Let's keep Character Crossovers from other Square-Enix titles out of FFXIV.

[Obsy]

While I really don't want this discussion to derail into a debate about semantics, there is nothing false about Sleverin's use of the word 'retcon' as you attempt to invalidate his argument. Now, while it's plausible, I'd posit that it's still highly improbable that SE/Squaresoft/Square—in their earliest conceptions of their RPG franchise—initially intended for each standalone iteration to be cosmically tied to each other. No, it's much more likely that after decades of pumping out individual stories with similar themes and concepts, they decided to retroactively tie things together through pathways you yourself pointed out. This "looking back and making adjustments" to allow for a new form of unity between worlds fits the definition of retcon quite snugly.

The whole reason why I put those examples up is to show that it's entirely plausible for Final Fantasy characters to appear in a different game, and it'll still be canon and not a retcon.

"Retcon" and "canon" aren't mutually exclusive terms. In fact, the general point of retconning is to purposely force a new concept/event/story to become canon.

How is it a shoehorn? How does it hurt the core story of XIV?

It's a shoehorn because it is literally being forced into a plotline where it otherwise doesn't belong, much like, oh I dunno... having our characters suddenly high-five Shaquille O'Neal during the victory pose at the end of Brayflox's Longstop would be a shoehorn. Even if that's the only place in the entire game we'd ever see him (because we uh... we rescued him from a mud drake! Yeah, that works! The writers put it in, so it's canon!), would that hurt the core story of XIV? Not necessarily, but it sure would put some people off, wouldn't it? (You see, Shaq played a genie in the movie Kazaam, so we could just say that some kid 'wished' him into XIV, and because the developers made it happen, it's suddenly canon. Yes.)

Considering we don't even know what the core story really is in XIV outside of snippets and some early level quests.

I really hope I'm just misreading this.

Wait...are you calling the writing of IV: The After Years shoddy? Really? A game that's been well received by most critics?

Positive reception in no way correlates with good or bad writing.

Do you realize that these guys don't necessarily plan things out like this, right? They're not too worried about continuity snarls between their games because each game takes place in their own little world.

Hennnnnce, retroactively adjusting their stories to force...? Continuity.

Now, technology can be lost, history can be forgotten, it isn't that big of a stretch to surmise a reason why the people of VII have forgotten where they came from and how they got there, considering we don't know the time scale of between X and X-2 and VII.

You're doing it yourself right here.

The Core idea of VII and X aren't hurt at all, the games are still playable today as they were long ago, and I fail to see how crossover writing hurts the "core ideas" of these Final Fantasy games.

I personally beg to differ. If the crossover of VII and X really is true, then in my eyes (and I'd wager a few other people's), the core ideas of those games are, in fact, hurt. Whether you choose to accept that or not doesn't negate that fact, and I'm again willing to bet that in this example, VII wasn't initially written with the intent that X (written several years later, mind you) will serve as some sort of L. Ron Hubbard-esque origin story. That came later; retroactively.

[Aish]

It's a shoehorn because it is literally being forced into a plotline where it otherwise doesn't belong, much like, oh I dunno... having our characters suddenly high-five Shaquille O'Neal during the victory pose at the end of Brayflox's Longstop would be a shoehorn. Even if that's the only place in the entire game we'd ever see him (because we uh... we rescued him from a mud drake! Yeah, that works! The writers put it in, so it's canon!), would that hurt the core story of XIV? Not necessarily, but it sure would put some people off, wouldn't it? (You see, Shaq played a genie in the movie Kazaam, so we could just say that some kid 'wished' him into XIV, and because the developers made it happen, it's suddenly canon. Yes.)

I think you're being too nitpicky about this. Just about any of the classic jobs or famous monsters would have to be 'shoehorned' in too, you realize. How would they bring Golden Saucer, Crystal Tower, classic jobs like RDM or any of the other things people want in the game without 'shoehorning' it? (Keep in mind, the vast majority of these have never been mentioned in the in-game lore before either) They do this by creating a story that works and fits within the lore. (Just like they plan to do with Lightning!) If we can't bring Lightning in through a legitimate story, what about these other iconic FF things that weren't originally planned for? Are we just going to pretend that the story they made up for these things is somehow okay, but not the one they make for Lightning just because she's from a different game?

Also, let's not forget, for new things in an MMO there will eventually come a time when they have to do some 'shoehorning' anyways, unless you somehow think SE can plan for everything they might add later on.

[C-croft]

I think you're being too nitpicky about this. Just about any of the classic jobs or famous monsters would have to be 'shoehorned' in too, you realize. How would they bring Golden Saucer, Crystal Tower, classic jobs like RDM or any of the other things people want in the game without 'shoehorning' it? (Keep in mind, the vast majority of these have never been mentioned in the in-game lore before either) They do this by creating a story that works and fits within the lore. (Just like they plan to do with Lightning!) If we can't bring Lightning in through a legitimate story, what about these other iconic FF things that weren't originally planned for? Are we just going to pretend that the story they made up for these things is somehow okay, but not the one they make for Lightning just because she's from a different game?

Also, let's not forget, for new things in an MMO there will eventually come a time when they have to do some 'shoehorning' anyways, unless you somehow think SE can plan for everything they might add later on.

Xpacs will be able to cover future additions. Wouldn't be shoehorning considering the planet coould have faraway lands. A desert continent with mimes and blu or rdm. A land of ninjas and samurai. Possibilities are endless since XIV is still young. The difference between XIV and the rest is the ability to grow and evolve the world as we go. They aren't going to create a sequel and start jamming stuff in to make things connected.

[Obsy]

I think you're being too nitpicky about this. Just about any of the classic jobs or famous monsters would have to be 'shoehorned' in too, you realize. How would they bring Golden Saucer, Crystal Tower, classic jobs like RDM or any of the other things people want in the game without 'shoehorning' it? (Keep in mind, the vast majority of these have never been mentioned in the in-game lore before either) They do this by creating a story that works and fits within the lore. (Just like they plan to do with Lightning!) If we can't bring Lightning in through a legitimate story, what about these other iconic FF things that weren't originally planned for? Are we just going to pretend that the story they made up for these things is somehow okay, but not the one they make for Lightning just because she's from a different game?

Also, let's not forget, for new things in an MMO there will eventually come a time when they have to do some 'shoehorning' anyways, unless you somehow think SE can plan for everything they might add later on.

I understand what you're getting at, but the problem with this is that you're confusing homage towards more general Final Fantasy themes, which in and of itself IS a Final Fantasy theme, with (once again) shoehorning established, exclusive entities* into other properties. The former requiring much less of a suspension of disbelief than the latter.
*I apologize for the unintended alliteration.

Broad, franchise-spanning themes such as classic jobs, crystal-related anythings, chocobos, previously-repeated characters (Gilgamesh, FF-centric monsters, etc.), and so on; these aren't points I've brought up, and invoking any of them as a reliable argument and/or excuse for a "Main Character Cameo" serves as a strawman.

I can grant the Golden Saucer and Crystal Tower as examples, but (and I'm speaking only for myself here) I'm frankly not a huge fan of these being transplanted, either, so you're not exactly swaying me there.

I'm not saying crossovers haven't been done before, I'm not even saying they haven't been done well before. I'm also not saying I won't even try out this content (though likely at least halfway begrudgingly, at first). What I am saying is that I'd prefer they dialed back what they're attempting here and now with Lightning and XIII, because what's been done before (and done well) required a degree of discretion and governance on behalf of the creators just how well a cross-over would be integrated into the current property. So far, what we've seen of what will be included from the XIII side of things seems to fly in the face of that believable integration that everything else does so seamlessly. With that in mind. I don't think it's unreasonable that I and people like me are uncomfortable.

The only thread of hope I've got is to really take Yoshi on his word that he'll make it work. I really hope he does, but I also really wish he didn't have to.

[Aish]

I don't think it's unreasonable that I and people like me are uncomfortable.

I don't think it's unreasonable either. But I also think it's unreasonable to just blatantly say "No" just because there's a fear that it could ruin the story, especially because these kind of events are supposed to be fun.

I feel SE has actually picked the middle ground on this. Yoshida has stated that dead people and people who's story has ended will not be coming in. (while the second part is extremely vague and probably the biggest worry for people against crossovers, I assume it means characters that have gotten the "And they lived happily ever after, never to be heard from again" treatment. The other possibility is that it'll only be characters from games that have sequels in-develpoment or have not yet been released) Also, he's cooperating with both XIII and XIV's teams to ensure the story fits.

Edit:

Wouldn't be shoehorning considering the planet coould have faraway lands.

It depends on how it's implemented, I would consider it shoehorning if this faraway land was never once mentioned before in the original lore, same with jobs, regardless of how iconic they are to FF. I consider it shoehorning if the job never existed in the realm originally and now all of a sudden it does. (The addition of most jobs in 1.xx is guilty of this) However, that doesn't mean I'm against it. I would happily welcome more and more iconic jobs, and obviously SE would be adding jobs that are fan favorites. All while ensuring there is a back story that fits in the world, though they may have to shoehorn/retcon the fact that the job exists in Eorzea.

[Obsy]

it's the connotation he's using it with that matters.

You called him on the misuse of a word. Connotation or not, he was correct despite your comfort with its implications. And now we're arguing semantics just as I predicted, so I'll just nip this whole retcon debate in the bud, if you don't mind.

Okay, let's start with the first point. The first Final Fantasy was meant to be Squaresoft's last game before they closed down, and they weren't counting on the game selling so well to keep them afloat. When it did sell well, they decided to make a sequel. But, unlike other sequels, they decided to create a new world with new characters and a new battle system, and this idea has been going on ever since. While it's true that the games weren't made to be connected, there was nothing really to prevent them from being connected later on, and in fact were when Dissidia was made.

While I appreciate the history lesson, it's both already generally known and completely irrelevant to the conversation. This neither promotes nor denies the need for cosmic tie-ins.

First, how do you know it doesn't belong there? Are you writing XIV?

Don't do that, please. It's needlessly disrespectful and condescending in an otherwise rational discussion. I've more than once pointed out that my views are my own, I don't need to be put on the spot about it by someone else, it detracts from the actual conversation.

Second, that's a poorly written shoehorn.

That's precisely my point. And...

Since we don't know how well Lightning will be put in, we can't say if it's poorly written or well written. [...] I'm pointing out that we don't know how Lightning will be written in, and that some people here are coming off as prejudicial.

...as I discussed later with Aish, correct; we don't know. This is where fears stem from, which are given further ground to stand on when supplemented with images of gear and weapons that blatantly stray from what's been solidly established for XIV since 1.0. Regardless of it being vanity gear or not, it gives those concerned for a world's overall theme plenty to be leery of, despite promises of "don't worry you guys! It'll be okay!" It may very well be okay, but until then, it's suspicious.

No, there is a correlation, considering that storyline and writing, especially in RPGs, is a factor in the score.

Dare I invoke the power of Twilight? Once again, critical acclaim and good writing need not be connected.

The thing is, stories aren't being adjusted at all. Nothing's really changed if they added in this idea that the worlds are connected or not. [...] But the thing is that nothing really changes. If X takes place in the distant past of VII, what changes? Aeris still dies, Sephiroth still goes nuts and tries to summon a meteor, and Blitzball is still the most boring mini game in the series.

I'm afraid you might be missing my point. Objectively, no, the story of a game that's later tied to another through one means or another hasn't changed. The way that that story is subjectively regarded by audiences now, however, is effectively out of the creator's hands, and it can and does change things depending on the individual. Some choose to accept it cheerfully, others may piss and moan, others still may outright ignore it. Refer to my previous response regarding VII and X as an example. Of course the tie-in won't literally change the hard-coding of my PS1 discs, but now armed with even the idea that there's some "grander scheme" that got wedged in there later? I have to admit it's pretty goofy, and has the potential (for myself as an individual, I do not speak on behalf of others) to tarnish the image of what's usually seen as a franchise that can tell individual stories that can stand on their own merits without having to rely on cosmic tie-ins.

I'm just providing an analysis of how it could happen. I'm not writing the thing, just looking and thinking about it. What I write really has no bearing whatsoever in Final Fantasy.

Except that you're using it as an argument for what's being done officially. Either be accountable for your argument or don't argue.

I don't think it's unreasonable either. But I also think it's unreasonable to just blatantly say "No" just because there's a fear that it could ruin the story, especially because these kind of events are supposed to be fun.

I'll give you that, as I'm inclined to agree. (with the "supposed to be fun" part)

I feel SE has actually picked the middle ground on this. Yoshida has stated that dead people and people who's story has ended will not be coming in. (while the second part is extremely vague and probably the biggest worry for people against crossovers, I assume it means characters that have gotten the "And they lived happily ever after, never to be heard from again" treatment. The other possibility is that it'll only be characters from games that have sequels in-develpoment or have not yet been released) Also, he's cooperating with both XIII and XIV's teams to ensure the story fits.

I'll admit that I'm also in agreement here to a degree. I appreciate that he's at the very least pushing to make things work out. Again, I fall back on "it just sucks that this is even necessary", which is essentially the take-home message I'm trying to get across.

[Keyln]

While I appreciate the history lesson, it's both already generally known and completely irrelevant to the conversation. This neither promotes nor denies the need for cosmic tie-ins.

No, it is relevant. It goes to showing that cosmic tie-ins are permissible in this franchise, and that there's nothing explicitly forbidding such a thing.

That's precisely my point. And...

...as I discussed later with Aish, correct; we don't know. This is where fears stem from, which are given further ground to stand on when supplemented with images of gear and weapons that blatantly stray from what's been solidly established for XIV since 1.0. Regardless of it being vanity gear or not, it gives those concerned for a world's overall theme plenty to be leery of, despite promises of "don't worry you guys! It'll be okay!" It may very well be okay, but until then, it's suspicious.

And thus we get at the heart of our disagreement. You and others choose a position of fear. Things are changing, what was once was is no longer, and that makes you afraid. On the other hand, I choose a position of faith. I find crossovers to be exciting and new. I love the idea of characters from different worlds and even different brands coming together and interacting with each other, and I find it fun and interesting. I see potential, while all you see are pitfalls.

Dare I invoke the power of Twilight? Once again, critical acclaim and good writing need not be connected.

But they usually are.

I'm afraid you might be missing my point. Objectively, no, the story of a game that's later tied to another through one means or another hasn't changed. The way that that story is subjectively regarded by audiences now, however, is effectively out of the creator's hands, and it can and does change things depending on the individual. Some choose to accept it cheerfully, others may piss and moan, others still may outright ignore it. Refer to my previous response regarding VII and X as an example. Of course the tie-in won't literally change the hard-coding of my PS1 discs, but now armed with even the idea that there's some "grander scheme" that got wedged in there later? I have to admit it's pretty goofy, and has the potential (for myself as an individual, I do not speak on behalf of others) to tarnish the image of what's usually seen as a franchise that can tell individual stories that can stand on their own merits without having to rely on cosmic tie-ins.

And thus we get back to the word "potential". Yes, it could potentially be bad, but it could potentially be good too. That's the difference between these two arguments. You see things as they might be, I see things as they could be. There are poorly written crossover events, but there are also well written crossover events that make the stories better.

Except that you're using it as an argument for what's being done officially. Either be accountable for your argument or don't argue.

So, where am I wrong? I was pointing out a possibility of such a crossover. (Never mind that a crossover has occurred already in Final Fantasy canon)

[C-croft]

I personally beg to differ. If the crossover of VII and X really is true, then in my eyes (and I'd wager a few other people's), the core ideas of those games are, in fact, hurt. Whether you choose to accept that or not doesn't negate that fact, and I'm again willing to bet that in this example, VII wasn't initially written with the intent that X (written several years later, mind you) will serve as some sort of L. Ron Hubbard-esque origin story. That came later; retroactively.

This would be an example of a poorly executed cross over. Not to mention the vast amount of time difference between the events. Canon or not, it is silly writing. Religion had a huge part in X. I doubt that they would forget that in a few thousand years... But since it has been mentioned, anyone notice the bahamut cross over in Advent Children? Since they used the X bahamut instead of the VII bahamut. Wasn't a fan. But it was whatever.

[Keyln]

While I really don't want this discussion to derail into a debate about semantics, there is nothing false about Sleverin's use of the word 'retcon' as you attempt to invalidate his argument.

Technically true, but it's the connotation he's using it with that matters. He makes it sound like it's a bad thing that things are changing.

Now, while it's plausible, I'd posit that it's still highly improbable that SE/Squaresoft/Square—in their earliest conceptions of their RPG franchise—initially intended for each standalone iteration to be cosmically tied to each other. No, it's much more likely that after decades of pumping out individual stories with similar themes and concepts, they decided to retroactively tie things together through pathways you yourself pointed out. This "looking back and making adjustments" to allow for a new form of unity between worlds fits the definition of retcon quite snugly.

Okay, let's start with the first point. The first Final Fantasy was meant to be Squaresoft's last game before they closed down, and they weren't counting on the game selling so well to keep them afloat. When it did sell well, they decided to make a sequel. But, unlike other sequels, they decided to create a new world with new characters and a new battle system, and this idea has been going on ever since. While it's true that the games weren't made to be connected, there was nothing really to prevent them from being connected later on, and in fact were when Dissidia was made.

"Retcon" and "canon" aren't mutually exclusive terms. In fact, the general point of retconning is to purposely force a new concept/event/story to become canon.

Retcon has such a negative connotation though. I've yet to hear someone use retcon in a positive statement (e.g. "That was such a great retcon! I'm glad the writers put that there.")

It's a shoehorn because it is literally being forced into a plotline where it otherwise doesn't belong, much like, oh I dunno... having our characters suddenly high-five Shaquille O'Neal during the victory pose at the end of Brayflox's Longstop would be a shoehorn. Even if that's the only place in the entire game we'd ever see him (because we uh... we rescued him from a mud drake! Yeah, that works! The writers put it in, so it's canon!), would that hurt the core story of XIV? Not necessarily, but it sure would put some people off, wouldn't it? (You see, Shaq played a genie in the movie Kazaam, so we could just say that some kid 'wished' him into XIV, and because the developers made it happen, it's suddenly canon. Yes.)

First, how do you know it doesn't belong there? Are you writing XIV?

Second, that's a poorly written shoehorn. Since we don't know how well Lightning will be put in, we can't say if it's poorly written or well written.

I really hope I'm just misreading this.

I'm pointing out that we don't know how Lightning will be written in, and that some people here are coming off as prejudicial. No one outside of Square-Enix can say if it's good writing or not.

Positive reception in no way correlates with good or bad writing.

No, there is a correlation, considering that storyline and writing, especially in RPGs, is a factor in the score.

Hennnnnce, retroactively adjusting their stories to force...? Continuity.

The thing is, stories aren't being adjusted at all. Nothing's really changed if they added in this idea that the worlds are connected or not.

You're doing it yourself right here.

No I'm not. I'm just providing an analysis of how it could happen. I'm not writing the thing, just looking and thinking about it. What I write really has no bearing whatsoever in Final Fantasy.

I personally beg to differ. If the crossover of VII and X really is true, then in my eyes (and I'd wager a few other people's), the core ideas of those games are, in fact, hurt. Whether you choose to accept that or not doesn't negate that fact, and I'm again willing to bet that in this example, VII wasn't initially written with the intent that X (written several years later, mind you) will serve as some sort of L. Ron Hubbard-esque origin story. That came later; retroactively.

But the thing is that nothing really changes. If X takes place in the distant past of VII, what changes? Aeris still dies, Sephiroth still goes nuts and tries to summon a meteor, and Blitzball is still the most boring mini game in the series.