For some, Chrono Cross is a classic PlayStation-era RPG, and it's nice to see it being revived all these years later. While we wouldn't say that it's remembered anywhere near as fondly as Final Fantasy VII through IX, or its predecessor, the legendary Chrono Trigger, it's still a title steeped in PS1 charm — from its carefully crafted prerendered backgrounds to its striking soundtrack.
And so here we are with Chrono Cross: The Radical Dreamers Edition, a remaster that gives us the game at a higher resolution, complete with better character models, sharper menus, and an enhanced — but thankfully not rearranged — musical score. At a glance, Square Enix has done a decent job; it's retained that aforementioned PS1 charm while also scaling things up for larger displays, without turning the 35-hour adventure into a blurred mess. But once you actually start playing, you quickly realise how badly optimised the game is — whether it's running on PS4 or PS5 through backwards compatibility.
That's right, Square Enix has somehow managed to destroy Chrono Cross' frame rate on modern hardware. The whole thing's supposed to run at a locked 30 frames-per-second — why wouldn't it? — but the frames fluctuate between what feels like about 10 and 25fps constantly. You can barely walk across the screen without the frame rate tanking to an embarrassing extent — and it gets even worse in battle.
Indeed, these performance dips can lead to noticeable input delay during combat, which is just beyond a joke when you consider how slow-paced the turn based system is to begin with. Needless to say, the remaster's frame rate problems come dangerously close to outright wrecking the experience — although whole chunks of Chrono Cross haven't aged all that well anyway.
As you'd probably expect of a PS1 RPG with fixed camera angles, the controls are rather wonky. At times, lining your character up to interact with environmental details or talk to NPCs can be an exercise in frustration. What's worse, in certain locations, we found that our movement bugged out completely — to the point where we couldn't even walk in straight lines. It's a real shame that this kind of stuff wasn't touched up or fixed for the remaster.
Chrono Cross does tell a fairly interesting story, though. It's an ambitious tale, dealing in alternate realities, and boasting a huge cast of mostly fun characters. Aside from a handful of filler episodes — for lack of a better description — the plot is well paced, and as is typical of PS1 JRPGs, the writing is sharp and straight to the point.
Having said all that, proceedings can get a little confusing later on, when you're jumping between timelines in order to progress. Keeping up with your current objectives during these sections can be difficult as you attempt to remember which characters you need to chat with and which places must be visited. Chrono Cross lacks the copious quality of life improvements that have transformed the genre over the last two decades — and it's something that's painfully obvious here in 2022. Again, this was ambitious design in the 90s, but nothing's been done to bring it up to speed.
Now look, we didn't expect this remaster to reinvent Chrono Cross for a modern audience, but there's just no getting away from the fact that the game's a slog every now and then. Take the elements system, for example. It's similar to Final Fantasy VII's materia, in that party members can be equipped with magic spells and abilities of your choosing — except the elements menu is seriously awkward to navigate, and keeping track of equipped elements is a bit of a nightmare.
Chrono Cross loves its convoluted mechanics — a trait that's encapsulated by its divisive combat system. For what it's worth, we don't think combat is anywhere near as bad as some critics have made it out to be over the years, but it is a system that could lose one or two mechanics and arguably be better for it. Basically, you use standard attacks to build up energy, which can then be spent on unleashing elements. Great, fantastic, that works fine. But then your standard attacks have percent chances to hit, and using them drains your stamina, which is refilled to varying degrees as turns pass.
Because of the way in which the mechanics influence each other, battles can become tediously drawn out. Missing a normal attack purely by chance can set you back a turn or two — or three if you take a hit in between, forcing you to heal instead of dishing out all of the damage that you've been saving up for. There is an enjoyable level of strategy to Chrono Cross, but it's buried deeper than it needs to be — trapped behind repetitive design that grows tired long before the credits roll.
Fortunately, the remaster does come with the ability to speed the whole game up, which can be a godsend when you're having to grind through regular fights (even though it does nothing to alleviate the frame rate issues). You can also activate 'battle boost' at any time, which essentially makes your party invincible. A welcome option if you're only here for the nostalgia.
Oh, and The Radical Dreamers Edition comes with — would you believe it — Radical Dreamers. This is a text-based title that was never released outside of Japan, and it sort of ties Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger together. It's a thoughtful extra, and you can check it out at any time through the remaster's main menu.
Conclusion
Parts of Chrono Cross really haven't aged well, but it's still a charming, characterful JRPG that evokes feelings of the genre's golden age on PS1. It's a game that deserves better than The Radical Dreamers Edition, which, at least at launch, is a dreadfully poor remaster. Crippled by frame rate issues, it beggars belief that a title from 1999 could run this badly on modern hardware. Unless you're desperate for the nostalgia, we strongly recommend waiting to see whether Square Enix releases a patch to improve the package on PS4 and PS5 before buying.
Comments 113
If anyone's got any questions, let me know and I'll try to answer them.
And yes, I'm still in shock that a PS1 game runs this badly on PS5/PS4. No sign of a day one patch, either. Insane.
Square Enix really just can’t help ballsing things up. Gutted.
Squeenix really looks like they're having a pretty rough time (although I'm sure FFXIV is doing well enough that they're fine overall).
I liked Stranger of Paradise but I'm just waiting for the inevitable declaration of "disappointing sales" on that one as well.
I’ve never seen a headline that so immediately broke my heart
Square Enix is the worst.
Ouch. That stings. I always thought CC dumped all over the perfection that was CT from the start, but it was still a good game in its own right. Not anymore, apparently.
@ShogunRok "If anyone's got any questions, let me know and I'll try to answer them."
When is Sony buying Square-Enix?
I kid, I Kid, I don't actually want more buyouts, and I know games like Chrono would be permanently buried if that happened, anyway... But I couldn't resist after this....
@Wolfie_Pie They are, yes. R3 is your battle boost and L3 is...disable encounters, I think.
@NEStalgia I'm not even sure Sony could solidify Square Enix at this point!
Right now, I don't think there's a more baffling publisher on the planet than Square Enix. If it's not the blatant mismanagement of its biggest properties (Final Fantasy is the most mismanaged franchise in modern gaming, in my opinion), it's crazy sales expectations for genuinely good games (Guardians of the Galaxy), or ridiculous fumbles like this remaster.
What on earth are they doing?
Why would you expect a PS1 game to be completely alter how it works? It's a PS1 game, they can't just be updated without basically remaking it, which this isn't. The game looks better than it ever has and the way they've used background filters vs. just upscaling the original backgrounds to a pixel mess is very nice. You seem to expect way too much for a REMASTER of again a PS1 title. This site has been really nasty toward the game since it was first announced anyway. I expected nothing less from you.
Also, complaining they haven't completely revamped the battle system on the remaster is a joke point since why would they? And I am checking the marketing materials and NOWHERE did they promise a locked 60 FPS.
@ShogunRok Final Fantasy is doing absolutely fantastic. FF7 Remake received critical acclaim and sales. FFXIV is one of the biggest MMOs and a huge success for SE and they have XVI which is being produced by the team behind the successful 14.
Sounds like the Grandia remasters on Switch. Glitchy and semi-broken.
@jmac1686 I'm just going to assume that you're trolling, in which case this is a great post.
@johncalmc Square Enix is the worst.
Konami: hold my beer!
Square is really killing it these days.
And by killing it, I mean themselves.
@jmac1686
Shocking frame rate issues
Combat has noticeable input delay
Convoluted menus and systems
Some tedious gameplay design
Fix points 1 and 2 - problems that simply shouldn't be there - and I would assume it's a 7/10, which is about right.
What I am more surprised is than Square missed the mark in a remaster. The company is one of the betters in the market in that aspect. I am in awe with the Kingdom Hearts collections to this day.
Gotta keep playing this game as a classic on the Vita then, I guess.
@ShogunRok I'll never understand the crazy sales expectations for virtually everything. Tomb Raider, Guardians, nearly everything they release not named FF. I'm still convinced it's some sort of numbers juggling/"creative accounting" and not actual sales expectation failures. It just doesn't make sense they could assume sales on everything that are completely unrealistic, they're not inexperienced at how everything works. There's something fishy to it. It was cute the first time with TR, but I don't buy that they still don't know their market by now.
It's a miracle they pay attention to old niche IP like this. They have such a treasure trove of it, and I don't think a newer "better managed" company would even acknowledge this old stuff. But the way they're doing it.....Does this even count?
Today on Square Enix's How to Trip While Doing a Layup Monthly.
@lolwhatno sub /sub in [ ] brackets.
For those in despair over the review the Metacritic is far more favourable currently sitting on 78 after 15 reviews.
Eurogamer gave it a "Recommended" and a couple of publications even gave it full marks!
40% - 100% may be the widest swing i've seen recently!
Christ Square Enix have really lost the plot recently haven't they. It's like they just don't care anymore.
I figured the framerate issues in the footage were Switch-exclusive, but apparently it runs poorly on everything!
I'll just stick with the PS1 version.
Square has always been so hit or miss with their remasters. Sometimes you will get an FFX/X-2 remaster that's practically everything you could ask for and then you can get this. Very strange.
@ShogunRok you saved me some money and without the physical release im totally fine with not getting it. FF7, FF9 didnt get one and with the old games in my possesion i dont see the need to get them.
@Korgon It's true, The Zodiac Age is probably one of the greatest remasters I've ever played. I guess the key difference is just the budget.
@themightyant A game from 1999 that has framerate issue and really bad ones makes it a joke. Come on put in some effort while asking these issues should not be present in such a old port on release.
@GamerDad66 You should think this would be a slam dunk with these old games.
The original game was never released in the uk so only way I can play it I'm sure a few patches will fix it
Sigh, there's so many PSX games in my collection. Why can't Sony just implement backwards compatibility? The PS3 is always hooked up, but dragging out the PSX & PS2 is a hassle...
@Flaming_Kaiser I agree. But subjectively I don't think it would bother me as much IF the game is still good. Many reviewers seem to feel the same.
This review pointed out other issues too. It wasn't just the framerate making it 4/10
I remember liking this. I also remember how it ends.
Replaying an entire jRPG story I still remember was never going to happen regardless. At least it has a budget price.
@freddquadros That's what's so shocking about the inconsistent quality of their remasters. The Kingdom Hearts remasters are mostly phenomenal experiences from a tech standpoint. Even the PC port of KH3 is shockingly good. Then they just completely drop the ball on what should be easier jobs like this. It's mind-boggling.
@jmac1686 FFS how can such a old game not run a solid 60FPS and have input delay. Streamline a few small things and clean up the menu's you have a classic. Now you have a crippled classic that a pity because it deserves more.
Sounds really good.
Is anyone really shocked at how poor Square Enix games (except the Dragon Quest series) have become over the past few years?
@themightyant Its just a pity because this deserves more. I rather have a lower resolution and a higher framerate (solid framerate), cleaned up menu's, no input delay.
My biggest issue is that they dont release physical ask a big price and the effort has only gone downhill since it became the new Square Enix.
If you look at FF10, FF12 and even the PSP release they had put in so much love and effort in that. I would have loved to see FF7 get the same treatment instead having to wait untill im dead to get a complete game. Im not saying its bad but i lost my excitement a long time ago with FF7R.
If they released Legend of Dragoon with updated character models, better resolution, fixed up backgrounds then i would be so happy to play it again.
«Missing a normal attack purely by chance can set you back a turn or two — or three if you take a hit in between, forcing you to heal»
ARE YOU SERIOUS ? YOU NEVER PLAYED A RPG OF YOUR LIFE ?!
Who are you to critic a RPG game ?
So can we clarify is this the original soundtrack just enhanced or is it rearranged? Your review makes it sound like its the original soundtrack yet last week Square said it wouldn't include the original.
@mucc
found from an another and better review of this game :
thanks to Cullen Black
«Eight new orchestrations were composed for this version, with some being brand new and some being new arrangements. The new music only exists on the main menu, and the ‘refined’ versions of the soundtrack Square Enix mentioned at announcement are just higher quality versions of the original tracks, not arrangements. In short, when playing Chrono Cross, it’ll sound as you remember it, with only some slight tweaks to noise compression or equalization.»
@jmac1686 Because they are retailing this game! If they are asking for your cash for a PS4 version, then you would expect it to be at least be playable, and this clearly sounds like it is not.
Have you played this version? Are you able to counter any of the points made in this review? Or are you just a squeenix apologist annoyed because their shabby commitment to quality is being called out again? If you genuinely value their game catalogue, you should be calling them out on it the most. These titles deserve a LOT more love than they are getting from the management team, who seem to see this as a quick cash grab.
They have some of the most beloved IP's in gaming, some great devs and a ton of cash. But they regularly make some pretty poor pieces of code, and that's especially disappointing when you know the game could be good (and was good) before they botched it.
@Micky-717 Awesome! Hopefully patches will sort out the frame rate issues, otherwise sounds like the CC I know and love.
Square is acting like they want to be bought by another company
Man what a disappoinment, how can SE can't even make a psone remaster right?
@ShogunRok framerate issues and input delays can be patched. If that happened, would that bump up the score? Or is there more glaring problems than that?
@mucc
It seems to be the original port of the PS1 games... so I have doubt there will be a patch for frame rates. That seems to be the original FPS of the game there was 20 years ago....
so if the game was created in 30 FPS... I doubt you can make better than that.
If I record something at 30 and I want 140 FPS.... I need to record everything an another time.... so we don't know what Square Enix have in 2022 about this game and what they have done to it.
So I think we have to play this HD port remake without better FPS.
Wow. Really didn't expect that. Very disappointing for fans.
@PhhhCough Without the remaster's issues I'd say Chrono Cross is about a 7/10, maybe even an 8 if you're really big on PS1 JRPGs. Some of its gameplay design hasn't aged well at all — a lot of the menus are poorly designed and the combat can be really tedious — but it's still a very charming and interesting RPG at its core.
Wow I was really looking forward to diving back into this classic. Square Enix needs to get itself
together.
@MidnightDragonDX I checked them briefly when I started playing, and most seemed fairly straightforward — a lot of story related Trophies. But I also think there are some really grindy ones. I'll doublecheck if I get the chance!
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be cross with this one.
Buh-dum tshh
@Flaming_Kaiser I agree it deserves better. But resolution will have nothing to do with it. This game is just an upscaled PS1 game and won't even make the PS4/5 sweat. The problem will be with porting the original code and as this is a budget remaster they didn't go back in and change the source code except adding a couple of very simple QoL features (turn off encounters etc.) Clearly something's needs fixing properly but they didn't do that. A shame.
Doesn't change the fact that every other reviewer so far thought this was better. This is the lowest review and other than one at 45 and one at 60 every one so far has rated it 70 or above.
Because this half effort will sell poorly, SE will assume that Chrono games don't sell well and will shelf Chrono Trigger yet again for another decade.
@ShogunRok just embarrassing when these framerates are easily achieved with the likes of Duckstation
@Micky-717 the original game was coded to run up to 60fps and it was only the hardware which prevented it from doing so
You can literally run this on a Series S today through emulation at near 4K and 60fps. This is just a very poor job by Square but after the dodgy FF ports I'm sadly not surprised
Removed - unconstructive feedback; user is banned
For fun I thought I'd try it on my PC (the PS1 version), rendered at 4K I hit a steady 125fps and was limited by the emulator hammering just one CPU core, with my GPU half asleep and the other 15 CPU cores twiddling their thumbs
For everyone complaining that bad design elements should be given a free pass because they were the same in the original, no they absolutely should not. It should definitely be noted when the game hasn't aged well, this review is by today's standards, not 1999. It would be disingenuous to let the review be clouded by nostalgia.
@WadeIsInsane Never said the battle system should be revised — all the review does is offer criticism of its mechanics, which I think are entirely fair here in 2022.
Review even says: "Now look, we didn't expect this remaster to reinvent Chrono Cross for a modern audience, but there's just no getting away from the fact that the game's a slog every now and then." Which it is, again, by today's standards.
Chrono Cross is a good JRPG overall — it's just that the remaster is a disgrace — and I feel like small parts of the review are being taken out of context here.
Will wait for price drop but this seems the lowest review out there it's averaging 77. Seems to be getting a lot of 7s.
Don't think with its problems it's a 9 or 10 game those reviews just seem from sites happy too get free game, but think it's better than a 4.
Also find it strange we have people agreeing with score and yet seen other reviews which they tell people too look at other reviews! The good old gamer double standard
big fan of the original but i knew what we were getting when the rumours were swirrling. i am baffled that people keep expecting mircacles from s-e even after they have proven to us time and again they are not interested in putting the work in to go above the bare minimum expectations.
unless "final fantasy" is in the title, we will not be getting big budget remakes of the classics, nor are we getting polished remasters. i see better work coming out of the fan community with regards to AI upscaling of old assets. we are better off waiting for a fan project than the work of a multi-million dollar corporation. that is the sad state of modern day s-e. temper expectations and you will be less disappointed going forward.
@ShogunRok Do you expect to cover it if the game’s technical issues are later fixed? This is still something I really want to play. But I’d rather place in the state that lives up to be original PS1 experience.
Battle boost? I guess other people would like that if you had a so called hard time with Dario or Miguel back then with Chrono Cross for original Playstation.
Thing is, that Dario wasnt that tough back then if you had the right spells and stuff then the fight be really easy anyway or whatever
@themightyant So its a cheap lazy cash in? Look im gonna be frank here. They just wanted to make cash with next to no effort ok no problem.
But as a massive company that had a lot of questionable games with even less respect for the people that buy their stuff im just calling it what it is.
A lazy port with no money put in to feed off fans that are nostaligic. He had some good points that could lower the which is no 10 to start with. An old game lacking polish and effort to Iron out the old issues.
It may not be a 4 but certainly not a 7 its still a bad port of a old game trying to cash in. Just leave these classics in the past or atleast give the HD ports of the Final Fantasy 1 through 6 atleast they got some love and way more worth the cash.
@jmac1686 I would atleast like them to see and try and not repackage it with a resolution update l, with issues and a FPS issues, input lag its just lazy.
New rule:
No avatar, no valid opinion.
@ShogunRok Wow a 4? Not that I would repurchase it, I still have the game discs and a PS1, but that is by far the worst review score I've seen. If it was Sammy, well, he an JRPG don't mx, but coming from you that's a serious problem.
Chrono Cross Reviews:
Siliconera- 10/10
GamersRD- 10/10
Shindig- 10/10
DigitallyDownloaded- 10/10
GodisaGeek- 9.5/10
CGMagazine- 9/10
Noisy Pixel- 9/10
Noisy Pixel- 8/10
Worth Playing- 8/10
Hardcore Gamer- 8/10
PlayStation Universe- 7.5/10
Destructoid- 6/10
Nintendo Life- 6/10
@kyleforrester87 If no avatar is no valid opinion (which is a valid opinion) I'm afraid to think what my avatar get's me over here? I'm going for ignored.😉
@NinjaSixx you know what you gotta do if you want that insult to carry any weight around here
@NinjaSixx might be more appropriate
@ShogunRok I do have a question actually: How is the framerate/performance compared to the game on PS1?
It seemed that this was going to be remastered in the same way that FF7/8/9 were remastered on PS4, and they all had hard-coded framerates that matched the PS1’s rate of performance. I don’t recall S-E ever advertising that Chrono Cross would be any different.
@NinjaSixx I’d love to be able to agree with you, but…
@WadeIsInsane I think it's the technical side of things. He said the framerate and other remaster specific issues weren't there it would be a 7/8 like you suggest.
@NinjaSixx eyyy welcome to the website! Good shout on that Tenchu remake, that’d be lit
@Ryall Yeah, if Square Enix releases a patch that fixes the technical issues we'll definitely report on it, and probably include a link to that article in this review.
@WadeIsInsane I get where you're coming from, but games don't exist in a vacuum. Some games age a lot better than others, and while I don't think Chrono Cross has outright bad systems, I do think some of them can be tedious (again, as the review says).
We can only review what's in front of us at the time of writing, not the game that released over 20 years ago. It's a different time with different standards, and while I do understand that you can't just clobber Chrono Cross for not being...I don't know, Persona 5 or another modern JRPG, you can still look at it and say "parts of this game don't quite work". Not necessarily because they're old, but because they're just not great systems — and they're even more noticeable now.
Hopefully that makes sense as to my perspective.
@dewgstrom Chrono Cross was 30fps on PS1 I believe, but I never played the original because it never released in Europe. I have played it through emulation, though.
But even regardless of how the original performed, the frame rate here is unforgivable in its current state. The remaster offers up to 60fps but the frames fluctuate so badly that it can actively damage gameplay — which is insane considering that it's a turn based RPG.
The bottom line is that there's no reason whatsoever why this game can't run at 60fps on hardware that's over 20 years more advanced than the console it originally released on. I can run Chrono Cross at a more consistent frame rate on my laptop!
@rjejr I know some people aren't that bothered by bad frame rates but... I don't know how you can play this game on PlayStation (I've heard it actually runs better on Switch!) and not be appalled by how badly it performs.
For the record, I think Chrono Cross is a good game. Like the review says, it's got that unmistakable PS1 charm, even though it's a bit rough. But this remaster just isn't on, and I don't think people — critics or fans — should be hand waving it.
@ShogunRok Well if it’s inconsistent that’s one thing, but there actually can be a TON of technical reasons why it can’t hit 60fps, and the other Square PS1 remasters point to the same underlying issue.
The PS1 hardware predates having the compute power to do really good bone-based character animation, so I’d suspect that in order to make it work when it came out, they just baked the animation frames into static states so that the PSX CPU didn’t have to handle those kind of calculations.
Modern consoles and CPUs can do animation with bone systems no problem, it’s been basically a solved problem since the PS2 generation, but it’s entirely likely that the PSX-era games’ animation data is missing most of the information that you’d need to make that kind of thing work.
Without bone data in the animations, then you have the giant technical hurdle of “how exactly do you fill in the between frames” when they were never made to do that in the first place. Do you just go straight from point XYZ to point ABC in between? No, that would just warp and skew the models and make them animate like an old Photoshop morph.
I think it’s still a valid criticism that they didn’t smooth out the animations, but we’re talking about a game published on a console that had no processing power to fill in the gaps and not enough memory storage for animation data that would never be used in game, and then porting the end result of that process to a new console as-is.
It’s a bigger problem than you’d think it is to solve at first, and honestly if the problem is what I think it is, this isn’t technically a performance issue at all, they’re just using the animation data that exists and presenting it to the player in a higher resolution than the PS1 did. That would also mean there’s zero chance of it getting patched, because there’s nothing to patch, it’s working as intended.
Kind of a bare bones approach to things I guess, but the work scope of doing it differently than that would be absolutely enormous compared to what they did to get it to work now.
It's a real shame they couldn't even just release a stable version of the game. I would have been perfectly fine with it still looking just ok if it ran with a smooth enough 60 FPS, especially since it's only $20, but I guess in the end you get what you pay for. They could have put some effort into it and charged $40 and people would have bought it no problem.
As much as I would have liked to experience this game for the first time, I'm not going to do it this way. If they'd ever patch it, which is 99.9% unlikely, I'd consider it. If I still had a PS1, I'd just play it on there. It'd be a better experience, and that's sad.
@ShogunRok Why not keep it a solid 30FPS its turnbased so its not that big of a issue. I agree with your review and its a pity they did such a poor job bringing back such a great game.
These games deserve more respect such a pity if you are not atleast going for a little extra just leave them in our memories.
Has a 77 on Metacritic and this review is the lowest by a full 3 points so I think I'll still get it.
Removed - harassment
"Divisive PS1 RPG"
damn a ps1 game with critic score of 94 and userscore of 8.8 considered a divisive 😂
This review doesn't do it justice to the game. I just can not believe in a rate of 4 out of 10 for a game that was always a masterpiece for me and many others. This is a PS1 port and some minor problems (most because of the oldstyle design) removed 60% of the grade? I can not agree with that.
Removed - unconstructive feedback
Square Enix YOU DONE F’D Up!
Sorry reviewer I can’t agree with some of your points here and they’re not really justifiable. This isn’t action based Mass Effect 1 from an Xbox 360 - they won’t change the battle mechanics and part of the difficulty in getting the field you wanted had chance factored into it.
Too much hyperbole, I’ll pass on your reviews from now on.
I had a feeling this would review terribly. I'll wait for the game to hit $20 New or cheaper.
@Victor_Meldrew Triangle Strategy is an awesome game. It's clear they messed this one up but I'll say something controversial, the Chrono series hasn't aged well, at all, period. It's all nostalgia, at this point.
@KidBoruto Its $20 at launch.
Will there likely to be a patch later on to address the major issues noted in the review?
@HeeHo $10 then, whatever 50% off is lol.
One of my favorite games of all time, I'm definitely picking this one up hoping for a patch within a week or two.
@ShogunRok @dewgstrom the PS1 original was coded for 60fps but due to the limitations of the PS1 hardware wouldn't get anywhere near it, this is why on emulators its very easy to hit 60fps with this game.
@Flaming_Kaiser it was already a 60fps game, just the PS1 itself couldn't achieve it. There is no reason why this shouldn't be a locked 60fps on modern hardware, in fact you can on the Series S through emulation and it easily maintains 60fps at 4K
Omg how could they mess this up
@Flaming_Kaiser I agree it's seemingly a less than perfect port of an old game that is dated by today's standards. We can agree on that I think.
"So its a cheap lazy cash in?"
Yes it's cheap. Yes they wanted to make a profit... EVERY business does if they don't want to fail.
"Lazy?" Honestly I hate that word to do with game development. Every project has a budget. Yes this is a lower budget remaster but there is nothing wrong with that as long as the price reflects it too, which it does. They aren't charging £70 for it but £16-17. That's not the same as lazy.
Should the frame rate and technical issues be better. Sure 100%.
Do I wish they were making a more full featured remaster or even a full remake. Yes personally, though many would hate that too and just want to be able to play the originals. But either way it wouldn't be £16 and there is likely a limited market for a £40 remaster or a £70 remake, this probably made the most business sense.
@carlos82 I did look this up and it actually looks pretty terrible at 60fps, so I think this is kind of questionable lol
Lots of hitching and unsynced animations mixed in with the stuff that gets smoothed out, and every video I’ve seen of it specifically calls out that it’s a hacked ISO to break the framerate cap. (Compare to something like Shadow Man, as a random example, that gets a solid framerate just from overclocking.)
It's interesting that Nintendo Life gave the game a modest like.
Maybe they're just used to crap performance on the Switch?
A video from Digital Foundry on this game and the ports would be hilarious.
@GamerDad66 I've come to that conclusion, poor performance on a Switch is regarded as okay.
Siliconera gave it 10/10!
@dewgstrom I'm not sure about that one, there are multiple sources of the ripped iso so a 30fps cap version would be out there and I can find mention of it being run up to 60fps from 2016 without a hack. I've played it for an hour or so and haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary in how it looks but granted that's still very early on.
Even if that was the case, there's still no reason why the developer couldn't fix it to be 60fps or cap it at a consistent 30
@themightyant I rather they charge a bit more and then make a halfbaked port do it right or just leave it. And somehow there are tons of old ports that run good im not expecting it to look perfect just good and running at a stable framerate. If not achievable do it at a 30FPS solid framerate. Its a business good to hear but there is no market for a €30/35 game? Well the people who buy probably are not the new generation no disrespect here its probably the older nostalgic group.
@eltomo Thats why 10/10 games are mostly nonsense
Okay, but really though, what on earth is going on at Square Enix right now? This is, like, their third or fourth failed game this year... and it's only April.
@B_Lindz true. forspoken is still on the way and i'm fairly certain we know how that is going to end up as well
@Porco Oh, come on, the way the Forespoken gal says, "I just moved sh** with my FREAKING MIND!" That doesn't blow your skirt up? Haha!!
I'm calling it now, PushSquare rating: A generous 6/10
I give this review a 4/10 as well.
Expected a remake, got a faithful recreation of the original. Acts like this is not what fans wanted. 😏
The game performs exactly like the ps1 version and it seems intentional.
This costs only 20 euros(dollars?), i will remind everyone. Incredible value per money.
@ShogunRok I know you have your reasons. And if you say it's bad it must be bad, b/c I played CC before CT and I really liked CC way more. PS1 JRPG are my happy place, and this was 1 of them. PS2 and Dreamcast as well but not really much since. Well XC is my favorite now but it took awhile.
Maybe Switch runs better b/c they took out all the lighting? Have you seen this Lego SW:SS comparison? I personally think the others are too dark, but the difference is obvious.
The same site that only gave Anno: Mutationem a 6.
@Nem big agreement. I've played 10 minutes of Radical Dreamers and my first playthrough of the original (as incomplete as it is) is so recent, enough to say: it feels like they're going for authenticity and I'm here for it.
I'll probably get this anyway. I assume they'll patch it at some point, and even if they don't, it's a turn-based RPG. Who needs frame rate?
It's also the only legit way to play this game in Europe, so there's that too.
@arra1213 lol the game is more than 20 years old, you can't go by metacritic. It absolutely was divisive at the time, different dev team, different battle system, wasn't a direct sequel, did characters from Trigger dirty...you're not going to pick up on any of that looking at a number on a screen.
@TedGundy lmao thats why trigger got a high score cuz only few reviewers that time 😂
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...