What Chrono Trigger Fanboys Really Wanted in a Sequel

[Cubemario]

My my my, look what I started 

[MeshGearFox]

Yeah, but Square said Chrono Cross wans't Chrono Trigger 2, so that's kind of word-of-god.

A better analogy, and a somewhat opposite one, might be how Ultima 7: Serpent Isle wasn't considered Ultima 8 by Origin because it's underlying engine and gameplay are identical to Ultima 7's, and the storyline is very closely linked instead of being a new story arc.

With Chrono Cross, as I said, it's sort of the opposite. It's not Chrono Trigger 2 because its gameplay is very different from CT's and the storyline is too.

I do think that's interesting, how the guy in that interview is talking about the relationship between ATB, SoM's thingy, CT's variant of ATB, what XG uses, and what CC uses.

[maggiekarp]

Again, if it wanted to be Chrono Cross and not Chrono Trigger 2, it shouldn't have killed off most of the main cast of the last game. It should have left them a complete mystery instead of being a terrible tease. "They're dead, but it's not like you care about all that. Have some blonde!Schala talking about inseminating planets instead!"

Yes, it was fun. Yes, it had excellent music and art. Yes, it gets high scores.

It is still a horribly disappointing SEQUEL.

[MeshGearFox]

The game never explicitly states that Crono and Marle are dead (unless you assume, maybe, that it takes place in a timeline where Crono never got revived), Lucca's quite probably not dead in Home world, and Frog and Ayla would've been dead anyway by 1020. The ghost-like creatures are not Lucca's, Marle's, and Crono's ghosts. The original cast would've been in their late 30s when they died, and the ghosts are based off how they look when they were younger. The script makes it sound like they're some sort of messaging system that's part of FATE or something anyway.

And, in any case, I'm not sure when "killed off characters for previous game" meant that something was a bad sequel.

Look, is it seriously going out on a limb to say that players were upset more because they played Chrono Trigger when they were young, had incredibly fond memories of it, formed some sort of attachment to the characters in it, and were more upset about the game violating their memories or something and less concerned about the actual merits of CC's story?

[Kebrel]

And, in any case, I'm not sure when "killed off characters for previous game" meant that something was a bad sequel.

Look, is it seriously going out on a limb to say that players were upset more because they played Chrono Trigger when they were young, had incredibly fond memories of it, formed some sort of attachment to the characters in it, and were more upset about the game violating their memories or something and less concerned about the actual merits of CC's story?

QFT

[ZeaLitY]

The entire 8-bit and 16-bit fanbases might as well be built on nostalgia. It's going out on a limb to say nostalgia isn't a factor.

[Cubemario]

Zeality is right. There are several games I never experienced when they were out. Even some of the ones I have experienced when they were out, playing them now is not fun. There are some games that just do not age well. Mario kart, in my opinion is one of those series that do not age well.

I wonder what I would think of DKC, one of my favorite games, if I were to play it for the first time now.

[Kilfer]

I'm on the side of the wall that believes that Cross is definitely a sequel to Trigger.

Robo = promethius circuit
Chrono, Lucca and Marle's appearances in the game.
Schala's involvement in the plot.
Lavos' return.
ect ect

[MeshGearFox]

I didn't like DKC much when I played it when I was younger and it was still sort of newish. At the same time, though, some of the stuff I've read about it makes me think I'd like it more if I played it again.

Sometimes I think with old games, if you don't enjoy them anymore, you need a new way of playing them. For instance, when I was younger, I used to grind through RPGs a lot. If I did that now, I'd go nuts. However, a lot of the games that I ground through don't really NEED grinding. And on the other hand, some do.

[V_Translanka]

Nostalgia is built on a house of LIES~!! I don't believe nostalgia has any significant factor unless you're some kind of d-bag...even if evidence is to the contrary (although to me the evidence also shows that most people ARE d-bags, so I suppose it works both ways)...Good games are good regardless of when they come out. I can still pump in Ms Pacman and blast through level after level...Old games had to focus on tight, fun, freewheeling gameplay mechanics because that's ALL THEY HAD. Each successive gen has allowed them to not only expand on this, but to deviate as well.

[MeshGearFox]

I don't think there's anything wrong with nostalgia. I just don't think it's useful if you're trying to make a slightly-more-objective point about something.

Oh, there is one case where I WILL say the current generation has some issues compared to previous generations, and that's with PC gaming a few years ago during the MMORPG craze. I'm not a fan of WoW but it's pretty much killed all the competition before it can even get started so it does have the huge fringe benefit of getting developers to make other things besides MMOs now.

[maggiekarp]

I don't really think I'll be able to show you guys at all where most of the people who played Cross after Trigger are coming from at all when they say it let them down. You dismiss me as nostalgic and unwilling to blindly praise Cross while you all ignore my points.

And, in any case, I'm not sure when "killed off characters for previous game" meant that something was a bad sequel.

It doesn't, but Cross just did it in such a vague, insulting way. More than the characters, it killed all the charm and non-convoluted story telling style of Trigger. Being a mindfuck doesn't automatically make something deep.

But I have always said that Cross is a good game on its own. It has many wonderful qualities, but many glaring faults, many of which are related to it being nothing like its predecessor, and at the same time, continuing the story in a pointlessly miserable way. If there was a point, I'd like to hear it.

Hell, it's not like Trigger was a perfect game, either. I think it's okay to like something and still be willing to admit where it messes up.

[cald]

I love Chrono Trigger, but I have never cared for Chrono Cross.  I am not a "graphics whore", but I am a very visual person.  When I first started seeing pictures from Cross in magazines I was completely put off.  The new art style was (and is) completely bland and uninteresting to me, and the apparent lack of direct association with the first game both in the visuals and in what I understood of the cast and narrative at the time made me skip it entirely.  I have since purchased the game, because I loved Trigger and felt I needed to give Cross a chance.  I've tried to play it a few times, and I just cannot get into it.  It just doesn't grab me.  I've tried very hard to give a crap about what's going on in the beginning of the game, but I just can't.  It doesn't feel like it has anything to do with Trigger, and I can't even enjoy it on it's own merits because I don't care for the new art style, or the new gameplay (the new battle system is kind of crap, in my opinion).  The bottom line is, I was extremely disappointed in Chrono Cross, both as a sequel and as it's own separate game, and would love to see a true sequel to Chrono Trigger.

[MeshGearFox]

I don't really think I'll be able to show you guys at all where most of the people who played Cross after Trigger are coming from at all when they say it let them down.

When I played Chrono Cross as a person who played Chrono Trigger first sometime earlier, I was let down. As someone who's favorite RPG at the time was Chrono Trigger, I was let down. That was eight years ago, and at this point, Chrono Trigger really, really doesn't mean anything to me anymore. I think it's fun and I like the story, but neither it nor Cross are games I would consider all-time favorites or pinnacles of game design.

It doesn't, but Cross just did it in such a vague, insulting way.

The reason I'm dismissing your points as being entirely based out of nostalgia and not very good in general is that you keep bringing up the word "insulting," and I'm not really sure how a game could actually insult you otherwise. Your dislike for the story is very clearly not related to the story's merits themselves, but how you percieve the game as debasing your personal and emotional attachments to its predecessor.

In any case, I'm not expecting blind praise for Chrono Cross. I'm just looking forward to a time when blind praise for Chrono Trigger isn't expected.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

I loved Cross for what it was.  Sure, it didn't satisfy my longing to see Crono and company back in action, but as a standalone game it was solid.  It WAS a solid game, after all.  Complain what you will about difficultly, too many characters (many of which are optional), sometimes difficult storyline (I was 15 when Chrono Cross first came out and I had very little problems understanding the plot when I actually thought about it)... but at the end of the day, it was met with rave reviews by most.  It seems that the people who dislike it the most (and not saying all, just the majority) just dislike Chrono Cross because it wasn't what they wanted, because it wasn't what they expected.

Was it what I expected?  No.
Was it what I was wanting in a Chrono sequel?  No.
Was it a heckuva great game?  Yes.