Blog Archives
Analysis: Nemesis
Nemesis
This subject came up a while back when I was watching the Game Trailers’s retrospective special on the Resident Evil series. When the series covered Resident Evil: Nemesis, a collaborator and I began to brainstorm about the word, good examples, and what it is that makes a good one. Out of all the examples we came up with, we noticed a running trend.
The idea of a nemesis, the good ones, at least, fall into themes, or categories. There’s the multiple encounters, which are used to build a relationship with the player character. Other good nemeses can sometimes duplicate the same powers as your character. Some nemeses are obscenely more powerful than you, or possibly cheat, or who are otherwise unfair or cheap, arrogant, or invincible. The nemesis can be involved in some kind of traumatic act, making it personal. That act could be a betrayal or selling out a former ally. This usually puts them in the position to be the toadies or sidekicks of the main villain.
Sometimes a nemesis can be the main villain, but it appears, from the list we came up with, a majority of them are not. One perfect counter-example to this would be GlaDOS from Portal. She/It serves as both nemesis and the main antagonist. So, it’s possible, just not frequent.
I’m not sure how to continue the article, weather to approach it by theme or by specific instances.
First off, I’ll analyze an oldie, one of the first ones that came up when we were brainstorming, from Super Mario Bros. Goombas, Buzzy Beetles, even Spineys were easy enough to get past. The likes of Lakitu, I just ran away from until he left me alone. Even Bowser was a pushover so long as I could run past or underneath him. Though nothing made me freeze in my tracks and make me feel apprehensive faster than when I saw the Hammer Bros. Super Mario Bros 3 really toned them down, along with every game after that. They were never as intimidating or as frustrating than in their first appearance. If I didn’t have a fire flower, or a star, I’d certainly die, or at least have to take a hit. The timing and patience required to wait for them to jump and run beneath the hammers was more than my young mind could handle at the time.
The Hammer Bros, the original Bros, probably caused the strongest emotional response from me out of any other creature in the game. That’s a good sign. It’s frustrating and traumatic, but it’s a sign they were effective. Hammer Bros violate the traditional rules of a Mario monster. Jumping, or attempting to jump on them almost never works. Sure, the Spiney and Piranha Plant are the same way, but they’re just not as powerful as the Hammer Bros. The Hammer Bros have a power that Mario, at the time, didn’t have. They’re recurring in the later stages of the game. I don’t recall when they first appear, I usually take the warp zones from 1-2 to 4-1 and 4-2 to 8-1, bypassing most of their appearances. They can jump through blocks, something else Mario can’t do.
In Mario’s second American adventure, I’m talking about Super Mario Bros. 2, the mod of Doki Doki Panic, we see Birdo. Birdo is the boss of just about every level that isn’t a world boss. Sometimes you’ll even find him/her outside of the end room. Beating Birdo requires a specific sequence of evasion and attacks, taking eggs and throwing them back at Birdo. Sometimes Birdo shoots the occasional fireball, sometimes it’s all fireballs. Like Boom-Boom from Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario 3D Land, they are each recurring mini-bosses. They’re never really truly defeated, since you know you’ll be seeing them again sometime. I didn’t develop any hatred towards them, but their frequent occurrence set them up to become a solid rival. No matter how many of them that I beat, they did still get the better of me when I grew overconfident. They don’t make the top of the list, but they at least deserve mention.
In Mario’s second Game Boy adventure, Nintendo plays the “evil twin” card by creating Wario. Later, Luigi’s evil twin, Waluigi, is introduced. Wario never really achieved great nemesis status, at least according to the pattern that I’ve seen. He’s a dark reflection, but he’s never really evil, traumatic, cheap, betraying anyone, or seen as anyone’s sidekick. His personality is developed in later games and his existence is tied less and less to Mario, becoming independent, appearing in games without Mario like Wario’s Woods and Wario Ware. Waluigi is even less developed.
In the Metroid universe, there are multiple, effective nemeses. In the Metroid Prime trilogy, Dark Samus is a creature that commits the offense of mimicking the player’s character. This is a unique offense, copying, stealing someone’s identity. The duplicate is a dark reflection of the player character, doing things that the player could probably never dream of doing, yet they’re watching their specific power set be used for evil. That’s a particular form of trauma. There’s really no parallel for this trauma outside of fiction and literature, it’s a horror, thankfully, we’ve never had to face. Not unless you really do have an evil twin.
In Metroid: Fusion, the SA-X is a biological copy that stole Samus’s power suit while she was in the emergency room. It has all of her powers and at every encounter, you are forced to run rather than fight. SA-X is a reoccurring, overpowered, doppleganger, with all your old powers, and a thief to boot.
Lastly, probably the one most people immediately thought of, didn’t get their real Nemesis title until the third game. Mother Brain is the final boss, but it’s Ridley that made Samus’s hunt so personal. It’s not until a decade after the original Metroid that we learn Samus’s colony was destroyed by Ridley, and he personally murdered her parents. Ridley continues to haunt Samus by kidnapping the baby Metroid hatchling that had imprinted itself to her. Even though Ridley is eventually killed, his form is resurrected multiple times by the X parasite in Fusion, in mechanical form in Prime, and a mindless feral clone in Other M. Mother Brain has appeared multiple times, but I’ll bet Samus never felt as much satisfaction than when she kills Ridley.
Nintendo really seems to love pulling the evil twin card. In the Legend of Zelda series, Dark Link has made multiple appearances, first in Zelda II, then again in Ocarina of Time, and in Four Swords Adventure. Dark Link features the same powers as Link, but not many of the other common traits in nemeses. He might also present the traumatic trait, like the Hammer Bros, since he served as the final boss in Zelda II, he probably prompted many Game Over screens, breeding an unhealthy level of hatred for him.
Besides the Dark Link copy, my own personal nemeses from the rest of the series include Darknuts and Iron Knuckles. They’re pretty much the same thing, I’ve never seen them in the same game. They’re identified by a sword and shield. They’re the most intimidating in their first and second appearances. Link’s standard means of attacking, run up and hit it with your sword, is suddenly rendered useless. Your power is taken away from you and are forced to adapt or perish. In a room full of blue darknuts in the first Zelda game, there’s about a 50/50 chance. I don’t like fighting them, I don’t even like getting near them. I prefer to set bombs down and let them blow themselves up. Still, that doesn’t always work. To me, they’re the Zelda version of The Hammer Bros. They’ve killed me enough times to create an irrational fear. Also like the Hammer Bros, their power has been diluted over time.
Zelda II’s palace guardians, the Iron Knuckles, hit hard and have high defense. I always increased my attack first, just so I wouldn’t have to deal with them as long. They appear to possess a preternatural ability to predict where your strikes will land and block them in advance. They’ve done me in more than any other enemy in the game.
Aside from those two, there is one other personal nemesis for me in the Zelda series. When I first saw it in Ocarina of Time, I didn’t need Navi to tell me what it was or what it’s weakness was. I knew. After causing me so much grief in the original game, I knew it no matter what form it took, Like-Likes. No other creature could cause me to leave the dungeon, cost me 90 rupees, and have to start all over again after it just ate my shield. It’s unpredictable. Sometimes when you stab it, it recoils and is sent flying. Other times it keeps on rolling along, as blobs do, and sucks you in, devouring your primary means of defense. No other enemy can do that, setting them apart from the rest.
Star Fox, the mercenary pilots of the Lylat system, were given a nemesis in Star Fox 64 in the form of Star Wolf. They appear twice in Star Fox 64, and several games afterward, including Star Fox Command. Their ships are just as agile and have just as much firepower as Fox’s Arwings. The crew are arrogant, which is probably necessary for a career as a mercenary pilot. It’s not like Star Fox is exactly humble either. I actually like them in Star Fox Command, they seem to have buried any animosity and can respect each other as colleagues. That shows some real character growth, yet, they will always be rivals.
Sonic the Hedgehog’s collection of games is no stranger to mimics. Knuckles, first introduced in Sonic 3, has a similar power set to Sonic, being able to speed dash and spin jump, plus flying. Though, further on, he’s not portrayed as fast. Sonic’s other rivals include Metal and Mecha Sonic, these metal abominations were built to copy Sonic’s skillset, but always end up in the scrap heap. They show the hero what he could be, if he wasn’t “good.”
In Sonic Adventure 2, the character of Shadow is first introduced. He’s a hedgehog, like Sonic, able to harness the power of the Chaos Emeralds. He continually harasses Sonic, making multiple appearances, displays the same powers, and shows supreme arrogance by believing himself to be perfect. Arrogance is another common nemesis trait. Knuckles also develops a rivalry with Rouge the Bat, a treasure hunter (thief), that is out to steal Knuckles’s Master Emerald. Rouge, like Knuckles, displays the similar gliding and digging powers that Knuckles showcases.
In the original Prince of Persia, long before The Two Thrones, there is a puzzle segment where you run into a mirror. In order to pass it, you have to run full speed and leap through it. The mirror shatters and a shadowy duplicate comes out the other side. As the game progresses, this duplicate takes on a life of its own and will be seen from time to time, snagging health potions from you long before you’d be able to get them yourself. Not only is this creature a dark reflection, encountered numerous times, he steals from you that which you need to finish the game. Eventually you get to put him in his place.
Mega Man has battled many robot masters in his long career, but the ones that stick with him are the ones that become great nemeses. Sniper Joe has been a thorn in Mega Man’s side in just about every game. Joe is an even bigger nemesis to Protoman, who sees them all as abominations, that dark reflection concept I mentioned again. Little guys like the Mets, those hard hat wearing bad guys, as frustrating and reoccurring as they are, just don’t fall into the same categories as overpowered, betrayal, sidekick, arrogant, or having the same powers as you.
Bass, who appeared in Mega Man 7, 8, Mega Man & Bass, and the arcade games, was built by Dr. Wily with many of the same features as Mega Man, including that weapon copy ability. Bass can also jump higher, run faster, and his weapon can fire faster, and in more directions. In Mega Man 7, Bass stole the upgrades Dr. Light was building for Mega Man and Rush. Bass displays a great amount of arrogance, believing himself to be the only robot that Dr Wily needs, and going so far as to destroy Dr Wily’s 8 robot masters to prove he can defeat Mega Man.
Many years in Mega Man’s future, there is a great cataclysm and Mega Man’s replacement, X is activated. X follows in his ancestor’s footsteps, fighting for humanity. In his first battle, he is nearly destroyed by the rogue Maverick robot, Vile. Vile was chased off at the last moment by Zero. When X and Zero confronted Vile again, Zero was destroyed and X destroyed Vile. Vile has been rebuilt again and again, with more and newer enhancements, believing himself to be better than that “weakling” X. Vile fills the slots of being reoccurring, stronger, arrogant, caused trauma by killing Zero, betrayed humanity when he turned Maverick, and is the frequent sidekick or lackey to the greater villain, Sigma.
In the old NES version Punch-Out, my own personal nemesis was Soda Popinski. No matter what, I could never get past him. He caused enough anger and frustration that I began to hate him. He was much stronger, I faced him and lost many times, and he took cheap shots at me. Everyone else probably has a different nemesis in that game, whoever they couldn’t get past, like Bald Bull or Sandman.
In the first generation of arcade machines, many young gamers’ first nemesis was probably Blinky, the red ghost from Pac-Man. Once you’ve eaten a certain percentage of dots on a level, or reach a certain level, Blinky speeds up. His AI instructions are at every intersection, to always take the shortest path to reach Pac-Man. So he’s always on your tail, too, relentlessly pursuing you. If you’re not cut off at the pass by Pinky(his AI instructions are to make a turn that will aim for two spaces in front of Pac-Man), you Blinky will come up behind you, and you’ll know you’re doomed, for a long enough time to let the feeling sink in. Blinky is faster than you, which is unfair, invincible most of the time, he’s in every level, and is most likely to be the one that ends your game. Eff you, Blinky… Eff you.
Squaresoft RPGs are good at creating memorable nemeses. Final Fantasy seems to like throwing in Gilgamesh in some form or another. He’s never a push over. There’s almost always some form of Bahamut, the king of dragons. With the exception of Final Fantasy XIII, Bahamut is usually the toughest boss in the game, and you’re not meant to beat him. Beating Bahamut is a challenge and a badge of honor. Like Birdo and Boom-Boom, I look forward to seeing them and facing them in each game.
Final Fantasy IV had Golbez as the “main” villain for 99% of the game, but the biggest nemesis was probably Cain Highwind the Dragoon. He started out as the player’s best friend, but quickly betrayed him and kidnapped the player’s significant other. He appears from time to time to deliver messages, and you don’t have the chance to take him down. This personal attack is enough to breed a healthy level of contempt for your former ally.
Final Fantasy VI had several nemeses. Siegfried was a swordsman that appeared from time to time, stealing treasures from your party. He’s never really beatable when you finally find him in the Colosseum. He knows he’s strong, and flaunts it. His arrogance is not without reason. If they don’t have the power to back up their claims, then their character is not likely to appear on this list.
There is a strange purple octopus called Ultros that just likes to throw wrenches into the plans of the player characters. He’s threatening and menacing, but never really part of the overall plot. He comes off as kind of inept, yet very challenging.
Final Fantasy VI’s main end boss is a coin toss as to weather or not to include him. He beings the first half of the game as just a toadie of the Emperor, before killing him. Kefka appears many times, usually to do something horrible like mass murder or poisoning a castle’s drinking water. By the end of the game, everyone has a personal reason to see him dead. He’s arrogant, ridiculously powerful, caused many characters a personal trauma, betrayed his emperor, and shows up many times. Yet in the end he serves as the final boss, which usually Nemeses are dealt with before the end. Perhaps he’s just a different kind of nemesis.
Fighting games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat have created some of the strongest rivalries and nemeses on the list. Sub-Zero’s original murder of Scorpion, and Scorpion’s quest for revenge is one of the most memorable. Sonya’s hunt for Kano is a close second after Kano murdered her former partner. Kitana vs Mileena is the extreme form of sibling rivalry. None of these characters act as the final boss of the game, but they mark a significant personal trauma for these characters.
Street Fighter, as the games progressed, created similar, but less intense rivalries. Just about everyone had a reason to hate and hunt M. Bison. Ryu and Sagat had a personal rivalry that just cooled over time as Sagat learned to let it go. Akuma has something against Ryu, it’s like Ryu seems to piss the most people off.
My personal favorite fighting game, One Must Fall, created a company where the employees were participants in a giant robot fighting tournament. So, everybody knew each other, but not necessarily liked each other. Then there were the other tournaments outside the story mode. This was a fighting game that allowed rematches. If you humiliated one character sufficiently enough by beating them by a wide margin, on a certain difficulty, and performing scrap/destruction(fatality) moves on them, someone related to them would challenge you to a much more difficult rematch. Even winning the tournament, a prior champion can challenge you. They’re usually faster, there’s a chance they will pick the same robot as you, so they could mimic your same powers, they’re arrogant, believing you “stole” something from them, and they’ll likely hassle you again. Killian, Iron Claw, Raven, and Ice are the ones I remember strongest from OMF: 2097. In the sequel, OMF: Battlegrounds, the “rematch” theme returns, often pitting you in the very unfair one vs many grudge matches. I’d love to see Scorpion from Mortal Kombat suddenly interrupt one of Sub-Zero’s fights and make it a 2 on 1, or get a chance to play as Liu Kang and fight Quan Chi and Shang Tsung simultaneously.
In the game Mirror’s Edge, there is a world with a secret network of street running couriers. Most of the missions involve evading non-trained runners, but there is one level where you had to chase and face a particularly arrogant NPC, Jackknife, possessing all the skills and capabilities that you possessed. Jackknife was popular enough to receive an unofficial Half-Life 2 mod spin-off showing his own adventure, like the running nemeses before him Shadow or Knuckles.
Now, the list has gone on long enough, I still have many more nemeses to explore. I thought I knew where this article was going. I analyzed the long list that my friend and I had made and we saw the qualities that good, memorable nemeses have. The enemy being incredibly stronger than you, nigh invulnerable, cheap, unfair, multiple encounters, arrogant, being a traitor, being a sidekick tot he villain, or copying your powers exactly.
What I didn’t see until I began typing this article was that the majority of the best nemeses we came up with came from the early generations of gaming, when the Japanese dominated gaming, in an era before many games were being sold on graphics alone. This isn’t to say that American companies can’t write good villains or nemeses. It’s just greatly weighed in the Japanese’s favor. Maybe it’s because they’ve had more time to work on it, we may never know. When we tried to isolate our efforts to American made AAA games, we just came up short. I invite someone to prove me wrong. The best we could come up with was Blizzard and Valve nemeses. What’s another good American company that’s created a memorable nemesis?
I’d like to know the thoughts of the readership. If I hadn’t covered your favorite nemesis, what stands out in your mind? Or if I neglected a feature, speak up. My viewpoint can’t be the only one. What are the qualities of a good nemesis? What makes a bad nemesis? What makes a bad nemesis rarely came up in the initial list, because they’re easily forgettable.
The rest of the list included Abobo from Double Dragon, Donkey Kong, Carmen Sandiego, Manneroth from Warcraft III, Riku, Axel, and Pete from Kingdom Hearts, Lynx from Chrono Cross, Jackel from Illusion of Gaia, Psycrow from Earthworm Jim, Wesker from Resident Evil, G Man and Dr Kliner from Half-Life, Ocelot in his many forms from Metal Gear Solid, Players 2, 3, 4 and yourself from Magicka, Multi-shot Lightning Enchanted bosses in Diablo II, Ozzie, Flea, Slash, Magus, Dalton, Azala, and Yakra from Chrono Trigger, Arcturus Mengsk, General Duke, and Infested Kerrigan from Starcraft, Shamir Shamazel from King’s Quest VI, and Pokey from Earthbound. Honorable Mentions go to Metroids, level 3 of Battletoads, Terminators(if there ever were a good game with them), and Scar from Battlestar Galactica(if they ever were to let us fight him!).
Analysis: Character Growth Part 1
Originally written on 4/10/2011
Analysis Character Growth
Character growth vs static characters
Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI are two of the best examples I can think of for observing character growth. Each game introduces a large cast of playable characters. Then, throughout the game, it makes a point to bring each character to the center stage and gives them a chance to shine in their own personal side quest. At the end of each plot thread, they all end up changed, having grown for the better.
Chrono Trigger
Lucca, Crono’s best friend from childhood, science and engineering are her best friends. Her mother was crippled and lost the use of her legs in an accident from a machine Lucca’s father built. Ripping back and forth through time, Lucca has the opportunity to go back and stop the accident from ever happening.
Magus, a magically gifted human raised by evil monsters joins the party to avert a great disaster. During part of the journey he has the chance to revisit those monsters who once raised him to be a weapon, and destroy them. He has another moment of growth and catharsis through violence as he has to destroy his insane apocalyptical mother.
Frog is… a frog. He was actually a squire to the great hero of the kingdom, Sir Cyrus. Cyrus was on a quest to defeat Magus and save the kingdom. He fails. Magus kills Cyrus and rather than kill the squire, Glenn, he turns him into a half human and half frog creature. Frog goes through a period of self pity, but instead of being consumed by it, uses this new form and becomes a better swordsman than he ever was before. He never approaches his old castle openly, preferring to stay in the shadows, and protect the queen anonymously.
Frog also meets the ghost of Cyrus and lays it to rest by providing him a proper tomb. All this time Frog was wracked with guilt that he was weak and unable to protect Cyrus. Meeting Cyrus, seeing that he does not blame Glenn, gives Frog the courage to continue in the main quest.
Robo, a.k.a. R6-6Y, a.k.a. Prometheus, was created to study the humans in order to better exterminate them. An accident wiped his memory and shut him down. Lucca reactivates him and he joins the party out of thanks. While exploring, Robo encounters the rest of the R6 series, all programmed to kill. They thoroughly thrash him and send him down a waste disposal chute. But, he’s a robot and survives. To him, it was traumatic, being turned on by his brothers.
Later, Robo becomes a gardener, reviving an entire forest, and a shrine is dedicated to his perseverance and respect for life. Sometime after that, he meets his programmer, another program called Mother Brain. It reveals Robo’s original programming, to kill humans. He has the option of submitting to reprogramming, but his memories and thoughts are all he has, and refuses to surrender them. In the end, he is forced to destroy his creator.
I won’t go through the whole cast of Final Fantasy VI, there’s quite a few. I’ll just pick a few.
Celes, one of my favorite characters, begins as a professional soldier. She’s quite single minded and one dimensional. As the game goes on, she is repeatedly forced into situations that require her to dabble in areas outside her comfort zone. First, she is forced to dress up like an “opera floozy” and sing, then play the damsel in distress and “let” herself be kidnapped. When the world is destroyed, she wakes up on an island and has to nurture Sid the engineer back to health. She becomes more feminine, shedding her tough skin, begins to rely and trust others, even falling in love with a thief.(I mean, treasure hunter.)
Setzer the gambler, lives his life up in a giant floating casino airship called the Blackjack. “The goal of life is to be free of obligations, otherwise you lose the ability to gamble” is his philosophy. He lives a very unattached and carefree life. He lives his life by the flip of a coin, often using that to make major decisions. When he loses his ship in the cataclysm, he loses that lust for life and starts hanging out in bars, drinking. Celes finds him and snaps him out of that stupor. They go find another ship and the two of them “put the band back together.” In their quest for the second airship, Setzer recalls memories of a lady friend, Daryl. Daryl believed that sometimes you had to “feel” your way through a situation. And in the final moments of the game, he tosses a coin to go either left or right. At the last minute he stops, and “feels” the need to go the other way. After he makes the decision, that other tunnel they were previously headed towards directed to by the coin, collapses. One of his last lines is, “Daryl, I’m beginning to sound just like you.”
Gau, the feral child, first meets the party on the wilds called the Veldt. The party is kind to Gau and he instinctively sees them as friendly, and kinda… follows them home. When the world ends, he returns to the wilds only to meet them again and rejoin the team. At a point in the party’s adventures, they meet Gau’s father. They dress Gau up, make him look nice, and try to show the father a son to be proud of. Sadly, the old man is crazy and rejects him. Gau is still a feral child and is now certain he will never have a normal family. But he is welcomed by the party.
Now that’s interesting, Gau’s story doesn’t have as happy an ending as it could have been. It didn’t reconcile with his father, instead he gains the party as a family. It suggests that there are many different definitions of family, not just the biologic.
Cyan, the noble samurai of castle Doma establishes his presence very strongly when we’re introduced to him. We’re supposed to know he’s a tough guy and expert with a sword. He almost single handedly repels an invading force. He originally joins for the sake of revenge for the attack on his castle. When the end of the world comes, he finds a solitary mountain hideaway to live in. He becomes a poet, writing love letters to someone who lost their significant other in the disaster.
Throughout the game he has an intense dislike and distrust of machines or anything mechanical. In the original version he was supposed to overcome this technophobia and gain the “tools” ability, like Edgar. Instead, in the end credits he “masters” the use of technology by flipping a switch to save Edgar’s life. It’s a small, but very strong and symbolic moment.
Look at any one of these characters, they are very different people, in very different places in their lives at the end of their adventure than when they were at the beginning.
And now for the other side of the coin, Kratos vs Sora
First off, Kratos from God of War 1. I could say God of War 2 and 3 as well, since he doesn’t change or grow at all, in any way. There is a moment near the end of the game where Kratos is assaulted by several dozen copies of himself. This could be a reference to MacBeth, how after one murder, he must keep committing murder after murder to cover it up. Or, a reference to how anger and revenge will consume you and is self-defeating. But no, it’s just overcome with more excessive violence. And that’s how Kratos solves all of his problem. Unlike Sora, Kratos has no supporting cast of people to care for, which makes his story comparatively shallow.
Sora from the Kingdom Hearts series is almost a metaphor. He’s a symbol, an infectious force to those around him, he is courage and inspiration incarnate. And he always keeps hope alive. He has his memories taken from him in Chain of Memories, but he is still the courageous, inspirational, and hopeful character that he was before. This was an important part of the story that proposes we are more than just our memories. His stagnation of growth in Kingdom Hearts 2, there’s no excuse. The stories, fates, and relationships of the characters around him, like Riku, Micky, and Kyrie, are more fascinating than Sora’s story.
Comparing Kratos and Sora, their ultra violence and childlike hopefulness are both essential to their character. To change that is to change the whole feel of the game. Would Kratos’s story be better if he grew and changed over the adventure? Will Sora reappear in Kingdom Hearts 3, and will he change at all?
Take a look at Kratos at the end of his adventure, is he any different than when he started? Sora, has he really changed that much once he first picked up a keyblade?
All of these characters have been memorable. Some grew, some didn’t. All remained “themselves” throughout. The games with better stories are the ones that changed. Is there a game with a good story that also has a stagnant character?
Gordon Freeman
Half-Life manages to weave a story of horror, adventure, science-fiction, and intrigue. The character of Gordon doesn’t change, but the situation he’s in puts constantly changing stresses on him and the people he’s around. Like Crono from Chrono Trigger. It’s the supporting characters that drive this story.
Starkiller
This character was a supreme disappointment when compared to the odyssey we’re familiar with of a poor farmhand becoming a Jedi knight, or the rogue scoundrel nerf hearder that finds something worth fighting for. Luke and Han from episode IV are in very different places and became very different people by the end of episode VI. Even Darth Vader grew from faceless villain to a sympathetic concerned father.
This Starkiller character doesn’t change, grow, or evolve at all. The story of Rhom Kota was more interesting than Starkiller. I’d like to see more of him! Maybe he’ll appear some time in The Clone Wars computer animated series. I won’t go into depth about The Force Unleashed 2. I don’t know who was the worse lovestruck whiner, Starkiller or Anakin from the prequels.
Tomb Raider
Lara Croft’s early adventures were quite shallow. She was an explorer and adventurer like Indiana Jones, except she just wasn’t as likable. Lara had no support cast to flesh out her character. Indiana had Marcus, Sallah, and Marian. Lara had no relationships or links with anyone. Indiana had Bellock, and those other German agents he kept running in to. Lara didn’t change or grow at all. They were stories really not worth telling. Indiana went from that young, “it belongs in a museum” looking for “fortune and glory,” to seeing the true value of the artifacts outside of money. Lara’s pretty much stuck in that “fortune and glory” phase.
In her later adventures, she does gain a support team, and there’s even some recurring characters and villains from previous games. I wouldn’t call the games masterpieces, but they’re a distinct improvement over the first few.
MMOs
Not always renowned for their story, but they do possess that element of change and growth. The player character grows, gets stronger, passes great milestones in the adventure. Each character’s journey is a little different. Everytime they replay the second zone, thoughts of their first time through come to the surface. “Ah, I remember going through this area with my shaman, those were fun times.” It’s a huge leap whenever you get that next new skill or great new weapon. It changes up the playing dynamic each time.
Jim Raynor
Following Jim Raynor from Starcraft I and II, is a great example of a character’s growth. He starts of as a marshal in a backwater town, to rebel, to revolutionary, to possible savior of the universe. And he’s constantly surrounded by someone, either the player, or one of the supporting characters to play off of. SC2 reveals a bit of Raynor’s past when he was young and robbing trains.
Superheroes
Not entirely game related, but still draw upon the elements of good storytelling. The every day adventures are kind of forgettable. But whenever we read one that totally changes the status quo like (something) Crisis for DC, or when a main character dies in The Death of Captain America or X-Men’s Messiah Complex, that story is going to stick with us.
End
Dynamic characters that change and grow over time make for some of the most memorable and deep story experiences. Static main characters are okay, so long as they’re surrounded by ones who aren’t.
Analysis: Story
Originally written on 3/31/2011
Storytelling
Not every game needs to have a good story. Some stories are deliberately kept simple since that’s just not where the focus of the game is. But some games which try, fail. They try to take themselves seriously, create some iconic quotable bad-ass, and unintentionally shallow character. I’d like to take some examples and point out why I think they fail at the attempt. This is just my opinion, there’s a good chance I have no idea what I’m talking about. Keeping that in mind, we can begin.
I’m going to mention some “best sellers” and bring attention to their weak story, not because I hate them, but to illustrate a point. They may be awesome and technical masterpieces or financial cash cows, but their story could be weak for one reason or another. Perhaps there was never much effort in its development, or the writers had yet to learn how to write well.
Tomb Raider vs Lara Croft
Lara began her career as little more than a sex symbol. She had the wealth of Bruce Wayne, the adventurousness of Indiana Jones, the strength of a circus acrobat, and the flexibility of a stripper. In the beginning, she was a loner, no relationships or ties to anyone. I’m glad they never gave her a romantic interest. But later she was given a crew of people who help her on her expeditions. That helped a bit with fleshing her out as a character, and pointing out the direction to go, but they’re still not much more than talking heads with exposition.
The new Lara Croft series of games, spearheaded by Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light give her a partner for her adventure. The lone heroine must now learn how to get along and play well with others. Right in the opening of the game, the story is more interesting than any other intro video I’ve seen for a Tomb Raider game.
God of War vs Greek Mythology
It will take some time before we see if Kratos’s story has as much staying power as the original Greek pantheon. So, I’ll have to analyze it another way.
Both include many of the same characters and the same root, but which do I find more enjoyable?
Kratos, has killed just about everyone he’s ever known. If he doesn’t get them the first time they meet, he’ll be sure to get them later or in the sequel.
Greek Mythology is rich with soap opera caliber drama. Zeus, besides being the powerful king of Mount Olympus, has a fling at the drop of the hat with just about any other female in the pantheon. He cheats on his wife, has many illegitimate children, and it eventually causes more friction and clashes when the family gets together. Zeus the titan slayer in the beginning is not the same playboy Zeus by the end of his biography. The rest of the “cast” in the stories of Greek mythology are just as complex with their relationships. And that is (part of )why the stories have lasted as long as they did, why they evolved.(cultural significance played a part, too)
Mortal Kombat games vs Mortal Kombat movies
This isn’t a movie review site, but since it involves movies based on a video game, it fits.
The first movie was a bit different, it took some liberties, but it was passable. The second movie was really bad. I cringed several times. It’s not even one of those “guilty pleasures” movies that I watch and say I don’t. I don’t want to see it again. I’m going to address the second movie working under the assumption that no one who worked on it gave half a crap about it. It was just a job. It was made to capitalize on a phenomenon and fad, and that’s about it. The writers were rushed and told what to do by someone who had no idea what they were doing. The movie was nothing more than name dropping proper nouns and expecting people to react positively, regardless if they got it right or not. It was designed to be a special effects showcase, not an actual “whole” movie.
Normally, we shouldn’t expect much from the plot of a martial arts movie. But imagine for a moment that someone were to write a screenplay that focused on the characters and their relationships. Relationships, relationships that change, advance, grow, and test and challenge themselves are what make good drama. MK was never about drama in the first place, it was always known for it’s signature brutality and incredible violence. I see no reason that both camps can be appeased.
I like the story for Mortal Kombat. I’ll admit that. I like the overarching story that involves the tournament. I enjoy the rivalries. From the story, you know some match-ups will be more spectacular and more emotionally charged than others, Sonya vs. Kano, Noob Saibot vs Scorpion, Raiden vs Shao Khan, Kitana vs Meleena, Shang Tsung and Quan Chi double teaming Liu Kang. The battle between rivals will dramatically change, add, or end a relationship. You don’t know what’s going to happen, but you know it will be something big.
Scorpion could carry his own movie, like what we’ve seen in the new webseries. There could be a whole movie based solely on any one of these rivalries.
Half-Life 2 vs Doom 3
Is Half-life science fiction? Maybe. It shows humanity through a lens, the dangers of centralized power in an individual. Is Doom science fiction because it takes place in space? Hardly. It’s horror. Does science fiction have any bearing on whether a story is good or not? No. Can something be labeled science fiction and automatically have more story than something that’s just plain action or horror? Maybe. But science fiction is an addition that can be tacked on to any story. It’s heart will still remain with the characters.
Half-Life’s hero Gordon Freeman has a network of people around him that know him, trust him, count on him, and are inspired by him. More than that, the characters all have relationships and history with each other, they all worked at Black Mesa, some of them are family members. One of them becomes mole. All together, the cast of Half-Life 2 is more developed, more likable, and more effective than Doom 3.
Doom 3’s characters didn’t matter. There was a bad man that needed to be taken out. His relationship with the main character or his lacky could have been anything. There’s no development, growth, or change. There’s no one to care about, no relationship link. Oh, look, another random scientist died horribly. Big deal? Should I care? Doom 3 could have been much scarier if they included a cast like Half-life 2 and put them in peril.
Castlevania vs Lords of Shadow – absence of familiarity
Castlevania’s story didn’t really take off and grow into its own until Castlevania III introduced multiple playable characters. Each character had their own separate and personal reason to see Dracula destroyed because of what he’d done to them. Symphony of the Night added dialogue, more characters with personality, and the relationships between them added character depth.
I’ve mentioned before that I’m not 100% satisfied with the new Castlevania Lords of Shadow. It was a great title by itself, but it just didn’t feel like a Castlevania story. That was because the story lacked anything familiar or recognizable as “Castlevania.” There were no returning characters, no returning bosses, no returning environments. Everything was original, which reinforces my feeling that it would be a great original game, just change the title.
Battlestar Galactica series vs Battlestar Galactica Online
The game BGO hasn’t come out yet, but I don’t have high hopes for it. It takes much of what was great about the Battlestar series and blows it out the airlock.
Think of the series, look at any one character and follow their growth. No one, no one who survives, is left unchanged from the beginning of season 1 through the end of season 4. Look at Col Tigh’s transformation from officer to tortured resistance leader, to broken drunk, and his recovery. Look at President Roslyn’s original season 1 schoolteacher out of water to spiritual leader, to powerful executive leader. Look at Lee’s journey from pilot to politician. Anders goes from pyramid player to resistance leader, and eventually a pilot.
The game, will that have any sense of the story and experience that made the series great? Or will it be nothing but a series of online deathmatches?
TMNT vs any other beat ’em up brawler
The Ninja Turtles have been part of gaming since the NES days. The games were generally good, and the story was never more than an excuse to get them all fighting again. Shredder has kidnapped April/Splinter, go get them back, and then finish him off. Shredder has stolen Manhattan, get it back, and then finish him off. Shredder has taken the Statue of Liberty and created a time machine, get it back and travel through time, then finish him off. If there wasn’t such a strong recognition with these characters, the games wouldn’t have sold as well, despite how good they are. I get more satisfaction out of fighting Shredder for the 100th time than I would fighting some nameless villain with no history, no relationship that we’ve never seen before. Part of any franchise game is to sell an experience. If a game doesn’t do that, if it doesn’t draw upon the pre-existing relationships already available, it misses the point.
Street Fighter IV
Fighting games and martial arts movies aren’t ever expected to have much of a plot. But I appreciate Street Fighter for the same reason I appreciate Mortal Kombat, for the characters they created. Street Fighter has it’s relationships, friendships, and rivalries. Some matches are charged with emotion and venom, while some are more friendly and sporty. Ryu vs Ken is a classic and friendly rivalry, while Bison has made many enemies.
Final Fantasy vs any other RPGs
Square knows how to write relationships. When a character dies off, it has an effect. That goes for Aeris as much as it goes for Zack, Shadow, General Leo, Rachel, Daryl, Gaulf, Tellah, and Palom & Porom. And that’s just 3 Final Fantasy games.
Characters don’t always change through dialogue and death, sometimes a fight will do it. Thinking of drama and catharsis through fighting in RPGs always reminds me of the charged fight between Frog and Magus in Chrono Trigger. If I saw a version of Chrono Trigger on the big screen, I wouldn’t be satisfied if the two didn’t fight one-on-one, and then Frog refuses to finish Magus off. That way I can have my cake and eat it, too. In that case, I think it would work.
Gears of War
Nothing I ever saw, heard, or read about this game made me half interested in it. Invading army, tough guy kills them all, lots of expendable extras. What is the story? Why has it gone on for three games? Does Marcus have any strong relationships with other characters? Do they change and grow over time? Are they challenged? Or are they just static relationships that remain the same all throughout? Is there a story worth telling?
Halo
I played through the first one. The story wasn’t anything too original. It’s a shame what happened to the commander, but it wasn’t like their relationship changed at all. Cortana was there and was nice to hear a voice in your ear that wasn’t an alien death gasp. She’s likable, but there’s no growth to their relationship. She’s used as a piece of equipment, and that’s it. What about Halo 2 and 3, anybody? Does Cortana become more than equipment? Does she upload herself(and forget to back herself up for some reason) into an alien computer and sacrifice herself for Master Chief? That would suggest she’s more than a program. Do they try that? The original was a great action game, a great shooter, but not a good storytelling experience. Later on I may write musings on what makes a good action game.
Portal
The relationship between Chell and GlaDOS is a fascinating one. GlaDOS very subtly grows from teacher to tormentor. GlaDOS later ceases her subterfuge and directly tries to kill Chell. That’s a very simple and well done example of how changing relationships creates drama.
Zelda classic vs Toon Link
In the first few Zelda titles, I could follow the story. The games seemed to jump around within time, sometimes skipping a generation or so. After Majora’s Mask, I lost track of who was who. When “Toon Link” appeared, I lost interest. Each game seemed to introduce some new villain. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The amount of time it takes to complete any Zelda game is more than enough to establish a good story. But since the stories are all self contained, unrelated to Gannon in any way, they’re just not as memorable to me. They’re fun, great, stand alone fairy tales, they follow a Zelda game formula. But they’re just not as memorable.
Pokemon – “Pokemon, what happened to you.”
Find that song, it should explain my point. I’ve never been a Pokemon fan, I’ve never played any of the series. But the song helps support the point that emulating character archetypes without building strong relationships between them is futile.
Comics vs Comic movies
This one probably shouldn’t be in the list, but it follows the same pattern I’m trying to illustrate. X-Men, Batman, Spider-Man or anything else Marvel.
Just about every movie based on a comic franchise is all over the map, neglecting history and the relationships formed over years. Any Spidy fan was just waiting to see Peter Parker’s friend and one of Spider-Man’s few allies, Doctor Curt Conners, take a leading role. The fact that the two must come to blows is a tragedy. One friend is trying to help another. Their life is on the line. That’s more compelling and dramatic than what Spider-Man 3 gave us. Seriously, Venom, Sandman, and Harry as the new Green Goblin? 3 villains? Didn’t they learn from the other Batman series? Too many villains means no one gets as developed as much as they deserve, and the movie is a watered down tasteless slop of a mess. The ending of Spider-Man 2 with Doc Ock was probably the closest example of a comic book movie that got it right.
X-Men, I don’t know if any fan was truly satisfied. It takes well known characters and neglects half of their characteristics. Nightcrawler was hardly the happy swashbuckling “blueberry muffin” that I knew him for being. Sometimes the changes are for the better, a little retroactive continuity corrections can help when story lines go on too long or get too convoluted, like that Phoenix saga thing. Oh yeah, F- Storm. She was about as disappointing as Nightcrawler’s interpretation. Nightcrawler or Storm could carry their own movie. They tried to give Wolverine his own movie, as if he wasn’t already covered enough in the other 3 movies. Instead, they introduced more and more characters that they didn’t develop.
Iron Man 2 had some high and low points. I like how they touched on Tony Stark’s alcoholism. But they only touched on it. An entire movie focusing on his battle would have been more interesting. But since I don’t know Tony Stark’s life as well as I know, say, Steve Rogers or Kurt Wagner, I don’t notice everything that’s been left out.
I’ll go see Captain America, he’s been a long time favorite of mine, Joss Whedon’s Avengers, he’s always an awesome writer, and maybe X-Men First Class. But after those, if they don’t impress me, I give up on comic book movies as a whole.
Left 4 Dead 2 vs FPS
You could fill a graveyard with all the forgotten, uninspiring, FPS games that fail to capture the imagination. Left 4 Dead 2’s experience is more memorable than most. There are zombies, 4 survivors try to escape. In their struggle for survival, their characters develop. The survival plot develops with every step forward they take, but the characters grow more memorable and distinct with every line. The small moments, like talking about Jimmy Gibbs Jr, Ellis’s reverence for him compared to Nick cursing his existence. Compare both the first and second game in the series. L4D2’s cast is stronger than the first all because of their dialogue. The gameplay and experience is nearly identical between them, but L4D2’s characters are stronger.
Sometimes, when I play, I imagine the horde of zombies is made up of terrible uninteresting characters from forgotten FPS games.
Mario classic vs Mario recent
Mario reminds me of Jason Statham. If Jason Statham isn’t stealing something or driving really fast, I’m disappointed. Mario’s career was similar. He started his career running, jumping, fighting Bowser and DK, but over time, he just lost his way. If Mario isn’t kicking koopa shells and throwing fireballs, I’m disappointed. When he started fighting this “Bowser Jr.” character, it’s like the creators just forgot the 7 Koopalings. Mario spraying water around being environmental? Mario playing all sorts of sports? They’re straying off the beaten path. Sure, Mario’s story never had the depth of Dante(the book, not the atrocious game), but whenever it strays from that classic formula, the story is weaker, there’s none of the familiar relationships, and it’s a disappointment to me.
Assassin’s Creed
Someone educate me, please. Show me the character relationships. Is the story any good? Why is it good? I know there’s supposed to be a “frame” story that ties them all together regardless of how the games are separated by centuries. But should a game take 3-4 installments before it actually makes sense or ties together? Since a good story comes from relationships, I don’t think it should.
Metroid / Max Payne, relationship with themselves
These are two very solo characters. Samus Aran, until very recently, works alone. Max Payne rarely meets anybody he doesn’t shoot.
Even though Samus is mostly mute, and the story is told through pantomime, it manages to tell a great story without words. Metroid II has no words through it and does a good job, the actions speak. As Samus explores SR-388, she meets newer and bigger metroids. The manual of metroid hunting she’d written suddenly goes out the window and she’s in jeopardy. The battle with the queen, the discovery of the hatchling, imprinting on Samus, saving her life from the cavern, the great Xenocidal Samus rapidly changes from killer to conservationist as she realizes the importance of the creatures. Her relationship with herself, her ego has changed and grown. Super Metroid also told a story with no words, the actions tell the story. Some times, there just are no words for when someone kidnaps a child, drugs it, raises it as their own, and eventually murders it in front of you. Samus’s frantic and desperate search for the metroid is a memorable one. And I doubt anyone who took the journey wasn’t filled with rage in the final battle with Mother Brain. And anyone who’s played Other M should know that sometimes no words are better.
Max Payne wasn’t as incredible a story as Max Payne 2. Max Payne 2 was able to draw, heavily, upon the relationships and characters from the first game, Vladimir Lem, Mona Sax, Jimmy Gognitti, Jum Bravura, and the conflict and struggle with maintaining those relationships, as well as the relationship with himself as a cop, in the face of a rapidly and drastically changing circumstances is a great example of drama in a story. Max Payne 3 looks to be developed by different people in a totally new story with no prior relationships to draw upon(not that many survived Max Payne 2). The odds are good that the story won’t be, unless the writers have experience and write with relationships in mind.
Dante’s Inferno vs Dante’s Inferno
One of the greatest works of literature in any language and it’s been reduced to a super violent gore-fest. When I first read Inferno, I was taken in by Dante’s plight, he was a broken man who lost the love of his life, Beatrice. She saw this and offered him a guide, his favorite poet, Virgil, where he dared to travel through Hell for the chance of seeing her again.
The game removes that Dante and replaces him with a testosterone filled rageaholic almost indistinguishable from the likes of Kratos. Now, in the book, Dante was kind of a sissy. But I imagine anyone actually traveling through Hell will be just as hesitant and afraid. In the game, Beatrice is nothing more than an object, a damsel in distress, a treasure. Game Dante felt no real loss, he may as well be questing for his favorite book that someone took from him. I’m never convinced that he actually loved Beatrice at all. He doesn’t even recognize Virgil or acknowledge that he was his favorite poet(or that he could even read). The book builds a relationship between him and Virgil, it’s completely absent in the game.
I’d be less offended if they just called it The Inferno, focused on some random crusader, and didn’t draw upon Dante at all.
End
I think these are sufficient examples. A good story has good character relationships. Once you establish those, the characters start to write themselves. A bad story tries to emulate successful characters and archetypes, but neglect relationships. A hero is really only as good as those who support him, or oppose him. Relationships with villains are sometimes as important as the relationships with friends. Changing himself, reexamining the ego counts, it changed the character’s relationship with himself.
Old vs. New – Final Fantasy
Originally written on 3/6/2011
Welcome to the first installment of a new column that takes a look at the long running franchises, highlighting the high points and comparing them to the recent installments. In this article I will be profiling Final Fantasy.
If you’re a long time Final Fantasy fan, then you probably know how the original came about. It was a last ditch effort to save his company that until Final Fantasy 1, had not been able to produce a well received game. If this game failed, it would mean the end of the company. The creators figuratively bet the farm on this one.
Now I can’t say I’ve played every Final Fantasy out there. I know I’m missing some. So if someone wants to chime in, please do and help fill in all our knowledge gaps.
Final Fantasy was the progenitor of the series. It set up staples that would be seen throughout the later games. The distinctive elements from this game was the party you controlled. You get to pick your party and classes. You name your characters and assign them a class, fighter, black belt, thief, white, black, or red mage. You can stack up and have 4 fighters or 4 white mages, or any combination. Once you had them, you were stuck with them. The battles were the typical turn based that set the standard for many more years to come.
Final Fantasy 2 & 3 came out in Japan only, so I missed them. Though I understand they set up several precedents which were used later, like introducing some new, now classic, character classes. I think they’ve been re-released on the DS in North America, I’ll have to double check, but since I have no direct experience with these, I’ll leave the experts to chime in.
When the Game Boy was released, there were a few games that had the Final Fantasy title slapped on by someone who made a decision that the brand recognition would help sales. I suppose that meant Final Fantasy was officially a success. Years later, the plot points introduced in Final Fantasy Adventure for the Game Boy would be revisited in a separate series later to be called Seiken Densetsu, or Secret of Mana.
Final Fantasy IV was the one many older fans cut their teeth on. Instead of your team of 4 anonymous mute heroes, you were given 5 characters with character. They had names, history, personality, relationships, and flaws. You didn’t have any freedom to choose who was in your party, the story determined that. Having that forced interaction was a choice that helped people bond with the characters.
Final Fantasy V was one of my favorites when I bought it for my DS. You only have 4 characters, but you can make them any class you want. So they still had the individual personality of characters from FFIV, and an even greater amount of control than FFI. Once your character spends a certain amount of time as one class, he or she masters it and can take some of the innate abilities of that class and apply it to another. You could end up creating a bare fisted multi-striking counter-attacking berserker, or a fighter with healing magic, and many others. Eventually everyone can master everything, but that’ll take some grinding, there are loads of classes represented. And even then, only so many traits can be piled on top of one another, so you will still need a good endgame strategy. You won’t be able to just walk over the boss.
There’s character and control, I couldn’t have asked for more.
Final Fantasy VI
This was the one I first started with. It was a bit slow to start. I was a bit confused who the main character was. It turns out it’s really one big ensemble cast and the main character is whoever you want it to be. You have 14 characters to choose from, all have a resemblance to some class that was previously established in an earlier game, though it’s not overtly spelled out. So you can choose the characters you like and overcome their weaknesses, or load up your party based on their usefulness and power your way through. In case you did not like any of the characters in Final Fantasy V, you couldn’t just swap the character out, you could only change their class. This game gives you so many characters to choose from, the player is bound to bond with some of them.
Final Fantasy VII, this is where my fondness ends. I never had a Playstation, so I never owned it. But due to it’s success, I could not avoid it. It was the first time I ever saw lines at video game stores for the release of a particular game. It was thoroughly demoed for me by friends with Playstations and I had to hear about how incredible it was, how it was such a large step forward in graphics and gameplay. Personally I was never impressed with it visually. I still didn’t like the fact that there were loading times on CDs and old sprite graphics at that point, for me, held more character and emotion in their 2d representations than 3d was able to at that time. I was present when a friend of mine reached the infamous death scene, he shed a tear. From that point on I still didn’t like it, but respected it. A game that has that power surely is something significant. It was a turning point where games had become art.
The cast of characters can be chosen by the player throughout most of the game. And while some characters are certainly built for fighting or magic, the addition of “materia” let you shape your characters in such a way that you could have the characters you like, and to an extent, the abilities you want. I’ve never realized until now that perhaps that is why this game resonates so strongly with so many players.
Final Fantasy VIII and IX passed me by for the most part. I remember reading a bunch about them, how the general additude and feeling was that they may have been graphical upgrades, they weren’t as fun. They still sold very well, just not as endearing as VII. If anyone reading has strong feelings about them, please share why. Did these games allow you as much character customization and control as the previous entries? Tell us, with both extreme maturity and bias, if these were your early experiences with the genre, because we all have some famous firsts which we will never forget and those have the strongest impact on us.
Final Fantasy Tactics on the PS1 started a series of spin-off games that allowed you to make a small army, move them tactically around a battlefield, and use classes from the Final Fantasies that came before it. It was a neat idea, but not one that I could get behind. That was mostly because I was still prejudice against games on CD and I didn’t own a PS1 at the time. I understand that it’s a classic, there’s a bunch of fervor around it, people love it, it has a strong and lasting legacy, and the sequel was a very long time coming. Come to think of it, the top down view, use of time units, the variety of weapons, reminds me a bit of X-COM. There’s no real reason for me to avoid it. I judged it very unjustly and harshly.
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles was another spin-off series that appeared on the Nintendo system of the time, the Gamecube. Since I never had one of those either, and the idea of game journalism still had much room to grow, it went by largely unnoticed by me. I hope someone else here can offer up some words of praise for what I understand to be a very neglected game. It was quite a departure.
Final Fantasy X appeared on the PS2. I also never owned a PS2 so I never played it. I remember that same friend who first showed me the infamous death scene in VII bringing over his PS2 and firing it up for the first time. It was a visual and technical marvel for its time. The character development system was new and different. It allowed each character to grow how the player chose. Some characters took longer to get there than others and resisted the change, but with enough grinding, a Final Fantasy staple, you could do it.
Final Fantasy XI was a huge departure since it was an MMO. I sampled it for a few hours and it just didn’t agree with me. I had already been spoiled by the easy learning curve and instant gratification of World of Warcraft. But I did spend hours listening to stories, watching people play, and trying to learn what the appeal was. I may give it another go someday, I’ve always had a soft spot for Dragoons.
Final Fantasy X-2 was a series first, making a direct sequel. There were 3 characters that could be any class, just like Final Fantasy V. I’ve never played it, but that was my understanding. I also understand that there is a “mission” system that lets you take on story related missions, or just do what you do best and grind. Out of all the FF games that I haven’t played, this is the first one that I’d want to pick up, for that reason. And, I have a weakness for strong women. Payne in the Dragoon armor looks incredible. As with any game here, if you can think of something that was done exceptionally well, shout it out, let people know.
Final Fantasy XII mostly went over my head. Since I’d never owned a Playstation, I’d given up on the series as a whole. Once the series had gone 3d, the characters and artwork just never had that same impact as my beloved sprites. Please, someone, say something nice about it. Or is this the beginning of where the games started to disappoint people? How was character development handled?
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Ring of Fate for the DS I played start to finish. I didn’t realize that I had bought a game designed for kids. Usually when you see Final Fantasy in the title, you expect a certain amount of hours, a certain quality of story, a certain amount of choice in character development as we’ve seen time and time again. I got none of this. This was one of those games that never would have seen the light of day if it didn’t have the FF tagged onto the title. If they had renamed it to something completely new different and original, I might not have had as much to disagree with about it.
Final Fantasy XIII, after playing through 30 hours of this, I gave up. It’s going to take a real miracle before I pick up another Final Fantasy game. This game is one of the reasons I started this blog. The mighty have fallen. A game that has Final Fantasy in the title should bring certain things to the table. It didn’t, at least not soon enough. Games are usually meant to be beaten. I know that in real-time strategy games if they introduce a new unit to you, that it’s going to be very instrumental in your success. When a game gives you no freedom of choice in the introduction, you can’t really do anything wrong, you can’t screw up, you can’t lose. That section is meant to be won with minimal effort. For the first 30 hours of FF13, it was one straight linear path, I had no choice of who was in my party, I could not upgrade my characters in any significant way, and everything was meant to be beaten. There was no challenge at all. It was like playing one big cut scene. I only put myself through it because I believed it would get better soon. Shortly after beating Bahamut, the king of dragons, traditionally one of the strongest monsters in any FF game, as part of this linear “tutorial” segment, I gave up. This game took everything Final Fantasy used to stand for and threw it out the window. I’d had enough. I was tired of the sissy little kid named Hope who is obviously going to be some symbol by the end of the game, about as subtle as naming the end boss Sin in FFX. The Japanese verbal pause/grunt would have knocked me out if I’d actually played the drinking game, “Everytime someone gasps and has nothing to say, take a drink.” And the fact you cannot control your additional 2 party members, just the leader, left me wondering, if the game plays itself most of the time, what did it need me for? The best thing I can say was that some of the characters were interesting. But that’s not enough to get me to want to put myself through that all over again. I’ll just read the story on the Final Fantasy Wikipedia someone’s bound to set up.
What Went Wrong?
Where did the series go wrong? People play RPGs to build a character and make defining deliberate choices. FF13 removed all of that. RPGs involve deeply rooted long term strategy in character development and armament. This was an incredibly shallow experience and pretty much had all the hard work done for you. This game certainly does not mark the series highpoint. We’ve analyzed the high points of the series in the past and they seem to disappear here. There’s still a story, but I can’t care about it since I was not involved in it in any way, the fights just seemed like a different dialogue screen. I didn’t shape any of it.
Please, if someone out there can find something positive to say about FFXIII, please do. I want to think of something more substantial than, “I liked the hot dragoon lady.”
The Best Game Never Played 