- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Let's Play Every Final Fantasy Game In Order Of Release [Now Finished: Final Fantasy Tactics]
- Thread starter Omicron
- Start date
- Let's Play
Thozmp
Gets my kicks above the waistline, Sunshine.
As was mentioned, good ol' Cuchulainn's powers comes with their own quotes!
Nightmare: "On the verge of death.... Nightmare!"
Biora/Bio 2: "Here's a drop of evil from me! Bio2!"
Bioga/Bio 3: "Say good-bye to your souls.... Bio3!"
- Pronouns
- Him/He
Oh yeah, that does happen.
There's a way to get around that of course, and it involves drawing straws, or being 'volunteered' to remain susceptible to nightmares.
For the greater good of the squad, of course.
Zap Rowsdower
Ex-cultist vagrant
- Location
- Bright lights, big city
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Blorbo McRandomly-Generated: "Why was I picked for this squad role, again?"
Ramza: "Because I'm only going to be getting more named characters with bespoke classes from here on out and so I'll miss you less if you, with only the generic common classes, permanently die."
Blorbo: "Wasn't this game supposed to have a message against the idea of the inherent superiority of nobility and having a famous name?"
Last edited:
"No see it's alright, we'll be replacing you with Mustadio who also isn't a noble, so it's just equivalent exchange, equal value!"
- Location
- USA
Actually, the dialogue is tied to Ramza's HP, only triggering when it drops below half (and he's not Sleeping, I assume).
Which means that if Ramza has enough HP to tank all the Bios to his face and/or the party's generous with Curas and Hi-Potions, the exchange will be missable anyway even if he remains awake throughout.
- Location
- Singapore
- Pronouns
- Singular They
I'm deep into Dragon Age at the moment (finishing up the Inquisition playthrough, then going straight into Veilguard), but I have to comment (personal opinion, no translation insights) on one thing:
This update is evidently very fitting for Halloween, because my first thought upon seeing that wasn't "that's icky" or "that's horrific", but rather "that's Oogie Boogie".
This update is evidently very fitting for Halloween, because my first thought upon seeing that wasn't "that's icky" or "that's horrific", but rather "that's Oogie Boogie".
Cornuthaum
Be kind to each other.
- Location
- Austria
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is why, much as in Fire Emblem, permadeath is a mistake.
- Location
- Malaysia
Fuck around and find out, Tactics-style. It is also why I never pick specific accessories for boss fights, just general Evasion items.
Let them choose their repertoire of spells to hit you, it gives you a chance to either get hit hard, or get hit harder.
Better than SMT optional bosses, who react to you nullifying their attacks by casting 'Fuck you, I win'
Emy
Artificial Defender
I've looked up these abilities in the game files, and I assume the reason the AI think they're Holy element is that the abilities are all tagged as holy element.
From what I can tell, the reason that they don't actually deal damage of that element is that they're using a weapon-based damage formula. The abilities that are tagged as elemental but use a MA-based damage formula (e.g. Fire, Bolt, Holy, etc.) correctly apply their elements.
That implies that whatever additional calculations are used to apply the elements is probably called by whatever grabs the MA value.
Ah goddammit I knew I forgot something in my replies, was literally thinking all week "haha can't wait to compare Cu to Oogie Boogie" and then somehow it slipped right past me.
I'll at least go to bat for Fire Emblem in that the permadeath being a mistake is very game dependent. In some games like (insert basically any modern FE game from Awakening onwards here), a lot of characters are way too wrapped up in the actual plot and the balance of when characters are given often makes the idea of ironmanning them and letting characters die off a terrible idea. Three Houses is by far the worst of this since it very clearly expects you to keep your student blorbos alive and train them down a dozen class trees picking up skills, much like how a character permadying in FFT is pretty much an instant reset condition, and Three Houses doesn't even give you the luxury of at least dumping a bunch of replacement characters on you as the game goes.
On the other hand, there's games like the OG Marth games and their remakes where characters often get maybe three lines of dialogue, and while sure you can still absolutely get attached to them, the games also provide plenty of replacements as you go on just in case they die. Often inferior replacements, yes, Cain and Abel are going to be much better Paladins than Hardin's gang who are going to probably outclass Arran, but the game is clearly built with the idea of permadeath in mind. Hell, the DS Remakes even have a neat thing where if you're entering a chapter with more deployment slots than still living characters, you'll get a bunch of generic nameless soldiers to fill up slots. They tend to suck ass, but you still got something to fill space, and it can be even more fun to get strangely attached to "Quatro the Dark Mage" then any of your other characters who have actual faces at times.
Thing is, Final Fantasy Tactics very much swings towards the "permadeath is a mistake" side of the scale because of how much of an incredible investment every character is. At least in traditional FE games you can replace one character of a class with the same class, but if your Ninja dies in FFT then you're probably down a Ninja for the next ten hours while someone else scrambles to train up in all the jobs required to unlock Ninja and then learn all the skills that were lost along the way.
E.I.G.
Robo-Bird
- Pronouns
- It/They
Right, this topic.
So, I don't like the newer X-COM games* and Phoenix Point because of the overall issue with RPG mechanics combined with tactical combat games. Specifically, the issue of "I've invested so much time into this person and now they are gone", but with the added "now I need to invest that much time into another one" because the main advantage of all that time was the power it gave the unit.
The core problem with those games I mentioned is they like having a doom timer, a big old "you will lose if you take too long" mechanic that in theory means you shouldn't be just messing around to level as many of your units as you can.
Half of the other mechanics for getting stronger units or otherwise getting back up to par quickly for these games are patch jobs to keep those two factors from ending a run with too many losses.
Now, I know a lot of people love that sort of thing, but I started off with RTS games and then went to the original X-Com games. Where there are stat increases, but not enough to make the loss of a unit crippling in the same way to the situation.
I've only barely touched games closer to the Fire Emblem side of things, and I know that I dislike them quite a bit because of how they have these issues plus a problem of fixed encounters that limit how much you can actually build up the troops.
This game sounds like it is an interesting middle ground. On one hand, you can often grind out levels on random enemy encounters without a doom timer, so it seems like time is the only real downside to losing blorbos. On the other, it is still the kind of thing where you have a lot invested in those units, and the game seems to have decided "mandatory fight rush" is somehow acceptable to do.
So, probably not something I will try, but an interesting case in how those mechanics can be contrasted and how it works out as a result.
* The only New-Com game I enjoy is Chimera Squad. The oddball with a fixed cast that are not allowed to die, and all start with solid abilities right out of the gate. It is very much not the same kind of game as the original X-Com, but it also seems like the best use of the New-Com game mechanics without the downsides that turn me off them.
So, I don't like the newer X-COM games* and Phoenix Point because of the overall issue with RPG mechanics combined with tactical combat games. Specifically, the issue of "I've invested so much time into this person and now they are gone", but with the added "now I need to invest that much time into another one" because the main advantage of all that time was the power it gave the unit.
The core problem with those games I mentioned is they like having a doom timer, a big old "you will lose if you take too long" mechanic that in theory means you shouldn't be just messing around to level as many of your units as you can.
Half of the other mechanics for getting stronger units or otherwise getting back up to par quickly for these games are patch jobs to keep those two factors from ending a run with too many losses.
Now, I know a lot of people love that sort of thing, but I started off with RTS games and then went to the original X-Com games. Where there are stat increases, but not enough to make the loss of a unit crippling in the same way to the situation.
I've only barely touched games closer to the Fire Emblem side of things, and I know that I dislike them quite a bit because of how they have these issues plus a problem of fixed encounters that limit how much you can actually build up the troops.
This game sounds like it is an interesting middle ground. On one hand, you can often grind out levels on random enemy encounters without a doom timer, so it seems like time is the only real downside to losing blorbos. On the other, it is still the kind of thing where you have a lot invested in those units, and the game seems to have decided "mandatory fight rush" is somehow acceptable to do.
So, probably not something I will try, but an interesting case in how those mechanics can be contrasted and how it works out as a result.
* The only New-Com game I enjoy is Chimera Squad. The oddball with a fixed cast that are not allowed to die, and all start with solid abilities right out of the gate. It is very much not the same kind of game as the original X-Com, but it also seems like the best use of the New-Com game mechanics without the downsides that turn me off them.
Honestly, the concept of "corrupt medieval elite using ominous artifact of legend to turn into a sadistic monstrosity" puts me in mind of Berserk more than anything else.
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
No doubt Berserk was an inspiration, though I was specifically alluding to this guy:
-8.jpg)
Raj
Master of Procrasination
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It does general just cause people to reset rather than accept the loss, but I feel like Modern Fire Emblem and a lot of other popular games today literally start the game by asking if you want to keep Permanent death on or turn it off, and better yet said setting is completely separate from the actual difficulty setting.
More options is always something I appreciate, and besides a lot of people love Classic Perma death and come to Fore Emblem for it on the other side.
Last edited:
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
My hot take on permadeath is that it achieves a specific result which is potentially beneficial to the game, but that result is actually only tangentially related to the concept of 'characters can die forever.'
Specifically, I'm never going to let Agrias or Mustadio die. I'm never going to let Hadrian die, and he's not even an actual character, I just have spent so much time building him up he's not currently replaceable (any named NPC unit who wants to take his slot is going to need to come loaded with some serious 'roids). Also it just feels bad. So, anytime a character dies, I'm going to quit and reload the game; it's effectively a game over.
But that's not... inherently a bad thing. "You hit game over if one of your units dies" creates certain gameplay incentives and shapes behavior in ways that can be positive. It teaches you to be careful, to mind enemy abilities, it forces you to care about support rather than rush for maximum damage at all times. The three-turn window between a character being KO and them dying is a tactical space which creates tension - we need to raise that character, but doing so right now might not be convenient, but we have a limited time to do it. "Can my character with the Item command and Phoenix Down get to the White Mage before the timer runs out?" is useful play space. So to the extent that "permadeath" actually means "game over when a unit dies," it creates new stakes and challenges, and it helps prevent meathead behavior where you just ignore losses and try to zero down all enemies without paying attention to losses because there are no consequences to neglecting defense.
The problem is that there's a second part to this game design element - "and if you decide to just keep playing through a loss, it has a permanent cost" that is completely useless to me and detrimental to the rest of the game, because it means named characters have to stop participating in the story and the game has to be written to account for the possibility of everyone but Ramza dying. Now, "playing through losses" is, I'm sure, a beneficial angle to a niche of players who do stuff like self-imposed Ironman challenges, or who play games with a high enough level of difficulty that they accept a permanent loss because they're not actually sure they could win if they reloaded. But that's not me, and I have to deal with the narrative trade-offs. There is no benefit for me in Final Fantasy Tactics having "permadeath" rather than "Game Over when any unit dies" and, in fact, it makes the game worse. Our interests in this are inherently opposed.
Specifically, I'm never going to let Agrias or Mustadio die. I'm never going to let Hadrian die, and he's not even an actual character, I just have spent so much time building him up he's not currently replaceable (any named NPC unit who wants to take his slot is going to need to come loaded with some serious 'roids). Also it just feels bad. So, anytime a character dies, I'm going to quit and reload the game; it's effectively a game over.
But that's not... inherently a bad thing. "You hit game over if one of your units dies" creates certain gameplay incentives and shapes behavior in ways that can be positive. It teaches you to be careful, to mind enemy abilities, it forces you to care about support rather than rush for maximum damage at all times. The three-turn window between a character being KO and them dying is a tactical space which creates tension - we need to raise that character, but doing so right now might not be convenient, but we have a limited time to do it. "Can my character with the Item command and Phoenix Down get to the White Mage before the timer runs out?" is useful play space. So to the extent that "permadeath" actually means "game over when a unit dies," it creates new stakes and challenges, and it helps prevent meathead behavior where you just ignore losses and try to zero down all enemies without paying attention to losses because there are no consequences to neglecting defense.
The problem is that there's a second part to this game design element - "and if you decide to just keep playing through a loss, it has a permanent cost" that is completely useless to me and detrimental to the rest of the game, because it means named characters have to stop participating in the story and the game has to be written to account for the possibility of everyone but Ramza dying. Now, "playing through losses" is, I'm sure, a beneficial angle to a niche of players who do stuff like self-imposed Ironman challenges, or who play games with a high enough level of difficulty that they accept a permanent loss because they're not actually sure they could win if they reloaded. But that's not me, and I have to deal with the narrative trade-offs. There is no benefit for me in Final Fantasy Tactics having "permadeath" rather than "Game Over when any unit dies" and, in fact, it makes the game worse. Our interests in this are inherently opposed.
Last edited:
Honestly, one take I've seen some mods take is to keep some things available if a key unit dies, and reason it with "the injury was severe enough for them to be unable to fight anymore, but they'll still hang out and wander in to say "hey, check this out."
Egleris
Vagrant Dragon
- Location
- Italy
Berserk first came out in 1989, and it is pretty much self-evident how much its visuals influenced FF7; I would mostly agree that it is therefore very likely for the story, theme and setting to have influenced FFT just as much. The parallels start to become obvious when one goes looking for them.
Anyway, let's move to translation matters, shall we?
- At Golgorad, Gaffgarion doesn't change his speech patterns when pretending to execute Ovelia, and in fact is very short and to the point ("Any last words? No? I see"), which fits him better. I wouldn't have normally mentioned this, since it's really just the usual staple of "the WotL version uses purple prose even when it's not necessary for no valid reason", but since this particular line grabbed attention, I felt like remarking upon it.
- Before the Execution Site battle starts, Gaffgarion goes with "you're still too naive" as his greeting to Ramza, which makes his final "seems you've grown up somewhat", which is present (phrased as "the boy thinks himself a man now") in the WotL version too, a more logical segue. The rest of the discussion during the battle is mostly identical, once the difference in prose is accounted for - the only relevant different in phrasing is that Agrias says to Gaffgarion that Dycedarg "will use Ovelia to provoke a war", with obviously no reference to any game of thrones.
- Similarly, the discussion in Ovelia's cell follows the same beats; the largest change is Folmarv saying that they're merely "collaborators" who aren't on either side when speaking about their place in the conspiracy. Otherwise, the lines used are pretty much identical, phrasing aside. In this case, I do think the WotL phrasing works better for the characters involved in the scene, especially Folmarv who is the scene's centerpiece.
- At Lionel's Gate, Gaffgarion's final line is neither the WotL "Pirate of the Caribbeans" quote, nor the "I lost?" @Adloquium say was the Japanese text; instead, it's "so... it ends like this...", which feels like a more fatalistic line that is a better fit for Gaffgarion's personality than either the original Japanese or the WotL line, in my view. Notably, for once, the WotL translation realized that "goodbye, Gaffgarion" was good enough and there was no need to look for a more complex sentence there - a rare example of the WotL version showing restraint.
- The start of the conversation with Delacroix is similar, until we reach the dialogue about Ovelia acceding to their requests; in the PSX version, the text make it sound like the Cardinal is saying that it's Ramza's fault Ovelia decided to trust them, as he says "she felt unsure of you, and so chose us", suggesting Ramza took too long to rescue her.
- Following that point, we have the line about changing the world, which is a great example of what I mean when I say that the WotL translation overuse of more complex prose makes things almost incomprehensible at times. PSX Ramza states that he's not trying to change the world, he just can't let people suffer and die for "some elitist's ideas", which feels like a much stronger statement of purpose to me than what the WotL version does, and the fact it's phrased in a simpler manner makes it hit much more strongly, at lest to me. It drives home the point that Ramza is all about helping the people in front of himself, rather than any lofty ideals.
He does follow that with a similar question of "you really think you can change the world?", but instead of calling that "naive" like the WotL does, he refers to it as "reckless" - which once again makes the point that it's less about changing the world being impossible or something Ramza disapproves of, and more that the cost "they", ie, plotters like Dycedarg or Delacroix, demand be paid so that the change can take place is too high. This gives us the justification for Ramza continuing to fight Delacroix here, which was missing in the WotL version; even if Ovelia can no longer be saved, all of the people that would die from Delacroix' machinations still can be, if he's stopped. That's reason enough for Ramza to fight.
- Interestingly, the PSX translated the name of the Lucavi as "Queklain the Impure". Now, while it's possible that the intended name was indeed Cuchulain, that seems somewhat weird: why would this demonic entity be named after a Irish hero? Of course, "Queklain" doesn't mean anything in particular, but I wanted to note this point here because the correct translation of the name isn't very clear cut, and it seemed like an interesting thing to discuss, especially in relation to some stuff that is still spoiler at this point.
- The mid-battle dialogue does follow the same beats of the WotL one, by the way, in confirming that indeed Cuchulain/Queklain is the Cardinal himself, only empowered above mere mortal into a Lucavi. Just so people know that there's no ambiguity on that point in the PSX version, just like there isn't (intended to) be any on the WotL version. It's very important to know that to correctly interpret the villain's motivations.
- Of note, during the conversation where Delita reveals himself to be a Black Ram/Sheep Knight sent to save Ovelia by Baron Grimms, the part about "disguised as one of your own" isn't present in the PSX version; I suspect the WotL version added it to continue with its, at this point very obvious, love of puns by adding the "sheep in lion's clothing" line.
- Interestingly, PSX Delita asks Goltana's minister if the Queen "seduced" him to her side, which is ambiguous phrasing that seems strange for the WotL version to not have pounced upon, considering how they handled other parts of the translation. Just thought it was worth pointing out.
- In the war room council scene, we have another example of severe change in characterization due to translation, and this one is particularly notable to me. WotL Elmdore says "the number of casualties does not concern me", which is obviously an extremely callous line; PSX Elmdor says "casualties aren't the only problem", which is immediately a lot more neutral and presents him as a much more thoughtful individual, in that he does considers casualties a problem, just not the only one. The ending of the sentence is also different; instead of stating "our supplies will only last for another half a year", which is pressing for immediate action, he says "our stores are reduced to less than half", implicitly "of what we expected" since the previous line was about the drought causing food shortages. This doesn't create a time pressure in the same way, it's a more neutral statement of fact, and makes the fact that he doesn't really openly says anything more in the scene more logical.
Overall, the PSX makes Elmdore come off as composed, practical, and soft spoken, whereas the WotL version of him is cruel and urging for quick action, and therefore far more aggressive. It's entirely different characterization resulting entirely from translation choices; I don't know which of the two is closer to the original Japanese text, but I needed to remark on this point, because it's the biggest sign of how the WotL changes are really starting to warp the perception of characters on the player's part. Especially when it's strange that the Elmdore as characterized in the WotL version says nothing more throughout the council, whereas PSX Elmdor staying silent after summing up the situation makes more sense.
- Of note, while the thrust of Goltana's measures is the same - increased taxes, price control, and reacting to the refugees crisis - the actual nature of them is way tamer in the PSX version, making him also come across as, if not more reasonable, at least more reluctant to just squeeze his people, even if in the end he does so anyway. It makes him less of a caricature. For reference, PSX Goltana raises the taxes by 30% rather than tripling them, he then says "make sure no one trades grain at high prices", which is more specific than just not letting people profit and is a measure that has at least an eye toward not completely starving the populace, and rather than "turn away all refugees at the Limberri border" as he says in the WotL version, he just says "keep an eye on any who enters Limberri", which specifically is allowing refugees in, just in a controlled manner and at a reduced pace. This is another case where the WotL translation is severely shifting characterization, making Goltana appear cruel, whereas the PSX translation is trying to make him pragmatic, less of a straight-up villain and more a typical noble with few scruples - but still some.
That's it for the translation notes; the rumors are also slightly different in the PSX version, with mentions that the assault to Lionel's caste resulting in people having been crushed to death, but overall they're mostly the same.
That's probably an inspiration for the visuals, sure, but the "red stone that lets you turn into a monster who is supposedly an apostle" does seems like a clear-cut Behelith reference to me.
Last edited:
The original Japanese is 不浄王/Fujō-ō キュクレイン/kyukurein. The first bit is straightforwardly 'Impure King', although 'Impure' doesn't quite hit the same in English as I think 不浄 does in Japanese. Corrupt or Corruption, maybe. The second bit is odder but Google Translate suggests that it would pick 'Cuclein' as a translation and other translation apps go for stuff like 'Cucullane' or 'Cucullain' which would be pretty spot on for Cú Chulainn considering the original name was neither English nor Japanese. I have to give it to WotL here, everything I know suggests this was just a weird name choice on the part of the original devs.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Much like the Delacroix vs Draklau thing I mentioned previously, the name used in the Japanese script is キュクレイン, which is one of the rarer but extant translations used for Cú Chulainn.
(The fact that I see Reddit wars between Irish people over "Ku-Kullen" vs "Coo-hoo-lan" is all I need to explain pronunciation pains.)
Elmdore's line in the original Japanese is that they only met half of their projected supply numbers for the year.
The PSX translation for Goltanna does hew closer to the original Japanese script--30% taxes and a crackdown on profit-gouging. Amusingly, however, the PSX and the PSP translations seem to split the difference on the line about the border--the command he gives is to keep a closer eye on the border in order to more effectively turn refugees away.
Last edited:
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah this is just Final Fantasy. Tiamat is a flying dragon, Odin is a knight on a horse, Scathach is a demon queen from the Void, Garuda is an evil shapeshifting bird vizier and later a bird woman, Gilgamesh is a comedy antagonist sword collector, and Cuchulainn is, evidently, a nightmare monster prince from the hell dimension. That's just how the series rolls.
- Pronouns
- Him/He
I think an aspect that is a major factor is also 'how irreplaceable is this person?'
In the Nu-xcoms, you put a lot of work keeping your soldiers alive and probably get attached to them, but you also can just get high-ranking soldiers as a reward who can be mechanically identical to someone you lost. Plus there's a not-super-high 'cap' to a characters growth, at a point they can't, and never will, gain more power by going on missions. This, along with the wounding, means you often have a B-team that you also are raising in power that can step up. You're not just replacing a loss with a level 1 generic (usually anyways).
In FFT however, while you are sometimes given new characters, they almost always are basically fresh-faced squires with a different starting class. It'll be many many hours until they're equal to your starting blorbos, and even then they won't exactly be the same as if you just kept working on them. You're not just trading out their current level of power, but also signing away a higher future power total then you otherwise would have had.
Now players in the Nu-xcoms do restart whenever they lose anyone, but quite a few players choose to just play it out, and work it into the story. This is partly setting vibes, the generics actually having more personality and thus their death feels meaningful and not just a mechanical interaction, but also it's less punishing.
Also consider how FFT doesn't have wounding for minor fuck ups. Everyone can die and be raised 20 times per fight, but unless something decreases their brave/faith, their next fight they're ready to go 100%, where other games have a 'you're getting punished with wounds, but you'll get them back' sort of thing. FFT is exceedingly binary and punishing.
Taken all together, it feels like special party members are something the developers wanted, a way to have interesting or unique skill sets, but decided to keep the mechanical purity of treating them like generics once you get them, rather then make them any more unique or special outside their unique class.
- Location
- Ireland
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm nowhere near caught up and I beg Omi's mercy for that but part of the issue is that Irish has three major dialects and each one of them pronounces Cú Chulainn differently.