Old games for a new audience
 

Link

I got to thinking about the current game generation along with the emphasis on remaking games. It's going to always be the wrong thing to do. a game company should be moving forward with a franchise, never backwards. Let the fans remember the characters as you progress a story. I think that would work a lot better in solving all of these problems with a company such as Square.

Let's consider a few games they updated. You have the CronoTrigger series that they put onto the 3DS with a few edits. But fans continue to clamor for a new entry into the game (which may never happen).

Then, we have FFXIII -2 that's set to come out, but has had a longer than normal (even for Square) development cycle.

Given this, where are the stories for Vagrant Story (tied to Ivalice), Saga Frontier, or any other game that once made Square a juggernaut in RPGs?

It would seem that most companies should have a way to update what they do with gaming in general. If there could be a system to store old games, so they could be played at one's leisure, then maybe the game companies could focus on newer iterations, leaving someone else to keep the back story intact through the perpetual use of the game.

This is in no way anything resembling a new thing. Nintendo's done it since the SNES. Square has done it since the PSX.

Ehhh, naw. I'd say remakes and ports are a good way of introducing new fans to old games, especially when not everyone has their old N64 lying around.

Plenty of new games are backwards steps in their respective franchises. I also don't think remakes and ports are steps backwards. It's simply bringing old games to a new audience via a new system, and I think resources it takes to do so are minimal enough that they probably don't affect other projects in any meaningful way.

Once again, not everyone has their old N64 lying around, and I know nostalgia likes to claim otherwise, but old games can benefit from improvements to presentation. Presentation matters, and as technology progresses that bar is raised and the old visuals and audio quality are not always as able to do the games they're in justice as well as they did on release. Aside from that, good luck convincing someone who didn't grow up with these games, "Well, it was really impressive when it released! Take my word on it!"

Once again, I think you're overestimating the resources such projects require and the impact they have on other projects.

Yes, lets.

DS, not 3DS.

What is this? No, really. What is this? Jagos, if you're going to make a thread wherein you feign superior understanding of what companies should do, have your facts straight.

It sounds like you've somehow managed to confuse FFXIII-2 for an updated version of FFXIII while simultaneously mistaking its development cycle for that of FFXIII Versus. If you didn't do the former, it makes no sense as an example in your post. If you didn't do the latter, then you're flat out wrong.

I just... What is this supposed to mean?

This is an honest question.


If you don't like ports and remakes fair enough, but you are not doing a very good job of making your point, and that you get basic facts wrong makes it hard for me to take your point seriously.


Beyond this, remakes are hardly harmful for a company. That they keep being made says that clear as day. Fans love them and want more of them, and as I said the resources are less than making a completely new game, so the risk is smaller. Square Enix's current faults have absolutely nothing to do with remakes and have everything to do with the new projects they have been putting out. Final Fantasy XIII did well, but not as well as they wanted given the investment they put into it, and Final Fantasy XIV just outright bombed. Both original games and "steps forward" for the franchise.

Remakes can be a great thing, except (in my view) in 2 cases:

1- When a remake gets a coat of paint and gets called a new game (my own personal beef with several Zelda games)

2- When a Company stops trying new things, new franchises, new titles, new stuff to -instead- work on just remakes or rebuilding the same game over and over. (Hellooooo big slice of Megaman)

For this i gather a couple of things:

One is that nintendo is only partially faulty of this. Because, even though they repaint their property and send it out as new quite often, they still work on new stuff at the same time.

Secondly, my personal respect towards the Final Fantasy franchise, that to my eyes, is one of the largest franchises ever to take risks with it's branding. Some of it pays off, some don't... at least i can see the desire to innovate and improve there, even if it's not always effective.

I have very little interest on the Soulcalibur franchise, even though i love the gameplay from when back when it was called Soul Edge. But the company did get points with me when they decided to actually Ditch a lot of characters and relaunch the franchise with new faces... There is not a lot of room to stretch on Fighting Games, so i can respect that. Even though most of the Soulcalibur games have actually being Remakes with tiny increments that get called new games.

On Squeenix case, even thouhg i praise some of their inniatives, i still get annoyed by the constant relaunch of old titles. Not because i have a problem with new audiences have access to polished versions of pretty good games on any platform they like, but mostly because Squeenix quite often neglect several of their great games that don't get such treatment because, well at some point you just got to believe that their research numbers really show that people really really want another release of Final Fantasy 4 ou 1 and 2 with updated content... not so much from 6, or Xenogears or Vagrant Story or SaGa....

You're welcome
 

Source of what Jagos quoted. It mostly gets into how we should have more options for playing old games besides hanging onto all the old consoles.

That's debatable, because the companies get entrenched in certain ideas unless they progress the games forward. And honestly, how much have people been clamoring for Radical Dreamers, Chrono Break, or (a good) Crono Cross instead of the one remake of a game from 20 years ago? If they're going to update a franchise, it should be more in line with making new iterations into a series and a few side stories. Even then, the need to port only increases the further it's been since the game was introduced.


What I'm more or less advocating is playing the game through, say, an emulator, keeping the game's integrity intact. I'm thinking of a platform that could show off all of the Zelda games and how it's progressed through the years. Does that mean people aren't interested in replaying those games? With the advancement of GoG, I'd say that's a confirmed yes.


They're all part of the same vein of games. They're presented in the same world, but we've yet to get FFXIII-2 or Versus. Square wants to tell an epic Star Wars story, but the question is, how long can this go on? Meanwhile, they neglect their older games that could appease people and actually help Square. I'm more or less criticizing how Square focuses on this one epic while neglecting the other games they have. I believe for the past 4 or 5 years, it's been almost exclusively the Final Fantasy series with little thoughts into other properties or branching out.

Where are the older games in newer platforms that made them a good company today? Where do they allow games to be played outside of the two or three that they're currently working on? That's the question here. Square has forgotten about Valkyrie Profile along with the others mentioned. Square's biggest problem, as I think most other companies that have been existing over two generations of consoles, is keeping those games updated for newer audiences. I recall a story on Escapist that in order to play Kingdom Hearts 1, you would have to search it down, along with all of the side games that help you keep up with it.

What I'm thinking of is something like Steam that shows all of these old games.

The problems with ports is that companies do horribly with them. Even Valve, who I like a lot, can't always get their own ports right. Sometimes, it might be better for fans to update the game and test their own skills (like the Valve Timed Black Mesa game). Hell, The Warriors might be a good game on PS2, but the ports still suck on PSP.

With remakes, the magic may be lost on redoing a game. There's very few that honestly need an update. It might be better to just do an entirely new game instead of living in the past. Yahtzee actually goes into an example (Silent Hill) that shows this better. While the companies can do it, it still takes resources and manpower from any future projects. Good ones take more time, and even then, I believe, new problems arise such as with Ocarina of Time 3D and the wonkier camera and targeting issues.

I'm not saying remakes can't be made nor that I won't play them if they're good. I would just like to have all of the parts to the story on one platform if possible or find ways to bring back older games that were pretty special gems in the day. What are the chances of a rerelease of Illusion of Gaia or Spunky Knight? Would you honestly want to see these remade into "updated" versions as the industry moves on? Or would you want to play them as they were on your console of choice?

Thanks, I don't know what happened, but my link disappeared on me.

Yes, but those are tied to the console. I'm saying a Steam version, which is tied to an individual. Once you run out to buy the PS4 and the XBox 720, it's going to be VERY interesting to see how either console ships over their respective networks, which you have no control over.

Having your N64 remake basically be the flagship of a new system [and not present at launch], now that's the wrong thing to do!

Remakes themselves? I like them to an extent. Charging full price is bullshit, most of the time. It still breeds new fans, but it probably has a hindering effect, since new fans wouldn't have that nostalgic "Shit yeah I'll pay $45, this is OCARINA!"

I mean, I've been introduced to games I missed as a child due to re-releases. Like FFIV on the PSP more recently.

Square, I'm waiting for the total overhaul of FF7, 1080p that shit, voicework, additional content, yeeeeeah. Old fan willing to pay $69.99 for that!

A Chrono Trigger port and wanting to continue the franchise are two separate issues. They're not making another Chrono Trigger game because they don't want to make another Chrono Trigger game. They remake Chrono Trigger because it will make them money with little investment. "If they're going to update the franchise they should do ____" seems to imply that they aren't doing one because of the other, which is wrong. Chrono Trigger sequels are irrelevant, because unless you have some magic insider info there's no reason to suspect one would at all effect the other.


"The game's integrity"? What does that mean, exactly? That if you aren't playing the N64 version of Majora's Mask you're playing a bad version that is bad simply because it isn't the N64 version? In what way do games have any sort of integrity to be tainted one way or the other?

Also: 1. Nintendo has a Virtual Console, which is basically as close as we're getting to a legal emulator. Ocarina of Time is on that emulator. People still bought a lot of copies of the remake.

2. If you're arguing illegal emulation, you're basically saying that pirates should dictate how a company handles its IPs.

A platform like the Virtual Console?

Which exists?


You argue in continuing stories instead of doing remakes, and then criticize Final Fantasy for continuing its story and telling new stories. Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Kingdom Hearts keeps on trucking, I think TWEWY was more recent than what you're saying, Parasite Eve got a new game, and to be perfectly honest Final Fantasy is almost more of a clothing label than a series anyways. Complaining about more Final Fantasy games misses the point of Final Fantasy as a franchise.

So a company is only doing its job right if it's continuing its old franchises?

Valkyrie Profile got a new game in 2009, and before that there was a new one in 2007.

Kingdom Hearts is hardly an old game, and I went to my local Gamestop last week and got a copy for cheap with little difficulty finding it.

For the actually old games, there is, and it's called the Virtual Console or PSOne Classics. For games that came out so recently I can still find them at Gamestop in ten minutes I don't really feel like there's a need.

Also, you're complaining about porting while arguing that they should just port all their games to a digital distribution library. Whelp.

This has nothing to do with anything. There are good ports and there are bad ports, just like there are good sequels and bad sequels and good games and bad games. There are bad fan mods and good fan mods. There are good fan games and bad fan games. That bad remakes and ports exist in a world where bad everything exists doesn't mean anything. "I don't support remakes... Unless fans are making them..." honestly sounds a bit ridiculous.

I'd say the idea that the original version of a game is as good as that game can ever be and to update it is to violate its integrity is the very definition of living in the past.

As I said, it takes a very small amount compared to a completely new game, and these remakes make the company money, money that they can then put towards original projects.

I have a hard time believing that OoT3D has a wonkier camera and more targeting issues than the original.

"My name is Jagos and I'm upset that consoles aren't PCs."

EDIT: "I also criticize Square Enix for not taking action that would essentially require that consoles be PCs."

@The integrity of the game bit: Which N64 version is the integral one? The one that launched? Or the ones that were "patched" versions of the launch cart?

I find it a bit odd that he only cares about the game's integrity if it's the company making it, but if fans are making it then either integrity doesn't exist, doesn't matter, or "fans are just so much better than the company and you know they'll treat it right!"

To be clear, because I don't want this thread to go down the predictably stupid path: I don't have a problem with fan remakes, and have one I'm looking forward to. I just think it's ridiculous to argue that remakes are bad and are steps backwards and game's integrity etc etc while arguing in favor of fan remakes.

I will say remakes could pose a potential issue, because in a way they are similar to remakes of movies. So many mainstream movies are remakes and rehashes that it is frightening to wonder if games will eventually take a similar path.

I'm hoping the rate of technological progress (systems, control schemes, technical changes in textures, AI, etc) in games keeps changing at a pace that it won't happen the same as movies. They should actually just make a law that there needs to be five original games for each remake released annually. That will put a cap on the dystopian future where Final Fantasy IV is released every other week!

Final Fantasy IV is already released every week. Seriously, look it up. I mean, Final Fantasy IV being released over and over and over since the PSX pretty much proves that this is nothing new, which is kinda why I thought the thread was silly in the first place.

Anyway, if you have a problem with remakes or ports, it hardly seems fair to blame the company. Nintendo release OoT3D for a system that sold poorly, despite the original version already being available for much cheaper on a system that sold really well, and OoT3D still sold a pretty substantial number of copies. They gave fans every reason not to buy it, and fans still bought five at a time. I'm really not gonna fault Nintendo for this.

I'm looking forward to Final Fantasy IV: Monday the most, because apparently they redid all the dialogue where everyone is kind of down and depressed because it's perpetually the start of a new work week in the world.

Final Fantasy IV: TGIF

Everyone just goes and gets drunk off their asses and the world ends.

Having trouble following most of Jagos's argument so this is all I'm commenting on.
 

On remakes not costing significant amounts of resources: The graphical production in video games is the single most time and money consuming part of creating a video game.

Updating the graphics means that you have to redo the most time and money consuming part of the game.

It does not logically follow that this does not impact other projects or that these resources couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

By how much, and would this be affected by being done by a huge company like Nintendo, who rather than having to buy someone else's graphical engine for every single game have probably built their own that they are able to use for multiple games?

EDIT: How is this cost for remaking Zelda impacted by being on the 3DS, which has substantially lower-end graphics compared to other systems? It may be the most expensive part of the game, but that really doesn't tell us a lot about how much more expensive or how expensive it is compared to development of the vast majority of other games.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity.

Fair enough, though I'd still blame the fans far more than I would anyone else, and I don't particularly mind an upgraded version of games I like from time to time.

which is why I prefer straight ports over remakes. Not saying the remakes cant refine a game, but if I thought the original game wasn't worth rebuying as is, then I wouldn't buy it just for shiny graphics and some mechanical tweaks.

As for rehashing games in a franchise. They make them because people keep buying them, makes sense to go with the safe bet.

Besides while Final Fantasy and Zelda have some over used plot elements, but hey, atleast its not as bad as Madden

I'm not sure on exact numbers on either of these and I'm too tired to look it up, but to be rough, on the first: I wasn't counting the game engine as the graphics. Just the individual rendering of everything, getting the animations right for various characters, the modeling, etc. Some of this is made easier (or harder) by the engine, but isn't really part of what I was talking about.

On the second: DS/3DS games cost lots lots lots lots less to make graphics for. This is the primary reason that a DS game costs roughly 1 million dollars to produce while a PS3 or 360 game costs between 18 and 25 million dollars.

Which should also give you an idea of graphical cost vs all other costs of a game.

I more or less agree. I'd really rather new games be made more often, but do think there are some games that could really benefit by a graphical upgrade.

For instance: I think the DS remakes of SNES FF games were kinda silly, as their blocky polygony shit on the DS look pretty terrible compared to the sprites that would have been in a straight port, and cost much more to produce than a straight port would have.

On the other hand, I really wish Square would do a remake of FF7 because that game was ass ugly when it came out and would benefit immensely from even FF8 graphics, much less current (or next) gen improvements.

Which, I guess, might seem a little hypocritical of me considering the former probably only ran them about 750,000 to make, while the latter would be running them around 25 million (or more) to make if they did it right.

But for me the cost is less an issue as to whether the game was improved enough by the upgrades vs the cost. And as that I tend to find SNES era sprite graphics to be QUITE pleasing, and really have no issue with late PS1/PS2 era graphics, the only games I could really get behind seeing remade are early PS1 era games that look like jumbles of shitty geometric shapes that roughly almost kinda approximate human form.

Edit: And there's also a bit to do with presentation and story telling of sprite games vs early PS1 games. Sprite games were made with dialogue and characters that work well within the constraints of sprited graphics (some might even say they work better than modern, but I'm not among them), while even early polygonal games attempted to create pathos with more cinematic approaches, such as body language and (in the cutscenes) facial expressions. Updating a sprited game, then, would require a reworking of the writing and the addition of body language etc. etc. to really sell the presentation. Things that would annoy purists, and may even end up being worse (square's writing). On the other hand, updating a particularly ugly polygonal work could only improve its presentation by improving the body and facial language in the various scenes on which they were relied upon.

Agree with Krylo on the FF ports mostly.

Have you actually seen FFIV on the PSP though? I thought they did a great job sprucing up the sprites and effects to HD(ish) quality. I guess that's the minimum of what I expect out of a remake.

I don't know if I am abnormal for thinking it, but I actually am the opposite of a retro gamer more or less. I follow the progression of technical achievements in gaming. I want to be playing Mass Effect, Call of Duty, Shogun 2, that level of visuals nowadays. I just feel awful stretching out retro games on this big monitor, and even if they aren't stretched, I still just innately like them less because of how ugly they now are.

It's horribly...vain I guess? Either way, I'm looking forward to stuff like Ico/SotC and Metal Gear HD remakes, just because I missed out on those games and if I booted them up now, they'd look like crap to me.

Nope.

My ex played the DS version that was polygon'd up*. HD sprites are usually pretty awesome looking, though.

*Edit: This one.

I think I can say more or less agree with you, though there are sprite-based games I would like to see remakes for for a variety of reasons. Though I really do love upgraded versions of games I haven't played yet. If they're willing to give me a better looking version of a game I want to play and probably make it easier to find by doing so, I'm totally for that. I would like to see more remakes use HD sprites though. That'd be rad as hell. The raddest.

Jagos is just mad people want Majora's Mask remade while Capcom cancelled MegaMan Legends 3.

In all seriousness, video game remakes aren't inherently a bad thing. Yes, remaking a game and making it seem like a totally new one just to sell a system is kind of a farce. But that doesn't totally remove the merit of remaking a game.

As far as the focusing on improving a series through its next installment... I understand where you're coming from, but even then: nobody reinvents their flagship franchises unless its popularity plummets (read: Tomb Raider). It's usually a better idea to stick with what works, and maybe take things in a new direction a little bit.

I'm thinking that they should continue making stories with the Chrono Trigger franchise, not constantly update only one game out of the CT universe. The last Crono Cross game to come out is on the PS1. No one has seen nor heard of it since. If any game needed an overhaul, Cross probably does need to be reintroduced to society instead of kept in Square's "vault" like a Disney movie.


This is building off of Yahtzee's argument that having games like Silent Hill being done by an amateurish voice actor. The odd quirks when some games are made that immerse you more into the games. The remake would actually remove that VA and be professionally done, changing what others thought made the games special.

I'm thinking more like Gog or Steam. The problem is Nintendo tends to hold onto their IP, and leaves some games out. It's more or less an idea on showing how a company has progressed over the years. Even the defunct companies such as Virgin Games stand to benefit from people seeing their former works in a new platform. A platform that's again, not tied to the console. As I've said before, when it's time to upgrade, Steam, Impulse, all of those digital distribution sites will be right there with consumers. But all of the money spent for the 360 titles, PSN or even Virtual Console games are tied to those consoles. What happens when Microsoft shuts down the 360 servers for the next batch of games? I'm not positive if the Wii U will allow backwards compatibility, but it's still tied to a system, which is a major detriment to the console approach.

I'm arguing about how they take so long to make those stories while neglecting others. That's more or less Wada's problem. Square used to have their developers in charge of various IP which kept new ideas flowing through them. Nowadays, it seems that Square has one grandiose idea that is taking a decade to finish. It just seems that Square has only a few franchises that it focuses on, yet they do nothing with the rest of them.

There's a few things here that I'm advocating:

1) Make a digital library of games, archiving the games from their respective consoles

2) Allow someone else to license a game (fan or commercial) a port or remake, while working on newer ways to add to the stories

3) Have the games accessed through the digital library, where people could pay for access like Onlive or pay for the backup game at a cheaper price. Hell, it might help take down the Gamestop monopoly.

4) Move forward with a franchise as much or as little as possible, but keep it updated on the archive.

---------------------

The problem with this, some franchises have a ton of games that have potential.

Just in Square, you have Ehrgeiz, Tobal, Chocobo Dungeon, Seiken Densetsu, Secret of Evermore. I believe that Enix just started releasing the older Dragon Quest games. But going to play all of these games would take a lot of time to find them and see if they were good for consumers.

You're missing my point. Valkyrie Profile was a game that wasn't updated for 6 years until it was released in 2006 as an enhanced port on the PSP. Then they release Covenant of the Plume on the DS. So you have to buy both consoles (PSP & DS) to continue the series. You have to wait for years for anything regarding the Valkyrie series, pay top moolah for it, and buy the consoles even if they're possibly out of stock or no longer carried. And that doesn't guarantee the success of the developer, or the franchise if the developer decides to kill it.

You're looking more towards a product. I'm thinking more along the lines of providing a service. An archival digital library that isn't tied to a console, that could be played on almost any machine? How much more valuable would that be if people could have one convenient location to pull all of those games depending on console?


Uhm... Not complaining, just stating some of the downsides. My belief is that the developers should spend more time with newer ideas and games, less time with porting or remaking older ones. Like Crono DS doesn't add much to the story that no one already know. Why put that out when people would have been perfectly fine with the SNES version?

Obviously, it's not just Square we're talking about here. Like the Spunky Knight or Vectorman games that I've mentioned, some games won't be upgraded at all (or are remade too damn much), so people are left not knowing some game franchises.

You would have had me if you had said Mother 3. :p

Why does Chrono Trigger need to be continued? You act as though we're missing out by not having countless sequels in a franchise that is only 50% good. I like to call this winning.

And then you start complaining that Squeenix doesn't focus on other franchises, ignoring the examples I gave which were hardly thorough. (Also worth noting: Square Enix has greatly expanded their publishing efforts.)

And then you essentially complain about companies releasing games on different systems. What is this?

You aren't complaining about remakes and ports anymore. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you ever really were. This thread is you seemingly complaining that consoles aren't the same as PCs, complaining that companies don't endlessly tack sequels onto the franchises you like, and ignoring anything counter to your point by bringing up opinions irrelevant the alleged topic of this thread.

I don't know if you know what you're arguing, and I sure as hell am having a hard time figuring it out for myself. You've introduced so many tangential topics that it's just a big clusterfuck of words and opinions I can't really take seriously, none of them remotely well justified by anything you've said.

Do you have some good points? Yes, I would like to see virtual console and XBLA purchases carry over to new systems, and I'd wager people will push for that when the new systems release. I'd wager that the PS Vita is compatible with the PS One Classics, and since, IIRC, the Sony store keeps track of such purchases, you can probably redownload ones you've already purchased to your PS Vita.

Non, I've been having an idea for a platform for older games that's similar to GoG or Steam.

I've been thinking about having older games all put onto a digital platform for archival purposes. It actually frees up a ton of resources for game companies to continue newer gaming projects, allowing nostalgic gamers to enjoy these older games. The point has been to look at the advantages and disadvantages of each way of making updates to a game.

What I've been saying is that those two platforms would probably work a lot better for what I'm thinking about in regards to a digital library of older games, rather than making a digital library similar to what game consoles have right now. As I've said, what happens when those consoles are upgraded? It seems that people lose access to those old games.

The essential point, the gathering theme here is to make a business out of the old games, while giving companies flexibility and choice in how a developer wants to proceed with it. The Yahtzee article actually sparked that little interest in me to see is it possible to do something like a digital library. It reminded me that our game libraries are very splintered. If fans were trying to gain access to the older titles, wouldn't it be better to allow them to play it conveniently through digital means? Then, if they wanted to buy it, well, there's plenty of options. Another avenue is old games that never had a chance in the US. I recall Square having Seiken Densetsu 3 that is only here through piracy. Let's say a small team decided to translate a game that the big publisher won't release. Shouldn't they get something for their work? It could be something as small as a badge on the service, but I would think that people would be happy to have a network that is built around the communities involved.

I haven't worked out all of the details, but it's been something that I've been thinking about all night. It's kind of a thought exercise into what game companies could allow and what may help them progress to newer games while allowing access to those people that came by later on.

Is your imaginary digital service multiplatform?

If no, I already pointed towards a movement towards that with PSN stuff.

If yes, what the hell was the point of every bringing up Square-Enix? This stuff is largely outside their realm of influence. Additionally, this simply isn't happening and the idea of Zelda being on a multiplatform digital download service is so ridiculous I can't help but laugh.

You're also asking companies to work with fan translators, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon and the closest we've gotten to that is when Nintendo just pretends they don't exist. Aside from that, no, fan translators don't deserve anything for their work from the companies whose work they're translating without permission. The companies make no profit off of it and experience no benefit from it. Why the hell should they reward it? "Here's a badge for ensuring that if we ever changed our minds and decided to localize the game, there would be substantially fewer sales."

Last, and most importantly, if you wanted to have a thread about how there should be a magical multiplatform digital download service that actually exceeds the scope of even Steam and also rewards fans for tampering with the franchises of major companies, you should have been clear about that from the beginning instead of wasting everyone's time with all this nonsense about how remakes and ports are bad and all that other ridiculousness. It is only tangentially related to your main point.

My only real contribution to this discussion is that I would gladly play remakes of games I have enjoyed in the past if the remake adds something to the experience. I'll probably take a lot of heat for this but I would have no problem playing the oft asked for FFVII remake if it featured graphics in the style of Crisis Core (in HD obviously), a little script reworking, and maybe some improvements on all those mediocre mini-games.

The greatest question of our time.
 

But without mediocre minigames...

Is it really Final Fantasy?

Just don't make me play Mog House
 

I guess you can keep the one where Cloud throws oblong rocks into a basket.

I think we all know what we really want from our Final Fantasy VII remake...

Chocobo Hot and Cold

This guy are sick.

You wish to see me found dead from starvation in my apartment, don't you?

Maybe...

Just to clarify on the PSN thing:

Everything you got for your PSP on PSN will indeed be useable on the Vita.