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

[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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.