Final Fantasy?

[-Yukari-]

Re: Final Fantasy?

-Yukari-, gameplay elements like battle system should be in the clear because they are all pretty much the same thing. There will be a small variation from game to game but the core of it still remains the same within a franchise. The more precise details like story line and characters is a different case though because they are going to have to vary to some degree to make each game different from each other.

Uhh, not really. Have you played many of them? I mean, besides the fact that they're each turn-based, the battle systems differ quite a bit from game-to-game. From Materia (which act as stat affecters AND skill givers) to drawing magic (which can be junctioned to different things or casted from bulk) to Espers (which increase stats AT LEVEL UP and also summon ****, different than both others), not to mention the other various things in FFX like party changing, sphere grid, etc... oh and did I mention that in FF12 isn't the battle system halfway action based, changing things significantly?

There are still many differences that can occur in a game. If there weren't then I would like FF8 just as much as I liked FF6 or FF7, but I didn't. The gameplay was horrible in FF8 and grand in FF6 and FF7.

Also, for somebody who wants to get into a game released in the 1990s when it's almost 2010, you aren't seriously expecting those games to live up to today's standards, are you? Sure it looks like crap to you but if you had played it when it was released it would have been different. Even as somebody who's been playing games since Atari / NES, I can't always get into an old game I never played even though I like old games I did play.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Final Fantasy?

You see, the thing is that at its core, it's still turn based. It's like saying I don't like FPS's at all so I won't play this game because it's an FPS. To me, it's going to suck because I can never get the controls right and because I can't shoot well. I can make all the assumptions that an FPS is going to involve some gun that you have to aim and shoot with timing. You can argue however much you want, but your words won't improve my ability to play an FPS or even enjoy it.

I can tell you right now that the Golden Sun, Pokemon, and Final Fantasy are all turn based games and if we were to inspect every small detail of the battle system, they would end up different, but at its very core, it remains the same. You take turns to make a move and defeat your foe.

Also, you're not reading my posts. You're under the assumption that I hate all Final Fantasy games when I do not. I already mentioned earlier in this thread that to appreciate some of these games, you have to realize the time they came from. That's what it took for me to appreciate FFI, II, III, and V. FFIV and FFVI weren't that much of an improvement over the first four FF I mentioned, but even by today's standard, I found them amazing. The thing is, we were comparing games easily 15-20 years newer than the first 6 FF game and if we were to compare the better game, the newer one is likely to be better.

~Tsugomaru

[Squeek]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Yukari: Sorry, but no. We make plenty of decisions without knowing all the facts in our daily lives.

I saw an in-depth retrospective that spanned well over two hours covering the entire series. I saw nothing different between the games. Oh sure, some games have jobs and some don't. The battle system slightly changes over time. The graphics improve. Nothing else really changes. FF12 tried to change the system to real-time, and once I heard this I got excited thinking there might finally be a worthy Final Fantasy game, but the battle system is a joke. It just sits awkwardly in the middle of real-time and turn-based, not knowing which side to take.

I just got this "you hate it because it's old!" argument earlier today. Why do people assume this? MegaMan was at its best during the SNES era. Nothing from the PS1, PS2, or GBA have ever been better than MegaMan X, X2, or X3. Metroid has never been better than when it was on the SNES, and I'm including Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 3 in this. Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World are, to me, better than Mario 64 and Galaxy. And honestly, was Donkey Kong or Sonic ever better than when they were 16-bit?

I wasn't into video games when I was young. Especially not Japanese games. I didn't even play an RPG until Pokemon, and I didn't even know about Final Fantasy until several years later. I don't see how I could have a bias against the game since I played Final Fantasy X long before I even knew what Tales of Symphonia was.

But I don't even need any of that argument. There's nothing that says I need to spend 500 hours playing every Final Fantasy game in order to make a judgment on whether I like it or not. Really, if we had to play every game from start to finish in order to make a decision, we wouldn't be able to make any decisions in our lives. We'd be too busy playing games to even talk about games. That's why we have reviews. We trust reviews to tell us whether a game will be good or not before we decide to play it.

[-Yukari-]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Tsugomaru: Where does it even hint that I think you dislike the Final Fantasy games in my post? Anyway, I see what you're saying about turn-based RPGs, but I don't think the argument is that they're turn-based seeing how Squeek has Chrono Trigger on his list of actual good games, which not only operates almost exactly the same, but was even made by the same company in the same timeframe. Wild Arms is on there too.

Squeek: I don't need to play 500 hours of a game either. I played about 10 into FF8 before I realized it's crap, and 10 is better than some people will do. Still, if you want to base your own opinion on someone else's review, you be my guest. I mean, I could tell you that apple juice is a lot better than applesauce and you could take my word for it, or you could actually try them both for yourself and see that an apple is not always just an apple. Whatever floats your boat.

EDIT: I agree about Super Metroid being the best. I think Link to the Past creams all the future Zelda games too.

[FrozenAngel91]

Re: Final Fantasy?

You know, I think I left this thread a while back, and just came back to check on this, and wow did it go in a different direction then I thought it would.

I've played all the tales as well, and every single FF, and in my opinion Tales is better, but if the op would post again, we would know if he really wants a turn based game or an action game or whatnot, till then this thread is mostly just opinions on what the best RPG is.

So I'll sorta just go with the flow and say that Tales of the Abyss was by far the best RPG I've played in ages, and I totally agree that Luke was the most relatable character in an RPG, since most of them are pretty out there. This is besides Digital Devil Saga, where when they turned into demons and forced to eat other demons, there was also that "I don't want to do it" from argilla, but still I don't know if it was quite the same as Tales of the Abyss. It's another ps2 game though, so it doesn't matter.

Also, when I first heard of Final Fantasy XII, I thought it was going to be a little like vagrant story, but it turned out sorta lame. If it had been like vagrant story, it would of been pretty fun, and for that matter the same development team made that game, so it's strange they didn't go that route. Oh well.

[Squeek]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Squeek: I don't need to play 500 hours of a game either. I played about 10 into FF8 before I realized it's crap, and 10 is better than some people will do. Still, if you want to base your own opinion on someone else's review, you be my guest. I mean, I could tell you that apple juice is a lot better than applesauce and you could take my word for it, or you could actually try them both for yuorself and see that an apple is not always just an apple. Whatever floats your boat.

I take a professional reviewer's opinions based on pre-existing notions of good and bad from prior reviews and I will continue to do so forever. As everyone else in the world does.

You read one newspaper over another. Why? You trust the news in it. You trust The Washington Post or The New York Times over most other papers.

You watch one news station over another. Why? You trust the news they supply. You trust CNN or MSNBC or FOX or BBC.

You watch some movies over others. Why? Their trailers were better. You based your opinion on thirty seconds of footage.

I don't get why you all have a bug up your asses about this.

[-Yukari-]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Uh, Squeak, not only do I never, ever, EVER listen to what reviewers say but neither do ANY of my immediate family. So, "everyone in the world" is a little bit off. Honestly, I don't need somebody else's opinion to try something. I can make my own opinions just fine. If you need someone else's opinion before you try something, that's weird, but like I said, whatever floats your boat.

Also, I don't watch movie trailers if I can help it because the less I know, the more that comes as a surprise. Not to say I've never seen a preview, but I don't go looking for the best trailer so I can watch the best movie.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Also Yukuri, if we played games based on only their battle system, we wouldn't play very many games.

There are other things like stories, characters, music, and art that draws to play this or that video game. Beyond that are other player recommendation and advertisements and Squeek has covered those bases.

~Tsugomaru

[-Yukari-]

Re: Final Fantasy?

So apparently I'm the only one that rents games knowing nothing about them and watches movies knowing nothing about them. Okay. My bad. I mean yeah I'm an idiot why wouldn't I go get a review about a game and read whether or not I want to play it instead of actually playing it and seeing that the review was total crap and not what I would have thought about the game at all.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Final Fantasy?

That's impossible man.

People don't walk into a store blindfolded and pick out a game or movie at complete random. If anything, they look at the cover art or synopsis of a movie and make a judgment based on prior knowledge. In the past, I've watched a mystery film and I see the movie's genre is mystery. Why not get it? Or maybe I make an opinion based on just the cover art. The picture of this guy looks cooler than the picture of that guy. I'll get the movie with the cooler looking guy.

Everything has a certain hook and these hooks are used to get players interested in the game. Reviewers tend to discuss the qualities about these hook and explain to people what made the game good and bad based on its execution. This way, if we do wish to invest money and time on a game, we play a good one, not a bad one. And it's not like we trust every single reviewer out there. When I do research on a game before buying or playing it, I read several review sites and I get opinions from people I know.

But hey, if you enjoy wasting your time and money on a bad game, be my guest. We all don't put our hands into boiling water to figure out whether or not it's a bad idea. We trust what multiple people say about dangers.

~Tsugomaru

[-Yukari-]

Re: Final Fantasy?

You took my post a little too literally. Obviously I go to a section that holds the genre of games I like, but past that point, the decision I make is purely mine based on what I see in the game itself. Saying "well you looked at the cover art" is quite a far cry from saying "well you read someone's review". Yes, there has to be a trigger for the choices we make; my trigger just isn't other people's opinions. Many times it's who made the game or what type of game it is (turn-based, action, strategy etc for RPGs) rather than the cover art.

Listening to what somebody says about it and then deciding "Oh I don't want to play that" doesn't always work. Sure, it'll save you from some games you wouldn't enjoy, but you could skip some fun ones too. And I'm not talking about what's "good" or "bad". I don't care what people classify a game as in that respect. I love Ephemeral Fantasia, but you could read 10 different reviews and 9 of them would be crap. Yet I still enjoy the heck out of it; I have over 100 hours easily. Even reading multiple reviews can cheat you out of a good experience. And if you rent a bad game, boo hoo, you wasted a couple bucks and a few hours. You're scarred for life.

If you want to live in the safe, concealed world of reading reviews, be my guest, but you can miss plenty of fun games that way. Or maybe it works perfect for you, you agree with the reviewer every time, and personally don't have to worry about it. Fine, cool. This discussion is pointless so I'm outta here bye

P.S. I can't see you getting a girlfriend ever. No offense, but you risk a bit of heartbreak and I mean who would risk it when we could so easily avoid it.

[Squeek]

Re: Final Fantasy?

He's not specifically talking about reviews. Opinions are littered throughout everything. You cannot make a purchase in this country without someone else's opinion influencing it. It is not possible.

I don't rent games. I see renting games as a huge money sink. Why would I ever pay money for a game temporarily when I can own it and play it on my own time, or loan it out to a friend, or play it ten years down the road? When you don't rent games, every game purchase is either a good investment or a waste of money. That makes your decision-making process that much harder.

What this means is that you don't drop money without knowing a thing or two about the game. Even if the articles you read are strictly facts, it can still be someone's opinion on which facts they're posting.

Hell, even if I didn't exclusively buy games, I don't have the money to burn on a rental every week. I'm a full-time college student. Tuition is $4,000 and textbooks can add another $1,000 on that every semester. I don't even make enough in my job to cover that. I still typically wait for present-giving seasons to get games.

No, I don't trust reviewers 100%. There are plenty of games I like that the reviewers didn't and there are plenty of games I hate that reviewers love (Halo). That's why you don't have just one source of information. This is the Internet. You can get anything you want here. That includes gameplay footage. I bought Tales of Symphonia because I saw trailers online. That's the only reason I got it. I didn't watch a review, I didn't ask a friend about his opinion. Without that gameplay footage, I would've never even heard of the game. I was not an RPG fan back then, so even if our stores had games classified by genre (see below), I would've passed it right by.

Also, I've never heard of any video game store categorizing games by genre. Ever. I've been in GameStops, EB Games, EBQs, Fry's, FYEs, Best Buys, Circuit Citys, Wal-Marts, K-Marts, and so on. Not a single one of these stores categorizes games by genre. They're classified by console. Even when we actually had rental stores around here (not anymore thanks to Netflix), the games were just shoved unceremoniously into rows based on console.

[Tibs]

Re: Final Fantasy?

this discussion is pointless so I'm outta here bye

which is the equivalent of

la la la im not listening i cant hear you

completely invalidates everything you've said sorry

also

p.s. I can't see you getting a girlfriend ever

has nothing to do with anything, and is a really cheap shot. swallow arsenic, cocksucker.

[MrRubix]

Re: Final Fantasy?

We trust certain reviewers when their opinions are comparable in substance to our own when we play a game ourselves. If I happen to share many opinions with a certain reviewer, I will be more likely to trust their word in the future. There are exceptions, of course, but it's usually "a good way to bet." If a trusted reviewer says a certain game is lacking in story, odds are I won't like it much either. Now, if there were many other great factors about this game, I might try it for myself anyway.

But that is, in general, why reviews exist in the first place. It's another way to "learn from others." I don't want to drop $50 on a game to end up not liking it, so I'll turn to a trusted source who has already played the game, and from here I usually get a good impression as to whether or not the game's worth buying. If you wish to eliminate bias as much as you can, look at reviews of a few trusted sources and take a rough average.


Yukari: The idea though is that you should find a few reviewers who you generally agree with in the first place -- whose views fall in line with your own. Try to find someone who generally likes the games you do, and dislikes the games you dislike for similar reasons. Then if THAT reviewer says "Game A is crap for these reasons," you are more likely to share a similar opinion if you were to play the game yourself. I think you're making the assumption that one looks at random reviewers. If I look at ten reviews randomly, and 9 say "This game is crap!" then it's very likely I might enjoy the game anyway because there's no reason to expect that my opinions should fall in line with a random choice. But if 9/10 reviewers have, in the past, shared very similar views to my own, I'll take their word if 9/10 think a game is crap. You are less likely to really enjoy a game that 9/10 trusted sources claim sucks if they're, well, trusted.

[Relambrien]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Yeah, about game reviews, I tend to take them as "advice." If there's a game of a certain series that I like (e.g. Ace Combat), I'm probably going to get the game regardless of what reviews say, because I can enjoy it regardless. But if there's a game that's super-popular that I don't know about, or a game I've heard a little about but don't know much, or a game I'm on the fence about getting, I'll turn to reviews.

When I'm looking through reviews, I try to find reviewers with similar "focuses" to me. For instance, say that in Generic RPG XXII, I consider the story to be extremely important, the battle system to be somewhat important, but the graphics and sound don't matter to me at all. I'll try to find a reviewer who shares these sentiments, then read his or her opinion on the game. Most reviews won't tell you explicitly what the author considers important, but based on what the author says, it's usually not hard to infer.

After that, I'll find a couple of reviews from highly-trusted reviewers. If the general consensus between all of these is that the game is good, I'll head out and buy it. If the general consensus is that the game is bad, I won't. If there is no consensus, I'll rent it. This gives me a week to determine if I like the game, since digging around for info and reviews couldn't help me.

I've also rented games that I know I'd like but are really short and have no replay value, so I only pay 1/5 the price of a game that I'm going to play for less than a week then never touch again. For instance, inspired by a group of Something Awful goons, I decided to play through Sonic 2006 in one marathon sitting, so I rented it for that purpose. (It's just as bad as they say, just fyi)

Back on the original topic about Final Fantasy's battle system...yeah, I don't know what the hell was up with Square when they decided "Hey, KOTOR's system was cool! Let's make a bastardized version of it that's completely terrible!" for FFXII. As for the ATB system used by a good number of FF games, I don't mind it as much. It's not really intuitive as to when you'll actually get to do something, but you get used to it and can figure it out once you've played for a while. It's just CTB with a twist. I don't mind it, but I don't love it. Turn-based is how most JRPGs work, and I don't necessarily consider it a problem.

Of course, Star Ocean and the Tales series battle systems make me salivate.