Complete RPG List for the PS2 - Updated 2017

[lendelin]

Darias comment provokes a Q which goes for RPGs of the PS2 but also for game libraries in general of specific consoles: IS MORE BETTER? or from a game development standpoint, is it better to rush a game and get more of them or polish it to great gameplay value and get less releases? or from a economical standpoint, is it better to publish more of the same with minimal risk or publish a bit less following some new risky paths?

On the one hand we got an incredible library to choose from with numerous titles even for the niche like the tactical strategy RPGs, on the other hand we have to sift through mediocre titles which look and play awfully similar; sometimes I get the feeling that the quality of the top titles certainly didn't improve compared with the smaller libraries of the NES or SNES.

[heybtbm]

Darias comment provokes a Q which goes for RPGs of the PS2 but also for game libraries in general of specific consoles: IS MORE BETTER? or from a game development standpoint, is it better to rush a game and get more of them or polish it to great gameplay value and get less releases? or from a economical standpoint, is it better to publish more of the same with minimal risk or publish a bit less following some new risky paths?

I think a good example of this is extra long development cycle of Final Fantasy XII. Final Fantasy had essentially 11 games of turn-based battle systems that were all very similar. I loved the FF battle systems and when I found out that FFXII would be dropping random battles and only let you directly control 1 character, I was skeptical and a bit disappointed. When the game was released, it only took me an hour or so before I realized this was the best FF battle system yet. Square-Enix took a "risky path" by taking their game play in a different direction and ended up reinvigorating a stale franchise in my eyes.

Another perfect example of long development paying off in the end is with Resident Evil 4. It may have took 5 years to produce, but the end result is one of the best games ever made.

[Aussie2B]

On the one hand we got an incredible library to choose from with numerous titles even for the niche like the tactical strategy RPGs, on the other hand we have to sift through mediocre titles which look and play awfully similar; sometimes I get the feeling that the quality of the top titles certainly didn't improve compared with the smaller libraries of the NES or SNES.

One thing that has to be considered is that the RPG libraries for the NES and SNES were essentially cherry-picked for us. It's not so much a matter of the companies producing less games as it is the fact that we more or less were only presented with what the best Japan had to offer (I mean this more in the sense that, of what we did receive, it was only top tier RPGs from Japan, rather than us receving ALL of the best Japanese RPGs, which was certainly not the case). In Japan, Squaresoft, Enix, and others were pumping out RPGs like there was no tomorrow. These days, since PlayStation and now PS2 even more so, we're experiencing what Japan has for years. While there are still some RPGs that don't get localized, the ratio is far slimer, so we're getting closer to experiencing EVERYTHING that Japan has to offer in terms of RPGs. Now we're stuck sifting through the mediocre titles as well.

[Xexyz]

Not a new title to add, but minor corrections involving the two Shining Force titles. Neo and EXA were both developed by Neverland, not Amusement Vision or any other internal Sega studios.

[lendelin]

Not a new title to add, but minor corrections involving the two Shining Force titles. Neo and EXA were both developed by Neverland, not Amusement Vision or any other internal Sega studios.

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. You are absolutely right, and I corrected the data. (meaning added Neverland as a developer for Shining Force EXA and Neo)