With the announcement of Square Enix putting FF7 on the PS4, I couldn't help but notice that in the comments section of Kotaku's article on this, some people really seemed to hold something against the game.
I really don't get why. Maybe it's because 7 brought me into the series, but I don't see any good reasons for people to bash the game other than that they're just making up excuses to defend their favorite of the series.
So I ask you. Which Final Fantasy is your favorite?
Me, as implied I am all for 7. Love it, always have, always will.
I agree, Ff7 was one of the best games on the ps1. The way you can combine materia on your weapon to do multiple attacks was great. Some of the mini games were crap, but liked the snowboarding one a lot.
There are so many games to chose from, though. Ff8 has that card game that I like. But, I'm really excited about a reboot of ff7.
FF7 (and watching other people play FF8) is/are the reason I didn't play any more Final Fantasies.
That said, I don't know why everyone else seems to dislike it.
My favorite is 4 or 6 ... maybe 'cuz I had them growing up.
Played 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and X (yes I know I'm missing a big one there).
Personal ranking best to worst would go something like (5/7), 4, (8/6), X.
6 was fine but I'm just not crazy about it like everyone else seems to be. So many characters and summons I ended up not caring about any of them. I don't remember being terribly challenged by the combat either.
I think part of it might be that I played 4, 5, and 6 on emulator at around the same time, whereas most other people in north america played "2" and "3" on their SNES and either played 5 years later or not at all. Very little love for FFV out there.
People love to hate 7 just because it was massively mega-popular, which I don't think is fair. I still believe it was one of the best. When I think back on how well that story and those characters were conveyed despite those hideous faceless polygon bricks, it's frankly amazing. My only complaint is that Sephiroth is way too damn easy. When there's all that cutscene and build-up for a one-hit fight, it just sucks.
X was a laughingstock.
I was hoping Capcom would skip ahead to
Final Fight VII.
Failing that:
- Double Dragon Warrior
- Body Harvest Moon
- Lunar: Eternal Champions
- Ghostbust-A-Move
- Milon's Secret Castlevania
- Super Mario World Heroes
- Katamari Odamacy
- Katamario Galaxy
- Chip 'n Dale's Challenge
- Boxing Legends of the Lord of the Rings
- Metal Slug Solid
- Solid Snake Rattle 'n Roll
- New Doki Doki Panic
tepples wrote:
Metal Slug Solid
Or alternatively...
6, because it's awesome!
Espozo wrote:
None.
You mean to tell me you don't like to wonder around empty areas with nothing happening, read lots of text, collect useless trinkets, and have turn-based battles with statues and cardboard cutouts?
I can't stand the endless, pointless battles in RPG games. That being said, the Final Fantasy game I played the most (which wasn't necessarily much) was VIII.
I played the US SNES versions (I don't care to look up what #s they were in Japanese) but all of them were kind of a blur (except for Kefka, I remember him). Having said that, I did enjoy FFI&II on the GBA quite a bit. I dunno, grinding + mindless battles is relaxing to me. Something about the mechanical, slow pace of leveling is just calming. Maybe that's why I like RPGs so much. FF2 was great given that you could beat yourself half to death to gain EXP; I really enjoyed pummeling my party early in the game, and being overpowered for the rest of the game
But, truth be told, I love the FF:Tactics games a lot more than any of the "standard" FF games. I have close to 150 hours in the GBA and DS versions (altogether). I remember playing the PSX version with nothing but a team of Chocobo.
psycopathicteen wrote:
Espozo wrote:
None.
You mean to tell me you don't like to wonder around empty areas with nothing happening, read lots of text, collect useless trinkets, and have turn-based battles with statues and cardboard cutouts?
tokumaru wrote:
I can't stand the endless, pointless battles in RPG games. That being said, the Final Fantasy game I played the most (which wasn't necessarily much) was VIII.
Exactly. I've never understood why people like these games. It's sifting through textboxes about a poorly crafted story that I could really care less about, and grinding, not that the actually gameplay was even fun enough to do it 1,000x over. People act like these games take strategy, which I don't see it at all. There's less strategy involved than a game of football, which I wouldn't really say it involved that much strategy in the first place. (I could care less for either of them.) I wouldn't find the artwork impressive either. There's almost 0 animation, and the main characters are really small and don't require that much detail. The bigger the objects, the less animation. I think something like Metal Slug is way more impressive artistically (and in every other aspect). These games are just the opposite of what I like in a video game.
Some of my favorite games:
Gunforce 2, Contra 1-3, and Metal Slug 1-3 (Metal Slug is the best, I don't care what anyone else says.)
DKC 1-3 and Sonic 1-3 (I don't really care for Sonic 1 though. The spindash was a necessary addition.)
Doom 1 and 2
R-Type 1-3 (Never played the 2 newer ones, but frankly, they're made by "Irem", not Irem.)
In The Hunt (Might as well be classified with R-Type)
I of course have more though, but these games are some of my favorite. I actually convinced my father to play Gunforce 2 with me, and he said that he couldn't see from all the explosions and smoke and shrapnel, but I told him that that was my favorite part. I can sure as hell tell you that I won't find something like that in an RPG game, even if it really doesn't change the gameplay, but really, RPG aren't exactly renowned for their gameplay.
I just wonder what people find in these games that I don't. I want to feel all tense when playing a game, like when I was trying to beat R-Type 3 without dying, which I've never felt playing a game that gives you as much time as you want to make simple decisions.
Espozo wrote:
People act like these games take strategy, which I don't see it at all.
"Hit things until they die!" is actually a fairly complex strategy
I wouldn't put FF games as the best examples of turn-based RPGs though, not the earlier incarnations (or any newer games mimicking the old formula). There are plenty of other RPGs that manage to add surprising levels of depth to ordinary battles.
I do recall having fun with FFV's job system. Tactically mixing/matching job abilities was pretty key to beating the game (for me at least), although all I did was make a party of Ninjas that threw money at the enemy until they died.
Espozo wrote:
I won't find something like that in an RPG game, even if it really doesn't change the gameplay, but really, RPG aren't exactly renowned for their gameplay.
You're selling the genre short. RPGs vary wildly in whatever gameplay they use (there are more than just turn-based RPGs out there), and a lot of them are actually critically acclaimed for their mechanics (Demon/Dark Souls for a modern example of an action RPG). The Mario & Luigi games are generally noted for their innovative and interactive combat systems. I could go on but...
Espozo wrote:
People act like these games take strategy, which I don't see it at all. There's less strategy involved than a game of football, which I wouldn't really say it involved that much strategy in the first place.
Someone just said RPGs don't take strategy.
Welp. I've heard it all.
Espozo wrote:
A bunch of stuff...
The phrase is "couldn't care less".
Grinding to high levels is one way to get by, but in many games, some thinking actually will get
you to the end without that. Isn't that strategy?
FF 4 and 7.
Espozo wrote:
psycopathicteen wrote:
Espozo wrote:
None.
You mean to tell me you don't like to wonder around empty areas with nothing happening, read lots of text, collect useless trinkets, and have turn-based battles with statues and cardboard cutouts?
tokumaru wrote:
I can't stand the endless, pointless battles in RPG games. That being said, the Final Fantasy game I played the most (which wasn't necessarily much) was VIII.
Exactly. I've never understood why people like these games. It's sifting through textboxes about a poorly crafted story that I could really care less about, and grinding, not that the actually gameplay was even fun enough to do it 1,000x over. People act like these games take strategy, which I don't see it at all. There's less strategy involved than a game of football, which I wouldn't really say it involved that much strategy in the first place. (I could care less for either of them.) I wouldn't find the artwork impressive either. There's almost 0 animation, and the main characters are really small and don't require that much detail. The bigger the objects, the less animation. I think something like Metal Slug is way more impressive artistically (and in every other aspect). These games are just the opposite of what I like in a video game.
People claim Chrono Trigger pushes the limits of the system. How? It uploads a picture to vram, and leaves it there until the player decides to leave the room.
I do like FF7, it was one of the games of my childhood, and it will be interesting to see how they do with the remake. I don't have much experience with other games of the series except FF9 (which I like as well), so I don't think it'd be fair to call favorites. I'd like to try some of the SNES ones at some point.
nicklausw wrote:
Espozo wrote:
People act like these games take strategy, which I don't see it at all. There's less strategy involved than a game of football, which I wouldn't really say it involved that much strategy in the first place.
Someone just said RPGs don't take strategy.
Welp. I've heard it all.
Oh please, there's more strategy involved in Doom.
Shonumi wrote:
"Hit things until they die!" is actually a fairly complex strategy
This.
psycopathicteen wrote:
People claim Chrono Trigger pushes the limits of the system. How? It uploads a picture to vram, and leaves it there until the player decides to leave the room.
Exactly. People act all impressed by large static images for bosses.
None of us play Final Fantasy games just for the visuals. At least I'd expect that of a site dedicated to the nes. XD
And if you think Doom has more strategy, that just proves that you've never actually tried to play through a Final Fantasy.
I've never tried to play through a Final Fantasy because I played 10 minutes of Final Fantasy 6 and got extremely bored. Also, just because a game is running on old hardware doesn't make it look bad. Metal Slug is far more pleasing to the eye than Call of Duty.
Turn-based combat can still be challenging in all sorts of ways. I don't know if anyone here's heard of it, but I've been playing a recent Sega Genesis release called Pier Solar lately, combat system somewhat similar to Final Fantasy, and it's been kicking my ass more than just a bit.
Most Final Fantasy games are just "easy" because they were pandering to the percieved incompetence of North American gamers or the mass market in general. (Play FFIV, NOT "Two" for the SNES. They just destroyed that game in porting it.) But if you think they're so trivial then go play FF7 and beat Ruby and Emerald weapon, WITHOUT looking up how. That'll show you the difference between what they thought gamers could handle (Sephiroth) and what sadistic stuff they COULD have done to you. And if you're still not convinced try Omega weapon from FFV, because that one I didn't get down until years later even KNOWING a good strategy and having all jobs maxed.
I'd cite Phantasy Star IV as a 16-bit RPG with a turn-based battle system and a nearly ideal difficulty curve (and also some sweet combo-attack animations). Yes, you can sit around and grind levels and make things easier, but that's boring so why would you and it still doesn't completely trivialize things. If you just kinda go at it through the game you're always a bit scared when you hit the next boss because there's a chance you won't win. Lashiec, in the Air Castle, was always nerve-wracking just because it was such a long damn way to get to him and I didn't want to have to do it over.
And as far as story, well... Doesn't seem fair to call the story of a game you've never played "poorly crafted". Some of the better stories of our time have been told through RPG. Complaining about "sifting through textboxes" is just odd. Do you complain about "sifting through pages" when you read a book? The medium doesn't define the quality of the story.
I've never felt more immersed in a game's world and story than when I played Morrowind, a game delivered almost entirely through massive walls of text. Oblivion failed to capture my interest, despite all the voice acting, because the game in my opinion simply wasn't designed as well. It was a pain, not a wonder, to explore. I mean seriously, there's hundreds of oblivion gates to close but they're all the same few copy-pasted maps over and over and over? Screw that. In Morrowind, you could just wander off into the middle of nowhere and stumble across something interesting, something that looked unique and deliberate and made you wonder what the story behind it was. Maybe someone's waiting to ambush you. Can you beat them? Who knows! Maybe you're in over your head and about to die. It's exciting! Oblivion just scaled the whole world to match you, so everywhere is equally boring. Things like that made me lose interest in whatever the story was, regardless of whether it was in text or voice or psychedelic visions.
Sorry I like to ramble so much.
When I mean RPGs, I mean the ones where you essentially control your characters like chess pieces instead of actually attack. I've never played Morrowind, but the problems from Morrowind to Oblivion seemed to have been the same as from Oblivion to Skyrim only amplified. I played a good bit of Skyrim, and it was so borring. The fact that everything is some sort of shade of gray didn't help.
Espozo wrote:
I played a good bit of Skyrim, and it was so borring. The fact that everything is some sort of shade of gray didn't help.
Let me guess: You didn't like Game Boy until the
fourth quarter of 1998.
"everything is some sort of shade of gray"
Yet millions of readers go crazy for shades of greyBut I see what you're getting at.
Others agree with you that the gray aesthetic that works for
Psycho and
Schindler's List might not work so well for an
Elder Scrolls game.
tepples wrote:
Let me guess: You didn't like Game Boy until the
That's why I played it in pea soup green!
tepples wrote:
Yet millions of readers go crazy for shades of grey
Millions of male teenagers?
tepples wrote:
But I see what you're getting at. Others agree with you that the gray aesthetic that works for Psycho and Schindler's List might not work so well for an Elder Scrolls game.
Too be fair, just about every game now is. It is a tundra though so it sort of has an excuse. (At least more than other games.)
I have been a fan of Final Fantasy games for 13 years (that is, exactly half of my life) and I cannot pick a favourite, because I love them all. It's impossible to me to say "this game is the favourite of the series", because then I'd have to list all games of the series to be ex-eacho at 1st. I still belive the series continuously improved until Final Fantasy X which started the downhill, so that'd make IX the one I'd consider strictly technically "the best" (without being necessarily my favourite). The only one I like really much less is Final Fantasy II (famicom), because it was rushed and is practically not playable. Final Fantasy VII and IX are the one who got me into the series.
I think many people from the US says VI is great and VII is terrible because they grow up with VI, but here in Europe the first FF ever released officially was VII, so most people love VII because it's the one that got them in the series... it's all a matter of taste, preference, and first of all, how you got into the series. VII definitely is a big departure form the series, so I can see how people who grown up with the earlier games do not like the turn that the series took (rather than the game itself).
Personally I hate the turn the series took after Final Fantasy X. It went brutally and durably downhill. Even though X started the downfall, I still love the game for various reasons.
I'm curious, how many of you have played Bravely Default? It's basically Square's own FF clone with some twists. What's cool is that you can turn off random encounters or increase their frequency. You can also change the battle difficulty and the battle speed (up to 4x I believe). With the handy auto-battle mode, it makes grinding pretty painless.
The real treat for me was the later boss battles. Believe me, I tried to just do the old "hit, heal, repeat" formula, and I got destroyed
It really pushed me to look at the job ability system and devise tactics specifcally for tougher battles. The game gets quite repetitive if you try to get the true/good ending though. I'd recommend it to FF fans here. The sequel (Bravely Second) is already out in Japan and the third is planned I believe, so Square seems to think it'll be around for a while.
Espozo have a point though that some simpler RPGs are more about grinding and allows little variation in strategy for big parts of the game. Then there are SRPGs like Fire Emblem that is all about very careful strategy and almost zero about grinding (at least before Fire Emblem Awakening).
I've always been a big RPG fan and needless to say the FF series is one of my favourite series. I've only played FF 1-10 (and love them all) so I will only talk about those games (and I don't count FF Tactics series as FF games).
My favourites are the three Super Famicom games (I guess FFVI introducing me to the series plays a big part here as Bergalad says) but I also like FF VIII for some reason (I don't get why it's one of the less popular games).
FF VII is a great instalment in the series (I'm excited that the remake is finally coming out) and I can see why it's the most popular FF game in the world. But I think the materia system is the single worst system in any FF game so far. I prefer when abilities are limited to characters/classes, but in FF VII you can mix and match spells and skills however you want without limitations. Sure Cloud is the knight, Tifa the monk, Yufie the ninja and Cid the Dragoon, but they have no inherent abilities besides their weapons and limit breaks. I like the more classical systems in FF 1, 4, 6 (to a degree, all characters can learn all spells), 9 and 10.
I like that they scrapped the Active Time Battle system in FF 10, and went back to the classical D&D/DQ turn-based battle system. And that they finally adopted the Dragon Quest "wagon party system" that allows you to swap characters in the middle of battle. I don't care much for the "spheres" (that are actually items found in chests) that replaces experience points. The sphere grid was a cool idea but why not just let you trade new abilities for points instead.
3u Final Fantasy:Mystic Quest.
Grinding is a difficulty slider (better strategy is rewarded with faster play/ spending more time is rewarded with easier play) and random encounters are a way to force the basic gameplay experience to occur in a way that does not repeat exactly every playthrough, while still having an average difficulty level.
My impression was that the story of JRPGs was tolerated for the sake of gameplay, but I'm sure that people fall into all four options.
Final Fantasy IV (then called II) was my introduction to Final Fantasy, and also my introduction to JRPGs. It had a huge impact on my life. I spent most of my high school years teaching myself game programming because I wanted to make a JRPG of my own. The skills I learned led directly to becoming a professional game developer years later. It will always be my favourite because of that.
I think battles in most older JRPGs are generally very poor gameplay. There is often not very many interesting choices involved, usually I find them very mechanical. Even if you have a lot of options, a lot of times it doesn't matter because most of the options are pointless. Some games are better than others in this respect.
For example, the most interesting thing to me about Final Fantasy 1's battle system was trying to remember how much damage you've done to enemies, so that you don't waste attacks on enemies that will be dead before the turn is up. It more or less felt like a game of "concentration", for me.
Actually, my first time playing Final Fantasy IV, I found the battles very boring, and I hated them so much that I started just running from all of them. This had an interesting consequence, because the non-optional boss battles became very difficult with my drastically under-level characters. Some of these battles became quite interesting and strategic, in a way that they were probably not designed to be. Defeating Calbrena took me many hours, until I found a perfect combination of weapons and the berserk spell that could take out the dolls fast enough. (For some reason, it never occurred to me that it might be easier to just grind to raise my levels.) Eventually I couldn't beat the four elements in the Giant of Bab-Il, and I couldn't beat any of the regular enemies there either, so I was stuck and gave up on my first playthrough there.
Final Fantasy IV and VI had a few special battle situations here and there. The Dark Elf's control of metal weapons. The Fanatics' Tower preventing the use of magic. Valvalis/Barbariccia's Spin phase that you need to avoid. These were probably the more interesting parts of the game, trying to accomodate unusual situations. Most of the battles in these games were much less fun, though, i.e. just use the same strongest attack every time, cast cure if your health is low, repeat.
More modern JRPGs have done a better job of making the battle gameplay interesting, I think. Often there's ways to see random battles coming and avoid them, or otherwise control the interaction, and the games are better designed with the idea of grind as an option. Sometimes the battle system is fun enough that grinding isn't such an onerous task.
Final Fantasy XIII has enemies that go through various phases (e.g. "stagger") where you need to respond appropriately. I thought the first 6 or so hours of that game were absolutely abysmal (partly because it's an over-extended tutorial, keeping you from the full form of battle far too long), but at about 10 hours in the difficulty had finally increased enough that I started to enjoy the battles. Much later in the game a huge area with a big collection of unique optional battles opens up, and it really gets quite good.
rainwarrior wrote:
Final Fantasy IV and VI had a few special battle situations here and there. The Dark Elf's control of metal weapons. The Fanatics' Tower preventing the use of magic. Valvalis/Barbariccia's Spin phase that you need to avoid. These were probably the more interesting parts of the game, trying to accomodate unusual situations. Most of the battles in these games were much less fun, though, i.e. just use the same strongest attack every time, cast cure if your health is low, repeat.
Cagnazzo and Rubicante also had shields-alter phases...like the ATB tutorial Mist Dragon, FFV's Wing Raptor, [ff6's snail], FF7's Guard Scorpion...
About the only actual re-uses I can think of in FF6 were the painting and the snail recolor.
(FFV also had a physical/magic split tower.)
Pokun wrote:
FF VII is a great instalment in the series (I'm excited that the remake is finally coming out) and I can see why it's the most popular FF game in the world. But I think the materia system is the single worst system in any FF game so far. I prefer when abilities are limited to characters/classes, but in FF VII you can mix and match spells and skills however you want without limitations. Sure Cloud is the knight, Tifa the monk, Yufie the ninja and Cid the Dragoon, but they have no inherent abilities besides their weapons and limit breaks. I like the more classical systems in FF 1, 4, 6 (to a degree, all characters can learn all spells), 9 and 10.
Underlined part makes no sense. Every character in FF6 can learn every spell, you even mention this yourself in the very same post. You are less limited in FF6.
In FF7 you can't have ALL spells on all characters at the same time. The espers works like materia, the differences being that you actually get to keep the spells you learn from an esper.
Personally I think the materia system was great, an improvement over the esper system.
What do you mean makes no sense? The underlined part is just my opinion of the materia system.
The reason I like FF6 more is because in FF6 characters still have their own class-specific abilities (stealing, blitz, machines, blue magic etc). The spells (and summons) is the only exception. In FF7 these abilities are limited to their limit breaks. The fact that the materia levels up and "learns" new abilities also annoys me since this seriously limits the whole character building part to parameter increasing and limit break learning.
Edit: How many spells you can have at the same time isn't the problem. The problem is that a monk can use all white, black, time and blue magic, steal and so on. And then when you are done with it you can just pass on the materia to another character.
Myask wrote:
My impression was that the story of JRPGs was tolerated for the sake of gameplay, but I'm sure that people fall into all four options.
I used to think that the story is the main point of the game and the gameplay is just there to differentiate it from a visual novel and make it an actual game. RPGs generally have exceptionally good story IMHO. In the case of Final Fantasy it's also often quite complex, while Dragon Quest games have much simpler yet excellent stories (check out DQ V to see what I mean).
rainwarrior wrote:
I think battles in most older JRPGs are generally very poor gameplay. There is often not very many interesting choices involved, usually I find them very mechanical. Even if you have a lot of options, a lot of times it doesn't matter because most of the options are pointless. Some games are better than others in this respect.
DQ1 is even worse than FF1 (I still love both games though). You have one character and only a handful of spells to learn. Attack magic is limited to two fire spells (one just being a stronger version), and since there's no elemental weakness or any real magic defence in this game using the spell isn't that much different from attacking with a weapon. Most of the strategy in these games is taking decisions during travelling: Is it time to go back and rest or should I press forward in this dungeon? The probability of dying gets much higher because of stronger enemies if I cross this bridge, am I strong enough? If I do die should accept that I loose half my gold or should I reload from the last save? Which in case of the Famicom version means re-entering a long password!
Update: just beat 9. Officially my new favourite.
The constant random encounters get old, but in the end the game holds lots of morals to it. Same with lots of them, actually.
RE: Final Fantasy games take no strategy. The problem with JRPGs as a genre is that if you level up enough, the games are too easy. But there are so many ways to play FFV, VI and VII without level grinding that setting your own level cap forces you to really learn the game and come up with interesting strategies. While it might take manual dexterity to beat a game like Contra, it's still spawning the same enemies/bullets with the same movement patterns every time.
I think it takes a certain amount of ocd to play JRPGs, though.
Pokun wrote:
The reason I like FF6 more is because in FF6 characters still have their own class-specific abilities (stealing, blitz, machines, blue magic etc). The spells (and summons) is the only exception.
FFVI (FF3 SNES) is superior over VII because without the Espers (Basically that game's version of Materia) the characters still have innate skills. A Youtuber has done a low-level, no equipment, no Esper game.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 506A5D38FD
I don't really think leveling up to level 99 and then not having any challenge is the way to go with RPGs. Hell, I don't mean to brag but I beat 9 with my lowest level being 35, and honestly there wasn't that much to it anyway.
I just don't get why FF8 works how it does, where the higher your level the higher the enemy's (and vice versa). There's pretty much no need for grinding.
strat wrote:
The problem with JRPGs as a genre is that if you level up enough, the games are too easy.
This is largely a problem with games that don't offer any measure of difficulty adjustments (Easy, Normal, Hard), in my humble opinion. I'm pretty much a JRPG maniac, so consider me an expert on the matter
With games like modern "Tales", they let you change how hard the battles are. Trying to play any recent Tales games in Unknown mode (without New Game+ bonuses) is a great way to challenge even "pros" who have been with the series since Tales of Phantasia. I still remember getting my ass kicked by some Unknown-level bosses in Tales of Vesperia, even though I had maxed out my characters' levels (200) and had the maximum attack power (9999 thanks to Ultimate Weapons sidequest).
Another (action) JRPG series that's really good at offering increasing levels of difficulty would be Star Ocean. Even on Normal mode, there are a lot of post-game bosses and enemies that can mop the floor with even a fully-leveled team. E.g. Freya from SO3 can wipe out all three of your level 255 characters rather quickly (two hits, no joke), unless you come up with decent strategies.
I'll go back to Bravely Default as well, which has an adjustable difficulty level too, although that game had bosses that could crush a fully leveled team in a few turns no matter the difficulty. That's why I enjoyed Bravely Default so much towards the end. It was one of the few turn-based JRPGs (and RPGs in general) that had me thinking of clever tricks I could use counter boss attacks. It really took a deep understanding of the game's mechanics for me to get to the "true" ending of the game.
And then there are Disgaea games which are sort of in a class of their own. They have ridiculous level caps (9999!!??). There are more than a few situations where it's not possible to out-grind bosses (unless you have absolutely nothing else to do, but that's a lot of time...) forcing you to come up with strategies.
Disgaea is a bit too grind happy IMHO. Generally I think the difficulty is quite fine in RPGs. Maybe a bit too easy on newer games, and a bit too difficult on older games, especially games like Wizardry.
nicklausw wrote:
The constant random encounters get old
This is the problem with many newer RPGs. Random encounters is fine on the world map screen but I don't like when they interfere with your orientation in dungeons. Especially 3D RPGs have this problem. Then again most games that doesn't use random encounters but show the enemies on screen instead before you encounter them, allow you to avoid enemies too easily because they are way to slow. The escape option in those games is kind of pointless since you don't have to fight if you don't want to anyway.
nicklausw wrote:
I just don't get why FF8 works how it does, where the higher your level the higher the enemy's (and vice versa). There's pretty much no need for grinding.
I think it's so that even if you go back to areas you visited earlier in the game, the enemies won't be super easy. The enemies level doesn't raise as fast as your though, so grinding still makes the game easier and not grinding makes it harder. It's not a very hard game though, even Omega Weapon is quite beatable with a good strategy.
Oblivion constantly scaled enemy levels to those of the player, making levels worthless. Fallout 3 and Skyrim, on the other hand, scaled levels based on the player's level when first entering a particular area.
nicklausw wrote:
There's pretty much no need for grinding.
FF8 is much easier if you refrain completely from getting any levels (let along "girding"), by turning enemies into cards (or running away) which results in no EXP.
Every time your average party level increases it means the game gets harder, quite opposite of all others RPGs out there. Thanks to the junctions you can still have good stats at very low level. Actually it's better that way rather than to be Lv. 100 and have bad junctions.
Strange, I remember I had Squall be level 100 long before I reached the end (the others was about level 50 since they are switched out all the time), and I steamrolled everything with Squall. I had stocked up on magic for junctioning as well though, and I haven't compared by playing a low level game.
I think Seiken Densetsu 3 decides enemies' levels based on your levels when you enter a new area too. Making leveling up kind of pointless except for spells and such.
SD3 determines levels based on how many God Beasts have been killed (+2 for each one). For the first half of the game enemy levels stay constant. IIRC.