Augestein

Yeah, you're right, because they aren't infinite. I like them, I wish they were infinite.

It makes it more suspenseful to watch. When you don't know if a person is going to win or not, it can make a more interesting watch.

Depends on what you mean. If it's a mistake in the game, those are fine, but if someone got a phone call or something, I feel those should be edited out.

I'd go with Ana on this one. Avoiding multiple units is kinda reasonable. For DB, I'd go with raising maybe 1-2 DBers outside of Micaiah and Sothe. Trying to raise anymore and you're going to have to stop at some point to go out of your way to grind another unit.

You're right, I realize that I had accidentally used another save when I had tried to heart seal and my other Corrin wasn't a DF beforehand. My mistake.

You have to use another Ebon Wing. Heart Seal would only make him able to be a Master of Arms, Dark Knight, Sorcerer, or Swordmaster.

I can agree with this. Especially KOTOR2, I like the whole concept of it so much more... Incidentally, I just think it's a plain better game than KOTOR1. DA:I has a good base of a concept, but just feels messy in execution IMO.

I just plain wish that was a thing tbh. Sort of how Valkyria Chronicles had Welkin as the leader and then you other leaders in the group as well. My first game was FE4, so I thought it was strange when my lord wasn't super powerful.

Well sometimes you just don't like things and your opinions can cause people to feel compelled to defend something they like. I think the biggest problem is the aggression from others when it comes to analyzing or offering counterpoints.

Because Character development =/= "change." I've only really started seeing this become a thing Online to be completely honest. The foundation of whether a character being developed has nothing do with whether a character is dynamic or static even. Development is simply put, the amount of actual development a character is given. Of course a modern interpretation doesn't somehow make things less valid, as some terms such as "the bomb" for instance have altered in meaning over time, but in this case, it's one of those misuses of the phrase when they mean an entirely different meaning. Sort of how "irregardless" isn't a word at all but you'll still see people use it as a word when the reality is that a word like irregardless is kind of nonsensical. "Irr" as in "not," which would mean honestly mean that you're telling the person to regard what you're talking about. "Modern literacy" does work here, because people often interpret the phrase to literally mean something that it doesn't necessarily mean which leads to alterations OF literary study. It's not just a matter of literary study itself, but actual usage of the word. So no, not quite. What's funny, is that in video games, often character development is often used to refer to being able to create a custom character with a variable background that is established by the player, so I'm even more confused as to how this disconnect even happened in the first place. Because it only seems to apply to certain people. I really wish I could fin a book that I read on the changes of modern writing, and one was that it was recommended that you actually intentionally write all of your characters to be dynamic to prevent criticism for having characters that don't develop. It's confusing you, because I think you misread what I said. It's not a detriment to have a protagonist change over the course of the story. Conversely, just because a protagonist does NOT change doesn't make the story bad. What causes bad writing, in regards to this specific instance, is when people have a perfectly fine protagonist and force the protagonist to somehow change because it's what you need for a character. There's a difference between a character overcoming an ordeal and coming out stronger for it-- that in and of itself is character growth, but it's not a change in the actual character. Let's use an example of what I mean. The Dog and the Reflection in the story, the dog is our only character in the story, it barely develops and the story ends with the dog losing the bone/meat/whatever it was carrying in the translation you read the story. The purpose of the story is to illustrate the pratfalls of greed as well as inform the audience that they should be happy with what they already have. The story is not bad because it's short, and more pressingly delivers a message. The dog does not need to be developed for the story to serve its purpose. Or we could use something such as The Great Gatsby as another example. Nick is a character that is considerably more flat than other characters in the story despite being the protagonist of the tale. However, Nick's main purpose, outside of being a foil to Gatsby, and even a parallel to Fitzgerald's actual life, is to provide perspective for the audience. He provides the audience with a character that other characters can interact with. His role in the story is strange, but it still works. Yet, we don't really learn much about Nick over the course of the plot despite spending much time with him. Yet, the story isn't bad because Nick doesn't develop much as a character. This is what I mean. Now it's my turn to be confused here. I don't know what you mean on "this sounds like a specific character," it's literally something I hear all the time in various places. most notably on the Internet. I wasn't speaking about any specific character, that's why I stated it in a generalized fashion. If I was talking about a specific character, I would have specified.

You can also buy them in BR and Revelations. It's weird, but I don't think a staff like that should have been limited in any route (I mean technically you could go Online but... Eh...). That's just... Wrong. And I agree, I love funky staves.

It can be either. Honestly, I feel that a final boss being the map itself would be an interesting idea. The problem I have with monsters as final bosses is that often times they leave a rather lackluster drive to complete them. Sometimes you don't need a grotesque image to defeat to feel like you won.

The thing is though, it's still easy to see though. He may not have really cared too much for the women and may have just been a bit of a philanderer. A young boy being played with by his father is going to see his father in a wondrous light even with all of the terrible things happening. If you remember, Elise says she doesn't remember that at all, and here's another thing to think of: both Xander and Leo seem more fond of Garon than Elise and Camilla, so it's possible that Garon happens to treat his sons better than he does his daughters. Remember, Azura's not fond of him, Camilla's not particularly fond of him, and neither is Elise. Honestly, it would have been easier to accept if the ages went Xander -> Leo -> Camilla -> Elise, but here, I think it still works. Garon was obviously kind of garbage (you can get this from Camilla) when Leo was a kid too, it's just that Leo wasn't perceptive enough to notice is my bet.

I agree with this. As lackluster as Dragon Age 2 was for the reuse of environments and rather spotty quality in terms of graphic choice and animations at least I didn't feel like the game was just flat out wasting my time by having me trek across huge mountain passes. It's also the reason that I have a huge problem even really trying to play Skyrim. The game just feels like a chore to me, even with all of the bells an whistles to make traveling easier. And yeah, the only game's story that I actually truly like is KOTOR, and I'm not sure if it's my bias for Star Wars or it just actually is that much better than everything else they've written. Even stuff like The Banner Saga, as interesting as it is, it's kind of a mess and I'm not entirely sure what's going on -- granted the characters don't either, but still, if it's supposed to be a trilogy, the third one has a lot of work to do. As for the mentioning of Undertale, I'm also in agreement with people on it. It especially frustrates me because in order to see all of the story, you have to check every single path, and the game basically calls you a dick for trying to do so. That's like calling someone a douche for finishing your book. For the person that asked about Valvatorez, I thought he was a pretty solid character. He was a form of stability for everyone else in the party, and it was a nice change to have an actual adult as a party member rather than someone that acted a bit brattier like Mao or Laharl-- although to be fair, it almost feels like Almaz is the actually hero of the story for D3, (jokes aside), as he goes through more than Mao does and most of the things that happen are pretty strongly from Almaz's perspective. With the final boss having ties to both Mao and Almaz. Like more so than any other villain group.

No. That's something that has only been applied in modern literacy as the definition-- which is some of the reason we have such shoddy writing at moments and writers, especially video game ones struggle so much with writing characters. These are the same types of people that will also insist that your protagonist *must* change over the course of the plot. Character development is not simply "how much your character changes over the course of a story." Character development is establishing relations with other characters, core values of the character, physical characteristics, vernacular, backgrounds... It's a myriad of things. Simply having a character change from the start of a story doesn't count as character having development, most noticeably when the change is nonsensical, causes the character to be less able to be related to, and has the character almost completely transform into another person. A character that receives all of the prior noted established is a more developed character than one that does not, dynamic or static. It's why you'll see frustrating sentences such as "X character didn't receive character development because he stayed the same." Unless you're saying that we didn't learn anything about the character, and we know very little about them-- ie, the character is a flat character, it's really silly to say the character didn't develop. The fact that the character didn't change can be seen that the character is stubborn or steadfast in their beliefs.

I actually agree with this ten-fold. She's a character that is an overall nice person, a little jaded, but still has some nasty quirks as a character. She also has the privilege of being the only character you have in ME1 that's not a walking mouth-piece for extra codex entries. I'd actually go so far to say that she's the best written character in the series. It's a shame what happened to her in ME3, you barely get to speak to her if you aren't in a romance with her.

I made myself unclear there from trying to answer two things at once. 1) I meant that I can believe that Hinoka wasn't originally supposed to be in the cast. Confirmation or not. Also: 2) That's a shame that they removed the subtle sexist subtext that was present in the original version that wasn't in the localization.

I'd probably try to pass Wary Fighter to Kana and you can have her use DragonStones to never be doubled and used that wonderful magic stat.

I can honestly believe that even without having it confirmed. Something just feels *off* about Hinoka in the game. Also, I wasn't aware that the localization removed that aspect of the game, that kind of stinks as I feel that would have been an interesting touch to have in the game.

Good lord I hate romance arcs in most media because they are done so poorly. My favorite one I can think of in a movie or game was Skies of Arcadia with the princess and the princess. It was a subplot that was fleshed out enough to be understandable but it wasn't to the point that it became grating, and it was believable enough that a romance could have blossomed because both weren't main characters so the game merely did it in a way where Vyce could just seem them hanging out together on the ship. Little touches like that went a long way. For me personally: I wish Kingdom Hearts would have focused less on the original characters and more on... You know, actually having Square Enix and Disney crossovers? I just find myself not caring about anyone in the game at this point because the KH series has basically become a video game Shounen. I hate how people attribute "character development" of a character based on if the character falls under the notion of being a dynamic character. Static characters can still be wonderfully developed characters that still have backgrounds, a compelling drive for their behavior, and still be just as humanized as a dynamic character. Just because a character could overall be classified as a static character doesn't mean that they are also a flat character as well. I think people have too high of an expectation for stories in video games nowadays, but honestly? Who could blame them at this point? Devs continue to place more and more emphasis on stories in games and continue to have shorter segments of gameplay with more auto-playing segments in them. I wish both would stop. I like invested stories as much as the next person, but never at the expense of gameplay. "Bad" things happening to characters is not a way to give a character depth. I see too many movies / shows that just slap and onslaught of terrible events on one character to make you feel that the character has human qualities-- all it makes me feel like is that the writer simply doesn't like the character or wants me to feel bad for them. I think outside of the SNES and NES, most of Nintendo's consoles have been pretty underwhelming. Their handhelds have always been stronger than their consoles. For television shows, I find that up to season 4 is how long a show should pretty much last. Most shows start to really lose their drive after season 4. It's rare that I see a show where I feel like the highlight of the show that has 4+ seasons and one of the first 4 seasons wasn't the best. Unless the show has variable characters or different versions of the show: CSI, Law and Order, Digimon, Sentai shows etc. I think ti's best to let it sleep after that many seasons. I liked the side scrolling Castlevania games more than the ones that took place in 1 castle. DLC isn't necessarily a bad thing for a game when done correctly. The problem is that most devs implement DLC very poorly. Reality tv is somehow more fake than scripted television. I think it might have to do with the fact that the shows keep insisting that it's completely real.

Well I'd still say it could count as a point against him. He's still a jerk for doing it, but honestly? It's not something that's done in a stupid way. So it gives him -2 nice guy points and + 2 smart guy points. When doing something that's not so nice is balanced by the intelligence behind it, it's not so bad, but I can see how it could bother people.

I don't know, Hinoka has that problem too. None of the sisters really get any arcs that are noteworthy. Elise is the only one that actually feels like a character in the games because she actually actively does things-- not significant things in most cases, but enough to actually be present in the plot. Camilla just kinda becomes another unit-- same for Hinoka in that regard. The reason why it's so bad for Camilla, is because the supports don't really shed much light on her without picking apart every word in them and over-analyzing them.

That's the thing though, something like lunge ninjas IS stat inflation, because it requires a unit to be able to survive that onslaught. That's precisely why I brought that case up. As for your units, that'd be something that I honestly find kinda bad with newer Fire Emblems.

I understand that. That's why it's common for enemies to often out number you and have terrain advantage. It's an ordeal for the player to overcome. I don't mind it in most cases. But how Fire Emblem did it here is like taking a Warrior class giving it Mage class MP and then giving it Mana Shield as a skill. So the class is a class that doesn't have to use MP but gets another "health bar." It's not done in a way that feels clever, but more to just annoy the player. That's how some of the combos are. I don't mind combos that make interesting setups, but they need to be in a way that feels intelligible. Slapping Counter on an enemy randomly doesn't feel like a good combo. Cool things were like the Sky Knights that had Pass in Hinoka's chapter. It puts a pressure on you that otherwise couldn't exist if you build a wall of fortified units, which means that the dragon veins become more vital to use in order to beat the chapter. It's the perfect chapter to sum this up too, because Hinoka gets to use Dragon Veins without having to use different ones like the player.

I think it's also the fact that the skill just happens to be on a regular unit that isn't even the right class to have it. I don't mind having to check skills, but Conquest does this a lot with skills in an obnoxious way ala lunge ninjas. Like seriously designers, you're not clever having a room that debuffs you to hell and back like this. I'm obviously going to put a tank in the room, and the setup is just stupid. Have a tank, and have that unit get debuffed while being paired up with hopefully another defensive unit. And then the following turn, clean house. I honestly would go further to say I just hate counter as a skill. As it requires an insane amount of precision to effectively use for the player as in you don't want to be taking damage on EP if you can help it, and dealing that damage back only opens up opportunities to kill an enemy you didn't want to leave space for your unit to be killed-- in the same way that Wrath can be a dangerous skill to have. In older ones like PoR, it was pretty useless because it activated on procs. I'd probably like counter more if it was "activates damage that you would have received when you DON'T take damage." That would have made it good for both EP and PP.