Phantasy Star vs Zelda

[dbtmellis]

Ive never played any of the Phantasy Star games.

How does PS compare to the game series The Legend of Zelda.

Im slow to pickup and play some games, mainly RPGs, but once i get into them i will play them to the finish.

[eddiespruce]

Well, Zelda games are more or less "Action-Adventure", and are not RPGs. Zelda games are pretty good, but if you want a real RPG experience, try the Phantasy Star games first.

[dbtmellis]

i am going to be searching Ebay and amazon for them.

Im also in the works of trying to find me a PBC so i can play the first SMS Phanstsy Star, along with other SMS games too.

[QuickSciFi]

The Zelda series (with the minute exception of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link) is strictly action adventure. It is not an RPG franchise. The Phantasy Star series, however, is just like any other turn-based RPG game you can find on any system. If you can't stand turn-based RPG strategy, then no turn-based strat RPG will suit you at all. But if you enjoy the genre, then there's lots of fun to be had with the entire series. I'll list parts one through four in order of the amount required to level-grind:

1. Phantasy Star II: This is Grinder's heaven, my friend. You will not be disappointed if you enjoy the satisfying factor that comes with hard-earning your levels through continuous and meticulous grinding (and there's lots of characters to level up).
2. Phantasy Star (1): Grinding is going to be kind of unique here. You'll see what I mean once you play it.
3. Phantasy Star III: Grinding here almost seems optional. You play three generations, and the amount of grinding required decreases by half with each generation. Play it for the music and the beautiful story.
4. Phantasy Star IV: Grinding is almost unheard-of in this one. You will get your level's worth just by walking from one town to the next (and only in the beginning levels). This is like the turn-based RPG for dummies. It's the easiest of the Phantasy Star games (PSIII comes second), and possibly the easiest turn-based RPG ever made (definitely the easiest turn-based RPG I've ever played).

[Gogogadget]

Well, the most obvious difference is Phantasy Star has a turn-based battle system, Zelda is hack and slash.

If you want a Zelda like experience on Sega, try Soleil/Crusader of Centy on Genesis, and Golden Axe Warrior on SMS.

[dbtmellis]

so what defines an RPG? ive always thought that LOZ Series was one.

Also, since we are on the topic what are some of the better (or best) RPG's for each game console out there?

I never really got into them much as a kid

[QuickSciFi]

P.S.> I'm not sure if you just threw the Zelda series out there for comparison's sake; but if what you want is something akin to the Zelda experience on the Genesis, then here is a good list for you:

1. Beyond Oasis (Story of Thor)
2. Crusader of Centy (Beyond Soleil)
3. Landstalker: The Treasures of King Nole
4. Light Crusader
5. Arcus Odyssey

And if you want something even more kickass and a level of fun that was completely unexpected:
6. Technoclash

so what defines an RPG? ive always thought that LOZ Series was one.

Also, since we are on the topic what are some of the better (or best) RPG's for each game console out there?

I never really got into them much as a kid

RPGs will vary in their approach. Some of them are so far-off the norm, you would have to play them first to even notice they belong to the genre. But the one defining factor that must make an RPG (and this is key) is leveling-up. You can have every other element that has been thrown into the genre, but without this key factor, a game will not be an RPG (there's no room for semantics in this genre; you either have an RPG or you don't, regardless of the approach to leveling-up. Just ask yourself: Can I level-up? If so, you've got yourself an RPG).

P.S.> It goes without saying, though, that a game of strategy alone (one where all you do is level-up your characters going directly from one battle to the next) is not an RPG.

[SpaceFlea]

RPGs will vary in their approach. Some of them are so far-off the norm, you would have to play them first to even notice they belong to the genre. But the one defining factor that must make an RPG (and this is key) is leveling-up. You can have every other element that has been thrown into the genre, but without this key factor, a game will not be an RPG (there's no room for semantics in this genre; you either have an RPG or you don't, regardless of the approach to leveling-up. Just ask yourself: Can I level-up? If so, you've got yourself an RPG).

P.S.> It goes without saying, though, that a game of strategy alone (one where all you do is level-up your characters going directly from one battle to the next) is not an RPG.

This.

[Joe Redifer]

2. Phantasy Star (1): Grinding is going to be kind of unique here. You'll see what I mean once you play it.

I've played through this game many times and I don't know what you are referring to here. How is the grinding unique?

[Zebbe]

RPGs will vary in their approach. Some of them are so far-off the norm, you would have to play them first to even notice they belong to the genre. But the one defining factor that must make an RPG (and this is key) is leveling-up. You can have every other element that has been thrown into the genre, but without this key factor, a game will not be an RPG (there's no room for semantics in this genre; you either have an RPG or you don't, regardless of the approach to leveling-up. Just ask yourself: Can I level-up? If so, you've got yourself an RPG).

So Wizardry IV and SaGa Frontier II are not RPGs then, by your definition.

[sheath]

By the common usage today Role Playing Games include random encounters, menu based turn based combat, and leveling up. I would also include the presence of towns with towns people to talk to (and rob) over world maps and dungeons/mazes in the characteristics of RPGs. Games with real time combat, and games with visible avoidable monsters can also be Role Playing games, they are just more rare and somewhat genre blending with Action-Adventure titles like Zelda and Adventure before it.

Sword of Vermillion, the Ys games, the Legend of Xanadu, some of the Ultima games, the Elder Scrolls games, and the KotOR games bend the rules with real time combat and/or avoidable encounters but are still RPGs by all accounts. The Phantasy Star games (non-Online), Dragon Warrior games, Final Fantasy games, Lunar games, Shining games (non-Strategy ones), the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons games (non-static screen dungeon crawlers), as well as one shotters like Panzer Dragon Saga and Skies of Arcadia all adhere closely to the "standard" RPG formula.

Obviously the rule was formed less on the earliest games on the genre, or obscure Computer games in Europe, and more on the most popular franchises in the genre on Consoles early on, but that is the way of the video game industry.

[old man]

This is like comparing Super Thunder Blade to Outrun. They're two different games.

[profholt82]

Well, the most obvious difference is Phantasy Star has a turn-based battle system, Zelda is hack and slash.

If you want a Zelda like experience on Sega, try Soleil/Crusader of Centy on Genesis, and Golden Axe Warrior on SMS.

...or Golvellius: Valley of Doom on SMS. It is a Zelda clone; one of the most banal and derivative games I've ever played. However, it is done very well, and is a fun, playable game. It's just unoriginal.

[NeoZeedeater]

Unlike Golden Axe Warrior or Neutopia, I don't think it's fair to call Golvellius a Zelda clone. That's giving Nintendo too much credit for elements that are just part of that genre, and predate Zelda. There aren't any Zelda-style dungeons in it. Instead it has side-scrolling platform sections and forced scrolling overhead action parts. The art and music styles are nothing like Zelda either.

[QuickSciFi]

I've played through this game many times and I don't know what you are referring to here. How is the grinding unique?

Unique to the series, and most other RPGs (definitely all other RPGs I know-of or have played and finished) is the fact that the enemies are multiplied as a single entity (one visible enemy with it's multiple entities represented as HPs on the side bar to the right); this goes hand in hand with the fact that the maximum number of enemies in a single battle is directly proportional to the number of active characters in said battle. It's not a bad thing, and it's not even uncomfortable (though I certainly prefer to fight each individual enemy as visible individual entities like in most other RPGs). This, again, I found unique to the series (and by series I mean parts 1 through 4), as well as to any other RPG I've ever played.

So Wizardry IV and SaGa Frontier II are not RPGs then, by your definition.

I haven't played any of the two, but if leveling-up is not an option (as in, the ability to grind through your complete control, not just acquiring more hearts/HP as you progress), then I guess not. I'd have to play them first to get an idea of what you're talking about.