D
Deleted member
Guest
Well ****Chapter 20 via treasure chest. If you missed it, you're probably SOL.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Well ****Chapter 20 via treasure chest. If you missed it, you're probably SOL.
The fact that they sold more copies of Fates than Awakening (which was the best selling Fire Emblem game prior) in the US and in Japan means that they're doing fine when it comes to advertising and selling the game. While complaining about the localization is fine (and expected since we're more exposed to the japanese version than with prior games), expecting your choice to not buy fates to impact how they handle localization in the future is simply idealistic thinking, since a HUGE majority of players will be perfectly fine with the localization either way. If you don't want to buy the game, don't buy it, but don't expect that to do anything. Even if a few fans (in comparison to the units in the hundred thousands sold so far in the US) complain about minuscule details in regards to the localization, the reality is that the game sold and is still selling well and that the localization itself is for the most part fine.Ha!
You've revived my interest and hopes.
However, the rhetoric you've used is against all objection, yet you neglect to mention the other objections in particular. I cannot accept "just focusing on the main points," and I hope that fellow fans see your lack of rigor and commitment.
I do remember Awakening and its stupid jokes, and its peculiar characterization, however, in my recollection they were not to this degree, and not so immersion breaking or utterly ridiculous as to divest me of the story or characters in such frequency. There are too many anachronisms and references, the degree and apparentness of which weren't in Awakening. They destroy hopes of immersion to those with a modicum of cultural awareness, as it takes directs people to reflect on outer things.
On characters, Izana's characterization is so out of believably for what he originally was and represented that I cannot find his newfound playfulness redeeming.
Next, Hisame focusing around pickles--AN OBJECT--rather than characteristics or inner traits? That is called a flat character due to lack of internal complexity, and undue attention is brought to it. By the appearance of it, his Japanese characterization had said inner traits and characteristics.
And, you cannot pass away the Saizo-Beruka objection so easily, I hope to make that clear in the last paragraph, however I would agree with your point that much of the content is locked behind extra paywalls--that's another criticism, and one infinitely apparent to all consumers so often that it barely needs mention: we always seek more for less.
Lastly, Nintendo of America skirts around certain touchy subjects which would be to its writing merit to discuss.
Nintendo of America does a disservice by all this, of what easily could be.
This is poor story writing, if it is to be believed that the objective of the writing is to present a quality dramatic literary experience. In this regard, Fates fails. I point this out, and yet you object.
Did I object to its gameplay? Must I include with every criticism a praise of good points? Or, even, a criticism of the JPN version's seemingly boring plot and stereotyped anime characters, and how the ENG version may have fixed it? (I admit, I've not seen the rough translation, but being rough I suspect it devoid of nuance.)
And, I believe it's you who's blowing my reaction out of proportion, rather than I blowing the changes out of proportion. It is the duty of the consumer to object when something doesn't meet their taste. It is their duty to flee immediately to a suitable alternative or take matters into their own hands. It is the duty of the consumer to complain about the smallest unpleasantness. This is not baseness, nor is it selfish--indeed, the consumer is an arbiter, whose sole purpose is to arbitrate on whatever basis they please. The law of subjective valuation makes clear that no objective moral quality can be attached to a person preferring to use their money for something else, or attempting to inform their fellow consumer of the crimes, real or perceived, of a producer. What I offer, and I hope people see the rhetoric I used in my initial post and realize it is not as extreme as you seem to think as I make concessions, is criticism, straight from a fellow fan. Take it for what it is, rather than what it is not.