Jump to content

Jotari

Member
  • Content Count

    15404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

8 Followers

About Jotari

  • Rank
    Bring back Chameleons!
  • Birthday 06/16/1993

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Interesting things.
  • Location
    Japan

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    N/A

Member Badge

  • Members
    Tiki

Recent Profile Visitors

20162 profile views
  1. I don't think alienating new comers is actually that big an issue. So long as the game is actually good. Like, imagine we didn't get Fire Emblem Awakening, instead we got Fire Emblem Chrom's Quest, a tale about the tragic down fall of a protagonist who is eventually betrayed by his best friend. Then, four years later they release Fire Emblem Awakening, an alternate timeline sequel where Chrom's young daughter travels back in time to undo the events that lead to the destruction of her world. Would Awakening be any more alienating to new comers than it is already with the existence of this hypothetical Chrom's Quest game? The answer is no, if it were written and framed in the same way as it is. People can understand alternate continuities and time travel and parallel worlds. So long as a game does it right, it shouldn't be an issue (from what very little I've seen from FFVII Remake, I don't think they did do it right, at least for the scene I've seen, which involved some monster thing showing the characters iconic clips from Advent Children and stuff, which I criticize for being meaningful only because they are recognizable to the player while they should be absolutely meaningless to the characters in question). I actually have experience with this first hand. I played Valkyrie Profile 2 before Valkyrie Profile 1 (and, in fact, still haven't played 1). It's a game that presents itself as a prequel to the first game going through events that were partly referenced in the first game's backstory. But then towards the end it reveals itself as a time travel plot with continuity diverging from what was established in the first game pretty radically. This was not overwhelming or confusing to me at all, because, well, the characters themselves explain what's going on. I still don't know what from Valkyrie Profile 2 was a nod to things established in Valkyrie Profile 1 and what was clever subvsersions, but I didn't need to know to understand Valkyrie Profile 2's pretty decent story. Would playing the first game have enhanced the experience? Maybe, though considering people seem to dislike the second game and love the first game, it might have actually been to the detriment of the game (I personally really enjoyed Valkyrie Profile 2). Not playing the first game certainly didn't make it alienating though, because the game did a good enough job of establishing it's context and actually explaining what was going on, which should be a prerequisite of a game whether it's an alternate timeline or not.
  2. Life experience is not a requirement for a voice actor. James Earl Jones has, to my knowledge, no experience of being an intergalactic authoritarian. If a professional voice actor isn't capturing the experience of the character then that's on the director, not the actor. Or to some extent the casting director if the voice actor literally can't make the required sounds which is something that would usually be based on gender lines, not racial (course it's not like women don't ever voice male characters, they actually do it a lot, particularly for child characters). The closest would be if, and this is a super rare scenario, you had a character that was from one of those African tribes with the really obscure phonemes in their language that most people simply can't make because they're so strange, but that's like probably something that hasn't happened ever. Let's also take a step to acknowledge that these games are made in Japan by Japanese people and the first casts hired to voice them will be Japanese people. It's not only unnecessary, it'd be down right impossible to get a sufficient diversity of races to voice a full cast given Japan is one of the most homogenous countries in the world. To add to some of those examples, a White guy, a Chinese guy and a Filipino are all part of the same Japanese inspired family in Avatar and they all slay their roles.
  3. There was a thread like this not to long ago. And I'll say here what I said there, I don't think new wepaons should just be added only for the sake of having them. They need to have a defined niche in the gameplay system that makes their inclusion actually meaningful. To that extent I would kind of like to see Crossbos make a return. As I do find the idea of high mt weapons that don't take strength into account an interesting one, though not implemented in a way that made them particularly effective in Radiant Dawn. Some method of scaling their damage so they remain useful throughout the game is required, which I think Wepaon Rank could fill the roll of. And if Crossbows aren't considered cool enough, guns could fill the same niche. And here are some gmaplay niche ideas that could work for other wepaons *Boomerangs: Class independent weapons (no weapon ranks): This isn't a commentary on how easy boomerangs are to use compared to other weapons, but more on the difficulty it would actually be to implement them into Fire Emblem's class system. They are a weapon of indigenous Austronesian tribal people. What class are you going to give them to? Tribal Savage? Hughjackman Knight? Hero of Time? Trying to fit them into Fire Emblem would be completely random at best and highly contrived at worst. As for their stats, having them be a 1-2 phycial option for everyone with low might but high durability would work well. *Whips: Low damage, but set damage: Whips hurt you (a lot), but they're not likely to kill you. I think that could be implemented by making them reliable set damage. The Bulkwark deals 5 damage to all enemies, the Elysian Whip deals 10 damage. You know exactly how much chip damage you're doing. This is actually something Fire Emblem has done before with tomes Shadow Dragon (NES). And honestly...it actually worked surprisingly well there. This could be a good option to throw on support units that might struggle to deal damage at all. Might as well toss on beast effectiveness too so they have a specific counter like bows are to flying units. I also think you could make armoured units immune to whips to buff them as that just makes sense (and armoured units need buffs). *Daggers: Windsweep Effect: Okay, so daggers are already a staple of Fire Emblem appearing in quite a few games...only when they do appear they're kind of just swords, but worse (or just visually completely the same as swords). Except in Fates where they were debuffers, but that made more sense for Shurkens and if Shurikens come back they could coexist with this idea, which is to make Daggers weapons you can't counter attack. This, to me, is the perfect way to implement thief units as an actual combat class. Thief units in Fire Emblem have always had combat capabilities, and there's always some expectation to actually use them in combat since they don't get exp from doing theifing things. But in most games the thieves are just way too weak to be viable to put them in combat even for most training purposes. In the other games thieves are so good at combat they kind of overshadow their actual utility role. By giving them a weapon that can't be counter attacked you let them engage in combat to deal moderate damage to enemies, while also letting them avoid counter attacks and thus keeping them alive. It's not only a valuable niche for combat (Windsweep is considered a pretty great skill, at least by me), but it's one that suits them functionally and narratively.
  4. Fire Emblem Heroes is a funny thing. It puts randomness in your wallet, but takes it entirely out of the gameplay. The game is entirely deterministic. If you do the same actions each time you get the same results. Even level ups are predetermined (and there are no crit rates). Which begs a question I'm surprised hasn't been discussed more since Heroes's release. Does Fire Emblem really need accuracy checks and dodges and misses and the whole shebang. Instead of hit vs true hit, maybe the conversation should be hit vs no hit (rate). Low hit rates really irritate players as a miss can be absolutely devastating in Fire Emblem. Meanwhile, dodge tank strategies, from a design perspective are almost too good a strategy if you can set them up as, unlike physical tanking, it makes your unit virtually invincible. Now being deterministic works well for Heroes with its constant release of new content, but a completely deterministic mianline Fire Emblem game would run the risk of being boring if every time you play it you get the same results and there's an objectively effective strategy (though I think Holy War actually is exactly that, most people just won't notice it is because of how the rng is generated). But even if you drop hit rates, you still have randomixed level ups and crits and, potentially, randomized AI actions that would stop things happening in the exact same way. It seems like hit rates could be dropped without any significant issue in Fire Emblem. Course that would still run into some issues. Namely the niches of weapons. Dropping hit rates will suddenly makes axes way more viable and swords way less. Though maybe that could be balanced off by bringing back weight so axes double less. Sowrdmasters and other classes that rely on dodging will also take a hit in useablility (and in a lot of games they're not considered great to begin with), though maybe it would make the much lamented armoured knights more viable if dodge tanking is completely done away with. The weapon triangle, which relies more on hit than damage to be benefical, would also require reworking to fit into a non hit environment (Heroes's approach is to significantly increase damage as a percentage with WTA). Okay, so maybe there are actually quite a few issues with removing hit from Fire Emblem. But even if all of those issues just magically disappeared, I think I'd still make hit something that stays around (yes, despite making this thread, I'm actually in favor of keeping hit as it is, I just think it's a discussion worth having). It adds variety and spice to a game. And while dodge tanking can be too effective, it is fun to try and optimize your units to reach those dodge tanking thresholds (Binding Blade with its notoriously low hits is actually one of my favourite games precisely because you have to use those low hits in your favour to overcome the enemies). But I still think hit could be reworked somewhat. One potential idea that might sound counter intuitive might be to make it so missing an attack doesn't actually deal 0 damage. What if a miss was instead like a reverse crit and you dealt a glancing blow for reduced damage? This would still makie it so units can rely on dodging to survive, while also making axes much better. Something to think about. Anyway, do you have any opinions on hit rates and their place in the series?
  5. Why? It's not like the voice actors are the ones writing the characters. Voice acting, of all arts, should be the one where race is absolutely irrelevant as the actor isn't seen at all. What matters is if they sound fitting, not if they look fitting.
  6. Well it kind of stands to reason that for a story to use time travel you kind of need to see the time travel. If it all happens off screen then yeah, it's just a writer's tool because you're not actually writing about time travel, you're writing about some characters, a few of which happen to be time travellers. Not that that is a bad thing, I Stress again. When it came to redo the child system of Fire Emblem Four, time travel was a good solution to giving the same scenario while also allowing the parent characters to be playable (it was certainly a much better solution than the Deeprealms, but really, the Fates team didn't have much choice there other than resorting to Time Travel again). My only real complaint about how the child characters are handled in Awakening is that, aside from Lucina, they're all pushed to the side into paralogues and do absolutely nothing to contribute to the main story. Is hard to think of it as their story about saving their world from that fate when they have absolutely no meaningful contribution to the main plot (course, at the same time Awakening, for better or worse, is 40% main plot and 60% side content so it's not like their irrelevancy actually damages the overall shape of the game).
  7. I will choose to take it completely audibly and write about Beech Trees. Failing that, someone with an obsession with the classic Danny Boyle movie. Or perhaps tackling the question is a beached whale still a beached whale if it's beached on something other than a beach?
  8. I don't see anything Awakening did with time travel that makes it any better than the average time travel story. It didn't do anything particularly clever with paradoxes or set time loops. In fact, it barely played with the idea of time travel at all, using it for the singular purpose of getting the child characters (and Grima) into the story and establish the cost of failure. Not that that's bad per se, but it's not utilizing time travel in a way that's any more effective than most stories.
  9. Just one old woman; and she looks younger than me. Old could still fir into that theme depending on how you frame it. You can't change the past, it's what you do now that matters, the past failure is still a failure which Zelda can't undo, just like her age, but she can look positively towards the future, optimistic and happy that Ganon has been defeated now.
  10. Once again, a completely Amercian centric way of viewing things. The US did not rally most of the world to condemn Russia. The majority of the world has been sitting waiting to see what will happen. The majority of countries who voted to suspend Russia from the convention of human rights were European countries who obviously have their own concerns with Russia that are completely irrelevant to the US. And there's no evidence that any nations outside of Europe that voted against them were directly swayed by the US. Because sovereign countries have their own ability to make decisions and condemn an unprovoked invasion. And if the US is to be credited for rallying the world against the Russian invasion then they did a shit job of it as half the world is sitting back and waiting to see what happens without providing even nominal support (and if we factor in actual tangible military support then the number dwindles to almost nothing).
  11. Good writing does not exist. Everything is mediocre. Nothing will ever be as good as you thought it was when you were a child.
  12. Duterte was elected before Trump was, and Filipinos knew exactly what they were getting into with him, he didn't exactly hide his personality in his earlier political career. And Filipinos by and large adored him, and have now elected his daughter and the son of the man who seized military control of the country in the 70s. That is not on Trump. I think you underestimate the capability of other countries to make independent decisions, both positive and negative. The US leads the world only in the sense that it can involve itself in the affairs of any nation it wants and is beyond reproach for any missteps it makes. The rest of the world is not sitting around just waiting to emulate the decisions of Washington. Otherwise we'd be seeing much looser gun control laws world wide (and a higher legalization of marijuana, which most people seem to actually want but governments are too slow moving to adapt).
  13. They really should have thrown a kiss in in that scene. I'm not one to demand gay characters kiss as some kind of proof of actual representation like some people I've seen on the net; but for a marriage it's basically obligatory >.> Though if I recall they did have a renewing of vows in a later season or something.
×
×
  • Create New...