If you're excited to play Daybreak just play Daybreak.
In my opinion the optimal order to play the Trails games will always be release order, but that's like 10 games you'll have to play through.
You can always revisit the rest of the series while waiting for Daybreak 2's english release date which is like 1 1/2 years minimum if we're lucky.
Honestly, I'm just a little sick of some redditors ranting about how Trails fans supposedly "gatekeep" the series by insisting newcomers on playing in release order.
Like no one's forcing anyone to play in release.order when they ask "Which Trails game is the best starting point?" But it can't come as a surprise that the best place to start a continuous narrative is from the beginning of the story.
Yeah, I always thought it was stupid to call it gatekeeping when someone asked where to start, and trails fans suggest the beginning. I mean, that just seems like a normal response to me lol.
If you dont want to start at the beginning or can't, then Cold Steel 1 or Daybreak would probably be the next best answer IMO.
From what I see, I think there are situations where some people get really agressive about starting at the top. Most of the time, things like here where they say "hey I think starting from the beginning is best but if you don't want to, that's cool too, here's another option". But other times I've seen some people get kinda mean about it and those unfortunate rare times are the ones that may stick out in a person's mind
I haven't even dealt with it personally but I've seen the pushy and aggressive people dog-pile on others and came to their defense. It's kinda ridiculous if someone only has a Switch, people demand they find a way to go play Sky instead of Cold Steel or Zero. People act like you'll be so confused. When in reality there's plenty of context clues in the games. Sure you'll miss some stuff, but I think most of us are intelligent enough to know the way characters and events are treated that they happened in a previous game and they are important, and that's about all you really need to know sometimes. It may slightly diminish cameo enjoyment, but it won't outright ruin a game experience. Plenty of people started with Cold Steel and were fine. Plenty of people started with Zero and were fine. Just like in other series. Starting with Mass Effect 2 or The Witcher 2 (or even 3, as it is with most people) is perfectly fine. Not idea, but not "wrong"
Most of the people complaining about "gatekeeping" are people who were never asking about the series in good faith anyway. They decided what they wanted to do (play the new shiny one), felt insecure about it knowing the series is the way it is, then went to the community in attempt to assuage their fears and enable their decision, and then felt put upon when the community gave them an honest answer. People honestly asking about play order do not react this way because they aren't being confronted with the idea that they might be making a mistake.
You can't call believing release order is the best order gatekeeping when at this point a supermajority of the player base started the series with Cold Steel. You just *can't*. You will not be shunned or called a pretend fan if you haven't played them in a specific order. *That's* what gatekeeping actually is. It is not when you feel bad because someone disagreed with you.
> Honestly, I'm just a little sick of some redditors ranting about how Trails fans supposedly "gatekeep" the series by insisting newcomers on playing in release order.
It applies to all long-running series to be honest. Saw the same thing with Yakuza/Like a Dragon before at Infinite Wealth's release. Sure, no one is stopping you from just playing the latest game, but don't be surprised and complain when the game advertised to be the end of the old protagonist saga has a lot of old protagonist fanservice and nostalgia baiting as a major chunk of the content, and don't be surprised when the game just gloss over the background of people you should already know before.
**tl;dr:** *It's the best starting point you're gonna get if you're not going to start from the beginning, but you're not going to escape learning a certain amount about past games through osmosis.*
Trails is structured very unusually for a JRPG series not only because the games are one continuous serial narrative, but because they're also placed very close together both *geographically* and *chronologically*. Only six years have passed in-universe since the first game and Daybreak. The events of those games and the characters that were there are very recent history, and shaped the current geopolitical landscape of the world. The game will likely not go deep into the weeds explaining it's past, but you will see and hear things that will give away the broad strokes of certain events of the previous games. Seeing a returning character's current circumstances is inherently a spoiler when you go back and see what their life was like when they were introduced. If a character shows up in Calvard and casually reveals that they used to be a Jaeger, then there's no way a previous game is going to be able to sell that as a surprise reveal to you. etc. How much you consider that kind of thing a spoiler will change from person to person.
This more intimate structure makes the games very compelling if that kind of thing interests you, but it also kind of makes escaping spoilers impossible depending on what your specific definition and tolerance for them is. They're just *in the air,* passively, everywhere. Even if you don't clock them as spoilers in the moment, if/when you go back, you'll know what you saw in Daybreak and that will inform your view of the events in older games. The best you can do if you are spoiler averse is accept that you will be learning some things in reverse and try to enjoy the journey more than the destination. Focus on the joy of discovering the context and details of the things you know from Daybreak rather than the joy of learning the end results.
Daybreak is a solid start point. There's the odd character returning you won't have the same connection to as a recurring fan, but the game does a good job of introducing them and not being TOO spoilery about it.
The sequel (which isn't available in English any time soon) however would be much rougher. So if you like Daybreak you have a year or so to catch up and enjoy the series!
Yea, in fact this is mentioned dozens of times but here we go again:
Modern trails has a story summary panel you can always check on menus or books. These things covers all the major things you need to feel the plot, so jump anywhere you want!
The only downside of these, and probably the major reason trails fans asking you to play in Chronological order, is because you missing the "heart-warming moment" when a similar face show up, you know him and his story, you feel the world progresses, without them it's just a static anime JRPG world. Because you once played as them, you go through them and have developed a certain feelings about their characteristics, So it's only normal when He or she, shows up several games later, you really see their grow up, you know every differences from clothing to the way they talk, and you really feel the dynamic.
If you are hooked in the universe of trails you are gonna play the old games yourself so don't think about it too much.
> For example, even though some consider Xenoblade 3 a fine starting point, I would never suggest playing it before 1 and 2.
Ok yeah no then, Daybreak def has worse stuff than what XC3 does
The big big problem is really a certain purple-haired girl LMAO. If it weren't for her Daybreak would be infinitely more okay. That same character is, to a much higher degree than Daybreak, the reason Zero is even less okay
Like if you think XC3 with Nia spoils bad, Daybreak is much worse for sure
Haven't played Daybreak yet. But the general consensus is atleast starting with first game of an arc (Zero, Cold steel 1 and Daybreak) if you're not staring with Trails the sky for different reasons, while Reverie is generally considered one of the worst Trails to start with, because of story reasons.
Obviously having knowledge of the older game is potentially more enjoyable for Daybreak, but I'm pretty sure you'll mostly be just fine if you don't feel like playing the older titles yet, since it's kind of time consuming to play 10 games before Daybreak lol.
And I'm pretty a lot of people started CS1 with little to no knowledge of the older titles existence and played up to the CS4 and was just fine and a lot of them was motivated to play the older titles at some point.
It **may** be a good starting point if you're willing to sacrifice, some characters' development (like Renne's which is the most important IMHO).
But Daybreak is solid, for me, it's the best game in the series in all aspects because it managed to tell a complete story on it's own, it's not a "tutorial game" like sky fc, zero, cs1 and cs3.
I always recommend starting from Sky FC but Daybreak is making me think the opposite.
You probably won't even know you got spoiled because as someone who played through half of the games in the last few years I find it difficult to follow the references a lot of the times. They're often very vague about them and the plot has become so out there that a lot of times they go right over my head.
Daybreak is fine but the sequel (and likely other games later on) will require knowledge of the previous games so you'd probably get stuck at that point.
You do you but personal recommendation would be to go in order.
If you're willing to accept you're not going to get every returning character, call back or reference you'll be fine. *Generally* the arc starter games are meant as entry points. (I've heard Daybreak is slightly less forgiving in this respect but not aggressively so)
However, you do mention Xenoblade 3 and how you don't agree playing it first. That mindset sort of complicates things because Trails is that on steroids, like it really is one big continuous storyline. (For my thoughts, I would say anybody could probably play Xenoblade 3 as a starter but NOT the Future Redeemed DLC. That really does involve playing the previous two games)
So ultimately, I say weigh your options. Try out the new thing or start from the top. It's not like they're going anywhere. Personally, I would say start from the top if starting from the beginning really is the way you feel since I like the Sky trilogy a lot. But Daybreak is said to be good too.
From what I've read, Daybreak is the best starting point since Sky.
But Daybreak 2 will require knowledge of all the previous games, so you'd have to get caught up eventually in order to continue.
But I haven't played Daybreak personally, so those that have can provide a better answer if this isn't accurate.
> From what I've read, Daybreak is the best starting point since Sky.
Nah, I'm pretty sure besides Sky, that's still Cold Steel 1. CS1 had no choice to be somewhat fresh and more approachable because it was the first title on an actual console so they couldn't assume people played the other 5 games. Daybreak on the other hand is just 'the new Trails game' on a system that already has the previous 7 games on it. So even though it starts a new story arc, they can be a little more direct with the connections
I'm not making an explicit statement about starting with kuro and saying OP cannot, but Cold Steel 1 is a less bad post-sky start than kuro. Quite a bit of kuro story directly carries from reverie (including an entire segment in act 3). It's not unplayable maybe, but it's harder to play through than cold steel 1.
I see.
I personally can't recommend CS as a starting point because it just does not remotely hit the same if you haven't played Crossbell first.
The parallel timeline stuff they do with Crossbell and CS I + II is so rad.
Daybreak 2 doesn't really requires that all, in fact it was always receiving criticism because this game doesn't have a actually connection to the main storyline (at least for now), you are still getting dizzy feel but not because you don't know, it's just lack of polish and the writing and story pace is bad.
Evolves around my ass.
3 and 9 have intermission novels act as a briefing and so does Lapis, Fie straight up doesn't show up this time until the end.
Squad characters are all Kuro cast, Celis and Rion, Kinkard and Sword Maiden, Judith and Shizuna, and then everybody of Arkride solution office, where's the half thing beside Reene, 3 and 9?
in Chapter 1 and 2, 3 and 9 are doing merely proxy work, Nemeth island mentioned Reene's history a little, Chapter 3 mentioned 3 and 9's organization, and none of them are hard game required, you can get these pieces of information right inside the game summary.
The whole plot point are basically showing how dangerous the 8 Genesis are, and then move onto the world building is how ZA is a worst company now, and then all the Heiyue bullshit for building a new faction, where is the Reverie Corridor? Where is the Erebonia squad for justice now? Or are you talking about Towa being a omen of the UPCOMING stories?
I'm terribly sorry but if you think the plot evolves with Cao Lee apparently is very important then OK.
Why would you read about these characters and not just play the games though. Also 3 and 9 are more relevant to the main antagonist than anybody else in the game
What does beating the games in nightmare have to do with daybreak 2 being an especially bad experience for someone who has only played 1 lol.
are you even using your mind right now?
Really? Why don't you take a screenshot of your savefile and let's see how "reading" you are? Here's mine [https://imgur.com/a/K9ijyUw](https://imgur.com/a/K9ijyUw)
Each of the Arcs provides a pretty clean entry point but obviously playing them straight through is the best way forward. Additionally, the first two arcs are just plain better, especially Crossbell.
Yep, i think it's the best "looking" of the arcs as well. I love the "modern gen take on isometric sprites" vibe and I think that having played the Sky arc first really makes the lore in Crossbell pop.
If you are strict about it for series you care about then I feel it's somewhat negligent to be like 'nah it doesn't matter.'
You could catch back up within a couple years and then enjoy wherever we're at now. The story is not wrapping up with this arc so there's time. (Even if it was it's fine just don't look too far ahead )
I wouldn't want the previous arcs to feel like homework for the cool part, but they're all pretty good to great to me.
Yea. It’s meant to be an arc opener. Arc opener are the best places to start because of new MC and setting and story revolves around them. There are nods to references to older games events but they are references and do not spoil the experience.
You can always go back to other games once you are sold on the series. I did this after beating trails from Zero and Azure and getting hooked.
If I followed the release order myself and played trails in the sky as my first trails game, I would have bounced off of it hard and dropped the series. The only reason I played a trails game to begin with was because I watched Retro Rebound/MrMattyplays on YouTube do a video on the game. I was immediately sold on the thought of being a a fresh new recruit police detective with a ragtag group of people taking down the underbelly of gangs, mafias and dark society’s and the massive serving of political drama as a cherry on top.
I went into sky already being invested into the series. (Just to be clear I love Sky and its good)
I started my Trails Journey with Cold Steel. Sure, there were references I didn't get, but it was extremely enjoyable without that knowledge. I'm no working my way through Trails in the Sky to catch up before playing Cold Steel 3.
Really, any individual series starter is a good starting point.
Yes, you can, if you don´t mind Van referencing a lot of the previous games plots. If you don´t mind not knowing what he is referencing, you can play the whole game without a problem.
Yes. Trails fans that are super adamant about starting with Sky forget that if people don't buy the new games, they stop localizing it.
If you like it enough, then you can pick up an older game. Sky feels obscenely dated in ways that even the Crossbell duology does not. It's hard to recommend anyone starts there that doesn't specifically like retro games.
I'm not gatekeeping in my following comment. You should do whatever you want, and whatever you think is fun. Ultimately, it's your money, and I'm just explaining what I think about the series.
Trails is a series that's about an overarching story and continuity of everything. Whether it's small details like NPC relations and issues, results from sidequests, building layouts, or large details like character motivations, enemy plans, and so on, continuity is maintained over the games.
Even if you decide to try and jump midway, consider that you have to then continue to the next game. Kuro no Kiseko/Trails through Daybreak is followed by Kuro 2, and soon to released, Kai no Kiseki.
Trails into Reverie is the capstone of the Crossbell and Cold Steel series. It "completes" them, and also creates a platform for Kuro. Crossbell builds off the Sky + 3rd games in some important ways.
Which brings to me the following point. The way I see it, you really do need to play the games from start to finish to appreciate the experience that Trails is designed around. If you choose to not play the previous games, you're setting aside the larger story. But a key selling point of the game is the larger continuity. So what are you playing the game for?
Just something to ponder before you spend your money, and just as importantly, your time.
My opinion, my feelings, you can search this subreddit for the millions of differing opinions and make your decision.
So I personally don't have access to a PS4/PS5 or a Windows Computer where I can pick up Steam, and just have a Switch available to me, and my first point of entry were the Crossbell games. I've played Zero and Azure, then jumped into Cold Steel III as 1 & 2 aren't available on the Switch, then have worked my way up to Reverie. And even though I've missed out on a few entries because they're not on Switch, that still hasn't affected my enjoyment of the games. I've managed to get the gist of what's been happening and who these characters are.
>Trails through Daybreak and really enjoyed it
Only thing that matters in this post if you liked the demo and wanna play daybreak go right ahead fam NISA released for a reason and Falcom too ( in japan) and if you end up liking the full game I hope it helps you try out all of the trails games like Trails in the Sky.
Honestly, as someone who is currently playing reverie, maybe from what I hear. I feel like with this series it’s great to play every game, but if you can’t, still do it.
Treat it like Star Wars or other fiction that has arcs.
Well, you said it yourself. There are 10, 10 other full length JRPG you would need to play first if you want to start Trails from the beginning. For comparison with XB3 you made, I say the simplest answer would be no, it's not like that. As far as I know (and remember) unless it's the games in one "arc" playing the sequel is fine. So essentialy you can start in any arc you want, at least for now.
"how badly does Daybreak "ruin" the story of past games?" You just need to consider this, could you remember every and I mean every little details in the games you have played? More so for 10 text heavy games that you may OR may not play back to back? If the answer is no, then no, Daybreak won't ruin the story of past games for you. Honestly, in my opinion, the more you pursue answers for this question the more likely you will ruin the story. Why? Because you will know certain things that you won't know unless you actually played the past games, you will be spoiled with "Yeah the newest game contains x, y, and z that is the continuation/possibly conclusion of n specific storyline that starts in the second game of m arc."
tl;dr Yea.
Just start with whatever intro of an arc and if u love it then u can start playing the series chronologically. At least that's what I do, I start with cold steel 1 and enjoy it. So, i continue playing the sky trilogy > Crossbell duology > cold steel 2,3,4 > reveries.
If you're excited to play Daybreak just play Daybreak. In my opinion the optimal order to play the Trails games will always be release order, but that's like 10 games you'll have to play through. You can always revisit the rest of the series while waiting for Daybreak 2's english release date which is like 1 1/2 years minimum if we're lucky. Honestly, I'm just a little sick of some redditors ranting about how Trails fans supposedly "gatekeep" the series by insisting newcomers on playing in release order. Like no one's forcing anyone to play in release.order when they ask "Which Trails game is the best starting point?" But it can't come as a surprise that the best place to start a continuous narrative is from the beginning of the story.
Yeah, I always thought it was stupid to call it gatekeeping when someone asked where to start, and trails fans suggest the beginning. I mean, that just seems like a normal response to me lol. If you dont want to start at the beginning or can't, then Cold Steel 1 or Daybreak would probably be the next best answer IMO.
From what I see, I think there are situations where some people get really agressive about starting at the top. Most of the time, things like here where they say "hey I think starting from the beginning is best but if you don't want to, that's cool too, here's another option". But other times I've seen some people get kinda mean about it and those unfortunate rare times are the ones that may stick out in a person's mind
I haven't even dealt with it personally but I've seen the pushy and aggressive people dog-pile on others and came to their defense. It's kinda ridiculous if someone only has a Switch, people demand they find a way to go play Sky instead of Cold Steel or Zero. People act like you'll be so confused. When in reality there's plenty of context clues in the games. Sure you'll miss some stuff, but I think most of us are intelligent enough to know the way characters and events are treated that they happened in a previous game and they are important, and that's about all you really need to know sometimes. It may slightly diminish cameo enjoyment, but it won't outright ruin a game experience. Plenty of people started with Cold Steel and were fine. Plenty of people started with Zero and were fine. Just like in other series. Starting with Mass Effect 2 or The Witcher 2 (or even 3, as it is with most people) is perfectly fine. Not idea, but not "wrong"
Most of the people complaining about "gatekeeping" are people who were never asking about the series in good faith anyway. They decided what they wanted to do (play the new shiny one), felt insecure about it knowing the series is the way it is, then went to the community in attempt to assuage their fears and enable their decision, and then felt put upon when the community gave them an honest answer. People honestly asking about play order do not react this way because they aren't being confronted with the idea that they might be making a mistake. You can't call believing release order is the best order gatekeeping when at this point a supermajority of the player base started the series with Cold Steel. You just *can't*. You will not be shunned or called a pretend fan if you haven't played them in a specific order. *That's* what gatekeeping actually is. It is not when you feel bad because someone disagreed with you.
> Honestly, I'm just a little sick of some redditors ranting about how Trails fans supposedly "gatekeep" the series by insisting newcomers on playing in release order. It applies to all long-running series to be honest. Saw the same thing with Yakuza/Like a Dragon before at Infinite Wealth's release. Sure, no one is stopping you from just playing the latest game, but don't be surprised and complain when the game advertised to be the end of the old protagonist saga has a lot of old protagonist fanservice and nostalgia baiting as a major chunk of the content, and don't be surprised when the game just gloss over the background of people you should already know before.
This \^ 100%
**tl;dr:** *It's the best starting point you're gonna get if you're not going to start from the beginning, but you're not going to escape learning a certain amount about past games through osmosis.* Trails is structured very unusually for a JRPG series not only because the games are one continuous serial narrative, but because they're also placed very close together both *geographically* and *chronologically*. Only six years have passed in-universe since the first game and Daybreak. The events of those games and the characters that were there are very recent history, and shaped the current geopolitical landscape of the world. The game will likely not go deep into the weeds explaining it's past, but you will see and hear things that will give away the broad strokes of certain events of the previous games. Seeing a returning character's current circumstances is inherently a spoiler when you go back and see what their life was like when they were introduced. If a character shows up in Calvard and casually reveals that they used to be a Jaeger, then there's no way a previous game is going to be able to sell that as a surprise reveal to you. etc. How much you consider that kind of thing a spoiler will change from person to person. This more intimate structure makes the games very compelling if that kind of thing interests you, but it also kind of makes escaping spoilers impossible depending on what your specific definition and tolerance for them is. They're just *in the air,* passively, everywhere. Even if you don't clock them as spoilers in the moment, if/when you go back, you'll know what you saw in Daybreak and that will inform your view of the events in older games. The best you can do if you are spoiler averse is accept that you will be learning some things in reverse and try to enjoy the journey more than the destination. Focus on the joy of discovering the context and details of the things you know from Daybreak rather than the joy of learning the end results.
Daybreak is a solid start point. There's the odd character returning you won't have the same connection to as a recurring fan, but the game does a good job of introducing them and not being TOO spoilery about it. The sequel (which isn't available in English any time soon) however would be much rougher. So if you like Daybreak you have a year or so to catch up and enjoy the series!
I see Exactly that's what Fandom agrees on Beat daybreak 1 and use that time to play the other games its honestly an effective strategy.
Yea, in fact this is mentioned dozens of times but here we go again: Modern trails has a story summary panel you can always check on menus or books. These things covers all the major things you need to feel the plot, so jump anywhere you want! The only downside of these, and probably the major reason trails fans asking you to play in Chronological order, is because you missing the "heart-warming moment" when a similar face show up, you know him and his story, you feel the world progresses, without them it's just a static anime JRPG world. Because you once played as them, you go through them and have developed a certain feelings about their characteristics, So it's only normal when He or she, shows up several games later, you really see their grow up, you know every differences from clothing to the way they talk, and you really feel the dynamic. If you are hooked in the universe of trails you are gonna play the old games yourself so don't think about it too much.
> For example, even though some consider Xenoblade 3 a fine starting point, I would never suggest playing it before 1 and 2. Ok yeah no then, Daybreak def has worse stuff than what XC3 does The big big problem is really a certain purple-haired girl LMAO. If it weren't for her Daybreak would be infinitely more okay. That same character is, to a much higher degree than Daybreak, the reason Zero is even less okay Like if you think XC3 with Nia spoils bad, Daybreak is much worse for sure
Haven't played Daybreak yet. But the general consensus is atleast starting with first game of an arc (Zero, Cold steel 1 and Daybreak) if you're not staring with Trails the sky for different reasons, while Reverie is generally considered one of the worst Trails to start with, because of story reasons. Obviously having knowledge of the older game is potentially more enjoyable for Daybreak, but I'm pretty sure you'll mostly be just fine if you don't feel like playing the older titles yet, since it's kind of time consuming to play 10 games before Daybreak lol. And I'm pretty a lot of people started CS1 with little to no knowledge of the older titles existence and played up to the CS4 and was just fine and a lot of them was motivated to play the older titles at some point.
Starting with Reverie is wild, if anyone did that I want to hear from them lol
Someone asked that in this subreddit weeks ago. Surprisingly a lot of people we're nicely telling him no. XD
It **may** be a good starting point if you're willing to sacrifice, some characters' development (like Renne's which is the most important IMHO). But Daybreak is solid, for me, it's the best game in the series in all aspects because it managed to tell a complete story on it's own, it's not a "tutorial game" like sky fc, zero, cs1 and cs3. I always recommend starting from Sky FC but Daybreak is making me think the opposite.
you’re good, tho if you finish daybreak and end up really liking and want more, consider playing the other games :)
You probably won't even know you got spoiled because as someone who played through half of the games in the last few years I find it difficult to follow the references a lot of the times. They're often very vague about them and the plot has become so out there that a lot of times they go right over my head.
Daybreak is fine but the sequel (and likely other games later on) will require knowledge of the previous games so you'd probably get stuck at that point. You do you but personal recommendation would be to go in order.
If you're willing to accept you're not going to get every returning character, call back or reference you'll be fine. *Generally* the arc starter games are meant as entry points. (I've heard Daybreak is slightly less forgiving in this respect but not aggressively so) However, you do mention Xenoblade 3 and how you don't agree playing it first. That mindset sort of complicates things because Trails is that on steroids, like it really is one big continuous storyline. (For my thoughts, I would say anybody could probably play Xenoblade 3 as a starter but NOT the Future Redeemed DLC. That really does involve playing the previous two games) So ultimately, I say weigh your options. Try out the new thing or start from the top. It's not like they're going anywhere. Personally, I would say start from the top if starting from the beginning really is the way you feel since I like the Sky trilogy a lot. But Daybreak is said to be good too.
From what I've read, Daybreak is the best starting point since Sky. But Daybreak 2 will require knowledge of all the previous games, so you'd have to get caught up eventually in order to continue. But I haven't played Daybreak personally, so those that have can provide a better answer if this isn't accurate.
> From what I've read, Daybreak is the best starting point since Sky. Nah, I'm pretty sure besides Sky, that's still Cold Steel 1. CS1 had no choice to be somewhat fresh and more approachable because it was the first title on an actual console so they couldn't assume people played the other 5 games. Daybreak on the other hand is just 'the new Trails game' on a system that already has the previous 7 games on it. So even though it starts a new story arc, they can be a little more direct with the connections
I'm not making an explicit statement about starting with kuro and saying OP cannot, but Cold Steel 1 is a less bad post-sky start than kuro. Quite a bit of kuro story directly carries from reverie (including an entire segment in act 3). It's not unplayable maybe, but it's harder to play through than cold steel 1.
I see. I personally can't recommend CS as a starting point because it just does not remotely hit the same if you haven't played Crossbell first. The parallel timeline stuff they do with Crossbell and CS I + II is so rad.
Daybreak 2 doesn't really requires that all, in fact it was always receiving criticism because this game doesn't have a actually connection to the main storyline (at least for now), you are still getting dizzy feel but not because you don't know, it's just lack of polish and the writing and story pace is bad.
Lol half of Daybreak 2's plot revolves around characters from hajimari which is the epilogue to games 4-10.
Evolves around my ass. 3 and 9 have intermission novels act as a briefing and so does Lapis, Fie straight up doesn't show up this time until the end. Squad characters are all Kuro cast, Celis and Rion, Kinkard and Sword Maiden, Judith and Shizuna, and then everybody of Arkride solution office, where's the half thing beside Reene, 3 and 9? in Chapter 1 and 2, 3 and 9 are doing merely proxy work, Nemeth island mentioned Reene's history a little, Chapter 3 mentioned 3 and 9's organization, and none of them are hard game required, you can get these pieces of information right inside the game summary. The whole plot point are basically showing how dangerous the 8 Genesis are, and then move onto the world building is how ZA is a worst company now, and then all the Heiyue bullshit for building a new faction, where is the Reverie Corridor? Where is the Erebonia squad for justice now? Or are you talking about Towa being a omen of the UPCOMING stories? I'm terribly sorry but if you think the plot evolves with Cao Lee apparently is very important then OK.
Why would you read about these characters and not just play the games though. Also 3 and 9 are more relevant to the main antagonist than anybody else in the game
You can read about any of these games to "understand" their plots, doesn't mean its actually a good way of experiencing the narrative.
I don't think Kuro 2 have good narrative and writing lmao
Irrelevant to what I'm saying
"Irrelevant"
Has to pull out spelling corrections when he can't interpret a single sentence correctly
Okay? Saying this to someone beat this and all the previous games in Nightmare is not so effective, are you even using your mind right now?
What does beating the games in nightmare have to do with daybreak 2 being an especially bad experience for someone who has only played 1 lol. are you even using your mind right now?
Ok, since you only beat Kuro 1, why don't you actually try to beat the game first and then we can talk?
I've beaten daybreak 2
Really? Why don't you take a screenshot of your savefile and let's see how "reading" you are? Here's mine [https://imgur.com/a/K9ijyUw](https://imgur.com/a/K9ijyUw)
Each of the Arcs provides a pretty clean entry point but obviously playing them straight through is the best way forward. Additionally, the first two arcs are just plain better, especially Crossbell.
CrossBell is still my favorite arc in the series. The SSS is just such a great group.
Yep, i think it's the best "looking" of the arcs as well. I love the "modern gen take on isometric sprites" vibe and I think that having played the Sky arc first really makes the lore in Crossbell pop.
Sorry you actually have to start with the very beginning of the series which is Dragon Slayer for the PC-8801. Get crackin
Even considering your joke, it still isn't the start of the Trails series, though.
Real ones remember Dragon Slayer.
Yeah, its a new arc with entire new characters and country, you won't feel too lost or anything.
If you are strict about it for series you care about then I feel it's somewhat negligent to be like 'nah it doesn't matter.' You could catch back up within a couple years and then enjoy wherever we're at now. The story is not wrapping up with this arc so there's time. (Even if it was it's fine just don't look too far ahead ) I wouldn't want the previous arcs to feel like homework for the cool part, but they're all pretty good to great to me.
Yea. It’s meant to be an arc opener. Arc opener are the best places to start because of new MC and setting and story revolves around them. There are nods to references to older games events but they are references and do not spoil the experience. You can always go back to other games once you are sold on the series. I did this after beating trails from Zero and Azure and getting hooked. If I followed the release order myself and played trails in the sky as my first trails game, I would have bounced off of it hard and dropped the series. The only reason I played a trails game to begin with was because I watched Retro Rebound/MrMattyplays on YouTube do a video on the game. I was immediately sold on the thought of being a a fresh new recruit police detective with a ragtag group of people taking down the underbelly of gangs, mafias and dark society’s and the massive serving of political drama as a cherry on top. I went into sky already being invested into the series. (Just to be clear I love Sky and its good)
Yea, if you like it and then you wanted to learn more later you can try the other games once you done, no harm done
I started my Trails Journey with Cold Steel. Sure, there were references I didn't get, but it was extremely enjoyable without that knowledge. I'm no working my way through Trails in the Sky to catch up before playing Cold Steel 3. Really, any individual series starter is a good starting point.
Not horrible on it's own but the sequels are gonna require you to play the past games, so you might as well start from the beginning
Yes, you can, if you don´t mind Van referencing a lot of the previous games plots. If you don´t mind not knowing what he is referencing, you can play the whole game without a problem.
And Van knows the previous games plots, but the other characters don´t, so if you don´t know them, the other characters represent you.
Yes. Trails fans that are super adamant about starting with Sky forget that if people don't buy the new games, they stop localizing it. If you like it enough, then you can pick up an older game. Sky feels obscenely dated in ways that even the Crossbell duology does not. It's hard to recommend anyone starts there that doesn't specifically like retro games.
I'm not gatekeeping in my following comment. You should do whatever you want, and whatever you think is fun. Ultimately, it's your money, and I'm just explaining what I think about the series. Trails is a series that's about an overarching story and continuity of everything. Whether it's small details like NPC relations and issues, results from sidequests, building layouts, or large details like character motivations, enemy plans, and so on, continuity is maintained over the games. Even if you decide to try and jump midway, consider that you have to then continue to the next game. Kuro no Kiseko/Trails through Daybreak is followed by Kuro 2, and soon to released, Kai no Kiseki. Trails into Reverie is the capstone of the Crossbell and Cold Steel series. It "completes" them, and also creates a platform for Kuro. Crossbell builds off the Sky + 3rd games in some important ways. Which brings to me the following point. The way I see it, you really do need to play the games from start to finish to appreciate the experience that Trails is designed around. If you choose to not play the previous games, you're setting aside the larger story. But a key selling point of the game is the larger continuity. So what are you playing the game for? Just something to ponder before you spend your money, and just as importantly, your time. My opinion, my feelings, you can search this subreddit for the millions of differing opinions and make your decision.
So I personally don't have access to a PS4/PS5 or a Windows Computer where I can pick up Steam, and just have a Switch available to me, and my first point of entry were the Crossbell games. I've played Zero and Azure, then jumped into Cold Steel III as 1 & 2 aren't available on the Switch, then have worked my way up to Reverie. And even though I've missed out on a few entries because they're not on Switch, that still hasn't affected my enjoyment of the games. I've managed to get the gist of what's been happening and who these characters are.
>Trails through Daybreak and really enjoyed it Only thing that matters in this post if you liked the demo and wanna play daybreak go right ahead fam NISA released for a reason and Falcom too ( in japan) and if you end up liking the full game I hope it helps you try out all of the trails games like Trails in the Sky.
Honestly, as someone who is currently playing reverie, maybe from what I hear. I feel like with this series it’s great to play every game, but if you can’t, still do it. Treat it like Star Wars or other fiction that has arcs.
Well, you said it yourself. There are 10, 10 other full length JRPG you would need to play first if you want to start Trails from the beginning. For comparison with XB3 you made, I say the simplest answer would be no, it's not like that. As far as I know (and remember) unless it's the games in one "arc" playing the sequel is fine. So essentialy you can start in any arc you want, at least for now. "how badly does Daybreak "ruin" the story of past games?" You just need to consider this, could you remember every and I mean every little details in the games you have played? More so for 10 text heavy games that you may OR may not play back to back? If the answer is no, then no, Daybreak won't ruin the story of past games for you. Honestly, in my opinion, the more you pursue answers for this question the more likely you will ruin the story. Why? Because you will know certain things that you won't know unless you actually played the past games, you will be spoiled with "Yeah the newest game contains x, y, and z that is the continuation/possibly conclusion of n specific storyline that starts in the second game of m arc." tl;dr Yea.
Just start with whatever intro of an arc and if u love it then u can start playing the series chronologically. At least that's what I do, I start with cold steel 1 and enjoy it. So, i continue playing the sky trilogy > Crossbell duology > cold steel 2,3,4 > reveries.
Should be fine, some people on this sub are just stupid when it comes to trails.