Welcome to the Shining Force Central Forums!
SFC Forums Index Shining Forums Shining Force III SFIII Translation Project
Register for your free forum account now or Login to remove this advert.

David's Classes Decision

Poll

A place for those working on the Shining Force III Translation Patch.

What is the most appropriate starting class for David?

Hunter Striker Commando
9
50%
Fighter Striker Commando
0
No votes
Battler Striker Commando
0
No votes
Ranger Striker Commando
9
50%
 
Total votes : 18

David's Classes Decision

Postby legalize freedom » Wed Mar 20 2019 12:33pm

For background, see the David's Classes thread.
https://forums.shiningforcecentral.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=44307

It has really come down to what his starting class will be.
Now it's time to decide!
Last edited by legalize freedom on Fri Mar 29 2019 6:25pm, edited 2 times in total.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Maeths » Sun Mar 24 2019 6:32pm

I would say Ranger is an appropriate starting class... unless you want to allude even more to the bible and make it something like "underdog". :P
Maeths

User avatar
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 07 2015 11:55pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Hattari » Mon Mar 25 2019 12:28am

Fighter would be so misleading as a class. Imagine someone playing this for the first time and seeing that - they might reasonably think "oh, cool, I'm gonna buy him an axe or something" - only to realize he can't equip any close range melee weapons. Could be confusing; I know I'd be disappointed.

In comparison... with Ranger, someone can logically put two-and-two together to figure out his options. That's what a friend of mine and I did.
My Shining Force 3 Guide (No commentary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's rePlay Dragon Force 2 (Izumo)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Walkthru Langrisser 2!
My Shining Force 3 Guide (No commentary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's rePlay Dragon Force 2 (Izumo)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Walkthru Langrisser 2!
Hattari

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jan 20 2009 8:11am
Location: Central Ohio, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Kalkano » Mon Mar 25 2019 5:34pm

Hattari wrote:Fighter would be so misleading as a class. Imagine someone playing this for the first time and seeing that - they might reasonably think "oh, cool, I'm gonna buy him an axe or something" - only to realize he can't equip any close range melee weapons. Could be confusing; I know I'd be disappointed.

In comparison... with Ranger, someone can logically put two-and-two together to figure out his options. That's what a friend of mine and I did.


Actually, I'd imagine a "Fighter" would fight with his bare fists, even though Fire Emblem Fighters are as you described.
Currently Replaying: Baten Kaitos 2: Origins

Shining Force 3: Chronology (YouTube Series Here)

"Honesty has a beautiful and refreshing simplicity about it. No hidden meanings. No hidden agendas. As honesty and integrity characterize our lives there will be no need to manipulate others."
Currently Replaying: Baten Kaitos 2: Origins

Shining Force 3: Chronology (YouTube Series Here)

"Honesty has a beautiful and refreshing simplicity about it. No hidden meanings. No hidden agendas. As honesty and integrity characterize our lives there will be no need to manipulate others."
Kalkano

User avatar
Shining Commander
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Sep 22 2004 5:25pm
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby legalize freedom » Mon Mar 25 2019 6:34pm

Hattari wrote:Fighter would be so misleading as a class. Imagine someone playing this for the first time and seeing that - they might reasonably think "oh, cool, I'm gonna buy him an axe or something" - only to realize he can't equip any close range melee weapons. Could be confusing; I know I'd be disappointed.

In comparison... with Ranger, someone can logically put two-and-two together to figure out his options. That's what a friend of mine and I did.


I might argue anyone playing for the first time will be buying everyone wrong weapons until they learn.

I think the difference is the perception of Fighter is more established in common knowledge and from many sources which makes it a more difficult class to establish differently from those perceptions. That should certainly be considered when voting.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Hattari » Tue Mar 26 2019 10:36pm

Kalkano wrote:Actually, I'd imagine a "Fighter" would fight with his bare fists, even though Fire Emblem Fighters are as you described.

That's fair. The only reason I wouldn't make that connection in this case is due to the monk class being the typical hand-to-hand type in Shining Force, but it's not a huge stretch to assume some would. Especially considering everyone isn't as entrenched in this series as the folks here.
My Shining Force 3 Guide (No commentary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's rePlay Dragon Force 2 (Izumo)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Walkthru Langrisser 2!
My Shining Force 3 Guide (No commentary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's rePlay Dragon Force 2 (Izumo)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Walkthru Langrisser 2!
Hattari

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jan 20 2009 8:11am
Location: Central Ohio, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby legalize freedom » Fri Mar 29 2019 6:27pm

Well, that was unintended. I wanted to add Hunter to the poll, but it wiped the votes.

Sorry about that! :(

It looks like everyone will need to vote again.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Tue Apr 02 2019 6:58pm

The way I see it, the English releases of Shining Force titles are a series of convention. "Ranger" was established in Shining convention as being a class that belongs strictly to centaur archers. As such, I find it wholly inappropriate that David--a non-centaur and non-archer--should be given this class. I've always found it inappropriate and have long since assumed that if Scenario 2 were ever localized into English, they would have changed that for the English release to stay in line with the conventions established by the previous English releases.

"Ranger" does make sense from a strictly semantic perspective, but from the perspective of established convention within this series, it does not fit at all. It would be no different then giving the class of "Warrior" or "Archer" to a centaur. Ya just don't do that in SF. Even if the centaur in question is, in fact, a warrior or an archer from a semantic perspective.

I agree with the protestations regarding "fighter", but I think "hunter" would make a great fit. We were discussing this just last night in the Shining Fanwork Discord group, and one person suggested "Woodsman", which I think could also work quite nicely.

I really hope that you'll adhere to the established SF English convention and change David's class, moving "Ranger" to Justin (EDIT: Seeing as Justin starts out promoted to begin with, maybe not Justin, but it could certainly be applied to Waltz). But regardless of what you end up doing, I will absolutely be making this change in my 16-bit remake, and I'm tremendously grateful for the suggestion of "Hunter", as I think that that works so well, and I've been looking for an alternative for quite some time.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Hattari » Tue Apr 02 2019 11:32pm

I'm cool with either Ranger or Hunter.

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:The way I see it, the English releases of Shining Force titles are a series of convention. "Ranger" was established in Shining convention as being a class that belongs strictly to centaur archers. As such, I find it wholly inappropriate that David--a non-centaur and non-archer--should be given this class. I've always found it inappropriate and have long since assumed that if Scenario 2 were ever localized into English, they would have changed that for the English release to stay in line with the conventions established by the previous English releases.


I'm not sure how "conventional" you consider this series to be, but you seem a little close-minded on the subject. Consider: the localization of SF3 - if we're holding the English releases as the standard - changed many names that had been used previously, from Egress(Return) and the Robin Arrow(Fairie Bow) to the Turbo Pepper (Nimble Onion) and Bolt (Spark). Even the Hero class was dropped.

On the subject of centaurs: Lyle from SF1 wasn't a Ranger. Even if he was, I don't see the logic in prohibiting anyone who isn't a centaur from holding a certain class, provided they can meet the essential prerequisites of that class. For example, if a non-centaur proved capable of wielding a lance effectively, they would be worthy of the knight class. The thing is, only centaurs and pegasi use lances in every SF, without exception.

While it's true David doesn't use arrows, he can attack from a range with all his available weapons. He's the first and only character of his kind in a SF, so I think it's a bit reasonable to treat him as an exception of sorts.
My Shining Force 3 Guide (No commentary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's rePlay Dragon Force 2 (Izumo)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Walkthru Langrisser 2!
My Shining Force 3 Guide (No commentary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's rePlay Dragon Force 2 (Izumo)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Walkthru Langrisser 2!
Hattari

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jan 20 2009 8:11am
Location: Central Ohio, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Wed Apr 03 2019 12:54am

I'm not sure how "conventional" you consider this series to be, but you seem a little close-minded on the subject.

I consider this series to be extremely conventional. And you're damn right I'm closed-minded on the subject. I'm not at all open to breaking convention in a conventional series which I hold closer to myself than any other series. It would be like making Spiderman yellow. You just don't do it... even if it would actually look pretty cool.

Consider: the localization of SF3 - if we're holding the English releases as the standard - changed many names that had been used previously, from Egress(Return) and the Robin Arrow(Fairie Bow) to the Turbo Pepper (Nimble Onion) and Bolt (Spark). Even the Hero class was dropped.

All of which I take umbrage with. They really dropped the ball with SF3's localization. And all of these things are being fixed (because yes, they are broken) in my remake.

On the subject of centaurs: Lyle from SF1 wasn't a Ranger.

SF1 was still figuring itself out and didn't set that particular convention. Had they maintained Lyle's class titles for SF2, SFG, and SFCD, then I would maintain that they ought to remain through SF3. But SF2, SFG, and SFCD clearly defined a convention. It's one thing for something that was never established as convention to be changed. But when something is established as convention, you don't mess with it.

Even if he was, I don't see the logic in prohibiting anyone who isn't a centaur from holding a certain class, provided they can meet the essential prerequisites of that class. For example, if a non-centaur proved capable of wielding a lance effectively, they would be worthy of the knight class. The thing is, only centaurs and pegasi use lances in every SF, without exception.

Well, I sure do. Equippable weapons are not the only piece of data that goes into the application of a class label in Shining Force, and they never have been. Equippable weapons are considered for the application of a class label, but for many classes, so is race. This is very firmly established in the SF series, and to deny that is... well... to be in denial. Warriors are only ever dwarves. Knights and Rangers are only ever centaurs. If some non-centaur character is able to use lances, I would not consider that enough to validate the application of the "Knight" label to that character. He would need some new class label. Using a lance is not the only "essential prerequisite" of a Knight. Being a centaur is absolutely another "essential prerequisite".

While it's true David doesn't use arrows, he can attack from a range with all his available weapons

If that's the only data point that's worthy of consideration, then why not just call him an Archer? Archers attack from range with all of their available weapons. For that matter, why even have a Ranger class at all, even in SF2, SFG, or SFCD? Why not just call May an Archer? She uses an Archer's weapons, after all. So by your logic above, that's what they should've done. But in reality, race matters for class labels in this franchise.

He's the first and only character of his kind in a SF, so I think it's a bit reasonable to treat him as an exception of sorts.

Agreed. All the more reason to give him his own unique class label.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Wed Apr 03 2019 1:31am

Hattari wrote:I'm not sure how "conventional" you consider this series to be, but you seem a little close-minded on the subject. Consider: the localization of SF3 - if we're holding the English releases as the standard - changed many names that had been used previously, from Egress(Return) and the Robin Arrow(Fairie Bow) to the Turbo Pepper (Nimble Onion) and Bolt (Spark). Even the Hero class was dropped.



This is not the same comparison. "Ranger" is already established in the Shining Force world as Centaur Archers. Everything you have listed is not replacing anything else already in the lore. This would be the same as saying Spiriel is a Knight, when we know that Knights belong to Centaurs as well.

Making David a "Ranger" would essentialy force pages like https://shining.fandom.com/wiki/Ranger to change (Pretending that we were acting as the authority on SF3 of course)



You know, since we are talking about weapons not making the class, this has got me thinking, why is David not a Commander/General? How is he any different than Edmund, Produn, Spirial, or Rogan?
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby legalize freedom » Wed Apr 03 2019 12:51pm

While I appreciate the conventions, race and class are two separate things. Granted MOST knights are centaurs, but I don't think it's set in stone that every knight must be a centaur. Some classes are certainly tied to race such as Birdsolidier and so it's easy to assume the same for others. Where it did blur quite a bit for me is when Innovators and Vandals are called races, which I believe them to be classes personally. There are also a lot of unique ones in SF3.

I believe any magical jellyfish can become a mage who is almost as good as an elf.

Spiriel's White Knights aren't centaurs.

Uryudo is a hobbit. Grace is a kyantol. Isabella is human (while not called a cleric, she would be if she weren't royalty).

Rock is a beastman, Horst is a half beastman and they are both warriors.

For a couple of examples of multiple races as the same classes.

I personally believe the "right" answer is to change Waltz and Justin's first class (currently Archer Knight) to Ranger to match the convention and decide on the best fit for David (which would also fix Waltz's long bar early in the game). I usually leave my personal feelings out of it for these decisions, but this one seems easy now that we have tossed it around for a bit.

BTW, the votes are flexible. Anyone can change their vote based on new information or perspectives.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Wed Apr 03 2019 6:57pm

While I appreciate the conventions, race and class are two separate things.

No one claimed otherwise. To say that race is an important factor that goes into the consideration of a class label is not to say that race and class are the same thing.

Granted MOST knights are centaurs,

No, ALL knights are centaurs. I challenge you to name ONE knight who isn't a centaur.

but I don't think it's set in stone that every knight must be a centaur.

Given that across all ten different titles, 100% of knights are centaurs, I'm inclined to powerfully disagree.

Some classes are certainly tied to race such as Birdsolidier and so it's easy to assume the same for others.

It's important to note that I didn't actually claim that all classes are tied to race. Some classes aren't. It's also important to note that there are racial groups for this purpose, as I'll get into below.

Where it did blur quite a bit for me is when Innovators and Vandals are called races, which I believe them to be classes personally.

Yeah, no, Innovators and Vandals are races, to the best of my understanding. But perhaps someone with a greater understanding could provide details as to why this isn't true, if it's not true.

There are also a lot of unique ones in SF3.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it does seem like the implication you're making here is that because not everyone of X race is Y class that goes with that race, not everyone of Y class needs to be of X race. If that's what you're saying here, then I strongly disagree. If that's not what you're saying here, then I don't see your point.

I believe any magical jellyfish can become a mage who is almost as good as an elf.

Nonsense. Magical Jellyfish can't just stop being jellyfish... I mean... unless maybe some magical thing turns them into an elf or something....

Spiriel's White Knights aren't centaurs.

Spiriel's White Knights do not have classes. They are not playable characters. You never actually see what their classes are because they do not, in fact, have classes. This is a nonsequitur and a moot point. In their case, "white knight" is a title, not a class. What does it promote to? What does it promote from? It's not a class.

Uryudo is a hobbit. Grace is a kyantol. Isabella is human (while not called a cleric, she would be if she weren't royalty).

Rock is a beastman, Horst is a half beastman and they are both warriors.

Hobbits and other dwarf-like races have always been part of the cleric racial group (think Lowe, Torasu, etc.). Kyantols have always been casters one way or the other. Humans, too, have always been part of the cleric racial group (which does seem to be a lot larger than most other racial class groups). I always thought Rock and Horst were both dwarves, but I guess I can accept that Rock, at least, is a beastman. Though I have a great deal of trouble accepting that Horst is a beastman. But nevertheless, accepting in beastmen as part of the racial class group for Warriors is not that big of a stretch.

For a couple of examples of multiple races as the same classes.

Like I said, no one ever said that there's no such thing as a class that can have more than one race. We (or at least I) said that this applies for many classes, not all classes. Although, admittedly, perhaps I should've said some rather than many. But nevertheless. Knight and Ranger are two such examples. Although, granted, Ranger is the weaker example as it has a FAR smaller corpus of supporting examples.

I personally believe the "right" answer is to change Waltz and Justin's first class (currently Archer Knight) to Ranger to match the convention and decide on the best fit for David (which would also fix Waltz's long bar early in the game). I usually leave my personal feelings out of it for these decisions, but this one seems easy now that we have tossed it around for a bit.

This paragraph strikes me as a markedly out-of-nowhere contradiction to everything you've just said. lol. I mean, I completely agree with it, but the rest of your post has been arguing against the existence of any convention, but now here you're accepting it as a thing. lol. I guess I have no argument to be made here, since I absolutely 100% agree, but the 180 really bamboozles me. xDDDD
EDIT: Oh, and because Justin actually starts out promoted, this would really only apply to Waltz's first class.

BTW, the votes are flexible. Anyone can change their vote based on new information or perspectives

Yo, I wouldn't even change my vote to save Garosh. lol. But this is a good thing for people to know, so thanks for pointing that out.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Wed Apr 03 2019 7:50pm

Spiriel's troops are White Lords, not White Knights. This is a translation problem. ホワイトロード = white lord. ホワイトナイト = white knight


I did find an example of a bipedal Knight, the Steam Knight. So if we want to keep Ranger, we would need to tag it with something like Elf Ranger or Forest Ranger or something.

Does anybody have the katakana for David? Does it match the katakana for May?
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Rune » Wed Apr 03 2019 7:56pm

Insisting on following conventions because they are conventions is a surefire way to do something stupid.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7316
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Wed Apr 03 2019 9:16pm

Insisting on following conventions because they are conventions is a surefire way to do something stupid.

Not because of the fact that they're conventions in and of itself. Because they're conventions that contribute towards forming the identity of this franchise. Because they're conventions that contribute towards making this franchise so endearing and familiar. Because they're conventions that make Shining Force what it is (among other things). And because they're conventions surrounding a game that I hold so near and dear to my heart (and, presumably, so do the rest of you, or y'all wouldn't be here, which is why I find the results of this poll so staggering; I can't comprehend how you would all vote against what you supposedly love so dearly). Foregoing these critical conventions (among others) is how we end up with Shining Force Neo, and other such 'non-Shining' Shining titles. Hell, even The Forbidden Series isn't what it used to be for the same reason of throwing convention to the wind. Breaking convention, and abandoning things that make a franchise what it is, is a surefire way to do something stupid by betraying the identity of your franchise. Insisting that conventions shouldn't be followed solely on the basis that they are, in fact, conventions, is how we end up with yellow Spiderman, pink Sonic, or Chinese Mario without any explanation or canonical cause. And while any of those things could potentially be seen as cool when removed from their original context, they're all wrong.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby legalize freedom » Wed Apr 03 2019 11:19pm

I'm only interested in achieving the best possible solution. That involves everyone adding their ideas to the conversation and to hopefully build consensus.

Good ideas don't require loud voices.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Rune » Thu Apr 04 2019 12:28pm

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
Granted MOST knights are centaurs,

No, ALL knights are centaurs. I challenge you to name ONE knight who isn't a centaur.


Various characters (including the main) in SITD are called knights, Guntz is a steam knight, Kokichi is a wing knight, Knight the enemy is a chess piece, various characters in Shining Wisdom (including the main) are called knights, Basso is a dragon knight, and Lisa is a paladin (I mention this as this is the promoted class for all centaur knights).


So there you go, Lisa is an existing example of a class commonly associated to one race and weapon type going to a different race and weapon type.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7316
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Thu Apr 04 2019 3:44pm

Rune wrote:
Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
Granted MOST knights are centaurs,

No, ALL knights are centaurs. I challenge you to name ONE knight who isn't a centaur.


Various characters (including the main) in SITD are called knights, Guntz is a steam knight, Kokichi is a wing knight, Knight the enemy is a chess piece, various characters in Shining Wisdom (including the main) are called knights, Basso is a dragon knight, and Lisa is a paladin (I mention this as this is the promoted class for all centaur knights).

So there you go, Lisa is an existing example of a class commonly associated to one race and weapon type going to a different race and weapon type.


SITD and SF1 cannot be used as good references to what we consider established classes because they had no idea what they were trying to determine what a "class" means. This is why Lyle is the only assault knight.

"Knight" as a chess piece does not work because that is his title/name, not class.



Shining Wisdom is a working designs translation, and they have been known to deviate from the original source time and time again.

Lisa is a Paladin by name only, she has absolutely nothing that pertains to what a "Paladin" is in the Force world.

We are left with Basso and Ratchet, who are not Knights, but (Prefix) Knights, which goes back to my last comment that perhaps David should be (Prefix) Ranger

Here is the thing we are all forgetting. Class pertains to what weapons a person can equip (Excluding the Commander/General and Lisa.) Can anybody name 2 characters of the exact same class that can't equip the exact same weapons?. If not, then Rangers can equip bows, David cannot equip bows, there-fore David cannot be a "Ranger".
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Rune » Thu Apr 04 2019 6:18pm

(Prefix) Ranger just looks awful. It works with the various knights, but otherwise is just awful. I am not forgetting that class dictates equipment, I am explicitly disagreeing with that statement. It is probably true that in each game, a given class dictated the equipment, but classes are not uniform across the different games. Since there is no other "ranger" in SF3 (correct?), there is no contradiction in David being a ranger. If you want an additional example of classes being inconsistent across the games, take the warrior class; in sf1 they can equip the starting swords, but in the other games they are forced to use only axes.

The Working Designs comment makes little sense. They used the term "knight", because it has an established meaning in English. You are arguing that we must use a considerably more restrictive definition, and one that has not been used consistently throughout the series.

I don't understand your argument about Lisa. It's the same thing we're arguing with David, as such it must be wrong?



As for a possible example of two classes in the same game having different equipment, but a really stupid example... Do Penn and Penko have the same starting class and can they swap starting beaks? I do not know, myself.
Last edited by Rune on Thu Apr 04 2019 6:54pm, edited 4 times in total.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7316
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Next

Return to SFIII Translation Project

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest