|
Francois Kofko posted:No worries, FFIX is flawless Card game is pretty boring and lacks any of the tangible benefits of FFVIII's. 
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
Eggie posted:Vaan is FFXII's hero from a marketing standpoint only. It's been said before but the true hero of FFXII is Ashe and Vaan only served as a marketing tool, which I don't mind because the game starting with Vaan's perspective gave a very saddened yet ambitious tone for the story that worked very well. Honestly, I like Vaan as a character. Now as the plot moves along Vaan doesn't do much but he and Penelo talk and their characters grow a bit so it's not like they completely vanish from the story- they still have presence. I thought it was Basch (the "older" knight-guy) who was originally supposed to be the lead character in the story, then they added Vaan for marketing purposes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Francois Kofko posted:No worries, FFIX is flawless Bad card game, slow plot, Eiko, Quina, entire soul transfer poo poo, final boss, slow slow combat. I did like learning skills from item and the main character's job being thief but outside of that I didn't really care for the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Card game is pretty boring and lacks any of the tangible benefits of FFVIII's. I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA I thought the card game was kinda fun. It didn't take me long to figure out, and I didn't start playing until my cards were actually reasonable, but I had a decent amount of fun with it (even if it was pretty self-contained).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Bad card game, slow plot, Eiko, Quina, entire soul transfer poo poo, final boss, slow slow combat. I did like learning skills from item and the main character's job being thief but outside of that I didn't really care for the game. Triple Triad isn't much better at all, the plot moves pretty quick after Disc 2, Eiko is hilarious, so is Quina, don't see what's wrong with the soul transfer thing since at that point existence had been completely obliterated, the final boss has a fantastic theme, and the combat being slow is exaggerated. Azure_Horizon fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Gonna do a replay through the series. Not necessarily in order. I've pretty much got console vs. PC as a choice for each. Looking for some input if there's a better version to go with. FF1 - GBA over GC (Is this better than PSX?) FF2 - GBA over GC (Is this better than PSX?) FF3 - ZSnes? FF4 - PSX FF5 - PSX FF6 - PSX FF7 - Undecided. I remember not liking the PC version, but dat PSX translation. FF8 - PSX (I don't know that there's much value to the PC version) FF9 - PSX FF10 - PS2 (US release) FF10.2 - PS2 FF12 - PS2 (non-IZJS) FF13.2 - 360 + Sazh DLC + Lightning DLC + Gilgamesh + Ultron + Lighting Coli FFT - 1.3 Content
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Gonna do a replay through the series. Not necessarily in order. I've pretty much got console vs. PC as a choice for each. Looking for some input if there's a better version to go with. Here's how I recommend. FF1 - PSP or GBA FF2 - PSP or GBA FF3 - NES FF4 - PSP or GBA, or DS if you want something different FF5 - GBA FF6 - GBA The GBA ports add stuff and fix a few bugs for each, and the PSP ports enhance those. I'd go PSP first, then GBA if you don't have a PSP. The problems with the PS1 versions are slow load-times and in the case of FF5 a pretty bad translation. FF1/2 on PS1 are pretty nice, at least, but I'd still recommend the GBA or PSP versions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Yeah. I don't have a PSP and I've only got the GBA versions of 1 and 2. If the 5 translation is really awful, I'd rebuy that for the GBA, but I can just as easily rip and emulate the PSX versions of 4 and 6 to soften the load times (or just play the original SNES releases).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
The problems with FF7 PC is the music got replaced with some crappy MIDIs with an awful soundfont and it sounds like poo poo. If you do play PC FF7 find the mod that fixes the music or just play the PS1 version. The writing is so barely improved you won't notice it. Also FF5 Advance is perfect and by far the best version of the game. The fan translations aren't nearly as good by any metric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
I'd play the original version ten times out of ten with FF6. They messed up the sound and added load times in exchange for three or four ugly CGI videos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:I'd play the original version ten times out of ten with FF6. They messed up the sound and added load times in exchange for three or four ugly CGI videos.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
VI and IX hold up the best for me, easily. I'm about to beat VI Advance and 18 years after the first time I played it I still adore that game. Even though it really doesn't give all its playable characters nearly enough to do in the story, I'd still have preferred keeping them in and seeing more of them get full-on WoR sidequests of their own like Cyan and Strago did. As for IX, its cartoony graphics have aged pretty well for the 5th generation. I've gotten burnt out near the end of almost every JRPG I've ever played because by then the characters all play the same—or for each character I have to do one thing over and over in every fight—final dungeons often have dull designs, and I just want the loving game to end. I didn't feel nearly as much of that with IX as usual. ImpAtom posted:Card game is pretty boring and lacks any of the tangible benefits of FFVIII's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
I have to admit, I like the Final Fantasies where the characters homogenize the least by the endgame. When I played FF6, I equipped Espers that would complement characters, rather than turn everybody into a caster. I also hate doing grindy poo poo like breeding chocobos or dodging 100 lightning bolts to get ultimate weapons, but I guess that stuff is optional for a reason. Also I really like the Final Fantasies that don't make me play through some dude's angsty bullshit for like 75% of the game. Or if they do, let me switch him out of the party, please. There are other characters that I would much prefer to use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Gonna do a replay through the series. Not necessarily in order. I've pretty much got console vs. PC as a choice for each. Looking for some input if there's a better version to go with. FF1: PSX FF2: PSP or GBA FF3: NES FF4: PSP or GBA FF5: GBA FF6: SNES or GBA
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Ross posted:I thought it was Basch (the "older" knight-guy) who was originally supposed to be the lead character in the story, then they added Vaan for marketing purposes? Basch was meant to be the main character, yes. He would have made a better "main character" than Vaan. Vaan was added because the last time Matsuno (the original co-director of FFXII) made a game with an older protagonist (Vagrant Story) it bombed. Of course, this is silly because Final Fantasy is one of the biggest franchises in video games and Square-Enix could make a Final Fantasy with a drunken walrus as the main character and it would sell like hot cakes. quote:FFIX talk The more I talk about FFIX, the more I like it even if it's a little flawed. I understand what people say when it has charm. I might have complained about this before, but I didn't like how ATEs didn't show up as much in the later discs. Steiner and Freya could have used them since they sort of fall off the map later on in the story and you don't know how they're feeling in relates to the plot. Plus, the ATE's were just generally entertaining and charming. Square-Enix should bring them back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Eggie posted:Final Fantasy with a drunken walrus as the main character I would unironically but the poo poo out of this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:FF1: PSX
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
I really suggest playing FFXII International. It's such a drastic improvement over the original.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Gonna do a replay through the series. Not necessarily in order. I've pretty much got console vs. PC as a choice for each. Looking for some input if there's a better version to go with.  or whatever but I seriously can't imagine playing any version of 2 or 3 without an emulator with savestates and frameskip. Obviously that merits consideration for any oldschool JRPG, but FF2 and 3 are among the grindiest and most annoying I've ever played.Curiously despite somebody else saying the newer versions took the grind out of FF1, I never found that game to be too bad. It's slow-paced, but it's also easier than 2 or 3 so you don't actually have to grind as much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
The only grind FF1 had was getting to level 7-8 on creeps and ogres at Elfland to make the Marsh Cave suck less, or getting a silver sword which usually took until 8-9 depending on anything else you bought. Other than that, unless you do some Giant Hall power leveling to make things easier you can usually just play through and not grind until the very end game (if at all) depending on your team and how well you use the Heal equipment and stuff like Black/White shirts, Zeus gauntlet, Thor's Hammer...etc. If you've played the game a bunch and go with a high-powered team like Fighter, Fighter/Black Belt, Black Belt, Red Mage you're probably going to be fine without any grind but you can expect Astos to be a major bitch if you're only level 5-7. FF2 is a whole different story. Either break the difficulty over your knee by leveling the right stuff, or be prepared for a horrible slog later on. If you don't get agility leveling up then the late game is unbearable because you can never flee, status effects will always hit you, and so will every enemy attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
The last time I played FF1 I got all the way to Chaos but I just couldn't damage him fast enough before he full healed. I took down all the fiends in the dungeon leading up to him in just a couple of turns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Francois Kofko posted:No worries, FFIX is flawless Trance. Otherwise, I'd tend to agree. Now I just have to figure out why I haven't replayed as often as it deserves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:I really suggest playing FFXII International. It's such a drastic improvement over the original. In story? Or just mechanics? I'm not really interested in paying $90 for another copy of an rpg I already own for the sake of a few gameplay improvements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:In story? Or just mechanics? I'm not really interested in paying $90 for another copy of an rpg I already own for the sake of a few gameplay improvements. Just mechanics. There's little-to-no real change to the story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:In story? Or just mechanics? I'm not really interested in paying $90 for another copy of an rpg I already own for the sake of a few gameplay improvements. Although calling it "a few gameplay improvements" is short-selling it a bit. The gameplay feels pretty substantially different in many ways; it's not trivial additions like a few tacked on boss fights. For a game that is very heavy on gameplay in the gameplay:story ratio, big improvements to how well it plays is significant. On the other hand, can't blame you for not wanting to buy a game twice to play once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
I can't remember if it's FF2 or FF3 but one of them has a final dungeon that's often noted as the hardest in all of RPGing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Ross posted:I can't remember if it's FF2 or FF3 but one of them has a final dungeon that's often noted as the hardest in all of RPGing. FF3 is the one with the ridiculous marathon final dungeon with no save point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Miracon posted:FF3 is the one with the ridiculous marathon final dungeon with no save point. The most fun I've had in RPGing in a long while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
Ross posted:I can't remember if it's FF2 or FF3 but one of them has a final dungeon that's often noted as the hardest in all of RPGing. I would't go that far. It's 3, and it's not that it's "hard," but that it's rather bullshitty. There's two dungeons nestled within each other, the second with 4 hard boss fights and then the final battle. It's rather long and can be pretty taxing on your numbers by the time you get to them. There's no save points and if you try to warp out it only takes you as far as the one square area of world map between the two dungeons, so you've still got to walk out the rest of the way. So there's no good way to stop and prep up between boss fights. What is the hardest dungeon? Probably something in Nocturne.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Schwartzcough posted:Although calling it "a few gameplay improvements" is short-selling it a bit. The gameplay feels pretty substantially different in many ways; it's not trivial additions like a few tacked on boss fights. For a game that is very heavy on gameplay in the gameplay:story ratio, big improvements to how well it plays is significant. Basically I'd say a whole lot of gameplay flaws were fixed in the International version. Characters end up the same - You pick one of 12 different jobs for each character, so everyone is different. Random chests are a pain - There are a lot more chests, and they respawn faster. Plus there's no convoluted "forbidden" chest thing. The game can be a little slow - Press a button and the game's speed doubles. Handy for quickly moving from place to place. Near endgame weapon/magic balance becomes bad, with high combo weapons being the only good choice for damage. - The removal of the 9999 damage cap means that balance is drastically improved. Magic is actually useful and the difference between slow and powerful weapons and fast and weak weapons is actually meaniningful
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Miracon posted:FF3 is the one with the ridiculous marathon final dungeon with no save point. I don't remember it sourly. I just remember it being really boring, and the high encounter rate didn't help that at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Ross posted:I can't remember if it's FF2 or FF3 but one of them has a final dungeon that's often noted as the hardest in all of RPGing. III, specifically III DS. It's designed in such a stupid way. First off, the entrance to the final dungeon is at the end of another dungeon, so you'll be a bit down on resources by the time you even get there. There are no save points in between or in fact anywhere in the whole process. Once you get into the final dungeon, you can't get out at all. Basically the final dungeon is two or three hours by its lonesome; you're supposed to go through and kill four minibosses, each of whom can be kind of tricky but usually aren't all that difficult. You can skip the minibosses if you'd like, but you're supposed to do most of your endgame grinding in the last dungeon and going through and killing them at least gives you some illusion of progress. Smart players will notice at this point that thanks to the lack of save points or ability to leave the dungeon if you die at any point you have to do everything all over again. The issue here is that the last boss is easily the hardest final boss in the series, especially since in the DS version they dramatically inflated her health and gave her three extra attacks per round because of a bunch of jerking off about ~oldschool RPGs~. There's no way you can heal faster than she can damage you, so your gameplan is to deal damage faster than she can. You still need a healer to buy you enough time to maybe have a shot at grinding her down, though, so if she decides to focus fire him down in the first couple rounds you're hosed, try again. In other words, gently caress III DS, it's hard but for all the least interesting reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:There are no save points in between or in fact anywhere in the whole process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
At least Dragon Quarter built its mechanics around the saving thing. The final dungeon in FF3 just doesn't have any save points because gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
It didn't have any save points, because they hadn't been invented yet. FF4 was the first RPG to have them, I'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:It didn't have any save points, because they hadn't been invented yet. FF4 was the first RPG to have them, I'm pretty sure. The obvious advantage to remaking an old game is that you can put in all these convenient gameplay elements that have since been implemented such as buying multiple items at once and--gasp--save points! But no, the players must have an authentic, legitimate experience. This of course includes inflating enemy HP by at least one magnitude and giving them multiple attacks per turn while the only advantage the game gives to the player is removing a damage cap they'll almost never feasibly reach (and doing so lazily, might I add).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:The obvious advantage to remaking an old game is that you can put in all these convenient gameplay elements that have since been implemented such as buying multiple items at once and--gasp--save points!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:The obvious advantage to remaking an old game is that you can put in all these convenient gameplay elements that have since been implemented such as buying multiple items at once and--gasp--save points! Well, of course. It's just that for the original, it was somewhat understandable, even if it dates the game heavily. Did the DS version at least make it so that you don't lose all your defense when trying to run away?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
Vil posted:Trance. High Tide  Seriously, all this IX love does my heart good. It is an absolutely magical game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
CloseFriend posted:I really hate this idea that the inability to save makes a game's content more difficult. (Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter, for instance, made saving a Bad Thing as part of its design.) All it means is that when my guys die, so does all my interest in doing all that poo poo ever again. It's a pretty legitimate design decision, but one that works meaningful in games where conservation and knowledge are a big part of what is going on. (Which doesn't apply to Final Fantasy at all.) It isn't supposed to make the game more difficult so much as it is to change the mindset that someone approaches a game with. In something like Shiren the Wanderer or Dragon Quarter or even many games with Ironman/Hardcore modes, you're not expected to finish it in one go. Each trip into the game is supposed to involve gradually increasing knowledge (and in the case of games like Dragon Quarter or Shiren, gradually stacking bonuses.) The purpose of limited or punishing saves is to encourage players to try different tactics, deal with mistakes, and in general do something besides savescum for optimal results or zerg rush until they get through. As such they play a big part in games where conservation and proper use of resources is a meaningful part of the game. The problem is that never applies to Final Fantasy. Your resources in Final Fantasy are extremely basic, there's little in the way of randomization or unexpected circumstances, and the ways you can approach enemies are limited. By limiting your saves there all you do is increase the tedium because a trip back through that dungeon isn't going to increase your knowledge or require you to do something different. Nor can you make "progress" like in some of the better Dragon Quest games where you unlock shortcuts. More often than not a FF dungeon is linear as hell and so repeat trips are boring instead of something that feels like you make progress. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Sep 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 07:00
|
|