• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Otts486

  • Birthday January 24

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game

Member Badge

  • Members


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

652 profile views
  1. Cultures in fire emblem

    Well there’s the obvious feudal Japan inspired Hoshido and I believe nohr is supposed to be either middle ages france or britian though I’m pretty sure it’s france.
  2. You know what I’m in agreement. Aside from the obvious in your face fanservice and god awful writing in fates, I fail to see the problem. And even with the fanservice, I feel that really only applies to fates in the grand scheme things. Yeah awakening had fanservice but it was only slightly more than what could be found within the rest of the series(as far as I can tell anyway then again kozaki’s artsyle could’ve had a play in that). And as far as a writing perspective goes, all we can really hope for are a good story and characters. Like what specifically about fates and awakening’s writing could influence three houses? The only things I can think of is the otaku pandering from fates and some archeatypes specific to those games(which aren’t much as far as I can tell). and even with all that said, it’s all a matter of execution if nothing else. The only thing I truly do not want from these two games the blatant in your face pandering to the lowest common denominator.
  3. Well in awakening the issue isn’t as glaring considering the parents of the children there are largely disconnected for the most part. Still doesn’t excuse the lack of LucinaxLissa or OwainxChrom supports though.
  4. Who was your first S support?

    Isn’t there a manga about except it takes place during revelations.
  5. This was adorable. A bit of a tricky translation though. Honourifics are tricky little things aren’t they. Oh well at least this one can be translated unlike the riddle one. Great job though to the translator. The joke lands as intended.
  6. Worst FE crossover?

    don't compare senran to fates. At least I can laugh at senran unironically
  7. Hello there!

    Well they just have no taste cause vocaloid is great(even though my personal favorite is Teto who is an UTAU and not a vocaloid) I mean it’s cute anime girls that sing great music what’s not to love. In all seriousness though I love a lot of vocaloid and UTAU songs and characters. Rolling girl, unhappy refrain, and servent of evil being amoung my favorites. Also welcome @Espurrhoodie you’ve come to the right place for a civil meeting ground of various FE fans
  8. Least favorite FE ship?

    I’m just gonna echo SoleilxOphelia. I mean why do people ship these two so much. Their supports just boil down to soleil sexually harassesing Ophelia and then giving a half-assed explaination as to why which then Ophelia decides to accept for whatever reason. I mean I understand why they’d be good friends considering their fathers but the support and ship itself just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Also depending on pairing shenanigans they could very well be both first and second cousins which just makes things weirder.
  9. Yeah I mostly agree with what’s said here. Really the main issue with surtr I find is not so much surtr himself but rather the story he’s a part of. If the story and characters of book 2 had more depth and nuance, then Surtr could’ve been more effective. However as it stands that isn’t the case because the writers just don’t seem to care all too much. Really the story needs better pacing and more nuance. As @bottlegnomes said, book 2 feels more like an outline of a full narrative. That is the reason I feel Surtr doesn’t work, he can’t work in a story with little to no depth or nuance because the whole point of a FoN is to explore those nuances so if there are none what is there to explore. Again Surtr on his own has the makings for a fantastic villain but with the story as shallow as it is, he can’t be utilized to his full potential.
  10. I’m not saying you can’t connect to those things on a human level because it’s entirely possible. I’m saying it’s easier not to because they’re not human. What I mean by “not human” is that he’s not relatable. You can’t really relate to surtr on a personal level because he’s designed that way. He’s not a character in the sense that you can’t understand and relate to him. Neither are other force of nature villains like the joker. You’re not supposed to be able to relate to them. He’s not grounded in reality. Again he’s more a representation than a character. He’s not supposed to have depth, nuance, rational human thinking, natural human emotions or any of that sort. To say otherwise is missing the point. Force of nature villains don’t need a human element to function within the story cause that’s not their purpose. The whole point of a force of nature is to be able to explore different ideas, themes, or aspects of the world and characters. You don’t a need a narrative villain to do this. A plot where a tornado is constantly chasing after our heroes will do that just fine and that’s the whole point behind surtr. It’s a constant source of conflict and thrusts our characters into situations where they are forced to act differently in order to adapt to these radically shifting scenarios. It moves the plot forward and allows the characters to develop in interesting ways. That is what a force of nature villain does, and when done correctly it can lead to really interesting stories and characters.
  11. yes but they also serve the same purpose as a villain which is to generate conflict and move the story forward. I have yet to see Titanic so I can not say much more than that. you see this is why human force of nature villains are weird. If the villain is a god, monster, or hell a literal force of nature, it's easier for us as an audience to just sort of accept them as forces of nature because they're not human so by default we don't try to connect with them on a human level. If they are human, however, the author is gonna have to put in a little more effort to try to convince us that the character isn't "human" in a sense. I suppose a better way to put is that force of nature villains are not humans even if they are if that makes sense. They don't need understandable reasons to do the things that they do. They just do because that's their entire reason for existing. There's no 'why' just 'what' and 'how'.
  12. yeah I'm sorry though I will say Surtr doesn't really need context for his actions. I mean you could give him one but it's not really necessary. Giving his actions context won't in any way give us a new perspective or humanize him. Cause again he's a force of nature he doesn't need to be humanized in order to work.
  13. You see Garon doesn't work as neither a narrative villain nor a force of nature villain. As a narrative villain, he has really no real reason to do any of the sh*t he does. I don't understand garon as a character. He has a goal(albeit an incredibly stupid and generic one) but no reason as to why he wants that goal. In that sense he has no character because generally that is what a character is at their core "what do they want?" and "why do they want it?" and the reason needs to lend well to humanizing them and giving them nuance. This is something Garon doesn't really have. Now since he's not a character that would mean he is a "good" force of nature right? Nope. He doesn't work as FoN because he hardly has any effect on the characters or world and if/when he does it's either brushed aside or not felt as heavy as it should. There's no weight to garon's sheer presence. His presence doesn't automatically generate conflict like Surtr, Grima, or formortis. There's no specificity to gaoron. He just represents "evil" which is not something a FoN can represent. It's far too broad. I mean to compare him to Surtr. Surtr represents how destructive and dangerous flames can be if they grow out of control. Flames are inherently dangerous which by extension Surtr is also dangerous because that's what he's supposed to be a physical manifestation of. He doesn't just represent "evil". He represents the dangers of an uncontrollable and undying flame which consumes almost everything in its path.
  14. Yeah I agree with this. What i meant by "motivation" in my original post is sort the "why" of a character like why a character acts the way that they do. FoN villains don't need that. You can can give them that of course but it's not necessary. Other than that yeah I pretty much agree with everything you said here. sheesh. You know I hate people like that professor because they feel there's always "right" or a "wrong" way to write a story. While yes, there are solidified "don'ts" when it comes to storytelling, there are always exceptions to the rule. I see where you're coming but even then I think Frieza is a FoN just in a slightly different way. The reason being is how his existence effects the characters and world of dragon ball. We see vegeta, a former villain, fight along side the heroes because of how afraid he is of frieza in certain instances anyway. His mere presence creates conflict and completely strangulates the status quo forcing characters to take actions they normally wouldn't take because he's THAT big of a threat. It let's us see different sides of these characters and explore different aspects of the world and themes and that is the entire purpose of a FoN. Frieza to me is good example of giving "character" to a force of nature. Then again I haven't seen too much dragon ball and most of what I know about frieza comes from analysis videos and the abridged series.
  15. you know you would be right if surtr was a narrative villain but he's not. He's a force of nature. As I explained in my original post. A force of nature villain does not need an understandable motivation, backstory, etc. To criticize a force of nature for not having those things would be missing the point. They're not characters. A good character needs an understandable motivation as why they do the things that they do. A narrative villain is a character while a force of nature villain is not. A force of nature villain can be almost anything really even a literal force of nature. If the villain of a story is a tornado, you don't criticize the tornado for "not having a motivation" or whatever because a tornado can't have a motivation. It's a tornado it can't speak. It's not a character. It just comes in and does what a tornado does. It's mere existence creates conflict which the actual characters need to overcome. That's what Surtr is, a force of nature. We don't need to understand why he does the things that he does because that's not the point. Surtr does not need depth at least in the traditional sense anyway. He's supposed to add depth and nuance. The depth of his character comes from how he effects other characters as well as the world around him. He doesn't need to be a character. To say otherwise would be missing the point.