What is your favorite RPG?

Y'know, just because I'm defending this 32-bit game doesn't mean I haven't played anything before the playstation, else I wouldn't be visiting a place like this.

What I meant is that console RPGs are usually very limited compared to PC ones in that you often can't talk to npcs or affect the storyline because you're always steered in the right direction. You follow it or it's game over and you only get to choose how to do battle.

No, it's about four things: Limit Breaks, Materia, Stats (becomes less important in the end), and Equipment (differs from character to character).
Which means it Does mean anything.. you can't fiddle with all the materia throughout the whole game, only by the end as I already said. She's also long since dead by that point, so she can't possibly become one of the best attackers. Her last limit break (and all the others IIRC) is a status buff for your characters, her weapons don't do that much damage, and her stats aren't good for that role. She's good with magic but not otherwise and you can't rely only on that in a normal playthrough.

Even if Limit Breaks were the only difference, it proves you're wrong because you can't switch limit breaks from character to character and they aren't all the same. For some of the characters they also serve as an extension of their personalities, such as Vincent being turned into different monsters and Cait Sith fom the casino or whatever it was using breaks based on chance.

Console RPGs are really just adventure games with rolls and levels. There's almost never any way for you to change the outcome of events, everything is strictly on-rails. I've grown really tied of this concept and don't think I'll be touching any old RPGs ever again. During the first playthrough you had at least some satisfaction from brining the plot forward after completing some tedious quest with loads of random encounters, but the lack of multiple outcomes nullifies any replay value. Since the lackluster gameplay relies so heavily on the story it really needs to be something more complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeckoYamori

I've grown really tied of this concept and don't think I'll be touching any old RPGs ever again.

---

Great typo! :D

Console RPGs rock. I don't care about deciding to do things on my own in them. I just wanna enjoy the graphics, characters, story and music a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alianger

Y'know, just because I'm defending this 32-bit game doesn't mean I haven't played anything before the playstation, else I wouldn't be visiting a place like this.

What I meant is that console RPGs are usually very limited compared to PC ones in that you often can't talk to npcs or affect the storyline because you're always steered in the right direction. You follow it or it's game over and you only get to choose how to do battle.

No, it's about four things: Limit Breaks, Materia, Stats (becomes less important in the end), and Equipment (differs from character to character).
Which means it Does mean anything.. you can't fiddle with all the materia throughout the whole game, only by the end as I already said. She's also long since dead by that point, so she can't possibly become one of the best attackers. Her last limit break (and all the others IIRC) is a status buff for your characters, her weapons don't do that much damage, and her stats aren't good for that role. She's good with magic but not otherwise and you can't rely only on that in a normal playthrough.

Even if Limit Breaks were the only difference, it proves you're wrong because you can't switch limit breaks from character to character and they aren't all the same. For some of the characters they also serve as an extension of their personalities, such as Vincent being turned into different monsters and Cait Sith fom the casino or whatever it was using breaks based on chance.

---

I admit that that was a cheap shot, but you way that you worded your earlier argument made it sound as though you were talking about RPG's in general, so I took it.

And I grant you that stats (in the beginning) and equipment also qualify as differences, but the point that I'm continuing to make is that it's still all about being able to customize your characters; a process that is very doable and takes a lot of the potential differences away. You can't really get around that.

And as for Gecko... I really crack up every time I hear that arguement that if an RPG doesn't offer customization, multiple endings, and is linear then it's only good for one playthrough. That's simply ludicrous. I do suppose that similarly once you've listened to a song, since it's the same thing every time you won't want to hear it again? And once you've eaten something you'll be less interested in eating it again?

Oh, and that throws reading right out the window too. Really, logical arguement there.

I'm judging these things as games here, not books or movies. I generally like to play my games, and after watching some cutscene for the bazillionth time I usually skip it if I can. There's just way too many mandatory passive moments in games like these. By simply adding a thing like multiple choices you are making the dialouge part of the gameplay and much more enjoyable.
f I wanted to read a book or watch a movie, I'd go do that.

In other words you really don't belive that atmosphere can make seeing the same cutscene again enjoyable.