![]() ![]() I mentioned on the last page that the definition of a story is that it is a collection of ideas and beliefs tied together in a cohesive manner to reach some ultimate message, and everything else that exists in a story is in service to that, and if all Drakengard 2 has to offer is a canonical link to its predecessor but fails to actually be about anything that made Drakengard what it was, is it a sequel?Ĭlick to shrink.None of the stuff you bring up really relates to to whether or not it is a sequel though. They take place in the same universe and Drakengard 2 follows up the plot from Drakengard 1's first ending (short story, Drakengard has multiple endings and they all branch off into their own universes and the above mentioned greatest troll lead to NieR), but they really have nothing to do with each other as stories. The point I'm trying to make that is completely irrelevant to the actual qualities of any of the games I mentioned is that Drakengard 1 and 2 aren't really bound by any thread other than canon. The game was a cult hit so Square pumped some money into making a sequel that was a lot more typical of the genre cliches of hack n' slash and JRPGs (and let's get this out of the way right now: no I am not saying Chrono Cross is bad or that it was a safe sequel), with an anime dunce with stupid hair as the hero who commits the exact same amount of murder as the last protagonist on the society of knights that took him in and raised him, but it's okay because he's murdering for nice reasons. Bluntly, it is a game with a burning, seething contempt for the idea that you can kill thousands and be a hero. ![]() Relevant cliffnotes would be that Drakengard (a series most known nowadays for spawning NieR and NieR Automata) was an extremely messed up and nightmarish Dynasty Warriors-like about a bloodthirsty maniac and his dragon girlfriend murdering an escalating series of batshit eldritch horrors, and ends with the greatest troll in gaming history. I am not comparing them in quality here, let's get everyone on the same page tout suite, I am saying that the question of "what is a sequel?" is more complex than "it picks up afterwards." Is it a better sequel? Are Drakengard 1 stans just seething in impotent rage at this game they never wanted, but actually it's so much better because it's a collection of ideas that appeal to me?ĭrakengard 2 went down as a bad joke so Taro Yoko woke up from his drug binge and made NieR, while Chrono Cross still has its devoted fanbase to this day. ![]() It's not the same game, it's not made by the same people, it doesn't have the same ideas and themes let alone meaningfully evolve them, it's not really interested in following up anything that mattered in the first game, and it had an extremely different vision of what themes to explore (like murder is great actually as long as you're an anime hero) and how the universe's lore should progress so really, why is it a sequel? Drakengard 2 is a canon sequel (for a while there it was the canon sequel, NieR wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of Taro Yoko's freaky skeleton mask), the main characters of Drakengard 1 show up and they also die but with more dignity than Crono and friends were afforded. Anyway the bottom line is that everything about Chrono Cross as a sequel to Chrono Trigger applies to Drakengard 2 as a sequel to the original Drakengard. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |