Network now...FEATURE
Review: Final Fantasy XIII
By Edge Staff
March 5, 2010
See also:
Related Articles:
CLASS ACT
Characters can be one of six classes: a Commando, damage-dealing; a Ravager, quickfire user of offensive magic; a Saboteur, inflicting status ailments; a Synergist, boosting your party’s capabilities; a Sentinel, attracting enemy attacks and guarding; or a Medic. Each character can develop in any class after a certain point in the game, but each has its own affinities that render this largely redundant. Levelling is handled through the Crystarium, an elaborate series of interlinked orbs that give you, for example, +100 HP for 2,000 crystal points. There are new abilities dotted around, the odd bonus accessory slot, and that’s your lot. It’s nice enough, and well presented, but we don’t think it’s a patch on FFXII’s levelling system.
Format: 360, PS3 (version tested)
Release: March 9 (US/Eur), out now (JP)
Publisher: Square Enix
Developer: In-house
Screenshot gallery
It’s all in the name. The 13th main instalment of a series that has relentlessly spawned subsidiaries over the past decade, the distinguishing factor is in those words as a title, rather than a brand. A true Final Fantasy – only the second since 2002 – is still an event.
This time around, it’s also a big reveal. Final Fantasy XIII changes the basic formula of the series radically – to an extent that no pre-release talk hinted at – and strikes out on its own. Even the most basic assumptions about what a Final Fantasy game should be are left at the door: this can barely be described as a roleplaying game. You won’t come across a single town worthy of the label, talk to shopkeepers or be swept into an intricate minigame. Your characters don’t even level up for the first few hours. It’s best to get the beginning out of the way: it’s a disaster of pacing that both bores and condescends to the player. There’s an excellently rendered cutscene to start off, and for the next two hours you’ll do little but run forward through walled-in environments and press a single button over and over to dismiss enemies. By the time you encounter anything approaching a challenge, FFXIII is stirring one emotion in particular: boredom. 
The combat system is the culprit. Square Enix has constructed a masterpiece within the structure of turn-based battling, but the game is scared of you getting it wrong. While the system is complex, it’s not too hard to get to grips with the basics, but you won’t have access to the full capabilities of your party until around 20 hours in. It introduces every element at a crawling pace, and seems to think the only way players learn is through repetition – you’ll get a new tactic and then have to barrel through a series of identical enemies that are defeated by spamming it.
When your party is finally operating at full capacity, there’s still more of the linear story to trudge through – and it is a trudge. The game’s producers have gone on record as saying that western audiences don’t understand this first section, but in fact we do: it’s just a bit rubbish. The first 25 hours of the game are one long corridor of palette-swapped enemies, fights that never quite find the right level of challenge, and cutscene after cutscene (after cutscene) leaving your joypad entirely idle. 
Then it all goes right. Your party decamps to Pulse, a sprawling, slightly-more-open world beneath Cocoon, and the real FFXIII begins to emerge. It’s that combat system. You directly control the party leader, with two support characters fighting automatically, but you can also control their roles: there are damage dealers, tanks, medics and so on. Any combination can be pre-arranged, and up to six can be swapped between on the fly when in battle. The scope for customising your loadout doesn’t initially seem overwhelming, but it quickly becomes clear what a difference a change makes, and how small a number six really is.
The enemies span the full gamut: hulking, nimble, pack-hunters, solo attackers, magic-based, physical brutes, immune to some things and weak to others. Each also has a ‘Stagger’ bar, separate from their health. Fill this to the top, and damage is doubled while new offensive options become available. Your role is management. Use Evened Odds to heal your wounds, bulk up and soften your enemy (with a party of Saboteur, Medic and Synergist). Switch to Tri-Attack to fill their Stagger meter quickly (all Ravagers). Switch to Hero’s Charge to maintain the level of Stagger while healing any damage done in the meantime and adding new buffs to your party (Commando, Synergist, Medic). Another Tri-Attack and, despite resistance, they’re staggered – unleash Endless Assault (Commando, Commando, Medic), launch them in the air and begin dealing out the big blows. They don’t touch the ground for the next 30 seconds, and by the time they’re down, they’re out.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us /
Subscribe To Edge Magazine
Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2010 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
A bit late to the party on this one, but I find it hard to agree with Edge's 5/10 rating. I could understand FFX's 6, and I loved FFXII to bits. I wouldn't say FFXIII is necessarily better or equal to FFXII - however, I do like the approach they have taken.
1) It's true that the battle system is gradually opened up as you go along - perhaps far too late for its own good.
2) It's true that to call the game 'linear' is really an understatement. However, if you accept the game for what it tries to do, it's actually a breath of fresh air never to have to visit a town, talk to visitors, aimlessly wander around villages looking for this or that person to talk to, and so on. Furthermore, it increases the sense of exploration - most of the time these towns are just throwaway locations anyway that are simply there not because of backstory enrichment, but simply to go armor shopping.
What I like about the game so far:
1) You can tell they've tried to reinvent the RPG trappings of the series. There are some elements of the Gambit system in FF12 that allowed for a more minute finetuning of your battle strategy than what the Paradigm system allows (for instance, you can't order a specific character member to cast 'Esuna' on a character in case his or her health is below 50% - it was really a type of meta-programming - Boolean preconditions). On the other hand, this system is far more hands on than the previous one - and the often-heard complaint that you were simply watching the battles rather than actively participating in them has been pretty much rectified.
2) They've really tried to make this more accessible for people who don't normally play RPGs. You don't have to talk to people anymore for the most part - simply stand by close to them and overhear their conversations. Control is less plain with all of the autojumping - and even though the entire game is basically one long linear map, there's more relief and a greater sense of scale.
3) The linearity actually works out in the story's favour in lots of small ways. Notice for instance that the cast characters that tag along with you now say location and event-specific things (Vanille: 'Thanks Kaz!', 'Way to go Kaz!'). This is even more pronounced whenever Lightning and Hope get together. At the beginning all the battle quips have Lightning basically telling Hope to get the hell out of the way - then when she gradually gains more respect for him, she actually addresses him by his first name during battle. There's really the sense that these are not merely avatars that have a couple of preprogrammed voice samples that are played over and over again - it's location and event-specific, both in Field as well as Battle mode. These 'avatars' that tag along with you also have a will of their own - some run ahead of you and say something about the current environment they're in - or they have something to say about the circumstances they find themselves in. You have had none of that in a previous RPG. It was basically you walking around with two members walking along - all silent - but no real sense that there was any 'adventuring' going on. Thanks to the linearity, it allows for this kind of immersion - that you're really there involved in an adventure, and that these members tagging along are actually taking in the surroundings.
4) The story is actually quite good and the numerous allusions to the 'war on terror' were not lost on me. The color-coded Homeland Security warning system stuck out in particular (actual voice quips from one of the characters - paraphrasing here 'Who knows what all these colors are about? What warning does this color signify' ). Then you have people who are immediately deported and even shot in coldblooded fashion if they refuse to board the trains - recalls indeed the Holocaust and the Stalin-esque Purges. Having L'Cie be branded with a mark and having to carry out a 'Focus' otherwise they become eternal slaves to the Fal'Cie - nice political commentary there also. Also very in tune is the 'taint' associated to anyone who comes into contact with L'Cie - numerous times the words 'enemy of the state', 'enemy combatant' and so on are reiterated time and time again in connection with the L'Cie. The question is even brought up - why hate these people so ardently? What is behind their cause? Why are they acting in opposition to Cocoon? And then later on you find a satisfying reason for that - that has to do with how an oligarchy controls and manages to run all stratas of society.
Then you have the angry, malleable Cocoon mob who get riled up at the mere mention of L'Cie - they even take out their pitch forks and try to kill the main characters at one point. It shows nicely how people can be totally manipulated and brainwashed into having such an existential fear over a supposed 'threat' that they can be easily corralled and made to go along with the specific norms and increased security measures that the authoritarian state pushes down their throat (other voice quips in the game - at the fair with Sazh and Vanille - 'We have increased the security level in light of the L'Cie threat). I won't even go into the bit where a so-called Hegelian Dialectic is revealed.
So yeah, an awful lot of food for thought here that is so far beyond the average anime trappings this review would have made you believe that I have to wonder whether the game reviewer even bothered to follow the story, was half asleep, or whether he simply felt like giving the game a severe beating over the linearity and its refusal to be an RPG.
I have a feeling this game is going to be immensely loathed by fanboys, but to be honest, screw these guys. It doesn't matter what you produce or create - they will hate the hell out of it because that's what Americans like to do in general - the 'backlash' thing where the previous game before it was always the better one. Creates nice social stratification where one segment of the fanbase can brag about how they are part of a special guild that played the infinitely superior previous game, and that unlike them, all the other people are simply too young or too immature to handle these previous game's stories. Happened with FF7, happened with FF8, happened with FF9, happened with FF12 in specific, and this is not just limited to the Final Fantasy brand - it happens with every series franchise. Trying to pander to a mostly autistic fanbase that identify on a personal level with these games is the surest way to kill it - I for one think it was a brave move by Square to go out on a limb like this, and I was pleasantly surprised that the story was not this cookie-cutter anime 'tripe' I had been initially led to believe it would.
It also doesn't speak well for most game reviewers that they can't recognize plot themes, political commentary and social commentary when it stares them in the face. Why even bother writing long lengthy screeds on how game stories pale in comparison to films when the story passes you by totally and you wouldn't even know what to talk about anyway?
This is all the review has to say about the story:
'It's a significant prop to a story that has moments of poignancy and a few good characters, but ultimately falls flat. This is such a well-realised world that to have it inhabited by Final Fantasy cliches is especially disappointing'.
Then there's a long, meandering paragraph where all the characters are stereotyped as cardboard cut-outs (which I'd wager they are not) - but nothing about the story at all.
I think people have a point in general when they say Edge is really starting to skip a beat. The numerous 10/10s handed out to games of varying quality levels (well, not varying, but certainly not 10/10), reviews that don't even describe anything about the game in particular - the review style is far too prosaic and far too nondescript.
I have seen this happen too with BioShock - another game where Edge's review really gave you no sense of what it was you were actually playing - for all the review made it known you were looking at a typical 'kill everything that moves'-type game rather than a well-considered utopian Libertarian Transhumanist polemic.
I think instead of a revision in the scoring system, a revision in the writing style has been long overdue. This no longer cuts it.
"It also doesn't speak well for most game reviewers that they can't recognize plot themes, political commentary and social commentary when it stares them in the face. Why even bother writing long lengthy screeds on how game stories pale in comparison to films when the story passes you by totally and you wouldn't even know what to talk about anyway?"
This.
I found the story of FFXIII more than enough to carry your interest through the long "battle training" sections of the game. You have to pay attention, mind.
Good points, good read and I certainly agree with most of your views. One thing about "Edge Reviews" I'd like to know if you also find it peculiar, is that they credit their reviews to be written by "Edge Staff". Don't you think that's some kind of nonsense? I mean, what do they exactly do? does the whole staff play the game together and then make a summary of all their critique and make one review? or do they assign each member of the staff one piece of the game to focus on and then they put it together and make one review out of that?
Maybe one or two guys play the game, make a review and then a supervisor must take a look at it to approve it, and for instance he might say " hmm, you know, we didn't get any money from anybody for this game so score it what you will" , or "hey, don't you think a 9 is too much for that game, I think we'd want to go the controversial way with this one, scratch this and that sentence and add this and that stuff and score it a 6" ....yeah, I went my cynical way a little bit on that last part, but hey, what nonsense is this? a review written by a whole staff? It's actually insulting to your readers.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Unless you personally know the writer, why would you care about who wrote the review?
The reason that reviews are 'credited' to Edge Staff is because that is an account on here. In the magazine, there are no credits. So why would there be on the website? However, someone needs to upload it, and that's where Edge Staff comes in.
I do care who writes the stuff I read in a regular basis. I look for certain reviews for my movies and books, and I as well take notice of who writes my videogame reviews. Why do I have to personally know the writer to care? Could you explain that one? I can tell you why I care, because if I read something I consider well-written I look forward to read more articles from that author, and If I don't like the way an author writes I can avoid his/her articles as well, or at least take them "with a grain of salt". It gives me some consistency. Sure reviews are just opinions, but if itdoesn't matter who writes them then why should I read and give a damn about an anonimous opinion? Doens't Edge want the world to know about its good writers? What if one of the writers leaves Edge for some other videogame magazine, how would I I know who I was reading? Hey, you should call yourself "Edge staff" , since I don't care about your name either! lol
EDGE is well known for its distinctive, anonymous, third person writing style- it's what allows it to maintain it's good industry contacts, it prevents the cult of personality infecting its reviews. At the end of the day the philosophy is that it's all about the games and not about who reviews those games nor the platform those games are delivered on.
There are of course other publications out there that might be better suited to your tastes if it bothers you that much.
Well, Edge is the exception not the norm, dude. Look around, you're telling me know this is professional? bah, whatever....their reviews are shit anyway.
EDGE might well be the exception and that's why I subscribe to it and ignore other publications. I like their style, I like the industry links, I like its anonymous writing style and its reviews are honest and frank.
I'll put it this way, a friend of mine is the Deputy Editor of Terrorizer, and has worked on Kerrang as well. I care about the stuff he writes, because I know him. I've often flicked through looking for his stuff, and not read the rest of the mag.
Now, as lovely as I'm sure they are, I'm not going to do the same for Craig David.
If you are bothered though, you can find a list of the contributors in the front of the mag.
Well, when somebody writes something the professional established thing to do is give him/her credit for it. You can see it on newspapers, websites, blogs, and almost all decent magazines you can find. Edge does not, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously but it's lacking professionalism.
I wonder what the writers at Edge tell their acquaintances "- So what's your job about? - Oh, I write for Edge. - What do you write about? - Well, I write videogames reviews mainly", - "Oh great I'll be sure to check out that magazine to read your work"...- "Oh, no wait....." And then finding a job and listing his/her writing experience at Edge "you see, those reviews are mine, really. See the snarky remarks? Can't you see the clear resemblance with this column I wrote for a newspaper and the writing style in my blog?" ....seriously.
See what I mean?
Actually if you're mates with someone you can tell their writing style a mile off even if it isn't credited. And I'm sure if a prospective employer was that worried that a candidate ripping off work they could just contact the editor and ask for verification. If this was such a big issue it would've caused problems already. No one's going to run the risk of plagarising someone else's work; you'd be surprised how small the circles run in journalism.
FIrst off, the industry isn't that vast. Future for example publish the official magazines for all three consoles, Edge, Gamesmaster, PC Gamer, PC Format and the soon to be defunct PC Zone. Contributors to Edge may well work somewhere else within Future. So it's really not that hard for a new mag to find out what they wrote.
Outside of Future, you have Imagine's Play, GamesTM, X360, 360 and Retro Gamer.
So we have two companies publishing 13 magazines. Even if we assume there is no contacts between the two, and whoever is hiring at Imagine doesn't think to ring up Tony Mott and ask him if the applicant did in fact write for Edge, they could locate the relevant issues, turn to the contents page and look for the name of the applicant.
If you want to expand outside of games, Future publish over 150 titles.
I have seen this happen too with BioShock - another game where Edge's review really gave you no sense of what it was you were actually playing - for all the review made it known you were looking at a typical 'kill everything that moves'-type game rather than a well-considered utopian Libertarian Transhumanist polemic.
Take it you didn't read the boxout "Who is John Galt?" then?
Yeah I knew someone was going to say that in response - should have factored that into the post (yeah, they talk about the Inner Sanctum of the Victim - which shows they have read an Ayn Rand book once - which I'd guess counts for something I suppose. And that being said, the boxout is quite small and inconsequential).
Even so, while I know Edge really isn't that concerned with the story as it is with gameplay, two pages consisting of three columns of text each (most of the space which is taken up by big, large screenshots) is hardly enough room to get into anything meaty at all concerning the plot. When a game is mostly about the story (as is Heavy Rain, FFXIII, BioShock, MGS4, et al), then story should be one of the review's main focus points. I can understand if they neglect to mention anything about the story for spoiler reasons, but even so, do it in a Time Extend then and put a caption next to it (Warning: spoilers). Or make a separate section where you actually approach videogames from a literary perspective.
I have been doing this stuff myself on my own blog (no, this is not a plug)-
https://popularsymbolism.wordpress.com/
and I would like others to take up the gauntlet as well. I'm sure that if Edge set their mind to it and dedicated a special section to such a thing, they could give me a run for my money with this stuff - there's so much to get into with these games' storylines, yet no reviewer takes their time for it or even knows what to talk about apparently. This self-loathing, inferiority complex with regards to game storylines really needs to go - it's entirely unfounded and it certainly isn't the case that videogame storylines are paling next to Hollywood or cinema at the moment - in fact, quite the opposite. Nearly all of the avant-garde directors have been long reined in, political commentary borders on the safe and authorized, and it's just basically one long onslaught of comic book movie adaptations with lead characters that make even the most bland videogame character look almost human.
"it's entirely unfounded and it certainly isn't the case that videogame storylines are paling next to Hollywood or cinema at the moment - in fact, quite the opposite. Nearly all of the avant-garde directors have been long reined in, political commentary borders on the safe and authorized, and it's just basically one long onslaught of comic book movie adaptations with lead characters that make even the most bland videogame character look almost human.
While I can understand your point with what you have posted in the most part, I unfortunately can't even come close to agreeing with this. Due to the diversity available with film, they still decimate video-games when it comes to plots and narratives, you'll usually be incredibly lucky if you can get a dozen or so videogames per year that have genuinely engaging narratives, movies on the other hand would have at least three times that amount on a bad year. (as long as you don't just boil the entire years cinematic output down to the summer blockbuster season).
[quote]
(as long as you don't just boil the entire years cinematic output down to the summer blockbuster season).
[/quote]
What else is there that even remotely registers on the box office scale? Don't come to me with indy movies - they don't even make up one percentage of DVD or box office sales. People don't watch Lars Von Triers' movies except for three or four people out of 1000 statistically - so, comparing that with the ICOs and Shadow Of The Colossus, I'd say the gaming industry is too dramatic when it complains about a lack of original and daring products.
I certainly don't consider Harry Potter sequel #9 to be any more adventurous and daring than, say, Final Fantasy #XIII - if anything, it's indicative of how far the movie industry has sunk that a videogame of this nature can even manage to come off as more 'realistic' and less 'fantastical' than something like Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings. Is this what the movie industry has come down to - franchise movies and annual sequels which somehow always receive 5/5 ratings from Mr. Ebert? I'd say there is a ton of payola involved in that industry.
Also read this social analysis by Jump Cut:
http://www.ejumpcut.org/currentissue/index.html
Go to Corporate Hollywood - lots of food for thought there. The industry is totally controlled (the Pentagon even has a heavy hand in giving '80s franchise movies like Transformers 2 and GI Joe a pro-military sheen/makeover), political commentary borders on the safe and the timid, the bigshot '70s auteur directors have basically given up (as have the '70s method actors like Robert De Niro, who mostly does sitcoms now), and instead of a Godfather Part II the most impressive thing Hollywood manages to come up with in a decade's time is something like The Dark Knight (which despite being a very good Batman film is no Memento, and it still is a comic book adaptation for all intents and purposes). You tell me that's not indicative of a decadent and creatively bankrupt industry?
Another article that touches upon this:
Why Hollywood is Dead
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2644359/why_hollywood_is_dead.h...
[quote]and instead of a Godfather Part II the most impressive thing Hollywood manages to come up with in a decade's time is something like The Dark Knight (which despite being a very good Batman film is no Memento, and it still is a comic book adaptation for all intents and purposes)[/quote]
I also forgot to add the other defining movie of the decade (or rather, what every authorized payola reviewer has decided is the defining movie of the decade) - James Cameron's Avatar (so shamelessly derivative of Princess Mononoke and Laputa - but amazingly more dumbed-down than both - that it makes you wonder what the hell Cameron was actually doing all these years that warranted such a long delay other than the CGI. I have heard Harlan Ellison talking about how much of a rip-off and scam-artist James Cameron is - and looking at Avatar, I'm surprised Miyazaki has not filed for intellectual copyright infringement yet. Perhaps he liked the more westernized take on it - there's no greater flattery than imitation, as they say).
Let's be really serious here - take away the 3D, and you're left with a dumbed-down version of Princess Mononoke with real-life actors. How come none of the reviewers were more conservative in their gushing praise just for that reason alone? Ebert has seen Princess Mononoke before - yet apparently his senility (which I'm ascribing to him at the moment for the sake of argument) prevents him from remembering the blatant plagiarism (there's nothing wrong with basing your film or story on something else - that is a fact of writing - but it's fallacious to put everything down to your creative talent when you've just pillaged a late-'90s Japanese anime and plundered every setpiece from that movie for all its worth). Or did he just decide to tow the corporate line and give it a full four out of four stars rating because that was the memo being handed out to the reviewers ('hey, Cameron spent a good fortune on CGI for the past five years - you all had better give it a good rating, or else...')?
See, once again - there's little that separates the film and game industries at this point. Payola, check. Plagiarism? Check. Unoriginal storylines? Check. Engaging storylines? Certainly, except when you actually know which storylines they steal wholesale from (which, BTW, were even more complex than the original despite being hand-drawn and thus derogatively put down as being 'for children'). Copycats and me-toos? In wanton abandon. Intellectual kudos? What does that matter when these 'intellectuals' have lowered their standards to the point where the best comic book movie and a CGI-ed Hollywood version of Princess Mononoke becomes the equivalent of a Godfather Part II for this generation? Feigned 'intellectualism' and 'academic credibility' is not genuine intellectualism - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. When somebody can't recognize that a game like MGS2 or MGS4 has more pertinent things to say about our world than, say, The Dark Knight, that is to these intellectuals' loss - but it has no bearing on the actual quality of the storylines and/or themes on display.
By no means does Hollywood or the film industry as a whole for that matter deserve the almost childlike adoration and slavish reverence it receives from so many game reviewers. It's a pretty sad state of affairs actually - no industry should be jealous of the absolute wreck it is in right now.
So your argument only works if you boil down the parameters so that they only meet what you need to back up your point? Look at the films you chose to back up your argument, would the point you are making still hold true if you replaced 'Dark Knight' for 'Inception' and 'Avatar' for 'Up'? If all we talking about is box office success, then can we dismiss any videogame from the argument that sold less copies than 'Just Dance' on the Wii? Can games like 'Limbo' and 'Braid' be erased from history simply because on average they are probably only played by 4 people in 1000? Can you dismiss the cultural relevance of 'Star Wars' (as well as the technological advancements that followed) just because of it's similarities to 'Kakushi-toride no san-akunin'?
The argument however, should probably be; why are games compared to films in the first place? (or at least always in critical analysis), looking at films they tend to follow certain templates of narrative structure, I'd guess the two most famous are probably:
The Heroes Journey (monomythic structure): Departure, World of the common day, Call to adventure, Refusal of the call, Supernatural aid, Crossing the first threshold, Belly of the whale, Ordinary World, Call To Adventure, Refusal of the Call, Meeting with the Mentor, Crossing the 1st Threshold, Belly of the whale, Road of Trials, Meeting with the Oracle, Woman as Temptress, Atonement with the father, Apotheosis, The Ultimate Boon, Refusal of the return, The Magic Flight, Rescue From Without, Crossing the Threshold, Return, Master of Two Worlds, Freedom To Live.
The Writers Journey: Ordinary World, Call To Adventure, Refusal of the Call, Meeting with the Mentor, Crossing the 1st Threshold, Tests, Allies, Enemies, Approach to the innermost cave, Supreme Ordeal, Reward, The Road Back, Resurrection, Return With Elixir.
Obviously these are somewhat simplified versions, but regardless both of these also draw paralels with the naratives found in the majority of videogames, which is probably why most people feel forced to try to draw comparisons (much like people also draw negative comparisons between Books to film and indeed comics to film, plays to film, etc).
However in the case of Conrad at least, this structure had nothing to do with film, it was instead a way of comparing religeous and mythical storytelling to find the common path through both, which may go someway to explaining why the passive nature of film manages to tap into (for want of a better phrase) a universal stream of storytelling tradition that videogames by their active nature are not a part of.
Most cinematic output compresses these into the three acts (again not something that was designed primarily for the purpose, but something that was borrowed from other mediums) which are.
ACT I: Situation, Back Story, Character Intro,1st Turning Point.
ACT II: Character Development, Move Plot Forward, Complication, Crises, 2nd Turning Point (raising the stakes).
ACT III: Conflict leading to climax, Loose Ends Cleaned Up, Conclusion / Denouement.
Videogames by there very nature are more capable of changing or deviating from these rules than film will ever be, they can take the narratives and bend them off, extending some areas and shortening or abandoning others alltogether as they see fit. They work according to a different ruleset and allow for user defined content and situations which film would never be able to replicate, film relies completely on creating characters and placing them in situations that you can sympathise, or empathise with. Games do this up to a point but they also expect you to react to the situations.
Which takes us back to the passive vs. active nature of the mediums. nothing is gained by comparing Videogames to films, as games are not defined by their narrative as films are, at their best games create spaces, areas that spark imagination, that allow us to shape and mould an experience within a given ruleset, narratives and plots (and multiples therof) are usually provided to spice up the 'gameworld' and give it a deeper meaning. Films however are just stories, they cannot break away from the confines of their own limitations.
The one obvious advantage that film has however, is that it rarely forces you to repeat the narrative over and over again in quick succession in order to progress (either through restarting from save points after death, or simply grinding to power up you character/party), films don't punish you for failing to complete a usually unrelated or arbitrary task and films rarely expect you to invest large amounts of your free time (over 3 hours) in order to reach a conclusion.
It's funny that you mention Inception and Up though, since that actually reinforces the point I'm intent on pursuing - the comic bookification/video gamification of movies. All we're looking at today or having to choose from are action/thriller-movies that fashion themselves after videogames (Inception, Avatar) or children's movies with anthromorphical animals (well, Up would probably be the exception to the rule in terms of it featuring humans, but the point still stands).
Several reviewers have commented that Inception reminded them of a videogame in terms of narrative structure. I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult - mostly used in a negative context by movie reviewers, even though all it is is a negative stigma that arose at a time when the medium was still stuck in the 16bit era.
The Pixar movies leave me non-plussed and unsure what all the hype is about. I think they're severely overrated and are basically glamorized children's movies (in that same category I would put Ice Age, [that movie with the dancing penguin - can't remember the name], Madagascar) - I would take something from Hayao Miyazaki or Satoshi Kon over it any day.
[quote]
films don't punish you for failing to complete a usually unrelated or arbitrary task and films rarely expect you to invest large amounts of your free time (over 3 hours) in order to reach a conclusion.
[/quote]
Well, obviously, this can be put down to the lack of interactivity and the fact that it is mostly a passive and non-active medium - the only interaction that goes on is through characters that people can relate to on an emotional level.
Thanks for the well-considered post though.. I'll labour over it some more.
"Several reviewers have commented that Inception reminded them of a videogame in terms of narrative structure.
Which proves that inept, callow, critical evaluation is not just limited to the world of videogames, 'Inception' follows monomythic structure to the letter (even making an overt nod to greek mythology 'The mistress of the labyrinth' whilst doing so) and with the exception of one dream construct which is an attack on a heavily fortified citadel in the snow, designed to directly draw comparisons with certain FPS games (which is probably where the lazy association comes from) stands as an example of the kind of storytelling that cinema has the ability to excel at (see also: Brazil, Donnie Darko, Southland Tales, Shutter Island, Being Human, Shock Corridor, Videodrome, etc).
The point on Pixar is unfortunately moot, as it's based solely on personal preference as opposed to the widley recognised (by their peers as well as the press) quality of their storytelling, there is a reason after all that Miyazaki personally asked Pixar’s John Lasseter to supervise the English-language version of 'Spirited Away' and Pete Docter to supervise 'Howl’s Moving Castle'.
Keeyop:
I will probably have to dig out the review that specifically made that connection - but I don't think it was the only one that made it.
[quote]
The point on Pixar is unfortunately moot, as it's based solely on personal preference as opposed to the widley recognised (by their peers as well as the press) quality of their storytelling
[/quote]
The point is not moot at all - by saying that, you are relinquishing your own opinion of merit by considering someone else's opinion to automatically have more merit on the back of them being an authorized 'reviewer'.
The press, as I explained earlier, does not define reality for me. The press get put on their pedestal by 'perception management' - in reality, their opinions are just the opinions of people - they are no more valid or invalid than the opinion of everybody else. So going by what the press says might be a good barometer to most people, it isn't by me. As I said before, I think payola plays a large part in the business. Of course, movies being a very emotive medium, it's easy to create a perception that this or that movie is beyond reproach and is a 'masterpiece' - in the same way fallacious pop artists can tell you there are hidden messages contained in oil paintings where there are really none whatsoever - but it doesn't keep people from searching for them in vain.
For instance - if I had been dissuaded by Edge to try out this game, I had never learned how it totally glossed over the storyline - which is actually quite daring. And, unlike the Star Wars prequels, which were more or less about the Vietnam war - notice that the term 'Phantom menace' itself is a dead giveaway that the film should be perceived as a social commentary on the imperial presidency and the relinquishing of civil rights during the Vietnam era - itself also being applicable to the current era) , this one is centred very much in the present.
[quote]
there is a reason after all that Miyazaki personally asked Pixar’s John Lasseter to supervise the English-language version of 'Spirited Away' and Pete Docter to supervise 'Howl’s Moving Castle'.
[/quote]
The English language versions are really done out of necessity because most Americans don't want to watch subtitled movies - so I figure this is really just a case of making the most out of a lousy situation. In any case, you can tell Miyazaki's disdain for anything having to do with CGI and 3D animation - he was asked when he would do a 3D movie, and he said he'd much rather die or something to that nature. You can already tell that is the direct opposite of Pixar's stance on the matter. So regardless of whether Lasseter and Miyazaki are personal acquaintances, they couldn't be more incompatible if they tried.
You misunderstand my point. Not that it is the opinion of the press that matters but the respect of ones peers (who separate an opinion from a qualified opinion) and what exactly does a preference for hand drawn animation over CG have to do with the ability to recognise the quality of a narrative in any given movie?
[quote]
Not that it is the opinion of the press that matters but the respect of ones peers (who separate an opinion from a qualified opinion)
[/quote]
LOL. You don't honestly believe this, do you? So now you stratify 'opinions' into two camps - 'qualified opinions' and 'opinions'? What, can we extrapolate from that basic spectrum (with 'opinions' on one hand and super duper 'qualified opinions' on the other hand) even more quantifiers? Like 'grade-A qualified opinions' and 'grade-B qualified opinions'?
Why even have user reviews at all if they are not 'qualified' to comment on the thing it is they are buying? The reason this is a massmarket industry is because it is - therefore, one has to place some faith in the user's opinion by its very nature. This stratification in terms of opinion sounds horribly elitist on the face of it - but perhaps you can clarify your position on it so I can come around to understanding what you mean by that.
Do 'opinions' need a degree and a certificate from the authorities next in order to gauge their 'qualified' nature?
[quote]
and what exactly does a preference for hand drawn animation over CG have to do with the ability to recognise the quality of a narrative in any given movie?
[/quote]
Here is where perhaps you don't understand my point. I'm saying that no matter how buddy-buddy MIyazaki and Lasseter are, it's a wonder really Miyazaki sticks around with the guy since Lasseter is one of the most gung-ho 3D/CGI pushers there is - both technologies which MIyazaki despises. Remember, Miyazaki is a Shinto adherent - and therefore very ambivalent on technology vs. the natural order of things. Most of his thoughts were heavily influenced by Marxist treatises on technology - not that there's anything wrong with that, but it kind of clashes with Silicon Valley technology worshippers such as Lasseter, Catmull et al. The two could not be more ideologically antagonistic.
I think you get where I'm going with this. I think Lasseter's adherence to Miyazaki movies is based on recognizing a certain quality he knows he will not, can not and has no chance to ever emulate - partly due to a difference in creed and due to differences in culture and industry - but also, to be honest, due to one being more talented and inventive than the other. It's as simple as that.
You need not understand a subject to have an opinion upon it, however if you have such an understanding your opinion is therefore informed by that perspective, basically anybody can qualify an opinion, statement or argument, the more you know about the subject, the easier it becomes to do so.
Journalism, and professional reviews/critiques are at their worst, full of bad opinions, the majority of which are taken with a pinch of salt, comments sections on websites are much the same (it's rare that anybody will ever change their own viewpoint), which is why the opinion of ones peers who a) tend to understand the process behind what you are attempting and b) aren't afraid to offer constructive criticism, is usually (although not always) more valuable to you.
"The illustrators at Pixar are all people I hold dear, We are not in competition. Our relationship is one that is based on friendship." (Miyazaki, Venice 2008)
"I was watching the sad old man's story pretty contently, but could not figure out how they were going to turn this into entertainment - this intrigued me at the beginning. It (the story) went in the direction that I expected the least, didn't it? Since I have some understanding of the difficulty of creating entertainment, I really understand their challenges. I thought that it must have taken a lot of effort to make the story wrap up like that and bring it to that resolution. The combination of the flash back with old dreams and new dreams was interesting. At the same time I thought, wow you actually have to do it that powerfully.. which I thought, well that'd be pretty difficult for me now. There's so much work put into even the slightest of cuts!"
(Miyazaki on watching 'Up', Japanese television, 2009)
I guess he's either just a two-faced, old man or he simply can't seem to find the words to state the disdain that he must be feeling.
All this is beside the point however as the discussion was on the use of narrative in two different mediums, a point which for some reason remains ignored as the conversation verges on the eristic. Your original argument that video games offer a better narrative than cinema has been sidetracked by you instead arguing the merits of a man who works in the latter medium and is vocally critical of the former.
[quote]
Your original argument that video games offer a better narrative than cinema has been sidetracked by you instead arguing the merits of a man who works in the latter medium and is vocally critical of the former.
[/quote]
It would figure that he would be vocally critical of videogames, being a Marxist of the Jacques Ellulian bend - videogames being very much a byproduct of cybernetics.
[quote]
I guess he's either just a two-faced, old man or he simply can't seem to find the words to state the disdain that he must be feeling.
[/quote]
If you read my post carefully, you would notice that never did I state that Miyazaki personally hated Pixar's movies - he just feels ambivalent towards 3D and CGI - which is true. I saw the press conference myself where they asked him when he was going to turn one of his movies in 3D - he considered it a travesty. You would never hear that coming out of the mouth of John Lasseter.
Anyway, as you yourself pointed out, all this is becoming very off-topic. I still stand by my original assessment - Hollywood as it is right now is a dying industry, and its best days have been long behind it. What remains is a caricature of a caricature - comic book movies are the main highlights along with the umpteenth Harry Potter iteration.
"never did I state that Miyazaki personally hated Pixar's movies - he just feels ambivalent towards 3D and CGI."
Actually, the previous terminology you used was 'disdain' (a feeling contempt or scorn) and 'despises' (again, a feeling of contempt or scorn) both of which have very different meanings to 'ambivalent' (a lack of feelings one way or the other). You then further qualified with the statements "You can already tell that is the direct opposite of Pixar's stance on the matter." and "they couldn't be more incompatible if they tried." and "The two could not be more ideologically antagonistic" which is certainly an inference that he wouldn't see the merit of their work.
"I still stand by my original assessment - Hollywood as it is right now is a dying industry."
The only problem is that wasn't what we were originally discussing, what you originally posted was:
"This self-loathing, inferiority complex with regards to game storylines really needs to go - it's entirely unfounded and it certainly isn't the case that videogame storylines are paling next to Hollywood or cinema at the moment - in fact, quite the opposite."
Which you went on to qualify with:
"By no means does Hollywood or the film industry as a whole for that matter deserve the almost childlike adoration and slavish reverence it receives from so many game reviewers. It's a pretty sad state of affairs actually - no industry should be jealous of the absolute wreck it is in right now."
After extolling the virtues of an internationally renown film-maker for the last four comments are you now wanting to change the argument, dropping any reference to cinema and films and instead confining it to just Hollywood? (and then further reducing it by only meaning the big budget, summer blockbuster output of the major Hollywood studios) leaving us trying to compare the best of what one medium can offer to the worst of another? To be honest I can't see where that would get us, we might as well be comparing the output of 'Treasure' to the films of Pauly Shore.
I take it that any debate that may have been had on narrative structure in video games vs those of films (the debate you started) has simply fallen by the wayside?
You split a mean hair , I give you that. Unfortunately, it's verging on the pedantic - you know it, I know it, and I don't feel it worth my while to continue playing this little game of yours. Take what you will of my comments - if you don't take anything from it, that's fine as well.
[quote]
dropping any reference to cinema and films and instead confining it to just Hollywood? (and then further reducing it by only meaning the big budget, summer blockbuster output of the major Hollywood studios) leaving us trying to compare the best of what one medium can offer to the worst of another?
[/quote]
Dude, hate to break it to you, but to the vast 95% of worldwide mainstream citizens out there, Hollywood IS the film and cinema industry. It's that simple. Everything else DOES NOT EXIST. Let me repeat that for you: EVERYTHING ELSE DOES NOT EXIST. Everyone else's output is so marginalized and so obscure that it hardly registers on any sales chart - you might as well start considering doujin games and Flash games as genuine videogames and hold them up as examples that innovation is still rife in videogames.
Like I said before (to name but one indie director here), Lars Von Triers' Dogma movies is not something the general public is familiar with, nor enamored with. The same goes for any indie filmmaker you care to mention. You obviously know this, yet you act as if somehow we need to throw common sense out of the window and consider all these indie projects that somehow don't even manage to break even in the sales charts.
What are you going to do next just for your argument to appear somewhat correct? Take obscure Japanese doujin shoot 'em up games and hold that up as evidence that videogames still don't care about storylines? Are we going to compare a Facebook game to a Gears of War next?
See, I'm tired of this little game you're playing - clutching at straws, quote mining and somehow wishing to play dumb when it comes to the very simple (simple not meaning it is incorrect - the truth is decidedly simply) truth - that Hollywood (which IS the film industry) is really dying, and that people shouldn't really hold it in such lofty regard when most of their celebrated directors (such as James Cameron) pillage and steal others' storylines and don't even give the original authors credit for it. That would be one thing, but to heap so much praise on them and to further massage their ego is to give these disembodied egos far too much adoration than they actually deserve.
You really want to continue on quibbling about the 'film industry' and act as if it's somehow distinct from Hollywood and summer blockbuster movies? One of the movies you mentioned, Up, is a summer blockbuster movie - Pixar churns out these CGI children's movies on an annual basis - every year there is a new one. Sorry if I'm not enamored with predictive programming 101 for children, sorry and can't see the amazing narrative complexities of it (which aren't there). I'm sure Wall-E makes for a good Fern Gully/Princess Mononoke/Gaia theory movie, it's just that I don't feel my life begins or ends with revering their movies as being anything more than they are. I won't join in the gushing adoration of these movies as to me they are nothing special.
So any discussion on narrative is definitely gone and instead we are left standing on either side of a conversational chasm the size of the grand canyon continually pissing into the breeze.
Really, you'd put Pixar films in the same category as Ice Age, Happy Feet and Madagascar?
I've not seen Up, but Toy Story and WallE are less childrens films and more all ages films. They're superbly scripted and utterly charming.
Toy Story is good, yes.
I think that's an important point - the distinction between "children's films" and "family films", for want of better terminology.
There is no distinction to make - they are 'children's movies'. Go google 'PIxar children's movies' - nobody makes the distinction there. They happily refer to Pixar movies as 'children's movies'.
Sometimes adding useless distinctions serves only to muddy the waters. We should be clear about what a particular movie is or which genre/mould belongs to.
I'm clearly not going to do your post any justice here, it being 20 to 3 and and me being slightly intoxicated, but with both Final Fantasy XIII and Bioshock, I simply don't care. I'm maybe 8 hours into FF, and god knows how long into Bioshock - I've had the camera for a bit if that helps. But at this point in the games, I genuinely don't care for either.
Final Fantasy might well have cut out the first few hours. Before you get hold of Magic, it's almost completely pointless. Once you do, it's not particularly satisfying. Perhaps I need to play for longer, but I think that it's a fair enough point that if a game is still boring me after 8 hours, I shouldn't be expected to have to play much more before it starts enticing me.
With Bioshock, what should be the main draw of the game, epic battles with the Big Daddies end up being reduced to nothing more than run in, hit with wrench, die, respawn in Vita Chamber, run in, hit with wrench, ect. It's really not worth doing properly - it's not fun, and the penalty for dying is non-existent.
Back to Final Fantasy though. I have never played 12. Yes Cinty, I know, I really should given my undying love for XI. The last one I played (not counting XI, it really is a different beast) was VIII. So for me, there's no backlash. Character wise, so far I'd go along with cardboard cut outs. I tend to invest quite easily in characters, be it in games, films, or especially TV shows. But not here. They're just... meh. Do they become somehow more interesting later on? Who knows. Certainly not me. I probably will never find out.
On the subject of 10's, of the recent bunch, only GTA I find issue with. I never got off the first island because like here, I got bored. Rockstar wanted me desperately to care, but there's nothing there for me. No Roman, I don't want to take you bowling. I'm cooking grenades and throwing myself off roofs thank you very much. Bring back Claude I say.
You have not played FF 12??? Then what the hell are you doing in these pages writing about stuff? Just go get yourself a copy right now (if you don't have it already) and start playing the damn thing. I was 27 when i finished the damn game and now 3 years later i confess that it is the best Final Fantasy game out there for me. VIII was the second best for me (yes yes i found it slightly better than VII too).
I have a copy. I bought it and Crackdown the same day. Final Fantasy never reached the disc tray.
Guess you have something to look forward come October then (because i do not expect somebody to play such a game in the summer).
Well, I think...bleh, can't be bothered writing now. I think 5/10 is a bit harsh. But then, only a bit...really depends what you expected out of game. In summary:
http://edge-online.com/blogs/ff-xiii-in-conclusion-storytelling
My two (thousand) cents on the whole FF XIII fiasco.
I have to admit I'm enjoying FF13 so far.
I think the first part of the game is linear on purpose, it helps teach you how to use the combat system and inventory properly and gives you the opportunity to experiment.
Usually with Jrpgs I feel like I'm thrown in at the deep end and left to figure things out by myself - so this is a welcome change.
Also , I like the characters ( Snow + Vanille esp) and the story. FF12 was technically amazing - running on the PS2 n'all , but the Star Wars-esque story had no surprises, + apart from Basch, Balthier and Fran I found myself pretty indifferent to the rest of the cast.
I'd say on the whole , FF13 is streamlined, accessible and fun. I'd give it a 9.
Well, I've agreed with Edge on their FF reviews so far. God damn FFXII is good. As in the best JRPG I've ever played good. FFX was really so so in comparison imo even though at the time I enjoyed it, yet never found the will to finish everything the game had to offer (sidequests etc) however with the stellar FFs (VI, XII) I've always found it a pleasure to do everything possible. I'll def still pick this up, after I've played the good 360 rpgs I've been missing out on having only owned a PS3 for so many years - Lost Odyssey, Last Remnant and ToV.
That's going to be a while. Probably $20 bargain bin material by then.
To me, this one feels a bit like how 8 felt after 7. 12 was very good, indeed.
I'm currently playing FF XIII and I'm about 20 hours into the game. This phase of the game is completely linear, true, but the storyline compensates for that. You complain in the review about the cut-scenes, but IMO this is the juice of this first part of the game. I'm really enjoying those and I'm always looking forward for the next one. I think this game is to be played with ease, enjoying the cut-scenes and following the story with full attention. You say the story is dull but I totally disagree. The story is quite interesting. The only thing I'm missing is a villain. I don't know if it will eventually appear one, but it should have already appeared.
Giving a 5 to a game like FF XIII seems too be too low. You should always review the games for what they are and not for what you like them to be. If the guy that reviewed this game enjoyed cut-scenes in a video game he would love the first part of the game. I don't know why, but I keep having this feeling that Edge reviewers are teens ...
Although I do not miss a villain and especially the story's dialogue can be a bit weird, I do think the review and its score are too low. The battle system alone should warrant the game at least a 7. Add a good presentation and a well developed scifi world and this game is more like an 8. Basically, the only thing you can fault it at is the linear aspect... which is really not that bad.
However, giving Bayonetta - which really isn't *that* good, a 10 in comparison is just a bit strange.
Bayo is better than good, it's brilliant
You really think so? It's good for what it is... but I don't feel it's an incredible improvement over Devil May Cry. Looks good, plays well... but not groundbreaking.
Why a game has to be groundbreaking to be good...?Agreed with tetsuo here,Bayo isn't that different from other hack n slash but it is so addictive..personally i think it is the best game of the genre,a genre that i'm a big fan and which is not saturated like fps this gen ..
it's not so much the way it looks but the way it plays.
I've always been a big fan of the genre (and a massive Ninja Gaiden lover) but never before have i felt so "in control" as i do when when playing Bayonetta. The move set and combo system enable me to express myself via controlled violence like never before and has had me totally addicted to the point where i bought myself the strategy guide (something out of 30 years of gaming i've never done before) just because i wanted to progress from proficient to masterful.
Gaining my first pure platinum medal has joined the ranks of my most memorable gaming moments ever
God of War 3 has already been reviewed by many websites and magazines, and there is no doubt that God of War 3 is mathematically the worst-rated game ever to appear in the God of War franchise.
The simple fact that everyone agrees on is that God of War 3 lacks replay value. The game is apparently very linear in a way that makes it so you can play through 100% of the game in just one weekend rental.
Most of the professionals also seem to agree that God of War 3 is a game that has some nice graphic climaxes in certain areas that Sony was happy to use in screenshots, trailers, and in demos; however, the actual God of War 3 game is filled with plenty of graphic lows that don't look good at all. In fact, several reviews pointed out that you spend far more time looking at "good" graphics than "great" graphics.
I agree with the reviewer who pointed out God of War this is a "must rent" game, but not a "must buy" game. I agree with this because it just doesn't make sense to spend $60 on a mindless hack-n-slash game that lacks replay value. Maybe if the game had some co-op or multiplayer it would have added a sense of replay value because you would get to play with a new friend, but being limited to a single-player game really hurts it.
I think people need to remember that this is just one persons thoughts. They obviously think the game has flaws, another person may love the game. I mean, this is a professional reviewer and they are paid to be objective.....(sometimes). Usually reviews like this put me off games even before I've played them. Some games I've been really excited about, but then it gets a bad review and I don't bother with it. I think the term, "never judge a book by it's cover" applies quite nicly there. Anyway, I've bought FFXIII now and can't wait to play it, will it hold my attention like FFXII did? Time will tell...
Somehow , after reading this - I'm really not looking forward to Edge's review of GOWIII.....
me neither. i'm sure a storm's gonna ensue once they score it lower than Bayonetta, a game to which Edge was one of the slim few sources to give its highest mark.
personally i don't place much stock in scores or reivews. i've developed the talent of weeding through opinions and getting all the hard facts and coming to my own conclusion. i had no plans of even reading Edge's GoW3 review, primarily becuase i know it's not gonna offer me any new facts about the game that i haven't already gotten from other sources.