Novels = Free Indirect Discourse

Does this exist in games? (Laura.)

Does it exist at all? (My question.)

Movies use voice overs for interior monologue but this fails often, close-ups, images are more common and successful. ~ Laura

Plays use the monologue. ~ Laura

Games have their own set for developing interiority. ~ Laura

"The Hero's interiority is your interiority and vice versa." ~ Laura

What of the silent hero Laura?

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars is a wonderful example of an incredibly expressive silent protagonist in a game with limited graphic capabilities.

The protagonist, Super Mario, never says a word, instead the writing of the script implies an understanding on the part of the characters around him combined with hilarious play-mime sequences in which Mario acts out, in a quick and humerous way, the various plot points relevant to explain how the party (the characters you control) arrived at whatever circumstance.

Link from The Legend Zelda: The Windwaker is the same but the graphic are far beyond SMRPG: LotSS. Here you are familiar Laura, with his wide eyes and stylized movements Link is very expressive despite not "speaking" or "thinking" aloud. Instead, his motivations and thoughts are either givin to us implicetly or placed upon him by our own mind...perhaps both.

I feel like that cuts directly to your "movie tools." Rather than wahtever mechanics you seem to espouse in novels, these game have more in common with the various cuts, visual tricks, in film to express deliberation on the part of the characters.

The issue then is, perhaps, that I "don't care?"

Which is to say, there ARE established and effective ways to do things from one genre to another...I just belive that, while they method may differ, if the end result is the same, why the distinction?

Although the second I wrote that I felt awkward...because I do value the power of medium so highly. Hmm...

Continuing from editing...

What about more explicit, direct characters?

Sora's development is upfront in Kingdom Hearts, granted I haven't played enough of the series (although I have played quite a bit). He starts off as what appears to be a care free boy on an island with little to worry about. As the story progresses he is confronted with the concepts of fate, heroism, opposing (but valued) perspectives, the meaning of friendship and/vs duty, but - although he does speak for himself, even giving a monologue or two I believe - the vast majority of this is up for us to draw from and judge upon. I don't think this actaully differes from a text though. As you've touched on in class, reading is an interpretation of symbols...just as playing a game is the same + manipulation of said symbols to progress rather than a mere turning of the page.

Drawing "this character is young and immature" from a scene of a boy on beach building a raft and play fighting is no different than reading a description of a boy on a beach building a raft and play fighting provided you look at the goal of the scene in terms of characterization.

Even in other goals they are simliar. If opening scenes of fiction are meant to establish a contract between the author and the reader of the world and people they will be reading about then the opening scene in Kingdom Hearts is the same, one where the universe is established and the controls introduced, a contract between the designer and the player that states rules of interaction and intention.

Continuing

Okay, Marche Radiuju from Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced goes through an excellent character arc and often questions his actions, his circumstances, the people around him, etc..

In the game Marche, his friends and the people around them, are sucked into a magical book that constructs a world not-unlike the games from the Final Fantasy series (which the characters are aware of, a hilarious and awesome reference of self-awareness very common in video games, which itself is interesting as I think it is something they've always done rather than something that, in writing, has developed over time). Initially this is "cool" and various characters embrace the new world as their own, supposedly forsaking the "real" world.

Meanwhile, Marche is concerned with survival first and returning to the "real" world at a very, very close second...but when confronted with his friends, their perspectives and opinions on whether to return, Marche's resolve comes into question.

He asks himself whether to return is the best thing for him/them. This is not something implicetly drawn from the "text" but something Marche absolutely wonders via dialogue and monologue...which I use to say "personal thinking," he is not addressing an audience but debating with himself.

Is it right to force his younger brother, Doned, into a world where he can walk no longer? (His brother is a cripple in the real world but in Ivalice, the "fictional" world, he is "normal.")

Is it his place to send his friend Ritz back to a world where she feels alone? She has found a place in society unique to her, one in which she is highly valued and appreciated...can he take that away and live with himself?

And what of his friend Mewt? Whose father is the highest knight in the land...but on "earth" is a jobless, alcoholic widower. In fact, in Ivalice, his mother is alive and he is a prince. Why take that away?

Through the course of the story we see deeper motivations and admissions about life and perception, disillusionment and reality, on the part of numerous characters (some "real," some "fictional" !!!) and Marche also finds his resolve.




I feel like you're searching for a difference that is inconsequential, splitting hairs across already split genres. Why not recognize the shared goal?

I'm just not clear on what you're looking for I guess.