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
deskpro2k3 said:
JWeinCom said:

Some real stupid stuff.

Nope, you don't understand. Nice attempt to twist things around though.

I have to break things down in the most simplistic terms for you and I don't really have the patience for that, but I'll try to make this nice and simple for you to understand.

You can ask anyone, what do they think about FF7R and they'll say something like this "This is how I always imagined the game to look like." or "This is how I always imagined the music to sound like." - Thus my statement "Nobody has really seen Final Fantasy 7."

We know many NPC's Ex: The dolphin girl, Scarlet, Don Corneo, Palmer, and many many more as Lego people. - Thus my statement "Nobody has really seen Final Fantasy 7."

All we know about Jenova is that she came from space - I can use my imagination about Jenova's origin, or her personality before she became a fossil. Can you?

Do you see where I am going with this? This is what happens when you play this game, your imagination takes over to the point we have to imagine what all these scenes and things look like in our head, almost as if you're reading a book. Now we're at the point where we can actually see it. The problem however JWeinCom, is you. You don't have an imagination.

Dude.  I try not to do this, but I have a 148 IQ, 1410 on my SATs, top 7% of my LSATS (which I actually took while having a major depressive episode), have a bachelor's in English, a Master's in Education, and am top 10-15% in my law school.  I'm very capable of interpreting the English language, and conveying my thoughts in it. I generally don't try to point this out since it's close to an argument by authority fallacy, but if your only rebuttal to me is basically "you're dumb", I have pretty good reason to believe I'm not.

Does this mean I'm always right or clear?  Of course not, I'm not claiming to be perfect.  But, you're utterly refusing to engage with anything I actually said.  Labeling it as "stupid stuff" doesn't progress the conversation.  Granted, I called your post stupid, and you can call mine stupid if you like too.  I'm thick skinned, and have said stupid things before.  But, after calling your post stupid, I went through it on a point by point basis explaining why, then asked you questions to clarify what I didn't understand about your position. On the other hand you just posted the same thing I addressed already for a fourth time.  I'll give you a hint, if you post the same thing, I will reply with the same thing.  If you actually point out what part I'm misunderstanding, maybe I'll say something else.

You are continually responding to a point I never made.  I never said that people can't play FF7 and imagine stuff about it.  In fact I specifically said the opposite multiple times. Like in the last post.

"The issue isn't that one's imagination can't be sparked by Final Fantasy 7.  I never argued that point, even if you imagine I did."

Yet, after that you're somehow responding with "People play FF7 and imagine things!"  No shit.  You're still responding to what you're imagining I'm saying, and not what I'm actually saying.

Now focus on these next sentences. You can play Final Fantasy 7 and imagine things.  You can also do this with literally every other game.  That is not a special trait of Final Fantasy 7.  That is why I think your argument is stupid.

I can imagine what the characters in Zelda would look like in an HD game, or as stick figures, or in cel shading, as Lego men, if they were all incredibly obese, in claymation, or as anything else.  I can imagine what happened to Sheik during the 7 years Link was sealed in the temple of time.  I can imagine what would have happened if Link never opened the Temple of Time, and Ganondorf had to wage war the old fashioned way.  I could imagine things about literally every game that has ever been made.  I can make up a back story in my head about pong if I really wanted.  

And that's my point that I will repeat again.  The fact that you can imagine things about Final Fantasy 7 does not make it special in any way.  That is why I asked a CLARIFYING QUESTION which is WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND SOMEONE'S ARGUMENT.

So, I'll ask again.  Why is FF7 special in this regard?  What makes it more imaginatively engaging than Ocarina of Time, Chrono Cross, or any game from that era?  If we haven't seen FF7 have we seen any of those other games?

To be 100% clear, this is what I think is stupid about your argument, and that is why I'm asking a clarifying question to see if I am misunderstanding, or if it is indeed stupid.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 15 February 2020

Around the Network
Shiken said:
Hynad said:

You really have a stupid revisionist approach to history.

That you question FFVII’s mark on gaming history and what it achieved, out of bias and a clear need to contradict everyone, especially when it pits something against Nintendo or XBox, is really getting old and predictable.

There are a lot of people that feel FFVII is overrated.  There are a lot of people that feel OoT is overrated (not even in my top 5 Zelda games).  I fail to see how not thinking FFVII is that revolutionary is in any way anti Nintendo or XBox.

I mean FFVII is pretty much on all platforms now, so I really do not see why anyone would attack it for that reason.

A lot of people think that in order to praise something and recognize its impact, you need to bring something else down.

Many here lack the necessary mindset to be objective. Azzanation is one of them.



  • PSN: Hynad
  • NN: 3519-6016-4122
  • XBL: Hynad
  • Steam: Hynad81

LoD.
I only played some hours of OoT and I liked FF7 quite a bit (I would drop my initial score nowdays tho) but OoT looks like it might be a better game.
Now can OoT hold a candle to FF9? Hm... I'm not sure.
I really need to go and actually play it someday xD



Hynad said:

A lot of people think that in order to praise something and recognize its impact, you need to bring something else down.

Many here lack the necessary mindset to be objective. Azzanation is one of them.

Odd thing to say to someone who owns and finished these games mentioned and claimed there his favourite games.

Where am i downplaying? Because i said one game isnt that innovative? Its not, thats the simple fact here when comparing to Zelda OoT.

FF7 is owned and made by Sqaure, i compared it to Chrono Trigger which is another game owned and made by Square. Where does Nintendo and Xbox fall into this convo? 

And before you say FF7 is a PS1 exclusive, its not, it realised on PC so dont pretend i am doing this out of spite againt Sony.

Guessing everyone voting for Zelda is also bias against Sony. Dont take my word for it, Zelda OoT was considered by many critics and users as the greatest game of all time.

But you want my anwser, i say Chrono Trigger is the better game out of Zelda OoT and FF7 as i had more fun with it. 

So Square wins my vote over Nintendo, i must be bias.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 16 February 2020

JWeinCom said:
deskpro2k3 said:

Sounds like you have a lack of imagination.

There are things that invite the use of imagination.  Things that involve creation with no defined narrative- yes.  Things that do not involve any creation and have a very clearly defined narrative- not so much.

That's just you personally.

I create structures on a daily basis for work just out of my own mind,also played legos a lot as a kid but gaming and books can evenly or even on a bigger scale spark my imagination.



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
JWeinCom said:

There are things that invite the use of imagination.  Things that involve creation with no defined narrative- yes.  Things that do not involve any creation and have a very clearly defined narrative- not so much.

That's just you personally.

I create structures on a daily basis for work just out of my own mind,also played legos a lot as a kid but gaming and books can evenly or even on a bigger scale spark my imagination.

Personal interest is going to play a factor, so we can't say that one thing is going to inspire the imagination of people in all cases.  Some people might be inspired by things that would not normally inspire people... Like Seth in Superbad drawing endlessly creative penis drawings.  So, of course I wasn't trying to make a hard rule for all people.

But in general, the more that is given to you by the creator of something, the less your imagination will be engaged.  Definitely an oversimplification (something with too little to build off of might not inspire anyone at all for instance), but I think it's good enough for most purposes.

At any rate, when someone says that a particular game requires so much imagination that no one has actually seen it (whatever that means).  I would say that implies that there's something objectively special about this particular game that somehow makes it generally more imaginatively engaging than other games. Not that it's just something that strikes their fancy in particular.  Wouldn't you?  And I've been given no explanation as to why that would be aside from essentially you can play it and think of stuff... which would hold true for any game.  



Ff7 , its story and characters, its world settings and godlike music, its amazing battle system.



 

My youtube gaming page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/klaudkil

JWeinCom said:
KLAMarine said:

Hmm, looking at 1:23:00 and 1:25:00 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcSmu4jjmys . Doesn't look quite like z-targeting. Close though.

Doesn't have the visual indicator, and Mega Man has to be stationary when he uses it.  Other than that it's essentially the same.  

It isn't the same. The revolutionary thing is moving and fighting, while you still automatically face the enemy. That is something 3D action adventure games to this day use, and if not the controls are often deemed clunky and unintuitive. Nintendo talked about how they got inspired for this solution by watching a traditional japanese fight, where the contestants are bound to each other by a rope. That was their basic idea in implementing that.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

xl-klaudkil said:
Ff7 , its story and characters, its world settings and godlike music, its amazing battle system.

This is what I think. Final Fantasy VII is my favorite game ever.



Mnementh said:
JWeinCom said:

Doesn't have the visual indicator, and Mega Man has to be stationary when he uses it.  Other than that it's essentially the same.  

It isn't the same. The revolutionary thing is moving and fighting, while you still automatically face the enemy. That is something 3D action adventure games to this day use, and if not the controls are often deemed clunky and unintuitive. Nintendo talked about how they got inspired for this solution by watching a traditional japanese fight, where the contestants are bound to each other by a rope. That was their basic idea in implementing that.

Yeah it allowed more enemy designs and concepts to become possible lock on wasn't the innovation as that was introduced by Panzar Dragoon it was being able to lock on and move freely on the fly in combat that changed things as that was why OOT's fights and boss battles were on another level to other games of the time. As you mentioned games to this day still use the execution OOT brought out much like how game engines today take cues from SM64's engine another innovation by OOT was the introduction of an actual day and night cycle and one that influenced what was going on in the game at the time.