FF1-3 are the Worst

Face it. They laid the groundwork but that's it. No one cares about the foundation of the building. it's the structure erected on top that is the real focus of attention and with good reason.

The first 3 games have about as much plot as your average Saturday Morning cartoon but with even less interesting characters.

The battle systems they had were either horrible (FF2 "I beat myself up and get stronger") or were improved in later games (FF3's Job System being improved in 5 and X-2)

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest games in the series undoubtedly.

If you want to make a topic about Worst Story, Worst Soundtrack, worst...anything, there can be no real choice besides one of those 3.

You can't expect much for games at that time. I mean look at Ultima 3, it having a party system is like the greatest thing ever for the series! :bigsmile:

I would judge games based on how much fun I had playing it. I played both FF3 and FF13 for the first time within the last year and I can definitively say I had more fun playing FF3.

Sure FF13 had a much more involved story than FF3, but I didn't enjoy FF13s story for the most part. FF3 was very bare bones and simple, but it kept me interested and I wanted to keep playing to find out more.

Quote:

---

The first 3 games have about as much plot as your average Saturday Morning cartoon but with even less interesting characters.

---

Though undoubtedly simpler than the later installments this is a bit of hyperbole. Stuff like understanding the time loop or the concept of too much light being as destructive as too much dark is certainly a cognitive step above Saturday morning fodder.

Quote:

---

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest games in the series undoubtedly.

---

Weakest games I will agree with, but if I enjoy them more can they really be called worse games? I plan on replaying FF1 and FF3 within the next year, I don't ever plan on touching FF10,FF12 or FF13 ever again.

[For the nostalgia defense I played them:
FF10 (2003) -> FF1(2004)FF2(2004) -> FF12 (2006) -> FF3 (2009) -> FF13 (2010)]

They're frustrating at times, but not unplayable or anything.

I read a really entertaining "Let's Play" of FFI the other day. Have a go at it (it's not finished yet, though): HSUP B TCELES - Let's Play FF1! Again! - The Return of Talking Time

My first experience of playing FFI was pretty bad, but that thread made even me want to play it again!

Quote:

---

Worst Soundtrack

---

I think FF3 has one of the better soundtracks and one of the few main battle themes that doesnt annoy the heck outa me after the hundreth time

Eh, no. FF III is and will always be one of the better FF games out there, with a deeper plot than its NES-appearance might expect you to believe. A plot that IX, for example, gladly took from. Its villain also had a better motive than the villains of IV, V and VI (who were all evil for the heck of it, or mind-controlled), fancy that!

I'd take III over VI (the worst in the series) or X (the second worst) ANY day.

I'll have to agree. Really, FF I and II especially are really bad story-wise. But then again, I was playing FF I/II long after I played the later installments. Of course, like some says, you've got to compare them with other games of the same era :P

You're right? And?

Super Mario Bros. 1-3 are the worst

Face it. They laid the groundwork but that's it. No one cares about the foundation of the building. it's the structure erected on top that is the real focus of attention and with good reason.

The first 3 games have about as much plot as your average Saturday Morning cartoon but with even less interesting characters.

The power ups they had were either horrible (SMB2 "I pull 5 large plants to stop time for ten seconds") or were improved in later games (SMB3's Raccoon tail being improved in World and 64)

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest games in the series undoubtedly.

If you want to make a topic about Worst Story, Worst Soundtrack, worst...anything, there can be no real choice besides one of those 3.

>>> FF1 and FF2 are in my top 5 best FF games ever..:luca:

That says more about you, than about the quality of those games :p.

>>> You guys have zero imagination, thats why you think those old school games are bad.
Now the newer FF games give you everything too easy, awesome/beautiful imagery, the best plot, all these gorgeous orchestral music, etc. (i get all that and more by just playing FF1).. In other words the new FF games have just killed your imagination..:luca:

Quote:

---

You guys have zero imagination,...

---

That is one thing I have disliked is the ever decreasing room for imagination as the series has progressed. NES era was still a little on the primitive side of optimal for me, but it is one of the strong points IMO.

Quote:

---

Super Mario Bros. 1-3 are the worst...

---

It's funny because FF2 and SMB2 are both like the outcast stepchildren of their respective families.

FFI-III are not the worst. Maybe to you. It's all subjective anyway.

Seriously though, you can't even compare these games to say XII and XIII. They're from two totally different eras of gaming, seperated by even more eras of gaming. This is like saying an Apple computer from early 90s is inferior to a modern day Mac laptop. It makes no sense.

So stop comparing.

I don't feel I've played enough of FF2 to judge that one. I will agree that FF1 and FF3 are the two numbered FF's I've enjoyed the least, but I recognize that they were great for its time. I'll give them respect for that, but I don't think I'll play them a second time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> You guys have zero imagination, thats why you think those old school games are bad.
Now the newer FF games give you everything too easy, awesome/beautiful imagery, the best plot, all these gorgeous orchestral music, etc. (i get all that and more by just playing FF1).. In other words the new FF games have just killed your imagination..:luca:

---

Actually, my imagination is so intense my head feels like it's about to burst!

One of my favourite kinds of games doesn't have graphics or music at all. beat that!

I actually really like the NES era games an I do in fact rank them higher than some of the Playstation era titles cause I feel they are overall in better quality and get far more enjoyment out of them than some modern games.

FFI is pretty simple but I love the world, which starts off fairly typical Fantasy Genre nonsense but then drops an advance civilzation and a quirky time travel twist that ends the game with a bitter sweet ending. All this in a time frame where other RPGs were simple hero beats the evil bad guy and saves the princess and the McGuffin. They all live happily ever after. The ending was a pretty damn deep even by todays standards where most games still opt for the "Happily Ever After " ending. The re-playability of the title from its job class system makes the game also easy to go back through without being bored especially considering the game is fairly short as well. Hell, I stopped playing Crisis Core in exchange for tackling FFI PSP instead and had a hell of a lot more fun despite CC being so "great" for its gameplay and story. I still felt FFI was better.

FFII gets the shaft alot but after really playing the game for my FAQ, I've really come to appreciate the title more than for its novelty. The story actually is pretty good if a bit absurd in some places (beavers? really Square?) the mechanics of the game are far more deep than people give it credit for and I feel the game gets a bad rep from all the munchkins who feel the system should allow you to max out all your stats easily and then compalin when nothing can beat them.

The story is simple but it has its touching moments and even I can feel for someone like Josef and Minwu, especially heart wrenching when the game allows you to go back and speak with their loved ones... Combat is good the level system is great if you actually accept it for what it is which is basically a system to build the FFI job classes with a bit more variation since magic can be used universally (meaning you can build a character who has nothing but buffing and debuffing skills) and the weapon system allows even squishy mages and idiot proof warriors have a bit more flexibility and customization.

The music is gorgeous and I actually feel FFII has the best soundtrack of the NES era and I actually rank its soundtrack higher than the garbage we listen to in the PS2 era. The Rebels is one of my favorite compositions in the series.

The game was a ahead of its time and I'm that despite the game being 20 years old, people still don't get it. Hell this game as well as FFI pretty much started 90% of the RPG cliches we roll our eyes at nowadays and I feel FFII gets the shaft outside of Japan cause it was released outside of Japan fairly late in the series lifetime. Its hard to appreciate awesome villains like Mateus or the battle with the series first Behemoth when you are comparing it to crap from SNES and PS1 era.

This is also why I felt FFIII really gets the shaft. It was the last of the numbered series to be released outside of Japan and even with ROM hacks, most casual fans (which is most of the FF fanbase) probably never touched this game til the DS remake. Even then, I felt the game was magical and I am so sad the series doesn't use some of the spell mechanics like FFIII did, having to keep Mini and Toad spells around to traverse dungeons. The job class system was a hell of a lot of fun and even though I can't argue that FFV did it better, its not like III's version is bad on any account. I loved switching around classes and building new parties with the game but I'm a toital whore for job class systems.

The story feels pretty simple but has a pretty awesome plot twist early on (the floating continent and the nature of the true world) heroic sacrifices from its excellent supporting cast (built from what Square did with FFII no less) and also has a rather deep story for its time that is once again not seen very often in even today's games. A villain who is clearly crazy and evil but given a very sympathetic backstory, name me one game from the NES era RPGs that ever did this? It would be easier to list someone from the 16-bit era and even then I'm pretty sure that's a short list. Let's also not forget the story's message is about Balance and goes off to say that Darkness is just as important as Light and drops the whole pretense of Light = Good and Darkness = Bad. Once again, its hard to find any mainstream RPG that talks crazy like this (MegaTen is kinda built around this concept though). I mean comparing FFIII to IV, you suddenly realize that Square pretty much dropped most of the gaming mechanics in exchange for a story that happened to have a strong central cast, FFIII is not only a better game but its story is also just as equally as good as its descendant.

The sheer complexity of the game puts it high on my list and when you start to think about the era the game was created in and start comparing other FFs to games of their era, you realize how mind blowing this game really was cause very few later titles took as many chances as this title did for its time. For me, IV is technically a downgrade in the series after following up III and the only other two titles that share a similar fate is the transition from IX and X as well as XII and XIII which is mostly the same deal with the later titles streamlining combat and gameplay in exchange for story making very unbalanced games.

III is a smurfing masterpiece in the series cause it takes all the best elements of the first two titles and builds something truly magnificent from them. The fact the game still gets references and homages from later installments shows how important this game is to the series and how it still inspires designers toady. Its not just an antique, its proof that they don't make them like they use to. III is horribly balanced with a thought provoking plot, large world with lost of places to explore, and an excellent combat system. I still like FFII's OST better but its not like III's is anything to scoff at.

Grand Theft Auto 1-3 Are the Worst

Face it. They laid the groundwork but that's it. No one cares about the foundation of the building. it's the structure erected on top that is the real focus of attention and with good reason.

The first 3 games have about as much plot as your average action film on Spike TV but with even less interesting characters.

The graphics they had were either horrible (GTA2 "I'm a tiny cartoon man from a bird's eye view") or were improved in later games (GTA3's 3rd person graphics being improved in Vice City and 4)

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest games in the series undoubtedly.

If you want to make a topic about Worst Story, Worst Soundtrack, worst...anything, there can be no real choice besides one of those 3.

It was funnier the first time silentenigma. :p

Led Zeppelin 1-3 Are the Worst

Face it. They laid the groundwork but that's it. No one cares about the foundation of the building. it's the structure erected on top that is the real focus of attention and with good reason.

The first 3 albums have about as much depth as your average blues album but with even less interesting lyrics.

The songs they had were either horrible (LZ2 "I'm going to rip off every single existing blues song") or were improved in later albums (LZ3's acoustic songs being improved in IV and Physical Graffiti)

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest albums in the catalog undoubtedly.

If you want to make a topic about Worst lyrics, Worst originality, worst...anything, there can be no real choice besides one of those 3.

Those comparisons all fail because no one plays GTA or Mario for the story. To my knowledge, plot and character matters a lot to most FF fans.

So the fact FF1 has such a pitiful excuse for a story should really turn people off it. I know it does for me. I'll take FFVIII's contrived mess to a barely there story any day.

I'll provide a more fitting example. Praising the first three games is like praising the superb storyteling in Pong. Yes, Pong's deep characters are immensely better than any story that has come after.

Nostalgia Goggles blind people it seems.

Well I guess it's fair. Gaming truly reached its peak with the Atari 2600. Nothing can never surpass it.

Oh you guys are in for it. I am definitely going to overstay my welcome on this one.

Harry Potter 1-3 Are the Worst

Face it. They laid the groundwork but that's it. No one cares about the foundation of the building. it's the structure erected on top that is the real focus of attention and with good reason.

The first 3 novels have about as much plot as your average young adult novel but with even less mature characters.

The plot points they had were either horrible (HP2 "I'm going to save a girl who's obsessed with an obviously evil diary") or were improved in later entries (HP3's run-ins with Death Eaters being improved in 6 and 7)

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest novels in the series undoubtedly.

If you want to make a topic about Worst Story, Worst Vision, worst...anything, there can be no real choice besides one of those 3.

Quote:

---

I'll take FFVIII's contrived mess to a barely there story any day.

---

Zero is higher than a negative number. A non existent story is better than one I don't enjoy. And the stories aren't non existent, they just more bare bones. Which leaves less room for them to mess it up.

Quote:

---

So the fact FF1 has such a pitiful excuse for a story should really turn people off it

---

The core of the story is just as solid as any modern FF title, there is just a lot less detail and sub stories involved. You also have to consider that I found FFI and FF3 to be much more fun to physically play than FF12 or FF13.

Quote:

---

Nostalgia Goggles blind people it seems.

---

Once again, I hadn't played a single NES FF title until after I had played FF4-10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

This is also why I felt FFIII really gets the shaft. It was the last of the numbered series to be released outside of Japan and even with ROM hacks, most casual fans (which is most of the FF fanbase) probably never touched this game til the DS remake. Even then, I felt the game was magical and I am so sad the series doesn't use some of the spell mechanics like FFIII did, having to keep Mini and Toad spells around to traverse dungeons. The job class system was a hell of a lot of fun and even though I can't argue that FFV did it better, its not like III's version is bad on any account. I loved switching around classes and building new parties with the game but I'm a toital whore for job class systems.

The story feels pretty simple but has a pretty awesome plot twist early on (the floating continent and the nature of the true world) heroic sacrifices from its excellent supporting cast (built from what Square did with FFII no less) and also has a rather deep story for its time that is once again not seen very often in even today's games. A villain who is clearly crazy and evil but given a very sympathetic backstory, name me one game from the NES era RPGs that ever did this? It would be easier to list someone from the 16-bit era and even then I'm pretty sure that's a short list. Let's also not forget the story's message is about Balance and goes off to say that Darkness is just as important as Light and drops the whole pretense of Light = Good and Darkness = Bad. Once again, its hard to find any mainstream RPG that talks crazy like this (MegaTen is kinda built around this concept though). I mean comparing FFIII to IV, you suddenly realize that Square pretty much dropped most of the gaming mechanics in exchange for a story that happened to have a strong central cast, FFIII is not only a better game but its story is also just as equally as good as its descendant.

The sheer complexity of the game puts it high on my list and when you start to think about the era the game was created in and start comparing other FFs to games of their era, you realize how mind blowing this game really was cause very few later titles took as many chances as this title did for its time. For me, IV is technically a downgrade in the series after following up III and the only other two titles that share a similar fate is the transition from IX and X as well as XII and XIII which is mostly the same deal with the later titles streamlining combat and gameplay in exchange for story making very unbalanced games.

III is a smurfing masterpiece in the series cause it takes all the best elements of the first two titles and builds something truly magnificent from them. The fact the game still gets references and homages from later installments shows how important this game is to the series and how it still inspires designers toady. Its not just an antique, its proof that they don't make them like they use to. III is horribly balanced with a thought provoking plot, large world with lost of places to explore, and an excellent combat system. I still like FFII's OST better but its not like III's is anything to scoff at.

---

Wolf, I... I think I'm in love... :eek::love: You summed III up so perfectly, you saw it for what it really is and... *hugs* The only thing I'd disagree with is that III's soundtrack is inferior to II's, but that's all. :p

Topic starter, listen to this person, because Wolf speaks the truth.

*snip*

This is getting really old... ~WK

To me, the NES era did not age well. Just over time, games progressed, evolved, etc.. That isn't to say they're bad games. The fact I can pick up Final Fantasy either of the NES trilogy and play through them is a merit in its own right. They are nowhere close to what feets modern RPGs have achieved, but they are still fun in their own right.

And, honestly, I would play some of the NES games over some of the more modern FF's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

Face it. They laid the groundwork but that's it. No one cares about the foundation of the building. it's the structure erected on top that is the real focus of attention and with good reason.

The first 3 games have about as much plot as your average Saturday Morning cartoon but with even less interesting characters.

The battle systems they had were either horrible (FF2 "I beat myself up and get stronger") or were improved in later games (FF3's Job System being improved in 5 and X-2)

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest games in the series undoubtedly.

If you want to make a topic about Worst Story, Worst Soundtrack, worst...anything, there can be no real choice besides one of those 3.

---

And face it, everything you said is just an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

Its villain also had a better motive than the villains of IV, V and VI (who were all evil for the heck of it, or mind-controlled), fancy that!

---

Well, technically, Zande/Xande was being controled by the CoD.

It's not opinion to say that everything on the NES was inferior. it's fact. The console simply could not handle everything that was good as we saw in later FFs.

I totally agree and totally disagree. I like how revolutionary the games were to begin with. I played FF I&II right after VII and VIII as my first four FFs. I was taken back by how different the leveling systems and worlds were. I was a fan of all four, but from a completely non-objective viewpoint I liked the latter two(7&8). More depth and better gameplay. I've now played all the FFs and ya I have to agree. (And don't think I'm a graphics monger, I enjoyed the first 3 DQs much more than the first 3 FF) I just think FF I-III are too hard to get into unless you have the real determination.

I think 3 is my least favorite, albeit very revolutionary (better job system than DQ 3). I guess my heart just goes back to 4-X, imo the best of the FF, like all the way through. Favs in order: VII (sorry haters, just enjoy it), X, IV, IX, V, VI (and sorry, but i think this is the most overrated game of all time, still good though)

Now to sum it all up, I totally disagree that they totally suck!!! I actually enjoyed playing them, maybe not incredible, but definitely not sucky!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

It's not opinion to say that everything on the NES was inferior. it's fact. The console simply could not handle everything that was good as we saw in later FFs.

---

"Inferior" and "good" according to...?

Something being good/bad/inferior/superior is subjective. Not a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Crystal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

It's not opinion to say that everything on the NES was inferior. it's fact. The console simply could not handle everything that was good as we saw in later FFs.

---

"Inferior" and "good" according to...?

Something being good/bad/inferior/superior is subjective. Not a fact.

---

Unless we're talking about E.T. being inferior to just about every other game out there :monster:

As I said, I do not think the NES trilogy aged well, simply because a lot of concepts they introduced have been expanded upon considerably. But, I do feel that because the NES trilogy is still fun, and is by no means horrible.
(SPOILER)
...Except Final Fantasy II, which I hate. /personal opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Crystal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

Its villain also had a better motive than the villains of IV, V and VI (who were all evil for the heck of it, or mind-controlled), fancy that!

---

Well, technically, Zande/Xande was being controled by the CoD.

---

Well, even more technically, Zande/Xande began the process of darkening the crystals so he could live forever, but by causing the imbalance he unknowingly summoned the Cloud of Darkness who then used him as her pawn. But he didn't start out as a pawn, unlike Golbez, who was just carrying out Zemus' plot. Xande had his own plan, that backfired on him.

Wow, this is the kind of stuff we need in General Final Fantasy, something with some serious balls that sparks some real debate.

I'm totally with Forsaken Lover on this, and you guys can rationalize all day about time period, imagination, Led Zeppelin, and foundations all you want, but this thread IS NOT ABOUT your preferences, personal ranking of favorite games. It's about I-III being the worst in the series.

And they are. Hell, I rank FFII pretty high up on my list of Final Fantasies, I would III as well, but they're not better games than IV and V, much less VIII and IX. The characters in the SNES era were paper-thin and I-III's were even worse than that. And non-existent stories cannot be better than developed stories because the fact that there are so many differing opinions in games like VIII and X shows that they count as real art where people can have different interpretations of the meanings and quality.

Speaking of which, STOP OVERRATING THE TIME TRAVEL TWIST IN FFI AND THE LIGHT/DARK DEAL IN FFIII! There's nothing "deep" about them. They're generalizations briefly mentioned with no real exploration of the concept. There's nothing thought provoking in either of them, except for the inevitable head-scratching when you realize that FFI's ending is the worst deus ex machina literary technique of all time.

That being said, I have to concede two things:

1. Wolf brought up a great point about the music in FFII being better than most PS2 era music, this is a concept I've elaborated on myself and I would be a hypocrit to not acknowledge it. Although I would use "Castle Pandemonium" as an example b/c that jawn is bonkers!!! But still, we're talking about FF, and with Uematsu, Sakimoto, and ummm... the XIII dude handling the series' music, I simply cannot say FFI-III's were better on the merit of their ingenuity. Close, but they're not.

2. Thinking about XIII, I just *might* be coaxed into admitting that FFI is a better game than FFXIII.

But I won't!!! I still gotta beat that jawn, so no spoilers!

I will not be safeguarding FFII or III with this next post as I have not finished them so I cannot speak about their quality, however:

You cannot disregard a game's time-period when comparing it to others. This is not some ploy for argument simply because I like Final Fantasy I. The fact of the matter is, as newer games are produced, newer better software is available, and they have success of the past to build off of.

The fact of the matter is, 007 Goldeneye is the best shooter ever. Any debate to that would just be someone on the other side of the FF argument sticking to their guns. However, if I had to play either 007 Goldeneye, or Halo 3, right now, this very moment, I would pick Halo 3.

Nowadays, what was so great, its clunky, even aiming in Goldeneye on an N64 controller feels laborious in comparison to playing a game on an XBOX360 controller. It's called progression.

Instead you must always consider a game's time-period and realize that the modern JRPG we play in America came into existence because how good of a JRPG FFI was.FFVII had the technology available to have the entire game explain it's ending, FFI, did not. Nevertheless FFI did not settle for, "And then a big demon appeared out of nowhere and we killed it". Hell, I liked FFI's Time Travel more then FFVII's Meteor shenanigans, because FFI's wasn't too overly complicated and it was done simplistically, whereas FFVII's gave me more of a "heh"? Perhaps the time-twist ending of FFI was less expanded upon, then the Holy-Meteor ending of FFVII, but that doesn't make it worse especially when you consider the technology and the time-period which you always, always must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

Face it. They laid the groundwork but that's it. No one cares about the foundation of the building. it's the structure erected on top that is the real focus of attention and with good reason.

The first 3 games have about as much plot as your average Saturday Morning cartoon but with even less interesting characters.

The battle systems they had were either horrible (FF2 "I beat myself up and get stronger") or were improved in later games (FF3's Job System being improved in 5 and X-2)

So really, they might be good for nostalgia trips but they are the weakest games in the series undoubtedly.

If you want to make a topic about Worst Story, Worst Soundtrack, worst...anything, there can be no real choice besides one of those 3.

---

But would it be fair to laugh at Newton just because Einstein was much better at physics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Wow, this is the kind of stuff we need in General Final Fantasy, something with some serious balls that sparks some real debate.

I'm totally with Forsaken Lover on this, and you guys can rationalize all day about time period, imagination, Led Zeppelin, and foundations all you want, but this thread IS NOT ABOUT your preferences, personal ranking of favorite games. It's about I-III being the worst in the series.

---

I'm just going to assume your saying all this for some topical debate as opposed to really believing in this but I won't disappoint and actually add something somewhat meaningful. :p

Quote:

---

And they are. Hell, I rank FFII pretty high up on my list of Final Fantasies, I would III as well, but they're not better games than IV and V, much less VIII and IX. The characters in the SNES era were paper-thin and I-III's were even worse than that. And non-existent stories cannot be better than developed stories because the fact that there are so many differing opinions in games like VIII and X shows that they count as real art where people can have different interpretations of the meanings and quality.

---

Well first off, I don't remember when "Paper thin" plot automatically meant bad nor do I remember when complex plots automatically meant good. Most of these "plot" threads you speak about for the later games mostly come down to people calling the games on their BS story telling and lamenting how awful it is as opposed to any discussion on meaning (maybe the X forums have it but you know damn well that's because I'm not there to remind everyone how utterly ridiculous the plot is and how its a complete rip off of a Japanese Legend, so of anything it should be nailed for being ridiculously unoriginal, if the plot had been a verbatim telling of the King Arthur legend, you know damn well people would call foul on it.) which to me does not say the games are deep or meaningful but really comes down to a question of their quality as opposed to whatever pretentious meaning you people think lies in these later titles.

The last few plot threads for VII have been mostly about how the story and cast is overrated, hardly some deep meaningful discussion about how great it is as opposed to people looking back on a title without the rosey tint ideals it represented for its time and seeing the game for what it really is: fallible.

VIII's plot threads read like bad Star Trek fanfiction at its best, and at its worst its usually why its love story is the worst in the series.

IX's always falls into the kiddy graphics and how the humor basically undermines the games rather grim story. Like it was the Care Bears doing Hamlet.

I've ready said X's faults, no cares about XI and most fans pretty much hate XII and XIII with the exception of some loud supporters. You call it proof of the depth of its storytelling but I see it plainly as people arguing over the quality of the piece which is pretty much what's going on in this thread as well for the defense of the NES era FFs.

Quote:

---

Speaking of which, STOP OVERRATING THE TIME TRAVEL TWIST IN FFI AND THE LIGHT/DARK DEAL IN FFIII! There's nothing "deep" about them. They're generalizations briefly mentioned with no real exploration of the concept. There's nothing thought provoking in either of them, except for the inevitable head-scratching when you realize that FFI's ending is the worst deus ex machina literary technique of all time.

---

Well first off, I'll stop talking about the Time Travel Twist and the theme of Balance WHEN YOU STOP USING THAT LAME ARGUMENT FOR VII'S SOCIAL COMMENTARY MADE BY BARRETT 20 MINUTES INTO VII AND THEN DROPPED AND FORGOTTEN FOR THE REST OF THE GAME AS AN EXCUSE FOR VII BEING AHEAD OF ITS TIME! He makes one lousy comment and the game pretty much ignores it the moment you leave Midgard and treats every evil deed by Shin-Ra afterwards like it was the atypical evil empire from other RPGs and you have the audacity to claim VII is a deep story about social commentary when it never actually addresses it seeing as how the game begins to outright ignore Shin-Ra once Sephy enters the plot. :roll2

Besides, using the argument that progress means better and that old games should always be seen as inferior cause they lacked the technology of modern convenience just means I can now say that VII is an utter piece of crap with a childish silly plot about aliens and some paper thin depth from an evil corporations that is basically a combo of the Evil Empires used from Secret of Mana and Final Fantasy VI, but because its called a corporation, it automatically makes it more meaningful and gives it a wealth of depth despite never actually following up on it; and all I have to do is just compare it to any game that came after it in the series to say this without anyone saying I'm wrong.

In other words, by your guys logic, XII and XIII are the best games in the series cause they streamline combat and removes the illusion of choice and the stories are just infinitely better because the old games lacked voices and full facial recognition. Whether the story is written well is irrelevant cause its new so its automatically good. Whether the gameplay works or not is irrelevant cause its new and if you don't like it then obviously you are either didn't get it, hate RPGs or just stuck in the overwhelming nostalgia of the past and can't see that everything back then was utter miserable crap and even though it might have been good for its time, that's all it is and people are pathetic to even try to compare such archaic nonsense to modern gaming cause no matter how good it was then, it will never transcend and be good enough to be on the same level as the orgasmic sensations that games give us today. :roll2

Personally, progress means jack:bou::bou::bou::bou: if its not used correctly and this is my problem with the recent entries. For all their graphics and memory to tell great stories, the plots feel childish and stupid and the characters still feel like cardboard cutouts. I feel the writing in the series got progressively worse starting with Playstation era titles but thinking on it as I play FFIV DS; its obvious that the series was never written well to begin with but the earlier titles are given the excuse of "technology limitations"; when later entries pretty much show that the series always had bad and childish writing and no amount of voice overs, traumatic pasts, and being able to graphically represent "pouty eyes" realistically isn't going to change the fact that many of the stories are terrible, overly simplistic, or try so hard to be emotionally driven that they feel like a cheesy B-Movie or a over-budget Hollywood popcorn yarm.

While some people love to simply write off the love people have of the older games simply because its nostalgia (and believe me, I love IV mostly for nostalgia) maybe its time the lovers of the new titles actually take a step back and really examine their fave games without the rose tinted glasses and recognize that their own fave titles are problematic and maybe recognize that the only thing that keeps them feeling great is the novelty of their new gimmicks.

Technology is progressively getting better but to say that games are always getting better and old games are by default worse than their predecessors and have no means of standing side by side with them is a foolish position to find yourself in. Good game design always shines through and this is what I feel the NES era has over newer entries. They maybe simplistic but their is little room for problems, and they are designed well, its just they're strong points have been overused so much that people often overlook what made them special in the first place. FFI and II have been remade so many times that its pretty evident that someone is buying them and I doubt its simply for the lulz.

The fact that there are more fans clamoring for remakes of old games over new installments but insist on the mechanics and story to remain the same, just proves that old games are just as good as newer entries, if well designed. SE has shut down a dozen Chrono Trigger remake projects in the last decade alone, ones that have given huge ire by fans. A 16-bit RPG is getting more of a following than people giving a rats ass of anything new by SE. Hell, the first that comes out of everyone's mouth when SE talks about making a new announcement isn't "oh cool, the next new entry in the series" its "I hope they finally announce a remake of VII" just read the comments on any SE news site and it always comes up.


For the ADHD crowd: Better technology doesn't always mean a better game. An old but well designed game can be more fun than a poorly made new title with poorly used technology. Its not the tech that makes good games its the design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivisteiner

But would it be fair to laugh at Newton just because Einstein was much better at physics?

---

Well Newton did the best he could do at the time.

...

Huh.

That's actually a good point.

Also i just hope everyone knows I think FFIX had the best story in the series. So I don't think better technology automatically equals superiority.

I've been playing FFIII (DS) since Wednesday, and I think the soundtrack is pretty amazing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenboko

The fact of the matter is, 007 Goldeneye is the best shooter ever. Any debate to that would just be someone on the other side of the FF argument sticking to their guns. However, if I had to play either 007 Goldeneye, or Halo 3, right now, this very moment, I would pick Halo 3.

---

You see, this comment alone undermined the credibility of the rest of your post. We're discussing it in GG, but it's the memories of a gaming demographic unfamiliar with FPS before Goldeneye 64 that has given the game its reputation, not it's map design, game balancing, mission direction, or shooting/movement mechanics that made it so great, and I'm sure Vivi22 would be more than glad to list a plethora of PC games before and after that utterly destroy the quality foundations of the game.

By the way, weren't you in diapers when Goldeneye 64 was released ? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

My testament.

---

It's times like these I wish I knew you in real life so I could give a great big bear hug because DAMN SON YOU SOUND MAD!!!

First off, social commentary ftw!!! IT WAZ A REVOLUTION!!~!!!!@!!21311!!!

Seriously, though, I wish you read my whole post because I admitted even there that I'm tempted to say FFI was a better game than FFXIII is. And even how the ingenuity and heart of FFII's music overshadows much of what is released today.

However, I simply cannot buy this whole technology/progress thing. There's certainly games made with better technology that are worse than FFI-III. But the games in the series were not, and I have to give them credit for it, there has to be something going on there. And it's been 10 years or more for games like FFVII-IX, and I still have such a great time playing them even now. A lot of that is admittedly due to technology, ie how smooth the battles are, how complex the music is, and how well animated/brought to life the characters are. But there are many things which are not due to technology, such as the character archs, plot threads, character customization/development systems.

Lastly, I DID NOT SAY FFI-III ARE BAD GAMES. They are among my favorite games, and FFII especially is among my absolute favorites in the series!!!!

I'm just able to be honest and evaluate them critically :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

My testament.

---

---

Cute ;)

Quote:

---

It's times like these I wish I knew you in real life so I could give a great big bear hug because DAMN SON YOU SOUND MAD!!!

---

You would be surprised actually, I'm accused more often of being aloof and cold than angry but I guess I would admit I was in a bit of an angry mood when I did respond (not because of this thread mind you, irl stuff). If you met me, you would probably be spending more of your time trying to make me smile and stop being so Squall-like. :D

Quote:

---

First off, social commentary ftw!!! IT WAZ A REVOLUTION!!~!!!!@!!21311!!!

---

I'm happy to see you have finally come to terms and accepted your inner fanboy. Now its time for you to jump into the Kefka thread in the VI forum and start some game bashing. You know you want to. ;)

Quote:

---

Seriously, though, I wish you read my whole post because I admitted even there that I'm tempted to say FFI was a better game than FFXIII is. And even how the ingenuity and heart of FFII's music overshadows much of what is released today.

---

I did read your post, but not all of my post was purely directed at you. I'm just using you as a scapegoat to rant. :D

On the other hand though, you did very little to explain why you felt the games were weak beyond the fact the story is simple, only implying they are the worst in the series and criticizing fans for making a big deal out of something you didn't feel was all that important. In many ways, your post felt like a nodding agreement to the thread starter rather than an explanation of why they are the worst with a small implication of technology being a factor which is why I made the post I did. Hopefully that clears up any misunderstandings on my part. You should know better than to be vague around me; I could be in politics. :p

Quote:

---

However, I simply cannot buy this whole technology/progress thing. There's certainly games made with better technology that are worse than FFI-III. But the games in the series were not, and I have to give them credit for it, there has to be something going on there. And it's been 10 years or more for games like FFVII-IX, and I still have such a great time playing them even now. A lot of that is admittedly due to technology, ie how smooth the battles are, how complex the music is, and how well animated/brought to life the characters are. But there are many things which are not due to technology, such as the character archs, plot threads, character customization/development systems.

---

This is where I must disagree and agree with you, you see, for me, I felt that way 18 years ago with the early games. I've said before how much FFIV and VI had changed my very perspective on gaming because they were so radically different from everything around them. I feel this magic has been there since the beginning and jumping to another dimension, to CD, or another console platform really didn't bring anything new to this phenomena beyond allowing the designers to express themselves more but the feeling never changed for me. Of anything, it started to fade a bit. As I play through the older games, I get that feeling back. I remember borrowing my friends PSP and games so I could play through Crisis Core, which at the time was one of the most ambitious titles on the PSP, and I was getting to the point where I really hated it. Terrible characters, terrible and unbalanced gameplay, mediocre music with the best tracks being remixes from better soundtracks, and just overall, a really crappy design. So I took it out and played with his other games and he had the PSP port of FFI and the game instantly grabbed me and I ended up nearly playing it to completion until my friend asked for his PSP back and I had to finally force myself through Crisis Core's ending. It just threw me off that I was getting more fun and excitement out of a 20 year old game with a plot that extends to a paragraph over a shiny new title that at the time was pushing the PSP's limits and boasting to have the deepest story in the FF series at the time. I'm telling you man, there is something there in the code, really well hidden since there isn't much code there.

My last favorite FF title was FFIII for the DS, I never played the ROM and it was the last in the series for me (well before XIII came out of course) and despite its "old school" design, I instantly fell in love with the game and was just amazed how much different it was from anything that was out when the original came out. I had to struggle to play through XIII. I'm not saying the old games are better than the new stuff but I feel for whatever flaws the old games may have had, the new entries are far from perfect and for me, this puts them on equal standing. Of anything, I get more disappointed with the newer titles cause I expect more out of them and feel most don't live up to there potential, even when I go into the titles with little expectation.

Of anything, I felt the FF series lost its ability to lead the industry sometime during the PS2 era. I don't feel like SE is up to task and I feel other competitors have taken what made the series so great in the past and are using it to make themselves a name in the new era.

Nowadays, I feel we don't give the NES titles the respect they deserve, we are too quick to judge the new titles (I'm very much guilty of this) and we lavish too much praise to the middle titles (IV-IX) when they don't deserve it entirely. To me, I feel that all the titles have strengths and weaknesses but since no one can agree to any of it, it makes me feel it is much too silly to say what is the "best" and "worst" with any definitive knowledge. Technologically, yes, they are inferior but they did a top-notch job with what they had imo and the fact I still get more enjoyment out of some of these old titles over more modern affairs says that I am personally getting something out of them that is truly enjoyable. If someone else cannot do the same, then all I can say is that this persona is a much poorer person because of this, not because the game itself is poor.

Quote:

---

Lastly, I DID NOT SAY FFI-III ARE BAD GAMES. They are among my favorite games, and FFII especially is among my absolute favorites in the series!!!!

---

You didn't exactly say they were good either, of anything, you basically patronized the titles saying you liked them and proceeded to tear them apart along with the 16-bit era titles. :roll2 Well, at least you learned something from my discussions on VII and VIII ;)

Quote:

---

I'm just able to be honest and evaluate them critically :cool:

---

How is it a fair evaluation when you are comparing two different eras that asked for too different things by its fans? The later games are story driven cause that's what fans wanted in that time frame, but how is it fair to compare it to titles where story was not the major selling factor at the time, it was just about having a good time. To me, that's almost like trying to compare Silent movies of the early 20th century to today's film and criticizing the old silent films for being too short and simplistic. How dare Charlie Chaplin not utilize CGI in his films and remove frames from his film to give the illusion of speed instead of using quick camera changes. How dare he ignore nearly a 100 years of innovation that didn't exist at the time, his movies suck. :colbert:

I don't see how one can create a fair analysis of a title by comparing something old to something new and using the standards of the new elements as the basis for quality. It creates a very bias viewpoint imo. Of course FFI-III will be the worst, the scale is stacked against it to begin with.

Quote:

---

and boasting to have the deepest story in the FF series at the time.

---

... What demented Nomura stalker said this?

Pick any review for the game from any website or publication, most of them gushed over this game and even the ones that talked at length with the games faults never said it was the story that was bad and even still gave the game a 9 out of 10 most of the time. Yet every single one that I read said the story was amazing and one of the best in the history of the FF series.

I never played Mystic Quest but as for the Legend series, I don't count them cause they are technically the Romancing Saga series (later known as Saga Frontier and Unlimited Saga) and were only given the FF moniker cause it would boost sales. :D

Interesting.

And depressing.

Oh well. Critics really don't matter much nowadays unless they're on the internet. Or named Roger Ebert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

You would be surprised actually, I'm accused more often of being aloof and cold than angry but I guess I would admit I was in a bit of an angry mood when I did respond (not because of this thread mind you, irl stuff). If you met me, you would probably be spending more of your time trying to make me smile and stop being so Squall-like. :D

---

irl stuff will do that, I had no idea you're the real life Squall!!!!

Quote:

---

I'm happy to see you have finally come to terms and accepted your inner fanboy. Now its time for you to jump into the Kefka thread in the VI forum and start some game bashing. You know you want to. ;)

---

Oh ho hooo!!! You shouldn't have told me about that Kefka thread (I haven't checked too many of the sub-forums lately), but it's totally on now!!!

As far as inner fanboy, I was being funny, but I'm still ready to trade novel for novel with you in the VII forums if this ever comes up again!!! Best believe!!!

Quote:

---

I did read your post, but not all of my post was purely directed at you. I'm just using you as a scapegoat to rant. :D

---

Hey, that's cool.

Quote:

---

On the other hand though, you did very little to explain why you felt the games were weak beyond the fact the story is simple, only implying they are the worst in the series and criticizing fans for making a big deal out of something you didn't feel was all that important. In many ways, your post felt like a nodding agreement to the thread starter rather than an explanation of why they are the worst with a small implication of technology being a factor which is why I made the post I did. Hopefully that clears up any misunderstandings on my part. You should know better than to be vague around me; I could be in politics. :p

---

Well, I do not believe the games are "weak" at all, I totally agree with your hunch on something being hidden in the code, how strong they stand up, and was blown away by your analysis comparing III to IV.

But I did say in posts that the characters are below paper-thin, the combat systems not as deep or free-flowing, the music not as complex, and the stories not as substantive. Or maybe I'm just explicitly saying that now, who knows?

Quote:

---

So I took it out and played with his other games and he had the PSP port of FFI and the game instantly grabbed me and I ended up nearly playing it to completion until my friend asked for his PSP back and I had to finally force myself through Crisis Core's ending. It just threw me off that I was getting more fun and excitement out of a 20 year old game with a plot that extends to a paragraph over a shiny new title that at the time was pushing the PSP's limits and boasting to have the deepest story in the FF series at the time.Of anything, I felt the FF series lost its ability to lead the industry sometime during the PS2 era. I don't feel like SE is up to task and I feel other competitors have taken what made the series so great in the past and are using it to make themselves a name in the new era.

---

That's a pretty cool story. I don't have any desire to play Crisis Core, but how's the difficulty in FFI PSP? I'd still play Dawn of Souls but it's just way too easy.

I don't think the PS2 era was where Square lost it, since FFX was one of the games that really introduced its generation, FFXI put a respectable dent in the MMO business, and FFXII was Japan's answer to this new series that was called "Knights of the Old Republic." Unfortunately, FFXII was overshadowed in my opinion because the gaming media was suddenly gearing up and so ready to be on the XBox 360's nuts for the next 3 years as if it was the second coming of our Lord and Savior.

Quote:

---

How is it a fair evaluation when you are comparing two different eras that asked for too different things by its fans? The later games are story driven cause that's what fans wanted in that time frame, but how is it fair to compare it to titles where story was not the major selling factor at the time, it was just about having a good time. To me, that's almost like trying to compare Silent movies of the early 20th century to today's film and criticizing the old silent films for being too short and simplistic. How dare Charlie Chaplin not utilize CGI in his films and remove frames from his film to give the illusion of speed instead of using quick camera changes. How dare he ignore nearly a 100 years of innovation that didn't exist at the time, his movies suck. :colbert:

---

Alright, this is the last thing I'm going to say. Well, two. First, I think you've scratched the surface of making a powerful argument that FFI-III, when you take them apart and analyze them critically, are in fact better games than some newer titles. I mean, when you look at FFIII's repetition of battles and cutscenes in areas with little exploration, can you really say that's a better design concept than the adventure of FFI? That's a rhetorical question, not aimed at you, I think you would answer in the negative, as I am almost coming to do.

BUT I still hold to my guns. Of course we should appreciate and celebrate what people did for their time. It's a beautiful thing. But there comes a point where you have to admit, for whatever reason, that a quality in something newer offers more varied opportunities to appreciate it, and farther depths of each appreciation. I'm not even sure what that means, but I think you get the point. There comes a poitn where you can say that it may not give more enjoyment, or have an aesthetic of its own because of the feelings attached to its time period or ballsyiness of coming out in such, but the game, movie, thing just isn't better.

Is Avatar really better than "Modern Times"? (I got some Chaplin for ya) Probably not. Is FFXIII better than FFI? I already said I'm starting to lean towards the negative for that as well.






BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE INCORPORATION OF MARX'S ALIENATION THEORY IN THE NUMBERING OF MIDGAR'S SECTORS TOTALLY BLOWS ANYTHING THE NES OFFERED OUT OF THE WATER, BABY!!!! FFVII FOR EVA WOOO!!!21``1!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenboko

The fact of the matter is, 007 Goldeneye is the best shooter ever. Any debate to that would just be someone on the other side of the FF argument sticking to their guns. However, if I had to play either 007 Goldeneye, or Halo 3, right now, this very moment, I would pick Halo 3.

---

You see, this comment alone undermined the credibility of the rest of your post. We're discussing it in GG, but it's the memories of a gaming demographic unfamiliar with FPS before Goldeneye 64 that has given the game its reputation, not it's map design, game balancing, mission direction, or shooting/movement mechanics that made it so great, and I'm sure Vivi22 would be more than glad to list a plethora of PC games before and after that utterly destroy the quality foundations of the game.

By the way, weren't you in diapers when Goldeneye 64 was released ? :p

---

I have to play a game on it's release date to enjoy it? Also, if we're going to debate whether Goldeneye was awesome or not I'm outta here. xD

EDIT: Also, that doesn't undermine anything else I say really. You can stick to your guns and say the game wasn't good, but it doesn't mean comments about early stories being well-done, without ridiculous levels of expansion on every topic, isn't valid.
EDITGA: I also think we're disregarding how much later Final Fantasies took from the Original. You can take an aspect of basically each game and relate it to one of the first three. I don't know how anyone can say it doesn't matter. If it doesn't then we may as well regard the newest game in every series to be the best Age of Empires III must be better than Age of Empires II, Halo 3, better than Halo 1, etc. etc.


btw. just for reference.
FFI "orbs" -> FFIV, FFIX "crystals"
FFIII Job System -> FFV, FFX-2, FFXI Job System
FFI "Prelude", "Victory" -> (basically all the others) Prelude, Victory

Hell, the Prelude and Victory from FFI is just proof how good the game's soundtrack was, they finally replaced the songs in FFXIII and look how happy we are with that game. :greenie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenboko

I have to play a game on it's release date to enjoy it?

---

Of course not! It's just interesting though. Goldeneye is a game who reputation and status is based on the experiences and memories it gave to a generation at a very specific point and time in game history. For someone who was not there to experience it to still have the same feelings on its reputation is very confounding.

Quote:

---

EDITGA: I also think we're disregarding how much later Final Fantasies took from the Original. You can take an aspect of basically each game and relate it to one of the first three. I don't know how anyone can say it doesn't matter. If it doesn't then we may as well regard the newest game in every series to be the best Age of Empires III must be better than Age of Empires II, Halo 3, better than Halo 1, etc. etc.

---

Of course it matters, but the elements a game does or does not take from its predecessors is not an immediate indication of quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

irl stuff will do that, I had no idea you're the real life Squall!!!!

---

That I am. :cool:

Quote:

---

Oh ho hooo!!! You shouldn't have told me about that Kefka thread (I haven't checked too many of the sub-forums lately), but it's totally on now!!!

As far as inner fanboy, I was being funny, but I'm still ready to trade novel for novel with you in the VII forums if this ever comes up again!!! Best believe!!!

---

Been there, done that. Nowadays, its the same old arguments with the only thing changing being the people who are saying it. I always look forward to verbally sparring with you but its been awhile since a topic has appeared that we both actually have interest in. The only VII topic I have in mind now is more of a legitimate story speculation as opposed to some fallacy pointing shenanigans.

Quote:

---

Well, I do not believe the games are "weak" at all, I totally agree with your hunch on something being hidden in the code, how strong they stand up, and was blown away by your analysis comparing III to IV.

But I did say in posts that the characters are below paper-thin, the combat systems not as deep or free-flowing, the music not as complex, and the stories not as substantive. Or maybe I'm just explicitly saying that now, who knows?

---

The story sounds right but I felt you were a bit vague with the rest. Still, I feel the plots were incredibly good and deep for their time and of anything, they still are still fascinating today because of the fact that the titles tried to touch on deeper elements and drop the whole save the princess from the bad guy (well, we still get plenty of that but its more of sub-quest as opposed to a main quest), the combat comes across basic except for II and III where party configurations can readily be exploited and changed to create new strategies, and actions in II result in how your characters grow making grinding something completely different from the usual "random encounter, hit X, get Loot and XP, rinse and repeat" instead actually taking careful planning on your characters actions to make them grow into the role you need for the party. I is pretty simplistic but with a mage or any magic for that matter, you have to carefully monitor your resources better cause dungeons are long, save points are three titles away, magic is limited, items are expensive and uncommon. So its far from a cakewalk.

The music is simple but its designed as a tune. The music is incredibly catchy, you can't tell me you don't get some of those tracks stuck in your head. Even if the music is simple, its hardly something that is bad about it. The music is still very good. :D

I disagree with the stories lacking substance, they lack being character driven except for FFII but I feel the overall story of the worlds themselves were very interesting and actually complete which is something you don't see much in early RPGs and lately in next-gen RPGs. I'm just surprised how well everything fits together in the earl;y games. Like everything has a reason for being there even if its not to add to the plot.

Quote:

---

That's a pretty cool story. I don't have any desire to play Crisis Core, but how's the difficulty in FFI PSP? I'd still play Dawn of Souls but it's just way too easy.

---

Its pretty much a port of DoS with some more updated sprites (downright cartooney if you ask me) and drops prices and levels needed, as well as changing out to more modern MP systems instead of the classic D&D format of the early titles.

Personally, I like FF Origins the best. Good 16-bit graphics but actually retains most of the original games elements (including being hard) its just a shame you have to beat FFII on easy mode before you can unlock the more faithful version.

Quote:

---

I don't think the PS2 era was where Square lost it, since FFX was one of the games that really introduced its generation, FFXI put a respectable dent in the MMO business, and FFXII was Japan's answer to this new series that was called "Knights of the Old Republic." Unfortunately, FFXII was overshadowed in my opinion because the gaming media was suddenly gearing up and so ready to be on the XBox 360's nuts for the next 3 years as if it was the second coming of our Lord and Savior.

---

I would argue the Console War in general was overshadowing things at the time. But if you really think about it, FF sorta lost its mainstream appeal in the PS2 era at least with a lot of fanbase and diehard gamers. By the first decade of the 21st century FF became less about a series defining the genre and telling wonderful stories with the best technology and became better known for its over-the-top designs, being cutscene heavy, and incredibly easy.

I blame part of it for the huge rejection of XI which while still a great game and doing well in the early MMO market, is highly reviled by a lot of the fanbase who didn't get into it. XII is another "love it or hate it" entry and XIII is looking to be the same with both titles having more of "Hatebase" than a loving one. Hell, I've been finding it amusing that XIII is making people look back upon X with a less than appealing gaze since the games are the most similar in design.

Since then, the majority of FF titles have been sequels and spin-offs and while the quality is still good in most cases (with a few hiccups here and there) I feel fans may have taken a lot of this as the series "selling out" (ignoring the obvious fact the series has really always been a business so none of SE's moves in the last decade should be taken as a surprise) or more importantly, I feel its tarnished its images among many, FF now means something different from what it did fifteen years ago. SE still experiemtns, but in the past, I would say the motto was "what can we do?" while today, its "what will work". Let's not get started on the move to make the series multi-platform.

The PS1 fans are also getting older and bitten by the "nostalgia bug" and wishing things were like they were in the old days, seriously, read the XIII forum, a lot of people clamoring the classic PS1 generation going on in there. ;)

But yes, its not really just this forum, but in a lot of FF forums I sneak into or when I talk to FF fans, it just all feels like everyone thinks the series has lost its spark. Its still a pretty good series but the quality is degrading. I love XII but its because XII was made by someone like me. The Ivalice team is filled with people who just really love the FF series and that's why the game is filled with end jokes, references, and shout outs. Ivalice itself is a world based on the mythology of the series from the last 20+ years. Alas, not too many people see it that way. For many, the series hasn't been considered "good" since X. It just seems like when I ask about FF, people bring up the 16/32 bit era and then proceed to tear apart the PS2 generation. This is just an observation I've been seeing more and more of as time goes by.

Quote:

---

BUT I still hold to my guns. Of course we should appreciate and celebrate what people did for their time. It's a beautiful thing. But there comes a point where you have to admit, for whatever reason, that a quality in something newer offers more varied opportunities to appreciate it, and farther depths of each appreciation. I'm not even sure what that means, but I think you get the point. There comes a point where you can say that it may not give more enjoyment, or have an aesthetic of its own because of the feelings attached to its time period or ballsyiness of coming out in such, but the game, movie, thing just isn't better.

Is Avatar really better than "Modern Times"? (I got some Chaplin for ya) Probably not. Is FFXIII better than FFI? I already said I'm starting to lean towards the negative for that as well.

---

All I am saying is that I do believe there are certain titles that can transcend heir humble attributes and remain timeless. Tetris is still a highly regarded title despite its general simplicity. I don't see simplicity as being a negative attribute especially if it achieves the same result as a newer title.

This is not to say I feel new games have zero chance in hell of surpassing the old titles but I do believe their are just classic titles that will always be regarded as good and recognized for it by the majority. Mega Man 2 is one of my fave games of all time despite all the iterations and added elements to the series that have completely turned the old simple formula on its head but there is something about the title; it was so well crafted that very few things have been able to surpass it. Even the creator of the series says its still his favorite title and tends to go on and on about how making the game was just special for him and his team. It's still the most highly recognized and most likely loved entry in the Blue Bombers 20 year history.

I'm just saying that if we were to judge a game by its use of potential, I would argue the older NES titles tended to step up and actually utilize most of it whereas some of the later entries fell short one way or another. Especially lately, with games focusing on one element over the other. The focus has changed and elements are dropped or reduced. Yes, the later entries have better story and characters but the early titles have more freedom and choice. When IV came into being, the series dropped a lot of its adventuring in exchange for a central narrative. In the past we felt that was just the sacrifice that had to be made, but now, people are getting it right.

My point is that, while games are getting better and new games will surpass old ones, I do believe that some of these titles will remain forever. Though we may speak of the games elements and come to the conclusion that it was inferior to later entries, its ability to live on in the mind and hearts of fan allows it to endure and I ask how this game can be considered less than the others when its loved more?

I once read that when Nomura finished working on FFVI and it was released, he was shocked to learn that fans in Japan were still talking about Rosa and Cecil. That despite working on what he felt was a great game that it was not enough to break fans away from that story and those characters. So when he was asked to be a lead designer and writer for VII, he said to himself that his goal would be to make a title that would last in the minds of fans years after it came and went.

I feel Nomura recognized what makes a great game and story from this little story. Its not the features of the title or the depth, its how much it remains with you when its all over. Some would argue that this is nostalgia, but isn't nostalgia born from greatness? ;)

Quote:

---

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE INCORPORATION OF MARX'S ALIENATION THEORY IN THE NUMBERING OF MIDGAR'S SECTORS TOTALLY BLOWS ANYTHING THE NES OFFERED OUT OF THE WATER, BABY!!!! FFVII FOR EVA WOOO!!!21``1!!!!

---

Do not make me go FFVII troll on you :tonberry:

I'm not entirely sure we're still arguing anymore. It seems like you're trying to convince me that the games were good (which is something i admit and celebrate), as opposed to better than IV-XIII.

But I will contend the point that FFI's plot was "incredibly good and deep for their time." All you know is that you're re-lighting the orbs/crystals to restore the elements, and eventually find out the time travelling schemes of the four fiends who empower Garland to fulfill their plan. It sounds like it is, but in reality you only delve into it one real time with the 12 sages, who give you periodici updates, but none of it is ever really dealt with beyond a sparse few statements which can't add up to over a page.

So I'll meet you halfway - FFI at least does a better job than Modern Warfare 2 - which in 2009 only managed to provide a facially-interesting yet non-existent plot.

Other than that, I can't get into those FFXIII discussions yet! Should be getting my new copy today or tomorrow, but I'm fiendin to get in there since it seems like a more diverse group than usual is discussing it.

No, they aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

VI (the worst in the series)

---

No, it's not.

I didn't read anything but the OP, which I quickly skimmed, so if I say something out of place then excuse me!

I personally don't like FF1-3 because they lack the things I enjoy in an RPG, and have many of the things I don't like. Large dungeons with ridiculously high encounter rates, all of them quite difficult, feels very frustrating and tedious. When I pick up an RPG, or any game really, I want a story that will draw me in. With newer consoles comes the capability to use better quality music and more detailed graphics. This isn't a necessity, but it makes it so much easier to bring a story to life. There's so much more you can do.

Were they good for their time? Definitely. Will you see me playing them now? Well while I have respect for Pong, I'm certainly not going to invest hours of my time playing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪

I didn't read anything but the OP, which I quickly skimmed, so if I say something out of place then excuse me!

I personally don't like FF1-3 because they lack the things I enjoy in an RPG, and have many of the things I don't like. Large dungeons with ridiculously high encounter rates, all of them quite difficult, feels very frustrating and tedious. When I pick up an RPG, or any game really, I want a story that will draw me in. With newer consoles comes the capability to use better quality music and more detailed graphics. This isn't a necessity, but it makes it so much easier to bring a story to life. There's so much more you can do.

Were they good for their time? Definitely. Will you see me playing them now? Well while I have respect for Pong, I'm certainly not going to invest hours of my time playing it.

---

But if it got a cool remake for the GBA you definitely should!