What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I don’t disagree with the overall point here just with how it’s being said because to me it just sounds your problem is that the story is manipulating you into thinking Edelgard is sympathetic. Which is kind of stupid Because all of fiction is manipulative. Good manipulation is just good storytelling. Like don’t get me wrong I have my problems with how Edelgard’s conflict with the agarthans is handled as well mostly in that it’s just never resolved. But a story is not bad because it tries to manipulate you into thinking a certain way because every story tries to do that. If stories didn’t do that then you wouldn’t feel any emotion when watching/reading it

Well yes, good manipulation is good story telling, but conversely, bad manipulation is also bad storytelling. But that's immaterial as it's not my central issue. My issue is that they try to make her sympathetic while simultaneously trying to make her a hardass. Not that the two things can't coexist, but in this case their methodology doesn't involve making a genuinely deep and complex character, it involves creating a faction to do all the evil stuff for her so the story can bend over backwards to avoid having her be blamed for bad things. I'd rather an Edelgard that is an out and out villain, rather than the half measure they gave us (I mean as far as the narrative is concerned, a lot of the fanbase certainly takes issue with what she does morally, but the story itself never really does. Even Azure Moon where she's the central antagonist, the narrative is more about Dimitri's obsession with her and what he thinks she's done than it is about her as an actual character).

Edited September 18, 2021 by Jotari

[Interdimensional Observer]

56 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I just tried to do a bit more research into which parts of the game were handled by Koei Tecmo and which were handled by IS, and I have actually been having a lot of trouble figuring out which parts were handled by which company. The shortest answer that I read a lot is that Koei Tecmo mainly helped with the technical and programming side of things while IS remained in charge of design and the other aspects of development. However, whenever I look for more details, it seems that it was actually a lot more complicated than that, and it quickly gets a bit confusing.

I understand your frustration.

• When I was watching the credits of the Baten Kaitos games, which were Monolith Soft & Tri-Crescendo collaborations, from which company each individual employee was from was clearly listed parenthetically after their name. And in the case of the first game, the division of responsibilities was defined in an interview as Tri-Crescendo doing sound and the combat, while Monolith Soft's non-Xeno employees did everything else, with music by Motoi Sakuraba. 
• However, when I watched the credits of Super Robot Taisen OG Saga Endless Frontier, a Monolith Soft-Banpresto collaboration, there were no such labels in the credits. I hadn't a clue who came from which company. I think with very good reason, and I thought I read it stated somewhere but aren't sure right where exactly, that the story & character writing was done by Banpresto, while the combat was handled by Monolith. Still, I'm operating on thoughts and circumstantial proof, not hard evidence.

From these two examples, it would appear it's entirely up to the companies themselves how well they wish to define how well they wish to communicate the division of labor to the public. And comparing the Baten Kaitos case to your look into 3H's development, it's fair to say the companies can be as messy or as strictly defined as they wish with the division of labor itself.

 

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Not just the Three Kingdoms inspiration but things like Baron Dominic being a generic

Now if only they went out of their way to do something like giving a name to every enemy who has a battalion. Having a coterie of men and women at your direct command ought to qualify as an "officer". It's a trait I admire in Dynasty and Samurai Musous, particularly if they actually consulted records of what historical nobodies were present at each battle. 

 

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Comparing Sigurd to Arvis for instance its very easy to see who's the more nuanced and interesting character

Now now, Arvis could use a few Memory Prisms in Genealogy Remake. One or two for childhood, one or two for married life. And one not directly related to him, but containing scenes of peaceful Loptians being executed in public in front of an eager crowd. Said Memory Prism then flips to a scene where a lesser nobleman suspected of having Loptian blood has an angry peasant mob rampaging through his manor trying to find their victim. Thereby making the blackmail working against Duke Oedipus more feasible.

I wanted to love Arvis, but he felt benignly flat for me. I had neither love nor hate when Seliph slew him. 

Although that is better and worse than Lewyn. Lewyn was better than Arvis, I kinda liked him, but Forseti was plainly atrocious.

Getting back to Sigurd, he has better than nothing for him. His personality is fairly normal, no particularly unique personality traits, but some of his circumstances are very distinctive.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well yes, good manipulation is good story telling, but conversely, bad manipulation is also bad storytelling. But that's immaterial as it's not my central issue. My issue is that they try to make her sympathetic while simultaneously trying to make her a hardass. Not that the two things can't coexist, but in this case their methodology doesn't involve making a genuinely deep and complex character, it involves creating a faction to do all the evil stuff for her so the story can bend over backwards to avoid having her be blamed for bad things. I'd rather an Edelgard that is an out and out villain, rather than the half measure they gave us (I mean as far as the narrative is concerned, a lot of the fanbase certainly takes issue with what she does morally, but the story itself never really does. Even Azure Moon where she's the central antagonist, the narrative is more about Dimitri's obsession with her and what he thinks she's done than it is about her as an actual character).

Ehh I disagree with this criticism simply because I’d rather not look at what you think the story should be but rather what it actually is and is trying to accomplish. I just generally dislike this kind of dismissive attitude. Instead of assuming the worst in something why not instead give the benefit of the doubt. You may have wanted Edelgard to be fully evil but that clearly was not the intent of the writers otherwise that’s what they would have done but they didn’t. Like the writers could have easily not included the agarthans within the story at all but they did and instead of assuming the worst(as in they’re only there to make Edelgard look more sympathetic and claiming the writers to be incompetent) let’s dig a little deeper.
 

Cause with the way the agarthans are handled particularly in crimson flower make me think there was supposed to more there but they just ran out time to properly implement because the story clearly tries to set up a conflict between them and Edelgard. Hell, the shambala(or however it’s spelled) map in the code of the game is actually tied to the Crimson flower route. So again there was clearly supposed to be some kind of offical confrontation between Edelgard and the agarthans. And even when we look at the few instances where the conflict is touched upon within the game itself, the story is kind of building up some kind parallel or foil  relationship between Edelgard and Talys. The parallel especially apparent when you take into account the book about them in the abyss library in that they see Sothis as a false god meant to destroy human progress which is almost exact same as Edelgard’s goals in why she herself hates the church in that it is halting human progress and causing immense suffering in the world due to the crest system. My guess is that’s what they were going for. The two parallel each other and that final confrontation was supposed to highlight those parallels and resolve Edelgard’s character arc by giving it that proper conclusion. 
 

Then again I haven’t touched 3H in like a year and a half so my memory of the material may be a bit hazy

[henrymidfields]

@Jotari: Actually, now that I think about it.  I'm wondering if TWISTD is less like a standing army proper and more like a asymmetrical force. I know that, true to their name, they mainly do their activities not in the open, but more in the shadows, hence the name. I'm starting to think their modus operandi is more like Northern Vietnamese Communists, Al-Quaeda and Taliban, mixed with the CIA or Soviet Spies (was it the KGB?) and the political arm of ISIS - they're generally weaker fighting out in the open, but better with sabotage, guerilla warfare, misinformation and stuff that doesn't require pure strength in numbers or firepower.

I remember sometime ago either you or another member we discussed with about how bizarre and out of left field Chapter 16's Javelins of Light was. Maybe if this was mass poisoning (sabotage with rations), assasination attempts at the generals etc, or some other sabotage that looked more mundane but still disrupting, it would at least give better consistency in their modus operandi. And in Silver Snow and Verdant Wind, maybe they should only rediscover the Javelins in the final 1-3 chapters and decided to use them straight away.

My impression is that CF is one of the cases where TWISTD isn't as powerful, if anything. The agarthan monsters are absent from CF's Chapter 12 and onwards as opposed to other routes. While we can only really guess, I think it's at least canon-adjacent to say Edie there at least tries to limit TWISTD's activities and relies more on the Strike Force for key battles.

@Ottservia: As for the crest suffering, well, there's already a lot of evidence from other characters of the misery of the crests. Mercedes and Sylvain are two that have been used as political tools because of their crests, Dorothea also became orphaned indirectly because of the crest system, Lysithea is another, and will glossed over, Alois is also negatively affected by his lack of Crests too. Then there's Byleth's controversy too. Particularly in Sylvain's case, the lack of post-battle discussion did bring up some of my yellow flags about whether Rhea truly had the society's best interests, or at least truly knew how to address why things were happening as they were. (This also goes with real-life as well; we'd want to know why people become radicalised and at least in Australia, I've seen this question pop up at least in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (think PBS or BBC) every now and then.) If I hear how the church mentions the crests are a blessing from the godess, yet see suffering in the form of institutional classicism as per mentioned, I would have questions myself. Hence why Rhea ends up having to resign one way or another (unless if you S-support her in SS).

[ping]

The most inconsequetial hill that I'm not willing to die, but at least lose three fingers of my left hand on: In Path of Radiance, Mia is overall better than Zihark.

My main reasoning is what those two can do if you don't plan on using them long-term - if you do, Zihark's slightly higher stats will make him a little more effective than Mia. But the list of Zihark's contributions when I plan to bench him has exactly one item: He gets the village north of his starting location in chapter 11. He can technically do fine in chapter 12 with a Laguzslayer (and you can steal a second one from ch.11's boss if you want), but that chapter doesn't have that many deployment slots and I usually prefer to field units that I want to feed XP to, since the chapter really isn't that tricky.

Mia, on the other hand, has a few chapters where her deployment is free, so she can always collect a few brownie points that way:

• In chapter 7, I tend to send everybody except Ike to the left, so Mia can help clear handful of enemies in the right part of the map.
• For Chapter 8, you can BEXP her to double Knights with the Armourslayer, which gives her the ability to do decent damage against them. Or at least one of them at a time.
• Chapter 9, you need to split your troops if you want to get the villages and get as much BEXP as possible, so an additional combat unit certainly doesn't hurt.

After that, she does compete for deployment slots and will generally lose that competition if you aren't intent on using her. Still, that's three chapters of minor contributions, which I personally still find more impactful than Zihark being slightly less shitty as a permanent character than Mia.

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Now if only they went out of their way to do something like giving a name to every enemy who has a battalion. Having a coterie of men and women at your direct command ought to qualify as an "officer". It's a trait I admire in Dynasty and Samurai Musous, particularly if they actually consulted records of what historical nobodies were present at each battle. 

 

Jugdral actually does that a fair bit. Not with the battalions and the like, but I mean it gives names and (heavily reused) portraits to field enemies that have very little or even no battle/death quotes. I thinkt he more open freeform chapters of Genealogy let them say "Make the highest level unit in this squad of enemies a boss" pretty easily and Thracia just sort of followed suit.

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Ehh I disagree with this criticism simply because I’d rather not look at what you think the story should be but rather what it actually is and is trying to accomplish. I just generally dislike this kind of dismissive attitude. Instead of assuming the worst in something why not instead give the benefit of the doubt. You may have wanted Edelgard to be fully evil but that clearly was not the intent of the writers otherwise that’s what they would have done but they didn’t. Like the writers could have easily not included the agarthans within the story at all but they did and instead of assuming the worst(as in they’re only there to make Edelgard look more sympathetic and claiming the writers to be incompetent) let’s dig a little deeper.
 

Cause with the way the agarthans are handled particularly in crimson flower make me think there was supposed to more there but they just ran out time to properly implement because the story clearly tries to set up a conflict between them and Edelgard. Hell, the shambala(or however it’s spelled) map in the code of the game is actually tied to the Crimson flower route. So again there was clearly supposed to be some kind of offical confrontation between Edelgard and the agarthans. And even when we look at the few instances where the conflict is touched upon within the game itself, the story is kind of building up some kind parallel or foil  relationship between Edelgard and Talys. The parallel especially apparent when you take into account the book about them in the abyss library in that they see Sothis as a false god meant to destroy human progress which is almost exact same as Edelgard’s goals in why she herself hates the church in that it is halting human progress and causing immense suffering in the world due to the crest system. My guess is that’s what they were going for. The two parallel each other and that final confrontation was supposed to highlight those parallels and resolve Edelgard’s character arc by giving it that proper conclusion. 
 

Then again I haven’t touched 3H in like a year and a half so my memory of the material may be a bit hazy

But I'm not looking at what the story should be, I'm looking at what it is and saying it's bad, because it thematically contradicts itself in how it handles the characters and plots, or makes certain characters and plots non existent while pretending they're relevant. Maybe that's a result of them just not having enough time to finisht he story they wanted to tell, but that's not really important, I can only judge the story for what it is, not for what it might have been.

5 hours ago, henrymidfields said:

@Jotari: Actually, now that I think about it.  I'm wondering if TWISTD is less like a standing army proper and more like a asymmetrical force. I know that, true to their name, they mainly do their activities not in the open, but more in the shadows, hence the name. I'm starting to think their modus operandi is more like Northern Vietnamese Communists, Al-Quaeda and Taliban, mixed with the CIA or Soviet Spies (was it the KGB?) and the political arm of ISIS - they're generally weaker fighting out in the open, but better with sabotage, guerilla warfare, misinformation and stuff that doesn't require pure strength in numbers or firepower.

I remember sometime ago either you or another member we discussed with about how bizarre and out of left field Chapter 16's Javelins of Light was. Maybe if this was mass poisoning (sabotage with rations), assasination attempts at the generals etc, or some other sabotage that looked more mundane but still disrupting, it would at least give better consistency in their modus operandi. And in Silver Snow and Verdant Wind, maybe they should only rediscover the Javelins in the final 1-3 chapters and decided to use them straight away.

They don't have to be replaced by anything. Because the Javelins of Light do absolutely nothing. They don't influence the actions of any characters, they don't kill any characters, they don't change the dynamic of the war. You could literally remove the cutscenes and scant lines of text referencing them and absolutely nothing changes. The only thing they accomplish is letting Hubert find Sahmballa, and that's not even something that was requiring justification. The reason they're bad isn't because they're incongruous (though they absolutely are for the sort of characters the Agarthans are, still it could potentially work despite being weird), the reason they're bad is because they are entirely pointless and do more to hurt the plot by their very existence than they do to provide any development in the narrative.

5 hours ago, henrymidfields said:

My impression is that CF is one of the cases where TWISTD isn't as powerful, if anything. The agarthan monsters are absent from CF's Chapter 12 and onwards as opposed to other routes. While we can only really guess, I think it's at least canon-adjacent to say Edie there at least tries to limit TWISTD's activities and relies more on the Strike Force for key battles.

That's the most charitable interpretation for imagining Edelgard actually has a character arc. Another pretty sensible explanation is that they just literally couldn't make them, as they need Nabatean blood for the process, with Flayn's being used in Part 1 and Rhea's in Part 2 (Demonic Beasts are visibly different from the other humans that transform into monsters). Another explanation is that Edelgard is still using Demonic Beasts, and their lack of appearance on maps is purely a gameplay thing. In any case it really should have been clarified in game. My preferred explanation would be character development for Edelgard, but that's the one that most needs to be expressed by the game. It being down to Rhea blood works pretty neatly for explaining what was up with the Flayn kidnapping stuff as well as providing some sort of explanation as to why Edelgard and the Agarthans went to so much effort to keep Rhea alive despite how crazy dangerous she is.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Jotari

[Etrurian emperor]

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Jugdral actually does that a fair bit. Not with the battalions and the like, but I mean it gives names and (heavily reused) portraits to field enemies that have very little or even no battle/death quotes. I thinkt he more open freeform chapters of Genealogy let them say "Make the highest level unit in this squad of enemies a boss" pretty easily and Thracia just sort of followed suit.

I'm convinced that somewhere in Jugdral there's a clone factory where they breed these guys.

[Jotari]

45 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I'm convinced that somewhere in Jugdral there's a clone factory where they breed these guys.

Can't tell if that's a typo in the translation or an unfinished sentence XD

How about this theory, Nergal spent some time hanging out in Jugdral, they're all Morphs! Either that or it's just one big family of brothers spanning across the entire continent. Maybe there all bastard half siblings from one really prolific stud (one of them even has Forseti Holy Blood, but that could be inherited from the mother).

[Ottservia]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

But I'm not looking at what the story should be, I'm looking at what it is and saying it's bad, because it thematically contradicts itself in how it handles the characters and plots, or makes certain characters and plots non existent while pretending they're relevant. Maybe that's a result of them just not having enough time to finisht he story they wanted to tell, but that's not really important, I can only judge the story for what it is, not for what it might have been.

Now how is it thematically contradictory? That’s my question cause as far as I’m aware it isn’t thematically contradictory.

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Now how is it thematically contradictory? That’s my question cause as far as I’m aware it isn’t thematically contradictory.

Because any theme you can draw from it is either directly contradicted or only nominally existent in the first place. Edelgard is both an adroit and masterful manipulator, while also having her entire life manipulated by the Agarthans. Edelgard rages against the god of her world...because the enemies of said god tortured her. This rebellion is justified because society is trash...but Edelgard's suffering came primarily from people who lay outside of society. The Agarthans are a powerful shadow organization with malicious control over every aspect of Fodlan, while also being so unimportant as to be dealt with in two lines of text. Edelgard and the Agarthans have a tense alliance in which neither side trusts the other which results in...them having a tense alliance in which neither side trusts the other (but believe us guys, it's totally a tense truce even though nothing happens until the two lines of text in the ending blurb). Edelgard is a morally complex ubermensch who will stop at nothing to achieve her goals, only aside from inciting the plot she never actually needs to perform any morally compromising acts because the story makes other characters do it for her. It's either contradictory at every turn or what ever they bring to the table, on any actual analysis, is completely irrelevant. Edelgard as character is never challenged. Her quest to defeat Rhea involves beating people up and moving on. She doesn't experience any growth or sacrifice or struggle other than literal gameplay (which even there is less than the other routes). Nothing would actually change about Crimson Flower's story if Edelgard just killed Rhea, Dimitri and Claude at the end of part 1. You'd reach the same end point because Edelgard doesn't change. And unlike Ike in Path of Radiance who has an arc specifically about being a static character, she doesn't even resist changing in the face of challenging circumstances. She just fights and wins with nothing actually happening (though she's not alone in that regard, as much of the same can be said for White Clouds and Verdant Wind, though at least in those routes there is at least some sort of unveiling of the plot as we learn more about either the history or Claude as a person).

Edited September 19, 2021 by Jotari

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Because any theme you can draw from it is either directly contradicted or only nominally existent in the first place. Edelgard is both an adroit and masterful manipulator, while also having her entire life manipulated by the Agarthans. Edelgard rages against the god of her world...because the enemies of said god tortured her. This rebellion is justified because society is trash...but Edelgard's suffering came primarily from people who lay outside of society. The Agarthans are a powerful shadow organization with malicious control over every aspect of Fodlan, while also being so unimportant as to be dealt with in two lines of text. Edelgard and the Agarthans have a tense alliance in which neither side trusts the other which results in...them having a tense alliance in which neither side trusts the other (but believe us guys, it's totally a tense truce even though nothing happens until the two lines of text in the ending blurb). Edelgard is a morally complex ubermensch who will stop at nothing to achieve her goals, only aside from inciting the plot she never actually needs to perform any morally compromising acts because the story makes other characters do it for her. It's either contradictory at every turn or what ever they bring to the table, on any actual analysis, is completely irrelevant. Edelgard as character is never challenged. Her quest to defeat Rhea involves beating people up and moving on. She doesn't experience any growth or sacrifice or struggle other than literal gameplay (which even there is less than the other routes). Nothing would actually change about Crimson Flower's story if Edelgard just killed Rhea, Dimitri and Claude at the end of part 1. You'd reach the same end point because Edelgard doesn't change. And unlike Ike in Path of Radiance who has an arc specifically about being a static character, she doesn't even resist changing in the face of challenging circumstances. She just fights and wins with nothing actually happening (though she's not alone in that regard, as much of the same can be said for White Clouds and Verdant Wind, though at least in those routes there is at least some sort of unveiling of the plot as we learn more about either the history or Claude as a person).

That’s not thematically inconsistent. It’s inconsistent(somewhat) but not thematically inconsistent because for something to be thematically inconsistent it would have to try and preach one thing but then completely contradict it with some plot point or world building detail. This isn’t SoV where the story clearly wants to convey a message of birth not mattering to one’s worth only to then turn around and say “except not really because Alm is a royal and was born with a birthmark that makes him the chosen one thus making the circumstances of his birth completely define who he is”. No that’s not the case here because 3H’s message is more along the lines of finding guidence to better yourself, Staying true to your own ideals, trying to open up to other people, and finding the strength to fight for what you truly believe in. because those are the main ideas behind a majority of the conflict in the story. Edelgard’s character/characterization do not conflict with those central ideas neither do the actions she takes. If anything, they reinforce those ideas because a lot of her character arc is learning to trust others and stay true to herself. Those two things are prevelent not only in CF but the other routes as well. Hell it’s the primary way she contrasts Dimitri both in AM and CF. So I wouldn’t call it thematically inconsistent at all. The execution of these ideas is a whole other matter which I agree is just handled very poorly. but not because it’s contradictory but rather because it’s just unfinished. Cause Edelgard’s character arc as a whole is not finished.

CF in general is just not a complete story. The fact that there are multiple plot points built up within the story but are never delivered is testament enough to that. Again, I wouldn’t call it inconsistent as it is shallow and lacking nuance.

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

That’s not thematically inconsistent. It’s inconsistent(somewhat) but not thematically inconsistent because for something to be thematically inconsistent it would have to try and preach one thing but then completely contradict it with some plot point or world building detail. This isn’t SoV where the story clearly wants to convey a message of birth not mattering to one’s worth only to then turn around and say “except not really because Alm is a royal and was born with a birthmark that makes him the chosen one thus making the circumstances of his birth completely define who he is”. No that’s not the case here because 3H’s message is more along the lines of finding guidence to better yourself, Staying true to your own ideals, trying to open up to other people, and finding the strength to fight for what you truly believe in. because those are the main ideas behind a majority of the conflict in the story. Edelgard’s character/characterization do not conflict with those central ideas neither do the actions she takes. If anything, they reinforce those ideas because a lot of her character arc is learning to trust others and stay true to herself. Those two things are prevelent not only in CF but the other routes as well. Hell it’s the primary way she contrasts Dimitri both in AM and CF. So I wouldn’t call it thematically inconsistent at all. The execution of these ideas is a whole other matter which I agree is just handled very poorly. but not because it’s contradictory but rather because it’s just unfinished. Cause Edelgard’s character arc as a whole is not finished.

CF in general is just not a complete story. The fact that there are multiple plot points built up within the story but are never delivered is testament enough to that. Again, I wouldn’t call it inconsistent as it is shallow and lacking nuance.

Yeah, and CF doesn't present any of those themes, because Edelgard never actually strives in her story, and any elements that do exist in that regard are contradicted by the plot. Edelgard doesn't find guidance to better herself, she's never challenged to stay true to her own ideals, opening up to others is there in some really minor ways as part of supports and like advice box answers, but not in the main plot and the strength she needs to win is purely in the military goals of the gameplay. Crimson Flower effectively has no story, because nothing happens in it. It is just gameplay. Edelgard moves from one battle to the next with no change to her character, setting or situation. They pretend there is by killing of characters like Randolph and telling us she's on rocky ground with the Agarthans. But absolutely nothing would change if Randolph lived and was a playable character or if she was fully on board with the Agarthans. Because aside from winning at the end, nothing actually happens in Crimson Flower. Marth has more of a present and consistent arc than Edelgard.

[Ottservia]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Yeah, and CF doesn't present any of those themes,

No it does but only with the context of other routes in mind cause the difference in how Edelgard acts between the different routes is how I came to these conclusions. In a game with multiple routes like this you have to take every route into account in regards to analysis because the differences in each and how they contrast and parallel one another is still worth examining. You can’t just analyze the one route and call it a day because then you’re missing out on like 75% of the context and that context does indeed matter because the only thing that really differentiates the routes is the central lord and their perspective which effects how the story plays out. What’s true about things we learn about Foldlan in VW is just as true in CF because it’s the exact same world and circumstances just a different perspective on those things and the differences in those perspectives is important and worth examining. 

 

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Edelgard moves from one battle to the next with no change to her character, setting or situation. They pretend there is by killing of characters like Randolph and telling us she's on rocky ground with the Agarthans. But absolutely nothing would change if Randolph lived and was a playable character or if she was fully on board with the Agarthans. Because aside from winning at the end, nothing actually happens in Crimson Flower. Marth has more of a present and consistent arc than Edelgard.

There’s that dismissesive attitude again that I don’t like. There is a difference that would happen if Randolph hadn’t died. That difference being is that we wouldn’t get the scene of Edelgard somewhat mourning the loss and continue to move on regardless. It’s important for characterization purposes. Is it a small difference? Definitely, but it does serve a purpose and effects the story. Just because you personally don’t perceive value that doesn’t mean there is no value. Like or dislike whatever you want just don’t dismiss things for not mattering when you could instead aim to figure out why they do. I don’t think we should dismiss something as not mattering that the writer thought was important enough to show. If they thought it was important enough to show within the story then it’s worth examining and not dismissed due to some personal perceived lack of value 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Ottservia

[Etrurian emperor]

All this talk about the stupid mole people makes me really hopeful that groups like them just won't be around next game. Its a fairly common consensus that Edelgard and everything else about the story would be much better if the Slitherers weren't there, just as its a common consensus that team Garon was among the worst aspects of Fates, or how Jedah being so obviously evil detracted from Celica's character arc.

And when looking at the overall reception of the characters IS should realize that these sort of villains just aren't working. Its no accident that its Edelgard and not Thales who caught everyone's attention, just as how its no accident that its Lif and not Hell who carries the story of Book 3. And while its popular these days to rightfully condemn Berkut as a dummy and an awful person at the time he was decently received. The common theme is that the fanbase likes characters with nuance and thinks lowly of characters who only exist to be overly evil. These type of villains haven't been functioning properly for a long time so IS should try to address that.

I'm on the record as being very accepting of overly evil characters but with FE villains it seems really common that characters are often made so evil just so that they can suck up all the evil act so the hands of characters like Corrin and Edelgard stay clean. This ultimately reduces them to mere plot devices rather than actual characters like Metalface or Hades. They detract from the story rather than add to it. IS should just cut out the middle man and remove characters like Garon and Thales in order to make better use of characters like Xander or Edelgard. 

The obviously Satanic cult might be a staple of Fire Emblem games but even this can be maintained if they put a more interesting spin on it. Maybe the evil cult isn't all that evil and are forced into their actions by their demon god, maybe they aren't zealots but just really desperate people who only resort to bringing back evil gods because they are scared witless of the evil tyrant conquering the continent, or the evil god the cult tries to bring back doesn't actually exist and the cult must come to terms with how they committed great evil for nothing. 

Validar, team Garon, Jedah, the Slitherers and the likes of Hell and Surtr all got a pretty frosty reception from the fanbase. You could even argue it goes further back than this with Fomortiis and his priest already being considered among the weaker plot points back in the Sacred Stones days. At some point IS should really start learning some lessons from this, especially with how the fandom flocks to Edelgard when she gave us an actually nuanced antagonist with real reasons for her actions. Edelgard shows the template towards a better antagonist so it would be a shame if IS digs their heels into the sand and just gives us another Garon or Gharnef in the next game. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Etrurian emperor

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

And when looking at the overall reception of the characters IS should realize that these sort of villains just aren't working. Its no accident that its Edelgard and not Thales who caught everyone's attention, just as how its no accident that its Lif and not Hell who carries the story of Book 3. And while its popular these days to rightfully condemn Berkut as a dummy and an awful person at the time he was decently received. The common theme is that the fanbase likes characters with nuance and thinks lowly of characters who only exist to be overly evil. These type of villains haven't been functioning properly for a long time so IS should try to address that.

You say this but I can name plenty of characters/antagonists with nuance that receive nothing but hate. Edelgard actually being a prime example. And if CYL is any indication. The fanbase seems to favor nameless npc nice guys over actual characters with arcs and development(yes I am still salty about Chrom getting snubbed). Then there’s the people who say SoV’s characters are better written than Fates/awakening characters and uh yeah no. Hell, I can name plenty of characters you yourself don’t like because of the things that make them nuanced like Clive, Xander, Severa and Ophelia. Honestly this fanbase doesn’t even know the meaning of nuance.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Ottservia

[Interdimensional Observer]

38 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

or the evil god the cult tries to bring back doesn't actually exist and the cult must come to terms with how they committed great evil for nothing. 

I mean, the first half of this is true. Duma and Lowhatshisname are dragons, not true deities. Although they're missing the vital second half of your statement.

I'd like to see an Evil Religion in games where we do have a real, serious post-downfall situation. It shouldn't simply die off, nor should it be "everything got reformed and better" either. I want a scenario where the religion breaks and schism occurs, which instead of causing a die-off in the short term, results in increased religiosity, with some associated violence.

As for topics the schism could be about, we have:

• Religious reformists vs. moderates vs. reactionaries
• Hierarchy/clergy vs. egalitarianism/laity
• The high or international priesthood vs. the national or local priesthood
• Monasticism vs. anti-monasticism
• Mysticism vs. jubilance vs. austerity
• Free will vs. predestination
• Iconodules vs. iconoclasts
• Exclusiveness towards welcoming others into the religion's fold vs. inclusiveness towards welcoming others into the religion's fold
• On evangelization- force or no force allowed?
• Also on evangelization- convert a heathen society from the top-down, or from the bottom-up?
• Intolerance towards other religions & secularism vs. tolerance towards other religions & secularism
• Close-mindedness towards heathen knowledge vs. open-mindedness toward heathen knowledge (also interpretable as science vs. faith)
• Theocrats vs. separation of church and state

There are so many interesting ways you can split religion, things that people have bickered over for millennia, yet games never use these for their conflicts. To be fair, they usually don't result in bloodshed, Rome and Constantinople never went to war over the Filioque, but no reason games can't heighten the tensions to war over a such a topic.

[Etrurian emperor]

54 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

You say this but I can name plenty of characters/antagonists with nuance that receive nothing but hate. Edelgard actually being a prime example. And if CYL is any indication. The fanbase seems to favor nameless npc nice guys over actual characters with arcs and development(yes I am still salty about Chrom getting snubbed). Then there’s the people who say SoV’s characters are better written than Fates/awakening characters and uh yeah no. Hell, I can name plenty of characters you yourself don’t like because of the things that make them nuanced like Clive, Xander, Severa and Ophelia. Honestly this fanbase doesn’t even know the meaning of nuance.

It would be incorrect to say Edelgard gets nothing but hate. She's controversial yes but she's also undeniably popular, undeniably successful. 

I'd also argue that you can dislike a character despite being nuanced. Edelgard undeniably isn't satanic, over the top evil or someone with bad intentions but if her ties to the slitherers and her starting a war is a breaking point for someone then its a breaking point. But that's the nice thing about nuanced characters. You have more wriggle room in regards of your opinion about them. There's more to talk about, more reasons to like them and even more interesting reasons to dislike him. Nuanced characters can acquire a set of traits that absolutely don't sit right with someone, but disliking a character for those reasons is different that disliking a  character that's just a trainwreck in general. 

As for the characters you listed. I don't dislike Clive because of anything related to giving him nuance. I dislike Clive because I don't think he functions as a character. Clive being a complete scumbag isn't how he was intended to be written, its accidental. Its the result of the writing being clumsy. I don't think the intend was for us to think Clive was ruthlessly scheming for the exact moment he could best fire Alm once he outlived his usefulness to Clive personally, but because he fires Alm the moment he's done freeing Mathilda that's how it comes across. His disguised contempt for the lower classes is a point that gives him nuance, but his rather cruel behavior towards Alm seems like an accident on the writers part. I don't dislike Severa in particular as much as the archetype in general does nothing for me, and Ophelia is a lot like Clive in that I think the writers accidentally made her far more of a bully than intended. That Siegbert's the only one she cruelly lashes out at for intruding on her fantasy is noteworthy from a meta perspective. Besides, another reason I don't like it is because she's a third Owain in a game that proved that having a second Owain is already a bad idea. And I actually don't dislike Xander. I think he's a bit of a mess that doesn't function properly but overall I like him. Its just that I like Xander despite many things about him rather than because of them. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Etrurian emperor

[Interdimensional Observer]

50 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

And if CYL is any indication. The fanbase seems to favor nameless npc nice guys over actual characters with arcs and development(yes I am still salty about Chrom getting snubbed

Ah, he totally slipped my mind, the only not-avatar lord not Jugdrali to not win CYL. And I've never heard anyone saying anything about how he ranked.

Chrom has a greater right to be called the main character of FE13 than Lucina ever does, and he can't be that disliked to be Echoed in Smash. And, he is likely more familiar to FE fans given he starred in the mass-popularization title that is Awakening than the FE7 trio, who somehow despite being older and less accessible to gamers still managed to all claim CYL wins. This, despite Lyn having near-zero relevance after Lyn Mode, while Chrom, another member of a trio, is the main lead of 1/3rd, an equal lead for 1/3rd, and a supporting lead for the last 1/3rd of his game.

I'll pin the grounds for Chrom's relative forgettability among the FE leads on being pretty Marth-vanilla in personality and backstory, but with some Ike physique to toughen him up. By contrast, Robin is the first avatar for Western audiences, and the first avatar who was naturally integrated into the storyline. Lucina has a much more interesting backstory than Chrom, and is a semi-rare female lead.

[Ottservia]

7 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Clive being a complete scumbag isn't how he was intended to be written, its accidental. Its the result of the writing being clumsy. I don't think the intend was for us to think Clive was ruthlessly scheming for the exact moment he could best fire Alm once he outlived his usefulness to Clive personally, but because he fires Alm the moment he's done freeing Mathilda that's how it comes across.

No that was the fucking intent because it plays into his disguised disdain for the lower class. Like that’s what nuance is!!! Here’s the thing about Clive the fact that he’s so willing to discard Alm after he outlives his use is precisely what makes him a nuanced character because he only wants to discard so quickly because he thinks Alm is nothing more than a worthless commoner and that appointing him leader of the deliverance when he is in fact not Mycen’s grandson was a massive mistake on his part and that Fernand was right. Alm proves him wrong though and makes him realize his position as leader of the deliverance is not based in his blood but rather ideals and ability(even though story throws all nuance this conflict had out the window but that’s besides the point). Like that’s nuance!!! The subtle little things that make up a greater whole and Clive being a “scumbag” as you put it plays into his whole character arc and gives him development. That is a nuanced character.

[Etrurian emperor]

17 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No that was the fucking intent because it plays into his disguised disdain for the lower class. Like that’s what nuance is!!! Here’s the thing about Clive the fact that he’s so willing to discard Alm after he outlives his use is precisely what makes him a nuanced character because he only wants to discard so quickly because he thinks Alm is nothing more than a worthless commoner and that appointing him leader of the deliverance when he is in fact not Mycen’s grandson was a massive mistake on his part and that Fernand was right. Alm proves him wrong though and makes him realize his position as leader of the deliverance is not based in his blood but rather ideals and ability(even though story throws all nuance this conflict had out the window but that’s besides the point). Like that’s nuance!!! The subtle little things that make up a greater whole and Clive being a “scumbag” as you put it plays into his whole character arc and gives him development. That is a nuanced character.

Oof I can't believe I'm going to defend Clive here. 

Clive isn't intended to be the mustache twirling villain just waiting to plunge his knife into Alm's back. Rather than counting down the time until he gets rid of Alm its depicted as something Clive genuinely struggles with. He's not scheming as much as he's afraid to confirm his suspicious and awkwardly dancing around the issue. Him wanting to fire Alm isn't supposed to him finally seizing the chance to be freed of that icky farmboy, but instead him not being able to bottle up his feelings about the matter any longer. 

But because he does it the moment Mathilda's cell opens that's ultimately not how it comes across. Because the writing makes Clive wants to fire Alm the moment his use to Clife personally is over the early scenes where he struggles with the situation lose their meaning. 

If Clive is a ruthless scumbag his earlier scenes of him being conflicted about it don't work. Why would he be if he's cruelly stringing Alm along? If he's in severe doubt then firing Alm immediately once he outlived his usefulness to Clive doesn't work. Why else would he only do it only when his personal wishes have been achieved? Things like him coming to terms with Fernand's betrayal and him realizing its wrong to condemn Delthea to her doom just because she's not a noble plays into his character arc, his stint of wanting to fire Alm on the other hand is just clumsily written and at odds with itself. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

No it does but only with the context of other routes in mind cause the difference in how Edelgard acts between the different routes is how I came to these conclusions. In a game with multiple routes like this you have to take every route into account in regards to analysis because the differences in each and how they contrast and parallel one another is still worth examining. You can’t just analyze the one route and call it a day because then you’re missing out on like 75% of the context and that context does indeed matter because the only thing that really differentiates the routes is the central lord and their perspective which effects how the story plays out. What’s true about things we learn about Foldlan in VW is just as true in CF because it’s the exact same world and circumstances just a different perspective on those things and the differences in those perspectives is important and worth examining. 

It is true for other routes because Edelgard does shit all other than start the war in them either.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

There’s that dismissesive attitude again that I don’t like. There is a difference that would happen if Randolph hadn’t died. That difference being is that we wouldn’t get the scene of Edelgard somewhat mourning the loss and continue to move on regardless. It’s important for characterization purposes. Is it a small difference? Definitely, but it does serve a purpose and effects the story. Just because you personally don’t perceive value that doesn’t mean there is no value. Like or dislike whatever you want just don’t dismiss things for not mattering when you could instead aim to figure out why they do. I don’t think we should dismiss something as not mattering that the writer thought was important enough to show. If they thought it was important enough to show within the story then it’s worth examining and not dismissed due to some personal perceived lack of value 

I dismiss it only because the plot dismisses it too.

[Ottservia]

20 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Clive isn't intended to be the mustache twirling villain just waiting to plunge his knife into Alm's back. Rather than counting down the time until he gets rid of Alm its depicted as something Clive genuinely struggles with. He's not scheming as much as he's afraid to confirm his suspicious and awkwardly dancing around the issue. Him wanting to fire Alm isn't supposed to him finally seizing the chance to be freed of that icky farmboy, but instead him not being able to bottle up his feelings about the matter any longer. 
 

 

What the actual hell are you on?! When did I say Clive was a moustache twirling villain and plotting this the whole time?  I never said that that first of all nor did I even imply it. Secondly, you have to be smoking some next level shit if you truly believe that’s how that scene is supposed to be interpreted. Watch it again, and actually listen to the inflections in Clives voice as he speaks. He’s clearly conflicted in the way he sounds. He sounds doubtful of himself and hesitant. And with earlier scenes in the story, he’s clearly thinking about the implications that Alm is not Mycen’s grandson cause he says the same stuff after listening to that old man at the castle. In that making Alm the leader of the deliverance was a mistake because it turns out his bloodline may not be worth anything after all. And again this mindset is supposed to be WRONG!!! As shown in at the beginning of act 4 where Clive has a speech towards Fernand where he explicitly explains the point of his character arc word for word. This story isn’t subtle like at all. Like I cannot believe I am defending SoV’s writing but here we are.
 

I could say a lot more about how your argument doesn’t make any sense but I’m pretty busy at the moment so I’ll just leave it at that for now.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Ottservia

[Etrurian emperor]

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What the actual hell are you on?! When did I say Clive was a moustache twirling villain and plotting this the whole time?

You seemed to consider him less in doubt about it than he really was. And you used a lot of strong wording that missed the notion that despite everything Clive likes Alm and is troubled about what he feels he has to do. But my point about the mustache twirling part is more how his behavior before trying to fire Alm(in doubt) does not combine well with the attemted firing itself(mustache twirling). The doubt Clive convey's is a key part of why Clive isn't ''so willing to discard Alm'' as far as the writers intend goes, but also why the whole thing doesn't work because at the end he really comes across as someone ''so willing to discard Alm''. Its not something Clive planned to do, but the awkward moment at which he turns on Alm makes it seem that way. 

That's why I don't think Clive functions properly. The juxtaposition of what the writers wanted and what we ultimately got. That's why it doesn't have anything to do with nuance but with clumsiness. If they didn't want to give the impression that Clive was a dirtbag only in it for himself then they needed to have him fire Alm at another moment, any other moment. For Clive not to come off as a scumbag it was vital for the writers to have picked another moment.

Also I advise you to take a deep breath. 

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Secondly, you have to be smoking some next level shit if you truly believe that’s how that scene is supposed to be interpreted.

And that's the point. The different to how its supposed to be interpreted and what we actually got. The difference between Clive supposing to have doubts and the outcome of Clive firing Alm once his use to Clive personally and not the cause in general has been achieved.  

Edited September 20, 2021 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

 

The obviously Satanic cult might be a staple of Fire Emblem games but even this can be maintained if they put a more interesting spin on it. Maybe the evil cult isn't all that evil and are forced into their actions by their demon god, maybe they aren't zealots but just really desperate people who only resort to bringing back evil gods because they are scared witless of the evil tyrant conquering the continent, or the evil god the cult tries to bring back doesn't actually exist and the cult must come to terms with how they committed great evil for nothing. 

One of the worst things about the Agrathans for me is that I actually really like them. Like, don't get me wrong, they're horribly executed and distract from other parts of the setting abd bit a single one of them is an interesting or compelling character, but as far as Fire Emblem cults go, I really like their aesthetic, their methodology  (nukes aside), their secret conflict with Rhea, the implications of what their victory could even mean (the technocrat in me legitimately things them winning could be the best ending). Theres just a lot that about them that appeals to me, to the extent that I really wish they had just held back on using them in this title and focused on the Three kingdoms aspect and then just leave the Agarthans for another game where they can be fleshed out and more adequately used. The typical Fire Emblem cult can potential work, they have to stop being so basic and generic with them.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Jotari

[Ottservia]

6 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

You seemed to consider him less in doubt about it than he really was. But my point about the mustache twirling part is more how his behavior before trying to fire Alm(in doubt) does not combine well with the attemted firing itself(mustache twirling). The doubt Clive convey's is a key part of why Clive isn't ''so willing to discard Alm'' as far as the writers intend goes, but also why the whole thing doesn't work because at the end he really comes across as someone ''so willing to discard Alm''. Its not something Clive planned to do, but the awkward moment at which he turns on Alm makes it seem that way. 

That's why I don't think Clive functions properly. The juxtaposition of what the writers wanted and what we ultimately got. That's why it doesn't have anything to do with nuance but with clumsiness. If they didn't want to give the impression that Clive was a dirtbag only in it for himself then they needed to have him fire Alm at another moment, any other moment. For Clive not to come off as a scumbag it was vital for the writers to have picked another moment. 

What I am not understanding here though is how you can interpret how anything Clive says or does as him being willing to discard Alm because he never once even remotely implies that at least not in the malicious sense that you seem to be implying. And the same goes for how you feel about Ophelia. Like yeah she’s a bit mean in Siegbert’s supports but it adds nuance to her character because it shows what sets her off. If she acted nice in that support then she would be one dimensional. Yourcomplaints about Ophelia and Clive come off more as “Oh no they were mean to my precious boy Alm/Siegbert therefore they’re poorly written characters” and that’s not how that works. And I could go on a whole rant about Xander but I digress.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Ottservia