People that like the FF series

Not that there are no good obscure games, but I fully agree with you. There’s no reason to dislike something simply because it’s “mainstream.”

I especially like the video game elitists who <I>used</I> to like Final Fantasy, but now don’t because they’re “above that now,” or those that used to like Mario or Zelda but have “grown out of it.” Come on, people. It’s a damn game one way or another. Whether your playing Grand Theft Auto or Mario Party, you’re playing with a toy. You should enjoy games based on whether or not you enjoy them, not based on your self-image.

Reasons I liked them:

Final Fantasy Tactics - Everything, This game is the closest the world will come to perfection.

All the other FF besides Tactics - The music and story (untill I found out that other RPGs have had better stories, like Lunar:SSSC). The music remains the best part of the series, oh, and it got pretty too.

Music, story, characters, enemies, weapons.

You guys realize that story is a dummy-aspect of RPGs whose sole purpose is to distract you from their horrid gameplay, right?

And do you realize that some people actually like the stories?

No, I was completely oblivious to the fact that “I like the story” meant someone liked a story. What do you take me for? The whole point is that if they play games for stories they probably need to re-evaluate their reasons for playing a game.

I don’t play RPG’s for the story. I play them for the game, and I personally don’t think RPG’s have bad gameplay, they just require more tactics and thinking than other genres.

And personally in my opinion some games use the gameplay to draw attention away from sucky plot.

Kefka!.. Probably the music.

Maybe you can take hours upon hours of customizing, item hunting, dungeon-crawling and stat-grinding with nothing in between, but I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who likes to be given a reason to do all that. Just imagine playing FFVIII without the story, you really think the gameplay could keep you interested during the whole game? How many times can you switch your junctions and repeat the same battle commands mechanically until you stab yourself with a rusted knife to escape from the monotony? I could count the number of RPGs that can stand on their gameplay alone with one hand, and right now not even one comes to mind. Plenty of people play games for their stories, and I don’t think anybody has any right to call them dummy-aspects.

And in response to your statement, I like to believe most people play to have fun. And if you are willing to sit in front of a game belonging to a genre you KNOW is text-heavy, you better damn like the plot if you are hoping to have fun.

EDIT: I will insult your intelligence by reminding you that RPG stands for Role Playing Game. The whole idea of this genre from it’s very roots was for you to be able to play the role of a character trough a hopefully exiting and interesting story.

Music, stories, length of games.

Isn’t that a pessimistic view of things? You know, some people who make these games don’t make the plot as a distraction. Some of them actually think it enhances the gameplay, and in many instances, I’d agree with them.

Quote Seraphim Ephyon:
“And in response to your statement, I like to believe most people play to have fun. And if you are willing to sit in front of a game belonging to a genre you KNOW is text-heavy, you better damn like the plot if you are hoping to have fun.”

I have NEVER been able to “play a game for fun”. I’ve always been perfectionist and I think I’ll stay like that… to me, finishing and mastering and kicking a game’s arse is fun!
Not meaning to start a flame of course, just presenting my view (:
Ninten:cool:

Then you are still playing it for fun, you just don’t enjoy the same things as I do. My whole point is that, while I know that there are people who get orgasms by seeing their stats grow and their shiny weapons pile up (Heck, even I played blacksmith in Vagrant Story for 100+ hours…), saying that story is just a cover up for a boring gameplay is an unfair extreme. It’s just a separate aspect that targets a different kind of player.

I don’t play RPG’s for the story. I play them for the game, and I personally don’t think RPG’s have bad gameplay, they just require more tactics and thinking than other genres.

And personally in my opinion some games use the gameplay to draw attention away from sucky plot.
You’re right. RPGs are about ingenuity, but you’re also wrong. Gameplay is the primary aspect of any game, bar none. That’s why we call it <i>playing games.</i> I can assure you that Tetris didn’t try to hide it’s shitty plot with stellar gameplay. It realized that gameplay is the essence of gaming and took advantage of a unique idea. It didn’t need to hide anything because it was what it was, whereas <i>games</i> that hide <i>gameplay</i> are simply bad at what they do.

Just imagine playing FFVIII without the story, you really think the gameplay could keep you interested during the whole game?
No, which is why I think the story ratio should have been toned down in favour of better gameplay. Orphanage jokes aside, FFVIII’s story was probably the best conveyed in the gaming world. The problem is that if you take a look at its gameplay you’ll notice how poor it is.

Its primary and only battle system is turn based, which is almost always inherently bad. The vast majority of its spells and commands are useless. In battle, you only have three useful options: attack, gf, or limit. One is only forced to stray from said options once in the entire game, when fighting the red giant. Even Ultimecia could be defeated with one routine Lionheart.

Yet, in spite of it’s poor gameplay, I was always mashing through pointless dialogue in order to get my fix, because that’s what games are for. If my fingers aren’t moving rapidly then it’s not worth my time.

I don’t mean to imply that gameplay and story are inversely proportionate. I’m just saying that that’s the way it often plays out because story isn’t necessary unless you have a reason to make it the focal point, for example, shifting focus away from the more important aspects of <i>playing a game</i>, such as the <i>gameplay</i> itself.

saying that story is just a cover up for a boring gameplay is an unfair extreme. It’s just a separate aspect that targets a different kind of player.
It targets the kind of player who should probably be reading a book.

A small, lighthearted story is fine because it won’t interfere with the playing or take time and resources away from gameplay during development. For example, Mario64 told it’s entire story with a single one page note from Peach to Mario and a few ten second accounts from toadies, and it was still only there to justify Mario’s simple endeavors in a satisfying way.

Even a moderately profound story is okay if it’s been integrated into the gameplay well. In FFX, arguably the only FF with very good gameplay and coincidentally the least convoluted of the recent FFs, dialogue would often take place DURING battles or while you were exploring, and it was all skippable. At the very beginning of the game, you walk down a bustling Zanarkand street while you are told a story. You are told a story without text boxes or interruptions, and that was pure genuis, IMO.

When you look at FFVIII, however, you see a story of the literature variety. It crosses the line between game and novel, and it’s gameplay suffers because of it. Not only that, but since games are such a poor medium for telling stories, the story also suffers in spite of it’s intended depth.

Isn’t that a pessimistic view of things?
There’s a fine line between pessimism and realism.

I’m afraid I can’t illustrate my point any better. I agree with you to a certain degree in which most of my favorite games would make good books and sometimes have horrible gameplay (Deathblows… ugh) but now we’re arguing our visions of how a game should be.

As I said before, I always assumed RPGs where story-heavy, primarily because the genre was born from four or so geeks sitting around a table and pretending they were medieval characters. I know when I pick up an RPG that the chances of it making me slightly nervous about one or two battles are close to 0, but I buy it anyway because that’s not what I want the game for. I want good character interaction, good plots, good characterization and I absolutely disagree with you in which a game is not a good way of telling a story. In many aspects it’s even better than a movie, because it gives the player the chance of explore beyond a single straight path, allowing you to take your time to understand every aspect of the plot, introducing a number of characters and sub-plots to make a richer world that would only make a film overbearing due to time restrictions.

If I want fast, exciting, action I just fire up some FPS or Megaman game and knock myself out. I don’t ask for exciting battles in RPGs in the same way I don’t ask for heavy character interaction on an RTS, that’s why there are different genres that appeal to different people.

You want games to tone down on the story in favor of a better (And as you’ve said repeatedly before, action-based) gameplay? Fine, but you are basically asking for something entering the realms of Zelda-style action, not an RPG. And before you say it, I know that what I want from RPGs is more of an interactive novel than a game per-se, but as I said before that is what appeals to me from this genre.

Something that I haven’t seen mentioned here, and would like to point out, is that Storyline and Gameplay aren’t mutually exclusive.
I could’ve played Darggerfall withuot any form of storyline for dozens of hours, and to some degree, have. I often ignore the main plotline for years in game time, until my character is maxed out completely, in the most deadly armour demon soulstealing can create, with only simply werewolf hunt, assassination, and recovery quests to back me up.
On the other hand, the main quest’s story is nothing to just shrug off. Hired by the emperor to investigate strange happenings in the Kingdom of Daggerfall and recover a letter of ahem personal nature he sent to their queen, by the end (this isn’t really a spoiler), you’re choosing among a Lich, an ancient, cursed mage, the Emperor, and various nobility upon whom to give immense power (in the Lich’s case, Godhood).

However, in the vein of the argument, the storyline complements gameplay, and, if the gameplay is bad, can cover it up. As SE already mentioned, roleplaying was created by a handful of geeks in sitting around a table pretending to be medieval characers; playing roles, hence the name. Rules for combat were not added in except as an afterthought; early on, it was much like the free RPs on this board; people stated if their attack hit, or didn’t. Needless to say, this brought way for cheating. Thus, the combat system was born.
RPGs, in their true form, are crosses between reading a book, writing one, and acting in a play, depending on what kind you’re playing. They also, however, have the gameplay element added in, putting in board or videogame elements to your ‘novel.’
Now, I don’t know about you guys, but I’m the kind of person who likes writing my own bits of novels, or something like that. I mean, honestly, sometimes, the main characters are stupid bastards when it comes to making decisions. Hasn’t anybody else here evr wanted to be able to change the decision a character made, and control their actions inside or outside of battle? I have, which might be what I like about RPGs. They have a storyline, often a good one (if usually cliche), but also, enough flexibility for you to make your own changes in the story. I can usually make certain characters survive, and kill off others, when I choose to, as if I were controlling the story.
I also agree with SE on a game being a good medium for storytelling. You could never have fit all the detail in, say, Legend of Mana into a movie or a book, at least not a movie someone would’ve been able to sit through, or a book that someone could’ve enjoyed too much reading; it’d get to that point where it’s gone on too long about halfway through the game’s stories, not to mention, the book would be rather disjointed. The game, however, includes the gameplay aspects, like battles and item making, to break up the storyline and give the ‘reader’ a chance to interact with the world around him. In the movie, chances are, the main character wouldn’t run around on a pirate ship, talking to all the pirates to here what they said, or take another character with him to go look for the Seven Wisdoms to ask questions of. In the game, you can do this. You can find al lthe secret, demi-human pets to find out about them. In the game, it’s up to you how fast you go throught the story and what actions you take. That, I think, is the best part of it, and a part that makes it just as much ‘literature,’ as any novel, but also, more fun than most novels, and more easily accessible.

There’s a fine line between pessimism and realism.[/QUOTE]

My Dad says that, but he sounds more pessimistic then realistic, they are a bit the same, but in a way diferent. They both sometimes basically have the same view.

I’ll agree with the pessimism/realism thing.

Also, what I liked about the Final Fantasies were mostly the storylines and characters. I never really was fond of their gameplay, even compared to other RPGs with the same battle style. I like them anyway.

Personally when choosing a game, especially PRGs. I usually focus on how good the story is. Since if it something I don’t mind going through more than once, I don’t care if the gameplay is slightly worse than other games. After all it is the story that makes me want to replay it.

No it doesn’t. It might or might not target the kind of player who might also enjoy reading books. I don’t know if you’ve thought about it before or not, but most RPG stories would make terrible books. They’d be ridiculously short, as most of the game is spent fighting battles. They’d even be pretty weak for short stories.

You’re being pessimistic here. I play many types of games, from RPG to survival horror, merely for the story. They enhance the gameplay by making it more than it is. However, it’s not to cover up bad gameplay. If the gameplay were much more entrancing, then you wouldn’t care about the story. A good example is the more recent Castlevania games, such as Symphony of the Night and Aria of Sorrow. The gameplay is excellent, but you could pretty much just skip the story and still have fun. If the story any better, then people might have skipped something that they worked hard on. If they made the gameplay more intense on an RPG, the same might happen.

The fact of the matter is, some people <I>like</I> turn based gameplay. I’ve played several RPGs that I couldn’t read the story to, because I <I>liked</I> the gameplay element. The story simply makes it more interesting.