Zelda vs. Final Fantasy

[AndrewTS 0]

"The gameplay (in Final Fantasy X-2) was certainly better than lets say, Chrono Trigger"

[Guest Princess Leena]

The one thing X-2 really fucked up on was what most people wanted in the sequel. What happened with Tidus.

 

And the battle system was great. But, much like Grandia II's, the game was so easy that you didn't even need to bother with many options.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I'll agree with that, since you had to get 100% completion for that ending. It's sort of like how in FFVII, the cut-scene that made sense of the entire story was tucked away and easily missable. The player shouldn't have to go well out of there way for events critical to the plot.

[AndrewTS 0]

I didn't really catch all of the great subtleties people harp on about X-2's battle system.

 

It seemed like the same ol', but faster, the ability to chain, and those transformations/class changes.

 

While it was the most visually impressive of the class-changing FFs, the options were much more limited than, say, a FFV, and like you said--there wasn't really any point to having a rich, diversified set of classes.

 

And the writing and dialogue was migraine-inducing bad. I give it props for the attempts at a non-linear gameplay structure...but without any centralized, strong villian or even a major motivation for the quest(s), I couldn't bring myself to give a damn about the characters or plot.

[naiwf 0]

I haven't owned a Nintendo system since the SNES, and I can't even remember what the Zelda games from that era play like. On the other hand I still own FFVII, FFVIII, FFX, FFX-2, and FFXII (I also had FFIX, but it wouldn't work on my system because of the laser, so I just resold it). I've enjoyed all of them and have beaten the first 4 at least twice, so it's Final Fantasy in a walk for me.

[Anya 0]

You don't need 100% for Tidus. That's just an extra cutscene.

 

X-2 has a central villain, it just takes a while to get started.

[AndrewTS 0]

You don't need 100% for Tidus. That's just an extra cutscene.

 

X-2 has a central villain, it just takes a while to get started.

 

Okay, I stand corrected then. I spent something like 8-10 hours on X-2, which was way more than I could take.

[World's Worst Man 0]

While it was the most visually impressive of the class-changing FFs, the options were much more limited than, say, a FFV, and like you said--there wasn't really any point to having a rich, diversified set of classes.

 

I can't say I see it like that at all. The classes all seemed to have their own abilities and strengths and weaknesses. Granted, a few classes were rather worthless, but I thought the rest had their uses based on the enemies you were fighting, along with personal preference.

 

And the writing and dialogue was migraine-inducing bad. I give it props for the attempts at a non-linear gameplay structure...but without any centralized, strong villian or even a major motivation for the quest(s), I couldn't bring myself to give a damn about the characters or plot.

Some of the dialogue was campy, yes. I didn't mind, because I wasn't expecting much given how the game was presented. I thought the game had direction though. It basically started with the girls looking for signs of Tidus (via the spheres) which morphed into vegnagun being the main point of the quest, with the Tidus stuff still in the picture. I also found the characters to be very well developed, particular Paine, whom seemed to have a fairly detailed and important history.

 

You don't need 100% for Tidus. That's just an extra cutscene.

 

X-2 has a central villain, it just takes a while to get started.

 

Oh that's right, I should have known that My last game I got the Tidus ending, but not the extra cut-scene, since I didn't do the Bevelle dungeon. Kind of annoyed actually, because I went out of my way to get 100%, but didn't think the dungeon was required.

[Anya 0]

I like the non-linear way X-2 is set up just because it's fun to see Spira again. As a stand alone game, yeah it's one of the weaker, but I liked it just as a 20 hour epilogue. Much more satisfying then Advent Children.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I like good character and battle systems (especially job systems) and good character development over anything else in RPGs, so I probably liked FFX-2 more than most. I really thought the stuff with Paine and her former companions was fascinating, and the game doesn't get enough credit for some of that stuff. I'd still only rank it 5th among the numbered FF's, behind the usual suspects, but I really enjoyed the game quite a bit.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Overall, I give the very slight nod to FF, mostly because each FF game seems to have a very different flavor from the ones before it, where Zelda kind of seems like the same game at times, but then again, that's part of what makes Zelda games great. There have also been more "primary" FF games than Zelda ones so I guess its easier for FF to 'average out'. the primary zelda games are the main console ones imo, LttP, Ocarina, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight, ocarina obviously was a big jump from LttP cuz it was 2d to 3d, but I cant help feeling Link, Ocarina, and Twilight (from what I can tell) all feel like the same game in different graphics generations, the same vibe. Luckily for Zelda, it's an excellent vibe, they're all great games.

But I really like the FF7 to 10 string of games, and I like how each one has a unique imprint in my mind, they go for a different feel. And I like FF8 a helluva lot more than I like FF9. I never really paid attention to the primary "spinoff" period between 10 and 12 though (XI Online, X-2, the FF7 spinoffs, crystal chronicles), but FF12 has fantastic gameplay, but inferior story/characters.

 

P.S.: X-2 completely missed the boat. It should have been a prequel about the Auron/Jecht/Braska days, with young Auron being the main character. They could have had their own plot and villian while still tying in with the known backstory from FFX.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Originally, I was gonna say something long winded, but the gist is, I like Zelda's series over FFXII. I bought LoZ:TP and don't even own a Wii. To like a series over one another you should be willing to do something silly like that.

 

...though my favorite game is still FFIV.

[Guest ggeode]

I voted for Zelda. When deciding on which series is better, I would have to include only the games that were actually developed by the company that spawned them. Thus, the CD-I Zeldas don't count. I will include both FF Tactics games, though.

 

Both series feature top-notch graphics and excellent audio, creating a strong sense of immersion to draw the player into their respective worlds. The games in the Final Fantasy series do look at least a little better than Zelda ones due to their extremely high production values. However, the Zelda series has Wind Waker, which has an unique art style to it while the Final Fantasy games don't vary nearly as much. The music in FF is more memorable and moving, but the sound effects aren't as exceptional and recognizable as the Zelda ones. So really, I'd say both are tied in these categories.

 

The big differences between the two come in the story and character development versus gameplay and challenge. It's hard to compare each series here because they try for completely different methods of storytelling. FF goes for the complex twists, the witty writing, and the extensive character backgrounds. Zelda has the minimalistic approach where the dialogue is more sparse and the story is driven more by the actual gameplay. Although the Zelda games don't do a bad job in this department, they just aren't as good as FF by a significant margin.

 

As for gameplay and challenge, this is easy. The Zelda games completely dominate this section for many reasons. The combat system in every FF game (with the lone exception of the first Final Fantasy Tactics) ranges from terrible to just average. The only ones I can think that might be decent are FFIV and FFVI. This is mainly because the player is constantly changing characters to play with and thus learning how to use new skills are necessary. The problem with the FF series is that for about 98% of the battles you've got to go through, no thinking or skill is required to win. And you are going to have to go through literally hundreds to thousands of fights just to finish each game. In every FF game I've played, at least half of the entire length of the game is spent on this. So the gameplay and challenge are below average.

 

For Zelda, the gameplay and the challenge is the best part of the game. The way the game progresses pushes the player to be creative and to use all of their abilities. The dungeons and overworld in Zelda are designed very well and give the player good incentives to go out and explore every inch of the areas. The large majority (80-90%) of each game is fun and actually challenges the player in a reasonable way. With FF, usually 80-90% of the game is just the filler of tedious random battles and uninspired dungeon exploration in between the small sections of the game that are actually interesting (i.e. the bosses and character/story development).

 

In the end, I'd rather really enjoy 27 out of the 30 hours played in a Zelda game then maybe 10 hours of a 50-hour long Final Fantasy. Thus, the Zelda series easily beats out FF.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Both series feature top-notch graphics and excellent audio, creating a strong sense of immersion to draw the player into their respective worlds. The games in the Final Fantasy series do look at least a little better than Zelda ones due to their extremely high production values.

 

A little better is being awfully generous to Zelda. When I compare OoT/MM to FFVIII/FFIX, I don't see "a little better", I see one set that outclasses the other. Ditto for Wind Waker compared to FFX. Hell, FFX looks better than the Wii version of TP in every department outside of character faces. And FFX is 5 years old. This is from a purely technical view of course. Artistic is another matter, and quite subjective. I would say FFVII, FFVIII and FFX are artistically better than any of the Zelda games, but that's neither here nor there.

 

However, the Zelda series has Wind Waker, which has an unique art style to it while the Final Fantasy games don't vary nearly as much.

Not to be a dick, but how many Final Fantasy games have you played? FFVII -> FFX all had completely different art styles, both technically and artistically. FFXII was quite similar to FFX as far as the characters go, but otherwise it doesn't look like the previous FF's (it does look like Vagrant Story however).

 

As for gameplay and challenge, this is easy. The Zelda games completely dominate this section for many reasons. The combat system in every FF game (with the lone exception of the first Final Fantasy Tactics) ranges from terrible to just average. The only ones I can think that might be decent are FFIV and FFVI. This is mainly because the player is constantly changing characters to play with and thus learning how to use new skills are necessary. The problem with the FF series is that for about 98% of the battles you've got to go through, no thinking or skill is required to win.

 

FFIV is quite an odd selection, considering how archaic the battle system is compared to the newer titles. But again I wonder how many FF titles you've actually played after that last comment. FFIX, X, X-2 and XII all had significant amounts of random battles that required more than just selecting attack every round. Even FFVII and FFVIII had some challenging random encounters, albeit it to a lesser degree, and assuming the player didn't aggressively level their characters.

 

For Zelda, the gameplay and the challenge is the best part of the game. The way the game progresses pushes the player to be creative and to use all of their abilities.

This is true, but you haven't given certain FF games credit for exactly the same thing - requiring players to put to use many different skills to be successful in battle.

 

The dungeons and overworld in Zelda are designed very well and give the player good incentives to go out and explore every inch of the areas. The large majority (80-90%) of each game is fun and actually challenges the player in a reasonable way.

 

Yes and no. A lot of the platforming in Zelda is quite tedious, and some of the puzzles tend to become that way as well (although they're good for the most part). Personally I'd rather have the fun of exploration rather than constantly being challenged through tedium or convolution.

 

With FF, usually 80-90% of the game is just the filler of tedious random battles and uninspired dungeon exploration in between the small sections of the game that are actually interesting (i.e. the bosses and character/story development).

 

A gross generalisation and exaggeration. Actually, it's spot on for FFI-IV, but I don't see it in the later games. I don't consider random battles tedious when a) there is a variance of enemies, characters and/or skills to use, b) the rewards for powering characters up is satisfying (large amount of abilities and character customization), or c) the battle system is just fun to play. FFVI-FFXII all have those qualities in one way or another. Some, barely so (FFVIII) some in spades (FFX). The dungeon exploration can't be generalised either. Many of the FF games don't just have a bunch of standard type dungeons, but have slightly more non-conventional types (which I appreciate). The ones that do (FFIX, FFXII) were designed in such a way that the dungeons felt epic and important.

 

P.S. For shits and giggles if we were comparing the 8bit to early 16 bit games, Zelda thumps Final Fantasy (so LoZ-LTTP vs. FFI-IV)

[Red Baron 0]

Final Fantasy is the most overhyped series in video game history.

 

All the games are average to good and if people are taking it too seriously about the storylines should really re-evaluate themselves as a human being.

 

That said, Zelda is better because everything is simple. Simple storyline, simple gameplay and thus making it successful.

[Guest Princess Leena]

We're basically arguing about which genre we prefer now.

[AndrewTS 0]

We're basically arguing about which genre we prefer now.

 

Which, like I said, is the biggest problem.

[World's Worst Man 0]

You'd be surprised how many people don't get that.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I really don't know what to vote for. I prefer the good Final Fantasy games (V, VI, Tactics) to Zelda, but the bad ones (VIII, X, X-2) don't come anywhere close to even the worst of the real Zelda games. Part of the problem is that the Final Fantasy games now generally aren't as good as the classics (I-VI) with more emphasis on story and lame heroes (Tidus, I'm looking at you) than on exploration and role-playing.

 

I agree with most of the people here, they are two completely different genres and it is difficult to compare them because of it.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

X is one of the bad ones? It did have it's drawbacks, but one of the "bad ones"?

[cbacon 0]

X and VIII were two of my favorites

[chaosrage 0]

X is definitely better than every other FF game. And maybe every zelda. Only Link's Awakening and the original gives it a run for its money.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I like the Battle System in FFX, but the game itself is 10 minutes of playing and an hour of cutscenes featuring the most annoying characters known to man (and Auron). It is Xenosaga with worse acting and an even crappier plot. They didn't even bother putting in a world map. It ends up being nowhere near as playable as the earlier efforts, or even VII & IX as far as the newer games go.

[AndrewTS 0]

X is definitely better than every other FF game. And maybe every zelda. Only Link's Awakening and the original gives it a run for its money.

 

 

This is guy who likes Wind Waker more than Ocarina and Mario Sunshine more than 64, BTW.

[chaosrage 0]

X is definitely better than every other FF game. And maybe every zelda. Only Link's Awakening and the original gives it a run for its money.

 

 

This is guy who likes Wind Waker more than Ocarina and Mario Sunshine more than 64, BTW.

 

Nice memory. And? None of these are exactly strange opinions, you know. Sunshine, Wind Waker, and FFX all got pretty much excellent reviews everywhere. FFX is #1 on the top 100 games of all time Famitsu's readers list.

 

You're even saying in this thread that Ocarina is the most overrated game of its time.

[AndrewTS 0]

You're even saying in this thread that Ocarina is the most overrated game of its time.

 

 

Yeah, but I feel Wind Waker--touched-up control, great music, brilliant visuals, and all--is the most disappointing main Zelda game since Zelda 2; I still *like* it, though.

[Guest ggeode]

MisawaGQ:

A little better is being awfully generous to Zelda. When I compare OoT/MM to FFVIII/FFIX, I don't see "a little better", I see one set that outclasses the other. Ditto for Wind Waker compared to FFX. Hell, FFX looks better than the Wii version of TP in every department outside of character faces. And FFX is 5 years old. This is from a purely technical view of course. Artistic is another matter, and quite subjective. I would say FFVII, FFVIII and FFX are artistically better than any of the Zelda games, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm going by how well the graphics draw the player into the world. So to some extent, it is subjective. For example, I have no problem saying that Secret of Mana for the SNES has better graphics than the vast majority of games made even in the present. I don't think it's fair to look at it from a technical point of view because then just about every modern console game that gets released is going to look better than games that were developed 10 years ago.

 

Not to be a dick, but how many Final Fantasy games have you played? FFVII -> FFX all had completely different art styles, both technically and artistically. FFXII was quite similar to FFX as far as the characters go, but otherwise it doesn't look like the previous FF's (it does look like Vagrant Story however).

 

If we count the Tactics games, then 8. This would be FFIV-FFVII, FFX, FFX-2, FF Tactics, and FF Tactics Advance. For all the other ones I haven't played, I've seen their graphics by watching others play them. Let's just say that I've got a couple of friends that love the Final Fantasy series. I don't see how anyone can say the modern FF games have completely different art styles, though. I would say the same for the Zelda series, except that the difference between the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess is far more dramatic than anything in FF.

 

FFIV is quite an odd selection, considering how archaic the battle system is compared to the newer titles. But again I wonder how many FF titles you've actually played after that last comment. FFIX, X, X-2 and XII all had significant amounts of random battles that required more than just selecting attack every round. Even FFVII and FFVIII had some challenging random encounters, albeit it to a lesser degree, and assuming the player didn't aggressively level their characters.

I shouldn't have said combat system since that means I'm talking just about how the player characters fight. What I mean is just the combat in general, which not just the combat system, but everything that is involved with it. This would include the system for gaining new abilities, how the enemies push the player to change tactics and strategy to fight them, how common battles are, and so on. While FFIV has a bad combat system compared to most modern FFs, the combat itself wasn't nearly as bad as future iterations of the series have become. This is because they wisely hid some of the weaknesses of the system by having the player change characters very often and by making each character very different from each other.

 

A gross generalisation and exaggeration. Actually, it's spot on for FFI-IV, but I don't see it in the later games. I don't consider random battles tedious when a) there is a variance of enemies, characters and/or skills to use, b) the rewards for powering characters up is satisfying (large amount of abilities and character customization), or c) the battle system is just fun to play. FFVI-FFXII all have those qualities in one way or another. Some, barely so (FFVIII) some in spades (FFX). The dungeon exploration can't be generalised either. Many of the FF games don't just have a bunch of standard type dungeons, but have slightly more non-conventional types (which I appreciate). The ones that do (FFIX, FFXII) were designed in such a way that the dungeons felt epic and important.

 

Unfortunately, I do have to generalize quite a bit since the discussion is about an entire series and there happens to be considerably more FF games than Zelda ones so they have the disadvantage. While there is a large amount of character customization and abilities, most of it ends up not being very useful or practical to actually use. There are wild imbalances between classes/jobs/characters and skills/abilities/spells that lead to there usually being a few ultimate character builds.

 

As several people have mentioned, these are two different genres, but that doesn't mean they are completely incomparable. Of course an action/adventure series like Zelda is going to have a strong emphasis on combat and exploration while a RPG would push the story and character development. I can think of many RPGs that have very good combat and with the exception of Final Fantasy Tactics, no other FF game does.