Is FF1 or FF2 more fun? I want a fairly short JRPG
I would say 1 and I think most would agree. 2 and 3 are very divisive.
The OG versions aren't that short, FF2 is like 30 hours long which is actually pretty long for an NES game.That being said, 2 is not for everyone
>>12274578I'm torn between the psp version (on my 3ds) and the NES classic. I'll play the other one eventually
>>12274637In my opinion FF1 is such a barebones RPG (yes I know it's more 'advanced' than DQ1 and 2 no need for shitflinging, it's still a pretty simple RPG) that the only reason to play it is for historical purposes so go for the NES version. I've never played any of the remakes though
FF1 is the shortest of the 3. if you like punching yourself, go with FF2.
>>12274752>if you like punching yourself, go with FF2.That's FF3. FF2 is more like dick mutilation, even the final dungeon(s) is worse than the Crystal Tower which is an unpopular opinion for some reason
>>12274510I like them about equally. FF2 is pretty overhated and is a solid game once you realize you can ignore 99% of the shit people say you have to do to beat it. I'd say any version of it outside of the NES version should be a good experience. That said, if length is what you're worried about, just play FF1.
>>12274701Every remake PS1 / wonderswan and later has more than enough guu to rec; game's got a great vibe to it, all the major dungeon themes are great and as far as NES plots go it makes you think more than usual too. Thing's memorable and all the items / spritework are iconic in a way that'll carry you through the rest of the series. Even as a kid playing Dawn of Souls, FFII felt like the weird afterthought add-on in the same way Four Swords did on the LTTP cart.
>>12274510FF 1 isn't super long. The difficulty also peaks pretty early. Once you find a few items that let you cast spells for free it becomes pretty easy.All the remakes though remove all the friction to the point where it becomes sort of boring.
>>12274856The jank gameplay is why it felt like an afterthough in all those 1+2 compilations, once you get past that it actually has a nice story, great soundtrack and, at least in the PS1 remake, beautiful art design. The original though, I've played through it once, no speedups, hacks, etc, and it's just such a pain in the ass I refuse to believe anyone actually genuinely prefers it to 1
>>12274862I mean you're only going to even know about the 'use' option for items like Thor's Staff or the Giants Gloves if you look up online walkthroughs. Basically the same thing as drake swording in DS1
>>12274893>you're only going to even know about the 'use' option for items like Thor's Staff or the Giants Gloves if youRTFM
I can't get into early JRPGs. I think it was around 1995 onwards that they finally started making these games fun. There were one or two JRPGs that were fun, but the 10-hour tutorials put me off those games. Give me the cryptic but deep system of WRPGs. Games that are buggy and aggressively anti-player. But you get enjoyment out of learning the game or at least exploiting it. In JRPGs, tighter design means less fun.
>>12274510It depends. I think 1 is better, but 2 tries a lot of things. 1 also has a pretty hard start that demands quite a bit of grinding early on, but eases up later. 2 you can either quickly grind to the point of breaking the game, or casually play and things fall into place pretty well. You're also moving around more frequently than one, but that's due to the dungeons being lazy and pretty short. 1 has a neat implied story that is not presented strongly at all. You can play the whole game as if it were a simple dnd session between you and your friends. 2 has a stronger narrative that I appreciate, even if it is fairly derivative (it's basically Star Wars).1 is slow, but 2 is dumb. Take your pick.
>>12275001Even final fantasy 4?
>>12274510FF1 is probably more fun. FF2 is a better and more interesting game. Just play them all what else are you going to do scroll tiktok?
>>12275018FFV, right, anon. The game was arguably the first FF where they built fun systems. And it's crazy how well it aged. But it's not exactly an exception. It falls into the anti-fun JRPG thing of gatekeeping mechanics. 95 was crazy because it was like “get down to the fun mentality.” CT, Pokemon, SMRPG, and other JRPGs don't waste your time. You go straight to the fun “muh zoomer brain.” I advocate for ball busting WRPGs like Ultima, HOHM, or Wizardry. It's about having systems that allow player expression or at least are fun. Even the oldest WRPGs allowed for a lot of expression. Not that JRPGs don't still insist on doing that, but the first 10 hours of FFVII are vastly different from the first 10 hours of FFI-VI.
FF2 loves to pull dumb shit that feels like a game dev playing a joke on you.>endgame encounters right next to the area you walk through to get to the second town>weapons are weaker than fistfighting for a significant portion of the game>the spell that heals statuses doesn't heal statuses properly until you cast it on a (likely healthy) partymember dozens of times>shit, most of the "white magic" doesn't function properly unless you grind the hell out of it>the spell that half the plot builds up to just doesn't function properly and it's straight up intentional design choice>pic related in every dungeonAll that being said I'd still much rather play FF2 over FF3.
>>12274701FF1 is a great glimpse into what the formula was originally about, though. Overworld exploration and traversal is a big deal, for example. It's there's a lot of emphasis on the enemies and resource management.
