Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls Review

By Rob Fahey Published 28 January, 2005

Dawn of a dynasty, too.

Version tested: GameBoy Advance

Order yours now from Simply Games.

'Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls' Screenshot 1

There are a number of schools of thought on retro gaming. It's probably important, in the context of this review, that I pin my colours to the mast here - most old games are rubbish. Or to be precise, they've aged badly and become rubbish, just like your favourite shirt from five years ago, which now sees service washing the car on Sunday afternoon.

There, I've said it. You may feel free to call me a shallow, graphics-obsessed person of loose morals, but my personal viewpoint remains unchanged. While Kristan has been hacking a path through the retro trip that publishers appear to be subjecting us to of late, I've been standing on the sidelines wondering how he manages to play - let alone enjoy -such ancient piles of tat without having a nervous breakdown of some description.

I shouldn't have tempted fate, really. I should have kept thinking about the future. But no sooner was Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls dropped in the door than it was hurled in my direction as the resident Japanese RPG fanboy. Remember, kids; retro gaming can strike anywhere, at any time. Always carry protection.

First Fantasy, Actually

'Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls' Screenshot 2

All that being said, I was more than happy to give Dawn of Souls a fair hearing. The GBA isn't lacking in terms of decent RPG titles, and the fact that they're 2D and in some cases remakes of older games (Breath of Fire springs to mind) does absolutely nothing to detract from them. For all that the Final Fantasy series has recently become a benchmark for gaming eye-candy, this is actually a genre that's very forgiving when it comes to graphics - a solid storyline and entertaining battle system, after all, are two elements which could be relayed on pieces of paper or in plain text if you wanted to be minimalist about it.

First thing's first, then. What this package contains isn't actually the original NES versions of Final Fantasy I and its brother II - each one has, in fact, been modified greatly since it first took a bow on the ancient system. The most obvious change is to the artwork, which has been updated to SNES-style sprites (copied, I believe, from the Wonderswan version which appeared in Japan a few years ago). We're not talking about a pinnacle of handheld graphics here by any means, but it's certainly easier on the eyes than the NES artwork was.

However, the most important changes aren't visual at all - they're the sweeping changes which have been made to the games in terms of battle systems, balance and even storyline. These are particularly obvious in Final Fantasy I, where the entire magic system has been radically overhauled and several new areas have been added to the game, but Final Fantasy II - arguably the most messy and directionless game in the series - has also gone under the knife, with the bandages coming off to reveal a rebalanced experience system and new storyline exposition scenes.

Something Old, Something New

'Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls' Screenshot 3

For the most part, it seems that these changes have been made in order to bring the games in line with the expectations of players who started on later titles in the Final Fantasy series. Final Fantasy I, for example, loses its somewhat archaic magic system - which divided magic into "levels" and gave you a fixed number of casts at a certain level - in favour of the more common MP points system, as found in pretty much every Final Fantasy title since.

Final Fantasy II, meanwhile, retains its peculiar levelling up system, which is focused on giving your characters experience in specific areas (using magic a lot levels up your magic stat, taking a lot of damage levels up your hit points, and so on). The system is rebalanced to make it less painful - originally Final Fantasy II was an utterly unforgiving experience, where hours of levelling up could be required just to prevent your characters from falling off the game's power curve. However, it's still got its quirks, most notably the fact that there's no indication of how close you are to levelling specific statistics, which can make it pretty hard to see if you're actually achieving anything as you play.

Both games have been given some bonus content as well - new dungeons and areas in Final Fantasy I (which are nicely designed, although it's somewhat disappointing that they're populated with the same monsters found everywhere else in the world, albeit in different colours), and the aforementioned new story sequences in Final Fantasy II. There's also a "Bestiary" which allows you to view details of monsters you've fought in both games, which... Well, isn't very interesting actually, but it's worth mentioning its presence.

Out with the Old

'Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls' Screenshot 4

The changes to the games outlined above, however, don't change the fact that what you're playing is a pair of the oldest RPGs on the block. These are games which really do hail from the dawn of a genre, and we all know that no matter how romantically it may be described in poetry and song, dawn is actually pretty cold, damp and unpleasant, and you'd really rather be in bed. While Square Enix has knocked some of the sharper corners off the games, what remains is still a weary slog along a levelling-up treadmill. You'll rarely spend more than ten seconds without being slapped with a random encounter, the level of character customisation available to you is absolutely minimal, and the strong storylines which have endeared Final Fantasy to the world in recent years simply aren't in evidence in these archaic predecessors.

In ways, then, we're puzzled about why Square Enix made the changes it did. Dawn of Souls absolutely fails to stand on its feet as a strong contender in the GBA RPG market - not when there are titles like Golden Sun, The Legend of Zelda: Minish Cap, Breath of Fire or even Final Fantasy Tactics Advance out there clamouring for attention. As a retro curiosity, allowing gamers to experience the genesis of one of their best-loved franchises, there's a certain degree of potential here, but what's the point of that if you're going to take out some of the really unusual systems - like FFI's magic system - and replace them with innovations from later in the series?

Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls is certainly one of the more passable products of the recent retro-gaming fad, but packaged up in the guise of a modern RPG - without the decency of the NES Classics range in terms of admitting to its own clapped-out state - it's going to be a major disappointment to most who pick it up. Tweaked battle systems and improved graphics can't hide the fact that time has not been kind to this style of gameplay - and Dawn of Souls ends up falling between two stools, with its value to interested fans reduced by the changes, and its value to everyone else minimal because the changes don't go far enough. Final Fantasy buffs will add this to their collections in a flash - unless you're very curious to see what an RPG looked like in the bad old good old days, everyone else should steer clear.

Order yours now from Simply Games.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (39) Latest comment 7 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Shinji #1 7 years ago

    I *am* being as objective as possible, but this is a game released at full price on a modern console. It's aged terribly, terribly badly, as so many games of the era have, and I think I back that assertion up.

    I didn't say "this is old so therefore it's crap". It's an old game riddled with flaws that have been excised from this genre in recent years, being tarted up to look like a new game. THAT'S the problem.

    /wishes people would read more than the introduction paragraph before posting comments...

  • Lutz #2 7 years ago

    I'm playing FFI on DoS ATM, and although it's not great, it's a LOT better then either Breath of Fire 1 or 2.

  • itamae #3 7 years ago

    Sounds like a fair review, and confirms my initial doubts. Something to pluck from the bargain bin then...

    Oh and that "These are games which really do hail from the dawn of a genre, and we all know that no matter how romantically it may be described in poetry and song, dawn is actually pretty cold, damp and unpleasant, and you'd really rather be in bed." was excellent. Quality reading :-)

  • Blerk #4 7 years ago

    Picked this up just before Christmas having played a little on the emulator (naughty, yes, I'm sorry, but I did buy a copy based on that) and played FF1 for several weeks on and off.

    However, my initial 'hey this is quite fun' impressions quickly wore off. The lack of a world map and any clear direction on Final Fantasy 1 is absolutely infuriating - I ended up downloading a map from the 'net in order to keep up the incentive to play. However, in the end even that wasn't enough and it's ended up on the 'not being played' pile.

    As curiosities or for completists they're quite nice. As RPGs they're woefully outdated and not very much fun.

    This has been a Blerko mini-review, brought to you with the letters M, E and H and the number 42.

  • eviltobz  #5 7 years ago

    "Goodness. Why get someone with bias to review the games? Surely you should try to be as independant as possible? Be objective."

    i'd much rather see a review like this where the reviewer clearly states any bias than something looking all objective but where you don't know where he's coming from.

    edit - and lol @ blerk's parting shot :)
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/05 @ 12:49

  • dadrester #6 7 years ago

    give me ff4,5 or 6 any day

  • mrpsb #7 7 years ago

    FF1 certainly has a world map.

  • Blerk #8 7 years ago

    FF1 certainly has a world map.

    Okay, where? Pray tell me how to access it.

  • Blerk #9 7 years ago

    But Steamboat Willie is just as enjoyable to watch now as it was back then. Final Fantasy I and II might still be just as enjoyable if you hadn't played many, many more advanced games in the meantime, but we all have and you just can't help but compare. They are excpetionally primitive by modern standards, there's no two ways about it. You can choose to ignore that and play them anyway, as I tried to. But you can't help this nagging feeling at the back of your mind that they're not much fun. All those other games you've played in the meantime have spoiled you. Surely that has to be reflected in a review? You can't review it as though all those other games don't exist - it's not fair on the consumer.

  • Spanky #10 7 years ago

    If steam boat willie was released on dvd at full price you would be complaining.

    I prefer Tom and Jerry and a bit of Poopeye meself :p

  • Rahul #11 7 years ago

    It's hard to objectively review tarted up retro games -- the problem lies in the fact that the developer is very aware of the core audience that takes interest in these things. Maybe the best choice is to provide two reviews; one for the intended audience, and one for everyone else. I guess since Eurogamer is a mainstream site and not a niche retro RPG one, 5/10 is adequate. But to anyone who actually specifically likes this sort of thing, it's absolutely cream of the crop 9/10 stuff. You wouldn't believe how much time some people put into just level grinding a 16-bit by graphics, 8-bit by design RPG on the plane. Simplicity in repetitivity: dull the mind with boredom?

  • Blerk #12 7 years ago

    Games like Populus with the strange control scheme (console versions) prove to be as addictive now.

    Populous is a good comparison. There's a retro game which is just as good now as it was back then. It's aged very, very well. These titles haven't - they're just too primitive to rate highly these days.


    But to anyone who actually specifically likes this sort of thing, it's absolutely cream of the crop 9/10 stuff.

    No, it isn't. I'm a complete JRPG fanatic - so is Rob. I love all things Final Fantasy. But in this day and age, this is a 5/10.

  • Jmog #13 7 years ago

    But he's not giving the game 5/10 because of the graphics. He's doing it because of the gameplay which is much better in many newer RPGs.

  • Blerk #14 7 years ago

    Why "in this day and age"? Games are games no matter what the age.

    Yes. But that doesn't mean they're still fun to play. Back then, this was the pinnacle of entertainment and you could forgive it its shortcomings. Today, those limitations are glaringly obvious and remove much of the fun from the title.

    Your Star Wars example is exactly the same as the Steamboat Willie one. It looks primitive, but it's still enjoyable because the 'whole' is still entertaining. Final Fantasy looks primitive and I can cope with that, but the gameplay is so primitive as to prove irritating. The battle system is still fine and the scraps are as good as they are today, but the 'world' is glaringly empty, the characters two-dimensional, there's next to no story, hardly any dialogue and the system limitations of the day remove all forms of complexity from the game which we take for granted today (like the aforementioned on-screen world map).

    I'm not saying all retro titles are bad. Final Fantasy IV, V and VI are just as good today as they were back then. But I and II are just a step too far back in time. They're interesting for the nostalgia value but they're not very entertaining to actually sit down and play.
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/05 @ 14:48

  • Daryoon #15 7 years ago

    Having FF:origins for the PS (which was incidently cheaper), I just did the naughty thing to play this version. I still like FF1, though I haven't touched FF2 as my FF:o experience was rather bad.

    I think there was a massive missed opportunity with the new dungeons in 1 though. They featured bosses from FF3-6, but in randomly generated levels with palette-swap enemies from 1. Why couldn't they have added enemies and areas from the specific games? And why not dungeons based on 7-10? It would have been cool to see SNES-era versions of later enemies/bosses.

  • otto #16 7 years ago

    You're absolutely spot on with this one, Rob. I was curious, I bought, I played, I was very disappointed.

    "You'll rarely spend more than ten seconds without being slapped with a random encounter, the level of character customisation available to you is absolutely minimal, and the strong storylines which have endeared Final Fantasy to the world in recent years simply aren't in evidence in these archaic predecessors."

    Sums it up for me. No atmosphere, no story, no interest...

  • bink #17 7 years ago

    I was surprised at the lack of mention of the PS1 Origins release. Have the graphics in this one been re-done again since then? As far as I knew, that one had the Wonderswan graphics in it, but the screenshots here look different (or maybe it's just my crazy eyes). I've just finished FFV from the anthology on my compulsive trawl through the series, and if you think I & II have dated, you should try IV & V (which Square couldn't be bothered to update). Those two were really painful.

  • Daryoon #18 7 years ago

    You weren't expecting a FFVII-style splot for FFI were you? :p They didn't really start with the heavy plotting until IV.

  • otto #19 7 years ago

    To be honest, I didn't know what to expect. I wasn't expecting FFVII, obviously, but as Rob says you don't need much in the way of high tech to produce a good plot.

  • sephy #20 7 years ago

    I'm getting quite a bit of fun from Dawn of souls. Certainly not in the same way that newer FF games give me, but it does the job.

    While I agree with many of the things Rob mentioned in his review (for example I followed the guide in the US nes manual for the beginning half of the game as there only a handful of hints), I still have a higher view of the cart then he does. But i'm not going to try and convince you all it really is brilliant because a)i'm biased (Rob can back me up when I say i'm a stupidly big FF fanboy) and b) Opinions and all that.

    The wonderswan carts did allow you to play the game in the original "nes glory" as far as I can remember, but even the biggest FF fanboys would have trouble playing those. Graphics aside, the battle system is very unforgiving and the magic system makes the game that much more irrtating in the original versions. Dawn of souls at least allows you to play the first 2 FF games with decent graphics (actually much more detailed then the snes ff games), and makes it rather more forgiving and easier to get into them. It's not for everyone certainly, but I think it does a good job of making the games easier to get into for the newer generation and those interested in the older games. Including the originals would have been nice though.

    BTW the world map is accessed via B+Select (theres a hint given in Matoya's cave when you reach it)

    I would probably give FF1 a 7. I'm not starting FF2 until I finish FF1
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/05 @ 16:29

  • firefly #21 7 years ago

    Blerk I believe the worldmap can be opened by holding select then pressing B.

    Checks game to make sure...

    Nope actually it's the other way round (hold B then press select) but it's definitely there.

  • Rahul #22 7 years ago

    No, it isn't. I'm a complete JRPG fanatic - so is Rob. I love all things Final Fantasy. But in this day and age, this is a 5/10.

    I know, but Rob is reviewing this material objectively, like he says in this list of comments -- not in its effective focus to the niche (j)RPG audience. And I know more RPG maniacs who love this game than I know RPG maniacs who don't, so I'm going by that measure to give myself an idea of how this rubs off on one audience versus the mainstream.

  • sam_spade #23 7 years ago

    Isn't a better film analogy, Train Pulling Into Station and Workers Leaving Factory vs Amelie and Troy.

  • Kami #24 7 years ago

    I expected it, to be honest. As said, time has not been kind to these games. And it would take more than this to really make it a sound buy. Shame, I know, but heck. I guess it's still a piece of history which has just been brushed-up for todays market.

  • Rahul #25 7 years ago

    Target audience is an argument in any game, but especially retro remakes. They made this because they knew there was an audience for it, it's as simple as that. The fact that those who it isn't marketed/developed towards don't enjoy it is generally irrelevant to the reason of creating it in the first place.

    As for game design, by today's standards of course it's riddled with design flaws. But then they are also very clearly aware of that and don't consider it an important facet of the game to improve. For one thing, if you started fixing design flaws in old games, how would it still be retro? Might as well create a whole new thing, in which case -- look to Final Fantasy XII.

  • Celeborn #26 7 years ago

    the whole "minority for thinking ff6 isn't the best" is a bit silly. There are a select generation who have that as their first JRPG... and for most, the first experience is the best. Just as the PS generation often feel FF7 is the best and so on. In which case, any direct comparison from any person is biased.

    In my case for FF6, the first half of it was great; some of the best FF in all the series, but I have never witnessed a game nosedive so rapidly in the 2nd half of the game.... sure lots to do, but for me, JRPGs consist of (1) Story and (2) Ballanced battles - of which FF6 part 1 achieves brilliantly but part 2 fails miserabley

    For FF7, it was my first experience, so I still remember it very fondly. I loved the materia system, and loved the story. But those long drawn out summon animations? Some boring "traveling" sections? Music that hearing it back now, is poor and whiney in terms of synth quality (hell, i prefer the ff6 music quality that the snes piped out).

    I'm not sure I could play either one again, let alone go back to FF1/2 :) So many lessons have been learnt over the years in what's a good design choice and whats not, that to go back and have to put up with those glaring mistakes again is just painful at times.

  • 3william56 #27 7 years ago

    "everyone with half a brain know FFIII on the SNES is the best FF game ever"

    What about folks with a whole brain then?

    Personally, I'd prefer to watch the Train Pulling Into Station than Troy... Brad Pitt trying to look 'ard is just plain wrong.

  • Blerk #28 7 years ago

    Well, thanks to everyone who pointed out how to access the world map. I haven't tried it yet, but I will. Whether that's enough to entice me back into the game or not... I dunno. I doubt it.

    Why don't they just tell you how to access the world map rather than dropping cryptic hints? :-/

  • Lutz #29 7 years ago

    Blerk, AFAIK, there's not even a HINT on how to access that map.

    /shakes fist at Square

  • #30 7 years ago

    Quite a contrast to the 'retro' The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past review. A bit of consistency is needed around here methinks!

  • sephy #31 7 years ago

    Why don't they just tell you how to access the world map rather than dropping cryptic hints? :-/
    In 1987 it probably wasn't a big deal. And cryptic hints are normal for an RPG :)

    Blerk, AFAIK, there's not even a HINT on how to access that map.
    As already said the hint is IN MATOYA'S CAVE!!!!!! ;p

    Quite a contrast to the 'retro' The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past review. A bit of consistency is needed around here methinks!
    So it's wrong for two different reviewiers to have different opinions on two completely different games?

  • Blerk #32 7 years ago

    Quite a contrast to the 'retro' The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past review.

    Yes. Mainly because LttP is still good. Do you see?

  • #33 7 years ago

    "So it's wrong for two different reviewiers to have different opinions on two completely different games?"

    No. But it's right for Eurogamer (more so the Editor I'd imagine) as a publication to make sure their reviews are unbiased and are consistent to some kind of method. Either Eurogamer promotes 'Retro' gaming or it doesn't, but don't mystify the reader by saying this game is 'Retro' therefore it's rubbish because all old games are rubbish, and then in another article say 'Retro' gaming is great!

    While FFI & II may or may not be a poor game, it seems unfair to open a review with the bold statement "- most old games are rubbish. Or to be precise, they've aged badly and become rubbish", and any decent Editor, better yet gamer would of sent the article back to said English scholar who happens to play a few RPG's from time to time, to choose a more appropriate opening paragraph.

    Or maybe Eurogamer would of employed the late Mary Whitehouse to review Resident Evil 4? Do you get it now! :D
    Edited by 2 at 31/01/05 @ 16:44

  • sephy #34 7 years ago

    But it's right for Eurogamer (more so the Editor I'd imagine) as a publication to make sure their reviews are unbiased and are consistent to some kind of method. Either Eurogamer promotes 'Retro' gaming or it doesn't, but don't mystify the reader by saying this game is 'Retro' therefore it's rubbish because all old games are rubbish, and then in another article say 'Retro' gaming is great!

    While I see your point, It's perfectly clear to me that despite many claims to the opposite, that Eurogamer is far from Biased. After all, this is a review of an RPG by the resident RPG fanboy, and Rob was hardly afraid to have a negative opinion of the game. Retro gaming has always been about personnel opinions, and I think this is good evidence of that.

    You may feel free to call me a shallow, graphics-obsessed person of loose morals, but my personal viewpoint remains unchanged.
    Theres a handy get out clause of sorts

    I've never seen Eurogamer either promote or dismiss Retro gaming as a whole, only in personnal opinion. Any review written by one sole member of the EG (or any team) should always be considered personal opinion, and not a universal reflection of taste.

  • Shinji #35 7 years ago

    don't mystify the reader by saying this game is 'Retro' therefore it's rubbish because all old games are rubbish, and then in another article say 'Retro' gaming is great!

    The only people being mystified are those who can't fucking read. Like you. The article goes to great lengths to say that this game isn't rubbish because it's retro, it's rubbish because it's aged very badly and fails at being enjoyable to people who've played far better made modern titles. Do you see?

  • #36 7 years ago

    So you didn't say in your opening paragraph old games are rubbish then, my bad! I must of 'fucking' imagined it! Also while we're on the subject of illiteracy, I suggest you read my post again , because I'm sure I said the game might be poor but it was always going to fail to be anything but poor from someone who holds a prejudice!

    Which further questions the credibility of Eurogamer, because all the 'Retro' games you have reviewed and will review, I'm not sure how valid the review is going to be, old games are crap remember! So if it gets a good review who's lying? If it gets a bad review who's lying? You see... ?



    EDIT: "It's probably important, in the context of this review, that I pin my colours to the mast here"

    And if I'm illiterate, tell me scholar, what does that mean, and why did you have to print it?
    Edited by 1 at 01/02/05 @ 15:16

  • Blerk #37 7 years ago

    Why bother doing new stuff when you can rehash all the old stuff and flog it at full price?

    Squenix obviously saw that it works time and time again for Nintendo and thought... what the hell - let's give it a go!

  • Kami #38 7 years ago

    BTW, to bold stuff, use the ">", not the "]".

    Damn, still had to edit. *shakes fist at browser*
    Edited by 1 at 03/03/05 @ 22:53

  • ghearoid #39 7 years ago

    um, my local toysRus are selling this for £14.99. anyone reckon it's worth a pop at that price?