Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Slyfox

  • Rank
    FE 15 and beyond: or, maybe, but, unless, etc.
  • Birthday March 31

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Fencing, video games, novels, music.
  • Location
    In a Zaibach Empire Guymelef. So awesome.

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game

Member Badge

  • Members
    Flora (Cipher)


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

838 profile views
  1. I typically play as male characters in games that give you a choice, though from time to time I'll decide to play as a female character as well. I'll do the same with Three Houses. HOWEVER! I am not looking forward to playing as Bylass (I will though, those S supports don't unlock themselves). I'm not that bothered by her outfit, but it does feels rather unfitting in Three Houses' setting. Like the Ashen Wolves, they can throw their school outfits in the dump, it's so incredibly jarring. Anyway, my main issue with Bylass are the eyes. Holy smokes, those eyes are some of the worst I've seen on any character. It utterly ruins any enjoyment I would have had otherwise. Jeralt's special cutscene is also ruined when Bylass does her shocked expression. They are too big and oddly shaped. That said, I may be biased, as in general I dislike the overly large eyes women tend to have in animation. Bylad has a better outfit, and I actually like the "dead" look he sports, as it's quite fitting for the character. On a side note, our playable characters still aren't proper "avatars". One day, Intsys, one day...
  2. As far as Flayn goes, regarding Seteth being a couple with Leonie, I don't think she'd mind, knowing what she's like. Would it be weird for us in a similar situation? Absolutely.
  3. Leonie X Seteth. Boy do those two mix well. One of the few supports where Seteth doesn't have to use his teacher/dad personality, as Leonie is already a (mostly) well-adjusted individual. It's a support that truly feels like two equals just hanging out, especially in Seteth's case. Even their ending reflects that. They know where they stand with each other and are okay not being together until they've managed to calm down Fodlan in their respective ways. In all my time going through the internet since Three Houses released, reading up on everyone's opinions about the story and characters, I think I've seen maybe one person comment on this pairing. Why do people never talk about it? Is it because it's "boring"? Maybe nothing stands out, but that's a testament to their respective characters, and not poor writing.
  4. Is there anything to suggest that the Nabateans were ruling humanity after Sothis went to sleep? All we know is that most of them retreated to Zanado after she went into her slumber, and humanity did it's own thing. While we can assume that long-lived beings feel superior, there is still nothing to suggest that this was the case. The closest we even get to this starts when Rhea goes around drumming up support in what would be the future Empire to take down Nemesis, which didn't happen overnight. Rhea only becomes a control freak as a defense mechanism, her entire race is practically extinct. After Nemesis dies (which in part was definitely revenge), everything she does thereafter is for two reasons: survival, and bringing her mother back. I also believe it's implied she intended for Sothis to bring back her lost siblings once she has revived. The best way to ensure that is to rule humanity by whatever means she deems necessary. Does she view humans as lesser beings? Perhaps, but it would all seem to stem from the Red Canyon, and nothing about a dragon's inborn nature (such as dragons in general media). Say what you will about Rhea, but ruling humanity for the sake of it was never a part of the equation.
  5. There isn't a single character I dislike in Three Houses (so far). I mean yeah, the Slitherers are mostly one-note and probably the only candidates for being poorly written, but they aren't ineffectual like the villains were in Echoes. Some characters annoy me to an extant, but not enough to actively dislike them. That said, there are some characters I would not get along with at all in person, when it comes to the playable cast. Anyway, all in all, very happy. Favorite cast, a lot of depth to be had. Most characters alone are capable of provoking a variety emotions in me. Compare this to Echoes, where I really like the cast but the lack of supports hurts them a bit and I abhor the story. Or Awakening, where the cast is enjoyable but not deep. Or Fates, where.... eeeeeehhhhh.
  6. A lot happens off screen. We only control the main army, and Fodlan is a big place. It's mentioned that Caspar's father was in and around the Kingdom lands, nowhere near where SS and VW take place. It would make sense that he was put to death (or killed in battle, as a couple of you would argue) by whatever armies (or militias, most likely) were near those areas. It's also feasible that the Church of Seiros put him to death, although it does seem a little too soon for them to reach that far (he dies not long after Edelgard does, I think). Uncharacteristic of the armies? I wouldn't say so. Fire Emblem, since the beginning, has always been a brutal, medieval fantasy land where life invariably sucks in war, and atrocities happen. It's just that we typically only play a cast of special, goody two shoes snowflakes because otherwise it would be an unbearable series for many players. The Church is full of bigotry, same as the Alliance. We just don't personally see them at their worst through the eyes of our protagonists (edit: okay sometimes we do, my point still stands). Still, I think it's more likely that whatever Kingdom remnants were there offed him when the Empire lost, seeing as he would have impacted them directly more than any other area. As far as incomplete routes go, it's a love/hate relationship for me. I felt rather empty when I finished my first route, the lack of information was a little bewildering. On one hand, only knowing what your army knows is very realistic and I appreciate it to an extent. That said, it also reduces my enjoyment of the game, simply because you have to go through the same thing over and over before you find the other relevant story bits. Does it make for a better story? I'd say yes. But at the cost of a game that could have been more enjoyable, since it becomes just a series of fights with little payoff. And no, I'm not knocking on Three Houses, it's already my favorite Fire Emblem.
  7. The writers don't outright spell it out for us, but their intent is as clear as day to me. I'd have a hard time believing that Dorothea, who heavily dislikes nobility and violence, would commend him going down fighting. Giving up your life and being executed, in exchange for the lives of others, is most definitely a sacrifice. I can't see the opposing militaries going easy on his army if he went down fighting.
  8. Most people in the game don't consider her irredeemable, nor do I. Per the online Merriam Webster dictionary, I'm using "forgive" in the following sense. "to cease to feel resentment against (an offender)". That doesn't exclude taking further action, and further action is what happens in part 2. I haven't seen enough of Dedue to argue your point. Caspar's father is definitely executed in Verdant Wind and Silver Snow after the invasion of Enbarr, per Caspar's and Dorothea's monastery dialogue. It was also my understanding that Dimitri changes from vengeance-obsessed to simply carrying out his duty and ending the war. So that's why I deem it relevant. If that's not what happens, I guess I'll just have to keep playing Blue Lions to get the full picture. To be honest, I think we are mostly on the same page and are arguing minor points on said page. It's not surprising, if I agree 75% on one thing and disagree 25% on that same thing, I'd argue my points. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is all fine, but Edelgard will not change and stop fighting until she has achieved her goals. She will not be rehabilitated, nor will she let herself be captured. She is a danger to other people until the war is over with her death or her victory. Thus, it's a necessity for those she opposes to remove her. She started a war, and no matter how right she may be, war has consequences, ones that she knew she would have to pay. I am not arguing for punishment or justice because I don't like her. I'm arguing for it because I believe it to be necessary, given what we know of her. And, if we really want to dive deep into philosophical debate regarding justice/vengeance/criminals/etc, I did write up a little bit of text, though it may irrelevant to Fire Emblem. So maybe not... In regards to the line in bold, as, hypocritical though he may be, Felix said to Ashe: "be more moderate in your passions". I find it important to listen to both my heart and my mind. Relying on one too much makes us blind to other facets of life. As you've mentioned, you really like Edelgard. Maybe you truly believe she there is nothing wrong with her. Just keep in mind that we tend to overlook the flaws in those we love. Also, anyone else take up to an hour to write and edit replies? It's so difficult to write stuff without being too opinionated and fanning the flames of war debate. I promise I'm not so robotic in person.
  9. Hmmm, I don't really see the difference, to be honest? She's trying to kill them? She's too dangerous. She's trying to kill others? She's too dangerous. They weren't personally in danger around the time Byleth wakes up. The war was more or less in a stalemate, but they still fight back against the Empire when the opportunity arises instead of suing for peace. I don't think such a distinction is necessary in this case, as it's quite plausible that they ended her life for multiple reasons. Like a taco, you know, many kinds of fillings stuffed inside. And let's say our protagonists didn't kill her out of a sense of obligation, plenty of other people would have. Dedue wants her dead because of justice, with maybe a bit of vengeance thrown in. Caspar's father was executed for the part he played, and he offered his life to spare his soldiers. Who's to say Edelgard would get a free pass if she wasn't personally trying to kill someone?
  10. Dimitri forgives her in his route (so I hear, just started Blue Lions). Byleth forgives her in Silver Snow and Verdant Wind. So does Claude. So do I, for that matter. They all empathize with her. I think it's easy to forgive her as a person, genuinely wanting to do good. But as a ruler, she wields great power, power that has and will continue to harm others. That's why she has to be removed in three of the routes, whether that's exile, imprisonment or death. For example, spoilers for Star Wars: Rebels Maybe some fans feel overwhelming hatred and a need for vengeance when it comes to Edelgard, as some do with Rhea. But ultimately, none of our main protagonists kill her for that reason. Empathy and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive with justice and punishment.
  11. Maybe she isn't evil, but a few of her actions most definitely are. Attempted murder (Hubert certainly has murdered people), burning allies, allowing innocents to be turned into demonic beasts, etc. Even plunging the continent into war, although that is more easily debatable in society. How many evil actions can one carry out or allow before you are considered evil? Being selfless is not a good reason to bring harm to others. And it's not so cut and dry whether Edie is evil or not. I'd personally say she is both. Her (mostly) selfless goals and desires? Not evil. Her actions? Very evil. I don't think anyone is entirely wrong to label her one way or the other, nor are they right if they only think she is 100% evil or 100% good.
  12. Even One Punch Man's serious moments still play out like affectionate parodies. I DID care about the characters in those moments, but it wasn't what I'd consider heart wrenching or anything like that. And I love love love FMAB, but they could have reduced the humor by at least half. It's different for everyone and I can say that I'm wildly inconsistent on what I would consider a good balance of drama and humor but as a rule of thumb, I like things to be at least 95% drama and at most 5% humor (or vice versa). The more the intended tone of a story gets muddled the less immersed I get.
  13. I'm a bit of a slob when staying at home, avoiding contact with other human beings. On the other hand, you won't catch me dead leaving my house without showering, wearing clean clothes, etc. Very self-conscious about that stuff. For the most part, lack of hygiene around others, especially willingly so, is a huge lack of respect to everyone else. Basically, being smelly or defensive of smelly without good reason is instant grounds for me to consider them (starts with A, you know the rest) for all of eternity.
  14. Minimalist was a poor word choice. The story is there, but only the beginning and end (near end as well) are fleshed out to a satisfactory degree. Minimalist would be like Etrian Odyssey. I don't even think it's necessary to make us personally rebuild NLA. Colony 6 was a chore, but after all that time setting up infrastructure out in the world, getting resources, I just think it makes sense for NLA to grow as the missions go by. Or set up bases around the area. I am beyond angry that you dared contradict me! sdfiuyogbdfkhujygfebvwkevwf ARGH! Seriously though, no need to apologize for something that hasn't happened. I really enjoy debating, as long as it remains friendly. You are doing a fantastic job of it, so thank you! People tend to forget that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you have to treat them poorly.
  • Create New...