No, the original is the best. But the two handheld Nintendo ones are both pretty good. They're similar but different; I'd say the original plays more like a Tactics Ogre game.
I recall tactics advance being a lot easier than Tactics. All of them are good games, so I don't think you'd be disappointed in them. It's been years since I've played the 3 games, but I remember enjoying them all.
A2 has tons of content and subquests, and a lot of freedom. It has higher sound quality and is overall more polished than GBA's FFTAdvance. It's definitely not better than the original Final Fantasy Tactics, but it's better than FFTA IMO. I personally found A2 to be addictive.
Different universe (Ivalice? whatever FFXII is), with several different races of units, each of which has certain classes available to them. More kid-friendly story and characters. And I would say a more even difficulty curve than the original. That one had a very hard start, and then became super easy as you loaded up with all the powerful knights. This one is moderately easy, and stays that way.
I know the GBA one had the laws and judges that were stupid, cannot recall how the sequel handled them. But basically there will be rules for each battle like cannot use swords.
Different universe (Ivalice? whatever FFXII is), with several different races of units, each of which has certain classes available to them. More kid-friendly story and characters. And I would say a more even difficulty curve than the original. That one had a very hard start, and then became super easy as you loaded up with all the powerful knights. This one is moderately easy, and stays that way.
I know the GBA one had the laws and judges that were stupid, cannot recall how the sequel handled them. But basically there will be rules for each battle like cannot use swords.
I definitely remember judges having too many rules being a major problem near the endgame of FFTA, but not FFTA2. If you violate a judge rule in A2, the judge departs and you lose a few perks during that battle, but that's about it. Much nicer.
I found FFTA2 really takes a lot of risk and fun out of the series.
Losing characters permanently is taken out of the game, which takes a good chunk of strategy away when you don't have to worry about permadeath for characters.
Story's very weak compared to the first two.
Too many classes are locked to specific races. Stuff like Moogle Knight makes sense, but regular classes like Monk being locked to the Bangaa race? That's dumb.
The Law system from Tactics Advance is really stripped down and doesn't even need a place in this game the way it's implemented, like. It doesn't even matter anymore, you can just ignore it because all it gives you is some crappy loot that you'll never use if you actually comply.
Just a terrible downgrade from both Tactics and Tactics Advance IMO.
I think I sunk 80+ hours into FFTA, but never did get around to playing the sequel. I found the GBA installment to be much better than the original even, less grindy and more balanced.
I still have Final Fantasy Tactics Advance 2. I played it and beat it 2 years ago. Fun game. Story is better than the first Final Fantasy Tactics Advance game. Im still not fond of the whole Judges rule game mechanic but the game is fun.
One bad thing about the sequel is that Montblanc I think, you recruit him post game which sucks because theres really not much to do post game in a game like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance unless you're into wasting hours doing post game stuff
Comments
What are the main differences?
Different universe (Ivalice? whatever FFXII is), with several different races of units, each of which has certain classes available to them. More kid-friendly story and characters. And I would say a more even difficulty curve than the original. That one had a very hard start, and then became super easy as you loaded up with all the powerful knights. This one is moderately easy, and stays that way.
I know the GBA one had the laws and judges that were stupid, cannot recall how the sequel handled them. But basically there will be rules for each battle like cannot use swords.
What are the main differences?
Different universe (Ivalice? whatever FFXII is), with several different races of units, each of which has certain classes available to them. More kid-friendly story and characters. And I would say a more even difficulty curve than the original. That one had a very hard start, and then became super easy as you loaded up with all the powerful knights. This one is moderately easy, and stays that way.
I know the GBA one had the laws and judges that were stupid, cannot recall how the sequel handled them. But basically there will be rules for each battle like cannot use swords.
I definitely remember judges having too many rules being a major problem near the endgame of FFTA, but not FFTA2. If you violate a judge rule in A2, the judge departs and you lose a few perks during that battle, but that's about it. Much nicer.
Losing characters permanently is taken out of the game, which takes a good chunk of strategy away when you don't have to worry about permadeath for characters.
Story's very weak compared to the first two.
Too many classes are locked to specific races. Stuff like Moogle Knight makes sense, but regular classes like Monk being locked to the Bangaa race? That's dumb.
The Law system from Tactics Advance is really stripped down and doesn't even need a place in this game the way it's implemented, like. It doesn't even matter anymore, you can just ignore it because all it gives you is some crappy loot that you'll never use if you actually comply.
Just a terrible downgrade from both Tactics and Tactics Advance IMO.
One bad thing about the sequel is that Montblanc I think, you recruit him post game which sucks because theres really not much to do post game in a game like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance unless you're into wasting hours doing post game stuff