Sign In
Register
Help
QUOTE (Jetsfan115 @ May 18 2005, 01:02 PM)
I only listed the most recent. Zelda was a true RPG and the first 3 FFs sucked. Only 4 and 7 were decent. Definitely not revolutionary. The same choice menu. A hybrid was more like parasite eve not Zelda. Zelda had the right idea. FF bores you too much. D&D were great RPGs as well but the newer ones sucked. And I never played eye of the beholder. Like I said I had almost every system since calico. Minus sega Saturn and dreamcast. I’ll name all the ones I had. Calico, Atari, Nintendo, super Nintendo, sega genisis, PS1, Nintendo 64, GC, PS2, and xbox. I know RPGs. FF might be popular now only because what else does PS2 have? That’s why. Its like the only RPG for play station. That’s why its popular. If I didn’t have a choice I would play it too.
You keep shwoing your ignorance. As I already said, and if you actually did some research you would know this, no game at the time of the first FF had a soundtrack as that game (and even more so in the next three) did. THose were masterful soundtracks that have all been released as albums in Japan. The reason games like Halo have great soundtracks NOW, is because FF did it THEN.
Also as I already said, games back then didn't have storylines like FF. Rarely did was there extended dialogue scenes or did charcters go through any notable personality changes. The FFs were the games that took storylines seriously and worked them into the console system.
And as you can't see why Zelda is less of an RPG than Final Fantasy:
Let me explain what an RPG is. An RPG was, in its first form, a text game. The first and most famous of these was of course Dungeons and Dragons. A text RPG is based around a few things. There is a fairly complex system for measuring stats (such as strength, speed, intelligence, and experience gained). These systems are used to develop the charcters into more powerful entites. But because D&D was originally played by a GM verbally informing the other players of what was happening, letting them choose their reactions, and then using dice as a result (most importantly because all this was done without any physical representation of the world the charcters inhabitated) the game also emphasized storytelling. It was important for the GM to be able to relate what a monster, what the enviroment the charcters were in, what everything looked and/or smelled like. Thus RPGs became a genre in which a story was the binding force of the action. THe most successful RPGs have always been ones with well thought out plots. (also, let me emphasize again that the RPG has a tradition of havign no physical representation of the actual game, although later players began using drawn mazes and caves and scale modeled figures)
Early in the life of home computers developers were already trying to take these games and translate their systems into a video games. THe first truley successfull attempt were three games that used a first person view and a functional version of the D&D numbers system. From "rolling dice" to create your charcter to "rolling dice" to turn back and attack or resist a magic spell, these games simulated teh whole experience.
Now, with the Genre there, a lot of games started to come out based on the same ideas. Mostly they were semi-plot driven stories about a hero trying to save his village or lost love, and in the process getting some new equipment and some more life or magic powers. But for a long time nothing came out that really changed things. Then RPGs kind of forked (as I already pointed out, these two games were released within a month of each other).
On the one hand, there was Zelda. The first two Zelda games had simple stat increases (life and magic meters) and a couple weapon upgrades. But the game tended towards action as you moved the charcter around, fought monsters in real time, and in general had a much more physical game. In general, Zleda tended more towards a Bayou Billy or Byonic Commando than D&D.
Then there was Final Fantasy. FF tended towards the more true D&D style of RPG. THere was a large overworld map, and moving into areas triggered a shift into a smaller area. The charcters were much less linear than in many previous RPGs, and much more similar to D&D where you could choose your's charcter class, spells, armor from a wide assortment. When you fought a monster (which was essentailly a random event, with no monsters appearing on the overworld map), you were shifted to a batlle screen where you choose what type of attack to do and the game worked out what happened.
In addition, FF (and they really took it to new heights with IV) was the first console game with a fairly complex plot. The FFs (and I especially mean I-VI and IX) were extremly plot heavy (and so I guess could be called "boring" by some people more interested in action based games) that emphasized charcters' personalitys, their reaction to events, and charcter development.
Today, so many genres are so mixed it is hard not to start labeling most games with multiple names (action/RPG/adventure or FPS/action), and in particular many games made in the current era tend to have many elements of RPG. But a true RPG is always going to be a game that has a noticable nod to it's D&D heritage.
So I hope you see why Final Fantasy is a series that is by far more RPG than many others. As a side note, and I kinda of hinted at this earlier, the first...First Person games were RPGs. So those original D&D games were some of the literally most revolutinary games ever made.
MultiQuote
<<<Don't know how to update this thing...
