Sasukexbox
New member
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.
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.