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

Yes, I do remember my first playthrough and unfortunately, my reaction was not similar to yours. As far as I am concerned, it does not fully deserve an overwhelming amout of praise it receives.
Story:
Of SNES-era games, FFVI has one of the better stories. However, that is not saying much. As most games from the aforementioned era, it is plagued by utter simplicity and the world is almost devoid of historical background and social development. Contrast it with later FFVIII and especially FFXII, both of them have quite long and elaborate political history (unfortunately, most of it is hidden in obscure NPC conversations and in the information sections that nobody bothers to read).
Same can be said about FFVI cast, which is good by SNES standards, yet pales in comparison with all more recent FFs.

Battle System:
For a SNES RPG, FFVI has a great battle system. After potentially interesting, yet stilll heavily restricted Job System in FFV, FFVI allows a decent amout of customisation, which together with Limits forms a quite satisfying experience.

Graphics and Sound:
Both are rather impressive, though character animation is a bit lacking. Other than that however, there is not much to criticise.

In short, FFVI is a very good SNES RPG. It introduced quite a few innovations and also marked a departure from the generic and stale style of FF I-V. Nevertheless, it can be considered archaic and primitive in comparison with more recent installments.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Originally Posted byCellius
The game surely could benefit from historical background and social development, but this was at a time when such a concept was foreign in video games anyway (to my knowledge), so why bring it up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saiken
Of SNES-era games, FFVI has one of the better stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saiken
In short, FFVI is a very good SNES RPG.

As you can see, I acknowledge its considerable worth in comparison with other SNES-era RPGs. There were a few games that surpassed it in the in-depth storyline department (Front Mission 1st comes to mind), though generally speaking, FFVI is indeed one of the better ones.

What I find interesting however, is how fans treat is as some kind of untouchable ideal that cannot be matched. There is nothing wrong with liking it more then later installments, but objectively, they have long since surpassed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TetraShadow00
FFVI in my opinion should be remembered mroe than FFVII,

I suppose I can somewhat agree with that. FFVII introduced a large amount of people into RPGs, yet FFVI marked the beginning of FF series' rapid evolution.
Although, my opinion may be influenced by a certain nostalgia I feel for this title. After all, FFVI was my second FF (after V).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megavolt
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 have no experience with Disgaea, so I am afraid I cannot make any comparison in this case. But allow me to explain my view of objective criteria in something so subjective as art (this includes books, music, movies, games, etc.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megavolt
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.

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.
But that was only the objective part. The subjective part (such as the way one feels about some work of art, what emotions does it invoke, etc.) is indeed a different matter altogether, and cannot and should not be measured.

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.

To GoldfishX:
I understand your view and will not try to argue it, for it would be a pointless argument over personal preferences. But I would like to address one small detail.

Quote:

FF8 I felt was fairly broken overall and had little gameplay depth once you figured things out (read: draw like mad, attach spells to stats that are lacking...DONE!).

In FFVIII, Draw is best used as an occasional method of Magic acquisition, not a primary one. Refining is much faster and entertaining, allowing one to get not only better spells, but also weapon upgrades, permanent stat increasing items and so on. In my playthroughs, I rarely used Draw, and that was mostly to acquire GFs and on several bosses with quite rare spells (Aura, Triple).

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megavolt
I don't think FFVI is the equivalent of scribbles to FFVIII's Mona Lisa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX
Your analogy of a splash painting vs a Renaissance one simply does not apply here (and frankly, seems quite silly in relating it to how FFVI stacks up to the rest of the series).

Heh, I definitely did not mean to imply that FFVI was equivalent to a splash painting (or scribbles). I used that analogy to illustrate my perception of objective value of art, and that was all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX
I think it is easier to write a script based around 1-2 main characters and their entourage (naturally sifted to the background) than the balance shown in FFVI, with no clear-cut main character. The later FF's do have much more dialogue, I give them that, but much of it is still centered around the typical lead character or two.

I am not sure about that. Which approach is better: giving a large amount of character development to the two main characters and less to others, or giving an equally moderate to the whole cast? Certainly, I too would prefer everyone to be well-developed (poor Quistis, indeed), but I had to choose, I would prefer a first option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX
I remember the Celes/Locke sequences quite vividly, yet am hard pressed to recall more than one conversation between the other pairings.

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.
By the way, by "extra touch", did you mean

Spoiler:

the bandana as a good luck charm?

Because I am not sure what you meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX
And again in all three cases...3-man parties represents a grave regression to me (probably due to memory).

Well, this is something that I never considered to be much of an issue. Whether party consisted of three, four, or even six characters (Suikoden), the battle flow and strategy planning seemed generally the same to me. Though I agree with you that Chrono Trigger (due to its team attacks) would have benefitted from a larger battle party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX
I mean, a perfectly usable tactic in FFX was to get everyone in on the attack by means of tagging out in order to score more EXP for participating in battle. Why not just add more character slots and save people the effort of tagging out?

Technical reasons, I suppose. More active characters on a field would require a larger amount of resources, which would mean having to scale down some other effects.

To Megavolt:
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? As I see it, neither of FFs (starting with FFVI) had failed in its execution. The later ones however, seem to have more volume and work put into them.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megavolt
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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megavolt
FFVI was complex enough to be meaningful but also simple enough to be charming and sincere.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megavolt
Four characters per battle tends to provide more strategy than three in a battle.

Theoretically, yes. However:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saiken
Whether party consisted of three, four, or even six characters (Suikoden), the battle flow and strategy planning seemed generally the same to me.

I do not think that in FF, managing a four-character party required any more strategy than managing a three-character one. As I see it, the battle system in earlier FFs did not put a larger party to good use.
I may be wrong, of course. But as for now, I have not seen many reasons to change my stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX
Objectively, I've said twice already that characters in FFVII and FFVIII lack individual abilities while VI doesn't.

FFVII and VIII characters have different Limit Breaks and statistical strenghts and weaknesses. Technically, they do have individual abilities, just to the lesser extent than FFVI ones. It is natural though, considering that FFVII and VIII focused on extensive customisation, instead of pre-defined character growth.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX
Objectively, it left out a bunch of things that have been mentioned prior (pick and choose much?)

Most of the game-related things have been at least partially addressed before an were discussed without reaching any consensus. As for something that could be considered a personal attack in yours and Magavolt's last posts, well, I suppose you have your reasons to see me that way. That is fine with me.

Next, the parts you bolded in my last post. I was speaking about my perception of battle flow and general strategy in FFs, and my post emphasized that. You were welcome to prove me wrong with some examples, yet you did not do so.

Nevertheless, our argument (although an interesting one) does not seem to have a chance of reaching any reasonable conclusion, for apparently, we see rather basic things way too differently. In this case, "agree to disagree" seems to be the wisest and most time-efficient option. There is one thing however, which I would appreciate if you answered. I have asked you before, but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldfishX

Spoiler:

try beating the game without getting Locke and watch the ending...I thought that was an extremely clever extra touch.

What "touch" did you mean?

FELIPE NO