Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About vanguard333

  • Birthday 11/13/1997

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Path of Radiance


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

4172 profile views
  1. Maybe it was trying to say that, because of Robin's amnesia, they (Robin) didn't know what it was, and the group didn't take notice of it because the thing they're focused on is Robin's amnesia? I don't know. In the prologue, once Robin's amnesia is made clear, Chrom decides that they'll discuss both the amnesia and what to do with Robin when they get to town. Of course, the town's being attacked by bandits when they get there, and Robin helping them stop the bandits proves (in Chrom's eyes anyway) that Robin's no enemy of Ylisse. So, presumably, by the time anyone might've noticed the brand, Robin's already part of the group. The weird thing about the prologue is that Chrom and them observe that the bandits have Plegian accents, yet, by omission, they seem to not hear anything strange about Robin's voice. I know Robin was taken away from Plegia by their mother, but wouldn't they still have an accent from being raised by said mother?
  2. True; they probably had enough room for adding two extra words on the GameCube disc. That's why I said, "You probably think I'm joking with that last remark... and I am." I've never played any of those three games you listed as other examples. I've heard of Sonic Adventure 2 though (despite never really being interested in Sonic games); depending on which Sonic fans you ask, it's either the first of the bad Sonic games or the last of the good Sonic games (aside from Sonic Mania in that second case). Anyway, what did you think of my main point?
  3. The intent of that scene was almost-certainly that she was expressing confusion and disbelief at such a ridiculous and bizarre claim. Of course, it doesn't really come across because this was 2002 and Nintendo and full voice acting did not mix well at the time (and one could argue that they still don't sometimes) as well as poor wording. This could've easily been cleared up by adjusting her line to have her say, "Mama? Mama Peach? You think I'm your... Mama?", but it could be that there wasn't enough space on the GameCube disc for two more words of fully-voiced dialogue. You probably think I'm joking with that last remark... and I am, but fully-voiced dialogue takes up a lot of space. The biggest piece of evidence against the claim is that, at the end of the game, not only is Bowser about to admit to his son that he was lying about Peach being the boy's mother, but Bowser Jr. admits that he already knew the whole time that Bowser was lying to him.
  4. Sorry I'm late to this conversation Except that example isn't an example of what she was talking about because her example was, "if the entire cast fought with machine guns and there was no mention of ninjutsu". That example you bring up is an example of one character bringing in a machine gun when, as you point out, the whole point of it is the rise of new technology and whether or not ninjas and ninjutsu are becoming obsolete; ninjutsu is still brought up a lot in that in that story arc with Boruto and the other characters involved using ninjutsu and with Boruto trying to convince that character that he (the other character) still is fundamentally a shinobi. That's completely different from if, for instance, Boruto's setting was nothing but machine guns and there was no mention of ninjutsu anywhere. One could easily argue that that shift in animation was ill-fitting for the given situation, and that would be an objective and valid criticism. This is arguably supposed to be a scary and intense moment: Naruto has sunk into a despair-fueled rage against Pain and has unleashed the nine-tails to a far greater degree than ever seen previously; going six-tailed and later eight-tailed, and the remaining Pain can only flee and defend itself. This is a scary and intense series of events: the last Pain body vs Naruto's rage and despair completely unleashed... and the goofy style is more befitting a fight meant for a bit of levity. This is not the moment for comedy, and everything else in this moment reflects the seriousness of the situation, so the goofy animation style sticks out like a sore thumb.
  5. @Jotari What did you think of the additional point I brought up (namely that we don't know how Anankos killed him, but it was likely in a way that there wasn't much of a body left)?
  6. Oh, okay. Isn't Heirs of Fate a sort-of elseworlds/bad-future thing?
  7. Oh, don't get me wrong; I think we're all in agreement that Fates' writing and exposition is horrendous. Uh... I'm sorry; I don't understand what you're saying. I haven't played Heirs of Fate, and I don't understand what you mean by "he had [them] back"; could please be a bit more clear?
  8. I agree with everyone pointing out that Anankos killing Azura's father was the thing that brought about his final descent into madness and is something he'd want to avoid remembering, especially since, in his mad rants, he refers to himself as "the betrayed king", suggesting that his madness had led to false, self-serving memories. Adding to that, there might also be a simple practical reason: depending on how exactly Anankos killed him, there might've been nothing left to reanimate. With Garon, Mikoto, Sumeragi, etc., he had complete corpses to work with, and Arete died from the curse he himself created, so her body that vanished was probably brought before him by the curse or something like that. With Azura's father, however, he probably ate him, destroyed him with his dragon breath, or tore him to literal shreds with his claws. So, there'd be nothing left except dragon poop, charred bones, or tiny irreparable pieces.
  9. Human transmutation isn't illegal; it's a taboo among alchemists and, given the way characters talk about it, was labelled a taboo by alchemists after seeing the result of attempting it, and not something Father himself imposed. The fact that multiple alchemists can deduce that Edward and Alphonse committed the taboo by seeing Ed's missing limbs and Al's missing body supports this. Father could not control whether or not alchemists were willing to commit the taboo, so he did everything in his power to assemble enough sacrifices by creating the State Alchemist system to keep as many alchemists close as possible while also having his minions constantly scouting to find any other alchemists who have committed the taboo or who can be manipulated or pushed into committing it. That's the reason they consider Roy a candidate despite him not committing the taboo (as they believed they could get him to commit it under the right circumstances); not counting on Edward finding out from Hohenheim that human transmutation cannot ever create anything more than a soulless cadaver and telling Roy this.
  10. I left her out because the story largely treated her as irrelevant; she was a side-character at most and little more than another villager. After the prologue, she has almost no screentime whatsoever. Of course, one could argue that the script spending any time at all on her and her obsession with Alm was too much time (and I'd completely agree with that argument).
  11. I still maintain that it should've been Edelgard rather than Byleth. Yeah, I agree; I can understand a bit of frustration at a seeming waste of potential variety. I understand why there are so many swordfighters in Smash: so many fantasy protagonists, when given a weapon, are usually given a sword. But there are multiple major characters that are magic users, axe fighters, spear fighters, archers, etc., that they could choose from. Zelda definitely could make a great magic rods or staves user, as could Micaiah from Radiant Dawn (alongside light magic).
  12. I see; I didn't know if you did know it or not, so I made my statement with the definition included both as a "just in case" and in case someone else who didn't know what verisimilitude is also reads it. Forgive me; your view just seemed rather binary because of statements like, "Fiction is inherently unrealistic" and probably because I'm a bit too used to these discussions and might've failed to notice the differences. For that, I apologize. Perhaps one thing that would help would be to provide examples; you say "they" a lot and bring in non-specific examples, and I think something more specific might help with clarification. Perhaps an actual comment or a clip from a review video or something like that. For instance, you bring up Naruto in this reply; perhaps maybe a clip or quote of that "Naruto: the Self-Made Hypocrite" video on YouTube that has a lot of views for some reason. Just something specific to help me get a better sense of what you're referring to, because right now, all I have to work with are generalizations, which don't really help my autistic (and I'm using that in the literal sense: I have autism) brain understand your points. You make a good point. For an example from actual media, people who are supposed to be experts on medieval warfare sending a huge thing of light cavalry directly into an army that badly outnumbers them, and at night no less, while also putting all their siege engines on the front line, outside the castle. GoT Season 8 episode 3; that was really bad. These are things that even people who are not experts in medieval warfare were able to point out were dumb.
  13. @Ottservia Again, I got this weird feeling that I was able to predict everything you were going to say. How many times have we have variations of this discussion across different threads? I can think of around 6 off the top of my head. Oh, wait, I just noticed that you said, "I know I've said this like a million times by this point"; never mind. Anyway, what do you mean when you say "realism"? Realism in narrative is broadly defined as representing reality, but that can mean different things depending on the context. For instance, it can refer to a grounded narrative, it can mean a less stylized narrative, and lately, it's been misused a lot to mean "gritty, dark, pseudo-edgy narrative" as part of a fad that I hope dies very soon so we can move on from all this poorly-written pseudo-edgy nonsense. There are even subgenres of literary realism that approach "representing reality" in different ways based on different definitions. You seem to think of "representing reality" in very binary terms, and you even use words that have multiple definitions as if you're using the same definition both times when you're really not; it's a common logical fallacy that's easy to do accidentally that I learned about in a critical thinking course that I took. I think the term closer to what you're looking for when you mention realism and believability is a term that's more often used to describe the effect of certain editing techniques and stuff like that, but still very much applies here: it's verisimilitude: the plausibility of a fictional work within the bounds of its own genre. Essentially, it's talking about how well the viewing audience can buy in or suspend disbelief, but in objective terms where stuff like suspension of disbelief is more subjective. You're right in that a work of fiction is inherently unrealistic; it cannot 100% mirror reality and still be an interesting narrative. However, a narrative still needs to be verisimilitudinous; it still needs to be a work that is intuitive for the audience to be able to buy in (again, in objective terms). For an example that Wikipedia was kind enough to provide, "In the production of the classic superhero film, Superman, director Richard Donner had a picture of the title character holding a sash with the word "verisimilitude" on it in his office during the project. That display was to remind Donner that he intended to approach the story of the fantasy superhero in a way true to the source material that would make it feel intuitively real to the audience within the context of the story's world. The result was a highly acclaimed film that would set the standard for a film genre that would become dominant decades later." In other words, where a lesser director (cough Zach Snyder cough) might look at the superhero genre as inherently silly & unrealistic and ultimately overcompensate when directing a superhero movie, Donner instead remembered that what actually mattered was that the film be intuitive for the audience to buy in. The results speak for themselves with the first two Donner Superman movies being widely acclaimed to this day. In this regard, when people are criticizing something being "unrealistic" or "unbelievable", often (not always, but often) they are really talking about a moment where the story failed to maintain verisimilitude. For the example of a character's emotional reaction being unrealistic, they are often not talking about the reaction being unrealistic to them, but unrealistic given what's been established about the character. That intuitiveness is broken by an ill-fitting reaction. Plot holes, plot contrivances and inconsistencies similarly break the story's verisimilitude. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood says hi. Seriously, the attention to detail in that show is amazing and one of the things I most enjoy about it, alongside the compelling characters, narrative and magic system. Anyway, no one is expecting stories to be completely perfect, but problems in a narrative are still worth pointing out to prevent them from happening again. Without criticism or feedback, how do we expect to improve? A couple of small problems are blemishes in an otherwise good story, while a story riddled with holes, contrivances and inconsistencies (cough The Last Jedi cough) are bad stories because the rest is not enough.
  • Create New...