QUINTESSENCE? DONT UNDERSTAND

[Lord Raven]

Not kidding when I say that I hear PMD games are very depressing.

[CT075]

Being entirely honest, if all you really wanted to say was how boring a story FE7 was, what was all this... what, 18 pages worth of arguing over what constitues a plot-hole or not? Since all of this, the name-calling, the anger, etc. could have been averted if you'd just decided to say that at any time in the last 18 pages. Or if you, at any time in the last however many hours, decided that enough was enough and just stopped arguing. Seriously, all I've seen in the last ~3 pages was pointless bickering over minor points such as whether or not it's plausible that Ephidel could convince Darin to make an utterly stupid move like attacking Ostia. Whether or not this is a valid issue, if you had just came out and said "I find this story boring, and the plot holes don't make it a whole lot better", 75% of this useless flaming would never have happened.

And either way, I think I can count the number of people on this board who play FE7 for the story on two hands. The whole thing about the story starting and ending with the status quo is because the state at the beginning of FE7 is basically the state that started FE6. And seeing as FE7 is all about setting up FE6 (which, beyond explaining how Zephiel went batshit, it did a terrible job of, but I digress), there's not a whole lot they can do to NOT end with the status quo, lest they cause arguments about how things are inconsistent between the two.

Not to say that I disagree with Banzai here, but if your prequel's status quo = the sequel's status quo, there's not a whole lot of change that can be done.

...And Lyon's the most intricate and well-developed character in the entire series, so yeah.

I can and will write up multiple wallotexts as to why that title belongs to Alvis.

[Mikethfc]

Oh I love this.

FE7 is neither interesting nor compelling sans for perhaps the Bern royal family. This was what I was saying in my original critique; and yet nearly every response to this topic has been people posting inane and purely hypothetical explanations for the plot holes which I explained in order to bring forth the larger point.

There is no progress in Fire Emblem 7. None whatsoever. The characters do not progress over time. At the end of the game nothing is different than how it was at the beginning of the game. Nothing has HAPPENED. Nergal spawned out of thin air to gain power. This caused some fights, some people died. Then Nergal was defeated and we were left off right where we began. The story started with everything at status quo and ended with everything at status quo.

Everything about this story--from its place as an utterly pointless prequel to a game well-enclosed and without loose ends, from the chapter maps filled with enemies who appear from nowhere simply seeking to kill you, from the main characters themselves--nothing profound has happened over the course of this game. We have learned nothing new; the characters themselves have learned nothing new.

If you want to take this to a loftier level, I'll take it there. For as far as I'm concerned, Fire Emblem 7 has no story whatsoever, merely a loosely connected string of battles revolving around a similar set of characters. A story needs progression. You can have a villain, a hero, and a conflict but without progression you still have no story; merely a snapshot. A hideously prolonged snapshot of nauseating disinterest.

So let's ignore every single fucking plot hole in the entire game. This game, from a technical standpoint, is perfect. Let's just assume that. This game however still lacks one of the most basic tenants of plot; and that is motion. Oh, but you'll say: "The game starts with you stopping and rebellion and ends with you saving the world," and if that's what you think you've missed the point entirely. There is more to motion than a mere change of the banner waved by the enemies you fight.

But Hector does mature, IMO opinion at least, in the beginning he's brash and pays very little attention to subtlety or anything which doesn't involve violence and the only way he really would've clocked Uther's death is by threatening one of the Ostia's soldiers.

Its still a nice impression of the Daily Mail at any rate.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Mikethfc

[shrang]

Did you not understand the part where I said that FE7's fundamental problem was not about plot holes?

...And Lyon's the most intricate and well-developed character in the entire series, so yeah.

All I have to say about if you think that FE7 lacks character development and depth and that you've closed your eyes and aren't looking. First and foremost, the protagonists are not stagnant, at least from my view. Lyn grows from a rather stubborn and vengeful young lass to someone who is more accepting (as seen with the bandits vs pirates) and willing to throw aside her feelings for what is better for the big picture (See Jaffar). Hector goes from a "well-known lout" to someone who isn't as much so, and is ready to take on responsibility after his brother dies. Eliwood goes from a rather naive little kid to quote "the greatest knight in Lycia". Lords aside, the Supports have made a rather big web of backstory for every single in the game, the best example would be that of Renault, whom you would just think is some random bishop in game instead of the rather intricate character that he actually is. It is far from stagnant.

About Lyon, while he is very well-developed, your statement is probably exaggerating it a bit. Just because he's well developed doesn't mean he has to be a good villain. I've been wanting to reply to the Nergal vs Lyon argument for a while, and I'll just leave you all with this. Which villain makes you hate him more, Nergal or Lyon? Nergal's secret backstory aside (which you have to work your ass off to find), he's not any worse than Lyon simply by the fact that he is much more defined as a villain than Lyon is. He makes you hate him, which in turn makes the protagonists relatively more endearing. Darth Vader was a much cooler villain when he was just the badass dude in a black suit strangling all his mooks than after the prequels gave you his "backstory". The emperor is more hate-able because he was one-dimensional. Lyon, on the other hand, doesn't make me feel anything for him apart from pity, really. A well-developed villain is good, but if he can't make the reader/player/viewer want to beat him, well he's missed the point of being a villain.

[Agro]

I read the entire essay/analysis, and I have to agree with Banzai here. Though the story was very, very compelling when I first played it, when I play it now, I can never seem to get into it like I can with FE4/5/9/10. The game's plot has not aged well in my eyes.

I do have one thing to add, though, if it hasn't been added already (and I'm not going through 18 pages to check). Fire Emblem Wiki theorises that Nergal's desire to summon dragons stems from his desire to "come back" for his abandoned children, Ninian and Nils. Of course, as Teodor and Bramimond imply/state, one loses their initial purpose after having studied dark magic for so long, and so evidently all that remained of Nergal's will was that he had to find a way to open the Dragon's Gate and find a way to get more power in order to open the Dragon's Gate. I know this is a bit of a stretch considering none of this is stated in-game, but it may have been clearer in the Japanese version (as the games often are) and some details may not have survived the translation process.

[Mikethfc]

I agree with most of what you said but

A well-developed villain is good, but if he can't make the reader/player/viewer want to beat him, well he's missed the point of being a villain.

Tragic antagonists/villains can work really well if they manage to trigger that crisis of consicence, the Boss from MGS3, Rundas from MP3 and Loghain from DAO spring to mind.

[shrang]

I agree with most of what you said but

Tragic antagonists/villains can work really well if they manage to trigger that crisis of consicence, the Boss from MGS3, Rundas from MP3 and Loghain from DAO spring to mind.

Yes, if written well, that is perfectly fine. The most important thing about a villain (in my opinion) is his ability to make the player/reader/viewer want to defeat them. If you can get the player to do that while putting a tragic and sympathetic backstory, that's even better, but if you lack the first criteria, then you haven't yourself much of a villain. Lyon just doesn't give me that sort of feeling. The only thing you feel when you beat Lyon is "well I've put you out of your misery, have a better time in your afterlife, Lyon" as opposed "Man you had that coming".

[bottlegnomes]

Yes, if written well, that is perfectly fine. The most important thing about a villain (in my opinion) is his ability to make the player/reader/viewer want to defeat them. If you can get the player to do that while putting a tragic and sympathetic backstory, that's even better, but if you lack the first criteria, then you haven't yourself much of a villain. Lyon just doesn't give me that sort of feeling. The only thing you feel when you beat Lyon is "well I've put you out of your misery, have a better time in your afterlife, Lyon" as opposed "Man you had that coming".

As someone said earlier, Lyon's probably more of an antivillain than a straight up villain.

As for Pascal, not sure why I'm posting this now, but this is what I've got for why he's imprisoned:

As we know, under Brendan the fang only killed traitors, but under Nergal they killed people no longer able to carry out their duties or those that failed to carry out their mission. It is also stated that they began taking any job no matter how bad. Pascal very possibly could have joined after Nergal took over and been his cruel self from the get go. Nothing ever so much as implies that Pascal failed any of his missions, and he can clearly still fight. After seeing how bad Pascal was Brendan wanted to keep him from hurting anyone else, but at that point Nergal was in control so Brendan couldn't kill him because he had no reason that Nergal would accept, but he could still do something to keep Pascal from hurting people, and that was imprison him.

[Mikethfc]

As someone said earlier, Lyon's probably more of an antivillain than a straight up villain.

As for Pascal, not sure why I'm posting this now, but this is what I've got for why he's imprisoned:

As we know, under Brendan the fang only killed traitors, but under Nergal they killed people no longer able to carry out their duties or those that failed to carry out their mission. It is also stated that they began taking any job no matter how bad. Pascal very possibly could have joined after Nergal took over and been his cruel self from the get go. Nothing ever so much as implies that Pascal failed any of his missions, and he can clearly still fight. After seeing how bad Pascal was Brendan wanted to keep him from hurting anyone else, but at that point Nergal was in control so Brendan couldn't kill him because he had no reason that Nergal would accept, but he could still do something to keep Pascal from hurting people, and that was imprison him.

Nah you've got it all wrong mate, was all about sanctity of life, amnesty international where moaning the Black Fang's collective ears off so they decided to just imprison him to get those namby-pamby do-gooders off their case.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Mikethfc

[General Spoon]

FIRE EMBLEM IS NOT A LITERARY WORK.

It's a game, first and foremost.

The art form is not going to advance with people adhering to this outdated logic. Video games are no longer just time sinks for children anymore; they have come a long way in the last few decades and people need to accept that video games are as legitimate an art form as other mediums.

So please don't use "Dude, its only a game." as a legitimate argument anymore. Its an insult to me, an insult to you, and an insult to the medium.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Cher Ami

[Priscilla]

. . .and then there are stupid mistakes based on arrogance, which seems to have fallen out of the equation. I haven't seen too many main villains who constantly keep their egos in check.

There's a difference, again, between an egotistical and arrogant ruler whose ultimate downfall is his pride, and someone so incompetent they probably can't tie their shoelaces. It's like every single villain who makes an expository speech that ends up being the sole reason he's defeated, except 10x less genre-savvy.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Priscilla

[Mikethfc]

The art form is not going to advance with people adhering to this outdated logic. Video games are no longer just time sinks for children anymore; they have come a long way in the last few decades and people need to accept that video games are as legitimate an art form as other mediums.

So please don't use "Dude, its only a game." as a legitimate argument anymore. Its an insult to me, an insult to you, and an insult to the medium.

Way to miss the point. It seems more like she's going down the same lines as Adam Smith with his specialisation theories.

Its a game first and foremost

As in if you want a compelling story line, it might be worth actuallyreading a book or something which is similarly dedicated solely to story line, and as an added bonus won't have random bandit attack filler which was so vehemently protested earlier.

Also on art its not comments like that which is stopping VGs being seen as art its that nobody who cares that strongly is good enough at bullshitting, as the Unmade Bed and 4 minutes 33 seconds show; everybody and their mums can be passed off as art with a silvertongue.

Spoiler Warning without the warning: This is just my opinion on the matter.

[Colonel M]

Late to the party and it was probably answered, but I think if Nergal was really all that powerful, he probably just sacrificed his body to have enough Quintessence to summon Dragons. Of course this still leaves a lot of loop holes, but considering other games pull these stunts anyway (Lyon w/Demon King, Darksol w/Dark Dragon, King Galam w/Zeon for random examples (yes I know those other two aren't FE-related)), *shrugs*.

[Just call me AL]

No offense General Banzai, but I'm actually seeing some similarities between the way you argue, and the way a YouTube user by the name of ShockOfGod argues. Because all it seems like you're doing, as Paperblade points out, is saying "X sucks because I such and such details are plot holes and I don't like it. Proove to me that they aren't plot holes, and we'll see if that changes my tune.", and everyone's throwing every acceptable answer at you, and you still go on about this issue you have as to why you think "X sucks". Sure it may not be like Shock's usage of "Prove to me Atheism is accurate and correct", and him blocking anyone who gives an acceptable answer, going "Lol I was right!", and still uses that statement to issue out "debate challenges". (I already know this isn't about Atheism vs. Religion.) But the way you're going about it doesn't make your situation any better. Honestly, if you hate something so much, why go through the trouble of "analyzing it's story" and blatantly ignoring what the other person has to say in response? All this effort isn't worth the 19 pages this topic has, to be honest. Why not just drop the subject already? All going on will do is make people think that you're simply trolling and want attention. (Which isn't hard to imagine, personally.) And it wouldn't help your image in any way. Like Camtech said, all this mindless flaming that was going on for the past few pages was unnecessary and could have been avoided if the subject was dropped then and there.

Just felt like stating an honest opinion here.

[Othin]

Not kidding when I say that I hear PMD games are very depressing.

They are.

All I have to say about if you think that FE7 lacks character development and depth and that you've closed your eyes and aren't looking. First and foremost, the protagonists are not stagnant, at least from my view. Lyn grows from a rather stubborn and vengeful young lass to someone who is more accepting (as seen with the bandits vs pirates) and willing to throw aside her feelings for what is better for the big picture (See Jaffar). Hector goes from a "well-known lout" to someone who isn't as much so, and is ready to take on responsibility after his brother dies. Eliwood goes from a rather naive little kid to quote "the greatest knight in Lycia". Lords aside, the Supports have made a rather big web of backstory for every single in the game, the best example would be that of Renault, whom you would just think is some random bishop in game instead of the rather intricate character that he actually is. It is far from stagnant.

...Something shown within the story, not simply stated in the ending.

As for Lyn, she still whines about the pirates. No development there.

About Lyon, while he is very well-developed, your statement is probably exaggerating it a bit. Just because he's well developed doesn't mean he has to be a good villain. I've been wanting to reply to the Nergal vs Lyon argument for a while, and I'll just leave you all with this. Which villain makes you hate him more, Nergal or Lyon? Nergal's secret backstory aside (which you have to work your ass off to find), he's not any worse than Lyon simply by the fact that he is much more defined as a villain than Lyon is. He makes you hate him, which in turn makes the protagonists relatively more endearing. Darth Vader was a much cooler villain when he was just the badass dude in a black suit strangling all his mooks than after the prequels gave you his "backstory". The emperor is more hate-able because he was one-dimensional. Lyon, on the other hand, doesn't make me feel anything for him apart from pity, really. A well-developed villain is good, but if he can't make the reader/player/viewer want to beat him, well he's missed the point of being a villain.

By the end of their respective games, Lyon is without a doubt the one I want to kill more.

I believe you'll see why when Banzai posts his FE8 analysis. As with most of Serenes, you seem to be very unfamiliar with FE8's story, and now is not the place to educate you on it.

As someone said earlier, Lyon's probably more of an antivillain than a straight up villain.

As for Pascal, not sure why I'm posting this now, but this is what I've got for why he's imprisoned:

As we know, under Brendan the fang only killed traitors, but under Nergal they killed people no longer able to carry out their duties or those that failed to carry out their mission. It is also stated that they began taking any job no matter how bad. Pascal very possibly could have joined after Nergal took over and been his cruel self from the get go. Nothing ever so much as implies that Pascal failed any of his missions, and he can clearly still fight. After seeing how bad Pascal was Brendan wanted to keep him from hurting anyone else, but at that point Nergal was in control so Brendan couldn't kill him because he had no reason that Nergal would accept, but he could still do something to keep Pascal from hurting people, and that was imprison him.

Nergal only started gaining power in the Black Fang a year before the game started. It's completely impossible that in the short time he had power, he had enough to allow Pascal into the Black Fang and even to elevate him to one of the Four Fangs (in place of who? Jaffar?), and then that Brendan would have still had enough power to take that title away from him and imprison him, but not have him killed by Legault or anyone (the Black Fang are assassins; he should have an easy way to remove Pascal without getting Nergal involved), and all that in less than a year?

No offense General Banzai, but I'm actually seeing some similarities between the way you argue, and the way a YouTube user by the name of ShockOfGod argues. Because all it seems like you're doing, as Paperblade points out, is saying "X sucks because I such and such details are plot holes and I don't like it. Proove to me that they aren't plot holes, and we'll see if that changes my tune.", and everyone's throwing every acceptable answer at you, and you still go on about this issue you have as to why you think "X sucks". Sure it may not be like Shock's usage of "Prove to me Atheism is accurate and correct", and him blocking anyone who gives an acceptable answer, going "Lol I was right!", and still uses that statement to issue out "debate challenges". (I already know this isn't about Atheism vs. Religion.) But the way you're going about it doesn't make your situation any better. Honestly, if you hate something so much, why go through the trouble of "analyzing it's story" and blatantly ignoring what the other person has to say in response? All this effort isn't worth the 19 pages this topic has, to be honest. Why not just drop the subject already? All going on will do is make people think that you're simply trolling and want attention. (Which isn't hard to imagine, personally.) And it wouldn't help your image in any way. Like Camtech said, all this mindless flaming that was going on for the past few pages was unnecessary and could have been avoided if the subject was dropped then and there.

Just felt like stating an honest opinion here.

Because of course we haven't presented evidence to back up every one of our claims and evidence against every incorrect attempt to argue with one of those claims, and conceded the times people actually did make a legitimate argument that disproved our previous claim.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Othin

[Original Alear]

and no one decides to even read my post

It might be because they think you're right!

Sonia:

The assassinations… Both come directly by the king's request. The prince is well loved, and his death will trigger much chaos. If the assassin is not caught and hanged immediately, the chaos will engulf Bern. A scapegoat is needed. Do you understand?

Read that a few times and see if you can spot the problem.

Nino would never be an excellent scapegoat. Maybe the real scapegoat was meant to be Jaffar, and Sonia just couldn't resist saying SOMETHING to try and keep him from figuring out the truth? Moreover, Sonia doesn't really have much of a heart, she might not really even realize how innocent and kind her own daughter is - and therefore an unrealistic assassin - cuz she doesn't give a shit about her. But Nino IS a talented mage. If she was dealt with quickly and properly by the kings guards, no one would know that she wasn't really an assassin for sure.

Perhaps the entire plot was just not well put together because, again, the black fang has its hands in so many different pies it doesn't really have its head on straight anymore. I mean, the leadership is already divided almost completely between men loyal to brendan, men loyal to themselves who follow nergal, and morphs loyal to nergal (to make what I feel are reasonable simplifying assumptions about the fang's structure).

No. A story is not like real life, where characters can keep their motivations secret to their very grave. In a story, the reader must know the underlying causes as to what's happening; or at the very least there must be implications as to motive and reasoning behind the characters. If we had a story where every character acted in a way without knowing why they were acting that way, we wouldn't be able to understand what the hell was going on.

But it's OK to have SOME ambiguity so we don't know EVERYTHING that's going on. And a story that has some plot holes upon examination this close can still be a good story!

Caelin is a smaller territory, versus Ostia, which is well-fortified. Unless you fell asleep in basic military strategy, attacking Caelin yields a better chance of winning than Ostia.

Not to mention that since Darin wants to go to dragon's isle land first to see Nergal by this point, IIRC...maybe it's just a stopover to replenish supplies?

Maraj, Ludveck, same difference. Heck, let's go with another question: Why didn't Maraj go send a messenger to tell Ludveck "Hey Lucia is slaughtering our men here" as soon as the fight started?

Dark cave. How does he know the men are being slaughtered? This assumes something along the lines of organization of the enemy's forces equal to the players' forces, AKA an "oversoul" (enemy player) coordinating action with conscious abilities tied to the script of the game in manner exactly equaling the player's.

Nice work, Duessel. You ruined a man's life (and by extension that of many others) because of a story that you can't verify the accuracy of.

Well, people make such mistakes from time to time, and Duessel has made far fewer such mistakes than most or so it seems given his status as a heroic figure. I think you are targeting him unfairly here, being a bit harsh as it were.

So why should I talk to you?

You are talking to him, so you should continue talking because you find the conversation interesting?

Well that really lends credibility to her statements of being loyal to Bern.

Well, just because she's a bit hot off the handle doesn't instantly mean she has no loyalty whatsoever for them. Consider the way she leads her life in a larger sense, don't just snip a moment and say she has nothing called loyalty in her.

[Othin]

Nino would never be an excellent scapegoat. Maybe the real scapegoat was meant to be Jaffar, and Sonia just couldn't resist saying SOMETHING to try and keep him from figuring out the truth? Moreover, Sonia doesn't really have much of a heart, she might not really even realize how innocent and kind her own daughter is - and therefore an unrealistic assassin - cuz she doesn't give a shit about her. But Nino IS a talented mage. If she was dealt with quickly and properly by the kings guards, no one would know that she wasn't really an assassin for sure.

It doesn't make sense for the Black Fang to simply sacrifice Jaffar like that, and the guards were away, so there would be no one to catch him. One might say that Ursula was sent for that reason, but it doesn't make sense; she didn't indicate anything of the sort in her dialogue, and her catching Jaffar wouldn't be particularly credible anyway. Most importantly, however, is the issue that there was no way she could've gotten that past Jaffar. According to her own words, the scapegoat had to be caught alive, which meant that it was either an obviuously botched plan to make Nino the scapegoat or Sonia was basically telling Jaffar to his face that he was going to be the scapegoat. It just doesn't work.

Perhaps the entire plot was just not well put together because, again, the black fang has its hands in so many different pies it doesn't really have its head on straight anymore. I mean, the leadership is already divided almost completely between men loyal to brendan, men loyal to themselves who follow nergal, and morphs loyal to nergal (to make what I feel are reasonable simplifying assumptions about the fang's structure).

Almost everything the Black Fang did in the story went very much against its original goals, meaning that Nergal had to have gained almost complete control (in about a year). Certainly, within his morphs, there should have been no division.

But it's OK to have SOME ambiguity so we don't know EVERYTHING that's going on. And a story that has some plot holes upon examination this close can still be a good story!

Some ambiguity, some decently sized plot holes upon close investigation is fine. Massive ambiguity, a huge number of plot holes that tear up the entire story, leaving almost nothing left, many of which were discovered before we even started examining the story closely at all... a story can't have all that and still be a good story.

Not to mention that since Darin wants to go to dragon's isle land first to see Nergal by this point, IIRC...maybe it's just a stopover to replenish supplies?

No. Again:

Ephidel:

You're exactly right. Our plans may have gone drastically awry, but as long as we have the master's power behind us, we cannot be defeated. We'd do well to leave now, before those meddlesome worms arrive. You will leave everyone from Laus behind. We will use them to delay our foe.

Darin:

Everyone... My soldiers? But...who will protect me?

Ephidel:

The Black Fang and I will more than suffice for that task. There is nothing else you need, I assure you.

Darin:

Yes...I...I see that now. Where do we go from here?

Ephidel:

To the Dragon's Gate... Our master awaits us there. The master has informed me our hostage may be all we need. If all goes well, we may be able to perform the ceremony with him alone.

Darin had no plans whatsoever to abandon his plans and go to Valor until he had already taken over Caelin.

Well, just because she's a bit hot off the handle doesn't instantly mean she has no loyalty whatsoever for them. Consider the way she leads her life in a larger sense, don't just snip a moment and say she has nothing called loyalty in her.

Perhaps... In any case, I've already withdrawn that argument.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Othin

[bottlegnomes]

Nergal only started gaining power in the Black Fang a year before the game started. It's completely impossible that in the short time he had power, he had enough to allow Pascal into the Black Fang and even to elevate him to one of the Four Fangs (in place of who? Jaffar?), and then that Brendan would have still had enough power to take that title away from him and imprison him, but not have him killed by Legault or anyone (the Black Fang are assassins; he should have an easy way to remove Pascal without getting Nergal involved), and all that in less than a year?

Okay, say Pascal joined before Nergal came to power and managed to trick Brendan into thinking he was nice. Then Brendan only discovered he was a psychopath after Nergal was in charge. The rest stays the same. Brendan still has influence in the fang, just not complete control anymore. I fail to see how he couldn't get Pascal imprisoned, but killing him would be pretty obvious and could make Nergal/Sonia angry and Brendan clearly doesn't want to do that. I know imprisoning him would make them angry, too, but not nearly as much as killing him. And they might be willing to look the other way because that would allow them to manipulate Pascal without Brendan's knowing, like they do in Ch. 25. As for who replaced him, Ursula or Jaffar are easy possibilities, Ursula more so because of Jaffar's reputation, and what Jerme says.

[Othin]

Okay, say Pascal joined before Nergal came to power and managed to trick Brendan into thinking he was nice. Then Brendan only discovered he was a psychopath after Nergal was in charge. The rest stays the same. Brendan still has influence in the fang, just not complete control anymore. I fail to see how he couldn't get Pascal imprisoned, but killing him would be pretty obvious and could make Nergal/Sonia angry and Brendan clearly doesn't want to do that. I know imprisoning him would make them angry, too, but not nearly as much as killing him. And they might be willing to look the other way because that would allow them to manipulate Pascal without Brendan's knowing, like they do in Ch. 25. As for who replaced him, Ursula or Jaffar are easy possibilities, Ursula more so because of Jaffar's reputation, and what Jerme says.

There's no way Pascal could hide it that easily. He lacks subtlety, and the Black Fang would likely already know of his massacre; a group of assassins has to be good at getting information. By the time Nergal came to power, it's clear that he had control enough to put any psychopath into command, so there's no reason he wouldn't be able to keep Pascal there. Regarding imprisonment vs. execution, there's no reason the Black Fang would have ever had the means with which to imprison someone before, and making it happen then would not have been as easy as simply telling a subordinate to make Pascal disappear. Let it not be forgotten that despite many of their actions in the story, the Black Fang is supposed to be a group of assassins; they should be good at killing people with any subtlety needed.

[Dark Sage]

Oh I love this.

FE7 is neither interesting nor compelling sans for perhaps the Bern royal family. This was what I was saying in my original critique; and yet nearly every response to this topic has been people posting inane and purely hypothetical explanations for the plot holes which I explained in order to bring forth the larger point.

There is no progress in Fire Emblem 7. None whatsoever. The characters do not progress over time. At the end of the game nothing is different than how it was at the beginning of the game. Nothing has HAPPENED. Nergal spawned out of thin air to gain power. This caused some fights, some people died. Then Nergal was defeated and we were left off right where we began. The story started with everything at status quo and ended with everything at status quo.

Everything about this story--from its place as an utterly pointless prequel to a game well-enclosed and without loose ends, from the chapter maps filled with enemies who appear from nowhere simply seeking to kill you, from the main characters themselves--nothing profound has happened over the course of this game. We have learned nothing new; the characters themselves have learned nothing new.

If you want to take this to a loftier level, I'll take it there. For as far as I'm concerned, Fire Emblem 7 has no story whatsoever, merely a loosely connected string of battles revolving around a similar set of characters. A story needs progression. You can have a villain, a hero, and a conflict but without progression you still have no story; merely a snapshot. A hideously prolonged snapshot of nauseating disinterest.

So let's ignore every single fucking plot hole in the entire game. This game, from a technical standpoint, is perfect. Let's just assume that. This game however still lacks one of the most basic tenants of plot; and that is motion. Oh, but you'll say: "The game starts with you stopping and rebellion and ends with you saving the world," and if that's what you think you've missed the point entirely. There is more to motion than a mere change of the banner waved by the enemies you fight.

Because nobody has any right to like FE7 and you are completely right and everyone else is wrong amirite?

Look, nobody is saying the plot is perfect. Paperblade has been arguing with you and he makes fun of the plot in his LP of FE7. I guess to paraphrase Yahtzee, you like to portray those who critique or disagree with you as ridiculous strawmen who you mock with infuriating self-righteousness.

I also love how you completely dismiss any attempt to explain any plot holes you have problems with, yet you just dismiss them as irrelevant or dumb for seemingly no reason. Look, you posted this thread on the internet. People are going to try to explain reasonable things to you, but I guess you weren't prepared for that and instead expected everyone to bow down before you and go "OH MY GOD, YOU ARE RIGHT BANZAI! LET ME KISS YOUR FEET!" I mean, at this point, I don't have much reason to believe otherwise.

So please, let's get back to the point of this thread, which is to continue about bitching about FE7's plot and expecting everyone to agree. If anyone disagrees with you, feel free to be doing what you've done this whole thread:

[Momo]

Late to the party and it was probably answered, but I think if Nergal was really all that powerful, he probably just sacrificed his body to have enough Quintessence to summon Dragons. Of course this still leaves a lot of loop holes, but considering other games pull these stunts anyway (Lyon w/Demon King, Darksol w/Dark Dragon, King Galam w/Zeon for random examples (yes I know those other two aren't FE-related)), *shrugs*.

This would tie in to how wildly inconsistent the amount he actually needed to summon them, at least. At the beginning of the game he needed nations of people to do it, then he only needed Eliwood's army, and then he could just use himself.

[Dark Sage]

I agree. That was one of the weaker aspects of the plot.

[Aethereal]

This would tie in to how wildly inconsistent the amount he actually needed to summon them, at least. At the beginning of the game he needed nations of people to do it, then he only needed Eliwood's army, and then he could just use himself.

Quintessence varies from person to person, and Nergal said the easiest way to obtain the quintessence he needed was to start a war, because finding people with high amounts of quintessence was too difficult. I think Nils says "There aren't many people like that though". If we take it then that Eliwood's group is filled with people who would have high amounts of quintessence, they could make up for hundreds, if not thousands, of no named soldiers alone. And Nergal could kick Athos' ass earlier in the game, and he's pretty much heralded as much more powerful than any of Eliwood's group individually. This coupled with the fact he's used quintessence on himself to make himself stronger, he probably has a ridiculous amount of quintessence. It's still inconsistent, but wildly seems a bit off, at least in my opinion.

Edit: I am only capable of noticing grammar errors the second I hit post, I swear.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Aethereal

[Paperblade]

The art form is not going to advance with people adhering to this outdated logic. Video games are no longer just time sinks for children anymore; they have come a long way in the last few decades and people need to accept that video games are as legitimate an art form as other mediums.

So please don't use "Dude, its only a game." as a legitimate argument anymore. Its an insult to me, an insult to you, and an insult to the medium.

My problem with video games as a storytelling medium is that every other storytelling medium tries to be unique. Comics (this includes manga), books, TV shows, and movies are all fairly unique (TV shows and movies are kind of similar by nature).

Video games have the opportunity to be unique, but as games have evolved, games that aspire to have deep and compelling stories have just added more cutscenes (MGS, Xenosaga, FF), making them more like movies with gameplay in-between. But I don't play games to watch a movie's length of cutscenes and then have gameplay for two hours. I want story with my gameplay. The logical evolution, I would think, is that we moved towards the storyline happening DURING the gameplay--but instead we're moving in the opposite direction.

So it comes off as forced and poorly done, because people are trying to shoehorn a movie somewhere where it doesn't belong. That's why books and comics are always *adapted* to TV and movies, not directly translated. Because they wouldn't work in another medium.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Paperkitty

[bottlegnomes]

There's no way Pascal could hide it that easily. He lacks subtlety, and the Black Fang would likely already know of his massacre; a group of assassins has to be good at getting information. By the time Nergal came to power, it's clear that he had control enough to put any psychopath into command, so there's no reason he wouldn't be able to keep Pascal there. Regarding imprisonment vs. execution, there's no reason the Black Fang would have ever had the means with which to imprison someone before, and making it happen then would not have been as easy as simply telling a subordinate to make Pascal disappear. Let it not be forgotten that despite many of their actions in the story, the Black Fang is supposed to be a group of assassins; they should be good at killing people with any subtlety needed.

You realize you contradict yourself in here? First you said that Pascal was unable to come to power while Nergal was there, but then you say Pascal couldn't have come to power any other way. As for psychopaths being high up in the old fang, Jerme. He's even worse than Pascal, but he still managed to become one of the four fangs.

My problem with video games as a storytelling medium is that every other storytelling medium tries to be unique. Comics (this includes manga), books, TV shows, and movies are all fairly unique (TV shows and movies are kind of similar by nature).

Video games have the opportunity to be unique, but as games have evolved, games that aspire to have deep and compelling stories have just added more cutscenes (MGS, Xenosaga, FF), making them more like movies with gameplay in-between. But I don't play games to watch a movie's length of cutscenes and then have gameplay for two hours. I want story with my gameplay. The logical evolution, I would think, is that we moved towards the storyline happening DURING the gameplay--but instead we're moving in the opposite direction.

So it comes off as forced and poorly done, because people are trying to shoehorn a movie somewhere where it doesn't belong. That's why books and comics are always *adapted* to TV and movies, not directly translated. Because they wouldn't work in another medium.

Very much agreed.