Hollywood Strikes Back

by M

NOTE: This is an editorial in rebuttal to Usagi Vindaloo's article, "RPGs vs Movies: Review of the Spirits Within, and RPGs as a Storytelling Medium". (No hard feelings, but you were just ASKING for it!) So anyway, please read that article before you read this one or it won't make much sense.

After reading your article, Usagi, I was struck with a few thoughts. Well, maybe not struck... (They sort of crept up on me). I wholeheartedly respect your opinion about movies as a storytelling medium vs RPGs, but I'm afraid I have to disagree.

Your argument is centered on the fact that the movie format seems too "rushed", and that RPGs can be more appropriate to get to know the characters better. I agreed with you at first - in fact, I was thinking myself quite the same things with many an RPG until now. But your argument sparked a rebuttal in my mind, and that is my new opinion: I believe that RPGs and movies are both equally good storytellers, with their plusses and minuses.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I admit that all of your arguments defending RPGs are completely valid, and they are all good things: RPGs have no time limits, allowing you to get to know the characters much better than in movies. You are also right in the fact that RPGs do not suffer from being "rushed" like many a movie - including, unfortunately, The Spirits Within. Any "gaps" can be filled up with gameplay itself, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, the good things here lead to the bad.

First of all, there's the issue of time once again. This pro can also be a con, and to turn it into a con, simply overcompensate for "rushed" movies - draw out the plot into a vast, 100-hour plot in which you get to know the characters QUITE well. There's an inevitable problem with this, however; eventually, if you have an RPG that is too long, you very well may get tired of the story. I can think of a perfect example (well, it's a good example for me at least) - Zelda 64. With Zelda, by the time I had woken up, got my sword, beat the three whole kid dungeons, talked to everybody, traveled forward in time, beat 7 more dungeons, talked to a BUNCH more people, gotten to Ganon's castle, beat all of Ganon's sprawling monstrosity (which takes forEVER), gotten up those winding stairs to Ganon, killed Ganon, and seen the ending, (PHEW!)..... I was exhausted. And tired. And sick of Ganon. Sick of everybody. I have not touched the cartridge since.

Then there's the problem of technology, which IS still an issue. I mean, sure, after a while you forget that when you play Final Fantasy VI, you're just looking at a bunch of 16-bit sprites. But that's not what I mean. Look at how Sephiroth massacres Nibelheim, how Rinoa watches her tears float in antigravity as she waits to die in space, or how Alexander defends the kingdom of Alexandria, destroying Bahamut. These are all perfectly cinematic moments, emotional climaxes, and they're a whole lot harder to do on the SNES. Fortunately for RPGs, this is becoming less and less of a problem as technology advances, although it still is - I spent half of Final Fantasy VIII waiting for the next piece of gorgeously rendered CG to unfold the story, not waiting for tears to start rolling down Rinoa's in-game 300-polygon model's face.

Finally, there's one more argument against RPGs. When I first watched the Matrix, I was obviously blown away (Who wasn't?). But through all of those fighting and action sequences, I may have wanted to try some of those karate moves myself, but I wouldn't want to control Neo himself. Hell no. Neo is the one. He saves the universe, not me. Oh wait! This is cool though! Now I get to control Trinity! NOT...... It's the whole problem of perspective. We all know Cloud's past, but wait a minute - we were all Cloud. We all controlled him. We all named him whatever we wanted and pitched him against level 30 Cactuars. I killed Sephiroth, and you probably did too - NOT. Cloud killed Sephiroth, and he is the only one. Hmm.........

I read that an RPG with nothing but dialogue (e.g., a romance) would stink like yesterday's sushi, according to Usagi's Mom. But that's what Final Fantasy VIII is. Yet again, The Matrix isn't much more than a bunch of action and a cool, video-game like plot.

Bottom line? Movies and RPGs are better separate, but equal. I mean, there is one thing I know. Evita looking out of the Casa Rosada onto the poor Argentine people; Trinity realizing the Oracle's prophecy, loving The Matrix's 'One'; Satine dying in the arms of Ewan McGregor, surrounded by rose petals at the end of the Moulin Rouge's final performance - These are moments which are immortalized in movies. They cannot and will not be presented in RPGs - except in CG, which is not and should not be what RPGs are all about. In movies, you enter the lives of other people and follow them through the story. In RPGs, you become the person, and take them on that journey yourself, picking up the good and the bad along the way.

I love e-mail. And rebuttals. Usagi, no hard feelings. E-mail me at CPSkuja@aol.com, anybody, or write a rebuttal and give Mistress Nightshadow another grey hair.

Original Editorial: RPGs vs Movies: Review of The Spirits Within, and RPGs as Storytelling Medium