Why are people so obsessed with Realism and Believability?

[Interdimensional Observer]

6 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

The only thing that stands out in Awakening was the Mila Tree, but that was explained in another game.

Here is a little geographic discussion I got into recently.:

See @Jotari response to my remarks in particular.

Geography is very complicated, I get why video game developers don't think about it. Geography IRL has a ton of diversity too. But, I do think writers should put some thought into it. And in my case, one of the reasons I can never write a story and a world, is because I would really like a pre-made map onto which I can then plop every country, defining them to an extent in accordance with their placement on the terrain and proximity to other countries.

[eclipse]

9 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

On this I can fully agree and I’m trying to get better with it. It’s just when you’ve heard these bad criticisms a million times it kind of gets tiring.

There's a gigantic difference between "criticism I don't agree with" and "criticism that's bad on its own merits".  You showed an example of the latter, and the answer in those cases is to ignore the idiots.  For the former, you'll have to deal with the fact that a bunch of people don't see things the same way as you, and no amount of bickering will change either side's mind.

2 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Geography is very complicated, I get why video game developers don't think about it. Geography IRL has a ton of diversity too. But, I do think writers should put some thought into it. And in my case, one of the reasons I can never write a story and a world, is because I would really like a pre-made map onto which I can then plop every country, defining them to an extent in accordance with their placement on the terrain and proximity to other countries.

We're familiar with one set of physics - the rules that made our own world.  I don't do map criticisms because I honestly don't know how much thought the writers put into their world-building.  Maybe we're looking at someone who fundamentally rewrote the laws of physics for their world, and used those to make a map.

[Armchair General]

11 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Here is a little geographic discussion I got into recently.:

See @Jotari response to my remarks in particular.

Geography is very complicated, I get why video game developers don't think about it. Geography IRL has a ton of diversity too. But, I do think writers should put some thought into it. And in my case, one of the reasons I can never write a story and a world, is because I would really like a pre-made map onto which I can then plop every country, defining them to an extent in accordance with their placement on the terrain and proximity to other countries.

Yeah, that final island in Awakening was kinda weird choice  and that was my first FE game. Now that I got SoV, it makes even less sense. If anything I'd expect it to be near the Mila tree, since Duma and Mila died within the same region.

[Interdimensional Observer]

14 minutes ago, eclipse said:

We're familiar with one set of physics - the rules that made our own world.  I don't do map criticisms because I honestly don't know how much thought the writers put into their world-building.  Maybe we're looking at someone who fundamentally rewrote the laws of physics for their world, and used those to make a map.

I just think the average writer doesn't put that much thought into their geography. Which is perfectly fine, have you ever read a book and gone "I love that mountain, it's the most beautifully written snow-capped peak with alpacas, polylepis trees, and magnificent terraces of maize and quinoa I've ever experienced. And don't get me started on that river valley far below!😋"? Characters, stories, and the human aspects of worlds are usually what people love, not dirt and streams. 

As for rewriting physics, I've seen you post in the LP section here on SRW. So I know you know Gundam and that one little all-pervasive particle I've heard secondhand as being responsible for explaining the necessity of the mecha, when IRL they are 100% infeasible and impractical. I won't criticize that decision, it is perfectly fine as a writing choice.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Interdimensional Observer

[indigoasis]

Fiction can be anything that the author wants it to be, so it can be "realistic" or it can be "unrealistic" (or maybe even both!... but I would say that it depends on what you mean by realistic). People who enjoy having realism in fiction are perfectly entitled to that; same goes for people who enjoy having fiction be unrealistic. Fiction is an extremely versatile genre (since you can literally make anything that you want if you're writing a story), so everyone is bound to find something that they like somewhere. Of course, that also means that everyone is bound to find something that they dislike, too.

Everyone has different tastes, interests, and opinions; for example, asking for opinions about pineapple on pizza may net you a very interesting debate about whether it deserves to be on there or not and someone calling another person a tastebud-less dishrag (personally, I enjoy pineapple on pizza), but it will ultimately showcase that people have varying tastes and opinions and whatnot. Same concept applies to stories; some people will like a story because it aligns with their interests and expectations, and other people will dislike it because it doesn't align with their interests and expectations. And that's perfectly OK.

Even if fiction may be inherently unrealistic in that it doesn't have to conform with the standards of "real life" or because the stories that are told are all made-up doesn't mean that some stories can't strive to make something realistic that people would enjoy (Realistic Fiction is a sub-genre that exists; I figure that I should mention that). At the end of the day, fiction is meant to entertain and offer something enjoyable (and maybe even teach us something new through stories and their themes!), and it can be good to not look too deeply into things.

To give some brief last thoughts: I often don't take things too seriously, and I find that I can enjoy stuff a lot more that way. I can take something that may be considered "bad" and twist it into something enjoyable for me to laugh at. Essentially, I look for the positives in the negatives.

Edited March 4, 2021 by indigoasis

[eclipse]

50 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I just think the average writer doesn't put that much thought into their geography. Which is perfectly fine, have you ever read a book and gone "I love that mountain, it's the most beautifully written snow-capped peak with alpacas, polylepis trees, and magnificent terraces of maize and quinoa I've ever experienced. And don't get me started on that river valley far below!😋"? Characters, stories, and the human aspects of worlds are usually what people love, not dirt and streams. 

As for rewriting physics, I've seen you post in the LP section here on SRW. So I know you know Gundam and that one little all-pervasive particle I've heard secondhand as being responsible for explaining the necessity of the mecha, when IRL they are 100% infeasible and impractical. I won't criticize that decision, it is perfectly fine as a writing choice.

I think there's only one medium that made me fall in love with the world, and that's a video game.  We can see the world, and it's a lot easier than trying to visualize it ourselves.

I'm not even going to touch Gundam physics.  It already feels unrealistic because there's adults in charge (says the cynic in me), and the teenagers are a lot more well-adjusted despite being thrown into a killing machine and, uh, killing people (even you, Kamille).

[Eltosian Kadath]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I’ve seen people complain that the demon’s ingle doesn’t make sense geographically or that wyvern valley doesn’t make sense to be where it is because there were no cliffs there originally in Valentia(disregarding the fact that it’s been 2,000 years). Like really small shit like that doesn’t really matter to the overall story.

Those issues aren't really with Awakening's map, its that they are breaking the rules the world Awakening established, which undermines the internal consistency of Awakening's story. Awakening makes clear early on that this is the same setting as the Archanea and Valentia games, only set thousands of years latter, and the issues with those two locations, is that they are changing parts of the setting in ways that can't simply be explained with thousands of years have passed. Most people's issues with the Demon's Ingle is that the Japanese name makes it clear that this is the resting place of Duma, and anyone that finished Gaiden or Shadow's of Valencia know where he died. The game never explains why, or how his resting place was moved, its entirely within the realm of possibility that his body was moved far to the south, but the game doesn't care enough to explain. As for Wyvern Valley, in the original Japanese it has the same name as a location that fan translators of FE3 and FE12 have decided the call Wyvern's Dale, these two locations are both described as the greatest source of wild wyvern, although the FE3/12 version is in Archanea, and the Awakening version is on Valentia, and it should be noted that wyverns are never seen in the Valentia games. Having a location change continents without some kind of explanation from the game is fairly jarring. Again there could be an explanation for this, like simply being two locations that share the same name due to similar features, but the game fails to explain this otherwise massive inconsistency. Both of these things could easily be explained by the game, but whoever wrote them didn't care enough about the internal rules established by the world to maintain its verisimilitude.

[Ottservia]

15 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Those issues aren't really with Awakening's map, its that they are breaking the rules the world Awakening established, which undermines the internal consistency of Awakening's story. Awakening makes clear early on that this is the same setting as the Archanea and Valentia games, only set thousands of years latter, and the issues with those two locations, is that they are changing parts of the setting in ways that can't simply be explained with thousands of years have passed. Most people's issues with the Demon's Ingle is that the Japanese name makes it clear that this is the resting place of Duma, and anyone that finished Gaiden or Shadow's of Valencia know where he died. The game never explains why, or how his resting place was moved, its entirely within the realm of possibility that his body was moved far to the south, but the game doesn't care enough to explain. As for Wyvern Valley, in the original Japanese it has the same name as a location that fan translators of FE3 and FE12 have decided the call Wyvern's Dale, these two locations are both described as the greatest source of wild wyvern, although the FE3/12 version is in Archanea, and the Awakening version is on Valentia, and it should be noted that wyverns are never seen in the Valentia games. Having a location change continents without some kind of explanation from the game is fairly jarring. Again there could be an explanation for this, like simply being two locations that share the same name due to similar features, but the game fails to explain this otherwise massive inconsistency. Both of these things could easily be explained by the game, but whoever wrote them didn't care enough about the internal rules established by the world to maintain its verisimilitude.

yeah generally speaking does any of that really matter in the overall grand scheme of things. It personally doesn't bother me so I don't really think it's much of an issue. I mean if it bothers you that's fine opinions will be opinions but I genuinely do not think it's as big of an issue that you seem to be making it out to be. It's not like any of that has any real effect on the story at large or what it has to say so again I don't really see how it's that big of an issue personally. It's a subjective thing and there's no point arguing over subjectivity

[Armchair General]

20 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Those issues aren't really with Awakening's map, its that they are breaking the rules the world Awakening established, which undermines the internal consistency of Awakening's story. Awakening makes clear early on that this is the same setting as the Archanea and Valentia games, only set thousands of years latter, and the issues with those two locations, is that they are changing parts of the setting in ways that can't simply be explained with thousands of years have passed. Most people's issues with the Demon's Ingle is that the Japanese name makes it clear that this is the resting place of Duma, and anyone that finished Gaiden or Shadow's of Valencia know where he died. The game never explains why, or how his resting place was moved, its entirely within the realm of possibility that his body was moved far to the south, but the game doesn't care enough to explain. As for Wyvern Valley, in the original Japanese it has the same name as a location that fan translators of FE3 and FE12 have decided the call Wyvern's Dale, these two locations are both described as the greatest source of wild wyvern, although the FE3/12 version is in Archanea, and the Awakening version is on Valentia, and it should be noted that wyverns are never seen in the Valentia games. Having a location change continents without some kind of explanation from the game is fairly jarring. Again there could be an explanation for this, like simply being two locations that share the same name due to similar features, but the game fails to explain this otherwise massive inconsistency. Both of these things could easily be explained by the game, but whoever wrote them didn't care enough about the internal rules established by the world to maintain its verisimilitude.

For the wyverns, I'm guessing that someone stowed away with a few eggs on a ship headed to Valentia as an exotic pet...And they escaped and managed to survive.

 

As for Archenea, I'm blaming climate change because I never seen a map of that game.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Armchair General

[lenticular]

Keep in mind that different people have different levels of formal education in literary criticism. My schooling saw its last literature class when I was 16, and most of that was memorising things to say about Animal Farm and The Merchant of Venice so I could pass the exam. I've picked up a few bits of knowledge through independent reading in the quarter of a century since then and like to think I'm able to argue reasonably coherently about what I like or dislike about a given work of fiction but I also don't assume that everyone has the education or the experience to be able to do so. Some people struggle to put together an argument more nuanced than "it's unrealistic" because they've never had to do so before. It's unreasonable to expect someone who has never seen the words "verisimilitude" or "internal consistency" before to independently create and articulate the concepts.

Also, when it comes to arguments and discussions on the Internet, most people are justifiably somewhat lazy. I'm not going to put my full effort into a random post on a message board because it honestly just isn't that important. Sure, I'm going to try to make my points well enough that people can understand me, but I'm typically not going to do comprehensive research or multiple takes of editing or other things that I might do for any writing that actually matters. I'm only aiming for "good enough". And sometimes that means cutting corners and using lazy explanations. A lot of the time when people say "it's unrealistic", it's because they have the time and the energy to say that but not the time and the energy to write a 3000 word essay that fully explains their opinion.

Finally, what you might think of as nitpicking, someone else might consider to be a glaring and immersion-breaking error. This largely comes down to a person's background and interests. For instance, my educational background is in physics. I've lost count of the number of times I've been watchign a TV show or movie and have been taken out of the moment when I've seen something where the physics makes no sense at all. It's not that I'm looking for problems, it's just that they're glaringly obvious and impossible not to notice. For me. If I'm watching with someone else, they often don't even bat an eye.

Or for another example, consider national cultures. I am British, so if I see a work of fiction that claims to be set in contemporary Britain  but it gets lots of facts wrong about British culture, then I will notice and it will make me enjoy the work less. On the other hand, if a work claimed to be set in 12th century Laos then it could take all kinds of liberties with tst setting and I wouldn't notice, because I know pretty much nothing about 12th century Laos. I might love it, but if a Lao historian told me that it was garbage, then I wouldn't tell them they were wrong.

Similarly, someone who seems to be picking nits about fantasy geography might be a geologer who has spent their entire life studying mountain formation. For someone who has geology so deeply ingrained in their psyche, it would be impossible for them not to notice when mountains are in the wrong place. A lot of the time, they would probably notice but then quickly ignore it and put it out of mind, but if they aren't able to do so and the messed up geography proves too distracting for them and stops them from enjoying a work then I don't think that's wrong either.

[Etrurian emperor]

6 hours ago, Ottservia said:

2. Xander as a character is intentionally written to be hypocritical. That’s his character flaw and his ability to overcome said flaw or failure to is the crux of his character. It’s not inconsistent as it is a character flaw which is fine if you ask me.

With characters that are intended to be in the wrong while also being good persons deep down there's a very careful balance that must be upheld. I think the problem with a character like Xander emerges when the audience perceives a disconnect within this balance. I think Xander is a prime victim of this disconnect. He like any member of the Camus archetype is intentionally flawed but they are also supposed to be seen as noble. The problem many seem to have with Xander is that his flaws severely tamper any nobility he might have had. Him not merely being reluctantly loyal but actively, very fiercely loyal to his overly evil dictator seems to be a step too far even for those that are used to a Camus being a doormat for their respective insane dictator. So when the plot still tries to paint Xander as noble despite his actions being anything but noble it garners a negative reaction. Fans perceive his balance to be out of wack with his bad traits being vastly more pronounced than his good traits, which many think the writing fails to pick up on. Xander's flaws might be intentional but many feel the degree of these flaws are not what the author intended. 

To me that always had been the big problem with Clive. On some level he's always supposed to be morally questionable. He's always supposed to be a good person but one who's close minded, prejudiced, classicist and who has a lot of growing to do. However the idea of him being a good person gets put into doubt when Clive gives the impression he's maliciously stringing Alm along with the explicit intent to discard of him the moment he's no longer useful to him personally. Maybe that's not what the writers intended but that's the result we got, its what happens when Clive tries to oust Alm the moment he opens the door to Matilda's cell. And to me it disqualifies Clive from being a good person. And I think many people feel the same about Xander which in turn makes them annoyed when Fates tries to have its cake and eat it too. 

Whether its fair of the audience to feel that way doesn't really matter, because on some level its inevitable that they feel that way if this balance is disturbed. And that goes for your argument about realism as well. I don't think people are clamoring for realism at all. In all sorts of fiction the audience enters an unofficial pact with the author. We willingly suspend our disbelief and they do our best to convince us that we aren't actively doing so, that its no effort at all to do so. This requires a careful balance. The author can put in all sorts of wacky things and we'll suspend our disbelief, but there is a limit to this and when the author goes beyond this limit it triggers a negative reaction. When this balance gets disturbed depends on the person but if the vast majority perceives this imbalance then its likely something in the writing process has simply gone wrong. 

[Ottservia]

37 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

With characters that are intended to be in the wrong while also being good persons deep down there's a very careful balance that must be upheld. I think the problem with a character like Xander emerges when the audience perceives a disconnect within this balance. I think Xander is a prime victim of this disconnect. He like any member of the Camus archetype is intentionally flawed but they are also supposed to be seen as noble. The problem many seem to have with Xander is that his flaws severely tamper any nobility he might have had. Him not merely being reluctantly loyal but actively, very fiercely loyal to his overly evil dictator seems to be a step too far even for those that are used to a Camus being a doormat for their respective insane dictator. So when the plot still tries to paint Xander as noble despite his actions being anything but noble it garners a negative reaction. Fans perceive his balance to be out of wack with his bad traits being vastly more pronounced than his good traits, which many think the writing fails to pick up on. Xander's flaws might be intentional but many feel the degree of these flaws are not what the author intended. 

That’s literally the point though. I don’t know about you but I don’t think Xander dying in what is essentially assisted suicide after murdering his own sister is the game’s way of trying to say he’s a good person. If anything him dying the way he does is basically the story saying that he’s wrong. He made the wrong choice and was unable to overcome his own flaws and as a result he accidentally kills his sister and dies a meaningless death and fails to accomplish anything. Seriously Xander’s death is completely meaningless. He failed to protect Nohr. He failed to defeat Corrin. He failed to do anything because he was a hypocrite. He was definitively wrong and as such pays the price. You’re not supposed to view him as noble cause he isn’t noble. He’s a flawed person who’s flaws pushed him to do things he shouldn’t have and drove him to a tragic end that was avoidable had he realized those flaws sooner.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, lenticular said:

Or for another example, consider national cultures. I am British, so if I see a work of fiction that claims to be set in contemporary Britain  but it gets lots of facts wrong about British culture, then I will notice and it will make me enjoy the work less. On the other hand, if a work claimed to be set in 12th century Laos then it could take all kinds of liberties with tst setting and I wouldn't notice, because I know pretty much nothing about 12th century Laos. I might love it, but if a Lao historian told me that it was garbage, then I wouldn't tell them they were wrong.

Not sure if you just chose Laos and the 12th century completely randomly there, but there was actually a lot going on in that part of the world at the time, being the height of the Khmer Empire.

8 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood says hi. Seriously, the attention to detail in that show is amazing and one of the things I most enjoy about it, alongside the compelling characters, narrative and magic system. 

 

 

Eh, Father not bothering to actually get the adequate number of sacrifices for his centuries long plan until literally the last minute is a bit of a blemish on it imo. He has the means, motivations and resources to do it, but he actually hinders himself by making human transmutation illegal.

7 hours ago, eclipse said:

The game tried to fit the rules of the Dragon Veins into their narrative.  Which is far more effort than this sorry excuse of a comment.

. . .and who the hell is criticizing anyone's fantasy map on the basis of "not being realistic enough"?  I'm sure that anyone that isn't a self-absorbed jackass would know better.

I thought it was a rather clever comment T.T

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

You’d be surprised. I can’t tell you the amount of arguments I’ve seen in regards to awakening’s map and geography

So here's where lenticular's comment about laziness holds a lot of merit. I wrote a big long comment here about what the real issue that lies here with Awakening's map, but it went and disappeard when I tried to post for some reason. So I'll just be as succinct as possible because it seems other people touched on it too. The problems with Awakening's map has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with fanservice. In fact in these conversations the realism of geography is more often than not a defense of Awakening's shifting maps. But Awakening is not a story about Geology, it's a story about Archanea and Valentia which they made no effort to actually resemble Archanea or Valentia. And it really didn't need to be for the story that was being told. The story was only set in Archanea and Valentia because of fanservice. And if someone's giving me fanservice, I want it to be good fanservice.

4 hours ago, lenticular said:

Keep in mind that different people have different levels of formal education in literary criticism. My schooling saw its last literature class when I was 16, and most of that was memorising things to say about Animal Farm and The Merchant of Venice so I could pass the exam. I've picked up a few bits of knowledge through independent reading in the quarter of a century since then and like to think I'm able to argue reasonably coherently about what I like or dislike about a given work of fiction but I also don't assume that everyone has the education or the experience to be able to do so. Some people struggle to put together an argument more nuanced than "it's unrealistic" because they've never had to do so before. It's unreasonable to expect someone who has never seen the words "verisimilitude" or "internal consistency" before to independently create and articulate the concepts.

Also, when it comes to arguments and discussions on the Internet, most people are justifiably somewhat lazy. I'm not going to put my full effort into a random post on a message board because it honestly just isn't that important. Sure, I'm going to try to make my points well enough that people can understand me, but I'm typically not going to do comprehensive research or multiple takes of editing or other things that I might do for any writing that actually matters. I'm only aiming for "good enough". And sometimes that means cutting corners and using lazy explanations. A lot of the time when people say "it's unrealistic", it's because they have the time and the energy to say that but not the time and the energy to write a 3000 word essay that fully explains their opinion.

I think on this note it's important to say that while people's arguments may be faulty, their feelings are not. Their reaction to a work is their reaction, and if they're bad at articulating it then arguing can help make the viewpoint clearer, but what cannot change is the fact that they thought a certain way on their initial viewing/playing/reading. So if a bunch of people re levying a criticism like unrealistic at something, well maybe it's not the best term or fully encapsulates the feelings, but a tonne of people are feeling a certain response from that work and there is some underlying reason for that.

 

Second time posting, let's hope it works this time.

[vanguard333]

25 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Eh, Father not bothering to actually get the adequate number of sacrifices for his centuries long plan until literally the last minute is a bit of a blemish on it imo. He has the means, motivations and resources to do it, but he actually hinders himself by making human transmutation illegal.

Human transmutation isn't illegal; it's a taboo among alchemists and, given the way characters talk about it, was labelled a taboo by alchemists after seeing the result of attempting it, and not something Father himself imposed. The fact that multiple alchemists can deduce that Edward and Alphonse committed the taboo by seeing Ed's missing limbs and Al's missing body supports this.

Father could not control whether or not alchemists were willing to commit the taboo, so he did everything in his power to assemble enough sacrifices by creating the State Alchemist system to keep as many alchemists close as possible while also having his minions constantly scouting to find any other alchemists who have committed the taboo or who can be manipulated or pushed into committing it. That's the reason they consider Roy a candidate despite him not committing the taboo (as they believed they could get him to commit it under the right circumstances); not counting on Edward finding out from Hohenheim that human transmutation cannot ever create anything more than a soulless cadaver and telling Roy this. 

[Eltosian Kadath]

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

yeah generally speaking does any of that really matter in the overall grand scheme of things. It personally doesn't bother me so I don't really think it's much of an issue. I mean if it bothers you that's fine opinions will be opinions but I genuinely do not think it's as big of an issue that you seem to be making it out to be. It's not like any of that has any real effect on the story at large or what it has to say so again I don't really see how it's that big of an issue personally. It's a subjective thing and there's no point arguing over subjectivity

These problems do not exist in a vacuum. The Valm arc is often seen as the weakest, and the issues Awakening had in selling that Valm is a future Valentia is a big part of what let that arc down. At its core that arc is about a comparison between two forces that would unite the world against Grima, but whose ideological difference force them into a clash to the death despite the overarching existential threat building in the background. The ideology of Walhart the Conqueror are clearly supposed to be the result of Valentian history, mirroring Rudolf in multiple ways, but the story fails to sell Valm as a future Valencia, and those same issues that caused the verisimilitude issues mentioned before (that desire to reference the history of Valentia without getting the details right) crops up in other ways in the arc to undermine it further (and the weakening of that arc weakens the story overall...). I don't want to derail this thread too much with Awakening analysis (plus with how little the writers of Awakening cared about getting Valentia right, its hard to care myself), hence I wont go too far into the details, but trying to dismiss people's critique of a story can blind you to the impact those issues have on the overall story. When people are having reasonable issues with Verisimilitude, or "realism" they aren't picking at nits, or having subjective complaints, they are pointing to a weakness in the story that can undermine the message, and impact of said story.

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

Human transmutation isn't illegal; it's a taboo among alchemists and, given the way characters talk about it, was labelled a taboo by alchemists after seeing the result of attempting it, and not something Father himself imposed. The fact that multiple alchemists can deduce that Edward and Alphonse committed the taboo by seeing Ed's missing limbs and Al's missing body supports this.

Father could not control whether or not alchemists were willing to commit the taboo, so he did everything in his power to assemble enough sacrifices by creating the State Alchemist system to keep as many alchemists close as possible while also having his minions constantly scouting to find any other alchemists who have committed the taboo or who can be manipulated or pushed into committing it. That's the reason they consider Roy a candidate despite him not committing the taboo (as they believed they could get him to commit it under the right circumstances); not counting on Edward finding out from Hohenheim that human transmutation cannot ever create anything more than a soulless cadaver and telling Roy this. 

Don't want to get off topic talking about Full Metal Alchemist, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal, as one of the generals explains the reason why being that they don't want anyone creating an army of zombies using it while unveiling that they did exactly that. And besides, even if it was a self imposed moral code rather than a law, Father completely controls the state and was the one who invented Alchemy, he easily could have had the fuhrer just proclaim that human transmutation is no longer a taboo and that the military is now permitting specific individuals to research it for the good of science and the state. This is a really, really crucial part of his plan that he neglects to encourage at all. He just keeps an eye on some people and hopes they'll do what he expects them to do with very little insurance. Inzumi could have tripped over and died at any point in the story by accident and then suddenly poof, he'll have to wait another three centuries for his next chance.

[Etrurian emperor]

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

Don't want to get off topic talking about Full Metal Alchemist, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal, as one of the generals explains the reason why being that they don't want anyone creating an army of zombies using it while unveiling that they did exactly that. And besides, even if it was a self imposed moral code rather than a law, Father completely controls the state and was the one who invented Alchemy, he easily could have had the fuhrer just proclaim that human transmutation is no longer a taboo and that the military is now permitting specific individuals to research it for the good of science and the state. This is a really, really crucial part of his plan that he neglects to encourage at all. He just keeps an eye on some people and hopes they'll do what he expects them to do with very little insurance. Inzumi could have tripped over and died at any point in the story by accident and then suddenly poof, he'll have to wait another three centuries for his next chance.

He still has Pride around as a fallback. If he doesn't have his required sacrifices he'll just send Pride at a random alchemist and forces them to go through the gate. In fact that's exactly what he had Pride do when Mustang refused to do human transmutation. I also think it has part to do with Father being picky about his sacrifices. He'll not settle with any random alchemist goon but only the most special alchemist around due to his vanity. 

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

He still has Pride around as a fallback. If he doesn't have his required sacrifices he'll just send Pride at a random alchemist and forces them to go through the gate. In fact that's exactly what he had Pride do when Mustang refused to do human transmutation. I also think it has part to do with Father being picky about his sacrifices. He'll not settle with any random alchemist goon but only the most special alchemist around due to his vanity. 

Well like I said, I could go into it, but this isn't exactly the thread for examining the inadequacies of Father.

[Ottservia]

13 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

These problems do not exist in a vacuum. The Valm arc is often seen as the weakest, and the issues Awakening had in selling that Valm is a future Valentia is a big part of what let that arc down. At its core that arc is about a comparison between two forces that would unite the world against Grima, but whose ideological difference force them into a clash to the death despite the overarching existential threat building in the background. The ideology of Walhart the Conqueror are clearly supposed to be the result of Valentian history, mirroring Rudolf in multiple ways, but the story fails to sell Valm as a future Valencia, and those same issues that caused the verisimilitude issues mentioned before (that desire to reference the history of Valentia without getting the details right) crops up in other ways in the arc to undermine it further (and the weakening of that arc weakens the story overall...). I don't want to derail this thread too much with Awakening analysis (plus with how little the writers of Awakening cared about getting Valentia right, its hard to care myself), hence I wont go too far into the details, but trying to dismiss people's critique of a story can blind you to the impact those issues have on the overall story. When people are having reasonable issues with Verisimilitude, or "realism" they aren't picking at nits, or having subjective complaints, they are pointing to a weakness in the story that can undermine the message, and impact of said story.

Again making mountains out of mole hills. I’m not necessarily you’re wrong here I simply do not think it’s as big of an issue as you’re making it out to be. None of that takes away from the intricate foil relationship Walhart and Chrom have nor does it truly effect the overall greater themes of action and consequences as well as the ability to overcome the failure of those consequences. Awakening’s story works fine as is. Is it annoying? Sure and it’s perfectly fine to feel that way. I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m just saying it’s not as big of a problem as you seem to be making it out to be.

 

13 hours ago, Jotari said:

The story was only set in Archanea and Valentia because of fanservice. And if someone's giving me fanservice, I want it to be good fanservice.

And that is completely fair. I’m personally just not bothered by it in the same way you are.

[Jotari]

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Again making mountains out of mole hills. I’m not necessarily you’re wrong here I simply do not think it’s as big of an issue as you’re making it out to be. None of that takes away from the intricate foil relationship Walhart and Chrom have nor does it truly effect the overall greater themes of action and consequences as well as the ability to overcome the failure of those consequences. Awakening’s story works fine as is. Is it annoying? Sure and it’s perfectly fine to feel that way. I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m just saying it’s not as big of a problem as you seem to be making it out to be.

 

And that is completely fair. I’m personally just not bothered by it in the same way you are.

No one's expecting you to care, but that doesn't stop it being valid criticism. People are obviously going to care about such things to different degrees. People who haven't played the first three games in the series literally wouldn't be capable of noticing it at all.

[Ottservia]

22 minutes ago, Jotari said:

No one's expecting you to care, but that doesn't stop it being valid criticism. People are obviously going to care about such things to different degrees. People who haven't played the first three games in the series literally wouldn't be capable of noticing it at all.

You see that’s the difference between you and me. I don’t think minor issues like this are that big a deal. Even if something like this did bother me I would still be making the same arguments. Objectively speaking in the overall grand scheme of the narrative this is a relatively minor issue. It isn’t like Alm being revealed as royal which throws any meaning the conflict he had with Berkut out the window the minute it’s revealed(honestly Berkut vs Alm is basically just a worse version of Naruto vs Neji except in this instance the themes are actually being contradicted). It’s just a minor world building inconsistency and you can find those in any story if you look hard enough even the most well thought out worlds have them(Mr. 3 not sinking in alabasta when he’s a devil fruit user comes to mind). Like I’m not saying it shouldn’t bother. I just don’t think it’s that big of an objective criticism. Because it really isn’t. 

[eclipse]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

I thought it was a rather clever comment T.T

So I'm going to answer this seriously, because it wasn't clever.

The entire point of the Dragon Veins is consistency, which is mostly because it's a gameplay mechanic with a side of story.  Thus, the developers are a lot less likely to break Dragon Veins because (insert stupid reason here).  The "inconsistency" is confined to a single DLC, which is then (shoddily) explained by the story.  Since the trio is treated as royalty for said asspull reason, they're allowed to use the Dragon Veins.  It's also meant to justify the existence of the DLC item (though why anyone thought said item was a good idea is anyone's guess).  Not exactly a good reason, but it's an attempt at internal consistency.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

You see that’s the difference between you and me. I don’t think minor issues like this are that big a deal. Even if something like this did bother me I would still be making the same arguments. Objectively speaking in the overall grand scheme of the narrative this is a relatively minor issue. It isn’t like Alm being revealed as royal which throws any meaning the conflict he had with Berkut out the window the minute it’s revealed(honestly Berkut vs Alm is basically just a worse version of Naruto vs Neji except in this instance the themes are actually being contradicted). It’s just a minor world building inconsistency and you can find those in any story if you look hard enough even the most well thought out worlds have them(Mr. 3 not sinking in alabasta when he’s a devil fruit user comes to mind). Like I’m not saying it shouldn’t bother. I just don’t think it’s that big of an objective criticism. Because it really isn’t. 

Hey.

Quote

2. Not everyone will have the same opinion as you.  This is okay.  Let it go.

 

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

 

Hey.

 

Like I said, If that sort of thing bothers other people that’s fine. That’s a matter of personal preference and if one values those things in their stories and this is their reason for disliking said story. That is totally understandable and fine with me. I’m not at all saying those feelings are invalid. I’m simply saying in regards to objective critical literary analysis that it doesn’t really matter all things considered. Again, it’s not like those things take away from a stories ideas or messages. It’s like in One Piece where Katakuri’s devil fruit is described as a logia type in one chapter but a special paramecia in the next. Is that an objective issue with the story? Yes because it is inconsistent. However, when weighed against every other aspect of the story(characters, plot, themes, etc.) does that one minor inconsistency really matter? Personally I don’t think it does. Is it a little annoying? Yeah it is but One Piece isn’t a worse story because of it. Therefore I don’t really see it as that valid of criticism to complain about.

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Like I said, If that sort of thing bothers other people that’s fine. That’s a matter of personal preference and if one values those things in their stories and this is their reason for disliking said story. That is totally understandable and fine with me. I’m not at all saying those feelings are invalid. I’m simply saying in regards to objective critical literary analysis that it doesn’t really matter all things considered. Again, it’s not like those things take away from a stories ideas or messages. It’s like in One Piece where Katakuri’s devil fruit is described as a logia type in one chapter but a special paramecia in the next. Is that an objective issue with the story? Yes because it is inconsistent. However, when weighed against every other aspect of the story(characters, plot, themes, etc.) does that one minor inconsistency really matter? Personally I don’t think it does. Is it a little annoying? Yeah it is but One Piece isn’t a worse story because of it. Therefore I don’t really see it as that valid of criticism to complain about.

You are not the bastion of critical literary analysis.  And even if you were, we're talking about why someone enjoys a story or not.  Is this truly the type of hill you're gonna die on?

[Ottservia]

Just now, eclipse said:

You are not the bastion of critical literary analysis.  And even if you were, we're talking about why someone enjoys a story or not.  Is this truly the type of hill you're gonna die on?

That’s not what I’m saying though. Like again if he doesn’t enjoy the story for that reason then I take no issue with it. Like there’s no wrong reason to like or dislike something. Again that’s just how personal preference works. It’s when he tries to frame it as a legitimate criticism that kind of bothers me because it’s not a legitimate narrative flaw as it is purely a matter of personal preference. It’s like people criticizing Oda’s artstyle for being too goofy. That’s not an actual flaw. That’s just personal preference. Now if you were phrase that in a way that Oda’s artstyle somehow makes One Piece worse then I take issue with it.