Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Director Explains Why Remaster Cut Local Co-Op

"Despite local play being cut from the remaster of Crystal Chronicles, the director is confident returning players will still enjoy it and mentioned how cross-play makes the multiplayer more accessible - allowing players to choose how to play:"

Oh, so making it so now we have to buy more copies of the game makes it more accessible, gotcha.

I would have taken local over cross-play, personally, but I have local friends to play these. The fact that they tease you with just being able to play the first couple of levels or whatever with folks locally on one cart is just lame

I got to admit I am really disappointed in this decision. I feel like it is an excuse to sell more copies. I loved this game, but my favorite part was playing in the same room with other people.

Okay with Trials of Mana the lack of co-op was at least bearable since that was a full-scale remake and the original is available as part of the Mana collection. So that wasn't so bad.

This on the other hand, is an HD port of a Gamecube game that had local multiplayer no problem all those years ago. if it was a true remake from the ground up in a different engine like ToM, then it'd be understandable, but it isn't. There's no excuse.

This just comes off as "do you guys not have phones?" more than anything.

All they had to do was make local multiplayer offline only if that was actually an issue.

@Kalmaro I thought they said that at the least, they were going to offer a free "lite" version that would only allow players to connect to a game hosted by a paid copy.

My problem with this is the fact that my household only has so many TVs. So even with cross platform, my brothers and I cannot play together anymore.

@KingMike That would have been nice, of true. What we have right now feels more like a cash-grab.

@DrexanzXikam do you not have a switch?

Someone just plays in handheld mode, problem solved

@doctorhino No, I do. The problem is I only have one. With cross platform, we could theoretically play using other consoles, but I have three brothers and only two other TVs.

@doctorhino "don't you guys have phones?" - Blizzard

"Essentially, the Lite version of the game lets you play through a substantial chunk of the start of the game..."

Yeah, that's still a fail to me. It's basically just there to tease everyone else to buy the full game :/

@DrexanzXikam I guess you're right, so much for a full party in one house unless you gather 3 TV's around

@doctorhino It really is a shame. I, at the very least, was really looking forward to playing this again with everyone.

I'll happily buy four copies. I just want to be able to play 4 player local wireless play

Is it possible to play multiplayer using multiple copies on multiple switches with wireless communication without an internet connection?

So Android and IOS games can be played together, i believe Switch and PS4 can cross play together. Fortnight can cross play between Android, IOS, PS4,Xbox and Switch. The game was originally offline 4 player co op from one GameCube. I am not seeing any problems, only excuses. Square produce cutting edge software and have experience with networks, online games and local games. There isn't a particular excuse that is valid, everything considered.

About as lame as the excuses for the creativity restrictions in Paper Mario series.

@EarthboundBenjy
Against my better judgment, I'm actually going to dignify that question with an answer: No.

@Kalmaro It is true. Maybe not the whole campaign, but you can play 13 dungeons with just one copy of the game, which is a huge chunk of the game. 3 dungeons if no one owns the game, so everyone can try it out.

@SirKif Yeah, they posted a link earlier to show that you can play the beginning of it. It's... It's really not a good deal imo.

@Kalmaro @SirKif isn’t there only 13 dungeons in the game though? I only remember about that many, and just checked a guide and only am counting 13.

@ShadJV Not sure, I just know they said you can only play a little of the beginning, according to their own site.

This game is almost begging to played local and I think its sales will suffer because the feature ain’t there no more.

@KingMike They did but I don't think people actually read that article.

@Kalmaro they said you can only play the first 3 dungeons unless one person in the group has the full game. Then you can play the entire game. So, just like if it was local, only one person has to own the game. I have friends just getting the Lite version because they can then play the entire game for free when we play as a group (and, I mean, it’s meant to be played multiplayer anyways).

Even if there is a "Lite" version, wouldn't everyone need a NSO subscription?

There seems to be lot of confusion about the Lite version. Liam already posted the link with all necessary info but here are the main points:

1. You can download Lite version for free
2. You can finish the first three dungeons by yourself or online with other players who have downloaded the Lite version
3. If one player in the group has the full game, you can go through additional 10 dungeons, making it 13 in total (which seems to be the whole game according to some, I've never played it myself so I don't know)
4. You can transfer save data from Lite to full game
5. You need online subscription to play online

I think someone on a meeting forgot to propose local multiplayer can be separated from the online experience. A save game e.g. can be marked as "offline only" so it can be played with local co-op. Easy as that... Everything else is just unreasonable...

Pass. They're kind of missing the point here.

This isn't to be an apologist, this is a geniune thought process that I welcome reasonable and constructive retorts to; Isn't this more of an UI issue? The original's multiplayer was thanks to the gameboy player and each person had their own GBA to see their own inventory, while the gamecube showed the main adventure on the tv. Wouldn't this be a problem on any of these consoles? I suppose with one docked and three handheld, you COULD place an inventory on each screen but who know's what size it would be on the switch screens. Obviously PS4 and XB1 don't have controllers with screens so they are out and mobile? That would arguably be worse than switch. To accommodate this, the UI would have to be overhauled for every console and it seems they want to keep things consistent. Whether it's the right or wrong choice, I don't know. I might check it out, it'll probably still be a fun time.

Just have one Switch and 3 people on a phone (lite version) and you can play with them sitting in the same room.

Or have a combination of Switches and Switch lites and play in handheld mode.

Or have a friend on a PS4 + tv, and the others on Switches or phones.

Or a combination of these.

I think putting local multiplayer would've been impossible. Since you can't connect 4 GBAs to a Switch, PS4 or mobile phone.

It's disappointing they couldn't figure it out but I'm not surprised. There was so much information in the original game that was given to you privately on your GBA screen and made it so players weren't constantly opening menus and taking up the TV screen. So I saw this coming. I'm still super excited to play with my friends online.

@Fuwa exactly my point. It's not just about what information is given to you, but how, and I think trying to let everyone open menus constantly just to check their information would be a UI and logistical nightmare, even if they just haphazardly threw that feature in, either the information would be unreadable or it would clutter up the whole screen. Honestly I still think that it will be a good time online.

Hmm... I missed the official news that it was cut and was waiting for news on it.

This sucks.

I wanted to get this game to play with my boys, but I won't be buying now.

They better release an update to "fix" this issue, or, like many others I presume, I won't be buying.

@doctorhino exactly. they know what they are doing. Same with Xbox 360.. there is this game Kingdom Under Fire Circle of Doom. It does have co-op player, but of course you need 2 paid xbox live gold account so you can play together. There is no offline co-op. This way they can force people to get some subscription.. You are not even allowed to play a game you own with co-op option offline with your brother or friend or who ever. It's really really lame and these companies are very very transparent

@Alucard83 Even that would be better. Am already contemplating a family subscription for Animal Crossing anyways, and that's what? 10 bucks a year extra?

But I suppose I need to hunt down a couple of GBA's then. Already have 2 and too many link cables... I can deal not with not having the extra content.

@Late
Cheers for the informative and concise reiteration.
For myself point 5 is the sticking point. I'd have been happy to buy a copy of the game and then recommend the game to my other family members with Switches or PS4s to have multiplayer together when we have gatherings (not at moment tho ha), but I'll need to renew the NSO sub to do it. In my mind that feels like buying the GBA link cable each, despite all platforms being perfectly able to communicate with each other without an internet connection over Wi-fi. Like the Wii and DS games did for example.

I don’t understand the whining.

The man said:
” play together in the same location”

Seems to me, that this is done properly. And I applaud that they went the extra mile to make the original vision as accessible as possible, in a reasonable way.

The game was made to be played with 4 systems for having personal viewpoint for each player, and a typical lazy couch co op implementation would have been watered down experience. (Well, the myrrh bucket was made to keep players mostly together, but still...)

It's such a shame. Local co-op play on games like this are truly wonderful experiences. Much better than being stuck in a room on your own talking to folk like a telephone salesperson.

"Is this an out-of-season April's fool joke ?" Is Nintendo online app functionality restricted to only Nintendo games? It would be way better than GBA... It just reveals how lackluster the online infrastructure really is.

@SilverdudeOmni The Switch easily has the ability to accommodate this. Me and my siblings all have our own Switches. (And as for how big anything would be on the Switch screen...bigger than a gameboy screen for sure?) Offline local wireless should have been a no brainer. Local wireless is a major feature on Switch, and necessary for me and my family in particular because internet is spotty in our location. Online only play is a dealbreaker for this game, and I could not care less about crossplay with other systems because I have never enjoyed co-op with strangers. I agree it would be a nightmare to produce on other systems, but the limitations of mobile, XB1, and PS4 should not have gimped the Switch version.

@Varoennauraa why can't we have local wireless play.

If I'm gonna play this multiplayer it probably would be online anyway so this is no skin off my back personally, although I do think it's dumb.

There are plenty of games that manage multiple player UI’s on the same screen. I do not buy that excuse. Doing it this way is a cash grab to sell more software copies/online subscriptions. Square is either unaware that they are completely missing the point of this game’s multiplayer, or they are raping it on purpose.

Local co-op was the only reason I was going to buy this. How disappointing.

What´s the point of this game without local coop? This excuse is garbage, they just want to sell more copies.

No way I´m buying this game, sorry.

@Wak_mbpt Exactly. While the second screen was a big part of the game, especially the "secret" solo missions, they could've reworked that system. Either just make them public, or hidden, rework it or just scrap it. It wouldn't make the game any worse.

@the_beaver you can play the free lite version with people who bought the full version and then you have access to the full game.

@Wak_mbpt you can play the free lite version with people who have the full version of the game and then you have access to the full game. And I don't think Square enix gets any money Nintendo / Sony makes off of their online subscription.

@Mambitos yeah sure, you can use the Nintendo online app with Playstation, iOS and Android. Sure.

@DrDaisy

I don't understand what was so undignified about my question?

I used to play games using DS Download Play all the time, and it never required an internet connection. And on Switch, as far as I'm aware, it's possible to play games of Splatoon 2 with eight Switches, eight Splatoon 2 cartridges, and no internet connection, if you use the The Reef building in the plaza.

I just wanted to know if wireless play was supported offline. What's up with the attitude?

@Fuwa Mario party is local co-op, just need controllers. I don't think it would have been too hard, taking save data from your account and placing your character in game, Legend of Mana had that system.

Nope. Lost a sale on me for sure. Taking local multiplayer out of this is like taking it out of Mario Bros. "But you can play it online!". No. Not the same.
I truly think and hope this release will perform very poorly because of this. I'd trade online play on crappy NSO (it's probably a nightmare to use voice chat) for local co-op any day.

I honestly would prefer local play. Easier to play with people on 1 Switch than make them all buy their own switch’s

Still got it on my Gamecube, so I'm all set either way. Don't have to keep up with all the new-fangled crossplay these days. Wonder when Smash Bros will start excluding basic multiplayer for the convoluted kind.

I'm not sure how it's tough to have both, but hey, I'm no game developer.

@sanderev my point is that even with the lite version, an online subscription is required to play together. Unless, of course, you count playing on a smartphone. I do not count playing on a smartphone as a valid or even remotely enjoyable way to try to play a game like this.

@Late there are 14 total original dungeons and 13 new, postgame dungeons.

@sanderev the lite is only 13/27 dungeons.

Typical Nintendo love trying to get consumers to buy more than one copy. You guys are really burning me out with this tactic. I was really looking forward to the remaster. It's a pass for me now. Been telling my Wife I'm excited for this since it was announced. But no, Nintendo, we won't be buying 2.

We live in a world where our phones are as powerful as a PC, can hold thousands of songs in a tiny amount of space, we have expansive games like Witcher 3 on the Switch, among other great technological advancements...

And they couldn't figure out how to make a game have local co-op and run across all platforms? How much of an admission of ineptitude do we need???

@Nutrient NAILED IT

It’s because Nintendo didn’t foot the bill for development costs this time around.

@EarthboundBenjy you are asking a perfectly fine question. IS THERE WIRELESS LOCAL PLAY. Unfortunately I believe the answer is NO

@TG16_IS_BAE you can cross platform Fortnite between phones and consoles, but local co op is too hard lmao. I wonder how diablo did it? Oh wait, they tried.

@sixrings Yeah, I’d rather have wireless local co-op on every Switch game, that would actually be one of the killer features, why I bought the Switch for. But that is a very Switch-specific feature, and developers seem to shun features, that are specific to one system.

But then again, what Square implemented here....IS LOCAL CO-OP, and that’s why I don’t get the uproar.

The man said, that you can play locally.

But yeah, Add local wireless play on every Switch game!

@Varoennauraa Unless I'm missing something, the article says local co-op got cut in favor of corssplay/online co-op.

Yeah such a great idea! Those that don’t have internet service could’ve played couch co-op but instead they restrict it to purely online that you need to pay Nintendo for! Boo! Boo! Boo!

@TG16_IS_BAE I'd really like to know practically how much extra time it takes to implement local wireless once online is added.

Honestly this doesn’t feel like a choice for how to play:

If I want to play locally with friends only one person gets the tv and the rest have to use mobile platforms (unless we want to/can fill a room with 4 TV’s and 4 switches). This feels like a disgrace towards Nintendo games that usually cater to those that want to play all on one tv together; this instead pushes towards playing with strangers or in isolated locations. I, personally, have zero interest in playing on my phone and everyone I do want to play with has a switch so cross play is meaningless to me.

iOS and Android inclusion could have been nice if you could use that as your “Gameboy” screen while having your switch docked playing local multiplayer but that is not the direction they went which I find very disappointing.

I’ll still get the game since I do plan on playing with some friends that moved away but overall I do not stand with their decision.

Reading some of these comments hurt.
So, real quick;
Square Enix made this. NOT Nintendo!
Nintendo probably had nothing to do with Square Enix's design choices.
That lack of wireless co-op does suck. You shouldn't need an internet connection to play this game.
I'm not against people needing their own screen, it's kinda nice on these kinds of games. Playing Diablo 3 locally, on separate Switches is wonderful. Should've been in the game.
Again, SQUARE ENIX! NOT. NINTENDO. Can't stress that enough.
I'll probably wait til it's on sale for 20 or less.

I would buy the game if it had local co-op but now I will wait till a high price drop. As an adult I do not have many console friends and fewer moments to connect with them (agendas). I would play it with the kids cozy on the couch, but will find another title (or just keep playing the simple minecraft dungeons). Too sad though, was really keen on bringing the kids to the wonders of Final Fantasy...

I think they failed to see an excellent opportunity for an awesome multiplayer feature by having multiple Nintendo Switch consoles link up to a Switch console similar to how the GBA did with the GameCube back in the day, what a shame…

Also when they said "Three of the four platforms that this game will be released on are portable" I know they referring to Nintendo Switch and mobile devices, but what's the third option??

@Chibi_Manny I think the game's on PlayStation 4 as well.

What a nonsense excuse, aren't they hurting their brand more by lying so blatantly instead of simply saying it was never a part of the development plan? Jeez.

Maybe all the fan outrage will make them consider patching it in later.

@Chibi_Manny It's release for PS4, Switch, Android, and iOS. They count Android and iOS as separate platforms.

Lite version, where play a portion of the game and get invested which makes you that much more likely to buy the game. Especially if your friends/family start pestering you to finish the game with them. This isn't a "free" version to play the game, this is a loan that they expect you to pay back.

Honestly, it doesn't come as a surprise that local multiplayer is dwindling. As much as I don't care about Google, they did make a good point about couch multiplayer when it came to presenting Stadia. Many games today are more reliant on online or wireless LAN for multiplayer.

@NathanTheAsian but there is no LAN option. That's the crime.

I'm ok either way.

@Liam_Doolan Unrelated.. how much is the game going to cost? I can't find that info anywhere?.

It's not actually an explanation of why, though. There's no given reason why it was either crossplay or local play. Is this just "we weren't willing to spend the money on both"? Because that's not really a compelling explanation, then. They could also say the same thing about any feature in any game ever.

@JR150 I disagree. It's much less forgivable with Trials of Mana. For me, multiplayer was the number one most important aspect of the game. At least Crystal Chronicles still has multiplayer. And anyone can play it locally in the same room with friends for enough of a financial investment. On Switch, playing with a second person online but locally doesn't even require a second copy if you buy digitally. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm it defending the choice. It's bad and I don't like it, but the choice for Trials was far worse to me. It killed my interest in the game.

@Deltath
But you have to take onto account that they remade the game from the ground up and multiple camera angles wouldn't work in a third person style game compared to the top-down view of the original. If you put your bias aside, you can respect the effort. Not to mention, as I said, the original version is available with the Collection of Mana, so you can still have that multiplayer experience if you want it.

https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/collection-of-mana-switch/

If you don't like the omission of co-op from the Remake, you can just get the original. You have that option.

But with this it's no effort. It's an HD port of a GameCube game and they removed a feature from it, forcing everyone to buy multiple consoles to play together, and you have no options. It's inexcusable.

@JR150 The major focus and what brought the Mana series to prominence was multiplayer. This has nothing to do with a personal bias. There are literally countless third person and first person games with multiplayer. They either do split screen or online only. Square Enix themselves have made these games. And telling me I can buy a 25 year old SNES game I've already beaten a dozen times and have owned for decades isn't an acceptable alternative. It's a different game. And the lack of multiplayer was wildly disappointed for many people, not just me. I stand 100% behind what I said.

This isn’t a deal breaker for me personally. None of my friends like this type of game. I put in 200 hours on the GameCube version by myself when I was a teen but I always wanted to experience the multiplayer. So online play is a must for me.

I will admit that this seems overly lazy though. I could see the PS4 version lacking local multiplayer (the multiplayer game is built around each player having their own UI) and I don’t blame them for cutting single system couch coop for the same reason on Switch. But there should be local wireless multiplayer for the Mobile/Switch versions. There’s no excuse that it was cut.

So how much work is it exactly to add local wireless play?

@AnotherGoblin But remember playing 4-player on GameCube means you spent close to $500. Not counting the GameCube, its controller, and memory cards; this is what you need to play FFCC originally:
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles = $50
4 GBA to GCN communication cables = $10 each (x4 = $40)
4 GBAs ($70 each) or GBA SPs ($100 each) = $280 or $400
Total investment in just 4-player multiplayer (without exploit or hacking) = $370 (if all bought original GBAs) or $490 (if all bought GBA SPs)

@retro_player_77 I know more people with switches then I did game boy advances. Then again I was in college during this time and maybe my college friends were more into girls than games making a game cube and 4 GBs basically a non starter. But I could easily find people to play this with over local wireless if that was an option (besides my lan cave that is)

And just like that this game lost all of its appeal.

@Nutrient

....Nintendo has nothing to do with this game though. This game will also be on PS4 and that version omits local co-op as well. This is on SE alone.

Local Co-op is easier to program than Online, these developers didn't even try...

I guess if I want to play with friends I will have to bust out my gamecube, could also bring out the gameboy advance for each player also which would still be cheaper :/ or just bring it to a emulator and crank up the graphics settings so it looks somewhat nice 🤷‍♂️

@EarthboundBenjy The article clearly states that there is no offline multiplayer whatsoever. That means you can't have any kind of multiplayer in this game without an internet connection. That should be an option, but it isn't. I have asked questionable questions in the past too so I decided to answer yours. I try not to be too judgmental, but sometimes it's hard to resist. I've given Damien McFerran and Liam Doolan hard times as well so don't take it personally.

@Victorsigg If you are always playing with a friend/friends only one person needs to buy it and they get all the content which is kinda cool but it is only while you are playing with them.

Currently, we can't get together with friends, so local multiplayer wouldn't work anyway. At least this way, you can play with other people online.

@LinktotheFuture
I agree with that but eventually things will go back to normal (well maybe not in my country since it’s run by morons) and local multiplayer through wireless should be available for the Switch and mobile versions.

No Buy. Cant think of anything more to say.

@TheRedComet Let's hope things get better!

I decided not to buy the game because of this.

@Kalmaro only one copy needed for a huge chunk of the game.

I rarely ever play local co-op games any more so this isn't a big deal for me but it sucks for people who were planning to play locally with friends or family

Not an issue, i will surely play it again with my brother and surely each one will want its own copy to play online.

Smells like teen bullsith.

One or the other? Sounds like a co-op-out, if you know what I mean.

I created an account just so I could point out local co op was the literal only reason I cared about the remake. So the game is completely useless to me now. The only real reason they removed local co op is so That people would be forced to pay for their crappy online service. I do not, nor have I ever liked playing games online. I only want to play them with my fri3nds in the same room as me. So what if that makes me out dated. It is what I, the user, likes. And this game is an insult to what the game originally was. Hanhing woth your friends, trying to work togther, yelling and panicking. This game is ruined. Onli e play only is absolut B***S***

Probably because when they moved it from Wii U to Switch they had to take out a few things- you know this was originally planned for Wii U until recent, because of Wii U being the massive failure, and having to have all its games moved to Switch. If it had come out on Wii U, then it'd probably have had local.

@c3Pip0

I did the same thing as you - created an account to comment here.

They could have utilized iOS and Android by allowing them to play the role of the personal map/item screen we used to use Gameboys while everyone connected to one console/TV. That would have been the creative way to bring people together locally but instead they kinda botched that connectivity and tree it in our faces.

They also delayed the release to work on the game more but still overlooked the main thing we wanted - I’d personally be glad to have waited awhile longer if they’d give us local multiplayer

I grew up playing the original FFCC in my garage with buddies who came over with GBAs and link cables. So maybe I'm just an old-timer who thinks kids have it too good today, but lack of "local" co-op seems to be a non-issue: what's stopping people from sitting down on a couch together and playing co-op while connected to wifi?

Sure it might be clunkier than wireless link-ups between devices, but no more cumbersome than buying & hooking up separate GBAs and link cables.

Perhaps with enough voices they may see the error of their ways. Or not, who knows.

Unpopular opinion but since the only local multiplayer that happens in my house is either Mario Party or Mario kart, I don't really mind this.

Is this digital only? I have yet to see ANY retailer with a physical copy available. I truly hope it's getting a physical release, because as a collector I'd love to add it to my collection. I do NOT buy digital games. So like many others I will completely skip this if it's digital-only.

@Kalmaro you do realize they are releasing lite version that allow you to play with someone for free? You only need one copy of the game. Research before you spread misinformation.

@Victorsigg you only need to buy one copy of the game still. All 3 other players only need the lite version. Which is available on all platforms.

@LuluXfire64 I know about it, even mentioned it here

According to their own site, which is in a link a few posts up, you can't play the full game with the lite version with everyone. Unless I'm misreading it.

They only say you canplay3 dungeons if no one has the game and "up to" 13 dungeons of someone does own it, with no word of how many dungeons total there are.

So, going by that, it doesn't seem like you can share the full experience with other people with one cart.

@mazzel you’re missing the point. Local multiplayer cant happen because if your friend has A ps4 IOS or Android they can’t locally communicate. And you need 4 devices to get the separate screen experience GameCube had anyways. Not to mention its digital only in USA and EU So if you downloaded it then you can already do multiplayer. The only reason there would be to implement local would be between multiple switches to play together which is pointless.

@Kalmaro in the old game there were 13.
So you’re at least guaranteed to beat the game.
Extra endgame dungeon maybe not.

@Wewkee how tf they going to locally connect a phone to a console? As a controller. Online over a server is the only way which is what they did.

@LuluXfire64 It looks like they are hinting at extra content, so you can beat the old content and the extra stuff is gated. Thus, you can't play the full game.

That's a decent deal for free though so that makes it better. It's still not the full game, which was mostly my point.

@LuluXfire64 you were missing my point. I was not talking about local network multiplayer, but couch co-op, all players on one screen, like game cube.

On GameCube everyone had a separate screen for items ect you cant do that with local multiplayer. Unless they split the screen 4 ways which defeats the purpose. Multiplayer lite version is free it’s highly unlikely out of 4 people none of you have internet everyone has a phone. All my friends have switches. I plan on playing couch co op. And everyone will technically be on one screen anyways. The argument that this somehow ruins something is ridiculous. When it literally manages to keep everything intact the way it was intended.
And originally played.

I have a question for everyone and I can’t seem to
get clarification on it. I’m also hearing that the game will only allow you to connect with others from dungeons only and wen we won’t be able to see each other in towns and travel the caravan together. Is this all true?

I bought this game to play with my kids as a local co op without realizing this feature had been removed. I didn't buy this to play with strangers on the internet, I bought it to play with my family. The game is worthless.

Wonder if Square Enix knows I slept on this one every single time because it always lacked normal plain local co-op.