Which one is better..Final Fantasy 2 or 3?

Which version of FF3  are you talking about?

This. (This is actually FF6) 

or this

Note there are two different games.

I enjoyed FF3 (actually FF6) more than 2 (actually FF4).  They are both awesome games, but FF6 had more customization, a better and more original story and a better cast of characters.  But like I said FF2 is still an awesome game... Just much more traditional and less original.

I enjoyed FF3 (actually FF6) more than 2 (actually FF4).  They are both awesome games, but FF6 had more customization, a better and more original story and a better cast of characters.  But like I said FF2 is still an awesome game... Just much more traditional and less original.

turtlethetaffer

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

I enjoyed FF3 (actually FF6) more than 2 (actually FF4).  They are both awesome games, but FF6 had more customization, a better and more original story and a better cast of characters.  But like I said FF2 is still an awesome game... Just much more traditional and less original.

Lostboy1224

In my opinion, no SNES RPG is worth playing these days because they're cumbersome, primitive and down right boring as Hell. The only exceptions are Terranigma, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound and Mario RPG - these are trully great games that are very entertaining, in some cases extremely unique, and of such polish/execution/tightness that they'll forever be fun to play. FF6 is the exact opposite, boring in every single conceivable way (plot, gameplay, characters, etc.), and surpassed countless times.

Tho your opinion may be completely different than my own, so who knows...

FF3 is better no matter if you are talking about 6 or the actual 3rd game. Compare 3 to 2, 3 is much better as 2 is unbearable. Compare 6 to IV(2), IV is shallow. Let me stress again that I have met many people who played FF2, and so far I am the only one whose actually managed to beat it.Dr-Gentlemen

It seems you're actually talking about Final Fantasy 4 .vs. Final Fantasy 6, so with that in mind...

Final Fantasy 4 is arguably the most important game in the series and it has actually aged much better than I was expecting, but Final Fantasy 6 is unquestionably superior. Its graphics are sooooo much better (honestly, 6 makes 4 look like a really amazing looking NES game), its story is more interesting and fleshed out, its pacing is more varied, its art design is more creative, its characters are more developed.

Final Fantasy 4 is an old school medieval FF all the way through (well, there's a bit of twist on the medieval style, but I won't spoil that) whereas Final Fantasy 6 kind of serves as the "bridge" between old school and new school FF, so everything is more vibrant and inspired.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

I enjoyed FF3 (actually FF6) more than 2 (actually FF4).  They are both awesome games, but FF6 had more customization, a better and more original story and a better cast of characters.  But like I said FF2 is still an awesome game... Just much more traditional and less original.

Lostboy1224

If you can get it on the Wii Virtual Console, no.

If you can't, yes. There's a PlayStation (and PSN) version, but I heard it has annoying load times.

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"]FF3 is better no matter if you are talking about 6 or the actual 3rd game. Compare 3 to 2, 3 is much better as 2 is unbearable. Compare 6 to IV(2), IV is shallow. Let me stress again that I have met many people who played FF2, and so far I am the only one whose actually managed to beat it.Ragnarok1051

I think he's saying that the real Final Fantasy 2 (not the one that is actually FF4) is the one that is unbearable.

I haven't played the real Final Fantasy 2 (and I don't plan to), but I've heard it's pretty janky. 

And tho Final Fantasy 4 is a classic and is a great game, it is indeed kind of shallow when compared with FF6.

Thanks for the heads up. Guess I'll start with 3/6, cause I want the best possible game I can get right now. So I should be ready for a grind fest when starting 2/4 huh. Oh we'll, still like collecting the games anyways. Just can't afford Chrono Trigger yet.Lostboy1224

If you're playing the SNES easy-type version of FF4 (the one released as Final Fantasy 2 in America), it's not any more grindy than other SNES RPGs (can't speak for the much harder PS1 version since I haven't played that). I didn't really have to grind at all until I reached the final stages of the game. I think I grinded more on FF6 since FF6 has a few drastic difficulty spikes.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

I enjoyed FF3 (actually FF6) more than 2 (actually FF4).  They are both awesome games, but FF6 had more customization, a better and more original story and a better cast of characters.  But like I said FF2 is still an awesome game... Just much more traditional and less original.

Lostboy1224

[QUOTE="Lostboy1224"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

I enjoyed FF3 (actually FF6) more than 2 (actually FF4).  They are both awesome games, but FF6 had more customization, a better and more original story and a better cast of characters.  But like I said FF2 is still an awesome game... Just much more traditional and less original.

GreySeal9

If you can get it on the Wii Virtual Console, no.

If you can't, yes. There's a PlayStation (and PSN) version, but I heard it has annoying load times.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Lostboy1224"] So is FF3 (6) worth the $45 price tag?Ragnarok1051

If you can get it on the Wii Virtual Console, no.

If you can't, yes. There's a PlayStation (and PSN) version, but I heard it has annoying load times.

Used versions of FFIV GBA are under 10 bucks, so it's very cheap.

I heard there were a few weird glitches in the GBA version (tho nothing that will harm the experience), but I agree that it would be the most desirable version if only because it has a noticeable graphical upgrade but retains the original feel of the game. The PSP version looks a little too shiny and sterile IMO and the DS version is extremely different. Also, I heard the DS version is soul-crushingly difficult.

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If you can get it on the Wii Virtual Console, no.

If you can't, yes. There's a PlayStation (and PSN) version, but I heard it has annoying load times.

GreySeal9

Used versions of FFIV GBA are under 10 bucks, so it's very cheap.

I heard there were a few weird glitches in the GBA version (tho nothing that will harm the experience), but I agree that it would be the most desirable version if only because it has a noticeable graphical upgrade but retains the original feel of the game. The PSP version looks a little too shiny and sterile IMO and the DS version is extremely different. Also, I heard the DS version is soul-crushingly difficult.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"] GBA version would probably be the best version. If it can be bought for cheap.Dr-Gentlemen

Used versions of FFIV GBA are under 10 bucks, so it's very cheap.

I heard there were a few weird glitches in the GBA version (tho nothing that will harm the experience), but I agree that it would be the most desirable version if only because it has a noticeable graphical upgrade but retains the original feel of the game. The PSP version looks a little too shiny and sterile IMO and the DS version is extremely different. Also, I heard the DS version is soul-crushingly difficult.

They did remake FF4 the way they did FF3. I've heard from some people that its the best version of the game, but I've heard that it's very very hard.

I would also like to see them remake all the 2D games in 3D tho. They would need to take more care with a FF6 remake tho since the art design in that game is not as simple.

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Used versions of FFIV GBA are under 10 bucks, so it's very cheap.

I heard there were a few weird glitches in the GBA version (tho nothing that will harm the experience), but I agree that it would be the most desirable version if only because it has a noticeable graphical upgrade but retains the original feel of the game. The PSP version looks a little too shiny and sterile IMO and the DS version is extremely different. Also, I heard the DS version is soul-crushingly difficult.

GreySeal9

They did remake FF4 the way they did FF3. I've heard from some people that its the best version of the game, but I've heard that it's very very hard.

I would also like to see them remake all the 2D games in 3D tho. They would need to take more care with a FF6 remake tho since the art design in that game is not as simple.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"] The should remake Iv and 6 the way they did 3. in fact, they should do that with all the 2D games. Have the ability to listen to the old soundtack. but don't keep the same grind levels.Dr-Gentlemen

They did remake FF4 the way they did FF3. I've heard from some people that its the best version of the game, but I've heard that it's very very hard.

I would also like to see them remake all the 2D games in 3D tho. They would need to take more care with a FF6 remake tho since the art design in that game is not as simple.

If they did did do a FF9 art style for FF6, they would need to tone the brightness of the colors down. FF6 had a sort of dark muted look to its colors.

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

They did remake FF4 the way they did FF3. I've heard from some people that its the best version of the game, but I've heard that it's very very hard.

I would also like to see them remake all the 2D games in 3D tho. They would need to take more care with a FF6 remake tho since the art design in that game is not as simple.

GreySeal9

If they did did do a FF9 art style for FF6, they would need to tone the brightness of the colors down. FF6 had a sort of dark muted look to its colors.

FF3 > FF2

FF6 > FF4

I enjoyed FF3 (actually FF6) more than 2 (actually FF4).  They are both awesome games, but FF6 had more customization, a better and more original story and a better cast of characters.  But like I said FF2 is still an awesome game... Just much more traditional and less original.

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If you can get it on the Wii Virtual Console, no.

If you can't, yes. There's a PlayStation (and PSN) version, but I heard it has annoying load times.

GreySeal9

Used versions of FFIV GBA are under 10 bucks, so it's very cheap.

I heard there were a few weird glitches in the GBA version (tho nothing that will harm the experience), but I agree that it would be the most desirable version if only because it has a noticeable graphical upgrade but retains the original feel of the game. The PSP version looks a little too shiny and sterile IMO and the DS version is extremely different. Also, I heard the DS version is soul-crushingly difficult.

The DS version isn't "soul crushing"... But it's by no means a walk in the park either.  It is pretty tough but doable.

People still call FFIV and FFVI II and III?

People still call FFIV and FFVI II and III?

Seabas989

I'm sure that there's still people who don't know that 

[spoiler]

Shiek is actually Zelda.

[/spoiler]

People still call FFIV and FFVI II and III?

Seabas989

[QUOTE="Seabas989"]

People still call FFIV and FFVI II and III?

Dr-Gentlemen

Is it 1994? No.

The games have had a ton of rereleases especially IV.

Came here to say FF3, but I didn't know there were two games. Tried to read a bit about it, but got bored and gave up. Sorry about it.

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"][QUOTE="Seabas989"]

People still call FFIV and FFVI II and III?

Seabas989

Is it 1994? No.

The games have had a ton of rereleases especially IV.

[QUOTE="Seabas989"]

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"] This question makes little sense since there are lots of people collecting SNES games and the U.S. releases are not called IV and 6.Dr-Gentlemen

Is it 1994? No.

The games have had a ton of rereleases especially IV.

Nope.

When I look at the SNES I think of FFIV, V, and VI. Not II and III. Furthermore, if this was even 10 years ago I can understand people calling it II and III. However it's 2013 and all the FF games are available.

The name counts because IV and VI are not II and III. II and III are something else. IfFFII, III and V weren;t released out west still then it's ok.

[QUOTE="Seabas989"]

People still call FFIV and FFVI II and III?

turtlethetaffer

I'm sure that there's still people who don't know that 

[spoiler]

Shiek is actually Zelda.

[/spoiler]

Melee spoiled it for me before I had the chance to play the game. :P

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="Seabas989"]

People still call FFIV and FFVI II and III?

Seabas989

I'm sure that there's still people who don't know that 

[spoiler]

Shiek is actually Zelda.

[/spoiler]

Melee spoiled it for me before I had the chance to play the game. :P

That's because it assumed you played most of Nintendo's big games if you actually cared about Melee.

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"][QUOTE="Seabas989"]

Is it 1994? No.

The games have had a ton of rereleases especially IV.

Seabas989

Nope.

When I look at the SNES I think of FFIV, V, and VI. Not II and III. Furthermore, if this was even 10 years ago I can understand people calling it II and III. However it's 2013 and all the FF games are available.

The name counts because IV and VI are not II and III. II and III are something else. IfFFII, III and V weren;t released out west still then it's ok.

[QUOTE="Seabas989"]

[QUOTE="Dr-Gentlemen"] Illogical, the games aren't going to magically have a new name and are still top brought SNES games for collectors. Again, it does not make too much sense to bag on people for calling FFIV and 6 2 and 3. That goes double for those who have not played them since the SNES and might be casual collectors as well. Those two games fetch interesting prices sometimes. Last year, 6 was around $100 and I found no less deal, it's better now though.Dr-Gentlemen

Nope.

When I look at the SNES I think of FFIV, V, and VI. Not II and III. Furthermore, if this was even 10 years ago I can understand people calling it II and III. However it's 2013 and all the FF games are available.

The name counts because IV and VI are not II and III. II and III are something else. IfFFII, III and V weren;t released out west still then it's ok.

Except they aren't II and III. :|