Interceptor
-
Posts
3,253 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Interceptor
-
-
They are one-use for a particular playthrough. You can only get the bonus Second Seal once per game, etc.
-
Apoth [Especially SR] is the equivalent of something like Heroic raiding.
Not even close; this is a poor comparison. Apoth is paid DLC, and not included with anything else in particular. For IS to sell something like this, with full knowledge that only a tiny minority of players would even be able to complete it on their own, would be absurd. People would be pissed off, and it would hurt sales.
Your proposal is a fantasy. Some sort of alteration would be required in order to make it palatable (like a difficulty slider, for example).
And constant patching? The numbers don't change.
Patching to keep up with the meta, obviously. You aren't going to be able to predict the perfect setup at release; Awakening's mechanics were too new and complicated for that.
You wouldn't be able to break Apoth with it about 20 points higher on every unit. That's enough to make it a competent challenge.
No amount of stat inflation is going to make Apoth a "challenge"; all you're doing is just raising the floor on the minimally-optimized team that can handle the map. Apoth at its core is just about grinding and preparation, which means that anyone who can follow directions and has the time can conquer it.
The real challenges in this game are the ones that require skill.
-
But that's a problem altogether. Why give the player an option if the choices affect nothing in the story?
At least it's better than a "but thou must" situation.
-
It's just a cheap way to make you feel more a part of the story. As you saw, it can backfire.
-
If so,
Would you mind more focus on downloadable content for future FE games?
Yes, they handled DLC more or less perfectly in Awakening. There was free stuff, there was paid stuff, and the game is playable without either. The pricing seems high to me, though. I don't have the internal metrics obviously, but I feel like they probably left some money on the table by making the DLC so expensive to buy relative to other things that people can do with their entertainment funds.
I wouldn't mind more focus on DLC for future games, as long as they get the balance right like they did on this title.
Now something I will say is that our ambitious "final challenge map" was horrifically undertuned. Something like that should NEVER be balanced for the lowest common denominator, and instead should be balanced "on the bleeding edge" (as the WoW devs described it (while trying to defend their "Concentrated Coolness" stance... which I get the idea, but have to disagree with their approach))...
Apoth (and anything similar) should not be clearable without optimization and full use of every resource a player is given [YES, that'd mean you need DLC to beat the DLC.]. The likes of the challenge runs that occur within are FIRMLY within the realm of "**** that shouldn't happen". As opposed to what it is.
Give me a break. It would be absurd for them to release paid DLC that was functionally impossible for the vast majority of the people that they were selling it to. The only way that this would work is if they had a difficulty slider with a Carebear setting on it, so that people could actually complete it and still potentially have greater heights to aspire to. And they'd need to patch it repeatedly.
For people who really want a challenge, that's not Apotheosis (which, at the end of the day, is just a math problem with a lot of grinding), that's probably house-rules Lunatic+. I feel like optimization pornography is rewarding enough on its own (exhibit A: this forum), and doesn't need some dev-sanctioned end boss to be considered worth doing.
-
This is what i'm getting at. I wasn't talking about your opinion, just the way you presented it. I've seen some of you're other posts, they are very well written, well researched, and well thought out. I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but you're stating your opinions as though they were fact and doing so in a very rude way. You made an arrogant statement, I called you out on it, you responded with this ^.
I basically don't care what people think about my attitude; it's an uninteresting topic to me. Get in line, take a number, join the Interceptor-is-a-Meanie Club, sign up for the newsletter, but please spare me the sermon. This thread barely got to Page 2 before someone pulled the pin on the PedoGrenade and rolled it into the center of the room, so I'm not about to start being pleasant or magnanimous towards anyone who holds a lousy opinion that's predicated on ignorance.
"Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions." Proverbs 18:2.
"Did a guy named 'Buttocksinator' really just quote Scripture at me unironically?" -Interceptor, just now.
Unfortunately, when it comes to this particular issue, surface-level stuff does matter. It's an uncomfortable truth.
Sure, it definitely matters. I won't disparage people who have visceral reactions to N.O.W.I's appearance or mannerisms; it's weird and unnatural. I do have an issue with people who go beyond their personal feelings, though, and just start making shit up about her in-game personality; those support conversations belie the notion that N.O.W.I. doesn't have the wisdom of age.
-
Isn't it Nowi's character design that's the main issue with her? Of course, I haven't looked at the issue very closely, so maybe she's actually dressed conservatively.
She is not dressed conservatively; basically she's wearing a bathing suit, gloves, thigh-high boots and a cape. There's also a belt that doesn't seem to serve any particular purpose, plus copious hearts and bows. Here.
The "issue" with N.O.W.I. is basically surface-level stuff like that. Digging into her supports show that she's not really as silly or naive as she might seem. It's an act.
-
Nope. I can notice if it's too lacking for my tastes, though.
Which is basically the only really defensible position that you can take: the very personal reaction of "it makes me feel icky". The world would be a better place if people just left it at that.
I've looked at it closely enough to determine that it's a gray area at best. Want to convince me otherwise? That's cool, I'll listen and maybe agree with you, but I'm not getting into another argument.
You already know the answer to this: I'm not in the business of convincing people of things as one of my life goals. Besides, I'd feeling guilty about taking time away from the guide. This isn't even a fresh angle on the topic, it's a horse long turned into glue. No nutritional content.
-
This post is a provacation, dissmissing someone's opinion simply because you think it's "the default conclusion of a person that doesn't look at the issue very closely" is arrogance.
Or as I like to call it, the uncomfortable truth. There are people with principled and thoughtful objections to N.O.W.I., but I haven't seen many of those unicorns over the life of the game thus far.
We're also getting off topic, this would be better discussed in a different thread.
It's been done to death; search the forum, you'll probably be able to find someone complaining about her boots in less than 20 seconds.
-
I've heard that there are two groups of people. Those that like tsunderes and those that hate them. I guess I'm in the first group because I really like Severa. lol
Almost. There are two kinds of people in this world: those that like tsunderes, and those that are wrong.
-
I don't understand why everyone thinks that Nowi is pedobait.
It's because that's the default conclusion of a person that doesn't look at the issue very closely. I like to point people at N.O.W.I.'s support conversations with Gregor, any time that someone calls her "immature". She knows what the score is, and the language barrier between them helps that along a bit.
Just because someone hasn't had their playfulness beaten out of them yet, doesn't make them a child.
-
I have always been partial to Chrom as a partner for female Robin, so that you can create the Family of Destruction™ and have a pretty powerful four-way team during the story.
-
I legitimately have tried a huge amount, but thanks to stupid Hawkeye Luna+ combinations I lose with Fred within seconds. How am I supposed to beat this on Classic. I am at wits end I'm that stumped and confused. Any helpful advice?
If you are specifically having difficulty on Chapter 2 (AKA the first place where Luna+/Hawkeye shows up), you may also want to try this strategy: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48207&page=2#entry3166668
It requires a +SPD/-whatever Robin, and technically I haven't taken it past Chapter 3, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work long-term. As mentioned, +DEF asset will also work (and has been demonstrated to be strong), but it's more of a brute force solution and remains kinda chancy for Chapter 2.
What's the point of doing L+ casual ? L+ is the ultimate challenge of the game. Since it's so frustrating mode i don't think people will do L+CAS then L+CLA unless they are masochist.
Well, L+ Casual is good for people who can't handle L+ Classic, and I have no problem recommending it to people who are stuck. I mean, not everyone is going to have the inclination to take down the game's hardest mode, even if they have the ability. Casual doesn't really teach you any permanent bad habits; it's still bad when a unit dies, so it just serves as a release valve. Mechanics of combat remain the same.
-
It's sad that this topic has more thought put into it than the entire storyline of Awakening.
And most of us aren't getting paid for it.
Except there is evidence that the Plegians didn't abandon Gangrel. The alternate future is the evidence whether you'd admit it or not.
The alternative future has Ylisse in a much weaker position. Emm had been assassinated, Chrom was incapacitated, Fire Emblem was stolen, etc. Lucina also wasn't around. It's a different scenario entirely. As the game's story shows, having Emm alive and Chrom able to lead an army does actually make a difference.
The Plegians weren't going to abandon Gangrel without Emmeryn's sacrifice.
Speculative, unproven. We have a situation where they did, and we have one where Emm died. There's no scenario where Emm is alive, but doesn't sacrifice herself.
-
No evidence to what exactly? That it is because of Emmeryn's words that the vast majority of Gangrel's army has deserted him? Because this literally stated in the game. As for the alternate timeline, without Emmeryn's words, the war was implied to be a long one that lasted years instead of what seems like a couple of days in this timeline.
No evidence that the Plegians wouldn't have abandoned Gangrel under different circumstances. In the alternate history, Emm was assassinated, Chrom was badly wounded, and the Fire Emblem was stolen. i.e., things went much differently, and thus it's not a good comparison.
Where exactly did they say so? If you can link me to an interview where they said that specifically, I'll concede. But not if it's somewhere in the game, because you can twist the game's dialogue to mean whatever you want it to.
Oh, just a little bitty interview from the front page of the franchise main site. Here's a link to the relevant section: http://fireemblem.nintendo.com/developer-interview/page3.html
8-4: What about all the characters? How do you determine what their personalities would be like?
Maeda: With all the major characters we have an overall story that we want to tell, and we basically assign characters roles which we feel they'll fit the best. Meanwhile, with the sub-characters who don't figure as much into the main story, we field material from all kinds of different places as we build them. And then having good guys be flawed, or bad guys have some redeeming factors... These are things you'd often see in Fire Emblems from way back.
Amazingly enough, the game actually reflects this. Walhart, Mustafa, Chrom, Lucina... Emm. There aren't all that many flawless characters, and as you noted the Camus tip-of-the-hat was clearly done on purpose.
Actually it supports it, because a poorly written story is more likely to ignore all the holes present in whatever it's trying to do. Awakening's story isn't aimless, it has a path. It's just not very good at staying on that path.
Not unless you can identify which parts of the story are on "The Path", assuming that such a thing even exists, and that it's consistent; if you can't (or it isn't), then the plot holes make it even more difficult to figure out what anyone actually intended to do. More noise makes it harder to find the signal.
Any possibility it's trying to marginalize everyone but Emmeryn?
It doesn't seem likely, because most characters literally took no position on this. Chrom, Lissa, and maybe Phila are the only one who had anything to say about it. Frederick didn't bother to press his original idea, and everyone else was silent on the subject.
I can make the assumption that good = good a lot more safely than good = bad.
But this is a non sequitur, since "flawed" doesn't mean "bad". Nobody is making that comparison (except for you, which should be a red flag that you are out of your tree). It's already been established that there are supposed to be good characters in this game with flaws. Emm as a flawed leader described as "good"; this not only doesn't trip anyone's bullshit alarms, but it actually fits the writer's intentions.
It shows the effect of Emmeryn's sacrifice building up. Instead of going from Sacrifice -> Plegians Desert, it goes from Sacrifice -> Plegians Question their Cause -> Plegians Desert. If anything, I'd argue that makes the story stronger.
No, it shows Emmeryn's sacrifice being the subject of an "I quit, lol j/k I'll stay with you" nonsense conversation. You can have the slow roll of Emm's words complete with uncertainty, without having take-backs and/or elevating the general above her.
Granted, this requires a little deftness on the part of a writer, and these are the same people who gave us Sumia punching Chrom in the face for comic relief.
The alternate timeline also has the Plegia/Ylisse war dragging on for 10+ years. That's plenty of evidence, the game flat-out states what would have happened otherwise. You can't get more evidence than that.
See above response to RJW. The alternate timeline has Emm being killed during the events of Chapter 6, which didn't happen in the "real" timeline (which also has an unstolen Emblem, Chrom unharmed, and Lucina). Emm took the second chance and used it to get herself caught.
Both of them seem to agree that Emmeryn is pretty important, even though Chrom is the one with both Falchion and the Fire Emblem. Why do you think that is?
What purpose would it serve for me to speculate about the motivations of characters? That'd make me no better than the other wishful thinkers in this thread. Never mind that both of those characters have imperfect information. Make a point if you have one, otherwise don't waste my time.
Like I said, we're seeing two totally different things from the same set of events, so we're not going to agree.
And like I said, our stances are not equivalent. The game board is the same, but I'm playing chess while you're playing checkers. I make points, you either ignore them or you go off on some tangent. Look at your response to the simplest of points: that the soldiers have no place in Emm's introductory CG.
I don't care if you agree or not. My coffee is going to taste the same regardless.
Hold on now, back the fuck up. You will have to do better than that.
No, I don't. Chapter 10 (in particular, but some other events prior) establishes a clear secondary reason for Plegians to desert: Gangrel is a murdering scumbag nutcase. The rest is either groundless inference on your part, or utter fantasy. "Who knows?" is a response to the why, not the what. Why didn't the water boil? Could be that the burner wasn't hot enough, but seeing as how someone took it off the stove I can't really say conclusively one way or the other.
I mean, I suppose that someone could argue that the Plegians didn't care about Gangrel's behavior. That would be a hilarious position to take. I think that someone ought to go for it.
In addition to the chanting, there's also "Her words, and her sacrifice, have made her a folk hero of sorts."
"Of sorts"... I've always liked this phrasing from Frederick, since "of sorts" generally means that it's a lesser version of the real thing. Emm is a folk hero... but not really. She's "good enough".
Should have just chopped the last two words off that sentence if they wanted to make a more forceful point.
-
I seriously can't be sold on the "Emm is flawed" point with dialogue like this.
Maybe you'd benefit from reading it again:
"But some men would take advantage of that. Men like King Gangrel. The day he understands peace will be the day death gives it to him. ...So perhaps I must be death's agent. Emmeryn would never order him killed, nor would I wish her to."
This is Chrom pointing out that 1) people take advantage of her, and 2) not everyone "understands" peace, and 3) he will do what she will not. I have no idea why you even brought up this conversation; the bookend on it is that Emm is a flawed figure. It supports my argument.
You don't think the game was trying to paint any picture about Emm at all? Not one bit?
"The game" doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. Our ability to deduce the intention of the designers is limited, but one thing that we know for sure is that they wanted to have flawed good guys as well as baddies with redeeming qualities (because they said it). In front of us, there's a game where Emm (one of the "good guys") has a huge blind spot, something that Chrom points out on several occasions.
This is a connect-the-dots puzzle that only has two dots on the page.
I thought I did address this point.
But you didn't. I correctly pointed out that while Emm has a use for guards, there is no need for them to be mugging her CG, or dressed like they are riding into battle. Your response to that is essentially to either ignore it, or to change the subject.
If "the game" is intending to show Emmeryn as some sort of Paragon of Peace in her intro scene, then why did they undermine it? Yoshi's explanation ("they derped") is a poor one, but at least it's not a f'n non sequitur.
"You can't prove that" is the hallmark of a bad argument.
Oh I agree, and in this case it's a sign that your argument is the bad one. You can't support your assertion, whereas I came up with a half dozen things that all imply that the scenario is unlikely. How many times has someone thrown the "but everyone else believes!" fallacy at me in this thread?
You've mentioned the limits of Emm's power, but the fact that Emm's sacrifice overcame whatever reason the Plegian military didn't desert before means that the limits of Emm's power are above that of Gangrel's.
Talk about a low bar to clear. Gangrel is a scumbag, and nobody was comparing her to him. The point of mentioning the limits to her powers, is that "limits" are the domain of mere mortals, and she's one of them.
She believes all people want to hold hands in the name of peace over a bonfire with marshmallows.
And she's wrong. Anyone who thinks otherwise, are people who perhaps turned off their handhelds right after Frederick said that the Plegians were scattered, because pretty much everything after that all the way up to the end of the game is pooping all over this naive ideal of hers.
If there was general dissatisfaction with Gangrel, why did they not desert sooner?
Who knows? Maybe they lacked a good excuse. The fact that Emm was the catalyst doesn't imply that it was the only reason.
You bring up a good point about Gangrel and Walhart being the refutation of Emm's ideals, and I don't disagree. But that's the point, the refutation of her ideals are personified by the bad guys. Against Emm = bad, with Emm = good. Can you dig it?
The character who does the refuting is Chrom. Look at his boss conversations. Chrom is clearly not a bad guy, so how do we square this? Oh wait, I know. We notice that Emm is a flawed character with naive ideals, and then everything suddenly fits into place.
About chapter 7. No one joins Chrom in challenging Emm because they knew Emm wouldn't budge. Whenever it comes to morality, the game lets us know she doesn't falter.
You can't deny that they missed an excellent opportunity to paint Chrom as a pariah here, by having someone -- anyone -- agree with Emm's decision and stand against him; either of Frederick or Phila had the standing to do so. But Frederick said nothing, and Phila even agreed with Chrom.
Emm's morality isn't in question; note how you don't doubt it even though the co-protagonist visibly and emotionally stood against her. That's a nonsense point on your part.
Chrom calls Emm out in what I imagine to be an emotional frenzy. It was an appeal to the feels, not an appeal to logic. Emm placed the responsibility primarily on Chrom so it's natural he would be the most vocal about it.
Please. He predicted that she'd be walking into her own death, and that's exactly what happened. Emm was the illogical one, here, by putting herself in a position to be captured by a madman. Chrom was making an emotional appeal at the end (as a last resort), but the logic of his position can be seen at the end of the last chapter:
Chrom
But if something happens to you? What then?
Frederick
Your Grace, perhaps you might relocate to the eastern palace for the time being? The other kingdoms know nothing of it. You would be safer.
Chrom
Yes, please. At least that. I can't leave for Ferox with you right in harm's way.
Emmeryn
...Hmm. Very well.
Chrom
Thanks, Emm. I mean it. We'll escort you to the palace before we head north to the border.
Hell at this point we are seeing two entirely different interpretations of the same set of events so I don't think we're going to agree anytime soon since neither of us are budging. You're free to counter this, but I'm just going to agree to disagree here.
The nature of our positions aren't comparable; you are claiming something that you can't prove, where I am pointing out all of the flaws and alternative explanations that are fatal your position. This isn't some sort of doctrinal standoff.
Again with the tacit permission to respond to you, as if I needed your blessing to point out that your stance is wrong.
=-=-=-=-
Yeah, I do. It's a precedent called "all of Awakening's story". There are so many holes and flaws laying around that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for anything that doesn't make sense, especially if it's something that only makes no sense if you pay close attention to it.
You can use "derp" to explain away one or a couple of things, but taken in totality the argument loses its reasonableness. The presence of guards in the CG could be written off if it were the only thing that undermined the idea of Emmeryrn as a perfect figure, but in reality it's just one rock in a whole basket of them.
Never mind that drawing attention to the notion that Awakening story is full of plot holes, also detracts from your argument that the writers intended to do any one specific thing.
Is it a problem that Chrom is answered by the person he's arguing with and not by someone else?
It is. "The game" missed a golden opportunity to marginalize Chrom and build up Emm with this scene, if that was actually their intention in the first place. Since they didn't, that lends credence to the idea that Chrom exists as the practical answer to Emmeryn's flaws.
Or it could mean that the game assumes you think good = good, and not good = flawed like you seem to here. Imagine that.
You can't safely make this assumption. We know that the writers intended to have good characters be flawed in this game, so calling someone "good" doesn't erase that potential, it only highlights it. And as I said, the people in this thread are not making the "good" argument, which is uncontroversial: we're getting things like "Christ-like", and "paragon", and "flawless", etc. Huge difference, and the Barracks description doesn't support any of that nonsense.
Well, of course they weren't necessary for telling the story, but telling a story at all also isn't necessary.
Yes, but why include this specific bit? It's not that it's JUST unnecessary, it's also that it undermines Emmeryn's sacrifice by diminishing it. They could have easily written Ch. 10 to include both the Camus figure as well as highlight the power of Emmeryrn's words, but they did not.
Anyway, don't try to change the subject. You keep going on and on about these "limits" of Emmeryn's, which have nothing to do with the subject at hand: the point is, the Plegians wouldn't have abandoned Gangrel when they did if Emmeryn hadn't done what she did. It's not about how quickly she managed to make them desert.
You have produced no evidence that this is true. The alternate history has Emm assassinated and Chrom badly wounded in the attack that takes place in Chapter 6; the timeline of the game's narrative has Emm using her newfound lease on life to last one extra chapter before allowing herself to be captured like a goddamned idiot. Who's to say what would have happened otherwise?
The lesson of Awakening is that not even time-traveling teenagers can stop stupid people from doing dumb things.
I meant, "It seems we agree on this one, so there's no point in arguing about it anymore."
Which doesn't at all imply that the subject should be dropped.
-
Pair-up is excellent, and I hope that they keep it.
The ability to adjust the effective stats of units in real-time offers a lot of strategic/tactical flexibility, especially in earlygame. This was a really welcome change over the previous titles, where the things that units could accomplish were relatively static and unchangeable. It helps you train units, gives new life to ones that fall behind (Frederick owes his late-game viability to Pair-up), and lets you temporarily cross stat thresholds to accomplish specific tasks (like doubling, or boosting damage, or taking an extra hit). They need to re-balance the Pair system (and also the Support system), but it's worth bringing back.
I'd also like to see Fixed Mode return, and would welcome the ability to adjust Dual Strike/Guard focus on a per-unit basis (give up one for an increased chance on the other), but that's something else entirely.
-
I preferred your old angle better.
Sure, but can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
1) Emm's idealism definitely flops. She believes that all people desire peace, and the way that Chrom is helping this one along is by killing the shit out of the people who don't, which is both perverse and hilarious. Gangrel and Walhart are the ultimate refutations of Emm's ideals.
By the way, your argument for intentionality is rejected for an actual reason, not just as a way for me to say "no you". I gave a run-down of why you can't really make assumptions about author intentions in this game, from a comparison to a real novel, to some actual tidbits about how this story was written. Here was your response:
If you don't see anything there, that's because it doesn't exist. In this world, we don't refute arguments by ignoring them. Again: rejected. I already showed how it was ridiculous, you had no rejoinder, and now I consider it a dead subject.
=-=-=-=-
2) I am not saying that Emm is a warmonger. You could save yourself a lot of trouble by asking yourself "is this person suggesting [ridiculous thing]?", realizing that they are not (because they never actually said that), and saving face by not asking a silly thing in a public forum. All I said was that the presence of armed soldiers undermines the idea that Emm is some kind of Paragon of Peace, which doesn't seem all that controversial of a point.
Again, it's not that she has guards with her that's odd: it's that they are prominently in the CG. As a secondary point, the fact that they are in full parade gear suggests that it's also intended as a visible show of force. There's more to guard duty than being in proximity wearing shiny armor: you still need to protect against an archer on a rooftop, for example.
Sure, they could have "derped". Do you have evidence of that? Of course you don't, just like everything else. So why should we assume that someone actively made a mistake that nobody else on the team found/corrected, instead of just assuming that the soldiers are completely benign because Emm was never intended to be a flawless character in the first place? Doesn't that second option make more sense?
=-=-=-=-
3) Chrom is clearly arguing for Emm to not go back to Ylisstol. Any ambiguity in his words goes out the window when he says that she'd be walking into her own death. Phila is not "busy" arguing with Cordelia; Phila starts to suggest that Emm not return, and before Cordelia even says another word Phila bookends that by saying she and the Pegs will accompany the exalt back to Ylisstol. Frederick (the other person who could argue) acquiesces immediately, as well. Neither of them says one damned word to counter Chrom, and Phila even agrees with him.
Chrom's objection stands alone, unanswered by anyone but Emm. That's as stark a conflict as you're going to get.
=-=-=-=-
5) A good ruler is a flawed ruler (otherwise they'd be great, or legendary). Emm's bio didn't launch into the hyperbole that was used in this thread, which suggests that the hyperbole was wrong. Imagine that.
=-=-=-=-
6) Your opinion doesn't enter into it; I'm not saying anything bout "you", I was simply making the point that Emm's speech had clear and visible limitations, and furthermore those limitations were not necessary for telling the story (Chapter 10 could have been done completely differently without changing anything else). Limits aren't sensical for some kind of demigod, but they sure do make a lot of sense for a flawed human being.
=-=-=-=-
7) If by "drop this point" you mean "concede that I am correct". I don't think you understand that the veracity of my argument doesn't depend on everything being ironclad: if I'm arguing against the silly idea that "the game wants us to believe Emm is a perfect saint", then I don't need to hit on everything, just on one thing. Right? Neo has to dodge all of the bullets, otherwise he gets shot. My position (Emm is flawed) is a much more reasonable one, so it's easy to maintain it.
=-=-=-=-
This is sure getting tiresome. I'm spending more time correcting your misconceptions and dragging the focus off of tangents than I am actually making real arguments, which is a sure sign that you are almost out of shit to say. Are we done yet?
-
Actually, one more thing. Is there a good way to train Sumia?
Have her make friends with Frederick. He gives her the +DEF to survive, and the +STR to makes the hits count. She can double naturally if you keep her up to speed on levels.
N.O.W.I. is also an excellent candidate for training. Give her Gregor, some boosters, and fight stuff on Forts. She eventually becomes basically immune to damage; just keep re-classing her into Manakete until she caps stats.
-
I heard there was a mechanic in Chapter 10 that makes Mustafa's soldiers less accurate as time went on, which would be proof that Emmeryn's words still had great impact on them, but I could be mistaken.
This would have been great if it were true, because I face-tanked a bunch of Riders on a Fort in my Lunatic+ run. I don't recall enemies losing their eyesight, though.
But the point isn't that her words had no impact on them: clearly it did, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned refusing to fight. The point was that there's a limit, if they are going to say "well that was a great speech, but fuck it, let's kill the crown prince, because Mustafa is a bro".
-
You've also shook your head and repeated yourself every time someone refutes one of your "counter-proofs".
Every time they attempt to, you mean. I can't change the result of "2 + 2" just because someone thinks that the answer is "banana". All I can do is rephrase and try another angle. As for your salad:
1) Intentionality arguments are rejected; you haven't proven author intent in this game (note that it's a game, not a novel). Never mind that it's entirely plausible that a biased description from Chrom & co. is meant is heighten the emotional impact from the failure of her idealism later on. Chrom does grow during the game, and "terrible plan" has nothing to do with "her act will live on", because the act he's referring to is her suicide, not her plans (which remain terrible even in hindsight).
2) Yes, Emmeryn's guard is ceremonial and symbolic. That symbol is not "peace". Welcome to my point. Also, there is no reason whatsoever for them to be in the CG at all, never mind as prominently as they are. Someone had to actually draw them into the CG, you know; it's not like a real-life photo where you can catch random background details. Unlike your nonsense about bias in fiction, we can fairly safely assume that the soldiers are there on purpose. The rest of your take on this is irrelevant/offtopic.
3) It means something that nobody stands up to Chrom when he called out Emm. If someone challenges him, particularly someone in a position of authority, it undermines his argument. As it happened, nobody batted an eyelash. Again, there is a difference between Emmeryrn's decision to return to Ylisstol (bad), and her sacrifice once she was backed into a corner (good). Chrom "comes around" on the latter, not the former. He also never follows her ideals: he respects and admires them, but still solves problems his way (which is, by the way, about as far from her ideals as you can get... if people "want peace", it's clearly not anyone that Chrom runs into). He kills the shit out of people.
4) I only mentioned this for completeness. Naga forbid that someone in this thread throw a fit because I forgot one of their points.
5) It doesn't have to. Emmeryrn's good-heartedness was never in question, so the Barracks conversation just serves as another example of flimsy evidence. If someone offers it up as a retort to "the game doesn't glorify Emm to the extent claimed", they clearly didn't understand the point in the first place. It's basically a non sequitur.
6) It shows a clear limit to Emm's power, that she cannot overcome loyalty to Mustafa, when the story did not require anything of the sort. Cut out that entire sequence, nothing changes. That's the only purpose of bringing it up. Jesus didn't turn water into seltzer.
7) Thanks for agreeing with basic sense. Clearly there was more at play in Emm's miracle than just her words alone. Someone did actually argue against this.
So yeah, answer all those (except 4, I never intended that to be more than an FYI) without simply repeating your original points or saying "nuh-uh".
I ignored your mission creep, and just addressed the things that dealt with points I actually made, instead of going down a rabbit hole of tangents. Now maybe you can acknowledge that the devs have come out and said that they intended to have their good guys "flawed". And possibly that Emm would certainly qualify for that distinction.
EDIT:
If it counts for anything I'm pretty sure Phila asked Emmeryn to reconsider, so it's not only Chrom telling her she's making a bad choice.
She started to, but Emm cut her off and she didn't follow through. Very next thing she said was that she'd accompany Emm to Ylisstol.
-
You're saying what actually happened in the story, yes. But you've said "nuh-uh" to everything everyone else throws out supporting that the devs tried to portray Emmeryn in a completely positive light, without any proof that the writers are, in fact, competent enough to portray a character in a way that matches up with their actions.
Negative. I've shot holes in the logic that people used in their arguments, which is entirely different from the casual way that you dismiss factual information. To recap:
- People talking about Emm's glorious magnificence -- those people are her siblings, the butler, and Old Man. Not credibly unbiased.
- Emm's introduction CG glorifies her as a paragon of peace -- except the prominently visible armed soldiers destroy that vision, and the rays of sunlight are unexceptional (used liberally elsewhere)
- Nobody calls out Emmeryn on her mistakes -- other than the game's co-protagonist, to her face, and nobody challenged him on it.
- Aversa didn't make fun of Emm -- or anyone else in the scene that wasn't name Maribelle or Ricken.
- Emm has a Barracks description -- that just says she was a good-hearted and kind person, not that she was a saint.
- Emm's speech altered the hearts of the Plegians -- other than the ones who were in Chrom's way. They tried to kill him, choosing loyalty to commander over anything Emm had to say.
- The speech was the sole reason that the Plegians fled the battlefield -- other than, you know, the fact that Gangrel was a murdering crazy person, a fact that was just made really clear in case you missed it.
Also, FYI, one of the few things we DO know about the dev's intentions, is that that they wanted to have flawed good guys, as well as bad guys with redeeming traits. Emm as a fatally flawed idealist describes that one perfectly (just as Walhart serves as a bad guy with redeeming traits). But it could just be an amazing coincidence, and there's no way to know for sure, even though it fits the facts.
-
No it doesn't. The game doesn't draw any negative attention to her shortcomings, and any time it does draw attention to them they're portrayed as nobility, etc (but not flaws) and the people drawing attention to them are portrayed as in the wrong.
Here's the problem with your "nuh-uh" argument: you are armed with a vague notion of intentionality, while I am armed with facts.
The events of the game belie your claims, because the primary vehicle for highlighting Emm's flaws is Chrom, the co-protagonist. He's the one who confronts her, who makes a prescient observation about her fate, and the one for whom every success against the Big Bads is a further refutation of her naive ideology. The script doesn't even shy away from this idea, since none of the various points he makes are strictly necessary for the story. The game could tell the Tragedy of the Fall of the Flawless Exalt without Chrom channeling Nostradamus or visibly struggling with the conflict between his sister's ideals and what needed to be done. But it did not.
What you see =/= what the game is trying to show you.
What I see is what happened: I am pointing out the facts of events. I've already made the case against the idea that "the game" has intentions that can be deduced with any kind of accuracy. Either respond to said case with an argument of your own, or get used to the sound of crickets.
"Emmeryn is flawed, because her pacifism and extremely peaceful ideas weren't suited for war; but she had a pure heart, her sacrifice was a good thing to definitively change the hearts of people, Plegians and Yilisseans alike, and to stop Gangrel' slimy hands from getting the Emblem. Thus, she will be remembered as a hero."
This is close to the truth, but fundamentally incompatible with the stances of the hard-liners in this thread. So I hope that you are prepared for hyperbole, backtracking, and/or pregnant silence from the Peanut Gallery.
I'd add it's also blind to deny that she (but mostly, her final act) will be remembered in a good light
Nobody disagrees with this. Making this point is very nearly a straw-man, except that you're not actually arguing with anyone.
Curiously enough, the mission where you have to kill him is a rout mission...
It's almost like pacifism is a thing that doesn't really work in a Fire Emblem title.
the people around him at the end are going to be his final line of defense. he can't have chinks in it.
TIL: Gangrel is also kinda racist.
Sorry, I like double entendres.
-
I'm glad you agree. It is pretty silly that the game glorifies an obviously bad ruler.
"Agree" must mean something different in your country than it does in mine. Here in America, we use the term to mean that we share the same opinion on the subject being discussed. For example, I don't "agree" with the idea that "the game" is glorifying a bad ruler, since while Emmeryn is indeed a bad ruler, "the game" does avail itself of multiple opportunities to point out the flaws in both her personality and her ideals.
So, uh, why are you arguing with the people who are on your side?
On my side of what? The food chain? We certainly don't have the same viewpoint on this topic, for example. As for the why, as I said, it's because they "go too far".
Playing on casual (maybe)
in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Posted
There is nothing wrong with using Casual mode; it's there for a reason.
You can put your own spin on it, if you want: reset if someone dies, but make use of the in-map battle saves to experiment with stuff and/or cut down on the lost time if you make a big mistake.