Final Fantasy II

I suppose I’ll defend the indefensible. The much-maligned Final Fantasy II was a bold experiment upon release, much like other NES sequels such as Zelda II. Final Fantasy II‘s most infamous change is the addition of its wonky leveling system, which rewards the player for performing certain actions in battle rather than simple presence. While I think this change did not work out particularly well, look at it from a historical standpoint: RPGs had not truly delved in to such a system at the time, and in hindsight making it work was probably more trouble than anticipated on the limited 8-bit console. We would see Final Fantasy III handle a similar idea more intuitively with its implementation of the Job System and skill levels associated with each job. While Squaresoft’s experiments have left us with what some consider a broken game, when played without abusing the system (difficult, admittedly), Final Fantasy II is reasonably challenging if a little annoying.

The game draws most of its aesthetic from Final Fantasy I, which has its ups and downs. Reusing sprites and tiles probably made the game quicker to produce, and it certainly breeds familiarity for the player who enjoyed the previous game, but from a modern perspective it makes the game look somewhat lazy. Uematsu’s compositions deviate quite a bit from the original, however, this time giving the game a moody and almost depressing quality. I say this as a compliment, as the music reflects Final Fantasy II‘s plot better than it deserves: this game’s not a happy go lucky adventure in the least. In fact, the story is brutal. Ever wonder why Squaresoft made so many characters cheat death in Final Fantasy IV? Well, it’s probably because they killed almost the entire cast in this game and people didn't respond to it so well. My suspicion is that Final Fantasy II failed to make the kind of bank the original game did, so the developers steered away from the darker tone. Final Fantasy III‘s child protagonists and lighter feeling make no argument to the contrary.

Personally, I don’t think the story holds up that great, but it’s to be expected. Final Fantasy II‘s villain lacks proper motivation, and given the smaller scale of conflict seen in the game, having a comprehensible villain would have made more sense. The game pulls a couple of nice plot twists and memorable scenes, but they are punctuated by long sections with little dialogue and the poor delivery expected of games in this era. Similarly, the dungeon design reeks of the developers being new to this. The game is loaded with fake walls and treasures that aren't worth it. This is partially because I believe the developers themselves did not understand the game’s mechanics in full, possibly because of a rushed schedule. In practice, balancing the battle system with the enemies the game offers (either too weak or too strong) is no easy feat.

With all of these flaws mentioned, one might think I hate Final Fantasy II like so many fans of the series. I don’t. I recognize that it’s a game made in another time, and the fact that I've enjoyed playing it twice despite all of its flaws says something. Maybe it’s just the mood of the game, particularly Uematsu’s score and the situation of the rebel base that strike a chord with me. It takes some getting used to, but making my characters follow stat paths that I've chosen is also fairly rewarding. I would definitely not recommend this game to players new to the series, but I do think Final Fantasy II is an important piece of history. What it represents more than anything else is Squaresoft’s willingness to explore new angles on their formula, even when it blows up in their faces. To this day, they've done that with every game in the series, so no matter how much I may dislike one game, there’s always hope for the next.

6