QUINTESSENCE? DONT UNDERSTAND

[General Banzai]

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.

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

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!"

you like to portray those who critique or disagree with you as ridiculous strawmen who you mock with infuriating self-righteousness.

Wait, I'm the one portraying those who critique or disagree with me as ridiculous strawmen?

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.

I most definitely agree with your sentiments here. I feel that adding more cutscenes is not the way to a better story. In fact, some of the best stories in video games are done with very little, if any, custscenes. See, where video games have the potential to be unique is in how they make the player identify with them; meaning that due to being able to CONTROL the characters, you in effect BECOME a character.

For an environmental class I took last year I wrote an essay on how Super Mario Sunshine conveys an environmentalist message by making the player take the active role of cleaning up pollution. Instead of watching someone clean up, YOU are cleaning up, and thus the effect is deepened and comes through clearer to you.

This is also why I believe there is a certain quality to FESD's story. While it seems empty and primitive, I feel the emptiness allows you yourself to fill in your own blanks, and in effect create the story yourself as you play. A game where those blanks are filled in for you can be good as well, if the story is good. If the story is bad, however, which is what I am trying to claim about FE7, then there is no opportunity for you to create your own story as the story is already there.

Edited July 31, 2011 by General Banzai

[Janissary]

Wait, I'm the one portraying those who critique or disagree with me as ridiculous strawmen?

That's correct.

[Othin]

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:

Again, when people make and support valid arguments against our points, we accept their theories as closing the plothole. This is what happened with most of the matter of Legault. However, most of the arguments made against the analysis have lacked validity, sufficient support from the game, or both, or simply been irrelevant, and of course we do not simply roll over and drop our views the moment such complaints are made. Again, take bottlegnomes' approach to this thread, and in the event that you're actually right, we will withdraw our corresponding arguments and in fact be thankful for your input. We have shown this, and as such, your complaints are very much unfounded.

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.

This is a problem with some video games. It is not a problem for other video games; FE4, for example, or in a different sense, the first two Metroid Prime games. Certainly, it is not a limit on the medium, just a failing from many games within the medium - such as FE7, where almost nothing plot-relevant happens in any of the battles. These failings can be measured, as we do here. And we can also decide whether or not to enjoy the games in spite of the failings, but as I have explained many times, that is not the purpose of this thread.

While I'm on this note, perhaps I should explain this better for anyone here who might not understand - not directed at Paperblade unless any of it is pertinent to what he's saying, but rather to the whole thread. If you want to say, "Yes, FE7 has a bad plot, but I can enjoy it anyway", go ahead, no one's stopping you. However, what people here have chosen to do instead is say, "I don't care whether or not FE7 has a bad plot, and therefore your analysis is bad", and that's just a false conclusion and posting it does nothing but annoy people. Really, for anyone who doesn't care how good FE7's plot is, why even bother posting here when this thread clearly isn't directed at you, but only towards the people who do?

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 standpoint is that Pascal couldn't plausibly have come to power, period. Neither could Jerme, for that matter. Both of them are huge contradictions with the Black Fang if they came to power before Nergal took over, and wouldn't make sense in the short time they were in power after Nergal took over, so they just don't make sense, period. There isn't a good explanation for them.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Othin

[Momo]

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.

I have trouble believing one person, or even an army of like thirty people, has more quintessence than multiple countries. Even if it's true, that's still dumb as hell.

[General Banzai]

That's correct.

Could you show me where in the thread I compared anyone I was arguing against to an ostrich with their head in the ground? ...Or anything remotely similar to that?

[BrightBow]

I have trouble believing one person, or even an army of like thirty people, has more quintessence than multiple countries. Even if it's true, that's still dumb as hell.

I think it's kinda consistent with the Elibe universe. I mean, this is the world where 12 individuals alone defeated the dragons in a war that spread across the whole continent. It's a world where heroes of legendary proportions really exist. And people like that might very well have an insane amount of lifeforce or whatever.

Edited July 31, 2011 by BrightBow

[bottlegnomes]

My standpoint is that Pascal couldn't plausibly have come to power, period. Neither could Jerme, for that matter. Both of them are huge contradictions with the Black Fang if they came to power before Nergal took over, and wouldn't make sense in the short time they were in power after Nergal took over, so they just don't make sense, period. There isn't a good explanation for them.

Where in the game does it say that neither Pascal nor Jerme are subtle enough to trick Brendan into thinking they're not as crazy or evil as they actually are. You want everything to be backed up explicitly by the game, so where's your proof of these two things?

EDIT: typos

Edited July 31, 2011 by bottlegnomes

[General Banzai]

Where in the game does it say that neither Pascal nor Jerme are subtle enough to trick Brendan into thinking they're not as crazy or evil as they actually are. You want everything to be backed up explicitly by the game, so where's your proof of these two things?

EDIT: typos

The problem is there's already the assumption that Jerme and Pascal tricked Brendan into thinking they weren't crazy, which has no textual evidence.

Honestly though it's highly likely that Jerme is one of the "new" Black Fang that Sonia enlisted, unless there's something in the script which says Jerme has been around a long time (he's at least been around longer than Jaffar, but Jaffar is a fairly recent addition too). The real problem is Pascal.

[eclipse]

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.

You were expecting, what, the next War and Peace from a video game? Video games are meant to entertain by weaving gameplay with story. Stories don't necessarily need the video game "hook" to be successful. Therefore, most video games will focus more on making the "game" part entertaining than the "story" part.

There IS that genre of video game that is more story-based than game-based, so those could probably hold up better to such a goddamn wall of text. For something like FE, it's not appropriate. If this were a literary analysis of my gluten-free cookbooks, I'd be objecting just as much.

I'm STILL waiting for my Detectives in Togas analysis. . .or if you want a story-based video game, go analyze something like Little Busters.

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.

First, find someone. Find a way such that you can get it so that they'll do WHATEVER you say, no matter what. They'll love the fact that you're even talking to them, even if you told them to go jump off a cliff. They won't question you, because you are that much better than them. They are your playing pieces. You can do whatever you want to them. Now, imagine all of humanity acting like that towards you. That's the kind of scale these villains are on.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Clipseykitty

[bottlegnomes]

The problem is there's already the assumption that Jerme and Pascal tricked Brendan into thinking they weren't crazy, which has no textual evidence.

Honestly though it's highly likely that Jerme is one of the "new" Black Fang that Sonia enlisted, unless there's something in the script which says Jerme has been around a long time (he's at least been around longer than Jaffar, but Jaffar is a fairly recent addition too). The real problem is Pascal.

Jaffar showed up the same time as Sonia and Nergal. It's not explicitly stated, again, but Legault groups him in with Sonia and Nergal in their supports, so it can be pretty safely assumed that he showed up around the same time as Sonia, which is most likely when Nergal took power. So either Jerme was one of the four fangs for like a month, at most, or he was around before Nergal took power.

It's not contradicted anywhere in the script either, so give me proof that that's not perfectly plausible or I see no reason why this shouldn't stand.

EDIT: To add to the Pascal point, he was clearly subtle enough to stay as a noble for a while before being disgraced, so why couldn't he be subtle enough to trick Brendan for at least a little while.

Edited July 31, 2011 by bottlegnomes

[Aethereal]

I have trouble believing one person, or even an army of like thirty people, has more quintessence than multiple countries. Even if it's true, that's still dumb as hell.

They do try to "explain" though.

Nils: It seems the quintessence in each person varies in strength. A person of strong mind and body has hundreds of times more energy than the average person. It sounds like there aren't many people like that, though. It took too long for Nergal to find people with enough strength. Although it would take time, Nergal said the easiest way to get that much quintessence was by starting a war.

I'm not gonna sit here and try to discuss the specifics of each person's total quintessence because a) We have no way of knowing, and b) You're right, it's dumb. I don't think steroid using body builders have hundreds of times more 'energy' or 'power', in regards to actual physical capabilities, than a short skinny kid, how could a party of 30 people be worth an army? I dunno, but that's basically what IS went with, and they did at least address it.

[BrightBow]

You were expecting, what, the next War and Peace from a video game? Video games are meant to entertain by weaving gameplay with story. Stories don't necessarily need the video game "hook" to be successful. Therefore, most video games will focus more on making the "game" part entertaining than the "story" part.

There IS that genre of video game that is more story-based than game-based, so those could probably hold up better to such a goddamn wall of text. For something like FE, it's not appropriate. If this were a literary analysis of my gluten-free cookbooks, I'd be objecting just as much.

I'm STILL waiting for my Detectives in Togas analysis. . .or if you want a story-based video game, go analyze something like Little Busters.

But Fire Emblem always had a relative strong story aspect. And why do you suddenly comparing the story of FE7 to a cookbook. Earlier in the thread you were fixing plotholes, but now all that stuff you argued about earlier doesn't matter anymore?

[Janissary]

The real problem is Pascal.

He was in prison. What's wrong with that?

[eclipse]

But Fire Emblem always had a relative strong story aspect. And why do you suddenly comparing the story of FE7 to a cookbook. Earlier in the thread you were fixing plotholes, but now all that stuff you argued about earlier doesn't matter anymore?

It's an analogy. Doing a literary analysis of a cookbook is silly. Doing a literary analysis of the FE series is roughly as silly, IMO. It's a game before it's a story. Yes, it's more story-based than, say, Mines of Moria, but it's not exactly what I call post-graduate English thesis-worthy, either. I don't expect amazing insight or characters that will endure the end of time, I expect Hector to turn Cavaliers into horse meat.

[Momo]

I don't think something with roughly 58,000 words can be brushed off as just being a game. It doesn't matter if it's fun to play, if it has a bad story than it is a bad story. Saying "it's just a game" doesn't mean anything, since the discussion is not about that.

[eclipse]

I don't think something with roughly 58,000 words can be brushed off as just being a game. It doesn't matter if it's fun to play, if it has a bad story than it is a bad story. Saying "it's just a game" doesn't mean anything, since the discussion is not about that.

I think the cookbook I picked up last night has more words than that, but I'm not reading that book for its deep story.

[BrightBow]

It's an analogy. Doing a literary analysis of a cookbook is silly. Doing a literary analysis of the FE series is roughly as silly, IMO. It's a game before it's a story. Yes, it's more story-based than, say, Mines of Moria, but it's not exactly what I call post-graduate English thesis-worthy, either. I don't expect amazing insight or characters that will endure the end of time, I expect Hector to turn Cavaliers into horse meat.

Of course I know what an analogue is. What I don't understand is why you are objecting towards the very idea of talking about the games story.

I mean nobody claims that Fire Emblem stories are some deep meaningful addition to human culture or should strife to be that but there is enough plot to talk and argue about it.

Edit:

I think the cookbook I picked up last night has more words than that, but I'm not reading that book for its deep story.

To run with your analogy, the purpose of this 58.000 words in Fire Emblem serve mostly specifically to tell a story. Not to teach one how to cook.

Edited July 31, 2011 by BrightBow

[Momo]

I think the cookbook I picked up last night has more words than that, but I'm not reading that book for its deep story.

A cookbook doesn't try and be a story.

[eclipse]

Of course I know what an analogue is. What I don't understand is why you are objecting towards the very idea of talking about the games story.

I mean nobody claims that Fire Emblem stories are some deep meaningful addition to human culture or should strife to be that but there is enough plot to talk and argue about it.

But going this far in-depth? It's completely absurd. I read the events in FE7 with slightly more seriousness than I read the Sunday funnies.

A cookbook doesn't try and be a story.

Because it's meant as a point of reference, just as Fire Emblem is meant to be a game, with a story to justify why we're moving units around on a map. The fact that the story isn't a work of art shouldn't be surprising.

[Momo]

So you're saying you shouldn't criticize it at all? Why are you even in this topic then?

[BrightBow]

But going this far in-depth? It's completely absurd. I read the events in FE7 with slightly more seriousness than I read the Sunday funnies.

Well, some of the flaws in the plot are pretty nasty and simply can't use their medium as an excuse.

For example I still remember playing the game for the first time, pondering about what Elbert's intention was when he left Pharae. It's a mystery that drives the plot for like 10 chapters but it's never resolved. This isn't one of those cases where any of the possible explanations would get in the way of gameplay or turn the rest of the plot nonsensical. He was either was planning to join the rebels or to stop Nergal. There is simply no excuse for this being left out. It's a really annoying, itching plothole even more so because it's hard to miss and could have easily been filled.

Edit:

Well the point is I think the game deserves quite a bit of criticism. You don't need to dig deep to see problems.

Edited July 31, 2011 by BrightBow

[eclipse]

So you're saying you shouldn't criticize it at all? Why are you even in this topic then?

Plot discussion? Sure. Problems with the plot? Already known. A 11,000 word "literary analysis" by someone who is known to have problems with this game? That's crossing into the realm of stupidity.

Well, some of the flaws in the plot are pretty nasty and simply can't use their medium as an excuse.

For example I still remember playing the game for the first time, pondering about what Elbert's intention was when he left Pharae. It's a mystery that drives the plot for like 10 chapters but it's never resolved. This isn't one of those cases where any of the possible explanations would get in the way of gameplay or turn the rest of the plot nonsensical. He was either was planning to join the rebels or to stop Nergal. There is simply no excuse for this being left out. It's a really annoying, itching plothole even more so because it's hard to miss and could have easily been filled.

Edit:

Well the point is I think the game deserves quite a bit of criticism. You don't need to dig deep to see problems.

I know the plot isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. Most of the people on both sides of the thread admit to it. But I don't see it as a big thing, because the point of Fire Emblem is to beat up the opposing army, not sit there and read.

[-Cynthia-]

Well, some of the flaws in the plot are pretty nasty and simply can't use their medium as an excuse.

For example I still remember playing the game for the first time, pondering about what Elbert's intention was when he left Pharae. It's a mystery that drives the plot for like 10 chapters but it's never resolved. This isn't one of those cases where any of the possible explanations would get in the way of gameplay or turn the rest of the plot nonsensical. He was either was planning to join the rebels or to stop Nergal. There is simply no excuse for this being left out. It's a really annoying, itching plothole even more so because it's hard to miss and could have easily been filled.

Edit:

Well the point is I think the game deserves quite a bit of criticism. You don't need to dig deep to see problems.

He lied and said he was going to join the rebellion as a way to stop Ephidel and the Black Fang. This didn't pan out obviously because almost all his knights died (Harken escaped and Elbert was kept around for the gate opening ritual). They do leave this ambiguous at first, but it's pretty clear what went down after C20 is cleared.

[13th]

...Wow. All I can say is WOW. Its so long, and I agree with absolutely nothing.

[Quintessence]

Eliwood just followed his father's "legacy" to stop Nergal's plans. The game doesn't need to explain all things at all, because most part of the unsolved mysteries of most games are left to be solved in the player's mind/imagination. In the end, everything converges into an usual dichotomy: good and evil.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Quintessence