Why I'm Not Excited for the Final Fantasy IX Remake

I love Final Fantasy games (in general, of course - XII was just terrible and is my most notable exception), and if pressed, Final Fantasy IX would be somewhere in my top three. It has bucket-loads of charm, a great story, compelling characters, a good sense of humour and is generally what I'm looking for in a JRPG.

The trailer for the remake looks brilliant, too. The art style and direction looks exactly right - faithful to the original while making the mass of pixels readable and playable in the 21st century. (A fun experiment for anyone with the original discs and a PS3 that can play PS1 games - try loading up Final Fantasy IX on a decently sized television. I'll wait. How badly do you need to blur your vision before you can't see the individual pixels? In my latest playthrough, I played it entirely without my glasses just to be able to read the text.)

So, on paper, I love the idea of remaking Final Fantasy IX. It'll bring a much-overlooked gem to a new audience and give people like me a chance and an excuse to revisit their nostalgia.

Except I won't be playing it. The remake will only be for Windows operating systems, iOS and Android, and I only have a Mac. Square Enix release exactly no Final Fantasy games on Mac (with the notable exception of the MMO, Final Fantasy XIV, which was briefly released on Mac before being withdrawn because it was, by all accounts, too buggy).

I could play Final Fantasy IX on my phone, provided that I wanted to: a) accept that my battery life would be non-existent, b) enjoy the game on the smallest screen I own and c) use all my available storage space for it. But, having played and enjoyed the iOS version of the World Ends With You, my main concern is that an iOS update will suddenly render the game unplayable, and I will have to wait upwards of six months for Square Enix to patch it. To me, it's simply not worth the risk and the multiple downsides.

I suppose the obvious answer is to simply buy a Windows computer (and if I lived in a world where I simply had that money, I would be tempted). But I shouldn't have to. I own and play many games on my Mac already, and more and more software developers are realising that Mac computers are viable gaming machines, too.

Independent game developers can somehow manage to find the resources and knowledge to code for both Mac and Windows; I find it somewhat absurd to think that this is inaccessible knowledge for a triple-A game developer. Right now, I could play Undertale, Don't Starve, Minecraft, Amnesia, Bastion, The Binding of Isaac, or Limbo, and that would only be scratching the surface of indie games. If I wanted to go for something a little more mainstream, I could choose virtually anything by Blizzard or Valve.

I know Square Enix aren't the only mainstream publisher doing this, either. Sega, Bethesda, Rockstar Games, Activision and many more also make their games near exclusively for Windows, cutting out a potential market for their games.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of Mac-users out there, and they are playing games on their machines. Just walk into any university campus and see. Or if that isn't enough quantitative data, analyse the steadily rising sales of Mac computers over the last ten years in comparison to Windows computers (which, of course, is flawed data anyway, as it includes the many office PCs running Windows used exclusively for work and not gaming).

In short, there is a sizeable and growing market that many developers are choosing to ignore, that I believe are costing them sales. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a princess to kidnap, yummies to eat and a world to save...in all its pixelated glory.

British Television verses US Television

I've recently been thinking about how British television compares to US television and why these differences come about. It's no real secret that in general, British series (seasons) last for much shorter, often totalling 6 episodes in comparison to longer US seasons, and the episodes themselves are often shorter, too. But the entire culture of what types of programmes get made and continue to multiple series is also vastly different, too.

In part, this is because of the unique way the BBC is funded. To watch live television in the UK, people need to purchase a television license. This is the main way the BBC gets funding. On paper, the BBC is a not for profit organisation that is accountable to the British public. (In practice, there are commercial arms of the BBC, such as BBC America, where they can sell programmes both domestically and internationally) The BBC's primary source of funding is the license fee that British people pay in order to legally watch live television. Because of this, they are held accountable to the public, and do not employ advertising on their channels.

Because there is no space for advertising on the BBC, programmes are often made for shorter slots, approximately half an hour, as opposed to forty-five minute 'tv hours' that would account for commercial breaks.

Due to this, the BBC has a responsibility to create programmes that are within the 'public interest'. This means that alongside high-budget fiction such as Doctor Who and Sherlock, they are able to create documentaries and non-fiction programming with an emphasis on quality of content.  In stark contrast, the American rating system for television puts greater emphasis on viewing figures (as the number of people who watch a particular show affects the price of advertising in that timeslot, and thus the revenue of the channel), and so programmes aim to be commercially successful over being high-quality. The BBC's official mission as set out in their charter is: "To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain." Creating entertaining programmes is only a third of their mission statement, as opposed to many American networks where it is the majority of their content.

British broadcasters almost always have to work with a smaller budget than American shows. This leads to smaller series with tighter writing, and often clever ways of writing around lack of special effects, many locations and large casts. British broadcasters excel at small dramas and comedy shows with fast-paced plots and a tight-knit group of characters, whereas American shows tend to be higher in spectacle yet an overarching plot can last three times as long as a similar British show.

All of this comes some way to explaining why American reboots of popular British television shows have done so poorly. Being Human was a surprise success in Britain (it aired on the young adult oriented BBC Three, often used as a proving ground for shows the BBC don't feel would have a wide enough appeal to put on BBC One), yet the American reboot was critically panned on both sides of the pond. America has attempted to adapt cult classic Red Dwarf twice, and both attempts never made it past the pilot episode.

Of course, there are cultural differences at play, too. A lot of successful British comedy uses a style of self-depreciating humour that simply does not translate to American viewpoints. Part of the comedy of Being Human was that being located in Bristol was part of the tragedy of the characters. The character of Lister on Red Dwarf is a likeable slob who revels in his disgusting ways, but is a preferable character to the uptight coward of Rimmer. Bad Education, The Inbetweeners, Skins, etc. all take a painfully honest look at some of the worst parts of awkward teenage years. This style of humour doesn't fully translate to American audiences, whereas Britons are very quick to utilise self-depreciation.