What I don't like about FF 6-8.

[McKay]

I've only played bits of 4 and 5. I started playing FF when VII came out and have been a fan evedr since. I never really liked IX, it was a good game but for me was too... cartoony, I guess it was the way the characters looked kinda like the sprites from the original games.

My favourite FF game(s) have got to be VII, X and XII. The main thing I didn't like about VIII was the the Character Limits were handled. Instaed of having a meter build up like in VII it was set so that when the characters HP got low the limit was activated.

 

[Eric the Orange]

say you have 4 characters in a game, and only 4 weapons

now what if each weapon could only be equipped by one character? the characters would have a significant difference in that they each have their own weapon (large variance in character roles). The thing is, this means that each weapon only has 1 role (lack of variance), which is to be equipped to the character they have to.

On the other hand, what if any character could equip any weapon they wanted? The characters would have the same options, and therefore be more similar (lack of variance). However the weapons can used to equip to 4 different characters (more variance)

OK, I think I understand. Your saying that if only one character can use an ability it makes the characters more varied. But if they all can it makes the abilitys more varied.

If that's what you're saying then I still disagree. Let's look at a real life example. What if only one person owns a specific car. Then compare that to everyone owning that car. It's still the same model of car, the only difference is who is driving it. Therefore I do not see any variance in the cars them selves. In fact I'd say it makes the car less unique because everyone is driving it.

Or to put it another way, just because everyone can use magic does not make the magic more varied. It's still all the same spells, the only change is who is casting them.

 

[wooty]

FF7 was the first game I got for the PS1 so that sticks out as my favourite.

I got lost around halfway through disk 2 on FF8, invasions, conspiracies, witches, dreamworlds, I just couldnt really decipher it, but was a good play none-the-less, definately
got my moneys worth for the length of the title.

FF9 was a good play too, enjoyed it, but still not as much as 7

Watched a mate of mine play through FF10, do admit it was good to spectate on, but I just felt that it went down a path to whore out some hentai for the market (Im looking at you Rikku!!)

Currently looking into getting the older FF's because ive heard nothing but good things, but cash is short

 

[Eric the Orange]

Aeris was my White Mage (God, did that backfire on me)

Yeah Aeris is the closest thing to a dedicated mage in that game, and that's the one they chose to kill off. I'm not one of the people that hate the game cause they killed off a character. They've done that in many games. I just don't like they killed off the most unique character battle wise.

 

[JediMB]

FF11: psssh mmo. Generic and next to nothing in terms of story.

You obviously haven't played the game, since it's far from generic and has tons of story.

The base game has three storylines that merge about halfway in. One for each nation. Then every expansion (Rise of the Zilart, Chains of Promathia, Treasures of Aht Urhgan, and Wings of the Goddess) comes with another storyline. Most of these mission stories are told through cinematic cutscenes.

And then there's a bunch of side-quest plotlines on top of that.

 

[JenXXXJen]

The best thing about VIII was how easy it was to customise and, more importantly, exploit and abuse. Yes, it was incredibly easy to overpower you're characters, but you didn't have to. Depending on how you distribute your magic and junctions, everyone could be invincible or you could make different characters good at different things. It's all up to the player, you can't really blame the game if you made everyone the same.

For the record, I loved the story and characters, too. I liked that half the story was in the subtext, so you might be thinking about it in bed one night, and BAM, it all makes sense. Ultimecia's most likely backstory is actually quite tragic, when you really think about it.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Gameplay is not what makes Final Fantasy memorable.

Indeed, but that doesn't make my point any less valid. This thread was never about story, music, graphics, ect.. Only about combat rolls. In particular Specific combat rolls vs non-specific combat rolls.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Gameplay is not what makes Final Fantasy memorable.

Indeed, but that doesn't make my point any less valid. This thread was never about story, music, graphics, ect.. Only about combat rolls. In particular Specific combat rolls vs non-specific combat rolls.

I see little point in complaining about the functions of spreadsheet micromanagement when the gameplay involves nothing but.

I think your missing the point. No matter how minuscule the point is, it's still the topic of this thread.

 

[Space Spoons]

I got the same feeling. It's like there was virtually no difference between the characters at all. 6 didn't seem as bad to me, since up until the time you have access to Espers, each character has different capabilities, but it was still somewhat guilty.

For this reason, I've taken to imposing limits on myself in later playthroughs. For example, in my latest FFVII playthough, Cloud is my "Warrior", only capable of being equipped with command and support materia, with the exception of Enemy Skill. The lack of magic materia keeps his stats high, allowing him to fit the mold better. Tifa is my "Monk/Beast Tamer", who can equip command, support, and an Enemy Skill materia. Barret is my "Mage", who can only equip magic and "special" (purple) materia.

Makes the game more challenging, and much more fun, in my opinion.

 

[Mysticgamer]

I liked or loved every final fantasy except 8 and 11 which I don't really count as a main series anyway.

I think most FF fans feel that the MMO FF's aren't "cannon" so to speak. so that would be 11 and 14 (or maybe it's 13 I'm not sure). It would make more sense if those were FF online and FF online 2.

That kind of pisses me off. We haven't even gotten FF13 to our shores yet and there already talking about 14 already. I've seen a few pictures in a magazine and they look like FF11 characters with better graphics...they call them different things than Taru, Humes, and Galka but they look the same.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

say you have 4 characters in a game, and only 4 weapons

now what if each weapon could only be equipped by one character? the characters would have a significant difference in that they each have their own weapon (large variance in character roles). The thing is, this means that each weapon only has 1 role (lack of variance), which is to be equipped to the character they have to.

On the other hand, what if any character could equip any weapon they wanted? The characters would have the same options, and therefore be more similar (lack of variance). However the weapons can used to equip to 4 different characters (more variance)

OK, I think I understand. Your saying that if only one character can use an ability it makes the characters more varied. But if they all can it makes the abilitys more varied.

If that's what you're saying then I still disagree. Let's look at a real life example. What if only one person owns a specific car. Then compare that to everyone owning that car. It's still the same model of car, the only difference is who is driving it. Therefore I do not see any variance in the cars them selves. In fact I'd say it makes the car less unique because everyone is driving it.

Or to put it another way, just because everyone can use magic does not make the magic more varied. It's still all the same spells, the only change is who is casting them.

not quite the same, first of all you have to remember that the gaming term "character" is only a representation of real-life people... also it wouldnt be that everybody owns the same car, it would be where each person CAN own the same car where you still need to make decisions in order to effectively reach that point.

My point is that it doesn't matter either way as long as you're presented with decisions to make. If we took the 2 extremes either way we see that these present few decisions

1. if everybody has all the same stats and all the same abilities all of the time, then the difference between the characters is non-existant, the decision of "who does what?" makes too small of a difference, if any at all

2. if however every character was so unique as to have almost no similarities then you're desicions are very limited, you need to heal, you HAVE to use the healer. Which doesnt involve as much startegy because it's your only option to heal

of course all games lie within these 2 extremes, you have to present the player with a variety of decisions but where the outcome of those decisions is varied

know what i'm saying?

Gameplay is not what makes Final Fantasy memorable

Yes it is

I liked 6-12 (with the exception of 11) except for 8. Drawing magic was the biggest waste of time ever. And it tied your hands by not being able to use your spells.

if you drew magic from monsters you wern't playing the game properly, drawing from monsters is pretty much just a last-resort technique

WTF??? How is it I am playing the game wrong. You tie your stats to spells and you need X number of spells to make a difference. The whole point of an RPG is to become stronger. That is the most efficient way to accomplish that goal.

cards and refine abilities are far more efficient

You guys don't seem to realize one small thing. I was playing without the internet (so no faqs, strat guides or help). I played it the way the game made it the most obvious to play.

well all you need to realise is what abilities are there and that the enemies scale, once you realise that (and how easlly available the cards are) I found it pretty self-explanitory

 

[Eric the Orange]

not quite the same, first of all you have to remember that the gaming term "character" is only a representation of real-life people... also it wouldnt be that everybody owns the same car, it would be where each person CAN own the same car where you still need to make decisions in order to effectively reach that point.

My point is that it doesn't matter either way as long as you're presented with decisions to make. If we took the 2 extremes either way we see that these present few decisions

1. if everybody has all the same stats and all the same abilities all of the time, then the difference between the characters is non-existant, the decision of "who does what?" makes too small of a difference, if any at all

2. if however every character was so unique as to have almost no similarities then you're desicions are very limited, you need to heal, you HAVE to use the healer. Which doesnt involve as much startegy because it's your only option to heal

of course all games lie within these 2 extremes, you have to present the player with a variety of decisions but where the outcome of those decisions is varied

know what i'm saying?

OK, let me recap here so we're on the same page. Your saying that having unique characters limits your strategic options because characters are pretty much pre-designed to fill one and only one roll. Where as in contrast a game where any character can fill any roll lends it self to more strategic opportunities because the player chooses what rolls the characters play.

If that is your argument I can see what you mean, but I still prefer pre-existing character rolls. My logic being that specialization and cooperation works better than every one being a jack of all trades of sorts. So in games where I am the chooser of how to develop characters I do so in such a way that they will only have one job to help the team as a whole. So in the end I try and make them resemble pre-designed character rolls. But I often find that in games where the rolls are pre-set that the characters are better at there jobs than the ones that could do anything that I tried to make fill those rolls.

I'm not dissagreing with your reasoning. More of a matter of personal preference.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

not quite the same, first of all you have to remember that the gaming term "character" is only a representation of real-life people... also it wouldnt be that everybody owns the same car, it would be where each person CAN own the same car where you still need to make decisions in order to effectively reach that point.

My point is that it doesn't matter either way as long as you're presented with decisions to make. If we took the 2 extremes either way we see that these present few decisions

1. if everybody has all the same stats and all the same abilities all of the time, then the difference between the characters is non-existant, the decision of "who does what?" makes too small of a difference, if any at all

2. if however every character was so unique as to have almost no similarities then you're desicions are very limited, you need to heal, you HAVE to use the healer. Which doesnt involve as much startegy because it's your only option to heal

of course all games lie within these 2 extremes, you have to present the player with a variety of decisions but where the outcome of those decisions is varied

know what i'm saying?

OK, let me recap here so we're on the same page. Your saying that having unique characters limits your strategic options because characters are pretty much pre-designed to fill one and only one roll. Where as in contrast a game where any character can fill any roll lends it self to more strategic opportunities because the player chooses what rolls the characters play.

If that is your argument I can see what you mean, but I still prefer pre-existing character rolls. My logic being that specialization and cooperation works better than every one being a jack of all trades of sorts. So in games where I am the chooser of how to develop characters I do so in such a way that they will only have one job to help the team as a whole. So in the end I try and make them resemble pre-designed character rolls. But I often find that in games where the rolls are pre-set that the characters are better at there jobs than the ones that could do anything that I tried to make fill those rolls.

I'm not dissagreing with your reasoning. More of a matter of personal preference.

thats pretty much what I'm saying

having variations of characters is just another way of presenting the player with a variety of choices, the point that I'm trying to make is that that's all it is... and other games do it in other ways, yet I always hear people complain about the characters being similar in this sense.

I mean the game could present itself in a completely different way but still have extremely similar gameplay. You just have to remember that a character is just a collection of stats, just like anything else... if the characters are all too similar then the game probably has provided other stuff to with their own collection of stats.

Not sure if Im making this fully clear, I do this sort of stuff (game theories) for university so it's always on my brain