The intelligent FFT vs. FFT:A poll

[awall]

The FFT vs. FFT:A Poll has been around in this forum ever since I've been here, but it was a long time before I got around to posting in it. The thing is, while I could discuss the merits of one over the other, it seemed to me that the majority of the people who voted in that thread gave a reason for their vote that I have a hard time respecting. I'll list a few below without giving any names:

Well, considering that I haven't played FFTA, (and neither has anybody else), I'm going to have to say FFT.

Out of the 2, i favor FFT:A.. pretty much because i havent layed a finger on FFT, therefore have no opinion about it.

Aww... not very many people like FFTA, kupo... I like it because it's the only Final Fantasy I've ever played.

I have to pick FFT, cuz it has more classes than on FFTA. I haven't played FFT b4 but I've seen it on video game magazines or online.

... and so forth and so on. Granted, at the very beginning it would seem that FFTA hadn't been released in the US yet, causing a lot of people to prematurely vote for FFT. But come on people - how can you rank something you've never played? Give both games a shot before you claim one is better than the other. I know somebody who swore left, right, up, and down that FFVII was the best FF is the series... and then I learned that the only other FF he'd played was FFVIII, and not even all the way through disc 2. Don't be that guy. Know your games before you rank them.

So, here's how I'd like to see this poll work:

If you've only played one of the two games, go ahead and vote for that game, but choose the option that says you haven't played the other game. In order to count as having played Tactics, you should be at least in chapter 2, preferably in chapter 3. In order to count as having played Tactics Advance, you should have beaten at least two, preferably three totema. Of course, if you really want to say you've played it, the best option is to go ahead and beat the game. In your post, explain what features of the game you've played that you most appreciated (if you didn't play the other game because it didn't have one of those features, go ahead and say so).

If you have played both games, then in your post please explain why you voted for what you did. You should pick a feature that is present in both games and compare the two games based on that feature (of course you may choose more than one, and if you may pick several then it's okay if the game you voted for doesn't win out in every category). The kind of responses I'd prefer not to see are:

tactics is way better

(Yes, that was the whole post.)

tactics is way better
no judge
and i no a glitch on tactics to unlock all the skills in summoner
hahaha i cheat for victory

(And here, we're comparing a feature from TA to something that's not in T.)

To clarify, please don't compare FFTA's judge to FFT's judge, because FFT doesn't have a judge. Instead, compare FFTA's battle system as a whole - including laws - to FFT's battle system as a whole.

So, now that I've gone on for a while about what I'd like to see, here's my response:

Battle System
FFT and FFTA had similar looking battle systems. However, FFT's was much more strategic in my opinion. There was much greater variety of abilities in FFT, allowing you to perform (and, in theory, forcing you to be prepared to deal with) a far wider range of actions. It was also much better balanced, in my opinion. Magic was far too overpowered in FFTA. Between the fact that FFTA's battle system didn't have slow actions (i.e. those with charge time) and FFTA gave all characters Auto-MP-Regen, mages were absolutely dominant. FFT's mages had arse-kickingly-powerful techniques, but had to pay for that by charging up their spells and being doubly vulnerable while doing so. Other techniques were more unbalanced in FFTA than in FFT; while FFT had issues with Movement abilities being completely unbalanced (Teleport > Fly > Ignore Height > Jump + 3 > Jump + 2 > Jump + 1 > completely useless stuff like Any Ground, Any Weather, or Move on Lava), the majority of Action, Reaction, and Support abilities in that game were more or less fair compared to all others. FFTA had stuff like Beso Toxico and Jump that were hands down better than basic attacks, R abilities like Strikeback that completely 0wn Reflex, and waaaaay too powerful stuff like Charmshot and Sheep Count.

Difficulty
Let's see... FFT pits you against huge groups of enemies that outlevel you by a fair amount. FFTA enemies typically have lower levels than you, and when they don't then you outnumber them 6-4 or something. Plus, the AI in TA is just garbage. They aren't cowardly like the enemies in FFT (who run and hide in a corner when their HP gets to critical) but they'll walk right into Strikeback, attack you with an element you absorb, or else sit there and MagicBreak you turn after turn even though they could have killed you by doing a normal attack and you keep regenerating the MP they take away.

Vairety of Enemies
Here, FFTA wins. FFTA uses pretty much every class in the game (except maybe Morphers) against you at some point. FFT uses almost entirely Knights and Archers. There're two plot battles in the game that have Ninjas, two that have Priests, two that have Oracles, one that has Samurai, and none than have Dancers, Bards, Calculators, or Mimes. Meanwhile almost every battle in the game has at least one Knight and Archer. Boring.

Graphics and Music Style
FFT is a PS game. It's obviously going to have better graphics and music than a GBA game. But as far as the style goes, I'm gonna have to hand it to FFTA. I like them both, but FFTA is a bit more... fun. Different. But this isn't really a major consideration to me... I'm more of a gameplay whore.

Story and Characters
FFT wins. Sure, FFTA had an interesting premise for a story - you were actually trying to destroy the world rather than save it. But FFT's story was just much more mature, more well rounded... the characters seemed to be real characters, the places were real places. The war was a plausible sequence of events that your characters were trying to prevent and find out who was causing. FFTA characters were so one-dimensional. Marche: I want to go home. Ritz: I want red hair. Mewt: I want my mommy! Again, this isn't as important to me as gameplay, so I won't focus as much on it.

So all in all, I'm gonna give my vote to FFT. Go ahead and vote with your opinions, and don't worry if they're not as insanely long as mine - I was just being wordy because that's what I do, and also trying to set a good example as the first post in the thread. Have fun.

[T.G. Oskar]

Uh? An intelligent discussion upon which FFT is superior? I guess you skipped the choice of "I like both games". On my particular condition, I have played and finished both games. And I have gotten almost everything on both games. But, putting aside many aspects, and only focusing in two of them, I do prefer FFT to FFT:A.

I'm not so much into graphics, and neither into music. On difficulty, I consider FFT:A much difficult because of the Law factor and the Orlandu factor. And, if you placed the Law system and Orlandu in the same game, Orlandu outbeats the Law system (well, maye Target Area may make the battle a bit difficult, but he still has Night Sword). Both games had a similar battle system, and both games prized more mages than fighters (notice the effectiveness of FFT's mages in comparison to the fighters). FFT uncompensed by making all but two of the NPCs fighters, and giving them uber-powers, while making the mage NPCs difficult to use. FFT:A balanced more the Fighter<->Mage difference. But, then came the Tactics Ogre guys, with their MP regeneration, Anyways, even fighters have 5MP regeneration, and Doublecast and Turbo MP and Summons still ate MP like popcorn!!

Which leads to the aspects I care: storyline and the PC skills system. FFT, granted, has the best storyline. Even with the plagued translation, the story was rich. A battle for power that escalates in a war? Man, that must be like the most used, yet still favorite story. FFT:A went more on a kid's story, which, while having its liking, it still can't compare to FFT. And the job system on both games. Both were equally well done, but FFT:A slightly breaks the balance. Sure, Strikeback is real nasty, but only Humans and Bangaa can use it. A-skills follow the same suit. But, when you really go deeper and customize your team, you see FFT:A has more chances than FFT. Since, when you get all NPC, you only have team for 2 extra PCs and Ramza.

But, because of a bit of nostalgia, and the inmense storyline, I choose FFT. However...I can't play FFT while on a 2-hour trip, and well, not all cars have PS2s and TVs integrated. And FFT:A is just the game for it.

[LocoColt04]

Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar

Uh? An intelligent discussion upon which FFT is superior? I guess you skipped the choice of "I like both games".

Allow me to do something for you.

Now, this is a poll that asks which title you like MORE. Hence the "which is superior." Therefore, you really shouldn't have an option to choose both. I do, however, see two more options that can be placed on the poll, specifically for the people who like one over the other, despite having NOT played it. My point would be that quote where one person said he liked FFT more than FFT:A, despite having never played it.

So yeah, I won't add a choice for both games, as the whole purpose of the thread is to play favorites. Oh, and I'm going to close the old poll, because he's right -- it's outdated, and peoples' opinions may have changed since then anyway. (And I told him he could do this to begin with.) Afterthought -- I'm leaving the old poll open, but as you can see, I stuck this instead. It's like the various other spam-free threads stuck atop the forums. Hopefully, this will remain spam-free.



NOW, as for my personal taste, I prefer FFT to FFT:A. I have played and completed both on multiple occasions.

My feature of comparison? Simply put, the story. I may post again later with other aspects of the games, but FFT completely obliterates FFT:A when it comes to a story. Advance's story was fun, but flaky. There wasn't nearly as much depth as there could have been, and it looked like child's play when compared to the depth of FFT. That's not to say it's a bad story, but it's just not in the same league.



I'll stick up for the little brother (because it's NOT a sequel) in the series and say that I did love the difficulty that the Law Cards brought to the game. It actually gave me a reason to play through, because while it may be an easy game, it's not so fun when your whole crew gets locked up. Try playing through without using a single anti-law card, and it gets a bit more interesting.

Of course, FFT wins simply because of its sheer awesomeness, as far as I'm concerned. It's got the best story out of the entire FF series (in my opinion, of course), and is one of the most clinching titles I've ever played. Story aside, the gameplay is amazingly smooth, even if the battles can take ages sometimes. There's just something about the game that puts it on a pedastal above everything else. It may not be my favorite FF title, and it's certainly not even in my top five favorite games, but it's a title worthy of being in anyone's possession.

I can't say the same for FFT:A. If you're really wanting a FFT-type game for the GBA, I'd suggest Tactics Ogre: the Knight of Lodis before I'd suggest FFT:A.

[T.G. Oskar]

Originally Posted by LocoColt04

I can't say the same for FFT:A. If you're really wanting a FFT-type game for the GBA, I'd suggest Tactics Ogre: the Knight of Lodis before I'd suggest FFT:A.

Seconded. I was really lucky to buy an used copy of TO:KOL before FFT:A was out. It was quite long for a GBA game, and also it has the option of changing the storyline all the way to a different ending. Plus, TO:KOL made justice with the mage-deficience in FFT. Notice almost all the NPCs given were magicians?

And while I do consider FFT superior, I like FFT:A. Granted, the story was not as good, but it allows for further customization of your PCs, since the AI of the game is berserk. Aggresive yet stupid. It is entertaining enough to play it when you don't have a console nearby. And since I already finished both, I feel more into customizing the party than actually finish it again. But surely enough, I will finish both games again.

Another thing: the use of the GB's legendary linking capabilities was not properly used in FFT:A. Tactics Ogre GBA did a better job, since it allowed you to fight the other guy's team instead of a measly coop/competition thing.

Well, I have to say that FFT is better , because I've never played FFTA in my life! Is it any different from FFT? Let me know!

[sephirothvsyuna]

I didn't like FFT... For some reason it just kicked my as*... I could relate better to FFT Advance. I liked the Different races.

[Setzer]

i'm a fan of fft, i enjoy the versatility of the game, i liked that you could make a knight with the sword ability, an could also summon, thats the key point at why this games so fun

i pick fft because i think the story is much better than ffta. The customization in fft is better. The main reason i did not like ffta is the law system. To me that was ridiculous. i mean come on a judge on a chocobo sitting there making sure you dont use certain abilities. It did no make the game fun it made it very annoying. so obviously i pick fft

i am one of the ones who have not played ffta, so i wont say that i like fft better but i will explain why i liked fft so much
the versatility was awsome. i loved all of the jobs you could preform and mix the skills of the jobs together
i love long games and fft is definitly a game that i can really let my ocd come out in. the second time i beat it i easily spent over 300 hours doing so. yes i am a bit obsessive but thats me.
and not to mention the story line was great.
there are times when i cant think of what game to play and as a default i will go to fft.
i love fft, but who knows i may like ffta even more once i play it

[Bunny]

Final Fantasy Tactics. By far.

I have played both games, on and off. I still own Final Fantasy Tactics but have since sold Final Fantasy Tactics: Advanced, it just didn't appeal to me.

The class system in Tactics is probably my favorite thing about the game, simply because it is awesome. No further explanation, really. There are a few things I do not like about it though, like the large number of totally useless skills, and some of the classes are stupid. The wait time for some of the useless skills were horrible as well. Even the wait time for some of the good spells was insane, but more understandably so. The magical classes were probably my least favorite, although I still walk around with a Time Mage/Black Mage, and he sorta kicks ass. I think my favorite combination is Squire/Ninja though, on Ramza.

The story on Final Fantasy Tactics was far superior than that of Final Fantasy Tactics: Advanced. Granted, I did not bother getting that far into Tactics: Advanced, I still enjoy Tactics' story more. Delita is probably one of my favorite characters in an RPG game to date, simply because I do not understand him. Most other characters are predictable, but him, I just don't get. I haven't beat Tactics yet, so I don't completely understand where he is going, or where the story is going, but I hope to beat it soon.

I already mentioned the skills, but only partially. The skill system in Final Fantasy Tactics is good. I like it. I like the point system, and how you spend it and all that. In Final Fantasy Tactics: Advanced the skill system blew. I absolutely hated it. In fact, I sold it for that matter alone, it was enough. If they had kept the system in place, altering it only a little, I would have probably kept it. But who knows.

The gameplay was also good. I don't feel like typing anymore.