Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Harvey said:

The issue I have with harder difficulties is that they don't do much besides either adding stronger enemies or replacing tougher enemies instead and some small tidbits here and there.

If they could do something like adding an exclusive chapter like how FE7 did, there would be a reason to do so but apparently not anymore.

I don't think adding chapters to the higher difficulties is the way to go, and if you mean altering chapters so that they play differently I don't think FE7 is a positive example in that regard. (Looking at you, Cog of Destiny.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, X-Naut said:

I don't think adding chapters to the higher difficulties is the way to go, and if you mean altering chapters so that they play differently I don't think FE7 is a positive example in that regard. (Looking at you, Cog of Destiny.)

Well its better than just replacing stronger enemies or buffing enemies instead of doing something else. The way FE7 is done is what I like best. Hector mode doesn't just add tougher enemies, but rather, some of the maps have units change their positions and what not to make it look different. 

Sure, adding new chapters may not be everyone's cup of tea but its better than doing the same thing all over with just a harder difficulty. Radiant dawn does this well as the harder the difficulty, the different the things are especially the dialogue.

5 hours ago, Slumber said:

Exactly what it sounds like. Development of the world the characters inhabit.

Going back to Canas, his supports with Renault cover that Morphs are actually a very old concept, and it's revealed that Renault is Nergal's former assistant who helped create Nergal's Morphs in order to bring back a friend(Which I believe was implied to be Kishuna). Or his supports with Pent, where they go into the natures of each magic, and we learn that Dark Magic seeps into your soul and desperately tries to eat away at you, and it turned Canas's brothers into living husks. Also we learn that Canas's mother is Niime, and that she's a VERY respected mage in Elibe that even turns Pent into a fanboy. FE7 is also the only game in the series that's a prequel(Sorta), so Canas's supports even explain why his son is an Anima Mage instead of a Dark Mage like the rest of his family.

In Three Houses, they actually make it really tough to find a support that doesn't involve exposition of how the politics of Fodlan work, whether it be noble kids talking about their families and their relation to the leaders of the houses or their history, or how certain groups of people are treated within Fodlan(Dedue's supports being about the Duscur or Petra and Brigid for example), or just conversations involving key people in the story, like Ashe and his history with Lonato. Sometimes they even go the extra mile and talk about the Crests themselves and how that leaves them feeling in the society of Fodlan, like with Sylvain.

All of these supports generally help paint a picture and make the world seem much grander outside of the conversations the characters are having.

But I don't get it though...many FE games tend to focus on just that or am i missing something?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Harvey said:

But I don't get it though...many FE games tend to focus on just that or am i missing something?

 

After Tellius world building somehow got booted far down the priority list. Awakening and Fates notably got very, very little world building with Fates infamously not even having a name for its world. Begnion or Tracia are countries that have certain traits associated with them that influence how certain characters acts. Ylisse, Plegia, Hoshido and Nohr didn't really have many traits aside from being good guy nations or bad guy nations. What the countries were didn't effect the characters either. Nohr being so poor doesn't drive Garon to commit his evil actions, its Garon being really, really evil which drives Nohr into being really, really evil. 

Share this post


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

Well its better than just replacing stronger enemies or buffing enemies instead of doing something else. The way FE7 is done is what I like best. Hector mode doesn't just add tougher enemies, but rather, some of the maps have units change their positions and what not to make it look different. 

Sure, adding new chapters may not be everyone's cup of tea but its better than doing the same thing all over with just a harder difficulty. Radiant dawn does this well as the harder the difficulty, the different the things are especially the dialogue.

Changing positions is fine if you're smart about it, but some of them aren't. Pent and Wallace are forced into facing a chance of death (low as it may be) before you can reach them. Likewise, changing enemy equipment or even classes is also fine in small doses. Giving everything a reaver weapon in Heath's chapter and turning most of CoD's physical enemies into mages is stretching it.

Also, FE7 doesn't really add chapters on Hard mode, it just has a second campaign... which is nearly identical to the first aside from POV, two chapters, and the second has a few exclusive extra chapters and characters while the first does not. Like, why? They could have had Eliwood and Hector co-lead in a single campaign and it wouldn't have made a difference.

Share this post


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

Like okay the tropes are a little more in your face, so what? That’s a bad thing because?

I personally despise in-your-face tropes.  It feels like lazy character writing.  And very few people act exactly like a trope, so it breaks immersion for me.

Share this post


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

the tropes are a little more in your face

Alright, glad you finally got the point I was making, and didn't end up going on a huge rant because you skimmed and misinterpreted my argument again.

Really saves me the trouble of having to reiterate my point for a third time.

4 hours ago, Harvey said:

But I don't get it though...many FE games tend to focus on just that or am i missing something?

Like I said, my problem with a lot of the Awakening and Fates supports is a real lack of any sense of progression, or any sense of the world outside of the characters talking. Like take Tharja or Henry when talking about world building. Usually, when a unit from an enemy army defects and joins the player's army, it's used as a way to explain something about their country in general, whether it be why they are the way they are, or explain the culture/mentality of that country. Usually it's the Wyvern Riders like Jill who get this role, and they usually get to illuminate the militarism of their countries(Bern by the start of FE7 valued strength and honor, but was corrupted and started attacking its own people, while Daein more naturally has a social Darwinist society that Ashnard was able to climb to the top).

With Tharja and Henry, there's absolutely no talk of Plegia in their supports beyond it just being a place where people live. They don't even talk about Plegia in their supports with each other. All we learn is that Henry is a legend in Plegia, and that he doesn't care about who he fights for as long as he can torch bad guys.

The supports and conversations in Awakening and Fates have very different purposes than supports in other games.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Fire Emblem Fates came about, FE fans criticized it for lack of depth and for the conflict being simple good vs evil rather than having nuance. Three Houses comes along and is nuanced, but some still see it in terms of black-and-white morality. I think I figured out one reason for this discrepancy:

I think that, on some level, what a lot of FE fans may truly be wanting is a story that overall is good vs evil, but at the same time has lots of layers and nuance within the individual characters and their journeys. Not only that, but I think this might be the best approach for FE going forward; they've proven themselves multiple times to be really good character writers, and generally okay story writers, with some of their best stories being their simpler ones. 

I suppose this more "unpopular theory" than "unpopular opinion", but I thought it worth mentioning here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Slumber said:

The supports and conversations in Awakening and Fates have very different purposes than supports in other games.

And this right here highlights my main problem with your argument. You’re acting as if this is a bad thing when it’s not. At least not necessarily. I’ll agree awakening has poor world building but at the end of the day my philosophy is why criticize something for not being something that it never intended to be. If Henry and tharja’s supports don’t wanna talk plegia they don’t have to. You wouldn’t criticize a sitcom for not having enough action or explosions would you? No that’s dumb. And that there is my point. I mean I ain’t gonna knock opinions cause you are perfectly entitled to that. I’m just saying people need to stop criticizing things for what they’re not or what you want it to be rather than what it is. 

 

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I personally despise in-your-face tropes.  It feels like lazy character writing.  And very few people act exactly like a trope, so it breaks immersion for me.

It depends honestly. A lot of anime tropes in general are pretty in your face(especially female archetypes considering how many of them are fetishized) so in generally doesn’t me. I’m more concerned is if there’s anything beyond the surface like if there’s actual nuance and depth beyond the surface level trope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel self-concious all of a sudden because I realize I act very tropey. And it's not on purpose.

 

Prepare to have your minds blown: FEH pass isn't really all that bad. Yeah, it' annoying,but it doesn't prevent you from playing FEH. It's an extra thing, if you want it.

Share this post


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

And this right here highlights my main problem with your argument. You’re acting as if this is a bad thing when it’s not. At least not necessarily. I’ll agree awakening has poor world building but at the end of the day my philosophy is why criticize something for not being something that it never intended to be.

Because a weakness is still a weakness. If we eliminate all weaknesses then the end result is a perfect game. 

World building in a video game is similar to the story in a video game. Its not something a game will live or die on but its absence will always ensure the product is less interesting then it could have been. For a game like Fire Emblem its convenient to have world building. If its all about nations fighting each other then it would be nice to at least know something about the nations. I also don't think decent world building is something unreasonable to expect in a Fire Emblem game. Most other games in the series did it just fine. 

A lack of world building being okay if there were never plans for it doesn't really convince me. Some ideas are bad. Shadow Dragon was also intended to have a cast full of mutes and it was a dumb idea regardless of whether it was accidental or intentional. Likewise deliberately ignoring world building is something you can do but its a flaw that's knowingly put into the game. I'm also not sure if Awakening's bare world even was intended. Given that its a vastly changed Archenea its probably the world that needed the most world building rather than the least to explain how the continent changed so much.

Share this post


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

Because a weakness is still a weakness. If we eliminate all weaknesses then the end result is a perfect game. 

World building in a video game is similar to the story in a video game. Its not something a game will live or die on but its absence will always ensure the product is less interesting then it could have been. For a game like Fire Emblem its convenient to have world building. If its all about nations fighting each other then it would be nice to at least know something about the nations. I also don't think decent world building is something unreasonable to expect in a Fire Emblem game. Most other games in the series did it just fine. 

A lack of world building being okay if there were never plans for it doesn't really convince me. Some ideas are bad. Shadow Dragon was also intended to have a cast full of mutes and it was a dumb idea regardless of whether it was accidental or intentional. Likewise deliberately ignoring world building is something you can do but its a flaw that's knowingly put into the game. I'm also not sure if Awakening's bare world even was intended. Given that its a vastly changed Archenea its probably the world that needed the most world building rather than the least to explain how the continent changed so much.

You misunderstood my point. I never said it wasn’t a bad thing. Awakening’s lack of world is bad thing make no mistake. My overall point in the matter is that every support doesn’t have to have world building in it. Just because the supports with the plegian mages don’t result in learning more about Plegia like you wanted/expected it to that doesn’t make it a bad support. It just means that’s not what the writers wanted focus on. I mean you can be disappointed and all but it isn’t bad writing because it isn’t what you wanted it to be and that’s my point. Like it isn’t bad writing for not being tailored to your specific tastes

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Possibly, but not certainly. Not every PoR support is perfect despite many having no more than 3-4 supports each (which seems to be more a limitation owed to rush/limited resources than intention). In fact, there are few bombs, which is pretty inevitable in any game.

FE6 looks to average 4, sometimes 5 each. FE7 seems to average 5 as well, but you have some 3s and even non-lord 7s tossed in too. FE8 seems to be usually 5, but with 6 for non-Renais royalty and Gerik.

And yet, one of the terrible supports can be found on in KnollxLute, despite Knoll only having 3, and the same is true of Haar- 2 supports but the Makalov is bad. Being on the average doesn't equate to quality either, since MarcusxIsadora and MarcusxHarken seem redundant. Nor does being above the average doesn't mean guaranteed quality- HectorxFlorina is a very bad love story.

Less supports wouldn't mean no bad supports, but it would naturally mean less bad supports. Provided the writers care, focusing their energy on a smaller number should up the quality. When the team has to write like two hundred support conversations it's going to take a hit to quality. Really it's actually surprising the Three Houses supports are typically as good as they are considering the absolute truck load of work the writers had to do to make all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

I'm currently playing through Blazing Sword (the tutorial being slow for veterans and having around a half dozen games I'm alternating between doesn't help with progressing quickly), so I can't really comment on how well or badly the GBA games handle gaining supports.

Playing casually you're barely going to get any. There's a few reasonable ones but some of them require over 200 turns of people ending the turn next to each other, entire playthroughs don't take that long. 

Share this post


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

And this right here highlights my main problem with your argument. You’re acting as if this is a bad thing when it’s not. At least not necessarily. I’ll agree awakening has poor world building but at the end of the day my philosophy is why criticize something for not being something that it never intended to be. If Henry and tharja’s supports don’t wanna talk plegia they don’t have to. You wouldn’t criticize a sitcom for not having enough action or explosions would you? No that’s dumb. And that there is my point. I mean I ain’t gonna knock opinions cause you are perfectly entitled to that. I’m just saying people need to stop criticizing things for what they’re not or what you want it to be rather than what it is. 

Throughout these last few posts, I've made one argument about the actual quality of the writing in those two game, and that's about how I think it's pretty bad/frustrating that you have to dig so deep through supports to find out most of what a character's about outside of their surface tropes. I've made it very clear that I'm not a fan of how characters are written in these two games, but outside of that one comment, I've made no arguments about the quality of the writing, and anything you're taking away from this from me attacking these games is on you. The comparison of Miriel and Canas? It's to showcase how different the support chains of each character are, despite them being built off the same trope.

This WHOLE TIME I've been arguing that the execution and focus of how characters were written in Awakening and Fates is very different from the rest of the series. Picking a bad character to showcase this may have given the wrong impression, but the point wasn't to say "Canas was good and Miriel was bad, therefor anime bad and Awakening/Fates bad", or whatever you've been reading it as. I've explicitly said this three times now, and it's getting really fucking frustrating to talk to you because of how badly you're just blindsiding this for the sake of... defending something I'm not even really attacking.

Go back to the comment I made about Henry and Tharja. Was there a single thing in there saying it was good or bad? No? Wow, how fucking crazy, it's almost like, oh I don't know, maybe I've been saying something like

6 hours ago, Slumber said:

The supports and conversations in Awakening and Fates have very different purposes than supports in other games.

Or maybe

21 hours ago, Slumber said:

If I were to sum it up, without just completely knocking Awakening and Fates for execution, I feel like the goals of the character writing in those two games specifically was pretty different from the rest of the series. It seems like the purpose of the conversations in Awakening and Fates is 80-90% to give you more exposure to a character and just build towards the end of a relationship between characters(Probably because of the marriage and children mechanics), with 10-20% going to actual development or world building. And because of this, I guess the, uh, anime-y-ness really gets hammered home because of the exposure, and to people who aren't used to this or expect this, it hits a place that makes you go "Anime bad".

It's so weird that I didn't say these things up until now. I'm really sorry for only saying this stuff up just now, and not in various ways throughout the last few posts I've made in this thread. Really, really sorry that I didn't make these pretty obvious statements until now.

Look. I jumped in when you made this comment:

On 2/14/2020 at 5:19 PM, Ottservia said:

Oh no anime tropes in a Japanese fantasy video game series?! Who would’ve ever guessed?! I’m sorry I couldn’t help myself but if you think Fire Emblem has never been anime you my good sir are deluding yourself.   

You deliberately downplay that there's anything different about the tone of Awakening and Fates, as those are the two games @Wraith singled out. Those are the two games I've singled out. You've just chalked it up as silly(Or just straight up called @Wraith delusional) that anybody would suggest that there was something different about those two games. You've acknowledged that yes, the execution of these games are different, with Fates and Awakening pushing character quirks/traits more than previous games. You've also acknowledged that yes, the focus of the character writing is different.

Yet you're still getting angry/upset at the idea that there might be people who don't like this direction, or... you don't like that people are pointing it out? I don't even really know what you're getting angry at. And again, I've made one comment about what I feel is objectively bad about the writing, and the rest has been either you inferring stuff, or just straight up injecting things I'm not arguing for into my arguments.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now, because I don't know if I can continue this without saying stuff that would get me banned.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xavier's recruitment was at least interesting from the gameplay aspect because it forces the player make very good use of positioning of your ally and the enemy knights, so all civilians are able to reach the knights.

It requires quite a lot ressources, but it was not a terrible recruitmentment.

Still better than some NPC recruitmemts who have to rely on luck to survive to be recruitable in / after the chapter.

Edited by Falcom Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Slumber said:

Like I said, my problem with a lot of the Awakening and Fates supports is a real lack of any sense of progression, or any sense of the world outside of the characters talking. Like take Tharja or Henry when talking about world building. Usually, when a unit from an enemy army defects and joins the player's army, it's used as a way to explain something about their country in general, whether it be why they are the way they are, or explain the culture/mentality of that country. Usually it's the Wyvern Riders like Jill who get this role, and they usually get to illuminate the militarism of their countries(Bern by the start of FE7 valued strength and honor, but was corrupted and started attacking its own people, while Daein more naturally has a social Darwinist society that Ashnard was able to climb to the top).

With Tharja and Henry, there's absolutely no talk of Plegia in their supports beyond it just being a place where people live. They don't even talk about Plegia in their supports with each other. All we learn is that Henry is a legend in Plegia, and that he doesn't care about who he fights for as long as he can torch bad guys.

The supports and conversations in Awakening and Fates have very different purposes than supports in other games.

I don't see how characters talking about the world outside them actually makes it better writing. At best, it makes one wonder their identity which can lead to good writing? Wallace doesn't really talk much about his times serving his king and yet, his conversations are simply amazing because of how he went out puzzling Lyn or refusing orders even if it was not a Knight's way to do it.

And Three Houses actually has a lot of supports that don't talk much about the world building as you state either. So what's the idea here?

12 hours ago, X-Naut said:

Changing positions is fine if you're smart about it, but some of them aren't. Pent and Wallace are forced into facing a chance of death (low as it may be) before you can reach them. Likewise, changing enemy equipment or even classes is also fine in small doses. Giving everything a reaver weapon in Heath's chapter and turning most of CoD's physical enemies into mages is stretching it.

Also, FE7 doesn't really add chapters on Hard mode, it just has a second campaign... which is nearly identical to the first aside from POV, two chapters, and the second has a few exclusive extra chapters and characters while the first does not. Like, why? They could have had Eliwood and Hector co-lead in a single campaign and it wouldn't have made a difference.

Last I checked, you unlock this one chapter that can only be on hard mode unless if I'm not mistaken. And there's a huge difference between Hector and Eliwood campaigns that its doubtful if they can ever be on a single campaign. My point is that more incentive needs to be there to play harder difficulties than just making enemies harder.

 

Share this post


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

I don't see how characters talking about the world outside them actually makes it better writing. At best, it makes one wonder their identity which can lead to good writing? Wallace doesn't really talk much about his times serving his king and yet, his conversations are simply amazing because of how he went out puzzling Lyn or refusing orders even if it was not a Knight's way to do it.

And Three Houses actually has a lot of supports that don't talk much about the world building as you state either. So what's the idea here?

I swear you people are being purposely dense. I never said that it's "better writing", I just said that it's the typical way FE does supports, and Fates and Awakening do something different that draws peoples' attentions to different aspects of the world/characters.

There's still a ton of fluff in Three Houses supports, no FE has world building in EVERY support, but the chances that you learn something about Fodlan in any given support is pretty high.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have swore Henry talks about other Plegian soldiers like Vasto in some of his support, namely Ricken.

Share this post


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

You deliberately downplay that there's anything different about the tone of Awakening and Fates, as those are the two games @Wraith singled out. Those are the two games I've singled out. You've just chalked it up as silly(Or just straight up called @Wraith delusional) that anybody would suggest that there was something different about those two games. You've acknowledged that yes, the execution of these games are different, with Fates and Awakening pushing character quirks/traits more than previous games. You've also acknowledged that yes, the focus of the character writing is different.

I thank you for remaining civil @Slumberdespite our differences of opinions on FE. Lord knows in the past I haven’t been to chivalrous when discussing some of the...spinoff games I dislike in the series. Anyway I’m in Wales with my family and girlfriend, enjoying the witch-haunted vistas of this antique land, replete with Leo Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’, Glen Cook’s ‘Dreams of Steal’, and Thomas Ligotti’s ‘Songs of a Dead Dreamer and Grimscribe’ so I cannot complain. You guys have a nice rest of your weekend while I kiss my liver goodbye.

Edited by Wraith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Poem2Self said:

I could have swore Henry talks about other Plegian soldiers like Vasto in some of his support, namely Ricken.

He does indeed talk about some of the Plegian soldiers you've killed to Ricken. But it's half of one support in a single chain of a single character.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


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

I swear you people are being purposely dense. I never said that it's "better writing", I just said that it's the typical way FE does supports, and Fates and Awakening do something different that draws peoples' attentions to different aspects of the world/characters.

There's still a ton of fluff in Three Houses supports, no FE has world building in EVERY support, but the chances that you learn something about Fodlan in any given support is pretty high.

The overall plot of each FE game pretty much tells you the worlds in the game so there is very little needed for the characters to have supports about world building. What does the character mentioning some parts of the world have anything to do with good conversations? That's all just the character background as far as I can tell.

 

Share this post


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

The overall plot of each FE game pretty much tells you the worlds in the game so there is very little needed for the characters to have supports about world building. What does the character mentioning some parts of the world have anything to do with good conversations? That's all just the character background as far as I can tell.

 

Let's take the inverse of this statement.

The support system of each FE game pretty much gives you all the characterization for a character, so there is very little needed for the main plot to have any characterization. What does the narrative having a character arc have to do with good plotting? That's all just the plot background as far as I can tell.

Doesn't make much sense, does it? The best writing should be able to offer good characterization and world building at any aspect of the work. Regulating it to one or another is, well limiting. You can have good characterization without good world building. You actually can have good world building without good characterization (look at Mystery of the Emblem). But honestly if you're setting things in a fantasy world, why not both?

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Slumber said:

Throughout these last few posts, I've made one argument about the actual quality of the writing in those two game, and that's about how I think it's pretty bad/frustrating that you have to dig so deep through supports to find out most of what a character's about outside of their surface tropes. I've made it very clear that I'm not a fan of how characters are written in these two games, but outside of that one comment, I've made no arguments about the quality of the writing, and anything you're taking away from this from me attacking these games is on you. The comparison of Miriel and Canas? It's to showcase how different the support chains of each character are, despite them being built off the same trope.

This WHOLE TIME I've been arguing that the execution and focus of how characters were written in Awakening and Fates is very different from the rest of the series. Picking a bad character to showcase this may have given the wrong impression, but the point wasn't to say "Canas was good and Miriel was bad, therefor anime bad and Awakening/Fates bad", or whatever you've been reading it as. I've explicitly said this three times now, and it's getting really fucking frustrating to talk to you because of how badly you're just blindsiding this for the sake of... defending something I'm not even really attacking.

Go back to the comment I made about Henry and Tharja. Was there a single thing in there saying it was good or bad? No? Wow, how fucking crazy, it's almost like, oh I don't know, maybe I've been saying something like

Or maybe

It's so weird that I didn't say these things up until now. I'm really sorry for only saying this stuff up just now, and not in various ways throughout the last few posts I've made in this thread. Really, really sorry that I didn't make these pretty obvious statements until now.

Look. I jumped in when you made this comment:

You deliberately downplay that there's anything different about the tone of Awakening and Fates, as those are the two games @Wraith singled out. Those are the two games I've singled out. You've just chalked it up as silly(Or just straight up called @Wraith delusional) that anybody would suggest that there was something different about those two games. You've acknowledged that yes, the execution of these games are different, with Fates and Awakening pushing character quirks/traits more than previous games. You've also acknowledged that yes, the focus of the character writing is different.

Yet you're still getting angry/upset at the idea that there might be people who don't like this direction, or... you don't like that people are pointing it out? I don't even really know what you're getting angry at. And again, I've made one comment about what I feel is objectively bad about the writing, and the rest has been either you inferring stuff, or just straight up injecting things I'm not arguing for into my arguments.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now, because I don't know if I can continue this without saying stuff that would get me banned.

Look it’s clear you and me are never gonna agree on this but I feel I need to clarify my stance. I have nothing against you or anyone else for having an opinion. My problem is in how you try to justify it by presenting personal opinions as an objective argumentative claim. Is it different? Sure but that doesn’t make it bad which is how I keep interpreting your words. It’s fine to not like it but when you start saying shit like “Oh FE is just a dating sim” or it’s “too anime” that’s when my blood starts to boil because those(especially the ladder) aren’t even arguments. They’re just solely subjective opinions that mean nothing in the way of objective criticism. You don’t like it? fine more power to you but why do you have to belittle it just to justify your own subjective tastes? What angered me most with @Wraith specifically was that he kept on saying shit like “oh anime is so kiddy and juvenile” and if there’s one thing I despise more than anything is when you actively belittle something for very stupid and arbitrary reasons like “it isn’t mature enough” cause that just reeks of pretentiousness to me. Critique is one thing but actively tearing something down like that just to justify personal taste as objective makes me angry. I apologize if I misconstrued your words too much in all of this. I simply do not like it when people make that “too anime” argument because of just how dumb that argument is.

 

like you keep making the point that these two games are different. But to what end? What’s the overall point you’re trying to make there? Yeah they’re different and? is it bad? Good? Or are you just making an observation? cause with the way you’re wording it implies you think it’s a bad thing to which I strongly disagree. I can definitely see how these tropes can annoy some people but honestly that just comes with the territory of supports. Not every character can get development in the main story which is why supports are a thing in the first place and working to get those supports to learn more about the characters is part of the fun imo

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


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

The support system of each FE game pretty much gives you all the characterization for a character, so there is very little needed for the main plot to have any characterization. What does the narrative having a character arc have to do with good plotting? That's all just the plot background as far as I can tell.

I was referring to the world building aspect. The plot itself does that just fine. There's no need for large support conversations to do just that.

 

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

Doesn't make much sense, does it? The best writing should be able to offer good characterization and world building at any aspect of the work. Regulating it to one or another is, well limiting. You can have good characterization without good world building. You actually can have good world building without good characterization (look at Mystery of the Emblem). But honestly if you're setting things in a fantasy world, why not both?

So then why bother wanting conversations to bring about world building instead of just conversations? If FE6 already explained enough world building with just the main story, there's no reason for the support conversations to do that. Criticising supports because of not having world building or not mentioning specific things about world building is just unfair when the conversation was not meant to have that in the first place.

But I digress...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 8:22 PM, Flere210 said:

And i think most people just are not as familliar whit the tropes from the 90s-early 2000 because i noticed a lot more of that stuff. Raven for example is one of the most common names from Edgelords and a red flag as big as violet eyes.

I just remembered this is true of one my childhood JRPG protags, despite me having had a village from the game listed as my location since late November. Kalas is Japanese for "raven", and is certainly on the abrasive side. 

 

9 minutes ago, Harvey said:

So then why bother wanting conversations to bring about world building instead of just conversations? If FE6 already explained enough world building with just the main story, there's no reason for the support conversations to do that. Criticising supports because of not having world building or not mentioning specific things about world building is just unfair when the conversation was not meant to have that in the first place.

Why want a car in red, with an electric engine, and side airbags, when a car wasn't made to be colorful, safe, or concerned about the environment? A car was made to get me from place to place, I shouldn't care about its color, safety or what fuel source it uses, cars were never invented with any of that in mind.

 

 

13 hours ago, Jotari said:

Less supports wouldn't mean no bad supports, but it would naturally mean less bad supports. Provided the writers care, focusing their energy on a smaller number should up the quality. When the team has to write like two hundred support conversations it's going to take a hit to quality. Really it's actually surprising the Three Houses supports are typically as good as they are considering the absolute truck load of work the writers had to do to make all of them.

Now I want to count the support chain totals per game. But, this is going to take some time, I'll PM you the results later if you're interested. So far, I've counted 141 for Binding Blade.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

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...