- 5,122
- 2,627
The thing about the examples you mention and "twice the attack rate" is that your examples are directly shown or stated in the series and can therefore be accepted as things for whom real life logic doesn't quite apply to the same way like we generally do with fiction whereas the same cannot be said about two Keyblades doubling the attack rate. For anyone with any clear knowledge about the difficulties with dual wielding at all it's an incredibly unintuitive conclusion to make. The literal meaning of the term attack power and the showcase of increased strength with Roxas and Sora are by comparison far more directly derivable based on what we know and see and doesn't come with an unstated and undemonstrated contradiction with real life logic.I don't like to use realistic implications use a method of judgement, with this logic keyblades would be shitty weapons and a lot of other stuff made to look cool would be dangerous, unnecessary, not convenient etc., we are talking about a verse that heavily plunges into fantasy when it comes to combat, using real life logic to push for something is something I won't accept, especially when the original information is vague and comes from a secondary source.
At this point we are just bashing out heads onto each other's with the same arguments, this can only be solved with votes.
Peter Pan's inconsistent affair might be solved with a varies or a combination of likely/possibly for the ratings, it might be more consistent due to making sense in two games over one, but it there still is a discrepancy.
You can use in-verse perspective if this is stated, mentioned or referred in the games. Just because Drive forms are suddenly unavailable in the next game, it doesn't mean the characters actually realized they have better powers and discarded them, or just forgot how to use it.
I could make many examples of series changing mechanics, movesets and stuff from a game to another, but in-verse comparison should be made only if the story or the lore actually supports this with solid evidences.
Taking the portrayals of two games over that of one single game would generally be more consistent with the series itself. Alternatively you could think of the showings from the two games as a kind of retcon to the perceived level of power they display in KHI since Birth by Sleep and KHII came chronologically after that game. I myself don't think that there is a particular problem with rating Peter Pan and Captain Hook that high. The only problems are it being weird and not really demonstrated in KHI and I don't think that either of these warrant not rating them that high when they have feats and showings on that level from two different installments of the franchise.
The thing is though that Sora did lose his powers at the end of 3D. If you check the KHIII tab of the Powers and Abilities section of Sora's profile, you'll see that we go with the notion that Sora doesn't have his Drive Forms from KHII any more in that game. Going by that notion you can see that Sora despite the fact of how he was able to attain the Drive Forms from the three fairies in The Mysterious Tower with little complications doesn't make any visible effort to regain them while essentially replacing them with Formchanges from a functional perspective. I'm not necessarily of the opinion that Formchanges are superior to Drive Forms. There is no evidence or implications for that. But I do see evidence and implications for them being at least on par with Drive Forms based on Sora being at his strongest and the functional replacement of said forms. You do not need direct statements to come to any conclusions about that. The actions and showings of a character should also be usable for an in-universe perspective.
Last edited: