|
Post by Ex on Jul 26, 2020 2:17:24 GMT -5
I really enjoyed Final Fantasy Tactics when I beat it back in 2014. Yes you read that correctly, it was not until 2014 before I finally played through FFT. I beat the PS1 version of FFT, except it had the PSP version's newer translation back-ported into it. There are reasons why I did that, but I don't want to digress. Just know that I personally give the original FFT a 9/10 easy. Loved it. But enough about the original FFT, because I want to talk about these games:
Since I really enjoyed FFT, of course I'd like to play its sequels. But there are a few things I've heard about these sequels that stave me off yet. For those who've played these games, please tell me if these things are true:
1. Unlike FFT which had a serious and mature plot for grown ups, these two sequels targeted children as their demographic, and thus have childish plots and cloying characters.
2. The "Judgement" system ruins the game design and shackles the player's ability to fully exploit their tactical might.
3. These sequels are twice as long as they should be, because of bloated mission counts, where half the missions just feel like they are there for longevity's sake, doing nothing to advance the narrative.
Again, I'm not saying these three things are true. I'm asking if they are true. Because I've read these accusations said quite a few times over the years. So for folks who've played all these games, what do you think? Are these accusations accurate? Are these sequels as good as, worse than, or better than, the original FFT?
For those of you who have never bothered to play the FFT games, why is that?
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jul 26, 2020 5:07:48 GMT -5
1. True. The beginning of FFTA is a "snow ball fight" tutorial.
2. True. Absolutely hated this gimmick. Now granted, SRPG's aren't my favorite genre that I hit up a lot. Maybe hardcore fans of it would appreciate the severe constrictions this one throws at you, forcing you to be more creative. But those limitations just pissed me off.
3. Who knows, I dropped FFTA fast with no remorse.
Now maybe I'm an outlier, because I like the Tactics Ogre games a lot more than FFT. If someone LOVES FFT, maybe there's a better chance they can appreciate FFTA despite its big differences between Matsuno's original one.
I can't think of a single time in almost two decades of being online where I've seen someone say they like FFTA more than FFT. Chances are there's probably a lot of better SRPG's in general to play over FFTA. I've never once heard anything about its plot either.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jul 27, 2020 13:23:15 GMT -5
The beginning of FFTA is a "snow ball fight" tutorial. Ugh, that's a good example of what I was afraid of. This is why I think the "Judgement" system was put into place. In theory it sounds like a good idea. In practice, I don't know. Suddenly not being able to use healing items or some such would be contrived and annoying. Well I've only beaten the first FFT, and the PSP version of TO. Of those two, I preferred FFT by a mile. But that isn't to say TO isn't a good game, or isn't deserving of deep respect given its lineage. - Based on the lack of replies to this thread, I'm gonna assume most folks don't care about FFTA or FFTA2. Probably for fair reasons. I still might check out FFTA2 on DS at some point, for the production values if nothing else. As I understand it, FFTA2 has a standalone plot, so you needn't have played FFTA first anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jul 27, 2020 14:09:10 GMT -5
I felt bad for being the only negative nancy reply, but yeah haha. What can you say... these FFTA's might just be for those who purely love the gamplay of FFT above everything else about it. Hard to tell. I always forget an FFTA2 even exists.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 27, 2020 15:06:46 GMT -5
Whoops, I saw when you created this and then forgot to drop in a thought or two. Y'all know I'm not a huge SRPG guy, even though at times I want to be. I've actually got a lot of time into FFTA. The gameplay nuts and bolts are just fine, but yes, the narrative itself being as childish as it is definitely saps one of the bigger appeals of FFT. The judge system is kinda dumb, but you can also use it to your advantage if you're up against an enemy that's otherwise spanking you. As for A2, I can't speak much to it other than I've played it, I finally snagged a copy, and can verify that it is indeed a Final Fantasy Tactics game.
|
|
|
Post by EasyHard on Aug 13, 2020 22:27:29 GMT -5
Ex : I've only played FFTA, and my memory is pretty old but: 1. I think you've got your answer already, although as for how childish it is you would have to look at a video to really see. The game has younger protagonists and none of the politics/nations of FFT. There is some seriousness given to the situation they find themselves in (transported into another world) and Marche has a rather mature desire to bring everyone back. 2. I recall that while the laws are the most glaring flaw of the game, it doesn't ruin the experience. I THINK you can very easy circumvent any and all annoying laws by "re-rolling" the current law while you are still on the map screen. I forget exactly what you do, it might be as simple as walking around the map screen until the Laws are workable. There are also anti-Law cards at some point in the game, although you often just use these in lieu of wasting time to re-roll laws. The game is very exploitable in general, and the Laws aren't going to stop you from feeling quite powerful or even designing your team in any wacky way you see fit. 3. The game could be edited down for sure. The first time I played it I didn't mind so much because I was deeply into the job system and I probably was more tolerant of time sinks in general. Probably 100-200 hours in my first playthrough -- being very completionist! I recall trying to replay it not long after that playthrough (designing a whole new team, and using classes I didn't use) and being tired by the game length. I don't recall if I finished it. You really don't need to do all the side missions though, that's just a crazy possibility for people who are hopelessly enthralled. The main missions are far less numerous, so even if you do plenty of side missions the game time is far lower. A guide would probably be helpful here to navigate this. In general it is not a game I think I am going to revisit, which is somewhat of a shame. Building your classes and distributing equipment is the fun draw here, plus I think the game looks really nice. You didn't ask this, but the game is easy once you know the tricks and broken abilities. I feel I've gotten enough out it by doing it once, and I'm not going to enjoy it as much with my current sensibilities anyway. I'm not sure if I would recommend it or warn against it. What's there should be better and you aren't going to respect the systems for being the way they are. But back in the day I think the formula hooked a lot of people who certainly weren't making excuses for the game's disappointments. I skipped FFTA2 partly because I wasn't so hot on FFTA anymore and partly due to having more opinionated preferences by that time which resulting in avoiding SRPGs and strategy games in most instances. The highest point of SRPGs for me was the GBA, where I played FFTA, Fire Emblem, and Yggdra Union. But around this time I really became consciously aware of how long strategy games take to play per unit of "fun" they deliver. Even a short SRPG takes like an hour per battlefield. I also dislike RPG systems based around learning skills from obsolete equipment.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Aug 14, 2020 10:21:42 GMT -5
Thank you for your thoughtful and in-depth reply to this thread EasyHard . The game has younger protagonists and none of the politics/nations of FFT. This is the most disappointing aspect to me. Half of the fun of the original FFT, was due to its mature-oriented and complex plot. I can only assume when FFT was brought to GBA, the developers assumed the GBA had a much younger demographic than the PS1 had. I appreciate you telling me how Laws can be circumvented or anti-blocked. Not a single person I've read gripe about Laws online, ever mentioned that aspect. Regardless, the Law system makes sense from an outsider perspective. It's not unusual in SRPGs, for someone to develop a highly effective single strategy that carries their party through the game. The only time this is circumvented, is when the game design alters a mission to the point that particular strategy is no longer viable. So the Law system sounds intriguing to me, because it forces the player to continuously develop different approaches to win. However, in practice the Law system may not be so elegant, I don't know. Suddenly not being able to use melee weapons at all for instance, would be a bit much. (I don't know if that's ever a Law.) Plus if the AI is allowed to break the Law, but the player isn't, well... that's horseshit in a hurry. I understand a lot of players really love the job systems in the FFT games. And as a result, they end up grinding and evolving all kinds of jobs for their party members. Well, the collect 'em all job aspect has never interested me. I only put 29 hours into the original FFT to beat it, which is ten hours less than HLTB's standard of 39 hours. I think that's a result of basically ignoring the job system, and simply exploiting whatever jobs were presently available to beat missions instead. The reason I'm bringing that point up, is FFTA's HLTB average is 48 hours, and I wonder if ignoring job system grinding would make it closer to 38 hours. I don't doubt that. Many SRPGs become fairly easy, once you figure out their particular exploits. (By the way, if anybody reading this is ever looking for a challenging SRPG, give this one a go.) I am not knocking your personal preferences towards SRPGs, I respect your opinion on this genre. But as a counter-point, I'd like to say a few things. Not all SRPGs are insufferably long! It just depends on what you play. Sure some SRPGs are designed from the ground up to be grind-addled slogfests that devour your life. But there's plenty of SRPGs that are more respectful of one's free time. As a personal example, here are my HLTB times for SRPGs I beat in recent years: Head Buster (GG) = 2 hours Luminous Arc (DS) = 23 hours Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (GC) = 24 hours Deception III: Dark Delusion (PS1) = 9 hours Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together (PSP) = 44 hours Arc the Lad (PS1) = 10 hours Front Mission 5: Scars of the War (PS2) = 33 hours Front Mission 4 (PS2) = 52 hours Final Fantasy Tactics (PS2) = 29 hours Valkyria Chronicles II (PSP) = 46 hours Valkyria Chroincles (PS3) = 30 hours Shining Force (Genesis) = 22 hours Front Mission (DS) = 38 hours (I did both campaigns) All of those were beaten without using strategy guides. I've beaten more SRPGs than that in recent years, but those were the ones I remembered off hand. The most time I've ever put into an SRPG was 65 hours, when I beat Fallout Tactics back in 2002. So my point here is, SRPGs don't have to be 100+ hour affairs, with hour+ long battles every time. Though if one enjoys the base mechanics of a given SRPG's gameplay, those long missions aren't annoying anyway. Just wanted to add my side to that subject.
|
|
|
Post by EasyHard on Aug 14, 2020 17:51:48 GMT -5
The more I think back to FFTA, the more I think I wouldn't recommend it. It's either going to be unenjoyable or only marginally enjoyable. Regarding the laws & mixing things up: even though the laws will introduce *some* tactical variation and *some* problem solving, it really doesn't come together to improve the game much. Most laws add friction 90% of the time without making things fun or interesting. (A few laws are just completely dumb that might as well be "don't fight or attack each other, just go home". You'd re-roll those)
One neat thing is that you can use laws to your advantage a little bit, such as getting enemy units to run afoul of the law and receiving a penalty card for it. You can even use law card items to introduce laws that hamper the enemy team but -- due to your party selection -- don't impose any burden on your own.
But, like I said, the laws are still a net negative. Something that is hard to appreciate until you play is how the player is bearing an asymmetrical burden of effort here. It is the player who has to spend time re-rolling laws, choosing law-appropriate team members, and -- during battle -- re-checking the menus to see what laws are in effect and re-remembering the specific boundaries of the laws. And even if the mental work was zero, the player still has to feel the sting of noticing how much longer a battle is taking because of the current set of restrictions.
Like, a law might be "don't use the defend ability". Or "don't use the jump ability". Is it really that interesting to have no onscreen indication that you can't use these random abilities that maybe only 1 party member can use? Or the law might be "don't use broadswords". Well, duh in practice you are just going to avoid bringing characters with broadswords. Or else if they are present you can only use special abilities that don't involve their weapon, and you feel lucky if you can get any use out of that character. An example of the few really dumb laws might be "don't use the fight command". Yeah, I mean it *can be* an entirely workable restriction once every party member has at least one damage dealing special attack or spell, but that's such a killjoy law. The mirror image of this law is "don't use skills/techniques". It's hard to respect the designers with laws like that, especially once you construct a "mental blacklist" of laws you don't want to ever deal with.
The silliest law that can potentially bite you is the "don't deal damage to monsters" law. Aside from 1 or 2 corner cases in the mechanics that let you deal damage without penalty, this basically means you can't fight any monsters on the field. In normal missions, the boss and most enemies would be human so you would only be ignoring a random enemy or two, but in a "monster patrol" mission, you'd be completely screwed.
Not all SRPGs are insufferably long! It just depends on what you play. Sure some SRPGs are designed from the ground up to be grind-addled slogfests that devour your life. But there's plenty of SRPGs that are more respectful of one's free time. As a personal example, here are my HLTB times for SRPGs I beat in recent years: Head Buster (GG) = 2 hours Luminous Arc (DS) = 23 hours Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (GC) = 24 hours Deception III: Dark Delusion (PS1) = 9 hours Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together (PSP) = 44 hours Arc the Lad (PS1) = 10 hours Front Mission 5: Scars of the War (PS2) = 33 hours Front Mission 4 (PS2) = 52 hours Final Fantasy Tactics (PS2) = 29 hours Valkyria Chronicles II (PSP) = 46 hours Valkyria Chroincles (PS3) = 30 hours Shining Force (Genesis) = 22 hours Front Mission (DS) = 38 hours (I did both campaigns) All of those were beaten without using strategy guides. I've beaten more SRPGs than that in recent years, but those were the ones I remembered off hand. The most time I've ever put into an SRPG was 65 hours, when I beat Fallout Tactics back in 2002. So my point here is, SRPGs don't have to be 100+ hour affairs, with hour+ long battles every time. Though if one enjoys the base mechanics of a given SRPG's gameplay, those long missions aren't annoying anyway. Just wanted to add my side to that subject. Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm a big fan of Shining Force and I replay it endlessly. In the back of my mind Arc the Lad is one I want to try at some point, and there's a couple Fire Emblem games from the 2000's era that I bought but never started (Sacred Stones and Radiant Dawn). The thing about SRPGs is that I have started to become very selective once I started noticing my preferences. It isn't so much whether the game is very long or has an emphasis on grinding, it's that the whole genre tends to take a long time just for both sides to move all their units and for enough rounds of combat to pass in order for the first couple units to die. So if I'm going to play one it really helps if it is speaking to me for other reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Aug 14, 2020 21:40:14 GMT -5
the laws are still a net negative I believe so after you so adequately explained the system. I appreciate you describing it in such detail. I may very well play FFTA someday, but I'm in no hurry. There are many other SRPGs that seem more ideal in comparison. I think it's a shame that Square devolved FFT so much for the handhelds, well until the PSP port anyway. I guess Matsuno really was the secret sauce. Well, I didn't necessarily intend for that list to be suggestions, but in that vein... these are the top 5 SRPGs I recommend most strongly: I've only beaten the first entry, but it was pleasant enough. Sarge and Xeogred both swear Arc 2 is fantastic though. That does get tedious. With the Front Mission games, you can turn off battle animations and speed up unit movement, some of the Fire Emblem games let you do that too.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 14, 2020 21:43:36 GMT -5
Yes indeed. If you love Shining Force, you owe it to yourself to try out Arc the Lad, particularly the second game. (I'd probably start with the first, just to get some story background. It's a really short, breezy experience.) Also, toei and I are fans of Arc the Lad: Twilight of the Spirits as well. Definitely worth a play, at least based on my memories of it from all those years ago. For another SF-like, there's FEDA: Emblem of Justice on SNES. I really need to pick that back up at some point.
|
|