Jump to content
Ottservia

Stop bullying Fates. It doesn’t deserve it

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

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.

I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm.

Edited by Sooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god, here we go again... xd

Alright, so my take on Fates: The beginning is great, i like the conflict between the siblings, i see the tension in the atmosphere and the hatred towards each other. They handle this well, imo. 

The in the middle: some lines are... questionably stupid. For example, "Corrin, who was that mysterious dancer!?" This makes Leo sound stupid even though they say he's very intelligent, completely invalidating that fact in one scene. Now if Leo knew what was going on, that would be in character, as he's seen her before, and he's intelligent. 

And on Birthright's side: "Corrin i have this magic spell that has enough energy to warp your party anywhere, but only once!" Convenient much?

Another issue: they hardly focus on anything. They jump from one thing to the next way too quickly, without going in depth at all. 

The characters: Alot of them being one dimensional really hurts this game, i won't lie. This is bad. I want to relate, or feel some form of empathy for these characters, depending on the situation of course. Whenever they have serious scenes, someone says something that kills the mood or doesn't fit at all. Granted this isn't all the time, just alot of the time.

Like, what makes Effie a likeable character? Nothing, because she really isn't. She isn't interesting in the least bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Nice, I never knew I was so talented.

Just caught the spelling error in my post

oops xD

Share this post


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

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.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. I realize in retrospect that I could've been clearer in what I meant; I meant that if you have to go outside a game's story to learn something that helps understand that game's story, then that game's story has failed on some level, but if this is supposed to be some sarcastic retort that I wasn't judging the game as a game or something like that (I seriously can't tell because of how it's worded), then that's still a little uncalled for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wanna know another argument I see a lot that doesn't make any sense? It's the too anime argument. Like oh no a japanese game is reminiscent of popular Japanese media how horrible and unprecedented. who could've seen that coming. oh no....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This blew up pretty quick.

Eh. I have no personal opinion of Fates' story. I played Conquest for the challenge, and then played BR and Rev for completion's sake. The only stories I have a negative opinion on are those that are absurdly offensive. Past that, unless the story is quite good, I just don't care. The purpose of FE is the tactical challenge. If you want a good story, go read a good book. Nothing against FE4, SoV, or TH's Azure Moon route, but that's just my opinion of the matter. (Now, to start those calculations)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will say I quite enjoyed Fates. Yeah, it was as good as the other games I'd played, but it still holds a special place to me for being the third FE game I ever played, the second I had played in a long time. Not to mention, while the story is subpar, the gameplay is probably my favorite out of the 3DS titles. There are also some hidden gem characters like Effie, Arthur, Flora, Mozu and Forrest, so it still holds enough redeeming factors that keep me from hating it. If anything, the aesthetic design of the armor and weapons irritates me more than most other criticisms leveled at the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

The problem isn’t that the story isn’t super realistic, the problem is that the story is so unrealistic in regards to how human begins act/think that it’s hard to stay immersed.

At least I would think, I’ve never encountered anyone complaining about a lack of realism story wise.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

SO you're saying fiction is unrealistic well then.

I’m saying that Xander doesn’t exist...

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

My point is that we shouldn't invalidate why someone would relate to a character.

I wasn’t talking about anyone relating to a character, if you relate to Xander that’s actually a good thing, being able to relate to a character is nice. No, my criticism has nothing to do with anyone relating to him, and of anyone derives that as the conclusion then they are either a borderline hyper sensitive person or trying to seem more righteous than they are.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

I never said that no one could.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

I’m gonna be honest, I don’t remember enough about this scene to comment on that, but

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

This doesn’t have anything to do with people experiencing whatever they’re experiencing, this is a video game character.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Just because you think it's unrealistic that doesn't it actually is.

Opinions can’t be wrong or right.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

There is no such thing as objectively bad.

Do I think they’re evil and no one should do them? Yes. Is evil quantifiable? No.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

No you’re not, but your way of saying that people shouldn’t complain about X, Y, and Z is right on the edge of doing so.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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

Well, sorry the world did you dirty like that.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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

Because the game actively shows Corrin being not right, quite a lot, and then they go “but not like it was the wrong path or anything!” and it’s really jarring.

Share this post


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

No you’re not, but your way of saying that people shouldn’t complain about X, Y, and Z is right on the edge of doing so

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

Alright kids, it's meme lesson time.

When someone says "imagine doing x" on the internet, it often means "can you imagine actually doing that?"

So when I say, "imagine judging B based on the traits of A," or "imagine judging a game based off what happens in the manga," I'm saying that doing so is very silly.

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

wanna know another argument I see a lot that doesn't make any sense? It's the too anime argument. Like oh no a japanese game is reminiscent of popular Japanese media how horrible and unprecedented. who could've seen that coming. oh no....

Expected =/= Good

There's literally no reason someone who doesn't like anime should be okay with anime aspects in things just because the thing is Japanese. That's an absurd argument that would nullify not liking anime, or pretty much any opinion actually. "What did you expect?" Well expectation isn't a measure of quality.

Share this post


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

Expected =/= Good

There's literally no reason someone who doesn't like anime should be okay with anime aspects in things just because the thing is Japanese. That's an absurd argument that would nullify not liking anime, or pretty much any opinion actually. "What did you expect?" Well expectation isn't a measure of quality.

Oh yeah I agree but that my thing is that you’re merely just stating a fact. You’re not really criticizing anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but this is what I personally thought of about Fire Emblem Fates.  I'll tell a story starting from when the game was first being revealed, and give a little context to how I was feeling at the time.

So I came basically fresh off the Awakening train.  I was still playing Fire Emblem Awakening, but also was kinda thinking about dipping my toes into other games.  I still mostly visited GameFAQs at this point and it was chock full of whiny people complaining about the last game, and since I was still a somewhat impressionable youth I thought the story in Awakening was genuinely bad just because some mouthy dickheads on the internet said so.  Enter Fire Emblem Fates and its announcement.

I don't remember exactly what the reveal was like, but I remember looking at some of the screenshots and thinking "wow, Japanese-styled unit classes?  That's hella cool!"  I also remember seeing female characters in traditionally male-exclusive class roles (Charlotte as a fighter) and the male pegasus knight Subaki, and the talk about the new knife/shuriken weaponry.  I won't do a play-by-play of every single new revelation (hehe), but the ultimate point is there was genuine hype - I think on both sides of this "divide" people talk about with the fandom.  Sure, I do think as some of the more... um, "choice" features were revealed, veterans started jumping off the hype train, but still I could swear some who were disappointed with Awakening were super excited to see what potential "Fire Emblem If" had - to see if perhaps it'd outperform Awakening and "restore" their faith in the series or whatever.  I myself believed it would end up being a better story.

One of the big things I remember, however, is one particular thing Iwata said, which was that you'd be making choices throughout the game... choices with huge impact on the story.  In hindsight I think either he wasn't aware that there was only the one choice (well, apart from sacrificing Shura for some boots in Conquest, lmao), or it was said to hype up the game, but either way when you look back on it one does feel outright lied to and misled.

Even bigger in my mind, though, was how Conquest was pitched: "The Nohr path will force you to revolutionize an unruly kingdom from the inside – this path offers a slightly more complex story and will be more challenging."  Now, obviously we know how exactly we "revolutionize" the "unruly kingdom" from within, but take yourself back to before the game released and imagine what kind of image that word choice puts in your mind.  Of course "unruly kingdom" leads you to thinking of unscrupulous types such as Niles or Hans, but pay mind to the world "revolutionize".  Revolution.  That is a word people typically use to describe not just a simple act of rebellion, but a widespread disruption and usurping of a powerful government institution.  I'll also point to how it says the story will be "slightly more complex".  I'll get back to this point later.

Come release day, I buy Birthright and Conquest, and play through Birthright first.  You couldn't ask me to be bothered to remember much of the story of that path if you had me at gunpoint, but I do remember enjoying playing through it well enough.  I did feel genuinely bad about Azura sacrificing herself (and thus widowing poor Kaze), and while I kinda thought it was dumb that Xander just kept on fighting after Elise sacrificed herself (though I rationalized it as he probably just wanted to die at that point) the death of Elise was sorta weighty to me even if I had little attachment to them.  I was sated well enough with the story since it was, as they said, kinda traditional... at least on the surface.

Next was Conquest.  Lemme bring you back around to the point about the "revolution from the inside" tagline.  And yes, this is gonna delve into wanting it to be something it's not, but this is the expectation the marketing set me up with.  I thought the way the story would pan out is that Corrin's army would never leave Nohr - in fact, they would be in open defiance to King Garon, and try (but at first fail) to rally everyone to their side.  You would be at odds with both Hoshido and Nohr - the Hoshidans because they only care that you're Nohrian and the Nohrians because you are against Garon.  You would work to disrupt Garon's operations and effectively raise up an army fit to fight a civil war, eventually finding the siblings joining your side.  It would all culminated into a battle with the Nohrian King himself and the Hoshidan forces who've reached deep in your homeland and effectively become invading warmongers themselves.

Now, I don't need to tell you that this is not at all what we got.  Instead, we got a plot device railroading the game into a race to get Garon to sit upon the Hoshidan throne so that your dumb siblings could realize that, hey, Garon's a literal monster, as if it wasn't enough that he was a figurative monster.  But back to me playing the game, I was able to dig the point about pretending to do the dirty work of Garon well enough - it came across as some sleek espionage that might culminate into a full-scale operation to dethrone Garon or change him somehow.  But fast-forward to the back-to-back slaughter fests in Nestra and Cheve.  Garon and his goons perform such horrific acts of cruelty that they basically become unjustifiable, and Corrin, understandably, can't take this brutal slaughter.  Azura, who foolishly tried to exorcise Garon's demons and instead caused him to go on a rampage, leads Corrin to Valla to show them the truth about Garon - that he's a goo monster, basically.  And you both come to the conclusion that he needs to sit on the throne to be revealed as this.  It is from this exact point that the story takes a massive dive and starts being unlikable.

At first you do your best to avoid unnecessary slaughter.  But you end up slaughtering the denizens of the Kitsune Hamlet (sorta like how you slaughter the wolfskins in BR) and when you reach the major Hoshidan fortifications is where things just suck.  You are able to only spare Sakura, her retainers, and Yukimura as the Nohrians just slaughter all the soldiers under their command for... reasons.  You reach Takumi's Great Wall of Hoshido and you're ordered to slaughter everyone there, including two of my favorite characters Oboro and Takumi - I outright avoided taking down Oboro because you only actually just need to take down Takumi (and he doesn't die at that point anyway).  You enter, and must slaughter Hinoka's forces next - except this time, with the coercion of Camilla, Hinoka and her retainers are spared.  You march in the streets and watch Garon's thugs just cut down innocent civilians for no reason, and you do nothing about it.  You finally reach Ryoma, kill him too, and then, and only then, are you finally allowed some degree of vindication as you get to, at last, kill the bastards that did all the horrible, irrationally evil things they did - Iago and Hans.  And of course you kill Garon and Takumi, and that's all she wrote.

But that is why I have such a strong distaste for the story in Conquest - why I hate its story with a passion.  You end up either doing evil things or just letting evil things happen around you because of some stupid plot device.  There's no justification or good reasoning behind why anything has to be the way it is.  On top of it all, the game arbitrarily decides that I must kill some of my favorite characters from the other path or likely let them be killed by my detestable "allies".  Not just Oboro and Takumi either, but also Saizo and Kaden.  Okay, obviously Takumi wasn't gonna be spared because he yeets himself off a 50-foot wall and runs off (and is possessed in the same way Garon is), but why is it that the Hoshidan royal sisters and their retainers get spared but not the princes and their retainers?  Everything about this path just irks me so wrong.

While I was playing through Conquest, though, I also took to playing Revelation (yes, I'm calling it Revelation without the "s" at the end because, goddammit, that's what it's actually called).  There was another bit of misleading I glommed onto, though I think that was because of some journalist outlet rather than official sources.  It implied that in Revelation you would use Dragon Vein points (you know, the ones you use to upgrade your home castle) to buy units.  As in, pick and choose your favorite characters from each path to use in this final path, which I'm gonna say right now would've been a hella cool idea - way better than what we actually got.  Anyway, the revelations (hehe, did it again) in this path only served to ruin the overall story of Fates.  All the pain, heartache, and sacrifice in the other two paths?  Completely goddamn pointless, because this third ending exists where everyone reconciles their differences.  And while there was some pandering and patting your avatar on the back in the other two paths, nowhere was this more prevalent than in Revelation, and it sucked.

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.

So this leads me to what I'm gonna say now.  I do think the disdain people have for the story in Fates is justified.  The story relies way too much on plot devices in railroading the events, most major characters have little to no good justifications for doing the things they do, and it's gut-wrenching for all the wrong reasons.  I know that ultimately the idea was less about the kingdoms as a whole and more the individual characters and, more specifically, the families and how impossible it is to reconcile their differences, leading to inevitable tragedy, but the way a game is marketed has a big impact on what you expect from a game and people get justifiably angry when it's discovered that they were misled.  We were outright told this game would include big choices (plural) and we were promised an unconventional, revolutionary story from Conquest when in reality we got a gently weeping accidental warmonger story.

With that said, the game as a whole?  I can't bring myself to hate it.  There are things that bring me back to it.  I do enjoy the characters in the vacuum of supports, the gameplay is pretty solid (though more and more I hate Revelation and its Binding Blade inspired maps), and the few ROM hacks people have made for it give it extended life for me.  And I do remember genuinely enjoying Birthright - as a self-contained experience it's not the best, but it's enjoyable enough.  Just wish it didn't have as many filler chapters as it did - all chapters that involved Iago just felt like a comical side arc with no actual purpose beyond padding.

 

Now, can I judge the game's story on its own?  It's hard to, honestly - to take away all the false expectations the marketers gave me, and just look at the game itself.  But I don't think they'd change my opinion that the plot device nonsense is completely asinine and that having unjustifiably evil "allies" in Conquest completely ruins the point of fighting for the misunderstood kingdom - a kingdom that, while seeming rough around the edges, still seems like you're meant to sympathize with.  But they're not sympathetic if the main guys running the show go around, raping, burning, and pillaging everything they see for no reason other than getting their f'ed up jollies off.  I don't care what genre of media this is, this bad of writing shouldn't be acceptable anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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. 

Yes, it's fine for a bit of coincidence to happen in a story; you're right about that. What is an issue, however, is a story that depends on contrivances, and that's usually what people mean when they say a story is contrived. A story ideally should be driven by its characters and the actions they make based on their circumstances and who they are. It's okay for contrivances to create the circumstances, but it's not okay for a contrivance to be abruptly inserted to move the plot in a specific direction without character involvement. 

For just one example of what I mean in popular media in general, the beginning of a story is not just there to introduce us to the setting and world; its main job is to introduce us to the main characters and show us who they are. It's okay for a coincidence cause the inciting event near the beginning of the story, so long as that coincidence immediately prompts a character decision, and that character decision is what truly drives the plot forward. Here are some examples of what I mean:

Spoiler

1. In Avatar: The Last Airbender, it's a completely coincidence that Sokka and Katara find the iceberg that Aang's inside. But, it's Katara who sees that Aang's inside the iceberg and immediately breaks the ice, saying, "There's a boy in that iceberg! We have to help him!" This not only tells us a lot about Katara, but it's what truly drives the plot forward.

2. In Code Geass (I can't believe I'm using Code Geass as a positive example of a writing tool, but here we are), it's a complete coincidence that Lelouch is on the same rode as the truck full of freedom fighters being pursued by the Brittanian military. However, not only is the only reason he's on the road at all because he was blowing off morning classes to play chess with a rich guy and take away a lot of money from that rich guy in the process (showing us that he cares more about hurting upper-class Brittania than having a normal life), but it's ultimately his decision to investigate the truck when it crashes and check for survivors. 

The problem with relying on contrivances to move the plot forward is that stories are ultimately an exploration of their characters and their journeys (even in something like a dystopian novel, as the setting effectively is a character), and relying on coincidences rather than character actions & consequences to move the plot forward are ultimately less meaningful and satisfying, and they hinder the story's immersive potential as they can provoke one particular thought: "...yeah, sure... that could plausibly happen, but we all know all the real reason why that happened."

Fates has this storytelling problem: it's plot depends too heavily on contrivances to move forward, and not enough on character, which ties in to another problem Fates has, ultimately one of the biggest problems a story with a large cast of characters can have:

13 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

The characters: A lot of them being one dimensional really hurts this game, i won't lie. This is bad. I want to relate, or feel some form of empathy for these characters, depending on the situation of course. Whenever they have serious scenes, someone says something that kills the mood or doesn't fit at all. Granted this isn't all the time, just a lot of the time.

This; huge portions of the main cast lack depth or make inconsistent decisions that leave the audience less clear about who they are (and I don't mean their identity when I say "who they are"). 

 

12 hours ago, Ottservia said:

wanna know another argument I see a lot that doesn't make any sense? It's the too anime argument. Like oh no a japanese game is reminiscent of popular Japanese media how horrible and unprecedented. who could've seen that coming. oh no....

Whenever I see someone say something's "too anime" it's usually basically shorthand for something like, "It has too many of the anime tropes that I dislike", which is certainly a valid criticism if one that's on the subjective side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

The strongest point of Fates narrative is the buildup, and execution of that big choice of the route split, whether to side with the family by blood, or the family that raised you. It felt like a meaningful decision with strong emotional stakes that could be decided either way. That being said, it would be disingenuous to not also point out that this moment gets progressively ruined by how one sided that choice ends up being when looked at objectively.

 

15 hours 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.

When you analyze stories through the lens of authorial intent (as the following quote makes perfectly clear that you are)

19 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.

than you are opening your argument, and analysis up to these basic critiques. If what matters is what the author (used here as a term for the people who had creative control over the art) intended, than accidental story points shouldn't count, and as has frequently been shown to be the case when art is analyzed before the authors death, overanalyzing is an easy pitfall to fall into. Without some very clear and explicit textual evidence (I am talking about literal quotes/images here), or interviews with some of the authors about what they intended, your analysis wont easily overcome this.

I will also add that critiques of both arguments, and art should not be taken as disrespect on the authors of either. Engaging with them, and putting critical thought into them is a form of respect.

 

15 hours 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.

15 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Each of fates's routes is written with that order in mind.

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

Spoiler
Quote

Azura: You'll have to find your own reasons for joining us. We can't give you the answers. But I do have something that can help you...clarify your thoughts.

Leo: What do you mean?

Azura: Take this. Look deep inside it. You might find it helpful.

Leo: Huh? What is it? It looks like some kind of crystal.

Azura: It's...not something I can explain. You'll just have to try it for yourself.

Leo: I see... Understood.

 

Quote

Niles: He's trying to say that he was worried about you, milord. You went off to the Bottomless Canyon with that strange crystal all alone... I was worried about you, too. That's why we're here.

Leo: Yes, well...thank you, I suppose.

Odin: Tell us, what fantastic truths did the dark crystal reveal to you?

Leo: Well...

Niles: Ooh. That good, huh?

Leo: No, it's just... Father... He's no longer... Ugh. Let's just say, big changes are on the horizon, for all of us. There's going to be a major battle, and anything could happen.

 

 

Share this post


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

than you are opening your argument, and analysis up to these basic critiques. If what matters is what the author (used here as a term for the people who had creative control over the art) intended, than accidental story points shouldn't count, and as has frequently been shown to be the case when art is analyzed before the authors death, overanalyzing is an easy pitfall to fall into. Without some very clear and explicit textual evidence (I am talking about literal quotes/images here), or interviews with some of the authors about what they intended, your analysis wont easily overcome this.

I will also add that critiques of both arguments, and art should not be taken as disrespect on the authors of either. Engaging with them, and putting critical thought into them is a form of respect.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, just let people like what they want. You don't have to like or dislike anything because of what other people tell you. I like Fates just fine, and I don't particularly care whether other people share that opinion. It is good to list the flaws of a game you like or dislike, and discuss at length whether you believe the game is good or not, which for the most part is just subjective. It is NOT good to insult other people for their opinions and if it bothers you that much what other people think about this game, then my guess is probably that you either love the game and can't handle criticism on it or you don't like the game as much as you think and seeing the criticism gives you doubt. Either way, just don't let it bother you. Like what you like. Dislike what you dislike. Don't insult other people's tastes of games, because they may very much value different things than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michelaar said:

Dislike what you dislike. Don't insult other people's tastes of games, because they may very much value different things than you do.

How many times do I have to explain to people that’s not what I’m doing? I just want people to stop saying stupid things about this game and passing it off as legitimate criticism. That is all. I am not insulting anyone’s tastes. I’m not saying you’re not allowed to have an opinion. I am simply saying that you should be fair in your criticisms towards the game or whatever it is you’re criticizing. I’m gonna keep repeating it until people understand. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DISLIKE FATES. I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is how people talk about and criticize it because I feel most criticisms are not fair to it. I don’t know how to explain it anymore clear than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I’m not one to jump into the lions den but each person’s criticisms will be unfair to someone no matter how hard you try to explain it. Each person is biased and is gonna review something based on their standards or expectations. There is no way that you could clearly describe why you dislike something in a way that everyone would understand and find fair. I personally find Fates to be my second least favorite FE but it is still better in my eyes then most non-FE games. However the reason I dislike it are all based on personal reason and experience which is valid reasoning to dislike it, but other may/would not agree with that. I get where Ottservia is coming from but each person will see this thread in their own way and judge it based on how they perceive it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I just want people to stop saying stupid things about this game and passing it off as legitimate criticism.

Alright, so on one hand, this makes sense, on the other, i completely disagree. 

"stupid"... well, i'm going to throw an example out there that's totally irrelevant and try to correlate the two! 

So, i'm playing a game and the game in questions camera goes haywire, forcing me to die. I call this stupid. Am i wrong? The devs intended it to be this way, or else they would have fixed it, so is it stupid or not? It's very legitimate criticism that the camera going wonky is an issue. So, the question is, am i saying something "stupid"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I just want people to stop saying stupid things about this game and passing it off as legitimate criticism. 

Here's the thing though; a fair amount of those "stupid things" aren't necessarily stupid when considered in context; I even looked at some examples of ones you mentioned and explained them in a well-worded, analytical and nuanced way.

If you're looking for well-worded, nuanced criticisms, internet comments are rarely the place to look; most people from what I've seen just try to be concise and hope people get what they're meaning. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of dumb stuff said on the internet; the internet is a cesspool after all. But a lot of people are just venting their thoughts on the game, so it's important to interpret what they're saying in the most favourable reasonable light before then going into the criticism.

Edited by vanguard333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

So, i'm playing a game and the game in questions camera goes haywire, forcing me to die. I call this stupid. Am i wrong? The devs intended it to be this way, or else they would have fixed it, so is it stupid or not? It's very legitimate criticism that the camera going wonky is an issue. So, the question is, am i saying something "stupid"?

I don’t think the camera flipping out randomly would be an intentional design choice. This feels like a straw man. If the camera in a game randomly flips out then yeah that’s a criticism but I doubt it was intentional because no game or piece of media that is problem free. You’re working under the assumption that these creators are perfect and can never make a mistake unless it was intentional. No that’s not true. Like these creators are only human. They can make mistakes they can overlook things. There is no such thing as a game without glitches. As a computer science major, I can say that there’s going to be a bug in the code somewhere no matter how well it seems to run. Even so anecdotes are not legitimate points. That’s not an argument because it’s purely anecdotal. What I mean by “stupid” is like generally criticizing something for not being something that it clearly had no intention of being in the first place. Or criticizing it for not following rules it never wanted to follow. It’s like I said earlier. Criticize the story for what is not for what you think it should be. 

Share this post


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

What I mean by “stupid” is like generally criticizing something for not being something that it clearly had no intention of being in the first place. Or criticizing it for not following rules it never wanted to follow. It’s like I said earlier. Criticize the story for what is not for what you think it should be. 

 

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

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.

It cuts both ways. Authorial intent is difficult to deduce unless the author straight up admits what they were trying to do, which is why so many stories/characters/whatever end up with so many different interpretations of them by fans. In Fates' case, people deduce what the story was "supposed" to be from the trailers pre-release, which as people pointed out before me, seemed very geared towards the idea of making choices and determining the fate (hehe) of both yourself and the world around you. With that in mind it makes perfect sense that most people's criticism is directed towards making Fates a story that better conveys that struggle to choose and the consequences of each action.

Which is fine. As I said, people interpret things their own way and each interpretation is perfectly valid. But if someone criticises a story for failing to do what they expected of it, that's fair too. And since we can never know what the authors of Fates were really thinking, our criticism will always come down to just how we judge our perception of the story before us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

It cuts both ways. Authorial intent is difficult to deduce unless the author straight up admits what they were trying to do, which is why so many stories/characters/whatever end up with so many different interpretations of them by fans. In Fates' case, people deduce what the story was "supposed" to be from the trailers pre-release, which as people pointed out before me, seemed very geared towards the idea of making choices and determining the fate (hehe) of both yourself and the world around you. With that in mind it makes perfect sense that most people's criticism is directed towards making Fates a story that better conveys that struggle to choose and the consequences of each action.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I don’t think the camera flipping out randomly would be an intentional design choice. This feels like a straw man. If the camera in a game randomly flips out then yeah that’s a criticism but I doubt it was intentional because no game or piece of media that is problem free. You’re working under the assumption that these creators are perfect and can never make a mistake unless it was intentional. No that’s not true. Like these creators are only human. They can make mistakes they can overlook things. There is no such thing as a game without glitches. As a computer science major, I can say that there’s going to be a bug in the code somewhere no matter how well it seems to run. Even so anecdotes are not legitimate points. That’s not an argument because it’s purely anecdotal. What I mean by “stupid” is like generally criticizing something for not being something that it clearly had no intention of being in the first place. Or criticizing it for not following rules it never wanted to follow. It’s like I said earlier. Criticize the story for what is not for what you think it should be. 

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?

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...