Bob Plays Vagrant Story

• Blogs
• Forums
• Photos
• Code Examples
• VS Movies

May 2012

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31
		HOLIDAYS
May 28 - Memorial Day

Guardian Angels
Kia Purity's Site
Surtur's Fuge of the Damned
Malachit Room
The Nisan Sanctuary

[Arcana (formerly known as Bob)]

Wow.

Okay, so how often does Lea Monde prune topics?  I'm just curious because Luna Girl has made 28 posts in the last 3 months, but only 4 of them show up in the Board Search.  Unfortunately I can't follow The Dead's advice and go read the rest of her fully informative posts.

In other news... I FINALLY PLAYED VAGRANT STORY!  YAY!  I completed it today and it took me about 35 hours.  I can probably post a lot of opinions about it... I remember not playing it long ago because I was really much too busy to play it, and the save points were infrequent enough to make it a nuisance to go through.  Also, the story has a number of missing motivators - either that, or I simply didn't pay enough attention, or maybe the story is intentionally vague and wispy.

In many ways, it has signs of the, "If you don't understand the story, obviously you weren't intelligent enough to catch all of the nuances".  I'm not sure if the VS fanbase (which I've never talked to - I managed to get through 5 years without hearing a single Vagrant Story spoiler) is like that... it seems like it could be, because Xenogears had splashes of that ALL OVER its fandom.  I haven't formed a complete conclusion yet about whether I think that Vagrant Story is a great story that needs more mental devotion on my part, or if it's a story that wasn't completely presented (and is therefore guilty of not being more complete).

[TheContact]

I made this its own topic, because I think we need a good VS thread

VS's story was very complete for me.  In fact, much like Cowboy Bebop, it leaves out the unimportant details, and boils the story down into an incredibly concise, beautifully translated game.  I don't think it's at all like Xenogears, in that Xenogears was anything but concise.

What did you feel you missed out on?

[FlyTB20C]

If I remember correctly (it has been a while since my last playthrough), all of the questions I had about the story in the beginning were cleared up through the progression of the game.  There obviously had to be a few things left in the dark about the Dark (har har, corny joke), but for the most part it felt complete.  So I'm also curious - what is it that you think you missed?

[Surtur]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with TC and Fly, I thought Vagrant Story's story was really well told.  I'm not sure if everything was explained (like the nature of the Dark, as Fly mentioned, as well as info about the Cardinal, and etc.), but whatever wasn't seemed to have been left intentionally ambiguous, either because it was meant to be explored further in sequels (sigh) or because it was meant to be left up to interpretation (like when Sydney says at the end, "Ashley, I'm..." and then Ashley interrupts, "I know."  It seems to be left purposely ambiguous as to what exactly Sydney wanted to say.  I always assumed Sydney just meant to say he was sorry, but that's certainly not necessarily true).

-Surtur recommends reading over the script, if you want to go over the story again quickly.  It's like a ten-minute read.

[Arcana (formerly known as Bob)]

I was just rambling on intending to derail the previous thread, but very well.

What I experienced was not really story inconsistencies, but more like missing motivations.  I felt that there were some events in the story that felt entirely coincidental, or cannot be rationally explained due to the character motivations.  I mentioned a few of these to Myaru already, and while she brought up some points of discussion, I didn't feel that her replies specifically made me say, "Oh, right.  I missed that."

Clearly, there are spoilers in here.  I won't blank them out - just avoid the thread if you haven't played the game.  I might also end up bringing to light a few of the MANY DISCUSSED OMG BORING topics here as well, since I've never, ever went out of my way to look up any Vagrant Story information ever before today.  In other words, my opinion is entirely untainted by fandom.  Wow!

The first question I have is - exactly why did Sydney have to take over the Duke's Manor in the Greylands, take all of the hostages, and then set fire to it, if, all along, he was in league with the Duke to destroy the city?

It is extremely clear by the end of the game that Sydney's doing all of this stuff to create some kind of rest for his bloodline.  He wants to do this for his father, Duke Bardorba.  It's suggested in the game early on that Mullenkamp had secret support from the Duke, but then was betrayed.  This, in addition to the search for the Key, were the presented reasons for Sydney's invasion.

So, what exactly did sydney gain from invading the Duke's manor?  What was it that the Duke did that triggered the so-called betrayal that Hardin repeatedly mentions in the game?  There was no Blood-Sin.  Sydney knew he had it all along, so he didn't need to break into a guarded mansion in order to pretend he was finding it.  It could have easily been arranged for Sydney to acquire Joshua without such violent means.  In addition, Sydney would not, in any amount of good reason, know that Ashley was going to be deployed to the Manor to try to stop him; saying that Sydney had foresight and knew, in advance, that invading the mansion would draw the Cardinal's Blades and Ashley is, in my opinion, a cop-out that doesn't explain the motivation of the character.

Merlose, in the middle of the game, asks Hardin repeatedly why they invaded the Manor, and unfortunately, Hardin never replies.  He mentions the Key before Merlose sees his past (and before Guildenstern appears), and doesn't say specifically that that was the reason, but he seems to believe it to be so.  Sydney, obviously, knew where the key was all along.  I can understand why he needed to deceive Hardin by making him and everyone else believe that it was some physical object, but was there actually a need to invade the Manor other than to reinforce that belief?  Of what importance is it to reinforce the idea that the key is something that can be found?

They also make two demands - the release of their comrades, and the abdication of Cardinal Batistum.  Now, if either of these events actually had an impact on the story, I'd probably say, "Good enough", but they don't - Sydney's motivation isn't for his cult and he doesn't express any love for it or any desire for it to live on.  We can only assume that the cult was created only to further his mission to pass on Lea Monde.

The VKP also gets involved in the hostage crisis only because they want to find a way to look into the Duke's meddlings with the cult.  The Cardinal also sends his men into the battle without approval; I presume this is because Guildenstern (and the Cardinal) have both been aware of the Dark for quite some time and are interested in Sydney's dealings with it.  Thus, Guildenstern's involvement is reasonable, as is the VKP's.  But Mullenkamp's initiation of the situation is in question because it's such a risky mission that probably made their quest in Lea Monde that much more difficult.  I suppose one explanation is that he wanted to draw more souls into Lea Monde, but were the souls of these knights supposed to make up some unmentioned difference in the Phantom Soul quantity in the city?

This is probably the biggest problem I had with the story - that the motivation for the opening event is never explained in a satisfactory manor.  I wouldn't have cared if this was merely a side story or something, but because it's the start of the entire thing, it bothers me more than usual.


Why does Joshua tag along for the entire trip, and yet do nothing?  Was there a good reason he was supposed to be present?  The best one I can think of (which is actually a darned good reason) is that he had to have been present to be a witness to what has transpired.  As royalty, his word would be his bond, and would therefore be believed when he later tells this story.  There are numerous references to "living to talk about what we saw" in the game.

The reason that they would kidnap Merlose would be, simply, to also have her as a witness, but also to keep her in their sights so her meddling wouldn't interfere with Ashley or with Sydney's plan.


There's an obvious inconsistency that is more than likely a transcription error than anything else.  In the Trailer Movie, they say, "The incident [with the murder of Duke Bardorba] began a week ago" - basically suggesting that Ashley becomes a wanted man one week after the seige at the manor.  At the end of the game, after the city crumbles, the caption says, "Two weeks later".


I was also confused about the ending, where Ashley walks into the room with the Duke, and then moves beside the bed.  The Duke then mentions, "Sydney", and Sydney is shown at the bedside.  The direction of this scene suggests that Ashley might have turned into Sydney, but it seems more to me that Ashley is simply watching the scene as Sydney is talking with his father.  The fact that Sydney turns into snowflies (and that Ashley is wearing his normal clothes) kind of confirms that for me, although we do notice that Ashley has the power to change his form.


Sydney never explains why he needs to deceive Hardin about the Key.  I can imagine reasons why, which is good enough for me, but there wasn't ever an explicit reason given.  However, Hardin seems to know quite well that Sydney's father is the Duke, since he mentions it first.


Yeah, so that is what comes to mind immediately.  The rest of it is generally understood, although I did miss a few things the first time through when I misread things or forgot them over time.



 

[Surtur]

Some good questions there, and I don't remember enough to answer all of them (or maybe some of them just don't have answers ), but I'll try to get a few.

I'm going mostly from memory here, though, so my explanation might be a little off.  Anyhoo...

Sydney broke into the Duke's manor, I think, to get ahold of Joshua.  Sydney needed to protect Joshua, because he was the only member of the Bardorba family who hadn't been tainted by the curse of the Blood-Sin.  Sydney and the Duke had to die to cleanse their family of the Sin, and Joshua had to survive, to carry on the family line.
I think.

In the ending, Sydney walks into the Duke's room disguised as Ashley (because he couldn't really walk in there looking like, you know, himself, he'd be arrested), and the Duke kills him (and he disappears), and then dies, with the knife by his bedside.  Of course, now that I think about it, this actually does raise a couple of more questions for me: a) why did everyone assume the Duke was murdered?  I mean, yes, he was dead, and there was a knife nearby, but I don't remember him actually being stabbed, so presumably someone would have noticed that he actually just died of natural causes.  But then, maybe Sydney did stab him, before the Duke stabbed Sydney, I can't remember.  b) Why was the Duke able to kill Sydney, when Guildenstern couldn't?

For the record, IIRC, Sydney's mission wasn't to pass on Lea Monde.  It was to destroy Lea Monde, which would unleash the Dark... unless Sydney found someone to whom he could pass on the burden of carrying it (which he did... namely, Ashley).

That's the best I can do for now, I'll go over the script some more and see if there's anything else I can remember later (unless, I mean, someone else comes along and explains everything before me, which is... probably the more likely scenario).

-Surtur just realized, after going over the details of VS again, that a story he had come up with and was intending to write actually had quite a bit that was subconsciously stolen from VS.  Fuck.  Oh well, I'm still gonna write it, fuck you.

[Myaru]

I'm too lazy to read the script.  ^_^

Of what importance is it to reinforce the idea that the key is something that can be found?

Misdirection.  Guildenstern didn't know where or what the key was either, as far as I remember.  Lying to Hardin and keeping his secret would also deceive anyone who can read Hardin's thoughts as Merlose did in the game.  Sydney was probably just buying time.  I mean, look at how fast Guildenstern snatched him up and skinned him once he found out.  Ouch.

That was probably because they happened to be in the same building at the time, but whatever.

b) Why was the Duke able to kill Sydney, when Guildenstern couldn't?

I was under the impression that Sydney's immortality came from the Blood Sin, or at least that continuing to live was his will (and thus still a product of the Dark).  He had to stay alive to take care of Lea Monde.


This is kind of assumed in fandom, but I wonder if Sydney's initiation to the dark has anything to do with the loss of his limbs.  This page seems to make that fact, but I don't think it was said explicitely in the game.

Or maybe I forgot about it.  It has been a few years.  I'd keep my mouth shut if I had anything else to do.

There are other VS Ultimania translations on that page, if you're interested.  They might answer some of your questions.


Ja.

[Arcana (formerly known as Bob)]

Surtur:

I would normally believe your comments about Joshua as the reason to break into the manor, except that I had already said, "If the Duke and Sydney were in league, why couldn't they just set up an exchange in private?"  You know, send your son off to school, he gets "kidnapped", and then avoid the whole melodramatic Manor Hostage situation?

I actually think that the graphics engine and characters was completed long before the story was finalized, and when they wrote the trailer, it appears that they might have originally intended for the Duke to be killed in the Manor tragedy.  As a result, the player picks up the game a week after the Manor incident tracking down Sydney as an accused man (possibly in a plot that would involve finding Sydney to beat the truth out of him).  At least, if you watch the second trailer in the game, one can see where you might reach that conclusion.  If you read the instruction book, it also mentions that Ashley is "mistakenly accused of murdering the Duke", which is an event that we don't actually see in the game until AFTER you've beaten the game (or if you've watched the first trailer).  Obviously, the instruction book was produced when the trailer was made and was not rewritten when the game was completed.

I think the Duke was assumed murdered just because.  The VKP were looking for an excuse to be able to nail the Duke, and there's a knife by the bedside, and Ashley was seen walking into the room.  Doesn't totally match up, but I think it does well enough for the purpose of the story.  Remember the servant said that "Our Lord has fallen!" and not, "Our lord was murdered!"  Someone added the "murdered" part later.

[SLDFKnight]

I started playing the game last summer. I got past the first area and quit because I couldn't stand the system. Having to play as a guy named Ashley didn't help either. I'll take your word that it was good though.

[Surtur]

I would normally believe your comments about Joshua as the reason to break into the manor, except that I had already said, "If the Duke and Sydney were in league, why couldn't they just set up an exchange in private?" You know, send your son off to school, he gets "kidnapped", and then avoid the whole melodramatic Manor Hostage situation?

Well, the whole point is, the attack on the Manor was pulled off rather hastily.   I mean, Sydney didn't even have anyone yet to pass on the Dark to, when he broke in (maybe he was originally planning to use Hardin...).
The Duke didn't want to destroy Lea Monde until he was on his death bed.  When he realized he was going to die, he realized that he would die carrying all these sins, if Lea Monde was not destroyed.  He didn't know how long he had, so he asked Sydney to take care of it.  Sydney then broke into the Manor to get Joshua and to slip into Lea Monde to destroy it.
This probably also explains the whole Duke's betrayal thing.  Sydney needed to get into the Manor, but couldn't do it alone, and he couldn't just ask his followers to attack an ally for no reason.  So he told them the Duke had betrayed them.  Then they broke into the Manor, Sydney made up some bogus demands, and was probably just hoping to use the whole situation as a diversion so that he, Hardin and Joshua could quietly leave for Lea Monde.  That is, until Ashley showed up and the Blades disobeyed their orders and attacked the Manor, anyway.

Anyway, I think this is right, but again, my memory's a bit fuzzy on VS.

-Surtur, for example, can't remember how Bowser fits into all this.  I think he kidnapped the princess?  I can't remember why, though.

[Arcana (formerly known as Bob)]

While what you say makes sense, Surtur, very little of that content actually went into the game.  We don't see anything in the game that is discussed before the Manor attack - not what the DUke's intentions were, nor what the Duke's betrayal are or what Sydney was planning or how hasty the attack was.

This is something that I'd categorize as incomplete or confusing - it's a pivotal event in the game that I can't understand the motivations behind.  While the rest of Vagrant Story now pretty much makes sense and fits into a gorgeous plot that could be told in an excellent hour and a half movie, the attack on the Manor is the one event that makes me sit and wonder about.  Sure, it's the exposition, for for someone as calculated and cunning as Sydney, you'd think the reason would be better than "he did it in haste", especially when he was working so closely with the Duke in the past.  Vagrant Story's storyline is condensed - it's not like the typical RPG at all where the story is twenty hours long.  As I mentioned, it's like a movie.  I'd compare it to Metal Gear Solid, but even MGS was longer than Vagrant Story and had many more pointless conversations and unnecessary cutscenes.

But while something like Xenogears - convulted and intricate - was woven together such that you generally understand the character's motivations (without having to know the details), I think Vagrant Story's compactness plays against it in this regard.  The reader can't conveniently forget specific facts as easily, or recall a situation more as a set of feelings and emotions instead of a specific event.  After you finish a long game, you can't remember every cutscene in the game - a lot of the times you just remmeber some key moment.  In Vagrant Story, every sequence contributed to the overall end, and the fact that they were never able to explain well the motivation of Mullenkamp to involve themselves in the Manor Attack is, to me, somewhat of a severe oversight.  They brought it up in the game, even, but it was brushed aside.

Even if it was something as simple as, "We staged the attack on the Manor to get Parliament involved", I would have been happy.  It makes something that is previously speculation canon, as improbable or as much of a cop-out the explanation might be.  It makes it feel more complete, if you will.

That's just how I feel about it.  Your explanation makes sense, Surtur, but I think the problem I have with it is that it's a conclusion drawn from facts that are inferred from the game, rather than stated.  That would be fine if it was just some side-story, but as I said, when it's the exposition of the epic, a coincidence that can't be explained isn't a good way to start things.

 

[Surtur]

Well... while I agree that it is a problem that the reasons I gave above had to be inferred instead of taken from information clearly stated in the game itself, I kind of disagree as to the extent of the negative impact you feel this has on the game's storyline.  
I mean, yes, it would definitely have been better if someone in the game had come out and explained what exactly was going on in the Manor, and I agree that it's kind of annoying/confusing that they don't.  But I do feel that these plot holes can be filled in fairly effectively from various bits of information revealed throughout the game, if you're paying close enough attention... and so I think that, in the long run, the fact that Vagrant Story's opening is never satisfactorily expounded upon isn't enough to bring down what is otherwise a really excellent (and, imo, excellently told) story.

But, still, I do understand where you're coming from.  I guess it's just that some plot holes bug some people more than they do others.

-Surtur bugs everyone equally.

[The Dead Reprise]

I started playing the game last summer. I got past the first area and quit because I couldn't stand the system. Having to play as a guy named Ashley didn't help either. I'll take your word that it was good though.

The battle system was one of the elements in the game that  I enjoyed most, the attack chains and defensive chains were something different and pretty awesome imo. The battle system distinguished VS from all other action rpgs i've ever played, it made me want to play it more...the guy's name being Ashley was indeed a little weird, but some how it suites him...you should really try to finish the game it's one of the best stories ever told and one of the best games i've ever played.

[Arcana (formerly known as Bob)]

I got quickly annoyed at how slow it was to change your equipment.  There should have been an option for that in the L2 quick menu.

I must've spent at least 2 hours of the game switching equipment, and maybe another 6 trying to customize it.

Edit: Besides that, the game was pretty awesome.  However, I remember being annoyed when I first played it in 2000 (because I honestly bought it the day that it first came out) that the save points were very few and far in between, and, even worse, your tendency to die right after a boss a rather common occurence.  This was the reason I quit playing the first time around - it took about an hour or two to get  between save points.  I know it gets reduced dramatically as you play (mainly due to the fact that you can start killing things faster when you get weapons with Gems) but it was enough to lock me out during my really busy Summer Semester.

While I know the majority of players here are hardcore and hate the FF fanboy syndrome and the dumbing down of games, there are limits to my patience, and to my time.  If they made a new Vagrant Story, I'd hope to see both an Autosave function AND a Quick-Save function.  And a way to better switch your weapons.  Secret of Mana's Ring Menu would be wickedly awesome for that purpose - hit L2 or something, get the Ring Menu and equip your weapon and set your gems.

Now that I've played it, I'm enjoying it a lot and the game is difficult, but yet makes enough sense that I haven't even really consulted a FAQ about any gameplay or map issues (with the exception of the final boss, and Myaru gave me more information than most of the FAQs did).

[TheContact]

As far as motivation for Sydney's attack on the manor, personally, I really liked the ambiguity.  It throws you in the middle of the action, as though the wheels had already been turning, and it's part of the mystery - you're given much of the story from the viewpoint of Ashley, not as the other characters.  As long as you understand Ashley's motivations, what the other characters do and why need only be explained as far as how it's important to Ashley.

In this case, the storming of the Duke's manor was important to Ashley because it kicked off these events.  He is the one who overhears the conversations in the manor.  That's where the story starts off (technically it starts off with Ashley being told of his assignment and the political play taking place in the opening cutscene).

Once Ashley is in the manor, you get little snippets of events taking place at that time, only enough to give an idea and interest about other character's motivations, but not so much that it takes away from your sharing a point of view with the main character.

In fact, the game was clearly meant entirely as an exposition to a larger story arc.  In many ways, it's like Xenosaga Ep 1.  The key difference for me though was that a story arc was actually completed in Vagrant Story - Ashley's inheritance of the dark and becoming a vagrant.  I could only assume that more about Mullenkamp, the Dark's lineage, and Ashley's role in all of it would be further examined in a sequel (it's implied by the ending of the game, anyway).

In fact, the ambiguity is played up as part of Ashley's point of view.  Was his family kiled? Did he kill a family? What really happened - you don't really know.  It doesn't matter, because regardless of what really happened, Ashley's burden will not be lifted.  It's very much like Spike in Cowboy Bebop, where the character's past is important only in that it happened, and shapes the character's point of view, but the precise details are left only as colored afterimages, or snippets from the character's memory.

I relate to that because memories really feel that way.  As time goes on , I don't remember specific details, only snippets and fealings.  They're not accurate at all.  Ashley not being able to remember his immediate past makes it much more like it was his distant past - and the events at Lea Monde give him a clean break.  Whatever happened before, he is the man he is now by the actions he takes.

Anyway, I'm decending into a ramble, but I guess the point of what I'm saying is that the ambiguities they left were ones I don't mind them leaving - in fact, I think it gives it a sense of style that I particularly enjoy. I'm being shown an experience colored by the perspective of the main character, not just told a story through traditional narration.

It's probably not for everyone, but it's a style that speaks volumes to me.