fantasyinvader - Tumblr blog

fantasyinvader · 11 hours

Text

I'm doing The Middle Ages chapter of Live A Live. I can actually blame the King's death on Oersted. I mean, sure, he sees the Lord of Dark in the Throne room. But if you move around a bit, the "Lord of Dark" doesn't attack. He just keeps moving around, showing his back to the player. Oersted didn't find anything wrong with this, and refuses to retreat as unlike Sundown's fight with Mad Dog the Flee option is unavailable. It's one of those moments where he, the character, should have questioned what was going on but didn't. Instead he acted.

It's just like how Streibough's first lines should set off red flags. "Know this, my friend. I will hold nothing back. I've yielded much to you, but not this day. Gods grant me strength- grant me glory deserved!" He has long been second to Oersted, that he's given up so much to his friend and because of that he believes that he deserves to win. That he deserves the hand of the Princess, and be king on top of that, after all he's done for Oersted, but instead he loses one more time. There relationship has been one of Oersted continuously taking with no give.

I mean, the player can lose that fight, but that would also mean that none of the game's stories would have happened. There would be no Live A Live if Streibough had won aside from him and Oested going to save the Princess but there would be less of a chance either of them would be possessed. But that's the thing with this chapter, if Oersted had just stopped for a moment it could have been avoided. Like escaping the Lord of Dark's base, the statue by where Streibough was standing begins to glow and they have to leave before there's a cave in. But there's no timer or enemy encounters as that happens, and Oersted leaves his room just after seeing Streibough in it.

He had full agency in his fall, it wasn't just him doing what others told him to. He chose to do so, just like the King said he would save his fiancee after Oersted stood up. Not to mention his history with Streibough. And for this reason I don't feel that the point of Akira being a foil to him is that "Akira wouldn't allow himself to be controlled by others and said screw Destiny, whereas Oersted had no will of his own." It's more like in Akira's story, it's people admitting they screwed up and either being punished (like Akira being hit for trying to steal Takeo's panties/money, or the bad guys karma catching up to them) or realizing that they screwed up and trying to make things better (see Lawless). Oersted instead blames everyone else for his own fall, with the Remake giving him lines where after everything he's done he asks where his reward is.

I think I'm falling in love with Live A Live. It feels that with Oersted's story, the game is making a statement: Power fantasies where the end goal is some sort of reward are not heroic, and how dangerous games that act in that manner are in terms of messages they send to the players. People are always going to point out that Oersted is meant to be a foil to the seven heroes who stop him, but I feel he's also meant to act as a reflection of players as well. Players who play these games in order to pretend at being the hero, a lot of times treating a silent protagonist as an extension of themselves.

This selfish nature is reflected in the game's boss theme, Megalomania. Cambridge defines Megalomania as “an unnaturally strong wish for power and control, or the belief that you are very much more important and powerful than you really are.” This theme is used when Odio's various incarnations try to stop the heroes at the end of their stories, Oersted lashing out after his own story did not give him a happy ending with the intent to prove that he wasn't the problem. He becomes the villain because he needs validation, and it's usage during the false Lord of Dark fight shows how he fell to the level of a demon.

Which, going back to Akira again, fits. Akira starts by making homage to the central theme of Mazinger Z, that if you were given power how would you use it. Would you use your power to protect others and become a god, or would you use it to destroy and become a demon.

And at the beginning of the Chapter, the game just heaps on this false validation. Everyone's praising you, saying you will be the next king simply because you won a tournament. You don't know the princess, and she only knows of Oersted's deeds. Then the princess gets kidnapped and everyone is cheering for you to go rescue her, one guy even giving you the shirt off his back, and the game just throws armor and healing items at you before you start losing everything with Hasshe's death. Your comrades disappear until you're alone and left to mount a second rescue attempt, only then for Streibough to reveal that he engineered your downfall. You kill your fomer friend, but then the princess you didn't even know kills herself because you just killed the man she had fallen in love with. And then Oersted becomes blames everyone else and tries to validate himself by defeating the heroes.

The end shows, despite being a heroic mime the player can name whatever they please, like the Heroes he isn't just some blank avatar to link the player to the world. He's his own character, and as his own character he chooses to become the next Lord of Dark. And if the player still supports him, they do so rejecting the themes and morals of the other chapters.

The remake gives him a chance at redemption, while the Octopath crossover points to him being possessed. I feel like, in some ways, that lessens his story. Though I do also understand that the English version is largely where his vanity comes from, whereas in the Japanese he was more a traditional hero who broke due to a bad end. But even then, we hear Megalomania while fighting the false Lord of Dark, and we see the various incarnations of Odio. So possession has always been on the table with him. It's always been that he gave in to his hatred and became Odio or not, possession or no possession. And if hatred is the root cause of the game, why there will always be a danger of another Lord of Dark rather than a single individual, it shows how we can all let our hatred make us hurt others.

Like Hopes!Claude or Edelgard do.

This also cemented me using Akira as my main hero for the final chapter. I was going to use Masaru because he has the lowest level, but Akira fits the best I believe.

0 notes

fantasyinvader · 13 hours

Text

I've been thinking about Edelgard's vulnerability is depicted.

The game initially depicts her as a cute girl who reveals vulnerabilities to the player. However, she is also a manipulative character and those vulnerabilities are supposed to make her moe. It's supposed to make the player want to protect her when she's revealed to be the villain, and if the player does so they end up leading Fodlan to tyranny while the ensuing route spells out how she's playing everyone. And, on top of that, the more players get to know her the more they see this hidden nature to her.

But by the same token, when the game wants the player to sympathize with her it makes her vulnerable. Said vulnerability is also, in part, because Rhea has been treated badly for the last five years due to protecting Byleth. At the same time, when she opens up while vulnerable what she reveals is supposed to be the truth according to the devs. Meanwhile, there's a lot of scenes that poke holes in the narrative gives: she knows it's the Agarthans who killed her siblings with Thales himself telling her what their goal was, she also supposedly knows her father was their puppet but will continue to spread the version of history he gave her even after the game revealed that fact, we also have Aegir being a scapegoat for Thales with there being no evidence he was involved with the experiments, she's ignoring how much influence the Agarthans had on the Imperial nobility while at the same time also ignoring how little the Church had.

There seems to be a difference here. That when Rhea opens up to Byleth, she's being truthful whereas when Edelgard does it, she's doing it with the ulterior motive of swaying Byleth to her side. It's that difference that makes what Edelgard does different from the rest of the cast, what makes it unacceptable.

And this makes my mind go to the idol industry, and how they sell people on the illusion of the girls. Japanese idols aren't at the same level of performance as Korean idols, and they use that unrefined image as part of the appeal. That they are just like your typical, normal girl and sell people on the dream of interacting with them through stuff like hand-holding events. But it's not a real relationship, as the girls are adopting a more cutesy persona and at the end of the day it's all about making money off their fans. And this is just an accepted part of living in Japan.

It feels like there's something there to me. That this game tells us in VW to get to know others by spending time with them (and clearing up misconceptions and assumptions by doing so), to form relationships in this manner. But at the same time, it also wants us to see people for who they really are and, owing to the Buddhist symbolism, not letting our attachment to them cloud our judgement when they do bad things. And at the same time, the game is also saying that this trust you put into other people can be abused and exploited by them for their own gain. And Houses is full of parasocial relationships for the player to form, but at times we need to know that sometimes, no matter how painful it may be, we need to put aside relationships in order to do the right thing otherwise you end up promoting a moral that negatively impacts society.

I guess you can say the ultimate moral with Edelgard is that you shouldn't take people solely at face value because the image they put out might not match who they really are inside. It's just the persona they project to the world, but by getting to know people you make them open up. They reveal their vulnerabilities, and at the same time it's good to help people with their problems. We all have to support each other. But at the same time, people may reveal themselves to be toxic individuals who use their personas to assert dominance over others and when that happens it's better to distance yourself from them. Not hate them, but to just take a step back and see them for who they really are.

Treat people like people, not cardboard cut-outs. Sometimes they need your support, other times they need a hard lesson and for you to call them out on their bullshit.

But this kinda message is always going to be undermined by the dating sim aspects of Houses, as well as IS milking the parasocial relationships people form with characters in this franchise. And these characters, themselves, aren't real people. They can only show us what the staff decides to show us.

4 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 14 hours

Text

Considering what has happened on the internet, I think we're close to renaming the Scrappy Trope the Velma.

1 note · View note

fantasyinvader · 2 days

Text

I think I can even defend Edelgard's Hopes design.

Like @randomnameless recently pointed out, Edelgard is a lot more concerned about PR in Hopes. That she wants to create this image of her being someone who will save those who side with her, and as such will turn around and save Lonato in order to maintain that image. She's not doing it because it's the right thing to do, but because it stands to benefit her. It's just another layer of manipulation she uses.

After all, the ideals she starts this war over are that people need to learn not to rely on others and instead on their own strength. That's what it means for her for people to become strong, and it's these ideals she reshapes Fodlan with in Safflower's ending. The whole "independent" line is read in Japanese as her making a world where people don't rely on others, not that she's making them free, which in turn means that her big speech against Rhea was just for show (much like offering Rhea a chance to surrender while privately saying she needs to be destroyed). According to Edelgard's ideals, if her vassals rely on her it's just showing her how weak they actually are. How they lack merit, which would in turn justify her removing them from power. This is despite how her reforms in Hopes seem to coddle the nobility according to Hubert's supports, with the promise that they'll be free to do whatever they want. But at the same time, Edelgard realizes in Hopes that without the Agarthans she needs the support of her vassals, so her reforms are at the same time anti-commoner despite her promises of equality. But then again, considering she consolidates power on herself post-Safflower everyone else might be equal after her victory if only because they possess no real power themselves as Edelgard being labelled a hegemon means her influence and authority is enough to dominate others.

Edelgard is still manipulating others in Hopes. She's still the same person she was in Houses, and even she knows well enough not to trust her according to the Shadow Realm chapter. So, the infamous sailor fuku plays a role in the manipulation of players.

We all know Japan has issues when it comes to women. It's a very patriarchal society, one where women being dominant is not seen in the best light. There's that infamous scene in Bakuman, where one of the leads explains that the cute girl who gets average grades is smarter than the girl who gets the best grades in the class and thinks highly of herself. Hell, women are expected to leave the workforce when they marry and have kids even if their pay and status within the company is higher than that of their husband. Women are expected to be cute, innocent and vulnerable, that they should inspire the feeling to protect them otherwise known as moe.

So, think about Edelgard according to the devs in Houses. She has two sides of her, emperor seeking conquest and cute girl. This duality is what they cite as giving her "depth," with the emperor seeking conquest (as well as villain role) being a twist to shock players. This would imply that the player is supposed to see Edelgard first and foremost as a "cute girl," explaining why the option to side with her is labelled as "protect Edelgard" as she's supposed to invoke moe. How harsh Rhea comes across in White Clouds also plays a part in this, Rhea is supposed to come across as the domineering woman in contrast to Edelgard's moe.

But, again, Edelgard being the villainous conqueror is the twist. When we rescue Rhea from her, Rhea looks a lot more vulnerable after being imprisioned for five years. Meanwhile, Edelgard dresses like she's the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland (which then gets cranked up when she becomes the Hegemon Husk in Moon). Edelgard looks a lot more dominant than she did as a student. Edelgard's post timeskip design is supposed to inform us that she is the villain.

In Hopes though, once again we get the game trying to call attention to Edelgard's manipulations. This time, her outfit looks more like Little Red Riding Hood, a far more innocent design. An innocent design to go with Edelgard's public image in Hopes, where she promises to save people while keeping her true intentions a secret from them. Or, in other words, the sailor fuku design is meant to accent this depiction of Edelgard who makes more of an attempt to look good for support. But, the Hegemon Husk form is still in the game, showing that Edelgard is still serving the same toxic ideals she fought for in Houses.

7 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 4 days

Text

That line was translated as "The people's future will be built on merit, not privilege - and I will wade through an ocean of blood to see it made so."

But, ultimately, I feel like Hopes was more of Edelgard with her mask off. In Houses, Safflower heavily leaned on how Edelgard was manipulating her allies through lies and withholding information. While the game did have her moments where she confided some of her true feelings to Byleth and the player, she was still manipulating them for her own ends. That's what the route all but says once you scratch under the surface, but people still took Edelgard at her word because she supposedly "trusted" them. Hopes, on the other hand, ultimately spelled out that she uses PR to make herself look good as you said but at the same time she doesn't open up to Shez. She can have an entire support with Shez about admitting she trusts them, only for the Shadow Realm to have her say she doesn't trust anyone and wouldn't even trust herself. It's the same thing as Houses, and once again people missed the point.

Something pretty interesting I missed in my earlier Supreme Bullshit reading.

When Supreme Leader is upset at Lonato, she wonders if going to help him would be feasible, which leads to this convo with Hubert :

You want to save the man, Your Majesty? If I may, we would march all that way for...what, exactly?

Hubert, imo, thinks Lonato as basically already done and dead, Supreme Leader earlier was pissed at Lonato not following their plans, he acted on personal enemity and will most likely have to fight both the KoS and the Kingdom so...

Imagine the consequences of leaving him to die.

Here we have an example of the Supreme Leader who made this route, so interesting : it's not Hubert who has all the dastardry in their duo, Supreme Leader too, participates.

When KT forgets that they gave her a sailor fuku to be "more free", they write her to be in a similar vein as the other red Emperors like Arvis, or, Gustadolph from TS.

It's not "we must save him" or "we can't let him die", but Supreme Leader directly evacuates all that pathos, and thinks, rationally, about the consequences of leaving Lonato reap what he sowed.

We need our vassals to believe the Empire will always come to their aid. Always.

It's PR!

Going to save Lonato is not about Lonato himself, she can't give a fig about the dude, but it's all about public relationships and keeping a façade for her war of conquest : her vassals need to believe the Empire will always come to their aid.

Whether they actually do, or not, is irrelevant - they need to believe Adrestia is "trustworthy enough" to come to their help when called.

And the sheer "we need them to believe" coming from Supreme Leader herself? It's really neat, she's lying/manipulating the events to build a perfect image for her vassals, or the ones who will become her vassals (by choice).

Compare this to the Kingdom/Church "we need to help the ones who need help!" and here, instead, we have "we need to make people believe we're going to help them".

Lonato doesn't act following the plan ? It doesn't matter, Supreme Leader will seize this new opportunity to advance her own goals : aka, making people believe the Empire is "trustworthy" and "reliable".

Good. Now make our plans known to the others. I'm counting on you, Hubert.

What plans? The "we must rescue Lonato because he is our ally" or the true "we must pretend to rescue Lonato to make other nobles join our cause and believe in us"?

And what is intereting is how this exchange, of course, only happens when she is alone with Hubert.

In the following event, where Barney is here and they talk about their powers :

Ah, you should see the look on your face! Did Hubert threaten you? Don't let it get to you. Yes, he's quite good at that kind of thing, but it comes from a place of caution.

Hm... Sure. It's Hubert's way of caring I guess.

But then comes the manifesto :

I want to transform the world into a place where no one has to feel trapped by where they came from.

What's that about the place they come from? Aren't we later in this route trashtalking Annette and the Kingdom peeps because they believe in outdated values like chivalry and sacrifices to protect their loved ones?

When I am done, it won't matter where you are born, whose blood you have, or what powers course through you—everyone will be treated as equals.

When she means equals, she means people will "believe" everyone will be treated as equals, just like Lonato was supposed to "believe" Adrestia was coming to back him up and not just, play minimal part to guarantee their PR but not much more?

That's what we're fighting for, and that is what this war is going to achieve.

But Hubert said this war is a war of conquest ?

So believe me when I say this—I don't care who you are.

And yet Barney is still a nobody commoner, even if pal with the Emperor, when Linhardt is a general?

I only care about what you have done and what you have yet to do.

And what Barney can do with that power you said you don't give a crap about right? But what if Barney's abilities are basically the result of their weird powers, can we still say their power/abilities are irrelevant ?

And, hm, maybe someone can translate this for me ?

人の力に拠る未来を創るため、すべての犠牲を私は負って立つ！

She says this when she defeats 1k peons, and Googl'd it gives... "To create a future based on the power of people, I will bear all the sacrifices!" - so what this line about not giving figs about "what powers course through you everyone will be treated as an equal"? Could Amelie the lady from Mittelfrank who couldn't end up as a diva be treated like Leopold, or what?

Supreme Leader's words being treated as gospel is always imo hilarious, because Supreme Leader has some instances where, when KT's not busy dressing her up with some "Scarlet Blaze Power! Make Up!", she plays the role Arvis already played before her, the dastardly red emperor who manipulates and seizes every opportunity to reach her goals.

In Tru Piss we got the Javelins - but in Nopes? We get those "heart to heart" moments with Hubert that lampshade even more how much of an unreliable narrator Supreme Leader is - she still maintains care to have a level of PR and only confides to trusted people (yay Hubert!) or, in FE16, when, curiously, she has her mask on (Flamey doesn't need PR).

That's why we still have so many pretzels over Rhea's fate in Tru Piss, yes, Supreme Leader claims she wants to spare her when she adresses her in Firdhiad, in front of her allies and the people she has to lie to about her War.

But when she was with Billy? Nah, she can safely tell them that path lead to the death of Rhea and her people, something she rejoices about in their S support.

Too bad Nopes doubled down on "Sailor Adrestia" instead of giving us more of that "Arvis with a skirt" they teased us with (seriously that power move of betraying Rhea in the third chapter was just, that awesome from her part).

21 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 5 days

Text

Some more stuff clicked.

We all know about Houses' attempt at “morally grey” crossing the line into victim blaming at times. But victim blaming is something that's more accepted in Japan. It's can be summed up with the mindset of “if you hadn't have done X, then Y wouldn't have happened so this is your fault.” For instance, with bullying it's often that the victims are the ones held as being responsible rather than the group because they didn't fit in with the others. They stood out and because of that they were the problem, they're the ones making the group look bad as they're the ones responsible for the group acting in a such a way. This also applies to the workforce, when people don't stand up to domineering bosses and let their actions slide rather than calling them out and making the company look bad. And, of course, women being responsible for being sexually assaulted and stuff for reasons I'm not going to dignify here. This can also be combined with how Japan focuses on appearances, that things look good on a surface level.

Then we have Edelgard's accusations about Rhea and the Church. As I've mentioned before, Japan tends to view people accused of something as guilty until proven innocent. If they didn't do anything wrong, they wouldn't have been accused in the first place and even the accusation can reflect negatively upon the individual. Again, look at Persona 5's Joker being falsely accused for a crime and everyone acting like he's a criminal because of it.

As myself and others have pointed out, Houses was created by Japanese people primarily for the Japanese domestic audience and from a Japanese POV. And from that POV, Edelgard's accusations make her opponents look bad. It makes them look like they're guilty, and therefore Edelgard is justified in her actions against them. From a surface level, the game can be seen as morally grey and Edelgard as a heroic figure.

But the game's developers have said that they built Fodlan in order to support Silver Snow's story, where the player fights against Edelgard, and this is supported by tons of optional dialogue that pokes holes in Edelgard's claims (not to mention, Claude's route talking about clearing up misconceptions by getting to know people). Her route is supposed to be representative of hadou, something she herself says in the Japanese version of her S support (aka the player has chosen to get to know Edelgard in the most intimate way possible in the game), meaning if she wins it's not justice. That despite all the accusations she can sling, for justice to happen the player needs to fight against her as, and this was supposed to be a twist, Edelgard was one of the game's villains.

Flower isn't full of holes like Swiss cheese. It's more like Aero chocolate bar, whose thin surface make it appear to be solid chocolate. However, break one open and take a look inside and you'll find it's full of air bubbles, bubbles that collapse in your mouth. It may even be a different flavor on the inside, like mint or orange with appropriate colors.

Edelgard uses the Japanese mindset to try and sway players into becoming villains. She'll make accusations, trying to turn people against her enemies even when the evidence doesn't back up her claims. She'll even ignore information she doesn't like, in addition to withholding it or spreading misinformation to make herself look better. She's the one lord who doesn't want to dig deeper into what is going on, she just expects Byleth to follow her lead as she's the Emperor and will be quick to remind others of this fact should they cross her. Those who stand out and try to resist her within the Empire, like the commoners opposing being conscripted according to Ferdie's paralogue, are executed by her government. It's not “the people are against the nobility” or an information campaign that is calming the unrest in her own country. She'll even blame her own victims if her reforms don't work for her, and her reforms amount to taking away social security nets aimed to help those in need while also consolidating her own power so that she may make those reforms she says will fix everything.

That's the radical nature of Safflower, and it's only by breaking away from traditional Japanese thinking in the routes that Fodlan gets a good ending. But that's the type of thing that gets lost in the translation, partially by cultural differences and partially because the translators tried to alter the story to suit their own preferences. It kinda reminds me of the translation notes from The Three Body Problem, how a translator does not only where the translator does not only translate the words but also the way of thinking behind the source material.

4 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 5 days

Text

...You're right.

I feel the issue is that we're supposed to look at this as not a matter of “which route leads to the best outcome for everyone,” but rather the routes having messages and themes. The heroic routes link together through these things, whereas Flower argues against them. The messages and themes are supposed to be what is important, but like you said some of these themes do screw over the Nabateans if you actually think about them.

Look at Flayn's solo ending where she disappears after the war only to one day return to a changed Fodlan. If Seteth lives, it's implied she asks him if she can call him father whereas their paired ending has him say it would be better to remain on the safe side. Flayn only stays in Fodlan if she has a strong connection to someone in a paired ending.

Compare this to Seteth's solo ending: “Seteth remained at the monastery and worked to restore the authority of the Church of Seiros. Doing away with his old strictness, he adopted a tolerant stance toward all. His encouragement of believers to respect those of other faiths helped the people of Fódlan to find common ground with others.” It sounds very much in line with VW, also the Japanese line is he takes a more lenient stance rather than being rigid, intolerant makes him sound like he had prejudices that were changed by the events.

Your talk about the past reminds me of a critique of Turn A Gundam. Director Tomino created Gundam based on his experiences as a child growing up in the aftermath of WWII, especially his disillusionment with the adults who were involved with the war but still expected everyone to follow their direction. Tomino saw this as a recipe for the past to repeat itself, hence why he pushed messages about how the youth need to be empowered so they won't make those same mistakes following the lead of the older generation (kinda like the Blue Lions).

In his follow-up, Ideon, it is revealed that the titular robot (or rather the force that powers it) has destroyed and reset civilizations multiple times, and does so again when it has enough shit during yet another bloody war between intergalactic civilizations. Mankind and the Buff Clan are both reincarnated on Earth, things reset once again with the prospect of maybe the next version of humanity will learn it's lesson. And that's how reincarnation is supposed to work, you inherit the karma debt from your last life and need to pay it off despite having no memories of said life.

In Turn A, it's a different robot that is resetting civilization (previous resets being the various Gundam timelines), and mankind does break free of the cycle at the end. But that involved learning about the past and what had happened before. It needed that knowledge, knowledge that would usually be wiped out through the reset turning all technology to sand using nanomachines. People have argued that the reason the reset has happened so many times is because there are no records to learn from, and going back to Japan and WWII for a second it's kinda hard to learn from Japan's mistakes when students are either not taught about the war or given a victim narrative that excuses their actions. I've even argued that Gundam Iron Blooded Orphans has undertones of this, people acting on false or romanticized versions of history as the real past has been suppressed with ties to how Japan romanticizes a lot of it's history.

We're talking about learning from the past after wiping the slate clean, the game is saying that the Church still exists post-VW and even can be used to bring the people of Fodlan and Almyra together. But as I mentioned before, Flayn's solo ending and the follow up in her Seteth ending do point to Fodlan maybe still not being safe for them.

It really does feel like the devs put more emphasis on the message of VW rather than actually making it work. Because it really doesn't feel like the Nabateans openly live with humans anymore. We get stuff like Seteth being married, or even Flayn's with Byleth children taking the throne, but then there's also stuff like her ending with Linhardt where it's implied that the children are theirs after they both disappeared following the war. The Nabateans only live alongside humanity in secret it appears, and part of that is that they still don't feel completely safe with them, and that ultimately undermines the message of the route alongside how the Agarthans are chaotic evil that must always be defeated.

I still like Claude, he's still my favorite lord, it's just his route worked against him here. The ideas are good, the implementation is suspect.

As for the issue of lies, there's the concept of the noble lie or the little white lie and how they can be acceptable. There can be good reasons for lying, and even Buddhism understands that. It's more that lying can also be used to justify you not liking someone.

With the last few points in mind, we can see how SS, AM and VW are may be somewhat radical from a Japanese POV.

In SS, Byleth's leadership goes against a very common mentality in Japan where it's viewed as wrong to give people money they did not earn, even when that person is in dire straights. In fact, begging for money is actually illegal over there. So with that in mind, Byleth focusing on reconstruction of Fodlan in addition to the Japanese text saying he supported “every soul” in a motherly-fashion, it does point to Byleth's rule being one that looked out for the people.

It also has elements associated with oudou, considering the Sword of the Creator's Japanese name the Sword of the Emperor of Heaven. Emperor of Heaven is term for the Jade Emperor, the deity that oversees Heaven's mandate (Mazu, the Emperess of Heaven, is commonly depicted in red robes... but she's associated with water as a sea goddess, not fire. She's also said to be an incarnation of the Jade Woman of Marvelous Deeds, and associated with a star in the big dipper, who is said to oversee all aspects of life and death and help those who call upon her. So, Edelgard's color scheme itself might be a red herring, as Sothis is the one associated with water). Byleth judged Edelgard as unworthy of following, rejecting her and in turn leading the Black Eagles to do the same. They no longer bend the knee to their emperor simply because she is their emperor, they take a stand against her actions and work to remove her from power. And this is consistent for them regardless of whether Byleth taught their House or recruited them to another House, not joining Edelgard is tied to their character development (see Ferdinand and Caspar's paralogues not being available in Flower).

Dimitri takes Byleth's supporting the poor a few steps further, believing change has to come from the people and giving them a voice in politics while at the same time supporting them. He empowers the masses, and on top of that even has focus on improving relations with foreign nations (whereas the Japanese text indicates Edelgard begins invading other countries). Dimitri is also meant to represent oudou himself, a benevolent ruler justly governing the people.

Claude also identifies Edelgard's rule as oudou, stops her, but then puts Byleth and his version of oudou in charge of Fodlan. I think the best way to put how Claude is radical is, to put it bluntly, fuck the past and fuck the traditions associated with it.

Claude's goal in coming to Fodlan was to learn from it in order to change Almyra, and he got that in Verdant Wind. He begins transforming his homeland into a trading powerhouse, works with the Church in order to bridge the two nations, and can even introduce magic to his country in one ending. On top of that, people have noted that he embodied a very negative stereotype of his people in Hopes, so his character growth proved beneficial. He's no longer the type who will flee to save his own life rather than protecting his people, he stops trying to manipulate everyone and instead work with them as well.

When applied to Fodlan, it's not saying that the Church is bad. It still continues to exist, but now the false history of Fodlan has been corrected. People now know what the past really was, not some glamorized image of it from the Agarthans nor the story told as part of a peace treaty. The Church is still going to be there, helping to rebuild Fodlan after the slate was wiped clean, free to spread it's messages without having to also recite falsehoods that can give people mixed messages. And on top of that, there's also support for other faiths and customs to be brought in, accepted and learned from. The game really drives home it's the dawn of a new era for a reason.

So, we have that. Meanwhile Edelgard trying to set the clock back on Fodlan, spouting ideals informed by Agarthan manipulations, and trying to conquer the world... this is all supposed to be tyranny according to the devs. SS, AM and VW all support some form of progress whereas Flower, once you see through the cracks and get to know Edelgard, is supposed to be regression. To return to old ways, old traditions, that the Church put a stop to for good reason.

21 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 5 days

Text

I guess we can ultimately chalk Houses up to a case of different cultures clashing irl. Much like Persona 5, people didn't understand how radical the game's good endings actually are and how they go against the mindset of the game's domestic market.

People take being charitable and helping those in need as a universal message, not understanding how giving people money when they aren't seen as having earned it is considered an act that encourages negative behaviour, and this mindset sees that the country is split on the idea of social safety nets. People take “guilty until proven innocent” as a given, unaware that the Japanese view even the act of being accused as a sign that the party is guilty that will haunt them even if they are innocent. So the game's blaming everything on Rhea at a surface level only for the later revelations that she's actually a good guy. Same with the people of Duscur being blamed for the tragedy. People in the west push for breaking of traditions, so Claude's ending feels like a “no duh” to them. Likewise, the Black Eagles bucking Edelgard's authority and not bending the knee to her like the Imperial nobility are, fighting back to remove her from power, seems pretty simple. Same thing with Dimitri believing change has to come from the people, not the leader, and seeks to empower them.

This, and more, come across as safe messages. Meanwhile Edelgard's actions and penchant for violence do come across as radical. That she's the one breaking tradition, especially within the greater context of the FE franchise. And because people didn't want to clear up their misconceptions after getting to know others as VW endorses, And with the altered text regarding her ending, it comes across as the game endorsing her methods rather than them leading to tyranny.

I think this is one of the issues with Fodlan. It's less about which route is the ideal outcome that fixes Fodlan's problems. Each route is more a lesson that the player is supposed to apply to real life. Helping others regardless of whether they have “earned it” or not, looking deeper into issues rather than surface level takes in part by getting to know others with ties to the idea of justice against those falsely accused, not following a leader out of tradition or social hierarchy and instead rising up... Or in Edelgard's case submitting to authority regardless of how moral or just they are, centralizing power on a leader at the expense of the people, how helping people out makes society weaker and how people should return to tradition. The fact the game demonizes Edelgard, her ideals and messages in the original text indicates the creators saw her mindset as toxic and damaging to Japan irl, but since people are looking at the game as which route is best for Fodlan (still not hers), it's easier to ignore this.

3 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 5 days

Text

With the last few points in mind, we can see how SS, AM and VW are may be somewhat radical from a Japanese POV.

21 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 6 days

Text

Akira: I'm a sucker for mecha anime, and this combination of Mazinger Z, Evangelion and cyberpunk OVAs was just *chef's kiss*

Sunset Kid: I really liked it, especially how it had elements derived from The Magnificent Seven. Also reminded me I still haven't watched Shane.

Cube: It was okay. 2001 A Space Odyssey is not a film I particularly care for, don't like it actually, but the elements from Alien made it worth it. Also beat Captain Square in front of Kirk.

So far my experience with Live A Live.

Pogo: Aww, rpg campaign with cavemen who can't even talk. Cute.

Masaru: Ohh, this is interesting… but I had to do it again since Masaru countered and I missed out on one technique.

Shifu: I really wish I could have saved all the disciples, but I poured everything into Yun because he has a grandma and really wanted me to teach him.

Oboromaru: This is cool, kinda MGS-like…why can't I recruit the puppet? Fuck, need to do it all over again to maintain my pacifist run.

I'm thinking Akira for my next chapter.

2 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 7 days

Text

Still thinking about that video and it's claim that the Japanese are really good at making things appear to be clean on a surface level. That they make it look like there isn't any issue, and you have to look deeper to see issues society is having. That, really, sums up Edelgard's regime. Rather than how horrible it is taking center stage, it's something the player needs to piece together from various sources as those source poke holes in her narrative. Even then, people just going along with her BS is also rooted in society and the idea that no one wants to stick out. The whole "why doesn't the Empire rise up against her," the Eagle students that do leave the Empire as a result of them deciding to oppose her. And when Edelgard is defeated in SS, the Empire route of the game, the Imperial nobles who didn't come crawling back to the Church their leader was trying to destroy in order to maintain their own status.

So we have three elements here associated with the Empire that could be seen as lessons towards improving Japanese society. 1) Helping out those in need, especially in supporting security nets to support those struggling, 2) just because something looks good on the surface doesn't mean that there isn't any problems. You need to look deeper to find the problems, and 3) rather than submitting to people in authority who go on to abuse their power (hadou), people need to stand up in opposition rather. Stick out rather than just go along with the others (especially when you consider what the Imperial nobility is actually like. Look at what age Dorothea started performing, then look at Yuri's age and think about his backstory with regards to her).

6 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 7 days

Text

youtube

I'm watching a video titled "How Japanese Society is Built upon the Sacrifices of the Weak" by Let's Ask Shogo. A statistic from 2018 is cited that says that only 59% of Japanese people believe that the government should take care of those in poverty, the lowest of the countries involved. They also ranked 107th out of 114 when it came to donating money to charity, and 91st when it came to volunteering time. This is because to the Japanese, these people are a nuisance to the group or causing trouble for society and therefore don't deserve to be helped. That those who live in poverty, or are homeless, or single mothers bring harm, it's their responsibility to look after themselves. It's not society's responsibility to look after them, or the governments to use tax dollars to provide some form of safety net for them. And, in turn, Japanese are taught from an early age to not seek help from others since it can be seen as troubling them. This is why there is such a stigma towards seeking psychiatric help in Japan, as their society has taught them that they need to shoulder their own difficulties. Yet there's also an element of shame when you aren't suffering with the rest of the group, like leaving work on time while others are still working.

"You deserve to suffer because I'm still suffering a lot." "Let's be unhappy together." Yet causing suffering is supposed to be a non-virtue in Buddhism.

I recall early on about how radical Dimitri's ending was in Japan, but this is pretty eye-opening especially considering how the Japanese are seen in a very positive light by foreigners. Dimitri's ending, where he uses his power as king to improve the living conditions for the commoners and gives them the ability to participate in politics. The fact that Dimitri was willing to go to bat in order to help the people of Duscur is also very unJapanese, as Japan has a habit of viewing those accused of crimes as guilty until proven innocent. And it's for these things that Dimitri ends up being given the title of Savior King. His style of rule is also supposed to be in opposition to Edelgard's, his having the positive connotations of oudou while she is linked to hadou and it's negative implications in some way by each route of the game in Japanese. His ideals make him a savior, Edelgard's ideals of taking away security nets and making the people rely on themselves turn her into a demon.

So in this light, Edelgard's ideals represent an issue within modern Japanese society whereas Dimitri's ideals reject that viewpoint and actually seek to address the issue.

#Youtube

12 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 8 days

Text

Since the Fallout series looks good, I decided to get a used copy of Fallout 4. I mean, I have 1 and 2 from GOG and 3 on PS3, but I never really got into the games. What really cemented it was one of the creators saying the male player character was one of the soldiers in the news report in Fallout 1, smiling for the camera while his buddy executed a Canadian resisting being annexed. I know they tried to walk this back, but this made me want to play as the female PC instead. Though that's trading out the “grizzled father who will do anything to save their kid” archetype like Joel or Nier for a mother doing the same thing like in movies I didn't watch when I was younger. So I played into that instead, making Nora a blond woman with her hair tied back into a stylish ponytail.

0 notes

fantasyinvader · 9 days

Text

#1 reason why Hilda deserves the BEST GIRL crown: In Houses, certain characters can't be recruited to Edelgard's side. Those characters are Seteth, Flayn, Catherine, Cyril, Dedue, Gilbert and Hilda. For most of these characters, there's an elemnent of loyalty. Seteth, Flayn, Catherine and Cyril are loyal to Rhea (plus, considering what happened in White Clouds the first two don't have much reason to support Edelgard and her Agarthan allies), while Gilbert and Dedue are loyal to Dimitri. Hilda is a different case. She's good at reading people, and she doesn't like Edelgard. She sees something under the surface that is off-putting so she refuses to bend the knee. Not out of loyalty, but because of Edelgard's own character.

9 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 9 days

Note

If I may, I believe a large part of the problem was how heavily Houses focuses on the Academy phase. They focus so heavily on it that they were shocked people wanted more focus on the War phase, something they admitted when it came to Hopes. I actually find this a little baffling, as the passage of time and need to move on can be said to be one of the game's many, many themes. White Clouds was basically all set-up for a war campaign that, no matter which way you cut it, ultimately feels rushed compared to those of other Fire Emblem games. On top of that, it also means that the game glosses over the effects of the war and what was done in it because that's not what the developers thought people would be focusing on.

They'd thought we'd be focusing on the school days... but fucking really? I mean, Part I keeps dropping mysteries upon the player that don't get resolved until the second half, horrific things happen in pursuit of the war such as human experiments, it establishes villains that the player should know enough need to be stopped, and the face of the game is attempting to play upon the player's/Byleth's ignorance and connection to her so that they may help her take over the world. White Clouds was a lot darker than they think it is, and let's face it the game pretty much rubs it in your face that you messed up if you joined Edelgard.

I'm just going to say this, at some point they should have thought about how normal people, not characters they can write which ever way they want, would react to these sorts of things. Because that lack of actual humanity is what holds Houses back. As cartoony as Engage is, at least it's able to connect to audiences in ways “don't you feel bad you have to fight Edelgard despite everything she's done and been a party to?” never can.

Maybe Three Houses would have had a better reception if it was scaled down. It seems like that game had a lot of ideas that were interesting on paper, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Along with the general discourse, but that has been already been discussed so many times.

Methinks you are very right.

If you ever have to go into Project Management (which is a challenge, trust me, it is painful)... Scope Creep is your #1 enemy.

Mind - as always, financially, I think IS / KT / Nintendo are happy enough with the results. But now that we're out of the honeymoon phase... the cracks of this game certainly show and then some.

17 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 10 days

Note

My feelings are the whole mess is the result of two things that should be contradictory, but instead they're fusing in a really worrying way.

The first is how people have turned away from traditional heroics. People have embraced the anti-hero because their methods are cooler and are often seen as necessary to get results. People are more apt to accept faults on the part of their protagonists, failings that are seen as a means to “humanize” them rather than the characters embodying some form of ideal. What's more, there's the latching onto supposed moral ambiguity, usually as a means to handwave the actions of the protagonist without actually thinking about what they are doing, like your urban vigilante who goes around unlawfully killing people they feel are the problem (usually emblematic of greater issues with society). People just seem to believe these elements automatically make things more mature and therefore a good thing.

I myself am a fan of a lot of this stuff when it's used well, but unfortunately a lot of it gets misused. The methods of the anti-hero get results, therefore the story may come across as endorsing them even when there's an element of examination going on. For instance in Bullitt, the original Cowboy Cop film with Steve McQueen. Bullitt is unable to protect the witness he was supposed to guard and his investigations into the killing result in the deaths of the people responsible, but at the same time because those guys are dead there is nothing left to get information on the mafia. Bullitt didn't play by the rules and because of that law enforcement have no means to go after the bigger fish. And this is kinda a thing when you look back on the films that built that genre. Dirty Harry, in the eyes of the original film's director, was only slightly better than the movie's villain, and him throwing away his badge at the end of the film was symbolic of him being disgusted by the law that protected the villain from Harry's methods. In Death Wish, it's shown that Paul Kersey's actions also inspire others to commit acts of violence while portraying violence as disturbing. Law enforcement and the politicians in the film don't want to glamorize him either because it could lead to people killing anyone they thought was a bad guy or cause criminals to escalate their crimes.

Of course, this was the late 60's through the seventies, come the Eighties these movies lost their edge. They became seen as tame resulting in cop films going further, like Tango & Cash or Cobra, and eventually we got Sledge Hammer, a TV series that parodied the genre by pointing out how deranged these sorts of protagonists had become. People missed the satire of Robocop and as a result he was marketed to children. Rather than being confronted with the issues that lead to the ills of society, people were just content to dehumanize people, ignoring their legal protections and cheering on their deaths. This is when the modern anti-hero really started imo, and while we nowadays are concerned about copaganda we do accept a lot harsher methods by our heroes than we used to.

Just look at Moviebob's infamous quote: There are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

The other issue is purity culture. That everything has to be squeaky clean and safe, and as a result people view liking something as a statement on one's own character. If you like a villain or content that could be seen as problematic, it would make you look bad. It lacks any sort of nuanced view or even understanding that you can't take things only on a surface level.

Combine them, we have people who are more willing to accept extreme methods in pursuit of what people see as good, but at the same time they don't want to actually think too deeply about those methods. They view grey morality as the great justifier when, really, it's supposed to make us question who is right and who is wrong. That if our “heroes” go to such lengths, are they really heroes? That sort of thing, and as a result people are willing to dehumanize those they feel as being in the wrong which in turn makes people feel they are morally superior to others.

But as I was writing this out, of course it makes sense that these two things go together. People want things to be simple, to be uncomplicated. They want things to be black and white, they want the purity culture. While the original Cowboy Cop movies had elements that would be seen in deconstructions later on, the genre got flanderized and those elements were lost. Dirty Harry and Paul Kersey were depicted as heroes in their sequels, and even tame compared to other examples at the time. They operated on black and white morality in order to justify their actions and at the same time entertain audiences.

People really aren't as mature as they think they are.

To continue the woobified view of the Elites and my comparison of them to the Black Eagles :

Same for me regarding the BE, especially because they also literally fought Edelgard's troops in WC when you choose their house, and even if you don't, they definitely still would know that Edelgard dus nasty shits in WC.

The idea that media literacy is dead is quite fitting, because the idea that even rotten persons have loved ones/that having loved ones doesn't mean you're not rotten is a known thing, yet the Eagles and elites get a pass solely because "they genuinely believe in the cause" and "they love and care for each other"

Probably Fraldarius was as devoted to Nemesis as Ingrid to Dimitri, Lamine very well may have been as sassy as Dorothea, perhaps Goneril was as brave and endearing as Caspar, or Maurice was as loyal to his clan's interests as Petra to Brigid's happiness (through a strong bond to the Empire) but like the BE, they are butchers, who relished in the destruction of everything those against them hold dear, lap dogs and rabid curs of someone they definitely know have crushed innocents and scorn the very idea of peace except under their domination.

The only meaningful difference between Edelgard-following BE and the elites is that we can know more about the BE and we are forced to dislike cutting them down even as they refuse to let northern Fódlan alone.

Honestly I need a fanfiction where the BE are called out for that bullshit.

Yep!

That's the tone deaf feeling I got from Nopes, the Deers are hunting someone bcs their leader wants her dead for no reason, but Raph only comments on how hungry he is.

Uh, sure Raph, you're not the most thoughtful character in there, but come on? Some commentary or exposition on what you're doing? Hello KT? Can we have characters be challenged or even react to the events of screen instead of wondering what's for dinner/teatime?

No??

I wouldn't say it's an issue of media litteracy being dead, but more something in the lines of people being more and more "all or nothing" nowadays, without any nuance and conflating liking a character with the idea/image that might project on you : if I like ASOIAF's Cersei, I don't think everything she does is "justified", but modern fandom, I feel like some people would categorize you as a "good" or "bad" person based on the characters you like, and it's just... not what fandom is or was supposed to be imo, I'm here to nerd and gush about favourite characters, not write litteral essays about the Geneva Convention.

Corollary is what, imo, made the Fodlan fandom hell : some people really take "criticism" against a character personally - sure the way FE16 was written invites projection, but at the end of the day, making a Berning Fire Joke is, just, making a joke about a bunch of pixels, nothing more.

Back to the BEs, they can have a sense of camaraderie and genuinely support each other... as they tear apart "people because Supreme Leader told me to" and fight side by side with Bob the Carpented who was turned into Waldi the demonic beast.

Ferdie can skewer Flayn on her father's lance because she is "a creature that has plagued humanity for ages" even if they reached a C support before shit hit the fan - and still protect Mercedes and Bernie from their abusing Fathers. Does that make him a great guy? A nuanced guy?

I think the trope is called "even evil people have loved ones" or something like that?

I don't think so, but he is no random one note villain sycophant either - now, what is the more annoying with the Fodlan games is how this dichotomy is never called upon : everything is just a giant blob or Hresvelg Grey ("morally grey" but only applied to Supreme Leader) where no one really is angry at her, and all the "sacrifices" she's making are off-screen while the characters on-screen always moan about her "ReFoRmS" and "IdEaLs" without talking about the cost bar some milquetoast "but war bad". And no one, in the game, will ever throw this hypocrisy to their face - Gallant Ferdinand will dream about the Opera as he wipes off the blood of a young woman who just wanted to return to the only home she had.

Yay.

FWIW, some mutuals and I have nothing but pure lols about Doro's line in the non-CF routes being "we killed Ferdie professor :'(" because, hey, why should I care more about Ferdie than about random loldier 55 ? Rhea? Felix? Claude? Ignatz?

Maybe the Elites were really friends and became """"nice""" persons with time, to their families and loved ones ?

Does this magically erase what they did before? Will that "good" they did erase all the "wrongs" they have previously done? Will theyr forever escape the consequences of their actions?

In a game that depicts Flamey as a terrorist for 11 chapters only to drop that plot point by the window to moan, again, about her "IdEaLs", "consequences" are maybe something you can eat as a snack, or throw in a trashcan.

So following the rules of this verse, given how Supreme Leader never receives flak for her Flamey stunts, why should the Elites receive any for what they did? Look, Maurice calls Daphnel his friend, surely he is not that bad of a man? Well yeah, he might have seduced women and planted a lot of wild oats here'n'there, but he cares about his friends!

Jeritza likes ice creams and cats! Surely it's more important to paint him as a cat lover than to deal with all the consequences of his stunt as the Death Knight, kidnapping and implied rekting young woman while he was in GM, under Flamey's orders, right?

Calling it now, after eviscerating Seteth's older brother, Goneril might have melted in front of one of Rhea's kittens, and adopted the cat asap. Surely that makes Goneril a "good" character right? And forget the entire "genocided a bunch of hippies living isolated in their village" stuff?

I don't have fanfics recs where the BEs are called hypocrites, but I confess I don't read a lot of fanfics in the FE16 fandom because of all of the aforementioned issues.

16 notes · View notes