[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

You can rephrase it all you want but the outcome is the same. We are not comparing the 2 series/games. You know, it is possible to decide what series/game is better than another without them being of the same sort/gernre.

Sagem28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

WTF is this trying to prove. Nothing really

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="Sagem28"]

Oh lordy....this thread.....

Since when are we comparing totally different games anyway ?
Can we have a Halo Reach vs Total War Shogun thread next ? Would love to see that showdown.

Sagem28

We are not comparing the 2 games, we are diciding wich one is the better series.

* facepalm *

Okay let me rephrase that;

Since when are we comparing totally different series anyway ?
Can we have a Halo vs Total War thread next ? Would love to see that showdown.

You can rephrase it all you want but the outcome is the same. We are not comparing the 2 series/games. You know, it is possible to decide what series/game is better than another without them being of the same sort/gernre.

But even if we wanted to compare the 2 series we would be able to in some areas. Like graphics, sound, level design, puzzle design, character development, ect.

Oh lordy....this thread.....

Since when are we comparing totally different games anyway ?
Can we have a Halo Reach vs Total War Shogun thread next ? Would love to see that showdown.

Sagem28

We are not comparing the 2 games, we are diciding wich one is the better series.

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

To put an end to the discussion in this forum, why don't we let Gamespot decide wich one is the better series.

Gamespot's average for Final Fantasy out of all reviews >> 7,8

Gamespot's average for The Legend of Zelda out of all reviews >> 8,9

And that makesThe Legend of Zelda the WINNER.

bobcheeseball

No thanks, I'd rather make my own decision. You know, since I actually have an opinion that isn't dictated by the sheeple mentality.

Also, every main installment Pokemon game has a score over 8.0. That doesn't mean that any of them are particularly original. Zelda holds the same problem. Boy finds out he has a great destiny, enters dungeons to collect special weapons and pieces of the triforce, then eventually kicks the crap out of the evil pig-man.

*Yawn*

I'd take something that's unoriginal with higher quality rather than something original with lesser quality.

Same here mate. Like i said before, most game mechanics and designs in the Zelda series are excelent and fun so why would you want to change them. This tread is to decide wich series is better, not wich one is more original. But just like Zelda the FF series isn't original either. The lead character finds a world in danger and has to save it. Just cause it's a different world he he/she has to save in each game also doesn't mean the games are original.

At least with Zelda i have to use more than 2 buttons to play the game. With FF you don't even have to look at the screen to win the enemie fights. Just press the action button over and over again and that's it. And between fights you walk around in worlds that may look a little different but feel completely alike with the same generic characters every time and nothing to do but wait for the next random enemie encounter. Talk about boring. The most fun i had with FF was watching the beautifull CG cutscenes, but then again if i only want to watch cutscenes i might as well watch a movie.

So now we've established that both FF and Zelda aren't original we can go back to wich one is the better series. And according to the critics and the poll in this tread the better series is The Legend of Zelda. Alright next tread please.

The original LoZ was great, but FF1 was FAR better. FF2 is possibly one of the worst FFs... but Zelda 2 was total crap. FF wins NES generation.

A Link to the Past was the best Zelda game to date, but FF4, 5, and especially 6, were all better games. FF destroys Zelda in the SNES gen.

OoT was pretty good, but after the novelty of 3-d Zelda wore off, it was a bit boring and tedius resulting in me not caring enough to finish it, or play MM. FF8, my least favorite of the PSX era FFs was much better than OoT. FF7 and 9 were both great games. And FF Tactics is the best FF game to date. Also, FF Origins (re-release of 1 and 2) and Anthology (5 and 6) finally brought 2 and 5 to the US with official translations. All total, PSX era was probably the best era for FF games. Any one of the 9 FF games available on the PSX, except maybe for FF2, are better than the 2 N64 Zeldas. FF wins N64/PSX era.

FF 10-2 was garbage, but 10 and 12 > WW, 4S, and TP... Also, FF11 was completely awesome, but not really comparable being an MMO. FF wins PS2/GC era.

TP on Wii is the same decent game as on GC... except ruined by the waggle controls. Haven't played 13 all the way through yet, but from what I played, 13 > TP. So far, FF > Zelda in PS3/360/Wii gen. Maybe SS can redeem it the series, but honestly, as a huge Zelda fan back in the day, the series has only ever had two games that I considered great, and its peak was way back on the SNES. It doesn't help that so many Zelda games are basically just re-telling the same game over and over: Link rescues Zelda from Ganon and saves Hyrule. FF has had more games, with a higher percentage of them being great games, and while they share certain themes, creatures, and a few names, it's not just the same game over and over.

ianuilliam

Wow, i've never read more bias fanboyism in my live. OoT pretty good. It's one of the few games ever to get a perfect 10 and is praised by crititcs worldwide. But then again everyone is entitled to their opnion, even if it is completely misplaced.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

No they aren't. I should even have to explain this. You haven't played any Final Fantasy games, have you?

Yes it does. In fact, locations in Twilight Princess are modeled after Ocarina of Time ... The landscape looks the same. Grassy fields, hills, forests, rivers. It's specifically designed to look similar. This is what makes it "Zelda."

hakanakumono

Actually i've played most of the FF games.

Oh yes the land in Ocarina of Time looks the same as the big ocean in Wind Waker. C'me on. You've defenitly never played the Zelda games or your just bias.

Well, I suppose you're right. Magic is learned in roughly the same way in FFVII as it is in FFVIII - leveling up. Even if the systems are "different."

Yes, there is an ocean in Wind Waker. But Wind Waker is one game and the individual dungeons are not terribly distinct from other games. Just because a zelda game happens to have a single natural characteristic that sets it apart from different FF games, doesn't mean the games are terribly unique. Out of all 4 3D console Zeldas, 3 of them have either Hyrule field or something like it (Termina field).

I've never said that the Zelda games are unique. All i said is that the FF series isn't terrible unique either. Personally, i've alway found the Zelda games to be diverse enough even if a lot is used frequently. And since most mechanics and designs are very well done why medle with them.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I will agree that FF was not that diverse in it's battle system to a point. In fact, FF was behind the curve in the Playstation era. But that changed with FFX, and FFXII and FFXIII are also very different games. And with the advent of FFV, the systems behind the battle system were different in each installment. Job system, materia, junctioning magic, equipment leveling, sphere grid, summon based skill learning, etc ...

And the rest? Almost every Zelda game takes place in Hyrule. Final Fantasy? If you were to strip them of the label "Final Fantasy," they could easily be considered different games. There is a great difference in

vs. vs.

They couldn't be more different. Of course, I don't expect you to recognize this, given that your previous post speaks volumes.

hakanakumono

Lol, the battle systems are neirly identical in all FF games and even the systems behind them are almost the same with a few tweaks and name changes aside.

And while the land in Zelda is called Hyrule (most times) the actual landscape looks nothing alike. So using your logic, if you strip it of the label Hyrule they are considered different places.

I love it when peoples own logic proves them wrong.

No they aren't. I should even have to explain this. You haven't played any Final Fantasy games, have you?

Yes it does. In fact, locations in Twilight Princess are modeled after Ocarina of Time ... The landscape looks the same. Grassy fields, hills, forests, rivers. It's specifically designed to look similar. This is what makes it "Zelda."

Actually i've played most of the FF games.

Oh yes the land in Ocarina of Time looks the same as the big ocean in Wind Waker. C'me on. You've defenitly never played the Zelda games or your just bias.

To put an end to the discussion in this forum, why don't we let Gamespot decide wich one is the better series.

Gamespot's average for Final Fantasy out of all reviews >> 7,8

Gamespot's average for The Legend of Zelda out of all reviews >> 8,9

And that makesThe Legend of Zelda the WINNER.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I will agree that FF was not that diverse in it's battle system to a point. In fact, FF was behind the curve in the Playstation era. But that changed with FFX, and FFXII and FFXIII are also very different games. And with the advent of FFV, the systems behind the battle system were different in each installment. Job system, materia, junctioning magic, equipment leveling, sphere grid, summon based skill learning, etc ...

And the rest? Almost every Zelda game takes place in Hyrule. Final Fantasy? If you were to strip them of the label "Final Fantasy," they could easily be considered different games. There is a great difference in

vs. vs.

They couldn't be more different. Of course, I don't expect you to recognize this, given that your previous post speaks volumes.

ShuichiChamp24

Lol, the battle systems are neirly identical in all FF games and even the systems behind them are almost the same with a few tweaks and name changesaside.

And while the land in Zelda is called Hyrule (most times) the actual landscape looks nothing alike. So using your logic, if you strip it of the label Hyrule they are considered different places.

I love it when peoples own logic proves them wrong.

Thank you, finally somebody with some descent sense.

I will agree that FF was not that diverse in it's battle system to a point. In fact, FF was behind the curve in the Playstation era. But that changed with FFX, and FFXII and FFXIII are also very different games. And with the advent of FFV, the systems behind the battle system were different in each installment. Job system, materia, junctioning magic, equipment leveling, sphere grid, summon based skill learning, etc ...

And the rest? Almost every Zelda game takes place in Hyrule. Final Fantasy? If you were to strip them of the label "Final Fantasy," they could easily be considered different games. There is a great difference in

vs. vs.

They couldn't be more different. Of course, I don't expect you to recognize this, given that your previous post speaks volumes.

hakanakumono

Lol, the battle systems are neirly identical in all FF games and even the systems behind them are almost the same with a few tweaks and name changes aside.

And while the land in Zelda is called Hyrule (most times) the actual landscape looks nothing alike. So using your logic, if you strip it of the label Hyrule they are considered different places.

I love it when peoples own logic proves them wrong.