Xator Nova

In my opinion, Hugh's situation is like this: - Hugh's true recruitment cost is 5000 G, because it is the minimum payment. That isn't taken into account when rating him. - You've to pay another 5000 G in order for him to have his maximum bases, and pay/sacrifice another 5000 G for his promotion item to reach his maximum potential instantly. This should be taken as an investment, because it is purely optional. - Even after investing 10000 G into him, his stats (25 Atk, 41 eff. Atk, 13 AS) aren't anything espectacular because he's doubled in Sacae by 19 AS nomads unless you level him up to Lv20/3 (not happening), and depends on Aircalibur in order to be useful in Ilia. It must be noted that he doesn't double attack Wyvern Knights with 10-11 AS, and he misses the OHKO in both pegasi and Wyvern Knights. - If you decide to pay the minimum (this means, no investment), he has Lilina-like Speed and even less Mag than Lugh. 22 Atk (38 eff. Atk), 10 AS with Aircalibur at Lv15/1 blows due to failing to OHKO Pegasus Knights with 33 HP, 10 Res, or Wyvern Knights with 43 HP, 2 Res in Chapter 18, while not doubling weighed-down pegasi with 7 AS. This is definitely Low Tier quality combat.

Treck isn't on the list. Lower-Mid due to unsalvageable combat, but mounted, which is useful in Chapter 8 and later maps. Definitely above Ogier. Gonzalez isn't on the list, either. He should be a tier higher than Geese definitely. Mid-Tier. Shoudn't Juno be higher than Walt just in virtue of being an 8-move flier? Isn't Dorothy kind of necessary for Chapter 7 against the wyverns? I think that should be worth at least more than Bors. I agree with the Top Tier 100%, and I think High and Upper-Mid are quite accurate.

solid gameplay with amazing atmosphere and subtle symbols reflecting alice's psychological state don't expect it to resemble the original tale at all 8.5/10

pes, fifa, sports games in general also minecraft

update the old fe6 tier list, please also, welcome back, I guess

I still use windows xp.

Raven due to availability.

The Joker. Ultimate representation of nihilism. Honorable mention: Magneto.

The Lion King has a severe inconsistence with its message in the climax of the last third, which leads to alternate interpretations that differ from the original intention of the creators, thus distracting the audience and making the last third sloppy in execution. The problem is something like this. *SPOILER ALERT* The catalyzer of the third act is the conversation between Simba and Rafiki. There, Rafiki tells Simba that the past hurts, but one must learn from the mistakes and assume the responsibility of one's acts. That is a clever message which I totally support. However, when Simba does exactly that when he confronts Scar and his responsibility of Mufasa's death, everything goes against him. His fears start to win, nobody supports him, and he's on the verge of dying. The only reason why he manages to survive is because Scar confesses having killed Mufasa, since only then is he supported and he stops being fearful. In that way, what the third act suggests is that assuming one's responsibilities and trying to learn from one's mistakes has negative repercussions against oneself. He survives because when he knows the truth, he has nothing to blame himself, no mistake was ever made, and there was no past to confront. If anything, one could argue that Scar is the one who actually confronts his past, since he admits having killed Mufasa, which results in getting him killed. Before then, one can notice that he was safe. In this way, the actual suggestion of the third act is that the way of surviving and reaching success is to convince other people that one isn't responsible of one's acts. I wouldn't mind if this grim interpretation was the film's actual message. Films aren't PSA. However, the problem doesn't come from ethics, but from story consistence. The last paragraph goes obviously against eveything the movie has been defending, and is different from the author's true intention that was very well made clear in the conversation between Simba and Rafiki. If they wanted to get across that message, then it should have been set in execution properly in the third act, otherwise breaking the willing suspension of disbelief. The confrontation of Simba to his uncle fails to convince the audience that Simba is psychologically capable of accepting his past and coming to terms with himself, and fails to convince that he would have overcome his fears in order to defeat Scar. He was successful at the end, but it wasn't with the help of the message presented, but with the help of a deus ex machina pulled by Scar. All of this stuff confused me when I was a kid, since I noticed that something was really wrong at the end. Which was a pity, because I was totally sold into the movie. ... I'd also argue that three of the musical numbers are quite derpy, and Simba's actor is bland, but those are nitpicks that are easily compensated by the numerous merits of the film (the cinematography, the gigantic scale, the fitting score by Hans Zimmer, the intensity of the climax, the seriously storyline... for the most part). However, the big and important flaw mentioned earlier can't be compensated since the issue lies on the core of the film. I firmly believe that, with that problem fixed, The Lion King would be structurally perfectt. Frozen falls into the same category, since it sacrifices story consistence in the last third for character potential. It's otherwise completely solid and magnificent. Amazing scope, complex characters, musical numbers of Broadway quality, etc. I believe that Frozen takes what was good in Tangled (story and characters) and what was good in Princess and the Frog (style, acting and musical numbers), and combines both of them into a new, successful formula. It's like the Second Renaissance, in the sense that the film reshapes the standards of modern animated films, kind of like The Little Mermaid did when it was released. Speaking of... The Little Mermaid started the Disney Renaissance and... boy does it show. Fluid animation, interesting characters and really impressive musical numbers (Part of Your World and Poor Unfortunate Souls being really good) from beginning to end. Even the romance seems plausible, despite following the three-day-romance archetype. The only minor nitpick is that the main character doesn't actually develop from her journey, but her character traits compensate it for the most part. Snow White is the Citizen Kane of animation. The other films of the Golden Age (other than Dumbo, and even that is debatable) explored experimental techniques of filmmaking and animation, and triumphed in some areas much better than films from other genres. In other words, revolutionary films. Fantasia and Bambi in particular were many years ahead of its time. Beauty and the Beast is structurally perfect. It is widely considered to be one of the greatest movie musicals of all time, and the pinnacle of the Disney Renaissance. Song of the South doesn't belong to the canon. Fantasia belongs to the canon, and thus must be tiered. The fact that it doesn't have a plot isn't a net negative, since it isn't affected by flaws of narrative structure, and can only be judged by its merits in cinematography. It is flawless in that category, and holds up 70 years after its release. I still need to listen an argument of why The Aristocats is a decent film, since I've given my thoughts on why it isn't. Feel free to prove me wrong. Could you please explain what the bolded part means? I don't know if it is a positive or negative commentary.

Expected reactions: - People wanting The Lion King to rise to Top Tier. - People wanting Frozen to drop below Tangled. - People wanting Hercules to rise. Reactions I actually get: - People defending The Aristocats. o_o The Aristocats is at the bottom due to being similarly lazy to Home on the Range in terms of narrative structure. Both of them present a very implausible and nonsensical premise for the first third of the movie... and then both movies pretend to replace narrative with filler for the other two thirds. In Home on the Range, it was crappy humor, while in The Aristocats, it was crappy fanservice. Not the sexual kind, but fanservice in the sense that it deliberately tries to look cute in order to appeal to the audience so that it tries to compensate for its lack of substance (kind of like moe, before it was popular). Everything else is weak in the film: the characters, the designs, the animation, the story. No redeemable qualities. Inconsistent and boring movie overall. None of the films in the Disney Animated Canon are offensive, though. However, one could argue that both The Aristocats and Home on the Range insult the audiences' intelligence. In order to be truly offensive, it should offend moral sensibilites in some way. I'm going to remove the "offensive" from the bottom tier criteria. It is misleading, and I concede it was my fault. ----- Must I assume that there are no problems with the Top / High Tier positions? -> Considering raising Treasure Planet to Mid (I read a good argument somewhere in the last page), and dropping Lady and the Tramp to Mid. ---- "Just out of curiosity, how much research did you put into this? If you had to factor in historical context and such, I bet you had to do a bit of studying. I'd like to hear someone knowledgeable discuss who the best Disney characters are as well." - I read a lot about the history of animation, and had to watch all of the films. I take into account what was possible for the era, obviously. I won't penalize Snow White for some nonsense like not having CGI. - Best Disney Characters is complicated, since there's a ton of characters and a lot of criteria. Best Princesses or Best Villains would be easier to rank.

Something I thought up for fun. DISNEY ANIMATED CANON - TIER LIST: Rules: - Only films from the Disney Animated Canon. In other words, no Pixar, no Direct-to-Video, and no anime dubs from Studio Ghibli. - Positions are based in merits of cinematography and narrative; or their contributions to the animation industry. - This is more an especulation topic than an actual academic discussion, so please, no flame wars. Top Tier (6): [9.0 - 10.0] (Films that are structurally perfect, or nearly perfect, or revolutionary in animation or filmmaking. Their little flaws, if any, are mitigated by their numerous merits.) Fantasia [10.0] Snow White [10.0] Beauty and the Beast [10.0] Bambi [10.0] Pinnochio [9.5] The Little Mermaid [9.3] High Tier (8): [8.0 - 8.9] (Films with important flaws that prevent them of being masterpieces. However, their merits are so impressive that it is impossible to underestimate or dislike these films.) The Lion King [8.8] Frozen [8.5] Aladdin [8.5] Cinderella [8.5] Rescuers Down Under [8.0] Great Mouse Detective [8.0] Hunchback of Notre Dame [8.0] Sleeping Beauty [8.0] Upper-Mid Tier (11): [6.6 - 7.9] (Solid films, but not amazing. Above the average. They have more merits than flaws, and possess a particular niche.) Tangled Mulan Wreck-it-Ralph Dumbo Peter Pan The Many Stories of Winnie Pooh Princess and the Frog Fantasia 2000 Lilo & Stitch Alice in Wonderland Tarzan Mid Tier (15): [5.0 - 6.5] (Average films. They aren't bad, but are limited by their flaws, which decrease the impact in the audience.) Lady and the Tramp Bolt Winnie Pooh (2011) Fox and the Hound Jungle Book Robin Hood The Emperor's New Groove The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad Treasure Planet Atlantis: The Lost Empire Pocahontas Make Mine Music Melody Time Brother Bear One-Hundred and One Dalmatians Lower-Mid Tier (10): [3.5 - 4.9] (Severely limited films due to technical disadvantages in narrative or animation.) Hercules Meet the Robinsons Sword in the Stone Dinosaur The Rescuers Oliver & Company The Black Cauldron Three Caballeros Saludos Amigos Fun and Fancy Free Low Tier (1): [2.0 - 3.4] (Films with numerous flaws which mitigate their few merits. In other words, bad films) Chicken Little [2.0] Bottom Tier (2): [0.1 - 1.9] (Films with no redeemable qualities, or have had a considerable negative impact in industry.) Aristocats [1.5] Home in the Range [1.5] Discuss.

Not using Haar.

Binding Blade

- eCut hacked the website. - eCut banned the mods and the admins, except Integrity. - eCut promised a New World, and gathered a bunch of minions. - Integrity annihilated eCut. - Sirius and Integrity exile eCut's minions. - eCut's minions are sent to the Purgatory by Integrity and Sirius, a super-secret subforum filled with unholy abominations you don't want to know.

I'm supporting this only for the Elsa avatar.

You don't have idea how much I've waited for something like that. In other words, OF COURSE, SIR!

Maybe this article is of relevance to the discussion. http://www.screwattack.com/news/we-are-rewarding-bad-game-design While the argumentation should be better, some of the important aspects stand solid.

A not so well known example, so that I don't get hated by the community. Abimael Guzmán. A peruvian historical figure, leader of the Communist Party of Peru, a.k.a., "Shining Path". The general consensus is that he and his party were the main cause of the Internal Conflict in Peru in the 80's due to acts of terrorism, which had 70 000 casualties. While I don't plan on justifying his actions (in fact, what he did WAS unforgivable, and he deserved to be punished), I think it is an exaggeration to say that he and his party was the main cause of the Internal Conflict in Peru in the 80's. Other factors were more important, in my opinion, related to the incompetent administration of the Executive at the time. He was more of a catalyst than a cause. In other words, I think he's quite overrated in terms of negative impact in Peru. If anything, I'd say that Alan Garcia or Alberto Fujimori, who were the governors at the time, made more questionable decisions and had a worse impact in peruvian history.

My worst tactical blunder was leaving Shanna with someone rescued in range of an archer. I thought the archer was stationary... but he wasn't. Luckily, the guy missed, but it is regardless the derpiest thing I've ever done in Fire Emblem.

Hey dondon, what do you think of my chapter 24 strategy in 0% growths? Is it competent enough? I apologize for the bad execution.

Sure. However, you don't miss too much from an utilitary perspective, since Rutger still double attacks everything, and still has the highest chance of ORKO, both generics and bosses. Besides, the advantages of an early promotion outweigh a lot the advantages of promoting at Lv20.

inb4 try 0% growths

cool strategiess pkl, keep up the good work

It is fun, and interesting to explore from an efficiency standpoint, though it's not for everyone. Just have in mind that promoted Clea is FE2's Haar.

They were a lot darker. A LOT DARKER. For further information, please refer to this link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Disneyfication