Just because something has a higher resolution doesn't mean it automatically looks better, as several botched Blu-Ray releases of movies can attest. Do not buy blindly into corporate marketing buzzwords.

I had never seen those particular remakes of Final Fantasy 1 or 4 before, but going by various screenshots, they look pretty good and also significantly better than the one for FF VI.
(Note: At first, I mistook screenshots of FF4's PSP port for the mobile port, until I found out that the latter is actually based on the NDS 3D remake of the game. However, both versions look good to me, in vastly different ways.)

The FF VI port simply has pretty bad artwork. A lot of it looks rather bland and cheap, despite the higher resolution. Compare [url=http://www.siliconera.com/postgallery/?p_gal=366653|0]this screenshot[/url] from the remake with [url=http://www.siliconera.com/postgallery/?p_gal=366653|1]this one[/url] from the original.
The background in the "overhauled" version lacks the atmosphere and liveliness of the original. The SNES art makes siginificantly better use of shadows, for example. Some parts of the architecture disappear entirely into darkness, which creates contrast and mood, whereas the mobile version looks too clinical and, frankly, boring.

A good point of comparison is the window in the background. In the original, half of it is obscured by shadow, but you can make out its structure very well. It has depth, while the new version looks flat enough to be mistaken for a drawing on that wall instead of a window.

The mobile port's background reminds me more of the generic default art in RPG Maker than the SNES version of Final Fantasy VI.

And then there are the sprites. Dear lord, the sprites.
Granted, the enemies look good, but the character sprites are awful. If you look at the mechs in those screenshots, you might notice that they actually look less detailed than the ones in the old game, despite not really being that different. The potential of the higher resolution isn't used at all there.
The human characters are the worst of the lot. Their sub-par shading in combination with the choice of colours makes them look flat and washed out, almost blurry. They don't mesh at all with the environments, which is even more noticeable [url=http://www.siliconera.com/postgallery/?p_gal=366653|2]outside of combat[/url], partially thanks to their comparable lack of detail.

The original looked as crisp and polished as pretty much all of Squaresoft's games for the SNES/SFC, with a fitting and unified style; while the mobile port seems like a quick and cheap cashgrab, where all the visual elements clash horribly with each other.
If you have a personal distaste for SNES-era pixel art, that's fine, but that still doesn't make this artwork good; and the ports of FF1 and FF4 prove that such a thing doesn't have to look like shit.

Do any of these PC ports go on sale? If they're damning me to Steam only, then I've no choice but to wait for 80% off or more.

I've only ever seen them go for about 60% off across the market, but not that often.

what about the awesome original music? was remixed or still original? best techno de chocobo ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFKyVnxTq8

It would be great to see the FF series here on GOG.

S-E is adamant about DRM in it's newer releases.

Not many people may have noticed or bought FF7/8 digitally direct from S-E before they came out on Steam, but when they started the last round of re-releasing FF on PC with 7 and 8, they added their own online server side check DRM. Once they started releasing direct to Steam, they used Steamworks DRM instead.

It's such a pity... They did such an awesome job with the GBA and PSP ports, and then... Well, mobile markets have no standards I guess...

Yeah. I think I'll just stick to emulating Square games from here on out.

Wake me if/when they announce a Terranigma port.

Mainly as Monkey Island and Pier Solar were made by competent companies that realize that old needs to be preserved, but new showcased as well. Hence why the games turned out wonderfully when remade.

Holy hell, that's horrendous. I'll stick to my ZSNES ROM, thank you very much.

This seems disingenuous - comparing a port to the original - it's a self-serving argument. The comparison should be drawn between this pc version and the phone app. Obviously a 5" phone screen is more flattering to the issues discussed above ( http://www.fortressofdoors.com/doing-an-hd-remake-the-right-way/) than a desktop monitor which demands some work people feel is not being done and therefore labeling it as a "cheaply produced cash-in." Seems completely just to me especially when Square is charging $12-$17bucks for it.

It's no different than buying a blu-ray and getting dvd quality while having someone point out it's better than a VHS. It may be true but it's not what you're paying for. Square is a company that still charges nearly $15 a month for a game that is well over decade old. With the Deus Ex debacle of this year they are not exactly known for endearing themselves to their customers.

Price gouging and sub-par quality is exactly why programs like openemu exist.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ack, unless you have a very slow PC, don't use ZSNES! Move to an emulator that actually does justice to the original console. Using ZSNES in 2015 is like browsing the internet today with IE6.

Whether you're buying the Android version or the PC version, you're still paying the same price of $16. If there is a real life example to be made, that's like buying a VHS tape and playing it on a SDTV and then an HDTV.....

Except in this case, the VHS's tape resolution is actually scalable with phones of resolutions 1080p and 720p existing at the time of release and with tablets that take up a large footprint of the screen. So to speak, you're paying nothing extra. You're paying for an extra copy of the same VHS. At this point I'd suggest buying the Android version instead and if you want, emulate it on PC to hit two birds with one rock.

How the battle interfaces themselves will be made for the PC, where the interfaces actually matter, we'll see. But until now, all the arguments I've seen were drawn between the new version and the SNES version, which is why I also compared both myself...

I think you're torturing the metaphor and missing the point. There's no reason to excuse an absence of quality when releasing a product to a particular platform which is why the metaphor of buying a blu-ray and getting dvd quality is appropriate.

Maybe so but it's less charitable to the complaint of labeling the release a "cheaply produced cash-in." If a pc release requires a certain amount of additional work to be done and it's not (as the link provided illustrates) then there's no reason not to place blame.