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 Closed

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

What is the most appropriate starting class for David?

Poll ended at Fri Apr 19 2019 12:33pm

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

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Sat Apr 06 2019 12:40pm

Cherry picking? None of the definitions you provided says I am cherry picking. Already said “not including ceremonious”, which knocks out 4 and 5, 3 points to 1, and part of the duties of 2 include horseback riding to perform those chivalrous duties and achieve that military rank. Can’t be jousting and accepting some other knightly challenges, as well as traveling to far off lands to rescue princesses or fight dragons if you can’t ride a horse.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Rune » Sat Apr 06 2019 1:44pm

You also can't fight on castle stairs while on a horse, so I guess no centaur can be a knight.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Sat Apr 06 2019 2:15pm

Now you are taking it way to literal.... but now that you bring it up, the centaurs speed do get impeded around certain terrain
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Sat Apr 06 2019 11:36pm

Fundamentally, I'm inclined to agree with Rune when it comes to the definition of knight. There is a lot more to it than just armour+horse. Furthermore, by the sixteenth century, mounted combat had been rendered largely obsolete, but knights continued to exist without the horses. But if you're talking about something closer to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, then the horse is an intrinsic part of what a knight is. Like I said some posts ago, it strongly depends on which century you're talking about. Depending on what point in time you're talking about, the whole "horse" factor can range from anywhere from "true" to "not necessarily true". Technically, you're both right. But knightOfdragon's correct point stops being strictly correct after a certain point in history (around the 15th/16th century).

These videos won't touch on everything I've said, but here's some videos about knights. These videos all focus on knights before the obsolescence of horses in battle. I'm having trouble right now finding the material that pertains to later knights after horses stopped being used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgY5VnUQfxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PxKPSTEq6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LygKNa-xDW4

However, that said, the semantic quality of the word "Knight" is quite obviously shifted somewhat in the Shining universe as compared to reality (which--I can't believe I have to point this out--the Shining universe is not). It has been made abundantly clear throughout the entire franchise that the word "knight" has a somewhat different usage in the Shining universe, wherein it explicitly refers to lance/polearm-wielding centaurs. There is not a single example of the contrary throughout the entire series (although I can't speak for any titles post SF3, but we can all recognize that those games are SF games in name only, courtesy of interpersonal drama in Sega).
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: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Swalchy » Sun Apr 07 2019 8:38pm

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:It has been made abundantly clear throughout the entire franchise that the word "knight" has a somewhat different usage in the Shining universe, wherein it explicitly refers to lance/polearm-wielding centaurs. There is not a single example of the contrary throughout the entire series (although I can't speak for any titles post SF3, but we can all recognize that those games are SF games in name only, courtesy of interpersonal drama in Sega).

I can think of two: Kokichi in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... e/kokichi/ ; as well as Guntz in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... rce/guntz/

Though despite not being centaurs, the fact that both are lance carrying character may be the clincher as to why they labelled first as "Wing Knight" and "Steam Knight".

As I'm writing this post, I'm remembering stuff from Shining in the Darkness as well.


The old man at the beginning, talking of yourself:

Ah! I knew it!
[name] is it? I was expecting you!
There's something terrible going on in the kingdom of Thornwood. Something that I fear could plunge our world into eternal darkness.
With your help, [name], this can be prevented. It's all up to you.
From this point on, [name]...
... you are the son of Mortred...
and a Knight in the Kingdom of Thornwood.
I almost forgot! You've got two good friends now

In the castle:

King Drake:
Ah! Mortred's son and one of my finest knights! [name], isn't it? A fine name it is. A fine name indeed.

Tristan:
With your permission, my liege. Of all my knights, this lad is the youngest. But he is second only to his father when it comes to swordplay.

In the tavern in town:

Dai:
I am a loyal knight and servant of Baron Vyrun. My lord is a gentle man, but he's not been himself lately.

Back in the castle:

Tristan:
[name], son of my dear friend, Mortred. Bring back the Princess! I pray that no harm has come to either the Princess or your father. Now go! Show Mephisto what it means to face a knight of the realm!

Melvyl:
The Labyrinth was once the proving ground for young knights. It's true challenge is in the upper levels known as the Labyrinth Proper. Only those deemed worthy by the Ancients can enter the upper levels. To prove his worth, a knight must face the Trials of the Ancients. It is said, that the way to the upper levels lies beyond an altar. Some have recently faced the Trials, but none have returned. For the Princess' sake, I pray that you are worthy enough.

Theos:
You're about to face the Trial of Courage, aren't you? Well, listen. The Cave of Courage is designed to test a knight's bravery. It is also a place known to instill fear in magic-users.

Back in the tavern:

Old Vik:
Wait, Mrs. Myst! Hold it! Just hold on a minute! Please calm down. The young knight over there needs Pyra and Milo.

Back in the castle:

Theos:
Mephisto may be defeated with the Arms of Light. The Arms of Light are 4 items that can only be used by a true knight.

Theos:
There's no time to rest! We've yet to defeat the forces of Darkness! I almost forgot. I found something interesting regarding DEMONBREATH. Legends speak of a Dark Wizard, who once wielded this terrible spell. He met his doom at the hands of a man known only as the Shining Knight.

Vyrun:
I bow to you, [name]. If only there were more like you in the realm. By the way, have you ever heard the Song of the Shining Knight? "Blessed by Water Spirit. Armed in Light. Darkness fears a Shining Knight."

Theos:
My condolences to you, brave knight. But don't let it get you down!

King Drake:
[name], Jessa's told me everything. I'm sorry to hear about your father. Mortred was my finest knight. I won't rest until he is avenged!

(See more mentions at https://www.shiningforcecentral.com/?p= ... &ch=1&se=3 )

Don't know what the original Japanese is of the above sentences, but at least at the start of the series, as there were no centaurs as part of your team, it does seem like "knight" was used in a bit more historically-accurate instance of someone who fought for a King of sorts. Perhaps people here can recall the famous Knights Templar.

In Shining the Holy Ark as well, Lisa is referred to as a knight:

Desire Village Pub:

Owner:
The woman is a knight, and the other is a dragon warrior. I heard that they were hired by sage Sabato to come out and join this expedition. They don't seem to now what to do next, now that they've lost that outlaw in the cave-in and the border's been closed down.

And when Lisa joins the party:

Narrator:
Lisa, the knight, joins the party.

Then in the Enrich Village pub after you defeat the final enemies:

O’Brien:
You have done such splendid work for Enrich, and now you are to serve as a Knight. That sounds like a dream come true. If you continue to do a good job, you could even become an aristocrat, maybe even a King.

Owner:
She’s a good girl with a good head on her shoulders. Please remember her even after you become a knight. OK?

Lisa:
I didn’t see you around for a while. Where did you go? I guess we will be leaving pretty soon, and I wanted to say good-bye before we left. Hmm... Looking back, it turns out that all of us were dancing to Sabato the sage’s tune. Well... I’m glad we met. I had wanted to ask you if you wanted to join us but... Good luck, Sir Knight.


So as can be seen, Knight is used in different contexts in the shining series, and not just for lance wielding centaurs, or just lance wielding characters.

Classes can, in my opinion then, be re-used if the need warrants it :)
The Way To Yahuweh
Dead Sea Scroll Images
Latest Update Post


Salibu: 20/08/10 wrote:You have all been Swalched.


Damn I've been here a long f*cking time...
The Way To Yahuweh
Dead Sea Scroll Images
Latest Update Post


Salibu: 20/08/10 wrote:You have all been Swalched.


Damn I've been here a long f*cking time...
Swalchy

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 10431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 5:16pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Sun Apr 07 2019 9:15pm

I can think of two: Kokichi in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... e/kokichi/ ; as well as Guntz in Shining Force 1: https://sf1.shiningforcecentral.com/cha ... rce/guntz/

Though despite not being centaurs, the fact that both are lance carrying character may be the clincher as to why they labelled first as "Wing Knight" and "Steam Knight".

As has already been stated, and as you even mentioned yourself, Kokichi and Guntz are not "Knight"s, they are "(Adjective) Knight"s. Kokichi is not a Knight, he is a Wing Knight, and Guntz is not a Knight, he is a Steam Knight. These qualifying adjectives draw a distinction. That is the purpose of a qualifying adjective.

As I'm writing this post, I'm remembering stuff from Shining in the Darkness as well.

Shining in the Darkness and Shining the Holy Ark are a different franchise. They are not part of the Force line. And considered from an in-universe perspective rather than an in-franchise perspective, the vernacular in Thornwood is obviously a little different. But I think that point is a lot less important than the point that it's a different (though related) franchise. Different franchise, different standards.
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: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Swalchy » Sun Apr 07 2019 9:35pm

Well technically, "Wing" and "Steam" are either nouns or verbs depending on context, but I get your point. They're not just "Knights" in the sense that Shining Force 1 and 2 use "Knight".

I also disagree that SitD and STHA aren't part of the same franchise: they are part of the overarching Shining franchise, and Shining Force 3 is a direct sequel to STHA. Think you're meaning they're not of the same style - SitD are Dungeon crawlers; the strictly "force" games are SRPGs. Hence, there's enough difference between them that the application of "Knight" shouldn't be crossed over from one to the other.
The Way To Yahuweh
Dead Sea Scroll Images
Latest Update Post


Salibu: 20/08/10 wrote:You have all been Swalched.


Damn I've been here a long f*cking time...
The Way To Yahuweh
Dead Sea Scroll Images
Latest Update Post


Salibu: 20/08/10 wrote:You have all been Swalched.


Damn I've been here a long f*cking time...
Swalchy

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 10431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 5:16pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Sun Apr 07 2019 11:12pm

Well technically, "Wing" and "Steam" are either nouns or verbs depending on context, but I get your point. They're not just "Knights" in the sense that Shining Force 1 and 2 use "Knight".

They're nouns, yes, but they're being used as adjectives here. They are describing the word "knight". That's an adjective. Nouns can be used as adjectives in many cases.

I also disagree that SitD and STHA aren't part of the same franchise: they are part of the overarching Shining franchise, and Shining Force 3 is a direct sequel to STHA. Think you're meaning they're not of the same style - SitD are Dungeon crawlers; the strictly "force" games are SRPGs. Hence, there's enough difference between them that the application of "Knight" shouldn't be crossed over from one to the other.

No. I don't just mean that they're a different style. They're different--though related--franchises. Just like The Forbidden Series Crystal Chronicles is not part of the numbered The Forbidden Series series. Resident Evil Code Veronica is not part of the numbered Resident Evil series (though it was originally planned to be). Shining in the Darkness and Shining the Holy Ark are not part of the numbered Shining Force series. They're set in the same universe, but that doesn't make them the same series on a technical level. If they were part of the same series, they would be called "Shining Force >Insert number here<" and "Shining Force >Insert number here<". Just because two franchises are closely related doesn't mean they're the same franchise. It doesn't matter that SF3 is a canonical sequel to STHA. It's still a different franchise. SF3 is not part of the Holy Ark franchise and Holy Ark is not part of the Force franchise. They're both part of the Shining continuum, but they are two different franchises therein. Each with their own respective standards and conventions.
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: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Hattari » Sun Apr 07 2019 11:55pm

knight0fdragon: "No, he has not been a ranger since day one. He has no westernized class because he was never brought over to the west. Just because his Japanese class is Ranger does not make his western part Ranger as well. There are many classes that were changed.

We are making his class whatever we want because of this, and this is why we are having this debate."


If this is true, I may have misunderstood from the very start. I thought the goal was to translate the game(s), making changes to names and titles as deemed necessary for clarity and continuity. If we're literally just polling to rename things as we see fit, regardless of the source material, then I have no desire to participate.



Tor_Heyerdal: "That's not subjective. Preferences are, but you go on to not talk about preferences. "The creators of the series made these games the way they made them, and they gave these characters certain classes." Right. Like giving centaur archer characters the "Ranger" class. That's not subjective, that is entirely objective. It's also entirely empirical."

I was very clearly talking about that. Some centaurs in previous SF games were given the ranger class; yes, that is fact. That this fact means ALL centaurs with bows have been called or must be called rangers, is not a fact. Again: is this following convention, or cherry-picking?

"Why do you get to make this (obviously correct) assumption, but we can't make the obvious assumption that Knights and Rangers are centaurs? It's the same thing. You've got a double standard for yourself. Only you can make obvious assumptions, but the rest of us can't."

Granted, my original statement was written poorly, but the difference in our positions is I'm basing mine on fact. The definition of archer is one who works specifically with bows and arrows. The two are literally bound together. Nothing in the history or definitions for knight and ranger either implies or demands the need of a centaur - even within the context of the games exclusively. Which ties into another point I failed to make, mostly due to cutting corners to save time: (and I apologize for that)

"We're not talking about real-world politics and the fall of nations here. We're talking about a class label convention in a video game. Let's not get pretentious and above ourselves here. Let's keep this in perspective."

Again, apologies. I even knew while typing that I wasn't taking the time to explain myself properly there, so please pardon me for that. Chalk it up as a symptom of my time spent exploring psychology courses, but I'm very keen to point out behavioral tendencies and mental habits that can be potentially harmful - not to criticize or attack, but for the sake of promoting understanding and awareness. I do this to myself as well, if that helps... at any rate, what I was alluding to: the utmost strictness with which you perceive class and race in this series. Before the SF series was taken from Camelot, their team demonstrated an ongoing growth and evolution with each successive game. To limit them and their work to such a degree does them a disservice - particularly when their last game is forced to defer to classifications from an earlier entry which could be considered to be obsolete (explanation further down).

Not even saying this is you per se - I don't know you, at all - but I've seen similar thinking lead to unhealthy results firsthand in my community, and at the workplace ("That's not a job for them" "We aren't capable of doing that" "Leave that to the --" "-- are naturally suited for --") Allow things in life to develop and grow as they will - within reason. Just because it was one way, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Too much control tends to suffocate and stifle. As you said, this is a video game we're discussing. Let's not take things too seriously - for our own sanity's sake.




legalize freedom: "While we certainly try to stick to the original intent, it's pretty clear after doing this for so many years that the people making these games didn't care nearly as much as we do about word choices in things like classes.
...
I would bet the person who assigned Waltz's class didn't intentionally give her a different class name than all the other centaur archers in the series. I would guess that David's class was assigned first, used Ranger without regard for its prior use in the series and then Waltz couldn't be the same, so instead of spending the time to work out something so trivial (to them), they just used other words that mean the same thing."


That's one possibility. Another likely scenario: the game devs actually knew what they were doing with this one. It's possible they realized ranger described his job better than the centaur archers, so they gave him the class instead.

Intention is everything. I can't speak for the devs, but your reason for considering the change makes sense, and I appreciate that you take the time to clarify your reasoning, while continuing to show consideration for various viewpoints. However, given the real-life applications of ranger, and considering David's position in his village, it isn't an inappropriate title for him:


Ranger: 1 a: the keeper of a British royal park or forest; b: FOREST RANGER 2: one that ranges 3 b: a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics

That's Webster's definition. Can anyone explain how that doesn't describe David's occupation? If the intention behind these changes is achieving the most apt classifications, then I'd say the team's work in this case is done. Waltz is currently listed as bow knight or archer knight unpromoted, right? If anything, why not just change her 1st class to archer? Why should the fact that she's a centaur have that much bearing on her job? Her species may affect how well she performs that job (i.e. movement penalties), but it doesn't change the job itself. As was pointed out a couple posts back by Swalch, non-centaurs have held the title of knight. What they shared in common wasn't their species.

If it isn't broken, there's no need to fix it. If the only reason his starting class is being changed is due to past characters of a different species holding the same title, then I must defer to this wisdom:


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

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jan 20 2009 8:11am
Location: Central Ohio, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Mon Apr 08 2019 2:41am

Hattari wrote:knight0fdragon: "No, he has not been a ranger since day one. He has no westernized class because he was never brought over to the west. Just because his Japanese class is Ranger does not make his western part Ranger as well. There are many classes that were changed.

We are making his class whatever we want because of this, and this is why we are having this debate."


If this is true, I may have misunderstood from the very start. I thought the goal was to translate the game(s), making changes to names and titles as deemed necessary for clarity and continuity. If we're literally just polling to rename things as we see fit, regardless of the source material, then I have no desire to participate.


Yes, you must have misunderstood every translation of a game that has existed since the beginning of time because the entire point of the translation is to translate the experience for the audience in a way that makes them understand. Having a word for word literal translation never works because the way the words are used may not correlate with the culture you are trying to translate for. Many different parts of this project has been changed and westernized, I am not sure why you think this is a whole new concept.

As for your comment on "regardless of the source material", I guess you haven't been paying attention to the entire debate going on, because the source material is what is constantly being cited when arguements are being made to words in the translation.

Hattari wrote:Ranger: 1 a: the keeper of a British royal park or forest; b: FOREST RANGER 2: one that ranges 3 b: a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics
1) He is not just a keeper, he is the leader of an entire forest community. 2) kind of broad on the definition of "range" and could be taken in a lot of aspects. 3) David is not a close range fighter, close range fighting is hand to hand combat.

The problem here isn't what Webster defines "Ranger" as, it is what the western shining world defines "Ranger" as. If this was the first time Ranger was used, absolutely none of us would be questioning if the translation needs to be changed. But the fact that it is already defined, and his promoted classes do not correlate with that of a Ranger, the class needed to be scrutenized to match the changes that are being addressed in his heirarchy.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Mon Apr 08 2019 7:31am

If this is true, I may have misunderstood from the very start. I thought the goal was to translate the game(s), making changes to names and titles as deemed necessary for clarity and continuity. If we're literally just polling to rename things as we see fit, regardless of the source material, then I have no desire to participate.

This is a localization. That's the way localizations work. Things get changed along the way to make them more appropriate for the audience it's being localized for. And if it's a series, then previously established deviations from earlier localizations of earlier games must remain for the sake of continuity. That's just the way localization works. This isn't some unique thing that this project is doing wrong. Localization has always worked like this.

Some centaurs in previous SF games were given the ranger class; yes, that is fact. That this fact means ALL centaurs with bows have been called or must be called rangers, is not a fact. Again: is this following convention, or cherry-picking?

How is it not fact? May, Graham, Stock. Up until SF3 came around, that was literally all the centaur archers (I would argue that Lyle was a centaur cannoneer; he didn't really use a proper bow). That is factually 100% of all centaur archers having been called Rangers. This isn't cherry picking unless I'm deliberately leaving out some other centaur archer(s) who aren't called Rangers, which I'm not. That is fact. It's also empirical. May, Graham, and Stock constitute the entire corpus of data pertaining to centaur archer characters in Shining Force before SF3. 100% of that corpus are classed as Rangers. That is empirical fact by definition. It's also established convention by definition.

Granted, my original statement was written poorly, but the difference in our positions is I'm basing mine on fact.

My position is absolutely based on fact. And if you believe that it isn't--if you believe I'm just making stuff up--then I challenge you to find another bow-wielding centaur prior to Shining Force 3 within the Force series who wasn't classed as a Ranger.

The definition of archer is one who works specifically with bows and arrows. The two are literally bound together. Nothing in the history or definitions for knight and ranger either implies or demands the need of a centaur - even within the context of the games exclusively.

The factually established 100% in-game track record would beg to differ. I'd call that a pretty strong in-game context. Literally every single character classed as Knight throughout the Force series has been a centaur, with no exceptions. Likewise, literally every single character classed as a Ranger throughout the Force series has been a centaur, up until David in SF3, which was created by a team that largely (admittedly, not entirely, but still largely) had nothing to do with the previous games in the franchise, and was a rushed project, leaving lots and lots of room for error, which we know for a fact did occur. Even if we put aside the whole "ranger/knight" fiasco, there are plenty of other errors that were made in SF3. To treat that error-ridden project as infallible is absolutely ridiculous. Especially when it ends up going against the established conventions of the franchise.

Before the SF series was taken from Camelot, their team demonstrated an ongoing growth and evolution with each successive game. To limit them and their work to such a degree does them a disservice - particularly when their last game is forced to defer to classifications from an earlier entry which could be considered to be obsolete

"To such a degree"? It most certainly does not. We're talking about a class label. That's not a limitation that will prevent the developers from carrying out their vision. If we change David's and Waltz's class labels so as to be in line with the rest of the series, that's not going to cause SF3 to just collapse. It's not going to compromise the game's integrity. It's not going to somehow damage the author's vision of the project. It's not going to fundamentally alter the core identity of what SF3 is. Literally all it's going to do is change two character's labels to be more in line with the rest of the series. That's all. Again, let's not get pretentious. Let's keep this in perspective.

Not even saying this is you per se - I don't know you, at all - but I've seen similar thinking lead to unhealthy results firsthand in my community, and at the workplace ("That's not a job for them" "We aren't capable of doing that" "Leave that to the --" "-- are naturally suited for --") Allow things in life to develop and grow as they will - within reason. Just because it was one way, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Too much control tends to suffocate and stifle. As you said, this is a video game we're discussing. Let's not take things too seriously - for our own sanity's sake.

Keeping the game in line with its own series is not "too much control". I reiterate my point about arbitrarily changing the name of chocobos to quetzols in The Forbidden Series (not to insinuate that such a thing ever happened, but as a hypothetical scenario). To insist that it's wrong to arbitrarily rename chocobos to quetzols (in a main series, numbered FF title, no less) when nothing has been fundamentally changed about them would not be exercising too much control. It's called respect for the franchise and the lore. It's the same here. To insist that it's wrong to arbitrarily rename Rangers to Archer Knights (in a main series, numbered SF title, no less) when nothing has been fundamentally changed about them would not be exercising too much control. It's called respect for the franchise and the lore. You want to make a game that changes, ignores, or disrespects the established lore and/or conventions? Okay. That's alright. I'm not trying to say that that can't or even shouldn't be done. But if you want to do that, don't make it part of the main, numbered series. Make it part of a divergent sub-series. Like, I don't know, "Shining Force: Unleashed" or something. Like how The Forbidden Series: Crystal Chronicles was not titled "The Forbidden Series XII". That game broke a great deal of FF conventions, which is fine, but they appropriately made it a divergent sub-series rather than putting it in the main, numbered series. All we're doing is calling a spade a spade. Or, more specifically, calling what this franchise has established as being a spade a spade. That's not at all unreasonable. Not only is it not unreasonable, but it's not even remotely harmful on any conceivable level, as you seem to be trying to insinuate. And trying to make such a change without any good justification and when you know better as a fan of the series (which many of the SF3 devs, frankly, didn't and weren't) is disrespectful to the lore and the world that the original authors concocted.

That's one possibility. Another likely scenario: the game devs actually knew what they were doing with this one. It's possible they realized ranger described his job better than the centaur archers, so they gave him the class instead.

Except we know that something along the lines of what Legalize Freedom proposed is the case. Most of the SF3 team did not consist of the same people as the SF2 team. There is an extremely high probability that these inconsistencies were not deliberate, which I'll touch on more in the next point.

Intention is everything. I can't speak for the devs, but your reason for considering the change makes sense, and I appreciate that you take the time to clarify your reasoning, while continuing to show consideration for various viewpoints. However, given the real-life applications of ranger, and considering David's position in his village, it isn't an inappropriate title for him:

From a semantic perspective, no, it's not an inappropriate title for him. That's true. But this isn't just about semantics. This is about lore. In the established SF lore (ie, convention), Rangers describe a kind of centaur. Furthermore, "Hunter" is also a semantically appropriate title for him whilst simultaneously not violating the lore. The lore, I might add, which we know for a fact that the devs didn't prioritize above just finishing something, as they were under very constraining circumstances with this project. Massively underbudgetted, overspent, overworked, and extremely dicey deadlines almost prevented the game from even seeing the light of day at all. Scenarios 2 and 3 were never localized in an official capacity for a reason. And they knew ahead of time that they wouldn't have the luxury of localizing Scenarios 2 or 3 due to both budgetary and time constraints. As such, the localization we did receive for Scenario 1 did not put into consideration any kind of consistency with Scenarios 2 or 3, and many finer details ended up falling by the wayside in favour of just releasing the game at all. Hence the Translation Project feeling the need to retranslate SC1 in the first place. It's not that they "knew what they were doing" and deliberately decided to break these particular conventions. It's that they literally just didn't have the time or the money to fine tune such things and fix what wasn't broken on a functional level. Because, admittedly, while it may be broken on a lore level, it's not actually broken on a functional level. So fixing it was not a priority for them due to their constraints. It was more important that the game be released at all than that it be completely consistent and air tight. But now the Translation Project staff actually HAS the luxury that the original devs didn't have, to be able to fine-tune the game, and show its lore and continuity the respect it deserves.

That's Webster's definition. Can anyone explain how that doesn't describe David's occupation? If the intention behind these changes is achieving the most apt classifications, then I'd say the team's work in this case is done.

Again, "Hunter" is an equally apt description. The difference is that Hunter doesn't violate the established lore.

Waltz is currently listed as bow knight or archer knight unpromoted, right? If anything, why not just change her 1st class to archer? Why should the fact that she's a centaur have that much bearing on her job?

Because that's just not how Shining Force works. Centaurs are just labelled differently. Again. Lore. And if you truly love the series, then its lore ought to matter to you. Respect it. Is it kind of arbitrary? Sure. But that's just how it is.

Her species may affect how well she performs that job (i.e. movement penalties), but it doesn't change the job itself.

Not just movement penalties, but movement potential. Mounted soldiers get different titles even in real life. Knight (at least before the obsolescence of horses in battle), cavalry, cataphracts. Hell, even "horse archers". When talking about, for instance, the mounted archers of ancient Mongolia, they don't just get called "archers". They're called "horse archers" or "mounted archers". Because that distinction of having an incredible maneuverability advantage (or even disadvantage, as the case may be) is actually kind of extremely significant. Having the body of a horse influences what we call their roll in-game for the same reasons that being mounted on top of a horse influences what we call their roll in real life.

As was pointed out a couple posts back by Swalch, non-centaurs have held the title of knight. What they shared in common wasn't their species.

No. They haven't. Not in the Shining Force series. In Shining in the Darkness and Shining the Holy Ark, sure. But those aren't Shining Force. They're a different (though related) series. Just like how The Forbidden Series Crystal Chronicles is a different (though related) series to the main, numbered FF line, with different established conventions, different lore standards, and different vernacular. Even if those things are interwoven with or heavily inspired by the conventions, lore, and vernacular of the main series from which they deviate.

If it isn't broken, there's no need to fix it. If the only reason his starting class is being changed is due to past characters of a different species holding the same title, then I must defer to this wisdom:
"Insisting on following conventions because they are conventions is a surefire way to do something stupid."

Exactly. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. So Camelot shouldn't have "fixed" Waltz's class by changing it to Archer Knight when Ranger worked just fine. That's the whole point. Don't fix the lore. It's not broken. Ranger worked perfectly adequately and was established as the thing to call centaur archers. Also, that's not wisdom. Convention and tradition are not bad things in and of themselves. Convention and tradition can, sometimes, grow obsolete. But that's not the case with this particular example. Or most examples, really. Convention and tradition become convention and tradition specifically because they work. And when convention equals lore, and you insist on breaking convention, you're insisting on breaking the lore. You're insisting on retconning. You insist on fixing what isn't broken (thereby breaking it to some degree). Insisting on breaking convention just because you can is a (more or less) surefire way to do something stupid. Because at that point, let's just make Spiderman yellow, let's make Sonic pink, let's rename chocobos to quetzols, let's make Shining Force stop being a strategy series, let's rename Homer Simpson to Gregory Sampson, and let's make Achilles black because screw established lore and convention. Anything that's established just needs to go. For no good reason. Forget about endearing personality. Forget about intriguing oddities. Forget about unique quirkiness. Forget about the integrity of what we supposedly love. Let's just transform it into something completely different. And yes, I know that arbitrarily changing a class name isn't going to transform SF into something completely different in and of itself, but why stop there? Why don't we just change all the class names? Why don't we label Synbios and Julian as "Cutty Guy" while arbitrarily giving Medion a different label of "Knifey Fuddyduddy"? Let's call mages "Sparklers". Let's call Brass Gunners "Vehicular Bam Bams." I mean, after all, convention is necessarily bad, right? So Swordsman, Mage, and Brass Gunner must be bad too. And these proposed changes are semantically accurate labels. So let's change them. If convention is bad, then why don't we celebrate Shining Force Neo et al for killing established convention? Why do we almost universally lament the modern Shining games? Fundamentally, we lament them because they don't respect the established convention of what Shining Force is. And if it's okay (and even encouraged) to disrespect the established convention of what Shining Force is on this small level, then it's only a few degrees of removal from encouraging the massive divergence that is the modern Shining Force titles that almost none of us like. Convention is not a bad thing. Lore is not a bad thing. Tradition is not a bad thing. Familiarity is not a bad thing. Stability is not a bad thing.

The problem here isn't what Webster defines "Ranger" as, it is what the western shining world defines "Ranger" as. If this was the first time Ranger was used, absolutely none of us would be questioning if the translation needs to be changed.

^ This.
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: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Rune » Mon Apr 08 2019 8:33am

The western shining world never defined Ranger. It gave three examples. Three examples is not the same as a definition.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Mon Apr 08 2019 8:53am

The western shining world never defined Ranger. It gave three examples. Three examples is not the same as a definition.

It most certainly is. That's like saying that Final Fantasies 1, 2, and 3 weren't enough to define "Black Mage".
EDIT: ... Did FF2 even have a black mage? I can't remember. Whatever. Supposing it didn't, then 1, 3, and 4 make my point just as well. It's not just three characters, it's three games. When each game that has Rangers at all only has one, then three Rangers equates to three games' worth of examples. That's plenty. And it's still 100%.
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: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby legalize freedom » Mon Apr 08 2019 12:29pm

Does Ranger Elf or Elf Ranger solve our problem?

While I agree Waltz's class should be changed to match the rest of the series, I also agree that Ranger is a good fit for David. Maybe we just add Elf and everyone is happy...?

Unfortunate that they are in the same scenario... where you have to look at them side by side. I don't know if it would be odd.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Mon Apr 08 2019 1:32pm

I would say no, unless we have races in other class names. It would be more like Forest Ranger for David, but then you go WTF to his promotion classes.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA


Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby knight0fdragon » Mon Apr 08 2019 3:27pm

MXC wrote:Know what would really solve the issue? My suggestion :lol:

Striker
Guerrilla
Commando



Or Hunter, Guerrilla, Commando haha
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby legalize freedom » Mon Apr 08 2019 6:41pm

knight0fdragon wrote:I would say no, unless we have races in other class names. It would be more like Forest Ranger for David, but then you go WTF to his promotion classes.


There are several other races in class names, but mainly only non-typical or exclusive ones.

Birdsoldier/knight
Penguin
Wolf Baron
Dragonman
Unicorn
White Dragon
Lion Warrior/King
Pegasus Knight
Fairy
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby DiegoMM » Mon Apr 08 2019 6:56pm

the others are shining ranger, david is d&d ranger. problem solved. lol
Speaking...tires me.
Fighting...tires me
I'm tired.
Speaking...tires me.
Fighting...tires me
I'm tired.
DiegoMM

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed May 05 2010 2:48pm

Re: David's Classes Decision

Postby Rune » Mon Apr 08 2019 7:27pm

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
The western shining world never defined Ranger. It gave three examples. Three examples is not the same as a definition.

It most certainly is. That's like saying that Final Fantasies 1, 2, and 3 weren't enough to define "Black Mage".
EDIT: ... Did FF2 even have a black mage? I can't remember. Whatever. Supposing it didn't, then 1, 3, and 4 make my point just as well. It's not just three characters, it's three games. When each game that has Rangers at all only has one, then three Rangers equates to three games' worth of examples. That's plenty. And it's still 100%.


Except you start FF1 with explicitly choosing your party based on their class and they have no other defining characteristics. That is a key difference. Every Black Mage in FF1 is identical. And FF3 is a bad choice to support your claim, as anyone can be a Black Mage in that game.

And it's not 100%, it's 75%. We have David.



I do have a couple questions. What are the current translated states of the following items from Stamp village? These are what SFC has, but they are the very old versions:

Bookcase:
Elf Diets.
Beer is popular, as is wine. Common meals often include some kind of soup element.

Woman 1 in the Trees:
David is an excellent ranger. He explores the forest very often to whether or not it is in danger.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

PreviousNext

Return to SFIII Translation Project

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest