What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Hawkwing]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think one of the only reasons Shadows of Valencia got spared the hammer universal awful writing complaints is because it has really good voice acting that serves to make it far more presentable.

9 hours ago, La Traviata said:

Seeing what does get praise as good writing in this Fandom, discussions about it at this point goes in one ear and out the other.

Depends on what aspect of "good writing" you're talking about.

If we're talking about the overall plot, then yes, Echoes story does shoot itself in the foot quite a few times. It's flaws in this respect are painfully obvious and don't take much critical analysis to notice. How bad these issues are range from person to person (Things such as Jedahs meeting with Celica is either decried as him being obviously evil, a reasonable trade considering the circumstances, or a combination of the two that's solid but could use some reworking), so I suppose that's why some people call Shadow of Valentia's story the worst in the series, and why others think it's okay.

If we're talking about what the characters actually say to each other, then that could be what some people mean when they say they enjoy the writing. Yeah, the game might break it's own Aesops, but everything else about the characters, how they speak, what they say, how they interact with other units, someone might find enjoyable and that the unique battle dialogue and base conversations helps each character stand out despite the low number of support conversations. Yeah, voice acting adds a lot to the characters and it's clear that IS designed the script with that in mind, but someone still had to write what the characters would say and how they would say it, which could qualify as "good writing" in a sense. Something can have a great story yet still not be seen in the best of light because of the dialogue (the Star Wars prequels are a good examples of this), just as the opposite is true (and that could be flipped around, so the lesson at the end of the day is that execution is important).

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Depends on what aspect of "good writing" you're talking about.

If we're talking about the overall plot, then yes, Echoes story does shoot itself in the foot quite a few times. It's flaws in this respect are painfully obvious and don't take much critical analysis to notice. How bad these issues are range from person to person (Things such as Jedahs meeting with Celica is either decried as him being obviously evil, a reasonable trade considering the circumstances, or a combination of the two that's solid but could use some reworking), so I suppose that's why some people call Shadow of Valentia's story the worst in the series, and why others think it's okay.

If we're talking about what the characters actually say to each other, then that could be what some people mean when they say they enjoy the writing. Yeah, the game might break it's own Aesops, but everything else about the characters, how they speak, what they say, how they interact with other units, someone might find enjoyable and that the unique battle dialogue and base conversations helps each character stand out despite the low number of support conversations. Yeah, voice acting adds a lot to the characters and it's clear that IS designed the script with that in mind, but someone still had to write what the characters would say and how they would say it, which could qualify as "good writing" in a sense. Something can have a great story yet still not be seen in the best of light because of the dialogue (the Star Wars prequels are a good examples of this), just as the opposite is true (and that could be flipped around, so the lesson at the end of the day is that execution is important).

I don't disagree. In fact that was kind of what I was saying. Presentation is important and is an integral part of the medium in question.

[Flere210]

Imo the main reason Echoes does not get much complains is because it came in a moment where the fandom was willing accept any kind o shit as long as it was different than Fates.

[Icelerate]

I think Ishtar is a fine character but I disagree with her being one of the best camus archetypes. I'd argue Eldigan is a superior character to Ishtar. 

[Arachnofiend]

On 10/4/2019 at 8:20 AM, vanguard333 said:

By contrast, I don't like Elincia and Geoffrey. They grew up together in the same villa. It's weird, and while Geoffrey may not act like Elincia's a sister to him, Elincia certainly acts like he's a brother to her (at least in Path of Radiance). Plus, I just find Geoffrey's character about as interesting as beige-flavoured oatmeal.

Geoffrey's just the official, public marriage. Elincia's real lover is Lucia

(Only somewhat joking here. "Their love was fabled to be stronger than even most blood sisters" indeed.)

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Icelerate said:

I think Ishtar is a fine character but I disagree with her being one of the best camus archetypes. I'd argue Eldigan is a superior character to Ishtar. 

The best Camus is obviously Path of Radiance Oliver. He even copies the original Camus by coming back to life and joining the heroes in a sequel.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

Oliver is honestly one of the best FE characters. He and Makalov go in my top 5 for Tellius.

Not sure if that's an unpopular opinion in the strictest sense, but even if Oliver wasn't a meme in the fandom he'd still be a meme to me.

[GlitchWarrior]

MALAKOV? No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

...

Sorry, been watching a bit too much BlazingKnight. But still. NO.

[Thinks Their Own Way]

12 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Depends on what aspect of "good writing" you're talking about.

Mainly the overall journey and it is mainly because of me and my politics. I have a hard time accepting Echoes as this great narrative experience because I see the later half of the game having an underlining foundation of the man's ideology (Alm) is clearly superior the woman's ideology (Celica), Alm having less bullshit maps and better music than Celica also underlines that superiority. Radiant Dawn is one of my favourites in the series and I hate the ending because I felt it came off as, slaying god ends racism. 

[eclipse]

On 10/4/2019 at 5:21 PM, Jotari said:

I think one of the only reasons Shadows of Valencia got spared the hammer universal awful writing complaints is because it has really good voice acting that serves to make it far more presentable.

The original story was written in a very different time - I'm sure some of the members of this forum weren't even born.  Echoes tried to stay true to that, which is why the writing looks like a train wreck now.  The stuff that was added (like the supports) helped to detract from the otherwise messy plot.

Compare that to Fates, where the supports are more miss than hit, and the story doesn't help.

And don't get me started on FE3.  Hoo boy.

[NekoKnight]

On 10/5/2019 at 9:24 AM, KMT4ever said:

"Hey everybody, I know I got on this throne by siding with our mortal enemy and overthrowing my own father, but don't worry, I totally have Nohr's best interests at heart."

While we know next to nothing about the Nohrian court, I don't think it's farfetched to think that people generally didn't like Garon. His own children lived in fear of him on a daily basis and he put down insurrections with extreme prejudice. Xander could score points with potential supporters by being a more even handed ruler. Also, if Xander cooperated with the Hoshidans, he might secure more cordial relations with them and get Nohr more aid.

[Jotari]

My issue is the Xander shows basically zero doubt or conflict in Conquest. Even when he does finally fight Baron it's not because anything wrong was done, it's because it wasn't Garon. The moral is essentially "doing bad things is wrong...if you're a slime monster. If you're my daddy then it's completely okay." Imo Conquest should have been a large scale examination of the Camus trope and actually analyze why people stick to or betray people they disagree with. Instead the story is an incredibly lazy plot of "The king is a slime monster, but we can't tell anyone or we'll die, so we have to completey destroy an innocent nation because for some reason their throne and their throne alone has magical slime detecting abilities." It's just so dang contrived.

[vanguard333]

9 hours ago, La Traviata said:

Radiant Dawn is one of my favourites in the series and I hate the ending because I felt it came off as, slaying god ends racism. 

That's a rather... odd way to interpret it. I can see where you're coming from, but the Ashera storyline had nothing to with the racism. Not only that, but Yune lives and eventually the two are reunited in the best ending. If anything, it was more, "Slaying corrupt senate ends systemic racism" and even that's a stretch. 

[Alastor15243]

3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

That's a rather... odd way to interpret it. I can see where you're coming from, but the Ashera storyline had nothing to with the racism. Not only that, but Yune lives and eventually the two are reunited in the best ending. If anything, it was more, "Slaying corrupt senate ends systemic racism" and even that's a stretch. 

Yeah, Yune confirmed Ashunera never said that Beorc and Laguz should never cross breed in a base conversation with Stefan. The entire "racism is the goddess's will" nonsense was made up later.

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

That's a rather... odd way to interpret it. I can see where you're coming from, but the Ashera storyline had nothing to with the racism. Not only that, but Yune lives and eventually the two are reunited in the best ending. If anything, it was more, "Slaying corrupt senate ends systemic racism" and even that's a stretch. 

Fighting over racial supermacy is silly. Now fighting over religious philosophy, that's a just cause!

Edited October 6, 2019 by Jotari

[Thinks Their Own Way]

47 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

That's a rather... odd way to interpret it. I can see where you're coming from, but the Ashera storyline had nothing to with the racism. Not only that, but Yune lives and eventually the two are reunited in the best ending. If anything, it was more, "Slaying corrupt senate ends systemic racism" and even that's a stretch. 

Spoiler

It was mainly the cut-scene at the end when everyone on the battlefield gets reverted back and the fighting between everyone just magically stops fighting and I never got a sense of lingering animosity between anyone.

 

[vanguard333]

32 minutes ago, La Traviata said:

  Hide contents

It was mainly the cut-scene at the end when everyone on the battlefield gets reverted back and the fighting between everyone just magically stops fighting and I never got a sense of lingering animosity between anyone.

 

Oh. I'm pretty sure that was just everyone being happy to not be a statue. Being turned to stone can really give perspective on the important things in life... 

Since the transformation back into living flesh wasn't instantaneous, they could see themselves and everyone else being reverted back to normal; reinforcing that this is just stemming from relief to be alive. 

Also, remember that that fight was between the Laguz Alliance (plus Crimea and the Bgnion forces loyal to Sanaki) and the Daein Army, and the Daein Army wasn't fighting out of animosity for the Laguz; it was fighting because it was being forced to do so. Part 3 heavily implied (if not made it clear) that many in the army were suspecting something was up; they just kept going because Micaiah told them to do so. The Laguz Alliance didn't really want to fight Daein either. So you have two reluctant armies suddenly all get turned to stone, then get reverted back to normal. Everyone's just going to be happy to be alive. 

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

My issue is the Xander shows basically zero doubt or conflict in Conquest. Even when he does finally fight Baron it's not because anything wrong was done, it's because it wasn't Garon. The moral is essentially "doing bad things is wrong...if you're a slime monster. If you're my daddy then it's completely okay." Imo Conquest should have been a large scale examination of the Camus trope and actually analyze why people stick to or betray people they disagree with. Instead the story is an incredibly lazy plot of "The king is a slime monster, but we can't tell anyone or we'll die, so we have to completey destroy an innocent nation because for some reason their throne and their throne alone has magical slime detecting abilities." It's just so dang contrived.

ehh Honestly conquest's story I feel is more a continuation of birthright's story if nothing else. Cause the thing about conquest you gotta realize is that it exists to try(key word try) to answer the question posed at the end of birthright. which was: "who exactly is the enemy here?" which is shown not to be Garon or Nohr by the end of conquest. Conquest is certainly weird and I have my own problems with how that story operates but I think it does what it wants to do at least decently give or take a few hiccups here or there

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

ehh Honestly conquest's story I feel is more a continuation of birthright's story if nothing else. Cause the thing about conquest you gotta realize is that it exists to try(key word try) to answer the question posed at the end of birthright. which was: "who exactly is the enemy here?" which is shown not to be Garon or Nohr by the end of conquest. Conquest is certainly weird and I have my own problems with how that story operates but I think it does what it wants to do at least decently give or take a few hiccups here or there

I have no issue with that in concept. But in practise I don't think I could conceive a more contrived and lazy way of going about it as the whole slime monster + magic chair + Valla curse combination.

[SubwayBossEmmett]

16 hours ago, eclipse said:

The original story was written in a very different time - I'm sure some of the members of this forum weren't even born.  Echoes tried to stay true to that, which is why the writing looks like a train wreck now. 

I mean they weren’t scared to change Echoes overall and I say it was to Celica’s detriment overall.

Not to mention Berkut was a failure of a villain and without his VA would be seen as Iago tier villain losing and accomplishing nothing at every turn. 

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I have no issue with that in concept. But in practise I don't think I could conceive a more contrived and lazy way of going about it as the whole slime monster + magic chair + Valla curse combination.

Here's a question. What makes all of that "Contrived" anyway? cause at the end of the day stories are inherently contrived when you really think about it. I mean suspension of disbelief is a subjective component in regards to criticism now obviously there are times when stupid bullshit happens in a story but overall small contrivances like that honestly don't really matter a whole lot to me personally. The hoshidian throne thing was foreshadowed in like chapter 5. The slime monster thing was foreshadowed in birthright so I wouldn't consider that contrived either also Garon being a slime monster is kind of the point of the narrative. The only plot device there I'd consider "contrived" would be the Valla curse and the reveal of slime Garon which is a problem exclusive to conquest's story. Chapter 15 of conquest is a weird one that brings up a huge gaping plot hole in the story that could be easily fixed but it isn't for whatever reason. It's a weird chapter that brings up far too many thematic inconsistencies with the world and the role of Azura's character within the narrative. Though aside from that, I don't think the story is all that forced or contrived. It only requires slightly above average levels of suspension of disbelief about enough to believe that a new kingdom exists at the bottom of a giant chasm which is whatever standard fantasy faire for me so.

[Troykv]

55 minutes ago, SubwayBossEmmett said:

I mean they weren’t scared to change Echoes overall and I say it was to Celica’s detriment overall.

Not to mention Berkut was a failure of a villain and without his VA would be seen as Iago tier villain losing and accomplishing nothing at every turn. 

Echoes overall bring improvements to the narrative, but when it failed compared with the original it's very easy to notice... and damn it hurts.

[Alastor15243]

8 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Here's a question. What makes all of that "Contrived" anyway? cause at the end of the day stories are inherently contrived when you really think about it.

Because it's transparently obvious that the plot of Conquest is a result of the writers wanting to invent a scenario in which:

1: Hoshido was in the right

2: Corrin fought Hoshido

3: Corrin wasn't evil

The entire plot is an elaborate ruse constructed to make the gameplay of Conquest a mirror to the gameplay of Birthright without turning Corrin into a monster or making the conflict remotely morally grey. They wanted Corrin to fight all of his Hoshidan siblings throughout the story, so they invented a ridiculous magical set of circumstances that would transform this action into a (supposedly) heroic one. The plot is an excuse plot, a story invented second to justify gameplay that had been decided beforehand.

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Alastor15243 said:

Because it's transparently obvious that the plot of Conquest is a result of the writers wanting to invent a scenario in which:

1: Hoshido was in the right

2: Corrin fought Hoshido

3: Corrin wasn't evil

The entire plot is an elaborate ruse constructed to make the gameplay of Conquest a mirror to the gameplay of Birthright without turning Corrin into a monster or making the conflict remotely morally grey. They wanted Corrin to fight all of his Hoshidan siblings throughout the story, so they invented a ridiculous magical set of circumstances that would transform this action into a (supposedly) heroic one. The plot is an excuse plot, a story invented second to justify gameplay that had been decided beforehand.

but is that not how you write any story? like hear me out for a second. How does a story come to be anyway? think about that for a minute. Every event within a story is already pre-ordained by the author. Everything within the story is there to service an idea. That's just how stories work which means they are inherently by definition. Think about it like this if I wanted to write a story about a character who needs to learn the meaning of true strength, I, as the author, need to contrive a scenario within the plot in which the character learns that lesson. Like that shit does not happen naturally or in a non-contrived way. It has to be contrived for it to work. You can call literally every plot point within any given story contrived cause it is by the very definition of how stories are constructed it is contrived. I'm not going to deny the fact stupid bullshit does happen in stories cause it does but contrivances like that really don't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

It's explained in the story and doesn't break any rules of the narrative or reveal any inconsistencies within any other aspect of the narrative so what's the big deal? at that point it's a matter of personal taste and opinion which is fine but can't really be used as an argumentative claim. The thing about contrivance is that so long as a story is consistent with it's rules and themes. I don't really see much of an issue. To use your point as example let me put it to you this way. If the point of the two paths was to mirror each other then yeah of course they're gonna have to contrive scenarios in which the two paths can come off as similar but different like that's the entire point and for the most part they did that well if you ask me. So long as the story is easy to follow and is consistent with itself there's really not much of an issue. Which they managed to do for the most part(chapter 15 of conquest not withstanding). An author can explore the ideas of their story however they choose. All that matters is that they remain consistent and explore their ideas in deep and nuanced ways which I would argue fates does.

[Alastor15243]

15 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It's explained in the story and doesn't break any rules of the narrative or reveal any inconsistencies within any other aspect of the narrative so what's the big deal?

 

The big deal is that in addition to its purpose being distractingly artificially cynical, it was terribly thought out and lazy, and it didn't seem to occur to anyone involved that it turns Azura and Corrin into sociopaths, and that none of the Hoshidan children should sympathize with their motivations for doing any of it. The story constantly tries to depict Corrin as this noble tragic figure for dragging his reputation to hell for the sake of saving the world, when in reality he's being a massive, selfish coward who, aside from his siblings, is the only one who stands to gain in any way from stopping Garon this way. For that matter, while it's at least conceivably understandable why Corrin would value the lives of the Nohrian royal family over the lives of thousands of innocent people and the security of an entire country, it's never ever explained why Azura, who lived nearly her whole life in Hoshido and thus is way more attached to Hoshido than Nohr, would even want to end the war this way when she has nothing to gain from it.

This isn't a motivation that, when explained to Sakura and Hinoka, would be remotely excusable. What exactly is Hinoka supposed to find understandable or heroic about "I love my Nohrian siblings so much that I'd have let your entire country burn to the ground if it meant I didn't have to fight them"? Why the hell do Hinoka and Sakura forgive him? Where, anywhere in the story, is Corrin called out, by anyone, for agreeing to Azura's nonsensical plan for selfish reasons?

Edited October 6, 2019 by Alastor15243