FFs you've changed opinion on

[Forsaken Lover]

FFIII
Old Opinion: This was pretty good, not great but still pretty fun.

New opinion: Playing the original version definitely jumped this entry up on my list. The job class and hands off story work better when the game is actually challenging.

You're literally the first person I've ever seen say FF3NES is harder than FF3D. FF3NES is supposed to be a broken mess, like all NES FF games. Just throw Shurikens at everything and use Sage and tapdance over the enemies and final boss.


Anyway....

FFVI
Old: What is this garbage? I thought this was supposed to be some kind of timelss masterpiece. Just another Chrono Trigger, good for its time but of no substantive value today.

New: Finally got to the World of Ruin. Hey, this game is amazing and has true artistic worth. It very much holds up.

[Wolf Kanno]

FFIII
Old Opinion: This was pretty good, not great but still pretty fun.

New opinion: Playing the original version definitely jumped this entry up on my list. The job class and hands off story work better when the game is actually challenging.

You're literally the first person I've ever seen say FF3NES is harder than FF3D. FF3NES is supposed to be a broken mess, like all NES FF games. Just throw Shurikens at everything and use Sage and tapdance over the enemies and final boss.

Considering those classes don't become available in the NES version until the final dungeon, their usefulness is exaggerated. Actually the NES version is way harder due to the game having more enemies on the screen and half the classes not working like their later incarnations. Dividing enemies are annoying in the DS version but are almost guarantee party wipes if you go in with the wrong team in the NES version. I don't even know why I'm explaining this, I remember you playing this game and lamenting the difficulty curve.

[Forsaken Lover]

FFIII
Old Opinion: This was pretty good, not great but still pretty fun.

New opinion: Playing the original version definitely jumped this entry up on my list. The job class and hands off story work better when the game is actually challenging.

You're literally the first person I've ever seen say FF3NES is harder than FF3D. FF3NES is supposed to be a broken mess, like all NES FF games. Just throw Shurikens at everything and use Sage and tapdance over the enemies and final boss.

Considering those classes don't become available in the NES version until the final dungeon, their usefulness is exaggerated. Actually the NES version is way harder due to the game having more enemies on the screen and half the classes not working like their later incarnations. Dividing enemies are annoying in the DS version but are almost guarantee party wipes if you go in with the wrong team in the NES version. I don't even know why I'm explaining this, I remember you playing this game and lamenting the difficulty curve.

So the game is hard because the Jobs it gives you don't work? What kind of defense is that?

I don't remember being upset at the difficulty in FF3D, though. It actually sort of curves downward in difficulty and by the end it's pretty easy. Cloud of Darkness was a decent challenge for a final boss but she was the first challenge in a long time. The start of the game is harder because of limited Job selection and stuff.

But overall, yes, it was probably among the hardest FF games. Not always for the right reasons, much like your "FF3NES is broken therefore it's challenging" counter.

[Wolf Kanno]

So the game is hard because the Jobs it gives you don't work? What kind of defense is that?

I don't remember being upset at the difficulty in FF3D, though. It actually sort of curves downward in difficulty and by the end it's pretty easy. Cloud of Darkness was a decent challenge for a final boss but she was the first challenge in a long time. The start of the game is harder because of limited Job selection and stuff.

But overall, yes, it was probably among the hardest FF games. Not always for the right reasons, much like your "FF3NES is broken therefore it's challenging" counter.

I never said the classes were broken. With the exception of the Geomancer class, which was poorly conceived in its original form, I would actually argue the classes of the Famicom version are far more balanced from a challenge perspective than their DS counterparts which are balanced against each other, but mostly overpowered in general for the games difficulty

. I mean Magic Fencer was an okay class that was imperative to have against dividing enemies in the NES version. Dark Knights are just overpowered in general in the DS version and even then; dividing enemies are hardly a threat anymore and the boost to mages makes the DK less useful for the role it was meant to play in the game to begin with. Likewise, dual wielding is a risky strategy in the NES version since the loss of the extra defense would make even the tankiest class a glass cannon against several enemies. In the DS version, there is rarely anything outside of boss battles that would make you want to have a shield and the extra damage from a secondary weapon gave ridiculous damage bonuses whereas it was a bit more modest in the original.

The other element that makes the game more challenging was the fact that most abilities can actually miss including magic and skills like Jump, so they weren't guarantee damage, damage itself would fluctuate due to the game recreating the "dice" aspect of roll playing games so an enemy could easily one shot your knight or viking with a concentrated spell whereas in the DS version, these classes take scratch damage from that kind of stuff when defending. In fact, it's pretty much the whole idea that FFIII still adheres to table top dice mechanics in general, that makes this game more challenging whereas the remake utilizes the more streamlined design of the 16-bit era and onward with damage rarely fluctuating, classes with powerful skills with near perfect accuracy, and the game often favoring the player in terms of damage and speed. The DS version also can't recreate the amount of enemies on the screen like the NES/Famicom era due to hardware limitations, as having eight enemies on a screen with enemies that can either divide to keep that number constant or inflict nasty status ailments like confusion or paralyze with their physical abilities. I can easily name dungeons that I absolutely dread in the NES version whereas I wouldn't spare a thought for them in the DS version.

So while the DS version is still challenging in today's standards, it does way more to favor the player than the original which was more of a free for all. I wouldn't even call it broken design as I often don't feel a game should cater to the player.

[Forsaken Lover]

So the game is hard because the Jobs it gives you don't work? What kind of defense is that?

I don't remember being upset at the difficulty in FF3D, though. It actually sort of curves downward in difficulty and by the end it's pretty easy. Cloud of Darkness was a decent challenge for a final boss but she was the first challenge in a long time. The start of the game is harder because of limited Job selection and stuff.

But overall, yes, it was probably among the hardest FF games. Not always for the right reasons, much like your "FF3NES is broken therefore it's challenging" counter.

I never said the classes were broken. With the exception of the Geomancer class, which was poorly conceived in its original form, I would actually argue the classes of the Famicom version are far more balanced from a challenge perspective than their DS counterparts which are balanced against each other, but mostly overpowered in general for the games difficulty

. I mean Magic Fencer was an okay class that was imperative to have against dividing enemies in the NES version. Dark Knights are just overpowered in general in the DS version and even then; dividing enemies are hardly a threat anymore and the boost to mages makes the DK less useful for the role it was meant to play in the game to begin with. Likewise, dual wielding is a risky strategy in the NES version since the loss of the extra defense would make even the tankiest class a glass cannon against several enemies. In the DS version, there is rarely anything outside of boss battles that would make you want to have a shield and the extra damage from a secondary weapon gave ridiculous damage bonuses whereas it was a bit more modest in the original.

The other element that makes the game more challenging was the fact that most abilities can actually miss including magic and skills like Jump, so they weren't guarantee damage, damage itself would fluctuate due to the game recreating the "dice" aspect of roll playing games so an enemy could easily one shot your knight or viking with a concentrated spell whereas in the DS version, these classes take scratch damage from that kind of stuff when defending. In fact, it's pretty much the whole idea that FFIII still adheres to table top dice mechanics in general, that makes this game more challenging whereas the remake utilizes the more streamlined design of the 16-bit era and onward with damage rarely fluctuating, classes with powerful skills with near perfect accuracy, and the game often favoring the player in terms of damage and speed. The DS version also can't recreate the amount of enemies on the screen like the NES/Famicom era due to hardware limitations, as having eight enemies on a screen with enemies that can either divide to keep that number constant or inflict nasty status ailments like confusion or paralyze with their physical abilities. I can easily name dungeons that I absolutely dread in the NES version whereas I wouldn't spare a thought for them in the DS version.

So while the DS version is still challenging in today's standards, it does way more to favor the player than the original which was more of a free for all. I wouldn't even call it broken design as I often don't feel a game should cater to the player.

I dunno what FF3 remake you played where the game caters to the player in terms of speed. The nonexistent logic of turn orders meant your White Mage might pop off a heal before the boss actually did anything and thus wastes their turn. Which is then followed up by the boss deciding to unleash two devastating physical attacks both on the WM, most likely killing them. As I said, that was a tragic part of the remake's fake difficulty and a negative aspect to it not present in other FF games. Bosses getting two turns + the random turns could easily kill any but the most overleveled party. The only things I recall getting priority were Defend, or at least Monk's Retaliate always got to go first.

The remake only did what FF5 did - make every Job viable. The way I hear it, FF3's original design philosophy was each new set of Jobs was an upgrade. To still use Warrior by the endgame is just being stupid. And Red Mages were worthless trash who couldn't equip anything passed a certain level.

I don't think it's wrong to give the player more options on how to play the game.

You are correct that Dark Knight is worthless in the remake but mainly because Souleater drains HP and losing HP on your own is a terrible idea in this game.

[Wolf Kanno]

I dunno what FF3 remake you played where the game caters to the player in terms of speed. The nonexistent logic of turn orders meant your White Mage might pop off a heal before the boss actually did anything and thus wastes their turn. Which is then followed up by the boss deciding to unleash two devastating physical attacks both on the WM, most likely killing them. As I said, that was a tragic part of the remake's fake difficulty and a negative aspect to it not present in other FF games. Bosses getting two turns + the random turns could easily kill any but the most overleveled party. The only things I recall getting priority were Defend, or at least Monk's Retaliate always got to go first.

Honestly never had that happen to me, if someone was going to get one shotted, it was the glass cannon classes like Dark Knight, Bard, or Black Mage. Of anything, the Devout class has ridiculously high defense for a mage class. Also the bosses getting two turns is a result of the designers actually adding difficulty due to being unable to bring in the game's original difficulty with higher enemy counts and fluctuating damage. I mean if the bosses didn't get multiple turns as well as higher stats, they would be even more of a joke than they already are. Though frankly, giving CoD multiple skills actually makes her easy, especially since Particle Beam/Flare Wave was noticeably nerfed. I'm not saying the DS version isn't challenging, but compared to the original, it's on training wheels. Getting 4 digit damage in the Famicom version is considered incredible. Hitting the damage cap of 9999 in the remake is child's play for more than half of the classes. So I'm a bit baffled that anyone would consider the DS version harder than the original.

The remake only did what FF5 did - make every Job viable. The way I hear it, FF3's original design philosophy was each new set of Jobs was an upgrade. To still use Warrior by the endgame is just being stupid. And Red Mages were worthless trash who couldn't equip anything passed a certain level.

Yes, and I feel original's ways of doing things were fine the way they were. Technically, only some jobs became obsolete rather quickly, and frankly I still feel the Warrior/Fighter class is kind of worthless in the remake as well. Frankly some classes have more longevity than others, Knight and the core Black and White mage classes stay viable for most of the game. Even then the balance of classes in the game are uneven as Geomancer, Monk, Knight, Dragoon and DK are way overpowered whereas classes like Sage, Evoker, and Scholar are pretty worthless, so I would say they kind of failed to recreate the viability of classes like FFV had.

I don't think it's wrong to give the player more options on how to play the game.

I don't disagree, but I actually feel the original still gave you plenty of options.

You are correct that Dark Knight is worthless in the remake but mainly because Souleater drains HP and losing HP on your own is a terrible idea in this game.

Barring them not having any decent gear until the last fifth of the title, I disagree that DK is a worthless class. Their decent speed combined with the fact Souleater is a group hitting attack that reaches the damage cap way earlier than it has any right to do. I mean if the Ninja didn't have better speed and defense, I would have never dropped the DK from my team. I actually never did drop the Dragoon since dual wielding spears with one of them being a Blood Spear makes it impossible for enemies to beat them unless they somehow manage to one shot them.

[Sefie1999AD]

I'm replaying FFIII NES at the moment, and I may actually prefer the NES version over the 3D remake. The battles are much slower in the remake, even if there are less enemies and you use PSP's Auto-Battle feature for 2x speed. This is due to the very slow animations. I tried clocking how long one turn takes in the same location, and even with the PSP version having less enemies and Auto-Battle, the turns were faster on NES. The 3D version also felt much more grindy, or at least grinding takes a longer time. On NES, it took me about 25 hours hours to reach the Crystal Tower, and about 5 additional hours to grind for the final dungeons, and this was without the B-button Dash ability. On PSP, I needed 40 hours to reach the Crystal Tower, with about the same levels.

On my latest run, I've been using fan-made hacks, and I highly recommend them. Certain fan translations (such as the ones by ad0220 and Chaos Rush) add plenty of dialogue, as well as the B-button Dash ability. There also also mods, such as Maeson's Mix and Spindaboy's FFIII Patch, that rebalance the classes. With all these new changes, the NES version feels clearly superior to the 3D remakes, apart from graphics and music.