What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Being foreshadowed doesn't make something not contrived. Those elements are contrived because they are clearly forced into the world to make the narrative meet certain plot beats. It doesn't feel like it's a natural part of the setting that develops in a sensible way. The Hoshidon Throne "has" to be the only thing that can reveal Garon because the story needs to end on a Hoshido invasion to mirror birthright. The Valla curse "has" to exist to stop Azura telling anyone about it and ending the story there. Likewise the stone she uses to tell Corrin about slime Garon "has" to be the only one in existence and "has" to break immediately after use because otherwise everyone would know and Garon would be over thrown then and there. All these plot points are forcing the story to go in a specific direction to reach a specific conclusion rather than being a natural element of the world that makes sense. Valla isn't comparable at all as Vala is a layer of the plot. It's an element that's worked into the story to play off of other plot points. It doesn't exist purely to service one extremely specific condition to make one specific thing happen (or not happen). See what I mean? It's not a case that I have a hard time imaging Hoshido has a magic throne, it's the fact that Hoshido clearly has a magic throne only to reveal slime monster Garon at the end and for literally no other reason at all (and I'd even go so far as to say Slime Garon was completely unnecessary since it's literally the same entity as regular Garon. It was just done as a cheap shortcut to get Xander on side rather than writing him better and actually giving him a character arc).

Yeah but the same could be said of any other plot point in any other story though. Here’s the thing about the Vallite curse. Yes, it does exist solely to prevent Azura from telling everyone and ending the story right then and there but at least it’s an explanation to that plot hole. My main point is that nothing in a story happens naturally and contrivance is inevitable. Every element in a story is done to service a specific plot point or idea. That’s what stories are. I will agree that the Crystal ball is on the bullshit side and they definitely could’ve handled it better. But I mean just take Shadow dragon for instance. Does Marth really have to be the only one who could wield falchion and slay Medeus? Strictly speaking not necessarily but because he is the main character the story and world will bend to make that the only option and explain it thusly. It’s all to serve the narrative and the ideas it wants to explore. Or for some other examples. Does the black knight “have” to kill Greil? Did Jeralt “have” to die? Did Gustav “have” to die? Did Edelgard “have” to start her war?

Once again no they did not and only happen to serve the narrative and that’s my point. All those events “had” to happen for the story to happen in the first place. Without those events, those stories would not have played out in the way they did and that’s fine. There is nothing wrong with that. This is what I mean when I say contrivance is inevitable in stories. Things in a story “need” to happen in order for the story to progress in the way the author wants and that’s fine. What’s important is that the story remains consistent with itself in terms if it’s themes, structure, world, and characters and explains its plot points reasonably then I personally do not see an issue.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Ottservia

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah but the same could be said of any other plot point in any other story though. Here’s the thing about the Vallite curse. Yes, it does exist solely to prevent Azura from telling everyone and ending the story right then and there but at least it’s an explanation to that plot hole. My main point is that nothing in a story happens naturally and contrivance is inevitable. Every element in a story is done to service a specific plot point or idea. That’s what stories are. I will agree that the Crystal ball is on the bullshit side and they definitely could’ve handled it better. But I mean just take Shadow dragon for instance. Does Marth really have to be the only one who could wield falchion and slay Medeus? Strictly speaking not necessarily but because he is the main character the story and world will bend to make that the only option and explain it thusly. It’s all to serve the narrative and the ideas it wants to explore. Or for some other examples. Does the black knight “have” to kill Greil? Did Jeralt “have” to die? Did Gustav “have” to die? Did Edelgard “have” to start her war?

Once again no they did not and only happen to serve the narrative and that’s my point. All those events “had” to happen for the story to happen in the first place. Without those events, those stories would not have played out in the way they did and that’s fine. There is nothing wrong with that. This is what I mean when I say contrivance is inevitable in stories. Things in a story “need” to happen in order for the story to progress in the way the author wants and that’s fine. What’s important is that the story remains consistent with itself in terms if it’s themes, structure, world, and characters and explains its plot points reasonably then I personally do not see an issue.

I don't think you know what the word contrive means. What you're giving examples of are things that are constructed. Did the Black Knight need to kill Griel for the story to happen? Yes. But why did BK kill Griel? Because he was there to get the medallion and he had a personal history with Griel. Griel's death arises naturally from the circumstances. Now, say if Griel happened to die because a broken tree branch fell on his head, and then the medallion rolled into a river and conveniently washed up right at Petrine's feet, that would be contrived. It didn't happen because of the way the story was constructed, it happened purely to force the story to a certain place. There's a difference between making the story flow to a certain point and forcing the story to go to a certain point. Forcing is the key word there. Having a magic crystal that shows the truth once and then breaks immediately afterwards and no once present can talk about it, that's forcing the plot to go in a certain direction. Marth wielding Falchion doesn't force anything (in fact you can finish the game without it). It's just an aspect of the world. The story could still work if other people could wield the Falchion, it change Marth's character somewhat and hence alter the story, but the plot would be able to go in more or less the same direction. If you try to change any of the plot points discussed relating to Conquest then the entire story falls apart because it's built on contrivences.

[Ottservia]

24 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think you know what the word contrive means

I know what contrived means. By the strictest definition it means for something to happen deliberately and not naturally or spontaneously which by that definition well stories are inherently contrived. Like I said contrivance is inevitable in stories. 

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Did the Black Knight need to kill Griel for the story to happen? Yes. But why did BK kill Griel? Because he was there to get the medallion and he had a personal history with Griel. Griel's death arises naturally from the circumstances. Now, say if Griel happened to die because a broken tree branch fell on his head, and then the medallion rolled into a river and conveniently washed up right at Petrine's feet, that would be contrived.

Yes, if that did happen that would be kind of stupid. However, it would be a different story because then Ike would not have the motivation he needs in order to duel with the black knight. That plot point is specifically set up to force Ike to grow into a more leadership role as well as setup the duel between him and the black knight later on. The writer wanted that duel to happen so they set up a plot point to explain the reason behind why it would because for that conflict to have any weight all those elements needed to be in place(BK having a history with greil, The medallion, Greil's death, etc.). It was all in an effort to force more tension into a situation where Ike fought the black knight. Remove any of those elements and the conflict kinda falls apart. To get the desired outcome they wanted the writers constructed their plot in a way to force/guide the story in the direction they wanted. Nothing ever really conflicts and everything is explained neatly in order for things to make sense to the player. I find the vallite curse and goo garon to be really no different. 

38 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It's just an aspect of the world

The vallite curse is also an aspect of the world so what makes that any different? You can introduce new world building elements into a story so long as it doesn't conflict with anything else and if it does give a reasonable explanation as to why. It's an established world building element there to explain aspects of the plot which is fine if you ask me because it doesn't really conflict with anything else(chapter 15 not withstanding). The crystal ball breaking? Well that was also explained. A little hand wavy sure but it is an explanation. As to where Azura got the Crystal ball now that I will agree is just bullshit that should've been explained. Like if it's explained in way that makes sense I don't see what the big deal is. An explanation is better than no explanation retroactive or not. Whether or not that explanation is reasonable depends on the what is being explained. Crystal ball breaking? yeah that doesn't require a whole lot of explanation. Again, if a writer wants a specific plot point to happen, they will construct the plot points and elements of their story in way to get it to happen that's just how storytelling works. Again so long as it doesn't contradict anything, then I don't see what the big deal is. Plot devices are not inherently bad. they're only bad if they're just shoved into a story without any reason or explanation.

Like the Hoshidian throne is explained to have come from Valla and is foreshadowed early in the story. Now, I will agree they could've done a better job of explaining why Corrin and Azura have to go through this specific plan but the fact that the plan exists and is a necessary plot point is not contrived or forced. The real problem is that they did not give enough of a reasonable explanation for the player to believe that this was the only way. Now if they had then I don't see a problem with it cause then it would make more sense. 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

The story could still work if other people could wield the Falchion, it change Marth's character somewhat and hence alter the story, but the plot would be able to go in more or less the same direction. If you try to change any of the plot points discussed relating to Conquest then the entire story falls apart because it's built on contrivences.

but isn't not being able to remove the plot point of a story considered good writing? I mean if something isn't necessary for the story don't you just cut it cause it isn't necessary. Like if you were to remove an aspect of a story and have nothing would change, wouldn't that be a bad thing? cause that just means the plot point in question is unnecessary which is bad. If the plot point is necessary then that's good. is it not? Just curious to know you're thoughts on that.

Also I'm just gonna leave this video here cause I think it sums up my thoughts on contrivance pretty well. Be warned though he does talk a little fast

 

[Jotari]

12 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I know what contrived means. By the strictest definition it means for something to happen deliberately and not naturally or spontaneously which by that definition well stories are inherently contrived. Like I said contrivance is inevitable in stories. 

 

Okay I'm going to freely admit that I just didn't read your comment entirely because you've demonstrated in you're opening statement that you in fact don't know what the word means and everything beyond that which I read was just repeats of what you said before with focus on points I wasn't actually making or a misunderstanding of the points I was (I will watch the video later though).

Contrived does not mean "made by humans" which is what you seem to think the word means. Perhaps an analogy will help matters. Like a story, a good, well constructed house is something where all the timber is laid in a fashion that makes it physically sturdy and aesthetically pleasing. A contrived house is a bunch of sticks laid on top of each other that's managing to not fall down. You can manage sleep in either, but the house of sticks will fall down with the barest of tugs. We not use the word contrived to refer to anything made by humans, contrived is not something we use to describe jam, curtains or countries. We might use it to describe some berries mushed together and called jam, a blanket being pinned to a window or a state being formed over some arbitrarly drawn land borders however, but not to describe anything merely made deliberately. That's not to say it's even an inherently negative word (a contrived curtain isn't optimal but it stills does the job). In storytelling it will almost invariably be used negatively to describe a narrative, because there's  useually no real limitations that make a forced plot point the optimal plot point.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Jotari

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Okay I'm going to freely admit that I just didn't read your comment entirely because you've demonstrated in you're opening statement that you in fact don't know what the word means and everything beyond that which I read was just repeats of what you said before with focus on points I wasn't actually making or a misunderstanding of the points I was (I will watch the video later though).

Contrived does not mean "made by humans" which is what you seem to think the word means. Perhaps an analogy will help matters. Like a story, a good, well constructed house is something where all the timber is laid in a fashion that makes it physically sturdy and aesthetically pleasing. A contrived house is a bunch of sticks laid on top of each other that's managing to not fall down. You can manage sleep in either, but the house of sticks will fall down with the barest of tugs. We not use the word contrived to refer to anything made by humans, contrived is not something we use to describe jam, curtains or countries. We might use it to describe some berries mushed together and called jam, a blanket being pinned to a window or a state being formed over some arbitrarly drawn land borders however, but not to describe anything merely made deliberately. That's not to say it's even an inherently negative word (a contrived curtain isn't optimal but it stills does the job).

Okay something of a fair point here but it’s clear to me there’s been a miscommunication for which I apologize as I believe it was a misunderstanding on my part. Allow me to clarify what exactly my argument is so that we may clear the air a bit. A good story is structured based on “natural” cause and effect. I believe that is something both of us can agree on. Something happens which causes something else to happen which effects this part of the story which causes the next event of the story to happen. This allows the story to flow seamlessly from one event to the next. I think where we disagree is in the definition of the word “natural”. I find “natural” progression in a story is when nothing is contradicted and everything is explained in a way that makes sense to the audience. 

For example, let’s say I, as an author, want to write a story where a character must learn that it’s okay to rely on others and that doing things alone is not always a viable option. There are many ways I could go about doing this but one of the most obvious is to create a scenario where the character is in a situation where it is impossible to succeed because they refused help from others due to stubbornness or some other character flaw. They, of course, fail at this task because they do not understand the message the story is trying to teach them. That is the story I want to tell so I must construct the elements of my story in a way for that to happen. If the task at hand is a fight and I want them to lose that fight, I would need to write in a reason for why they lost. Perhaps, the enemy had an ability that directly countered theirs that they didn’t know about, or they underestimated the enemy’s strength, or maybe the enemy had an ally that when combined directly countered the character’s abilities. There are many ways one could go about writing such a scenario but the end result must be that the character loses this fight and has to be saved by their allies in order to get across the message of the story. That’s just how i want to write my story. In that way I deliberately set up the events of my story in order to get the specific outcome I wanted for my story to progress in the way that I wanted it to.

The idea of the vallite curse and slime Garon on the hoshidian throne is somewhat similar. The writers wanted to write a narrative in which Corrin had to fight their hoshidian siblings in order to get closer to the truth. The purpose of the story was to unmask Garon and try to figure out who the true enemy was as well as prove Nohr’s “innocence”. That is the story they wanted to tell so the story is structured in such a way for that to happen. The ultimate goal of the characters is to expose the truth. They can’t just tell people the truth because of the aforementioned curse. The only proof they had(the crystal ball) shattered once the truth had been revealed to them because of its fragility and Corrin’s immense dragon blood. Those are(at least to me) perfectly reasonable explanations for why those options are invalid. The narrative is structured in this way in order for the writers to tell the story they want to tell. 

So they can’t say anything about it nor do they have any evidence so the next logical step is to gain such evidence and reveal it to everyone. How does one gain the necessary evidence to reveal the truth and get the others on their side? Well one option is the hoshidian throne which reveals the true form of whoever sits on it and at least from what they say it’s the only way to do it. So the question from there is how to get Garon to sit on the throne without arousing suspicion and getting killed? well the conclusion they come to is to help him conquer Hoshido so that he’d sit on the throne willingly. A somewhat reasonable plan given the circumstances anyway. It isn’t the perfect or ideal solution but it is seemingly the best option they have.

This plot point on its own is fine. The goal of the characters are made clear and the story progresses in a way that reflects the themes of the narrative(the idea of building trust) so I take no issue with it at least somewhat. Everything is also explained neatly(again somewhat I have my own issues with it as I’ve said before) so it all makes sense. This is how the writers want to tell their story and there is nothing wrong with that. They setup the rules of the narrative so that they can tell the story in the way they want and the story should be judged based on the consistency of those rules not the rules the audience sets for it.

That said, I do not believe they are consistent with those rules given everything that happens in chapter 15. Azura had no reason not to tell Corrin everything about Valla right then and there when the curse had no effect. It’s inconsistent with her character. Where Azura got the Crystal ball is never explained which should be since it’s such an integral part of the revelation. They also could’ve explained the specifics of the curse better as well as go over why options besides the hoshidian throne wouldn’t have worked(raising a rebellion, assasination, etc.). There could’ve handled this integral plot point with a little more nuance but the plot point itself is fine and how the story progresses from that point is fine. 

My main point in all of this is that a story should be judged based on its own rules and the story it wants to tell not the story you want to tell or the rules you set for it. Stories, like all art, is a form of expression and an author can express whatever ideas they wish in whatever way they wish. There is really no “right” way to tell a story what’s important is that they are consistent and get their ideas across in a clear and nuanced manner.

[Flere210]

38 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay something of a fair point here but it’s clear to me there’s been a miscommunication for which I apologize as I believe it was a misunderstanding on my part. Allow me to clarify what exactly my argument is so that we may clear the air a bit. A good story is structured based on “natural” cause and effect. I believe that is something both of us can agree on. Something happens which causes something else to happen which effects this part of the story which causes the next event of the story to happen. This allows the story to flow seamlessly from one event to the next. I think where we disagree is in the definition of the word “natural”. I find “natural” progression in a story is when nothing is contradicted and everything is explained in a way that makes sense to the audience. 

For example, let’s say I, as an author, want to write a story where a character must learn that it’s okay to rely on others and that doing things alone is not always a viable option. There are many ways I could go about doing this but one of the most obvious is to create a scenario where the character is in a situation where it is impossible to succeed because they refused help from others due to stubbornness or some other character flaw. They, of course, fail at this task because they do not understand the message the story is trying to teach them. That is the story I want to tell so I must construct the elements of my story in a way for that to happen. If the task at hand is a fight and I want them to lose that fight, I would need to write in a reason for why they lost. Perhaps, the enemy had an ability that directly countered theirs that they didn’t know about, or they underestimated the enemy’s strength, or maybe the enemy had an ally that when combined directly countered the character’s abilities. There are many ways one could go about writing such a scenario but the end result must be that the character loses this fight and has to be saved by their allies in order to get across the message of the story. That’s just how i want to write my story. In that way I deliberately set up the events of my story in order to get the specific outcome I wanted for my story to progress in the way that I wanted it to.

The idea of the vallite curse and slime Garon on the hoshidian throne is somewhat similar. The writers wanted to write a narrative in which Corrin had to fight their hoshidian siblings in order to get closer to the truth. The purpose of the story was to unmask Garon and try to figure out who the true enemy was as well as prove Nohr’s “innocence”. That is the story they wanted to tell so the story is structured in such a way for that to happen. The ultimate goal of the characters is to expose the truth. They can’t just tell people the truth because of the aforementioned curse. The only proof they had(the crystal ball) shattered once the truth had been revealed to them because of its fragility and Corrin’s immense dragon blood. Those are(at least to me) perfectly reasonable explanations for why those options are invalid. The narrative is structured in this way in order for the writers to tell the story they want to tell. 

So they can’t say anything about it nor do they have any evidence so the next logical step is to gain such evidence and reveal it to everyone. How does one gain the necessary evidence to reveal the truth and get the others on their side? Well one option is the hoshidian throne which reveals the true form of whoever sits on it and at least from what they say it’s the only way to do it. So the question from there is how to get Garon to sit on the throne without arousing suspicion and getting killed? well the conclusion they come to is to help him conquer Hoshido so that he’d sit on the throne willingly. A somewhat reasonable plan given the circumstances anyway. It isn’t the perfect or ideal solution but it is seemingly the best option they have.

This plot point on its own is fine. The goal of the characters are made clear and the story progresses in a way that reflects the themes of the narrative(the idea of building trust) so I take no issue with it at least somewhat. Everything is also explained neatly(again somewhat I have my own issues with it as I’ve said before) so it all makes sense. This is how the writers want to tell their story and there is nothing wrong with that. They setup the rules of the narrative so that they can tell the story in the way they want and the story should be judged based on the consistency of those rules not the rules the audience sets for it.

That said, I do not believe they are consistent with those rules given everything that happens in chapter 15. Azura had no reason not to tell Corrin everything about Valla right then and there when the curse had no effect. It’s inconsistent with her character. Where Azura got the Crystal ball is never explained which should be since it’s such an integral part of the revelation. They also could’ve explained the specifics of the curse better as well as go over why options besides the hoshidian throne wouldn’t have worked(raising a rebellion, assasination, etc.). There could’ve handled this integral plot point with a little more nuance but the plot point itself is fine and how the story progresses from that point is fine. 

My main point in all of this is that a story should be judged based on its own rules and the story it wants to tell not the story you want to tell or the rules you set for it. Stories, like all art, is a form of expression and an author can express whatever ideas they wish in whatever way they wish. There is really no “right” way to tell a story what’s important is that they are consistent and get their ideas across in a clear and nuanced manner.

If in one piece a brick fall in the head of blackbeard and make him fall into water and die, it does not contradict anything, because sometimes things like that happen. But i sure as hell would not be satisfacted whit such a way to end the main villain. Contradiction may also be about logical expectations of the story. For example a story should have a moment where the main hero confront the main antagonist, and if this does not happen, the author  need a very good reason for that. Vinland Saga does that well(not gonna spoil to the anime onlys), while i don't remember if Black Zetsu contradict anything, but people would still not like it because they wanted a final showdown againist Madara, not Kaguya hijacking the plot at the last second.

Conquest imo is closer than Black Zetsu.

[Ottservia]

20 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

If in one piece a brick fall in the head of blackbeard and make him fall into water and die, it does not contradict anything, because sometimes things like that happen. But i sure as hell would not be satisfacted whit such a way to end the main villain. Contradiction may also be about logical expectations of the story. For example a story should have a moment where the main hero confront the main antagonist, and if this does not happen, the author  need a very good reason for that. Vinland Saga does that well(not gonna spoil to the anime onlys), while i don't remember if Black Zetsu contradict anything, but people would still not like it because they wanted a final showdown againist Madara, not Kaguya hijacking the plot at the last second.

Conquest imo is closer than Black Zetsu.

I think you missed my point. It’s all about the story the author wants to tell and how they choose to go about telling that story. If a random brick got dropped on blackbeard and he fell into the water and died in that way, then it would in a way contradict(okay maybe not contradict but you get what I mean) the story because the outcome of the battle would not be in line with the themes and ideas that one piece, as a narrative, wants to explore and that’s what is most important. The story must progress in a way that is consistent with its own rules and is in line with its themes and ideas otherwise the story can’t work. So long as a story can accomplish that, it’s fine.

[vanguard333]

Plot Contrivance: Something that causes events to happen in a story in a way that does not seem natural or believable.

Alternate Definition, sourced from Urban Dictionary:

Quote

Something that happens in the plot that is highly unlikely to happen, though still technically possible.

Different from plot hole as a plot hole is something that should be impossible to happen.

A scene featuring Q giving 007 his gadgets is a staple of James Bond films.
Now imagine if the film did not feature this and we see 007 using a never-before-seen gadget to get out of a tight situation. This would be a plot contrivance, as the audience would have zero reason to believe that 007 would have a gadget of this kind, though him having this gadget is still technically not impossible, preventing it from being a plot hole.

I rather like the example that it uses. 

Establishing the setting, magic system, etc., is not a plot contrivance. However, establishing something purely as a plot device with the sole purpose of preventing a reasonable and natural method of resolving the conflict can be a contrivance; depending on the context.

In the case of Valla's curse, it is very much a plot contrivance. Not only is it only established after the central conflict and reveal that it's all due to Anankos manipulating everything through Garon, but it also establishes that Anankos is capable of killing anyone, anywhere, simply through an incantation so long as they mention the existence of Valla. At that point, why start a war? Why not just have his minions spread rumours about Valla and then kill everyone that spreads the rumours?

Saying that all stories are inherently contrived because they have to establish things that are not the case in the real world is to basically give up on the idea of immersion. One reason I do not like that video (I've seen it before, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a good response to it). 

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Saying that all stories are inherently contrived because they have to establish things that are not the case in the real world is to basically give up on the idea of immersion. One reason I do not like that video (I've seen it before, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a good response to it). 

Here’s the thing about Immersion. It’s subjective. What will shatter one’s suspension of disbelief and immersion will not break another’s because again it’s subjective. I mean you can say that the Vallite curse broke your immersion but I can just as easily say it didn’t break mine. We cannot argue that point any further because that’s based on personal opinion and taste which is something that you can’t change. In that sense using it as a form of objective criticism is meaningless cause well it cannot be backed with evidence cause again it relies on personal preference. 

There's nothing wrong with one's own personal opinion cause we each have our own individual tastes and preferences. It's just that in the lens of critical narrative analysis we should work to mitigate subjectivity as much as possible in order to have a clear unbiased view of storytelling and how it works. What I don't like about pointing out "contrivance" in a narrative is that it hinges on suspension of disbelief which again is subjective so.....

Edited October 8, 2019 by Ottservia

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

My main point in all of this is that a story should be judged based on its own rules and the story it wants to tell not the story you want to tell or the rules you set for it. Stories, like all art, is a form of expression and an author can express whatever ideas they wish in whatever way they wish. There is really no “right” way to tell a story what’s important is that they are consistent and get their ideas across in a clear and nuanced manner.

No one is saying conquest is less of a story because it's contrived. People are saying it's a bad story and large part of why being because it's so contrived. And of course that's subjective. If you think it's fine to have a magical crystal ball never mentioned befire that can show the protagonist exactly what they need to see and then immediately break only to never be referenced again, then great. Glad you enjoy the story and justified the paychecks of the writers. Just understand that for other people, that is seen not as inspired story telling, it's seen as the story pulling things out of its ass to make something happen. If you're bar for good story telling is "this work contains not plot holes" then it's been set pretty damn low as few published works actually have significant plot breaking plot holes, despite how much people might throw around such an accusation.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Jotari

[vanguard333]

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Here’s the thing about Immersion. It’s subjective. What will shatter one’s suspension of disbelief and immersion will not break another’s because again it’s subjective. I mean you can say that the Vallite curse broke your immersion but I can just as easily say it didn’t break mine. We cannot argue that point any further because that’s based on personal opinion and taste which is something that you can’t change. In that sense using it as a form of objective criticism is meaningless cause well it cannot be backed with evidence cause again it relies on personal preference. 

Actually; immersive quality can be broken down, weighed and measured. Whether or not a person gets immersed is subjective, but immersive quality is not.  

I know my last paragraph could've been worded a whole lot better. I meant for it to be unrelated to the Valla stuff and simply be a response to that video and the argument you made that all stories are inherently contrived. 

Going back to the Valla stuff, I'm not saying the Valla Curse is inherently immersion-breaking; I'm saying they pulled it out of nowhere as an immediate plot device to avoid the protagonist being able to talk about Valla, and that's its sole purpose. That is the part that makes it contrived and potentially immersion-breaking. It's a similar problem to the fuel fiasco in The Last Jedi: setting it up is not inherently contrived, but the fact that the writers pulled it out of nowhere for the sole purpose of generating the conflict they wanted makes it contrived. 

There's a really good quote that I'm going to paraphrase: anytime the audience can see the hand of the writer, immersion is broken. Maybe not for everyone, but it is broken. It's one reason plot contrivances are an issue despite them not being inherently contradictory; they bring the hand of the author out in the open for the audience to see. 

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

For example, let’s say I, as an author, want to write a story where a character must learn that it’s okay to rely on others and that doing things alone is not always a viable option. There are many ways I could go about doing this but one of the most obvious is to create a scenario where the character is in a situation where it is impossible to succeed because they refused help from others due to stubbornness or some other character flaw. They, of course, fail at this task because they do not understand the message the story is trying to teach them. That is the story I want to tell so I must construct the elements of my story in a way for that to happen. If the task at hand is a fight and I want them to lose that fight, I would need to write in a reason for why they lost. Perhaps, the enemy had an ability that directly countered theirs that they didn’t know about, or they underestimated the enemy’s strength, or maybe the enemy had an ally that when combined directly countered the character’s abilities. There are many ways one could go about writing such a scenario but the end result must be that the character loses this fight and has to be saved by their allies in order to get across the message of the story. That’s just how i want to write my story. In that way I deliberately set up the events of my story in order to get the specific outcome I wanted for my story to progress in the way that I wanted it to.

None of that is inherently contrived or inherently not contrived. To try to help explain this, I'm going to present you two hypothetical storylines for the same story that play out what you're describing:

In this medieval fantasy world, people can use environmental magic based solely on the environment in which they were raised. The Forest Kingdom and the Ocean Kingdom are both under attack from the evil Sand Empire. 

In Storyline A, King Rowan of the Forest Kingdom refuses to ask the Ocean Kingdom for aid, despite the common enemy, because there was once a bitter war between the two kingdoms. He and his army ride out to face the Sand Empire forces, armed with wooden weaponry and an Army of Moving Trees (trees animated using forest magic). Between their army and the Sand Empire army is a massive impenetrable bog that protects the kingdom. However, the Sand Empire brought with them dozens of wagons full of desert sand. They fill the bog with more than enough sand to create a bridge and safely cross. Once across, The Sand Mages then brew a colossal sandstorm that tears the Moving Trees to splinters, and his army's wooden weapons splinter upon contact with the Sand Empire soldiers' metal armour. King Rowan is about to surrender, but his royal guard insist he flee so his kingdom is not without a leader. He barely escapes as his horse is faster than the infantry-only Sand Empire. Reluctantly, he calls upon the Ocean Kingdom for aid. 

In Storyline B, King Rowan refuses to ask the Ocean Kingdom for aid for the same reason. This time, however, the Sand Empire doesn't bring any sand. Instead, the Sand Emperor somehow drains all the water in the bog; making it safe for his army to cross. He then reveals that his childhood was spent as a political prisoner in the Ocean Kingdom; something that had never been mentioned before, and will never be mentioned again. He then puts that water under high pressure and uses it to cut the Moving Trees to pieces. He then floods the area that the Forest Kingdom army is standing in, but, miraculously, the floodwater completely misses the little area that King Rowan is standing in. King Rowan uses this opportunity to flee. 

Tell me; did either of these storylines seem contrived to you? If so, which one? Or was it both? Which of these stories was more interesting to read?

Edited October 9, 2019 by vanguard333

[Icelerate]

3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

In the case of Valla's curse, it is very much a plot contrivance. Not only is it only established after the central conflict and reveal that it's all due to Anankos manipulating everything through Garon, but it also establishes that Anankos is capable of killing anyone, anywhere, simply through an incantation so long as they mention the existence of Valla. At that point, why start a war? Why not just have his minions spread rumours about Valla and then kill everyone that spreads the rumours?

Because that would kill his minions too? 

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

No one is saying conquest is less of a story because it's contrived. People are saying it's a bad story and large part of why being because it's so contrived. And of course that's subjective. If you think it's fine to have a magical crystal ball never mentioned befire that can show the protagonist exactly what they need to see and then immediately break only to never be referenced again, then great. Glad you enjoy the story and justified the paychecks of the writers. Just understand that for other people, that is seen not as inspired story telling, it's seen as the story pulling things out of its ass to make something happen. 

Wouldn't that make gen 1 Geneology a bad story as well? The events fall into place the way they do because the various assassinations, framing, wars and manipulation of various politicians all go exactly as planned by Manfroy without any hiccups. Seems too convenient, no? 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Icelerate

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Because that would kill his minions too? 

Gunter could say it no problem, so clearly Anankos can turn it off.

[Icelerate]

4 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Gunter could say it no problem, so clearly Anankos can turn it off.

But did anyone else die from it? 

12 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Actually; immersive quality can be broken down, weighed and measured. Whether or not a person gets immersed is subjective, but immersive quality is not.  

 

How do you measure it if it can be broken down? Is it some physical quantity that you can actually measure? If not, then it is subjective, not objective. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Icelerate

[Alastor15243]

3 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

But did anyone else die from it?

We don't hear anyone but Gunter say it in-story, just that Arete once said it in the backstory of the game and died for it.

[Icelerate]

1 minute ago, Alastor15243 said:

We don't hear anyone but Gunter say it in-story, just that Arete once said it in the backstory of the game and died for it.

So there isn't any proof that Anankos can spare his minions if he executes the curse because Gunter not getting killed is because he never even activated it in the first place. 

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Icelerate said:

Because that would kill his minions too? 

Wouldn't that make gen 1 Geneology a bad story as well? The events fall into place the way they do because the various assassinations, framing, wars and manipulation of various politicians all go exactly as planned by Manfroy without any hiccups. Seems too convenient, no? 

No. See my earlier analogy of a house of timber and a house of sticks. A well laid plot where everything has a function and a reason is not the same as a contrived plot where things are forced in to result in certain scenarios. Not that Gen 1 is completely free of contrivences though. Manfroy kidnapping Deirdre comes out of nowhere and happens with little reason or justification. But his plotting and planning in general isn't because its a natural part of the world they're in. And as many people have pointed out, Manfroy not killing Julia makes little sense given everything about his character, I'd call it somewhat contrived as it's done purely to keep Julia alive for the finale by making her an enemy. If his mind control powers are also that great it makes me question why assassinations were really all that necessary when he could have just mind controlled everyone (hmm, tin foiled hat speculation here, but perhaps Alvis's obsession with Deirdre is born not from latent mommy issues but from mind control. Manfroy certainly has no established reason not to mind control Alvis that I can think of).

16 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Actually; immersive quality can be broken down, weighed and measured. Whether or not a person gets immersed is subjective, but immersive quality is not.  

I know my last paragraph could've been worded a whole lot better. I meant for it to be unrelated to the Valla stuff and simply be a response to that video and the argument you made that all stories are inherently contrived. 

Going back to the Valla stuff, I'm not saying the Valla Curse is inherently immersion-breaking; I'm saying they pulled it out of nowhere as an immediate plot device to avoid the protagonist being able to talk about Valla, and that's its sole purpose. That is the part that makes it contrived and potentially immersion-breaking. It's a similar problem to the fuel fiasco in The Last Jedi: setting it up is not inherently contrived, but the fact that the writers pulled it out of nowhere for the sole purpose of generating the conflict they wanted makes it contrived. 

There's a really good quote that I'm going to paraphrase: anytime the audience can see the hand of the writer, immersion is broken. Maybe not for everyone, but it is broken. It's one reason plot contrivances are an issue despite them not being inherently contradictory; they bring the hand of the author out in the open for the audience to see. 

None of that is inherently contrived or inherently not contrived. To try to help explain this, I'm going to present you two hypothetical storylines for the same story that play out what you're describing:

In this medieval fantasy world, people can use environmental magic based solely on the environment in which they were raised. The Forest Kingdom and the Ocean Kingdom are both under attack from the evil Sand Empire. 

In Storyline A, King Rowan of the Forest Kingdom refuses to ask the Ocean Kingdom for aid, despite the common enemy, because there was once a bitter war between the two kingdoms. He and his army ride out to face the Sand Empire forces, armed with wooden weaponry and an Army of Moving Trees (trees animated using forest magic). Between their army and the Sand Empire army is a massive impenetrable bog that protects the kingdom. However, the Sand Empire brought with them dozens of wagons full of desert sand. They fill the bog with more than enough sand to create a bridge and safely cross. Once across, The Sand Mages then brew a colossal sandstorm that tears the Moving Trees to splinters, and his army's wooden weapons splinter upon contact with the Sand Empire soldiers' metal armour. King Rowan is about to surrender, but his royal guard insist he flee so his kingdom is not without a leader. He barely escapes as his horse is faster than the infantry-only Sand Empire. Reluctantly, he calls upon the Ocean Kingdom for aid. 

In Storyline B, King Rowan refuses to ask the Ocean Kingdom for aid for the same reason. This time, however, the Sand Empire doesn't bring any sand. Instead, the Sand Emperor somehow drains all the water in the bog; making it safe for his army to cross. He then reveals that his childhood was spent as a political prisoner in the Ocean Kingdom; something that had never been mentioned before, and will never be mentioned again. He then puts that water under high pressure and uses it to cut the Moving Trees to pieces. He then floods the area that the Forest Kingdom army is standing in, but, miraculously, the floodwater completely misses the little area that King Rowan is standing in. King Rowan uses this opportunity to flee. 

Tell me; did either of these storylines seem contrived to you? If so, which one? Or was it both? Which of these stories was more interesting to read?

Honestly imo, the second one could still be pretty great if it's set up well. Execution makes all the difference.

[Alastor15243]

Just now, Icelerate said:

So there isn't any proof that Anankos can spare his minions if he executes the curse because Gunter not getting killed is because he never even activated it in the first place. 

What are you talking about? We know the curse was activated because Arete died from it before the story began, meanwhile Gunter says "Valla" while empowered by Anankos and nothing happens to him.

[Eltosian Kadath]

1 minute ago, Alastor15243 said:

What are you talking about? We know the curse was activated because Arete died from it before the story began

As I remember it Arete was already dying when she triggered the "curse", so its still a little vague on how dangerous the curse is.

[Icelerate]

12 minutes ago, Jotari said:

No. See my earlier analogy of a house of timber and a house of sticks. A well laid plot where everything has a function and a reason is not the same as a contrived plot where things are forced in to result in certain scenarios. Not that Gen 1 is completely free of contrivences though. Manfroy kidnapping Deirdre comes out of nowhere and happens with little reason or justification. But his plotting and planning in general isn't because its a natural part of the world they're in. And as many people have pointed out, Manfroy not killing Julia makes little sense given everything about his character, I'd call it somewhat contrived as it's done purely to keep Julia alive for the finale by making her an enemy. If his mind control powers are also that great it makes me question why assassinations were really all that necessary when he could have just mind controlled everyone (hmm, tin foiled hat speculation here, but perhaps Alvis's obsession with Deirdre is born not from latent mommy issues but from mind control. Manfroy certainly has no established reason not to mind control Alvis that I can think of).

I think Manfroy kidnapping Deirdre makes sense unlike Julia though. Deirdre was dumb enough to go out on her own thereby exposing herself to the Loptyr cult whereas Julia was hidden away in the castle yet Manfroy miraculously teleported to her location despite the game establishing that you can't teleport into enemy castles. Also, why didn't Julius rescue Ishtar by teleporting her out of harm's way in the final chapter? He had no issue teleporting her away the first time she fought Seliph's army or teleporting Travant's son. 

Yeah, I also questioned why he needed to manipulate people when his mind control can effect the likes of Julia who has extremely high res. Even after he dies, she's still affected until Seliph comes up and tells her to snap out of it. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Icelerate

[NinjaMonkey]

Shiida is the worst Pegasus Knight that I've ever had the misfortune to use.

[Eltosian Kadath]

2 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Shiida is the worst Pegasus Knight that I've ever had the misfortune to use.

Which game's version of Shiida?

[Ashe02]

Archers are misunderstood and deserves more love.

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

No. See my earlier analogy of a house of timber and a house of sticks. A well laid plot where everything has a function and a reason is not the same as a contrived plot where things are forced in to result in certain scenarios. Not that Gen 1 is completely free of contrivences though. Manfroy kidnapping Deirdre comes out of nowhere and happens with little reason or justification. But his plotting and planning in general isn't because its a natural part of the world they're in. And as many people have pointed out, Manfroy not killing Julia makes little sense given everything about his character, I'd call it somewhat contrived as it's done purely to keep Julia alive for the finale by making her an enemy. If his mind control powers are also that great it makes me question why assassinations were really all that necessary when he could have just mind controlled everyone (hmm, tin foiled hat speculation here, but perhaps Alvis's obsession with Deirdre is born not from latent mommy issues but from mind control. Manfroy certainly has no established reason not to mind control Alvis that I can think of).

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

No one is saying conquest is less of a story because it's contrived. People are saying it's a bad story and large part of why being because it's so contrived. And of course that's subjective. If you think it's fine to have a magical crystal ball never mentioned befire that can show the protagonist exactly what they need to see and then immediately break only to never be referenced again, then great. Glad you enjoy the story and justified the paychecks of the writers. Just understand that for other people, that is seen not as inspired story telling, it's seen as the story pulling things out of its ass to make something happen. If you're bar for good story telling is "this work contains not plot holes" then it's been set pretty damn low as few published works actually have significant plot breaking plot holes, despite how much people might throw around such an accusation.

Y'see I think we're arguing the same thing here. It's just we have slightly different definitions on what that means. I mean I personally find the vallite curse to be fine and a reasonable explanation for the plot to take the course that it did. You do not. What I'm not getting here is why you think that way cause from my point of view it's no different from if a character dies which forces their grieving friend to undergo character development. I don't see the difference. Like what about the Vallite curse or the hoshidian throne is not a reasonable explanation. That's what I'm not understanding because it's explained decently well enough by the narrative to make enough sense for why these events need to happen so I'm at a loss here. Like I get not liking how the whole revelation and plan sort of happens because that is just a bunch of nonsense. Azura just kinda randomly goes Valla because why? that's never really explained or at least it's not explained well. Cause for one it's never really explained how she learned to do that nor is it explained how she knew about Valla in the first place or at least the explanation given opens up a slight plot hole because the curse itself is not explained as well as it could be(cause y'know how could Arete tell her daughter about all this shit without disappearing on the spot or is there a delay to it. I need answers IS) Like that I agree is stupid contrived nonsense cause the story doesn't explain anything. My point though is that y'know the plot point itself is not a problem nor is the plan they come up with in order to to unmask Garon like that's fine. I like that but they could've lead up to the whole foreshadow and reveal better or at the very least explained all this shit better. I mean like you can still have the crystal ball and the whole conquer hoshido plan without opening this many plot holes. 

I can buy into the fact that the crystal ball would shatter like that and I can buy that this plan is supposedly their only option. What I can't buy into is the fact Azura didn't tell Corrin everything about valla right then and there when she had every opportunity too. THAT is contrived bullshit cause there's like no explanation for that and just opens up way too many plot holes. Like that I get but the plan itself is fine. The explanation for it is reasonable to me so it's like whatever. Like that's my point if any of that made sense.

My bar for good story telling is if the narrative is constructed in way that's easy to follow and helps convey a message in a deep and nuanced manner. A good story conveys a message and executes on its formal elements(plot, characterization, world building, etc.) in a competent manner to convey that message. My main gripe with pointing out "plot contrivance" as an objective criticism is that it's kinda like saying "oh because this part of the story broke my suspension of disbelief so it should break yours as well" and that's something I cannot agree with. When someone claims a story is bad, they are making an objective argumentative claim and as such must back it up with evidence of some kind. You cannot back up the fact that your suspension of disbelief has been broken therefore it is a moot argument and "plot contrivance" hinges on suspension of disbelief and that's my point. A story isn't bad because you personally found your immersion shattered cause that relies solely on personal preference and opinion which cannot be used to form an argumentative claim. Plot holes can be proven and backed up so that is fine criticism. Thematic inconsistencies can also be backed up. World inconsistencies can also be proven. "Plot contrivance" not really and that's essentially what I'm getting at here.

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

None of that is inherently contrived or inherently not contrived. To try to help explain this, I'm going to present you two hypothetical storylines for the same story that play out what you're describing:

In this medieval fantasy world, people can use environmental magic based solely on the environment in which they were raised. The Forest Kingdom and the Ocean Kingdom are both under attack from the evil Sand Empire. 

In Storyline A, King Rowan of the Forest Kingdom refuses to ask the Ocean Kingdom for aid, despite the common enemy, because there was once a bitter war between the two kingdoms. He and his army ride out to face the Sand Empire forces, armed with wooden weaponry and an Army of Moving Trees (trees animated using forest magic). Between their army and the Sand Empire army is a massive impenetrable bog that protects the kingdom. However, the Sand Empire brought with them dozens of wagons full of desert sand. They fill the bog with more than enough sand to create a bridge and safely cross. Once across, The Sand Mages then brew a colossal sandstorm that tears the Moving Trees to splinters, and his army's wooden weapons splinter upon contact with the Sand Empire soldiers' metal armour. King Rowan is about to surrender, but his royal guard insist he flee so his kingdom is not without a leader. He barely escapes as his horse is faster than the infantry-only Sand Empire. Reluctantly, he calls upon the Ocean Kingdom for aid. 

In Storyline B, King Rowan refuses to ask the Ocean Kingdom for aid for the same reason. This time, however, the Sand Empire doesn't bring any sand. Instead, the Sand Emperor somehow drains all the water in the bog; making it safe for his army to cross. He then reveals that his childhood was spent as a political prisoner in the Ocean Kingdom; something that had never been mentioned before, and will never be mentioned again. He then puts that water under high pressure and uses it to cut the Moving Trees to pieces. He then floods the area that the Forest Kingdom army is standing in, but, miraculously, the floodwater completely misses the little area that King Rowan is standing in. King Rowan uses this opportunity to flee. 

Tell me; did either of these storylines seem contrived to you? If so, which one? Or was it both? Which of these stories was more interesting to read?

I'm with Jotari on this one. Both are viable options for telling a good. It's just a matter of how you set it up. I can see the second one working depending on where in the story it takes place, who the main character is, the state of the world politics, etc. 

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

There's a really good quote that I'm going to paraphrase: anytime the audience can see the hand of the writer, immersion is broken. Maybe not for everyone, but it is broken. It's one reason plot contrivances are an issue despite them not being inherently contradictory; they bring the hand of the author out in the open for the audience to see. 

Fair enough but what if that's the point? Like what about the occasional fourth wall break joke? That shows the hand of the author yet it's still funny. Or hell just the entirety of danganronpa V3(spoilers):

Spoiler

The entire point of that story is that the fourth wall is broken or rather it never existed in the first place. The entire point of that narrative was to say fiction can influence reality and that the author can't just make them suffer like that for the sake of writing a story or something along those lines. You have Tsumugi who is a scenario writer for the game coming in and saying their lives don't matter because they are fictional and that this whole thing was just an elaborate setup in some twisted game people play. It's supposed to make the player question as to if they truly care for these characters if all they want to do is watch them suffer through a senseless killing game again and it's very direct about that. I could write an entire essay analyzing danganronpa V3 for it's deep commentary on the duel nature between fiction and reality. But my main point here is to say danganronpa V3 could not have told the story it did without completely obliterating the fourth wall and directly that this story was all artificial. The story would not have worked otherwise.

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Ottservia

[NinjaMonkey]

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Which game's version of Shiida?

Shadow Dragon.