Otherwise you're allowed to interfere with history at your leisure, like turning the greedy mayor of Porre into an overly charitable nice guy who hands treasures out when he's in a good mood, and never suffering any real consequence for it.Ĭhrono Trigger, much like its clear artistic inspiration Dragon Ball, is incredibly light hearted and optimistic. When Crono and friends change the past it's always presented as a good thing, and it only really comes up in the ending with Lucca fearing that she erased Robo from history by destroying Lavos (in the best ending he's completely fine along with Atropos in an idyllic 2300 AD, showing Lucca's fears to be unfounded). Now, I think it's pretty obvious that Chrono Trigger really wasn't interested in exploring the ramifications of time travel. All in all a happy ending right?Ĭhrono Trigger certainly thinks so, and it's this idea that Chrono Cross bases its central concept on: If you go back to change history "for the better" what happens to the world you just fixed? When you first go to Medina Village in 1000 AD you find the place ruled by Ozzie VIII and violent to any humans, and after defeating Ozzie one last time in Magus' sidequest history is rewritten so that Ozzie VIII is a butler in Medina to the new king of the Mystics, who is openly friendly to humans.
In Chrono Trigger there is a minor character named Ozzie VIII, descendant of one of the main villains of the Middle Ages chapter, Ozzie.
Rather, I want to discuss Chrono Trigger's unrealized examinations of the consequences of its time traveling, which Chrono Cross based itself off of to tell its story. I recognize the thread title might come off as inflammatory or dunking on Cross, so I'd like to establish from the get go that this isn't the case, and I would also appreciate this thread not devolve into wars between the two as I'm not really interested in talking about either game's subjective qualities.
0 kommentar(er)
