What Chrono Trigger Fanboys Really Wanted in a Sequel

[maggiekarp]

You people say that Chrono Cross wasn't meant to be a direct sequel, just another game in the series, but it pulled that sort of thing off incredibly wrong.

Could you imagine playing Final Fantasy 7, and about half-way through you're told that the Figaro Kingdom had fallen and Terra comes out as a ghost to tell Cloud he sucks?

That's basically what Cross did.

[edit] Also, I see the rave reviews and high scores when the game first came out argument thrown around a lot. Being hyped to a ridiculous degree and not delivering the best thing ever is also what we would call "disappointing".

[MeshGearFox]

That's basically what Cross did.

The difference being that cross and trigger take place in the same world, whereas FFVII and FFVI don't, so if FFVI characters appeared in FFVII, that'd just break the internal canon of the world :3

Why do people get bugged by this scene so much anyway? It's not even really clear WHAT those are or even if they actually are the original CT characters or just some sort of vague representation of them.

Anyway going from http://www.chronocompendium.com/Term/GamePro_Interview.html : "Therefore, Chrono Cross is not a sequel to Chrono Trigger. Had it been, it would have been called "Chrono Trigger 2." Our main objective for Chrono Cross was to share a little bit of the Chrono Trigger worldview, while creating a completely different game..."

I think they're specifically refering to changing how the gameplay works in regards to system transtions there, but it applies to the story, too. Cross isn't a sequel to Trigger's storyline as a whole. It's a sequel to the Zeal stuff.

Being hyped to a ridiculous degree and not delivering the best thing ever is also what we would call "disappointing".

I don't remember the hype

[BROJ]

What happened to this thread? *sighs* It's pretty obvious that Cross wasn't a true sequel(rather an addendum), except in the sense that it was a game in conjunction with, and a posteriori of, the original game. That being said─a few things:

• CC takes place in the 1010-1020 AD+ period only(well, if one considers Belthasar's movements, I'll concede on that.);
• CC focuses on dimensional instance travel rather than time travel; and
• The original members of CT play a small, NPC-natured role(if even that) in CC.

Slightly Unrelated: They dropped the Nu! WTF?!

...but, it is still series canon nonetheless and was a good 'sequel'(being used very loosely).

[x_XTacTX_x]

They dropped the Nu? I thought he was in Viper Manor, and he could rename your characters?

[MeshGearFox]

One of the common themes in both games that's really interesting to me, and I think it's related really heavily to time travel and dimensional travel, too, is the relationship between mankind/societies in the game and their world. It's shown more directly in Cross, and in trigger, it's more of a way how history is presented in that game.

Even if Lavos literally hadn't destroyed the world, since Lavos created people, if mankind blew up the world with nukes and stuff, is it still Lavos' fault, I guess is what I'm saying?

How do you even come up with a direct sequel to a game with as many plot arcs as Trigger has, anyway? Everyone went off to different time periods, and CT never really went into what was going on in 1999 AD much, anyway, and that always seemed like a really fascinating setting for a game.

[BROJ]

They dropped the Nu? I thought he was in Viper Manor, and he could rename your characters?

Alas, that was a beach bum.

[V_Translanka]

I don't understand the "true sequel" stuff...I mean, if you were disappointed, that's fine, I can even understand that to some degree, but to write it off as an actual sequel? That's ridiculous. It continues the story and even goes so far as to include major characters from the first. I don't think it's justifiable not to call it a sequel just because they aren't the main characters of this story.

They dropped the Nu? I thought he was in Viper Manor, and he could rename your characters?

Alas, that was a beach bum.

I think it's just the Beach Bum model, but that it is indeed a Nu. Not a lot looks the same w/o Toriyama.

[Kebrel]

I have to agree with V, I have never heard Kotor 2 called an side story or its not a true sequel. Kotor 2 is exactly to Kotor  as CC is to CT.

[BROJ]

I don't understand the "true sequel" stuff...I mean, if you were disappointed, that's fine, I can even understand that to some degree, but to write it off as an actual sequel? That's ridiculous. It continues the story and even goes so far as to include major characters from the first. I don't think it's justifiable not to call it a sequel just because they aren't the main characters of this story.

V, you miss the point entirely; I'm calling CC a 'sequel'(as in canonical), but not a 'true sequel' by complete definition(e.g. a true sequel would follow the original protagonist─or at least have as a PC role ala Golden Sun 2─on a continuing or new adventure). And I never said I was dissapointed─I quite enjoyed it as a Chrono series masterpiece. As for continuing the storyline, that's not an issue─I said it was an addendum(which, by definition, coincidentally adds to something ) as it didn't retain PC status with, or intertwine with the actions of, the original cast(save the fact that Serge's existence caused the dimension to be split into two and happy future to be anulled in one of the dimensions).

On a related note: Why does everyone have to assume that by "true sequel" it is referring to the quality or absolute status? Let alone the fact, that whenever "sequel" is brought up in a CC discussion, it is like blood to sharks.

[V_Translanka]

Because by putting the word "True" in front of it like that, you're making it sound as if it's somehow less than the original in some way.

It's the same thing as the Star Wars movies. The first three may have sucked, but IV-VI are still sequels to I-III even though the main characters change.

[BROJ]

Because by putting the word "True" in front of it like that, you're making it sound as if it's somehow less than the original in some way.

I assure you, I meant it by definition only.

[Thought]

I don't understand the "true sequel" stuff...I mean, if you were disappointed, that's fine, I can even understand that to some degree, but to write it off as an actual sequel? That's ridiculous. It continues the story and even goes so far as to include major characters from the first. I don't think it's justifiable not to call it a sequel just because they aren't the main characters of this story.

Maybe. Allow me to offer an analogy (because I love analogies).

Orson Scott Card wrote a fairly famous Science Fiction book called Ender's Game. He eventually turned that into a quartet. Then he eventually went back and wrote a new book based on the events in Ender's Game, but focused on a different character (called Bean). Thus we have Ender's Shadow. He took that book and made it into its own series.

So, if you followed that convoluted history, now we have a book called Shadow of the Hegemon. It is the sequel to Ender's Shadow, but by your criteria it is also a sequel to Ender's Game. "It continues the story and even goes to far as to include major characters from the first." On one hand it continues the story, but on another hand it is part of a totally different series. It is sort of like those tricksy Photons; it is a particle and a wave at the same time! (or in this case, a sequel and not at the same time). The waveform of sequality only collapses when we observe it.

That seems to be what Kato did; Chrono Cross is a sequel to Chrono Trigger in one sense, but it is also a parallel story that can-but-doesn't fit into a single "series."

To offer another comparison; The Two Towers involves some of the same characters from The Hobbit, it expands the story, etc, but it isn't really a sequel in the classic sense of the word.

It's the same thing as the Star Wars movies. The first three may have sucked, but IV-VI are still sequels to I-III even though the main characters change.

I-III are prequels to IV-VI, but it seems very odd to say that the sequel to Revenge of the Jedi was created a few decades earlier.

But I would like to point out, Star Wars has always been a story of two droids. That stayed the same throughout all six movies (I can't remember enough about the Ewok Adventure and the other movies to comment on those).

I assure you, I meant it by definition only.

Perhaps "Classic Sequel" might be a better term then?

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

And you have the "awesome" Mummy movies.


And by awesome I mean lackluster.

First there was The Mummy.
Then there was a sequel to The Mummy called The Mummy Returns.
Then there was a prequel to The Mummy Returns called The Scorpion King.
Then there was a sequel to The Mummy Returns called The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

And now there's a prequel to The Scorpion King (which was a prequel to The Mummy Returns, which was a sequel to The Mummy) called The Scorpion King: Rise of the Arcadian.

Did you follow that class?

[Kilfer]

Wait so, is Darth Vader his farther or isn't he? And who the hell is this Anakin punk in the newer ones? Obi-wans son or something? Wait no he said brother . . .


Never enjoyed the Mummy movies much, aside from Brendan Frasier actually being pretty funny.

[Thought]

And you have the "awesome" Mummy movies.

Exactly!

... though I kinda liked The Mummy.