Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Actually, I'm uncertain of that. Is it 1200 years? Or is it 400 years? Why do I consider the latter possibility? Because, does Ashunera have the memories of her two halves? If she does, it's 1200, if she doesn't, it's 400. We aren't given answer to this.

 A point to consider, but I don't think it's the case as Ashunera clearly is aware that problems arose from her splitting herself in two as she resolves not to make the same mistake again. At least if she wasn't aware then she'd be a lot more disoriented here, having no idea what just happened to her. And if they wanted to suggest it was 1,200 years since the Great Flood, but 400 years since the events of the game, they could have specified. Ashunera asks how much time it's been since they last saw each other, Leharan could have said "400 years since I last saw Ashera and Yune, 1,200 years since I saw you whole." 400 years is certainly not impossible, but if we're to assume the point of that line was to establish a time frame for when this is happening and not expect us to go scrounging around timelines and subtracting dates, I think 1,200 years is the more likely result. If it's not 1,200 years then it's shoddy writing for not making it more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

36 minutes ago, Jotari said:

This is literally something people (well that is to say me) were discussing before Shadows of Valentia was even released. Are you referring to this thread about the recent drawn out debates that don't count?

Because look at the first comment I made in that thread (linked above) where I point out that issues with Alm have been very well established and discussed by the fandom. I literally manage to predict every point and counter point people made in the thread up until that point without looking because I've seen it discussed so much. People's response to to Alm and the counter responses are literally that predictable. The only reason I can think of that you would think Alm get's lesser criticism than Celica is that, aside from a few outliers, people are largely in agreement about Alm while there's more meat on the bones of the Celica discussion as her issues are more complex as it involves another character too who could be changed to improve her writing. But even given that, in this very thread we've discussed Alm more than Celica. Searching Alm in this thread gives ten pages of results while searching Celica gives ten. Of course this is a bitching thread, but that doesn't mean every comment of a character is going to be negative, but people giving Shadows of Valentia legitimate praise that isn't "I like this controversial aspect everyone else hates" is very, very few and very, very far between.

Hey, Jotari. I don't know the context (though I agree with your main point about how established and discussed Alm's issues are). I just want to make sure your numbers are correct and there isn't a typo: the way your sentence is written is as if Alm has more pages of results than Celica "Alm has --, while Celica has --", but the actual numbers are both ten. Just wondering if there was a typo or if it really is ten for both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Hey, Jotari. I don't know the context (though I agree with your main point about how established and discussed Alm's issues are). I just want to make sure your numbers are correct and there isn't a typo: the way your sentence is written is as if Alm has more pages of results than Celica "Alm has --, while Celica has --", but the actual numbers are both ten. Just wondering if there was a typo or if it really is ten for both. 

It's 12 and 10 for me. Might be different settings for how many results are displayer per page. So to phrase it a different way, searching this thread results in 235 instances of Celica and 293 instances of Alm. At least for me.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It's 12 and 10 for me. Might be different settings for how many results are displayer per page. So to phrase it a different way, searching this thread results in 235 instances of Celica and 293 instances of Alm. At least for me.

Okay, so ten and ten was a typo. Got it. You might want to change what you had typed then to fix the typo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Okay, so ten and ten was a typo. Got it. You might want to change what you had typed then to fix the typo.

Whoops. That's what you were saying. I didn't notice the bolded part of the quote. I'll amend immediately. Thanks for pointing it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

This is literally something people (well that is to say me) were discussing before Shadows of Valentia was even released. Are you referring to this thread about the recent drawn out debates that don't count?

Because look at the first comment I made in that thread (linked above) where I point out that issues with Alm have been very well established and discussed by the fandom. I literally manage to predict every point and counter point people made in the thread up until that point without looking because I've seen it discussed so much. People's response to to Alm and the counter responses are literally that predictable. The only reason I can think of that you would think Alm get's lesser criticism than Celica is that, aside from a few outliers, people are largely in agreement about Alm while there's more meat on the bones of the Celica discussion as her issues are more complex as it involves another character too who could be changed to improve her writing. But even given that, in this very thread we've discussed Alm more than Celica. Searching Alm in this thread gives twelve pages of results while searching Celica gives ten. Of course this is a bitching thread, but that doesn't mean every comment of a character is going to be negative, but people giving Shadows of Valentia legitimate praise that isn't "I like this controversial aspect everyone else hates" is very, very few and very, very far between.

Yeah okay. If that's what you saw then great. I'm not going to debate that I indeed saw what I saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Florete said:

Yeah okay. If that's what you saw then great. I'm not going to debate that I indeed saw what I saw.

We all have different experiences. It could just be that I was much more involved in Alm criticism in the early days post Shadows of Valentia release. Though that we have talked about Alm here for one reason or another is pretty incontrovertible. 

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

We all have different experiences. It could just be that I was much more involved in Alm criticism in the early days post Shadows of Valentia release. Though that we have talked about Alm here for one reason or another is pretty incontrovertible. 

I stated as much myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unpopular opinion (at least here.. i think?) Fire emblem story works best when its classic good guy vs evil guy (not just bad, but evil)

the idea comes from my impression of the "fire emblem" and its accompanying divine weapon is the ultimate stuff to fight evil guy. so when you take something that already have clear  purpose and use it for other cause,  coupled with the nature of FE gameplay with permanent death and always win aspect, the story might go in unnecessary convoluted mess, for whatever reason.

of course it would be boring because the trend for this decade (or last?) is good guy doing questionable stuff while bad guy doing reasonable thing. Or going dark route if you like to call it.
but then why would we associate the good guy as the good guy? why not just give the divine weapon to the bad guy instead? but then it will become the "actual" good guy smacking some sense to the bad guy which basically my first point again.

it doesnt make sense? maybe i'll try phrasing it better later, its difficult to explain without bullying bad story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, joevar said:

of course it would be boring because the trend for this decade (or last?) is good guy doing questionable stuff while bad guy doing reasonable thing. Or going dark route if you like to call it.
but then why would we associate the good guy as the good guy? why not just give the divine weapon to the bad guy instead? but then it will become the "actual" good guy smacking some sense to the bad guy which basically my first point again.

Der Langrisser is a game that poses this question, though rather crudely. I think it’s be well worth trying to refine that concept. Fire Emblem doesn’t have the best record of building a plot around a moral dilemma, but one can always learn from their mistakes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joevar said:

Unpopular opinion (at least here.. i think?) Fire emblem story works best when its classic good guy vs evil guy (not just bad, but evil)

the idea comes from my impression of the "fire emblem" and its accompanying divine weapon is the ultimate stuff to fight evil guy. so when you take something that already have clear  purpose and use it for other cause,  coupled with the nature of FE gameplay with permanent death and always win aspect, the story might go in unnecessary convoluted mess, for whatever reason.

of course it would be boring because the trend for this decade (or last?) is good guy doing questionable stuff while bad guy doing reasonable thing. Or going dark route if you like to call it.
but then why would we associate the good guy as the good guy? why not just give the divine weapon to the bad guy instead? but then it will become the "actual" good guy smacking some sense to the bad guy which basically my first point again.

it doesnt make sense? maybe i'll try phrasing it better later, its difficult to explain without bullying bad story

In other words... when the villain might be doing something right, the plot doesn't work as well in your eyes?

This might come as a shock, but I agree. Complex narratives are OK, but the more complex the plot, the more likely it is to screw itself over, while the simpler the story, the less likely that is. FE1 and FE6 don't have complex stories: they have one young lord fighting against an evil, super-militarized nation and its allies, trying hard as they can to win despite a clear disadvantage, and getting the Legendary Weapons of the game specifically to fight evil. Good heroes, evil villains. That's what defines "heroes" and "villains." If the "villain" has a noble cause and might not even be an awful person (like Edelgard or Rudolf, for instance), and the "hero" is trying to stop them without any clear reasoning other than "They started it," then things can quickly become blurry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GlitchWarrior said:

In other words... when the villain might be doing something right, the plot doesn't work as well in your eyes?

This might come as a shock, but I agree. Complex narratives are OK, but the more complex the plot, the more likely it is to screw itself over, while the simpler the story, the less likely that is. FE1 and FE6 don't have complex stories: they have one young lord fighting against an evil, super-militarized nation and its allies, trying hard as they can to win despite a clear disadvantage, and getting the Legendary Weapons of the game specifically to fight evil. Good heroes, evil villains. That's what defines "heroes" and "villains." If the "villain" has a noble cause and might not even be an awful person (like Edelgard or Rudolf, for instance), and the "hero" is trying to stop them without any clear reasoning other than "They started it," then things can quickly become blurry.

IMO Medeus has more justification for going to war than Edelgard does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, joevar said:

Unpopular opinion (at least here.. i think?) Fire emblem story works best when its classic good guy vs evil guy (not just bad, but evil)

the idea comes from my impression of the "fire emblem" and its accompanying divine weapon is the ultimate stuff to fight evil guy. so when you take something that already have clear  purpose and use it for other cause,  coupled with the nature of FE gameplay with permanent death and always win aspect, the story might go in unnecessary convoluted mess, for whatever reason.

of course it would be boring because the trend for this decade (or last?) is good guy doing questionable stuff while bad guy doing reasonable thing. Or going dark route if you like to call it.
but then why would we associate the good guy as the good guy? why not just give the divine weapon to the bad guy instead? but then it will become the "actual" good guy smacking some sense to the bad guy which basically my first point again.

it doesnt make sense? maybe i'll try phrasing it better later, its difficult to explain without bullying bad story

Here’s a better idea: stop forcing the fire emblem into every game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Here’s a better idea: stop forcing the fire emblem into every game.

While it did turn out to well, not be just a Gem when playing Fe6, me and a friend got a good laugh out of the fact that, as far as FE7 is concerned, the Fire Emblem is just a small quest item essentially for a few chapters and it's just a shiny rock essentially, it's not a magic seal or sword, just a ceremonial thing as far as I can remember.

6 hours ago, joevar said:

Unpopular opinion (at least here.. i think?) Fire emblem story works best when its classic good guy vs evil guy (not just bad, but evil)

the idea comes from my impression of the "fire emblem" and its accompanying divine weapon is the ultimate stuff to fight evil guy. so when you take something that already have clear  purpose and use it for other cause,  coupled with the nature of FE gameplay with permanent death and always win aspect, the story might go in unnecessary convoluted mess, for whatever reason.

of course it would be boring because the trend for this decade (or last?) is good guy doing questionable stuff while bad guy doing reasonable thing. Or going dark route if you like to call it.
but then why would we associate the good guy as the good guy? why not just give the divine weapon to the bad guy instead? but then it will become the "actual" good guy smacking some sense to the bad guy which basically my first point again.

it doesnt make sense? maybe i'll try phrasing it better later, its difficult to explain without bullying bad story

 

While I don't hate complex stories, I have noticed that at least in certain circles, there seems to be a sorta "bias" towards them, AKA: A complex story with tons of contrivances that (IMO) utterly ruin it, is still somehow automatically better by default than a simple story with no real contrivances/errors that stand out.

 

Edited by Samz707
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

While it did turn out to well, not be just a Gem when playing Fe6, me and a friend got a good laugh out of the fact that, as far as FE7 is concerned, the Fire Emblem is just a small quest item essentially for a few chapters and it's just a shiny rock essentially, it's not a magic seal or sword, just a ceremonial thing as far as I can remember.

 

While I don't hate complex stories, I have noticed that at least in certain circles, there seems to be a sorta "bias" towards them, AKA: A complex story with tons of contrivances that (IMO) utterly ruin it, is still somehow automatically better by default than a simple story with no real contrivances/errors that stand out.

 

It's even worse in the very first game in the series, there the Fire Emblem was basically a glorified lock pick. Like it serves literally no relevance to the plot at all. You just get it. The sequel retcons importance on it, but in the first game it's about as important as Rickard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, joevar said:

Unpopular opinion (at least here.. i think?) Fire emblem story works best when its classic good guy vs evil guy (not just bad, but evil)

the idea comes from my impression of the "fire emblem" and its accompanying divine weapon is the ultimate stuff to fight evil guy. so when you take something that already have clear  purpose and use it for other cause,  coupled with the nature of FE gameplay with permanent death and always win aspect, the story might go in unnecessary convoluted mess, for whatever reason.

of course it would be boring because the trend for this decade (or last?) is good guy doing questionable stuff while bad guy doing reasonable thing. Or going dark route if you like to call it.
but then why would we associate the good guy as the good guy? why not just give the divine weapon to the bad guy instead? but then it will become the "actual" good guy smacking some sense to the bad guy which basically my first point again.

it doesnt make sense? maybe i'll try phrasing it better later, its difficult to explain without bullying bad story

For me, at the core of it i care less about the morality of the characters involved and more about the conflict between the two and how well they're tied together.

Take a game with a simple story like FE6, the game is about the power of humanity, Roy being a humble boy who is aware of his limits, and yet it is because he's aware of his limits that he admires and trusts people who are more capable than him in various aspects. Roy slowly travels through the continent and unites friends and allies from all different nations, cultures and backgrounds under one banner to fight off Bern's invasion. Meanwhile, Zephiel views all of humanity as irrational and self-centered, which is definitely true for many of the antagonists in the game, many of them either being generals of Bern seeking power, status and glory, or they are people from other nations that either use the war to seek greater status in their nations, or betray their own country for Bern. And yet, because so many of them are self-centered like this, it leads to them not truly being united, there is a reason why Murdock and Brunnya are shown to be the most honourable and/or sympathetic of Bern's forces, as they are the only named antagonists who truly cared about Zephiel and his ambitions. Zephiel had a will of iron and a low view of humanity, yet that exact low view exemplified by his army meant Bern never had a chance against Roy who, in his humble and respectful nature towards people from all nations and backgrounds, was able to truly unite the people of Elibe while Zephiel only had two generals who ever truly trusted him.

FE6's story is simple and very black-and-white, yet it functions very well because the contrast between the protagonists and antagonists all feed very well into the conflict between Roy and Zephiel long before the two actually meet each other face-to-face. All of the values that Roy and Zephiel represent are shown through the entire game from the first few chapters all the way to the ending. Which makes it all actually work really well for me even if the writing itself is so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like looking at stories as complex vs simple is missing the point. Storytelling in it of itself is a complex art form on its own. Even simple stories can have deep and interconnecting thematic conflicts that span throughout the entire story. Awakening and PoR are relatively simple stories when you get right down to it but that doesn’t mean they can’t have depth or complexities to the conflicts that make them up. I feel like people far too often look at individual elements in a story too much in a vacuum rather than how each aspect of the story(world building, conflicts, characters, etc.) fit together as a whole cause every story no matter how simple does have something to say. It’s the little nuances that make up that story which give it depth and complexity. What may seem like a simple “good vs evil” plot at first may have far more going on beneath the surface when you break it down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Maybe. Xane seems to think Medeus had noble motives, but neither Medeus nor anyone associated with him ever says or does anything to suggest Xane is correct on that front. 

He doesn't think Medeus' intentions were noble:

"Y'see, I don't like humans. I've got nothin' but contempt for those who treated the defenseless Manaketes like insects. So I can understand why Medeus despised you humans so. Medeus, an Earth Dragon prince, was the only one of his tribe who become a Manakete. And, as ordered by Naga, he guarded the Dragon's Altar. But the once peaceful human race, drunk with power, began to rule with tyranny. They oppressed the dragons who had done nothin' wrong. Furious at their betrayal by humans, the Manaketes gathered in Dolhr, and they created a nation for their people. Then they fought to conquer humanity."

Just that he can understand why he had them. Since he shares the same dislike towards humans that Medeus has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I feel like looking at stories as complex vs simple is missing the point. Storytelling in it of itself is a complex art form on its own. Even simple stories can have deep and interconnecting thematic conflicts that span throughout the entire story. Awakening and PoR are relatively simple stories when you get right down to it but that doesn’t mean they can’t have depth or complexities to the conflicts that make them up. I feel like people far too often look at individual elements in a story too much in a vacuum rather than how each aspect of the story(world building, conflicts, characters, etc.) fit together as a whole cause every story no matter how simple does have something to say. It’s the little nuances that make up that story which give it depth and complexity. What may seem like a simple “good vs evil” plot at first may have far more going on beneath the surface when you break it down. 

I don’t think this is very unpopular but I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GlitchWarrior said:

In other words... when the villain might be doing something right, the plot doesn't work as well in your eyes?

This might come as a shock, but I agree. Complex narratives are OK, but the more complex the plot, the more likely it is to screw itself over, while the simpler the story, the less likely that is. FE1 and FE6 don't have complex stories: they have one young lord fighting against an evil, super-militarized nation and its allies, trying hard as they can to win despite a clear disadvantage, and getting the Legendary Weapons of the game specifically to fight evil. Good heroes, evil villains. That's what defines "heroes" and "villains." If the "villain" has a noble cause and might not even be an awful person (like Edelgard or Rudolf, for instance), and the "hero" is trying to stop them without any clear reasoning other than "They started it," then things can quickly become blurry.

yes, exactly like you describe

11 hours ago, Sooks said:

Here’s a better idea: stop forcing the fire emblem into every game.

for me, its similar to crystal in FF. you can bet 90% of the time it will be there in the game. whether important or not, relevant or not to gameplay and story. altho im sure theres an installment where its absent, cant remember which tho.

but like @Jotari express, fire emblem more often than not treated like a pebbles on a road. so i would suggest MAKE FIRE EMBLEM GREAT AGAIN RELEVANT AGAIN. i dunno, make it something people revered to or something. come on, its the titular item, how could it be less important than an iron sword.

Spoiler

its like im looking at assasins creed series nowadays which if you take the assasins part, its still a full game with complete story with no plot hole caused by absent of the assasins part. *ofc its obvious why they treat it like that. coughmoneycough

10 hours ago, Samz707 said:

I have noticed that at least in certain circles, there seems to be a sorta "bias" towards them,

just say serenes forest people. its open secret anyway after seeing all the discussion here

6 hours ago, Murozaki said:

FE6's story is simple and very black-and-white, yet it functions very well because the contrast between the protagonists and antagonists all feed very well into the conflict between Roy and Zephiel long before the two actually meet each other face-to-face.

same like @GlitchWarrior said, which i wholeheartedly agree and on point with my opinion.

6 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I feel like looking at stories as complex vs simple is missing the point.

just to be sure, this is not directed towards my initial opinion yes? no? please kindly confirm or deny it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Maybe. Xane seems to think Medeus had noble motives, but neither Medeus nor anyone associated with him ever says or does anything to suggest Xane is correct on that front. 

Medeus is a MLM Activist. And even during his war he never ends up doing anything worse than what the humans do to each other. Slavery is already an establishment in Archanea before Medeus comes along (Ogma's backstory). And that's even assuming he enslaves any humans at all. He has plenty of humans, even named humans with dialogue, that fight for him who never make any reference to being enslaved. And his hate boner for humanity is at least subdued enough that he is fine working for human allies. In fact he even has the majority of the support of the countries in the continent, 4 vs 5 with one being neutral. So he'd probably win a democratic vote too. Unless Archanea's population is far in excess of everyone else, then he'd have to depend on an electoral college system

...this post got weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's another thing that i noticed (and im sure others too) in relation with gameplay and story. In most action/adventure JRPG (i pick specifically JRPG for reasons), majority of the fight YOU do, doesnt have anything to do with plot. (you fight nameless mob, monster, etc etc for exploring, money and exp) while in FE its the opposite of that. almost every fight have to had plot coming with it.

thats not a problem? ofc not, its just characteristic. But then, 3House part 1 happen... just check past pages about part 1 complaints. Its like the game trying to find an excuse so you can mobilize all troops no matter what even tho setting is school (which they havent graduated yet).

you can design 10 places in jrpg or rpg, and only 6 of them matter with plot. because you get to explore the lore, setting, or the people there without the excess baggage of massive troop behind you. so when 3 house have all those interesting places they mentioned? sucks to be you, but we dont go there, no skirmishes or plot matter that take place there that worth mentioning so we can play in that ground.

Edited by joevar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, joevar said:

here's another thing that i noticed (and im sure others too) in relation with gameplay and story. In most action/adventure JRPG (i pick specifically JRPG for reasons), majority of the fight YOU do, doesnt have anything to do with plot. (you fight nameless mob, monster, etc etc for exploring, money and exp) while in FE its the opposite of that. almost every fight have to had plot coming with it.

thats not a problem? ofc not, its just characteristic. But then, 3House part 1 happen... just check past pages about part 1 complaints. Its like the game trying to find an excuse so you can mobilize all troops no matter what even tho setting is school (which they havent graduated yet).

you can design 10 places in jrpg or rpg, and only 6 of them matter with plot. because you get to explore the lore, setting, or the people there without the excess baggage of massive troop behind you. so when 3 house have all those interesting places they mentioned? sucks to be you, but we dont go there, no skirmishes or plot matter that take place there that worth mentioning so we can play in that ground.

Well we could resolve that by just going full monster skirmishes like in Sacred Stones and Gaiden. Though if they went even further than that people would probably complain that it's watering down the moral greyness of the story since killing people is darker than killing monsters (this is a complaint I've legitimately heard from people). Even though the reality of killing people is something the series has barely ever touched upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...