Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't think the siblings come off very well in this either because their motivation for doing harm is idiocy if you're Xander and cowardice if you're Leo and Camilla. 

You see this is the kind of ethnocentrism I was talking about. You do understand that in Japanese society it’s completely taboo to speak out about your feelings much less to a superior and definitely not to a senior family member. Which is what Garon is to Xander. A family member who ranks above him. With that in mind, it makes a shit ton more sense for why Xander is written the way that he is. It’s relatable to a Japanese audience or just people in general who have familial issues like that. To call it idiotic is honest to god insensitive because you are indirectly calling them idiotic for relating to a character that reflects their own problematic familial relationships. What if I said Siegbert is stupid for being insecure about being heir to the throne after Xander. The dumbass just needs to man up and stop being insecure. Like no you don’t fucking do that. It’s extremely rude and insensitive.

Share this post


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

You see this is the kind of ethnocentrism I was talking about. You do understand that in Japanese society it’s completely taboo to speak out about your feelings much less to a superior and definitely not to a senior family member. Which is what Garon is to Xander. A family member who ranks above him. With that in mind, it makes a shit ton more sense for why Xander is written the way that he is. It’s relatable to a Japanese audience or just people in general who have familial issues like that. To call it idiotic is honest to god insensitive because you are indirectly calling them idiotic for relating to a character that reflects their own problematic familial relationships. What if I said Siegbert is stupid for being insecure about being heir to the throne after Xander. The dumbass just needs to man up and stop being insecure. Like no you don’t fucking do that. It’s extremely rude and insensitive.

Cultural norms can only do you so far. Because, like, it's not a case where Xander just doesn't want to talk about his feelings. His country, and to some extent him personally, are murdering people for basically no reason. Real life high politicians in Japan did speak against World War II at the time, and that was a period where it was way more culturally pushed not to question authority or show weakness. Yet Xander doesn't even have patriotism or a love of family as his obvious motive, or even all that much conflict of heart at all in Conquest. He's motivated almost entirely by just unquestioningly going with the flow of things.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

You see this is the kind of ethnocentrism I was talking about. You do understand that in Japanese society it’s completely taboo to speak out about your feelings much less to a superior and definitely not to a senior family member. Which is what Garon is to Xander. A family member who ranks above him. With that in mind, it makes a shit ton more sense for why Xander is written the way that he is. It’s relatable to a Japanese audience or just people in general who have familial issues like that. To call it idiotic is honest to god insensitive because you are indirectly calling them idiotic for relating to a character that reflects their own problematic familial relationships. What if I said Siegbert is stupid for being insecure about being heir to the throne after Xander. The dumbass just needs to man up and stop being insecure. Like no you don’t fucking do that. It’s extremely rude and insensitive.

There's been Japanese people turning against their family. There have been Fire Emblem characters turning against their cartoonishly evil parents too, by the way. There's also several of Fates children with plenty of negative stuff to say about their parents.  And Garon isn't just a stern father in the wrong but a gigantic psychopath knowingly driving his country into the ground. Besides the other royals frequently say Garon is wrong. So much for that taboo. That they don't say it to his face has more to do with guillotines than social norms. 

And if you said that Siegbert is stupid for being insecure I'd say something about apples and oranges. Being scared of a very hard and important task in your future is different than knowingly serving a man who's morally on par with Satan because he's ''just under the weather'' 

Share this post


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

Cultural norms can only do you so far. Because, like, it's not a case where Xander just doesn't want to talk about his feelings. His country, and to some extent him personally, are murdering people for basically no reason. Real life high politicians in Japan did speak against World War II at the time, and that was a period where it was way more culturally pushed not to question authority or show weakness. Yet Xander doesn't even have patriotism or a love of family as his obvious motive, or even all that much conflict of heart at all in Conquest. He's motivated almost entirely by just unquestioningly going with the flow of things.

 

8 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There's been Japanese people turning against their family. There have been Fire Emblem characters turning against their cartoonishly evil parents too, by the way. There's also several of Fates children with plenty of negative stuff to say about their parents.  And Garon isn't just a stern father in the wrong but a gigantic psychopath knowingly driving his country into the ground. Besides the other royals frequently say Garon is wrong. So much for that taboo. That they don't say it to his face has more to do with guillotines than social norms. 

And if you said that Siegbert is stupid for being insecure I'd say something about apples and oranges. Being scared of a very hard and important task in your future is different than knowingly serving a man who's morally on par with Satan because he's ''just under the weather'' 

That’s not the point I was getting at and you both know it. The point I was getting at is that calling Xander’s motivations for doing what he did(or not doing in this case) stupid or unrealistic is just insensitive because there are people who legitimately relate to him as a character and the struggles his character goes through. I am one of those people. Not as strongly as some other people mind you but I can at least understand the feeling. So what are you saying people are idiotic for not speaking out in an abusive relationship with a family member or otherwise when the years of manipulation and abuse pretty much gaslight them into thinking they can’t speak out fear of being harmed. I know the comparison is a bit extreme(except not really because Garon basically abuses his children and if you suggest otherwise you are lying to yourself) but it gets across my point. The situation is more complicated than Xander simply being an idiot for not speaking out. Emotions are complicated especially when in regards to manipulation, abuse, and difference in power dynamics. Show some empathy for once would ya?

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


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

Show some empathy for once would ya?

Yeah. Sorry but I'm not going to assume opinions on fictional characters have much to do with empathy. And I'm going to completely disregard your attempt to throw shade there. Whether that was meant offensively or as a way to guilt trip I'll just say its not working and I'm not taking the attempt as a show of good faith no matter which of the two it is. 

Besides that entire argument ends where Garon begins. I'm not going to assume nuance when the situation revolves around a cartoon character who I don't think had any thought put in his writing. Even if IS was deliberately going for an abuse story it falls flat because Garon is a cartoon character who's behavior I don't even consider applying to real life scenarios for even a second. 

Julius as a methaphor for an abuser and Ishtar as the victim? Sure I can find myself viewing the situation as that. But Garon? Nope, nu-uh. Not even for a single second of my day. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


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

Yeah. Sorry but I'm not going to assume opinions on fictional characters have much to do with empathy. And I'm going to completely disregard your attempt to throw shade there. Whether that was meant offensively or as a way to guilt trip I'll just say its not working and I'm not taking the attempt as a show of good faith no matter which of the two it is. 

Besides that entire argument ends where Garon begins. I'm not going to assume nuance when the situation revolves around a cartoon character who I don't think had any thought put in his writing. Even if IS was deliberately going for an abuse story it falls flat because Garon is a cartoon character who's behavior I don't even consider applying to real life scenarios for even a second. 

Julius as a methaphor for an abuser and Ishtar as the victim? Sure I can find myself viewing the situation as that. But Garon? Nope, nu-uh. Not even for a single second of my day. 

Oh I’m sorry for relating to a character that realistically reflects my own personal struggles and insecurities and taking offense to someone calling that depiction unrealistic and stupid. I’m sorry for showing the author the most basic form of respect and not dismissing their work as shallow trash that doesn’t have nuance. You do realize assuming the worst in something in any form of authoritative voice is the definition of bad faith debate right? I know I sort of did that earlier with my appeal to emotion fallacy you pointed out(even though I never suggested any malicious intent on your part just indirect implication so it’s not exactly bad faith I think. I dunno I’ll have to look it up) but being dismissive towards an author’s work and assuming incompetency without actually trying to understand it on its own merits and what it truly has to say simply because of your personal bias and subjective feelings is nothing short of arrogance if you ask me. I honestly hate tgis idea of people trying to act like they’re smarter than the author like get over yourselves.

Share this post


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

Oh I’m sorry for relating to a character that realistically reflects my own personal struggles and insecurities and taking offense to someone calling that depiction unrealistic and stupid. I’m sorry for showing the author the most basic form of respect and not dismissing their work as shallow trash that doesn’t have nuance. You do realize assuming the worst in something in any form of authoritative voice is the definition of bad faith debate right? I know I sort of did that earlier with my appeal to emotion fallacy you pointed out(even though I never suggested any malicious intent on your part just indirect implication so it’s not exactly bad faith I think. I dunno I’ll have to look it up) but being dismissive towards an author’s work and assuming incompetency without actually trying to understand it on its own merits and what it truly has to say simply because of your personal bias and subjective feelings is nothing short of arrogance if you ask me. I honestly hate tgis idea of people trying to act like they’re smarter than the author like get over yourselves.

Authors can be wrong, authors can make mistake, authors can chase wrong priorities and authors can be crippled by thoroughly unreasonable deadlines. Authors aren't infallible and mistakes inevitable occur, sometimes of which the authors themselves are in complete agreement of them being mistakes. Even widely beloved works have widespread agreement that some aspects of the writing isn't always very strong.  It has nothing to do with arrogance. Writing is a human endeavor and as such mistakes are always going to occur at least sometime in a writer's career. And sometimes those mistakes are named Garon. 

As a Fire Emblem villain Garon does not hold up. As a villain in general Garon does not hold up, and as the villains in a story where Corrin has to chose between two families Garon certainly does not hold up since his entire existence completely invalidates an entire faction. That's about as objective as a critique can be. For the story to have functioned properly Garon needed to be something, anything other than what we got. For Xander's plight to resonate Garon needed to be something, anything other than what we got. 

Share this post


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

Authors can be wrong, authors can make mistake, authors can chase wrong priorities and authors can be crippled by thoroughly unreasonable deadlines. Authors aren't infallible and mistakes inevitable occur, sometimes of which the authors themselves are in complete agreement of them being mistakes. Even widely beloved works have widespread agreement that some aspects of the writing isn't always very strong.  It has nothing to do with arrogance. Writing is a human endeavor and as such mistakes are always going to occur at least sometime in a writer's career.

I’m glad we can agree but that doesn’t give you the right to completely dismiss the nuance of an author’s work simply because you personally feel it wasn’t there. If you’re going to make criticism towards something please back it up with evidence beyond just “oh he’s a shallow cartoon villain so I can’t take him seriously”. Also yes writers can make mistakes but that doesn’t mean every mistake is of equal importance. Mistakes are inevitable nothing is perfect so be why be so harsh on the smaller more inconsequential mistakes because they’re inevitable. A couple small mistakes don’t ruin a story.

Share this post


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

Somewhere burried deep in the lore there is an aspect about Nohr's extreme poverty but no one in the game seriously tries to argue Nohr invades Hoshido because they need the resources to survive.

This isn't true; in fact it is explicitly stated in Birthright's main story.

image.png.679ac68abf9ce2df873506343b8d6781.png

Anyway I basically agree entirely with @Ottservia where Xander is concerned here. He obviously feels a great deal of filial responsibility to his father, and it's easier for him to hope that dad is just going through a bad phase, even if we as the outside observer can realize that's "obviously" not the case. I have known people who remind me a great deal of Xander in their loyalty to obviously abusive parents, and he resonates with a lot of people because of it... why do you think he's popular?

Share this post


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

I’m glad we can agree but that doesn’t give you the right to completely dismiss the nuance of an author’s work simply because you personally feel it wasn’t there. If you’re going to make criticism towards something please back it up with evidence beyond just “oh he’s a shallow cartoon villain so I can’t take him seriously”. Also yes writers can make mistakes but that doesn’t mean every mistake is of equal importance. Mistakes are inevitable nothing is perfect so be why be so harsh on the smaller more inconsequential mistakes because they’re inevitable. A couple small mistakes don’t ruin a story.

Indeed. Not every mistake is equal, but if pretty much 75% of all the problems in a story can be traced back to a single character than this mistake is going to rank pretty high on the list. 

I'm not dismissive because I feel the nuance isn't there. I'm dismissive because I feel the nuance was originally there, was recognized and then got deliberately taken out to pursue bad intentions. Lets take the second gens for instance. You can't argue they are there because the team thought the story required for them to be there. You can't even argue they were there because the team simply failed to recognise they had no place in the story. They were there because they were popular in Awakening, and because the writers were willing to twist, and to break everything in the story to avoid having to give up that gameplay mechanic. And with Nohr they had nuance originally. They originally had a dirt poor and desperate nation wanting to survive which then got toned down so significantly that it might as well have been removed entirely, and replaced with a kingdom that just wanted to be really evil all the time...for some reason. The nuance was there originally but got sniffled by bad intentions. Its why I'm much softer on other mistakes such as the Death Knight or the Blood Pact, or Nergal's flaws.  Because even though none of that worked as intended I still had the impression everyone involved did their best. An impression I do not get when hearing the phrase ''deep realms'', or ''just under the weather'' or whatever comes out of Garon's mouth when he speaks. 

Quote

This isn't true; in fact it is explicitly stated in Birthright's main story.''

Oh its dutifully said that one time. But not Garon, not Iago, not Corrin, Xander, Leo or any Nohrian gives this as their motivation. Whenever any motive is given its either Garon saying ''shut up or I'll execute you'' or the siblings saying ''shut up or father will execute you'' The scene feels as if its there to dutifully list one lore aspect a single time without this aspect influencing anything. Even the siblings don't list it as a possible bright spot of following Garon's orders, they just say they need to do it lest daddy kill them all. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


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

They were there because they were popular in Awakening, and because the writers were to twist, and to break everything in the story to avoid having to give up that gameplay mechanic.

Yeah but they don’t have any bearing on the story positively or negatively so I don’t see why it’s that big of a deal. Yeah you can argue that they don’t need to be there and I would definitely agree but the fact that they are there doesn’t change anything about the story so I don’t see any reason to be so hung up on it. 

6 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

An impression I do not get when hearing the phrase ''deep realms'', or ''just under the weather'' or whatever comes out of Garon's mouth when he speaks. 

and that’s where you and I differ. I always give authors the benefit of the doubt regardless of my own personal impression of their work. It’s just basic respect honestly.

 

5 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Oh its dutifully said that one time. But not Garon, not Iago, not Corrin, Xander, Leo or any Nohrian gives this as their motivation. Whenever any motive is given its either Garon saying ''shut up or I'll execute you'' or the siblings saying ''shut up or father will execute you'' The scene feels as if its there to dutifully list one lore aspect a single time without this aspect influencing anything. Even the siblings don't list it as a possible bright spot of following Garon's orders, they just say they need to do it lest daddy kill them all. 

Actually it’s also mentioned in the fates manga of all things where Garon reveals to Leo that the whole “conquest for resources” is essentially just a lie and an excuse for conquest for the sake of it which actually makes a lot of sense considering fates leans into themes regarding false truth and deception(it’s literally in the conquest verse of Lost in thoughts all alone). And that’s why Garon works as a villain because he’s not actually Garon just a slimy puppet masquerading as Garon to fool the continent into embarking on war. When you look at the story through the lens of those themes it makes a lot more sense. It would do you some good to look at the story from different perspectives instead of putting the carriage before the horse or however that saying goes.

Share this post


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

and that’s where you and I differ. I always give authors the benefit of the doubt regardless of my own personal impression of their work. It’s just basic respect honestly.

I think where we differ mostly is that you assume Fates has a very strong vision and I think it sacrificed its vision to pursue other interests.

5 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Actually it’s also mentioned in the fates manga of all things where Garon reveals to Leo that the whole “conquest for resources” is essentially just a lie and an excuse for conquest for the sake of it which actually makes a lot of sense considering fates leans into themes regarding false truth and deception(it’s literally in the conquest verse of Lost in thoughts all alone). And that’s why Garon works as a villain because he’s not actually Garon just a slimy puppet masquerading as Garon to fool the continent into embarking on war. When you look at the story through the lens of those themes it makes a lot more sense. It would do you some good to look at the story from different perspectives instead of putting the carriage before the horse or however that saying goes.

That doesn't really make it any better since the Manga seems relatively obscure, and I'm not sure its ever localized. And it would still be mostly absent from the game. Nohr would still be a Fire Emblem equivelent to Mordor, rather than the Fates equivalent of Tracia. 

I also think Garon doesn't disguise himself or fools everyone. Part of what doesn't work about him is that he very obviously isn't Garon. He and the Garon mentioned in the backstory are different as night and day, everyone and their mom can see he's not that Garon and he doesn't even pretend to adopt traits Garon was said to have. The whole disguise rests entirely on people not knowing shapeshifting blob monsters exist. 

Share this post


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

That doesn't really make it any better since the Manga seems relatively obscure, and I'm not sure its ever localized. And it would still be mostly absent from the game. Nohr would still be a Fire Emblem equivelent to Mordor, rather than the Fates equivalent of Tracia. 

I also think Garon doesn't disguise himself or fools everyone. Part of what doesn't work about him is that he very obviously isn't Garon. He and the Garon mentioned in the backstory are different as night and day, everyone and their mom can see he's not that Garon and he doesn't even pretend to adopt traits Garon was said to have. The whole disguise rests entirely on people not knowing shapeshifting blob monsters exist. 

I mean neither does Aizen technically but everyone was fooled by him regardless. I bring up the bleach comparison because the two stories tackle very similar ideas regarding false truth and even rely on very similar buddhist symbolism to do so. There’s an old buddhist painting of a monkey touching an image of the moon reflecting on the water’s surface which symbolizes false truth in not being able to see the truth hidden behind the illusion. Fates has a lot of water symbolism and hell Azura even alludes to this at the end of birthright. We can argue execution all day but the themes themselves are there and very clear to see. As far as the manga’s obscurity is concerned, maybe it is to us in the west but not a Japanese audience of whom are the developers primary demographic so that argument holds no water.

Honestly at this point I feel like I should make a thread discussing all the buddhist, shinto, and daoist symbolism in fates because there is a lot of it.

37 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:
46 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

 

I think where we differ mostly is that you assume Fates has a very strong vision and I think it sacrificed its vision to pursue other interests.

Because it does have a strong vision, you just don’t see it out of ignorance 

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


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

I mean neither does Aizen technically but everyone was fooled by him regardless. I bring up the bleach comparison because the two stories tackle very similar ideas regarding false truth and even rely on very similar buddhist symbolism to do so. There’s an old buddhist painting of a monkey touching an image of the moon reflecting on the water’s surface which symbolizes false truth in not being able to see the truth hidden behind the illusion. Fates has a lot of water symbolism and hell Azura even alludes to this at the end of birthright. We can argue execution all day but the themes themselves are there and very clear to see. As far as the manga’s obscurity is concerned, maybe it is to us in the west but not a Japanese audience of whom are the developers primary demographic so that argument holds no water.

Its been ages but as I recall captain Aizen wasn't walking around Soul Society flaunting how obviously evil he was. In fact he had his subordinate do that to throw everyone off his scent.

Fire Emblem is not a quirky Japanese only series. Its a solid B tier Nintendo franchises so appeals to the Japanese audience don't cut it.

56 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Because it does have a strong vision, you just don’t see it out of ignorance 

Truthfully I think the ignorant one is you. You don't see the warning signs because you don't want to. If there was a strong vision than either the ''whoops! turns out we're not your siblings after all!'' wouldn't have been a thing or it would have impacted the plot. But it doesn't, leading to the likelihood its only there so you can marry your tsundere little brother and tomboy big sis. Among other things. 

Share this post


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

Truthfully I think the ignorant one is you. You don't see the warning signs because you don't want to. If there was a strong vision than either the ''whoops! turns out we're not your siblings after all!'' wouldn't have been a thing or it would have impacted the plot. But it doesn't, leading to the likelihood its only there so you can marry your tsundere little brother and tomboy big sis. Among other things. 

I mean if there wasn’t a strong vision with this game then explain all the goddamn religious symbolism everywhere beyond “they just thought it was cool” because that’s a bad faith argument. Like Corrin’s whole character is basically the story of Buddha one of a sheltered prince who sees the world for the first time and sees it’s full of suffering and then tries to do something to find a solution to it. Like the parallel is right there. There’s also the Yato’s hilt resembling a Vajra which is a weapon used by the hindu deity Indra who is a storm god. It serves as symbol of knowledge and wisdom that cleaves through ignorance similar to how Corrin wipes away the deception of Anankos to seek the truth hidden behind the illusion of the water’s surface which loops right back around to the painting with the monkey and moon. And this isn’t even getting into all the blatent daoist and shinto symbolism like how Nohr and Hoshido are supposed to represent Yin and Yang while Valla is the absence of both in representing Wuji which is why it’s so empty and desolate. Corrin and Azura representing water completes a trio of storm gods when you take into account the Rajinto and Fujin yumi named after the shinto kami of thunder and wind respectively(Rajin and Fujin). Corrin’s Japanese name, Kamui, furthers this motif because they’re named after Kana Kamuy a storm god of Ainu mythology.

And I’m only scratching the surface here. The thematic and religious symbolism goes a lot deeper than this. You just refuse to see it.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


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

I think its considered suspicious that in the most lopsided moral conflict in all of Fire Emblem the pure and benevolent nation is conveniently based on the writers own nation. The story repeatedly going out of its way to depict how Nohr isn't just bad but irredeemable, and rotten to the core without any sort of motive for their action doesn't really help either.

Wouldn't that be Naga worshippers vs Grimleal in Awakening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's enough arguing about Fates. ;/

Though I will say that the world-building isn't exactly stellar given the in-game information.  Knowing why things are the way they are could've made the Hoshido/Nohr story a lot more compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the next FE game should try to take more inspiration from classic Western fantasy stories, other then LoTR or Wheel of Time.

Edited by WraithReborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WraithReborn said:

I think the next FE game should try to take more inspiration from classic Western fantasy stories, other then LoTR or Wheel of Time.

I don't think Fire Emblem has really ever taken that much inspiration from the likes of the Lord of the rings. There's no elves or dwarves. Dragons are the main bread and butter of the series. And I know that's kind of focusing on aesthetics but that's largely what Tolkien inspiration is. As far as plots go Fire Emblem has never been about fighting existential evil. There are some ridiculously evil antagonists, but they've always been actual people (even when they're dragons). The closest we've gotten to a typical dark Lord and Tolkien style story would be Sacred Stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WraithReborn said:

I think the next FE game should try to take more inspiration from classic Western fantasy stories, other then LoTR or Wheel of Time.

Earthsea Emblem? I can see it - boat map after boat map after boat map. :lol:

24 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think Fire Emblem has really ever taken that much inspiration from the likes of the Lord of the rings. There's no elves or dwarves. Dragons are the main bread and butter of the series. And I know that's kind of focusing on aesthetics but that's largely what Tolkien inspiration is. As far as plots go Fire Emblem has never been about fighting existential evil. There are some ridiculously evil antagonists, but they've always been actual people (even when they're dragons). The closest we've gotten to a typical dark Lord and Tolkien style story would be Sacred Stones.

Wait, there can be Fantasy that isn't in some way inspired by Tolkien?

Since you mention dragons - I believe that The Hobbit's Smaug is pretty much the blueprint for all the "standard" western dragons. Tolkien as a whole defines modern fantasy, so I'm not entirely joking with that opening question. Directly or indirectly, almost every fantasy story will be influenced by Middle-earth, and if it's through the author's attempt to avoid writing "tolkienesque" literature.

Share this post


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

Earthsea Emblem? I can see it - boat map after boat map after boat map. :lol:

Wait, there can be Fantasy that isn't in some way inspired by Tolkien?

Since you mention dragons - I believe that The Hobbit's Smaug is pretty much the blueprint for all the "standard" western dragons. Tolkien as a whole defines modern fantasy, so I'm not entirely joking with that opening question. Directly or indirectly, almost every fantasy story will be influenced by Middle-earth, and if it's through the author's attempt to avoid writing "tolkienesque" literature.

To some extent yes, but there's obvious a spectrum on such a thing. And Fire Emblem fits pretty far on that spectrum. It's really just peope riding around with swords and magic and stuff, and even then the casual approach to magic Fire Emblem is more inspired by post Tolkien works that were inspired by Tolkien. That's still Tolkien just removed one might say, but that kind of denies original post Tolkien works their own merits as creative inspirational works. It also exposes Tolkien to the same branding as his works took inspiration from Norse mythology, which was heavily influenced Chrisab revisionism which was derived from Judaism and eventually everything is just the Epic of Gilgamesh.  In other words, yeah, Tolkien happend, and yeah, he was pretty big, but he's just one in a long line if creators influencing each other and in direct comparisons Fire Emblem isn't massively similar to Lord of the Rings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WraithReborn said:

I think the next FE game should try to take more inspiration from classic Western fantasy stories, other then LoTR or Wheel of Time.

Could you please elaborate? In what ways do you want FE to take more inspiration from other fantasu works? I like the idea a lot, but also wonder what could be carried over without turning FE into a high fantasy series rather than the low fantasy it tends to be.

Share this post


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

There's no elves or dwarves.

Try telling that to Dozla.

19 hours ago, WraithReborn said:

I think the next FE game should try to take more inspiration from classic Western fantasy stories, other then LoTR or Wheel of Time.

Narnia Emblem: it'd have playable Fauns and Elves, an OP Lion Gotoh, and a main antagonist who turns people into stone. Only 2 of those 3 have been done before! Oh, and the whole thing turns out to be a thinly-veiled religious metaphor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Narnia Emblem: it'd have playable Fauns and Elves, an OP Lion Gotoh, and a main antagonist who turns people into stone. Only 2 of those 3 have been done before! Oh, and the whole thing turns out to be a thinly-veiled religious metaphor.

Herons are slight and graceful in appearance with androgynous males, they have pointy ears, they live for hundreds of years, and they have a close spiritual connection to their forest home. Are you trying to tell me that they aren't elves?

Share this post


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

I don't think Fire Emblem has really ever taken that much inspiration from the likes of the Lord of the rings. There's no elves or dwarves. Dragons are the main bread and butter of the series. And I know that's kind of focusing on aesthetics but that's largely what Tolkien inspiration is. As far as plots go Fire Emblem has never been about fighting existential evil. There are some ridiculously evil antagonists, but they've always been actual people (even when they're dragons). The closest we've gotten to a typical dark Lord and Tolkien style story would be Sacred Stones.

If we’re talking Fire Emblem inspirations I believe Kaga has stated he took heavy inspiration from the gundam series which makes a lot of sense considering Fire Emblem’s focus on war and it’s vicious cycle. The gundam series even has its own version of the Camus archetype. Not to mention I came name a few similarities between Marth and a couple gundam pilots. 

 

8 hours ago, ping said:

Wait, there can be Fantasy that isn't in some way inspired by Tolkien?

I mean Berserk exists and a lot of Japanese fantasy stories are inspired by it. Fire Emblem being no exception in that regard. You look me straight in the eye and tell me Ike wasn’t at least somewhat inspired by Guts.

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...