What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Icelerate]

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

The support system in Three Houses is bloated and bland. You get so. God. Damned. Many. Support conversations. Without even trying, I found myself unlocking A ranks with every single combination of my army's mainstay units by the end of the game.

I remember watching Mangs' LP and dreaded his one hour episodes where all you saw was supports. 

14 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

She says as much in the last scenes in Revelation but it all sounds very convenient to me that legitimate successor to the throne passes it to you, the avatar, because they don't want it. Sillier still is that everyone in Valla is seemingly dead so Corrin could have been the janitor at Valla castle and still become king after Azura abdicates. He's the only other surviving Vallite as far as we can tell.

So is Micaiah becoming Queen of Daein because Pelleas doesn't want it too convenient? 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Icelerate

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

The support system in Three Houses is bloated and bland. You get so. God. Damned. Many. Support conversations. Without even trying, I found myself unlocking A ranks with every single combination of my army's mainstay units by the end of the game.

gotta say I have to agree with this. It's not that I think the supports are bad or that I think the characters are bad. On the contrary, after the literal pieces of cardboard in echoes, these characters were just so much better. Like I don't mind unlocking multiple supports at once but personally, I can only really get through like three or four before my attention starts to wane(though that could just be my adhd). It doesn't matter the quality of the support, I just can't get through that much dialogue in one sitting before I just wanna move on. Honestly IS just needs to find a happy middle ground here and I don't think they have quite yet.

 

28 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Swap out Three Houses with Fates and/or Echoes, and I'd agree with you.

Ehh fates's cast isn't that bad at least when taken as a whole. It's better than the literal pieces of cardboard we get in echoes anyway. Cause at least fates's characters had some kind of charm to them. Whenever I think about SoV's cast, I just fall asleep because of how utterly boring they are. Like I can look at a lot of fates characters and be like "Yeah I like them". Even characters like Soleil who isn't all that well written are enjoyable simply because of how amusing their antics are. I can't do that with echoes.

20 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

15 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

She says as much in the last scenes in Revelation but it all sounds very convenient to me that legitimate successor to the throne passes it to you, the avatar, because they don't want it. Sillier still is that everyone in Valla is seemingly dead so Corrin could have been the janitor at Valla castle and still become king after Azura abdicates. He's the only other surviving Vallite as far as we can tell.

So is Micaiah becoming Queen of Daein because Pelleas doesn't want it too convenient? 

Y'see this is why I say plot contrivance doesn't really matter because it's an inevitability with any story and you can point out the conveniences of things in any plot point that exists in literally all of fiction. Like isn't it convenient that Midoriya just so happened to run into All Might on his way home from school and just so happened to see him lose his muscle form at that moment? You see what I mean. Again you can that with almost any plot point that exists. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Ottservia

[Alastor15243]

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Y'see this is why I say plot contrivance doesn't really matter because it's an inevitability with any story and you can point out the conveniences of things in any plot point that exists in literally all of fiction. Like isn't it convenient that Midoriya just so happened to run into All Might on his way home from school and just so happened to see him lose his muscle form at that moment? You see what I mean. Again you can that with almost any plot point that exists. 

It's okay to use contrivance to start a plot, as long as it only involves things like sheer luck rather than a huge amount of plot-induced stupidity. But using contrivances to resolve a plot is generally considered infinitely less satisfying.

[Ottservia]

55 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

It's okay to use contrivance to start a plot, as long as it only involves things like sheer luck rather than a huge amount of plot-induced stupidity. But using contrivances to resolve a plot is generally considered infinitely less satisfying.

Y'see that's an argument I can somewhat understand but then the question becomes where does one draw the line? Like a character unlocking a brand new power at just the right time in order to defeat the bad guy which was a result of overcoming some kind of personal trauma they have endured for most of the series, is that a bad way to resolve that conflict? I wouldn't say so necessarily. The reason being is that there's a thematic idea behind it. I don't see the problem there because the emotional beats land as they should. Again where do you draw the line?

Also while we’re on the subject, can I just say how much I despise the cinemasins approach to criticism because of how much every little thing needs to be scrutinized. Like not everything in a story needs an explanation. Not everything in a story needs to be realistic. Like why do people have to constantly harp on the most minor and insignificant of details just to say something is bad. Like not to say plot holes and such aren’t important but in the grand scheme of things they matter very little. Personally, I only find it to be a problem when there’re are enough of them to the point where it actively breaks the message the story wants to tell and/or completely fucks over the narrative structure(which is mostly a subjective point I realize) 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Ottservia

[NekoKnight]

2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

From a completionist's perspective? Sure, I suppose it's easier to get all of them. But it takes all of the magic out of each individual run. There's no nurturing relationships you actually care about between specific characters and watching the benefits of that specific friendship grow, because now support bonuses are uniform and generic and everyone's supported, and to grossly paraphrase Syndrome, "when everyone's supported... no one will be". Hell, there's barely any closure to any of these things. All of the A supports turn into this veritable orgy of non-committal flirting because nobody's allowed to marry anyone until Byleth gets first dibs, but everyone has to end on a note where it's believable they could be banging each other later but also believable that they won't be. The fact that I didn't even know who was going to end up with who until the credits rolled on my first playthrough really says it all about how much I was invested in any specific pairing here.

Contrast that with, say, Fates, where every single pairing you do has a complete story arc and ends with you getting a bunch of really cool, tangible in-game bonuses, from personalized pair up bonuses to an entire new class for each character. The closest I got to anything like that was combining Sylvain and Leonie for their compatible combat boosts, but they don't even have an A support.

I consider the main role for supports to be fleshing out the characters, so the gameplay bonuses don't really interest me as much. Class sharing was a cool bonus in Fates but it also wouldn't work in TH where everyone can reclass to anything barring gender restrictions. I suppose you could have them share a learned skill, but again, I don't see this as important.

Perhaps in other games, the philosophy behind supports is the bond between two individuals but in TH, it's more about the unity of the group. Your own house students are all growing together, both in supports and in the mission briefings. The students from outside your house won't have as many partners and you might have to go out of your way to ensure they pair up with the people you want. 

I'm a little confused why you say Fates characters have a complete story arc in their supports but not TH characters. Fates characters also have to end their supports platonically at the A Support and the S supports are a tacked on "btw I was actually in love with you the whole time".

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Wait; what? Mikoto literally tells Corrin that she and Arete are sisters. Then again, she also tells you that the Hoshidan siblings are your blood siblings.

 

Not sure what counts as higher canon but the artbook says that they're 'sisters in spirit'. Seems like they're trying to  retcon the incest away. (no one tell them about Midori x Asugi where Sakura and Hinoka are their mothers. That's double cousins!)

2 hours ago, Icelerate said:

So is Micaiah becoming Queen of Daein because Pelleas doesn't want it too convenient? 

There are a whole bunch of differences to those two situations.

1. Micaiah isn't an avatar so there is no reason to throw crowns at her like Corrin.

2. Micaiah is a competent and charismatic leader who replaces Pelleus who is neither of those. It's a natural development in the story. Corrin would make a terrible leader considering his most noteworthy and prized trait is his naivete.

3. Pelleas isn't actually a royal. Of course he needs to abdicate.

[Thane]

4 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Wait; what? Mikoto literally tells Corrin that she and Arete are sisters. Then again, she also tells you that the Hoshidan siblings are your blood siblings...

Right, but like NekoKnight said, it seems like they're trying to decanonize it in the artbook. 

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Icelerate said:

I remember watching Mangs' LP and dreaded his one hour episodes where all you saw was supports. 

So is Micaiah becoming Queen of Daein because Pelleas doesn't want it too convenient? 

Pelleas isn't actually meant to be the king though. And the game actually makes it a point to build her up as ridiculously popular with the people that the thread of her superseding Pelleas is one people actually worry about. Pelleas stepping down isn't convenient, it's a result of both his and Miciah's arcs building in that direction.

4 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

It's okay to use contrivance to start a plot, as long as it only involves things like sheer luck rather than a huge amount of plot-induced stupidity. But using contrivances to resolve a plot is generally considered infinitely less satisfying.

I'd even go so far as to say starting a plot with a contrivance isn't a contrivance at all. It's just a coincidence. The difference between a coincidence and a contrivance is that coincidence is something that just happen to happen, while a contrivance is something that forces something to happen. When you're starting out a story it's a blank slate. Anything can happen because nothing has been established yet. It's not forcing the plot to go anywhere because it's the thing that begins the plot. If it didn't happen, there'd simply be no story.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jotari

[henrymidfields]

On 12/11/2019 at 3:26 AM, zuibangde said:

I kinda like Corrin because he's such a different lord. Another thing I find interesting is how M!Corrin breaks pretty much all the stereotypes of what a male leader should be like but he's so disliked in the West that I don't see IS making another male Lord with similar characteristics as him in the future. I find it pretty unfortunate cause so many people call for 'diversity' in representation but I feel like outside of Corrin, all the lords have pretty similar characteristics (broadly speaking). M!Corrin had more traditionally 'feminine' personality traits that I find pretty refreshing for the series.

I think a good part of the problem is how the plot especially in Fates Conquest is a mess in itself. Not only that, but it ends up bending backwards and sideways to absolve Corrin (Male or female, does it matter?) of mistakes that he made in Fates Conquest when it really shouldn't. I mean, siding with an obviously evil country, and acting like an extreme doormat all the way through against an obviously evil king, with equally spineless/clueless siblings? I'm gobsmacked at Sakura/Hinoka/Takumi forgiving Corrin so easily.

I for one changed the story of Fates Conquest substantially in my part-LP/fanfic so that while Corrin is still somewhat naive, he now has a good reason to side with the arsenal of democracy Nohr. He in at least one occasion gets called out or disputed by others where he needs to be tough and fails to do so. (One even by his wife who is otherwise supportive of him!) 

If Garon and Nohr was not so evil (or not as obvious about it), if everyone else actually called out Corrin's behaviour, if Corrin him/herself actually caught onto life's lesson (or at least made an attempt to do so), and/or if Corrin was only naive about some things and was a bit smarter about others, then I think Corrin wouldn't be as ill-received as he is. (I certainly would consider him better.)

Edited December 19, 2019 by henrymidfields

[vanguard333]

7 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

1. Micaiah isn't an avatar so there is no reason to throw crowns at her like Corrin.

2. Micaiah is a competent and charismatic leader who replaces Pelleus who is neither of those. It's a natural development in the story. Corrin would make a terrible leader considering his most noteworthy and prized trait is his naivete.

3. Pelleas isn't actually a royal. Of course he needs to abdicate.

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

Pelleas isn't actually meant to be the king though. And the game actually makes it a point to build her up as ridiculously popular with the people that the thread of her superseding Pelleas is one people actually worry about. Pelleas stepping down isn't convenient, it's a result of both his and Miciah's arcs building in that direction.

All this.

Not only that, but also, Pelleas continues to serve the Daein Court even after his abdication. He basically decides, "I'm not the rightful heir, I was never a good king in the first place. But I'll still serve the people of Daein if they still want me; just not as king." 

 

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

I'd even go so far as to say starting a plot with a contrivance isn't a contrivance at all. It's just a coincidence. The difference between a coincidence and a contrivance is that coincidence is something that just happen to happen, while a contrivance is something that forces something to happen. When you're starting out a story it's a blank slate. Anything can happen because nothing has been established yet. It's not forcing the plot to go anywhere because it's the thing that begins the plot. If it didn't happen, there'd simply be no story.

Eh; for me, it's more complicated than that. I'm fine with a story starting with a coincidence, but I believe that, unless we're talking about a disaster movie or something like that, the coincidence in question should prompt the main characters to make a decision based on their internal motivations and who they are as a character, and that decision could be argued to be what truly gets the ball rolling for the story. I'm going to list several examples to explain my point:

Avatar: the Last Airbender:

Spoiler

It is a complete coincidence that Sokka and Katara happen to find the iceberg that Aang's inside. However, that coincidence on its own only goes so far. What truly sparks the story is Katara's next decision: upon seeing Aang inside the iceberg, she immediately decides that they have to free the person in the iceberg, grabs Sokka's club, and breaks open the iceberg; releasing Aang from his 100-year suspended animation. Had she not done that, the story would never have happened, and her decision was ultimately a reflection of who she is. 

Code Geass:

Spoiler

It is a complete coincidence that Lelouch and his friend are driving down the same road as the truck with the Japanese Freedom Fighters when it crashes. However, what truly sets off the events of the plot is Lelouch's decision to check the truck to see if anyone's hurt or otherwise needs help. Code Geass' writing would ultimately be a trainwreck, but this is one thing they got right early on. 

Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance:

Spoiler

It is a coincidence that the Daein Army invades Crimea right when Soren is in the capital and can flee and tell the Greil Mercenaries. However, what follows is a combination of choices and coincidences that each help get the ball rolling. The Greil Mercenaries decide to investigate to see who's actually winning. They then coincidentally find Elincia. But, after she collapses in front of them (I don't blame her, given all that she just went through), it is Ike's decision to have her brought back to the mercenary fortress. Whichever incident you consider to be the one that gets Path of Radiance's story started, that event prompted an important choice, without which the story wouldn't have been the same. 

The Hunger Games:

Spoiler

I can't believe I'm using the opening of this series as an example of decent writing, as I consider it to be mostly garbage, and I consider the YA Dystopia subgenre it created to be entirely garbage, and I'm tempted to puke at the very mention of YA Dystopias... (holds back vomit) This example better resonate with someone, or its going to feel wasted... Anyway, it's a coincidence that the protagonist's younger sister's name is pulled from the ballot, but it's a character decision that the protagonist chooses to volunteer to fight in her sister's place. There; I said it. It's done. I'm going to move on now to a series I do like. 

The Dragon Prince:

Spoiler

The only reason the princes find the egg of the Dragon Prince is that they were hiding from Rayla in Viren's study. Complete coincidence. What isn't a coincidence is their decision to return the egg to the Dragon Queen as a peace offering. 

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker:

Spoiler

It's a coincidence that the Helmaroc King and Tetra's Priates go to Outset Island. However, when the Helmaroc King drops Tetra, it's entirely Link's decision to head into the woods and see if Tetra's alright; a decision that inadvertently leads to the Helmaroc King grabbing Link's sister Aryll instead. Coincidence? …Arguably. But what really drives the story from then on is Link's older-brother-instinct: Link has to try to save his younger sister because that's who he is. 

 

So... yeah; I believe that, while it's okay to open a story with a big coincidence, it also needs there to be an important decision that's based entirely in internal motivation and who they are as a character. It can't just be:

"Why are you leading a rebellion against the evil emperor?"

"Well; my girlfriend got captured."

"And if she hadn't been?"

"I'd probably still be a farmer". Relying entirely on external motivation and coincidence to get the story going, to me at least, is an example of weak writing. 

[Shadow Mir]

12 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Three Houses is my least favorite cast in FE history.

Switch Three Houses with Sacred Stones, and I'd be inclined to agree. Far, far too many of the characters in said game are at one of two undesirable extremes - either they're completely forgettable, or they're memorable for all the wrong reasons. It doesn't help that Sacred Stones has one of the smallest casts in the series, which makes this even more noticeable.

On 12/15/2019 at 7:05 PM, Sir Wolfram of Vallora said:

Pegasus Knights are viable units. 

I'm not sure that I would consider this unpopular...

Edited December 19, 2019 by Shadow Mir

[Jotari]

17 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

All this.

Not only that, but also, Pelleas continues to serve the Daein Court even after his abdication. He basically decides, "I'm not the rightful heir, I was never a good king in the first place. But I'll still serve the people of Daein if they still want me; just not as king." 

 

Eh; for me, it's more complicated than that. I'm fine with a story starting with a coincidence, but I believe that, unless we're talking about a disaster movie or something like that, the coincidence in question should prompt the main characters to make a decision based on their internal motivations and who they are as a character, and that decision could be argued to be what truly gets the ball rolling for the story. I'm going to list several examples to explain my point:

Avatar: the Last Airbender:

  Hide contents

It is a complete coincidence that Sokka and Katara happen to find the iceberg that Aang's inside. However, that coincidence on its own only goes so far. What truly sparks the story is Katara's next decision: upon seeing Aang inside the iceberg, she immediately decides that they have to free the person in the iceberg, grabs Sokka's club, and breaks open the iceberg; releasing Aang from his 100-year suspended animation. Had she not done that, the story would never have happened, and her decision was ultimately a reflection of who she is. 

Code Geass:

  Hide contents

It is a complete coincidence that Lelouch and his friend are driving down the same road as the truck with the Japanese Freedom Fighters when it crashes. However, what truly sets off the events of the plot is Lelouch's decision to check the truck to see if anyone's hurt or otherwise needs help. Code Geass' writing would ultimately be a trainwreck, but this is one thing they got right early on. 

Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance:

  Reveal hidden contents

It is a coincidence that the Daein Army invades Crimea right when Soren is in the capital and can flee and tell the Greil Mercenaries. However, what follows is a combination of choices and coincidences that each help get the ball rolling. The Greil Mercenaries decide to investigate to see who's actually winning. They then coincidentally find Elincia. But, after she collapses in front of them (I don't blame her, given all that she just went through), it is Ike's decision to have her brought back to the mercenary fortress. Whichever incident you consider to be the one that gets Path of Radiance's story started, that event prompted an important choice, without which the story wouldn't have been the same. 

The Hunger Games:

  Reveal hidden contents

I can't believe I'm using the opening of this series as an example of decent writing, as I consider it to be mostly garbage, and I consider the YA Dystopia subgenre it created to be entirely garbage, and I'm tempted to puke at the very mention of YA Dystopias... (holds back vomit) This example better resonate with someone, or its going to feel wasted... Anyway, it's a coincidence that the protagonist's younger sister's name is pulled from the ballot, but it's a character decision that the protagonist chooses to volunteer to fight in her sister's place. There; I said it. It's done. I'm going to move on now to a series I do like. 

The Dragon Prince:

  Reveal hidden contents

The only reason the princes find the egg of the Dragon Prince is that they were hiding from Rayla in Viren's study. Complete coincidence. What isn't a coincidence is their decision to return the egg to the Dragon Queen as a peace offering. 

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker:

  Reveal hidden contents

It's a coincidence that the Helmaroc King and Tetra's Priates go to Outset Island. However, when the Helmaroc King drops Tetra, it's entirely Link's decision to head into the woods and see if Tetra's alright; a decision that inadvertently leads to the Helmaroc King grabbing Link's sister Aryll instead. Coincidence? …Arguably. But what really drives the story from then on is Link's older-brother-instinct: Link has to try to save his younger sister because that's who he is. 

 

So... yeah; I believe that, while it's okay to open a story with a big coincidence, it also needs there to be an important decision that's based entirely in internal motivation and who they are as a character. It can't just be:

"Why are you leading a rebellion against the evil emperor?"

"Well; my girlfriend got captured."

"And if she hadn't been?"

"I'd probably still be a farmer". Relying entirely on external motivation and coincidence to get the story going, to me at least, is an example of weak writing. 

While I don't disagree with you, I think a coincidental set up where the protagonists actions are purely reactionary can work just as well. It just leads to another type of plot. I saw North by Northwest recently, which has the premise of an ordinary man getting mistaken for a spy which leads to him getting pursued across America by both the cops and Soviet spies. It's complete coincidence that he is the one that gets mistaken for a spy and he has no real available way to get out of the situation and until the ending there's no broad decisions he can make to change the result of anything. It's just about his gumption and tenacity that helps him survive. It's a pretty great film! So in retrospect I guess I actually am saying I agree with you, but substitute decision for reaction. A coincidental set up gives meaning when we see what a character does when something unexpected happens to them that changes the course of their life.

[Ottservia]

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

10 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

 

I'd even go so far as to say starting a plot with a contrivance isn't a contrivance at all. It's just a coincidence. The difference between a coincidence and a contrivance is that coincidence is something that just happen to happen, while a contrivance is something that forces something to happen. When you're starting out a story it's a blank slate. Anything can happen because nothing has been established yet. It's not forcing the plot to go anywhere because it's the thing that begins the plot. If it didn't happen, there'd simply be no story.

Even so, one could make the argument that these events force the story to begin. In that sense it would be contrived, no? Also depending on how the plot starts, it can “force” the plot to go into a specific direction. Like if the story starts with the death of the main character’s loved one well then that kinda forces the story to go in the direction of following the main character in overcoming that grief(Y’know unless you’re going for a comedic setup). Or if you look at star wars, Luke’s parents dying can be seen as “forcing” him along his destiny. I.E it forces him to head the call to action and along the hero’s journey. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree. I just feel like if you phrase the definition like this, the words can be pretty easily twisted.

[vanguard333]

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

While I don't disagree with you, I think a coincidental set up where the protagonists actions are purely reactionary can work just as well. It just leads to another type of plot. I saw North by Northwest recently, which has the premise of an ordinary man getting mistaken for a spy which leads to him getting pursued across America by both the cops and Soviet spies. It's complete coincidence that he is the one that gets mistaken for a spy and he has no real available way to get out of the situation and until the ending there's no broad decisions he can make to change the result of anything. It's just about his gumption and tenacity that helps him survive. It's a pretty great film! So in retrospect I guess I actually am saying I agree with you, but substitute decision for reaction. A coincidental set up gives meaning when we see what a character does when something unexpected happens to them that changes the course of their life.

Indeed. In more than half those cases that I listed; the characters' decisions were reactionary. My point was that their specific reaction was based in who they are internally as a character. You're right in that "reaction" was probably the better choice of words than "decision". 

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Even so, one could make the argument that these events force the story to begin. In that sense it would be contrived, no?

No. Honestly, no. Not trying to be smart, just no. Think of a narrative like a river. A contrivance is a damn, suddenly halting or diverting the river. The river cannot be diverted or halted at its source. That just makes an entirely different river.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jotari

[Ottservia]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

No. Honestly, no. Not trying to be smart, just no.

Like I said, a definition like that can be twisted easily because a “forced” plot point is not necessarily a bad one at least in my opinion. No the reason it feels forced is(well usually) a lack of nuance or inconsistency in characterization/world building. And I feel that’s what we should be criticizing. The ‘why’ it feels forced not the fact that it is forced if you get my meaning.

[vanguard333]

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Even so, one could make the argument that these events force the story to begin. In that sense it would be contrived, no? Also depending on how the plot starts, it can “force” the plot to go into a specific direction. Like if the story starts with the death of the main character’s loved one well then that kinda forces the story to go in the direction of following the main character in overcoming that grief(Y’know unless you’re going for a comedic setup). Or if you look at star wars, Luke’s parents dying can be seen as “forcing” him along his destiny. I.E it forces him to head the call to action and along the hero’s journey. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree. I just feel like if you phrase the definition like this, the words can be pretty easily twisted.

With Star Wars, the call to adventure was Luke finding the droids, which happened before the Stormtroopers killed his uncle and aunt. Luke wanted to go on the adventure, but he also had reasons to stay behind, so he was conflicted.

What happened involving the stormtroopers was a case of what TVTropes calls: The Call Knows Your Location: when the protagonist at first refuses the call to adventure, but events happen that prompt them to ultimately accept it. It is not inherently contrived, or inherently bad. In the case of the stormtroopers, it was a direct result of Luke's family purchasing the droids, so it was not contrived. 

Also, where I stand on this is that the coincidence needs to prompt a reaction that demonstrates the protagonist's character and truly begins the story. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by vanguard333

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

Like I said, a definition like that can be twisted easily because a “forced” plot point is not necessarily a bad one at least in my opinion. No the reason it feels forced is(well usually) a lack of nuance or inconsistency in characterization/world building. And I feel that’s what we should be criticizing. The ‘why’ it feels forced not the fact that it is forced if you get my meaning.

I edited an extra part to my response after you read it that I'll include here. Think of a narrative like a river. A contrivance is a damn, suddenly halting or diverting the river. The river cannot be diverted or halted at its source. That just makes an entirely different river.

[vanguard333]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I edited an extra part to my response after you read it that I'll include here. Think of a narrative like a river. A contrivance is a damn, suddenly halting or diverting the river. The river cannot be diverted or halted at its source. That just makes an entirely different river.

Funny; my analogy would be that people's suspension of disbelief is a weight on one end of a scale (the exact weight differing with each person and each story), every character-based decision adds a weight to the same end, and every contrivance adds a weight to the other end; the amount depending on how big the contrivance is. 

[Ottservia]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I edited an extra part to my response after you read it that I'll include here. Think of a narrative like a river. A contrivance is a damn, suddenly halting or diverting the river. The river cannot be diverted or halted at its source. That just makes an entirely different river.

Again I don’t disagree. My problem is more so with the phrasing. “Forced” is something of a loaded term here cause the definition can change depending on the context in which it’s used. Like I can say a character loses a loved one in the heat of battle which ‘forces’ their character to grow but that’s not a contrivance. Azura randomly deciding to go to Valla and Corrin following her and her randomly deciding not to give him the information she could about valla to ‘force’ the narrative down the direction of Corrin facing their Hoshidian siblings. That is a contrivance. Y’see what I mean when you phrase it the way you do, it can be confusing. 
 

Cause I get what you mean by ‘contrivance’ at least to some degree. A story’s plot should flow seamlessly with each plot point playing into the next in a seemingly organic fashion. A story’s trajectory shouldn’t just randomly shift because why not. It should shift due to circumstances that arise naturally from what was already established by the world or characters.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Ottservia

[Jotari]

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Again I don’t disagree. My problem is more so with the phrasing. “Forced” is something of a loaded term here cause the definition can change depending on the context in which it’s used. Like I can say a character loses a loved one in the heat of battle which ‘forces’ their character to grow but that’s not a contrivance. Azura randomly deciding to go to Valla and Corrin following her and her randomly deciding not to give him the information she could about valla to ‘force’ the narrative down the direction of Corrin facing their Hoshidian siblings. That is a contrivance. Y’see what I mean when you phrase it the way you do, it can be confusing. 
 

Cause I get what you mean by ‘contrivance’ at least to some degree. A story’s plot should flow seamlessly with each plot point playing into the next in a seemingly organic fashion. A story’s trajectory shouldn’t just randomly shift because why not. It should shift due to circumstances that arise naturally from what was already established by the world or characters.

There's two very distinct contexts for force here, one is in-universe and one is narrative. Just because a character is forced to change within the story's universe, doesn't mean the narrative itself is forcing them to change.

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

There's two very distinct contexts for force here, one is in-universe and one is narrative. Just because a character is forced to change within the story's universe, doesn't mean the narrative itself is forcing them to change.

And that’s exactly my point. There are better ways to explain contrivance than by saying it’s forced. Cause anyone can say anything “feels forced” cause that’s a very vague and subjective statement. Saying something is “forced” is very easily disputed and the word itself can be twisted easily into different contexts. Explain things similarly to the river analogy and then it’s not so easily straw-manned. My problem with that kind of phrasing is that it’s too vague and subjective sounding. You gotta be a bit more specific. Don’t just say it’s forced and leave it at that because that’s just asking for someone to twist your words. If you’re going to phrase it like that elaborate better.

[Jotari]

38 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

And that’s exactly my point. There are better ways to explain contrivance than by saying it’s forced. Cause anyone can say anything “feels forced” cause that’s a very vague and subjective statement. Saying something is “forced” is very easily disputed and the word itself can be twisted easily into different contexts. Explain things similarly to the river analogy and then it’s not so easily straw-manned. My problem with that kind of phrasing is that it’s too vague and subjective sounding. You gotta be a bit more specific. Don’t just say it’s forced and leave it at that because that’s just asking for someone to twist your words. If you’re going to phrase it like that elaborate better.

I thought it would be axiomatic that when we're talking about narrative, the context would be within the narrative and not in universe.

[Ottservia]

47 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I thought it would be axiomatic that when we're talking about narrative, the context would be within the narrative and not in universe.

Fair enough but my main point is that there are better ways to explain why a specific plot point doesn’t work than by saying it’s contrived. Like I agree that contrivance is bad but that’s not why a plot point is bad. Like yeah it’s contrived but what about it is contrived? That’s the part where the argument kinda falls apart. You can’t just explain it by saying it’s forced because that’s too vague of a statement. What “feels forced” can vary between different people because it relies on suspension of disbelief which is subjective. There are better ways to explain something doesn’t work than resorting to personal suspension of disbelief. Like take for example Celica’s decision at the end of act 4 which is a contrived scenario. The reason being is that there’s no reason given to the audience for them to empathize with Celica’s decision to sacrifice herself which makes the entire moment feel forced and contrived. Or take chapter 15 of conquest. It’s contrived because it takes the narrative in a direction it didn’t need to go because Azura randomly decided to withhold information for no reason at all. It raises more questions than answers. The fact that something is contrived is not why it’s bad. Contrivance is bad but you have to explain why it’s contrived.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Ottservia

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Fair enough but my main point is that there are better ways to explain why a specific plot point doesn’t work than by saying it’s contrived. Like I agree that contrivance is bad but that’s not why a plot point is bad. Like yeah it’s contrived but what about it is contrived? That’s the part where the argument kinda falls apart. You can’t just explain it by saying it’s forced because that’s too vague of a statement. What “feels forced” can vary between different people because it relies on suspension of disbelief which is subjective. There are better ways to explain something doesn’t work than resorting to personal suspension of disbelief. Like take for example Celica’s decision at the end of act 4 which is a contrived scenario. The reason being is that there’s no reason given to the audience for them to empathize with Celica’s decision to sacrifice herself which makes the entire moment feel forced and contrived. Or take chapter 15 of conquest. It’s contrived because it takes the narrative in a direction it didn’t need to go because Azura randomly decided to withhold information for no reason at all. It raises more questions than answers. The fact that something is contrived is not why it’s bad. Contrivance is bad but you have to explain why it’s contrived.

Well of course. It's only natural that if you're going to criticize something you should elaborate. I don't really see who's not doing that though. Seems to me people have gone to great lengths to explain their mindset in this thread.

[Ottservia]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well of course. It's only natural that if you're going to criticize something you should elaborate. I don't really see who's not doing that though. Seems to me people have gone to great lengths to explain their mindset in this thread.

It’s not that people aren’t elaborating. I just find issue with how the points are being elaborated. Like the crystal ball shattering is not contrived on it’s own because for one that’s a really small detail to get hung up about and two, that’s only a symptom of a much larger issue. Minor contrivances like that aren’t what make it terrible cause they’re inevitable. No that’s just a symptom of it. Saying a story is written to force a certain an outcome is not a good way to explain what contrived means because that’s what stories do. Certain plot points are built up to force a certain outcome. Again that’s just how cause and effect works. A better way to explain it is that the build up the story uses lacks nuance, depth, and flow. It doesn’t work because character A would never do this or there’s no reason given(explicit or implicit) for why the character took the actions that they did. Am I making sense here? 
 

like what about the story’s flow is interrupted? That’s the part that’s missing to me. Personally, I’m fine with a story going in any direction it wants just so long as it’s consistent and that it stays within the realm of believability in regards to what has already been established about the characters and world. Celica’s decision and chapter 15 do not fall under that criteria because when you break it down none of it really makes sense and isn’t believable because of the way things are established at that point.