Now, to the matter at hand. I have never really understood the FFTA bashing. I'll admit to it; I'm likely younger than many of you, and I'd be pompous and foolhardy to claim a good measure of maturity, but I'm still perplexed. Before anything else, I'd like to say that the Judge system annoyed me to no end, while beyond that, I had fun time with FFTA, though perhaps a little less than FFT. In brief, I liked FFTA's gameplay, but concur with the sentiment that it doesn't measure up to FFT, though I'd say there isn't as big a gap between the two as some make it out to be.
The main purpose behind my post, however, is to address the respective stories of FFT and FFTA. I am wholly baffled by the flack that FFTA has received from its story, and would like reason for it.
I liked FFT's story a good deal, despite it being hideously convoluted in manners unnecessary, IMO. It's rather like playing a game dealing in depth with dynastic ambitions and religion - in other words, rather like playing through the Thirty Years' War. A bit too much clutter, didn't particularly like the overload of drama and shock-value devices being rammed down my throat every few minutes, felt the characters' interactions at points woefully lacking in camaderie for a fighting unit (hey, my first SRPG was Bahamut Lagoon ^^, and didn't care for the overall preach-y, righteous, and yes, a bit cliched nature of the presentation - Ramza and Delita veritably exude values - but I adored it nonetheless, being a history buff (had a lot of fun making connections between characters, sides, and post-Renaissance Europe), marvelling at the motive behind and connections between characters, and generally loving the intricate and deftly woven tapestry of story in FFT.
But complex stories are not the be-all of good storytelling.
As much as I liked FFT's story, I liked FFTA's more.
Before I continue, I'll put this out - I have a personal reason for my inclination, which may explain my preference of FFTA to FFT's story. As a child, I was very prone to flights of fancy, as are many young, shy children. I loved to weave my own fantasy worlds, oftentimes lifting one from a book or a show that I particularly liked at the time, and inserting myself into it. A few friends of mine liked doing the same, and together, we basically had rough roleplays, though none of us knew so much as the term. As such, when I saw Marche, Ritz, and Mewt transported to another world by a book, along with the personalities they each had, I could immediately relate, because I saw myself in them. Ramza makes for an interesting character to analyze, moreso than Marche, but I couldn't possibly relate to a young man with a set of morals entirely removed from mine - not due to innate differences, but due to consequence of circumstance. I could only relate to the characters of FFT on an abstract, "oh, he is having a moral dilemma/a conflict of belief/etc," sort of a way, whereas I felt I knew exactly what FFTA's characters felt.
However, even past this, the beauty behind FFTA's story remains. It, above all else, places emphasis on a classical story conflict; in FFT, the themes were muddy - not necessarily a bad thing, but not proof of superiority. In FFTA, two theme struck with crystal clarity - it's a story of escapism and passage into maturity. Fantasy worlds are all about escapism - ask yourself this: why do you play video games? For that matter, why do we read fictitious tales, watch television's fictitious shows, or take interest in any form of fictional storytelling, especially in the genres of fantasy and science fiction? One part is social commentary, I'll grant you that, but for many, it's connected with a desire to leave reality behind for a little while, and engage oneself in a world disconnected from our own, where we could be something else than what we are. And that is what Ivalice was - a castle in the sky, if you will, and this constitutes the first theme of FFTA.
The second evolves from this - children are prone to this in a much more involved way. Mewt, in particular, speak of this; he has little love of his life in reality, so when the opportunity arises, he takes it, and though it is a castle in the sky (connotation here being the negative one), he embraces it, and does not want to let go. Marche, however, though he doesn't particularly like his reality either, realizes the nature of this fantasy, and brings it down.
St. Ajora, the church, and the factions of FFT were symbolic of mankind's sins, vices, and overall, a representation of political finaglings, especially pertaining to the religious wars of Europe, and quite blatant at that. However interesting it was to make those connections (and believe you me, I had a blast doing just that, poring over my European history books), it lacked the feeling and artistry of FFTA's strongest symbol - Marche's returning the world from Ivalice symbolizes the progression in each an every person - the progression from youthful imagination to grounding in reality, and facing it as one must.
Even if you dispute this being better than the complexity of FFT, and I'm well aware that there is good, valid argument for it, you must admit - you don't see FFTA's story nearly as often as FFT's. It's a hard story to sell, as this fiasco has made apparent, but I can't understand why people don't appreciate it in this medium. Hayao Miyazaki's film, most notably Spirited Away, had much the same kind of story, the same theme, the same simplicity in morality, and won acclaim and praise for it. Yet, we deride FFTA for the same thing, and IMO, in equal, if not better presentation? In RPGs, stories about war are common as dirt, and games with aforementioned themes of human vice and said interactions between characters (political maneuvering, drama, etc) are a dime a dozen. Games with the "serious" plots pervade the medium. FFTA went in another direction; it brought a certain innocence to the medium, and presented something that, while perhaps not a masterpiece, was well-crafted for what it was.
In FFT, focus was cast on a dozen or so themes, few of which were, IMO, adequately developed; many other RPGs of these days are the same. FFTA opted to bring a somewhat "simpler" story, the only way to complement its theme, and for what its worth, did it damned well.
On a more character to character scale, the one thing I note above others is the things that Ramza and Marche respectively reject. Ramza rejects actions against his own innate sense of righteousness; Marche rejects fantasy in which he could have a life arguably better than that reality offers him. It is, in my opinion, unfair to compare the two, being as they are so different, but since others have done so, to me, at least, Ramza's seems somewhat more derivative and generic.
In summary, is FFTA simple? Perhaps. I'd argue that it is hardly as simple as many make it out to be, but really, is simplicity a bad thing? I've felt for some time that stories in post-SNES RPGs have become too convoluted for their own good - it's rather like they're throwing in plot twists for the sake of having plot twists, instead of crafting an art. This does't pertain as much to FFT as it does to many other games, but FFT is certain guilty of this as well.
Is FFTA's story childish? No. FFTA is child-like, in a way; there is a certain innocence to it that may, I concede, be off-putting to some, but to claim that its story is bad for this innocence is asinine.
Well, what is FFTA's story, then? FFTA's story is that of growth and maturity, of imagination, and of childhood. This is a tale that is universal, and one which most people should be able to relate to, whether in the now, if one is a child, or with fond reminiscence of times gone and one's own transition into maturity, if one is older.
I'm sorry for the diatribe, but I simply fail to understand how all of this is labeled bad and trite. I understand that it doesn't cater to everyone's tastes, but that's hardly grounds for insinuating that it is outrightly horrid. Mind, these are the opinions of one still puerile, so I hope you'll excuse any blatant or flagrant naivete on my part. ^_^;
Perhaps it is that gamers are trying to compensate for something? Trying to prove something about themselves by deriding this perceived childishness as below them? ^_~
Originally Posted by Elpizo
Reply With Quote
