.tceleS B hsuP
Well, Chrono Trigger was my first real RPG (after Lufia…) and I call that one the best ev0r too.
I bought FF1 for the GBA and was thoroughly unamused. Same for FF2.
The game came with a map - I didn’t know this the first time I played through. I used two fighters, a WHM and BLM. I didn’t meet WarMech and had trouble with Chaos.
WarMech is a rare encounter so it’s unlikely you fought him unless you were specifically looking for him, and you probably would have gained a level or two doing so. That’s what I remember, but 1991 was a long time ago so I could be wrong. He was only on one particular bridge in the final dungeon. IIRC he was tougher than Chaos - or at least had more offense.
FF1 was my first RPG; I’m assuming you’ve finished dozens. People were seeing the combat system for their first or second time (if they played DQ), whereas you’re seeing a traditional combat model you’ve used for years at its most basic level.
The term difficulty is rather subjective. Some people consider the game ‘hard’ because of the amount of random encounters, or the lack of in-game clues given to find the next plot trigger. I think it’s more likely that people consider it difficult because they followed a walkthrough and therefore were at a lower level than those who grinded away aimlessly looking for things or exploring the world on their own.
I think if I get a PSP 2000 the new FF1 will be the first game I play. It’s been too long.
The game may have come with a map, but the rom did not.
Locke: Yeah, I looked for Warmech. I heard he was harder, too, and I figured I might as well say I’d done everything, right? I doubt I looked enough to gain a level, but maybe. By that point, I was already high in the levels, so it took a lot to go up. Anyway, while he had more offense, my party did so much damage it was just stupid, and so he only got one attack off at all.
I still don’t know how I ended up so high leveled.
It’s not hard. It just demands a TON of leveling up (IE, stat building, which is a staple of most real RPGs)
Don’t most people here believe that stat building (and small groups) is what makes an rpg? That’s the usual reason for not calling Zelda one. If I’m shooting a strawman let me know. I consider Zelda-like games action rpgs, it’s just their features have been used in so many games to enhance the gameplay (mainly action/FPS) that it doesn’t seem as unique anymore. Perhaps most action games are nowadays action-rpgs.
I bet more games will do the statting up thing when numbers become cooler than bars and then we’ll have to redefine rpgs or arrange Madden Pro rpg nights. That doesn’t mean I have a clear definition of an rpg, I go with my gut.
Well, some even argue that FF, et al aren’t real RPGs because you didn’t create a character and you’re not making up situations for that character to respond to. In other words, you’re not “Role Playing.” You’re just reading a book/watching a movie while slogging through menus and looking at flashy lights and effects. FFI was the closest FF ever got (or any RPG after, for that matter, with the exception of some PC ones) to being a Role Playing Game in that sense.
The definition of RPG is different for pretty much everyone (and will be even more different if you like pen and paper, PC, or console RPGs).
Yeah … defining RPGs is like trying to define life, a category which includes anthrax, the Great Barrier Reef, the platypus, and (technically) Michael Jackson, but NOT fire, viruses of any description, or internet memes.
:hahaha;
Let’s form a committee 