Karifean
05-06-2013, 10:03 PM
I just posted this as a response to a GameFAQs thread on the FF VI (PSX) board titled "why is this game so overrated?" (in direct response to the title question)
Probably because the people who glorify FF VI are the same people that grew up along with it. They were amazed by it and their expectations for further FF games soared through the roof. VII came along and of course their expectations could not be matched. But VII was praised like crazy (and understandably so); they became a bit mad because they thought VI was better but it hadn't nearly gotten the same amount of praise as VII, giving them a sour view on VII. FF is a series that reinvents itself with every installment yet what they were looking for was a game like VI. IX came close to that so many of them took a liking to that - but again, it was kinda overlooked (sadly). Basically, no FF game past VI had as much of an impact on them as VI did. This all is of course only speculation but this is how I perceive the situation.
About VI itself, I think it's a great game. The only reason it emits a bit of an "overrated" vibe to me is because some fanboys insist on the fact that no FF (except maybe IX) every equalized VI while I think they did. Kefka is a bland villain - if you look at him from above. But there's so much more than that - and that is his presentation. He is goddamn scary. If there's one villain I absolutely do not want to come across ever, it's him. It's not his characterization, it's his presentation that makes him so good. But unfortunately, presentation is something that is perceived differently by every player, so it'll only work for some, but not for others.
Essentially, what I call the "FF Trap" is to play an FF and then play the rest in hopes of finding something similar. Mostly, this simply does not work because the FF games are radically different from each other. Sure, there are countless similarities but the point is, if you like one, that doesn't mean you'll like them all; it might even mean the opposite. So fanboys will continue to search for a game similar to the one that originally impressed them so much only to be disappointed because - once again - the new games are completely different.
I live in Europe and the first numbered FF game we got was VII. VII had the greatest impact on me out of all of them and so I will regard it highly - but I myself admit that I am probably overrating it. It's not my favorite FF game anymore, but for the longest time it was, simply due to its impact when I first played it. I wasn't used to this sort of game. The subsequent games will never have that plus point of impact anymore, therefore, you're likely to overrate the first FF you played - at least this applies to most FFs. That impact is not something anyone else can relate to, thus they cannot comprehend what it is that we see in the game - thereby comes the saying that they "overrate" the game.
Do you agree or disagree with my point of view? Any constructive criticism and discussion is welcome. I'm not saying what I wrote is fact, this is simply how I perceive it. How do you think an "overrating" is developed?
Probably because the people who glorify FF VI are the same people that grew up along with it. They were amazed by it and their expectations for further FF games soared through the roof. VII came along and of course their expectations could not be matched. But VII was praised like crazy (and understandably so); they became a bit mad because they thought VI was better but it hadn't nearly gotten the same amount of praise as VII, giving them a sour view on VII. FF is a series that reinvents itself with every installment yet what they were looking for was a game like VI. IX came close to that so many of them took a liking to that - but again, it was kinda overlooked (sadly). Basically, no FF game past VI had as much of an impact on them as VI did. This all is of course only speculation but this is how I perceive the situation.
About VI itself, I think it's a great game. The only reason it emits a bit of an "overrated" vibe to me is because some fanboys insist on the fact that no FF (except maybe IX) every equalized VI while I think they did. Kefka is a bland villain - if you look at him from above. But there's so much more than that - and that is his presentation. He is goddamn scary. If there's one villain I absolutely do not want to come across ever, it's him. It's not his characterization, it's his presentation that makes him so good. But unfortunately, presentation is something that is perceived differently by every player, so it'll only work for some, but not for others.
Essentially, what I call the "FF Trap" is to play an FF and then play the rest in hopes of finding something similar. Mostly, this simply does not work because the FF games are radically different from each other. Sure, there are countless similarities but the point is, if you like one, that doesn't mean you'll like them all; it might even mean the opposite. So fanboys will continue to search for a game similar to the one that originally impressed them so much only to be disappointed because - once again - the new games are completely different.
I live in Europe and the first numbered FF game we got was VII. VII had the greatest impact on me out of all of them and so I will regard it highly - but I myself admit that I am probably overrating it. It's not my favorite FF game anymore, but for the longest time it was, simply due to its impact when I first played it. I wasn't used to this sort of game. The subsequent games will never have that plus point of impact anymore, therefore, you're likely to overrate the first FF you played - at least this applies to most FFs. That impact is not something anyone else can relate to, thus they cannot comprehend what it is that we see in the game - thereby comes the saying that they "overrate" the game.
Do you agree or disagree with my point of view? Any constructive criticism and discussion is welcome. I'm not saying what I wrote is fact, this is simply how I perceive it. How do you think an "overrating" is developed?