Well never mind anything I posted last week cause I just remembered they kiss at the end lol. There's some sort of love or romance going on there. Also
@Ikkin I agree with what you said about this topic like I sort of mentioned in my post earlier but also remember that
The impression I get is that both of them see each other, more than anything, as a source of comfort who's uniquely capable of relating to them due to their linked destines. Noct might not have known the truth about his fate, but he saw how sad Regis got whenever he was reminded of it, and he must have recognized the effect Luna had on his father. And, of course, when he was unsure about his ability to carry out his destiny as a child, she was right there promising to help him see it through. What's most telling about the notebook is Noct's increasingly more desperate reactions each time it shows up -- he needs Luna, but he seems to know it might be too late. And that same desperation is reflected in Luna's death scene.
can be fuel for obsession or can be part of obsession.
It
can be fuel for obsession, true, but it definitely felt more like a natural response on Noct's part to his destiny than romantic obsession. *shrugs*
Well the supposed cut final battle mentions that it's a fourth phase, so it has to be afterwards.
Yeah, I was just playing with hypotheticals. I'll stick with the "leak" version from now on.
But he is purged by the ring at the end. Not sure how many times I have to say it lol. By the way, you still fight him as a human. I doubt they would take that out of the game to replace it with just a monster. There's also the fact that the game tells you numerous times "Yup, he's a human! Regular old human with demons/bad stuff inside of him!" If you want to ignore that, that's your prerogative. You're also forgetting that most of the demonic creatures you fight in the game are actually transformed humans.
It's not that I'm ignoring what the game was saying about Ardyn; I just feel like there's a different sort of morality in play when dealing with a human who's been transformed into a monster rather than a human in a human body. There's a sense of the target having already abandoned their humanity in the former that doesn't exist in the latter.
I guess the game could sort of work around that in Ardyn's case by implying that killing Ardyn's human body with the Royal Arms effectively killed his mind and the only thing left was a shell possessed by daemons, but it'd be tricky. And, even if it didn't undercut the more meaningful fights we already got, it'd still leave the final fight feeling hollow and thematically unnecessary. =/
Uh, ok? These can still be fun games regardless of these "plot twists." Obviously I don't know since I never played them, but they can still have fun mechanics even if "omg you were the bad guy all along!" Just look at what we were already talking about. In MGS2 your character is practically a terrorist. Doesn't make the game mechanics any less fun. Doesn't stop me from replaying the game even though it means I'm doing a bunch of awful things in the game's world. Same with Shadow of the Colossus. You're not exactly a good guy in that game either, but that doesn't mean the game mechanics are any less fun to play.
I think we need to distinguish between "playing as the bad guy" and evoking complicity through game mechanics. Raiden being "practically a terrorist" has practically nothing to do with the ways in which Kojima intentionally evokes negative emotions in the people who play MGS2 -- MGS2 doesn't really attempt to evoke complicity in the first place. Rather, Kojima created a campaign of misinformation masquerading as standard pre-release materials to trick players into thinking that they were playing as Snake, deconstructed the player himself* by unexpectedly throwing him* in the shoes of a very unappealing avatar who was
also "playing as Snake," intentionally made the player uncomfortable by emasculating his* avatar, and continuously left both player and avatar adrift in a sea of misinformation that they had no hope of navigating. And most of that, I'd say, exists on a narrative rather than a mechanical level; from what I've read, Raiden is no less mechanically competent than Snake (except when he's literally stripped naked), even if players tend to feel like they're a lot less cool when playing as him. So, sure, in that case, the game mechanics themselves probably
are fun most of the time.
SotC is a bit different because it interferes with the type of enjoyment provided by puzzles, in which the frustration one feels when trying to solve the puzzle transforms into elation once one has successfully completed the puzzle. Negative emotions are necessary and even desirable to a certain extent when puzzle-solving, but they're usually designed to make overcoming the challenge feel even sweeter. And for myself and a lot of the critics who've forwarded SotC as an example of games-as-art, SotC turns the figurative fruits of victory into ashes in our mouths through its portrayal of the felling of the Colossi.
As for the board games... The impression I get with Train is that it wouldn't work as intended if the mechanics were inherently enjoyable. It's designed to be played by people at conventions who specifically chose to experience games with an explicit mechanical meaning, so it wouldn't need that in order to convince its players to stick with it, and the point seems to be that people are willing to follow orders regardless of their source. And if I understand the game correctly, the mechanics basically amount to trying to stuff little people-figures into a model train, which would probably get pretty frustrating over the course of the game (while also evoking a tactile sort of complicity once the twist was revealed).
The Landlord's Game is, of course, essentially Monopoly, which is kind of infamous for "breaking friendships" due to the aggravation felt by everyone other than the winner. XD; And, given that the goal was to make everyone who didn't win feel like the system was stacked against them, that lack of fun seems to have been a feature rather than a bug.
* Pronoun gender fully intentional.
I never said that this was the case? Video games and board games are toys and it doesn't matter whether they're 1 year old, 2 years old, 10 years old, 100 years old, or a million years old. It doesn't matter at all how much a game or toy creator wants to push a certain theme or meaning. If the game (toy) isn;t fun, it's a bad game (toy).
My point was that board games have rejected being categorized as toys for a century, and the same ought to apply to video games.
Besides, you don't have to sacrifice meaning for fun or vice versa. It's not one or the other. Look at stuff like Final Fantasy 7 or 9 (or heck, Mother 1!) that are very interesting thematically and are fun 100% of the time. It doesn't have to be a tradeoff, although a game with nice mechanics that isn't trying to "say something" will always be better than a game with bad mechanics that is. Which is why it's a lame excuse on behalf of a creator to say that they made something that isn't fun on purpose. If that's the case then they failed in my opinion, like I already said.
FFVII, FFIX, and Mother (as far as I'm aware) were games that dealt with their themes on an almost entirely narrative level instead of using game mechanics to portray thematic content. Saying that games should limit themselves to that is basically saying that games should abandon what makes them unique as a medium. =/
Fine art, literature, and film are all allowed to explore emotions that are unpleasant and uncomfortable. Games should not be barred from doing the same simply because they are defined by rules and have a name that sounds like a child's plaything.
On that topic, the stuff you linked to The Graveyard and Passage seem fun to me so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Out of curiosity, how do you define "fun?" I'd call both of those experiences
engaging, but fun doesn't really seem like the right word, especially for something as contemplative and morose as The Graveyard.
"Fun" to me is positive emotion -- amusement, enjoyment. Being fun is one way of being engaging, but not the only way, and as long as a game is engaging in some other way, I'd argue it can be worth playing regardless of whether it's fun.
As far as Shadow of the Colossus goes, idk obviously you felt very different
What's interesting about SotC, though, is that it subverts the feeling of satisfaction that you'd normally feel when taking down something so much bigger and more powerful than yourself. Hanging off of a Colossus as that amazing music played was exhilarating, but actually killing one left me feeling hollow. And it's really the negative emotions that made the game as memorable as it is -- I don't think it'd be namedropped anywhere near as much by so many other developers if it made you feel awesome every time you took down a Colossus.
but I didn't feel any negative emotions from the game at all lol. Just the thought of that seems kind of silly to me lol. The only time I felt anything close to negative from that game was the 2 or 3 enemies that weren't that big, like the dog-like ones.
Heh, those small Colossi were so frustrating that I didn't even feel bad taking them down. XD;
I guess part of it might have been my mindset when going in -- I'd sought out the game because of its reputation for being melancholic and artistic, so I expected to feel bad for the Colossi. I do think that the game did a great job of evoking a sense of tragedy through its choice of music cues and that horrible moment of disempowerment when Wander gets struck by those dark serpent-like things that came out of the dead Colossi.
Aight thanx I didn't know that.
No problem. ^_^
as for your experience with chapter 13, well I don't know what to say other than I thought it was fun
And that's ok, we don't have to feel the same way or think the same thing about it.
Fair enough. XD And I did find Chapter 13 engaging, for the record, just in a more negative sort of way.
Get the MP3 player it's like 300 gil in the car shop.
I have it, but you can't use it on Chocobos or during fights. =(