FF4 is the definitive Final Fantasy...It has the most endearing characters, and memorable moments in all of gaming. I have never heard it said by anybody else, but I also think the music in the game surpasses even that of FF6 (granted, there were less tunes, but they were all grandiose).

There is not enough I could say about how perfect of a game FF4 is (some of the dialogue was a bit cheesy, and the quest was just a touch on the short side--but these complaints are almost too minor to even mention). Cecil and Kain are definitely two of my favorite characters in the series, and who can forget Golbez.

It set the standard for all RPGs that followed it to this day, and it is a standard that has rarely been met, if at all...

I have not yet played the "Chronicles" edition, but I look forward to it...I would have loved to have seen it get a full-on Mario All-Stars type of upgrade, as it is the most deserving in the series to receive such, but I at least hope the opening/closing CG offers something worthwhile...

Chrono Trigger had some neat art and visual effects, and a few cool new concepts, but overall, the characters were fairly one-dimensional and forgettable, and the music was mostly bland...

Paul G.

Final Fantasy 2, on the other hand doesn't sit right with me(and yes, I do have the original SNES copy).The characters (save Kain) are just your average mages and knights and the story is the same tale of good vs. evil that's been told for the past 2000 years (or longer). CT managed to draw me in with it's pretty graphics, interesting and some what original story, and it's charm due to a diverse set of charcters.Plus CT has the whole Sci fi and fantasy setting going on at the same time, which please just about evry rpg player.Why play this when you can play Final Fantasy 3?

In the end, CT manages to best FF2 on just about all counts.Not that I dislike FF2, but there are so many better games out there, it really just can't compare to gems like Luifa 2, Final Fantasy 3, or Chrono Trigger.

Some people call me someone.

Crono Trigger is a great title, but the new FF4 translation has grabbed me from day one. It is so much better than the chop job done to FF2, and makes FF4 arguably the best title in the Cronicals. I love to see the characters react to certian situations and Golbez comes off as a much deadlier villian.(although he's still no Kefka) I've also gotten my head handed to me by some monsters I considered wimps, as they seem to hit harder and attack faster. Twin didn't cast as fast as I was used to it doing, so it crimped my style abit. :) It's FF4 how it was intended to be and I love it.

Shadowcat
(who's probably gonna get clobered by Barahmut again)

Ironically enough, Chrono Trigger's braindead battle system is its sole crutch. Most, if not all, of the game's most useful moves could clear the screen of enemies for less than 5 MP. But as a sort of compliment to FFIV, exploring the world and all its details was so fun the weak battles didn't matter.

If FFIV is to a Shakespearean play as CT is to a light-hearted sci-fi novel, fine. I know which one if more likely to read by choice.

SonicPanda

achilleszero

I have a great deal of respect for several movie critics. Indeed, their job is very cool: watch movies and tell people what to think about them. Some critics have achieved national recognition (e.g. Roger Ebert) and some reach the few college students that bother to pick up the school newspaper. Whatever their level of influence and respect, Elvis Mitchell of the New York Times included, there are still instances when they don't have a clue. Elvis Mitchell's NPR review of "Final Fantasy" (and indeed most of the critical response) is one of those times.

There is a key flaw in almost all published critical reviews of this movie: that it's based on a video game. Now I may be missing something, but IT'S NOT. The Sakaguchi/Square story style is there, there are a few references to the games, and there is, of course, the title, but ultimately, this is a completely standalone and unrelated project. "Tomb Raider" is very close to the game: Lara Croft goes treasure hunting. "Mortal Kombat" was a tournament of mortal combat. Two plumbers rescued the princess in "Super Mario Brothers". All these games are video game movies. Now, blame it on Square for trying to capitalize on their existing franchise and confusing the critics and non-game-playing viewers, but that's actually where the crux of my argument is: I expect my reviewers to do some research. When Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" came out last summer, it was lambasted for being "revisionist history" in regard to slaves, and inaccurate on a number of other Revolutionary War aspects. And there were facts to back those critiques up. The reviewers may not have had to research hard, but they did have the evidence supporting their arguments.

When it comes to video games, however, reviewers never do their research. The fact that Mr. Mitchell starts his commentary talking in a silly robotic voice is immediately indicative that he has no idea what a Final Fantasy game is like. His critique of video game plots as being unsubstantial in world terms is true, but to say there isn't enough plot to make a movie out of is just wrong. His critique of the plot of the movie, standalone, is fine: I don't agree but that is his job, to give his opinion. This good grace doesn't last however, as he shows his true ignorance once again by referring to "going to the next level" (stage, not experience points). His entire spiel about video games and their interactivity doesn't work because IT'S NOT a video game movie.

I'm giving Ebert double kudos for ending his video game commentary at "named after a famous series of video games". Most critics fell into the laziness trap on this movie by writing it off as the next Street Fighter. They didn't bother to figure out what the movie was really about, and instead resorted to being cute and "clever" in their commentary about the world of video games. And for that, I'm disappointed.

- MeekayD

Graphics:
Well, this one isn't really fair, is it? One might be able to make an argument about the graphics of FF6 versus Chrono Trigger (well not really, Chrono Trigger still wins), but FFIV just came out too early to compete with Chrono Trigger graphics wise. The character sprites are larger and animated better, the backgrounds are jaw-dropping and look hand-painted, and say what you want about Toriyama using one design for all his characters, but they are still very appealing. FFIV had some beautiful scenery too but it was few and far between compared Chrono Trigger's.

Music:
Technical quality aside, I'd have to say Mitsuda has a slight lead over Uematsu in this category. While Chrono Trigger may not have such an instantly recognizable theme as the "Final Fantasy Prelude", Mitsuda creates some brilliant melodies, especially the beautiful ending theme. Mitsuda knows how to create very minimalistic tracks, such as a simple flute playing against the background of running water, jazzy tracks like the Geno Dome music, etc. This is not to say that Uematsu can't do this, it's just that I feel Mitsuda does it better. This, however, is a highly subjective category, so I'll have to take the easy way out and say that it is only my preference that leads me to believe that Chrono Trigger has better music.

Story:
Good luck with anybody competently arguing for a game in this category, including me. Both games have epic storylines, but in the long run, I'd have to say Chrono Trigger's "beat the alien to save the world" premise beats FFIV's "collect the crystals to save the world" premise. The thing that strikes me most about Chrono Trigger is that the characters are not in immediate danger; They are forced only by their consciences to deal with such a dangerous task. They could have easily gone home and not worried about a planetary crisis a thousand years after they would have died. Chrono Trigger, I believe, also has more fleshed out characters. No doubt Cecil and Rydia are developed well enough for us to be able to actually sympathize with their problems, but I don't think they're in the same league with Magus's dark and mysterious past, or the fact that Chrono's a mute (ok, that's not much of a tragic problem). Many of the story elements in Chrono Trigger are rather subtle compared to FFIV. Racism and segregation are frequently explored (Mystics vs. Humans, Reptites vs. Humans, Enlightened Ones vs. Earthbound Ones) as well as environmental issues (Fiona's plans for the forest), among others. Don't get me wrong, Cecil's journey of redemption from his past is quite well done. I just prefer the engrossing experience of the world that Chrono Trigger offers.

I wish I could write a conclusion, but this is already too long, so I'll just say that Chrono Trigger is the better of the two games for the reasons I've outlined above. Then again, I'm so biased I believe that Chrono Trigger is better than FF6 as well. Now THERE'S a showdown for ya.

- Panadero, Chrono Guru at large

Christoph, screaming, "Chrono Trigger rules all!" and running away

I've stumbled upon a problem. Yeah, it involves the FF movie. A lot of people who see this movie (surprisingly, more people than I thought) say "Well, I don't know anything about the game" (Indicating they know it's a game name, but don't know it's a series) and ask me, as a well-known gamer (to them anyway, not to the world)

"So what's Final Fantasy like?"

Now, how am I supposed to compress an entire series into a blurb their short attention span can handle? (Short attention span being "They aren't as interested in FF as you are, make it concise.")

How would you describe the Final Fantasy series - or your favorite game in the series - to a nongamer? Plot as well as gameplay mechanics and the like are all fair game.

=====
Peter