Topic: Phantasy Star Series not really revolutionary?

According to some users here and based on the proof, Phantasy Star series is really not all that revolutionary at all. So I want to make that argument here and say that the series really is innovative and as such plays an important part of the RPG genre.

So to those who disagree about this, post your arguments here.

I wouldn't really say it made anything too "revolutionary" or super important to the industry.

Maybe the online games?

PSO for the Dreamcast is revolutionary, it proved console MMO's were feasible.

I said everything I had to say in the last thread. Phantasy Star II was a terrible game that contributed nothing to the genre than dozens of other games didn't already do. Hell, I just looked up some stuff trying to praise the game, and the only things they could come up with that weren't bold-faced lies were centered around the graphics and size of the game - it was considered semi-big compared to other RPGs at the time (according to western press who had played...3 RPGs by that time), at least for console JRPGs, but honestly, once the Super Nintendo hit, that accomplishment was immediately made irrelevant. The only thing it did different was focusing a bit more on the story and making the game more linear as a result, but I'm still fairly sure gaming was more influenced by the then-highly-influential Ultima series, specifically Ultima IV, which came out on the Famicom the same year, and had been available on various computers for years before then.

As for the rest of the franchise, Phantasy Star III introduced the idea of Multiple generations. It's also almost as bad as Phantasy Star II, but at least it's the only game in the series that can say it was a forerunner of a decent idea. Phantasy Star and Phantasy Star IV were good games that didn't do anything unique at the time but at least did them well enough to make them memorable games worth playing. Maybe not revolutionary, but then again, I'd say being a quality game is much more important anyways.

PSO, on the other hand, was both completely revolutionary in every way, and the single best game (or rather, set of games, since it was two episodes plus [J-only] Blue Burst) in the entire Phantasy Star Franchise (though maybe that would change if Sega would get its rear in gear and bring PSO2 out in English <_<)

@CanisWolfred

If those games that you've mentioned came out in the west, I doubt they would be as good as PS2. I mean really the fact that you're making a bold claim that PS2 only real excuse is that games from Sci-fi genre already existed before PS2. Yeah its true and I get that but then in terms of storywise and setting is something really intriguing about PS2.

I'm pretty confident that if I said that Super Mario 64 was revolutionary, you'd pretty much show a game that no one knows off and that the game did exactly what SM64 did in terms of concept. Heck what about Star Fox? Sure there were a lot of games that used polygons like Star Fox but the fact that Nintendo did it so that the SNES could have a longer lifespan proves how innovative the SNES was and that we didn't had to flush down our cash to get another gen system (Sega Saturn anyone?)

Hell I'm pretty sure you'd say that Donkey Kong Country really doesn't do much for gaming either. What about Super Mario Bros hm? Everything that it did didn't matter because heck games were still around at the time and they were nearly identical to Super Mario Bros right?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the game needs to be known to nearly everyone and since those games you've mentioned aren't known to anyone, its most likely that they'll stick to the ones they have played and known and they will instead add that to the history. Sad yes but a game needs to be fun and the games that were older than Super Mario Bros weren't known and weren't probably fun either.

You moved the goalposts. In the last thread, it was about how specifically Phantasy Star II was not a particularly good game and not very influential. And it's not.

Phantasy Star IV is usually the one that gets remembered, but it's still important to note that even though that game looks and plays like it was made in the late 80s, it was made in 1993, long after Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest had perfected the 16-bit JRPG formula. Phantasy Star IV was dated the moment it was released and really not that groundbreaking as a result. Still a good game though.

Nonsense. SM64 is remembered not only for being groundbreaking and influential, setting the standard for pretty much every 3D platformer to follow (open world design, free camera movement, item collection, etc), but also for its phenomenal level design. It's not just an early example of 3D platforming. It's an early example that was exceptionally good and set trends for the next 18 (and counting) years.

We all know the real highlight of the series is Phantasy Star III.

Fire Emblem Awakening stole the idea of generations and marriage from that game.

I loved PSO, my friend had it on dreamcast, I had the gamecube version. It's probably the only MMO I've played and only one I cared too. I'd definitely play an HD remake.

Phantasy Star Ii is the JRPG equivalent of growing pains. I haven't played III or IV, but I can clearly see the ideas that later JRPG's had which were inspired by Phantasy Star Ii.

Doesn't make it not a terrible game by today's standards though.

@SpookyMeths I know right? Who the heck would have such a nerve to say SM64 didn't do much of revolution? And supposedly if it didn't exist, I don't think that game would be as good as SM64 to be honest.

I'll admit the fact that PS4 may not be that much of an influence but how can you say that PS2 isn't influential at all? Its like Saying Super Mario Bros didn't really do much because games before Mario had already existed and that Mario wouldn't have done much.......

To compare the influence of SMB to PS2 is flat out ridiculous. Please sit in the corner and think about what you said.

@SpookyMeths You do know that platform games before Super Mario Bros existed right? And that there were Sci-fi genre RPG games before PS2 right? So if both have one thing in common, what's there to think? The only great thing I can say that you can agree about SMB is that it perfected the platforming genre and is considered a masterpiece because of that but to me Its like the king of platforms and is the greatest game ever made in history!

artwark pls

Why do you do this? You play one game and then make 20 different threads about it?

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to argue for the first Phantasy Star?

Christ dude, if you're going to open up a discussion thread, stop arguing with every single person who doesn't share an opinion with you.

Super Mario Bros was a fantastic and imaginative game that broke boundries and set firm examples. Phantasy Star II did none of that. In fact, if you can find even one shred of evidence that any game was positively influenced by Phantasy Star II, and not by other important games like Ultima or Dragon Quest, I will play Phantasy Star II all the way to the end in one day, and I'll even send you a picture of me vomiting from the sheer stupidity of how it resolves its "plot".

Nothing is revolutionary.

Ok so I'll admit that it not as influential or revolutionary as Mario games were (what was I thinking? )

But having said that, The original and the further games did prove something that revolutionized the genre as a result.

Can you provide an example?