Square Enix

So usually I have an elaborate text stating the more in-depth thematics of a game. Then I tie it back together to judge whether these concepts are delivered correctly, via design, gameplay, and availability. But the second Final Fantasy is hard to comment on, when all of these things cancel each other out, or fall by the wayside. Its innovations are unique, but the characteristics they carry over from its previous title are completely uninspired and in some cases are made even worse. This is where most make their contentions of whether Final Fantasy 2 is just a bad game, or if it’s a good or maybe mediocre game, but a bad sequel. So I want to analyze such elements to see which one it truly is and perhaps help form your own opinion.

The combat has remained the same with a few name changes and weapon additions. A somewhat cool thing is the addition of dual-wielding any type of weapon your party has. This does add some variety in comparison to the gameplay, but these are upgraded separately which means, your HP (health) may be inconsistent with the ratio of your AP (Attack power) may be increased. One of the biggest innovations within the game is the dialogue mechanic, which allows a more primal version of the dialogue systems most Western RPGs are known for. By using different keywords, NPCs will say something different. The problem with this is that it incentivizes going back and forth between areas, which costs money. It also becomes very repetitive after a little while,

An anonymous user who has been a fan for close to a decade believes that the game has a certain taste, and isn’t for everyone.

 “ Final Fantasy II’s combat is essentially the same as the original’s with a couple of minor tweaks such as having a front and back row for your characters. It is a blueprint of standard turn-based combat, but unlike the first game, in which you choose a job in the beginning and earn exp, causing you to level up.” They continue by postulating, “ Final Fantasy II doesn’t have you level up, but rather increases your stats based on how much you use them.”

The art style has remained the same with more sharper characteristics, which sort of takes a more Ayami Kojima-esque take on the semi-realism art style, than what Yoshitaka Amano is most known for. Not to say it’s bad, but the first one’s canon art felt more distinctive, especially with the very close similarities to the Castlevania art style. A big problem I do have is with the boss redesigns that start dang-near immediately after you start your playthrough. Also, a lot of their designs are somewhat taken from its predecessor. Longtime fan, Audra Bowling believes that the game has a lot of updates.

“ [Some of the main] pros: Lovely music, updated sprite visuals, the start of some of the series’ staples, strong story for the era the game was initially released.”

Overall, this game does a lot to its ability to innovate and differentiate itself from the original. But due to that, there is a very inconsistent take on more mature content and the variety of combat it presents. I think this game is heavily flawed and I do believe this is the beginning of the end for Dissidia’s take and control of the series from here on out.