The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • This is true because I said so

  • Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
 #94923  by Don
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:41 pm
The recent discussion on FF4 and the recent developments in the manga version of Naruto made me think about this. There are so much story that we take granted only because the author said so. We'll of course ignore any gameplay related thing like how every bad guy is utterly incapable of kiling the good guys despite the overwhelming advantage.

Let's start with FF4. Everyone is probably familiar with the fact that Golbez was brainwashed by Zemus and was actually Cecil's brother. These events are true only because the author said so. There is no possible way anyone can come to the above conclusions without being told. Such plot devices are annoying, but I can stand them because there is also no possible way to refute them. Certainly nowhere in FF4 says Golbez can't possibly be brainwashed by someone or that Golbez can't possibly be Cecil's brother. There isn't even anything that says Rydia can't be Cecil's long lost sister if the game chooses to. Although I'm apprehensive to such devices, I can accept them simply because I can't refute it, either.

Now we move to Naruto. If you watch the show at all you know Naruto is destined to become the greatest leader/head ninja ever. Certainly he is on track to be the most powerful ninja ever in the Naruto universe. But leader? He still isn't even a leader at the squad level (4 ninjas). But we're supposed to believe that any moment he'll lead a nation to greatness? This is where an author can't say it's true because I said so because everything in the world itself contradicts the idea.

Of course, speaking of leadership, we can't forget FF8, another leadership disaster with Squall who is supposed to guide SeeD to greatness while never talking to anyone else. Or how you've a world where all the main characters have Alzheimer's disease from GF overdose so that none of them besides Irvine realized the fact that they all grew up in the same place together but never forgetting anything else but that.

Shouldn't an author at least be responsible to the world they created? At the very least, they need to abide by the rules of logic. Logic doesn't say Golbez can't be Cecil's brother, but logic does say people aren't supposed to suddenly forget their childhood but not anything else.

 #94925  by Kupek
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 pm
We basically had this discussion when we talked about plot twists.

 #94928  by Don
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:50 pm
I remember plot twists was about whether they're predictable or just merely acts of god (like say FF4). Take FF8, which I actually enjoyed a lot, has plenty of things that are just plain illogical, plot twists or not.

Another game that comes to mind is the final battle in FFX2. There is no reason to believe Yuna's plan could have ever worked. World of Warcraft is another good example of illogical plot with the illogical alliances (Undead with Tauren), illogical warzones, and illogical racism.
 #94929  by Julius Seeker
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:02 pm
Don Wang wrote:Of course, speaking of leadership, we can't forget FF8, another leadership disaster with Squall who is supposed to guide SeeD to greatness while never talking to anyone else. Or how you've a world where all the main characters have Alzheimer's disease from GF overdose so that none of them besides Irvine realized the fact that they all grew up in the same place together but never forgetting anything else but that.
Actually, it explained that Irvine remembered, but that the others couldn't remember much before the age of about 6 or 7 years old. A lot of people anyways don't remember much before the age of 6 or 7; so I don't see that as a far stretch. This is also not new in literature, Johnny Mnemonic (by William Gibson) had the exact same plot device. Also, read up on Alzheimer's disease (not really relevent to the conversation, but I work in the field, and feel it is important to get awareness out) it is a lot worse than just simple forgetfulness. They got split up around the age of 3 or 4; one of my best friends was adopted at age 3, and does not remember his real family at all, so I don't think it is too far fetched.

As for leadership. Emperors of Rome were not even to be looked at beyond people of their own court, and some of them were well noted for being very distant people (such as Tiberius); they were well noted for anti-social and avoidant behaviour. Napoleon and Hitler were also well noted as being quite anti-social, and they led two countries from ashes to the top of the food chain.

 #94932  by Don
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:36 pm
Irvine remembered because he hasn't been using the GFs as long as the other. So clearly the memory loss is a progressive thing: the more you use GF the worse it gets and it gets worse with time. It can be inferred that none of the characters started out with heavy duty GF using and the usage of GF only escalates as the game goes on. Yet although it started out bad enough that casual using caused 5 guys who have been together for a good while to have no idea who everyone else is, at the end of the game there is no loss of memory anywhere else, even though you'd expect the characters to have difficulty remembering who they are at this point.

The entirety of Squall's display of leadership is in the Garden fight and, depending on what choices you made, you wouldn't even necessarily have a speech the game considers motivational. Even if you made the right choices, the speech is hardly motivational consider Squall lacks charisma. And, after all that is said and done, Squall's garden pretty much got outmanuvered but they managed to brute force it with 3 guys taking down the opposite garden. This makes Squall and his party great commandoes, but hardly a good leader. Other than that, nothing Squall does is even leadership-like. He's merely a soldier who can probably do any kind of improbable mission, but there is no indication he'd know how to lead even his team of 3 let alone an entire organization.

 #94934  by Kupek
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:59 pm
Don Wang wrote:I remember plot twists was about whether they're predictable or just merely acts of god (like say FF4).
I know that I brought up more than just that. If you can review the material and get a deeper insight into the characters with the knowledge of the twist or whatever is revealed later on, then it's handled well. The author wove that "truth" into all parts of the story. If that's not the case, then its bad story telling.

 #94938  by Julius Seeker
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:26 pm
Don Wang wrote:Irvine remembered because he hasn't been using the GFs as long as the other. So clearly the memory loss is a progressive thing: the more you use GF the worse it gets and it gets worse with time. It can be inferred that none of the characters started out with heavy duty GF using and the usage of GF only escalates as the game goes on. Yet although it started out bad enough that casual using caused 5 guys who have been together for a good while to have no idea who everyone else is, at the end of the game there is no loss of memory anywhere else, even though you'd expect the characters to have difficulty remembering who they are at this point.
They didn't quite forget, the memories were driven back to deeper places; and from what I understand, the GF conditioning had been going on for a while before the game's timeframe began. When it was mentioned, they all did remember. I see it as Johnny Mnemonic syndrome.
Don Wang wrote:The entirety of Squall's display of leadership is in the Garden fight and, depending on what choices you made, you wouldn't even necessarily have a speech the game considers motivational. Even if you made the right choices, the speech is hardly motivational consider Squall lacks charisma. And, after all that is said and done, Squall's garden pretty much got outmanuvered but they managed to brute force it with 3 guys taking down the opposite garden. This makes Squall and his party great commandoes, but hardly a good leader. Other than that, nothing Squall does is even leadership-like. He's merely a soldier who can probably do any kind of improbable mission, but there is no indication he'd know how to lead even his team of 3 let alone an entire organization.
I do agree that Squall did lack certain skills that are sometimes seen as good attributes in a leader. Yet I do not think that he was a bad choice as leader considering how he was their most powerful warrior and a hero. It is like Hitler, no one would argue that Hitler was the best choice for the job in Germany, but did he possess good leadership attributes? Not really. Charisma isn't a leadership attribute, it is something that can gain a person leadership. Nerva and Trajan, two of Rome's "best" Emperors were both notoriously uncharismatic.

 #94944  by Don
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:33 pm
Cid or Quistis was infinitely better suited as a leader than Squall.

There's nothing wrong with Squall being an icon/hero to rally around, but he was not a leader.

It's rather ironic considering FF8 also had the best leader character in a RPG, Laguna.

For Kupek, the author weaving 'truth' is not just limited to plot twist, and I find the lack of consistency is usually not a plot twist. Most plot twist, at worst, is akin to an act of god ala FF4 and are easily logical due to the fact that most of them are not refutable. As cheesy as it turns out Golbez is Cecil's brother, you cannot refute this fact, so it is internally consistent. I have my own gripe with plot twists, to be fair, but I found them to be at least consistent within the powers an author has.

 #94947  by Julius Seeker
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:35 pm
Don Wang wrote:Cid or Quistis was infinitely better suited as a leader than Squall.

There's nothing wrong with Squall being an icon/hero to rally around, but he was not a leader.

It's rather ironic considering FF8 also had the best leader character in a RPG, Laguna.
Why would Cid or Quistis be better? Cid wasn't strong like Squall, he wasn't respected. Cid was overthrown by other forces in the Garden, Squall, on the otherhand, carries a heavy stick, he defeated the forces who overthrew Cid and became leader afterwards. Quistis was more or less an underling of Squall who took control of things early on in the game's timeline even if she was his instructor in the beginning.

On Laguna: Well, he was a better leader for Esthar, he was Esthar's hero just as Squall was Balamb Garden's hero. Laguna certainly found himself to leadership in a totally different way from Squall though, Laguna was compassionate, Squall was effective at overthrowing people. Squall was more like Napoleon, uncharismatic, and an elitest fighting for an unelite class; he gained his following because he was a military hero. Laguna was more like Prince Siddhartha or Gandhi, one who was compassionate towards people and who gained followers through that attribute; Gandhi was also a hero. I've said it before, Squall and Laguna are two different sides of the same coin.

For the purpose of Garden being at war, Squall was the best choice. He was the hero having saved the garden on numerous occaisions (including militant occupation by NORG and Galbadian missiles). Should the time have been peace, Cid would have been the better leader; but during a war, who will be better to lead? It is like England in WW2 between Chamberlain (peaceful and appeasing) or Churchill (a butcher). As soon as WW2 was over, even though Churchill was a hero, the people didn't want a butcher as their leader anymore, and he was voted out right after his victory. After the war with Galbadia, it is quite possible that Cid or Edea took over, but it doesn't get to that point in the game.

 #94953  by Kupek
 Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:25 pm
Don Wang wrote:For Kupek, the author weaving 'truth' is not just limited to plot twist
That was my entire point.

 #94957  by Don
 Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:08 am
On weaving 'truth' into a story, is gaming/anime/manga writing not required to uphold that? I don't read a lot but every normal fiction book I've read before is consistent at least with itself and normal logic. I always assumed any work of fiction has to be at least true to itself. Even something like Dragonball is consistent with itself once you realized it is implicit that 'strongest whatever' is merely transient and can be overcome with a few months (or less) of intense training.

It seems like people find it okay in games/anime/manga to suspend the barriers of consistency and logic. Is it because such writing is not as highly regarded as regular writing?
 #94968  by Zeus
 Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:13 pm
Don Wang wrote: Now we move to Naruto. If you watch the show at all you know Naruto is destined to become the greatest leader/head ninja ever. Certainly he is on track to be the most powerful ninja ever in the Naruto universe. But leader? He still isn't even a leader at the squad level (4 ninjas). But we're supposed to believe that any moment he'll lead a nation to greatness? This is where an author can't say it's true because I said so because everything in the world itself contradicts the idea.

Shouldn't an author at least be responsible to the world they created? At the very least, they need to abide by the rules of logic.
Correction: Naruto EXPECTS to become the greatest Hokage ever. No one disputes he has the stamina, but he's regularly getting beat by those superior to him, including Kabuto (who would have killed him if not for Tsunade; Naruto couldn't even touch him; hell, Tsunade had a helluva time with him), Kimimaru (it took Gaara to come in), and Sasuke. He hasn't proven crap, even in the show. If you go back and look at who he's beaten, it's those who have underestimated him (Mizuki) or those who are clearly under him (Haku was a one-trick pony and it still took the Nine-Tails to beat him 'cause Haku actually knew how to use his skills).

At no point has the author contradicted himself on Naruto. That's the main strength of the show, the fact that all these people can do fantastical things yet remain within the rules (chakra mainly). Also, unlike other anime, more power does not automatically equal a win. There is the human mind to consider. And at no point has he strayed from the logic he has created in the world.
 #94974  by Don
 Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:44 pm
Zeus wrote:
Correction: Naruto EXPECTS to become the greatest Hokage ever. No one disputes he has the stamina, but he's regularly getting beat by those superior to him
Are you saying you really think Naruto isn't going to be the greatest Hokage ever? That the story will end and we find out Naruto really isn't all that great, and someone else (say, Sasuke) is supposed to be the greatest Hokage ever?

There is no doubt he is going to be the greatest Hokage ever unless all this is just a setup for a joke. Yet, as you said, so far he has done nothing to back up the implicit assumptions. He can't even lead his own squad. The fighting stuff is irrelevant. Clearly at some point he'll be able to beat everyone that matters but there's more to leading a nation than just being able to beat everyone up.

I know Naruto is ongoing so technically they can take another 10 years to show he develops into a world-class leader. But, as I saw on one message board, if Naruto is to take over as Hokage right now, his nation would probably be wiped off the face of the world in a few months due to his poor leadership. That's not exactly the kind of performance from a guy who is supposed to be the greatest Hokage ever. In fact right now just about anyone but Naruto is more suited to be a Hokage because he can't lead.
 #94990  by Zeus
 Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:17 am
Don Wang wrote:
Zeus wrote:
Correction: Naruto EXPECTS to become the greatest Hokage ever. No one disputes he has the stamina, but he's regularly getting beat by those superior to him
Are you saying you really think Naruto isn't going to be the greatest Hokage ever? That the story will end and we find out Naruto really isn't all that great, and someone else (say, Sasuke) is supposed to be the greatest Hokage ever?

There is no doubt he is going to be the greatest Hokage ever unless all this is just a setup for a joke. Yet, as you said, so far he has done nothing to back up the implicit assumptions. He can't even lead his own squad. The fighting stuff is irrelevant. Clearly at some point he'll be able to beat everyone that matters but there's more to leading a nation than just being able to beat everyone up.

I know Naruto is ongoing so technically they can take another 10 years to show he develops into a world-class leader. But, as I saw on one message board, if Naruto is to take over as Hokage right now, his nation would probably be wiped off the face of the world in a few months due to his poor leadership. That's not exactly the kind of performance from a guy who is supposed to be the greatest Hokage ever. In fact right now just about anyone but Naruto is more suited to be a Hokage because he can't lead.
There's a very strong possibility, yes. But that's known from the first episode. What they've done well with this particular series is the fact that you never forget just how much of a wimp he really is right now. He's only shown potential, that's it. If he were to take on Gaara again, he'd get killed since Gaara actually learned to use his potential and does become Kazekage. It's not like he's taking on these incredibly powerful guys and holding his own. That's why Jiraya stepped in against Itachi. He, at least, had a chance. Naruto or Sasuke could have easily died.

The point I was trying to make is that the show does not contradict itself. I look for these things, it would bother me quite a bit if I found it. The fact that I haven't yet is one of the main strenghts of the show, IMO.

 #95001  by Kupek
 Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:33 pm
Don Wang wrote:On weaving 'truth' into a story, is gaming/anime/manga writing not required to uphold that? I don't read a lot but every normal fiction book I've read before is consistent at least with itself and normal logic. I always assumed any work of fiction has to be at least true to itself. Even something like Dragonball is consistent with itself once you realized it is implicit that 'strongest whatever' is merely transient and can be overcome with a few months (or less) of intense training.

It seems like people find it okay in games/anime/manga to suspend the barriers of consistency and logic. Is it because such writing is not as highly regarded as regular writing?
It seems like you're not willing to accept that they might be <i>bad writers</i>. Yes, I think that gaming and anime are held to lower standards in writing. They're generally pop culture entertainment and the writing is going to match. Their main goal is to make money, not art.

I hold a Mega Man game to lower writing standards than Final Fantasy, and I hold Final Fantasy to lower writing standards than a movie, and I hold a movie to lower writing standards than a book. (Sort of. Some movies have excellent writing, but I can still enjoy a movie with mediocre writing. I can't enjoy a book with mediocre writing.) I've seen you complain about the story in Mega Man, which just baffles me. The story in a Mega Man game is just an excuse to have the gameplay. Games are more fun when there's some cohesive narrative, but it's probably not going to be high quality.

Qualifier: I do not watch Naruto. But in your example, you just dismissed the possibility that Naruto might develop leadership skills later on in the series. That's a character arc, and is typical of good writing.
 #95015  by SineSwiper
 Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:29 pm
Don Wang wrote:Now we move to Naruto. If you watch the show at all you know Naruto is destined to become the greatest leader/head ninja ever. Certainly he is on track to be the most powerful ninja ever in the Naruto universe. But leader? He still isn't even a leader at the squad level (4 ninjas). But we're supposed to believe that any moment he'll lead a nation to greatness? This is where an author can't say it's true because I said so because everything in the world itself contradicts the idea.
I think you get a window into what Naruto could be as a Hokage with the Frog Hermit. He's not actually a Hokage, but he could easily take the role. Yet, he fits a lot of personality traits as Naruto. Naruto's still a kid, even as a ninja, so there's room for him to grow.
 #95018  by Don
 Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:53 pm
SineSwiper wrote: I think you get a window into what Naruto could be as a Hokage with the Frog Hermit. He's not actually a Hokage, but he could easily take the role. Yet, he fits a lot of personality traits as Naruto. Naruto's still a kid, even as a ninja, so there's room for him to grow.
When you've the main character saying "I'm going to be the greatest Hokage ever" every other day, it is clearly understood that's what he'll become. And yes he's still a kid and the series is still ongoing, but Naruto is around 30 volumes now and this is when things are supposed to start winding down. It is always possible something happens between now and the end of Naruto. It is always possible that Inuyasha turns into something with a purpose too. However it is also unlikely going by history. The current Sai arc is probably supposed to show how Naruto can lead his own squad. So far it's anything but that, but it'll still be a while before it ends, so we'll see what happens there.
 #95022  by Eric
 Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:33 pm
Don Wang wrote:
SineSwiper wrote: I think you get a window into what Naruto could be as a Hokage with the Frog Hermit. He's not actually a Hokage, but he could easily take the role. Yet, he fits a lot of personality traits as Naruto. Naruto's still a kid, even as a ninja, so there's room for him to grow.
When you've the main character saying "I'm going to be the greatest Hokage ever" every other day, it is clearly understood that's what he'll become. And yes he's still a kid and the series is still ongoing, but Naruto is around 30 volumes now and this is when things are supposed to start winding down. It is always possible something happens between now and the end of Naruto. It is always possible that Inuyasha turns into something with a purpose too. However it is also unlikely going by history. The current Sai arc is probably supposed to show how Naruto can lead his own squad. So far it's anything but that, but it'll still be a while before it ends, so we'll see what happens there.
I think that whole Winding down thing was thrown out of the window, One Piece sitting at chapter 381 now?

 #95024  by Don
 Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:15 pm
One Piece and Inuyasha are exceptionally long-lasting. And they both fall into the 'endless adventure' type where there is no need for anything to actually happen, so they can take their time. Presumably Naruto has to be ending when Naruto becomes a Hokage and while manga time can be stretched indefinitely, it doesn't seem like there is that much left to do.

 #95025  by Eric
 Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:08 pm
Heh considering Tsunade became the Hokage at what? 50? 60? They can stretch it out. It's been established that Naruto is no genius, but hard working, the 4th was a genius he became Hokage at what? 21? i expect Naruto to take longer. I mean Don this is an arguing for the sake of arguing, if you know that this is the way it is because I said it is why argue the point? If somebody is perfect from beginning to end because they're supposed to be, then wouldn't it be slightly boring to watch it unfold?
 #95035  by Zeus
 Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:49 pm
Don Wang wrote: When you've the main character saying "I'm going to be the greatest Hokage ever" every other day, it is clearly understood that's what he'll become.
I don't even know why I bother explaining myself......