Slashdot Mirror


Final Fantasy I and II Are Coming To the iPhone and iPod Touch

jonasvdc tips an announcement by Square Enix that Final Fantasy I and Final Fantasy II are being developed for the iPhone and the iPod touch. The graphics and UI have been modified to look and run better on the touchscreen devices, but everything from Cecil to the classic Black Mage is clearly recognizable. The announcement did not include any information on a price or release date.

142 comments

  1. Um, Cecil? by Kufat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cecil isn't in any of the screenshots...because he isn't in either of the games mentioned. That's Final Fantasy IV, which has been known by that name in every release except for the US SNES version.

    I can see being confused by the renaming, but how do you see a character in the screenshots who just isn't there?

    1. Re:Um, Cecil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because soulskill is a fucking moron.

    2. Re:Um, Cecil? by Draek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe the submitter got confused between Cecil and Kain (y'know, the good/bad/good/whatever guy from FFIV), and further confused the Dragoon in the screenshot with him, leading to his statement in TFS.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    3. Re:Um, Cecil? by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      No, he is a SPOONY BARD!!!

    4. Re:Um, Cecil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, compare the characters from this wikipedia entry to what I presume is a screenshot from Final Fantasy 2. You can see the similarities to several of the character designs, namely the top guy in red and the 3rd slot guy in blue.

      This definitely is not Final Fantasy 4j/2us.

    5. Re:Um, Cecil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confirmed, no Cecil. They are releasing FFII for the NES. This is NOT FFIV that was released as "FFII" in the U.S.

      In the screen shots, a princess is telling you a password of "wild rose". In the fight, two characters have names of Maria and Guy, default names in the REAL FFII.

    6. Re:Um, Cecil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you see a character in the screenshots who just isn't there?

      It's due to the higher resolution of the iPhone.

    7. Re:Um, Cecil? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Cecil isn't in any of the screenshots...because he isn't in either of the games mentioned. That's Final Fantasy IV, which has been known by that name in every release except for the US SNES version.

      I can see being confused by the renaming, but how do you see a character in the screenshots who just isn't there?

      If you look at the first screenshot, Richard is dressed up almost the exact same as dark Knight Cecil. This is because Richard is also a dark knight -- of sorts. It's not an inexcusable mistake.

    8. Re:Um, Cecil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the one at the bottom is cecil as a dark knight

    9. Re:Um, Cecil? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I can see being confused by the renaming, but how do you see a character in the screenshots who just isn't there?

      You must be new here. Nobody reads TFA, not even the person writing the summary! They all just read the summary.

  2. To be clear... by Palshife · · Score: 1

    Are we talking about I and II, or I and IV?

    --
    Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    1. Re:To be clear... by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Informative

      SquareEnix re-released Final Fantasy IV outside of Japan on the DS as Final Fantasy IV, so that's what they're calling that now.

      Cecil is not in Final Fantasy II (as the numbering scheme now goes) so he's not clearly seen.

    2. Re:To be clear... by Zanix · · Score: 1

      To be truly anal, Final Fantasy IV is what they've called all of the Japan releases of the game as well as the releases of the game for Playstation 1, Advanced, AND the most recent version on the DS. The only version called Final Fantasy II was the US SNES release. The game has been released several times since then. Anyone who has been playing Final Fantasy since the start has been calling it FFIV since FFVII came out and the realization that there had been 6 others before it but only three had been released in the US.

      So to bring my point back home, it certainly isn't just now that they have begun calling it FFIV, they have been calling it FFIV for well over 10 years.

  3. Come ON Nintendo, Square by oloron · · Score: 1

    Final Fantasy 1 was THE game that got me into the RPG genre, and solidified my Nintendo Fan-boi-ism for many,many years to come, but now having seen my favorite game ported to Sony PSP and now iPhone/iPod without seeing an NDS remake is just boiling my oil. and also to Square/Enix, don't forget about those of us who saved your now-wretched company back then when Final Fantasy was almost your swan-song, We'd like a way to play this game on a console with bloodlines to the original, without having to resort to emulators to do so. I've been waiting since i heard of the PSP version for a DS port/remake to come out, looks like I still have to keep waiting :\ Olo

    1. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is that you became a Nintendo Fan-boi and Square/Enix Didn't.

      Square used Nintendo to Breakout - but they by no means had any loyalty to remain with Nintendo. Once they saw the Play Station 2 they jumped on that ship. And when the 360 showed its strength they announced an FF game for that.

      And Nintendo, being Nintendo, went on with different projects like the DS, and the Wii. They are now on far opposite sides of the gaming spectrum (Casual vs Hardcore) and I don't see them working together again for a long time.

    2. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      And Nintendo, being Nintendo, went on with different projects like the DS, and the Wii. They are now on far opposite sides of the gaming spectrum (Casual vs Hardcore) and I don't see them working together again for a long time.

      I know! Heck if they'd have kept up the relationship we might have even gotten Final Fatasy games for the Gamecube or maybe even the Wii!

      MAYBE even a few games for the DS. But no, Square had to abandon working with Nintendo ;).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know there's a version on the Game Boy Advance? Search for Dawn of Souls and stop being a moron.

    4. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by ifrag · · Score: 1

      I know! Heck if they'd have kept up the relationship we might have even gotten [Crystal Chronicles] games for the Gamecube or maybe even the Wii

      OK, technically yes there is a game that has the name "Final Fantasy" in the title, but those games hardly hold a candle compared to a real numbered title. The last Final Fantasy that most people care to acknowledge on Nintendo hardware would be VI. Even the newer Tactics seemed like toned down cheap imitation when compared to the original. Obviously Square/Enix does see some potential market on those systems, but not enough to put real effort into it. The expected low profits must be on par with the development budgets they assign.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    5. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tunnels of Doom and the Ultima series are what got me into the RPG scene (circa 1980 or so).

      I have never played any game in the Final Fantasy series, are they any good? A lot of Nintendo-style RPG seem to lack depth to me. Too arcade-y.

    6. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by damien_kane · · Score: 3, Informative

      We'd like a way to play this game on a console with bloodlines to the original, without having to resort to emulators to do so.

      FF I+II GBA Cart on a NDS or DS-Lite (just not the DSi where they took out the GBA slot)

    7. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Once they saw the Play Station 2 they jumped on that ship. And when the 360 showed its strength they announced an FF game for that.

      Not quite.
      They jumped to the PS (PSone now) with FFVII, a game much loved by almost all who played it. PS2 FF games weren't until FFX.
      They put FFXI Online on the 360 b/c Microsoft gave them a lot of money to do so. MS wanted to start getting quality, well-known JRPG games so that they could start selling more units in Japan. By then, though, all the Japanese were already playing either on PC or PS2.
      FFXIII will be the first FF game SE ever put on 360 without first giving it to Sony. That probably cost MS a lot more money to make happen, too.

    8. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with you, but only the DS and DS Lite can play GBA games. If OP has a DSi, they're SOL.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    9. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I'm playing through Crisis Core on PSP right now, and it's pretty arcadey....previously I've played FF1+2 (Japanese 2), FF5, and FF7. They're good solid RPGs. I think the only RPG I like more than FF7 would have to be Chrono Trigger.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    10. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Give Final Fantasy IV, V and VI on the SNES a try - they're well worth it (especially VI). The PSX titles...well, let's say they are a matter of taste (many people love them - except for 9, which sucks - but I found them lacking). Can't comment on the PS2/PS3 titles, never really got to play them.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    11. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Isn't Square Enix releasing a new version of FF for the Wii? Crystal Chronicles or something? I thought I saw an ad on TV the other day.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    12. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by wgoodman · · Score: 1

      At least get your facts straight!

      They switched from Nintendo once the PS came out. after FF7-9 came out on the PS, they made 10-12 on the PS2. 13 was originally developed for PS2, then moved over to PS3. Microsoft threw a huge thwaq of cash as Square to get them to delay FF13 and port it over to the 360. It is still coming out on PS3, and should have a much higher quality to it since they didn't have to compress the textures/movies as much to squeeze them onto several DVDs (the entire game is more or less on each DVD, the primary difference in data per disc is which movies are there).

    13. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Given what they do with the numbered titles, there's just no way the Wii or any of the recent Nintendo hardware can handle it. They'd have to strip the hell out of it, and I don't blame Square/Enix for not wanting to.

    14. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      They also have III and IV as updated 3D versions. It's pretty slick... playing through IV now.

    15. Re:Come ON Nintendo, Square by aztektum · · Score: 1
      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  4. Exclusive? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    So how long till it makes its way to Droid - if ever at all? I don't mind exclusive deals, but it'd be nice if they wore off after a few months.

    I personally never played any of the FF series, only because I hadn't heard of it until like 7 or 8 came out, and I thought I'd have a lot of backstory to catch up with (though people have reassured me that I really don't). So, if these become available at an affordable price on a device I already have - then I'd probably purchase.

    1. Re:Exclusive? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't mind exclusive deals, but it'd be nice if they wore off after a few months.

      All exclusive deals wear off no later than 1,151 months.

      I personally never played any of the FF series, only because I hadn't heard of it until like 7 or 8 came out, and I thought I'd have a lot of backstory to catch up with (though people have reassured me that I really don't).

      Final Fantasy is a brand, not a series. With a few exceptions (e.g. Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2), each game has nothing to do with the last except being a role-playing video game made by Square.

    2. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      each game has nothing to do with the last except being a role-playing video game made by Square.

      This is one of the big draws to the series...no prior experience with any of the games is necssary. In my own personal opinion, you are wasting your time if you play anything past VI (although X was decent...certainly the only post-VI Final Fantasy game I would recommend).

      For me, the series really jumped the shark when it went 3D. Not using sprites anymore really took some of the magic away.

    3. Re:Exclusive? by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      People assure you that there's not backstory to catch up on because the games are entirely unrelated from each other. Except for FFX-2 and FFXII Revenant Wings, the main series has no direct sequels.

      Square is starting to go back to the world of Ivalice more, but FFXII is the only main series game that takes place there.

    4. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to say I love the concept of your site. Good stuff.

    5. Re:Exclusive? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It wasn't jumping the shark going 3d... It was necessary... If you are still using sprites your game will look old and out of date. Even when they went 3D the games were still based on the old method.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I point you in the direction of Muramasa: The Demon Blade, which was released just a few months ago, uses sprites for all in-game characters/enemies, and is quite a beautiful game. Here are a couple screenshots:

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NXLKQR2FNpY/SwitorQly1I/AAAAAAAAAGs/unJ2YjKwJ3M/s1600/muramasathedemonblade-3.jpg
      http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2009/06/custom_1244093929468_Muramasa2.jpg

      It looks even better in motion, I highly recommend you look up some videos of the game in action. Using sprites doesn't necessarily mean it will look pixelated, it just means it isn't a fully rendered character. Considering the quality of 3D back in the PS1 days, it was a mistake to move the series to 3D then. I know that it would have eventually happened, I'm just questioning the timing of the move.

    7. Re:Exclusive? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering the quality of 3D back in the PS1 days, it was a mistake to move the series to 3D then. I know that it would have eventually happened, I'm just questioning the timing of the move.

      Yeah I can see your point there. Games like Castlevania SotN showed what a 2D powerhouse the Playstation was, and a 2D FFVII would have been beautiful. Though some things like the change of perspective to look down the field of battle as Leviathan's gigantic tidal wave towering over the enemies that a moment ago towered over you were pretty awesome and hard to recreate in 2D. On the other hand, that was what introduced the strategic tradeoff between the damage a Summons would do to the enemy vs the time wasted watching the unskippable summon animation for the 1000th time.

      I agree VI was the best in the series, but I don't think VII "jumped the shark". It was a good game. Even if they did go to 3D perhaps prematurely.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason I pinpoint the series jumping the shark with VII is because that was when the games went from having complicated, mature, fully believable characters to whining brats. Placing the emphasis on technology while fantasy was placed in the backseat didn't help either.

      I suppose I should clarify...for me, the series jumped the shark and has just never been the same since it went 3D. The series going 3D isn't necessarily the cause of it (although it is a contributing factor), they both just happened to occur at the same time.

    9. Re:Exclusive? by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      Ok, I don't know where the rest of you guys are coming in, but everyone I know was in awe with how good the graphics for FFVII were at the time. I mean come on, this was 1997, 13 years ago. Of course going back we notice that they have bricks for hands and feet, but that was the first game I remember that had FMV and multiple camera angles during summons.

      I enjoyed FFVII and FFX. FFX-2 was too girly and FFXII had a boring plot, although a cool world.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    10. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, I don't know where the rest of you guys are coming in, but everyone I know was in awe with how good the graphics for FFVII were at the time. I mean come on, this was 1997, 13 years ago.

      Feh...maybe console-only gamers were in awe. It didn't really do that much for me or other pc & console gamers. Yes, it was 1997, but also remember the visual difference between console gaming and PC gaming was WAAAAAY bigger than it is now. (For reference, I'm 26 and started playing games on a Commodore 64 when i was four years old.)

      but that was the first game I remember that had FMV and multiple camera angles during summons.

      If you mean FMV in a Final Fantasy game, then ignore this last part of my post....

      Final Fantasy VII was the first game you noticed that had FMV?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Jedi_Knight:_Dark_Forces_II
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantasmagoria_(video_game)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Commander_(video_game)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_conquer

      Just to name a few. There is also the HUGE number of Sega CD games that had FMV.

    11. Re:Exclusive? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2

      I like the idea of technological levels in a game being different from the levels of fantasy. What I mean is that I don't think a fantasy game is required to be set in a medieval time. I always felt like the higher technology worked nicely in 7; the core of the series is still about life-force, magic, etc, it just has a different flavor with the addition of technological elements.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    12. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Oh I completely agree (no game did this better than Arcanum, in my opinion)...I just didn't like that the focus of the series shifted from fantasy with technology sprinkled in to technology with fantasy sprinkled in...it's not that it's bad, I just think the idea of fantasy with technology sprinkled in is much more interesting than vice versa.

      I have no problem with the game taking place further in the future, it's just that the focus seems to be on the fact that the game takes place in the future, rather than the fantasy aspect of the story. Or, to put it in my own words after the first few hours with Final Fantasy VII: "Yes, I know this story takes place in the future. Stop shoving it down my throat."

    13. Re:Exclusive? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I always thought Cecil was a pretty whiny bastard, and that's not to mention the spoony bard. :)

      Technology (and angst) played a big role in VI too.

      But yeah, there were definitely thematic changes in VII and I can understand being put off by them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always thought Cecil was a pretty whiny bastard, and that's not to mention the spoony bard. :)

      True, but that was the whole point of their characters. When the entire cast is like that though...

      Technology (and angst) played a big role in VI too.

      They certainly did, but the tone of the story focused on the fantasy elements. An example: technology was used on the Espers to exploit their abilities for Magitek, also a technology. The focus, however, was placed on the fact that the Espers were used, rather than why they were used and the results from it. An entire segment of the game takes place in a giant Magitek factory, yet we learn very little about the actual process or the potential technology that can be built from it. However, considerable time was spent on establishing an emotional connection to the atrocities committed against these creatures, and why what was happening was such a horrible thing.

      Even the MagitekArmor was like this...we knew, based on the name, that they had to be created using the life force of the espers...but that's it. Were it not for the name, they could just be any other mech. The focus wasn't on the fact that they were mechs, but the fact that they were powered by the essence of an Esper.

      This is the sort of focus on fantasy that I mean, rather than focusing on technology.

      But yeah, there were definitely thematic changes in VII and I can understand being put off by them.

      It's not just VII...I have tried and really wanted to enjoy all of the numbered entries in the series from VII on, but with the exception of X, I just couldn't. Even with X, I was only marginally kept interested. It's kind of frustrating, since the first 6 entries are some of my favorite games of all time. It's frustrating and a little disappointing seeing all these people so enamoured with the latter half of the series, while I can't stand it. i really want to...I just can't :-/

    15. Re:Exclusive? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Get in line. People are still waiting for it to get to a PC...

    16. Re:Exclusive? by iamhassi · · Score: 0, Troll

      "So how long till it makes its way to Droid - if ever at all? I don't mind exclusive deals, but it'd be nice if they wore off after a few months."

      Exclusive deals? Where in the article did it say they signed an exclusive contract with Apple?

      The reason you won't find this on the Droid now or ever is number of devices and number of people paying for software. As of Dec 2009 the iPhone has had 78 million sales, and this number does not include millions of iPod Touch out there. Compare that to 800,000 Droids sold and it's obvious why it's unlikely any company would put any effort into developing software for Droids, it's a 100-to-1 ratio, 1%.

      Would you make a program for 1% of the platforms, or 99%?

      And that's why Droid has failed. Developers see $$$$ in iPhone and Touch, so they make the software, and the consumers see all the software on the iPhone so they buy iPhones.

      It's a repeat of the 90s with Gameboy vs Sega Game Gear.

      And let's not forget hardware failures like the Droid only having 256mb for apps. 1999 called, they want their storage size back. iPhone started with a minium of 4gb, and the latest 3GS is only offered in 16 or 32gb varieties, which is needed when games like The Settlers want 300+ mb.

      I'm sorry I didn't mean to turn this into a anti-Droid rant, but when you see everyone and their 1 yr old baby with an iPhone and you stubbornly turn around and buy the opposite, don't be surprised when the developers create software for the phone that everyone and their baby bought.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    17. Re:Exclusive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you shitting me? First of all, FF7 was basically 2D backgrounds with 3D characters. Second, nobody would have liked a 2D FF7 considering that that generation of system was the first generation of affordable consoles to be 3D capable at all. 3D was shiny and new, and if you weren't 3D, you weren't interesting. Now 3D is old hat. Playability is where it's at. That and MMPMMORPGMOPRMRAOGS. Yuck!

    18. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      So, based on everything you said, you must be an ardent Windows user...right?

    19. Re:Exclusive? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The focus, however, was placed on the fact that the Espers were used, rather than why they were used and the results from it. An entire segment of the game takes place in a giant Magitek factory, yet we learn very little about the actual process or the potential technology that can be built from it.

      Sure you learned about what the result was -- Humans could learn magic, or you could make a mech or other machines with magic attacks. I mean of course they don't go into the process. Magic esper-eating tanks suck the energy from espers, what more could they say? They don't describe the process of infusing Cloud with magical Jenova cells and mako energy either.

      Even the MagitekArmor was like this...we knew, based on the name, that they had to be created using the life force of the espers...but that's it. Were it not for the name, they could just be any other mech.

      If not for the name, they could just be any of the other mechs/robots/machines with no reference to being powered by magic at all that were in FFVI. The Empire was a technological city before they came across the Espers and have lots of non-esper-powered technology (that you have to fight). Edgar was a character who did nothing but use non-magical gadgets and had a castle that could dig through sand based on its advanced technology alone. No espers were involved in the use of airships... and so on and so on.

      This is the sort of focus on fantasy that I mean, rather than focusing on technology.

      I'm really trying to fit what you're saying with my memories of FFVI and FFVII to see what you mean. But all I'm really getting is that you like technology that is explicitly powered by magic, rather than technology that is merely indistinguishable from magic in a world where magic exists.

      It's not just VII...I have tried and really wanted to enjoy all of the numbered entries in the series from VII on,

      Meh. I haven't played any past VII, since my access to non-Nintendo consoles was based entirely on an old college roommate. So I'm just looking at VII. I can obviously see that there's more technology present in VII, but I don't get what you mean by "focus".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Second, nobody would have liked a 2D FF7 considering that that generation of system was the first generation of affordable consoles to be 3D capable at all

      I would just like to point out that there is at least one person who I can 100% guarantee you would have enjoyed a 2D FF7...me :-)

    21. Re:Exclusive? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. That's why nobody liked Symphony of the Night. Oh, wait, it's one of the most beloved games in the Castlevania franchise.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    22. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I'm really trying to fit what you're saying with my memories of FFVI and FFVII to see what you mean. But all I'm really getting is that you like technology that is explicitly powered by magic, rather than technology that is merely indistinguishable from magic in a world where magic exists.

      That's...not quite what I'm getting it. unfortunately, I don't really know how else to explain it other than prior to VII, technology was a part of the story but not something that had the camera pointed on it just for the sake of showing off technology. ::shrug:: not really sure how else to say it.

      Meh. I haven't played any past VII, since my access to non-Nintendo consoles was based entirely on an old college roommate. So I'm just looking at VII. I can obviously see that there's more technology present in VII, but I don't get what you mean by "focus".

      VII and the games that followed seemed to wallow in the technology present, as if the game was using the player's eyes to take them for a swim through electronics and advancement. Prior to VII, technology was something that was present, but didn't seem to be as in your face as it was in later games.

    23. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Prior to VII, technology was something that was present, but didn't seem to be as in your face as it was in later games.

      To expand on this...

      The technology aspect was present, but it was present in a passive way. There wasn't specific attention that was brought to it...rather, it was just something that happened to make up a part of the experience. It wasn't something that stood front and center, it was just sorta there.

    24. Re:Exclusive? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That's...not quite what I'm getting it. unfortunately, I don't really know how else to explain it other than prior to VII, technology was a part of the story but not something that had the camera pointed on it just for the sake of showing off technology. ::shrug:: not really sure how else to say it.

      Except for all the time that it was like I was referring to, like the lengthy sequence with Edgar's castle going under the sand for the first time, or the unveiling of the airships. Or when you'd fight a purely technological enemy and the Epic Boss Music would start playing... The camera was pointed at technology for the technology's sake plenty in VI. Heck even the Magiteck Armor was as much about technology as magic, seeing as one of their best attacks was *missiles*.

      I can definitely see that there's more technology in VII, but to me it's nothing but a slight shift in the magic/tech mix that already existed. The main thing that gave me that impression playing the games was that you start in Midgar, the tech city, rather than visiting it later like the Empire in VI. All the key story elements -- Mako energy, the Lifestream, Sephiroth summoning Meteor -- are magic all the way. *shrug* Maybe it crossed some line for you, but for me, VII is still stuffed with magic to satisfy my fantasy desires.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    25. Re:Exclusive? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I can definitely see that there's more technology in VII, but to me it's nothing but a slight shift in the magic/tech mix that already existed. The main thing that gave me that impression playing the games was that you start in Midgar, the tech city, rather than visiting it later like the Empire in VI. All the key story elements -- Mako energy, the Lifestream, Sephiroth summoning Meteor -- are magic all the way. *shrug* Maybe it crossed some line for you, but for me, VII is still stuffed with magic to satisfy my fantasy desires.

      Honestly, I think it all comes down to the overall presentation differences. If that is the case, I don't think it's nostalgia...I think having the technology aspect with modern visuals just puts more of an exclamation point on it compared to high-tech stuff done up in pixelated sprite form. ::shrug:: who knows. "Science is a mystery to man, isn't it Frylock?" -Meatwad

    26. Re:Exclusive? by wgoodman · · Score: 1

      Back then Tifa was HOT!

    27. Re:Exclusive? by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      a few points:

      your numbers are jacked up: you do realize that the Droid is just one of the many devices that runs the Android OS, right? A developer would not just be selling to the 800K Droids that are out there, but all of the devices.

      also: you are ignoring a lot of other smartphone sales when you assign 99% to Apple. Apple is only selling around 14% (Q2 2009) of the smartphones, worldwide. Android is around 3% in the same time period source

      you are either trolling or ignorant about the Droid, but the app space is limited to the 256mb internal memory but apps can write to the 16GB card that is included with the phone. in my experience nothing else uses the internal memory and most apps are tiny...i have a ton of apps installed and close to 200mb left.

    28. Re:Exclusive? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I thought FFVII was beautiful. If you look at it today it looks dated as all hell, but back then it was the second-most visually stunning RPG, after Panzer Dragoon Saga. And who has even played that? Not so many of us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Exclusive? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Oh it was beautiful alright. Not argument there. But even at the time the 3D seemed primitive and was probably the weakest part of the appearance compared to the gorgeously rendered 2D backgrounds. Not that it looked bad, the kinda blocky style had a charm to it. And the 3D was used to great effect for the Summons. Too bad they were so excited about their cut scenes they decided to make it impossible to skip them. :P

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    30. Re:Exclusive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "also: you are ignoring a lot of other smartphone sales when you assign 99% to Apple. Apple is only selling around 14% (Q2 2009) of the smartphones, worldwide. Android is around 3% in the same time period source [wikipedia.org] "

      sorry, perhaps I should have said 99% of the smartphones anyone is interested in making a Final Fantasy I and II game for, which removes options like symbian, windows mobile, blackberry, etc.

    31. Re:Exclusive? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Except for FFX-2 and FFXII Revenant Wings, the main series has no direct sequels.

      You missed one.

      A direct sequel to FF IV albeit in episodic form.

      It was surprisingly faithful, too, other than that controller-chucking stupidity that is the moon phases.

    32. Re:Exclusive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's not forget hardware failures like the Droid only having 256mb for apps

      Didn't you read your own link? It clearly states on the page that the executable is the only thing that has to live in the 256MB of internal space. The game then can download the graphics and sounds to the 16GB SD card, which is included.

      I notice the other poster brought this up too, but you ignored it. I wonder why you would not have a response when someone refutes points in your anti-Droid rant?

    33. Re:Exclusive? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll bite - why?

  5. Looks better? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Higher res and more colors doesn't always mean better. I'd still rather play the NES original on an emulator.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Looks better? by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      They have been releasing the gmaes with better graphics since the WonderSwan version came out (December 9, 2000).

    2. Re:Looks better? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't always mean better when graphics are a substitute for gameplay, but the exact same FF gameplay with updated graphics? Yes that's better! It's not like the original developers went with a 16-color palette and pixelated graphics as a stylistic choice. They made it as pretty as they could, and did a good job, but would they rather have had SNES graphics capabilities or more? Do the screenshots look like what they would have gone for, had they been able? Yes and yes.

      Other games that were better after a graphical update include Kings Quest I and Heroes Quest (I mean Quest for Glory) when they were updated for VGA from EGA. Super Mario Brothers was improved by its release as part of Super Mario All Stars. Quake was vastly improved by the switch to OpenGL (oh god and how!), and today open-source mods improve it further just by adding shader effects. Star Control II is improved in its Ur Quan Masters form by the simple expedient of anti-aliasing the rotated sprites.

      In summary: Same game play, with better graphics that are in the same spirit as the original? Yes please!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Looks better? by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe the GBA version of FFI also had 4 new lengthy bonus dungeons. I assume this content might also go into the iPhone versions.

      Square has also done updated cut-scenes for many of their remakes.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:Looks better? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I dunno. There's something classic about the NES look. Maybe it's just nostalgia. I was never a big fan of the VGA re-releases Sierra did either, but that's just because I like the parser. But there's something to be said about inspiration coming from limitations. Would Mario look the same if Miyamoto had a full 640x480 to work with? I don't think so. In this case here, I think the original FF1 characters have a lot more, um, character than the rather generic art of the remake.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Looks better? by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The remakes are also MUCH easier than the original. Some of them even go so far as to get rid of the x # of magic points per level and go with the now-standard "each spell costs x mp" system. Some also modify combat so that if you assign your character to attack an enemy that is now dead they will attack another enemy instead of just attacking the air. They also toned down the difficulty level in general, I played a few of the remakes and I don't think I can recall getting a game over once. For starters, 9 ghouls/ghasts/whatevers can no longer take down a healthy party if they surprise you, they seemed to have lowered the probability of getting paralyzed significantly.... I beat the original once and have never even attempted to do so again, even beating it once was just plain luck(managed to have a thief run away from the zombie dragon with 10 hp, Chaos never cast cure4 etc)... you have to be pretty hardcore to replay it without save states or game genie.

    6. Re:Looks better? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I dunno. There's something classic about the NES look. Maybe it's just nostalgia.

      Probably.

      I was never a big fan of the VGA re-releases Sierra did either, but that's just because I like the parser.

      Yeah that's true I didn't like the icon based interface myself. I forgot the remakes switched to it.

      But there's something to be said about inspiration coming from limitations. Would Mario look the same if Miyamoto had a full 640x480 to work with?

      Technically no, since Mario was given a moustache because they couldn't give him a recognizable mouth.

      But the question is does that mean he'd look worse? I doubt it. If Mario-without-moustache is unappealing, then that probably is just nostalgia cus if he'd originally not had one, it'd be Mario-with-facial-hair that would sound weird.

      In this case here, I think the original FF1 characters have a lot more, um, character than the rather generic art of the remake.

      They're "generic" because it's the same art style that was adopted in FFIV through VI that we're all familiar with, which is really pretty much the same style they were going for in FFI, only with less capability to actually implement it.

      I mean you're saying the original characters don't look "generic" compared to the new ones?

      Frankly to me the characters look exactly like the original art, just higher res and anti-aliased. Black mage looks like Black Mage, only the FFI version was put through a "make highly pixelated and lose all detail" filter.

      Lich looks like what I always wished Lich looked like, rather than a skeleton emerging from some cloud of pink goo? That's I guess is supposed to be robes?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Looks better? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Did you play the original in the Japanese? Apparently the US version was toned down a bit from the Japanese version because apparently Americans prefer their games to be fun. I played through 1 a few years ago and it was tough, but if you did a bit of grinding in the north before diving into the dungeon it wasn't too terrible. OTOH, I wouldn't mind if they updated it so the racial traits on the weapons actually worked.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:Looks better? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      No I played the North American version, the difficulty of the game was pretty random. If you got unlucky even a fully leveled up group can go down to a group of 9 undead as you get to just sit there and watch as your 500+ hp fighters go down. But yeah, I do wish they would update the original so that the racial traits of the weapons would actually work. That would make leveling up vs. giants in the earth fiends lair infinitely easier.

    9. Re:Looks better? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      p>

      Lich looks like what I always wished Lich looked like, rather than a skeleton emerging from some cloud of pink goo? That's I guess is supposed to be robes?

      I guess back in the day we had imaginations...

      Get off my lawn, graphic-whore! And light another torch.

      Who would get him first, I wonder, the grue or the wumpus?

    10. Re:Looks better? by Zixia · · Score: 1

      Super Mario Brothers was improved by its release as part of Super Mario All Stars.

      No it wasn't. The graphics were better, I'll admit that, but the control system was also tweaked, resulting in lower inertia for Mario and making a lot of the fluid gameplay either less challenging or too difficult to replicate from the original. Changing direction in mid-jump was less challenging, giving greater options to avoid enemies. But the timings of jumps and turns relied on the higher-inertia Mario, and changing this made the classic tactics obsolete.

      Even the improved graphics affected gameplay. The parallax introduced between the foreground and background may have been a cosmetic improvement, but it inadvertently revealed blocks in the later worlds that were originally hidden by the similar-looking background palette. Those hidden blocks could foil jumps if you didn't know they were there, but by being obvious in the remake they were made redundant.

      Super Mario All-stars was a good idea, but it shows that making a prettier game doesn't translate in to a better game, nor indeed a faithful reproduction of the earlier game. I'll always return to the original for my SMB fix.

    11. Re:Looks better? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well that's the point, isn't it? I had to use my imagination to make Lich look scary, but the artwork that was present, limited by NES capabilities, wasn't helping. Was I supposed to imagine that Lich was like a skeleton-genie in a swirling cloud of fuchsia gas? Or that Lich was taking a page from Jesse Ventura's book and wearing an expansive feather boa? I mean far be it from me to give an ancient undead wizard fashion advice, but a bare chest and a pink boa is a hard look to pull off. Points for boldness though...

      At least in the text adventure days, they'd simply describe what the lich looked like and let me handle the rest. "A skeleton animated by foul magic, wearing ancient tattered robes of a sorcerer. In its empty eye sockets, and bright a malevolent fire burns." See that I can work with. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Looks better? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was obvious that they were robes. I guess your imagination leans more towards flamboyantly-colored smokes...

    13. Re:Looks better? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      My imagination can only do so much with fuchsia. :)

      But as far as using your imagination goes, to this day nothing terrifies me more than a simple, lower case letter 'l'. 'Cept maybe certain 'c's or 'h's. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Looks better? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      *shudder*

      That wasn't cool, man.

  6. Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These seems like as good a time as any to ask...is the iPod Touch worth buying just for games available on the platform? It seems like there are a ton of cool games out there for it, but I don't really want to plunk down the cash if it isn't worth it from a gaming point of view...

    Opinions?

    1. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No. Very few iPhone games are any good -- some puzzlers are OK, Galcon is addicting, but apart from that almost none of the action games are worth playing at all. The touchscreen UI is awful for gaming, as is the motion sensing stuff.

      I have a jailbroken device with the codesigning disabled, and I know how to use Google, so I've played almost everything worth trying. Most of it is crap.

      Big name EA type games are almost all universally terrible, with bad load times, OK graphics, and untested gameplay. Some of the indie games are decent, but not worth plunking down hundreds of dollars for hardware on.

      Just get a DS and an R4.

    2. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by classic773 · · Score: 1

      I don't use it for much gaming, other than occasional time wasting (in flight, waiting for an appointment), but even then not so much. I use it mostly for browsing from the living room, email, and a media player while traveling. I also find it handy for when I want to check email or a webpage while gaming on the PC (especially games that don't alt-tab well)

    3. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In my personal opinion, it is. The iPhone/iPod almost takes me back to the days of the C64 and coders making games in their garages. Alot of it is crap but there are some real innovative gems and you can spend hours and hours just trying different games from the app-store. And it's all cheap aswell.

      And now we also have GTA: Chinatown Wars, Final Fantasy 1 & 2, Mirror's Edge, Assassins Creed II, Settlers, Simon the Sorceror 1 & 2, Monkey Island Remake, Beneath a Steel Sky... some high quality games from well known developers.

    4. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Thanks to everyone who answered...I already have a Game Gear, GBA, DS, and a PSP, was just curious if the Touch was worth adding to the portable gaming collection. Sounds like it isn't.

      Thanks again, all!

    5. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      No. Very few iPhone games are any good -- some puzzlers are OK, Galcon is addicting, but apart from that almost none of the action games are worth playing at all. The touchscreen UI is awful for gaming, as is the motion sensing stuff.

      I have a jailbroken device with the codesigning disabled, and I know how to use Google, so I've played almost everything worth trying. Most of it is crap.

      Big name EA type games are almost all universally terrible, with bad load times, OK graphics, and untested gameplay. Some of the indie games are decent, but not worth plunking down hundreds of dollars for hardware on.

      Just get a DS and an R4.

      I completely agree. Galcon is the best thing I've seen in my Touch, and it's a 30 second timewaster game. There are probably about a dozen decent to good games on the iPhone/Touch, but none of them are worth buying the hardware. If you want it for the phone features, or as an mp3 player, then the games are a nice bonus. There's nothing particularly special here, though.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    6. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by igadget78 · · Score: 1

      These seems like as good a time as any to ask...is the iPod Touch worth buying just for games available on the platform? It seems like there are a ton of cool games out there for it, but I don't really want to plunk down the cash if it isn't worth it from a gaming point of view...

      Opinions?

      It's a great buy if you win one in a contest like me.

      I would love to actually write games for it but don't want to go buy a Mac. Still working on getting my VM OS X image up and running.

    7. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      is the iPod Touch worth buying just for games available on the platform?

      I wouldn't say it's worth buying as a gaming platform alone, but it is definitely an added incentive. In my opinion, an iPod Touch is worth buying since it's a music player, web browser, email client, address book, calendar, calculator, note pad, photo album AND you can play lots of cool games. I've sold my DS since I got my iPod touch, because several of the games I owned on the DS are available on the iPod Touch for a fraction of the price. For instance, there's Civilization Revolution for $6.99 or Puzzle Quest for $4.99 (Warning: Links launch iTunes). Both of these are a fraction of the cost of the DS versions, and the graphics are as good, if not better, and the game play is about the same, though you don't get multi-player with Civ Rev or the game of the week. I also like not having to carry around game cards, so that's an added bonus.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      If you want it for the phone features, or as an mp3 player, then the games are a nice bonus. There's nothing particularly special here, though.

      Agreed. I mostly use mine as a PDA. Web browser, portable video, music player, and Japanese dictionary. I'll play bejeweled or some other puzzle game if I get bored, but mostly, the games really aren't worth it.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    9. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by brkello · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I enjoy my iPod touch for gaming. The only drawback is it has very very poor battery life. Other than that, I have found a lot of fun games to play on it. Catan and GeoDefense are good for hours and hours of fun alone.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    10. Re:Question for anyone with an iPod Touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have a jailbroken device with the codesigning disabled, and I know how to use Google, so I've played almost everything worth trying. Most of it is crap.

      Translation: I pirate all of my games because I'm too cheap to spend $3 to try them.

  7. Gonna have to get an IPhone by Hawkeye477 · · Score: 1

    After all these years I still think the original Final Fantasy is still my favorite video game of all time. Two Fighters, a Black Mage and a White Mage.

    --
    My Web Site - www.ocean-liners.com
    1. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by Pojut · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just took a quick peek at your website. Dude! SO awesome! I don't have time to go in-depth at the moment, but I am definitely going to spend some time on there this evening. Kudos for keeping the late-90's style layout, I tried doing it on my site for a while but it just wasn't working for my requirements.

    2. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I prefer to replace one of the fighters with a blackbelt. Not as powerful at the low levels, but he gets some incredible damage later in the game.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Who is Anerd and why are you living with them?

      You some sort of pervert?!

      =)

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    4. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by Pojut · · Score: 1

      The name of the site is a reference to us both...myself and my lady friend, aka the future Mrs. Lady Friend :-)

    5. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Plus they're *way* cheaper to outfit.

      Plus Fighters turn into Warriors. Black Belts turn into Ninjas. Aw yeah.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by Vector7 · · Score: 1

      No, Black Belts turn into Masters. Thieves turn into Ninjas.

    7. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Oh right, dang.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by rcuhljr · · Score: 1

      Surely I'm not the only one wielding the 4 monk party of doom? I mean sure the first 10-15 levels are the most painful thing I've ever done; Once you get healing items and start getting 2+ attacks your party becomes a lawnmower of death.

    9. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I was always partial to three black mages and one white mage.

      It's tough at first, but holy crap...later on in the game? Whoa.

    10. Re:Gonna have to get an IPhone by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Surely I'm not the only one wielding the 4 monk party of doom? I mean sure the first 10-15 levels are the most painful thing I've ever done; Once you get healing items and start getting 2+ attacks your party becomes a lawnmower of death.

      I tried that one once. I actually had to stop playing shortly after Elfland.

      Killing Astos in one round (then Lich in 1 hit) just sort of sucked all the sport out of it...

  8. Epidemic by drummerboybac · · Score: 2, Funny

    This will surely cause an epidemic of people's legs falling asleep as they have a much more in depth game to play on the toilet at work.

  9. Matt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares I have it on my palm pre using Visual boy

  10. NESoid by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "So how long till it makes its way to Droid - if ever at all?"

    I assume you mean aside from playing it through NESoid? I'm currently in the middle of a game of Nobunaga's Ambition on my Nexus One. (I might have started up a game of FF1 instead, except i was already playing that on the Wii Virtual Console =) Even if you want to be entirely ethical (since you apparently don't already have an old copy lying around) i personally wouldn't feel any qualms about buying a copy for some other system (even an old used copy) and then d/ling the rom.

    "I personally never played any of the FF series, only because I hadn't heard of it until like 7 or 8 came out, and I thought I'd have a lot of backstory to catch up with (though people have reassured me that I really don't)."

    I wouldn't suggest playing FF1 for the first time now unless you're already very familiar with how clunky those old NES games could get. FF1, along with Dragon Quest 1, were both exploring how to do RPGs on the console format, and there's a lot of UI issues that got resolved in later versions. (In particular, having to buy each item one at a time, no descriptions for any items, no way to view stats without equipping an item and switching to the status screen.) And even aside from the difficulties the UI imposes it's probably the most challenging game in the FF series. (It's hard to say if the fact that attacks targeted on enemies that die before that character's turn don't get re-targeted to another enemy is a UI bug or just an unneeded increase to the difficulty, but in either case they got rid of it in later games.)

    I still think it's a great game despite all that, but i admit that i come pre-equipped with a pair of rose-tinted glasses which you would be lacking :)

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:NESoid by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, NESoid and SNESoid are awesome, but I wouldn't mind if they released these updated versions to run natively in Android as well.

  11. Great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haven't we seen final fantasy 1/2 on pretty much every platform ever? I'm fine with remakes in general, but I think that Square is milking FF1 for what is by current standards, a pretty bad game.

    Don't get me wrong though. I'd love to see other nes era games up on the iPhone.

    1. Re:Great, but... by grikdog · · Score: 1

      >>...I think that Square is milking FF1 for what is by current standards, a pretty bad game...

      Bah! Current standards have fallen like dominoes in their own muck, thanks to the Great Disney Dumbdown of 1955 (thank you, Annette Funicello!) FF1 is just as droll as ever, especially the Dance Academy about 50 levels down in the deepest dungeon in the known universe.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    2. Re:Great, but... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with remakes in general, but I think that Square is milking FF1 for what is by current standards, a pretty bad game.

      No. I don't care if they want to port FF 1/2 to a goddamn roll of toilet paper, as long as it stops them from making any more godsforsaken FF VII spinoffs and Acid-Trippy Kingdom Hearts games (NB: the first one was great, if cutesy.)

  12. Am I the only one that saves their games? by novakom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now look, I understand that Square Enix republishing games for new platforms is both financially savvy and also a boon for those of us that may have lost our old games, but really? FF1 has been published for no less than 3 platforms already (NES, GBA, PS-nevermind emulators), and I still have copies 2 of them (NES and GBA, though to be fair the GBA version was to get the first official US version of FF2).

    I have nothing against exploiting existing intellectual property if it'll make you money, especially when it'll make people happy, but you'd think-at least on a place like slashdot-that there would be a significant percentage of people that boxes up their old games the same way "normal" people box up old pictures and such (like me). If you do that, and you have the urge, then you don't have to pay for the new version. Of course, then you have cases like Chrono Trigger for the DS which has a new ending; of course you have to give in then. (That said, I still have my original SNES CT cartridge in my closet.)

    1. Re:Am I the only one that saves their games? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I still have the NES cartridge and a working NES (though without fixing the connector issue by one of various means it's a pain in the ass to use and thus it sits collecting dust). Not everyone who played FF on the NES can say that. I don't have a GBA or a PS, and the later is probably less likely to still work than most people's NES (the curse of optical drives).

      Then again I don't have an iPhone either.

      But if I did, would I be more likely to play FF on it than to bust out the NES? Yeah. Would I pay for some version of FF that was portable, were I to have a portable gaming device? Yeah. So... it makes sense to me at least, even if there are a lot of people who don't need it.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Am I the only one that saves their games? by WilyCoder · · Score: 2, Funny

      I feel sorry for you, lugging that NES around on mass transit. I bet you piss off your fellow passengers with that generator as well.

    3. Re:Am I the only one that saves their games? by drummerboybac · · Score: 1

      Its actually on both PSP and PS1, as well as on the Wii virtual console so make that 4 or 5 platforms before the iphone, depending on how you view the virtual console.

    4. Re:Am I the only one that saves their games? by DrScotsman · · Score: 1

      I still have copies 2 of them (NES and GBA, though to be fair the GBA version was to get the first official US version of FF2).

      First official US relese of FF2? Origins for PS1?

  13. I've had them on my Droid for months! by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

    Boy Apple is behind the times. I've had them on my Droid for months.

    1. Re:I've had them on my Droid for months! by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      what emulator are you using? i have a Droid, but have not gotten around to researching them yet...

    2. Re:I've had them on my Droid for months! by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      NESoid, got the ROMs via sneakernet.

  14. That IS Cecil by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    The dude at the top IS Cecil. It's him after becoming the Holy Knight. That is in fact Final Fantasy IV, which as you've already said was FF2 in the US.

    1. Re:That IS Cecil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. It's Firion (Frionel). In fact, the screenshot says as much. He's the main character of Final Fantasy 2.

    2. Re:That IS Cecil by HunterZ · · Score: 1

      Huh? That facebook/chillze picture clearly shows the characters from FF2j.

      --
      Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
    3. Re:That IS Cecil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dude at the top IS Cecil. It's him after becoming the Holy Knight. That is in fact Final Fantasy IV, which as you've already said was FF2 in the US.

      "The graphics and UI have been modified to look and run better on the touchscreen devices" That is not Cecil, just a graphically altered Frioniel.

      http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/file/563414/10175 - FFII for NES walkthrough. Wild rose is what the princess says the password is near the beginning of the game. The main characters are Frioniel, Maria and Guy. The names of the party members in the screen shot are Firion, Maria, Guy and Ricard. Richard is a Dragoon that comes to help you late in the game.

      http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/file/522596/21617 - "FFII" for SNES, what was FFIV in Japan walkthrough. Search through this or any other walkthrough. No mention of wild rose at all, but all the Cecil you want.

      They are releasing FFI which we all agree is FFI and the original FFII as it was named in Japan.

    4. Re:That IS Cecil by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      Oh... Well, he looked like Cecil to me too. I guess I didn't recognize them since I didn't play FF2j for more than 20 minutes (it was before there were ready translations.)

    5. Re:That IS Cecil by DrScotsman · · Score: 1

      Did you not notice the lack of space for a 5th character in the party in the screenshot, implying there's no way it could be FFIV?

  15. After the Final Fantasy Games on the DS and Wii... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    After playing the Final Fantasy Games on the DS and Wii and after replaying the originals in emulation, I've found that even though I have pleasant memories of those games from my childhood, everything in that franchise before FFVII -- with the notable exception of Final Fantasy Tactics -- is very very VERY (and did I say "very") boring and usually annoying.

    So, this time, I think I'll just pass.

    (Please don't kill me for saying that.)

  16. This is not a repeat of ... by LSU_ADT_Geek · · Score: 3, Informative
    • 1987 - Final Fantasy 1 (NES)
    • 1988 - Final Fantasy 2 (NES)
    • 1989 - Final Fantasy 1 (MSX2)
    • 2000 - Final Fantasy 1 (WSC)
    • 2001 - Final Fantasy 2 (WSC)
    • 2004 - Final Fantasy 1 + 2 (GBA)
    • 2007 - Final Fantasy 1 (PSP)
    • 2007 - Final Fantasy 2 (PSP)

    The sad part is that I have been alive for all of these and have purchased over 50% of them!

    Source: Final Fantasy Release Info

    1. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      The GBA version is the best in my opinion!

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the WonderSwan Color version was better... better sound and a better screen (at least on the WonderSwan Crystal).

    3. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the Wii Virtual Console (2009) for FF1

    4. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Wonder What??? Swan What???

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    5. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by bziman · · Score: 1

      How is that sad? When someone says Final Fantasy, I can only assume they mean the original NES version from 1987, which I bought then, and still play now. I'm afraid I never upgraded to any of these newer fancy-pants systems. I miss the class NES games, and I wish they'd make new games with new stories with the original engine and style of game play. Newer games are too busy and their graphics just give me a headache.

    6. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by aaaantoine · · Score: 2, Informative

      You missed "Final Fantasy Origins", released on the PlayStation in 2003.

    7. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wonder What??? Swan What???

      I wonder why it has so few pixels

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:This is not a repeat of ... by Eil · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      • 2002 - Final Fantasy 1 + 2 (PSX)
      • 2009 - Final Fantasy 1 + 2 (Wii)
  17. Re:After the Final Fantasy Games on the DS and Wii by Pojut · · Score: 1

    I'm going to chaulk this up to either your age or your preference for a greater emphasis on technology over fantasy.

    I don't think I've ever heard the earlier Final Fantasies (ESPECIALLY Final Fantasy VI) described as "boring and annoying".

  18. Just what I needed! by Lookin4Trouble · · Score: 1
    Yet another port of a game I've already purchased 3 times! And for a system I don't own/can't afford! And the greatest foreseeable benefit? Now I can fat-finger my way to accidentally using my last megalixir instead of the Hi-Potion 2 items up in the item list! The joy!

    that said, I'll probably still end up buying this version, too :(

    1. Re:Just what I needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this version, too

      this makes me sad. we purchase a license to play the game on one platform, until the physical media is lost or broken. then we have to buy it again.

  19. Woohoo! by garg0yle · · Score: 1

    We can party like it's 1987! Everyone get out their pastel clothes!

    --
    Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
  20. Too late by dandart · · Score: 0

    Ermm, FF 1&2 have been available for iPhone for ages. Through NES, SNES, GBA, etc emulators.

  21. Re:After the Final Fantasy Games on the DS and Wii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must not get out much.

  22. Re:After the Final Fantasy Games on the DS and Wii by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I replayed FF in college, and while it's still a fun game, there definitely are a lot of old RPG characteristics that would qualify as "boring and annoying". The amount of walking in circles fighting random encounters for exp and gold is way beyond what it is in later games in the series. There's only a couple times in IV or VI that I ever (felt I) needed to "grind". That's most of the game in FFI, just like it is in most computer RPGs of that era*. Then there's the annoying interface. Need 99 health potions for the final dungeon? Have fun buying them all one at a time! And then again!

    Most of the annoyance was gone by the time of the SNES games, which were much more polished and match later games much more closely. My guess would be they never played VI.

    I think you are the only one who cares about the tech vs magic balance so much. ;) Both were present to varying degrees in all the games.

    * Now recreated in MMOs. Ah, progress!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  23. Re:After the Final Fantasy Games on the DS and Wii by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    I remember loving Destiny of an Emporer on NES 1, but played it in emulation a while back, and couldn't for the life of me remember what the attraction could have been.

    --
    ...
  24. Re:After the Final Fantasy Games on the DS and Wii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    final Fantasy IS boring and annoying. You take 3 steps. Ooo, you've been attacked. 3 imps. Fight them off. 3 more steps. 3 wolves! Fight them, well, now you're pretty beat up. Go back to town, heal up and try again.

  25. In the mean time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Nokia N900 has emulators to let you play these games right now. No hacks required.

  26. Parent is lying, the figure includes ipods by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    As of Dec 2009 the iPhone has had 78 million sales, and this number does not include millions of iPod Touch out there.

    Er, yes it does. If you RTFA: Apple (AAPL) will have sold nearly 78 million iPhones and iPod touches worldwide.

    On top of that, wow, you're comparing all of Apple's phones in total, to a single Motorola phone (their RAZR alone sold 110 million!) Motorola have far more of a market share than Apple. Or if you're looking at it from a platform point of view, you need to compare to all Android phones.

    Anyhow, Nokia shipped 100 million Symbian phones by 2006, before the first Iphone was even released ( http://www.thesmartpda.com/50226711/six_years_of_symbian_produces_100_models_and_100_million_shipments.php ), and by early 2009, they had sold 250 million Symbian phones ( http://news.softpedia.com/news/Symbian-Foundation-Adds-New-Member-Nuance-117209.shtml ).

    The Iphone is a niche player (as is Android too currently, in fact). That's a fact. Even if we did add in the Ipod Touch numbers, which doesn't really improve matters, by that argument we should now throw in netbooks, since the market is now "handheld devices" not "phones", and there's a big market of Windows netbooks (of the order of tens of millions).

    Would you make a program for 1% of the platforms, or 99%?

    Are you seriously suggesting that Droid and Iphones are the only two phones in existence, and that Apple have 99% of the market? You need to step out of your RDF and check out some actual market data.

    but when you see everyone and their 1 yr old baby with an iPhone

    I don't see everyone, or many at all, with an Iphone. So there's one person with an Iphone, according to your link - wow! Now show me some actual market figures.