Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

I saw it kinda differently, Sure Alm is a royal (and the game hints at this in ways that are kinda overt.) but the way I saw it, the fact he was raised as a commoner in a villager is what ultimately made him the great ruler he ends up being, granted, I'm bringing the DLC into this but in the prequel DLC, the Harbor flat-out has a Rebellion that Clive and Fernand have to fight off due to the nobility neglecting the poor. (Also the Deliverence actually ends up screwing up significantly under Clive's Leadership at least once, with them having to basically take noble folk hostages and drag them off threatening to kill them if the enemy force pursues the, which does manage to explain why he lets Alm keep ruling even if the player messed up since even then Alm has arguably screwed up less than Clive did in the DLC.)

Alm however I doubt would neglect the poor, while Lima was content to neglect the commonfolk, Alm is quite literally willing to go plowing in the fields despite being a noble, he's going to try to fix Valentia himself instead of basically leaving the commonfolk with empty promises like Lima, the way I see it him being a member of Nobility really just stops the Power Vaccum that would happen when a Ruler dies without a heir somewhat (So people are more willing to accept him as ruler), him being a commoner at heart is what ultimately makes him a good ruler.

That still doesn’t change the fact that Berkut’s claims go uncontested. Berkut says a commoner is not fit to be a leader and he’s never once proven wrong about that at all. We never see a commoner in a position of leadership. The only leaders we see in this story are of noble birth. And that’s not even factoring the Royal sword or the rigelian vault both of which can only be accessed/wielded by royalty. Alm is only able to get where he is because of his bloodline. Like he gets the better sword because he’s royal. He gets Falchion because he’s royal. His royal lineage is basically what defines his character and allows him to do these things which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but the story makes a point of saying bloodline does not determine your worth when it absolutely does by the story’s own logic. Alm is inherently better than the ram villagers because of his bloodline which is proven multiple times throughout the story. I’m not necessarily saying Alm is privileged either. I’m just saying the point the story tries to make in that bloodline doesn’t matter when there are numerous instances of Alm’s worth being determined by his lineage.

Alm is a good leader, yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the story contradicts itself. It doesn’t change the fact that Berkut is right at the end of the day. Though I do kinda like the bit of you saying “commoner at heart” yeah that’s an interesting point to make in this discussion because I think that point is one in favor of theme being executed somewhat competently. I’ll give credit where credit is due.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 408
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

32 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

That still doesn’t change the fact that Berkut’s claims go uncontested. Berkut says a commoner is not fit to be a leader and he’s never once proven wrong about that at all. We never see a commoner in a position of leadership. The only leaders we see in this story are of noble birth. And that’s not even factoring the Royal sword or the rigelian vault both of which can only be accessed/wielded by royalty. Alm is only able to get where he is because of his bloodline. Like he gets the better sword because he’s royal. He gets Falchion because he’s royal. His royal lineage is basically what defines his character and allows him to do these things which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but the story makes a point of saying bloodline does not determine your worth when it absolutely does by the story’s own logic. Alm is inherently better than the ram villagers because of his bloodline which is proven multiple times throughout the story. I’m not necessarily saying Alm is privileged either. I’m just saying the point the story tries to make in that bloodline doesn’t matter when there are numerous instances of Alm’s worth being determined by his lineage.

Alm is a good leader, yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the story contradicts itself. It doesn’t change the fact that Berkut is right at the end of the day. Though I do kinda like the bit of you saying “commoner at heart” yeah that’s an interesting point to make in this discussion because I think that point is one in favor of theme being executed somewhat competently. I’ll give credit where credit is due.

The sad thing is that Gaiden originally never had this kind of theme in regards to "commoners vs nobility" at all. This entire theme is not even necessary in Echoes. In fact, the theme just drops by the end of the game, because the focus ends up being about taking down Duma and releasing Valentia from gods.

Because the story was never supposed to be about "commoners vs nobility". It was always meant to be about how Duma and Mila were screwing Valentia over with their extreme sides of philosophy, and there needed to be a balance between their teachings.

In fact, it's weird for there to even be a royal family and bloodlines in Rigel. Personally, it oughta have been like some version of Ashnard's worldview, where the strong gain status, and the weak must submit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

That still doesn’t change the fact that Berkut’s claims go uncontested. Berkut says a commoner is not fit to be a leader and he’s never once proven wrong about that at all. We never see a commoner in a position of leadership. The only leaders we see in this story are of noble birth. And that’s not even factoring the Royal sword or the rigelian vault both of which can only be accessed/wielded by royalty. Alm is only able to get where he is because of his bloodline. Like he gets the better sword because he’s royal. He gets Falchion because he’s royal. His royal lineage is basically what defines his character and allows him to do these things which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but the story makes a point of saying bloodline does not determine your worth when it absolutely does by the story’s own logic. Alm is inherently better than the ram villagers because of his bloodline which is proven multiple times throughout the story. I’m not necessarily saying Alm is privileged either. I’m just saying the point the story tries to make in that bloodline doesn’t matter when there are numerous instances of Alm’s worth being determined by his lineage.

Alm is a good leader, yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the story contradicts itself. It doesn’t change the fact that Berkut is right at the end of the day

Yeah Alm is technically Noble Blood but I see it as the fact he's more like a commoner is why he's ultimately a good ruler, (Not neglecting the poor like all the other royals, even Clive to an extent.) him being related mostly just stops the power vaccum that would happen otherwise in my eyes. 

Gameplay-wise, while Alm wasn't terrible, I'd say the villagers out-class him for the most part gameplay-wise, so it's not like he's a super-soldier while they aren't (Unlike Robin, who shoots the "Power of friendship" message hard by having them be an OP superunit.), I generally found the other Village-kids more useful in gameplay. (And Celica's vision I felt kinda shown that he would not have won on his own.), so while he does get the sword, he's at least in my opinion not inherently better than the Ram Villagers on a gameplay front as I'm pretty sure an "Alm only" run of Echoes wouldn't be too easy, (Kliff in my experience as a Mage far out-shines Alm for the most part.) I admit I'm a big "Gameplay/story related" guy so in the case of Alm, the fact I really had to use others alot made it feel alot like it wasn't just because he was the chosen one. (While Robin feels even more like a Mary Sue self-insert when they're literally the best character in the game.)

I've not done the stat math but I'm fairly certain a Brave Sword is still technically better than Falchion for the most part. (Certainly much, much better against Grima, even against Duma a Dread Fighter with a Brave Sword does a ton more damage at once than Alm will generally do and can potentially soften him up to the point where Alm can one round him, which my Alm couldn't do naturally without a dread fighter crit to soften up before his plot-armor kicked in.) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Yeah Alm is technically Noble Blood but I see it as the fact he's more like a commoner is why he's ultimately a good ruler, (Not neglecting the poor like all the other royals, even Clive to an extent.) him being related mostly just stops the power vaccum that would happen otherwise in my eyes. 

This is strictly in the context of how Echoes is, right? Not in general? Otherwise, this type of thinking is extremely flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Yeah Alm is technically Noble Blood but I see it as the fact he's more like a commoner is why he's ultimately a good ruler, (Not neglecting the poor like all the other royals, even Clive to an extent.) him being related mostly just stops the power vaccum that would happen otherwise in my eyes. 

That still doesn’t change the fact that Berkut is still right when he’s not supposed to be as for the rest of your argument that’s kind of fair but that doesn’t change the fact that Alm would be unable to slay Duma if not for his royal blood because if it were not for that then he would never be able to obtain falchion which is the only way to slay Duma.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

This is strictly in the context of how Echoes is, right? Not in general? Otherwise, this type of thinking is extremely flawed.

Yeah in the context of Echoes, Alm isn't going to neglect the common folk and is infact willing to plow the fields himself.

47 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

That still doesn’t change the fact that Berkut is still right when he’s not supposed to be as for the rest of your argument that’s kind of fair but that doesn’t change the fact that Alm would be unable to slay Duma if not for his royal blood because if it were not for that then he would never be able to obtain falchion which is the only way to slay Duma.

I get what you're saying but for me it's still ultimately that Alm being better than Lima due to being a commoner first and the fact he has to work with his allies/friends to get there means it doesn't quite ruin the point of the story for me since sure Alm gets the cool sword but without his friends he'd have never got there in the first place as shown in Celica''s nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Samz707 said:

Yeah in the context of Echoes, Alm isn't going to neglect the common folk and is infact willing to plow the fields himself.

I get what you're saying but for me it's still ultimately that Alm being better than Lima due to being a commoner first and the fact he has to work with his allies/friends to get there means it doesn't quite ruin the point of the story for me since sure Alm gets the cool sword but without his friends he'd have never got there in the first place as shown in Celica''s nightmare.

Honestly, that nightmare, to me, seemed to indicate more about what would happen if Celica didn't act. Given how Rudolf was seemingly possessed by a dark entity, and how Alm mentions that Rudolf took Celica, it seems like a warning vision to Celica. After all, Mila has some semblance of clairvoyance, and Celica has Mila's blood in her given the Brand. 

But the main issue with saying that Alm is better than Lima isn't about who is better as a leader. It's about the fact that a commoner still didn't become the leader. 

It lines up with Berkut's remark that a "sheep cannot lead wolves". 

Because Alm is actually a prince, he has a "charisma" that drew others to him, unite and work with him. Gray also remarks that Alm is different from them, and how he's just "above" them. Hell, Tobin cannot even comprehend what Alm says when Alm declares war on Rigel, but still rallies around him because Alm is just inspiring. This attribute is something that Mycen even remarks comes "from the blood", cause Alm is Rudolf's son. And Rudolf is a loved leader by other Rigelians.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

I get what you're saying but for me it's still ultimately that Alm being better than Lima due to being a commoner first and the fact he has to work with his allies/friends to get there means it doesn't quite ruin the point of the story for me since sure Alm gets the cool sword but without his friends he'd have never got there in the first place as shown in Celica''s nightmare.

Fair enough I suppose but Even disregarding the whole noble vs commoner theme the other major theme still falls flat because Alm is too much of a nice guy. Like the point of Alm’s character is that he keeps slowly giving into his own hate and lust for vengeance against rigel that he accidentally kills his own father which is supposed to act as a sort of narrative punishment and force him to acknowledge the flaws of his own ideals but the problem is that he never gives into his own hate like at all. Even when he confronts rudolf he outright says:

“That’s Emperor Rudolf… This is strange… I’m not sure what I’m feeling at the moment. He’s caused so much suffering, and I know I should hate him, but…I can’t. Instead he just feels… I don’t know. Familiar, somehow?”

which if you want me to believe that he’s supposed to give into his hate and such that is something he should not be saying 

 

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Fair enough I suppose but Even disregarding the whole noble vs commoner theme the other major theme still falls flat because Alm is too much of a nice guy. Like the point of Alm’s character is that he keeps slowly giving into his own hate and lust for vengeance against rigel that he accidentally kills his own father which is supposed to act as a sort of narrative punishment and force him to acknowledge the flaws of his own ideals but the problem is that he never gives into his own hate like at all. Even when he confronts rudolf he outright says:

“That’s Emperor Rudolf… This is strange… I’m not sure what I’m feeling at the moment. He’s caused so much suffering, and I know I should hate him, but…I can’t. Instead he just feels… I don’t know. Familiar, somehow?”

which if you want me to believe that he’s supposed to give into his hate and such that is something he should not be saying 

 

Is he supposed to be giving into his own hate and lust for vengeance? I never really saw it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Is he supposed to be giving into his own hate and lust for vengeance? I never really saw it that way.

I mean if Duma’s words at the end of the game are to be believed then yes that’s what was supposed to happen. Should you need more evidence just look at what Alm says after he and Celica reunite again

“Don’t apologize. Just know that I need you, all right? Without your wisdom, all I know how to do is fight whatever’s in front of me. So please… Will you fight with me? Believe in me. Believe in US. Believe in our combined strength!”

Basically what he’s saying here is that he needs Celica’s kindness and wisdom to hold back his strength from going too far. The implication being that if she had been with him then maybe he wouldn’t have accidentally killed his own father because she would hold back his strength. But the problem is that it’s not true. Alm can hold himself back just fine as seen with Zeke, Tatiana, and even Delthea. He doesn’t need Celica or really anyone else to hold him back from going too far. He’s just fine on his own which kinda defeats the whole purpose of him and Celica being duel protagonists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

In fact, it's weird for there to even be a royal family and bloodlines in Rigel. Personally, it oughta have been like some version of Ashnard's worldview, where the strong gain status, and the weak must submit. 

That would have made a lot more sense imo. And it would have made Rudolf's plan require a little less mental gymnastics to justify, in that Alm would have been guaranteed nothing as his son, but if he provided an enemy for his son to fight then Alm could gain everything through force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean if Duma’s words at the end of the game are to be believed then yes that’s what was supposed to happen. Should you need more evidence just look at what Alm says after he and Celica reunite again

“Don’t apologize. Just know that I need you, all right? Without your wisdom, all I know how to do is fight whatever’s in front of me. So please… Will you fight with me? Believe in me. Believe in US. Believe in our combined strength!”

Basically what he’s saying here is that he needs Celica’s kindness and wisdom to hold back his strength from going too far. The implication being that if she had been with him then maybe he wouldn’t have accidentally killed his own father because she would hold back his strength. But the problem is that it’s not true. Alm can hold himself back just fine as seen with Zeke, Tatiana, and even Delthea. He doesn’t need Celica or really anyone else to hold him back from going too far. He’s just fine on his own which kinda defeats the whole purpose of him and Celica being duel protagonists.

I think I said this already, but my interpretation wasn't that Alm was supposed to be this bloodthirsty conqueror, but more like a man whose strength is the one way they feel they can make a difference in the world:

In the beginning of Act 1, Alm is begging Mycen to let him leave the village to go help people: "Zofia is full of innocent people who are looking for help. Please, Grandfather. I want to make a difference in a world bigger than a handful of houses."

Then when Mycen tells him no and leaves, he says: "…What’s his problem?! Why teach me to use a sword if you’re not going to let me fight? Every day in this place is exactly the same as the next. I know I’m meant for more than this! But you have to let me find it!"

Alm's beginning, and ultimately his reason for leaving the village and joining the Deliverance, is because it finally gives him an opportunity to use his strength for a worthy cause, and prove that he can make a difference: "I know. But considering he’s never let me take one step outside the village, I doubt I could have talked him into letting me join an army. Not that it would have changed things either way—I HAVE to go. Not just to prove him as a teacher, but to prove myself to me."

When he reunites with Celica in Act 2, she is obviously against the war and is desperately hoping for a peaceful solution. Alm rejects the idea, citing the failures of diplomacy in the past ("Do you think I WANTED this fight? This all started because Lima IV went and angered the empire. If you wish to point fingers, point them at the ruler who failed his people. It’s his fault we’re in this mess.") and that war wouldn't exist if diplomacy always prevailed:

Celica: But there must be a way to resolve things other than bloodshed, no?

Alm: That’s a pretty thought, Celica, but I’m not sure it’s true. If it were, no one would be risking life and limb on the battlefield.

They part ways and each continue along their quests, and the flaws in both their points become clear at the end of Act 4: Alm kills his own father in the final fight at Rigel Castle, and Celica, desperate for a peaceful solution, gets herself kidnapped by Jedah. Hence the game's theme that strength and compassion are needed in almost any relationship, be it parenting, friendship, or governing an entire feudal era continent (one of these is less relatable than the others).

So yeah, I believe that Alm isn't inherently violent or ruthless. He was being quite literal: he doesn't know how to solve the world's problems without just strong-arming his way through to help whoever he sees in trouble (hell, even the scene where he charges into a pack of brigands because he hears they have a girl captive is a great example). It's a strength in that it guides his more equitable side, in a way (his willingness to divert his entire army just to save Delthea or Celica (in Fear Mountain and Duma Temple) stems from this idea that he can fight and help people, and his willingness to use his strength to help everyone he meets on his journey is what draws so many of the Deliverance to him), but a weakness in that it limits his ability to see other, more peaceful options- hence the reason he needs Celica in his life.

3 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Yeah in the context of Echoes, Alm isn't going to neglect the common folk and is infact willing to plow the fields himself.

I get what you're saying but for me it's still ultimately that Alm being better than Lima due to being a commoner first and the fact he has to work with his allies/friends to get there means it doesn't quite ruin the point of the story for me since sure Alm gets the cool sword but without his friends he'd have never got there in the first place as shown in Celica''s nightmare.

I wonder if there's an argument to be made that extending the above theme of balance to the commoner vs nobility theme is what they were actually trying to go for?

Like, in this case, Berkut's claim that a sheep has no hope of leading wolves is technically wrong (but also technically right) in that a wolf in sheep's clothing is what leads the Deliverance to victory. Alm's strength as a leader is cited to be his valuing of all life equally, regardless of nobility or commoner, which is a perspective almost nobody else in the game shares- most of the nobles look down on the commoners, subconsciously or not, Gray, Tobin and Python are more cynical when it comes to knights and nobles, and how they look down on people, and Forsyth looks up to nobles and knights as a golden standard he's trying to reach- to name a few examples. Alm being a fusion of both these worlds is how the Deliverance won- yes, his noble birth probably gave him natural talent for fighting and leadership, but, as @Samz707 said, his relatability to the commoners of the army, and his ability to empathise with the people around him, was just as important to the Deliverance's success. The fact that people of all walks of life work together is implied to be the foundation of post-Duma Valentia, with the scene where the nobles pledge to do their all to farm the land to ensure everyone's survival- and Alm being the wolf in sheep's clothing is the main reason this unity was brought about.

So Berkut's claim may never be proven wrong, but the importance of it is diminished, because its not about who rules best- its how well the rulers and their subjects can work together to ensure prosperity for all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

So yeah, I believe that Alm isn't inherently violent or ruthless. He was being quite literal: he doesn't know how to solve the world's problems without just strong-arming his way through to help whoever he sees in trouble (hell, even the scene where he charges into a pack of brigands because he hears they have a girl captive is a great example). It's a strength in that it guides his more equitable side, in a way (his willingness to divert his entire army just to save Delthea or Celica (in Fear Mountain and Duma Temple) stems from this idea that he can fight and help people, and his willingness to use his strength to help everyone he meets on his journey is what draws so many of the Deliverance to him), but a weakness in that it limits his ability to see other, more peaceful options- hence the reason he needs Celica in his life.

Interesting points here but ultimately I still have a problem in how it’s handled simply because there are a few instances where Alm does opt for the peaceful solution first as when he sends a letter to Rigel to peacefully surrender more or less at the sluice gate. Of course this doesn’t work and they invade Rigel regardless but it is a moment where Alm follows the more peaceful path. Even disregarding that the flaws in his ideals are never truly showcased in a meaningful way other than his fight with Rudolf and even then it’s a little lukewarm because there’s very little thematic build up to it. Throughout all of act 4 we never really see Alm be reckless to his detriment. Which one could argue that it kinda validates him that way in that he has no reason for it not to work when he fights Rudolf but it’s a point in the narrative that’s never really emphasized.

like he charges into Nuibaba’s abode while fully aware that it could be a trap on the off chance that he can save Celica. I take no issue with that but my problem really is that it kinda works out for him in the best way possible. Like at no point is his world view meaningfully challenged nor does the story put any emphasis on his recklessness at least to my recollection. Besides the Rudolf moment at no point is he ever punished for being reckless and even with Rudolf moment it’s not really emphasized that his recklessness is what caused it.

one of the main reasons I’m so hung up on Alm being more ruthless is simply because Alm is by and large meant to represent the flaws of Duma’s philosophy of strength. Those very flaws are spelled out plainly in the opening narration to which the following is said

“Meanwhile, in the north, Duma had built his own empire. Tempered by harsh lands and the even harsher teachings of their fierce god, the people of Rigel had grown strong. But in their quest for power, the Rigelians had let their hearts grow cold and numb to all kindness

Note that last sentence there, “but in their quest for power, the rigelians had let their hearts grow cold and numb to all kindness” and that just spells it out pretty clearly now, doesn’t it? Alm’s character arc is supposed to be a complete reflection of that last sentence but it isn’t and that’s where my problem lies. Alm’s heart never grows numb to kindness in any way shape or form when it’s supposed to at least to a degree because Berkut and Fernand are already decent reflections of it but that’s just it. The fact that Alm doesn’t reflect it at all makes the foil relationship between them that much weaker. If Alm had, at least in subtle ways, started to act a little bit like Berkut only to realize it later and snap out of it after his whole confrontation with Rudolf then that would’ve been really good but that doesn’t really happen. As it stands the foil relationship between Alm and Berkut is about Lukewarm at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Interesting points here but ultimately I still have a problem in how it’s handled simply because there are a few instances where Alm does opt for the peaceful solution first as when he sends a letter to Rigel to peacefully surrender more or less at the sluice gate. Of course this doesn’t work and they invade Rigel regardless but it is a moment where Alm follows the more peaceful path. Even disregarding that the flaws in his ideals are never truly showcased in a meaningful way other than his fight with Rudolf and even then it’s a little lukewarm because there’s very little thematic build up to it. Throughout all of act 4 we never really see Alm be reckless to his detriment. Which one could argue that it kinda validates him that way in that he has no reason for it not to work when he fights Rudolf but it’s a point in the narrative that’s never really emphasized.

 

Oh, I definitely agree that it could have been handled much better. As you say, the writers seemed to want to have their cake and eat it too by having him try the diplomatic approach at least once- afaik that's the only time they try something like that, but still.

This is more a personal thing for me, but the generic bosses from Act 4 onward start to become a lot more sympathetic. Like, I actually felt bad about killing them, despite the fact I can't remember their names. Because the game actually made me feel something at those points, I felt that the idea that Alm was being too reckless was adequately conveyed- these people could have been allies or friends, your conflict was never personal. By choosing to fight our way through, we burned those bridges. Keep in mind that I'm sappy as all hell though, so my experience differs from the average person.

It's kind of hard to make every boss Mustafa tier in terms of a gut-punching death, but I feel like if the writers had attempted that, the idea that Alm resorts to fighting because its what he knows would be made more clear, as would the consequences of that ideology- building up to the Rudolf fight, of course. There may have been some attempt, but clearly it didn't pan out too well, since I think I'm the only person who feels sad when they have to kill Xaizor.

Speaking of fighting because it's all he really knows: 

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

“Meanwhile, in the north, Duma had built his own empire. Tempered by harsh lands and the even harsher teachings of their fierce god, the people of Rigel had grown strong. But in their quest for power, the Rigelians had let their hearts grow cold and numb to all kindness

Other than the actual jerks like Jerome, who would have been evil if they were raised anywhere, and the Duma Faithful, very few people actually display a heartless and ruthless side in Rigel- I remember being shocked at how normal the Rigelian NPCs were after taking out Jerome, because I expected them to be a lot more... y'know, numb to kindness. Rudolf's most heartless moment is when he basically tells Berkut he's useless (the famous "UNCLE!" scene)- and even that was arguably because he wanted Berkut out of danger. Granted, he went about it in possibly the worst and cruelest way possible, but that's not heartlessness as much as it is a lack of tact (Alm even has a few moments like this, like when he blames Clive for Clair getting captured in Act 1). Essentially, we're told that Rigelians are heartless but we very rarely see it- they seem to embody a sense of pride in their hard work (a random NPC in Rigel's village says something along these lines) and strength (Berkut) that Alm does, in fact, mirror. But outright cruelty is rarely seen. 

Honestly this entire paragraph is as much a criticism of the writing as it is a vindication. I could argue that Rigelians were always meant to be portrayed this way- focused on using their strength to help themselves and others- and Alm reflects this throughout the game, thus the main thing that needs to change is that sentence in the opening narration. Or it could be used to argue that the entire game needed a writing overhaul with regards to how Rigel is portrayed, because the former portrayal makes Alm too moderate compared to Celica, which is also true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

Honestly this entire paragraph is as much a criticism of the writing as it is a vindication. I could argue that Rigelians were always meant to be portrayed this way- focused on using their strength to help themselves and others- and Alm reflects this throughout the game, thus the main thing that needs to change is that sentence in the opening narration. Or it could be used to argue that the entire game needed a writing overhaul with regards to how Rigel is portrayed, because the former portrayal makes Alm too moderate compared to Celica, which is also true.

Honestly SoV’s story as a whole just feels unfocused like the writers just couldn’t really decide what exactly they wanted to focus on snd how they wanted to portray it. Cause like You said you can make the argument for both cases but both arguments contradict each other and cannot coexist kinda like the two major standing themes of SoV’s story. They kinda contradict each other or rather one theme kinda undermines the other if you ask me. When you really break it down SoV’s narrative is a bit of a mess thematically speaking at least that’s how I see it because again it just feels a little unfocussed and contradictory at points. It doesn’t really fully understand what it wants to do with itself 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Honestly SoV’s story as a whole just feels unfocused like the writers just couldn’t really decide what exactly they wanted to focus on snd how they wanted to portray it. Cause like You said you can make the argument for both cases but both arguments contradict each other and cannot coexist kinda like the two major standing themes of SoV’s story. They kinda contradict each other or rather one theme kinda undermines the other if you ask me. When you really break it down SoV’s narrative is a bit of a mess thematically speaking at least that’s how I see it because again it just feels a little unfocussed and contradictory at points. It doesn’t really fully understand what it wants to do with itself 

That's true enough. The commoner vs noble and strength vs compassion debates can certainly co-exist and can even be resolved by the same idea of unity and balance, but Echoes unfortunately made a few errors in portraying them. I personally think the story holds up OK, though it could definitely be much better, but I am admittedly biased in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Anathaco said:

 

Other than the actual jerks like Jerome, who would have been evil if they were raised anywhere, and the Duma Faithful, very few people actually display a heartless and ruthless side in Rigel- I remember being shocked at how normal the Rigelian NPCs were after taking out Jerome, because I expected them to be a lot more... y'know, numb to kindness. Rudolf's most heartless moment is when he basically tells Berkut he's useless (the famous "UNCLE!" scene)- and even that was arguably because he wanted Berkut out of danger. Granted, he went about it in possibly the worst and cruelest way possible, but that's not heartlessness as much as it is a lack of tact (Alm even has a few moments like this, like when he blames Clive for Clair getting captured in Act 1). Essentially, we're told that Rigelians are heartless but we very rarely see it- they seem to embody a sense of pride in their hard work (a random NPC in Rigel's village says something along these lines) and strength (Berkut) that Alm does, in fact, mirror. But outright cruelty is rarely seen. 

Honestly this entire paragraph is as much a criticism of the writing as it is a vindication. I could argue that Rigelians were always meant to be portrayed this way- focused on using their strength to help themselves and others- and Alm reflects this throughout the game, thus the main thing that needs to change is that sentence in the opening narration. Or it could be used to argue that the entire game needed a writing overhaul with regards to how Rigel is portrayed, because the former portrayal makes Alm too moderate compared to Celica, which is also true.

While I can't remember how exactly it's described in-game (if the narrator does it or just in-game dialogue) but I took that as maybe the fact that Rigel and Zofia essentially practically propaganda against each other, claiming the other are horrible people, I recall a few Rigellian citizens are surprised you're not evil and Tatiana actually freaks out for a second when she finds out her rescuers are Zofian.

Even when you go to Archanea in Act 6 you get this: 

Mercenary: We have a legend around these parts. It says an evil god will descend upon us from the west and destroy humanity. …Huh? You crossed the western sea? But…you’re completely normal! When I think of “westerners,” I picture vicious, bloodthirsty madmen.

So even Archanea (or at least, the Harbour area) think Zofia and Rigel are full of blood thursty mad men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

While I can't remember how exactly it's described in-game (if the narrator does it or just in-game dialogue) but I took that as maybe the fact that Rigel and Zofia essentially practically propaganda against each other, claiming the other are horrible people, I recall a few Rigellian citizens are surprised you're not evil and Tatiana actually freaks out for a second when she finds out her rescuers are Zofian.

Even when you go to Archanea in Act 6 you get this: 

Mercenary: We have a legend around these parts. It says an evil god will descend upon us from the west and destroy humanity. …Huh? You crossed the western sea? But…you’re completely normal! When I think of “westerners,” I picture vicious, bloodthirsty madmen.

So even Archanea (or at least, the Harbour area) think Zofia and Rigel are full of blood thursty mad men.

 

Yeah that specific quote came from the narrator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Anathaco said:

That's true enough. The commoner vs noble and strength vs compassion debates can certainly co-exist and can even be resolved by the same idea of unity and balance, but Echoes unfortunately made a few errors in portraying them. I personally think the story holds up OK, though it could definitely be much better, but I am admittedly biased in this case.

I’m not saying the two themes can never coexist cause you can definitely make it work but I don’t think it works here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The Drama CD actually has it revealed that there USED to be a horrific custom where Rigelians used to actually abandon sick and weak children.

But the issue is that this isn't practiced anymore. 

That’s interesting, I never knew that.

But yeah the writers should have gone all in on Rigel, I feel.

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not saying the two themes can never coexist cause you can definitely make it work but I don’t think it works here

Yeah. Me, personally, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it doesn’t work at all, but it depends on interpretation, and there are one or two moments that are at odds with the rest of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Anathaco said:

Yeah that specific quote came from the narrator. 

Oh.

I guess I get more of a vibe of "The Rigelians are all told how evil the Zofians are and the Zofians are told how evil all the Rigelians" vibe is. ( I guess the Narrator is ment to be from the protagonists viewpoint kinda AKA Baised?) so it's a twist when it turns out that several party members/citizens of Rigel are actually well, normal people and not a completely evil generic evil dude kingdom like our protagonists think.

I would have liked I guess a few things showing how they're different from Zofians but I figured the point was that somewhere down the line things detorated between both kingdoms to the point where they told themselves the other kingdom were horrible people (Which is quite usual in war sometimes, it's easier to fight someone if you convince yourself you're 100 percent in the right and the other person is 100 in the wrong and does horrible things.) while in actuality both kingdoms could have gotten along if they weren't so blinded by Duma/Millas hatred of each other.

I know it's kinda standard in my experience (Well apparently Three Houses introduces a race of people that the game treats as all evil and okay to genocide, which for a game that apparently tries to tackle racism is frankly absurd.) that in FE games that not everyone on the other kingdom are evil dudes but here I guess it shows how Duma and Mila's rivalry impacted their own kingdoms.

Edited by Samz707
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Oh.

I guess I get more of a vibe of "The Rigelians are all told how evil the Zofians are and the Zofians are told how evil all the Rigelians" vibe is. ( I guess the Narrator is ment to be from the protagonists viewpoint kinda AKA Baised?) so it's a twist when it turns out that several party members/citizens of Rigel are actually well, normal people and not a completely evil generic evil dude kingdom like our protagonists think.

I would have liked I guess a few things showing how they're different from Zofians but I figured the point was that somewhere down the line things detorated between both kingdoms to the point where they told themselves the other kingdom were horrible people (Which is quite usual in war sometimes, it's easier to fight someone if you convince yourself you're 100 percent in the right and the other person is 100 in the wrong and does horrible things.) while in actuality both kingdoms could have gotten along if they weren't so blinded by Duma/Millas hatred of each other.

I know it's kinda standard in my experience (Well apparently Three Houses introduces a race of people that the game treats as all evil and okay to genocide, which for a game that apparently tries to tackle racism is frankly absurd.) that in FE games that not everyone on the other kingdom are evil dudes but here I guess it shows how Duma and Mila's rivalry impacted their own kingdoms.

I mean to quote omegaxis1, the point of SoV's narrative is

 

On 7/30/2020 at 3:48 PM, omegaxis1 said:

Because the story was never supposed to be about "commoners vs nobility". It was always meant to be about how Duma and Mila were screwing Valentia over with their extreme sides of philosophy, and there needed to be a balance between their teachings.

 So that opening narration combined with Duma's final words when Alm kills him amounts to the idea that the core driving theme in this story is that if you treat a nation to only know strength and ambition they will forget kindness and compassion. Likewise if you treat a nation to only know kindness and compassion, they forget how to fight for themselves and lack the strength and ambition necessary to defend themselves when they're is gone. In essence they will fail to be independent for themselves. This theme permeates so strongly throughout the narrative to the point where it's constantly just beating you over the head with it. I mean just look at the current state of Sofia when the game starts. Zofia is going through a famine and drought. Crops aren't growing, hunting grounds are going bare, bandits are running amok, etc. The people of Zofia are suffering and the first thing they do is turn to either king Lima or the goddess mila for help but they receive no aid from either and none of them are willing to take action on their own. Like Celica, they'd all rather just cry to their goddess for help instead of dealing with the problem by themselves. The people of Zofia have grown so dependent on Mila's blessings that when she disappears they don't know what to do. The same kind of goes for King Lima. when he's gone the country just falls into complete chaos. It shows the flaws in Mila's philosophy of kindness which is also embodied in Celica's character arc. She goes to the temple of mila to seek the goddess's aid only to find that she's gone. Like most others, she's becomes lost and confused and has no idea where to go from here. She questions herself and everything. This conflict is further explored with Jedah who tricks her into believing that she can put Mila back and bring things back to normal in exchange for her soul. She reluctantly agrees for sake of helping both her friends and the world. Her kindness for her kingdom and her friends is her greatest weakness here. She's so caught up in the idea that Mila will fix everything that she refuses to think for herself and makes the mistake of believing in Jedah who is obviously lying to her. that's a bit of cliff notes analysis but that's generally what the story is going for as shown through Celica's character arc.

Celica's character arc and the current state of Zofia really does show the flaws in Mila's philosophy of kindness which is what the narrative wants to do. It's good stuff I find. The problem however lies with Rigel and Alm. They don't really show the flaws in Duma's ideals when they're supposed to. The current state of Rigel should embody those ideas but it doesn't really. It does in a couple small instances like with witches and a few key characters like Jedah and Berkut but overall I'm hard pressed to believe that Rigel "grew numb to kindness". If that's what the story wanted me to believe, it didn't do a good job of it. I mean I guess there are a few villagers who act cold to Alm because they're somewhat selfish but again the problem lies with Alm. His character arc does not embody those flaws like he's supposed and that's really the main issue with this story. They don't showcase the flaws of Duma's ideals in the way it wants to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Oh.

I guess I get more of a vibe of "The Rigelians are all told how evil the Zofians are and the Zofians are told how evil all the Rigelians" vibe is. ( I guess the Narrator is ment to be from the protagonists viewpoint kinda AKA Baised?) so it's a twist when it turns out that several party members/citizens of Rigel are actually well, normal people and not a completely evil generic evil dude kingdom like our protagonists think.

I would have liked I guess a few things showing how they're different from Zofians but I figured the point was that somewhere down the line things detorated between both kingdoms to the point where they told themselves the other kingdom were horrible people (Which is quite usual in war sometimes, it's easier to fight someone if you convince yourself you're 100 percent in the right and the other person is 100 in the wrong and does horrible things.) while in actuality both kingdoms could have gotten along if they weren't so blinded by Duma/Millas hatred of each other.

I know it's kinda standard in my experience (Well apparently Three Houses introduces a race of people that the game treats as all evil and okay to genocide, which for a game that apparently tries to tackle racism is frankly absurd.) that in FE games that not everyone on the other kingdom are evil dudes but here I guess it shows how Duma and Mila's rivalry impacted their own kingdoms.

Well if you're referring to the people of Duscur then the game absolutely condemns the genocide. If you're talking about the Agarthans then it's less a case of a race and more a politically radicalized group of mole people who have been manipulating society for millennia. While you do wipe the faction out, the game never goes as far as "slaughter their children because they look weird." It'd be genocide only as far as destroying Nazi culture was technically genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, Echoes displays value for both commoners and nobles. Even if a commoner wasn't made leader, Alm's experiences as a commoner ultimately humbled him and helped Alm understand both sides and have a successful rule. Every leader figure that's a royal fails to some degree in Echoes and really ties in the theme since Alm succeeds where they fail at. It's meant for unification of Valentia's people and to stand strong together against gods. Alm succeeds in bringing everyone together because he's the best of both worlds. The humble hard working nature of a commoner that would understand everything involving them mixed with the inheritance and title of a royal. 

He stood up for Delthea, he argued in Lukas' favor and that the ginger stud should be respected, he bonds with Clair no matter their differences, etc. Alm treats everyone the same, what differentiates interactions is more "strangers vs lifelong childhood friends" and "if they're rude or nice" more than "if they're noble or common" like what dictates the way many characters act unlike Alm. Like Clive and Tobin for example. Who constantly keep their class and place in the world in mind. 

The themes are good because it actually adds depth to the other characters and the world like the devs intended: https://www.usgamer.net/articles/fire-emblem-echoes-shadows-of-valentia-interview

It adds a struggle for Clive, Python, Clair and so many characters since it gives them a lot more to talk about. It gave Lukas, Mycen and Forsyth more achievements since they rose above their own merits beforehand and become important figures to Valentia's overall world.

Everyone is constantly centering around "Alm is royal, so that makes theme bad!" yet completely ignore it's intended purpose and how much positives it brings on the side characters.

Also, people are putting too much stock in this "Mila and Duma flaw representation through main character" nonsense. Mila and Duma's flaws and deterioration are the major focus and it's displayed through the surroundings, overall plot and everything outside of Alm and Celica. It wouldn't make any sense for Alm to display Duma's flaws. He doesn't live in Rigel, he lives in a humble village filled with friends that give a shit about him and a loving but strict grandfather. Gaiden displays Alm as a the hero that comes into action and changes a lot of things for the better and to be the new face Valentia desperately needed. He's not some dope that constantly fucks up and shows the worst in Duma. Celica does a similar thing by virtue of assisting Valentia's people. Her flaws display a greater issue involving gods and man more than Mila herself I'd argue. If she were to display Mila's flaws, she should've done nothing for her people and not go out of her way to help whoever she can. Or at the very least approach things a whole lot differently. Because Mila's flaw was her lack of action and compassion bringing the worst in people and letting them deteriorate (Lima). While Celica actively brings the best out of everyone she fights with. 

Edited by Seazas
Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...