[PS2] Final Fantasy 12 - Unappreciated or underwear

Originally Posted by Django!

So, this is where we're at? Ad hominem? Well then, let's keep things in plain English, then.

- Final Fantasy VI's story is spurred by, and ends with, Terra. 85% of the entire game is directly related to her. Side quests be damned. If your overall enjoyment of the game is heightened because of the short vignettes spread throughout the narrative, then I'm sure Square would be happy. That doesn't change the fact that the entire story starts, concerns, and ends with Terra.

So you are saying Deni is merely stating his opinion of how the plot unfolds in FFVI? Idiot.

Ok, I'm curious whether you've actually played this game or not. Although I'm not nearly the fanboy Deni is, I've played through this game multiple times and there are a number of gameplay and plot elements that I am very aware of. First of all, you are not stuck with a certain avatar you control throughout the game. i.e. Cloud in FF VII, Squall in FF VIII, Zidane in FF IX, Tidus in FF X, etc. (THIS ISN'T TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE MOMENTS IN OTHER FINAL FANTASY GAMES WHERE THE MAIN CHARACTER IS NOT IN YOUR PARTY. THIS IS TO SAY THAT YOU AREN'T FORCED TO USE TERRA WHEN SHE IS IN YOUR PARTY. THANK YOU.) In FF VI, you choose who leads your party, except at certain points in the story. (e.g. when you control Celes at the beginning of the world of ruin) This is the biggest difference between those games and FF VI. While all those games have central characters, the story is told from the perspective of the character / avatar you control. The difference is that FF VI has a much broader angle in which the player has a much more godlike perspective, watching the events unfold and having a certain hand in how they happen. This is a fundamental difference in gameplay that cannot be denied and is not merely a matter of opinion.

Secondly, the argument can be made that there are at least 5 or 6 main leads in this game. Locke, Celes, Sabin, Cyan, and Edgar are as important and integral to the story as Terra is. In fact, as Deni points out, the second half of the game is more about these characters than it is about Terra.

Overall, the director really attempted to create a balanced story which focused on many different characters, explaining all their different backgrounds. We end up with the three way story split in the world of balance where you get to experience some more intimate facets of the character's personalities, as well as learning about their backgrounds more. To say that Terra is unimportant to the story is a bad argument to make, but to say that FF VI should be renamed FF - Terra's Story is also shortsighted. As Deni has stated, she is largely unimportant in the World of Ruin, which focuses more heavily on Celes and the other characters. Terra has one important moment with the orphans, but you can technically play through the entire second half of the game without her in your party, not to mention much of the first half of the game as well. If we assume she is the sole lead (which she is not) this is something you cannot do with the leads in FF VII, VIII, IX, X.
(I mean come on, you cannot neglect how important the opera scene is in FF III, and it centers primarily around Celes, not Terra.)

In addition, each locale one visits tells something about the characters who have something related to the locale. e.g. The Village of the Magi and Shadow, The Imperial City and Celes, The Esper City and Terra.

Your statement about the sidequests being irrelevant is extremely shortsighted. I mean one might be able to buy it, except that if we look at other FF games, the sidequests disproportionately involve the lead or focus primarily on him. (The Zack and Squall sidequest in FF VII, for instance)
In comparison, the sidequests in FF VI focus disproportionately on characters aside from Terra, serving to explain their individual stories / struggles in depth. It provided a sense of completeness that I haven't seen in many games before or since.

Originally Posted by Rotorblade

Vaan is a cipher as far as being the "main character", the game slowly begins to constantly throw it in your face that Balthier is the "leading man." See, this obtuse "on-paper" explanation just doesn't really seem to cut it to me, but that's the best I can muster.

From reading the posts in this thread, I get the impression that people arguing that Vaan is not a central character, even if he is the avatar of the player. In a sense, the story of FF XII is told from a second perspective. Although I cannot comment, having not played this game, I can conclude that this is different from FF VI and is very unique.

However:

Originally Posted by Django!!!!!!11111111111

I never even saw Balthier as a "leading man". The entire game was largely about each individual, and was one of the first Final Fantasy's without a clear idea of, "this is who we should focus on". It's harder to relate to someone when everyone is given screen time.

This is a very accurate description of the plot from FF VI but it does not accurately describe the plot from FF XII the way others, such as Deni and Rotorblade, have described it to me.

Originally Posted by Django!!!!1111111111

A> FF VI has a fairly obvious main character.

B> FFI doesn't count because it has a story comparable to Super Mario Bros.

:-)

Originally Posted by Deni

The first half you can call the Terra act, definitely. The second half though, you start as Celes, and then it very quickly becomes the everyone-else act. She's not a forced lead character for the secondary story beyond getting a few early recruits, then she promptly fades away into a secondary character.

For lack of quoting the entire thread, I can say that most of the problem here is due to lack of reading comprehension / intelligence on the part of Django!. (why he has an ! at the end of his name, we'll never know)

Django, to say Deni's plot synopsis is an 'ad hominem' argument shows an extreme deficit in cognition and reading comprehension on your part. Those who are not at war with the English language are much more capable of understanding the individual roles characters play in the simple plot of a videogame. If you manage to pass University English, I will credit it as an act of God and Denicalis will be forced to renounce his stance as an agnostic.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Django!

Jesus Christ.

Alright. Here we go.

Well gollee, there Cletus, I think you're right! You don't control Terra throughout the entire game! That's a definite, undeniable, fact right there! Nope, no denying that. Except, that's not what I said. Doesn't matter if she's in your party or whether or not you control her. Again, I present the notion that you distinguish gameplay from narrative.

When is Terra away from your party the most? When she goes crazy. What do you do while she's away? You pretty much spend the next couple of hours getting her back, and dissecting her back story and that of the Espers. Then when you find her, you have the option to convince her to rejoin your party (this is roughly the beginning of the end game). You see, even though you can't see her, her character is still integral to the plot and influences the pacing.

First of all, you will notice that I dealt with gameplay and narrative in separate paragraphs in my little post above. If that isn't enough of a clue that I can comprehend the difference, I don't know what is. Again, if you knew how to read I wouldn't have to explain something so simple.

I'm glad you can recollect the major elements of Terra's story. Shame you can't remember the role of all the other, equally important characters. The point wasn't that Terra wasn't an important plot element in the game. The point is that the other characters are not secondary, but are equally important. Hence, the NARRATIVE in FF VI is cast driven.

Quote:

Except that Loke, Celes, Sabin, Cyan, and Edgar's interesting histories are largely served up via side story and flash backs. I also reiterate that simply because other characters are interesting doesn't change the focus of the story. They may be important characters to the overall story, but they are not the main focus. Terra is.

So the opera house is side story? The village of the Magi is a side story? Figaro Castle is a side story? The Veldt, Doma Castle, The Phantom Forest, The Imperial Capital are all Side Stories? Almost the entirety of the world of ruin is a side story? The list goes on. How do you personally determine what a side story is? Oh wait, you're only saying this to try to back up your incorrect assertion that Terra is THE main character of FF VI, not a main character in the game. You're basically trying to tell me that the majority of FF VI is all side story and that Terra is what is important. I guess you can focus on about 30% of the narrative and neglect the rest, if you'd like. Better yet, why not just say Kefka is the main character because he also gets a hell of a lot of airplay as far as story telling is concerned, especially in the first half of the game.

Quote:

You two act like because I don't share your opinion I some how find FFVI to be a bad game, when that's hardly the case at all.

It has nothing to do with how good or bad a game is. It is all about the roles different characters play.

Quote:

Irrelevant? I said the exact opposite of that. Specifically my post directly above yours where I typed out and entered, "Just because they aren't the main focus of the story doesn't mean they lack importance."

No no no. You are saying that Terra is the main focus of the plot in FF VI. Hence FF - Terra's story. I'm arguing it is not.

Quote:

I completely agree with you. One of the reasons I disliked FFVIII so much was because of the unending emphasis on Squall and the seemingly short length of most characters backstory. You're right in what makes FFVI so good is that most of the characters have a very solid history behind them.

Hence Cast driven, not character driven.

Quote:

His plot synopsis (if you can call that single paragraph or so of text a "synopsis") wasn't ad hominem, it was him making up arguments that I didn't present and calling me an idiot.

WOAH, WAIT WAIT.

You said that FF XII was the first game that was cast driven, not character driven. Deni said that FF VI is cast driven and you are trying to make a claim that Terra is the central character.

Originally Posted by Deni

My god, the story unfolds with a character as a catalyst. Clearly, they must be the protagonist. Nevermind the heaps and heaps of secondary characters who have the exact same effect. I mean, it's not like we spend a large portion of the game unlocking Locke's involvement, or Celes. Clearly XII has invented this literary trope and we must all bow to the genius that was XII. Fuck off. You're trying to turn this into "FF VI is A" argument when it's a long held concept that it is a cast based story, rather than having a single protagonist. Your argument that XII is this vaulting cast based game that nothing else has ever tried before is stupid. You want to like this piece of shit? Go for it. But don't act like it walks on water and created everything cool when it's pretty packaging of things we've seen time and time again.

You seemed to have missed this post. I suggest you read it before going on about more of this BS. Oh right, you did respond. You tried to rationalize your standpoint with a pile of logical BS which doesn't relate whatsoever to the issue at hand. You didn't even bother to define your terms.

Quote:

By Deni's and your own rationalization, Chrono's importance to the Chrono Trigger story is severely reduced because you can play the game without him (much more than FFVI and Terra), you can beat the game without him, and because you can play without him. But I don't think anyone's gonna make that argument, are they? No, because it doesn't make sense to correlate game play and narrative.

If you two are so obsessed with reading comprehension, then why are both of you intent on pinning things on me that I didn't say? Hell, I've quoted three arguments in this post that were credited to me, but were not presented by me. You yourself made a misguided attempt to create a strawman in your very own reply.

Wait, what's this about strawmen? How ironic.

Quote:

Reading comprehension indeed.

Indeed. You've sure done your fair share of argumentative BS, namely creating rabbit trails. You cannot deny that gameplay does affect story telling, something which is called perspective. The fact that you aren't obligated to have Terra as the avatar through which you experience the gameplay does affect how the story is told, because you don't feel as though you are experiencing a story through Terra's eyes. The gameplay reflects the intention of the game designer, that Terra is NOT the central focus of the game. Reading Comprehension. So, while this is important, it is somewhat besides the point.

For the sake of limiting deliberation over pointless details, The argument is as follows: you are saying that the plot of FF VI is focused around a single character, namely Terra. All the other characters, irregardless of how important they are and now much coverage they get, are secondary, or side story. Terra is the central plot element, or character, because she is a catalyst that drives the plot forward at several key points in the game. Like Deni stated earlier, because she is a catalyst, you assume that by extension, she must be the key protagonist. FF VI is about Terra.

The counterargument is as follows: Deni, myself, and other reasonable, literate individuals, are saying that other elements of the plot (including other characters) are large enough, that when removed, the story would be fundamentally changed. You would have to excise about 70 to 80% of the story if you were to to focus on Terra's role. Other characters, such as Celes and Locke are equally important. The game is bigger than Terra, a fact any reasonable individual cannot deny. This is a cast driven story. As an addendum to this, I am saying the gameplay reflects the intention of the director i.e. that this story isn't about one individual character, even if she is a catalyst that drives the story forward.
In short, we do not believe that Terra is the key protagonist just because she is a catalyst. FF VI is about the quest of several brave individuals trying to save the world.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

DJANGO!!! SUX LOLOLOL:

Ok Django!, I've seen far too much bait and switch by you. I don't see any content that furthers our discussion whatsoever. All you do is get up on your little soapbox and keep yelling out your point over and over again, pounding it into the ground. It gets tiresome fast and is uninteresting for others to read. You obviously did no research into this game and have not played it in a long time otherwise you'd realize the inanity of what you are saying.

rehashland (TL;DR):

Originally Posted by djwhateverhisnameis

I didn't bring up Final Fantasy VI. Your buddy did. I said, and I'll quote it here for you, "I never even saw Balthier as a "leading man". The entire game was largely about each individual, and was one of the first Final Fantasy's without a clear idea of, "this is who we should focus on". It's harder to relate to someone when everyone is given screen time."

Originally Posted by rat

You said that FF XII was the first game that was cast driven, not character driven. Deni said that FF VI is cast driven and you are trying to make a claim that Terra is the central character.

Ok, so one of the first games without a lead. My point still stands.

Since you are in the mood for definitions, Character driven: One protagonist. Cast driven: Several protagonists. I thought the terminology would be pretty easy to understand so I didn't bother to patronize you. Looks like that was wrong of me to assume you are at peace with the written word.

Originally Posted by djwhateverhisnameis

]Your cohort brought up FFVI, and I meekly replied, "FF VI has a fairly obvious main character. ;-)" It pretty much snowballed from there, since, obviously, the internet's obligated to feel about Final Fantasy VI the same way as you two rays of sunshine. I didn't say anything about "cast driven" or "character driven". Again, just because they aren't the main character doesn't mean they aren't relevant.

Originally Posted by rat

For the sake of limiting deliberation over pointless details, The argument is as follows: you are saying that the plot of FF VI is focused around a single character, namely Terra. All the other characters, irregardless of how important they are and now much coverage they get, are secondary, or side story. Terra is the central plot element, or character, because she is a catalyst that drives the plot forward at several key points in the game. Like Deni stated earlier, because she is a catalyst, you assume that by extension, she must be the key protagonist. FF VI is about Terra.

Originally Posted by Django!

Again, here you are remarking about "reading comprehension" and, again, you've recklessly glossed over my posts and accused me of saying something that I didn't.

OH HO HO. As you can see, I simply summarized your argument using different terminology. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

Quote:

I was right in saying that FFXII was one of the first games where it wasn't clear who moved the story along. Way more key points in the plot are furthered by the entire cast, compared to FFVI, in which most of the story was specifically about her.

Ok, that's different. Moved the story along. This doesn't necessarily makes someone the lead character. The story of FFVI is not specifically about Terra although she is a catalyst that triggers several plot advancements. You think that FF VI is the story of Terra Bradford, half esper. Thanks for continually restating your argument over and over again while accusing others of maligning you for your stance.

Quote:

Then I started thinking. I thought maybe you guys didn't know what "protagonist" means, so I figured I'd look it up for you. Lo and behold, in a rare instance of fortune I discovered the general Internet Wisdom actually agrees with me.

Way to go numbnuts, you figured out how to define protagonist on WIKIPEDIA. I just use Dictionary.com when I am unsure about the definition of the word.

I'm glad this little discussion has prompted you to think. I suggest you do more of this in the future

Quote:

I don't normally recommend Wiki-ing something, but I figured I would and, jeez... that really worked out in my favor, didn't it?

It did nothing to further the discussion, wiseass.

Quote:

There's no point in arguing with you two about it anymore. You can refer all further responses to the Wiki article. Regardless of what I type out, you're just gonna make something up and respond to that. Enjoy. Let's pretend that I said something about your mom.

Of course there is no point in arguing. All you did was define protagonist:

1. The main character in a drama or other literary work.
2. In ancient Greek drama, the first actor to engage in dialogue with the chorus, in later dramas playing the main character and some minor characters as well.
3.
1. A leading or principal figure.
2. The leader of a cause; a champion.
4. Usage Problem A proponent; an advocate.

We are arguing that just because Terra is important to the plot, doesn't mean she is the leading or principal figure.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

Usage Note: The protagonist of a Greek drama was its leading actor; therefore, there could be only one in a play. The question for speakers of modern English is whether a drama can have more than one protagonist. When members of the Usage Panel were asked "How many protagonists are there in Othello?" the great majority answered "One" and offered substitutes such as antagonist, villain, principal, and deuteragonist to describe Desdemona and Iago. Nevertheless, the word has been used in the plural to mean "important actors" or "principal characters" since at least 1671 when John Dryden wrote "Tis charg'd upon me that I make debauch'd persons ... my protagonists, or the chief persons of the drama." Some writers may prefer to confine their use of protagonist to refer to a single actor or chief participant, but it is pointless to insist that the broader use is wrong. · The use of protagonist to refer to a proponent has become common only in the 20th century and may have been influenced by a misconception that the first syllable of the word represents the prefix pro-, "favoring." In sentences such as He was an early protagonist of nuclear power, this use is likely to strike many readers as an error and can usually be replaced by advocate or proponent.

Ok, so now you know what protagonist means, let's go over the basics of the discussion once again.

THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE MAIN CHARACTER IN A GAME!!!!

THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE CHARACTER IN A GAME!!!!!!!!!!!

THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE MAIN CHARACTER IN A GAME

Right. Ok, now we figured that out. That was a lot of BS to cut through, but now that it has been dealt with, we can get back to our discussion.
After my last post, we were here:

POINT

Originally Posted by DJWHATHISFACE

Except that Loke, Celes, Sabin, Cyan, and Edgar's interesting histories are largely served up via side story and flash backs. I also reiterate that simply because other characters are interesting doesn't change the focus of the story. They may be important characters to the overall story, but they are not the main focus. Terra is.

COUNTERPOINT

Originally Posted by Rat

So the opera house is side story? The village of the Magi is a side story? Figaro Castle is a side story? The Veldt, Doma Castle, The Phantom Forest, The Imperial Capital are all Side Stories? Almost the entirety of the world of ruin is a side story? The list goes on. How do you personally determine what a side story is? Oh wait, you're only saying this to try to back up your incorrect assertion that Terra is THE main character of FF VI, not a main character in the game. You're basically trying to tell me that the majority of FF VI is all side story and that Terra is what is important. I guess you can focus on about 30% of the narrative and neglect the rest, if you'd like. Better yet, why not just say Kefka is the main character because he also gets a hell of a lot of airplay as far as story telling is concerned, especially in the first half of the game.

What do you say now?

My issue is that what you call 'side story' and 'flashbacks' are events that occur at many important locales in the game. So much so that if they were removed, you end up with a paragraph plot of a few events that, although they focus on Terra, they involve other Primary Characters from the game as well.

The argument currently is that I disagree with you on what constitutes 'side story'.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A side story in fiction is a form of narrative that occurs alongside established stories set within a fictional universe. As opposed to a prequel, sequel, or interquel, a side story takes place within the same time frame as an existing work.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Side stories, rather, focus on a completely new set of characters who have no history and typically no connections to the existing main characters. The settings for side stories are intentionally away from the major events that the main characters are known to be participating in.

There is so much of this plot material that to remove it, really gets rid of most of the story in the game. i.e. what you call 'side story' is important and integral plot material which -more importantly- involves main characters. I'm guessing the wiki definition isn't what you meant by side story, but seriously, at what point does a 'side story' become so connected to the central plot that we hold it to the same level as the rest of the narrative? You're writing off a great deal of important material by considering it to be 'secondary'. How do you address this problem?

To this, you respond "but it is integral, I never said it wasn't."
The question then becomes, if it is integral, why are you saying it is side story? If the other primary characters are integral, why don't you consider them protagonists too? Do you see the problem here?

If you want to further your point that Terra is THE SINGLE protagonist of FF VI, you had better make a damn good argument of why. Lets see some quotes from the script and maybe a post of a story synopsis.

[jokemode]Also, leave my mother out of this, asshole=p [/jokemode]

Anyway, back on topic with the thread. I have yet to play Final Fantasy XII. Honestly, I have become so disenchanted with Square-Enix that I don't really care to play their games anymore. They've really gone downhill since the Playstation days and they've tried to make money more off of the names of their franchises than based on developing quality software. The couple of releases for GC were abysmal at best, and I've not been particularly impressed with any of their latest games that haven't been ports of older software. For a company that used to be one of my favorite third party developers, it is pathetic that I can only view them with jaded skepticism, something that, for me, really started with FF X-2 and the release of FF Chrystal Chronicles on the GC.

Until I play FF XII, I can't say for sure whether or not I will like it, but I am definitely prepared to be underwhelmed or 'underweared', whatever that means.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Well I was at Walmart yesterday and I saw in the $20 and under section (Red Labeled PS2 Games, Game Boy Advance Games, etc.,) they had Final Fantasy XII, so if you do decide to pick it up, it shouldn't be that much, when WALMART is selling it at $20, its bound to be even cheaper elsewhere.

Ya, and it probably isn't all that much for a PS2. Maybe I could just borrow Skills' machine, since I bet he hardly uses it anymore. Seriously though, is the game worth dropping about $90 on a console and $20 on a game for?

Quote:

Also: FINAL FANTASY 6: SERIOUS BUSINESS

QFT. Don't be maligning the greatest game ever released lololol.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?