What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Alastor15243]

1 minute ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Shadow Dragon.

And you say this knowing full well you can forge wing spears?

[vanguard333]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

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

Hence why I said, "Never been mentioned before". I admit that I probably could have phrased it better. If I had instead, "With absolutely no hints beforehand, nor any setup that this is supposed to be some sort of big mystery (as it gets explained immediately after)" Would that have been more clearly a contrivance?

 

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

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. 

Evidently, I did not phrase the second one well, since I thought I had made it clear that the Sand Emperor being an Ocean Mage comes out of nowhere; no hints, set up, prior mention or anything like that. 

You guys are right that it could work well if properly set up. 

How about this instead:

For storyline 3, the Forest King refuses aid, his army goes to the bog to confront the Sand Empire army. The Forest Army has archers positioned everywhere; they have a clean shot at every last Sand Empire soldier. However, when they loose their arrows, the arrows are suddenly stopped in midair by a massive stone wall. Then a large stone bridge erupts from under the bog; enabling the Sand Empire to cross. It turns out that the reclusive and never-before-mentioned Mountain Principality has sided with the Sand Empire and arrived separately at that very moment to help the Sand Empire. 

If that's not contrived, then @Jotari can you help me out here? 

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

For storyline 3, the Forest King refuses aid, his army goes to the bog to confront the Sand Empire army. The Forest Army has archers positioned everywhere; they have a clean shot at every last Sand Empire soldier. However, when they loose their arrows, the arrows are suddenly stopped in midair by a massive stone wall. Then a large stone bridge erupts from under the bog; enabling the Sand Empire to cross. It turns out that the reclusive and never-before-mentioned Mountain Principality has sided with the Sand Empire and arrived separately at that very moment to help the Sand Empire. 

Y'know even that can work depending on how you frame it and how the story evolves from that point. Cause like what if it's explained later that the reason that guy was never mentioned was because of some kind ancient feud and people he thought he was dead or something. Like so long as there is an explanation for why all this is happening then I don't really see the issue here 

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Icelerate said:

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

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. 

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):

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

 

Wether or not it makes sense is entirely separated from wether or not it is contrived. That's the point I'm trying to hammer home.

(Though on the subject of making sense, I challenge it being established you can't warp into an enemy castle I do challenge that. You can warp in and out of castles just fine in Thracia).

Speaking of Genealogy, a lot of the dialogue in that game is extremely contrived. Due to the nature of the game's plot having so many characters and moving parts off screen, people speak in incredibly unnatural ways to deliver exposition, quite commonly to characters that already know what the person is explaining.

3 hours ago, Icelerate said:

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. 

This is actually a fantastic example of how the concept is being misunderstood. The fact that Julius didn't receive Ishtar in Endgame isn't the issue, it's the fact that he did rescue her earlier (and even worse Areone) is the problem with that plot point. It doesn't matter that warping magic exists and that it's within Julius's power to do so, having a character come out of, literally, nowhere and rescue another character by vanishing back into nowhere for the singular reason of avoiding a character death is not nuanced or elegant storytelling.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Jotari

[vanguard333]

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

Whether or not it makes sense is entirely separated from whether or not it is contrived. That's the point I'm trying to hammer home.

Thank you. That's what I was trying (and failing) to get across with those story scenarios. 

 

11 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Y'know even that can work depending on how you frame it and how the story evolves from that point. Cause like what if it's explained later that the reason that guy was never mentioned was because of some kind ancient feud and people he thought he was dead or something. Like so long as there is an explanation for why all this is happening then I don't really see the issue here 

The whole point was that they come out of nowhere solely to prevent the king from winning a battle he otherwise would have won decisively. That's how I framed it. Is that really not jarring to you?

 

12 hours ago, Icelerate said:

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. 

I admit my word choice was awkward. But my point stands that, while immersion may be subjective, immersive quality can be objective. 

Analysing immersive quality is of course rather difficult, but it can be done. The short version would be that anything that aids in getting the reader (or in this case, the player) thinking about the situations the story presents as if they are there, in the world the story presents, aids in immersion; anything that makes the audience see the hand of the author detracts from it. The resulting level of immersion is of course subjective, but what the story did that could enable/disable immersion is not. 

For analogy, consider the idea of watching people play a game. You have the conflict, the goals, and the rules, and you watch the result unfold. Watching the players use the established rules in creative ways, utilize their particular skill-sets, and otherwise seeing the events unfold in a way that can get you thinking about the events as if you're there is enjoyable; right? Suppose that, midway through the game, a brand new rule was abruptly added out of nowhere in such a way that all it does is prevent a set of options that some of the players had. That would be jarring; right?

That is the problem with the Valla curse; it's not that the rule couldn't exist, but that it comes out of nowhere and we all know, from a writing perspective, why it was put in place. We thus see the hand of the author; we're pulled out of the story.

 

11 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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):

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

 

Ugh; I hear this question a lot, and after every time, I try to come up with a better way of explaining my point so that the question is already essentially answered-in-advance, but it never seems to work. The examples are also always different: "What about Brechtian Theatre? What about Deadpool?"

That stuff is not what I'm referring to when I talk about seeing the hand of the author. With deliberate fourth wall breaks like in Danganronpa V3 or Deadpool, we go in knowing on some level that certain conventional storytelling rules are going to be broken. The deliberate fourth-wall breaking itself becomes immersive; just in a different way. We don't see the hand of the author; we see our world and their world colliding in a sense.

To use the watching a game analogy I mentioned above in my reply to Icelerate, stories like these that break the fourth wall deliberately and say it outright are the story equivalent of watching a game that, at half time, asks the audience to cheer for the team they root for; the team that's cheered for the loudest gets 10 bonus points. Rather than pull you out of the game, it instead pulls you in in a different way. Does that make sense?

As for something like Brechtian Theatre, this doesn't apply, as the whole point is to alienate the audience. But there's an honesty to Brechtian Theatre: you go in expecting to be alienated from the experience. I once heard an interesting quote about magicians that applies here, "It is sometimes said that magicians are the only honest business, as you go in expecting to be deceived." 

"Seeing the hand of the author" is essentially noticing the author cheating at the game they themselves created just to be able to tell the story they wanted. With deliberate fourth-wall breaking, that's different; that's just part of the rules the author has created. 

In Deadpool, Deadpool breaks the fourth wall all the time, and it is hilarious. The established rules are that he can break the fourth wall however he wants, but he's the only one in their world who can. If, out of nowhere, some other character broke the fourth wall to achieve what they wanted, that would be jarring. Does that make sense?

Edited October 9, 2019 by vanguard333

[Ottservia]

3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

The whole point was that they come out of nowhere solely to prevent the king from winning a battle he otherwise would have won decisively. That's how I framed it. Is that really not jarring to you?

 

Not really cause what if it was supposed to be jarring like if you were writing let’s say a comedy or something and that shit happen. If the story was already established to be that kind of ridiculous then fair enough I can get behind something out of no where happening like that. Like I said it’s all about how you frame it. Like here’s the thing a story should be judged based on what it’s trying to accomplish. If the point is to shock and jar the audience and that’s what it did then it succeeded in what it was trying to do. That’s what I consider good writing. Did the story succeed to delivering the idea/emotion it wanted to in the audience? 

 

3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Analysing immersive quality is of course rather difficult, but it can be done. The short version would be that anything that aids in getting the reader (or in this case, the player) thinking about the situations the story presents as if they are there, in the world the story presents, aids in immersion; anything that makes the audience see the hand of the author detracts from it. The resulting level of immersion is of course subjective, but what the story did that could enable/disable immersion is not. 

 For analogy, consider the idea of watching people play a game. You have the conflict, the goals, and the rules, and you watch the result unfold. Watching the players use the established rules in creative ways, utilize their particular skill-sets, and otherwise seeing the events unfold in a way that can get you thinking about the events as if you're there is enjoyable; right? Suppose that, midway through the game, a brand new rule was abruptly added out of nowhere in such a way that all it does is prevent a set of options that some of the players had. That would be jarring; right?

That is the problem with the Valla curse; it's not that the rule couldn't exist, but that it comes out of nowhere and we all know, from a writing perspective, why it was put in place. We thus see the hand of the author; we're pulled out of the story.

Is that not the point of analysis though? To intentionally break one’s own immersion for the sake of better understanding the narrative and why the author wrote it the way that they did. Like I get what you’re saying but the fact that you know why an author writes the story in the way that they did is something I’d consider somewhat of a good thing cause y’know They did their job in getting you to understand the ideas behind their stories and why/how they were implemented. If an author doesn’t do that they have failed. Now that isn’t to say there aren’t “hamfisted” ways an author can get across those ideas but there’s nothing wrong with a blunt story.

obviously a story needs to explore its ideas with depth and nuance in order to be effective and a story with more depth is going be better than a story that lacks it. It’s fine to criticize a story for lacking depth and nuance. It’s not fine to criticize a story for being something that it was never trying to be.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Ottservia

[Icelerate]

4 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Analysing immersive quality is of course rather difficult, but it can be done. The short version would be that anything that aids in getting the reader (or in this case, the player) thinking about the situations the story presents as if they are there, in the world the story presents, aids in immersion; anything that makes the audience see the hand of the author detracts from it. The resulting level of immersion is of course subjective, but what the story did that could enable/disable immersion is not. 

 For analogy, consider the idea of watching people play a game. You have the conflict, the goals, and the rules, and you watch the result unfold. Watching the players use the established rules in creative ways, utilize their particular skill-sets, and otherwise seeing the events unfold in a way that can get you thinking about the events as if you're there is enjoyable; right? Suppose that, midway through the game, a brand new rule was abruptly added out of nowhere in such a way that all it does is prevent a set of options that some of the players had. That would be jarring; right?

 That is the problem with the Valla curse; it's not that the rule couldn't exist, but that it comes out of nowhere and we all know, from a writing perspective, why it was put in place. We thus see the hand of the author; we're pulled out of the story.

Whether a reader is immersed depends on person to person as well as the mood. Whether the story was successful in telling its plot is subjective. What the story says in its plot is objective.  For example, the blood pact was used to black mail Daein into fighting for Lekain is an objective truth. The blood pact being dumb is subjective as its an opinion, not a fact. For example, this guy made a post on his blog criticizing the blood pact but a few years later he defended it. Does this mean the blood pact's writing quality suddenly went up? No it doesn't, it means his opinion on the blood pact's writing changed, which of course is subjective by definition. 

The problem with your example is that you've used words like jarring which is subjective. If the new rule makes sense to the reader, it can be considered good writing, otherwise the reader would consider it bad writing. Because it depends on what the reader thinks is good writing, it is of course subjective. If the point of the story is to have plot holes, inconsistencies and random events that don't make sense, can it be said that the story is objectively poorly written? Of course not. Who has the right to define objective truth from subjective ones? Certainly not me, you or anyone else for that matter. 

Whether you see the hand of the author depends on the person. Not everyone sees things the same way hence that particular point is subjective, not objective. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Icelerate

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Icelerate said:

Whether a reader is immersed depends on person to person as well as the mood. Whether the story was successful in telling its plot is subjective. What the story says in its plot is objective.  For example, the blood pact was used to black mail Daein into fighting for Lekain is an objective truth. The blood pact being dumb is subjective as its an opinion, not a fact. For example, this guy made a post on his blog criticizing the blood pact but a few years later he defended it. Does this mean the blood pact's writing quality suddenly went up? No it doesn't, it means his opinion on the blood pact's writing changed, which of course is subjective by definition. 

The problem with your example is that you've used words like jarring which is subjective. If the new rule makes sense to the reader, it can be considered good writing, otherwise the reader would consider it bad writing. Because it depends on what the reader thinks is good writing, it is of course subjective. If the point of the story is to have plot holes, inconsistencies and random events that don't make sense, can it be said that the story is objectively poorly written? Of course not. Who has the right to define objective truth from subjective ones? Certainly not me, you or anyone else for that matter. 

Whether you see the hand of the author depends on the person. Not everyone sees things the same way hence that particular point is subjective, not objective. 

Basically all of this. The only way I find to objectively judge what makes a story “good” or “bad” is if it’s consistent with what it wants to be. What are the goals of this story? And are those goals accomplished in a clear and effective way. That’s how someone should judge a story based on what it wants to accomplish. If the point of the story is deliver a clear and complex narrative about the futility of warfare then it should be judged based on how well it delivers that message. A story should be judged based on its own rules and the messages and ideas it wants to explore not the rules you arbitrarily set for it or the message you think it should explore. A story can be whatever it wants what’s important is that it stays consistent with that.

[vanguard333]

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Is that not the point of analysis though? To intentionally break one’s own immersion for the sake of better understanding the narrative and why the author wrote it the way that they did. Like I get what you’re saying but the fact that you know why an author writes the story in the way that they did is something I’d consider somewhat of a good thing cause y’know They did their job in getting you to understand the ideas behind their stories and why/how they were implemented. If an author doesn’t do that they have failed. Now that isn’t to say there aren’t “hamfisted” ways an author can get across those ideas but there’s nothing wrong with a blunt story.

Okay; this is getting ridiculous. I've been doing everything I can to make my points as clear as possible and I still feel like what's getting across to you is far from what I've been trying to say. 

Analysis is to be done after reading through (or in the case of a video game, playing) a work; breaking it down and figuring out what works, what doesn't and why. According to some literary theorists, the author's intent may not even be relevant. Ever heard of Death of the Author? Whereas, immersion is something to experience during the reading/playing. The two are unrelated.

Understanding the themes or social commentary that an author was trying to put forward is one thing; that is not inherently bad. It does not pull the reader out of the story; it makes them think about what they're seeing in terms of lessons to be learned; why things happened in terms of the characters' actions, etc. We're pulled in, not pulled out. 

However, realizing, "[Author]; you only did this so the hero would lose a battle he was clearly going to win given everything we knew beforehand," or "You only put this in so Corrin can't say anything about Valla to the royal siblings" or, "You only had the geass activate on its own at this exact moment because you thought this was the only way to keep the central conflict going (I'm still disappointed by Code Geass because of that Euphemia Incident)" is bad. 

 

4 hours ago, Icelerate said:

Whether a reader is immersed depends on person to person as well as the mood. Whether the story was successful in telling its plot is subjective. What the story says in its plot is objective.  For example, the blood pact was used to black mail Daein into fighting for Lekain is an objective truth. The blood pact being dumb is subjective as its an opinion, not a fact. For example, this guy made a post on his blog criticizing the blood pact but a few years later he defended it. Does this mean the blood pact's writing quality suddenly went up? No it doesn't, it means his opinion on the blood pact's writing changed, which of course is subjective by definition. 

The problem with your example is that you've used words like jarring which is subjective. If the new rule makes sense to the reader, it can be considered good writing, otherwise the reader would consider it bad writing. Because it depends on what the reader thinks is good writing, it is of course subjective. If the point of the story is to have plot holes, inconsistencies and random events that don't make sense, can it be said that the story is objectively poorly written? Of course not. Who has the right to define objective truth from subjective ones? Certainly not me, you or anyone else for that matter. 

Whether you see the hand of the author depends on the person. Not everyone sees things the same way hence that particular point is subjective, not objective. 

Ah yes; the old, "Everything in writing is subjective" argument. If that were true, then how come writers put so much effort into re-drafting, editing, etc.? Why do that, if the work is no more valuable than a work that did put the effort in? Dismissing every facet of writing as subjective just gives every writer a free pass to be lazy. 

Lost didn't need to have a better ending; it's subjective. 

Game of Thrones didn't need to have a competently-written ending; it's subjective. 

It's okay for The Last Jedi to character-assassinate Luke Skywalker; it's subjective. 

Anyway; how did a thread on Unpopular Fire Emblem Opinions turn into an Objectivity-Subjectivity War?

Edited October 9, 2019 by vanguard333

[NinjaMonkey]

19 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

And you say this knowing full well you can forge wing spears?

Yes. Yes I do.

[Alastor15243]

1 minute ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Yes. Yes I do.

Fascinating. Carry on.

[NekoKnight]

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Ah yes; the old, "Everything in writing is subjective" argument. If that were true, then how come writers put so much effort into re-drafting, editing, etc.? Why do that, if the work is no more valuable than a work that did put the effort in? Dismissing every facet of writing as subjective just gives every writer a free pass to be lazy. 

Lost didn't need to have a better ending; it's subjective. 

Game of Thrones didn't need to have a competently-written ending; it's subjective. 

It's okay for The Last Jedi to character-assassinate Luke Skywalker; it's subjective. 

Anyway; how did a thread on Unpopular Fire Emblem Opinions turn into an Objectivity-Subjectivity War?

Unpopular opinion, but I think more Fire Emblem threads should tackle broad literary concepts rather than Fire Emblem.

But seriously though, "Everything is subjective" is really worthless as a stance to take and it kills off meaningful discussion for stories. If you want to be strict with the terms objective/subjective, almost nothing but the most straightforward of facts is objective. We aren't able to suggest any kind of value judgement without delving into the subjective, but what are discussions if not for value judgements backed up by objective facts? Why even log in to a forum if you're going to backpedal to "well, that's just your opinion" whenever someone provides a contrary argument?

----
Back on topic, my unpopular opinion: Three House Spoilers
 

Spoiler

While Dimitri is very atypical as lords go (something I appreciate) his arc in Azure Moon is terribly handled. 

 

[Azure the Scale Tipper]

15 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Back on topic, my unpopular opinion: Three House Spoilers
 

  Hide contents

While Dimitri is very atypical as lords go (something I appreciate) his arc in Azure Moon is terribly handled. 

 

Spoiler

Well, how can we improve it, then?

 

[Icelerate]

3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Ah yes; the old, "Everything in writing is subjective" argument. If that were true, then how come writers put so much effort into re-drafting, editing, etc.? Why do that, if the work is no more valuable than a work that did put the effort in? Dismissing every facet of writing as subjective just gives every writer a free pass to be lazy. 

Lost didn't need to have a better ending; it's subjective. 

 Game of Thrones didn't need to have a competently-written ending; it's subjective. 

It's okay for The Last Jedi to character-assassinate Luke Skywalker; it's subjective. 

 Anyway; how did a thread on Unpopular Fire Emblem Opinions turn into an Objectivity-Subjectivity War?

In order to improve their product.

I never said you can't critique a story, that's why reviews exist. I'm just saying the reason why review scores for movies and video games are different is because the quality they are measuring is based on their opinions which by definition makes them subjective. 

And there is nothing wrong with having opinions and arguing the validity of them. I'm just saying you can't say FE9 has objectively the best story, for example, because it implies that people who think differently are clearly wrong. Conversely, you can't say that Fates having the worst story is an objective fact because it means that anyone who thinks otherwise is objectively wrong. That stance basically implies, "I am right and you are wrong". 

10 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

But seriously though, "Everything is subjective" is really worthless as a stance to take and it kills off meaningful discussion for stories. If you want to be strict with the terms objective/subjective, almost nothing but the most straightforward of facts is objective. We aren't able to suggest any kind of value judgement without delving into the subjective, but what are discussions if not for value judgements backed up by objective facts? Why even log in to a forum if you're going to backpedal to "well, that's just your opinion" whenever someone provides a contrary argument?

 

Are you suggesting that my stance is worthless and I'm trying to kill meaningful discussion for stories despite discussing them quite a bit on this site? 

FE10 and FE16 spoilers inbound. 

Spoiler

Dimitri is awesome fight me! He is better written than the other hot headed, revenge driven but loyal lords like Ike. For example, Ike's reaction to the Black Knight surviving and Zelgius being the Black Knight was rather underwhelming compared to Dimitri's reaction that Edelgard was the Flame Emperor. 

 

[NekoKnight]

Just now, Azure, Roundabouted Out said:

  Hide contents

Well, how can we improve it, then?

 

Spoiler

Some broad points
1. Dimitri (or someone he's close to) should discuss how likely it is that a 13 year old Edelgard orchestrated Duscur. The plot just entirely forgets about TWSITD.
2. They could better justify why Dimitri went AWOL for 5 years, leaving his friends and country behind.
3. Rodrigue's death should be a result of something Dimitri actually did. Dimitri shouldn't have a heel realization because some girl he doesn't know was angry at him for a murder her didn't do.
4. Dimitri shouldn't go from violent psychopath to giving rousing speeches after a single conversation in the rain.

 

5 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Are you suggesting that my stance is worthless and I'm trying to kill meaningful discussion for stories despite discussing them quite a bit on this site? 

FE10 and FE16 spoilers inbound. 

That wasn't a personal attack directed at you, rather other people on this site who will retreat behind their "everything is subjective" shield whenever presented with a value judgement they don't agree with and can't provide a counterargument for. Subjectivity is something to keep in mind but taken to extremes, it hampers meaningful discourse.

In regards to your spoiler
 

Spoiler

The Flame Emperor reveal was indeed great, and Dimitri is a great lord on paper. But the execution of his arc is dismal for the points I listed above.

 

[Ottservia]

4 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Okay; either you're twisting my words, or I need to go to the hospital and get my brain scanned, because I've been doing everything I can to make my points as clear as possible. 

Analysis is to be done after reading through (or in the case of a video game, playing) a work; breaking it down and figuring out what works, what doesn't and why. According to some literary theorists, the author's intent may not even be relevant. Ever heard of Death of the Author? Whereas, immersion is something to experience during the reading/playing. The two are unrelated.

Understanding the themes or social commentary that an author was trying to put forward is one thing; that is not inherently bad. It does not pull the reader out of the story; it makes them think about what they're seeing in terms of lessons to be learned; why things happened in terms of the characters' actions, etc. We're pulled in, not pulled out. 

However, realizing, "[Author]; you only did this so the hero would lose a battle he was clearly going to win given everything we knew beforehand," or "You only put this in so Corrin can't say anything about Valla to the royal siblings" or, "You only had the geass activate on its own at this exact moment because you thought this was the only way to keep the central conflict going (I'm still disappointed by Code Geass because of that Euphemia Incident)" is bad. 

 

Allow me to fully clarify my thoughts regarding contrivance. I feel it should be measured on a case by case basis. Contrivances like the one from code geass is dumb because there were more nuanced options they could have gone with in order to progress the story. That is something I can consider bad writing. It’s a massive contrivance. However, small contrivances that line up with the established themes of the narrative I feel are fine. For example take the beginning of awakening’s endgame chapter where Grima is absorbs Robin and they are about to succumb to complete despair only to be rescued by the power of friendship and due to that they are able to win. 

That is a contrived scenario, no matter how you slice it but I don’t take issue with it simply because it helps to perpetuate and emphasize the themes of the game, the idea of overcoming failure through the connections you’ve forged. The contrivance itself does not take away from the thematic idea but in fact enhances it. Cliche? Maybe but that’s cause it works. The characters are able to win due to learning and applying the overall message of the story which is fine. There’s depth and nuance to the contrivance creates the emotional impact that the narrative is trying to invoke. That is what I mean when I say contrivance doesn’t really overall matter. So long as the idea and characters are interesting enough to supplement my suspension of disbelief I might just be able to buy into anything.

[Benice]

Do not know if this counts as unpopular, but Rolf and Mist should get married after RD

[Strullemia]

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

Back on topic, my unpopular opinion: Three House Spoilers
 

  Reveal hidden contents

While Dimitri is very atypical as lords go (something I appreciate) his arc in Azure Moon is terribly handled. 

 

Same.

Spoiler

His arc was far too convenient and wasn't really earned imo. If they really wanted to portray a character with a serious mental problem like him then they shouldn't have made him turn around because of one death.

I also really dislike how the other BL characters in their route keep following Dimitri without having a serious talk about how unstable he and how they should consider putting someone else on the throne. It makes me dislike every single one of them just a bit.

 

 

[Icelerate]

8 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

That is a contrived scenario, no matter how you slice it but I don’t take issue with it simply because it helps to perpetuate and emphasize the themes of the game, the idea of overcoming failure through the connections you’ve forged. The contrivance itself does not take away from the thematic idea but in fact enhances it. Cliche? Maybe but that’s cause it works. The characters are able to win due to learning and applying the overall message of the story which is fine. There’s depth and nuance to the contrivance creates the emotional impact that the narrative is trying to invoke. That is what I mean when I say contrivance doesn’t really overall matter. So long as the idea and characters are interesting enough to supplement my suspension of disbelief I might just be able to buy into anything.

I agree with you. A similar case happens in Naruto. What do you think of this video? 

Spoiler

Jiraiya ends up dying but through sheer willpower he comes back to life temporarily. While randomly coming back to life doesn't make logical sense, it works in arousing one's emotions, showing his badassery and will of fire, which is a theme of Naruto. So what is generally considered bad writing actually ends up being good writing IMO. 

7 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

Same.

   Hide contents

His arc was far too convenient and wasn't really earned imo. If they really wanted to portray a character with a serious mental problem like him then they shouldn't have made him turn around because of one death.

I also really dislike how the other BL characters in their route keep following Dimitri without having a serious talk about how unstable he and how they should consider putting someone else on the throne. It makes me dislike every single one of them just a bit.

  

 

Spoiler

His ideals and worldview are challenged a lot more than Edelgard in CF though. Now that I think about it, Edelgard is a bit overrated as a protagonist since everyone follows her orders without question. Compare that to Dimitri and Micaiah, the two other morally grey lords who encountered far more internal opposition. We don't even see the pros and cons of Edelgard's ideals in depth either. I still think she's the best written character in the series though due to being the best villain and one of the best protagonists. But her arc revolves too much around Byleth to be considered to have an excellent character arc compared to the aforementioned examples. 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Icelerate

[NekoKnight]

Just now, Hekselka said:

Same.

  Hide contents

His arc was far too convenient and wasn't really earned imo. If they really wanted to portray a character with a serious mental problem like him then they shouldn't have made him turn around because of one death.

I also really dislike how the other BL characters in their route keep following Dimitri without having a serious talk about how unstable he and how they should consider putting someone else on the throne. It makes me dislike every single one of them just a bit. 

 

 

Spoiler

While I think Azure Moon has a great narrative communicated through supports concerning how people look at death/a meaningful way to live, the main story really didn't work, in large part due to the pacing. We spend some 4 chapters baby-sitting a  violent, unstable misanthrope and then he just gets better a chapter later. Every time Dimitri goes on one of his homicidal rants, the rest of the cast just says "....anyway, what do you think we should do, professor?"

Byleth was far too passive and should have known there was more to the conflict that they should examine.

 

[Icelerate]

12 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

  Hide contents

While I think Azure Moon has a great narrative communicated through supports concerning how people look at death/a meaningful way to live, the main story really didn't work, in large part due to the pacing. We spend some 4 chapters baby-sitting a  violent, unstable misanthrope and then he just gets better a chapter later. Every time Dimitri goes on one of his homicidal rants, the rest of the cast just says "....anyway, what do you think we should do, professor?"

Byleth was far too passive and should have known there was more to the conflict that they should examine.

 

Do you think Edelgard works as a character? 

[vanguard333]

31 minutes ago, Benice said:

Do not know if this counts as unpopular, but Rolf and Mist should get married after RD

I don't think that's unpopular. A lot of people on this site (myself included) seem to prefer Mist and Rolf over Mist and Boyd. They're closer in age and have better chemistry in PoR. 

Unpopular would be something like defending Sothe and Micaiah (which I do). 

 

39 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Allow me to fully clarify my thoughts regarding contrivance. I feel it should be measured on a case by case basis. Contrivances like the one from code geass is dumb because there were more nuanced options they could have gone with in order to progress the story. That is something I can consider bad writing. It’s a massive contrivance. However, small contrivances that line up with the established themes of the narrative I feel are fine. For example take the beginning of awakening’s endgame chapter where Grima is absorbs Robin and they are about to succumb to complete despair only to be rescued by the power of friendship and due to that they are able to win. 

I'm glad we can agree that that moment in Code Geass sucks. It killed my interest in the show. 

Anyway; at this point, I just want to move on from the contrivance & objectivity vs subjectivity argument. 

[SubwayBossEmmett]

Why are people even trying to discuss Valla? It's a literal unfinished mess of a story.

They didn't even have time to give Anankos a character and had to shoehorn it into the other DLC which i actually quite like despite all odds

[Arachnofiend]

39 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I agree with you. A similar case happens in Naruto. What do you think of this video? 

  Reveal hidden contents

Jiraiya ends up dying but through sheer willpower he comes back to life temporarily. While randomly coming back to life doesn't make logical sense, it works in arousing one's emotions, showing his badassery and will of fire, which is a theme of Naruto. So what is generally considered bad writing actually ends up being good writing IMO. 

  Hide contents

His ideals and worldview are challenged a lot more than Edelgard in CF though. Now that I think about it, Edelgard is a bit overrated as a protagonist since everyone follows her orders without question. Compare that to Dimitri and Micaiah, the two other morally grey lords who encountered far more internal opposition. We don't even see the pros and cons of Edelgard's ideals in depth either. I still think she's the best written character in the series though due to being the best villain and one of the best protagonists. But her arc revolves too much around Byleth to be considered to have an excellent character arc compared to the aforementioned examples. 

 

Spoiler

You sound like you didn't play Crimson Flower at all, or at least didn't read her supports. Hubert tells her to her face that he'd defy an order that he doesn't agree with, she directly approaches Manuela in search of answers as to why people she otherwise respects would place value in the church (and then proceeds to get those answers), Ferdinand points out a flaw in the implementation of her policies and how serious social reform would be needed to make it possible for the commoners to uplift themselves the way she expects them to.

These are just the examples off the top of my head, I'm sure if I went digging I could find more. Edelgard's beliefs and values are constantly being challenged, and she revises them while keeping her core tenets. Meanwhile Dimitri only ever gets genuinely criticized by Felix, and in the end the only change is that he no longer commits war crimes. He's still the same idealistic fool that doesn't even bother to understand what the war is about because he's busy being a Hero.

Unpopular opinion: Azure Moon is a bad story and the only way to salvage it is if Dimitri were to step down as king in the end.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Arachnofiend

[NekoKnight]

Just now, Icelerate said:

Do you think Edelgard works as a character? 

My opinion concerning the lords, having played through Crimson Flower and Azure Moon (stop reading here if you've not played those)

Spoiler

is that they work a lot better on paper than they do in the story execution. I like Edelgard for being determined to change the world by any means necessary but her methods are not well justified by the story. Edelgard does a lot of shady stuff while acting as the Flame Emperor and when she makes her move on the church, virtually no one in the cast has good cause to join her. She looks like a villain for all concerned and her best argument is "Rhea is evil because she's a dragon."

As you mentioned, she doesn't have much of a character arc and while I think it's meaningful that she seeks out Byleth because she feels like she's not strong enough to make the future she wants on her own, Byleth doesn't really do much to earn it and neither really develop as people.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by NekoKnight