This cheap little cable is probably all you'd need but it looks like it'll only work on certain capable devices.  Or an even better choice.. just grab one of these in combination with the HD Box Pro and you'll be all set.

Amen!  Still one of my favorite rhythm game series to this day.  I used to be a GOD at those games.  I could breeze through Tengoku Mix on Mix mode with Pander without hardly breaking a sweat.  Not sure if my fingers are still as fast today though.

-Mike

I get my fix from emulators, because I missed out on most games from the SNES and PS1 generation. Sadly, I've yet to find Genesis or Saturn emulators that aren't difficult to get used to. The ZSNES is the best emulator I've ever come across. The best interface, best compatibility all over the board, and, in my opinion, the best catalog of games. Only game to have some issue was Mario RPG, and that was fixed literally with the push of a button. ePSXe is a decent PSX emulator, but it has issues. Like Lunar: SSSC is virtually non-playable unless you are really determined. Any dungeon with a fog effect becomes saturated. It's definitely a great emu, though. That's the only easy way for me to go back to the classics. I didn't have money when they came out, and I sure don't have enough to get the unreasonably overpriced copies off eBay now.

While Squaresoft's best games came out in the 16-Bit era, I think I liked them better in the PS1 era. So many different one/two-off series with potential. The Tobals, Bushido Blades, Parasite Eves, Einhander, Ehrgeiz, Brave Fencer Musashi (I know it had a sequel much later, but I heard it was awful), and just a much more experimental outlook. Hell, they even gave Chrono another shot. Now, they're sitting around throwing the same series at everyone, declaring blind victory.

Yeah, it was. I'll champion the original till the end of time but the sequel can rot for all I care. Personally, I look at it this way: the first game was made when before the company merged with enix and the second was made after. As black and white as it seems this explains how I feel about many of their titles/series.

Totally agree. While the releases in the 16bit era were classics and what many consider the company's golden age, the 32-bit era was just awesome - soundtrack wise as well - and came along at the peak of my game playing days.

Sigh.

I don't know why I even bother to respond, but I am getting so f---ing sick of hearing this.

The World Ends with You, The Last Remnant, Infinite Undiscovery, Sigma Harmonics.

Regardless of their quality, these are all COMPLETELY new IPs, yet everyone keeps acting as if all SQEX ever does is remake/rerelease/port old games.
It's BULLSHIT.

And you know what?
Dissidia, although its title implies it's a Final Fantasy game, is also a TOTALLY original new title, NOTHING like SQEX has ever done before, and, IMHO, pretty much the best game on PSP, as well as one of the best fighting games EVER.

I'll probably write a review on Dissidia here soon, cos I'm totally in love with it.

They still take way fewer chances, and with much lesser quality than the past. Granted, a large portion of my resentment for Square now sits with their constant sequels to the Final Fantasy, SaGa and Mana series while giving the Chrono one the shaft (barebones remakes don't count). But I've been really sick of their constant milking of Final Fantasy. Especially VII. Yeah, it's the fans. But if they listened to fans, there'd be more than two and-a-half Chrono games out there. I mean, they owe the franchise everything. But they can keep it to sequels and off-shoots (Mystic Quest, Tactics/Advance), and not whore out the series. Dissidia is a wonderful idea. But give VII a rest. Ehrgeiz already gave VII an unnecessary encore, but it was fine because it was right after 7 and it was a unique idea. We're 12 years after, and they're still making fanservice for FFVII junkies. So where's the FFVI stuff? That game was the pinnacle of the series for most, and all we're getting out of Square is "We'll make a remake someday." VII fans? They get "How about a movie chronicling the aftermath of the game? Furthermore, how about some cell phone minigames? Not enough? Vincent's own game. That's not all, here's a prequel to the first game! Oh, and we're remaking it HARDCORE."

If Square stops focusing on the same three series, and puts more effort into ones that are stagnating, I may be interested again. But as I said, I don't get a chance to play a lot of games, so many of their newer ones, I don't get an opportunity to check out. I do keep up with what they release, though. They don't take as many chances as they used to.

I'm gonna defend Square-Enix here for a minute desite my lagging interest in their current products.

As much as some will say the company's 32-bit output was awesome, some of those games have not aged well in my opinion - two great examples being Parasite Eve (why does Aya have to be so damn slow! It's one thing when she's in her dress at the beginning but after that there is no excuse. A run or dodge button would have done wonders here!) and Legend of Mana which was nowhere as fun as I remembered. That said, the soundtracks rule and were obviously part of the draw when they came out.

I have to agree with Amazingu, they have new IP's - wasn't there one called Blood of Bahamut in the works? - it's just that with the advance in technology there is simply less tolerance for misteps in execution these days - this goes for all companies, not just Square-Enix. Personally, I hate to see games like The Last Reminant fail, I'd rather see the remakes and spin-offs fall flat on their faces. A lot of this has to do with the fact SE has become so large they have to go outside of their zone of safety to "feed the beast" so to speak, and the beast is probably larger today than it was a few years ago. Last Reminant proves this, as it was probably was an extremely hard title develop because of the engine used, which probably accounts for many of its short comings.

Again, I wouldn't say I hate Square-Enix, but the image I have of them now - a overgrown entity looking for it's next snack - is quite different from the laser focused, tight nit comapny I imagined them being in the 32 bit days.

Nonsense.
Show me the proof then, when did they take so many chances in the past?

To be fair, Crisis Core is a very enjoyable game, and actually adds something to the story.
I'll admit Advent Children and Dirge of Cerberus were superfluous and unnecessary, but Crisis Core added some nice background to an already very enjoyable story.
FFVII needs to stop where the original game ended, but I see no harm in a prequel (one is enough though)

Also, "remaking it HARDCORE"!?
Again, please provide some proof, because all I've heard is SQEX constantly denying they have any plans to remake FFVII.

They may be rumors, but I've heard from several sources that an FFVII remake is in the works. And I've heard Crisis Core was great. And had they not already milked the series dry, I wouldn't even toss it in there, because I have heard great things. Going back and playing FFVII wasn't as endearing as I'd hoped. It was somewhat trite. Gameplay-wise, it was still as great as ever. But the characters were flat. I've heard it was a victim of poor translation, so perhaps that's why. It would certainly explain the gratuitously strewn about profanities. In any case, VII was good. But not enough to receive so much more care than the other games in the series, or the other series in general.

As for their lack of taking chances, they don't branch out as much into new genres. See, they're making several new games, with unique concepts, but they aren't particularly new to the developer. Square's had an affinity for fighting games since PS1. Tobal, Bushido Blade, Ehrgeiz, The Bouncer, etc. So Dissidia isn't all THAT original. Isn't there some sort of card theme involved, anyway?

In any case, I didn't come here to argue Final Fantasy. We all have our opinions and reasons for having them. It could be said that mine is ignorant, but it could be said that yours is biased. So it really boils down to, is it really necessary? Of all the things we could be doing, or even talking about, does the internet REALLY need another Square/FF debate thread? I was happy to see Ashley's post regarding my opinions on Squaresoft's better days. There's really no point focusing on the very last sentence that was just a vague personal opinion without any real substance or focus. You seem like a person capable of intelligent conversation, so let's not ruin this thread with a back-and-forth justification of each other's opinions. We both post on the same forum, so we have enough in common to be civil.:)

I am probably one of the few individuals who really liked Tobal (well, the first one) and The Bouncer too, despite their many flaws. Dissidia is quite an unusual take on the genre, though, I wouldn't want to put it in with those games, but that's just me.
For my two cents, the game reeks of Kingdom Hearts, without, well everything that makes it Kingdom Hearts, if that makes any sense. It is obvious that the same person is the creative producer behind it (I think Nomura is one of the best Producers of this generation by the way, whatever one may think of his art) as over-the-top, gravity-defying battles define both titles.

The card thing is merely cosmetic, you do not collect cards, or use them in battle, it's just that there is a mode of play very much like a Survival Mode, where the cards represent which character you will be fighting next, or treasure you can buy or extra perks you can use.
I'm still thinking of putting up a decent review of the game here, hopefully before it's released in the West

Hah! Looks can be deceiving my fr.....

No, wait, scratch that :S

Anyhoo, it's just that everyone is throwing around the "Square is not being original" card nowadays, and I find that this is generally rooted in ignorance, because most of their "original" titles are overlooked/not (yet) released in the West or, well, just not very good.
But it's a mistake to presume they're not there.

Gonna chime in here, fellas, hope you don't mind.

Has it occurred to anyone who bitches and bemoans Square-Enix that maybe their capacity to deliver top quality products hasn't changed, but maybe our ability to appreciate them has?

I remember every SNES RPG I played that had their hands in it, like some kind of gangbanged keylime pie sitting on the window sill. All the FF games, Chrono Trigger . . . . even some non Square titles out there had the same gameplay formula. I've been deliberating over it for some time now, and I would say that back then, gameplay was a non-issue, since all else they had to rely on was creating memorable stories and characters because the technology couldn't keep up. It didn't really matter that FF IV, V, and VI all played the same (and really, I think they did, feel free to crucify me on that matter), because we were given these amazing storylines to make due with.

When I play recent FF games, like VIII, X, and XII, I don't have that attachement. While they're exceptionally well produced, they don't hit that mark for me, and I find it very difficult to articulate why. Just kind of thinking that maybe Square hasn't changed, but maybe we all have. Thoughts?

I usually hate "me too" responses, but I'm gonna agree with Idolores here.

Why not remake it? Who doesn't like easy money?

It's a Licence To Print.

Hey Shoe, I'm gonna cast "Dark Metamorphosis" and then attack your avatar to heal myself.

I would say that gameplay was a non-issue back in the time of the SNES and to a degree the Playstation because RPG gameplay in general was still a novel concept.  Even with sightly cumbersome menus and sometimes slow, turn-based battles, the very fact that the gameplay focused on pacing and strategy over action and reflexes made it interesting.

One could further play devil's advocate and say that the stories weren't really all that amazing, it was simply the fact that they focused on any sort of semi-developed story to begin with that made them interesting.  In a time where most games hit you with a premise of save the kingdom/princess at the outset and it was all jump, shoot, or slash after that, RPGs as a rule developed that story over the course of the game (even if generally they were still about saving the princess/kingdom).

I will still stand by FF6 as a great game with an interesting story - and more so characters - in any day and age, but I wonder how many other RPGs from the period really stand up without the benefit of simply being different in their time and nostalgic in ours.

Certainly I'd say it's a safe assumption that most RPG gamers have changed - becoming more demanding and jaded - while it seems Square and many other RPG developers haven't, or at least not enough.  So if there is any growing discontent with current generation RPGs I think it's safe to put the blame on the developers for not evolving quickly enough with the times.

I don't even play RPGs that much anymore, just conjecturing

Yes, THANK YOU!

That is exactly what is going on IMO.
I feel lucky that I'm still very much able to appreciate them though

In the past couple of years, I've played many RPGs. Because, as it's been said, RPG gamers, as a general rule, are becoming harder to please, and I wanted to find something that could help me appreciate the genre again. I mentioned how Final Fantasy VII wasn't as great as it used to be. It was a good game that was probably a bit rushed. But it just didn't hold up. FFVI did. I still adore that game. Chrono Trigger did. Breath Of Fire. . . eh. Not so much. But it's still fun. Just not much of a step above NES Dragon Warriors. BoF2 was horrid, despite what people say about it. Absolutely terrible. The story was fantastic, however. Even with bad translation. One of the characters, a monkey, at one point confronts an evil, power-hungry tyrant who's taken control of his kingdom. His fighting words? "This monkey is going to spank you!" Yeah. . . Lufia was one I had heard was notoriously bad, and for good reason. Awful game. Tales Of Destiny was rotten, as well. But amidst these games that are the victim of age, some have really stood the test of time. Lunar: SSSC (just not the sequel), Suikoden 1 and 2 (preferably 2), Breath Of Fire 3, Star Ocean: Second Story, all on PS1. PS2 had some good ones, as well. Most notably, Dark Cloud 2. So it isn't that I've just gotten cranky. I don't want anyone thinking I don't take everything into consideration. Square has changed. Key people have left. It happens. I just wish they wouldn't give up on things they've started in favor of their golden child and more one-offs.

for me,, the overly complex gameplay of the newer games is actually a turnoff. I need to be able to pick up a game after not having time to touch it for a few months and still be able to remember how to use the damn menus.

star ocean 3 for example.. with it's godawful complex menus and battle options was hard enough knowing exactly what youre doing even when youre playing it every few days... but take a few months off,, and youre back at square one (no pun intended). you almost have to start over...

Lufia was godawdul yes, but don't let that stop you from playing the sequel.
Lufia 2: Rise of the Sinistrals is one of the best RPGs available on the SNES.

I hated all Breath of Fires, except 4, which was excellent. 5 had a great atmosphere and soundtrack but was ridiculously hard, in a totally unfair way.

It's all very much a matter of opinion, isn't it?
Sure, Square has changed, but by no means for the worse, as far as I'm concerned.
FFVI was, and is, great, yes, but that's the ONLY one of the old FFs if you ask me, I can't stand the first 5, not even in remake form (FFIV DS was horrid)

On the other hand, Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2, FFX, The World ends with You, Dissidia, these are, IMHO some of the best games Square has ever made. It's probably no wonder all of them involve Nomura, I really like what that guy is doing. A LOT.

So like I said, opinion.

I actually do want to play Lufia 2. I've heard it's awesome, and not deserving of a title that lumps it in the same crowd as the original. As for the BoFs, I actually couldn't get into 4. Too many puzzles and not enough action. I suppose that could be said for BoF3, as well. But I just really enjoyed that one as far as story and gameplay. Plus, 4 has that bad not quite 2-D, not quite 3-D look that bothers me a lot. Tomba 2 did that, and it was just inexcusable. Tomba 1 is one of my favorite games, but 2 was just an atrocity.

For the most part, this generation of gaming isn't as interesting to me as ones of the past. I stopped caring after PS2. I kinda had my eyes on the Wii, but the more I see and hear, the less enthused I am. Animal Crossing was my biggest hope, and I heard it really didn't do much you couldn't find on the last two. There are some games that I still hold out hope for in this gen. White Knight Chronicles and Fragile, to be exact. As well as anything else Atlus or Nippon Ichi throws our way. I'm just sick of the whole "BIG GUYS WITH BIG GUNS DESTROYING EVERYTHING" nonsense that seems to be oozing out of the mainstream these days. On the other side, you have the gimmicky games like the ones for Wii. RPGs need more innovation to keep up. Or they risk falling into some nasty clichés like the other genres.

Haven't played either of those yet, but from what I've heard, WKC is too short and too pointless, and Fragile, apart from the wonderful graphics and atmosphere, a very generic adventure.

I'll pick them up both eventually though, probably, when they're cheap enough.

If you played Lufia 2 without playing 1, you'd miss out on all the little cross references between the two...

PSX era graphics are definitely dated.  I remember trying to play MGS again once and noticing how ugly the graphics were.  That era has definitely aged worse than the 16-bit era, but not as bad as it could have, thanks to the prerendered backdrops a lot of games used.  Also, good gameplay tends to overcome dated graphics, and that's still the case in the PSX era.  I tried playing Tenchu again some months back and it was still a cool game.

Then again, I recently replayed RE2 and I was surprised by how I didn't enjoy it as much as I remembered enjoying it back then.  Maybe I should leave well enough alone since I had a lot of fun times in the PSX era.  Looking back, I think N64 games played better (the 3D ones, anyway), but the saving grace of the PSX was that it hosted a boatload of RPGs.

Indeed.

Lufia is not a bad game, and if it has a bad reputation, it must've happened just recently.  As long as I can remember, Lufia has always been regarded as a good game.  Good enough that most people think of the Lufia series as having been special on the SNES.  The problem with Lufia is that the backgrounds look like they were made in some kind generic RPG maker program because of the grid aspect.  Otherwise it's a likeable game with some memorable music.  It doesn't place in the upper echelon of SNES RPGs like the sequel does, but it's a nice addition to the library.

I played most of Lufia 1, and as if the aged gameplay wasn't bad enough (seriously, it was Dragon Warrior 2 with slightly improved interface), the story and dialogue was atrocious. Maybe it was good back in the day, but by today's standards, it's a truly painful experience.

As for WKC and Fragile, atmosphere counts for a lot for me. That's part of why Dark Cloud 2 is one of my favorite games. The atmosphere was just so accommodating. It had such a relaxing, peaceful element. The music was nearly flawless and the scenery was so natural and beautiful. WKC is developed by the makers of DC2 and Fragile just reminds me a lot of it. So, basic or not, I still want to play them.

I agree atmosphere goes a long way.
I actually picked up Fragile today for a mere 2000 yen, so I might post some impressions soon.

I guess that settles that.

I don't care much for today's standards.  The SNES and PSX had the best RPG libraries, and between the two, I'd give the edge to the SNES.

I dunno Megavolt, I only played the Japanese version of Lufia, but what with the boring maze-like dungeons, insanely high encounter rate, and the fact that party members will stupidly attack empty spaces if the enemy you ordered them to attack is already dead, turned me off after only a couple of hours. I don't care if the story picks up any time, the gameplay was frustrating and boring.

Never played the original FF1?

A better example is Dragon Warrior 2, where there are even more similarities. Both give you transportation that still has a ridiculous encounter rate, both have that REALLY annoying feature where you can fall out of a tower by walking over the edge, both have the dumb AI that attempts to strike dead enemies. The difference here is that both FF1 and DW2 were an entire generation behind Lufia. While Square was making FFIV, Secret of Mana and Breath of Fire (in collaboration with Capcom), Taito pushes out a game that can only be hailed as a clone of some decent RPGs. Lufia's dungeons were a mess. I played it with a friend because we were playing RPGs together at the time, and we wanted to do a joint review of Lufia because we heard it was garbage. Beyond mocking the horrendous dialogue (likely a translation issue), we found that going up a flight of stairs to find, oh god, ANOTHER SEVEN FLIGHTS OF STAIRS was hilariously terrible level design. Navigating was insanely frustrating, what with being attacked by monsters every five steps. If even that. And just to drive the point home, the titular character is relatively worthless. It has just aged really poorly. It's not about today's games setting a level of quality these games fail to meet. It's that with the countless games that were made on the same console or a generation or two later that are twice as enjoyable, including the sequel, who wants to try and like this mediocre game with really dated gameplay?

I just want to say I played Lufia 1 when it came out and didn't mind it, played Lufia 2 on an emu, enjoyed it a lot more.  I liked the story well enough, although there were a few unanswered questions regarding the "fifth" Sinistral Arek.  Sometimes for me story trumps a game's faults (such as the before mentioned characters attacking a space a dead monster occupied or high random encounter rate) although some of those puzzles were damn hard, but the saving grace of this game is to me the unforgettable theme of the castle on Doom Island... It was great on Lufia I and even better on Lufia II.  Just my thoughts.... =p

I played the GBA remake, yeah.
I think they fixed it there, although, come to think of it, I'm not too sure...

It's nice to see that where this thread started with me disagreeing with you, it ended in agreeing a full 100 percent and wanting to hug you
(in a male bonding kind of way of course)

I think it was an option on that one, actually.

And Square had nothing to do with Breath of Fire, except that the US version was translated by them.

Should I tell you who/what Lufia is and why she is far from worthless as the titular character?  It involves the most compelling twist/part of the story, which you obviously missed out on since you never completed it.

But again, I don't disagree that there were better RPGs than Lufia during the era.  I just don't believe that Lufia is an "awful" game, and I hadn't even heard of anyone thinking as such until I ran into your post in this thread.  Conventional?  Yes, very much so.  A bit dated?  Probably.  But it definitely had charm and it spawned a sequel for a reason.  There's no way I would've enjoyed it in any time period if it were as bad as you say it is.

Lufia 2 did some crazy things with the story (which I suppose is sort of inevitable since it's a prequel), which is why some folks actually found the first game's story to be more likeable.  In addition to the weird Arek thing, some folks hate that Maxim winds up with Selan instead of Tia, as he brushes Tia off up to that point.

I also agree on the memorability of "The Last Duel".  That track captures a heroic feeling like few others can.  The first game had some other memorable themes that made it into Lufia II, like the world map theme (albeit in an arranged sort of form) and "Pulifia Flowers" (basically Lufia's character theme).

I actually found that part of the story to be quite moving and mature for the time.  You'd be surprised just how close people get when they go through something traumatic together.  It captured the moment beautifully (I actually had dreams about that part).

Certainly this has occurred to me, but I cannot help but be of the opinion that whereas Square's older games felt like the result of a creative process and exploration, more recent games feel like products of a mechanical process.  It isn't so much a matter of quality as it is of soul.  Square's games are as polished as ever, and their production quality is unassailable, but they leave me cold.

I do admit that it's possible--maybe even probable--that I'm drawing a nonexistent distinction because of nostalgia favoring the past and cynicism disfavoring the present.  I replayed Final Fantasy VII a couple of years ago and found it to be pretty much as good as I remembered, but is that because nostalgia was affecting my perception even as I was replaying the game?  Would I have enjoyed it as much if I had been playing it for the first time?  I cannot step back from myself to answer these questions.

Ah, okay. I always saw it as them taking Capcom under their wing, teaching them how to make an RPG, but that sounds more realistic.

Also, the dialogue in Lufia was part of why the story sank. The main character gets shocked by some random guy saying he's EVIL. That'd be like me posting on this forum that I'm an evil person, and everyone just freaking out. It also has a death scene that's to the extent of

"Oh no, I'm dying!"

"Oh no, he's dead!"

The execution made my friend and I die laughing. It was like the artist's death in Monty Python And The Holy Grail. That really makes it hard to take seriously. I've started playing Lufia 2, and I'm really impressed.