Dark Holy Elf
-
Posts
3,615 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dark Holy Elf
-
-
17 hours ago, Jotari said:
Half of that stuff was committed by the Agarthans too, but even putting aside the specific cases, they're really common at all. How many people in Fodlan are actually directly impacted by the Crests? We don't know the actual population of any country, but given we know there are only about two dozen crests and somewhere in the order of millions of people, or even just hundreds of thousands, the number of people impacted by the crests is probably somewhere in the range of 0.001% of the population. Course, the argument would that those people are at the top of the social hierarchy and what they do impacts the people below them. But a bunch of dysfunctional elitist oligarchs running society for their own benefit isn't just feudalism, it's literally every gathering of humans that can be called a society ever (and there is 0% chance Edelgard's changes won't result in the same).
The Agarthans are responsible for none of the examples I cited. I'll also specifically circle back to the example of Hanneman's sister, where he says in his support that knows his sister is "far from the only victim" of similar circumstances. So even just confining this to noble-on-noble abuse (and not the presumably more common noble-on-commoner), there's a lot of rot for Edlegard to see and use as motivation. Hanneman, of course, basically has the same motivation as Edelgard, so if you're going to argue one of them is delusional about the state of the world, you'll have to argue both are (and others besides).
As for the bolded part, well, two things:
- You basically seem to be suggesting that changes to social structure are pointless, when that's clearly not the case in our own world? We have made a ton of progress socially in the last few centuries and at every turn, it is people actively pushing for social change that made it happen. Kings and lords didn't just give up the great power they once held in our world because they felt guilty.
- Even if you personally adopt such a defeatist attitude, it shouldn't be hard to accept that many people do not, and in particular that Edelgard does not. Even if she were 100% wrong that her reforms will improve society, it's entirely reasonable that she believes she is right.
I might be misunderstanding you, though, so if you feel I have, do clarify what you meant in the bolded section.
7 hours ago, Armchair General said:Because, the Blue Lions unintentionally killed off Team Slither and it was probably because it wouldn't do much of anything against Byleth and Rhea (Verdant Wind takes place around an month later, if I'm right)
Silver Snow skips a month in the calendar (the month corresponding to Gronder in AM/VW), to VW and SS's final chapters take place at the same time. Obviously Azure Moon has reasons to be different, yeah.
-
14 hours ago, Jotari said:
Yeah...illegal Crest Experiments unsanctioned by the authority she's rebelling against and performed by the people she is now working with
Well, keep in mind, lots of terrible things are been done in the name of Crests, and Crests are formally backed by the Seiros religion. Rightly or wrongly, Edelgard deals with her trauma by lumping in her own suffering with that of Dorothea and her mother, of Hanneman's sister, of Mercedes/Emile/their mother, of Marianne, of Sylvain, etc. (not their specific cases literally, she wouldn't have known about all of them, but the implication is that such cases are relatively common). If I was going to put on my psychoanalysis hat, I could point out that she is decidedly unable to fight back against Thales at age 12-17, but she is able to begin working towards tearing down an entire system that she feels led to her suffering. And Edelgard explicitly prefers to do something instead of sitting around waiting for a miracle, or placing her fate in the hands of others. It's one of her defining traits.
14 hours ago, vanguard333 said:I think the lack of attention CF received compared to other routes by the fact that, when it was conceived, it was originally conceived as essentially a hidden bonus route, and hidden bonus campaigns in games generally don't receive as much attention because most players won't see it; it's the same reason final levels in video games often receive less attention than earlier content
Honestly, I don't particularly agree with the thesis that CF received less attention anyway. Sure, it got fewer videos, which makes sense if the videos had to be commissioned early in development. But otherwise, CF gets more unique maps than any other route, a huge number of support conversations and monastery dialog which only exist in that route, etc.
Like, say for sake of argument that one of Silver Snow or Verdant Wind, and all the assets needed for it, was completed entirely before the other (disclaimer: this is not how game dev works, but let's run with this as a thought experiment). How much more effort would be needed to create the other? Far less than was needed than to create CF. If you're like me and play SS last, then the total amount of new content you get on that fourth playthrough consists of one map, zero supports (except one optional S support), two videos, a handful story scenes, and I believe exactly one chapter with unique monastery content.
34 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:The game is frustratingly opaque about how Edelgard managed to take Rhea prisoner, without the Slitherers being aware that she was taken, or where she was going. Presumably, Edelgard (and Imperial Soldiers) would have had to have her surrounded, and escort her, without the Agarthans present. But we know that Thales and friends were at the Battle of Garreg Mach, and that Rhea had not been seen since that battle. So, what gives?
Yeah, the game is definitely super vague about this one, though there are certainly reasonable ways it could unfold. If I had to write it, I would have Edelgard convince her uncle that she wanted to give Rhea a public show trial before handing her over to them, and then instead spirit her away to a secret location known only to Hubert and his most trusted underlings. Of course they would have to keep her secret under the scrutiny of five years of investigations by both the Agarthans and the Knights of Seiros, and keep Rhea herself from breaking free as @Jotari notes, but it's far from the only thing that manages to remarkably remain in stasis for five years during the timeskip.
35 minutes ago, Jotari said:Which also begs the question...why keep her alive?
I subscribe to the theory that a secretly held Rhea is insurance against the slitherers just having Edelgard assassinated. With Byleth (seemingly) dead and Rhea either dead or in their possession, the Agarthans would have no need for a super soldier who has already stated a desire to kill them. Thales could potentially coup Edelgard and name himself Emperor and do... whatever the hell he plans to do if he wins (speaking of things which are frustratingly vague!). But with Rhea a threat to break free, Thales can't take that chance, at least if you assume that a Crest of Flames super soldier is needed to challenge Rhea. (And Thales certainly seems to believe so.)
This would also explain why the Agarthans are working on a zombie Nemesis; he exists to replace the "insubordinate" Edelgard. Now, why said zombie wakes up on only one route, that I can't answer, beyond invoking the type of Doylist argument you've made yourself: they wanted SS to and VW to have different final bosses.
-
7 hours ago, SnowFire said:
Anyway, Slitherer plot is a dumpster fire, but I'd argue that the whole Arianrhod thing doesn't really make tons of sense (since it was brought up obliquely). I get that it's a way to take out Cornelia "accidentally" from Edelgard's perspective and maybe loot some cool secret Agarthan weapons, just.. it really does seem like the Javelins of Light should be an act of war, right? And kind of a dumb one since it seems to have been used as a threat to keep Edelgard in line, but seems more likely to ensure it's just a war, in the same way that burning down a third of your neighbor's house is less a threat and more a "time for us to fight" challenge. I can only assume that the devs ran out of time and had intended to maybe throw a CF version of Shamballa in afterward, but the whole plot point doesn't really make sense. Either keep it to the level of skulldruggery and tense alliance of convenience, or else just say "yeah the Slitherers have withdrawn their support from us, we're fighting both them and the Kingdom now."
Yeah, I definitely agree with this. To be honest I have some issues with the javelins of light in general; they are supposedly very powerful but the slitherers never use them to accomplish anything useful. In fact, the only purpose they end up serving in the game's plot is they're (at least arguably) how the location of Shambhala is discovered.
If we want to talk about Hopes retconning away things that are unpopular... it basically just never acknowledges the javelins of light exist at all, and to be frank the story is better for it.
37 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:Incidentally, I have to disagree with Kusakihara about one thing: he talks about a story being "too predictable" as if it would be a bad thing; his exact words being, "I don't think there's much value to a story you can easily predict", and I strongly disagree; predictability is not inherently a bad thing. If it were, there would be zero value in prequels or in second reading/viewing/playthroughs of a story.
This is a bit of a tangent but I strongly agree with you on this one. Most of us go to watch a Shakespeare play knowing how it ends (and some of the plays even tell you how they end at the beginning of the text, e.g. Romeo and Juliet) but that doesn't devalue them one bit.
3 hours ago, Sunwoo said:3Hopes isn't a sequel, it's a what-if. It doesn't build on the events that occur in 3H after the game is over. It places you back at the beginning and adds three more "what if the story went in this direction instead" options.
For sure, but this particular point that we're discussing comes up before the "What if" parts really start taking shape. The question is "did Edelgard intend to betray the Agarthans on non-CF timelines, if given the chance". I think the answer is clearly yes within the text of Houses anyway. But I brought up Hopes because when you see her planning to do just that in literally her first "private" scene in Hopes, you either have to argue that the same writers are retconning their own character, or you accept that this is the what Edelgard always would have done if given a chance (just as when she gets the chance in CF).
(And why would the writers retcon Edelgard in the sequel, of all people? She was massively popular already.)
2 hours ago, Jotari said:That's precisely why I say Edelgard would be a better character without the torture backstory. Because really, if it's not meant to be informing her world view...then why is it there? Why torture her and then have her work with her tortures if the torture wasn't meant to be impactful? Well, I know the answer, it was a cheap ploy to gain audience sympathy and it worked. But it'd be better if she just wasn't tortured and thought these things on her own.
That's fair. I'm not sure I fully agree, though. I do think the torture does inform her worldview; it means Edelgard has personally suffered from the Crest system she so despises, so gives her a personal stake in things; characters are more compelling when you can trace reasons for their views, instead of the writers just saying "this character thinks X". I do think you're right that it's also partly to gain player sympathy, too, though.
-
3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:
The Empire = The Agarthans, politically speaking. I am pleased I don't have to prove it since you agree. She knows it better than anyone. And it's been that way since before the events of the game. She doesn't need to launch a world war, she needs to launch a coup. And as the heiress, people would follow her when her only public opposition is her "Uncle". She could solicit the Church for help. She could even solicit The Kingdom for help if she uncovered the truth about Duscur (Dimitri got his hunch by heading to the library) and banked on her relationship with their next in line king. And if she's smart enough to wait until her coronation, then it's not technically a coup. Optics!
Sure, she could have done some of that. Some of these are things she even did in Hopes. Each path she might consider to reach her goals has its own (large) set of risks. I don't think she's crazy for choosing the path she does in Houses, and I certainly don't think it's evidence of brainwashing.
To circle back to the "in their name", which is what I took issue with: I took you to be saying she did it because the Agarthans wanted her to do it. But... if you listen to anything Edelgard says, she clearly has her own reasons to get rid of the Church! She clearly would still want to remove the Church of Seiros even if the Agarthans all magically vanished (yet another thing which is text in Hopes but still, hopefully you'll agree, is obvious based on Houses alone).
I guess you can argue that Thales, despite his dismissive views of humans and their affairs, somehow managed to manipulate Edelgard into caring about class dynamics, religion as abuse of power, and the myriad of injustice in the name of Crests we see throughout Three Houses. If so, that's just about the most depressing take I've ever seen for this game. The person advocating for radical social change is only that way because she was tricked, what a lovely idea. Fortunately, I don't think the text of the game actually supports this take at all.
3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:I already told you I sped past the gameplay of those other routes to experience the story and characters.
While calling that "a waste of time", unless I misunderstood you? And you certainly didn't seem actually that interested in experiencing them, given that, when Intsys and Koei Tecmo said "hey, we wrote another full game to expand further on these same story and characters", you were so uninterested that you didn't even bother to learn the basic facts about the game's story, which include that Edelgard stages the very coup you advocated (in the demo!). Instead you choose to argue that she had no intention of doing that, and all you have to do to make the argument is say "there's no proof I'm wrong, provided you assume that the lines which contradict me are lies".
I'm trying not to be too condescending, but it's difficult when you're advocating for something which is provably false. I'll give plenty of leeway on moral questions - if you want to argue that Edelgard is a villain and her choices are immoral, feel free! I don't agree but I respect that it's something which lies in the realm of opinion, and in fact addressing one's feelings on that question is arguably the very point of the game. However, her great dislike of both the Church and the Agarthans is an important part of her character, it informs the choices she makes, it is substantiated in the text of Houses, and denying it leaves us all but discussing different games.
1 hour ago, Sunwoo said:3Hopes is written with the power of hindsight bias, where the developers had awareness of how certain plot beats and characters were received by the fanbase. So they would have the ability to retcon, or "fix", things that were universally hated by players.
Perhaps the same could be said for all sequels, no? That said, usually if a sequel made by the same writer makes a plot point clear, we accept it in discussion of the original work. If you want to argue that Darth Vader has no relation to Luke Skywalker because hey, it's a valid possibility based on Star Wars (1977) alone, that'd come across as a bit weird to me. Maybe fun as a "what if" exercise, but that's about it.
Nothing we are discussing here are things that are even close to universally hated by players, anyway.
-
3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:
I repeat: It's one thing to privately disapprove of someone's actions or motivations, and another thing entirely to wage a war in their name
How on earth is she waging war in their name? Edelgard wages a war for her own reasons (tearing down the Crest System / class divisions / organized religion), and they're reasons the Agarthans don't share (they want revenge on the Children of the Goddess for something that happened in the distant past). This means both are enemies of the Church, which makes them allies for a time, but reluctant allies. Hubert's paralogue is all about how they don't trust each other and each plan to turn on the other (which is why Hubert himself is devoted to making sure that he is well-positioned to win that fight).
3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:And if Edelgard really does see the Slitherers as a comparatively great evil, then it's a case of 'Woman who made her own bed is Outraged she must now lie in it'.
Yes, she sees them both as great evils. This is why she plans to defeat both, in every timeline, as I've been saying all along. Not sure what you mean with that last quote.
3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:Nothing about her motivations and backstory lines up in siding with her abusers, and that's why CF is so odd to read as a Heroic-Route-Actually.
I'd say her backstory perfectly leads to her siding with her abusers; in fact, it explains why she initially had to. At the start of the game, Thales is the de facto ruler of the Adrestian Empire. He and his allies killed Edelgard's family and turned her father into a puppet they can kill at their leisure, should Edlegard step out of line. The only reason she's still alive is because Thales believes she has the power to stand against the power of Sothis and/or Rhea. Edelgard can't turn against him openly until she builds up an adequate power base of her own. From that point of view, given that she wants to destroy both the Agarthans and the Church, it makes more sense to work with the former while she builds said power base, and turn on them later.
In Hopes, a different set of events surrounding Jeritza and Monica prompt her to change her plans and turn on the Agarthans earlier, but consistently, they're both her enemies, and once you understand this the writing of the game will probably make a lot more sense to you than it appears it does at present.
3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:Me speed running through the two other routes of Three Houses grants the impression that I was invested in that story. But really I was just desperate to find something I liked about the new, sixty dollar fire emblem.
Yeah, fair enough, that makes sense. In that case I withdraw my recommendation. I also think I understand better why you (no offence intended) misunderstood these story points; if you're speedrunning something and not very invested in its story, that's gonna happen to the best of us. I've certainly done the same.
33 minutes ago, Jotari said:A story should be able to stand on its own without requiring supplementary materials to make sense.
I strongly agree with this; but for what it's worth, I don't think Hopes is needed to understand Houses. To be sure, Houses does have some ambiguity in its storytelling (by design), and by nature anything which provides more information about an existing story will end up clarifying some things, but I would not call any of it required, if that makes sense?
Everything Hopes clarifies had already been presented in Houses. "Edelgard plans to turn on the Agarthans" isn't exactly subtle; it's text that can only be denied by claiming Hubert is a liar. Another not-subtle thing which technically wasn't confirmed in Houses alone is that Thales is Arundel. If you want something more subtle, we can talk about "Edelgard's goal during the prologue was to have Jeritza installed as a house professor", which requires connecting several scattered dots in Houses... nonetheless, the majority of people who deep-dived into the game's plot and lore agreed it was the most likely explanation of the earlygame events well before June 2022 rolled around, and lo and behold, Hopes confirmed it.
-
20 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:
And we haven't even broached the reality that the letter was delivered post-humously under the condition of his empire's collapse! What you write in your will is entirely separate from what you do while you're still alive. And whether or not a deathbed confession is admissible in our modern justice system is a subject of constant debate on a case by case basis.
"destroy Those Who Slither in the Dark in our stead" implies that's what they intended to do if the chance had presented itself. Of course, you're right to point out they never got around to it, but we came down this path because you claimed that she had no issue with them. If you want to adjust your claim to "she had issues with them, but never big enough to actually do anything about it until the war with the Church was over", I'll certainly accept that.
(You can argue, of course, that Hubert's statement about their intentions is also a lie, but an argument which rests on treating any in-game text which contradicts you as a lie is a very weak one.)
21 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:I don't wanna. Certainly not to engage in some online debate.
Well, I don't feel you should play it just to engage in debate! You should play it because, if you like Fodlan's storytelling enough to participate in this debate, you would probably like a game that continues that storytelling. I'll grant the gameplay is very different, and some people don't vibe with Warriors gameplay. I'm not sure what you've heard about the game but it's written by the same writers and digs further into the same setting, although it still doesn't resolve everything and maintains ambiguities (but that's part of the Fodlan games, for better or worse). You can always try out the demo assuming that's still available. Or watch one of those streams you mentioned a little further.
21 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:And there's no guarantee that events I experience in one playthrough won't contradict the choice quotes you've pulled from Hopes out of context.
The particular quote I've cited is from the first hour into the game, so you could fully see the context by playing the demo. It's only viewable if you choose to join the Black Eagles (actually, it's literally the scene that plays immediately after said choice), but it's implied to occur regardless of route, given that the plan Edelgard puts into motion in that scene (and her resulting conflict with the Agarthans) occurs on the other routes too, again during the run time of the demo.
-
Most of your other questions have already been answered well, I'll just add some details:
1. If you have a B support with Lysithea, you can recruit her by training the professor to D+ Faith. Rhea and Manuela can teach it, just ask them for faculty training each week. Do choir as well, which provides a small boost. As mentioned, Lysithea might also randomly ask to join your house if you wait.
5. The lower reviews are primarily because people view the writing/story as a downgrade. I still think Engage is worth playing, myself, but I do agree with the review differences broadly.
2 hours ago, Punished Dayni said:Can I ask before continuing what route you're on?
Based on the fact that Lysithea is not in their house and that they recruited Catherine prior to Hanneman and Manuela, they must be teaching the Blue Lions.
-
5 hours ago, Samz707 said:
(plus mages do hand motions alot of the time, no idea if they're actually needed for magic but if we assume they are, having bulky armor probably doesn't help.)
Y'know I've seen this argument before (I think some early edition of D&D made it) and it's always felt unconvincing to me. You know who else needs to do hand motions to fight? Anyone wielding a sword, lance, axe, or other weapon. I don't buy for a moment that armour which allows you to swing a sword freely (or in the case of Three Houses, throw punches and kicks!) would stop you from making hand motions. Additionally, there's no reason to believe that armour for mages wouldn't be optimized to give them as much manual dexterity as they needed while being protective otherwise.
I think your take about metal armour being a liability for fire/lightning is an argument that has merit, though.
-
10 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:
If Byleth never rejoins Edelgard, nothing in the non-CF routes supports the notion that Edelgard would ever turn on them, during or after the war. And before you bring up Three Hopes, I haven't played it.
Edelgard outright tells Thales "there will be no salvation for you". I would argue that from that line alone, it's clear she intends to turn on him. And the fact of the matter is, she and Hubert do turn on them by betraying the location of their base. Why do you think they bothered to obtain that information if not to use it against them later?
You should play Three Hopes, both because it's a good game but also because it does clarify some things which might otherwise be considered ambiguous. You can argue that Edelgard never intended to turn against the Agarthans in non-CF. If I understand you correctly, you are primarily arguing this by citing a lack of evidence contradicting you (especially once you dismiss Hubert's lines in CF 13 as a lie to manipulate Byleth)... I think it's a bit of a weak argument, but you can make it, due to the ambiguity of the Houses script. Hopes, however, removes the ambiguity in this particular case. This dialog is taken from Chapter 2, which takes place during the first month of White Clouds, and the only change to the timeline so far is that Edelgard managed to get Jeritza installed as a House Professor (as Houses circumspectly implied was her plan), instead of Byleth.
Edelgard: Well? What do you think? I believe there is a very good chance it will work.
Hubert: Perhaps, Lady Edelgard. But is that chance not outweighed by the danger of matters going awry? We have managed to walk the knife's edge so far, but what you are suggesting is open hostility [to Those Who Slither in the Dark]. If they so much as catch wind of our intentions, things will go sideways very quickly.10 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:Again, Hubert turns on the Slitherers with his letter, not Edelgard.
Both Hubert in CF13 (unless you think he's lying) and Hopes make it clear that Edelgard takes more issue with the slitherers than Hubert does, if anything. Regardless, for the purpose of tactical planning and decisions, Hubert and Edelgard are essentially one and the same for this discussion - they explicitly plan things out together, though Hubert takes care of some of the small details he considers beneth Edelgard's notice. But even if you think this is one such time, it's clear that Hubert thinks he is representing both of their perspectives with that letter.
Hubert: That said, as the survivors, I must ask you to settle certain affairs in our stead. You must destroy the threat that slithers in the dark.
(emphasis mine)11 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:Given the chance to explain the same things that Hubert does in his letter, she whines to Byleth in SS and VW, and reaches for her dagger in AM's respective cutscenes.
If you assume Edelgard already knew about the letter (as seems most likely), she has no need to say the same things in person. Edelgard does the things she does in those scenes because, having been defeated, she wants to die.
11 hours ago, vanguard333 said:Given what Maurice, the Wandering Beast says if Byleth fights him, I think it's clear that Nemesis' title of "King of Liberation" refers to the killing that Nemesis did; i.e. he 'liberated' people of their lives.
Why not both?
I'm not gonna press this point too far because again, the game is so cagey about Nemesis and his time (which honestly is cool; the history of 1000 years ago should be somewhat shrouded!). And since this discussion was about what Edelgard says about Nemesis, it's worth noting Edelgard actually has very little to say about him: just that Seiros and the first Emperor defeated him in a war (correct) and that the conflict was more nuanced than the Church would have us believe (not hard-confirmed, but I would consider it likely, given that the testimony comes from one of Nemesis's own enemies, who if anything would be biased against him!).
-
Yeah, Yunaka has that cool conditional +15 crit personal, but by default is stuck in a class that gets very little crit from weapons, sadly. Not surprised she can do good things in Warrior.
It still feels like a lot of investment, in that she can't do this until Level 21, and then on some maps (those without terrain) she'll need dragon vein support (the Corrin-user's actions are by nature super valuable), but it's still neat that you can get good results with it.
I dunno about best warrior, as lots of people make fantastic warriors, and plenty of characters have more str/spd.
-
I didn't have Clive die constantly but I also thought he had mediocre offence and was one of my weaker units, which anecdotally seems like a pretty common experience.
Of course my playstyle is generally to spread exp around as much as I can with some slight bias towards people who are lower levelled, and to people who are already good. All of that works against Clive, who starts reasonably high-levelled but not particularly good, and apparently needs major exp focus to excel.
-
11 hours ago, DefyingFates said:
When you start CF, Edelgard tells you the "true" history of Fodlan, that Rhea is a control freak who's evil to the core and Nemesis and the other Elites were essentially freedom fighters. The rest of the route seems to support this. People have already pointed out that Edelgard is much nicer than in other routes (even if she still lies to her own allies) but Rhea is much more malicious too.
But then you look at the other routes and... none of the above makes sense. Nemesis et al. are clearly painted as power-hungry maniacs, Rhea is shown to be someone who meant well but chose poorly and Edelgard goes full war criminal (RIP Bernie). And to top it all off, these (and other details) remain consistent among all three of the other routes.
It's more nuanced than you're making it sound, on both sides.
While the game is cagey about the details of his time, Nemesis is almost surely a freedom fighter of some sort. He's called the "King of Liberation"... where do you think he got that title? That said, he also murdered a bunch of Nabateans and turned their bones into weapons. A freedom fighter need not be a moral paragon! No shortage of examples of this in our own world. Whether he's a villain or a hero is a matter of perspective. That's the point and I think it's a pretty neat one. “If you think of people as simply enemies or allies, it may be impossible to grasp the truth" is one of my favourite lines in the game.
That said, It's worth noting Edelgard doesn't really seem too concerned about Nemesis himself or his motivations, because Nemesis has been dead for over a millienium (his zombie appearance in VW notwithstanding), while the person who rewrote the history surrounding him and the Elites is still alive and wielding power today.
I don't particularly agree that Edelgard varies in "niceness" much between routes, you just see different sides of her depending on if you're on her side or not. That's natural. Same with Rhea, honestly - nothing she does in CF isn't foreshadowed in WC, and I think what Byleth does is a very reasonable trigger for her descent into grief and anger, whatever your opinion on her previous morality.
11 hours ago, DefyingFates said:Either that, or Edelgard pulled a Celica and decided the obviously evil people she knew were liars and manipulators were telling the truth over more reliable sources for some reason.
I said this in the other thread and I'll re-iterate it here: at no point did Edelgard believe the Agarthans for much of anything. Her knowledge, both where it is correct and where it is flawed, comes from the imperial line. I'm not sure where this "the Agarthans fed her information" thing comes from.
11 hours ago, DefyingFates said:Edelgard goes full war criminal (RIP Bernie)
Even if you somehow get Edelgard to light Bernie on fire (and ignore the fact that Bernie's panel is not, in fact, even on fire), you should know that if you're seeing that happen in Gronder, you probably also saw Gilbert and/or Claude do the same thing to their own allies three maps previous. Now I'm all for saying pretty much everyone in this game is a war criminal (because they unequivocably are by modern standards), but if you're concerned about one and not the other you should probably ask yourself why.
10 hours ago, vanguard333 said:I don't think Edelgard ever trusted TWSITD, but she did make a mistake in never investigating them further whenever they slipped up and accidentally revealed more than they wanted to
I mean, they're pretty hard to investigate, but Edelgard and Hubert do more of it than anyone else ever does in the game. Remember that it is Hubert who locates Shambhala, and is the only character who seems to be explicitly looking into them in general, based on dialog from his paralogue and CF in general.
If you mean the "thief" line, why would she care or need to investigate? Remember that she already knows Wilhelm's version of events. Needless to say she trusts that more than she would trust anything Thales has to say on the subject. So do I. Thales' line is interesting for a couple reasons but his opinion is not remotely trustworthy.
8 hours ago, lenticular said:This absolutely does not make a lick of sense. Stars that are that far away are not bright enough to be visible to the naked eye, let alone to become the stuff of legend. For comparison, the real-life inspiration for the Blue Sea Star is Sirius, which is less than 9 light years away. You could maybe conceivably get something of the right sort of brightness and distance if you had a quasar as a neighbouring galaxy, but this a pretty big stretch to begin with, and for it to make sense, you've got to assume that there are astronomers out there who are capable of correctly calculating the distance, but not capable of realising it wasn't a star at all, which I don't buy for a second.
Furthermore, we know (from the Abyss library) that telescopes were banned by the church, and the best telescopes anyone in Fódlan had managed to come up with used two lenses from glasses. The only people who could possibly be making astronomical readings that sophisticated are the Agarthans. In short, they are feeding her lies about Sothis mythology, and she is eating it up entirely uncritically because it reinforces her existing beliefs.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that Agarthans, who have lived underground for centuries, have done the astronomical research Edelgard is citing. Far more reasonable to assume it's from Morfis, Dagda, or Almyra (especially given the parallels of Fodlan to medieval Europe; the Arab world was far ahead in astronomy during that period). As for "millions" being incorrect in place of "dozens" or "hundreds", there are plenty of explanations. The Doylist one is the writer fucked up. The Watsonian one is that whoever did the calculations Edelgard cited in-universe made an error (there are plenty of similar examples in human history). The line certainly isn't intended to make her sound stupid, regardless - she is, after all, correct that light from stars does indeed take years to reach us, and that they are not (to our knowledge) home to space-traveling gods.
6 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:she doesn't see any issue with their methods in other routes where she doesn't ally with Byleth
She absolutely does. How much she acts on the issues she sees varies, but she always sees them for what they are.
Hubert: You should know that in her heart, Her Majesty regards that group as enemies of herself and her family. They used her father, the former emperor, as a puppet and murdered her siblings with their vile experimentation. I believe Her Majesty may have told you some of this herself. That is why this was a...very painful decision for her to make.
While this line is from CF, there's no reason to believe he's lying here; Edelgard hates the Agarthans, and their methods, and was reluctant to work with them at all, even dating back to she and Hubert drawing up their plans in the leadup to the game's events. (In Hopes, she pushes to break with them entirely, due to feeling it possible there.) There's no reason to believe she feels differently by route. See also:
Edelgard: I see. So my uncle's defeat is beyond doubt?
Hubert: Yes, Your Majesty. I have confirmed it via countless channels. I advise that we accept this as a drop of joy amid a pool of sorrow.
(Azure Moon Chapter 19, emphasis mine)Now, is it a fair criticism of her that she chooses to work with them in Three Houses despite her misgivings? Absolutely. But to argue she was brainwashed (well, outside whatever happens in Azure Gleam) doesn't really fly. If the Agarthans brainwashed her, they did an incredibly poor job of it given that she hates them and turns on them in... basically every timeline, either by leaking their base to her other enemies or by taking matters into her own hands directly.
-
8 minutes ago, DefyingFates said:
* either that or Edelgard
decided the obviously evil people she knew were trying to trick her and have been manipulating her family since she was a kid (at the very least) were telling the truth for some reason,
which puts her lack of critical thinking up there with other much maligned moments in FE history.
Hold up a second. I'm gonna spoiler this because it would be the greatest irony if a thread about how 3H discussion have kept the game current in fan circles spiralled into that very discussion, but,
SpoilerThe only information about Fodlan's past which Edelgard specifically relates on that route does not come from the Agarthans, whom she rightly and obviously distrusts, but from history passed down from Adrestian emperors, i.e. via her father.
Edelgard: In the end, Seiros was victorious. The Immaculate One and her family then took control of Fodlan. I know this because that knowledge is passed down from emperor to emperor. And that is the because the first emperor is the human who cooperated with Seiros, allowing humanity to be controlled in secret.
(CF Chapter 14, scene "The Truth About Relics")The game isn't breaking anything about its own lore. In fact, this point is corroborated by Rhea herself almost word-for-word on another route:
Rhea: I am not qualified to continue leading the people... Though my intention was to keep the peace in Fódlan, I still propagated a false history and deceived my faithful followers.
(Rhea S support) -
Also wow, the Reddit thread linked there is certainly... something. Literally everyone giving out exactly the same score over and over (except one person put Clive one rank different). I'm not sure if the hivemind is due to the system of upvotes/downvotes where deviating from the "agreed upon" view gets you downvoted, or if it's just a culture of following a couple prominent Youtubers or whatever, but either way I dislike it.
I dunno is this is qualifies as an unpopular opinion, but: judging unit worth in a Fire Emblem game is not a precise exercise and if everyone is agreeing to a high level of precision it's generally a sign of a lack of independent thought. Obviously some cases are so obvious that broad agreement makes sense (e.g. Seth good, Sophia bad) but these cases are the exception. I'm really glad Serenes discussions tend to have more diverse perspectives on units (even if it means seeing takes I may personally disagree with 🙂 ).
-
38 minutes ago, Jotari said:
I think Three Houses story is a lot more divisive than Engage. Even the people who like Engage's story (of which I count myself among) have weak defenses for it. Everyone is more or less on the same page of "It's quite meh", only with some people finding a meh story something worth getting more upset over. Meanwhile Three House's Story, the morals of the factions involved, its use of themes, much of it's lore being from in game books and a split route that is 80% the same makes for a scenario where emotions are going to be a lot more inflamed and opinions a lot more varied. Which will probably give it a lot more staying power than Engage when it comes to discussions.
I think these are good points, though don't fully explain the different reception. At its core, though, I do think it's quite simple: people have, in a variety of ways, connected more with 3H's writing than Engage's. Whether that's digging into the characters (3H did a lot to make players engage* more with its cast than Engage did, IMO: monastery dialog, longer supports, paired endings, tea time), discussing the morality of the main players, or digging into the setting, there's a lot. By comparison, even though a lot of people (probably even including me) would say Engage has the better gameplay, it's not really by any sort of dramatic margin, and in particular, 3H can even claim some advantages on this front. In particular, I would say its class/skill system is better, and due to the house choice and the route differences 3H was more replayable. I imagine some people might disagree with me on one or both of those, but it should be obvious that a significant number of people feel this way, leaving Engage without "clear" advantages to counter 3H's writing advantage, at least as far as player engagement* goes.
*It wasn't until Fire Emblem Engage came out that I realized how often I used the word 'engage' in my day-to-day language. Any wordplay is not intentional.
-
20 hours ago, Jotari said:
But my name's not Olivier T.T
Whoops, sorry! Not sure how my brain jumped there.
17 hours ago, Samz707 said:Which isnt something Byleth could do in Houses, so it comes off as a clunky retcon to yet again have Byleth win the fight.
Can you clarify what part of my post you're responding to? You seem to be talking about Byleth winning the fight (cutscene) but the only thing I mentioned that Byleth "couldn't do" in Houses was gameplay only, so I see no retcon.
17 hours ago, Samz707 said:Byleth already suddenly inexplicably wins 2 fights before this, so its real hard to get invested in a rival when they're only winning because of the writing bailing thsm out. (Including the one where Byleth retreats, which gets awkwardly spun imto them winning, somehow, Im on Scarlet Blaze.)
Prologue: Byleth wins the fight (in both plot and gameplay), Shez gets superpowers, fight ends before any sort of winner can emerge.
Chapter 5: Byleth can be beaten, although it's not expected that the player will. That said, the game acknowledges this if you do by having Byleth retreat; Shez notes that they "failed to defeat the Ashen Demon" in the cutscene that follows.
I don't really think either of those are spun into Byleth "winning". Chapter 5 is set up such that Shez is unable to win, so they still feel the drive to keep getting stronger so they can win in the future.
Now, in the Chapter 7 cutscene, Byleth kicks Shez's ass (Sothis would have killed Shez if Byleth hadn't taken over for a moment and restrained her), but again, that's because Sothis!Byleth is awakened and Shez would not reasonably be able to win that fight for reasons already outlined.
If Byleth is failing to be a threat in gameplay you can always try playing on a higher difficulty. I fought them in NG Maddening recently and it's a chore just to get them down to the 90% health needed to trigger Jeralt/Alois to appear, let alone actually defeating them which, if you're ever able to pull that off, you have my highest respect. Individual opponents generally aren't very scary in Three Hopes (because the player gets so many bailout tactics like combat arts/magic and warrior specials) but Byleth is absolutely tuned to be pretty tough to beat in gameplay, especially the time that you are able, but not supposed to, win (Chapter 5).
-
4 hours ago, Samz707 said:
Well I got further in Hopes.
Byleth has time stop now, which is pretty much the one thing they couldn't do in Houses.
Yeah Hopes Byleth is just outright bad now to me, literally inventing new powers out of nowhere just so Shez can't win.
It's like the writing quality tanks because the lead writer had Byleth as their waifu, I really do not see how people like this at all.
I'm confused.
If you mean in gameplay, yeah, Byleth has a time stop, which as Olivier notes is an attempt to translate divine pulse into a warriors setting. If you mean in cutscenes, then no, it's still just divine pulse; they're clearly rewinding time to be in a different place when they attack / etc. It's not a surprise that "can rewind time" Byleth is gonna be more powerful in a cutscene than "can change hair colour and gets a cool magical sword" Shez. Shez has no business winning a direct fight there, story-wise.
And I say this as someone who likes Shez more.
-
Played the game twice, both on Maddening, had a good time.
I simultaneously think it's an objectively good game but bear some malice toward it anyway.
The gameplay is certainly very good. Solid map design, the engage system works remarkably well for a first try at the system, I like the class tags. I have some objections like how the whole promotion/reclass system makes your level incredibly confusing, and forging being a bit wonky, but overall I have almost entirely good things to say. Top three game for gameplay in the series, I'd say, which also means it's got among the best gameplay of any video game I've played because yeah I think Fire Emblem is really good at this.
But conversely I really did not like the main plot... at all? Not sure how popular this opinion is but I think even Awakening and Fates are notably better than Engage on this front. Now, to be honest, there aren't many Fire Emblems I think have particularly good stories, so if I'd played Engage a few years ago, I'd probably bear relatively little malice for it on this front. But instead it comes after Three Houses and is almost aggressively a game trying to avoid saying anything of value, by comparison. The Somniel obviously invokes the monastery and I kept talking to characters hoping to get the type of setting- and character-building dialog 3H had but nope, nothing. The actual cast isn't awful or anything, some of the supports are decent, but it's such a step in a bad direction that it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
In some way my opinion about the game was crystallized in learning about its sales figures. At 30% lower than 3H, it's still a financial success by any measure, and will ensure we keep getting more of these games. But I definitely hope it sends the message to Nintendo that this tone/storytelling style is not what I (and many others, apparently) want from this series.
-
8 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:
Well I know Gilliam does not get doubled by anyone in chapter 1. You're thinking of the Ross chapter right afterward. And that's only true if one of them gets the highest speed roll on Hard mode, and Gilliam wasn't fortunate enough to level a single point in speed. But in this specific case, he's still surviving 2 rounds against them despite taking two hits each time. No one on your team but Seth is surviving for longer, Franz and Garcia can't take more rounds, but their potential to avoid is higher, while the rest of your crew will die quicker no matter how you look at it. It's a rough map to be lance locked. If you dropped Gilliam on that fort I bet he survives indefinitely and solos the map on hard mode unless you got the most cursed RNG regarding 7 speed bandits who never miss. This is what I'm talking about when I say outlier examples.
You're right, I was thinking of Chapter 2, my bad. Not sure what it says that I forgot Gilliam existed in Chapter 1.
The brigands absolutely can 2RKO Gilliam though. Their atk stats vary from 13 to to 17; at 15 or higher they will kill in two rounds, while at 13-14 they kill in three. Only at exactly 14 atk is Franz also killed in three rounds; at every other atk threshold he can survive one more. Garcia can take one more hit at any atk stat (13-14 will 4HKO him, 15+ will 3HKO him).
8 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:Another important distinction is that I'm not just looking at Hard Modes. There a whole spectrum of more-casual playthroughs of fire emblem that I like to consider, and in those normal mode runs, armor knights are not typically getting doubled.
That's very fair. I definitely think the community too readily dismisses discussion of lower difficulties, and I can be guilty of that too. I'll also absolutely concede that armour knights being doubled is largely only an issue on higher difficulties.
Of course, I'm generally not typically a big fan of armour knights on lower difficulties either, because now the number of units I have who can reliably survive several enemies at once goes up significantly, and armours still have lower mobility and offence than their competition.
2 hours ago, Quell said:Surprised this is still a quite diffused belief, yeah they have a low base speed and, for Barthe, growth but most of the "early" game enemies are slow enough to not being able to double them. In particular Barthe is famous for being a common early promote wall, as 9 speed is enough to not get doubled by almost anything before chapter 13 (I'm talking about hard mode here). In fact both Wendy and Bors, while having a terrible 3 spd base stat, have a decent 40% growth that plus the busted general promotion can make them surprisingly effective dodge walls. Nothing I would advise using, at all, but speed is not the biggest concern of FE6 knights.
Binding Blade enemy stats are quite random but looking at enemy stats I see quite a large number of enemies in 8x who can hit 9 speed (including the mages and armourslayer user), and an extremely large number who hit 7. But then Chapter 9 enemies are actually slower (a mercy thanks to the fog) and okay yeah, I see your point. I haven't actually used Barthe on HM (just NM, where he's not doubled much as you say), so I'll take your word that it's not that common until 13.
-
6 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:
I've got no comments to make on How High the Fates armor knights ought to rank. But I do notice that all but one mention of Wary Fighter was totally uncritical. Entire generations of armor knights in previous games weren't getting doubled to begin with, except by enemies you absolutely would prefer they take on like the killing edge myrmidon or short bow nomads that deal single digit damage even on a crit. Giving most of those guys Wary Fighter, from Oswin to Arden, would not see a change in their performance in the aggregate of matchups, and the outlier matchups would probably be hurtful as often as helpful.
Getting doubled is certainly an issue for some armour knights from other games. Barth and Gwendolyn suffer from it in a big way, Gilliam gets doubled by the faster axe-users on his join chapter, Meg and RD-Brom can absolutely take serious damage from enemies like tigers and axeusers depending exactly on how their speed is coming along, etc. Louis gets one-rounded by mages on Maddening at various points. It's true that how much Wary Fighter would improve other games' knights varies, and sometimes it's not much (e.g. I think Oswin might only use it for one chapter).
But Benny specifically is improved by it quite a fair deal, as you note - probably Ignatius as well though it might depend on his mom and I'm not pulling out child stat calculators to doublecheck my kneejerk/memory there. Benny just has the type of stat build which slower armours gravitate towards, which is normally quite problematic, but he makes it work, in part because of Wary Fighter. And since the slowest enemies you face in the later stages of Conquest (i.e. Chapter 21 Stoneborn, Chapter 26 Generals) also have Wary Fighter, typically, Benny probably isn't losing any doubles that I can recall, so it's purely positive aside from slowing the filling of the dual guard gauge (which can only prevent one half of a double anyway, making this advantage largely moot). Wary Fighter basically makes the "extra slow armour knight who puts more stat points elsewhere" work better than it does in other games. Meanwhile, Effie, the natural armour knight who benefits from this less (though I still tend to equip it on her, myself. YMMV), is useful for other reasons.
Your point about matchups is well-taken, but for armour knights, bad matchups are more problematic than they are for other classes, at least in my opinion. Fliers have bad matchups against arrows in most games, for instance, but they're also mobile (sometimes even having canter) so they're better able to find places to attack from and avoid facing this weakness, so it doesn't hurt so badly in practice. An armour usually has fewer places they can move to, and their advantage over more mobile units is that they're more able to be plopped down in range of quite a few enemies at once and not die. If I can't do that as soon as there's a mage who can double them in the mix of enemies I want them to bait (a common issue in more recent games, where enemy mages have gotten faster), that definitely impacts the class's usability. When an armour can't take definitively more punishment than my other units, they're bad, because that's their only advantage over other classes/roles.
-
Keep in mind this is a rank classes by how good they are in each game; if you feel Fates is being overrated on people's lists, then which games do you think have better armours, and why? It's a class line with a pretty problematic track record, so the fact that Fates is being put at or near the top by many people may say more about said other games.
20 minutes ago, Quell said:But I can't still even remotely say armor is good: first and foremost the games extremely discourage tanking in any shapes and form. This is more an issue with Conquest (but it applies to the others too), the ninja line is by far one of the best in the game, if not outright the best one, and while on paper armor is sold as their counter this fails so spectacularly outside said PvP it's almost comical; the fact daggers are the best type of weapon in the game already speaks volumes about favoritism, let alone the incredible amount of wallbreaking skills ninja gets. What's even more aggravating is the existence of a number of said skills, Inevitable End in particular, that completely shut-down practically all the niches plays the class have.
I don't particularly agree that the game discourages tanking. In fact, tanking is a pretty darn good way to deal with ninjas; if you can reduce them to 0 damage and have a 1-2 weapon equipped, they won't attack (and thus won't trigger Inevitable End, for the very few battles which even utilize that skill), and then you can take them out on the next player phase at your leisure. Or, if the numbers allign and the ninjas you're facing don't have Inevitable End, you might be able to deliberately get them to deal small, non-zero damage to you, and counter them to death, for all that this does require a fair bit of stacking to one-shot the promoted ones. There are certainly other options, but I've absolutely had Effie be a superstar in the big Conquest ninja map.
Beyond that, yeah, they're armour knights, they have problems. For me, at least, Pair Up letting them actual reach key locations more easily makes them better than they are in most games.
-
One safeguard you can make when assigning stats is to increase the costs of minmaxing. For example, D&D 5e makes you pay 1 point to raise a stat by until the stat hit 13, then 2 more points to reach 14, 2 more points to reach 15, and 3 more points to reach 16. I would probably want to do something like that with a hypothetical growth assigner. Also, I would probably specifically want to provide a discount for raising the lower of your strength/magic, because that is typically much less useful than raising the higher of the two, and I'd rather reward/encourage hybrid builds (to be in line with other avatars). 6 strength + 6 magic should not be more costly, points-wise, than 8 strength + 0 magic in my opinion.
I also second lenticular about being cautious of this option on the first playthrough. Either gate it to a second file (not NG+ necessarily, but at least "read the game data and see the game is already completed"), or provide a very clear warning that fully customized growths are not recommended for first-time players.
To the original question, assuming a relatively typical set of FE mechanics (e.g. the GBA games), something like 70% str / 70% spd / most of the remaining 160 in HP/def/luck in some permutation / very little in res or skl feels like the most "broken", rather than going for 100. It depends greatly on enemy stats, though, and the ways you'd have of supporting your own stats, to answer questions like "is investing stat points into small accuracy boosts (skill/dex) worth it for reliability" or "should one go for maxed evade (i.e. 100% speed and lots of luck)" or even FEH-style "are there ways to one-round enemies without speed" (at which point 0% speed becomes viable, though you'd want high def and res to survive the doubles you'd face).
-
1 hour ago, Jotari said:
Sure he's late coming in Eirika route...but he's still going to be able to kill things right away.
He has pretty serious issues doubling enemies basically from his join time on in Eirika route, which kinda leaves him as a troubleshooter for the really slow ones (like the wyverns weighed down by steel, iirc?). I rarely use him past his join chpater on Eirika's route, since I already have a solid team by then and Ephraim is an easy sell as a pickup since 20/1 Ephraim vastly outclasses Duessel even before considering Siegmund.
He's much better on Ephraim's route because the midgame has a lot more maps for his stat build to shine.
-
1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:
With dark tomefaire for the love of christ. Whoever's bright idea it was to make dark magic a mostly-female thing and then make the dark mage classes male-only... well I have to assume it wasn't any one person's "bright idea", because that's the kind of idiocy that can only result from multiple people completely failing to communicate.
In fairness, the only class with Dark Tomefaire (Dark Knight) is not in fact gender-locked. And the only other class with a dark-magic-buffing passive (Valkyrie, with Dark Range+1) is gender-locked... but to women only (sorry Hubert).
Of course that just shifts the stupidity around, in that Three Houses has "Dark Mage" classes that don't actually make you any better at using dark magic.
Does Crimson Flower... make sense compared to the rest of Three Houses? SPOILERS, obviously.
in Fire Emblem: Three Houses
Posted
I mean... how do you think social structures change? Pretty much every major change to social structure in history is either the result of a violent conflict, or the threat of one. Privileged classes historically do not cede power just because the underclasses defeat them in a debate with facts and logic.
Even if you want to argue that I'm understating the amount of social change that can be achieved peacefully... this is a Fire Emblem game. It is a game about violent conflict. It might be nice to write a version of the story where Edelgard and Claude discuss their ideas at Garreg Mach's philosophy club and then co-author a manifesto which wins over so many nobles that any violence is unnecessary, turning Fodlan into a socialist utopia. But then people would probably complain about the shocking lack of gameplay in the Switch Fire Emblem game.