Rincewind
Magister
Looks like a pretty cool tacticool game, cheers!
And if you get there, try Front Mission 3 on the PSX. Not sure it started a trend or anything, but it's awesome.
Looks like a pretty cool tacticool game, cheers!
And if you get there, try Front Mission 3 on the PSX. Not sure it started a trend or anything, but it's awesome.
Do let us know your thought if you get around to playing them, it's always interesting to see perspectives of people who didn't grow up with the games. And yeah, the fact that they add easy mode to remakes for this stuff is pretty asinine- the games can have difficult parts if you're not familiar with the tropes of the gameplay and don't grind, but most of the people praising these features are mouth breathers that feel like the game is wasting their time when in fact they are trying to break down a brick wall with their fists instead of walking through a door, tactically speaking. It's not even a new thing; the version of FF4 that was brought to the west was dubbed 'easytype' and stripped out a lot of items and character abilities to dumb things down for what was perceived as a retarded western audience that only knew how to button mash.Yeah, actually I'm certain I'll go with the NES / SNES / PSX originals as I'm not just interested in the games but also in a bit of technological history. So the "best" for me is how the games were experienced at the time of release—I want to experience the same thing. And I definitely don't need "easy mode"
No clue if it's still the case but emulators do mess things up. Apart from the obvious differences with pixels and old CRT screens, some 3D parts get kinda fudged which makes the arms in FF VII look much worse than it actually is the case. That's also a big reason VII gets shafted an unfairly amount because people judged by looking at pictures from emulators, rather than the original experience. I read a very detailed and in-depth post about the issue like 10-12 years ago but unfortunately can't find it anymore.Is it fair to say then that 1 to 8 are worth playing in order if someone's curious about jRPGs? Are the PC versions preferable to the console originals? Actually, probably I'd prefer some PS1 emulator so I can use shaders I'm guessing the PlayStation versions are preferable? I don't know much about consoles...I played Final Fantasy VIII until the end of the first CD on the PC back in 2001(ish), that's it, then the uni started so I had better things to do. Actually, I liked the story a lot, I guess it was just that period when I wasn't much into games, so I never picked it up again to finish it... But it had a certain charm yeah, although probably I was a bit too old for it already in my early 20s. Nice music too. That's all my experience with the series.
Can someone give me a TL;DR version of which entries are worth playing? Apart from FF VIII, I also played Knights of Xentar, probably about the first 50%, and that sums up all my experience with jRPGs. Never played a console game in my life.
1 - 6 can be found on PC and consoles as the pixel remasters and early on still show some of their Wizardry inspired roots. This grows less as time goes on though and after 6, the games begin to become extremely cinematic and story driven. After IX, you start looking at games that stop resembling classic Final Fantasies altogether and even games that are arguably not very RPGish and lose the exploration and such that made the games interesting.
Arguably, the games become pretty cinematic and story driven from about IV on, but imo there's something to like about everything between 1-6 (caveat, I haven't spent much time with 2 and it had a weird system, IIRC).
I wouldn't frame it that way. After all, RPGs originated in the west and in 1991 were already FAR more complex than what shitty FF4 had to offer. They had to know this. I think they simply dumbed it down because they understood the universal rule of more accessible = greater chance of reaching wider audience, therefore more sales. Japan also around that time had quite the western fetishism and it showed in their games including FF. Other major examples include Metal Gear Solid & Resident Evil. They respected the west. America literally dominated them with science/intelligence (the nuclear bomb).Do let us know your thought if you get around to playing them, it's always interesting to see perspectives of people who didn't grow up with the games. And yeah, the fact that they add easy mode to remakes for this stuff is pretty asinine- the games can have difficult parts if you're not familiar with the tropes of the gameplay and don't grind, but most of the people praising these features are mouth breathers that feel like the game is wasting their time when in fact they are trying to break down a brick wall with their fists instead of walking through a door, tactically speaking. It's not even a new thing; the version of FF4 that was brought to the west was dubbed 'easytype' and stripped out a lot of items and character abilities to dumb things down for what was perceived as a retarded western audience that only knew how to button mash.Yeah, actually I'm certain I'll go with the NES / SNES / PSX originals as I'm not just interested in the games but also in a bit of technological history. So the "best" for me is how the games were experienced at the time of release—I want to experience the same thing. And I definitely don't need "easy mode"
They tend to be pretty accurate after enough time has gone by, particularly for popular games, which the FF franchise would qualify as. It's actually a lot of the remakes that fuck things up significantly worse- I recall seeing images of Chrono Trigger's world map that looked like total ass. The developers had passed the individual tiles making up the map through a filter, which resulted in the tiles no longer, well, tiling. Absolutely insane lack of quality control on Squeenix remakes in general, though I have heard good things about the pixel remasters.No clue if it's still the case but emulators do mess things up
I wouldn't quite sell it that short. There were some interesting advancement in the enemy AI around this time. Things like bosses having specific counters to specific types of magic being cast, changing behaviours based on status effects or buffs inflicted, routines initiated after time or health thresholds are reached, and a lot of neat gimmick stuff like the Magus Sisters, Calbrena, and really most of the FF4 bosses had some sort of cool trick.Otherwise FF4 is kiddie shit by comparison, as it is literally just a basic combat game with less going on than even the prior 3 games.
Yeah, I will. Bookmarking this so I won't forget. I just wanna play some of the earlier missed classics from the 80s first, such as a few Ultima games.Do let us know your thought if you get around to playing them, it's always interesting to see perspectives of people who didn't grow up with the games.
I'm not in that target demographic, so OG for me I did enjoy Wizardry I (C64 version), for what it's worth.And yeah, the fact that they add easy mode to remakes for this stuff is pretty asinine- the games can have difficult parts if you're not familiar with the tropes of the gameplay and don't grind, but most of the people praising these features are mouth breathers that feel like the game is wasting their time when in fact they are trying to break down a brick wall with their fists instead of walking through a door, tactically speaking.
This is very good and informative, but demerits for not mentioning V and Tactics, two of the absolute best of the series.The original Final Fantasy for the Famicom/NES is not in the JRPG subgenre but rather a game derived from Wizardry, Ultima, and directly from Dungeons & Dragons, without much of a narrative and without characterization. It is worth playing for someone interested in the roots of the series and is pretty decent in its own right.Can someone give me a TL;DR version of which entries are worth playing? Apart from FF VIII, I also played Knights of Xentar, probably about the first 50%, and that sums up all my experience with jRPGs. Never played a console game in my life.
Final Fantasy IV (originally released outside Japan as Final Fantasy II) on the Super Famicom/NES is very much in the JRPG subgenre, with a lengthy narrative centering around the protagonist, along with various other characters who move into and out of the party, beyond the player's control, amidst a multitude of cutscenes, while combat and exploration are simplistic. It also introduced the "Active Time Battle" system that would continue in the next five games in the series. Worth playing.
Final Fantasy VI (originally released outside Japan as Final Fantasy III) expanded the length to about 40 hours, which would be standard for the next five games in the series, and otherwise continued in the JRPG tradition but now in a steampunk setting and with an ensemble cast. Also has the best music of any series entry and probably of any videogame ever made (series composer Nobuo Uematsu outdid himself here), despite the technical limitations of the Super Famicom/NES. Definitely worth playing.
Final Fantasy VII was a bit of a cultural phenomenon in its day, but the leap to the Sony Playstation and 3D graphics was awkward. Has a nukepunk setting, and starting with this game every entry in the series has many FMV cutscenes in addition to regular cutscenes. If you enjoyed Final Fantasy VIII, you'll probably enjoy this one, if the graphics don't bother you too much.
Final Fantasy VIII tremendously improved the graphical quality over its immediate predecessor, despite being released just two years later and still on the Sony Playstation. Has an irritating cast of teenagers, level scaling, and a semi-futuristic setting that doesn't really cohere. Wouldn't recommend except that you stated you enjoyed it previously.
Final Fantasy IX harked back to the Famicom/NES and Super Famicom/NES games in many ways, while adopting a cartoonish aesthetic relative to the realistic graphics of its immediate predecessor. Has better themes, plot, characters, and gameplay than the other two Playstation Final Fantasies, with a vaguely Baroque 17th-century setting. Worth playing.
Final Fantasy X made the jump to being fully 3D on the Playstation 2, with a post-post-apocalyptic setting and voice-acting (not full voice-acting, but fully in cutscenes). Combat reverted to turn-based, while greater linearity meant exploration was reduced from its already-limited amount. This is the last Final Fantasy with new music by Nobuo, but he only contributed a portion of the soundtrack, so the overall quality is much lower. Looks gorgeous, but I wouldn't recommend except that you enjoyed Final Fantasy VIII.
Final Fantasy XI is an MMORPG, as is its successor Final Fantasy XIV; these two shouldn't have been numbered entries in the series.
Final Fantasy XII is 50% longer than it should be, while having horrific MMORPG-influenced combat in which the player mostly just sits and watches the characters act according to a simple set of if-then statements that the player has inputted. Avoid.
Final Fantasy XIII on the Playstation 3 butchered combat in a different way from its immediate predecessor, while also nixing exploration in favor of running down an endless tunnel/corridor (there aren't even any cities/towns/settlements). The tutorials last over half the game; it isn't until after the midpoint that the combat options are fully unlocked. Also, the characters are the worst of any game in the series. The worst RPG I've ever finished.
Final Fantasy XV was stuck in development hell for a number of years before releasing on the Playstation 4, and the result is an awkward mix of Open World with a sort of Action RPG combat probably influenced by Dragon's Dogma. Notable also for having bizarre tonal dissonance, established quite early in the game, between a road trip for the four party members (all established friends) and a grim tale about the destruction of the protagonist's kingdom and possibly the entire world. Nothing about the game is much good, though it's still better than XII or XIII. Avoid.
There's also II, III, V, XVI, and the many, many offshoots, sequels, or otherwise random games with the Final Fantasy name attached.
This seems to be rather unwarranted critique to me. It's not a bad thing to have games in a series not be connected to each other. Players don't have to play prequels to understand what is going on and a bad entry doesn't mean players won't play the sequels. Rather, it's a new slate every time which can be imprinted with new ideas, different concepts etc etc. And some overarching theme does exist in that it's always fantasy/science-fantasy. "Some overarching masterplan of vision" is pointless when technology changes so rapidly and a gamed which failed atrociously could mean the death of the developer.But Square shouldn't be so revered for their lame-ass approach, as they are with a ton of RPG fans (normies mainly). The fact that the series failed so badly to find any continuity in the series says to me how lacking Square actually are. They got lucky with having good devs at different times, but they weren't an organization with some overarching masterplan of vision. Nor did they really understand their audience, they just kept taking punts on different things trying to appease them (oh look, FF7 sold well, but we want to target a Western audience....let's go for a more realistic tone with FF8....oh look, fans preferred classic FF, let's go back to that for FF9....oh no wait...they did actually like FF8s tone, let's go back to a more realistic one for FF10 etc.)
Some of the games deserve praise for their individual quality, but as a series overall it's lack of consistent identity beyond boring plot tropes such as Crystals is a real shame. It doesn't feel like an evolution, it just jumps around all over the place.
But stuff like The Spirits within was born out of that same, directionless ethos. It was hit & hope, successful hit & hope, but one of the reasons we are now getting such lame RPGs is because other people are following such a hit & hope MO. It worked for Square because of the circumstances (good trends, right devs etc.) but the second those changed it dragged them down to shitsville, hence FF15 and FF16.This seems to be rather unwarranted critique to me. It's not a bad thing to have games in a series not be connected to each other. Players don't have to play prequels to understand what is going on and a bad entry doesn't mean players won't play the sequels. Rather, it's a new slate every time which can be imprinted with new ideas, different concepts etc etc. And some overarching theme does exist in that it's always fantasy/science-fantasy. "Some overarching masterplan of vision" is pointless when technology changes so rapidly and a gamed which failed atrociously could mean the death of the developer.But Square shouldn't be so revered for their lame-ass approach, as they are with a ton of RPG fans (normies mainly). The fact that the series failed so badly to find any continuity in the series says to me how lacking Square actually are. They got lucky with having good devs at different times, but they weren't an organization with some overarching masterplan of vision. Nor did they really understand their audience, they just kept taking punts on different things trying to appease them (oh look, FF7 sold well, but we want to target a Western audience....let's go for a more realistic tone with FF8....oh look, fans preferred classic FF, let's go back to that for FF9....oh no wait...they did actually like FF8s tone, let's go back to a more realistic one for FF10 etc.)
Some of the games deserve praise for their individual quality, but as a series overall it's lack of consistent identity beyond boring plot tropes such as Crystals is a real shame. It doesn't feel like an evolution, it just jumps around all over the place.
While I heavily dislike FF VIII for the level scaling and magic drain mechanic, I don't fault the developers for it. The downfall begins, in my opinion, with overconfidence (the creation of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and the bombing of that movie), unnecessary additions (X-2) and the merger of Squaresoft and Enix. There are also external factors like rapidly rising development costs and an iffy market due to the lack of children in the primary markets (Japan, Europe, somewhat the US)...and the continued buying of games from the former-children-now-adults couldn't yet replace the lack of them. In Japan in particular there is also the rise of mobile phones which had tons of games + a more general switch towards handheld consoles (before their lunch money got eaten by smartphones).
Of course, later on it fits in with the general decline of all Japanese media.
I'm surprised it was second place. Usually my taste in a series goes against consensus.Clearly FFV.
The pixel remasters are fine, however be aware they have some built-in rebalancing you can't turn off (generally easier grinding). If you want the really authentic "hardcore" experience it may be best to go with the original releases.the Pixel Remasters
The sad thing with Final Fantasy is how much such an inconsistent series can steal the spotlight from so many other brilliant RPG series.
Whether you love, loath or feel indifferent to whichever entry, there's no doubting that Square just tried to repackage the same formula to lean towards whatever was trendy at the time. It worked in the 90's because trends were good, but then it all started declining as gaming trends declined themselves, and now it's a piss-poor bloated action game.
But Square shouldn't be so revered for their lame-ass approach, as they are with a ton of RPG fans (normies mainly). The fact that the series failed so badly to find any continuity in the series says to me how lacking Square actually are. They got lucky with having good devs at different times, but they weren't an organization with some overarching masterplan of vision. Nor did they really understand their audience, they just kept taking punts on different things trying to appease them (oh look, FF7 sold well, but we want to target a Western audience....let's go for a more realistic tone with FF8....oh look, fans preferred classic FF, let's go back to that for FF9....oh no wait...they did actually like FF8s tone, let's go back to a more realistic one for FF10 etc.)
Some of the games deserve praise for their individual quality, but as a series overall it's lack of consistent identity beyond boring plot tropes such as Crystals is a real shame. It doesn't feel like an evolution, it just jumps around all over the place.
Nah its spotlight is perfectly appropriate. They were ahead of the curve in many ways. It's not spotlight that is warranted with their modern games, just a soulless machine churning out trash now like everyone else, but the 90s games are and were something else, and is what cemented the series' status and legacy.It's peak 90's games deserve credit, but the amount of spotlight the series gets is ridiculous
No, you are missing the fact that they are artists. It is as Ash says:But stuff like The Spirits within was born out of that same, directionless ethos. It was hit & hope, successful hit & hope, but one of the reasons we are now getting such lame RPGs is because other people are following such a hit & hope MO. It worked for Square because of the circumstances (good trends, right devs etc.) but the second those changed it dragged them down to shitsville, hence FF15 and FF16.This seems to be rather unwarranted critique to me. It's not a bad thing to have games in a series not be connected to each other. Players don't have to play prequels to understand what is going on and a bad entry doesn't mean players won't play the sequels. Rather, it's a new slate every time which can be imprinted with new ideas, different concepts etc etc. And some overarching theme does exist in that it's always fantasy/science-fantasy. "Some overarching masterplan of vision" is pointless when technology changes so rapidly and a gamed which failed atrociously could mean the death of the developer.
While I heavily dislike FF VIII for the level scaling and magic drain mechanic, I don't fault the developers for it. The downfall begins, in my opinion, with overconfidence (the creation of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and the bombing of that movie), unnecessary additions (X-2) and the merger of Squaresoft and Enix. There are also external factors like rapidly rising development costs and an iffy market due to the lack of children in the primary markets (Japan, Europe, somewhat the US)...and the continued buying of games from the former-children-now-adults couldn't yet replace the lack of them. In Japan in particular there is also the rise of mobile phones which had tons of games + a more general switch towards handheld consoles (before their lunch money got eaten by smartphones).
Of course, later on it fits in with the general decline of all Japanese media.
The series really isn't that good in the grand scheme of things. It's peak 90's games deserve credit, but the amount of spotlight the series gets is ridiculous, and doesn't reflect how it's really just the same ideas regurgitated a lot of the time.
And it's not just them. A lot of the 80s and 90s was filled with people with a passion that wanted to create something. Most of the time, they failed at some point and that was that. Sega, for instance, is also a good example of that. Market realities (and Microsoft from what I've read) did them in eventually.-Claiming creative, passion-driven decisions are based on audience demand and not simply what they as artists with a vision wanted to make. How do you go further and explain other highly diverse and creative Square titles like Parasite Eve, Einhander, Final Fantasy Tactics, Brave Fencer Mushashi, Vagrant Story...real time with pause, shmups, action-RPGs, turn-based tactics. Any time you read into the background of Square games, the concept is often the creative dream of the director that they have been clamoring at a chance to produce.
They morphed from a game developer to a corporate entity. Decisions are based on "data". Marketing is worth more than actually creating a good game. And sure, maybe you can get away with it once or twice (see Blizzard), but your legacy will forever be tarnished.-Holding 90s Square and their developers accountable for modern SquareEnix corporatism and soulless trend-chasing. They're not the same entity.
"Originality" isn't recycling the same formula under a different guise. Which is what FF did constantly. Crystals, Evil Empires & Espers pretty much drive most plots.The sad thing with Final Fantasy is how much such an inconsistent series can steal the spotlight from so many other brilliant RPG series.
Whether you love, loath or feel indifferent to whichever entry, there's no doubting that Square just tried to repackage the same formula to lean towards whatever was trendy at the time. It worked in the 90's because trends were good, but then it all started declining as gaming trends declined themselves, and now it's a piss-poor bloated action game.
But Square shouldn't be so revered for their lame-ass approach, as they are with a ton of RPG fans (normies mainly). The fact that the series failed so badly to find any continuity in the series says to me how lacking Square actually are. They got lucky with having good devs at different times, but they weren't an organization with some overarching masterplan of vision. Nor did they really understand their audience, they just kept taking punts on different things trying to appease them (oh look, FF7 sold well, but we want to target a Western audience....let's go for a more realistic tone with FF8....oh look, fans preferred classic FF, let's go back to that for FF9....oh no wait...they did actually like FF8s tone, let's go back to a more realistic one for FF10 etc.)
Some of the games deserve praise for their individual quality, but as a series overall it's lack of consistent identity beyond boring plot tropes such as Crystals is a real shame. It doesn't feel like an evolution, it just jumps around all over the place.
Utterly lame take.
-Shitting on a series for taking risks and being original each time.
-Placing value in continuity between games, as if that means anything and isn't just what dweebs and business execs care about. I'll take self-contained, uniquely different entries anytime. No I don't want to spend 12 games in a row in the same universe, what in the actual fuck. Jesus what a way to sap all the love and respect I have for these games.
-Claiming creative, passion-driven decisions are based on audience demand and not simply what they as artists with a vision wanted to make. How do you go further and explain other highly diverse and creative Square titles like Parasite Eve, Einhander, Final Fantasy Tactics, Brave Fencer Mushashi, Vagrant Story...real time with pause, shmups, action-RPGs, turn-based tactics. Any time you read into the background of Square games, the concept is often the creative dream of the director that they have been clamoring at a chance to produce.
-Holding 90s Square and their developers accountable for modern SquareEnix corporatism and soulless trend-chasing. They're not the same entity.
Nah its spotlight is perfectly appropriate. They were ahead of the curve in many ways. It's not spotlight that is warranted with their modern games, just a soulless machine churning out trash now like everyone else, but the 90s games are and were something else, and is what cemented the series' status and legacy.It's peak 90's games deserve credit, but the amount of spotlight the series gets is ridiculous
What was it overshadowing, your beloved Shadow Hearts: Covenant? Game was chasing FF success and failed. Maybe it should have learned the correct lessons from the winner and not been so gay and boring.
"Originality" isn't recycling the same formula under a different guise. Which is what FF did constantly. Crystals, Evil Empires & Espers pretty much drive most plots.
Continuity counts with me. I enjoyed the FF games, but seeing them jump around with no central focus was jarring and weird after playing other RPGs which were all based in the same universe, places and settings.
I'm not disputing there aren't good games or elements with the series, but the way it is worshipped is way OTT. There's not been a good entry for over 15 years. It's a bit like Star Wars in that I used to love it, but all the dross which has come since has soured that somewhat.
"Originality" isn't recycling the same formula under a different guise. Which is what FF did constantly. Crystals, Evil Empires & Espers pretty much drive most plots.
Continuity counts with me. I enjoyed the FF games, but seeing them jump around with no central focus was jarring and weird after playing other RPGs which were all based in the same universe, places and settings.
I'm not disputing there aren't good games or elements with the series, but the way it is worshipped is way OTT. There's not been a good entry for over 15 years. It's a bit like Star Wars in that I used to love it, but all the dross which has come since has soured that somewhat.
EasyType was the alternative Japanese version of Final Fantasy IV for a younger audience:It's not even a new thing; the version of FF4 that was brought to the west was dubbed 'easytype' and stripped out a lot of items and character abilities to dumb things down for what was perceived as a retarded western audience that only knew how to button mash.