Vote for Phantasy Star !

[Siren]

Well, I have both FFTA and Fire Emblem, and though I like Fire Emblem better, I would say they're at equal grounds. Alot of people know about Fire Emblem, and what the Final Fantasy name adds to FFTA's votes is surely taken away by the amount of Final Fantasy fanboys that won't call FFTA part of the series.<p>Still, Fire Emblem is mainly big in Japan...

[LaconianShot]

I too own both games. I think that they are pretty much even...I've heard a lot of bad things from FF fanboys about FFTA. I'll say it like this...if there are a lot of Japanese people visiting GameFAQs, then Fire Emblem will win.<br>Oh, on another note: For those of you who haven't played the only english Fire Emblem, on GBA, then you still have a chance to enjoy the series. Nintendo has planned a Fire Emblem game for the Gamecube. If you like Strategy/RPG titles, then this is the game to buy.

[Benoit]

I've played FFTA, and it looked boring and cumbersome to control. Isometric 3D strategy. Yuck. Give me Shining Force.

[PSLassic]

Final Fantasy X is beating Shenmue 75-25 right now.

[LaconianShot]

Cumbersome to control? I prefer the term "excessive strategical options"...if you like strategy, and lots of it, then you would like FFTA. Also, the job hopping is incredibly addictive...so much to customize.<br>As for FFX...that IS a "yuck". I played it for 5 hours...only one hour of which was <b>actual</b> gameplay. No word of a lie, the basic setup of FFX is...cutscene, five steps, battle, cutscene, boss battle, cutscene, cutscene,cutscene, new character, battle, cutscene,cutscene, new character leaves,cutscene, battle, battle, puzzle, boss battle, cutscene, cutscene, five steps, cut scene, five steps, cut scene...etc...<br>*Shudders*

[Siren]

Yes, when I played FFX, your role as a player was basically animating the main character between a boss battle or a cutscene (or a cutscene that lead off to a boss battle). <p>Usually, the only challenge it presented was finding the right people to talk to so you could advance to another *sigh* cutscene. Levelling up (well, the Sphere thing puts an end to that, even if it is well developed)? Not needed. Any of the boss battles that you encounter through your monotonous cut scene adventure are easy to beat, especially since all the potions that you start off with and high-levelled guest characters in your party. <p>Maybe I'm used to the hard old-school RPG's where the puzzles are actually challenging. Or the drastic levelling up is actually needed. Or maybe it's because I HATE CUTSCENES! I'd rather have short, anime styled art panels showing the characters while they talk than having a half-an-hour cutscene describing my character's life story, complete with corny flashbacks. <p>Maybe I didn't play enough of the game (I rented it), so it could be possible that things really pick up later on, but from what I saw, FFX was a game I'd rather not play.

[Demon Child]

%) Ok then. FFx really wasnt that bad. Now if you want to talk about bad look at FFX-2 that really is cutscene after cutscene with boss fights or irritating to no end minigames thrown in the middle.About 30% of that game was cutscenes 60% of it was mini games and 10% was actual game. *shudders* Then to top it all off nearly every cutscene had an unimaginable amount of nonsence that only a 13 year old girl or someone who has been surrounded by next to nothing but women would understand.

[Benoit]

<blockquote>Cumbersome to control? I prefer the term "excessive strategical options"...if you like strategy, and lots of it, then you would like FFTA. Also, the job hopping is incredibly addictive...so much to customize. </blockquote> <br>It was the isometric 3D and the small things on the screen. Hard...

[Goldark]

Square has always left me perplexed, it's the software house with the most number of RPG titles, so someone should think that after so many games they now should resent perfection, but still, they come out with cheap games half of the time (the SAGA games, FF games after VII, and many other I don't remember), probably is a matter of personal tastes, but when I play a game I want to PLAY, not read endless streams of text. I hadn't had the chance to try FFX, but I can't forget how BORING was Xenogears. Kill me now, but I couldn't stand it, I forced myself to finish it just because everyone was telling how great this game was, so I thought that I had yet to see something, but then it ended, lefting me with nothingness but cheap phylosophy. What a waste of free time.<br>If I want a novel I go to the nearest bookstore or library, I spend less, and what I read is in italian.

[Benoit]

I hear you, Goldark. That's why I play the other RPGs which aren't hyped to the death. <br>But the Saga games?! I loved those! I used to play them on the Game Boy 97 emulator, before finally acquiring the originals of them. Granted, the first one wasn't that well designed and not too interesting to make you move forward. But II and III were really nice games, even if not that ground-breaking.<br>FFLII had the Magi to collect, which I quite liked, the story was interesting, the music was very well done for a Game Boy game, and it was very challenging. It does get a little bit TOO challenging in the end, though, when running repeatedly is your only option of making it through the last dungeon.<br>The Talon in FFLIII is an awesome ship! I quite liked the time-travelling idea (always a hit with me), and the story was quite interesting. The music again was very well done, and this time, as opposed to FFLII, the battle system was intuitive. It was much easier than its predecessor, but I didn't mind it much. I did feel the game ended too soon, though.

[Cherok]

IMO an RPG should not take more than 20 or so hours to complete. Even well done epics get tiresome after 40 hours of playing. Chrono Trigger and PSIV were Ideal lengths. I wont remember FFVI in such a fondness becuase it took 50 or so hours to complete