Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About LJwalhout

  • Rank
    Just a person, I think...
  • Birthday October 28

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Anything really. Trying new stuff can be fun.
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Genealogy of the Holy War

Member Badge

  • Members
  • Staff


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

731 profile views
  1. Ashera is probably the least evil because she only wanted to wipe out everyone because they kept fighting each other.While it's a bit extreme it isn't destroying all life just because. An argument could indeed also be made for Duma, Anankos & Nergal because they only became super evil after dragon dementia or using to much dark magic. Medeus also has a backstory that kind of justify his anger so he wouldn't also be a bad pick. I think Grima is the most evil (maybe Formortiis but I honestly don't remember much about him). Julius was my first pick but then I remembered that he saved Ishtar once and was generally nice to her so I can't pick him.
  2. My favourite cast is fe4. While I wouldn't make the argument that it's the most well written, it's the only game where I like the entire cast (except Sylvia) despite the fact that some characters have almost no dialogue. I would say the same about Three Houses with me liking the entire cast based on my initial reaction, but I haven't played all routes yet so I'm not 100% certain about the placing. Maybe it will become my favourite cast (although that seems unlikely) and maybe it will go down. fe7 is currently my third favourite because while there are some characters that I don't like, there are also some characters that I like a lot and the characters that I dislike aren't bad enough to distract me. Considering my least favourite cast I will go with Birthright, for the simple reason that while it doesn't have as deep lowpoints as Conquest or Radiant Dawn, I simply can't think of a single character in birthright that I like and despite the fact that each character has like 15 supports, most characters feel like they come from fe12 (AKA a game where most characters only have one support). Let me put it this way. If someone would ask me to describe a character from birthright, I could seriously only say one single character trait for most characters. Birthright also shamelessly rips of 3 characters from the previous game without doing anything new with their character despite the fact that they're supposed to be different characters. For how much I don't like the cast in Conquest and Radiant Dawn.I can at least name 5 characters that I like for each game (Nyx, Leo, Laslow, Siegbert & Forrest for Conquest and Haar, Jill, Zihark, Nolan & Elincia for Radiant Dawn). The most positive I can be about the cast in Birthright is Oboro & Takumi who are just ok.
  3. Yes but for the plan to work it would be very likely that Berkut would be beaten seeing how; he is a general, is stationed in the conquered territory and would likely want to prove himself by beating Alm. I'm more accussing Rudolf of apathy then actually trying to harm him.
  4. Radiant Dawn by a long distance for me. If I had to summarize fe9 & fe10, then it would be that fe9 has a decent story, good characters & supports, and the 2nd most boring gameplay in the series. meanwhile fe10 has the 2nd worst story in the series, generally good gameplay and a cast of characters that is a mixed bag. The fact is that while I think that story is important, gameplay is way more important. While I'm not the biggest fan of either games, I have quite a few fond memories of fe10 meanwhile I've forgotten most of fe9. And while I don't like the story of Radiant dawn, I do like the ideas behind it.
  5. Seeing how his plan was for Alm to beat him (I think, I haven't played Sov in a while), and this plan could only work if Berkut would most likely be beaten multiple times, which would most likely have a big negative influence on him due to how the teaching of Duma works and the fact that he thinks nobility is superior to common-folk. I would say no, not excactly. Maybe he cared a little bit, but that is never shown.
  6. Haar because I suck at Radiant Dawn and Haar with the Bexp from part 2 makes it possible to trivialize most of part 3. Jill is a close second for making part 3 bearable for the dawn brigade. She's also great in Path of Radiance. I also like their personalities but my main reason for liking them is gameplay because I seriously couldn't imagine playing fe10 without them. I also like Miledy for similar reasons but to a lesser extent. beyond that you could say that I like every wyvern rider/lord for one reason or another. If I had to pick a least favourite it would likely be Heath for being kinda forgetable and not being all that special, despite that I still like him a bit.
  7. I was already looking for someone mentioning death of the author. This is quite a difficult topic to talk about for me because 1. it isn't black and white in my eyes and 2. I'm very well known to not understand subtlety so I can often only see the most basic themes in a story (which often have authorial intent). While I think it is also important to get your own meaning and themes out of a story because it encourages thinking, I also think that the authorial intent is important since they are the one making the story and knowing their intent can enrich the story or make it easier to see flaws in the writing. I think that you shouldn't have your opinion or interpretation be dictated by both and try to find a balance (which admittedly is hard). Something like Fates has very clear themes thanks to how the game was marketed and presented to the public. If you live by death of the author you must ignore this and look at the story on it's own. But if you keep those things in mind you can more easily analyse and see where it goes wrong and why it is such an unsatifying story. I guess it are all just point of views. I prefer to know the author's intent because it makes it easier to analyse and critisize. Some want to find their own meaning in a story despite what the author ight have said.
  8. Can't really argue with it. Story structure is kind of like the earth on which you plant your ideas. If you don't plant anything it stays the same and probably dull. But plants without ground die and are never seen by other people (here is my shitty comparison). A story of course has contrivances (most of the time) but that it more a part of the execution then the structure. The way a story is executed can make contrived things more reasonable. A fun comparison I often make is between Star Trek (2009) and the Transformer movies. both have plot contrivances but one is well paced and executed and one isn't (guess which one). a contrivance is more a part of the structure that you use and depending on how it's executed can do something or fall flat on his face. You could also try to have the story differently paced and have it be more real for it to happen.It's quite complicated to explain because we look very different at stories. I also think that stories with minimalistic themes are something that shouldn't be frowned upon because these stories can more easily resonate with many different people. The original Star Wars trilogy doesn't have many deep themes but the movies (except VI) are so richely made that they appeal to many different people. Same with Harry Potter and the Marvel movies. Their themes are simplistic and easy to understand but well presented due to a good plot structure (despite contrivances) and being well presented. Something like Fates, The Last Jedi and Dune 1984 (yes, this is my most hated movie) have many themes that are interesting on the surface, but they are presented in a terrible way so nobody is interested in what they say except people who really want to get something out of it. I also wanted to point this out earlier but if the theme of Fates is finding the truth then 1. Why was the story marketed like a war story where you had to choose one side in which moral grey is an important theme? 2. Are all 3 endings presented in a positive way at the end (sure 2 of them are more tagic but they are still positive at the end) 3. Has none of the writers brought up the theme as an important theme? This might sound rough but I think you're overthinking an heavily flawed story and giving it a meaning because it rushed and the writers didn't care about the end product (although maybe I'm wrong and just a dump person who takes everything at face value).
  9. Story structure is the way a story is built. Think something basic like a 3 act structure in movies or the 5 act structure used in theatre. without a structure in your story nothing would add up and it would likely be nonsense that only the author might understand. I would give an example but almost every story has a structure (even bad ones). The short story that you gave has a simple structure. I might also point out that there is a huge difference between a painting, music and stories. Paintings are visual and because of this don't need structure to work since our brain automatically can take something out of it because we associate colors, forms etc. with certain thing without us realizing it. I don't know much about music but that also needs a good structure. One can of course experiment but there are some sorts of music and sounds that are known to subconsiously cause a certain emotion. Stories however are narratives which are bound to words (which we have giving sentence structures to understand because if we would use the words within another structure it would mean something else) and an internal logic. We also need to use our consious to understand them which equals paying attention. By giving them structure it becomes easier to understand and analyse for themes. The fact is that stories without a structure are often just thatway to claim that they have no structure. But it has no meaning because we can't understand what it is about and need to be explained what it means (if it even means anything). I already gave examples why stories that barely have themes are still great and stories with many themes don't work. I think what you forget in the part of an artist expressing what he thinks is that it is also read by other people who might think very differently then him and by giving it a clear structure it becomes understandable for those people. If you don't, you get something like the madness letters from Nietzsche http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1889.htm
  10. Plot structure by far. If a story has no structure to speak of it looses your attention because you can make nothing out of it on the most basic level. Themes are nice sure but you can still write entertaining stories that don't have any themes (or basically none). Many Marvel movies (not all) and Alien barely have any themes and are still great movies because the story is well planned out and presented in either an entertaining or disturbing way. The 1984 Dune movie however does have many themes yet the structure is so flawed that you aren't interested in the themes but rather the clock on your phone because you are so frustrated that you hope it will soon end. Themes enhance a story, structure makes a story. (btw if a story has no structure then there no logic to it and the story can't have themes because there is no consistency. Of course there barely are stories that have no structure, just something I wanted to point out).
  11. I will be honest and say that I haven't played a lot of Gaiden. I have however played Shadows of Valentia so I can compare it with that game. I like Shadows of Valentia a little bit more mostly because of the presentation but also because while I still prefer the more traditional structure that fe7 uses, Shadow iof alentia (and I also assume Gaiden) is built around these mechanics with how dungeons and towns work and the fact that you can find loot which you can improve in towns. Fe8 is more a hybrid between fe2/15 and fe6/7 mechanics and it simply doesn't work because the mechanics don't compliment each other. In my eyes you could simply remove the overworld and grinding and not much would change (this argument also applies to fe13, Birthright and Revelations but a bit less due to the child mechanics and even then it would still be possible to do it the way Conquest did). If I would have implemented an overworld I would make it unlockable after you finished the game and have some challenging maps to test the player. I would look forward to a remake of fe8 if not just to see some of my favourite characters to be presented in a modern way. I also really don't dislike the game so it wouldn't like if they remade Fates which I have zero interest in. It can also be a way to introduce my friends to the older Fire Emblem games which I certainly welcome. The Only thing that holds me back from playing it is the fact that I don't have any modern consoles and don't plan on buying one.
  12. I personally don't consider myself a huge fan of Sacred Stones. The main issue that I have with the game is that in my eyes it doesn't improve or add interesting things to the formula that fe6 & 7 laid out (know that I also dislike fe9 for similar reasons but much more). The things that they added are in my eyes either not things that the series needs (grinding and an overworld map) or nice additions that aren't really necessary (branched promotion and post-game). I also consider the main characters a considerable downgrade from the previous game which really hurts the story since I can't relate on a deep emotional level which was the reason why fe7's (and fe5 & 9) story worked despite the loose writing. What keeps this game from being a bad game for me is the fact that the supporting cast is really good and probably one of the better ones. While I really dislike the fact that some characters only get developed in supports it's probably one of the best at using supports to develop their characters together with fe7. And what I pointed out last is really the main problem I have with fe8. If you have played fe7 it really doesn't do anything interesting or new or really good if you ask me. It isn't really bad in any category like either fe4, fe10 or Fates but it also doesn't excel at anything that fe7 does better for me. Maybe if I had played fe8 first and fe7 later I would like this game more but that isn't the case. If anyone likes fe8, that's not really that strange to me (I like fe4 and that game is super flawed). It's not a bad game. It's just a game that didn't impress me.
  13. Anything that flies or refreshes. Because they are classes that you can get major use out of despite their stats. And when fliers have good stats you get something like Haar, Jill & fe12 Palla Staff users are a close second but the amount of use you can get out of them varies per game (amazing in Fe5, 11, 12 & 13, great in Fe4 & 6 and good in most other games with maybe fe10 as the exception due to how good vulneraries are and how most staff-users suck).
  14. Nah, 11 of the 15 Fire Emblem games have big evil dragons as the finalboss and many of the ones that don't have a dragon have a very similar plot structure as the ones with a dragon finalboss.
  15. I have had this thought for this story a while. It begins with the protagonist dying. The secondary protagonist is someone who was very inspired by this person who was a famous hero and wants to know what his life was like so he starts looking for people who have known him. Each person has a very different opinion of him and some even tell different things about the same event. The chapters are basically the events that are told to the secondary protagonist but because they're told by different persons the tone isn't consistent. Some chapters are very heroic while others are more grim because that's the way it's told.
  • Create New...