When are we expecting news?

[Squood!]

Sometimes I forget that KH is apparently one of Square's top 3 franchises or smth

At this point it might as well be Nier in the top 3 spot instead

 

[Dandelion]

Maybe we should get back on the original topic. As scant on information as it is...

 

[Squood!]

We're prolly gonna have to wait til' halfway through 2025 cuz *insert game here*

 

[Darkspawn]

For what’s it worth, the DQIII coverage from Gamescom and Pax had its embargo lifted today. That combined with the direct trailer is what I think they will be riding on through TGS. I don’t think we’ll get another look until TGS itself.

Romancing SaGa, Life Is Strange, and Fantasian will also be getting some new impressions soon. Maybe they are getting this news coverage for these games out this week and KH Missing Link will be next week or the week after?

 

[Dandelion]

It's not uncommon for Square to just drop trailers of projects leading into a major event, so it's possible.

 

[Darkspawn]

I like Xenosaga’s point about Rebirth not being listed last year.

Of course, it had been shown a few months earlier and we knew it was releasing early 2024. We don’t really have a big title that was shown this summer like that. But hopefully there will be one more big surprise yet to come.

Sometimes I forget that KH is apparently one of Square's top 3 franchises or smth

At this point it might as well be Nier in the top 3 spot instead

Lol

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831179545032241467

 

[Chie]

IP law does objectively mean they cannot literally be the same character.

So... in order to talk about this, I have to ask some pretentious and annoying questions. These are half-rhetorical. But hear me out, and seriously think about all of this:

What does it mean for two characters to "literally" not be the same character? In what quantifiable sense? Is it something we can test or prove by looking at the work? Or is this only informed by the context of the laws around it? When it comes to Yozora: we, the viewers, know that his name means Noctis Caelum. We the viewers know that multiple cutscenes in the game are shot-for-shot remakes of Versus XIII trailers. And so on. Obviously Nomura knows this too. So he created a character who signals to the knowledgeable audience in numerous ways "this is beta!Noctis". And the audience, looking at the work, is aware of the fact that Nomura did these things. So the communication between author and player, in every way, equates Yozora with Noctis or at least beta!Noctis. Certainly "it's a version of the same character" is true.

So, that's just looking at the game - but because the concept of "owning" an idea is written down in numerous books across the world, and is sometimes pursued in court, we have to objectively acknowledge that he literally isn't the same character. It's odd that we, as human beings interpreting an artwork made by other human beings, would do so with fealty to a hypothetical court case. So this raises a question: in 100 years, if IP law is abolished because countries like the United States have fallen: is Yozora Noctis now!? Certainly 100 years in the future the question of who owned what character 100 years ago is going to be of little interest to most people who are engaging with a century-old artwork. They'll just have the content of the game to go on, which contains... a character whose name means Noctis, in a series that contains numerous other Final Fantasy characters.

Those are annoying rhetorical questions to ask, I know. But we can and should go further. The thing about laws is, they only have any power if they're enforced. So... we should talk about Suda51, who directed a series of games called Twilight Syndrome on the PS1. There were three games, the third of which was called Moonlight Syndrome. After making that game, Suda left Human Entertainment and founded his own company, Grasshopper Manufacture. There he directed a game called The Silver Case. The first chapter of the Silver Case contains multiple Moonlight Syndrome characters, on-screen, named.

It must be said: Suda/Grasshopper does not own the copyright for Twilight Syndrome. He did not license the copyright for Twilight Syndrome. The game does not credit Human Entertainment in any way. This is him openly using characters he does not own, and crediting nobody. Now: according to what I'm quoting you saying: these characters objectively cannot be literally the same characters. This is entirely due to IP law, even though their stories continue directly from one game to the other, with zero ambiguity. The reason Suda is able to do this is because nobody actually cares, and so nobody is going to sue him over it. If they did, whether he's breaking IP law or not would have to be proven in a court case... and the results of that case would be the only thing that could determine legally whether a character is the same or not.

[EDIT ASIDE: Like, if my point isn't clear enough here, there are so many other examples... Xenosaga and Xenogears are owned by different companies, so they can't officially say they're part of the same series, but the Xenogears guidebook has the events of Xenosaga listed in its timeline. If you were to insist we have to view them as different stories even though they're obviously supposed to be the same, you would be putting IP law over blatantly obvious author intent.]

But, even if that's determined, again... it's only legally. In real life, characters are just collections of ideas somebody had. They don't actually exist. So there isn't any perspective on that other than in a legal sense. And whether that legal sense is enforced or not is arbitrary. So what I really don't understand is why there is an impetus here to default to that legal sense when it's something creators are only working around, not with. Yeah, governments can say that people can "own" ideas, but they can also say a whole bunch of other lies too, and we don't have to say "well, I guess that's objectively and literally true" just because they say it is. Legally speaking, Yozora isn't Noctis... but also right now there are many politicians that want to make it so that I legally speaking do not exist, so like. Decide for yourself if "legally speaking" is a useful way to understand the limitations of reality.

In any case Nomura wanted to use his version of Noctis again and so he changed the name slightly. That is fairly quantifiable reality, and we all know what he meant. I'm not sure anything else matters.

 

[Squood!]

Lol

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831179545032241467

Figured

They can do this but the KH side can't be bothered to even say why they delisted UX

 

[LucemFerto]

Dream Drop in general really cut corners with any characters appearing in the actual playable portion of the game. The whole thing feels cheap as a result. Dropping Monstro on the crab was cool though

I know I am a few hours late to this, but something I noticed is that Osaka team got worse about this between Birth by Sleep and Dream Drop Distance. I'm currently playing through Birth by Sleep with my friend Xeph and they pointed out to me how much the Disney characters in that game are actually involved in the gameplay.

Like, you have the Three Good Fairies helping in the fight against Maleficent, Prince Philipp helping against Dragon Maleficent, Stitch helping against some bosses in Deep Space and more through some faux-reaction commands. Dream Drop left such a vacant impression as it relates to side-character gameplay that, in my mind, it extended to Birth by Sleep as well even though they're actually good about that in said title.

Really makes you wonder what went wrong between Birth by Sleep and Dream Drop Distance. Perhaps the Dream Eater gameplay took up too much time and attention?

 

[Phoenix]

So... in order to talk about this, I have to ask some pretentious and annoying questions. These are half-rhetorical. But hear me out, and seriously think about all of this:

What does it mean for two characters to "literally" not be the same character? In what quantifiable sense? Is it something we can test or prove by looking at the work? Or is this only informed by the context of the laws around it? When it comes to Yozora: we, the viewers, know that his name means Noctis Caelum. We the viewers know that multiple cutscenes in the game are shot-for-shot remakes of Versus XIII trailers. And so on. Obviously Nomura knows this too. So he created a character who signals to the knowledgeable audience in numerous ways "this is beta!Noctis". And the audience, looking at the work, is aware of the fact that Nomura did these things. So the communication between author and player, in every way, equates Yozora with Noctis or at least beta!Noctis. Certainly "it's a version of the same character" is true.

So, that's just looking at the game - but because the concept of "owning" an idea is written down in numerous books across the world, and is sometimes pursued in court, we have to objectively acknowledge that he literally isn't the same character. It's odd that we, as human beings interpreting an artwork made by other human beings, would do so with fealty to a hypothetical court case. So this raises a question: in 100 years, if IP law is abolished because countries like the United States have fallen: is Yozora Noctis now!? Certainly 100 years in the future the question of who owned what character 100 years ago is going to be of little interest to most people who are engaging with a century-old artwork. They'll just have the content of the game to go on, which contains... a character whose name means Noctis, in a series that contains numerous other Final Fantasy characters.

Those are annoying rhetorical questions to ask, I know. But we can and should go further. The thing about laws is, they only have any power if they're enforced. So... we should talk about Suda51, who directed a series of games called Twilight Syndrome on the PS1. There were three games, the third of which was called Moonlight Syndrome. After making that game, Suda left Human Entertainment and founded his own company, Grasshopper Manufacture. There he directed a game called The Silver Case. The first chapter of the Silver Case contains multiple Moonlight Syndrome characters, on-screen, named.

It must be said: Suda/Grasshopper does not own the copyright for Twilight Syndrome. He did not license the copyright for Twilight Syndrome. The game does not credit Human Entertainment in any way. This is him openly using characters he does not own, and crediting nobody. Now: according to what I'm quoting you saying: these characters objectively cannot be literally the same characters. This is entirely due to IP law, even though their stories continue directly from one game to the other, with zero ambiguity. The reason Suda is able to do this is because nobody actually cares, and so nobody is going to sue him over it. If they did, whether he's breaking IP law or not would have to be proven in a court case... and the results of that case would be the only thing that could determine legally whether a character is the same or not.

[EDIT ASIDE: Like, if my point isn't clear enough here, there are so many other examples... Xenosaga and Xenogears are owned by different companies, so they can't officially say they're part of the same series, but the Xenogears guidebook has the events of Xenosaga listed in its timeline. If you were to insist we have to view them as different stories even though they're obviously supposed to be the same, you would be putting IP law over blatantly obvious author intent.]

But, even if that's determined, again... it's only legally. In real life, characters are just collections of ideas somebody had. They don't actually exist. So there isn't any perspective on that other than in a legal sense. And whether that legal sense is enforced or not is arbitrary. So what I really don't understand is why there is an impetus here to default to that legal sense when it's something creators are only working around, not with. Yeah, governments can say that people can "own" ideas, but they can also say a whole bunch of other lies too, and we don't have to say "well, I guess that's objectively and literally true" just because they say it is. Legally speaking, Yozora isn't Noctis... but also right now there are many politicians that want to make it so that I legally speaking do not exist, so like. Decide for yourself if "legally speaking" is a useful way to understand the limitations of reality.

In any case Nomura wanted to use his version of Noctis again and so he changed the name slightly. That is fairly quantifiable reality, and we all know what he meant. I'm not sure anything else matters.

Thank you for putting word on paper. This is obviously something you've thought a lot about.

Let me start with, I have no emotional connection with beta!Noctis. I didn't play Versus 13, I have no attachment to the characters in that game. I played FF15 and have an attachment to the characters there (though much weaker than the rest of the series). beta!Noctis is not an FF character because he hasn't been in an FF game that people have played. You asked the question, what is a character? That's hard to quantify, but may I ask what are the similarities between Noctis and Yozora? It's not the name. Yozora has the same meaning as Noctis Caelum, but the names themselves are different, just like John Smith and Juan Herrero are different names. It's not looks, Yozora doesn't really look like Noctis. It's not history either, as Yozora hasn't gone through the journey Noctis has, met the same people, fell in love with the same woman, ate the same cheap cup ramen. So, in what real way are they same character? Yozora is the final version of a beta character that, in mainline Final Fantasy, became Noctis. They share a common origin, but they are different people.

You said that what Nomura said is what matters. I recognise what you're saying and respect the intent, but I strongly believe in death of the author. Yozora, to me, doesn't feel like Noctis Caelum from FF15. And that is the only Noctis I care about, because that's the one I had the journey with. Authorial intent is near irrelevant to me, and I believe works should stand on their own.

That doesn't mean I won't like Yozora. I like most KH OCs. I'm saying that doesn't scratch the FF itch that Yuffie did.

I realise I'm only responding to part of your post. I actually agree with you about IP law, and find it a huge attack on how human civilisation has transferred ideas for at least 10,000 years.

 

[bambii (aka foreteller)]

So... in order to talk about this, I have to ask some pretentious and annoying questions. These are half-rhetorical. But hear me out, and seriously think about all of this:

I’m gonna regret getting myself embroiled in this, aren’t I…

As someone who chronically overthinks things myself, I’d just like to suggest: you may be way overthinking this.

You’re making a lot of really interesting points about the nature of fiction, authorial intent, etc. But it’s just not actually as relevant as you seem to be making it out to be. If we go down the train of thought you’re suggesting we do, we would also have to admit that the version of Noctis that currently exists in Final Fantasy canon (i.e., from Final Fantasy XV) is not the same character as the Noctis Nomura wrote all those years back. Right? Noctis from FFXV was not Nomura’s “authorial intent.” If authorial intent is as fundamental to defining the “truth” of a work of fiction as you seem to be implying, then surely we can agree that FFvsXIII Noctis and FFXV Noctis are functionally two different characters?

So even if it is true that Yozora = FFvsXIII Noctis because that was Nomura’s intent with the character (which is itself debatable, but for the purposes of this argument, sure, I’ll bite), by that very same logic, Yozora literally cannot be = to FFXV Noctis. The one that currently exists in actual Final Fantasy canon. Yozora is simply not Noctis Lucis Caelum, son of King Regis Lucis Caelum CXIII, prince of Lucis, chosen to purge Eos of the Starscourge. These are different characters, though they obviously share a common lineage.

The Xenogears/saga comparison is interesting but not applicable because Tetsuya Takahashi’s world and characters from Xenogears were never taken from him and reinterpreted from the ground up by other writers. Xenosaga was his own continuation of that same work under a different IP.

Anyway, bummer about TGS. If ML was going to show up I can’t imagine what they would possibly have to gain from not announcing it beforehand, so I don’t expect we’ll see it there.

 

[Chaser]

I know I am a few hours late to this, but something I noticed is that Osaka team got worse about this between Birth by Sleep and Dream Drop Distance. I'm currently playing through Birth by Sleep with my friend Xeph and they pointed out to me how much the Disney characters in that game are actually involved in the gameplay.

Like, you have the Three Good Fairies helping in the fight against Maleficent, Prince Philipp helping against Dragon Maleficent, Stitch helping against some bosses in Deep Space and more through some faux-reaction commands. Dream Drop left such a vacant impression as it relates to side-character gameplay that, in my mind, it extended to Birth by Sleep as well even though they're actually good about that in said title.

Really makes you wonder what went wrong between Birth by Sleep and Dream Drop Distance. Perhaps the Dream Eater gameplay took up too much time and attention?

They had a very tiny amount of time to develop Dream Drop Distance. It was announced June 2010 and released less than two years later in March 2012. It also contained many glitches and errors.

During the development of Dream Drop Distance, the team were also working on the localised version of Birth by Sleep, released September 2010, and then the Final Mix version in January 2011, so they were very stretched and a lot of concessions were made, and as pointed out the main one were the lack of NPCs in the worlds.

 

[Chie]

As someone who chronically overthinks things myself, I’d just like to suggest: you may be way overthinking this.

Well, obviously when I type an essay on it it can only be "overthinking" - I went all out knowing exactly how silly it makes me look - but what I'm attempting to do is to lay out the things that are completely second nature for me to naturally think, namely: "IP law is fake", which I was told was a disingenuous thing to say. That's what I was responding to.

Obviously there are many differences between Versus XIII!Noctis, XV!Noctis, and Yozora. But that's a different conversation, and one I already tried to have. This convo seems to me to be in a bizarre loop: I outline the ways that KH versions of FF characters are always different, and someone tells me that IP law is the one quantifiable, "objective" difference. I outline the ways in which IP law is fake, and someone tells me the details of the character mean they're not the same. I have, in fact, already had the "these are two different conversations" conversation as well. This could go on forever, and I find it quite baffling. I don't think my take is so strange (yozora engages more meaningfully with his original character than 6-year-old tidus does + IP law shouldn't affect how we interpret art), but I've continually over-elaborated on it specifically because I've been so baffled.

If authorial intent is as fundamental to defining the “truth” of a work of fiction as you seem to be implying

I'm not implying this, but I'm saying if the seeming intent of a work is obvious to everyone, that's probably more meaningful than copyright law of all things. Or even if it's not obvious, any reading of a work will do, honestly. Anything you get out of what the work is saying to you.

Yozora, to me, doesn't feel like Noctis Caelum from FF15. And that is the only Noctis I care about, because that's the one I had the journey with.

I think it's completely fair for you to feel this way. But, I also don't think Setzer in KH2 feels anything like the Setzer I had the journey with. I don't think KH Cid or Aerith feel much like the Cid or Aerith I had the journey with. KH FF characters not feeling like their FF counterparts is a very common criticism.

 

[olu]

Lol

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831179545032241467

Honestly I've been rooting for some more NieR news since before and after the anime dropped, so I'm okay with this. I love Yoko Taro and his delirious brain.

 

[Darkspawn]

Well, obviously when I type an essay on it it can only be "overthinking" - I went all out knowing exactly how silly it makes me look - but what I'm attempting to do is to lay out the things that are completely second nature for me to naturally think, namely: "IP law is fake", which I was told was a disingenuous thing to say. That's why I typed all of that out.

It’s disingenuous to say it has no bearing on the character and that we shouldn’t bring it up because it “doesn’t exist”. Especially when my whole reason in bringing that up was to segue into how Nomura is using that power of IP law to protect his concepts and give them new life. (You ignored that in your response where you shut me down saying none of what I said matters.) I agree with you that IP law is generally bad, but in this case we have a creator leveraging it in his favor, which I find interesting and a bold power move.

Nomura is using that to spin his original concept into a *new* character that fits within the original lore of KH. Nomura also plainly told us they are not the same even though they share a resemblance. I’ve always interpreted this as him not wanting us to conflate these two characters together even if they share obvious similarities.

-In the Secret Episode, the mysterious Yozora appeared. Initially, I thought Yozora was just a surprise reference that appeared as a cameo in the Toy Box world, but apparently it seems like he’s a much more important character that’ll be tied to the future of KH.

Nomura: You wouldn’t be the first to think so, right now there’s a lot of speculation about that because of the clear resemblance to what was shown of “VERSUS.” However, the two are actually very different and I think where Yozora’s story will lead will be unexpected. So, why did “VERUM REX” appear in KHIII? None of this makes sense, but I hope to clear it all up as soon as possible.

You also claim I’m “moving the goalpost” by going back to the inspiration aspect, but that’s not true at all. (If anything your moving the goalpost by going from “Yozora is literally Noctis” to “Obviously there are differences between” them.

I said in my original response to you that the ownership of the character is the key factor that shows they are not literally meant to be the same. There are other factors. So when you rejected the IP point, I brought up other points that I also feel make them different. That isn’t moving the goalpost.

What does it mean for two characters to "literally" not be the same character? In what quantifiable sense? Is it something we can test or prove by looking at the work? Or is this only informed by the context of the laws around it? When it comes to Yozora: we, the viewers, know that his name means Noctis Caelum. We the viewers know that multiple cutscenes in the game are shot-for-shot remakes of Versus XIII trailers. And so on. Obviously Nomura knows this too. So he created a character who signals to the knowledgeable audience in numerous ways "this is beta!Noctis". And the audience, looking at the work, is aware of the fact that Nomura did these things. So the communication between author and player, in every way, equates Yozora with Noctis or at least beta!Noctis. Certainly "it's a version of the same character" is true.

They have different names, different appearance, different backstories, different relationships, etc. and the author says they are different characters. That is enough for me to believe they are not the same, IP law aside. Even if some design elements are the same, they are distinct enough for a reasonable person to conclude they are not the same character. And yes, I believe if you showed someone FFXV, KH3, and Versus XIII in 100 years, and asked if they’re the same, most people would conclude they are similar but not the same. Whereas if you showed them FFVII and KH1 and asked the same question of Cloud, they would conclude the same. At minimum, they would see where the game clearly states he originally appeared in FFVII.

With the name, this is not the first time Nomura has given characters names with a similar English meaning. It’s also long established that Nomura favors names related to the elements, weather, etc. (Cloud, Squall, Sora, Ventus, Noctis, Yozora, etc.) Yozora’s name is definitely a nod to Noctis, but the more significant reason behind his name is because it positions him as a sort of dark mirror of Sora. Sky vs Night Sky. If Sora hypothetically had a different name, I believe Yozora would too.

And even in game, completely ignoring authorial intent. Yozora says, “This isn’t what I really look like.” What you are seeing as “Noctis” is not even Yozora’s actual form. And if anything, he is physically closer in design to KH3 Riku.

 

[Liodin]

Okay, so waking up to multiple pages of essays discussing what Yozora is and the essence of being, wasn't something I expected.

But I'm not surprised either.

For me, saying that Yozora is Noctis is like saying that Sora is Mickey Mouse.

Like, it's so easy to understand that when people say they want FF in KH they're referring to the characters they love and have spent hours with, not just Moogles, the magic or someone having a Chocobo zipper.

 

[Darkspawn]

I think we could all use one of these. Wake us up when September ends.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1830773391172964609

 

[Chie]

(If anything your moving the goalpost by going from “Yozora is literally Noctis” to “Obviously there are differences between” them.

I don't understand why I have to continually remind people that the point of comparison here was to the other FF characters in KH, who all have obvious differences between them. The question was how this situation differs from those characters, and my stance was that I don't think there's much of a functional difference at all. That is the context this whole conversation exists in. Then you said that IP law was the sole actual difference, insisted that this, and nothing else, made it "objective" and "literal", and said that I have to accept that IP law is real "whether I like it or not", and I was not engaging with this point - but having taken the time to explain, in detail, why I said IP law is fake, and that it was a belief I actually hold and not something disingenuous, you are now saying that IP law wasn't your main point, and it has everything to do with Yozora's character instead! I have poured all my energy, multiple times, into trying to clarify and re-clarify what I meant (in the face of intense rudeness), and every single time I am met with a diversion to a different part of the conversation that we have already covered. And I have pointed out that this keeps happening over and over, and it is still happening. I'm done.

 

[olu]

I think we could all use one of these. Wake us up when September ends.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1830773391172964609

Make it king-sized and you got a deal.

 

[the red monster]

tfw the only KH related thing we might be getting this year is sora possibly being inside the new astro bot game