Unpopular TM opinions you have

[Kubera]

Regarding the myth vs Fate discourse, ultimately I'd say being "respectful" (as subjective as that may be) is way more important than being accurate. If I feel like they put in great effort to portray a character well and flesh him out I won't give a damn about how much the characterization changed or how many OC elements they put in and so on. Like with Altera, the problem isn't that they attached the Sefar lore to her, it's that they didn't give much though to her relation to Attila nor explore that part of her as much as they should have.

There are plenty of servants I feel are far worse even if they aren't nearly as "OC", simply due to how little care they put into making them. For example I've always been much angrier at how all they did with Artemis back then was just turning her into a one-note obsessive pseudo yandere for Orion, which did far more damage to her than any of the alien robot lore could have. The opposite, Atlantis actually ended up making me appreciate her more.
This is especially evident with Zeus, he's a well made character and one of my favorites renditions of Zeus and that's despite my personal dislike for the alien stuff surrounding him.

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.

Personally I love Link. It was super simple yet so fun and enjoyable, even if the gameplay gets tiring after a while. I'd appreciate getting more stuff like it, even if I'd prefer it was longer.

For the rest I think Extra and regular Extella have their charm but I'm not too much of a fan, and CCC (at least Gil's route as it's the only one I've read) is easily one of my favorite Fate stories.

[Hermitfold]

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.

All of those are valid complaints but most reviews don't even elaborate on these issues which is the problem I'm talking about. They simply bring up the idea of lore or as it's derogatively known "magicbabble" or "sciencebabble" as a flaw in and of itself without actually saying how exactly this has a negative effect on the story (if any) as if the lore itself was the flaw.

If a review were to say that lore made a story too opaque I could at least counter by saying how many lore heavy series go to lengths to explain stuff to the viewer to mitigate this issue, etc, but many reviews don't even do that much.

[pinetree]

I don't think I've ever seen a review criticize "lore" specifically.
–babble is not a criticism of lore, it's more like... Writing. Dialogue. And I don't even remember seeing anyone bring these up as major criticisms either.

[Nortan the Bunny]

I was going to sneak in here and post my unpopular opinion about Fate/Prototype, but then I saw the discourse about Fate's portrayal of servants, so I might as well toss in my two cents regarding that.

I believe that Kubera hit the nail on the head when he said that it's ultimately about "respect".

For a non-Altera example, I'll give an example of a character that I wanted to become a servant only for it to become a monkey's paw situation: Phantom of the Opera.

While not my favorite Gaston Leroux character, he was probably the most likely one to become a servant due to all his other characters being somewhat obscure outside of France. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

However, they ignored everything that could have made an interesting character/servant and just made him a generic male yandere. (No punjab lasso, no mention of his assassin past, no reference to "The Masque of Red Death"...) (Although, feel me to correct me if I'm wrong about something.) In fact, he feels so haphazard that I wouldn't be surprised if they just created a male yandere and slapped his name on there.

I feel like he has more in common with Benedict Masson (from La poupée sanglante and La machine à assassiner) then he does with Phantom of the Opera. That's how lazy his characterization feels. In fact, I regret Fate "granting my wish" on him becoming a servant if that's how they were going to handle him.

Now, onto my unpopular Fate/Prototype opinion.

It's been over ten years ever since they teased it, and I have given up on it becoming an actual thing. In fact, I'm kind of glad that Fate/Prototype isn't a thing yet. (Yes, I'm aware of the prequel light novels, I'm not counting them.) I just feel that there's no way that the actual product could live up to the hype. Also, I'm little worried on how they would handle best boy, Perseus. (Everything I've seen seems to indicate he'll be yet another villain like Medea which disappoints me since he was the most interesting of the Prototype servants that we saw.)

Now watch me be monkey's pawed yet again. After all, both Apocrypha and strange fake became actual products, so it's only a matter of time with Prototype.

^{And back to lurking.}

[RoydGolden]

Wasn't it implied Phantom isn't actually "the" Phantom of the Opera but just a person who served as his model? So not being 100% accurate to the book could be justified in that sense. Though it still raises the question of why bother doing a Servant based on that character if you're just going to handwave it as "not really" them.

[pinetree]

That's their justification for almost all the book characters.
It's not really relevant though, Phantom is as he is because he's a throwaway launch bronze. Sad.

[Byegod]

Then you got them being all vague on them being real like with holmes which muddies things

[Byegod]

I think i finally figured out how to verbalize my issues with the technology vs magecraft comparison. I say i think here mind you.

It feels like its being pedantic with means vs results to render the comparison meaningful. where it will ignores how absurd the means are or take a reductionist standpoint to make the comparison work in the first place.

[Dullahan]

Why would being pedantic not render the comparison meaningful?

[Altima of the Gates]

Wasn't it implied Phantom isn't actually "the" Phantom of the Opera but just a person who served as his model? So not being 100% accurate to the book could be justified in that sense. Though it still raises the question of why bother doing a Servant based on that character if you're just going to handwave it as "not really" them.

What pinetree said partially, but they do outline in the lore several times, that these are shades of the past colored by what humanity thought of them and sublimated into servant containers.
So if there is a character that is partially mythological with a world where mythology actually took place, the accounts written about them in history affect what we get when summoned (basically people with multiple accounts or different versions of stories can have different personas).

[Blastedspider]

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

The legend of King Arthur had always been filled with superhuman feats, supernatural powers and magical creatures, giant monsters included (even the genderswap, stupid idea as it might be, is not without its merits, as the tension between sex, gender roles and chivalric ideals, is present on thematic level of many stories). Sure, Nasu gave it a glow-up but its more of "adapting the story to a different genre" than what happened with Attila (in that case the original story is completely overshadowed by completely original background).

[Gehennahem]

I have honestly never cared about accuracy or faithfulness as ultimately this isn't real life mythology or a mirror to real life mythology.
Altera is Attila the Hun whose actually a Space Alien that literally destroys Civilizations, Greek Mythology as a whole is actually just Robots created from a Dyson Sphere that came from a different Universe altogether, King Arthur as a whole NEVER made sense and constantly, constantly changed to the point a Female King Arthur would look no different than a Werewolf in the KoTR or Gawain that can turn into a massive Giant at certain hours of the day.

I can definitely understand others not liking it because "It's not doing them justice" or "You wanted them to get done right" so I usually hold my tongue there to the best of my ability... but that isn't what I come to Fate for(Hell, I plan on doing something similar when I start writing, why restrict yourself to 1:1 everything?).
Some characters get themselves 1:1 because the artists or Nasu or Takeuchi feels like it's better done that way, others get changed because someone else may feel different(Raikou being made into a Female as Takeuchi wanted it to and then they mix his legend with Ushi Gozen, Dantes being made younger as they saw the Anime/Manga of Dantes' legend get done way too well for them to ever compete, Altera because Nasu really wanted to go nuts with a concept he had in mind, etc.).

So yeah, I get 100% what people are saying and I'm not going to dispute any of that, I'm just pointing out why I ended up liking it and why I'm here to begin with(I mean let's be real, Gilgamesh is hilariously weaker and stronger than he is in the Nasuverse compared to his real life legend despite the stuff Nasu keeps giving him and Heracles is done weirdly but he isn't really done badly either)

[asterism42]

I mean, it's as people said earlier. Artoria might be a woman now, but she's still recognizably King Arthur. Altera is barely Attila, there's almost nothing there; for all intents and purposes she's a new character.

[Byegod]

They also very much put in the effort or trying to create explanations for the WHY's. when it feels like they didnt give a shit with altera. Like ill ask you all, if they just retcon'd altera to not be attila right now would anyone even be against that?

On the other myths, I often find the changes to be vapid or cause problems. Often as well I cant help but see the original idea as more interesting, the thematics of greek myths cycle of son overthrowing father gone, odysseus? mecha horse and mecha armor and pretty much nothing of his actual mythological 'essence'.

Why would being pedantic not render the comparison meaningful?

If you separate the end result from the method it renders comparisons meaningless. By ignoring the means and just using the result is a insult to science itself. Of course when we see how nasu treats science in the setting it feels like it's just magic with technological words on top like in extra.

So after a certain point in the inevitable debate that these type of things go, so ill just cut the crap and get to the end point of this, the comparison just becomes "what nasu defines as science" and "what nasu defines as magic" and renders the differences as purely what nasu say's so we have to purely remove all context outside of what nasu says. Which means we cannot debate it.

So Ill say this before anyone jumps in, are we purely arguing from a in universe or are we allowed to actually argue it?

[Dullahan]

So what exactly is your problem again

[Kamera]

This level of incomprehensible posting should be a bannable offence

[Dullahan]

No, seriously, I want to clarify this. As far as I can tell, which is not very far, you seem to be saying one or several of these things:

(1) Nasu portrays magic in a way I don't like.
- (1-a) Because it is portrayed as too much like science?
- (1-b) Because it is portrayed as not enough like science?
(2) Nasu portrays science in a way I don't like.
- (2-a) Because it is portrayed as too much like magic?
- (2-b) Because it is portrayed as not enough like magic?
- (2-c) Because it is portrayed as not enough like real science?
(3) Nasu compares-and-contrasts magic and science in a way I don't like.
- (3-a) Because the comparison as it's made is superficial and does not touch on what is essentially different?
- (3-b) Because the comparison does not serve a narrative purpose?
- (3-c) Because the comparison serves a narrative purpose I don't like?
-- (3-c-i) For moral reasons?
-- (3-c-ii) For aesthetic reasons?
-- (3-c-iii) For intellectual reasons?
- (3-d) Because one of the sides is clearly superior?
- (3-e) Because one of the sides is not clearly superior?

Please circle all that apply.

[Gehennahem]

I can grasp what Byegod is trying to say... but it really doesn't fit well at all.
I mean the Altera deal is something I have seen ALOT of people complain about but I do think she captures the essence of Atilla The Hun but the thing about is that it's obvious that too much of Nasu's OC ideas for Altera didn't blend in well enough with Atilla The Hun.

But I feel that trying to use it as a comparison tool that "Nasu doesn't use Magic or Science they way I want it" like how people want characters to be used is a bit... unfair?
I legit hate how they did Thomas Edison not because of the Lion Head reference or anything like that, but due to continually stating he's the "President King" and the "Amalgamation of all US Presidents" because it denies us George Washington for little to no reason despite if anything, he would fit it so much better(Well not the PresiKing crap as the entire point of George Washington leaving after his 2nd Term was to avoid becoming or being seen as a King) or especially how little they use Lancer Alter(There is seriously no goddamned reason why she gets so little use despite being the King of Storms and someone who actually defeated Rhongomyniad's influence that way).

For me, my only real issues is hilariously not trying to hit "the essence" or trying to be a 1:1 to a historical character or mythological being... but primarily how they are used and the wasted potential that can outweigh how they are used.

[TomPen94]

It depends... To me it relies on the answers to these questions:
1. "How informed is this character by the historical figure?"
2. "How much of the actual figure's history do I have to know beyond Fate to understand them?"

To me the best Servants are the ones that maximize the first and minimize the second. I keep banging on this example, but Saber is the textbook definition of this approach, she's obviously an interpretation of King Arthur, but she's fully developed as a character of her own in her appearances in the series.
If you can't do that, then to me the next best thing is to focus on minimizing the second. Which is essentially making them OC's. This is where characters like Musashi and Altera find themselves in. I'm okay with these as characters on their own, and I like that the game(s) don't pretend they're being faithful. But it will invoke that feeling of "wasted potential", even more so if it's a figure you're invested in.

[Kamera]

Yeah, let's try to understand an incoherence with more unrelated, misunderstood incoherence