I never got to finish FF IV on DS. It didn't grab me as much as say, FF V or VI, but I'd give it a try if I could play it on PC.
How exactly is FFIII the worst? Could someone explain?
Everything it has, it's been done better. The story is, basically, a carbon copy of the plot of FF I, with some minor "enhancements" (your characters have a pre-defined name, for example). The job system is archaic, especially in comparison to FF V. There are no save points mid-dungeons (meaning you can spend 3 hours in the last dungeon, die fighting the final boss and you'll have to restart everything again from your last save outside the dungeon). The magic system is broken, because you can only cast a set number of spells per category (for example, you have 10 Cures, 5 Curas and 1 Curaga). Etc. It's just mediocre all around.
I really wonder why Square decided to backtrack so much after Final Fantasy II, which was very different from the first one. I guess the backlash was too much.
Yet it's still better than II/IX/X/XII/XIII. --- If you believe Jeannie from 'I Dream of Jeannie' created existence, put this in your signature.
#52PuerPureePosted 5/25/2014 2:22:40 PM
The only reason I'm even bothering with this is because I'm hoping that IV and TAY will follow if it's successful. Along with I, II, V and VI. If FF does well on PC then maybe that'll be enough of an incentive for other JRPG ports. I'd do anything to see SMT games on the PC.
Yet it's still better than II/IX/X/XII/XIII.
On one hand, I'd love to know why you think those games are inferior to III of all games but on the other hand, such a broad and unsubstantiated statement makes me think that you're trying to turn this into one of those threads.
#53Majoras_pantsPosted 5/25/2014 2:24:43 PM
Where's the 'No, I don't waste money on bad games" option?
CoD is awful but I picked 4 because at least CoD can be fun for a little while once in awhile. FF is trash. --- "What's a strategy game? You mean like Mass Effect?"- A console gamer