Author Topic: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III  (Read 25236 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Myxtika1 Azn

  • The Master of the Fists
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2006, 09:29:34 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: wandering
Quote

Is it really necessary to quote the entire post that you're responding to, when said post is directly above yours?? Damn, that is annoying. If you were doing a point-by-point rebuttal, I'd understand, but you're not.

Anyways, I agree with KDR about the "not wanting to know how he played" thing. This is a review, not a strategy guide.

And the part about needing to input all commands at once? You brought up Final Fantasy VI at this point. Well, I just wanted to say that you do NOT have to input everybody's command at once. There is a guage that shows you when a character's next turn to attack is. Same with FF IV.

In all of the FF games that I've played (FF1 nes, FF1 & 2 GBA, Mystiq Quest - LOL -, FFII & III snes), the only time that you can save anywhere is in the Overworld. You can do no such thing in a dungeon, cave, town, or castle.

And you think that the battle system is "perfect"? Maybe it is for you, but I would take the battle systems of Grandia, the Tales games, the Paper Marios, and the handheld Mario RPGs over it any day of the week. I also like Dragon Quest VIII's, because that series has a very special place in my heart. ::sniff:: The only FF battle system worth mentioning now is the one from FF VI, and that's only because of Sabin.

Quote
No one wants to know that? Well ALOT OF PEOPLE DO! and for a matter of fact I DO, and To Clear things up once more, all HE WAS USING WAS PHYSICAL DAMAGE, he Again didn't use Skills, Skills= IMPORTANT FACTOR IS DAMAGE.
and each different class has that[/qoute]

Oh really? And how did you find that out? And what are these skills that you are talking about? Is it like magic or something? Because, I seriously think that it is rather foolish to assume that a person would not use any magic to fight their battles with. The reviewer finished the game, did he not? Do you really think that it's possible to do so with just "PHYSICAL DAMAGE"?

Have you played the Final Fantasy IV GBA remake? Did you noticed how broken the battles were? Did you notice when the enemies would attack you 2-3 times before you can? That didn't happen when it was released as FF II for the SNES. The remake was buggy as hell. Maybe that's what happened to this remake. Perhaps it was rushed and the developers couldn't get all the bugs out.

About the scores on the FFIII OST. Were any of them remixes? If so, how many? Eh, I don't really care. The only FF music I care to listen to are from FF IV and VI.

Also, there indeed was NOT enough music in the Twin Snakes remake. They took out "Enclosure", the music that plays after you fight Sniper Wolf. That was the best music in the game and I was really looking forward to it after I defeated her. All I got was the sound of the wind. Boo-urns.

In answer to your first question, I think it is generally necessary, yes.


I see.... Carry on then.
500 years ago, I shook the Pillars of Heaven.  Why should I fear a runt like you?

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2006, 10:05:22 PM »
I think we can argue his back and forth but in the end it's pointless until the reviewer himself starts posting here.

The battle difficulty is heavily unbalanced. No amount of levelling changes that. Either you're weak enough to fight the standard monsters while having a challenge and can't beat the boss or you're so strong the standard monsters are no challenge at all and you can beat the boss. The regular enemies should pose a challenge even when the player is strong enough to face the boss, otherwise walking through the dungeon is really damn boring (especially since you can't avoid the random encounters even if the enemies can't even scratch you). That is a major demotivator.

And yes, it's possible to make regular enemies challenging. Try Xenosaga (Ep2 at least), for example. The regular enemies can be quite deadly at times yet the bosses don't require grinding to beat (but you'll still be close to death a lot of the time).

Offline Rwinterhalter

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2006, 10:57:03 PM »
You guys should check out 1up's Retronauts podcast, it's all about FF III, and they bitch about the same things I talked about in the review.

Offline DeathShadow

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2006, 04:42:28 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think I am... but, from what I've heard of the game, it follows ff8's battle system.  In other words, when you gain levels, so do the enemies.  Meaning levels amount to basically nothing in this game.

Offline ShyGuy

  • Tom Nook - Like a Boss!
  • *
  • Score: -9660
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2006, 05:36:38 PM »
I think this thread will gains bumps for many days to come

Offline Refia

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2006, 08:29:11 AM »
This review is wrong. And pathetic. Ha, go rigth ahead and call me a FF fanboy and give me a good laugh. Anybody who thinks FF III is hard sucks at playing RPG's.
How do you think the enemies and bosses were in the original? The same dude, the same. And not ridiculously difficult.

I remember Kingdom Salonia. I could beat the Dragon Tower so easily, yet Garuda kicked my behidn so many times because I was foolish enough to sell 3 of my 4 sets of dragoon equipment I needed to easily beat him.

Salamander was another one. The fire cave wasn't hard, Salamander was.
Does this make it ridiculously difficult? No dude, no. It gave a challenge. It wasn't unbalanced as you guys out there try to convince us it is. I've read other reviews, more balanced reviews. Reviews I trust more. People who were turned away by this pathetic, crappy piece of text, read some other reviews. They give you a better view on the game. Sure, each to his own opinion, but ignorance is something I can't stand.

People who are turned away by hard bosses and easy enemies, stay away from FF V Advance then too! I got through the entire game and ended up in the end with party of lv 34. The Final Boss owned me, for about ten times. He's really hard. But does that make the difficulty ridiculously and unbalanced? No.

No. It makes you work for your victory. Leveling up is working for yoru victory. But in these type of FF games, it's not the levels (not fully), it's your party, the jobs. Want a powerhouse? Make a dual wielding Warrior, Dark Knight or Ninja. Healing to be done? Make a white mage or devout and spam some Cure spells. There's nothing unbalanced in it, it's logical. Sure, if you run through the game with 4 Freelancers, yeah, then it will be hard.

Now, it's the NES story upgraded with characters. And the story is still quite good for today's standards. Sure it's less developped, but oh well, I rather have a game with some thight gameplay and a story that keeps you going than a huge story with plotholes with the size of meteors.

Ha, and the dialogue terrible. Well, for one thing, I'm glad you can at least read japanese 100% fluently, reviewer. It's not something anyone can. So okay, if you can, glad you can. I'm sure the english translation will bring soem new light on the game.

I'm actually wondering what yo ureviewer expected? Something epic? A FF VII PERHAPS? Well, something epic we have here, this is the FF that laid the final touches on the formula the series used for a long time.

Also, I'm wondering hwo teh story is predictable? So you knew from the beginning Zande was behind the sinking of the crystals, but that it was actually The Cloud of Darkness, which came forth from the void when light and dark were unbalanced, who controlled Zande? Wow! You continue to amaze me!

Let's see if you can amaze me even further.

Well, the boss issue again. You suck at playing RPG's, that's all I have to say. Even in the original (which was HARD), I had quite some challenges with bosses, some even killed me, but never anything that frustrated me so terribly. And yes, it was the same, enemies were quite defeatable and bosses were harder.
I wish I could see your face if you got to the end of teh game, play through The Forbidden LAnd Eureka with 6 or 7 hard bosses, save, play through the enormous Sylx Tower, manage to defeat Zande, go to the Dark World, somehow you manage to defeat Cerberus, Echidna, 2-Head Dragon and Ahriman, then The CLoud of Darkness kicks your behind. And guess what, you can start all oevr again because you can't save during those two dungeons. I'm pretty sure you would toss your DS across the room then, seeing as this game is horribly difficult for a pro-gamer like you and it just handed your behind to you.

Lolness...

At its heart, FF III DS is a great come back for some old-school RPG-ing that will please any RPG fan that likes some challenge.

I corrected that sentence for you.

And sure, I wouldn't import it eitehr, I would rather wait for the english version to come, playing a japanese game is quite hard. And I know, for I've beaten FF V Advance in Japanese and it was a pain. <_<

Lastly, I think you need to go back to school, you know.
10.0+8.0+9.0+5.0(haha!)+8.0=40
40/5=8.0

So unless you are bad at maths, your 'Final' score isn't really correct, unless it wasn't ment to be the average score of all your otehr scores. Strange, every review bases it's Final Score on all it's other scores.
Curious you didn't.

Then again, you probably wanted to break down FF III DS because you didn't liek it. And well, your method has effect it seems, as many people who've posted here are already turned away from the game by your crappy review. Which is sad.

And no, it is not 'cool' in any way to give FF a low score. Or give anything that's popular a low score. FF always got high scores because they deserve it. And certainly this one deserves more than your unlogical 6.5. Not coming from a fanboy, but from an RPG-lover who knows what was behind this game, who knows it's origins and who likes a return of the best gaming-period ever: the time of the NES.

---
KDR_11k your replies here make me wonder. Have you played the game fully, finished it, completely understood the story, characters and yada yada, or are you basing your rip-FF-III-DS-to-shreds replies on this crappy review?

---
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=729535

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=723205

People who were turned away by this crappy text, read these ones. Not saying these are better cause they gave the game a better score or something, or because I'm a FF-fanboy who feels insulted, but simply because these reviews are more realistic than this one is.

These review also don't deny that the game has bad points. Read this ones before you really decide not to buy the game after reading this review.

I'm disgusted that this review was added to the review list of gamespot's review list. But oh well, can't be helped. And one crappy review isn't going to take away my desire to finally play the game. Maybe I'll tell how many times the bosses kicked my behind once I've finished the game. If it is really as hard as the reviewer says, I think every boss should at least kill me once. We'll see, we'll see...

So in the end, "We've waited sixteen years for this?!" Yes, we did, and I'm happy the waiting is almost over.  

Offline KnowsNothing

  • Babycakes
  • Score: 11
    • View Profile
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2006, 08:59:48 AM »
Way to come in here swinging trashbags, insulting other gamers for their taste, and spoiling the story.

Now that you've had your fun, go away.
kka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wa

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #57 on: October 24, 2006, 09:01:16 AM »
Quote

So unless you are bad at maths, your 'Final' score isn't really correct, unless it wasn't ment to be the average score of all your otehr scores. Strange, every review bases it's Final Score on all it's other scores.

Jerk.
It states clearly that it's not an average.  It's an overall score.  A category of its own.  Pretty standard stuff.
If you don't like the review then go here and write your own.  Thats why its here.  It's not productive to condescendingly shred a good reviewers review down.

Don't agree with the review great.  That's your opinion go for it.  Please just go and review the game yourself.  Give your own opinion it.  But insulting people and the like is not something that should be done.  People like you are what make the Internet a non-friendly place.  Please, use a spell checker when writing something so long.  
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline fireyhope

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2006, 10:51:21 AM »
the review is faulty and lacks depth.

not to mention that all Final Fantasy remakes and or ports just refined the same music, they never added music.
so i don't know what the hell the reviewer was thinking when he was complaining not enough music when there are over 40 damn tracks in the game.

Offline fireyhope

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2006, 10:56:10 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Ceric
Quote

So unless you are bad at maths, your 'Final' score isn't really correct, unless it wasn't ment to be the average score of all your otehr scores. Strange, every review bases it's Final Score on all it's other scores.

Jerk.
It states clearly that it's not an average.  It's an overall score.  A category of its own.  Pretty standard stuff.
If you don't like the review then go here and write your own.  Thats why its here.  It's not productive to condescendingly shred a good reviewers review down.

Don't agree with the review great.  That's your opinion go for it.  Please just go and review the game yourself.  Give your own opinion it.  But insulting people and the like is not something that should be done.  People like you are what make the Internet a non-friendly place.  Please, use a spell checker when writing something so long.


a good reviewer? this guy is definately not a good reviewer, Famitsu are good reviewers, Gamespot and EGM are pretty good reviewers!

not this guy, who is obviously just a crappy reviewer who probably hates old school RPG games, and Probably is one of the reasons why JAPAN DIDN'T WANT TO RELEASE THE ORIGINAL FFIII in the first place because it was too hard.
not to mention this was his first review with ANY Final Fantasy game

Though FFIII is considered one of the best in japan.  

Offline fireyhope

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #60 on: October 24, 2006, 11:02:46 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Myxtika1 Azn
Is it really necessary to quote the entire post that you're responding to, when said post is directly above yours??  Damn, that is annoying.  If you were doing a point-by-point rebuttal, I'd understand, but you're not.  Nested quotes are annoying as hell as well, but I digress....

Anyways, I agree with KDR about the "not wanting to know how he played" thing.  This is a review, not a strategy guide.

And the part about needing to input all commands at once?  You brought up Final Fantasy VI at this point.  Well, I just wanted to say that you do NOT have to input everybody's command at once.  There is a guage that shows you when a character's next turn to attack is.  Same with FF IV.

In all of the FF games that I've played (FF1 nes, FF1 & 2 GBA, Mystiq Quest - LOL -, FFII & III snes), the only time that you can save anywhere is in the Overworld.  You can do no such thing in a dungeon, cave, town, or castle.

And you think that the battle system is "perfect"?  Maybe it is for you, but I would take the battle systems of Grandia, the Tales games, the Paper Marios, and the handheld Mario RPGs over it any day of the week.  I also like Dragon Quest VIII's, because that series has a very special place in my heart. ::sniff:: The only FF battle system worth mentioning now is the one from FF VI, and that's only because of Sabin.

Quote

No one wants to know that? Well ALOT OF PEOPLE DO! and for a matter of fact I DO, and To Clear things up once more, all HE WAS USING WAS PHYSICAL DAMAGE, he Again didn't use Skills, Skills= IMPORTANT FACTOR IS DAMAGE.
and each different class has that


Oh really? And how did you find that out?  And what are these skills that you are talking about?  Is it like magic or something?  Because, I seriously think that it is rather foolish to assume that a person would not use any magic to fight their battles with.  The reviewer finished the game, did he not?  Do you really think that it's possible to do so with just "PHYSICAL DAMAGE"?

Have you played the Final Fantasy IV GBA remake?  Did you noticed how broken the battles were?  Did you notice when the enemies would attack you 2-3 times before you can?  That didn't happen when it was released as FF II for the SNES.  The remake was buggy as hell.  Maybe that's what happened to this remake.  Perhaps it was rushed and the developers couldn't get all the bugs out.

About the scores on the FFIII OST.  Were any of them remixes? If so, how many?  Eh, I don't really care.  The only FF music I care to listen to are from FF IV and VI.

Also, there indeed was NOT enough music in the Twin Snakes remake.  They took out "Enclosure", the music that plays after you fight Sniper Wolf.  That was the best music in the game and I was really looking forward to it after I defeated her.  All I got was the sound of the wind.  Boo-urns.


Then why doesn't the reviewer explain more in depth about what he did? to even try and make his argument even more beleivable then basically just saying "it's hard" he didn't go in depth with certain strategy SOME PEOPLE FOUND when fighting certain bosses.

i agree with most of what you said, but i can already tell you are a FFVI and FFV fanboy.
Personally i like FFVII and FFX much more because old school graphics do not entrance me as much as 2d, saying that you are completely wrong saying that there were not enough tracks in MGS twin snakes because MGS twin snakes had remixed music and had music at all the same spots.

therefore it had the same amount of music, which is enough not if you like the music or not.  

Offline KnowsNothing

  • Babycakes
  • Score: 11
    • View Profile
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #61 on: October 24, 2006, 11:56:20 AM »
Because "enough" music is a definite number and all.

Guys, seriously, let's shut up.  
kka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wa

Offline Smoke39

  • Smoking is only bad for you if you're not made of smoke already
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2006, 12:25:36 PM »
No, KN.  We must all argue about whose opinion is righter.
GOREGASM!

Offline Svevan

  • Not Afraid of Being Afraid
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
    • Continuity
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2006, 01:23:25 PM »
I'm up for that, when do we start?
Evan T. Burchfield, aka Svevan
NWR Message Board Artist

My Blog

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2006, 01:34:07 PM »
Svevan wins.  He has the least amounts of posts per day.  Therefore more people must agree with him.  Using that logic I must always be wrong.  I'll start expressing my opinions in the opposite now:

Sony R0x0R hardcore!
/end opposite

People will now like, cherish, and agree with me.
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline fireyhope

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2006, 03:51:00 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Because "enough" music is a definite number and all.

Guys, seriously, let's shut up.


40 or more is standard for most RPG games.

Offline Myxtika1 Azn

  • The Master of the Fists
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2006, 05:48:48 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: fireyhope

i agree with most of what you said, but i can already tell you are a FFVI and FFV fanboy.



Oh shiz, really?  I've not played that game yet, but ok! Thanks for letting me know, lolz!


Quote


Personally i like FFVII and FFX much more because old school graphics do not entrance me as much as 2d


 But old school graphics ARE 2d. lolz


Quote

saying that you are completely wrong saying that there were not enough tracks in MGS twin snakes because MGS twin snakes had remixed music and had music at all the same spots.



x 2.  

What are you talking about?  Are you saying that the song "Enclosure" played during your talk with Sniper Wolf after you took her out?  In all the times that I've played that game, I've not once heard it come on.  So how can you say that it had music at all the same spots??  Unless they took it out for the US version?  What version are you playing?
500 years ago, I shook the Pillars of Heaven.  Why should I fear a runt like you?

Offline Refia

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2006, 05:54:12 PM »
I wonder, I really do, how many of you who complain, have imported (or downloaded the ROM) the game. If you haven't, and you are agreeing with this reviewer, how can you be sure he isn't wrong?

Bleh, and if you ask how I can be sure he's wrong, having played and finished the original gives me more insight in the game and its remake than only playing the DS-remake. No I haven't played the DS game. But I've read a lot about it, read otehr reviews and filled it in with what I know of the original game.

He complains you have to level up to beat bosses. Only he forgets to add that gaining levels isn't such a pain as in the original. Players of the game have said for themselves, you gain levels rather easily. So the overal dificulty can't be that ridiculously hard. Cause if you gain levels faster, you need to train less to beat a boss. Overal, for each boss, you need to be 10 levels higher than in the original. Do you think SE would be so stupid to make leveling up as hard as the original when you need to gain so much levels? Don't think so.

It's used in almost every review that the Final score is always based on it's other scores.
If it isn't here, that's too bad, and also an easy way to givve a game a low score if the reviewer doesn't like the game.

And I didn't 'bash' in here, insulted left and right and so on. This crappy review has been on my nerves for a while, and, as far as I know, I've only been quite negative towards the reviewer, no other members. Not that I would care if I insulted them, anyway... It's ridiculous that people suddenly go bashing the game for this one review that gives it an (unlogical, but oh well) low score. It's sad.  

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2006, 06:04:38 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: fireyhope Famitsu are good reviewers


...

The people who gave Nintendogs a flawless score for it's...uh, riveting storyline, er...graphics which push the limits of the imagination, amazing battle...er, dog walking system...and...uh...

Sorry, I trust my purchasing decisions to Famitsu as much as I trust my naughty bits to the trigger of a bear trap.

I haven't played FFIII and I'm still on the fence about getting it, but Famitsu has their collective heads so far up their asses that they can't tell a fart from a sneeze anymore.

The Japanese clearly like things in games that American gamers likely just won't care for. Ergo, Famitsu scores are 100% meaningless to the American gamer.
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline Arbok

  • Toho Mikado
  • Score: 5
    • View Profile
    • Toho Kingdom
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2006, 07:19:37 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
The Japanese clearly like things in games that American gamers likely just won't care for. Ergo, Famitsu scores are 100% meaningless to the American gamer.


Way to stereotype...
Toho Kingdom

@romero_tk

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #70 on: October 25, 2006, 12:31:58 AM »
He complains you have to level up to beat bosses. Only he forgets to add that gaining levels isn't such a pain as in the original. Players of the game have said for themselves, you gain levels rather easily. So the overal dificulty can't be that ridiculously hard. Cause if you gain levels faster, you need to train less to beat a boss. Overal, for each boss, you need to be 10 levels higher than in the original.

That doesn't sound like good game design to me. Unless something has really changed with RPGs, levelling is just repeatedly beating up the same few monsters. For hours, usually. I have no idea what ability of the player such a game is testing. Perhaps the ability to withstand boredom and the temptation to play something that doesn't have you work for hours to beat a boss and instead makes the journey to beat the game fun, even if it takes just as long.

Offline Refia

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #71 on: October 25, 2006, 02:55:59 AM »
Well actually, the entire statement of the game being ridiculously hard has been blown up after what I found. There was some guy who posted a series of videos on youtube from FF III DS with characters that were apparently all on very low levels. The HP they had (it was in the FInal Dungeon) was ridiculously low. Like, when a normal person is in that dungeon, they have trice as much HP as that guy had. Yet he floored Ahriman, Echidna, Cerberus and 2-Head Dragon, four of the hardest FF bosses in the history of the series. How could he do that, with such low characters, if this game is ridiculously hard and forces you to train endless hours to be able to beat a boss? How? Well, how he did it was simple, he must have found a damn good party to use. So it's not about levels, it's about those jobs. It always was, even in the original. Levels were needed to gain HP (which was needed too, if you wanted to survive the Final Boss). But you need a good party, good jobs. It's suicide to run through the game with a party of four Onion Knights in the original. (Until you get 4 sets of full Onion Equipment from the Sylx Tower and lv99 characters + lv99 job-level Onion Kights). If you run through this game with 4 Freelancer, well yeah, than this game will be ridiculously hard.

Oh, and it seems you misunderstood. It's not that you need to train 10 levels higher than the original. Jobs and enemies and difficulty have been balanced differently. So compared to the original, you'll notice you'll be a higher level at certain points, or need to be at a higher level at some bosses than you were in the original.

And besides. Do you actually believe Square Enix would be so stupid to make this game boring like Hell by forcing you to train and gain 10 levels for each boss? (Which is impossible, you'll be at lv 8 at boss numero 8 then.) Get thinking for once. I've heard importers and ROM'ers who played the game telling countless times that difficulty lies different, that it's neither nerfed or increased. Just different. SE knows how to make their games by now. They had to keep this close to the original (they succeeded to do so, well, there's one thing in this game that disappoints me but that's not important now), but they had to keep it playable, too. So like I said, the reviewer must have really played very badly then if every boss kicked his behind at least once. Most people I've met on fora and played the game, only had problems with a few bosses like The Big rat, which has always been underestimated and hard, or Hein. Salamander can be challenging too. But never I heard em say "OMFG this game is soo ridiculously hard that it's unplayable!" And I rather believe them, cause there are many people who don't think it's ridiculously hard, then one guy who appearantly must have played very badly if his behind got kicked so many times by bosses.

He also complained about the turn-based battles. Ha, strange, FF I and II: DoS ALSO with turn-based battles got a 9.5, not from him, but anyway. And if it's so hard for your healer to get a chance to heal, make two of them, what's hard in that? If you're sword-wielders do little damage, make a black mage and spam some destructiev black magic then. Geeweez, that's SO hard to figure out.

It's not really an easy RPG, I give you guys that, but it's not ridiculously hard, either. The original was challenging, yeah, but nothing impossible (The Final Boss was advised to fight at lv60. I beat her at lv 49, so that says something). And seeing as the DS-game is challenging in a different way, I don't believe it can be harder. You level up faster, so it's natural that bosses are also on higher levels than in the original.

Like, take the Final Boss, The Cloud of Darkness, in the original, she had 45 000 Hp and one attack which always did -1500 or more. In the DS remake, she has 450 000 HP. WTF?! You say. Easy guys. In this DS remake, she's more balanced, fairer. She has two snakes (each with 150 000 HP) to aid her. One Snake can only be harmed with attacks and the other with magic. One will aid the Cloud by casting thunder on everybody and the other snake will cast protect/shell/that stuff on her. The Cloud herself now can do regular attacks or use her deadly Surge Cannon. So you have a fairer chance. In the original, if she could use Surge Cannon when all my characters had done their thing, and use it the next turn before I could act, I was dead. Here, with two healers, you'll be alright. A sage and a Devout can easily do the trick. Fill in with a Nina and a Dark Knight for example, and you'll have a fair, but challenging, Final Boss.
"Yeah but her HP is still way to high compared to the original!!!" True, or not. You can buy those nice Shurikens in The Forbidden Land Eureka which EASILY did 6000 Damage to her in the original. In the DS remake, I saw Shurikens (in videos) always do 9999 damage. So guess what? If you have TWO Ninja's you'll eat away roughly 20 000 HP each turn! And you can completely ignore her snakes, because if she dies, they die too. So after roughly 8 turns you're the winner. With a Sage, or two Devouts spamming Curaja each turn, it's nearly impossible for the Cloud to kill you unless she uses Surge Cannon twice in a turn and once before you can act next turn. Which seems unlikely, anyway.

"So what?" you say. So what? With the right party, this game is just a challenging RPG, not ridiculously hard! Why is that so hard to believe? If a boss is hard, or you see you can't heal in time, make 2 healers! (That strategy saved my life when fighting against Bahamut/The CLoud of Darkness/Zande/Ahriman/Echidna/Cerberus/2-Head Dragon in the original. But okay, in the original you were pretty much forced to use 2 sages and 2 ninja's in the end of the game, now, you can chose how you form your party since jobs are balanced). It's all about how you form your party and just keeping your levels in check a bit. That's nothing new for the average RPG-gamer.

Offline Pale

  • Staff Layton Hat Thief
  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
    • PaleHour
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #72 on: October 25, 2006, 03:13:16 AM »
Quote

And besides. Do you actually believe Square Enix would be so stupid to make this game boring like Hell by forcing you to train and gain 10 levels for each boss?


I just wanted to say that this comment cracks me up because I play FF XI.
:: I was an active staffer forever ago, or was it yesterday. Time is an anomaly. Father of two boys.
---------------------
:: Grouvee :: Instagram

Offline wandering

  • BABY DAISY IS FREAKIN HAWT
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
    • XXX FREE HOT WADAISY PICS
RE: REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #73 on: October 25, 2006, 03:15:59 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: annoying
Also, I'm wondering hwo teh story is predictable? So you knew from the beginning Zande was behind the sinking of the crystals, but that it was actually The Cloud of Darkness, which came forth from the void when light and dark were unbalanced, who controlled Zande? Wow! You continue to amaze me!

Hey, thanks for spoiling the story! I was planning on picking this game up, but now I don't think I will!

Quote

It's used in almost every review that the Final score is always based on it's other scores.
If it isn't here, that's too bad, and also an easy way to givve a game a low score if the reviewer doesn't like the game.

Because good graphics make up for bad gameplay? Christ. NO reputable reviewer that I know does what you suggest.

The review is is a good one because it makes it clear exactly what the game is: a wolf in sheep's clothing. Ancient game design wrapped in a modern game's clothing. This is good thing for anyone to know, whether they'd be interested in that sort of thing, like you obviously are, or not.

Quote

Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
The people who gave Nintendogs a flawless score

...for being flawless, which it is?  
“...there are those who would...say, '...If I could just not have to work everyday...that would be the most wonderful life in the world.' They don't know life. Because what makes life mean something is purpose.  The battle. The struggle.  Even if you don't win it.” - Richard M. Nixon

Offline Refia

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:REVIEWS: Final Fantasy III
« Reply #74 on: October 25, 2006, 03:51:24 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: wandering
Quote

Originally posted by: annoying
Also, I'm wondering hwo teh story is predictable? So you knew from the beginning Zande was behind the sinking of the crystals, but that it was actually The Cloud of Darkness, which came forth from the void when light and dark were unbalanced, who controlled Zande? Wow! You continue to amaze me!

Hey, thanks for spoiling the story! I was planning on picking this game up, but now I don't think I will!

Quote

It's used in almost every review that the Final score is always based on it's other scores.
If it isn't here, that's too bad, and also an easy way to givve a game a low score if the reviewer doesn't like the game.

Because good graphics make up for bad gameplay? Christ. NO reputable reviewer that I know does what you suggest.

The review is is a good one because it makes it clear exactly what the game is: a wolf in sheep's clothing. Ancient game design wrapped in a modern game's clothing. This is good thing for anyone to know, whether they'd be interested in that sort of thing, like you obviously are, or not.

Quote

Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
The people who gave Nintendogs a flawless score

...for being flawless, which it is?

Bleh, I'm happy I've spoiled it all. I've helped the reviewer. Wait, that's not a good thing...

Read reviews on gamespot, read reviews on eyesonff, read reviews on ING, always the Final Scores are based on the other scores. And did I say godo graphics make up for bad gameplay? No, but FF III does NOT have bad gameplay, so what are you talking about? Have YOU yourself played teh game and mae yoru own judgement? I doubt it. I've played the original, I've almost made my judgement about the DS-remake. But all I see you all doing, is ripping thsi game to shreds because of this one, little, crappy review. You take this, one way to look at the game, as the absolute correct review? Flawless and such? My, my, how sad. Well, it's not taht I really care to read reviews before I play a game, it's just that stupid reviews get on my nerves.

How do YOU know the game is a wolf in sheep's clothing? You've played it yourself? Understood everything and the whole yada yada? If so, well, seems to be your opinion. But, I think, I can be wrong, you have NOT played it, so again, you all base your rip-it-to-shreds-god-damn-it! replies on this review.

Sure it's a revived game, doesn't really make it bad. And besides, if somebody thinks FF III is a completely new game when FF XII is starting to fill the shops, that's weird. Only blind VII-fann00bs can be fooled that way.

Ignoring the reviews I offered for a different view on the game. I would call it pathetic, but then I'm the insulting one again, but god, why should I care.  You all just deserve it. Yeah yeah, I can hear you all coming, shouting, or saying "That's not true at all!". Then why not be more uncertain in your replies? Has this one review really made up your mind? My my, that's sad. The more replies you guys give me, the more sad I find it for you guys. But do not think you're the only ones, I've told countless of people to try a game first before they take on that rip-it-to-shreds-god-damn-it! attitude. I advised them to read more reviews, that often helps. But you [deleted] blindly start believing what this reviewer says. Unless you've played the game, of course, in which case I take my words back and say each to his own opinion.

Everybody, well, almost everybody shouts how incredibly horrible FF X-2 is. Well, I won't believe them until I've played the game. How many of you with that rip-it-to-shreds-god-damn-it! attitude have actually played the game? Just a question. Yeah, yeah, you'll all be saying this and that again. You just don't give it a chance, not at all. And don't say it is not true. Only players of the game who still think it's bad I'll leave alone, they've played it, it's their opinon. But for the others, it's true. This review is bad, it's a popular name, it gets a low score so let's rejoice!

I would like to say you are all pathetic, but then you'll all say "The only pathetic one here is you." so I won't say it. But it is still sad, very sad. So if I were you, which I'm, luckily for myself, not, I would go and read some other reviews, or gather more information on the game.

Well anyway, one person less who'll buy the game. Maybe that's a good thing? Otherwise, I might have felt sorry for that poor FF III game.

And at the subject of XI, yeah, XI. You'll find few FF fans who like XI, I've never played it, so I don't know if it really is that horrible. I won't rip it to shreds until I've played it, but the possibility exists that I'll never play it so I'll never may have an opinion about it.