Voting Gauntlet: Destructive Forces

[Anacybele]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I suspect Awakening was a very weirdly designed game due to it being the supposedly final Fire Emblem game. The numerous villain factions all fighting each other for screentime makes me think it was originally meant to be two games until Nintendo gave them the memo they were killing the series. Presumably this made IS dump all their ideas in one game and with Aversa, Validar, Walmart and Gangrel all needing screentime there wasn't any room to expand upon Grima much. To make up for shafting Grima they tried making up for it in later games. Or that's my suspicion at least. 

Yeah, that's a possibility.

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Which does make the high support for Idunn somewhat weird. She's easily topping this poll despite not being known by a lot of people and being considered a laughing stock of a final boss by those that do. 

As others said, her being a pretty female, recently added, and a great unit are probably the factors there.

44 minutes ago, XRay said:

The likeability of a character and how well the character impacts the story are two different things. Just because I hate Surtr does not mean I do not acknowledge Surtr's contribution to the story. He is simple, but simple does not mean he is bad. He is hell bent on weeding out weaklings, which is no different from Joker who is hell bent on pissing off Batman.

Fair I guess. The thing is for me, "force of nature" villains are not my cup of tea, I suppose. I'm not fond of the Joker either. Though I think the Joker had some origins explained, at least? Surtr still doesn't have that.

14 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

I just started and surrendered 30 battles. All of them gave me a red friend list unit. 17 of them gave me a red rando unit. 3 of them gave me a team of all Idunn.

This is bullshit.

Jesus, that IS bullshit. :/ Sounds super annoying.

[Landmaster]

1 hour ago, Tybrosion said:

Is this the part where I come in and say they both suck equally? Because they do.

They're also both equally ugly

[Tybrosion]

26 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

I just started and surrendered 30 battles. All of them gave me a red friend list unit. 17 of them gave me a red rando unit. 3 of them gave me a team of all Idunn.

This is bullshit.

Well, good to know that suffering (just of a different variety) will still await me once this round is over. Also, you should probably just axe the red friends at this point if it's that bad.

12 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

I'm not fond of the Joker either. Though I think the Joker had some origins explained, at least? Surtr still doesn't have that.

Joker is also a legitimately entertaining and good villain, neither of which Surtr was in any capacity.

10 minutes ago, Landmaster said:

They're also both equally ugly

For Surtr that goes without saying but damn, I don't think even I'd go that far to call Hrid ugly.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Tybrosion

[Ottservia]

12 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Fair I guess. The thing is for me, "force of nature" villains are not my cup of tea, I suppose. I'm not fond of the Joker either. Though I think the Joker had some origins explained, at least? Surtr still doesn't have that.

Force of nature villains are a tricky thing to be sure but if done well they can create some really interesting stories and characters. I mean pretty much all of persona 5’s villains(bar one exception but I won’t get into that) are force of nature villains and they work really well for that game’s story. Frieza from DBZ is another example of a force of nature done pretty well. These kinds of villains aren’t everyone’s thing but I personally find them to be entertaining.

[Interdimensional Observer]

51 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Good to see people agree with me on Surtr being an actually decent villain. I think people tend to forget that force of nature villains can be done well. It’s just a matter of execution. 

Mind, the person agreeing with you is quite drawn to the OC females, unusually so perhaps. I wouldn't call them a most serious critic, not that this invalidates their opinion either.

Not that I have any opinion on this Surtr, being an avid practitioner of the "Skip" button. My Surtr is this one:

Spoiler

More so the one on the left.

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[Anacybele]

5 minutes ago, Tybrosion said:

Joker is also a legitimately entertaining and good villain, neither of which Surtr was in any capacity.

Joker was never entertaining or good to me. I always thought he was dumb and stupid.

5 minutes ago, Tybrosion said:

For Surtr that goes without saying but damn, I don't think even I'd go that far to call Hrid ugly.

Yeah, like wow, how is Hrid even the least bit ugly? I mean, I get that not everyone will think he's hot or anything (I find him hot tho... :P), but still.

[Tybrosion]

2 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Joker was never entertaining or good to me. I always thought he was dumb and stupid.

Fair enough. I was just saying that I can at least respect Joker as a villain, unlike Surtr.

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, Tybrosion said:

Fair enough. I was just saying that I can at least respect Joker as a villain, unlike Surtr.

That's fine.

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

I will admit Echoes and Heroes added some nice details about him, but the problem for me is why wasn't this backstory in Awakening to begin with? I would've appreciated Grima a bit more if this was the case, but within his own game, he got hardly any depth or anything. Sure, Awakening was being treated as the final game in the series, but still, adding a little backstory and stuff isn't hard. Instead, they waited five more years to give Grima any real character writing.

1

Grima was perfectly alright where he was in Awakening. Grima didn't need to be a villain that needed a big motive or some backstory necessarily. Grima is an entity from the future, someone that ALREADY won. He doesn't need to bother explaining his reasons for doing anything. All he cares about is to ensure that history repeats itself with his victory. 

He was and is always meant to be the disaster that was to be fought against. Grima made his presence known from Arc 1 when he saved Validar. His threat in the future was made clear in Arc 2 when Lucina explained her future. Grima's full display of terror was depicted in Arc 3. 

Could it have been handled better? Yes. But your claim that Grima needed to have backstory in Awakening is incorrect as it would not go along with the theme of Awakening at all.

[Anacybele]

7 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Grima was perfectly alright where he was in Awakening. Grima didn't need to be a villain that needed a big motive or some backstory necessarily. Grima is an entity from the future, someone that ALREADY won. He doesn't need to bother explaining his reasons for doing anything. All he cares about is to ensure that history repeats itself with his victory. 

He was and is always meant to be the disaster that was to be fought against. Grima made his presence known from Arc 1 when he saved Validar. His threat in the future was made clear in Arc 2 when Lucina explained her future. Grima's full display of terror was depicted in Arc 3. 

Could it have been handled better? Yes. But your claim that Grima needed to have backstory in Awakening is incorrect as it would not go along with the theme of Awakening at all.

Excuse me, but what? Just because you disagree doesn't make me wrong. I did not like Grima at all the way he was presented in Awakening because I feel he did not have enough depth and backstory to justify why he was bent on destroying everything. And there is NOTHING wrong with that opinion.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

Excuse me, but what? Just because you disagree doesn't make me wrong. I did not like Grima at all the way he was presented in Awakening because I feel he did not have enough depth and backstory to justify why he was bent on destroying everything. And there is NOTHING wrong with that opinion.

And what does being created by a mad alchemist to create the perfect lifeform have anything to do with the theme of Awakening in regards to fighting against fate itself from a future where Grima is fated to win? Grima's backstory doesn't actually belong in Awakening since we fight Grima that had come from the future. 

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

And what does being created by a mad alchemist to create the perfect lifeform have anything to do with the theme of Awakening in regards to fighting against fate itself from a future where Grima is fated to win? Grima's backstory doesn't actually belong in Awakening since we fight Grima that had come from the future. 

What "theme" are you talking about? Time travel? Then maybe don't use that idea if you can't do it right. Time travel is almost never done well anyway. And just because it's a "future where Grima is fated to win" doesn't mean he can't have backstory and depth.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

What "theme" are you talking about? Time travel? Then maybe don't use that idea if you can't do it right. Time travel is almost never done well anyway. And just because it's a "future where Grima is fated to win" doesn't mean he can't have backstory and depth.

1

Not per se. It's about fighting against an inevitable fate. Grima is someone that already won. The future was lost and they are trying to avert that apocalyptic fate. Unlike other FE stories, that generally follow a case of being led more or less by destiny, this one actively has the characters trying to change fate.

Time travel was handled just fine. Didn't try to explain the mechanics so much that it creates issues. It just leaves much to interpretation on how it works, and that it simply exists. If it tries to make so much use of it, like how Fates handled the dimensions thing, that would create issues. But it was made use one time in the story, which was all it needed.

As for the thing with backstory. That's where you're missing the point. Why does Grima need to go on about any backstory if he comes from a future where he's won? It wouldn't make any sense. He already won. He doesn't need to explain why he hates humans or why he's doing it. Simply by that logic, his motivations need only to be about repeating history for his victory. Talking about a backstory or some philosophy would only make sense in the original timeline or such, but this isn't that kind of story.

So yes, the theme of Awakening doesn't fit with the backstory of Grima here. 

Hence why I say that you are wrong about claiming that Grima needed to have his backstory and personal philosophy explained in Awakening.

[Landmaster]

43 minutes ago, Tybrosion said:

For Surtr that goes without saying but damn, I don't think even I'd go that far to call Hrid ugly.

Never been able to stand his face, personally~ Even his Seasonal couldn't save him~

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

And what does being created by a mad alchemist to create the perfect lifeform have anything to do with the theme of Awakening in regards to fighting against fate itself from a future where Grima is fated to win? Grima's backstory doesn't actually belong in Awakening since we fight Grima that had come from the future. 

This. I like what they did with Grima in echoes but I don’t see how suddenly giving him this backstory just makes him “better villain” cause really all this backstory really does is just kinda reaffirm the fact that he’s a force of nature. It doesn’t add anything to his character just kinda explains where he came from.

4 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

What "theme" are you talking about? Time travel? Then maybe don't use that idea if you can't do it right. Time travel is almost never done well anyway. And just because it's a "future where Grima is fated to win" doesn't mean he can't have backstory and depth.

Time travel isn’t a “theme” time travel is just a plot device used to explore the actual themes of awakening’s story. That being “fate is not absolute and can be altered” and it does that well if you ask me. Again it’s not great but it’s executed well enough. Grima is a force of nature. He’s not supposed to have backstory and depth because that’s not the point of those kinds of villains. The point of those kinds of villains is how their sheer presence effects the world and characters around them and what conflicts/developments arise from that. They’re not so much a character with depth and nuance but rather a manifestation of some core idea or theme the story is trying to explore. Grima is a representation of despair and failure. He is a physical manifestation of Robin’s failure to defy fate. Lucina’s failure to save her world. That’s the whole idea behind Grima as a villain and for the most part it’s handled well especially in the future past DLC

[Anacybele]

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Why does Grima need to go on about any backstory if he comes from a future where he's won? It wouldn't make any sense. He already won. He doesn't need to explain why he hates humans or why he's doing it. Simply by that logic, his motivations need only to be about repeating history for his victory. Talking about a backstory or some philosophy would only make sense in the original timeline or such, but this isn't that kind of story.

So yes, the theme of Awakening doesn't fit with the backstory of Grima here. 

Hence why I say that you are wrong about claiming that Grima needed to have his backstory and personal philosophy explained in Awakening.

...Why the fuck does it matter that he "won?" Backstory and depth would make him a more interesting and effective villain instead of a bland blank slate that seems to be nothing but "Grrr, I'm a big scary dragon and I want to destroy you!"

So stop calling my opinion that he needed backstory and depth wrong, because it's not. I'm not saying you're wrong, am I? No. We have different opinions, accept it.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

...Why the fuck does it matter that he "won?" Backstory and depth would make him a more interesting and effective villain instead of a bland blank slate that seems to be nothing but "Grrr, I'm a big scary dragon and I want to destroy you!"

So stop calling my opinion that he needed backstory and depth wrong, because it's not. I'm not saying you're wrong, am I? No. We have different opinions, accept it.

Hence why I said. You miss the point.

Grima having won means everything. Backstory and depth would literally do nothing for Grima. It wouldn't do anything to what Grima is meant to represent. The whole, "Grr, I'm a big scary dragon and I want to destroy you!" is because Grima is a force of nature. He represents the unchanging fate that the heroes are struggling against. 

Your opinion is just fine. It isn't stupid or bad or any means of disrespect to you. But saying that he needs one in Awakening's story is objectively incorrect because it would not improve Grima at all as a character, because he isn't actually meant to be one. He's a force of nature. When writing a story, you need to make sure that the themes of the story are conveyed with the protagonists and antagonists. Grima talking about some backstory that he was created by a mad alchemist doesn't do anything for him in the story's themes.

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

This. I like what they did with Grima in echoes but I don’t see how suddenly giving him this backstory just makes him “better villain” cause really all this backstory really does is just kinda reaffirm the fact that he’s a force of nature. It doesn’t add anything to his character just kinda explains where he came from.

 

Exactly. Grima's backstory would better work if it was from the First Exalt's time or the original timeline. But for Awakening, no. 

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Personally I went with Idunn. If anyone is on her team and hasn't added me feel free to, my code is 9925235353 and my lead is Micaiah though I can change her out if needed. Just let me know if you add me so I know it's someone from here :)
 

52 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Joker was never entertaining or good to me. I always thought he was dumb and stupid.

Someone who actually agrees with me on disliking Joker! I thought I was alone!!

[Ottservia]

11 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Why the fuck does it matter that he "won?" Backstory and depth would make him a more interesting and effective villain instead of a bland blank slate that seems to be nothing but "Grrr, I'm a big scary dragon and I want to destroy you!"

But he doesn’t need backstory and depth to be a good villain. For Grima to be a good villain he just needs to be threatening, intimidating, powerful, and allow us to explore different aspects of the story’s characters and themes. Which he does and that’s why I think he’s an interesting villain. I am of the opinion you should never criticize something for what you think it should it be but rather what it’s trying to be. Grima isn’t trying to be a narrative villain who is a character with depth, nuance, and intrigue. He is trying to be a force of nature villain that allows us to explore different aspects of the world and characters which he does well enough.

[Anacybele]

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

But he doesn’t need backstory and depth to be a good villain. For Grima to be a good villain he just needs to be threatening, intimidating, powerful, and allow us to explore different aspects of the story’s characters and themes.

And I keep saying I disagree with this, why don't you get it?! I prefer villains that have backstory and depth to just plain bland "I"m threatening and powerful and intimidating!" Why do you keep saying that this mindset is so damn wrong?

9 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Grima having won means everything. Backstory and depth would literally do nothing for Grima. It wouldn't do anything to what Grima is meant to represent. The whole, "Grr, I'm a big scary dragon and I want to destroy you!" is because Grima is a force of nature. He represents the unchanging fate that the heroes are struggling against. 

And these kinds of villains are just terrible garbage to me. I don't like them. Why can't you accept that?!

I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I'm just legit offended that you both keep bothering me and are basically saying my opinion is wrong and bad just because you disagree.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Anacybele

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

And I keep saying I disagree with this, why don't you get it?! I prefer villains that have backstory and depth to just plain bland "I"m threatening and powerful and intimidating!" Why do you keep saying that this mindset is so damn wrong?

And these kinds of villains are just terrible garbage to me! I don't like them. Why can't you accept that?!

I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I'm just legit offended that you both keep bothering me and are basically saying my opinion is wrong.

Maybe perhaps don't say something like "garbage" then? 

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Maybe perhaps don't say something like "garbage" then? 

It's not my fault you chose to reply to me, though.

[Ottservia]

7 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

And I keep saying I disagree with this, why don't you get it?! I prefer villains that have backstory and depth to just plain bland "I"m threatening and powerful and intimidating!" Why do you keep saying that this mindset is so damn wrong?

And these kinds of villains are just terrible garbage to me! I don't like them. Why can't you accept that?!

I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I'm just legit offended that you both keep bothering me and are basically saying my opinion is wrong.

Not saying you’re opinion on these kinds of villains is wrong at all. Everyone has different tastes and things they value within a story. You just seem to prefer narrative villains is all and that’s totally fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. What omega and I are trying to say here is that Grima is not a bad villain because he lacks depth and nuance. We’re saying adding depth and nuance to him wouldn’t really work because that’s not the point of him as a villain. If you don’t like Grima as a villain more power to ya. That just means we have different tastes is all but I wouldn’t say Grima is an objectively bad villain. Just one that doesn’t align to your personal tastes and that’s totally fine.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ottservia

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Anacybele said:

It's not my fault you chose to reply to me, though.

Then maybe don't say anything yourself if you don't want responses? If you're going to post something like that, you better be ready to have someone say that you're wrong and why you're wrong.

[Anacybele]

30 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Then maybe don't say anything yourself if you don't want responses? If you're going to post something like that, you better be ready to have someone say that you're wrong and why you're wrong.

I never said I didn't ever want responses. I just don't want/need responses that are needlessly attacking my opinions/views like you've been doing. You can't blame me for your decision to jump in and attack me. But you don't know when to stop, do you?

30 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Not saying you’re opinion on these kinds of villains is wrong at all. Everyone has different tastes and things they value within a story. You just seem to prefer narrative villains is all and that’s totally fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. 

Yes, exactly. And yet...

30 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What omega and I are trying to say here is that Grima is not a bad villain because he lacks depth and nuance. We’re saying adding depth and nuance to him wouldn’t really work because that’s not the point of him as a villain.

You're still insisting that I'm wrong to disagree with this and won't say why. Again, why is that so wrong?

Edited April 2, 2019 by Anacybele