Jump to content
Ottservia

Stop bullying Fates. It doesn’t deserve it

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I agree; I don't think those things were conceived of for how they could impact the plot or explore Corrin as a character but were simply there for, "Oh, this would make Corrin cool!" I was just pointing out that it was seriously wasted potential. Azura being to turn into a dragon would've been neat, as Azura and Corrin do have a lot of symmetry as you pointed out and it would explain her having a dragonstone to give Corrin.

I don't feel like contributing to the arguments being had here, but one very different option would've been to spin Azura as Corrin's archenemy in both BR and CQ. Whichever country you side with, she sides against. Declare King G her dad, and she'd be set as the Corrin born in Nohr, raised in Hoshido. -But if one wanted to preserve a Revelation route option, you'd need one damn good reason for her sudden choice to join 'Rin, when if they had said something else, she would've snapped against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so i've been hanging out on this thread for a while and decided to finally drop my own take on Fates.

Ottservia, do i agree with you that some of the criticism lobbed at Fates is bad or unfair? Yes i do, the game definitely has many detractors who go out of their way to make the game look as bad as possible.

Do i agree that there is good stuff in Fates? Well, yeah, the Support conversations between the royal families (Barring weird shit like Leo's A-Rank with Camilla) do a good job at selling how much they care about each other, Support convos in the game are generally hit or miss but i won't deny that when they hit they hit. And there are definitely moments in the core narrative that i believe are well-handled.

Do i agree that authorial intent should be respected and that Fates is no exception? Yes, A is A and should not be judged or criticized just because it is A and not B.

Do i agree that complete subjectivity is a bad thing for media discussion and that no one should be able to just say whatever and excuse it as "It's subjective", as well as the fact that there is a difference between disliking something and viewing it as bad? Yes, definitely yes, that kind of argument is cancer.

But do i necessarily agree that all of this suddenly makes Fates' core narrative good or makes its problems go away? No. A point that has been brought up here is contrivance, and i'll agree that yes all stories are contrived and that contrivances in themselves don't hurt a story, but i don't agree with the idea that this excuses all elements that are contrived because at the end of the day, a story like Fates ends up being driven not by character motivation or even its themes as you focus so much on, but on random events strung along together.

And on the topic of themes, do i find your arguments that Fates' story is at partially about trust and that that explains some of the plot elements? Yes, but i don't necessarily believe it excuses these plot elements either. To go on a tangent, i once was talking to someone on Discord about Star Wars and the prequel trilogy and how all of the stilted and dry acting from Anakin's actor is intentional by Lucas because of the themes of the story, and at the end of the day we both had the same conclusion: Having themes and having the themes be consistent isn't enough to make a story good, and if a story needs to sacrifice technical aspects of itself to explore these themes without making said sacrifice meaningful, then that means the themes weren't explored well. Because at the end of the day, all stories have themes, and more than half of stories in the world probably have the themes be consistent with themselves, but that in itself won't make the story necessarily good.

And most importantly Ottservia, i feel that when it comes to arguing your points, even the points you think are good, you act far too pushy, it makes those you are arguing with think of you as being aggressive and brash, when im sure that's not how you intend to come off as.

Share this post


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

as well as the fact that there is a difference between disliking something and viewing it as bad?

There is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 9:24 PM, vanguard333 said:

Trope Talk: Superpowered Evil Sides - YouTube

first of all, I don't think that's a very good video. Any video that brings up "bleach's repetitive arc structure" as a negative point against the series(and using a filler arc of all things so it doesn't really matter anyway) is a video that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

 

On 11/24/2020 at 9:24 PM, vanguard333 said:

Funny enough, it's only now that I remember a way I can bring this back to Fire Emblem. One of the many reasons Ike is my favourite FE protagonist is how much emphasis and attention-to-detail is placed on his growth, both as a leader and as a swordsman as well as other things. Out of all the FE protagonists, he is the one where the power scaling is most-clearly defined, and part of that is because we see him work for it. With Corrin, obviously they weren't going for a "needing to work for it" in terms of his abilities, and that's completely fine since Fates is going for a very different narrative. As far as how the story uses Corrin's abilities are concerned, however, I do have some issues:

I like how they handle the Yato, at least to some extent. I don't like that it appeared out of nowhere in chapter 5; I definitely feel that it would have been better if it had been given some proper buildup since it's a legendary sword with history behind it (compare to Ragnell, which did get some buildup before we even knew of its significance with the Black Knight tossing it to Greil and saying, "Here, use this blade."). However, I do like the implication in Revelations that the Yato doesn't choose Corrin out of any sense of them being worthy, but instead because Corrin ultimately desires peace just like the Rainbow Sage who made the sword now does. It's an interesting variation on the "chosen-wielder" trope, and I just wish it had been explored a bit more. 

However, Corrin's dragon powers I have a big problem with. They get good buildup; Corrin going into a rage at Gunther's apparent death and awakening the lance-arm ability was interesting. Chapter 5 having him turn completely into a dragon and lose control of himself due to their grief and rage at Mikoto's death is interesting. Corrin being calmed down by Azura is interesting, and Corrin being the only First Dragon-descendant in this generation to have that kind of power is inherently interesting and creates a possible mystery about them... and the story ditches all this entirely the moment Azura gives Corrin a dragonstone. For one thing, where did she get the dragonstone? But that's beside the point; this power has a ton of potential for interesting emotional character drama as it's basically a superpowered evil side akin to something like The Hulk or the Nine-Tailed Fox from Naruto (see the video in the spoiler tag below for more info about superpowered evil sides). 

I agree with the overall point that the story should've done more with Corrin's dragon form as a plot point. I would be more forgiving of it if they delved into that in supports and such but it's hardly brought up there as well. I understand the whole gameplay point of y'know needing a dragonstone and stuff like that but that shouldn't be an excuse to ditch the plot point entirely. They get it right in heirs of fate cause even after Kana gets their dragonstone they still lose control of their dragon form when they're distressed enough. So yeah that's a fair criticism. What I don't agree with is the idea that a plot point or twist somehow has to be built up. Things in a story can be surprising. What matters really in the story is if it contradicts anything already established(and if it does well you can still make it work so long as there is an explanation) or breaks verisimilitude.

In terms of "super powered evil sides" as a trope again I feel like those things need to be judged on a case by case basis and how it relates to story's themes overall. In Naruto for example, Kurama basically represented Naruto's inner hatred that he had to overcome in order to face and understand Sasuke. Only when he comes to understand who Kurama is as a sentient living being that he is able to fully master bijuu mode. In bleach, from my understanding, Ichigo's hollow form is supposed to be representation of his animalistic nature as a soul reaper as one of the major thematic points in hueco mundo are the similarities between Hollows and Soul Reapers as well as the general animal motif of the espada. For Corrin, I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to represent with the evidence given within fates itself because the plot point is hardly ever touched upon. In heroes we do get a bit of insight into it. In that I believe it's supposed to represent Corrin being unable to trust themselves not to to hurt anyone which actually parallels with Anankos pretty nicely cause that's essentially what happened with him. Though it's been a while since I've read those Forging bonds events so y'know. Regardless, they should've done more with it in fates itself, I agree.

On 11/24/2020 at 9:24 PM, vanguard333 said:

Ike's are used extremely well within Path of Radiance's narrative

I'd argue against this. Like it's not poorly implemented mind you but I just think Ike's abilities aren't really implemented into his character arc really at all but I digress. As far as Corrin is concerned. I like how the Yato is handled. It basically represents the trust people have in Corrin as the only times Corrin gets a power up for the Yato is when others place their faith in them and it only breaks when they lose faith in themselves so yeah I think it works for the most part.

 

10 minutes ago, Murozaki said:

And most importantly Ottservia, i feel that when it comes to arguing your points, even the points you think are good, you act far too pushy, it makes those you are arguing with think of you as being aggressive and brash, when im sure that's not how you intend to come off as.

I don't think I'm any more "toxic" or pushy than WtW but okay that's fair I suppose. I'm biased about myself anyway.

 

10 minutes ago, Murozaki said:

And on the topic of themes, do i find your arguments that Fates' story is at partially about trust and that that explains some of the plot elements? Yes, but i don't necessarily believe it excuses these plot elements either. To go on a tangent, i once was talking to someone on Discord about Star Wars and the prequel trilogy and how all of the stilted and dry acting from Anakin's actor is intentional by Lucas because of the themes of the story, and at the end of the day we both had the same conclusion: Having themes and having the themes be consistent isn't enough to make a story good, and if a story needs to sacrifice technical aspects of itself to explore these themes without making said sacrifice meaningful, then that means the themes weren't explored well. Because at the end of the day, all stories have themes, and more than half of stories in the world probably have the themes be consistent with themselves, but that in itself won't make the story necessarily good.

Oh I definitely agree with this statement. I have my own problems with how fates handles its themes. I'm not saying it's perfect. Hell if I had to rate it, I'd say it's about a strong five to light six in terms of story(if we wanna factor in gameplay I rate the whole thing about an 8 or a 9). I just personally think there's more good than bad here and that those themes should not be ignored.

8 minutes ago, Sooks said:

There is?

Yeah there is.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


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

There is?

Disliking mean you're saying it does not suit your personal preferences, i hate fish and even a 5-Star fish fillet from the best french restaurant in the world won't make me like it, but obviously that doesn't mean the 5-Star fish fillet wasn't made with skill and that it is, in technical terms, a well-made meal.

Viewing it as bad means you are assigning flaws into what you are criticizing something for what it is, where you are arguing that your poor experience with that something comes from fault of the "something" itself and not your own biases and preferences. For example, there are two forks with four tines, but one of them is broken missing one of the tines, the fork missing one of the tines is an issue and makes that fork objectively worse than the one that isn't missing any of its tines because that fork will do a better job at doing what it was made to do, it will function. Function is the key verb here, when you are judging something on whether it is good or bad, you are judging whether it functions at what it sets out to do well. Of course, whether you view something as good or bad will still be subjective, but it is subjective that is born from what is at least an attempt at separating your biases and personal preferences from your judgement.

Quote

I don't think I'm any more "toxic" or pushy than WtW but okay that's fair I suppose. I'm biased about myself anyway.

You should probably refrain from mentioning people only the two of us know in this server full of people who won't understand what you're talking about. But to respond regardless, WtW himself outside of some instances (Like say, EWBs) rarely if ever argues with the intent on changing the mind of the person he's arguing with, he himself has admitted he rarely thinks people he argues with are willing to have their minds changed. So i don't think you should use him as an example perhaps.

Edited by Murozaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vanguard333 in number 4 in my post responding to yours, I meant to add more than just I agree. I edited that stuff in in case you want to look at it at all.

15 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Any video that brings up "bleach's repetitive arc structure" as a negative point against the series(and using a filler arc of all things so it doesn't really matter anyway) is a video that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

“I don’t invalidate others’ opinions.”

8 minutes ago, Murozaki said:

Disliking mean you're saying it does not suit your personal preferences, i hate fish and even a 5-Star fish fillet from the best french restaurant in the world won't make me like it, but obviously that doesn't mean the 5-Star fish fillet wasn't made with skill and that it is, in technical terms, a well-made meal.

Viewing it as bad means you are assigning flaws into what you are criticizing something for what it is, where you are arguing that your poor experience with that something comes from fault of the "something" itself and not your own biases and preferences. For example, there are two forks with four tines, but one of them is broken missing one of the tines, the fork missing one of the tines is an issue and makes that fork objectively worse than the one that isn't missing any of its tines because that fork will do a better job at doing what it was made to do, it will function. Function is the key verb here, when you are judging something on whether it is good or bad, you are judging whether it functions at what it sets out to do well. Of course, whether you view something as good or bad will still be subjective, but it is subjective that is born from what is at least an attempt at separating your biases and personal preferences from your judgement.

I think it isn’t at set in stone as it sounds here, but yeah I can get behind that.

Share this post


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

Disliking mean you're saying it does not suit your personal preferences, i hate fish and even a 5-Star fish fillet from the best french restaurant in the world won't make me like it, but obviously that doesn't mean the 5-Star fish fillet wasn't made with skill and that it is, in technical terms, a well-made meal.

Viewing it as bad means you are assigning flaws into what you are criticizing something for what it is, where you are arguing that your poor experience with that something comes from fault of the "something" itself and not your own biases and preferences. For example, there are two forks with four tines, but one of them is broken missing one of the tines, the fork missing one of the tines is an issue and makes that fork objectively worse than the one that isn't missing any of its tines because that fork will do a better job at doing what it was made to do, it will function. Function is the key verb here, when you are judging something on whether it is good or bad, you are judging whether it functions at what it sets out to do well. Of course, whether you view something as good or bad will still be subjective, but it is subjective that is born from what is at least an attempt at separating your biases and personal preferences from your judgement.

honestly this is a much better way of explaining, thank you. It's way better than how I've been trying to explain it.

3 minutes ago, Sooks said:

“I don’t invalidate others’ opinions.”

I mean like it's a video that's inherently making an authoritative stance. I'm allowed to criticize it for poorly formed points and that point is very poorly formed. Honestly you could make a bingo card about "bad shounen takes" and that one would definitely be on it.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

first of all, I don't think that's a very good video. Any video that brings up "bleach's repetitive arc structure" as a negative point against the series(and using a filler arc of all things so it doesn't really matter anyway) is a video that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

I can't tell if this is serious or not. The "repetitive arc structure" thing was one tiny thing used as an example to explain a different point in a video about analyzing the superpowered evil sides trope; saying that that one thing is grounds for not taking the video seriously as a whole is just absurd. 

 

8 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I agree with the overall point that the story should've done more with Corrin's dragon form as a plot point.

I'm going to respond to the whole thing; I'm just cutting it for length.

To clarify, I wasn't saying that plot points need to have buildup necessarily; I was just saying that I think the Yato, since it's supposed to be this legendary ancient sword, could've afforded to have some small amount of buildup to it rather than just (and forgive me if this is about to sound dismissive, because I'm not being dismissive):
"What's that thing that's sticking out of the statue that just got destroyed in the explosion?"
"Oh; that must be the Yato; the legendariest of all the legendary weapons in out unnamed continent!"
"What's it doing there in the statue?"
"Who knows?"
"But you just said said that this is a very famous sword?"
"Yeah, but- Oh look! It seems the sword has chosen you!"
"Really? Why? And that's rather convenient since my previous unique sword just got used to blow up this area in the first place."

I'm not sure what Corrin's dragon form would represent for him emotionally either; I agree that I suppose it would be best used for mistrusting themselves and possibly also their rage as they fail to avoid losing people they care about in the war (as it first triggers from losing Gunther and then fully activates at Mikoto's death), which would still mirror Anankos. 

I'd say that Ike's abilities are well-implemented into his character arc: his journey is one of growing into the role/taking up the torch. He has to take over his father's mercenary company and learn to step up to the plate. His abilities as a swordsman and a leader and how they grow reflect and parallel his growth into the role. I do agree with what you said about the Yato upgrades. 

11 minutes ago, Sooks said:

@vanguard333 in number 4 in my post responding to yours, I meant to add more than just I agree. I edited that stuff in in case you want to look at it at all.

Okay; I'll give it a look. 

I agree about how coincidence-driven the Birthright route is and how much of it reads like filler. I also agree about how the abundance of coincidence does take away agency from the characters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Murozaki said:

You should probably refrain from mentioning people only the two of us know in this server full of people who won't understand what you're talking about. But to respond regardless, WtW himself outside of some instances (Like say, EWBs) rarely if ever argues with the intent on changing the mind of the person he's arguing with, he himself has admitted he rarely thinks people he argues with are willing to have their minds changed. So i don't think you should use him as an example perhaps

Alright fair enough I suppose. I could stand to be less blunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ottservia, you still have answered the question:

Quote

Every time the plot wills it, every time Corrin must make a hard choice, it just falls into your lap. TH is occasionally guilty of this, too, but oh LORD, does Fates live off convenience. How is a story that relies on convenience anything but lazy?

Once I get that, I'm done with this train wreak of a thread. I'm not leaving until I get it.

And for once, don't pull a 'No U'. Answer it strait. How is it not lazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, L3xandr3 said:

@Ottservia, you still have answered the question:

Once I get that, I'm done with this train wreak of a thread. I'm not leaving until I get it.

And for once, don't pull a 'No U'. Answer it strait. How is it not lazy?

I. . .actually have my own ideas about this.  Which I'll put in spoiler tags since it's not going to be the least bit kind to the writers.

Spoiler

The sticking point is that Corrin is the player-made character - we choose a gender/birthday/starting class/fiddle with growths.  This is the "avatar", the character modeled after you, if you will.  Except. . .Corrin can't be everyone at the same time.  We, the player, can't choose his/her dialogue options, only their path.  The closest we players get to "being" Corrin is that S support, and goodness knows what a nightmare that is!  Regardless, the S support is mechanically for stats and an additional unit or two, so meh.

In terms of story, we can't choose how Corrin acts for the most part, despite the fact that Corrin's supposed to be a representation of the player.  Ironically enough, it's Conquest that gives us a choice of what to do in a somewhat difficult situation, in the form of Shura.  IMO Shura's recruitment should've been how the entire story went, whether it be recruiting enemy units, trusting various people, etc.  Change the maps/items/recruitments based on those choices.  Instead, the choices are mostly made for us, and it's to the detriment of everything.

Is it lazy?  From a purely mechanical standpoint, not really, because coding all of those differences is a pain.  But from a purely written standpoint, I don't think it's lazy.  It's cowardly, because for a game centered around choices, we are given far too few of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I. . .actually have my own ideas about this.  Which I'll put in spoiler tags since it's not going to be the least bit kind to the writers.

  Reveal hidden contents

The sticking point is that Corrin is the player-made character - we choose a gender/birthday/starting class/fiddle with growths.  This is the "avatar", the character modeled after you, if you will.  Except. . .Corrin can't be everyone at the same time.  We, the player, can't choose his/her dialogue options, only their path.  The closest we players get to "being" Corrin is that S support, and goodness knows what a nightmare that is!  Regardless, the S support is mechanically for stats and an additional unit or two, so meh.

In terms of story, we can't choose how Corrin acts for the most part, despite the fact that Corrin's supposed to be a representation of the player.  Ironically enough, it's Conquest that gives us a choice of what to do in a somewhat difficult situation, in the form of Shura.  IMO Shura's recruitment should've been how the entire story went, whether it be recruiting enemy units, trusting various people, etc.  Change the maps/items/recruitments based on those choices.  Instead, the choices are mostly made for us, and it's to the detriment of everything.

Is it lazy?  From a purely mechanical standpoint, not really, because coding all of those differences is a pain.  But from a purely written standpoint, I don't think it's lazy.  It's cowardly, because for a game centered around choices, we are given far too few of them.

 

I'm not specifically referring to Corrin. I'm referring to all the shortcuts they took writing the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, L3xandr3 said:

I'm not specifically referring to Corrin. I'm referring to all the shortcuts they took writing the story.

Corrin kinda carries the story, which is already bad.  IMO because the writers took THAT way out, everything sort-of cascaded from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to get back to a response to one of comments from a while ago.

On 11/21/2020 at 11:21 AM, Ottservia said:

 

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.

On 11/21/2020 at 11:21 AM, Ottservia said:

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.

This doesn't hold water. There could be a player whose first entry into the series is GSC, whom has time constraints in their real life that results in them always playing during the same time frame (so only for hours that cover only one of the game's day-time/morning/night, taken to even more extremes only getting a chance to play during the same day of the week, every week) of the game, they can miss or ignore optional content like the day of the week people, the bug catching contest, all non-mandatory phone numbers (as the mandatory ones aren't tied to time),  never messing with the radio, never bothers with Kurt's balls nor uses breeding mechanics (and boxes that weird egg so they can have a full party of pokes), and believes the game when it gives them the credits after beating the elite 4 and champion for the first time. Such a player never experiences these themes, nor are they breaking any "rules" of the game, they are simply focusing on the linear story, and gameplay within the limits of their time. The passage of time is central to primarily optional content, with significant portions of it being reliant on the player having previous experience with Generation I, and thus the degree to which it impacts the player is reliant on how they play.

On 11/21/2020 at 11:21 AM, Ottservia said:

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.

If the player focused on the more traditional JRPG side of the Persona games, and never bothered with Social Links/confidants, instead investing all of their time in the dungeon crawls, they would have a very different understanding of the core themes of those game, just like players that intentionally ignored Fire Emblem's core permadeath mechanic of SoV.

Although the analysis you made also misses a key point I was trying to make, that players can inject their own themes into the experience. Take for example a player like Benice or Saint Rubenio that intentionally use the units people consider "bad", and give them their chance at a redemption arc, or those that focus on LTCs, focusing on a single minded pursuit of speed no matter the cost, or the morality plays that come about by refusing to learn your lesson when using a Devil Axe on ironman runs. The necessity of the player makes videogames into a collaborative art form, where neither the player, nor "author" have full control over the experience, or in what themes emerge, or take prominence.

 

 

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I can honestly say that I know almost nothing about Metroid, but I thought Other M's problems were from it being made by Team Ninja? I honestly don't know.

The series creator (and artistic lead on Nintendo side of thing) has made statements about it following his artistic vision, and that if he had the option to go back and change any part of it, he wouldn't change a thing...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Corrin kinda carries the story, which is already bad.  IMO because the writers took THAT way out, everything sort-of cascaded from there.

Not really, in both Conquest and Revelations they follow Azura and in Conquest Corrin is the butt end of Nohr's army until they prove themselves in Chapter 15.

"The fire emblem community" that has been claiming completely untrue bullshit like that Corrin is being worshipped (except from their retainers whose is literally their job to) are just really really stupid, to say the least.

Fates is one of the better FE games in the series and Conquest is probably the single best game. Not only it perfected the gameplay formula but it also had a story that deconstructed the series's basic premises about good Vs evil war.

Share this post


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

Corrin kinda carries the story, which is already bad.  IMO because the writers took THAT way out, everything sort-of cascaded from there.

Yea. But even if Corrin carried it, they could've not written in all those contrived coincidences.

Did Leo have to hand them a warp book? Why does the Yato choose the most convenient time to evolve? Because the writers will it, and they didn't want to waste time putting even a modicum of logic into it. They just did it because it's the easy way out. Which means it's the lazy way out. Least amount of effort = easy = lazy.

And yet certain people refuse to admit it's the lazy way out!

 

@Ottservia, I'm still waiting. If you have evidence it isn't lazy, lets' hear it. If not, then admit so, so that we can be done with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

Not really, in both Conquest and Revelations they follow Azura and in Conquest Corrin is the butt end of Nohr's army until they prove themselves in Chapter 15.

"The fire emblem community" that has been claiming completely untrue bullshit like that Corrin is being worshipped (except from their retainers whose is literally their job to) are just really really stupid, to say the least.

Fates is one of the better FE games in the series and Conquest is probably the single best game. Not only it perfected the gameplay formula but it also had a story that deconstructed the series's basic premises about good Vs evil war.

I doubt you'll find too many people arguing about Fates and gameplay.  But in terms of story, it could've been a LOT better.  Especially given the "choice" that was marketed.

4 minutes ago, L3xandr3 said:

Yea. But even if Corrin carried it, they could've not written in all those contrived coincidences.

Did Leo have to hand them a warp book? Why does the Yato choose the most convenient time to evolve? Because the writers will it, and they didn't want to waste time putting even a modicum of logic into it. They just did it because it's the easy way out. Which means it's the lazy way out. Least amount of effort = easy = lazy.

And yet certain people refuse to admit it's the lazy way out!

 

@Ottservia, I'm still waiting. If you have evidence it isn't lazy, lets' hear it. If not, then admit so, so that we can be done with this.

It's because Corrin couldn't carry it that they exist.  Stuff like convenient power spikes is not something I'll fully fault Fates for - it's a common shonen trope.

Share this post


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

Not really, in both Conquest and Revelations they follow Azura and in Conquest Corrin is the butt end of Nohr's army until they prove themselves in Chapter 15.

"The fire emblem community" that has been claiming completely untrue bullshit like that Corrin is being worshipped (except from their retainers whose is literally their job to) are just really really stupid, to say the least.

Fates is one of the better FE games in the series and Conquest is probably the single best game. Not only it perfected the gameplay formula but it also had a story that deconstructed the series's basic premises about good Vs evil war.

If they aren't worshiped, then why do several supports (that aren't with Corrin) focus on various things about Corrin? The plot revolves around Corrin, everyone wants him.

In Conquest the Hoshidians are more angry about Corrin not joining them than they are about their country being invaded.

In Birthright, the Nohrian siblings' family structure falls apart because Corrin left them.

Don't get me started on Revelation. Just don't. It'll turn into a 30 minute rant as I tear that apart, and no one involved with enjoy that, myself included.

Corrin should've been just another member of the family's, not the damn center of it. I'm resigned to the point that they are the center of attention, but they don't need all the Avatar Worship. They're cardboard, yet everyone praises them for it.

 

3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

It's because Corrin couldn't carry it that they exist.  Stuff like convenient power spikes is not something I'll fully fault Fates for - it's a common shonen trope.

There are so many other ways to go about it than random Deus ex Machina. So many ways.

Also, screw shonen tropes. Those're garbage. My opinion, of course, I'll not try to change your mind on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, L3xandr3 said:

There are so many other ways to go about it than random Deus ex Machina. So many ways.

Also, screw shonen tropes. Those're garbage. My opinion, of course, I'll not try to change your mind on that.

If it's the genre's fault, then I'm not going to hold Fates accountable to it.  Nor will I try to change your mind - from the outside looking in, it's not encouraging!  The trope, that is.

Edited by eclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, L3xandr3 said:

@Ottservia, you still have answered the question:

Once I get that, I'm done with this train wreak of a thread. I'm not leaving until I get it.

And for once, don't pull a 'No U'. Answer it strait. How is it not lazy?

y'see the issue with this is that it's an extremely tough question to answer because it's not like I can prove something is or isn't lazy. You can't prove it with the evidence we have. Frankly, I personally find calling anyone lazy to be insensitive especially as someone who grew up with adhd but that's neither here nor there. How do you prove laziness in writing? that's my question. You can't really prove it one way or the other. There's no evidence to to support either claim. You can say that the curse is a dumb plot device but I can just as easily say that it isn't and it doesn't bother me because without it the developers could not tell the story they wanted to tell. Is it a plot device? yeah it is but I don't think it's a necessarily bad one. It serves its purpose and that's all it really needs to do. Leo having a teleportation tome on hand? yeah that's convenient but I can look past it. It's not like that one moment takes away from anything I personally enjoy out of the story. It doesn't take away from the themes or ideas. It's just a convenient thing that happens. Again, this is why I dislike criticism relying on contrivance because it's highly subjective if it starts to lean into suspension of disbelief. There's no argument or discussion to be had there. It's just a matter of personal taste at that point and you can't argue personal taste because it's personal taste. Not to say contrivance isn't a problem because it can be but honestly it's highly specific like the chapter 15 of conquest now that actually is an example of "contrivance" cause no matter how much you break the events of that chapter down narratively it does not make any sense as to why it happens in the way that it does. Even thematically there is no explanation even though there usually is. I wouldn't call that Lazy though. I'd just call it bad writing plain and simple. Again you can't really prove laziness in writing. In fact a lot of the time overthinking or overexplaining a plot point in a story can often lead to things being way too complicated than they need to be. Sometimes a convenient plot setup is just kinda what needs to happen in order for the story to move forward. 

 

3 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

This doesn't hold water. There could be a player whose first entry into the series is GSC, whom has time constraints in their real life that results in them always playing during the same time frame (so only for hours that cover only one of the game's day-time/morning/night, taken to even more extremes only getting a chance to play during the same day of the week, every week) of the game, they can miss or ignore optional content like the day of the week people, the bug catching contest, all non-mandatory phone numbers (as the mandatory ones aren't tied to time),  never messing with the radio, never bothers with Kurt's balls nor uses breeding mechanics (and boxes that weird egg so they can have a full party of pokes), and believes the game when it gives them the credits after beating the elite 4 and champion for the first time. Such a player never experiences these themes, nor are they breaking any "rules" of the game, they are simply focusing on the linear story, and gameplay within the limits of their time. The passage of time is central to primarily optional content, with significant portions of it being reliant on the player having previous experience with Generation I, and thus the degree to which it impacts the player is reliant on how they play.

Yes, but experiencing it that way does not contradict the message. Even if they are playing the game that way they are experiencing the themes in one way or another. The team rocket side plot is something that is unavoidable and their conflict ties into those themes and if said player decides to visit kanto or fight red again which both events tie directly into the themes of the game. They are going to experience the themes of these games regardless of how they play. And even beyond that, the game undeniably rewards the player for interacting with all this optional stuff. Waiting for the right time to rebattle trainers cuts down on grinding. Said trainers can also give the player special items to improve their team. Going back every day to check on Kurt gives the player better pokeballs to work with in order to catch more rare pokemon. Waiting for a specific time of day will yield different wild encounters and some rarer pokemon can only be found at certain times of the day. The bug catching contests rewards players not only with a rare and powerful  bug type in the form of Scyther or Pinsir but also evolution stones to evolve pokemon they already have. Another mechanic that ties into that theme that is kind of forced on the player is the way of friendship evolution. It takes time to raise a pokemon's friendship up to the max level and by doing so the player is rewarded with a strong new evolution. There's a really good video analyzing the design of Gold and Silver by Tama which I'll link here:

Spoiler

 

If they were to play it the way you suggest though, they are still experiencing the themes of the game albeit in a limited way and maybe won't pick up on those themes and what the game is trying to say. This is not the case with SoV because the personal experiences of the player can directly contradict the game's intended message. It is an undeniable fact that the Alm says he was wrong but when you look at the events of the story even with individual player experiences in mind that is never really shown to be true unless in specific instances which the player has the option to just not experience at all. And Alm will STILL say he is wrong in the end which directly contradicts the player's own experiences in that instance. 

23 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Although the analysis you made also misses a key point I was trying to make, that players can inject their own themes into the experience. Take for example a player like Benice or Saint Rubenio that intentionally use the units people consider "bad", and give them their chance at a redemption arc, or those that focus on LTCs, focusing on a single minded pursuit of speed no matter the cost, or the morality plays that come about by refusing to learn your lesson when using a Devil Axe on ironman runs. The necessity of the player makes videogames into a collaborative art form, where neither the player, nor "author" have full control over the experience, or in what themes emerge, or take prominence.

Yes, my point is that those specific individual stories do not directly contradict the intent of the creators themselves. Yeah sure a nuzlocke of silver will inevitably create its own story personal to myself but in no way does me doing that contradict the themes and ideas that the developers intended for the game. In terms of storytelling I feel like the story of the player should not contradict that of the story the developers were trying to tell. It is on the developers to be aware of that when they design their game so that the individual experience is in-line with the intended message they want to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

The series creator (and artistic lead on Nintendo side of thing) has made statements about it following his artistic vision, and that if he had the option to go back and change any part of it, he wouldn't change a thing...

Thanks for answering. 

Yikes; considering everything I've heard about Other M, that sounds really bad. 

Share this post


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

That's why that game needed LUCT style choices, just saying!

What does that mean?

I like choices in games though, so I agree!

47 minutes ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

Not really, in both Conquest and Revelations they follow Azura and in Conquest Corrin is the butt end of Nohr's army until they prove themselves in Chapter 15.

In Conquest Corrin “follows” Garon until 15 and then they follow themself. Azure just gives them an idea and they do everything from there.

47 minutes ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

but it also had a story that deconstructed the series's basic premises about good Vs evil war.

It absolutely did not! Have you seen how cartoonishly evil Garon, Iago, and Hans are?? It’s still the exact same thing, but you can play as a prince or princess of the evil kingdom who ends up doing basically the same thing anyway.

Share this post


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

y'see the issue with this is that it's an extremely tough question to answer because it's not like I can prove something is or isn't lazy.

It isn't good, no matter how you cut it.

Quote

How do you prove laziness in writing? that's my question. You can't really prove it one way or the other. There's no evidence to to support either claim. You can say that the curse is a dumb plot device but I can just as easily say that it isn't and it doesn't bother me because without it the developers could not tell the story they wanted to tell. Is it a plot device? yeah it is but I don't think it's a necessarily bad one. It serves its purpose and that's all it really needs to do.

I asked how you can prove it isn't lazy before you asked me how it is lazy. I gave examples of how it's lazy. Where are yours that it isn't lazy, hm? Any examples? Any evidence whatsoever? Or are you grasping at straws, trying to stay relevant in this argument? By all means, prove me wrong on this! Please, provide some examples for us.

 

Yea, most of the story is bland, par-for-the-course average. But the specifically bad parts are the problem here. It's either that they are incompetent writers, or they put minimal effort into it. And incompetence is just as bad as laziness.

Anyone can write a bland story. You need little mental power or ingenuity to fill pages with writing. And that's what it looks like with Fates. So, they either tried and failed (incompetence) or didn't try (laziness). Which do you prefer?

Quote

You can say that the curse is a dumb plot device but I can just as easily say that it isn't and it doesn't bother me because without it the developers could not tell the story they wanted to tell. Is it a plot device? yeah it is but I don't think it's a necessarily bad one. It serves its purpose and that's all it really needs to do. Leo having a teleportation tome on hand? yeah that's convenient but I can look past it. 

... This proves my point. YOU think it's a good - or at least average - story. You refuse to reconsider, and so you're trapped trying to find ways to defend your point against the remaining 99.9% of people who don't agree with you! Hyperbole, in case you can't tell. You can say 'Oh, I like it, it's good enough for me.' It's easy for anyone to say 'X is good in my opinion. Why? Oh, uh... because Z, that's why!' You're trying to convince us that Fates is better than what we think. That's you're objective. And yet, here we are, with you saying 'you can't prove it's bad, 'cause we don't know what the intent was, so I win'. This isn't a debate at this point. This is just you wanting Fates to be well loved, put into a debate format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn some people here seem to be absolutely OBSESSED with Fates.

I mean, they said it already. "Don't get me started on that" like, are we not allowed to argue something else in fear you will have a meltdown? What the kind of "diacussion" is this and why is it allowed to say toxic shit like that? That person is literally ranting on and on about how nobody is allowed to disagree with them and derailing the discussion. The mods should get a hold of things before they manage to destroy the thread with their intolerance and toxicity

Edited by SRPG Tryhard

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...