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