Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

Bullshit stay bullshit even if this don't break your immersion tho. The Euphinator is unlikely to break your immersion, because it did somewhat make sense in universe, but it remain an incredibly stupid way to move the plot forward.

Share this post


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

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

Again, how would you judge something that didn't have a particular theme or big idea in mind? Again, Death Note was not written with a particular theme in mind. 

 

2 hours ago, Flere210 said:

Bullshit stay bullshit even if this don't break your immersion tho. The Euphinator is unlikely to break your immersion, because it did somewhat make sense in universe, but it remain an incredibly stupid way to move the plot forward.

I completely agree with the part that I bolded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing this is going to be an unpopular opinion after the massive back and forth here about story. Looking at video game stories through the lens of authorial intent is inherently flawed, because the actions of the player are generative, making the player a coauthor to the story they experienced. How much impact a player has over the events and stories varies by game, but it is always there. Fire Emblem in particular has design choices built in to it to increase the player's impact on the story, most notably permadeath. Often people will look only at the stories created by specific play styles, and only considering the "best" endings or outcomes, but in so doing blind themselves to a majority of the design space of a video game's story. What makes the story of someone that played through Echoes perfectly and found Alm never to be wrong more valid than the player who can see the weakness of Alm's views in the dead friends he left in his wake? Now this doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't have discussions about themes, but the idea of certain themes being wrong or right or the author's intent is missing an important part of what makes the medium of video games unique, that video game stories aren't static, and the player always has a hand in their creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

I am guessing this is going to be an unpopular opinion after the massive back and forth here about story. Looking at video game stories through the lens of authorial intent is inherently flawed, because the actions of the player are generative, making the player a coauthor to the story they experienced. How much impact a player has over the events and stories varies by game, but it is always there. Fire Emblem in particular has design choices built in to it to increase the player's impact on the story, most notably permadeath. Often people will look only at the stories created by specific play styles, and only considering the "best" endings or outcomes, but in so doing blind themselves to a majority of the design space of a video game's story. What makes the story of someone that played through Echoes perfectly and found Alm never to be wrong more valid than the player who can see the weakness of Alm's views in the dead friends he left in his wake? Now this doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't have discussions about themes, but the idea of certain themes being wrong or right or the author's intent is missing an important part of what makes the medium of video games unique, that video game stories aren't static, and the player always has a hand in their creation.

While I agree with this to an extent, it really depends on the game honestly. The thing about FE in particular is that the story almost never accounts for permadeath in It’s writing supports or otherwise. If it did, I would definitely be far more inclined to agree. My problem with echoes though is if that was a possible interpretation then the game would acknowledge it in some way but it doesn’t. The story just goes on as normal and ignores the idea of permadeath completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

I am guessing this is going to be an unpopular opinion after the massive back and forth here about story. Looking at video game stories through the lens of authorial intent is inherently flawed, because the actions of the player are generative, making the player a coauthor to the story they experienced. How much impact a player has over the events and stories varies by game, but it is always there. Fire Emblem in particular has design choices built in to it to increase the player's impact on the story, most notably permadeath. Often people will look only at the stories created by specific play styles, and only considering the "best" endings or outcomes, but in so doing blind themselves to a majority of the design space of a video game's story. What makes the story of someone that played through Echoes perfectly and found Alm never to be wrong more valid than the player who can see the weakness of Alm's views in the dead friends he left in his wake? Now this doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't have discussions about themes, but the idea of certain themes being wrong or right or the author's intent is missing an important part of what makes the medium of video games unique, that video game stories aren't static, and the player always has a hand in their creation.

I can't say I agree with this take. Yes, you are writing the story as you go along. Characters who die on your watch are dead in your experience of the plot, but I don't see how we can judge a game's story telling by things that are not guaranteed to happen. Like, you might use your units as cannon fodder but it would be unfair to use that to say "The protagonist is a sociopath who doesn't care about his men and will watch them die by the dozen in order to accomplish his goals" because the game doesn't acknowledge that you killed off your whole army. That's clearly not what is supposed to happen.

The same can be said of themes. If the components that make that theme are not mandatory for the player to experience, we can't use that as evidence for a completely different interpretation of what the story is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I can't say I agree with this take. Yes, you are writing the story as you go along. Characters who die on your watch are dead in your experience of the plot, but I don't see how we can judge a game's story telling by things that are not guaranteed to happen. Like, you might use your units as cannon fodder but it would be unfair to use that to say "The protagonist is a sociopath who doesn't care about his men and will watch them die by the dozen in order to accomplish his goals" because the game doesn't acknowledge that you killed off your whole army. That's clearly not what is supposed to happen.

The same can be said of themes. If the components that make that theme are not mandatory for the player to experience, we can't use that as evidence for a completely different interpretation of what the story is about.

What's your take on Jill and Zihark being optional to leave Micaiah's group? I've heard people criticize how there is a chance they don't leave at all based on player's actions thus approving of Daein's unprovoked attack on the laguz alliance which goes against their character. 

Share this post


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

While I agree with this to an extent, it really depends on the game honestly. The thing about FE in particular is that the story almost never accounts for permadeath in It’s writing supports or otherwise. If it did, I would definitely be far more inclined to agree. My problem with echoes though is if that was a possible interpretation then the game would acknowledge it in some way but it doesn’t. The story just goes on as normal and ignores the idea of permadeath completely. 

If Valibar or Mathilda die, the scene afterwards changes. Leon joins Celica to honor Valbars memory and calls her a tyrant if you don't recruit him, while Kamui joins because his contract with Valbar is now void and he's wondering if you will hire him. If Mathilda dies, Clive chews Alm out and Clair criticizes about Tobin and Grey being insensitive when they try to defend Alm. There are also a number of other events that occur if a character survives but isn't recruited, such as Boey giving another amazing scream if you fight the first Necrodragon without Kamui and Zeke joining your army after you rescue Tatiana but don't recruit her on the basis of Alm knowing about his situation in the first place.

Echoes isn't the only game to do this. I know Tellius has certain support conversations change in another character is dead, and Shadow Dragon has different events play depending on how a chapter is completed (such as if Camus or Gharnef are alive at the end of the levels you fight them, Marth commenting on how many orbs you have at the end of Chapter 19, and so on), as well as the ending changing depending on if Caeda is alive or not.

With all that said, these are more cases of easter eggs and developers planning ahead than them fully integrating permadeath into the story. To be fair, that's a series wide issue that doesn't have an easy solution, as the writers either have to account for a character being dead at any point in the story and thus have to write several different ways a single scene could play out, or they limit the amount of characters that consistently appear in the story, leaving the rest to gain development via supports, which has its own pros and cons.

Share this post


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

The thing about FE in particular is that the story almost never accounts for permadeath in It’s writing supports or otherwise. If it did, I would definitely be far more inclined to agree. My problem with echoes though is if that was a possible interpretation then the game would acknowledge it in some way but it doesn’t. The story just goes on as normal and ignores the idea of permadeath completely. 

...They do a lot more than people think. Using Echoes as an example, each character has a death quote,

Spoiler

 

when battles end with deaths other characters will lament it in the battle resolution screen,

Spoiler

 

when recruit-able characters die even the script changes (the Matilda death being a rather notable one),

Spoiler

This isn't exhaustive, there is also alternate dialogue if Palla and/or Catria die as green units in Celica's route for instance, these were just the relatively easy to find ones.

and the ending of numerous characters are tied to the survival and death of others.

Spoiler

Sorry no videos here just text

Tobin

As one of the most scrupulous knights in the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood, Tobin spent his life serving his friend King Alm. The king, in turn, placed a great deal of trust in Tobin, eventually granting him both a title and his own castle.

(If Gray died)

Unable to move past Gray’s death, Tobin abruptly vanished before reappearing just as suddenly several years later. At King Alm’s suggestion, he joined the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood of Knights. The talkative, playful Tobin of old, however, was gone forever.

 

Gray

As a member of the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood of Knights, Gray worked diligently at restoring the continent. He applied himself equally to winning Clair’s heart, and beat Tobin out in the end. As he was heard to say, “Pick the guy with the big heart, not the pretty face.”

(If Tobin died)

Devastated by Tobin’s death, Gray was nearly lost to the demon drink until Clair convinced him to clean up. After declining knighthoods in the One Kingdom, the two married and lived out quiet lives. Gray was especially fond of his son, whom he named after his friend.

(If Clair died)

Having lost the woman he loved, Gray surprised even himself by embracing the life of a vagabond and setting off for parts unknown. His friends spared no effort in attempting to track him down, but it was to no avail.

 

Clair

As a knight of the One Kingdom, Clair worked hard on behalf of the continent. In time, Gray’s tenacity won her over, and she became his wife and then a mother. But Clair never stayed grounded—she and her pegasus continued to race across the sky, gawkers be damned.

(If Gray died)

Gray’s death left Clair feeling betrayed and alone, but she joined the knights of the One Kingdom and contributed greatly to their growth. The people were enamored with her melancholy beauty, which was a splash of color amidst the mostly dour men of the Brotherhood.

 

Clive

Clive was appointed the first captain of the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood of Knights. His talent and honesty made him popular with commoners and nobles alike, and under his leadership, the knights flourished. He and his lovely wife were objects of the people’s envy.

(If Mathilda died)

His heart still heavy from the loss of Mathilda, Clive was appointed captain of the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood of Knights. A few short years later, he was killed in a skirmish with pirates. The people grieved deeply over the young loss of so fine a knight.

 

Forsyth

Forsyth joined the One Kingdom’s knights after the war, working hard to bring order back to the land. Time took off some of his more caustic edges, and he served many years alongside Clive as a poised and thoughtful lieutenant.

(If Clive died)

Forsyth joined the One Kingdom’s knights after the war, and he lived his life for them as the late Clive would have wanted. Time took off some of Forsyth’s more caustic edges, giving him a poised and thoughtful demeanor that reminded many of his old commander.

(If Python died)

Forsyth joined the One Kingdom’s knights after the war. The loss of Python left him empty, which is perhaps why he volunteered to go to the borderlands to bring the king’s peace. He met and wed a woman from the area, and the two never returned to the capital.

 

Python

While the One Kingdom offered him a knighthood, Python chose a quieter life as head of a frontier militia that defended villages and towns from brigands. His old friend would visit now and then, often with a bottle the two would use to wile the night away.

(If Forsyth died)

Python accepted a knighthood from the One Kingdom, growing into a new man who worked diligently— almost as if possessed by Forsyth. Sadly, he died a few short years later while fighting to suppress a rebellion, his wounds claiming him while he was far too young.

 

Mae

Mae returned to Novis and resumed her work at the priory with Boey. The two bickered endlessly before— and after—their wedding, while managing to raise many children during the pauses between barbs. Both of them often remarked that they couldn’t possibly be happier.

(If Boey died)

After the loss of her verbal sparring partner, Boey, Mae fell into a deep depression—but the encouragement of her friends eventually helped light return to her life. She spent her days helping others at the priory, where she was beloved for her kindness and wicked humor.

 

Boey

After returning to the priory on Novis, Boey weathered a trying courtship with Mae until the two were wed. Children came soon and in plentiful number, giving the pair a host of new excuses to argue. Joy takes curious forms at times, but Boey was a happy man indeed.

(If Mae died)

Only after losing Mae did Boey realize the nature and intensity of his feelings for her. Wracked with regret, he poured himself into his work, ultimately succeeding Nomah as high priest of the priory. He spent his life there aiding the poor in humble—yet rewarding—service.

 

Kamui

Intrigued by Jesse’s idea, Kamui helped to found a kingdom of mercenaries, and lived there happily for a time. In the end, however, his wanderlust prevailed—one day he went for a stroll and simply vanished, never to be seen again.

(If Jesse died)

Kamui established a new kingdom of, and for, mercenaries in what was once Grieth’s territory. Relations with Valentia were favorable, with Kamui often aiding the king in times of need. In later life, his efforts earned him fame and respect as “the Steel Amidst the Sand.”

 

Leon

Welcomed into the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood of Knights, Leon remained at Valbar’s side until an injury ended his fighting career. He then took up work as a merchant in the city market, where he lived free, happy, and dauntlessly true to himself to the last.

(If Valbar died)

Dealt a grievous blow by Valbar’s death, Leon disappeared for a time before returning to join the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood of Knights. There, he fought with the strength of a hundred men, and later served as an instructor to new recruits, contributing greatly to the order.

 

Mathilda

Mathilda cast her armor aside and wed Clive. She was rarely seen in public after that, having perhaps chosen to support her husband behind the scenes instead. However, her legendary exploits as a knight are sure to live on forever in Valentian history.

(If Clive died)

Clive’s death forced Mathilda to carry on in his place as captain of the One Kingdom’s Brotherhood of Knights. The grief in her heart steeled her, and she became a key figure in the kingdom’s growth. Her legendary exploits are sure to live on forever in Valentian history.

 

Saber

Along with Jesse, Saber helped build the foundation for a new kingdom of, and for, mercenaries. He continued working as a sellsword for years to come and aided the One Kingdom on many occasions— always with his stunning bride by his side.

(If Jesse died)

Along with his stunning bride, Saber toiled to rebuild Valentia. Though he never officially enlisted as a knight, he put his mercenary skills and experience to work traveling the land and mediating local struggles—either with a fist of steel or a pint of ale.

 

Tatiana

Tatiana prayed that Zeke’s memory would remain hazy, and the two eventually did live something of a happy life. Though they were parted at times, Zeke always returned to Tatiana’s side in the end.

(If Zeke died)

Her true love lost, Tatiana holed up in her priory and devoted herself to prayer. One old friend could not bear to see her alone in such a way, and he made it a point to woo her. Eventually, his efforts overcame her grief, and they were wed.

 

Catria

Having rescued Est as planned, Catria returned home in triumph. Tales of her further exploits line the pages of Archanea’s history books.

(If Palla or Est died)

Though painful loss hung over her return home like a dark cloud, the annals of Archanean history are replete with tales of Catria’s glorious exploits later in life.

 

Palla

Having rescued Est as planned, Palla returned home in triumph. Tales of her further exploits line the pages of Archanea’s history books.

(If Catria or Est died)

Though painful loss hung over her return home like a dark cloud, the annals of Archanean history are replete with tales of Palla’s glorious exploits later in life.

 

Est

Successfully reunited with her sisters, Est returned home in triumph. Tales of her further exploits line the pages of Archanea’s history books.

(If Palla or Catria died)

Though painful loss hung over her return home like a dark cloud, the annals of Archanean history are replete with tales of Est’s glorious exploits later in life.

 

Zeke

The fires of war had illuminated the dark recesses of Zeke’s memory. But he loved Tatiana too much to burden her with his tortuous past, so he chose to bear it in silence as they lived out their lives together.

(If Tatiana died)

The loss of Tatiana, the woman who had loved him deeply and unconditionally, shook Zeke with grief. He abruptly vanished from Valentia shortly after the war ended, and while some claim to have sighted him in Archanea, none of those sightings were confirmed.

Plus there is more to story telling in video games than simply what has been written in text, there is visual presentation, narrative mechanics, and even voice acting to consider.

 

6 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I don't see how we can judge a game's story telling by things that are not guaranteed to happen.

That is my point exactly, because

11 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

what is supposed to happen.

isn't set in stone. There is no singular chain of events that are supposed to happen, not the one where everything went perfectly for Alm and everyone lives and fully supported with each other, nor the one where he and Celica have to finish Duma off alone because everyone else is dead, nor even the version where Alm died before even reaching the Deliverance, and all are valid stories. Video games are an art form that have been made incomplete, and only through play are they finished, and in so doing the player defines part of what that story is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

That is my point exactly, because

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

what is supposed to happen.

isn't set in stone. There is no singular chain of events that are supposed to happen, not the one where everything went perfectly for Alm and everyone lives and fully supported with each other, nor the one where he and Celica have to finish Duma off alone because everyone else is dead, nor even the version where Alm died before even reaching the Deliverance, and all are valid stories. Video games are an art form that have been made incomplete, and only through play are they finished, and in so doing the player defines part of what that story is about.

It really depends on the game. There is such a thing as Story and Gameplay Segregation. Let's look at a scene from Three Houses in AM where you're in a chaotic melee and it can be expected that you will be killing the units of a "neutral" army. It's possible, however, that the player avoided the 'neutral' army in order to focus on the other enemies (that's what I did) but later in the game, they say the neutral army was devastated by that battle, even if you didn't kill a single one of their units. You can maintain that you're in part writing the story but when that story directly contradicts what your gameplay implied to have happened, you must concede that in terms of the story, it actually didn't happen.

SoV (and most games) is a mixed bag where sometimes gameplay performance is factored in and sometimes it's ignored for the story the game wants to tell. If Tobin dies in SoV, Gray will become an alcoholic instead of knight like the "everyone lives" ending. That's what happened in your story. But there are bigger things that aren't acknowledged by the story that you may have made happen via gameplay. When Alm says to Celica that he needs her because "Without your wisdom, all I know how to do is fight whatever is in front of me", it's an empty platitude to comfort her when she's feeling guilty for her actions. Nothing in the delivery of that line invokes the idea that he's thinking seriously about his personal faults that may have lead to the deaths that the player can allow. Alm is upbeat and believes in himself in most scenes because the game ignores these optional things the player might be doing. It would be disingenuous or at least cherry picking scenes to make the case that your personal experience is redefining the core narrative being told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

But there are bigger things that aren't acknowledged by the story that you may have made happen via gameplay. When Alm says to Celica that he needs her because "Without your wisdom, all I know how to do is fight whatever is in front of me", it's an empty platitude to comfort her when she's feeling guilty for her actions. Nothing in the delivery of that line invokes the idea that he's thinking seriously about his personal faults that may have lead to the deaths that the player can allow. Alm is upbeat and believes in himself in most scenes because the game ignores these optional things the player might be doing. It would be disingenuous or at least cherry picking scenes to make the case that your personal experience is redefining the core narrative being told.

Context matters. His joy at discovering Celica is not be among the dead is as reasonable in a world were it is an empty platitude as much as the world were it is a sincere admission. The meaning changes when you look at the scene with knowledge of the deaths, or lack there of, that proceeded it. Unless you think your experience from your Three Houses example is identical to that of someone that did simply slaughter the neutral troops. Someone that slaughters them might experience guilt, or regret, or indignation, but I suspect you experienced the frustration of futility, or apathy moving it more towards a story beat about unavoidable fate, than one of consequences. The difference there is the same as the one you ignore here, context.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

 

Context matters. His joy at discovering Celica is not be among the dead is as reasonable in a world were it is an empty platitude as much as the world were it is a sincere admission. The meaning changes when you look at the scene with knowledge of the deaths, or lack there of, that proceeded it. Unless you think your experience from your Three Houses example is identical to that of someone that did simply slaughter the neutral troops. Someone that slaughters them might experience guilt, or regret, or indignation, but I suspect you experienced the frustration of futility, or apathy moving it more towards a story beat about unavoidable fate, than one of consequences. The difference there is the same as the one you ignore here, context.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. You're saying that any scene can be interpreted differently depending on the gameplay that preceded it, but I disagree with that in both of the cases I listed. I don't think Alm could be either reflecting on his mistakes or talking out of his ass, I think it's clear that the scenes are directed as if the players aren't fucking up. In Three Houses, there is no matter of interpretation to the game saying "the neutral army was devastated in the battle." That's an objective plot point that contradicts my game play. And you're reaching if you think that outcome is meant to evoke feelings of futility or apathy about unavoidable fate, it's simply a contradiction.

You can see story and game play segregation is many games. If a game tells you that a meteor is going to collide with the earth in 24 hours but still allows you to do endless side quests and events that logically take more than 24 hours (not to mention the absurdity of the characters doing said side quests when the world is on the brink of destruction), the story isn't changing, the developers are giving you a free pass to do things in gameplay that are removed from the story progression. If a game tells you that you're a badass warrior and you're terrible at the game, that's not a new narrative about the protagonist actually being a loser, that's you contradicting the narrative because of your low performance. If you surround a character with an army and the game says they were actually alone and got captured, that's your gameplay not reflecting what events actually happen. Video games are an interactive medium but gameplay isn't always relevant to the events and themes of the story.

4 hours ago, Icelerate said:

What's your take on Jill and Zihark being optional to leave Micaiah's group? I've heard people criticize how there is a chance they don't leave at all based on player's actions thus approving of Daein's unprovoked attack on the laguz alliance which goes against their character. 

You're the Tellius expert so you probably remember those scenes better. At any rate, there are a lot of things to consider when determining what is the most likely canon events in the story. It could very well be a case of bad writing if you don't think it fits their characters. You should check out Ghast's Zihark video if you haven't. It's a pretty good write up on his conflicted priorities.

Edited by NekoKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Garlyle said:

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.

> tate isn't bad early though, he bases are very good in hm

> what i meant by these units being underrated is that people think that they suck in HM, but it's not true

 

> the enemy stats in hm aren't scary or high, the enemies barely have above 10 AS in hm in the western isles and they don't grow that much either, the only scary enemies are the nomads, and the wyverns except that they're very easy to kill

 

> the only units who are unusable are lot, wade, bors ,wendy, Sophia, juno, Roy ( to some extent ), other units like oj, fir , Noah, etc are mediocre but definitely usable even in HM for several reasons

 

> as for Leif, he doesn't support more than 17 people, half of which are bad units, he can be a support bot with the king sword but it's not locked to him, also the argument " he can't get fatigued " isn't something, because he's the lord so obviously he won't get fatigued, it's like saying that Roy and lyn are good because they're available in every chapter ( to some extent for lyn ), also his combat with the blaggi sword is actually bad, it weighs him down too much and he doesn't have a lot of str to kill redrick with it, also u have two units who can wreck havoc with it better ( fergus and delmud ), and he's still a foot-locked and swordlocked unit in a game with big maps, so he's still not amazing.

Edited by Jandex

Share this post


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

> as for Leif, he doesn't support more than 17 people, half of which are bad units, he can be a support bot with the king sword but it's not locked to him, also the argument " he can't get fatigued " isn't something, because he's the lord so obviously he won't get fatigued, it's like saying that Roy and lyn are good because they're available in every chapter ( to some extent for lyn ), also his combat with the blaggi sword is actually bad, it weighs him down too much and he doesn't have a lot of str to kill redrick with it, also u have two units who can wreck havoc with it better ( fergus and delmud ), and he's still a foot-locked and swordlocked unit in a game with big maps, so he's still not amazing.

Leif supports I think 16 units, but only 3 to 5 of those are probably bad, and I mean Dalshin, Hicks, Miranda, while Carrion and Ronan are still questionable for me if they are good or not. I never really understand why being foot-locked is an argument in any Fire Emblem game for lords, in Thracia anyone can get extra movement with some luck on your side - for me only Genealogy is a horse emblem game though. Swordlock isn't as terrible as it sounds in this game, as we already mentioned swords are really good in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I'm not ignoring anything. You're saying that any scene can be interpreted differently depending on the gameplay that preceded it, but I disagree with that in both of the cases I listed. I don't think Alm could be either reflecting on his mistakes or talking out of his ass, I think it's clear that the scenes are directed as if the players aren't fucking up. In Three Houses, there is no matter of interpretation to the game saying "the neutral army was devastated in the battle." That's an objective plot point that contradicts my game play. And you're reaching if you think that outcome is meant to evoke feelings of futility or apathy about unavoidable fate, it's simply a contradiction.

I think you have missed my main point. We shouldn't be viewing the story through the lens of authorial intent, and this Three Houses example illustrates why. Gameplay is a part of storytelling, but it is one controlled by the player, which makes it mesh poorly with authorial intent because the player has some measure of control. Authorial intent might constrain both analysis and play, but it does not control the entire experience, and thus shouldn't be the core viewpoint that should be used to analyze games. To force authorial intent onto video games you have to contrive these poorly defined rules about Story-Gameplay segregation where sometimes the gameplay isn't segregated from the story, sometimes it is conditionally segregated (like in the Three Houses example, where it is only segregated for those that protected the neutral units) or completely segregated gameplay and treating the story as secretly a movie or book. When the most fundamental defining nature of the medium being discussed has to talked around instead of incorporated we can already see some of the issues with this type of analysis. To make matters even more complicated without some statement or insight from the designer, determining authorial intent is up for debate, for instance I don't think you are on solid ground with your claim that the author intended Alm's words to be addressed only to a player that is playing well, and if we can't find some way to determine or agree on what the author's intent is our analysis of the scene grounds to a halt. This isn't helped by the precedent set in other mediums of authors frequently rejecting what outside observers agree upon is the author's intent (the Lord of the Rings being an allegory for WWII comes to mind). The more elegant solution is to move away from authorial intent and look at what actually happened, not what we imagine someone intended would happen. The only way that plot point in Three Houses can contradict gameplay is if you believe the author intended for you to slaughter the neutrals. That isn't what actually happened, and as such isn't what the story is, and why authorial intent doesn't work as a lens for analysis of video game stories. If authorial intent was a good lens to view the story of video games through you would either be experiencing the response the "author" intended, or everyone, even those that followed through with the slaughter, would also experience this disconnect between story and gameplay in that scene. Instead you crafted a story about protecting these neutrals, and the narration told you they were decimated anyway. Your experience is different from those that simply slaughtered the neutrals because you changed the nature of that story beat through gameplay. By looking at the story you experienced, instead of a hypothetical one you did not you, you can find meaning, or themes, or symbols, or allegories within the work, and by expressing the context that crafted your experience, you can create a solid base for consistent analysis. When we force our analysis through the lens of authorial intent we have to find some way to reconcile disparate experiences, imagined intended experiences, questionably accurate authorial intent, and how much and which parts of the story has to be thrown out or ignored through Stoty-Gameplay segregation, before we can even begin.

Share this post


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

> also the argument "he can't get fatigued" isn't something, because he's the lord so obviously he won't get fatigued, it's like saying that Roy and lyn are good because they're available in every chapter ( to some extent for lyn ).

The point is that Leif is aviable every chapter in a game no one else is. This means that he has more chance to get exp and that boosters or growth scrolls are more valuable on him because he is the only one that can be used on any map.

If FE7 had stamina, then Lyn would be much better than Guy because she can be used more often and so she will eventually overgrow him as long as you have her do something the map she is in. Leif in particular benefit from Manster existing, wich give him more time to grow even compared to other chapter 1 recruits. As long as you don't go out of your way to not use him, Leif will be a super reliable unit, if not a combat monster like Fergus.

Share this post


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

To force authorial intent onto video games you have to contrive these poorly defined rules about Story-Gameplay segregation where sometimes the gameplay isn't segregated from the story, sometimes it is conditionally segregated (like in the Three Houses example, where it is only segregated for those that protected the neutral units) or completely segregated gameplay and treating the story as secretly a movie or book. When the most fundamental defining nature of the medium being discussed has to talked around instead of incorporated we can already see some of the issues with this type of analysis.

The rules exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. I made several examples of Story-Gameplay segregation where the stories are forced into a certain direction (or conversely, you're allowed to do many things in gameplay which the story treats as non-canon because they're impossible or nonsensical). You're talking about video game story analysis in the abstract without (accurately) addressing how video game stories are really told. If gameplay was always reflected accurately in the way the story is presented (or allowed enough wiggle room for creative interpretation), maybe we could live by your philosophy, but it is often not the case. Choosing to ignore what the story is telling you because it doesn't match up to what you accomplished in gameplay is simply creating headcanon, which is an absurd way to approach story analysis.

Games are a combination of set elements in the story and gameplay that we control freely. These two elements do not always interact gracefully, but its a compromise we have to make. The fewer contradictions the better, but they do happen.
 

3 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

The more elegant solution is to move away from authorial intent and look at what actually happened, not what we imagine someone intended would happen. The only way that plot point in Three Houses can contradict gameplay is if you believe the author intended for you to slaughter the neutrals. That isn't what actually happened, and as such isn't what the story is, and why authorial intent doesn't work as a lens for analysis of video game stories.

Everything about this is backwards. You say that using authorial intent is wrong-minded because of situations like this but understanding the authorial intent is what makes sense of what happened. The neutral army cannot both be devastated and also not.  The army being devastated is a fact, upon which other facts are based. How can you pretend that it didn't happen when subsequent events require that plot point to be true? Nothing about that 'solution' is elegant.

I can't help but think you're talking about how you think games should be designed rather than the way we're actually able to digest the stories of the games we have. You point the finger at authorial intent as problematic but you won't address how these specific contradictions can be resolved.

 

Edited by NekoKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2019 at 1:22 PM, Julian Solo said:

What Mercedes thinks is irrelevant anyway as Byleth is god. She’s also not Edelgard or has any political or military say lol. You clearly have never talked to anyone in real life who believe in god but not religion have you? How do you know the church army survived? There’s no spar option for them and they wouldn’t surrender at that point after they murdered Dimitri lol. You have zero arguments or facts, so you resulted to character attack’s first. The only head cannoning child here is you dude. This is my last response to you ever on this forum because you clearly are not sincere.

So I'm back, and I guess I might as well throw something to say. And if you talk to anyone, if you ask them if the institution or the faith makes you religious, it's always the latter. You're talking to someone that comes from a religious family, and knows plenty of religious people, and even non-religious people, and anyone can tell you to your face that even if the organization is destroyed, if you believe in your religion, you are still keeping the religion. A Christian is still a Christian even if the Church is destroyed. A Muslim is still a Muslim even if someone destroys a mosque. 

It would piss religious people off, yes. But it will not result in someone losing their faith. 

And really? Defeat the enemy leader equates to rout the enemy? I never knew that. So I guess that means that Edelgard actually killed absolutely everyone before Rhea? Nope. That's not how it works. Just as you can kill the main leaders in Chapter 17, and Dimitri, and the Kingdom army isn't actually destroyed, as even the dialogue supports it. But I guess you wanna make up more headcanons now? 

I see you're beyond help. You wanna make baseless accusations and headcanons cause you definitely think that Edelgard wants to become the goddess, cause you take Dimitri and Seteth's words as facts, it seems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think warping someone in a room and killing the leader would make the whole army retreat instantly in canon. So there should have been a lot of fighting even if Edelgard pursued the path of minimal loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

I don't think warping someone in a room and killing the leader would make the whole army retreat instantly in canon. So there should have been a lot of fighting even if Edelgard pursued the path of minimal loss.

Obviously there's meant to be some bloodshed in that battle as you fight your way through, but overall, need to kill the leader. Once the leader is dead, the point then the fighting any further would generally be pointless. The leader is dead. The chain of command would be disrupted. Point is, you don't have to kill everyone. Just like in the battle with Judith. After killing her, Edelgard asks the rest of the Alliance soldiers to lay their arms down. 

So making a claim that Edelgard kills absolutely everyone is foolhardy. None of her maps are even rout maps. Hell, literally all of Edelgard's maps are to defeat the enemy commanders. None of them are actually rout the enemy. Then again, most maps in 3H are rout the enemy, though I believe in Part 2, the non-CF routes have Chapter 14 be a rout the enemy one.

Share this post


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

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

Well then that's just a fallacy. My argument being bad doesn't stop your argument being bad. I also never claimed that contrivance is the sole method by which writing should be judged, in fact I even pointed out a good contrivance, so I am evidently not peddling it has an objective method of judgement.

6 hours ago, Flere210 said:

The point is that Leif is aviable every chapter in a game no one else is. This means that he has more chance to get exp and that boosters or growth scrolls are more valuable on him because he is the only one that can be used on any map.

If FE7 had stamina, then Lyn would be much better than Guy because she can be used more often and so she will eventually overgrow him as long as you have her do something the map she is in. Leif in particular benefit from Manster existing, wich give him more time to grow even compared to other chapter 1 recruits. As long as you don't go out of your way to not use him, Leif will be a super reliable unit, if not a combat monster like Fergus.

He's also immune to status ailments iirc, which is a pretty big boon (yes status ailments are threatening in Thracia).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

The rules exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. I made several examples of Story-Gameplay segregation where the stories are forced into a certain direction (or conversely, you're allowed to do many things in gameplay which the story treats as non-canon because they're impossible or nonsensical).

Using Story-Gameplay segregation to ignore the parts of the story told through the gameplay is as silly as throwing out what was shown on the screen in favor of what was written in a screen play, or ignoring lines in a book that don't conform to the image on the cover. Ignoring what happened in gameplay because it doesn't match up with what you think the story should be telling you is simply creating headcannon. As for your examples lets go through them. They are a bit vague, disconnected from any specific story, so I will frame questions that would help to point us towards ways of reconciling these facts.

 

10 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

 

You can see story and game play segregation is many games. If a game tells you that a meteor is going to collide with the earth in 24 hours but still allows you to do endless side quests and events that logically take more than 24 hours (not to mention the absurdity of the characters doing said side quests when the world is on the brink of destruction), the story isn't changing, the developers are giving you a free pass to do things in gameplay that are removed from the story progression.

Is this extra time a product of perception, the desperation of the time letting you do more than should be possible? Is the statement about having 24 hours a deception, meant to give the heroes a sense of urgency that isn't there?

What about how silly it is to side-quest in such desperate time. Is the end of the world so frequently threatened that destruction has become routine? Is this some means of avoidance by the heroes? An attempt to leave no regrets behind them before facing a task that seems fatal?

 

11 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

If a game tells you that you're a badass warrior and you're terrible at the game, that's not a new narrative about the protagonist actually being a loser, that's you contradicting the narrative because of your low performance.

Is this disconnect due to narcissism or another's attempt to inflate the hero's ego? Is your sad performance badass for a mere human facing monstrosities? Are your failures simply the worries of a badass, showing us the innumerable ways he/she could die before finally revealing his/her actual actions?

 

11 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

If you surround a character with an army and the game says they were actually alone and got captured, that's your gameplay not reflecting what events actually happen.

sorta assuming this is a fire emblem example here

Is your army simply powerless against the arcane means used to kidnap you? Is the scale of the battle larger than you think, more similar to that shown in battle animations than on the map?

 

5 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

The army being devastated is a fact, upon which other facts are based. How can you pretend that it didn't happen when subsequent events require that plot point to be true? Nothing about that 'solution' is elegant.

I am not suggesting we pretend the army being devastated didn't happen, I am saying you are ignoring the fact that you protected the neutral units. Throwing out one vital fact or another because it is an artifact of gameplay, or writing, or audiovisual sources is reductive. If an actor's performance adds characterization, we don't ignore it in favor of the screenplay. When we analyze games we need to find a way to make all of the facts work together, and what the story they tell together means, not conveniently ignore those created through gameplay.

 

Share this post


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

Well then that's just a fallacy. My argument being bad doesn't stop your argument being bad. I also never claimed that contrivance is the sole method by which writing should be judged, in fact I even pointed out a good contrivance, so I am evidently not peddling it has an objective method of judgement.

Ok I will concede the point about me using a fallacy but I just don’t understand what about my argument doesn’t work. I think my argument is pretty sound all things considered. Let me see if I have your point straight.

You’re saying my metric in which I view stories is entirely subjective because it relies on personal interpretation and the fact that other interpretations exist that are different from my own invalidates my argument. Am I correct? If so, the argument against my claim does not work because while yes it relies on personal interpretation, I have to actively prove that my claim about the themes of a story are valid. I have to prove my argument with evidence from the text. Sure, other interpretations exist but once again they’d have to prove the validity of their claims while also disproving mine. In that sense, I can disprove their claims as well through argumentation and debate. The fact that other interpretations exist does not invalidate my claim at all simply because things like that need to be proven which gives it an objective measure. 
 

Let’s take a minute to look at the definitions of subjective and objective. By the dictionary definition this is what these two words mean.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal tastes, feelings, or opinions.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing the cold hard facts.

the difference between these two words in regards to criticism and analysis is blurry to say the least But it’s there. An objective fact is something that can be proven. A subjective opinion cannot. That is the primary difference. When I say a story should be judged by its own rules, I mean you should approach the story without any pre-conceived bias and be devoid of any subjectivity as much as possible. When I analyze/critique stories, I judge it based on its own terms. I’m not going to say something is bad simply because I don’t agree with it. I won’t say a joke is bad simply because I didn’t find it funny. Instead, I’ll look at the mechanics of the joke and what the joke was trying to convey. A well written joke doesn’t have to be funny to everyone because people have different tastes in what they find funny. I can still say that the joke is good even if it’s not funny to me. In that way it’s objective. Not entirely mind you but it is because I set aside my own personal feelings to judge the quality of something based on its own merits not whether I found it funny or not.
 

When you judge a story by its own rules, you have to try and look at the story from the perspective of the person who wrote it. What were they trying to say with this story? What ideas are present in this story? And how are those ideas explored? I seek to answer those questions which again requires evidence from the text. I need to prove it otherwise the claim holds no weight. Again there’s an objective measure to it.

In regards to stories that are vague and open ended my metric still works because I’m going to judge story on that basis. Is the story vague and open ended? And what idea does want me to ponder and reach my own conclusions about? Death Note is a perfect example of this. I consider that story very open ended and vague but I still can judge it by my metric because I understand what it’s trying to do. Death note as a story sets out to question the true meaning of morality and justice. No character in that story is considered right or wrong by the narrative and that’s the point. In writing the characters in a such morally ambiguous way the story is able to allow its audience to draw their own conclusions about the ideas that the story presents. See? My metric still works even when the intent of the story is to allow for multiple interpretations. Again stories should be judged by the things it wants to accomplish and the ideas it wants to convey. If the idea behind the story is that it wants it’s audience to question the idea of morality and come to their own conclusions, then how does it do that? And does the way it sets out to accomplish that goal work as intended? That’s what I mean when I say a story should be judged by its own rules not by the rules you set for it. 
 

As for your point about it being a rabbit hole, well yeah it is a rabbit hole. That’s just the nature of the discussion surrounding art and its critique. My metric however takes into account that rabbit whole because it takes into account the tools artists use to convey the ideas they want to. If you wish to make a scene scary there are certain tropes, tricks, and techniques in order to properly convey a feeling of fear. How well you execute on those things is what determines if you get across the intended affect on the audience. The metric by which I judge the quality of stories takes into account the way tropes and genres are defined in order to convey the ideas they want to. 
 

Now with all that said, do I make a sound argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Ok I will concede the point about me using a fallacy but I just don’t understand what about my argument doesn’t work. I think my argument is pretty sound all things considered. Let me see if I have your point straight.

You’re saying my metric in which I view stories is entirely subjective because it relies on personal interpretation and the fact that other interpretations exist that are different from my own invalidates my argument. Am I correct? If so, the argument against my claim does not work because while yes it relies on personal interpretation, I have to actively prove that my claim about the themes of a story are valid. I have to prove my argument with evidence from the text. Sure, other interpretations exist but once again they’d have to prove the validity of their claims while also disproving mine. In that sense, I can disprove their claims as well through argumentation and debate. The fact that other interpretations exist does not invalidate my claim at all simply because things like that need to be proven which gives it an objective measure. 
 

Let’s take a minute to look at the definitions of subjective and objective. By the dictionary definition this is what these two words mean.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal tastes, feelings, or opinions.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing the cold hard facts.

the difference between these two words in regards to criticism and analysis is blurry to say the least But it’s there. An objective fact is something that can be proven. A subjective opinion cannot. That is the primary difference. When I say a story should be judged by its own rules, I mean you should approach the story without any pre-conceived bias and be devoid of any subjectivity as much as possible. When I analyze/critique stories, I judge it based on its own terms. I’m not going to say something is bad simply because I don’t agree with it. I won’t say a joke is bad simply because I didn’t find it funny. Instead, I’ll look at the mechanics of the joke and what the joke was trying to convey. A well written joke doesn’t have to be funny to everyone because people have different tastes in what they find funny. I can still say that the joke is good even if it’s not funny to me. In that way it’s objective. Not entirely mind you but it is because I set aside my own personal feelings to judge the quality of something based on its own merits not whether I found it funny or not.
 

When you judge a story by its own rules, you have to try and look at the story from the perspective of the person who wrote it. What were they trying to say with this story? What ideas are present in this story? And how are those ideas explored? I seek to answer those questions which again requires evidence from the text. I need to prove it otherwise the claim holds no weight. Again there’s an objective measure to it.

In regards to stories that are vague and open ended my metric still works because I’m going to judge story on that basis. Is the story vague and open ended? And what idea does want me to ponder and reach my own conclusions about? Death Note is a perfect example of this. I consider that story very open ended and vague but I still can judge it by my metric because I understand what it’s trying to do. Death note as a story sets out to question the true meaning of morality and justice. No character in that story is considered right or wrong by the narrative and that’s the point. In writing the characters in a such morally ambiguous way the story is able to allow its audience to draw their own conclusions about the ideas that the story presents. See? My metric still works even when the intent of the story is to allow for multiple interpretations. Again stories should be judged by the things it wants to accomplish and the ideas it wants to convey. If the idea behind the story is that it wants it’s audience to question the idea of morality and come to their own conclusions, then how does it do that? And does the way it sets out to accomplish that goal work as intended? That’s what I mean when I say a story should be judged by its own rules not by the rules you set for it. 
 

As for your point about it being a rabbit hole, well yeah it is a rabbit hole. That’s just the nature of the discussion surrounding art and its critique. My metric however takes into account that rabbit whole because it takes into account the tools artists use to convey the ideas they want to. If you wish to make a scene scary there are certain tropes, tricks, and techniques in order to properly convey a feeling of fear. How well you execute on those things is what determines if you get across the intended affect on the audience. The metric by which I judge the quality of stories takes into account the way tropes and genres are defined in order to convey the ideas they want to. 
 

Now with all that said, do I make a sound argument?

No, I didn't say it invalidates your argument. Just that it is a subjective way of grading something. Take as we talk about vague and open ended stories. You're view point can equally derive two completely separate conclusions to the same work.

A) The theme of this story is X. This story repeatedly contradicts X by being vague and open ended.

B) The theme of this story is vague. This story repeatedly enforces this theme with its open endedness.

Saying we need to measure a story by its own rules cannot be objective because we don't know what those rules are. The story does not come with a manual outlining its themes (and even if it did we could cite Death of the Author for alternate interpretations). You say Fates is good because it succeeds in telling X (which is obviously what it was trying to do), other people say Fares is bad because it failed at telling Y (which is also obviously what it was trying to do). Both assessments use the exact same logical deduction, yet in response to the critque version, the only counter is "don't judge it on its ability to tell story Y. It wasn't trying to tell story Y. Clearly it should be judged by its own rules, which is X."

Obviously we should look into how themes are used in a story to derive merit from them. But treating them as an objective standard, and, what I have an even bigger issue with, the sole objective standard ignores all other aspects of writing and taken to its logical conclusion means that nothing can be better written than a simple political manifesto. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? That book has some very, very clear themes. The opinions of the author are completely unmistakable. But the book shoves them to front and center to such a ridiculous extend that even a lot of ardent followers of the philosophy admit that the book isn't all that well written on a technical level.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

Saying we need to measure a story by its own rules cannot be objective because we don't know what those rules are. The story does not come with a manual outlining its themes (and even if it did we could cite Death of the Author for alternate interpretations). You say Fates is good because it succeeds in telling X (which is obviously what it was trying to do), other people say Fares is bad because it failed at telling Y (which is also obviously what it was trying to do). Both assessments use the exact same logical deduction, yet in response to the critque version, the only counter is "don't judge it on its ability to tell story Y. It wasn't trying to tell story Y. Clearly it should be judged by its own rules, which is X."

Okay first of all I don’t think fates is great. It stumbles a lot but honestly a lot of the complaints people have regarding this story just don’t seem to hold water if you ask me but that’s besides the point. Yes, we may not be able to derive exactly what the author intended but we can certainly try. And yes, people can use the exact same logical deduction is up for scrutiny. It is entirely possible to disprove someone else’s claim on a story. One interpretation can be wrong like for example saying Corrin is a Mary sue and that saying “Takumi saying he always trusted Corrin is too much avatar worship” when in fact that was the entire point of his character arc. We see this because a moment like this was brought up in birthright as well but Takumi didn’t succumb because Corrin was at his side. Sure, you can say that it’s still too much avatar worship and I’ll agree to an extent but it makes sense why the events of the story happened the way they did. My point being that saying “too much avatar worship” is simply a bad criticism because it is easily debunked by the definition of the term at least in this case. Again, my overall point here is that yes others can use the same logical deduction to reach different conclusions, those conclusions(mine or theirs) are not free of scrutiny. They can be debated and disproven. Though it is objective by the dictionary definition of the term because trying to judge a story by its own rules means you aren’t judging based on rules you feel are correct. Like what Other rules are there to judge a story by though? Cause every other “rule” has been broken and has worked in some way. You can say contrivance and I agree to an extent but then what does contrived really mean in this context? If we go by the dictionary definition of the term then stories are inherently contrived.

 

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

Obviously we should look into how themes are used in a story to derive merit from them. But treating them as an objective standard, and, what I have an even bigger issue with, the sole objective standard ignores all other aspects of writing and taken to its logical conclusion means that nothing can be better written than a simple political manifesto. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? That book has some very, very clear themes. The opinions of the author are completely unmistakable. But the book shoves them to front and center to such a ridiculous extend that even a lot of ardent followers of the philosophy admit that the book isn't all that well written on a technical level.

To this, I say I do consider movies like ghost busters(2016) poorly written. Yeah it has themes but those ideas are just poorly handled. I’m not ignoring the technical elements of writing by any stretch of the imagination. I’m just saying we should look at how those elements come together to express the idea/feeling the story is going for. Obviously a story needs to be structured well and flow neatly from one plot point to the next. A story’s conflict needs to be clear and understandable. The character motivations need to be clear and understandable and integrate themselves within the plot in an organic and nuanced way. What I am saying though is that you shouldn’t criticize a Villain for being “pure evil without any redeeming qualities” cause that may be the point. A villain doesn’t have to be sympathetic villain in order to work. A pure evil villain can work just fine. It’s all a matter of execution at that point. Once again I bring up the horror movie point. You wouldn’t criticize a horror movie for being “too scary”, would you? No, of course not that’s ridiculous. That’s the logic I’m operating under. You can then ask, how do we know it’s a horror movie then? Well the answer to that are the technical elements. The way in which the story is told like the dark lighting, the ominous music, the slow first person-esque shots, etc. are all there to convey that idea of uneasiness and fear. Creators use the technical elements of their medium to convey the ideas and emotions they want to in their audience and we should judge based on how well those technical elements do just that. That’s my argument.

My point here is that all stories should be judged on a case by case basis. What set of rules used to judge one story will not necessarily work when trying to criticize another. That’s just how it is.

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...