RPG Discussion (Formerly; Earthbound or Chrono Trigger?)

[TomGuycott]

In all honesty, Sephiroth isn't BAD, he just isn't necessarily my favorite villain. He actually ranks pretty higher in terms of believable villainous personality. And even though he wasn't my FAVORITE design, it was a breath of fresh air from villains that had been building up in Final Fantasy games. I mean, look at Golbez, who is a big, faceless suit-of-armor guy (admittedly I love villains like that, but it can get old, especially considering Garland was already like that in the first game), and then Exdeath, who's the transitional period between IV and VI, where he has the facelessness and ridiculous armor of Golbez meshed with the flamboyant color scheme of Kefka.

Oh god, this is turning into a pointless wall of text, so let me list some pros and cons:

Pro:
-Big samurai sword
-Originally thought to be a "good guy" (I use the term VERY lightly)
-Turns insane and evil through an existential dilema/bizarre alien-genetic birthright mumbo jumbo instead of just being born evil incarnate
-Has a considerably eerie presence throughout the first half of the game after he is introduced (In fact, the whole way he's introduced is just creepy, finding President Shinra skewered on his sword and not even seeing him)
-Has tremendous power reaching far beyond his captive body at the NORTH FUCKING POLE
-The scene explaining HOW he became frozen in mako is AWESOME, and it is literally one of my favorite scenes in any Final Fantasy ever. (Where he stabs Cloud and lifts him up, but Cloud's still alive, throws the sword out of his chest and sends Sephiroth falling into the core of the reactor)

Cons:
-The sissy hair makes him a bit less threatening (Though admittedly he'd just seem bland without it)
-No fight against him in a sword-wielding form (That shirtless bullshit at the end certainly does not count)
-His "Bizzaro" and "Safer" forms are just rehashes of concepts of other final bosses (See Neo Exdeath for Bizarro and see Kefka for Safer)
-Advent Children turned him into a cardboard cutout, no matter how hardcore he fights he has no personality and has no reason to even be in this movie other than service to fanboys.
-His mommy issues downplay his kill-kill factor
-The whole Aeris dies thing making him suddenly the most hateable enemy ever. Seriously, the ONLY reason this was sad is because she had sex appeal. Weird, low-polygon sex appeal. If you had thrust Tellah, Galuf, General Leo or anyone else under that sword. Seriously, she was such a pointless character, I hated her so much, and all she did was die while praying. Tellah at least used Meteo. Come oooon.

So yeah, he's not that bad of a villain, he just has his quirks.

[PrettyNier]

EVERY Final Fantasy game is a meaningless assortment of events and things.

lol
i'm not talking about the minigames (all of which tend to have actually have a purpose: to break up the monotony and offer something different in a specific event or location where it would be permittable).

i'm talking about the events of the story itself. the attitude surrounding ff4 seems to be that "what" happens is good (and this is how it treats itself, as well; that its events are good because of what they are as opposed to how or why they are) which is completely contradictory to the point of a good story. it treats a "plot twist" or an event happening as good in and of itself, and thus tries to capitalize on this as much as it can by killing characters and then bringing them back and having other characters possessed for little reason than to artificially create conflict or "interest" in the story.

it also feels like it is trying to add importance to the scenario and plot by including well known things and concepts like "dwarves" and "elves" and "Crystals" - it abuses the tropes purely for an illusion of depth.

the point of a good story is to embellish the hows and whys of everything that occurs. not to incur reaction because HE BETRAYED THEM, but because of the reasoning behind it and the implications of such an event.

furthermore, a good story is inherently relatable at its core component. the closest thing to a genuine relatable concept is kain's jealousy over rosa. and even, that really isn't explored - whereas, in ff7, the very meaning behind the game is "to deal with the hand you've been dealt" which is something nearly every human being can relate too. our situations are not ideal and we are thrust into them, and often times we don't necessarily have control over them; but we deal. we evolve. we learn. that's the point of Final Fantasy 7 (this is evident in sakaguchi talking about how shortly before FF7 started, his mother died and this impact him greatly; he wanted to incorporate those feelings and those ideas into the game) - as such, the primary flaw of Sephiroth is that he doesn't learn. he doesn't adapt. he represents the antithesis of the game in that his reaction is one of deconstruction and insanity. he tries to destroy the world that created him after realizing the reason for his creation.

To me Sephiroth was boring many because it felt like he was just saying this the whole time "haha I killed your lover. Now look at those people sympathizing with you because that is the best way to become a good villain is to make everyone like the hero and show how evil you are for killing a flower girl that the hero liked!!!!!!!!!!"

also i want to talk about this really quick (not ragging on you kat);

the whole point of jenova/sephiroth killing aeris was less about jenova/sephiroth, but about cloud, about compounding the point of the game and the reason for it. given the inspiration for the game, the death of sakaguchi's mother, it was practically a given that aeris would die.

Seriously, the ONLY reason this was sad is because she had sex appeal.

uhh?? she probably has the least sex appeal out of any of the female characters in the game; i'm not really sure where you're getting that from. as far as tellah and general leo are concerned, those were more minor characters; they weren't in the game nearly as long as aeris had been and didn't have the emphasis put on them that aeris did. this sort of has to do with the whole "its about the hows and whys, not the whats" thing i was talking about before.

[TomGuycott]

The sex appeal thing I just added because I took notice of how all the characters that died in the games before Aeris were old or middle-aged men. Truth be told, I felt more connected with Galuf from FFV and I thought it was really awesome how he went out fighting.

[SKELTON S. SKELETON]

actually the cast of 7 is fucking ancient compared to the casts of normal JRPG games.

[Woppet*]

final fantasy is shit

[SKELTON S. SKELETON]

damnit you british guy, get out of this thread

[Cobalt Blue]

every rpg relased to the date of this post is at the same level of a class B soap opera.

[Maxpphire]

every rpg relased to the date of this post is at the same level of a class B soap opera.

As much as I love rpgs This is pretty much a fact

[Ton]

i'm not talking about the minigames (all of which tend to have actually have a purpose: to break up the monotony and offer something different in a specific event or location where it would be permittable).

Would be a point if Great Glacier, Gold Saucer and Fort Condor weren't all mandatory at some point of the game. Of Cloud cross-dressing. Come on.

But it really depends on how you spin it. Is Cecil's trip to the Dark Elf's cave important for the end to Edward's character arc, or is it just an excuse to lengthen the amount of time before you get Rosa back to create a false sense of drama?
Is Cait Sith 1.0's death important to the plot, as it redeems him to the other party members, or a cop-out used to create an artificial sense of drama?
It's all relative.

[PrettyNier]

Would be a point if Great Glacier, Gold Saucer and Fort Condor weren't all mandatory at some point of the game.

uh, what? whether or not something in a game is a "break in monotony offering something different in a specific event or location where it would be permittable" has literally nothing to do with whether or not it's mandatory. in fact, uh, the point is kind of more valid if the event in question is mandatory than if it's not.

are you actually responding to what I was saying or were you just complaining because for whatever reason you didn't like the minigames?


i'm not sure you understand what i'm saying about the events being meaningless and random. cait sith's death itself didn't mean much in an emotionally affecting way, yes, but it wasn't necessarily supposed too; cait sith dieing also isn't a valid comparison, because it had a build-up, it had an element of necessity, and it had within it revelation of who the character was. it had a genuine reason and purpose in relation to the events surrounding it.

it's not like when yang "sacrificed" himself in an utterly superfluous event with little to no bearing on the overall plot (there is no element of necessity, of revelation, or of buildup); or similar sacrifices by other characters - because by and large they did little for the plot. it was just QUICK, HERE'S A PROBLEM - OH, I'LL RESOLVE IT. the tension is false because it doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

you can't make a good plot by just stringing together a series of events and twists... which is what final fantasy 4 did.

[Ton]

So it's a break in monotony if it's something you like and a "random and meaningless assortment of events and things" if you don't.
It's literally a difference of opinion and nothing more. Cait Sith's and Yang's sacrifices are pretty much the same idea. You're supposed to think one of your party members has died. FF4 just lets you believe it for a bit longer. "QUICK, HERE'S A PROBLEM - OH, I'LL RESOLVE IT" could easily be used in both instances.

EDIT: Wait, so FF7, the game where several of the characters don't know their own origins, backstories are confused as part of the plot, a couple party members hide who they are from you until they are allowed to have backstories, and a lead character is killed for being who she is is a story about how "to deal with the hand you've been dealt"? Nobody does that. They all realize what they've been dealt and try to change it. If they didn't there would be no growth at all for anyone. Midgar would be oppressed forever.

[JarJar]

Anyone familiar with the Ys series? I heard it was really good but idk anything about it but Ys Seven is coming out in 3 weeks and the game looks amazing and I want it.

[GrooveMan.exe]

I played Ys Books 1&2 on the DS and really, it wasn't very good. Real-time battling is fine and all; but the combat/equipment system is entirely piss poor; and the plot isn't good enough to carry the game. The music's pretty high-profile, though.

[JarJar]

Oh those were remakes of of a game from 1988, so it was most likely gonna have everything look decent except the story and gameplay. However I heard the 2005 games and later are what got some extremely good reception.

[PrettyNier]

So it's a break in monotony if it's something you like and a "random and meaningless assortment of events and things" if you don't.

what? how can you even think that I at any point implied that?
do you not realize I was referring to two very different things with these comments?

the former is in reference to the minigames (which you originally brought up: i'm not sure why, they're irrevelent to the plot), the latter is in reference to the superficiality of final fantasy 4's plot and scenarios.

They all realize what they've been dealt and try to change it.

no. they accept it, they accept what was, what has happened, and what is, and then they move on with that as a basis for who they are. sephiroth does the opposite, he rejects who he is and what it actually means and never redeems himself from that.

you're conflating "dealing with the hand you've been given" with "not doing anything about anything"; the latter is forlorn stagnation, the former is ultimately about understanding and acceptance. about dealing with grief.

Cait Sith's and Yang's sacrifices are pretty much the same idea.

this is part of the problem. you're thinking about things in terms of "what" happens: which is not what i'm talking about. i'm referring to the conditions that surround it. i'm not sure why you can't just accept that you're wrong in that regard - or at the very least try and argue in a legitimate or relevant manner.

you're kind of sephirothing here, bro.

if you are so hellbent on the idea that yang and cait siths sacrifices are the same thing, then please: what does yangs sacrifice bring to the table? why does it happen? what do the events that lead up to it mean in the grand scheme of things? why did it have to happen? and what does it honestly do for yangs character and the other characters?

and no, ton, just describing the events in question doesn't work. all of these things can be answered satisfactorily in cait siths "sacrifice".

They all realize what they've been dealt and try to change it.

this is nothing but a copout: the "it's all relative" and "it's all opinions" argument can only goes so far.