Regarding Ike

[Anouleth]

Fiona doesn't immediately side with Micaiah either: therefore Micaiah is not a Mary Sue.

[Momo]

The non-raven bird laguz didn't seem to like Ike or the other beorc much. Reyson calls him a human and runs away after Ike tries to help him. Tibarn, Janaff, and Ulki are only persuaded to help after they see Ike and his crew trying to protect Leanne. Forget about them?

They didn't hate Ike, they just hated humans.

[Baldrick]

Really? Ike is not confident in earlygame? So when Ike had no problem with becoming the leader straight after Greil died (despite his inexperience), that wasn't confidence in his own ability to lead? If Ike didn't think he was up to becoming Commander, why did he accept the position? Can you show evidence that Ike did not think he could command?

Ike was confident, sure, but as a warrior only. To Titania, chapter 3:

"You and my father have kept this mercenary group together. And I'm...just...proud to be a part of it. That's all."

He is confused, even hesitant, when Greil puts him in charge of a mission:

"What? Me? ... Father, wait... Why do you want me-"

"I don't understand what my father's doing. Why put a new recruit like me in charge of something so important? ... Me? I don't... I don't know if I'm capable. And even if I am, that day's a long way off, right? I mean, I'm inexperienced. Weak. I'm nothing compared to my father."

Ike calls Greil on it a bit later, and Greil tells him he can learn on the job. Presumably, Greil dying minutes later made Ike take it to heart a lot more than he would have normally.

"Ike

I'm not saying that to gain anyone's pity. It's the truth. But even so, I have no intention of giving up command of this company."

That's a nice quote! Let me find a few of its peers:

"They didn't want to lose their lives to an inexperienced commander."

"I need your tactical knowledge. I need your objectivity. You're not going to leave me, are you, Soren?"

"I'm going to make some mistakes, but I'll try not to let you down."

"I know I said tell me everything, but...This is too much. I can't keep up. Maybe I shouldn't learn everything in one sitting. Can you show me the ropes along the way? Is that all right?"

[bottlegnomes]

No, you merely bring up other examples of gameplay and story contradiction. However, there is no separation.

Actually, none of those are contradictions, except maybe the last one. All the segregations suggests is that those things never come up in the game, not that the characters aren't capable of them. That doesn't sound like a contradiction. Another example is Link being able to jump whenever in the story, but not in gameplay. Also, the player isn't the character, unless explicitly stated. The character can easily be capable of doing things the player can't without it being a contradiction. So actually, one of the few games with an actual contradiction is the one game you consider the best way of storytelling in a video game.

Edited July 29, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Jedi]

Fiona doesn't immediately side with Micaiah either: therefore Micaiah is not a Mary Sue.

Really, Fiona the INSTANT she sees an opportunity to screw over her superiors jumps ship to Micaiah's forces.

They didn't hate Ike, they just hated humans.

And your just throwing this Laguz deal out without any consideration, a Mary Sue as many people call Ike for god knows what reasons. Is someone who could have made the Hawks and Heron's love them from day one does Ike do that? NO he has to PROVE HIMSELF, Reyson runs away from Ike and his band at first and THIS CAUSES the entirety of Chapter 17. Yeah that's instant love all right. Even then, these laguz have to get the word of truth from Sanaki and her asking for forgiveness to even believe Ike, its not by his words that gets the very very VERY reluctant bond its Sanaki

Sure they become fast friends after its all said and done, but Tibarn and Ike are very alike in their attitudes about things. Reyson and his 2 subordinates who respect Tibarn respect Ike in turn due to that bond they make and familiarity.

Is it Ike who stops the Ravens? No its Reyson, does Ike get the entire nation of Dragons on his side? No he gets Ena and Nasir's trust that is pretty much it [after THAT WHOLE MESS]. The Prince on the other hand is just kind and wanted to meet humans so he humored them, showing that he is not much like his father who would have probably destroyed Ike and crew instantly if he was the one who saw them.

Also going back to something I saw earlier [this has nothing to do with the laguz]

Ike defeating the Black knight "twice" did you miss the part in RD where he said he was holding back in their final encounter in PoR? Sure RD isn't the best place to get that info but still its worth considering, also the Black Knight Defeated Ike, 3 times before Ike even had the skill to deal with him does this make the Black Knight a mary sue too then? I mean he defeated Ike who apparently is invincible and has no foe capable of fighting him ever [note the sarcasm]

Edited July 29, 2012 by Jedi

[General Banzai]

Actually, none of those are contradictions, except maybe the last one. All the segregations suggests is that those things never come up in the game, not that the characters aren't capable of them. That doesn't sound like a contradiction. Another example is Link being able to jump whenever in the story, but not in gameplay. Also, the player isn't the character, unless explicitly stated. The character can easily be capable of doing things the player can't without it being a contradiction. So actually, one of the few games with an actual contradiction is the one game you consider the best way of storytelling in a video game.

Actually, most later Zeldas are shit, and there is no jumping in the earlier ones.

In either case, the point I'm trying to make here is that the gameplay and the story of a video game are one in the same, even though they are occasionally inconsistent (Link jumping, etc). For most of Path of Radiance we take on the role as Ike, making the decisions he would make, leading his army, etc. Essentially, we are Ike; it's just that at other times the game rips the control from our hands and has Ike follow a series of predetermined dialogue options.

[bottlegnomes]

Actually, most later Zeldas are shit, and there is no jumping in the earlier ones.

I was referring to earlier ones.

In either case, the point I'm trying to make here is that the gameplay and the story of a video game are one in the same, even though they are occasionally inconsistent (Link jumping, etc). For most of Path of Radiance we take on the role as Ike, making the decisions he would make, leading his army, etc. Essentially, we are Ike; it's just that at other times the game rips the control from our hands and has Ike follow a series of predetermined dialogue options.

That's debatable. You could argue we are Ike or you could argue we are an outside entity controlling things, like some sort of puppet master--oh how I love that cliche--an imperfect one as we cannot make the characters do everything they are actually capable of doing, and no more Ike than I'm Billy Pilgrim while reading Slaughterhouse Five.

Depending on which view you take, there is such a thing as story/gameplay segregation. Clearly you feel that the player is the character and that should always remain true, but generally those stories are not particularly engaging, which lead to more player independent characters.

[Othin]

Actually, none of those are contradictions, except maybe the last one. All the segregations suggests is that those things never come up in the game, not that the characters aren't capable of them. That doesn't sound like a contradiction. Another example is Link being able to jump whenever in the story, but not in gameplay. Also, the player isn't the character, unless explicitly stated. The character can easily be capable of doing things the player can't without it being a contradiction. So actually, one of the few games with an actual contradiction is the one game you consider the best way of storytelling in a video game.

So the story can do these three things:

A) Fit with the gameplay as we know it

B) Expand beyond the gameplay as we know it

C) Contradict the gameplay as we know it

B is okay. C is not. "Segregation" is no excuse.

[bottlegnomes]

So the story can do these three things:

A) Fit with the gameplay as we know it

B) Expand beyond the gameplay as we know it

C) Contradict the gameplay as we know it

B is okay. C is not. "Segregation" is no excuse.

The only examples I gave that do C are possibly the FF7 one (can't honestly say, as I haven't played it) and the whole jumping thing with Zelda, which was just me trying to annoy Banzai. The vast majority of examples of segregation are either B (like Dante having more than 10 ways to swing a sword, Ike being able to use two hands while fighting, or Marth actually being able to jump) or are merely balance mechanisms (eg difficulty settings that contradict story strength). Going to DMC again, would you really enjoy playing a game where the enemies can stab you through the chest, head, and every limb with about 50 blades each and it doesn't even phase you? That sounds rather boring to me. You could argue that they should have made it so Dante wasn't immune to damage like that, but in doing so it would remove an aspect of his character as well as forcing the developers into displaying story segments in a certain way (ie Dante always dodging attacks), which gets boring, limiting themselves to one difficulty (poor gameplay), or contradicting one of the difficulty settings.

I'll agree that story and gameplay shouldn't contradict each other, but for the sake of balance, I'm willing to accept a certain amount of inconsistency.

[CrashGordon94]

In either case, the point I'm trying to make here is that the gameplay and the story of a video game are one in the same, even though they are occasionally inconsistent (Link jumping, etc). For most of Path of Radiance we take on the role as Ike, making the decisions he would make, leading his army, etc. Essentially, we are Ike; it's just that at other times the game rips the control from our hands and has Ike follow a series of predetermined dialogue options.

@Bold: NO THEY AREN'T! Even if you like having them be integrated and stuff, that's fine but THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, THEY ARE SEPARABLE. Whether you think it's GOOD to have them segregated is irrelevant, the fact is they CAN BE SEGREGATED! If you ever played a video game in your life you should know this like the back of your hand!

And those "inconsistencies" ARE segregation!

So the story can do these three things:

A) Fit with the gameplay as we know it

B) Expand beyond the gameplay as we know it

C) Contradict the gameplay as we know it

B is okay. C is not. "Segregation" is no excuse.

The thing is, C IS segregation (B might be too, Iunno). Whether you think it excuses it or not isn't important.

Basically the point is that there's a difference between not liking segregation and saying it doesn't exist! It's fine to not like it but you shouldn't be saying that it doesn't exist and that gameplay and story are inseparable! It's basically the difference between me hating Priscilla and me saying that there is no redhead Troubadour in FE7.

[Anouleth]

That's a nice quote! Let me find a few of its peers:

"They didn't want to lose their lives to an inexperienced commander."

"I need your tactical knowledge. I need your objectivity. You're not going to leave me, are you, Soren?"

"I'm going to make some mistakes, but I'll try not to let you down."

"I know I said tell me everything, but...This is too much. I can't keep up. Maybe I shouldn't learn everything in one sitting. Can you show me the ropes along the way? Is that all right?"

So apparently, admitting that you don't know everything is mutually exclusive with confidence. Gotcha.

Really, Fiona the INSTANT she sees an opportunity to screw over her superiors jumps ship to Micaiah's forces.

No, she doesn't. Reread the script. Fiona is initially happy to help Begnion:

"Fiona

I will not lie to you. My people are proud citizens of Daein, and some agree with these so-called liberators. However, I will not lead my people into danger over ridiculous rumors of some unknown orphan prince."

It's only when Laverton is about to execute prisoners, after Micaiah has already thrown down her weapons, that Fiona switches sides.

[Jedi]

No, she doesn't. Reread the script. Fiona is initially happy to help Begnion:

"Fiona

I will not lie to you. My people are proud citizens of Daein, and some agree with these so-called liberators. However, I will not lead my people into danger over ridiculous rumors of some unknown orphan prince."

It's only when Laverton is about to execute prisoners, after Micaiah has already thrown down her weapons, that Fiona switches sides.

I had forgotten, I apologize

[Rapier]

No, she doesn't. Reread the script. Fiona is initially happy to help Begnion:

"Fiona

I will not lie to you. My people are proud citizens of Daein, and some agree with these so-called liberators. However, I will not lead my people into danger over ridiculous rumors of some unknown orphan prince."

It's only when Laverton is about to execute prisoners, after Micaiah has already thrown down her weapons, that Fiona switches sides.

That means she knew Pelleas but not Micaiah. After they met, she became instantly loyal to her.

Also, about your latest comment about Ike, how can you be confident if you don't know a lot of things and you even realize you're incompetent? Remember that everyone was going to die if not for Lethe and Mordecai's intervention.

[Jedi]

Also, about your latest comment about Ike, how can you be confident if you don't know a lot of things and you even realize you're incompetent? Remember that everyone was going to die if not for Lethe and Mordecai's intervention.

Exactly this, Ike and co were going to DIE unless they got help, doesn't that show just how his green commanding skills were in the beginning more then anything else?

[HeroMystic]

People calling Ike a Mary Sue should look up what it means again.

Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters are widely regarded as an inserted character in a work of fiction, where the character is essentially so perfect that he has no faults, and the story only exists to further his/her development, at the cost of developing other characters.

FE9 makes no case of this whatsoever, neither does FE10. Ike is nowhere near perfect in FE9. He can't make tactical decisions on his own, made bad decisions that almost cost Rolf's life in Chapter 2, as well as the entire GMs in Chapter 7, and almost outright got overwhelmed and killed off in Chapter 8. He gets roflstomped by the Black Knight and has to run from him in a chapter or two, and he even dislikes nobles in a vacuum unless it's Elincia or (eventually) Sanaki. Lets not forget even gameplay-wise, Ike isn't even the best character in the game. Hell, he's your worst character at the very beginning, and even at his very best (obtaining Ragnell) it's widely regarded to not be the best and he's not guaranteed to defeat the Black Knight (especially without Mist). Everyone in the plot gets their share of development, especially ones closest to Ike (which by definition should be the ones with the least development), particularly Soren, Mist/Boyd, and Titania. Jill even gets a fucking chapter dedicated to herself and she's completely optional in it. So obviously, FE9 Ike is not a Mary Sue, he's just the main protagonist, and it's completely fine for a protagonist to be the central part of the plot.

FE10 Ike isn't even a Mary Sue by this definition either. He's not even mentioned in the plot until Part II where it's stated that he left his job as an Crimean Noble because he couldn't stand it. He left Elincia in an extreme time of need as her Kingdom began to fall apart, and she almost lost her best friend in public execution, though admittedly he makes up for it by saving her and isn't blamed for it (and why should he be?). Then in Part III he becomes the main character until his screen time is plucked away to further the Dawn Brigade's plot, and this happens continuously until ENDGAME, where the plot begins to shift on Ike's past and the Ike/BK battle, and with Ike delivering the final blow on Ashera. And even then you can't even claim he's a Mary Sue because that's only 2 out of the 5 chapters where he's completely focused, 3 if you're doing a second playthrough and Lehran has his vision about Ike's past. Is he a highly regarded character in FE10 due to his awesomeness? Yes, and he totally deserves it. He's the Hero of the Mad King's War after all. Even then, BK exists to show that he isn't perfect, and he actually gets bested by the Dawn Brigade in that one shitty chapter (Part III - Chapter 12).

Micaiah is actually a far stronger case of a Mary Sue than Ike will ever be. She's praised by many Daein citizens, went from Rags To Riches, called the Dawn Maiden when not even 1/4th of the way through the game, has undying support from everyone in Daein except already-developed characters (Zihark and Jill. Tauroneo as well but he's practically bounded by oath), and becomes the mother fucking voice of the goddess because she's truly the Princess of Begnion. She is also 80-85% relevant to the plot (Elincia's plot and a teeny tiny bit of the GM plot), and no one jumps her ass for essentially killing many soldiers with "dirty" tactics all because of a(rather laughable) plot device that she failed to tell anyone. However, she doesn't make the cut as a Mary sue either because of (ironically) Ike and Elincia having their own character arcs. Micaiah is just a case of a character full of potential turning into a terribly written and bland character who happens to be hot.

The only thing you blame Ike for being is Overpowered, and that's because he has defeated literally every type of unit you can think possible, and I don't think anything can chalk higher than a Goddess.

Edited July 30, 2012 by HeroMystic

[General Banzai]

That's debatable. You could argue we are Ike or you could argue we are an outside entity controlling things, like some sort of puppet master--oh how I love that cliche--an imperfect one as we cannot make the characters do everything they are actually capable of doing, and no more Ike than I'm Billy Pilgrim while reading Slaughterhouse Five.

That's a poor analogy. Books aren't video games. A book exists as a complete physical entity more or less unalterable upon its production. No matter who reads Slaughterhouse-Five, it always ends with a little bird singing "Po-twee-tweet". There does not need to be any human reader for the physical existence of S5 to be changed in the slightest. I have a copy of S5 sitting in my bedroom as we speak, and it exists in the same physical state right now as it would if I were to pick it up, open to a random page, and read the first sentence I found (probably "So it goes").

A video game, however, does not. A video game is merely a huge line of code imprinted onto a disc. This code is a series of guidelines per se but without the physical imput of a player they are meaningless. Ike only starts his adventure IF the player presses start. Jill only flies over some tiles IF the player presses a combination of the control stick and the A button. Bryce only states his battle quote IF the player selects a unit and has it attack him. A reader of a book can merely interpret the series of lines and squiggles printed upon the page, while a player must actively choose to cause certain events to happen.

An author pulls the strings; a video game designer can merely suggest someone else to do so. What we have been terming "gameplay" and "story" in our discussion are really only code words for the times when the authorial influence outweighs the player influence, and visa-versa (but neither influence is ever completely eradicated--Ike will pause perpetually between one line and the next until we feel fit to press the A button; meanwhile, we can decide that Greil's Fall doesn't happen by pressing start). Both are necessary entirely and neither can exist without the other. Claiming that they are segregated (and furthermore, using that "segregation" as an explanation for why we can't consider Ike's in-game performance as part of his character) ignores all of this.

[bottlegnomes]

That's a poor analogy. Books aren't video games. A book exists as a complete physical entity more or less unalterable upon its production. No matter who reads Slaughterhouse-Five, it always ends with a little bird singing "Po-twee-tweet". There does not need to be any human reader for the physical existence of S5 to be changed in the slightest. I have a copy of S5 sitting in my bedroom as we speak, and it exists in the same physical state right now as it would if I were to pick it up, open to a random page, and read the first sentence I found (probably "So it goes").

A video game, however, does not. A video game is merely a huge line of code imprinted onto a disc. This code is a series of guidelines per se but without the physical imput of a player they are meaningless. Ike only starts his adventure IF the player presses start. Jill only flies over some tiles IF the player presses a combination of the control stick and the A button. Bryce only states his battle quote IF the player selects a unit and has it attack him. A reader of a book can merely interpret the series of lines and squiggles printed upon the page, while a player must actively choose to cause certain events to happen.

The problem with this is the book is nothing more than thousands of lines of words which are largely meaningless if no one reads them. The same could be said of any book. None of this stuff happens unless someone reads it. I will give you that a VG has more options than a book, 1 vs potentially more than 1. But there are plenty of books that do this as well, though they're generally regarded rather poorly.

Also, the code is no more/less a guideline than the words on a page are. The code determines what can and cannot happen. The difference is the code is slightly more flexible as it allows for minor (or major depending on the game) variations.

An author pulls the strings; a video game designer can merely suggest someone else to do so. What we have been terming "gameplay" and "story" in our discussion are really only code words for the times when the authorial influence outweighs the player influence, and visa-versa (but neither influence is ever completely eradicated--Ike will pause perpetually between one line and the next until we feel fit to press the A button; meanwhile, we can decide that Greil's Fall doesn't happen by pressing start). Both are necessary entirely and neither can exist without the other. Claiming that they are segregated (and furthermore, using that "segregation" as an explanation for why we can't consider Ike's in-game performance as part of his character) ignores all of this.

Again, you can say the same for a book. I can skip the prologue of Slaughterhouse Five and it wouldn't be any different than if I pressed start during the video of Greil's Fall. Everything would still progress the same as if I hadn't, except for the fact that I didn't partake in experiencing those parts of the story. As for the pushing A, that is identical to turning a page. I can reread a page any number of times before deciding to move on.

Edited July 30, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[General Banzai]

As I said in the previous post, interpreting a book is not the same as actively influencing a video game. Your "slightly more flexible" is in reality a world of difference, even for the most linear games.

[Othin]

meanwhile, we can decide that Greil's Fall doesn't happen by pressing start

Whether or not you skip the cutscene, everything relevant throughout the rest of the game indicates that it does happen; it is simply not displayed to the player.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Othin

[bottlegnomes]

Not really. Your argument is saying that the difference between a book and a VG is that the player makes those things happen in a VG whereas the reader doesn't make a book happen. In actuality, both exist in their entirety but need the outside force of the player/reader to progress them. As I said, VGs allow more options than most, but not all books. But even with that, most of the more linear games merely allow you to change the minutiae. Would changing the minutiae in most books make it a different story altogether? There are games that allow for very different story progressions, and even more minor ones that would still be large in a book, like FE with character selection, but as I said previously, there are books that allow this as well. The only difference is that they are usually very poorly done because to do one remotely as complex as a VG, even one that lends itself to such a book, like Zork, would result in a massively cumbersome book.

[Momo]

So the story can do these three things:

A) Fit with the gameplay as we know it

B) Expand beyond the gameplay as we know it

C) Contradict the gameplay as we know it

B is okay. C is not. "Segregation" is no excuse.

Video game writing always has been and will probably forever be too different from storytelling that things done in the "game" sections are going to contradict the "story" sections. To have any enjoyment from the medium, you have to take this into account.

[General Banzai]

Not really. Your argument is saying that the difference between a book and a VG is that the player makes those things happen in a VG whereas the reader doesn't make a book happen. In actuality, both exist in their entirety but need the outside force of the player/reader to progress them. As I said, VGs allow more options than most, but not all books. But even with that, most of the more linear games merely allow you to change the minutiae. Would changing the minutiae in most books make it a different story altogether? There are games that allow for very different story progressions, and even more minor ones that would still be large in a book, like FE with character selection, but as I said previously, there are books that allow this as well. The only difference is that they are usually very poorly done because to do one remotely as complex as a VG, even one that lends itself to such a book, like Zork, would result in a massively cumbersome book.

Again, a video game exists as a line of code dependent on the input of a user to make any decisions or actions on its own. Greil's Fall can't even be accessed unless a player makes a who slew of button inputs. A book exists completely independent of its reader and is in a state of physical corporeality with or without someone to interpret the little squiggles on the page. Just because I don't know Spanish and can't read "El Gran Gatsby" doesn't mean that it doesn't completely exist on its own. Meanwhile, turn on any video game you have (whoops, that's already a necessary input) and just press start (another input) without doing anything else. Link stands still for eternity. Ike and Boyd engage in the the most epic of epic standoffs until time ends. Et cetera, et cetera. There is a fundamental difference between a book and a video game in terms of their basic existence.

How does this apply to our discussion? More than you seem to think. I began this discussion by saying that in a sense, the player is Ike; making his tactical decisions, etc. The reader, however, is not Billy Pilgrim. The reader has NO influence on what Billy Pilgrim says or does. Only Vonnegut has ever had or will ever have influence on what Billy Pilgrim does. The reader can do literally nothing to change Billy Pilgrim's actions.

However, the player has an infinitely wide array of ways to influence Ike. He can have Boyd go there and Titania here; or Boyd here and Titania there. He can make sure everyone gets out alive or let Oscar fall by the wayside when an axeman cleaves his skull in two in Ch 8. He can kill Generic Soldier or spare him. And so on, and so on, and so on. There is literally an infinite number of ways to play Path of Radiance. A squadron of enemy reinforcements flanks Ike? Ike can either run like a pussy or charge in dunkmaster style--it's not up to Maeda or whoever "wrote" the game, but the player. But Billy Pilgrim's always doing the same old thing, no matter how many temporal fluxes he travels through, no matter how disjointed the timeline of S5 gets.

There are, of course, authorial influences on Path of Radiance. Ike always loses to Greil in their first spar in the cutscene of Chapter 1. Assuming Ike doesn't get a Game Over beforehand, Greil is always killed by the Black Knight at the end of Ch 7 (I didn't mean to say that by pressing start and skipping the cutscene Greil survives; contextual clues obviously prevent that from happening. I merely intended to say that if the player presses start, the cutscene doesn't play, and thus the player still has limited control even at the most author-focused parts of the game. My mistake, poor wording).

Now you say that having, say, Ike hold onto two Iron Swords in Ch 21 rather than just one doesn't affect the story much. I posit that that is an irrelevant point; as "not influencing much" still means that it influences something. Furthermore, maybe the minutia does mean a great deal. Perhaps one-iron-sword-Ike's sword breaks in the middle of battle, causing him to die. Game Over flashes by, the player gives up in rage, and that's the end of the game. That's the end of that specific player's story, because unlike a book, one cannot simply skip ahead to the end and assure themselves that it's still the same, Sephiran's always prophesying war. Because it's not. Cutscene!Sephiran only plays IF Ashnard!Health=0. If Ashnard!Health=/=0, then Sephiran doesn't talk. If the reader gets to Page 21 of S5, however, and decides the story is boring and throws it into a box in the garage, that doesn't mean Po-twee-tweet!Bird never happens. Po-twee-tweet!Bird always happens, always remains in a state of physical existence unless that page is destroyed; or rather, unless every last page of every copy of S5 (including e-copies, etc) is destroyed.

But as I was saying before, even if we think one iron sword instead of two is just minutia, it's still a player-determined influence. And that influence, unlike in a choose-your-own-adventure book, can play out in an infinite number of ways, not just in "choose option A or choose option B" (this is why I dislike the Mass Effect "Choose three options" setup; it specifically ignores the video game medium in an attempt to imitate a written book. You can give the player the choice to be an asshole by allowing them to sacrifice Rolf to save Ike or to slaughter Ilyana when she's still an enemy, rather than by just giving them what is basically a glorified "asshole button").

I'll end this little essay with one of my favorite examples illustrating that most players understand, at least on a subconscious level, that they influence the character. When Link's getting swarmed by Octoroks, the player's first reaction is probably something akin to "Oh shit, I'm dying." I don't suspect anyone ever read S5 and said "Oh shit, I'm dying" when Billy Pilgrim got assassinated, do you?

Video game writing always has been and will probably forever be too different from storytelling that things done in the "game" sections are going to contradict the "story" sections. To have any enjoyment from the medium, you have to take this into account.

"When video games make mistakes; if you want to have fun, you should accept them rather than demand their reconciliation."

This is the kind of thinking that keeps video games in the dark ages. The idea that there's a certain kind of "storytelling" (usually associated with Shakespeare and Dickens), and that video games are "too different" from it, rather than accepting that video game writing itself is a perfectly valid form of storytelling.

[bottlegnomes]

Choose your own adventure novels negate the entire choice distinction argument. They aren't well done, but they prove that it is entirely possible for books. There are not an infinite number of ways to play a video game, barring things like mashing end turn to change results, which is no different than me rereading the same sentence repeatedly. There are a finite, albeit massive, number. The advantage of video games is that it is much easier to do what you're describing. It is possible to do the same with a book, but massively cumbersome, as I already said. Sure you could let the game sit, but to do so would be no different than me rereading the same sentence repeatedly and never moving on. Me stopping the game is no different from me putting down the book. In the case of S5 the story of Billy Pilgrim exists but I am not experiencing it. In the case of PoR the story of Ike defeating Daein still exists but I'm not experiencing it.

The story of a video game has been written already. It always remains largely the same; certain things may change, like Jill being recruited, but it has a certain set of possibilities that must be kept to. Your whole argument to that point is basically a book is written and predetermined, while a video game is not, so the book always happens, but the video game doesn't always happen. As said, it is entirely possible for a book to replicate a video game experience, but would be massively cumbersome, and as such, is not suited to it, but the fact that it is possible negates your argument. Both require the participant to drive the story forward by continuing it. Sure you could use the argument that you can skip to the end of a book. I could use the argument that I can use an AR to skip to the end of PoR. Both are cheats because you are skipping the entire story just to find out what happens at the end, which ignores the authorial intent. The only difference is one takes a little more effort than another.

It is entirely theoretically possible for books to replicate the choices of a video game, but it is not practical. That's where video games come in. They allow the participant the ability to take an active role in the story in a manageable way. They also incorporate the visual elements of a movie. They are different, and should be used different ways, but are not as incomparable as you seem to think. The player is not always the protagonist of a video game as the reader is not always the protagonist of a book or movie.

As for Greil's Fall, again, that is no different than me skipping the prologue of S5. The story still progresses the same way. The only change is that I don't experience that part of the story directly.

As for minutae, I more meant things like while at base does Ike put a vulnerary in the convoy before he uses the dracoshield he has in his inventory or does he do the reverse.

Like I said, much of the time the inconsistencies arrise from practicality. Returning to DMC. Dante is capable of taking massive physical punishment in the cannon. This is not the case in gameplay. To resolve this would lead to one of a few possible outcomes. First, change the gameplay to match the story, resulting in an incredibly boring game. Second, change the cutscenes so the issue never comes up. This results in a restriction of artistic freedom (it would massively affect Dante's character), which I hope you'll agree is bad. Third, make the cutscenes different for each of the difficulty levels, resulting in even more inconsistencies and much more work, which could be impractical. Fourth (branching off of three) make changes to the difficulty levels that explain the changes in the cutscenes, eg demons infused with more power or different demons. This would lead to criticism for shoehorned explanations or significantly more work on the part of the developer to the point where it's not practical. Resolutions three and four would be ideal, but, again, they aren't practical. As is, I'm willing to accept these things as long as they aren't egregious (Ike never actually fighting with two hands in the game despite being perfectly capable, Titania dismounting) or are for practical reasons (DMC example). Whether you are is your decision, but I'm hoping you'll accept that all media have their flaws with which they must deal until someone figures out a practical way to fix these.

tl;dr - the player isn't always the protagonist, anything video games can do books can do, just not as manageably in some cases, much of the gameplay/story contradictions arrise from practicality, and I repeat myself a lot.

Edited July 31, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Liz]

Sothe got character development? Where? Micaiah didnt get much either. The only thing she learned is "hiding isnt the answer to my problems." Her other problems? Nah...not touched on. Elincia, Skrimir, and Pelleas got the most character development in the game. (Naesala got some too.) I chalk it up to bad writing. Micaiah wouldnt be a Sue if the writing wasnt so...half-assed. (so much potential there...wasted....)

Sothe, while nothing major, developed in the way where he permitted Micaiah to act as her own free agent, rather than an individual who needed his constant protection. it wasn't like woah, look out, this character has developed tons, but throughout the course of the game he learned that Micaiah didn't need his constant protection, because yes she can fend for herself. like you said, it's not very significant because the writing wasn't particularly excellent, but it's there.

Micaiah was actually pretty significant, though. she went from hiding from all her problems to an individual who was willing to go to any lengths necessary to protect her people. Basically a compounded version of Elincia and Naesala. she went from a character who was constantly moving about in order to avoid being recognized to a famed general who lead the people of Daein to liberty, and became the queen despite her fear of prejudice and hatred in order to fulfill her duty to the citizens of Daein. her main character arc was about her fears versus her sense of duty.

i completely forgot about Skrimir, Pelleas, and Naesala.

[Baldrick]

Micaiah's wasn't really character development, even in the first chapter she put her whole group at risk to save some Daein citizens. She's just forced into the open by Pelleas' revolution.