I'm going to miss the rough life when I'm rolling in the green. I might become a pussy. Fuck.

@Muz and Kain

You guys are disagreeing over terms. Antagonists you hate are beings that you can't sympathize with, otherwise you will stop hating them.

Muz, you are talking about making an antagonist that is a real person, who isn't flat. I agree that doing that is very important. If you can't see the antagonist as a human being then you can't get any feelings going towards him(/her) at all. But this is a different idea than seeing the world from his perspective.

A good villain has to make sense to the writer. That's the important bit. You, the writer, must relate. If you only do so a little it will knock the edge off of your creation.

No writer ever sympathizes completely with their antagonist, I'm sure. Complete sympathy is just like a holy grail to dream about. ... but one day someone will do it.

The audience however must only see a piece of what the antagonist is going through if you want to generate hate/anger/etc. If they see the whole thing then the antagonist may still remain the antagonist but become something to empathize with.

There is a careful balance to achieve.

Sometimes you want the audience to be conflicted, in which case you want the audience to sympathize with some of the things the antagonist does but not understand the others.

You need to show just enough of a person to get someone to relate but not enough to stop them from feeling hate. (yeah!) All the people we hate in real life are ones we can relate to in some big way but don't understand in some other big way.

Speaking from personal experience.... Married couples (parents) often hate each other more than anyone if things go sour. They hate the person they understand very well but also don't understand. If you fix the understanding the hate disappears.

Note. You do not need to hate the antagonist for the antagonist to be compelling. He just has to be a breathing force that prevents you from reaching your goals.

Starcraft groups you into "divisions" of 100 people to compete against. Every so often you can get promoted/demoted in other leagues (and thus a new division) if you are at the very top or bottom. I find that better than global rankings, but still a little faceless.

I like your stuff with spot-pass. I don't have a DS.

I think the things games need to work on are:
  1. Developing relationships with players you don't already have a relationship with, through play.
     . Journey is just this
  2. Making it easier to "compare" experiences with people you already have a relationship with.

I think the bigger one is the first one. Friends lists and such are okay. I want a game to pair me up with people who are like me, or complement my play-style, even if its just in the way our scores are presented.

The Starcraft divisions don't group us in a meaningful way. I get in, I get out. I don't get to know anyone. The game doesn't relate any of our qualities beyond our score.

Journey is beautiful because it forced you to relate in game-related ways only. It built the entire experience around the two of you having to relate to one another in a variety of ways. It didn't find other players similar to you. It just took random players and showed them how they were similar already. Any two Journey players are similar by definition. The game is built to show that.

The internet is so massive and faceless. People want to hang with people they know, compare themselves to people they know, or get to know people so that they can hang-with and compare-against them.

Spot-pass sounds sweet though. It forces you out into reality. You can group people using GPS, time of day, gamer trophies/achievements... what else does a console know? If it had access to your facebook... holy fucking shit! Or your amazon... or your anything.

I'm getting kind-of crazy-faced here.


----

Developing number 2 would require the game to find more interesting ways to summarize "how we play," then use that to compare us to our friends, then deliver that information to us at the right times.

Math is magic to me. I like how reliable all the pieces are. You can take a thing and use rules to know where it is going. So you can build very big constructs, starting from something very small, without knowing how the pieces fit together. But they always do, if you know what you're doing. It's like having a teammate, who is never, ever, ever wrong. Only you are wrong.

The math isn't magic by itself, but how it leads you around life, shows you things that are true that you otherwise would not have noticed, is... until the 3 times it is actually wrong... fucking math. I hate programming.

Your relationship develops.

---

edit: I like any time period in which I am alive in more. Boom.

Learning when to work, and when not to work, takes practice. It's a skill all on its own. It's a skill like anything else.

Ahh.

There's going to be a relationship between the two. If you believe in cause-and-effect to be persistent everywhere then that relationship is going to be raw tight. Whatever we've used to tie math/art together so far only represents shortcuts, and appears for a variety of interesting reasons. Assuming a simple relationship is to deny the complexity of life.

We have basic patterns for understanding the world, but the most distinct part of having a brain is having the ability to rely on those patterns to create new constructs that are just as original as the founding patterns themselves... sort of.

Example: a human raised in the wild by wolves - this happens sometimes - is very different than one that wasn't. Humans are diverse. Our experiences make us who we are. One adds on top of the other and so on. What's amazing is that we can relate at all. Evolution had to make us similar enough to work in teams, and that development took a lot longer than our construction of modern society.

It's like, if I define the word "zzirp" to mean banana, the sentence, "please let me chew on your zzirp," has one meaning. If I redefine zzirp to mean penis, or opinion, or tax-return, the sentence's meaning changes drastically.

Entire conversations can spin around the definition of a single word, say that appeared at the beginning of the conversation. Relationships can change over one conversation. Movements are built on relationships, and so on.

Our ideas are built on other ideas. At the very bottom of the tower we have "innate" ways of relating to the world, which are common to everyone, discerned by DNA. But even at that level determining how a baby interprets sound becomes very complex quickly. Doing the same thing for an adult is a whole other world.

If you want a function to represent the interpretation of art you need core parts of that function to be defined using abstract terms. Since humans mix logic and intuition all the time, applying logic to art is not unreasonable to us. Creating a theory, that applies logic to art, without relying on the interpretation of a person is impossible... or just, very, very far away.

Did we use to link art and math more closely? The world used to be crazy....


*not an artist*

I don't know. Sometimes I think about that stuff. I think it's more important to know that one does exist. Though knowing would be super cool.

What are you talking about with the dissociation stuff? Goddamnit Gimmy. What the FUCK ARE YOUT ALKING ABOUT!

It's Gimmy-guess-time. We separate art into pieces... that relate to one another. Contextually sensitive interpretation of parts.

Give me a clue for a dollar.

University started in Greece when Socrates just went to a building at a set time each day and just started talking. He was funded out of kindness and listened to because he knew a lot. His job, and status position, was: guy who thinks a lot about stuff so we listen to him when we can.

Selling isn't terribly hard now. We all struggle for the break so I feel it's fair.

Ok, I'm going to funnel this into my other thread... you know, because it's long. But I tried not to waste words. Read when you have time.

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=27499.msg770078#msg770078

[Over-spill from another thread (related)]

Over-spill from another thread (related)
Since that's what this is for.

----

I overpowered this with commas. Sorry. I have an issue. I've since re-edited to make it actually read right. I removed like... 20 commas.

i agree that there are those differences between the two. but i don't think those differences say anything about a person's personality or even whether they prefer good vs evil stories vs political intrigue stories, because both series at least have a little of both. they're far more similar than they are different, and often the reason people like either one of those is not because of good vs evil or political intrigue but simply because both of them are set in space and high technology, exploration, alien worlds, and tons of other stuff. someone can like them for something that the two are similar in just as well as they can like them for something that the two differ on, and since the two are so similar it's far more likely that if someone likes either one, they'd also like the other one. the differences are marginal and those marginal elements don't usually say much about a person

also, even in the elements in which they differ, the other one has a bit of. star wars *does* have some political intrigue stuff (especially in the novels), and star trek *does* have some good and evil stuff and even some mystic/spiritual/religious stuff (in some episodes)

Would you prefer to believe that we're random, or our tastes mean something? I mean the former produces a very random-like design environment. It's not very positive. If we are the way we are for a reason, then that makes our opinions more valuable, and actually possible to dissect.

it doesn't matter what i prefer to believe. it matters what the truth is. and as far as i can see the truth is that taste is largely arbitrary. whether someone likes peaches better than apples or vice versa says very little about a person's philosophy, morality, and personality, just like what star you were born under, or year you were born in, (astrology) says nothing about your personality, and just like what blood type you have says nothing about your personality (which they tend to believe over in japan). people who think otherwise are generally called superstitious

are you really saying we should believe something because we want it to be true, or that it'd be more "positive" if it were true? is that how we should make decisions? listen to what you are saying

Yeah, I phrase things in a strange way. I like this direction. You always make me think.

I think Star Trek and Star Wars are very different. The characters are different. The problems are different. The feelings each one gives me are different. Right, maybe there's a difference between you and me for example, that's implied. I watch Wars and Trek for immensely different reasons. Never have I said, "let's watch Trek," and would've accepted Wars instead... say if I couldn't find the DVD or something. Not that that has ever happened.

One soccer game to another is very similar to me for example. But it can be immensely different to someone else. That's because I only get soccer a little, but it might also be because of what interests me about the game. For some people a difference can be arbitrary and for others it may not be. But I think the majority is in the latter half.

If the two things are the same - Wars/Trek - then that kind of invalidates the artistic process. Good story lines are personal. If, let's assume, Wars and Trek are both personal to the creators and the audience, then to say that they are different in irrelevant ways, you would be saying that the process of creation and consumption aren't unique to the people involved. That's like saying to Lucas, "this isn't really you. This is just a general human, which you call you..." probably at the time when he felt the most unique in his life. It invalidates what happens to the people. It invalidates who we are. It makes us less unique and meaningful.

Ok. So look just at Picard. He's my favourite captain, just because of when I grew up (arbitrary!). I'll compare him to Ben Kenobi, probably the closest analogy. Picard is no-nonsense. He also gets angry, regularly, plays by the book, is firm in everything he does, dislikes relating to children, commands with force. He is very rigid. But he is also kind and play his role as the one responsible for the emotional well-being of others, at least to the degree that it affects their work.

Kenobi is softer, more mysterious. He doesn't give direct answers. He's tired. He's spiritual. He's equally brave, but instead of using direct force he always comes in from the side. He takes the path of least resistance. He doesn't act as the wall between another character and the threats of the world, but as the observant teacher that picks his student back up when he falls down. He also talks in parables like a religious leader. He is more concerned with absolute morality than the practical completion of a task. Death is a dooryway and so on.

Those are obvious generalities. Movies are made of characters. Those characters do things. Saying a movie's characters are like-able for trivial reasons is to say that the friendships you choose in life are for trivial reasons. It's like saying the people in your life who are similar don't provide unique meaning to you. (I know you're not saying that.)

I don't know any two people who mean the same thing to me even remotely. Strangers who I don't acknowledge, maybe. But the more I get to know them the greater the divide. When Naruto - the anime - slips from following the manga I can tell almost immediately. I'm revolted. First I think its me then I realize it's the show. Same characters, same style, same plot... marginally different presentation: huge difference. I know Naruto fans who watch the show in dubs, and that drives me a little crazy because they think it's the same thing. When someone says voice-overs are just as good as the original it feels like they are invalidating all the reasons I liked it.

I feel a very special connection to Star Trek. I learn a lot of things that are unique to that show. I feel a part of me come alive that doesn't come alive in quite the same way with anything else. To tell me that those feelings are only superficially different than the ones I have when watching Star Wars is to tell me that those feelings are a delusion.

It's like how you're saying with eva. She, icycalm (I don't really know him...), implicitly negate whole genres. I think they're just fighting for their own interests more than they are putting down others and are aggressive about it, but whatever (it doesn't matter). The reason you can't put down a genre is because the argument, "I don't see the value in this, so it must mean that others who claim to are just experiencing the same thing as me and thus just don't like good things, and thus are just lying," is crazy. Right? That reasoning says we're all of equal perspective and that if I feel something then you feel the same thing and only one of us is correct.

People flock to Star Trek. That must be for a reason. As arbitrary as humans are there must be something about a person's experience that draws them to one thing or another. Saying that space is space and that ships are ships invalidates the attachment someone might have to the military structure of Star Trek, or older age of its crew, or the formality of its interchanges, or the politeness of their behaviour, or the degree of research and planning they go through before an operation.

The difference in characters' role in Star Trek are by skill. Kenobi does the "mind trick," Han does the gun slinger shooting and fancy driving. Luke does the inspiration and ship+force combo. Leia is the love interest with political power. In Star Trek it's about what insight you can provide into a problem. Everyone sits at a terminal and generates ideas. Everything is theoretical.

Saying we like those things, one over the other, for arbitrary reasons is to say that my interest in theoretical problem solving is arbitrary, or my love for happy endings is arbitrary - Star Trek is more  melancholy.

I love Stargate: Atlantis for example because the science is real science. Science is hard and it takes a lot of studying. There's real research, then break-throughs and over-night collaboration. The science guys relative to everyone else - assuming they are non science types - are generally miles ahead. They use analogies non-stop, they're partially socially awkward, they're fast. They often have to explain things 3 times, and so on.

In Atlantis all of this is respected. The "science" guy is a dick and always bumps heads with everyone. But he is actually brilliant. All the "science" happens off screen and the audience only sees the results as the science guy tries to show everyone else his conclusions in a way that they can understand.

In Stargate: SG1 this is not true. The science there is superficial. Impossible problems are solved with a single insight. That science is more like paint by numbers. It's like a child's book on any adult subject. Everything is in different bright colors. There are 3 steps to every solution. There is only one observation to solve any problem. The show is interesting for different reasons.

I like both shows. SG1 shows a simplified version of the "humanity" behind science. Both are very respectful of the subject. SG1 makes the audience feel like they are scientists too. Atlantis shows actual science.

But, the non technically minded friends I have tend to get caught up in the "riddles" of SG1 far more than the ones in Atlantis. Instead they are more - just a little - annoyed with McKay's (the "scientist") anti-personal, condescending behaviour. I like science, I like logic, I like hard problems, but I also like fairy tales. Those things are deep reflections of my life experience. I can see the lack of experience in solving hard technical problems flare up in the pro-SG1-science crowd when we compare the shows' strengths. They are generally self-conscious about their lack of technical ability, so the fast pace of Atlantis, and its gruff nature towards the non-understanding, alienates them.

Only bad shows are similar to each other. The better a show gets the more unique it becomes. This is true of people and everything. ... also, the more you invest in something the more the differences in its sub-components - say shows within a genre - become.

-----

Yes truth is important. I'm not saying we should prefer the nicer to-accept reality over the real one. Though I can understand how you can extrapolate that from what I said.

Ok. Peaches v apples, blood type, astrological sign: these aren't real differences. Taste in television, art, games, activities, people: these are.

What I am saying is that the argument that two things aren't similar isn't provable. TV is perspective. If I tell you that Star Trek and Star Wars are different for me you can never prove me wrong. I can never prove me right. In the proof world it is a stand-off because it is about opinion. All you can do is study and better form an opinion then rely on your instincts to make the best assessment possible.

If you believe that I am wrong then you are saying either:
  a. I am lying.
  b. I am confused.

Let's skip a because if I'm lying the whole conversation is moot.

B is big. If I am confused, it means:
  . The things within myself, that I form a relationship with with the things in the show, are the same for each show.

That means that those things within me, that surface during each show-viewing, are superficially different. Whatever memories and past experiences I am reflecting on, or relating to, are only different in arbitrary ways. That means that those experiences when I lived through them are only different in arbitrary ways. That means that at least one experience was unnecessary.

That is the same as saying that pieces of my life are meaningless. You can't prove that. I can't prove otherwise. So you can make an assumption:
  1. Do our whole lives have meaning?
  2. Or do only pieces of them do?

The second assumption is inherently pessimistic. You only choose to be optimistic or pessimistic. I'm not saying you are intentionally choosing one over the other. I am saying that the implications of your argument are that you've made the second assumption. Given all else being equal - i.e. there being no proof - why would you choose the negative one over the positive one?

We have to make assumptions sometimes. Why put people down if you don't have to?

I know you're actually being positive. We both are. I'm just running to the radical conclusion for clarity.

Think of it this way. If genre interests identify us, why would the argument stop at the sub-genre level? Why doesn't it carry down to the most minute detail?

Usually there might be just practical reasons behind this, but often times also pure laziness.

Or fear: ego protection.

Most people tend to separate the coder from the artist, like separating the left brain from the right brain, and one's usually viewed as more "logical" and "structured" while the other is more "creative", but it's interesting to think about how the coder can actually be highly creative in the code they're writing, and how the artist can in turn be really logical and structured in their drawings.

I'd like to think that once a programmer really understands the language they're writing in, programming can become more like "creative writing".

I got into programming for two reasons:
  1. Wanting to solve tough technical problems in unrestrained ways - i.e. they haven't been solved before, and I'm not restricted in my tool set
  2. They offer up so much creative power once you do get something going. - creativity for the technical mind

This is why I like procedural generation, or tools that increase my creative output.

Yeah, after code becomes logically tight, real programming becomes about finding the best abstraction. You can measure definitive qualities in code to compare abstraction qualities, but the path to finding the best abstraction requires a lot of intuitive thinking.

Artists who ignore logic have problems as well.

God I love games.

Someone should pay us for being awesome instead.

Discussion of an Edge article. http://www.edge-online.com/features/psychology-high-scores

Morning routine: read games, write games. My thoughts in and around the subject.

----


Leaderboards are important.

They help us measure ourselves, against ourselves and others. They
encourage us to do better. They encourage others to do better. They
congratulate us when we do well. They remind us of what we've
done. They bond us to other people, and allow us to make sense of our
struggles.

The most important function of a leaderboard, or a relative score, or
a ranking, is to allow us to compare ourselves to someone else we can
relate to... or allow us to relate to someone we already compare
ourselves to.

It's like if you and I are friends. I want to beat you, because you
fucking suck, and I know I'm better than you. When you succeed, that
means something more to me than it would've if I didn't know you. That
is obvious. It's not just because we can relate - though that's
incredibly important - but also because I can personalize the meaning
of your success (score etc) without thinking too hard. I don't know
what that means.

It's like if I get 1000 pts. That means nothing. The translation from
1000 to what I did does not come to me. If you get 1200, now that means
something. 1000 means something. I know you, so I at least know you
beat me by a little bit, or 20% if you auto-fraction.

I want to get better than you just because it will add meaning to the
interchanges we've already had, outside of the game, you know, in real
life... probably. My score surpassing yours is my counter argument to
the implied shortcomings I have relative to you, made clear at least
to me, in the various times we've been together. I may not have even
been aware of those things until our scores offered up a
comparison. Maybe competing with you is just a way to relive the past
in an abstract way, but improve on what happened, patching up my
previous flaws. Our past characterizes my current struggle. It gives
meaning to my actions. The score is just a beginning link to help me
to do that, a starting point for me to grow the relationship from.

But, I also want to get better at the game, just to get better at the
game. Screw life, I want to play. Playing - just that - means
something all on its own. Knowing you, or anybody, and their score,
highlights the flaws in my play. It helps me understand what I am
doing wrong. Instead of using the game to win at life, I'm using life
to win at the game.

The research in the article shows that we care a great deal about the
people around us. Often, the social groups we are in, or even the
people most present in our minds when "competing" - i.e. the people we
were physically closest to during competition - severely bias our own
self-measurement, and motivation to continue. We don't want to be
last, we really want to be first, and we want those things to be true
in the group that immediately surrounds us. Screw the world. It is
about right now.

It is easy to form comparisons with people who we know are like us in
some way. We care about being at the top of our interest or
personality group. We want to know how we compare against them,
because it allows us to make sense of who we are, through our scores
(... or whatever).

Caring about our status relative to our immediate surroundings is
called the "big-fish little-pond effect."

There's a lot of room for development in the way we find people
online, how we relate to them, how we are compared etc.

We take extra pride in the success of others who are friends or
similar to us in some way.

We'd rather compare ourselves to a single individual than a statistic,
which may represent the actual norm.

Perspective, relative comparison, smart grouping of measurement data,
better measurement data, developing relationships with other players:
all good things.

Something.

Good point. Maybe I should say it's a budget diff. Reality is expensive for us. CG is expensive for them.

We're also just restricted by fear, convention etc. There needs to be a tech/artist unity to translate the art vision to the game. So (instead) you get this beautiful concept then game-like game. Sometimes I feel like the concept guys in a studio are more like the inspiration for the aesthetic direction. But it's the tech and modelers (etc) who make the final call.

You need a programmer to do what an artist needs. :|. That's the problem we need to solve.

Prototyping, tighter internal (team) relationships, the discipline to scrap your implementation until it looks the way you want it to.

Sometimes it blows my mind how little attention we pay to cinematography in games. I don't even just mean cinematics, which could use work too, but the entire gameplay experience. It's always the static angle. Gears does the camera shake and fuzziness during the roadie run. I thought that was incredible when it came out. We should be getting artistic all up in everywhere.

Of course a lot of design issues pop-out immediately. You can't do that Gears camera work without including it in the design early on. "Artistic intent implementation" is something that needs to make its way in earlier than it currently does.

Big business has this problem more than indies. ... wooh for us.


---
@Laughing.

Still gestating.

@Dragon

You've got a point. But I love Lightning so much.... The instruction manual for FF6 is so beautiful. Concept art rarely looks like a game. But 6 wasn't a terrible translation.

We need to work harder to translate artistic conception into the digital realm. We kind of suck at that, and it's just sort of become accepted. But it isn't necessary. Films are restricted by reality. We aren't.


@LaughingLeader

I'll give you a good response when I get the time. I wouldn't be able to give it the proper attention right now. "Real" work beckons, then biological needs.

Yeah. Sprinting and other powers running off of the same fuel is an interesting idea, but the game would be better if the two were split, and independently restricted somehow.

They kind of went half-way. They invent this "tactical" power-set, then give you a regular shooter.

Fucking Ghost spiders.

[1. Low roofs]

Just 1.

1. Low roofs

Every game begins with a promise, that you'll be given something to do. What is that thing? I don't know. But you'll find out. And then you'll grow.

FF7 begins with Midgar. What a wonderful city. It was intoxicating, filled with so much character. You play through the Wall Market, dress up like a woman. You infiltrate the Shinra building, then escape on a motorcycle. Shinra is so cool.

That's when you start to sense that something is wrong. You enter the open world. You receive your first plot dump, and mission to, "go here." 9 times I've played through that part and I still don't know the reason why you go anywhere. You've detected the roof.

"Hello. Welcome to Final Fantasy. Please get in line. We've entranced you, now we've got you. Just do as we say." The enriching world was a lie. They built it up, then milked it out. Your investment is rationed. Now you are controlled.

I want to keep exploring. I want to keep investigating. I want to untangle the plot. What was a ball of character and feeling becomes a tendon, always stretching out.

It's the moment when you realize how much the game is willing to offer you, how much engagement you can get out of it. Minecraft begins with all these things you can do. You can make better tools, and a better home, and explore caves! You can get better minerals, and better items, and bring back lava, and water. You can travel further distances, and create machines out of redstone. Then you realize you've done all the interesting things. You've learned how to navigate, how to fight the Zombies, how to dig a deep mine. You're only 8 hours in, and it becomes about doing the mundane. You're hooked, so what difference does it make, right?

I hate that. I want the player to invest more and more, always growing into the experience, exploring more. When the story comes to a close, the player says, "Gee! I didn't even see that coming. But it felt natural. I want to play again."

The more games I play, the more quickly I can see the ceiling. Meta-game, designer's knowledge: it just makes me more attuned to the facade.

I want depth that doesn't stop until the game ends. If it can't give me that, then it shouldn't be so long.

FFXIII, because I hated it. ... I also loved it.

The character models were amazing. I was sexually attracted to Lightning, in a serious way. The whole time I'm thinking, "am I good enough for her?" "... one day, I know." "... she is so beautiful."

Then the English voices would come on. I didn't mind her voice in particular, but I hated: Snow, Hope, Vanille. Sazh was decent. Why no Japanese voices?

I watch anime pretty seriously. I love anime. I never watch with dubs. Big anime fans rarely do. That is my experience. Because the Japanese voices were done by professional anime voice actors. They interacted with the creative visionaries directly. They understood and related to the cultural elements. They were a part of the team.

They didn't give us Japanese voices because of "space" they said. Most of the levels were filled with unnecessary stuff. Very little vision in many places. Very disconnected in the beginning. Are those things more important than voices? Me experiencing the way the game was intended?

Tetsuya Nomura, the character designer, said the characters are the centerpiece of the story, the story is the core attraction to Final Fantasy, and the voice is the crest of the mountain of the character, the peak from which the rest of the shape forms down around. But they gave the West no voices.

I am the typical old-school FF fan. FF6 made me a serious gamer. FF7 started the dream to design. It was downhill to 8. I was okay with that. 7 was so good Square could shit in a bag, put it on my doorstep, every day, forever, and I'd still hope for tomorrow. That's how monumental 6 and 7 were.

My favourite part of 13: the menu. Character profile designs, smooth interface, nice music. The only part of the game without a flaw in my face.

Square no longer cares about the dream. Or maybe they never did, and 7 was only a fluke. I know in Japan 7 isn't as big of a deal as it is here. 13 was the "Japan focused" game, hence the linearity.

9 was a slap in the face. One look at the promo material and I knew Square was no longer there for me. "Oh well," I said. "I'll just wait for however long it takes. I'm patient." They didn't want to push boundaries. They were happy to stagnate.

I don't know how correct 13 was. I don't know what's up with Japan not loving 7. I get it, and I respect it, but I don't get it. Why can't FF appeal to both hemispheres? Or at least try? Instead of pretending to be movie directors. Spirits Within should be enough of an argument there....

13: the gameplay was very fun. I didn't even mind the linearity. I thought it was a mistake, but I loved it anyway. Because hey, it's Final Fantasy, and isn't 9, or an MMO, or a passive combat like 12. It was pretty, and fresh, and it had Lightning, yes.

7 is the game I point to when I say I want to develop games. I say, "I want to make people feel the way I felt when I played that. If I could do that, I don't think death would scare me anymore." 13 is like 7. It wants to be epic. But it isn't 7 because it doesn't remember what 7 was. I knew this was going to happen when I was 13, when I first saw 9. "I want to make Final Fantasy 24 the way Final Fantasy 8 (or 9) should have been."

13 is the reminder that they still don't get it, that a half-way game from them means more to me than so much else. I want to develop a game and 13 is the reminder of why.

That's why I love it, even though I hate it. Final Fantasy is like a religion to me.