Apart from LEGO Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga, one other big release this week is Chrono Cross: The Radical Dreamers Edition.
In case you didn't already know, it's a remaster of the 1999 PlayStation JRPG. More and more reviews of the game are now starting to surface online, and so we've rounded up a bunch of them.
Of course, be sure to check out our own review - we said it was a "fair port" awarding it six out of ten stars:
Siliconera praised the game, awarding it 10/10:
"CHRONO CROSS is an RPG that transcends time and space, unfolding across two interlinked parallel worlds. With over 40 party members to meet, people and dimensions will intertwine in this epic drama about the planet itself. Chrono Cross has always been an essential JRPG, and this The Radical Dreamers Edition remaster makes it feel even more important."
Destructoid said it was "Alright" awarding it six out of 10:
"And really, that’s all you need to know: it’s a PlayStation-era Square RPG. Can you still stand to play Final Fantasy IX and Parasite Eve? Then Chrono Cross is worth your time, and here’s an okay way to play it. Is that era too antiquated for you? Then this remaster has no chance of changing your mind. Regardless of what you think of the game or genre, it’s not a very loving or respectful port, and Chrono Cross deserves better."
RPG Site gave it 7/10:
"Chrono Cross: The Radical Dreamers Edition is a wonderful remaster marred by an unoptimized Switch port. While you could argue that they could have gone further in places, like maybe offering players the ability to further customize which parts of the experience they wanted to be presented with old or new graphics, it feels nice that one of my favorite PS1 era JRPGs got so much love. I adore both of the games in this collection from the bottom of my heart, and I’m glad they’re more accessible than ever. I hope the Switch version can be an easier recommendation in the future, especially since the only way to own it physically seems to be on that platform."
Our friends over at Push Square awarded the PlayStation version 4 out of 10:
"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."
Wccftech gave it 4.5/10:
"The crippled frame rates, which remain a constantly fluctuating 15-20 FPS in battles, are only exacerbated by providing players with the ability to slow down and fast forward gameplay without having to finish the game first. In another time, another place, perhaps Chrono Cross The Radical Dreamers Edition would be more critically revered this second time around but I can find little reason to recommend this particular bundle over the PlayStation 1 release based on the core game alone."
Will you be trying out this game on the Nintendo Switch when it arrives later this week? Tell us down in the comments.
Please note that some external links on this page are affiliate links, which means if you click them and make a purchase we may receive a small percentage of the sale. Please read our FTC Disclosure for more information.
Comments 43
So... somewhere between 4 and 10 out of 10? Glad that's sorted out.
For whatever it's worth, the average of those 7 scores is 6.6/10
feel like the visuals are kind of a moot point when you can turn them off with a button
Reviews go from not recommended at all to totally recommended, which only goes to show it's still a love it or hate it game 20 years later. However, I just think that reviewers should take technical problems into consideration before giving a remaster 9s and 10s - totally misleading scores if such problems are present - and making it clear their scores are solely based on nostalgia, no matter what product they're reviewing.
All in all, I think at least pricing is reasonable, but you have to be aware of what you're getting for 20 bucks. I'm not sure square is gonna patch it at all
So basically it's a good game with a bad port. Which is absolutely common for Square Enix now.
Looks like Siliconera actually reviewed the game itself. Rather than if it was a great remaster. RPG site felt the most balanced.
So it's like honest reviews were critical and then people who were just gushing gave it a complete pass. Because abysmal framerates on a 20 year old game are unacceptable.
@somebread Is that the power button you're referring to?
@John_Deacon I see it the other way around, you should review the story, characters, music and gameplay and not so much the technical aspects of a game. That should be just on the side. Especially if it's a 20+ year old game.
I play games since the 80s and things like frame rates never were a big deal for us. Either a game works or it doesn't. As long as the game plays well I'm fine. There is too much focus nowadays on fps, resolution and all of that and people really seem to forget that this isn't the most important part of it. Just my 2 cents. Peace! ✌️
Siliconera looking past the technical issues aight?
From the videos I've seen and stuff...the visuals kinda bother me...like, it just looks weird seeing 2D backgrounds and 3D characters (I think...?) walking around on it.
So, 10 out of 10 despite glaring frame rate issues on a 20 year old game. I love "professional" reviewers.
Wait... """"""""professional"""""""" reviewers.
Yeah, that looks better.
To be fair, the average review scores has it at around 80% across all the platforms (Switch 82%). So that is good. Maybe we have to go into the game with your retro hat on? Not sure.
The original games got a 90% plus average review score back in the day....
This game sucks!
This game is awesome!
@sanderev it’s a flawed game with amazing music and ties to one of the best RPGs of all time. So… it’s complicated.
Still, 22 years on, it’s less a disappointment than when I bought it on release day.
I'm glad Metacritic exists because critical consensus is a joke in video games
I had it back in the day and it didn’t grab me nearly as much as Wild Arms or Xenogrears to name a few
I never played it, so unless it is really unplayable by a technical standard, i am looking forward to dive in
@ManaOwls Based on my comment, you might think I'm not with you, but I am. I've also been playing games since the 80s and have always been ok with all those problems we always considered normal aspects of games. I don't care if a game runs at 30 fps, for example
The point is they're selling it as a remaster, highlighting the improvements with compared screenshots, they made a new soundtrack and everything, so I think in this case they should have corrected what were problems then and are still problems today. Otherwise, it'd be better to have just a straight port and it would be OK. But as they're advertising it as a remaster, I expected problems to be fixed. That's my point
So I remain completely undecided Square-Enix are a weird company, aren’t they? Used to be one of the biggest names. Now you always need to triple check if they did a proper job.
@ManaOwls a game should be reviewed as a whole, not just the parts you care about.
Technical aspect make or break games just as much as gameplay and story. Nothing ruins a game more imo then gamebreaking bugs/glitches, constant framedrops or overly long loading times.
And no, this isn't a 20+ year old game, it's a game released in 2022 and should be treated as such.
Maybe I should just emulate?
Physical inbound. Couldn't give a flying **** what the reviewers say, it's better value buying this on Switch than it is to buy a PS1 copy in new condition. More content, more features, home/portable hybrid.
for now on those old title need a remaster like a link to the past or Pokemon lets go treatment or at least a 2dHD.... it''s a no for me
A good review criticising things like framerate issues should also compare it to the original. It was so long ago I have no idea if that was a problem in the original game.
If u release a game (port) remaster of such an old game with frametstes down to 15 fps and the framerate has such a hugh impact on the flow and feel of the battles I think 6 oo 10 is very generous. This is unacceptable imo, and I want touch this game in any way before they fix it. 🤢🤮
It's great to see titles like this on the switch, 15 euro is a no brainer. Hopefully some updates that fix some issues.
I'm kinda interested, I enjoy late 90s JRPGs. My backlog just grew by a couple games, though, and I still haven't finished SMT V so I'm gonna have to wait on this one.
Pretty much the expected spread. People who have good or bad memories of the original will carry those forward, new players will mostly find a passable game from the era unless they are one of the few this game touches just right.
I just bought the physical because they are rare. Looking forward to play the game (for the first time ever).
That's a real bummer. I'd rather stay with my PS1 copy instead.
Wow, a little all over the place.
What's worse, that on a PS4/5 the performance is unacceptable but on Switch, nothing new!
So we get average reviews and PS version gets roasted.
I may still get it.
Dude I knew something was going wrong in the kitchen when the official Twitter account posted that to ask them for a QnA, its been around a month later, nothing came of it lol.
@Strumpan it was
Okay, I know Chrono Cross is an older game, but why do so many people say turn based combat is antiquated? Persona, Fire Emblem, Dragon Quest, and heck, Pokemon all have turn based combat, and they’re all quite popular. Do these reviewers just not like having to strategize and plan ahead?
@DestructoDisk The problem with these remasters of old games is that they have a very niche audience. For people that grew up playing PS1 JRPGs this is probably gonna be a great game.
But I think most people are really gonna hate it because it is really outdated and the PS1 era is really hard to go back to.
Reviews should reflect todays standards because it is competing in the e-shop with other modern games, I wouldn't think a straight up PS1 port would have scored any better either tho.
Ps bringing up Warcraft 3 is a really bad example because they had a lot of false advertising, predatory ToS changes and it stripped online options for both the remake and the original wc3. Refusing to refund players didn't help their cause either.
Newcomers will think it's a bad game, but the truth is that Chrono Cross is one of the best rpgs ever made. The original ps1 game has a 94 on Metacritic, square enix needs to put more care into their ports of classic games.
I never took my retro hat off so I think I'll be fine with this version.
you kids and your "performance" issues lol.
I am particularly amused by the review that "...can find little reason to recommend this particular bundle over the PlayStation 1 release based on the core game alone."
availability? price? where has this person been? 😆
personally I'm looking forward to playing this beautiful game again. 👍 I got distracted the first time around and never finished it.
@Aurumonado
my hat stayed the same, the world changed around it 😊
the only bad review of the port comes from the Play Station version and from Nintendo Life's brother site (Push Square), the lowest score for the Nintendo version comes from this site (which at least shows some congruence from Eurogamer, lol) so for 20 bucks I'm taking my chances.
@dBackLash dunno if people who played this before are the target audience. Cross was divisive when it came out and I kinda settled on it being okay at best. Its a game that certainly happened.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...