RPG Thread #4 - Just in Time for Final Fantasy IV DS

Status
Not open for further replies.
III but I think the port was less than stellar, check the reviews.


There is a fifth game in the series, Dragon Quarter, but it's drastically different. I happen to like it but it has a brutal difficulty curve and some other huge problems ( of which time limit is the worst).
 
[quote name='willardhaven']III but I think the port was less than stellar, check the reviews.[/quote]

Thanks, dude. I'll put IV on my requests list for Goozex and see what turns up.

EDIT -- Any difference between IV and Dragon Quarter. PS1 games are damn near unplayable since I got rid of my old TV.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'll have to play Breath of Fire. I never got into the series but that's going to change.[/QUOTE]

Just realize how old the series is. I still think its held up rather well.....but its still an old series and to many might seem extreamly dated. BoF1 is very old school playing alot like an NES game or the early SNES game it was. It will require some grinding and outside the main charcter being able to transform into a Dragon its like DQ where you either attack or use magic. The story is also REALLY dated being like DQ or other titles where it was just there to hold the game together.

BoF2 however I think holds up alot better. Its got some small stuff like a system where you can mix your charcters with NPC to create supped up versions of your characters(complete with awesome new skills). The story also holds up slightly better since it actually has one! Nothing amazing but its pretty good. And BoF2 I think has the most under appreciated soundtrack in gaming.

BoF 3 being a PSX title you should expect a little more from and I think it delivers if not delivers in spades. Its a nice little title with very likeable characters, gorgeous world setting and a bit more depth to the skill system. This game remains one of my favorites to date even if there is no huge reason for it to(I think its just how great the charcters are to me personally).

BoF IV id tell you to just avoid....but a handfull of insane people like Willard swear by it so might as well atleast give it a shot. Be warned though, while the gameplay might have stepped up the charcters received far too little development and the plot went nowhere till end game.

BoF V just go into realizing its more of a dungeon crawler and the game that killed the franchise! Not a bad game....but not what fans expected or wanted.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']1. The Sphere grid was more then just the basic level up formula. It let you determine how you would grow both by busting into others grids as well as choosing a few different routes. It also made you choose which spheres to use at times for skills or other stuff. For instance warping panels or learn a skill thats already been learned. It wasnt the most amazing skill system ever, I think materia was still better was were non FF entries such as SO2. But the Sphere grid was a great way of learning skills and leveling, and for this gen one of the best.[/quote]

It was fine, just not a benchmark for JRPGs on the PS2. I think Nocturne or Persona surpass it in customization, though not in ease of use.

[quote name='MSI Magus']
2. The battles offered more then that. Elemental attacks and breaking came into play, and later in the game you had to decide if you wanted to bother with these or power level extra charcter skills or weapon skills to not have to bother with the switching in and out(which was another nice feature). Personally I ended up with a party only consisting of 3 charcters who focused on Hasterga/Quick hit combo vs a rotation stratagy.
[/quote]

I think the battles were responsive and boss fights were fun, but encounters were really just paint-by-numbers affairs. Your argument here is like someone arguing they could play Pong with a blindfold, it really is irrelevant.

[quote name='MSI Magus']
3. The charcters and the story in X are unrivaled. Gameplay and skill system wise we can argue back and forth between it and certain other entries such as Persona and ToS(both of which were great and I might even give them a nod over FFX). However objectivly FFX brought more charcter development to the table then not just any game this gen but pretty much any game ever. Only a handful of games iv ever played such as CT and FFVI had even close to as many scenes dealing with characters backgrounds or having charcters work through complex emotions which make you understand who they are. While ToS I might understand giving a nod to here over FFX(its a hell of a debate if you try and do it objectivly)Persona does not even compete. On the story front there really is no competition this gen.[/quote]

Flashbacks and direct explanation of characters' backstories do not equal character development. Final Fantasy X has a pretty simplistic plot that I'm sure you could find in the young adult section of your local bookstore. Some of the characters/writing were pretty decent, but for the most part it was mediocre at best.

Your "objectve" story argument would place soap operas at the pinnacle of storytelling.

I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy FF X's tale, just that you are biased as much as Mana Knight was when he raved about Star Ocean 3.

That said, did anybody find FF X somewhat similar to The Mysterious Play?
 
@Rei True or not it doesnt matter when you take into acount that Legendias gameplay was so poor. I couldnt even get to those great scenes because the game play was so horrible I couldn't play it that long.

@deepscale - Appreciate the fact that when willard complains about control scheme its a shallow argument where he is talking about how your characters move around in the world.....hardly something important to a non action RPG.....same with the camera.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']He seems to generalize plot down to incredibly stupid points based on any shared similarity to any other RPG. They both have a plot involving religion so forget the whole 2 planets thing, forget the whole im just a dream thing, forget everything you know about either plot because they both contain religion as tools!

I saw his post earlier and figured it was best to just ignore it.....I would just let him live in the dream world he seems to want to live in......[/quote]
Please.
Maybe I should complain about grinding in DQ WHEN I DON'T HAVE TO.

No, seriously now. The midgame of FF10 and ToS is similar; follow a girl on a pilgrimage to save the world, and the pilgrimage is a farce. They split later on, (but still manage to share similar themes like racism and TWO WORLDS) but up till then you can't deny the similarity.

But really I don't get why you gotta nitpick small things in my arguments. I don't care if you like DQ or not, because no one ever changes their mind and says "You know what, you're right. Because of your words of wisdom on the internet messageboard, I came back and played DQ and enjoyed it." The only point I want to get across is that the elements of DQ aren't as bad as people make them out to be and that there are way more ways to look at concepts like character development and battling.

One of the things I really like about DQ is that it's player-centered. When Cloud rediscovers the fragments of his broken memory in FF7, it's cool in the fact he finally got over himself. When things in DQ happen, it's more about how the player feels; the writing of the Princess's character makes you feel like you've known her for a while, you feel like Yangus is your buddy, and so on. The silent protaganist is there to put you in the game, not because of other games where they just make him not speak. It really irritates me how people expect anime-style character development nowadays in which characters have one singular root problem that is eventually fixed or explains how they act to this day.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It was fine, just not a benchmark for JRPGs on the PS2. I think Nocturne or Persona surpass it in customization, though not in ease of use.



I think the battles were responsive and boss fights were fun, but encounters were really just paint-by-numbers affairs. Your argument here is like someone arguing they could play Pong with a blindfold, it really is irrelevant.



Flashbacks and direct explanation of characters' backstories do not equal character development. Final Fantasy X has a pretty simplistic plot that I'm sure you could find in the young adult section of your local bookstore. Some of the characters/writing were pretty decent, but for the most part it was mediocre at best.

Your "objectve" story argument would place soap operas at the pinnacle of storytelling.

I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy FF X's tale, just that you are biased as much as Mana Knight was when he raved about Star Ocean 3.

That said, did anybody find FF X somewhat similar to The Mysterious Play?[/QUOTE]

Please. Spare me. Seriously. Ok first off your paint by number arguments again shows your bias. You say crap like this for games you dont like as much while running up stuff like BoF IV(which was very similar to X but had a combo system where X has limit breaks). Meanwhile you again praise BoF IV and Persona which again had a bad and average to slightly above average plot). And it has nothign to do with bias. I treat games fairly if I like them or not. For instance im not a SO3 fan but its plot was pretty good and its big plot twist was amazing.

FFX was told brilliantly, it was full of emotions in scenes such as Tidus learning Yunas fate and the shared effection at the lake scene. It had a few great twists and some originality to boot. Say what you will but every OBJECTIVE thing you could want out of a story it did and hit except the voice acting which was pretty average.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']

@deepscale - Appreciate the fact that when willard complains about control scheme its a shallow argument where he is talking about how your characters move around in the world.....hardly something important to a non action RPG.....same with the camera.[/quote]


Not being able to control the camera in a 3D game is a shallow argument?

How are digital controls in a semi-overhead 3D RPG is not a problem?
 
I never got the Persona 3 love. It was touted as having this amazing combination between battles and sims, but neither was great. I was really expecting more from the Sim portion which quickly grew into monotony. The love relationships made no sense. And the Persona building wasn't very fun. The one great part of P3 was its opening. That really excited me and made me think the whole plot was going to be one big puzzle I'd have to piece together. The dungeon wasn't terribly enjoyable either. It wasn't necessarily the grinding as I actually enjoyed that, but every level was basically the same as the other one, except every, what, 30 floors the colors changed. Wow. At least I remember the characters. Not fondly, but I remember them.

I was totally excited about it too. It was a pre-order as soon as I heard about it from the previews, and I never pre-order. Maybe my expectations were too high. ;_;
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Please. Spare me. Seriously. Ok first off your paint by number arguments again shows your bias. You say crap like this for games you dont like as much while running up stuff like BoF IV(which was very similar to X but had a combo system where X has limit breaks). Meanwhile you again praise BoF IV and Persona which again had a bad and average to slightly above average plot). And it has nothign to do with bias. I treat games fairly if I like them or not. For instance im not a SO3 fan but its plot was pretty good and its big plot twist was amazing.

FFX was told brilliantly, it was full of emotions in scenes such as Tidus learning Yunas fate and the shared effection at the lake scene. It had a few great twists and some originality to boot. Say what you will but every OBJECTIVE thing you could want out of a story it did and hit except the voice acting which was pretty average.[/quote]

You are not being objective! "good story" + stuff you liked from the plot is not a good argument.

I didn't say Persona 3 or BOF IV had "good stories"... you are making things up now.

FF X was not brilliant, it's a pretty good game that has become overrated by nuts like you who think its story was anything more than a Mexican Soap opera with Jesus replaced by a little Japanese girl.

Sorry dude, but your head is lodged quite far up your behind.
 
I just got finished playing FFX a couple weeks ago, and I wasn't really impressed too much. I think its because I played Lord of the Rings: The 3rd Age just a few months ago before playing FFX, but the combat systems and the flow of the game were so similar that FFX just seemed like it was so bland. Plus, I don't like the fact that there really isn't an "overworld" until much later in the game when you finally get access to the airship (and even that is really no better than a "teleport" spell) so it was almost impossible to backtrack for most of the entire game. The sphere grid really didn't do it for me either. I mean, it was something different, but ultimatly "leveling up" has been done so much better in other RPGs. The story was ok, but the villains were so 1-dimensional with cliche'd ambitions and never really came across as particularly evil, nor did I even feel sorry for them. They certainly got nothing on Kefka. Ultimatly they were just another obstical to overcome.

To me, that's one of the things that define a good RPG. A hero is only as good as the villain. If the hero is well developed and the villain is some 1-dimensional walking cliche, the game overall fails. Stories like The Dark Knight are so awesome because the villain is as well done as the hero. For me, RPG games are no different. Truly great RPG games pull at your emotions more than just for the heroes and their group, but for whatever is in opposition to them as well. Kefka from FFVI is a great example. Yes, he was a madman, but you really begin to hate the crazy bastard early on when he poisons Cyan's castle, and that hatred just builds throughout the game.

Ultimatly, I always judge a RPG by how interesting it is to overcome the obsticals that are put in my path. Sure, some RPGs can have better gameplay. Better graphics. Better "level up" systems. But for me, the true great RPGs have better villains.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You didn't just compare LOTR Third Age to FFX did you?[/quote]

Yep. I know the battle system in LOTR 3rd Age copied FFX and all, but when you play them in reverse like I did it seems vice-versa.

And I couldn't stand Blitzball.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']
BoF 3 being a PSX title you should expect a little more from and I think it delivers if not delivers in spades. Its a nice little title with very likeable characters, gorgeous world setting and a bit more depth to the skill system. This game remains one of my favorites to date even if there is no huge reason for it to(I think its just how great the charcters are to me personally).

BoF IV id tell you to just avoid....but a handfull of insane people like Willard swear by it so might as well atleast give it a shot. Be warned though, while the gameplay might have stepped up the charcters received far too little development and the plot went nowhere till end game.

[/quote]

This is my favorite. I'm insane for liking BoF IV because it improves on III's graphics and controls (camera control added along with analog control), yet he has no real reason for prefering III.
 
[quote name='Krymner']I just got finished playing FFX a couple weeks ago, and I wasn't really impressed too much. I think its because I played Lord of the Rings: The 3rd Age just a few months ago before playing FFX, but the combat systems and the flow of the game were so similar that FFX just seemed like it was so bland. Plus, I don't like the fact that there really isn't an "overworld" until much later in the game when you finally get access to the airship (and even that is really no better than a "teleport" spell) so it was almost impossible to backtrack for most of the entire game. The sphere grid really didn't do it for me either. I mean, it was something different, but ultimatly "leveling up" has been done so much better in other RPGs. The story was ok, but the villains were so 1-dimensional with cliche'd ambitions and never really came across as particularly evil, nor did I even feel sorry for them. They certainly got nothing on Kefka. Ultimatly they were just another obstical to overcome.

To me, that's one of the things that define a good RPG. A hero is only as good as the villain. If the hero is well developed and the villain is some 1-dimensional walking cliche, the game overall fails. Stories like The Dark Knight are so awesome because the villain is as well done as the hero. For me, RPG games are no different. Truly great RPG games pull at your emotions more than just for the heroes and their group, but for whatever is in opposition to them as well. Kefka from FFVI is a great example. Yes, he was a madman, but you really begin to hate the crazy bastard early on when he poisons Cyan's castle, and that hatred just builds throughout the game.

Ultimatly, I always judge a RPG by how interesting it is to overcome the obsticals that are put in my path. Sure, some RPGs can have better gameplay. Better graphics. Better "level up" systems. But for me, the true great RPGs have better villains.[/QUOTE]

How in the hell can you say villains like Seymour are 1 dimensional and then hold up Kefka as a great villain. FFVI is one of my fav games ever and I loved Kefka as a kid.....but I think people remember that love of FFVI and Kefka and mistake him as a good or developed villain. He had NO development......seriously absolutely NO development. He was just a crazy bastard end of story. Meanwhile Seymour we got to see background on. Some like Williard try to argue this isnt character development but its the best kind. It lets us not just see the characters slowly change(as they did in FFX making it great in that CD as well)but also how they came to feel the way they currently do. Seymoure we knew why and how he could feel the way he did, same with Jecht and Yunelsca.

Yes you ended up hating Kefka for poisiong doma but how is that any different then Seymour whiping out a whole freaking race like he did on Mt Gagazet? Kefka was a crazy bastard end of story.....Seymour on the other hand was what you said you judge by.....a better villian. He had motive and we knew how he became such a crazy bastard.
 
[quote name='Krymner']
And I couldn't stand Blitzball.[/quote]

Blitzball is hands-down the best RPG minigame ever. You have to play more than one match to like it.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']This is my favorite. I'm insane for liking BoF IV because it improves on III's graphics and controls (camera control added along with analog control), yet he has no real reason for prefering III.[/quote]
I couldn't get into IV at all, for some reason.

But whenever I think of III... I think of that evil desert! Ugh.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']If you played Blitzball, you would love FFX.[/quote]
If I based my opinion of FFX on Blitzball Square offices would have been burnt to the ground.... It has to be the worst FF mini-game EVER.
 
[quote name='MSIMagus']How in the hell can you say villains like Seymour are 1 dimensional and then hold up Kefka as a great villain. FFVI is one of my fav games ever and I loved Kefka as a kid.....but I think people remember that love of FFVI and Kefka and mistake him as a good or developed villain. He had NO development......seriously absolutely NO development. He was just a crazy bastard end of story. Meanwhile Seymour we got to see background on. Some like Williard try to argue this isnt character development but its the best kind. It lets us not just see the characters slowly change(as they did in FFX making it great in that CD as well)but also how they came to feel the way they currently do. Seymoure we knew why and how he could feel the way he did, same with Jecht and Yunelsca.[/quote]

Once again you put words in mouth dude. I said flashbacks do not equal character development.

You can't even remember something you read a few minutes ago?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']This is my favorite. I'm insane for liking BoF IV because it improves on III's graphics and controls (camera control added along with analog control), yet he has no real reason for prefering III.[/QUOTE]

Ermmmm no. I just go off objective stuff unlike you. For instance again graphics are subjective not objective. I freaking hated IVs graphics where were dark and grainy in comparison to III's lush colors. However I dont judge on that because unlike you I realize its not a fair comparison. I judge based on the pacing of the story, development of the charcters, depth of the skill systems and other factors. When you argued that BoF IV had better gameplay I gave that to you, and if you would have stuck to saying that all that matters in an RPG to you was the battle system id have not had another word to say. But then you first off started insulting my views, but second you started silly crap like this control scheme and graphics argument.
 
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']If I based my opinion of FFX on Blitzball Square offices would have been burnt to the ground.... It has to be the worst FF mini-game EVER.[/quote]

.

[quote name='ME']You have to play more than one match to like it.
 
Blitzball isn't all that. FFX doesn't rise or fall because of it. Hell, I didn't even win the game when it came to that part in the game. Didn't effect the story at all.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Once again you put words in mouth dude. I said flashbacks do not equal character development.

You can't even remember something you read a few minutes ago?[/QUOTE]

Flash backs are the same damned thing. I remembered what you said.
 
You still don't get it.

Just because flashbacks do not equal character development does not mean they cannot be used to develop a character.

Every time you argue you story you just say "this game had more flashbacks, thus its characters are more developed".
 
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']If I based my opinion of FFX on Blitzball Square offices would have been burnt to the ground.... It has to be the worst FF mini-game EVER.[/QUOTE]

Again im with deepscale. I hated Blitzball but being fair alot of people loved it. The reason they loved it was because it was a quality mini game.....just one that wasnt for ALOT of people because of the amount of time that went into it and the way it was played being catered to certain tastes.
 
DarkSageRK: I've tried it more then enough to know that I hate it. They FORCED you to play it atleast once every time you played the game.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Ermmmm no. I just go off objective stuff unlike you. For instance again graphics are subjective not objective. I freaking hated IVs graphics where were dark and grainy in comparison to III's lush colors. However I dont judge on that because unlike you I realize its not a fair comparison. I judge based on the pacing of the story, development of the charcters, depth of the skill systems and other factors. When you argued that BoF IV had better gameplay I gave that to you, and if you would have stuck to saying that all that matters in an RPG to you was the battle system id have not had another word to say. But then you first off started insulting my views, but second you started silly crap like this control scheme and graphics argument.[/quote]

None of your arguments have ever been objective. I added in graphics and control arguments when you stated I was insane for preferring IV.

How did I insult your views? I am insulting the fact that you think your arguments are superior to anyone else's.
 
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']DarkSageRK: I've tried it more then enough to know that I hate it. They FORCED you to play it atleast once every time you played the game.[/quote]


What do you mean? Like every time you turned the game on? I sincerely doubt you gave it a fair chance.
 
You know what would be really cool?? An action-RPG with 4 player co-op over Xbox Live. Wouldn't make much sense to do a turn based but a Tales type game would be effin awesome with some buddies.

EDIT -- I think he means that you must play Blitzball to progress in the story thus you are forced to play the mini-game.
 
I hope people are not starting a BoFIII vs BoFIV debate. Cause BoF3 is better with the timeshift, complex battle system, superior story, and more likeable cast.
 
Everything is open for debate here. It's the RPG thread. This is the place where people can fight over which effeminate lead character is the best. j/k
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Meanwhile Seymour we got to see background on. Some like Williard try to argue this isnt character development but its the best kind.[/quote]
Whew, it's a good thing you're so objective about this!

Character development isn't just about what happened to them and why they are the way they are now. It's also about how characters react to story events and that's what makes Kefka one of the better villains. He starts by enslaving Terra, then he sets Figaro on fire. He poisons Doma against orders. He conspires to turn Locke against Celes. He conspires with the Emperor to broker a false treaty, then captures all the Espers. Then when he achieves world dominance with the Emperor, he kills him and ruins the world. How the hell do you not want to kick his ass? Violating human rights, betrayal, chaos, he's far more than just a "crazy dude."
 
As long as people realize they are voicing their opinions most of the time we don't have an issue.

Things like "digital control" or "no camera rotation" are facts.

Things like "likeable cast" or "better plot" are opinions.
 
Kefka is pretty bad ass when it comes villiany. Oh, and that game has only been out for fifteen years so you better get spoilers next time, buddy. j/k
 
[quote name='depascal22']
EDIT -- I think he means that you must play Blitzball to progress in the story thus you are forced to play the mini-game.[/quote]
That is what I meant.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']How in the hell can you say villains like Seymour are 1 dimensional and then hold up Kefka as a great villain. FFVI is one of my fav games ever and I loved Kefka as a kid.....but I think people remember that love of FFVI and Kefka and mistake him as a good or developed villain. He had NO development......seriously absolutely NO development. He was just a crazy bastard end of story. Meanwhile Seymour we got to see background on. Some like Williard try to argue this isnt character development but its the best kind. It lets us not just see the characters slowly change(as they did in FFX making it great in that CD as well)but also how they came to feel the way they currently do. Seymoure we knew why and how he could feel the way he did, same with Jecht and Yunelsca.

Yes you ended up hating Kefka for poisiong doma but how is that any different then Seymour whiping out a whole freaking race like he did on Mt Gagazet? Kefka was a crazy bastard end of story.....Seymour on the other hand was what you said you judge by.....a better villian. He had motive and we knew how he became such a crazy bastard.[/quote]

Kefka > Seymour. Ya know why? The writing. Take for instance the scene you talked about where Seymour killed Kimari's people on Mt Gagazet. For one thing, it was like it was just flippantly mentioned. "Oh, I killed all your race, Kimari." If it had shown the battle instead of just finding out this way it would have had a much more emotional impact. It would have been like if Kefka had just came up to Cyan and said "Oh, I poisoned your castle and killed your family." instead of actually showing it.

No, Kefka isn't a well-developed villain. But really, was the Joker any different in The Dark Knight? He was just like Kefka, a crazy madman. You knew almost nothing about his past but this didn't make him any less of a great villain.

Even with a bad translation job, Kefka's speeches throughout FFVI were so over-the-top and just plain crazy. You KNEW this dude was f*cked up in the head. Seymour's speeches, on the other hand, were boring.

Seymour talked about destroying the world and remaking it. Kefka actually did it.
 
Square should go back and do a prequel for 6 like they did for 7. A little more back story never hurt anyone. Hell, it would be awesome if they centered the story on Kefka.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I played Suikoden I and III and frankly, I'm not eager to pay for II.

How much better is it?[/QUOTE]
Quite a bit better.

Luca pretty much destroys all other villians. Not only is he an evil son of a bitch, he has a reason to be. Seeing your mother raped in front of your eyes as a kid will mess anyone up.

Also who doesn't love the "pig" scene?

Woman: Please don't kill me!
Luca: Then act like a pig
Woman: What?
Luca: Act like a pig!
Woman: *crawls around on all fours and oinks*
Luca: Hahaha! Die pig! *kills her*
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I played Suikoden I and III and frankly, I'm not eager to pay for II.

How much better is it?[/quote]
It's pretty good.
All my Suikoden loving friends say that I, II, and V are the only ones worth playing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top