Hey /vr/, I just picked up Final Fantasy I-II Dawn of Souls today.

>>2843172
i think ff1 is objectively better, story and game-play wise. FF2 story is like completely impossible to follow and the combat/leveling system in it is garbage.

File: Amano_Firion_IV.jpg (214KB, 736x986px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 736x986px

The DoS version of FF1 is radically different from the original game. Enemy stats are toned down, items are made cheaper, characters have MP instead of spells-per-level, etc. You're essentially playing the game on cruise control.

As for the story, FF1 is very minimalistic. You're sent out to gather four key items before taking on the final boss, and your characters are just blank slates. The game definitely emphasizes gameplay over plot.

FF2's characters are more developed and have identities and backstories. You can nonetheless develop their skills however you want. FF2's plot follows a consistent series of quests, as assigned to you by Fynn's princess, Hilda. Guest characters constantly join and leave the party under various circumstances as you progress.

FF2's mechanics were considered pretty experimental at the time, because your stats and skills leveled up individually as they were put to use, as opposed to your characters gaining traditional experience levels like in most other FF games. The system is similar to, say, Morrowind. The more you swing a sword, the more likely your strength and sword skill level are going to increase; the more you take damage from attacks, the more likely your HP will increase; and so on.

>>2843172
I suggest going through 1 first, if only because going through 2 first will make going back to the first game feel like a terrible chore.

In some ways I think the DoS version of 1 is among the best because there's absolutely zero need to grind ever and you can blow through it quickly. The setting and story are a little neat, but the gameplay of the first game is extremely boring. No matter your party set up, at least 90% of the actual gameplay is just having everyone in your party attack.

FF2 is very much a love or hate kind of experience. Unlike almost every other JRPG, your actions in battle all matter. >>2843580 describes it well. It makes for a very unusual type of RPG where if you want a powerful mage, you get them by training them in magic constantly, in every fight you're in. Some people love it, others hate it. You'll just have to try for yourself and see.

>>2843172
I honestly prefer FF2.

The story was pretty all right for its era, and it introduced some FF staples like chocobos and Cid.

I would love FF1 if not for the fact that your characters will swing at thin air after an enemy has been defeated during the turn.

Severely fucking annoying.

>>2843903
iirc It doesn't do that in the GBA version. However, having to choose what to attack so half your party doesn't end up attacking nothing is literally some of the only strategy present in the game.

>>2843903
Maybe you should actually think about how many attacks it takes to defeat a certain enemy instead of mashing the A button like a retard. It's not like if you try attacking a dead body in real life, the damage goes to someone else.

>>2843903
It's highly strategic!

>>2844121
> It's not like if you try attacking a dead body in real life, the damage goes to someone else.

But that's not what happens. In every other game in the series it does what's logical, which is if an enemy dies then the next character up won't attack it because it's dead and instead targets the next available enemy. And really, that makes the most sense.

But as I said here >>2843908 the targeting system is really one of the only real bit of strategy in the whole game, as rudimentary as it is.

>>2844121
>real life
>Final FANTASY
Try again