What sort of protagonist, villain and possible deuteragonist would you like to see next?

[secondworld]

We see this in Final Fantasy as well. The more beloved stories like 4, 6 and 7 aren't shy with using tropes and staples of the rpg genre. 13 tried to move away from that, start its own more complex mythos and as a result bombarded the audience with so many strange terms like L'cie, fal'cie and the like that it became very hard to get into the story. The game tried so hard to impress us with its story that it became one of the worse FF stories as a result. Perhaps it would be looked more kindly upon if they used more classical FF terms instead of the whole L'cie nonsense.

There's something to be said about simplicity vs complexity, but let's not act like complexity is why FFXIII's story is bad. Poor characters and absolutely terrible story-telling sunk that ship.

[Tessie Spoon]

I'd like to see a villain whose main ambition tied heavily into eugenics, making a strong case for that philosophy. Though their methods for going about it are awful enough to make actual pro-eugenicists feel right in opposing him.

As for a protagonist...I'd like to see one that lets you control what they say (like in Persona 3 and 4). Except not a mute; the protagonist has their own personality, but dialogue choices gives the option to spice things up a bit. (This is assuming that the Avatar is the protagonist).

For a deuteragonist, same thing for the protagonist (if the Avatar is in this role instead).

[solrocknroll]

Yeah, Metal Face or Hades style antagonists are my favorite things ever. That's the kind of antagonist I want from things, FE too.

Of course, my favorite villain ever in Yin Yarn because he's so comical. I love Team Rocket, yet they're a joke. It might be good to say that I love comical villains just as much as, say, Metal Face. Sympathetic villains just don't grip me in the same way.

[Moblin Major General]

Protagonist: Self insert a la Mass Effect, where your input name isn't what characters call you, and unlike Fates, no decisions are made for you in regards to the plot.

Deuteragonist: Someone like Garrus or Varric, in that your friendship is conditional, but deep if you pursue it.

Antagonist: Something unknown, potentially unknowable. I draw many parallels to Bioware games, but I like antagonists you can't understand nor can easily defeat. At first glance, one might consider them irrevocably evil, but then it gets even more complex than the Reapers were meant to be.

[NekoKnight]

Concerning the topic of complex vs simple/classic, it's all a matter of writing competence. Dragon Age Origins has one of the most typical rpg plots but it becomes a truly enjoyable experience with fun characters, clever dialogue and creative world building. Conversely, other stories can be convoluted and full of themselves, expecting you to put the plot together and bombarding you with names and terms.

I like Sauron and his legions of evil, but I probably wouldn't like Lord of the Rings as a whole if the characters and setting weren't so engaging. So where does simple NOT work? Fates provides an example with its villains who are so mustache twirlingly evil that it becomes a joke. There is nothing to get emotionally invested in, nothing to think about, and absolutely nothing to remember other than a lingering sense of disappointment.

To me Zephiel would be a good example of that. Because FE7 firmly establish that Zephiel's father was the only person in Bern, maybe even Elibi who did not adore Zephiel it doesn't make me buy that daddy trying to kill him is a believable justification. Instead it makes me think Zephiel is just a big drama lama and as such I have no respect for the villain the game tries to present. Nergal and Lekain on the other hand are completely irredeemable scumbags and I can respect that. Taking the example even further, Kid Icarus' Hades and Metal Face from Xenoblades are completely irredeemable scumbags who clearly LOVE being irredeemable scumbags and I consider them the highlights of their games for it.

I think having your parent, whom you are desperate to earn the affection of, attempt to murder you is going to mess you up pretty bad. It's even been theorized that King Desmond poisoning Zephiel messed him up physically (like brain damage) in additionally to psychologically, which would explain his personality change.

Edited March 23, 2016 by NekoKnight

[solrocknroll]

How do Fates's villains "make it a joke?" Legitimately curious.

The villains don't have interesting motives, but they're entertaining. That's literally the only thing I look for in an antagonist, and I'd say that Fates succeeded. Their for the evuls attitude is far more interesting than if they all had boring sob stories.

[FoliFF]

I see word depth gets thrown around a lot between complex vs simple/classic story telling. One have to remind oneself that complexity in stories can have zero depth and in turn you can make a very simple stories that has a lot of depth. The same can be said in reverse too. The thing is as NekoKnight said it depends on the writer and how he/she can play around with the tropes that will make the story have depth or not. All I can say I gotta give props to IS for at least experimenting with their stories. There is a lot of potential here. Also to have the same standard set up in every games and also have the same result in the end will get boring and forgettable in the long run.

Now for more on topic though. What kind of protagonist and antagonist I want to see in Fire Emblem is where I can see both characters grow as characters as the story progress. That is I want the antagonist be much closer or personal and acts as a foil to the protagonist. With that the antagonist doesn't necessary play the evil nor the big bad role of the story. The player character will act as a deuteragonist and another foil to both the protagonist and antagonist. I want character dynamics!

I just rather not see another rehash of evil overlords, conquerors or imperialists just for the evulz.They have been played to the death. However, if I want another Hero vs Villain, like the hero meets the demon lord a the top of the castle type of story then I want to see those tropes being subverted or deconstructed to the living hell. Done right of course.

Edited March 23, 2016 by FoliFF

[Thane]

I can't speak for him but I think deeper stories can ruin the pacing of a story itself and even extend past the story and lead to large gaps between the actual gameplay. The first three Advance Wars and Batallion Wars I & II have very simple stories and characterisations that can fit on a cue card but in my opinion are pretty entertaining and Days of Ruins is told is a similar way to Awakening and Fates before and after chapters.

I think there can be a lot of elegance in telling a good story without much dialogue(especially since videogames are a visual medium), some RPGs that have little dialogue due to hardware specs of older systems are still held up as telling good tales or experiences. On the same note with enough time any one could coming up with motivations to justify and create a deeper character or story when they have essentially no limit on how much text they can write. Yet a shallow character done well can be far more entertaining or memorable or just a better fit for certain type of story.

Fire Emblem could be suitable with a simple story because that may best complement the gameplay. The memorable moments woven into the gameplay and the player's feeling while playing the game and what happens during their playthroughs. due to the sheer number of characters, simpler trope based, but distinctive characters so they stand out amongst the rest of the cast so even if you don't read their supports so even if they don't play a role in the story you have an understanding of them without digging through a mountain of text.

I think a deeper story would be better for a game with a smaller cast and much better served in a novel than a videogame.

I'm sorry but I still don't see it. The gameplay is the most important part, so it doesn't matter if the story is bad? It's just because video games is an interactive medium that a good story should be prioritized in series such as these since it allows the player to get engaged and potentially make decisions that simply cannot be achieved in any other form of entertainment. Why on earth would the way a game is written negatively affect the gameplay? If anything it should serve to enhance it.

That said, about the whole complexity versus simplicity business, a simple story does not mean it lacks depth. I think NekoKnight said it best with Dragon Age: Origins in that the overarching plot is typical and fairly predictable, but there's simply so, so much more to it; I would've liked more complexity personally, but what's good is pretty damn great.

Antagonist: Something unknown, potentially unknowable. I draw many parallels to Bioware games, but I like antagonists you can't understand nor can easily defeat. At first glance, one might consider them irrevocably evil, but then it gets even more complex than the Reapers were meant to be.

I feel like this is getting more and more popular, and while I see the appeal I think it's incredibly easy to write poorly. The Reapers in Mass Effect and the Old Gods in World of Warcraft are some of the worst story aspects of those games, period. They're either given bullshit powers as the plot goes along in order to try to surprise the player or they're just simply uninteresting. For something to be unknowable you have to capture the essence of something truly terrifying, not to mention the scope of what you have experienced, but even then it's not guaranteed to actually be that appealing; Jorge Luis Borges, an Argentinian writer, managed to accomplish this in "The Aleph" in which the main character caught a glimpse of something that made him know everything there was to know about the world, and it was described beautifully, but I still couldn't find a reason to care - and neither could the author, apparently, since the main character just forgot about it all three days later.

This is just my personal opinion, of course, but from what I've seen, it's not easy to do right, and for that reason I don't trust the guys at Intelligent Systems to be able to pull it off. Hell, didn't they pretty much try this with Anankos anyway?

Edited March 24, 2016 by Thane

[FoliFF]

Problem is with cosmic horror stories these tries to emulate such as the cthulhu mythos are in fact most of the times they simply turn into some generic evil overlord. You never feel threatened by them and you can perfectly understand them and their flawed logic. Originally these stories had only "tragic" endings and these "Gods" always won in the end, like the old Greek mythos. Extra Credits explains it well.

[arvilino]

I'm sorry but I still don't see it. The gameplay is the most important part, so it doesn't matter if the story is bad? It's just because video games is an interactive medium that a good story should be prioritized in series such as these since it allows the player to get engaged and potentially make decisions that simply cannot be achieved in any other form of entertainment. Why on earth would the way a game is written negatively affect the gameplay? If anything it should serve to enhance it.

That said, about the whole complexity versus simplicity business, a simple story does not mean it lacks depth. I think NekoKnight said it best with Dragon Age: Origins in that the overarching plot is typical and fairly predictable, but there's simply so, so much more to it; I would've liked more complexity personally, but what's good is pretty damn great.

You seem to think that if a game's story became more and more deep it would only ever be better but that simply isn't true, however I do believe that a story that would be pretty bad standalone could be the best way of telling the a story in a videogame and a story that standalone would be good could be inappropriate for a videogame. There's time when the story can harm both the gameplay and itself. The deeper or more complex the story gets the more text you have to read through if you just want to know the context of each scenario and also the more time it takes between two sections of gameplay.

A long enough story can leave people unengaged, bored or simply get in the way of gameplay that's why for example Dragon Age: Origins places most of it's depth outside of the mandatory dialogue. However Fire Emblem differs to this because the story telling is all mandatory because the main story is mostly chapter to chapter, rarely some of the Gaiden/paralogues expand on a couple aspects but overall story is told in a way that every player has to read it.

I think the best story for a particular videogame is one that's more suited to it's design and actually complements the gameplay, all some games really need is to just give context to what's happening in the gameplay. If every player is going to need to read a story in a linear game I think it's a bad idea to make it much longer than it needs to be and it certainly shouldn't be focused on the same depth games that have most their depth outside of what you're directly told in the main story.

Edited March 24, 2016 by arvilino

[Nintales]

Protagonist : Pretty much somewhat of an Antihero. I don't care if he's a self-insert. You basically have to save the world, but for it, you have to make a lot of sacrifices. And your protagonist is the one who has to carry the burden. You'll have to kill innocents. To burn cities. But your character will show no mercy, and only question him/herself in the beginning. It's someone who's determined : Once he/she has made a decision, he/she'll carry it, no matter how hard it is. She/He will be accompanied for that task by the servants of the divinity giving you the quest, along...

Deuteragonist : The chief of a pack of Ruffians that's being manipulated by the Protagonist in order to save the world. He'll get to know what you're doing around the middle of the game, but will be staying because it's not only in his interest, but he also knows he doesn't stand a chance if he rebels against the Protagonist.

Antagonist : The antagonist is actually the one that gave you the task. In fact, once the game ends, you discover you've been yourself manipulated all along, and that what you did really destroyed the world. Once you get this reveal, the other divinity saves you, and you get into the second part of the game. You have the same stats as you had when completing the game, but now your point is to get strong enough to fight off the divinity. You actually get to know by the divinity that saved you that if you don't want to accomplish the ritual, you'll just get killed and someone else will get to.

The main plot will be getting enough allies to help you fighting it.

You'll have multiple choices to what you choose to destroy. Each chapter, you have around 2-3 locations you can go.

In the second part, every location is available. (and this time, people are stronger due to your savior increasing their strength to help you)

Your goal is to do the right choices to actually have a team able to save the world. (you'll get a team no matter what, your choices will just modify who)

This is probably gonna be a long game with around 30+ chapters.

[Thane]

You seem to think that if a game's story became more and more deep it would only ever be better but that simply isn't true, however I do believe that a story that would be pretty bad standalone could be the best way of telling the a story in a videogame and a story that standalone would be good could be inappropriate for a videogame. There's time when the story can harm both the gameplay and itself. The deeper or more complex the story gets the more text you have to read through if you just want to know the context of each scenario and also the more time it takes between two sections of gameplay.

A long enough story can leave people unengaged, bored or simply get in the way of gameplay that's why for example Dragon Age: Origins places most of it's depth outside of the mandatory dialogue. However Fire Emblem differs to this because the story telling is all mandatory because the main story is mostly chapter to chapter, rarely some of the Gaiden/paralogues expand on a couple aspects but overall story is told in a way that every player has to read it.

I think the best story for a particular videogame is one that's more suited to it's design and actually complements the gameplay, all some games really need is to just give context to what's happening in the gameplay. If every player is going to need to read a story in a linear game I think it's a bad idea to make it much longer than it needs to be and it certainly shouldn't be focused on the same depth games that have most their depth outside of what you're directly told in the main story.

And you seem to be jumping to conclusions; I even said that Origins is a well-written game with a lot of depth to it in spite of it having a simple overarching plot. I have a hard time even understanding your arguments, since you seem to think that a good story somehow would negatively affect the gameplay.

"A long enough story can leave people unengaged" - well, yeah, but so can a short plot. It's all a matter of execution, just like everything else. Have you never read a book that you wish wouldn't end? I can also think of several games which just left me wanting more - again, execution is key; you seem to assume that something a tad more complex - even though that wouldn't be necessary since we just want actual deph and a better script - would leave players bored or have gameplay consequences, which makes no sense. A good game can pull off both at the same time and let both elements intertwine and enrich the overall experience.

[arvilino]

And you seem to be jumping to conclusions; I even said that Origins is a well-written game with a lot of depth to it in spite of it having a simple overarching plot. I have a hard time even understanding your arguments, since you seem to think that a good story somehow would negatively affect the gameplay.

"A long enough story can leave people unengaged" - well, yeah, but so can a short plot. It's all a matter of execution, just like everything else. Have you never read a book that you wish wouldn't end? I can also think of several games which just left me wanting more - again, execution is key; you seem to assume that something a tad more complex - even though that wouldn't be necessary since we just want actual deph and a better script - would leave players bored or have gameplay consequences, which makes no sense. A good game can pull off both at the same time and let both elements intertwine and enrich the overall experience.

I wasn't saying a good story negatively effects the gameplay. I said a good story could be a worse fit for a particular game than something that could be considered a bad story depending on what the game is like.

My viewpoint is that different games are better off with telling their stories in different ways regardless of how the story would be perceived when divorced from the gameplay. I was drawing attention to the main overarcing plot of Dragon Age Origins being simpler is likely to avoid leaving players unengaged, therefore for a game that is almost entirely linear it coud be a mistake to force same depth into it because unlike Dragon Age: Origins it isn't optional. Perhaps I shouldn't have just said complexity but in order to have the additional depth Dragon Age: Origins had more text, the optional parts of DA:O required the game to have more text and more dialogue than if it was just the main story. Put that additonal text into a linear RPG and the script will unquestionably longer and as a result of the differing game structures unlike DA:O all that extra text would also become mandatory and that will impact the time between gameplay. (Not to mention while being my goty 2009 the pay off for the extra stuff in DA:O was a letdown the text at the end of the game "showing" the impact of my choices didn't particularly resonate with me).

There have been books that I wished were longer but the same book may have been considered "just right" or "too long" by other readers, however there have been books I've given up incredibly early on(Game of Thrones) because to me it was a complete bore of a book that went into great detail describing things I seriously didn't care about as much as the author probably through all readers would.I think for games the it's better for the story to be short and the player wanting more than for it being too long because in the latter it's dull and you have far longer between periods of the actual fun part of the game(Gameplay) especially if you personally don't like the story. You only need to play Eternal Sonata to see why a game trying to make itself have deep story can catastrophically fail worse than if it had a short one.

Edited March 24, 2016 by arvilino

[FoliFF]

-snip-

What you describe is world-building and how much Information Density should go into games that has story, not necessary how well written or how good the story itself is. Video games are a unique medium that the narrative can take many forms, FE in particular have mashed the SRPG with Visual Novel together with its narrative. Which is different from of narrative that RPGs like Dragon Age uses.

Also while there are many that play the game, skips the story. However, there are as many that enjoys the story, skips the game. IMHO I think FE in general is in the middle here. Another good video that extra credit explains about this topic.

Edited March 25, 2016 by FoliFF

[Taka-kun]

As a villain, I would prefer someone who goes against all the perceived morals of the FE series, namely that only the righteous lord chosen by a magic blade can save the world. I want someone like Walhart, who says damn traditions and just go on a conquest with might and steel. What makes him a villain? He has no legitimate cause, no divine rights of kings but simply his will and wish for a better world, even if via brutal methods. Have him play the old "greater good" trope, kill one to save ten. Righteousness and kindness is for governance and administration in peacetime. In war, steel and fire reigns supreme and all FE lords have done the same, it's just their actions are sanctioned by whatever dragon god they revere.

As a hero against this villain, I would want a noble lord chosen by a magic blade. But he himself is ambitious warmonger who wants to restore order to the world, but on HIS terms (which doesn't need to be bad). And he is so selfishly driven by this single-minded goal of that he ignores any suffering he might bring, to intent on his "black-and-white morality" that he fails to understand that it's not good vs evil, it's good vs another good.

There you have it and I am sure it will never happen in FE. That's why I will go back to reading Three Kingdoms where it happens.

[Chromatian]

I'd actually really enjoy an antagonist that has goals to do genuinely good things for his/her country/countries, and to even have following that supports his/her actions simply because they agree with his/her viewpoint, and not because he/she used strength to force them to his cause. He/She doesn't need to be royalty or a high ranked soldier. They could be a scholar that convinces a country or two of a cause they should support. Perhaps the land the game takes place in is slowly dying and they've found a way to fix the issue. Or some sort of dark magic from past wars has caused parts of the land to be tainted, even effecting the people themselves.

The Protagonist would be on the opposite side, fighting to stop and/or prevent what the antagonist is trying to accomplish, with support from their own country/countries agreeing with his/her viewpoint.

The most important part of this set-up is that neither side is inherently wrong about their viewpoints on how to solve the problem at hand. Both the antagonist's and the protagonist's solutions to the major issue would both solve the problem, but contain huge risks along with that solution. War would break out between the people of the continent, with countries siding with the ones that they share viewpoints with. Gaiden Chapters could show the antagonist's viewpoint of the war, to help give a better understanding of the people that support him.

Lastly, I think it'd be cool if they tried a dual-protagonist gimmick for the main characters. Chrom and Robin had a nice dynamic going with how much they supported each other, but with the avatar being what it is, I felt it was a bit hard to really get behind the relationship they had.It could be two brothers, sisters, best friends, or even a married couple (imagine if Cuan and Ethlyn had their own game where they were the main characters).

I'd prefer if the avatar not take place in a story set-up like this if it were to happen. Self-inserts make it difficult to look at the story from an outsider's viewpoint. (Self-inserts also put a major limit on how much backstory you can give to a main character, but I digress)

[blah the Prussian]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to blah the Prussian shamelessly advertising his story idea! Here we go!

The hero should be a warrior Prince who is a seasoned soldier instead of a dumbass who can't change his own diapers without Jeigan. His best friend is one of similar character from another nation. The two countries are allies against a violent Revolution; let's say it's based on Robespierre's Republic of Virtue. In Act One, the two friends defeat this Revolution. The villain of this segment should be an ideologue; there is a reason why Ashnard is my favorite FE villain. He can be sympathetic if you want. Then, though, after the revolution is defeated, the interests of the two nations begin to collide. The two princes ascend as Kings, and are forced into war with one another in the interests of their nations. Neither one, really, is the bad guy; they are doing their duty as monarchs, which trumps friendship.

Alternately!

The PROTAGNIST is a conqueror. He can maybe, for example, liberate the people from serfdom, and do other good stuff like that, but the primary motivation should be conquest. FE: Napoleon edition, baby.

Edited March 30, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Loki Laufeyson]

I want my protagonist to not be a goddamn goody-two-shoes. They need real flaws and real flawed decision making and everyone react accordingly. They need to be forced to do some gnarly shit and pay the piper. Them being royalty would only up the ante here.

I want my antagonist to have solid reasons for their actions. Im done with mustache twirlers, i need some genuine villainous depth. Give me a sub-antagonist who stabs the Big Bad in the back.

I want my deuteragonist to have just as much spotlight as the protagonist. I dont want them to be a passive creature that takes backseat and waits for the protagonist's actions. I want them to be able to stand on their own and develop organically as the story goes on.

[blah the Prussian]

Oh yeah also Ms Bunch I will grant you that Metal Face is a solid antagonist but you know what would fucking suck? If he was the main antagonist of Xenoblade. Fortunately, the main antagonists both have reasons for their actions.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't know about villains, but I'd like next game to go back to having a sort of "Ahab and Ishmael" dynamic with the main lord and avatar, like in Awakening (Sans the endgame reveal that Robin was the Grimas). It's the main lord's story first and foremost, but told through the perspective of the avatar.

Imagine this:

The game begins with your player avatar being ushered through the halls of the royal palace, an applicant to apprenticing under the royal army's current tactician, who is looking to retire soon. Since your avatar is totally new to the place, it serves as a good chance to introduce player and avatar alike to the main lord, Jeigan, early healer, Cain and Abel, ect.

Prologue fight would be a mock battle to test the avatar's current tactical abilities, then the first few chapters would have your usual early-game stuff dealing with brigands and other easy threats. Come chapter 5 or so, war breaks out with whatever enemy nation we're facing this game, and tragedy strikes; the army tactician is assassinated (One day before retirement, damn), leaving the royals with no choice but to put you in charge of strategy despite your inexperience.

I think that strikes a good middle point between the avatar being a total non-entity with no bearing on the plot, and being a metaphorical black hole warping the plot around themselves (Like in Fates). Also no need for the player to have amnesia or any other backstory-concealing element; they could just have lived a relatively nondescript life until being thrust into this war.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Anomalocaris

[Levin's Scarf]

I would like to see an antihero type of protagonist, or at least someone who can be seen as fighting for the "good" side but has qualities that keep him from being a purely good protagonist, such as a ruthless streak.

In terms of villain, I would like to see someone who was like Alvis in FE4- not necessarily evil, but utilitarian. He would have good intentions, but his "the ends justifies the means" mentality would cause him to make morally questionable decisions that would place him in the wrong end of history.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Levin's Scarf

[Thane]

It seems like a lot of people want the protagonist to be more pragmatic, and I'd like that too, but I'd enjoy it more if we got several major choices that affected the gameplay in some way - maybe being more pragmatic leads to slightly worse ends but makes the gameplay easier, and being more moral negatively affects the gameplay but ends on a brighter note.

Of course, then we'd get the problem that being more of a goody two-shoes is objectively better. Regardless, I'd like more choices in the game; not like in Fates in which you had three different options once and then the story went in a straight line, but rather I'd like to see a few key moments in the story altering future scenes, dialogues and party members, at the very least.

[Dragrath]

Hm I have put some thought into this The series has had a lot of villains that are irredeemable monsters and out right supernatural. To me this scope feels forced in many of the entries. For an antagonist I would like someone with motive who uses supernatural forces to accomplish a goal. In general Ashnard had a motive ( a society based on strength not petty nobility and class) but used supernatural forces to achieve it.

The following are ideas I have played around with

1)Several games have involved the ability to raise the dead usually a trait used by the protagonist to bring back a unit they lost, however what if the enemy used it? This would synergize with the enemies seeming disregard for the lives of their soldiers. The ability to disregard life and death of friend and foe would serve as the part of why they might be perceived to be using barbaric tactics.

Take a world with strong class segregation(i.e. poor commoners and wealthy rich lords) long standing warfare between multiple powers driven by differing ideology and interests. Their would be a build up that is reaching the point where it might lead to irreversible changes if nothing is done(i.e. think of along the lines of what happened in Elibe) The antagonist would be a organization seeking to change the world for the better using what ever methods work before it becomes too late. The antagonist faction would break several tropes through several means (For instance Enemies are not throw aways, the bosses you kill ect all come back at the end, The "Dark Forces" on the antagonists team joined because they too are tired of the status quo.)

In the final battle the main antagonist wouldn't even have a weapon(only staff level and possessing basically an equivalent to the Aum Staff and Goddess Staff, A supports with all the enemies in the chapter and aura/rally skills ect)

[ILikeKirbys]

Hm I have put some thought into this The series has had a lot of villains that are irredeemable monsters and out right supernatural. To me this scope feels forced in many of the entries. For an antagonist I would like someone with motive who uses supernatural forces to accomplish a goal. In general Ashnard had a motive ( a society based on strength not petty nobility and class) but used supernatural forces to achieve it.

Yeah, I'd like to see this too.

This, or a story where the whole cult of revive-the-evil-dragon-or-dark-goddess-or-whatever-Loptyr-is-or-whatever-monster-it-is-this-week plot is wholly or partially unrelated (at most, have the relation as enemy-leader-allows-cult-to-continue-and-encourages-its-growth-to-get-more-soldiers), and got dealt with partway through (complete with the aforementioned this-week's-surprise-monster, the sort of thing you might see as a final boss, as a mid-story fight), and then you deal with the remnants of that cult harass you from time to time (would allow for reinforcements from unexpected positions, which could be annoying but I feel might be interesting) while dealing with whatever the A plot was (my head says antagonist king, with a Genghis Khan-ish unite-my-country-for-maximum-conquest sort of thing going; possibly sympathetic, possibly not, but still someone you'd have to kill in the end).

The following are ideas I have played around with

1)Several games have involved the ability to raise the dead usually a trait used by the protagonist to bring back a unit they lost, however what if the enemy used it? This would synergize with the enemies seeming disregard for the lives of their soldiers. The ability to disregard life and death of friend and foe would serve as the part of why they might be perceived to be using barbaric tactics.

Take a world with strong class segregation(i.e. poor commoners and wealthy rich lords) long standing warfare between multiple powers driven by differing ideology and interests. Their would be a build up that is reaching the point where it might lead to irreversible changes if nothing is done(i.e. think of along the lines of what happened in Elibe) The antagonist would be a organization seeking to change the world for the better using what ever methods work before it becomes too late. The antagonist faction would break several tropes through several means (For instance Enemies are not throw aways, the bosses you kill ect all come back at the end, The "Dark Forces" on the antagonists team joined because they too are tired of the status quo.)

In the final battle the main antagonist wouldn't even have a weapon(only staff level and possessing basically an equivalent to the Aum Staff and Goddess Staff, A supports with all the enemies in the chapter and aura/rally skills ect)

...That would be quite interesting, if primarily from a gameplay perspective (the concept of enemies that don't stay dead would be an interesting one, especially if they just auto-revived after a couple of turns and you had to put them back down again; that alone could make for a possibly-interesting chapter gimmick).

As far as story is concerned... Yeah, it also sounds interesting to me there too. Although, I'm dreadfully sorry, but it's been a long time since I played 7, so I think I've forgotten what exactly happened to Elibe... Unless it happened in 6, then I haven't forgotten. Because I never played that one.

Still, I like your idea.

That final boss especially would be a quite interesting one. Though I'd make several copies of that boss and have one in each group of enemies, so you'd have to kill all of them to succeed, but that's just me.

...

As for what I'd like to see in a protagonist...

Honestly, I'd like to see two separate protagonists, with their own armies who you'd control in separate storylines that occasionally intersect (think like Fates, if it were just one game, and Corrin didn't exist (or played a far, far less important role), and your main lords were Ryoma (when you're playing on the Hoshido side) and Xander (when you're controlling Nohr), and you'd switch off between them from time to time, and they had clashes like in Radiant Dawn where the other side would be equipped in the same way they were when you last played as them and might even field different units depending on who you use most frequently, and keep units with support bonuses together to take advantage of that... I know that second-to-last thing didn't happen in Radiant Dawn, and I'm not sure the last one did either, but I think they'd be neat touches).

And then they'd either team up against some third faction (not necessarily a the-real-villain type of thing, maybe just a Walhart-but-with-foreshadowing type of thing, maybe), or you'd be forced to pick a side beyond a certain point and that side would win (and kill off most of the other side, with some unavoidable deaths (bosses, rout maps) and some avoidable ones (like, they're there, and you can kill them, but you don't need to, and maybe one or two of these would be able to join you if you let them live)), and then you'd take the side you picked to beat down the aforementioned third side. Maybe have it as the latter, with the option for the former if you completed some hidden requirements (they'd be hinted at in-story, of course, and some of them would be spelled out after beating one side, so after playing through both sides, you'd know how to get the team-up).

Sorry if that kinda went off-topic a bit there.

Edited April 8, 2016 by ILikeKirbys

[solrocknroll]

It seems like a lot of people want the protagonist to be more pragmatic, and I'd like that too, but I'd enjoy it more if we got several major choices that affected the gameplay in some way - maybe being more pragmatic leads to slightly worse ends but makes the gameplay easier, and being more moral negatively affects the gameplay but ends on a brighter note.

Of course, then we'd get the problem that being more of a goody two-shoes is objectively better. Regardless, I'd like more choices in the game; not like in Fates in which you had three different options once and then the story went in a straight line, but rather I'd like to see a few key moments in the story altering future scenes, dialogues and party members, at the very least.

Why use the term "goody two-shoes" lol?

It's not difficult to be a good person and honestly idk why terms like that exist to discourage people from being good.

In this scenario, I'd want the better ending and the easier difficulty from being good. I hate hard games and I hate doing bad things in games.