http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff3/...ff3rdrev1.html
they gave it a 3 outta 10 and bashed the crap out of it read the review it'll make you mad lol
Printable View
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff3/...ff3rdrev1.html
they gave it a 3 outta 10 and bashed the crap out of it read the review it'll make you mad lol
Well, they don't really know what they're talking about anyway. Just ignore them. :cat:
Guy's complaints about the game are either extremely pettyor entirely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterland
It is pretty ridiculous, but then, who actually goes to RPGamer for their reviews? As esteemed a games journalist as Mr. "Otterland" must be, I think his influence on this issue is pretty nonexistant. The loss is entirely his.Quote:
Yes, the third Final Fantasy, with the exception of a few new character sprites and colored battle menus, uses exactly the same graphics as the second installment.
I think the reviewer needs to get his googles checked. Sure, the battles still had a lot of black, but at last the blue menu and stuff appears during battles! And also that annoying battle glitch off missing instead of choosing a new opponent is gone.
And lol, the story of III was by far better than II, sorry for that, II fans. Sure II had character development, and had the most unbelievable people-die scenes in it. At least [SPOILER] Elia's Death [end spoiler] was a lot sadder, IMHO.
I agree about the inventory that it was rather small, but it was not a big problem. Find some fat chocobo and drop away, I woudl say. or when you get that gorgeous Invincible Airship, you can always have a Fatty, as long as you have the stuff to make him appear^^.
The enemy sprites and battle backgrounds in III were also a lot more coulorfull and more detailed than the sprites and backgrounds in II.
All in all, III pwns II in many, many ways.
And the fact that he thinks the bosses are hard, just prove that he can't play a challenging game. Sure there are bosses who smurf you, like Bahamut as an example, but nothing too serious.
And he even gives the music an underrated score. Elia's theme, Battle2, Dark World (!!!) were all examples of great songs. And this was also teh first FF in which the Final Boss got it's own battle music!
So, it's not FF III that's wrong, it's just the reviewer. He wouldn't even recognize a good FF if he was playing one. Just ignore him. :)
FF III got everything out of the NES that there was to get out, pitty if you can't even see THAT. A pure fact. ^^"
This was also the first game in which damage appeared as happy bouncy numbers instead of a mere text message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elpizo
I think he just disliked the game and was biased about it. Don't worry about the review. :) Some things I'd like to point out, though:
- Otterland was annoyed of the battle system mostly because he thought the game was hard. It's not really that hard if you level up enough and use proper classes. One of the things that annoyed him was "the fact that enemies can beat you to healing", which at least to me hints a lot that he doesn't like the challenge. As for bosses being like fighting Chaos on level 1, I didn't find them that hard. My party rarely died in this game, except against some of the harder bosses (Garuda, Bahamut) and when some enemies with Confuse abilities ambushed my party from behind.
- He was complaining a lot about the user interface and a bit about the graphics, but I'd just like to note that this is still a NES game. I thought the game was already pushing NES to its limits in many ways. He actually liked the music, but he still gave it a very low score.
- I'm not totally sure about the storyline. I think there's a bit more to the story than in FFII, but it's not as dark or have as tragic twists as FFII. However, there's still a lot of twists and emotional moments. Since the party members don't have names or personalities, they aren't really individuals, so the character development is quite low, but it's not like FFI or FFII had much character interaction or development in the first place. The side characters are great, however. Sara, Desh, Cid, Elia, Dorga, Unne, Allus, the four old men... that's quite a nice cast, IMHO. :) The DS version will hopefully give the characters (both party members and side characters) some more depth.
Overall, I don't think Otterland's review was all that bad (at least it wasn't "tis gaem totly sux its da wr0st gaim evalol!!!1111"), it was just biased, being against the game. Although as Kishi said, the loss is entirely his.
True, I forgot that. ^^"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryűkishi
FF III added so many things that were reused in the next 6 FF's to come. (Like in IV, isn't the Lunar Whale quite similiar to the Invincible?)
It finished FF's foundation.
Bah. It's his loss. That's all I can say:)
3/5, not 10.
Hmmm.. I thought that that was written before the scale change, thus being (on the new scale) 2/5... oh well. Still doesn't change that he was unfair in his judgement. However, If you look at his record, the average rate for all of his 167 reviews is 2.94/5: He gives alot of negative reviews!
Given that he called the OST "gorgeous" and gave music a 4, I think it's out of 5, but I could be wrong as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angi-Kaiser
I dont listen to reviews. I make my own mind up.
The guy's entitled to his opinion, it certainly doesn't influence my enjoyment of the game.
The bosses aren't hard...execpt dark world...which I'm taking on tomorrow - Course, I trained A LOT - cuz I thought I could beat Nepto without giving his eye back...but no.