Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Tartışma Kuralları ve Yönergeleri
Bu iletiyi bildir
Akatsuki at least has many characters from other Trails games, and happens in the familiar Trails games' countries, which means it's occuring at a similar period of time as the other games, which means it should be 'canon'.., I think? Unless they pull the whole parallel-universe thing, which I don't think they would.
Speaking of spinoffs, there was also Yume no Kiseki... which closed down in a year. (Or less than that?) I wonder if any of the hardcore fans here played it before. It really didn't go well..
This has to be highlighted because if people think that The 3rd is to SC what SC is to FC they might not even start playing the first game in fear of having to wait months after hitting a cliffhanger, which is NOT the case with the end of SC.
If I recall correctly Yume no Kiseki was a trading card game with collectible cards, kind of like Final Fantasy Record Keeper and Fates of Link (or, more closely to the TCG genre, games like Chain Chronicle). It wasn't even developed by Falcom as far as I know, so even if that game had a story mode it must have been some random made up story, like:
Joshua: Estelle, the guild said there's trouble in Crossbell, let's go!
Estelle: Awesome, we're gonna meet our friends there!
*on the way to the airship some lute music can be heard in the distance*
Estelle: ...Oh Aidios, not again. -.-
Olivier: Missed me?
I'm guessing Falcom does this because they lack the experience/whatever's needed when it comes to making and running an online game. I personally hope Akatsuki goes well because I like to think Trails has potential to go online...
This isn't like that prequel manga, for example, which tells the story of some characters from the trilogy and how they reached Crossbell, appearing on Zero. You can skip reading that manga perfectly and you won't miss important details (maybe one or two) but it's not on the level on skipping The 3rd.
The 3rd is as important as FC, SC, Zero, Azure or Cold Steel.
I don't think anyone here is really objecting that. The issue is, you need to specify that those who finish SC will not be left with a feeling of "end of first half of the movie" like at the end of FC. I saw lots of people calling this game TC and saying "not playing FC and SC until this is out", something they wouldn't do with Zero for example. Because everyone knows Zero starts a new arc and doesn't start off from a cliffhanger on the previous game, wherease some people wrongly assume that's exactly the issue with The 3rd.
OP title shows a request about the latter though.
While I agree that a better term could have picked instead of "spin-off", it has already been explained (also by Seraphna, who originally used the term "spin-off") what the real meaning of the issue was. No one here thinks of The 3rd as a spin-off in the conventional way (that is, as a non-canon thing). All that needed clarification was whether The 3rd has the same kind of relationship to SC as SC has to FC, and the answer is not. It develops things that were hinted in the previous games and opens a path to new story arcs, but those who have finished SC will not suffer until The 3rd is out, something that people who finished FC had to endure until the release of SC.
If this basic concept is ignored people will just be mislead and some of them will end up missing on two awesome games (FC and SC) just because someone wrongly told them that story isn't completed until you play The 3rd.
The game is a spin-off, pure and simple. If you dislike that, take it up with Merriam Webster. Spin-offs aren't a bad thing. They can be amazingly good. Having some of the same characters doesn't make your game not a spin-off either, they are in fact usually one of the driving factors in creating a spin-off. I return to the examples of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. The latter is the spin-off of the former, despite the fact they take place in the same universe, same plot line and share many characters who cross over. It's still a tangential plot that focuses on something that breaks off from the main story that has been presented.
I'm one day going to make a blog that focuses on terms that people have made cliche by repeated misuse and misunderstanding of the intention or actual purpose of the things they represent. :/
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/spin--off?s=t
From what I can gather however the term "spin-off" seems to refer to a different "branch" originating from the same "tree". This works great as a business term because a large corporation opening a new department is still that same corporation. Nothing has changed about it except that it might have a new field it is going to specialize in however, this does not apply to works of fiction. The narrative of a story can and often does change. The problem with your Buffy and Angel example is that there is no connecting narrative between the two shows. Are they in the same universe? Yes. Do they share characters? Yes. Is Buffy's story directly connected to Angel's? No. Angel has his own problems in the show named after him. A better example would be: Is Star Wars episode 1 a spin off of episode 6? The time frame is different, the main characters are different, some of the bad guys are different, etc. It's in the same universe though and there are new and returning characters but it is not a "branch" of the story.
But I do have a question...
Let's assume that i'm writing an 18 book series. Every book will (obviously) have a conflict and a resolution. Every 3rd book will end a "mini-arc" which could end with the next book seeing the time frame advance by (sometimes) centuries. After every 6th book the main character will change and the 6 book arc will obviously be done. After the 12th book the main ("new") character will become "the beginning and the end" of the series because he may or may not have been alive throughout the entire 18 book series.
If I labeled my 18 book series 1-18 which book(s) would be the spin off? Would it be after book 1 where the first conflict was resolved? Would it be after book 3 where the mini-arc is over and potentially different characters step in (or the povs completely change)? Would it be after book 6 where the main character potentially dies? Would it be after book 12 where the "main story" begins?
Do tell because I certainly am very curious.
Let me put it this way. When Falcom first began development for FC, they were ready to end the series at SC if the two games didn't sell well. Naturally they had to end the 2nd game in a satisfying manner in case that happened. They only started developing the 3rd after they decided to continue the series.
Fun fact: Zwei, another Falcom series with an overarching plot actually got snapped like this after its second game due to abysmal sales. We only got its spiritual succesor in Nayuta no Kiseki many years later.
Headache inducing. Using this particular defintion (dictionary.com isn't even the source I mentioned, which I mentioned for a reason) is like trying to explain a medical definition with a law dictionary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-off_%28media%29
In media, a spin-off[1] (or spinoff[2]) is a radio program, television program, video game, film, or any narrative work, derived from one or more already existing works, that focuses, in particular, in more detail on one aspect of that original work (e.g. a particular topic, character, or an event).
This is the definition, which is also pulled from here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spin%E2%80%93off
"a television program, movie, book, etc., that is based on characters from another television program, movie, book, etc."
' something that is imitative or derivative of an earlier work, product, or establishment; especially : a television show starring a character popular in a secondary role of an earlier show"
Note I specifically skipped the commerce definition. It does not in any way apply to what we're talking about. You spun an entire argument based on an incoherent reading of a non-accredited source.
I have the perfect answer to this.
The Dresden Files is a 15 book series (21 if you count the comic books) with two literal spin off series connected to it. One follows the events of Harry Dresden's on and off again lover and police officer friend, who solves mysteries and takes up the sword for Chicago during his absence. Another is a story arc currently following his vampire brother. Neither is a main part of the series, both are spin offs. Despite taking place in the same universe and timeline.
Notice the key element to both of these?
The characters they focus on. Not to mention that the book series, arcs or no arcs, has a continous overarching plot that follows the main character throughout. So no, you're trying to dig a little too deeply to find a definintion that doesn't exist. This is actually absurdly simple. The change of a main character is in fact a very, very big argumentative point for saying whether or not something is a spin-off.
Given the definitions above. I want you to do one single thing:
Justify to me how the 3rd is NOT a story that follows a character who is not the main protagonist from the previous games. Who is engaged in a story which is not actually central to the plot of the first two games. Noting: This means his story has to be key to the progression of events surrounding Estelle and Joshua. If these events could have been left out and their story unchanged, they are not key.
Otherwise, explain how FC and SC were all about the main character of The 3rd. Otherwise, you cannot justify that the 3rd is a DIRECT sequel.
Your response certainly is. The problem with sticking your arm into that shady little hole you notice out of the corner of your eye... is that you can lose your arm. I sort of wish people would ever understand this. Let's just assume that if you had hit your mouse wheel say a couple more times you might've run into one of these definitions:
to derive from or base on something done previously:
They took the character of the maid and spun off another TV series.
or
a book, film, or television series derived from a similar successful book, film, or television series
Which really is... plenty to go on. I was well aware of which definitions you were basing things on. I mean the thread can only really be about one thing. However, I did find it funny that the first definition of the word I stumble upon is a much more concrete version regarding business or comerce.
I can't as I haven't actually played the 3rd yet and depending on what's revealed this may or may not have made a rather large impact on whether Kevin would've even been there or not and since he does play a hugely integral role with... things... regarding Joshua i'd say that yes this can have an immense impact. So yes his story may indeed "be key". What I do know however is that Cold Steel directly references the 3rd at least 4 times and there's probably half a dozen more I likely missed. In fact, one time it was so blatant I pretty much said "Wait... what?" as they had lost me for a split second in one of Cold Steel's final scenes. Now I ended up browsing into a translated version of a certain scene in the 3rd which revealed not only what a certain someone was talking about but had shed a completely new light onto the prologue and the end chapter of the game. Which brings me up to something interesting i'd like to point out:
The bolded part is what's important here. Apparently these spin offs take place within the same universe but like Angel aren't a part of the main series or the original. But then you go on further to state:
Okay so do they all follow Dresden? Are these spin offs equally as important as the main series? Or are they simply "branches" from one "tree"? Also you haven't actually provided me with that "perfect answer" that you so stated. This largely comes into play because the main character can be a rather tricky thing to define. For example, if I asked you the question "Is the overarching plot in the Dresden Files about Dresden?" and the answer is "yes" then you don't understand what I actually asked.
I notice you avoided my Star Wars example because it's a bit of an outlier isn't it? The main character in Stars Wars was always the same throughout 1-6 you just didn't know it when watching 4-6. Is Star Wars episode 1 a DIRECT prequal to Star Wars episode 6. Yes it is!
Is The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky: The 3rd a DIRECT sequal to The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky: Second Chapter? Yes it is!
The 3rd is not a direct sequel. Please reread what I said because every bit of what you just posted seems to indicate you just skimmed and tried to use wording to continue your point. Prequels don't even factor into this because you're looking in the wrong direction. You're also trying to use a numerical sequence as evidence instead of the context. Next you'll be telling us that Final Fantasy 2 is a direct sequel to Final Fantasy, despite them taking place on entirely different worlds, having completely self inclosed stories, and featuring completely different casts of actors.
Star Wars 1-7 are all related, one being a sequel to the one before it, because it follows the same overarching storyline. Following a story built on a few central characters whom the story is about. And yes, I can even bring 7 into this to illustrate the fact. The story follows Anakin and passes on to his Son, which in turn at least for now appears to have passed on to Rey. This is the passing of a torch that indicates the central plot is still moving onward. One COULD argue that the "Prequel Trilogy" and the new "Awakening Trilogy" are actually both Spin-Offs. Because they do in fact break focus from a main character and contain their own internal plots. However, looking at it in the current time, when all story elements are here to be presented, the plots do in fact line up and deal with one another directly.
I'm actually curious if you would consider Rogue One a direct sequel to one of the Star Wars main movies, or if you'd agree it's a spin off.
The issue that the main characters of the 3rd deal with is unrelated. That story has already been tied up in Second Chapter. So you attempting to indicate that the 3rd is a direct sequel would actually oppose that fact and indicate that the plot does not in fact tie up, that it ends unfinished and the 3rd if vital to experiencing that story. It is not. As you've admitted you don't actually know what you're talking about in context to the 3rd's plot or what happens in it. We can safely assume you don't actually know enough to make this judgement call to begin with. And no, the number 3 coming after the number 2 does not indicate a direct sequel. That's also why they specifically removed "Chapter" from the title. To indicate this key seperation.
You're trying to say that because Star Wars deals with the same story spanning generations of characters, that somehow the indication of different characters doesn't normally indicate a spin-off. This is another fallacy, you're taking an unrelated example and using it as evidence for something that doesn't actually have the same qualities. It's called the anecdotal fallacy. In an example, you're essentially trying to say that because you one time encountered a man with blonde hair who was rude to you, all blonde haired men must in fact be rude people.
You have already admitted you don't know the actual contents of the 3rd, but you seek to make the same correlation despite not knowing the plot, the context, or the apparently the importance of characters even in games you profess to have played before. Since you're trying to justify Kevin as a character who was soooo important to the series thusfar that he first gets introduced... well after the second half the the plot has commenced. Not to mention the secondary main character isn't even in the first two games at all.
You're skipping out on logic to present your own and making up your facts as you go along. All the while relying on several fallacies to reach your point. Such as trying to indicate that because Star Wars follows a direct sequence, somehow that means the 3rd must be a direct sequel. This is aligning two completely unrelated things together to bring up a conclusion. You're essentially trying to say that because Dobermans are dogs, and dogs are animals, that all cats must be dogs.
You can try to talk to me in circles, but you're going to have to actually stay on point and justify your claim.
Is the 3rd a direct sequel? No, it's not. Saying otherwise amounts to being intellectually dishonesty or trolling. No magical sequence of words is going to change a fact. Please don't lie to people about the series. Thank you.
PS: Don't try to argue people's sources by pointing to your bad source again and trying to claim that something you didn't previously use in your logic suddenly matters.Not that the wording you claim there is even on the page. Intellectual dishonest at it's finest. You took my lines and spilled them back out. You spent a whole paragraph justifying the use of the commercial model anyway, so trying that route just continues dishonesty. You're just being transparent at this point. I'd rather not go into the history of Dictionaries, but Dictionary.com sources a version of the dictionary that was literally made up because someone didn't like the standard dictionary at the time.
Even better, it should probably be mentioned that Dictionary.com is not an academic source and if you were to try and use it in a college paper, you'd probably lose a few points. The creation of the source is well known and known to constantly cause issues and confusion with academia. Let's trust the person with a Masters degree in Literature when she talks about plots and stories and spin-offs and stuff. She MIGHT know something.
Let's remember the focus of the question here: Is waiting until the 3rd comes out to play FC and SC worth it? The answer is no. Because you won't be set on a cliff hangar and the story from the first two games ends with SC. The 3rd (named that way to show it differentiates) is a spin-off in the sense that it literally takes a secondary character from the second game and matches him up with an entirely new character for a new sequence of adventures that take place 6 months later. It's a sequel, it's not a direct sequel. Anyone trying to justify otherwise to you is selling you something.
Which is strange because given who I am, I should be the one trying to do that.
I like how this basically says "You're wrong because I say so". Let's not make a baseless claim on how you think my mind actually works because you'll be wrong through and through. Come back to me when you actually have a foundation for a solid argument on this one otherwise I don't want to see it again. I'm not going to bite on any baiting.
In regards to when it was made, yes it is a "sequel" however, only by actual timeframe (as in real life timeframe). I believe it was implemented as such to be brand recognition so when you bought "Final Fantasy 2" you'd get a story, characters, combat, world, etc. generally similiar to what "Final Fantasy 1" was but then again there was no Final Fantasy 1 there is a game called Final Fantasy though. I like how you provide an example but completely ignore the first word on the box - Final. It was called Final Fantasy because it was going to be the last game they ever made but it turned their entire company around instead. They decided to make more and that's really the only thing that matters.
Final Fantasy does not profess to be a game series based on it's storytelling which builds up with each subsequent game in the series. Legend of Heroes... or rather the Trails of series does. Each and every game in the series expands it's lore, plot, characters, world building etc. I honestly doubt you were dumb enough not to know this. If I see another red herring from you i'll slap you with the damn fish.
You're trying to make my point for me aren't you?
No clue what Rogue One is nor do I really care. I kind of checked out of Star Wars after 7.
I've seen at least one scene from the 3rd that deals with Ouraboros so no I would say it is most definitely related. FC and SC are not the romance story of Estelle and Joshua but yes most of Estelle and Joshua's arc is tied up in Second Chapter... most of it. I think it was RegalStar that said something along the lines of: Second Chapter is the big present you get at Christmas it's got nice wrapping paper and a pretty little bow on top. The 3rd points out that you wrapped the present the wrong way, the bow is a little crooked, you didn't use the right kind of paper and that it has a couple of holes in it and wouldn't you know it... when I played Cold Steel I found a couple "holes".
No i'm afraid it looks like a slippery slope fallacy to me because if you go down this path you will essentially be saying that the very definition that you conveniently state is the right one with an appeal to your own self professed authority as the only real basis might not be correct all of the time. Interesting...
Last time I checked when a game 1 and a half years later chronologically and the 6th game in the series directly references the 3rd game (the uh "spin off" game) in the series multiple times there is no other word than to say it is essentially a direct prequel. But you seem to have some sort of problem with the word direct so then I ask how then is the 3rd indirect? It stands to reason that if the 3rd is not direct then it would be the opposite. How is the the 3rd an indirect prequel to Cold Steel and an indirect sequel to Second Chapter because I, for one, would like to know? Because maybe those direct references to it were just my imagination or perhaps you'd call it "a fallacy".
All you've done is appeal to your own authority so I don't want to see "stay on point" from you.
Come up with something besides "you're wrong because I say so" and I might actually give you the time of day. The only one that's being dishonest here is you (whether intentional or not). Does the 3rd take place after Second Chapter? Yes. Does it go over plot points that were not answered in Second Chapter? Yes. Does the main character switch between the games? Yes. Does it still relate to Estelle and Joshua's overarching story? Yes. Does it expand the Trails universe? Yes. Is the 3rd referenced in future games... directly? Yes. How again am I lying?
Maybe the creator found issue with the definitions of some words provided (funny thing about words is they can change with context). Dictionary.com references multiple sources and multiple definitions of every word i've ever looked up on it. Just because you don't find it to be "good" doesn't mean squat.
The previous Legend of Heroes games are not directly referenced in the Trails series unlike say the 3rd and 6th game in the Trails of series. Stop baiting.