[Classic] This thread contains my reactions to Final Fantasy VI

It's tough to remember my first complete playthrough. I do remember when I first played it. That was when I rented it once. I didn't know what it was, but I found myself fascinated by the game world, which I explored a bit from someone else's save game. Eventually I bought the game after playing a few RPGs and I've always been as blown away by it as you are now. My appreciation for it has only grown in subsequent playthroughs. The storytelling all throughout is phenomenal. Only thing is that the second half will do one of two things for you: It'll either push the game to legendary status or bring it down if you don't enjoy the differences. For me it did the former. There are a lot of extra elements to the story in the first half, but what ties the story together is the cast, and that much is what the second half is all about even more than the first was. I'm hoping that it won't ruin things for you, because I've heard of other folks who claim to be invested in the story and then find themselves disliking it after a certain plot development. In any case, I'm glad that you're enjoying it so far. For me it was an experience that forever set the standard for what I expect from a traditional *J*RPG. It still has my favorite cast and soundtrack of them all. Expect the story to get sadder in a big way, heh heh. FFVI doesn't just taunt you with the possibility like every other RPG does. It actually goes there.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Saiken

What I find interesting however, is how fans treat is as some kind of untouchable ideal that cannot be matched.

That's what classic means. Something which at its time was so inspired and so great that it can never be surpassed. Not just something which was great "for its time" but no longer measures up. I can play FFVI now and I still think that it's an amazing experience on par with other RPGs from various eras that I find to be great.

Originally Posted by Saiken

There is nothing wrong with liking it more then later installments, but objectively, they have long since surpassed it.

Do you also find PS2 RPGs to have long since surpassed PS1 RPGs in an objective sense? I've heard some people say that Final Fantasy Tactics is archaic and primitive compared to Disgaea when they say that Disgaea is better. If so, then I can somewhat understand your reasoning, even though I don't agree with it in terms of using it to determine the ultimate value of a game experience.

I don't believe that attempting to build on past concepts means that the new concept will necessarily retain everything that made the previous one great. Also, theory and application aren't the same thing, but if you feel that better technology means better games in an objective sense, then I suppose there's an argument for that.

What you have to understand however is that people have different standards for what defines greatness in a game, movie, novel, piece of music, whatever. There is no universal standard for determining the ultimate value of an RPG. Gameplay versus story arguments have proven that. Even people who claim to have the same standard won't necessarily interpret attempts to meet this standard in the same way. Look at Kostaki and Borg's recent debate over FFIV. So despite your feelings on FFVIII, not everyone believes that the changes made in FFVIII were for the best. They might think that objectively, FFVI or another Final Fantasy game did a better job of presenting its ideas. FFXII has also been the target of much criticism for its own deviations from Final Fantasy tradition. That one I like a great deal, but others believe it to be greatly inferior to their favorites, and I wouldn't presume to tell them that they're objectively wrong. It's difficult to say that one work is objectively superior to another. Especially between works of high acclaim. There are just too many things that factor into how one can evaluate something.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Cellius

Holy shit. You weren't joking, were you? I just passed that moment. I'm glad I started the game unaware that this would happen. I'm looking forward to searching for everyone.

Since you're looking forward to searching for everyone, it seems that you'll like it. What people don't like is that the pacing changes. Instead of being made to play via a forced narrative, the world is open to you and you have to seek out the rest of your members of your own volition after finding the first three. If you care about the characters enough and you enjoy the open-ended gameplay elements, then you're in for a treat. To make things a bit easier, keep in mind that party members which you find again will have their level adjusted to around the level of your highest level member. You have to form three parties for the final dungeon and some folks find it upsetting to have to strengthen characters they don't like. What I did the last time I played was simply to shift my party around as I tackled the various side quests. By doing that you should be ready for the final dungeon. People get too caught up in leveling and the truth is that skills and equipment are much more important in FFVI. Being around level 40 should be enough to win the day. What matters is having some nice equipment and some powerful spells to employ, most of which you get as you recruit the various characters and see them develop more at the same time.

Originally Posted by Saiken

In my opinion, artistic value is comprised of an objective and subjective part. Even in art, there are certain aspects that can be evaluated more or less objectively. For example, there is a question of how much work and preparation was put into a certain artistic piece. In other words, objectively, a Pre-Raphaelite or a Renaissance painting is a more valuable work of art than something created by simply splashing a bucket of paint on canvas, for the latter did not require much skill, time, or extensive work.

Splashing a bucket is such an extreme example that I doubt anyone would disagree. I don't think FFVI is the equivalent of scribbles to FFVIII's Mona Lisa.

Originally Posted by Saiken

In conclusion, what I meant by later FF installments surpassing FFVI, was that they surpassed it in certain objective criteria (more details and work put into storyline, more extensive and flexible battle system, etc.). As to whether one actually likes the later games and their features, that is of course a matter of personal taste.

I see. Have you considered that more details and work put into various aspects also introduces more potential for missteps? Consistency is something that Dragon Quest and Suikoden are valued for because they don't deviate much from their formulas. Sometimes less is more when an aspect becomes so convoluted and poorly executed that it fails to deliver on its promise as the power of the moment is lost. Sincerity and impact often has more to do with execution than with the concept. And execution of a concept is more in the vein of objective judgment I think than judging how ambitious a concept is. Trying for more doesn't mean that you'll succeed at it. And in the process you may lose some of the things that you did right the last time. Someone once said that FFVII having more dialog than FFVI was evidence of objective superiority. But that's judging the attempt and not the execution. If FFVI has more meaningful and better delivered dialog as an objective matter of evaluating the storytelling, then wouldn't objectivity in that respect favor it over the sometimes muddled mess that is FFVII's complex and confusing story? Same goes for character development. I believe that for every game's attempt at providing deeper gameplay or story (which of course should be attempted; for the times that you wind up with something worse, there is the possibility of winding up with something better), sometimes the sweet spot is hit better by games that take a simpler approach, and simplicity is as objectively valid as complexity. Not so simple as to be like Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, but I think Final Fantasy VI is complex enough that deeming it objectively inferior to later installments based on how they have more effort put into them seems woefully inaccurate. After all, it's not so much that there was more effort put into them, but that they had room for more stuff. And it's not only about how much stuff you have. It's how you use that stuff. That's my position on the value of objectivity when evaluating the ultimate value of a game experience.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Saiken

I would say it is because you like Celes and Locke more than other pairings. If that is the case, then it is only natural that their conversations seemed more memorable.

You don't know that and the same could be true of your own opinions. And just liking someone more doesn't mean that their dialog will be more memorable. What if memorable dialog plays into why someone likes a character in the first place?

Originally Posted by Saiken

Execution is definitely important as well and it is true that an ambitious concept has a larger possibility to fail in it. But is not better to at least aim at something new a more complex, than play it safe and simple?

Of course it is. I said before that it's better to aim for something new than to be content with what works. And FFVI, for it's time, was not trying to play it safe and simple. In fact, I think that relative to where the series was at the time, FFVI is one of the more ambitious Final Fantasy games. Certainly moreso than FFIX and FFX. FFVI is not so primitive that it can't compete on many important levels with the Final Fantasy games that have come after.

Originally Posted by Saiken

As I see it, neither of FFs (starting with FFVI) had failed in its execution.

Your opinion but not necessarily everybody elses. If I believe that some of them failed in their attempts to execute certain concepts, then I can say that FFVI was "objectively" better. I may also think that the message of FFVI is more meaningful than the teenage soap opera and witch hunt that is FFVIII. Sure, FFVIII has pretty FMVs and it spans four discs, but is the material spanning those four discs as good as the material spanning that SNES cartridge? It's the difference between setting a goal and achieving it. And believe me, I know that setting a less ambitious goal makes for a more easily achieved one, but complexity gone awry is just as bad as simple conformity. I like games which try something different, but I don't always give them an A for effort or execution.

Originally Posted by Saiken

The later ones however, seem to have more volume and work put into them.

And this is the heart of your argument. I'm not sure that effort and filling up space are the same thing. Uematsu himself complained about how the creative effort in the series had been lost and that that was part of the reason he left Square. It's possible for a shorter and less complex experience to be more potent all throughout and leave a bigger impression than a game which drags and doesn't seem to be all that inspired. You stated earlier as an objective fact that FFVI was inferior. Yet what little reasoning you've provided so far hasn't even come close to establishing that. FFVI had built upon earlier ideas and I feel that it hit a great balance enhanced by some innovations at the time. The games to come after have obviously taken those ideas and attempted to combine them with other ideas, with mixed results. For me, FFVI still has the best music and cast of the series, and combined with most other things being pretty good, I think it's the best one based on my overall assessment. People remember the dialog, characters, and music for a reason. A reason that doesn't necessarily need to stem only from the fact that they personally liked it anymore than it has to for remembering anything from other Final Fantasy games. There's more to quality than complexity. FFVI was complex enough to be meaningful but also simple enough to be charming and sincere. An "objective" balance for myself and many others.

More volume is not a reflection of more effort in a qualitative sense. Only in a quantitative one. So while there's often a correlation between trying to do more and better results, correlation is not causation, so your position cannot be established as objective proof of FFVI's inferiority. Not to mention that simply determining how much effort was put into something is by no means a clear cut affair except in the most extreme of scenarios, which is why your example earlier about splashing a bucket only goes so far.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Jamma

I'm guessing there isn't a no-encounters relic in the game (at least early on anyway )

You can get a Charm Bangle if you do well enough at the Emperor's banquet. That'll reduce the encounter rate. To get the Moogle Charm, which eliminates random encounters altogether, you have to wait until after the Floating Continent.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Saiken

One can praise certain dialogue as memorable. Somebody else however, can dismiss the very same speech as completely forgettable. The dialogue itself did not change, the only thing that changed was the perception of it. It seems reasonable to assume that "memorability" is created by one's mind, based on a complex of personal impressions and perceptions.

To an extent, yes. However, the greats don't get labeled as such merely because a handful of people found them memorable for reasons having nothing to do with actual quality. There's a craft to dialogue having to do both with the dialog itself and the delivery of it. The irony here is that if anyone's opinion here is subjective by virtue of placing one aspect in front of everything else, it's yours. The perception that more volume equals a superior product based on nothing more than a fleeting correlation. There are objective standards for effective storytelling and effective gameplay. And those standards are not solely based on how complex something is. In fact, I'd say that clarity is more important on an objective level than mystery. It's possible for a simple story to have a complex message. And in taking into account gameplay balance for a videogame, the relative value of each aspect is objectively important. Saying that FFVI has a good balance between how it handles itself on all levels is an objectively valid statement. So give it up already. Your view that more complexity equals an objectively superior product can't be established as fact. You already admitted this yourself when you agreed that more complexity introduces more potential for flaws. Wanting something to be more ambitious is not an objective opinion. It's a subjective one. You can't prove that something is better than something else on an objective level by saying that it's more ambitious. Execution is more important. You feel that neither FFVI nor the FFs to come after have failed in that regard. That means your preference for post-FFVI installments is subjective.

Originally Posted by Saiken

And this is the subjective part I mentioned earlier. "Charm" and "sincerity" cannot be measured by any means, qualitatively or quantitatively. While they may be very important in forming one's overall experience, yet they can hardly be used if one attempts to make a somewhat objective evaluation.

The funny thing is that even if they couldn't, I'd still be objectively correct just in saying that FFVI is complex enough to be meaningful, making your argument against its simplicity a nonissue. But there is something to be said for sincerity as a result of effective storytelling. Charm is part of this as well, though one could interpret it as nostalgia, which isn't what I was referring to.

Now you're just looking for segments to isolate for the sole purpose of discrediting other opinions. Maybe you should be more concerned with trying to prove your own. I'm afraid you haven't made much progress in that regard. I'm not seeing anyone come out and agree with you. If anything, your own credibility is being diminished by your obstinance. It might be wiser for you to make an effort to meet people in the middle without resorting to cheap attempts at painting all opinions in dissension with your own as subjective. Otherwise I'm not impressed by your weak UtopiaNH impression.

Originally Posted by GoldfishX

I mean, you can't tell me the amount of characters in the later FF's was unimportant and still cling to any hope of remaining objective.

That's true. Both in terms of his "more is more" argument and potential strategy in combat. Four characters per battle tends to provide more strategy than three in a battle. The very same kind of correlation that he's been trying to slap everyone with and he dismissed it by saying that it has never been an issue for him. So much for consistency.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

This got bumped, eh? I might as well respond to some old stuff then.

Originally Posted by Forsety

Well, to be fair... Kuja in FF9 actually did destroy a planet. Beyond recovery even. The Dark One in Arc the Lad 2 pretty much pulled a Kefka, also, as the entire surface of their world was devestated and civilization was thrown into ruin. The wisemen in Star Ocean 2 caused the destruction on all but a small portion of their planet -- and the demons in Wild Arms 1/3 have moved from planet to planet destroying them as they come across them.

If you meant simply during the course of the game, though, FF9 and Arc the Lad 2 still stand as good examples. I still think Kefka is one of the better (and without a doubt, more insane) villains out there, though, but he isn't the only villain who ever achieved his goals.

I don't know about Arc the Lad, but there's a big difference between what Kefka does and what Kuja or the wisemen do. Kefka ruins a world that you've spent the entire game exploring. You got to know the people and develop a connection to the WoB. Kuja would have to destroy Gaia in order to have the same effect, but that's not what happens at all. He destroys a tiny and virtually dead planet with one section that you get to explore near the end of the game. Terra had little relevance beyond the backstory it provided and I wouldn't compare the destruction of a few soulless husks to seeing children fall through the cracks in FFVI. In terms of the impact of what Kefka does on the world of FFVI as we know it, it's much larger than the impact of Kuja destroying Terra, and we continue to see the impact of his deeds afterwards whereas FFIX turns into a 'hovering threat' kind of thing (stop Kuja before he destroys the crystal) like with FFVII. Kefka had basically already won and you have to pick yourself up and challenge him again. As for the wisemen, it's a matter of hearing about what happened rather than seeing it, which you seem to realize with the course of the game thing you mentioned. We hear about how Nede wound up as Energy Nede but we don't experience it and we don't develop any connection with the people who suffered and died during the struggles with the wisemen. Expel is a different story, but that situation is literally undone.

As for FFVI being easy, I played it again not too long ago and it actually has some tough parts if you don't spend much extra time powering up your guys and don't abuse the Vanish glitch or Ultima. The Floating Continent is no picnic and Kefka's Tower is fairly tough as well, as Poltergeist nearly killed me last time. Granted, it's not a difficult game, but it's at least as tough (if not tougher) as the Sony generation Final Fantasies, save for FFXII.

FELIPE NO