If Square takes over almost all of Star Wars rights....

This. I don't see how Lot R should be considered some sort of example for how every fantasy story should be (especially since I find it boring as hell - not for weapon related reasons).

Similarly, I'm not saying Final Fantasy should be an example for every fantasy story, but it's still fantasy. I can accept breaks from reality because things are supposed to work differently there. So if the work says that humans are capable of magic or great strength, then fine.

^^ Please don't strawman me. It doesn't support your argument and I've clearly moved on to more general analysis. I never said The Lord Of The Rings is good because its weapons are realistic. It's realistic as a whole despite its fantastic elements, but arms are an important visual representation of that across many works.

It's also touted as a prime example of High Fantasy by many writers, critics and readers. I'd personally consider it Low Fantasy in many regards, but obviously there's a lack of consensus. That said, even High Fantasy keeps things reasonable.

For an example of a work that has both reasonable and ridiculous weapons, look at Demons Souls or Dark Souls. In those cases, most of the weapons in the game are well-researched and designed, but very specific, special weapons that are said to defy reality are silly. Justified in context, though, because their power comes from their arcane natures and the twisted materials used to make them.

^ The Lord Of The Rings is a Ur-Example because it's got a combination of writing quality, innovation, characterisation and internal consistency that no other fantasy story has matched since. Tolkien went above and beyond even the mythological source material for his work and wove something much more complex, yet much more accessible and in line with modern values. Keep in mind that it's a story about The Power of Friendship where ultimate victory necessitates the rejection of power rather than literally defeating the bad guy.

edited 15th Oct '11 2:35:36 PM by MadassAlex

(grabs popcorn)

Exactly. I read fantasy because its, well, fantasy, a different world with different rules. If the world is go grounded in reality, and realism, then why not just make it take place in our world?

Basically, I'm tired of realism coming in and ruining all the fun of fantasy.

edited 15th Oct '11 2:47:33 PM by Rynnec

The thing is, though, that it requires a horrendous amount of worldbuilding to create a -completely- reality-removed fantasy world.

On top of that, the reason why a lot of weapons and so forth have to look at least remotely practical is because we assume by default that said worlds adhere to some basic laws of nature (say, gravity), as well as people adhering to practicality and functionality over aesthetics, otherwise the weapon design makes no sense.

That's what always broke me, personally, about Final Fantasy in contrast to, say, Persona. The weapons in the Persona games are designed with real-world weapons in mind, whereas Final Fantasy weapons were designed with the specific purpose of trying to find out how much they could get away with before it broke peoples' suspension of disbelief.

edited 15th Oct '11 2:52:37 PM by math792d

^^ And yet, if you cannot relate to the characters, then that kills the emotional investment outright. There has to be an acceptable baseline for the sake of comparison to all the fantastic things that happen. That's why Star Wars isn't just a string of space battles and lightsaber fights. We have to see Luke's mundane life and his mundane struggles so we can relate to him as a mundane human being. Only then can we advance into his skills as a pilot and his potential as a Jedi. And even the latter takes three movies to properly formulate and explore.

^ Also this. In a different genre, consider Aliens. The pulse rifles in that are sci-fi weapons and don't make absolute sense (99 rounds in a magazine? Are you kidding me?), but we accept them because they look and act functional. They're kind of overblown with 10mm, armour-piercing, explosive rounds. That said, such rounds do exist, and it makes sense that an elite soldier would use them in a future with the sort of economic advancement that would make them feasible.

edited 15th Oct '11 2:56:00 PM by MadassAlex

Case in point, Cole McDick, who ends up becoming unrelatable in the evil version (hence the nickname) because his actions make no sense when the good option is just as easy to take.

edited 15th Oct '11 2:55:00 PM by math792d

^^^ Bad comparison dude. Unlike FF, Persona actually takes place in our world in the present day. So of course it'd use realistic weapons.

Of course people'd have to relate to the characters. In terms of personality and motivation anyway.

I for instance, can relate with Ragna the Bloodedge FAR more than I can with Luke Skywalker. Despite the fact that we barely saw any of his mundane life. That's because the fact that his personality, and motivations for doing what he's doing are more relatable to me personally, than with Luke's generic "Every Man" status.

Guys, Square-Enix owns Eidos and, by extension, Avalanche Studios.

Just Cause 2-style TPS involving a Bounty Hunter, anyone?

This isn't really something universal in the series, though.

Except Luke breaks away from his everyman-ness. He's got a variety of motivations:

• Getting off Tatooine and making a life for himself
• Living up to his father's image as a Jedi Knight
• Defeating the Empire and restoring democracy to the galaxy

The second of those is probably the most fantastic, and during the time period of release, unique given the events of The Empire Strikes Back. Because then his motivation is complicated, as he now has an example of what his power could do to him.

For what it's worth, I've played two Blazblue games and still can't remember any character motivations. It was advertised as having a great story, but apart from the worldbuiling (which is great, I'll give it), I didn't find the narrative that enticing.

What about Gordon Freeman? He's also in that "Everyman" mold since he's a regular scientist who is thrust into peril.

edited 15th Oct '11 3:17:26 PM by RocketDude

What about Gordon?

He's a non-character.

edited 15th Oct '11 3:18:49 PM by JotunofBoredom

It is my belief that realism is the superior form. Over the top get boring really fast and alas too many people want that over the realistic and practical. I like to actually THINK about how am I going to play.

This topic got me thinking. We can have games with excellent narratives and rich emotional depth now. So it boggles my mind to find that people continue to support games that don't have any of that stuff.

I earnestly cannot understand how a game without an enticing narrative or relateable characters can be enjoyable at all. Is it their bad taste that leaves them unable to appreciate good taste and easily content with flat two-dimensional characters?

We can do so much more with the medium and I believe that these people are holding us back.

edited 15th Oct '11 3:30:13 PM by Ugo

Those who advance the idea that stories are better for being less realistic (please tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here) forget that those stories that are more grounded in reality can sometimes be quite enjoyable because they are more realistic. In a way, it can be more satisfying if our gallant hero has to rely more on his wits because he can't pull off a physically impossible jump or whatever.

Another reason is that after a certain point, if something is very unrealistic, we start to lose a reasonable frame of reference. When every swing of a sword can split mountains and every punch is thrown with a force comparable to that generated as a result of a nuclear detonation, it ceases being impressive and becomes meaningless, just a series of over the top descriptions being bandied about. If a series is more realistic, then those rare few who can split mountains are all the more impressive for it, since we've got a scale - a familiar one, at that - with which we can compare them.

But I feel that's by-the-by; we're discussing the relative merits (or, depending on your view, lack thereof) of Square Enix having control of the vast majority of Star Wars rights. I've already given my own little story, so I feel that I would just be repeating myself, unless something else crops up.

Rot J kinda skips out on his development after he learns the Awful Truth.

I mean, compare Luke's character from a broken man on the verge of a Heroic BSoD, to his more calm and composed character in the next film. Ummm, what? Luke was practically a wreck at the end of Empire, losing his hand, learning the true identity of his father, and possibly most importantly, learning the fact that the mentor he once looked up to and trusted, lied to him. And you mean to tell me that by Rot J he's suddenly a badass Jedi who's composed and confident enough to save his father from darkness? Kind of a ripoff once you think about it. Keep in mind that Shadows Of The Empire wasn't told until long after the films were released. We really missed a good chunk of Luke's most important development as a character, didn't we?

^^^Generally because gameplay tends to be seen as the most important factor.

Look at Brink: People criticized the story of a game which touted an intuitive context-sensitive movement system as its biggest feature.

If you want realistic and practical, stick with Arma 2, Gran Turismo 5 and Cliffs of Dover.

edited 15th Oct '11 3:31:59 PM by RocketDude

Star Wars X-2

All females dress like Slave Leia.

@Rocket Dude: Thank you.

Story and realism should never take precedent over gameplay. Ever.

I know about gameplay but I personally put the narrative as my top priority. Why? Because that's what I find enjoyable.

We put the story, narrative, writing and characters as top priority in other mediums. Why should games get special treatment?

Because the main point of video games is to be in control of the character. Video games are one of the few mediums that require you to take an active role in what happens.

-retreats from thread-

...At what point was it stated that being of the fantasy genre automatically precluded developed characters and story?

^^^Because the point of a game is to, you know, be fun to play.

Mind you, I like the Half Life approach of using level design to set the narrative and setting.

There's plenty of middle ground between over the top and mostly realistic you know.

I think Clue should be more like a novel. Narrative is The Superior Form. I cannot understand that terrible peoples with bad tastes say Clue shouldn't be like a novel.