Jump to content

I really hope Echoes' direction of new characters are the standard for future remakes than Shadow Dragon + New Mystery's.


Seazas
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I'm so sorry for unwittingly dragging you into this, Jotari! I was just quoting that old thread to try to explain a point that I was trying to make about Rudolf being a villain and foil to Alm (at least if Alm hadn't been written like a generic Marth lord); I didn't realize that I would be dragging you into this. 

Hey no biggie. I'd forgotten that Rudolf thread existed and had some fun reading up on it again. I think I made some nice points in it the first time round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sounds like Rudolf would've been better if his last name was Zoldark.

Bian Zoldark: "Aliens are coming to destroy humanity! We must stop this at once!"

How?

Bian: "I will unite humanity by force! Only united, by any means necessary, can humanity survive the existential threat!"

Anything else?

Bian: "Yes, in the case my Divine Crusaders should lose and I die, I entrust humanity's future to whoever is strong enough to defeat me."

-Written in 1991, four months before FE Gaiden was released. (Not sure if the last clause added later in 2002 or not.)

 

Would this have appeased anyone about SoV Rudolf? Just replace "evil aliens" with liberating humanity from corrupted gods or something. And make it so Alm was Rudolf's favored would-be challenger, but he would've handed the world to Est if she led his demise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I don’t know how to spell it out for you more clearly than I already have. It’s a narrative punishment because he suffers for it. He gets depressed because of it so it’s logical to assume that he suffers for doing something the narrative would deem wrong. How do I explain my point anymore clearer than that

I think the problem here is not that your point isn't understood. It's that it's just not being agreed on, and that you can't fathom that it can be wrong.

If getting sad was something the narrative agreed with, Mycen wouldn't have called out on Alm over it. Thus, it's more to think the narrative disagrees with Alm's decision that it was deemed wrong. Or at least, just Mycen did. Or Mycen is the narrative's spokesperson for this part. The whole thing was a result of Rudolf's planning, which Mycen was in on it. Thus, Mycen would indeed be a spokesperson in dictating what the narrative is over this particular part.

26 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Sounds like Rudolf would've been better if his last name was Zoldark.

Bian Zoldark: "Aliens are coming to destroy humanity! We must stop this at once!"

How?

Bian: "I will take this warning to the governments of both Earth and the Space Colonies so they can prepare and work together to stop this new threat. Of course, I'll lend my support as well."

Well, they didn't believe you. What will you do now?

Bian: "I will unite humanity by force! Only united, by any means necessary, can humanity survive the existential threat!"

Anything else?

Bian: "Yes, in the case my Divine Crusaders should lose and I die, I entrust humanity's future to whoever is strong enough to defeat me."

-Written in 1991, four months before FE Gaiden was released. (Not sure if the last clause added later in 2002 or not.)

 

Would this have appeased anyone about SoV Rudolf? Just replace "evil aliens" with liberating humanity from corrupted gods or something. And make it so Alm was Rudolf's favored would-be challenger, but he would've handed the world to Est if she led his demise.

You forgot a part.

Though it's true. Rudolf is no much different from Bian Zoldark in this regard. I'm pretty sure the last part was also in the original SRW 2.

As an aside, it's fascinating that SRW Alpha decided to go in the other direction, where humanity does listen to Bian Zoldark.

 

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:
1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

 

I think the problem here is not that your point isn't understood. It's that it's just not being agreed on, and that you can't fathom that it can be wrong.

It’s not that. I’m not that arrogant and stubborn. It’s just that I haven’t heard a good enough counter argument yet and yeah that sounds arrogant but even so no one has really presented a strong case against my claim.

 

40 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

If getting sad was something the narrative agreed with, Mycen wouldn't have called out on Alm over it. Thus, it's more to think the narrative disagrees with Alm's decision that it was deemed wrong. Or at least, just Mycen did. Or Mycen is the narrative's spokesperson for this part. The whole thing was a result of Rudolf's planning, which Mycen was in on it. Thus, Mycen would indeed be a spokesperson in dictating what the narrative is over this particular part.

Here’s the thing about that. Yeah Mycen snaps him out of it but he does so by reminding him of his purpose and resolve two of Alm’s greatest strengths. His willingness to fight on despite the odds that face him. He tells Alm that Rudolf entrusted him with his legacy and it would be shameful to give up now because of some self pity. What you’re not understanding here is how these things are supposed to connect. Breakdown what exactly is happening here. Alm kills his father and is grief stricken because of it. He suffers in other words. He talks to Mycen to learn the truth and reacts somewhat selfishly with phrases such as “but what of my peace?!” To which Mycen responds with:

 

“This is not the time for mourning or self-pity, boy. Rudolf’s purpose now falls to you. The true foe you must defeat is Duma. As well as the zealots tainted by his madness who seek control of Valentia: Jedah and his Duma Faithful. If you do not hurry, Celica’s life will also be in peril.”

which then snaps Alm out of it because he’s worried about Celica. Alm is only able to snap out of it once he remembers his original ideals that is to use his strength protect people not harm them. Again he snaps out of it because he’s worried about Celica. he realizes this is no time for self-pity and has a friend to save. He snaps out of through realizing the themes of the story. He killed his father because he lost sight of his original ideals(or at least that’s what was supposed to be interpreted) and it’s only when he remembers them that he is able to find his resolve. The story isn’t exactly subtle about this. In fact I’d argue it’s very overt. I will agree that there is a generational aspect to it as Alm takes on the mantle that his late father left to him and hell the whole conflict with Duma is about humans growing strong enough to not need the strength of a god any longer. 
 

the problem here is that Alm never lost sight of his original ideals. We never once see Alm struggle to stay true to himself throughout the story which is the problem because he is punished for losing sight of himself when he never does. It just makes the whole thing fall flat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It’s not that. I’m not that arrogant and stubborn. It’s just that I haven’t heard a good enough counter argument yet and yeah that sounds arrogant but even so no one has really presented a strong case against my claim.

Huh, then I guess I was conversing with someone else in that other thread who with some other person disregarded or ignored any evidence that didn't aligned with their view. I do tend to forget things easily, unfortunately.

9 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Here’s the thing about that. Yeah Mycen snaps him out of it but he does so by reminding him of his purpose and resolve two of Alm’s greatest strengths. His willingness to fight on despite the odds that face him. He tells Alm that Rudolf entrusted him with his legacy and it would be shameful to give up now because of some self pity. What you’re not understanding here is how these things are supposed to connect. Breakdown what exactly is happening here. Alm kills his father and is grief stricken because of it. He suffers in other words. He talks to Mycen to learn the truth and reacts somewhat selfishly with phrases such as “but what of my peace?!” To which Mycen responds with:

 

“This is not the time for mourning or self-pity, boy. Rudolf’s purpose now falls to you. The true foe you must defeat is Duma. As well as the zealots tainted by his madness who seek control of Valentia: Jedah and his Duma Faithful. If you do not hurry, Celica’s life will also be in peril.”

which then snaps Alm out of it because he’s worried about Celica. Alm is only able to snap out of it once he remembers his original ideals that is to use his strength protect people not harm them. Again he snaps out of it because he’s worried about Celica. he realizes this is no time for self-pity and has a friend to save. He snaps out of through realizing the themes of the story. He killed his father because he lost sight of his original ideals(or at least that’s what was supposed to be interpreted) and it’s only when he remembers them that he is able to find his resolve. The story isn’t exactly subtle about this. In fact I’d argue it’s very overt. I will agree that there is a generational aspect to it as Alm takes on the mantle that his late father left to him and hell the whole conflict with Duma is about humans growing strong enough to not need the strength of a god any longer. 
 

the problem here is that Alm never lost sight of his original ideals. We never once see Alm struggle to stay true to himself throughout the story which is the problem because he is punished for losing sight of himself when he never does. It just makes the whole thing fall flat.

 

Now you're the one who's not getting it. You keep saying that it was supposed to be this, it was supposed to be that. The whole thing was engineered by Rudolf. Your point is that because Alm mourned, it meant it was a punishment. That's what I don't agree with, since it's a fact that Rudolf set up the whole thing and there's no indication he considered Alm should mourn. He never planned for his death to be a sign Alm lost sight of his ideals. You're the one whose bringing that up, not the game or Rudolf's narrative. The game makes no mention of him remembering anything, outside the fact Celica ventured to Duma Tower. Mycen only explains why it happened, thus reinforcing that what Alm did was necessary for the narrative Rudolf wanted to push.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Huh, then I guess I was conversing with someone else in that other thread who with some other person disregarded or ignored any evidence that didn't aligned with their view. I do tend to forget things easily, unfortunately.

Now you're the one who's not getting it. You keep saying that it was supposed to be this, it was supposed to be that. The whole thing was engineered by Rudolf. Your point is that because Alm mourned, it meant it was a punishment. That's what I don't agree with, since it's a fact that Rudolf set up the whole thing and there's no indication he considered Alm should mourn. He never planned for his death to be a sign Alm lost sigh of his ideals. You're the one whose bringing that up, not the game or Rudolf's narrative. The Alm makes no mention of him remembering anything, outside the fact Celica ventured to Duma Tower. Mycen only explains why it happened, thus reinforcing that what Alm did was necessary for the narrative Rudolf wanted to push.

I only make that claim because that’s the only way for these events to connect thematically. A theme can only be a theme if it is a constant connecting thread throughout the story. A theme is what links the events of the story to create narrative meaning. A theme can’t really exist if there’s only one instance of it and doesn’t connect with anything. For a theme to exist you need to be able to connect it with other plot points across the story. The only way to interpret Alm killing his father as far as I can tell is that it’s a narrative punishment for the flaws in his ideals because that’s the only to interpret it so that it connects with everything else that happens in that story. It’s an event in the story that basically proves Celica right when she argued with him at the end of act 2 because there she was worried about his safety and what might happen to him. The vision she saw of him at the beginning of act 2 lends credence to this where Alm is furious at Rudolf for taking everything away from him including Celica. It proves her right in that in sticking to that path of bloodshed he suffers for it because he lost sight of himself. Him losing sight of himself in using his strength to protect and not harm is also a big part of his character arc. In the prologue he rushes into certain death to protect his friends. He recklessly runs into a bandit camp to save one girl when he would be better served ignoring it. He’s reckless and strong to protect people which then is supposed bite him in the ass when he accidentally kills his own father because of those flaws being taken to the extreme.
 

based on what happens in this story how else are you supposed to interpret Alm killing his father? When you look at the events of the story as a whole that’s the only way to interpret it so that everything connects. If you’re willing to put forth another interpretation of this story then I’m willing to hear it but so far you haven’t. You’ve just been dodging my points and saying I’m wrong without any real evidence to support your claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I only make that claim because that’s the only way for these events to connect thematically. A theme can only be a theme if it is a constant connecting thread throughout the story. A theme is what links the events of the story to create narrative meaning. A theme can’t really exist if there’s only one instance of it and doesn’t connect with anything. For a theme to exist you need to be able to connect it with other plot points across the story. The only way to interpret Alm killing his father as far as I can tell is that it’s a narrative punishment for the flaws in his ideals because that’s the only to interpret it so that it connects with everything else that happens in that story. It’s an event in the story that basically proves Celica right when she argued with him at the end of act 2 because there she was worried about his safety and what might happen to him. The vision she saw of him at the beginning of act 2 lends credence to this where Alm is furious at Rudolf for taking everything away from him including Celica. It proves her right in that in sticking to that path of bloodshed he suffers for it because he lost sight of himself. Him losing sight of himself in using his strength to protect and not harm is also a big part of his character arc. In the prologue he rushes into certain death to protect his friends. He recklessly runs into a bandit camp to save one girl when he would be better served ignoring it. He’s reckless and strong to protect people which then is supposed bite him in the ass when he accidentally kills his own father because of those flaws being taken to the extreme.
 

based on what happens in this story how else are you supposed to interpret Alm killing his father? When you look at the events of the story as a whole that’s the only way to interpret it so that everything connects. If you’re willing to put forth another interpretation of this story then I’m willing to hear it but so far you haven’t. You’ve just been dodging my points and saying I’m wrong without any real evidence to support your claim

I already did. Rudolf engineered his own death to symbolize the end of the old order, with Alm representing the new one about to come doing away with the old. Mycen spells this out for us:

Mycen: That day marked a change in him. He donned the mantle of one who would destroy the old world order— one who’d free men to live by their own power, even if they hated him for it. He knew such heresy would bring forth those who wished for his death. So for that death to come at the hand of his beloved son was…a mercy. He told me himself that he could imagine no more peaceful end.

At this point you're the one dodging because it doesn't align with yours. Alm was railroaded to kill his own father by the latter's own machinations, and he made it in such a way that no one should mourn for him. It's his narrative, and his narrative says it's not a punishment to Alm for things to have been done that way. Alm disagrees, that's true. But it's not what you say it is.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I already did. Rudolf engineered his own death to symbolize the end of the old order, with Alm representing the new one about to come doing away with the old. Mycen spells this out for us:

Mycen: That day marked a change in him. He donned the mantle of one who would destroy the old world order— one who’d free men to live by their own power, even if they hated him for it. He knew such heresy would bring forth those who wished for his death. So for that death to come at the hand of his beloved son was…a mercy. He told me himself that he could imagine no more peaceful end.

At this point you're the one dodging because it doesn't align with yours. Alm was railroaded to kill his own father by the latter's own machinations, and he made it in such a way that no one should mourn for him. It's his narrative, and his narrative says it's not a punishment to Alm for things to have been done that way. Alm disagrees, that's true. But it's not what you say it is.

Okay you have step one. Where the hell is the rest of it. How does your claim connect with every other plot point in the story and Alm’s supposed character arc. I’ve explained how my claim does but you have yet to explain how yours does. How does your claim connect with the Alm’s conflict with Berkut, Clive, and Fernand? How does it connect with Celica’s character arc? How does it connect with the way Alm is characterized? How does it connect with Alm and Celica’s argument at the end of act two. Where is the rest of it? You have ONE instance of this being the case in the story and a flimsy one at that if I’m being honest. It’s only a theme of there’s a connection. You have yet to provide any connections. I have and there’s the difference my argument and yours. You’re only looking at the surface. You’re not digging deeper to find these connections.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Sounds like Rudolf would've been better if his last name was Zoldark.

Bian Zoldark: "Aliens are coming to destroy humanity! We must stop this at once!"

How?

Bian: "I will unite humanity by force! Only united, by any means necessary, can humanity survive the existential threat!"

Anything else?

Bian: "Yes, in the case my Divine Crusaders should lose and I die, I entrust humanity's future to whoever is strong enough to defeat me."

-Written in 1991, four months before FE Gaiden was released. (Not sure if the last clause added later in 2002 or not.)

 

Would this have appeased anyone about SoV Rudolf? Just replace "evil aliens" with liberating humanity from corrupted gods or something. And make it so Alm was Rudolf's favored would-be challenger, but he would've handed the world to Est if she led his demise.

I'm quite sure Gaiden says that his plan was just to force Valentia to produce heroes, it didn't specifically have to be Alm. He knew about Alm and would be glad if it was him, but if Est was able to do the job so be it. Echoes was the one that added the prophecy of Fate that Rudolf was working off that said Alm would do it (though he did still have the birth mark in the original funnily enough).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay you have step one. Where the hell is the rest of it. How does your claim connect with every other plot point in the story and Alm’s supposed character arc. I’ve explained how my claim does but you have yet to explain how yours does. How does your claim connect with the Alm’s conflict with Berkut, Clive, and Fernand? How does it connect with Celica’s character arc? How does it connect with the way Alm is characterized? How does it connect with Alm and Celica’s argument at the end of act two. Where is the rest of it? You have ONE instance of this being the case in the story and a flimsy one at that if I’m being honest. It’s only a theme of there’s a connection. You have yet to provide any connections. I have and there’s the difference my argument and yours.

It's the theme of change. We have the claim that people can't change from what they have at birth. We have the claim the gods must remain governing humanity's path. We have the claim that those things should remain as is and there's no way they can or should change. They get challenged during the course of the game. Rudolf's machinations is just one way the status quo is challenged, by engineering a forced transition into a new one. It signifies change. The same way Berkut and Fernand get proved wrong when by the game's end the majority of the commoner characters rose to a higher station in life than that which they were born with, from knighthood (aka minor nobility) to even nation rulers in their own right. The same way Jedah and Celica get proven wrong twhen showed how self-destructive just blindly following the gods can be with the actions of Lima, Rudolf's acted ones, and how Jedah stopped to care the consequences of continuing to obey a god gone mad. It's part of a theme of change the game also dwells upon.

Also... why does it have to connect with every single one? If you feel that everything must, alright, but don't go touting that it must be the case. It's connected enough.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

It's the theme of change. We have the claim that people can't change from what they have at birth. We have the claim the gods must remain governing humanity's path. We have the claim that those things should remain as is and there's no way they can or should change. They get challenged during the course of the game. Rudolf's machinations is just one way the status quo is challenged, by engineering a forced transition into a new one. It signifies change. The same way Berkut and Fernand get proved wrong when by the game's end the majority of the commoner characters rose to a higher station in life than that which they were born with, from knighthood (aka minor nobility) to even nation rulers in their own right. The same way Jedah and Celica get proven wrong twhen showed how self-destructive just blindly following the gods can be with the actions of Lima, Rudolf's acted ones, and how Jedah stopped to care the consequences of continuing to obey a god gone mad. It's part of a theme of change the game also dwells upon.

Also... why does it have to connect with every single one? If you feel that everything must, alright, but don't go touting that it must be the case. It's connected enough.

Okay that’s better and I will agree that’s a running theme throughout the story. I don’t think it proves me wrong though simply because Alm’s character doesn’t really connect with what you’re saying. I would concede if Alm was portrayed as a static protagonist the whole way through because when put like that Alm is a protagonist meant to prove that the old traditions are wrong which is a part of his character. But what keeps me from entirely reading that way is him killing his father.  That moment along with everything that happens after is treated as character growth for him. Which doesn’t make any sense. Because before that point in the story he was mostly a flawless static character which is fine but then bad things happen and he needs to grow to overcome it. Again throughout the entire story his recklessness is supposed to be interpreted  as both a flaw and a strength of his character except that it’s never treated as a flaw. It only is like once and that’s in the prologue. Every other time it doesn’t really bring him any consequences. In fact it works out for him in the best way possible more often than not. Anyway my point is like he’s treated like a dynamic protagonist at that point in the story when he’s not and that doesn’t make any sense. Because what Flaw does Alm really need to grow from? And don’t tell me that’s not what the narrative wants me to interpret. It very much so is otherwise he wouldn’t he admit he was wrong to Celica when they finally reconcile from their argument in act 2.

like why does he admit that he’s wrong when he never was wrong? That doesn’t make any sense. The only way to make sense of it was that the narrative wanted me to think he was wrong except that he never was so Y’know.

 

Also Berkut and Fernand are never proven wrong within the narrative itself. They never get beaten by anyone of a lower status and their ideals aren’t hypocritical so how they exactly are the proven wrong within the narrative itself. At no point are the beaten by someone who would contradict their claims. They’re not beaten by Tobin or Gray or any commoner really. They’re beaten by a combination of their own lust for power and Alm who stays true to himself while Berkut and Fernand don’t so in that way they’re claims are never proven wrong. Duma’s ideals of power and strength are proven wrong. The idea of commoners being inferior to nobles never really is

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2020 at 11:06 AM, Ottservia said:

Okay that’s better and I will agree that’s a running theme throughout the story. I don’t think it proves me wrong though simply because Alm’s character doesn’t really connect with what you’re saying. I would concede if Alm was portrayed as a static protagonist the whole way through because when put like that Alm is a protagonist meant to prove that the old traditions are wrong which is a part of his character. But what keeps me from entirely reading that way is him killing his father.  That moment along with everything that happens after is treated as character growth for him. Which doesn’t make any sense. Because before that point in the story he was mostly a flawless static character which is fine but then bad things happen and he needs to grow to overcome it. Again throughout the entire story his recklessness is supposed to be interpreted  as both a flaw and a strength of his character except that it’s never treated as a flaw. It only is like once and that’s in the prologue. Every other time it doesn’t really bring him any consequences. In fact it works out for him in the best way possible more often than not. Anyway my point is like he’s treated like a dynamic protagonist at that point in the story when he’s not and that doesn’t make any sense. Because what Flaw does Alm really need to grow from? And don’t tell me that’s not what the narrative wants me to interpret. It very much so is otherwise he wouldn’t he admit he was wrong to Celica when they finally reconcile from their argument in act 2.

like why does he admit that he’s wrong when he never was wrong? That doesn’t make any sense. The only way to make sense of it was that the narrative wanted me to think he was wrong except that he never was so Y’know.

 

Also Berkut and Fernand are never proven wrong within the narrative itself. They never get beaten by anyone of a lower status and their ideals aren’t hypocritical so how they exactly are the proven wrong within the narrative itself. At no point are the beaten by someone who would contradict their claims. They’re not beaten by Tobin or Gray or any commoner really. They’re beaten by a combination of their own lust for power and Alm who stays true to himself while Berkut and Fernand don’t so in that way they’re claims are never proven wrong. Duma’s ideals of power and strength are proven wrong. The idea of commoners being inferior to nobles never really is

*Once again conveniently ignores the achievements of other common characters purely because Berkut and Fernand are not beat by someone lower nor magically get their minds changed even though they're villains*


Ick... Whatever. Can we not with this nonsense again? If you're going to complain about the themes AGAIN then please take it elsewhere than a thread comparing the new character additions, not the themes. It's just the same exact song and dance all over again.

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...