Sure it will, just like Crash Bandicoot Racing outsold Mario Kart :P

I never said that WRPGs were any different.  It's the same with any of those, or like I said.... any D20 system.  If you dislike one D20 system you probably dislike them all.  Gameplay wise.

As for... P&P... I'm guessing you mean D&D... that's a TOTALLY different situation storywise.   D&D is an example of interactive storytelling at it's best... with the right DM.

The GM sets up the the background... however, the players make the story.  The DM may send you off to kill a warlock, but the character reactions, how they act, and even what they do are all up to the players.  They might not even ever get around to it.  They might end off on the other part of the world doing whatever.

MUD's are extremely similiar, since unlike MMORPGs, players interactions with each other, in a talking manner seems most important.

Such games are organic.  Even then if you aren't much for interactivity...

Bastion I hear is another great example of interactive storytelling, but I haven't played it, and I imagine if you get stuck at a part, so does the narration... can't really speak to it.

My frame of refrence is "All of the above."  In the greater RPG landscape, Final Fantasy(main) games are all very similar gameplay and story wise.  It's the same for basically every series of games... outside ones that have had drastic reboots, ala Fallout.

Final Fantasy tends to be like a movie... used to be like books.  (Most other games that try to be like movies tend to be shorter.  For example your God of War/MGS4.

Most JRPGS tend to be like Anime.

Most WRPGs try to be like Pen & Paper RPGS.. but tend to fail short due to lack of abiity to program well, any human action ever.

Then there are some games where they don't try to make the story like anything, except there, because you'd notice if there wasn't anything.  (Borderlands, Mario games (not an RPG but you get the point... Mario RPG actually argueably meant to be an anime/cartoon.)

Not... really.  They're all just very similar.  Like pretty much most any franchise.

They are much more closley related to each other, then they are other rpgs. 

Therefore if you don't like something systematic at it's core, you probably aren't going to like FF games in general.

Examples being the movie style presneation and the very similar gameplay.

Hell, i've played most of the final fantasy games largely because I liked the very similar gameplay... even the ones I didn't like because of the stories presentation.  Similar ain't bad.  It's just.  Similar.

I mean shit, look at Fire Emblem.  Love Fire Emblem.  Don't tell me those games aren't similar.  Tweaks to the battle system, here and there.  The characters... are practically all the same game to game down to freakin color coding... etc.

If you don't like one Fire Emblem.  You probably aren't going to like any of them.

I really don't get it though. Take Final Fantasy IV. Now take Final Fantasy X (the one mnemeth played). How are the stories similar?

I understand what you mean by "JRPGs tend to be like Anime", in that there is a lot of pulp and clichés. But that's a similarity of characteristics in style, not a proof for similarity of storyline, plot or screenplay.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're mixing things up. Granted, the "make your own quest" you're describing of D&D is more reminiscent of Deus Ex or  Fable (I have barely played Fable and never played DEx, but I've heard of it). Sure, Final Fantasy doesn't have that, but it easily could, that's just a design choice. Being JRPG doesn't limit that kind of design architecture, as much as being a JRPG doesn't dictate the fighting style of such a game (see Valkyrie Profile versus FF1-X). 

So all in all, apart from the "choose your own quest" that you don't have in FF1-X, I don't see the case for Mnemeth not wanting to try another FF. The stories, themes, atmosphere, the leveling and magic systems are completely different in both games, it would be like earth to mars.

Well first off... the levleing and magic systems aren't completely different.   Theyre 85-90% the same game to game with very minor tweaks.

Secondly... before going into a long thing about themes, settings, tied together concepts and the like...

are you telling me if Final Fantasy games weren't titled "Final Fantasy" you wouldn't know they had the same developer/were the same franchise?

I could.  Just how I could tell Final Fantasy Tactics was made by the Ogre Battle crew without knowing going in ahead of time.

I won't argue about the leveling systems too too much, and would agree with you on that (that's why I didn't bring it up), bar 1 exception: keep in mind that in FFVIII, the enemies level with you, so that radically affects the levelling strategy in the game. You can finish the game low level iirc, and even level up super high begining of the game pretty easily (it's been a while tho).

The magic system though... I'm not really familiar with too many other RPGs except really pokemon (I played Pokemon Red). You gain skills by evolving (levelling up mostly), and use spell points to use them. I don't see how that's any more unique though. I played Vagrant Story, and some Ogre Batlle, I don't remember things being so different. Gain a skill, cast with MP.

But in FFX, gaining a skill is very different than say FFIV or Pokemon Red. You don't just level your character to gain skills. You need to use a large grid and gain points to move in that grid to gain a specific ability. It's very unique. In FFVIII, you had to draw magic from the creatures you ran into. You could then map your drawn magic on weapons and stats (it's been a while), and then affect your stats using magic. It played a very different role there. Also, in FFVI, you had to level your magic before you could use it. That was never seen before in Final Fantasy until then. Before that, it was just regular leveling up that made you gain abilities. You also had to find espers in order to obtain them. Again, another system.

Oh, I forgot to mention... In FFI to III, you had to buy your magic, so that's already very different from FFIV. But you couldn't use that magic unless your char was high enough level (exp level), so that is a similarity with FFIV.

In Final Fantasy II, in order to boost your weapons you had to use them. You basically leveled your weapons. I can't remember how magic worked, I think you had to buy it and it went down with use, but it's been a long time since I played that on emulator (I was 16).

In Final Fantasy VII, you obtained magic by finding magical rocks called materia (not by leveling up), and you had to equip them to your gear in order to use them. Depending on where they were equipped, the magic materia served different purposes (as far as I remember).

All in all, there are many unique differences that make certain entries in FF worth playing even if another one didn't suit your needs.

(I can't remember how magic worked in FF3j and 5, was it the cast type you chose that gave you your magic abilities as you exp leveled up? idk)

It all depends. If you're looking at it from a UI perspective, then again it depends which games.

Between FFs 1-IV, I would say the battle and map UI looks very similar. Too similar to say it's not from the same developer. However, Story-wise, I couldn't say FFIV was made by the same guys who made FF1, not even FF2 and 3, they are so different from FF1. Even FF3 is so different from FF2. I would only say maybe story-wise FF3j, FFIV and FFVI are similar in that there is a world, an underworld and an extra world (FFIV only, the moon), and cataclysms (I don't really remember FFV, don't even think I finished it I didn't like it).

FFVII is a huge departure from the series in terms of graphics and story, so no at that point I wouldn't be able to tell that FFVII and FFIV are made by the same company. You could say that FFVI and FFVII could more easily be identified as coming from the same developer due to the medieval+sci-fi feel, as well as the more political and relatable characters, situations and storyline. FFVIII is another huge departure, so it would be hard to tell it's the same franchise as the other games, and FFIX brings us back to the past, so maybe it's more similar to FF1 or FFIV in a sense. FFX is a huge departure, I wouldn't be able to tell it was the same dev as FFIV, but I could maybe say it had the same dev as FFVIII to be fully honest.

So, yeah there is lots of variability to confuse an outlooker, definintely. Good question though!

A) Well first off... in Ogre Battle characters start out with 0 MP... and gain MP as the battle goes.

Though that's not what I mean.  The general "Melee vs Magic" balance has pretty much always stayed the same.  The numbers change but the basic mechanics and battle feel stayed the same.

The way you may have got the spells may have been different, but the ways the spells acted and scaled with melee more or less was exactly the same.  Other turn based RPGs have hugely different ratios, spell setups and spell functions.

If I set up any 3 final fantasy battle systems alongside earthbound, gave them the exact same UIs... you would be able to pickout Earthbound as the one that is seperate from the others.  Even if it had FF style graphics/music etc.

A small tweak or two on how you get your skills is largely pointless if at the end of the day, the way the battle feels isn't fun.

B)   You might not be able too... I could.  The only Final Fantasy games that would really throw me off are Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy 12, and only then because you see huge thematic borrowing and tones from the Ogre Battle series due to Matsuno originally being an outside force that was later brought in and had to adjust to final fantasy like themes.

I'm trying to think how best to explain this.  A good example I suppose is Aaron Sorkin.

Sports Night, the West Wing and Studo 54 (51? something like that) and even the Social network.... were all about WIDELY different.

One was about a Sportscenter like Show,  One was around being President, one about Saturday Night live and one about Facebook.

All widely different themes.

To a TV critic, they would instantly recognize Sorkins work no matter the theme.  Due to the pacing, dialgoue, specific archetypes and just how characters react in similar situations.

Aaron Sorkin is a fairly diversive character, with many people disliking his works specifically due to the tendencies found within his works that give them a unifying element.   For some people, if you don't like West Wing, you aren't going to like any of them.

The same can be said for a lot of TV directors and movie directors whose apprenteices go on and make very similar projects because they all "grew up" in that same atmosphere.

Joss Whedon is another easy example for one who's similarities particularly stand out from show to show.

Or if your a comic book fan... Rob Loeb, John Bryne, Frank Miller... they're good examples.  An indepth comic book fan can know a Frank Miller story without ever reading who wrote it.   Whether it be Sin City, Batman, 300 or Conan.  A lot of people can't stand Frank Miller because of certain basics that permeate all of his work.

I'd go into a long analysis but to be hoenst with you, to do it right, I'd probably need to replay and videocap footage from every final fantasy to show common themes, and reactions, and probably if I wanted to do it right, show some similar situations from other RPGS in which characters and dialogue are drastically different...

ala a piece I read a while back but can't seem to find about how Soprano's and Breaking Bad both represent the authors differing views on the nature of man.

It'd be interesting, but honsetly, not worth the effort.

Point is... despite the setting... a final fantasy character, acts like a final fantasy character.   There is a presentation difference starting in 7 to a more movie like format thanks to Fmvs and the like, but final fantasy characters act like final fantasy characters.

I don't think we'll resolve this question any time soon, because it's a complex one, but let's chew the fat.

I think that Cecil and kain behaved very differently from say Zell and Squall (just two chars from a same franchise don't make too much out of it). In FFIV, Cecil had a very sacrificial personality and one of self-improvement, Kain was valiant and self-defeatist, due to his treacherous personality. Squall was a very shy and mostly confused individual, and Zell, well he was a try-to-hard, and yes he and Squall held certain japanese anime clichés. But I found for instance the world of FFIV to be very different from the world of FFVIII, and their characters and the intrigue to be of a whole different nature.

FFIV introduced a spell called reflect. I think it was also in FFI, but it didn't work all that well iirc.

Reflect was a key spell in defeating certain enemies and making your way to the end of the game. (like defeating masks) So in terms of new spells, I think there were some breakthroughs here and there.

Even though the FFs have differences in nature between each other, it's true that you couldn't ever think the people who made Final Fantasy VII were the same guys that made Uncharted. Then again, that same theme of Valiance and honor you find in final fantasy, with all its hyperboles, you also found in games like Ogre Battle 64 or Valkyrie profile. Even Secret of Mana had that similar anime feel to FF, despite being a whole separate game (closer to action-adventure than RPG). And yes I'm aware it's also made by squaresoft.

What other differences, apart from story vibe and certain minor technical gameplay differences (starting with 0MP at battle start) are you looking for, and how do different entries in other series differentiate themselves (say, baldurs gate, or the different flavors of Nethack). It's easy to call one series out for being similar, but how do the others that mnemeth probably plays through (all entries in a series), how do they fair?

Once again

A) I never called out Final Fantasy for being similar.  I simply said it was, and if you like one you probably aren't going to like another one.  There is no difference between it and say Baldurs gate.  There is a lot about Baldurs gate, that if you don't like a sepcific thing, you aren't going to like ANY Baldurs gate.

B) The whole literary theme angle seems to be going over your head, your 27, have you ever had a in college that talks about themes in works and in general how?

I'm not looking for anything.  Quite the opposite.  I think people often go to far in trying to change something up that works.

I just recognize that similar things are similar, and often times not liking one can mean you won't like them all because of prevelent themes that permiate a work.