Your overrated/underrated story framing devices and tropes in FE?

[Deathcon]

I feel like you can have a supernatural baddie as the final boss, so long as they weren't the one controlling everything. A good example is the maybe Ashera, she is the final boss but she definitely isn't the one who planned it all. 

[Mylady]

21 hours ago, Espurrhoodie said:

Can we stop with the dead parents? Please? Can we, for once, have an FE game where either of the protagonist's parents are alive and have a good relationship with them? The only exceptions I know of are Eliwood and Yelena (you know, from Warriors? The mother of Rin and Len Rowan and Lianna?)

I agree. The parents don't even need to be important in the plot. They can be random old villagers or workers that you can visit, so they give some items or lore exposition like the villagers and npcs in Shadows of Valentia. Them being very old or with frail health also works in a story that they want to make the parents absent in the plot without killing them. 

 

For once I'd like to see a protagonist that is not royalty, nobility or a reincarnation of a god. Just an average underdog soldier that gets stronger and more important in the story but is not predestined to be a hero. 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Mylady

[Thane]

15 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

but if the enemy really has no redeaming qualities, forgiving them just makes the hero seem inhuman. Rudolf and Berkut were shitty people and Alm forgiving them just makes Alm more impossibly perfect than he already is.

I think this is very important in a series like Fire Emblem, and sadly something that gets forgotten too often. A hero can be a good person - heroic and inspiring, even - and still not have an effectively perfect personality with no questionable traits whatsoever. Corrin's flaws which should be kind of major for a royal and the main leader of an army gets brushed aside or even praised, and Alm starts the game as perfect and finishes the game as perfect at Celica's expense.

Besides that, I've got two major ones:

1) Prophecies

Prophecies can be done well but by golly that's rare. Who makes these prophecies? How can they see the future? If they can, why couldn't they stop whatever evil needs to be stopped? Prophecies tend to be exposition dumps at the best of times and a guarantee that the heroes can't fail at worst. 

2) Evil dragon overlord and his army of cultists being the root of all evil

...Or some variant thereof. Not only has this been done to death, but it's so boring. It simplifies the plot to the point where there's no tension. Not all stories have to be murky gray, but when one team consists of puppy kickers who want to destroy the world for the hell of it and the other of purely good supermodels, there's little satisfaction to be gained from the main conflict.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Thane

[Hawkwing]

This is more "over/under-utilized" than "over/underrated", but...

OVERRATED:

Evil Cults: The only time I found them interesting was with the Duma Faithful, and that's only because we know they weren't always evil, and their lesson of "hardship builds character" twisting into "power above all else" makes sense and extends beyond the cult (TearRing Saga also had several members of the cult have very interesting reasons for why they're a part of it, even if in other areas the cult is pretty one-note). Every other time, they're one dimensional, uninterestingly evil, and most of all boring. Even more egregious that they could probably be removed from most Fire Emblem plots and they'd be off better for it (after rewriting to account for their absence, of course).

Nobles VS Commoners: To be fair, this isn't a bad idea, and works pretty naturally given the medieval setting. That said, this aspect of the series tends to either just be there or distract from other elements of the plot. It shouldn't be removed, but it's rarely the most interesting thing about the story.

UNDERRATED:

Having Several Good and Bad Guy Nations: Something I really liked about Shadow Dragon is that instead of having one big evil empire and good guy nation, it's made up of several smaller kingdoms that have united for their own reasons, and there were several factions that were unrelated to either side. Granted, they tended to blend together, but I blame the lack of visual distinction between classes and nations for that. While most games do have more than one nation involved in the story, this aspect of the series could be expanded upon in future titles.

The "Good Guy" Nation is Flawed: Zofia is the most obvious example of this, with their peaceful and prosperous lifestyle leading to them becoming decadent and corrupt, Rigel invading Zofia previously due to their king didn't keep his end of a bargain, and the conflict of the game starting out in Zofia and only escalating as it did when Rigel tried to lend a hand to Desaix in his coup. Ylisse has good reason for being peaceful due to how a previous war nearly destroyed the kingdom, and I believe Tellius also has elements of this as well. It's a good twist on the classic "peaceful nation is invaded by warlike neighbors" trope, and Fire Emblem should keep experimenting with it.

The Hero Not Being The Only Player In The World: Another aspect I liked from Shadow Dragon was how while Marth was an important character in world affairs, he wasn't the head honcho. Hardin becomes the King of Archanea at the end of the first game, while Marth rules an important but smaller nation, and the historical love triangle between Anri, Artemis, and Cartas has more to do with Camus, Nyna, and Hardin than Marth.  Marth is kind of just the guy that wields the magic sword at the end of the day, but I think that's a nice change of pace, and leads to a very "The Tale of a Knight in King Arthurs court" feeling to the story, which I enjoy. I don't mind the main characters being as important as they are in most games, but having them simply be one of many characters in a play is a writing convention that should be utilized a lot more in the series.

[henrymidfields]

10 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Having Several Good and Bad Guy Nations: Something I really liked about Shadow Dragon is that instead of having one big evil empire and good guy nation, it's made up of several smaller kingdoms that have united for their own reasons, and there were several factions that were unrelated to either side. Granted, they tended to blend together, but I blame the lack of visual distinction between classes and nations for that. While most games do have more than one nation involved in the story, this aspect of the series could be expanded upon in future titles.

Building off and extending this would be to have both good and bad guys on both the protagonists' side and the antagonists'. The villainous nation A who you happened to team up with  either invaded you in the past, had a brutal slave trade, or only joined on your side due to sheer dumb luck when they were profitting off from weaponry and mercenary profit they provided indiscriminately. But you need your unlikely ally because they are the ones that can oppose the antagonist nations effectively when the rest of your allies have been weakened. On the other side happens to be a small nation B that you previously had good relationship with that you'd rather not fight against, but it happens because of either self-preservation (due to it sharing borders with main villain and antagonist Nation C), desperation for survival (B was brutally invaded by aforementioned Nation A, and had a better chance surviving with the antagonists), or past grudges and distrust against your allies. It would be nice to have shades of alliances/emnity, and how you trust one of your allies while not trusting another one. Or how you forgive (or even ally with) a former enemy who surrendered vs thoroughly punish another.

Bonus points if a Tellius Echoes includes an allegory of Finland on the Axis side vs Soviet Union.

Edited November 29, 2019 by henrymidfields

[Benice]

This isn't really about ovverrated or underrated, but I'd really like an explanation in most games as to why the main antagonists never take Protagonists seriously until the player has attained godlike power? I loved Sacred stones, but Ch. 6 bothered me because it becomes evident that Grado has adknowledged that eirika is a threat. Riev shows up a few seconds before Eirika and Co. show up and makes sure the ambush is set up right. He then leaves. In ch. 6, Riev would have a very good chance to kill most of your party. Valter leaving seth and Eirika alive makes sense because A) The game adknowledges Valter as being a poor general for grado, with even Caellach showing disdain for his actions, and B) Valter states that he wants to savour the hunt and do things to Eirika that even Corrupted Lyon wouldn't think of. In Blazing, Nergal could easily send any of the four fangs or even the random pallies he has lying around to kill every lord, but he doesn't. From a gameplay standpoint it makes a lot of sense, but still, I'd love to see better reasoning.

[henrymidfields]

3 hours ago, Benice said:

This isn't really about ovverrated or underrated, but I'd really like an explanation in most games as to why the main antagonists never take Protagonists seriously until the player has attained godlike power? I loved Sacred stones, but Ch. 6 bothered me because it becomes evident that Grado has adknowledged that eirika is a threat. Riev shows up a few seconds before Eirika and Co. show up and makes sure the ambush is set up right. He then leaves. In ch. 6, Riev would have a very good chance to kill most of your party. Valter leaving seth and Eirika alive makes sense because A) The game adknowledges Valter as being a poor general for grado, with even Caellach showing disdain for his actions, and B) Valter states that he wants to savour the hunt and do things to Eirika that even Corrupted Lyon wouldn't think of. In Blazing, Nergal could easily send any of the four fangs or even the random pallies he has lying around to kill every lord, but he doesn't. From a gameplay standpoint it makes a lot of sense, but still, I'd love to see better reasoning.

That's a good question. Maybe what they can do in the next game is to either:

• Focus more on diplomacy and politics and make intentionally half-assed skirmishes. A form of brinkmanship, where troops are deployed simply to bluff/coerce the opponent into a particular detrimental action.
• Return back to the old days and have multiple players in the continent's politics. Sure, you have been a thorn in the antagonist's hand, but s/he has more threatening political and military opponents to deal with. Alternately, you are a threat, but the enemy just needs to buy some time before s/he gets a superweapon, reinforcements, or a political advantage that nullifies your threat/relative strength.
• Actually have a scripted chapter where the victory conditions are to survive for how many turns. The enemy finishes you off regardless, but you manage to barely survive.
• Or, do all of the three plot devices above.

[Etrurian emperor]

On 11/29/2019 at 4:59 AM, Hawkwing said:

The "Good Guy" Nation is Flawed: Zofia is the most obvious example of this, with their peaceful and prosperous lifestyle leading to them becoming decadent and corrupt, Rigel invading Zofia previously due to their king didn't keep his end of a bargain, and the conflict of the game starting out in Zofia and only escalating as it did when Rigel tried to lend a hand to Desaix in his coup. Ylisse has good reason for being peaceful due to how a previous war nearly destroyed the kingdom, and I believe Tellius also has elements of this as well. It's a good twist on the classic "peaceful nation is invaded by warlike neighbors" trope, and Fire Emblem should keep experimenting with it.

That's actually a fairly common FE trope though its usually about the allied good guy nation instead of the one the lord hails from. 

Countries like Archenea, Etruria, Zofia, Granvelle and Begnion are all heavily flawed nations who's flaws eventually lead to them becoming the enemy. It has generally to do with political corruption.