The Case Against Final Fantasy IV

by Sean Christian Daugherty 

I often tend to get a lot of flak for a simple opinion of mine. What, pray tell, is this? Complaints over Square's move to Sony? Nope. About the changes being made to Final Fantasy VII? Nope, again. I believe Final Fantasy IV (or, if you prefer, Final Fantasy II) is the worst game to ever bear the name of Square's flagship series, with the possible exception of Final Fantasy Mystic Quest.

A lot of (mostly good natured) ridicule gets thrown my way because of this simple preference, and, for the most part, I don't mind. Far from me to impose my opinions unto others. But, several people have asked me why? What could I have against a game that many consider to be the greatest role playing game ever produced? I'm hardly the one to pass up the chance to hop on a soapbox and rant a bit, so I'll explain...

First, Final Fantasy IV's story is badly fragmented, poorly paced, and suffers from over-the-top revealations and ridiculous, deus ex machina plot twists. The final boss, Zeromus, isn't even introduced until the last hour of gameplay, and the only reference to anything about the moon before the release of the Big Whale comes from shaded references in an out of the way back room. Likewise, the crystal search that makes up such an integral part of the plotline becomes repetitive quickly. In Fabul, you just barely manage to lose it to Baron. Same thing in the Underground. And there's always one more crystal, previously unheard of. On the same note, Kain's on-again-off-again loyalties become annoying, as well.

But I can forgive a poor story: the Japanese Final Fantasy III for the Famicom hardly showcased superior writing skills, but still manages to be my second favorite game of all time. Why is this? Variety, something Final Fantasy IV lacks.

Just have a look: In Final Fantasy I, the class system allowed a player to change the way the game was played each subsequent time. In Final Fantasy II, the unique, "use-and-disuse" level system provided an opportunity to shape and mold each of your characters to your liking. Final Fantasy III introduced the revolutionary job system, allowing you to change the way the whole game is played at a moment's notice. Final Fantasy V added to this via the ability system, and, suddenly, you could carry over the best abilities of one job to another. Though flawed, Final Fantasy VI and VII's respective Relic/Esper and Materia system change the way the game is played depending on your choices.

What does Final Fantasy IV have? Given, the iniative system makes a debut, and certainly it was to shape the future of the series, but besides that? After the initial interest in the above, it wears off quickly. The only way to play FFIV is exactly the way the developers intended: There's no room for variety.

One of the positive aspects of FFIV was the five character roster, and the five command battle menus. But these were not used properly at all. Maintaining your characters becomes a ridiculous task: Few of them hang around long enough to make a difference, and the ones who do, like Rydia, start at such ridiculously low levels that raising them is a more annoying task than it should be. Likewise, in the American version, at least, the only characters to employ all slots are young Rydia, and since she can learn three of four white magic spells, it's practically useless, and Edge, who doesn't even appear until later in the game.

And, onto other elements of the battle system: Magic. The magic system in FF4 is the most immensely stupid of almost any Square game I have ever played. Tellah sits around with a spell (Meteo) that costs 9 MP more than he can ever gain. Young Rydia, as mentioned above, has a white magic command almost totally useless. All Edge's Ninja magic does is duplicate some black magic spells, and FuSoYa, the only truly respectable mage, is in your party for less than an hour. And the system used to gain magic is, likewise, a poor idea. Say what you will about FFVI's Esper system, and it may have made game play far to easy, but at least it offered more variety than FF4's system. When push comes to shove, I'd rather just buy the darned spells, like in FFI-III, and FFV, than have to go through any of the hassle.

And, back to the ending: Who is Zemus? How did he manage to exert control over Golbez? The idea wasn't neccessarily flawed, but the execution was.

The worst thing? It didn't need to be like this! The outline was sound. The moon, and the Lunarians, were a totally unique concept, a far cry from the RPGs of the day, still firmly rooted in the medeval sword and sorcery genre. But it didn't work. The overall concept was superior to Final Fantasy VI, yet, in execution, it pales in comparision (in my opinion, of course).

Well, I've explained why I don't like it. I hope no one takes offense: A poor Final Fantasy game is still a lot better than many other RPGs. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary. Everyone looks for different things in their games: For many, Final Fantasy IV fufilled them superbly. It didn't meet my expectations at all.