I don't really have much to say about this game in particular, but it does bring up what I feel may or may not be an interesting topic of discussion. What exactly is better: A video game which strives to be different, yet fails to be entertaining when doing so, or a game which makes little effort to break from the mold, resulting in a solid but unremarkable total experience. Obviously, neither are ideal, but Final Fantasy Legend III, in an effort to eliminate the more obtuse mechanics of it's two predecessors, achieves the unfortunate result of being a game which fails to separate itself from the competition, simultaneously being a step down from home console contemporaries. I can respect the first two Saga games for their sheer audacity in how unique they felt to progress in, even if I think they're far too inefficiently designed to function as legitimately quality experiences. Final Fantasy Legend III retains a few aspects like the monster transformation, but pushes itself into the same box as the traditional JRPG, with simple character growth and combat interaction. The end result is a game which I enjoyed enough to play a significant amount of, but one which I likely won't have much memory of in a few months. Meanwhile, I will always remember the first two Saga games, and my nightmarish struggle to understand even a small fraction of their totality. None of these games are really worth playing beyond curiosity these days. It's neat to see how the series progressed in a fairly short amount of time way back when, but they are obviously the types of games not meant for players as dumb as me. 3/6