Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
It's also worth noting, however, that the dungeon design in FFII is often cruel, being more labyrinth-like and filled with far more dead ends than probably any other game in the series. I know people complain about the Key Terms system, as well, but it's honestly fine, if rather rudimentary.
FFII was an incredibly, absurdly ambitious game for its time, and unfortunately the era did not have either the technology nor the developer expertise to make its aspirations work as well as would have been desired. The remakes starting with the GBA version onward have vastly improved the player experience by ironing out a lot of the roughest edges, but the game is still a bit rough, due to the artifacts of its age. it is by no means a bad game, but it's definitely one with systems that are quite polarizing. Often you either love FFII for its use-to-improve system, or hate if for the exact same reason.
While I do like Final Fantasy II, it is certainly not the best and I wouldn't recommend that people new to the franchise start with this one as their first Final Fantasy due to the complexity and imbalance of the growth system.
Having said all that, you can turn the tables on this and find the the system can be exploited far more than an EXP based growth system.
You can get end game stats before you are even 5% the way through the story with a bit of cunning and know-how.
If you have never played it I recommend trying it in a sale.
FF2 is a lot like 8, 10, 13. Bashed relentlessly by the fans for being to different. I'm sorry but I can't attach myself to one game like 7 or 6 and act like everything else is trash its just not in my nature. That's why I love 2 so much I heard the critiques the bashing was one reason I checked it out. And the thing is if you compare 2 to all other NES rpgs, its actually one of the absolute best. I liked it far more than FF1/3 but those are still great games.
Even at the time it was criticized by fans so its not like this is a new thing. It's open ended, has more story dialogues than most nes rpgs, you can make warriors whatever kinda class and skills you want.. Its a great game and... If people don't like it that's their opinion but... I wish people wouldn't try to discourage new players telling them it sucks. It really doesn't. Its a masterpiece of its time and it all comes down to preference. Is everything suppose to be materia, straight level ups, or skill trees like most western rpgs? Why not try something different? Why not embrace differences in games if it was only one kind of system this genre would already be dead and niche but its really not. All games are ripping off stat growth and rpgs systems. GTA ripped off this very system in san andreas and everyone loved that game. Whats the difference? Other than petty crimes and extortion vs justice and fighting oppression?
Huge FF2 fan hell it needs a next gen remake. FF1 is a good game as well but imo nowhere near as good as 2. 2 was a huge improvement in everyway. And 3 went backwards, I like 3 for the summons, moogles and chocobos, and its a fun game, but its short and easy. Least 2 gave you tons of things to do and delve into its possibly the most replayable NES game of its time.
So everyone is entitled their opinion and can bash it freely and will, they will bash 8 and 13 as well. But I'm sticking up for FF2 its the best one of the NES FF's.
Each FF including 7 and 6 had some negatives. 6 constantly snatches prized items from you just for the sake of being cryptic, and FF7 throws irritating real time mini games at you, plus a terrible glacier section that lasted way to long.
The ones that people popularly bash, like 8, 13 and 2 I liked a lot. But I also really like 7 and 6. I liked all the numericals, except mystic crap. But nobody seems to ever bash a legit bad game, just bash the good FF's for preference sake.
How does anything I say deserve that level of insult? Arrogant? I just wanna make it clear for whoever is modding this forum I have not insulted anyone personally for their opinions. Don't look at me I'm just posting opinions on FF games I purchase I don't know why he's calling me arrogant I don't even know this user. All I said was telling people a game sucks discourages new players. I highly recommend this game to new FF fans its a fantastic game and a piece of classic gaming history.
As a new player myself, I don't see anyone discouraging any new players here. All I see here are people describing the game as it is and voicing their honest opinions about FF2; except you who are more fixated on discrediting other people's opinions simply because it's not in line with yours. Nice try pulling the victim card to distract from your uncalled arrogance and condescending behaviour toward others.
Why not embrace differences in opinions by being cordial about it? I guess it's just not in your nature, hmm?
Insofar as Final Fantasy II, by itself, is concerned.. as others have stated the extremely tedious and monotonous stat growth system makes the game very boring and needlessly drawn out. Thank gods we don't have to worry about stats degrading like the NES version, or you'd really have seen people give bad reviews.
On a similar note, the method of gaining "clues" and "keywords" from conversations felt like a pointless addition to the game.
I actually did like MQ at first, I found the first couple of areas kind of interesting and I did think adding jump and slight top down platform mechanics to be a bit different.
It was the combat and the levels I found a little monotonous. Having 2 people, attack, and a few magic spells made the combat get very boring, very fast. Coupled with the bleh enemy design and... I can't see how people are saying FF2 is tedious the dungeon segments are short and battles are fun compared to how MQ was. FF1 is slightly more tedious as well. I love FF1 and been through it more times than 2 actually, but that first poison den and many of the other dungeons after those enemies attack you every 3 or 4 steps. 3 is kind of the opposite of both, very brief and short.
I'm not trying to make any claims that 2 is superior to FF4-6, but when we compare 2 to MQ or even other NES rpgs its actually, least imo a masterpiece. MQ I couldn't finish it I gave up around the volcano area cause it wasn't hard just terribly boring. It's one of the only FF's I couldn't finish out of lack of interest. And the idea of it being a learning rpg, I'd rather give a kid pokemon, zelda, or final fantasy 4 than bore the hell out of them with MQ.
The only descriptive things in your 3 long winded essays are only these:
And these didn't explain anything nor are these anything special either.
Please enlighten this new player. ;)
Uh... Ok.
Yea I'm gonna disagree and not like its anything but opinions anyway.
FF4 has an amazing cast and story with any translation and really MQ got better, sure didn't look like it to me guess I had to trudge through more drudgery to find out. Funny no other FF game did that to me and I've beat everyone besides 15 and the online ones. Even beat crisis core which imo is utter garbage compared to every other FF besides MQ. Only reason I beat CC was cause of the story.
FF3 is a game I'd give to a kid, its probably my least favorite numerical but that's not even saying its bad. FF3 is a fantastic game but it just doesn't offer as much. You beat it and move on and the story and characters were't engaging enough to come back to. All I remember was some kids stuck in a hole and then job types, and goldar. Not a very memorable game story wise but it had great gameplay for its time. When it comes to all these opinions, really all they are is our own personal opinion. Popularity or group circles isn't gonna convince someone games they played and love are inferior to others.
MQ is a basic game that bored the hell out of me and I only played it cause of the rest of the series. Sorry that wasn't a game I owned on SNES when I was young and have nostalgia for it probably would not of been a good impression if that was the first rpg I ever played. I owned it on SNES later on in my adult years, ordered it for 5$ online. Thought it was garbage and would rather play zelda lttp again. Sold it to a gamestore for maybe 3$ cause I wanted something else cause I wasn't gonna beat MQ that games dreadful. To this day I don't get how people online say any one of these numericals is the worst FF ever, then line it up against the wall, while purposely ignoring such a shoddy game.
I said FF2 was the best NES rpg and as far as I've played imo it is. Oh btw phreya you don't seem to own FF2 on steam.. So why did you come to a forum like this? Out of interest in FF2? So why not buy it? Ya know like the customers who are fans of FF2 and come here because of the game they purchased maybe?
Its a classic revolutionary rpg and I think you would enjoy it, you should definitely buy it. Anyway this is a fun discussion and I'm glad people are still talking about FF2 its the one oldschool FF I was hoping would get attention and a new remaster and I gladly paid full price for it. The asking price is more than reasonable for this game its a gaming classic.
And so do OP and the second commenter. Your point being?
Did you miss the part where I literally said I'm a new player? Why are you deflecting my question?
And why is FF2 the best nes rpg? Well I have not beat Faxandu yet but that could be better I've heard a lot of good things about it.
As far as what I've played, FF2 is the best simply cause it has a fleshed out story with characters and dialogues, FF1's narration is pretty simple and traditional, FF1 was more about level ups and reproducing an automatic dungeons and dragons system. FF2 was when square wanted to delve into storylines and a more complex stat driven system.
In real life repetition can build skills, practiced archery can hone accuracy, multiple puships and exercise can gain strength, the idea of FF2 is natural and almost realistic when you consider it in terms of real life. No beating up your friends in front of an enemy is not realistic but that's exploiting the system which the game gives you the freedom to do. When you compare FF2 to most NES rpgs, or games in general of the time... There was a lot more replay going on.
I replayed FF2 a few different times because I was interested in the system. And the most fun parts of the game imo are initial, so much so that I barely remember the emperor encounter at the end. Other than it was epic, he looked cool as hell, and he had many different attacks and a great end theme. Much like newer FF's actually. Very bright, very vibrant, and very over the top. Compared to chaos in FF1 who is just ok, and the dark cloud mist thing which was a majorly disappointing end boss in 3, emperor beats them both as a cool enemy.
Compared to FF1/3 and even ganon in zelda 1 who was a very uneventful boss, emperor owns. He's actually far more of a compelling and logical villain thank joker, er kefka a very stock and typical villain. In fact the emperors last battle is one reason why I wanted this game so much. And I wish they would add harder difficulties to the game cause it is a system that can be to easily broken I do get that criticism. But that's all FF's FF6 doesn't have challenging enemies, literally everything can be killed in one turn.
That's just my opinion I didn't find dragon quest that interesting on NES, or fire emblem. So what does that leave? The FF games, and zelda, and very few others. Y's was a good one on NES but that's the 3rd Y's and its more like zelda 2 and faxandu than the pc Y's which I own on steam. Maybe if Y's 1 and 2 were on NES I might take my claim that FF2 is the best on NES back. But this is only based on the NES rpgs I've played its not like I've beat every NES rpg. That's just my opinion based on what I've played that FF2 was the one I had the most fun with and I don't see it as this bad game that people keep insisting it is.
Fleshed out story, hmm. Alright. Though it remains to be seen.
What? This doesn't make any sense.
So all of this is basically saying that FF2 last boss is cool.... mmm alright.
What exactly are these initial fun parts?
What does you finding certain random games not appealing and some other random games interesting have to do with the upsides of FF2 as a game in itself?
Well, that just loads of talks, but very low on content for the 4th time. So from what I've gathered, FF2 has fleshed out story and cool last boss... err pretty anticlimactic for a game claimed to be the absolute best, greatest, fantastic, masterpiece, and a piece of gaming history. Also those still can't top the downsides of FF2 regarding the growth system, dungeon design, bugs, and the missing PSP content the others have mentioned before.
Or is there something else I'm missing? If so please elaborate without rambling about you, yourself, random games, nonsensical analogy, etc; but FF2 as a game in itself.