Why is Final Fantasy 6 so overrated?

The fact that your average PC at the time had anywhere from 32-64 times more memory than the PSX just might have something to do with this.

Well, the best FF is IX, and Chrono Trigger and VI aren't in the top 10 RPG's... you're welcome. I brought up CT because it's more over rated than both VI and VII.

I havent played FF 8 and 9 yet.

You really should play 9 before 8 imo. 8 is considered the black sheep of the franchise. A lot of people did not like the combat in that one. Both are great games but IX is more universally admired (probably the most of any FF title since it combines the classic fantasy, world map,etc and is in 3D). Some people do not like the sci fi dirrection that VI, VII, VIII, and XIII took.

6-7-8-9 are the only Final Fantasy games I like. X started my hate-boner for the series. I thought FF13 was the lowest point till the unfinished abomination known as FF15 came out. Literally the biggest pile of garbage so far. In fact, I think FF15 is the worst game Square has ever made to date.

The first Jrpg I ever played was Parasite Eve on PS1 tho. This game came with a demo of FF8, the game that introduced me to the franchise. Now the hate for FF8 is what I consider undeserved and highly hyperbolic when there are way worse games in the franchise like FF 13-15-1-2-3-5.

I liked the proportions of the characters in 8. The art style was amazing. I am still burned out on FFXII though. They were going to have the adult be the main protagonist which would have made the game better but to fit in with the crowd they added Vaan supposedly and he just does not feel like he belongs in the story.

This.

Square made this guy.

Then went on to have f*cking Sephiroth.

I swear Nomura ruined FF.

Though as much as I love FF, it's fun to play, but the balancing in that game is atrocious. And I don't remember it having a good leveling system either. So system-wise, it is a bit overrated? Combat is still fun though, the pinnacle of ATB.

Final Fantasy 7 is a better game than Baldur's Gate 1. The only reason people really remember that franchise is because of BG2, which admitedly, was amazing.

BG may have been more advanced, but FF7 actually put some effort into its execution.

Because it's a Final Fantasy. I'll fully admit that rpgs aren't really my genre, but I have been branching out and trying them over the last 5+ years, and I have to say that the FF games have been ranking at the bottom for me. They're not bad, but I don't quite grasp how they're supposed to be the kings, of at least jrpgs, when stuff like Panzer Dragoon Saga, Chrono Trigger, Skies of Arcadia, Valkyria Chronicles, Grandia, Front Mission, and so on, are so much better.

@Maroxad: No, it actually isn't. At least the story actually works in BG1.

FFVI is a great game that still holds up. But Chrono Trigger and FFIX are better games.

IX>VI>V>IV>>>XII>>VII>>>>>X>>>>>VIII>XIII.

Did you try playing Baldur's gate tutu mod?

I found baldur's gate 1 to be just as good as 2, except for the resolution limitation and the UI. tutu fixes ALL of that.

Man, you are in for a treat. 9 is my favorite FF and although 8 is a little different from a completely traditional FF (1-7) it is still one of my favorite in the series and is a great game. I just wish it had more weapons... Either way though, it is probably in my top 3, and the gun blades are bad ass. It's a great game and sorely under rated in the franchise. I like all FF games through X-2, and then they all suck... Well, except for the MMO, it isn't bad, but once again, isn't really a FF experience outside of some of the lore.

Did Baldur's Gate Tutu fix the uninspired encounter design? Awful level design, absolutely forgettable open world, that the game forced you to traverse regardless? Combat that was completely inferior to the Goldbox games that came out prior?

Hell, even Baldur's Gate 2 was pretty much entirely carried by its encounter design and tight structure, and its superb execution of the Forgotten Realms world. BG1 had none of the encounter design or tightness that made the sequel actually worth playing.

Edit: Yes I tried the Tutu mod, but it didnt fix anything that made BG1 a chore to play.

Outside of Durlag's Tower, what is there to like?

I know what you mean by the encounter design. Did you die too much?

All of this is completely opinion based. FF VI is my #1 game in my top five games all of time. Some things in that game caught me off guard at the time when it was FF III on SNES. Can't wait for VC to show up so I can get it on my Switch. Not dragging out myPS3 to play it. As far as RPGs go, VII is in my top five but it is third behind VI and Suikoden II.

Also, Suikoden II was better than any FF game after VII.

I solo'ed the game with a guy called Reggie Fils Aime.

Nice try though, the only thing that gave me any kind of trouble was the Charm Person spell. The Inbred Engine is super easy to abuse. Hell, I beat BG2 only resting once per chapter.

If you think wildlife and bandits make up for interesting encounter design, yes, then maybe I can see where you are coming from, it does get slightly more interesting later on. But for most of the part, the Encounter design is blatantly uninspired. Personally, I found the encounter design to be banal and boring to fight. There were no real threats, outside a handful of enemy encounters, mainly located in Durlag's Tower. And perhaps those basilisks. Thankfully, the game warned you with those petrified bodies, so I went back to town to get some scrolls to protect me against that, making them just as harmless as anything else in the world.

Final Fantasy 6, and 7, both made you go through a much greater variety of enemies than BG1 did. Sure, they werent particulary great in that regard. But between the tonberries, bombs, grappling bosses, and a few other enemies. The encoutner design in FF6 was way more interesting than the one in Bladder's Gate 1.

JRPG's aren't really my thing outside of Dark Souls. I was not a fan of the combat system of Final Fantasy VI and the plot wasn't very good either.

@Maroxad: what class was Reggie Fils Aime?

It is probably fair to call FF6 a little overrated, but also probably fair to call FF8 a little underrated. I think they're all pretty good games though, all of the older Final Fantasy games. 12 is probably where they lost me, personally.

I think 6 had some interesting ideas. You had a pretty big party, and could equip different espers with their own sets of magic you could cast. When the story splits up at that one point, you can kind of play through the different characters' paths in any order. And a lot of people just liked Kefka as the villain.

There are things that I liked about 6, and then things I liked more about later and earlier games in the series. I think I like to appreciate each game for the differences in battle systems and character growth systems and characters and story.

Human Kensai, yup, I did that in the Tutu mod ;)

Or maybe it was BG: Trilogy.

@Maroxad: So you soloed through the game, with one of the fighter kits introduced in Baldur's gate 2, the most brokenly OP one. Giving all experience to one character, which makes him untouchable very quickly. Missed out on any NPC banter/interactions due to not having anyone in the party. And it's a poor game because of poor encounter design?

Do you also think Ferraris suck because they lack cargo space?

@SOedipus: What class did you go with for your protagonist. I'm assuming you played with 6 people in the party?

@Maroxad:I was just messin'. I've never seen anyone go into that much detail about it. But like I said I know what you mean. Apart from charm or petrification there's not much to worry about.

@appariti0n: Yeah I always go for 6. I need peeps to carry stuff and the less I have to travel back to town the better. I usually go with fighter or paladin. I just started playing it again and it looks like they updated it quite a bit. I'm going to finish insane before I try the next difficulty up.

What made Baldur's Gate 2 actually worth playing was the encounter design, the mage duels in particular were very well designed. The characters and banter was cheesy as ****. Why would I want to deal with poverty fantasy characters... and Fantasy characters is low bar.

Which may perhaps explain why the only time I managed to beat the game (let alone get past chapter 2) was when I fully created the entire team. That was BG2.

Really, by eschewing those characters, the only thing that was lost was cringe-worthy dialogue. In other words, nothing of value.

My character's power level has nothing to do with the quality of the encounter design. Bandits, wolves, bears, and kobolds are not fun to fight. Beholders, mind flayers, well designed dragons... are.

Ah fair enough. Even then, charm is only really an issue if you go solo, since it means an instant game over.

Edit: Hmm, this seems to be a BG2 engine thing. Appearantly in a non-Tutu, trilogy game, getting the protagonist charmed while no other people are alive is no game over. Seems to be an issue with BG2 as well, with Maze. Makes me glad I stopped Reggie's solo run.

@Maroxad: How do you know the dialog was cringe worthy if you soloed the whole game?

Because I played it before in the past.

Baldur's Gate 1 was my first RPG. I bought it again on GoG for Nostalgia purposes.

Ahh I see.

But previously, you indicated that FFVII was a shit game, but still better than Baldur's gate 1. Essentially this means you think Baldur's gate 1 was worse than shit.

Yet you bought it again and played through it again, despite already knowing the dialog was cringe worthy, the open world was forgettable, and the encounters were banal.

Do you see why logically people have trouble with this? People don't typically re-buy games they hate. Unless they didn't actually think it was so bad, but like to exaggerate just how bad it was to be contrary/trollish.

Hey everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's pretty safe to say that on a standard deviation chart of "what rpg players value in an rpg" you would be in the 0.1% section.

Just like the guy who hates Ferrari because they lack cargo space.

@SOedipus: Solid choice, I started with a gnome enchanter, knowing nothing of D&D rules or anything. Needless to say, he wasn't the most durable protagonist, and of course, game over when he dies.

They are both varying scales of shit. FF7 is definately a bad game. And BG1, while worse, is still shit.

I didnt remember the gameplay was bad, back then I actually enjoyed it. I remembered enjoying the low level D&D adventures.

But here is the thing. Baldur's Gate, as previously stated, was the first RPG I played, so when I played it, it was a completely new experience, I had absolutely nothing to compare it to, hell, I didn't even know what an RPG was. I enjoyed it because I didn't know any better. With storytelling and dialogue however, I had games to compare it to (adventure games), but also novels and movies.

When I came back, I had RPGs to compare it to. And compared to most other games in the industry, both older and newer. It simply put fell flat. The game was fun, because it was a completely new experience. When the new car scent (new genre scent) was gone, I saw just how flawed the game is.

Prioritiizing gameplay over narrative makes me the 0.1% section? Is that why Final Fantasy has always focused primarily on exploration and other gameplay mechanics. Just look at how well recieved FF6 was, despite lacking a narrative in the second half. Hell, even FF7 was primarily gameplay driven, with the narrative often just taking you to various places across the world, or to introduce new features.

I still love both FFVI and FFVII. ONly real issue I have with either game is that both get stupidly easy, and with FFVII that game had a pretty s***ty translation...and that snowy maze area in FFVII could be a pain in the ass.

FF was at it's best from FFIV-FFX...with the exception of FFVIII which was just kinda of lame.

Might as well LOL at people who played Nier: Automata for the combat.

Or people who played HZD for the graphics.

Or who enjoy Final Fantasy games for the musical score.

Or maybe we should laugh at people who play indie games for the nostalgia?

You do realize the narrative is pretty much the most important thing in any D&D based game right? At least, as far as the vast majority is concerned.

Guess you're completely immune to nostalgia then, because FFIV was my first RPG, and I still revisit it every 5 or so years and enjoy it.

Let's look at the top selling RPGs of all time

• Pokemon: Red/Blue
• Skyrim
• Diablo 3
• Pokemon Gold/Silver
• Terraria
• A couple more pokemon games.

Notice something among these games? ALL of them are primarily gameplay driven. No one plays Skyrim or Pokemon for the story, Diablo 3's story is terrible and Terraria doesnt even have a story. And this doesnt include mmorpgs, like World of WarCraft, which again, is entirely gameplay and exploration driven. Comparatively few poeple play RPGs primarily for the story. Just look at what people vote for with their money.

Not surprising of coursre. Since RPGs have always been a terrible medium for narrative. Roleplaying depth is often contradictory to a good narrative.

Final Fantasy, are often at their "best" when they focus on making the adventure fun. Not by adding endless dialogue. FF6's story for instance, was incredibly simple, but that worked for the game. What is the best way for them to make hte adventure fun? Make it flashy and always make hte player feel like they are achieving something (be it a new level, or a new spell, which FF6 gave you new ones at an extremely tight pace).

What's your source for this list of best selling rpgs of all time?

Because I've found several lists of "best selling rpgs of all time" that support my viewpoint, not yours, yet I've refrained from posting them, as the websites in question aren't exactly considered gospel.

Also, the diablo series is widely considered an Action RPG, a sub genre focusing hardly at all on story.

Action RPG is still an RPG

My source was Wikipedia where I checked for the best selling games of all time. But then I can do some quick research, especially since they sourced every single claim.

Pokemon: Red/Blue/Green 31 million copies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gobankingrates/pokken-tournament-and-pok_b_9501260.html

Skyrim 30 million copies

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/skyrim-creator-todd-howard-talks-switch-vr-and-elder-scrolls-wait-w451796

Here is for Diablo 3 30 million copies

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ACTI/517500560x0x843531/E54D33AE-B471-4321-B2C3-594512F1A778/Q2_2015_ATVI_Earnings_Press_Release.pdf

@Maroxad: Ok first, obviously you need a more concrete source than Wikipedia.

Second, sure, an action rpg falls loosely within the RPG category. However neither of us were even mentioning action rpgs or mmos until it suddenly supported your argument.

Thirdly, I don't even need to look at sales numbers to know that the Witcher 2 and 3 are extremely successful, Witcher 3 winning numerous game of the year awards, most definitely NOT due to it's not so amazing combat.

You can keep laughing at people who value the narrative contained within an rpg experience, as long as you realize you're laughing at a healthy majority of RPG players.

20 million copies over 3 games.

I mentioned 3 games which sold 30 million copies each. Not to mention the other 15-20 million sellers on there.

Either way, I am making a topic about RPGs and narratives.

Pretty sure Terraria isn't RPG...

But the point still stands that the best-selling RPGs are gameplay-driven, rather than story-driven.

The best-selling story-driven RPG is FFVII, which doesn't quite compare to Pokemon and Skyrim numbers.

@Jag85: Well first, his source is Wikipedia, which is just a huge no no for any sort of evidence citing. (Not saying it can't ever be right, but you simply don't use a website which can be edited by anyone as your source). I searched as well, and found several "top selling rpgs of all time" lists that support my viewpoint, but the credibility is no better than what he posted, so I refrained from posting it.

Secondly, Skyrim IS story driven, or at least partly story driven. Unfortunately the story sucked lol.

Look at the Witcher 3. If the story had failed, what's left? Pretty much just the graphics, as the combat is mediocre at best, yet it won numerous GOTY awards. Of course it's not at the top of any best selling list....... yet. But that will very likely change as folks pick it up on various steam sales, discounts, etc.

Did you ever consider that the rpgs listed succeeded DESPITE the lack of story?

we're continuing this argume...... er...... I mean discussion here: https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/are-rpgs-even-a-good-medium-for-narratives-and-sto-33390801/#44

@Jag85: Skyrim is actually story driven, so there goes your argument.

By "story-driven", I meant "story-focused".

Wikipedia itself is indeed an unreliable source. But the sources listed on the Wikipedia article are reliable sources. And Maroxad already posted those reliable sources above.

The only questionable number he listed is Diablo 3, which is 30 million for the game and expansion pack combined, which the Wikipedia article already makes note of. The actual Diablo 3 number would be around the 15-20 million range. But that's still more than any story-focused RPG, the highest being FFVII at around 12 million.

@Jag85: I'm honestly not sure if huffington post, or rolling stone are the best source for anything gaming related, but this is all far ourside the scope of what is being argued here anyhow.

He stated that playing an rpg for the story is silly. Exact words were "LOL at people who play rpgs for the story". His evidence that hardly anyone plays rpgs for the story, is above as you can see. His list of best selling rpgs of all time. But surely you know that correlation does not equal causality.

So again, if playing RPG games for the story is silly, is it stupid to play fps games for the graphics? Or drive a cadillac for the smooth ride? Story/Narrative is a pretty key element in any good rpg for a lot of folks.

This doesn't mean an rpg can't succeed without it. Look at the dark souls games. But I would argue those games succeed purely on the strength of gameplay alone. However they would certainly be even more popular with a good narrative attached.

With regards to RPG storytelling, I actually somewhat agree with you. I don't think playing RPGs for the story is silly at all. But there's already another topic for that.

However, the available sales figures do point to gameplay-focused RPGs being relatively more popular than story-focused RPGs.

Yes, and given that I never conjectured otherwise, I don't have the patience to go hunting for various top ten sources to prove my claim/disprove his claim. Especially since, even if he's right, it in no way proves that the story is unimportant.

Story can be an important component for some RPGs. However, for the genre as a whole, story isnt necessarily an important component. Nor does it mean the story is good in those games where it is an important component.

Personally, I find the pursuit for storytelling over gameplay to be misguided. Since that has never been the genre's strong point. Roleplaying is.

Terraria didnt launch as an RPG. But it became more RPGish as time passed on. Especially following the Hard Mode update.

And good call on the Diablo 3 thing. But yeah, those numbers are crazy. With or without the expansion.

This.

Same here , i got the greatest memories with 7.

I would tell people though to try 9 , i found FF9 a stronger and more fun FF game than 6 or 10.

this is off topic. But WHY does everybody like MAKOTO? its in sigs, avi's everywhere i go. Did i miss something?

BTW, FFVII is the best FF game. Now come at me bro.