What Final Fantasy 15 can learn from Game of Thrones

Attachment 56284

Final Fantasy and a Game of Thrones are both giants of the fantasy genre. While Game of Thrones goes from strength to strength, recent iterations of the famous Final Fantasy series have received criticism and disinterest from fans. With Final Fantasy 15 due to be released on the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, what lessons can the creators learn from the success of Game of Thrones?

Contains some spoilers for FF games up to Lightning Returns and Game of Thrones up to the end of Season 3 - there are no book spoilers.

I agree, Paulchotic. I agree. :greenie:

Thank you kind sir.

Yes. You make a lot of great and valid points. Even though FF is very fantasy focused, it should be a little realistic too.

But here's the thing, how many Japanese developers make current games that are REALLY good? This answer is going to differ depending on who you ask, but the majority of people are going to say that a good Japanese game hasn't been done since the 90s. And while I don't agree with that, it's hard to dismiss the fact that a lot of Japanese developers are stuck in the past, rehashing the same old unoriginal ideas and concepts, and think that they can get away with making a game purely aimed for nostalgia. A good example would be Nintendo and the billions of Mario/Zelda/Donkey Kong games that we see from them. Or even Pokemon. They're good fun, but none of them do anything new and innovative. The ONLY reason why people play 'em is for that nostalgia effect.

I'm not saying that Final Fantasy is guilty of this common Japanese pattern - far from it. They're one of the only ones that are actually trying to do new and very different things from the previous (and most successful) FF games. The problem is that the fanbase isn't taking the bait on them. Most people would rather play the old FF titles. Which is probably why some devs decide to not change anything up and keep dishing out what people seemingly enjoy.

I just want to see the Japanese escalate their game like the rest of the gaming industry has. They all need to become more impressive and do new, exciting things - like Ni no Kuni. We need more games like that.

It wouldn't hurt to see more games come out that will embrace homosexuality, regardless of the closed minded bigots that will refuse to buy it because they don't want to see that "gay trout". How can you educate an audience on how to be different when there aren't any mainstream characters that are gay to begin with. It seems only lesbians are accepted, because it's "hot". We need more man on man action in games, and to give those characters some development that teaches us that not all gay men are prissy, weak, flamboyant personalities.

Final Fantasy stainlifter hahaha

Very cool video. The animation lined up with the audio perfectly. Every scene made sense and so did the points argued. Do you want to take over the reigns at SE Psychotic? Sounds like you've got a pretty good list of thoughts ;)

I disagree with the first point almost entirely. George Martin has far more characters to kill, and is working with a far grander story. What's more, his insistence on killing characters to subvert tropes or just because he can has basically prevented me from forming any attachment to any of the characters in the series, because I'm just waiting for them to be killed off.

If Final Fantasy starts killing characters willy-nilly, it will have the same effect. People will come to expect it, and the deaths will lack any real meaning. What the series needs, is to handle character death well. That is NOT the same thing as "nobody is safe".

What's more, if there is a situation like you describe, where Noctis dies, you wouldn't "feel worried or tense". There is only tension in an element that can be changed. If Noctis is going to die, so what? Sure, it will shock you the first time it happens. After that, though, the scene will lose meaning. Because you just won't care about him. He's dead, and nothing you can do will change that.

Take a moment and ponder this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Video games are a different type of story, though. In plays, movies, or books, you aren't the character.

Combine this further with the fact that death is something to be avoided in video games. In most games, when you die, that's the end. You have to restart, or reload. The life of your avatar is your life in the game. When you die, it's because you did something wrong, you screwed up, and you have to go back to undo it.

Thus, when you die as a part of the story, it feels cheap. You went through everything, only to succumb to the same fate you've been busting your butt to avoid the entire game.

Even with forshadowing, it can make for an extremely cheap moment, and can ruin a good story. Death is a storytelling tool, and it has to be used right. Death has to serve the story, and the plot. And, in games, it has to serve the gameplay as well.

If you kill a character just for the sake of kililng a character, in any media, it feels cheap. When a character dies just to elicit a reaction from the audience, it is a temporary feeling, and rarely lasts, usually to be replaced with feelings of frustration and anger.

But if you kill a character to serve the story, that's when the feelings last. Take Aeris's death. It was done to create an impact on the player, yes. But they made it serve the story. The effect it had on the team and the story going forward from there is enormous. It impacted, heck, it even drove the story forward. That was character death well handled.

The problem with killing the main character is that you don't get this. When the main character dies, the story dies with them. Thus, the death can't really serve the story. You can't witness the impact of the character's death, and there is no way for it to serve an ongoing conflict. Heck, the conflicts are usually all resolved.

FFX also did this well. How? By killing the character early. Tidus knows he's going to die from the Fayth Scar on. They don't "foreshadow" his death, the game flat out tells you that he will die, and why. Why there is no possible way to win without losing his life. That is the point at which the inevitibility of his death hits. His impending death changes his actions, his resolve, and his feelings. His death has a strong and meaningful impact on the game from that point on. Because of this, not killing him at the end would have ruined all that, and made it seem just as much a cheap cop-out as killing the main charcter at the end usually is.

Chrono Trigger also did an excellent job, one of the best, in my opinion. First, they make it optional. As things should be, if you work hard enough, train your party enough, you can survive Lavos. This is frelling phenomenal game impact. It doesn't steal control from you and go "ha-ha, you're dead now", it lets you play through it, and makes your strength in the game actually meaningful. Sure, it's supposed to kill him, that's how the main story continues, but making it avoidable really increased the impact and decreased the "well, that was cheap" moment it would otherwise have.

Second, they continue the story beyond Crono's death. They let us see how the team reacts, how the story unfolds without him. Similar to what they did in FFVII where we see how Cloud's disappearance into the Lifestream impacts the team. It made the scene have a heck of an impact when you get to see how the party members react, and then the lengths they go to in order to get the character back.

Main character death can be handled well, but it is one of the hardest things to pull off in a videogame, and, even when pulled off well, should be rarely used. It is far too common, and far too poorly done these days.

---

That's specifically on main character death, but the points about interactivity is something that is extremely important. It's generally a bad idea to rob players of too much agency. Player interaction with the story is what makes a game a game. Don't take that away.

That's not to say that you should never kill characters. Nor should you keep characters alive to serve the gameplay when, by rights of the story, they should be dead *cough*SAZH*cough*. But don't go killing characters just to make a point to the players, or to subvert tropes. It won't have as lasting of an impact.




I also disagree with point number two. It's not really that jarring. In fact, I find it far more jarring when, in a game like Dragon Age, your character is coated in blood yet is welcomed into cities and towns, into shops, etcetera, with no eyebrows raised. It's a game. We don't see everything that happens. We don't see characters clean up. Just like we don't see them go to the restroom or sleep every day, or anything like that.




Ok, I'm giving up on even finishing this video. Again, back to player agency. There are few things more annoying or jarring than getting wounds that aren't there. Have you ever been in a boss fight where you completely steamroll the enemy, taking them down so efficiently that you barely notice you're touched? Or, heck, where you might actually take no damage at all? And have you ever then had it followed up by a cutscene where you're panting, out of breath, and acting like you've had a hard fight? It shatters the immersion. How would you recommend giving wounds to characters? By robbing control of players and inflicting injuries in cutscenes, further divorcing the player from the situation by removing their control? How would these change the characters when you're controlling them in combat? Is a character suddenly going to regain use of that leg or arm, and be fine in combat? Or will you be permanently crippling the party, either based on poor player performance, or just because you're wanting to tell your epic story?

And, as you yourself point out: You would take wounds from random encounters. My gosh, man. I've fought THOUSANDS of enemies, in each and every Final Fantasy game I've played. My gosh, I would look worse than the main character from Planescape Torment if I sustained lasting visible injuries each time I was hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I disagree with the first point almost entirely. George Martin has far more characters to kill, and is working with a far grander story. What's more, his insistence on killing characters to subvert tropes or just because he can has basically prevented me from forming any attachment to any of the characters in the series, because I'm just waiting for them to be killed off.

If Final Fantasy starts killing characters willy-nilly, it will have the same effect. People will come to expect it, and the deaths will lack any real meaning. What the series needs, is to handle character death well. That is NOT the same thing as "nobody is safe".

What's more, if there is a situation like you describe, where Noctis dies, you wouldn't "feel worried or tense". There is only tension in an element that can be changed. If Noctis is going to die, so what? Sure, it will shock you the first time it happens. After that, though, the scene will lose meaning. Because you just won't care about him. He's dead, and nothing you can do will change that.

Take a moment and ponder this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Video games are a different type of story, though. In plays, movies, or books, you aren't the character.

Combine this further with the fact that death is something to be avoided in video games. In most games, when you die, that's the end. You have to restart, or reload. The life of your avatar is your life in the game. When you die, it's because you did something wrong, you screwed up, and you have to go back to undo it.

Thus, when you die as a part of the story, it feels cheap. You went through everything, only to succumb to the same fate you've been busting your butt to avoid the entire game.

Even with forshadowing, it can make for an extremely cheap moment, and can ruin a good story. Death is a storytelling tool, and it has to be used right. Death has to serve the story, and the plot. And, in games, it has to serve the gameplay as well.

If you kill a character just for the sake of kililng a character, in any media, it feels cheap. When a character dies just to elicit a reaction from the audience, it is a temporary feeling, and rarely lasts, usually to be replaced with feelings of frustration and anger.

But if you kill a character to serve the story, that's when the feelings last. Take Aeris's death. It was done to create an impact on the player, yes. But they made it serve the story. The effect it had on the team and the story going forward from there is enormous. It impacted, heck, it even drove the story forward. That was character death well handled.

The problem with killing the main character is that you don't get this. When the main character dies, the story dies with them. Thus, the death can't really serve the story. You can't witness the impact of the character's death, and there is no way for it to serve an ongoing conflict. Heck, the conflicts are usually all resolved.

FFX also did this well. How? By killing the character early. Tidus knows he's going to die from the Fayth Scar on. They don't "foreshadow" his death, the game flat out tells you that he will die, and why. Why there is no possible way to win without losing his life. That is the point at which the inevitibility of his death hits. His impending death changes his actions, his resolve, and his feelings. His death has a strong and meaningful impact on the game from that point on. Because of this, not killing him at the end would have ruined all that, and made it seem just as much a cheap cop-out as killing the main charcter at the end usually is.

Chrono Trigger also did an excellent job, one of the best, in my opinion. First, they make it optional. As things should be, if you work hard enough, train your party enough, you can survive Lavos. This is frelling phenomenal game impact. It doesn't steal control from you and go "ha-ha, you're dead now", it lets you play through it, and makes your strength in the game actually meaningful. Sure, it's supposed to kill him, that's how the main story continues, but making it avoidable really increased the impact and decreased the "well, that was cheap" moment it would otherwise have.

Second, they continue the story beyond Crono's death. They let us see how the team reacts, how the story unfolds without him. Similar to what they did in FFVII where we see how Cloud's disappearance into the Lifestream impacts the team. It made the scene have a heck of an impact when you get to see how the party members react, and then the lengths they go to in order to get the character back.

Main character death can be handled well, but it is one of the hardest things to pull off in a videogame, and, even when pulled off well, should be rarely used. It is far too common, and far too poorly done these days.

---

That's specifically on main character death, but the points about interactivity is something that is extremely important. It's generally a bad idea to rob players of too much agency. Player interaction with the story is what makes a game a game. Don't take that away.

That's not to say that you should never kill characters. Nor should you keep characters alive to serve the gameplay when, by rights of the story, they should be dead *cough*SAZH*cough*. But don't go killing characters just to make a point to the players, or to subvert tropes. It won't have as lasting of an impact.




I also disagree with point number two. It's not really that jarring. In fact, I find it far more jarring when, in a game like Dragon Age, your character is coated in blood yet is welcomed into cities and towns, into shops, etcetera, with no eyebrows raised. It's a game. We don't see everything that happens. We don't see characters clean up. Just like we don't see them go to the restroom or sleep every day, or anything like that.




Ok, I'm giving up on even finishing this video. Again, back to player agency. There are few things more annoying or jarring than getting wounds that aren't there. Have you ever been in a boss fight where you completely steamroll the enemy, taking them down so efficiently that you barely notice you're touched? Or, heck, where you might actually take no damage at all? And have you ever then had it followed up by a cutscene where you're panting, out of breath, and acting like you've had a hard fight? It shatters the immersion. How would you recommend giving wounds to characters? By robbing control of players and inflicting injuries in cutscenes, further divorcing the player from the situation by removing their control? How would these change the characters when you're controlling them in combat? Is a character suddenly going to regain use of that leg or arm, and be fine in combat? Or will you be permanently crippling the party, either based on poor player performance, or just because you're wanting to tell your epic story?

And, as you yourself point out: You would take wounds from random encounters. My gosh, man. I've fought THOUSANDS of enemies, in each and every Final Fantasy game I've played. My gosh, I would look worse than the main character from Planescape Torment if I sustained lasting visible injuries each time I was hit.

---

I don't have time to respond to all of your points and it looks like your quoted text might have spoilers so I'm not going to read it, but your defense of your disagreement on the first point is a poor one. I don't think what is being suggested here is that Square should start mass killing off its game characters willy nilly, as you have stated. The use of Psychotic's first point was to exemplify that there are so few deaths to speak of in the series, and like he says in the video, that we never feel a real and resounding fear for the safety of our characters because we know they will always land on a feather cushion in a safe zone. However, in a theoretical world in which Square does begin killing off one or two characters a game, the "nobody is safe" rule can still apply, because you wouldn't know which of the characters you would be losing, and that is still intense. They don't need to wipe out handfuls of main characters like GRRM to drive a point home. Your complaint is that they need to be done well. Well, where are the poorly executed deaths in the series to speak of?

Striking a nice balance between "too few deaths" as it currently stands in the series and "slaughtering every character that appears on screen" in Game of Thrones would be a nice change for the series. Even if Noctis himself did not die, a non-obvious death in the game would be supremely impactful if done correctly.

And so what if people come to expect the deaths of characters? Is that worse than people expecting them to all come out alive? Is it realistic to have this massive cast of characters and for them all to come out at the end unscathed? I think it's worse going into a game knowing that everyone you stumble upon will be waving to you as you cross the finish line with sunshine and rainbows at the end. That's boring as trout. Furthermore, killing off characters is not necessarily a plot tradition of Square's to build up an expectation, so to say it would be expected is a bit much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf Leonhart

Final Fantasy stainlifter hahaha

Very cool video. The animation lined up with the audio perfectly. Every scene made sense and so did the points argued. Do you want to take over the reigns at SE Psychotic? Sounds like you've got a pretty good list of thoughts ;)

---

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I disagree with the first point almost entirely. George Martin has far more characters to kill, and is working with a far grander story. What's more, his insistence on killing characters to subvert tropes or just because he can has basically prevented me from forming any attachment to any of the characters in the series, because I'm just waiting for them to be killed off.

---

I disagree, and I also don't see why a grander story isn't something that should be aspired to. Regardless, I can understand why you can't form attachments to them, but countless fans do. Indeed, countless Final Fantasy fans do - the proliferation of Game of Thrones signatures that occurs every March/April at EoFF is a testament to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

If Final Fantasy starts killing characters willy-nilly, it will have the same effect. People will come to expect it, and the deaths will lack any real meaning. What the series needs, is to handle character death well. That is NOT the same thing as "nobody is safe".

---

Shorty offered a great rebuttal to this point. It's not a black-and-white "kill every character or kill no character" situation as you are portraying. Likewise, if people come to expect death then the expectations will often be usurped because the characters will not die. Having experienced Game of Thrones with people who have not read the books, I have witnessed first hand what happens when people expect death. They are on the edge of their seats and far more engaged - about characters they have indeed formed attachments to regardless of that expectation - and the relief felt when it did not occur was palpable. Indeed, that tension caused by the expectation is precisely what I was talking about in my video. A story that makes people feel such emotions and involvement is a good one and is something to strive for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

What's more, if there is a situation like you describe, where Noctis dies, you wouldn't "feel worried or tense". There is only tension in an element that can be changed. If Noctis is going to die, so what? Sure, it will shock you the first time it happens. After that, though, the scene will lose meaning. Because you just won't care about him. He's dead, and nothing you can do will change that.


That's not to say that you should never kill characters. Nor should you keep characters alive to serve the gameplay when, by rights of the story, they should be dead *cough*SAZH*cough*. But don't go killing characters just to make a point to the players, or to subvert tropes. It won't have as lasting of an impact.

---

I think you have contradicted yourself with this and the points below. The points you made about Aeris and Crono are all good ones and they are all well-written moments. Why, then, assume that something similar cannot be created for Noctis and indeed other XV characters? Indeed, you're arguing my point for me, explaining how and why death in video games can be powerful. Your point is against the manner of a death, not about the possibility of death itself which is what I'm discussing. Why assume I'm advocating "and then noctis died on the way back to his home planet lol"?

However, I will discuss this point now that you have raised it. You will note that the series I chose to compare this to has a clear underlying message behind every death and negative situation characters get into: Actions have consequences. Although Martin felt Robb Stark had to die to subvert expectation, he did not do so on a whim. It occurred because Robb did not deliver on a promise he made. Likewise, why not have the story in FF branch out into different options whereby you make choices, and your choices do impact on the survival of a character? I wholeheartedly agree about agency, and I think you have misunderstood my video if you believe I am arguing against that.

Quote:

---

I also disagree with point number two. It's not really that jarring. In fact, I find it far more jarring when, in a game like Dragon Age, your character is coated in blood yet is welcomed into cities and towns, into shops, etcetera, with no eyebrows raised. It's a game. We don't see everything that happens. We don't see characters clean up. Just like we don't see them go to the restroom or sleep every day, or anything like that.

---

Again, this is a very black and white argument. The alternative to having pristine characters is not necessarily to have them coated from head to foot in blood either. I reiterate: The example I cited, Advent Children Complete, did a great job. Subtle dirt and wounds, but not overwhelming. Having the appearance characters respond to situations that the player is actively involved in is not the same as saying we should see every aspect of their daily lives either. It's not realism for realism's sake. As explained in my video it is a subtle visual indicator that we have been involved in a titanic struggle. I do not think the comparison you make to using the restroom et cetera is relevant and indeed is not something I am arguing in favour of.

Quote:

---

Again, back to player agency. There are few things more annoying or jarring than getting wounds that aren't there. Have you ever been in a boss fight where you completely steamroll the enemy, taking them down so efficiently that you barely notice you're touched? Or, heck, where you might actually take no damage at all? And have you ever then had it followed up by a cutscene where you're panting, out of breath, and acting like you've had a hard fight? It shatters the immersion.

---

Given that the argument I am making is that what happens to the characters in combat should be reflected in their appearance, I do not understand why you raise this because I agree wholeheartedly. Just as a difficult experience should be reflected in wounds and exertion, likewise an easy one should not be portrayed as anything but either.

Quote:

---

How would you recommend giving wounds to characters? By robbing control of players and inflicting injuries in cutscenes, further divorcing the player from the situation by removing their control? How would these change the characters when you're controlling them in combat? Is a character suddenly going to regain use of that leg or arm, and be fine in combat? Or will you be permanently crippling the party, either based on poor player performance, or just because you're wanting to tell your epic story?

---

In my video I am advocating wounds as a visual indicator rather than a gameplay element, so again I don't think you quite understood the point I was making however, I am open to discussing the possibility of it being used as such.

It is a Final Fantasy game. Wounds and limb damage can be a gameplay element just as much as being poisoned or having dark inflicted upon you. The player and character is not permanently blind forevermore because of one battle. There are magical spells and potions that can undo any of these effects and likewise I don't see why the likes of Curaga can't undo these wounds and heal them. Indeed, this gives the player control you contend is being robbed and wounds would still act as a visual indicator, the point I was making originally.

Quote:

---

And, as you yourself point out: You would take wounds from random encounters. My gosh, man. I've fought THOUSANDS of enemies, in each and every Final Fantasy game I've played. My gosh, I would look worse than the main character from Planescape Torment if I sustained lasting visible injuries each time I was hit.

---

Again, I think this is a very black-and-white, all-or-nothing argument you are making. No, not every blow should cause an injury or a scar, if nothing else because the players have armour. (You can call it magical armour if you want to explain why they're not wearing it, although I think the FFX rip off Lord of the Rings The Third Age did a very good job of having character appearances altering based on armour but that is a tangential issue) I do advocate some wounds, enough to remind you that yes, this is a desperate situation and a struggle. Again, I cite Advent Children Complete. The majority of the attacks in the Loz and Yazoo inflict upon Reno and Rude do not inflict wounds, but a few do and this is enough.

Anyway, while I disagree with many of the points you raised I would like to thank you for taking the time to watch my video and type out a response to it. It is truly appreciated... although I sincerely hope it was not you that clicked the Dislike button!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I disagree with the first point almost entirely. George Martin has far more characters to kill, and is working with a far grander story. What's more, his insistence on killing characters to subvert tropes or just because he can has basically prevented me from forming any attachment to any of the characters in the series, because I'm just waiting for them to be killed off.

---

I disagree, and I also don't see why a grander story isn't something that should be aspired to. Regardless, I can understand why you can't form attachments to them, but countless fans do. Indeed, countless Final Fantasy fans do - the proliferation of Game of Thrones signatures that occurs every March/April at EoFF is a testament to that.

---

You can't create that same sense of tension without a comparable cast or unless a character death is heavily foreshadowed. Anybody could die is not what you think even when you consider crime shows where the main characters routinely get shot (at), so merely having the potential for death doesn't necessarily create the tension. It's not even easy to just craft that feeling without showing someone dead, as many people assume plot armour. You need to shake them up. The Game of Thrones TV show opens with dead bodies, shows Night's Watchmen being killed, and then executed. Death happens often and it happens fast and when it starts happening to main characters, people begin to panic. You can't do that same thing with a cast the size of Final Fantasy XV's. You would struggle to do it with a cast the size of Final Fantasy VI's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

If Final Fantasy starts killing characters willy-nilly, it will have the same effect. People will come to expect it, and the deaths will lack any real meaning. What the series needs, is to handle character death well. That is NOT the same thing as "nobody is safe".

---

Shorty offered a great rebuttal to this point. It's not a black-and-white "kill every character or kill no character" situation as you are portraying. Likewise, if people come to expect death then the expectations will often be usurped because the characters will not die. Having experienced Game of Thrones with people who have not read the books, I have witnessed first hand what happens when people expect death. They are on the edge of their seats and far more engaged - about characters they have indeed formed attachments to regardless of that expectation - and the relief felt when it did not occur was palpable. Indeed, that tension caused by the expectation is precisely what I was talking about in my video. A story that makes people feel such emotions and involvement is a good one and is something to strive for.

---

To create the same sort of tension that Game of Thrones achieves, Final Fantasy XV will have to kill at least two major characters. One signifies that death is a thing. The second signifies that it might happen again. Then people might fear for the remaining characters, but given the cast is like 10 characters and some of those are villains, you risk not having a story if you kill off any more.

And of course, like I think everyone has said, it needs to be balanced and believable. They can't just die because you want to achieve a sense of "anybody could die" because that's pointless and ineffectual.

There were random changes in volume and I felt 14 minutes was probably too long, especially for only three points. Unless there were more; it felt a bit disconnected. The comparisons/summaries were nice both in terms of audio and visuals but it just felt like a roast left in the oven a little too long.

I have never seen Game of Thrones, and I don't have any plans to watch it, but I have played Final Fantasy! I would first like to say that I appreciate you making this article in a way that someone who hasn't seen the show can still follow. I was a bit concerned about that.

Comments:
I'm writing a book now and I've toyed with the idea of killing off one of my main characters. In the end, I decided that killing someone for the sake of having a death is the same as not killing someone for the sake of not having someone die. In the end, it needs to fit. It needs to make sense. Not saying you didn't say that, just making a personal comment on it.

Some game examples: Xenosaga III killed off some characters at the end. Sadly, the fact that they wanted until the third game seemed much more about "this is ending, let's kill some people" more than it had relevance to the story. Some of it did, don't get me wrong, some of it didn't. I did appreciate that there was some of this in the first game, not dragging stories on until the third game just because.

Suikoden has also killed off some characters, which most of the time actually makes sense. They do cheap out a lot and allow the character to be revived or to have their death prevented though, which can be a bit frustrating. But they've also had some very touching and epic death scenes. One of my favorite character, a series regular, was killed in the 3rd game, and even though the 2 games that came out after were prequels, the character still didn't make an appearance. It really made the impact of "he's gone" if that makes sense.

As far as the characters showing dirt and wounds, that would be a neat effect. I worry about it not reflecting properly on the actual fights. Since each player will experience the fight in a different way, how can we accurately portray the wounds? Not saying it isn't possible, that's an actual question.

I also agree with something you pointed out about having a gay couple. I feel like sometimes stories will shove in a gay couple and the characters center entirely around this, and it becomes much more about "LOOK WE HAVE A GAY COUPLE" than it does about story. Make it where a gay couple is just as common as a straight couple, unless you can integrate a conflict with their story that relates to the game in a believable manner. Don't make the characters only about their sexuality.

Anyways, those are some of my thoughts on it. Very good video!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiro

There were random changes in volume and I felt 14 minutes was probably too long, especially for only three points. Unless there were more; it felt a bit disconnected. The comparisons/summaries were nice both in terms of audio and visuals but it just felt like a roast left in the oven a little too long.

---

On the volume issue, I recorded it in two chunks and while the chunks had identical levels when I was editing it, seemingly after it was encoded on YouTube the two chunks have become different. Rather frustrating and I completely agree!

On the length, it was a first foray into the world of analytic videos for me - I am still very much finding my feet! - and so I did some research into analysis like this on YouTube and most seem to be between 10 and 20 minutes long. I wanted it to be long enough to cover everything I wanted to say and I don't think anything was added needlessly - indeed I removed several paragraphs from my original script for length. However, it's good to know that not all of the audience necessarily enjoys it. Your constructive feedback was useful and so thank you for taking the time to do provide it, your comments are noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

As far as the characters showing dirt and wounds, that would be a neat effect. I worry about it not reflecting properly on the actual fights. Since each player will experience the fight in a different way, how can we accurately portray the wounds? Not saying it isn't possible, that's an actual question.

---

Thank you for your kind words, shion! :) Just to respond to this point as I find it an interesting one.

The idea behind it is of course a subtle visual indicator rather than trying to model flesh itself and so I don't think you need to track it to a minute level. Dwarf Fortress, for example, tracks the type of damage to the joint! You could have a bruised nose or a cut third toe on your left foot. I think that might prove to be convoluted. You could probably simplify it down to head, legs, arms and torso, and then I suppose the more HP damage you take, the more severe your wound is, on a scale of 3. Given the speed and indeed size, it's unlikely a player will know the exact spot on their arm that got hit! It's something of an illusion, but it's intended as a subtle detail.

Agree, loved the video so much !

1 ) Yes; they need to show the the characters are doing something and life risky- they are taking a huge gamble, and basically a suicide mission. A few deaths, like Galuf from Final Fantasy V would really show the danger and risks that they are taking. Maybe even have the hero die, and have a cameo character replace him. A cameo whom looked up and admired the MC and so takes his place. Instead of a girlfriend, best friend, or sibling replacing him.

Bring us more Galuf and Aeris moments.

Plus it would make the game more emotional and heart-breaking, and would show the struggle that the heroes are going through.

2) Don't see anything wrong with this. Nothing wrong with a bit of mud, scars and blood stains on skin and clothing.


3) Again, don't see anything wrong with having a gay relationship between characters. They have sort of hinted it with Vanille and Fang, so why not go one step further SE ?


I would also would like for the heroes to

- Question what they're doing. This sort of happened in Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy VIII with Squall; but I would think that SE could go further with this, and have the heroes really question what they're doing. Maybe have one believe that the villian is right and has a point, and instead of being mind-controlled like Kain Highwind, just switches sides because of beliefs and ideals.

- Maybe even question their sanity. They are on a risky, dangerous mission and are fighting against society and are basically rebels. You would wonder what the smurf you are doing, and whether the hero has brainwashed you or whether the villian has brainwashed you. And if you count the loss of friends, you would just mentally break.

I feel like again, this was touched upon with Final Fantasy VII with Cloud, and Final Fantasy IX with Garnet and Final Fantasy X with Tidus and Yuna; but again- they could go further with this.

- Have a romance that feels real and relatable. Romance done within Final Fantasy VIII as much as I like that game, just feels like Twilight. Romance in Final Fantasy X feels cheesy at times too. Romance was done pretty good with Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy VI; though SE could improve this.

As far as the wounding goes, yeah I mean it doesn't have to be exact. Maybe not even wounds, so to speak. Just the overall appearance of the character showing signs of wear and tear. It's still a videogame so it doesn't need to be an exact science. Like 'why is there a scrape on my character's head and why is his shirt ripped, someone shot a fireball at him', to be honest that wouldn't bother me. It would just add to the vibe of the game. I also think it should correlate directly to the loss of hp. I mean characters in FF games crouch low and look injured when their hp is in the yellow. In this day and age it shouldn't be hard at all to have different stages of injury to their actual physical appearance as hp goes down. AND, when healed and their hp returns to a healthy level, the injuries disappear. Kinda like your magical armor theory, these are magic spells. It's not a jump to say that the character would then look brand spanking new.

As for killing the characters off...no matter how many characters they kill off in Game Of Thrones, it doesn't stop me from getting attached to them :( I wish that it did!

I think Psychotic is right bang on the money with this one. Respect. :greenie:

Can also learn:

Humor. I think this is one of the great strengths of Game of Thrones, that it can find ways to be humorous and make us laugh even in such bleak and terrible settings. I point to, for instance, many of Arya's interactions with the Hound, and previously with A MAN.

Secondly, not all good guys are squeaky clean, and not all bad guys are all bad. GoT characters seem to (for the most part, there are exceptions) have strengths AND weaknesses. We hate Jaime, we love him. He befriended Brienne, he's turning into a good guy, yay...oops no he raped his sister. Oh but he wants to help his brother, who everyone else is against, yay...etc etc. People aren't all bad or all good. Each person has his/her own personal desires and motivations which either contradict or compliment his/her surroundings and this determines what is good or bad. Final Fantasies in general fail in this regard, though there are exceptions. (FFVI's Celes and General Leo to an extent, Reeve Tuesti maybe a little bit, but even these are just bad guys turned good guys, as are basically every other example). There should be character ambiguities, depth of character, in both the protagonists and antagonists.

Good vid, Psy, good thoughts and well made video. Although, I could have done without the Tidus laugh. Well timed, well done, thanks.

Definitely agreed with these two points, especially your second, chionos. I love stories that give us a bit of a blurred line between "good" and "evil" and focus more on perspective of the character, which is absolutely something GRRM does a good job with and something I would love to see SE expand upon.

Also I'd like to point out that I enjoy use of the opening image with Ned Stark and Noctis both on their respective thrones. Feels like an excellent way to mirror the two verses discussed in the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

Humor. I think this is one of the great strengths of Game of Thrones, that it can find ways to be humorous and make us laugh even in such bleak and terrible settings. I point to, for instance, many of Arya's interactions with the Hound, and previously with A MAN.

Secondly, not all good guys are squeaky clean, and not all bad guys are all bad. GoT characters seem to (for the most part, there are exceptions) have strengths AND weaknesses. We hate Jaime, we love him. He befriended Brienne, he's turning into a good guy, yay...oops no he raped his sister. Oh but he wants to help his brother, who everyone else is against, yay...etc etc. People aren't all bad or all good. Each person has his/her own personal desires and motivations which either contradict or compliment his/her surroundings and this determines what is good or bad. Final Fantasies in general fail in this regard, though there are exceptions. (FFVI's Celes and General Leo to an extent, Reeve Tuesti maybe a little bit, but even these are just bad guys turned good guys, as are basically every other example). There should be character ambiguities, depth of character, in both the protagonists and antagonists.

---

Really great point. I think Jaime is a phenomenal character and the depth he has to his nature is superb. The only other example I can think of would be Beatrix, but again - antagonist turned good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Also I'd like to point out that I enjoy use of the opening image with Ned Stark and Noctis both on their respective thrones. Feels like an excellent way to mirror the two verses discussed in the video.

---

Thank you! I spent ages trying to find a decent picture of someone on the Throne. I was hoping for maybe Robb (as I know they all posed with it in promo shots) but only had Joffrey coming out of my ears!

I think you hit the nail on the head with the death stuff. What do people remember FF mostly who aren't even fans? Sephy doing the stabby.

We need more deaths!

KILL EVERYONE! okay not everyone but I just got excited