Jump to content

My Thoughts on Crimson Flower (1st Playthrough)


vanguard333
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Despite all of its problems, the game still is one of my favourite games ever, a lot in the same way as how crimson flower could be my favourite route, despite having so many problems, it is just that the things it does well, it does really well. This applies to the game as a whole. 

Maybe the game would be more focused with a single route or fewer once, but I honestly wouldn't know what to cut. I do think that each perspective is necessary in the way the story is laid out. But I guess that silver snow is redundant due to its similarities with verdant wind. I just don't get why anyone would not side with Edelgard when you picked her house, I thought that siding with the Empire would be given if you selected the Black Eagles like it is with siding with the respective kingdoms of the other house leaders. On the other hand, crimson flower does benefit themematically from having you joining Edelgard being the player's decision

Oh; I wouldn't have it any other way. I agree that the game definitely has a number of moments and areas where it excels. I think, if anything, the lesson here for IS is that, if they're going to make a game this big, maybe build it from a pre-existing foundation instead of building the foundation from scratch too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Moltz23 said:

They did admit the game ended up being far bigger than initially estimated, so it's fairly plausible that is the case.

 

Despite not every route reaching #22, there are still 47 "unique" chapters across all routes... on top of all the paralogues (22?). It's about the same chapter load as Fates on release, which was literally split into two different games.  Then there's all the monastery stuff that's essentially the base concept in a much more ambitious scale. Awakening was only 25 + similar number of paralogues. Radiant Dawn was 43 (?) with no paralogues. Echoes was a straight-forward remake of a simple game. 

3H is probably IS's biggest undertaking in the FE franchise, considering the amount of stuff crammed into the game. So I can in part understand why most routes feel like they're lacking something. But with plans to release DLC's anyways, I think we could've done without Silver Snow at first if it meant tightening up Golden Deer and actually giving Crimson Flower the attention it warranted.

Edited by NolanBaumgartner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NolanBaumgartner said:

Despite not every chapter reaching #22, there are still 47 "unique" chapters across all routes... on top of all the paralogues (22?). It's about the same chapter load as Fates on release, which was literally split into two different games.  Then there's all the monastery stuff that's essentially the base concept in a much more ambitious scale. Awakening was only 25 + similar number of paralogues. Radiant Dawn was 43 (?) with no paralogues. Echoes was a straight-forward remake of a simple game. 

3H is probably IS's biggest undertaking in the FE franchise, considering the amount of stuff crammed into the game. So I can in part understand why most routes feel like they're lacking something. But with plans to release DLC's anyways, I think we could've done without Silver Snow at first if it meant tightening up Golden Deer and actually giving Crimson Flower the attention it warranted.

I would probably also skipped Silver Snow in favour of putting in more time and effort with Crimson Flower, it is the most redundant route due to being so similar to verdant wind. It also doesn't feel entirely right to me not going with Edelgard when you have already picked her house, it Crimson flower wasn't an option. I would feel cheated. Sure, maybe not every player could get behind Edelgard, but that is what the other routes are for. Getting robbed of your house leader and Hubert when playing the Black Eagles really sucks, especially as Edelgard it is probably a major reason most people who pick the Black Eagles make that decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I would probably also skipped Silver Snow in favour of putting in more time and effort with Crimson Flower, it is the most redundant route due to being so similar to verdant wind. It also doesn't feel entirely right to me not going with Edelgard when you have already picked her house, it Crimson flower wasn't an option. I would feel cheated. Sure, maybe not every player could get behind Edelgard, but that is what the other routes are for. Getting robbed of your house leader and Hubert when playing the Black Eagles really sucks, especially as Edelgard it is probably a major reason most people who pick the Black Eagles make that decision

Like you, I'm Team Edelgard all the way but for someone who doesn't see Chapter 11 coming, it must be frustrating having to pick between what they feel is the right thing to do and the investment they already have in building Edelgard and Hubert as units. They're forced into an D&D-esque choice that doesn't really fit the way Fire Emblem narratives progress. At the beginning of the game you're supposed to have your side sorted out already, with the SS route resulting in an asymmetry where you can deviate from Edelgard but not the other two lords. 

It would've been much better to add SS as an DLC or as NG+ content, informing the player ahead of time they can make the decision to side with the Church provided they teach the Black Eagles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NolanBaumgartner said:

Like you, I'm Team Edelgard all the way but for someone who doesn't see Chapter 11 coming, it must be frustrating having to pick between what they feel is the right thing to do and the investment they already have in building Edelgard and Hubert as units. They're forced into an D&D-esque choice that doesn't really fit the way Fire Emblem narratives progress. At the beginning of the game you're supposed to have your side sorted out already, with the SS route resulting in an asymmetry where you can deviate from Edelgard but not the other two lords. 

It would've been much better to add SS as an DLC or as NG+ content, informing the player ahead of time they can make the decision to side with the Church provided they teach the Black Eagles.

I agree. I already pointed out how jarring I found the decision moment to be. I knew in my head that I wanted to play the Crimson Flower route, but I couldn't maintain my investment because it was just like:

  1. Edelgard is Flame Emperor
  2. Rhea is demanding her execution
  3. You must choose: execute her or side with her. 

And that's literally all there is to it. No buildup, no, "Why, Edelgard, why?!" Nothing. 

So, yeah; I think building the game with plans for there to be Silver Snow (like they intended from the beginning), but putting it off for later as DLC or something like that might've been far better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I agree. I already pointed out how jarring I found the decision moment to be. I knew in my head that I wanted to play the Crimson Flower route, but I couldn't maintain my investment because it was just like:

  1. Edelgard is Flame Emperor
  2. Rhea is demanding her execution
  3. You must choose: execute her or side with her. 

And that's literally all there is to it. No buildup, no, "Why, Edelgard, why?!" Nothing. 

So, yeah; I think building the game with plans for there to be Silver Snow (like they intended from the beginning), but putting it off for later as DLC or something like that might've been far better. 

Would you say it would be better if Edelgard was given a chance to explain herself before the decision? I think so, but it would also make this decision way less of a dilemma. Rhea is really not making that great of an impression at this point, I am later come to understand why her reaction is this level of extreme, but they don't know this at this point, so she just comes across as cruel in executing a former student without even hearing her out. Unless the Archbishop was actually willing to give some sort of refutation to Edelgard's accusations, things do seem very much in favour of Edelgard. 

Actually, there might not even be a conflict if the two of them were actually willing to talk during the holy tomb aftermatch (and you know, not jump immediately to execution). I haven't actually seen the many individuals who are actually in favour of the current iteration of the crest system, including Rhea. But the situation with the Agarthans does mean that Edelgard really doesn't have the luxury to stand down if she wants to keep her life and the Empire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Would you say it would be better if Edelgard was given a chance to explain herself before the decision? I think so, but it would also make this decision way less of a dilemma. Rhea is really not making that great of an impression at this point, I am later come to understand why her reaction is this level of extreme, but they don't know this at this point, so she just comes across as cruel in executing a former student without even hearing her out. Unless the Archbishop was actually willing to give some sort of refutation to Edelgard's accusations, things do seem very much in favour of Edelgard. 

Actually, there might not even be a conflict if the two of them were actually willing to talk during the holy tomb aftermatch (and you know, not jump immediately to execution). I haven't actually seen the many individuals who are actually in favour of the current iteration of the crest system, including Rhea. But the situation with the Agarthans does mean that Edelgard really doesn't have the luxury to stand down if she wants to keep her life and the Empire. 

I think there are ways to preserve, and even enhance the dilemma of the situation while still being able to make picking a side feel more natural. It would have to be somewhat subtle, and it would have to involve careful writing, but it could be done. 

One way that I think could improve it would've been if the Flame Emperor's motives had been made clear before the reveal. The Flame Emperor's goals are kept very vague and secretive, which I think was largely to keep the player from noticing the similarities between the Flame Emperor's goals and Edelgard's and clueing in. But I think that was a mistake. Having the Flame Emperor's goals be known to the player (and to Byleth) would her actions in the Holy Tomb easier to understand in-the-moment. 

Another thing would be to subtly adjust the dialogue before Rhea demands execution to get the player into the moment and thinking, "Who do I side with?" rather than, "What is happening?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Would you say it would be better if Edelgard was given a chance to explain herself before the decision? I think so, but it would also make this decision way less of a dilemma. Rhea is really not making that great of an impression at this point, I am later come to understand why her reaction is this level of extreme, but they don't know this at this point, so she just comes across as cruel in executing a former student without even hearing her out.

Edelgard tried to kill her first lol. Coming whit armed soldiers into a foreign state and saying to the leader "surrender or die" is an act of war and an unjust one at that. You can't start a war and then paint the other one as a bad guy for trying to murder you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Edelgard tried to kill her first lol. Coming whit armed soldiers into a foreign state and saying to the leader "surrender or die" is an act of war and an unjust one at that. You can't start a war and then paint the other one as a bad guy for trying to murder you.

Just because someone is the aggressor doesn't mean they are unjust, Edelgard, at the very least, believed she was fighting for a just cause, whenever that is true or not is debatable. The issue isn't necessarily that Rhea wants to kill her as much as she is unwilling to hear her out first, you would think she would want to know why Edelgard turned against her, but she is willing to order her execution before she has a chance to speak makes it seem like she's trying to hide something. It also doesn't help that Rhea comes across as incredibly sadistic in this scene, the way she talks here rubs me the wrong way. She even spouts an ideology that I believe to be inherently evil (eternal punishment). The Archbishop in general comes across as deranged and cruel, while Edelgard in comparison comes across as rational, compassionate, and even reluctant in the conversations following the holy tomb.

I know that Rhea isn't evil, and have reasons for what she is doing, I am just saying that she doesn't leave the best impression in this particular scene which at this moment makes joining Edelgard the more attractive option for me. What I am essentially saying is that Edelgard is under the impression that the Archbishop is an evil immortal tyrant that has ruled over the continent an iron fist for over a millennia, if Edelgard knew the full truth. Her response could have been very different and the Archbishop acting exactly like a cruel tyrant in this scene only strengthens Edelgard's belief that she is correct in her assertions, if shown mercy and understanding. This would come as a surprise to Edelgard and make her question if her understanding of events is really correct. Possibly preventing a future war with Edelgard entirely (still probably need to take care of the Agarthans). Eye for an eye only escalates a situation while offering mercy and redemption can de-escalate the situation before it gets worse, one reason it is nearly always the superior option

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Would you say it would be better if Edelgard was given a chance to explain herself before the decision?

it would be a good start. What still perplexes me to no end is that in the other routes Edelgard (as the Flame Emperor) does provide an explanation as for why she's raiding the Holy Tomb, so having Edelgard not tell you anything in her own route is really weird to the point I legit wonder if it was done on purpose. (and the fact there's a scene the other routes get before said event which never happens in BE for some reason does little to help).

EDIT:

4 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I'm on that month right now in my Golden Deer route. Is that true; does the Flame Emperor really provide an explanation in all routes but her own? Am I going to be going, "What?! Why wasn't this in the Black Eagles route?!" when I do that chapter tomorrow?

Yep, and she even gives a different answer depending on the route. IIRC in BL at least she claims to go there to remove some power residing there that would let anyone conquer the world or something.

Edited by Moltz23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moltz23 said:

it would be a good start. What still perplexes me to no end is that in the other routes Edelgard (as the Flame Emperor) does provide an explanation as for why she's raiding the Holy Tomb, so having Edelgard not tell you anything in her own route is really weird to the point I legit wonder if it was done on purpose. (and the fact there's a scene the other routes get before said event which never happens in BE for some reason does little to help).

I'm on that month right now in my Golden Deer route. Is that true; does the Flame Emperor really provide an explanation in all routes but her own? Am I going to be going, "What?! Why wasn't this in the Black Eagles route?!" when I do that chapter tomorrow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moltz23 said:

it would be a good start. What still perplexes me to no end is that in the other routes Edelgard (as the Flame Emperor) does provide an explanation as for why she's raiding the Holy Tomb, so having Edelgard not tell you anything in her own route is really weird to the point I legit wonder if it was done on purpose. (and the fact there's a scene the other routes get before said event which never happens in BE for some reason does little to help).

This has been bothering me for a while, you'd think she would explain herself here of all routes. I'm guessing it has to do with the dev's intentions with the scene, it's meant to signify the bond you have with Edelgard. Can you still trust her despite the lies and "betrayal" or did she cross the line and is a legitimate threat? I honestly think the devs were going for a irrational and emotional choice being made here. It's so "irrational" that Edelgard herself is in shock. Explaining her actions could possibly defeat the purpose of that since you could make a more logical choice based on the info you have. She's gonna be the antagonist no matter what in other routes so the devs can afford to shed some light on a major antagonist. 

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Just because someone is the aggressor doesn't mean they are unjust, Edelgard, at the very least, believed she was fighting for a just cause, whenever that is true or not is debatable. The issue isn't necessarily that Rhea wants to kill her as much as she is unwilling to hear her out first, you would think she would want to know why Edelgard turned against her, but she is willing to order her execution before she has a chance to speak makes it seem like she's trying to hide something. It also doesn't help that Rhea comes across as incredibly sadistic in this scene, the way she talks here rubs me the wrong way. She even spouts an ideology that I believe to be inherently evil (eternal punishment). The Archbishop in general comes across as deranged and cruel, while Edelgard in comparison comes across as rational, compassionate, and even reluctant in the conversations following the holy tomb.

I know that Rhea isn't evil, and have reasons for what she is doing, I am just saying that she doesn't leave the best impression in this particular scene which at this moment makes joining Edelgard the more attractive option for me. What I am essentially saying is that Edelgard is under the impression that the Archbishop is an evil immortal tyrant that has ruled over the continent an iron fist for over a millennia, if Edelgard knew the full truth. Her response could have been very different and the Archbishop acting exactly like a cruel tyrant in this scene only strengthens Edelgard's belief that she is correct in her assertions, if shown mercy and understanding. This would come as a surprise to Edelgard and make her question if her understanding of events is really correct. Possibly preventing a future war with Edelgard entirely (still probably need to take care of the Agarthans). Eye for an eye only escalates a situation while offering mercy and redemption can de-escalate the situation before it gets worse, one reason it is nearly always the superior option

Personally, I find it hard to call the aggressor "just" in any circumstance, especially when they're using lethal force. This isn't to be confused with victims lashing out, their tormentors are the aggressor no matter what. Though this isn't the main point and it's pretty subjective so I'll leave it at that. Don't mind me randomly joining the conversation. I just think this overall scene is interesting

We already know that Rhea doesn't care about your intentions, what matters is your actions and that makes it understandable why she didn't bother questioning Edelgard. To her, no reason could possibly justify attacking the Church and it's members. It's not a one time incident either, Edelgard's been a part of some major events within the past year like Flayn's kidnapping and Remire village. You're not the first person to claim Rhea appears to be hiding something but I never got that impression. We know how important the Church is to her and how she treats anyone who goes against it, I find it weird that anyone would think she's acting suspiciously or out of character in order to hide something. I'm a little surprised you'd say she's sadistic here, at least before the choice has been made since Rhea doesn't say anything about eternal punishment until Edelgard escapes :L.

I agree with the sentiment(the whole eye for an eye is bad) wholeheartedly here but I think it's unfair to look at the scene through Edelgard's perspective only, especially since you're using information we don't get until AFTER we make the choice. Looking at it from Rhea's perspective, to her Edelgard's a huge threat to Fodlan's safety, one that's trying to steal a lot of crest stones. Rhea knows what can be done with those stones and she isn't willing to take that chance. So while I think compassion would have been nice to see I can't exactly fault Rhea for the acting the way she did. Also, it didn't matter what Rhea did here, the war would have happen regardless. I doubt one act of kindness would be enough to shake Edelgard's beliefs since they're deeply rooted in her trauma.

Edited by ChickenBits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flere210 said:

I am not sprouting up random words, i am referencing the just war theory. And pretty much nobody in Three Houses respect those criteria.

I am unfamiliar with the just war theory I admit, what exactly are most criteria? I am quite sure this is a modern concept anyway, so applying it here is probably anachronistic. 

The way I see it just and unjust are very subjective matters, it essentially just means whenever you think of war was justified or not. The way I look at it, starting a war to remove a system that causes quite a lot of suffering is a just motivation.

Upon looking at it further, seems I was wrong about the just war theory being a modern concept, but I couldn't find a consensus of what I just war is defined as considering a lot of different cultures and people in history had different definitions about what would be considered a just war.

How exactly would you argue Edelgard isn't respecting those criteria? Is it because the attack on the holy tomb started before a formal declaration of war was made? In general, crimson flower Edelgard has a rather high standard of conduct for her personal army during the war, as she never goes out of her way to kill civilians, and she does intend to apply restorative measures to the regions conquered after the war to repair the damage.

16 minutes ago, ChickenBits said:

This has been bothering me for a while, you'd think she would explain herself here of all routes. I'm guessing it has to do with the dev's intentions with the scene, it's meant to signify the bond you have with Edelgard. Can you still trust her despite the lies and "betrayal" or did she cross the line and is a legitimate threat? I honestly think the devs were going for a irrational and emotional choice being made here. It's so "irrational" that Edelgard herself is in shock. Explaining her actions could possibly defeat the purpose of that since you could make a more logical choice based on the info you have. She's gonna be the antagonist no matter what in other routes so the devs can afford to shed some light on a major antagonist. 

Personally, I find it hard to call the aggressor "just" in any circumstance, especially when they're using lethal force. This isn't to be confused with victims lashing out, their tormentors are the aggressor no matter what. Though this isn't the main point and it's pretty subjective so I'll leave it at that. Don't mind me randomly joining the conversation. I just think this overall scene is interesting

We already know that Rhea doesn't care about your intentions, what matters is your actions and that makes it understandable why she didn't bother questioning Edelgard. To her, no reason could possibly justify attacking the Church and it's members. It's not a one time incident either, she's been a part of some major events within the past year like Flayn's kidnapping and Remire village. You're not the first person to claim she appears to be hiding something but I never got that impression. We know how important the Church is to her and how she treats anyone who goes against it, I find it weird that anyone would think she's acting suspiciously or out of character in order to hide something. I'm a little surprised you'd say she's sadistic here, at least before the choice has been made since Rhea doesn't say anything about eternal punishment until Edelgard escapes :L.

I agree with the sentiment(the whole eye for an eye is bad) wholeheartedly here but I think it's unfair to look at the scene through Edelgard's perspective only, especially since you're using information we don't get until AFTER we make the choice. Looking at it from Rhea's perspective, to her Edelgard's a huge threat to Fodlan's safety, one that's trying to steal a lot of crest stones. Rhea knows what can be done with those stones and she isn't willing to take that chance. So while I think compassion would have been nice to see I can't exactly fault Rhea for the acting the way she did. Also, it didn't matter what Rhea did here, the war would have happen regardless. I doubt one act of kindness would be enough to shake Edelgard's beliefs since they're deeply rooted in her trauma.

I do understand what you are saying, I was primarily referring to what Rhea says, after you make the choice not to side with Edelgard and how that contrasts with what you learn from Edelgard after you side with her. The Archbishop does come across as sadistic in the dialogue that follows. And Edelgard comes across as reasonable. As for the decision itself. I made it mostly through gut reaction, but as I figured out the identity of the Flame Emperor ahead of time and knew this choice was coming. I had already made up my mind at this point. If you pay attention, you would already know what Edelgard stands for. 

I do also understand why Rhea is reacting this way, which became abundantly clear to me after learning that Nemesis rise to power started with a tomb robbery very similar to this one, which led into the Red Canyon incident, so the reason she is with this level of furious is because that in her mind. Edelgard is currently a mirror of Nemesis and she knows what kind of damage. What is contained in this tomb can unleash upon the world. 

I know very well how Rhea treats those who goes against the church in any way, which is part of why by this point I was in agreement with Edelgard that the church was tyranical. Her caring more about actions more than intentions is basically the complete opposite of my views, so there is no wonder I don't view her as favourably as Edelgard. In a more objective stands for, she has good intentions, just like Edelgard, but is misguided, like Edelgard. In fact, the two has quite a bit in common. If we ignore the fact that their ideologies are the complete opposite of one another

Edited by Darkmoon6789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do understand what you are saying, I was primarily referring to what Rhea says, after you make the choice not to side with Edelgard and how that contrasts with what you learn from Edelgard after you side with her. The Archbishop does come across as sadistic in the dialogue that follows. And Edelgard comes across as reasonable. As for the decision itself. I made it mostly through gut reaction, but as I figured out the identity of the Flame Emperor ahead of time and knew this choice was coming. I had already made up my mind at this point. If you pay attention, you would already know what Edelgard stands for. 

I do also understand why Rhea is reacting this way, which became abundantly clear to me after learning that Nemesis rise to power started with a tomb robbery very similar to this one, which led into the Red Canyon incident, so the reason she is with this level of furious is because that in her mind. Edelgard is currently a mirror of Nemesis and she knows what kind of damage. What is contained in this tomb can unleash upon the world. 

I know very well how Rhea treats those who goes against the church in any way, which is part of why by this point I was in agreement with Edelgard that the church was tyranical. Her caring more about actions more than intentions is basically the complete opposite of my views, so there is no wonder I don't view her as favourably as Edelgard. In a more objective stands for, she has good intentions, just like Edelgard, but is misguided, like Edelgard. In fact, the two has quite a bit in common. If we ignore the fact that their ideologies are the complete opposite of one another

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying that. It seemed like you made your choice with the events afterwards in mind but I can see that's not the case. Rhea's uh terrifying when she's mad so I'm not gonna defend that. While I understood what Edelgard stood for, I built a stronger connection with Rhea and wanted to know more about her and why things were the way they were. My stance is actually pretty similar to yours in that I couldn't stand behind condemning someone without confronting them, only in my case I stood by Rhea.

I didn't see it as tyrannical but I can see why you did. For me, I didn't think Rhea was dangerous for executing criminals that essentially came after her nor was she tyrannical for doing so. I wonder if it's just my bias at play or the game's portrayal of these executions, the criminals aren't meant to be pitied for the most part except for Lonato to a certain degree. Ah I see, this is where we'll disagree ideologically. For me, actions are more important than intention, especially when the damage has already been done. Of course I'm not absolute about this, it should be a case by case thing.

I agree 100% and I do like Edelgard a lot, I just don't agree with her at times and prefer some other characters that happen to be in direct conflict with her. I think the devs made the right choice when designing Rhea and Edelgard the way they did, it's just shame some fans disregard this entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ChickenBits said:

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying that. It seemed like you made your choice with the events afterwards in mind but I can see that's not the case. Rhea's uh terrifying when she's mad so I'm not gonna defend that. While I understood what Edelgard stood for, I built a stronger connection with Rhea and wanted to know more about her and why things were the way they were. My stance is actually pretty similar to yours in that I couldn't stand behind condemning someone without confronting them, only in my case I stood by Rhea.

I didn't see it as tyrannical but I can see why you did. For me, I didn't think Rhea was dangerous for executing criminals that essentially came after her nor was she tyrannical for doing so. I wonder if it's just my bias at play or the game's portrayal of these executions, the criminals aren't meant to be pitied for the most part except for Lonato to a certain degree. Ah I see, this is where we'll disagree ideologically. For me, actions are more important than intention, especially when the damage has already been done. Of course I'm not absolute about this, it should be a case by case thing.

I agree 100% and I do like Edelgard a lot, I just don't agree with her at times and prefer some other characters that happen to be in direct conflict with her. I think the devs made the right choice when designing Rhea and Edelgard the way they did, it's just shame some fans disregard this entirely.

I do know what you mean, while I do have sympathy for other characters like Rhea once I learned of her background. It is just that she is in direct conflict with Edelgard and I simply like Edelgard more. I actually felt rather sad about killing both Dimitri and the Immaculate One, but by this point I didn't really see another choice. These feelings seems to be shared by Edelgard who I think found it quite difficult to kill Dimitri considering their shared history and she hated seeing what he turned into. And she did mention that she would prefer Rhea to surrender, stepped down and the strip of political power rather than kill her, which is supported by other routes.

I think what they really don't like seeing is people who view the situation as black-and-white and consider Edelgard to be pure evil. When she clearly isn't. This also goes for Rhea, things just isn't really all that simple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I just completed chapter 11 of my Golden Deer route. The Flame Emperor explains stealing the Crest Stones, "The powers that have been masqueraded as a medicine but are actually a poison". Why doesn't Edelgard say that in the Crimson Flower route? It's not much, but it would at least allow the player to start connecting the dots about her actions as Flame Emperor and why she's doing this. 

Also, Seteth again asks Rhea what Byleth is, and this time, Rhea answers: an experimental vessel for Sothis. Seteth is still angry with her because of the moral implications and the, "questionable nature of this experiment", but concedes that there's no turning back. So, if that's how he feels about it, and presumably this scene also happened in Crimson Flower (just off-screen), why can he not fathom Byleth siding with Edelgard? That alone, that Rhea turned Byleth into a lab-rat avatar for Sothis. something Seteth disagrees with Rhea about, should be enough for Seteth to have at least some understanding, shouldn't it?

 

EDIT: Also, I just completed chapter 12. I have to say, in terms of gameplay, I much prefer the Crimson Flower version.

Both use the same map, but the enemy layout is so much better in the Crimson Flower version. In that one, there's an almost rhythmic back-and-forth as you press on and the enemies reveal more and more tricks up their sleeve that you then have to account for. I thought it would be similar in the other routes, but framed more like a defend chapter. Nope; instead, all the enemies you see during map preparation are basically the only enemy units you'll see, minus one or two reinforcements depending on how quickly you defeat Hubert and Death Knight, and they don't pull any real tricks out of their sleeve. There's none of that back-and-forth.

Also, the Crimson Flower route presents a new boss you haven't faced already in the form of Rhea. I expected Edelgard to be the boss of the chapter, but I didn't expect her to still be wearing the Flame Emperor armour and almost the exact same stats. The only real differences between Edelgard in Chapter 12 and Flame Emperor in Chapter 11 are a silver axe instead of a steel axe, and now her Minor Crest of Seiros can activate. That's it? No unique shield, unique weapon, anything to make the boss fight a tactically different fight from the one you just did?

It also raises a question: why is the Church better prepared for a siege in the route where you side against them and take a bunch of students with you?

There is one major flaw to both versions though: the ally units. They get in the way far more than they help out, and are more of a nuisance. Why can't they be controllable, like allied units in paralogue missions? That would turn a bad inclusion into a good inclusion, as you can get them to hold chokepoints, man the ballistae and fire orbs, heal units, etc. 

Finally, there is one major advantage the non-Crimson Flower version of chapter 12 has: a post-battle cutscene, and a really good one. Seeing the Immaculate One in action is a sight to be hold, and seeing a dragon fight a pack of demonic beasts is incredible, as is Byleth killing one from an immense distance using the Sword of the Creator like a dragon tail (which it is, isn't it?) And of course, actually seeing Byleth plummet off of Garreg Mac Monastery has far more suspense and tragedy than not seeing it. The one disadvantage it has is that the cutscene had to be made to fit all three non-Crimson Flower routes, so you don't hear Claude or Dimitri scream, "Professor!" like you do for Edelgard in Crimson Flower. 

Edited by vanguard333
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2020 at 8:23 AM, vanguard333 said:

So, I just completed chapter 11 of my Golden Deer route. The Flame Emperor explains stealing the Crest Stones, "The powers that have been masqueraded as a medicine but are actually a poison". Why doesn't Edelgard say that in the Crimson Flower route? It's not much, but it would at least allow the player to start connecting the dots about her actions as Flame Emperor and why she's doing this. 

It's a mistranslated line, and has different characters in the scene. 

Basically, here is what you need to know. 

[クロード]: 墓荒らしの目的は一つだろ、炎帝さんよ。
あんたは聖墓に眠るお宝を暴きに来た、と。


[炎帝]: ふ、察しが良いな、道化師。
ここにある紋章石はすべて貰い受ける。
それを眠らせておいたところで、
薬どころか毒にさえならぬ

There is an idion is use: The original idiom is thus:  毒にも薬にもならない 。AKA “Neither poison nor medicine”. This idiom basically means “neither doing harm nor good” or “ you can get nothing useful out of it “. It is neither a poison or a medicine, so it is not doing harm nor good. 

However, what Edelgard says is  薬どころか毒にさえならぬ, which twists that idiom a bit. The original translation is a pretty close an English equivalent translation. “Far from a medicine, not even a poison” would be a bit more literal in the meaning. So, the full line would be “Even if you let it sleep where it is, far from a medicine it’s not even a poison.” 

But the ultimate meaning of what Edelgard is saying is:

What that character trying to say is “smoke them if you got them ” or

“if something is just going to lay there, you might as well use them.”

Without the previous line to her idiom, this may seem kind of strange, so here is the full translation (done by me, the idiot, so it may be a bit off):

Claude: There is one purpose of the grave robbing, Flame Emperor (Note: Claude says this with conviction, emphasizing his assumption/knowledge). You came to the Holy Tomb to expose the sleeping treasure.

Flame Emperor: Fu, good guess, clown. The sleeping Creststones here will all be received. Even if you let them sleep where they are, far from a medicine it’s not even a poison. 

So, yes. She’s basically confirming that Claude was correct in his guess; that she’s there to ‘reveal’ the sleeping treasure. That she plans to take them, and that they are useless here just ‘sleeping’.

And since Claude is in this scene, unlike in CF, the line is different. 

On 3/15/2020 at 8:23 AM, vanguard333 said:

Also, Seteth again asks Rhea what Byleth is, and this time, Rhea answers: an experimental vessel for Sothis. Seteth is still angry with her because of the moral implications and the, "questionable nature of this experiment", but concedes that there's no turning back. So, if that's how he feels about it, and presumably this scene also happened in Crimson Flower (just off-screen), why can he not fathom Byleth siding with Edelgard? That alone, that Rhea turned Byleth into a lab-rat avatar for Sothis. something Seteth disagrees with Rhea about, should be enough for Seteth to have at least some understanding, shouldn't it?

You should keep playing if you haven't completed the route before you get answers for this. 

On 3/15/2020 at 8:23 AM, vanguard333 said:

 

It also raises a question: why is the Church better prepared for a siege in the route where you side against them and take a bunch of students with you?

Gameplay. 

On 3/15/2020 at 8:23 AM, vanguard333 said:

There is one major flaw to both versions though: the ally units. They get in the way far more than they help out, and are more of a nuisance. Why can't they be controllable, like allied units in paralogue missions? That would turn a bad inclusion into a good inclusion, as you can get them to hold chokepoints, man the ballistae and fire orbs, heal units, etc. 

Idk. Gameplay I guess

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Booi said:

It's a mistranslated line, and has different characters in the scene. 

Basically, here is what you need to know. 

[クロード]: 墓荒らしの目的は一つだろ、炎帝さんよ。
あんたは聖墓に眠るお宝を暴きに来た、と。


[炎帝]: ふ、察しが良いな、道化師。
ここにある紋章石はすべて貰い受ける。
それを眠らせておいたところで、
薬どころか毒にさえならぬ

There is an idion is use: The original idiom is thus:  毒にも薬にもならない 。AKA “Neither poison nor medicine”. This idiom basically means “neither doing harm nor good” or “ you can get nothing useful out of it “. It is neither a poison or a medicine, so it is not doing harm nor good. 

However, what Edelgard says is  薬どころか毒にさえならぬ, which twists that idiom a bit. The original translation is a pretty close an English equivalent translation. “Far from a medicine, not even a poison” would be a bit more literal in the meaning. So, the full line would be “Even if you let it sleep where it is, far from a medicine it’s not even a poison.” 

But the ultimate meaning of what Edelgard is saying is:

What that character trying to say is “smoke them if you got them ” or

“if something is just going to lay there, you might as well use them.”

Without the previous line to her idiom, this may seem kind of strange, so here is the full translation (done by me, the idiot, so it may be a bit off):

Claude: There is one purpose of the grave robbing, Flame Emperor (Note: Claude says this with conviction, emphasizing his assumption/knowledge). You came to the Holy Tomb to expose the sleeping treasure.

Flame Emperor: Fu, good guess, clown. The sleeping Creststones here will all be received. Even if you let them sleep where they are, far from a medicine it’s not even a poison. 

So, yes. She’s basically confirming that Claude was correct in his guess; that she’s there to ‘reveal’ the sleeping treasure. That she plans to take them, and that they are useless here just ‘sleeping’.

And since Claude is in this scene, unlike in CF, the line is different. 

So, in the original, she's saying that the stones aren't good or bad, but it's pointless that they're just sitting there? Interesting. 

 

15 minutes ago, Booi said:

You should keep playing if you haven't completed the route before you get answers for this. 

I am continuing to play, for two reasons: One: I'm really enjoying the game, and two: I have a lot more free time at home due to... current events...

 

21 minutes ago, Booi said:

Gameplay. 

Idk. Gameplay I guess

I suppose, but wouldn't it make more sense (and potentially result in better gameplay) if both sides brought their a-game? I got the sense of that in Crimson Flower, where both the story and gameplay tension came from the ever-escalating back-and-forth as both sides revealed more and more of what they prepared for this grand, epic siege.

Every time you advanced, the church pulled something new out of their sleeve, and this would be met both by you thinking on your feet, and by Edelgard's forces also pulling something out of their sleeve, though mainly just the Death Knight. First, enemies that were hiding ambush you as you advance the main path. Then Seteth goes from defensive to aggressive once Flayn's defeated and forced to retreat. There's more reinforcements. Then, finally, the Church reveals the giant automaton things whose name I forget. 

With the non-Crimson Flower version of the map, however, there's none of that. We're told that the situation's dire, and the church is ill-prepared and will have to use everything it has to repel this siege, but those who have played Crimson Flower know that it isn't everything they have, and neither is what we see of Edelgard's forces all of what she has. But, aside from a pitifully small number of reinforcements, what you see at the start of the mission is what you get for both sides.

 

By contrast, if we compare it to Path of Radiance, we have chapter 8: Despair and Hope, which I would argue does a far better job carrying and conveying the tension as well as carrying out that tension in gameplay, despite being smaller and less "epic". In it, the mercenaries are completely surrounded by an absolutely massive number of Daein forces. The tension from this defence chapter is one of attrition: every time enemies are defeated, it can seem like more just keep coming. As the Daein soldiers pile up at each chokepoint on the map, they convey that this is an overwhelming force. Even though the condition is to survive for a limited number of turns, more and more reinforcements show up past the point at which they could possibly reach the defend space in time, just to convey how hopeless things are getting for the Greil Mercenaries. This chapter felt far more tense than the chapter 12 of Golden Deer route. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

So, in the original, she's saying that the stones aren't good or bad, but it's pointless that they're just sitting there? Interesting. 

Yes, so that's why she is taking them, and her response is different because there is a different group of people there asking her questions. 

2 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

 

I suppose, but wouldn't it make more sense (and potentially result in better gameplay) if both sides brought their a-game? I got the sense of that in Crimson Flower, where both the story and gameplay tension came from the ever-escalating back-and-forth as both sides revealed more and more of what they prepared for this grand, epic siege.

Every time you advanced, the church pulled something new out of their sleeve, and this would be met both by you thinking on your feet, and by Edelgard's forces also pulling something out of their sleeve, though mainly just the Death Knight. First, enemies that were hiding ambush you as you advance the main path. Then Seteth goes from defensive to aggressive once Flayn's defeated and forced to retreat. There's more reinforcements. Then, finally, the Church reveals the giant automaton things whose name I forget. 

With the non-Crimson Flower version of the map, however, there's none of that. We're told that the situation's dire, and the church is ill-prepared and will have to use everything it has to repel this siege, but those who have played Crimson Flower know that it isn't everything they have, and neither is what we see of Edelgard's forces all of what she has. But, aside from a pitifully small number of reinforcements, what you see at the start of the mission is what you get for both sides.

I'm going to be honest with you. It's not that deep. 

Crimson Flower is different in a lot of ways. I am not going to say a lot of them, because that's spoiler territory. 

This is a game that presents different sides, not all of them tell the full story or even the accurate story. You are given different perceptions of what has gone down and why.

You call out the Church has the giant golems. Edelgard's army has the Crests Beasts.

Why not use them? Gameplay. If you don't have something to actually fight against, then it's boring. Also, can't give too much power to the players like being able to control the beasts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Booi said:

You call out the Church has the giant golems. Edelgard's army has the Crests Beasts.

Why not use them? Gameplay. If you don't have something to actually fight against, then it's boring. Also, can't give too much power to the players like being able to control the beasts. 

Yeah, true. Though, in Crimson Flower, the absence of the crest beasts is explained by your group being the vanguard, and her greater reluctance to use TWSITD. 

Who says you can't give that kind of power to the player? Balanced well, that could've been awesome! It just means that you have to throw more at the player to compensate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm late in saying this, but I'd like to point out that in the Edelgard + Arundel discussion:

1) Edelgard AFAIK only calls him Uncle when in public/in front of others not in the know.

2) If we use the timeline of Arundel stopping his donations as the time he is replaced, note this is upon return to the Empire. The experiments on Edelgard and her siblings presumably starts VERY soon after, the Emperor is basically a puppet now, and TWSITD have more or less free reign at this point.

3) Edelgard has likely spent years in experimentation from a young age (how long is not stated) but considering the image of young Edelgard and Dmitri, she probably only had a few years of full awareness with Arundel before he is replaced, so she likely does not have that much attachment to him. Therefore, she equates "Uncle Arundel" with Thales.

4) All the years in experimentation followed by preparing for war with the Church and taking the throne make her time with Dmitri little more than an afterthought, a childish crush. Edelgard also fully expects to die young even if she accomplishes her goals and therefore has tossed love to the winds anyways. Dmitri on the other hand, has a few more years before Duscur events, has no reason not to expect a full lifespan, can't take the throne until X age anyways, and the closest thing he has to a potential love as far as we know is Ingrid, whose personality screams Lord/Knight relationship and not potential queen. This should help explain the vast disparity between the two in feelings toward the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ivan Tridelan said:

I'm late in saying this, but I'd like to point out that in the Edelgard + Arundel discussion:

No, go ahead; contribute. This whole thread is supposed to be about sharing our thoughts on Crimson Flower, after all. 

 

2 hours ago, Ivan Tridelan said:

1) Edelgard AFAIK only calls him Uncle when in public/in front of others not in the know.

She refers to him as "Uncle" even when only Byleth and Hubert are there, and they're both in the know about Arundel being a Slitherer.

 

2 hours ago, Ivan Tridelan said:

4) All the years in experimentation followed by preparing for war with the Church and taking the throne make her time with Dmitri little more than an afterthought, a childish crush. Edelgard also fully expects to die young even if she accomplishes her goals and therefore has tossed love to the winds anyways. Dmitri on the other hand, has a few more years before Duscur events, has no reason not to expect a full lifespan, can't take the throne until X age anyways, and the closest thing he has to a potential love as far as we know is Ingrid, whose personality screams Lord/Knight relationship and not potential queen. This should help explain the vast disparity between the two in feelings toward the other.

This is mostly a good point, but there's just one problem with this: while we have full understanding of the effects the experimentation had on Lysithea, the same topic almost never comes up in the case of Edelgard. Edelgard and Ferdinand's paired ending has her live a long life and have a lot of kids with him, even though her paired ending with Lysithea is the only ending that actually addresses the fact that Edelgard has two Crests. I think the writers wanted "I have two Crests and these are the implications of it" to be, "Lysithea's thing" so to speak. 

As a result, it is extremely unclear if Edelgard is living on borrowed time to nearly the extent of Lysithea or not, and it's unclear how much Edelgard is aware of the greatly shortened life expectancy if it is the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

This is mostly a good point, but there's just one problem with this: while we have full understanding of the effects the experimentation had on Lysithea, the same topic almost never comes up in the case of Edelgard. Edelgard and Ferdinand's paired ending has her live a long life and have a lot of kids with him, even though her paired ending with Lysithea is the only ending that actually addresses the fact that Edelgard has two Crests. I think the writers wanted "I have two Crests and these are the implications of it" to be, "Lysithea's thing" so to speak. 

As a result, it is extremely unclear if Edelgard is living on borrowed time to nearly the extent of Lysithea or not, and it's unclear how much Edelgard is aware of the greatly shortened life expectancy if it is the case. 

Um, their ending never says that Edelgard lived for a long time. Just that they did bicker often, got married, and had kids. But nothing in regards to that indicate that Edelgard had a very long lifespan. However, Edelgard and Lysithea's ending does have it state that they restored their lifespans. 

The reason that, unlike Lysithea, Edelgard's endings primarily never go into depth about her shortened lifespan is because Edelgard does not value her life so much. She doesn't talk about it because she generally is someone that would hide her burdens and issues generally and just make the time she has to get things done. Lysithea, on the other hand, constantly frets over her shortened lifespan and laments over it. And while Lysithea just wants her parents to live a normal life comfortably, Edelgard is resolved to use her life to change the world no matter what. 

But overall, Edelgard doesn't value her life to fret about living long. 

The reason why I think that Edelgard actually is okay with living a long live again only in Lysithea's ending is because it's Lysithea, someone that truly endured the same suffering that she did, and thus, both understand one another, and how they both want the other to be able to live a full life, so Lysithea inspires Edelgard to also choose to live a full life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

Um, their ending never says that Edelgard lived for a long time. Just that they did bicker often, got married, and had kids. But nothing in regards to that indicate that Edelgard had a very long lifespan.

Thanks for the correction.

As for the rest, fair enough. Still, it doesn't have to be brought up as much for it to still be clear what the effects will be, and the game isn't clear at all with how she's going to be affected by it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...