Remake. But also, more like a reimagining because it plays differently.
I explain all this in my review.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I saw this on Steam but the “1st Chapter” subtitle is a red flag. Is this a remake of a complete game or a partial release like the FFVII remakes?
atomicpoet@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
I was trying to figure out whether it was a complete experience on its own. @missingno@fedia.io clarified that it’s a remake of the first game in a trilogy. I was concerned it was being released episodically and I’ve been burned on incomplete episodic releases too many times.
atomicpoet@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Not sure if my review comes off too text-heavy, but I aim to cover this game in detail.
I dig into its history—because this isn’t just any JRPG. Its pedigree stretches back to 1984 on the PC-88.
naticus@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Sorta. It’s so loosely connected to the Dragon Slayer and contains almost no reference back to anyone before Trails actually started in 2004. Yes, I know, these are the origins, but saying “it’s not just any JRPG” makes it sound like the preceding series would be relevant to Trails too. I would say that the only games that you’ll ever see meaningful references to would be the Gagharv trilogy, but even then, not canon to Trails.
I think the more impressive thing is that Falcom has been making RPGs since before “JRPG” was a used term. Before Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy ever took the stage.
Either way, loving the remake, it’s truly one of the most faithful remakes of any games I’ve ever seen, regardless of genre. It’s insane that at a glance I recognize literally every area compared to the original.
emb@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
The game it’s a remake of was a very full experience. The original and its sequel were know as FC (first chapter) and SC, I think mostly in retrospect.
Vague spoilers for the story arc
While the original Trails in the Sky was very full, it does end on a cliffhanger that sets up directly for the sequel.
missingno@fedia.io 6 hours ago
The original was part of a trilogy, this is a remake of that same first game in the trilogy.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Thank you, that’s what I was trying to figure out. I’m guessing that the worst case scenario is that I can play the originals if they don’t remake the sequels. I think I’ll pick this up. I could use a good story-based single player game.
naticus@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Yeah the reason for the naming is that the original games were Trails in the Sky FC (First Chapter) and SC (Second Chapter) because it was supposed to be one game. And the scope of the story got so huge that it would never have been reasonable to release it as just a single game. FC was a 40-60 hour game while SC was 60-80 hours.
The 20 hour gap on each is really how much a player dug in because nearly every single NPC has their own story going on in the sidelines and some people (myself included) actually end up following them all at every story transition. They reoccur throughout this game and later games too, so the attention to detail to keep an these things happening is fairly incredible.
To further answer your original question though, FC really does need SC to get a satisfying end, but FC is a beloved entry anyhow from all the world building it provides.
The series is currently 12 games and will be 13 soon. That’s 4 major story arcs that all connect, get referenced, have some reappearing characters and talk of those past events, etc. In comparison to more well known JRPG series, it’s not like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest because this is not an anthology series.
atomicpoet@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Thank you for succinctly explaining why Trails in the Sky is such an artistic achievement.