[POLL] WHAT IF FINAL FANTASY V...

Poll

If Final Fantasy V was released in places other than Japan during the SNES craze, how do you feel its exposure could have affected the gaming scene? - Results

I haven't played the fan translation SNES romhack, but I think it's safe to say that Final Fantasy IV was the best.
2
8%
I have played the fan translation SNES romhack and I think that Final Fantasy IV was the best.
0
0%
I have played the fan translation SNES romhack and I feel Final Fantasy V is the better title.
2
8%
I have played the fan translation SNES romhack and I think that Final Fantasy VI was the best.
10
43%
I haven't played the fan translation SNES romhack, but I think it's safe to say that Final Fantasy VI was the best.
4
17%
Mystic Quest all the way, brah! nobody likes that game.
5
21%

Posts

Pages: first prev 123 next last
Ahhhhhh FFV is so amaaazzzing, easily my fav in the series :D I love the battle system AND the trolling characters. Fantassstic XD I only played the GBA version though. Many times. Many many times lol. I appreciate the difficulty of it though, maybe it was just me, but I found Exdeth a hardcore son of a bitch to beat.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
I know, right? The game's beautiful and plays like a dream. I dare say that - aesthetically - Final Fantasy VI was actually a step back.
Bigger sprites/battlers/tiles with more details and shades per color is considered a step back?

I think kentona pretty much said it all as to why FF5 is not that great compared to the other games in the series. Sure it all comes down to personal preferences, but I don't think FF6's differences make it inferior. It's been a while since I played both games and I can't write an in depth analysis but here are some quick thoughts:

Plot-wise, 5 was more about its world and events, 6 was more about its characters' actions and development. Personally I prefer character-oriented stories.

5's graphics had the same charm as 4's and were slightly enhanced, 6's were more detailed, atmospheric and realistic. Both did a great job in their respective games, it happens that I prefer 6's.

Both games' soundtracks have a few excellent songs that I enjoy listening to occasionally or try and play on the piano.

The gameplay and difficulty I enjoyed equally, although it's easier for FF5 to feel unbalanced depending on what Abilities you choose to learn and use.

The freedom offered by the Job system is fun but having 4 characters do anything and everything eventually became a little boring. Having a wide array of specialized characters and being forced to use different parties in 6 felt less monotonous to me.
I'm sorry, I can't decide.

All I know is that if Square would had released Final Fantasy V outside of Japan, it would have been awesome. FFV has a HUGE amount of fans and hype and love, even considering that it was never released, it was kind of "obscure" at start but fans took it to the spotlight.

Maybe is just because is a hidden gem and people love hidden obscure gems (something that FF3nes doesn't get, apparently), or maybe is entirely it's own merits.

FFV would had probably sold fine, because it's a Final Fantasy.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
author=Avee
Bigger sprites/battlers/tiles with more details and shades per color is considered a step back?

Abso-goddamn-lutely! FF6 was muddy as all get out and - despite having "better" graphics - never made good use of what it had. FF5 on the other hand was smart with what it had and used it to the utmost.

First castles of both games:

Abstract architecture

Copypaste-copypaste-box-box-box

Evil dude's castle:


Living (undead), breathing construct


Dafuq is anything here? No seriously, I defy you to recreate this image with clear-cut borders on what everything is and how it's logically constructed. It can't be done.

Towers:


Vibrant depth (and yes, the foreground pans independently of the rest of the tower when you move up)


This gif speaks for itself, honestly; but this is still worth mentioning:
author=Final Fantasy Wiki
The tower is the tallest structure in the game with dozens of floors over four screens of staircases. All offensive commands, except Magic, are sealed, and unless Umaro is brought along, the party is limited to the use of spells and items in battle. Despite being a form of magic in-game, Strago's Lore skillset is disabled in this dungeon.

The tower's enemies use magic of escalating strength depending on the enemy's "level" ranging from 10-90. Enemies of higher "level" appear with greater frequency as the player climbs higher. Some of the enemies have Auto-Reflect...

...There are no save points in the tower, so if the player is defeated at any time while scaling it all their progress will be lost (including magic spells learned and found treasure). The Holy Dragon, one of the Eight Dragons, resides in one of the tower's treasure rooms.

Until someone actually goes in-depth as to why I'm wrong (no cop-out "Kefka was a tortured soul d000000d"), I'm fully convinced FF6 is 110% nostalgia.

My question to you: Have you actually played FF6 recently, and did you find yourself forced to come back for whatever reason (stupid bullshit/just not as fun as it used to be)? Are you sure that it hasn't become like FF7 or Super Mario 64 in that it was amazing for its time but is now absolute hell to play? I'm going through FF5 again right now, making it a point to do the most "painful" activities (get all Blue magic) and I have yet to lose steam.

It's easy to justify shit when you're 6. When you're 20+, not so much.
Based on your reply I still believe that it's more about personal taste and preferences than about one of the games being truly better than the other:

What strikes me in the first two maps you picked for FF5 is that they are rather bland and cliché. That might be because I played other games that used similar design before I played FF5 though. And while the external structure of that tower looks damn fine and is a good idea in theory, it was a huge annoyance when I played, hiding the path and the character.

The FF6 maps I have an easier time seeing them as realistic and clever. Figaro Castle is built so it can fold itself up, dig into the sand and blow it away using the propellers when the castle emerges. Considering that, you can't have a lot of open areas or vegetation crawling over it. Its design makes sense to me.
Kefka's tower was built using junk, if I remember correctly? Junk amassed in a world that just blew up. Kinda makes sense that it looks like a mess.
And the towers in FF6 are apartment buildings. Again, it makes sense for those to look like that.

You preferred 5 and have an easier time justifying its design. I don't share your point of view, and vice versa. It's great if you enjoy a game so much that it makes other games look bad in your eyes, but I could care less about trying to prove why one of the game is worse than the other and possibly offend people in the process.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
author=Avee
And while the external structure of that tower looks damn fine and is a good idea in theory, it was a huge annoyance when I played, hiding the path and the character.

You do remember that the pathway was made clear around your character by that circle that pops up that allows you to see what's behind the foreground, right?

author=Avee
Figaro Castle is built so it can fold itself up, dig into the sand and blow it away using the propellers when the castle emerges. Considering that, you can't have a lot of open areas or vegetation crawling over it. Its design makes sense to me.

I've got so many problems with the design of Figaro Castle, it isn't even funny. Two of them being:

1. There's zero depth and half of its design is copy-pasted as though the designers didn't even care to make it look nice. It's a bit like Simon's Quest in that respect.
2a. The castle is made of brick and mortar, filled to the brim with rooms. How exactly does it make sense that the central towers can be brought in without destroying the castle interior? The bridges connection the towers to the main construct would cleave through everything between the base floor and the roof, so why is there even an accessible second floor in the first place?!
2b. You're supposed to care that the castle is on fire and that everyone's in danger and that Kefka's a colossal douche, but the place is designed around frivolous deus ex machina to the point that it cannot be touched. The second shit hits the fan, it goes underground, suffocating the fire and undoing any damage to it. It then travels along an ungodly large underground rail system to a section of the world a whole half-continent away and comes back up for air, the required logistics of which is mind-boggling. Do you know what happens when stuff like sand gets into gearworks? I'm surprised the place is still operable.

Let's just ignore the fact that Kefka stops chasing after you despite the fact that you're super important, vulnerable, and right in front of him.

author=Avee
It's great if you enjoy a game so much that it makes other games look bad in your eyes, but I could care less about trying to prove why one of the game is worse than the other and possibly offend people in the process.

This is just a cop-out that dismisses the benefits of discussion. It shouldn't offend anyone that you're making a point when it comes to something like this.
Well, you ask for arguments why FF6 can be considered good then you discredit them using your opinions. Earlier you asked about more discussion about blinding nostalgia, as if that was indeed the only reason why people love an otherwise awful game. At least, that's how your replies sound to me and, I'd bet on it, to a few other members who stopped contributing to this thread.

I'm not interested in discussing a matter of taste because there is simply no point in doing so. I enjoy sharing my experience and opinions, I don't when they are invalidated. Who am I to claim "facts" about a game millions of people played and all have their unique opinion of?

In any case, I think the poll answered your initial question.
Spoilers ahoy!
Okay look, I like FF5. But it has it's flaws okay?

If I need a good story flaw with FF5 it would be without a doubt how they reveal that the two worlds were at one time the same world, and that they can somehow refuse them back together. Somehow. Okay...

Or namely, the entire quest with siren. Yes, Faris is a chick was a great joke, but once they got dragged underwater after the entire canal act, dropping us in the ghost ship realm was a real disappointment. Or the worse one of all, the difficulty leap with Gilgamesh on the bridge. Or the fact that X-Death would hire a random swordsman with 6 arms to fight for him, even though gilgamesh abandons his post all the time.

*sigh* It's not the holy grail. FF6 is no high fiction either, but at least from what I've played of it there are some less plot holes, and overall better drama writing. In other words, it hits harder home.

Besides your spriting comparisons all show one thing: These are two very different eras they are living in. FF5 is a world where things revolve around the base elements, in other words a classical greek story where a hero rises up to slay a nihilistic near immortal villain. X-Death was the classic evil dark lord style of villan, and the fact he was a tree the whole time still cracks me up.
FF6 on the other hand is a steampunk story with elements of noir; Technology is more common, and humans are living more in cities rather then feudal villages. You see some villages on the outskirts of the continents, but normally people live in their respective city states. In the end they rise and fight a maniacally insane villan who has no semblance of human morals, or even a human perspective for that matter. And at the end, he rises up after destroying the Gods to reign supreme over the world, and the heroes go to stop him more out of personal grudges then the "greater" good of the world.

These are two radically different settings, and thus the graphical style is going to be really different to accommodate this. The game went from happy and cheerful in style to grimier and darker in the transition in between the two.

In the end, it's your opinion and that fine and all, but the major thing that bugs me with this poll is the fact there is no FF5 advance option. We got a official english release, yet this one only mentions the old fan translation which has some problems to say the least.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
My original intention with this thread was simply asking "What if FF5 was released on the SNES along with FF4 and FF6 in places other than Japan. What's the likelihood that people would have gravitated towards it and, perhaps, slipped away from the only two camps we know today?" It was great that it saw a PS1 and GBA release, but that was oh-so-many years after the initial release in Japan, and thus nobody seems to have really given it much attention, despite its supposed popularity abroad.

I just think it's a shame that this game is forever bound to "cult-classic" status while everyone else is parading other shit around just because it dropped into their laps as children and who can't take a step outside of good ol' nostalgia to really question why they "love" the games they do. "I owe my childhood happiness to *game* because it was there for me when my parents got divorced when I was 5" isn't an acceptable answer. Batman for the NES was in my collection when my brother and I had to babysit ourselves as children because our parents had other shit to do and couldn't afford a babysitter (grandparents/cousins had their own lives to worry about), but I can't even bring myself to look at it today because it doesn't hold up.
I have to admit I thought FF4 and FF6 were cult classics before the FF7 release in 1997. So I don't think that it would have made too big a difference. Of course I'm from the continent that gets shafted when it comes to game releases (more so in the past, thank the gods for instant piracy, making more global release dates eh!) so I wouldn't have known either way.


Having played these games on emulator later on (more or less at the same time) I will say that I didn't get far in FF4. I got to the end boss in FF5 and I finished FF6. I don't remember much about FF5 except that I thought the job system was kinda fun to play around with and that one miniboss had awesome music. Otherwise the game was pretty much forgettable. FF6 totally blew my mind at the time though. It had loads of things I just didn't believe possible in games.

Though I did play FF6 first and then FF5 when the fan translation came out but the gap is significant between the games.

But FF6 is essentially the only RPG I've finished on an emulator (others I tended to just sample and jump from game to game because there was SO MANY TO CHOOSE FROM) so you could say that's saying something.


And also just as a by the way. I love how your examples are first "abstract architecture is better than copy paste" and then the next one is "copy paste is better than abstract architecture" :D
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
Having read through both of those, I find nothing attributing to the "brilliance" of Final Fantasy 6 that doesn't already apply word-for-word to the design of Final Fantasy 5 aside from quantity (# of characters, at least). That as it is, I'll direct you to why this isn't always a great idea (the first more than the second):


And let's forget about how much of your time FF6 wastes in the beginning by throwing you against the exact same enemies in nothing but caves for the first hour of the game with the only deviations being a snail that you have to wait for it to come out of its shell or a castle where you get hit on shortly before it disappears forever after being graced with your presence for 5 whole minutes. And the mode 7 intro.



See those things pressed flat against the ground? Those are supposed to be cliffs. Kind of ruins the moment, doesn't it?


And every other time mode 7 was implemented was ugly as fuck.


Final Fantasy 5 did it right by restraining it to the world map tileset and never butchering the established viewpoint. Even the way the "breaking of the seal" scene plays out never has you staring up at the trunk of a tree. Outside of that, it was constantly throwing wildly new scenery at you immediately after an intro that actually establishes why you should care in the present tense.

author=Shinan
And also just as a by the way. I love how your examples are first "abstract architecture is better than copy paste" and then the next one is "copy paste is better than abstract architecture" :D

How the hell is using varying two tile high walls the same as copy-pasting an entire building?
author=Cor
I just think it's a shame that this game is forever bound to "cult-classic" status while everyone else is parading other shit around just because it dropped into their laps as children and who can't take a step outside of good ol' nostalgia to really question why they "love" the games they do. "I owe my childhood happiness to *game* because it was there for me when my parents got divorced when I was 5" isn't an acceptable answer. Batman for the NES was in my collection when my brother and I had to babysit ourselves as children because our parents had other shit to do and couldn't afford a babysitter (grandparents/cousins had their own lives to worry about), but I can't even bring myself to look at it today because it doesn't hold up.

Final Fantasy VI was one of the last Final Fantasies I played, a decade after its release and after I was a grown man. Still one of my favorite FFs, along with FFV, for that matter.

So no, your nostalgia argument doesn't hold up. All your doing is discarding every argument that comes your way with your own subjective opinions. This is bullshit and nobody has time for that.
I played Final Fantasy IV, V and VI in that order, and I still find that VI is the superior of the three. However, that is my own personal opinion.

That being said, Final Fantasy VI is not perfect. One of the places I find it performs better is with character development, and that is the most important part of a game for me.

Edit: To answer your original question. I don't think it would have affected the gaming scene much. There would be a bit more people that prefer V, but not much more. The majority of people played VII as their first Final Fantasy, so that would not have changed. My opinion would not have been different either since I played IV on the SNES and then only played V and VI later on the PlayStation.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
author=GreatRedSpirit
Salsa's Y Burn


But what does it mean?
Sailerius
did someone say angels
3304
Where's the option for "none of the SNES FFs were very good?"
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
author=Sailerius
Where's the option for "none of the SNES FFs were very good?"

It's somewhere hidden below all the other choices in invisible font labeled "half of the PSX ones were equally terrible". Hint: one of them is referenced in this post.
Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
I'm wondering what people have against Mystic Quest. It seemed okay to me when I tried it, maybe a bit too easy?
Pages: first prev 123 next last