Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

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

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

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Florete said:

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

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

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jotari said:

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

I stated as much myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Florete said:

I stated as much myself.

Indeed. Now I have stated it too. We are in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, joevar said:

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

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

 

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sooks said:

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

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

6 hours ago, joevar said:

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Edited by Samz707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...