Final Fantasy 1-3 is... pretty boring

Danru

Newbie
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
6
Age
34
Gil
0
I am not saying it because i played 5 min and gave up. I am saying it because i beat it... and thats it. Well except FF2 which i got to Jade's Passage before giving up, but FF2 was actually sort of good.

Basically, its just A to point B. Nothing interesting happens... i cannot stand it. Although maybe its better to sort of tell my lifetime story on how i beat it.

FF1 NES Wii... got 2nd orb lit up. gave up because i got bored of it.
FF3 Remake Steam version... gave up first time near crystal tower, retried and beat her.. then i actually beat this several times running, then one time walking, beat the final boss again
FF1 Origins PS1/PS2... normal mode (Auto attack + running dash) quit the first time when i got to Chaos shrine after defeating the 4 fiends.. retried and beat Chaos.
FF2 Origins PS1/PS2... normal mode (Auto attack + running dash) got to Jade's Passage, got that chest, red dragon pops up, i lose. And i just gave up, but i overall enjoyed that one. FF1 and FF3 i cant say much since its just incredibly boring.

I mean i can explain why i think FF2 is better, its simple. You get hit, HP goes up, you use weapons and magic, and it goes up. Basically it adds a thrill that the actions you do, so that was more fun to me.

I mean i literally got more fat and slightly obese just for playing these 3 games. Thats how much life they sucked out of me.

Now some will say well its the 80s, they had limitations they couldnt do much better.

I have one answer to that "PHANTASY STAR 1". Came out two days after the first FF1 release. Much better. You know what happens when i go out in overworld and fight monsters in that one? It gives me hope. What does FF1 do for me? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Some say FF1 is like people saying you get the purest turn based RPG from... but wouldnt that be Wizardry? The game that sort of inspired Enix and Square to make these games?
 
Sorry mate, that's just how RPGs were back then. Go to town, learn about a threat and dungeon, solve it, rinse, repeat.

Phantasy Star was the same with the odd bit of change but the dungeons in those games are awful and over-complicated so they are much worse than FF imo. Either way, it's all subjective.

Anyways, if you don't like those games, there are a million more RPGs out now. Move on and pick something you prefer :p.
 
Yeah, I've gotta agree with greeny here. I personally don't really like FF1-3 either. But I'm not going to pretend that every other J-RPG from that time (including Phantasy Star) doesn't have extremely similar issues. There were just a ton of technical limitations that held them back, and every remake since has had to adhere to that to some degree in order to do justice to said original.
 
Thats a poor excuse for trying to justify an old game, same with Zelda 1, its not that good, but that one i beat 3 times to be sure though. And yes, Phantasy Star 1 is a more enjoyable game to be much older than FF1. FF1 is just god awfully boring, and is very static like non stop hours of gameplay. There really is nothing going on in it that makes me go YEAH. It adds nothing fun to the illusion of time i use to play it. You take games like Elder Scrolls, there is always something in them that makes it cool. Not final fantasy, walk point a to point b with no actual cool or fun stuff happening.

Like this music here.. thats hope. Though it went slower on my wii... Europe here so

Final Fantasy is depressing. Except FF2... that one is sort of actually good.
 
Wasn't going to say it, but dude, this is definitely nostalgia and subjectivity talking. It's totally cool if you prefer games like Phantasy Star; more power to you. But arguing that a game is 'boring' doesn't really mean much to anyone but you. What you find boring, I might not; and the opposite is equally as true. For example, as much as I used to like Elder Scrolls, I have grown absolutely tired of how broken the games are, and how tedious the quest design is. I find Elder Scrolls very boring, and not at all 'cool' a lot of the time.

For me personally, the debate over whether a game should be judged by today's standards, or those it was released in is moot. In reality, we can do both. By today's standards you are 100% correct that Final Fantasy 1-3 aren't exactly that fantastic. Nobody questioned that. But if you look at them in the context of games at the time, they were doing a ton that was new, innovative, and fresh, despite the enormous limitations. Final Fantasy pioneered the side-to-side visual perspective. It was one of the first RPGs to have animated battle sprites. It streamlined how the player interacts with the world by doing things like placing all 'interaction' commands on a single button. It did a ton for the genre, and the other games continued to do so as well. You like the way Elder Scrolls does character growth? You can thank Final Fantasy II for that. These games have major problems (FFII is completely and utterly broken because of the way they did the leveling system). But that doesn't take away from what they gave players at the time.

And again, that's despite limitations most people couldn't even imagine... limitations that weren't exactly the same as you would find on the Master System with Phantasy Star, because the Master System was more powerful than the NES. Even just text was a huge problem, because developers had to content with a hard character limit for each frame of gameplay, very serious cartridge space limitations, and text that had to be rather huge in order to be readable. This sounds like a tiny thing, but it completely changed how stories could be told, and what those stories could be. And that's just one limitation people don't ever think about. Honestly, we should be astonished that these games existed at all.

Regardless, hopefully your opinion on Final Fantasy as a whole isn't based entirely on just those three games. That would be rather silly, but more importantly, you'd be doing yourself a huge disservice :)
 
Well considering Final Fantasy 1 was also on MSX. Seems they just were lazy. But not really, FF1,FF2 and FF3 just are bad to me because they are frankly uninteresting games.. except FF2.. that one was good... but FF1 and FF3 sort of kills that little joy i had of it : 3, since they are sort of together on it. FF4,FF5 and FF6 has more in common with FF7 to FF10. Due to active time battles, just easy for the sake of the story, and less expensive items. So thats when it became standardized.

But like its not hardware issue, its game issues. If you fail to delieve a fun game, then thats their problem. Blaming it on hardware is like NES elitist edgelords say that one only care about graphics.. i like Phantasy Star 1 simply because it draws me into it by making it interesting.

Though i am not huge fan of NES entirely because like there are many anti anything outside NES because apparently if you play PS1 you only care about the graphics according to them : 3
 
So you don't like a console... because some of its fans can act like children... Alrighty then.

FF1 being on another platform doesn't mean much if the NES was a priority. Like I said earlier, all ports are going to, to some extent, be based off of the original and its limitations.

You just don't get it. I'm not arguing that hardware limitations make the problems these games have completely okay. But I'm explaining why that wasn't an issue back then; because these were super common problems. And again, I'm not going to argue about what is 'fun' or 'boring'. That's purely subjective, so there's no point. There is no such thing as 'failing to deliver a fun game', because what is 'fun' is different for everyone. You can fail to deliver a functional game. But by the standards set out during that time period, those early FF games worked more or less as intended.
 
Back
Top