Surtr is my favorite Heroes OC, fight me

[bottlegnomes]

22 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

And yeah, Gharnef really isn't a threatening opponent once you can hurt him. 

Shows up, yes, but once you can get past the invincibility, he's not truly a foe you'd need to be worried about so much. His only threat is the invincibility the spell provides. Without it, Gharnef honestly isn't that strong. Which is sad, because he really should be strong. 

True. Just Linde or Merric bomb him with starlight. Maybe if they remake them again, they'll balance out magic a little more and he can actually be intimidating.

 

22 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

He's just a warmonger, then. 

Basically, yeah. Particularly interesting? Not really, but that has much more to do with his execution. Motives can make someone interesting, a la Ashnard, but they aren't the sole thing. At the end of the day, the Joker in the movies, excluding Suicide Squad, for example, is somewhere between a gangster and an anarchist. Neither are especially compelling motivations on their own (though the implied backstory of Ledger's Joker having been a soldier is pretty cool), but they're freaking awesome in large part because of how well-written and portrayed they are. Just improve the writing. No need to give Surtr some sappy backstory.

 

22 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Not really. The Black Knight has more than enough skill and prowess that he really doesn't need any armor. Anyone that tries to mess with him, they would be beaten down. Instead of Ranulf's attacks doing nothing, it would have been more epic if Ranulf's attack didn't actually hit. In that, the Black Knight read Ranulf like a book, predicted his attack and just dodged easily that Ranulf was not enough a warm up to the Black Knight. 

There's a difference between being very confident you can beat someone and knowing with 100% certainty you can beat someone, tough. Any soldier with half a brain is going to go for 100% certainty even if the alternative is 99.9999% certainty. I'm sure if Zelgius could've gotten away with it, he would have worn the BK's armor as Zelgius. That's what I mean by Zelgius being a pragmatist. He's got the option of using invincible armor; no sense in introducing unnecessary risk when he doesn't have to.

 

22 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Sadly, they won't take out that feature. Because remember that it was said even beforehand that Ashnard got blessed armor from the Black Knight. But he honestly didn't need it. He's supposed to be really strong as a boss that you need the major powerhouses to actually fight him. Probably what Ashnard's thought process was that only the strong would have blessed weapons and thus had to be the strong that would fight Ashnard. 

Still feels silly that he needed a hax armor. 

Oh yeah, I mean just axe that scene entirely and instead have the BK bring him Gurgurant and possibly something else to help earn his trust. You can certainly make a case for his having it, as you showed, and I'd add on that Ashnard doesn't ever really say you can't use all tools at your disposal, but even that does seem a little lame. I say just cut the whole plot point and just let Ashnard survive on his absurd stats. It's not like he needs to know the BK's armor is invincible and be suspicious of that or anything. Heck, he's already suspicious of the BK. He just doesn't care because he's strong and effective.

Edited September 16, 2018 by bottlegnomes

[omegaxis1]

3 minutes ago, bottlegnomes said:

True. Just Linde or Merric bomb him with starlight. Maybe if they remake them again, they'll balance out magic a little more and he can actually be intimidating.

 

And maybe give him more feats to perform so that we really know that Gharnef is a threat even without Imhullu. 

3 minutes ago, bottlegnomes said:

Basically, yeah. Particularly interesting? Not really, but that has much more to do with his execution. Motives can make someone interesting, a la Ashnard, but they aren't the sole thing. At the end of the day, the Joker in the movies, excluding Suicide Squad, for example, is somewhere between a gangster and an anarchist. Neither are especially compelling motivations on their own (though the implied backstory of Ledger's Joker having been a soldier is pretty cool), but they're freaking awesome in large part because of how well-written and portrayed they are. Just improve the writing. No need to give Surtr some sappy backstory.

1

That's the one thing I am thankful for Heroes. They did not try to make Surtur have a backstory where he was once a good person. Both his daughters know that Surtur is evil and that they are nothing more than tools for him. They could have easily pulled another Garon, but instead, he's evil, plain and simple.

5 minutes ago, bottlegnomes said:

There's a difference between being very confident you can beat someone and knowing with 100% certainty you can beat someone, tough. Any soldier with half a brain is going to go for 100% certainty even if the alternative is 99.9999% certainty. I'm sure if Zelgius could've gotten away with it, he would have worn the BK's armor as Zelgius. That's what I mean by Zelgius being a pragmatist. He's got the option of using invincible armor; no sense in introducing unnecessary risk when he doesn't have to.

 

Once again, you're missing the point. The threat that Zelgius presented honestly isn't that he's invincible. It's that he's supposed to be absurdly strong. The armor only cheapens his use in the plot. I used the Ranulf scripted fight because that fight was used not to show off the Black Knight being strong. No, it was to show that he has blessed armor and thus nothing can hurt him apart from a blessed weapon. It cheapened the Black Knight's usage. 

Hell, RD goes to PROVE how powerful the Black Knight is by having him basically destroy any enemy that fights him in Part 1 when he no longer has the blessing. They could have stuck with that, and everything would have been great. 

Hence why I pointed out Walhart. He is said to be incredibly strong, is shown to best Basilio easily, and had Awakening not been rushed, could have shown more of his feats. That's how the Black Knight should have been. No need for hax invincibility. The Black Knight could have forgone the need for it and it would have been fine.

11 minutes ago, bottlegnomes said:

Oh yeah, I mean just axe that scene entirely and instead have the BK bring him Gurgurant and possibly something else to help earn his trust. You can certainly make a case for his having it, as you showed, and I'd add on that Ashnard doesn't ever really say you can't use all tools at your disposal, but even that does seem a little lame. I say just cut the whole plot point and just let Ashnard survive on his absurd stats. It's not like he needs to know the BK's armor is invincible and be suspicious of that or anything.

I am pretty sure that Zelgius only gave Ashnard the armor. The weapon was Ashnard's long before since we see Ashnard having used that weapon to kill his father. I guess if he didn't have the invincible state, archers could kill him. 

[bottlegnomes]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Once again, you're missing the point. The threat that Zelgius presented honestly isn't that he's invincible. It's that he's supposed to be absurdly strong. The armor only cheapens his use in the plot. I used the Ranulf scripted fight because that fight was used not to show off the Black Knight being strong. No, it was to show that he has blessed armor and thus nothing can hurt him apart from a blessed weapon. It cheapened the Black Knight's usage. 

Hell, RD goes to PROVE how powerful the Black Knight is by having him basically destroy any enemy that fights him in Part 1 when he no longer has the blessing. They could have stuck with that, and everything would have been great.

So just forgo blessed armor in PoR and RD altogether and instead just having him wearing regular armor that covers his entire body? I did misunderstand. I was thinking you meant in context of the existing story why it would fit with Zelgius's character but not so much Ashnard's, not alter the story to excise the blessed armor. I don't know that it bothers me as much regarding Zelgius himself, but I can agree with that. It'd certainly save a lot of questions like where'd the armor come from, why are there only two sets, is it armor from Yune's army since Ragnell and Alondite work on it but not Dheginsea etc., and how did it lose its blessing.  You'd need to rework some stuff, like why Ragnell is important if it even remains in the story, but that's definitely doable.

 

8 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I am pretty sure that Zelgius only gave Ashnard the armor. The weapon was Ashnard's long before since we see Ashnard having used that weapon to kill his father. I guess if he didn't have the invincible state, archers could kill him. 

I'm pretty sure you're right, but it's kind of the same thing you seem to be suggesting with the BK's armor. Just change it. It doesn't have to be Gurgurant specifically, that was just the first thing that came to mind. Just instead of, IIRC, giving Ashnard the armor in part to earn his trust and in part to try to help make Sephiran's plan have a better chance of success, just do something else to earn his trust and have Zelgius's presence in Daein's forces be Sephiran's contribution to making the plan more reliable. It'd also make more sense with the BK giving Greil Ragnell and being okay with Ike having it. Then he's not giving the good guys the means to defeat the bad guy just to test himself. Then again, I have a lot of issues with the BK as a whole, primarily his being Zelgius and going from Mr. I'll torture and murder your daughter to Mr. Last honorable knight.

For effectiveness, just pull an RD or a Hardin/Zephiel and make him a class that's not susceptible.

 

15 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

And maybe give him more feats to perform so that we really know that Gharnef is a threat even without Imhullu. 

True. Issues with the BK aside, he and Saias before him—a lot of the Jugrdal baddies, actually—were nice because they did show up and cause you trouble to give you some real sense of what you were up against. Nergal did that in story, but not so much in gameplay. Gharnef didn't really do it in either so much.

 

16 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's the one thing I am thankful for Heroes. They did not try to make Surtur have a backstory where he was once a good person. Both his daughters know that Surtur is evil and that they are nothing more than tools for him. They could have easily pulled another Garon, but instead, he's evil, plain and simple.

So much so. For as much as he's a pretty one-note character, I feel like that suits Heroes a lot more. Between the options of having a mediocrely developed one-note character and bungling the hell out of a character with more potential depth, like Garon, I would rather take the at least semi-competent handling. It is also nice to see some acknowledgement that people can just be jerks. Not every bad guy is a bleeding heart that had the world beat them down until they snapped.

[omegaxis1]

3 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

So just forgo blessed armor in PoR and RD altogether and instead just having him wearing regular armor that covers his entire body? I did misunderstand. I was thinking you meant in context of the existing story why it would fit with Zelgius's character but not so much Ashnard's, not alter the story to excise the blessed armor. I don't know that it bothers me as much regarding Zelgius himself, but I can agree with that. It'd certainly save a lot of questions like where'd the armor come from, why are there only two sets, is it armor from Yune's army since Ragnell and Alondite work on it but not Dheginsea etc., and how did it lose its blessing.  You'd need to rework some stuff, like why Ragnell is important if it even remains in the story, but that's definitely doable.

2

Precisely. In fact, in RD, they ended up doing "different levels" of blessing, and how Sephiran and Dheginsea have the highest blessing that makes them part of the divine, thus making it so that you cannot harm them unless Yune blesses you. Meaning the armor that Ashnard and Black Knight had is just a weaker blessing that Yune had given in the end because the Laguz Kings and the dragon laguz Nasir and Ena could break through said blessings without needing any blessing itself. 

It's just cheap and unnecessary. 

3 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

I'm pretty sure you're right, but it's kind of the same thing you seem to be suggesting with the BK's armor. Just change it. It doesn't have to be Gurgurant specifically, that was just the first thing that came to mind. Just instead of, IIRC, giving Ashnard the armor in part to earn his trust and in part to try to help make Sephiran's plan have a better chance of success, just do something else to earn his trust and have Zelgius's presence in Daein's forces be Sephiran's contribution to making the plan more reliable. It'd also make more sense with the BK giving Greil Ragnell and being okay with Ike having it. Then he's not giving the good guys the means to defeat the bad guy just to test himself. Then again, I have a lot of issues with the BK as a whole, primarily his being Zelgius and going from Mr. I'll torture and murder your daughter to Mr. Last honorable knight.

For effectiveness, just pull an RD or a Hardin/Zephiel and make him a class that's not susceptible.

 

Zelgius may be somewhat honorable, but his allegiance belongs to Sephiran. If he had to do anything to get the medallion, he would do it. And Sephiran wanted Zelgius to get the medallion from Greil.

But the other side of Zelgius though is his desire to best Gawain, thus he wanted Greil and then Ike to fight him. It mattered not if it endangered the mission, this was the only thing that took priority over Sephiran's plan.

3 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

True. Issues with the BK aside, he and Saias before him—a lot of the Jugrdal baddies, actually—were nice because they did show up and cause you trouble to give you some real sense of what you were up against. Nergal did that in story, but not so much in gameplay. Gharnef didn't really do it in either so much.

1

Yeah, they give us a taste of their power. In FE5 that definitely came up in the form of Saias and Reinhardt. Saias having 10 leadership stars made him a terrifying opponent to deal with. People complain about losing all those stars when he joins us, but if we think about it, it makes sense. Leadership stars mean that you have the utmost confidence and trust in the person. Saias was once an enemy, so obviously he won't be that much trustworthy to them.

The Archanea series is lacking in a lot of things, things that could have been fixed. Hell, Marth's Prologue in FE11 was a splendid addition. But they didn't give enough attention to developing other characters. If they make another remake, I hope they make it even better and make it a serious expansion.

3 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

So much so. For as much as he's a pretty one-note character, I feel like that suits Heroes a lot more. Between the options of having a mediocrely developed one-note character and bungling the hell out of a character with more potential depth, like Garon, I would rather take the at least semi-competent handling. It is also nice to see some acknowledgement that people can just be jerks. Not every bad guy is a bleeding heart that had the world beat them down until they snapped.

They cannot really consider giving a huge story in a mobile app game. So making a villain be one note is the right call.

Of course, the real villain is obviously Loki, who knows more than let on, and even Surtur was nothing more than a puppet for her to kill some time with.

Huh, that makes Surtur like Ashnard as well, since even Ashnard was just a puppet to Sephiran in the end.

[Arcanite]

On 9/8/2018 at 5:47 AM, Jotari said:

Mainly because I think his complete lack of depth suits the story of Heroes, which I view as completely lacking in depth.

I think people dont understand that only serious gachas that plan to make a ton of cash actually have a good story and all that other good stuff

Heroes is literally a low effort get rich quick scam scheme made by people who have never made a gacha game before, at least to my knowledge. Expecting a good story is unrealistic IMO... heroes isnt even canon. And yet they probably made enough money to fund the next 7 FE games. Yknow why? Cause all people really care about is getting their faves, not some insignificant OCs + Anna (okay maybe a lot of people might care about Anna but that's beside the point). If you got a story like this for something you paid $40 or $60 for, then we'd all have a right to complain HEH

 

 

 

Anyway, a little more on topic:

Surtr is hot.

That is all.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Surtur was just a villain built for the sole purpose of being so evil and vicious and cruel, that you want him to die a humiliating death, which thankfully we got as of this chapter. With Fjorm throwing the "Because you are weak" line right back at him, and he is filled with anger because he had to die.

A repeated argument is about him compared to Ashnard. To be honest, it is true that Surtur actually did more. All Ashnard did on screen was say orders, trash talk, threaten people, or just seem evil. He started a war, and he had a clear goal. Ashnard having a goal actually makes him better than Surtur, who did all this on a whim because he's evil. Surtur had no real goal in the story.

But unlike Ashnard, and Garon for that matter, Surtur actually gets actively involved in the story. He does fight the heroes, repeatedly too, and always forces them to retreat. And he really shows just how vicious and sadistic he is, how he goes into detail about how being burned alive feels, how he looks absolutely gleeful at the idea that he will kill Veronica too, and then how he purposefully left Gunnthra barely alive just so that Fjorm can come and then witness her sister being killed. I honestly don't think there has been anyone that is shown to be as vicious and sadistic as him. 

And again...

However, a lot of Surtur's boastful comments about the strong is bullshit when he's only a pathetic guy that rides on the power he got. This is also another problem I had with Ashnard and the Black Knight. The Black Knight is supposed to be really strong. But rather than show him to be so skilled that he can crush everyone like he should be able to at that point in time, he has armor blessed by the goddess and therefore cannot be harmed unless they have a weapon blessed by the goddess. I honestly feel that was pointless and just cheapens him. 

And Ashnard, a guy that boasts about how he seems to think that he's the strongest and loves to have a good fight, ends up in a fight where the only ones that can actually hurt him are Ike, Laguz Kings, and Naesala/Ena. It's silly and just made it so that Ashnard made it so that someone needs to have the lucky weapon to fight him. 

It's one of the reasons why Gharnef from the Archanea series has issues too. He's supposed to be an incredibly powerful sorcerer, and he does have the power, but his main schtik is the hax invincible ability. So you cannot truly tell if he's supposed to be able to be that strong when the moment you can hurt him, you beat him. 

It's one of the reasons why I actually like Walhart. He is someone that desires strength above all else, but instead of relying on some cheap hax armor or such, he wins through his own might and skill. 

I'm with you in regards to Ashnard/Black Knight, but I think the invincibility works for Gharnef. His whole hat is that he's a conniving strategist, he organised pretty much all the major plot points in the backstory, so it suits his character well to rely on cunning (or hacks) rather than brute force. Buffing his stats would also interfer with the gimmick of his chapter where there's multiple fake Gharnefs, that would either mean buffing them all and making it a boss gauntlet, or buffing one and making the real Gharnef really obvious.

hour ago, Arcanite said:

I think people dont understand that only serious gachas that plan to make a ton of cash actually have a good story and all that other good stuff

Heroes is literally a low effort get rich quick scam scheme made by people who have never made a gacha game before, at least to my knowledge. Expecting a good story is unrealistic IMO... heroes isnt even canon. And yet they probably made enough money to fund the next 7 FE games. Yknow why? Cause all people really care about is getting their faves, not some insignificant OCs + Anna (okay maybe a lot of people might care about Anna but that's beside the point). If you got a story like this for something you paid $40 or $60 for, then we'd all have a right to complain HEH

 

 

 

Anyway, a little more on topic:

Surtr is hot.

That is all.

Don't mistake my comment for ridicule. Im not disappointed in Heros' plot. Far as I see it, I'm getting exactly what I paid for.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Jotari

[NekoKnight]

5 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

Basically, yeah. Particularly interesting? Not really, but that has much more to do with his execution. Motives can make someone interesting, a la Ashnard, but they aren't the sole thing. At the end of the day, the Joker in the movies, excluding Suicide Squad, for example, is somewhere between a gangster and an anarchist. Neither are especially compelling motivations on their own (though the implied backstory of Ledger's Joker having been a soldier is pretty cool), but they're freaking awesome in large part because of how well-written and portrayed they are. Just improve the writing. No need to give Surtr some sappy backstory.

I think you're misunderstanding the Joker in the The Dark Knight. He's a lot more like Ashnard than he is Surtr. In the Dark Knight, the Joker has a motivation and personal philosophy. He wants to upend all the established orders, both those of the law abiding citizens and of the organized crime. What makes him a good villain isn't just "he's evil for no reason", it's that he challenges Batman's ideals. Batman is the the highest moral standard that the Joker tries to break and ultimately he fails (while causing a lot of hurt to Batman and the people of Gotham). I know you say "just improve the writing", but the Joker and Surtr are not remotely on the same level, even in principle. What does Surtr's monotonous "DEATH BY FIRE" do for the plot or characters? I guess we get one line about Surtr being happy that he filled Fjorm with the spirit of vengeance, but it was one line and hardly a part of a character arc.   

It may just be a matter of tastes, but I don't think "sappy backstories" is really that serious of a problem as Fire Emblem villains go. Ashnard is a better "he's just evil" villain than Surtr by a long shot. Really, the most poorly received villains have always been the "I want to destroy the world just cuz" and Surtr somehow finds himself even at the bottom of that list.

[eclipse]

At least Surtr is so unlikable that his own people will revolt, given enough motivation.  He may have been about as evilly bland as a villain can get, but it helped to make Ms. Camus and Helbindi somewhat better characters, even if it was at the expense of everyone else.  I still can't figure out how Twintails fits into all of this, though.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I still can't figure out how Twintails fits into all of this, though.

I think the sacrifices will make Laevatein grow as a character and the shock may give her a little more emotion, or it could close her off completely. I think both are good. I just hope she does not stay the same.

In this sense, I think Laevatein has the best and most interesting background of any character so far. We know about her upbringing, her bond with her sister, and her recent past.

[bottlegnomes]

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Zelgius may be somewhat honorable, but his allegiance belongs to Sephiran. If he had to do anything to get the medallion, he would do it. And Sephiran wanted Zelgius to get the medallion from Greil.

But the other side of Zelgius though is his desire to best Gawain, thus he wanted Greil and then Ike to fight him. It mattered not if it endangered the mission, this was the only thing that took priority over Sephiran's plan.

It's not that that can't work so much as it feels awkward the way PoR and RD combined pull it off. In PoR, he's presented as this ruthless soldier who'll do anything to accomplish a goal and Ike is driven by hatred and anger to get revenge for his father. Then in RD, Zelgius is shown to be the model of chivalry even, to some extent, as the BK and once Ike confronts him in the tower it's like things are all peachy and he even goes so far as to call Zelgius his teacher and basically thank him for making him stronger. It'd be like if Goku thanked Frieza for making him go super saiyan after beating him. It just feels a little too extreme ends of the spectrum.

 

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Precisely. In fact, in RD, they ended up doing "different levels" of blessing, and how Sephiran and Dheginsea have the highest blessing that makes them part of the divine, thus making it so that you cannot harm them unless Yune blesses you. Meaning the armor that Ashnard and Black Knight had is just a weaker blessing that Yune had given in the end because the Laguz Kings and the dragon laguz Nasir and Ena could break through said blessings without needing any blessing itself. 

It's just cheap and unnecessary. 

Yeah, that's kind of why I'd like them to rework the stories basically treating PoR and RD as a rough draft.

 

2 hours ago, Arcanite said:

I think people dont understand that only serious gachas that plan to make a ton of cash actually have a good story and all that other good stuff

Heroes is literally a low effort get rich quick scam scheme made by people who have never made a gacha game before, at least to my knowledge. Expecting a good story is unrealistic IMO... heroes isnt even canon. And yet they probably made enough money to fund the next 7 FE games. Yknow why? Cause all people really care about is getting their faves, not some insignificant OCs + Anna (okay maybe a lot of people might care about Anna but that's beside the point). If you got a story like this for something you paid $40 or $60 for, then we'd all have a right to complain HEH

I'm honestly pretty glad that they didn't go for one of those super wordy stories. I tried to get into FGO, but what I like about Heroes is that I can do it in my freetime between other things. FGO felt like I had to dedicate as much time to it as a AAA game, which there's a reason I've played one main console game in the past year.

 

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Precisely. In fact, in RD, they ended up doing "different levels" of blessing, and how Sephiran and Dheginsea have the highest blessing that makes them part of the divine, thus making it so that you cannot harm them unless Yune blesses you. Meaning the armor that Ashnard and Black Knight had is just a weaker blessing that Yune had given in the end because the Laguz Kings and the dragon laguz Nasir and Ena could break through said blessings without needing any blessing itself. 

It's just cheap and unnecessary. 

Yeah, PoR felt pretty tight to me—not flawless, but pretty solidly executed—but RD seemed like it got a little out of their hands. It's kind of the first, and IMO least egregious, of the RD/Awakening/Fates group where good ideas, but rushed and ends up being a bit of a mess. But I can definitely see where you're coming from with stripping the blessing altogehter. Makes the BK more intimidating since it's we can't beat him because he's too strong not we can't beat him because he's too strong oh and invincible armor.

 

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, they give us a taste of their power. In FE5 that definitely came up in the form of Saias and Reinhardt. Saias having 10 leadership stars made him a terrifying opponent to deal with. People complain about losing all those stars when he joins us, but if we think about it, it makes sense. Leadership stars mean that you have the utmost confidence and trust in the person. Saias was once an enemy, so obviously he won't be that much trustworthy to them.

The Archanea series is lacking in a lot of things, things that could have been fixed. Hell, Marth's Prologue in FE11 was a splendid addition. But they didn't give enough attention to developing other characters. If they make another remake, I hope they make it even better and make it a serious expansion.

I enjoy the new games on the whole, but I do wish they took more things from Kaga, like that willingness to have bad guys show up and chase you. Or really even just having things play out on the map instead of in cutscenes. It makes things like Yeid and Mahnya (or whatever her name is now) so much more immediate because it feels like you should be able to stop it since it's gameplay, but you can't.

 

@NekoKnight I should specify that that was an extreme simplification and the things you point out are what I mean when I say well-written. To me at least, Ashnard is interesting in and of himself with his philosophy and how he approaches it. The Joker in TDK, again to me at least and taken superficially, is more interesting because of the effect he has on others (in addition to Heath Ledger's fantastic portrayal). When you delve a little more into the implied backstory, re my parenthetical, he gets much more interesting in and of himself, but while it's become more common knowledge over time, I don't think many people noticed that on first viewing. I know I didn't. When I say improve the writing, I don't just mean make him more charismatic, though that goes a long way, like with most Disney villains, but also actually incorporate more things into the writing to make use of Surtr's motives, simple as they may be. What I'm getting at with all that is if you make a bullet point list of what defines Surtr as a character, I think it's a perfectly good outline for a villain. Again, Ramsay and Sauron aren't really any less evil for the sake of being evil, though Sauron doesn't seem to be as sadistic or wantonly cruel. The issue with Surtr in regards to the rest of the villains mentioned is that all he is is the bullet points. No need to stick one more in about his dead wife since it's not like that'd be expanded on anyway and subsequently wouldn't actually improve the quality of his character.

As a side note, my comment about sappy backstory wasn't due to any issue I have with FE. Most main villains don't really fall into cliched or lazy executions of that trope. The ones like Lyon and Nergal that are that trope, at least from what I remember, are actually decently executed. It's more that, not just in this fandom, but everywhere, an easy "fix" for any cliche villain is to give them a tragic backstory, give them a dead wife or a dead mother or a crippled daughter or something. In and of itself, it's just as played out and tired. To quote Nas, "No idea's original. There's nothing new under the sun. It's never what you do, but how it's done." A half-assed sympathetic villain is just as bad as a half-assed unrepentant villain, but it plays to easy audience sympathy so they don't seem to get criticized as often.

 

[bottlegnomes]

@NekoKnight Can't edit my previous post (guess it's too long), but rereading what I said, you said, and rethinking about TDK, I do think you're right in that I over simplified the Joker a bit too much. I do stand by that I think the Joker works more as something for Batman to fight against and that's what a well-executed Surtr could have been. Ashnard to me doesn't quite fit the bill there because Ike doesn't actually know Ashnard's root motivation until basically the end. He just thinks he's a madman bent on destroying the world. So Ike and company aren't really fighting Ashnard ideologically like Batman and the Joker so much as fighting Ashnard the man, and his ideology is the explanation of his actions. That said, the Joker does line up pretty evenly there if you buy into the theory of him having been a soldier and casualty in an Iraq type war, which I personally subscribe to given the references. It's actually my favorite fan theory by a mile, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were Nolan's intention, but he didn't  want to come out and say it so as to make it to heavy-handed.

[NekoKnight]

22 minutes ago, bottlegnomes said:

When I say improve the writing, I don't just mean make him more charismatic, though that goes a long way, like with most Disney villains, but also actually incorporate more things into the writing to make use of Surtr's motives, simple as they may be. What I'm getting at with all that is if you make a bullet point list of what defines Surtr as a character, I think it's a perfectly good outline for a villain. Again, Ramsay and Sauron aren't really any less evil for the sake of being evil, though Sauron doesn't seem to be as sadistic or wantonly cruel.

While I won't hold it against Heroes that it doesn't hold up to such fantasy epics as A Song of Ice and Fire or Lord of the Rings, I'd like to address these anyway. Ramsay is certainly comparable in temperament (and at times seems to have plot armor), but the character stays fresh for the variety of ways his cruelty and cunning is displayed. There is also psychological drives that explain some of his behavior (although at the root, he is a psychopath). Sauron is likewise pure evil but as he doesn't directly interact with any other characters, he simply represents a malevolent force rather than being a character by himself.

I'm not opposed to pure evilness as being the idea behind a villain. But I think a story needs other agreeable characters if the main villain is going to be so flat. I'm down with the Demon King simply being a force of evil because we have Lyon for a more nuanced antagonist. I'm also okay with Sauron and Ramsey because I care about the heroes in those stories and what they're fighting for. Surtr isn't a strong villain, but equally damning is the heroes not getting me invested. I don't want to derail the conversation with a general "the FEH story suxx!" but I do think the story needed more engaging characters all around. I cared more about Helbindi and Laegjarn than the combined rest of the cast.

43 minutes ago, bottlegnomes said:

It's more that, not just in this fandom, but everywhere, an easy "fix" for any cliche villain is to give them a tragic backstory, give them a dead wife or a dead mother or a crippled daughter or something. In and of itself, it's just as played out and tired. To quote Nas, "No idea's original. There's nothing new under the sun. It's never what you do, but how it's done." A half-assed sympathetic villain is just as bad as a half-assed unrepentant villain, but it plays to easy audience sympathy so they don't seem to get criticized as often.

I'm on board with you here (although I haven't seen these 'sappy backstory' advocates recently). People often hoped for some kind of sympathetic backstory for Garon, but that was because the plot called for Nohr being a morally gray nation, and they didn't deliver. I don't think Surtr needed some hamfisted "Nifl killed my dog and for that they must pay" excuse, but I think they could have given us SOME motivation. A character can absolutely be monstrous but what gets people invested is knowing what drives that character to do what they do. To give an example, Ganondorf's motivation in Wind Waker boils down to envy. He's absolutely a villain but we get an idea of what set him on his course. No half-baked sappy background required, and it was delivered in exactly a single scene. FEH could try harder with its writing.

[Icelerate]

Is Surtr really all that evil? He is willing to sacrifice his daughters to become more powerful but that's not that much worse than Kiran sacrificing all kinds of heroes to make his core group stronger with skill inheritance. 

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Is Surtr really all that evil? He is willing to sacrifice his daughters to become more powerful but that's not that much worse than Kiran sacrificing all kinds of heroes to make his core group stronger with skill inheritance. 

That's akin to saying the local serial killer isn't all that evil because they're not Stalin.

[Tenzen12]

In this example Kiran is serial killer or Stalin? 

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

In this example Kiran is serial killer or Stalin? 

Systematically and ruthlessly destroying countless allies in order to build and maintain a strong command structure; I'm going to say Stalin.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Jotari

[XRay]

16 hours ago, Arcanite said:

And yet they probably made enough money to fund the next 7 FE games.

We do not know how profitable Heroes is. I hope it is doing really well and they mention it having strong profits, but until they release actual numbers, I am going to be a little cynical and say the profits are only strong enough to keep the lights on and employees fed.

16 hours ago, Arcanite said:

not some insignificant OCs

How dare you! Surtr may be an insignificant weakling, but Gunnthrá and Laegjarn are players' waifus!

I think Heroes characters are pretty significant, at least they are significant enough to get Cipher cards and Veronica herself won second place in CYL2. Laegjarn and Laevatein are pretty popular too, and I think they may rival the Askr Trio in popularity. While I am not sure Heroes characters will be as iconic as Roy, Ike, Robin, Lucina, etc., I think the Askr Trio, Laevatein (if she gets more development in Book III), and Loki have a decent chance of being up there.

As for Surtr, I think he is very significant. Maybe not plot wise for future stories, but being able to draw out players' emotions of hatred and disgust is a pretty neat accomplishment in my opinion. Not sure about most players, but I have not felt such a strong emotional response to any other Fire Emblem character (Ayra and Ares come close to the amount of hatred I have for Surtr though). 

1 hour ago, Icelerate said:

Is Surtr really all that evil? He is willing to sacrifice his daughters to become more powerful but that's not that much worse than Kiran sacrificing all kinds of heroes to make his core group stronger with skill inheritance. 

What!? Kiran and Surtr are NOT even close. Mechanics wise, we players call it a sacrifice, but lore wise, Kiran sends those characters home on a happy note (or at least I think so), and when they leave, the leave behind a Combat Manual or a pile of Hero Feathers as a parting gift. Surtr is willing to murder his own daughters which is far more sinister than sending people home.

Edited September 17, 2018 by XRay

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, XRay said:

We do not know how profitable Heroes is. I hope it is doing really well and they mention it having strong profits, but until they release actual numbers, I am going to be a little cynical and say the profits are only strong enough to keep the lights on and employees fed.

How dare you! Surtr may be an insignificant weakling, but Gunnthrá and Laegjarn are players' waifus!

I think Heroes characters are pretty significant, at least they are significant enough to get Cipher cards and Veronica herself won second place in CYL2. Laegjarn and Laevatein are pretty popular too, and I think they may rival the Askr Trio in popularity. While I am not sure Heroes characters will be as iconic as Roy, Ike, Robin, Lucina, etc., I think the Askr Trio, Laevatein (if she gets more development in Book III), and Loki have a decent chance of being up there.

As for Surtr, I think he is very significant. Maybe not plot wise for future stories, but being able to draw out players' emotions of hatred and disgust is a pretty neat accomplishment in my opinion. Not sure about most players, but I have not felt such a strong emotional response to any other Fire Emblem character (Ayra and Ares come close to the amount of hatred I have for Surtr though). 

What!? Kiran and Surtr are NOT even close. Mechanics wise, we players call it a sacrifice, but lore wise, Kiran sends those characters home on a happy note (or at least I think so), and when they leave, the leave behind a Combat Manual or a pile of Hero Feathers as a parting gift. Surtr is willing to murder his own daughters which is far more sinister than sending people home.

Pretty sure Icelerate was joking.

[Icelerate]

15 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Pretty sure Icelerate was joking.

You are right. 

BTW, apparently, Surtr is the least popular character in Heroes. He got the lowest average rating in a popularity poll. I guess the two of us are in a minority. I felt he was more interesting than the heroes of the story. Doesn't compare to Helbendi or Laegjarn though. 

[XRay]

21 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

BTW, apparently, Surtr is the least popular character in Heroes.

I think that might have to do with people hating him and having negative popularity, which is little different from being unpopular for not being well known, if that makes sense. If they did similar poll but for characters players hate the most, I think Surtr will be near the top.

Like, the best way I can put it is that he is an outlet to release my frustration and negativity, and that feels good, so I guess that is why I "like" and hate him at the same time. I think he is "popular," just in a different way.

Edited September 17, 2018 by XRay

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

We do not know how profitable Heroes is. I hope it is doing really well and they mention it having strong profits, but until they release actual numbers, I am going to be a little cynical and say the profits are only strong enough to keep the lights on and employees fed.

 

https://nintendoeverything.com/fire-emblem-heroes-summer-revenue-tops-60-million-up-34-from-2017/

From the looks of this, it seems Heroes is doing VERY well financially.

[XRay]

25 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

https://nintendoeverything.com/fire-emblem-heroes-summer-revenue-tops-60-million-up-34-from-2017/

From the looks of this, it seems Heroes is doing VERY well financially.

Revenue is not the same as profit. Revenue could be sky high and it would mean nothing if expenses are just as high. Without more information to go on, I am not convinced Heroes is that big of a money maker. I would not be surprised if their use of the phrase "strong net profits" is nothing more than puffery to keep shareholders from complaining; "strong" is pretty meaningless without numbers to back it up, and revenue numbers by itself is not enough. My gut tells me something is fishy if they are focusing so much on bragging about their huge revenue numbers instead of detaling their profit margin.

What I want are detailed financial statements, specifically a segmented income statement, and Nintendo has not released any of that to my knowledge. The numbers I see on Yahoo Finance is helpful in determining whether the company as a whole is healthy, but it tells me absolutely nothing about how each venture of the company is doing. As far as I know, Heroes could be making just enough profit to keep upper management satisfied, and it is not raining money.

[Tenzen12]

Well, it makes most money of all nintendo mobile games. Actually it make more than half all revenue in that regard. Mantainance and new content would have to be more expensive than all other games combined. Feh was also voted to be best mobile game of year altogether.

Even without being able see all numbers, there doesn't seem to be any reason for paranoia.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, XRay said:

Revenue is not the same as profit. Revenue could be sky high and it would mean nothing if expenses are just as high. Without more information to go on, I am not convinced Heroes is that big of a money maker. I would not be surprised if their use of the phrase "strong net profits" is nothing more than puffery to keep shareholders from complaining; "strong" is pretty meaningless without numbers to back it up, and revenue numbers by itself is not enough. My gut tells me something is fishy if they are focusing so much on bragging about their huge revenue numbers instead of detaling their profit margin.

What I want are detailed financial statements, specifically a segmented income statement, and Nintendo has not released any of that to my knowledge. The numbers I see on Yahoo Finance is helpful in determining whether the company as a whole is healthy, but it tells me absolutely nothing about how each venture of the company is doing. As far as I know, Heroes could be making just enough profit to keep upper management satisfied, and it is not raining money.

60 million is a big number. That's how much money it takes to make a high budget triple A title. And that's a production that takes years, Heroes made that much money in a season. There's just no way they're not making a significant profit with those numbers. The overheads for three months of Heroes are not comparable to the overheads of high budget main stream game in production for over three years. If it cost even fifty million to keep the game running for three months (making a "mere" ten million gross profit), then that would probably make Heroes the most costly game to produce in history.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Jotari

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

Even without being able see all numbers, there doesn't seem to be any reason for paranoia.

It is not paranoia. It is being cautious and conservative. If you are investing in a company, you should at least have a decent understanding of what your are investing in. Until I see a more detailed set of financial statements, it is impossible to draw any more meaningful conclusion beyond "Nintendo is making a profit for the past few years."

40 minutes ago, Jotari said:

60 million is a big number. That's how much money it takes to make a high budget triple A title. And that's a production that takes years, Heroes made that much money in a season. There's just no way they're not making a significant profit with those numbers. The overheads for three months of Heroes are not comparable to the overheads of high budget main stream game in production for over three years. If it cost even fifty million to keep the game running for three months (making a "mere" ten million gross profit), then that would probably make Heroes the most costly game to produce in history.

Expenses are not just in developing and maintaining the game. There are also variable expenses like sales costs (Google alone takes a 30% cut of the gross revenue) and a whole bunch of other stuff that we do not know about.

Blindly assuming Heroes is making a ton of profit for Nintendo without the numbers to back it up is reckless. When Pokémon Go was released, Nintendo's stock shot up like crazy and it was overvalued as hell until investors realized that Nintendo was not the main developer behind the game and Nintendo takes a far smaller share than investors assumed. The stock quickly came back down to a more reasonable level when the investors realized their mistake.

While I hope Nintendo is taking a greater share in the profits this time around, there could be other shit under the hood that I do not know about, and if Nintendo is not lifting their hood up to show their financial statements, the most sensible action is to assume the worst.

Edited September 18, 2018 by XRay