Jump to content

vanguard333

Member
  • Content Count

    2517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About vanguard333

  • Birthday 11/13/1997

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Path of Radiance

Allegiance

  • I fight for...
    Tellius

Recent Profile Visitors

3823 profile views
  1. Yes, they do. They said this game would be a prequel to Breath of the Wild, that we'd experience the events of the Calamity. This... this was some sick prank akin to a can of snakes labeled, "peanut brittle". They have a lot of questions to answer; first question obviously being: "Where's the real game?!"
  2. This. I only bought Dragon Age Inquisition because it was a used copy on sale for $10 and I bought it before the loot boxes stuff happened. Well, two very recent examples would be Ubisoft with AC: Valhalla and Nintendo/Koei Tecmo with Age of Calamity: I made a whole thread about why I was upset with Ubisoft about AC: Valhalla. The short version is that the game's portrayal of Celtic people is basically every stereotype pooled together, and it's really offensive, especially since they're planning a DLC campaign in 9th Century Ireland that uses all those stereotypes, so they're using these stereotypes to represent the ancestors of an entire nation that's been stereotyped, oppressed and split in half over its history. For more information, see the thread I made. As for Age of Calamity, I can't stand false advertising. A prequel to Breath of the Wild, they said. You'll be able to experience the events of the Calamity, they said. They lied! My only interest in the game was that it was supposedly a prequel to Breath of the Wild; that the player would experience Hyrule, Link, and the Champions' respective last stands against the Calamity Ganon. I wanted to see that, I wanted to experience that, and the marketing said that was what the game would be. But, instead, it's an elaborate prank by Nintendo and Koei Tecmo equivalent to promising a can of food when you're hungry only for the can to be full of snakes (the springy kind, not the animal kind). I'm sure, on its own, I might be able to enjoy Age of Calamity for what it is: a sort-of alternate timeline "what-if" scenario. But I can't separate it from the false advertising that presented it as something far more interesting.
  3. I'm going to break this down into parts: 1. Deku happening to run into All Might is a coincidence; as I said before, coincidences are fine so long as they're only creating the circumstances for character decisions, and the character decisions drive the plot forward. Deku running into All Might itself does not drive the plot forward; what drives the plot forward is Deku asking All Might if he too can be a hero even without a quirk, and later on Deku trying to save Bakugo and unwittingly spurring All Might into action after seeing Deku trying to help Bakugo, leading All Might to choose Deku as his successor. Would that have happened if they hadn't run into each other? Obviously not, but what was truly important wasn't Deku and All Might running into each other; it was their decisions. I already gave two other examples of stories that, like this one, open with a coincidence but use that coincidence to prompt character choice. 2. The Nighteye example is interesting. One could argue it's not a coincidence but an example of setup and payoff: the audience already knows Nighteye's a collector and that the guy Overhaul assigned to watch Eri is buying a bunch of toys for her to try to keep her from running away again as he doesn't want Overhaul to kill him like the last guy who was assigned to watch Eri. These and the fact that Nighteye and the heroes are actively looking for the base take away a lot of the coincidence. It is still a coincidence that they happen to be in the store at the same time, but it is greatly mitigated by the surrounding factors. So this one is a bit hard for me, as I'm not sure if it really counts. I'd have to think about it more. If I recall correctly, you have a tendency to refer to a lot of criticisms you don't like as "conversation-enders"; it almost makes me wonder who is the one who ends the conversation. I've never seen "contrived" used to end a conversation; I've seen, "This is contrived", "How?", "Here's how: [lists how]", etc.
  4. I already explained why contrivance is a valid criticism while bringing up problems other than breaking immersion. Yes, stories are inherently artificial, but if a story is relying on coincidence rather than character decision to move the plot forward, then the story's far less meaningful. I've been in enough media discussions with you that I know how important you consider themes and their exploration to be in storytelling, so let me put it this way: every moment a story uses a contrivance rather than character decision & consequences is a moment that the themes aren't being expressed or explored, and at their worst, contrivances can actually damage of contradict a story's theme because the story is using coincidences to make things happen instead of the characters. I agree to an extent about Three Houses' plot points in White Clouds being a bit disconnected, and I have seen that criticism brought up before by others. To an extent, it is a consequence of the different structure. As for Fates, one can indeed argue that there is a genuine sequence of events; however, that sequence of events is kept going a lot of the time by contrivances rather than by character.
  5. I made this same point a long while back in the thread (though admittedly with a lot more words). Read what I said a while back: there's a difference between a story having coincidences and a story being driven by coincidences. Stories, ideally, are supposed to be driven by the actions the characters make because of who they are and the circumstances around them. A story using coincidences to prompt character decisions that drive the plot forward is fine; contrivances occur when the coincidence itself is the thing driving the plot, and that is a problem. So no, you cannot say that every story can be considered strung together by coincidences. For just one very quick example, my favourite novel of all time, The Hobbit: Are you familiar with the whataboutism fallacy (this time, it's not the official name for it, but I don't know the official name for it); when you respond to a criticism basically by saying, "What about this other thing? Isn't it also guilty?" Like when people try to defend Rey in the Star Wars sequels by pointing at child Anakin in The Phantom Menace and saying, "Isn't he also a mary sue?" The obvious problem is that precedence is not grounds for deflecting criticism, but there's another flaw that that example illustrates: even if making that comparison were a valid argument, it depends on people being fine with it in one case but not the other, and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that a lot of people did not like child Anakin in The Phantom Menace. I kind-of had to talk about that before going in to your Three Houses comparison, not necessarily because it is a whataboutism, but because the comparison has some similar weaknesses. I've only played Crimson Flower and Verdant Wind so far, but I can say there are certainly moments of contrivance in Three Houses, and people have indeed criticized those moments. But the overarching plot is, for the most part, driven by character: for the biggest example in the game, Edelgard chooses to wage war on the church, and she makes that choice because of what she knows and who she is. Those moments of contrivance are blemishes in an ultimately character-driven story. Fates, meanwhile, depends on contrivances to keep the plot going; the characters don't move the plot forward, coincidences do.
  6. @Ottservia I was just wondering if you had anything to say in response to the points I've made.
  7. I think you would love this video then: Interestingly, a damsel in distress that lacks agency is referred to in the trope talks video I just referenced as a classical damsel, and that is a bad thing as it means the character could easily be replaced with a non-sentient plot device without anything being lost. However, there are many other types of damsel in distress that aren't that at all and aren't bad, as the video explains. Would you consider any of those other types that the video mentions to also be damsels in distress?
  8. Nope; from what I've heard, there are no slaves at all. The game also de-synchronizes the player character if they try to attack a civilian during a raid, even though we know full well that that did happen. I suspect that they're omitted because it would be hard for the player to feel great about raiding if it including enslaving people and attacking civilians. Oh, I do. Whenever any these company does something scummy, I am quick to not buy the games that are products of those scummy practices. The one exception was Mario 3D All-Stars, and even there I do regret my purchase to some extent. Besides: This; just "not buying the games" isn't enough; speaking out is also important. Speaking of "callous or incompetent", Hanlon's Razor says never to assume something was done out of malice when it is adequately explained by incompetence, but don't rule out malice as a possibility either. Yeah; it is officially referred to as Celtic Christianity or Insular Christianity or something like that; I just said Catholic because there wasn't any religious divide among Christians in Western Europe, so one may as well just say Catholic. Yes, they had their own nobility systems... in Wales, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland, and maybe some small pockets of England (I'm not the biggest expert). But as I said, in most of England, they were absorbed into the Anglo-Saxon societies and treated as second-class citizens.
  9. No; I believe a game with a historical setting should try to get its setting as authentic as possible, but I do not expect it and I'm not angered when it gets stuff wrong. What angered me about this is that this inaccurate, stereotypical portrayal comes with a ton of bad implications. Do I really have to further clarify why I would be mad about something like stereotyping?
  10. As I said, I found most of the historical inaccuracies simply laughable rather than irritating; this one got me angry because it wasn't just inaccuracy but was also stereotyping. Does that make sense?
  11. Um... the only sentence where I had the word "bigotry" in it was talking about the treatment of Celtic groups today, as in towards the ones that still exist. My point in that paragraph was about how the same stereotypes used in the game to represent groups that are indeed dead are the exact same stereotypes being used on related groups that are still alive today. Does that make sense?
  12. Yikes. Yeah; I agree that those are definitely also good reasons not to buy any Ubisoft games.
  13. So, Assassin's Creed: Valhalla recently released, set in late 9th-Century England during the Viking invasions, and this game has managed to anger me in a way that I feel I need to get off my chest; hence this rant. I should say right away that I haven't bought the game, as I'm of the opinion that a game with a historical setting should try to make that historical setting as authentic as possible, and all the trailers for the game screamed of what pop-culture thinks of Vikings rather than what Vikings actually were, so I expected nothing in terms of accuracy for this game. And yet this game somehow still managed to anger me. Most of the inaccuracies I heard about or noticed when watching clips of it were laughable rather than irritating, like one recurring Norse architecture in the game being a type of Norse church (in a time period when Vikings were still pagan). But then I heard about and saw how this game portrayed the Celts that were living in England at the time... I enjoy studying Celtic History as I find the cultures that existed very fascinating, and I think it's a real shame that the Celts are rarely looked at in modern media, and when they are, it's usually wrong. So, Celts being portrayed badly is nothing new to me, but this... For context, in this time period, England was dominantly Anglo-Saxon, with the only Celtic region in what is today England being Cornwall (which isn't in the game). There were Celts in the rest of England, but they were a minority that was largely absorbed into the Anglo-Saxon communities, and there's written evidence that shows that they were treated as second-class citizens even during the Viking Invasions. They were also already Christianized; having been Christianized far earlier than even the Anglo-Saxons. So, how does the game portray these Celts? Living in the woods, wearing skulls and antlers on their heads, and practicing spooky fantasy druid pagan ritualistic stuff. What angers me is that, at that point, it's not just inaccurate; it goes beyond that well into the realm of stereotyping by basically being every Celtic stereotype pooled together. For centuries, the surviving Celtic Nations (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc.) have been viewed by different nation-states as the backwater of Europe (and let's not even get into how these countries were treated by England specifically), and while there are specific stereotypes associated with each of them (Scotsmen being brave and/or cheap, Irish being leprechauns, Welsh being Wales), all Celtic Nations have been assigned this stereotype: backwards, druidic, etc. Obviously, it's not nearly so bad today, but bigotry is still there, and when a game like this that puts on a veil of history portrays them like this, it's sickening. It isn't helped by other unfortunate implications this game has on top of that: the protagonists (the Vikings) are literally colonizers, and their colonizing is glorified and sensationalized, while a group that was marginalized in that time period is represented entirely by stereotypes that still exist today. How can I not be appalled by that? It gets even worse: they're planning a DLC where the player character gets to invade Ireland and I'm quoting the website: "Explore the haunted wilds and beautiful landscapes of Ireland as you battle a druidic cult known as the Children of Danu" and they've said in trailers that, "the highlight here is really for the players that are more interested in the Celtic, the Druids, and the darker tones that really add to the mysterious feeling of this expansion." What the **** are they talking about?! For one thing, there were no druids! Ireland had already been Catholic for 400 years! One of the most famous illustrated Bibles, the Book of Kells, was published in Ireland over a century before then! And what's all this nonsense about "darker tone" and "mysterious"? Equating "Celtic" to "dark tone and mysterious" just reeks of this stereotyping. What do you guys think? Am I overreacting, or am I right to be concerned about the fact that the game basically represents Celts by a bunch of stereotypes?
  14. Here's the thing though; a fair amount of those "stupid things" aren't necessarily stupid when considered in context; I even looked at some examples of ones you mentioned and explained them in a well-worded, analytical and nuanced way. If you're looking for well-worded, nuanced criticisms, internet comments are rarely the place to look; most people from what I've seen just try to be concise and hope people get what they're meaning. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of dumb stuff said on the internet; the internet is a cesspool after all. But a lot of people are just venting their thoughts on the game, so it's important to interpret what they're saying in the most favourable reasonable light before then going into the criticism.
  15. Here's the thing: I didn't play the demo because I've been busy with two things: 1) University, and 2) finishing Mario 3D All-Stars (I completed 64 and Sunshine while 100% completing the former, so now I'm starting Galaxy). I did hear though about the egg guardian time-travelling in the demo and, if you look back at previous pages of this thread, I did voice my concerns about what it potentially entailed. Why would it have to be a cutscene? Do what Shadow of the Colossus did and have it be a hopeless timed boss fight; that way the character dying is organic story & gameplay integration. In fact, the Warriors gameplay would've been perfect for the second-to-last mission being Link defending Zelda from a bunch of Guardians that just get more numerous and overwhelm him, as well as a final mission of Zelda alone with her sealing powers vs the calamity; compensating for being alone by being able to one-hit KO most enemies by erasing the malice. I more suspect that they either planned a prequel and got cold feet, with someone thinking, "Who wants to play a game where they lose? What if people get mad and demand refunds? (to which I would say anyone buying the game should know going in that they'll lose)", or they thought for some stupid reason that it being a canon prequel would be too limiting, which is utter nonsense. EDIT: I just read up about the game's story and the original characters. I will say that, as much as I'm not a fan of the alternate timeline idea, I do think it could be "salvaged" for me in the sequel with something along the lines of the following idea I came up with: In BOTW2, the Yiga Clan has a new leader, who also goes by Master Kohga, but he is skinny and almost the opposite in personality, and he himself freely admits that "Kohga" is just a name given to each new leader of the clan. When I say different in personality, I mean it: he takes an active role in the story, he's cunning and completely no-nonsense outside of a bit of trolling, his every expression is laced with contempt for Hyrule, and he is wary of Ganondorf and says that Ganondorf is not to be taken lightly despite working for Ganondorf, and he himself says that he's only aligned with Ganon to see his own ambition come about. Said ambition is the complete destruction of Hyrule, as he sees Hyrule as fundamentally flawed and in need of being destroyed, as it's rooted in a perpetual middle ages and cycle of destruction. He is extremely well-learned; possessing (incomplete) knowledge of Ganon's original identity as well as the Curse of Demise and the reincarnation of Hylia and the Hero, and he even uses these as part of his "proof" that Hyrule should be destroyed. He is also extremely competent and pragmatic: not only is he able to use Shiekah tech for teleporting and telekinetically moving spiked balls, but he is also a master swordsman able to dual-wield ancient blades that he keeps hidden in his sleeve. He is also an amputee, with it being revealed that parts of his body have been replaced with Shiekah tech, and here's where the "salvaging" comes in: it is eventually revealed that this Kohga is in fact the original timeline's version of Sooga (the Yiga second-in-command with two swords), with his injuries having been sustained during the Calamity. Basically, picture a mix of these two characters: What do you guys think? Would something like this be potentially neat to see? If there's already a new Yiga Clan antagonist, it would probably take less than a day to program in a reference to Sooga.
×
×
  • Create New...