vanguard333

I didn't mean it like that; I simply meant that she got the most focus: the game's theme song is about her, she probably appears more often (and more prominently) in the trailers than Byleth does, etc. Does that make sense? I suppose, though there is a fair bit of implication, and Link's Awakening is possibly the only (or at least the first) early Zelda game to make a romantic tone very overt, so I figured that she'd count. Also, thanks, both for answering my questions and for what you said about my moveset suggestion for Marin.

Since my questions weren't answered but people who replied after me mentioned Marin and love-interests of DLC fighters, I may as well list which ones I would add: 1. Edelgard: I still maintain that it would've been better if she had been chosen than Byleth, since she's not only a more unique fighter but also the real mascot of Three Houses. She would be a small and heavy unit (thus very difficult to send flying), and she would be armed with axes, dark magic and possibly battalions either for a specific special move or for her final smash. 2. Marin: She would be a fragile speedster. She uses various items from Link's Awakening that are not part of any Link's arsenal, including: the magical rod, magic powder, pegasus boots, and the shovel. She can also sing the three songs from Link's Awakening, each with a different effect: Manbo's Mambo allows her to teleport, similarly to Farore's Wind Frog's Song of Soul summons the Flying Rooster for an attack The Ballad of the Wind Fish awakens the Wind Fish for her final smash She can also use Bow-Wow for her smash attacks, and her grab is the Trendy Game Crane. 3. Tifa: This one is mainly for the obvious moveset potential.

Interesting. Now I finally understand the perspective of those who decried Wind Waker and Majora's Mask and wanted another Twilight Princess. I honestly didn't care at all about Wind Waker or Majora's Mask being different; probably because my first Zelda experience was the collector's edition on the GameCube (which had the first game, Adventure of Link, Ocarina, Majora's Mask, and a 20-minute demo of Wind Waker), so I experienced all three games at once. I even thought Four Swords Adventures was a neat idea as I have two siblings and it would allow us to play a Zelda game at the same time (imagine how ripped off we felt when we realized that the multiplayer required those Gameboy Advance cords that we didn't have). I never saw the E3 announcement for Twilight Princess, but I did see all the other trailers and ads for it. It never struck me as "another Ocarina of Time"; it struck me as a new Zelda game that, where Majora's Mask was an endless gloomy race against time and Wind Waker was an adventure in the open sea, would instead be a grand fantasy epic and battle of light vs darkness, good vs evil almost akin to something like Lord of the Rings or... I can't actually think of another grand fantasy epic like that off the top of my head. I thought Link now being essentially a werewolf was a great idea with tons of potential. So, yeah; I was just as hyped as everyone else, but I wanted another experimental game while standing alone in a sea of people wanting an Ocarina of Time re-release, and I did not understand why everyone else in that sea wanted what they did. So, yeah; one can see why I eventually ended up in the crowd of coming down hard on the game for being another Ocarina of Time. Don't get me wrong; Twilight Princess is a good game, and there were definitely moments that felt really epic. I just wish the climate at the time wasn't full of fans that were angry at anything that wasn't Ocarina; perhaps then Twilight Princess could've been something even more. Perhaps Wolf Link wouldn't have been really underutilized as a gameplay mechanic, and perhaps the game could've been even better tailored towards being that grand epic. Apparently, both Eiji Aonuma and Shigeru Miyamoto have expressed regrets regarding Twilight Princess; Eiji regrets that he didn't make the game as grand or epic as he intended and the team focused too much on the size of the world and not enough on fully utilizing that space, while Miyamoto feels, looking back, that the game is missing something.

What about Marin? Why is she not on the list? Also, would the love-interest of a DLC Fighter count?

Definitely an anime opening song.

What, to you, makes a good trailer for a video game? Post some of your favourite video game trailers and say why you think they're good. Note: this isn't a thread about trailers for great video games, but trailers that are great, regardless of the game's actual quality. Also, when posting the trailer, please put the link in a spoiler tag to make the thread a bit easier to load for everyone (and so that each reply isn't extremely long). I'll start: Final Fantasy VS XIII Trailer: Fire Emblem Fates: Choose Your Path Trailer: Breath of the Wild E3 2016 Trailer: For me, a good video game trailer has to do one thing: convey what the game is and what's unique and interesting about it. That may sound obvious, but I do think there are a lot of trailers out there that either don't really show what the game's about, or instead tell the viewer what the games about over some footage that is just showing some neat effects but isn't reflective of the game. These three trailers immediately convey what the game's about and what's interesting about it through showing rather than telling, with any words just adding onto it.

If you think that's heart-meltingly adorable, you should watch some of the other clips of this show that I posted on this thread, or even just watch the show (the whole show is heart-meltingly adorable). As for the video I have to watch and review: odd/10

I've never actually played the game/10

A chapter where the good guys have to lay siege to a castle by attacking the front gate. You can open the gate either by bringing the battering ram up to it and bringing the gate's HP down to 0, or by getting up to the castle walls and raising the gate using a lever in the 2nd floor of the gatehouse. There are archers on the castle walls, and the only way for a non-flying unit to get up to the walls is either via a ladder (which a unit can carry but enemies can knock down on enemy phase) or a siege tower, which has to be pushed up to the wall.

I'm getting deja vu; I could've sworn that Gilbert was already rated when we were going through the Blue Lions (since he's only available on the Azure Moon route). EDIT: Never mind; I think I'm remembering a thread someone else made asking whether or not Gilbert was useful in any way.

I'm not sure what was so funny about it/10. For context for this clip, the husband and wife are planning to get a new apartment. For that, they need a guarantor. The husband's parents were the guarantor for his old apartment, and it is only after he brings this up that he realizes that he forgot to tell his parents that he got married.

I am the last person to ask about this due to my high-functioning autism; sometimes I have no idea what to say even when there are conversation topics.

I should clarify: she's not his sister; she's just an old friend. This is also the angriest that she ever gets with him, and even then, it's not really anger; it's more that she gets intense/energetic as a way to make sure her point gets across.

A bunch of fairly impressive stuff that I would never try (especially not tossing an actual game disc). I don't see how trick shots relate to Mario though, since Mario is more about running and jumping.

Once per map or phase sounds great; reducing some of the chance involved in skills like this one sounds like a great idea overall. In fact, perhaps this could be done for other skills as well? For example, perhaps Aegis and Pavise could be made passive instead of proc-based, with a weakness perhaps being that they don't protect against effective damage (i.e. weapons like hammers and armorslayers would still do full damage)?

I suppose, but could they at least be upfront about it? That way I'm not getting interesting in something only to then feel ripped off? At least Nintendo revealed the time travel in the demo (i.e. before release), but they still basically announced this game as a prologue that would allow the players to experience the Calamity, which blatantly isn't true if there's time travel changing what happened. As for FF7R, I should probably stress at this point that I am not a fan of Final Fantasy; I am a complete newcomer to the series, and I bought FF7R because it looked really interesting and because I thought that a modern remake of the most famous game in the series would be a good starting point for me. To be fair, 90% of what I've played so far has done exactly that, but those are all parts that don't involve the timeline ghosts. Every time the timeline ghosts do appear, they make things so meta and convoluted that, had I not been aware of a lot of major events of the original game through pop-cultural osmosis, I would definitely have felt alienated, and I definitely would've been wondering what was even going on (and not in a good way). As I pointed out with my Star Trek Enterprise example, TV and movies already went through this fad of unnecessarily throwing in time travel, and it's an idea that should've been burned to the ground and never spoken of again; not one that gets introduced to the games industry more than ten years later.

I hope not. I want to experience the calamity and the fall of Hyrule, feel sorrow when the champions die, feel Link's desperation as he tries to protect Zelda from the corrupted guardians, etc. I want to think, "Such a sad story, but at least we know Link will return 100 years later", not, "I wonder if the game would tell me: 'What; you didn't try to change the future and give everyone a happier ending? You monster! Their deaths are on your hands now!'" The former story would hit me in the feels, the latter would just irritate me.

I've never heard of Shadow of Destiny/Memories, but I think now I see what you're saying: the egg keeps going back in time again and again but it always plays out exactly the same way. I suppose that could work. I just would hope that we only have to go through one loop and it wouldn't be like the second half of Bravely Default: going through an alternate version of the same thing over and over again.

To be clear, do you mean something like a closed time loop (like the Ocarina of Time draining the well example)? Or do you mean something more like Emmeryn's death in Awakening? If the former, I suppose that would cause a bit of extra drama and feels, but then I'd have to ask why make it a time traveler? I'm sure just as much drama and sadness would come from it being just a cool team pet that gets destroyed, corrupted, or perhaps most heartbreaking of all: it survives only to find everyone gone and doesn't learn about Link being sealed away in the shrine of resurrection (hence it not appearing in BOTW). If the latter, I suppose it wouldn't change the calamity itself, but there'd always be the question of how much the guardian's presence alters the events leading up to it.

I didn't mean the part where you said "pre-sequel"; I meant all the stuff you said after it; the stuff where you started referencing Byleth and Revelations. Those visions gave us indications of things like monster attacks, the Yiga Clan already scheming (like their failed attempt to assassinate Zelda), and Link struggling to defend Zelda while fleeing from and fighting off countless guardians. Plus, we know that a massive siege happened at Akkala Citadel and that it fell. Plus, I wanted to see them expand on the different details: stuff like the different battles, Master Kohga and the mysterious hooded figure that I think might be Twinrova are all interesting additions, and the egg guardian seemed like an interesting addition to me before it turned out to be a time traveler.

@Glennstavos I understood your point until right about the middle of the last paragraph. Everything after "pre-sequel" I don't understand even though I've played Fates and Revelations. Could you please clarify what you were meaning (not what you were referencing; what you were meaning)? I understand your point about now not knowing how it'll end, but the appeal of a prequel is that you know how things end, but you don't know how the pieces all moved into place, and that was certainly what appealed to me when Age of Calamity got announced: being able to experience the the fall of Hyrule and the battles that took place. Now, with time travel involved, I can't really experience that, as I won't be experiencing what happened; I'll be experiencing a version that was altered by wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey (and before anyone asks, I have no idea where that line is from).

Thanks. I suppose. If only there was consistent precedent for how time travel effects Zelda, but The Legend of Zelda is all over the place when it comes to time travel. In Ocarina of Time alone, learning the Song of Storms/Draining the well and meeting Nabooru are obvious examples of closed time loops (where the act of going back in time causes events to occur as they originally did, resulting in a stable timeline: think Terminator 1 where Kyle Reese going back in time causes the birth of John Connor, and the birth of John Connor causes Kyle Reese going back in time), but then the ending of the game causes three timelines: the adult timeline, the child timeline and the fallen timeline. So who knows what the egg will cause. But, if it does play out like the Song of Storms example, then why have the egg go back in time at all? The Song of Storms thing in Ocarina of Time was a story puzzle: you had to figure out to learn the song as an adult and go back in time to play it inside the windmill as a kid, while the egg going back in time causing the very events that it seeks to prevent adds nothing.

I think it's really a balancing act; you definitely want things to be challenging enough that players are encouraged to experiment, but not so difficult that it actually limits the number of viable builds. This is the reason I personally consider challenge and difficulty to be two separate things: for me, "challenge" means how much you have to learn and understand the mechanics, think creatively, and otherwise engage with the system. "difficulty", however, just means how technical skill and such is required. Difficulty without challenge is usually just tedium. I'm honestly torn; I love that they kept the hand-drawn look of the places, but I'm not a fan of how the characters look. For me, it's definitely the character models and such that feel off.

I have yet to play the demo, but I have to say, regarding the nature of Egg Guardian and how it's apparently from the future, I have just one thing to say: why?! What's with this trend in recent games of advertising themselves as telling a particular story in a series, only to then go, "Fooled you! We're throwing in time travel!" Final Fantasy 7 Remake did it with the extremely needless "enforcing the timeline" ghosts known as the Arbiters of Fate when fans just wanted an adaptation expansion of the original game, and now this. Why can't the game just give me the prologue story it said it was going to give me? Why do I now have to think about whether or not it's actually showing me the events of the calamity? I didn't get Hyrule Warriors and I'm not interested in getting it now; I got hyped for this game because they said it was going to be the story of the calamity! But if it's involving time travel, then it isn't showing me the events of the calamity! This is the same problem as the Temporal Cold War nonsense in Star Trek Enterprise! I wanted to see the early days of Star Fleet exploring the galaxy and meeting factions like the Klingons for the first time; time-travel nonsense means that's not the story it said I was going to be given! Whatever people may think of the Star Wars Prequels, at least they gave what they said they would give: the fall of the Jedi Order, the rise of Palpatine and the Empire, how Anakin became Darth Vader, etc. Imagine if a bunch of time travel nonsense suddenly got thrown into the prequel trilogy out of nowhere? Perhaps one of the worst things about it is that it's never advertised. It's like the writers know that it's a massive can of worms that people would rather not see, and so they hide it. Actually, no; that's not the worst thing. The worst thing about it is that it begs the question: to what end? You're changing the course of the story so that it's no longer the unaltered story, and for what? In Enterprise, it was for antagonists like the Suliban and the Xindi, which were unnecessary as there were plenty of potential antagonists they could've used. The Arbiters of Fate in FF7Remake make it that the story is consciously trying to alter itself as little as possible, but so many cases of them interfering are unnecessary as the course of events could've stayed consistent without them, and what you're left with are a bunch of ghost-like creatures that are extremely out-of-place and would be more fitting in a Kingdom Hearts game than FF7, and their presence overcomplicates the story and makes messy what once was straightforward. It's no longer an expansion of FF7's story, but some weird timeline story. I don't want to experience a time travel story; I want to experience the calamity! I want to experience the siege of Akkala Citadel! I want to experience a weary and beleaguered Link becoming surrounded and overwhelmed by Guardians; protecting Zelda from them while furiously fighting back with just his Master Sword! How am I supposed to get that experience with time-travel involved? How am I supposed to have that feeling of experiencing the Calamity if part of me could very well be thinking, "I could go for the time-travel good ending that exists for some reason; I'm basically killing the characters rather than experiencing their tragic story". It cheapens it, it undermines it. I know that I could easily be overreacting, since it's just an Egg Guardian, but I've been through this before (as shown by the examples I used) and I recognize warning signs. I don't know; what do you guys think? Am I overreacting? Is it okay to be a bit apprehensive about this?

Since Fates had Kitsune, I guess it would make sense to see a tanuki at some point, and if you don't think a tanuki can be an intimidating or serious opponent in a fight, then you've never heard of the character Gaara from Naruto.