I'll leave that to mods to decide.

As I see it I was asking direct questions designed to point out the flaws I saw in your argument, and to seek clarification.  My main point was trying to get you to define what makes a fighting game, and why that minigame would qualify.  I don't see anything especially combatative about that.  Argumentative, sure.  I like arguing and make no apologies for it.  That's why I'm in law school right now... this is kind of what I want to do for a living.  I personally like defending points I make, and questioning those of others.  Anyone who does not is free to not engage.  And if I'm saying anything actually toxic, the report button exists. 

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's flawed or say it's ridiculous for example, like with the lego analogy. Or say this is not a fighting game and then downplay my statement with cheeky remarks like it's not a fun game. There are fighting games with different rules and even less controls, a fighting game is a game with close hand to hand combat. There I answered it.

I never came here to argue, and this is not a court of law, or law school and if you're not going to apologies then I will. got no problems with it.

If I don't understand something, then in my mind it's flawed, and I'm free to express my opinion.  In turn, you can explain why I'm mistaken and it's not flawed. For example, I think your definition is ridiculously broad, as it would seemingly include games that nobody would consider fighting games, like Double Dragon, Battletoads, Devil May Cry 3, Mario 64, and Donkey Kong 64, while excluding games like Bushido Blade. 

If you think your definition is not flawed, you are free to explain why not.  If you don't care enough to defend your point, you are free not to.  If you didn't come to argue, then don't.  If you just want to be able to say what you want to say and ignore any criticism then w/e.  I swear I'm not going to follow you to your home and force you to respond at gun point.  I enjoy stuff like this.  If you don't, then find something you'd rather do with your time.

Edit:  And btw, saying it wasn't fun is not a cheeky response.  You specifically brought it up to explain that FF7 has good things.  I would say a minigame being a "good" thing would entail being fun.  

I gave one example of what a fighting game is, and even THAT is NOT enough.

No, you don't say it's flawed or ridiculous and then expect an explanation in kindness, you're just inviting baseless arguments and derailments. This is not your personal law school. If I think your questioning is stupid, you can expect retaliatory response, and that is my choice to make. Again this is going no where. This is now I think the 3rd time I said you win. Feel free to have the closing argument.

Yes... you gave a definition.  And you think I should just accept it?  Apparently you think a mere assertion should be enough, and you should be beyond question.  That's not how it works.  I think it was a bad definition, and I explained precisely why I think that in what I feel was a perfectly respectful manner.  Instead of either acknowledging my criticism and adjusting your definition, or explaining why your definition actually is a good one, you instead, in your own words, retaliate.

And that's the problem.  Rebutting is what people do in civil discourse.  It is responding to the content of someone's argument.  Retaliation is what you do when  someone has done something to harm you.  It's by definition vindictive.  It's not what adults do when someone respectfully disagrees with them.

When you said we've never "seen" FF7, I explained that I thought that was flawed.  To illustrate this, I asked if the same statement could be made for any game.  The question was designed to illustrate the flaw in your argument.  Instead of responding to it, you insulted my intelligence, said I have no imagination, and I was just too simple to understand your masterful argument.

When someone genuinely asked you why you thought FF7's story was still impactful, instead of explaining why you thought the story was impactful, you responded "I tried to be nice, I really did, but listen let me make you understand something, let me explain to you why your little excuse is trash and a desperate attempt to downplay one of ff7 main attributes."  This is a completely out of line response to what was a perfectly respectful post.

When I questioned whether the minigame you mentioned as evidence of why FF7 is so good is actually a fighting minigame or whether it actually made the game better, instead of saying "it's a fighting game because..." you again insulted my intelligence, accused me of not understanding semitics (admittedly I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern cultures), questioned whether I completed kindergarten, and claimed I went "berserk" (Officer, it was terrible.  He was like a madman.  He asked me to describe the characteristics of a fighting game!  HE WAS A MADMAN!) 

It generally seems like you just don't like when anyone questions your opinions and if someone questions you, you "retaliate".  And that's part of why I wanted to respond.  Because this kind of behavior actually is toxic.  And unlike you, I'm not just "retaliating".  I'm explaining exactly why I find your behavior problematic, so that hopefully you'll reflect and become a better contributor.  

Just one more time. I promise.

That video just shows how there a lot of fans of FF VII and how that game is very important for a lot of people. Something I never denied to be truth. However, if by "impactful" you mean there are people who remembers it with passion, I inform you that Ocarina of Time is also a very important game for a lot of people and most of them still remember its story with passion (although let's face it: Ocarina of Time has a more simple story and characters). If Ocarina of Time would get a similar remake treatment as FF VII Remake, you would see the exact same reactions by people, if not even bigger. Also, saying that people have forgotten Wind Waker and Majora's Mask is hilarious, because for one, Majora's Mask story is one that leaved a very strong mark on people and two, these two games are incredibly loved by people. Story included.

That's the thing, and that's why this thread exist: both Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time are two games loved and remembered with passion more than 20 years after their release. Both games are great, both games are great on their genres and both games defined the gaming landscape on the late 90s on their respective platforms.

I get that FF VII was the first contact with a strong and powerful story for a lot of people at that time. But that is not really a strenght of the game itself... it's more like being in the right place at the right time. As you said, games like FF VI or Chrono Trigger existed before FF VII. Are those game's story less memorable or worse? No. They just weren't as popular. But being popular is not a strenght for a game being better or worse either.

Finally, I didn't twist or get something to "another level". In a discussion about which is the better game (Ocarina of Time or FF VII) you said: FF VII has better story, music, it has spin offs, a movie and an anime. It wins in all these cattegories". As if having spin offs, movies and an anime would be something to consider when we are talking about the quality of a single game. That is my whole problem with your statement: these things have nothing to to with which game is better.

Also, you said you mentioned spin offs and such just as "facts" and I made a whole world of it, but the truth is the moment you put these things in the same bag as "music and story" and end with "it wins in all these categories", you are not just mentioning the facts, you are implying that having spin offs, movies and animes is an aspect as important as music and story when discussing an indiviual game. Which is completely idiotic.

Finally, using minigames in order to make FF VII gameplay look better than Ocarina of Time is also pretty stupid. Specially when some of those minigames have the depth of puddle in a slightly rainy day.

I get it, you love FF VII and you are wetting your pants for the arrival of FF VII Remake. That's absolutely great: FF VII is an awesome game (that I don't like, but the game is great regardless) and the remake is looking nice and sharp. But if you are going to make a case for it over Ocarina of Time, I think you chose a poor set of arguments.

And now I'm really done.

People talking subjectively about what they claim is objectivity: The Thread

The last 1/3 of final fantasy 7 story was actually horrible and I’m not sure why people forget it. I guess cloud’s character development does hide it a bit

I am a big, big fan of Nintendo franchises, specially Zelda but, OoT is one of the most overrated games of all time. It's linear, puzzle infested and too easy. OoT to me marks the beginning of the decline of Zelda up until the incredible comeback with BotW.

On the other hand FF7 is probably my favorite Jrpg of all time.

True,we are all blinded by nostalgia.

FF7 had such a huge emotional impact on me that i even doubt my own opinion of it.