Which game do you prefer to play?
Printable View
Which game do you prefer to play?
Have to go with tatics, its much better IMO, with a much better story and system ( i love buying abilities!)
but, job wise, FFTA gotta love alchemists and assassins!
Tactics. It's more challenging, has cooler characters, has cooler locations to fight in, has a cooler story. Just better in nearly every way than TA.
FFTA. FFT was and is a great game, however, it suffered from many things, not limited to a terrible localization, an unbalanced battle system, and very inconvenient battle mechanics. FFTA improved upon all of this, with a much more balanced system, a very coherent translation, and battle mechanics that don't make you want to rip your hair out with frustration (with the exception of certain laws that involve not harming animals...). And FFTA is portable!
I will say that FFT had the better soundtrack though.
Of course, I'll probably like FFT a whole lot more once I see what they've done with the PSP port (whenever it'll be released, anyway).
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Zeromus_X
FFTA. I honestly couldn't get into FFT. Not saying it's a bad game but it couldn't capture my interest at all. But I got many hours of enjoyment out of FFTA and I've restarted countless of times and I'm still not tired of playing it. Also, I find FFTA's story to be very deep and realistic, something different from other FF's.
FFTA wins by default, because Square hate me and my fellow Europeans and refused to release FFT :p
What I also like about FFTA, though, is the portable nature, as you can get a couple of turns in if you have a few minutes free. There's a Penny Arcade comic (I'm too lazy to look it up) that shows this well.
FFTA. It had a story that didn't require hundreds of pages of foot notes, and it was certainly more polished than FFT (not that FFT set the bar very high).
I had trouble with FFT's story, so I payed attention to what was going on at that moment rather than its signifigance to the overall story. I also liked the graphics in FFT a lot better and liked that the camera angles can be changed in FFT (both of these may be due to the limited technology of the GBA, but it still counts). FFTA was much too easy and was just less cool.
Seriously? FFTA was about a couple of kids who wake up one morning and find themselves in a world from a book they were reading. That doesn't seem very realistic to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elpizo
I've never played Tactics Advance but it's coming in the mail so I will decide in a few days which is better.
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance...only because i played it more. but i have also enjoyed and perhaps poured out the most (non-consecutive) hours for it. i'm pretty softcore, so i gave up early on Final Fantasy Tactics.
Oh, really? That's how people tend to think always about FFTA's story. But recently I came a cross a smart guy on gamespot (rare, that is) and he wrote some interesting analysis over FFTA's story. I'll quote him.Quote:
Originally Posted by vorpal bladeI had trouble with FFT's story, so I payed attention to what was going on at that moment rather than its signifigance to the overall story. I also liked the graphics in FFT a lot better and liked that the camera angles can be changed in FFT (both of these may be due to the limited technology of the GBA, but it still counts). FFTA was much too easy and was just less cool.
Seriously? FFTA was about a couple of kids who wake up one morning and find themselves in a world from a book they were reading. That doesn't seem very realistic to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elpizo
Yes, you're right, FFTA's story was simply about some brats in a magic world. Yes, yes... It was a story that offered nothing more but that, yes...Quote:
Now, to the matter at hand. I have never really understood the FFTA bashing. I'll admit to it; I'm likely younger than many of you, and I'd be pompous and foolhardy to claim a good measure of maturity, but I'm still perplexed. Before anything else, I'd like to say that the Judge system annoyed me to no end, while beyond that, I had fun time with FFTA, though perhaps a little less than FFT. In brief, I liked FFTA's gameplay, but concur with the sentiment that it doesn't measure up to FFT, though I'd say there isn't as big a gap between the two as some make it out to be.
The main purpose behind my post, however, is to address the respective stories of FFT and FFTA. I am wholly baffled by the flack that FFTA has received from its story, and would like reason for it.
I liked FFT's story a good deal, despite it being hideously convoluted in manners unnecessary, IMO. It's rather like playing a game dealing in depth with dynastic ambitions and religion - in other words, rather like playing through the Thirty Years' War. A bit too much clutter, didn't particularly like the overload of drama and shock-value devices being rammed down my throat every few minutes, felt the characters' interactions at points woefully lacking in camaderie for a fighting unit (hey, my first SRPG was Bahamut Lagoon ^^, and didn't care for the overall preach-y, righteous, and yes, a bit cliched nature of the presentation - Ramza and Delita veritably exude values - but I adored it nonetheless, being a history buff (had a lot of fun making connections between characters, sides, and post-Renaissance Europe), marvelling at the motive behind and connections between characters, and generally loving the intricate and deftly woven tapestry of story in FFT.
But complex stories are not the be-all of good storytelling.
As much as I liked FFT's story, I liked FFTA's more.
Before I continue, I'll put this out - I have a personal reason for my inclination, which may explain my preference of FFTA to FFT's story. As a child, I was very prone to flights of fancy, as are many young, shy children. I loved to weave my own fantasy worlds, oftentimes lifting one from a book or a show that I particularly liked at the time, and inserting myself into it. A few friends of mine liked doing the same, and together, we basically had rough roleplays, though none of us knew so much as the term. As such, when I saw Marche, Ritz, and Mewt transported to another world by a book, along with the personalities they each had, I could immediately relate, because I saw myself in them. Ramza makes for an interesting character to analyze, moreso than Marche, but I couldn't possibly relate to a young man with a set of morals entirely removed from mine - not due to innate differences, but due to consequence of circumstance. I could only relate to the characters of FFT on an abstract, "oh, he is having a moral dilemma/a conflict of belief/etc," sort of a way, whereas I felt I knew exactly what FFTA's characters felt.
However, even past this, the beauty behind FFTA's story remains. It, above all else, places emphasis on a classical story conflict; in FFT, the themes were muddy - not necessarily a bad thing, but not proof of superiority. In FFTA, two theme struck with crystal clarity - it's a story of escapism and passage into maturity. Fantasy worlds are all about escapism - ask yourself this: why do you play video games? For that matter, why do we read fictitious tales, watch television's fictitious shows, or take interest in any form of fictional storytelling, especially in the genres of fantasy and science fiction? One part is social commentary, I'll grant you that, but for many, it's connected with a desire to leave reality behind for a little while, and engage oneself in a world disconnected from our own, where we could be something else than what we are. And that is what Ivalice was - a castle in the sky, if you will, and this constitutes the first theme of FFTA.
The second evolves from this - children are prone to this in a much more involved way. Mewt, in particular, speak of this; he has little love of his life in reality, so when the opportunity arises, he takes it, and though it is a castle in the sky (connotation here being the negative one), he embraces it, and does not want to let go. Marche, however, though he doesn't particularly like his reality either, realizes the nature of this fantasy, and brings it down.
St. Ajora, the church, and the factions of FFT were symbolic of mankind's sins, vices, and overall, a representation of political finaglings, especially pertaining to the religious wars of Europe, and quite blatant at that. However interesting it was to make those connections (and believe you me, I had a blast doing just that, poring over my European history books), it lacked the feeling and artistry of FFTA's strongest symbol - Marche's returning the world from Ivalice symbolizes the progression in each an every person - the progression from youthful imagination to grounding in reality, and facing it as one must.
Even if you dispute this being better than the complexity of FFT, and I'm well aware that there is good, valid argument for it, you must admit - you don't see FFTA's story nearly as often as FFT's. It's a hard story to sell, as this fiasco has made apparent, but I can't understand why people don't appreciate it in this medium. Hayao Miyazaki's film, most notably Spirited Away, had much the same kind of story, the same theme, the same simplicity in morality, and won acclaim and praise for it. Yet, we deride FFTA for the same thing, and IMO, in equal, if not better presentation? In RPGs, stories about war are common as dirt, and games with aforementioned themes of human vice and said interactions between characters (political maneuvering, drama, etc) are a dime a dozen. Games with the "serious" plots pervade the medium. FFTA went in another direction; it brought a certain innocence to the medium, and presented something that, while perhaps not a masterpiece, was well-crafted for what it was.
In FFT, focus was cast on a dozen or so themes, few of which were, IMO, adequately developed; many other RPGs of these days are the same. FFTA opted to bring a somewhat "simpler" story, the only way to complement its theme, and for what its worth, did it damned well.
On a more character to character scale, the one thing I note above others is the things that Ramza and Marche respectively reject. Ramza rejects actions against his own innate sense of righteousness; Marche rejects fantasy in which he could have a life arguably better than that reality offers him. It is, in my opinion, unfair to compare the two, being as they are so different, but since others have done so, to me, at least, Ramza's seems somewhat more derivative and generic.
In summary, is FFTA simple? Perhaps. I'd argue that it is hardly as simple as many make it out to be, but really, is simplicity a bad thing? I've felt for some time that stories in post-SNES RPGs have become too convoluted for their own good - it's rather like they're throwing in plot twists for the sake of having plot twists, instead of crafting an art. This does't pertain as much to FFT as it does to many other games, but FFT is certain guilty of this as well.
Is FFTA's story childish? No. FFTA is child-like, in a way; there is a certain innocence to it that may, I concede, be off-putting to some, but to claim that its story is bad for this innocence is asinine.
Well, what is FFTA's story, then? FFTA's story is that of growth and maturity, of imagination, and of childhood. This is a tale that is universal, and one which most people should be able to relate to, whether in the now, if one is a child, or with fond reminiscence of times gone and one's own transition into maturity, if one is older.
I'm sorry for the diatribe, but I simply fail to understand how all of this is labeled bad and trite. I understand that it doesn't cater to everyone's tastes, but that's hardly grounds for insinuating that it is outrightly horrid. Mind, these are the opinions of one still puerile, so I hope you'll excuse any blatant or flagrant naivete on my part. ^_^;
Perhaps it is that gamers are trying to compensate for something? Trying to prove something about themselves by deriding this perceived childishness as below them? ^_~
My attention span is much to short to read all of that.
I get the sense that you think I didn't like FFTA's story, but I must clarify that that is not the case at all. FFTA had a much simpler story and was a good story, but it gave me the sense that it was aimed at children (which it very well may have). However, Elpizo, you described FFTA's story as being "very deep and realistic," which is something I must dispute. The story was very simple, much more so than T's (which was too complicated to understand without clarification), and had the realism of a flying gnome. A flying gnome, much like TA's story, is something I wouldn't mind seeing, but does not convey any sense of realism. Like the author of your article, I can understand the characters of TA; having been bullied and friendless throughout middle school, I can sympathize with Mewt and understand why he wouldn't want to leave Ivalice, and having spent most of my elementary school days roleplaying with friends, I can see the appeal of Ivalice. So I agree if you meant that the characters of TA were more realistic, but, again like the author of your article, I enjoyed comparing FFT to our world, and those parallels are why I liked FFT more than FFTA.
hmm FFTA for me bacause it have the word ADVANCE in it....and it also has assasins...
The story was about maturing and facing your problem, which isn't something very simple. To me it was very deep and realistic, as both are themes all of us at a certain point in life has to face. And maybe the story wasn't deep, but the characters were, one of the two was at least. But okay, I'm fine with your opinion, I kind of misunderstood you, I think, my apologies. I hope I didn't come over as offending which wasn't really what I intended, I just like to defend FFTA's story, cause it really gets bashed more than it deserves. That's something that kinda annoys me, as one who would read the entire text of this guy would see that FFTA's story was far from 'childish' or 'horrible' and all that it gets accused of. For me I don't care which story was best, both games are good ones even though I did not enjoy FFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by vorpal blade
The story contains the themes of "maturing and facing your problem," which is something used in nearly all after school specials aimed at growing children, which is why it may seem "childish." Which is not really a problem for someone who habitually watches Nikelodeon like myself. I've never heard many bad things about FFTA; most articles praise it for fixing some of the problems in FFT, and I agree that it probably doesn't deserve all the negative criticism. I thik we understand and respect our opinions now.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Elpizo
I would have said something similar to this. But, when I read your first post and his response, you both used the word "realistic". And Vorpal Blade is right, the situation of FFTA isn't any more realistic than that of any other FF game (it is a fantasy series, after all). Interesting that the quote you presented was, it didn't comment on the realism of the situation at all. "Realistic" was a poor choice of words in your initial comment, because FFTA really isn't any more realistic than most of the other FF games.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElpizoOh, really? That's how people tend to think always about FFTA's story. But recently I came a cross a smart guy on gamespot (rare, that is) and he wrote some interesting analysis over FFTA's story. I'll quote him.Quote:
Originally Posted by vorpal bladeI had trouble with FFT's story, so I payed attention to what was going on at that moment rather than its signifigance to the overall story. I also liked the graphics in FFT a lot better and liked that the camera angles can be changed in FFT (both of these may be due to the limited technology of the GBA, but it still counts). FFTA was much too easy and was just less cool.
Seriously? FFTA was about a couple of kids who wake up one morning and find themselves in a world from a book they were reading. That doesn't seem very realistic to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elpizo
Yes, you're right, FFTA's story was simply about some brats in a magic world. Yes, yes... It was a story that offered nothing more but that, yes...Quote:
Now, to the matter at hand. I have never really understood the FFTA bashing. I'll admit to it; I'm likely younger than many of you, and I'd be pompous and foolhardy to claim a good measure of maturity, but I'm still perplexed. Before anything else, I'd like to say that the Judge system annoyed me to no end, while beyond that, I had fun time with FFTA, though perhaps a little less than FFT. In brief, I liked FFTA's gameplay, but concur with the sentiment that it doesn't measure up to FFT, though I'd say there isn't as big a gap between the two as some make it out to be.
The main purpose behind my post, however, is to address the respective stories of FFT and FFTA. I am wholly baffled by the flack that FFTA has received from its story, and would like reason for it.
I liked FFT's story a good deal, despite it being hideously convoluted in manners unnecessary, IMO. It's rather like playing a game dealing in depth with dynastic ambitions and religion - in other words, rather like playing through the Thirty Years' War. A bit too much clutter, didn't particularly like the overload of drama and shock-value devices being rammed down my throat every few minutes, felt the characters' interactions at points woefully lacking in camaderie for a fighting unit (hey, my first SRPG was Bahamut Lagoon ^^, and didn't care for the overall preach-y, righteous, and yes, a bit cliched nature of the presentation - Ramza and Delita veritably exude values - but I adored it nonetheless, being a history buff (had a lot of fun making connections between characters, sides, and post-Renaissance Europe), marvelling at the motive behind and connections between characters, and generally loving the intricate and deftly woven tapestry of story in FFT.
But complex stories are not the be-all of good storytelling.
As much as I liked FFT's story, I liked FFTA's more.
Before I continue, I'll put this out - I have a personal reason for my inclination, which may explain my preference of FFTA to FFT's story. As a child, I was very prone to flights of fancy, as are many young, shy children. I loved to weave my own fantasy worlds, oftentimes lifting one from a book or a show that I particularly liked at the time, and inserting myself into it. A few friends of mine liked doing the same, and together, we basically had rough roleplays, though none of us knew so much as the term. As such, when I saw Marche, Ritz, and Mewt transported to another world by a book, along with the personalities they each had, I could immediately relate, because I saw myself in them. Ramza makes for an interesting character to analyze, moreso than Marche, but I couldn't possibly relate to a young man with a set of morals entirely removed from mine - not due to innate differences, but due to consequence of circumstance. I could only relate to the characters of FFT on an abstract, "oh, he is having a moral dilemma/a conflict of belief/etc," sort of a way, whereas I felt I knew exactly what FFTA's characters felt.
However, even past this, the beauty behind FFTA's story remains. It, above all else, places emphasis on a classical story conflict; in FFT, the themes were muddy - not necessarily a bad thing, but not proof of superiority. In FFTA, two theme struck with crystal clarity - it's a story of escapism and passage into maturity. Fantasy worlds are all about escapism - ask yourself this: why do you play video games? For that matter, why do we read fictitious tales, watch television's fictitious shows, or take interest in any form of fictional storytelling, especially in the genres of fantasy and science fiction? One part is social commentary, I'll grant you that, but for many, it's connected with a desire to leave reality behind for a little while, and engage oneself in a world disconnected from our own, where we could be something else than what we are. And that is what Ivalice was - a castle in the sky, if you will, and this constitutes the first theme of FFTA.
The second evolves from this - children are prone to this in a much more involved way. Mewt, in particular, speak of this; he has little love of his life in reality, so when the opportunity arises, he takes it, and though it is a castle in the sky (connotation here being the negative one), he embraces it, and does not want to let go. Marche, however, though he doesn't particularly like his reality either, realizes the nature of this fantasy, and brings it down.
St. Ajora, the church, and the factions of FFT were symbolic of mankind's sins, vices, and overall, a representation of political finaglings, especially pertaining to the religious wars of Europe, and quite blatant at that. However interesting it was to make those connections (and believe you me, I had a blast doing just that, poring over my European history books), it lacked the feeling and artistry of FFTA's strongest symbol - Marche's returning the world from Ivalice symbolizes the progression in each an every person - the progression from youthful imagination to grounding in reality, and facing it as one must.
Even if you dispute this being better than the complexity of FFT, and I'm well aware that there is good, valid argument for it, you must admit - you don't see FFTA's story nearly as often as FFT's. It's a hard story to sell, as this fiasco has made apparent, but I can't understand why people don't appreciate it in this medium. Hayao Miyazaki's film, most notably Spirited Away, had much the same kind of story, the same theme, the same simplicity in morality, and won acclaim and praise for it. Yet, we deride FFTA for the same thing, and IMO, in equal, if not better presentation? In RPGs, stories about war are common as dirt, and games with aforementioned themes of human vice and said interactions between characters (political maneuvering, drama, etc) are a dime a dozen. Games with the "serious" plots pervade the medium. FFTA went in another direction; it brought a certain innocence to the medium, and presented something that, while perhaps not a masterpiece, was well-crafted for what it was.
In FFT, focus was cast on a dozen or so themes, few of which were, IMO, adequately developed; many other RPGs of these days are the same. FFTA opted to bring a somewhat "simpler" story, the only way to complement its theme, and for what its worth, did it damned well.
On a more character to character scale, the one thing I note above others is the things that Ramza and Marche respectively reject. Ramza rejects actions against his own innate sense of righteousness; Marche rejects fantasy in which he could have a life arguably better than that reality offers him. It is, in my opinion, unfair to compare the two, being as they are so different, but since others have done so, to me, at least, Ramza's seems somewhat more derivative and generic.
In summary, is FFTA simple? Perhaps. I'd argue that it is hardly as simple as many make it out to be, but really, is simplicity a bad thing? I've felt for some time that stories in post-SNES RPGs have become too convoluted for their own good - it's rather like they're throwing in plot twists for the sake of having plot twists, instead of crafting an art. This does't pertain as much to FFT as it does to many other games, but FFT is certain guilty of this as well.
Is FFTA's story childish? No. FFTA is child-like, in a way; there is a certain innocence to it that may, I concede, be off-putting to some, but to claim that its story is bad for this innocence is asinine.
Well, what is FFTA's story, then? FFTA's story is that of growth and maturity, of imagination, and of childhood. This is a tale that is universal, and one which most people should be able to relate to, whether in the now, if one is a child, or with fond reminiscence of times gone and one's own transition into maturity, if one is older.
I'm sorry for the diatribe, but I simply fail to understand how all of this is labeled bad and trite. I understand that it doesn't cater to everyone's tastes, but that's hardly grounds for insinuating that it is outrightly horrid. Mind, these are the opinions of one still puerile, so I hope you'll excuse any blatant or flagrant naivete on my part. ^_^;
Perhaps it is that gamers are trying to compensate for something? Trying to prove something about themselves by deriding this perceived childishness as below them? ^_~
However, as I have said (repeatedly) before, the plot isn't that simple.
Well, I found FFT to be to hard, I have to chose FFTA because after you beat the game, you can keep playing.
I enjoyed Tactics much more than I did Tactics Advance. However, Tactics Advance was no doubt a lot of fun.
If you kept one save file outside of Murond, you'd be able to keep playing FFT, too. And on a similar note, I didn't like how I couldn't beat the final boss and see the ending again, though I did like how you got extras after beating the game (more characters and missions).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben25
I know, I usually screw up while trying to say things. Ah well, can't be bothered, guess maybe the story wasn't, but the themes and the characters certainly came over (to me) as more realistic than some other FF characters. My point for the quote wasn't really to prove it being realistic, more to prove that it wasn't childish or very simple, which is a popular something of which FFTA is accused of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
That's not really the same thing. :P Ben is probably referring to the fact that there are more missions and characters after you beat the main objective of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by vorpal bladeIf you kept one save file outside of Murond, you'd be able to keep playing FFT, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben25
tactics no contest the judge system kept me pissed off as well as the feeling that FFTA was the kids version of FFT wit a few extras in which most of them weren't needed/annoying
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
First and foremost, the reason I like this game very much is the fact the first FF I got. It pulled me into the series. When I see or here FFTA, it has a person symbolic history for me, which is something that FFT cannot hold. If it wasn't for this game, I would be missing out a great series.
Second, I played FFT briefly, but this game was fun. I like easy games, and this game was like that. You go from point A to point B and doing a tactical mission. FFT on the other hand seemed like you needed to work and train in order to win a mission, much like getting some of thsoe tough Shine Spirits in Super Mario Sunshine. FFTA was a simple game.
The story I cannot compare because I am not fimiliar with FFT's story.
SO there is my two cents, err, gil. Yes, there is my two gil (did that make any cents, err, sense?)
No contest, FFT.
That game changed my life. It changed the way I play video games. I liked FFTA, but it wasn't what I was expecting and was just a little bit too different from the original. The story in FFTA was awesome, but it was pretty simple, compared to FFT.
FFT has the most interesting story full of betrayals and questions with a final resolution for most questions by the time you beat the game. Every character has such depth and a backstory that you can read at your pleasure.
The only thing I found in FFTA that was really amazing was the Combo system. I liked that. It would've been cool to have a system where two or more characters could combo off of one another in battle in the original FFT.