Just got Tales of Symphonia 2. A rant.

[Lunar Eclipse]

You may have a point with Rebirth, but not so much Destiny. Even though I love Destiny, it had it's shot in the states and got poor sales and only a 76/100 review average. The PS2 remake would most likely score around the same as the vast majority of remakes score around the same or lower. That would already turn away a lot of general RPG fans, as people tend to view games in the 7 range as average.

Destiny PSX and Destiny PS2 are hardly alike, particularly in battle system and graphics. A lot of people dislike Destiny and love Destiny R. I mean, yeah, the crux of the story would still be there, but if it were brought over today, it'd have what's considered one of the best battle systems in the series (rather than one of the worst), nicely blended 2-D and 3-D graphics, intact skits, and a much better localization all going for it.

By the way, which games did each team make?

The original Phantasia was created by Wolfteam, which broke up due to a lot of conflict over the final product. Many of the members of Wolfteam later went on to create the Star Ocean series. The original Destiny and Eternia were simply done by Namco Tales Studio in general (or whatever they were called at that point), but by the time Destiny 2 rolled around, two distinct teams began to form, one being Team Destiny and the other Team Symphonia. I don't think Destiny 2 was actually credited as Team Destiny, but it had most of the staff that would become Team Destiny. At any rate, Destiny produced Rebirth, Destiny Remake, Hearts, and Graces. Symphonia produced Symphonia, Abyss, and Vesperia. Team Melfes, an internal team from Namco not actually part of Namco Tales Studio, worked on Legendia and nothing else. Alfa Systems, another non-Namco Tales Studio developer, works on most of the modern escorts, including the Radiant Mythologies and VS. They also did Innocence. GiMPS did Tempest and was never really heard from again. Dawn of the New World was actually produced internally by Namco Tales Studio like most motherships, but it retained only key staff from the original game (scenario writers, etc.) and employed a lot of new labor for the actual creation process.

They're still fanboys dude. I don't take fanboys seriously, even when discussing their favorite series. They still use extreme bias to put their favorite game on top. Just look back at my FF6 vs. FF7 example where they bashed Sephiroth, while severely over hyping Kefka. Going with hardcore fanboys is never a good idea.

That's a pointless argument. Everyone has different favorites. I'm not a major fan of Final Fantasy, but I still have an opinion on which I like best. Whether or not "fanboys" are more vocal about their opinions is beside the point. Anyone is biased based on his or her personal predilections regardless of attachment to the series. That's not going to change the poll results. It's like you're arguing that you have to not play the games and not form an opinion on them in order to get an accurate read of general opinion, which is silly because then there'd be no data to gather.

The story and characters are highly flawed though. Not to mention that the game ret-cons some things(which is the sign of a poor writer).

The producer and I believe some of the key writers were the same for both Symphonia and Dawn. If anything was "retconned", they meant to do it. Plus, all of the retconning I recall was done to make it so that Symphonia actually makes sense within the Aselian universe. Symphonia produced gaping plotholes when you tried to relate it back to Phantasia, so Dawn actually fixed most of those. If anything, it was covering up for Symphonia's shoddy treatment of continuity.

And, for the quadrillionth time, the story and characters being flawed is only your opinion of the characters, etc. They don't have any inherent problems. You just don't like their personalities, which is fine. Just say that you disliked them rather than calling them fundamentally flawed.

I also don't agree with your view that how good a story is, comes down to preference. Take Eternal Sonata for example. I started replaying the game on the PS3. I'm liking it A LOt now. I fricking love Crescendo, Jazz, Frederick, Viola, and Serenade. However, the plot is still pure garbage. It does make more sense now with the new scenes, but it's still 95% filler. Having 95% of the plot not even matter is an objective flaw, no matter how you look at it. I'm starting to love the game now, but even I would give it low marks in story. Not that any of the Tales games go to that extreme(Abyss drags on for an extremely long time though), but you get my point. It is possible for one story to be objectively better than another.

Yes, it's possible for one to be objectively better, but what's wrong with Dawn's story? You bring up the example of Eternal Sonata, but none of the issues there have anything to do with Dawn. The story isn't filler, and there's nothing objectively bad about it unless you're just sitting there not clicking with the characters or the theme.

And I'm really not trying to argue that Dawn is better here. I'm just saying that there's no intrinsic problem with it that would prevent someone from liking it more.

Yeah, like 6/10 passable...

I really wish you'd actually make a statement about what's wrong with it instead of constantly deferring to review scores that mean pretty much nothing.

Grandia and Shadow Hearts are great and they use these things. It came across as lazy in Symphonia 2 though, as the Tales series uses a world map. The story was also just an obvious add on, and would have worked better as a stand alone game rather than a direct sequel. It wasn't planned out, and ruined the integrity of Symphonia's story with it's obvious ret-cons...

Tales escorts almost always use a point-and-click map, so I still don't see how it's an immediate indicator of laziness, particularly when I'd prefer they omit it considering we've already gone through the tedium of exploring the Aselian overworld in two separate games.

And again, any major retcons are because Symphonia ruined the integrity of Aselia first.

[brightshield]

it'd have what's considered one of the best battle systems in the series (rather than one of the worst),

Not at all. If it got released after Symphonia here, the fact that it went back to 2d would already be considered a huge step backwards.


nicely blended 2-D and 3-D graphics,

They still aren't very impressive for a PS2 game.


intact skits, and a much better localization all going for it.

It would have these things.


The original Phantasia was created by Wolfteam, which broke up due to a lot of conflict over the final product. Many of the members of Wolfteam later went on to create the Star Ocean series. The original Destiny and Eternia were simply done by Namco Tales Studio in general (or whatever they were called at that point), but by the time Destiny 2 rolled around, two distinct teams began to form, one being Team Destiny and the other Team Symphonia. I don't think Destiny 2 was actually credited as Team Destiny, but it had most of the staff that would become Team Destiny. At any rate, Destiny produced Rebirth, Destiny Remake, Hearts, and Graces. Symphonia produced Symphonia, Abyss, and Vesperia. Team Melfes, an internal team from Namco not actually part of Namco Tales Studio, worked on Legendia and nothing else. Alfa Systems, another non-Namco Tales Studio developer, works on most of the modern escorts, including the Radiant Mythologies and VS. They also did Innocence. GiMPS did Tempest and was never really heard from again. Dawn of the New World was actually produced internally by Namco Tales Studio like most motherships, but it retained only key staff from the original game (scenario writers, etc.) and employed a lot of new labor for the actual creation process.

Cool, I gotcha.


That's a pointless argument. Everyone has different favorites. I'm not a major fan of Final Fantasy, but I still have an opinion on which I like best. Whether or not "fanboys" are more vocal about their opinions is beside the point. Anyone is biased based on his or her personal predilections regardless of attachment to the series.

It's what they said that made them blind fanboys. I'll post it again.

FF6 fans claim that Sephiroth isn't extremely deep. Okay, that's a fair assessment, as he's not as deep as someone like Krelian from Xenogears. However, he's far deeper than Kefka. They say it's okay for Kefka not to have any depth... but it's a major flaw for Sephiroth to not have a lot of depth(even though he's far deeper than Kefka).


If anything was "retconned", they meant to do it.

Yeah, because they wanted more money. All kinds of crappy ret-cons were thrown in to extend a storyline which was clearly over. It was pure milking, that's what I've been getting at for a while now.


Plus, all of the retconning I recall was done to make it so that Symphonia actually makes sense within the Aselian universe. Symphonia produced gaping plotholes when you tried to relate it back to Phantasia, so Dawn actually fixed most of those. If anything, it was covering up for Symphonia's shoddy treatment of continuity.

Symphonia and Phantasia should have never been connected to begin with. They shared names and such, but that's all it should have been. Kind of a spiritual successor to Phantasia rather than a prequel. This was as ridiculous as when Kitase said that FF7 and FF10 were directly connected.

Also, what the hell did Dawn fix? It was there to extend a finished plotline, not connect Symphonia to Phantasia.


And, for the quadrillionth time, the story and characters being flawed is only your opinion of the characters, etc. They don't have any inherent problems. You just don't like their personalities, which is fine. Just say that you disliked them rather than calling them fundamentally flawed.

If you relate it back to the original game, most of these characters are flawed. Many of them act nothing like they did in Symphonia. Not to mention, that most of the cast did nothing. They were there only to make fans of the first game "happy". Ratatosk himself was ret-conned into the story, as was Richter.


Yes, it's possible for one to be objectively better, but what's wrong with Dawn's story?

This was in reference to you saying that story and characters are all preference, but yeah I'd also say that Symphonia's plot and characters are objectively superior. The vast majority of critics and fans would agree as well.


And I'm really not trying to argue that Dawn is better here. I'm just saying that there's no intrinsic problem with it that would prevent someone from liking it more.

It's much like FF7 Advent Children. It changes character personalities, tries to extend a story that was clearly over, adds extremely shallow characters that obviously weren't originally intended to be a part of the plot etc. I can go on on if you want me to. Like I said, it would have worked better as a stand alone game, rather than being the sequel to Symphonia. Hell, it would have worked a lot better if took place 100 years after Symphonia.


I really wish you'd actually make a statement about what's wrong with it instead of constantly deferring to review scores that mean pretty much nothing.

I'm not using review scores here. You just said passable, so I pointed out that passable is only like 6/10. 7 is good, 8 is great, 9 is amazing, 10 is almost perfect. At least that's how I see it.

[Shiva Indis]

it'd have what's considered one of the best battle systems in the series (rather than one of the worst),

Not at all. If it got released after Symphonia here, the fact that it went back to 2d would already be considered a huge step backwards.


nicely blended 2-D and 3-D graphics,

They still aren't very impressive for a PS2 game.


intact skits, and a much better localization all going for it.

It would have these things.

Awesome, something for me to interject about! (I like Destiny, Rebirth and the like and I'm indifferent to Symphonia, etc.) Your opinions probably represent the average American game consumer well, and illustrate why Namco stopped bothering with the non-3D Tales games in the West. But LE's not wrong about the Destiny remake. Fans with access to the whole series regard the remake battle system highly for its speed and the breadth of what you can do with it. And the visuals impressed me - I've never seen sprites and polygonal environments better integrated than that.

But who cares, right? As you point out 2D of any sort doesn't have merit, let alone selling power. And now my two cents are on the table. ^_^

[brightshield]

Your opinions probably represent the average American game consumer well, and illustrate why Namco stopped bothering with the non-3D Tales games in the West.

I guess.


But LE's not wrong about the Destiny remake. Fans with access to the whole series regard the remake battle system highly for its speed and the breadth of what you can do with it.

I still think the return to 2d would be regarded as a step backwards for the series, but it'd probably still be a lot of fun. There is no doubt in my mind that the remake is better, but you have to take into account that standards have also been significantly raised. So the game would still probably score about the same as the original.


And the visuals impressed me - I've never seen sprites and polygonal environments better integrated than that.

Maybe, but it's not exactly living up to the power of the PS2.


But who cares, right? As you point out 2D of any sort doesn't have merit, let alone selling power. And now my two cents are on the table. ^_^

Personally, I love 2d sprites. They're just not that impressive from a technical stand point.

[Lunar Eclipse]

Not at all. If it got released after Symphonia here, the fact that it went back to 2d would already be considered a huge step backwards.

Not really. As Shiva pointed out, it's considered to be one of the best for speed and whatnot, plus a lot people prefer the CC system it introduced to TP. Though it's not 3-D, it makes use of far more than the single line by introducing aerial combat (plus a lot of the aerial mechanics like Aiming Step, etc.). Team Symphonia's idea of working with the battle system has been to construct a 3-D arena and then to just continually tweak the mechanics whereas Team Destiny's approach has been to keep the concept of 2-D but to simply use that space differently. We saw it in Destiny R with the allowance for complete movement through the entire space (up, down, left right) thanks to aerial combat, and we saw it in Rebirth with the idea of the three line system, which introduced interesting mechanics for spell aiming and flanking your enemy. Just because a battle system is three-dimensional doesn't mean that it's superior. I mean, just look at Valkyrie Profile. I much preferred the original game's 2-D battle system to the 3-D interpretation of it in Silmeria.

It's what they said that made them blind fanboys. I'll post it again.

FF6 fans claim that Sephiroth isn't extremely deep. Okay, that's a fair assessment, as he's not as deep as someone like Krelian from Xenogears. However, he's far deeper than Kefka. They say it's okay for Kefka not to have any depth... but it's a major flaw for Sephiroth to not have a lot of depth(even though he's far deeper than Kefka).

You've said it again, but that doesn't mean it makes any more sense. That's their opinion. Polls gather opinions. Why would you discount an opinion simply because someone liked Final Fantasy 6 more than 7, regardless of their statements on the depth of the villains? Even if you could make a case for one villain over another, that person is still probably going to like FF6 more because he or she just responded better to that game. For instance, as I've said many times, I understand the objective shortcomings of a game like Tales of Legendia, but that doesn't stop it from being my favorite game in the series, subjectively speaking. When I vote in a poll asking for my opinion, I offer up the subjective response. It doesn't mean that I can't talk objectively about issues with the game, but it's still my opinion, and it's not any less valid than yours just because you have the almighty review score to back you up.

Symphonia and Phantasia should have never been connected to begin with. They shared names and such, but that's all it should have been. Kind of a spiritual successor to Phantasia rather than a prequel. This was as ridiculous as when Kitase said that FF7 and FF10 were directly connected.

I can agree with this to an extent. Phantasia didn't need a prequel, and if it'd had one, it should've been about the Ragnarok War instead of some random time long ago.

Also, what the hell did Dawn fix? It was there to extend a finished plotline, not connect Symphonia to Phantasia.

The fact that the tree dies in Phantasia yet only magic and mana die with it, not the world itself? If we went by Symphonia's continuity, the worlds should no longer have sufficient mana to remain bound together without the tree's aid, and yet the world seems perfectly capable of sustaining itself even after the massive magitechnology explosion in Midgard pretty much dooms the tree until Mint changes history. Dawn's ending unhinges the planet's fate from the tree's fate, so Phantasia is then free to make sense, or, rather, Symphonia is free to make sense in the context of Phantasia's preestablished universal laws.

If you relate it back to the original game, most of these characters are flawed. Many of them act nothing like they did in Symphonia.

I found they were all pretty samey aside from Lloyd. Maybe the new voice cast is skewing your judgment here slightly?

Ratatosk himself was ret-conned into the story ...

I wouldn't call this retconning. We already know from Phantasia that other summon spirits exist in Aseliaverse, so it's never a stretch to add new ones. Aside from Symphonia's Efreet, Undine, Gnome, Sylph, Volt, Celsius, Luna, Aska, Shadow, Maxwell, Origin, and Verrius, Phantasia also includes Chameleon, Gremlin Lair, and Pluto, plus Phantasia omits Celsius and Verrius entirely. Ratatosk also existing isn't out of line with either story, really.

And I'll continue to state that even if you can successfully argue that certain points of a story are objectively better, everyone is still entitled to a personal, subjective opinion. You can't just rant that no one should be able to like the story or characters because you see some objective deficiencies. And the original Symphonia has its fair share of objective deficiencies as well.

[brightshield]

Not really. As Shiva pointed out, it's considered to be one of the best for speed and whatnot, plus a lot people prefer the CC system it introduced to TP. Though it's not 3-D, it makes use of far more than the single line by introducing aerial combat (plus a lot of the aerial mechanics like Aiming Step, etc.). Team Symphonia's idea of working with the battle system has been to construct a 3-D arena and then to just continually tweak the mechanics whereas Team Destiny's approach has been to keep the concept of 2-D but to simply use that space differently. We saw it in Destiny R with the allowance for complete movement through the entire space (up, down, left right) thanks to aerial combat, and we saw it in Rebirth with the idea of the three line system, which introduced interesting mechanics for spell aiming and flanking your enemy. Just because a battle system is three-dimensional doesn't mean that it's superior.

Alright you've got me here. I've never actually played Destiny R, so I guess I can't fairly comment on it's battle system.


I mean, just look at Valkyrie Profile. I much preferred the original game's 2-D battle system to the 3-D interpretation of it in Silmeria.

Okay, yeah. I've got no choice but to say you're 100% right about this. Silmeria's system was crap in comparison.


You've said it again, but that doesn't mean it makes any more sense. That's their opinion. Polls gather opinions. Why would you discount an opinion simply because someone liked Final Fantasy 6 more than 7, regardless of their statements on the depth of the villains?

Because their statement made them blind fanboys. If in their opinion, depth = how good a villain is; then Sephiroth > Kefka by their own logic.


Even if you could make a case for one villain over another, that person is still probably going to like FF6 more because he or she just responded better to that game.

I don't care if they like 6 more. My problem with them is that they bash 7 for certain things that it did objectively better than 6. Depth of the main villain just being one of them.


I can agree with this to an extent. Phantasia didn't need a prequel, and if it'd had one, it should've been about the Ragnarok War instead of some random time long ago.

Yeah. Personally, I always believed Symphonia to be more of a throwback to Phantasia, rather than a prequel(much like FF9). I only found out it was a prequel on gamefaqs.


The fact that the tree dies in Phantasia yet only magic and mana die with it, not the world itself? If we went by Symphonia's continuity, the worlds should no longer have sufficient mana to remain bound together without the tree's aid, and yet the world seems perfectly capable of sustaining itself even after the massive magitechnology explosion in Midgard pretty much dooms the tree until Mint changes history. Dawn's ending unhinges the planet's fate from the tree's fate, so Phantasia is then free to make sense, or, rather, Symphonia is free to make sense in the context of Phantasia's preestablished universal laws.

There's a 1000 year gap between the two games though, right? Many things could have changed in that time. So I don't know if that would really be a plot hole. Just look at the Lunar 1 and 2 world maps. All kinds of things can happen when you're talking about 1000 years.


I found they were all pretty samey aside from Lloyd.

They turned Lloyd into a frickin badass...


Maybe the new voice cast is skewing your judgment here slightly?

I don't think so. Lloyd, Genis, and Zelos in particular, were extremely different.


I wouldn't call this retconning. We already know from Phantasia that other summon spirits exist in Aseliaverse, so it's never a stretch to add new ones. Aside from Symphonia's Efreet, Undine, Gnome, Sylph, Volt, Celsius, Luna, Aska, Shadow, Maxwell, Origin, and Verrius, Phantasia also includes Chameleon, Gremlin Lair, and Pluto, plus Phantasia omits Celsius and Verrius entirely. Ratatosk also existing isn't out of line with either story, really.

The entire backstory with Aster, Richter, and Ratatosk was pure ret-conning. None of that crap was planned from the start. It's as bad as adding Genesis in the FF7 compilation.


And I'll continue to state that even if you can successfully argue that certain points of a story are objectively better, everyone is still entitled to a personal, subjective opinion. You can't just rant that no one should be able to like the story or characters because you see some objective deficiencies.

I'm just saying that Symphonia is objectively superior to Symphonia 2. I don't mind at all if someone prefers the sequel though.

[Lunar Eclipse]

I don't care if they like 6 more. My problem with them is that they bash 7 for certain things that it did objectively better than 6. Depth of the main villain just being one of them.

... What does it matter if they bash 7 or don't agree with your opinion on how awesome Sephiroth is? The poll is only asking about favorite games. Correctness of villain evaluation is pretty inconsequential. I don't understand why you keep trying to link it to a completely unrelated poll.

There's a 1000 year gap between the two games though, right? Many things could have changed in that time. So I don't know if that would really be a plot hole. Just look at the Lunar 1 and 2 world maps. All kinds of things can happen when you're talking about 1000 years.

It's still a plothole whether there's a 1000 year gap or a 10 minute gap. Just handwaving and saying that anything could happen doesn't remedy it. Dawn explains what that "anything" is and thus seals the hole.

The entire backstory with Aster, Richter, and Ratatosk was pure ret-conning. None of that crap was planned from the start. It's as bad as adding Genesis in the FF7 compilation.

But this is simply additive retcon, not contradictory retcon, so I fail to see the problem. The inclusion of Aster, Richter, and Ratatosk contradicts nothing in the original game. By your standards, almost every direct sequel in the world is unsatisfactory seeing as they tend to add more to the previously established continuity.

I'm just saying that Symphonia is objectively superior to Symphonia 2. I don't mind at all if someone prefers the sequel though.

But you were also saying that it was objectively superior to every other game in the series (not just Dawn), which simply isn't the case.

[Werefrog]

I'm just saying that Symphonia is objectively superior to Symphonia 2. I don't mind at all if someone prefers the sequel though.

You can't say that since you have no objective measure of the two games. Reviews are subjective as is your own experience playing the game.

[brightshield]

... What does it matter if they bash 7

Bashing a game merely because it's more popular than your favorite is pure fanboyism. Thus, I'm saying that the hardcore fans of a series shouldn't be taken seriously.


or don't agree with your opinion on how awesome Sephiroth is?

When did I give my opinion on Sephiroth? I could love him or hate his guts for all you know.


The poll is only asking about favorite games. Correctness of villain evaluation is pretty inconsequential. I don't understand why you keep trying to link it to a completely unrelated poll.

I'm linking it to prove that a poll consisting of the hardcore fanboys would be heavily biased, and not a good indication of what most RPG fans believe to be the best.


Dawn explains what that "anything" is and thus seals the hole.

I do hope you've got more holes than that. Creating an awful sequel just to clarify that part, wasn't worth it.


But this is simply additive retcon, not contradictory retcon, so I fail to see the problem. The inclusion of Aster, Richter, and Ratatosk contradicts nothing in the original game. By your standards, almost every direct sequel in the world is unsatisfactory seeing as they tend to add more to the previously established continuity.

All "unplanned" direct sequels do suck story-wise. Planned sequels like Two Towers, The Empire Strikes Back, or Godfather 2 work because they're still part of the original plot. The story was broken into segments as it was too long.

Unplanned direct sequels like Karate Kid 2, Matrix 2, and FF7: Advent Children are nothing more than shameless ret-conning to milk a popular franchise. They always score far lower than the original as well.


But you were also saying that it was objectively superior to every other game in the series (not just Dawn), which simply isn't the case.

In some ways it is, and in some ways it isn't. Depends on what you're looking for, I guess. Anyway, as long as we can agree about Symphonia being superior to it's disgrace of a sequel, I'm happy.


Reviews are subjective as is your own experience playing the game.

There's a reason why certain games gain universal acclaim and others don't, it's not a pure opinion thing.

[Lunar Eclipse]

I'm linking it to prove that a poll consisting of the hardcore fanboys would be heavily biased, and not a good indication of what most RPG fans believe to be the best.

I don't really know where you plan to find a poll that meets your ridiculous criteria for being "unbiased", then. You either look at one from people who've actually played all the games in the series (apparently "fanboys" in your lexicon) or you look at one from people who've played a couple and still probably only blindly adore one entry in the series (typically Symphonia, Abyss, or Vesperia). When it comes down to it, it's all opinion anyway. I don't see why you'd prefer a poll of uninformed opinions to ones of people who actually play the games in a series.

I do hope you've got more holes than that. Creating an awful sequel just to clarify that part, wasn't worth it.

I'm not trying to justify the sequel to you, so I don't know why I need more holes. I'm just pointing out that you keep whining about Dawn's additive retcon when it is in fact far less offensive than Symphonia's contradictory retcon that needed to be repaired.

All "unplanned" direct sequels do suck story-wise. Planned sequels like Two Towers, The Empire Strikes Back, or Godfather 2 work because they're still part of the original plot. The story was broken into segments as it was too long.

This statement is almost too ridiculous for me to address. What of Lufia, Baten Kaitos, Fire Emblem, or any number of games where the unplanned sequels meet or exceed the expectations set by the originals? You're just throwing a list of bad sequels at us in hopes that we'll forget the good ones.

They always score far lower than the original as well.

Uh, what of Chrono Cross with its 10/10/9.5 from EGM, 10 from Gamespot, and 9.7 from IGN? Also, if you're going to argue that it was a bad game, then I reiterate my earlier statement that reviews aren't as objective as you seem to imagine.

In some ways it is, and in some ways it isn't. Depends on what you're looking for, I guess. Anyway, as long as we can agree about Symphonia being superior to it's disgrace of a sequel, I'm happy.

My problem is that you keep calling it a disgrace when it isn't. I've not said that, and I don't agree to it. It's a different type of game within the series, but it doesn't automatically make it disgraceful or awful as you seem to think, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to deprecate others who found the story or characters more interesting.

[Monde Luna]

... What does it matter if they bash 7

Bashing a game merely because it's more popular than your favorite is pure fanboyism. Thus, I'm saying that the hardcore fans of a series shouldn't be taken seriously.

Then there would be no Lunar fans... (this never-ending debate is quite entertaining)

[brightshield]

Sorry, I'm late. All of the training I had to do at work tired me out, so I've been sleeping in most of my spare time(I was replaying Legendia also). Since I wasn't able to come in for like 6 weeks, they had to retrain me on the sword fights, and how to fly the Falcon.

Also, as I said, I've been playing Legendia again lately. It's better than I remember. Story isn't great, but it's pretty decent. Characters are definitely the best developed in the series. Music is great, as is most of the voice acting. The gameplay is one of the weaker areas. The battle system is a huge downgrade for the series, and the dungeons are boring. It could just be because I prefer small and puzzle filled to long and maze-like though. The graphics are kind of crappy. Backgrounds look nice, but the character models are like a slightly enhanced version of FF7's models. Overall, I like it more now though. I'd probably put it on par with Destiny.


I don't see why you'd prefer a poll of uninformed opinions to ones of people who actually play the games in a series.

It's because fanboys never tend to like the most popular game best. I'll bring up FF again since it helps prove my point. The hardcore fanbase that worships the series, usually believe FF6 to be the best. However, you'd have to be braindead not to realize that FF7 is vastly more popular and considered the best by most gamers.


I don't know why I need more holes.

Because you said Dawn fixed gaping holes...


I'm just pointing out that you keep whining about Dawn's additive retcon

Bashing a **** game =/= whining.


when it is in fact far less offensive than Symphonia's contradictory retcon that needed to be repaired.

Well, I've already admitted that Symphonia and Phantasia being connected was a very stupid idea. I'm sure there are as many problems as when Square said that FF7 and FF10 are connected...


What of Lufia, Baten Kaitos, Fire Emblem, or any number of games where the unplanned sequels meet or exceed the expectations set by the originals? You're just throwing a list of bad sequels at us in hopes that we'll forget the good ones.

Fire Emblem games aren't really direct sequels. They all feature new stories and different main characters. It's more like FF. I will say that the sequel to Path of Radiance was vastly inferior to the original though.

Baten Kaitos already had a crappy story to begin with, but at least the combat was fun. Origins had a crappy story, and they ruined the combat as well. So yeah, 1 >> 2.

I've only ever played Lufia 2, so I don't know how it compares to the original. It was damn good though.


Uh, what of Chrono Cross with its 10/10/9.5 from EGM, 10 from Gamespot, and 9.7 from IGN? Also, if you're going to argue that it was a bad game, then I reiterate my earlier statement that reviews aren't as objective as you seem to imagine.

No, you've got me with this one. Chrono Cross was an excellent game, and I vastly prefer it to Trigger. However, it's not really the type of direct sequel I was referring to as being crappy(neither are Baten Kaitos 2 or Lufia 2). I was talking about the type of sequel that extends a finished plotline and brings back the cast from the original.


My problem is that you keep calling it a disgrace when it isn't. I've not said that, and I don't agree to it.

Let me rephrase it then. Dawn is vastly inferior to any of the mothership titles. I think we can agree to that.

[Sonix]

What of Lufia, Baten Kaitos, Fire Emblem, or any number of games where the unplanned sequels meet or exceed the expectations set by the originals? You're just throwing a list of bad sequels at us in hopes that we'll forget the good ones.

Fire Emblem games aren't really direct sequels. They all feature new stories and different main characters. It's more like FF. I will say that the sequel to Path of Radiance was vastly inferior to the original though.

Just wanted to point out that FE games are sequels as well.
FE: Radiant Dawn takes place after Path of Radiance(as you already mentioned).
Monshō no Nazo is also a sequel to Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. Marth is in both of those.
Seisen no Keifu is also related to Thracia 776; I have no idea about their connection
And Fūin no Tsurugi takes place after Rekka no Ken(the first translated Fire Emblem, known as "Blazing Sword" or just Fire Emblem 7); Roy (SSBM) is son of one of the main characters from FE 7.

As in matter of fact the only 2 "standalone" FE's are The Sacred Stones (FE 8) and Fire Emblem Gaiden (I think its not related to any, but I'm not sure). Shadow Dragon is a remake of one game that Marth is in.

[Lunar Eclipse]

Sorry, I'm late. All of the training I had to do at work tired me out, so I've been sleeping in most of my spare time(I was replaying Legendia also). Since I wasn't able to come in for like 6 weeks, they had to retrain me on the sword fights, and how to fly the Falcon.

It's fine. I'm sure everyone's tired of us posting so much here anyway. XD

It's because fanboys never tend to like the most popular game best. I'll bring up FF again since it helps prove my point. The hardcore fanbase that worships the series, usually believe FF6 to be the best. However, you'd have to be braindead not to realize that FF7 is vastly more popular and considered the best by most gamers.

My point is that with something like Final Fantasy, even in a site not dedicated to Final Fantasy, you can still find people who've played most or all of the games in the series. With Tales, that's all but impossible since you won't find anyone but a fan who's had the chance to play Destiny 2, Rebirth, Destiny R, Innocence, Hearts, etc. You can't find anyone who's even qualified to say what the best entry in the series is because there's really no one outside of the fandom that's played every game in the series. Even you, in spite of all your opinions and apparent like of the series, can't really even profess to know the best since you've not played them all, which is why it vexes me when you try to claim you know what's best or what everyone thinks is the best.

Because you said Dawn fixed gaping holes...

Oh, well, there's only one major one. The rest of the fixes are fairly minor and more like filler material for open ended stuff rather than actual fixes, so I must've mistyped. Still, I felt it was a large enough issue with the whole flow of the universe to warrant explanation, or at least fixing in a remake or something.

Fire Emblem games aren't really direct sequels. They all feature new stories and different main characters. It's more like FF. I will say that the sequel to Path of Radiance was vastly inferior to the original though.

See the above post.

Let me rephrase it then. Dawn is vastly inferior to any of the mothership titles. I think we can agree to that.

We can agree that it's inferior in scope with a smaller world, fewer original characters, a recycled battle system, a shorter main quest, etc. However, I will always disagree on the notion that it can't be enjoyed as much, particularly in terms of characterization and story. There are lots of games with smaller worlds and shorter stories and older battle systems and fewer characters that I enjoy as much or more than any of the Tales series main entries. Why can't someone prefer a Tales escort as well? Why is it so hard to fathom?

[Werefrog]

There's a reason why certain games gain universal acclaim and others don't, it's not a pure opinion thing.

Right, it's not a pure opinion thing. It reflects the sociocultural views of the gaming community as well as opinion (which, itself is is influenced by social and historical factors). Games and reviews of games cannot be separated from the society that creates (and translates them) and consumes them.

This makes objectivity very difficult. Welcome to research in the social sciences.

[Sonix]

I've just noticed that Lunar Eclipse is actualy also on Tales forums (with same username).

Well, I've finished ToS few days ago and I didn't really like it much. The battle system was rather bad (I did play Abyss before it, though), story is nothing special and aside from maybe 3 characters, I didn't care about them at all, soundtrack was nothing amazing as well. I'll still be getting ToS:DotNW, though. Its getting released in 2 weeks over here. At least it fixes some of the problems I had with ToS, biggest being the battle system (free run). I guess I could add skits with voice-acting, since thats also a plus.

[brightshield]

Just wanted to point out that FE games are sequels as well.
FE: Radiant Dawn takes place after Path of Radiance(as you already mentioned).
Monshō no Nazo is also a sequel to Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. Marth is in both of those.
Seisen no Keifu is also related to Thracia 776; I have no idea about their connection
And Fūin no Tsurugi takes place after Rekka no Ken(the first translated Fire Emblem, known as "Blazing Sword" or just Fire Emblem 7); Roy (SSBM) is son of one of the main characters from FE 7.

As in matter of fact the only 2 "standalone" FE's are The Sacred Stones (FE 8) and Fire Emblem Gaiden (I think its not related to any, but I'm not sure). Shadow Dragon is a remake of one game that Marth is in.

Hmm... I didn't know that. Then again I've only ever played 7, 8, 9, 10, and Shadow Dragon.


My point is that with something like Final Fantasy, even in a site not dedicated to Final Fantasy, you can still find people who've played most or all of the games in the series. With Tales, that's all but impossible since you won't find anyone but a fan who's had the chance to play Destiny 2, Rebirth, Destiny R, Innocence, Hearts, etc. You can't find anyone who's even qualified to say what the best entry in the series is because there's really no one outside of the fandom that's played every game in the series. Even you, in spite of all your opinions and apparent like of the series, can't really even profess to know the best since you've not played them all, which is why it vexes me when you try to claim you know what's best or what everyone thinks is the best.

You do make a good point.

I also see it like this though. First they tried the series on the PS1 where it sold like crap. So they didn't bother porting over the remake of a game that sold so poorly. Namco pretty much only brought the best of the best over here, with 2 exceptions. The first exception would be Dawn, since that was guaranteed to do decently since Symphonia sold so well over here. The second would be Tales of the World. They tried that game since it was a PSP game, and they were testing the waters.


There are lots of games with smaller worlds and shorter stories and older battle systems and fewer characters that I enjoy as much or more than any of the Tales series main entries.

Oh, I agree. I vastly prefer something like Silent Hill 2 to most Tales games. However, Tales escorts are poorly thought out, and something like Dawn is just milking a popular game.


Right, it's not a pure opinion thing. It reflects the sociocultural views of the gaming community as well as opinion (which, itself is is influenced by social and historical factors). Games and reviews of games cannot be separated from the society that creates (and translates them) and consumes them.

This makes objectivity very difficult. Welcome to research in the social sciences.

Whenever someone says something like this, all I hear is "I'm into crappy games, so I'm going to pretend that it's all about opinions and different views". Sorry, I just don't agree with that. I put a lot of faith in review scores.

Don't take this the wrong way, as I mean it in the most polite way. There's just not really a nice way to phrase it though.

[brightshield]

The battle system was rather bad (I did play Abyss before it, though),

You've been spoiled. Abyss has the best battle system in the series. The only other one you may like is Vesperia.


story is nothing special

Meh, it's far better than most of the Tales games in this area.


and aside from maybe 3 characters, I didn't care about them at all,

Which 3 did you like?


At least it fixes some of the problems I had with ToS, biggest being the battle system (free run).

It does have free run, but I'd hardly call it better.


I guess I could add skits with voice-acting, since thats also a plus.

That's a plus yeah. It comes at the cost of having much worse characters, and a disgrace of a story.

[Sonix]

You've been spoiled. Abyss has the best battle system in the series. The only other one you may like is Vesperia.

Yes, Abyss really has amazing battle system. Lets try a different example, I like Star Ocean 1/2's (PSP remakes) battle system more than ToS' . I have only played few hours of ToE (ToD II in US) but I'd say I prefer that one over ToS as well.


Meh, it's far better than most of the Tales games in this area.

It all comes down to opinions. And I respect yours. But for me, story was nothing special.


Which 3 did you like?

Zelos, Lloyd and Colette. But together with Abyss, only Zelos would be high up on "Favorite Character" kind of list.


It does have free run, but I'd hardly call it better.

Well thats more than enough for me, I've been spoiled by free run. I wouldn't mind FoF changes though


That's a plus yeah. It comes at the cost of having much worse characters, and a disgrace of a story.

I can't comment on that yet since I haven't played DotNW yet. But I can say that I've enjoyed watching/listening to skits in Abyss as opposed to Symphonia, where they felt boring(due to being silent and how long they dragged). I've played the undub version of Abyss so the skits were voiced.

[Dark_Fairy]

I was going to just stay out of this ever since Lunar jumped in (since he's doing an excellent job of arguing what I was trying to aruge), but this one thing irks me:

I also see it like this though. First they tried the series on the PS1 where it sold like crap. So they didn't bother porting over the remake of a game that sold so poorly. Namco pretty much only brought the best of the best over here, with 2 exceptions. The first exception would be Dawn, since that was guaranteed to do decently since Symphonia sold so well over here. The second would be Tales of the World. They tried that game since it was a PSP game, and they were testing the waters.

And what makes a certain Tales game the best of the best? Every Tales game has it's flaws. Who is to say the ones they brought over are the best? The Destiny Remake or Rebirth for example could be better in certain aspects.