IMO the PSP remakes of these games are the best/awesome. They look much better...yet they retain the same style as the originals. I played FF3 on DS because that was the only version available, but I vastly prefer what they did with FF1, 2, and 4 on PSP. (3 on DS also has slightly long load times too, though it wasn't the end of the world.)
Regarding Final Fantasy 4 on the PS1, it seems to be based on the "hard" version of the game, not the easy version we originally got on the SNES. IMO the easy version is MUCH better. The hard version is less strategic and mostly just quadruples the length of the game with constant grinding needed. Thankfully the PSP version both looks the best of all the versions AND seems to be based on the easy version. I couldn't finish the "after years" content but whatever, the original game is still pretty great.
I agree. I'm not a big fan of FF1 and 2 anymore, but I think those PSP remakes are about the best. I suppose the new iOS remakes of V and VI are similar (the ones I was yammering about above). They just seem a bit less graphically faithful to me than the PSP ones. I thought IV really nailed it.
Regarding the versions of FFIV--our SNES version was the "easy type," indeed. However, everything we've received since then has been based on the normal version (it's not actually labeled "hard," I don't think--it is the standard version). Now, keep in mind I am no expert.
But the FF IV PSOne version we got was the actual, original Super Famicom version. After that, we got the GBA version, DS version, PSP version (I may have missed some). All of these were based off of the standard version, not the "easy type" version. However, they may have, some or all, fiddled with the balance to make things easier than the original. This is pretty common practice. The Super Famicom and Game Boy versions of Dragon Quest III, for instance, are easier than the Famicom/NES original.
But, very generally speaking, other than the original US SNES version, they have all been the standard, non-easy version, perhaps fiddled with in varying degrees. (I remember people complaining about the difficulty in the GBA and DS versions. I've been playing the damn game for years, so none of them seem difficult to me, although I have to admit that even the "easy type" version gave me trouble back in 1991 when I was 9 years old.)
Differences between the "easy" and normal versions back on Super Famicom weren't just difficulty changes. The easy version also removed a lot of complexity. For instance, we lost a lot of special attacks, like Dark Knight Cecil's ability to spend HP to send that wave thing across the screen and hit all enemies. It also removed weapon items, like the ones Cecil uses in the story scene at the beginning of the game. Those are available to the play in the standard versions but not our original easy version.
I think that about covers it. Sorry for the extended diatribe. But yes, I wouldn't be surprised if the GBA/DS/PSP/whatever versions aren't perhaps balanced to be a little easier than the original standard Super Famicom version (which is what the Playstation version should be if I'm not mistaken).
How so? That's the only version of Final Fantasy 5 I've played...actually that's the only version of Final Fantasy 5 I can recall getting released. At any rate it looked/played fine.
I think he just meant the load times. I suppose if you're used to PS1-era stuff and the load times, and had not played the SNES versions, maybe it wouldn't be too bad (like Skyrim comparison above perhaps). Load times in CD-based gaming was a tough pill for all of us cart-based gamers to swallow.
