Gotta give props to the 2 games that started it all when it comes to this legendary franchise.
Are they the best the series has to offer? Not even close... but I don't regret my short time playing through each title.
Also, I'd like to add that I found enjoyment in what is considered the "black sheep" of the franchise: Final Fantasy II.
I actually really enjoyed playing it for what it was. It was nice to see the leaps they made in storytelling from the first to the second title - from its more action-packed opening, actual characters with names/backstories, introduction of party loss/sacrifice, and some solid world building. While the story was simplistic enough, and leaned heavily on Star Wars Episode IV for inspiration, I thought it was solid enough.
As for its gameplay, this is where I feel FFII gets most of its hate... and I understand why. Gone are the typical levels and experience points from pretty much every RPG in existence. In its place, it is replaced by a list of character stats/attributes, of which, only through repetition, does your party get stronger. For example, the more you get hit, the more max HP that character grows. Or the more offensive magic you use, the stronger it becomes.
On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, it just doesn't work out all that well in execution. Instead, it incentivizes players to level up their party by attacking EACH OTHER in a battle against low level mobs.
Saying all this though, I really do give them credit for their interesting game mechanic ideas and risks they took to make something new. Comparing it to a different game/series, I'd say it is very similar to MGS3's camouflage system. Cool idea, but flawed in practice.
If you care about JRPG history, I'd still give FF1 and FF2 a playthrough.
Are they the best the series has to offer? Not even close... but I don't regret my short time playing through each title.
Also, I'd like to add that I found enjoyment in what is considered the "black sheep" of the franchise: Final Fantasy II.
I actually really enjoyed playing it for what it was. It was nice to see the leaps they made in storytelling from the first to the second title - from its more action-packed opening, actual characters with names/backstories, introduction of party loss/sacrifice, and some solid world building. While the story was simplistic enough, and leaned heavily on Star Wars Episode IV for inspiration, I thought it was solid enough.
As for its gameplay, this is where I feel FFII gets most of its hate... and I understand why. Gone are the typical levels and experience points from pretty much every RPG in existence. In its place, it is replaced by a list of character stats/attributes, of which, only through repetition, does your party get stronger. For example, the more you get hit, the more max HP that character grows. Or the more offensive magic you use, the stronger it becomes.
On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, it just doesn't work out all that well in execution. Instead, it incentivizes players to level up their party by attacking EACH OTHER in a battle against low level mobs.
Saying all this though, I really do give them credit for their interesting game mechanic ideas and risks they took to make something new. Comparing it to a different game/series, I'd say it is very similar to MGS3's camouflage system. Cool idea, but flawed in practice.
If you care about JRPG history, I'd still give FF1 and FF2 a playthrough.