By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 27 July 2008
Edit Thread
zexen_lowe said:
Kasz216 said:
DMeisterJ said:
RolStoppable said:
DMeisterJ said:
Someone just isn't hardcore enough for FFT. I mean, it's not that hard. FFT is the only SRPG that i've ever played.

I haven't played FFT, but I've played both FFTA games and both are pretty easy. Real strategy is almost never required and most missions are a walk in the park. I don't think that there's much difference between the PS1/PSP games and the GBA/DS games in terms of difficulty.


Of course there is.

The GBA/DS is for kiddies. So it's easier.

Eh... FFT is way easier then FFTA... outside of the one battle vs Wiegraf.

 

Sorry, but FFTA has no difficult parts, every part of the game is easy (heck, when the game came out, I didn't understand how you learned abilities, didn't read that part of the tutorial, and reached the final battle with Marche knowing just two abilities)

FFT has a kinda strange difficulty curve. It stars very hard, then the difficulty decreases until you reach Gafgarion, which is hard, then Wiegraf is VERY difficult, then it's normal till you get Orlandu, if you use him, it's a cakewalk.

 

I've gotta ask if you actually tried to "Speed run" through advance or if you played most of the missions you were given? Because you don't need to actually complete most of the missions... the only reason FFT seems harder is because it was more poorly developed.  There were almost no sidequests so any leveling up you do seems to take forever because your playing the same 3-4 battles over and over.

FFT characters are so fragile it's really easy to set up opponents and wipe them out.