity. There's some rich people in the casino, and some poor people in a desert working there. It's a good start for some interesting narrative...but suddenly we're out of the area, and it's an avenue left disappointingly unexplored. Final Fantasy games, so it seems, sacrifice closely identifiable events and personal tragedy in lieu of epic scope and global events. We get some interesting metaphors here and there, but many of them are left unfinished in favor of broadening the scope of the storyline. I suppose ultimately that is a matter of taste, but I would rather have seen the game explore a little bit more about the class divide and making it more relatable to the player. As it stands, it's just another breif pitstop on the quest (and it's even moral-free - we don't get to see the consequence of our actions at the casino in relations to the prison colony in a direct fashion.)

To me, small-scale events are often more interesting than large scale events. How many movies/books/etc have covered "a band of heroes/a single badass struggling to save the world/galaxy/multiverse from destruction/enslavement/domination from a evil dictator/alien invader/force of nature." It can only be done so many times before you can grok the entire narrative within the first twenty minutes. There seems to be much more explorable room in small-scope stories. Perhaps this is why The Sims is so compelling - the stories are directly relatable and of a rather minute scale - the simple daily interactions between people. I suppose this is a matter of taste, but I think that as the scope of a narrative increases, it becomes proportionally more cliche.

"Or Chocobo breeding for instance..."

I think you may be overexamining that bit. I don't think there's any reason to believe the creator intended that to have any symbolism. While I suppose it is worth analysis as are all elements, I think that is giving it more depth than it is due.

"...she would be a martyr in the purest sense of the word. How extrodinary is that."

In the real world? Very. In fiction? Not at all. Martyr characters are so commonplace that it seems there's always another body to throw at whatever overwhelming problem the heroes face. Additionally, I will relate to scope again - being a martyr for the entire world is a little less impressive than say, being a martyr for a single mother. It's hard to relate to sacrifice to the entire world, but it is more personal (and an even greater sacrifice, and less cliche) to give oneself to a smaller or less-earthshaking cause.

"They are moments that use the suspension of the game well."

Well, they do come at natural cliffhangers...but one of the strengths of a game is the length is harder to predict (assuming you don't spoil yourself by looking up what part you are at online.) With a book, you have a very concrete idea of your progress, and with movies you have a general idea of how long they can be (although since it is more indefinite, it is more suspenseful.) Games are (I think) unique in that their length is somewhat indertiminate on a per player basis - one player might finish in 14 hours, another perhaps in 30. I'm not neccessarily faulting this game for that (as it was hardware limited by the storage media), but I think it's worthwhile to keep in mind from a development standpoint: secret length is a strength of the game media, so it should be used as fully as possible!

"When done well, as I think it was in FFVII, it works well, and not a cop-out but a sign of hope..."

I didn't think that this was a matter of taste, but apparently I am incorrect. Personally, I cannot see these arbitrary occurrences in a game as anything other than lazy writing or poor preproduction planning. It also hurts the mimicry of the narrative, which is important to me. I myself cannot classify a deus ex machina as anything other than bad writing, although if you yourself like this than I cannot really argue taste.

[Chris]

What a fascinating and verbose debate! :)

What is readily apparent here is that the story succeeded perfectly for one of you, and failed completely for the other. As such, we should perhaps consider the story of FFVII to be a (qualified) success. Every story fails for some people, after all.

"...but in such a simplistic way that could also be found in almost any fairy tale"

This is a telling turn of phrase. Fairy tales are often quite deep and resonant stories - it's only Disney which reduces them to mere sentimentality. Is it possible that FFVII works as a fairy tale, and that James has no tolerance for this style of storytelling?

"Sure, there are many well done novels that feature an epic scope (Dune, Tolkien's work, etc)"

A personal bugbear of mine... Tolkien's work is an excellent repackaging of myths, and his prose style is wonderfully lyrical. But apparently he could not structure a story if his life depended upon it. The structure of Lord of the Rings collapses after Fellowship, and then grunts and strains under the weight of two parallel narratives, one of which is largely concerned with the original hero complaining for several hundred pages about how cold he is, and how heavy the ring is, set against the backdrop of overly detailed descriptions of wasteland. :) You can really tell that it was written without planning. Of course, just like FFVII, it works perfectly for many people, and like FFVII it popularity was greatly enhanced by good timing. (Was there any better time for Lord of the Rings to be published than just before the hippy movement?) For me, I'll take the BBC Radio Play version of Lord of the Rings over the book version any day of the week.

Lastly, I must agree with James that timing was absolutely critical for the commercial success of FFVII. The 7.8 million units shipped by FFVII (more than any CRPG before or after - excluding Pokemon) is evidence of this, and an analysis of the market conditions show other signs - this was the first CRPG to recieve a major marketing spend, and it happened during the early PlayStation era when the audience had seemingly expanded by an order of magnitude.

I personally suspect that it is this very success which make detractors of the game more vociferous in their hatred of it! :)

[CtrlAltDelete]

I suppose James and I will have to agree to disagree. You're right, man- it simply a matter of taste.

I do respect what you and James say about the timing of Final Fantasy VII's release, Chris; as I was looking at the story comparatively to those surrounding it I might have missed the ball a bit.

You both mention Tolkien and that's a great example of what I'm talking about, I think you pretty much nailed it- he was a great writer who may have used some of the devices that are cliched and tired, but they work; depending on your taste. BBC's Radio Play version rocks.

James, you should write a game that addresses class struggle in a more concise and sincere way. I don't mean that as a 'put up or shut up' I mean that as- truly, a game like that would be one worth playing. I would be thrilled to see The Jungle performed in an interactive fiction. I would play that game.

[James O]

Final Fantasy was certainly a success; aside from its strong performance at commercially, it widened the genre audience and allowed for some more obscure, and in my mind, more interesting, RPGs to make there way over west (Valkyrie Profile is a central beneficiary here.) I am fully aware that had VII not succeeded as well as it had, many of the more obscure RPGs that are darlings of the hardcore would have never found their way to the West.

"This is a telling turn of phrase. Fairy tales are often quite deep and resonant stories - it's only Disney which reduces them to mere sentimentality."

Hmm, perhaps I miswrote my analogy. I think I intended something more like a kid's cartoon - what I wanted to emphasize was the way it glossed over its subject material and how it treated its themes and characters in a very general fashion. I have not read any original-text fairy tales to make an accurate comparision there.

"Tolkien's work is an excellent repackaging of myths, and his prose style is wonderfully lyrical. But apparently he could not structure a story if his life depended upon it."

I haven't actually read the Lord of the Rings so I was just throwing this one out there, under the assumption that since it is so popular it must be well written. :)

[chrisf]

Discworld Noir is the most advanced interactive storytelling in games, that I've seen => You rule. I Like your fractal post too. I'm gonna dig up Ghost Master. It's my new mission.

[Chris]

Thanks for the kind words! It's nice that there are people who remember Noir fondly, especially since it never got a US release. It's also cool that there are people who recognise the unusual structure of the game! Hope you enjoy Ghost Master when you get it.