If we accept that games as art is indicative of a state of being that exists separately from the narrative tropes of theater and literature, then most RPGs (particular Japanese RPGs) are about as far as you can get. Even FFXII's narrative mode borrows heavily from European theater and fails to differentiate itself in meaningful ways. Games are not art because of their stories, games are art because they are games and because they can exist as things other than stories.

RPGs do not have "bad gameplay", nor is it less important for this genre than in any other. The texture of Japanese RPGs in terms of gameplay is very different, and to many they may seem subtle, but few games in the same genre play less similarly than do Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.

Yeah, no kidding. The series has been singleplayer since Pokemon Red first released in 1996 (Japan release). It only recently added online. I'm sure it's incredibly complex online. I'm sure there's a lot of complexity in deciding which Pokemon has the best stats, and which of the 4 moves your Pokemon is allowed to have are the best. Point is, the core of the game is incredibly basic and boring.

And Naznatips, please calm down. Your behavior today has been very inappropriate for an administrator. I'm scared to write this because I'm afraid you'll ban me just for telling you this.

That you would beat me is almost reflexive, as I haven't competed in quite some time, but that doens't change the fact that this is primarily because I lack the Pokemon-specific game theory knowledge to counter the strategies intrinsic to the gametype.

Chances of FFXIII being the best final fantasy game? Slim to none.

Let's face it, they'll always be fan boys of the original games that will always view them as greater games than the new ones. I for one love final fantasy 6 more than any game in the series. Will that change after 13? I highly, highly doubt it.

Good gameplay makes an RPG good. Good story and characters make it timeless. The examples are endless. People play RPG's to immerse themselves in a foreign, unique experience. Yeah, stat-building, levelling, and equipment and all that are fun, but that's what make it a game rather than an interactive novel; it still isn't the core of the RPG. RPG's are, at their best, interactive stories; the gameplay further invests you in the narrative and progression. Not understanding this doesn't make you out of touch, it just means you aren't a hardcore RPG fan.

Obviously the better the gameplay the better the game, regardless of genre. My point is that there is a reason why horrible, boring games like Final Fantasy 7 are still so acclaimed, why (by modern standards) games as techinically deficient as Chrono Trigger are still so beloved.

This is a bit tangential, but consider, say, "games" like the Ace Attorney games: almost no gameplay to speak of. Just awesome characters, crafty logic, gripping storytelling, and perfect music. And each of those 4 are in my top 10 games for this generation.

"Game" is a vague term, especially in today's market. Attempting to enforce strictures on "games" by claiming that gameplay must come first and foremost is a stubborn, unilateral view that will never allow games to progress into anything more than mindless electronic experiences with the emotional depth of Pacman.

Don't ignore good advice. You still have no idea what you are talking about. Pokemon stats are not static. IVs (born traits) and EVs (raised traits) allow the stats for the same Pokemon at the same level to varry wildly from one other, depending on how it was bred, and how it was raised. Every Pokemon, competitive or not, can be built with multiple play styles, most of which are completely different from each other. There are no "4 best moves" for a Pokemon. Pokemon has been played online for more than half a decade. http://www.smogon.com/ Look around that site for a while before you say something ignorant again.

@ Khuutra the "handful of Pokemon" in OU is over 75, and there is an entirely different metagame for UU which numbers well over 150, and each of these Pokemon has multiple possible strategies of varrying complexities. Again, ignorance is not something you want to show in public. Your condescending comments about the strategies imply it's something learned overnight, but new ones are created constantly, and there are already hundreds of basic strategies which can be tweaked into infinite detail based on the player's preference. Please take the same advice I gave Montana.

0% for me. sorry but SE cant compete with the awesome games squaresoft made in ff4, 7, and 9.

To continue what I was saying above: as I often do when I type things quickly and thoughtlessly, I misspoke. Obviously gameplay matters in RPG's; it matters very much. It is not, however, essential that it be surpassingly good, as narrative and characters often merit a slog through a gameplay-wise banal RPG.

Emotional resonance is what can propel games into something timeless enough to be critically considered "art", and emotional resonance does not come from gameplay. If we connect with the characters, the story; if the synergy between music and narrative creates an emotional impression on us that can, years later, be stirred by the opening notes of the same song, THAT, I believe, is a measure of an RPG's success.

The mindless, level-grinding aspect of RPG's has never appealed to me. Nor have excruciating, endless sidequests that do nothing but unneccesarily power-up already super-powered post-endgame characters. Maybe I'm in the minority in this.

Very few RPG's achieve this, but they are the ones that we remember. Tales of Phantasia unquestionably has more enjoyable gameplay than broken, repetitive Final Fantasy 6, but who the hell cites Tales of Phantasia as their favorite game ever? Who the hell leans back and says "Yeah, I remember getting my 13th pokemon to level 100. So fucking memorable.". No, we STILL, as a gaming community, always come back to the personally affecting moments like "Holy SHIT, that was ridiculous when Sephiroth killed Aeris".

I've restated this so many times that it's starting to feel like an adage, but great gameplay makes an RPG transiently great. Great story and characters make it timeless.

I can see that I have failed to make myself clear.

The limited options available to a Pokemon team and the limited scope in which battles can take place is what limits the game strategically. The reason the tier is called "Over Used" is... well, you get the idea. More, the "75" number is misleading in that each of your 6 Pokemon has to fit into specific niches in order to be competitively viable. All the options in the world don't matter once you identify the specific roles that a Pokemon is set down in order to play.

Pokemon's simplicity does not mean that the metagame is simplistic. It just means that the complexity of the metagame arises out of the application of game theory, not anything inherent to the mechanics of the game itself.

Don't misunderstand me: the metagame for Pokemon is indeed complex, and the game theory involved can take a while to learn. However, the core mechanics are still exceedingly simple. Nothing is going to change this fact.