NekoKnight
-
Posts
5,636 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by NekoKnight
-
-
They could have made the three lords tag on to many of the story chapters, even if it was just contributing lines of dialogue. Choosing a house should have been primarily a gameplay choice (your starting group of students) with the real narrative divergence saved for the war phase. The tragedy of Three Houses isn't that the three leads go to war with their former friends, it's that the three leads are like total strangers, even into the war phase.
Even as a bare minimum, they could have had some special bonding scenes like the dance at Garreg Mach or the feast after the Battle of the Lion and Eagle mock battle. It's implied that these scenes happen but we never see them. It's such a waste.
-
On 1/4/2020 at 3:39 AM, Glennstavos said:
I agree on the tiring nature of replays, but my disdain is everything that isn't those maps. My general viewpoint of Three Houses is that only half the gameplay is engaging and I wish there was an "auto monastery button". I can skip battles and I can skip instructing, but I can't just do what I think is important in the monastery, then tell the game "how should I spend my activity points? I dunno, surprise me". If I could have gardening, fishing, and motivation of students done for me, it'd shave hours off the experience. Unless you're recruiting all units for a support grinding run or doing Maddening mode, absolutely none of what happens in the monastery is integral to progressing the game - certainly not post time skip. Yet the game was absolutely designed for you to take advantage of opportunities unique to the monastery. I'm annoyed that hour 5 of the game is identical to hour 50.
But I've expressed disdain at this side of the game before and the response I always get is "how can you be mad at something that's optional." Yeah, how can I be upset sitting at loading screens like a speedrunner and involuntarily handicapping my units? Just because something is optional doesn't mean it was designed to be skipped. They cater to the player that wants to skip the fire emblem parts of fire emblem, but not the busy work.
I have to wonder if there's an alternate universe where Three Houses is a game with one story, more engaging route splits, actual player choices and role playing opportunities, is 30 chapters long, and came out in 2018. Fire Emblem games weren't inferior back when they were just one campaign. Dump the three paths concept.
Agreed with pretty much everything. It was a novelty to have precise control over the development of your characters through monastery activities but eventually it just became a chore. There are mechanisms to automate some of the monastery activities but you miss out on a lot of rewards. Resting gives a paltry amount of motivation to students and you miss out on the greenhouse and fishing, not to mention faculty training which is the only practical way to develop Byleth's skills. When my characters, with manual play, are barely meeting their skill requirements for class changing by the time they are at the level to, I know that I'd be at a severe disadvantage if I automated it. Optional these activities may be, but the game is balanced around always choosing that option.
While the different perspectives are intriguing, I really think the game could have been shaven down to two more unique routes. We only have 4 routes because maps are repeated and each story cuts our huge chunks of the narrative so that they can justify repeat play throughs. -
Just now, XRay said:
Merges, BST, SP, and Mythic Heroes are the primary factors that affect your score. It is basically Arena scoring, but minus Legendary Heroes and Legendary Blessings, and adding Mythic Heroes. Mythic Blessings have no influence on your score. I am not sure if Duel skills affect your scoring though.
Major Mythics count as merge +10, while minor Mythics count as merge +5. So if you have a merge +10 Mythic Hero, they will be counted as merge +20.
I see, I wonder what kind of scores people around here are typically getting and how many tiers there will be.
-
Playing Mjolnir Strike not long after the reset, I was shocked to find myself in the bottom tier for rank rewards. Even after adjusting my team to switch in my highest merged units (3 +10 units and a +0 dark Mythic). My score came out to 746 which barely got me to to the second highest reward tier but I'll likely get pushed out. Looking at the top scores, they're all around 790+. I assume this is only possible because they're whales with max merged mythics but...is it weird that this mode is already this competitive? Am I missing something in rewards to scoring better? Is it more than just merges?
EDIT: Tried un-equipping all the skills on a unit and it lowered the score by 10 points so presumably SP makes a difference but I don't know for certain or if BST is factored in. -
3 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:
To force authorial intent onto video games you have to contrive these poorly defined rules about Story-Gameplay segregation where sometimes the gameplay isn't segregated from the story, sometimes it is conditionally segregated (like in the Three Houses example, where it is only segregated for those that protected the neutral units) or completely segregated gameplay and treating the story as secretly a movie or book. When the most fundamental defining nature of the medium being discussed has to talked around instead of incorporated we can already see some of the issues with this type of analysis.
The rules exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. I made several examples of Story-Gameplay segregation where the stories are forced into a certain direction (or conversely, you're allowed to do many things in gameplay which the story treats as non-canon because they're impossible or nonsensical). You're talking about video game story analysis in the abstract without (accurately) addressing how video game stories are really told. If gameplay was always reflected accurately in the way the story is presented (or allowed enough wiggle room for creative interpretation), maybe we could live by your philosophy, but it is often not the case. Choosing to ignore what the story is telling you because it doesn't match up to what you accomplished in gameplay is simply creating headcanon, which is an absurd way to approach story analysis.
Games are a combination of set elements in the story and gameplay that we control freely. These two elements do not always interact gracefully, but its a compromise we have to make. The fewer contradictions the better, but they do happen.
3 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:The more elegant solution is to move away from authorial intent and look at what actually happened, not what we imagine someone intended would happen. The only way that plot point in Three Houses can contradict gameplay is if you believe the author intended for you to slaughter the neutrals. That isn't what actually happened, and as such isn't what the story is, and why authorial intent doesn't work as a lens for analysis of video game stories.
Everything about this is backwards. You say that using authorial intent is wrong-minded because of situations like this but understanding the authorial intent is what makes sense of what happened. The neutral army cannot both be devastated and also not. The army being devastated is a fact, upon which other facts are based. How can you pretend that it didn't happen when subsequent events require that plot point to be true? Nothing about that 'solution' is elegant.
I can't help but think you're talking about how you think games should be designed rather than the way we're actually able to digest the stories of the games we have. You point the finger at authorial intent as problematic but you won't address how these specific contradictions can be resolved.
-
48 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:
Context matters. His joy at discovering Celica is not be among the dead is as reasonable in a world were it is an empty platitude as much as the world were it is a sincere admission. The meaning changes when you look at the scene with knowledge of the deaths, or lack there of, that proceeded it. Unless you think your experience from your Three Houses example is identical to that of someone that did simply slaughter the neutral troops. Someone that slaughters them might experience guilt, or regret, or indignation, but I suspect you experienced the frustration of futility, or apathy moving it more towards a story beat about unavoidable fate, than one of consequences. The difference there is the same as the one you ignore here, context.
I'm not ignoring anything. You're saying that any scene can be interpreted differently depending on the gameplay that preceded it, but I disagree with that in both of the cases I listed. I don't think Alm could be either reflecting on his mistakes or talking out of his ass, I think it's clear that the scenes are directed as if the players aren't fucking up. In Three Houses, there is no matter of interpretation to the game saying "the neutral army was devastated in the battle." That's an objective plot point that contradicts my game play. And you're reaching if you think that outcome is meant to evoke feelings of futility or apathy about unavoidable fate, it's simply a contradiction.
You can see story and game play segregation is many games. If a game tells you that a meteor is going to collide with the earth in 24 hours but still allows you to do endless side quests and events that logically take more than 24 hours (not to mention the absurdity of the characters doing said side quests when the world is on the brink of destruction), the story isn't changing, the developers are giving you a free pass to do things in gameplay that are removed from the story progression. If a game tells you that you're a badass warrior and you're terrible at the game, that's not a new narrative about the protagonist actually being a loser, that's you contradicting the narrative because of your low performance. If you surround a character with an army and the game says they were actually alone and got captured, that's your gameplay not reflecting what events actually happen. Video games are an interactive medium but gameplay isn't always relevant to the events and themes of the story.
4 hours ago, Icelerate said:What's your take on Jill and Zihark being optional to leave Micaiah's group? I've heard people criticize how there is a chance they don't leave at all based on player's actions thus approving of Daein's unprovoked attack on the laguz alliance which goes against their character.
You're the Tellius expert so you probably remember those scenes better. At any rate, there are a lot of things to consider when determining what is the most likely canon events in the story. It could very well be a case of bad writing if you don't think it fits their characters. You should check out Ghast's Zihark video if you haven't. It's a pretty good write up on his conflicted priorities.
-
38 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:
That is my point exactly, because
1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:what is supposed to happen.
isn't set in stone. There is no singular chain of events that are supposed to happen, not the one where everything went perfectly for Alm and everyone lives and fully supported with each other, nor the one where he and Celica have to finish Duma off alone because everyone else is dead, nor even the version where Alm died before even reaching the Deliverance, and all are valid stories. Video games are an art form that have been made incomplete, and only through play are they finished, and in so doing the player defines part of what that story is about.
It really depends on the game. There is such a thing as Story and Gameplay Segregation. Let's look at a scene from Three Houses in AM where you're in a chaotic melee and it can be expected that you will be killing the units of a "neutral" army. It's possible, however, that the player avoided the 'neutral' army in order to focus on the other enemies (that's what I did) but later in the game, they say the neutral army was devastated by that battle, even if you didn't kill a single one of their units. You can maintain that you're in part writing the story but when that story directly contradicts what your gameplay implied to have happened, you must concede that in terms of the story, it actually didn't happen.
SoV (and most games) is a mixed bag where sometimes gameplay performance is factored in and sometimes it's ignored for the story the game wants to tell. If Tobin dies in SoV, Gray will become an alcoholic instead of knight like the "everyone lives" ending. That's what happened in your story. But there are bigger things that aren't acknowledged by the story that you may have made happen via gameplay. When Alm says to Celica that he needs her because "Without your wisdom, all I know how to do is fight whatever is in front of me", it's an empty platitude to comfort her when she's feeling guilty for her actions. Nothing in the delivery of that line invokes the idea that he's thinking seriously about his personal faults that may have lead to the deaths that the player can allow. Alm is upbeat and believes in himself in most scenes because the game ignores these optional things the player might be doing. It would be disingenuous or at least cherry picking scenes to make the case that your personal experience is redefining the core narrative being told.
-
21 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:
I am guessing this is going to be an unpopular opinion after the massive back and forth here about story. Looking at video game stories through the lens of authorial intent is inherently flawed, because the actions of the player are generative, making the player a coauthor to the story they experienced. How much impact a player has over the events and stories varies by game, but it is always there. Fire Emblem in particular has design choices built in to it to increase the player's impact on the story, most notably permadeath. Often people will look only at the stories created by specific play styles, and only considering the "best" endings or outcomes, but in so doing blind themselves to a majority of the design space of a video game's story. What makes the story of someone that played through Echoes perfectly and found Alm never to be wrong more valid than the player who can see the weakness of Alm's views in the dead friends he left in his wake? Now this doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't have discussions about themes, but the idea of certain themes being wrong or right or the author's intent is missing an important part of what makes the medium of video games unique, that video game stories aren't static, and the player always has a hand in their creation.
I can't say I agree with this take. Yes, you are writing the story as you go along. Characters who die on your watch are dead in your experience of the plot, but I don't see how we can judge a game's story telling by things that are not guaranteed to happen. Like, you might use your units as cannon fodder but it would be unfair to use that to say "The protagonist is a sociopath who doesn't care about his men and will watch them die by the dozen in order to accomplish his goals" because the game doesn't acknowledge that you killed off your whole army. That's clearly not what is supposed to happen.
The same can be said of themes. If the components that make that theme are not mandatory for the player to experience, we can't use that as evidence for a completely different interpretation of what the story is about.
-
14 hours ago, Ottservia said:
It’s not that people aren’t elaborating. I just find issue with how the points are being elaborated. Like the crystal ball shattering is not contrived on it’s own because for one that’s a really small detail to get hung up about and two, that’s only a symptom of a much larger issue. Minor contrivances like that aren’t what make it terrible cause they’re inevitable. No that’s just a symptom of it. Saying a story is written to force a certain an outcome is not a good way to explain what contrived means because that’s what stories do. Certain plot points are built up to force a certain outcome. Again that’s just how cause and effect works. A better way to explain it is that the build up the story uses lacks nuance, depth, and flow. It doesn’t work because character A would never do this or there’s no reason given(explicit or implicit) for why the character took the actions that they did. Am I making sense here?
like what about the story’s flow is interrupted? That’s the part that’s missing to me. Personally, I’m fine with a story going in any direction it wants just so long as it’s consistent and that it stays within the realm of believability in regards to what has already been established about the characters and world. Celica’s decision and chapter 15 do not fall under that criteria because when you break it down none of it really makes sense and isn’t believable because of the way things are established at that point.
Okay, let's talk about some things in relation to the crystal ball. In Conquest chapter 15, Azura and Corrin return from Valla, and Azura convinced of Corrin's good intentions decides to tell him the secret behind Garon. She tells him this with the intention of stopping Garon and for that, she'll need more than just Corrin's power. Azura understands how the crystal ball works, detailing who can use it and she isn't surprised at all when it breaks. If crystal balls shattering is one of their properties, that's just how the story is written, but how do we explain the behavior of the characters?
Invading Hoshido is a morally abhorrent action so Corrin should be doing everything in his power to find a more peaceful solution. Why doesn't he ask Azura about providing another crystal ball? Why does he immediately accept the Throne Ploy? If Azura knew the crystal ball would shatter, why didn't she wait until the Nohr siblings were all gathered to use it? The only answer I can offer is that Corrin is an idiot who goes along with anything he's told and that Azura wanted the invasion to happen, because she didn't take the obvious steps to avoid what should be their last resort. The whole scenario is contrived and the crystal ball conveniently shattering is just the tip of the iceberg for how forced the invasion is.
-
23 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:
How about...
Following the expulsion of the Begnion Occupational Army from Daein, Empress Sanaki commits to providing monetary reparations for the country's recovery.
This causes the Senators further anger, as part of the funding comes from their fortunes - particularly those of Duke Numida. Thus driving them to commit the secret coup against Sanaki.
With the Apostle out of the way, Lekain informs now-king Pelleas that he'll be disbursing the funds from now on. He's happy to continue the funding - but first, he'd like Pelleas to do them a favor (sorry, I couldn't resist).
The continuation of funding is now contingent on Daein joining the war on the side of the Begnion Senate. If he turns them down, his still-recovering country will be unable to keep rebuilding, and some will likely starve.
Pelleas chooses to kowtow to Lekain's requests, believing it is the only way for his people to survive. And Micaiah, as the Daein Army's general is forced back into the fray.
There we go. Same general story beats, no blood-pact nonsense, and we finally escape from the question of "wait, why was Izuka in cahoots with the Senate anyway?"
Another way to spin this would be the Begnion Senate threatening Daein with a second invasion that would end with their total annihilation if they don't help fight the Laguz. Daein was only able to barely defeat an occupation army, and vs the full army of Begnion, they wouldn't stand a chance. With their sovereignty on the line and the nation already very pro-human in the conflict, Micaiah is forced to swallow the poison and accept that this is the only way for Daein to have a future.
-
2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:
From a completionist's perspective? Sure, I suppose it's easier to get all of them. But it takes all of the magic out of each individual run. There's no nurturing relationships you actually care about between specific characters and watching the benefits of that specific friendship grow, because now support bonuses are uniform and generic and everyone's supported, and to grossly paraphrase Syndrome, "when everyone's supported... no one will be". Hell, there's barely any closure to any of these things. All of the A supports turn into this veritable orgy of non-committal flirting because nobody's allowed to marry anyone until Byleth gets first dibs, but everyone has to end on a note where it's believable they could be banging each other later but also believable that they won't be. The fact that I didn't even know who was going to end up with who until the credits rolled on my first playthrough really says it all about how much I was invested in any specific pairing here.
Contrast that with, say, Fates, where every single pairing you do has a complete story arc and ends with you getting a bunch of really cool, tangible in-game bonuses, from personalized pair up bonuses to an entire new class for each character. The closest I got to anything like that was combining Sylvain and Leonie for their compatible combat boosts, but they don't even have an A support.
I consider the main role for supports to be fleshing out the characters, so the gameplay bonuses don't really interest me as much. Class sharing was a cool bonus in Fates but it also wouldn't work in TH where everyone can reclass to anything barring gender restrictions. I suppose you could have them share a learned skill, but again, I don't see this as important.
Perhaps in other games, the philosophy behind supports is the bond between two individuals but in TH, it's more about the unity of the group. Your own house students are all growing together, both in supports and in the mission briefings. The students from outside your house won't have as many partners and you might have to go out of your way to ensure they pair up with the people you want.
I'm a little confused why you say Fates characters have a complete story arc in their supports but not TH characters. Fates characters also have to end their supports platonically at the A Support and the S supports are a tacked on "btw I was actually in love with you the whole time".
2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:
Wait; what? Mikoto literally tells Corrin that she and Arete are sisters.Then again, she also tells you that the Hoshidan siblings are your blood siblings.Not sure what counts as higher canon but the artbook says that they're 'sisters in spirit'. Seems like they're trying to retcon the incest away. (no one tell them about Midori x Asugi where Sakura and Hinoka are their mothers. That's double cousins!)
2 hours ago, Icelerate said:So is Micaiah becoming Queen of Daein because Pelleas doesn't want it too convenient?
There are a whole bunch of differences to those two situations.
1. Micaiah isn't an avatar so there is no reason to throw crowns at her like Corrin.
2. Micaiah is a competent and charismatic leader who replaces Pelleus who is neither of those. It's a natural development in the story. Corrin would make a terrible leader considering his most noteworthy and prized trait is his naivete.
3. Pelleas isn't actually a royal. Of course he needs to abdicate.
-
1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:
The support system in Three Houses is bloated and bland. You get so. God. Damned. Many. Support conversations. Without even trying, I found myself unlocking A ranks with every single combination of my army's mainstay units by the end of the game. And watching them all quickly became an active chore
I think it's a better system, honestly. Before you'd have to do several playthroughs or actively grind in order to unlock all the supports but now they occur naturally from playing the game. It's a lot to read and I don't blame you for skipping them, but they are optional and you can save them for later if you prefer. I think easy access supports are a boon to the games considering characters can often give a bad impression of their character depth by what you get outside of supports. First impressions are a big deal. Why would I invest in a character if they seemed annoying or boring at a glance?
Heaven help me if I had to play a game as long (and frankly, tedious at times) as Three Houses several times just learn about a single group of characters.
-
5 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:
Bergliez and Hevring supporting Edelgard despite her intention to abolish the nobility makes perfect sense. Yes, she's going to restructure the government and change who holds positions of power. But who is basically assured to continue holding positions of power? Those who support her and show themselves capable in that support... i.e. Bergliez and Hevring.
This is something I find a bit questionable. Noble families in the past Adrestia got their meal ticket simply for existing. Sure, the amount of political power they have is dependent on a lot of factors in how they manage their existing influence but they did have a divine right backing them. I don't know if the Bergliez are implied to have any crests but Hevring do. They might improve their wealth and power through the war or they might be creating a system in which they can be replaced, and not even by one of their own kind, but by people of lower birth. Their previous hereditary positions are now being changed to ones they have to earn. It's a pretty big gamble for people who are already in powerful positions in the empire.
Considering how important these two people are in the story, it's a shame that their motivations are left to players to speculate.
-
Just now, Moltz23 said:
Ferdinand mentions in the monastery before the timeskip many of the imperial houses still cling to the dream of an unified Fodlan, so I assume that's what they meant by it. And considering when Edelgard's nobility cleanup happens it's mentioned in-game the purged noble houses were either corrupt or opposed the new emperor's conquest, that makes even more likely both Count Bergliez and Count Hevring fully support what Edelgard wants to do.
That makes sense, but as I mentioned earlier, it makes Edelgard out to be a conqueror who intends to subjugate the kingdom and alliance even if they don't ally with the church. I also question the loyalty of Bergliez and Hevring considering Edelgard is open about her intention to abolish the nobility and restructure the government to appoint people she likes to positions of power. Sure enough, Caspar is made the Minister of Military affairs ahead of his older brother.
-
Is it ever stated why Caspar/Linhart's fathers support Edelgard? I've heard people say that it's because they were eager to retake Kingdom/Alliance lands but I don't know where that is stated exactly. If that's what Edelgard promised them, was it always her intention to conquer all of Fodlan? She spreads her manifesto around the continent but I wonder what it said exactly. "Join me or die"? I don't think there was the option to be neutral in the conflict if she planned on taking control of the other countries regardless.
-
Just now, Etrurian emperor said:
I think that one is sort of justified. I don't think Azura has any desire to become a ruler in her own right. Much of Azura's stoicism isn't actual stoicism but her being very introverted. As such being a public figure would likely make Azura deeply unhappy. She'd be much more comfortable being an adviser or power behind the throne.
She says as much in the last scenes in Revelation but it all sounds very convenient to me that legitimate successor to the throne passes it to you, the avatar, because they don't want it. Sillier still is that everyone in Valla is seemingly dead so Corrin could have been the janitor at Valla castle and still become king after Azura abdicates. He's the only other surviving Vallite as far as we can tell.
-
23 hours ago, Ottservia said:
Corrin’s ‘avatar worship’ is very weird to me cause in some instances, I personally don’t find it to be all that intrusive and in fact it does make sense. People trusting Corrin does make sense given the context in which such things are mentioned. Though I feel it goes too far when it comes to Ryouma’s jealosy and some skillbased qualities Corrin is said to have but seems a little unrealistic(though that’s more a gameplay/story segregation problem if nothing else). The fan service is probably the worst offender though like I don’t think I even need to mention how bad the CamillaxCorrin support is
There are a few stand out cases for me.
1. The near death experience/brief visit to the afterlife at the ends of both Birthright and Conquest is pretty blatantly used to absolve Corrin of any wrong doing. You see Mikoto in the Conquest vision and not the Birthright vision, but why? Because when you play Birthright, it's already assumed that Mikoto is supportive of you, there is no crime to absolve. The Conquest version is particularly heinous because it has Takumi, a guy who has every reason to hate you say "I just wanted to be siblings, I never hated you, in fact, you'd be doing me a solid by destroying the hate-zombie that my body became, which isn't me, because I love you". All of conquest was dedicated to invalidating Takumi's anger but that was the cherry on the cake. Hinoka and Sakura are also totally cool with Corrin after the war despite his actions leading to the death of their brothers.2. In Revelation, Corrin screws up in a big way by trusting the wrong person and all his siblings will say about it is, he did nothing wrong, he's perfect the way he is, and they'll clean up any messes me makes. They consider his purity more precious than his development as a person.
3. Also in Revelation, after the conclusion of the game, Corrin is made the leader of Valla even though Azura is the true successor. Not that it matters because all of the people of Valla are dead and the land will be sealed off. But that doesn't matter either, because Xander and Ryoma are going to MAKE him a new country and give him subjects because he deserves a country of his own. Corrin never even asked for all they're giving him but the game insists you are rewarded with a crown and country.
-
1 hour ago, Jotari said:
Fair enough. I've never considered naivete feminine in nature, but you back it up well enough with other examples in the series. Wouldn't consider Lyn, the female protagonist you didn't mention all that naive. Then again, I could see people considering Lyn more masculine than the other female protagonists with her more salt of the earth, no nonsense direct approach to life.
I did say often, not all. Lyn and Edelgard are definitely not naive, and if we're counting other avatars (I don't know about Kris tho) Robin and Byleth aren't naive either. So maybe I'm being unfair to even say that 3/8 female protagonists counts as often, but boy do those three stand out.
-
15 hours ago, zuibangde said:
Also, the whole 'avatar worshipping' as a reason to hate Corrin/Fates is such a stupid argument now that TH is out. Literally every route, the characters endlessly go 'Oh professor! Because of you, I find comfort in this war and I know everything will be ok!!!'. Call me insane but I'm not going to base my decision on which country to support in a war just because my professor invited me to tea twice and gave me some feathers.
One game having avatar worship doesn't excuse Corrin of doing the thing, it just proves that IS can't make an avatar without fellating the player. I'm of the opinion that Robin was the best avatar as his praise is generally appropriate for his accomplishments.
15 hours ago, Jotari said:Outside of that, what 'feminine' personality traits do you read from Corrin? My biggest take away from the character is that they're rather naieve and a little bit childish due to their isolated upbringing. None of that seems distinctly feminine to me (even when the character is literally a woman).
Naivete is often a trait attached to heroines whether one finds that intrinsically feminine or not. In that category we have Celica and Eirika who carry this hard and even Micaiah has a slight taste of it when she allows Jerod to leave to bury his friend instead of capturing him. I'm not sure why, but people are more forgiving of ignorance and making mistakes when it's a woman, as that's part of their maturation, where a guy will just be labeled an idiot for the same things.
Not me though, I consider both Corrins idiots. -
5 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:
As a redhead, it upsets me that, of the only two redheads in Three Houses, one of them is a misogynistic pig, and the other is actually a sadistic creep in a disguise. Are they saying something about redheads? Eh; maybe I'm reading too much into it.
To be fair, we have Ferdinand Von Aegir and Leonie to represent us and they're more natural "redheads".
-
It's a case by case thing but I'd say the main issue with the archetype is respecting people's boundaries and not being a creep. Look at the interactions between Soleil and Ophelia if you want to see how bad that can be. Flirty-ness can be an amusing character trait if it's not all encompassing of their personality and it doesn't lead to them causing discomfort for others.
-
For Blazing Blade:
-Lay some harder rules for how quintessence works. Who has more of it and why? How is is used/stored? A big issue with the climax of the first arc in Eliwood mode is that it's not really clear why Elbert had to be kept alive for as long as he was.
-Make the gaidens concerning the Magic Seal and Nergal's past more intuitive and easier to unlock. This is important information for fleshing out the main villain.
-Give a better reason for the attack on Araphen castle in Lyn mode.
-Give a reason for why Ephidel doesn't just teleport away from the fire dragon.
-Address Lyn's unresolved Taliver bandits subplot outside of the Wallace support. It could get a little nod at the end of Lyn mode where she acknowledges that her grandfather's health is more important but there should be some indication in Eliwood mode that she still thinks about it at times.
I think those are the main points. One might say that Lyn needs more story relevance after her mode but I think that issue would be mitigated if one could see all of her support conversations in one playthrough.
Concerning gameplay, I'd like them to update the support system to be more like Three Houses so support points are easier to get and you aren't limited to 5 total conversations. Conversations would obviously need to be tweaked to avoid some incompatible ones but it shouldn't be too hard. Also, I don't think anyone would object to some split class promotions.
-
2 hours ago, DragonFlames said:
Well, he is the only one who calls out the stupidity of blindly following orders, which is something I very much agree with, which is part of the reason I like him. That doesn't mean everyone else is dumb, though. In fact, with the exception of Sylvain, I like everyone in the Blue Lions, which makes it the only house where I only dislike one character instead of two (Black Eagles) or four (Golden Deer).
But what you wrote there is another reason why the only internet forum I visit is this one. Way too many black and white views and flame-y discussions everywhere else (do your sanity a favor and DON'T visit the Three Houses board on GameFAQs. Trust me, that place is a shit-show and a half).You have a more nuanced appreciation of the game, which is something I appreciate. I don't know what it is about Three Houses or if this is true for everything, but characters seem to be extremely polarizing, with people putting their favorites on a pedestal, convinced they can do no wrong, or the exact opposite where they're the absolute worst without a single redeeming quality (look no further than Edelgard/Rhea conversations). For a game that usually manages to balance the negatives and positives to each character, fans seem to see it as black and white a lot.
2 hours ago, DragonFlames said:Sometimes, I seriously wonder why Serenes is so different from... pretty much anywhere else.
I've thought about that before and I think it's a combination of effective moderation both from the mods and also from users minding their behavior. Unlike other places (Reddit, Gamefaqs etc) I feel like it's easier to develop a community that values civility if not mutual respect because each poster has more identifiable traits. We all have our profile pictures and signatures and when you recognize a person as an individual that you'll be seeing around again and again, you might be less inclined to be a jerk when voicing your opinions.
-
7 hours ago, DragonFlames said:
Really? I like Felix and I feel like Rodrigue is a good person. I kinda wish he was playable.
Obviously I can't speak for the sensibilities of everyone who likes Felix but I've seen a lot of his fans (particularly on places like Reddit) treat him like he's the sole voice of wisdom in Faerghus, and that his distaste for his father is legitimate because Rodrigue's a bad dad that promotes a toxic culture.
Like, say what you will about glorifying death, but the notion of sacrificing oneself to save another is pretty noble to me. And in regards to Rodrigue being more of a parent to Dimitri than Felix, the former really needed the support and his willingness to look after Dimitri as though he were his own son is pretty moving.
"Ask Fire Emblem Heroes Questions and Get Them Answered Here" Thread
in Fire Emblem Heroes
Posted
Anyone have any advice for building units to deal with bird laguz teams in AR? I've had some success on occasion by using an archer with WoM dancers but it's not always easy to approach their innate three movement. Tibarn in particular is a bother as he essentially has 6 movement with a dance and is borderline impossible to tank (and even if you do, congrats, now it's Galeforce time).
Tibarn does have low resistance so I was thinking about building Nowi to one shot him before he gets that deadly second hit in, but there is also the matter of being able to defeat Naesala, a blue unit with higher res. What build would be best for her to deal with them both? Guard? QR? Null Followup?
Suggestions for ideal support units would be welcome too. This is for Astra season so she's gonna share a team with Altina.