Talk:Chrono Cross/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Really a sequel? Section

I'm not totally sure this is fit to stay; as my additions reveal, only a loud few are responsible for the "generally accepted notion" that Chrono Cross is not a fit sequel. Having been a Chrono Trigger fanboy myself, and having embraced Chrono Cross, dissected the plots of both games without relent (consult by Chronology on the Compendium or Gamefaqs), and worked with the entire script of Chrono Cross to organize it for casual viewing, the thought of it being anything less than an excellent sequel is foreign to me. However, this is personal opinion, but I believe the fanboyism responsible for that perception of poor quality is simply extremism and might not justify the better part of the second half of this entry. The typist who composed it was a bit ill-qualified and lacked a few tidbits of knowledge concerning the series itself.

--Zeality 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The entire section is a bit... odd, really. To be blunt, it's a sequel if the producers say it is. The reference to GamePro's interview with Tanaka is the only bit of the section that seems to have any real informative weight at all, and it's mentioned only in passing, and without a direct link. And the whole thing comes across as a bit schizophrenic. The entire passage could probably be boiled down to one or two sentences without losing the gist, and doing so would probably reduce the NPOVishness of it all.... – Seancdaug 01:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try and tackle it dispassionately, then. --Zeality 04:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Nonexistent" Plot Holes?

I was just wondering what the basis was for declaring the position of plotholes within the game as "non-existent". A list of proposed plot holes and their "solutions" would be appreciated. King Zeal 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The claims are mostly totally insubstantiated, and the arguments retracted. It's more of a general claim among Cross haters that the game is "full of holes," and this fact is also assumed because the game deals with dimensional and temporal travel. There are hardly specific instances named; I make a point when arguing to call for evidence, and most is simply a simple misunderstanding. There are two "holes" I know of:

Moons are inconsistent with the orphanage fire scenery outside Lucca's house (Chrono'99)
According to a theory on the Compendium as part of its definition and analysis of the rules (stated and non) of time travel, difficulties arise concerning whether Schala's pendant could be used by Kid (a rule on the Compendium states it should disappear; something to that effect)

And the latter plot hole deals entirely with fan analysis and decryption. If you can find some other examples cited by disgruntled players, it would be appreciated, but largely in my experiences the claims of widespread, proliferated plot holes are quickly retracted as the declarer retreats soon after. --Zeality 23:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are different from the plotholes I've heard (or "formed" myself). I agree that those cases might not be examples of plotholes within the story, but I don't agree that the story lacks them altogether. I wouldn't mind discussing them at length with someone who knows the plot through and through, though. King Zeal 00:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Gameplay section?

This article needs a Gameplay section. Reading it, one would have no idea what the game itself is like (battles, Elements, etc.), only what happens in the game’s story. I’d do it myself, but trust me, you don’t want me writing a section. —Frungi 06:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Guile

Removed:
* Guile - None ~~(was going to be Magus, Schala's brother, but his backstory was removed)~~
Can this be confirmed? —Frungi 06:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] --Zeality 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merges, etc.

I think that a lot of the playable characters need to be merged into lists. Perhaps a list for each innate color, or a list for all the stub character pages. Characters like Serge, Lynx, and maybe Kid can have their own articles, but I don't know if Leah and Viper should. Basically, I'm suggesting a merge along the lines of Xenosaga (series) Deckiller 03:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A case can be made that major characters like Serge, Kid, and Lynx deserve their own entries, but the rest should be stuck, as-is, in a list. Ideally, I'd prefer a single list for all characters, but I expect that will probably be too long, so splitting them by color seems as reasonable as anything else. – Seancdaug 03:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and merge them on January 21, 2006 if nobody objects. Deckiller 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll be WP:BOLD and start the merge now. Deckiller 02:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm going to start by putting all characters in one article (except for Lynx, Serge, Kid). That way, if a split is needed, it can be done so at a later date. Deckiller 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

All merged. The list may need some format tweaks. I merged all articles and redirected all except for Serge, Kid, Lynx, and Harle. Deckiller 04:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Characters

Trigger has a complete Character set on Wikipedia, I recommend we work on the same for Cross. I'll get info to you all as soon as I have a base of operations set up.Guardian of Light 13:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in this by the way?Guardian of Light 14:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've created/expanded a few of the main characters (Serge (Chrono Cross), Kid (Chrono Cross), Lynx (Chrono Cross), Harle, Guile, and Luccia). I don't think it's really necessary for each character to have his/her own article, pretty much just because some of the characters (i.e. Funguy, Turnip, Pierre, etc.) are completely under-developed. The really only "important characters" in CC, IMO, are Serge, Kid, Lynx, and Harle. I only created a Guile article because he is so popular among fans with all the Guile=Magus theories around, and the Luccia article already existed. I can see potential articles for Leena, Glenn, Karsh, and maybe a few other characters since they are actually developed. I think perhaps a List of Chrono Cross characters is the best solution. — WARPEDmirror 16:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. Still, now that I've put around 15+ hours in on this I don't want to see it wasted. I'll finish and then try it out. If it turns out not good, I'll clean up personally, that I promise. Guardian of Light 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on a few of the characters, I believe that I finished Norris recently. I don't have all the information on the characters (still digging up old memory cards for my PS1), so any help would be appreciated. It would be nice if we could have a complete list of all the characters, just for the bragging rights. UzerZero 14:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, I went ahead and merged all articles except for Harle, Kid, Serge, and Lynx. It's a good character project, and hopefully the list can be expanded to such a point that we can split it by innate eventually. Deckiller 04:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese title

The Japanese title is "Chrono Cross," not "クロノ・クロス," which is the Japanese pronunciation of the title. The parenthetical "クロノ・クロス, Kurono Kurosu" should be removed, as it is not the Japanese title.

I beg to differ. In the Japanese article on Chrono Cross, the title is written in full katakana, and the katakana form is used throughout the article. As English is a compulsory subject in modern Japanese education, they could have easily written it in English if they wanted to.

Vindictive Warrior 05:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't like this game, and...

I'm kind of at odds with the second paragraph unde the Plot section. It is true that I'm one of the players that criticizes the story, but that same paragraph says that it's mistaken to see the story as being weak and senseless. I really feel the story actually is weak and senseless, but yet I listened hard to all of the game's characters, and talked to everyone everywhere, multiple times over. It also says the plot is sound. What I'm getting at is that the paragraph seems to be defending the game's story, and says that my criticism of it is wrong and that I am (and people like me are) stupid for thinking that. Seriously, aren't there sensible people out there that thinks that this story is nuts? OK, maybe it itsn't senseLESS, but it's definitely weak--in my opinion. I'm not saying that having an intricate plot is a bad thing--in fact, often it is a good thing. I mean, the story of FFVII wasn't too simple, and yet I absolutely loved it, mostly because it was done right. But I really feel that in this case, the story was done poorly, and I don't like this encyclopedia saying that this belief is "mistaken". I take strong objection to this, and to all others who feel that people who don't like this game's story are stupid and/or impatient people that didn't bother to listen to it carefully.

The plot makes sense to me, but I hate the guts of Chrono Cross anyway, mainly because it discards way too many things from Chrono Trigger, such as time-period jumping, well-developed characters (I don't care what others say, 44 characters, majority downright insignificant, was overkill), instantly understandable storyline, a memorable experience, and fangirls screaming for Crono (lol). I will agree that the story is excessively complex for most players, even I needed to read walkthroughs to understand the details. Nevertheless, if the question about plot suitability is brought up, it'll be more of a war involving opinions rather than facts, unless some egregious plot structure error can be uncovered. For now, making our opinions visible and unadulterated on Wikipedia is enough of a challenge.

And what was SquareEnix thinking by killing off CR/CTRP... just because SE can't properly make another Chrono game (IMHO) doesn't mean they should discourage others from reviving the original legend. I also have my doubts as to how harmful the remake would be to official CT sales...a game written in the 16-bit age won't appeal to this generation's philostine gamers, and the project had years to go before completion (which, by then, the PS1 remake could be only found on eBay).

Vindictive Warrior 06:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The Plot section uses extremely slanted language and is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Please edit for NPOV. Proserpine

Character images

I believe the character images to the side of the name is a problem for the 8th Fair use criteria policy, which states Fair use images can't be used as decorations. I suggest removing them. -- ReyBrujo 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

FA Push

Now that Chrono Trigger is mostly finished and is currently being peer reviewed before an FA nomination, let's work on Chrono Cross. I'm going to go through the article and do a complete polish up, rewriting some sections and adding new relevant material in. Help is appreciated. This can help with the POV problematic parts. --Zeality 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay Section

I attempted to explain everything necessary for one who has never played video games to understand, as I hear this is a Featured Article requirement for CVG articles. However, it turned out to be four paragraphs. Is this too wordy? --Zeality 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Nifboy took care of it. --Zeality 05:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Finding citations

Three things aren't cited.

However, there has been no new Chrono title to date, and it is rumored that poor Japanese sales of Chrono Cross are to blame.
Chrono Cross has not been officially released in PAL territories; Square has cited a combination of economic and technical expenses involved with formatting the game as the cause.
The Chrono Break trademark still stands in Japan.

I'll start digging for these right now. Then we can have it peer reviewed. In the meantime, I'm going to polish what I can at Chrono Break and Radical Dreamers to complete the Chrono series drive. --Zeality 05:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Characters auto-accents

The bit on the aut-accent doesn't make much sense. A few years ago, I wrote a program to dump the text from chrono cross. While writting it, I had to devise a way to differenciate the different version of the sale phonemes used in the text, and I came up with the "suffix" and numbers coding. That's the coding used in the article. As a consequence, the left text isn't the original script as written by squaresoft, but merely a dump made by my own tool. While it is true the game use an automatic accentiation system, the exemple given is not encyclopedic by nature and should be removed... yaz0r 10:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it out. Nice to see you. The Chrono Compendium is still very, very much in debt for the Chrono Cross script... --Zeality 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review and future

I've learned an incomparable amount of information about building articles at Chrono Trigger, and I'll apply that here to get it ready for a peer review. I'm going to do a general copyedit, reformat all the references, re-add the full story summary, and get some more references overall for the critical reception area. Then I'll submit it for peer review and see what comes next. The Chrono series articles are slowly becoming powerhouses. --Zeality 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First point of discussion. What should we do with the character section? --Zeality 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest converting it to prose. -- ReyBrujo 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be no subheadings in the characters section. The main characters should only really have a few words describing their personalities and roles or whatever. Final Fantasy VIII does a pretty good job with its character section (and that's not because I helped write that article :) ) — Deckill e r 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreement with Deck on this. There's just way too much information about the characters. It should all be in prose with no sub-headings, and only a bit of personality info should be given. Example: "Serge is the silent protagonist. Kid is a feisty girl". Well, obviously use something better than that, but you get the idea. The Final Fantasy VIII example is probably a good one. Check out Final Fantasy X or Final Fantasy VI for more ideas.

The most important bits of character info could comfortably be in the Story section. Regrettably, a lot of things will need to be removed (such as most of the Returning characters section). Also, don't try to focus on more than the main characters and maybe a few supporting characters. There's just too many of the bastards. Maybe mention the core supporting cast (people like Glenn, Viper, Radius and Fargo), but Pierre and Mojoy are pretty much irrelevant as far as the story goes. Leave descriptions of the personalities of the baggage characters to the List of Chrono Cross characters page. Ryu Kaze 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly ^_^ I spent a couple hours merging that page for that very reason :-) — Deckill e r 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I mentioned the more important characters in the resulting paragraph, and tried to maintain a good sense of flow. Aside from a general copyedit, is there anything else the article needs? --Zeality 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fan reaction was largely positive"?

That's certainly not been my experience; could somebody cite sources to substantiate this claim? From what I've seen on message boards the fan opinion of Chrono Cross has been largely negatively. 71.203.205.251 14:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is because only negative people have impetus to speak out. The game sold 1.5 million copies, and only a handful of people online crop up with complaints. Thousands more come and go at my site, digesting information and reading guides. I will use the Gamespot review to substantiate this, since 3,000 users total have rated it 9.3 out of 10 there. This is just a case of the silent majority who mostly bought and enjoyed the game. --Zeality 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A citation is still needed to show the fan reaction was mostly positive. Claing that "only negative people have impetus to speak out" is a POV assertion, and claiming that everyone who didn't speak out liked the game is even more POV. You're ignoring that there are more than two possible opinions that a player can hold about the game. It's not just a divide between "it's great" and "it's awful"; people can also be neutral, considering the game to be merely average. 71.203.205.251 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The numerical poll with 3,000 respondents should take care of that. 9.3 is a fairly high score. --Zeality 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article

Terrific article. You guys have clearly and comprehensively explained the game, and almost made me want to go out and buy it. Easily passable for GA status, and well on its way to FA.

A few bits of advice for when you nominate it for FA (and you should):

One sentence in the lead says, "It is the sequel to Chrono Trigger, released in 1995 for the Super Nintendo." Was Chrono Trigger released in 1995, or this game?

I believe you need fair use rationales for the attack menu picture in "Gameplay" and the Japaneses packaging picture in "Plot:Story".

Cut down a bit on images. Featured candidate reviewers are sticklers for the number of fair use images, so decide which ones could go before nominating it. Watch out for User:Angr, who is basically boycotting fair use images in all of Wikipedia.

Great work. -Dark Kubrick 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy working on Final Fantasy IV and Terra Branford but...

I think I'll shy away from those for a day to give my input and advice on this article. Zealty, you've been doing a great job with it so far. I'm working on prosifying it a bit, and making sure each image has a fair use rationale on it per Wikipedia policy. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I just checked all the images and made any changes that needed to be made. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for following the suggestions I put in the TO DO box, just things I've observed from other Video game FA's.

Along those same lines, I had a question about having 11 Fair use images; is that ok for Video games? because with film articles the limit is about 5. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Normally I wouldn't have added so many, but recently a bunch were implemented in Chrono Trigger while it was nominated for featured article status. --Zeality 12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The recommended limit is fifteen images, actually. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FA

I'll go ahead and put it up for copyedit peer review, and try to do some serious copyediting too. As it stands, the long article queue for Good Articles will probably take about two months to reach Chrono Cross. It's taken nearly a month just for Radical Dreamers (in a normal queue to boot). Though I've sort of sped it along by fixing objections cited on articles further up in the queue, heh... --Zeality 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I printed the article out and did some hardcopy editing. A ton of fat has been melted away, along with any remaining excessive weasel or additive words. Now's the time for all good editors to copyedit and fix up any last pressing needs. --Zeality 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with reference 31; the title and info isn't showing up down there. I can't figure out what's causing it. --Zeality 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

After cleaning up things a bit, I'm submitting tomorrow. --Zeality 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that reference 31 is empty. If you search for it, there are four <ref name="ultimania" />. The first one should have the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} or whatever. -- ReyBrujo 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it fixed. --Zeality 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, image question

Good idea trimming the images, but I wonder about the justification for the last 5 images in the article. Are there ones that could be found to be more encyclopedic? Like the soundtrack, is that truly needed? Wouldn't a key plot moment be better? Judgesurreal777 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Images have been fixed. --Zeality 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Things to come

Deckiller mentioned getting more out of universe information, and we definitely could use some. There are several interviews with the Chrono Cross team in Ultimania just waiting to be translated. If you, a visitor reading this, are capable of translating and would like to help, e-mail chronocompendium at gmail.com. There's literally a plethora of information between Ultimania and Missing Piece about this game's development totally unknown to English-speaking fans. Help is appreciated. --Zeality 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations All

It's featured! The CVG improvement revolution continues. --Zeality 14:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's make Magus good next! Sir Crazyswordsman 17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism- Score

It's said in the "Criticism" section that fans and critics found the game's score to be unmemorable. My opinion aside (which is that whoever doesn't like the score is deaf), there needs to be a citation for whatever source this was derived from... or it should be cut entirely, because I doubt this is ever the case.

It came from the IGN article. I agree that it's a pretty bogus claim, and was probably the quirk of that author. Is there an ethical basis for removing it? We do cite a lot of reviews, and none of the others mention that flaw, while several do confirm the other flaws (like the weak directing is cited in more than one source, for instance). --Zeality 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Square Millenium Collection omake?

I know that Square's "Millenium Collection" games came stocked with omake. The image caption states that it released with a sample music CD. Was that all it came with? --Tristam 03:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it came with a calendar and clock, too. We'll note those; thanks for reminding. --Zeality 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I know here in the states one could have got the sampler CD and the clock (along with a poster, I think?) if it was pre-ordered. I still gots my clock and sampler. ;) Reverend Raven 12:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Alerts

Could someone please add some spoiler warnings, particularly to the Plot section? The introduction also gives away quite a bit. 71.128.167.230 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Cameron, 11-4-06

This is an encyclopedia. It gives out information. Voretus/talk 19:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

An unexpected reference

On the (very remote) chance that there actually is something to this, I have to ask. I just bought, of all things, a ceiling lamp which included light bulbs packed in boxes made from what appears to be recycled cardboard game ad boards, turned inside out. One of them had this Chrono Cross image on it, and I can't quite figure out what the black thing is supposed to be. Any ideas, anyone? Khim1 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiiieerrd! The casing looks like a Japanese MegaDrive, but the button placement on the controller and system switches (power, reset, and "eject" center switch) make me think its a bootleg Super Famicom. It's an older cartridge system, that's for sure. My guess is the whole thing is a mock-up made in the Asian piracy scene as a way to either promote Chrono Cross or the bootleg system in the picture, if it even exists at all. Things like this usually adorn piracy shops as a way to advertise games or systems without having to pay for official materials, and most of them are made by people who have no idea what in the world they're selling. This would include marketing a game as an entire system. I'd like to hear something more conclusive, but nice find! Nall 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chrono Poseidon?

I can't find any external mentions of "Chrono Poseidon" (except for a rather elegant watch from KronSegler). That paragraph has to get an external reference pretty soon or it has to be removed, in my opinion. Khim1 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Plot", paragraph 4

I only wish that I monitored this article more often to bring this up sooner. Anyway, 69.178.99.74 removed the paragraph discussing the small number of players who were dissatisified with Chrono Cross, and why, stating it did not comply with NPOV. While this paragraph is slightly toned towards those who dislike Chrono Cross, the paragraph includes enough statements to counterbalance the criticism. Further, all of the information, to my knowledge, is factual. I am well aware that another reference to fan displeasure exists in the 3rd paragraph from top, but those two statements don't give enough information about the situation, nor do they explain in detail why these conflicts exist. I'm considering placing that paragraph back as it existed before removal, but I want to hear the opinions of others before doing so, since no one else before me decided to.

Vindictive Warrior 07:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing P4 was removed due to the excessive rebuttals to criticism; I didn't notice it at first. In any case, I'll agree that the paragraph should not be restored in its previous state. Nevertheless, I do believe this article needs more emphasis on the displeasure that this game has created for a small, yet existant group of fans. One or two sentences can't completely explain the reasoning behind the hatred.

Vindictive Warrior 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There are a lot of Chrono Trigger fans out there who were less than fans of Chrono Cross. Though the game received critical acclaim, to ignore those criticisms (or merely pay lip service to them) seem to bias the article. 63.94.97.34 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)bcaiko

Missing Citation

There is some conversatino from a year ago about citing a poll of three thousand fan votes as a citation for "fan response was generally positive." However, all that is linked is is a single reviewer's scores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.37.19 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Gamespot lists three scores: their reviewer, other reviewers, and fans. The fan poll is the one being cited on that page. --Zeality 06:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Development section

The Chrono Compendium finally found a translator who can work on Ultimania and other materials which have eluded Western audiences for years. I've taken the opportunity to launch a development section which will be augmented in the near future. Zeality 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot discrepancy

I just played through this game again for the past 3 days. One part of the wiki states that the player uses the dragon relics and shards of dragon tear to create the chrono cross. The dragon relics are not used in creating the Chrono Cross, just the tear shards are. The only way I could see somebody making an argument for that is that you use the dragon relics to allow you to get the dragon tear from Steena, have her join your party, and later use her and the shard of the tear she gave you to create the Chrono Cross. That doesn't really fit. --ArrowDynamicsX 12:25, 9 Jul 2007 (UTC)

The Dragon Relics are used along with the Dragon Tears, it's a visual fact. Kariteh 11:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. I just checked again, there is no visual of the Dragon Relics being used anywhere in the game except at a Fate Distortion. I just watched it, you place one tear, it floats, you place the second tear, it floats, they fly around, come together, and become the Chrono Cross. However, I did find out you are correct that they are used, I tried making it too early just now, and Steena says you need the "...Dragon Relics that offer up divine supplication." So they are used to suppliment the creation of the Chrono Cross, but it isn't there visually. So, I apologize for the edit, but the only way to know that they use the Relics is to try to create it too early. --ArrowDynamicsX 1:38, 11 Jul 2007 (UTC)

PS3 Compatibility?

Is there any word yet how well Chrono Cross performs on the PS3? --Jayson Virissimo 02:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Locks up in a few places, and terminally locks after beating the final boss. Zeality 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler pic?

Now, I take it that many contributors here are strongly against spoiler-centric editing. I suppose this isn't the place to discuss spoilers in general, but the picture of the Dead Sea seems rather problematic to me. I think one has to be a bit more careful here; text spoilers can easily be avoided, but I originally came here, when I was considering playing the game, to read up on the gameplay and the criticism, and I think that coming across the picture affected my reaction to the Dead Sea when I actually got to it (since I wasn't even supposed to have any idea what the Dead Sea contained). Frankly, I was pretty unmoved until I saw all the ghosts running around. I was disappointed, since I kept reading all this stuff about how awesome the place looked. Anyway, the point is that SOME spoiler-centric editing couldn't hurt. I'm not talking about the tags, obviously, since they wouldn't have prevented anything and are redundant, anyway, but unless you're willing to say that section headers are redundant or a form of censorship, I think replacing this picture with a less spoiler-laden picture, like Serge and Kid fighting Lynx, should seriously be considered. -Capefeather (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid can't help you there, since wikipedia isn't censored. If you don't want to discover "spoilers", avoid the article in question. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's stretching it. It used to be "avoid Plot sections", but now it's "don't even read Wikipedia"? The censorship thing is that people should expect spoilers in a Plot section. But a picture that spoils the game is harder to avoid, while they are going to a logically spoiler-free section. And a note is that I think the screenshot is unnecessary and of no use to the plot whatsoever. There's so many different screenshots that could be used that are not only better for those reading the Plot section, but also for those passing over it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't think this would actually get serious consideration. Thought Zeality would say something about this, so I avoided it until now. In any case, I'm pretty sure a similar thing happened on the Chrono Trigger article, where a pic of the Crono and Marle marriage FMV was replaced by a pic of Ayla about to pwn some noob Reptites. I honestly think this "spoiler => censorship" thing has gone too far. If it's so bad that no action will be taken on it even if it might actually improve the article in other ways (e.g. Serge and Kid fighting Lynx would be more iconic and more people will "get it"), then I don't know whether I'm against "censorship" in that sense. I mean, what I'm suggesting is not even censorship, and it has precedent in a similar article. Capefeather (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters section in plot

The character section under the plot header looks to need a full overhaul, frankly. It goes into some pretty major spoilers of the actual story without warning (while I do think they should be present, I also think such spoilers should be in a section about the game's actual story, not its characters, where they can be expected; even so, it should be well labeled), and also has some information that, if I remember correctly, is not entirely accurate. In particular, the infiltration of Viper Manor, if I recall, does not necessarily involve Kid. If you elect not to take Kid at the beginning of the the game (an action that many players might not even realize was possible*), as I recall you can go with any 3 of the characters available at that point (I think you might even be able to take Leena and Poshul).

Yes I do realize eventually Kid must be one of your party members, but you can put it off for quite a long time if you so desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.156.230 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Cross was not released in PAL territories...

I am removing the line Chrono Cross was not released in PAL territories due to "a combination of technical and business reasons". It is referenced to a post on a GameSpot union, which is essentially a forum - big no no for reliable sources. The link to the "Q and A" can be found here [2]. Seems like it was copy and pasted or stolen from somewhere else, so I imagine this can be sourced with something else. --- RockMFR 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone then find out a specific reason as to why the game hasn't ever been released on PAL...... Even Chrono Trigger has now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.19.235 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, someone must have found some reference in the last 6(!!!!) years that explains this.

Biased Criticism Section

I added a POV to this article because the criticism/reception section is seriously out to lunch. As I recall, having played through this game in its entirety and having heard a myriad of complaints from fans, there were several issues that detracted from the experience of the game - a laggy battle system, etc. - that can't be pigeonholed merely to game buyers being upset at the "new cast" or lack of access to "old locations". The inclusion of Masato Kata's comment at the end of the article that he wondered whether Chrono Cross ever "really got through to fans" only reinforces the charges of bias, as it paints a picture of an "ignorant" fan base upset simply because the game was "different" than its predeccesor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.10.54 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Find a professional reviewer who says that. In my experience, the biggest whiners are jaded Chrono Trigger fans who didn't get Chrono Trigger II. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Look up the title on GameFAQs; there's a substantial number of reviews that lament more than the game's inconsistency with the first one - that's a good gauge of "fan reaction". Feel free to not make the revisions if you want, but you'll be doing so as a result of bias, i.e. "in my experience." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.10.54 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't read that many opinions on it, the gaming communities I've come across tend to think of the game as alright, but not as a very good sequel. Most I've run into feel the game just didn't live up, and had too many flaws bringing it down. 72.129.15.93 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

playstation network

This game has since been released on the playstation network. Should the lien talking about it be deleted or amended or something? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly? It seems up to date in the lead/intro, and the infobox... Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I updated it at the Release/Reception area. --90.207.200.188 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Development information currently not the article

The following sources should be translated and used to expand the current incomplete article:

Missing Piece

Chrono Cross Ultimania

Ultimania Website

Chrono Cross Ultimania Staff Comments

Chrono Trigger Ultimania

Anyone willing to help translate even one page is welcome! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Updated the links. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There, just made sure they're all on the Compendium MRT page. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 23:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Parallel universes in fiction

I unfortunately can't just cite the game its self to prove this game is about parallel universes in fiction despite that being mentioned several times in the article. This is a statement not a question. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The foundation of the game revolves around the prospect of a parallel universe, so I can't imagine someone objecting to that unless there's some technicality of how categories are applied I'm unaware of. (Is this what you were looking for? Its hard to tell what exactly you're driving at if you're not actually asking a question...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Err yeah sorry I just got blocked for categories; you are correct I doubt anyone would object and I should have asked a question; thanks. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Characters of Chrono Cross

The parent game article is currently an FA, meaning that its scope was deemed to be complete. However, it was prompted in 2006—over a decade ago—and standards have changed since then. For example, its #Characters section contains all sorts of facts that aren't from the plot and need secondary sourcing. I understand that the plot is a major part of this game ("Like any JRPG, its story has to be compelling and Chrono Cross‘s is just that.") but the sourcing covers the story and characters within the context of the game review itself. By that token, it's similar to splitting out an article on driving mechanics in a Forza article—something that's vital to the game that is covered in depth in each review but is not covered in a context separate from the game. Both CC's characters and Forza's driving mechanics should receive due weight throughout their parent articles but it doesn't necessarily mean there is cause to split.

Our appropriate method of handling this is to discuss the characters within the appropriate section of the article, source it as necessary, and if the sourcing warrants it, split out the section summary style. Right now, without passing judgment on the writing, characters of Chrono Cross as a topic serves as a coat rack for writing about plot. The sources are almost all specific to coverage of the game and are used to justify an article twice or thrice the length of the sourced content. (All that extra length is sourced to the plot.) A start would be to trim it down and return the article to a discussion of the sourced character coverage, but that would, in effect, be the same as merging the article back to its parent section (Chrono Cross#Characters) and expanding summary style as needed. czar 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Undecided - The game is amazing, but the characters of the series have not demonstrated any notability since 2006, and the topic should be merged together. Any relevant details should get merged into the main article so that nothing of value is lost. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This is fundamentally not true. Its actually impressive how many retrospectives that focus a lot on the characters that get written for a game created 16 years ago in 2000. Two have arisen in 2016 alone - Kotaku and HardcoreGamer. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I keep hearing completely opposite feelings on this article and I don't know what to think now. I wish we could get some outside opinions on this topic. I'm just tired of arguing about it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - There is substantial third party sourcing in the Reception section. As stated before, people are free to trim down on the fictional character info, but it doesn't change that there is a ton of out-of-universe third party reception, not to mention quite a bit of out of universe information on the creation and development of the characters. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Read the Reception section, there a lot of reliable sources talking about the characters in this game. Also the section "Creation and influences" is referenced with valid information. You can't fit the valid information in the main article without it being too long, so a side article is justified. Dream Focus 19:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The Reception section here at the character article is more detailed than the main article's FA reception section. And its not trivial "Serge was ranked #87 on Complex's 'Top Badass Protagonists of 2000' for being 'cool' and 'brave' fighter" or other trivial stuff pulled from listicles that people try to use to prove notability, we're talking actual thoughtful commentary from reviewers and retrospective writers. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If the argument is that the main article doesn't cover the character elements adequately, that's more of an issue with the quality of the main article than a reason for splitting. I made the same Forza comparison above—there's plenty of in-depth coverage about driving mechanics in Forza, but it doesn't mean it's treated enough as a separate topic to warrant splitting from the main article.

No one has said that the characters were not covered in the reviews—the stance is that the characters were not discussed as a distinct entity from the game, such that they warrant a content split from what should already be adequately covered in the FA-rated article, just as Forza's driving mechanics or The Last Guardian's atmosphere are not treated as separate entities even though they're fundamental elements of what makes those games what they are. czar 00:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your strange new approach of comparing characters against other random aspects of video games is bizarre and irrelevant. Character articles are frequently spun out. Things like "driving mechanics" and "atmosphere" are not. Stop trying to confuse the issue. The facts remain:

Third party sources discuss characters specifically and significantly, and continue to do so even this year, 16 years after its release.
The Creation and Reception sections show there is plenty of out of universe content to be covered - it's not like it was spun out to be a stub or something.
Too much in-universe info is a reason for cleanup, not a valid reason to merge an article.
Anything else is holding the article to a higher standard than required for "existence". Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I can do without the personal accusations, please. This isn't a new argument, but I made good points. Re: Third party sources discuss characters specifically and significantly, and continue to do so even this year I invite anyone to look at your Kotaku and HG 2016 links above—they discuss the story/characters only in context of what makes the game a classic, not as its own topic. The separate article is only justified if the sources warrant more space than summary style can provide, and no one has shown any reason to believe that is the case. I'll leave that judgment to other editors at this point.

czar 05:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a fine personal standard for yourself, but that's all it is - personal standard. Wikipedia has no such actual standard. The only actual requirements are points one and two above - significant third party sourcing and actual content to be said - this article has both. Anything else is just your personal preference. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, czar's comparisons are not irrelevant and are indeed valid arguments. According to WP:42, articles need "multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it." -- Now, I also understand that the WP:42 rule is controversial and not considered a Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Re: Character articles are frequently spun out. Things like 'driving mechanics' and 'atmosphere' are not. -- So what? Just because Wikipedia has many character articles (I bet most of them are not notable) it doesn't necessarily make Chrono Cross characters notable (WP:OTHER). These two things can also help gain some perspective on the issue we have here. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My point is that it doesn't make sense to pose absurd scenarios that don't ever actually happen and somehow attempt to tie them into this particular scenario. It's a bizarre logical fallacy comparable to WP:OSE that just confuses the actual point. Beyond that, read through the Reception section. Many reliable, third party sources commonly discuss the characters of the games in their reviews and retrospectives. They're not just passing mentions. Look at the Kotaku 2016 Retrospective. The articles is very long - over 20 paragraphs long, and I'd say a good 13-15 are centered around discussing the game's characters and their various themes and relationships. That's fundamentally not "just a passing mention". Nor are the other ones. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only smoke and mirrors here is distracting from how the game's characters lack the source coverage to be considered independently notable from the game. Once that's addressed, there is no difference between the splits I proposed above (not "absurd"—we've split all kinds of gameplay, development, fandom, and reception subsections) and whether to split out a character article. You would first need to show that the information fits within the parent, and second that there is too much sourced information to warrant keeping it in the parent. As for the Kotaku article, it's mostly a comparison between the legacy of Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross, of which I'd expect their plots to be a focus of discussion ("Cross was about a huge cast of characters"). This indicates an expanded section for characters in the game's article (actually the series' article, since this is a comparison of legacies) to constitute due weight—not that either of the games' characters are, in themselves, a concept independently notable from the game/series. czar 22:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Even disregarding your absurd comparisons, as I said above - you're holding the article to a standard that doesn't exist (outside of your personal opinions.) Stating that a "list of characters" article has to meet it as a hard standard is a fabrication. Sure, it works with some of your nominations, but that's when you apply it to these unsourced, no-reception/section-at-all type articles, and that's because they're unsourced. And you can lazily brush over long detailed third party sources all you want, but the fact of the matter is, you just simply can't write Development and Reception sections of that detail with without significant coverage and sourcing. Not to mention, to merge it back would cause WP:UNDUE issues. The reception section here is longer and more detailed the reception section of the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I gave you substantive and policy-backed rationale. The least you owe me is to not use epithets like "lazy" and "absurd" (repeatedly). You know my research is anything but. czar 09:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your nomination here is based on personal philosophy, not any one hard policy. You're not lazy, but your review of the article and sources comes across as lazy in the means of succeeding in pushing your personal philosophy. You're not absurd, but the things you compare this article to, is. You're a fine Wikipedia editor, this just isn't your finest moment. The only reason we're having this argument is because the character detail section hasn't been pared down enough yet - if someone had figured out how to get a 44 character game down to a more standard 8 or 9 paragraph set up, there's no way this would be on anyone's deletion radar with that sort of development and reception section present. It's not impossible - the article has already gone through massive improvements since I started rewriting it in 2012. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your nomination here is based on personal philosophy, not any one hard policy. The hard policy is the general notability guideline, and specifically significant coverage, and you know better. The GNG says that even when a subject is covered in a variety of sources, it is only presumed notable: it is not a guarantee that a topic must be covered in a standalone article. At risk of repeating myself, there is nary a single source in this discussion that describes the game's characters as independently notable from the game. No one disagrees that the characters are central to the game—the question is whether they are worth covering separately from the game, in their own article. There is every indication that the parent article inadequately covers its characters (hence all of this spin-out information), and no hard policy explanation for splitting the content without attempting to incorporate it in the existing article. We cover topics proportional to their secondary source coverage, and the sourcing covers the characters within coverage of the game. If the characters were adequately covered in the parent article, there would be no need for a spin-out unless some mountain of sources specific to the characters but inappropriate for the main article (which, as established, do not exist) warranted a split. (E.g., Music of the Final Fantasy VII series, for comparison, covers an element of the parent article in sourced detail that would be inappropriate if not split out. Such is not the case here.) So the issue is not the content that needs to be pared down, and not "deletion", but what remains when the sourced character stuff is covered to completion in the parent game article. I can take any character-driven game and write a separate character article the same as has been done here, because such sourcing is entirely from reviews and commentary about the game, but for all those other games, we only split character articles when characters are covered as a body independent from the game/series itself, or when the size of their dedicated section becomes undue weight for the parent article. That's the Forza metaphor from above—there's no need to split a major component of reviews unless it's covered in depth that doesn't fit in the parent. My argument has been tight, cogent, and policy-backed. You are free to personally disagree or not like it, but to say that I haven't linked and paraphrased hard policy this entire thread is audacious. I have nothing else to add here. czar 08:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My point is, and always has been, is that you're starting with a policy based rationale, and then applying your own personal standards to build an argument around it that's too strict, setting the bar too high, and no longer represents the policy specific standards anymore. Think of it this way: your argument is like going to AFD and saying "Delete - lacks significant coverage in 20 independent third party sources." Are you going to win some arguments because technically some subjects lack any sources? Yes. Is it policy based. Yeah, sort of - the requirement of third party sourcing. But is it some sort of actual hard rule required for an article to exist? Absolutely not - no such standard exist. Same goes for this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, the in-universe info might be cruft but the article contains as much out-of-universe info as the GA Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series.Tintor2 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Chrono Cross is a game that is renowned for the quantity of playable characters. Placing that separate article into the primary game would over-saturate the Chrono Cross video game article and undermine the descriptions of the various characters playable. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - While I'm not familiar enough with the character-article guidelines to vote on the proposed discussion, I note that the character section in the main article needs some work. I made some edits to try and make it easier to people who aren't familiar with the game (and Chrono Trigger, the references to Lucca and her importance would make no sense otherwise) to understand the major characters and their motivations, but it could use some more work. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I've always concentrated on improving the character article since this article was made a featured article before I even had an account here. That being said, looking it over, the main CC article has definitely fallen into disrepair over the years, so this is helpful. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrono Cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits

I'm not sure who made the edits to the top paragraph... But I reverted them. They were terrible. Radical Dreams is a sort of sequel to Chrono Trigger. That, among other things... Had to be fixed. --Htmlism 05:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Miguel

I read an interesting theory, claiming that Miguel is Crono. Read and tell me what you think.

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=24058&topic=18604082

Seems widespread enough for a mention. Andre (talk) 03:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

World Map

The World Map differences in Trigger were radical due to the vast amounts of time that passed in between them, the map in Cross is of Parallel worlds in the same time frame, so it is to be expected that their landmass geography is identical.

The mystery stone face

Who is the face on the very bottom of reptilian city in Chrono Cross? Azala perhaps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ParkerPathWalker (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2005 November 8.

Another Eden crossover

Is the Another Eden crossover worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.196.153.29 (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)