Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Using that metric can you point to a story that you think is actually bad? Because not only does that sound vague, it sounds universally applicable.

I mean I already have but if you want more examples besides SoV, I’d be glad to list a few. Let’s see: Darling in the franxx, Sword art Online, Blue Excorcist, Eromanga-sensei(albeit this one’s a weird case), Fairy tail, asterisk war, Danmachi, and many more. 
 

What you fail to understand here is that a story still can convey its ideas poorly even when you judge it by its own rules. Take SoV for example. The entire point is that Alm and Celica are two halves of a greater whole who need each other in order to be complete otherwise they would take their singular ideals to the extreme which would bring about their ruin/downfall. The reason it doesn’t work is because Alm is never wrong. He never makes mistakes where as Celica does. Celica is supposed to be the kindness to hold back his strength from going too far but with the way his character is written that’s never shown to be the case. He never does go too far nor has he ever shown the capability too. Yeah he accidentally kills his father but that’s not really framed as his fault and even before the fight he says he can’t bring himself to hate Rudolf so the idea just doesn’t land. He doesn’t need Celica but she needs him and there in lies the problem because that shouldn’t be the case.They should need each other. In that sense the whole story kinda falls apart because the ideas are conveyed so clumsily. See? I knew what the writer’s wanted to do and I can explain why it doesn’t work based on the rules the narrative sets for itself. I don’t have to set my own rules for it. 
 

Let me put it to you this way. You wouldn’t criticize a horror movie for being “too scary” would you? Of course you wouldn’t that’s stupid. It’s a horror movie, why the hell else are you watching it? I apply that same logic to every story regardless of genre and even if they're in the same genre. 

58 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I could even categorize that one moment in Code Geas we talked about earlier as good writing as it fulfills this criteria. Hell even My Immortal could fit into that, for as bad as people say it is, the author's opinions are always very clear.

As far as that moment is concerned, it is good writing. It's not great writing mind you but it's not bad writing because it makes sense in the context of which it happens. Could it have been done better? certainly but for the story they were trying to tell it's fine as is. You really need understand why a certain element of story happens in order to accurately describe why it does or doesn't work. The problem most people have with that moment in particular is that it feels way too convenient for the narrative because it kind of is but again that's subjective because there are explanations in place that can allow someone to make sense of it in-universe. They could've made those explanations more clear no doubt but the explanations themselves are fine. It’s how those explanations are conveyed that’s the problem.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Does he actually kill the soldier though? I always perceived it as Hector knowing him out.

It doesn't outright say, there is room to interpret the "Urrrgh!!" as a knockout blow. It depends how brutish you think Hector is.

 

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I think that can sum up Kaga’s problems as a writer pretty well. He’s really good at world building and making it feel like a living breathing place filled to the brim with its own history, lore, and culture. Everything else? He could definitely stand to do better

And as said in an interview contemporary with FE4, he did say that he was the only nut on the dev team when it came to world building. That was definitely his work, and it can't be said to be anyone else's.

Although, he did have troubles with portraying female characters in TRS, and Vestaria Saga I recall reading when it first released in Japan, seems to this day continue some of his fetish for female kidnappings

 

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

If Kaga was the be all and end all then Tear Ring would be fully integrated into the community which it isn't, it's treated like a satellite.

And it didn't have a full translation until fairly recently, not even the half-bad + a Yugioh meme Thracia Shaya/Firelizard one.

There is also the fact that IS having nothing to do with it, can't be told to learn from it, nor can they use its characters, as much as I'd like Rishel in FEH (mostly b/c gameplay awesomeness).

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Strullemia said:

I guess we'll know if Berwick Saga ever gets translated.

A translation already exists, it's been posted here: https://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?/topic/80209-berwick-saga-translation-beta-patch-out/. Aside from 36/41 maps, all the menus and system text are done, so the game is playable to the end (there are also some portions of the endings\epilogue in English as well).

Edited by Fields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean I already have but if you want more examples besides SoV, I’d be glad to list a few. Let’s see: Darling in the franxx, Sword art Online, Blue Excorcist, Eromanga-sensei(albeit this one’s a weird case), Fairy tail, asterisk war, Danmachi, and many more. 
 

What you fail to understand here is that a story still can convey its ideas poorly even when you judge it by its own rules. Take SoV for example. The entire point is that Alm and Celica are two halves of a greater whole who need each other in order to be complete otherwise they would take their singular ideals to the extreme which would bring about their ruin/downfall. The reason it doesn’t work is because Alm is never wrong. He never makes mistakes where as Celica does. Celica is supposed to be the kindness to hold back his strength from going too far but with the way his character is written that’s never shown to be the case. He never does go too far nor has he ever shown the capability too. Yeah he accidentally kills his father but that’s not really framed as his fault and even before the fight he says he can’t bring himself to hate Rudolf so the idea just doesn’t land. He doesn’t need Celica but she needs him and there in lies the problem because that shouldn’t be the case.They should need each other. In that sense the whole story kinda falls apart because the ideas are conveyed so clumsily. See? I knew what the writer’s wanted to do and I can explain why it doesn’t work based on the rules the narrative sets for itself. I don’t have to set my own rules for it. 
 

Let me put it to you this way. You wouldn’t criticize a horror movie for being “too scary” would you? Of course you wouldn’t that’s stupid. It’s a horror movie, why the hell else are you watching it? I apply that same logic to every story regardless of genre and even if they're in the same genre. 

As far as that moment is concerned, it is good writing. It's not great writing mind you but it's not bad writing because it makes sense in the context of which it happens. Could it have been done better? certainly but for the story they were trying to tell it's fine as is. You really need understand why a certain element of story happens in order to accurately describe why it does or doesn't work. The problem most people have with that moment in particular is that it feels way too convenient for the narrative because it kind of is but again that's subjective because there are explanations in place that can allow someone to make sense of it in-universe. They could've made those explanations more clear no doubt but the explanations themselves are fine. It’s how those explanations are conveyed that’s the problem.

Okay, I agree with you on Shadows of Valentina, but for the sake of debate I'm going to turn your own logic back on you. How do you know that's the point of Shadows of Valentina? Maybe the real message of that story is that women are naieve and weak, men are strong, religion is evil and violence is the best way to resolve conflict. Are you not judging Shadows of Valentina based on what you think it should be rather than what it is?

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Okay, I agree with you on Shadows of Valentina, but for the sake of debate I'm going to turn your own logic back on you. How do you know that's the point of Shadows of Valentina? Maybe the real message of that story is that women are naieve and weak, men are strong, religion is evil and violence is the best way to resolve conflict. Are you not judging Shadows of Valentina based on what you think it should be rather than what it is?

That's an interesting point to make. For example, I've heard some people saying FE4 and FE10 are weak narratively when it comes to sympathetic villains because they make Arvis, Travant, Sephiran and Zelgius sympathetic when in their opinion they deserve no sympathy. I think that's fallacious reasoning as just because you have different moral values than the writer doesn't mean the writer failed in their task. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Okay, I agree with you on Shadows of Valentina, but for the sake of debate I'm going to turn your own logic back on you. How do you know that's the point of Shadows of Valentina? Maybe the real message of that story is that women are naieve and weak, men are strong, religion is evil and violence is the best way to resolve conflict. Are you not judging Shadows of Valentina based on what you think it should be rather than what it is?

Okay I'll bite, that is the message of the game because it's pointed out and emphasized numerous times by the characters, story beats, and even trailers. Hell  Duma's final words when Alm stabs him in the face are as follows, 

Spoiler

Duma: So be it, Alm. I leave Valentia’s future to you, her hero. Take from us what lessons you will and shape her into a land to remember. Make her strong like Duma, and fill her with Mila’s love. Let our grave mistakes be warnings of where not to tread as you lead her forth. Now, we shall sleep. And never shall you disturb our slumber.

Note the sentence in the middle. "Make her strong like Duma, and fill her with Mila's love." This voice over is played over top a cut to Alm and Celica as they hold hands which is to suggest that "Duma's strength" and "Mila's love" are represented in Alm and Celica respectively and it is through their marriage both literally and idealistically that Valentia will find true peace. Strength and kindness on their own will only lead to ruin. You need a combination for true prosperity which is sort of eluded to in his second to last sentence where in he says: "let our grave mistakes be warnings of where not to tread as you lead her forth". What he's saying is don't repeat what Duma and Mila did in dividing the continent where each ideal was allowed to fester to the point of corruption. Duma and Mila failed because they didn't work together but instead took their ideals to the extreme and that ultimately lead to the ruin of not only them but also the countries that they founded. Evidence of this can be found peppered throughout the story but the place it's made most clear is the opening cinematic when you boot the game up and we're given a bit of a history lesson about Zofia and Rigel. Also in that Cinematic we get a shot of Alm and Celica as kids reading old stories of how Duma and Mila fought where in the following lines of dialogue are exchanged:

Spoiler

Alm: “Once upon a time, there was a god named Duma and a goddess named Mila who fought each other bitterly for an age.”

Celica: Hey, why did Mila and Duma have to fight so much? Couldn’t they just say they were sorry?

Alm: Let’s promise we’ll never end up like that, okay?

Celica: Yeah, nothing will ever come between us.

 Seeing as these two are our two main characters and the fact that it plays in the opening cinematic, makes you think this dialogue is important. They are also talking the two main gods of this world which is elaborated further in either the later cinematic or the same one. Also through the course of the game the fact that Celica and Alm fight/argue is a major sticking point especially at the end of act 2 where in they have a quarrel of ideals and choose to walk separate paths which mirror that of Duma and Mila. I could go on and hell even write an entire thesis on the themes of this game but I think you get the idea. The game isn't exactly subtle with what it's themes are. It's pretty blunt actually. I'm not saying that's a bad thing mind you just an observation. Really so long as there's enough evidence within the text itself to support your claim, then the claim is valid. But again the evidence needs to be found within the text and you must be able to explain how or why they connect the way you think they do. 

All art conveys values to invoke emotions. People are influenced by the world around them and intentional or no, that influence will show up in one's art. Stories convey ideas that the author has drawn from reality. That's just what art is when you break it down.

 

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay I'll bite, that is the message of the game because it's pointed out and emphasized numerous times by the characters, story beats, and even trailers. Hell  Duma's final words when Alm stabs him in the face are as follows, 

  Hide contents

Duma: So be it, Alm. I leave Valentia’s future to you, her hero. Take from us what lessons you will and shape her into a land to remember. Make her strong like Duma, and fill her with Mila’s love. Let our grave mistakes be warnings of where not to tread as you lead her forth. Now, we shall sleep. And never shall you disturb our slumber.

Note the sentence in the middle. "Make her strong like Duma, and fill her with Mila's love." This voice over is played over top a cut to Alm and Celica as they hold hands which is to suggest that "Duma's strength" and "Mila's love" are represented in Alm and Celica respectively and it is through their marriage both literally and idealistically that Valentia will find true peace. Strength and kindness on their own will only lead to ruin. You need a combination for true prosperity which is sort of eluded to in his second to last sentence where in he says: "let our grave mistakes be warnings of where not to tread as you lead her forth". What he's saying is don't repeat what Duma and Mila did in dividing the continent where each ideal was allowed to fester to the point of corruption. Duma and Mila failed because they didn't work together but instead took their ideals to the extreme and that ultimately lead to the ruin of not only them but also the countries that they founded. Evidence of this can be found peppered throughout the story but the place it's made most clear is the opening cinematic when you boot the game up and we're given a bit of a history lesson about Zofia and Rigel. Also in that Cinematic we get a shot of Alm and Celica as kids reading old stories of how Duma and Mila fought where in the following lines of dialogue are exchanged:

  Hide contents

Alm: “Once upon a time, there was a god named Duma and a goddess named Mila who fought each other bitterly for an age.”

Celica: Hey, why did Mila and Duma have to fight so much? Couldn’t they just say they were sorry?

Alm: Let’s promise we’ll never end up like that, okay?

Celica: Yeah, nothing will ever come between us.

 Seeing as these two are our two main characters and the fact that it plays in the opening cinematic, makes you think this dialogue is important. They are also talking the two main gods of this world which is elaborated further in either the later cinematic or the same one. Also through the course of the game the fact that Celica and Alm fight/argue is a major sticking point especially at the end of act 2 where in they have a quarrel of ideals and choose to walk separate paths which mirror that of Duma and Mila. I could go on and hell even write an entire thesis on the themes of this game but I think you get the idea. The game isn't exactly subtle with what it's themes are. It's pretty blunt actually. I'm not saying that's a bad thing mind you just an observation.

 

Okay, but on the other hand, almost every female character in the game you you acquire by rescuing them. Celica ultimately fails to help anyone. Duma is the villain so his message should be given as much worth as Loptous cursing humanity, the opening scene is a commentary on the naievety of childre , it's a plan made by Rigel that saves the world and the final lines of the game itself is a rumination on how humans are ultimately flawed and will inevitably fight again, so always be prepared and ready to use violence even in peace time (leading to Walhart, Alm and Celica's descendent in Awakening).

Once again, I agree with your interpretation of the plot, but it is an interpretation, not an objective truth. Any evidence you raise to say "Shadows of Valentina has Y failed theme" is just as valid saying "Fates has Y failed theme". You can't say judge a game based on what it is and not what it wants to be when what it is is subjective to interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Okay, but on the other hand, almost every female character in the game you you acquire by rescuing them. Celica ultimately fails to help anyone. Duma is the villain so his message should be given as much worth as Loptous cursing humanity, the opening scene is a commentary on the naievety of childre , it's a plan made by Rigel that saves the world and the final lines of the game itself is a rumination on how humans are ultimately flawed and will inevitably fight again, so always be prepared and ready to use violence even in peace time (leading to Walhart, Alm and Celica's descendent in Awakening).

Once again, I agree with your interpretation of the plot, but it is an interpretation, not an objective truth. Any evidence you raise to say "Shadows of Valentina has Y failed theme" is just as valid saying "Fates has Y failed theme". You can't say judge a game based on what it is and not what it wants to be when what it is is subjective to interpretation.

It is based on personal interpretation but that interpretation is supported by evidence from the text in question. Like I can't say that SoV is a story about the failings of modern capitalism because there's no evidence within the text to even remotely suggest that is the case. That's simply a claim I can't make. Again, for whatever thematic claim you make about a given story, you have to back it up with evidence in the text otherwise the claim is invalid. Like I'm not gonna say Severa is not a tsundere because it's very obvious that she is one based on her interactions with other characters and well her design. Seriously if her design is not stereotypical tsundere, then I don't know what is. Do you get my meaning here? I can make the claims I do because it is supported by evidence from within the text. If it wasn't well yeah. 

On that same token. How does one define what a horror movie is? well the obvious answer is that it is a movie that invokes fear? but how do I know that's the intention of the film? what if it's trying to be comedy? I dunno, I didn't make it. You see the logic you're trying to propose here. Like if you wanna go down that rabbit hole we can go down that rabbit hole but just know it is an endless abyss full of darkness and no answers in sight.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It is based on personal interpretation but that interpretation is supported by evidence from the text in question. Like I can't say that SoV is a story about the failings of modern capitalism because there's no evidence within the text to even remotely suggest that is the case. That's simply a claim I can't make. Again, for whatever thematic claim you make about a given story, you have to back it up with evidence in the text otherwise the claim is invalid. Like I'm not gonna say Severa is not a tsundere because it's very obvious that she is one based on her interactions with other characters and well her design. Seriously if her design is not stereotypical tsundere, then I don't know what is. Do you get my meaning here? I can make the claims I do because it is supported by evidence from within the text. If it wasn't well yeah. 

So is the interpretation I put forward that Shadows of Valentia is a proviolence misogynistic male power fantasy.

17 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

On that same token. How does one define what a horror movie is? well the obvious answer is that it is a movie that invokes fear? but how do I know that's the intention of the film? what if it's trying to be comedy? I dunno, I didn't make it. You see the logic you're trying to propose here. Like if you wanna go down that rabbit hole we can go down that rabbit hole but just know it is an endless abyss full of darkness and no answers in sight.

This isn't my logic. I'm extrapolating your logic that the only way a story can be judged as well written is if it conveys it's themes well by pointing out that it is virtually impossible to prove what a story's themes are because there's a significant amount of interpretation involved when it comes to determining themes. The fact that it's a rabbit hole is my point.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jotari said:

So is the interpretation I put forward that Shadows of Valentia is a proviolence misogynistic male power fantasy.

Yeah and that is a somewhat valid interpretation to have except the fact that my own interpretation kind of counters yours. The game very much so wants you to think that Celica is her own woman with her own strengths and agency. This is shown by how she's treated in the way of gameplay mechanics in that she's treated like a 'lord'. A ranking in the game of equal status to Alm where in both characters have access to the convoy and the game will game over when either of them is killed. Her side of the story is obviously written with her as the central protagonist. There are also other female characters that join you for other reasons besides being rescued damsels in distress like Mae, Genny, and Sonia. These girls join Celica's army of their own volition and have their own agency within the plot. Also if it were truly wish fulfillment then EVERY girl in the story would wanna jump Alm's bones which we know isn't the case. 

They obviously want you to take Duma's final words to heart due to the gentle way we speaks and the tranquil music playing in the background which gives a sense of finality. Also there's plenty of other elements within the game that lend itself more towards my claim than your hypothetical one like Alm's words to Celica when they reunite in Duma tower, Mila's words to the two in that same scene, The duma and Mila memory prism in Thabes labyrinth, The prophecy of the branded children saving Valentia, etc.

In a way the very thing I'm arguing here is show don't tell. If you want me to believe that your story is about the discrimination of minority groups then show that to me. Show me how you would portray such an idea within your story so that I, as the audience, can understand that is the idea you want to get across. If you want to get across the idea that a character is angry then show that to me. If a character slams his hand against the the wall while cursing, I'm not gonna say "Oh he must be super duper depressed and sad" like no the interpretation there should be obvious. The idea of judging a story by it's own rules and the ideas it wants to explore can encompass something as small as portraying a character's anger to as broad as portraying the idea of how the extremes of two opposing yet symbiotic ideologies will only lead to ruin and it is only in the marriage ideals that true peace can be achieved.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah and that is a somewhat valid interpretation to have except the fact that my own interpretation kind of counters yours. The game very much so wants you to think that Celica is her own woman with her own strengths and agency. This is shown by how she's treated in the way of gameplay mechanics in that she's treated like a 'lord'. A ranking in the game of equal status to Alm where in both characters have access to the convoy and the game will game over when either of them is killed. Her side of the story is obviously written with her as the central protagonist. There are also other female characters that join you for other reasons besides being rescued damsels in distress like Mae, Genny, and Sonia. These girls join Celica's army of their own volition and have their own agency within the plot. Also if it were truly wish fulfillment then EVERY girl in the story would wanna jump Alm's bones which we know isn't the case. 

They obviously want you to take Duma's final words to heart due to the gentle way we speaks and the tranquil music playing in the background which gives a sense of finality. Also there's plenty of other elements within the game that lend itself more towards my claim than your hypothetical one like Alm's words to Celica when they reunite in Duma tower, Mila's words to the two in that same scene, The duma and Mila memory prism in Thabes labyrinth, The prophecy of the branded children saving Valentia, etc.

In a way the very thing I'm arguing here is show don't tell. If you want me to believe that your story is about the discrimination of minority groups then show that to me. Show me how you would portray such an idea within your story so that I, as the audience, can understand that is the idea you want to get across. If you want to get across the idea that a character is angry then show that to me. If a character slams his hand against the the wall while cursing, I'm not gonna say "Oh he must be super duper depressed and sad" like no the interpretation there should be obvious. The idea of judging a story by it's own rules and the ideas it wants to explore can encompass something as small as portraying a character's anger to as broad as portraying the idea of how the extremes of two opposing yet symbiotic ideologies will only lead to ruin and it is only in the marriage ideals that true peace can be achieved.

You seem to be missing my point. You're not going to convince me you're interpretation of the game is correct (because I'm already convinced of that). And I'm not trying to convince you the interpretation I'm putting forward is correct. The mere existence of another interpretation (no matter what it is) is my argument. A contrary theme can be pulled from the game, backed up with evidence. That makes it exactly as valid as your interpretation. The game can't obviously want A to be the case if B exists and could also be the case. Maybe Rigel ideals being superior to Zofiaan ideals is exactly what the author wanted to convey, in which case every criticism of Celica not being equal is critisizing what you want it to be instead of what it is. Every perceived flaw you have with the story is actually a credit to the game's writing if we simply flip the interpretation.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jotari said:

You seem to be missing my point. You're not going to convince me you're interpretation of the game is correct (because I'm already convinced of that). And I'm not trying to convince you the interpretation I'm putting forward is correct. The mere existence of another interpretation (no matter what it is) is my argument. A contrary theme can be pulled from the game, backed up with evidence. That makes it exactly as valid as your interpretation. The game can't obviously want A to be the case if B exists and could also be the case. Maybe Rigel ideals being superior to Zofiaan ideals is exactly what the author wanted to convey, in which case every criticism of Celica not being equal is critisizing what you want it to be instead of what it is. Every perceived flaw you have with the story is actually a credit to the game's writing if we simply flip the interpretation.

Well yeah but my point is that an interpretation like that can be proven wrong and one interpretation can be stronger than another's based in how much evidence is there to support each interpretation. Again I've said this before but it's an author's job to make their ideas about the stories they write clear and understandable so that stuff like doesn't happen as often as it does. Yes, art will effect different people in different ways but if there is only a singular idea behind a story then the evidence within story should point very strongly in that direction. After all, that's the job of a writer to make sure the audience understands what their story means and what their audience should be taking away from it. As a writer yourself you should understand what that means. You've read a couple of my stories, tell me how many interpretations can you make from those and I'll tell you if you're correct or not. Maybe you'll find one or two take aways I never intended but overall the main take away from my stories should be the main one I intended for you to take away. If not, then maybe I didn't do a good enough job of conveying that message therefore it can be considered bad writing.

 

Again, it’s all about the amount of evidence you have for any given claim. One claim is clearly stronger than the other. It’s a matter of figuring out which interpretation is more likely one that the author wanted you to take away. I doubt the writer’s behind SoV wanted people to take away the message that it’s a ‘mysoginistic male power fantasy’ but you can make that interpretation because they did a poor job of conveying the game’s actual message which is pretty obvious. The evidence points so strongly towards one intentional interpretation but because of the poor conveyance of ideas that interpretation is muddled and unclear. The idea they were trying to convey is contradicted which created a new idea that more than likely was completely unintentional and not at all what they were trying to say. 

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Well yeah but my point is that an interpretation like that can be proven wrong and one interpretation can be stronger than another's based in how much evidence is there to support each interpretation. Again I've said this before but it's an author's job to make their ideas about the stories they write clear and understandable so that stuff like doesn't happen as often as it does. Yes, art will effect different people in different ways but if there is only a singular idea behind a story then the evidence within story should point very strongly in that direction. After all, that's the job of a writer to make sure the audience understands what their story means and what their audience should be taking away from it. As a writer yourself you should understand what that means. You've read a couple of my stories, tell me how many interpretations can you make from those and I'll tell you if you're correct or not. Maybe you'll find one or two take aways I never intended but overall the main take away from my stories should be the main one I intended for you to take away. If not, then maybe I didn't do a good enough job of conveying that message therefore it can be considered bad writing.

 

Again, it’s all about the amount of evidence you have for any given claim. One claim is clearly stronger than the other. It’s a matter of figuring out which interpretation is more likely one that the author wanted you to take away. I doubt the writer’s behind SoV wanted people to take away the message that it’s a ‘mysoginistic male power fantasy’ but you can make that interpretation because they did a poor job of conveying the game’s actual message which is pretty obvious. The evidence points so strongly towards one intentional interpretation but because of the poor conveyance of ideas that interpretation is muddled and unclear. The idea they were trying to convey is contradicted which created a new idea that more than likely was completely unintentional and not at all what they were trying to say. 

Well if it's the case of majority consensus rules then we need to face a truth that the majority consensus considers Fates thematic expression to be little other than unjustified Corrin praise to stroke the player's ego, which can be backed up very heavily with evidence. But I don't think you'd accept that as an undeniable truth, nor do I think you should because I respect your opinion when it comes to liking Fates, I just think your very basic criteria for good writing is flawed. Not only does it make it, essentially, universally applicable, it also complete dismissed any works that are intentionally designed to be very widely open to different interpretations, like Revolutionary Girl Utena, or even Three Houses. It's counter nuance.l and subtly. Also back to one of my original points, its broadness means a lot of things that people consider laughably bad, like as I said, the famously awful My Immortal, are by default classed as well written just because the author's opinions are clear. It also means that the more anvilicious something is the better written it is because the messages are more obvious. A  theme can be too expressed in a work too, at a certain point it just becomes propaganda.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my unpopular opinions :

FE7 is a great game and is better than 8 and 6

hector having low move doesn't really hurt him in fe7 for a variety of reasons

azel > lewyn

Lilina > Lugh

fe11 jagen, Marcus ( both versions ) aren't amazing after half the game as people claim, they're USABLE endgame, but certainly not op for many reasons

fe8 being ez isn't a bad thing

fe1 is the worst fe game ever, no game is worse

FE5 Leif is a very good unit but not amazing, and he's not better than the GBA lords except maybe Lyn and Roy and eirika, he isn't the worst lord but he's not one of the best as his fans claim, he's just decent

 

Alan, Lance, Dieck, Lugh, Tate, Zeiss are extremely underrated, especially in HM

fiora, farina, Eliwood, Heath, Rath, Erk, geitz, dart are really underrated

 

fe6 hm isn't hard by any means, the first 8 maps are just annoying and then the game becomes easier and easier

 

the statement " staves aren't important in FE7 since warp and rescue come very late " is really stupid and factually incorrect, from the desert chapter onwards having at least C rank is very important for niche chapters like 23x , COD, BBD, etc.....

 

fe4 is garbage, the only thing that's good abt it is the story ( gen 1 ) and the ost and the cast

 

fe12 is extremely underrated game

 

 

 

Edited by Jandex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jandex said:

my unpopular opinions :

FE7 is a great game and is better than 8 and 6

hector having low move doesn't really hurt him in fe7 for a variety of reasons

azel > lewyn

Lilina > Lugh

fe11 jagen, Marcus ( both versions ) aren't amazing after half the game as people claim, they're USABLE endgame, but certainly not op for many reasons

fe8 being ez isn't a bad thing

fe1 is the worst fe game ever, no game is worse

FE5 Leif is a very good unit but not amazing, and he's not better than the GBA lords except maybe Lyn and Roy and eirika, he isn't the worst lord but he's not one of the best as his fans claim, he's just decent

 

Alan, Lance, Dieck, Lugh, Tate, Zeiss are extremely underrated, especially in HM

fiora, farina, Eliwood, Heath, Rath, Erk, geitz, dart are really underrated

 

fe6 hm isn't hard by any means, the first 8 maps are just annoying and then the game becomes easier and easier

 

the statement " staves aren't important in FE7 since warp and rescue come very late " is really stupid and factually incorrect, from the desert chapter onwards having at least C rank is very important for niche chapters like 23x , COD, BBD, etc.....

 

fe4 is garbage, the only thing that's good abt it is the story ( gen 1 ) and the ost and the cast

 

fe12 is extremely underrated game

 

 

 

The inconsistency of your capitalisation hurts my soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well if it's the case of majority consensus rules then we need to face a truth that the majority consensus considers Fates thematic expression to be little other than unjustified Corrin praise to stroke the player's ego, which can be backed up very heavily with evidence. But I don't think you'd accept that as an undeniable truth, nor do I think you should because I respect your opinion when it comes to liking Fates, I just think your very basic criteria for good writing is flawed. Not only does it make it, essentially, universally applicable, it also complete dismissed any works that are intentionally designed to be very widely open to different interpretations, like Revolutionary Girl Utena, or even Three Houses. It's counter nuance.l and subtly. Also back to one of my original points, its broadness means a lot of things that people consider laughably bad, like as I said, the famously awful My Immortal, are by default classed as well written just because the author's opinions are clear. It also means that the more anvilicious something is the better written it is because the messages are more obvious. A  theme can be too expressed in a work too, at a certain point it just becomes propaganda.

I never said there’s nothing wrong with a story with multiple interpretations. Like I said, art affects different people in different ways. Differing interpretations of a given work are inevitable. I just find it stupid to say a horror movie is bad for being “too scary” like yeah it’s scary and that’s the goddamn point. The same goes for a story’s themes and ideas. Like I’ll criticize fates for its fan service cause it’s handled in a distasteful way. I won’t criticize a game like say Senran Kagura for its fanservice though(despite it being just as distasteful) because why else am I playing a game like that. My argument being that if that’s the point then that’s the point. Why complain about it. It’s not universially applicable because a story can break its own rules. What you fail to understand is that this metric means to judge each story by a case by case basis as there is no other rule that is an absolute in regards to story telling. Why are basic rules intentionally broken within a given story? Well it’s to better convey the message the author/director wants to convey. A story having multiple interpretation doesn’t necessarily go against this line of thinking because usually those different interpretations will be drawn from the core idea of the work in question. The conclusion or idea itself may be vague and open but there is a central idea and every interpretation should be a reflection of that idea. I’ve seen many many different interpretations of the song rolling girl but each interpretation loops back to one core idea that being how anxiety and depression can beat you down to the point of suicide. It’s not hard to assume that’s what the song is about. Also if the intention of the work is to be open ended and open for interpretation then my point still stands cause the fact that it is open for interpretation is the point which the author wanted to make. 
 

Edit: I realize the bolded portion is a strawman. I’m keeping it in because I feel it’s a good point regardless but feel free to ignore.

Also if we want to follow your logic then how do we know what a horror movie is? Or a comedy movie? Well one makes you feel scared while the other makes you laugh? But what if someone interpreted a horror movie as funny? Well then would it not be a horror movie anymore? Does that not go completely against the definition of what a horror movie is? Then it’s not a horror movie, is it not? But that’s an absurd notion to have. If a horror movie fails to be scary then it’s a bad film that’s the logic I’m using here. Like I said if you wanna go down this rabbit hole we can go down this rabbit whole but we won’t get anywhere.

Like the logic you’re proposing here can’t go against my claim because when applied to different types of stories it just completely breaks them apart. By the logic of your counter argument the entire idea of genre is rendered completely meaningless because so long as one interpretation that goes against what is supposed to be interpreted then that means that movie is not what it says it is. It’s fine to have differing opinions about a given work because people have differing tastes and values but the fact of the matter is that the art of story telling is a vast ocean with no absolute rule in regards to how stories should be told. To say that an absolute rule exists would be dismissive of that notion. What may work for one story will not necessarily work for another because different stories have different goals. You can prefer one story over another and that’s fine but at the same time that’s subjective. 

I use this metric because it’s the closest we can get to objective. It’s not 100% objective mind you but it’s as close as we’re gonna get because when it comes to narrative critique and analysis there is a subjective component that is unavoidable no matter what metric you judge stories by. With my metric, that subjectivity is mitigated as much as possible. Critique on its own is inherently subjective because it relies on personal standards that are likely not universal. Analysis is more objective because it’s based on evidence from within the text. Whether or not that makes the story “good” in a sense is a matter of personal opinion to a degree. I simply feel that we should appreciate the ideas a story has to offer and whether or not those ideas are handled with the nuance and depth necessary to tell an engaging narrative. So in a sense I agree that my metric is flawed in that it’s not 100% objective but I still use it cause it’s as close as we’re gonna get to objective.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Icelerate said:

I haven't played Fates but I was reading your discussion with Ottservia and I found it pretty interesting. From my understanding, you claimed the crystal ball breaking is bad writing because it is a contrivance. Now most people including myself believe contrivance to be bad but under what basis can we assume it to be bad? How can one prove that contrivance is indeed bad writing? 

There are at least a few reasons why plot contrivances are bad, but the main reason is this: relying on a contrivance is bad because it can pull people out of the story. Almost every story, even fourth-wall breaking stories like Deadpool, rely on immersion for audience investment. The only kind of story that doesn't is Brechtian Theatre, and in Brechtian Theatre, the audience goes in expected to be alienated.

As a result, in anything non-Brechtian, anytime the audience can see the Hand of the Author (and not in a good way like, "Oh; that was a clever hint") is potentially harmful to the story. Plot contrivances, plot holes, Deus/Diabolus-ex-Machina all pull audiences that notice them out of the story. Plot contrivances are the least problematic of those as they could theoretically still happen within the world the writer has constructed, but it is still an issue nonetheless as the audience might not "buy it". They might think, "Well, that was convenient for the good guys/bad guys" or, "Oh please; the conflict was about to end and you just threw that in to keep it going" or even, "Oh please, the good guy's about to die and a chasm opens right between the two fighters? Come on."

Here's a good example of a hypothetical plot contrivance that I think illustrates the issue well:

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

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with having one or two coincidences in a story; coincidences are a part of life. However, if the plot happening the way it does hinges on a coincidence or sudden-brand-new-rule-that-has-no-other-application, it weakens the structure of the story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jandex said:

my unpopular opinions :

hector having low move doesn't really hurt him in fe7 for a variety of reasons

Lilina > Lugh

fe8 being ez isn't a bad thing

FE5 Leif is a very good unit but not amazing, and he's not better than the GBA lords except maybe Lyn and Roy and eirika, he isn't the worst lord but he's not one of the best as his fans claim, he's just decent

Alan, Lance, Dieck, Lugh, Tate, Zeiss are extremely underrated, especially in HM

fe6 hm isn't hard by any means, the first 8 maps are just annoying and then the game becomes easier and easier

I'm pretty much on the same mind with these. A small objection though would be:

Dieck, Lugh and Zeiss were never really underrated. Tate has a bad early game, but she's just as good as any other flier - except Juno, Juno is bad.

Leif is not amazing, but he can become one. He starts off as one of the weak lords, but has a lot of value in mid to late game. He gives support bonus to a lot of units - invaluable with Kingmaker equipped. He can get some amazing weapons like the Blaggi Sword(iirc). Also he gains no fatigue, so you can always rely on him. His promotion is kind of late, but it doesn't change too much in my opinion.

FE6 HM is only different in enemy stats - which makes the game more unbalanced and some units completely unusable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I never said there’s nothing wrong with a story with multiple interpretations. Like I said, art affects different people in different ways. Differing interpretations of a given work are inevitable. I just find it stupid to say a horror movie is bad for being “too scary” like yeah it’s scary and that’s the goddamn point. The same goes for a story’s themes and ideas. Like I’ll criticize fates for its fan service cause it’s handled in a distasteful way. I won’t criticize a game like say Senran Kagura for its fanservice though(despite it being just as distasteful) because why else am I playing a game like that. My argument being that if that’s the point then that’s the point. Why complain about it. It’s not universially applicable because a story can break its own rules. What you fail to understand is that this metric means to judge each story by a case by case basis as there is no other rule that is an absolute in regards to story telling. Why are basic rules intentionally broken within a given story? Well it’s to better convey the message the author/director wants to convey. A story having multiple interpretation doesn’t necessarily go against this line of thinking because usually those different interpretations will be drawn from the core idea of the work in question. The conclusion or idea itself may be vague and open but there is a central idea and every interpretation should be a reflection of that idea. I’ve seen many many different interpretations of the song rolling girl but each interpretation loops back to one core idea that being how anxiety and depression can beat you down to the point of suicide. It’s not hard to assume that’s what the song is about. Also if the intention of the work is to be open ended and open for interpretation then my point still stands cause the fact that it is open for interpretation is the point which the author wanted to make. 
 

Edit: I realize the bolded portion is a strawman. I’m keeping it in because I feel it’s a good point regardless but feel free to ignore.

Also if we want to follow your logic then how do we know what a horror movie is? Or a comedy movie? Well one makes you feel scared while the other makes you laugh? But what if someone interpreted a horror movie as funny? Well then would it not be a horror movie anymore? Does that not go completely against the definition of what a horror movie is? Then it’s not a horror movie, is it not? But that’s an absurd notion to have. If a horror movie fails to be scary then it’s a bad film that’s the logic I’m using here. Like I said if you wanna go down this rabbit hole we can go down this rabbit whole but we won’t get anywhere.

Like the logic you’re proposing here can’t go against my claim because when applied to different types of stories it just completely breaks them apart. By the logic of your counter argument the entire idea of genre is rendered completely meaningless because so long as one interpretation that goes against what is supposed to be interpreted then that means that movie is not what it says it is. It’s fine to have differing opinions about a given work because people have differing tastes and values but the fact of the matter is that the art of story telling is a vast ocean with no absolute rule in regards to how stories should be told. To say that an absolute rule exists would be dismissive of that notion. What may work for one story will not necessarily work for another because different stories have different goals. You can prefer one story over another and that’s fine but at the same time that’s subjective. 

I use this metric because it’s the closest we can get to objective. It’s not 100% objective mind you but it’s as close as we’re gonna get because when it comes to narrative critique and analysis there is a subjective component that is unavoidable no matter what metric you judge stories by. With my metric, that subjectivity is mitigated as much as possible. Critique on its own is inherently subjective because it relies on personal standards that are likely not universal. Analysis is more objective because it’s based on evidence from within the text. Whether or not that makes the story “good” in a sense is a matter of personal opinion to a degree. I simply feel that we should appreciate the ideas a story has to offer and whether or not those ideas are handled with the nuance and depth necessary to tell an engaging narrative. So in a sense I agree that my metric is flawed in that it’s not 100% objective but I still use it cause it’s as close as we’re gonna get to objective.

In my view it's an entirely subjective method of judgement as it relies on how well the themes are being conveyed which by it's very nature will vary from person to person, and even reading to reading. Most people who play Fates do not see the same themes being expressed in the same way you do.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jotari said:

In my view it's an entirely subjective method of judgement as it relies on how well the themes are being conveyed which by it's very nature will vary from person to person, and even reading to reading. Most people who play Fates do not see the same themes being expressed in the same way you do.

I mean you can have that view but I can point out many flaws in the way others judge stories as well because with the way you define contrivance then I can say that is subjective because suspension of disbelief is subjective. What breaks my immersion is not gonna break yours and vice versa. I mean the crystal ball shattering didn’t break my suspension of disbelief so then why should it just because it breaks yours. That’s a very poor way to go about criticism. In that way we can’t seem to agree because we can make arguments that point out the flaws in the way each of us view stories. My metric has at least some objectivity to it in that I do have to actively work to prove my argument. You can’t prove suspension of disbelief because well that’s extremely personal. I have to at least gather evidence for my claim. An argument that hinges on something as personal as suspension of disbelief does not simply because of how much it relies on subjectivity.

My main point in all of this is that there is no absolute rule or metric in regards to judging stories at least not yet. The best we can do is try and analyze stories to determine why certain things work for one story but not for another. Why a narrative rule can be broken in one instance but not in another. My goal when analyzing stories is to understand how they work and why people feel the way they do about them because that’s what a story is meant to do. It’s the job of an author to convey idea through the stories that they create which is the very thing I’m trying to understand as well as how people interpret those ideas.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I mean you can have that view but I can point out many flaws in the way others judge stories as well because with the way you define contrivance then I can say that is subjective because suspension of disbelief is subjective. What breaks my immersion is not gonna break yours and vice versa. I mean the crystal ball shattering didn’t break my suspension of disbelief so then why should it just because it breaks yours. That’s a very poor way to go about criticism. In that way we can’t seem to agree because we can make arguments that point out the flaws in the way each of us view stories. My metric has at least some objectivity to it in that I do have to actively work to prove my argument. You can’t prove suspension of disbelief because well that’s extremely personal. I have to at least gather evidence for my claim. An argument that hinges on something as personal as suspension of disbelief does not simply because of how much it relies on subjectivity.

I don't think contrivance is subjective. As I don't think it's synonymous with breaking suspension of disbelief. It is entirely more to do with the direction of narrative flow. And I don't even thing contrivance is inherently bad, as I brought up an example of what I think is a good contrivance in response to Icelerate a few posts back. I'm not sure why you're jumping on contrivance though as that's the former conversation. We're talking about you're metric for judging good writing, which has nothing to do with contrivance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ottservia said:

As far as that moment is concerned, it is good writing. It's not great writing mind you but it's not bad writing because it makes sense in the context of which it happens. Could it have been done better? certainly but for the story they were trying to tell it's fine as is. You really need understand why a certain element of story happens in order to accurately describe why it does or doesn't work. The problem most people have with that moment in particular is that it feels way too convenient for the narrative because it kind of is but again that's subjective because there are explanations in place that can allow someone to make sense of it in-universe. They could've made those explanations more clear no doubt but the explanations themselves are fine. It’s how those explanations are conveyed that’s the problem.

No; it is not good writing at all, and it does not make any sense in the context in which it happens. 

Spoiler

Even if we disregard the sheer unlikelihood of his Geass activating at exactly that moment (which we shouldn't, since the plot hinges on it), there are still numerous issues with it:

Lelouch knows that he will eventually lose control of his Geass, and he is terrified of it happening. We even see his fear of it activating on its own when he confronts that bigoted old man on the street. Through his whole conversation with Euphemia, he is extremely careful: either wearing his helmet or looking away from her when he talks. He's still looking away when he begins explaining his power to her. But, the story expects the audience to believe he'd be stupid enough to turn around and look her right in the eye right at the moment he says, "Or even kill all the Japanese"? Give me a break. That is some massive out-of-character stupidity. 

Furthermore, him being unable to catch up to and stop Euphemia once she has been brainwashed. Yes, he has been shown to be unathletic, but only compared to Suzaku: a guy who ran up a wall and kicked a ceiling turret. Plus, he's having to outrun a brainwashed girl in a dress and heels who is still hesitating about going through with what the Geass is ordering her to do. He could also have just closed the ship's doors. 

It is not just, "how those explanations were conveyed" that was the problem. Regardless of explanations, it is too convenient, it creates massive out-of-character stupidity, and it reduces the characters involved to plot devices. It is a terrible scene and an utter Diabolus-ex-Machina. 

 

23 hours ago, Ottservia said:

What you fail to understand here is that a story still can convey its ideas poorly even when you judge it by its own rules. Take SoV for example. The entire point is that Alm and Celica are two halves of a greater whole who need each other in order to be complete otherwise they would take their singular ideals to the extreme which would bring about their ruin/downfall. The reason it doesn’t work is because Alm is never wrong. He never makes mistakes where as Celica does. Celica is supposed to be the kindness to hold back his strength from going too far but with the way his character is written that’s never shown to be the case. He never does go too far nor has he ever shown the capability too. Yeah he accidentally kills his father but that’s not really framed as his fault and even before the fight he says he can’t bring himself to hate Rudolf so the idea just doesn’t land. He doesn’t need Celica but she needs him and there in lies the problem because that shouldn’t be the case. They should need each other. In that sense the whole story kinda falls apart because the ideas are conveyed so clumsily. See? I knew what the writer’s wanted to do and I can explain why it doesn’t work based on the rules the narrative sets for itself. I don’t have to set my own rules for it. 

No one's disagreeing that a story can convey its ideas poorly. There's even a name on TVTropes for it: Broken Aesop. 

The themes in SOV aren't just conveyed clumsily; a number of the plot and character events run completely contradictory to the themes of the game, as you yourself have pointed out. But it goes even further: the classism theme is broken by Alm being secret royalty, a Gary Stu, and only getting leadership of the Resistance Army because he's Mycen's supposed grandson. The hard work vs instant-power theme is broken by Alm having instant talent rather than earning any of it. etc. 

I would say that Shadows of Valentia's plot is also hindered in other issues; most of them pale in comparison to it being a thematic mess, but they are there. So, saying that Shadows of Valentia's (or any story's) problems are only down to themes being poorly handled is nonsense. 

Another thing you fail to consider is that not every author writes with a particular theme in mind. For a good example, the guy that Death Note didn't actually have a particular theme in mind when writing it. Of course, people can draw all kinds of themes from it based on the events and characters; I've seen people say themes like: what happens when one can kill someone as easily as writing their name, while being detached from the process; it need not be a book. But the point is that the author did not have a theme in mind. How would you judge Death Note? You can't judge it on conveying its themes, as, officially, it has none. But your sole criteria for a piece of media is how well the themes are explored and conveyed. 

Similarly, I'm an aspiring writer, and while my book that I'm writing right now has several themes in mind, some of my other story ideas that I have don't have any particular theme in mind; the main point of those stories is exploring the interesting world, magic system, characters, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think contrivance is subjective. As I don't think it's synonymous with breaking suspension of disbelief. It is entirely more to do with the direction of narrative flow. And I don't even thing contrivance is inherently bad, as I brought up an example of what I think is a good contrivance in response to Icelerate a few posts back. I'm not sure why you're jumping on contrivance though as that's the former conversation. We're talking about you're metric for judging good writing, which has nothing to do with contrivance.

What I’m trying to say is that if my metric is entirely subjective then yours is as well. I jump on contrivance because that’s the only example I can harp on to prove my point on how you judge stories. The only thing that separates objectivity from subjectivity is that objectivity is provable while subjectivity is not. Suspension of disbelief is not provable therefore it is subjective. By your definition of what a plot contrivance is(at least as far as I am aware) you can make the argument that it hinges on suspension of disbelief as you define it as “being able to see the hand of the author” which that definition doesn’t work because what if I don’t care about that. Yeah I see the hand of the author but it doesn’t at all break my immersion. Just cause it breaks yours doesn’t mean it’ll break mine.

In regards to my judgement of a story’s quality. I judge stories based in how well they convey their ideas. Yes, that relies on personal interpretation but those interpretations have to be proven and if they can be disproven then that interpretation was not a good one. It was an incorrect interpretation. The more broad you get in regards to analysis the harder it is to find the “right” interpretation but it is there. Even stories that are vague and open ended have a core idea in which each interpretation is centered on. Inception is not about the power of friendship. No, it’s clearly a story about the duelistic nature of dreams and reality. Sure the conclusions reached by the film is up for debate but the interpretations made by others about the movie revolve around that core idea

Share this post


Link to post
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...