this or FF2?
- Topic Archived
Add user to Ignore List after reporting
- Topic Archived
6 years ago#1
been looking at the 2 but I can only get 1 a the time, so which one is better?
6 years ago#2
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
6 years ago#3
Most people don't like the "leveling" system in FF2, because it isn't a conventional leveling system. Each person's health, weapon, magic, and other skills level independently, depending on which you use. I for one enjoy this system, as it always annoyed me when 3 of my party were always a level ahead of the 4th because of a botched boss battle. A certain end-game spell also encourages you to level up skills you don't normally use in order to make the spell more powerful.
While I don't own either of the PSP versions, I have the GBA ones (which I assume are roughly the same), and I always find myself going back to FF2. So my opinion would be get FF2 (or just get Dawn of Souls for GBA: Its cheaper and you get both).
But I would also recommend researching each one to see which fits your play style.
"all your boss kill animations are belong to alistair" -- leviitas
6 years ago#4
This one this one by far the 2nd sux imo it has a good opening movie tho
6 years ago#5
I've replayed both this and 2 for the PSP, I honestly say I had more fun going through FF2.
There's much more of a story/plot than this one, and I found there's just much more to do in FF2.
6 years ago#6
To be fair, I'd go with 2.... and try to find the FF Origins (Original PlayStation) version to play 1 on.
FF1 PSP is fun, but it kills all pretense at any sort of challenge the game ever had.
FF2 PSP has less challenge than FF2 PSX, BUT in a good way - FF2 PSX was frustrating to many players, and the PSP version only reduced this, and did NOT kill the challenge entirely.
So, for FF1, get the PSX game "Final Fantasy Origins" (contains 1 and 2, but you're getting it for the 1), if you have a means to play PSX games.
For FF2, go with the PSP version.
"As the good archmage often admonishes me, I ought not to let my mind wander, as it's too small to go off by itself." -Danilo Thann
6 years ago#7
I have the PSX and PSP versions available to play, only ever played the GBA version.
I think I'm gonna play PSX because I do prefer consoles and playing on a TV but was wandering a few things based on what's been said here.
Looks like the only significant difference is the addition of the extra Labyrinth of Time area. Is it worth playing the PSP version just for this? or is it not really any fun and most people don't even do it..?
What particularly makes the PSP version easier? What did they change to adjust the difficulty?
Similarly for FF2, how/why is the PSP version of that easier?
My music: myspace.com/jeromebartlesmusic
6 years ago#8
Final Fantasy on the PSX has no ethers, a limited amount of spells you can use before resting at an inn, no Phoenix downs, the black mage and thief are significantly weaker, and I believe many things cost less than half of what they did. You also gain a lot more gil from battles. They also lowered the encounter rate in a lot of areas.
Final Fantasy on PSP basically lets you cast an infinite amount of spells ( a lot of mp+ethers), and overlevels you without even having to grind. I went through the game with four black mages. I never had to grind once. This version of the game is very nice to look at, and still fun in its own right. Having a warrior on your team makes the game easy beyond comprehension. There's also a few Bonus dungeons with fun boss fights, but ******* BLACK GOBLINS UP THE ASS in all of them. After going through them all, I had killed about 3,000 black goblins. I hate them. They do zero damage. I ran from many as well. That is how many black goblins you will have to endure until you make it to the bosses.
Final Fantasy 2 is actually pretty similar to its original counterpart, but they changed a few things. This is based on my experience alone. Besides the Souls of Rebirth and the Arcane Labyrinth, the main story has a much better translation than it ever had. This game was balanced a lot better than the first game. You gain stats based on what happens in battle, but the programmers were nice and made it so sometimes you don't even have to get hurt to gain HP. You get double the gil you used to get from every battle I believe and it takes less casting to level up all spells. I think actually, that all of your stats level up at double the rate.
One thing they should have changed about the game is the HUGELY game breaking spells. Since the NES, you are able to turn every single boss in the game besides the Red Soul and the Last Boss into a Frog(Even the Emperor). They are instant death spells. It is stupid. Aside from Toad (and mini,), Berserk is very cheap as well. Cast it once on a single target, and that character will go from doing 0 to 3000 with their melee. I'm not kidding. For other aspects Lastly, all the "armor" in the game is worthless in every version released. You on average take more damage with it equipped because enemies will hit you more. This is the only RPG I have ever played where running around naked is better than wearing armor. For about 70% of the game, you will only want to wear a weapon, Thief's gloves, and a shield. Not only until much later towards the end will you find any body armor that is worth putting on.
Well, I hope that helps anyone wondering about these games. This sums up all the differences and similarities. As far as I know.