Unpopular TM opinions you have

[warellis]

Just like Futa King Arthur who can literally walk on water, destroy kaijuu with dreams, and phase out of reality at will.



If you came to fate for historical accuracy, you should have jumped ship day 1.

Except futa King Arthur has more nods and connections made to IRL Arthurian myth than Altera does to anything Atilla besides maybe that rainbow sword.

That's why people get angry about Altera. Futa King Arthur has enough nods and connections made to IRL Arthurian myth that it feels more...respectful. Like T-M cared. But Altera in comparison, doesn't have nearly as much connection to Atilla.

If Altera were her own thing, that would be fine. But, and this is the crux of the matter, she's supposed to be Atilla the Hun. And yet, T-M did little to no connections with Atilla's history with Altera.

So frankly what was the point of tying Altera with Atilla?

[Byegod]

Its the contrast of the research and care some servants get vs others as well

And its kinda weird with how important sefar is, it feels like a half assed character idea to tie into attila.

Then again to tie into the nero comparison, look at what they did to nero's big mete-plot, or how other plot points are derailed

[Lolly Battory]

Sefar represents the end of the last ice age, which Nasu equates with the mythologized destruction of Atlantis, which saw the immergence of human civilization and the start of human history. Attila destroyed Rome(same gods is the link) out of which Europe was born which has since shaped history. The nuance is not that Attila and Sefar are the same. It's that the same thing destroyed Atlantis and Rome which then moved history(Scourge of God). Reminder that Nasu's worldbuilding definitely is progressive linear history with a transhumanist end point.

[Deathhappens]

Back in the day when Extella first came out, I too was outraged by skinny gyaru Attila the Hun with her amazing technicolor pensword.

Little did I know...

[pinetree]

Did you not know FGO?

[Deathhappens]

When Extella came out FGO was only like, a few months in and nobody really knew about it (much). Mostly I guess I hoped it'd crash and burn soon so they would ignore the gacha craze for good.



Awwww nuts, I missed my 10000th post somewhere way back.

[Comun]

Unless I counted wrong, number 10000 was this one:

Who?

[asterism42]

Sefar represents the end of the last ice age, which Nasu equates with the mythologized destruction of Atlantis, which saw the immergence of human civilization and the start of human history. Attila destroyed Rome(same gods is the link) out of which Europe was born which has since shaped history. The nuance is not that Attila and Sefar are the same. It's that the same thing destroyed Atlantis and Rome which then moved history(Scourge of God). Reminder that Nasu's worldbuilding definitely is progressive linear history with a transhumanist end point.

Atilla didn't destroy the Roman Empire tho. The Western Empire was conquered by Odoacer, leader of the Italian foederati; and the Eastern Empire was destroyed by the Ottoman Empire under Mehmet II

[Kamera]

Also arguably the Sack of Rome by Alaric and his Goths has much more impact on the decline of Rome than Attila and his Huns.

[Deathhappens]

Unless I counted wrong, number 10000 was this one:

Pottery.

(thanks)

[Byegod]

Sefar represents the end of the last ice age, which Nasu equates with the mythologized destruction of Atlantis, which saw the immergence of human civilization and the start of human history. Attila destroyed Rome(same gods is the link) out of which Europe was born which has since shaped history. The nuance is not that Attila and Sefar are the same. It's that the same thing destroyed Atlantis and Rome which then moved history(Scourge of God). Reminder that Nasu's worldbuilding definitely is progressive linear history with a transhumanist end point.

Lmao your reading far too much into a chuuni's ramblings to defend him, consider what has panned out

[fumei]

This isn't about accuracy. It's about faithfulness. Which yes, means they should somewhat resemble the real deal.

The way some of you are putting it is like we should have basically zero expectations for Servants whatsoever. Like if Lancelot had been given, idk, Mephisto's characterization that would be completely fine because it's your fault for expecting Lancelot to be portrayed a certain way. Again, maybe I'd be fine with Mephisto!Lancelot in some random fantasy game that's just using the Lancelot name, but in Fate Lancelot is supposed to our Lancelot (but if he existed in the Fate universe). It's not equivalent at all.

I guess to me it's a question of where people think the line is drawn for what's "not faithful enough". FSN as the first work sets a standard somewhere inbetween "the actual myth" and "complete fiction", though perhaps leaning closer to the former, while subsequent work seem to either draw more closely to the middle, or lean more towards the latter overall.
Or, to rephrase, it seems to me that the parts that push people to say "this is bad" isn't necessarily a lack of faithfulness overall, but the addition of specific "unfaithful" elements.

To take Zeus as an example again, in Fate he's still the same god we know in myth, he did all the same things, and obviously didn't really change from his disposition in IRL myth. But he's a robot. That's basically the only real change here, which to me feels like it's perfectly straddling the center of faithful<->fiction, and yet it's supposed to be bad because "why would zeus even be a mecha?"

I personally think that a (sometimes quite big) degree of original fictional elements are necessary to add onto the faithfulness, because it is a fictional story and I want to see how they fit stuff into the pre-existing setting, and some stuff just have to be changed to a large extent (for example your mention of Lancelot's profile, where I'd say that personality except for literally just surface-level reading should always be fictional to best fit the character as it exists here and now, not how it fit the original myth) to do that. Of course, this doesn't apply to Altera as much because Altera is way closer to pure ficiton, merely encroaching on apparent faithfulness in order to fit her into the setting better, but then, like someone else said, the issue seems more to be with Altera specifically, not some sort of grand "OC bad" deal.

[Dullahan]

Lmao your reading far too much into a chuuni's ramblings to defend him, consider what has panned out

At least he's reading.

[Byegod]

I guess to me it's a question of where people think the line is drawn for what's "not faithful enough". FSN as the first work sets a standard somewhere inbetween "the actual myth" and "complete fiction", though perhaps leaning closer to the former, while subsequent work seem to either draw more closely to the middle, or lean more towards the latter overall.
Or, to rephrase, it seems to me that the parts that push people to say "this is bad" isn't necessarily a lack of faithfulness overall, but the addition of specific "unfaithful" elements.

To take Zeus as an example again, in Fate he's still the same god we know in myth, he did all the same things, and obviously didn't really change from his disposition in IRL myth. But he's a robot. That's basically the only real change here, which to me feels like it's perfectly straddling the center of faithful<->fiction, and yet it's supposed to be bad because "why would zeus even be a mecha?"

I personally think that a (sometimes quite big) degree of original fictional elements are necessary to add onto the faithfulness, because it is a fictional story and I want to see how they fit stuff into the pre-existing setting, and some stuff just have to be changed to a large extent (for example your mention of Lancelot's profile, where I'd say that personality except for literally just surface-level reading should always be fictional to best fit the character as it exists here and now, not how it fit the original myth) to do that. Of course, this doesn't apply to Altera as much because Altera is way closer to pure ficiton, merely encroaching on apparent faithfulness in order to fit her into the setting better, but then, like someone else said, the issue seems more to be with Altera specifically, not some sort of grand "OC bad" deal.

Altera is just the most obvious, but OC can also mean 'original additions' like the stupid karna/arjuna stuff as well as stuff psuedo servants. It's also simply a fucking waste of a figure and raises the question of "literally make up a reason to have x, y, z as a servant. instead of wasting a historical/mythological figure or multiple because we all know you want this character like reines or waver as a servant"

That just seems like a simple lack of fucking imagination and planning, plus inevitably when the writers wish to look at a myth again you just get a fucking mess of explanations, the mecha gods have that as well where it feels like the other writers are kinda shrugging at trying to actually explain it.

And controversial opinion, I believe when it comes to obscure figures that literally have never had any pop-culture showing and is from a culture that is kinda fucked over like say the ainu stuff with illya, you have a fucking duty to portray it well.

At least he's reading.

Less reading and more scrying the tea leaves.

[Petrikow]

Less reading and more scrying the tea leaves.

If you think that was a farfetched take, maybe you should actually read what you're talking about.

[Hermitfold]

I guess to me it's a question of where people think the line is drawn for what's "not faithful enough". FSN as the first work sets a standard somewhere inbetween "the actual myth" and "complete fiction", though perhaps leaning closer to the former, while subsequent work seem to either draw more closely to the middle, or lean more towards the latter overall.
Or, to rephrase, it seems to me that the parts that push people to say "this is bad" isn't necessarily a lack of faithfulness overall, but the addition of specific "unfaithful" elements.

To take Zeus as an example again, in Fate he's still the same god we know in myth, he did all the same things, and obviously didn't really change from his disposition in IRL myth. But he's a robot. That's basically the only real change here, which to me feels like it's perfectly straddling the center of faithful<->fiction, and yet it's supposed to be bad because "why would zeus even be a mecha?"

I personally think that a (sometimes quite big) degree of original fictional elements are necessary to add onto the faithfulness, because it is a fictional story and I want to see how they fit stuff into the pre-existing setting, and some stuff just have to be changed to a large extent (for example your mention of Lancelot's profile, where I'd say that personality except for literally just surface-level reading should always be fictional to best fit the character as it exists here and now, not how it fit the original myth) to do that. Of course, this doesn't apply to Altera as much because Altera is way closer to pure ficiton, merely encroaching on apparent faithfulness in order to fit her into the setting better, but then, like someone else said, the issue seems more to be with Altera specifically, not some sort of grand "OC bad" deal.

This is exactly why I love works like Type-Moon, Index, Mondaiji, etc. The author come up with their own unique lore and settings and work mythology and occultism into it.

Sort of related, but in recent years, I've come to strongly dislike how mainstream criticism of fantasy and science fiction approach the implementation of lore in series that they critique. What say you all?

[Desann]

I like Fate/Extra. Like, all games in series.
Extra itself is ironically closest to how I imagined standard Grail War will proceed - protagonist sees enemy servant and starts looking through history/myths to find out clues of which hero it actually is and what he can do. Gameplay is okish, characters are great and story is good too. May main issue with Extra is ending, but fortunately it's kind of retconned in CCC/Extella .
CCC lost "search for clues to find out who your enemy is", but is so awesome overall that I ok with it.
Extella fix Extra ending and I liked both Altera and overall story. Nero and Tamamo's characterization is somehow not as good as it was in earlier games, but still pretty good for me. And ending is great, I'm a sucker for happy endings.
Link is kind of not that good, since there is not much plot there, but Charlie is great and overall gameplay/graphic good and significantly better than Extella.

Oh, and I like Nero, she is my favorite heroine from Extras.

[Byegod]

This is exactly why I love works like Type-Moon, Index, Mondaiji, etc. The author come up with their own unique lore and settings and work mythology and occultism into it.

Sort of related, but in recent years, I've come to strongly dislike how mainstream criticism of fantasy and science fiction approach the implementation of lore in series that they critique. What say you all?

What do you even mean by the latter. as in critiquing the lore itself?

I like Fate/Extra. Like, all games in series.
Extra itself is ironically closest to how I imagined standard Grail War will proceed - protagonist sees enemy servant and starts looking through history/myths to find out clues of which hero it actually is and what he can do. Gameplay is okish, characters are great and story is good too. May main issue with Extra is ending, but fortunately it's kind of retconned in CCC/Extella .
CCC lost "search for clues to find out who your enemy is", but is so awesome overall that I ok with it.
Extella fix Extra ending and I liked both Altera and overall story. Nero and Tamamo's characterization is somehow not as good as it was in earlier games, but still pretty good for me. And ending is great, I'm a sucker for happy endings.
Link is kind of not that good, since there is not much plot there, but Charlie is great and overall gameplay/graphic good and significantly better than Extella.

Oh, and I like Nero, she is my favorite heroine from Extras.

Ngl i never cared for extra OG ending either

>inb4 petrikow tries to say i havnt played it

[Hermitfold]

What do you even mean by the latter. as in critiquing the lore itself?

I mean how the very idea of a series with deep lore is treated in reviews, longform essays, etc. as if the lore was a flaw.

[Byegod]

I mean how the very idea of a series with deep lore is treated in reviews, longform essays, etc. as if the lore was a flaw.

Elaborate more. like what do you mean, that still isnt enough?

I mean you can critique it making it creating a barrier to entry

You can critique text dumps fucking with story flow

You can critique story for being too opaque.

You can criticize whether it should have been in the story or not and so on.