Stop bullying Fates. It doesn’t deserve it

[Ottservia]

24 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

The camera goes into a "cinematic" mode per se, so yeah its intentional. Instead of following me like it should, it wigs out and I cant see. 

Yeah all games have issues but since nowadays they can update them, that's not an excuse any longer. 

Its stupid from a gameplay PoV, easily. I'm not reaching one bit, something like that is stupid, plain and simple. 

There is such a thing as "stupid" choices by the devs, was my point. This was a good example as it has 0 positive effect on the player whatsoever. 

I could give more examples if that makes what I'm saying easier to understand?

It honestly depends on context and what you’re criticizing. There are no universal rules in regards to art of any kind really. Okay there are a few in regards to story telling but that’s besides the point. There are only really guidelines none of which are hard absolute rules. Art in general should be judged on a case by case basis. What works for one game may not work for another. The same is true of storytelling. What works for one story may not work for another in the same way. Different pieces of art are different. No two pieces of art are exactly the same. It’s like fingerprints in that way. It’s why don’t like comparison. It just doesn’t work because well the two things are different even if they have similarities. Just because one game isn’t like another that doesn’t make it bad. It just means they’re different and that is fine because we shouldn’t expect all art to be the same

[Greymanz]

I cant really bother to read the opinions of others regarding this as they are very long, but my personal opinions on it are as so:

Fates' story on all three routes is very poorly done. As the next game after Awakening, I feel it takes two steps back in regards to story presentation and execution, while having a pretty interesting premise. It seems frankly a bit opposite to Awakening's story, which had a pretty run of the mill premise with extremely well-done execution. I would chalk this up to the writers/artists/etc having to produce content for three different routes in what was likely a comparably short timeframe, not to mention how Intelligent Systems might have been split up on work between Fates, Awakening DLC, and SoV at some point, not even mentioning any other projects they might have been assisting at the time. Being able to romance and have children with who is presumed to be your blood related or functional siblings is kinda creepy, and the optimist in me thinks this was a byproduct of them not understanding the ramifications of a story mostly involving familial ties being in a game where your character can romance damn near anyone as a selling point.

Fates' gameplay is honestly rather nice on higher difficulties. Conquest on Hard Classic is painfully challenging but very rewarding, Birthright felt a bit too easy on Normal but could be enjoyable on Hard Classic as well. Haven't dived into Revelations yet but I assume its the same. The map design of Fates all around was phenomenal at points, especially that map with indoor/outdoor elements when it was used in Conquest, Azura sneaking around the map like she was playing a stealth game before she could meet up with allies. I think the gameplay of Fates'  combat was a proper step forward from Awakening and its the only thing that keeps me coming back to it


Overall, isn't deserving of hate, or being considered as the worst game by any stretch, but it deserves a lot of the criticism it gets.

[Anathaco]

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean it isn’t like Fates’s story is exactly the pinnacle of subtlety here. Fact is, the core central theme of this narrative is trust. It’s not like the story doesn’t try to beat that into your skull every five minutes. Like here’s the the thing about intent. You read into art like you read into someone’s words and try to figure out what they’re saying. At least that’s how I view it. I feel like any interpretation is a valid one so long as you have enough evidence from within the text to back up what you’re saying. In the case of fates if this story’s central isn’t about trust in someway then I don’t know what it could be about. That’s only way every plot point connects and makes sense. If you look at it from that angle the story works a lot better. The Yato literally only unlocks its true form when people put their trust in Corrin. Hell in the heirs of fate dlc they explicitly say that the reason the yato didn’t work the first time was because they didn’t trust Shigure. Like that’s not even me reading too much into it. That is something that is explicitly stated by Kana in the DLC. If anyone says this narrative isn’t centered around themes of trust and doubt then I don’t know what to say. Again this story isn’t exactly subtle most Fire Emblem stories aren’t that subtle with their themes. Like the thing about interpretation you have to be able to back up your claims with evidence. If you can’t then it doesn’t work. What I mean by authorial intent is that you shouldn’t criticize the story or plot element for existing but rather try to figure out why it’s there or why it matters. Like or dislike things on their own merits and for what they offer just don’t dismiss for not mattering when you could instead aim to figure out why they do. For example, everyone trusting Corrin could just be baseless pandering. However, when you look at it from the angle of the story being about trust, doubt, and loyalty, it makes a lot more sense and has much more depth to it which leads you to make even more connections like how Corrin is constantly punished for blindly trusting people.

To be fair I wouldn't exactly call Fates' story clear either. Unless I missed something, yours is the first and so far only analysis of Fates' story that has brought up the idea of trust as a core theme, though perhaps something else is out there that has done the same thing. So seemingly there aren't a ton of people who view Fates' narrative the way you do. Point being, authorial intent still isn't cut and dry for Fates either.

Also, sometimes writers just make mistakes. To give an example, take Xander's death in Birthright. Your interpretation of it would state that he died in order to demonstrate how wrong he was to blindly trust Garon just because they were family (i think at least, its been a while since I read your original analysis, so correct me if that's wrong). Most other people say that he died because the writers wanted to inject tragedy into the story by having Xander die in an uncharacteristically stupid show of Camus-ness. And because no writer is perfect we can't exactly tell what they were going for or if they simply made an error.

To be clear I actually do like your version, I just don't agree with it overall. But the other thing is that its so easy to interpret a story in almost any way you want. For example I could interpret Fates as being a story about the importance of hanging onto innocence:

• Despite being one of your siblings, Elise, arguably the most innocent character in the game, sides with you no matter what route you pick, helping Corrin and always at his/her side. 
• Corrin, obviously, is like the poster child of innocence in this game, and its treated as her main strength. I remember at one particular moment someone basically says "I know trusting people and being wrong sucks, but that's kind of the main good thing about you, so don't change that" but I can't remember who delivered this particular nugget of wisdom, when they delivered it, or even in what route it was delivered.
• I feel like I should have more points but at this point I'm tired. Apologies for this being a half-assed argument on my part.

Authorial intent usually seems perfectly clear to everybody, but then that vision disagrees with those around them. Which is why I say that criticism, especially when we get into the themes and ideas of a story, is fundamentally about the story we see rather than the story that is.

[Lightcosmo]

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

It honestly depends on context and what you’re criticizing. There are no universal rules in regards to art of any kind really. Okay there are a few in regards to story telling but that’s besides the point. There are only really guidelines none of which are hard absolute rules. Art in general should be judged on a case by case basis. What works for one game may not work for another. The same is true of storytelling. What works for one story may not work for another in the same way. Different pieces of art are different. No two pieces of art are exactly the same. It’s like fingerprints in that way. It’s why don’t like comparison. It just doesn’t work because well the two things are different even if they have similarities. Just because one game isn’t like another that doesn’t make it bad. It just means they’re different and that is fine because we shouldn’t expect all art to be the same

I think your reaching here, my example is pretty solid. Since art isnt the object here, gameplay is. The thing we are judging here is gameplay, not graphics of any kind. I dont think anyone would be okay with an issue like that.

[Eltosian Kadath]

15 hours ago, Ottservia said:

My problem with this whole argument is the bolded portion. How the hell would you know those story points were accidental? You’re not the author. You’re not the one who wrote the story so how would you know. What I don’t like about this rhetoric about “accidental plot points” or “death of the author” is it kind of assumes that the author does not understand the story they wrote and to me that is by and large the most disrespectful thing you can say about any creator. Art is a form of expression. It is a way for creators to express their ideas, emptions, and how they view reality. That is what art is at the end of the day. Storytelling is no different. To imply that the ideas behind a given were “accidental” implies that the creator does not understand their own story and that is just fundamentally not true. No one on this planet understands their story better than the authors themselves because that story is an expression of themselves, whether they realize it or not. You read into art the same you read into someone’s words and try to figure out what they’re saying, at least that’s my view. Cause ultimately critical analysis is you essentially having a discussion with the author about their work. I find it to be disrespectful to suggest that they don’t understand the core of what they themselves created.

You are also not the author, nor did you write the story, so how would you know their intention any better? How would you know that they aren't accidental? Wouldn't it be equally, if not more disrespectful to attribute a false meaning or messages the author never intended to their work? Unless you are the author, your own analysis is on the same shaky footing.

Death of the author may be a dramatic name, but it acknowledging that art takes on a life of its own, and that when the audience consumes it they make it their own through interpretation. The author is no more in the mind of the audience,  than the audience is in the mind of the author, and art is experienced within that middle ground between. If you ground your analysis with authorial intent, the underlying question of whether something was the authors intent, or merely the product of the audience's interpretation of the art, and by extension whether that interpretation is correct will muddy the water without any real resolution. If this "accidental plot point" is merely the product of audience's misinterpretation of the art, of course the author wouldn't understand it; it is a product of the interpreter not the author. If instead you ground your analysis in the idea of looking at the art as it is, then whether the interpretation is the one the author intended no longer matters, that it is there, and is backed up by evidence is all that matters.

 

Sorry to push this into a bit of a tangent, but this is all muddied even further by the participatory nature of the player. James Portnow discussed a videogame specific bit of art theory on the idea of the act of the actions of the player being creative, and essential for the art of a videogame to be completed, and thus is a co-author in the experience in the video within the spoiler tag below.

Spoiler

 

If the player is a coauthor, than the singular vision implied by viewing videogames through the lens of authorial intent fails even further. How much of the storytelling is in the player hands is different by game, but as this classic Kaga quote shows, the series creator was aware of this role, and actively made it stronger than many games in the genre.

Quote

Kaga: It’s not a big problem if some of your characters die in Fire Emblem; I want each player to create their own unique story. Don’t get caught up trying to get a “perfect ending.” Have fun!

This got expanded further after Kaga left, for example with the introduction of supports, giving players further control over the narrative, by whether/how they unlock support conversations to flesh out their stand out characters, and when these occur in the narrative. When the player is a notable coauthor of the work, interpreting the work based on authorial intent hits a bit of a brick wall when differing players skew the narrative through their play. Take for example whether or not Alm is portrayed in a positive light, if the player decides through their play that Alm will be a perfect, he will be, but if the player lets characters die, then his actions get sullied by those failure, possibly even triggering further rebukes by characters for the callousness of his actions. Both versions lead to a different narrative feel, and emphasis different themes, and ignore one over the other ends up ignoring large swaths of narrative and thematic space that exist within the work. Further more when experiences differ like this, you need to define the narrative ground you are looking at, so that everyone is on the same page...

 

[Ottservia]

8 hours ago, Anathaco said:

To be fair I wouldn't exactly call Fates' story clear either. Unless I missed something, yours is the first and so far only analysis of Fates' story that has brought up the idea of trust as a core theme, though perhaps something else is out there that has done the same thing. So seemingly there aren't a ton of people who view Fates' narrative the way you do. Point being, authorial intent still isn't cut and dry for Fates either.

Also, sometimes writers just make mistakes. To give an example, take Xander's death in Birthright. Your interpretation of it would state that he died in order to demonstrate how wrong he was to blindly trust Garon just because they were family (i think at least, its been a while since I read your original analysis, so correct me if that's wrong). Most other people say that he died because the writers wanted to inject tragedy into the story by having Xander die in an uncharacteristically stupid show of Camus-ness. And because no writer is perfect we can't exactly tell what they were going for or if they simply made an error.

To be clear I actually do like your version, I just don't agree with it overall. But the other thing is that its so easy to interpret a story in almost any way you want. For example I could interpret Fates as being a story about the importance of hanging onto innocence:

• Despite being one of your siblings, Elise, arguably the most innocent character in the game, sides with you no matter what route you pick, helping Corrin and always at his/her side. 
• Corrin, obviously, is like the poster child of innocence in this game, and its treated as her main strength. I remember at one particular moment someone basically says "I know trusting people and being wrong sucks, but that's kind of the main good thing about you, so don't change that" but I can't remember who delivered this particular nugget of wisdom, when they delivered it, or even in what route it was delivered.
• I feel like I should have more points but at this point I'm tired. Apologies for this being a half-assed argument on my part.

Authorial intent usually seems perfectly clear to everybody, but then that vision disagrees with those around them. Which is why I say that criticism, especially when we get into the themes and ideas of a story, is fundamentally about the story we see rather than the story that is.

And all of that is a fair argument and criticism  cause at least the claim you’re making lends more to a critical discussion than say “Corrin is a mary sue therefore Corrin bad” cause I feel like that’s a conversation ender. At least with the opposing interpretation you suggest there’s a discussion to be had. We can argue and discuss it and who knows maybe one of us will learn something new about fates or something about our perspectives will change. I’m fine with different interpretations so long as there’s a discussion to be had cause then that’s better discourse overall. At least you’re respectful to the author and their work. Differing perspectives can lead to new conclusions and ideas being formed and that is always a good thing. Just don’t say stupid things that clearly aren’t arguments and try to pass them off as such.
 

(also I would respond to Eltosian but I just woke up so my brain isn’t working at 100% expect a response later if I remember adhd and all)

Edited November 21, 2020 by Ottservia

[Sooks]

On 11/19/2020 at 10:02 PM, Ottservia said:

Okay? How so explain to me in explicit detail how that is case. How is saying “I don’t think these criticisms/arguments are very good” is the same as saying “You’re not allowed to have an opinion” go on I’m all ears

You’re basically saying people shouldn’t say that they think that way, at least that’s what it seems like. I don’t think anyone sees bad as objectivist language when they’re using it to describe writing or gameplay.

8 hours ago, Anathaco said:

Corrin, obviously, is like the poster child of innocence in this game, and its treated as her main strength. I remember at one particular moment someone basically says "I know trusting people and being wrong sucks, but that's kind of the main good thing about you, so don't change that" but I can't remember who delivered this particular nugget of wisdom, when they delivered it, or even in what route it was delivered.

I remember the Nohrian siblings showering a lot of praise onto him for being that way in the boat chapter (16).

[Ottservia]

6 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

You are also not the author, nor did you write the story, so how would you know their intention any better? How would you know that they aren't accidental? Wouldn't it be equally, if not more disrespectful to attribute a false meaning or messages the author never intended to their work? Unless you are the author, your own analysis is on the same shaky footing.

here's the thing about that. Do you not think it's disrespectful to assume you know more than the author? That's essentially what you're saying when you argue "overanalysis" or "death of the author". You're essentially putting yourself above the author. You're going in with the assumption that the author is too dumb to have intended all these connections or nuances in their work. I go in with the assumption the author is smart enough to make this all intentional and that they know what they're doing. It's kind of like if you knew nothing about law and you told a lawyer they don't know what their doing even though they've spent years in this line of work. I can respect the author enough to analyze their work while not looking down on them. I don't assume I know more than they do. I don't act like I understand their story better than they do. That's the difference between those two lines of thought. I respect the author to not call them stupid. 

 

6 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Death of the author may be a dramatic name, but it acknowledging that art takes on a life of its own, and that when the audience consumes it they make it their own through interpretation. The author is no more in the mind of the audience,  than the audience is in the mind of the author, and art is experienced within that middle ground between. If you ground your analysis with authorial intent, the underlying question of whether something was the authors intent, or merely the product of the audience's interpretation of the art, and by extension whether that interpretation is correct will muddy the water without any real resolution. If this "accidental plot point" is merely the product of audience's misinterpretation of the art, of course the author wouldn't understand it; it is a product of the interpreter not the author. If instead you ground your analysis in the idea of looking at the art as it is, then whether the interpretation is the one the author intended no longer matters, that it is there, and is backed up by evidence is all that matters.

Interesting take. I don't fully disagree with "death of the author" only to the extent where it becomes disrespectful as stated just a moment ago. cause yeah, if you have enough evidence from within the text to back up what you're saying then by all means go for it. You should start that discussion. We all relate to art in different ways. That's the beauty of art. Art is a way to learn more about ourselves and the world around us. It's a way to further our understanding of reality. On that EC video, I actually disagree with the overall because like all pieces of art. Games are fundamentally constructed to get across a point. The player's individual stories while important can ultimately still be a fundamental mental part of the game's themes and design. Case and point, pokemon gold, silver, and crystal. 

Pokemon is a franchise defined by the individual stories the player makes for themselves but that doesn't mean it can't have themes and messages it has on its own. To simply read it by a player's own story they craft for themselves, I find that to be a little disingenuous. GSC are games centered around that theme of the "passage of time" everything in the game is centered on that and at no point is that theme contradicted even by the player's own individual experience. The only time it is is when the player changes the game's internal clock but that be considered cheating and going against the point of the game's intended experience which is worth a whole discussion on it's own. Even besides pokemon you have games like Persona's 3, 4, and 5 with very defined linear narratives and themes. All those games try to make sure the player understands the intended message the game is trying to tell with everything from it's mechanics to it's spoken dialogue. They want each player's individual experiences to center on the intended message the developers wanted to tell as is the case with most games actually. This is where your example regarding Alm falls apart. The individual experiences of the player can directly contradict the core thematic point that SoV is going for. If the player experiences no death and thus no consequences, the game acting as if there were consequences for Alm along the way is downright jarring and directly contradicts the player's own experiences. In GSC, it does not matter what your individual experiences are the games' mechanics are there to ensure you understand the intended message. Nothing about the player's individual experiences will contradict that message. That's the primary difference. So in that way, I fundamentally disagree.

4 hours ago, Sooks said:

You’re basically saying people shouldn’t say that they think that way, at least that’s what it seems like. I don’t think anyone sees bad as objectivist language when they’re using it to describe writing or gameplay.

How am I saying that? you still really haven't explained that to me

[eclipse]

Between the thread title and opening post, I don't think I want to read the rest.  So have a hot take based on those two points. . .which is that what you're describing is toxic.  Liking something because others hate it is absolutely not healthy.  Nor is getting mad that people don't like what you like.  Guess what, we're all entitled to our opinions regarding best/worst FE game.  Some people just aren't going to see things your way.  My pet peeve involves a certain character, but I've accepted the fact that the vast majority of people aren't going to read and interpret everything the way I do.  Even if they're wrong. . .so what?  How is disliking Fates going to negatively affect the truly important things in life, like the structural integrity of your house?

In other words, if the community is annoying you, take a break.

[Sooks]

36 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

How am I saying that? you still really haven't explained that to me

Because you say not to critique off of some opinions yet complain about it being the punching bag of the series, which implies that anyone ever saying anything bad about it is critique, so therefore don’t say anything bad about Fates unless you agree with it comes across as what you’re saying.

[Lightcosmo]

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

 I don't assume I know more than they do.

There are cases where this is actually true, though.

For example, the devs cannot balance, to save their or anyone's life. I would trust anybody else over them since they cannot do basic math when it comes to this. So, yeah you can be more knowledgable than them. Just cause they're the devs doesn't mean they are smarter than me automatically. And if i'm someone that's poured a few thousand hours into a game, odds are that i know more about gameplay pertaining to that game than they do. So when I say a gameplay decision they made is dumb, i probably know what i'm talking about.

[Ottservia]

32 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Between the thread title and opening post, I don't think I want to read the rest.  So have a hot take based on those two points. . .which is that what you're describing is toxic.  Liking something because others hate it is absolutely not healthy.  Nor is getting mad that people don't like what you like.  Guess what, we're all entitled to our opinions regarding best/worst FE game.  Some people just aren't going to see things your way.  My pet peeve involves a certain character, but I've accepted the fact that the vast majority of people aren't going to read and interpret everything the way I do.  Even if they're wrong. . .so what?  How is disliking Fates going to negatively affect the truly important things in life, like the structural integrity of your house?

In other words, if the community is annoying you, take a break.

so what? you're saying I'm not allowed to criticize anyone for making poor arguments or spreading misinformation? I'm not allowed to want more informed critical discourse and discussion? cause that's essentially what this thread is. People are allowed to like or dislike something for whatever reason. I don't really care what your personal preference is but I am going to call you out if you criticize something and it doesn't make any sense. You're allowed to like something that someone else likes and vice versa. That's not what I'm talking about here. I've said this before but your opinion is not a shield to protect criticism of your argument. I'm fine with people not agreeing and having their own interpretation that is all fine and good but those things can and will be subject to criticism and your opinion is not shield to deflect criticism. I want to have informed nuanced discussions. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. There's a difference having personal preference and bad faith debate. I just want better discourse and to have a discussion about these games without throwing things under the bus or making arguments that make very little sense. 

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

so what? you're saying I'm not allowed to criticize anyone for making poor arguments or spreading misinformation? I'm not allowed to want more informed critical discourse and discussion? cause that's essentially what this thread is. People are allowed to like or dislike something for whatever reason. I don't really care what your personal preference is but I am going to call you out if you criticize something and it doesn't make any sense. You're allowed to like something that someone else likes and vice versa. That's not what I'm talking about here. I've said this before but your opinion is not a shield to protect criticism of your argument. I'm fine with people not agreeing and having their own interpretation that is all fine and good but those things can and will be subject to criticism and your opinion is not shield to deflect criticism. I want to have informed nuanced discussions. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. There's a difference having personal preference and bad faith debate. I just want better discourse and to have a discussion about these games without throwing things under the bus or making arguments that make very little sense. 

You're being thoroughly unpleasant about it.  The problem is you.  Do something about it.

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

You're being thoroughly unpleasant about it.  The problem is you.  Do something about it.

am I being harsh or blunt with my words? maybe and I apologize for that but I will stand by the notion that not all discussion is good discussion. People can make misinformed points. People can have opinions that are mired in misinformation or misunderstanding. I can say all day that my opinion is that Edelgard has no character development but does that make it true? of course not because if I say that I am deliberately ignoring context from the story. just because I say it is my opinion that doesn't mean I should deflect criticism when people say I'm wrong. It's very similar to the "it's just a joke" retort. You can say that all day but that doesn't make what you did any less abhorrent. People are entitled to their personal tastes and opinions. It's when you try to justify those things with incorrect information that bothers me. You can like or dislike whatever you want but if you're going to criticize something make sure your claims and arguments make sense. There is an hour long video I could link hear that goes more in depth as to what I'm trying to say here. I don't expect anyone to watch cause it's like over an hour long but I'll just put it here just in case anyone does wanna get that discussion going.

 

[SoulWeaver]

On 11/19/2020 at 8:45 PM, Ertrick36 said:

Now here's the thing.  I'm not opposed to a "golden ending" being in a game like this.  But the issue is there isn't enough struggle or sacrifice to make it feel like a deserved golden ending.  If nothing else it should've at least been the most difficult path.  I guess it is the most "difficult" path because I have difficulty mustering up the will to play through it more than once.  But anyway, you just stroll up to Anankos and knock him on his ass, and everyone lives happily ever after.  Oh, and Gunter betrays you, except it's fine because after you beat him up the younger princesses get together to heal him right up and he goes back to normal.  Also, the reason this ending couldn't normally work was because of some nonsense about how if you talked about Valla you would just vanish... but, like, Azura knows about it, and that should be enough since she could try to lead others to Valla to learn the truth instead of just being quiet about it all.

I actually had an alternate idea where Azura tries to help Anankos find peace in his death, and he uses the water at his command to drown her on dry land and basically puppet her body out, leading to Azura as the final boss using the Waterwheel given it's basically the best defensive weapon in the game. The goal of the map would be to beat Azura before she can well up enough power to trigger one last Dragon Vein and flood the area, drowning your army, and so it would be a 'defeat the Boss in X Turns' map, which I would have loved to have as the finisher for a game.

On 11/20/2020 at 10:00 AM, Eltosian Kadath said:

I am going to point out a flaw in this theory that Birthright was supposed to be played before Conquest, because there is a key plot point in Birthright that only makes sense if you played Conquest first. At the end of the battle with Leo in Birthright Azura gives Leo the crystal that reveals Goo Garon to Corrin at the end of Conquest chapter 15, without explaining what it is, and when we next see Leo he is explicitly not talking about what Corrin learns from the Crystal at the end of Conquest chapter 15. Unless you played through Conquest first this plot point in Birthright makes no sense.

The two relevant quotes contained within this spoiler box

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

I'm actually one of the few players I know who remember the crystal exists in both paths. I'd argue that it's one of the few plot points that was executed well - the player sees Azura does have a way to convince one sibling that we're doing the right thing(and I really like that they chose the very logical Leo to go about this with), however, we are already fully in on the whole Garon is Bad spiel and thus don't need the plot device powers of the crystal. It's only in Conquest, where Corrin starts doubting the chosen path, that Azura needs to give Corrin the crystal - she knows that Corrin has the ability to convince the other Nohrian Royals to stay to the path, if only Corrin truly believes in what they're doing for the sake of Nohr. It's not as necessary a plot device in BR as it is in CQ, and so it doesn't put too much focus on it in BR because it's not a big deal for Corrin there.

The crystal is also actually one of the most damning pieces of evidence to Revelations being badly executed because if it exists in both BR and CQ, then it exists in RV as well, meaning Azura absolutely could have given it to Xander or Leo early on and shown them Garon was psycho long before Garon tells the brothers to 'destroy Hoshido...destroy Nohr!' which is apparently the catalyst to the Nohrian princes joining you, or she could have given it to, you know, literally anyone who demanded answers all through the early game instead of Corrin just going 'can't say but trust me plz' which really should only have worked on Camilla, Elise, and Sakura.

[Yexin]

19 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

not all discussion is good discussion

or rather, not everything you read online is or wants to be a discussion

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Holy wow this thread is exhausting to read. I haven't taken part in any Fates discourse in a long while because it took me a long while to really form my own opinions on it and I've kind of settled for.... it's my second least favorite FE game. SoV is worse.

 

One of the only redeeming qualities I have experienced in my time playing Fates is that the gameplay is interesting. It has it's pitfalls, like the gimmicks being too overdone, but overall the gameplay is solid. I like Xander and Ryoma. And.... that's about it actually. The rest of the characters feel incredibly one note and that either gets annoying over time or they start out as not likable and don't really change. The story is one huge mess that is just not enjoyable to try and puzzle out. This is all very basic.

As for Ottservia, I believe your intentions are good but if so many people are saying you're coming across differently from how you are, you may want to take a step back and re-evaluate how you phrase things. Because you come across as incredibly hostile and not open to discussion no matter how much you say otherwise, due to the bulk of your posts invalidating other's opinions, outright dismissing them, or being hostile. You say that's not your intent, but enough people have said the same now that it's obvious you're not getting across your intent.

[Ottservia]

9 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

As for Ottservia, I believe your intentions are good but if so many people are saying you're coming across differently from how you are, you may want to take a step back and re-evaluate how you phrase things. Because you come across as incredibly hostile and not open to discussion no matter how much you say otherwise, due to the bulk of your posts invalidating other's opinions, outright dismissing them, or being hostile. You say that's not your intent, but enough people have said the same now that it's obvious you're not getting across your intent.

I mean that’s fair enough I suppose but could someone kindly and respectfully explain how exactly I’m invalidating someone else’s opinions. I don’t understand how “I think your argument/criticism doesn’t make much sense and here’s why” translates to “you’re not allowed to have an opinion” because I feel like there’s a clear difference between those two statements

Edited November 21, 2020 by Ottservia

[Armagon]

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Do you not think it's disrespectful to assume you know more than the author?

I'm gonna throw my two cents into the ring but in regards to this particular part, i feel like a lot of authors just......wouldn't care if you interpret their stories differently than what they intended. You know, provided it makes sense and you can see from where they are coming from.

To give an example, let's look at Neon Genesis Evangelion. While there is definitely intent in that series, other parts of it (mainly the Biblical references and whatnot) was mainly just Anno thinking it'd be cool. And yet that never stopped people from factoring in those Biblical references into their interpretations and analysis. 

The point here is that just because an author intended something to be a certain way doesn't mean that's the way it must be looked at. Hell, we can even apply this to Fates and i will because that's what's most relevant at the moment. Based on the marketing and premise of the game, it can be safe to assume that the theme of the game was choice. Actually, it might has well been outright stated:

"Japanese video game website 4Gamer posted an interview with the Fates development team on April 28, 2015. The interview covered a few more details regarding the storyline. The Hoshido route is designed to be more like Awakening, allowing players to train units outside of battle. The Nohr route will be more challenging with less funds and experience on top of more diverse victory tactics compared to Awakening. Players can also adjust the difficulty of the Nohr route if it becomes too difficult. All versions of the game will be the same about 1/6th of the way through, up to Chapter 6, but the rest of the game for all three versions will be different. The idea of choice in the game was inspired from Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light and its remake Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon where the player was given the choice between recruiting Samson or Arran, but not both."

However, from what i've seen you post, you're interpretation of Fates is not really about choice but rather trust. We don't know if that's what Fates' writers actually intended, i'm willing to think that they didn't just based on how the game was presented but it's not like this invalidates either interpretation. Do you have to agree with other interpretations? Hell no, and that includes the author's. You can acknowledge the author's own point of view without having to like or agree with it. There's nothing really wrong with preferring your own interpretation over the author's or assuming what they wrote was a happy accident and i know i just gave every literature professor a heart attack with that sentence but that's how i feel. You're not putting yourself above the author for doing this.

And i know Word of God is a thing but i don't think that applies to interpretations. Like, in a story, Word of God usually is just about adding extra details that wouldn't have been relevant in the story proper. It's why Word of God tends to be world building. If we look at Fire Emblem, like 80% of Kaga Emblem lore is literally just Kaga saying shit because he couldn't really find a spot to add it into the story itself. Other times Word of God can be used to add details that make sense from a realistic point of view but not from a creative point of view. If the Legendary incarnation of Godzilla actually existed in real life, it has been stated that this incarnation of Godzilla has a roar that is 174 decibels and can be heard from three miles away. Enough to blow out your eardrums or defean you or perhaps just outright kill you but of course this never actually happens in the movies because if it did, there wouldn't be a movie.

Of course, Word of God is invalidated if it contradicts what the story says and yes, i'm specifically referring to J.K Rowling with that.

[Ottservia]

49 minutes ago, Armagon said:

However, from what i've seen you post, you're interpretation of Fates is not really about choice but rather trust. We don't know if that's what Fates' writers actually intended, i'm willing to think that they didn't just based on how the game was presented but it's not like this invalidates either interpretation. Do you have to agree with other interpretations? Hell no, and that includes the author's. You can acknowledge the author's own point of view without having to like or agree with it. There's nothing really wrong with preferring your own interpretation over the author's or assuming what they wrote was a happy accident and i know i just gave every literature professor a heart attack with that sentence but that's how i feel. You're not putting yourself above the author for doing this.

 

In regards to the “trust” theme. I’ll just say that the stated reason for the why Yato doesn’t awaken to the omega yato at one point in the heirs of fate DLC is that Kana didn’t trust Shigure. That is something that is outright stated by Kana herself and when they do put their faith in Shigure who in turn puts his faith in them that’s when the Omega Yato is finally able to awaken. You can call personal interpretation all you want but if it’s outright stated by the game itself then I think that goes a little beyond interpretation.

[Armagon]

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

In regards to the “trust” theme. I’ll just say that the stated reason for the why Yato doesn’t awaken to the omega yato at one point in the heirs of fate DLC is that Kana didn’t trust Shigure. That is something that is outright stated by Kana herself and when they do put their faith in Shigure who in turn puts his faith in them that’s when the Omega Yato is finally able to awaken. You can call personal interpretation all you want but if it’s outright stated by the game itself then I think that goes a little beyond interpretation.

I mean, that could still fall into the category of the happy accident. Again, going off by how the game is marketed and presented (and if we wanna look outside of the game, Corrin's tagline in Smash is "Corrin chooses to Smash" but that's outside of Fates so that probably doesn't count), it is more likelier that the game's theme is about choice. 

Of course, the author is not perfect and it's possible that what they intended didn't really get conveyed properly. Made Fates' writers really did intend for the game to be about trust but as i'm sure you're aware, a lot of players don't see and/or agree with that. The fact that, as far as i'm aware, you're the only person to suggest that Fates' story is about trust, i haven't really seen anyone else argue something similar.

[Ottservia]

10 minutes ago, Armagon said:

42 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

 

I mean, that could still fall into the category of the happy accident. Again, going off by how the game is marketed and presented (and if we wanna look outside of the game, Corrin's tagline in Smash is "Corrin chooses to Smash" but that's outside of Fates so that probably doesn't count), it is more likelier that the game's theme is about choice

If it was an accident then why is at the climax of the story’s plot right before the final battle?! it is also the explanation given in order to unlock this game’s version of the Fire Emblem y’know the franchise’s name sake. If that wasn’t intentional then color me impressed cause shit how many accidents does that require?!

Edited November 22, 2020 by Ottservia

[Armagon]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

If it was an accident then why is at the climax of the story’s plot right before the final battle it is also the explanation given in order to unlock this game’s version of the Fire Emblem the franchise’s name sake.

*In the DLC "what if" scenario.

5 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

If that wasn’t intentional then color me impressed cause shit how many accidents does that require?!

Because it doesn't happen like that in the main story. The Yato becomes the Fire Emblem once all four Divine Weapons have been gathered. The Divine Weapons can also individually power up the Yato. And one of the Yato's forms doesn't even require the Divine Weapons.

You say trust was the key and while you have backed up that interpretation, the game doesn't really make it clear that that was the intention. Corrin got everyone to trust him once he united both sides and he sure as hell trusts them. Why did the Yato wait until the final battle to become the Fire Emblem when all the conditions were met? Of course, with the four Divine Weapons in constant proximity to the Yato, you could also ask why they didn't react until the final battle.

Hence, the happy accident. Trust may not have been the intended theme but it was beneficial for your interpretation of the story.

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Armagon said:

You say trust was the key and while you have backed up that interpretation, the game doesn't really make it clear that that was the intention. Corrin got everyone to trust him once he united both sides and he sure as hell trusts them. Why did the Yato wait until the final battle to become the Fire Emblem when all the conditions were met? Of course, with the four Divine Weapons in constant proximity to the Yato, you could also ask why they didn't react until the final battle.

Well because there was still lingering doubt among the group. Need I bring up that whole sub plot with Gunter being a traitor. Hell Corrin is suspected as the one who killed scarlet. Again there’s doubt among the group. The weapons only react when they do after all of that is said and done and the put their faith in Corrin. This even happens in the climax of the other two paths where the Yato breaks and is only restored through people putting their faith in Corrin. Gunter is a villain in rev and the whole point of that little sub plot is to plant doubt within the group. They’re only able to win when Corrin says they still trust Gunter allowing him to fight back against Anankos’s control. Hell Anankos’s whole deal is that he doesn’t trust humans contrast with Corrin who trusts everyone.

 

7 minutes ago, Armagon said:

*In the DLC "what if" scenario.

Themes in stories don’t stop. They keep going and permeate throughout every aspect of it be it through sequals or questionably canonical what if scenarios. 

[vanguard333]

@Ottservia I was just wondering if you had anything to say in response to the points I've made.