How would you go about fixing FEH's story and writing?

[NekoKnight]

43 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

In other words, they are cruise control for good writing, but you still have to steer.

As Specta said,  it's not exactly cruise control to have to be faithful to an established character. There are more expectations to maintain.

48 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Heroes was advertised as a crossover game, so that's what I want from it.

That's fair. I mentioned before that I would like more cross-game interaction, but I always considered the story mode to be a Fire Emblem of its own with Gaccha units filling in for your rank and file.

[Arcphoenix]

5 hours ago, Thane said:

I guess they're there for people who have not played any game in the series, maybe?

I feel like this is a large part of the reason and a benefit to using the OCs. It lessens the entry barrier that is already lower due to the game being free-to-play. I've seen a lot of people around the web who've said they got into Fire Emblem because of Heroes.

 

Hmm... What if story chapters and character banners were no longer synced. That way the story could progress at its own pace. The dev team doesn't necessarily have to use new heroes for every chapter. Sure, when there actually is a new banner, including them in the story at the current point is fine, but not really needed immediately.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Arcphoenix

[Baldrick]

1 hour ago, Specta said:

I feel the recognizability of characters isn't really cruise control for good writing - the benefit it brings you in the grand scheme of things is the already established fan following, which isn't so much a writing element.

Would cruise control for characterisation have been more appropriate?

That comment was just a joke ftr, my actual argument was in the first paragraph.

Quote

looking at fanfiction (literally zero hate, but it's a good example,) you can see how having the characters pre-established isn't really assistance in that aspect if not just because you then have to work to maintain consistent characterization of an already well-known, developed character

 

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

As Specta said,  it's not exactly cruise control to have to be faithful to an established character. There are more expectations to maintain.

When writing original characters, I expect authors to both develop AND maintain characterisation.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Baldrick

[Specta]

I also expect this. I don't assume a character gets a free pass for bad character writing for newness, to clarify that if it was unclear!

to expand a little bit, I don't think it's necessarily a quantifiably easier thing to maintain the integrity of a pre-established character and write them engagingly in a new environment. similarly, I don't think all of the previously-established characterization (via their already fleshed stories we have read) that we might want from the older characters would necessarily be that apparent in the writing in this theoretical fixed FEH outside of the reader's imbuing of the things we already know from the sheer amount of information (that we gained from their previous stories that we read or references that, again, hold significance because we know them)

when I'm seeing this from a writing perspective, whether older or newer characters would help the writing, I see:

a good writer would engagingly write this (potential) complexity of an older character's characterization ... but could also engagingly write a new character who was developing on their first story with the reader, because we're all there at some point

buuut a bad writer would fumble the (potential) complexity of an older character ...  and would also shallowly write a new character who hadn't had the benefit of that time to develop with the reader

so I'm just not sure if taking out that element actually fixes a problem, if that makes sense. for a good story we're still gonna want good writers who can write dynamic characters, and to write dynamic characters you have to be able to write changing, complex characters, who you can do regardless of old or new

it's late so this might be a lil scattered, feel free to ask if something is unclear

Edited November 26, 2018 by Specta

[Baldrick]

2 hours ago, Specta said:

I also expect this. I don't assume a character gets a free pass for bad character writing for newness, to clarify that if it was unclear!

I didn't mean to imply that, only that developing a character and maintaining consistency in a character are two different things, and the former isn't necessary for a pre-established character.

2 hours ago, Specta said:

to expand a little bit, I don't think it's necessarily a quantifiably easier thing to maintain the integrity of a pre-established character and write them engagingly in a new environment. similarly, I don't think all of the previously-established characterization (via their already fleshed stories we have read) that we might want from the older characters would necessarily be that apparent in the writing in this theoretical fixed FEH outside of the reader's imbuing of the things we already know from the sheer amount of information (that we gained from their previous stories that we read or references that, again, hold significance because we know them)

I agree with this, the writer still needs to put effort into writing a pre-established character.

However, because Heroes is a crossover game I think it's fair for it to build on what the player already knows. A player who hasn't played and doesn't have access to the relevant games can still learn the context for themselves through an LP/plot synopsis/etc. It demands some work from new players who aren't familiar with the series, but if they're interested in getting into the series they shouldn't find it a chore.

2 hours ago, Specta said:

when I'm seeing this from a writing perspective, whether older or newer characters would help the writing, I see:

a good writer would engagingly write this (potential) complexity of an older character's characterization ... but could also engagingly write a new character who was developing on their first story with the reader, because we're all there at some point

buuut a bad writer would fumble the (potential) complexity of an older character ...  and would also shallowly write a new character who hadn't had the benefit of that time to develop with the reader

so I'm just not sure if taking out that element actually fixes a problem, if that makes sense. for a good story we're still gonna want good writers who can write dynamic characters, and to write dynamic characters you have to be able to write changing, complex characters, who you can do regardless of old or new

It fixes some specific problems. For example, take the point about Surtr lacking a motive. If Surtr was replaced by Zephiel, that's not a problem because FE6 has established a motive.

 

2 hours ago, Specta said:

it's late so this might be a lil scattered, feel free to ask if something is unclear

No, it's all pretty clear.

[Arcphoenix]

I feel there are some benefits to using OCs myself as they allow for a more connected story and more connected characterization. Warriors was a mess in they way they handled multiple villains.

 

I feel the problem is more so how the characters and plot are being handled than what they are themselves. I can see everything in Heroes as it is working if someone else was writing the scripts and in charge of plot development and planning.

I'd say that the writers have bad habits of not taking good opportunities they have to make good writing, underutilize the potentials of various characters and situations, and place too much emphasis and pad out the wrong things.

I feel that of the writing in Heroes so far, Book 1 was handled much better than Book 2. It lacked much of the padding Book 2 had and actually did a fairly alright job of integrating Heroes into the story, unlike Book 2 where they're really there just because. I can't compare villains much, nor feel it would be fair to given the difference in the size of the cast between the two books. I do have to say that Book 2 had a lot of poorly established characters, some with very one-note personalities. Of course, not all of Book 2 OCs were bad and Book 1 may have done the same with more characters, but I still feel its worth noting.

On each OC:

Spoiler

Hrid I feel would have been better if he was seen in story cutscenes prior to his appearance in the story, under a name of "???" or something.

Surtr- Creator of Anticlimactic moments and generic villain. After your long quest to find Gunthra, he burns her. You finally killed Surtr? He's playing Phoenix mode. You find out Helbindi's a character with a lot more depth because he's working for his sister. Surtr burns his sister. I mean I get that Surtr's only function is this, but come on. I don't remember him really having any motivations. Two that could have worked: collecting of life force to empower some sort of superweapon to slay some equally powerful and dangerous opponent of Muspell's. (Toxic and violent relations between the two could explain Surtr's personality). Maybe Surtr wants to revive the Fire Emblem TM Muspellian deity. Perhaps Surtr is trying to gather McGuffins that happen to be in Nifl and Askr. 

Gunthra- So many chapters were spent building up meet to her.... For her to die. In hindsight, I don't think Hrid or Ylgr even bring it up later, and that bothers me a LOT. If anything, her death only adds to Surtr's character rather than Fjorms. Fjorm has PLENTY motivation for killing Surtr already by this point, and Surtr himself has a sizable enough jar of ashes by the end of the book to justify allowing Gunnthra to live. She could have joined the summoner or continued leading her resistance faction off-screen. This could also have been a good opportunity to foreshadow Hrid. Perhaps Gunnthra and Hrid were working together but got separated.

Fjorm- Was having her fated to die really needed at the end? I feel the writers of this book had some weird obsession for killing off characters just because they could (I really, really hope this doesn't carry into book 3). The story would have been more satisfying without that random and needless downer thrown in for no really good reason. The plot wouldn't have really even changed with its exclusion.

Veronica, Bruno, Loki, Laegearn, Helbindi, Laevatain: All of these characters have several elements to themselves that make them more interesting characters. Veronica gathers heroes because she's lonely, Bruno had the whole Zacharias mystery, Loki is a trickster that is definitely working towards some bigger goal, Laegearn is honorable despite being an enemy and cares deeply for her sister, Helbindi is fighting for himself and his sister to survive, and Laevatain I'm sure is the way she is due to having Surtr as her father.

Ylgr- She's fine. She's a generic little sister for Fjorm. Did she need depth? She should have been in some grief over Gunnthra's death at the least though in my opinion.

Alfonse- Probably the least memorable character for me, honestly. I guess it might be because his persistent seriousness and lack of anything that really stands out about his personality.

Sharena- I honestly don't remember anything from Book 2 involving her. Book 1 established her as a character seeking to make friends, cheery, and was basically resident fangirl of the summoner.

Anna- She's fine. I love her in the Paralogues, and she's fine how she is in the story

Alfonse and Sharena's father: We know that he's leading a force of Askran soldiers somewhere....

Spoiler

I really, REALLY hope IS didn't decide to just kill him off too, as may be possible given Book 3's teaser

so I hope he makes an appearance at some point. I've honestly always expected him to be a legendary hero at some point

Edited November 26, 2018 by Arcphoenix

[Arcphoenix]

Can't seem to edit my last comment. Weird. Anyway, I want to add that Veronica also is shown to care about non-combatants and not believe in unnecessary killing (she mentions something about conquered Askrans becoming Emblians iirc). To add to what I said on Bruno, he has the family baggage and complicated relationship with the Askr trio. To add more to the Emblian siblings, there's the whole dragon possession thing. Embla and Askr also have an established past, which is more than can be said of Muspell and Nifl which show up randomly and never really get explored during their stay.

My thoughts and hopes on Hel and his/her role in Book 3:

Spoiler

I feel it's time we return to Embla. We can't just leave the Book 1 plot threads dangling any longer or they will definitely be irrelevant. I wouldn't mind if Hel takes over towards the end of the chapter and is revealed to be the villain of Book 4 or takes over towards the middle and is defeated towards the end, so long as the two parts don't feel rushed. Alternatively, I hope Hel is Embla's dragon just so we can return to Embla. I feel its more likely though that this is the villain Loki is working with or another "Surtr" in that it's yet another independent foe that isn't previously established.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Arcphoenix

[Xenovia]

They should drop any pretense of a serious story, since they struggle with it so much, and segue to a slice-of-life comedy with dirty jokes, like Kobayashi Chi no Maid Dragon.