Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think an example would best illustrate my point. 

Ned Stark's death is ultimately there to subvert our expectations and to drill into our skull what sort of world Westeros is. On some level we all realize this but we're not incentived to spend much time pondering this. Rather than the image in our skull being George literally puppeteering all his little puppets in place for his scene we instead view this scene through the lens of the world building of Westeros and the mental instabilities of those in the royal court. 

In contrast in the later seasons it became distractedly easy to tell that many characters died simply because the writers needed them gone to reach their desired ending. So the puppets all had to dance in place even if they had to retroactively go back and change pretty much every single character trait we're been told all those characters supposedly had. 

Or in more Fire Emblem related terms. Jugdral had child characters because they needed child characters. It was decided Sigurd would die and it was only natural that his son would finish his work. In contrast Fates did not need child characters but they wanted child characters and were willing to twist and to break everything in their path to get their child characters. 

I guess the general point I'm trying to make is that ideas and symbolism must be incorporated gracefully. As for your point on foreshadowing, its usually a sign of excellent foreshadowing that you only realize its foreshadowing retroactively. In Xenoblade for instance I recall absolutely not appreciating that rather than good forshadowing they just had a character suspiciously mumble to himself whenever he's alone and even say word for word that he's betraying the team. Meanwhile a movie like Shutters Island you can assume it plays all its tropes straight and only when the twist comes do you really recognize all the foreshadowing. 

Not that I necessarily disagree here but again the claim you’re making can apply to literally every story in all of existence. I can’t speak on GoT as I haven’t seen it but here’s my problem with the Fire Emblem example. Genealogy of the holy war did not need child units. It flat out did not. The only reason it did is because Kaga wanted to tell that kind of story. If he did not want to tell that kind of story then we would have a very different game on our hands. A story doesn’t necessarily “need” anything. A story only requires as much as is necessary in order to express the ideas the author wants to express because that’s all art is at the end of the day. An expression of one’s own self and ideas. Did the kids in Fates need to exist? No they didn’t but neither did anything else in Fates’s narrative. Not to say they weren’t just shoehorned in there just for sake of it but the fact that you understand the reason they are there isn’t a bad thing in it of itself. It’s the fact that they don’t add much in the way of significant narrative value that’s the problem. Gameplay wise they’re a lot of fun though personally. Things only exist in a story because the author wanted them there for whatever reason they may have so that isn’t a criticism in it of itself.

 

As for your last point what’s wrong with being blunt with your foreshadowing? What’s wrong with being blunt with your story in general? Like Naruto and Obito literally have a conversation where they explain word for word the point of their fight, conflict, and Obito’s character as a whole. But the fact that it’s so blunt doesn’t at all take away from the deep story of a man who abandoned the world but has to come to face the fact that the path he took was the wrong one and that all his actions up til now were for nothing. That he could never truly abandon the hope he once had and in going through with the infinite tsukiyomi he would be trampling on the memory of his dead comrades. Like the bluntness by which this message is delivered doesn’t take away from the message itself. The fact that you understand that message is why it’s so blunt in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 7/31/2021 at 2:59 PM, X-Naut said:

The crossbows were mainly just an aesthetic feature for whatever reason. FE1 had the Bowgun but it acted more like a proto-Killer Bow than a true crossbow.

I wouldn't mind seeing them return like their Radiant Dawn incarnation but their damage could use some reworking.

I can't speak for how they worked in RD but even if they were just essentially Killer bows, they'd at least look/have different animations than a regular bow.

I feel like generally with the exception of the Killer Sword/Hand Axe/Levin Sword/Mace that all of the weapon sub-types all "blend" together, sure they technically have different stats/models in the in 3D games I think but you don't see them for that long and they generally don't look that distinctive apart from each other. (And in the GBA games they all look exactly the same during actual battles.)

So I would honestly be happy if Crossbows are brought back and they're just Killer Bows but with a unique appearance.

 

Edited by Samz707
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I guess the general point I'm trying to make is that ideas and symbolism must be incorporated gracefully. As for your point on foreshadowing, its usually a sign of excellent foreshadowing that you only realize its foreshadowing retroactively. In Xenoblade for instance I recall absolutely not appreciating that rather than good forshadowing they just had a character suspiciously mumble to himself whenever he's alone and even say word for word that he's betraying the team. Meanwhile a movie like Shutters Island you can assume it plays all its tropes straight and only when the twist comes do you really recognize all the foreshadowing. 

Yeah, that really wasn't good foreshadowing at all. Which is kind of weird they went so piss poor on that, as Xenoblade as a whole has some pretty decent foreshadowing in a lot of parts. The whole desire for the High Entea to incorporate Homs DNA into their genetics to avoid being turned into Telethia I thought was excellent foreshadowing.

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Not that I necessarily disagree here but again the claim you’re making can apply to literally every story in all of existence. I can’t speak on GoT as I haven’t seen it but here’s my problem with the Fire Emblem example. Genealogy of the holy war did not need child units. It flat out did not. The only reason it did is because Kaga wanted to tell that kind of story. If he did not want to tell that kind of story then we would have a very different game on our hands. A story doesn’t necessarily “need” anything. A story only requires as much as is necessary in order to express the ideas the author wants to express because that’s all art is at the end of the day. An expression of one’s own self and ideas. Did the kids in Fates need to exist? No they didn’t but neither did anything else in Fates’s narrative. Not to say they weren’t just shoehorned in there just for sake of it but the fact that you understand the reason they are there isn’t a bad thing in it of itself. It’s the fact that they don’t add much in the way of significant narrative value that’s the problem. Gameplay wise they’re a lot of fun though personally. Things only exist in a story because the author wanted them there for whatever reason they may have so that isn’t a criticism in it of itself.

 

As for your last point what’s wrong with being blunt with your foreshadowing? What’s wrong with being blunt with your story in general? Like Naruto and Obito literally have a conversation where they explain word for word the point of their fight, conflict, and Obito’s character as a whole. But the fact that it’s so blunt doesn’t at all take away from the deep story of a man who abandoned the world but has to come to face the fact that the path he took was the wrong one and that all his actions up til now were for nothing. That he could never truly abandon the hope he once had and in going through with the infinite tsukiyomi he would be trampling on the memory of his dead comrades. Like the bluntness by which this message is delivered doesn’t take away from the message itself. The fact that you understand that message is why it’s so blunt in the first place

Child units were needed for Genealogy though. I mean it's literally right there in the name of the game. The generational aspect of it needed to happen for the story they wanted to tell to function. The child units in Fates did not need to exist for the story they wanted to tell and in fact they make the story of Fates harder to function.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Child units were needed for Genealogy though. I mean it's literally right there in the name of the game. The generational aspect of it needed to happen for the story they wanted to tell to function. The child units in Fates did not need to exist for the story they wanted to tell and in fact they make the story of Fates harder to function.

Then the question becomes which came first the idea or the name? Like yeah the kids in Fates weren’t necessary for the story they wanted to tell. I’m not arguing against that. What I am arguing against is the fact that you understand the reason as why they are there is because the devs wanted them there is not the problem because again that can be said anything in any story. It’s only there because the creator wanted it to be there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Then the question becomes which came first the idea or the name? Like yeah the kids in Fates weren’t necessary for the story they wanted to tell. I’m not arguing against that. What I am arguing against is the fact that you understand the reason as why they are there is because the devs wanted them there is not the problem because again that can be said anything in any story. It’s only there because the creator wanted it to be there. 

Yes...because the creator needed them to tell that story. I mean what are you actually saying there. "That writers write things" Well yeah, obviously writers write things. But they write things for a given reason. And generally speaking the reason of "I require this because it develops and explores the central theme of the story I wish to craft" is a better one than "because Awakening did it".

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yes...because the creator needed them to tell that story. I mean what are you actually saying there. "That writers write things" Well yeah, obviously writers write things. But they write things for a given reason. And generally speaking the reason of "I require this because it develops and explores the central theme of the story I wish to craft" is a better one than "because Awakening did it".

Yeah and I’m not necessarily arguing against that. My point is that just because the author wanted something to be there is not inherently bad. Even so “better” in this context is subjective. Sometimes a writer writes something because it’s cool. Or someone draws something because it’s cute or badass. No other reason and I wouldn’t say those reasons are inherently inferior or “bad”. Creators can do what they want. Sure the children in genealogy have a more thematic and story relevant reason to be there but that doesn’t make it an inherently better reason for Fates’s second gen even if the reason is more shallow. And it’s not like the second gen in fates take away from the core narrative or anything and it’s easy to ignore them so it’s not that big of a deal regardless. Not saying it’s wrong to feel bothered by it but it’s equally valid to not be bothered by it. And maybe there is a deeper meaning to it all. You won’t know until actually delve in to try and find it. Don’t dissmiss things for not mattering when you could instead figure out why they do matter. Like or dislike things for whatever reason you wish. I just don’t like when people are unfairly dismissive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah and I’m not necessarily arguing against that. My point is that just because the author wanted something to be there is not inherently bad.

 

I haven't been following this conversation super closely, but I think I can be reasonably certain no one has made any claim suggesting a writer wanting something makes it inherently bad. Writers (or probably more likely a marketing team) wanting kids in Fates and finding a really sloppy way to implement them that makes all the characters in the game horrible parents, is bad. Not because the writer wants it, but because the way it's done is bad. it's not inherently bad, the example is mechanically bad in how it treats the characters.

 

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Florete said:
On 7/31/2021 at 1:21 AM, ZeManaphy said:

college.

I approached this from the wrong angle; yes, they are animated. What I should have added is that the animation is so limited it actually detracts from the experience for me. It's both too little and too much at the same time; too little to feel like it really gives the scenes life, but also too much to allow my brain to fill in the gaps. I genuinely prefer just seeing two character portraits talking to each other to what TH gives us.

I disagree. Those small animations adds a nice subtle detail that brings out the mood in conversations. Like how Dorothea lowers her head in rage against Ferdinand at their A-Support, or how Hapi stretches her arms as a substitute to sighing. Honesty, it feels like your complaints against Three Houses support conversations are less of Three Houses problem and more like a “ You “ problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ZeManaphy said:

I disagree. Those small animations adds a nice subtle detail that brings out the mood in conversations. Like how Dorothea lowers her head in rage against Ferdinand at their A-Support, or how Hapi stretches her arms as a substitute to sighing. Honesty, it feels like your complaints against Three Houses support conversations are less of Three Houses problem and more like a “ You “ problem. 

I'd say it fading to black anytime anything remotely "Advanced" happens is pretty bad.

Such as Petra "training", we literally have a good few animations for swinging a sword but I guess we can't bother having the player actually see her doing that, so she's going to swing a sword off-screen, then appear standing stock still as if she was just standing around doing nothing afterwards is a pretty big problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Samz707 said:

I'd say it fading to black anytime anything remotely "Advanced" happens is pretty bad.

Such as Petra "training", we literally have a good few animations for swinging a sword but I guess we can't bother having the player actually see her doing that, so she's going to swing a sword off-screen, then appear standing stock still as if she was just standing around doing nothing afterwards is a pretty big problem.

I'm not saying that its the best thing ever, I'm just saying that its a massive step up from portraits that were different from the 3DS titles. There's definitely room for improvement, and I am sure they will improve by the next game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

I'm not saying that its the best thing ever, I'm just saying that its a massive step up from portraits that were different from the 3DS titles. There's definitely room for improvement, and I am sure they will improve by the next game. 

I feel personally it's too distracting/obviously unfinished that it actually kinda ends up being worse than the portraits.

Same with the "Improved" graphics, stuff like the lightning engine and such are so inconsistent/flat-out not good that it actually takes away rather than adding.

Edited by Samz707
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

I disagree. Those small animations adds a nice subtle detail that brings out the mood in conversations. Like how Dorothea lowers her head in rage against Ferdinand at their A-Support, or how Hapi stretches her arms as a substitute to sighing. Honesty, it feels like your complaints against Three Houses support conversations are less of Three Houses problem and more like a “ You “ problem. 

That quote does say "for me," btw. But Samz707 expanded on my issue with the supports pretty well. Too much has to happen off screen. Too many character animations are used over and over again. It's distracting and immersion-breaking. Yes, there are some details that work and add something to the experience; it's not all bad. But it's more bad than good.

12 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Same with the "Better" graphics, they're too inconsistent for me to actually believe that 3H looks better than the 3DS games

Just a funny little side note here, I had a friend joke that if Awakening were to be remade in the TH engine, it would actually end up looking worse than the original Awakening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Florete said:

 

Just a funny little side note here, I had a friend joke that if Awakening were to be remade in the TH engine, it would actually end up looking worse than the original Awakening.

But you see.

Feet.

(Insert that Bernadetta feet copy-pasta but it's Tharja now.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Florete said:

That quote does say "for me," btw. But Samz707 expanded on my issue with the supports pretty well. Too much has to happen off screen. Too many character animations are used over and over again. It's distracting and immersion-breaking. Yes, there are some details that work and add something to the experience; it's not all bad. But it's more bad than good.

And its somehow worse  than earlier entries where the character portraits would just change expression while everything that was being said was done without any visual indication? Like Takumi and Setsuna apparently hunting while the background is MyCastle? Or how Felicia started another fire despite it being never shown on screen? Yes, I don't deny that the game looks like a PS2 game, but you can clearly tell that they tried a lot to make the game's supports improve visually. Not to mention that every conversation is voiced, and that alone makes it very hard for me to go back to Fates and Awakening style of supports, especially when you notice all the details that adjust depending on what part of the game you are, like who you currently have in the army, and what part you on, or what chapter you are on. To me, the excellent voice acting as well the attention to all the tiny details is more than enough for poor visual quality of the animated supports. I know Shadows of Valentia had supports that are , but its very limited. Silque is one of my favorite characters, but she only has one support in the entire game for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

And its somehow worse  than earlier entries where the character portraits would just change expression while everything that was being said was done without any visual indication? Like Takumi and Setsuna apparently hunting while the background is MyCastle? Or how Felicia started another fire despite it being never shown on screen? Yes, I don't deny that the game looks like a PS2 game, but you can clearly tell that they tried a lot to make the game's supports improve visually. Not to mention that every conversation is voiced, and that alone makes it very hard for me to go back to Fates and Awakening style of supports, especially when you notice all the details that adjust depending on what part of the game you are, like who you currently have in the army, and what part you on, or what chapter you are on. To me, the excellent voice acting as well the attention to all the tiny details is more than enough for poor visual quality of the animated supports. I know Shadows of Valentia had supports that are , but its very limited. Silque is one of my favorite characters, but she only has one support in the entire game for example. 

I mean, yeah, that's what I said:

20 hours ago, Florete said:

It's both too little and too much at the same time; too little to feel like it really gives the scenes life, but also too much to allow my brain to fill in the gaps.

When it's just character portraits and dialogue, it's easier to simply visualize the scene in my head, like reading a book. TH supports show too much to do that, but too little to make it work all by itself. They can try all they want to improve the game's visuals, if it's not good, then it's not good. Sometimes less is more.

Your mention of voice acting is moving the goalposts. This conversation is about how the animation impacts the effectiveness of the supports. I never claimed Fates supports were better in every way than TH supports. It wasn't a direct response to you, but I did state in one of these posts that I find the characters and writing are better in TH than Fates, and yeah, the voice acting is part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Florete said:

Your mention of voice acting is moving the goalposts. This conversation is about how the animation impacts the effectiveness of the supports. I never claimed Fates supports were better in every way than TH supports. It wasn't a direct response to you, but I did state in one of these posts that I find the characters and writing are better in TH than Fates, and yeah, the voice acting is part of that.

Alright, fine. I dunno if this is an unpopular or not, but out of all the games I've played, I believe Three Houses has the best supports thanks to the animation and  excellent voice acting and attention to details. Definitely the animation can be improved upon, but I think this was a great start, and I believe they will improve in future titles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest... I like Three Houses but I prefer the old system with just portraits. It was much better to just listen/read and visualize it. Three Houses recycling animations and fading to black just makes it hard for me to get immersed the same way, especially when the models are so ugly with jank animation along with the models barely reacting, their portraits of all things seem to show more reaction (thanks Koei). Bernadetta's panicked state on her portrait was just superior in comparison to anything the game tried to showcase in terms of expressiveness.

Edited by Seazas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The support are stiff as hell. You don’t see the in between at all. The stiffness reeks of fanfic level writing in support. The game Should have been 4 separate games. Having fade to black in a important support to cut to different scenes is just bad. Ingrid and Bernadetta C support is Ingrid kicking her door off it’s hinges completely and she even warns her and then fade to black. Stiffness like this bad. 3Houses was announced at E3 2017 and it was still 2 years too early and it shows. Byleth is the most apparent to have suffered from it. They weren’t supposed to have their emotions and free will restored after merging with Sothis but don’t amount to much. So far what it amounts to is inty: cool story is going well. Boss we need the avatar. Oh shit turn Byleth in the avatar. Inty need to stop making the avatar the protagonist and unless they stop they won’t improve their story writing will go the same story route with just different contacts lense and gimmicks for all to see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

I'm not saying that its the best thing ever, I'm just saying that its a massive step up from portraits that were different from the 3DS titles. There's definitely room for improvement, and I am sure they will improve by the next game. 

Ehh I’d argue the portraits were better simply because they were just more expressive. Say what you will about Kozaki but his character portaits oozed personality which is far more than what I can say about 3H’s portraits and “animations”. 

 

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

I haven't been following this conversation super closely, but I think I can be reasonably certain no one has made any claim suggesting a writer wanting something makes it inherently bad. Writers (or probably more likely a marketing team) wanting kids in Fates and finding a really sloppy way to implement them that makes all the characters in the game horrible parents, is bad. Not because the writer wants it, but because the way it's done is bad. it's not inherently bad, the example is mechanically bad in how it treats the characters.

 

Like I said I didn’t necessarily disagree with EE’s argument just the way it was argued. Maybe that wasn’t what he meant but that’s certainly what it sounded like or at the very least the argument was just way too vague and the crux of the argument makes very little sense. Also it’s not like the game really treats the Fates characters throwing their kids in the deeprealm as a good thing. A lot of the time it creates friction between the kids and their parents like with Nina and Niles, Laslow and Soleil, Percy and Arthur, etc. 

again, storytelling is inherently artificial and by that definition contrived. That’s why it’s called fiction. So to complain about something happening because you can see why an author made it happen is a bit of a moot point because that’s the literal point of storytelling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Ehh I’d argue the portraits were better simply because they were just more expressive. Say what you will about Kozaki but his character portaits oozed personality which is far more than what I can say about 3H’s portraits and “animations”. 

I'm actually a huge fan of Kozaki's work and I would love for him to return to the series at some point. Kurahana's work has grown on me though, and I do like the shining effect on drawings. It kind of reminds me of impressionism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Well, [Neil]'s no genius. He's better than that.
He's not a wizard, in other words, but a conjurer.
Wizards don't have to work. They wave their hands, and the magic happens. But conjurers, now . . . conjurers work very hard. [...]

And they take centre stage and amaze you with flags of all nations and smoke and mirrors, and you cry: 'Amazing! How does he do it? What happened to the elephant? Where's the rabbit? Did he really smash my watch?'
And in the back row we, the other conjurers,  say quietly: 'Well done. Isn't that a variant of the Prague Levitating Sock? Wasn't that Pasqual's Spirit Mirror, where the girl isn't really there? But where the hell did that flaming sword come from?'
And we wonder if there may be such a thing as wizardry, after all . . .

(Terry Pratchett on Neil Gaiman)

But of course, since there is no real magic, all stage conjury is equal. In fact, me stealing my nephew's nose makes me Copperfield's equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Like I said I didn’t necessarily disagree with EE’s argument just the way it was argued. Maybe that wasn’t what he meant but that’s certainly what it sounded like or at the very least the argument was just way too vague and the crux of the argument makes very little sense. Also it’s not like the game really treats the Fates characters throwing their kids in the deeprealm as a good thing. A lot of the time it creates friction between the kids and their parents like with Nina and Niles, Laslow and Soleil, Percy and Arthur, etc. 

No, I don't think it was. Etrutrian Emperor never used the word inherently or automatically. In fact the point was a very clear set of examples where things do and don't work well. You were the one to turn that argument into a strawman about how if a writer wants to put something in their story then it's inherently bad writing.

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

again, storytelling is inherently artificial and by that definition contrived. That’s why it’s called fiction. So to complain about something happening because you can see why an author made it happen is a bit of a moot point because that’s the literal point of storytelling. 

If that were the definition of contrived you'd be right. But it's not. The word you're describing there is 'constructed'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

No, I don't think it was. Etrutrian Emperor never used the word inherently or automatically. In fact the point was a very clear set of examples where things do and don't work well. You were the one to turn that argument into a strawman about how if a writer wants to put something in their story then it's inherently bad writing.

I wasn’t arguing a strawman at all. Or st the very least at the start I wasn’t because how else do you interpret this kind of statement?

Quote

Truly good writing involves the puppet master being able to hide his strings. If you can clearly see the puppeteer moving his puppets along to get to the desired ending even if this means sacrificing the quality of the story to do so then this often is not a good sign. Think of Game of Thrones where the writers clearly had a desired ending in mind and used every shortcut in the book in order to get there even if those shortcuts didn't make an ounce of sense.  

Because that point essentially equates to “If I can see why an author wrote something a certain way then it is thereby bad writing” which is just not an argument because understanding why an author would write something in a specific way is the whole point of analysis snd criticism. And the arguments following that one are basically him trying to rationalize a broken suspension of disbelief in regards to how he feels about certain writing elements which is fine. Like those feelings aren’t invalid just that he’s phrasing it in a way that feels objective when it isn’t because suspension of disbelief is entirely personal. Like the Xenoblade example for instance. Is it extremely blunt? Yes but that doesn’t necessarily make it bad. Just because you understood what was going to happen and why the author wrote it that way doesn’t make it bad. If anything you could interpret it as the writers trying to invoke some kind of dramatic irony. Like we can argue execution all day long but bluntness doesn’t make something inherently bad. Hell my favorite stories are as blunt as can be yet that doesn’t take away from the messages I took from them. Like it feeling contrived and forced isn’t an invalid feeling just not much of a criticism because no story is obligated to bend to your personal preferences.

 

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

If that were the definition of contrived you'd be right. But it's not. The word you're describing there is 'constructed'.

But that is the definition of contrived. Contrived is defined as something that is constructed or happens artificially which is what fictional stories do inherently to express meaningful ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I wasn’t arguing a strawman at all. Or st the very least at the start I wasn’t because how else do you interpret this kind of statement?

Because that point essentially equates to “If I can see why an author wrote something a certain way then it is thereby bad writing” which is just not an argument because understanding why an author would write something in a specific way is the whole point of analysis snd criticism. And the arguments following that one are basically him trying to rationalize a broken suspension of disbelief in regards to how he feels about certain writing elements which is fine. Like those feelings aren’t invalid just that he’s phrasing it in a way that feels objective when it isn’t because suspension of disbelief is entirely personal. Like the Xenoblade example for instance. Is it extremely blunt? Yes but that doesn’t necessarily make it bad. Just because you understood what was going to happen and why the author wrote it that way doesn’t make it bad. If anything you could interpret it as the writers trying to invoke some kind of dramatic irony. Like we can argue execution all day long but bluntness doesn’t make something inherently bad. Hell my favorite stories are as blunt as can be yet that doesn’t take away from the messages I took from them. Like it feeling contrived and forced isn’t an invalid feeling just not much of a criticism because no story is obligated to bend to your personal preferences.

Again your strawmanning, because Etrurian Emperor never said something being blunt makes it inherently bad. They gave an example of bad foreshadowing that was blunt, but they never said being blunt was inherently bad. This example of being blunt is bad because it involves a character talking to themself about how they're betraying everyone in a way that is out of character and highly unnecessary for the development of the story. It's providing foreshadow for the character's betrayal not by providing clues or call forwards, but instead by having the character say "I'm going to betray everyone" and another character say "What did you just say?" with the first character saying "Oh nothing. Never mind. Just talking to myself."

Quote

But that is the definition of contrived. Contrived is defined as something that is constructed or happens artificially which is what fictional stories do inherently to express meaningful ideas.

Contrived is something that does not arise naturally. Stories have flow to them, so they can have developments that are natural and developments that are unnatural. The meaning of constructed and contrived are not identical. I think a lot of these arguments you get into arise from the fact that you just plain don't understand what the word contrived means and what people mean when they use it.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2021 at 11:10 AM, vanguard333 said:

Seriously, why is Shadows of Valentia considered the better remake? Is it because it has voice acting? What's the point of having decent voice acting if the script is bad (and, unlike Shadow Dragon, doesn't even have the excuse of being a barebones script from the early 90s)?

not just VA i believe, they add some flair like skill, turnwheel, etc which make it more like a remake than just 3D remaster, but more importantly (imo) it uses newer tech and feels like a remake with proper budget at a glance (ofc you can have shitty story and questionable gameplay design with big budget games tho).

But ofc all that are only the technical aspect. the other aspects is more debatable whether its better or not

--------------------------------------------------------

since some of above argument about storytelling this, character that, boils down to "water is just water, change my mind" type of silly/petty argument,.. i'll just deliver another unpopular opinion:

-Batallion mechanic dont need to return, at least not if they are not changed drastically/meaningfully

the reasoning because, the first thing that i notice when playing TH : those bandits that attack the 3 main lords are a failure as a bandit because they have "mobs" but still proceed to "watch" one guy have a fair one versus one fight... i know, i know, batallions are not supposed to take on the actual units, but as someone who play other strategy game cant help but sigh..

having the freedom to assign anyone with a batallion wont make sense either when considering their job. its a given class/job in TH are not fixed so we cant outright say which one is canon, only implied. but a class like "thief" should not have multiple people following them considering their role. or when the plot doesnt involve unit from military school it wont make sense to suddenly throw them some subordinate to lead in battle. it works with TH settings sure, but other not necessarily imo.

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...