Jump to content
Ottservia

Stop bullying Fates. It doesn’t deserve it

Recommended Posts

A very opinionated thread title I'll admit. I'll probably change it later but honestly it really does just cut to the heart of my feelings on the matter. My personal feelings about this game are relatively one of indifference if we're talking story anyway. The story is alright. It has its problems but overall I'd give it a 6/10 not bad but not great either. Really my issue is the discussion surrounding this game as well as its public perception. Fates has just kinda become the punching bag of the fire emblem community and I'm starting to get tired of it. Like Fates has its problems but jesus people it ain't that bad. It has ideas and messages it wants to explore and I feel like we don't acknowledge that enough. Like everyone is constantly going on about how bad fates's story is and yeah we can discuss its shortcomings but what about what it does well? Where's that discussion? I wanna know because I don't think there's enough of it. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to voice their disdain for fates far from it. I just want to see more balance here. I just want more nuanced discussion.

Okay so fates is bad. Why is it bad? most criticisms I see in regards to fates just feel hollow. They feel more like people wanting fates to something else than what it is and I feel like that's disrespectful to the developers. They made a game and I feel like we should the judge the product based what it is and what it's trying to accomplish rather than holding it up to some standard the story was never really trying to live up to. Like Fates isn't bad because "Avatar worship" because that "worship" actually does have a thematic point to it. It's fine if you don't like it or whatever that's fine but don't be dismissive like that. Like or dislike things on their merits for what they offer but don't dismiss them for not mattering when you can instead aim to find out why they do. I dunno I just feel like people are far too dismissive of fates and what it has to offer. It's fine to not like something. We all have personal preferences and we're all entitled to those things. I'm just trying to challenge the current state of how you view criticism and critical discussion. Before you criticize something ask yourself if you're really being fair to it or if you're just whining about personal preference which is fine but understand that there is a difference

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's another case of "God is going senile, so we must euthanize him before he kills everyone" except that this is comes off in an tangent in Conquest and is kind of boring in Revelations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main thing about Fates is that its such an easy target. It practically invites mockery. 

Many Fire Emblem games have fundamental flaws in their writing. You have things like the Blood pact in Radiant Dawn, the Slitherers in Three Houses or Awakening having so many villains that they compete for screentime and none of them get fleshed out. But Fates stands out in that its much more easy to ridicule. Things like ''skinship with your real sister'' or hyperbolic time chambers where your 12 year old wife can get a 19 year old son are just so inherently odd. Even the more grounded flaws like team Garon being far too evil or Corrin far too pure come across to many people as un-nuanced or even cartoony. Whether its clumsy writing or some cultural aspects from Japan translating horribly for western audiences its clear that Fates can come across as really awkward. And a lot of otaku tropes the game dabbles on such as loli/shotacon, or pseudo incest are absolutely not respected by the internet.

I also think people suspect that a lot of these flaws aren't honest mistake but a deliberate case of bad intentions. The influence of the infamous ''team B'' at work. The question about Corrin's true parentage is a good example of this. Its very possible that the premise of the game, the idea of choosing between your blood family and your adoptive family got abandoned primarily so you could pair the avatar character with your tsundere little brother or tomboy big sister. In a vacuum one could argue that some artistic thought went into this but Fates has always prioritized fanservice over story.  The idea of the avatar character never being wrong despite frequently being wrong and rarely having to face much consequence is an example of that. The whole deeprealm nonsense where hyperbolic time chambers are used to justify a bunch of characters who do not fit into the story at all is another example. A lot of times the narrative in Fates doesn't work its easy to imagine the writers deliberately pulling strings to make it not work, in order to get more fanservice out of it. 

I don't think the complaints necessarily convey a hatred of Fates. I like Fates more than I dislike it and I'm pretty vocal about it flaws. I'm harsh on Fates because I like it and I'm rather annoyed I must like it despite its content rather than because of it. Its very easy to see how Fates could have been so much better and its frustrating that the devs didn't want to go that route. Its even more frustrating when you're 90% that the unfulfilled potential was a result of bad intentions rather than mistake.  The second gen royals are a great example. Siegbert, Forrest, and Shiro are such great characters but they are stuck in a situation where they would be far better off if their presence in the game was explicitly non canon. They are great characters who are forced to carry the deeprealm gibberish with them like a ball an chain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make a thread to discuss the positives of Fates’ story. Solved. I’m a genius I know, thank you thank you.

Although I would disagree with your argument about people wanting Fates to be different than something it is being disrespectful to the develops, when we critique, rate, or even just state our opinions on things, we are talking about well, what they are, and so where we think they have weak points we would naturally discuss how those could be improved, I’m sure you’ve seen the plethora of improving Fates’ story videos and posts. There’s nothing wrong with wanting it to change as that’s how the devs improve at their own jobs, by listening and taking feedback, at least in my opinion. I feel like a lot of Fates’ judgement is based on what the product really is, people say it has a bad cast of characters not because they’re not as good as other series characters, but because they’re just not appealing to some people.

And Fates can be bad because of avatar worship, what makes a game bad in someone’s mind differs from person to person, and although I don’t know anyone who hates avatar worship that much, it can certainly ruin the experience for them or give them reason to believe these games are not good, and I think that’s perfectly fine and there’s no reason to invalidate their opinions, even if you don’t agree. A thematic point may be something in defense of it but that doesn’t instantly mean people have to like it, for example I get why Camilla acts the way she does but she is still oh so very annoying, and that makes it hard to like her. Any aspect of fiction can be a merit based off of to like or dislike, and while they may seem to stupid to any individual, that doesn’t make them wrong, even if it something like avatar worship, if there’s enough of it that can be enough to ruin a game based on, and I get that some of those things are subjective, but that doesn’t stop them from making a game bad in their eyes, nor should it. I am just as entitled to say or think that Fates is bad because *insert literary and gameplay analysis* as I am to say Fates is bad because Azura looks stupid and gets too much screen time. And of course not every criticism is constructive or nuanced, but people already know that, there is a time and place for nuanced discourse, but other times people just want to talk about how the waifus didn’t do it for them without writing an entire thesis about it, and that’s okay. Not every opinion is meant to be taken super seriously or invite discussion or debate, and it’s perfectly fine for someone to think a game is bad for one reason. Also none of this is disrespectful to the developers, this is just how art is handled, we consume it for our enjoyment and nothing else, so if you don’t enjoy it, regardless of the reason, you don’t enjoy and that’s that. If the developers think any of that is disrespectful then I have no idea what they’re doing making art, they aren’t entitled to everyone forming a deep opinion on it and writing 5 page essays on it every time they mention how they feel about it.

...seriously though, just make a thread to ask people about a positive of Fates’ story if you don’t want people to dismiss it.

Share this post


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

Although I would disagree with your argument about people wanting Fates to be different than something it is being disrespectful to the develops, when we critique, rate, or even just state our opinions on things, we are talking about well, what they are, and so where we think they have weak points we would naturally discuss how those could be improved, I’m sure you’ve seen the plethora of improving Fates’ story videos and posts. There’s nothing wrong with wanting it to change as that’s how the devs improve at their own jobs, by listening and taking feedback, at least in my opinion. I feel like a lot of Fates’ judgement is based on what the product really is, people say it has a bad cast of characters not because they’re not as good as other series characters, but because they’re just not appealing to some people.

that depends on what exactly you're criticizing and the reasons for it. For example, people criticize Xander for being a hypocrite by not standing up to Garon even though he said he could. The thing that bothers me about this critique in particular is that it's applying a rule to writing that isn't necessarily an absolute rule. When you break it down all the criticism really amounts to in the end is that "being a hyposcrite is bad in real life therefore Xander is a poorly written character". The claim is that the writing is inconsistent. Here's the thing though, a character being a hypocrite is not inherently bad writing as the criticism seems to imply. You can write a story with a hypocritical character so long as the hypocrisy is acknowledged by the narrative in some way. In the case of Xander it is acknowledged. In birthright specifically, let's really look at what happens here. Xander fails to accomplish anything in birthright and dies a pointless death. He fails to protect Nohr. He kills one of his siblings and he fails to stop Corrin. And his death is more or less assisted suicide. He fails to accomplish anything when he dies despite everything he's said up til now. He is definitively wrong by the narrative because well I don't know about you but I don't think him dying a meaningless death is the narrative's way of saying he's correct in anything. There's also something of cultural difference in the way Xander's character needs to be understood. Familial ties especially ones bound by blood is extremely important in japan and other east asian cultures. Being able to speak out against one's superiors especially a parent is extremely frowned upon over there unlike it is over here where it's not nearly as frowned upon and people are encouraged to speak out against oppressive parents and/or superiors. Xander's character is far more understandable when you understand that this is a japanese game made by japanese devlopers for a japanese audience who will relate to Xander better because of the cultural implications. 

Another critique that I see that I feel is misplaced is the world building one. Fates doesn't have good world building therefore the writing is bad. Here's the thing though, does fates need the same level of worlding as three houses or Genealogy to be good? I'd argue no it doesn't. I'm not saying world building is bad or unnecessary but I feel it's reductive to say every story needs amazing world building like that because sometimes it isn't all that interesting. There's also the criticism which I also feel is a moot point because well storytelling is inherently contrived. Stories are inherently artificial that's why it's called fiction. so what does complaining about contrivance really accomplish in the end? Not much of anything really. Stories can never truly represent reality so we shouldn't really expect them to. I could go on and list more poor criticisms and break them apart but I think you get my meaning. 

48 minutes ago, Sooks said:

And Fates can be bad because of avatar worship, what makes a game bad in someone’s mind differs from person to person, and although I don’t know anyone who hates avatar worship that much, it can certainly ruin the experience for them or give them reason to believe these games are not good, and I think that’s perfectly fine and there’s no reason to invalidate their opinions, even if you don’t agree. A thematic point may be something in defense of it but that doesn’t instantly mean people have to like it, for example I get why Camilla acts the way she does but she is still oh so very annoying, and that makes it hard to like her. Any aspect of fiction can be a merit based off of to like or dislike, and while they may seem to stupid to any individual, that doesn’t make them wrong, even if it something like avatar worship, if there’s enough of it that can be enough to ruin a game based on, and I get that some of those things are subjective, but that doesn’t stop them from making a game bad in their eyes, nor should it. I am just as entitled to say or think that Fates is bad because *insert literary and gameplay analysis* as I am to say Fates is bad because Azura looks stupid and gets too much screen time. And of course not every criticism is constructive or nuanced, but people already know that, there is a time and place for nuanced discourse, but other times people just want to talk about how the waifus didn’t do it for them without writing an entire thesis about it, and that’s okay. Not every opinion is meant to be taken super seriously or invite discussion or debate, and it’s perfectly fine for someone to think a game is bad for one reason. Also none of this is disrespectful to the developers, this is just how art is handled, we consume it for our enjoyment and nothing else, so if you don’t enjoy it, regardless of the reason, you don’t enjoy and that’s that. If the developers think any of that is disrespectful then I have no idea what they’re doing making art, they aren’t entitled to everyone forming a deep opinion on it and writing 5 page essays on it every time they mention how they feel about it.

I'm not invalidating an opinion. I will never invalidate someone's personal taste or preference. That is not who I am nor will ever be. We all have personal tastes and we are entitledto them. You have no idea how many times I've had to explain that to people. But there is a difference between saying "I don't like thing" vs "This thing is bad because I don't like it". There is a world of difference between those two statements. Personal preference and bias is not a criticism. Just because you don't like, it does not give you the right to say if something is "bad" or use objectivist language. Just because you don't like "avatar worship"(even though I find that critique to laughably misplaced) that doesn't mean the story would be better without it. No story is obligated to pander to your specific set of tastes and I find it is pretentious to even remotely suggest otherwise. If you don't like avatar worship, fine, go play something else. You don't have to engage with this media. Don't play the game and continuously whine about how bad it is simply because it does not suit your personal preference. That in it of itself inherently invalidates the opinions of those who do enjoy it by implication. It just bothers me when people criticize something for not being to their specific tastes. Fates has no obligation to pander to your tastes. It wasn't trying to pander to you specifically so stop demanding that it does. Just because the story isn't what you wanted it to be that doesn't make it bad or not worth anything. 

It's totally fine to not like something. You don't even need a reason to not like something. If you don't like Camilla because she's annoying that's perfectly valid. I will never get on your case for a simple statement of personal taste(at least not seriously anyway). I WILL get on your case if you say "Camilla is poorly written character because she's annoying". There is a world of difference between those two statements and I feel like people need to understand that difference. 

Share this post


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

I think the main thing about Fates is that its such an easy target. It practically invites mockery. 

I'm replying to all of what you said; I'm just cutting it for space. 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. The game does seem to go out of its way to essentially harm its own narrative just to include different mechanics. I am of the opinion that story and gameplay ideally should inform each other, so when I see them either separated from each other or outright in opposition with each other, it is weird. 

That said, I think it's less that it's an easy target for criticism, and in fact less with the game itself, and more what the game is emblematic of: this game was made at something of a boiling point of division among FE fans in the wake of Awakening's unexpected huge success bringing in a whole bunch of new fans to the series, and it shows in the game itself. Looking at the game pre-release and when playing through the finished product, I always got the sense that the game was made to try to cater to everyone. The developers outright said that Birthright was designed to be like Awakening and Conquest was designed to be like the older games. But more than that, the gameplay and all its many features, a lot of which seem to more simply be there than be their in service of other aspects of the game (like the 2nd gen units) seemed to me at least to largely have just been thrown in, like they were throwing in everything they could think of to see what fans would like and what fans would not like. But, when you try to cater to everyone, the result is often directionless and mush. 

You mentioned the Blood Pacts from Radiant Dawn and other writing issues in other games, and the way I see it is that those writing issues are often seen as blemishes on otherwise at-least decent stories. With Fates, a lot of its storytelling problems are widely pervasive; they are not individual components, but widespread issues that have a pattern behind them and why they're there. 

 

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Another critique that I see that I feel is misplaced is the world building one. Fates doesn't have good world building therefore the writing is bad. Here's the thing though, does fates need the same level of worldbuilding as three houses or Genealogy to be good? I'd argue no it doesn't. I'm not saying world building is bad or unnecessary but I feel it's reductive to say every story needs amazing world building like that because sometimes it isn't all that interesting. There's also the criticism which I also feel is a moot point because well storytelling is inherently contrived. Stories are inherently artificial that's why it's called fiction. so what does complaining about contrivance really accomplish in the end? Not much of anything really. Stories can never truly represent reality so we shouldn't really expect them to. I could go on and list more poor criticisms and break them apart but I think you get my meaning. 

just genuinely wondering (so please don't infer anything harsh from this as that's not the intent): are you familiar with the Strawman Fallacy? In critical thinking, one is supposed to interpret an argument in the most favourable light that's reasonable, and then criticize it in the least favourable light that's reasonable. Skipping that interpretation step leads to a strawman fallacy: where an argument is misinterpreted as weaker or less structured than it is, often in order to make it easier to criticize. 

I ask because I feel that, whenever I see people complaining about complaints, the strawman fallacy is often a concern of mine. 

Anyway, that out of the way, now to discuss what you're saying here:

I don't think that anyone would argue that the game needs to have the same level of worldbuilding as Genealogy to have a good story. Story and worldbuilding are interrelated, but ultimately separate issues. That said, worldbuilding is important to storytelling in something like an RPG, as one of the biggest components of an RPG is immersion, and worldbuilding is integral to immersion. Worldbuilding sets the stakes, establishes potential motivations, etc. The problem with Fates' poor worldbuilding is that it does have an obvious negative impact on its story. It's not "worldbuilding bad, therefore story bad", it's "one of the things hindering the story is the poor worldbuilding in its foundation".

Share this post


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

that depends on what exactly you're criticizing and the reasons for it. For example, people criticize Xander for being a hypocrite by not standing up to Garon even though he said he could. The thing that bothers me about this critique in particular is that it's applying a rule to writing that isn't necessarily an absolute rule. When you break it down all the criticism really amounts to in the end is that "being a hyposcrite is bad in real life therefore Xander is a poorly written character". The claim is that the writing is inconsistent. Here's the thing though, a character being a hypocrite is not inherently bad writing as the criticism seems to imply. You can write a story with a hypocritical character so long as the hypocrisy is acknowledged by the narrative in some way. In the case of Xander it is acknowledged. In birthright specifically, let's really look at what happens here. Xander fails to accomplish anything in birthright and dies a pointless death. He fails to protect Nohr. He kills one of his siblings and he fails to stop Corrin. And his death is more or less assisted suicide. He fails to accomplish anything when he dies despite everything he's said up til now. He is definitively wrong by the narrative because well I don't know about you but I don't think him dying a meaningless death is the narrative's way of saying he's correct in anything. There's also something of cultural difference in the way Xander's character needs to be understood. Familial ties especially ones bound by blood is extremely important in japan and other east asian cultures. Being able to speak out against one's superiors especially a parent is extremely frowned upon over there unlike it is over here where it's not nearly as frowned upon and people are encouraged to speak out against oppressive parents and/or superiors. Xander's character is far more understandable when you understand that this is a japanese game made by japanese devlopers for a japanese audience who will relate to Xander better because of the cultural implications. 

Cool but shouldn’t you hear that person out before writing all of that? They might not be saying “being a hyposcrite is bad in real life therefore Xander is a poorly written character”, and also writing someone as a hypocrite is kind of hard to pull off successfully because just saying “oh it’s okay guys they’re just a hypocrite” gives you a lot of leeway in what characters can do and it could certainly stretch their disbelief to “how stupid are you??”

Even then, this entire thread basically exists to say you can’t dislike something because of a reason you don’t agree with because yes, that is exactly the same thing as calling something bad.

Quote

Another critique that I see that I feel is misplaced is the world building one. Fates doesn't have good world building therefore the writing is bad. Here's the thing though, does fates need the same level of worlding as three houses or Genealogy to be good? I'd argue no it doesn't. I'm not saying world building is bad or unnecessary but I feel it's reductive to say every story needs amazing world building like that because sometimes it isn't all that interesting.

But people can still not enjoy stories with worlds that aren’t very fleshed out. And complaining about a lack of worldbuilding is always fine if that’s what you enjoy. Fates just isn’t your game and there is nothing wrong with that. You’re spitballing that complaint into something it really isn’t. Fates already has a weak narrative, so obviously that would help.

 

Quote

There's also the criticism which I also feel is a moot point because well storytelling is inherently contrived. Stories are inherently artificial that's why it's called fiction. so what does complaining about contrivance really accomplish in the end? Not much of anything really. Stories can never truly represent reality so we shouldn't really expect them to. I could go on and list more poor criticisms and break them apart but I think you get my meaning. 

We’ve debated on this multiple times, you probably remember my opinion but just in case, the short version is that something being inherently lacking in a certain quality doesn’t mean we should just give up on it trying to attain said quality, especially when it’s been done before.

Quote

I'm not invalidating an opinion. I will never invalidate someone's personal taste or preference. That is not who I am nor will ever be. We all have personal tastes and we are entitledto them.

You made a thread that amounts to saying “you can’t dislike Fates for a reason I don’t agree with”.

Quote

You have no idea how many times I've had to explain that to people. But there is a difference between saying "I don't like thing" vs "This thing is bad because I don't like it"

All of your examples have been “This is thing is bad because ______” and not this thing is bad because I don’t like it, and saying something is bad is akin to saying you don’t like it.

Quote

Personal preference and bias is not a criticism.

No? Then don’t start a debate every time you encounter it.

Quote

Just because you don't like, it does not give you the right to say if something is "bad" or use objectivist language.

Bad is an inherently opinionated word, one cannot measure quality.

Quote

Just because you don't like "avatar worship"(even though I find that critique to laughably misplaced)

Good for you.

Quote

that doesn't mean the story would be better without it.

Except if you actually listened to why they dislike it you might find they actually have a reason to think it would be better without it.

(By the way, it’s because the story bends over backwards for Corrin to never be wrong, mainly in Conquest. So yes I think it would be better without avatar worship, it only hurts its own narrative. That has nothing to do with me just not liking avatar worship.)

Quote

No story is obligated to pander to your specific set of tastes and I find it is pretentious to even remotely suggest otherwise.

Then don’t make a thread telling people their thoughts are invalid.

Quote

If you don't like avatar worship, fine, go play something else. 

Quote

You don't have to engage with this media. Don't play the game and continuously whine about how bad it is simply because it does not suit your personal preference.

You’re just assuming that everyone is saying that for the exact same reason. The amount of avatar worship, in Conquest specifically, really really hurts the narrative, and specifically goes against the way the story presents itself, so they have every right to complain.

Quote

That in it of itself inherently invalidates the opinions of those who do enjoy it by implication.

That is very flawed logic. No one is saying anything about anyone who likes it, they are just saying that they themselves don’t like it and why.

Do you think the opinions of people who like SoV Alm are invalid? Talking about why you dislike something in no way invalidates anyone else’s opinion, they aren’t doing anything wrong just by sharing their opinion.

Quote

It just bothers me when people criticize something for not being to their specific tastes. Fates has no obligation to pander to your tastes.

It is a Fire Emblem game however, and Fire Emblem for most of its life hasn’t had (that) much fan service, hasn’t had avatars, hasn’t destroyed its own narrative to praise the player, and as such being a game continuing a series, that people are buying specifically for being in a series they enjoy does warrant certain expectations.

That’s like if the next Pokémon was a first person shooter survival game that took place in the Mushroom kingdom filled with horror elements and I told you it has no obligation to pander to your specific tastes.

Quote

It wasn't trying to pander to you specifically so stop demanding that it does. Just because the story isn't what you wanted it to be that doesn't make it bad or not worth anything. 

There’s a reason why they make sequels and future installments, and it is very close to this. Fire Emblem Fates gets a lot of criticism specifically because it is a Fire Emblem game, when no other Fire Emblems had really been like  that. You’ll find it is much more popular with people who only played it and maybe one other title, or people who just picked it up because it looks cool, and there’s a reason for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

just genuinely wondering (so please don't infer anything harsh from this as that's not the intent): are you familiar with the Strawman Fallacy? In critical thinking, one is supposed to interpret an argument in the most favourable light that's reasonable, and then criticize it in the least favourable light that's reasonable. Skipping that interpretation step leads to a strawman fallacy: where an argument is misinterpreted as weaker or less structured than it is, often in order to make it easier to criticize. 

I ask because I feel that, whenever I see people complaining about complaints, the strawman fallacy is often a concern of mine. 

Anyway, that out of the way, now to discuss what you're saying here:

I don't think that anyone would argue that the game needs to have the same level of worldbuilding as Genealogy to have a good story. Story and worldbuilding are interrelated, but ultimately separate issues. That said, worldbuilding is important to storytelling in something like an RPG, as one of the biggest components of an RPG is immersion, and worldbuilding is integral to immersion. Worldbuilding sets the stakes, establishes potential motivations, etc. The problem with Fates' poor worldbuilding is that it does have an obvious negative impact on its story. It's not "worldbuilding bad, therefore story bad", it's "one of the things hindering the story is the poor worldbuilding in its foundation".

Ironically enough you’re the one straw manning me here. What mean by that Fates doesn’t need world building is that the common criticisms I hear as to why Fates’s world building is bad are things I don’t really think add much of anything to the narrative like for example the fact that the continent doesn’t have a name. Does giving the continent a name add any narrative or thematic value to the story? I’d argue no it doesn’t. Would it be nice to have? Yeah sure but that doesn’t mean the story requires one to be good. It is strictly not necessary. The same goes for a complete history lesson on each of the nations’ individual political standing well except for what’s relevant anyway. We don’t need to know the complete history of this place to understand the story being told. All we need to know is what is told to us about these places. Everything else is mostly irrelevant.

Even beyond that, I don’t even think Fates’s world building is all that bad. Sure the continent may not have name but every country on this continent has its own unique identity and culture as well as how they all relate to the two larger kingdoms of Hoshido and Nohr. All of Fates’s world building is purely in its visuals and aesthetics. For example just look at some of the different kinds of troops you find on each side of the conflict. Hoshido has Samurai and archers where as Nohr has Mercenaries and Outlaws instead. Those classes are distinct counter parts to each other. You can tell which is Nohrian and which is Hoshidian solely based on design and where you fight them. The aesthetic design also reflects this with maps that take place in Nohr being darker in lighting where as Hoshidian maps are constantly bright with Valla maps being a mix of the two. Hell, even the music is used to contrast the two countries with Birthright containing a lot of Japanese wind instruments to get across that sort of airy bright Japanese style music. Contrast with conquest that uses a lot Europeean precussion for a lot more powerful and dynamic celtic style soundtrack. The world building of fates is constantly in service to its overall themes and messages and I feel like we should acknowledge that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Another critique that I see that I feel is misplaced is the world building one. Fates doesn't have good world building therefore the writing is bad. Here's the thing though, does fates need the same level of worlding as three houses or Genealogy to be good? I'd argue no it doesn't. I'm not saying world building is bad or unnecessary but I feel it's reductive to say every story needs amazing world building like that because sometimes it isn't all that interesting

A flaw is a flaw. You technically don't need world building but having it will always remain preferable to not having it. Not having worldbuilding will always be a limiting factor. It limits the stories the game can tell, and it limits potential for a sequel in the same world. Its a valid thing to complain about especially if the worldbuilding in the previous game already wasn't good and Fates then being widely considered to be a step beneath that.  Fates is hardly the only Fire Emblem that has bad world building. Sacred Stones is generally seen as having a fairly decent plot but its worldbuilding is awful. To me this always detracted from the story somewhat since it drastically lowers the stakes. I also don't think Jugdral has particularly fancy worldbuilding which it doesn't suffer from too much but it remains disappointing. I think Genealogy and Stones get a pass on it because the plots are mostly well liked which is a luxury Fates does not have. 

But aside from having bad worldbuilding Fates also has the bad habit of disregarding what little worldbuilding it does have. Nohr is set up as a nation like Tracia or Kilvas which isn't supposed to be irredeemably evil but just poor, starving and desperate. The country is set up as that, the game acknowledge the poverty but then also makes it clear that Nohr is in fact NOT desperate but really just irredeemably evil. There's also the Wind Tribe where the lore says they were repeatedly attacked by Nohr. Despite them killing his countrymen and murdering the mother of his child Fuuga then proceeds to be remarkably friendly to the Nohrians 

 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if anyone's brought this up yet because I haven't read all these walls of text, but I believe a lot of the reason people harp on Fates' story so much is because the marketing for the game hyped it up so much. They made a big deal about how they were taking the criticisms of Awakening's story seriously and that they'd hired on a prolific writer to make sure they'd have an amazing story, and then in the end it was even worse than Awakening.

One day, though, people will probably look back on it more fondly. Look at Radiant Dawn; when it was new, you could barely find anyone who didn't think the story was crap and that Micaiah was the worst Mary Sue ever (I felt like the only person who liked both). Now people are much less harsh on the story, sometimes even praising it, and Micaiah took a winning spot in the series' yearly popularity poll.

While I'm not sure I'll ever come around on the story, I'll always love Fates as a game. It's got amazing gameplay, the best in the series, and I'll hold to that until I die...or until a better FE comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

Um...

I like the Beruka x Saizo C support.

Weebs gettin' all mad 'cause stuff is different, makes it hard to take them seriously even when the original was better. Those spoony weebs.

2 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

A flaw is a flaw. You technically don't need world building but having it will always remain preferable then not having it.

I don't know, man. Mario was never super strong on the world building but it worked out pretty good.

(Fates still bad tho)

2 minutes ago, Florete said:

One day, though, people will probably look back on it more fondly. Look at Radiant Dawn; when it was new, you could barely find anyone who didn't think the story was crap and that Micaiah was the worst Mary Sue ever (I felt like the only person who liked both). Now people are much less harsh on the story, sometimes even praising it, and Micaiah took a winning spot in the series' yearly popularity poll.

To be fair, most of those voters probably didn't play Radiant Dawn when it was new, if at all.

Share this post


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

Ironically enough you’re the one straw manning me here.

Please do not jump to accuse me of strawmanning; I do not take such accusations lightly. I was responding directly to your statement: you argued that saying that, "Fates doesn't have good world building therefore the writing is bad" and thinking that every story needs to have amazing worldbuilding is a reductive argument, and that the game's story doesn't need good worldbuilding to still be good. I then replied by saying that I agree that the worldbuilding doesn't have to be amazing for the story to be good, but my issue (and I suspect that it's also the more popular issue) with the worldbuilding is that there are cases in the game's narrative of the poor worldbuilding hindering the story. 

So, yeah; don't jump to accuse me of strawmanning; I read through people's arguments carefully, interpret them in the best possible light that I can, and then respond. I do not strawman

 

53 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What mean by that Fates doesn’t need world building is that the common criticisms I hear as to why Fates’s world building is bad are things I don’t really think add much of anything to the narrative like for example the fact that the continent doesn’t have a name. Does giving the continent a name add any narrative or thematic value to the story? I’d argue no it doesn’t. Would it be nice to have? Yeah sure but that doesn’t mean the story requires one to be good. It is strictly not necessary. The same goes for a complete history lesson on each of the nations’ individual political standing well except for what’s relevant anyway. We don’t need to know the complete history of this place to understand the story being told. All we need to know is what is told to us about these places. Everything else is mostly irrelevant.

You don't need to know the complete history, no. I agree that all one needs is the information that's relevant to the plot. Here's the thing: there are moments where relevant information is either missing from the story or scattered in such a way that it does hinder the story and raise questions that pose problems for the plot.

For one example, the stated reason Nohr is declaring war with Hoshido is that it's land is barren to the point where it needs to conquer more fertile lands to survive. That's pretty important, as it is the driving motivation for many to take part in an aggressive war against a non-hostile nation. When do we learn about this? Late into Birthright, and only late into Birthright. It never comes up in Conquest despite Corrin siding with Nohr in that version. That is a piece of worldbuilding with a large amount of plot implications, and it goes completely unmentioned in Conquest. And this is a common criticism that I see brought up a lot. 

For another example, Azura's necklace & magic song slowly killing her the more she uses it is brought up only in Birthright. It is never even foreshadowed in Conquest. So, in Birthright, it's a fairly sad moment where Azura gives everything to suppress Garon's power and dies in the process. The equivalent with her suppressing Takumi at the end of Conquest just raises a whole lot of questions at it seems to appear out of nowhere. This is admittedly more a problem with bad exposition than bad worldbuilding, but I'll include it. 

I would list more examples, but I need to eat supper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the idea of rooting for the underdog video games, but If I were known as the jackass that likes this or that reviled game, it'd better have good gameplay. I mean, think of the rude surprise I was in for after I finished Conquest, planted twenty down on Birthright and said to myself "okay, that was a dud, but maybe this one is better". Does Birthright even exist? I have the save file confirming that I finished it, and I don't remember a damned thing in terms of plot or gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Even then, this entire thread basically exists to say you can’t dislike something because of a reason you don’t agree with because yes, that is exactly the same thing as calling something bad.

this is a straw man. I am never once said people are not allowed to dislike fates for reasons I disagree with. What I am saying is that most criticisms for fates don't make much sense and here's why.

 

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Cool but shouldn’t you hear that person out before writing all of that? They might not be saying “being a hyposcrite is bad in real life therefore Xander is a poorly written character”, and also writing someone as a hypocrite is kind of hard to pull off successfully because just saying “oh it’s okay guys they’re just a hypocrite” gives you a lot of leeway in what characters can do and it could certainly stretch their disbelief to “how stupid are you??”

Y'know it is funny that you're saying because guess what people invalidate my opinions constantly. How, you may ask? By simply saying "you're overanalyzing it" or "it wasn't intentional so it doesn't count?" Do you realize how utterly disrespectful that is. Just because you don't see it or don't understand that doesn't make it "stupid" or "Unrealistic" in fact I find that to be incredibly close minded. I don't know about you but I feel like saying the way a character responds to trauma as "unrealistic" or "stupid" to be incredibly arrogant and close minded because there are 8 billion on this planet who is to say that that particular way of dealing with trauma does not exist in the real world? What if there are people who legitimately relate to that kind of situation? I personally think that to suggest that those people's feelings are "unrealistic" or "stupid" to be invalidating. Fiction may not be able to fully represent reality but it does pull from reality and inherently gets at ideas found in reality.

 

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

You made a thread that amounts to saying “you can’t dislike Fates for a reason I don’t agree with”.

No I didn't read my initial post again. That is not what I said at all.

 

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Bad is an inherently opinionated word, one cannot measure quality.

No "bad" is inherently an objectivist term. If you think it's an inherently subjective term then according that logic it is completely subjective to say that a serial killer is a bad person or that genocide is bad. I shouldn't have to explain why those two things aren't really subjective statements. Even beyond the extreme examples, personally I don't think a 4 year old's opinion on whether something is good or bad is as valuable as a well read literary analysts who has written and published several papers, books, and studies. 

 

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

We’ve debated on this multiple times, you probably remember my opinion but just in case, the short version is that something being inherently lacking in a certain quality doesn’t mean we should just give up on it trying to attain said quality, especially when it’s been done before.

I'm just gonna say this. To read fiction merely by reality creates dissonance but it's a dissonance that's unavoidable when you realize that story's are by nature artificial and can not truly represent reality in so many ways. because even if the lack of reality is graciously accepted and utilized, stories ultimately made by and read by people who will inevitably include and derive human ideas from the stories they engage in. The issue with ascribing reality to fiction is that it can be freely applied to the personal biases of the one applying it. The fictional make up of all stories render them unrealistic, yet it is because they spring from the human mind that they, in some form , no matter how well or poorly executed will get at something invocative of humanity intentional or not. Praising something for being realistic or dismissing the unrealistic well that doesn't end up saying anything at all. that said, even if realism can never be achieved that doesn't mean it can't be strived for nor does it mean everything should be beholden to it. Just each piece of media by its own rules and what it sets out to do with those rules. Rather than holding it to the ironically unrealistic standard of realism.

 

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

You’re just assuming that everyone is saying that for the exact same reason. The amount of avatar worship, in Conquest specifically, really really hurts the narrative, and specifically goes against the way the story presents itself, so they have every right to complain.

I would argue it doesn't hurt the narrative and is there for a reason. The thematic point of fates's story as whole is trust between people. Conquest, specifically, is about trying to look past blind loyalty. This is shown in the way the narrative is structured and the way Corrin is written. Corrin is a positive static arc character where the point of their story isn't so much them developing and growing over the story but rather that they are right inherently and thus invoke change in the world and characters around them. You see this plenty with characters like Kilma and Flora in chapter 8. You contrast this with Garon who is a negative static arc character where they instead invoke negative changes in the characters and world around them. Garon makes the world distrust him where as Corrin does the opposite. That's why everyone trusts Corrin. That is literally the point of the story. So that "avatar worship" actually makes sense in the context of this narrative. Corrin isn't supposed to be wrong. They're supposed to be right and through forging that bond of trust with others they spur them to action in order to stop Garon. That's the point of the story so taking that "avatar worship" away actually hinders the story more than helping it.

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Do you think the opinions of people who like SoV Alm are invalid? Talking about why you dislike something in no way invalidates anyone else’s opinion, they aren’t doing anything wrong just by sharing their opinion.

No, not at all. If you like Alm and personally relate to him then more power to you. Whether or not a story is objectively good or bad shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying it or finding meaning in it. That's the beauty of fiction. We all relate to it in different ways and it can help us better understand ourselves as well as the world around us. That is something I will never take away from someone because who am I to say you aren't allowed to relate to piece of fiction. This is why I feel like we should respect stories for what they are the messages and emotions they can invoke in people when we criticize them. 

24 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

You don't need to know the complete history, no. I agree that all one needs is the information that's relevant to the plot. Here's the thing: there are moments where relevant information is either missing from the story or scattered in such a way that it does hinder the story and raise questions that pose problems for the plot.

For one example, the stated reason Nohr is declaring war with Hoshido is that it's land is barren to the point where it needs to conquer more fertile lands to survive. That's pretty important, as it is the driving motivation for many to take part in an aggressive war against a non-hostile nation. When do we learn about this? Late into Birthright, and only late into Birthright. It never comes up in Conquest despite Corrin siding with Nohr in that version. That is a piece of worldbuilding with a large amount of plot implications, and it goes completely unmentioned in Conquest. And this is a common criticism that I see brought up a lot. 

For another example, Azura's necklace & magic song slowly killing her the more she uses it is brought up only in Birthright. It is never even foreshadowed in Conquest. So, in Birthright, it's a fairly sad moment where Azura gives everything to suppress Garon's power and dies in the process. The equivalent with her suppressing Takumi at the end of Conquest just raises a whole lot of questions at it seems to appear out of nowhere. This is admittedly more a problem with bad exposition than bad worldbuilding, but I'll include it. 

I would list more examples, but I need to eat supper. 

That's a fair criticism actually though I'm pretty sure the one about Nohr and poverty is actually answered in the revelation manga where Garon, himself, states that the reason regarding Nohr's resources is nothing more than a lie which feeds into that overall of deception and distrust that fates is all about so ehhhh.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I like the Beruka x Saizo C support.

Weebs gettin' all mad 'cause stuff is different, makes it hard to take them seriously even when the original was better. Those spoony weebs.

'Spoony' huh, that's a new one, never heard that before.

36 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

For another example, Azura's necklace & magic song slowly killing her the more she uses it is brought up only in Birthright. It is never even foreshadowed in Conquest. So, in Birthright, it's a fairly sad moment where Azura gives everything to suppress Garon's power and dies in the process. The equivalent with her suppressing Takumi at the end of Conquest just raises a whole lot of questions at it seems to appear out of nowhere. This is admittedly more a problem with bad exposition than bad worldbuilding, but I'll include it. 

I'mma just hop in and remind us all that Birthright was intended to be played first, then Conquest, then Revelations. It's less a difficulty with bad exposition than it is a serious design flaw in Fates' execution - the story is designed so that you play all three paths in a specific order to make the most sense, but the game was marketed more or less as 'do you like the big tiddy purple hair sister, play this one, do you like the smol tiddy redhead sister, play this one, also play this other one if you want both of them'(note this is a slight dumbing down of the presentation but hopefully you get my point) so pretty much there shouldn't have been any significant plot points shared between BR/CQ that only appeared in one of them, especially where Azura was involved as she was supposed to be the one common thread between all three games barring you, the player.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I don't know, man. Mario was never super strong on the world building but it worked out pretty good.

To be fair, the RPG Marios actually did world build pretty solidly, and Sunshine wasn't awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Florete said:

One day, though, people will probably look back on it more fondly. Look at Radiant Dawn; when it was new, you could barely find anyone who didn't think the story was crap and that Micaiah was the worst Mary Sue ever (I felt like the only person who liked both). Now people are much less harsh on the story, sometimes even praising it, and Micaiah took a winning spot in the series' yearly popularity poll.

tbh i think i'll never understand why people felt, and some still feel, that way, and as far as my experience goes, this is mostly a thing that affects the american fanbase, at least to this extent; don't know if it's a localization problem or whatever, just stating what i see

anyway, about worldbuilding, i can think about many of my favorite games/comics with little to no worldbuilding because that isn't their focus (Super Mario games, Medaka Box, Inazuma Eleven, etc.), but not a single one of these works either is to be taken seriously or intends to make of worldbuilding its staple
so yeah, worldbuilding is not a must, it all comes down to what purpose you find for it in your work

Fire Emblem games are a completely different matter though, because they try to be good under every aspect (music, gameplay, characters, story and worldbuilding) and they expect players to take them seriously

also yeah, i agree with whoever says that having little worldbuilding limits the story's potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulWeaver said:

'Spoony' huh, that's a new one, never heard that before

Spoony_Bard.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

An example of the western translation differences creating a superior product.

1 minute ago, SoulWeaver said:

To be fair, the RPG Marios actually did world build pretty solidly, and Sunshine wasn't awful.

Mario RPGs have "world building" in a very non-Tolkein-esque sense though. The locations are distinct and brimming with personality, but it's not like there's an elaborate history to them. You go to places and there a cool fun things there.

Share this post


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

I'mma just hop in and remind us all that Birthright was intended to be played first, then Conquest, then Revelations. It's less a difficulty with bad exposition than it is a serious design flaw in Fates' execution - the story is designed so that you play all three paths in a specific order to make the most sense, but the game was marketed more or less as 'do you like the big tiddy purple hair sister, play this one, do you like the smol tiddy redhead sister, play this one, also play this other one if you want both of them'(note this is a slight dumbing down of the presentation but hopefully you get my point) so pretty much there shouldn't have been any significant plot points shared between BR/CQ that only appeared in one of them, especially where Azura was involved as she was supposed to be the one common thread between all three games barring you, the player.

this you can even see it in the titles of the each games' final boss theme:

End of all: sky for birthright

End of all: land for conquest

End of all: below for Revelation

when put in that order you notice that the location the song is named after is descending. You start in the sky then you drop to the land then you dive below. This also ties into the water motifs and symbolism fates has going on because you start out above the water then in the water then you dive below the water's surface. This also ties into why Valla is is accessed through the bottomless canyon. You literally have dive below the surface to reach it akin to diving beneath the water's surface to reach the bottom of the lake. Each of fates's routes is written with that order in mind.

Share this post


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

this is a straw man. I am never once said people are not allowed to dislike fates for reasons I disagree with. What I am saying is that most criticisms for fates don't make much sense and here's why.

You made this thread basically to say that people should stop “whining” if anything they dislike is something you consider as personal preference.

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Y'know it is funny that you're saying because guess what people invalidate my opinions constantly. How, you may ask? By simply saying "you're overanalyzing it" or "it wasn't intentional so it doesn't count?" Do you realize how utterly disrespectful that is.

Cool story.

What does that have to do with me or Fates’ haters/discussion again?

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Just because you don't see it or don't understand that doesn't make it "stupid" or "Unrealistic" in fact I find that to be incredibly close minded. I don't know about you but I feel like saying the way a character responds to trauma as "unrealistic" or "stupid" to be incredibly arrogant and close minded because there are 8 billion on this planet who is to say that that particular way of dealing with trauma does not exist in the real world? What if there are people who legitimately relate to that kind of situation? I personally think that to suggest that those people's feelings are "unrealistic" or "stupid" to be invalidating. Fiction may not be able to fully represent reality but it does pull from reality and inherently gets at ideas found in reality.

These feelings don’t exist. This is a fictional character, not someone reacting like how a human being does. It’s not close minded to... have an opinion? From my perspective you’re just saying what I said is close minded... and that’s it.

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No I didn't read my initial post again. That is not what I said at all.

I mean:

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Okay so fates is bad. Why is it bad? most criticisms I see in regards to fates just feel hollow.

 

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

They feel more like people wanting fates to something else than what it is and I feel like that's disrespectful to the developers.

 

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Like Fates isn't bad because "Avatar worship" because that "worship" actually does have a thematic point to it.

So yeah.

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No "bad" is inherently an objectivist term. If you think it's an inherently subjective term then according that logic it is completely subjective to say that a serial killer is a bad person or that genocide is bad.

That’s because it is completely subjective.

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I shouldn't have to explain why those two things aren't really subjective statements. Even beyond the extreme examples, personally I don't think a 4 year old's opinion on whether something is good or bad is as valuable as a well read literary analysts who has written and published several papers, books, and studies. 

But you care enough to want to like Fates out of spite?

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I'm just gonna say this. To read fiction merely by reality creates dissonance but it's a dissonance that's unavoidable  when you realize that story's are by nature artificial and can not truly represent reality in so many ways.

No. It is not unavoidable. Realistic fiction exists. As in like the genre. That people purposely seek out.

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

because even if the lack of reality is graciously accepted and utilized, stories ultimately made by and read by people who will inevitably include and derive human ideas from the stories they engage in. The issue with ascribing reality to fiction is that it can be freely applied to the personal biases of the one applying it.

So?

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The fictional make up of all stories render them unrealistic

Where is there evidence for that?

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Praising something for being realistic or dismissing the unrealistic well that doesn't end up saying anything at all.

There’s a reason why people appreciate characters they relate to. It’s much the same as that.

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

that said, even if realism can never be achieved that doesn't mean it can't be strived for nor does it mean everything should be beholden to it.

Wait that’s my point.

Why do you say people shouldn’t criticize for a work being unrealistic now?

21 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I would argue it doesn't hurt the narrative and is there for a reason. The thematic point of fates's story as whole is trust between people. Conquest, specifically, is about trying to look past blind loyalty. This is shown in the way the narrative is structured and the way Corrin is written. Corrin is a positive static arc character where the point of their story isn't so much them developing and growing over the story but rather that they are right inherently and thus invoke change in the world and characters around them. You see this plenty with characters like Kilma and Flora in chapter 8. You contrast this with Garon who is a negative static arc character where they instead invoke negative changes in the characters and world around them. Garon makes the world distrust him where as Corrin does the opposite. That's why everyone trusts Corrin. That is literally the point of the story. So that "avatar worship" actually makes sense in the context of this narrative. Corrin isn't supposed to be wrong. They're supposed to be right and through forging that bond of trust with others they spur them to action in order to stop Garon. That's the point of the story so taking that "avatar worship" away actually hinders the story more than helping it.

I’m talking about Conquest specifically, where their choice to side with Nohr leads to Hoshido being ruined and every time anyone complains they go “not that this path was the wrong one, I would never think that!” (mainly Corrin but if he would just say because of his Nohrian siblings that would all be resolved)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Why do you say people shouldn’t criticize for a work being unrealistic now?

because not every story should be beholden to reality. A story doesn't need to be realistic at all in order to be told well. That doesn't mean you can't strive for realism but just because you feel a story is unrealistic that doesn't mean it's bad.

 

5 minutes ago, Sooks said:

These feelings don’t exist. This is a fictional character, not someone reacting like how a human being does. It’s not close minded to... have an opinion? From my perspective you’re just saying what I said is close minded... and that’s it.

SO you're saying fiction is unrealistic well then. My point is that we shouldn't invalidate why someone would relate to a character. By claiming it to be unrealistic well how would you know its unrealistic. You don't know that for a fact. Again there are 8 billion people on this planet just because you can't a understand a character's traumatic struggles that doesn't mean nobody can. to criticize that sort of thing for being" unrealistic" is just blatantly false because inevitable there is someone out there who can relate to this character or is going through a similiar struggle in reality. To say it's unrealistic that kind of invalidates the kind of people who do go through those struggles and in that way I find it close minded. That is what I mean when I say that realism can be applied freely to the personal biases of the one applying. Just because you think it's unrealistic that doesn't it actually is.

 

15 minutes ago, Sooks said:

That’s because it is completely subjective.

So you're saying it isn't wrong to say that "genocide is good, actually" well okay then. So you don't think genocide is objectively bad? or that racism is objectively bad? well then.

 

17 minutes ago, Sooks said:

You made this thread basically to say that people should stop “whining” if anything they dislike is something you consider as personal preference.

Read that last line again. Read it again. I am trying to get you to look at criticism from a different angle and trying to view stories from a different angle. I'm not saying your personal taste is invalid. If I were to do that, I would've framed my statement a lot differently.

 

10 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Cool story.

What does that have to do with me or Fates’ haters/discussion again?

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. 

21 minutes ago, Sooks said:

I’m talking about Conquest specifically, where their choice to side with Nohr leads to Hoshido being ruined and every time anyone complains they go “not that this path was the wrong one, I would never think that!” (mainly Corrin but if he would just say because of his Nohrian siblings that would all be resolved)

okay, and? how exactly does that counter my argument at all? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I don't know, man. Mario was never super strong on the world building but it worked out pretty good.

Barring the first three Paper Mario games and the Mario & Luigi games, Mario games aren't exactly story-driven (just the opposite). They're platformers, and platformers don't need much story.

That said, there actually is some clever worldbuilding in some of the 3D Mario games (hear me out). In 64 for example, each level didn't need to make sense as a cohesive world because they were magic-made worlds from paintings in a castle that is cohesive. The castle makes sense, and the levels are contextualized as painting worlds, so there's no loss in immersion. 

A game needs as much worldbuilding as that which enables it to make sense for immersion. For platformers, not much is needed. For something like an RPG, however, a fair bit is needed. 

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

That's a fair criticism actually though I'm pretty sure the one about Nohr and poverty is actually answered in the revelation manga where Garon, himself, states that the reason regarding Nohr's resources is nothing more than a lie which feeds into that overall of deception and distrust that fates is all about so ehhhh.

Thanks.

If you have to go outside the game to find that piece of info though, then the game has failed on some level. If you have to go outside a story to find a piece of info that helps understand said story, then the story has failed on that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, I have been sufficiently intrigued, so let's go

I'll basically piggy back a few of the arguments in this thread:

Regarding worldbuilding, I think the best way to point to this problem is Mokushu, the ninja kingdom. Other than the fact that their ruler is a jerk and they have ninjas in a forest, we know nothing about them. We hear about their kingdom only when its time to cross through it, we fight people there, and then we leave and the name is never brought up again (I think its mentioned like once in birthright, but that's about it). Like, we murdered their king, left their army in a pretty shoddy state and left. And the game never does anything to establish what happened to it afterwards. Other kingdoms have this problem, but at the very least we get some characters who hail from there who give us a clue as to what it was like- Rinkah from the Flame Tribe, Izana from whatever the hell his kingdom was named, Fuga and Hayato from the Wind Tribe and Flora/Felicia from the Ice Tribe. Rebellions that were supposedly being organised under Nohrian rule in Birthright, but then you gotta run for it and you never hear what happened to that town. I get that its not necessarily relevant to the overall story, but what's the point of a game about the consequences of actions and deceptions if you never hear about what happened to the kingdom that betrayed yours?

Fates isnt the only game in the series to have this issue of course, but I think it in particular was disappointing because people expected so much more. Which leads into the next point- a large amount of people who criticise this game do so because they wish it was so much more than that. It's not like people are criticising it out of spite, generally speaking. Though I do see the appeal of liking it for underdog reasons or because you can see the potential it had and value that more than the end result- which is fine too. As you say, nobody should ever get on anyone's case for having an opinion.

With regards to Xander, I think its important to distinguish the differences between being a hypocrite and being inconsistently written. Clive from Echoes is an example of the former, he preaches equality among nobles and commoners, yet when push comes to shove he's unwilling to enforce that ideal, and values Delthea's life as less than, say, if she was a princess or a noblewoman. Clive grows over the course of the story to legitimately believe in what he preaches and comes to value Alm for the complete disregard he shows to matters of class- he literally resolves Echoes' commoner vs noble debate by combining the best of both worlds and inspiring them all to work together, and Clive comes around to that idea. Where Xander differs is the fact that his actions are inconsistent with his other actions. The classic support vs story Xander divide has already been done to death so I won't go into that. But despite arguing against Garon offscreen in supports, he never does it when it actually matters, and that's where the problem with his character comes in.

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Okay so fates is bad. Why is it bad? most criticisms I see in regards to fates just feel hollow. They feel more like people wanting fates to something else than what it is and I feel like that's disrespectful to the developers. They made a game and I feel like we should the judge the product based what it is and what it's trying to accomplish rather than holding it up to some standard the story was never really trying to live up to. 

Is people wanting Fates to be something else, something greater than it is not the exact definition of criticism? We point out the flaws that we see and why they don't work so the devs can do better next time. I don't see that as any more disrespectful than criticism for any other game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

A game needs as much worldbuilding as that which enables it to make sense for immersion. For platformers, not much is needed. For something like an RPG, however, a fair bit is needed.

I agree that there is some neat stuff in Super Mario 64, though again, it's a different sort "world building" than what most people mean when they talk about RPGs. I don't think all RPGs need a great deal of immersion to be good though. Maybe some do, but if an RPG sells itself on being a game (which Fire Emblem can easily do), then it doesn't need an extensive amount of lore.

54 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

If you have to go outside the game to find that piece of info though, then the game has failed on some level. If you have to go outside a story to find a piece of info that helps understand said story, then the story has failed on that level.

Image trying to judge a thing based on the qualities of other things. Not making a comparison of their values, but actually saying that the aspects of thing B somehow apply to thing A. Ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...