(Forget it, this is going up as is. – Eric Swain) My last post was really only the first half of a longer first draft I wrote on paper. When transcribing it I realized it started to meander and connect too many points, so I cut it down and resettled …
After PAX East sparked my interest in DnD and my players wanted to get back to it, I decided to give it a try. I liked the 4th edition simplification and streamlining of the rules. So I got the core books and read through them in anticipation of trying a …
I feel like all I’m about to do is state the obvious. A thought came to me as I finished up Heavenly Sword as my mind turned to stories in video games. Video games need stories crafted specifically for the medium. Every medium that tells stories has their own way …
I talked about how the story structure in Prince of Persia didn’t work for me and how the various villains fit in the game’s thematic consistency. Now I’m going to combine the two ideas. This may come off as a little dictating from on high, but oh well.
The servants of Ahriman are the thematic representation of their fall from grace and at the end of the game, a representation of the Prince. Each had a desire that could only be fulfilled giving something to Ahriman, in their case, their souls. However, like Faust, they find their wishes fulfilled, but empty.
The title pretty much sums up thesis for this essay. Prince of Persia has fallen to the trend of non-linear gameplay. It’s the new buzzword in the market. That’s all fine and dandy, and in the weeks up to its release even I praised the design as a merging of story and gameplay. However, now having played the game Prince of Persia has replaced Mirror’s Edge as my most disappointing game of 2008. It has nothing to do with the gameplay. It has to do with the story and more specifically with the story’s structure.