Jump to content

Book III Opens: December 2018 (Speculation + Discussion)


Coolmanio
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I feel Alfonse time limit will be pretty temporary. The trailer, Loki and the new opening screen already make it pretty clear that Alfonse isn't the one in danger. 

Is it me or is Gustav a bit of a hypocrite. His stance on royals being too important to throw their life away on the battlefield is valid but he's doing the exact same thing he criticizes Alfonse for. He's said to fought Muspel and now he's personally fighting the invading zombie army. Yet when Alfonse does it its TERRIBLE. 

As far as Gustav is concerned, he's probably one of the few, perhaps the only one that knows how to deal with Hel and her soldiers… So of course he would have to lead the charge because he knows tactics to defeat her (or at least stall her). Not to mention, he is stated to be older, and already has two strong and healthy heirs. If he dies, one of the two, or both, could just take over the kingdom. But if Alfonse or both his children die, he is likely to old to produce another heir and have them grow old enough to rule the kingdom before he dies. So the differences between the two make sense.

 

Also, I kind of wish the trailer had not been shown, or least showed something different. The curse at the end doesn't hold much meaning, because, thanks to the trailer, it's already known that Alfonse will survive his next encounter with Hel (despite the curse likely taking effect, as depicted in the trailer). And it's also likely that Kiran will die in his place (hence the phrase, the light died), stopping the curse somehow (maybe fulfilling a demand for a soul).

 

Also, I would have preferred if Alfonse died, and to be honest… It would have been interesting to see how Shanera would've reacted in that situation... Would she have kept her friendliness and used it to win over allies, or would she have discarded it, believing it to be something that was only in the way? And this really would've cemented Alfonse’s recklessness as a huge character flaw, as the party learns from his mistakes and realizes that being a ruler does not mean charging in recklessly… But even with the curse and the way things are now, it just doesn't mean anything… I'm hoping that with the way things are now, next chapter will be the one where the story catches up to the trailer, because everything looks to be in place…

 

Also, I'm not too crazy about Hel at this point, even though I love how menacing she looks… She seems to be only wanting to destroy the other worlds for the sake of it, and has little else to her character… I'm holding out hope that her motivations may be explored, but considering this game is not really known for its complicated characters, I'm not too optimistic… At least, Surtr had an implied reason for what he did (Rite of Flames destroying his soul, and his morality along with it from using it repeatedly and surviving somehow). The villains of Muspell had solid motivations, no matter how simplistic they were… And Loki is always an interesting character…  The two generals of Hel might be interesting too, provided more about the backstory is revealed…

 

I can't really say much on Eir at this point, although so far her character arc appears to be predictable (goes to backstab the characters to earn Hel’s approval, finds out she likes them, can’t do it, and truly joins them)… I'm hoping something shakes things up, though… I'm also wondering if Eir isn't actually related to Hel, but is instead someone who Hel found worthy to be the heir and given the title… It certainly seems that way, given that she appears to be the only living being in the realm, and Hel is long undead (or something similar to that)…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 546
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

30 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

Also, I'm not too crazy about Hel at this point, even though I love how menacing she looks… She seems to be only wanting to destroy the other worlds for the sake of it, and has little else to her character… I'm holding out hope that her motivations may be explored, but considering this game is not really known for its complicated characters, I'm not too optimistic… At least, Surtr had an implied reason for what he did (Rite of Flames destroying his soul, and his morality along with it from using it repeatedly and surviving somehow). 

It's possible that she was cut from the same cloth as Surtr: a personification of a force of nature. Surtr was a fire. The destructive uncontrolled kind that spreads and causes destruction, burning anything that crosses its path without discretion.

Hel is death. Death comes to all as a fact. It reminds me of a quote from Doctor Who with an antagonist cut from a similar cloth:

Spoiler

"As you come into this world, something else is also born. You begin your life, and it begins a journey towards you. It moves slowly, but it never stops. Wherever you go, whatever path you take, it will follow. Never faster, never slower, always coming. You will run. It will walk. You will rest. It will not. One day, you will linger in the same place too long. You will sit too still or sleep too deep, and when, too late, you rise to go, you will notice a second shadow next to yours. Your life will then be over."

I feel this same idea describes Hel. Death constantly follows along the living, patiently continuing until it can finally take hold of the victim.

Force of nature villains can work and don't necessarily need what they were "adapted from" to be their sole motivation. Eggman from the Sonic Franchise, representing machinery in a battle of machines versus nature, is a much more interesting than Surtr ever was. Eggman has goals that work alongside the concept he was based on, but are mostly personal, and he had personality. If you take Surtr and strip away the force of nature aspect, had no real personality or anything else to his name (other than an interesting design). It's really 50-50 I guess. Either they make Surtr 2.0 or she'll be developed as her own character. I really hope the latter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hilda said:

the most important question is though:

WHERE IS BRUNO!?!? Like did he go to Mars on his journey!?!?

Better yet, why isn't Fjorm seen or mentioned at all during this (recent New Year's side mission and Tempest Trials non-withstanding)? She's dying and she knows it, and the heroes are fighting the personification of death itself along with soldiers… It would make sense that the issue come up again… It would've also been a great way to develop Eir, since being around the dead and being in tune to death itself would have made her more perceptive of those things…

 

Honestly, I think that's one of the problems in Heroes… There's a lot of plot lines, and they all have the potential to be done really well… But there's just so many of them that none of them are really done well, and a lot of things are left unresolved…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

Better yet, why isn't Fjorm seen or mentioned at all during this (recent New Year's side mission and Tempest Trials non-withstanding)? She's dying and she knows it, and the heroes are fighting the personification of death itself along with soldiers… It would make sense that the issue come up again… It would've also been a great way to develop Eir, since being around the dead and being in tune to death itself would have made her more perceptive of those things…

 

Honestly, I think that's one of the problems in Heroes… There's a lot of plot lines, and they all have the potential to be done really well… But there's just so many of them that none of them are really done well, and a lot of things are left unresolved…

I suspect Fjorm is being left out to not confuse anyone playing for the first time (since they can jump directly to Book 3). It sucks, but at least you can make the case that she went to visit Nifl when Hel attacked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wheelsonfire said:

As far as Gustav is concerned, he's probably one of the few, perhaps the only one that knows how to deal with Hel and her soldiers… So of course he would have to lead the charge because he knows tactics to defeat her (or at least stall her). Not to mention, he is stated to be older, and already has two strong and healthy heirs. If he dies, one of the two, or both, could just take over the kingdom. But if Alfonse or both his children die, he is likely to old to produce another heir and have them grow old enough to rule the kingdom before he dies. So the differences between the two make sense.

 

Also, I kind of wish the trailer had not been shown, or least showed something different. The curse at the end doesn't hold much meaning, because, thanks to the trailer, it's already known that Alfonse will survive his next encounter with Hel (despite the curse likely taking effect, as depicted in the trailer). And it's also likely that Kiran will die in his place (hence the phrase, the light died), stopping the curse somehow (maybe fulfilling a demand for a soul).

 

Also, I would have preferred if Alfonse died, and to be honest… It would have been interesting to see how Shanera would've reacted in that situation... Would she have kept her friendliness and used it to win over allies, or would she have discarded it, believing it to be something that was only in the way? And this really would've cemented Alfonse’s recklessness as a huge character flaw, as the party learns from his mistakes and realizes that being a ruler does not mean charging in recklessly… But even with the curse and the way things are now, it just doesn't mean anything… I'm hoping that with the way things are now, next chapter will be the one where the story catches up to the trailer, because everything looks to be in place…

 

Also, I'm not too crazy about Hel at this point, even though I love how menacing she looks… She seems to be only wanting to destroy the other worlds for the sake of it, and has little else to her character… I'm holding out hope that her motivations may be explored, but considering this game is not really known for its complicated characters, I'm not too optimistic… At least, Surtr had an implied reason for what he did (Rite of Flames destroying his soul, and his morality along with it from using it repeatedly and surviving somehow). The villains of Muspell had solid motivations, no matter how simplistic they were… And Loki is always an interesting character…  The two generals of Hel might be interesting too, provided more about the backstory is revealed…

 

I can't really say much on Eir at this point, although so far her character arc appears to be predictable (goes to backstab the characters to earn Hel’s approval, finds out she likes them, can’t do it, and truly joins them)… I'm hoping something shakes things up, though… I'm also wondering if Eir isn't actually related to Hel, but is instead someone who Hel found worthy to be the heir and given the title… It certainly seems that way, given that she appears to be the only living being in the realm, and Hel is long undead (or something similar to that)…

 

1 hour ago, Arcphoenix said:

It's possible that she was cut from the same cloth as Surtr: a personification of a force of nature. Surtr was a fire. The destructive uncontrolled kind that spreads and causes destruction, burning anything that crosses its path without discretion.

Hel is death. Death comes to all as a fact. It reminds me of a quote from Doctor Who with an antagonist cut from a similar cloth:

  Reveal hidden contents

"As you come into this world, something else is also born. You begin your life, and it begins a journey towards you. It moves slowly, but it never stops. Wherever you go, whatever path you take, it will follow. Never faster, never slower, always coming. You will run. It will walk. You will rest. It will not. One day, you will linger in the same place too long. You will sit too still or sleep too deep, and when, too late, you rise to go, you will notice a second shadow next to yours. Your life will then be over."

I feel this same idea describes Hel. Death constantly follows along the living, patiently continuing until it can finally take hold of the victim.

Force of nature villains can work and don't necessarily need what they were "adapted from" to be their sole motivation. Eggman from the Sonic Franchise, representing machinery in a battle of machines versus nature, is a much more interesting than Surtr ever was. Eggman has goals that work alongside the concept he was based on, but are mostly personal, and he had personality. If you take Surtr and strip away the force of nature aspect, had no real personality or anything else to his name (other than an interesting design). It's really 50-50 I guess. Either they make Surtr 2.0 or she'll be developed as her own character. I really hope the latter

Kudos for having more to your arguments than "this sucks because that's my opinion." Makes them much more worth responding to. :) Some points I agree with, some I would like to give my thoughts on.

Regarding Wheelsonfire's point about Gustav going to fight even though he scorns Alfonse's recklessness: I totally agree. That's almost exactly what I see, too. The only difference is that I have a bit more/different conjecture on it. That is, that though Gustav has experience, I don't think he knows how to repel Hel's forces. I think it's more of a case of "he's the best chance they have." Also, given his behavior and things that were said and the way they were said, I think Gustav knows that Hel's coming for him and has kind of accepted his fate, but desperately wants to protect his kingdom's people and, more specifically, his family (especially his children, and it could be that Alfonse is actually in the most danger out of all of them.)

I'll expand on why I think this. Gustav and his wife talk about how he used to be like Alfonse, galivanting about doing heroics without much concern for his own wellbeing. What else is true of Alfonse that he may have had in common with his dad? Not only the urge to play a direct role in helping the people, but a love of history. Whenever they mention what happened 20 years ago, there's a huge heaviness about it, like it was what dramatically changed Gustav's behavior, and like some tragedy was the cause of that epiphany which incited the change. And now, we know that the scar on Gustav's face was from a wound he received while fighting against Hel 20 years ago: the same time as when the barrier to keep her and her forces away was erected. The way that Gustav spoke about the barrier, it was with an authority that gives me the impression that he was the one who gave the order for it, and probably had also tried many other ways of repelling her forces before finding one that worked, even though it would only last so long: the barrier. Gustav also mentions how he wasn't ready when he suddenly had to assume kingship; that his father died sooner than he'd expected he would. Alfonse and Sharena's mom seems to know a thing or two about it, too, but obviously never told her kids anything about it. The xenologue that introduces Hel also shows her specifically mentioning Gustav (as "the king of Askr") being a target.

As I've postulated before, here's what I think happened: Young Gustav went around playing a direct role in helping the people doing much of what the Order of Heroes does: fighting off threats, traveling abroad, etc. He figured he'd have plenty of time before having to assume the throne. The land was fairly peaceful, his father was fairly healthy, and there was every indication that there was no rush to prepare himself to be king. One day, while exploring an ancient cave within Askr's boarders, he uses his abilities as an Askr royal to open a portal to a new world. Unfortunately for him, that world is the land of the dead. All Hel breaks loose. In a panic, Gustav rushes home. Death follows him, taking his parents and attacking his people. Now king, Gustav desperately searches for ways to repel Hel and her forces, who are invading Askr. He calls for help from Embla to close the portal he opened, but they respond in animosity, refusing, and rightly claiming that Gustav brought this tragedy upon himself and so would have to deal with it himself. He does. Nothing works until a plan is put in place to lock Hel, her forces, and the portal behind the strongest barrier they can conjure. Said queen of the dead and her forces are slowly gaining ground, soon to overwhelm the entire country, creeping in towards the capitol to claim the life of the one who set all of this in motion: Gustav. He fights one more time shoulder to shoulder with his army, pushing back the forces of Hel with everything they have in a last gambit to survive. They manage to push the dead back to the cave...and Hel herself faces the young king a second time. They do battle, and Gustav can barely hold his own. But then, Hel gains the advantage. He would have died had not the barrier come into being. Viewing Gustav's terrified, bewildered, and fatigued, but inaccessible, Hel's apathy gives way just a little for contempt. No one escapes death...but Gustav just did. Her prey denied her...and that simply could not be allowed. She tells him that the barrier will not last forever. One day, she will return to Askr to finish her work, and to kill Gustav. She returns to her domain...and Gustav goes on to try to repair a broken and marred kingdom. He marries the woman who supported him through this, and was likely a partner in crime during his more blissful, ignorant days. He has a son, then a daughter. All the while, though, he is haunted by Hel's warning...and his fears increase as he sees his younger self within his son, Alfonse. Out of equal love and fear, he is strict with Alfonse, trying to change the boy's fate from being akin to his own and ensure that his people have a ruler after Hel comes for him. He fears day after day as Alfonse continues to ignore his warnings and defy his wishes, throwing himself into danger after danger, however well-intended. He tries to impress upon his son the seriousness of his situation, but is so shaken by what is to come, as well as burdened by shame from being the cause of Hel's incursion, that he never tells his children about Hel or her warning. He reasons that they can be prepared before then without knowing everything. His wife humbly respects these wishes as well, also wanting to keep their view of their father as positive as possible, and never tells them the story of Hel's conquest of Askr. And then, one day, the barrier falls... Gustav knows his time has come. Alfonse isn't quite ready to be king yet, but time is up. In what he assumes are his last days, Gustav does his best to protect his family and his kingdom, giving Alfonse what words he can in a last effort to prepare and protect him, then goes out to meet his fate and sate Hel's thirst, hopefully satisfying her well enough that she leaves the rest of Askr alone. But Hel was sleighed by this man. He had defied her for twenty years. She would take his life...and the lives of his entire family. To start, the first one who never should have been born, as his father should have died before that could have occurred: the future of Askr and hope of Gustav: Alfonse.

Okay, now that that's been said, moving on to the next point. It could very well be that there's some "take me instead" that happens, but I don't know. If we take into account the symbolism in the trailer, Alfonse being drowned in the black goop could be a reference to this curse killing him, since this curse seems to affect his ability to breathe (just like drowning does.) Within the 9 days that Alfonse has, Hel manages to make it to the palace, and kills his family (and Kiran, and maybe Anna), leaving him to die from the curse. Fjorm dies from the affects of the Rite of Frost...and everyone meets up in the realm of the dead. I'm thinking a "fight our way out" situation is coming up, likely aided by Eir who feels bad about causing everyone to die. Being the daughter of death herself, she uses her power to enable these people to oppose her mother, which normally, being dead in the realm of the dead, they wouldn't be able to do. They're fighting to regain survival. Could also be that, after taking over Askr, Hel decides to move on to Embla, and kills Veronica, hence her being in the trailer too. Loki is probably a goddess herself (based on what Aversa says in her paralogue, comparing her to Grima; maybe Loki's actually an ancient dark dragon), and likes the idea of overthrowing Hel, so she joins them without having to die. Or, she's also killed (she seems to fear Hel) or is already dead (she sure seems to report to Hel, given that xenologue), and seeking freedom from servitude, aids the dead Askrans. She also may actually have been fulfilling the same role in book 2 as Eir did in book 3: causing a bunch of death in service to Hel.

Point 3: Is Hel poorly written? So, it's important to note that she's an actual goddess, unlike Surtr who was once human. Being the embodiment of death, things dying is perfectly normal and natural to her. She seems almost completely devoid of emotion, though seems to harbor a bit of bitterness towards Gustav, and may be trying to synthesize love for Eir. But, in actuality, she's empty. That doesn't mean she's bland or doesn't have motivations or personality, though. Rather, this is all a part of that. She's hollow, threatening, patient, and immortal. Her mentality is kind of like that of a psychopath (the personality disorder; criminal version): destructive behavior, a lack of empathy, a lack of moral inhibition, and a seeking of self-gratification. She probably not only doesn't see what she does as wrong, but may even see it as right. She also incites a creepy feeling, being so menacing and yet so devoid of emotion. So, poorly written? Not at all, imo.

And finally, Eir. I do believe that she's her daughter, and I hold to the hope that Eir's dad is Valhalla: Hel's complimentary opposite. As for Eir's struggles and choices, they do seem like they'll be a bit predictable, but I think they're fitting. She mentioned at the end of the tempest trial how sometimes she went an entire year without speaking. The one person in her life who she's ever tried to please (up until recently) was her psychopathic mother. Eir taking the step to get out of this unhealthy relationship is a hard thing to do, having been only close to her for so long and so desperately wanting to please her. Tossing aside something that deep would be very difficult, especially since Eir still has strong feelings (nonromantic, of course) for her mother. Likewise, Eir is a sort of moral anchor for Hel, and could be the one person Hel cares for on some level. Hel may even intellectually want to love someone, and is doing her best to achieve this with Eir, but may just be (sadly) incapable of it. So really, the personal story for these two is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

Honestly, I think that's one of the problems in Heroes… There's a lot of plot lines, and they all have the potential to be done really well… But there's just so many of them that none of them are really done well, and a lot of things are left unresolved…

How many plot lines are there in Heroes at the moment?:

  • Fjorm dying
  • Alfonse's curse
  • Loki's hidden agenda
  • Emblian curse
  • Eir's eventual betrayal
  • Alfonse being a king/leader
  • Gustav's strained relationship with his children
  • Hel's plan
  • Lif and Thrasir being the previous rulers.
  • Muspell/ Nifl book 2 aftermath

Am I missing anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DefyingFates said:

I suspect Fjorm is being left out to not confuse anyone playing for the first time (since they can jump directly to Book 3). It sucks, but at least you can make the case that she went to visit Nifl when Hel attacked?

Maybe, but they could at least mention what happened in passing if that were the case… And Florjm specifically mentions she's going to go with the Order of Heroes because she's not the heir to the throne and the Rite of Frost is killing her, so she wants to spend what time she can with them… Having her suddenly return to Nifil doesn't make much sense…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hilda said:

the most important question is though:

WHERE IS BRUNO!?!? Like did he go to Mars on his journey!?!?

 

26 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

Better yet, why isn't Fjorm seen or mentioned at all during this (recent New Year's side mission and Tempest Trials non-withstanding)? She's dying and she knows it, and the heroes are fighting the personification of death itself along with soldiers… It would make sense that the issue come up again… It would've also been a great way to develop Eir, since being around the dead and being in tune to death itself would have made her more perceptive of those things…

 

Honestly, I think that's one of the problems in Heroes… There's a lot of plot lines, and they all have the potential to be done really well… But there's just so many of them that none of them are really done well, and a lot of things are left unresolved…

 

10 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

Maybe, but they could at least mention what happened in passing if that were the case… And Florjm specifically mentions she's going to go with the Order of Heroes because she's not the heir to the throne and the Rite of Frost is killing her, so she wants to spend what time she can with them… Having her suddenly return to Nifil doesn't make much sense…

I think the main thing here is to be patient (forgot to mention this in my previous post.) There's a lot coming up that we haven't seen yet. It could very well be that some of these concerns are addressed there. For example, Sharena being scared for Alfonse could be how the next chapter opens up. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Good stories don't give the reader everything right away. They wait for the best moment to do so throughout its entirety.

As for Bruno, following the theory I have going (explained in my previous post), he may wind up anchoring Embla while Veronica's "away." May even be the one opposing Hel in the land of the living while all the others are fighting her in her own realm. Further theory: in the song, one of the lyrics are "bring a dead world back to life." This could be Hel (the place), or this could be Askr. Maybe Hel manages to succeed in taking it over, expanding her territory, and the Askran royals need to take it back, making it part of the world of the living again.

Another thing I forgot to mention in my previous post: I find it interesting how it was mentioned that Lif was the one who brought the Laguz under contract in this last chapter. I guess he has that ability, then. I wonder if that means that the Askrans can do that, too. We know the Emblans can. Also, does this mean that Hel can't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jingle Jangle said:

How many plot lines are there in Heroes at the moment?:

  • Fjorm dying
  • Alfonse's curse
  • Loki's hidden agenda
  • Emblian curse
  • Eir's eventual betrayal
  • Alfonse being a king/leader
  • Gustav's strained relationship with his children
  • Hel's plan
  • Lif and Thrasir being the previous rulers.
  • Muspell/ Nifl book 2 aftermath

Am I missing anything?

Brunos Journey for a cure
Hel's plan with Surtr (unless that was just a cheap way to introduce Hel)
The cause of the endless Tempest Trial storms
That stupid contract thing i still cant wrap my head around (Why? How? Because?).
Veronica's inability to grow up and think logicly (regular Veronica, Brave Veronicas story in the Bonds was good). Seriously how do you Team up with the person that betrayed you in the first place and how do you still despise the people that saved your arse....
Xander?
Gunnthra in Hell???? maybe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hilda said:

Brunos Journey for a cure
Hel's plan with Surtr (unless that was just a cheap way to introduce Hel)
The cause of the endless Tempest Trial storms
That stupid contract thing i still cant wrap my head around (Why? How? Because?).
Veronica's inability to grow up and think logicly (regular Veronica, Brave Veronicas story in the Bonds was good). Seriously how do you Team up with the person that betrayed you in the first place and how do you still despise the people that saved your arse....
Xander?
Gunnthra in Hell???? maybe

More like whatever other afterlives there are, because Whispers of Death states there's more than one (this is probably where Guntra is, and maybe some of the other characters who've died)

 

There's also exploring other characters that might have ended up with Hel…

 

But the fact that this game is less content on the main games and yet manages to have so many different plot lines exemplifies the issue… And the problem is not that everything is not revealed right away, it's just that so many things take so long to get even basic facts, if they are dropped or consistently left unexplored… It's still a product of bad writing no matter how long one waits…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hilda said:

The cause of the endless Tempest Trial storms

Loki makes them. Pretty sure that's already been said.

11 minutes ago, Hilda said:

Brunos Journey for a cure

Pretty sure this is what either more paralogues or book 4 will be about (if it's not covered somewhere in book 3; Thrasir is a thing, after all, and she's the one who made the pact with Embla (the dragon) in the first place, if my understanding is correct.) I also suspect that this will lead into (that is, book 4 will be about) plot involving the four dragons (Embla, Askr, Nifl, and Muspell) and Valhalla (again, who I suspect is a light deity.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

More like whatever other afterlives there are, because Whispers of Death states there's more than one (this is probably where Guntra is, and maybe some of the other characters who've died)

 

There's also exploring other characters that might have ended up with Hel…

 

But the fact that this game is less content on the main games and yet manages to have so many different plot lines exemplifies the issue… And the problem is not that everything is not revealed right away, it's just that so many things take so long to get even basic facts, if they are dropped or consistently left unexplored… It's still a product of bad writing no matter how long one waits…

I wouldnt mind if they realese story maps with every update. They dont even need to give orbs. They can tie the orbs to Story maps/chapters that introduce new units, totally fine with that. They could just add a 100 feather reward for those "inbetween" Story maps. But for gods sake they have to do something about it now!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mercakete said:

Loki makes them. Pretty sure that's already been said.

Pretty sure this is what either more paralogues or book 4 will be about (if it's not covered somewhere in book 3; Thrasir is a thing, after all, and she's the one who made the pact with Embla (the dragon) in the first place, if my understanding is correct.) I also suspect that this will lead into (that is, book 4 will be about) plot involving the four dragons (Embla, Askr, Nifl, and Muspell) and Valhalla (again, who I suspect is a light deity.)

I know that Loki uses/causes them. If i remember correctly it was to retrieve something and then we kinda lost it and dont know what they got and how it was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hell's reception is going to suffer quite a bit thanks to Surtr. As pointed out she seems to be a force of nature villain like Surtr and she might be much more suited for that role. Death can be seen as the ultimate force of nature that eventually comes for everyone. Given how death is different from fire I'm sure Hell will differentiate herself from Surtr to some degree. Fire is often painted as aggressive and brutal which Surtr definitely was while death is cold and can afford to be patient which is likely what Hell ends up being. 

Thematically Hell works as a force of nature villain and there's enough there to assume she won't be a complete repeat of Surtr. Yet despite this making Hell a force of nature villain isn't a smart decision. I don't think its what the story of Heroes needs at the moment. Surtr was already a force of nature villain so replacing one of those villain with another one of the same brand is a bit weird. But more importantly is that Hell has to be this kind of villain after Surtr showed how being a force of nature villain can be very problematic. 

Surtr was not a popular villain. A lot of people thought he was generic and boring, and by the end of book II pretty much everyone seemed to be sick of the guy. Like Phoenix said he didn't have much to offer aside that particular brand of villainy, no other personality traits or real relations with other characters. You could say a force of nature villain doesn't need much more but given Surtr's unpopularity I'd say lots of people don't agree. Hell's problem is that people likely expected a villain that moves away from the flaws of Surtr rather than retaining the same flaws that bothered people so much about Surtr. 

4 hours ago, wheelsonfire said:

Also, I kind of wish the trailer had not been shown, or least showed something different. The curse at the end doesn't hold much meaning, because, thanks to the trailer, it's already known that Alfonse will survive his next encounter with Hel (despite the curse likely taking effect, as depicted in the trailer). And it's also likely that Kiran will die in his place (hence the phrase, the light died), stopping the curse somehow (maybe fulfilling a demand for a soul).

 

Also, I would have preferred if Alfonse died, and to be honest… It would have been interesting to see how Shanera would've reacted in that situation... Would she have kept her friendliness and used it to win over allies, or would she have discarded it, believing it to be something that was only in the way? And this really would've cemented Alfonse’s recklessness as a huge character flaw, as the party learns from his mistakes and realizes that being a ruler does not mean charging in recklessly… But even with the curse and the way things are now, it just doesn't mean anything… I'm hoping that with the way things are now, next chapter will be the one where the story catches up to the trailer, because everything looks to be in place…

In hindsight the trailer does seem to have been a big mistake. I recall there was  some real speculation going on about who would end up dying. The trailer quickly put an end to that which isn't to bad expect now that they try to put Alfonse in danger the trailer  makes it so painfully clear that Alfonse is going to be just fine. Unless the trailer turns out to have been a lie all along. ''The light'' dying could be a word play on Kiran but it could also just symbolize Sharena who's cheery personality and being everyone's friend makes her the ''light'' of the order. Kiran dying would leave us with the same silly situation as when he got kidnapped, who's leading the units and doing all the summoning if he's incapacitated?

I'm not sure if Sharena would have been a good main character in this situation. I'm not sure she has what it takes to be a main character and would a sour or hardened Sharena still be Sharena? As for Alfonse recklessness, I think his sister dying would drive the point home to Alfonse himself far more than his own death ever would. 

 

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

 

In hindsight the trailer does seem to have been a big mistake. I recall there was  some real speculation going on about who would end up dying. The trailer quickly put an end to that which isn't to bad expect now that they try to put Alfonse in danger the trailer  makes it so painfully clear that Alfonse is going to be just fine. Unless the trailer turns out to have been a lie all along. ''The light'' dying could be a word play on Kiran but it could also just symbolize Sharena who's cheery personality and being everyone's friend makes her the ''light'' of the order. Kiran dying would leave us with the same silly situation as when he got kidnapped, who's leading the units and doing all the summoning if he's incapacitated?

 

     

Someone also pointed out that the trailer could mean everyone dying, and having to fight their way out of hell, meaning that Alfonse doesn't survive his encounter with his encounter with Hel, and is instead the first one to wake up after she forces the group to the afterlife… While it would definitely be a twist on the trailer, it still makes a lot of things awkward (such as the focus on light or one or two people dying, and the idea of what it means to be a ruler).

 

As for how someone can lead the army if Kiran does indeed die, it's possible the Summoner will be able to aid the army in spirit, because the series has done something like that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

28 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

Someone also pointed out that the trailer could mean everyone dying, and having to fight their way out of hell, meaning that Alfonse doesn't survive his encounter with his encounter with Hel, and is instead the first one to wake up after she forces the group to the afterlife… While it would definitely be a twist on the trailer, it still makes a lot of things awkward (such as the focus on light or one or two people dying, and the idea of what it means to be a ruler).

 

As for how someone can lead the army if Kiran does indeed die, it's possible the Summoner will be able to aid the army in spirit, because the series has done something like that before.

1 hour ago, Mercakete said:

If we take into account the symbolism in the trailer, Alfonse being drowned in the black goop could be a reference to this curse killing him, since this curse seems to affect his ability to breathe (just like drowning does.) Within the 9 days that Alfonse has, Hel manages to make it to the palace, and kills his family (and Kiran, and maybe Anna), leaving him to die from the curse. Fjorm dies from the affects of the Rite of Frost...and everyone meets up in the realm of the dead. I'm thinking a "fight our way out" situation is coming up, likely aided by Eir who feels bad about causing everyone to die. Being the daughter of death herself, she uses her power to enable these people to oppose her mother, which normally, being dead in the realm of the dead, they wouldn't be able to do. They're fighting to regain survival.

I agree with your "summoning in spirit" idea, by the way.

 

39 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think Hell's reception is going to suffer quite a bit thanks to Surtr. As pointed out she seems to be a force of nature villain like Surtr and she might be much more suited for that role. Death can be seen as the ultimate force of nature that eventually comes for everyone. Given how death is different from fire I'm sure Hell will differentiate herself from Surtr to some degree. Fire is often painted as aggressive and brutal which Surtr definitely was while death is cold and can afford to be patient which is likely what Hell ends up being. 

Thematically Hell works as a force of nature villain and there's enough there to assume she won't be a complete repeat of Surtr. Yet despite this making Hell a force of nature villain isn't a smart decision. I don't think its what the story of Heroes needs at the moment. Surtr was already a force of nature villain so replacing one of those villain with another one of the same brand is a bit weird. But more importantly is that Hell has to be this kind of villain after Surtr showed how being a force of nature villain can be very problematic. 

Surtr was not a popular villain. A lot of people thought he was generic and boring, and by the end of book II pretty much everyone seemed to be sick of the guy. Like Phoenix said he didn't have much to offer aside that particular brand of villainy, no other personality traits or real relations with other characters. You could say a force of nature villain doesn't need much more but given Surtr's unpopularity I'd say lots of people don't agree. Hell's problem is that people likely expected a villain that moves away from the flaws of Surtr rather than retaining the same flaws that bothered people so much about Surtr. 

In hindsight the trailer does seem to have been a big mistake. I recall there was  some real speculation going on about who would end up dying. The trailer quickly put an end to that which isn't to bad expect now that they try to put Alfonse in danger the trailer  makes it so painfully clear that Alfonse is going to be just fine. Unless the trailer turns out to have been a lie all along. ''The light'' dying could be a word play on Kiran but it could also just symbolize Sharena who's cheery personality and being everyone's friend makes her the ''light'' of the order. Kiran dying would leave us with the same silly situation as when he got kidnapped, who's leading the units and doing all the summoning if he's incapacitated?

I'm not sure if Sharena would have been a good main character in this situation. I'm not sure she has what it takes to be a main character and would a sour or hardened Sharena still be Sharena? As for Alfonse recklessness, I think his sister dying would drive the point home to Alfonse himself far more than his own death ever would. 

1 hour ago, Mercakete said:

Point 3: Is Hel poorly written? So, it's important to note that she's an actual goddess, unlike Surtr who was once human. Being the embodiment of death, things dying is perfectly normal and natural to her. She seems almost completely devoid of emotion, though seems to harbor a bit of bitterness towards Gustav, and may be trying to synthesize love for Eir. But, in actuality, she's empty. That doesn't mean she's bland or doesn't have motivations or personality, though. Rather, this is all a part of that. She's hollow, threatening, patient, and immortal. Her mentality is kind of like that of a psychopath (the personality disorder; criminal version): destructive behavior, a lack of empathy, a lack of moral inhibition, and a seeking of self-gratification. She probably not only doesn't see what she does as wrong, but may even see it as right. She also incites a creepy feeling, being so menacing and yet so devoid of emotion. So, poorly written? Not at all, imo.

And finally, Eir. I do believe that she's her daughter, and I hold to the hope that Eir's dad is Valhalla: Hel's complimentary opposite. As for Eir's struggles and choices, they do seem like they'll be a bit predictable, but I think they're fitting. She mentioned at the end of the tempest trial how sometimes she went an entire year without speaking. The one person in her life who she's ever tried to please (up until recently) was her psychopathic mother. Eir taking the step to get out of this unhealthy relationship is a hard thing to do, having been only close to her for so long and so desperately wanting to please her. Tossing aside something that deep would be very difficult, especially since Eir still has strong feelings (nonromantic, of course) for her mother. Likewise, Eir is a sort of moral anchor for Hel, and could be the one person Hel cares for on some level. Hel may even intellectually want to love someone, and is doing her best to achieve this with Eir, but may just be (sadly) incapable of it. So really, the personal story for these two is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

 

(Did anyone even read that big post I spent so much time putting together? :( )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mercakete said:

(Did anyone even read that big post I spent so much time putting together? :( )

I did. And WOW. I really do like that take on it. It's too bad you're not the one in IS connecting all their dangling plotthreads because that was a very well written speculation/analysis. (It also kind of made me realize the problems with having something so in depth for a mobile game. That would be one very, very, very long exposition. Unless it was broken up into several maps in a Xenalogue of some sort.)

Edited by Arcphoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mercakete said:

 

I agree with your "summoning in spirit" idea, by the way.

 

 

(Did anyone even read that big post I spent so much time putting together? :( )

I did. It was very interesting. I think the main problem with Hel right now is that even though her main traits symbolize death well, they could still very much be applied to someone else, even if they were still alive… So it's hard to look at her without seeing something generic or something that has been done before… And thus, a lot of the cool symbolism you talked about is lost… It will be interesting to see what the developers come up with for future chapters, though…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Arcphoenix said:

I did. And WOW. I really do like that take on it. It's too bad you're not the one in IS connecting all their dangling plotthreads because that was a very well written speculation/analysis. (It also kind of made me realize the problems with having something so in depth for a mobile game. That would be one very, very, very long exposition. Unless it was broken up into several maps in a Xenalogue of some sort.)

34 minutes ago, wheelsonfire said:

I did. It was very interesting. I think the main problem with Hel right now is that even though her main traits symbolize death well, they could still very much be applied to someone else, even if they were still alive… So it's hard to look at her without seeing something generic or something that has been done before… And thus, a lot of the cool symbolism you talked about is lost… It will be interesting to see what the developers come up with for future chapters, though…

Aw, thanks, guys! ^_^

I see what you're saying, too, wheelsonfire. It is too bad that most people have a hard time seeing what's implied in stories, as opposed to the more obvious, concrete stuff. I guess that's part of why I tend to enjoy them more than most people, based on what I see (all the complaining about virtually everything under the sun.) Some things, in order to be true to themselves, have to be subtle, and sometimes, things have to just be touched upon rather than fully explained for the sake of story flow or simply size or time. The result is that, it seems, most people don't get as much out of it as what's truly there. To me, it's kind of sad, especially since then the writing/characters get a bad rap (though, sometimes, the writing is really just bad.) This is also why I have a harder time figuring out when something is too subtle for most people. (Those of us who see the unseen easily have an especially hard time seeing what most people see as obvious. Leads to funny things like "where are the pickles? I've looked everywhere. *other person points to dead center in the middle row of the refrigerator* Oh.") So I appreciate the insights that you guys have too for things I can't see, like how something so in depth would be hard for most people to absorb on a mobile game. I never would've thought of that!

For Heroes, though, I seem to get more out of the bits they give us than most people do. The writing's (story/characters) solid. Maybe it's just that, for most people, there's too much that's implied instead of told, and that's why people think of the characters and such as two-dimensional and uninteresting. So, it's not the content, it's the presentation.

Edited by Mercakete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mercakete said:

For Heroes, though, I seem to get more out of the bits they give us than most people do. The writing's (story/characters) solid. Maybe it's just that, for most people, there's too much that's implied instead of told, and that's why people think of the characters and such as two-dimensional and uninteresting. So, it's not the content, it's the presentation.

Although to express caution and skepticism, there is subtlety, and then there is invention and interpretation. Which is say one invents things that are not truly there or intended to be there by the author. You see a face in a power outlet.

Not to delve too much more into hermeneutics, but I'm not wholly dismissing your arguments. For even if your interpretations do not align with what the authors intended, they are not necessarily worthless. Authors do not have exclusive rights allowing them to dictate meaning, and some intentionally choose to leave things open to reader interpretation.

I don't think Shakespeare's authorial intentions regarding Hamlet were to make a play about why one shouldn't procrastinate and just do it or give in right away. But that is my personal interpretation, and I like it; perhaps others will like it too.

I'm not going to weigh in and say whether you support your assertions about what the authors intended with sufficient evidence. For evidence is needed to back an argument of authorial intent. Again, I'm only issuing a word of caution.

Nature speaks not to us directly. The wind never told me to call it wind, nor that it is a movement of air, or presently that there is a strong gust about me in a south-southeast direction. Substitute Nature with IS, although it could speak to us directly with an interview, which I doubt we'd get.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mercakete Adding a bit to what @Interdimensional Observer said, or rather maybe a more concrete example, your interpretation falls into the same sort of interpretation that a lot of fan theories in generally do. Fan theories are popular because it can make stories a lot more interesting, but the reason they're fan theories is because there's no explicit link to the story. My two favorites are the James Bond codename one and the DK Joker military one. From what I gather the James Bond one was debunked in world, which sucks, but the Joker one is about the only one I personally hold to be true because the pieces are there, they make sense, there's nothing to contradict them, and it makes the story much more interesting IMO. That said, I still couldn't exactly tell someone they're wrong for not believing it since it's not actually stated.

One of the issues with fiction and interpretations is that nothing but what's stated by the author definitively exists. Due to that, there's two levels of interpretation (almost certainly more, but two I can think of now). First is what something means, and second is what happened. The thing about those is that what happened is a lot more concrete than what something means since meaning is a very relative thing. That's why things like morals, themes, or the significance of certain language are a lot more open to investigation than backstories or what characters were doing off-screen/page/stage. It's because it literally doesn't matter. As IO said, authors don't have a monopoly on interpretation, but they do have a monopoly on action. The point of the story is these are the parts that matter, so anything not specified isn't directly important to the narrative. As one of my teachers used to say, what's the "why now?" If the scene doesn't contribute, it shouldn't be there, and vice versa, if it's not there, it's not inarguably eligible for consideration. Then it just comes down to how supported is your argument.

Last part, and this does tie more directly into IO's points, is that there's a difference between ambiguity and lack of clarity on the authorial side. Ambiguity defines and controls reader interpretation in such a way that it suggests certain possibilities to a reader without stating them. Lack of clarity has no real direction and leaves itself open to wild goose chases that result in millions of theories. And trust me, in those situations where there are tons and tons of interpretations and shit, unless you're like James Joyce, it's probably the latter. As an example, here's two quick "stories":

Jeremy slumped in through the front door.

For sale: baby's shoes. Never worn.

The first is one I just made up. The second is one that's attributed to Hemmingway, though it might be apocryphal. In mine, it's clear Jeremy isn't in a good mood, but what that mood is (tired, sad, something else) and why (depression, dead dog, long day at work, bad day at work, got fired, etc.) aren't really all that apparent.

The second, like I said, no one really knows the source of, but I think the reason it's popular is because it works, regardless of the original author. It's not explicitly stated, but it's pretty clear what happened. Some details about the exact specifics aren't clear, but those aren't really all that relevant to the "story" since they don't change the overall tone or sequence of suggested events.

The thing is, at the moment, IS is leaning a lot more toward the first example. All your points are really interesting and make sense, but so would the lazy writing route and probably some other interpretations. For the record, I really like your idea. I'm just a little skeptical that it'll come to fruition.

I feel like I took a lot longer to say basically the same thing.

@Interdimensional Observer Your thing about Shakespeare made me think of this video, specifically the part at 2:21. Also, I like that last part a lot. Is it from something or did you come up with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

Also, I like that last part a lot. Is it from something or did you come up with it?

The "Nature speaks not to us directly" part? That was derived from a little reading of Absurdism and Albert Camus, I believe he used something to the effect of that phrase. We wish to impose order on the universe and explain it, but we do so on our own, without the consent of anything we examine.

I do believe that science can discover Truths of the world and is essential to the betterment of human civilization, despite the fact everything we know comes in through our senses and is processed by our minds. But it is always worth keeping in the back of your mind it is all human constructs of what humans perceive the world to be.

New Year's celebrations are in a sense very strange. It does take the Earth 365.25 days to complete one cycle around the Sun, and it does affect conditions on Earth, but years are not in any way meaningful to non-humans. Plants bloom and wilt according to climatic conditions and the increase and decrease of sunlight, not according to a calendar. Otherwise this star magnolia outside my window wouldn't have tried to bloom in December, only to be paused midway when the cold showed itself at last.

Years, when they begin, end, and how they are subdivided, are human constructs, though solar years and lunar months alike are based on natural phenomenon. All this said, I do celebrate New Year's, out of the value humans assign it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bottlegnomes @Interdimensional Observer

I think I agree with most of your respective points (the one difference being that, because of my faith, I do believe in absolute truth from a source outside of human perception if we're talking universe and significance and all that, but I won't delve into that here since I think it goes against the SF code of conduct) and I realize I fell into a pitfall that I seem to stumble into with some regularity: I don't think I was clear enough in my wording to express my actual intent. Specifically, I didn't indicate enough distinction between my theories about what may be coming (what may happen in book 3), and my observation of what was already told (events in book 2.) This is an area I have been actively trying to refine in myself for quite some time, but I seem to come short of truly expressing myself with accuracy all too often even so. I apologize for the confusion. Even when I was writing it, I wasn't satisfied with the wording, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it. Likewise, this current wording (what I'm typing up right this moment) is frustrating me, but it's the best I can do with the extent to which I have honed this particular ability at this time.

Really, the intent of most of my writing in my last post was to make 2 main points: first, to express the epiphany I had as to why so many people complain about the writing of book 2 while I found the characters and overall story to have much more depth, enjoyment factor, and overall quality than many others seem to see in them. (This stems from my study in personality types and how most people think more often in concrete terms (seeing the seen) rather than in subtextual terms (seeing (clearly as opposed to falsely or with major incompletion) the unseen.) The second was to affirm that whether one is a more concrete thinker or an abstract thinker, both are valid and bring important views to the table; one is not better in any way than the other. They're just different, and, quite frankly, hold the capability of enriching the world and helping one another out equally.

Sadly, I wasn't clear enough in my transition to these points from my previous observations and guesswork. Again, I deeply apologize for the confusion. I hate being the cause of misunderstandings...and, in fact, recognize that I may be misunderstanding things right now, myself, which I also apologize for if that's the case. (I hate being the source of any kind of frustration, whether by having confusion or misunderstanding myself, or being misunderstood. Unfortunately, as I said, this happens much more often than I'd like it to, and I only have myself to blame. If I was better at expressing myself, this wouldn't be an issue. So, I work on improving this area. I know I'm repeating myself at this point, too. Sorry again; I know it can be annoying.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Interdimensional Observer Yeah, that part. I like how it starts out very eloquent and philosophical and progressively gets more concrete culminating in a rather tongue-in-cheek final bit of griping. It transitions very smoothly and humorously between two rather different ends of the spectrum. At least that's how I took it. From what little I've read of him, it sounds a bit like something Oscar Wilde would say. Also a bit Douglas Adams, but something about the phrasing of the first part just didn't seem to fit him. The sentiment itself, though, seems like something he would've expressed. Camus and Absurdism definitely make sense as inspirations. Speaking of Camus, and rather off-topic, I've been feeling the urge to give him another chance recently and this is kind of spurring that on.

@Mercakete I can't speak for IO obviously, but my sentiment was more just to hedge your bets and not get your hopes too high. Even if they do touch on some of the points you brought up, IS's execution, at least to me, of the story so far has been mediocre. Not the complete shit that some people have said—except the last chapter of Book 2, fuck that—but decidedly unimpressive. I think it'd be super cool if they incorporate the elements of your theory, but I'm not as optimistic that they will, and I'm less likely to give them the credit of having been subtle about it given experience that probably about 80% of things attributed to artists were never intended. Again, not saying that those aren't valid interpretations, though some like the Star Wars prequel fan theories are rather far fetched, just that people have this tendency to view artists as these geniuses that layer millions of different levels of narrative detail when they probably intended one or two of those. It's more impressive that someone created a piece that so many could connect to and see a bit of themselves in.

TL;DR version is it's more likely that IS's writers are just crapping something out than this nuanced and detailed world you've seen (again I think it's really cool), but that doesn't make your view on it any less meaningful so long as you accept others and don't act as if yours is cannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...