ive seen in various places and even som people that i no like 2 debate that zelda is better then FF or FF is better then Zelda...personally i like zelda better well the ones for N64...i dont care for the 2d ones...i think zelda has better storylines and a few are a lot more challenging and longer...i like the gameplay of zelda aswell

I hate these debates.
I personally think that BOTH games are equally good.

yeah me too but mexican is better.

mexican has much better gameplay, story, and graphics

mexican has much better gameplay, story, and graphics

hmm, yeah it does when i come to think about it.

Although we all know Mexican is bettter, in my opinion Zelda has kept up a higher standard than Final Fantasy. There has only been one Zelda that didn't hit home with me, but that could be because of the circumstances, so I can't really comment on it. With the Final Fantasies, it was like a roller coaster. They keep going up and down. If I were to rate each game and add up the scores, Zelda would most likely come out on top.

Although we all know Mexican is bettter, in my opinion Zelda has kept up a higher standard than Final Fantasy. There has only been one Zelda that didn't hit home with me, but that could be because of the circumstances, so I can't really comment on it. With the Final Fantasies, it was like a roller coaster. They keep going up and down. If I were to rate each game and add up the scores, Zelda would most likely come out on top.

which zelda werent u satisfied with?

which zelda werent u satisfied with?

The Wind Waker

Mexican got good reviews, mind.

I just can't wait to cross the border!!

The Wind Waker

i didnt even bother with it...i tryed the 20min demo and it was poopy...they could have done a lot better on the graphics...links head looked like a squared basketball...
heyy avinite can u buy that at ur local gaming store? there arent any in canada...well theres lots of mexicans here i guess they dont like the game

I can't wait 4 twilight princess...i think it'll get best graphics of the year

Why do the graphics matter? Unless it's a fighting/racing game where the number of pixels actually matters to a degree, what impact does that have on the gaming experience.

Nothing has yet topped Ocarina of Time...i think it has the best graphics of them all, well until twilight princess will be released...it has the best story line...its fun and i still havent beat it yet (i started when i was 8 and it was a lil hard 4 me) and i never got bak 2 it with new games

nothing looked real at all on windwaker...wat was the storyline all about?...i just didnt care 4 it, it was kinda bothering me...i also didnt really care 4 the game anyway...wat was unsatisfactory 2 u?

Zelda games aren't made to tell a story. They're made to be fun games to play. Complaining about a Zelda story is just as lame as complaining about the story in a Mario game.

Also, the graphics on Wind Waker were excellent. So what if they were a bit whimsical? There's nothing wrong with that. It's ironic that the only thing that game really had going for it is not well-liked while its gameplay flaws go unnoticed.

Zelda games aren't made to tell a story. They're made to be fun games to play.. what do u mean by that...not made 2 tell a story? Thats all its about is the story and it always stays on topic with the story and doesnt float around like u might find in some other games.


Also, the graphics on Wind Waker were excellent.

Yes the backround and scenery/objects were excellent but link was a skin coloured blackish basketball with a 3 year olds body attached 2 it

wat was unsatisfactory 2 u?

I found it hard to use the battle system effectively. Granted, I only played it for a week or so, and my mind was in a whole different world, but I really found it difficult to do battle whereas in the old Zeldas it had been a cinch.

what do u mean by that...not made 2 tell a story? Thats all its about is the story and it always stays on topic with the story and doesnt float around like u might find in some other games.

That's a pretty retarded thing to say. Super Mario Brothers has a story, as simplistic as it is, and it stays on topic. Does that mean Mario was made to tell a story or am I right and was it made to just be fun to play? The focus of a Zelda game is always on gameplay. The stories tend to be a cookie cutter rehash of basically the same thing every time. It's nothing but a placeholder to guide you through the games.


Yes the backround and scenery/objects were excellent but link was a skin coloured blackish basketball with a 3 year olds body attached 2 it

More like Link had an extremely expressive design that was easy to follow on screen, as well as whimsical enough to be amusing at any given moment.

I cannot decide, so I will have to choose "Mexican"...

mexican thing is getting lame imo.
FF games are more appealing to me
but i did like Zelda 3

i like ff...

zelda's story is typical...

mexican?...i probably think about malaysian...

Hmm for me it's hard to make a choice. Both have their different qualities. I'm happy to play both.

I prefer Final Fantasy by a close margin. Zelda reminds me of Peter Pan...wearing green and with a little fairy by his side.

as stated in the previous thread

zelda wins for gameplay. zelda also gets more nostalgia points from me ~

for epic storylines & character development, final fantasy wins.

as stated in the previous thread

zelda wins for gameplay. zelda also gets more nostalgia points from me ~

for epic storylines & character development, final fantasy wins.

Agreed. That pretty much sums up my thoughts. =)

yea i like both zelda and final fantasy but i like final fantasy more!

I HATE ZELDA!!!

I can't wait 4 twilight princess...i think it'll get best graphics of the year
i don't know about this. FF12 has been getting some really good things about the graphics


That's a pretty retarded thing to say. Super Mario Brothers has a story, as simplistic as it is, and it stays on topic. Does that mean Mario was made to tell a story or am I right and was it made to just be fun to play? The focus of a Zelda game is always on gameplay. The stories tend to be a cookie cutter rehash of basically the same thing every time. It's nothing but a placeholder to guide you through the games.
this is true. it's always ganondorf doing something to threaten the world and something happens to zelda. (i think the only deviation from this was Majora's Mask. MM was good, but i don't know. the whole three days thing gets very annoying and tedious. i like OoT better)

Gameplay is always the most important aspect when it comes to games. If and when I want a deep and involving story, I'd pick up a fantasy novel.

What SphirothsWill said I like Zelda But i like final fantasy more because the story-line, the love, THE FRUSTRATION!!! and the relationships all of it Perfect.;)

Zelda by far
recently finished TWW again and i think its pretty sad they used the cell shaded graphics only once as it is a beautiful(and hilarious) game

Actually, Phantom Hourglass for the DS will use the same style.

What SphirothsWill said I like Zelda But i like final fantasy more because the story-line, the love, THE FRUSTRATION!!! and the relationships all of it Perfect.;)

You can get all that without the game part. :P

i love ff but i like the arpg types like zelda and mexican 10/10 blockbuster fav

In my opinion, Final Fantasy is infinitely better than Zelda. To me, Zelda is nothing more than a game for kids. I love how epic the Final Fantasy games are; each and every single game have something completely unique to them.

As I stated, that is just my opinion.

^_^

i love ff but i like the arpg types like zelda and mexican 10/10 blockbuster fav

Oh for the love of Nereid, all FF games (Except for FF11) and Zelda games are not fucking RPG games! They are adventure games with a couple of RPG staples thrown in, and those staples aren't even genre-defining.


In my opinion, Final Fantasy is infinitely better than Zelda. To me, Zelda is nothing more than a game for kids. I love how epic the Final Fantasy games are; each and every single game have something completely unique to them.

As I stated, that is just my opinion.

I'd agree but then again, Hitler had beliefs. It pays to make sure your opinions aren't uninformed nor bigoted. ;P

uh, final fantasy games are generally accepted to be roleplaying games.

I know Sarah, but that doesn't mean that the general notion is right.

final fantasy games are roleplaying games in the video game sense of the phrase. they're not pen & paper roleplaying games, but no one's claiming they are. some computer roleplaying games stick closer to their pen & paper roots, but that doesn't mean they're the only roleplaying games.

I don't see how you can say final fantasy 11 is a "real" roleplaying game but other final fantasies aren't. there are games out there closer to traditional pen & paper RPGs, but final fantasy 11 isn't one of them.

I think they're classify them as cRPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_role-playing_game) now days anyway...

I think they're classify them as cRPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_role-playing_game) now days anyway...
i don't think that the person who wrote that really likes "cRPGs" that much


Prime examples of the cRPG genre are the Ys, the Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, Star Ocean, Grandia, Tales RPG Series, and the Xenosaga series.
since when is Final Fantasy the Final Fantasy?

yeah, that wiki article looks horrible. it quotes no sources, has numerous errors, and has way too much original research-- in other words, basically just what one random individual happens to think about the subject.

I don't see how you can say final fantasy 11 is a "real" roleplaying game but other final fantasies aren't. there are games out there closer to traditional pen & paper RPGs, but final fantasy 11 isn't one of them.

FF11 is an MMORPG IIRC

final fantasy games are roleplaying games in the video game sense of the phrase. they're not pen & paper roleplaying games, but no one's claiming they are. some computer roleplaying games stick closer to their pen & paper roots, but that doesn't mean they're the only roleplaying games.

I don't see how you can say final fantasy 11 is a "real" roleplaying game but other final fantasies aren't. there are games out there closer to traditional pen & paper RPGs, but final fantasy 11 isn't one of them.

"Role playing games" originally meant you create a role and play it, which you definitely don't do in Final Fantasy. You don't even play the role the game created, you just guide some characters around. I think it is totally legitimate to point out that the games are not RPGs. They only got that title because the first one was loosely based on tabletop RPGs and was really really simplified, so the term was applied to it for ease of reference, but even then it wasn't accurate. There is no "role-playing" involved in any Final Fantasy game except 11, which is why that one is allowed to fall into the category.

darn, i voted before i started reading.. i though mexican meant nachos and traditional mayan foods.

i think there was a similar discussion before the 'reset'. and we all agreed that final fantasy is an RPG (lol, actually i made up that last part, sorry!). anyway, i think the modern RPGs have changed from D&D (which i still find really fun since you have a real community developed). but there are still elements of taking on a character on a quest for some kind of grail, and a story that develops complexity as time goes on. we still get to customize characters on some level and make choices that lead to different outcomes.
i suppose the main thing that seperates FFXI from the rest though, is the community, cause your character is unique from the rest.

TK, didn't you argue the exact opposite against me once or am I just crazy for thinking that? Oh well, you covered most of what I would have to say.

I've been saying for a very long time that most console RPGs, and most specifically those made in Japan, are not true RPGs and that assigning that label to them was a misnomer. The fact that it's become accepted makes it no less incorrect. It is completely obvious when you observe the roots of the genre that FF has almost nothing in common with them, although it does have a great deal in common with classic adventure games, particularly the focus linear story paths with predefined characters.

the definitions of things can change over time, guys.

the fact that you don't create a character in final fantasy doesn't make it NOT A REAL RPG any more than the fact that your friend can't be a dungeon master in final fantasy 11 or wow does. no computer rpgs are "real" rpgs; the closest anything comes are the pen & paper simulators. original roleplaying games are supposed to be open-ended. that's something that virtually no computer game can provide to the same extent. most don't even try.

"roleplaying games" when in reference to computer / console games simply means a game influenced in a certain way by the style of old pen & paper rpgs. there's no denying that final fantasy was influenced by such. it doesn't have all of the elements of original pen & paper rpgs, but NO game does.

pretending there isn't a genre name for a global, multi-billion dollar a year industry and just meshing them in with adventure games is quite silly. we all know what people mean when they say roleplaying games in reference to computer / console gaming. regardless of what it originally meant, we all know what it's shifted to mean over time.

TK, didn't you argue the exact opposite against me once or am I just crazy for thinking that? Oh well, you covered most of what I would have to say.

That was RottenMilkman. :P

shit...

You guys had quite the arguement/discusion while my internet was down...sorry about doublepost...im a little laggy


A roleplaying game (RPG) is a type of game in which players assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Gameplay progresses according to a predetermined system of rules and guidelines, within which players may improvise freely. Players' choices shape the direction and outcome of roleplaying games.

A roleplaying game rarely has winners or losers. This makes roleplaying games fundamentally different from board games, card games, sports and most other types of games. Like novels or films, roleplaying games appeal because they engage the imagination.

Roleplaying games are typically more collaborative and social than competitive. A typical roleplaying game unites its participants into a single team, known as a "party", that plays as a group. Most roleplaying games are conducted like radio drama: only the spoken component is acted, and players step out of character to describe action and discuss game mechanics. The genre of roleplaying games in which players do perform their characters' physical actions is known as live-action roleplaying games (LARP).

Computer games incorporating settings and game mechanics found in roleplaying games are referred to as computer roleplaying games, or CRPGs. Due to the popularity of CRPGs, the terms "roleplaying game" and "RPG" have both to some degree been co-opted by the computer gaming industry; as a result, traditional non-digital pastimes of this sort are increasingly being referred to as "pen and paper" or "tabletop" roleplaying games, though neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary.

I think that last paragraph in the wiki article makes quite a strong argument for the term being a misnomer, regardless of how widely it's been accepted. If the co-opting of the term makes extra identification such as "pen and paper" or "tabletop" necessary to properly identify a traditional RPG, it is a sign that the console counterparts are too different to have the name assigned to them in the first place.

I prefer Final Fantasy because some Zelda games I can't find anywere (AHHHHH!!!)

Don't make a retarded post right after I make one with a point.

I think that last paragraph in the wiki article makes quite a strong argument for the term being a misnomer, regardless of how widely it's been accepted. If the co-opting of the term makes extra identification such as "pen and paper" or "tabletop" necessary to properly identify a traditional RPG, it is a sign that the console counterparts are too different to have the name assigned to them in the first place.

doesn't make arguements like "no final fantasy but final fantasy 11 is a real rpg !" or "ONLY BIOWARE-ESQUE RPGS ARE REAL RPGS" any less silly.

That's not quite true. FFXI does count as a "real" RPG because it does have the potential for players to mimic the experience of a traditional RPG. The fact that most people use it that way is a bit sad though.

No comment about the Bioware-esque games point because it's pretty much true, although possibly not in the way you meant it, depending on the context.

I made my point before, but I'll repeat it because people don't seem to get it:

no computer / console rpgs are "real" rpgs in the way that traditional rpgs are. computer / console rpgs, be they mmorpgs or games that come slightly closer to imitating original pen & paper roleplaying games are still doing just that: imitating them. no game has all of the elements and flexibility real pen and paper rpgs do. my point was it's rather silly to say that some are REAL RPGs and some aren't simply because some don't stray quite as far from the path.

you can go on for as long as you want about how animal crackers aren't an appropriate name because they're NOT REALLY AMINALS, but no one cares. everyone knows what you're talking about when you talk about animal crackers.

Valid point. Following that line of reasoning, I suppose that makes it a question of where the line should be drawn as it applies to games. After all, should games as radically different as Castlevania and the Baldur's Gate series be combined into the same genre? I don't tend to think so. Each of them contains elements associated with the role-playing genre, but to what degree must a game possess them in order to be classified as an RPG.

The animal crackers analogy was pretty ridiculous, btw.

What's an animal cracker?

Also, genre is not all that useful, and lumping all PnP RPGs into the category of real role-playing seems kinda foolish. I've played table top RPGs with idiots who had no ability to see anything from their character's perspective and this made it very difficult to consider it role-playing. Conversely, I've seen some masterful role-playing of cops and robbers by 12 year old kids playing Counter-Strike.

(http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1frame137zu.jpg)

an-i-mal crack-er: noun. Used as a disparaging term for a poor [animal] of the rural, especially southeast United States.

you can go on for as long as you want about how animal crackers aren't an appropriate name because they're NOT REALLY AMINALS, but no one cares. everyone knows what you're talking about when you talk about animal crackers.
i think this is a good analogy

Definitly ZELDA! :cool:

Zelda by far. I've always loved Zelda and enjoyed every one of them. FF on the other hand... They should never have went 3d.. :)

I've never played this mexican. But I'm sure it is superior to both series, one look at the gamespot review confirms this.

the definitions of things can change over time, guys.

the fact that you don't create a character in final fantasy doesn't make it NOT A REAL RPG any more than the fact that your friend can't be a dungeon master in final fantasy 11 or wow does. no computer rpgs are "real" rpgs; the closest anything comes are the pen & paper simulators. original roleplaying games are supposed to be open-ended. that's something that virtually no computer game can provide to the same extent. most don't even try.

"roleplaying games" when in reference to computer / console games simply means a game influenced in a certain way by the style of old pen & paper rpgs. there's no denying that final fantasy was influenced by such. it doesn't have all of the elements of original pen & paper rpgs, but NO game does.

pretending there isn't a genre name for a global, multi-billion dollar a year industry and just meshing them in with adventure games is quite silly. we all know what people mean when they say roleplaying games in reference to computer / console gaming. regardless of what it originally meant, we all know what it's shifted to mean over time.

We know what it means when people use it to refer to console games, but that doesn't mean that we should keep using it; I'd rather try to change that term so that we can help protect the English language from being dumbed down. People are very lazy about the words they use these days. There are legitimate ways for a word's use to shift, and there are illegitimate ones as well. Using the term "role playing game" to describe a game that involves absolutely no playing of any roles whatsoever is quite retarded, imo.

PC RPGs almost always involve role playing. They allow the player to choose personalities, looks, and approaches for all their characters, or at the very least their central one. In games like, say, Black Isle's D&D RPGs, almost no decisions in the entire game are made for you—you almost universally pick your own paths and how you are going to go about walking them. That is playing a role. Telling Cloud to pick up items and attack is not.

The only way for "RPG" to legitimately shift to mean something like Final Fantasy is to completely ignore the meaning of the term "role playing." Being a great fan of language, I really wish people wouldn't do that.

Prak: I have no memory of that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I rate them even.

FF gets + points for story

Zelda gets + points for gameplay

I enjoy both series and my friend and I constantly debate what has more.

For me, Final Fantasy wins it.
The stories keep you entertained and you grow a connection with the characters.

It seems the Zelda series is constantly trying to create and scrap up a new story just for a new game.
In all the Zelda games it is the same base of charcters; Link, Zelda, Ganon, etc.

Yet, the games together don't have a real connection with eachother.

mexican-crossing the boarder was an awesome twist to the game

I love Final Fantasy more as a series of games than Zelda, by far.

We are on final fantasy forums, of course final fantasy will be the best.

Ive never played a zelda game, i was always a fun of sony consoles.

We are on FFShrine, of course Mexican will eventually win all.

:smrt:

Lol :-P

Zelda is better.

Final Fantasy is way better than the Zelda games. Ocarina of Time is amazing, but the rest of the Zelda games are pretty poop to be honest. Every FF game is good apart from II.

I like Final Fantasy better, but Zelda rocks also.

Mexican was great, but after you cross the border the story kinda goes down hill.

WTF, why did you revive this?

Like them both, I prefer Zelda's gameplay though. I also think Zelda's locations are a lot more atmospheric.

Ha! more revivement.

imo i dont think that there that close of a game to be debating.
its like apples and hippos.