The whole RP concept behind FF games is that you're taking the role of a character (or more) and following them through the story. Its still roleplaying, even if its not the kind you like.

A very story-based game is basically a novel. Just a graphical format of interactive fiction with a ton of combat added in order to extend play time and reduce frustrating puzzles. Haven't you ever played any interactive fiction?

Analytically, I figure the deciding factor to make a game into an RPG is having critical character development in two of three areas: character abilities, character equipment, and character personality. They also must feature some element of choice: being able to maneuver on your own time, even if within the bounds of a restricted area, without being carted from destination to destination or limited to following very specific orders at all times (like Quake II); being able to choose whether or not you really do want to kill that person; being able to choose from a limited set of dialogue and not being able to hear it all in one sitting; etc.

Most traditional RPGs rely on the first two areas of character development. Console RPGs rely on the first and last.

The borders between game niches are narrow, but I think there's never any question; it's easy to tell if a game really is an RPG.

The problem with that system is that it doesn't work very well with player-versus-player battles or fights where each side has more than one person.

Something similar is the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time combat system. Instead of locking onto an enemy, you simply pointed the control stick towards who you wanted to attack, and it would attack the closest enemy in that direction, or just the air if there isn't anything close enough.

Additionally, battle should take place in a seperate battlefield. Have you ever played a game called The Realm? It had something like that: when you got into a fight with a monster, a fight cloud was created (see: cartoons), and people could join into the fight cloud to join the fight. The system was turn-based, though. Anyway, the battlefield would be created, some form of fight cloud to represent it, or even just a graphical representation of the combatants attacking each other. Inside the battlefield, it would be entirely peer-to-peer, with the server occasionally spying on battles when there isn't too much network activity. Each player would determine the result from the input, and any discrepencies between players would be handled by the server. This would catch cheaters fighting normal players, and random spying would catch cheaters fighting monsters.

The combat would work rather simply: double-clicking will lunge at an opponent, clicking will perform a normal attack (without lunging). Right-clicking will block an opponent, resulting in a range of results from them being knocked down, stunned momentarily, weapons getting locked, or simply nothing happening. Holding the shift or control keys switch between high and low attack / block (neither is middle). Lunges are much more powerful than a normal attack, but cannot be performed if the opponent you are trying to lunge at is blocking (and facing you). Getting blocked while lunging will result in a much more severe penalty, so you wouldn't want to lunge at people who are currently blocking. However, someone can have their guard down, notice you lunging, and block you.

The peer-to-peer system would have another advantage: you would be sending the attack information DIRECTLY to the person you are attacking, instead of sending it to a server first, resulting in more latency.

The system could work in third or first person.

It wouldn't work in BYOND, though.

Oh well.