Final Fantasy Showdown Round #1 -- Rate FF7!

[dunno001]

Kasz216 said:

dunno001 said:
Hrm... I'll buck the trend: 3.5/10. Why?

Coming off of the SNES games, there was a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, this game failed on most of the aspects. FF7 really has only 1 memorable scene (Aeris/Aerith's death), the game was painfully easy, the feeling of exploration was lost (too much linearity, but not as bad as 10 or 13), and while the game was designed to look pretty at the time, it did not age well at all in that department. I liked how mini-games started to come into play, but I was annoyed at having to do them to continue the plot.

Looking at the game's mechanics, it went down to a 3-person party max, the lowest in any FF at date. (FF3 had 3 main characters and a frequent guest character.) The materia system was interesting, but led to being broken too easily. A character can cast Phoenix on death? MP absorb on magic giving you nearly infinite magic? And this also leads to the money problem. I did not care for the concept of an "all" materia. But these things were plentiful enough that when you master one, selling it isn't a problem... for 1.4 million gil. That should have you set for money for the rest of the game!

Finally, we have what I consider the biggest detractor, and a sign of where the series was going: the summons. The action time in 4 was sufficient for their use, but a summon in this game ensures that everyone's action bar will be full before the summon is even near done. And then you have the longer ones, in which, no exaggeration, I was able to make myself a melted cheese sandwich and eat it before it finished! It was a "look how pretty we can make things" event. And one that, in my eyes, led the series to almost irreparable doom; I've already cast vanish on it from my view...

Yeah, but I mean... compared to other Non-FF Jrpgs it's not that bad.  You've got some great non-FF RPGs like Persona, Earthbound etc...

 

However there is also a lot of trash and dang near unplayable JRPGs out there... well like FF2.  Or those first person NES RPGs where you need a map just to get around freakin town.

If feels unfair to take points off a game poorly just because other games with the same name were so much better.  I mean it's going to score lower regardless for being a worse game.

Well, let's see here. The score I gave it is based on a hybrid of where I put it in the FF timeline AND a crossection of all JRPGs. It gets a 4 in the FF line, and a 3 in the RPG line, so I give it a 3.5. And believe me, I'm aware of the better non-FF RPG series, like, as you mentioned, Persona. (And Shin Megami Tensei, Etrian Odyssey...) Even when we get to FF5, I won't be giving it a 10/10, it's just not the best game ever made. (I give no game a perfect 10/10. Persona 4 comes closest at 9.8.)

As for what you're calling "trash and dang near unplayable JRPGs", I have to disagree on that. FF2 had an interesting system for how to level up, which made it unique. And by the first-person ones, I'm assuming you mean things like Wizardry? I also find those to be fun, it's a game trying to remember what's where, and yes, it DOES bring back the old days of making maps! Or you can just find a cruel game that even maps for you- anyone remember ADOM?

But sorry, I will compare a game to others in the same series, and other JRPGs in general. That for me is the best way to measure a game's quality. All of the scores I give in this will have a higher internal FF score than general JRPG score. But you're going to get what I honestly think of the game, even comparing it to others. Just wait until tomorrow, with the FF8 thread; I'm ready to tear that a new one...