The Legend of Zelda vs Final Fantasy

[QUOTE="minh800"]

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]So I'm guessing your one of those people that thinks that every zelda is the same game no matter what right?

Shinobishyguy

No, I'm the guy that says that Zelda, so far, feels like the same game just repackaged with different bows and ribbons. Not no matter what. If Nintendo outsourced it to someone who can actually do a rebranding of the series, it can be something very different and very cool.

I think it's fair to say that the N64 era really did change things up, but Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? Both seemed pretty generic to me. Wind Waker to the point that I couldn't bring myself to keep playing it.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"][QUOTE="minh800"]

No, I'm the guy that says that Zelda, so far, feels like the same game just repackaged with different bows and ribbons. Not no matter what. If Nintendo outsourced it to someone who can actually do a rebranding of the series, it can be something very different and very cool.

hakanakumono

I think it's fair to say that the N64 era really did change things up, but Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? Both seemed pretty generic to me. Wind Waker to the point that I couldn't bring myself to keep playing it.

As for WW, The combination of setting and the new art style made it feel like it had a true identity of it;s own.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"][QUOTE="minh800"]

No, I'm the guy that says that Zelda, so far, feels like the same game just repackaged with different bows and ribbons. Not no matter what. If Nintendo outsourced it to someone who can actually do a rebranding of the series, it can be something very different and very cool.

hakanakumono

I think it's fair to say that the N64 era really did change things up, but Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? Both seemed pretty generic to me. Wind Waker to the point that I couldn't bring myself to keep playing it.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"] So majora's mask and wind waker are the same game as zelda for the NES, but with different packaging? k, gotcha.ShuichiChamp24

I think it's fair to say that the N64 era really did change things up, but Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? Both seemed pretty generic to me. Wind Waker to the point that I couldn't bring myself to keep playing it.

Uh, no?

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="minh800"]

Final Fantasy 6 vs Spirit Tracks poll?

I'd vote for FF6 over that bore fest.

minh800

That's your perogative, but i have yet to see a FF game that actually lives up to the hype. All the FF games i played had lame genaric characters, liniar level design, boring gameplay fighting the same random enemies over and over again. At least the CGI cutscenes look great in FF, but the rest is nothing special really.

Haha, there's not much variety with enemies in LoZ dungeons (and you can kill most the same way), the combat is pretty boring and simple even when they tried to incorporate sword skills (i.e. the action part of LoZ is godawful), Link has no personality and the other characters are poorly developed, too many soundtracks are reused/repurposed in different games, and the games are very repetitive with the puzzles being boring and frustrating - there's little guidance in solving them.

If you're talking about CGI, I doubt you've played FF6.

Lol, sounds to me that you've never played a Zelda game before. And i've never had any trouble solving the puzzles in any Zelda game. And some puzzles are supposed to be diffucult. If the game already tells you what to do to solve them then what's the point of having puzzles anyway. Just cause your not smart enough to solve them doesn't mean they are not good.

And talk about boring and repetetive, FF13 is basicly just a button mashing game. All i had to do is run forward, encounter some enemies, and then just keep pressing the same buttons to defeat them. Yaaaawn.

[QUOTE="minh800"]

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

That's your perogative, but i have yet to see a FF game that actually lives up to the hype. All the FF games i played had lame genaric characters, liniar level design, boring gameplay fighting the same random enemies over and over again. At least the CGI cutscenes look great in FF, but the rest is nothing special really.

erwingameon

Haha, there's not much variety with enemies in LoZ dungeons (and you can kill most the same way), the combat is pretty boring and simple even when they tried to incorporate sword skills (i.e. the action part of LoZ is godawful), Link has no personality and the other characters are poorly developed, too many soundtracks are reused/repurposed in different games, and the games are very repetitive with the puzzles being boring and frustrating - there's little guidance in solving them.

If you're talking about CGI, I doubt you've played FF6.

Lol, sounds to me that you've never played a Zelda game before. And i've never had any trouble solving the puzzles in any Zelda game. And some puzzles are supposed to be diffucult. If the game already tells you what to do to solve them then what's the point of having puzzles anyway. Just cause your not smart enough to solve them doesn't mean they are not good.

And talk about boring and repetetive, FF13 is basicly just a button mashing game. All i had to do is run forward, encounter some enemies, and then just keep pressing the same buttons to defeat them. Yaaaawn.

OoT, WW, TP, Oracles of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap, A link to the past, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks are the LoZ games I've played. Little variety. A lot of enemies that are just color coded differently like the darknuts. Some of the puzzles are downright cheap. I'm not the only one who found many of them frustrating. While the game shouldn't hold your hand, at least like Portal 2, there should be some hints, clues, or guidance. Puzzles have to do with intelligence? No, sir, they do not. But I'm glad you feel the need to put yourself on an intellectual pedestal because you think so. Cudos, chap.

You pretty much explained every enemy fight in LoZ. The action part of the game is just laughable.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="minh800"]

Haha, there's not much variety with enemies in LoZ dungeons (and you can kill most the same way), the combat is pretty boring and simple even when they tried to incorporate sword skills (i.e. the action part of LoZ is godawful), Link has no personality and the other characters are poorly developed, too many soundtracks are reused/repurposed in different games, and the games are very repetitive with the puzzles being boring and frustrating - there's little guidance in solving them.

If you're talking about CGI, I doubt you've played FF6.

minh800

Lol, sounds to me that you've never played a Zelda game before. And i've never had any trouble solving the puzzles in any Zelda game. And some puzzles are supposed to be diffucult. If the game already tells you what to do to solve them then what's the point of having puzzles anyway. Just cause your not smart enough to solve them doesn't mean they are not good.

And talk about boring and repetetive, FF13 is basicly just a button mashing game. All i had to do is run forward, encounter some enemies, and then just keep pressing the same buttons to defeat them. Yaaaawn.

OoT, WW, TP, Oracles of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap, A link to the past, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks are the LoZ games I've played. Little variety. A lot of enemies that are just color coded differently like the darknuts. Some of the puzzles are downright cheap. I'm not the only one who found many of them frustrating. While the game shouldn't hold your hand, at least like Portal 2, there should be some hints, clues, or guidance. Puzzles have to do with intelligence? No, sir, they do not. But I'm glad you feel the need to put yourself on an intellectual pedestal because you think so. Cudos, chap.

You pretty much explained every enemy fight in LoZ. The action part of the game is just laughable.

Actually there are hints in Zelda. Wasn't there a fairy in OoT constantly telling where to go next and what to do. And I believe there was a dragon boat in Wind Waker that did the same. Plenty of help right there. But if that wasn't already enough for you, there are alway gamefaqs you can consult if you get stuck. But maybe you might want to consider playing all your games with a walkthough next to you since you don't want to use intelligence to solve things and want help every step of the way.

And puzzles do have to do with some level of intelligence. If it take no intelligence at all to solve them then i don't even see the need to put them in a game. Puzzles have to do with solving thing, and for solving things you need intellingence. So saying puzzle solving doesn't have to do with intelligence is downright stupid.

Lol, if i understand you correctly you also think the action in FF is laughable since it's the same as Zelda according to you. Glad we got that settled. Actually I think there isn't even any action to speak of in FF since i can walk away from my TV with the controller, go to another room and still defeat the enemies using a single button.

[QUOTE="minh800"]

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

Lol, sounds to me that you've never played a Zelda game before. And i've never had any trouble solving the puzzles in any Zelda game. And some puzzles are supposed to be diffucult. If the game already tells you what to do to solve them then what's the point of having puzzles anyway. Just cause your not smart enough to solve them doesn't mean they are not good.

And talk about boring and repetetive, FF13 is basicly just a button mashing game. All i had to do is run forward, encounter some enemies, and then just keep pressing the same buttons to defeat them. Yaaaawn.

erwingameon

OoT, WW, TP, Oracles of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap, A link to the past, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks are the LoZ games I've played. Little variety. A lot of enemies that are just color coded differently like the darknuts. Some of the puzzles are downright cheap. I'm not the only one who found many of them frustrating. While the game shouldn't hold your hand, at least like Portal 2, there should be some hints, clues, or guidance. Puzzles have to do with intelligence? No, sir, they do not. But I'm glad you feel the need to put yourself on an intellectual pedestal because you think so. Cudos, chap.

You pretty much explained every enemy fight in LoZ. The action part of the game is just laughable.

Actually there are hints in Zelda. Wasn't there a fairy in OoT constantly telling where to go next and what to do. And I believe there was a dragon boat in Wind Waker that did the same. Plenty of help right there. But if that wasn't already enough for you, there are alway gamefaqs you can consult if you get stuck. But maybe you might want to consider playing all your games with a walkthough next to you since you don't want to use intelligence to solve things and want help every step of the way.

And puzzles do have to do with some level of intelligence. If it take no intelligence at all to solve them then i don't even see the need to put them in a game. Puzzles have to do with solving thing, and for solving things you need intellingence. So saying puzzle solving doesn't have to do with intelligence is downright stupid.

Lol, if i understand you correctly you also think the action in FF is laughable since it's the same as Zelda according to you. Glad we got that settled. Actually I think there isn't even any action to speak of in FF since i can walk away from my TV with the controller, go to another room and still defeat the enemies using a single button.

The boat was useless, the fairy - annoying. Remember how I already laughed at you for claiming intellectual superiority because you get puzzle games - that. It's a skill - not intelligence. Puzzles can be solved in a variety of ways it just depends on how your brain is wired. Some people are very adept at using spatial manipulation so certain puzzles are easier for them - it has nothing to with intelligence.

The main FF titles aren't action games. LoZ is an action-adventure game. The action portion is very poor. Good job proving nothing.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="minh800"]

OoT, WW, TP, Oracles of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap, A link to the past, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks are the LoZ games I've played. Little variety. A lot of enemies that are just color coded differently like the darknuts. Some of the puzzles are downright cheap. I'm not the only one who found many of them frustrating. While the game shouldn't hold your hand, at least like Portal 2, there should be some hints, clues, or guidance. Puzzles have to do with intelligence? No, sir, they do not. But I'm glad you feel the need to put yourself on an intellectual pedestal because you think so. Cudos, chap.

You pretty much explained every enemy fight in LoZ. The action part of the game is just laughable.

minh800

Actually there are hints in Zelda. Wasn't there a fairy in OoT constantly telling where to go next and what to do. And I believe there was a dragon boat in Wind Waker that did the same. Plenty of help right there. But if that wasn't already enough for you, there are alway gamefaqs you can consult if you get stuck. But maybe you might want to consider playing all your games with a walkthough next to you since you don't want to use intelligence to solve things and want help every step of the way.

And puzzles do have to do with some level of intelligence. If it take no intelligence at all to solve them then i don't even see the need to put them in a game. Puzzles have to do with solving thing, and for solving things you need intellingence. So saying puzzle solving doesn't have to do with intelligence is downright stupid.

Lol, if i understand you correctly you also think the action in FF is laughable since it's the same as Zelda according to you. Glad we got that settled. Actually I think there isn't even any action to speak of in FF since i can walk away from my TV with the controller, go to another room and still defeat the enemies using a single button.

The boat was useless, the fairy - annoying. Remember how I already laughed at you for claiming intellectual superiority because you get puzzle games - that. It's a skill - not intelligence. Puzzles can be solved in a variety of ways it just depends on how your brain is wired. Some people are very adept at using spatial manipulation so certain puzzles are easier for them - it has nothing to with intelligence.

The main FF titles aren't action games. LoZ is an action-adventure game. The action portion is very poor. Good job proving nothing.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="minh800"]

OoT, WW, TP, Oracles of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap, A link to the past, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks are the LoZ games I've played. Little variety. A lot of enemies that are just color coded differently like the darknuts. Some of the puzzles are downright cheap. I'm not the only one who found many of them frustrating. While the game shouldn't hold your hand, at least like Portal 2, there should be some hints, clues, or guidance. Puzzles have to do with intelligence? No, sir, they do not. But I'm glad you feel the need to put yourself on an intellectual pedestal because you think so. Cudos, chap.

You pretty much explained every enemy fight in LoZ. The action part of the game is just laughable.

minh800

Actually there are hints in Zelda. Wasn't there a fairy in OoT constantly telling where to go next and what to do. And I believe there was a dragon boat in Wind Waker that did the same. Plenty of help right there. But if that wasn't already enough for you, there are alway gamefaqs you can consult if you get stuck. But maybe you might want to consider playing all your games with a walkthough next to you since you don't want to use intelligence to solve things and want help every step of the way.

And puzzles do have to do with some level of intelligence. If it take no intelligence at all to solve them then i don't even see the need to put them in a game. Puzzles have to do with solving thing, and for solving things you need intellingence. So saying puzzle solving doesn't have to do with intelligence is downright stupid.

Lol, if i understand you correctly you also think the action in FF is laughable since it's the same as Zelda according to you. Glad we got that settled. Actually I think there isn't even any action to speak of in FF since i can walk away from my TV with the controller, go to another room and still defeat the enemies using a single button.

The boat was useless, the fairy - annoying. Remember how I already laughed at you for claiming intellectual superiority because you get puzzle games - that. It's a skill - not intelligence. Puzzles can be solved in a variety of ways it just depends on how your brain is wired. Some people are very adept at using spatial manipulation so certain puzzles are easier for them - it has nothing to with intelligence.

The main FF titles aren't action games. LoZ is an action-adventure game. The action portion is very poor. Good job proving nothing.

Your personal feelings about the hint system are completely besides the point as were talking about facts here. Fact is that there are hints in the Zelda games and just cause you can't figure them out you say they are useless or not there. That's pathetic on your part.

Lol, so your saying that someone with absolutely no intelligence can solve any puzzle. I don't know what planet you live on, but to solve a puzzle, no matter what kind or how difficult it is, you need some level of intelligence. And people with certain skills like you say also need to have intelligence to be able to have those skills and use them. It's only a matter of what level and what kind of intelligence people have. Even looking at a game puzzle on your tv and then deciding what button to press on your controller takes some degree of intelligence. If not then you wouldn't even be able to play the game.

Haha, so only action games can have action in them. That statement of yours is downright laughable. But if you want to play it that way. The RPG portion of FF is crap, and seeing as FF is an RPG I guess that makes the entire FF games crap. Good job and thanks for proving yourself that FF sucks.

Not even close, Zelda. This isn't the 90's anymore.

[QUOTE="minh800"]

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

Actually there are hints in Zelda. Wasn't there a fairy in OoT constantly telling where to go next and what to do. And I believe there was a dragon boat in Wind Waker that did the same. Plenty of help right there. But if that wasn't already enough for you, there are alway gamefaqs you can consult if you get stuck. But maybe you might want to consider playing all your games with a walkthough next to you since you don't want to use intelligence to solve things and want help every step of the way.

And puzzles do have to do with some level of intelligence. If it take no intelligence at all to solve them then i don't even see the need to put them in a game. Puzzles have to do with solving thing, and for solving things you need intellingence. So saying puzzle solving doesn't have to do with intelligence is downright stupid.

Lol, if i understand you correctly you also think the action in FF is laughable since it's the same as Zelda according to you. Glad we got that settled. Actually I think there isn't even any action to speak of in FF since i can walk away from my TV with the controller, go to another room and still defeat the enemies using a single button.

erwingameon

The boat was useless, the fairy - annoying. Remember how I already laughed at you for claiming intellectual superiority because you get puzzle games - that. It's a skill - not intelligence. Puzzles can be solved in a variety of ways it just depends on how your brain is wired. Some people are very adept at using spatial manipulation so certain puzzles are easier for them - it has nothing to with intelligence.

The main FF titles aren't action games. LoZ is an action-adventure game. The action portion is very poor. Good job proving nothing.

Your personal feelings about the hint system are completely besides the point as were talking about facts here. Fact is that there are hints in the Zelda games and just cause you can't figure them out you say they are useless or not there. That's pathetic on your part.

Lol, so your saying that someone with absolutely no intelligence can solve any puzzle. I don't know what planet you live on, but to solve a puzzle, no matter what kind or how difficult it is, you need some level of intelligence. And people with certain skills like you say also need to have intelligence to be able to have those skills and use them. It's only a matter of what level and what kind of intelligence people have. Even looking at a game puzzle on your tv and then deciding what button to press on your controller takes some degree of intelligence. If not then you wouldn't even be able to play the game.

Haha, so only action games can have action in them. That statement of yours is downright laughable. But if you want to play it that way. The RPG portion of FF is crap, and seeing as FF is an RPG I guess that makes the entire FF games crap. Good job and thanks for proving yourself that FF sucks.

The boat didn't really help you. It was useless with solving puzzles.

No intelligence? They have to be able to comprehend situations. I wouldn't call that intelligence, though. It's a skill, it has nothing to do with intelligence. You have to be smart enough to function but that's about all there is to it.

Turn-based games aren't action packed. Soooorrrryyyy. Games that are in real time should have some action to them which usually makes them an action something game. The RPG portion is fine.

Haha, thanks for proving FF sucks? Because it's turn-based? Oh, wow, that definitely sucks oh right!

[QUOTE="minh800"]

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

Actually there are hints in Zelda. Wasn't there a fairy in OoT constantly telling where to go next and what to do. And I believe there was a dragon boat in Wind Waker that did the same. Plenty of help right there. But if that wasn't already enough for you, there are alway gamefaqs you can consult if you get stuck. But maybe you might want to consider playing all your games with a walkthough next to you since you don't want to use intelligence to solve things and want help every step of the way.

And puzzles do have to do with some level of intelligence. If it take no intelligence at all to solve them then i don't even see the need to put them in a game. Puzzles have to do with solving thing, and for solving things you need intellingence. So saying puzzle solving doesn't have to do with intelligence is downright stupid.

Lol, if i understand you correctly you also think the action in FF is laughable since it's the same as Zelda according to you. Glad we got that settled. Actually I think there isn't even any action to speak of in FF since i can walk away from my TV with the controller, go to another room and still defeat the enemies using a single button.

Shinobishyguy

The boat was useless, the fairy - annoying. Remember how I already laughed at you for claiming intellectual superiority because you get puzzle games - that. It's a skill - not intelligence. Puzzles can be solved in a variety of ways it just depends on how your brain is wired. Some people are very adept at using spatial manipulation so certain puzzles are easier for them - it has nothing to with intelligence.

The main FF titles aren't action games. LoZ is an action-adventure game. The action portion is very poor. Good job proving nothing.

What visual cues?

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

[QUOTE="minh800"]

The boat was useless, the fairy - annoying. Remember how I already laughed at you for claiming intellectual superiority because you get puzzle games - that. It's a skill - not intelligence. Puzzles can be solved in a variety of ways it just depends on how your brain is wired. Some people are very adept at using spatial manipulation so certain puzzles are easier for them - it has nothing to with intelligence.

The main FF titles aren't action games. LoZ is an action-adventure game. The action portion is very poor. Good job proving nothing.

minh800

What visual cues?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intelligence

If this won't convince you then nothing will.

[QUOTE="minh800"]

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]Y'know....It's not really the games fault that you can't pick up simple visual cues to solve puzzles.

BIOKILLER123

What visual cues?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intelligence

If this won't convince you then nothing will.

Convince me of what? I know plenty of people who are oblivious to many things. Smartest guy I know couldn't even tell that someone was interested in him. That doesn't mean he's stupid - he's just oblivious.

[QUOTE="BIOKILLER123"]

[QUOTE="minh800"]

What visual cues?

minh800

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intelligence

If this won't convince you then nothing will.

Convince me of what? I know plenty of people who are oblivious to many things. Smartest guy I know couldn't even tell that someone was interested in him. That doesn't mean he's stupid - he's just oblivious.

I'll leave you alone with the "no intelligence" claim.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="minh800"]

The boat was useless, the fairy - annoying. Remember how I already laughed at you for claiming intellectual superiority because you get puzzle games - that. It's a skill - not intelligence. Puzzles can be solved in a variety of ways it just depends on how your brain is wired. Some people are very adept at using spatial manipulation so certain puzzles are easier for them - it has nothing to with intelligence.

The main FF titles aren't action games. LoZ is an action-adventure game. The action portion is very poor. Good job proving nothing.

minh800

Your personal feelings about the hint system are completely besides the point as were talking about facts here. Fact is that there are hints in the Zelda games and just cause you can't figure them out you say they are useless or not there. That's pathetic on your part.

Lol, so your saying that someone with absolutely no intelligence can solve any puzzle. I don't know what planet you live on, but to solve a puzzle, no matter what kind or how difficult it is, you need some level of intelligence. And people with certain skills like you say also need to have intelligence to be able to have those skills and use them. It's only a matter of what level and what kind of intelligence people have. Even looking at a game puzzle on your tv and then deciding what button to press on your controller takes some degree of intelligence. If not then you wouldn't even be able to play the game.

Haha, so only action games can have action in them. That statement of yours is downright laughable. But if you want to play it that way. The RPG portion of FF is crap, and seeing as FF is an RPG I guess that makes the entire FF games crap. Good job and thanks for proving yourself that FF sucks.

The boat didn't really help you. It was useless with solving puzzles.

No intelligence? They have to be able to comprehend situations. I wouldn't call that intelligence, though. It's a skill, it has nothing to do with intelligence. You have to be smart enough to function but that's about all there is to it.

Turn-based games aren't action packed. Soooorrrryyyy. Games that are in real time should have some action to them which usually makes them an action something game. The RPG portion is fine.

Haha, thanks for proving FF sucks? Because it's turn-based? Oh, wow, that definitely sucks oh right!

Again you use your personal feelings about the hint system and not the facts. (You have to be smart enough to function) In this sentence you proved my point. You can't be smart if you don't have intelligence. And the other claim you make (that being able to comprehend situations is not intelligence) is completely ludicrous. But if you want to be ignorent and delude yourself that's your choice.

No action in turn based games. Wow that makes them pretty boring then. Another reason you've given why FF is worse than Zelda. Thanks again.

And way to twist my words to suit your flawed arguments. Since i didn't say that FF sucks cause it's turn-based, but was merely following your own logic that cause FF is an RPG and the RPG portion of the games is crap the entire games are crap. Actually i haven't used the term turn-based in any of my posts so i don't know how you can even respond to something i haven't mentioned period.

I look forward to reading more of your flawed arguments and twisted quotes in another of your failed attemps to prove your point.

Even though the quality of FF games has dropped in recent years, i haven't been interested in a Zelda game since OoT, so to me FF > Zelda. Maybe if Nintendo would make an action RPG with new characters, story etc it would get my interest. Zelda has been too much milked as far as i'm concerned, i just grew bored of it. The FF series has had a lot of games, but at least it's always a completely different setting, story, characters, different game mechanics etc that kept it fresh to me. Same dev, is under the same name, same genre, but completely different games aside from a few recurrent elements.Tykain

I'd like to see Zelda introduce a new character and an RE like system to go with it, where you play one half of the game as one character and the other half as another. And then, maybe for the sake of it being a Zelda game, have the option to choose your character for the final arc. What if you played as Zelda, for example?

Why is there an option to dislike both, but not like both?

I demand a new poll :x

Even though the quality of FF games has dropped in recent years, i haven't been interested in a Zelda game since OoT, so to me FF > Zelda. Maybe if Nintendo would make an action RPG with new characters, story etc it would get my interest. Zelda has been too much milked as far as i'm concerned, i just grew bored of it. The FF series has had a lot of games, but at least it's always a completely different setting, story, characters, different game mechanics etc that kept it fresh to me. Same dev, is under the same name, same genre, but completely different games aside from a few recurrent elements.Tykain

Zelda to much milked. Lol unlike FF wich is only one of the most milked out franchises in gaming history. FF always completely different setting, story, characters, game mechanics. No more so than the Zelda series. But let's go into those points shall we.

(SETTING) Both FF and Zelda have different settings for their games. Not counting direct sequals.

(STORY) Both FF and Zelda's stories are different in each game.

(CHARACTERS) Only Link, Zelda and (sometimes) Ganondorf are alway's in the Zelda series and with such great characters who can blaim Nintendo for that. And while most of the time the characters in FF look and are named different their basic characteristics are mostly the same every time.

(GAME MECHANICS) Both Zelda and FF have almost the same game mechanics in their game every time. The difference is that using Zelda's game mechanics is actually fun, instead of FF wich is basicly just running around and pressing the same buttun over and over again to defeat the enemies you encounter.

So looking at all these points theres no way that you can say that FF is completely fresh every time and Zelda is not. You can have a personal preference but comments like yours are just a sign of fanboyism or ignorence.

[QUOTE="Tykain"]Even though the quality of FF games has dropped in recent years, i haven't been interested in a Zelda game since OoT, so to me FF > Zelda. Maybe if Nintendo would make an action RPG with new characters, story etc it would get my interest. Zelda has been too much milked as far as i'm concerned, i just grew bored of it. The FF series has had a lot of games, but at least it's always a completely different setting, story, characters, different game mechanics etc that kept it fresh to me. Same dev, is under the same name, same genre, but completely different games aside from a few recurrent elements.erwingameon

Zelda to much milked. Lol unlike FF wich is only one of the most milked out franchises in gaming history. FF always completely different setting, story, characters, game mechanics. No more so than the Zelda series. But let's go into those points shall we.

(SETTING) Both FF and Zelda have different settings for their games. Not counting direct sequals.

(STORY) Both FF and Zelda's stories are different in each game.

(CHARACTERS) Only Link, Zelda and (sometimes) Ganondorf are alway's in the Zelda series and with such great characters who can blaim Nintendo for that. And while most of the time the characters in FF look and are named different their basic characteristics are mostly the same every time.

(GAME MECHANICS) Both Zelda and FF have almost the same game mechanics in their game every time. The difference is that using Zelda's game mechanics is actually fun, instead of FF wich is basicly just running around and pressing the same buttun over and over again to defeat the enemies you encounter.

So looking at all these points theres no way that you can say that FF is completely fresh every time and Zelda is not. You can have a personal preference but comments like yours are just a sign of fanboyism or ignorence.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Final Fantasy games are as similar as Zelda games? How absurd. Final Fantasy is one of the most diverse series in existence, while Zelda is quite the opposite. You're not fooling anybody; we've played these games too you know.

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

[QUOTE="Tykain"]Even though the quality of FF games has dropped in recent years, i haven't been interested in a Zelda game since OoT, so to me FF > Zelda. Maybe if Nintendo would make an action RPG with new characters, story etc it would get my interest. Zelda has been too much milked as far as i'm concerned, i just grew bored of it. The FF series has had a lot of games, but at least it's always a completely different setting, story, characters, different game mechanics etc that kept it fresh to me. Same dev, is under the same name, same genre, but completely different games aside from a few recurrent elements.hakanakumono

Zelda to much milked. Lol unlike FF wich is only one of the most milked out franchises in gaming history. FF always completely different setting, story, characters, game mechanics. No more so than the Zelda series. But let's go into those points shall we.

(SETTING) Both FF and Zelda have different settings for their games. Not counting direct sequals.

(STORY) Both FF and Zelda's stories are different in each game.

(CHARACTERS) Only Link, Zelda and (sometimes) Ganondorf are alway's in the Zelda series and with such great characters who can blaim Nintendo for that. And while most of the time the characters in FF look and are named different their basic characteristics are mostly the same every time.

(GAME MECHANICS) Both Zelda and FF have almost the same game mechanics in their game every time. The difference is that using Zelda's game mechanics is actually fun, instead of FF wich is basicly just running around and pressing the same buttun over and over again to defeat the enemies you encounter.

So looking at all these points theres no way that you can say that FF is completely fresh every time and Zelda is not. You can have a personal preference but comments like yours are just a sign of fanboyism or ignorence.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Final Fantasy games are as similar as Zelda games? How absurd. Final Fantasy is one of the most diverse series in existence, while Zelda is quite the opposite. You're not fooling anybody; we've played these games too you know.

FF diverse, don't make me laugh. If you've really played the FF games you'd know how ludicroud this post of yours really is. Zelda might not be diverse but neither is FF. I'm only using facts in my posts so why don't u do the same instead of posting these fanboy comments.

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.

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

MM was taken place in Termina, but your point stands.

I shouldn't even have to make a point; even the most hardcore Zelda fan should be able to recognize how similar Zelda games are to one another, let alone compared to Final Fantasy.

As for Majora's Mask, Majora's Mask is perhaps the most unique Zelda game released to date and is a general outlier in the series.

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.

Not even close, Zelda. This isn't the 90's anymore.

Grawse

[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.

erwingameon

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.

[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.

[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.

erwingameon

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."

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.

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.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="erwingameon"]

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.

erwingameon

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.

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).

[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.

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.

Regarding the discussion about which of the two series is more diverse, here's my two cents: I believe that Final Fantasy makes an effort to differentiate each successive entry from the previous one a lot more than Zelda does. Different settings, completely different storylines, different characters (that, incidentally, are very well developed), and a lot of geographic variety with each game, Final Fantasy feels more like an anthalogy of fantasy stories to me than a series, with each game being a new volume and an all new story, if you know what I mean. The fact that Final Fantasy has an entirely new story every time (albeit one that deals with the same overarching themes), and the fact that each game (barring FF12 if I am not wrong) is in a new geographic setting every single time, means that Final Fantasy feels more diverse. Gameplaywise, however, I suppose things would get slightly harder to determine. Whereas the first nine Final Fantasy games made great efforts to keep their battle systems fresh, the underlying turn based combat was still the same (although it would be foolish to suggest that, say, FF1 uses the same battle system that FF7 or FF5 do). On the other hand, Zelda's gameplay seems to have been mixed up more (especially with games like Zelda II, Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time and Phantom Hourglass. The other games only built upon these games, as far as gameplay is concerned). Storywise, Zelda is a retelling every time, and while I don't mind that, it's foolish to suggest that it is more diverse than Final Fantasy. Geographically too while Zelda shows variation, it is nothing on Final Fantasy. I mean, yes, Hyrule changes with every game, but it's still Hyrule, and there's always a Hyrule Castle, a Death Mountain, a Lost Woods, a Zora Lake, a Kakariko Village, a Gerudo Valley, even though the layout of these places themselves might change every time. However, Final Fantasy has an entirely new world every single time, none of which have anything to do with each other, so again, Final Fantasy is more diverse there. To sum up, I'd say that as far as diversity in story, setting, backstory and characterization are concerned, Final Fantasy wins it no question. Zelda wins it in the gameplay department though.charizard1605

Shouldn't MM belong here? :P

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Regarding the discussion about which of the two series is more diverse, here's my two cents: I believe that Final Fantasy makes an effort to differentiate each successive entry from the previous one a lot more than Zelda does. Different settings, completely different storylines, different characters (that, incidentally, are very well developed), and a lot of geographic variety with each game, Final Fantasy feels more like an anthalogy of fantasy stories to me than a series, with each game being a new volume and an all new story, if you know what I mean. The fact that Final Fantasy has an entirely new story every time (albeit one that deals with the same overarching themes), and the fact that each game (barring FF12 if I am not wrong) is in a new geographic setting every single time, means that Final Fantasy feels more diverse. Gameplaywise, however, I suppose things would get slightly harder to determine. Whereas the first nine Final Fantasy games made great efforts to keep their battle systems fresh, the underlying turn based combat was still the same (although it would be foolish to suggest that, say, FF1 uses the same battle system that FF7 or FF5 do). On the other hand, Zelda's gameplay seems to have been mixed up more (especially with games like Zelda II, Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time and Phantom Hourglass. The other games only built upon these games, as far as gameplay is concerned). Storywise, Zelda is a retelling every time, and while I don't mind that, it's foolish to suggest that it is more diverse than Final Fantasy. Geographically too while Zelda shows variation, it is nothing on Final Fantasy. I mean, yes, Hyrule changes with every game, but it's still Hyrule, and there's always a Hyrule Castle, a Death Mountain, a Lost Woods, a Zora Lake, a Kakariko Village, a Gerudo Valley, even though the layout of these places themselves might change every time. However, Final Fantasy has an entirely new world every single time, none of which have anything to do with each other, so again, Final Fantasy is more diverse there. To sum up, I'd say that as far as diversity in story, setting, backstory and characterization are concerned, Final Fantasy wins it no question. Zelda wins it in the gameplay department though.hakanakumono

Shouldn't MM belong here? :P

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="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Regarding the discussion about which of the two series is more diverse, here's my two cents: I believe that Final Fantasy makes an effort to differentiate each successive entry from the previous one a lot more than Zelda does. Different settings, completely different storylines, different characters (that, incidentally, are very well developed), and a lot of geographic variety with each game, Final Fantasy feels more like an anthalogy of fantasy stories to me than a series, with each game being a new volume and an all new story, if you know what I mean. The fact that Final Fantasy has an entirely new story every time (albeit one that deals with the same overarching themes), and the fact that each game (barring FF12 if I am not wrong) is in a new geographic setting every single time, means that Final Fantasy feels more diverse. Gameplaywise, however, I suppose things would get slightly harder to determine. Whereas the first nine Final Fantasy games made great efforts to keep their battle systems fresh, the underlying turn based combat was still the same (although it would be foolish to suggest that, say, FF1 uses the same battle system that FF7 or FF5 do). On the other hand, Zelda's gameplay seems to have been mixed up more (especially with games like Zelda II, Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time and Phantom Hourglass. The other games only built upon these games, as far as gameplay is concerned). Storywise, Zelda is a retelling every time, and while I don't mind that, it's foolish to suggest that it is more diverse than Final Fantasy. Geographically too while Zelda shows variation, it is nothing on Final Fantasy. I mean, yes, Hyrule changes with every game, but it's still Hyrule, and there's always a Hyrule Castle, a Death Mountain, a Lost Woods, a Zora Lake, a Kakariko Village, a Gerudo Valley, even though the layout of these places themselves might change every time. However, Final Fantasy has an entirely new world every single time, none of which have anything to do with each other, so again, Final Fantasy is more diverse there. To sum up, I'd say that as far as diversity in story, setting, backstory and characterization are concerned, Final Fantasy wins it no question. Zelda wins it in the gameplay department though.charizard1605

Shouldn't MM belong here? :P

MM is my favorite Zelda even though I never beat it. :lol: The oceanside spiderhouse wouldn't give me the big wallet so I gave up.

MM is my favorite Zelda even though I never beat it. :lol: The oceanside spiderhouse wouldn't give me the big wallet so I gave up.

hakanakumono

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

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.

erwingameon

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.

How many times are we going to have this exact same thread?charizard1605

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]How many times are we going to have this exact same thread?DarkLink77

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

MM is my favorite Zelda even though I never beat it. :lol: The oceanside spiderhouse wouldn't give me the big wallet so I gave up.

charizard1605

The guy to give me the stuff just never appeared. :(

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.

erwingameon

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*