Theme of Conquest

[NekoKnight]

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I wouldn’t say it never does. Maybe in conquest but in birthright Xander does take quite the punishment for being wrong.

That much we can agree on. It's weird that Xander doesn't as much attention for his actions in the route you play his team.

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

That much we can agree on. It's weird that Xander doesn't as much attention for his actions in the route you play his team.

I mean like I said. I think it’s best to view Fates’s story more along the lines of each route being a piece in a larger narrative rather than each route being its own standalone thing. If we go in with that mindset, I feel conquest!Xander works a little better when you think about him being written with the idea you’ve already played birthright in mind. Takumi’s character works better that way as well tbh

[Azure the Scale Tipper]

23 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean like I said. I think it’s best to view Fates’s story more along the lines of each route being a piece in a larger narrative rather than each route being its own standalone thing. If we go in with that mindset, I feel conquest!Xander works a little better when you think about him being written with the idea you’ve already played birthright in mind. Takumi’s character works better that way as well tbh

That does make sense. Even still, I think people were wanting the routes to have more independent stories back when the game released.

[NekoKnight]

1 hour ago, Azure loves his Half Elves said:

That does make sense. Even still, I think people were wanting the routes to have more independent stories back when the game released.

They're a full purchase by themselves so I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. Even if the themes were to shine greater in the larger narrative, one would hope that each route effectively told its story.

[SRPG Tryhard]

That people still try to pretend that Garon being OBVIOUSLY and BLATANTLY evil from as soon as the prologue chapters is somehow a major revelation to either the player or the characters, is hilarious. But I already explained what this is about right? The problem is not really just Garon, but the state of mind of everyone in the game that refuses to see this.

None of that about Xander is true. You set up a false precedent about "Xander being bad in Conquest" and then veer off into stupid theories about "the game wants you to know what happened the other route as well to understand it". It's false. The story of Conquest is understood by itself. In fact, there are even more examples about the theme of hate in Birthright. It might actually be the common theme of both routes.

The most ridiculous claim of all however, remains the projection of victim politics into war. "Yeah but who is the victim country of the war with its moral high ground over everything, who is the evil aggressor?" Our good old "good Vs evil kingdom" stupidity that we are doomed to watching into the end of time as long as this video game series has an audience in literal children. A reminder that the same ignorance about history and war that plagued TH discussion was present since Fates.

I explained what the theme of Conquest is and provided proof of it. Takumi is only one out of dozens examples such as the sparing of Rinkah, Elise's medicine, Yukimura's refusal to surrender, etc. 

You can't go about denying all the facts because they would betray your false preconceptions. The counter point you brought up is completely stupid and based only on your own hate for attractive characters and I won't bother with it at all.

No @EltosianKadath you are confused. I already argued my point properly and when @Eclipse tried to raise a strawman that I was somehow defending Garon as a good person, she realised her mistake when I pointed out the fallacy as well as the double standard of comparing him to other evil manipulators in the series. But instead of accepting their mistake they responded with aggression. Such a shame. You keep going down that argument, but it's already been disproven for its contradictions.

You still have not really managed to prove any of what I am saying wrong. All these plot points in the story I keep  bringing up are still right there but your RABID hate for the game is leaving you unable to accept them. It's getting pretty ridiculous how you repeat excuses such as "it doesn't count!!!" Every time I raise another point to prove my argument.

Personal insults won't work on me it should be obvious even to you by now. You keep trying to make me respond in kind but failed to get a reaction out of me, right @ArmchairGeneral? You even made a post to poke fun at me because I would be banned. Which is still up by the way, despite being a blatant attempt at trolling. A pity however because despite how I keep reporting offensive posts like yours they do not ever get removed.

 

But hey guys, looks like you got what you wanted. You derailed a thread that was discussing a topic you do not want to accept. And the moderators that also HATE free discussion will lock this thread as well based on this excuse that you set up for them. But as they continue to refuse to remove all the rule breaking posts, it's probably for the best. It's what they wanted to do from the beginning isn't it? Unfortunately for them I didn't give them the opportunity they were fishing for by responding to their insults.

Edited December 2, 2020 by SRPG Tryhard

[eclipse]

I guess you're dying on this hill.  Not exactly my choice, but you do you.

[Integrity]

5 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

And the moderators that also HATE free discussion will lock this thread as well based on this excuse that you set up for them.

i like how there was an actual discussion going on, with people disagreeing and conceding fairly politely, while you were gone, and i didn't lock the thread, but you think i'm going to lock the thread now that you're back

 

really makes you think, huh?

[indigoasis]

5 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

You still have not really managed to prove any of what I am saying wrong. All these plot points in the story I keep bringing up are still right there but your RABID hate for the game is leaving you unable to accept them. It's getting pretty ridiculous how you repeat excuses such as "it doesn't count!!!" Every time I raise another point to prove my argument.

I don't think that anyone here necessarily hates Fates (hey, that rhymes!) with a burning passion or anything like that, we're simply taking into account the flaws in the story and talking about the good things and the bad things that it does. Your instigations don't really help with civil discussion. Also, I don't recall anyone in this thread saying things about your points not counting; they're simply pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

5 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

That people still try to pretend that Garon being OBVIOUSLY and BLATANTLY evil from as soon as the prologue chapters is somehow a major revelation to either the player or the characters, is hilarious. But I already explained what this is about right? The problem is not really just Garon, but the state of mind of everyone in the game that refuses to see this.

I mean... it is pretty obvious from the get-go that he isn't the greatest person in the world, not to mention that he's literally one of the game's major antagonists. The prologue chapters definitely paint the picture that he's a really bad dude, so you can't really blame people for coming to that conclusion as soon as they see him. Also, one of Corrin's main goals is to take down Garon for what he's done, and to prevent any more needless war between Nohr and Hoshido. In Birthright, he's going against Garon directly by joining the other side, and in Conquest, he sticks with Nohr not just because it's the family he grew up with, but to also more or less take down Garon from the inside (that's how I understood it, at least). Obviously, it's not just Garon that's an issue for out heroes, but he's definitely a huge driving force for where the plot goes.

Besides, how everyone acts in this story can be attributed to the mediocre-at-best writing, and even then, it's typically the Nohrians that don't even realize that he's a bad guy until close to the end.

On 11/27/2020 at 3:21 PM, indigoasis said:

Just to throw my hat into the ring real quick, Garon literally instigated against Hoshido multiple times. Kidnapping Corrin is one of the first notable offenses, which came right after killing the King of Hoshido, funnily enough. He then used Corrin years later to send in a demon sword that killed his mom, which means that Garon killed both the King and Queen of Hoshido. I don't know what hate he has in his actions here besides being a goofily evil villain that 's evil just for the sake of it. As far as I know, he doesn't have any reasons to "hate" Hoshido besides them being a rival nation and wanting to expand his kingdom. Or maybe he's a racist, I dunno.

Even if he was some kind of slime monster the whole time, that slime monster was a huge reason for how and why the story took place. Even if he's not the cause of everything bad happening, he's still responsible for a decent portion of bad things. Agents working with a greater power are just as responsible for their actions as that greater power is for giving the agents the authority to carry out those actions.

While the first part of this could potentially have been worded better, my point still stands. He instigated against Hoshido, and for what reasons?

If you could, I'd like for you to answer this question for me. Just so you know, I don't mean to argue or instigate in any way, and I'm trying to be as respectful as possible. I would just like to see your point of view on the matter and what you have to say. If we don't agree, that's perfectly OK.

[Ottservia]

On 11/29/2020 at 10:25 AM, Armchair General said:

Who knows, you could probably blame Iago for turning him evil and have him secretly worshipping Anankos.

Honestly if they actually went with this twist so much of the story would’ve made a lot more sense

[Armchair General]

14 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

That people still try to pretend that Garon being OBVIOUSLY and BLATANTLY evil from as soon as the prologue chapters is somehow a major revelation to either the player or the characters, is hilarious. But I already explained what this is about right? The problem is not really just Garon, but the state of mind of everyone in the game that refuses to see this.

None of that about Xander is true. You set up a false precedent about "Xander being bad in Conquest" and then veer off into stupid theories about "the game wants you to know what happened the other route as well to understand it". It's false. The story of Conquest is understood by itself. In fact, there are even more examples about the theme of hate in Birthright. It might actually be the common theme of both routes.

The most ridiculous claim of all however, remains the projection of victim politics into war. "Yeah but who is the victim country of the war with its moral high ground over everything, who is the evil aggressor?" Our good old "good Vs evil kingdom" stupidity that we are doomed to watching into the end of time as long as this video game series has an audience in literal children. A reminder that the same ignorance about history and war that plagued TH discussion was present since Fates.

I explained what the theme of Conquest is and provided proof of it. Takumi is only one out of dozens examples such as the sparing of Rinkah, Elise's medicine, Yukimura's refusal to surrender, etc. 

You can't go about denying all the facts because they would betray your false preconceptions. The counter point you brought up is completely stupid and based only on your own hate for attractive characters and I won't bother with it at all.

No @EltosianKadath you are confused. I already argued my point properly and when @Eclipse tried to raise a strawman that I was somehow defending Garon as a good person, she realised her mistake when I pointed out the fallacy as well as the double standard of comparing him to other evil manipulators in the series. But instead of accepting their mistake they responded with aggression. Such a shame. You keep going down that argument, but it's already been disproven for its contradictions.

You still have not really managed to prove any of what I am saying wrong. All these plot points in the story I keep  bringing up are still right there but your RABID hate for the game is leaving you unable to accept them. It's getting pretty ridiculous how you repeat excuses such as "it doesn't count!!!" Every time I raise another point to prove my argument.

Personal insults won't work on me it should be obvious even to you by now. You keep trying to make me respond in kind but failed to get a reaction out of me, right @ArmchairGeneral? You even made a post to poke fun at me because I would be banned. Which is still up by the way, despite being a blatant attempt at trolling. A pity however because despite how I keep reporting offensive posts like yours they do not ever get removed.

 

But hey guys, looks like you got what you wanted. You derailed a thread that was discussing a topic you do not want to accept. And the moderators that also HATE free discussion will lock this thread as well based on this excuse that you set up for them. But as they continue to refuse to remove all the rule breaking posts, it's probably for the best. It's what they wanted to do from the beginning isn't it? Unfortunately for them I didn't give them the opportunity they were fishing for by responding to their insults.

I fucking called it.

 

But the thing with Xander is that he's just following orders, although the prologue shows that he has limits when it comes to executing prisoners. There's more, but I'll let someone else humor you.

And as an aside, the moderation for this site can easily get a lot worse.

 

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Honestly if they actually went with this twist so much of the story would’ve made a lot more sense

In a way, it's a kind of generic for a twist. But Hans is a bloodthirsty criminal who has no remorse...And Iago is just another scheming right hand...with an insanely rigged map on Conquest. After, who else can we blame for Garon's downfall within the scope of Conquest? The loss of one of his wives at the hands of the Hoshidans?

Edited December 3, 2020 by Armchair General

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Armchair General said:

In a way, it's a kind of generic for a twist. But Hans is a bloodthirsty criminal who has no remorse...And Iago is just another scheming right hand...with an insanely rigged map on Conquest. After, who else can we blame for Garon's downfall within the scope of Conquest? The l

Generic as it may be, I think the story would work a lot better with it than without. 

[Armchair General]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

Generic as it may be, I think the story would work a lot better with it than without. 

But then again, you can write a good story by covering the usual bases. Only hard part is the execution. Like Garon actually coming to his senses on the throne, Iago throws an tantrum and channels the power of the ancient dragons.

I should be a writer, tbh.

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

But then again, you can write a good story by covering the usual bases. Only hard part is the execution. Like Garon actually coming to his senses on the throne, Iago throws an tantrum and channels the power of the ancient dragons.

 

To be frank I actually like the final chapters of conquest as is. There’s very little I’d actually change. Hell the whole Iago being a servent of Anankos things is something I’d save until revelation. Execution is important yes but what defines “good execution” is going to vary from story to story. It’s also important to note that a story going in a specific direction you personally dislike or disagree with cannot be defined as “bad execution”. Every story has its own set of rules it wishes to follow so its pointless to abscribe rules to a story that never intended on following those rules to begin with. If this is the story the author wanted to tell then this is the story they wanted to tell and this is how they’re going to tell it. And I feel like in terms of criticism we should respect that.

[Lightcosmo]

As far as "themes" go, I'd say it's fine. Now the way they executed certain things pertaining to their "themes"? They didn't handle them the proper way, imo. 

Yes, Garon being an "evil dude " is part of a theme, they want it obvious to the player, but if a character is that one dimensional, most people wont take any interest. And a character that's unmemorable (or memorable for the wrong reasons) is usually considered "poorly written." 

He can still be evil and be interesting as well. Things like a back story, insight on feelings, anything. 

[eclipse]

Or not being so blatantly evil.  Lawful evil, when done right, is damn interesting.

[Integrity]

1 hour ago, Armchair General said:

I fucking called it.

yeah he's suspended til christmas for overall being a fucker

 

the thread still had a period of fun discussion so i'm leaving it open, though, you guys go hogwild and appropriate it

[Ottservia]

21 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

As far as "themes" go, I'd say it's fine. Now the way they executed certain things pertaining to their "themes"? They didn't handle them the proper way, imo. 

Yes, Garon being an "evil dude " is part of a theme, they want it obvious to the player, but if a character is that one dimensional, most people wont take any interest. And a character that's unmemorable (or memorable for the wrong reasons) is usually considered "poorly written." 

He can still be evil and be interesting as well. Things like a back story, insight on feelings, anything. 

Y’see I disagree with this cause you can write a pure evil villain just fine. I mean look at Grima. He works just fine as is if you ask me. He doesn’t need a backstory to really work. He works just fine. One dimensional characters can work villains especially. Not every villain needs a backstory to be interesting. Sometimes just pure villainous charisma is enough. Like these aren’t hard universal rules of storytelling. Most “storytelling rules” are simply guidelines not absolute rules every story has to follow. Good writing is writing that works. It really comes down to execution in the end but what defines good execution can vary wildly between stories. And in regards to that it’s important to understand that your personal preferences on you want the story to be isn’t really a good way to define “good execution” because no story is obligated to pander to your personal preferences. Don’t apply rules to a story that never intended on following those rules to begin with. 
 

Like if the writers wanted to tell a story about a morally conflicted posessed Garon you’re supposed to feel sympathetic for they would have done so but they didn’t. Instead we got what we got and I feel like we should be criticizing what we got instead of we wanted to be.

[Lightcosmo]

But the story isnt good, since it doesn't work.

Things happening out of convenience all the time doesnt work. Characters being one dimensional doesnt work either. And that's totally falling under your criteria of "what we got". These are facts that you cant ignore. And those same facts make the writing poor.

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

But the story isnt good, since it doesn't work.

Things happening out of convenience all the time doesnt work. Characters being one dimensional doesnt work either. And that's totally falling under your criteria of "what we got". These are facts that you cant ignore. And those same facts make the writing poor.

What exactly about it doesn’t work? As far as I can tell it works fine for the most part. I mean like the fact that he is so obviously evil is kind of the point. None of the characters really question him mostly out of fear or they’re in denial as far as I can tell. One of the major plot points in conquest is Corrin basically trying to show everyone what Garon has truly become. The Nohrian royals never really spoke up against him all this time simply because they were in denial and thought he would be sane again at some point. But the reality of it is that that thing is not their father and never has been. They feel obligated to serve him because they thought he was still their father but again slime Garon never was. It’s in realizing that that they’re finally able to stand up for themselves and fight back. The fact that he’s so obviously evil kinda adds to it if you ask me.

[eclipse]

45 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What exactly about it doesn’t work? As far as I can tell it works fine for the most part. I mean like the fact that he is so obviously evil is kind of the point. None of the characters really question him mostly out of fear or they’re in denial as far as I can tell. One of the major plot points in conquest is Corrin basically trying to show everyone what Garon has truly become. The Nohrian royals never really spoke up against him all this time simply because they were in denial and thought he would be sane again at some point. But the reality of it is that that thing is not their father and never has been. They feel obligated to serve him because they thought he was still their father but again slime Garon never was. It’s in realizing that that they’re finally able to stand up for themselves and fight back. The fact that he’s so obviously evil kinda adds to it if you ask me.

I think it would be best to use a character you know and love - Severa.  Someone who I have massive issues with.  Thing is, you like her and I don't, and both of us have our obvious reasons.  Which one of us is objectively right?  Who knows.  However, each of us trying to convince the other that their view is wrong is a gigantic waste of time, because in the end, it's an opinion.

[Ottservia]

10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think it would be best to use a character you know and love - Severa.  Someone who I have massive issues with.  Thing is, you like her and I don't, and both of us have our obvious reasons.  Which one of us is objectively right?  Who knows.  However, each of us trying to convince the other that their view is wrong is a gigantic waste of time, because in the end, it's an opinion.

I mean still there’s a difference in simply disliking something and criticizing it. Whether or not you like something is nothing more than personal preference. It’s the justification of said opinions that can be scrutinized though. Like if you said “I don’t like Severa because I find her annoying or that her character just kinda rubs me the wrong way” then fair enough that’s just a matter of personal taste. However, if you said “I don’t like Severa because she’s a cliche one note tsundere” then that’s a little different because you’re making a statement that’s provably false. Severa is a lot of things but she’s far from one-note or shallowy written. I’ve seen one cliche tsunderes. I know what they’re like believe me. Like here’s the thing, investment is very much subjective. Things having context and meaning to them is not suddenly gonna make someone begin to care. 

 

Case and point, me and just 3H’s narrative as a whole. It’s a narrative that generally has a theme of staying true to one’s own ideals. This is shown most prominently in how Edelgard and Dimitri parallel each other. In AM Dimitri’s arc is about learning to fight for his own ideals and not those already passed. To fight Edelgard not out of revenge but because it’s his duty as a king to protect his people. Thanks to Byleth, Dimitri is able to stay true to himself and his ideals. He reaches out to Edelgard to try and form a peace treatybut it doesn’t work because Edelgard refuses to stay true to herself and reach out like Dimitri did. Backed into a corner, she sacrifices herself by turning into a monster for the sake of her goals which parallels Dimitri’s own feral state earlier in the story. In the end though she loses the ideological conflict simply because she failed to stay true to her goals and ideals. 
 

Y’see I can analyze this story for the ideas it has to offer but does any of that make me emotionally invested in the narrative? Not really, 3H’s story is kind of dull to me personally with maybe a few stand out moments here or there. I can see the value in what it accomplishes but that doesn’t mean I care. A better example would be Makoto from P5. I think Makoto is a fantastically written character but I couldn’t give less of a shit about her personally. In fact I kind of find her annoying at times. There’s a difference between simply having an opinion and making informed claims and critcisms. In terms of criticism we should suspend our personal preferences so we can be fair to thing we’re criticizing without being influenced by personal bias as much as possible. Now personal bias is something you can never truly get rid of which I realize but there’s a difference between acknowledging bias as an inherent part of criticism and using it as a shield to deflect criticism of your argument.

[zygard]

On 12/3/2020 at 5:03 AM, Integrity said:

yeah he's suspended til christmas for overall being a fucker

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by zygard
Report for insults

[zygard]

On 12/3/2020 at 3:58 AM, lightcosmo said:

As far as "themes" go, I'd say it's fine. Now the way they executed certain things pertaining to their "themes"? They didn't handle them the proper way, imo. 

Yes, Garon being an "evil dude " is part of a theme, they want it obvious to the player, but if a character is that one dimensional, most people wont take any interest. And a character that's unmemorable (or memorable for the wrong reasons) is usually considered "poorly written." 

He can still be evil and be interesting as well. Things like a back story, insight on feelings, anything. 

None of the evil manipulator characters in other games are much more interesting than he is. I don't think anybody is hating those games to the extent that it disqualifies everything else good about them. Garon is as fine as a character as they are. But Garon makes everything good about Fates "not count" but they don't? Why? 

It's just bias because of the Fates hating circlejerk.

On 12/3/2020 at 4:41 AM, eclipse said:

Or not being so blatantly evil.  Lawful evil, when done right, is damn interesting.

Manfroy, Veld, Jedah, Gharnef, the Senators, Ashnard, Formotiis, Grima, Validar, Solon, the list goes on. As above, they are the same except for how they are treated by dishonest and biased haters and their double standards.

Edited December 4, 2020 by zygard

[Lightcosmo]

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

What exactly about it doesn’t work? As far as I can tell it works fine for the most part. I mean like the fact that he is so obviously evil is kind of the point. None of the characters really question him mostly out of fear or they’re in denial as far as I can tell. One of the major plot points in conquest is Corrin basically trying to show everyone what Garon has truly become. The Nohrian royals never really spoke up against him all this time simply because they were in denial and thought he would be sane again at some point. But the reality of it is that that thing is not their father and never has been. They feel obligated to serve him because they thought he was still their father but again slime Garon never was. It’s in realizing that that they’re finally able to stand up for themselves and fight back. The fact that he’s so obviously evil kinda adds to it if you ask me.

You're ignoring the rest of the story though. Leo being an idiot not recognising Azura? Corrin repeating "Garon, you need to sit on the throne!" 6 chapters long isn't exactly good writing for a story. What makes that interesting? There is a much better way to write that without it sounding so repetitive/dull. Sure you can have a theme, but if the in between writing is dull, what's the point? 

1 hour ago, zygard said:

None of the evil manipulator characters in other games are much more interesting than he is. I don't think anybody is hating those games to the extent that it disqualifies everything else good about them. Garon is as fine as a character as they are. But Garon makes everything good about Fates "not count" but they don't? Why? 

It's just bias because of the Fates hating circlejerk.

The way he interacts with the rest of the cast is boring. And the way the cast reacts is equally as boring. As Eclipse said, there's a right way to write them.

[Integrity]

On 12/2/2020 at 10:34 PM, Armchair General said:

I fucking called it.

2 hours ago, zygard said:

 

yeah he's permabanned for overall being a fucker

 

EDIT: for clarity, y'all, don't make alts just to launch back into your own arguments to get around punishments. it is very frowned upon.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Integrity