i've been doing a bunch of tartarus runs in reload lately, and it got me thinking about how i miss certain ways FES's clunky gameplay can characterize minato… (ramble about the great clock mechanic + leveling up party members in reload vs fes under the cut)
when i got to yabbashah block in tartarus (block 3), i remember commending the developers for adding the great clock mechanic. it's a much more convenient way to keep party members at the protagonist's level- so when you think about p3 from the perspective of trying to make it easier for people to play, the mechanic succeeds in this respect.
but now that i'm in adamah block, and that i've done lots of my once-a-month tartarus runs… i think that i got a little too dependent on it, and the way that i played through reload feels like a vastly different experience from how i played FES.
in reload, my party's levels are very lopsided. minato, yukari, akihiko, mitsuru, and fuuka are all level 90+, meanwhile junpei and aigis are at level 79, and then… poor ken and koromaru are at 71 and 64 respectively. (i never got to have a great clock for them…)
meanwhile, in FES, my party's levels were much more evenly distributed and were at least level 90. i did all of this manually for every monthly tartarus run because i enjoyed having options available for the taratarus guardians and monthly operations.
with how i perceive minato, i feel that the way i played FES feels more in-line with his character than me dawdling around waiting for the great clocks in reload.
FES's gameplay loop left me with the very strong impression that minato has to work twice as hard as everyone else in SEES does. it makes sense because, yeah, he's the leader, but something about having minato run through tartarus multiple times with different groups of people just to make sure that they are adequately prepared speaks volumes about his character, to me.
and while the tired mechanic is present in reload to some degree, most notably with allowing you to freely raise your courage stat when you visit edogawa after school… the tiredness system doesn't hit the same way that FES does, i think.
the way your party members in FES will call it quits when they return to the entrance floor at tartarus when they're tired, versus minato, in spite of all his tiredness and sickness, still pushes through tartarus because it's his responsibility…. idk!!! i miss that! i feel like this really hammers home the difference between minato and the rest of SEES, how minato doesn't really see himself as a human with needs worth respecting as long as he's useful to someone.
i don't think that tartarus being tedious (in FES especially) is not what most people would describe as fun, and i can respect people thinking it's a slog. but, regardless of how it feels to play, it doesn't change that FES's gameplay loop is a fundamental building block in how i perceive minato…
of course, i do recognize that you can just opt to NOT use the great clock in reload (and it's great when players are offered the choice to not partake in mechanics)! i definitely think that if someone really wanted to, they could manually level up party members, but i do feel that kind of playstyle isn't necessarily "incentivized" to the type of people who are into playing games for Having a Good Time. it's kind of like… "why would you do that when there's a much more convenient option available to you."
in any case! despite my woes, i do want to emphasize that i'm glad that reload has a much more smoother gameplay loop than the original P3 did, because it does make the game more accessible to people. having played both FES and reload, it feels very strongly apparent to me how the core gameplay formula of persona has really been refined in the past 18 years (to think og p3 was 2006 and reload is 2024.. time flies!). and reload has made revisiting a story that i love so dearly much, much easier because the gameplay just bops!
at the same time, due to my "i miss characterization informed by weird and dated FES gameplay quirks" woes, i still think that playing FES is worthwhile. (really, i feel this way about all iterations of p3! i think it's worthwhile to see what each version and side media has to say even if it doesn't Land™ for you.) but i also understand why people wouldn't want to play it, so i will keep writing posts about things i liked from FES's gameplay because i'm still very fond of FES (especially in respects to minato. these mechanics are so telling about him!!!) 💪
37 notes
·
View notes
Yeah, again, that means nothing. What does a "little" seuxal attraction mean? Compared to who? How do you know? Does gay mean "little to no sexual attraction to the other gender?" No, it doesn't. Because being attracted to multiple genders would make you bi. Just like a gay man who wants to have sex with women isn't a gay man.
Asexuality means nothing because it isn't tied to anything. If wanting to have sex is included in asexuality, gay men wanting to have sex with women would be included in homosexualiyt.
Asexuality has no boundaries and communicates nothing.
The “little to” is compared to the average person’s rates of sexual attraction, if I can put it like that - the usual lack of sexual attraction to other people is the more important part. Asexual folks won’t see most people as hot, even those who are considered stereotypically attractive. Allo people are more likely to feel something whilst watching some shit like Love Island, asexuals won’t. That’s basically it. How do I know…? I’m not sure what exactly that’s referring to, but I’m going to assume it’s knowing I’m asexual - I don’t find anyone attractive. I know that. That’s a bit like asking “how do you know you aren’t hungry” - it’s harder to describe an absence of something than a presence of it.
I’ll point you in the direction of plenty of people having random folks who are “exceptions” to their sexualities; straight men who say their “exception” is Ryan Reynolds, for example, or gay women who say their “exception” is Hozier. We can argue back and forth if those examples are always meant seriously or not, but the fact is that human experiences are varied, and people can still call themselves by certain labels even if they have their own sort of exceptions. Nobody will turn around and suddenly shout “well, if you have this random one-off, then you can’t label yourself as that!”, that just doesn’t happen (at least, I’ve never seen that beyond the internet). The world is a complicated thing and if someone feels a label fits them, then there’s really no need to waste breathe and argue with them about their reasonings. I’m sure you have better things to do than trying to convince people online that asexuality isn’t real (I think that’s you’re trying to argue here).
Asexuality can be different from talking about homosexuality or heterosexuality because it’s an absence of something, or a very great lack of something; I used the metaphor of describing not being hungry before, and I think it’s worth bringing up here again. It’s really simple to describe hunger, but not easy to describe not being hungry at all. People will describe sexual attraction as all matter of things, and it’s much more difficult for me to say “well I never feel any of that”.
Asexuality is tied to a lack of sexual attraction or none entirely (“lack of” being in comparison to most people). Asexuality does have boundaries, but it’s almost like everybody has their own boundaries because people are people and experience things in different ways to their levels of enjoyment. That doesn’t make asexuality less valid. And it still communicates plenty of things - people’s boundaries in regards to sex, how they view themselves and their experience, etc. - it just seems that’s you’re just not willing to understand those or listen to asexual experiences.
5 notes
·
View notes