All GOOD RPGs vs. Final Fantasy

This is a direct result of the Skies of Arcadia thread:

Why exactly does everyone feel compelled to compare games like Skies of Arcadia, Legend of Dragoon, and Star Ocean to the Final Fantasy franchise?

I've heard everything from hairstyle to backgrounds to plot disputed, and one sentiment is tirelessly maintained: "If it copies Final Fantasy, it's a rip off, a bad game, and not worth the plastic/aluminum it's printed on!"

My problem with this notion is two-fold. One, most of the games people claim are similar in any way usually aren't; and two, why don't they do this among the games in the Final Fantasy franchise?!

Should they be inclined to do so, they might find that the Final Fantasy "series" is nothing but a single game, butchered and re-pieced together over, and over, and over again. There are often new elements in the way of story and game play, but for the most part the conventions are the same, and usually take place within the same time frame.

Another issue I take up is the out right subversion of "Square-syndrome." It happens to every freaking one of Square's main characters. It's recycled character development, and it offends me.

To those who would defend your increasingly ineptly named Final Fantasy series speak up and offer me ration reasoning to these challenges.

To those who agree, please, expound on what I've said, and add anything I've missed.

i played Dragon Warrior before you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
i played Dragon Warrior before you.

---

That's it, dude. Three strikes and you're out. I am now, officially, ignoring you.

I have no beef with Square's RPG's, but they are'nt the only game in town. The Super Nintendo Final Fantasy games are in a totally different time era, than those found on the PSX and PS2. Final Fantasy 2 and 3 (US) take place during the iron age, while FFVII and on, usually take place in a more future time.


I've enjoyed other RPG's just as well, and in some cases, even more so than those provided by Square. Shining the Holy Ark, was a far more enjoyable experience for me, than Final Fantasy VII. I still enjoyed VII, but STHA provided a better story, and playing experience. Phantasy Star II was a great RPG, and just as good, as Final Fantasy 2 (US). What I found better about PS2 was the dungeon design, the futuristic theme, and better storyline.



Final Fantasy has always taken the RPG into a sort of cute story line, with exceptions to VII with it's Aeris death scene and such, but with elements like the Chicobo's and such, the game tends to get away from what your really playing it for...the story. Still, Final Fantasy is an enjoyable series, but it's not the be all and end all of RPG's.

Final Fantasy IV (II us) is the greatest Game ever made.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gamevet
Final Fantasy 2 and 3 (US) take place during the iron age, while FFVII and on, usually take place in a more future time.

---

This isn't what I meant when I said time frame. I meant that if a game is 5 hours long, and another game (both made by the FF teams) is 5 hours long, they will both contain the same events within the same hours. If the first hour of the first game is an introductory hour where we meet the characters, then it's the same for game two. If hour three is dedicated to "Square-syndrome" in the second game, then it'll be the same for the first. I didn't mean time period, and I apologise for any confusion.

Hey, I wrote my entire exposition on what's wrong with the Final Fantasy engine post FFVI, and the Final Fantasy engine as a whole
here.

Not surprisngly, no one really gave a crap.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsubaki
Hey, I wrote my entire exposition on what's wrong with the Final Fantasy engine post FFVI, and the Final Fantasy engine as a whole
here.

Not surprisngly, no one really gave a crap.

---

I gave a crap...and I still do! But what you said was totally complete. Nothing to add or dispute. It is verry well put and I agree...but I'm a sucker for character design. As long as Square designs good looking characters, I'm screwed. Damned if'n I do, damned if'n I don't.

I really enjoyed the FF games up until part VII. The characters in the games before VII had (although sometimes cliche) personality and something to tell them apart - a skill set (NOT ONE LIMIT BREAK!!! ARRRGH!) or magic ability or class or something.

There are also alot of very high quality RPGs of such caliber that Squaresoft could never hope to make something like them, at least not in the present as we know it. I'm talking about games like Suikoden, the Mother Series, the Enix games we all treasure, and quite a number of others.

Squaresoft has gotten itself in way over its head. I think the movie is strong evidence of this. They need to go back and re-evaulate what a (or is it 'an' when using an acronym that begins with a vowel sound such as - ) RPG is and what is should NOT be.

*preach*

RPGs are not movies and should not focus on the nice pretty graphics when you click through a few easy quests and simple bosses with characters that all have the same magic spells and are nearly invincible with the insanse power of five minute animated 'call' spells.

*/preach*

Yeah.

I agree with Shin Johnpv. FFIV was the best in the series and seems to be the best RPG Squaresoft can make. Too bad that was over 10 years ago.

I don't have time to spend drooling over pretty pictures of their next game(s). I'm too busy playing something worth my $49.99


6

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Six
I don't have time to spend drooling over pretty pictures of their next game(s). I'm too busy playing something worth my $49.99

---

I got me a brand new sig! :D

The sad & funny thing is, when Square steps outside the FF mold, they can make truly fantastic games (Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Einhander for example). It's too bad that they feel trapped by their own creation, but again, you can't really blame them when their annual rehashes sell so well....right? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted in BioMechanic's signature
Covenant - United States of Mind
"i have devils on my mind and the hour's getting late"

---

That's the best damn song on that album! Screw Dead Stars! Screw Tour de Force!

You, sir, kick ass.

[/OT]

Until people stop buying Final Fantasy games, they are'nt going to change, what has worked in the past. Square has made other attempts at changing their RPG's, with games like Xenogears, Parasite Eve, and Chrono Trigger, but unless those other titles sell better than Final Fantasy, Square is'nt going to go off of the beaten path.

The gamers vote for what they want, each time they purchase the next Final Fantasy. The only way it's going to change, is when the gaming public no longer shows their support for the series, with their wallets.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gamevet
The only way it's going to change, is when the gaming public no longer shows their support for the series, with their wallets.

---

And then Square will be royally screwed because they can't diversify. Driving Emotion Type-S? WTF?!

To hell what anyone else thinks, Skies of Arcadia is better than anything Square ever put out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick
To hell what anyone else thinks, Skies of Arcadia is better than anything Square ever put out.

---

Hopefully, when the Gamecube version is released, it will get it's deserved props. I feel the same way about Shining the Holy Ark. Maybe we'll see a Gameboy Advance version of that stellar RPG.

I was with you, Captain, until you mentioned Legend of Dragoon, which pretty much is a shitty FF7 rip off.

The thing that cracks me up about these people who act as if FF7 is the fatcher of all RPGs is that the similarites they mention are usually unspectacular character or plot cfonventioms, and rarely have anything to do with gameplay whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but a plot alone is not enough to keep me interested in an RPG, especially not for 50 hours. There has to be some variety, enjotable level design, and a quality batte system. FF games do not have this. They are shallow. Very shallow. This makes them tedious to play. There are very few RPGs I've ever palyed that have a movie or novel quality plot and characters. Tales of Phantasia is the only one I can think of right now, and that's because it was based on a novel. So it's going to take alot more than that to make me sit through 50 hours instead of just watching a good movie. Specifically gameplay.

Again, I have to reiterate that FF is not the only culprit here. Dragon Warrior is awful. It has ok levels, but a crappy battle system, way too long, and way too much leveling. More and more RPGs are finally moving away from this crap, thanks to companies like Tri-Ace, but there are alot of others dragging their feet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frogacuda


Again, I have to reiterate that FF is not the only culprit here. Dragon Warrior is awful. It has ok levels, but a crappy battle system, way too long, and way too much leveling. More and more RPGs are finally moving away from this crap, thanks to companies like Tri-Ace, but there are alot of others dragging their feet.

---

I have to disagree about Dragon Warrior...the DW battle system, while basic, is very well-balanced. I agree that the games take too much leveling, though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorruptedOldGnom(sic)


I have to disagree about Dragon Warrior...the DW battle system, while basic, is very well-balanced. I agree that the games take too much leveling, though.

---

It's well balanced, but it isn't fun, or particularly challenging or skill oriented, and gets really old.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Six
I agree with Shin Johnpv. FFIV was the best in the series and seems to be the best RPG Squaresoft can make. Too bad that was over 10 years ago.

---

WTF are you guys smoking? You may not like the Sony installments, but how the hell can anyone say 4 was better than 6?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LordPerrin
WTF are you guys smoking? You may not like the Sony installments, but how the hell can anyone say 4 was better than 6?

---

I'm not a big fan of either, but I wold concur that 4 is better than 6. It had better characters and interaction and a better plot. I personally think the series peaked at FF5. FF6 had this very formulaeic plot and characters that was just about making a design, giving them an overdone dialect and a background story to be revealed later that usually didn't even tie into the overall plot. The gamplay was simplified badly over 5 as well. I didn't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LordPerrin
WTF are you guys smoking? You may not like the Sony installments, but how the hell can anyone say 4 was better than 6?

---

mainly because the story was more centralized and i like that more

the story in 6 with all the characters was just well all over the place it was TOO open ended in my opinion i just didnt get into the characters the way i did in IV

plus in IV everyone had a role i didnt feel that from VI i mean you could teach every single character every single spell in the game i didnt like that (cept umaro and gogo)

i just felt more attatched to the characters in IV

being forced to use certain characters at certain points helped the story in my opinion

theres a reason why the number of times ive played through FFIV is in the double digits

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shin Johnpv


mainly because the story was more centralized and i like that more

the story in 6 with all the characters was just well all over the place it was TOO open ended in my opinion i just didnt get into the characters the way i did in IV

plus in IV everyone had a role i didnt feel that from VI i mean you could teach every single character every single spell in the game i didnt like that (cept umaro and gogo)

i just felt more attatched to the characters in IV

being forced to use certain characters at certain points helped the story in my opinion

---

I couldn't agree more. However I can appreciate how alot of the game's subtleties were lost due to the horrific translation in the US SNES version.

Well, I love FF series, even FF8 that every one else seems to hate, but those are not the only rpgs out there. And I get upset sometimes when other games get compared to FF games, and being treaded less then good because of that.

Take for example Shadow Hearts. Very cool rpg, had bad luck to come out right before FFX hit the streets. And was immediately compared to FFX, and bashed by the reviewers, given less than stellar score and avoided by mainstream gamers :(

Maybe the game unique, dark horror style was different from the usual mold, or the fun battle system with ring of judgement, that required gamer attention, instead of same select attack from the menu battle system of FF, or less spectacular graphics, which are not on FFX level, but have some great touches and excellent character designs much better than in FFX, and great music.

They said the graphics are not good as FFX, or the battles not on FFX level, or simular crap like that. I'm not bashing FFX here, I love that game, and currently playing and having lots of fun, but comparing the bigger, more known game to the smaller production, and treating that less than it deserves, sucks :(

FF 4 was one of the worst RPGs I've ever played. Those subtleties that were lost better have been hella' important. I think I hate it enough to actually remember the reasons why(I usually forget RPG stories after a few years). bad game.


great soundtrack though. one of the best I've heard. . .ever

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable

"If it copies Final Fantasy, it's a rip off, a bad game, and not worth the plastic/aluminum it's printed on!"

---

Quit being stupid. Did anyone say that? If you're talking about my SO2 comments, I never made any indication as to what I thought of its quality.

And congratulations on creating the worst topic I've seen on this board in a great while. :) What it really needed is a roundabout "hardcore RPGer vs. mainstream RPGer" topic, which this is. RPGs shouldn't be movies? Profound.

Shining the Holy Ark? My favorite Saturn game, but if you honestly think it has a better story than FF7, there are problems to sort out. The game barely has a story at all compared to FF7, and what's there is predominantly cliche material.

RPGs are compared to Final Fantasy because everyone knows it through and through, whether they want to or not.

For the same reason everything that remotely has stealth in it in some form or another is compared to MGS, or every adventure game is compared to Zelda, or every game with dark overtones is compared to Resident Evil...

It's not whether or not it's good, it's that everyone can relate it back to said subject. And since the FF games are normally held in such high regard (as are the previously listed titles), hence the comparisions to many consider "the best of the genre".

I'd say Valkryie Profile for console RPGs, but how many outside of this board (honestly, I'll bet there's still plenty of you on this board who haven't played it) would catch the reference? Maybe one out of every 20,000 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
Quit being stupid.

---

Eat a dick, Chumpy. :D

Quote:

---

Did anyone say that? If you're talking about my SO2 comments, I never made any indication as to what I thought of its quality.

---

Way to play politician!!!

P.S. this isn't the only board I frequent. Could it be that I was talking about "the general opinion" and not fingering you specifically because I hold you in high reguard and think you're a pretty smart guy who believes in his convictions and wouldn't say something without reason?

Nah! Why would I do something like that? I am stupid after all, and evedently an asshole to boot.

Quote:

---

And congratulations on creating the worst topic I've seen on this board in a great while. :) What it really needed is a roundabout "hardcore RPGer vs. mainstream RPGer" topic, which this is. RPGs shouldn't be movies? Profound.

---

Well, I guess that makes me a "mainstream RPGer," because I play the Final Fantasy games. I have my gripes with them, but I like them none the less.

Oh! Look! I never made any indication as to what I thought of their quality! I can play politician now too!...asshole.

Quote:

---

Shining the Holy Ark? My favorite Saturn game, but if you honestly think it has a better story than FF7, there are problems to sort out. The game barely has a story at all compared to FF7, and what's there is predominantly cliche material.

---

You got me here. I've never played Shining the Holy Ark. You must be talking to someone else...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
Way to play politician!!!

---

Or "save my opinions from your imagination." You imagined my opinion, I never said what I thought of the game. You shouldn't even humor me like this if you weren't referring to my SO2 comparison.

Quote:

---

P.S. this isn't the only board I frequent. Could it be that I was talking about "the general opinion" and not fingering you specifically because I hold you in high reguard and think you're a pretty smart guy who believes in his convictions and wouldn't say something without reason?

---

"If." It was an important part of the sentence.

Quote:

---

Oh! Look! I never made any indication as to what I thought of their quality! I can play politician now too!...asshole.

---

Oh, come on:

"the Final Fantasy "series" is nothing but a single game, butchered and re-pieced together over, and over, and over again."

"Another issue I take up is the out right subversion of "Square-syndrome." It happens to every freaking one of Square's main characters. It's recycled character development, and it offends me."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
Oh, come on:

"the Final Fantasy "series" is nothing but a single game, butchered and re-pieced together over, and over, and over again."

"Another issue I take up is the out right subversion of "Square-syndrome." It happens to every freaking one of Square's main characters. It's recycled character development, and it offends me."

---

What? I didn't say that. I didn't inhale. No I didn't, no I'm not.

I'm playing politician. Isn't it working?

:stupid:

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Figures you'd get stuck starting a new page when it matters!

http://the-nextlevel.com/board/image...ies/stupid.gif

MWAHAHAHAHA!

;)

I take it you haven't discovered the custom settings. I've got 40 posts a page, so there's still a lot more stupidity to be had before a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
I take it you haven't discovered the custom settings. I've got 40 posts a page, so there's still a lot more stupidity to be had before a new one.

---

D'OH!!!

This thread is sinking fast.

Anyway, it's goofy arguing things like story quality. There have been alot of good RPG stories, but it's a really subjective thing. I never related to square's stories, because I always liked more character driven stuff with some development and humor, but it's wholly subjective. We aren't going to get anywhere arguing about all the cliches and such because honestly, even my favorite RPGs haver their share of cliches.

All I can do is seperat gameplay and scenario from everythng else. FF7, for what merit it's story may or may not have, is a simple game. Valkyrie Profile, for what merit its story may or may not have, is a complicated game that takes some skill to beatw with a good ending. Some people prefer different kinds of story, and some people care more about depth of play. We all get different things out of different games. I don't mean it to be a hardcore vs mainstream thing. Dragon Warrior is widely considered the hardcore RPGers series, and I can't stand the games. We all have our biases. Depth and enjoyability of play and quality level design are the things I look for. An appealing plot and characters are what you look for. I won't claim that everyone would like Tales of Eternia's personality-driven story (though I liked it), and I would find it equally absurd for you to claim that FF7 has the kind of strategic play that I look for. That's all I can really say.

Square is a a one trick pony pure and simple. Ever since they stopped diversifying their gaming pallete they have produced nothing but shit year after year. Parasite Eve, Xenogears (even though they didn't actually develop it), Tobal 1 and 2, Final Fantasy Tactics, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross (to a severely limited extent), Rad Racer, 3D World Runner, Final Fantasy I, II(IV), III(VI) and VII these were Square at their zenith (I've never played Vagrant Story or Saga Frontier so I can't comment on those).

Ever since then they've produced nothing but half-assed garbage. Parasite Eve II (God, they TOTALLY destroyed that franchise), Legend of Mana (WTF was that about anyway?), The Bouncer (ugh), Driving Emotion Type-S (double ugh). And do you know what the utterly sad part about it all is? THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR IT TO BE THIS WAY!!! It isn't like Sqaure needed the money like Sega did and it's not for a lack of talent. It's the fact that all they are focused on is making a profit. The point of business? Of course, but NOT when the quality of the product you are selling suffers as a result of that focus.

If Sakaguchi would stop to pull his head out of his ass for a minute and realize that he's a crappy writer--or at least one who needs more than a year to come up with something other than a half-baked story--maybe he'd quit rushing the games out the door as fast as possible and actually make something good.

As it stands now, if Square keeps riding on the rail it's currently on they will find themselves in dire straits in three years time when people wake up and see them for the has-beens they will become. They need to submerge for a few years and start over.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frogacuda
I was with you, Captain, until you mentioned Legend of Dragoon, which pretty much is a shitty FF7 rip off.

---

It's certainly...uh..."inspired" by FF7, but I absolutely loved the atmosphere, the plot (some cool twists towards the end), most of the characters (I don't know why, I could understand people writing them off as generic, but for the most part they were characterized so well), the soundtrack (one of the best I've heard) but especially the battle system.

By the end, pulling off some of those chains is pretty tough, but I loved that they were skill based and kept you involved in the fights; it was the only rpg I can ever think of where I actually found myself looking forward to random battles, knowing that every hit would go towards improving my characters. I felt like I'd lost something when I finally won it, which I don't feel for most rpgs...I'm usually just glad I've gotten it over with. I can't wait for the supposed PS2 sequel.

Er, anyway as for Final Fantasy, I think you're being way too picky by writing them off as bad games. They've got some great characters (especially IX), incredible soundtracks, they've always been some of the best looking games out there, tons of secrets, and incorporate ideas that take some messing around with to figure out, ie. Materia.

I also don't get where you're coming from with the "they all have the same story" angle, because they don't. You get Chocobos, airships, potions and Cid in all of them, but the plots themselves differ radically from installment to installment, except for the "you must defeat an evil empire" part.

I guess all I can say is I understand the reflex to reject something that's often praised by clueless 12 year olds as being the only worthwhile game on earth, but that doesn't mean they (most of them) aren't awesome.

Oh, and I always say "an rpg". Not gramatically correct, but it sounds alot more natural. Just like people go to "an NBA game", not "a NBA game".

Quote:

---

Xenogears (even though they didn't actually develop it)[...]

---

I think they did actually develop it, but the majority of the team that worked on it broke off. Kind of like when a group left Konami to form Treasure, they were still part of Konami until they left.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Oh, and I always say "an rpg". Not gramatically correct, but it sounds alot more natural. Just like people go to "an NBA game", not "a NBA game".

---

Actually, I think that is grammatically correct. It's a name of sorts, a label for a genre, so it fits.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MechDeus
I think they did actually develop it, but the majority of the team that worked on it broke off. Kind of like when a group left Konami to form Treasure, they were still part of Konami until they left.
Actually, I think that is grammatically correct. It's a name of sorts, a label for a genre, so it fits.

---

It's way too late for me to go looking up sources, but I remember hearing once that it should be "a".

And Xenogears...blarg. I bought it in march and I'm just up to disc 2 now. It's very ambitious and has lots of great ideas, but the fights are the worst - pointless, plentiful, and they go on forever. The story could have used some editing - like 5-10 hours of disc one. I have no problem with 2 hour long cinemas; quite frankly I can't believe they pulled such a thing off. It's the actual game that's driving me nuts. Every time I have to go to another dungeon, especially the ridiculous "guess where the ground's collision box is" mech-platforming ones that make you repeat the same leap of faith 50 times while getting in endless fights that make you build up the ability to do more than 10 points of damage to a 2000 hp monster....argh! And is there a point to magic in this game? I keep using Elly hoping she'll become worthwhile, but the only thing she seems to be good for is killing enemies who can only be hurt by ether. Love the villains though. They all rock.

Quote:

---

It's way too late for me to go looking up sources, but I remember hearing once that it should be "a".

---

Well, even if that's true, I'm not using it. Doesn't sound right at all.

The main problem with Xenogears mech-jumping (easily the worst part of the game, though some claim the final dungeon is) is that in an attempt to hide the battle screen loading slightly, it actually begins loading right before a battle activates, but also deactivates your ability to jump while doing that. A rather bad flaw that really kills a couple areas, though aside from Babel I didn't mind it.

I rather like the battle system, I think using the combo attacks is fun, as well as learning all of them (the final ones are incredible!). And no, aside from occasionally healing (which usually you don't need to bother with in battle), magic doesn't help that much. Concentrate on combos and chain-combos.

And, um, to just make your life easier, I wouldn't count too much on Elly helping you later on. So don't worry about building her up excessively.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MechDeus

The main problem with Xenogears mech-jumping (easily the worst part of the game, though some claim the final dungeon is) is that in an attempt to hide the battle screen loading slightly, it actually begins loading right before a battle activates, but also deactivates your ability to jump while doing that. A rather bad flaw that really kills a couple areas, though aside from Babel I didn't mind it.

---

AAGGHHH!!! Babel took me like two hours, although it felt like two days. That's exaclty what I was talking about.

Quote:

---

I rather like the battle system, I think using the combo attacks is fun, as well as learning all of them (the final ones are incredible!).

---

The trouble is, you have to sit there and watch them over and over, and they all go on for 10-15 seconds, which leads to 2 minute long random battles. This is especially bad after Legend of Dragoon, which has almost the exact same combo scheme, except you have to input each hit in the combo at a certain time. That game also shows you how many times you need to do that combo to earn the next one, which keeps you going. But with Xeno, add in 2-3 random battles per screen/section, and you get some really annoying dungeons. Sometimes I wish they'd just get back to the cutscenes. Good bosses, though.

Quote:

---

And, um, to just make your life easier, I wouldn't count too much on Elly helping you later on. So don't worry about building her up excessively.

---

Aw, you bastard, are you spoiling the story for me? You don't know what it's been like for me trying to avoid spoilers for this game. Like those people who try to go all day without hearing the score from the world cup games, except for months on end.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Aw, you bastard, are you spoiling the story for me?

---

Nope. She just isn't much help later on, and you'll have plenty to choose from that are far better. Use her, but don't count on her.

God, I love going through that game. Many hate the second disc (you'll see why), though I can help explain why things are the way they are on there and various tidbits about the circumstances regarding the game if you'd like. But not until after you're done. Keep me up to tabs with this, I love discussing Xenogears, and it's always nifty talking to those going through the first time.

Quote:

---

That game also shows you how many times you need to do that combo to earn the next one, which keeps you going.

---

Well, it's not hard figuring them out in Xenogears. Just look at how many maximum points you have, figure out all the different ways you can create a combo ending with the "X" button, and keep doing them until you start getting the points to earn them to actually use them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MechDeus

Well, it's not hard figuring them out in Xenogears. Just look at how many maximum points you have, figure out all the different ways you can create a combo ending with the "X" button, and keep doing them until you start getting the points to earn them to actually use them.

---

I didn't mean that it was hard, rather LoD keeps you involved in the game (there's a square in the middle of the screen, and another spinning square comes and overlays that one; you have to hit the right button at the exact time they overlap, or the combo ends) while Xeno just makes you push triangle-square-X and watch Citan pummel some worthless enemy for a half a minute. LoD also shows you how many times you need to succesfully pull it off (you'll always pull it off succesfully in Xeno unlesss you're an idiot) to earn a new one on the status screen; as near as I can tell Xeno doesn't do the same thing, you just get a new "point" at a certain level.

I do like how you can save up points in the boss battles, though, which is the only real reason to not just do your most powerful move over and over.

Quote:

---

Take for example Shadow Hearts. Very cool rpg, had bad luck to come out right before FFX hit the streets. And was immediately compared to FFX, and bashed by the reviewers, given less than stellar score and avoided by mainstream gamers

---

*snaps*

Sorry despair, I know you really love this game (as evidenced by numerous posts) but you've plugged it so much I've just got to comment on it.

The game is drivel, pure and simple. I really wanted to like it, as the time setting fascinates me to no end. So much so, in fact, that I picked it up the day it came out, trading my GBA and a copy of Golden Sun towards it. This is one of the WORST mistakes I think I've ever made in regards to gaming.

The lead character (Yuri?) seems to me to be a mix of Squall and Cloud, one of which (Squall) that I loathed.
Fighting, well, I do like the Judgement ring, as it makes things sort of interesting, but I don't remember seeing a monster palette that wasn't reused. Even some of the bosses were seen later in the game in this way!

D, I'd like to see the reason behind why you like this game, as opposed to just "I love it." (That's much simplified, of course)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
I also don't get where you're coming from with the "they all have the same story" angle, because they don't. You get Chocobos, airships, potions and Cid in all of them, but the plots themselves differ radically from installment to installment, except for the "you must defeat an evil empire" part.

I guess all I can say is I understand the reflex to reject something that's often praised by clueless 12 year olds as being the only worthwhile game on earth, but that doesn't mean they (most of them) aren't awesome.

---

I never said they all had the same story. I just find their stories to be melodramatic and unappealing. That doesn't mean rehashed or generic.

And I don't dislike them by reflex or because I'm trying to be "niche". I played all of them up to 9, including the japanese releases. I gave them their fair chance. I even enjoyed some of them (FF3jap is one of most underappreciated 8-bit RPGs), but none of them really blew me away, and in the context of all of the innovative progressive RPGs from companies like Tri Ace, Gamearts, and Wolf Team (Yeah, I know it's mostly Tri-Ace members. So sue) the series just seems far less viable. When FF and Phantasy Star were the only RPGs in town, I would play a FF (after I'd finished the lates PS), but with Valkyrie Profile, Tales of Eternia, Grandia, and Star Ocean around... I just don't have the time to waste on FF any more.

gawd...glancing through this thread makes me realise how many rpg's i still need to

-play
-finish
-buy

Hmmm.

I realize I could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater concerning the Final Fantasy games. I do play them. Hell! I even enjoy playing them. As games, however, they just don't hold up to the rest. Beautiful? Yep. Best character design since...umm...really good character design? It's got that too. And I'll even say that inspite of the story following the same arcs, it's still pretty involving. But if given the choice of Final Fantasy or, say, Valkyrie Profile, I'm choosing VP. In my opinion, the visuals in VP are miles above Final Fantasy (though I'll argue FF graphics topple just about any other 3D game). The 2D environments are just amazing. The battle system, the 2D-platformer feel of the dungeons, the story, the customization; these are all things that I feel FF lacks. I love Final Fantasy 9. I really do. But if I had to trash it to keep Star Ocean 2, it'd be gone in a heart beat. SO2 is a better game.

And for all you people who disagree with Final Fantasy following the same story arcs, at least throughout the 32-bit to recent era, here:

FF7 = An otherworldy being (Jenova/Sepheroth) comes to town and wants to destroy the planet because the people living on it "aren't worthy." And in the process gain ultimate power (Mako, Black Materia).

FF8 = An otherworldly being (Adel's possessing spirit) comes to town and wants to destroy the planet because the people living on it "aren't worthy." And in the process gain ultimate dominion (Time Compression).

FF9 = An otherworldly being (Garland/Kuja) comes to town and wants to destroy the people living on the planet because they, themselves, are more deserving of the planet as a habitat. And in the process gain ultimate dominion (ruling the planet).

I can even make the jump from 16-bit to 32-bit. Care to see?

Mmm... I love how Tri-Ace has become the antisquare.

Is that why tri-Ace is such garbage? Seriously, what has tri-Ace done besides Star Ocean 2 and Valkyrie Profile?

I haven't played VP, but from the SO2 experience, I'm a little cautious to throw $30 at it (I just borrowed SO2, thank God).

Please don't bother.

Even if you found a special VP that gave you blowjobs on command, I don't forsee you saying anything positive (or correct) about it. And from what I could tell the US voices are just as poor.

Yeah.

Quote:

---

WTF are you guys smoking? You may not like the Sony installments, but how the hell can anyone say 4 was better than 6?

---

It's not the fact that VII-XI are on systems other than those made by Nintendo. It is simply that they are poorly designed games.

IV had many features that I feel are necessary in an RPG and many of those were lost in the transition from IV-VI (via V). The first and foremost is the 'improved' battle system present most obviously in VI and later. The fact that every character in the game can learn every spell and almost every weapon/armor can be equipped makes it pointless to have anything but four identical characters. Why even change the sprites?

I also dislike the number of party members you have access to during the battles. IVs use of a five party member battle system allowed for greater strategy. Each member had his/her place and when you were without them the battle became increasingly difficult. For example, Rosa dies and your options for ressurection and healing decrease dramatically. Were it V (somewhat) or VI+ any member could heal and cast life and everything else. What point does Rosa serve then?

FFIV also employed a very unique spell timing system. Those that have played it know that things were not cast when your 'turn' arrived ala VI, but it was based on a mysterious (at least to me) system of time between spell castings. The first time to cast a spell always took the longest. The more you cast it the faster you could do so. Very interesting and something I want to see more of.

I'll agree the story was better in VI, and the graphics of course and some of the score but the battle system (which is one of the most important parts of an RPG for me) was and remains totally broken.

I'm at work or I would go on and on and on.

I just think that IV is the height of the series and if Squaresoft continues on it's current course of making rehashed broken junk it will remain the last great Final Fantasy.

6

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
I haven't played VP, but from the SO2 experience, I'm a little cautious to throw $30 at it (I just borrowed SO2, thank God).

---

Hmm... if only I could think of a place that might actually have VP for rent.

I'm not saying you'll find it a religious experience or anything, I certainly know don't your tastes through and through, but it should at least be very interesting to see how things can be done completely differently.

But I love it, so I'm happy with that.

To be honest, I really enjoyed SO2 disc 1. At one point I played it for 16 hours in one day, which is very unusual for me. Disc 2 really fell apart, though, and that's what ruined it for me.

What makes me leery about Valkyrie Profile is the (mis)use of mythology, which is getting a bit tired in RPGs, and the cries of innovation for innovation's sake. And I just haven't been too thrilled with any RPGs in a while. What I find alluring is the prospect of nice 2D graphics and a good soundtrack (hopefully more melody oriented, unlike SO2).

Is the battle system like a typical RPG or an action game? That's something I've been confused about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
Is the battle system like a typical RPG or an action game?

---

Yes. ;)

Yes what, clown boy? Typical RPG or action game?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
Is the battle system like a typical RPG or an action game? That's something I've been confused about.

---

I'll do my best to describe it:

You have four characters immediately accessible in-battle. Each of these four characters is assigned to one of the face buttons, based on their location, and when you press a characters button, he/she attacks the enemy. Each side has their own turn, and you can use your attacks however you want during your turn. If you want someone to use an item to heal or revive, they won't be able to attack that turn. Otherwise, it'll be focused on creating combos.

Example: You have a magic user in back, and three melee fighters (two fast and one slow) in front. Cast a spell from your magic user (which will reach the enemy first), and as that fires you activate your slow melee fighter, followed by quicker ones. The timing there will allow your slow fighter to connect his hit as the magic spell finishes, and as he's done hitting, the faster attackers you activated last will come in for their hits. If attacks come simultaneously, one of them will miss, so you have to watch your timing. If your attacks chain together enough times to fill up the combo meter, you'll have access to Finishers, which deal additonal damage (nessecary for boss battles). Each Finisher (like a seperate special move) will add to the combo meter as well, but also costs a certain amount of the combo meter to activate. If you use the moves in such a way that your combo meter stays high, you can activate Finishers from your entire party. These also help because extra-long combos often net you extra items and experience.

Now, you obtain MP (which stands for Materialize Points in VP) by doing well, and you use those to create better armor and weapons (no shopping in towns). Better weapons will give you access to more damage and more attacks per round, so you can end up having one character doling out five attacks in a round, comboing with everyone else. Human-created weapons (there are divine items and mudane items) are often slightly better then divine weapons, but always have a 5% chance of breaking, so you need to watch those carefully if you want to use them. Having them break in the middle of a boss battle is never good.

Increasing your characters agility increases their ability to dodge, which comes in really handy as you can also obtain Counterattack. Get your characters with high agility and Counterattack, and many enemy attacks will completely miss and allow you a chance to deal out some extra damage. However, you must activate the counterattack manually, and sometimes it's a bad idea to do so and will only result in you getting hit anyway.

Alright, that should cover it fairly well. Any other questions?

Also, a bit extra:

Normally, you have a main map which you fly over. Cities and dungeons are sprinkled throughout, and you can access any on the map. Enter and it's like a 2D side-scroller. You can run, jump, and if you're in dungeons, slash. There are tunnels where you can move "in" and "out" of the screen onto different planes. While in dungeons, all enemies are represented by a different enemy graphic based on their strength. The enemies usually approach you, and you can slash at them with your sword. If you connect, you get first attack. If they connect, it's random (favoring them).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob What makes me leery about Valkyrie Profile is the (mis)use of mythology, which is getting a bit tired in RPGs, and the cries of innovation for innovation's sake. And I just haven't been too thrilled with any RPGs in a while. What I find alluring is the prospect of nice 2D graphics and a good soundtrack (hopefully more melody oriented, unlike SO2).

Is the battle system like a typical RPG or an action game? That's something I've been confused about.

---

VP is more closely based on Norse Mythology than any game before it. It's not that cartoony Tales of Phantasia/Record of Lodoss Tolkeinized version, it's very... adult, for lack of a better term. The innovation really isn't for it's own sake, it's not an attempt to change the genre as a whole, but more to realize a particular concept of theirs which is very different. You'll either love the gameplay, or resent the fact that it is a demanding game and one at which you can actually fail. It's out there, and for that reason it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but it does what it sets out to do perfectly.

As for the music, it is very different from SO2, but distincly Sakuraba. It's much more down beat, and very haunting and atmospheric. It's somewhat melodic but not the kind of thing you'll hum along to. I really think it's top notch, but its designed to be part of the game and suck you in more than stand out. Valkyrie Profile is a very dark, very sad game, and the soundtrack reflects that.

As for the combat system it's neither traditonal nor action based. It's turn based, but with real-time combos. It's a fairly complex system that relies havily on timing and planning. The basic concept is that you have all the characters availible for a given turn and you can signal any of them to attack with the press of a button. You can have one character attack while anothe is attacking as well. It's all realtime. In this way you can fake out an enemy by sending in a slow character to attack high, causing the enemy to block high, but before the character arrives, trigger a low attack from a fast character that will get their first, hit the enemy and break the enemies guard, allowing for the high attack to make contact. Building up damaging combos triggers supers as well. It's a really neat system. My main complaint with it is that the battles run on the long side