Jump to content

Samven

Member
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Samven

  • Birthday 07/11/1990

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.samrowettgames.com/
  • Skype
    sam.tbd

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Game development, baking.
  • Location
    England

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Three Houses

Member Badge

  • Members
    Dimitri

Allegiance

  • I fight for...
    Tellius

Recent Profile Visitors

698 profile views
  1. On the subject of Vestaria Saga, I am ambivalent.
  2. I feel like a lot of the insistence that, "Characters X and Y haven't had enough time to like each other" misses that some people can literally meet in a hot tub and hit it off from there, whereas some people can be in a relationship for months without ever dropping the L-Bomb out of uncertainty and nerves. Different things work for different people and I think it'd be kinda neat to see more of that in FE. I'd rather have two supports that were really well-written than four or five that are just kind of bland. One thing that might be interesting is having two characters feel they could be a couple at B, start to question that at A, and then maybe the S equivalent is them realise that they may be better as friends. Like, that seems like it might be a nice thing to explore.
  3. Oh, I certainly agree on the Fire Dragon getting very hyped up for somewhat-arbitrary reasons. I'm certainly not saying that I think that was the game's best idea. I do, however, think that it's still very possible for dragons to take over. Just because they need to use dragonstones does not mean that they aren't still powerful. Powerful in bursts, perhaps, but a good strategist could work around that rather easily. You could use wave attacks; sending in one squad to attack with their stones while another recoups and regains their strength or something. Sort of like what Oda Nobunaga did with rifles, only with dragons. That's just the most obvious example that I can think of on the top of my head. There's also the fact that humans are far more divided now than they seem to have been during the war. The current nations were founded after the Scouring, which to me at least implies that humanity was much more unified in the past. Now, though, the bonds of brotherhood that once united the species just aren't there in the same way. A big part of The Binding Blade's story is that it didn't take a whole lot of effort for Bern to divide and conquer the other countries because a large portion of them were thinking about themselves rather than their countries. If Roy hadn't stepped up to lead the resistance, Bern would have won that war. Even then, recognising that, "the continent could be reduced to ash" doesn't necessarily mean that humans are going to win. Pyrrhic victories are also possible: humans could win, but all their infighting and squabbling during the opening months/years could give the dragons so much of a head-start that success comes at an incredible cost. I'd argue that we have a pretty good model for that in real life to compare the situation to. The planet is as close to being literally on fire as it can be without the sun imploding, thanks to climate change, and yet so many powerful leaders and governments are still doing the square root of nothing about it. Not without first asking the question of, "But what do we get out of it?" Even if we do manage to turn the tide of this particular fight, at this point it's not going to come without cost. Oh, I certainly don't doubt that it has faults. Like I said, it's not my fave and I certainly don't consider it the best-written story in the series. It's just that, after hearing so many people, including some rather prominent FEtubers say things like, "This game is the worst game ever and literally killed my son and also it's bad" I was kind of expecting that maybe there was some big massive gaping logic wound that I'd overlooked. Something on the level of the Blood Pact or Ryoma having spies who can break into Corrin's castle in a parallel universe but not determine why Garon has started the war in the first place. I certainly recognise when mistakes are made and I don't have any real defence for the localisation staff just making up stuff. However, when I hear that a game's story is bad-bad, I expect it to be... well... bad. This one just strikes me as being flawed. Neither are perfectly, certainly, but the one does not inherently imply the other.
  4. Mhm, very much agreed. Sure, I can get someone just not liking Abyss enough to see through to that but I think he shows in more than a few places that he is, if you'll pardon my troping, a jerk with a heart of gold in more than one episode of the narrative. I think that's fair. I may clarify myself a little: I do think that an incredibly destructive villain can, indeed work depending on the tone. I'm unfamiliar with this Shigaraki character but one character that I rather did enjoy was Ardyn in FFXV. Not because I think he's particularly amazingly well-written, but because Darin De Paul is just hamming it up in every scene and that's enjoyable. Pantomime baddies can certainly be acceptable if, indeed, you are gunning for that sort of tone. It's when writers try to tell a more serious story and bring in a very morally simple antagonist that I find myself rolling my eyes. Mostly because I think that the more serious and philosophical a writer wants to be, the more interesting a villain they need to antagonise the heroes. Which is kind of why I find I'm not a huge fan of Ardyn's DLC episode: it introduces a degree of moral grey that the story doesn't feel like it was built for because it's a JRPG about Swordboi McJebus saving the world as the destined Messiah of Sparklygem. Saying, "Well, I guess maybe Baron von Hitlersatan kinda had a reaassonn after all" rather out of the blue just doesn't particularly gel for me.
  5. Mkay, so there's a lot to unpack there so I'm gonna take that point-by-point. Yeah, see, that strikes me as a fair criticism. I like FE7 just fine and even I would rather like to know what the story behind Eliwood's old man being there was. That being said, it isn't a story-breaker. Whether or not Elbert was indeed a conspirator, it's clear enough that he is not for Nergal attempting to bring dragons through the Dragon's Gate and destroy the world. Again, it's a mistake but it's not a story-breaking plothole. That's... basically how 90% of all JRPG villains are TBH. I grant that it's annoying, it's just not a plothole. Au contraire: Dragons. Plural. Athos says that, "If dragons return" (meaning, the entirety of the species) "[T]he continent will be ash in less than a month!!" Which it most probably would be. Yes, magic and wyrmslayers and the Divine Weapons exist but the DWs have lost most of their power, as we hear in FE6; which means that in their current state they're basically just stronger wyrmslayers. Wyrmslayers are certainly potent against draconic entities but they're not kryptonite. You can't just wave one around and every dragon in a five-mile radius immediately drops dead. They're weapons that are effective, yes, but they aren't necessarily one-hit-kills. With the DWs effectively nerfed by the Ending Winter, humanity has lost its biggest trump card. What's more, we don't necessarily know that wyrmslayers and the like could be mass-produced in-time for humanity to rout the dragons. This is currently a time of (relative) peace: most schlubs have not got wyrmslayers to-hand ready for the day dragons come back, because they haven't had cause to in over 980 years. By the time the armies of Elibe mobilise, it's highly likely that most people will be dead. Medieval European governments couldn't even cope with the Black Death until it was far, far too late to do anything about it, what makes you think a similarly-developed setting will fare any better against sentient fire-breathing dragons who were kicked out of their home and may, depending on the dragons, very well harbour a grudge towards those who booted them out? Sure, Nils and Ninian didn't but do they speak for the entirety of their race? We don't see enough dragons in the Elibe duology to really tell how dragons as a whole feel about humanity. Maybe they're past it, maybe they're still mostly narked off. We just don't know. But, either way, considering that humanity started the war, I'd be willing to bet that whether they want it or not won't matter. The moment people see dragons come back, they'll probably do something stupid to aggravate them and the whole Scouring will start all over again. Methinks this is trying significantly too hard to find fault with a line that, in all honesty, the devs probably just used for dramatic exaggeration. This is not a Cerebus Retcon. Yeah, okay, that's a valid criticism but, again, it's a goof: not a plot hole. A mistake to be sure but not one that breaks the game. Presumably the writers just didn't have time to give the Fire Dragon a complex motive and a backstory. It happens all the time in game dev. So, yeah, a bit of a disappointment but it's not a plot-breaker. This is kind of what I mean when I say that I don't really get why FE7's plot catches so much flak. It makes mistakes, sure, what story doesn't? But compared to other narratives I've seen, its mistakes are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Nothing really stops the story from making any sense. That doesn't mean you have to objectively like it and it's the best thing ever, of course not, I just don't really see why pretty small little errors can sincerely be held up as massive gaping plot holes.
  6. It has been a while so do correct me if I'm wrong, however I am pretty sure there was a rather significant Plot Event that mandated that Luke change his ways because, if he didn't, he'd just keep on committing the same social errors that led up to the Plot Event. I can understand someone not loving Luke as a character, I'm just very certain that it didn't just happen "out of the sudden," to use your words. Personally, I'm not a fan of villains who just want to kill everyone for the heck of it. I find it very difficult to really care about a villain whose job could be done just as easily as, say, a tsunami or a meteor smashing into the planet. I like my baddies to have be able to answer the question of, "And then what?"
  7. Don't get me wrong: I see where you're coming from, I personally just come down on the side that I would genuinely rather have "house favouritism" and the potential of introducing people to a character who isn't totally squeaky clean because that could raise some interesting discussions than just picking the game's most vanilla character. But, hey, that's just like my opinion, man.
  8. Hmm. "Moments of iffiness", perhaps, but "holes"? Hardly. The thing about Hector's half-brother, sure, that's an oversight - but I'd hardly call it a "huge hole" because none of it really breaks the story's internal consistency to me: it just constitutes a minor goof. As far as a narrative goes, FE7 still makes sense from A to B. Hero A wants to find Person B, goes to Island C to rescue him only to discover Conspiracy D led by Villain E, so he embarks on a journey to retrieve MacGuffin F to prevent Apocalypse G. I'd say there was a plot hole if there was a massive gaping wound in the story that doesn't make any sense, like, say... to use a completely random example... "The protagonist's brother is a samurai who owns a vast network of ninja who are apparently capable of breaking into a pocket dimension but somehow have no idea why the neighbouring kingdom is invading unless some turncoat schlub spells it out for him in the other version of the game." That, to me, would constitute a rather glaring oversight but FE7's missteps that you've listed so far seem to be relatively minor things. You say that the Black Fang is a plot hole but... why? Is it because we never heard about them in FE6? I don't think that's such a big deal. It's been 20 years, that's more than enough time for people to start moving on with their lives and for society to begin moving forward after the busting of a vigilante group. Sure, there's a few things in translation, like the name of Nergal's wife, that are incorrect but again that doesn't really break the story. It's just a minor mistake. You can still comprehend 99% of what's happening in FE7. And, if we're gonna talk boss quality... well, I say this as someone who loves FE4 but even His Holiness Pope Shouzou of Kaga ain't exactly what you'd call infallible when it comes to boss design. Case in point: Do you remember Jacoban? Probably not. Dude exists for... what, two or three lines tops? So, yeah. Sure, I get it not being everyone's favourite FE - it's not even my fave - but I still can't really say that I understand why a few minor goofs mean people thinks its plot is terrible. Edit: Just to throw another hat into the ring, my other controversial FE opinion is that Tokyo Mirage Sessions is an adequate game and I genuinely don't see why certain corners of the internet were so agitated about "censorship" just because someone's, if you'll all forgive my memery, quote-unquote "v a g i n a b o n e s" were removed. I'd be more willing to call "censorship" if there had been some significant artistic or political statement that had been bowdlerised but, three and a bit chapters in, methinks that is not what happened to this game. It seems so far to be a pretty standard, "High school dorks with superpowers" romp. And, as such a game, it's, well, fine.
  9. Oh, I certainly agree that there's a difference in conflict-severity - but I think the point stands. A character you can have a big ol' chat about wins out over one who doesn't provoke such talks for me.
  10. I honestly really like Alm in SoV. I don't mind him being more reflective of Zofia's virtues that Rigel's because, well, of course he is: that's where he was raised. They sent him to Zofia to keep him away from the Duma Faithful, who have clearly descended into what can charitably be described as something that rhymes with "clucking bankers". Add that to Rigel's utterly poisonous obsession with power and you're looking at a culture that, bluntly, is kinda screwed from the get-go. I think Rigel wanted Alm to grow up into someone who would actually care about people, not someone who was obsessed with gaining strength above all else, and that's why I like this turn of events. We see pretty clearly in Berkut what Alm could have become had he stayed, and clearly that's not someone with his head screwed on properly. Which, granted, definitely raises a lot of questions in and of itself... I fully concede that he's not the best lord and I totally get why people might not dig him but I think he's a'ight.
  11. I remember watching like five minutes of Sailor Moon while channel hopping as a wee nipper but, for something I actually sat down for, I guess Pokemon.
  12. I honestly don't have too much of a problem with Byleth. Sure, she's not the most interesting Avatar but I don't have a problem with Avatars for the most part. The concept I'm pretty okay with, it's just the execution that sometimes doesn't always pan out. Honestly, I would rather see one of the other main Lords take centre stage because I do agree that they're more interesting. I wouldn't even mind it being Edelgard, and I'm someone who is very adamantly on the side of Claude and Dimitri when it comes to which Lord I prefer, because - as stated with the ARMS reasoning - she's interesting. I think she's wrong but she's interestingly wrong, and I don't think that's such a bad thing.
  13. FE7's story is good and I legitimately don't understand why people enjoy poking holes in it. Also: Chrom and Sumia are perfectly fine as a couple, mates: Any guy who shows that much enthusiasm for eating pie is probably going to have a very happy marriage.
  14. I don't know that I'd necessarily call Ike the best written character in the series. That's not to say I don't like him, I think he's perfectly fine as he is, but he is rather static. He starts the game being a kid who hates racism and ends the game as a man who hates racism. Other than the coming of age drama inherit in his arc, there's... not a massive amount to time. He's still plenty enjoyable, though, but I think the best-written character in Radiance might just be Elincia. I feel like she has a much more impactful arc, having a more visible evolution from sheltered princess to strong-willed young woman and to warrior princess to conflicted queen trying to do right by her people. I like Ike (heh) but I think what stops him from being a fave is that he kind of peaks at Radiance. Radiant Dawn doesn't really do all that much to shake up who he is or challenge him in any new way. He gets a new cutscene that more or less just paves the way for him and Soren to retread their A support from the past game in a different way, which is perfectly fine, but... it's also mostly stuff we've seen before?
×
×
  • Create New...