The story is underrated...
This is about the NES version of this game (though can be taken for the DS version at certain points, too). I'm confused about people saying:
FF II NES story > FF III NES story
Well, each to his own, but I have to say otherwise. Contrary to popular believe, FF III NES's story is actually the deepest of all 3 NES FF's. While I can see why people say FF II's was, I'll explain why I think otherwise.
Warning! Wall of Text! Warning! Wall of text with SPOILERS!!!
So people playing this on the DS for the first time, you might want to avoid this unless you don't care for mayor spoilers.
Characters with personality? I give in, FF II introduced those and did that great. For that time, it certainly was a great story, and the oh so cliché Leon plottwist back then must have been quite cool. But that's were it ends for FF II's story. Characters with personality fighting an evil empire. That's it. Nothing more. No background of the characters or the story itself at all. Maybe some vague Ultima stuff that didn't matter anyway.
Now let us look at FF III's story. It starts out very simple, and as FF I, you name the characters. But they still talk. It's not said who talks, but they do have lines. Further we have the tag-alongs. (Desh, Cid, Aria, Sara, ect.) While these are no partymembers and had no other purpose than just tagging along, it were these characters that did have the personality the story needed. The story is partly told through these characters. While they do not have the development later characters woudl have, and maybe had none, they were there and did the job. These characters make up for the party-members lack of personality.
Personal thingie: I want to add, FF III had the first death in a FF game that I actually cared about. Namely the death of Elia. Why FF II had more deaths, and well, deaths of partymembers. It was a godo thing they added in FF II, but the whole "Oh they died, how sad..." was kind off taken away by the recent Soul of Rebirth in FF I and II: DoS. In FF III it was differnet, but I can't really explain why. The atmosphere during this scene was completely different. With teh sad music playing, I found it to be a quite touching scene, even when it was with such limited things to use. While the person who died is furtehr along forgotten in the story, I still carried it with me until I've slain the Final Boss, and I still felt quite sad about it. But this is opinion, there are be people who found the deaths in FF II to be also very dramatic and touching, and they are very allowed to. They indeed were, but didn't have the same inpact on me as when Elia died. (Josef's however, came very close.)
Further we go into the deepness of the story. FF I? Orbs need to be rescued, pick your team and off you go. FF II? We had lots of events and guys die. We had some plottwists. (Leon and the revival of the Emperor) But it's all. You run from place to place, meet other developt characters and fight the empire. Never do we learn why the Emperor is evil, why Leon served the emperor and... Well, we can't want to know sicne there's nothing to know more. It's basically it.
Now with Final Fantasy III, things are different. We set of to protect and save the crystals, but learn of a greater plot. We learn the motivation of the badguy. Why he is evil. We learn how light and dark needs to be balanced or teh Void will come forth to consume all. We learn about how the badguy ties in with the great Mage Noah. How Doga and Unei are related to him. How Bahamut and Leviathan are related to him. There's even a bit of small stuff about the Forbidden Land Eureka. And in the end we learn we learn about the Dark Warriors, who once stopped teh Flood of Light like we need to stop the Flood of Darkness. And at the end of the game, we face the true mastermind of the entire plot.
Now see? How is this weak compared to FF I and II who had no real change in story? (Except FF II in the end, however still very limited.) The story of FF III NES was for a FF in that time so well thought, so build up. We learn so many things. Small details, but they still give us more insight in the story.
Let's take a look at the badguy: Xande.
Why was Garland evil? Heck who knows, he became corrupted for power and in the end transforms into this Chaos dude. (But I admit, timeloops are cool!)
The Emperor? Heck who knows, probably the same as Garland. Leon? The same.
And why the Heck did the Emperor just sit there high in Pandaemonium twisting his thumps?
Xande? Now here we get to business. We learn he was a student under Noah, and when the great mage died he devided his power under his 3 students. Doga magic, Unei dreams and Xande the most beautiful gift of all: A human life. But Xande misunderstood this gift however, and was enraged he got the gift of living as a low-life human. This fellow became kinda twisted with darkness, and planned to summon the Cloud of Darkness from the Void to do his bidding. For doing so, he caused an earthquake so the Crystals would darken, causing a flood of Darkness. And when Light and Dark end up inbalanced, the Cloud of Darkness shall come forth from the Void to devour all.
Well, this guy had motivation I would say. And a background story, too. Though it doesn't compare to later badguys, he at least tried. Compared to Garland and Emperor, this guys wins.
The final plot revalation of the story, mainly the true Mastermind, was also a new thing in Final Fantasy. For the first time in a FF there was a badguy behind the badguy. While Cloud of Darkness didn't really have any background story, it's technically not possible since she's actually a force of nature. But it did bring something new into the series. (And also started the 'I will return all to nothing' attitude later villains would have.)
Now if we look at all these story elements, how the heck has FF III a weak story compared to FF I and II? It's flat out the most fleshed out story of all three! I woudln't be able to type this much about the background of FF I or II. Because they didn't have it. While FF III lacked main-characters with personality, the NPC's that tag along make up for that, and the deepness of teh story itself was really improved over FF I and II. Even the badguy we could understand now instead of just 'Graah! I'm the badguy! I shall knock you all down!'. Xande was no fool, he had actually a 'plan'. And while the Cloud of Darkness may seem repetive now, back then I guess it must have been quite a surprise.
Now, people are welcome to believe whatever they want, but to flat-out state that FF II had a better story than FF III is a lie, In my humble opinion.
Well, here ends my wall of text. Opinions and thoughts are welcomed.
And if you are wondering why I suddenly post this, it had something to do with a topic elsewhere stating FF III NES was the worst FF on the NES and also the weakest story. I had to disagree (I guess it is in my nature...) and wrote this wall of text. But I wanted to know the opinion from people on a forum flooded with FF fans. Thanks.
PS: The text may contain some story-mistakes but it's been a while since I played the NES version and I'm still waiting for my DS copy to arrive.
Reply With Quote
huh?
Originally Posted by undnce
