You could, but then you would be mistaken, FFVI, FFVII, FFXII and CT all get a Metacritic score of 92%, I just checked.
Sorry, I meant Gamerankings. FFVII has
92.35%, FFIX has
92.72%, FFXII International has
93.00%, FFIII for SNES has
93.96%, Chrono Trigger has
95.64%. So according to Gamerankings FFVI is the best entry of the series and Chrono Trigger is better than any of them. I would actually put Chrono Trigger tied with FFVI and would rank FFV higher than FFVII (although it may have had a chance at being so if it had actually been released here in 1992), but regardless.
Aside from that the term "best" is subjective, for you it means quality, to me it means game that has the highest rating by the fans of said games.
That's nice. You do realise that the GameFAQs poll doesn't necessarily mean that FFVII would be the highest-ranked FF by fans of said games, right? It could just mean that the most people have played it. There is nothing in the GameFAQs poll forcing everyone who votes on it to actually be familiar with all of the entries on the list, and judging from the average GameFAQs poster, most of them aren't.
I would also point out that metacritic is based upon the scores of the 20 critic reviews out there published by companies, companies that have a limited number of peoples opinions, where as the poll I provided had many voices, and in the opinion of those people (the gamers) FFVII is the best, simple as. Sure its a matter of opinion on how you define the word best but you could say that about anything, to me the majority wins out, that is how I define the word, so by default to me FFVII IS the best.
Again, Kenny G isn't the best jazz artist of the last 30 years. This is a stupid metric for determining the best.
Game reviewers are professionals who evaluate each game on the merits. Their opinion isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot more reliable than a popularity contest with the unwashed masses.
Nothing about how horrendous the polygons look, "awe inspiring" pretty much say it all. Arguing about a games graphics is like arguing how a steak looks, when you should be arguing about the taste. Taking into the fact that the game started development in 1994 when the PSone was brand new speaks pretty much for itself.
My argument has never been that they looked bad at the time. It is that they haven't aged well. So well done for pulling up a review that does nothing to address my criticisms, I guess?
I don't know about you, but I consider CTs graphics far superior to graphics from VI. And when considering FF snes games alone, I would actually say V trumps VI in terms of graphics. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Yes when you anti-alias one graphic and don't anti-alias the others it looks better, well done for figuring that out. You also didn't pick a particularly representative screenshot from FFVI. Look at something like Mt. Koltz and tell me it looks worse than the environments in FFV.
Would you give me some examples of these so called "glaring flaws" and "almost incomprehensible" because I never encountered such while I was playing.
This is nothing we're going to agree on, but for me the game dipped severely in quality after the party left Midgar and fell further after the first disc. More importantly and incontrovertibly, the sheer number of people who didn't get, for example, that the "Sephiroth" the party follows for the first disc is a clone (as demonstrated by browsing any Final Fantasy-related message board about ten years ago) attests to poor storytelling.
There's a world of difference between a well-marketed pop star finding an audience at the time of release and the sober appraisal of a video game 20 years later. You're fighting a war that's been over for many years.
Yes, well, as I revealed, "sober appraisal" of video games as revealed by Gamerankings suggests that FFVI won. Which metric you use for determining "best" has a lot to do with what outcome you get, and the number of people who are nostalgic for a game they played seventeen years ago is no less a popularity contest than record sales figures.