General Final Fantasy Discussion - Final Fantasy XII remake incoming!

[Pikaville]

Yes.....yes it is.

That last cavern is hella tough if your not prepared too.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

Again, I really don't think you realize what innovation is. If I try putting poison on a sandwich and someone eats it and dies, most people would call it a travesty but it seems like you would think I was trying to innovate my cooking style and would like to see poison used in other recipes. This is why you would be my defense attorney in court, but it's also why you would make a poor game critic (that and your punctuation is really bad too). My point is that you're throwing this buzzword around too much without fully understanding what it means, like a little kid who just learned the word "gay", and like that kid you're only misusing the term because you've heard other people misuse the term. You can't listen to a press conference of a video game console manufacturer without hearing the word innovation (especially around the time of E3). What they mean isn't that the Wii Vitality Sensor innovates, it's that they're experimenting with it and that they hope it will be successful so that other people will try to emulate it. That is essentially what innovation is in video games - experimentation that results in success. FFII, however, was not a success. If it was, it would have made it to America before 2003 and it also wouldn't be critically panned to this day.

As for pokemon having a similar thing, there's a good chance that they just thought of it on their own. DVs and IVs have been around since the first pokemon games to modify and differentiate the stats of individual pokemon of the same species and EVs are just an extension of that. If it weren't for hacking, we wouldn't know about anything of the sort. Most people don't know about EVs and get through the game just fine. Satoshi Tajiri is an intelligent, thorough, and mildly autistic person, and it's very likely that he wanted a way for pokemon to develop subtly and differently throughout their experiences with the player. This is all speculation, but it's certainly not unlikely.

That is completely different. People can enjoy Melee fine without being able to wavedash. It's not needed for playing single player, it's not needed if you only play the game casually, it's only needed if you play the game on a competitive level (and even then, a lot of characters like Jiggs and Peach have terrible wavedashes and you can play them fine without learning how). I feel like fighting game communities often think that they're the only group of people who buys the games they play, but that's really not the case at all. It's especially true of Smash. Most people don't buy Smash because they loved the competitive aspects of it, like the fighting system compared to other fighting games, or want to do well in the tournament scene, they buy it because U CN BEET UP PIKCHU WITH MARIO HERP DERP.

Also, Sakurai stated that he found out that wavedashing existed during the development process. Regardless of whether it was a glitch or not, the developers knew about it and kept it in the game. Take that as you will.

It adds to the game in the sense that it's the only way for you to play it. If I can't walk without crutches, the crutches aren't adding to my walking experience, they're enabling it. There's a big difference between something enhancing the game and something enabling it.

The glitch doesn't fully make sense either. What if I want to level up my magic? What would I do then?

See, this is reasonable.

...but this isn't. Why would you go back to something you didn't like? Did you develop Stockholm Syndrome towards the game or something? Did you just have nothing better to do? Was somebody holding a gun to your head? Were you that desperate to know then ending of the story that anyone could figure out within like 2 hours of gameplay (not including grinding).

This is another problem with the game that I forgot to mention. However, considering the popularity of open world games these days and the fact that if you wander far enough in Fallout 3 after getting out of the vault you'll find Super Mutants, I guess this is one of the few instances that you could say this is intentional. It still doesn't make any sense though. Why do enemies get stronger the further away I am from water? Are they pissed because they're dehydrated?

There's also the opening scripted battle where you get ***** by four black knights. I'm guessing that was one of the first scripted battles in a video game, so that must have been pretty confusing for players at the time.

Frankly, the whole impression that I get from you on this is that you're looking through FFII with nostalgia goggle or something. That's unlikely because it means you would have grown up in Japan, and given that you're posting on an American message board with relatively good English skills that seems unlikely. What seems more likely is that you're just someone who likes things because they're different, regardless of how good they actually are. There's nothing that I can really do to change your entire life's philosophy, but regardless of other factors, when something is bad it's still bad. You can walk outside in your underwear in the winter in Canada to be different but that doesn't mean it's a good idea or that people should respect or like you for it.

Before I go on to the next part, I want to say that the main thing I hate the most about FFII is the GAMEPLAY, not the story. I don't know why the story has even become the main focus of this. It's not really even that bad, it's just bland and forgettable, which honestly isn't a bad thing when it comes to games. One of my favorite games of all time is Super Mario Galaxy and that has the same plot as all the other Mario games - you're in a plane that crashes in the Atlantic Ocean and you find a lighthouse with an elevator inside that takes you down to an underwater city ruled by a Randian objectivist who has turned into a totalitarian recluse in the now-dystopic city that you must wrest from his control by fighting genetically altered scuba divers with drill arms and harvesting precious MacGuffin fluid from the small girls they protect.

When I look at the Final Fantasy series (or any series), I judge each entry in the series based off of the standards I would jusge the most recent game in the series I have played (in this case FFXIII). I'm not looking at this as an NES game, I'm looking at it as a modern game, period. When judging an old FF game, I hold the story, battle system, leveling system, characters, etc. to the same standard as I would a current-gen game. The only aspects of the game that I do not use modern standards for are graphics and sound, for obvious reasons.

I honestly regret even mentioning the story now. I feel like the only reason I did is because it was an easy target and that everybody already knew how bad the gameplay was. Clearly the opposite was true.

And no, I don't think it was better than FFI. FFI had a huge surprise when you found out that Garland was the one who sent the Fiends into the future. It's something that nobody would have suspected. FFII's big plot twists were that Leon was working for the empire after you were separated from him and then that David Bowie came back from hell to reclaim his crown, neither of which is terribly surprising.

Yeah, but half the time the plot twist is always that it's mind control. Still a good story and a good game though.

And riding a whale to the moon is awesome btw.

First i would like to say i had no idea i was being graded on my punctuation.

Now i might call it innovation you might just call it experimentation that does not change what i have said about the game, it just seems you dont like the use of that "buzz word" when really it makes no difference.

I have not played the game for a while but i think to lvl up magic u just select the magic then hit back, and u do it over and over again. Also to get more HP you can attack yourself.

Why would i try the game again hmm... For one of two reasons not sure which. At one point i was on a mission to beat every FF game in the main series that was not a MMORPG. This might of been the reason. The other reason would be i just played FFI in origins again and thought "hmm FFII maybe i will give it another go". Ether way retrying things is good in life its why i am willing to eat foods i at first didnt like.

Now you compare it to poison but its honestly more like someone who is trying to invent a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but can't get the combo right. Worth trying again

Now about me seeing it with "nostalgia goggle" you missed the target on that one. I am a historian (or going to be after this week) so i am looking at it in a historical context.

I would be a fine critic b/c i am pretty dam objective.

Now i am running late so i g2g so if i missed anything i will comment later. I just want to end by saying that i think you missed the point that i dont love the game ether its in my botton 3 which is not good. I just think your hate on the game is uncalled for and unfair to the game. In the end its opinion and like i said i g2g so i will finish this later.

 

[finalark]

I think the most amazing thing about Gates' and NAGANCE's little debate is the fact that someone is actually trying to argue that FFII was a good game.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

^ I'm mostly in the middle. I agree II is one of the worst, I even hated the art concepts of it, I just feel you can't compare those games to modern ones. And I love X and XIII, X being one of my favorite stories of all time. And yes, I even like Tidus.

As for II, I just hated how everyone died.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

ok back from my final and i think i did pretty well.

Now one thing i forgot to add before. FFII did have some innovation which is still seen today such as the ability to level up a skill with a weapon.

Also saying it was not good b/c we did not get it in the US till much later is a bad arguemnt. During the NES days the japanese did not send over many games which they felt ether the American public would not like or games which they felt were to hard for the American public ex: mario 2

Also no one is trying to argue its a good good i am trying to say its maybe underrated and is not the worst FF. I will stand by FFx-2 being the worst, it was just a cruel joke to FFx fans and FF fans as a hole a slap in the face. It was just wrong

edit: Also as much as i dont mind talking about FFII i would of liked other coments on my overview of the series besides just stuff about FFII

 

[finalark]

I just feel you can't compare those games to modern ones.

The thing is with 8-bit games is that they did many things that would be considered unacceptable today and get a free ride because they're old.

Anyway, I think the thing I hated the most about FFII wast he fact that the entire game seemed to be built off of bull****.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

The skills were annoying, god I just remembered those. And not all old games are like that, though. FFIV and VI are still very epic imo.

Kefka<3

 

[finalark]

The skills were annoying, god I just remembered those. And not all old games are like that, though. FFIV and VI are still very epic imo.

Kefka<3

I'm mostly talking about 8-bit titles, I believe that time was much kinder to their 16-bit successors.

Another thing that annoyed me about FF2 was how they put insanely powerful monsters in seemingly random spots.

HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW STRAYING AWAY FROM THE LAKE WILL GET ME CURB STOMPED? HOW!?

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

The thing is with 8-bit games is that they did many things that would be considered unacceptable today and get a free ride because they're old.
.

Thats kinda true but imo the wrong way to look at things.

During the time of the NES videos games as we know them today were young and the amount you could do in a game was limited. Do to this its unfair to say that NES games just get a pass b/c they are old b/c thats not the reason. The reason they get a pass is b/c the modern form of a video game was not completed yet and developers had to try new things even if it did not work out. A better way to describe it is imagane NES games are like people who are put in a pitch black room they are unfamilair with. These people will try different things to understand were they are. While more modern games are people in a well lit room with a map and a trail to follow. You cant say its not right the people in the dark room take longer to get out and you should compare them with the people in the well lit room.

I think this makes sense but i am tired and burnt out from tests so i might delete or edit later

 

[finalark]

words

Regardless of the way things were back then that still doesn't mean that it isn't bull**** when 8-bit RPGs drop you into a random area and give you absolutely no hints on what to do next.

 

[Minato]

Trying out new ideas didn't always end up with good results back in the NES days.
I'm not a fan of FFII since I didn't like the new ideas they implemented because I felt they didn't execute some of the things well enough.

Kinda like how I don't like Adventure of Link because the changes they made just weren't done well despite how different/new it was from other games.
While you can argue that FFII ideas are similar to stuff found in Pokemon like how Adventure of Link was similar to the Tales series in some ways, you can't write off how bad they were despite thinking it's unique or not for it's time if it wasn't executed well enough compared to future games that use the same idea.

Not arguing with anyone here, but that's just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

Yeah, I never actually played the NES, just the GBA one. <.< AoL wasn't that bad, though.

new topic : I bought XIII, and I think it's fun, just linear. Exploration would make this game epic.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

Words about words

I am not saying thats not bull****. I am saying that with some of the problems an NES game might face people should understand the limitations and give NES games a pass for it.

Most NES games dropped you in an area with very few clues on were to go and what to do, since this was so common i dont see how thats something you can take away from FFII. In fact at least FFII had a key word system to give you some idea.

 

[finalark]

I am not saying thats not bull****. I am saying that with some of the problems an NES game might face people should understand the limitations and give NES games a pass for it.

Well I'm sure it wouldn't have taken up too many megs for them to have the last important king guy you talked to say "You should probably head to (place) next. If you head in (direction) you'll find a (terrain type) and after that you'll be there."

Most NES games dropped you in an area with very few clues on were to go and what to do, since this was so common i dont see how thats something you can take away from FFII. In fact at least FFII had a key word system to give you some idea.

So basically "everyone else was doing it so that makes it okay."

Although I will admit that the keywords system was unique for late 80s. To bad FFII didn't make it to the US until the late 90s.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

Its not as much everyone else was doing it. it was more they didnt know a better way.

So less but everyone was doing it and more if only we had a better way

 

[finalark]

So less but everyone was doing it and more if only we had a better way

Care to reword that?

Honestly, that's just another sign that 8-bit games didn't age well IMO. Sure, back then it was considered okay to just throw your player into the over world and punish them for not knowing what to do despite not giving any hints. These days? That's just bad game design.

Honestly, there's some days when I wonder if I'm the only man on earth who can acknowledge that many of my childhood classics aged terribly.

Although I always disliked FFII, even as a kid.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

Care to reword that?

Honestly, that's just another sign that 8-bit games didn't age well IMO. Sure, back then it was considered okay to just throw your player into the over world and punish them for not knowing what to do despite not giving any hints. These days? That's just bad game design.

Kinda confused about your point here, does that mean you dont like any NES game that drops you off with no instructions? Also yes today that might be called bad game design but these days the game would be called short and lacking content, and if someone said this you wouldn't say "yea what were they thinking", you would say well thats b/c they couldn't fit as much in the game.

Honestly, there's some days when I wonder if I'm the only man on earth who can acknowledge that many of my childhood classics aged terribly.

Although I always disliked FFII, even as a kid.

First i am sure some people like the idea of trying to figure things out without hints, but imo a game that gives slight hints and lets the player do some thinking to figure **** out are the best.

I will say it again. I am not saying FFII was a great or good game just that its better then people seem to give it credit for. I think there are only a handful of NES games which have aged very well. (i believe in my first post i made a comment on how i dont think the first zelda game has held up)

When you were a kid? how old are you, or better question were is the cut off to kid b/c i think of being a kid to end around high school were then you are not an adult but you are not a kid. Maybe i am just old b/c i first played FFII when in high school.

Comparing game from the NES days to games today is kinda ridiculous. The way we look at games, the way we play games, and what we expect from games are worlds apart. If anything older games like the ones on the NES, people should rate twice, once comparing them to similar games from around the same time and once more trying to compare the game to modern games of the same series or genre. But when you do look back on game you need to think about them not as someone from 2010 but instead as someone from around the time the game came out. While on the other hand to rate a game by comparing it to modern games you need to make it clear what you are looking at and how you are comparing the games b/c a 1 for 1 review would be unfair since clearly in many if not all aspects the new game will win, this means you need to create some sort of weighted scale. I could keep going on this but i need to study maybe i will try to write something up in the mass amounts of free time i am coming into starting next week. (if anyone cares)

 

[Gates]

First i would like to say i had no idea i was being graded on my punctuation.

Of course you are. Now get off your cell phone and start typing your posts on a real computer.

Now i might call it innovation you might just call it experimentation that does not change what i have said about the game, it just seems you dont like the use of that "buzz word" when really it makes no difference.

There is a difference and I've explained it like 3 times now.

Also to get more HP you can attack yourself.

That seems safe.

And again, glitching to make a game playable is not a good thing. You might as well use Game Genie.

At one point i was on a mission to beat every FF game in the main series that was not a MMORPG.

See, was too at one point, but then I played FFII and it made me abandon that path. Now I just want to play every FF game that's not an MMO and beat them if I like them. If it turns out that I can't stand them, I won't force myself to beat them.

Now you compare it to poison but its honestly more like someone who is trying to invent a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but can't get the combo right. Worth trying again

If they wanted to try it again, they would have by now. Obviously they didn't or else they wouldn't have revisited the job and experience points system for FFIII.

Now about me seeing it with "nostalgia goggle" you missed the target on that one. I am a historian (or going to be after this week) so i am looking at it in a historical context.

The two can be argued as being equivalent in many cases.

I think the most amazing thing about Gates' and NAGANCE's little debate is the fact that someone is actually trying to argue that FFII was a good game.

Yeah, feel free to join in btw. I have finals too.

I agree II is one of the worst, I even hated the art concepts of it, I just feel you can't compare those games to modern ones.

Why not? Because it's old? People look at old things with modern standards all the time. Look at paintings, look at movies, look at books, look at nearly every other form of art there is.

Now one thing i forgot to add before. FFII did have some innovation which is still seen today such as the ability to level up a skill with a weapon.

I did forget about that, but it's not used very much from what I've seen. There's also nothing in FFII that makes you benefit from choosing to specialize in one weapon other than doing more damage. If you keep swords and axes leveled up enough, you can pretty much use the same set of equipment on every character since those weapons are always the strongest.

Also saying it was not good b/c we did not get it in the US till much later is a bad arguemnt. During the NES days the japanese did not send over many games which they felt ether the American public would not like or games which they felt were to hard for the American public ex: mario 2

I know that, but you're forgetting another reason why a game wouldn't be ported to America in the NES era - because it didn't sell and/or wasn't well received critically.

FFII was hard but not by design. See, there are two kinds of difficulty in a game - difficulty by design and difficulty by circumstance. Difficulty by design is where the game is made to challenge the player at every opportunity. Games that are an example of this are Ninja Gaiden, Megaman, and especially I Wanna Be The Guy, which is so difficult it's almost a parody of challenging games. Difficulty by design often gives players a sense of satisfaction when they complete these types of games. It can cause frustration, but the sense of accomplishment at the end is worth it.

Difficulty by circumstance is where the game is difficult because of fundamental flaws in the design or glitches in the programming. Examples of this are Ghostbusters for the NES, Action 52, and Superman64. Hell, 90% of the games the Angry Video Game Nerd reviews are examples of the latter. And so is FFII. Having tough enemies within the starting point of the game, that's difficulty by design, but having a leveling system that's so slow it's almost broken, that causes difficulty by circumstance. Difficulty by circumstance just frustrates the player, and the sense of satisfaction you get from completing the game usually isn't worth all the effort.

For more on difficulty, see: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games

Also no one is trying to argue its a good good i am trying to say its maybe underrated and is not the worst FF.

So what, you're trying to argue that it's an average game that's not particularly good or bad?

The thing is with 8-bit games is that they did many things that would be considered unacceptable today and get a free ride because they're old.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

During the time of the NES videos games as we know them today were young and the amount you could do in a game was limited. Do to this its unfair to say that NES games just get a pass b/c they are old b/c thats not the reason. The reason they get a pass is b/c the modern form of a video game was not completed yet and developers had to try new things even if it did not work out. A better way to describe it is imagane NES games are like people who are put in a pitch black room they are unfamilair with. These people will try different things to understand were they are. While more modern games are people in a well lit room with a map and a trail to follow. You cant say its not right the people in the dark room take longer to get out and you should compare them with the people in the well lit room.

This would make more sense if FFII were released before FFI (that sentence in and of itself doesn't make sense, but you know what I mean). But they struck gold with FFI and totally ****ed up on FFII. That's not the logical progression for a video game series to have. The logical progression is usually that the second game in the series improves on the first, not tries something different entirely with no regard to whether it's a good idea or not. Imagine if Bungie decided that for Halo 2 they wanted to make a puzzle game. Nobody would have stood for that ****.

Its not as much everyone else was doing it. it was more they didnt know a better way.

Slavery and genocide were fine. Europeans didn't know a better way to interact with cultures they weren't familiar with.

See where this argument is losing ground now?

Honestly, there's some days when I wonder if I'm the only man on earth who can acknowledge that many of my childhood classics aged terribly.

You're not the only one, trust me. I have tons of fond memories of Golden Sun from when I was a kid, but then this summer I went back and played it again and didn't find it that good.

Hell, I don't even think the original Zelda has held up that well. It's definitely not a bad game, but whenever I play it I think "why am I playing this instead of A Link To The Past?". It's the same thing with the Mario series - Super Mario 1 and 3 are great games and Super Mario 2 is good too, if unconventional, but in my opinion Super Mario World is where 2D Mario was perfected.

Comparing game from the NES days to games today is kinda ridiculous. The way we look at games, the way we play games, and what we expect from games are worlds apart. If anything older games like the ones on the NES, people should rate twice, once comparing them to similar games from around the same time and once more trying to compare the game to modern games of the same series or genre. But when you do look back on game you need to think about them not as someone from 2010 but instead as someone from around the time the game came out. While on the other hand to rate a game by comparing it to modern games you need to make it clear what you are looking at and how you are comparing the games b/c a 1 for 1 review would be unfair since clearly in many if not all aspects the new game will win, this means you need to create some sort of weighted scale.

Alright, then let me spell it out for you.

I already said that I wasn't counting graphics or sound for obvious reasons - NES games can't compare to PS3 games in those departments.

I'll also forgive a poor save system - NES didn't have a hard drive, in fact neither did most computers at the time.

Everything else is fair game. Story is fair game because to tell a story you only need to be able to render text on the screen. Leveling system is fair game because that's only hard to do if you put in a ton of variables and party members. Battle system is fair game because many current-gen RPGs use turn-based combat.

Let's see, those are the most important factors. Am I missing anything else that's important?

For now I'll just say that FFII fails or underwhelms at all of these aspects. Every aspect that isn't outright bad is underwhelming compared to other games in the series, or even other FF games on the NES.

edit: Also as much as i dont mind talking about FFII i would of liked other coments on my overview of the series besides just stuff about FFII

Nothing else you said is really worth discussing. I don't remember FFIX (or FFVI) having a two-player mode, and, again, riding a whale to the moon is awesome, but other than that there's not much I have to say.

I still don't understand why you're lumping in FFX-2, A SPINOFF, in with the main series games when it's obvioulsy not going to be of the same quality. You might as well put in the two most recent Crystal Chronicles games too, and I heard those sucked worse. Or even the Chocobo Shovelware series.

Yes, FFX-2 was a slap in the face to fans of FFX. Yes, Yuna has no business dressing like a ****ty teenage girl. But if it's not in the main series, then why does it matter?

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

I tried to beat every SE game ever. Played Drakengard, nuff said.

 

[Wrath`]

So, i bouth a used copy of FFX-2 a week ago and decided to try it out today, after 10 minutes I am all "Huh?".

So far I hate the Active battle system of this game. And the fact that peeps can attack you while you decide your wardrobe for the battle. EVEN ON WAIT MODE!!!!!

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

ATB can have you on your feet :]

 

[finalark]

. So far I hate the Active battle system of this game. And the fact that peeps can attack you while you decide your wardrobe for the battle. EVEN ON WAIT MODE!!!!!

Get ready to hate FFIV-IX, then.

 

[Wrath`]

Get ready to hate FFIV-IX, then.

I have played 6 and 7, and thier Active systems don't bother me, for some reason X-2 seems quite cluttered and it feels like ethier myself or the enemy is getting in way more attacks than the other causing imbalance.

Also VI is my favorite.

 

[finalark]

I have played 6 and 7, and thier Active systems don't bother me, for some reason X-2 seems quite cluttered and it feels like ethier myself or the enemy is getting in way more attacks than the other causing imbalance.

Also VI is my favorite.

It might just be X-2. After hearing so many bad things about that game I deiced to steer clear of it long ago.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

Yuna is hotter in X....innocence<3

 

[Luigitoilet]

So, i bouth a used copy of FFX-2 a week ago and decided to try it out today, after 10 minutes I am all "Huh?".

So far I hate the Active battle system of this game. And the fact that peeps can attack you while you decide your wardrobe for the battle. EVEN ON WAIT MODE!!!!!

I went "huh?" a little earlier on than you.

When the game opened up with an anime jpop concert I went "huh?"

 

[finalark]

When the game opened up with an anime jpop concert I went "huh?"

No, seriously, what? Since when did FFX...

what is this i dont even

 

[Gates]

They're talking about FFX-2.

You know, the one where Yuna dresses like a *****.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

It'd be funnier if she had gained weight after Tidus' death, not became a ****.

<.<

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

wait you dont consider FFX-2 part of the main series? I always have, i dont consider FF tactics, and something like FF Mystic quest.

Slavery and genocide were fine. Europeans didn't know a better way to interact with cultures they weren't familiar with.

See where this argument is losing ground now?

WOW you are kidding right, this is so historically incorrect i dont even know were to start.

This would make more sense if FFII were released before FFI (that sentence in and of itself doesn't make sense, but you know what I mean). But they struck gold with FFI and totally ****ed up on FFII. That's not the logical progression for a video game series to have. The logical progression is usually that the second game in the series improves on the first, not tries something different entirely with no regard to whether it's a good idea or not. Imagine if Bungie decided that for Halo 2 they wanted to make a puzzle game. Nobody would have stood for that ****.

The point which you are ether ignoring or missing is that during the NES area games were young and they decided to try new things out. Also a lot of sequels on the NES in America were bad Zelda II, Mario II.

So what, you're trying to argue that it's an average game that's not particularly good or bad?

what i am trying to say is FFII is not the worst in the series and that FFX-2 is worse and imo FFVIII is worse.

Why not? Because it's old? People look at old things with modern standards all the time. Look at paintings, look at movies, look at books, look at nearly every other form of art there is.

its because video games as an art form has not been defined unlike all of those other things you mentioned. Meaning we have no legit way to compare yet. Also the difference from NES games to modern games is far more drastic a difference then you will see in different forms of entertainment and art. NES games are honestly closer to cave paintings then to greek sculpture and you dont see people comparing cave paintings to more modern art, or if you want to go book wise: NES games are like Hittite historical documents which are not really comparable to novels or even the Greek historian documents.

The two can be argued as being equivalent in many cases.

Thats a joke right? A major part of looking at things in a historical contest is to not wear nostalgia goggles.

Alright, then let me spell it out for you.

I already said that I wasn't counting graphics or sound for obvious reasons - NES games can't compare to PS3 games in those departments.

I'll also forgive a poor save system - NES didn't have a hard drive, in fact neither did most computers at the time.

Everything else is fair game. Story is fair game because to tell a story you only need to be able to render text on the screen. Leveling system is fair game because that's only hard to do if you put in a ton of variables and party members. Battle system is fair game because many current-gen RPGs use turn-based combat.

Let's see, those are the most important factors. Am I missing anything else that's important?

For now I'll just say that FFII fails or underwhelms at all of these aspects. Every aspect that isn't outright bad is underwhelming compared to other games in the series, or even other FF games on the NES. [/quote[

Can you really compare story? In modern games with voice acting and better graphics they are able to create a story that can be seen and heard which is clearly different then just reading some text. plus do to limitations they had to fit in a story which the game could support, if they really wanted to create a story as epic and big as the ones we have today it would of taken so much text compared to gameplay you might as well of just read a book or played a phoenix wright game.

There is a difference and I've explained it like 3 times now.

What i am saying is that even if you change what i call innovation to experiment it does not change the base argument of what i said

I did forget about that, but it's not used very much from what I've seen. There's also nothing in FFII that makes you benefit from choosing to specialize in one weapon other than doing more damage. If you keep swords and axes leveled up enough, you can pretty much use the same set of equipment on every character since those weapons are always the strongest.

You lose me at the end of this statement, are you saying use the same weapons for every character like an axe on every character? or are you saying never switch what you start with b/c its kinda unclear.

Anyway i liked the item lvl up system, it was a bit basic but so was everything else at the time plus its adds a nice lvl of customization.

Now i know you are against glitches to help a game. but using the glitch brings down the difficulty lvl to about the right lvl. Also there are plenty of games were glitches are used to enhance the game experience, the major difference is that this one is a bit more necessary to playing the game then others

 

[finalark]

I know this isn't really my argument but I have a few thing I want to say.

WOW you are kidding right, this is so historically incorrect i dont even know were to start.

It's not like you're saying the same thing or anything.

The point which you are ether ignoring or missing is that during the NES area games were young and they decided to try new things out. Also a lot of sequels on the NES in America were bad Zelda II, Mario II.

I actually thought that Mario 2 was a pretty good game if you judge it as Doki Doki Panic.

what i am trying to say is FFII is not the worst in the series and that FFX-2 is worse and imo FFVIII is worse.

Your posts seem to be trying to say that FFII was a good game, I have yet to see you bring up these two things as the center of your argument.

Can you really compare story? In modern games with voice acting and better graphics they are able to create a story that can be seen and heard which is clearly different then just reading some text. plus do to limitations they had to fit in a story which the game could support, if they really wanted to create a story as epic and big as the ones we have today it would of taken so much text compared to gameplay you might as well of just read a book or played a phoenix wright game.

Actually, you can compare story. I believe that Chrono Trigger's time-traveling little tale was just as epic as any modern game and they got my 11-year-old self attached to the characters and interested in the story without flooding you with dialog Kojima-style.

Then again, it's been years since I last played Chrono Trigger so my opinion may be different if I went back and played it again.

What i am saying is that even if you change what i call innovation to experiment it does not change the base argument of what i said

Innovation - Breaking the mold through smart and original ideas.
Experiment - To test a concept that may or may not work.

Just throwing that out there.

Anyway i liked the item lvl up system, it was a bit basic but so was everything else at the time plus its adds a nice lvl of customization.

I thought the level system had potential, but Square just implemented it terribly. Honestly, ES4 did the same thing only much, much better.

And if you have to compare it to something from it's time this should be a pretty clear sign that it didn't age well.

Now i know you are against glitches to help a game. but using the glitch brings down the difficulty lvl to about the right lvl. Also there are plenty of games were glitches are used to enhance the game experience, the major difference is that this one is a bit more necessary to playing the game then others

Yes, because having to exploit glitches in order to make the game bearable is totally an example of good game design, right guys?

 

[Gates]

wait you dont consider FFX-2 part of the main series? I always have, i dont consider FF tactics, and something like FF Mystic quest.

Go to FF Wiki and you'll see the general consensus that FFX-2 is not part of the main series on the main page.

Main Series

Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy II
Final Fantasy III
Final Fantasy IV
Final Fantasy V
Final Fantasy VI
Final Fantasy VII
Final Fantasy VIII
Final Fantasy IX
Final Fantasy X
Final Fantasy XI
Final Fantasy XII
Final Fantasy XIII
Final Fantasy XIV

Prequels, Sequels, Spin-Offs & Related Titles

Final Fantasy IV: The After Years
Before Crisis -Final Fantasy VII-
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII-
Dirge of Cerberus -Final Fantasy VII-
Dirge of Cerberus Lost Episode -Final Fantasy VII-
Final Fantasy VII: Snowboarding
Final Fantasy X-2
Final Fantasy XI: Rise of the Zilart
Final Fantasy XI: Chains of Promathia
Final Fantasy XI Treasures of Aht Urhgan
Final Fantasy XI: Wings of the Goddess
Final Fantasy XI: A Crystalline Prophecy: Ode to Life Bestowing
Final Fantasy XI: A Moogle Kupo d'Etat: Evil in Small Doses
Final Fantasy XI: A Shantotto Ascension: The Legend Torn, Her Empire Born
Final Fantasy XI: Heroes of Abyssea
Final Fantasy XI: Scars of Abyssea
Final Fantasy XI: Vision of Abyssea
Final Fantasy Agito XIII
Final Fantasy Versus XIII
Final Fantasy Tactics
Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimoire of the Rift
Crystal Defenders
Crystal Defenders: Vanguard Storm
Vagrant Story
Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings
Dive II Hunt: The Adventures of Sorbet
Fortress
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a Darklord
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers
Dissidia Final Fantasy
Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy
Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon
Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon 2
Chocobo Racing
Dice de Chocobo
Chocobo Stallion
Hataraku Chocobo
Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales
Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon
Chocobo to Mahou no Ehon: Majou to Shoujo to Go-nin no Yuusha
Chocobo Racing 3D
Final Fantasy Adventure
Final Fantasy Mystic Quest
Final Fantasy: The 4 Heroes of Light
Final Fantasy Legends: Hikari to Yami no Senshi
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
Bahamut Lagoon
Ehrgeiz: God Bless the Ring
Kingdom Hearts
Lord of Vermilion
Blood of Bahamut
The Final Fantasy Legend
Final Fantasy Legend II
Final Fantasy Legend III
Gyromancer

The point which you are ether ignoring or missing is that during the NES area games were young and they decided to try new things out. Also a lot of sequels on the NES in America were bad Zelda II, Mario II.

Mario 2 wasn't the Japanese Mario 2.

And Zelda II did suck, but what's your point?

what i am trying to say is FFII is not the worst in the series and that FFX-2 is worse and imo FFVIII is worse.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - FFX-2 IS A SPINOFF. If you're comparing it to the main series, you might as well include every other FF game you played.

Hell, I'll admit that I think FFTA2 is a worse game than FFII. I loved the original FFTA and I hated all the changes they made to the battle system I got so used to. Starting a battle with 0 magic basically takes away the point of having mages in your party, but without white mages healing your party becomes very difficult. The story was also forgettable and moved slowly. 10 hours in and nothing really happened, so I just gave up.

Other than that, I can't think of any other games I've played that Square made that were worse than FFII.

its because video games as an art form has not been defined unlike all of those other things you mentioned. Meaning we have no legit way to compare yet. Also the difference from NES games to modern games is far more drastic a difference then you will see in different forms of entertainment and art. NES games are honestly closer to cave paintings then to greek sculpture and you dont see people comparing cave paintings to more modern art, or if you want to go book wise: NES games are like Hittite historical documents which are not really comparable to novels or even the Greek historian documents.

Actually, yes, video games are pretty well defined as an art. The whole basis behind video games as an art revolves around the fact that the player can interact with the game in different ways and vice versa. There's also more room for a game to immerse a player in its story since they don't have to restrict themselves to being 3 hours long like a movie and can allow the player to immerse themselves in the environment. This is why Silent Hill 2 is always brought up when talking about games as art - the town of Silent Hill is open for the player to explore and learn more about the horrors of the world, and more importantly about the horrors of James' psyche, which is what the game ends up being about. The same thing can be said about Bioshock, where the more you look around the city of Rapture, the more you see the effects of Randian objectivism and scientific progress when unchecked by ethics. Continuing with the Bioshock example, many games also force a moral choice system to engage the player to really think about what they are doing in the game. Often times this is just black and white, but for some games the moral choice system is hidden or vague, making the player's actions not immediately obvious. Dragon Age is a good example of this - while your teammates will often either approve or disapprove of your actions and the game tells you this, there is little else stopping you from doing what you want and although there are consequences later on in the game for what you do they are not immediately obvious. The framework for games as an art form is definitely there.

And you can't compare cave paintings to modern art because they were made by cro-magnon men, not because they didn't have the technology of ink or paint or irrigation.

Can you really compare story? In modern games with voice acting and better graphics they are able to create a story that can be seen and heard which is clearly different then just reading some text. plus do to limitations they had to fit in a story which the game could support, if they really wanted to create a story as epic and big as the ones we have today it would of taken so much text compared to gameplay you might as well of just read a book or played a phoenix wright game.

Having voice acting doesn't make a game better in the same way that special effects don't make a film better. I feel like you're the kind of person who doesn't think Star Wars episodes I-III can't be compared to the original trilogy because the filmmaking technology in 1977 wasn't as good as it was in 1997.

Sound files take up more space than text files do. I'm guessing you don't know much about computers?

And I already said I wasn't judging based on sound and graphics anyway.

I think you have the timeline for video games as an art skewed somewhat. I wouldn't consider NES games cave paintings. You know what is though? Pong. Pong is the most basic video game ever conceived, to the point where it should be in an elementary game programming class. Similarly, cave paintings are some of the most basic ways of showing what happened, or expressing a story. The next level up from Pong is the Atari era. These games were more complex, though not too much. These would be your Egyptian Hieroglyphics or Greek pottery - they still tell very basic stories but they do so in a more sophisticated manner. Placing where the NES lies is hard to gauge for sure, but I think it's reasonable to say that video games didn't take off as a storytelling medium until the SNES days. To put things in perspective, if I had to choose a point in art history to compare to video game history, well, I think we're at something of a renaissance. We're finally at a point where we can stop worrying about how realistic things look and focus on what differentiates video games from other artistic media - interactivity.

What i am saying is that even if you change what i call innovation to experiment it does not change the base argument of what i said

Semantic nonsense? No, there's a big difference.

You lose me at the end of this statement, are you saying use the same weapons for every character like an axe on every character? or are you saying never switch what you start with b/c its kinda unclear.

What I'm saying is that I go to a store, find whatever the best weapon is, regardless of whether it's a sword, axe, spear, whatever, get two for each of my party members and have them keep using those weapons until I find some better ones.

Actually, you can compare story. I believe that Chrono Trigger's time-traveling little tale was just as epic as any modern game and they got my 11-year-old self attached to the characters and interested in the story without flooding you with dialog Kojima-style.

Then again, it's been years since I last played Chrono Trigger so my opinion may be different if I went back and played it again.

Chrono Trigger is still a fantastic story, even after being out for over 15 years.

And if you have to compare it to something from it's time this should be a pretty clear sign that it didn't age well.

This...sort of. I mean you could argue that Tetris really had nothing comparable at the time and it's the most successful puzzle game ever, but meh.

Yes, because having to exploit glitches in order to make the game bearable is totally an example of good game design, right guys?

Of course. Using glitches or external cheating devices to get through the game is a classic component of good game design, as explained by Sirlin. That's why everyone looks back on Superman64 so fondly.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

I know this isn't really my argument but I have a few thing I want to say.

It's not like you're saying the same thing or anything.

Do you know what that was in response to? Are you saying i am comparing FFII to slavery and genocide? Not just are those things so unrelated to FFII you cant even begin to compare, but the statement he wrote was not even accurate.

I actually thought that Mario 2 was a pretty good game if you judge it as Doki Doki Panic.

I still didnt love it, but the point is as a mario game it was not good

Your posts seem to be trying to say that FFII was a good game, I have yet to see you bring up these two things as the center of your argument.

I have stated in almost every one (or at least a couple) of my post that i did not think it was a great or good game just that its not the worse

Actually, you can compare story. I believe that Chrono Trigger's time-traveling little tale was just as epic as any modern game and they got my 11-year-old self attached to the characters and interested in the story without flooding you with dialog Kojima-style.

Even if you wanted to use Crono trigger as a example it does not work since its a SNES game, while we are talking about NES games. Also there are going to be a couple of storys here or there which are good, i mean the epic of Gilgamesh is still read today and if i remember correctly thats from Mesopotamian but its the only book from that long ago still read today.

Innovation - Breaking the mold through smart and original ideas.
Experiment - To test a concept that may or may not work.

The point in my last post was if you go back and change what i said to experiment from innovation the key points are still there

I thought the level system had potential, but Square just implemented it terribly. Honestly, ES4 did the same thing only much, much better.

right it did do it beeter but that goes back to the innovation thing

And if you have to compare it to something from it's time this should be a pretty clear sign that it didn't age well.

Did you miss my whole post about art and how comparing such old things is tricky?

Yes, because having to exploit glitches in order to make the game bearable is totally an example of good game design, right guys?

People keep ragging on this like its a problem, honestly i am sure there are plenty of games were people use glitches and dont think twice about it. Pokemon for instance not only is the missingno glitch famous and well liked, but you can use a glitch to catch mew in the game making it possible to get all 151 using red and Blue. I am sure no one has a problem with that

 

[Gates]

I feel like you really don't understand any of my points, so I'm just going to use your own argument against you and you can judge its merits.

i dont understand your hate for FFVIII. At the very minimum its a game you have to respect. Square decided to change up the formula of the series that saved their company and honestly add game play elements that the PS1 could not do very well but the innovation was there. The draw system based on what you encountered was a good idea just didnt work in practice. Now I atm out of all the single player FF's ive played rate this one above both FFII and FFXII. Also i want to add if you play FFVIII make sure u dont take breaks b/c the first time i played through i took breaks and couldn't finish it b/c I lost what i was doing but if you stick with the game you get an interesting not half bad gaming experience.

Ok so now on to what seems ike your biggest problem with the game a one dimensional story and one dimensional characters. What to say besides you said it yourself "If you look at the game from 1999 standards, then yes, you could consider it good" the characters are more flushed out then most PS1 games of the same era and you cant compare character development from a PS1 game to a modern game. Now about the story its fair to argue it is one dimensional but i feel that is fine because the game is more of a test of new mechanics such as the draw system, plus most PS1 storys come in the form of a booklet with the game.

Now on to the draw system, i like the idea but the technology was not there yet. Also i agree to draw enough magic can be tough luckily there are plenty of draw points and you can get magic by playing triple triad and turning your weaker cards into spells. This makes it a pretty easy game to get through but does add some tedium.

Now for the story (once more) tell me if you heard this one before a princess is captured and a hero goes to save her. That cover almost half the PS1 games and the evil people taking over the world covers most of the others.

When i judge an old game i try to look at different things. Such as innovation when it came out. Fun factor + replay value compared to other games around the same time, and how it holds up through time: Now as innovation goes this game hits it big but as fun factor and replay value go it is a bit lacking, but to call it an "abomination" and the worst game of the series i feel is an overstatement. I out of the FF games ive played rate it bottom 3 and most should rate it bottom two, but saying it is worst then FFII i dont get. II was a slap in the face to FF fans while this was a decent but lacking experiment.

O and Zell dumb i think not the man can stand still for more than 5 seconds.

edit: those are not the only thing i judge old games by but its a good nice quick sum up and covers most of the important points

So first off dont bash the innovation. you yourself said FFX has a similar thing with what kind of spheres you get from enemies and its innovation attempt like ffVIII that can lead to better mechanics. This experiment might not of taken off and become the norm for RPG's but i am happy they tried it and honestly i would like to see this idea brought back and implemented better, i feel the idea has potential.

Now for triple triad well for the most part i agree that a minigame is a bad thing if its needed to make a game better but then i think about blitzball. So the minigame might be needed but at least imo it only adds to the game. Maybe without it i would of hated the game but b/c i could always become strong enough and have enough magic to junction i was able not to worry about i was able to enjoy what the game offered. The first time i tried to play this game i did not enjoy it but after giving it a second chance i found a decent unique game experience which i was happy to off played

I would also like to point out i forgot to mention the real worst thing about FFVIII which a friend of mine reminded me of: There is no buffer zone between super powerful enemy's and low lvl enemy's at certain points in the game like after you get the airship this meant from almost the very start of disc 2 if you wonder off to far you will die, and die horribly.

I also did not count any out of the main series, my 2nd east fav is FFXII which in many ways is like FFVIII but imo less likable.

I still dont understand how you can bash a PS1 game that has a story in it instead of in a booklet expesaclly since most PS1 games have and equal or worst story unless you just dont like almost any PS1 games stories.

Now i might call it innovation you might just call it experimentation that does not change what i have said about the game, it just seems you dont like the use of that "buzz word" when really it makes no difference.

I have not played the game for a while but i think to lvl up u just gain more experience points.

Why would i try the game again hmm... For one of two reasons not sure which. At one point i was on a mission to beat every FF game in the main series that was not a MMORPG. This might of been the reason. The other reason would be i just saw it for sale on psn and thought "hmm FFVIII maybe i will give it another go". Ether way retrying things is good in life its why i am willing to eat foods i at first didnt like.

Now you compare it to poison but its honestly more like someone who is trying to invent a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but can't get the combo right. Worth trying again

Now about me seeing it with "no historical perspective whatsoever" you missed the target on that one. I am a mathematician (or going to be after a few more years) so i am looking at it in a quality context.

I would be a fine porn star b/c i am pretty dam sexy.

Now one thing i forgot to add before. FFVIII did have some innovation which is still seen today such as the ability to create a weapon.

Also saying it was not good b/c we did not get it in the US till much later is a bad arguemnt. During the PS1 days the japanese did not send over many games which they felt ether the American public would not like or games which they felt were to hard for the American public ex: persona

Also no one is trying to argue its a good good i am trying to say its maybe underrated and is not the worst FF. I will stand by FFII being the worst, it was just a cruel joke to FFI fans and FF fans as a hole a slap in the face. It was just wrong

During the time of the PS1 videos games as we know them today were young and the amount you could do in a game was limited. Do to this its unfair to say that PS1 games just get a pass b/c they are old b/c thats not the reason. The reason they get a pass is b/c the modern form of a video game was not completed yet and developers had to try new things even if it did not work out. A better way to describe it is imagane PS1 games are like people who are put in a pitch black room they are unfamilair with. These people will try different things to understand were they are. While more modern games are people in a well lit room with a map and a trail to follow. You cant say its not right the people in the dark room take longer to get out and you should compare them with the people in the well lit room.

I am not saying thats not bull****. I am saying that with some of the problems an PS1 game might face people should understand the limitations and give PS1 games a pass for it.

Most PS1 games dropped you in an area with very few clues on were to go and what to do, since this was so common i dont see how thats something you can take away from FFVIII. In fact at least FFVIII had a story to give you some idea.

Kinda confused about your point here, does that mean you dont like any PS1 game that drops you off with no instructions? Also yes today that might be called bad game design but these days the game would be called short and lacking content, and if someone said this you wouldn't say "yea what were they thinking", you would say well thats b/c they couldn't fit as much on the disc

First i am sure some people like the idea of trying to figure things out without hints, but imo a game that gives slight hints and lets the player do some thinking to figure **** out are the best.

I will say it again. I am not saying FFVIII was a great or good game just that its better then people seem to give it credit for. I think there are only a handful of NES games which have aged very well. (i believe in my first post i made a comment on how i dont think the first zelda game has held up)

When you were a kid? how old are you, or better question were is the cut off to kid b/c i think of being a kid to end around high school were then you are not an adult but you are not a kid. Maybe i am just old b/c i first played FFVIII after graduating high school.

Comparing game from the PS1 days to games today is kinda ridiculous. The way we look at games, the way we play games, and what we expect from games are worlds apart. If anything older games like the ones on the NES, people should rate twice, once comparing them to similar games from around the same time and once more trying to compare the game to modern games of the same series or genre. But when you do look back on game you need to think about them not as someone from 2010 but instead as someone from around the time the game came out. While on the other hand to rate a game by comparing it to modern games you need to make it clear what you are looking at and how you are comparing the games b/c a 1 for 1 review would be unfair since clearly in many if not all aspects the new game will win, this means you need to create some sort of weighted scale.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

ignorant argument.

I do give respect to the changes made in FFVIII, i even said i give it respect the thing is a lack of story might be a bad thing but a story which is just terrible made is worse and that why its below FFII

Ps1 storys come in the booklet? you crazy.

Once again about the draw system i respect them for trying new things but the only idea which i want to see brought back is monster leveling up with you.

"Now for the story (once more) tell me if you heard this one before a princess is captured and a hero goes to save her. That cover almost half the PS1 games and the evil people taking over the world covers most of the others." quoting this b/c its helping my argument that there is no reason to complain about FFII's story

Hmm odd you changed the last part from FFX-2 to FFII, anyway and i never called it an abomination, in fact i dont understand why you wrote this paragraph is shows nothing

What are you talking about I like Zell

More or less this wall was your attempt to be clever and turn my argument against me, but since PS1 games are clearly different then NES games your attempt fails.

Also about not counting FFX-2 as part of the main series you need a better source then wikipedia.

Games are not yet even considered an art form so dont go saying the art form is defined. Also when ever i hear people argue gmes as a art form ICO is what i hear people talk about.

And voice acting gives another type of outlet to get the story and emotion across which adds depth, same with better cut scenes

Anyway with your childish response in that wall of text i now understand the type of person i am talking to, the type who can't keep things more civil. So instead of having an intelligent discussion we have this start of a flame/troll war. I dont understand why some people cant keep conversations/debates going without something like this happening.

 

[Gates]

You know what

FFII is a bad game

You're an idiot

I'm done with this argument

 

[Rutger]

Sooo...
about that Dissidia 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l2TPpD2EL8&feature=player_embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq8142ab3GY

For the assist system, can you change characters or is it just a new way to attack?

 

[Luigitoilet]

Zelda 2 is an awesome game, and so is Mario 2. The fake Mario 2 is better than the Japanese onr. Whoever says otherwise is wrong!!

As for the whole 8-bit games aging poorly, it's not entirely incorrect. This was still very early in mainstream video game development, and even earlier in home console game development. Most NES games are really super hard to increase gameplay time. Games like Silver Surfer and **** Tracy only have a handful of levels, but you'd never notice since those games are so ballbustingly hard. It also has a lot to do with developers keeping the arcade-game mentality of trying to get as many quarters as possible from the players and keep them playing as much as they can.

 

[finalark]

Sooo...
about that Dissidia 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l2TPpD2EL8&feature=player_embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq8142ab3GY

For the assist system, can you change characters or is it just a new way to attack?

All I know is that Laguna look like he's going to fit my general fight game play style perfectly.

Vaan also looks like he'll be fun to play as. Not sure about Tifa or Lightning, though.

 

[Kuraudo]

Vaan looked a little bland to me, in my opinion.

Bartz had more awesome multi-weapon/attack methods that just had such a nicer flow.

Tifa's rushdown, I'm interested in.