Final Fantasy Hacktics

And I was actually disappointed, as I was expecting the dialogues and the music to trump those of Final Fantasy Tactics (1997), given its high-production cost.

So yeah, both FFT and GofT are similar in themes as their plot portrays countless murders, secondary characters, conspiracies, revolts and backstabbings in a medieval-fantasy setting. Yet, I was much more enthralled by FFT's plot progression. The plot is "tighter", focusing strongly on Ramza/Delita/Ovelia with all their own musical leitmotivs ; seventy-five minutes of FFT's plot uncovers a lot more of events than the equivalent in GofT.

Anybody here actually sat through GofT ? Your opinion would be frankly appreciated ! I don't care about spoilers, I've always been fine with them.


P.-S. The visuals were awesome though, when CGI wasn't involved :D

O_o

You use this as your first post? LOL

I've never seen Game of Thrones, but know enough about it to be very confused by the comparison of that and FFT...
Game of Thrones you cannot get attached to ANYONE cuz EVERYONE dies.
FFT the main characters you start with (Delita and Ramza) live. The people who die only do so to drive the storyline of why things and people are who they are and why. (Whether it's justifiable is up for debate)

I was looking through the Web for some place where people would know about both GofT and FFT, so I came here.
Tried the GofT subreddit before, but none of the posters knew anything about FFT, and so thought I was completely mad to write "Final Fantasy" along "Game of Thrones".  :lol:

Not EVERYONE dies... There are still the few MAIN characters who survive. (as in, people who actually get first person chapters in the books. For example, had a larger response to his death from the TV show fans than from book readers because he was focused on in the show, but not the book. The characters with big parts such as Tyrion Lannister, Jon snow, etc. Are safer than others). The reason people consider Game of Thrones to be a kill-everyone-off show is that there are just lots of side characters who are given more of a spotlight in the show.

Also, I would consider AGOT related more to Tactics Ogre: LUCT.

Probably the main theme or moral of FFT is that you should hold on to your ideals even if you can't change the world to conform to them.


My understanding of GOT is it's pretty much the opposite; abandon everything, else you'll die horribly (and probably will anyway).

The Rafa scene reminds me a little of the content in that show. If FFT were a show, it'd probably focus on how Ramza deals with being branded a heretic and how Delita tries to manipulate all the things. The show doesn't do much with religion (outside of a certain specific character), however there's lots of mysticism which you might equate to how the zodiac stones are handled in FFT. Additionally, most characters in the show aren't doing things on a misunderstanding (willful ignorance sometimes but not a misunderstanding), though mistakes being made out of grief is a recurring theme. FFT, on the other hand, has a lot of misguided characters. They're also usually well-meaning in FFT, but these characters go into brick wall mode once they decide to do something. The show's characters are mostly just out for themselves, though some stand-out characters are devoted to the general suffering of others. Maybe the most important difference is that FFT has a sense of joining up, whereas the show has a sense of painful isolation (most of the armies shown are short-lived).

One-for-one similarities:

• Dragons


• Dragon tamers


• Collusion of power across governmental/social lines


• Long-running kidnappings


• Temporary imprisonment of important characters


• Aggrandized nobles as knights


• Traps (certain storylines only)


• Undertones of poverty as a result of the elite class (l i t t l e m o n e y)


• Demons


• Undead


• Contracted assassins


• Boats


• Regency/young royalty


• Distant father figures


• Sibling dynamics


• Bastard sons


• Pubs


• Castle crashing


• Sidekicks


• Travel theme


• Robbery


• Factions/orders/groups outside of government


• Super-powered/super-rare swords


• Unsolved/unclaimed murder by poison


• Churches


• Political marriages

Things FFT has:

• Guns


• Robots


• A vampire


• Japanese cultural occupations


• A volcano?


• Multiple dimensions?


• Religion as an overtone


• All manner of magic


• Handbags?


• Banned books?

Things GoT has:

• Slavery


• Brothels


• A banking institution


• Cruel and unusual punishment


• Overly attached mothers


• Mythologies for their royalty


• Disfigurement theme


• Debt/credit


• Spying


• Religion as an undertone

I was more talking on a ... quality level. It just stroke me as strange than the 75 minutes (nearly the running time of a movie !) left me with so little to chew on.

First, FFT has GREAT melodies for characters and events, while GofT's only episode I've seen has stocky ambiant music lacking any charm. No leitmotivs for important characters, no grandiose themes.

On to the story : For some reasons, GofT's first episode made sure NOT to put forward any important event around which to weaves the plot. There was nothing to keep my interest for a second episode, unless you count boobies and that predictable kid's death as "riveting developments" ! I mean, I've been watching 75 minutes of grim people exchanging mostly banalities and very very little exposition ; No "mystery" to unfold, no real sense of where's anything going ! And no character to really be passionated about, as they ALL get pretty much equal screen time and in their dialogues.

I've actually talked about GofT with my siblings - who watched through countless hours of this show - and really, they couldn't persuade either me or themselves that the show was really worth all (or half) these hours :?. It's habit forming, just like these soapy afternoon melodramas. One gotta know what all these characters are going to do next .

I mean sure, FFT script could be vastly improved, especially if one was thinking of adapting it to the silver screen, but there are actually very clever, enthralling scenes straight from the beginning. Take this example : Delita, Ramza's best friend whom he thought death in a life-changing event, kidnaps the princess of Ivalice , an action which could brings great instability to the Kingdom. You get questions, politics and emotions straight from the get-go.  :more:

In the end, I guess it is my expectations which ruined the experience. Seventy-five minutes man, SEVENTY-FIVE MINUTES ! I wished for leitmotivs, emotions, mysteries, politics... yet all I got was some kind of

If I ever get another 75 minutes free, I'll just re-watch Duck Soup or sumting :roll:

I think you missed a lot of the things you said don't exist in that first episode. As for music, it's the title theme that's important, rather than individual characters (though individual characters may temporarily grasp its attention); the show makes it a point to claim that people don't permanently matter, just places/concepts (like the Iron Throne). As for leitmotifs, they show up in the form of character foils (an example from the first episode are the animals that get found then raised by the Stark children; they continue to be used this way). Furthermore, the motivation for the whole show is the concept of "winter is coming". If you didn't pick up on that, it's the show's ragnarok/apocalypse/doomsday in the form of an invasion coming from the north to the south (i.e. where all civilization is). Also, I think it's difficult to sustain the description of "high-brow melodrama" after the first episode. It's downhill from the first episode. Would you call the content of some of Shakespeare's works (which include about as many murders) high-brow just because they're written in what sounds to us as archaic language? That seems like the comparison you're making.

And since you sound like you want to dismiss the show anyway, you might enjoy these:

Nope, you did not get my point at all. I'll be more concise, and I'll take Shakespeare as an example since you brought him into the discussion (I'm more a Raymond Chandler guy actually  :P)

Let's take Macbeth. In 75 minutes, you will have seen a lot of powerful scenes, great dialogues, some clever lines, and a few mysteries slowly unfold (i.e. the witches's predictions).  THAT's my point. Game of Thrones has the pacing of a melodrama in comparison, with a LOT of character in every episode with very little actual development.

If the amount of development per minute metric is your qualm with the first episode, I'd suggest that it evens out across the first season, and certainly across the whole show (up to the current ending). The first episode, as compared to a faster medium (like the plays we've talked about), contains a lot of setup events that prepare context and meaning for the development that does happen throughout the series. In season one, it's centered around Eddard Stark and his family as a counter-point to the other families in the show. He's not in season 2 because he's dead by episode 9. You've seen episode 1. How do you think he dies? There's an act that foreshadows it in one of the opening scenes.

As for clever lines, the series isn't clever in that regard; it's viral. Phrases are repeatable, like "My dragons!!!!!1111", "You know nothing, Jon Snow," and "Lannister's always pay their debts." Toss any of those into google. FFT's translation is similar in that respect, with unintentional gems like, "This is the way!" and "I got a good feeling!"