Into the FF series? Then check out this demo trailer of in-game play (fighting monsters):
Demo Trailer

One thing I noticed, is the Mandarogas, little plant like creatures introduced in FFXI. They apparently are using the exact same 3d models.

BTW, anybody know if Advent Children has come out (not the hacked version) yet?

Bah, FF ended with VI And from what I remember, AC was going to be released on December. But since I haven't heard about it yet, it is likely it will be released later this month

Haha, many think so. That's when the great divide happened.

I stuck around and continued playing and rather enjoyed VII, IX and for the most part, X. VIII and X-2 don't exist to me.

I didn't mention XI because I think it is a good game, it should just have a different title than Final Fantasy.

...there you go, you got me started...

FF7 was an awesome game. Correction, FF7 is an awesome game. I don't know much about the earlier ones, but I find it hard too imagine them being any better (though I'm not saying it's not possible). FF8 was cool too, but I never got into it. People have told me it's almost as good. From what I could tell, FF9 wasn't too exciting when compared with 7, but still not bad. FF10, in my opinion, does not deserve the Final Fantasy title. And don't get me started on FF10-2.

Of course, that's just my opinion. And everybody is entitled to my own opinion.

Shiny DVD

I guess that settles it then.

What ReyBrujo said - current FFs after 6 should just.. go away.

What goes for FF12.. I played the demo, and it feels good. Yeah, that's right. Good. Of course, the changes that have been introduced have pissed off a lot of people (of which some cry that this is not FF anymore (and proceed to listen to Linkin Park), and some who think that FFs are the pinnacle in RPG gaming say that they're relatively understandable because FFs have revolutionized RPGs in the past (to which I say HAHAHAHARBL GTFO AND DIE)), but from what I gather from the demo, FF12 is more FF than 7-11 could ever even hope to be.

(what goes for AC - worthless fanboy shite)

Nah, FF VII is pretty good.

I tried to get into the PSX FFs... really, I did. Having barely finished VII and VIII (both with long gaps between starting and finishing) I started on IX and happily noticed the series moving back in the right direction. However, after about ten hours my fascination died once more, and I shelved the game and went back to playing something else.

I've skipped the PS2 entries entirely... the character designs alone are akin to huge steaming piles of offal.

Maybe it's just me, but once I start a game, especially a RPG, I rarely put it down until I'm finished. It's like getting up in the middle of a movie, I just can't seem to do it. Which reminds me, I need to get back to Fenix Blade...

BTW, FFIX is one of my favorites. My favorite part of the game is the last hour of play (including the ending).

It all depends on what you think a FF is.

How come everyone's coming down on FF7? Would someone be able to explain to me what is so unworthy about it? I know it comes down to preference, but I mean, I feel that if you don't like it, at least you could recognize it as being a well made game.

An enjoyable story-oriented action/"adventure" video game with relatively few RPGish features. You? The physical manifestation of whatever deity/deities you believe in/teh bestest RPG everest?

I love FF7. All the FF7 haters have been posting apparently

Once I start a game like FF I finish it, but around the end I start finding guides because I get stuck in those stupid puzzles or I just tried to run through the game without gaining levels so I end up being too weak. I enjoy the story and experience more than I enjoy bashing monsters upside the head, so that's mainly why.

I can't wait for PS2 emulators to mature so I can play FFX. I've played all the U.S. Final Fantasy games up to 9 (to the end, of course), so I really want to finish that up...until they come up with something for nex gen consoles, then I'll be behind again sigh.
Oh, and on that note, I recently looked at the PS2 emulator again to see how it's going. They recently improved the video playback, so games don't have to be patched any longer to skip FMVs.
Bad news is the major developer for the project just quit That's going to slow things down quite a bit.
Some games are marked "playable" other can't be played, and FFX is marked "ingame"? Whatever that means. Probably means you can get into the game but can't finish.

I usually compare FF with Metallica, and Final Fantasy VII with Black Album. For some, it was one of the greatest albumes, for others, it began the decay of the group. I am with the second group.

FFVI was the latest full RPG in an RPG series. FFVII was an adventure game using the RPG brand to sell more. It reminds me of Zelda II, when Nintendo changed an adventure into a RPG. It didn't work for them, and they switched back to the series as we love them. Unluckily, american people prefer adventure games than RPG, which bastardized the series turning them into an adventure because it sold more.

Just out of curiosity, why? I remember when I first played it and kind of had the same attitude. I stayed away from VIII all together. I heard good things about IX and it brought me back to the series. I then played VII again, and enjoyed it a lot better (I really have no idea why). Then I played VIII, which I wish I would've stayed away from like I had originally planned.

[EDIT]
Ooops, didn't realize you answered my question. Did you edit it? Anyway,

It felt like an RPG to me. However, I might've been too blinded by my love of the series back at that time. I'm definitely seeing major marketing tactics with the recent titles, FFXI (online? obviously trying to make money), FFX-2 (exact same world and models? Easy to make, but horrible sequel), FF Chronicles (how much equipment did you have to buy to play that?), etc.

Nonetheless, I still enjoy the stories of the games.

Buy Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls for GBA. Then Final Fantasy III for Nintendo DS (still not released, though), and Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy V and Final Fantasy VI for GBA (which haven't yet been released). Play one after the other and you will realize something: They are RPG. Now, play FFVII. For me, it is closer to Secret of Mana than Final Fantasy.

I will admit, after FFVII, I have not played the others. If they continued stripping RPG elements from the following versions, I don't want to hear.

Sorry, I missed part of your post and was editing my post when you wrote your reply.

I started with FF1 when it came out. I played each one (recently playing the titles that didn't release in America). RPG = Role Playing Game. FFVII you get to role play as the characters from FFVII, just like the other characters in the previous final fantasies. I don't think it's an adventure game like Zelda at all, completely different feel.

[EDIT]
Missed this post as well.

Hey now, I'm not a FF fanatic. I'm a fan, but not a fanatic. There are those out there who'd buy the game if it was really just a Moogle First person shooter. I, however, would cry if that ever happened. I think FF is an enjoyable story-oriented rpg video game with relatively few action/"adventure" features, which I think FFVII fits, but that's just my opinion.

FFVI included adventuring in fair bits, there was no discernable "genre shift". FFs have always been action/adventure first, RPG second/third/.../last.

JRPG. Planescape: Torment alone is better (as an RPG) than all the Final Fantasies combined. Contest this and you will autofail.

So you started from FF7? Figures.

And in Super Mario Bros you play the role of Mario (or Luigi if you're that way inclined), so it must be an RPG too. What's that? It isn't? Oh well, just slap stats like health and strength on it and you'll have an RPG! Awesome! YESYESYES WINNING FORMULA FOR RPGS © ME! You say FF is a "pure"/"true"/"etc" RPG - I say lurk moar.

For me, FF defined what RPG means. When it changed the way it was played, it wanted to change the definition.

In example, Zelda has changed a lot from the original NES one to the coming Twilight Princess. However, it is always an adventure and is basically played in the same way. Note how few new items are incorporated in every new version (heck, there are still arrows and bombs, like the first one!). They tried to change with Zelda II, and turned it back because fans didn't like that.

For me, had FFVII been released for SNES, people would have asked Squaresoft to switch back to the previous gameplay. However, since it was launched in a new console, they accepted as a natural evolution.

I don't know you, but I didn't like the idea of having my guy in GTA: San Andreas hungry, or lose strength. Heck, I was playing a killing game, give me people to kill, don't force me to stop to have lunch. What would happen if in Half-Life 3 or Halo 3 you need to go to sleep at 10 PM and wake up at 6 AM or your character would lose aiming, eat at midday or your character would not be able to run?

(Edited: As for JRPG, well, yes... for me, FF is a CRPG... played RPG with friends, so I know about D&D stuff... however, give me just the stats I want for the game, I don't want to know that, if I sneeze, I will make 1d2+1 rounds of echo in a cave... that is where FF shines, it had the exact elements for the game, no more, no less).

I can't contest your opinion?

uh...:

[EDIT - Commented out due to foolishness]

[EDIT - Addition to respond to Rey]

Every addition in the FF series has been an attempt at a natural evolution. You can't say FF1 played exactly like FF6, can you? Given, there seems to be a missing link between FF6 and FF7 and a lot of people can't get over that. My wife wouldn't play any games until she randomly picked up FFX. I slowly introduced her to the other titles in reverse order. She loved them. When we attempted to go from FF7 to FF6, she started, but could never get into it and thusly stopped permanently after about 3 hours. So I'll admit, there's quite a gap between the two and I admitted to saying I had a hard time adjusting. It wasn't until my second round that I actually enjoyed it.

There was a time when I thought that FF was the bomb (well, right around FF4/5/6), but I'll put emphasis on the past tense. To me a change in FF means a change in FF, definitely not RPGs in general. Oh, and I started my RPG "career" with some board games (Hero Quest).

Zelda did try to change, and I'm not saying it didn't. I'm saying FF didn't (as dramatically as you try to suggest). FF7 utilized the same template as FF6 but with a 3D setting, lots of minigames/varying "dungeons", worse characters/features + an annoying bishie villain.

I think not. Had it been thrown into a 2D setting, it would've been pretty close to FFVI in terms of gameplay. IMO the biggest changes would've been the "dungeons'" design and Esper system -> Materia system.

You probably know what I meant, though. I prefer using JRPG, so it doesn't get confused with computer RPGs. Then again, Anachronox (which is a very good game, by the way) is both!

So if you don't care about the stats (one of the very few RPG elements present in FF), what else did you find there (save for a nice story, some adventure and action)? Who exactly did you "role play"? The party? Yeah, that's always fun. How many in-character decisions you made? Did you get a chance to be evil?

Of course you can, but that unfortunately means you autofail and should just go back to playing some "RPG" games.

Then there's something wrong with you for liking FF7 (more than FF6?).

Ever missed a point before? If not, congratulations, you just did.

For the third time, I didn't the first time through. It wasn't until I played it through the second time. It's got an amazing story and what I think (just my opinion) was one of the best twists ever. Now, I never said I liked it more or less than FF6.

[EDIT - Commented out due to foolishness]

Obviously, you did. But hey, it's all right. I didn't expect you to understand.

It would be better for all of us if you would stop thinking.

[EDIT - Commented out due to foolishness]

Me angry? Where did you get that? It's just fairly safe to say that you can be ignored in anything even remotely related to RPGs from now on.

And wrong.

http://www.duckiehorde.net/tap.gif Wee emo moose fails.

I've only seen friends playing VII. As for myself, I've only played and finished Chrono Trigger and there is very little wrong with it..

I don't feel the need to play a FF game now.

[EDIT - Commented out due to foolishness]

Where did you get that?

I say that "I think" or "in my opinion" as to disclaim that I'm not asserting that I'm right or wrong. Also, I'm trying to argue my side as reasonable as possible while it seems like your argument is more in an attempt to attack me personally. I don't see why it's "fair to say that I can be ignored" in anything RPG related. Perhaps you could give an attempt in explaining why you said that instead of saying, "you're stupid", or "I don't expect you to understand", etc. I haven't said anything derogatory about you (well, at least, until recently).

That was funny

I'm not sure what you mean by "involved with the character". Do you mean you feel as if you are the character? Or as if you are somehow 'closer' to the character? I never got either feeling from an FF, especially because I'd usually be managing multiple characters (so it's not absolutely clear, even, who "the character" is). And what is the "disassociation of the player and character"? In, for example, Zork, the game is narrated as though the player is the character, and I've always heard Zork referred to as an adventure game.

This is a very strange view. FF seems like a fairly standard entry in a sub-genre of RPG. It isn't the first of that sub-genre, and it's certainly the case that the genre itself existed quite significantly before the sub-genre. If there is a definitive title, I would assume it would be a 'first' at least of the sub-genre, but ideally of the whole genre. If one must choose an RPG to define the term RPG, I would expect Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D can be played with reduced or transparent stats. It's up to the DM.

One could certainly create the elements of an FF game with less stats, and less complexity in general.

Can you articulate the gameplay difference between FFVI and FFVII? I played most of each, back in the day, and recall core gameplay which was essentially the same.

Doing a "define: role playing" on google I got several definitions, this one was close to what I was thinking. If you think this is a bad definition, you are certainly welcome to say so.

google said:

I meant the character as in "character(s)". Now, as inph said, what makes FF an RPG and something like Mario or Metroid (inph, if I'm using this out of context, then just say I'm stupid as I'd expect you to do) not, since you could "adopt [the] character" in those games, I couldn't really specify. All I know is, in FF I feel like I'm in a "improvisational drama" while I don't get this feeling when playing Zelda, Mario, etc.

I don't agree that FF is an "improvisational drama." Your choices in the game are restricted to dialogue selections and the order in which you complete the side quests. Neither of these decisions alter the story or outcome of the game in any significant way. There's really only one way to play FF games--following the storyline that the designers have laid out for you. I think that for the most part, this is a very enjoyable experience, but an improvisational drama it ain't.

I do think, as Goodbytes said, that FF is far from that definition. In playing FF, I have never felt that I am an actor playing a part: I am controlling too many characters to feel I am "adopting" the personality, motivation, or background of any character. And, as Goodbytes said, I have no real control over any of those characters: I cannot really affect the story or dialog, and so there is no resemblance to improvisational acting.

But obviously this is mildly subjective, or at least you can continue to claim, without even needing justification, "in FF I feel like I'm in a 'improvisational drama'". Regardless: under the definition of RPG which you've chosen, it is not clear that FF is an RPG. However, I think that FF is almost always classified as an RPG. Therefore, the definition may exclude games which are commonly deemed RPGs. Also, there are games which are not commonly classified as RPGs which I believe would fit the definition, such as Facade. So I don't think the definition corresponds to the actual usage of the term.

Good comment. I believe everything becomes so subjective because the distinction between an RPG and an Adventure game (or other genre) is not so direct. You can have elements from both genres within the game. Now some things are obvious, like FF can't be a FPS, but often, FF's have puzzles in them, but I wouldn't really call it a puzzle game either.

See, I'm the opposite. I chose that definition (for just role playing, not necessarily rpg) because I think FF is an RPG and the first two letters in RPG stand for role playing, so my goal was define role playing and connect FF through that to actually classify it as an RPG. But I'm sure you could google a definition for adventure and be able to connect the two in some manner.

I asked a few acquaintenances about said topic to see what they thought distinguished an RPG. One said it was heavily based on statistics. One said it was really how the battle system worked. One said it was the story. And I simply say it's just that the game was designed around the idea of role playing. Apparently, everyone seems to have their own view on what a RPG is, hence why it is such an easily debatable topic.

I thought you referred to "angry" with "mad". I don't "get mad" either, I'm mad all the time.

At any rate, Zaphos and Goodbytes seem to share my point (at least partially).

Because it is clear that you have little to no idea what RPGs are all about.

It is not a bad definition, but you misunderstand it.

Just because it feels like (or even if it is) improvisational drama does not make it "role playing" if you are not one of the actors. In FFs, you are not one of the actors, not even by a long shot. The actors live a life of their own, they make their decisions based on their mentality and predefined set of morale and pretty much the only thing you can do is tell them where to go (I would also like to know WTF are you "role playing" in FFs, because role playing parties is an oxymoron).

You may feel like you are inside the story + liking/sympathy/empathy for the characters, but that's not roleplaying. Just because you feel like you're inside a book or movie doesn't mean you are playing a role in them.

In Fallouts, you are the actor - you make the choices, you decide what kind of a character you are (and I'm not talking about stats here, screw the stats for now), you are in control of your character.

In Gothic, you are the actor - you're the Nameless Hero (*), you have little control over your character's mentality, but you are still in control. It's just not that much you as it is the predefined Nameless Hero. Gothic could involve way more choices, too, the games are pretty linear. Hopefully this will be fixed in G3.

In PS:T, you are the actor, you're TNO (*), but that's right about the only thing forced on you - you have pretty much all the control possible over your character.

In all of these games different paths of execution also exist. There are numerous ways to go around in the games and solve predicaments, depending on whether you are good, evil, fighter, mage, etc.. None of that exists in FFs.

Let me ask you one thing. Have you ever played FO, BG, PS:T, etc? If yes, then you seriously confuse me with your statements. If not, consider this discussion over for now - take your "opinions" and "feelings" and come back when you have learned something.

(*) Some games (P:ST, Gothic) force a predefined model on your character, but that can be considered acceptable when the "models" play an important part in the story.

Re-defining words is always fun. I chose a definition for FF that makes it an e-mail server - and because it's an drumroll opinion, you can't say it's wrong. So there!

Which FFs are not. PS:T is. Fallouts are. FFs are not.

No. "RPGs" can be defined (to some extent), it's is not as open to interpretation as you think it is. The general definition is not very open for debate, unless for people like you who have little to no idea what you are talking about. If you want to say it is (and proceed to say that it boils down to opinion), then I must say that you are just yet another abuser of the concept of "opinion". And that is where "it's fairly safe to say that you can be ignored in anything even remotely related to RPGs from now on" comes from.

Oh yeah, and I will also say that red colour is actually green. Want to argue with that? Well, sorry, you can't - it's my opinion from now on, and as such totally impervious to any sense. Do you see the problem with "opinions" already?

What's that? You want me to define an RPG? See above for some hints. The rest? Consider it homework.

I see. Thank you for putting together a response with examples and reasoning. When you said things like "it's fair to say I can be ignored" or "I don't expect you to understand" made me think that you had no idea what you were talking about, but I see that is not the case.

However, I'm still unclear as to why a role playing game is not about role playing. If it is not central to role playing then why is it called a role playing game? You say FFs are not role playing, but I say they are. You said that you are not the character(s). Well obviously you are not the character, but rather role playing as the character. If you say that you are not role playing as the character(s) in FF, then I'll have to find FF fans and see if they agree with you.

The genre of a game is what the game is about. Adventure games are about adventures. Puzzle games are about puzzles. FPS are about first person shooting. Role playing games are about role playing. I can't see it any other way. Why would I say red is = to green? Or vice versa. Red is red and green is green. I can't see how one could argue that, (which of course was your point about why making opinions can be bad).

I don't think I ever said that a role playing game is not about role playing. Again, FF is not an RPG, if that's what got you confused.

What makes FF a roleplaying game? -> Who originally defined and marketed Final Fantasy as a role playing game? -> Square. And yet, they have almost nothing to do with RPGs. Silly japs think everything magically turns into an RPG when you slap a skill/experience/etc system on it.

Which character? Why that character? What is your character like? Can you decide what kind of mentality he/she has? No. Can you have any effect on your character? No. Can you have any impact on anything aside from story events? No. All of them are paper dummies who diligently play their predefined parts over and over again no matter what you do. You have no choice. Deciding that your character is evil and acting by that principle could be considered role playing (and a game that provides the means for making these decisions and acting them out is an RPG). Deciding your characters' names (pretty much your only choice in JRPGs) and then just taking them through the linear game (without any impact on how it plays out) to meet the final boss is not.

You are not role playing any character/them, you are not assuming their mindset and they do not assume yours - you are just controlling them. You may be engrossed and immersed in the game, but don't confuse that with role playing. Again, by your definition Super Mario Bros could be considered an RPG because the players assume the role of Mario.

FF fanboys tend to be less intelligent than navel fluff, but go ahead. They will tell you how FF has defined what RPG means, how it's the bestest RPG everest, etc.

Of course they are, which is why FF still isn't an RPG. Again, just because someone (Square) says it's an RPG doesn't make it one. Just because it's marketed (by Square) as an RPG doesn't make it one.

No, it's not. You are going to make missing points an olympic sport at this rate. Red is green and green is red, because that's my opinion and opinions are magically impervious to any sense and counter statements. You have no choice but to accept my opinion. Making and having opinions is not bad. Hiding everything under the oh-so-protective shield of opinion is.

You also missed the big question in my previous post. I am assuming you haven't.

Am I the only one here who actually likes the old and new Final Fantasies? I think those of you who pick your favorite and complain that the other ones are too different don't seem to realize that each and every installment from the very first has strived to be completely different than the last. And "evolution" is the wrong word; it's more like deevolution, because they've never quite stuck with what people liked.

What's great about the new ones is that once in a while they'll throw in a classic FF element. I think IX and especially X-2 are awesome because they're tributes to the original 8-bit installments.

Storywise, none of the them are spectaclular, so it seems strange to rank them based on story. But I must say that X is great if for nothing else then its ending. My girlfriend and I cried when I beat it and when I beat it for my brother he cried too.

It's become pretty obvious that my opinion alone is not creditable. Nor can I query the "FF fanboys" as their response won't necessarily be wrong, but heavily biased. Instead, I went over to another community and posed them the same question(s) about what a RPG is and if FF is one. The community is all the staff members for the stratics website, a community organized into most (if not all) MMORPGs. I'd link to the question I posed on the site, but the staff section requires certain permissions. In addition, there have been comments from this community of people who do not like FFs, which I hope makes that group a little more creditable.

I don't refer to myself as a "fanboy", but you make a good comment nonetheless. That is why I have asked another community to get better statistical data (if you think part of my process is questionable, let me know so I can alter it appropriately). That being said, I will now admit to the games I have played (and consider RPGs. The specific titles I have played should not be contested, but rather the group as a whole). I have played the following:
FF1 through FFXI. FFs for the gameboy. FFtactics and FFtactics Advance.
Secret of Mana.
Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross.
Okage "Shadow King"
Dragon Warrior
7th Saga (by Enix)
Started a Breath of Fire, but didn't get far

And out of the allegro rpg depot:
Fenix Blade
Legends of Thantil
3059

Wow, that's a pretty sad list. Figured I'd have more after about 20 years of playing games. Of course, this is just my RPG listing...

Nope, I like 'em too.

I loved IX (it got me back into the series) because of the "old elements". X-2, however, felt like a forced marketing scheme. I mean for the first sequel to a FF, I think it could've been so much better. Alas, I've only got 97% of the game complete...

I don't think they are trying to make games that people don't like.

Do you think, when you read a good book, you are role playing the character in the book? You're not: Role-playing requires that you play the role, not just that you observe it. Role-playing is not just empathizing, it requires acting & real involvement in the decisions and life of the character. FFs play out, in terms of dialog and story, like books, with zero user control.
I suppose I feel this is more clear cut than I implied previously, when I noted you can continue to claim you feel like you're role playing. While you can indeed continue to claim that ... if you feel like you're role playing when you aren't, well, that's strange and probably irrelevant.
It's like someone who says, "I feel like I'm playing soccer when I'm drinking coca-cola." That's interesting, but I'm not about to change the definition of soccer to include "drinking cola-cola" because of it.

I think it's an artifact of the history of the term: In the beginning, so to speak, role playing games were about role-playing with game elements. But as people adopted the popular RPG format, copied it, moved it to new mediums, etc, it became clear that the specific game elements were distinct enough that people would recognize a game as an RPG even if it entirely lacked the role-playing part. Since the role-playing part is difficult to carry over from the table-top to the computer, it was most frequently dropped, and so we have lots of RPGs with no RP. Furthermore, this de-emphasis on the RP components means a game which has RP but gameplay which is not similar enough to the traditional game elements of an RPG (or some evolution therein) will not be deemed an RPG. Again, see Facade, perhaps Indigo Prophecy (Farenheit), etc.

I think what we have here is that the term RPG has evolved into something it didn't use to be, which is hard for some people to cope with.

The only thing the word "role play" means to me is that I play a role. It's a very broad term that could pertain to many things. It doesn't have to only apply to table-top games or computer games that are exactly like that.

It's obvious that FF isn't the same as a table-top game, but they both fit under the broad definition of "Role Playing." It's like saying Basketball cannot be a Sports game because Football came first.

Statements like that don't help your cause. It shows that you don't even have any thought of entertaining the opinions of other people, so I'm not sure why he is discussing this with you.

Public opinion dictates the meaning of a series of words. If a substantial number of people associate FF with role playing, then indeed it is role playing. You certainly do play a role; it's not like people are calling it a strategic sports board game. Etymology doesn't change what a word means today.

Community "votes" are irrelevant, because I could point you to RPG communities that'd laugh you out.

Oh, and here's a small list of some RPGs I remember that I've played (completed or tested and found teh sucks). Mostly likely forgot something.

A number of old, obscure SSI titles I can't even name anymore
Anachronox
Angband + Moria + Nethack etc
Arcanum
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2
Captive
Deus Ex
Dungeon Master
Eye Of The Beholder 1 & 2
Fallout 1 & 2
Gothic 2
Hero's Quest
Icewind Dale 1 & 2
Jagged Alliance 2
Lords of Midnight
Moonstone
Morrowind
Neverwinter Nights
Nox
Planespace: Torment
System Shock 2
Temple Of Elemental Evil
Ultimas (can't remember the parts, at least 1 and 7)
Vampire: Bloodlines
Vampire: The Masqurade

.hack 1-4
7th Saga
Arc the Lad: TOTS
Arcana
Atelier Iris: Eternal Mana
Bahamut Lagoon
Brain Lord
Breath Of Fire 1-5
Castlevania: SOTN + COD
Chrono Cross
Chrono Trigger
Disgaea
Dragon Warriors (can't remember the parts, at least 1, 7 and 8)
Earthbound
Final Fantasies I-X + X-2 + Tactics + Legend 1-3
Grandia 1 & 2
Hydlide
Kingdom Hearts
Illusion Of Gaia
Legaia: Duel Saga
Legend of Legaia
Legend of Mana
Lufia 1 & 2
Lunar: SSSC + EB
Magna Carta: Tears of Blood
Makai Kingdom
Parasite Eve
Phantom Brave
Persona 2
Radiata Stories
Romancing Saga 3
Romancing Saga: Minstrel Song
Saga Frontier 1 & 2
Secret of Evermore
Secret of Mana
Seiken Densetsu 3
Shadowrun
Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga
Star Ocean 1-3
Stella Deus
Suikoden 1-4 + Tactics
Super Mario RPG
Swords and Serpents
Tales Of Phantasia + Destiny + Destiny 2
Terranigma
Unlimited Saga
Vagrant Story
Valkyrie Profile
Wild Arms 1-3
Xenogears 1 & 2
Ys (can't remember the parts, at least 3)

Good point. I'll still look into what the other community says and sum it up here. If you want to take that to your communities and bring a response summary back, I can see that be a perfectly acceptable argument.

Nice list of games, reminded me of a few I didn't mention. MarioRPG, Earthbound, Kingdom Hearts and I think another one or two. By the way, I noticed you listed almost all the FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you didn't think it was a RPG or were you just listing titles that have been declared as RPGs, regardless of your opinion?

And Zaphos, the comment about table-top and video game rpgs is interesting. I talked to someone who also said the term role-playing didn't carry over. He went on to say that the more popular definition that appeals to the masses generally becomes the accepted definition. Kind of like what Matthew was saying.

[EDIT - Illusion of Gaia, that's the one I missed]

I don't have to. Just imagine a re-iteration of what I said, with an even more negative tone towards you.

Declared RPGs. The list has been separated in two for a reason.

I imagine you will comment on my results anyway, so I don't see why I should imagine a re-iteration with a negative tone towards myself.

That's what I figured.

[edit]

You mean this?

I probably won't, because your results are meaningless.

edit: And besides, as promised above, I consider this discussion is over. You have nothing of any value to say.

No.

I didn't mean it to be insulting, though in hindsight I could have phrased it nicer. I just meant that I thought "role-playing" did have specific characteristics which I thought to be widely-accepted, objective traits, and those must be present for something to be deemed "role-playing" (just as much as the a ball must be present for us to call something "soccer"). It seems there is a high probability that I was wrong about the 'widely accepted'.

I don't think people associate FF with "role playing" so much as they associate it with the term RPG, which is, by usage, its own distinct entity with a definition not strictly tied to the definition of role playing. It is possible that the definition of role playing has been so completely co-opted amongst gamer-communities that the definition of "role-playing" was changed to re-fit the definition of "role playing game" because this is the only place members of those communities have encountered the phrase "role playing," but I did not think that was the case before having this discussion.
You say you "certainly do play a role," which, for reasons extensively discussed, I find incorrect, unless you mean to refer to the role of 'the guy who controls characters during battles and equips items and figures out how to transport the characters to their next dialog opportunity'. But I do agree that usage defines meaning, and it's possible that there is a set of people who do in fact use "role playing" in such a strange and meaningless manner, such that essentially anything at all is "role playing".

At this point it's all quite pedantic, but I do enjoy the properties of gameplay I would attribute to 'actual' role playing and think it is useful to be able to express the distinction somehow, between RPGs which have those properties and RPGs which lack them.

Hence, the JRPG category.

Um...okay. Good counter-point?

I know.

It's not a counter-point, nor intended as such. It is just clear to me that this conversation has been a waste of time since you do not really even know the "basics". Is someone paying you to fail? You sure do a good job at that.

I wonder.

To break into the `what is an RPG?' discussion, I used to be of the opinion that computers cannot do `good' role playing games because (basically) computers make poor dungeon masters (or game masters) and without one of those you can't really `roel play' as you would want.
Until I played Neverwinter Nights. Wow. There I actually feel that I can play my character and say and do things in character. I think this is mainly due to having different dialog options that are appropriate for different alignments (as opposed to just `yes' or `no') which is a fairly minor technical thing to add, but it makes quite a difference in the experience of the game.

Yeah, NWN is pretty good. The main quest is quite predictable, but at least you can download extensive mods for it. There's even a mod that turns NWN into EOB1! NWN2 should be out soonish, too - and while waiting, you should try out Fallouts and Planescape: Torment (if you haven't already). You might catch them from bargain bins. NWN/PS:T are a bit battle-oriented, but you can go through FOs without directly hurting anyone (at least I can't remember a part where you specifically had to kill someone).

If you like P&P rpg's you should also try out Baldur's Gate 2 (you can enjoy it even without playing at BG 1), as for the last RPG i've played that really had atmosfere i reccomend Vampire the masquerade redeption: bloodlines

I promised myself not to play NWN until the Dragonlance patch is finished

Don't worry it won't be ready until NWN 2 is finished, at that point they'll decide that it's better to port it to NWN 2 and start all over again

Going back a bit...
Even if you hate FFVII to the moon, you have to agree that the music kicks butt, right? Because I've got news for you! The music kicks butt!
Okay now, you people can continue your conversation in peace. Or war, if that's what you prefer.

This just in: The music doesn't kick butt. There are some good tracks, but nothing that would really "kick butt".

A friend sent me once the video of Aria di Mezzo Carattere, the FFVII version of the FFVI song once. Was it in the FFVII game too, or just a way to bring FFVI followers to buy VII?

You and your dumb opinions.

Could have been... under a different name. I've got the soundtrack right here (PSF), and I can't find any song with that name. Or perhaps, as you said, it was just some ploy to get people to buy the game.

Crawl back into whatever hole you came from, fanboy.

Just trying to balance out the haters to lovers ratio. It's like the FFVII haters reunion or something...

The Chrono Trigger music is magnificant IMHO.

MHO agrees with YHO.

I still have to undertand how they managed to make a midi file make shout-like sounds (Chrono Trigger, Millennial Fair bg music)

SNES didn't use midi files. I'm pretty sure it used samples.

I'm listening to FF9 music right now, mmmmmmm.

Duh, looks like you missed my point. You'd rather say my opinion/thoughts are worthless rather than actually try to contest them. It least I gave you the respect of editing out my comments that were driven more out of anger/emotion rather than thought and apologizing for it. Oh, and btw:

Inphernic said:

I think the Chrono Cross music is magnificant IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Chrono Trigger stuff, but CC was awesome. FF9 is good and so is FF7 music (JENOVA is really good). I'd love to go to a concert of Nobuo's rock band.

No, you missed mine!

It's easier to just dismiss you completely than trying to construct a reply that 1) you would understand, 2) wouldn't get "countered" with "YEAH SO BUT ITS LIKE MY OPINION AMIRITE?". Besides - there's nothing of any substance to contest, really. In the end, I couldn't really care less what you "think". That's how much I value your.. "contribution".

INTERNET - SERIOUS BUSINESS

This discussion = discussion about the nature of RPGs with you.

<UT announcer>FAILING SPREE</UT announcer>

Happily owning the FF4,5,6, and 7 soundtracks, I can honestly say the one I listen to the least is 7. There are a smattering of beautiful and moving tunes, but for the most part they just lack the raw emotional punch of the previous entries. FF4 is also pretty weak at times, but I still find it more enjoyable than 7.

Hmm, I don't own the soundtracks, I've just played the regular music, but I'm gonna have to agree. Between 6 and 7, 6 is probably better. Seven has some fun songs on there, some with fond memories attached, but overall six is far more moving, as you said. 8 ranks pretty low. 9 (still listening all the way through) is darn good, probably even better than six, or at the very least on par.
The only really good 7 songs are a few remixes from OCRemix. FF9 doesn't even need to be remixed

Three cheers for Nobuo Uematsu!

Hip hip try to make better music, hip hip try to make better music, hip hip try to make better music!

Nah, it seems that Timpani Roll-san has been out of ideas/inspiration for some time now.. but then again, he's not the only one. Quite a number of these "traditional stars" are fading, but that doesn't mean they couldn't still pull out some surprise ammo and get rocking again.

Well, of course it's "easier".

What makes you think I wouldn't understand? You've made some good points (more because you made me do some research rather than from your own negative comments) that's made me re-evaluate how I look at RPGs. Thus, here's my new understanding, which I'm sure you will detest, spit on and give your opinion on.

There's seems to be a profound difference between a role playing game and a RPG, even though the acronym expands to the same words. When people go to play D&D or Neverwinter Nights, they would say something like "I'm going to play a role playing game." Typically, if asked what they are about to do, they won't say, "I'm going to play a RPG, it's called D&D". In contrast, when someone is going to play Final Fantasy or Secret of Mana, they typically say something like "I'm going to play a RPG." I've never heard someone say, "I'm going to play the role playing game, Final Fantasy." Now, this is silly because the two terms should mean exactly the same thing. The masses (aka Square and others) have ultimately marketed an RPG to equal their products, even though a true role playing game would be D&D or Neverwinter Nights, etc and not really Final Fantasy.

Nonetheless, the difference can be said when playing a traditional RPG or the new accepted term of RPG, but what difference does it really make? Why say FF is not a RPG when it is so widely accepted as a RPG? Are we accomplishing anything by that? However, I will think twice before ever calling FF a "true" RPG.

That's whats called being close minded. I have tried to be open minded, reading your responses closely and carefully. Although my new understanding of a RPG might not be as "perfect" as you might want it to be, at least I'm willing to learn.

Once again, no hard feelings.

I will give you my opinion on it (although I promised to ignore you) because I am happy to see that something good has come out of all this. You're not quite there yet, but it's a start. See? No detesting, although I'll cough a loogie on it just to stay in character.

You are one step closer to enlightenment.

The best lesson is to get and play the games I mentioned in the top section of the list I posted.

Of course not.

RPG smarpeegee. I don't think I could play FF if they were traditional RPGs. Words like "thou" and "orc" hurt my eyes/ears.

So, you didn't like Cyan?

I just played a bit of FFXII...

I got so bored, I turned it off. The combat system is so convoluted. They basically lifted the combat system from FFXI, but since it isn't actually multiplayer, it's even more boring. The best way I can describe the battle system is "mushy." You push attack and you wait there, not knowing if you're attacking or when you'll attack next, but you can move around immediately. It's inconsistent. To make matters worse, the AI will cast spells at will, and I couldn't figure out how to set a new leader to the group.

Just my 2 cents: I always enjoyed adventure games where the main character is driven by their motivations. I find when it's up to the player to give a role, the main character becomes stale and uninteresting. They become a shell. Maybe I lack the imagination to fill in the gaps though. I'm not a big Dungeon and Dragons fan either.

I agree. I've been playing FFXI for over a year (off and on) and it tends to become stale and uninteresting fairly often (since you define the character). I'm joining a RP group to see if it will lift my spirits for the game, otherwise it's going in the can (the account, that is).

I'll describe it as an improvement. No silly battle transitions or other breaks (save for boss "intros"), it's just action from the get go. Then again, action is what I was expecting - maybe you expected something else/more, but got disappointed?

You're attacking if you selected Attack and that jolly line popped up between you and the target (IIRC it also says Attack near the time gauge, which marks your next action). The function of the time gauge is also reversed, now it counts the time to perform the action -> when the time gauge is full, you will attack. It is supposedly possible to cancel actions (although I couldn't find out how), so that if something happens you can cancel and fix the situation.

When you have the gambit mode on, it will. Without it, you'll have to enter commands for them as well, but you can even with the gambit mode on - the commands will queue. I would expect to be able to adjust the AI behaviour in the final though, it didn't seem very bright at times.

I can't remember right now, but it's supposedly possible (couldn't figure out how to do this either).

Does that mean you are stale and uninteresting?

At any rate, the game is still demo - what goes for figuring out the system, the final should have proper tutorials and instructions for it. But from the little I saw from the demo, this is more like it.

yes.

Just from the video clip, it looks more like a Baldur's Gate-style battle system, as one can pause to decide things? Except with a far more annoying UI. I got none of the excitement or pacing I'd expect from watching an action game, the characters looked unresponsive, and I felt drawn out of the experience by the intrusive UI.
What is that superlong pause between deciding to attack and deciding to swing the sword? In the video, the main character just runs up to an enemy and stands there shuffling awkwardly. Eventually he appears to remember, "oh, hey, I've got a sword! Maybe I should swing it or something." This explicit, highly artificial pausing completely ruins the flow of the action. And it still doesn't look like there is any real strategic movement, so characters mainly just stand in the same places repeating the same actions.
Fundamentally for me it comes to this: fights between magic-wielding fantasy heroes and giant dinosaurs shouldn't be boring! but here they are. That fight was so very boring.

I guess this is an unduly harsh reaction from just seeing an early demo, but if they can't do an action-oriented gameplay style properly they shouldn't do it at all. As it is, their huge fan base will be confused and upset and I doubt the game will be compelling enough to draw in many new fans.

You can choose between having it paused when "appropriate" and real-time. And yeah, the UI can get annoying when compared to something like BG - but then again, the UI here is designed for a gamepad, so they're not exactly comparable in that sense. (it would most likely be worse if there were buttons around the screen and you had to navigate a cursor by using the D-pad/analog sticks )

Considering a similar style, .hack had a better UI imo. One button to attack, some to change target, and no windows on the screen (unless you specifically hit the menu button, which also paused the battle). That could've been used here as well, to make it less obtrusive.

That's the FF way of doing things. In earlier installments you had to wait for the time gauge to fill to be able to select an action (which got carried right away). Now it's reversed in the way that you first select an action at any moment and then wait for the time gauge to fill to actually execute the action.

In my opinion, it's more logical this way and it's closer to BG than before. Different actions in BG may "take their time" to carry out, you will be able to cancel actions and higher level spells will take a longer time to cast than lower level spells. Of course, the times could be adjusted here - I too was somewhat bothered by the big delay in plain attacks.

BG did involve a lot of standing and leering at the enemy while waiting to make a strike (characters that had NOA at one and weren't hasted), but it didn't bother that much.

Yeah, I also noticed that your placement didn't seem to matter. When waiting for your attack command to execute, I started running around in circles around the enemy to see if it made a difference, but no - when the enemy executed his attack, it just instantly turned at me and executed the attack. I'm not sure if there are area/chain spells that would somehow try to make it matter, at least I didn't see one when I tried it out.

It could be that you may feel differently when you get to try it out.. but yeah, it was kind of boring. All I did in the battle was summoning the Esper and waiting for it to execute it's killer move. Battle over. The second boss (I'm not sure if the gameplay videos showed that one) was a bit different - it didn't die from the Esper's killer move, but its' health was reduced enough to make it a walk in the park as well.

Well, not necessarily that early demo. They will probably change some smaller details between now and release (March '06), but I don't think they will be touching the core gameplay (so basically WYSIWYG in the final for most parts ).

Oh, that will surely be. And I'm expecting that it will all be very funny to watch! But damn, ten parts of the pretty much the same old same old? It's high time they start exploring different possibilities. It's surely a welcome change, and in my opinion the execution is rather good.

[edit]

Oh, and shame on you for even trying to compare something so good as BG to something banal like FF!

I'm neither confused nor upset. I'm excited to see how well the new combat system will fare, and I think it looks interesting.

Due to this post, http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/11/18, I think at least some fans will be upset. What percent of the fan base that includes, I obviously don't know; it's probably not a large enough amount to, for example, make the game unprofitable.

Yeah, I guess it's primarily the extreme length of the pauses for basic attacks. It probably wouldn't bother me so much if it were a bit shorter.

I hope so!

Indeed, it's good to see them changing the mold a bit.

I do like it, I suppose, in the context of other FFs. But it's close enough to BG to lead me to compare the two, and that makes me feel rather negative about it.

I tried to commit seppuku, but it's surprisingly difficult.

Hehe, Tycho seriously comes off as a FF fanboy there. I can't imagine it turning unprofitable from this.. but there will be drama. Every cloudisBEST149361467 out there will start fighting against the army of ---====[[[[sephy_is_teh_best]]]]====----s, and NeoSquall363860s all around the world will join the battle. Internet tears will be shed.. and it will all be very, very beautiful. 8)

Ok, that's understandable.

You could always ask a local ninja to assist you!

I just watched it today and it seems a bit better than click and wait, those things used to get me very pissed off, after sometime of gameplay, argh, specially when I wanted to peacefully travel from one citie to another.

Btw: FFVII kicks ass.