Objections to Previous Claims

by Thomas Lipschultz 

I'll make this short and to the point.

I *do* play Square games for the story. I know that Mr. Irwin Kwan truly believes that all people play RPGs for gameplay, but I dare say he's mistaken. And I'm sure many other people will agree with me.

Irwin asks why we wouldn't just read a book or watch a movie if we want to play a game just for the story. I say: because it's not a book or movie, it's a game -- and if we want the story, we've gotta settle for playing it. Personally, I would have been just as happy to see FF7 released as an anime rather than a video game. But, it's a game, so there's not much I can do about that.

However, in some ways, FF7's video game format is a blessing. It allows us to do more than just watch an anime or movie: it allows us to INTERACT with it. We can feel like we're a part of the action. And considering that it took me 44 hours to beat the game the first time, that'd be one heck of a long movie... it'd be bound to go unwatched by the majority. If FF7 were a movie, something WOULD be lost in the translation, 'cause 44-hour-long movies just WOULDN'T WORK. Therefore, the video game format works most effectively for FF7, because it allows for a lengthy and detailed mature story to develop without losing the player's interest over time.

Next, the question of FF7's challenge. Although I am aware that a large number of you want to be challenged by games, and really DO want gameplay over story, I personally could care less. Even if FF7 were the single easiest game ever known to man, I'd still love it. True, challenge would have added to it, but challenge is difficult to add to a game without also adding an unwanted side effect: FRUSTRATION. Except for some of the idiotic mini-"games," like the CPR meter and the "let's hit the 3 switches at the EXACT SAME TIME" scene, FF7 managed to be completely non-frustrating. Most RPGs that are actually challenging, like Earthbound, cannot claim this. Earthbound is a great game, but it can get VERY frustrating. Still, if the story were a little bit better (not to say it didn't have a half-decent story to begin with), it would've been one of the greatest games of its time. As it is, it's still one of the most innovative games of its time.

And now, on a slightly unrelated note -- why does everyone seem to hate full-motion video scenes in RPGs? Everyone says that the scene would be just as good if it were done in "field graphics" or something of the sort... but would it really? Would it really have the same effect on us? Would William Wallace's death scene in Braveheart have had the same impact if it were a Plimptoon? That's about an equal comparison there. The ending, the big death scene, etc. would not have had NEARLY the same emotional impact if the details in the FMV were taken away. The ending's space limitations may annoy us, but Vincent and Yuffie really weren't needed for the overall purpose of the ending, but full-motion video WAS.

To sum up my argument: although a lot of us want gameplay over all else, some of us really DO care more about the story than anything else. Without a good story, even a game with the most well-thought-out game engine would royally SUCK. Whether the game is based in medieval times, in a sci-fi world, or on an alien planet, it'll still be a great game if the story is well-written and the game can hold your interest straight through to the end.