Thread 12009448

I never played any of the original 6 final fantasy games. Are they all worth bothering or should I only play a couple? I remember hearing IV and VI are great.

>>12009448 (OP)
5,6, then 7 at its peak. All downhill from there. As a kid, 8 was when I realized a franchise can actually start to suck.

I - iconic but simple, pretty fun and short if you like 8-bit JRPGs
II - weird proto-saGa fuckery, most people dislike it but some people really like it
III - good game but not really a landmark game outside of establishing the job (class) system (but it does it worse than V/Tactics imo)
IV - Great game, worth playing if you like old JRPGs, simple with an iconic story
V - See above but a focus on gameplay instead, very beloved job system
VI - A lot of people will say this is the best 16-bit JRPG, and while I dont feel that way it's very obviously a top notch video game
Just my takes but that's all you'll really get anyway

The NES games might be harder to get into unless you like old school RPGs, but they're all worth trying. IV, V, and VI are all great.

Personally I'd recommend playing them on an emulator (V with translation patch) over the Pixel Remasters. Not a fan of how the updated graphics and other changes look. But it's up to you.

>>12009462
>>12009463
Should I just do 4, 5 and 6 or are the first three worth playing through? I'll probably just emulate and dump them on my phone but will the first three take like 20 hours?

>>12009457
>got filtered by VIII
what causes this?

>>12009448 (OP)
Do not pay 15 USD for the pixelshit remaster

>>12009457
Tactics was good too, but yeah 8 was dogshit


>>12009863
The orphanage scene

>>12009448 (OP)
Just keep in mind, gameplay peaked at V, if you play them in order then VI will feel like a rom hack of V.

>>12009863
Probably how painfully verbose and emotional the protagonist is.

>>12009448 (OP)
This is an easy question because just by asking it you answer it for yourself. Noone that has to ask how to fill their time is filling their time with anything worthwhile so you can now fill all the outcomes in a simple punnett square.

Play game, like game = good outcome
Play game, hate game = neutral outcome because the time is wasted but would have been wasted anyway.
Dont play game, game you would have hated = neutral outcome because the time you save by not playing is wasted anyway.
Dont play game, game you would have liked = bad outcome, you replaced good time with wasted time.

To AI summarize for phone brains, if you have to ask its always better to play the game. Also asking random people on the internet who hold every opinion simultaneously will never answer your question anyway.

4 and 5 are great. 6 is a must play. On SNES of course, I have no idea about android versions

>>12009448 (OP)
You can't go wrong with 6, and 7. I'd recommend 6 first. Preferably the original snes version if you can.

>>12009949
you're legitimately retarded and probably underage

>>12009898
>Squall: ... whatever
>Rinoa: "whatever"
SOVL

>>12009949
I understand your logic, but I can't fucking stand this board's obsession with discouraging people from asking for opinions and recommendations. It's a thing normal people do, and it even invites that much-coveted *discussion* people keep looking for.

>>12010008
redirect such people to >>>/a/ and tell them to become an hero

>>12010008
when you read enough opinions on this board, ESPECIALLY opinions on jrpgs, you learn to stop asking. There is a resident psycho who may have recently gotten banned that enters every jrpg thread and picks fights with everyone because he considers the genre for retards. any threads about final fantasy and dragon quest are half filled with people who consider games without emulator speedup to be unplayable. The best version of X game is the only one I played, the worst version of Y game is one I never played. This guy cant spare 5 minutes to kill monsters in a game about killing monsters. If this guy sees a pixel he'll kill himself. If you want to stoke discussion make a thread after you beat the game or while youre playing like this guy >>12006832

>>12010041
>trust me bro there's a guy who will totally come in here and be a worthless pissy bitch just like me
log off nigga

>>12009448 (OP)
I'd say start with IV. You want to go back as far as you can to start with so you can evaluate the older games on their own merits and not be comparing them to later games in the series that were bigger and more refined. But the 8-bit games might be a little too far back. They're not bad but feel kind of like rough drafts for the 16-bt games. IV is the point where it feels like they really knew what they wanted to do and it all came together mechanically and narratively.

>>12009448 (OP)
They are all worth playing. Do not play pixel remasters. Play as close to original release in your language of choice. Take your time with them.

>>12009457
>VI
reddit ass bitches

Not OP but people recommending games should tell which version they're talking about. Like the first game for example I've seen people arguing about the NES, PSX or PSP versions I think, while the OP has a screenshot of the ugly as fuck pixel remasters which I doubt are the best versions.

>>12009792
For most people, I'd actually say just start with 4/5/6 and then go back to the NES FFs if you want to see how the series started or if you're already a fan of 8-bit RPGs. The games don't share a story or anything, so start with whichever looks the most interesting to you.

>>12010160
>which I doubt are the best versions
there is no consensus on the best versions. People on this board will argue for every version and like every version.

Play 4-6 first, then play the older ones. The pixel remasters aren't great imo. The contrast between the oversized pixels and the high res text just looks like shit to me. Emulate on SNES for 4 and 6 and play the rest on Gameboy advance. I like the first game (GBA version mainly). There's something charming about the minimalism of it. Great game to play at a bus stop or an airport.

Don't really care for the later Final fantasy games that much overall, but the SNES entries are great. VI is great but it's definitely when the series started to go downhill IMO. The game was piss easy and mostly just built around telling a story without giving you the player much input into it. VII is what really put the nail in the coffin as to what Anal Fantasy is today.

I think either VI or VII is the best place to start with FF. Both games are easy to get into and both are popular choices for the best in the series. I'd pick whichever looks more interesting to you.

>>12010212
Nevermind, in OP you wrote that you've never played the original 6 games, so I assume you've played VII already.

>>12010041
>here is a resident psycho who may have recently gotten banned that enters every jrpg thread and picks fights with everyone because he considers the genre for retards
Good riddance if he ever gets perma'd. I'm not a big JRPG player, but it's annoying when people won't STFU about how they're not "real games" or whatever.

>>12009462
>pretty fun and short
Why do you guys always say that 1 is short? This game is long as fuck for a 1987 JRPG, it takes like 25 hours to get through if it's your first time playing, it's almost as long as 3. People rarely talk about this but FF1 feels fucking huge for its time

>>12009448 (OP)
>1
Fun, but it's not as good an intro as Dragon Quest. Bogged down by a lot of more meandering questing that just feels like a botched D&D session.
>2
Legitimately great narratively, you can see it laying the groundwork for the rest of the franchise in that department, the issue is the retarded leveling system that is pretty poorly implemented. Once you get to grips with it the game is fine, but it is a joke how often you need to use some things to get them to reasonable endgame levels.
Probably the best narratively though.
>3
Complete waste of time. Some of it is cool, but everything it does is also done in 4 and 5 but far better and infinitely more interesting. I've only played a tiny bit of the 3D remake and that seemed to fix my biggest issue, which is the game having main character dialogue but doing FF1 style creatable characters.
In effect, that kills the "role play" aspect. I can role play a set character or a created one, but I cannot get behind a character that is occasionally one and occasionally the other.
>4
Overhyped a bit.
It has some amazing moments in it, feels like it's carrying on from FF2 but delving further into the deeper characterization, but the characters are hampered by a lack of real depth outside the story. DQ remedied this in 2000 via implementing party chat, but 4 didn't have the foresight to include something like that.
Gameplaywise, it's interesting. The remakes update it to admit that it's just ATB, and honestly ATB fucking sucks. I don't like it.
>5
Don't like ATB.
Storywise, it's the best one. Best characters, best setpieces, it's good and funny as hell.
>6
Never played it.

>>12010117
>which FF3, Japanese FF3 or US FF3?

>>12010674
>but it is a joke how often you need to use some things to get them to reasonable endgame levels.
Tip for anyone who wants to play the original version of 2: don't grind your spells on weak enemies exclusively. Enemies in this game have 'tiers/levels' and if your spell is level 4 for example and you try to grind it while fighting goblins it will only receive 1 exp point after the battle. You need to use it on stronger enemies to gain 2-3 points per cast (only your first cast during a random encounter, you shouldn't cast a spell more than once because each subsequent use either gives you 1 point or 0 so use other spells you want to upgrade), I feel like not a lot of people know about this and thus everyone thinks you need to cast a spell 100 times to level it up which isn't true. I think enemy tiers go from 1 to 7 which pretty much tells you about what the 'intended' endgame level for you spells/equipment is, you absolutely don't need more than that to comfortably beat the game

>>12009462
basically it

>>12009792
You do not emulate. Retro games with pixel art were only designed to be played on a CRT TV. If you don’t have one, then don’t even bother.

>>12010727
>he says as he posts on a site intended for web browsers from an iphone

>>12010727
Unironically a bad example because the left sprite makes it look like the Gargoyle has large eyes

>>12010747
It would actually be "ironically" in this case, my meme rotted friend.

>>12010749
True. My ESL ass should've used 'genuinely' because that's what I wanted to say

>>12009898
Lmfao FF8 fags on suicide watch w this one image.

>>12009994
Are you sure about that?? Are you sure about that??

>>12009448 (OP)
5 and 6 were great. 7 and 8 sucked, 9 was amazing despite chibification.

>>12009898
Only reason to play 8 was the card game.

>>12009448 (OP)
10>7>4>6>9>5>1>8>3>2

>>12009448 (OP)
4 and 6 are worth it. They sitll have great stories, and overall characters and stuff are well-anchored in all the little FF things you already know (chocobos, mogs, cactuars, etc.) The others, not so much. At least that's my opinion.

6 > 9 > 7

All of them are worth playing except II.
Final Fantasy I has aged the worst but isn't unplayable while III can be annoying, think of it as a prototype of V.
VI, V and IV are the best.

This question probably has been asked way too many times but what version of FF4 should I play: some old fan translation of the JP original or the PS1 version (the one that comes with Chrono Trigger)? My autistic brain kinda doesn't like the fact that there is the dash in the latter even though I'm never going to use it and the official localization of 4 for the SNES is supposedly very casualised, I just want to play the most authentic (no sperging out about emulators, CRTs, etc, please) version but if that fan translation is bad then I guess I'll have to play the PS1 port

>>12010867
> except II.
III is a run of the mill JRPG unless it's your first 8 bit game in the genre, at least II is interesting so if III is worth playing then II sure as fuck is as well

>>12009462
I don't know if I can really even rate FFI anymore, yeah sure it's iconic and simple but it plays so slowly that it's sleep-inducing and it feels clumsy even for its time.

>>12010641
It's the fact you rarely if ever clear a dungeon the first time you enter it, a lot of it is seeing how far you can go, then backtracking to safety. Overcoming that initial hurdle is fun, but I find after the midway point it becomes tedious.

>>12010641
>This game is long as fuck for a 1987 JRPG
Its shorter than DQ2, its much shorter than Megaten 1, its basically the same length as Phantasy Star 1. What 1987 jrpgs are you comparing it to?

>>12011324
> What 1987 jrpgs are you comparing it to?
Is it really shorter than DQ2? DQ2 is a bit shorter iirc
> its much shorter than Megaten 1
I've never fully beaten MegaTen (I should finally sit down and play through the whole thing) but you are probably right, even though from my obvervation if you use maps then MegaTen 1 becomes significantly shorter which isn't the case for FF1, you still have to do a lot of shit in that game outside of dungeons. But I mean it makes sense because MT1 is basically one big dungeon like Wizardry
>its basically the same length as Phantasy Star 1
No way man, PS1 took me like 20 hours I think, even with its labyrinthian dungeons it's only a bit longer than DQ1. DQ1 took me about 15-16
I don't know maybe I just suck at FF1 in particular which made me go really slow but towards the end I remember thinking
>wait, there's more? It's a Famicom JRPG from 1987, it should've ended a dungeon or two ago
>>12011007
That too. The enemies are also dangerous as fuck just like in FF2, it was in FF3 when they stopped bombarding you with packs of enemies that can turn your entire party into stone, stunlock you and all that shit

>>12011394
>Is it really shorter than DQ2? DQ2 is a bit shorter iirc
DQ2 took me 8 hours longer to beat than FF1, its a hard game and if you wipe often, have to reprogress, etc it all adds up. You can also spend a long time exploring trying to find where to go.

PS1 takes time to draw maps for dungeons, if you had an really keen sense of direction you could go without and it would be shorter probably. I spent 26 hours on both FF1 and PS1.

Megaten 1 requires drawing maps and took me 47 hours, that and its sequel are some of the longest rpgs on the system.

DQ1 took me 17 hours as well. I never struggled with FF1 besides the occasional turn one team wipe but thats present in all these games.

>>12011394
I think the biggest thing that bothers me about the combat in FFI is having an encounter with nine enemies, casting a high level spell, and getting a slow rotation of
>こうかがなかった
Sometimes the combat works well but these massed encounters are the most work-like.

>>12011623
In FF2 the same thing can happen except it's each of the enemies casting a high level spell which even worse. Setting text speed to max doesn't help

>>12011623
NTA but this is the major reason why I rate FF3 so highly. They basically perfected the combat with all these minor tweaks; auto-select new target, floating damage numbers over enemies, all the damage happening simultaneously, fast calculation, more options for targetting (groups, single enemy). Its a shame that ATB showed up in 4 and made spellcasting worse with big spells having a cast time.

>>12011638
>auto-select new target
A welcome change but a lot of elitists argue against this
> more options for targetting (groups, single enemy)
2 also had that though

>>12011653
>2 also had that though
2 had target all or target one. 3 had target all, target group of same enemy type, or target one. It makes a lot of sense because you can cast fire on only the fire weak dudes and not cast on a guy that might absorb it.

>>12011672
And come to think of it I cant remember if they did away with this group targeting system in 4, I think they did.