Jump to content

Ottservia

Member
  • Content Count

    2629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ottservia

  • Rank
    I love Severa far more than I reasonably should
  • Birthday January 24

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    In Hell

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Awakening

Member Badge

  • Members
    Severa

Allegiance

  • I fight for...
    Ylisse

Recent Profile Visitors

4765 profile views
  1. Fates aside personally I found the support quality of awakening and PoR to not be all that different in terms of quality. Awakening certainly has more comedic supports but that’s not necessarily a bad thing because comedic supports can be just as deep and nuanced as the more serious ones. I mean if you need an example of such just look at all of Inigo’s supports. Most of his supports are on the more comedic side of things but that doesn’t stop those supports from giving him good development and characterization. His supports with Kjelle, Severa, and F!Robin in particular are fantastic showcases of this. Even so PoR has its fair share of comedic supports as well just not as many because PoR just has less supports than awakening in general. Hell the director of awakening(and scenario writer) was a co-writer for PoR’s scenario and supports and I can definitely see that based on the supports I’ve read from PoR. Say what you will about Kouhei Maeda but I legitimately believe he is a good writer. The man knows what he’s doing at the very least.
  2. Honestly as it’s as I was saying earlier it just feels like writers went half way in both directions and it just ends up feeling kinda half-assed as a result
  3. It’s not like the examples you provide aren’t good heck Seazas’s recent post is making rethink some things. It’s just that your examples kinda misunderstand my point. Alm is supposed to represent Duma’s ideals but that’s barely if at all shown within the narrative itself. In fact he’s more representative of Mila than he is Duma and that’s really the problem I have with it. Celica is supposed to be the thing that allows him to hold himself back kinda like how Rinea is with Berkut. But the problem Alm doesn’t need her for anything. He’s perfectly fine without her help. He’s never lost without her or anything really. She needs him though. She’s completely lost without him. Again it’s just very thematically inconsistent
  4. Now it’s clear to me that you’re completely misunderstanding my argument. I’m saying Alm is supposed to represent Duma’s ideals but the problem is that he doesn’t. It’s thematically inconsistent with everything the narrative sets up and tries to deliver on. In that way I think it’s bad writing. The story wants me to believe he embodies those ideals but that’s not what it’s showing me
  5. Okay but again that’s not what I’m asking for. Are there any instances from acts 1-4 that showcase him emboding duma’s ideals. He succeeds in the end because of them but how else are they integrated into his character and the arc his character follows. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t embody those ideals and if so it’s barely noticeable aside from a few key instances.
  6. Okay but that’s not what I’m asking for. That moment is a good thematic moment but how does it connect to the rest of the story and Alm’s character arc? Where’s the nuance? Where else does Alm embody Duma’s ideals in this story. Any in act 1? 3? 4 maybe? None that I can really think of. I mean there are a few small instances in act 1 I can think of like when he charges into a bandit camp to try and save Silque but besides that and a couple instances of such characterization(like his argument with Celica) there really aren’t that many examples I can think of
  7. Okay but where else are these ideals showcased thematically? Where else does Alm showcase resolve through strength that which the narrative emphasizes and as such is either punished or rewarded for it. I can name one where he is punished for killing his father but besides that I can’t name any other significant ones
  8. True but he doesn’t represent Duma’s ideals anywhere else and that’s where my problem lies. I’m not saying it isn’t tragic inherently because it is. I’m saying that if the message was indeed “Getting rid of the old generation” it shouldn’t be treated as tragic as it is because as it stands it’s treated like a horrible thing has happened to Alm. I mean he just killed his father. So it acts as a narrative punishment for him. If the message is at as you say it is that doesn’t explain what he’s being punished for. Cause the point of the story is uprooting the status quo and the old way. Getting rid of the old way should be treated with narrative reward not narrative punishment. If a character succeeds then good things ought to happen that’s just how that works. Celica trusts someone she shouldn’t in Jedah and is therefore narratively punished by by being forcibly turned into a witch. That’s how thematically relevant story telling works I am getting real tired of your condescending attitude.
  9. If this is the case then what the fuck was the point of Celica? If Alm already represents both ideologies then why is Celica even a thing in this story? What thematic purpose does she serve if not to act as Alm’s complimentary opposite? If Alm does not need her in order to realize the faults in his ideals(as in this case he would be a flawless static protagonist and thus have no need for a thematic foil of that nature). Is it to just give him a romance partner? That’s a little shallow. The problem with this interpretation is that it neglects Celica’s role in this story. And that’s the problem! Again what else is it supposed to symbolize. Sure it could symbolize Alm taking down the old generation but that doesn’t explain why it’s so tragic and the effect it has on his character afterwards if it was solely a generational thing because it’s treated as a narrative punishment for him. If it was solely a generational theme then there would be no need to narratively punish him like that as he should be rewarded for fulfilling the themes of the narrative as that’s how thematically relevent story telling works. And that’s why his character works And that’s the problem
  10. Y’see here’s the misunderstanding lies in that I completely agree with this. My problem with the narrative in how it all really connects. Yeah you’re right Alm’s character arc is about embodying both philosophies of Duma and Mila by the end of the narrative. Which is the key thing by the end of the narrative. This story isn’t exactly subtle with its themes and ideas. Hell there are multiple instances in this story where it outright explicitly explains the themes and ideas to the player. Again it’s not exactly subtle. Alm and Celica are duel protagonists who’s relationship and clashing ideals are supposed to reflect that of the same conflict between the sibling gods of Valentia, Duma and Mila. Their argument at the end of act is a mirror of Duma and Mila’s argument in the memory prism. That much is made obvious due to various factors. Alm is supposed to represent Duma’s ideals of strength in that one should have the strength and resolve to fight and fend for themselves but in taking those ideals to the extreme he falls numb to kindness. Celica is supposed to represent Mila’s ideals of kindness in that one should use their power to help others and not resort to meaningless bloodshed. However, in doing so she lacks the strength and resolve to protect herself from those who would intend to take advantage of her. if that’s not the intention of the narrative I don’t know what is. Alm and Celica’s respective character arcs are supposed to be about them realizing the faults in their ideals and that without pieces of the other within themselves they never would’ve succeeded which is made evident when they reunite in Duma tower. This reunion only occurs after being punished for the flaws in their ideals as their character arcs reach their natural conclusions. Celica forsaking herself to Jedah who takes advantage of her kindness to save her friends and Alm killing his own father in a bid to end the war between Zofia and Rigel. It is here where the two reconcile and are able to realize that alone they will fail but together they possess the strength necessary to slay the fell god Duma. Duma falls due to their combined strength and bestows his final words onto the two who will now rule over a new Valentia to learn from his and Mila’s mistakes. He tells them to make Valentia a strong nation filled with Mila’s love. A combination of his and Mila’s ideals symbolized through the Alm and Celica’s marriage as they rule over a now united Valentia. The two kingdoms once divided due to differing ideals now united under the marriage of the best of those two ideals. Now you tell me, did I misunderstand anything about the point of this narrative? The problem I have with this narrative is that I understand the point of the narrative but that doesn’t make it good. Execution is what matters and I don’t think this story executes on its ideas very well
  11. Personally I love these kinds of villains at least when they’re done well. They’re extremely simple but can also be extremely effective. They’re evil for evil’s sake. They have no sympathetic qualities or motivations. They just want to watch the world burn and have fun while doing. The thing that makes these kinds of villains so much fun for me is that they’re just fun characters. They know what they’re doing is terrible but they relish in it. They don’t care they just wanna have fun. Why did they blow up the orphanage well they nothing better to do that weekend. Or like they just want to flaunt how strong they are in the most petty way possible like how Shigaraki intercepts an entire police transport ambulance just to taunt Overhaul while he’s down. He didn’t need to do this in fact staying hidden and not showing himself to the police would’ve served him better but he did it anyway. Why? Because he’s a petty bitch and I love him for it
  12. A couple things. 1. How are these any different from my interpretation? as they are basically amounting to different ways of the exact same interpretation in that he needs Celica to help him think of more peaceful solutions rather than just brute forcing the problem. I agree that is what the story is going for. Celica and Alm are supposed to be two halves of a greater whole. That much is made obvious by the narrative. At least that’s what it wants me take away from the narrative but I would argue it doesn’t do that very well. 2. those interpretations aren’t shown very well in the narrative. Alm is never really shown to take the more violent approach first. He’s always willing to take the more peaceful solution first. if the point of the narrative is that he’s supposed to be Celica’s complimentary opposite where he’s supposed to take the more reckless and violent solution first and not think about other more peaceful solutions, they didn’t showcase that very well. In fact he’s more willing to take the more peaceful route rather than the more violent one as shown with Delthea, Tatiana, And Zeke. Like it’s just a little inconsistent with that theme. There should be more instances of him taking that “attack and ask questions later” approach because as it stands he doesn’t really do that. I mean I guess you could argue him being consistently rewarded for taking the peaceful solution is a good showcase of the story’s themes regarding those duelistic ideals but it comes at the cost of proper build up to the Rudolf confrontation if you ask me.
  13. I’ve been getting help though these things just don’t magically fix themselves overnight. Still, I appreciate the concern from all of you.
  14. I’m sorry I just haven’t been in the best place mentally recently least of all today. I haven’t felt this worthless in a while
  15. It makes sense because it's not meant to be taken literally. Despite you wrongly insisting that there's "no other way to interpret it". Well then how the fuck else are you supposed to interpret it. What am I missing here? How does that line connect with every other thematic plot point of his character arc? As it is very clear that the intention of that line is basically supposed to summarize the flaws in his character up to that point and that he’s finally realized that he was wrong. So you tell me? What other flaw in Alm’s character could he possibly be referring to there? If that interpretation is wrong then you tell me how I’m supposed to interpret it. I am all ears. Again this is is a strawman as it has nothing to do with what I’m arguing here. In fact it helps my point.
×
×
  • Create New...