/vr/ - Retro Games

Because they pretty much killed everyone from Chrono Trigger, there were more characters than you could use or give a shit about, and the magic system was fucking stupid.

God tier music though.

If I can use my personal experience and project it, it's because of the radically different focus of the game. Chrono Trigger was very much about the adventure, and about the characters. All things considered, it was a very dark game in terms of its plot, but it overall had a pretty upbeat tone and lighthearted sense of fun. Chrono Cross was about the plot, and... really nothing else. The story was the important aspect of Cross, and whenever Square tries to do that, they tend to go for really really confusing and complicated instead of what they should go for, which is deep and complex. And the tone felt, well, very much like they were trying to be "dark" with a lot of it, but still keeping the upbeat comic relief, and it clashed really badly. The story itself almost doesn't matter, due to how poorly it's told.

As anon above me said, god tier music though. The only reason I rebought it on the PSN.

>>1103624
People who went far enough know about this girl who stole stars.

People who didn't go far enough don't know about this star-stealing girl.

And some went far enough and didn't fall in love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoEMaWrQBQM

>>1103629
The music and overall atmosphere is why I enjoyed playing the game so much. Didn't care much for the story and the combat was boring, but that fucking atmosphere always keeps me coming back.

>>1103624
the combat is worse than Chrono Trigger, and it takes fucking forever for the story to get anywhere

the same people who liked it back then are the same people who thought FFIX was a good Final Fantasy, which is why both of those get praised on /v/ and here even though they're both unpopular

good game, shit sequel

>>1103642
>the combat is worse than Chrono Trigger

Fucking load of shit. Trigger's system was such a fucking turd, the pre-arranged battles were worse than random encounters. Can't avoid them, no variety, running away took ages. The battle system was a glorified ATB where mashing attack was almost always better than trying to set up dual crap. The only good thing about it was that the battles took place on the map.

>>1103642
>the same people who liked it back then are the same people who thought FFIX was a good Final Fantasy, which is why both of those get praised on /v/ and here even though they're both unpopular
FFIX is nowhere near being considered "unpopular" these days. Most people rank it pretty highly, actually. It tends to finish in the top four or five on fan rankings. Also
>popular =/= good
>unpopular =/= bad

Because some manchildren expected Trigger 1.01 but instead they got a game that told them that their past deeds caused massive problems, that violence is not the answer to everything and that they should get the fuck out of their basement and get laid.

>>1103660
>anyone on 4chan
>telling others to get a life
Hue, sure is /v/ in here

>>1103663
>displaying a gross inability to read

Triggertards, gentlemen

>>1103663
>>1103668
>>>/v/

>>1103656

Waste not your breath, friend. I have been saying that for years and those people who think Trigger has a better battle system will never see the light. Cross' battle system requires more thought, planning and is a lot more fun than many RPGs in history. It's just too hard for some people to grasp the field, element and stamina systems, which is why they prefer to just button mash. That is why they claim the battle system in Cross is worse than Trigger.

>>1103676
>Crosstards in charge of not being elitist self-congratulating douchebags

>>1103642
>they're both unpopular
W-what? I don't like IX, but IX is one of the FF games that almost everyone I've talked to enjoyed.

>>1103676
>Cross' battle system requires more thought, planning and is a lot more fun than many RPGs in history
It looks like ass in comparison to Trigger, and the general lack of dual and triple techs make it very bland. Sure, they were there, but you had to build your party just right instead of putting together something fun.

At the very least Chrono Trigger didn't take you to a separate battle field, AND it actually used positioning and Area of Effect. You had to at least consider what a good attack was while fighting your way through the game, instead of random battle after random battle .

>>1103676
The fact that I could not understand the Chrono Cross battle system without reading the manual is saying something.

It's saying that the battle system fucking sucks.
Also it's just re-used garbage from Xenogears.

>>1103694
>The fact that I could not understand the Chrono Cross battle system without reading the manual is saying something.

Yes, that you are unable to fucking read the instruction Radius gives you at the beginning of the game yet again proving that Trigger fanboys are unable to fucking read.

I like both Trigger and Cross. Does this mean everyone hates me?

>>1103703
Maybe not everyone. but I do

>>1103689
it was recieved back in the day with a big fat "What-the-fuck-ever" when it came out, and no one i know even played halfway through

People actually used dual techs in CT?

>>1103706
Back in the day. It's way more popular now, much like FFV

>>1103701
>needing a tutorial
I think on principle that, if I've played as many RPGs as I had before Cross came out, I shouldn't need to sit through a ten minute tutorial to play your game.

>>1103703
I like both for different reasons. Cross has better ambiance and general coziness, but Trigger has better characters and better gameplay. Both have top tier music.

>>1103721
>I think on principle that

Go and play Vagrant Story with that mentality and see what you can achieve.

Chrono Cross is the definition of "it's different, now it sucks". For example:

>>1103690
>and the general lack of dual and triple techs make it very bland.
It's an entirely different battle system. Dual and triple techs are not at the core of it. They were the basis of CT because CT's system was a completely bland and bare-bones "wait for bar to fill and press A".

>Sure, they were there, but you had to build your party just right
It requires strategy, that's why it's bad? CT also needed you to build your party to get the techs you wanted (which was the only thing close to party buldying it had, unlike CC where everything is customizable).

>At the very least Chrono Trigger didn't take you to a separate battle field, AND it actually used positioning and Area of Effect.
In CC you can divide your turns as you see fit, you have to take int account the effect field, and area of effect does matter for many techs. There is far more strategy in its battle system. >>1103694 says that it being more complicated "fucking sucks", but it's not like it's Dwarf Fortress. I got it without reading anything other than the games' tutorial.

>You had to at least consider what a good attack was while fighting your way through the game,
No, you had to spam the most powerful attacks/techs and that was it for strategy in CT. CC's is much more in depth, and it's designed to make you think and to discourage spamming powerful blows/techs.

>instead of random battle after random battle.
CC takes you to a different screen, but no battle is random. You can avoid all of them if you want. Even if you do get into one by bumping into an enemy by mistake, you can always run from every single one; even from all bosses.

CT is the one with random battles. There are a LOT of battles you can't avoid at all and have no indication whatsoever that they'll be triggered on the field. And running away in CT is a pain in the ass.

CC's just a more refined system.

>>1103721
>I think on principle that, if I've played as many RPGs as I had before Cross came out, I shouldn't need to sit through a ten minute tutorial to play your game.

Cross was not your cookie cutter press-A-to-win-battle game.

>>1103703

I like both games but it is hard for me to stomach that Trigger is the better game. To me Cross is better in all regards.

>>1103721
>I think on principle that, if I've played as many RPGs as I had before Cross came out, I shouldn't need to sit through a ten minute tutorial to play your game.
>Most games being exactly the same isn't good enough! I want them ALL to be exactly the same!

The summons were so awesome in CC. You had to create an environment for them, and after they wrecked everyone's shit they left behind shiny stuff. It made them feel special, unlike the usual hurrr-80-mp-AOE shit you see in other games.

>>1103727
I agree with this anon completely. CC battle system was tits compared to CT. IMO CC falls flat when it comes to the characters and story direction. ITS SO BORING

Trigger is a picturebook for little kids and Cross is a novel for teenagers.

Chrono Cross was divisive because it goes against what most people want from sequels. CT fans wanted another Electric Boogaloo lighthearted adventure, but CC just changed everything.

In CT you played as a small band of cliches that had to face an absolute evil. There were dark parts, but most things stayed lighthearted. Combat was simple with techs adding variety and music was great. Story was a simple affair as well.

In CC you have a legion of characters. Some have a lot of development, many have virtually none. You are confined to an area that was never in CT. You fight against ambivalent foes that sometimes are sad to fight against. The battle system was much more in-depth and customizable. The story suffers from severely weird pacing, and it implies that everything you did on CT had a catastrophic consequence you had to deal with now, because those consequences killed your band of cliches and a whole future. And your character's existence is responsible for undoing what CT characters fought for.

Cross is about things that are not meant to exist, but that strive to do so anyway: Serge, El Nido, human beings in general. It makes you question why these things should exist if they're destroying what Crono did, and it ultimately goes back to the same question CT did: we don't know how things will turn out, but we can fight for a better future. And in the end, the things that aren't meant to exist are the ones that save all of existence. How you actually win, by using love and hate to create harmony instead of fighting, integrates plot with gameplay and ties everything up.

But it does take a simple, lighthearted tale and twists it inside out to tell a darker, more serious story that implies your CT favorites are flawed, so if you're not willing to accept that you'll never like it.

In my case, I grew up with CT and loved CC. I loved how it wasn't another sequel. It was its own separate, yet interwined, tale. I wish more sequels were that way.

I have to say, as someone that really does appreciate both games for what they are, the Cross fans in this thread, and indeed, across many threads on both /v/ and /vr/ come across as the absolute worst type of elitist hipsters whenever this topic is brought up.

I have to say, as someone that really does appreciate both games for what they are, the Trigger fans in this thread, and indeed, across many threads on both /v/ and /vr/ come across as the absolute worst type of elitist hipsters whenever this topic is brought up.

>>1103759
See
>>1103656
>>1103660
>>1103668
>>1103676
>>1103701
>>1103753
And then show me anywhere where the Trigger fans even approached that level of punchability.

>>1103760
Triggertard
>WAH CC SUXX

reasonable CT fan
>no it doesn't, because reasons, also CT actually sucks because reasons

Triggertard
>WAAH HIPSTER

It just wasnt that great a game, and it was a sequel to a very great one.

Thats all. Those who played it for what it was, an alright Square JRPG liked it, those who wanted a sequel hated it.

Im glad its being reassessed.

>>1103760
Comments that make you mad don't make other posters "elitist hipsters". The only comment that fits that category is >>1103668. >>1103676 too, only for its opening line. And >>1103660 is bad as well, but not really elitist or hipster.

>>1103656 is just an opinion based on fact: can't avoid battles on CT, running away takes ages, no variety, ATB with mash attack. That's all true and this guy just doesn't like it, where's the elitism?

And >>1103753 is not elitist at all. Cross being a novel for teenagers is elitist how exactly? I think he has a good point, Trigger is simple and fun while Cross is angsty and dark.

Most comments you don't quote are Trigger fans that shit on Cross. That doesn't make them hipster, though many are just nostalgia based.

>>1103754
Your post has made me want to play them both.
10/10

>>1103713
Only against bosses.

>>1103727
This, people have to learn to cope with different mechanics. I am glad the mechanics were changed.

It was radically different and the tones between the games don't mesh well at all.

>>1103727
Though playing CC minding these elements is really optional, I completed CC when I was way younger and I really really didn't take much of CC strategy into account, just spanned some good elements. It helps a fuck of a ton during the last fight, to use the Chrono Cross...but other than that it isn't that important. I agree completely with your post, I've always liked CC more than Trigger, somewhat complex plot and fuckton of characters included.

>>1103956
>I've always liked CC more than Trigger
I'm always the one to defend CC against slander, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. CT was much better, it's was on an entirely different, higher level than CC.

>>1103964
Different strokes. I agree with >>1103956, and I played CT first. Then CC came along and to me it improved CT's plot and made it into a much more awesome experience. And gameplay wise it's no contest, CC was much, much more fun to play.

>>1103964
I disagree completely.

Trigger is a classic, I will never deny that and it still takes my breath away in some instances, but, as you yourself mentioned early, Cross was the adult form. It took profit of new, immersive backgrounds and environments. Guardia and Porre weren't really much, just a couple of houses and the fair...but you can't say the same for Arni, Termina or Guldove. Cross drags you in with these elements and the amazing soundtrack by Mitsuda, and, at least in my experience, the emotional involvement is certainly stronger...it doesn't help that, while having really subtle links with the original storyline, it hits hard when it reminds you its position as a sequel. Cross' battle system is still innovative and radically different, since then, no other game has tried something as radical and unpredictable as an RPG that doesn't rely on XP bars, but on organic advancement of the characters as they perform on the battlefield.

CT is considered as a classic because, by chance, a lot of games followed its same school. CC could be considered the real masterpiece, since it did things in a completely different way, but, unfortunately, no game has tried (or been able) to follow its footsteps.

This is all subjective, though. I just have some really really strong sentimental ties with Cross.

>>1103980
Trigger is a classic" is a meaningless statemen. Trigger, unlike Cross, is coherent, well-paced and complete. It's well-made. Cross has a lot going for it, but it can't sustain it's own pretense and ambition and is through that alone is a much inferior experience.

>>1103998
>"Trigger is a classic" is a meaningless statement

If you think of "classic" as a buzzword, as modern media makes of it, then yes, it is quite meaningless...

However, if you think of "classic" as meaning "we can trace most elements that make up the current generation of RPG games' interfaces to this exact title and some contemporaries, therefore, we can think of them as the 'classic' - antique, old- form what these later games accomplish in the now", then using "classic" as adjective is a valuable word because it gives true credit where credit its due.

>"it can't sustain it's own pretense and ambition and is through that alone is a much inferior experience."

Tough call. At this moment I can't think of a middle ground of where to discuss how Trigger's experience was 'superior' to Cross. So I'll play the technology card: Cross' environments were more varied and vivid, the sound effects and background music was better, therefore, it is logical to assumme one can achieve immersion easily in Cross than in Trigger. Though this argument is really a shot in the dark. And leaves us to a more difficult debate.

>>1104005
"Classic" actually means "has class", i.e. a premodern version of highbrow. Non-plebian.

>Cross' environments were more varied and vivid, the sound effects and background music was better, therefore, it is logical to assumme one can achieve immersion easily in Cross than in Trigger
Well, I fully agree. Parts of Cross were much more immersive than Trigger, or than most games in general. But same Cross does it's worst to ruin immersion, while Trigger builds slowly and never lets down until it's blossomed into something truly impresive. From story to gameplay, Cross was greatbut flawed: the dragon chase was stupid from both gamedesign and storytelling perspectives, and the ending was rushed and nonsensical.

Compare CT Lavos and the CC Lavos. The difference is what I consider the difference between successful and unsuccessful design.

>>1104027
I think CT does have "class", but "highbrow" and "non-plebian"? It's one of the most popular and well played games of all time. Its system is as simple as it can get. So is its story and design. Its artwork was designed by Akira Toriyama, for god's sake. There's nothing highbrow about it (even compared to other video games of the era). I really don't know how you can get that CT is elitist in the least.

It's regarded as a classic because of its timing and because it was a very solid, fulfilling game.

But CC does have more immersion, a more sophisticated soundtrack, a much more "highbrow" story (if we're still talking about that), much deeper plot/gameplay integration, and is a lot more replayable on account of how your decisions and actions actually change the plot and the world around you.

>Compare CT Lavos and the CC Lavos. The difference is what I consider the difference between successful and unsuccessful design.
Please elaborate? I thought CC Lavos (and Schala) had a great design that carries over from CT, ties to the story and seem to fly over most people's heads.

>>1103624

It is in no way connected to Chrono Trigger.

>>1104046
The area you play in is a direct result of Chrono Trigger's ending.

The main antagonists are directly from the plot Chono Trigger.

The main side character comes from Chrono Trigger.

The whole story of the game is the result and continuation of Chrono Trigger.

And it was written, designed and directed by Chrono Trigger's writer.

>>1104046
>It is in no way connected to Chrono Trigger.

>>1104050
>>1104053

>replying to TriggerTrolls

I'm actually quite surprised that most of the recommended reviews have 1/10 or 2/10:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps/196917-chrono-cross/reviews

>>1104059
It's no secret that GF is Triggerfanboy butthurt central

>>1104039
>There's nothing highbrow about it
Right. So, there's nothing classic about Chrono Trigger.
> I really don't know how you can get that CT is elitist in the least.
Exactly: I don't.

>But CC does have more immersion,
Right.
>a more sophisticated soundtrack,
I don't think so. How is it more sophisticated? I'm an academic musician and I don't see any additional complexity in CC's soundtrack over Yamaoka's original work.
>a much more "highbrow" story
Good punctuation, because CC's story is, sadly, pretentious instead of intellectual in that it promises intellectualism and does not deliver.

>much deeper plot/gameplay integration
A much deeper attempted integration. But the game never manages to use any of the things it's building up to. Unlike Trigger, which uses each and every plot and gameplay element it establishes to mutual enrichment. Trigger's story is a build-up and a resolution. Cross's story is a pretension and a cop-out (dragon hunting and Lavos of all things, for god's sake).

The silent protag killed the narrative. That and the weird pacing made it an awkward experience at times. While CT was def a more polished product CC had it's merits just it didn't exactly all mesh together perfectly.

>>1104079
Chrono series' soundtrack was made by Yasunari Mitsuda, not Akira Yamaoka, bro. Also, one could argue "sophistication" on the soundtrack by playing the same technology card: not even an academic music could deny that Cross' soundtrack has a lot of more varied sounds and textures, because the technical capabilities of the PSX made it possible.

>Good punctuation, because CC's story is, sadly, pretentious instead of intellectual in that it promises intellectualism and does not deliver.

Don't start with this, we could just argue CT plot is amateurish and generic and that doesn't deliver nor uses the whole narrative possibilities its main plot devise -Time travel- offers. Take that into account: Trigger was about kids saving the world but with Time Travel, just exactly what you'd expect from a japanese RPG game of the 90s...but Cross was about what it takes to save the world from a terrible future (destroying a lot of other possible futures). Cross is about balance: for life to flourish, something must die in its place. For one world/timeline to be made real, one has to dissapear.

>>1104079
>I don't think so. How is it more sophisticated?
It's a lot more cohesive (which owes to the parallel worlds) while also having more instrumental variation. It also incorporates signature themes from Chrono Trigger and Radical Dreamers into its own style.

>CC's story is, sadly, pretentious instead of intellectual in that it promises intellectualism and does not deliver.
When it comes to themes, Chrono Cross poses questions, but it never gives answers. It attempts to give hints at motivations for those answers, but they're weak and the game's narrative recognizes this. It does come off a pretentious sometimes, but at least it does have thematic depth, which Trigger certainly does not, neither on its events nor on its characters; Lucca's letter in CC manages to give her twice as much depth as she had on the whole of CT.

>A much deeper attempted integration. But the game never manages to use any of the things it's building up to.
Elements tie up to the plot and the theme; you even have to fight the final battle according to the game's theme.

>Unlike Trigger, which uses each and every plot and gameplay element it establishes to mutual enrichment.
Magic was not as connected to the plot because you get people like Ayla who can summon giant magical dinosaurs; gameplay wise, they're just techs with elements. There was integration, but not as much as in CC.

>Trigger's story is a build-up and a resolution. Cross's story is a pretension and a cop-out (dragon hunting and Lavos of all things, for god's sake).
You seem to be anoyed at the dragons/Lavos. CC was building up to the dragons all along; the whole El Nido was designed and, plot-wise, MADE for them. Lavos (actually, the Time Devourer) embodies themes of the game. It may seem to come out of nowhere, but is tied to the story through the Frozen Flame (the game's catalyst) and hinted at through Miguel and Chronopolis. I don't see what's such a "cop out" about it.

>>1104094
>Yasunari Mitsuda, not Akira Yamaoka, bro
I already noticed I wrote Yamaoka, but it was too late. I know, Trigger, Cross, Xenogears etc. I know. Kirite.

In terms of composition, CC's soundtrack is equal to CT's, and is actually more limited in it's expressiveness. Unlike CT's, which went everywhere and did everything equally well, the score of CC is more unified and more what later cristallized as Mitsuda's style, which ended up being incredibly limited: these days he jeeps writing the same Xenogears-type quirky dreamy song over and over again. In terms of synth, yes, a lot of CC's music was pre-rendered and of higher quality; but that's barely relevant outside of a hardware spec argument.

>we could just argue CT plot is amateurish and generic
We could, but we'd be wrong. CT's plot is as well crafted as could be in an adventure video game. It's tight, it's well-rounded, and everthing serves a purpose. Unlike CC's, which is all over the place and a pseudophilosophical mess.

>Cross is about balance: for life to flourish, something must die in its place.
Ideas behind Cross were o.k.. Execution's what's flawed.

>>1104109
>Chrono Cross poses questions, but it never gives answers.
killer7 poses questions and gives no answers. CC, it just looks weird, then flips out and confusedly shuffles off-stage.

>>1104112
>CT's plot is as well crafted as could be in an adventure video game

Amateurish and generic, exactly my point. Crono in no moment questions his motives, he even embraces death as a messiah that comes out of nowhere. Same with Marle, a princess suddenly turned into a high-class adventurer willing to battle a giant alien on her planet's doomsday. Lucca, Frog and Magus were the only characters with some background and exposition: Lucca with her flashback to Sara's accident and Magus with the whole Zeal thing. CC, however, has Kid, Serge, Lynx, Harle, Glenn, Karsh and a enormous assortment of characters (not all) with complicated stories (the feud between Karsh and Dario, for example, or the story behind Nikki, Marcy, Fargo, Irënes, Zelbess and Luccia).

>>1104117
You're giving Cross too much credit, a lot of things come clear when you reach Chronopolis...and even before that, the Dead Sea really shows where you are supposed to be standing.

>>1104132
Story-wise, Trigger is a high-quality morning cartoon, while Cross is a pretentious and silly young adult clusterfuck. That's what I'm saying.

>>1104112
>Unlike CT's, which went everywhere and did everything equally well,
Prehistory and future were "equally well" compared to Zeal or the present? Tell me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PYHWxqu8Hs is nearly as good as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDpPMu8EApg (or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROKcr2OTgws for that matter).

>the score of CC is more unified
I think that's a good thing.

>and more what later cristallized as Mitsuda's style, which ended up being incredibly limited
At that point, it was still experimental. CC had a dreamy score, yes, but because of the game and not of Mitsuda just winging it.

The arrangmenets are a lot more sophisticated but because of technology and Mitsuda's maturity as an artist.

Compare the main themes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA2B95RNRWU with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-s-VQBoUdc and tell me CT is more sophisticated (on any regard).

Or compare this arrangmenet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsLv0G4fkyw to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJtwEpQe6w0..

>
We could, but we'd be wrong. CT's plot is as well crafted as could be in an adventure video game. It's tight, it's well-rounded, and everthing serves a purpose. Unlike CC's, which is all over the place and a pseudophilosophical mess.
Exactly. CT was airtight because it was simple and there was no room for much else (outside of some Zeal scenes). CC is left up in the air because it wants you to answer for yourself what it proposes as a story. Both are good in their own ways, but that's why I prefer CC.

>>1104137
So, the only merit going for CT is nostalgia. You really had me conviced you were actually trying.

I love how these threads always end up with every pro-CT and anti-CC argument being utterly debased.

>>1104141
>I think that's a good thing.
It's a good thing, but in Mitsuda's case it only means less variety.

CT's main theme is more complex than CC's. Even the way the CT main theme starts on a subdominant instead of tonic (CC is vanilla) is more mature and adventurous. CC's main theme is simply banal compared to CT's. That's it. It's a pop ballad. Don't buy into synth quality, composition in CC's main theme is simplistic.

As for your comparison of two CT themes, I don't get your point. Some of them are better than the others, yes. You seem to imply that means that means some of them are bad. If so, it's illogical.

I played Chrono Cross years before Chrono Trigger. So I never had the bias some people who played CT first have. I got CC some time in 2000/2001. I wasn't emulating yet back then and CT carts were hard to find. So I didn't play CT until Final Fantasy Chronicles and I probably bought that one maybe a year later. I got it specifically for CT and suffered through the load times.

I really enjoyed CC but found it very confusing. But a lot of people do. If that was the intention of the developers then they did a good job. If not then I really wish they'd release a version with a rewritten script. I had to play through several times just to understand things better.

Also, I think I would have preferred less characters with more individual development. It seems like I was dragging along every Tom, Dick & Harry in El Nido after awhile. Sure some are optional. But I felt compelled to get everyone I could for completion's sake. And I would have gladly dumped half if the rest would had had some more uniqueness other than a few lines here and there.

>>1104150
>So, the only merit going for CT is nostalgia. You really had me conviced you were actually trying.
I played CT after I played and finished CC, actually. So no, not even that.

CT is simple, but very well-made. CC is overcomplicated and is a mess.

>>1104150
I played CT for the first time in 2000 or 2001, on an emulator, with little pre-existing knowledge of it, and I loved it.

>>1104174
Same goes for me. But that's more than 10 years ago. It definitely counts as nostalgia.

>>1104178
If that's the case then you can say the same thing about Cross.

>>1104182
It would be if I was arguing Cross was a "high-quality morning cartoon", but I'm on the side of Cross being a more complex, engaging and beautiful game than Trigger. The main difference is, while many people praise Trigger's simplicity as its stronger asset, I see Cross complexity and "clusterfuck" structure (and a lot of details in its gameplay) to be its strongest aspects.

And as I said before, both games really struck me. I still get shivers while listening to Corridors of Time or Frog's Theme...but while I played both games in the same time margin, Cross was the one that hit me the most. Since I wasn't able to convince you using the story--thematic angle, then there's really nothing much I could do.

>>1104182
Ten years ago, twenty years ago, - I've beaten Dark Souls last October and I'm already nostalgic about it. Can we jsut drop the nostalgia pseudoargument please? It's silly and has always been. If you think a person is irrational about a product's level of quality, say why it's bad instead of trying to analyze how the person came to their wrong conclusion.

Thank you and fuck you.

>>1104178
You're saying any game becomes shit over time, and only nostalgia can make it seem otherwise? I think you're on the wrong board.

>>1104195
Whoa there, don't put words in my mouth, good fellow. If anything, nostalgia makes you blind to flows a past product had. Say, playing MMX and then coming back to the first one...if you were a kid that grew with the franchise and wasn't able to see how there were clearly some design problems that the X franchise solved, then you could be blinded by nostalgia. If I was in the wrong board, then I wouldn't be discussing Chrono Cross' virtues.

>>1104212
Like >>1104194 said, "nostalgia" is just a bullshit non-argument.

>>1104212
Agreed, if not for nostalgia, I wouldn't be able to enjoy FFVII, VIIIm Xenogears or, well, Chrono Cross.

It was a great game in its own right but

1. It did things with CT's characters that fans from the first game didn't like

2. Very few of CC's characters were fleshed out past an accent generator, and the good ones didn't really get much content.

3. Magus wasn't fleshed out because poor time management

>>1103624
-Chrono Trigger's story was erased.
-Suprise, humans can use magic.
-Confusing story
-Time travel not central, with its cause and effects that were awesome.
-Battle system wasn't fun at all. Was slow and repetitive.
-Way too many characters.
-Small world, but only slightly more detailed than CT. Many locations are exactly the same from one dimension to another.
-Convoluted choices that require new game+ to see all of the game. Have to be mean to Kid just to get more characters...
-Lenna wtf! A Lenna that doesn't know Serge joins, Lenna the girlfriend doesn't. Lenna the girlfriend okay that you are gone a long time with a girl that looks like her.

>>1104234
Magus wasn't in it. There was just a silly reference character sillier even than RD's.

>>1104254
I'd say, only
>-Confusing story
>-Time travel not central, with its cause and effects that were awesome.
>-Battle system wasn't fun at all. Was slow and repetitive.
>-Small world, but only slightly more detailed than CT. Many locations are exactly the same from one dimension to another.
are actually valid. Everything else is not really a problem.

>>1103624

Nerds get mad when you do something different with something they love, sometimes it's justified (Star Wars) other times it's not (Star Trek)

>>1104275
Fans have a problem with the new Star Trek movies? But they're objectively better than anything in the frinchise before that.

>>1104254
>-Chrono Trigger's story was erased.
Cross follows Trigger's story. The entire point is preserving the existence of the future you achieved in Cross.
>-Suprise, humans can use magic.
Humans can use elements and techs. Not magic.
>-Confusing story
Complex =/= confusing. It's straightforward, only badly paced.
>-Time travel not central, with its cause and effects that were awesome.
There was no cause and effect in Trigger. The fall of Zeal was the only thing that had a visible effect, but the only things the players could alter was Dorino forest, Porre's mayor, the mystic square, and the Black Omen. And except the forest all of these were mandatory.

Chrono Cross has parallel dimensions and choices that can change and affect the world differently depending totally on the player.
>-Battle system wasn't fun at all. Was slow and repetitive.
See >>1103754. CT by definition was slow, you just wait for a bar to fill up and then press A. CC was faster and a lot more strategic.

>-Way too many characters.
Plot-wise this is an issue, but gameplay wise it adds to variety. If you don't like them, just don't use them: they're never required.

>-Small world, but only slightly more detailed than CT. Many locations are exactly the same from one dimension to another.
No location is exactly the same. The world is smaller, but there's a lot more exploration. In contrast CT had huge empty worlds (Prehistory, for instance).

>-Convoluted choices that require new game+ to see all of the game. Have to be mean to Kid just to get more characters...
So the game having a complex choice and effect system, ACTUAL role-playing and more uses for New Game+ is bad?
>-Lenna wtf! A Lenna that doesn't know Serge joins, Lenna the girlfriend doesn't. Lenna the girlfriend okay that you are gone a long time with a girl that looks like her.
The same could be said for a lot of characters, and I don't see how this one in particular is a huge problem.

>>1104279
>objectively

CC played better and had a more entertaining story growing up.

Looking back in time, both are bad. I wouldn't even think about touching them again.

When you advertise the game as a sequel and then the plot proceeds to take a gigantic shit all over it, you are going to anger people.

Not to mention you have Cross fanboys who think their game is perfect but when people point out flaws they go "SHUT UP TRIGGER FANBOY! U MAD THAT CROSS IS NOT TRIGGER 2!" and completely ignore any complaints

>>1104507
>the plot proceeds to take a gigantic shit all over it, you are going to anger people.
As a kid my favorite game was Chono Trigger, and I LOVED Cross. Where exactly did it take a "gigantic shit all over it", by implying that Crono and friends weren't perfect? By killing Lucca and Robo? What exactly was so bad about it? It took the previous plot and gave it a huge twist while still keeping the same themes.

>Not to mention you have Cross fanboys who think their game is perfect but when people point out flaws they go "SHUT UP TRIGGER FANBOY! U MAD THAT CROSS IS NOT TRIGGER 2!" and completely ignore any complaints
Then point the flaws without resorting to nostalgia or to pointing out how it's shit because it's different. I love Cross but I do admit it has flaws: the story has bad pacing, there are too many characters that are never developed (you can just ignore them, but still), and the ending seems rushed. It's not perfect, but it's a great sequel if you can indeed get over it not being Trigger 2.

>>1103634
>Derrick Rose 5 months ago
>This song reminds me of my ACL.

i dunno, i liked it more than trigger

areas were a less of a pain in the ass to navigate through, like the bad future

also at least you could cheese bosses

like Dario

>>1104546
>What exactly was so bad about it? It took the previous plot and gave it a huge twist while still keeping the same themes.

I think this is where your logic has a problem. The themes in Cross and Trigger are pretty different.

>Then point the flaws without resorting to nostalgia or to pointing out how it's shit because it's different.

Its poorly written. Poorly paced. The characters are too numerous and largely don't contribute much to the actual plot. They're little more than NPCs allowed to join. Theres little to no characterization going on. The ending is rushed. Game is padded pretty badly in some areas. With little to no character motivation going on. This is especially evident in the beginning of the game.

The bad writing is one of the biggest issues however along side the poor pacing.

>>1104580
>The themes in Cross and Trigger are pretty different.
Trigger: let's save the world from this alien. The future without it can't possibly be worse.
Cross: even though we're not meant to exist, let's do it and keep our future alive. The alternative can't possibly be worse.

Cross does have more themes, but Trigger only had that one. They are pretty similar. And I still don't see how it shits on Trigger: it elaborates on it.

The flaws you point out are the same ones I see in the game, with just few differences:
>The bad writing is one of the biggest issues however along side the poor pacing.
I think the writing is good, great even. It's the pacing that's the problem. The game does have parts where you are not sure what you should be doing (or why), and the story comes to you in huge chunks instead of it being spread out. There's too much telling and too little showing. This all contributes to
>With little to no character motivation going on
but I wouldn't say this is evident in the beginning of the game, I wanted to find out why I was dead in this other world.

>Game is padded pretty badly in some areas
I do agree with that, but this was also a problem with Trigger (Masamune fetch quest was ETERNAL). Maybe it's a Kato thing.

>>1104601
>Cross does have more themes, but Trigger only had that one. They are pretty similar. And I still don't see how it shits on Trigger: it elaborates on it.

Pretty sure Trigger had more themes than just that one. Each era itself seemed to focus on a theme. With Frog's desire to overcome his past failures and become a true hero, to Magus's futile attempt at changing his past just to name a few.

>I think the writing is good, great even
I point to the Faerie/Dwarf environmental bit as an example its not. There are more points, but I can't think of them off hand.

>but I wouldn't say this is evident in the beginning of the game, I wanted to find out why I was dead in this other world.

Numerous points in the game you go to places for little to no reason. Viper Manor is a good example of this. You go there for no real reason other than Kid wants to.

>was also a problem with Trigger

I suppose in a way you're right. But it was mitigated with a bit of character development and better reasoning for events to transpire as well.

Jesus, it's still going. When did the CT/CC aspies become crazier than the Sonic ones? Or was this always the case and I just never noticed it until now? There are several concurrent CT/CC threads on the first few pages of /vr/.

You guys need to accept the fact that you aren't going to convince each other to see your point of view on which game is better through impassioned debate. Just accept that both games are good but imperfect, and give some other game threads a chance.

>>1104617
>Pretty sure Trigger had more themes than just that one. Each era itself seemed to focus on a theme.
You mention character premises, not themes. But let's attempt your logic.

Prehistory was about... humans fighting reptites? The futility of reptites? This was also key to cross.

Zeal was about humans trying to overstep their nature and a hubris bringing forth disgrace to a great kingdom. This was semi-addressed with humans being "progeny of Lavos" in Cross.

Middle Ages was humans versus mystics and not much more. Humans enslaving and discriminating against demihumans was also a huge part of Cross.

Present was... I honestly can't think of anything. There really wasn't anything there outside of Marle drama.

Future was humans trying to survive despite hopelessness, which is the key theme of the game and also of Cross.

>I point to the Faerie/Dwarf environmental bit as an example its not.
What's bad about it? Dwarves are anti-human, how is this bad? And does a single event of the game invalidates the whole of it? Then I guess Trigger sucks on account of how Marle's initial disappearance makes no sense with how the rest of time travelling works.

>Viper Manor is a good example of this. You go there for no real reason other than Kid wants to.
Uh... you go to Viper Manor because that's where the only people who know of your existence in this alternate world (and who are after you for reasons know) are. Kid says she's got business there too and she'll tag along. This is explicitly stated in the game.

Is it so wrong that I like that not everything is explained in Cross? I like that some things are left open to interpretation or for discussion, makes it more interesting for me.

>>1104635
>You mention character premises, not themes.
Actually I've been thinking about it since I posted that and I think you're right.

However, there is a singular theme in the whole game, changing or accepting destiny in a way. Its present in a number of characters, with the Reptites accepting their fate, while others, like Magus, try to fight and change it.

>What's bad about it?

Dwarves go and kill Faeries. Faeries respond by blaming humans and their saviors. Its a hamfisted environmental message that falls flat on its face.

> And does a single event of the game invalidates the whole of it?
As I stated it was one example. Not that it was the only example.

>Uh... you go to Viper Manor because that's where the only people who know of your existence in this alternate world (and who are after you for reasons know) are.

It was an example, but I'm pretty sure if memory serves you're just told this by Kid. If so, then theres no foundation to really believe someone you just met about this. But there are a few other points in the game which were like this. You just go because the plot demands it, with little to no reasoning why to go there. I might have picked a bad example, but its been years since I've played the game.

>>1104656
>However, there is a singular theme in the whole game, changing or accepting destiny in a way.
It's about changing it, actually. Reptites, Zeal, mystics, robots, Crono, they all want to change their fate. The point of the game ("the planet's dream") is achieving this, that's why it's called "Chrono Trigger". And it's the same thing in Cross. By breaking it down on the last post I realized it has even more things in common than I thought at first.

>Dwarves go and kill Faeries. Faeries respond by blaming humans and their saviors.
I don't really understand, dwarves are mad at humans because they've ruined their ecosystem and respond by being like them. Fairies are mad at you because even though you're saving them it's your fault (your as in humans') the whole thing happened in the first place. It's not more or less hamfisted than, say, a big bad monster eating the forest and a kind machine having to restore it because the forest is important.

>It was an example, but I'm pretty sure if memory serves you're just told this by Kid. If so, then theres no foundation to really believe someone you just met about this.
Karsh ambushes you on your tomb and tells you that he's being ordered to look for you (the "ghost boy") and take you to Viper Manor. Kid shows up after that. You do have a big reason to go there and investigate.

>But there are a few other points in the game which were like this. You just go because the plot demands it, with little to no reasoning why to go there.
All I can think of is when there IS a reason, but it's badly explained or just revealed way after you actually get there. I think you just picked a bad example here, like I said lack of motivation is a big problem due to the pacing.

>>1104671
>I don't really understand
Its hamfisted because first, the Dwarves are shown as antagonistic towards the faeries to begin with. Capturing and offering them to be eaten by the hydra.

Secondly, its ridiculous as the Dwarves, choose to attack the Faeries of their own violition. While the humans might have caused them to leave, they chose to attack the faeries rather than try to coexist or find someplace else to live. They're not shown as remorseful or anything except evil themselves.

The Faeries respond to their saviors as if they are to blame. And while its true to a point, its VERY tangential that they are. The humans might have harmed the Dwarves' home, but they didn't force them to attack other species, much less go out of their way to eliminate them all either.

>Karsh ambushes you on your tomb and tells you that he's being ordered to look for you (the "ghost boy") and take you to Viper Manor.

Ah well, I know theres other examples, but its been too long for me to properly cite them. I'll concede this point to you unless someone can better explain it.

>All I can think of is when there IS a reason, but it's badly explained or just revealed way after you actually get there. I think you just picked a bad example here, like I said lack of motivation is a big problem due to the pacing.

Yeah I agree I probably just picked a bad example. You at least understand what I'm trying to say though.

The most tragic thing about Chrono Cross was Johnny's remains in the Dead Sea.

>>1104678
The thing with the dwarves was that they are antagonistic to faeries, they're left with no place to live, and the only place similar to the marsh they can access is where the faeries are. They copy the humans' MO. The faeries feel that the whole thing is the fault of both dwarves and humans to begin with. Neither side is right and neither side is shown to be right, it's just what they think. I don't really see the issue here.

An example of bad writing, for me, is Kid being Schala's "daughter clone". The whole thing was a lot more meaningful and simple in Radical Dreamers. Bad writing to me isn't when characters are wrong, is when the game doesn't make sense (Marle vanishing) or when it's overcomplicating things for no reason (Kid being a daughter-clone, wtf does that even mean).

>You at least understand what I'm trying to say though.
Yeah, and I want to mention one but it's hard to remember them exactly because of their nature. I think the part when you have to go to the Zelbess to wake up the dragon is a better example. Maybe when you have to get the fiddler crab, but I do remember the imperative of going to the Dead Sea which was a lot stronger.

>>1104685
I think the problem is sort of you're over thinking it which is why you don't see it as bad writing. You see it as Dwarves doing what the humans did, but thats completely wrong in and of itself.

Humans weren't going in pushing Dwarves out to occupy the space. What the Dwarves and Humans did are completely different things. You're trying to justify their actions now by making leaps in logic which aren't present in the game.

The problem with the writing is that its just executed poorly. Theres really no narrative flow for their actions. Its just Dwarves leave the marches and go genocidal on the Faeries. Faeries blame their saviors for a really stupid reason and don't attribute any blame to their attackers.

Thats just bad writing.

>>1104690
>Humans weren't going in pushing Dwarves out to occupy the space. What the Dwarves and Humans did are completely different things. You're trying to justify their actions now by making leaps in logic which aren't present in the game.

...what? You go there and kill he last hydra to get medicine for Kid, thanks to you, the Hydra marshes end up being a maze of acid pools were life can't exist. This is said explicitly in the game.

HOLY SHIT, BOLD!

>>1104690
To further explain, I think theres two main problems.

One, the Dwarves are never shown to be anything but antagonistic. They're not written in a sympathetic light, nor do you interact with them in any meaningful way that isn't them being mustache twirling evil.

Second, is that the dwarves are shown to be intelligent. If the genocide had taken place because of mindless animals encroaching into Faerie domain and then wiping them out, then yes, I can see the Faeries blaming someone else for the problem since the antagonists would be just reacting, rather than thinking.

>>1104702
For one, it happens if you go to the marsh or not. If memory serves, there are Hydra eggs or something in the Marsh, and I'm pretty sure the Marsh was a maze of acid pools before that anyways.

Secondly, thats unrelated to driving them from their home to occupy the land. One is something that happens due to an unrelated event, the other is something that happens because you're trying to cause it to happen.

If the Dwarves were following the human's example, they would be going about trying to destroy other ecosystems and force the inhabitants out.

>>1104709
Oh third problem, is that I think this would have been more effective if it has been a Dwarves Vs Humans thing as well. Or if there had been simply more interaction between Dwarves and Faeries.

Theres a stronger story to be built up if the Dwarves reacted against humans, but instead they targeted another race entirely. Theres very little narrative reasoning for this, and would have built it up better had they shown more interactions. Dwarves wandering about trying to find a home. Dwarves being denied access or forcably removed from the Faerie domain. Anything to give a stronger narrative reasoning for them to simply go all out genocide on them.

>>1104709
>and I'm pretty sure the Marsh was a maze of acid pools before that anyways.
The marsh is an acid pool on one of the dimensions. You get to ruin the other one (or not).

>they would be going about trying to destroy other ecosystems and force the inhabitants out.
They would be using other ecosystems and forcing the inhabitants out... which is what they're trying to do, and why the faeries blame humans as well.

There's not a huge leap of logic anywhere. This is all in the game. It's not force fed, but it's there.

...and this all really doesn't explain how Cross "shits on Trigger's story".

>>1104709
>For one, it happens if you go to the marsh or not. If memory serves, there are Hydra eggs or something in the Marsh, and I'm pretty sure the Marsh was a maze of acid pools before that anyways.

No, if you take the Glenn route, what happens is that the fairies are invaded by these holy shit blue things that "cast" Just Four Kicks and kills you. Yes, it was a maze of acid pools, when you visit on Another World, and it is that way because humans kill the last hydra (whether its you or not)

>>1104714
The game itself says Dwarves targeted fairies because humans were too much for them, and that is kinda logical since, you know, humans kill the motherfucking Hydras and, on Korcha's route...you do kill a lot of Dwarves.

>>1104723
>The game itself says Dwarves targeted fairies because humans were too much for them

Ah I've forgotten that bit. Even still their reaction is a bit much.

>which is what they're trying to do

They're not though. They're slaughtering the faeries. Thats not the same thing.

Also, I'm not touching the 'shits on Trigger' story thing, cause that leads to people going batshit and start calling people nostalgiafags and stuff. I'm merely here to discuss the game on its own merits.

>>1104714
It's ecological bullying, a bigger species just shitting on another because they fucking can. Say, like Reptites versus humans or Enlightened ones versus Earthbound ones...it isn't a "leap of logic" is a classic conflict. The fairies end up hating humans because they fuck that balance, which kinda resonates with the fact that, by existing, Serge and company fucked up Trigger's future.

>>1104729
>Also, I'm not touching the 'shits on Trigger' story thing, cause that leads to people going batshit and start calling people nostalgiafags and stuff.
That was like your opening line on this thread, so I was hoping you'd address it. The closest you've gotten was saying that the themes were completely different, and I've explained why I (and the writer of both games) think that's not the case. This isn't /v/, outside of that one guy using terms like "triggertards".

>>1104730
Again, it'd make sense if they were less intelligent then they were. Both sides were more or less equal and didn't have much of a conflict prior established. Where as in the other two cases, their views and conflicts were established before their bullying began.

Reptites Vs Humans and Enlightened Vs Earthbound both had that. Each were respectively the dominant species and vastly more intelligent than the opposing side.

>>1104735
Different person. I just picked up the conversation from that point. I thought I specified that.