Final Fantasy II (PSX, 2003)

Final Fantasy II will be the only title in the series for which, prior to playing it, I had no preconception about.  I knew, for instance, that Final Fantasy III was looked down upon, because of the reception of the 2006 DS remake.  The second game I knew literally nothing about.  What a rare pleasure!

After playing it, I'm not surprised to learn that it's one of the most reviled games in the series.  I'm not surprised, but at the same time, my experience was far better than that of many modern reviewers.  Final Fantasy II is not a great game, or even a good one, but it is a very interesting progression for the series, and certainly not as bone-crushingly difficult as one is led to believe.

I should temper these remarks by saying that I played the version that appeared in the Final Fantasy Origins compilation on the Playstation - my goal throughout the series is to play each game in the version that first appeared in the U.S.  So my version has many small niceties, such as an improved interface, a world map that doesn't require squinting, and (thank you, Squaresoft!) the ability to save to memory anywhere outside of battle, a feature which, I'm not ashamed to say, I made extensive use of.  The improved graphics also look gorgeous - it came out at the end of the Playstation's lifetime - although the screenshots I've seen of the Famicom version look quite good as well.  However, the strange leveling system is essentially unaltered, so I know why people hate this game.

I will explain.  Instead of choosing your character classes like its predecessor, Final Fantasy II has preset characters, allowing for a substantially richer story.  To compensate for this, the game essentially lets you create your own classes, by having each stat level up individually upon use.  So in order to create warriors, use physical weapons and let enemies wail on you.  To create wizards, buy and learn spells, then use them a bunch until they level up.  In theory, the system is actually very progressive - for example, it gives you an incentive to use spells frequently instead of pointlessly hoarding MP while your warriors do all the work.

However, the system appears to be either poorly tweaked, or pointlessly cruel to the player.  While leveling up some stats, like HP, is natural, and paced well, leveling up magic is horrendously slow, requiring near 100 uses before gaining a level, and 6 or 7 levels before the spell becomes generally useful.  If one doesn't want to spend days, if not weeks, creating a competent wizard, there is, however, a bug that lets one quickly level up all necessary spells in 90 minutes of pure unfiltered tedium.  This bug was carried over into all remakes, no doubt intentionally.  I only read up about the bug after a failed, late night attempt at beating the final boss, following a late-night slog through the final dungeon, with only memory saves, only to find an endboss that was far more difficult than the random monsters around him would lead you to believe.  (In other words, every Final Fantasy game ever.)

The good news is that, before this point in the game, I'd had no significant difficulty with it.  In part, this is because I play RPGs blind (ie FAQ-less) as much as possible.  Since I spend a fair amount of time wandering, I rarely find leveling to be much of an issue.  So while the gameplay is seriously flawed, it's not, in this reviewer's opinion, game-breaking, if that serves as any kind of recommendation.

If this game is to be recommended at all, it's because it gives us a chance to watch the series begin to focus on plot.  Final Fantasy I gave us the simple goal of reviving the four crystals - though the world was creative and interesting, this goal never changed, apart from some last minute time travel weirdness.  The second game is leagues ahead in this regard - though overall it's a simple story of empire vs. rebels, there's a lot that happens - you get sent on little missions, characters join your party (and occasionally sacrifice themselves), and generally have real personalities.  And unlike almost every JRPG, this is not the story of one long journey.  After each little mission, you return to the rebel's homebase, which changes as the war with the empire progresses.  The idea of a game centered around a home city is one I've loved ever since Mother 3.  The characters in the base say different things over time - there's even a keyword based dialogue system, which I have no idea why Square abandoned.  There's also a lot of dynamism to the world - cities get destroyed.  Oh, and there's chocobos.

So, even if the gameplay is a mess, at least they didn't give in and make another Final Fantasy I.  It seems to me that if the situation is reversed - good, interesting gameplay but weak story - then this would be well-known as a underrated classic, akin to V or VIII.  As it stands, the game is not well-remembered.

Romeo and Juliet (Franco Zeffirelli, 1968)

After reading Romeo and Juliet, my high school English class watched the 1996 Baz Luhrmann adaptation.  Everybody loved it, as I recall.  More recently, I tried to watch it again, and couldn't get through more than 45 minutes before reaching sensory overload.  Luhrmann, like Christopher Nolan, is one of those directors whose lustre has faded since I was a teenager.  (The Andersons, Wes and P.T., are still among my favorites, however.)  So after reading the play again, as part of my mad Shakespeare enterprise, I went looking further back, to the 1968 version, directed by Franco Zeffirelli, who previously helmed the excellent Taming of the Shrew, with Liz Taylor shrieking, and Richard Burton humming along to his own theme music.

I was not disappointed - this one is undoubtedly the best adaptation.  The first thing to notice is that the leads are the right age.  Romeo,16, and Juliet, just 15, put in incredibly raw performances - this should still be the go-to adaptation for high schools, and would be, if it wasn't for our society's growing discomfort with the (tame) scene of nudity.  But the energy in this movie is phenomenal - especially noteworthy is the fight scenes leading to the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt (played by a fierce young Michael York).  And while many scenes are omitted, this adaptation is more accurate than Luhrmann's - Juliet doesn't get to watch Romeo die.  Also, the characters are far easier to understand - Luhrmann sped up the dialogue seemingly out of impatience.  Finally, these characters are just beautiful - Olivia Hussey's face looks like the young and naive version of Maria Falconetti's in Passion of Joan of Arc.

I found the play to be full of surprises, reading it a second time.  Our memory tends to strip the plot to its bare essentials, but Shakespeare adds so much nuance - the joy of the Capulets preparing for a wedding that will never take place, for just one instance.  We remember Romeo and Juliet as a tearjerker, but many scenes exist for no other reason than to add humor.  With all the missed connections and bad timing, the play could be considered a darker version of Comedy of Errors.

Romeo and Juliet is well beloved, but has a mixed reputation among scholars.  Though it has few great speeches - the "rose by any other name" bit is extremely overrated - the dialogue feels natural, and for the first time in this Shakespeare marathon, I feel like I can fully relate to these characters, born hundreds of years ago.  But that's no surprise, since our entire concept of romance was built around this play.