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

I remember...I was under-leveled and Ultros absolutely raped me about 10 times before I squeezed off enough firepower to beat him. I got pretty lost during the whole Celes thing and it took about 2 hours to clear that scenario. I enjoyed Sabin's path the first time, with all the strong character development and the atmosphere on the train...Becomes a bit of a burden on replays, since it takes awhile and I know what's going to happen.

And yeah...The Opera part was incredible. I actually got a Game Over because I couldn't figure out what to do after getting the bouquet. Oh, and I didn't exactly rehearse either...

Plenty more (in fact, in replays, I always rush through the first half of the game in order to get to the second half), but I don't want to spoil anything for ya...

FFVI was THE game I always wanted to hypnotize myself over so I could experience it fresh again. I'm probably 7 years past my last playthrough and I remember it quite vividly. Once I'm an old fart and my memory fails, I'll look forward to experiencing it all new again.

And frankly, nothing in the series has come remotely close to delivering the total package of quality that FFVI has. From the well-crafted dungeons to the various gameplay systems (relics, armor, espers, innate skills AND leveling are all important) to the variety of characters to the music (still one of the best game scores around) and the game's refusal to stick to focusing on a single character when it very easily could (face it: you're screwed if you don't like one of the main characters in the newer FF's, because you see a LOT of them during the course of the game), it was well ahead of its' time...and arguably still is.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by jb1234

(When it first happened early in the game, I thought splitting up the characters and getting to choose which group to play was a fresh gimmick. The concept really didn't happen again until Wild Arms and Suikoden III. FFVI did it better.)

I definitely agree with this...It's far more effective once the characters are introduced. It's not a particularly good way of actually introducing the main characters. Though I'm basing that off my experience with WA and not S3, which I haven't played. Once that scenario came up in FFVI, with just the minor bit of background, it was really cool. Although to be fair...The Terra/Edgar/Banon branch was a ripoff. But Locke/Sabin had more than enough meat to make up for it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Saiken

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.

Again, I disagree...None of the other FF's have offered the same variety of gameplay systems that FFVI had. Sure, VI had the all-important Esper system, but it managed to keep the individual attacks for each character (so they're differentiated beyond their limit breaks...see FF7 and FF8) and plenty of armor plus relics and a well-balanced experience system where you didn't have to power-level (but you could!). FF7 was fun and the materia system was better than the whole esper thing, but there was little differentiation between characters. 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!). Never liked FF9...The battles never felt smooth enough for my liking. X was more of a matching game, I felt, and I definitely preferred the more standard ATB system as opposed to "hit flying enemies with Wakka, hit machines with Rikku, summon with Yuna if you're about to die..." Mind you, I enjoyed 7, 8 and X, but I never felt for a second they were as solid from a gameplay perspective as VI. Very few turn-based RPG's do. One could argue Ultima could break the game (and Merton was completely useless), but then the answer is simple: Don't get Ultima if you don't want it to ruin the game for you (considering what you have to go through to get it).

And then there's the matter of 3-character battles, a major pet peeve of mine that seemed to become popular in CT then continued through most of the major FF installments.

As for the storylines...Give me the plot-centric but well-spread focus on FFVI's cast over Cloud/Squall/Tidus's various issues and burial of the remaining cast members in their respective games anyday. Poor Quistis...

So uh yeah...Basically a repost from what I said before.

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

Saekin: I thank you for expressing your opinions clearly, but I take issue with one thing: the word "objective". You're saying my arguements are purely subjective and you don't wish to argue that. Fine, we won't argue which is better but I don't think you're being as purely objective as you claim to be. You used two examples above: the work put into the storylines and the battle system comparison as being objective (that is, stating that the later FF's are clear improvements that everyone should take note of) I disagree on both and I feel both are a regression in design, my own personal feelings aside. 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. Celes and Locke said far fewer words to each other than Cloud/Tifa, Squall/Rinoa or Tidus/Yuna, but in no way can one objectively say one was better than the other. I remember the Celes/Locke sequences quite vividly, yet am hard pressed to recall more than one conversation between the other pairings. And on top of that

Spoiler:

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

Please reread what I said about the battle system...I wasn't saying "I like FF6's better", I said I felt it was better designed overall and enjoyed it more as a result. It's quite objective stating that FF7, 8 and 10 all lacked particular things that FFVI had and I feel they lost some of their potential as a result. Subjectively, I do like the materia system far more than the esper system, but sacking the individual abilities and relics sets FF7 on about equal footing, if not behind FF6. Subjectively, I did not like much of FF8's systems (I don't seem to recall refining a huge deal) and it suffered the individuality plague as well. Subjectively, I felt the Sphere Grid was a good idea in theory, but fell flat due to having to use it for EVERYTHING and the game's mix'n'match gameplay and limited equipment (sorry, I hated the percentages) hurt it even farther.

And again in all three cases...3-man parties represents a grave regression to me (probably due to memory). Chrono Trigger worked okay with it, due to the team attacks, but there isn't a single RPG I've played where I'm compelled to agree having 3 characters instead of 4-5 (the usual amount for 16-bit RPG's)was the better decision (CT could have been much better with 4-5 characters for example). 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?

FF6 is not untouchable by any means, which you seem to think people think it is...I think Suikoden and Valkyrie Profile have a much better set-up for a turn-based RPG and in some instances, top what FF6 does. However, staying within the realm of Final Fantasy, I feel FF6 is still the benchmark by a long shot and deserves to be the bar that needs to be cleared. 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).

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Saiken

It seems reasonable to assume that "memorability" is created by one's mind, based on a complex of personal impressions and perceptions.

Originally Posted by Saiken

And this is the subjective part I mentioned earlier.

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.

Originally Posted by Saiken

As to whether one actually likes the later games and their features, that is of course a matter of personal taste.

Originally Posted by Saiken's Initial Arguement

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.

Please stop your silly subjective/objective nonsense when your initial statement is basically an opinion of itself. You're just crying "WAH! Opinion! Opinion!" everytime someone explains what they like about something (or rather, why they think something was better than something else...There's a HUGE difference between the two you seem to be missing).

About the only thing you've said that can be considered objective (if somewhat inaccurately) is that the later FF's have more stuff in them compared to FFVI. From a dialogue standpoint, this is true...There is far more dialogue in the later FF's and they're far more like an interactive movie in plenty of spots. Objectively, that's fine and FFVI will never compete in terms of pure volume (although I don't recall an apocalypse happening in any later FF). Subjectively, they largely bore me, I find the characters saying the dialogue to be largely uninteresting (rendering their excess dialogue useless) and I found FFVI (and even IV) to have a much better balance of story:gameplay.

From a gameplay standpoint, it's false (or at least impossible to objectively prove). You're arguing that the later FF's have more to them...You can simply look at the amount of sidequests, characters and gameplay systems in FFVI VS them. 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. Objectively, I can say FFVI has a world map the characters can travel onfoot on, something X doesn't have...Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If you can't step into the realm of opinion, you're left being forced to argue that FFVI has something X doesn't have. Hell, FFVI has two entire world maps. Objectively, it dwarfs every other FF...Man, except for V and FFIV, which has three (count 'em: three) World Maps. Objectively, I've said twice already that characters in FFVII and FFVIII lack individual abilities while VI doesn't. It's an endless and ultimately useless cycle if no attempt at subjective analysis is made.

You're puzzled why people hold FFVI in such high esteem...Maybe your objective opinion is just wrong.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

And...these are your objective arguments for FFVI being surpassed? What a let-down...Subjectively, it's weak. Objectively, it left out a bunch of things that have been mentioned prior (pick and choose much?) and much of it is subjective anyway (read: opinion that isn't worth the webspace it claims to be objective about)

More party members=more options at one's disposal. At its' very core, 4 is more than 3. That's your main argument anyway (that more is better), now you don't want to caress it? In FFX's case, having 4-5 characters would have made far more sense than forcing players to continually swap to boost their party's EXP share. In the case of FFVII and FFVIII, you're basically forced to have either Cloud or Squall in your party, leaving only 2 other party choices. Objectively, your argument has failed.

Yes, it's obvious limit breaks differentiate characters (barely), but there's also the common factor that each character has a killer super-kill move to use in the same situation as everyone else (FFVII=charge the bar, FFVIII=low life), so everyone is still basically uniform. That's not an "individual ability". Any combination of characters in FF7 or FF8 will suffice with minimal difference, whereas (unless you go the all-Ultima, all-the-time route) you at least have to use care in putting together a decent FFVI team to get the abilities you want together. Having Umaro, Gau, Locke and Sabin is far different than...well, pick any combination of FFVII or FFVIII characters because they're all basically the same! So explain how FFVI has both individual abilities and it's own methods of extensive customization (espers, relics, far more equipment and yes, including party formation), yet is somehow "behind" the more recent FF's that have left this out.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Saiken

What "touch" did you mean?

Beat the game without getting Locke and watch the ending (compared to the ending with actually getting him). It's hard to miss the difference.

FELIPE NO