My rating for Final Fantasy 1-6

Sasukexbox

New member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
14
Gil
51
Mako Points
0
Interms of old school Final Fantasy games. Played them all now including After Years. So here is my rating

FF1 is probably the worst aged one because the learning curve is awful in that one.

The best in the series of old FF games has to be FF2, FF3 and FF4 including After Years (though After Years is modernized more)
But the reason for that is, FF2 has fun gameplay mechanics unlike FF1 where it was go to point A to point B. While FF2 make the thrill of battle.
And FF3 and FF4 has game design on planning. This is mostly fleshed out in FF4, but FF3 kind of introduced it more with HP Vitality level up such as Black Belt, and overall choose random class jobs in best way you want to fight battles, only padded part is HP 9999 with Black Belt, but it relies on planning it out so its good game.

In FF4 for example, which is best example of this. When you have to deliver the earth crystal to "plot element" going on that ship means you get your ass kicked, so you need to grind here. So you can either beat up random enemies to get higher level to progress... or? You can use black chocobo, fly around and fight enemies that drops summons (In FF4 remake you can use bestiary to find that out). Or if you are on 2nd playthrough or 3rd playthrough you can fight Yellow Jelly enemy in the cave east of Edward`s Castle, 2nd room and east room. Thats where you find the enemy. It will drop rainbow pudding, or you can if you have the steam version switch from english to japanese on 2nd playthrough.

So thats why 2, 3 and 4 are the best of old games in series. FF2 is good interms of fun gameplay mechanics, and FF3 and FF4 is good because the game design relies on planning, which is not a thing i see in video games honestly. So good games. FF5 and FF6 however feels too much like visual novels for me, it has some tweaks on game design... but i overall couldnt care less about those games.

You could argue FF5 and FF6 laid the foundation of FF7-FF10. Both yes and no, the story visuals perhaps but 7-10 had a more stylistic design of gameplay. The story simply happend to be implemented in a sense. Either case, a story was way better told with real looking characters than 1 tile of block with artwork drawn in battle. Atleast in my view. So the weakest FF games for me is

1: FF6 (SPOILERS FOR STORY, it kind of ripped the main villain from FF5, Gilgamesh being the goofball and Exdeath wanting destruction and return to the world as it was)
2: FF5 (Ability system, something that kind of was added in later FF games, but the visual novel of it turns me off, think it worked better in FF7 and upwards where it laid it straight out)
3: FF1 (Just overall weakest learning curve, in FF4 you can throw float and such to walk over places... but FF1 kind of just is walk to point A to point B design, so not the most recommended one to start out with)

So i would play FF1 after FF2,FF3 and FF4, because FF1 simply has bad learning curves and seems like a game i would play last in general. And then you can just play FF5 and upwards from there.
 

Raspberry

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
72
Gil
221
Mako Points
0
so what criteria are you using? Are you playing the original format for these games or ROMhacks of the original? OR are you playing the most modern version of these games?

your reviews are also very vague:

What do you mean by FF1 having a "learning" curve? I think FF1 is very distinct from its predecessors in that when you level up by just 1 level, you feel the difference. If you play the earliest version of FF1, it is difficult to find the most optimal way of playing. But later versions of FF1 have been modernized and make it easier on the player. The best version I recommend is the PSP one.

I still recommend players to try FF1 first to get the general sense of challenge and strategy involved any features on FF2, FF3, or even FF4 will come under appreciated if you play those games first. FF1 (NES) required you to plan out attacks and make sure you don't just keep throwing the attacks in the same dead horse. And I find FF4 incredibly linear at times too. But other than that, I wouldn't say there's much of a learning curve.

I'm very very surprised you ranked FF2 so highly next to FF3 and FF4. I found the leveling system completely broken. How to level up HP, to weapon proficiency, down to the dialogue system. Even the story was really barebones. And there are definitely cool ideas that I wish were optimized and improved but never have. There should have never been HP proficiency based on attacks. FF2 is definitely one of the most grindiest FF I ever played. The game was a chore to complete. If you just want to beat the game and scrap by? sure. it's a passable game. But for completing it and maxing out all abilities? you'll be hating yourself.

FF3 is my absolute favorite out of the three. it has unique world progression and really cool secrets. The job system I loved. Having the Onion knight be your first job but secretly becoming the best one if you grind for the materials. I only wish that the onion knight equipment was just easier to obtain.

FF4 surprisingly never won me over as much, but I do think it deserves the praise it gets. I played the original on SNES and I found Kaine's bad guy/good guy routine was annoying. But the mechanics are good.
 

Sasukexbox

New member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
14
Gil
51
Mako Points
0
so what criteria are you using? Are you playing the original format for these games or ROMhacks of the original? OR are you playing the most modern version of these games?

your reviews are also very vague:

What do you mean by FF1 having a "learning" curve? I think FF1 is very distinct from its predecessors in that when you level up by just 1 level, you feel the difference. If you play the earliest version of FF1, it is difficult to find the most optimal way of playing. But later versions of FF1 have been modernized and make it easier on the player. The best version I recommend is the PSP one.

I still recommend players to try FF1 first to get the general sense of challenge and strategy involved any features on FF2, FF3, or even FF4 will come under appreciated if you play those games first. FF1 (NES) required you to plan out attacks and make sure you don't just keep throwing the attacks in the same dead horse. And I find FF4 incredibly linear at times too. But other than that, I wouldn't say there's much of a learning curve.

I'm very very surprised you ranked FF2 so highly next to FF3 and FF4. I found the leveling system completely broken. How to level up HP, to weapon proficiency, down to the dialogue system. Even the story was really barebones. And there are definitely cool ideas that I wish were optimized and improved but never have. There should have never been HP proficiency based on attacks. FF2 is definitely one of the most grindiest FF I ever played. The game was a chore to complete. If you just want to beat the game and scrap by? sure. it's a passable game. But for completing it and maxing out all abilities? you'll be hating yourself.

FF3 is my absolute favorite out of the three. it has unique world progression and really cool secrets. The job system I loved. Having the Onion knight be your first job but secretly becoming the best one if you grind for the materials. I only wish that the onion knight equipment was just easier to obtain.

FF4 surprisingly never won me over as much, but I do think it deserves the praise it gets. I played the original on SNES and I found Kaine's bad guy/good guy routine was annoying. But the mechanics are good.
Its the same games, there is no difference. FF1 and FF2 PS1, Steam FF3, Steam FF4, Steam FF5, Steam FF6, PS1 FF7-FF9 PS2 FF10.

FF1 has bad learning curves because you walk over lava and has no way of knowing other smart ways of avoiding it. So playing it first is insanely stupid. Its basically best to save it last once one have beaten FF2-FF4.
 

Dionysos

Βρεκεκεκὲξ κοὰξ κοάξ
Staff member
Administrator
Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
8,860
Location
Somewhere.
Gil
1,843
Mako Points
18
FFXIV
Polyphemos Bromios
FFXIV Server
Lamia
That’s an interesting take (being gameplay-focused rather than story-focused). From that angle, I can see some of your points.

You regard the visual novel style as a negative, instead preferring the gameplay of titles pre-FFV. It's times like this that I realise that I'm not a hardcore 'gamer' in that sense, because to me the story is more important than anything else (which is why FFV and FFVI are my personal favourites out of these early games - FFIV is great too). To me, gameplay mechanics are some of the last things I think about, and definitely not what I remember about these games.

It's funny how different people's experiences can be like that.

Those titles you rank more highly than FFs V and VI do deserve a lot of love. FFII in particular is vilified at times, but I do think it is a very interesting game which is often overlooked.
 

Raspberry

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
72
Gil
221
Mako Points
0
Its the same games, there is no difference. FF1 and FF2 PS1, Steam FF3, Steam FF4, Steam FF5, Steam FF6, PS1 FF7-FF9 PS2 FF10.

FF1 has bad learning curves because you walk over lava and has no way of knowing other smart ways of avoiding it. So playing it first is insanely stupid. Its basically best to save it last once one have beaten FF2-FF4.
believe it or not. it does matter which version you play because they all have key differences. For example, I recommend FF1 and 2 on PSP, while I recommend FF3 to play the NES version before ever trying the 3D. FF5 and 6 have a completely different feel in the ps1 then they do on the Steam versions. Many criticize those versions for their graphical upscale that removes their 8-bit charm.

FF3 on NES has just the same learning curve as FF1 and FF2. I would've agreed with your recommendation if Turn-based top-down 2D RPGs didn't exist, but they have long existed, and I think that the learning curve of these games (if they have one) is usually necessary to see the challenge and hidden strategy. If you're referring to Mount Gulg lava dungeon, then yes, it's challenging and I don't think anyone got it on their first try. But I don't think you're using "Learning curve" right. you have to strategize more in those moments.

i admit it's not my favorite part of the game.
 

Sasukexbox

New member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
14
Gil
51
Mako Points
0
believe it or not. it does matter which version you play because they all have key differences. For example, I recommend FF1 and 2 on PSP, while I recommend FF3 to play the NES version before ever trying the 3D. FF5 and 6 have a completely different feel in the ps1 then they do on the Steam versions. Many criticize those versions for their graphical upscale that removes their 8-bit charm.

FF3 on NES has just the same learning curve as FF1 and FF2. I would've agreed with your recommendation if Turn-based top-down 2D RPGs didn't exist, but they have long existed, and I think that the learning curve of these games (if they have one) is usually necessary to see the challenge and hidden strategy. If you're referring to Mount Gulg lava dungeon, then yes, it's challenging and I don't think anyone got it on their first try. But I don't think you're using "Learning curve" right. you have to strategize more in those moments.

i admit it's not my favorite part of the game.
I dont like how gigantic they look in PSP. But i like the UI layout in Phone version of FF1 and FF2, all it needs it fixing up spaces between clicking on stuff in overworld UI and its perfect.

But as for now. FF1 and FF2 on PS1 is the best, because its the original game but with better graphics. But overall still same games. I just prefer PS1 mainly
 
Top