My problems with modern media criticism

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I feel like you’re being too biased in your analysis though. Ask yourself this, Do good things come out of Emmeryn’s pacifism? Aside from death in chapter 9, I would argue no. Hell it was her very pacifism that got her captured in the first place. Because she refused to act, Chrom did and that’s what started the war in the first place. And even then you’re ignoring a lot of context. Whether or not Emmeryn is a good ruler(at least politically and technically) is besides the point because awakening as a story isn’t really interested in exploring those ideas. The point Emmeryn as a character is supposed to represent is the idea of the cycle of hate and learning from the past. She is fully aware of the kind of man Gangrel is but refuses to go to war simply because she does not want to repeat the mistakes of her father. Which again, contrasts with Gangrel who is using the wars of the past to rally plegia to action as retribution for what her father did. This also contrasts with Chrom who is also stuck in the past and is fully willing to give Gangrel the war he wants but a war would only perpetuate the cycle of hatred and thus only cause more suffering. Emmeryn’s sacrifice proves that what people want is peace not revenge or war because as Emmeryn herself states revenge earns you nothing in the end. That’s the story awakening wants to tell when you break it down. All the aspects of the story are in service to telling that story and when you look it a specific way it all comes together and makes sense.

Apparently a bunch of Pelgia's army defects after that which sounds like a pretty good thing. (Haven't see that myself personally yet since Awakening makes me wanna smash my 3Ds so I can't bring myself to play it more than 2-5 times a year as it's one of the worst games I've ever played.)

I'm not saying for Emmeryn to have a war, I'm saying Emmeryn should have had an army capable of driving off Pelgia in self-defense rather than seemingly just allowing them to march in, the distance between Ferrox/Yilsee doesn't seem that big yet somehow Gangrel forces already took the capital, you know that bit that would be the most heavily defended part of your country? the bit that would probably have a high concentration of soldiers?

Again, everyone, including  Robin, the Audience's character, keep talking about how she's a "good" person and a pacifist, they never ever imply that she's a horrible (and I don't mean "oh ruler makes a mistake, I mean an abhorrent person.) person for essentially allowing Gangrel to charge in and kill everyone because that's exactly what she did, they never imply that she's ment to be seen as a bad ruler despite her being IMO being just as responsible for it as Gangrel is, it's all just so tragic because Emmeryn is such a wonderful peaceful leader and it's some of the most pretentious BS I've ever seen written in a video game.

Again, even the Audience self-insert doesn't even imply she might be a terrible ruler.

Or how about Maribelle getting kidnapped, where she's such a braindead moron that she thinks talking with the cartoonishly evil dude who flat-out in PG terms says he wants to genocide her kingdom will somehow work, Maribelle would probably be dead if it wasn't for ironically the the actual kid being the smartest person in the entire kingdom.

I'm honestly amazed Gangrel hasn't just walked in and killed everyone without much resistance before Robin came along since he really wants  them all dead and they don't have an full army to defend themselves.

The story's writing clearly wants her to be a victim when frankly, she's practically nearly as responsible as Gangrel is, she was pretty much asking for anyone to invade her kingdom, she was essentially running it into the ground and putting every single person in her kingdom at risk of being slaughtered, she's no tragic heroine like the game tries to paint her at, she's an incompetent fool who has as much blood on her hands as Gangrel does.

Not to mention, Chrom didn't start the war, it was Gangrel, he's the one who invaded and kidnapped, he's literally the aggressor who wanted any excuse. (and I bloody hate Chrom but for once it wasn't him being an absolute moron here and painting him as the one responsible is incredibly flawed logic since they were only attacking because Gangrel was threatening to execute an innocent, which makes Gangrel responsible, not Chrom.)

Letting your kingdom be freaking genocided isn't "Ending the cycle of hate" it's being an godawful ruler who effectively helped in the massacre of your own kingdom, Gangrel is the one continuing it frankly if you wanna talk about that.

Defending yourself by simply having an army to go "Don't invade us or we'll fight back" is actually peace, there's literally a saying about it.

"Parabellum" which essentially translates to "If you want peace, prepare for war." 

Because funny enough trying to act nicely didn't stop any dictatorship/warhungry kingdoms (if you want an IRL example, the Nazis), you need to be able to defend your own land from those who wish to harm it and Gangrel can't be reasoned with.

There's nothing revengeful about defending yourself, if anything isn't Gangrel the one leading a revengeful army?, Chrom doesn't act out of revenge, Chrom acts out of the very real threat to Maribelle's life. 

So no, it doesn't make sense, it's pretentious BS that makes no sense that's pseudo-deep if you're 14 and can't actually think.  

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Samz707

[Anathaco]

6 hours ago, Ottservia said:

And that’s where you lose me because there is no “right way” to do a theme. No story handles “handles a theme better than another”. Even if they explore similar themes A had no intention of being B so why is A worse for not being like B? If A wants to explore its themes in that way, then it should be allowed to do that. It doesn’t have to be like B to be good. They’re both interesting in their own right. A is A and B is B.

In that example I did state that both stories were attempting to explore the same idea in the same way: 

 

13 hours ago, Anathaco said:

Say, in your first example, two writers both want to explore the theme of power and ambition, and how too much can corrupt people by nature.

My point was that A does not fully explore this theme by basically having its protagonist be a cop out, and able to fully resist the temptation of power without any struggle. Hell, some people may even say that it contradicts the main idea of the story.

If we were to add Story C, which is basically Story B but the protagonist redeems himself towards the end before facing the big bad, and gets his happy ending a la Story A, then your argument is fair, because both B and C have different ideas as to how it should end, but both portray the idea that power by its very nature is a corrupting force. The overall theme works just the same but the take home message is different.

[Ottservia]

28 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

 

Apparently a bunch of Pelgia's army defects after that which sounds like a pretty good thing. (Haven't see that myself personally yet since Awakening makes me wanna smash my 3Ds so I can't bring myself to play it more than 2-5 times a year as it's one of the worst games I've ever played.)

I'm not saying for Emmeryn to have a war, I'm saying Emmeryn should have had an army capable of driving off Pelgia in self-defense rather than seemingly just allowing them to march in, the distance between Ferrox/Yilsee doesn't seem that big yet somehow Gangrel forces already took the capital, you know that bit that would be the most heavily defended part of your country? the bit that would probably have a high concentration of soldiers?

Again, everyone, including  Robin, the Audience's character, keep talking about how she's a "good" person and a pacifist, they never ever imply that she's a horrible (and I don't mean "oh ruler makes a mistake, I mean an abhorrent person.) person for essentially allowing Gangrel to charge in and kill everyone because that's exactly what she did, they never imply that she's ment to be seen as a bad ruler despite her being IMO being just as responsible for it as Gangrel is, it's all just so tragic because Emmeryn is such a wonderful peaceful leader and it's some of the most pretentious BS I've ever seen written in a video game.

Again, even the Audience self-insert doesn't even imply she might be a terrible ruler.

Whether or not Emmeryn is a good ruler is not the point that’s why the story does not dwell on it too much because that’s not the story the game wants to tell. Awakening’s narrative is not interested in commenting on that. What it is interested in is exploring themes regarding the cycle of hatred and overcoming the past which Emmeryn’s character fits perfectly. That’s the purpose of her character. The point of awakening’s narrative is basically summarized as peace good violence bad. That is it and everything in the story is in service to that theme. You want the story to criticize Emmeryn for being a bad ruler, correct? Well the story is not at all interested in doing that. It doesn’t want to do that because that’s not the point. If that’s the story they wanted to tell, they would have told that story but they didn’t. They told the story that we got. Awakening’s story is not poorly because it explores its themes in a way you dislike. That’s not to say you aren’t allowed to dislike it because you are entitled to your personal preferences but it is not bad writing by any means just because you don’t like it. I don’t like American first person shooters but that doesn’t make them bad by any means

 

17 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

In that example I did state that both stories were attempting to explore the same idea in the same way: 

 

My point was that A does not fully explore this theme by basically having its protagonist be a cop out, and able to fully resist the temptation of power without any struggle. Hell, some people may even say that it contradicts the main idea of the story.

If we were to add Story C, which is basically Story B but the protagonist redeems himself towards the end before facing the big bad, and gets his happy ending a la Story A, then your argument is fair, because both B and C have different ideas as to how it should end, but both portray the idea that power by its very nature is a corrupting force. The overall theme works just the same but the take home message is different.

Well here’s the thing though no story is exactly the same. If you want to compare the amount of nuance each story has that’s fine you just gotta be careful cause again you run the risk of making that unfair comparison. Like yeah if A explores its themes in a way that lacks nuance where as B has more nuance then yeah fair enough that’s fine. I’ve said fates and awakening are better stories than SoV simply because they’re more thematically consistent. But again you need to be careful when you make comparisons. Like I don’t go around saying SoV needs to be just like awakening or fates because SoV is very much doing it’s own thing. It has its own ideas it wants to explore. Or as a better example comparing black clover and Naruto. They both use a lot of similar tropes and ideas but at the end of the day they’re different stories with different themes and ideas. Black Clover is not Naruto and vice versa. Black Clover does not need to be Naruto. Black Clover is its own thing and to say they’re the same because of some similarities is a little shallow minded if you ask me.

[Samz707]

20 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Whether or not Emmeryn is a good ruler is not the point that’s why the story does not dwell on it too much because that’s not the story the game wants to tell. Awakening’s narrative is not interested in commenting on that. What it is interested in is exploring themes regarding the cycle of hatred and overcoming the past which Emmeryn’s character fits perfectly. That’s the purpose of her character. The point of awakening’s narrative is basically summarized as peace good violence bad. That is it and everything in the story is in service to thattheme. You want the story to criticize Emmeryn for being a bad ruler, correct? Well the story is not at all interested in doing that. It doesn’t want to do that because that’s not the point. If that’s the story they wanted to tell, they would have told that story but they didn’t. They told the story that we got. Awakening’s story is not poorly because it explores its themes in a way you dislike. That’s not to say you aren’t allowed to dislike it because you are entitled to your personal preferences but it is not bad writing by any means just because you don’t like it. I don’t like American first person shooters but that doesn’t make them bad by any means

 

I do, but the fact is that even the "Peace good" moral falls completely flat and makes no sense.

Again, Parabellum "If you want peace, prepare for war", Emmeryn if anything allowed the cycle of hatred continue by just standing by and doing nothing, she allowed the hateful Pelgians to invade her country and frankly I doubt no civilians were harmed, Chrom was actually trying to save lives while Emmeryn was allowing the bloodshed to commence pretty much, Chrom was effectively keeping the peace because frankly, you actually do need a self-defense army at the very least for peace, Peace because your nation was pillaged and murdered isn't exactly what most people would define as peace.

Emmeryn, via inaction allowed the cycle of hate to continue, she's frankly just as responsible for it as Gangrel, she didn't overcome the past, she was a cowardly fool who allowed it to consume her and a good number of lives of people of her own kingdom yet everyone practically worships the ground she walks on, which is pretty nonsensical writing if you ask me when it comes across as incredibly pretentious BS written by a 14 year old fanfiction writer.

She provided peace in the same way an apathetic bystander who just stands by and does nothing when a dude gets stabbed to death on the side-walk does, that's not peace, that's being a hypocritical coward.

WW2 was also the product of a cycle of hate from the previous war and it took a big war to sort it out, if the leaders of other countries during that war were like Ememryn, well, the nazis would have probably won frankly.

After all, Maribelle getting kidnapped and such was because she inadequately prepared the kingdom incase the literal cartoon villian next door invaded, it's literally Emmeryn's shitty leadership that allowed the war to kick off, Chrom isn't responsible, she is.

Emmeryn is quite literally one of the worst examples of a peaceful ruler ever,  and infact is actually a poster child for WHY you need armies and WHY you need to actually not try be all friendly with a nation you have a troubled history with so if Awakening is ment to be about oh how wonderful peace is then frankly Emmeryn literally shows how that doesn't work.

And no, a major theme doesn't justify crappy writing that tires to prop up a clearly awful character for the sake of it.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Samz707

[Ottservia]

6 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Again, Parabellum "If you want peace, prepare for war", Emmeryn if anything allowed the cycle of hatred continue by just standing by and doing nothing, she allowed the hateful Pelgians to invade her country and frankly I doubt no civilians were harmed, Chrom was actually trying to save lives while Emmeryn was allowing the bloodshed to commence pretty much, Chrom was effectively keeping the peace because frankly, you actually do need a self-defense army at the very least for peace, Peace because your nation was pillaged and murdered isn't exactly what most people would define as peace.

Again that’s not the point and you’re excluding context. Ylisse doesn’t have an army because Emmeryn took it apart after the previous war ended. She doesn’t wanna have to force her people to fight if they don’t want to which they don’t want to seeing as how well the last war went. She doesn’t perpetuate the cycle of hatred because she doesn’t take action. If she did fight back then she would be perpetuating it. Violence only begets more violence and that’s not what she wants. Fighting back would only mean she contradicted herself. It’s like the old martial art addege. We learn to fight in order to not fight. Chrom says they should fight back and he’s considered somewhat wrong by the story. Another thing you need to take into account is that this is a Japanese story and inevitably is going to implement buddhist and shinto ideals into it. And as far as I can tell, that’s how awakening tackles of the cycle of hatred because it’s very similar to Naruto which takes heavy inspiration from shintoism and buddhism. The idea of hate as a cycle and trying to break that cycle by forgiving instead of fighting back is what awakening is going for. Emmeryn doesn’t fight back for that very reason. 

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Again that’s not the point and you’re excluding context. Ylisse doesn’t have an army because Emmeryn took it apart after the previous war ended. She doesn’t wanna have to force her people to fight if they don’t want to which they don’t want to seeing as how well the last war went. She doesn’t perpetuate the cycle of hatred because she doesn’t take action. If she did fight back then she would be perpetuating it. Violence only begets more violence and that’s not what she wants. Fighting back would only mean she contradicted herself. It’s like the old martial art addege. We learn to fight in order to not fight. Chrom says they should fight back and he’s considered somewhat wrong by the story. Another thing you need to take into account is that this is a Japanese story and inevitably is going to implement buddhist and shinto ideals into it. And as far as I can tell, that’s how awakening tackles of the cycle of hatred because it’s very similar to Naruto which takes heavy inspiration from shintoism and buddhism. The idea of hate as a cycle and trying to break that cycle by forgiving instead of fighting back is what awakening is going for. Emmeryn doesn’t fight back for that very reason. 

I argue, that her inaction is exactly what allowed the Cycle of Hatred to continue, she allowed the hateful Gangrel to attack her country and rampage through it and call me crazy but don't people tend to get hateful when their country is invaded and their father got his head on a pike and his mother horribly murdered too?, It'd sure be good if maybe they had a big enough force to just not let civilians get butchered, maybe people would be less upset if that happened, maybe less people would be dead and therefore everything would be more peaceful.

She took the army apart, therefore in my eyes she's responsible for allowing the enemy army to invade and kill civilians, simple as, her logic makes no sense but Awakening doesn't care and obnoxiously shills for her trying to dictate what the player should feel with Robin and it's obnoxious, the game practically feels like it's preaching to you (just like when character shill for Robin) and it's both obnoxious and the moral is dumb regardless.

Again, as much as Chrom is quite frankly the worst lord in the series, he's not the aggressor here and the fact the story treats him as in the wrong is again, stupid, contrived and basically the writer clearly trying to tell the audience what they should think, I bloody hate Chrom but this makes no sense, I guess defending yourself against attackers is wrong and we should all clearly let ourselves be horribly murdered! for PEACE!

If Chrom didn't want to fight at all, Yilsse would, quite frankly, cease to be as everyone would have been killed by Gangrel's forces, that's again, not peaceful, that's allowing violence to spill forth, Chrom also fights bandits, should Chrom just let the bandits continue murdering, selling women into slavery and stealing because that's more "Peaceful"?

There's a difference between " I don't want to force my citizens to invade other countries" and "I want my citizens to be able to defend themselves if we get invaded", the idea that an army is always for invasion is a frankly, childish idea and anyone who actually believes that shouldn't be allowed to be a ruler.

Quite frankly, when you have an evil dude next-door, you need an army, you need a force big enough to go "Hey, if you try to murder us, we'll fight back", again, by not having an army, she allowed Gangrel's forces to rampage through her kingdom, she sat back and allowed the violence to continue.

Having an army does not inherently mean wanting to continue the cycle of hatred, it means you don't want people raiding your kingdom, Most countries today don't exactly jump at the idea of a war, yet they have an army all the same.

It's pretty much the entire idea of nukes, no one wants to actually use them but it functions as a "Hey, if you invade and we're going to lose, I'm taking you with me." it's violence for the sake of peace.

The idea that pacifism is right and is always good is frankly, an incredibly childish, immature and dangerous idea and the way Robin and characters are written make it very clear that you're not supposed to see Emmeryn as the, to be frank, accomplice to the slaughter but a pure hearted WONDERFUL ruler and frankly it's annoying

So it's buddhist and Shinto, so what? it's still frankly a stupid concept and the way everyone practically worships her is obnoxious.

Again, the author clearly wants her to be seen as a pure figure while I frankly see her as a cowardly, unlikable fool who lead her country to near-ruin, the game practically shills for her constantly while she's alive which is annoying, so yeah I think the moral is stupid and makes no sense and Emmeryn is a big symptom of that.

So yeah, I disagree with the message and the way the message is presented is pretentious and obnoxous as the game honestly might as well as have the Authour show up to soapbox at you.

Switzerland remained Neutral during WW2, that's because it had a huge army, it would have been detrimental for Germany to attack Switzerland for the duration of the war due to Financial reasons also, Switzerland did not remain a peaceful neutral country that refugees fled to because it had no army, it remained Neutral because Germany would have been screwed trying to take it on while fighting all the other countries it was already fighting in addition to the fact Switzerland money remaind the only "netural" currency during the warand even then? Switzerland still had to shoot down Allied Bombers during the war since Civilians were getting killed from them, it still in a way had to defend itself against attack as well as shoot down German Bombers passing through to show that any violations of their neutrality would be responded with force, especially since certain allied generals considered Switzerland part of the Axis Forces due to their somewhat co-operation with Germany, if Switzerland was ran by Emmeryn, Germany would have taken over it during the war since no army.

TLDR: Emmeryn is a crap ruler and the game obnoxiously shills with her to push an bad moral to the point where characters practically feel like they're paid shills.

IMO, just because you have a moral doesn't excuse pretty crappy writing where you're obviously trying to inform your audience of what to expect of a character as it's just bloody obnoxious when it doesn't work. 

As you say, she's intended to be a figure of peace and to show off the peace moral, I see her as essentialy an accessory to all the murder destruction and a defining example of why peace doesn't work and a frankly reprehensible person.

So while I see the writers intention, I heavily disagree with it and if anything I think Emmeryn works against the game's moral and the attempts paint Chrom as in the "Wrong" are absurd and basically the writer soapboxing the moral, if it wasn't for the game painfully obviously shilling and using the characters to tell you what to think, I'd think Emmeryn was a deconstruction character to show why trying to be entirely peaceful is a flawed and stupid concept.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Samz707

[Armagon]

4 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I see. Season 4 is really good; it starts off with one of the longest and most serious arc so far, then has a small and lighthearted school festival arc that's pretty good, and Shoto's dad starts developing as a character in a rather interesting way with a ton of potential. 

Now I haven't seen S4 but I have enough of an idea what happens and the school festival arc is honestly the main reason my interest has waned, although the issue goes back farther.

I think the "academia" part of the show holds it back. It made a good starting point but by this point, Class 1-A should have their GEDs or higher by now. And yet, because the series is called "My Hero Academia" the school has to matter somehow. Compare this to Harry Potter where there was a strong focus on the school once but as the series progressed, the school mattered less and less and by the final book, the school does not matter anymore aside from being the site of the final battle.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Armagon

[vanguard333]

25 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Now I haven't seen S4 but I have enough of an idea what happens and the school festival arc is honestly the main reason my interest has waned, although the issue goes back farther.

I think the "academia" part of the show holds it back. It made a good starting point but by this point, Class 1-A should have their GEDs or higher by now. And yet, because the series is called "My Hero Academia" the school has to matter somehow. Compare this to Harry Potter where there was a strong focus on the school once but as the series progressed, the school mattered less and less and by the final book, the school does not matter anymore aside from being the site of the final battle.

You'll like the arc before the school festival arc then, as it's all about Deku and a few others working alongside heroes and almost entirely takes place outside the classroom.

That, or just watch something like Black Clover instead.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

You'll like the arc before the school festival arc then, as it's all about Deku and a few others working alongside heroes and almost entirely takes place outside the classroom.

Personally, the overhaul arc was kind of boring to me. I liked some moments in it but overall it was just kinda ehh. Overhaul, himself, was not that compelling of a character. I like how he fits into the arc thematically. I just wish he was a more interesting character. I loved Shigaraki in that arc though.

[vanguard333]

17 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Personally, the overhaul arc was kind of boring to me. I liked some moments in it but overall it was just kinda ehh. Overhaul, himself, was not that compelling of a character. I like how he fits into the arc thematically. I just wish he was a more interesting character. I loved Shigaraki in that arc though.

It did drag on a bit (it was the author's first attempt at a longer arc), and yeah; Overhaul was just serviceable as a villain. I did find it interesting how he has a lot of parallels to Sir Nighteye.

Spoiler

Both of them developed an undying loyalty to a mentor figure, only to end up thinking they knew best and disagreeing with said mentor; ultimately going behind their back in an attempt to help their mentor that backfires, and them thinking they knew best led to their undoing. 

 

[Eltosian Kadath]

15 hours ago, Armagon said:

If you mean objectively, then you are correct. There isn't a science to prove that this story handled it's themes better than that story.

However it's up to the audience to determine which one they feel was better. "This isn't what happened. This is what happened to me". Criticism of the arts isn't really about convincing the other guy. When you debate someone with differing views, it's to share your thoughts and see how they compare and acknowledge the other's point of view. Maybe you do change their mind or maybe they change yours but that's not what criticism should be about.

Of course, some people forget the civility of it and just result to yelling at each other about how the other is wrong but that's neither here nor there.

I think there is another side to debates that got skipped over here, that critiquing and pointing out the weaknesses in others arguments lets them see where their ideas need refinement, or reexamination. I like to think of it as similar to the Socratic Method of teaching.

 

14 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean even then do things have to be pre-established? I would argue not really. Things in stories can be surprising

You shouldn't set up things being pre-established as being opposed to things being surprising. To take a basic example, part of what made the Sixth Sense so well regarded is that its surprising ending is pre-established. All the evidence is there in plain sight, but it was still a surprise, as the watcher lacked the context needed to recognize the way it was being established.

 

14 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean that's fair but if you suggest that Naoto is trans then I'm gonna have to break your kneecaps because that is just straight up wrong and completely goes against the point of her character. Her arc, yes, does touch gender identity but the conclusion her arc reaches is that she doesn't need to change herself in order for others to take her seriously. She is just fine the way she is.

Are you talking about the way Atlas made thing "more subtle" ( as Atlas described it) for the English release to keep from harming our delicate western sensibilities about sexuality and gender...

 

14 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean my point more so was that a story isn't worse just because it handles it's themes in a way you personally disagree with.

9 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I’ve said fates and awakening are better stories than SoV simply because they’re more thematically consistent.

These two statements seem to contradict each-other. Simply because SoV develops its themes in a way you personally disagree with shouldn't make it a worse story than fates and awakening, unless the first statement is inaccurate. In this case SoV develops its themes through optional content to establish its themes, without which it still explores them with  "no build up to these moments thematically". Seeing as you have no problem with things being a surprise without things being pre-established, it sounds like this is more about you personally disagreeing with how these themes were handled, then any actual issue of quality...

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

These two statements seem to contradict each-other. Simply because SoV develops its themes in a way you personally disagree with shouldn't make it a worse story than fates and awakening, unless the first statement is inaccurate. In this case SoV develops its themes through optional content to establish its themes, without which it still explores them with  "no build up to these moments thematically". Seeing as you have no problem with things being a surprise without things being pre-established, it sounds like this is more about you personally disagreeing with how these themes were handled, then any actual issue of quality...

You really want me to try and find a contradiction in my argument regarding SoV don’t you? Unfortunately for you that’s not how this works. When I say that things in a narrative are allowed to be surprising I’m exclusively referring to things like plot twists, revelations, power ups, etc. like I don’t mind those being surprising. The problem with SoV is that a lot of the moments that occur at the end of act 4 on Alm’s side don’t really connect with anything else in the narrative. What I mean is again Alm to apologizing to Celica makes no sense because the statement is not true as I’ve explained numerous times before. That’s what I mean when I say there’s no thematic build up to moments like that and Alm killing his father. Alm killing his own father is supposed to be narrative punishment as far as I can tell. What is Alm being punished for? I have no fucking clue as he never did anything in the story I feel the narrative would deem thematically incorrect. It’s not like he hates Rudolf or anything and goes into a blind fury at the thought of him. He even goes out of his way to mention that he should hate Rudolf but he can’t. He doesn’t hold any contempt towards rigelians as shown with his interactions with Tatiana. I mean I guess you could argue that if you’re unable to save Delthea or Mathilda the game sort of punishes you for it but that’s completely reliant on the player playing poorly which the game actively discourages thanks to things like casual mode and mila’s turn wheel. Even so there’s no change to the narrative if you play perfectly. Also even if you fail in those two instances they don’t really feed into the thematic significance of Alm killing his father because nothing about Alm’s ideals or characterization changes from those moments. Which again begs the question what the hell is he being punished for? It’s not like he tried to save Rudolf like with Delthea and Mathilda but failed. No he just straight up kills rudolf because he has to. There’s not really much connecting these moments thematically so I don’t think it really works.

[Eltosian Kadath]

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What I mean is again Alm to apologizing to Celica makes no sense because the statement is not true as I’ve explained numerous times before.

You might want to replay it, look at an LP, or look at the script again. Alm doesn't apologize, what he says is

Quote

Alm: Don’t apologize. Just know that I need you, all right? Without your wisdom, all I know how to do is fight whatever’s in front of me. So please… Will you fight with me? Believe in me. Believe in US. Believe in our combined strength!

being factually inaccurate like that really weakens your claim. What Alm says is that he needs Celica, and her wisdom, so with this thought in mind, lets look at

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

That’s what I mean when I say there’s no thematic build up to moments like that and Alm killing his father. Alm killing his own father is supposed to be narrative punishment as far as I can tell. What is Alm being punished for? I have no fucking clue as he never did anything in the story I feel the narrative would deem thematically incorrect.

There were numerous clues, which should have tipped Alm off to the fact that he is the heir to Rigel. From him being the only wielder of Royal Sword, to Desaix's dying words (which he always canonically hears), to Berkut's reaction to the brand. Heck Clive figures it out in act 3, and Alm knows that Clive is hiding some secret about Alm, but he isn't willing to confront Clive about it, or have the wisdom to figure it out for himself. Alm isn't interested in solving the mysteries behind himself, or why this war is happening (which would have also revealed who Rudolf is to Alm); he is only interested in solving this conflict with the sword.

34 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It’s not like he hates Rudolf or anything and goes into a blind fury at the thought of him. He even goes out of his way to mention that he should hate Rudolf but he can’t. He doesn’t hold any contempt towards rigelians as shown with his interactions with Tatiana.

Alm isn't a hateful person, but he does rush into conflicts without thinking, and that is what he does to deserve his punishment.

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

There were numerous clues, which should have tipped Alm off to the fact that he is the heir to Rigel. From him being the only wielder of Royal Sword, to Desaix's dying words (which he always canonically hears), to Berkut's reaction to the brand. Heck Clive figures it out in act 3, and Alm knows that Clive is hiding some secret about Alm, but he isn't willing to confront Clive about it, or have the wisdom to figure it out for himself. Alm isn't interested in solving the mysteries behind himself, or why this war is happening (which would have also revealed who Rudolf is to Alm); he is only interested in solving this conflict with the sword.

 

Okay but that doesn’t make what Alm said to Celica any less inaccurate. He said without her wisdom he only knew how to fight whatever was  in front of him(since you’re so insistent on being pedantic). Which is provably false. When in the story is Alm ever punished for doing something Celica wouldn’t have? Because that is what that statement implies. Without Celica he would’ve lost his way. But he never loses his way at any point in the story. It’s not even implied either. Even if you fail to save Delthea or Mathilda that doesn’t change. He never loses his way which makes him killing his own father so much more baffling because that’s what that moment is supposed to symbolize at least as far as I can tell. It’s supposed to be punishing him for losing his way but that was never apparent. He never lost his way or lost sight of his original goals. Celica did and we all know how well that turned out for her. Alm never did which makes him being narratively punished for no reason extremely jarring.

 

13 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Alm isn't a hateful person, but he does rush into conflicts without thinking, and that is what he does to deserve his punishment.

Yeah and that’s kind of a problem. You want me to believe that Alm lost his way at any point in the story? Then show that to me!

[Armagon]

4 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

I think there is another side to debates that got skipped over here, that critiquing and pointing out the weaknesses in others arguments lets them see where their ideas need refinement, or reexamination.

Ah true. But that's like debate 101 so i suppose it didn't need elaboration.

[Eltosian Kadath]

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

He said without her wisdom he only knew how to fight whatever was  in front of him(since you’re so insistent on being pedantic). Which is provably false.

Even when he saved Delthea, he did so by fighting people in front of him, with a sword. Most players even have Alm specificaly fight Delthea (albeit with the subdue skill), which doesn't contradict this notion that all he knows how to do is fight whatever is in front of him.

 

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Without Celica he would’ve lost his way. But he never loses his way at any point in the story. It’s not even implied either.

Alm repeatedly rushes into combat without thinking, and that is what puts him on the path to his father's death from the very start. Lets compare how Alm and Celica both deal with a nearby bandit/pirate hideout. Alm bursts out of hiding to confront the bandits without thinking. Celica discovers the location of the pirate stronghold, hires a mercenary to help deal with them, takes them on deliberately, gives them a chance to surrender, and fights on her own terms. Alm doesn't even bothered to learn the enemy bandit leader's name, which is why Alm faces Brigand Boss, and Celica faces Barth...  Now lets look at the meeting between the two at the end of act 2

Quote

Celica: I did. I’m going to the Temple of Mila. All that’s transpiring in Zofia now is tied to the Earth Mother— I can feel it in my very marrow. There’s more to be done than simply fighting the foes laid before us. I must learn Mila’s will in all of this. I also intend to pray that she intercedes on behalf of her people. That she might save us all.

Mycen: I see. Just as Alm has chosen his path, it would seem you have chosen yours.

Celica: Alm?! I’d suspected as much, but your being here confirms it… He’s leading the Deliverance, isn’t he?

Just before that meeting Celica has this interesting discussion with Mycen, showing three important things. First notice the clear mirroring of language, emphasizing its thematic importance. Second it emphasizes the difference in their approaches, Celica is trying to find the underlying cause of the problem, while Alm simply fights the enemies in front of him. Third, Celica discovered Alm's position of importance before they even have their talk from the little evidence she got, while Alm fails to discover Celica's position of importance, despite being given about as much to go on.

Quote

Celica: Is it really so naive? Zofians and Rigelians are both people of Valentia, are we not? I know we can reach some kind of accord if we just try! Besides that, I… I just can’t imagine Emperor Rudolf is the monster some claim him to be.

Alm: It doesn’t matter what sort of man he is. The Rigelian Empire chose to cross Zofia’s border—that’s a fact. We aim to drive back the invaders. Nothing more.

Notice, that Alm doesn't care about discovering more about Rudolf, and why he is fighting, whereas Celica does. He is already on the path to killing his father, and he doesn't even recognize that he has already "lost his way". If he were willing to listen to Celica about figuring out what is going on with Rudolf, it would lead him away from this tragic path. As I described a fair bit in my last post, Act 3 is constantly showing Alm given every opportunity to discover more about himself, and this conflict, but he fails to understand, or even care enough to ask someone he knows has the knowledge he is missing. He could have left the path towards him killing his own father, but he instead he simply continues on his immediate goal in ignorance.

Act 4 starts with two different possibilities for how Alm continues to show that willingness to rush into combat without thinking. Either he falls for an obvious trap created by Nuibaba's illusion of Celica, or going into battle with Jerome & Zeke, without discovering how Zeke is being blackmailed into fighting (leading to numerous insults and guilt trips from the local villagers after that innocent man's death). Its a simple flaw that leads him ever onwards towards that tragic end of Act 4, with Alm killing his own father.

 

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

He never lost his way or lost sight of his original goals. Celica did and we all know how well that turned out for her. Alm never did which makes him being narratively punished for no reason extremely jarring.

Why would his problem be the same as Celica's? It is the opposite of Celica's, he is so concentrated on following the path, and goal directly in front of him, that he fails to see, and turn away from the cliff they are leading him to.

 

[Ottservia]

8 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Just before that meeting Celica has this interesting discussion with Mycen, showing three important things. First notice the clear mirroring of language, emphasizing its thematic importance. Second it emphasizes the difference in their approaches, Celica is trying to find the underlying cause of the problem, while Alm simply fights the enemies in front of him. Third, Celica discovered Alm's position of importance before they even have their talk from the little evidence she got, while Alm fails to discover Celica's position of importance, despite being given about as much to go on.

You make a fair case here and I will admit there’s more nuance that contrasts Celica and Alm than I originally thought. You would honest to god have an amazing point here but I have one issue. Ultimately the narrative decides that Celica is wrong in the end more so than Alm anyway. She goes to find Mila only to find that she’s missing which is a big character moment for her(the details of which elude me atm because admittedly it has been a while) but from what I can remember Mila being missing is supposed to represent the flaw in overrelying on the gods. Celica thinks Mila has the all the answers when instead she needs to learn to rely on herself as a big theme in SoV is the strength of humanity. This flaw is contrasted in Jedah who takes advantage of Celica. Without the strength to believe in herself and her friends she gives into his temptations and it doesn’t work out for her. She gets her soul taken and turned into a witch forced to fight Alm. Celica is ultimately punished for the flaws in her ideals which the narrative puts great emphasis on.
 

Contrast with Alm not so much. His virtues are more emphasized than his flaws. Again, I will admit you make a great point and I agree with most of what you said here. I feel like the issue is that Alm’s flaws aren’t emphasized as much as they should cause if that’s truly what they were going for then could’ve done more to showcase that. I understand why Alm doesn’t doubt himself like Celica does because the point with him more so is that he’s so convinced that he is right that he doesn’t see the cliff he’s running off of. That much I agree with. What I don’t agree with is recklessness never really gets him into trouble. How do I explain this? Like okay you bring up the nuibaba example and yes if the player chooses to go there he runs into a trap. However, taking that detour is ultimately more beneficial for him than if he hadn’t cause not only does he rescue Tatiana but he is able to recruit Zeke as well and have an easier time dealing with Jerome. In the end, he’s more rewarded for his recklessness than not. Never does his reckless or impulsive nature get him into any serious danger. I suppose you could make the argument that not going to Nuibaba punishes the player for just recklessly charging ahead. But again the nuibaba instance is another example of his recklessness taking hold. But in that instance it’s actually rewarded. So which is it? I’m not opposed to the idea of showing that his recklessness can be both a flaw and a virtue because that’s kinda the point. But we’re at a point in the story where the flaws of his ideals need to be emphasized more. Which they aren’t. The flaws in Celica’s ideals are shown clear as day. She goes to find Mila for answers but Mila isn’t there so she needs to take initiative on her own. You don’t have moments like that with Alm well not until the end anyway and I feel like that’s a little late.

I’m not saying it can’t be subtle but there is such a thing as being too subtle to the point where it’s hardly noticeable. The end of act 3 is where the cracks in his ideals should’ve formed but that instance is more so a showcase of why he’s right because Clive didn’t see any point in saving Delthea. Alm insisted that they save Delthea and he’s ultimately rewarded for doing so. Again contrast with Celica who is actually proven wrong by this point in the story because again Mila isn’t there to give her the answers she needs. Alm is in the right by the story’s logic more often than not and that’s kind of a problem. This could’ve been done exceptionally if his foil relationship with Berkut wasn’t shallow as all hell.

[Samz707]

Since I kinda ended up ranting.

I can see the reason writing decisions are made but that doesn't make them good.

For instance Robin/Corrin/Byleth get avatar-worshipped as a form of power fantasy.

To  me that actively runs the writing quality and is obnoxious on it's own.

Same with Emmeryn, game wants a tragic figure to feel sorry for, I see a deplorable coward with blood on her hands.

The actual intention to me is terrible 

For instance: Chrom isnt' responsible for the war at all, so thats why the game's message falls flat because he's innocent since well, the timeline of events roughly is follows:

Gangrel clearly has intentions to invade Emmeryn's Kingdom

Emmeryn makes no real attempts to protect anyone from Gangrel.

Due to this Gangrel invades, kidnaps Maribelle and leaves, this is Emmeryn's fault for not actually preparing to defend her own kingdom in anyway.

Gangrel threatens Maribelle's life for the Fire Emblem by threatening to execute her as a spy (and could probably use that as an excuse to start a war.), Emmeryn somehow thinks talking down the genocidal ruler will work, anyone with half a brain could tell this wasn't work, Chrom isn't being brash, he's being actually reasonable in how it very clearly won't work. (And surprise! it doesn't.)

RICKEN sneaks behind Gangrel's forces and frees Maribelle, throwing...well not the first stone since Gangrel threw those in the attack to capture Maribelle.

Chrom literally did nothing to instigate the war and the narrative trying to frame him as such is pretentious BS just for the sake of a bad moral, Chrom did not do anything that actually instigated further conflict unless you actually seriously count him defending himself when rescuing Ricken and Maribelle, who by the way was going to be executed and used as an excuse for a war anyway in the first place.

How did Chrom instigate the war? he didn't therefore the game's moral makes no sense.

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Samz707