What do you think?
 

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ech/index.html

I think the judge is an idiot.

I can think of several examples from personal experience of 'speach' in videogames.
Eg. JSRF had a very communistic feel, the Abe's games had a slightly anti-corporate message and, from what I hear, MGS was very anti-nuke.

I think he's an idiot too.

Bleah, not Wagner James Au. That guy's such a faerie git.


Anyway, I still think the issue isn't about games having some sort of deep and meaningful subtext. No game has done that yet, and probably won't for a while until some company hires a proper writer on the same salary as their texture artists. Oddworld might have had an impact if it'd become a film, but since the games are just simple platformers you can't expect a few clever product titles to make people question corporate power.

MGS bludgeoned the anti-nuke policy over you again and again...to the point where you just wanted that Russian broad to shut up about Kosovo so you could get back to killing rats and using ketchup to escape from a prison cell. You get the idea that Hideo Kojima knew that nukes were bad and just entered those two words into google and scripted the results.

I think this summed it up best:

I forgot to mention FF7 which is now turning into a very pro-planet/anti-destruction (more precisely, anti-Mako) game.

O.K, I'm a little confused here. Let me get this straight. The courts are saying that they arn't allowed to put politacal messages into computer games.

This is about whether or not under 17s should be allowed to play 'violent' videogames.


1. I disagree. I think many-a-game have meaningful subtexts. Take Final Fantasy VII for example. It has a pro-planet subtext. This is felt throughout the game.

2. There are now script-writing firms who write scripts for videogames.

3. They hardly had much of a message though, did they (AE and MO didn't). After just over 22 hours of playing FF7, I can confidently say it has MUCH more of a message than AE or MO did. And so did JSRF.

I probably wrote too soon after seeing Wagner's name. I'll think this time...

1. There's a subtext in FFVII, but I didn't find the 'save the planet' thing much more complicated than in the Gamerra movies (he protects Earth...and one day will do so from humanity) or even the Final Fantasy film itself.

Maybe the message is diluted by what I feel is amatuerish story execution in Square's games, but the messages aren't more significant or meaningful than eco-friendly warnings on garbage bins. Until games start using their interactivity and complete engagement with the solitary user as a storytelling device, I don't really think we'll see anything deeper than Khanzumer puns.

2. Without sarcasm - which games have script writing firms employed? From what I've seen, writers are hired and do a decent job on certain games, but it's always filler dialogue that really has no influence on you blowing up stuff when the cutscene ends. Case in point: there's no relationship between the behaviour of Oddworld FMV characters and their ingame versions.


There haven't been any games with scripts that treat their dialogue any differently than a film, or a bad film. The difference is that being jerked out of a game to watch filmic dialogue disrupts the experience and removes the interactivity that makes games a unique medium. Until the storytelling sequences and the game are properly linked (think Half-Life) with unique professionalism, the script is limited by the relative brevity of game FMV time, so it's hard to imagine scriptwriters fitting in enough information to support anything beyond literal story elements.

3. You can probably spot that I'm not a big FF fan, and I haven't played the Xbox jetset game, but this goes back to what I said before - after 22 hours how deep was the message you'd received, compared to watching, say, 90 minutes of Blade Runner? Games like Black and White can hint at a moral structure, but the message from the gameworld is restricted to the fictitious environment they create.

When storylines are intrinsically linked to the gameplay and players' actions, maybe games will have enough leeway to express complicated ideas instead of shunting us to 30 minutes of pre-rendered, low budget CGI film.

Until then, I'm not really worried - as long as the damn thing is fun I'll play it. If gameplay is compromised by lengthy speech or text, it's no different to a book or film. Problem is, they're designed to be games, not films - and designers haven't blended the differing elements of these mediums yet.

1. I didn't like Blade Runner and I don't really remeber much of it.

2. Why should they 'blend' games and films?

the game blade runner was so confusing that my eyes didn't follow my head
but the movie is ok. (the judge is an idiot)

Unless you're sitting there reading text, which kind of ruins the atmosphere in modern games, scriptwriters will be using the same visual/audio tools film directors use to present their ideas.

Difference is that game designers need to blend film techniques (efficient storytelling in a short period, visual framing etc.) into a shorter, non-choreographed environment where the player has freedom if the whole thing's to feel cohesive. You can't stick 120 minutes of CGI footage in the middle of a Final Fantasy chapter, so the story is told through cinematics and supported by in-game events - which compromises the amount of information you can fit into a game's story...

unless you blend the two and make the gamer part of the storytelling. So in Half-Life, you don't fart around with a 20 minute introduction, you let the player actually live it out and see what happens personally. And you accentuate that experience with audio and visual means within the situation, rather than choreographing a separate CGI sequence.


So I'm going on a bit, but Lorne hyped up the idea of storytelling in games, which got me all excited...only he didn't take it any further than producing a mini-movie for a story that should have enjoyed greater development and depth. It's not possible to give a subtle, powerful message AND use CGI sequences to tell the story's literal basis.

Tee-hee! What an idiot. I found that article rather funny. Hearing this guy push weak arguments in his favor... I hate some people...

JSRF communistic? How so?

Well, maybe not communistic. More libertarianistic, I suppose.
I got that impression from the ending FMV. You had destroyed Gouji's faschist empire and such. It just felt very anti-nasty and pro-communism/pro-libertarian and such. Maybe being fed those lies about fasch-er, capitalism by your American school clouded your vision.
It's a real shame that big mural featured in the ending FMV wasn't a permanant addition to the Garage - it looked nice. It's also a shame you can't re-visit old bosses. The Tokyo Line and A.KU.MU were great fun. I also quite enjoyed that Dr. Octopus wannabe.

The whole concept of the game was quite libertarianistic - defeating a totalitarian autocratic dictator.
I found this in the definition of 'totalitarian' on Dictionary.com:
“A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Which I think is very fitting with Jet Set Radio Future as you need 'soul' and you have to collect 'Graffiti Souls'.

Edit: I saved little Gir before he dies/gets deleted by an admin again.

Ah, yes. That makes more sense.
That must be it... oh, how could I have been so blind!? :D

I think the abe games definitely make statements-vegetarianism in AO, opposing animal testing in MO, and an anti-corporate theme throughout the series.