Hawkwing
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hawkwing
-
-
Good thing dad and I worked on the fire pit yesterday; I worked with a ton of screws today putting together a conveyer.
-
Banned because I really need to stop having most of my ideas at night.
-
Double
-
I suppose I could say stories that make me think, but that is super broad and difficult to predict.
For something more specific, I would say that I very much enjoy de/re-constructions. Not the "In real life, the hero of this genre would be a bloodthirsty psychopath" or the "it's grey morality because both sides have noble goals, but one side kicks puppies and the other punches kittens" kind of "deconstructions" but rather the "this is what it would take in order for this trope/setup to actually work" as well as "these are the consequences that would logically result from this kind of story" kind of stories.
Batman Begins is an excellent example of what I am talking about. Even before Bruce begins to think of donning the cowl, we are shown what kind of people his parents were and why their deaths affected him so much, what spurs him to decide to fight crime and adopt his one rule, how he got his training, and why he decided to go with a bat themed costume. We are also shown were Batman gets all his fancy toys and how he set up the Batcave, as well as how he plans missions. Even the unrealistic parts of the movie are still applied in a way that makes sense if such elements really did work that way.
Shortened version; I enjoy stories that pay attention to why the tropes and archetypes it utilizes are taking place, what it would take to set up such things, and what their logical consequences would be. Even in fantasy or futuristic settings, I love getting the sense that creatures, technologies, and magic exist in their own right and act in ways established with the setting instead of being there simply for the sake of the plot, and that the story acknowledges both the good and bad applications of such things
On a less descriptive note, I also enjoy "grey morality" stories where certain players have a higher moral ground than others, but no one holds it completely, which makes things interesting. Where there is undoubtedly a "most heroic" or "noble" faction or character that can often be relied on to do the right thing, but you shouldn't place all your chips on them doing so all the time but not always. And conversely, even the more despicable side still have their virtues and reasons for why they are the way they are. I like having something to root for while also knowing that not everything is black and white.
-
My two cents on the whole "enemies don't actually die when you defeat them" shtick is that it is fine when done sparingly and with enemies that are optional to fight. Getting to hear some unique dialogue is a neat bonus for destroying an opponent earlier than intended without wrecking the overall story. Granted, it could be cool if defeating enemies like that actually did affect the plot, but that is not always practical from a design standpoint. What might combine practicality and awesomeness would be to have said enemies gain a scar or loose a limb or something along those lines and have higher stats and new abilities for the mandatory battle to show that they're taking the heroes much more seriously compared to if the player avoided the optional fight. That I would like to see done someday.
* * * * * *
I throwing this out there more out of curiosity than because I think it is unpopular, but I would like to see a far more strategically focused Fire Emblem game someday. Where instead of having linear levels, the player would move several generals across a map, picking where and when to fight as well as whether to attack or to reinforce their position. Instead of a set amount of characters to recruit, your forces would be made up of normal soldiers that you have to hire and train. You would have to secure resources like horses and steel in order to maintain certain classes and equip specific weapons, and building certain buildings and defenses would affect the maps you fight on. It would be a Fire Emblem game were you could actually loose every single soldier without causing a game over, and finally have the chance to fight against an enemy that actually cares about self-preservation and long-term planning.
Not to say that it would be entirely without character. It would be cool if generals fulfilled different niches, such as warriors that were fierce combatants in their own right, commanders that could lead larger than usual armies and served a more supportive role, mages that had could fling spells of all kinds all across the map, and so on. Individual units, ally and enemy, could still have personal skills that set them apart, maybe have a moral system so that causes units on both sides to react as cowards or heroes, and each faction could have their own set of unique classes. Speaking of factions, there could be combinations of humans, shapeshifters, dragons, undead, monsters, and so on. While the story might have to be more broad, there are still several paths to take, such as conquering other nations, leading a rebellion, fighting against a swarm of undead and monsters, heading a quest to find an ancient artifact, being the evil overlord for once, and so much more. Heck, the game could even be scenario driven and have more than one of these.
I would expect it to be a smaller project like Echoes was, as it would inevitably lack several features that help the series stand out, such as supports and a linear story, and if they go the scenario route, they may have to limit the amount of portraits, voice acting, CG's, etc. Yet I am extremely curious in seeing the structure of Fire Emblem gameplay be applied in ways we haven't seen before. Were we have larger scale battles that aren't scripted, we can loose battles without causing a game over, having to deal with different forms of resource management not seen before, and just plain seeing Fire Emblem gameplay mesh with aspects from other strategy games.
-
When the Fates games become collector items, you are unable to sell them for a high price, and if you pay someone to grab the games for you, they steal it for themselves.
42 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:Panne and Yarne come at you for betraying them.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I knew I should have invited them. Alas, the power of reviving memes won out... somehow. In hindsight, I still don't know why.***
I take Shadow Dragons script, change some of the names, and try to pass it off as a Shakespearean play.
-
-
He still heroically goes out of the way to help any female in need, as it turns out he cares more about chivalry than getting into someones pants.
I trick Kaden and Selkie into going to a trampoline park and secretly record what they do in hopes of getting millions of views on YouTube and thus billion of dollars in ad revenue by reviving an old meme.
-
Apologize before throwing colored paint out my door to see what the heck has a physical dimension in the picture.
-
It does, at the cost of screwing up everything the original game did right.
On 6/13/2020 at 11:49 AM, Benice said:Granted, but it's a musical in which Nemesis sings almost all of his lines.
How is this a corruption, exactly?
...
...Actually, I wouldn't mind if someone made a musical of Fire Emblem game. That is my wish for this round.
-
Gah! Sunlight! Man I spent way too much time in that last shrine.
-
-
-
-
I think Master Seals are the overall best system so far, as they give the player the choice of who they want to promote and when, without any other bells or whistles attached aside from being limited in some games. Simple while allowing for player choice, which is a good combination in this case.
I like Tellius's "promote at level 20" system on paper, though in practice the game would have to be designed with it in mind. It is pretty easy to get most of the cast to level 20 in some Fire Emblem games, whereas in others it would be a complete chore. It would be cool to see this system return, but I wouldn't want to see it inserted haphazardly.
I enjoyed how Shadow of Valentia's promotions didn't require any resources, though I understand where people come from if they didn't like that you have to go to a dungeon or a specific section of the map in order to do so. Villagers were also a little underutilized, though I wouldn't be surprised if IS was curious to see how people would respond to the mechanic and if players would like to see it expanded upon in a future game. With some tweaks and adjustments, it would be neat to see Echoes system or something similar to it return in some fashion.
I haven't played much of the GBA games, but I can't say I'm a huge fan of the class specific promotions. While I like the strategic edge of having to decide which characters of each class set should get the promotion, as someone that prefers using multiple characters and hates benching units, it occasionally came off as needlessly punishing the playstyle of using a variety of characters instead of sticking with a specific group. Again, I'm still playing through the GBA trilogy, so my opinion on how they handle promotions might change later on.
I thought Three Houses system was pretty interesting, if really rough around the edges (There is some rather pointless genderlocking, some in-between classes are missing, several of the master classes decided that characters should suddenly learn how to use magic or ride a horse, etc.). While I wouldn't want it become a series standard, I do want to see another attempt at this system that irons out the flaws and expands upon what worked.
-
He eventually takes a martial arts class, technically becomes the series first "gauntlet" user, and beats the everliving crap out of all the enemies in the game in flashy combos. He then decks you in the face for being a bad tactician while also thanking you for putting him on the path to becoming a stronger fighter.
Also, his Super Smash Bros. moveset is pretty much a clone of Ryu/Ken, Little Mac, and Mii Brawler, with no unique attacks outside of what they can do.
In my attempt to honor Deen's sacrifice during my first playthrough of Shadows of Valentia, I forged his Brave Sword and named it "Dean's Memory" by accident.
-
Banned for not saying "you're welcome".
-
Ask if I can shoot his horn twice with my bow and arrow, as upgrading the Champions Tunic can be a royal pain sometimes (if ultimately worth it).
-
Thank you, now have a ban.
-
Meat
-
Banned for not separating the Fates games in his ranking list.
-
Thank him for his contribution towards saving Hyrule.
-
I don't mind that Byleth isn't super knowledgeable about certain locations and factions. After all, in real life it is possible to know of a country or group and not know much about their inner workings. My issue is that Byleth has never heard of these places or governments before despite having a background as a traveling mercenary.
Even if Jeralt sheltered them, it doesn't make a lot of sense why Byleth has no knowledge of the main powers of the continent despite supposedly fighting across the land for several years. I can buy that Byleth doesn't know much about each faction beyond their name and surface government facts, and that Jeralt deliberately avoided contact with the church. What I don't get is why the writers have Byleth ask some really obvious questions that ending up make them look clueless about the world and things they should already have some knowledge of. As I mentioned earlier, these moments could have benefited from some rewording to make it seem like Byleth has heard or even been to some of these places, but would like a second opinion or more information. It would fit nicely with their background while still informing the player of the setting.
-
As long as neither are common amongst the cast/classes and the boost in question makes sense for the character or class in question, I am fine with either.
I don't mind the lords getting exclusive weapons, for instance, as they're mandatory for the story maps and the extra damage can be helpful in certain situations. Nor do I mind something like Caeda's Wing Spear, as while it can be overpowered, she is responsible for recruiting a fair amount of enemy characters, meaning it is likely that she'll be in the range of several enemy units from time to time. Meanwhile, I'm not the biggest fan of Three Houses limiting the legendary weapons to those with crests, as the ones who can wield them are not always the units who would get the most out of the weapon, though their low durability and high cost to repair help keep them in check (and New Game + crest stones can remove said limit).
Similar deal with class exclusive weapons. Giving the longbow to archers and snipers helps give them an (limited) advantage over mounted bow users, and weapons unique to myrmidons and swordmasters can make up for being sword-locked. On the other hand, Awakening locking dark magic behind dark mages despite there not being a ton of differences between them and regular mages was a rather pointless limitation. Done well, class only weapons can give a limited class another niche, while if done badly it just makes an already good class even stronger.
They can both give a character or class a useful leg up when done right, though when executed poorly they just make one unit or class more beneficial than another. At the end of the day I don't mind a game having either, though largely because rarely does a weapon define a character or classes usefulness. It can give them an extra niche or a helpful boost in power, but there are several factors outside of weaponry that determine how worthwhile a character or class is.
Will There Ever Be a Good King Arthur/Robin Hood Movie?
in Entertainment
Posted
Recently? None that I can think of. Though I have heard that The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and Ivanhoe (1952) are good Robin Hood movies, and I'd like to get around to watching them someday. I wouldn't be surprised if King Arthur is in a similar situation, where the older films tend to be the better examples of the legend.
I believe both groups have a better showing in videogames nowadays (well, in the past 30 years at least), even if they obviously range in quality and genre. Similar to films, it really depends on where you look.
I do agree that there is still appeal in seeing an accurate telling of these legends. I remember reading "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" a year or two ago and greatly enjoying the story, I've read the original tale of Robin Hood before though it has been a few years and I don't remember a ton of details, and "The Necessity of Chivalry" is one of my favorite essays by C.S. Lewis, so you can count me in as someone interested in seeing classic tales of heroism again. And as the you said, few people know about these stories in-depth, so the original tales can still garner some interest even without having to shake anything up.