i have conducted a bit of research before deciding to write something on this game. i have read quite a few reviews from other players. i have tried to see if there were aspects of the game that slipped from my grasp, or perspectives that shed a different light on it. to my surprise, the game was always homogeneously reviewed. the topics of discussion were always roughly the same and could be summed up in a few points: a boring and frustrating dungeon design; a derivative approach to its story; an uninspired mechanic in the form of keywords to extract plot-relevant information; a shooting for the stars approach to gameplay mechanics; a complete obfuscation of said mechanics which the player can’t ever come to understand without some sort of guide. some would bring up how the game always ranked poorly, and likely at the bottom of the lists, in every site’s final fantasy series game ranking. most would mention how they came to know the game as ‘the bad one’ of the franchise but felt like they could find some good in there and gave it a good try to possibly rediscover an hidden gem. but in hindsight all this homogeneity may not be as surprising as one may think. it is just a testament to the fact that the game truly is as dry as it may look and sound and i don’t think i can add anything of value to any of the points mentioned before. the mere statement and restatement of them, across the years and among several rereleases, makes it clear that there is not much else to catch on to.

but the value of bad videogames is in recognizing how fundamental they can be for making good games in the future. i have to respect final fantasy 2, because the game’s experimentation was foundational for finding out the correct mix of gameplay mechanics to adopt for later titles. the game’s openness to build customization (regardless of the fact that it has many elements that contrast this very feature) has without a doubt led to the rationalization that this level of flexibility is a little too excessive, but the sentiment isn’t wrong, and this led to the creation of the job class system of final fantasy 3 and 5; similarly the various fourth slot members can be clearly seen as a tough learning experience for the far more solid party rotations of final fantasy 4 and 6, where the first has a much more solid progression curve built around having Cecil as the party’s “pivot” while others rotate around him, and the latter is able to create scenarios by separating the party at times and divide the narrative into different parts. i must admit that i am not familiar with akitoshi kawazu’s work with the saga series prior to this playthrough, but i expect it to also have been tangentially influenced by the development of final fantasy 2 as well. moreover, i believe that the somber tone of this game allowed square to position itself into a different part of the role playing market with respect to its big competitor dragon quest, besides pure game mechanics, eventually bringing games likes final fantasy 4 and 6 in a few years. given all this, i am thankful for having played this game, as it gave me a sort of historical framework to better understand the progression of a game series i appreciate. so thank you, final fantasy 2, and farewell!