sara remembers me of that evangelion woman that drinks a lot, they are quite similar
Misato?
Other than the alcohol, I don't remember many similarities.
sara remembers me of that evangelion woman that drinks a lot, they are quite similar
Misato?
At the moment, in the middle of chapter 1, the feud between Machias and Jusis is the most interesting character thing going on. It gets to the heart of one of the biggest things I expected to be covered in a game about Erebonia.
I felt that way later on.
In the initial introductions Machias just comes off as an asshole though lol
Yeah, her, Misato, and probably couple dozen anime teacher heroines. She is tropey as it gets. Misato at least was created in the 90s when this shit was a lot less common. Also Evangelion is on whole other level of being a weird weird thing.Yes, this one
edit: they are quite funny, she is the responsible/superior to you, and boss you around, have a dark/sad past and drinks a lot
I spent over 30 hours on the game (probably closer to 40). You don't see an issue that characters are atrocious this far in? I did not have the issue in FC and SC.You're confused why we like the characters when you haven't even made it past chapter 4?
This could be a discussion worth having if you beat it but until that happens...well you're free to like/dislike whatever you want.
I spent over 30 hours on the game (probably closer to 40). You don't see an issue that characters are atrocious this far in? I did not have the issue in FC and SC.
There a trick tocombat? I can't seem to get full advantage.Horse
I could care less how long you've spent on it or what comparisons you make to FC/SC. Doesn't change that you only made it to chapter 4 and are questioning everyone's opinions about why they like the chatacters/game.
Finish it and maybe you'll see. Or maybe you won't, i dont really care either way tbh.
Edit: the whole "i spent this many hours" with a game is a dumb justification for anything. It shouldn't matter how long you spent with the game. Someone who spent 0 hours playing a game can make a very well thought out piece about it and someone who's spent 100+ can make a shitty piece about it.
I think it's particularly egregious though, when you're discussing a narrative-focused game that takes 80 hours to get through, on average.
It's one thing if you're not impressed by anything you saw in your 40 hours with the game, but when you're like "I don't get why everyone likes these people" that's silly because you're not accounting for the fact both the characters and the story can change - be it for better or for worse - drastically in the second half of the game that you missed when you put it down.
You don't get it because you're missing half the context.
Whew
Ok Page 95 is when things get serious
If you really want to know how i feel about Rean.....
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=196370291&postcount=4709
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=196210460&postcount=4668
You're totally right that context matters and i probably should've said that.
No, what you are describing is horrible game design. So what you are saying is that first half of the game is filled with terrible dialogue and bad characterization and the it all gets redeemed by the latter half?I think it's particularly egregious though, when you're discussing a narrative-focused game that takes 80 hours to get through, on average.
It's one thing if you're not impressed by anything you saw in your 40 hours with the game, but when you're like "I don't get why everyone likes these people" that's silly because you're not accounting for the fact both the characters and the story can change - be it for better or for worse - drastically in the second half of the game that you missed when you put it down.
You don't get it because you're missing half the context.
No, what you are describing is horrible game design. So what you are saying is that first half of the game is filled with terrible dialogue and bad characterization and the it all gets redeemed by the latter half?
FC had a slow start and yet characters and even dialogue was fine for the most part. I have gone through half of SC1 and it's still terrible. You two think that's a good decision by the developer to leave dialogue and characters in a state which will disincentize players to finish the game and pick up the sequel (well, two sequels)? That's insane and defending this speaks of fanboism (is that a word?) and ignoring pretty bad mistakes on the developer's part.
People bitch all the time about P4 spending a few hours setting things up or DQVII. Shit, this is half the game right here.
Eh, I made 0 mention about the story. I am not talking about narrative, you are. What I am saying is that dialogue and characterization is terrible. I find the actual story decent to potentially good.I'm not talking about game design and neither are you. We're talking about how narrative functions on the most basic level.
I'm not making excuses for the game and have no interest in doing so. I'm saying that, perhaps, you don't understand what it is others find so great about this story because you have only seen half of it.
"It gets better" is always a weak justification for sitting through something that's bad, especially if you have you spend many hours on a story before it "gets good". Sometimes, for whatever reason, that is actually how a story plays out, and you have to decide whether it's worth the investment to sit through the weak parts to get to the stronger ones. I don't think Cold Steel is bad so far, but if someone does hearing "you just need to put in 10 more hours" or something along those lines is probably not going to change their views on it.
One thing this game embodies with its characters is to not read a book by its cover. The whole cast embodies this phrase to varying degrees. I personally enjoyed everyone's growth, from the main cast to the side cast, and to the townspeople and school NPCS.I don't hate Rean, at least at this early stage. It feels kind of like playing as Joshua instead of Estelle. Personality-wise he's fine - unlike Alisa, whose commitment to playing the "angry at accidental pervert" trope in one of the most implausible situations is irksome. I hope she gets a lot better if, as seems the case, she's going to be Rean's primary love interest.
I'm not talking about game design and neither are you. We're talking about how narrative functions on the most basic level.
I'm not making excuses for the game and have no interest in doing so. I'm saying that, perhaps, you don't understand what it is others find so great about this story because you have only seen half of it.
Yeah, going to have to work through it at some point before CS2 start. I do like the setting, world, most of the story so far, combat, the music and don't mind the visuals and a bit of lag on the Vita.To be fair the second half gets fucking bonkers and some is great and some parts arent so great so yeah
If you have any interest in the series you should at least finish it
I will say that you wont like most of the characters much if you already dont like them now. Some get better moment and scenes... Some dont... Its worth finishing regardless
Its earn its accolades and criticisms though. I consider it the game with the weakest plot and characters but redeemed by its excellent combat, music and world building.
It certainly did justice to bringing the series into 3D and expanding Erebonia. The world itself might be the best "character" honestly though i also have my faves in that department
"It gets better" is always a weak justification for sitting through something that's bad, especially if you have you spend many hours on a story before it "gets good". Sometimes, for whatever reason, that is actually how a story plays out, and you have to decide whether it's worth the investment to sit through the weak parts to get to the stronger ones. I don't think Cold Steel is bad so far, but if someone does hearing "you just need to put in 10 more hours" or something along those lines is probably not going to change their views on it.
Nah, it's more like you are halfway through the steak and its medium well instead of medium rare. Then when you want to send it back to the kitchen the waiter tells you that the other half is actually cooked correctly and desert is amazing.It's not about justifying the game or wanting to change views, I don't think.
Say that everybody is thinking that a certain full course meal is great, with the main dish being a stand out that makes everything worth it. Then somebody went in and say "I've eaten the appetizer and don't understand why people think this full course meal is great."
We're not saying that they need to eat the main dish and then they'd definitely like it. We're not saying that the appetizer is good the way it is and doesn't need to be improved. We're just saying "well, duh."
Nah, it's more like you are halfway through the steak and its medium well instead of medium rare. Then when you want to send it back to the kitchen the waiter tells you that the other half is actually cooked correctly and desert is amazing.
XSeed. Guys. Come on. Opening video. Add. Song lyric. Translation. Subtitles. It ain't that hard.
I understand coming from SC('s finale) has you adjust to this game's slow pacing. I do think, however, that you're judging the characters a bit too early and/or retroactively changed your opinion of FC characters (Agate was a bad character in FC, period). With 2,5 game of story ahead of you, don't you think you're jumping the gun - especially after having seen how far SC took FC's cast?I guess my greater disappointment was how hyped up I was after FC/SC, and issues with weak MC, and some of the surrounding chars hit even harder. It feels like Falcom decided to throw some Persona in but forgot that characters had to be great as well.
Yeah, we're diametrically opposed on Rean, but fair enough. Here's my last post on the subject:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=212221287
I find Rean to be a great subversion of the usual JRPG MC.
Well, Rean certainly is an excellent character in comparison to Shittiest Characters of All Time Top 5 candidate Angelica.Excellent? Ho boy couldnt disagree more but i respect the opinion of those who actually like him
Well, Rean certainly is an excellent character in comparison to Shittiest Characters of All Time Top 5 candidate Angelica.
Pedophile perv, not funny at all, no subtlety, some of the worst dialogue in the game. She has a couple of good moments but all in all she makes almost all scenes worse by just doing her annoying shtick. What makes her even worse is that her story actually isn't all that bad or at least it has some potentialWhat is it that makes Angelica so bad?
I repeat myself so often, I'm just going to meme it instead.Pedophile perv, not funny at all, no subtlety, some of the worst dialogue in the game. She has a couple of good moments but all in all she makes almost all scenes worse by just doing her annoying shtick. What makes her even worse is that her story actually isn't all that bad or at least it has some potential, but it's all spoiled by her personality & behaviour.she's in direct opposition to her family's opinion & position in the growing unrest between the two factions, being forced to quit school and all that
I'm not sure I agree on Rean being a subversion just because other characters comment on his dense anime MC tendencies and the game recognizes him for what he is. He never subverted my expectations, pretty much everything I expected to happen, happened.
I repeat myself so often, I'm just going to meme it instead.
Pedophile perv, not funny at all, no subtlety, some of the worst dialogue in the game. She has a couple of good moments but all in all she makes almost all scenes worse by just doing her annoying shtick. What makes her even worse is that her story actually isn't all that bad or at least it has some potential, but it's all spoiled by her personality & behaviour.she's in direct opposition to her family's opinion & position in the growing unrest between the two factions, being forced to quit school and all that
Rean isn't a subversion of JRPG characters, he's just more of an anime main character than JRPG one. There's dozens of main characters just like him.
He's a bit easier to like than some, at least, though I think that's largely because the game treats the characters he interacts with as people rather than just the various parts of an MC's harem (eventually at least).
The Trails series doesn't tend to subvert the tropes and cliches it traffics in, but it does tend to do them well and often better than most. It usually manages to humanize them simply because the games are so long and you'll spend so long with them. Except Millium, she sucks. Hopefully she gets better in II.
Millium is weird. I expected to hate her much more than I actually did. Now I didn't like her, mind, I just didn't hate her that much either.
No, what you are describing is horrible game design. So what you are saying is that first half of the game is filled with terrible dialogue and bad characterization and the it all gets redeemed by the latter half?
FC had a slow start and yet characters and even dialogue was fine for the most part. I have gone through half of SC1 and it's still terrible. You two think that's a good decision by the developer to leave dialogue and characters in a state which will disincentize players to finish the game and pick up the sequel (well, two sequels)? That's insane and defending this speaks of fanboism (is that a word?) and ignoring pretty bad mistakes on the developer's part.
People bitch all the time about P4 spending a few hours setting things up or DQVII. Shit, this is half the game right here.
"It gets better" is always a weak justification for sitting through something that's bad, especially if you have you spend many hours on a story before it "gets good". Sometimes, for whatever reason, that is actually how a story plays out, and you have to decide whether it's worth the investment to sit through the weak parts to get to the stronger ones. I don't think Cold Steel is bad so far, but if someone does hearing "you just need to put in 10 more hours" or something along those lines is probably not going to change their views on it.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but you're mistakenly confusing your own personal perception and experience for developer intent in design.
I think both this post and the quoted post have a lot of merit when seen together.
The point is, developer intent isn't necessarily correct, and it's moreso more difficult to gauge the players' experiences with a ~150 hour trilogy than it is, say, watching players' faces while they try out an instantaneous experience like Super Mario 64.
The question is how much should a player tolerate to enjoy something that's a product of developer intent.
In RPG speak, a trilogy that consists of three, 60 hour games over 180 hours, is a much bigger ask than, say, something like the two connected Golden Sun games, which the player could experience to their fullest after 50 hours.
I wouldn't dismiss someone's thoughts just because they haven't invested over 100 hours experiencing an entire narrative, because developer intent in a genre such as this is going to be largely theoretical. Especially when you consider the large percentage of players - the audience - that don't actually complete games. And the fact that a trilogy as long as this one isn't exactly representative of the norm as far as completion goes.