FF1-3 are the Worst

[Zora]

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

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

[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.

[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.

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!

[Goldenboko]

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.

[Vivisteiner]

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?

[Wolf Kanno]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Personally, progress means jack 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.

[Forsaken Lover]

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.

[Marshall Banana]

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

[Bolivar]

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 ?

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

[Wolf Kanno]

My testament.

Cute

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Well, at least you learned something from my discussions on VII and VIII

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

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.

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.

[Forsaken Lover]

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

... What demented Nomura stalker said this?

[Wolf Kanno]

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.

[Forsaken Lover]

Interesting.

And depressing.

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

[Bolivar]

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.

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

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!!!

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.

Hey, that's cool.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!!!!

[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 ?

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.