Searz wrote:
Sorry to break it to ya, but the combat in the Final Fantasy games isn't all that good (not bad necessarily, but nothing worth praise).
Not sure I've played enough of the games to comment on them all, but I think it applies to most of them.
So I'd disagree, you'd probably not be a fool not to play it.
The Final Fantasy comparison was more to show the difference between it and other Mario RPGs like Superstar Saga.
While I agree that the battle system isn't something to be hyped about, it also does some slightly interesting things in an old system. Killing creatures will occasionally give you extra stats for the rest of battle or a free turn. Using items can be negated with the random freebees. There are timed hits, very much akin to Paper Mario.
Things wrong with the game:
It's an isometric playing field so it looks and controls really weird.
Final Fantasy battle system is very boring.
There's no clear "classes" like there are in other RPG's (might just be something I dislike, overall doesn't matter)
Things right with the game:
The game looks alive. Everything's animated well.
Interesting original characters. Other Mario characters fairly interesting too
Innovative boss fights (for the time anyway. Other games have done the kind of boss fights they have)
Aside, not good or bad:
Mario mechanics in the game. Items are in floating chests. Like a weird cross between question blocks and chests.
Minigames
Platforming "puzzles" (made worse by the isometric playfield)
That's my 2 cents on this.

Quoted:
There's a difference between people not dealing with it for 20 years and people not knowing yet and then reading it on a league of legends forum.
I agree that yes it is a spoiler but it's an old one at that. However even though it's a very well known spoiler it's almost like not knowing Luke's father is Darth Vader the only excuse you should have for not knowing that would be, being 6 years old or being Amish.

Lugignaf wrote:
There's no clear "classes" like there are in other RPG's (might just be something I dislike, overall doesn't matter)
Actually I dislike it too. I like it when certain classes have specified roles they excel in. Sucks to be an assassin that can casually heal himself whenever he needs to, or a healing class that can aoe almost as well as a mage, or a mage that can deal a ****ton of damage while using some bs defensive/cc spell that should only be available to tanks...
What's the point of even having classes if the only thing that changes are the skill names and animations, with some minor differences in playstyle? If everyone can do (almost) everything then I think the game loses part of it's appeal and makes everything stale and boring :/
I feel like quite a few games with defined classes pull it off quite well. Since I've only really played 2-3 games thoroughly, imma make a mini class analysis for PWI if anyone is interested in reading :P I feel like all of the classes in this game are truly viable and have their special place in PVE and PVP (okay technically Wizards and Archers fill the same role in PVE but still)



So uh, i forgot which game we were talking about again
If I helped you out, be sure to throw me a +Rep!
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service

Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service

Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
I was specifically talking about Super Mario RPG.
There's still classes in it, but they're not clear. Like, Peach is the healer of the group, but you have to guess it based on her skills. Everyone else, way less clear since everyone has offensive skills and defensive skills. It's an odd "class" system.
EDIT: Oh lord that is a lot of info there Xeres.
There's still classes in it, but they're not clear. Like, Peach is the healer of the group, but you have to guess it based on her skills. Everyone else, way less clear since everyone has offensive skills and defensive skills. It's an odd "class" system.
EDIT: Oh lord that is a lot of info there Xeres.
You need to log in before commenting.
Mechanically. It's likely worse mechanically. Mechanics are the lifeblood of most games and this is why most older games don't hold up very well. Including many classics. It's mostly nostalgia and innovation factors that propel older titles into lists like these, even for professionals.
It doesn't mean anything to me that some game truly innovated 20years ago, it doesn't mean that the quality of it is higher than that of newer games.. Gaming is a very iterative medium, if a clever thing is done by one game you're likely gonna see it in many others. Thus most games progressively get better mechanically as time goes on. We're now at the point of diminishing returns, but games from long ago, like before 2000 are very likely not gonna hold up compared to the games of today.
The game does a lot of neat things and you'd be a fool to not try it.
Sorry to break it to ya, but the combat in the Final Fantasy games isn't all that good (not bad necessarily, but nothing worth praise).
Not sure I've played enough of the games to comment on them all, but I think it applies to most of them.
So I'd disagree, you'd probably not be a fool not to play it.