FF1-3 are the Worst

[Bolivar]

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.

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.

[Wolf Kanno]

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

That I am.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

[Bolivar]

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.

[DD99]

No, they aren't.

VI (the worst in the series)

No, it's not.

[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.

[Bolivar]

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!