Question about FFT.

[Superflat]

In my recent search for some really good SRPGs, I started playing FFTA, but stopped after about an hour and a half because it seemed overly slow paced and sluggish. I was wondering if it was roughly the same in FFT. Thanks.

[Dade]

It can be if you let it get slow....but seriously, get through the first two chapters and you're solid. Oh and Chapter Four (last chapter) is roughly the size of the first three combined.

SRPGs are traditionally slow, so if you find the Final Fantasy ones boring (which are a couple of the best on the market) you should just stay away from the genre.

[TurnBasedDude]

FFT for the PSX is by far one of my most favorite SRPGs ever in my opinion. Though last time I played, I realized how complex the plot is (to me), but something about the gameplay that really makes me want to come back to it. I probobly beat it like six times or so by now (yeah im that crazy).

FFTA on the other hand seriously dissapointed me. I honestly thought the battles suck, laws can be annoying, team members other than the ones you start with really suck and a bit pointless ot use (maybe thats me on my part), lame music (there are gba tunes I find real catchy) and has one of the most brutally slow and boring oopenings I ever had to go through. Sorry for all that mean ranting about it, but that is how I personally feel.  Others may think im dead wrong, but I stand by my feelings.

I do not mind slow pacing in an SRPG and regular rpgs (as long as the exp is good and the fights are interesting), but something about FFTA pace sort of bugs me not to mention the opening as previously mentioned.

In short, I highly reconmend the original FFT and screw FFTA

[Lilim]

I agree with TurnBasedDude. FFT is a much better game than FFTA.

I'm not saying that FFTA is bad, but the story failed to really grab me like FFT's did. The laws were often more a nuisance than anything, but I did enjoy building up the different classes like I did in FFT. As for gameplay speed, they are both pretty much equal.

FFTA was a good portable game, but FFT is still the better of the two by far.

[alonso]

i am not a big fan of srpgs but i tried both and hell yes the psx version is better.

[MeshGearFox]

Try X-Com for the PC or something. X-Com is faster paced. Well, UFO Defense is. Terror From the Deep has those really slow cruise ship missions. Apocalypse is slow in turn based mode because the maps are huge, but the RTS mode is pretty quick.

Oh, Jagged Alliance 2 for the PC might be a good choice too. Also pretty fast paced, and even more RPGish. Coolest thing is that there are no generic soldiers in the game. All of the mercenaries you can hire are unique. And it's even more RPGish than X-Com, I'd say, cause you have a traditional 'worldmap' -- more accurately, island map -- to move around on.

From what I remember, Knights of Lodis is even slower than FFTA. And in regards to both FFTA and KoL, it wasn't that, like, the GAMEPLAY felt slow to me. It's like the entire software seemed like it was running at about half the FPS it should've been and was all laggy or something.

[Takezo]

FFTA 2 and the remake of the Original psx version are bothing coming out on handhelds. I'm getting excited. I've never enjoyed any other SRPGS though, I guess the GBA fire emblem I played was ok and Front Mission Four can turn a trick or two.