Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

IGN - 3 Best FF games (and one to avoid - take a guess)Follow

#52 Jan 31 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
40 posts
It's hard not to agree with the games listed - XIV, even if it does turn things around in coming months and with the version update, is at this time, probably the bottom of the barrel of FF games.

VI is probably my favorite FF game, though I think it would definitely fall below a few if not for the score. As popular as the music from VI is, I think it's still underrated - it was really the one in which Uematsu really nailed the use of leitmotif. Earlier and later games always had specific themes for characters, but never reached that same level of integration or characterization. The music really elevated the characters, several of whom could be classified as stock archetypes.

____________________________
--
Dan Szymborski
VALEFOR - Aurelian
#53 Feb 04 2012 at 3:02 AM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
892 posts
Oh, it's this thread again! Who'm I kidding? I can never resist these.
mereshell wrote:
saw this article a few days ago. it's all subjective. i feel like most people's favourite FF is usually their first.

I must be in the minority of people who played the original FF first. Personally, IV is my favorite but I still rank VI as the best overall. Like others said, there are no big faults, it's got a lot of depth, great characters, and everything is polished. IV is my favorite for the story and characters, but VI is just better.

As for that list, VII being anywhere in the top 3 is ENTIRELY subjective. Sorry people, but just because it was your first FF doesn't mean it was one of the best. The Materia system wasn't that great, and by endgame the battle system boiled down to mostly Summons. The story was all over the place, and the main character and main villain were among the most hollow in the series. It's still easily better than VIII, though. If an important part of your FF experience is mini-games, though, VII is pretty high up there. But I'm sure most would agree that VIII's Triple Triad takes the cake for best mini-game.

IX really deserves a spot in the top three for being a great representative of the series overall. Lots of interesting characters, a fantasy setting (don't see that much in a Final FANTASY game nowadays), great story for the most part, and a great battle and character system that was built upon all the fundamentals from the old games. Plus, it's the only game in the series since VI to really "feel" like an FF game. I think that's the same reason so many that started with VII tend to not like IX; a lot of the old-school throw-backs were lost on them.

And actually, X-2 is the only FF I've played since IX that "felt" like an FF game in the battle system department, bringing with it a job system. For that reason it's incredibly underrated. I really didn't mind the story, and ended up playing to 100% to get the "complete" ending.
____________________________
I did not bring teh gil.
#54 Feb 04 2012 at 5:07 AM Rating: Decent
**
542 posts
Gatero wrote:
As for that list, VII being anywhere in the top 3 is ENTIRELY subjective.


Posts such as yours only go to show how truly subjective anything being anywhere truly is. To criticize FFVII for having a "hollow" antagonist while at the same time saying that FFVI has no faults is as ironic as it gets.

Not to mention in your paragraphs of IX and X-2, you seem incredibly partial to the classic FF style, using it as reasons those games are (in your opinion) better than they're made out to be. Using one style over another can be preferred, especially if it's a throwback to something you previously enjoyed, but it doesn't necessarily make that style inherently better than another.

Edited, Feb 4th 2012 6:39am by Susanoh
#55 Feb 04 2012 at 11:35 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
Sephiroth and cloud are very shallow characters, that lack the depth of other far more impressive characters in older ******** kefka could have been anything, but hallow was not one of them <.<

Kefka is 100 times the villain sephiroth will never be, and yet he will always fall short of being a badass like prince luca was in suikoden II :(
____________________________
MUTED
#56 Feb 04 2012 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
334 posts
To quote the terminology that the kids in my classroom use nowadays... Kefka was a boss!
____________________________
BlueLand wrote:
You can always take a screen shot of the 1017 error and set it to your desktop background, its like playing FFXIV from work
#57 Feb 04 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
575 posts
Kefka was great, but I am glad FFVI exists as a sprite-based game. Final Fantasy has lost a lot of its original appeal with me in these days of realistic looking graphics. I mean, Kefka is a clown - literally. It would seem weird and out of place with realistic looking glasses. But as a sprite-based villain he was just the right amount of both strange and evil.
#58 Feb 05 2012 at 12:02 AM Rating: Decent
**
542 posts
Ostia wrote:
Sephiroth and cloud are very shallow characters, that lack the depth of other far more impressive characters in older ******** kefka could have been anything, but hallow was not one of them <.<

Kefka is 100 times the villain sephiroth will never be, and yet he will always fall short of being a badass like prince luca was in suikoden II :(


I read posts like this sometimes and wonder if people even played the games.

I understand that there are people who adore Kefka. He has a lot of funny one liners and he does some crazy evil stuff. What I don't understand is where anyone gets the idea that he is a shining example of character depth. Kefka has no back story. He's silly and evil. Why? Nobody knows. He just is. Does anything happen during the story that influences Kefka's outlook on anything? Not that I can remember. He is the same silly and evil clown at the end of the game as he was at the beginning of the game, basically the definition of a static character, or one who experiences little or no character growth during the course of the story. Granted, his one liners can be entertaining, and destroying the world is a pretty cool feat. However, jokes and feats do not explain why Kefka is the way he is, or where his motives come from other than that maybe he's just a nut case for no reason, or no reason that is explained during the story anyway.

I am not saying that Kefka is a bad villain, and I'm not saying that enjoying his presence is at all a bad thing. But I think some people get so swept up on him that they try to make him out to be more than he is. Kefka has some good things going for him, but depth of character is not one of them.

Edited, Feb 5th 2012 1:04am by Susanoh
#59 Feb 05 2012 at 12:21 AM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
Susanoh wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Sephiroth and cloud are very shallow characters, that lack the depth of other far more impressive characters in older ******** kefka could have been anything, but hallow was not one of them <.<

Kefka is 100 times the villain sephiroth will never be, and yet he will always fall short of being a badass like prince luca was in suikoden II :(


I read posts like this sometimes and wonder if people even played the games.

I understand that there are people who adore Kefka. He has a lot of funny one liners and he does some crazy evil stuff. What I don't understand is where anyone gets the idea that he is a shining example of character depth. Kefka has no back story. He's silly and evil. Why? Nobody knows. He just is. Does anything happen during the story that influences Kefka's outlook on anything? Not that I can remember. He is the same silly and evil clown at the end of the game as he was at the beginning of the game, basically the definition of a static character, or one who experiences little or no character growth during the course of the story. Granted, his one liners can be entertaining, and destroying the world is a pretty cool feat. However, jokes and feats do not explain why Kefka is the way he is, or where his motives come from other than that maybe he's just a nut case for no reason, or no reason that is explained during the story anyway.

I am not saying that Kefka is a bad villain, and I'm not saying that enjoying his presence is at all a bad thing. But I think some people get so swept up on him that they try to make him out to be more than he is. Kefka has some good things going for him, but depth of character is not one of them.

Edited, Feb 5th 2012 1:04am by Susanoh


By your post i take it you dint actually play FFVI ?? Kefka was a good soldier like celes and general leo, until he was made the first human to be a Magitek Knight, the technology was still in it's prototype stages and his mind could not handle it, that's where kefka changed and became a selfish, powe hungry, evil clown we see at the start of the game :) As for the static part, for the first major half of the game, he is just a henchman, not a major villain, until he decided to fry the emperor and take all the power of the magi statues for himself, and be a god.

Hey i'm not saying cloud and sephiroth where bad characters, but as far as one dimensional characters, they are kings in the FF series, terra started just like cloud did, one amnesiac soldier, and ended up a foster mother that actually cared about the people that surrounded her, cloud was a soldier wannabe stuck on emo mode for like 90% of the game :/
____________________________
MUTED
#60 Feb 05 2012 at 12:57 AM Rating: Decent
**
542 posts
Quote:
By your post i take it you dint actually play FFVI ?? Kefka was a good soldier like celes and general leo, until he was made the first human to be a Magitek Knight, the technology was still in it's prototype stages and his mind could not handle it, that's where kefka changed and became a selfish, powe hungry, evil clown we see at the start of the game :) As for the static part, for the first major half of the game, he is just a henchman, not a major villain, until he decided to fry the emperor and take all the power of the magi statues for himself, and be a god.

Hey i'm not saying cloud and sephiroth where bad characters, but as far as one dimensional characters, they are kings in the FF series, terra started just like cloud did, one amnesiac soldier, and ended up a foster mother that actually cared about the people that surrounded her, cloud was a soldier wannabe stuck on emo mode for like 90% of the game :/


I stand corrected on the first part that you mentioned, if that is true. I honestly don't remember any of Kefka's back story being mentioned, and I'm very curious as to where and when it was brought up as I have played through the entire game.

However, a quick explanation of his insanity before the events of the game occurred (and something so simple as "experiments") does not add much to a static character whose motives and decisions revolve around simply being insane. Taking the statue is not character growth, it's a feat, and it is exactly the type of thing you would expect from a character like him. There was no turning point here, no revelation, no interesting story point where Kefka decided he was going to go from henchmen to major villain. He did it because he was there at the time and had the opportunity. A dynamic character shows real change throughout a story. The dictionary.com definition lists a dynamic character as "a literary or dramatic character who undergoes an important inner change, as a change in personality or attitude." With Kefka, this most certainly never happens at all during the story even in the slightest.

Again, I'm not even saying Kefka is a bad villain, some prefer his style over dynamic villains with realistic motives and at times shades of grey. But to take a villain who deals in absolutes, whose motives stem from insanity and try and paint them as a deep character just seems completely backwards to me.
#61 Feb 05 2012 at 2:02 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,949 posts
I agree with most of what Susanoh says about Kefka. I am just curious, however, if you think that Sephiroth is any better.

Personally, I can endure one-dimensional villains well enough. An example is Luca Blight in Suikoden 2, mentionned earlier, who is pretty much badass and evil just for the sake of being badass and evil. He is replaced midway in the game with your best friend Jowy as the main villain, and Jowy, just like the main character, are both trying to do the best they can to save the world -- that is an interesting villain.

Anyway, Final Fantasy to me has always been more about the interesting playable characters than interesting villains, and FF7 had a dog, a puppet, a full-mouthed engineer, an ecologist Mr.T and about only 2 tolerable characters. This is my main reason why I dislike FF7 more than most people.
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#62 Feb 05 2012 at 2:31 AM Rating: Decent
**
542 posts
Docent42 wrote:
I agree with most of what Susanoh says about Kefka. I am just curious, however, if you think that Sephiroth is any better.


Honestly, it's been quite a while since I've played FFVII, and I don't remember the details of the game's story as well as I'd like. IIRC, Sephiroth's past is touched on, and it, along with events during the game have an impact on him enough that he is not quite the same character throughout the entire story. Also IIRC, his motives do stem from these events, questionable as they may be. From the perspective of purely character depth, I think I remember Sephiroth being more fleshed out than Kefka, but because I haven't played in so long and the story is so fuzzy with me, take that with a grain of salt.

Btw, I really don't have anything against Kefka. He's not my favorite villain but I think he works in his role. Being one dimensional doesn't necessarily equate to being bad, at least IMO. It just gets me that people praise him for something like depth of character when that's not even close to what makes the character work.

Edited, Feb 5th 2012 3:41am by Susanoh
#63 Feb 05 2012 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
892 posts
Susanoh wrote:
Posts such as yours only go to show how truly subjective anything being anywhere truly is. To criticize FFVII for having a "hollow" antagonist while at the same time saying that FFVI has no faults is as ironic as it gets.

I never said FFVI had no faults, just that it had no big faults to note. If you can name some, go for it. That's why it's at the top of the list we're discussing. So no, in that I'm being quite objective. As I said, IV is my favorite but I don't put it at the top. I'll admit that IV has many faults, but for me those are greatly outweighed by its many charms. That, truly, is subjective.

It's not subjective to state that IX is a great representative of the series on the whole, and therefore deserving of more recognition. It combines a wealth of old school features found throughout the series with the theatrics and "epicness" of later games in the series; it's great at presenting the "best of both worlds" between the very cinematic games of the series today and the fundamental gameplay that laid the foundation for the series, plus everything else a good FF game should have like memorable characters and a worthy musical score. I'm not crediting IX out of bias toward the classic gameplay style alone, but weighing its value on how well it fits the "mold" of what many people consider to be criteria for what makes a FF game "FF-like." XIII has garnered a lot of harsh criticism for being so "unlike" a FF game with its many drastic differences, so IX is the antithesis of that notion. And really, it's a bit unfair to decry XIII's departure from the formula given the games preceding it. Its linear format was SE's misguided notion of what they thought people wanted from a game in this era: a fast-paced game that played out like a movie. Each game is crammed full of more cinematics than the one before it, and XIII unfortunately took that trend to a logical but misguided extreme.

As for VII, the two most important characters in FFVII are indeed more hollow than many of their 16-bit predecessors, in spite of their status as the two most idolized characters by hardcore fans introduced to the series via FFVII. The reason isn't because there's less text detailing their past, far from it, the problem's more in the presentation. While they "change" as characters during the story, it's not in the normal way characters develop logically: it's sudden, drastic, and questionable in rationality. That, and they lack in the personality department. To be fair, this was at a time when brooding "dark hero" types were all the rage in all kinds of media, and I think that's why VII went that route with its two most prominent characters.

It's kind of a "quality over quantity" thing. FFVI may not have the complicated, often convoluted depth of story that VII has, but what it does have is simple and functional. The characters do fit into archetypes, but it's a strength rather than a shortcoming, as we're given a strong impression of who they are with a small amount of introduction. That's also what makes them memorable.

Since you said you haven't replayed the games in a while, let's see if I can jog your memory a bit and shed some light on a lot of the Kefka/Sephiroth contrasts...
As Ostia pointed out, Kefka's back-story is indeed spotlighted throughout the game, often through conversations with NPCs. He's much like Celes and Leo, once ordinary people upon whom Magitek experiments were conducted to give them special powers. While Celes and Leo retained their humanity, Kefka was the first experiment, and things didn't go so well. That explains why he's crazy when the game starts, and as for the rest, we see it unfold as the story progresses. With each act of cruelty we see Kefka commit he becomes more and more threatening while evading many attempts by the cast to stop him. It's not a wealth of back-story or personal growth, but rather his growth from being a comical, crazy, but seemingly auxiliary villain into the world's biggest threat that gives him depth. Sure, he's not a very dynamic character, but he has personality in spades, and earns his super-villain mantle by committing act after heinous act and offing the guy we thought was the main villain.

Kefka destroys the world and makes himself the undisputed ruler. It's a feat few villains in the history of the series can say they'd accomplished. While many try to destroy or rule the world, most never come that close, let alone actually do it. After which Kefka keeps making things worse, unleashing his Light of Judgment, tormenting what few people are left in the world. A lot of the adoration of Kefka as a villain is rooted in the fact that by the time you actually get to fight him he's already built up an extensive resume of evil deeds, and succeeded in ******** the world over in so many ways. There's a lot of build-up to finally taking him down for good. By the final battle he's more deserving than any other villain for an unremorseful beatdown of epic proportions.

With Sephiroth we're first introduced to him when we walk into Shinra HQ and find he's showed up and made a bloody mess of the place. Why? We don't quite find that out till later. He was at one time the most illustrious and well-respected member of SOLDIER, and a pretty nice, morally upstanding guy, until the day he finds out he was injected with cells from some ancient creature called JENOVA when he was a fetus. When he finds this out he snaps and becomes evil practically overnight (okay, a few nights of heavy reading), and kills a bunch of innocent people. He later moves on to team up with JENOVA and avenge the perceived wrongs that the ancients did to her that he just found out about, which happened thousands of years ago, and he'll do so by mostly destroying the planet with Meteor to make himself its god. So by the time we get to fight him, it's something that has to be done to stop the impending Meteor strike, and also vengeance for Aeris that we liked a lot for some reason (I'm sorry, I really don't think she was fleshed out enough to make her death emotionally moving).

What makes Sephiroth particularly "hollow," as I put it, is the absence of logical motivation, lack of a distinguishing personality, and there isn't really any growth into his role as the villain. Is he dynamic? If a very sudden switch from good to evil counts, sure. Why does finding out about the conditions of his birth make him lose it and abandon all of his morals? Because it just does. Why does he seek out JENOVA and set out to destroy the world? Because he's mad and wants vengeance against whoever, or something. From the moment we find out he exists, he's the big bad guy by default, and we have to piece together the "why" for the rest of the game, but a lot of it ends up being arbitrary in nature. And no, any further explanation given in Crisis Core or Advent Children is ret-conning and doesn't count.

But as critical as I might be, I don't hate VII. It has a lot of its moments, and I did enjoy it. I can say the same about every FF game, no matter how I might rank them. It's just that, as I grew older and took a step back to look at all these games, I realized why IV has so many remakes and VII still doesn't. IV is a solid and very simple game, and it's stood the test of time due to that. VII would lose a lot were it remade. The clunkiness of the story was excusable when combined with the rest of the game's nuances. It was the game that had to bridge the gap from 2D to 3D, and that put it in a really weird place in a lot of ways.

A remake of VII would result in too much effort to "fix" everything. VII is what it is. Imperfect, for sure, very much so. Just appreciate it for that. If a remake ever came into existence, I guarantee the number one comment fans would have about it would be "I liked the original better." Seriously. The FF series has the most unpleasable fanbase, and a FFVII remake would have the most wildly mixed reviews of any in the series.

Docent42 wrote:
Anyway, Final Fantasy to me has always been more about the interesting playable characters than interesting villains, and FF7 had a dog, a puppet, a full-mouthed engineer, an ecologist Mr.T and about only 2 tolerable characters. This is my main reason why I dislike FF7 more than most people.

I'm not even gonna attempt to go after Cloud the rest of the playable characters, but I think you summed up what's wrong with the game's cast. Were they unique? Sure. But they were lacking a lot.

Edited, Feb 5th 2012 7:19am by Gatero
____________________________
I did not bring teh gil.
#64 Feb 05 2012 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
Susanoh wrote:
Quote:
By your post i take it you dint actually play FFVI ?? Kefka was a good soldier like celes and general leo, until he was made the first human to be a Magitek Knight, the technology was still in it's prototype stages and his mind could not handle it, that's where kefka changed and became a selfish, powe hungry, evil clown we see at the start of the game :) As for the static part, for the first major half of the game, he is just a henchman, not a major villain, until he decided to fry the emperor and take all the power of the magi statues for himself, and be a god.

Hey i'm not saying cloud and sephiroth where bad characters, but as far as one dimensional characters, they are kings in the FF series, terra started just like cloud did, one amnesiac soldier, and ended up a foster mother that actually cared about the people that surrounded her, cloud was a soldier wannabe stuck on emo mode for like 90% of the game :/


I stand corrected on the first part that you mentioned, if that is true. I honestly don't remember any of Kefka's back story being mentioned, and I'm very curious as to where and when it was brought up as I have played through the entire game.

However, a quick explanation of his insanity before the events of the game occurred (and something so simple as "experiments") does not add much to a static character whose motives and decisions revolve around simply being insane. Taking the statue is not character growth, it's a feat, and it is exactly the type of thing you would expect from a character like him. There was no turning point here, no revelation, no interesting story point where Kefka decided he was going to go from henchmen to major villain. He did it because he was there at the time and had the opportunity. A dynamic character shows real change throughout a story. The dictionary.com definition lists a dynamic character as "a literary or dramatic character who undergoes an important inner change, as a change in personality or attitude." With Kefka, this most certainly never happens at all during the story even in the slightest.

Again, I'm not even saying Kefka is a bad villain, some prefer his style over dynamic villains with realistic motives and at times shades of grey. But to take a villain who deals in absolutes, whose motives stem from insanity and try and paint them as a deep character just seems completely backwards to me.


In the bar in vector i think it is, that one of the npc there, tell your his backstory, if is not vector is one of those cities in the empire continent before the espers destroy everything.

As for luca blight, he has backstory, he was not evil for the sake of being evil, Luca, his father the king and his mother where ambushed when he was young, the carriage they where on was attacked by city state soldiers from muse, under the command of mayor darrel(Annabel's father) they killed the guards and the king of highland ran away leaving luca blight and his mother behind while he retreated to his castle, meanwhile the city state soldiers raped luca's mother in front of luca, she gave birth to the princess who resembles their mother(At some point their mother died or something dunno how it was never explained) so his hatred of the city states has merit, it was not just "Hey lets just destroy everything because it is fun" he wanted to kill every single state soldier because of what happened to his mother, and thats why he killed his father, for being a coward and leaving both him and his mother behind.

As far as Villains go, one of my favorites is Krelian from Xenogears, i think he should be the mold, for interesting villains with intentions and plots etc etc.
____________________________
MUTED
#65 Feb 05 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
***
1,949 posts
Ostia wrote:
As far as Villains go, one of my favorites is Krelian from Xenogears, i think he should be the mold, for interesting villains with intentions and plots etc etc.

I'd have to give my vote to Ramsus if we start talking Xenogears.

I've always had a soft spot for Dilandau-like villains who both turn mostly insane and consistently come back for repeat beatings :P
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#66 Feb 05 2012 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
**
542 posts
Gatero wrote:
Susanoh wrote:
Posts such as yours only go to show how truly subjective anything being anywhere truly is. To criticize FFVII for having a "hollow" antagonist while at the same time saying that FFVI has no faults is as ironic as it gets.

I never said FFVI had no faults, just that it had no big faults to note. If you can name some, go for it. That's why it's at the top of the list we're discussing. So no, in that I'm being quite objective. As I said, IV is my favorite but I don't put it at the top. I'll admit that IV has many faults, but for me those are greatly outweighed by its many charms. That, truly, is subjective.

It's not subjective to state that IX is a great representative of the series on the whole, and therefore deserving of more recognition. It combines a wealth of old school features found throughout the series with the theatrics and "epicness" of later games in the series; it's great at presenting the "best of both worlds" between the very cinematic games of the series today and the fundamental gameplay that laid the foundation for the series, plus everything else a good FF game should have like memorable characters and a worthy musical score. I'm not crediting IX out of bias toward the classic gameplay style alone, but weighing its value on how well it fits the "mold" of what many people consider to be criteria for what makes a FF game "FF-like." XIII has garnered a lot of harsh criticism for being so "unlike" a FF game with its many drastic differences, so IX is the antithesis of that notion. And really, it's a bit unfair to decry XIII's departure from the formula given the games preceding it. Its linear format was SE's misguided notion of what they thought people wanted from a game in this era: a fast-paced game that played out like a movie. Each game is crammed full of more cinematics than the one before it, and XIII unfortunately took that trend to a logical but misguided extreme.

As for VII, the two most important characters in FFVII are indeed more hollow than many of their 16-bit predecessors, in spite of their status as the two most idolized characters by hardcore fans introduced to the series via FFVII. The reason isn't because there's less text detailing their past, far from it, the problem's more in the presentation. While they "change" as characters during the story, it's not in the normal way characters develop logically: it's sudden, drastic, and questionable in rationality. That, and they lack in the personality department. To be fair, this was at a time when brooding "dark hero" types were all the rage in all kinds of media, and I think that's why VII went that route with its two most prominent characters.

It's kind of a "quality over quantity" thing. FFVI may not have the complicated, often convoluted depth of story that VII has, but what it does have is simple and functional. The characters do fit into archetypes, but it's a strength rather than a shortcoming, as we're given a strong impression of who they are with a small amount of introduction. That's also what makes them memorable.

Since you said you haven't replayed the games in a while, let's see if I can jog your memory a bit and shed some light on a lot of the Kefka/Sephiroth contrasts...
As Ostia pointed out, Kefka's back-story is indeed spotlighted throughout the game, often through conversations with NPCs. He's much like Celes and Leo, once ordinary people upon whom Magitek experiments were conducted to give them special powers. While Celes and Leo retained their humanity, Kefka was the first experiment, and things didn't go so well. That explains why he's crazy when the game starts, and as for the rest, we see it unfold as the story progresses. With each act of cruelty we see Kefka commit he becomes more and more threatening while evading many attempts by the cast to stop him. It's not a wealth of back-story or personal growth, but rather his growth from being a comical, crazy, but seemingly auxiliary villain into the world's biggest threat that gives him depth. Sure, he's not a very dynamic character, but he has personality in spades, and earns his super-villain mantle by committing act after heinous act and offing the guy we thought was the main villain.

Kefka destroys the world and makes himself the undisputed ruler. It's a feat few villains in the history of the series can say they'd accomplished. While many try to destroy or rule the world, most never come that close, let alone actually do it. After which Kefka keeps making things worse, unleashing his Light of Judgment, tormenting what few people are left in the world. A lot of the adoration of Kefka as a villain is rooted in the fact that by the time you actually get to fight him he's already built up an extensive resume of evil deeds, and succeeded in ******** the world over in so many ways. There's a lot of build-up to finally taking him down for good. By the final battle he's more deserving than any other villain for an unremorseful beatdown of epic proportions.

With Sephiroth we're first introduced to him when we walk into Shinra HQ and find he's showed up and made a bloody mess of the place. Why? We don't quite find that out till later. He was at one time the most illustrious and well-respected member of SOLDIER, and a pretty nice, morally upstanding guy, until the day he finds out he was injected with cells from some ancient creature called JENOVA when he was a fetus. When he finds this out he snaps and becomes evil practically overnight (okay, a few nights of heavy reading), and kills a bunch of innocent people. He later moves on to team up with JENOVA and avenge the perceived wrongs that the ancients did to her that he just found out about, which happened thousands of years ago, and he'll do so by mostly destroying the planet with Meteor to make himself its god. So by the time we get to fight him, it's something that has to be done to stop the impending Meteor strike, and also vengeance for Aeris that we liked a lot for some reason (I'm sorry, I really don't think she was fleshed out enough to make her death emotionally moving).

What makes Sephiroth particularly "hollow," as I put it, is the absence of logical motivation, lack of a distinguishing personality, and there isn't really any growth into his role as the villain. Is he dynamic? If a very sudden switch from good to evil counts, sure. Why does finding out about the conditions of his birth make him lose it and abandon all of his morals? Because it just does. Why does he seek out JENOVA and set out to destroy the world? Because he's mad and wants vengeance against whoever, or something. From the moment we find out he exists, he's the big bad guy by default, and we have to piece together the "why" for the rest of the game, but a lot of it ends up being arbitrary in nature. And no, any further explanation given in Crisis Core or Advent Children is ret-conning and doesn't count.

But as critical as I might be, I don't hate VII. It has a lot of its moments, and I did enjoy it. I can say the same about every FF game, no matter how I might rank them. It's just that, as I grew older and took a step back to look at all these games, I realized why IV has so many remakes and VII still doesn't. IV is a solid and very simple game, and it's stood the test of time due to that. VII would lose a lot were it remade. The clunkiness of the story was excusable when combined with the rest of the game's nuances. It was the game that had to bridge the gap from 2D to 3D, and that put it in a really weird place in a lot of ways.

A remake of VII would result in too much effort to "fix" everything. VII is what it is. Imperfect, for sure, very much so. Just appreciate it for that. If a remake ever came into existence, I guarantee the number one comment fans would have about it would be "I liked the original better." Seriously. The FF series has the most unpleasable fanbase, and a FFVII remake would have the most wildly mixed reviews of any in the series.

Docent42 wrote:
Anyway, Final Fantasy to me has always been more about the interesting playable characters than interesting villains, and FF7 had a dog, a puppet, a full-mouthed engineer, an ecologist Mr.T and about only 2 tolerable characters. This is my main reason why I dislike FF7 more than most people.

I'm not even gonna attempt to go after Cloud the rest of the playable characters, but I think you summed up what's wrong with the game's cast. Were they unique? Sure. But they were lacking a lot.

Edited, Feb 5th 2012 7:19am by Gatero


I respect your opinions, the part I disagree with is that at times you think they are more than opinions. When you say FFIX deserves more recognition because it combines old school features with modern ones, it's giving it credit due to its style being similar to its predecessors. While that's fine if that's the way you see it, giving preferential treatment to one style specifically because it goes along with what past games have done is simply one way of looking at it, and not even one that gives others a fair chance in a head to head comparison. In a "most FF-like FF" list, I'd expect the list to be filled with job related mechanics, a magic and fantasy based world, and all that, but in a list that's simply looking to compare the best games in the series, I feel that each games deserves to be judged by its own merits and not by what your expectations of what a FF game should be. As for FFXIII, it's criticized for being "not FF-like" but mainly by people who'd have preferred something different. If FFXIII strayed from the rest of the series in a way that people loved it, most wouldn't be saying that, they'd be saying it was revolution and breathing new life into the series.

As for characters like Kefka, I really can't say much more than I have. I get why people love him, I do. I also get why some find him uninteresting, and ironically a lot of the time both are for the same reasons (is unquestionably evil with no shades of grey, parodies himself as a villain). As for Sephiroth, I've chosen not to discuss him too much being he isn't as fresh in my mind.

And lastly, the FFVII remake. I agree that reviews for it would be mixed, but not for the same reasons. For one, FFIV is simply easier to remake. It's originally a SNES game with sprites, and it's not nearly as difficult to remake it while staying true to the original stylistically. This isn't the case for FFVII. The other reason is that it is easy for a game like FFIV to slip under the radar, where as if FFVII were getting a remake, it'd be hyped to the moon across gaming sites and forums everywhere. The expectations would be off the charts. In this sense, it would be like remaking a relatively unknown movie compared to remaking Star Wars. It'd be much easier to remake the unknown movie to a high reception because people's expectations wouldn't be more than you're able to put out.
#67 Feb 05 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Docent42 wrote:
Ostia wrote:
As far as Villains go, one of my favorites is Krelian from Xenogears, i think he should be the mold, for interesting villains with intentions and plots etc etc.

I'd have to give my vote to Ramsus if we start talking Xenogears.

I've always had a soft spot for Dilandau-like villains who both turn mostly insane and consistently come back for repeat beatings :P


kahr was more of a victim/rival than a villain, Grahf/miang and krelian are the main villains of the game. But yeah i like kahr, he is like the tragic villain of the game.
____________________________
MUTED
#68 Feb 06 2012 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
***
1,606 posts
After reading this thread, I ended up buying just about every FF the PSN had. I had VII, VIII & IX already. From what I have played so far of VI, I am enjoying it but if you would have asked me, I would have said Kefka was the comic relief and that someone else would have been the main "bad guy". I guess I look forward to seeing how he evolves because he struck me as being more of an idiot than evil.

I'm enjoying V the most so far but I think that it might be because I played it a little before so it's kind of nostalgic too.
#69 Feb 06 2012 at 11:36 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
V has it's unique charm, the world is so huge and explorable, and the art style is so unique, i dont know, is one of my favorites, plus the class system in that game, is second best to FFT.
____________________________
MUTED
#70 Feb 06 2012 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
**
401 posts
Ostia wrote:
V has it's unique charm, the world is so huge and explorable, and the art style is so unique, i dont know, is one of my favorites, plus the class system in that game, is second best to FFT.


I am actually playing through V again on my phone (don't recall if I finished it or not from the anthology, although most so far seems familiar) and I would put the class system on equal terms with Tactics, and I put the original tactics in my fave FF list Smiley: lol. I am really enjoying mixing job abilities, and using some of the more obscure jobs this time around. Story isn't revolutionary by any means, but suffices enough, and I also dig the big (for its time) world to explore. Definitely a great game in the series Smiley: nod.
____________________________
FFXI: Server Ifrit
Licksthekitty - 68THF/41WHM/37NIN/30BLM/20COR Mithra Retired

WoW: Realm Darkspear
Claybosmash - 80 Orc Warrior Retired
Ipwnrice - 70 Undead Rogue Retired


#71 Feb 06 2012 at 4:03 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Ipwnrice wrote:
Ostia wrote:
V has it's unique charm, the world is so huge and explorable, and the art style is so unique, i dont know, is one of my favorites, plus the class system in that game, is second best to FFT.


I am actually playing through V again on my phone (don't recall if I finished it or not from the anthology, although most so far seems familiar) and I would put the class system on equal terms with Tactics, and I put the original tactics in my fave FF list Smiley: lol. I am really enjoying mixing job abilities, and using some of the more obscure jobs this time around. Story isn't revolutionary by any means, but suffices enough, and I also dig the big (for its time) world to explore. Definitely a great game in the series Smiley: nod.


Hmm the only reason i put the Tactics system on top, is because of the vast array of abilities each class had to offer, in contrast to V, where you just get one or few abilites when combining classes. And as for the story, i liked it a lot, it has a solid story, a solid backstory, and the characters are well developed, even more so than some recent istallements of the series :/
____________________________
MUTED
#72 Feb 06 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
1,310 posts
Susanoh wrote:
XIII has garnered a lot of harsh criticism for being so "unlike" a FF game with its many drastic differences, so IX is the antithesis of that notion. And really, it's a bit unfair to decry XIII's departure from the formula given the games preceding it. Its linear format was SE's misguided notion of what they thought people wanted from a game in this era: a fast-paced game that played out like a movie. Each game is crammed full of more cinematics than the one before it, and XIII unfortunately took that trend to a logical but misguided extreme.


What has clearly clobbered SE is making the adjustment to the current HD console generation. You'll notice that Final Fantasy's usually stellar ratings have been getting kicked down to "B-title" status (or off a cliff in FFXIV's case) ever since FF12 has come and gone, and that was the last title on the PS2.

In fact, you'll notice IGN's list is consistent with Square's usual "bookends" of a console generation. FF4 was the entry title for the SNES. FF6 was the final entry for the SNES. FF7 was the entry title for the PS1.

You could probably continue the list with the other "greats" of the series, FF10 and FF12, which were the beginning and end of the PS2 generation.

I'm not dismissing the quality of the other titles, but, the exciting games in the FF series have consistently been how they masterfully bring the series to a new console and how they perfected what they've learned as they leave it.

FF4 and FF6 were on the same console, but you can see how much improvement was packed into FF6 in terms of what it graphically able to accomplish on a 16-bit console.

The problem with 13 and 14 is that somewhere along the way, they failed to hit their stride. It may have to do with the exorbitant costs associated with making an HD title. It's not like the 90's when FF1 was made with 7 developers on a shoestring budget working for a nearly bankrupt company. You have to have amazing high-quality visuals, believable voice actors, characters you can empathize with, environments that come alive, sounds that capture the mood and the fantasy world. And the price of this is that you have to cut out a whole lot of "game" in order to squeeze it all in.

The scary thing is, that despite their best efforts, it may be impossible to create the solid Final Fantasy titles of the past going forward simply because production costs make it impossible. It's been said a faithful recreation of FF7 in HD would cost 15 times that of FF13, and there's no way they could sell enough copies to recoup the costs. That shouldn't just scare the FF7-remake crowd, but the FF crowd in general if great titles are hamstrung with constraints like this.
#73 Feb 06 2012 at 11:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
IMO It is SE stubbornness to deliver the best graphics, Voice acting & combat system that has hurt them the most, for example FFXII was delayed time and time again because the battle system was not finished, by the time it was completed, Yazmat had been replaced because he got ill, he was basically so exhausted after all the years of making the game, that he left the script 80% completed, and that's what we got in the game 80% of the storyline. The time it takes for ONE ****** to ship is just astronomical when compared to other ******* of the same genre, FFXII was on development for like 4-5 years, FFXIII Versus has been in development for what ? 6-7 years already ? **** FFXIII-2 came out before versus did and versus has been in development since XIII Was! And the major problem they have is that for the amount of time their games are in development, once released the lack of content and lackluster of the overall product outweights the time spent on making them.

Another major problem that SE faces and nobody talks or admit is that they have bleed out their best talents over the years, and i know everybody would like to think that SE still has it, and they can somehow reclaim their place with the talent they currently have, but lets face it, sakaguchi's departure hurt the franchise, and i people will say that we was not producing or developing games later in his career in SE, but what he did was to put the right people and the right job, he took yazmat and pair him up with ito and they gave us Final Fantasy Tactics! A classic masterpiece worthy of being a series on it's own, the same team that sakaguchi hand picked gave us Vagrant Story, another classic, the one ****** that got SE their first perfect score in japan, and yazmat would have been the only developor/producer to have 2 games as perfect score had he stayed in SE, they also bleed out the xenogears team, and xenogears is one of their finest works to date(and my personal favorite RPG of all time) had this team stayed they could have done the entire series as it was intended, plus they created xenoblade on of the best RPGS in the last decade by far.

So IMO it is not a meter of resources and how much an game cost now days, is a meter of quality per cost, they spend so much time and money on ******* that bomb, or are lackluster at best (XIV-XIII-XIII2) when other companies with a **** of a lot talent and resources are making games that are not as pretty to look at but content and gameplay wise are far and beyond what SE is actually putting out.

____________________________
MUTED
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)