final fantasy

[darksorceressknight7]

Well I have almost every Final Fantasy And related title to the series, and it is my favorite series of games, So to start off i have to say my favorite is 8 mainly because of how i got attached to the characters i loved its plot i enjoyed the junction system and overall its my favorite game....after which lies 7 because it needs no explaination then
10,
tactics,
6,
and 9... and the rest....(  if i could put Chrono Trigger in it would be my second favorite game before 7)
im really looking foward to Dissidia's release, not so much XIII and vs cause i hated the last two entries XI and XII, but hopefully they will undo all the crap those two had IMO

[DrZaius]

I don't really care for the 2d FF games personally. I remember when I bought FF Anthology for ps1, I tried those games. Turned the ps1 off, then fired up FFVII.

I have FF1&2 for GBA. It's ok, but I much prefer FFVII, VIII, IX (which I really didn't like), X, X-2, and XII.

I want to check out the remakes for DS.

There's only 2 2d Rpg's I actually like. Zelda: A link to the past, and Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow.

I didn't really care for Tactics at all because to me it was just Fire Emblem in the universe of FF.

You don't care for the 2D FF games, including the classics IV and VI, and you really didn't like FFIX, which returned to the series' roots, but you did like FFVII, FFVIII, FFX, FFX-2  and FFXII.

 

  Whatever...

Oh, and Zelda: A Link to the Past and Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow aren't RPGs.

[Violent Ken Masters]

You don't care for the 2D FF games, including the classics IV and VI, and you really didn't like FFIX, which returned to the series' roots, but you did like FFVII, FFVIII, FFX, FFX-2  and FFXII.

 

  Whatever...

Oh, and Zelda: A Link to the Past and Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow aren't RPGs.

Yeah they are, they're just not turn-based.

RPG = Role Playing game

Aria of Sorrow you role play as Soma
Zelda you role play as Link.
You might as well say the FF games aren't rpg's since basically it's the same thing (open roaming and all that jazz just with a different fighting system).
The reason why I didn't like FFIX the settings just bored me, and I didn't care for them reverting back to midget character models after they finally upgraded to full scale character models.

[Megabyte]

Actually in the case of Castlevania I do believe they categorize it as an Action Adventure game (in respect to it's predecessors more than anything probably). Otherwise it would probably be in the same cat. as Zelda: Action RPG. So I guess you can say that he is half right...

On the topic of FFIX...when it came out I was so upset with a few things in FFVIII (die you JERKWAD, Squall...though your KH counterpart, Leon, was actually kinda cool with his sulking, "I dropped my name because I failed..." attitude) that I welcomed another shot by then Squaresoft to collect my attention again. My MAJOR gripe with FFIX that I think would've been it's saving grace and actually would have made a HUGE difference, is if it would have had voices and voiceovers. Some of you may disagree and even think that that is something that can be considered small at best, but I think it would have helped with the character growth. I really think that FFIX's biggest downfall was that the characters just didn't really stand out. The story was kinda meh but the fact that the characters didn't seem unique or in some cases new at ALL I think made this game kinda forgettable (which says a LOT for a FF game). Had they had voices they would have gained identity, if you know what I mean. We would remember them with their voices. Hell, most of the time I forget the names of MOST of the chars from IX.

These are my opinions though, so meh .

[DrZaius]

I think RPGs require some menu-driven gameplay or battle engine and involve some kind of stat development.  Zelda is more Action Adventure than anything else.  Castlevania... I don't know.  It's either Action Adventure or Platformer or whatever it is these days.  Both games do contain some aspects traditionally found in RPGs, though, but not as in depth.

[Violent Ken Masters]

I think RPGs require some menu-driven gameplay or battle engine and involve some kind of stat development.  Zelda is more Action Adventure than anything else.  Castlevania... I don't know.  It's either Action Adventure or Platformer or whatever it is these days.  Both games do contain some aspects traditionally found in RPGs, though, but not as in depth.

The battle system doesn't really matter. There's different types of rpg's.

Some people even consider GTAIV a rpg game because of how you can do choices in the story and well the over all storyline.


Aria of Sorrow has 2d side scrolling action, but it still has levels, health items, loads of text boxes for you to read like an rpg does.  In LoZ instead of levels, you get a bigger health bar and items to progress in different places.

Fable 2 is also a rpg, but it has more of a hack and slash gameplay.

The word RPG doesn't say what kind of battle system the game has to have.

[DrZaius]

Well, RPG battle systems are traditionally turn-based.  When RPGs involve real-time fighting, then they create action-RPG hybrids.  Like Shadowrun for the Super NES.

Making choices in a story and having a storyline do not make a game an RPG.  These attributes can be found in point-and-click Adventure games as well.  They are generally found in RPGs, of course, but are not at the core of what makes a game an RPG.

Aria of Sorrow has RPG elements but it is definitely not an RPG.  It sounds like it contains elements from Adventure games with lots of action tossed in so I would say... Action Adventure.  In the Legend of Zelda games, yes, your health bar does grow larger... but that's not nearly as in depth as the stat-building elements of actual RPGs, which tend to involve numbers and not bars.

I don't have enough experience with Fable II to say anything about it.

RPGs do indeed involve turn-based fighting via use of menus.  However, they are not limited to this style and are free to pick up elements from other games, much like how other games have picked up elements from RPGs.

[Violent Ken Masters]

Well, RPG battle systems are traditionally turn-based. When RPGs involve real-time fighting, then they create action-RPG hybrids. Like Shadowrun for the Super NES.

Making choices in a story and having a storyline do not make a game an RPG. These attributes can be found in point-and-click Adventure games as well. They are generally found in RPGs, of course, but are not at the core of what makes a game an RPG.

Aria of Sorrow has RPG elements but it is definitely not an RPG. It sounds like it contains elements from Adventure games with lots of action tossed in so I would say... Action Adventure. In the Legend of Zelda games, yes, your health bar does grow larger... but that's not nearly as in depth as the stat-building elements of actual RPGs, which tend to involve numbers and not bars.

I don't have enough experience with Fable II to say anything about it.

RPGs do indeed involve turn-based fighting via use of menus. However, they are not limited to this style and are free to pick up elements from other games, much like how other games have picked up elements from RPGs.

You're still going off on the system of the game.

Rpg means role playing game as I said already.

Like when you go to counseling and the counselor asks you to role play. They're not talking about fighting in some stat turn based crap. They're asking you to immerse yourself into someone elses shoes. Final Fantasy VII isn't a rpg because of the system, it's an rpg because you become Cloud in the world that Cloud lives in.

[DrZaius]

"Role-Playing Game" is just a title (a vague one at that) for a genre that involves stat development and, traditionally, turn-based fighting.  Sure, story development is also important but to focus only on that and the character you play as is very minimalistic and ignores the actual gameplay.

Just look at the origins of Role-Playing Games.  It all begins with pencil-and-paper games like Dungeons and Dragons.  Each playable character had a list of stats that could be leveled up and battles were done in turns where character stats played a huge role in the outcome of the battle.

Then you have computer RPGs (or Western RPGs) like... well, Dungeons and Dragons and eventually Ultima and Wizardry.  Then Japan got into the mix and started working on RPGs for consoles, called console RPGs (or Japanese/Eastern RPGs).  That's where we get games like Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, and Pokémon.  While there are clear differences between the two kinds of RPGs, they all share the same characteristics:  story is very important, stats must be built to overcome the next challenge, and battles are often turn-based to some degree.  The prevalence of these characteristics vary from game to game and vary the most in games that adopt aspects from other games, such as real-time fighting.

So, clearly, RPGs, and pretty much any other video game genre, truly are defined by the gameplay.