We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.
DS

Japan

Final Fantasy III

by Ryan Winterhalter - September 20, 2006, 1:17 am PDT
Total comments: 100

6.5

We waited sixteen years for this?

Sixteen years after its original release in Japan, Matrix Software has remade Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS. Final Fantasy III came at the end of the Famicom (NES) lifecycle in Japan. As such, it was the most technically advanced of the three original Final Fantasy games. The game eschews the epic story line and deep characters, which began in Final Fantasy II and later became the hallmark of the series, in favor of the more combat oriented style of the original. This gameplay has aged considerably in the past sixteen years and does not hold up well today.

FF III is a dungeon crawler at heart. Do not come expecting the epic stories of later games in the series. I can already hear the cheers from those who have chastised the series for being overwrought with drama and who welcome the return to a simpler time, but not so fast. Matrix Software did not leave the story alone; they added personality to the formerly faceless and nameless characters and expanded on a few story sequences as well. This compromise between story and action, between character development and gameplay, is actually worse than either extreme. What has been developed is a game that has a minimal story and almost zero character development but has pretensions of being a grand adventure story. The dialogue is terrible, filled with Japanese clichés and overdramatic word choice (this may yet be changed in localization). The story itself is predictable, and when it does take a dramatic turn, the ham-fisted dialogue robs the scenes of any dramatic flavor.

The game does try to spice things up with humor occasionally, but these attempts fall flat or seem incredibly out of place. For example, if you activate a piano in a certain inn, the patrons of that inn will dance rather crudely to "Grease Lightning". Most other attempts at humor revolve around the "old man" stock character familiar to Japanese audiences.

If you do not have a solid grasp on the Japanese language, it's better to just wait for the localized release in November. In order to understand the basics of the game, like where you need to go and how to get there, you will need to be able to read Japanese on a level most students don't obtain until at least their third year studying the language at a university level. Understanding the story (as simple as it is) would take an even higher level of proficiency. However, if you are a fluent reader, you can import the game from our partners at Lik-Sang.

The game is hard, and difficulty is something that tends to be rather rare in games these days. In the past sixteen years, developers have realized that being creamed by enemies within minutes of the first encounter is not fun. In this respect, Final Fantasy III is definitely old school. Most of the enemies you encounter will not be that difficult. There are a few annoying enemies that will replicate themselves if you cannot kill them in one hit, but this is more of an annoyance than a problem. The normal enemies are deceptively easy; the bosses are where the real problem lies. You can waltz through a dungeon, barely taking a hit, and then be slaughtered in two turns by the boss. The bosses in Final Fantasy III have moves that will kill most party members in two hits, or just one if it is a critical hit. This issue, combined with the fact that bosses have between two and four actions per turn, means that your characters will drop fast. Victory in combat is determined by the luck of the draw; if the enemy decides to take out your White Mage, and you do not have any precious and rare Phoenix Down items, there is not much you can do other than take the punishment the boss gives you and try again.

The turn system only aggravates the issue. You issue orders to all four of your characters at the same time. The character's speed stat is then used to determine who goes first. This means that whether or not you can heal your party (healing is effectively required every turn in boss battles) before a boss gets his lethal strike off is just a matter of luck. Should a character die and you have to resurrect him, the battle turns into a game of whack-a-mole, with you reviving one character just as another is taken out. In most RPGs, you can level up if a boss is giving you trouble, and while this is a possibility in FF III, it doesn't do a whole lot of good. How much damage you deal and take is determined more by equipment than by level. There are many places in the game where the next best armor and weapons are available only after you take out a boss. This asinine system results in you having to fight boss battles repeatedly until you get lucky and actually win. As victory in battle is a result of being lucky rather than work or skill, it saps away a good chunk of the rewarding feelings you would normally have from beating the boss.

Final Fantasy III introduced the “Job System" to the series. Since then variations on what FF III developed have appeared in no less than five Final Fantasy games since. The system in Final Fantasy III can be obtuse and counter-intuitive. It takes third fiddle to equipment and level in terms of taking and dealing damage. There was a large chunk of the game where my white mage was dealing as much damage as my character I was guiding through the fighting classes because I found a good staff for her, but I could not find a good blade for my Knight. Even worse was when my geomancer and my archer were outperforming him, in physical damage. The job effects how fast certain stats level up, but equipment and level are so much more important.

The art style resembles that of Final Fantasy IX, which is not surprising as that game was a tribute to the older Final Fantasy games. The character models, while simple, remain faithful to the style of the original. What's more, the towns and dungeons are fully rendered, unlike the pre-rendered backgrounds of Final Fantasy VII, VIII, and IX. These dungeons are actually the most impressive graphical feat of the game, which is good because you will be looking at them a lot.

The game is controllable either through traditional a D-pad/button combo or the touch screen. Touch screen controls work pretty much as you would expect: you tap a command, then tap the character you want to attack or heal. The touch screen controls do not add much to the game though, and the D-pad is far simpler and more intuitive.

The soundtrack is exactly what you would expect from Final Fantasy. Nobuo Uematsu's soundtrack hits all the right notes, and the new versions of these old tunes are perfect. There is even one track where the original 8-bit sound has been kept, and it is without a doubt the best track in the game. However, no new songs were composed for this remake. This results in a handful of excellent tracks being reused for a great number of scenarios. There is the town track, the castle track, the dungeon track, and the melodramatic story turn track, and over the course of the thirty or so hour quest, there are very few surprises. The sound is great but the lack of variety hurts it.

It is only the production values: graphics, music, and pedigree that make this game stand out. At its heart, Final Fantasy III is a dated and mediocre RPG that will only please the most die-hard Final Fantasy fans. With all its problems and the North American release only two months away, with hope that the localization will be an improvement, there is little reason to import Final Fantasy III.

Score

Graphics Sound Control Gameplay Lastability Final
10 8 9 5 8 6.5
Graphics
10

The DS hardware is rarely shown off as in Final Fantasy III. The well-done art only highlights this technical feat.

Sound
8

The sound is great but it could use more variety. By hour fifteen, you will be turning down the volume and playing your own music out of boredom.

Control
9

FF III uses the same basic controls you've known since the first Dragon Warrior, and they work well enough. However, the touch screen option seems tacked on.

Gameplay
5

Dated, frustrating, and boring, FF III's gameplay has not aged well. The remake is faithful to the original, but that is not a good thing.

Lastability
8

The quest is notably shorter than modern Final Fantasy games, but you'll die so often that while the clock may read twenty five or thirty hours, your actual play time will probably be closer to forty or fifty, which is not bad for a handheld game.

Final
6.5

Great graphics and sound cannot make up for poor writing and frustrating gameplay.

Summary

Pros
  • Great graphics accompanied by a fantastic art style
  • Incredible music (but see cons below)
Cons
  • Dated gameplay
  • Little diversity in music
  • Ridiculous difficulty
  • Terrible writing
Review Page 2: Conclusion

Talkback

CapSeptember 20, 2006

this is interesting......sure dated gameplay is a con to the game, but it is impossible to change some of the aspects of the gameplay without completely changing the game itself. by changing the battle system for instance, you might as well go and create a new final fantasy. much like the story(although it seems like it could have still been cleaned up a little from some of your comments about it). i guess it really depends on how square intends to market this game...if they market it as a 16 year old game with prettier graphics, noone should really be dissapointed with what they get. at its core, it IS still a 16 year old game.

hopefully square takes the graphics engine they used for this game and creates a new final fantasy for the ds.

PaleMike Gamin, Contributing EditorSeptember 20, 2006

Ouch. The worst part is I am still enough of a square whore that I will be buying it. ><

CericSeptember 20, 2006

After reading the review I think the problem was that they tried to update it to much and not enough. There are some games, Original Legend of Zelda comes to mind, that I would never want the characters to be "updated" to have more character. I enjoy using my imagination to fill in the gaps. Sort of like how in animation you only draw a picture of the key frames and then either the computer or lacky artist fill in the blanks. Their actions and abilities let me get what the artist vision of the character should be. From the review this sounds to be done like a bad cartoon. In a good cartoon everything has a purpose and serves a purpose. This allows what feels like a substantial amount of story to fit in only 20 or so minutes. I feel RPGs need to be around the same. Not short stories or novellas. I'm going to stop because I seem to be degrading as I type.

nitsu niflheimSeptember 20, 2006

Having played FF3 before the difficulty isn't new to me. It's actually a nice thing, because the last batch of FF games have been so easy that in one you can't even die during the final boss fight.

capamericaSeptember 20, 2006

I welcome the return of the Old Style Final Fantasy Games.
I enjoy the Playstation era Final Fantasys but the Old School NES/SNES era games to me are still the best. I have replayed Final Fantasy 1 and 6 more times then I have any PS era FF games.

I can't wait for the release of Final Fantasy III in the US.

KDR_11kSeptember 20, 2006

So much for "games have only advanced in graphics, not gameplay".

It sounds to me like the gameplay could probably be improved just by rebalancing the difficulty to make normal enemies a bit harder and bosses a bit easier. There are probably a lot of ways to make the game less frustrating without changing the fundamental nature of the battle system. And with a couple of months for localization, SquareEnix USA could make some of these gameplay fixes.

Ian SaneSeptember 20, 2006

It's not surprising that the game comes across as dated. Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, and Phantasy Star are all considered classic 8-bit RPGs but I can't play them for more than five minutes without wanting to tear my hair out. They're classics because they're pioneers and at the time they were released they blew us away. Some games however get dated and only really still work if you play them in a certain frame of mind where you ignore how things have improved in later years ("this is so amazing for a 1986 game!") If we got to play Final Fantasy III 16 years ago we would probably consider it a classic. But we didn't and our first time playing it we have later Final Fantasy games and later RPGs to compare it to. We can't remember how amazing the game was when it came out. There's no nostalgia.

KDR_11kSeptember 20, 2006

Of course. Though I can't imagine the mindset one would have to be in to enjoy Metroid.

Terranigma FreakSeptember 20, 2006

Thank you PGC for being honest and standing up against the millions of SE whores out there. Although personally, I would have given the game an even lower score. Gameplay is king, and most Square--no, most RPGs have about as much gameplay as ET. You randomly go into these repetitive battles that neither tests your skills/reflex nor does it test your mental abilities. Just repeat a battle enough to earn money and exp to level up and get the best stuff, rinse and repeat 1000x. Sure there are the occasional games like the Mario RPGs that actually provides fun and gameplay, but those games are the minority.

nemyhlovecraftSeptember 20, 2006

So, you would have given the game a lower score because you've played it, or what? Eh, whatever, I won't give you a hard time for being stupid because thats not something you can really change. As for the review, I found it pretty shallow. You didn't like a classic JRPG because it featured the concepts inherent to a JRPG. Is that what I should be taking away from this? I would have liked to know how polished the engine is, how well MogNet worked, how well the Job system works. Maybe even how many hours of gameplay there actually was, of course you'd probably have to get past hour 5 to give a good reading on that. I can understand the desire to be known as "that guy" who thought it was cool to give an FF game a low review because their indie music sensabilities just have to leak over into every other aspect of their life, but I just have to think how bad it will look for PGC when every other media outlet is giving fairly decent scores and their reviewers have insightful things to say about game mechanics and the future of dense RPGs on the DS.

PopeRealSeptember 20, 2006

It will be interesting to see what scores this game gets on gamerankings. As I am not a Square whore I will rent this game first before buying it. I am nervous of this site lately, it has been very negative so I have a feeling this game might be better than this review. But unlike some people I will play it before I make my judgement.

KnowsNothingSeptember 20, 2006

nemthlovecraft is "that guy" who nags the reviewer because he thinks the reviewer thinks giving the game a low score will make him cool but really he just can't handle that jrpgs suck.

Look, if a reviewer hates jrpgs, then the game will get a low score. Reviews are SUBJECTIVE pieces of writing. You want someone who LIKES jrpgs to review it, but how would that be any different? I'm not saying this review is perfect (actually, I haven't read it! WIN!), but giving it a low score because it's a traditional jrpg is legit in my books, so long as the review says he doens't like that genre. That's why I feel it's best for a site to have multiple reviews of major games, by different people with different tastes. That way the reader can find the author they relate most to and follow their review. Me? This review told me exactly what I need to know, which is why I won't be buying the game. For someone else who LIKES this sort of crap, they need more.

PGC used to do more multi reviews, they should get back on that. It could be because there haven't been too many major game releases lately though...

ShyGuySeptember 20, 2006

Something tells me that this review is going to generate a lot of content for a certain hate mail thread in the funhouse...

StrellSeptember 20, 2006

So what you are saying is that this is the Duke Nukem Forever of Final Fantasy?

ThePermSeptember 20, 2006

renting ds games..must be nice. my local blockbuster has a ton of psp games to rent and no ds games. It makes me laugh because none are checked out and at the same time ds is totally whooping the PSPs ass in sales.

ShyGuySeptember 20, 2006

Blockbuster is full of Phail, I expect them to be gone in a few years.

Viewtiful marioSeptember 20, 2006

Quote

You randomly go into these repetitive battles that neither tests your skills/reflex nor does it test your mental abilities.


in my opinion I'd say Baiten Kaitos tests thoes things but that's just me. (And I'm in LOVE with baiten Kaitos)
I must admit that being dated is a common problem for me when it comes to playing old nintndo games, I honestly can't see how someone can finish Metroid or the original Zelda without something pointing you in the right direction like a map. But Super mario Brothers is still fun to play even today, which shows how ahead of it's time it was. So lets just say the NES will be the system I'll download from the least when I get my Wii.

On another note, I was planning for this to be the first FF game I've played but if the writing is that horrable (I like an RPG with a good story which is why I love Baiten Kaitos so much) and the difficulty is unbalanced thn that's 30$ just added to my Wii fund.

PopeRealSeptember 20, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: ThePerm
renting ds games..must be nice. my local blockbuster has a ton of psp games to rent and no ds games. It makes me laugh because none are checked out and at the same time ds is totally whooping the PSPs ass in sales.


yeah that does't make sense... blockbuster must not pay attention to how well the ds is doing...
I rent from gamefly, I have never seen ds games at a video store

Ian SaneSeptember 20, 2006

"Look, if a reviewer hates jrpgs, then the game will get a low score. Reviews are SUBJECTIVE pieces of writing. You want someone who LIKES jrpgs to review it, but how would that be any different?"

Honestly I think having someone who likes the genre would provide a more useful review for those considering buying the game. I'm not accusing the reviewer of anything, I'm just saying that a review by someone that hates the genre is a waste of time. I don't like sports games. What use is my review if I rip Madden apart? It gives no indication that it's a good or bad sports game. I wouldn't like ANY sports game so for the sports gamer my review isn't really a good indication of whether the game is worth playing or not.

If someone specifically doesn't like a certain genre, and this applies to movies and music as well, they should probably not review it because they don't really know what the target audience likes and dislikes and is looking for.

KnowsNothingSeptember 20, 2006

Well, you do have a point. I don't want someone who completely loathes a genre and rips it apart no matter what. However, what if FFIII was really a great game that someone who generally hates jrpgs still might like? I mean, there are a lot of differences between different games in the same genre. Let's say I'm interested in Pikmin and I read a review that gives it a 10, and the reviewer loves strategy games. I might say "Oh man, a strategy game? I'm not interested." But then I read a review from someone who dislikes strategy games, yet still gives pikmin a good score. Now I'm more interested, because maybe this is a game even *I* can enjoy.

Ideally, a reviewer will cover both sides of the coin, but that rarely happens, and even when it does the reviewer still has an opinion on it so it might not be fair for both sides. Multiple reviews are great if the different reviewers have different tastes because it covers a broader audience.

SvevanEvan Burchfield, Staff AlumnusSeptember 20, 2006

At PGC we strive for a balanced perspective within each game review and, if necessary, with multiple reviews. I do not believe this "subjectivity" nonsense, as though one person's bent towards a genre qualifies or disqualifies him. I don't understand figting or sports games, but if I get one to review I had better be fair with it - however, there is such a thing as reviewing the genre after reviewing the game, as some genres (like sports and fighting) shouldn't exist.

KnowsNothingSeptember 20, 2006

"Subjectivity" isn't sometime that qualifies/disqualifies someone, but it's something to keep in mind. A review can never be completely objective, nor should it strive to be. It's impossible, because it's a subjective piece by nature. If a "review" turns out to be completely objective, then it is merely a discription of the final version of a game. That's fine and dandy, and often a lot more helpful to a reader than someone just going "This game sucks," but in my mind it's not really a review. It's a post-preview. Or something. I don't know.

I feel a review should be a mix between a preview and impressions (of the final version of a game, of course), if that makes sense. There should be factual description as well as subjective commentary. A review with all facts sucks, and a review with all opinion sucks. Both = yay.

Infernal MonkeySeptember 20, 2006

Finally, a review of a FF game with the correct score on the end!

Quote

Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
"Subjectivity" isn't sometime that qualifies/disqualifies someone, but it's something to keep in mind. A review can never be completely objective, nor should it strive to be. It's impossible, because it's a subjective piece by nature. If a "review" turns out to be completely objective, then it is merely a discription of the final version of a game. That's fine and dandy, and often a lot more helpful to a reader than someone just going "This game sucks," but in my mind it's not really a review. It's a post-preview. Or something. I don't know.

I feel a review should be a mix between a preview and impressions (of the final version of a game, of course), if that makes sense. There should be factual description as well as subjective commentary. A review with all facts sucks, and a review with all opinion sucks. Both = yay.


QFT.

I have a favorite movie reviewer, Mick Lasalle, who I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with. But the reason that I trust him enough to read his reviews is because after reading his review, I can decide for myself. That is to say, he doesn't tell me why a movie is good or bad, he tells me WHY it's good or bad. He writes about what the movie does well and what it doesn't, and he writes about how that affects the movie as a whole. Throughout that entire review, I feel like he's not only reviewing the movie, but deconstructing what it feels like to watch it. Thus, in the end, I can easily decide for myself if I want to watch the movie because regardless of his opinion, Mick Lasalle has also conveyed the objective facts of what the movie does and does not do. If I disagree with his opinions, it's easy to point at passages in his review and state that I see these facets of the movie as positives or negatives.

Hopefully, a game review would be able to do the same thing, convey the facts of what a game is built like, and what it plays like. On top of that, the reviewer can add a subjective layer where they measure the game's "worth" but for those who pay attention, the information in a review should inspire them to reach their own conclusion no matter what the reviewer said.

In fact, the best sort of review would be one without a score at all ... but that's not practical. Reviews with scores are more entertaining to read, and also easier to scan over if a reader is really on the run, or merely disinterested.

This FF3 review... I must say meets my criteria. (a review of a review! Oh what a world, what a world!)

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

WuTangTurtleSeptember 20, 2006

aw man this @$@#!, i hope Children of Mana is good otherwise my DS is still gonna be starving for a RPG.....which reminds me when the #@$!% does Tales of the Tempest come stateside?

NinGurl69 *hugglesSeptember 20, 2006

Time to sell that DS Lite!

Quote

Originally posted by: nemyhlovecraft
So, you would have given the game a lower score because you've played it, or what? Eh, whatever, I won't give you a hard time for being stupid because thats not something you can really change. As for the review, I found it pretty shallow. You didn't like a classic JRPG because it featured the concepts inherent to a JRPG. Is that what I should be taking away from this? I would have liked to know how polished the engine is, how well MogNet worked, how well the Job system works. Maybe even how many hours of gameplay there actually was, of course you'd probably have to get past hour 5 to give a good reading on that. I can understand the desire to be known as "that guy" who thought it was cool to give an FF game a low review because their indie music sensabilities just have to leak over into every other aspect of their life, but I just have to think how bad it will look for PGC when every other media outlet is giving fairly decent scores and their reviewers have insightful things to say about game mechanics and the future of dense RPGs on the DS.


There are several problems with your post:

- You are insulting another poster.
- You wrongly assume that the reviewer does not like Japanese RPGs. Read the review (not just the score!) and you'll see that he is very familiar with the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series, at the very least.
- You wrongly assume that the reviewer quit playing after a few hours. He actually beat the entire game. That would be how he came up with the estimates of how long it takes to complete...again, you would have learned this if you had actually read the review before ignorantly criticizing it.
- You are completely wrong in thinking that we ever adjust scores in a review to make a statement or to garner special attention. We have more integrity than that, and I hope you will come to realize that after reading enough of our articles.

KDR_11kSeptember 20, 2006

This review didn't sound like he hates the genre, it sounds like FF3 sucks. Unbalanced difficulty, randomness being more important than skill, a plot that's shallower than a puddle, typically NES. These aren't common traits of the genre, they are common traits of old games with very unripe gameplay. Even if it was standard for the genre he should have deducted points for it because bad game design is inexcusable, no matter how many other games in the genre do it wrong as well. If an MMO has a lot of grind, deduct points. If a sports game has almost no changes compared to the slightly oder game that goes for a tenner now, deduct points. If an FPS is like every other goddamn FPS deduct points. If you can't make a good game within genre conventions you must break the conventions.

If you want dungeon crawling with random, infuriating deaths then play Nethack.

NinGurl69 *hugglesSeptember 20, 2006

^ Poast of the week.

NephilimSeptember 21, 2006

I dont like the hardnes issues, reason why i hated lunar:genesis... what a waste of money that game was face-icon-small-frown.gif

ShyGuySeptember 21, 2006

Super Mario Bros has a shallow storyline and I've played 2 side scrollers like a million times before. A button is jump? teh innovationz!

KDR_11kSeptember 21, 2006

Super Mario Bros doesn't depend on its story to be fun, though.

wanderingSeptember 24, 2006

Quote

On another note, I was planning for this to be the first FF game I've played

Yeah, me too. Actually, it still probably will be my first FF...but, based on this review, I probably won't get very far into it. Dissapointing.

fireyhopeOctober 03, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
This review didn't sound like he hates the genre, it sounds like FF3 sucks. Unbalanced difficulty, randomness being more important than skill, a plot that's shallower than a puddle, typically NES. These aren't common traits of the genre, they are common traits of old games with very unripe gameplay. Even if it was standard for the genre he should have deducted points for it because bad game design is inexcusable, no matter how many other games in the genre do it wrong as well. If an MMO has a lot of grind, deduct points. If a sports game has almost no changes compared to the slightly oder game that goes for a tenner now, deduct points. If an FPS is like every other goddamn FPS deduct points. If you can't make a good game within genre conventions you must break the conventions.

If you want dungeon crawling with random, infuriating deaths then play Nethack.



see, but i see nothing wrong with that, I find newer FF games just waaay too easy!
This is a throwback of oldschool style FF games and does everything right with better graphics from what i am hearing.


Unripe? no, it's classic throwback style, it's the style people grew up with playing J-RPG's.
Final Fantasy the very 1st one, remember how hard that was? man it was a challenge, nowaday's alot of Final Fantasy games are a breeze, just look at FFX too easy, good gameplay though but just too easy.

It just seems like the reviewer is nitpicking... Not enough music?
Well cause the original DIDN'T have many soundtracks, all they did was just probably revamp everything with good graphics better lvling up system and better everything, except keeping the game true to the people who truly love the old school JRPG gaming.

Anyways, if you start with a Final Fantasy Best to start with FFVII or FFX.

/faints at the neglect of FFVI

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

fireyhopeOctober 03, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: Kairon
/faints at the neglect of FFVI

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com


thats a good one too, but it's better for newcomers into the Final Fantasy Series to start with FFVII because it's more straightfoward and easier to get into then FFVI.

Ah, I see what you're saying then. Thanks for that!

And don't ever...EVER start with Final Fantasy 1! *brrr* impossible game to revert back to...play Dragon Warrior I instead!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

KDR_11kOctober 03, 2006

see, but i see nothing wrong with that, I find newer FF games just waaay too easy!

He never said the game was actually difficult, he said most of the game was a cakewalk and the bosses were horribly overpowered compared to the rest. Unbalanced difficulty, not high difficulty.

Unripe? no, it's classic throwback style, it's the style people grew up with playing J-RPG's.

Throwback or not it doesn't stack up to modern games.

Final Fantasy the very 1st one, remember how hard that was? man it was a challenge, nowaday's alot of Final Fantasy games are a breeze, just look at FFX too easy, good gameplay though but just too easy.

FFX is damn hard. I mean, it'd take years to get the patience to stand that game's battle system for more than an hour. Never mind the constant desire to rip Yuna's head off, stick it on a pole and parade it through town.

It just seems like the reviewer is nitpicking... Not enough music?
Well cause the original DIDN'T have many soundtracks, all they did was just probably revamp everything with good graphics better lvling up system and better everything, except keeping the game true to the people who truly love the old school JRPG gaming.


This is a remake, they had the chance to fix what was broken with the original and they failed to do so.

fireyhopeOctober 04, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
see, but i see nothing wrong with that, I find newer FF games just waaay too easy!

He never said the game was actually difficult, he said most of the game was a cakewalk and the bosses were horribly overpowered compared to the rest. Unbalanced difficulty, not high difficulty.

Unripe? no, it's classic throwback style, it's the style people grew up with playing J-RPG's.

Throwback or not it doesn't stack up to modern games.

Final Fantasy the very 1st one, remember how hard that was? man it was a challenge, nowaday's alot of Final Fantasy games are a breeze, just look at FFX too easy, good gameplay though but just too easy.

FFX is damn hard. I mean, it'd take years to get the patience to stand that game's battle system for more than an hour. Never mind the constant desire to rip Yuna's head off, stick it on a pole and parade it through town.

It just seems like the reviewer is nitpicking... Not enough music?
Well cause the original DIDN'T have many soundtracks, all they did was just probably revamp everything with good graphics better lvling up system and better everything, except keeping the game true to the people who truly love the old school JRPG gaming.


This is a remake, they had the chance to fix what was broken with the original and they failed to do so.


Failed to do what? Square was about to go bankrupt until Final Fantasy came along!

Horribly Overpowered? wtf? no, they weren't, you just needed to battle alot more, i beat Final Fantasy pretty easily.

Yes it's alot harder but nothing is overpowered to the extent that it's impossible to beat it or is too hard.

Doesn't stack up to modern games? yes it does, it stacks up to people who like throwbacks and classic J-RPG games, IF YOU DON'T LIKE CLASSIC J-RPG's you aren't going to like this game.

And if anybody calls FFX Hard thats just sad, because any final fantasy gamer would tell you, you are dead wrong, and people who actually grew up playing Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.

That doesn't make the hard, since you don't like it. You aren't making opinions anymore your just bashing and ranting... sadly...

And i'm pretty sure this game is catered to people who like Classic J-RPG games since this game is getting excelent reviews from Japan and guess what this review is only 1, we still haven't seen any other reviews alot of america still hasn't played this game.

And people i have known said this game is good and balanced well.

and suprisingly this is the only review i have ever seen that doesn't average the score. which doesn't make sense at all...

Also the soundtrack is perfectly fine in my opinion, saying you want more is purely your own opinion. Do people say there wasn't enough music in Mario? that there isn't enough music in Metal Gear Solid? and say Oh the remake doesn't have enough Music in it when overall most or all of the music is usually the same?

Actually the funny thing is i'm reading other reviews and there saying the pace and gameplay is balanced.
Maybe the Reviewer hasn't played the harder J-RPG's out there.

And i for one don't beleive a person that calls FFIII a rediculous hard gameplay as one of it's con's. and a person who says that through alot of my j-RPG experience probably hasn't played many J-RPG's.

Not only that, the Job System i heard can make things difficult which probably the reviewer couldn't grasp the right combinations to master.

Anyways i haven't played it myself but i read alot of things about it and i played tons of other Final Fantasy games and so far, it's Looks like Another good Final Fantasy game that is more challenging then other games and is more innovative since you can mix job's around and Combo.

So honestly i really don't know how a gamer doesn't like a good challenge once in a while... it's like giving Contra a Low score because it's too hard.

Also when the Reviewer said this
The turn system only aggravates the issue. You issue orders to all four of your characters at the same time. The character's speed stat is then used to determine who goes first. This means that whether or not you can heal your party (healing is effectively required every turn in boss battles) before a boss gets his lethal strike off is just a matter of luck. Should a character die and you have to resurrect him, the battle turns into a game of whack-a-mole, with you reviving one character just as another is taken out. In most RPGs, you can level up if a boss is giving you trouble, and while this is a possibility in FF III, it doesn't do a whole lot of good. How much damage you deal and take is determined more by equipment than by level. There are many places in the game where the next best armor and weapons are available only after you take out a boss. This asinine system results in you having to fight boss battles repeatedly until you get lucky and actually win. As victory in battle is a result of being lucky rather than work or skill, it saps away a good chunk of the rewarding feelings you would normally have from beating the boss.

this already tells me that he doesn't know how to play the game well, this is telling me that he doesn't know how to play the game very well. This also applies to games like Final Fantasy VI which is quite hard, at some times, but alot of times it isn't Victory, the reveiwer might think it is Lucky but it's all skills, for the problem also not only in equipment but also Leveling, nowhere have i ever read that You need a Certain Weapon to beat the game unless it's part of the story in any J-RPG game. Saying when your charachter dies and Right after you revive him, your other charachter dies, this thing basically happens in EVERY SINGLE J-RPG OUT THERE!
I think leveling up does do a whole lot of good, we don't even know how much to an extent the reviewer made to lvl up. Because from what i'm hearing this is like Any other J-RPG game from other people where you just need to keep on lvling up to beat a certain boss, the reviewer doesn't even mention the "abilities of the jobs"

Nor does the reviewer even mention the "Multi Hits" warrior class gets in later lvl's that outdamage other charachters in Melee Damage nor does he mention the Dual Wielding or Any other abilities, he just mentions Oh the game is hard because my Warrior Dishes out the same amount of damage and Heavily requires on Equipment? I also think he forgot to mention the Skills, which also can help dish out more damage then regular physcial attacks...

Also he doesn't even mention that The more YOU LVL UP THE MORE AMOUNT OF TIMES YOU CAN USE A CERTAIN SKILL!
Using Skills is a Huge Deal!
Not only that You have to EQUIP Magic! and you can only equip up to a certain amount, so for a Black Mage you would have to Equip the Right Type to Defeat the Boss easier, and try to find which magic it's the weakest too!
it just seems like All he did was test out Physical Damage of All classes!

Seriously J-RPG's alot of times do Require Equipment alot of times to dish out more damage... so I don't see the complaint, and yes alot of J-RPG's are linear like this one and you can't get Certain Items unless you Beat a certain Boss.

Usually if you can't beat the boss you just need to lvl up more, i doubt the reviewer even tried seeing how as Tons of other people could beat it and it's NOT OUT OF LUCK! J-RPG games are never about luck! they were about Skill and planning out what to do before hand Before going into battle. and you get to Think ahead of Time what to do.

I've never read any reviewer who said Turn Based Battles are based on luck because you can't heal fast enough just sounds like he has NEVER played a J-RPG in his life!

KDR_11kOctober 04, 2006

Failed to do what? Square was about to go bankrupt until Final Fantasy came along!

Failed to improve upon the NES game they released back then. I don't think Square-Enix was about to go bankrupt until FF3DS came out.

Horribly Overpowered? wtf? no, they weren't, you just needed to battle alot more, i beat Final Fantasy pretty easily.

Overpowered in relation to the dungeon they're in. The review clearly says that powerlevelling would be very slow since it's very equipment based. Requiring the player to grind for hours in every dungeon jut to be able to beat the boss is horrible game design and inexcusable, especially if the normal enemies don't pose a challenge anyway.

And if anybody calls FFX Hard thats just sad, because any final fantasy gamer would tell you, you are dead wrong, and people who actually grew up playing Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.

You may have missed the sarcasm (was that really sarcasm or was it some other form of speech?) I used to convey that the game is just so horribly boring and repetitive that it's hard to find the willpower to continue.

and suprisingly this is the only review i have ever seen that doesn't average the score. which doesn't make sense at all...

WTF, why would they average the score? If the game's no fun to play perfect scores for graphics shouldn't pull up the score, neither should bad graphics or sound diminish the scores of awesome games. No game's overall value is just the unweighted average of its components.

And i for one don't beleive a person that calls FFIII a rediculous hard gameplay as one of it's con's. and a person who says that through alot of my j-RPG experience probably hasn't played many J-RPG's.

That's why there's a review text explaining that only the bosses are difficult, not the regular enemies.

Not only that, the Job System i heard can make things difficult which probably the reviewer couldn't grasp the right combinations to master.

Forcing people to min/max is bad balancing.

this already tells me that he doesn't know how to play the game well, this is telling me that he doesn't know how to play the game very well. This also applies to games like Final Fantasy VI which is quite hard, at some times, but alot of times it isn't Victory, the reveiwer might think it is Lucky but it's all skills, for the problem also not only in equipment but also Leveling, nowhere have i ever read that You need a Certain Weapon to beat the game unless it's part of the story in any J-RPG game. Saying when your charachter dies and Right after you revive him, your other charachter dies, this thing basically happens in EVERY SINGLE J-RPG OUT THERE!

How is that not being able to play the game right? Having bosses capable of killing one of your characters in one turn (not one attack but the interval between player interactions) is very frustrating and should reduce the score.

Nor does the reviewer even mention the "Multi Hits" warrior class gets in later lvl's that outdamage other charachters in Melee Damage nor does he mention the Dual Wielding or Any other abilities, he just mentions Oh the game is hard because my Warrior Dishes out the same amount of damage and Heavily requires on Equipment? I also think he forgot to mention the Skills, which also can help dish out more damage then regular physcial attacks...

Also he doesn't even mention that The more YOU LVL UP THE MORE AMOUNT OF TIMES YOU CAN USE A CERTAIN SKILL!
Using Skills is a Huge Deal!
Not only that You have to EQUIP Magic! and you can only equip up to a certain amount, so for a Black Mage you would have to Equip the Right Type to Defeat the Boss easier, and try to find which magic it's the weakest too!
it just seems like All he did was test out Physical Damage of All classes!


Or maybe he was writing a review instead of a manual and as such decided against going into such minutiae?

Seriously J-RPG's alot of times do Require Equipment alot of times to dish out more damage... so I don't see the complaint, and yes alot of J-RPG's are linear like this one and you can't get Certain Items unless you Beat a certain Boss.

That wasn't his point.

Usually if you can't beat the boss you just need to lvl up more, i doubt the reviewer even tried seeing how as Tons of other people could beat it and it's NOT OUT OF LUCK! J-RPG games are never about luck! they were about Skill and planning out what to do before hand Before going into battle. and you get to Think ahead of Time what to do.

How's it skill to repeatedly kill weak monsters just so your level increases?

I've never read any reviewer who said Turn Based Battles are based on luck because you can't heal fast enough just sounds like he has NEVER played a J-RPG in his life!

Maybe because he didn't say that ALL games are like that, just this one?

And in conclusion:

Doesn't stack up to modern games? yes it does, it stacks up to people who like throwbacks and classic J-RPG games, IF YOU DON'T LIKE CLASSIC J-RPG's you aren't going to like this game.

Well yes but this review is for people who like modern games or modern RPGs, not the few people who like "classic" jRPGs. If you enjoy syour gams like that, feel free to buy it but the rest of the world deserves a fair warning that this game isn'T suitable for anyone outside of a small core demographic.

fireyhopeOctober 05, 2006

fireyhopeOctober 05, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Failed to do what? Square was about to go bankrupt until Final Fantasy came along!

Failed to improve upon the NES game they released back then. I don't think Square-Enix was about to go bankrupt until FF3DS came out.

Horribly Overpowered? wtf? no, they weren't, you just needed to battle alot more, i beat Final Fantasy pretty easily.

Overpowered in relation to the dungeon they're in. The review clearly says that powerlevelling would be very slow since it's very equipment based. Requiring the player to grind for hours in every dungeon jut to be able to beat the boss is horrible game design and inexcusable, especially if the normal enemies don't pose a challenge anyway.

And if anybody calls FFX Hard thats just sad, because any final fantasy gamer would tell you, you are dead wrong, and people who actually grew up playing Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.

You may have missed the sarcasm (was that really sarcasm or was it some other form of speech?) I used to convey that the game is just so horribly boring and repetitive that it's hard to find the willpower to continue.

and suprisingly this is the only review i have ever seen that doesn't average the score. which doesn't make sense at all...

WTF, why would they average the score? If the game's no fun to play perfect scores for graphics shouldn't pull up the score, neither should bad graphics or sound diminish the scores of awesome games. No game's overall value is just the unweighted average of its components.

And i for one don't beleive a person that calls FFIII a rediculous hard gameplay as one of it's con's. and a person who says that through alot of my j-RPG experience probably hasn't played many J-RPG's.

That's why there's a review text explaining that only the bosses are difficult, not the regular enemies.

Not only that, the Job System i heard can make things difficult which probably the reviewer couldn't grasp the right combinations to master.

Forcing people to min/max is bad balancing.

this already tells me that he doesn't know how to play the game well, this is telling me that he doesn't know how to play the game very well. This also applies to games like Final Fantasy VI which is quite hard, at some times, but alot of times it isn't Victory, the reveiwer might think it is Lucky but it's all skills, for the problem also not only in equipment but also Leveling, nowhere have i ever read that You need a Certain Weapon to beat the game unless it's part of the story in any J-RPG game. Saying when your charachter dies and Right after you revive him, your other charachter dies, this thing basically happens in EVERY SINGLE J-RPG OUT THERE!

How is that not being able to play the game right? Having bosses capable of killing one of your characters in one turn (not one attack but the interval between player interactions) is very frustrating and should reduce the score.

Nor does the reviewer even mention the "Multi Hits" warrior class gets in later lvl's that outdamage other charachters in Melee Damage nor does he mention the Dual Wielding or Any other abilities, he just mentions Oh the game is hard because my Warrior Dishes out the same amount of damage and Heavily requires on Equipment? I also think he forgot to mention the Skills, which also can help dish out more damage then regular physcial attacks...

Also he doesn't even mention that The more YOU LVL UP THE MORE AMOUNT OF TIMES YOU CAN USE A CERTAIN SKILL!
Using Skills is a Huge Deal!
Not only that You have to EQUIP Magic! and you can only equip up to a certain amount, so for a Black Mage you would have to Equip the Right Type to Defeat the Boss easier, and try to find which magic it's the weakest too!
it just seems like All he did was test out Physical Damage of All classes!


Or maybe he was writing a review instead of a manual and as such decided against going into such minutiae?

Seriously J-RPG's alot of times do Require Equipment alot of times to dish out more damage... so I don't see the complaint, and yes alot of J-RPG's are linear like this one and you can't get Certain Items unless you Beat a certain Boss.

That wasn't his point.

Usually if you can't beat the boss you just need to lvl up more, i doubt the reviewer even tried seeing how as Tons of other people could beat it and it's NOT OUT OF LUCK! J-RPG games are never about luck! they were about Skill and planning out what to do before hand Before going into battle. and you get to Think ahead of Time what to do.

How's it skill to repeatedly kill weak monsters just so your level increases?

I've never read any reviewer who said Turn Based Battles are based on luck because you can't heal fast enough just sounds like he has NEVER played a J-RPG in his life!

Maybe because he didn't say that ALL games are like that, just this one?

And in conclusion:

Doesn't stack up to modern games? yes it does, it stacks up to people who like throwbacks and classic J-RPG games, IF YOU DON'T LIKE CLASSIC J-RPG's you aren't going to like this game.

Well yes but this review is for people who like modern games or modern RPGs, not the few people who like "classic" jRPGs. If you enjoy syour gams like that, feel free to buy it but the rest of the world deserves a fair warning that this game isn'T suitable for anyone outside of a small core demographic.



BTW i was talking about Final Fantasy and how that game helped Squaresoft... notice i didn't put the III in front of the Final Fantasy.

Failed to Improve what? The Music is perfect, you don't need to add more music into a game when it already has solid music! thats like Saying Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes DOESN'T have enough music...
Anyways Improve on what? Story? they wanted to keep to the original, obviously alot of people In japan Enjoyed the original, and in actuality they did Improve alot on FFIII while not making it too different.

They Kept to the same story, but different dialogue and Names for charachters.
And seriously i don't know what he found wrong with the story, since i read it and alot of other people liked it too.
anyways, i don't think he even talks too much about anything in the game all he says is his opinion, and he doesn't even go in depth to why it was bad story wise, he just takes this one comedic part and says hey it's not funny... But OMG this is just one reviewer who doesn't get Some typical Japanese and Or Final Fantasy Jokes.
hell even Hideo Kojima add's some odd Japanese Humor in his Games once in a While and everybody got it.

Few People? you'll be suprised to see how many people love Classic J-RPG games, i remember the old school FF Ports that did well on the PSone. That sold very well, outside a small demographic?
And what about Dragon Quest VIII? that game was done very well, and it's considered a throwback to Classic RPG style! and guess what that game did extremely well! it show's that there is still alot of people that like Classic Japanese RPG style gameplay!

I think alot of J-RPG players are going to like this game! too bad you don't! you don't even seem to like FFX sadly...
Anyways obviously you even haven't played it, i haven't played it but the fact is that this review is not a good review and it just seems like the person who wrote it is bored of J-RPG's or just doesn't like Dungeon Crawlers in General.

Yes that was his point, he is saying that you Need Equipment but the Equipment isn't powerfull enough, For all we know He didn't get the right type of Equipment or didn't even Face the Boss with his Skills that he uses.

Forcing people to Minimum/Max Balancing is bad Gameplay?
LOL! then every single Japanese RPG out there must be Horrible!

and Obviously if he can't kill the Boss he himself needs to lvl up, because obviously this is the first reviewer i have known to even COMPLAIN about Bosses killing them in one hit. Because i guess those reviewers are smarter and know how to play Harder Japanese RPG games out there and understand that you need to be a higher lvl!

No the reviewer NEVER said those things that saying Power Leveling would be slow!
If it is slow then you are not playing the game correctly or not fighting the right monsters.

If Gameplay is the most important then you should only score the gameplay, You shouldn't score the sound and or graphics. It just doesn't make sense to the overall average score. If you do not do average then you should just Score on Gameplay nothing else.

And Since the other numbers don't count then why did gameplay get a 5.0 while the final score gets 6.5? The Numbers do not make sense.

Going Against what Manual? YOU NEED TO USE SKILLS IN ORDER TO DEFEAT BOSSES! The reviewer doesn't even talk about USING Skills OR WHAT TYPE OF PARTY HE MADE!
For all We know he USED a crappy party! he doesn't even talk about a Black Mage which is ONE OF THE MOST DAMAGING CLASSES OUT OF EVERY SINGLE FINAL FANTASY CLASS!

For all we know all he used where Physical Damage!

"How's it skill to repeatedly kill weak monsters just so your level increases?"

You can say this for about every single Japanese RPG out there.

how's it skill? it isn't if you keep on killing weak monsters, your level isn't going to increase faster, therefore you find harder monsters to kill.

KDR_11kOctober 05, 2006

BTW i was talking about Final Fantasy and how that game helped Squaresoft... notice i didn't put the III in front of the Final Fantasy.

Yes but this thread is about FF3 and FF3 only. He didn't rate FF1-6, he rated FF3.

Failed to Improve what?

Gameplay. Music variety. Pretty much everything that's wrong about this remake.

And seriously i don't know what he found wrong with the story, since i read it and alot of other people liked it too.

He said it's too much like the 08/15 standard RPG story and that the added dialogue just hurts the story because it's so bad.

I think alot of J-RPG players are going to like this game! too bad you don't! you don't even seem to like FFX sadly...

Yeah I'm sorry I enjoy games that are fun to play and don't have areas consisting of one long path with random encounters every five steps that take about an hour to get through even if you run from every encounter combined with a combat system where every enemy has a VERY simple tactic to be defeated easily and battle is just matching each enemy to the character in your party that beats him. That's just boring to play.

Anyways obviously you even haven't played it, i haven't played it but the fact is that this review is not a good review and it just seems like the person who wrote it is bored of J-RPG's or just doesn't like Dungeon Crawlers in General.

"You haven't played it! Well, I haven't played it either but YOU'RE WRONG!"
I like dungeon crawlers provided they don't get repetitive. Unfortunately most of them fail that condition.

Forcing people to Minimum/Max Balancing is bad Gameplay?
LOL! then every single Japanese RPG out there must be Horrible!


There's a difference between allowing it and making it necessary for progrssing.

and Obviously if he can't kill the Boss he himself needs to lvl up, because obviously this is the first reviewer i have known to even COMPLAIN about Bosses killing them in one hit. Because i guess those reviewers are smarter and know how to play Harder Japanese RPG games out there and understand that you need to be a higher lvl!

He said he tried just that but didn't have much success. And he didn't say bosses kill him in one hit but if there's an unlucky combination of attacks (since the boss can strike multiple times) he can lose a critical member of his party between two player interactions. I'd guess that's the fault of the battle system forcing you to give out all orders beforehand so you can't change targets for a healing spell/item if another character is hit before your healer's turn.

And Since the other numbers don't count then why did gameplay get a 5.0 while the final score gets 6.5? The Numbers do not make sense.

Because he found the overall package to be slightly more enjoyable?

Going Against what Manual? YOU NEED TO USE SKILLS IN ORDER TO DEFEAT BOSSES! The reviewer doesn't even talk about USING Skills OR WHAT TYPE OF PARTY HE MADE!
For all We know he USED a crappy party! he doesn't even talk about a Black Mage which is ONE OF THE MOST DAMAGING CLASSES OUT OF EVERY SINGLE FINAL FANTASY CLASS!


Yes but why does he need to write about that in the review? It's a review, not a manual or strategy guide.

"How's it skill to repeatedly kill weak monsters just so your level increases?"

You can say this for about every single Japanese RPG out there.

how's it skill? it isn't if you keep on killing weak monsters, your level isn't going to increase faster, therefore you find harder monsters to kill.


He said this:
Most of the enemies you encounter will not be that difficult. There are a few annoying enemies that will replicate themselves if you cannot kill them in one hit, but this is more of an annoyance than a problem. The normal enemies are deceptively easy; the bosses are where the real problem lies.

Now where do you take those stronger monsters from?

fireyhopeOctober 05, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
BTW i was talking about Final Fantasy and how that game helped Squaresoft... notice i didn't put the III in front of the Final Fantasy.

Yes but this thread is about FF3 and FF3 only. He didn't rate FF1-6, he rated FF3.

Failed to Improve what?

Gameplay. Music variety. Pretty much everything that's wrong about this remake.

And seriously i don't know what he found wrong with the story, since i read it and alot of other people liked it too.

He said it's too much like the 08/15 standard RPG story and that the added dialogue just hurts the story because it's so bad.

I think alot of J-RPG players are going to like this game! too bad you don't! you don't even seem to like FFX sadly...

Yeah I'm sorry I enjoy games that are fun to play and don't have areas consisting of one long path with random encounters every five steps that take about an hour to get through even if you run from every encounter combined with a combat system where every enemy has a VERY simple tactic to be defeated easily and battle is just matching each enemy to the character in your party that beats him. That's just boring to play.

Anyways obviously you even haven't played it, i haven't played it but the fact is that this review is not a good review and it just seems like the person who wrote it is bored of J-RPG's or just doesn't like Dungeon Crawlers in General.

"You haven't played it! Well, I haven't played it either but YOU'RE WRONG!"
I like dungeon crawlers provided they don't get repetitive. Unfortunately most of them fail that condition.

Forcing people to Minimum/Max Balancing is bad Gameplay?
LOL! then every single Japanese RPG out there must be Horrible!


There's a difference between allowing it and making it necessary for progrssing.

and Obviously if he can't kill the Boss he himself needs to lvl up, because obviously this is the first reviewer i have known to even COMPLAIN about Bosses killing them in one hit. Because i guess those reviewers are smarter and know how to play Harder Japanese RPG games out there and understand that you need to be a higher lvl!

He said he tried just that but didn't have much success. And he didn't say bosses kill him in one hit but if there's an unlucky combination of attacks (since the boss can strike multiple times) he can lose a critical member of his party between two player interactions. I'd guess that's the fault of the battle system forcing you to give out all orders beforehand so you can't change targets for a healing spell/item if another character is hit before your healer's turn.

And Since the other numbers don't count then why did gameplay get a 5.0 while the final score gets 6.5? The Numbers do not make sense.

Because he found the overall package to be slightly more enjoyable?

Going Against what Manual? YOU NEED TO USE SKILLS IN ORDER TO DEFEAT BOSSES! The reviewer doesn't even talk about USING Skills OR WHAT TYPE OF PARTY HE MADE!
For all We know he USED a crappy party! he doesn't even talk about a Black Mage which is ONE OF THE MOST DAMAGING CLASSES OUT OF EVERY SINGLE FINAL FANTASY CLASS!


Yes but why does he need to write about that in the review? It's a review, not a manual or strategy guide.

"How's it skill to repeatedly kill weak monsters just so your level increases?"

You can say this for about every single Japanese RPG out there.

how's it skill? it isn't if you keep on killing weak monsters, your level isn't going to increase faster, therefore you find harder monsters to kill.


He said this:
Most of the enemies you encounter will not be that difficult. There are a few annoying enemies that will replicate themselves if you cannot kill them in one hit, but this is more of an annoyance than a problem. The normal enemies are deceptively easy; the bosses are where the real problem lies.

Now where do you take those stronger monsters from?


No because you don't need to improve on something thats not broken
I disagree, i read some of the Dialogue it was awesome

Sorry then i guess you don't like Japanese RPG's much then

No the reviewer just sounds like he hates Dungeon Crawlers and J-RPG's for the sole fact that he doesn't even get into detail about the game.

Nescessary for gameplay duh! Of course it's going to be nescessary

No it's not the fault of the Battle System, the Battle System is the perfect Battle System they used Before FFVII which is the same they used for FF-1-IV, there is no faulty battle system here, it's just he is too weak to fight the boss as i keep on mentioning, and there are always items Pheonix's down so you don't always have to rely on your White Mage. Thats why you have to plan ahead, OF COURSE you don't know which charachter To heal First, which is basically what he is saying since it does take time for Cure To cast, he has to be carefull How he uses the skill it's not the Battle System's Fault, it's how he played which is exactly my point.
If he dies often, he should lvl up more as i say, and get a certain lvl so he can get powerfull enough to beat a boss with certain Skills he can acquire in lvling up.

I'm saying you yourself can find Harder Monsters to LVL up to Fight The Boss Monsters!

He need to write it in his review so we know how he himself played the game, For all we know he is basing his own facts about the game by using Physical Damage, and we don't know if the person even used the right certain kinds of skills to defeat the bosses.

If you played any of the other newer Final Fantasy games you'll know they are pathetically easy.

Because he Found the Overall Package more enjoyable? how is that possible when The "most" important one is gameplay?
So all in all The Graphics, Sound, and Every other score Doesn't matter because all that matters is Gameplay.
So it's overall pointless to score the other things.

Well i guess you do see my point, as in Fact that FFX is waaay to easy and so is FFVII- Through X-2
and regardless, you yourself haven't even studied anything else but this review sadly, since his review is poorly written and doesn't explain much about gameplay, nor music.

And guess what i HAVE THE ORIGINAL FINAL FANTASY III OST and there are 44 tracks on it, how the hell can one say 44 tracks = not enough? escpecially for the NES era?
FFIV has the same amount of OST tracks, i don't hear anybody complaining about that!
Even the MEGAMAN games didn't have that many OST scores wtf!

and overall i feel the reviewer of the game was expecting some groundbreaking game for the DS.

and tell me... what other DS game features over 43 OST's? Besides Band of Brothers since that game is nothing but Midi's...

where talking about Revamped OST's Revamped 43 OST's for the NINTENDO DS!
wow~! name one other game that has that many Original OST's that sound this good?

Even MARIO 64's OST's only had 36!

i'm not even sure the reviewer even played through the whole game anymore!

KDR_11kOctober 06, 2006

No it's not the fault of the Battle System, the Battle System is the perfect Battle System they used Before FFVII which is the same they used for FF-1-IV,

Did it occur to you that many people may not consider that "perfect"?

If he dies often, he should lvl up more as i say, and get a certain lvl so he can get powerfull enough to beat a boss with certain Skills he can acquire in lvling up.

Or he can deduct points because the regular enemies don't leave any clue how powerful you need to be to take on the boss or if you do enough to beat each boss easily the regular enemies pose no challenge. Both are reasons to lower the score.

I'm saying you yourself can find Harder Monsters to LVL up to Fight The Boss Monsters!

How? The monsters are much weaker than the boss, remember? That was the whole complaint about the gameplay.

He need to write it in his review so we know how he himself played the game, For all we know he is basing his own facts about the game by using Physical Damage, and we don't know if the person even used the right certain kinds of skills to defeat the bosses.

I disagree, noone wants to know that.

Because he Found the Overall Package more enjoyable? how is that possible when The "most" important one is gameplay?

You may notice that the score is only minimally better than the gameplay score.

And guess what i HAVE THE ORIGINAL FINAL FANTASY III OST and there are 44 tracks on it, how the hell can one say 44 tracks = not enough? escpecially for the NES era?

Perhaps there are way too many sections using the same track, especially sections that follow each other?

fireyhopeOctober 06, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
No it's not the fault of the Battle System, the Battle System is the perfect Battle System they used Before FFVII which is the same they used for FF-1-IV,

Did it occur to you that many people may not consider that "perfect"?

If he dies often, he should lvl up more as i say, and get a certain lvl so he can get powerfull enough to beat a boss with certain Skills he can acquire in lvling up.

Or he can deduct points because the regular enemies don't leave any clue how powerful you need to be to take on the boss or if you do enough to beat each boss easily the regular enemies pose no challenge. Both are reasons to lower the score.

I'm saying you yourself can find Harder Monsters to LVL up to Fight The Boss Monsters!

How? The monsters are much weaker than the boss, remember? That was the whole complaint about the gameplay.

He need to write it in his review so we know how he himself played the game, For all we know he is basing his own facts about the game by using Physical Damage, and we don't know if the person even used the right certain kinds of skills to defeat the bosses.

I disagree, noone wants to know that.

Because he Found the Overall Package more enjoyable? how is that possible when The "most" important one is gameplay?

You may notice that the score is only minimally better than the gameplay score.

And guess what i HAVE THE ORIGINAL FINAL FANTASY III OST and there are 44 tracks on it, how the hell can one say 44 tracks = not enough? escpecially for the NES era?

Perhaps there are way too many sections using the same track, especially sections that follow each other?



No it's pretty damn perfect! theres a reason why Dragon Quest and Many other J-RPG games use the same battle system as Final Fantasy.
and or Close to perfect

anyways it doesn't make sense to deduct points because you don't know how powerfull it is for a fact

You can Usually Save before the boss battle, and if i remember correctly you can save anywhere.

if he deducts points for not knowing what lvl the boss is then by All means this happens in ALL J-RPG games!
OF COURSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT LVL THE MONSTERS ARE AND OR BOSS MONSTER LVL's ARE!

You are suppose to FIND OUT YOURSELF, through Scan or Save then Fight the boss monster to see what it's capable of!

you are suppose to lvl up until you are content with fighting the boss monster and if you die, it's your own fault.

and downing points because Regular Monsters are too easy? holy bajeezus, it doesn't make sense, since MOST regular monsters in most RPG games are also quite easy and don't really pose much of a challenge.

Even in Dragon Quest VIII the Normal Monsters of Lower Lvled became easier!

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

Waaay too many section's? That use the same score? No i played the original FFIII and he is wrong in this state and if you talk to many other people they will Laugh at you.

Do you hear Chocobo Music in Battle Mode? and most of the towns have different music in them

Myxtika1 AznOctober 06, 2006

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.

wanderingOctober 06, 2006

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

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.

Myxtika1 AznOctober 06, 2006

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

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.


face-icon-small-confused.gif I see.... Carry on then.

KDR_11kOctober 07, 2006

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).

RwinterhalterRyan Winterhalter, Staff AlumnusOctober 07, 2006

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.

DeathShadowOctober 19, 2006

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.

ShyGuyOctober 19, 2006

I think this thread will gains bumps for many days to come face-icon-small-wink.gif

RefiaOctober 24, 2006

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.

KnowsNothingOctober 24, 2006

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.

CericOctober 24, 2006

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.

fireyhopeOctober 24, 2006

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.

fireyhopeOctober 24, 2006

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.

fireyhopeOctober 24, 2006

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.

KnowsNothingOctober 24, 2006

Because "enough" music is a definite number and all.

Guys, seriously, let's shut up.

Smoke39October 24, 2006

No, KN. We must all argue about whose opinion is righter.

SvevanEvan Burchfield, Staff AlumnusOctober 24, 2006

I'm up for that, when do we start?

CericOctober 24, 2006

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.

fireyhopeOctober 24, 2006

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.

Myxtika1 AznOctober 24, 2006

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


face-icon-small-confused.gif But old school graphics ARE 2d. lolz face-icon-small-laugh.gif


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.



face-icon-small-confused.gifx 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?

RefiaOctober 24, 2006

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.

Smash_BrotherOctober 24, 2006

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.

ArbokOctober 24, 2006

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...

KDR_11kOctober 25, 2006

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.

RefiaOctober 25, 2006

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.

PaleMike Gamin, Contributing EditorOctober 25, 2006

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.

wanderingOctober 25, 2006

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?

RefiaOctober 25, 2006

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 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. face-icon-small-smile.gif 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.

wanderingOctober 25, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: annoying
Read reviews on gamespot, read reviews on eyesonff, read reviews on ING, always the Final Scores are based on the other scores.

Gamespot does, but they have a special 'tilt' score they use just for manipulating the final score. IGN (I assume you mean IGN) does not.

Quote

And did I say godo graphics make up for bad gameplay?

No, you just said you wanted the review to achieve a higer score by averging the scores of all the categories. Since the only reason this would make the score higher is that the graphics got such a good score, you are, essentially, saying that good graphics should make up for bad gameplay. (This is bad gameplay, of course, from the perspective of the reviewer. I understand you think the reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about and that the gameplay score is unfair. I hope you understand a system where the reviewer is forced to give a game a high score even when he personally doesn't feel the game is good would make no sense.)

Quote

But you 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.

I never blindly believe what a reviewer says. I assume he isn't lying when he says the game was frustrating for him to play. I assume I, someone less experienced in rpgs than he, will also find the game frustrating, for the reasons he lists. I don't think either of these assumptions are blind or stupid.

Oh, and also, I'm still planning on buying the game.

Quote

Only blind VII-fann00bs can be fooled that way.

Your logic is irrefutable.

RefiaOctober 25, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: wandering
Quote

Originally posted by: annoying
Read reviews on gamespot, read reviews on eyesonff, read reviews on ING, always the Final Scores are based on the other scores.

Gamespot does, but they have a special 'tilt' score they use just for manipulating the final score. IGN (I assume you mean IGN) does not.

Quote

And did I say godo graphics make up for bad gameplay?

No, you just said you wanted the review to achieve a higer score by averging the scores of all the categories. Since the only reason this would make the score higher is that the graphics got such a good score, you are, essentially, saying that good graphics should make up for bad gameplay. (This is bad gameplay, of course, from the perspective of the reviewer. I understand you think the reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about and that the gameplay score is unfair. I hope you understand a system where the reviewer is forced to give a game a high score even when he personally doesn't feel the game is good would make no sense.)

Quote

But you 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.

I never blindly believe what a reviewer says. I assume he isn't lying when he says the game was frustrating for him to play. I assume I, someone less experienced in rpgs than he, will also find the game frustrating, for the reasons he lists. I don't think either of these assumptions are blind or stupid.

Oh, and also, I'm still planning on buying the game.

Quote

Only blind VII-fann00bs can be fooled that way.

Your logic is irrefutable.

I see what you mean, but the way the reviewer talks is like he wants to discourage us all to buy the game.
He never in his review said the words "I think" "For me" he said "Is frustrating" and such stuff. Like he mend his opinion to be pure facts. Of course a review is an opinion, but he concluded that it is a bad game that will only please die-hard fans of the series. How does he know that? How can he know what goes on in the minds of RPG-lovers? It's the way he put his words that worked on my nerves. Did I expect the game to get only good points? No, for every game gets some hate flung towards it. Every game.

And you seem to mistaek a VII fann00b for a VII fanboy/girl. The two are completely different.
VII fann00b= Sephiroth is the best ever, VII is the best ever and everybody who says otherwise sucks. (Or something like that, you've seen it before, I'm sure. If not, you're lucky.)
VII fanboy/fangirl: Boy/girl with FF VII as his favorite game. What's wrong with that?
And those fann00bs can be ridiculous, maybe yo uwon't believe me, maybe you've seen some VII-fann00b topics before somewhere. I've seen them. It tires you immensly. But, well, every game has its fann00bs. VII's were so far the worst for me, however...
Or maybe not. I don't know if you ever had topics asking if this FF was the one with Kefka over and over again? If you see one of those topics almost every weak, months and months after each other, you really are going to question human inteligence. Especially when there's a nice FAQ explaining it all on the first page of the board.

Even if this guy had purely negative thoughts on the game, he could have said them better so people would still try the game before they go rip-it-to-shreds! Like I said, reading more reviews broadens the view on the game. So far, I've read 3. 2 with good last scores (based on the other scores, good and bad points listed on the end) and 1 bad one. Fill in with my experiences from the original. I tend to believe this game is not half as bad as this reviews tries to make us believe it is.

Smash_BrotherOctober 25, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: Arbok
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...


Stereotypes have nothing to do with it.

It's a goddamn FACT that the US and Japan have very different cultures and IMMENSELY varied tastes in games. Nintendogs probably scored so well in Japan because space is at a premium to 90% of the Japanese population who live in population-dense areas where owning a dog is not an option because of the sheer amount of space it requires.

In the US, it ain't so much of an issue, and in the US, sports games and FPSs sell insanely well while Japan doesn't much care for them.

Quote

...for being flawless, which it is?


Aside from the fact that the voice recognition sucked ass and that, after you powerlevel one dog in all the tournaments, the game is basically over unless you enjoy grinding for these meaningless "trainer points", then yeah, impeccable.

The game could have done several things to increase it's longevity, like had "superdog" come out of retirement to face your dogs in tournaments to at least give you something to shoot for rather than steamrolling the competition.

A perfect score should be reserved for a perfect game, and any game which considers grinding for points to unlock other dogs as the sole reason to play it past 6-7 hours is NOT perfect in any sense of the word.

ArbokOctober 25, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
In the US, it ain't so much of an issue, and in the US, sports games and FPSs sell insanely well while Japan doesn't much care for them.


Right, because joe average "Madden and FPS' for me!" would even know what Famitsu is...

Making the assumption that "Famitsu scores are 100% meaningless to the American gamer" on that stance is pretty poor. Cultures are different everywhere, but using that basis to completely rule out another reviewing source is pretty fool hearted. I guess Ocarina of Time wasn't that great of a game either, if Famitsu was so into it to give it a perfect score... or at least it would be good for those Japanese, but not us red blooded Americans.

Honestly, you are also talking about Nintendogs like it's unworthy of praise, when this site gave it high mark as well of 9/10 in Bloodworth's review:

http://www.planetgamecube.com/reviewArt.cfm?artid=4394

KDR_11kOctober 25, 2006

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.

I thought that was the common point of agreement between all parties that FF3 is a very faithful remake gameplay-wise which the "wolf in sheep's fur" comment was about (an old game that looks like a modern one at first glance)? FF3's remake approach should not be confused with Metroid Zero Mission's (which remade a pretty awful game into a great one with an annoying stealth sequence).

Smash_BrotherOctober 25, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: Arbok Right, because joe average "Madden and FPS' for me!" would even know what Famitsu is...

Making the assumption that "Famitsu scores are 100% meaningless to the American gamer" on that stance is pretty poor. Cultures are different everywhere, but using that basis to completely rule out another reviewing source is pretty fool hearted. I guess Ocarina of Time wasn't that great of a game either, if Famitsu was so into it to give it a perfect score... or at least it would be good for those Japanese, but not us red blooded Americans.


Truth be told, I shouldn't be blaming culture differences. I should be blaming FAMITSU themselves because they're the ones who give perfect scores to games with obvious flaws, FF12 being the latest example in that the interface is god-awful and there exists no option to map buttons to commands, meaning you have to open a menu to select and attack an enemy right in front of you.

That kind of interface flaw is the sort of thing which sensible reviewers take points off for. What kind of sh*tty reviewer says, "Well, it had such a good story that I can ignore the lousy interface."?

It IS wrong to say that Famitsu represents Japanese gamers because that's unfair to the Japanese gamers who disagree with Famitsu's scores.

But yes, Famitsu has shown time and again that they are a piss-poor source for accurate reviews. That's not to say that their opinion and mine don't coincide occasionally, but that doesn't mean I have any reason to trust their opinion for the remainder of the time.

RefiaOctober 25, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
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.

I thought that was the common point of agreement between all parties that FF3 is a very faithful remake gameplay-wise which the "wolf in sheep's fur" comment was about (an old game that looks like a modern one at first glance)? FF3's remake approach should not be confused with Metroid Zero Mission's (which remade a pretty awful game into a great one with an annoying stealth sequence).

Your point? Everybody knows it is faithfull to the original and improved a lot on it. (Balancing the jobs, difficulty, ect.) When you talk about it being a wolf in sheep's fur, you're making it sound like "It looks nice and all, but in fact, it's something very bad." But FF III DS is not bad. And you can't tell if I'm wrong, I've asked a few times already, yet you still haven't answered if you've played the game or not, or the original for that matter. You did play it? Well, each to his own opinion I guess. You didn't? Will you stop ripping a game to shreds you haven't played yet? Or further, will you stop basing your rip-it-to-shreds! replies on this one review? There are more reviews than just this one. Everybody who wants to get a better view on a game knows he shouldn't base his opinion on one review.

But if you've played it, guess it's your opinion then and nothing to do about it.

I find it funny. People on eyesonff read this review too and almost every reaction was like "Lolz, that guys sucks if he thinks FF III is hard", or something among those lines. But don't worry rip-FF-III-DS-to-shreds'ers, there were some people who didn't care, and some people who could agree on some points. So you shouldn't worry, you won't get the entire FF III-fan army after you.

Smash_BrotherOctober 25, 2006

On that note, why the f*ck doesn't Blockbuster rent DS games?

It would solve so many problems with knowing which reviews to trust and whatnot...

fireyhopeOctober 25, 2006

Quote

No, you just said you wanted the review to achieve a higer score by averging the scores of all the categories. Since the only reason this would make the score higher is that the graphics got such a good score, you are, essentially, saying that good graphics should make up for bad gameplay. (This is bad gameplay, of course, from the perspective of the reviewer. I understand you think the reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about and that the gameplay score is unfair. I hope you understand a system where the reviewer is forced to give a game a high score even when he personally doesn't feel the game is good would make no sense.)


no but as a matter of fact it's pointless to grade it like that overall unless you grade gameplay as a whole.

CericOctober 26, 2006

Get Gamefly. In fact I'll recommend you if you want.

Smash_BrotherOctober 26, 2006

A friend of mine just suggested Gamefly to me yesterday.

Sure, how do you recommend me?

fireyhopeNovember 17, 2006

I beat the first boss in 2 turns

How the hell can this guy not beat it?

If i had a camera i'll show you all how bloated and idiotic this review is

All i did was use the Item Anarctic Wind and it did around 384 damage to the first boss along with blizzard which did 98 damage...

the guy who reviewed this knows nothing about how to play FFIII...

Geeze Died in the first boss...
while me a Regular Gamer was able to beat the first boss in 2 turns...

technically all you needed to do in the game was to use anaractic wind twice. If you found these items before fighting the boss since it only has around 600HP

not to mention finding items in FF3 are quite easy, you just need to explore the towns
i just got the game today and i just right now beat the first boss

fireyhopeNovember 17, 2006

again i must say i'm just fought the second or third boss of the game and it's too easy!
I had a 3 black Mages and 1 White Mage they were about lvl11 and i whooped on the boss.

i was in the cave with the dragon

and honestly this guy who wrote this review can't play for crap.
I've been playing RPG's for a while now and FFIII is one of the EASIEST games i have played so far.

The difficulty is heavily exagerated and the person who played it obviously didn't know what to do in the battle to defeat the boss

Myxtika1 AznNovember 17, 2006

Ah geez, not this crap again!

You got this game TODAY, you say? Is this the US one, or the Japanese one? Unless you've played the Japanese one, please shut the hell up. Do you even know if there have been any changes made to the localized game? Perhaps it was made "easier" due to complaints? I don't know, and I'm going say that you don't either.

Don't go and say that the reviewer can't "play for crap" unless you've had first hand experience with the JPN copy. The only thing that's crap here, is your blind fanboyish attitude.

KDR_11kNovember 17, 2006

Perhaps it was made "easier" due to complaints?

Certainly wouldn't be unprecedented, the Japanese do seem to consider the US less hardcore.

fireyhopeNovember 17, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: Myxtika1 Azn
Ah geez, not this crap again!

You got this game TODAY, you say? Is this the US one, or the Japanese one? Unless you've played the Japanese one, please shut the hell up. Do you even know if there have been any changes made to the localized game? Perhaps it was made "easier" due to complaints? I don't know, and I'm going say that you don't either.

Don't go and say that the reviewer can't "play for crap" unless you've had first hand experience with the JPN copy. The only thing that's crap here, is your blind fanboyish attitude.



No the only thing that is crap is how biased his review is, the game is the exact same from the japanese one. No Different. I do have friends that played the japanese one IT's THE EXACT SAME FRIGGIN GAME!

fireyhopeNovember 17, 2006

any remakes and anything After FFVII has not been changed for america, FFX is still easy in the japanese version, FFX-2 IS STILL EASY

FFVII is NO DIFFERENT except for 1-2 slightly harder parts in the puzzles.
FFVIII no different
FFIX no different
FFX FFX-2 no different
FFXII same exact game

and for a fact i know that FFIII is THE SAME AS THE JAPANESE VERSION!

wanderingNovember 17, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: Refia
I find it funny. People on eyesonff read this review too and almost every reaction was like "Lolz, that guys sucks if he thinks FF III is hard", or something among those lines. But don't worry rip-FF-III-DS-to-shreds'ers, there were some people who didn't care, and some people who could agree on some points. So you shouldn't worry, you won't get the entire FF III-fan army after you.

Here's the thread, if anyone's curious. I am amused by the undying hatred "real" FF fans seem to have of FFVII fans.

fireyhopeNovember 19, 2006

i'm about Half Way into the game, i'm amazed anybody can say this game is hard.
The guy who played this game obviously doesn't play any RPG's at all or is just amazingly bad at FFIII
i found ALL the BOSS battles AMAZINGLY easy.

i found it too easy if anything.

Everything in Dragon Quest VIII was alot harder then anything i have encountered in FFIII

fireyhopeNovember 19, 2006

fireyhopeNovember 19, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: wandering
Quote

Originally posted by: Refia
I find it funny. People on eyesonff read this review too and almost every reaction was like "Lolz, that guys sucks if he thinks FF III is hard", or something among those lines. But don't worry rip-FF-III-DS-to-shreds'ers, there were some people who didn't care, and some people who could agree on some points. So you shouldn't worry, you won't get the entire FF III-fan army after you.

Here's the thread, if anyone's curious. I am amused by the undying hatred "real" FF fans seem to have of FFVII fans.


thats only one website, you should see the others lol.

anyways, i don't care what Final Fantasy game you like, i love FFVII to death i don't give a crap those people.

but the fact is, the person who reviewed this game obviously didn't know how to easily beat the boss in 1-2 Turns...

KDR_11kNovember 19, 2006

Good, then write your review and put it in reader reviews.

fireyhopeNovember 23, 2006

is that the only thing you can say?
obviously you got nothing better to say then to bash.

Myxtika1 AznNovember 23, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: fireyhope
IT's THE EXACT SAME FRIGGIN GAME!



And...? FF IV US is the same game as FF IV EU. However, the bugs have been fixed in the latter version. Like I've said before, perhaps the JPN version was buggy.

KDR_11kNovember 24, 2006

Yeah, okay, up the rating to 7.0 then.

RohanDecember 05, 2006

Quote

Originally posted by: fireyhope
again i must say i'm just fought the second or third boss of the game and it's too easy!
I had a 3 black Mages and 1 White Mage they were about lvl11 and i whooped on the boss.

i was in the cave with the dragon

and honestly this guy who wrote this review can't play for crap.
I've been playing RPG's for a while now and FFIII is one of the EASIEST games i have played so far.

The difficulty is heavily exagerated and the person who played it obviously didn't know what to do in the battle to defeat the boss


You would know nothing about the difficulty you're not even near the hard part. I have beaten the DS version, and i didn't find it THAT difficult until the last parts of the game. Some bosses are harder than the average RPG boss and this should be noted, however getting through Xande, the four bosses, and then The Cloud Of Darkness without saving is extremely hard unless you take the time to level up seperately, which is not something i have ever had to do until this game. The Cloud of darkness has 120,000 hp contrary to what someone in this forum said, and the only way i beat him is with 2 ninjas both throwing shurikens and with a sage and devout healing me constantly. If i didn't get healed twice per turn, or rather have 2 people who could heal and revive, there would be no way in hell that i would've beaten him. Since you're only around level 11 i would not backtalk the difficulty of this game, since the reviewer has beaten it. and you apparently have not.

Share + Bookmark





Final Fantasy III Box Art

Genre RPG
Developer Square Enix

Worldwide Releases

na: Final Fantasy III
Release Nov 14, 2006
PublisherSquare Enix
RatingEveryone 10+
jpn: Final Fantasy III
Release Aug 24, 2006
PublisherSquare Enix
eu: Final Fantasy III
Release May 04, 2007
PublisherSquare Enix

Related Content

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement