All-Purpose Final Fantasy Thread
- Thread starter Rodgerwilco
- Start date
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,639
- 10,344
Finally (heh) finished FF16, and I think its pretty mid as far as FFs go. I’d put it about on par with FF13.
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 30,615
- 42,118
I've been playing the pixel remasters on PS4. FF6 was always one of my favorite games of all time, but I think I've finally mastered it after a dozen playthroughs over the last 25 years. By carefully managing the esper boosts on level ups, my characters were unstoppable in the latter portion of the game.
I'm now just tying up loose ends to collect all the trophies and achievements. I just have to go back to the phantom train to complete the bestiary (the coliseum turned that task from hours and hours of hunting to like 45 minutes to knock out most of what I had missing by the end of the game), as well as collect all the chests in the world of balance that I'd missed.
I'm now just tying up loose ends to collect all the trophies and achievements. I just have to go back to the phantom train to complete the bestiary (the coliseum turned that task from hours and hours of hunting to like 45 minutes to knock out most of what I had missing by the end of the game), as well as collect all the chests in the world of balance that I'd missed.
K Fleur
Sacrifice
- Mar 28, 2014
- 15,933
- 26,910
I played and beat FF6 for the first time this year. Maybe I missed something with it but I didn’t find the story that interesting. Great characters(especially Celes) but the overall story and especially the ending fell kinda flat for me.
Overall it was a great game but idk I found FF7 and FFX were both a lot better but that could just be nostalgia blinders.
Overall it was a great game but idk I found FF7 and FFX were both a lot better but that could just be nostalgia blinders.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Probably just guessing based on the initial Nvidia leaks from way back when. There hasn't been much new info since, as far as I'm aware.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Its charms are a little less flashy than 7 and 10, IMO, and your experience might also be affected by missable story, if you didn't find them. Generally speaking, the plot itself isn't its greatest strength, but there are certainly story threads and themes for individual characters that are really tastefully explored.
Here are some parts you could have easily missed.
(a minor variation that pays off the previous scene)
I think the game's greatest strength is probably its elegance and tightness (compared to how occasionally flawed and messy something like 7 can be). I don't necessarily like it as much as 7 overall (that plot structure and the way that key moments are delivered is just too strong), but I like it more than 10 by a longshot, personally.
Last edited:
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
IIRC, the Nvidia leak had it coming out well before 2024. Wasn't sure if there was something else that dropped that I missed or if it was just pure speculation that is intended to sound like actual knowledge...
Just started FFXV Royal Edition. I haven't gone through a FF title since I was horribly let down by XIII. I've heard XV was hideous when it released but that Royal Edition fixed alot. So far so good. Loving the combat.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Right, I'm pretty sure it's just pure speculation about it being soon. There were some rumbles in June about Matsuno suspiciously asking fans about how they'd hypothetically want Cidolfus to be balanced, and a self-proclaimed insider on the internet who apparently guessed some other stuff correctly who said that the game itself was ready and that they were just waiting for the right moment to announce it, as well as some stuff in February where Square devs said that the Tactics team was very busy with a project at the moment, but that's about it. Pretty flimsy.
I wonder if 16 not doing amazingly in sales changes anything.
Last edited:
Turin
Erik Karlsson is good
- Feb 27, 2018
- 24,384
- 29,003
Bumping this thread.
FFXII: Zodiac Age is so underrated. IMO a top tier FF. I feel like it would be a legendary jrpg if it wasn’t a FF game with all the expectations that came with it.
Playing through IV (my first FF on game boy I never beat) pixel remaster on the Steam Deck and having a blast.
FFXII: Zodiac Age is so underrated. IMO a top tier FF. I feel like it would be a legendary jrpg if it wasn’t a FF game with all the expectations that came with it.
Playing through IV (my first FF on game boy I never beat) pixel remaster on the Steam Deck and having a blast.
KirkAlbuquerque
#WeNeverGetAGoodCoach
Rodgerwilco
Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
- Feb 6, 2014
- 8,076
- 7,598
I haven't played it, but I've read a lot of the lore and it seems like an awesome game with a great story.
Mikeaveli
Registered User
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 28,631
- 37,610
DJ Spinoza
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2003
- 25,956
- 4,528
I think I am going to finally give one of the pre-VII games a go over the holidays. I have the 1-VI collection on Switch and a 9-10 hour train ride coming up next week to get me jumpstarted. There's no real reason why I haven't done so before other than randomness and laziness -- I somehow missed VII growing up, but played IX and X a lot in middle and high school, and then circled back to VII just before playing Remake.
I doubt I really have the time to play a bunch of them, as my work schedule is pretty busy until mid-February or so, and so for now I am just trying to isolate one to start. Gonna try and read up a bit, but it seems like the obvious choice is just to go with VI. Anyone have a quick reaction or experience playing the new anthology collection? (The latter is somewhat of a moot point since I already have it, so that's the way I will access whichever of the games I decide on)
I doubt I really have the time to play a bunch of them, as my work schedule is pretty busy until mid-February or so, and so for now I am just trying to isolate one to start. Gonna try and read up a bit, but it seems like the obvious choice is just to go with VI. Anyone have a quick reaction or experience playing the new anthology collection? (The latter is somewhat of a moot point since I already have it, so that's the way I will access whichever of the games I decide on)
Jovavic
boohoo, Pens "fans", BOOHOO
I've played most of the IV and VI pixal remasters and I could swear they lowered the encounter rate but upped the EXP so you're fighting a boss around the same level you did in previous versions, but with less fighting getting there. Of course, if you've never played the older versions then you're not going to notice lol
I've never played the pixel versions yet, still havnt gotten around to grabbing it, but I have recently played VI on my emulator and yeah, def good one to go for. Great game.
DJ Spinoza
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2003
- 25,956
- 4,528
Interesting... I have always been someone who does not mind grinding very much/exploring a lot.
Thanks!
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
FF1 works well in it's simplicity in this manner, and if you have time I'd recommend it after VI and IV. I missed it back in the day (did play original Dragon Warrior and Phantasy Star though) but played the PSP version maybe 12 years ago, thought it held up well if you have a tolerance for old JRPG's. Very hands off letting you explore the large overworld map to find the next objective.
If you're going in fresh to the first 6 FF's though its worth noting that at the start of the RPG genre they didn't have the memory capacity to tell much of a story so things were kept brief and the focus instead was on grinding gameplay. VI is the first FF game that really stepped up into developing characters and slowing down on story moments, as well not a big deal with all the re-releases but the first one with great pixel art that can stands up today as is. Looking at FF IV on the other hand, it has characters and a story that could be as good as any FF game but its stuck in the old style of having keeping the text extremely brief. The baseline is all there but it never stops to develop it. Still though it stands as the first standout FF game I'd say.
Shareefruck
Registered User
My opinion:
VI is the only genuinely/unreservedly great one from I-VI that actually competes with the others you've played, in my opinion. So yeah, definitely the favorite. There's just a tasteful elegance/inspiration/completeness to it that kind of perfectly encompasses the franchise.
IV and V are solid but not on that level and are probably equal but in opposite ways. Neither are as ambitious in scale as the later ones but I'd say IV is the first one to still have the raw bare bones essential skeleton of what makes Final Fantasy iconic and gives the franchise its identity. What's missing for me is that the campy humor/whimsy falls flat compared to future ones (because Kitase isn't on board yet and that's what he's good at). V is very different. It instead doesn't work as well on a serious/substantive level, in my opinion, but it's fun/whimsical/silly in an almost Saturday Morning Cartoon kind of way (all Kitase). I initially dismissed it outright for story reasons, but it does have its endearing charms. And the gameplay is deeper/more interesting than IV.
I-III are not very worth playing in my opinion. II is particularly bad. Pixel Remasters might make them tolerable/visually respectable, but I just don't think there's really any meat on them (the opening sequence of I with the first instance of that main theme is pretty timeless, but that's about it). Gameplay-wise, III is the best among them.
Personally, I think Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions is the best Final Fantasy, period, so I'd highly recommend that one (I actually think the Mobile port might be the best version). There's definitely some AI/balancing tedium to it, but it's worth putting up with.
VIII should not be skipped as well, even though it has flaws. I still think it's a more worthwhile than IV or V.
Last edited:
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,639
- 10,344
In simplest terms, I'd compare FF6 to poetry, while I'd compare FF7 to a great novel, and FFX to a Michael Bay movie.
There's a lot you can miss in FF6, and it's laid out such that the major themes are unmissable, but within those broad strokes are stories and ideas that you have to take it upon yourself to explore.
Final Fantasy 7 comes off as more complex than it is due to terrible translation. Once that's fixed, the various story threads and overarching themes are pretty straightforward. There is definitely depth to be explored within several of the characters, but the overarching plot and major character motivations are rather straightforward.
Final Fantasy X is the idiot proof Final Fantasy. There is literally nothing important in that game you can miss, even if you tried your best to avoid it.
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 30,615
- 42,118
IV was really good but the story was uneven. I think there were either aspects of the story they rushed in because they would up having more cart space left or aspects they cut down because they had less then they thought. Or probably a little of both. The first half of the game was significantly better than the second half story wise. The moon segment was especially out of place. And I always hated how you wind up playing the last few segments of the game with characters you have very little invested in like Edge and Fusoya. Also, 95% of the way through the game we find out that the
big bad antagonist isn't really the antagonist but your long lost brother and the final boss is another entity altogether.
V was just an exploration of the job class and battle system and story was a throwaway background. Fun to play but definitely doesn't live up to the other two SNES games.
VI was nearly a perfect game, without question my favorite.
PeteWorrell
[...]
- Aug 31, 2006
- 5,183
- 2,276
Final Fantasy II has an undeserved bad reputation in the west, because it's an NES game that was officially released for the first time in 2003. It never stood a chance when people already had a chance to play the much more modern PSX and early PS2 games. It would be remembered more fondly if it was released in it's proper time period to be compared to actual contemporaries.
The game is more ambitious than the first title by having a more involved narrative and distinct characters as party member instead of generic heroes. It introduced many series staples like Chocobos, Cid, Dragoons and enemies like the Behemoth, Malboro, Bomb... These new elements started to make the series more distinct than just being Japanese Dungeons & Dragons.
The battle system in that game is also different than what people expect out of a Final Fantasy game which is part of the reason the title is seen as controversial. It's closer to a game from the SaGa series or a western RPG. You don't have levels but instead your characters get stats increases by using attacks and abilities against enemies and getting hit in combat.
It's like how in a game series like The Elder Scrolls, your character gets better using swords by using a sword in combat. It's the same way in Final Fantasy II. Your characters gain more HP by getting hit and thus you have people trying to game the system by hitting themselves in combat.
They don't understand that the system was made so that stats will increase naturally by fighting stronger enemies as they progress through the game. The reason is that enemies have hidden ranks which is calculated in adjusting the stats increases your characters get. You are not supposed to be able to grind against early enemies over and over again to get insane stats.
The biggest weakness the system has, is that magic is leveled the same way but you don't have access to every spell from the start. That means that a powerful late game spell starts at level 0 and is less useful than the level 10 fire spell that you gained in the early game and leveled up naturally. That means that you must take the time to grind spells gained much later if you ever want to make use of them which i can understand that many players just won't bother doing.
The game is more ambitious than the first title by having a more involved narrative and distinct characters as party member instead of generic heroes. It introduced many series staples like Chocobos, Cid, Dragoons and enemies like the Behemoth, Malboro, Bomb... These new elements started to make the series more distinct than just being Japanese Dungeons & Dragons.
The battle system in that game is also different than what people expect out of a Final Fantasy game which is part of the reason the title is seen as controversial. It's closer to a game from the SaGa series or a western RPG. You don't have levels but instead your characters get stats increases by using attacks and abilities against enemies and getting hit in combat.
It's like how in a game series like The Elder Scrolls, your character gets better using swords by using a sword in combat. It's the same way in Final Fantasy II. Your characters gain more HP by getting hit and thus you have people trying to game the system by hitting themselves in combat.
They don't understand that the system was made so that stats will increase naturally by fighting stronger enemies as they progress through the game. The reason is that enemies have hidden ranks which is calculated in adjusting the stats increases your characters get. You are not supposed to be able to grind against early enemies over and over again to get insane stats.
The biggest weakness the system has, is that magic is leveled the same way but you don't have access to every spell from the start. That means that a powerful late game spell starts at level 0 and is less useful than the level 10 fire spell that you gained in the early game and leveled up naturally. That means that you must take the time to grind spells gained much later if you ever want to make use of them which i can understand that many players just won't bother doing.
