A Chronology of Final Fantasy

by Ryan Tomkus 

Submitted by:	naughtybagelcopyboy@email.com (Ryan Tomkus)
Spelling	1
Grammar	1.5
Coherency	3
Strength of Arguments	3
Presentation	2
Originality	2
Penalties	0
Total	12.5
Grade

1987: A small Japanese game company named Square made one last-ditch effort to produce a game whose sales would allow them the possibility to stay open. They decided on an RPG, stepping into a market already dominated by the recent Enix release, 'Dragon Quest'. Knowing their chances were slim, and knowing that there would be no second chance, they dubbed this game 'Final Fantasy'.

In the thirteen years that followed this release, Final Fantasy has seen eight sequels on two different platforms, as well as several spin-off games, musical compilations, a short animated series and one of the most impressive-looking CG-created films to date. It was and is a phenomenon that hasn't ceased to be something of a trendsetter in the role-playing world, and that is the reason for Square's ultimate success.

How did the Final Fantasy series come to the point at which it is now? Simply, it is termed 'evolution': an evolution that has been guided by the same hands that created Final Fantasy all those years ago. The twists and turns of this evolution have been the source of endless debate, but only debate as futile as if to say that man is disappointed that he can see in the outisde world, whereas he was happily blind in the womb.

The original FF is nothing more now than it was when it was first released -- an RPG with a defined system of classes, weapons, spells, and equipment, as well as monsters taken from both Eastern and Western mythologies and the imaginations of the creators. American gamers should be quite familiar with what FF1 was without any further explanation.

The confusion begins when the term 'Final Fantasy II' is brought into play. For most American gamers, this refers to the adventures of Cecil and Kain, but is, in truth, 'Final Fantasy IV'. "What happened to the other two interim games?", one must ask.

The two following FFs, in combination with the first, present the exact paradigm of what all the rest of the games, beginning with FF4, would begin to follow.

FF1 established the nature of the world itself, as a place that is dominated by magic, inhabited with magical creatures, and shall ever begin and end with the magical undercurrent that supports it. With this establishment in mind, FF2 established many of the important gameplay elements that we would see in the future: a more controlled equipment system, the familiar names of magic spells and items, and individualized characters who, while not receiving very much in the way of character development or gameplat differentiation, are nonetheless individuals. FF3 then builds upon how FF2 was created and gave greater individuality to the gameplay aspects of the characters, while also expanding more fully upon an explanation of theme, and greater characterization for the world at large. FF3 was also the first generation of the 'Job System', which gave an even greater definition to the rules of magic that FFs 1 & 2 had worked to establish.

We see the culmination of all these elements in the first SFC/SNES Final Fantasy, FF4. Characters, individualized by both gameplay and story elements, each receiving great development in their motivations and contributions to the tale. A defined system of magic, based upon experience. A linear storyline. Familiar elements from the previous installments. But the most important part of FF4 was the new elements that it introduced: the doubtful hero, the false enemy, the dichotomy of darkness and light. These themes did not exist in the first three FFs.

With the creation of the fourth Fantasy, we see the first instance of a 'Layer' in the series. By using the word 'Layer', I mean to indicate an establishment in which the new material is built upon the strengths of what came before it. Often, a new Layer, since there can be many inconsistencies between it and it's predecessors on the surface, based on the addition of new information, isn't always welcomed perfectly by those who experienced those predecessors.

That establishes our second Layer for us -- Final Fantasy VII. In the same ways that FF4 took the best elements from FFs 1-3, FF7 took the best elements from FF4-6, while simultaneously adding new elements to the game.

The fact that FF7 established this new Layer is why it is the target of so much debate. It is a technological jump over the capabilities of it's immediate predecessor, in the same way that FF4 was a leap ahead of the NES-based FF3. It is very different in many ways from FF6, not the least of which is the manner in which FF6 focused on none of the characters too much versus FF7's direct spotlight on Cloud.

The logical argument here is to ask if as many people were as vocal about FF4's departure from the style of the NES FFs. Unfortunately, because of the state of the RPG world at the time, there was very little voice for either side of the argument. In addition, forums for long-winded discussion on the topic, such as the RPGamer.com site, did not exist.

It's all a matter of experience, in the end. Many of the people who hadn't played any RPGs before FF7 tend to believe that it is a very good game, despite the 'old guard' who would disagree based on it's misunderstood departure from the previous installments. At the same time, many of those neophyte players who go back and play the SNES FFs, whether on the original cartridges or through the Anthology released for the Playstation, find themselves disappointed, and unable to believe that hype which so many of the 'old guard' players swear by. By this argument, how many people who played FF4 or 6 first actually went back to play the original on the old NES system? Few, but for the hardcore, I'm certain.

In the same mindset by which FF5 was different from it's immediate predecessor, Final Fantasy VIII made itself quite distinct from FF7. Many of the 'old guard', still caught up in their furor over FF7, used the new game as an additional target, citing that it had not corrected the 'mistakes' Square had made. FF8 established another new system for the handling of magic, making another evolutionary step in the FF ladder. The complexity of this system, and it's lack of important similarities to what were consider the 'true FFs', were some of the main defining points in FF8's failure to satisfy all the involved fans of the series.

This does not bring into consideration the new wave of players, many of whom took part in FF8 and found in it a system very different from what they'd already known, challenging them to learn it and master it. This same fascination no doubt faced those who played FF2, who's entire system was drastically different from the class-based system of FF1. The new wave of players values FF7 as a wonderful first experience, and values FF8 and the many other recent titles as great advances in the concept.

This brings us to the present. In the wake of Final Fantasy IX's release, and it's intentional marketing as a return to the older values of the series (in essence, a change in setting to a more medieval locale and a lead character who isn't psychologically disturbed) much of the bickering between the old school and the new school has died down. FF9 gives the old players what they want (a low-technology world, a more fantastical appearance, more un-realistic characterization), while it also supplies what the new players have grown accustomed to (sweeping stories, more attention to the visual elements of storytelling, and simple-to-use but complex-to-master systems of gameplay micromanagement).

The questions raised in the end are thus: are players who first experienced the 2nd Layer of Final Fantasy (installments 4-6) going to be ever dissatisfied with the changes made in the 3rd Layer (7-9)? Will players who started on the 3rd Layer be able to appreciate the previous games without having experienced them first? Will anyone be able to appreciate the 1st Layer games as the foundation upon which this entire series is built, and pay them due tribute?

For my peace, as one who has experienced all nine, I can say that I can understand how each has been integral in shaping what the Final Fantasy series has become, and what it will become in the future. When considered as a whole, the series stands out as the mark by which all other console RPGs can be judged. In order for us to fully appreciate what will come, we must understand what we have already seen, and that means being able to appreciate what the old guard worship, and enjoy what the new wave treasure.

Notes:
This particular editorial could have benefitted quite a bit from a spell check and a proof read. There are two spelling mistakes (gameplat, and trendsetter) and a grammatical error ( "...FF3 then builds" Should be then built).

Also there seems to be a lot of jumping between the Final Fantasy references, which in large doses could prove to be just a tad disorientating. Also, it is also fairly misleading in the fact that it somehow turns from a chronology of Final Fanttasy to discussing New School and Old School gamers. This sudden change can make people spin around somewhat, trying to figure out what happened to make that switch.

Concerning the look at Final Fantasy II and III (Japanese), it should be noted that the former's unique magic system where spells can gain levels which was replicated in part by FFVII's Materia system, initial character switching (by NPCS), the first to see chocobos, and a unusual experience system, and Final Fantasy III's somewhat revolutionary ideas concerning changable classes and the first to introduce summons. These layers could be seen as enough to classify them as seperate layers rather than a spin off from the original Final Fantasy.

Also, suggesting that most people can't appreciate all the Layers, or that only the "hardcore" will go back and play FF1, is controversal and can be seen as an insult, and it jumped to it quite suddenly. (It was supposed to a timeline of Final Fantasy from the title and beginning.)

But it wasn't really that bad. This would be one of those cases a little checking on the facts, proof-reading and ensuring that you make any transitions (or what could have been possible was to split it into two editorials sharing some knowledge.) without startling the reader would have been worth a lot.