Things that annoy you in TM

[Walnut Sparks]

It's still a hell of a lot more complicated than that in reality. When two sides fight, it doesn't necessarily mean that one side is wrong and has to be killed to save those who are right.

And understanding that means reducing the maxim to more specific situations, which makes it rather less quotable. It's like the "Sheep in Scotland are black" thing.

[Arashi_Leonhart]

It's still a hell of a lot more complicated than that in Nasuverse, but Shirou and Kiritsugu are very chuuni.

[You]

It's still a hell of a lot more complicated than that in reality. When two sides fight, it doesn't necessarily mean that one side is wrong and has to be killed to save those who are right.

the thing is if two sides fight you can't save both sides
unless you're arash
and even then arash didn't save the people who already died

[Arashi_Leonhart]

You'll notice that Saber had a similar methodology but that's not even a particular issue for her because there were other concerns.

- - - Updated - - -

When two sides fight, it doesn't necessarily mean that one side is wrong and has to be killed to save those who are right.

Are you even paying attention to the story, because "right" and "wrong" are not the concern here.

[Sesto]

Looking back on Zero, this is far more obvious than it seemed when I first saw it.

Zero also treated its female characters rather poorly, nearly all ended up dead or depressed- half the time to fuel another's trauma

zero treated the majority of its characters poorly, mate

[Snow]

Kirei's deal was okay all things considered.

[Walnut Sparks]

It's still a hell of a lot more complicated than that in Nasuverse, but Shirou and Kiritsugu are very chuuni.

Okay. Call it me being annoyed at the way the protagonists talk about it like it's a natural law. It still comes off as disconnected from reality.

the thing is if two sides fight you can't save both sides

Only under the condition that they're determined to destroy each other and can't be dissuaded or brought to heel.

[Arashi_Leonhart]

Only under the condition that they're determined to destroy each other and can't be dissuaded or brought to heel.

Which is the condition Counter Guardians are summoned into and the places Shirou and Kiritsugu deliberately sought, it's like they're a last resort or something.

[Kotonoha]

Zero also treated its female characters rather poorly, nearly all ended up dead or depressed- half the time to fuel another's trauma

Only half?

[Rafflesiac]

Only half?

Rin got to save her friend! And Kotone lived!

- - - Updated - - -

And uh, dying was already in Assassin's package so really she wasn't getting anything better there.

[Walnut Sparks]

Which is the condition Counter Guardians are summoned into and the places Shirou and Kiritsugu deliberately sought, it's like they're a last resort or something.

So the main points of view are limited and skewed. I can find that annoying.

[Kotonoha]

1% of Assassin's personalities doesn't count IMO

[Arashi_Leonhart]

So the main points of view are limited and skewed. I can find that annoying.

You would prefer it if the main points of view are unlimited and completely impartial? That'd be weird.

[Seika]

Then, we began to discuss about it:

“Speaking of, what is the fourth war about?”

“Hum – Saber getting bullied by Gilgamesh and Alexander!”

I answered unceremoniously.

In my mind, there are two main points in the fourth Heaven’s Feel.

One is Saber’s setback.

King Arthur, who ruled her people as the model human. The selfless and devoted, just and uncorrupted Artoria.

The absolute commander who surpassed mortals, the majestic Gilgamesh.

And the extrovert king whom some called a tyrant, but still held his belief that he’ll bring his people to happiness. The King of Conquerors, Alexander, who ruled the world as a man.

Using the intensive conflict between the three to unravel Saber’s story in Zero.

Going in, the original author entrusted me with just three pieces of information regarding Alexander: his true name, the Noble Phantasm called "Army of the King", and the fact that there must be a development where Saber comes to reconsider her own kingship through her conflict with him and Gilgamesh.

(All of which is basically from the Side Material entry anyway. Part of the extra stuff they added to the dictionary with Hollow?)

[Walnut Sparks]

You would prefer it if the main points of view are unlimited and completely impartial? That'd be weird.

I would prefer it if they had a modicum more imagination and awareness of how limited their experiences are. I don't like it when anyone seems to think their experiences are universal truth.

[Snow]

i mean, he's basically guy who starts smoking again because he's been diagnosed with cancer

No morals is his natural state of being that he'd been neglecting his whole life, so arguably it's actually healthier for him.

[AvengerEmiya]

Going in, the original author entrusted me with just three pieces of information regarding Alexander: his true name, the Noble Phantasm called "Army of the King", and the fact that there must be a development where Saber comes to reconsider her own kingship through her conflict with him and Gilgamesh.

It would have been more interesting if Iskander and Saber both had flaws in their ideologies and, from their interactions with each other, came to realize how much they were fixated on maintaining their respective sophistries instead of being frank about how they failed in certain areas.

Instead we got Iskander being right about everything and Saber being wrong about everything, despite some of Iskander's arguments being fallacious and some of Saber's arguments being fair.

[RacingeR]

(All of which is basically from the Side Material entry anyway. Part of the extra stuff they added to the dictionary with Hollow?)

I find the concept rather fine, all things considered, but Uro chose a really bad way to execute it.

I still think the banquet of the kings was really silly and bad.

[RoydGolden]

It would have been more interesting if Iskander and Saber both had flaws in their ideologies and, from their interactions with each other, came to realize how much they were fixated on maintaining their respective sophistries instead of being frank about how they failed in certain areas.

Instead we got Iskander being right about everything and Saber being wrong about everything, despite some of Iskander's arguments being fallacious and some of Saber's arguments being fair.

Part of the problem is probably unavoidable given Zero's nature as a prequel, honestly. Saber can't come to any perspective-shifting realizations about her life as a king because we know from Stay Night that she remains dead-set on her 'kings should remain perfect and self-sacrificing forever' ideology up until meeting Shirou. So the kingship debate ultimately can't really go anywhere or affect Saber in any meaningful way other then getting her to angst more.

Not to say it can't still be interesting anyways, but I can see if that's what bothers some people about the whole thing.

[Bird of Hermes]

zero treated the majority of its characters poorly, mate

List of people who were better off after Zero: Kirei, Gilgamesh, Waver, Kiritsugu (Arguably as he was with Shirou)

My point being women were consistently screwed over in the story arc of Zero while the likes of Iskander had the ground he walked on worshipped and all his faults ignored.

- - - Updated - - -

It's rather misogynistic in hindsight