Final Fantasy Adventure or Sword of Mana?

[KentaRawr!]

Sword of Mana is a remake of Final Fantasy Adventure, the first Mana game, and thus, a prequel to Secret of Mana. I plan on playing and beating the first Mana game! But, which version to play? o_o

Help me decide here!

[scrumpleberry]

Call me shallow, but the quality of the graphics and sound on the "adventure" series left me unable to play them for very long.

Sword of Mana is super-difficult imo, but prettier and with a better expanded plot. So I'd say go with SoM, if you develop a rabid love for it try out the original.

[theundeadhero]

I recommend the remake.

[KentaRawr!]

I got really far into SoM, actually. I beat the Dark Lord, at least. But I've never played the original at all.

[TifaLockhart7]

I got really far into SoM, actually. I beat the Dark Lord, at least. But I've never played the original at all.

I forgot was that game for the gba? o_o
I miss that game! But I always got lost towards the end..=[

[Larahl]

I agree with everyone that said that the remake is the superior one
and that you should go with it.

[Jowy]

I found playing Sword of Mana to be unbearable. It took one of my favorite games as a child into some strange halfassed version of Legend of Mana, tossed in unnecessary grinding, completely asinine story arcs, and an AI that manages to make Popoie and Purim look like members of MENSA.

Just deal with the 1990's gameboy graphics, ignore the Engrish translation, and play an ingenious little adventure into the Mana Holyland.

Oh, and the thing that irked me most: (SPOILER)You go through that pain in the ass smurfing floatrocks cave in the original for the rusted mana sword, stays in your inventory for a while, and then you whip it out valiantly to slay the final boss. Sword of Mana makes the floatrocks cave "just a test!" and all of this malarchy about the Sword not really existing, completely disregarding what happens in the game's sequels entirely.

[Brennan]

The remake, and like scrumpleberry said, if you love it, get Adventure

[blackmage_nuke]

If youve already played Secret of Mana (particularly if youve played SD3) you might as well play Sword of Mana so you can pick up the controls and battle system faster.

[Bastian]

They're both pretty good. I voted FFA, but that's just because I'm like that. :P I would say most people would prefer SwoM, but that's because most people like pretty graphics. I wouldn't allow myself to play Sword until after I finished FFA first. Similarly, I cannot play the DS version of FFIII until I finish the rom of the NES version.

[Elskidor]

Well, they are both the same thing. I played Adventure over ten years ago, and thought it was great. I played SoM about 5 years ago, and I thought it was great. Hell, they are both fun, and well worth it. If you like graphics then get SoM, if you don't care then get Adventure.

[Bastian]

Um. I disagree completely. The only thing in common these two games have would be the town names and basic structure of plot. The game design as a whole is completely different. FFA was an obvious The Legend of Zelda (the first game) rip-off. Completely.

Sword, on the other hand, was a complete remake from the ground up trying to fit it firmly in the style created more by Legend of Mana.

[Avarice-ness]

Shoot, I forgot to post here last night.

Anyways. Believe it or not, I hold the Seiken Densetsu series as high up as I do FFVI. So yeah, we can say that's REALLY high up in my opinion of things.

FFA is one of my favorite games, Sword of Mana, less so. FFA withheld most of the things you see in SD2 and SD3, while Sword of Mana goes INSANE with lore that tends to run with the "World of Mana" series which.. well is a crap load of extra stuff needed to make very very lorey based video games, gameplay is okay, graphics obviously better SD3-like, just.. it explains alot that you wouldn't need to know or even care about. (Unless you're like me who likes to connect all the games together via lore.. but saddly this lore contradicts the original games lore to some lesser extents).

FFA's story is simple, you don't really need to know too much to be able to like the game.


Seriously, spoilers. xD
(SPOILER)You have hero, who was captured at some point and forced to fight for the entertainment of "dark lord", who eventually breaks free and goes to find an old Gemma knight, and you have the girl, who hero finds along the way to find the old dude. Her guide/bf/lover thing is slain by the mushrooms (clearly he was only lvl 1) and she tags along with Hero because they are both going to find the same person. Things happen, she gets captured multiple times, you end up gaining other allies, find out that Julius is the badest bad guy and Dark Lord isn't. Go to the mana tree and find out that girl is the next in line to be the mana goddess, get all emo 'cause she turns into a tree to save the world. PRETTY FREAKING SIMPLE. But, the way the story is done keeps you pretty busy. It's like in lord of the rings, they spend like 6 hours just finding Merry and Pippin. That's what this one tends to do.

Sword of Mana on the other hand, takes about the same thing, except splits it in two. You got the girl and the guy, the story line is full of.. well to be honest annoying stereotypes and things that really have nothing to do with the original SD games. Personally, and I say this will all the annoyance in the world, Sword of Mana was made to promote and make sense of the "World of Mana" series, which includes the DS games and SD4. I believe they killed the story, by making an over abundance of story.
If you don't know by now, the world of mana series believes the best game is the game that's so full of information and storyline that it's nearly unreasonable. And.. well SD, SD2, SD3 try to keep things pretty simple, like a book you could read through and never have to question, the other games, yeah you'll be going back looking to figure out why this thing is doing that and in what game did that thing take place.


Then again, like I said, I hold the series up very high and I could have EASILY complicated my love for the games because of my love for the concept and background of the series.

It depends on your personal preference. If you like massively over done storylines (perferably the storylines in the "World of Mana" series), go with Sword of Mana. If you like something that's pretty simple, easy to understand, and has the basic concepts of SD3 and down, go with FFA.

Again, I prefer SD3 and down over the "World of Mana" series, because of that, I tend to lean towards the simplicity of FFA.

[sdm42393]

I think Sword of Mana fell in love with its story and gives you a crapload of information you don't care about. That's not to say that Sword of Mana is bad, I'm just saying the original was better (imo).

[Roto13]

Call me shallow, but the quality of the graphics and sound on the "adventure" series left me unable to play them for very long.

What "series"? :P

I played both versions and I liked Sword of Mana more. Though honestly I didn't find either of them particularly great....