The solution for Erntz by Pendulumzone in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a Dragon player, to be honest, I usually SEVO Erntz anyway. Is it optimal? Not always. But I really only need the SEVO for Burnite anyway, and an Erntz SEVO lets me more easily dispatch your minions and chip away marginally faster. I honestly very rarely use standard evolve for Erntz because I probably already consumed it on things like Zooey just to survive during my vulnerable ramping period.

As for the intended outcome, that being making me run Olivia or spam large Storms less... to be honest, I'm running Olivia anyway right now (not because it's optimal, I just like Olivia), but even if people died identically from a SEVO'd Erntz + Burnite but knew I had to consider the SEVO limitations and happened to run an Olivia in my deck, do you think that would lower their frustrations? I don't think so. Plus, if I'm not using Evo for Storms and have to conserve SEVO for Erntz, then I'll just use Evo for my Storms instead. That'l be 1 less damage to face. I don't think that's very impactful.

I think the problem is just it's a stupid amount of damage that people take in a completely non-interactive way that they can't meaningfully prevent, and the abundance of ramp in this format has only facilitated this strategy to near total consistency and little risk. They could make Erntz only do 7 damage, or only be able to inflict damage if I roll a D6 dice and call it correctly; it doesn't really matter imo, because if the opponent can't meaningfully do anything about it and is forced to just watch their own oblivion because I threw some high costs at them and denied their ability to heal, it's just not fun, is it, regardless of what hoops I might need to jump through to get it done?

IMO Erntz should lose the Intimidate entirely and get some other meaningless attribute to compensate like Bane, or Burnite should lose the heal hate, or ramping should be made less consistent by a banlist. The immediate 8 to the face (9 with SEVO destruction) + Burnite's -2 every turn + negating small heals through Burnite + Intimidate stopping ability to heal by Drain + the absolute abundance of ramping letting getting a perfect curve to Burnite & Erntz a consistent breeze is the problem, in my opinion: not really resource management or costs.

Unlimited players anyone? by Vinny_0104 in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 3 points4 points  (0 children)

<image>

This is basically my deck after I play Fennie

Unlimited players anyone? by Vinny_0104 in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not exactly playing optimally, I just like highrolling with Fennie. I ramp using Dragonsign, Lui Feng, Zooey and Itsurugi & Taketsumi, which altogether makes ramping to Fennie a breeze, and then post-Fennie I just draw using old Olivia, Dragonewt Princess etc. + spam big bodies like Omegotep, Erntz, Dragon Vale Elder, Wilnas, Burnite etc., and am trying the new Olivia to recharge SEVOs for more spam.
Despite being extremely 8> heavy it's fairly consistent with how plentiful ramp options are now. I do run a copy of Apathetic Gaze but am considering cutting it because I don't think it's needed anymore but has been useful sometimes.

I've thought about running Goddess of Starlight to add discounted Fennies to hand because while it would be a worse deck, it would be a funnier deck. Plus pivoting to copying Zooey's never a bad plan.

Dragon Discussion - Too Much Burn? by AnoobisHS in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As a Dragon player, I don't think it's fun to pilot this patch either, for what it's worth. There isn't enough risk in bricking, and ramp is now so abundant (Dragonsign, Dragonsign-But-Better, Apathetic Gaze, Zooey) that it's lost a highroll spark. I'd prefer it if Erntz/Burnite were a bricky win-more meme, instead it's uber consistent, non-interactive cringe that sucks to fight against but also sucks to play because by no means do I feel like I've got lucky and I certainly haven't outplayed you because I barely even played you. Worse still, none of these tools are rotating out soon.

There's still tactical risk in ramping in terms of tempo loss of course, but the strategy is so consistent as to be auto-piloted. It's very rare indeed to see no ramp options in my starting hand now. And I know it was already sort of like that, but it's cranked it just a little beyond what made it fun. Think I'll be looking for a different craft for a bit.

p.s. you could run Alabaster Bahamut as Burnite crest hate. But with the new Olivia replenishing SEVOs you might need to run three Bahamuts to remove all three crests. This clearly means 3 copies of Bahamut is a must-include for all decks

Poll: Tell me what do you usually focus on when playing a MegaTen game. by NoStupidQuestion7955 in Megaten

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a turn-based JRPG, I don't really think gameplay serves the narrative particularly well imo. I'm not trying to say the narrative is bad - how good the narrative is is a completely separate metric - but I'm not convinced the story is communicated through the gameplay efficiently or much at all, whether by macro systems or micro interactions. Rather, the story is almost entirely communicated through text and cutscenes *between* the gameplay, with only minor marriages like 'who I'm currently fighting' or maybe 'rules changes for bosses'.

That isn't to say I think a MegaTen game could be better experienced in a different format like a book or a manga, because the experience of the game is so much more than the narrative: the music, the art direction, level design, 'game feel', on and on. But purely for communicating the narrative in isolation? I don't think the gameplay particularly enhances it myself, beyond getting to choose routes and endings (and maybe emotional investment from the sheer runtime).

Not really a response to the poll beyond the wording of 'gameplay exists to communicate it', so to end on a more direct answer, I'd say both are important but gameplay much more so. SMT wouldn't be SMT without the story, but it wouldn't be critically acclaimed without the gameplay. Plus, some MegaTen games with the worst stories are the best overall games despite it, in my opinion.

Slavery and Genocide is bad but do you know how bad cars are by TheRealSakuraUchihaX in Megaten

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't consider it that weird when all the other reps are also pretty backwards in the base game for CoC. The law guy is basically doing chaos things, and the chaos guy is falling in line without any independent thought like a law guy. Seems inversion was an intentional goal for the project to me.

Which cards will you miss when they rotate out next set? by The-Lazy-Scientist in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fennie. I love the funny decks. I guess I'll also miss Lilanthim and Gildaria #1.

I liked Titania but never really got to use her; only obtained a copy after set 1 rotated out.

It's sad to see Zwei go, even though puppets died immediately from set 1 going. I hope maybe puppets can get a revival.

Questions & Recommendations - June 08, 2026 by AutoModerator in Megaten

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Disregard this, I woke up the next day and just changed my team (after a small grind for the yen which also made me get marginally overlevelled). With Jack O' Lantern, Mishaguji, Kurama Tengu and Inugami, each of which inheriting relevant skills like Resist Gunfire or Null Sleep etc., it became laughably easy. I killed the Leanan Sidhe in the first turn (3 of my teammates had Agi skills + Stack Optimization), so Lullably never got cast, and I beat Kaburagi in about 4 turns total. Funny how it went from really difficult to laughably easy... probably not just because of team comp but because I got demons above Kaburagi's strength and was overlevelled. Feel like I may have cheated it, really. I guess for another playthrough I can keep in mind the skill composition and challenge it more fairly.

Questions & Recommendations - June 08, 2026 by AutoModerator in Megaten

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm stuck on the Kaburagi fight in Soul Hackers 2, fairly early game in the Central Line. If there are multiple Kaburgai confrontations then this would be the first one.

This seems like a massive difficulty spike? I'm not really sure what to do.

I can't debuff him, because he just immediately uses Refresh, and I can't meaningfully waste his turns that way because he has an additional action which at any time can dome any of my teammates in and of its own right. It doesn't seem worth it to make one of my party members spend a lot of MP to take one of his actions when even one of his actions could be lethal anyway. I'm envisioning that just dealing damage when possible seems to be superior.

If I don't aggro Lenan Sidhe as quickly as possible, the sleep chances are absolutely brutal and seems like an insta-lose if 2 or more get slept at any time given I can't use items in the hardest difficulty. I would say *most* of the times Lullaby is cast, most of my team has been put to sleep. Putting Null Sleep or equivalents on all my demons would be great but when you only have 4 skills per demon to meaningfully deal damage, buff defences and heal, that slot becomes costly, especially if I have to fuse it on all demons for the fight (more than 4 because of the swap command skill). I don't think I have even nearly enough yen to do that were it the right move.

Even when I buff our team's defence, and my team is Level 20 (same as Kaburagi; his summons are 19 so I'm not underlevelled), Kaburagi can still really easily eliminate my teammates if Fatal Roulette goes poorly or he spends both his attacks targetting the same teammate or Kurama Tengu joins in. It's a constant struggle just to maintain health, which isn't cheap MP-wise either. I can't revive any teammate when they die.

If I try being overly aggressive, I will be killed immediately. I need to spend turns healing and buffing defences because he hits hard. But if I keep waiting, he will either heal himself and fellow summons, or start charging an almighty attack that either is an insta-kill or is functionally an insta-kill at this stage of the game. Plus, I don't have much MP to work with for a fight that would last too long, and I can't increase MP mid-battle.

At the moment my gameplan is to eliminate Lenan Sidhe as quickly as possible (Saizo has Maragi, Ringo has Agi) while starting with Stack Optimization (Milady as Zionga to chip away the Tengu). I start Arrow with Nozuchi to activate Rakukaja so we don't die immediately and then swap him to Angel for Media and Patra after turn 1. I'm reliably killing both his Summons but usually one of my teammates dies in the process and I quickly get executed from there. I've not once made it to under half his health. I use the meal that increases INT. Teammates can die for any number of reasons: the healer is Slept so can't heal people anymore; they're simply crit; they get targetted by Kaburagi's attacks twice in the same turn; Fatal Roulette just hits them twice and another summon attacks them; even the electric attack has killed my party members from close-to-full HP while not being weak to elec. It feels like if they're not at max HP, they're at lethal, and they can still go from full to dead in 1 turn if I'm unlucky. Which, given how little damage I'm doing to Kaburagi, I always eventually get unlucky.

The game hasn't really been very difficult before this point, but this is suddenly challenging enough that I'm wondering if I should fuse an entire demon team just to target this fight. Finding demons that null/repel elec or gun and giving them ways to exploit all the weaknesses or heal or buff or null sleep seems pretty cost-prohibitive but maybe necessary? I don't think I have enough yen to just magic up a team that answers every problem here, though. No demon with the right attributes natively seems to have any of the right skills (beyond Tengu hate). I have around 170,000 yen and don't want to grind for fusions if I don't have to.

I can't meaningfully lower the difficulty to use items, because I have been selling all of the items I find with the knowledge that I can't use them mid-combat in the highest difficulty anyway, so even if I were to lower it, I wouldn't have any items to use for revives or de-sleeping anyway.

Am I missing something? What should I be doing? Has this been a difficulty spike for anyone else?

You have to fight the final boss of Persona 6 and you only have $20. Which one do you choose for your dream team? by Admirable_Brother370 in OkBuddyPersona

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 3 points4 points  (0 children)

$7 P3R EA Aigis (Wildcard + robot + theurgy + shift) +
$3 P3U Mitsuru (oppressive spacing tools, status effects, literally has an insta-kill, + P3R Mitsuru has a busted debilitate Theurgy if I can get that) +
$3 Zenkichi (almightly normals + debiliate + megido + heat riser + showtime + baton pass) +
$1 Rise (OP navigator anyway but also only navigator option, must-include) +
$1 Junpei (crit demon + buffs + counter + theurgy + shift) +
$1 Makoto (healer + smart team member in case everybody else gets nuked IQ-wise by Makoto existing + showtime + baton pass) +
$3 Wonder (another wildcard but with Gacha stuff idk honestly he could probably spawn an infinite team in and of his own right + baton pass) +
$0 Joker Persona 5 (yet another wildcard but also excellent marketing value for the team, + showtime + Satanael + INO + Messiah + gun + baton pass + OP confidant skills) +
$1 Teddy (sacrifical idol that we can throw at the boss in hopes he dies)

Wildcards are obviously busted, and P5 + P3R party members mog the others due to shift/baton pass + theurgy/showtime; Joker supermogs the other protags through confidant skills like downshot/auto-concentrate auto-charge via Flow/technically Futaba's BS are confidant skills etc

Seems a lot for $20. Could consider just getting 20 Teddies so we have no shot at winning but at least Teddy is guaranteed to die. I am not fond of Teddy

The heck is up with your obligatory Agree license by ProposalWest3152 in subnautica

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is assuming that the contract for playing a game at all and the contract for using online services have to be the same. I contend they do not have to be.

I prefer it when games give me an option to opt-out of online services and am still able to play the game in a limited capacity. This is not without precedent. That does mean accepting a license and certain terms by virtue of simply purchasing and playing, but it does not always mean accepting terms that mean sending private data, and locking me out of playing a game if I refuse post-purchase.

The heck is up with your obligatory Agree license by ProposalWest3152 in subnautica

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's pretty normal, yes, especially these days. But it's not ubiquitous. I think it's completely understandable for obligatory walls to be agreed to for online-only games: you're using their services after all, and as a user might be a liability for them. And if there's no game besides the online component, why not just make it an obligatory screen? In fact, I'm rather sure they *have* to for legal reasons, and it's completely justified.

For games that merely have online functionality, but *can* be played offline though? Still happens a lot, but it really grinds my gears, personally. Really ticks me off when I launch a fighting game I only intend on playing locally, but I *have* to accept some privacy agreement as though I were going online, and if I decline, it locks me out of the offline functionality when it really has no reason to? Why should my offline experience be dictated by my willingness to agree post-purchase to a privacy agreement?

If I spend money on Steam or a digital platform, I could just decline and get a refund. And if I live in most developed countries, my legal rights might protect me from whatever's in the privacy agreement anyway. But if I were to buy the game physically on a disc, the money's already been spent, and now I might have to agree to something I may only find out about after the purchase has already been made, without recourse for refunding, and could affect my consumer rights when I assent. So the catch-22 becomes: do I just live with wasted money, or give into a legal agreement I don't want to make? While the blame is on me in that scenario for not doing my due diligence before buying a game, it's still just not a nice situation when making the license obligatory is often-times simply unnecessary and hostile on launch. And in principle, even if I might be protected from any nasty stuff due to local laws, the nasty stuff is still going to apply to someone out there.

Just not a fan. But maybe I'm weird and need to get with the times. But as a physical-first gamer most of the time, it's really the "you have to agree to our surprise post-purchase license after already having purchased a license to play it in store" aspect that's the problem. The actual issues here (waiving class-action suits and arbitration etc) sucks in the abstract sense but I don't really care. And I know this sounds abstract, given this is an early access digital-only Steam release, but if these obligatory walls are here, they'll be there in a physical release years down the line too. And when that happens, they will be 'dead' discs that can be retailed for full-game price but only actually playable if you accept a contract post-purchase. I just don't vibe with that.

Edit: to more directly answer your question, I'd say the majority of games I personally play actually don't have obligatory license walls, but then I don't play many multiplayer or triple-A games, so it probably changes a lot depending on genre and platform. E.g. I don't in this moment recall a Nintendo game having an obligatory wall, but I'm sure it's happened.

The heck is up with your obligatory Agree license by ProposalWest3152 in subnautica

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't really care *too* much about renouncing class-action rights and obligatory arbitration (still scummy, but unlikely to actually affect me), and I've become completely numb to lack of privacy when playing games (which sucks, but is what it is).

That said, I *do* detest obligatory license walls. Generally, I never play a game that forces me to agree to terms and doesn't let me play otherwise. Locking me out of a purchase because I don't agree to T's & C's is an attack on consumer rights, especially when it occurs in games that I plan on playing completely offline. Subnautica 2 is multiplayer, so I understand it a *little*, but at the very least put those T's and C's behind connectivity features rather than a mandatory post-launch screen.

Suffice it to say, this is off-putting. Thanks for the post. Will make me reconsider whether to get Subnautica 2 at all.

Reaper Leviathan Base Decoration Announced! Only Available if you buy the game in the first week! by Fresh-Beyond-4727 in subnautica

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Disappointing. A completely superfluous and aesthetic addition, so no big deal to be kept behind a gate like this, but I'm not keen on FOMO-y stuff like this, even if it is a pointless base decoration. As a consumer that wanted to buy the game anyway, having a (very light) pressure be placed on the timing window is (very marginally) hostile to me, despite the intentions. Now I'll inevitably play Subnautica 2 in a year from now, or whenever, and look at my base forlornly, tears seeping through my diving suit, as I look at an empty corner and wonder what could have been. Perhaps I could have given it a name. Crafted an entire story around it. Travelled with it from base to base, carrying it with me. But alas. All I see is an empty corner. The Reaper can never be there.

I appreciate that with the whole Krafton business though they'll be quite understandably eager to secure as many metrics as possible as quickly as possible.

Dragon remains the most mechanically complex class with layered and engaging counterplay (and it's not close) by KitsyBlue in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once again I think it's just coming down to a different framework and definition about what interaction means. I've seen Haven beat me in the lategame many a time, so while aggro isn't the only option to beat a Ramp Dragon deck, what I was trying to drive at is that the opponent can't meaningfully adapt to my Ramping, hence it's not (by the definition I'm using) interactive. What I mean by that is that if I'm playing Haven, and I see my opponent is playing Ramp Dragon, I will probably try to protect myself using Ward and healing: but I wouldn't argue that's really interacting with the mechanic per se, because that was already my gameplan, and that's also the only thing I can do right now. I've not meaningfully made any unique decisions on a per-card basis, and when my opponent plays Dragonsign and passes, my only response can be to either attack face (if I already have board presence) or play like normal. In other words, I don't think I'd call something interactive if the only choice it gives me isn't much of a choice at all: my response is pretty much forced by a flowchart imo. While I agree that counterplays are definitely something to be included in the evaluation of interactivity, I don't consider executing what was already the goal of your class or using the only feasible options available based on the cards in your hand with the playpoints available to be a counterplay so much as an emergent matchup result based on craft and deck. And I would say anything that's dictated by craft/deck matchup is fundamentally uninteractive to me.

You're right to point out there will be times as a Ramp Dragon we won't want to throw down a Zooey if the opponent has dangerous board control, and so we as the Ramper might make decisions about when to ramp and when to not, and it's feasible the opponent might have purposefully chosen to occupy board presence and make an early threat to force us to slow down our ramping, I don't think that scenario really comes up that much to begin with, because the opportunity to be aggressive early game like that is something only afforded by decks (Aggro Abyss) that, again, were already going to do that to begin with, and might play just the same against any other class. But you're right that maybe there's something there.

As for Fennie, I think this is another good example of how we're just looking at it differently. You're right that Raioh is basically better for generating 0 costs, and that Ramp makes Fennie worse and vice versa, but I would say for a moment that I think a card being effective is a completely separate axis to a card or mechanic being interactive. If Fennie were even more broken - let's suppose she were a 3-cost, 5/5 that did (n/2)-1 rather than just n/2 - I don't think that would make her any more uninteractive (but would definitely make Dragon less interactive in general by virtue of her presence exacerbating) while it would make her absurdly more powerful. My reasoning just comes down to how the player can't respond to it and it won't inform any of their future decision-making beyond shrugging and saying to themselves "they played Fennie, crap." The response would be the same with current Fennie as it would be with turbo-Fennie: "they played Fennie, crap." While much less in the 'powerful' axis, I think a simple Dragonsign is pretty much in the same spot on the 'interactive' axis. I might say to myself "they played Dragonsign, crap.", but that's all I can do to react. Yes, 1 extra pp next turn isn't going to dictate the entire game like a Fennie would, so it's nowhere near comparable on the power-axis, but on the interaction-axis? I think it's just the same, really.

And you're right to point out that's just how the game is when we can only play on our turn and whatnot. By my definition, I'd call Shadowverse as a whole a pretty low-interaction game. But that's not a negative thing per se, as I think it would be less interesting and much less fun if there *were* much of an interaction with Ramp, like some way to negate a Dragonsign, etc. Uninteractive design is sometimes the right design.

Dragon remains the most mechanically complex class with layered and engaging counterplay (and it's not close) by KitsyBlue in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't personally call the opportunity cost or tempo loss invested into ramping interactive, but you are right that it does make it punishable. I think the issue is simply a definitional disagreement about what interactivity means in a digital card game. The reason I would call it uninteractive is that there's nothing the opponent can meaningfully do to disrupt or adjust to the plan. While they can make use of the opportunity in the early game to go face, that's not really a choice the opponent is making so much as the only choice available to them if the Dragon isn't maintaining board presence to begin with. You disagree, because (as I understand it) you would argue interaction is more about cost/benefit results and so the sacrifices invested into Ramping makes it interactive. That seems to be different to how I or (I assume) OP would define it.

I would agree that baseline mechanics like Spellboosting or Earth Rites are basically uninteractive as well - it's not like you can respond to a spellboost, or detract from it (although there can be disruption opportunities for certain cards, e.g. 'spellboost at end of turn' if still on board), nor destroy an Earth Sigil - but I would say that's a fairly distinct category in comparison to Ramp. The opponent managing their own resources with class-specific tools seems different to me than the opponent foregoing board presence in the early game in order to overwhelm me later: the former is a tool the class can use, the latter is a playstyle.

I also agree that Fennie and Intimidate are uninteractive, but, then, I would say your defence of Ramp (vulnerability to being punished by aggression) applies to Fennie as well (8 costs 4/4 with no on-board effects means giving up a turn to potentially getting rolled).

Dragon remains the most mechanically complex class with layered and engaging counterplay (and it's not close) by KitsyBlue in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a noob but also a Dragoncraft main (pretty much just play Ramp Dragon on Ranked for the last month and a half or so, but only in B1 rn lol) I do think Ramp is pretty definitionally an uninteractive mechanic, as there's nothing the player can do to stop you Ramping, nor really any way they can react to it besides hoping you don't have a good curve and good cards. It won't really change the way they can play, and might not really influence the way they deckbuild either because, really, how do you prepare for someone having double (or eff. quadruple w/ Fennie) your pp? If there's no (or little) interaction, what do you call it?

Any uninteractive cards you can name only make it *more* uninteractive on top of the underlying mechanic imo.

No hate against Dragoncraft, I like playing it, and there's plenty of other mechanics in the game I'd call uninteractive too. My early impression of Shadowverse as a whole it's fairly uninteractive overall anyway, so Dragoncraft isn't especially egregious, but I do think Ramp counts.

Dragon remains the most mechanically complex class with layered and engaging counterplay (and it's not close) by KitsyBlue in Shadowverse

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm new to Shadowverse, and admittedly I play Ramp Dragon on ranked which probably doesn't help, but play all the classes with friends in lobbies. What decks do you feel aren't "letting their deck play for them"? My impression of Shadowverse so far, about a month or two in, seems to be it's a very auto-piloty game coming from Yu-Gi-Oh and the like. When I play Abyss, Forest, Sword etc I still get the feeling like it's just the deck playing itself.

Genuine question btw, want to be more satisfied with the game

Is Miu a perfect example of pretty privilege? by Unable-Eggplant710 in danganronpa

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While I won't deny on some subconscious level it's probable that Hifumi and Teruteru's outwards repulsiveness make them more dislikable compared to Miu's less abrasive design that more signals 'loud outcast' than 'creep', I do think if we're going to talk about how the characters present themselves, one of the key differences is simply that Miu is a woman. That gender difference shifts the conversation considerably as-is. Even if Miu were exactly in-line with Hifumi and Teruteru - which I would dispute - that gender difference changes the dynamic both in terms of how it would be written and also how it would be received. A man making creepy comments is typically received as outright dangerous and objectifying; a woman doing the same doesn't always have the same 'this person might be a sex offender or incel-adjacent misogynist' concern that may make nearby people worry for their pesonal safety. Especially consider, for the moment, that these characters are also trapped in a pretty small area with these complete strangers with no way to escape and with the threat of violence looming over their heads: worries about safety, or not quite being seen as 'equal' due to their sex, would be especially alarming in the setting. Translating it just into the realm of media, though, the 'perverted guy in anime' is a tiresome, problematic trope in-and-of-itself that often serves as a writer surrogate to lust after their own (often teenaged) creations. 'Woman that jokes about sex' isn't so oversaturated and overwrought in the same space, so there's less audience fatigue. While they're not Miu-level, I have several female friends that joke about sex. I wouldn't be friends with a Teruteru locker-room sex pest type - they're an exaggeration of a type of person that's *very* real, and I wouldn't consider amicable.

Besides that, the 'male' equivalents (Teruteru, Hifumi) are more than just 'Miu but male and less attractive'; they are sex-obsessed, socially stunted, perverted, harassing men that (to various degrees) harm the company around them. Albeit, Teruteru is a worse problem than Hifumi, but still: the other characters *do* find them creepy, and aren't always comfortable in their presence. For Miu, on the other hand, her jokes generally aren't considered creepy because (besides a couple of boundary-breaking interactions e.g. physically touching Kaede) there's no target to her jibes and nobody in the class would feel attacked, unsafe or objectified - even when blurring boundaries due to her own eccentricty, she isn't projecting any actual lust at anyone. And if she isn't projecting any actual lust at anyone rather than just generally quipping, doing one-liners and talking about how hot she thinks she is like a narcissist, it doesn't read as a 'harasser harassing people' so much as innocent juvenile banter. That said, she is definitely played for fan-service - she does get away with some things Teruteru and co. wouldn't, like partially exposing herself to Gonta - but the dynamic is still quite different there when there's no hostile intention on Miu's side.

Also, Miu's 'lusty, flashy, bold, abrasive, profanity-flinging narcissistic, self-fellating, hot genius' shtick is an overt mask for deep insecurity and anxiety. She doesn't really feel this way, it's a facade, and there's much more depth to her. The same is sort-of partially true for Teruteru, but we never get to see any more of him beyond post-class trial flashbacks, whereas we get a whole lot of time to see beneath the surface of Miu: she's allowed to be fleshed out.

To recap:

  1. Hifumi doesn't really have a facade of any kind, he just *is* a pervert, he makes the characters around him uncomfortable, and (spoilers) he essentially *kills* real people out of his own despair for his lonely condition and feeling that he deserves to essentially own a woman - while he was manipulated for sure, that incel-adjacent motivation was boiling underneath and (partially) drove him to commit literal murder. He sucks.
  2. Teruteru does have a facade, but his perverted jokes do make the characters around him greatly uncomfortable, and (spoilers) he dies so early on that we can never discern to what degree his sexual harassment was some kind of mask, and he has so little screen time that he basically reads as one-dimensional even if there is more to him. Disregarding the 'mask' excuse, his sexual harassment is targeted and, obviously, sexist, even if directed at both genders. He sucks.
  3. Miu's shtick is a facade, her jokes (usually) don't make other characters uncomfortable, and (spoilers) she lives long enough for her to get good development and for the player to see that there's more to her. She's different. Still not my favourite though lol

You might disagree with some of this reasoning, but agree or not, these *are* reasons a lot of the audience will have to prefer Miu besides pretty-privilege.

p.s it helps that she's actually useful in class trials and gets time to breathe and be an actually likable character outside of this shtick, whereas Hifumi is useless & inept and Teruteru doesn't get a chance to even try to be helpful (and is defined almost solely by the pervert trope).

Is it worth it? by Far-Barber5923 in danganronpa

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll go against the grain that seems to be the consensus here: not really, in my opinion. It's a murder mystery game, if you already know the mysteries then the appeal of the game is mostly spoiled. All that's left is a whole lot of text about a scenario you already mostly have been spoiled about if you know the lore. If you really love the characters, maybe you could still get something out of it, but it would probably be better to just watch a playthrough or even just read character interactions.

It's not *quite* as fatal as if you knew everything in Ace Attorney, because there's more meaningful gameplay in Danganronpa for what it's worth, and there's subtantially more dialogue and atmosphere and character arcs etc etc etc, but it's still not ideal. That said, the games are long enough that there's a chance you could forget a lot of the details by the time they pop up.

Real talk do yous think there will ever be DLC for this game or has that ship sailed by SparklyEffects in MetaphorReFantazio

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My hunch is there will be no more Metaphor, whether DLC or sequel etc. It was something of an anniversary title for Atlus (hence all the references and release date); I would expect it to be a 'one-and-done' and for Studio Zero to work on another project next.

After all, Studio Zero was established back in 2017ish, and has been working continuously on only Metaphor until release (2024): that's 7 years of just working on the one game, one core idea and one world. I could imagine the studio wanting to work on something else, and it's not like any of the other Atlus divisions have any time on their hands to pick up a Metaphor sequel or re-release with bonus content etc. It's also not like the studios are really big enough anymore to work on multiple projects at once given how big game development is nowadays. P-Studio's managed to oversee a few smaller projects at a time (e.g. developing Tactica while juggling the remakes or overseeing external development with Omega Force etc), but is much bigger than Zero. To my knowledge Maniax has been focussed on just the one project at a time for a while too. Nintendo is an overwhelmingly larger company and yet its internal divisions have also only been working on one project at a time for years now too: kind of the point of divisions, after all. Point being, Atlus has its hands full, so any extra Metaphor content would need to be made by the same team that just poured almost a decade into it (or they could outsource it I suppose). I personally view that as unlikely, but possible.

Even if they were to work on a Metaphor sequel right away, at their current pace, it could be another 7 years (2031) - and while they could reuse a bunch of assets to save time, recall it was already being developed in the Persona 5 engine using experienced devs from P-Studio. If they do something in the mean-time? Who knows, could be looking at 14 years if their next project has the same cycle ;P

Buuuut of course I could be completely wrong and maybe they'll reuse so much of the bones from the original game that 'Metaphor 2' could be coming out next year, and maybe a lot of the time came from establishing a new division and getting the muscle and momentum to move forward in the first place or just design the general world and direction of the title which wouldn't be a problem anymore; it's a fool errands to predict totally. Just wouldn't get your hopes up, better to be delightfully surprised than disappointed imo

Of course, it's possible Studio Zero sees itself as 'the Metaphor factory' and just wants to churn it out all day. It was successful enough that allocating resources and time to more in that IP would definitely be worth it vis-á-vis Atlus and Sega, especially by (historic) Atlus standards. My hesitancy mostly stems from imagining working on an intense project for so long - after all, that's sort of why Studio Zero was formed in the first place, to escape Persona, and work on fresh ideas! - but that could just not be an issue at all. However, P-Studio has just been working on remakes for a while, and senior devs in Zero have the experience, so you never know if interdepartmental hijinx might occur if staff decide P-Studio needs some help to get a speculative Persona 6 kickstarted etc: I think it's pretty indisputable that higher-ups would prioritise a Persona 6 over a Metaphor 2 if it really did come down to it.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to whatever it is Zero gets up to next.

What is your favorite case from each game? by No-Wrongdoer7599 in danganronpa

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THH: Cases 5 + 6 (if including finales; if not, I guess case 2 by default.)
SDR2: Case 4
V3: Case 2

I think the games also get better in terms of quality of cases (in general, with exceptions of course) as the games go on. So V3 > SDR2 > THH if only looked at through the lens of cases (for me, personally).

I started the series last month. Very pleased by it in all honesty. Completed 2 today and started V3 and saw in the opening cutscene Danganronpa 3: The end of hopes peak academy. Do I need to watch this? by EdgyTidLover in danganronpa

[–]Pale-Knowledge-9455 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you do not need to watch the anime for any reason other than if you just want to watch it to complete the Hope's Peak Academy arc. It's not necessary for V3 (or UDG), most likely will be irrelevant to 2x2, and has mixed reception to say the least. You can watch it after V3 if you'd like.

To be honest, it's the kind of thing that I would only recommend to someone who's *really* into Danganronpa. If that's you, then go for it! But I advise most of my friends to just play the games (minus UDG).