Forums - Gaming Discussion - Ocarina of Time vs Final Fantasy 7

I prefer...

Ocarina of Time 105 58.33%
 
Final Fantasy 7 75 41.67%
 
Total:180
derpysquirtle64 said:
Shiken said:

You missed his point.  The gameplay was revolutionary in OoT where future games followed the same core formula and mechanics, and built off of them moving forward.  Final Fantasy VII did not really revolutionize much compared to the RPGs found on the SNES.  It had better visuals than SNES RPGs and told a great story, but thats it.

That was his legitimate reason for picking OoT.  No less legeitimate than someone picking FFVII because to them, they prefer the storytelling.  The fact that he misused "perfect" when he even states in his own post that he has bad english does not seem like a good reason to call him out TBH.

They've added Limit Break and Materias. And you still don't call it a gameplay revolution in JRPG genre?

FFV had class changing.

Chrono Trigger had dual techs and enemy positioning.

Wild Arms 2 had transformations.

Pretty much all JRPGs have their own unique mechanics, and Final Fantasy VII is no different.  Materia and Limit Breaks did not really revolutionize anything, because one or two features does not revolutionize a genre.  Did most JRPGs use limit breaks or materia moving forward?  Nope...

Also limit breaks do not function the same in every Final Fantasy, even though they share the same name.  In VIII for example, they can be exploided to be used over and over.

OoT on the other hand took a 2D franchise and put it into 3D space.  It changed how you view and explore the world, as well as how you interact with it.  Z targeting has been adopted by all kinds of games moving forward, and the game expanded on a forumla started by A Link to the Past and made it into something that would stick around for generations to come.  That was a revolution.

So again, Final Fantasy VII is a fantastic game, but a revolution it was not.

Last edited by Shiken - on 18 February 2020

Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Around the Network
SammyGiireal said:
derpysquirtle64 said:

They've added Limit Break and Materias. And you still don't call it a gameplay revolution in JRPG genre?

I wouldn't call those implementations revolutionary. Granted there is less that can be "revolutionized" in turn based combat. FFVI had desperation attacks on its part. The Materia system is no different from other character progression systems that the series has constantly experimented with. FFV's job system was much more complex IMO. 

I do prefer its materia system over the junction, and draw spell system of FFVIII by a wide margin.

Grandia had a much more refreshing take in its turn based combat system than the FF's of the era. 

FF took presentation, and Story to a new level in 1997, but really it played a lot like FFVI. Again, I understand that FF had a proven formula and there is nothing wrong with that.

Grandia 1&2 don't get the respect that they deserve. Of course they were pretty early in my RPG addiction (after the SNES RPGs and maybe 6 or 7 on the PS1). There may be others that did things better, worse, or first--but when I played those games, the battle system was a breath of fresh air for a genre that didn't really offer much innovation. Rather than suffering through battles to get to the next bit of story, cutscene, or town, I just looked for more battles to get into.

Sorry. Didn't mean to go off track.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

d21lewis said:
SammyGiireal said:

I wouldn't call those implementations revolutionary. Granted there is less that can be "revolutionized" in turn based combat. FFVI had desperation attacks on its part. The Materia system is no different from other character progression systems that the series has constantly experimented with. FFV's job system was much more complex IMO. 

I do prefer its materia system over the junction, and draw spell system of FFVIII by a wide margin.

Grandia had a much more refreshing take in its turn based combat system than the FF's of the era. 

FF took presentation, and Story to a new level in 1997, but really it played a lot like FFVI. Again, I understand that FF had a proven formula and there is nothing wrong with that.

Grandia 1&2 don't get the respect that they deserve. Of course they were pretty early in my RPG addiction (after the SNES RPGs and maybe 6 or 7 on the PS1). There may be others that did things better, worse, or first--but when I played those games, the battle system was a breath of fresh air for a genre that didn't really offer much innovation. Rather than suffering through battles to get to the next bit of story, cutscene, or town, I just looked for more battles to get into.

Sorry. Didn't mean to go off track.

Grandia deserves the love.



Speaking only for myself, this is what made each game special:

FFVII:
+Beautiful cutscenes. Especially when a static background suddenly came to life and became a FMV. I'd never seen anything like that before.

+Exploration: such a huge world with so much to find and people to talk to. This was back when I had to read every single line of dialog. I tried so long and hard to see some blocky titties in Don Corneo's lair, you wouldn't believe it.

+Music/Atmosphere: so much of the game just gave off a vibe of sadness and hopelessness. It was pretty mature. When that plate fell on a section of Midgar, I was shocked. Couldn't believe a game did that.

+Story: Like most FF games I've played, I always enjoy how the game starts off as one thing with one goal and then expands to something you couldn't even imagine and includes concepts that you could actually believe. To this day, I kinda feel like that whole "Lifestream" explanation may actually be real.

+Gameplay: While lots of battles were just "point and kill", I always loved the strategy that later battles had. Using a healing potion on the undead to kill them in one hit. Using electric magic to damage machines. Choosing which enemy had priority or which party and equipment was best for the job. It was awesome.

+Character development: Almost every character had a moment to shine. It was often hard to choose who I would take with me because everyone was endearing to me. And the feeling of power they had by the end was just something I'd never had on such a level playing other games. Like nothing could stop me! ... Then I'd get my ass handed to me my some new threat.

-Random battles. Some people love them. Some hate them. After Chrono Trigger, I hated being attacked by foes I couldn't even see. Especially when I was just trying to get to a save point.

-Reading: Not so much a problem back then but now I just can't see myself reading tons and tons of text.

-The story: Love/hate. There were parts of the story that went off the fucking rails. Parts I try to forget when I think about the awesome moments.

Ocarina of Time

+A real world: This one of the earlier games I played where it felt like NPCs had lives and weren't just standing around waiting for me to show up. It added a lot to the immersion despite the fact that I didn't play it until 2002 long after I'd had a Dreamcast, GameCube, and PS2.

+Puzzles: One thing Zelda games have always done better than any other series, in my opinion. That feeling of being stuck and maybe even wondering if the game is broken. Then trying something crazy like shooting an arrow through a flame to burn something far away. Those "AHA!" moments are what I live for in gaming.

+Character progression: While you have to fill in much of the story yourself playing a Zelda game, there's always a sense of personal growth when your silent protagonist learns a new skill and ability. You the player feel like you've grown. There's a sense of awe when you think "I was just a kid using slingshots and twigs. Now look at me."

+Exploration: Again, the more you look, the more you find. It's never a waste of time going off the beaten path. The love and care put into the world and its inhabitants was just something unheard of in 1998. I knew this even in 2002. It's still a rare thing now in 2020.

+Gameplay: Z-targeting, auto jumping, assigning weapons to specific buttons. These are things I don't remember experiencing prior to OoT.

Vgchartz is acting crazy. Can't finish this post.

Last edited by d21lewis - on 18 February 2020

Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Runa216 said:
above all else the fact that OOT feels dated and clunky and cumbersome now while FFVII can still be enjoyed (Turn based battles don't age poorly, it's kind of one-sided in that respect) 

Entirely subjective, but I personally feel like turn-based combat itself feels like an inherently dated and clunky relic of a time before real-time combat had been properly developed.

As Yahtzee once wrote in Zero Punctuation (can't remember which one) "I've never seen a fight where two people just stand there and take turns to run up and slap each other in the face."



I didn't think there would be a direct this week, cos I'm a pessimistic dunce.

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Runa216 said:
above all else the fact that OOT feels dated and clunky and cumbersome now while FFVII can still be enjoyed (Turn based battles don't age poorly, it's kind of one-sided in that respect) 

Entirely subjective, but I personally feel like turn-based combat itself feels like an inherently dated and clunky relic of a time before real-time combat had been properly developed.

As Yahtzee once wrote in Zero Punctuation (can't remember which one) "I've never seen a fight where two people just stand there and take turns to run up and slap each other in the face."

Turn Based Combat has been a staple of games since 1972 (DnD). While the intricacies of turn-based combat change, there will always be a place for it. Back when I was a kid I used to agree that it was absurd to chose from a menu and let my characters do the attacking for me, but then I grew up and saw value in more than what was at that time a pretty narrow view on games. (Platformers, shooters, and action/adventure games were all I played back then.) 

and, as far as the gameplay in Ocarina goes vs even Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, it feels clunky and stiff. Movement is a pain in the ass, the game's pace was not ideal for how the character moved (Especially across hyrule field), and overall there was a lot of room to improve. 

the Turn Based battle systems of Final Fantasy and other JRPG games have advanced, but most of the innovation in that genre was parallel to FFVII. Things changed, things were different, but not necessarily better. I can still play FFI (the original on NES or any of its remakes) and enjoy it because there's nothing inherently wrong with the battle system. IT's simple, but it's not clunky and doesn't feel stiff. if I try to play OOT, all I can think about is how much better even Wind Waker was. This is the main reason I actually like Twilight Princess more than Ocarina of Time. I do agree that OOT brought the most innovation, but just like 95% of all games that came out on N64 and PS1, the games just didn't age well. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, MarioKart, and a handful of others were the only games from that generation of consoles I Can stand to play anymore. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Runa216 said:
curl-6 said:

Entirely subjective, but I personally feel like turn-based combat itself feels like an inherently dated and clunky relic of a time before real-time combat had been properly developed.

As Yahtzee once wrote in Zero Punctuation (can't remember which one) "I've never seen a fight where two people just stand there and take turns to run up and slap each other in the face."

Turn Based Combat has been a staple of games since 1972 (DnD). While the intricacies of turn-based combat change, there will always be a place for it. Back when I was a kid I used to agree that it was absurd to chose from a menu and let my characters do the attacking for me, but then I grew up and saw value in more than what was at that time a pretty narrow view on games. (Platformers, shooters, and action/adventure games were all I played back then.) 

and, as far as the gameplay in Ocarina goes vs even Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, it feels clunky and stiff. Movement is a pain in the ass, the game's pace was not ideal for how the character moved (Especially across hyrule field), and overall there was a lot of room to improve. 

the Turn Based battle systems of Final Fantasy and other JRPG games have advanced, but most of the innovation in that genre was parallel to FFVII. Things changed, things were different, but not necessarily better. I can still play FFI (the original on NES or any of its remakes) and enjoy it because there's nothing inherently wrong with the battle system. IT's simple, but it's not clunky and doesn't feel stiff. if I try to play OOT, all I can think about is how much better even Wind Waker was. This is the main reason I actually like Twilight Princess more than Ocarina of Time. I do agree that OOT brought the most innovation, but just like 95% of all games that came out on N64 and PS1, the games just didn't age well. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, MarioKart, and a handful of others were the only games from that generation of consoles I Can stand to play anymore. 

While OoT definitely doesn't have the smoothest movement and combat as a result of being an early 3D game, to me it feels far less archaic than watching characters just stand there then take turns to perform actions one at a time with little player input beyond just issuing commands. Real time combat just feels so much more dynamic and alive. I feel like there's a good reason why gaming largely moved on from turn-based combat. It just always felt like a holdover from the old days of card and board games, and the development of proper real time combat systems in games like OoT rendered it obsolete. Again, just my opinion.



I didn't think there would be a direct this week, cos I'm a pessimistic dunce.

curl-6 said:
Runa216 said:

Turn Based Combat has been a staple of games since 1972 (DnD). While the intricacies of turn-based combat change, there will always be a place for it. Back when I was a kid I used to agree that it was absurd to chose from a menu and let my characters do the attacking for me, but then I grew up and saw value in more than what was at that time a pretty narrow view on games. (Platformers, shooters, and action/adventure games were all I played back then.) 

and, as far as the gameplay in Ocarina goes vs even Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, it feels clunky and stiff. Movement is a pain in the ass, the game's pace was not ideal for how the character moved (Especially across hyrule field), and overall there was a lot of room to improve. 

the Turn Based battle systems of Final Fantasy and other JRPG games have advanced, but most of the innovation in that genre was parallel to FFVII. Things changed, things were different, but not necessarily better. I can still play FFI (the original on NES or any of its remakes) and enjoy it because there's nothing inherently wrong with the battle system. IT's simple, but it's not clunky and doesn't feel stiff. if I try to play OOT, all I can think about is how much better even Wind Waker was. This is the main reason I actually like Twilight Princess more than Ocarina of Time. I do agree that OOT brought the most innovation, but just like 95% of all games that came out on N64 and PS1, the games just didn't age well. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, MarioKart, and a handful of others were the only games from that generation of consoles I Can stand to play anymore. 

While OoT definitely doesn't have the smoothest movement and combat as a result of being an early 3D game, to me it feels far less archaic than watching characters just stand there then take turns to perform actions one at a time with little player input beyond just issuing commands. Real time combat just feels so much more dynamic and alive. I feel like there's a good reason why gaming largely moved on from turn-based combat. It just always felt like a holdover from the old days of card and board games, and the development of proper real time combat systems in games like OoT rendered it obsolete. Again, just my opinion.

I think we have to accept that we're just not gonna agree here. Nothing wrong with that. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Runa216 said:
curl-6 said:

While OoT definitely doesn't have the smoothest movement and combat as a result of being an early 3D game, to me it feels far less archaic than watching characters just stand there then take turns to perform actions one at a time with little player input beyond just issuing commands. Real time combat just feels so much more dynamic and alive. I feel like there's a good reason why gaming largely moved on from turn-based combat. It just always felt like a holdover from the old days of card and board games, and the development of proper real time combat systems in games like OoT rendered it obsolete. Again, just my opinion.

I think we have to accept that we're just not gonna agree here. Nothing wrong with that. 

Yeah, pretty much. Just different preferences, I can respect that.



I didn't think there would be a direct this week, cos I'm a pessimistic dunce.

Runa216 said:
curl-6 said:

Entirely subjective, but I personally feel like turn-based combat itself feels like an inherently dated and clunky relic of a time before real-time combat had been properly developed.

As Yahtzee once wrote in Zero Punctuation (can't remember which one) "I've never seen a fight where two people just stand there and take turns to run up and slap each other in the face."

Turn Based Combat has been a staple of games since 1972 (DnD). While the intricacies of turn-based combat change, there will always be a place for it. Back when I was a kid I used to agree that it was absurd to chose from a menu and let my characters do the attacking for me, but then I grew up and saw value in more than what was at that time a pretty narrow view on games. (Platformers, shooters, and action/adventure games were all I played back then.) 

and, as far as the gameplay in Ocarina goes vs even Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, it feels clunky and stiff. Movement is a pain in the ass, the game's pace was not ideal for how the character moved (Especially across hyrule field), and overall there was a lot of room to improve. 

the Turn Based battle systems of Final Fantasy and other JRPG games have advanced, but most of the innovation in that genre was parallel to FFVII. Things changed, things were different, but not necessarily better. I can still play FFI (the original on NES or any of its remakes) and enjoy it because there's nothing inherently wrong with the battle system. IT's simple, but it's not clunky and doesn't feel stiff. if I try to play OOT, all I can think about is how much better even Wind Waker was. This is the main reason I actually like Twilight Princess more than Ocarina of Time. I do agree that OOT brought the most innovation, but just like 95% of all games that came out on N64 and PS1, the games just didn't age well. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, MarioKart, and a handful of others were the only games from that generation of consoles I Can stand to play anymore. 

We will agree, to disagree. OoT and Majora's Mask are still highly playable. OoT deserves its Metacritic crown.