Thoul wrote:In PSI, Motavia is the closest planet to the sun and Palma is second. When PSII came around, that was reversed - Palma was closest with Motavia being the second planet. There are two "official" explanations for the switch that totally contradict each other.
The PS Compendium book unofficial translation says an alignment of all three planets caused those two to change orbits. These changes, it claims, resulted in a huge disaster that destroyed cities and wiped out the government.
A more recent explanation comes from Sega of Japan's website (via online translators) and says Motavia has an elliptical orbit that causes it to periodically move behind Palma has it has in PSII. There's no disaster, no cities leveled; it just naturally happens every so often.
Which of these do you think is a better explanation? Is there a better one?
I think they're both pretty weak, but the second argument is better. The terraforming of Motavia is a sufficient explanation for such a different landscape between the first and second games, but it would be highly difficult for a planet with such an unusual orbit to even be able to sustain life. I suppose Mother Brain could manage it, but we aren't given enough information.
I'd think that if the planets swapped spots during an alignment, that the destruction afterward wouldn't allow for a society that becomes more advanced between PSI-II, even if it did come from the outside. I'd think there'd be global catastrophes, possibly worse than the "Great Collapse" that we see the results of in PSIV. It would've been nice to see Palma in PSII, to see if there were sign s of devastation on it.
Another question: how does Dezolis come in? I don't have a comparison of it in all three games, but I remember the map being extraordinarily different in all three. Didn't Esper Mansion move from one side of Skure to the other?
"Impossible is just a word people use to make themselves feel better when they quit." Vyse, Skies of Arcadia Legends.