A lot of it reads as lazy DLC meant to satisfy investors that want “value-adds” without taking a lot of development time. I’d imagine only obsessive fans (admittedly, there are many) would be considering them.

But the fact that it’s a remake of a 20 year old game doesn’t seem like it would affect the value. For reference, the old one was top down with prerendered chibi sprites. The new one is fully 3D with voice acting. It’s a pretty sizable change in appearance, even how the combat functions. $60 is probably normal, though it makes sense that for anyone unsure about it, either play the demo or just wait for it to go on sale.

Ahem, erm, technically, hah…there’s also a manga that connects the events after SC! Bet that makes you feel silly, being wrong and all. /s

Whether it’s necessary is not a matter of what the Lord and Savior Mr. Falcom says. It’s purely down to whether players will enjoy playing it. They also make Ys, and the same rule applies there. Honestly, if it was “necessary” to play Sky 3rd in order to enjoy Zero/Azure, I probably wouldn’t recommend any of the three. This even extends to my favorite series, Ace Attorney; part of what makes them great is that you can technically enjoy any of them in any order.

To prevent sounding too negative, 3rd does refine the combat formulas a bit, and adds some cool characters and moves. For me, that wasn’t enough to justify it. Mainly, I don’t want people with limited time worrying they “must” play 3rd to avoid getting snubbed by key unexplained details. Some people that enjoy that kind of extensive lore, or read every codex entry, may love it, but that’s definitely NOT what everyone plays for.

I’d even say the interconnectedness is often more of a handicap.

There’s one character in Sky whose arc is postponed into Azure. It…doesn’t fit with that larger narrative. Then, the biggest criticism of some of those later games is how there’s too many characters around. Most were enjoyed when first introduced, but then there’s way too many. In a lot of ways it suffers the same ways later Marvel movies do; banking on audience members shouting “I know what that is!!”

Supposedly some more recent games refocus on smaller groups but are still very much about “building a larger narrative”. I can’t claim I’ve played all of them to get a larger opinion, but Kingdom Hearts did a lot of that, and we saw its failed payoff in Kingdom Hearts 3 (actually something like KH8). I still enjoy the first two games in the series - the duology this one is remaking - but I’m pretty sick of the obsession with lore.

A video I watched even discussed how early Star Trek movies had blatant plotholes with earlier establishment, but that was fine because it was better to focus on the narrative the director wanted.

Get a silk bag from the graveyard duck to live longer!

“Toxic positivity” is not bannable. Toxic negativity is.

So, consider this a word of caution. If you found the game stupid, say that, and use informed language to describe why it’s not worth people’s time. But the community rules don’t let you target that attitude to people and their threads, or to make no-effort dismissals of people. If you don’t care, prove it by taking your attention elsewhere.

Hoping you get to keep posting here, and rethink your attitude!

Even though the gushing about Trails in the Sky may be seen as overblown, it’s interesting to read about the console history of these games and what they influenced. I remember when I played a Neptunia game and they stated “You know how every RPG has you fighting slimes first?” I thought “What…? No. I literally can’t think of any.” I realized those creators had very much grown up off of the “Dragon Quest” side of the RPG world. It seems to make sense to say Legend of Zelda in some ways followed some cues from the Ys games.

I played the original FC in 2019. I think while it makes sense to be called a slow burn, there were also elements of the writing that kept me playing even early on; unlike a lot of game worlds it actually feels like a livable place where people trade, travel, have social lives, beyond just “The Soulstealer you’re going to fight has done wonders for our town! The sacrifices are necessary!” And, having the world and characters built up, even if it’s a bit slow, does lead to some excellent moments of payoff. I’m glad FF7 was mentioned, because I remembered that same anticipation for the FMV-style sequences of some epic cutscene battle or chase after a long sequence of investigating. Admittedly, part of what kept me going was the creative localization work. Little things like the “empty chest messages” felt like a very fun developer touch showing how much they enjoy the game.

I think that there’s definitely a “Devoted Falcom crowd” much like many other fanbases now, and I’d expect their opinions to be a bit skewed. When I was looking for opinions on this game, most of them seemed to come from people that had played most of their series. I’m a bit of an outlier - After Sky 1+2, I attempted to play the next three games in the series, through to Trails from Azure, at which point I decided “Eh…I’m done. The magic is lost.” But there’s a good reason that crowd exists, and I think I get how they can really absorb you in for the long haul. I just happened to differently enjoy a single pair of their games. At the very least, I wouldn’t consider the current 96% rating on Steam to be wholly objective; the game hasn’t been out long, so most reviewers will be people who played the game already and have a strong stake.

I played the demo for this one, and was surprised to find myself challenged by the JRPG combat even on normal. It’s possible to solve that issue with grinding, but it also got me to appreciate all the systems they have for outfitting yourself well, and reacting to particular circumstances in combat (I’m thinking of making a guide on Steam to showcase some of these). While I think of these games for their story (and of course their music) it’s interesting to see they have a large following for max difficulty playthroughs.

/Games generally has a content problem; it’s okay for people to bring up other discussions.

If you want to argue there are more interesting things to be on the front page than reviews gushing about a new game, even if using overblown wording, then please, post this other content and let the lesser stuff drift to the bottom! Entering the comment thread and telling people to fuck off isn’t a useful way to go about it though.

The first game has a “neat” conclusion where all seems resolved, that then leads into a stinging cliffhanger based around the characters.

The second game is the one with a satisfying conclusion; do not let people advertise “18 Trails games with DEEP FUCKING LORE” as a way to interest you. I broke off from this series from boredom several games onwards, but Sky 1+2 are a complete story that are absolute bangers.

Falcom seems to be doing okay, but if they suddenly go bankrupt, you could just play the original SC on Steam to finish the story.

I’d say it’s more accurate that it’s part of a “duology”. Die-hard fans insist on playing the 3rd game to absorb Deep Lore, but it’s not a part of the satisfying bookended arc starting from the first game. You don’t even play as the same main character. Frankly, I’m not sure if they’re going to remaster it.

Theories say the second game will release in a year, but game dev schedules tend to go wild. I wouldn’t blame anyone for waiting until then, since it is a big cliffhanger. It’s well written, doesn’t feel cheesy, and feels like an “ending”, but sucks to be left there wondering.

I’ve been playing through Jedi: Survivor. It runs poorly on PC, but is sometimes tolerable enough. It sucks to have that drawback, because the core game is expansive and a lot of fun once it gets going, with tons of exploration, tricky platforming, a variety of bosses, etc. I especially like that they managed to give one Jedi an even more bizarre set of combat stances even after the last game gave both double-edged and dual blade modes.

I’m also planning to pick up the Trails in the Sky remake. I played that game long after it came out and it somehow instilled a late sense of nostalgia in me. I tried recapturing that feeling with other JRPGs but few were living up to the story highs.

The only one of those I really expect to show censorship resistance is Steam. And of that, I’m very curious if they’re going to see repercussions from it.

I’d almost like for more of the control to go the other way. A director could negotiate with a composer about what mood is being asked for a particular moment in a game, leading to the composer making ideas for leitmotifs and buildup. Then, the game gets some number of adjustments or early planning to account for it.

It sounds insane to reconfigure everything to match the music, but honestly, from some of my favorite moments in gaming, it can make a lot of sense. Some of the crescendo periods of Final Fantasy XIV felt incredibly well-earned from the way they had used the expansion’s whole soundtrack as a sort of ballad, repeating a few certain themes both story-wise and in the music.

One example of a game that I think developed this dissonance is Ace Attorney. The main confrontational “gameplay” of those games is when you’re cross-examining a witness. The “Cross Examination” themes are some of the fan favorites - and since the beginning, they’ve had a second theme, Allegro, for when things are getting more intense. The Investigations games decided to put in a third theme, Presto, which goes loony for the sake of a culminating showdown of wits with the murderer, who has one last excuse as to why accusing them is impossible. It feels EPIC.

Only one trouble; Ace Attorney is often a comedic series, and side characters are still acting stupid and making flat-falling jokes during that last cross examination, often breaking the mood of that great track. In my view, a “musically-directed” Ace Attorney would be fine with keeping up its signature silliness at all other points in the game, but keep the tone completely serious when that “Presto” theme is playing, to make it feel like a really personal boss fight.

Countdown to him getting fired in 3…2…3…4…8…49…

Because companies ultimately seem to love leaders that are toxic these days.

I think the death run back and the option of exploring for upgrades were always at odds. When you respawn, getting things back is your first task as a form of loss avoidance. But then you’re standing in front of the boss room, maybe after jumping some spike pits, and you might as well just go in. There’s no thought to going other places at that point.

Shovel Knight used a death run to reclaim your lost treasure, and it worked out because it plays as a linear platformer, egging you on into accomplishing the daring feat you just pulled; gating little important behind upgrades.

Soulslike Tunic basically abandoned the death run back, just having you lose 20 gold (which hangs in that spot), and the game didn’t really suffer for it especially because exploration of old areas is so key to that game.

I’d recommend you don’t watch this if you’ve yet to play the first game (either iteration). A few spoiler elements.

It was kind of a given that this would be made, since, while the first has a great set of conclusions, it also sets up a really compelling cliffhanger element. The two games were supposedly written as one originally, and then split to two since it was getting long.

Still, part of me predicts some people will play the upcoming remake, and then get so wrapped up in the ending they’ll just buy the old-fashioned SC so they don’t have to wait for the remake edition.

This often happens to me in RPGs because I’m missing some combat mechanic or fundamental.

It’s made me want to design better optional tutorials for those games to help people discover certain strategies. Eg;

“Hey, you have many different tuning macguffins on this character, but it means their stats aren’t built to any one strength. For an example, try using 8 yellow macguffins to build them for taunting/defense so they can use their self-heal unique, and build up stun on enemies each time they’re attacked.”

Those things feel so witty to discover, but many RPGs now build up and prioritize so many systems it’s understandable people aren’t quickly attuned to them. What often gets me is thinking I’m not making the right decisions mid-combat, when my menu decisions around equipment/abilities are completely wrong.

Why do they keep trying to fuzz the terminology?

Zionists and Jews are not the same thing. They have very little in common.

I never played Remake, but when a YouTuber recently did a comparison video between some of their major scenes, I ended up respecting the original so much more.

A great one was when the plate falls. The original made directorial choices that emphasized the brutality of it all so much better, especially by choosing to cut the music. It just seems like Remake’s director was adding so many things simply because he could, making short and direct scenes so much worse by excess creation.

Of note, another JRPG from that general time period, Trails in the Sky, is being remade soon, and that one seemed quite a bit more faithful to me. Still taking liberties to change dialog, but only where it makes sense - they also greatly retooled the battle system with full respect for classic turntaking style.

That’s not always true when members of the team feel really motivated and inspired by a concept.

I’ve been in that zone a few times before. “Well, I’ve been working for a few hours. I guess I should take a break and play a game. …Or, I could just keep at it…?”

Of course, with such large teams now, you’re unlikely to see that happen to many of them. They’ll be working late, but usually zombies.