💾 Archived View for kwiecien.us › gemlog › 202109241457.gmi captured on 2024-08-18 at 17:19:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Final Fantasy II

Author: Ben <benk@tilde.team>

Fri Sep 24 02:57:08 PM +0330 2021

Yesterday I beat Final Fantasy II and "mastered" it (got all the achievements in Steam), so now I will continue my review of the series' installments.

Final Fantasy II stands out among the Final Fantasy games because of its use of experimental game mechanics that were meant to push the boundaries of the genre. From my reading, it may have been the first RPG to level up skills individually based on how much you use them. When I was a kid, I grew up playing a game called Quest for Glory, which used the same mechanic. Wondering which came first, I checked their release dates, and Final Fantasy II is indeed older. I think it also predates the Elder Scrolls series, so if there is an older game that does this, I have not heard of it.

Another "experimental" game mechanic was the use of keywords when speaking to NPC's. This concept is not really that unusual and probably was borrowed from older CRPG's or adventure games. It could be a great feature, as many games have proven, but unfortunately it was utilized very poorly in this game, with NPC's usually only responding to just one keyword, making the feature seem redundant.

The skill leveling system is not as poorly implemented, but it just doesn't seem like a good fit for the game. It works and doesn't seem to give you much trouble, since skills grow when you need them to and don't when you don't, but oftentimes it felt too easy (which may be because of the pixel remaster rebalancing) or too tedious. (To get two of the achievements on Steam you need a max level weapon and max level spell, which is actually hard to get even after you beat the game.) Beating the game was no problem.

In summary, the gameplay is nothing to brag about. It also seems to suffer for the want of a class/job system, since characters can learn any skill relatively quickly, you don't have to attempt to play to their strengths or balance your party.

Story-wise, there are a few interesting points if you are a hardcore Final Fantasy fan, but I must say overall the story was bad. This is disappointing because I noted earlier that this game is said to have been designed more around a story that the creators wanted to tell rather than just bolting some story onto the game engine as was done with Final Fantasy I. In fact, Final Fantasy I seems to have a superb and fascinating story despite the software's limitations, whereas Final Fantasy II really comes off as uncreative or not sufficiently developed.

One annoying aspect is the characters in the game who join and leave the party. The fact that they do this is not bad in itself, but for example when starting the game you have to "create" (actually, just name) a fourth permanent party member who should be important to the story, and it kind of makes you excited that something interesting is going to happen with this character early on, but nothing ever does. He joins the party too late in the game, and he's severely under-characterized and basically pointless.

The other characters who join your party, with a few exceptions, simply die saving the party after completing their side-quest. The number times this happens (random character sacrifices their life) actually gets annoying. (No kidding!) This is intentionally part of the story, and when you get to the end of the game they are all actually even mentioned and remembered for their sacrifices, one of whom's ghost appears in a vision as well. (Star Wars?)

Actually you could probably draw up a nice parallel between the game's story and that of Star Wars, but putting that all aside, the aspects that I found most interesting about the game is that in a lot of ways it seems to foreshadow Final Fantasy VI. There are so many similarities between these two games in plot elements and characters that it's surprising Final Fantasy II isn't better, because VI is often regarded as a masterpiece in the series. Some of the mechanics are similar as well.

So, in some ways this game is a big step in the Final Fantasy series, because it foreshadows important things that the future of the series holds. It's just perhaps too raw and unpolished, like they had it in their minds to make a greater game, but all they could manage at the time was this. Perhaps Final Fantasy VI was the game they were dreaming of making. I'm also surprised that the two games aren't compared more often.

Aside from the elements specifically relating to Final Fantasy VI, this game also develops some series staples with very limited inclusions of chocobos and the character Cid, which appear in every game in the series following II. Moogles were also being developed for this game according to what I read, but their inclusion was axed and the proto-moogles were changed into beavers for release. The story also very prominently includes the dragoons, which are a type of knight that feature nicely in future titles. More emphasis is also put on the airship(s), which didn't really happen in the first game.

This game is the one I had played least in the series until now. I can now see why...

Unless you are planning to play all Final Fantasy games, or just something in particular appeals to you about this one, then it's totally skippable. It seems like a failed attempt to make a good game, but future attempts ended up paying off more. It's understandable why this game was not released outside of Japan, and also why it has usually been bundled together with the first installment in later releases, as it may not merit standing on its own, but I guess could help to sell Final Fantasy I by offering customers two games instead of one.

We can say then that the game is mainly interesting for historical purposes, and after having played this one, I really appreciate games I and III much more now. It's kind of a shame because it seemed the designers really wanted to make something special, with much more attention and focus placed on characters, but maybe it was just too much crammed into the game too fast.

Length-wise, it did take longer to beat than the first game in the pixel remasters. Final Fantasy I took me about sixteen hours, and II took a bit over twenty. (Twenty-four maybe.) So it's not like the game is lacking content. Compared to other Final Fantasy games, the world map kind of sucks too.

There is one interesting note I'd like to make about chocobos, though. Looking at the concept art included in the game, it seems like the original design for the animal is really not at all like the little yellow bird that appears in the game. I'm wondering how much of this was due to graphical limitations, because the graphics designers seemed to have copied a lot of the concept art for the monsters very faithfully, but the chocobo turned out to be much cuter and more iconic. Maybe there was a technical reason for this, like the sprite being too small and the player perhaps not being able to understand what is being depicted is some kind of friendly bird.

Also, looking at the concept art, one feels like the Final Fantasy artist was intentionally adopting the style of the famous French artist Jean Giraud (aka Moebius). Close to the time the Final Fantasy series started, an anime feature (OVA) called "Dragon's Heaven" was released that also featured this kind of art style and aesthetic that seemed to inspire Final Fantasy as well, including the robots. Another related film is "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind". (Unfortunately, I don't have the details of their connection handy. Apparently it predates the others, so might have been the initial inspiration for later projects.)