Why are supports still considered to be a good form of storytelling in FE?

[joevar]

5 hours ago, Benice said:

I agree with all of this. Except maybe the deviation bit, but I could be misunderstanding you.

i'll just give example to explain what i meant. But i might be wrong since i've yet to start my own playthru of 3H, but based on what i've seen: many character ( especially the blue haired sword guy) have extreme change in attitude based on who make support with him or rather which class he ended up with post timeskip. he could be caring best friend but also ruthless and no-nonsense enemy to that same friend... like really? if he is actually someone who is easy to manipulate and sway, then okay. but be clear or at least give hints he is like that. which im 100% sure thats not the case here.

another extreme case would be the entire original member of black eagle. either they hate edelgard to death, or love her to death on a whim of byleth... no principle at all. which make any kind of support we did a moot.

11 hours ago, Lynsanity said:

In Echoes, you get characters popping up in every town and shrine and reflecting on what's been going on, their whereabouts, other characters etc. You even get some character arcs this way, like Tobin basically airs his grievances towards Alm near the end, Gray thinks back to Ram village when they're in Rigel and gets some class consciousness. It's very organic and feels similar to the base conversations in Tellius.

i liked that part too. subtle and simple but gives you idea of some characters emotion. which i hoped next time we will get smaller base or even just a camp of sort . that way its easier to make small conversation thats inline with the on going plot. instead of big hub like Garreg mach that littered with useless talks.

5 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Until you literally win the game by getting into Dorothea's once-missing panties, it isn't "first and foremost a dating sim."

you wish that panties have more plot relevancy huh. imagine a panties that can give ability who wears it a convincing argument even in life-or-death situation.
im joking okay, please forgive me

[AnonymousSpeed]

Dang, this is a lot of words y'all've posted.

Allow me to contribute.

Supports are a pretty awful as a narrative device, but I think the real problem is a fundamentally misguided approach to storytelling in Fire Emblem. The actual narrative is pretty weak, and essentially has to be because of factors like permadeath which the plot can't really account for. Trying to make the written narrative the main focus is kind of a mistake.

Fire Emblem plots (what the characters say and do) are always much worse than the stories that arise from gameplay. When a unit gets RNG blessed and unexpectedly becomes MVP? That's a cool Fire Emblem story to share with people. When Franz gets killed on Phantom Ship so you try and raise Forde but he gets berserked, kills Artur, and then dies because fffffffrick Forde? That's a cool Fire Emblem story to share with people.

Perhaps most importantly, this "emergent narrative" actually accounts for what happens in the gameplay.

• If a character dies, that's the end of their role in the player's story. If your best character dies, the story probably won't acknowledge it. Your army has been crippled but that's not really important.
• A character is better or worse than normal? That's reflected by different performance in battle, whereas the written plot doesn't really care if Bartre has speed equal to his level.
• If you really like a character, you can turn them into one of your most powerful units with enough care and attention, but such favoritism can never make them the protagonist of the written story. However, it can it so, at the end of the game, you look back and know that your favorite unit was the real hero who did all the heavy lifting.

That said, supports are still useful to establish a little bit about characters. They provide you with a starting point, give you just enough to semi-arbitrarily get attached to someone instead of utterly arbitrarily attached- not that using Ralph just because he looks like a chad is an "invalid" reason. However, using supports as a serious narrative device is silly and reflects the general narrative failings inherent to Fire Emblem.

Supports should thus be very self-contained. The relationship between two characters can grow but the characters themselves cannot grow because it won't be reflected anywhere else. Anything which is more contextual should instead be reserved for base conversations, which I think everyone here has said they liked? Not sure, I don't want to check.

Some people have suggesting getting rid of permadeath and making the use of characters more traditional, and I understand the impulse. However, if you get rid of permadeath, you might as well get rid of growths and make it Final Fantasy on a grid. The randomness of a character dying or getting different stats is one the core features of Fire Emblem, part of the appeal, part of the reason you play this game and not something else. It's fine to want a different game, but it would be better to just find a game which already suits your tastes instead of changing Fire Emblem.

5 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

That is a gross exaggeration. The "dating sim" aspects of the game are still incredibly minor. Until you literally win the game by getting into Dorothea's once-missing panties, it isn't "first and foremost a dating sim."

Categorical labels themselves are gross exaggerations. I mean, do the panties really have to fall in the category of "once-missing" for the spirit to be the same?

EDIT: Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

Edited April 25, 2021 by AnonymousSpeed

[JimmyBeans]

@Benice Don't have time to read everyone's replies so forgive me if others have already brought it up.

I, for the most part, agree with what you are saying which is why the base conversations in RD are so good. They allow for much more than 2 characters to interact which ties in to the awkwardness you talked about when all these characters a forced into 1 on 1 scenarios. Also they always happen at certain parts in the game, and while some characters in that game still need a lot more fleshing out, every character is present for at least 1 base convo which is a good start.

My thoughts go to the Rolf base convo especially in regards to his mother and siblings. I don't expect supports will go away any time soon, but if they announced the next FE game had 0 support convos it wouldn't faze me in the least, because if I were to make a list the best written characters in FE, a lot of them would be from games that don't have supports.

There are plenty of ways to make a well written character in my eyes, and while supports and one of those ways they can also, as they have shown in some cases, do more harm to a character than good.

[Ottservia]

11 hours ago, Benice said:

I think I'm starting to sound like a broken record again, but I don't see why this is something that supports alone can accomplish for the series. Having lighthearted events occur between missions is something totally doable and is far less restrictive.

Because Fire Emblem is a game with like 30+ characters per game. Do you know how hard it is to balance a cast that size while giving each one of them something to do or say during any given story event. Only a series as gargantuan as one piece can pull that off without things feeling bloated and One Piece is a 1000+ chapter weekly manga. I do agree that the support system should be made less restrictive in that maybe instead of just two characters we have multiple as well as making said supports more dynamic in presentation and style. That much I agree with but you have to realize what kind of game Fire Emblem is first before you go and try to fix a system that isn’t broken.

[sinfonic18]

I remember viewing a support in my last playthrough of TH between Lysithea and Felix that somehow didn't come until after the timeskip when it was supposed to appear before the timeskip. It just seemed... Very awkward and out of place for those characters since they changed a lot. This is probably unrelated to the topic and isn't a useful post, but I wanted to share how out of place it felt lol.

[Samz707]

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Because Fire Emblem is a game with like 30+ characters per game. Do you know how hard it is to balance a cast that size while giving each one of them something to do or say during any given story event. Only a series as gargantuan as one piece can pull that off without things feeling bloated and One Piece is a 1000+ chapter weekly manga. I do agree that the support system should be made less restrictive in that maybe instead of just two characters we have multiple as well as making said supports more dynamic in presentation and style. That much I agree with but you have to realize what kind of game Fire Emblem is first before you go and try to fix a system that isn’t broken.

They don't need to give everyone mini-scenes but FE7 and Echoes showed the series can have cutscenes that play differently if someone happens to be dead.

For instance, if we get an FE6 Remake, Gonzalez probably doesn't to be involved in a story event  but Lilina or Marcus probably should.

Some FE games use supports to basically have the entirety of a character be only fleshed out in them, (or even entire relationships, like Awakening.), supports should be, well a supporting story element, sure not every single character can get fleshed out moments where they show up in the story if they're alive,  but that doesn't mean we can't at least have some of these moments.

Echoes has a slightly different scene if you got to the Necrodragon island but Kamui wasn't recruited/is dead, where it's Boey instead, that's changing the story to account for a character being dead, Kamui gets a character moment if he's alive (Since his fear of Necrodragons) but Boey is a fall-back.

You could basically do the same thing with a cutscene in an FE6 Remake but make it so that it's Merlinus as the fall-back for Lilina or Marcus.

9 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

That is a gross exaggeration. The "dating sim" aspects of the game are still incredibly minor. Until you literally win the game by getting into Dorothea's once-missing panties, it isn't "first and foremost a dating sim."

Except you find her once-missing Broach so checkmate!

You also find people's lost gloves, technically same thing, probably, not really.

I wonder if anyone just barely passed over into "S-rank" territory via this.

"I'm sorry Professor, I just see you as a fri-"

"I found your missing gloves."

"Kiss me."

 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Samz707

[joevar]

4 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Some FE games use supports to basically have the entirety of a character be only fleshed out in them, (or even entire relationships, like Awakening.), supports should be, well a supporting story element, sure not every single character can get fleshed out moments where they show up in the story if they're alive,  but that doesn't mean we can't at least have some of these moments.

the problem is, its trying to hard to make both character who have differing opinion, traits, etc, to become fond of each other by the end of it. it escalates so much just in 3 conversation also not helping. this is less apparent pre-awakening, but after that?

so rather than removing, or fixing support, i say why cant we have characters moment where they dont have to like each other, but still flesh their characterization.

8 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Some people have suggesting getting rid of permadeath and making the use of characters more traditional, and I understand the impulse. However, if you get rid of permadeath, you might as well get rid of growths and make it Final Fantasy on a grid. The randomness of a character dying or getting different stats is one the core features of Fire Emblem, part of the appeal, part of the reason you play this game and not something else. It's fine to want a different game, but it would be better to just find a game which already suits your tastes instead of changing Fire Emblem

now if only IS can afford to make different but same-y game with different approaches and mechanic ala Atlus with its SMT and persona, im all for it. but we know it wont happen since its not 2000s anymore where a series can release a sequel and spin off every 1-2 or so years (meaning, its now very exhausting and long just to make one, better focus on one thing right)

[Use the Falchion]

On 4/25/2021 at 8:31 AM, joevar said:

But i might be wrong since i've yet to start my own playthru of 3H, but based on what i've seen: many character ( especially the blue haired sword guy) have extreme change in attitude based on who make support with him or rather which class he ended up with post timeskip. he could be caring best friend but also ruthless and no-nonsense enemy to that same friend... like really? if he is actually someone who is easy to manipulate and sway, then okay. but be clear or at least give hints he is like that. which im 100% sure thats not the case here.

You're talking about Felix, and I don't think you're entirely right here. Felix is a jerk both before and after the time-skip, but he's also a softer character after the timeskip. (A nice inversion to most of the cast - where most of the characters are jaded and cynical after the time-skip. Felix is weirdly softer.) Felix is a jerk to those he disagrees with, doesn't think highly of, or doesn't respect. But he's rarely ever the caring best friend, and when he is it's in a very tsundere way. Felix is still a jerk, still blunt, and overall still disrespectful of people he doesn't agree with, but that isn't mutually exclusive with him caring or not. In terms of how he is when he's facing down old allies, that's completely in-character for Felix. Felix's bonds with his friends and family are strained at best (looking like he tolerates them for most of the game rather than actively enjoying them), so it makes sense on one path he breaks with them while on another he gets the chance to re-forge them to a degree. The game gives you plenty of hints at this through his support conversations, Monastery dialogue (especially after the Gronder 2 if you're either Blue Lions or Golden Deer*), and enemy encounter dialogue. 

But back to the bigger picture, this is one of the points of support conversations. We get to see why someone like Felix is the way he is in ways that subplots wouldn't be able to fully explore. Felix's relationship with Sylvain is different from his one with Dimitri, which in turn is different from his one with Ingrid, which is different from how he treats and views Annette. Subplots would be able to address maybe one of these or group them together as "childhood friends" instead of addressing them each individually. 

 

Back to OP, I'll copy and paste some of what I said on the other thread, since a lot of great points have already covered what I could say and more. 

Supports to me aren't about character growth in every case. They're about characterization, little things and interactions that the game may not give you otherwise, that help expound upon who the characters are, what makes them tick, and what they fight for outside of "I fight for my friends/the bigger picture/my homeland." It's the mix of this and the character arc supports that make a character - and their support system - robust.

Would we know that Ogier had a little sister if it wasn't for supports? Or that Tharja writes to her family? Or that the Charon crest may or may not bring bad luck/weather to Lysithea and Catherine? Or how about the fact that Owain and Cynthia may look like they like the same stories, but really disagree on how such stories should end? Or how Inigo was super shy as a youth? Or how Xander actually may be depressed and/or suicidal? Or the story of Nada Kuya? These things are what make the characters in Fire Emblem so fun. Anyone can like the same five units for their versatility, but it's how units interact that make a lot of units fan favorites. And none of the above things need a subplot or character arc. They're just fun interactions.* 

For a non-FE moment, look at the party and after-party scenes in Avengers: Age of Ultron. It's literally just our heroes hanging out with their friends and with each other. No stress, no real plot relevance, and they're easily some of the best scenes in the movie. Why? Because it's people's favorite characters interacting with each other. that's why people like Avengers ensemble movies or the Justice League cartoons or the superhero crossover episodes. (Or the comedy show crossover episodes.) There doesn't need to be an arc or reason or relevance for it, the fun of the interaction is enough. 

Look at Lorenz - we can track his growth all throughout his supports with Leonie, and they're some of the best for the character. He goes on a little arc. But Lorenz doesn't need to go on another arc for his supports with Ferdinand or Claude. Those supports are about characterizing how Lorenz feels about (what he perceives as) his responsibility, not nobility in general. 

Or take a look at Felix and his supports with Seteth. Felix doesn't necessarily learn or grow from it in a major or noticeable way, but we get some nice insight into Seteth on it, something that we might miss otherwise. 

Subplots within the overarching story are fine, but they shouldn't replace supports. It's just not necessary. Ogier doesn't need a subplot about finding a way to feed his family because he lost his little sister. The fact he's a mercenary tells us that, and his supports with Lilina tell us something even more precious. We don't need Saleh and Eirika to stop Grado's forces in a subplot that has Eirika recreate the Nada Kuya myth. Hearing about the story is fine.

This isn't me saying subplots are bad - subplots and arcs done well can only help. But they don't replace character interactions. Lorenz's subplot about dealing with Archeron in his support doesn't help us understand his views of nobility, it shows us that the Alliance has a lot of petty squabbles. Felix's subplot helps us understand Felix better, but that's because of Rodrigue, not Felix himself (and should really only be counted as a subplot in the Blue Lions path). 

 

*Humorously, last week I had a discussion/debate with someone on why a character in a show I was watching needed a subplot, kind of like you. The two instances to me were a little different however. This character was part of an ensemble cast and wasn't getting enough screen-time. My fix was a subplot that would give him screen-time, hopefully give him some fun interactions, and ultimately give him depth. This wasn't trying to replace the interactions he already had, but expound on them. That's the difference. Subplots should expound on the characters, not replace what few interactions they are given. 

[joevar]

44 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Felix's bonds with his friends and family are strained at best (looking like he tolerates them for most of the game rather than actively enjoying them), so it makes sense on one path he breaks with them while on another he gets the chance to re-forge them to a degree. The game gives you plenty of hints at this through his support conversations, Monastery dialogue (especially after the Gronder 2 if you're either Blue Lions or Golden Deer*), and enemy encounter dialogue. 

But back to the bigger picture, this is one of the points of support conversations. We get to see why someone like Felix is the way he is in ways that subplots wouldn't be able to fully explore. Felix's relationship with Sylvain is different from his one with Dimitri, which in turn is different from his one with Ingrid, which is different from how he treats and views Annette. Subplots would be able to address maybe one of these or group them together as "childhood friends" instead of addressing them each individually. 

still not quite convinced about what you said: both antagonising and re-kindling friendship with his childhood is make sense thru the support and is a good point,... its contradicting. why would support makes it logical for both to take place. unless its something like: he became enemy at the end if you didnt talk (support)or trying to understand (support) him enough. which means both situation could happen but at different level. But, was it really a deciding factor ?

...or maybe im wrong about this part, which actually for the better because i will start my own playthru soon, then pleasantly surprised to have better experience than what i initially expect

44 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Avengers: Age of Ultron

dunno, cant comment. and no, i dont even like avengers to even know what/who is ultron.

44 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Supports to me aren't about character growth in every case.

oh it was not, but it is now. already said in my first post (before what you quote) about my problem for support is how they become in later games.

44 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

we can track his growth all throughout his supports with Leonie,

and you even gives example about it yourself about support giving characters growth...

anything you said below that about interactions is something that i agree, altho not 100%

-----------------------------------------------------

BUT i really dunno what gives you the idea i want interactions removed. im really curious

Edited April 26, 2021 by joevar

[Use the Falchion]

On 4/26/2021 at 10:22 AM, joevar said:

oh it was not, but it is now. already said in my first post (before what you quote) about my problem for support is how they become in later games.

I still disagree with that. I can name dozens of support from modern games that aren't about character growth.

Manuela's supports with Seteth, Flayn, Hanneman, and Sylvain; Ignatz's supports with Raphael; Loenie's supports with Felix, Sylvain, Hilda, Lysithea, or many other people; Aversa's supports with either Robin; Priam's supports with either Robin; Chrom's supports with Robin, Olivia, Lissa, Maribelle, or even Frederick (but you can make a case on that); Odin's supports with Hinata, Laslow, Leo, Elise, Camilla, Felicia, or Selena. Should I go on?

Do supports get annoying when all they do is talk about the character's gimmicks? Yes, but that's a problem with the character to me, not the function itself. Nyx, Ignatz, Bernadetta, and a few others aren't bad because supports are bad. The supports are bad because in a lot of ways they're bad characters. They're one-note. There's little depth to them outside of their one big thing; Bernadetta and Peri are partial exceptions in the sense that they have underlying issues that should be addressed, but the amount of time it takes to get to those underlying issues is problematic. 

Some are, but again, Supports aren't exclusively development, and it's not their primary focus. If there is growth, it's secondary. Most of the characters it's about exploring or creating a bond. And in most cases, if there is growth, it's nothing that can or should be taken to extremes outside of the supports. 

 

On 4/26/2021 at 10:22 AM, joevar said:

BUT i really dunno what gives you the idea i want interactions removed. im really curious

That comment wasn't directed at you. Anything after Felix wasn't directed at you. I specifically said - "Back to OP." 

On 4/26/2021 at 9:55 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Back to OP, I'll copy and paste some of what I said on the other thread, since a lot of great points have already covered what I could say and more. 

 

On 4/26/2021 at 10:22 AM, joevar said:

dunno, cant comment. and no, i dont even like avengers to even know what/who is ultron.

That's fine. The point was that the best scenes are just the characters interacting. It was the subplot or the main character arcs that people talk about with this movie, or for most MCU movies really. The highlights are seeing the characters interact. Supports at their best are for characterization. Subplots and arcs can play a part, but they shouldn't erase the supports, which is what OP was originally arguing if I was interpreting it right. (At least that's what it was in the FE 4 remake thread.) Again, this wasn't aimed at you. 

[Benice]

Spoiler

 

On 4/25/2021 at 4:27 AM, 𝙵ᴇɴʀᴇɪʀ said:

to clarify: what you want is characters development that doesn't have to be tied to supports only, but rather be related to the game's story or as additional events happening when needed? well, that's the thing: it probably wouldn't be a FE title if it didn't had supports, wich are pretty much the main "exclusive" feature that the franchise started to offer/trend after the release of Genealogy.

I disagree on that bit. I don't know a ton of people who play FE, but I'm pretty sure it's the setting and characters that draw most people in. Perhaps also the strategic element to it as well, which offers more depth than some other big titles like Pokemon. I am not certain, though.

On 4/25/2021 at 6:31 AM, joevar said:

many character ( especially the blue haired sword guy) have extreme change in attitude based on who make support with him or rather which class he ended up with post timeskip. he could be caring best friend but also ruthless and no-nonsense enemy to that same friend... like really?

Ah. Yeah, that is kind of inherent to the structure of TH as it is. I do think it could have been done much, much better, but I actually think that one doesn't necessarily fall onto the way supports work.

On 4/25/2021 at 12:49 PM, Ottservia said:

Because Fire Emblem is a game with like 30+ characters per game. Do you know how hard it is to balance a cast that size while giving each one of them something to do or say during any given story event.

From a dev's perspective: I don't know exactly how hard it would be. I haven't really gotten far enough in my projects to really know. Logistically, I don't think it will be that difficult, though.

But from an FE fan perspective, I don't think it can be that hard. Again, Berwick Saga did this with few issues all the way back in 2005, on the PS2. It had about 33 playable characters and many NPCs to develop, and it worked extremely well. For FEs with the magnitude of Radiant Dawn and the like, trying to include every character would honestly be kinda a bad idea IMO. However, with the success of TH and the new direction it went makes me think that, remakes aside, they'll be keeping smaller but more developed cast. This is all speculation, but for casts the size of TH (or smaller), supports are absolutely not necessary nor the only way to give characters screentime and major development.

On 4/26/2021 at 7:55 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Supports to me aren't about character growth in every case. They're about characterization, little things and interactions that the game may not give you otherwise, that help expound upon who the characters are, what makes them tick, and what they fight for outside of "I fight for my friends/the bigger picture/my homeland." It's the mix of this and the character arc supports that make a character - and their support system - robust.

Yes, but what about this is supports-exclusive? There are so many different ways to learn about characters.

My problem with supports isn't always the topics they cover, it is the opportunity cost and limitations it puts in the game.

On 4/26/2021 at 7:55 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Would we know that Ogier had a little sister if it wasn't for supports? [...]

In existing FEs, we would not know this, as, FEs 9, 10, 15 and sorta 16 aside, supports were the only way we learned about these characters. If Ogier had no supports, his only dialogue would have been his appearance in chapter 8. My argument isn't that characterization shouldn't matter or that every support written is terrible, it's that the system is fundamentally flawed and should see major adjustments or removal in favor of other methods that don't bring along as many issues. This isn't so much an argument about "old/existing FE bad" as "Why not ditch supports for future FEs?".

On 4/26/2021 at 7:55 AM, Use the Falchion said:

For a non-FE moment, look at the party and after-party scenes in Avengers: Age of Ultron. It's literally just our heroes hanging out with their friends and with each other. No stress, no real plot relevance, and they're easily some of the best scenes in the movie. Why? Because it's people's favorite characters interacting with each other. that's why people like Avengers ensemble movies or the Justice League cartoons or the superhero crossover episodes. (Or the comedy show crossover episodes.) There doesn't need to be an arc or reason or relevance for it, the fun of the interaction is enough. 

In fact, this is actually another good point. When using supports as the only way to characterize, something like this cannot happen due to the one-on-one nature of them. Plus, as long as supports have gameplay merit, locking supports behind an event like this would be annoying for players, since at least a handful of characters simply wouldn't be able to reach A/B support until this story event happens. In a scenario where supports aren't the only way for events to unfold, it could work much better, since you wouldn't have to arbitrarily lock one of three/four interactions behind a story event. Events wouldn't have to follow an C-B-A-(S) format, so they could have a lot more going on before and after, rather than having a roadblock in the middle or at the end of a support.

On 4/27/2021 at 11:44 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Nyx, Ignatz, Bernadetta, and a few others aren't bad because supports are bad. The supports are bad because in a lot of ways they're bad characters. They're one-note.

Supports exacerbate this problem tenfold. If any of those characters didn't need to have individual interactions with every single character the devs want to have them talk with, we wouldn't need to see "I LIKE ART!/STAY AWAY FROM ME/I'M NOT A CHILD" about twenty times. One-note characters do not have to be boring, frustrating or flat. Will a character with multiple facets most likely end up more interesting? Probably. However, one-note characters only become deeply hated or boring when that one note is spread over far more distance that it should. When that one aspect is focused and becomes a driving force that isn't too frequently paraded around, it stops being problem. (Plus, it's a somewhat odd opinion of mine that storytelling is the most important part of a story.)

Plenty of very popular characters are one-note as well-Hilda, for example. Heck, Ike is generally quite one-note. Many adore Ike, but there isn't that much to him. It is the way that his story is told that makes himpopular.

On 4/27/2021 at 11:44 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Subplots and arcs can play a part, but they shouldn't erase the supports, which is what OP was originally arguing if I was interpreting it right.

That isn't quite what I want. I would like to see the exodus of the support mechanic in favor of event-driven characterization. A few reasons being:

• Supports are limiting. I think this part is fairly straightforwards.*
• They don't work that well when trying to add lots of depth to a cast.
• Related to the above, they make one-note characters more boring.
• The way that they're structured causes problems for tonal consistency.
• They don't bring much to the table that other systems don't, and come at a great opportunity cost.^

*The reason I talk about subplots so much is this particular point. Supports cannot allow for subplots to exist on top of characterization, but events can. Another major thing that supports limit is actual change in characters, short of things like timeskips occuring, which bypass the Supports and can still be undone by them.

^As Shanty Pete's First Mate mentioned earlier, the advantage to supports is mostly in player choice. Gameplay is a whole other beast, but I don't think there's that much that can't be done in other ways.

 

Edit: Also, I apologize if I sound angry or frustrated, that's not my intent, but I'm not the best at conveying thoughts via text.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Benice

[Use the Falchion]

10 hours ago, Benice said:

In fact, this is actually another good point. When using supports as the only way to characterize, something like this cannot happen due to the one-on-one nature of them. Plus, as long as supports have gameplay merit, locking supports behind an event like this would be annoying for players, since at least a handful of characters simply wouldn't be able to reach A/B support until this story event happens. In a scenario where supports aren't the only way for events to unfold, it could work much better, since you wouldn't have to arbitrarily lock one of three/four interactions behind a story event. Events wouldn't have to follow an C-B-A-(S) format, so they could have a lot more going on before and after, rather than having a roadblock in the middle or at the end of a support.

I'm not against this at all. I've even written fan versions of trio supports* and am a fan of the base conversations in POR and RD. My problem comes from the idea that you think these are good substitutes for supports. Trust me, they're not. When you get a group of characters, you're not going to get a lot of depth in the writing. It's just not always feasible because of the sheer amount of time needed to do these. What you do get is fun character interaction and dynamics that may not have existed otherwise. These group things and base conversations and subplots are great supplements, not substitutes. That's where the crux of the issue lies between you and me at least. I have no problems with subplots or multi-person dialogues, but they aren't replacements because you run into the same problem as bad supports - the quality will determine the effectiveness. Nyx going "I'M CURSED TO LOOK LIKE A CHILD" will happen in group supports or dialogues just as often as it does in other things if her subplot is about dark magic at all. Does that free up space for her supports to talk about other things? Absolutely! But again, that is the two working in tandem, not subbing out one for another. Nyx would still be as one-note with a subplot about her youthful body if that's all she got as she would with all of the supports about it.

 

10 hours ago, Benice said:

Supports are limiting. I think this part is fairly straightforward

I don't disagree, but I don't think throwing them out works either. 

 

10 hours ago, Benice said:

Related to the above, they make one-note characters more boring.

Again, I don't disagree, but I don't blame the supports system, but the writing. 

 

10 hours ago, Benice said:

They don't work that well when trying to add lots of depth to a cast.

I do disagree here. They'd work better than subplots that could unnecessarily bloat the story. Imagine how robust RD's cast would be had the support system actually been good? Characters like Vika, who exist for a plotline, say a few lines, and then are effectively tossed aside, might actually be memorable characters outside of just their design! RD is a game that had no room for subplots - heck, it barely had room for it's own plot! Supports would have been a great way to add that depth. 

 

10 hours ago, Benice said:

The way that they're structured causes problems for tonal consistency.

Only for certain characters at best. There's no tonal inconsistency in the supports of a majority of characters. You're treating the exceptions like it's the rule. 

 

10 hours ago, Benice said:

They don't bring much to the table that other systems don't, and come at a great opportunity cost.^

Again, I disagree. They bring depth and interaction that other systems would fail to bring. Again, the reason Xenoblade's system worked was because of the tiny cast. And H2H's in XC2 have some pretty arbitrary blocks on them as well, so their system isn't inherently better. Valkyria Chronicle 4's Side stories are great and accomplish what we both want, but I still see them as a supplement at best because they're simply giving us more time with characters would wouldn't get screen-time because they're not main characters. The VC series also has the benefit of characterizing their units by their fighting abilities (something Fates tried, to varying degrees of success). But again, these are all for the same purpose and all come with opportunity costs. In VC, you don't see these side characters interact with most of the main cast or even other side characters you think they should interact with. You don't get anything outside of that side-story. In Xenoblade, the opportunity cost is a larger cast. 

Xenoblade 2 shows you the downside of subplots exclusively! The subplots focus on the character's gimmick, with maybe one or two extra things thrown in. Vale is still edgy, Ursula is still shy, and Godfrey is still Godfrey. And those H2H's you praise so much? They do the exact same thing as supports, but they're limited to maybe one or two conversations per blade, and you don't get to see nearly as many fun interactions. That's the benefit of supports. Oh, and they're also locked behind arbitrary things, much like supports.

 

10 hours ago, Benice said:

There are so many different ways to learn about characters.

The problem with your solutions are the same with the bad supports however - the details that could be shared won't unless they are necessary, or unless they're shoved in. In your scenario, we wouldn't learn about Ogier's sister if it didn't come up in his subplot. In your scenario, we probably wouldn't learn about how Tharja writes home to her family or her good deeds to civilians, because her subplot would be focused on Robin, not about those things. Supports can be used to benefit these and/or supplement them. How awesome would it be if you learn about Tharja's writing of letters in one support, and in a base conversation she read a draft to said support character, or to another character you knew she was close with (in my head it'd be Olivia) about the events of the previous battle(s)? Or maybe a trio support where Tharja, Miriel, and Ricken are working together and debate their differing uses of method-testing, and then in a latter base conversation we gain a randomized spell-book that they created together? This isn't one erasing the other, but everything working in tandem to create characters with depth. Or, if one got far enough on a support chain between Bernadetta and Seteth, and maybe Seteth and Hilda, they would start a Book Club, and you could have base conversations surrounding that. No subplot needed, but more interaction and building upon relationships already there in a cool, collaborative setting. (...I may want to write a Trio support about this now...) 

 

Again, I don't disagree with your thinking that supports aren't an end-all, be-all. But I still disagree with your idea to substitute them with something else. That doesn't work, because the tradeoffs are still there. You do group conversations or side-quests, and you're still most likely going to get that same level of depth that the shallow supports have because you don't have the time or space to go deeper into characters. You do sub-plots, then they're going to focus on said character's gimmick, because the characters are will likely only be given this one time to shine, ala XC2. (And say what you will about locking supports behind events/time passing, but at least that allows for some change to occur.) And like supports, the quality of the subplots will vary.

Lastly, I think supports have been improving. We've gone from limited supports, to nearly everyone supports each other, to voiced supports, to support trees that aren't subject to the three C-B-A line. Claude and Petra/Flayn have four supports. Seteth and Manuela have four supports. Dimitri and Annette/Ingrid/Catherine/Flayn have four supports. Soon, we might get a game where each character has six. The more supports available to any given support means the more time to have a conversation, to build those interactions, to go beyond the gimmick (or in the case of Fates characters, to address the gimmicks in different ways). But you're right, Supports can only go so far. So they can and should be supplemented, as they continue to improve. 

 

*I've written:

Edegard/Dimitri/Claude (with guest appearances from Manuela and Hanneman)

Flayn/Manuela/Seteth 

Lorenz/Felix/Edelgard (with a guest appearance from Manuela)

Hilda/Sylvain/Marianne (with Bernie as the focus character)

Ashe/Annette/Lysithea (with a guest appearance from Mercedes)

Dimitri/Dorothea/F!Byleth

Am currently working on Dimitri/Dedue/Petra (with guest appearances from Byleth and ideally Shamir) 

 

Each of these have three supports with pre- and post-battle dialogue involved. Each single support is about twice the length of a normal support. This adds up. Out of those six, the only two where things move forward is Flayn/Manuela/Seteth and Dimitri/Dorothea/F!Byleth, because those work with the supports in order to explore the characters and create an arc that fits both the characters and the story being told. 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Use the Falchion

[Benice]

6 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

These group things and base conversations and subplots are great supplements, not substitutes.

...

You know, before I write another really long post, perhaps I should just agree to disagree. I can write another one if you want to continue, but I fear that we'll end up going in circles.

[Use the Falchion]

2 hours ago, Benice said:

You know, before I write another really long post, perhaps I should just agree to disagree. I can write another one if you want to continue, but I fear that we'll end up going in circles.

Fine by me. Regardless of our disagreements, it's been cool having this discussion with you!

[Ottservia]

20 hours ago, Benice said:

Plenty of very popular characters are one-note as well-Hilda, for example. Heck, Ike is generally quite one-note. Many adore Ike, but there isn't that much to him. It is the way that his story is told that makes himpopular.

I think you need to re-examine your definition of “One note” if Ike is fitting into that definition 

On 4/27/2021 at 2:44 PM, Use the Falchion said:

Do supports get annoying when all they do is talk about the character's gimmicks? Yes, but that's a problem with the character to me, not the function itself. Nyx, Ignatz, Bernadetta, and a few others aren't bad because supports are bad. The supports are bad because in a lot of ways they're bad characters. They're one-note. There's little depth to them outside of their one big thing; Bernadetta and Peri are partial exceptions in the sense that they have underlying issues that should be addressed, but the amount of time it takes to get to those underlying issues is problematic. 

while I agree with your overall point, I hesitate to call characters like Peri or Bernedetta(I would also say Nyx but it's been a while since I've read her supports) One note. The term "one note" is one I generally have an issue with already because I feel like a lot of people don't understand what it really means. To me at least, a one note character has the one character trait and almost nothing else. They're shallow and have little in the way of characterization and character development so basically the entirety of Sov's cast. It's in the way of characterization that I hesitate to call Bernie or Peri "One note" because they have good characterization. Just from the way Bernedetta interacts with others you get a good sense of who she is as a person. We know what she likes and dislikes and how her backstory feeds into those things. She's a hikkikamori and the fact that I can tell you that without the game directly stating that(It might actually call her something similar but it's been a while since I've played 3H) is a sign of good characterization. The same goes for Peri. You get a good sense of her personality just from maybe a few lines of dialogue. She's extremely childish with a peverse sense of innocence(which is exasperated in the japanese version where she refers to herself in the third person which is a very childish way of speaking). We also know she's a great cook because she had to learn to cook for herself because she killed all the servants. It's a bit of characterization that builds off of her backstory. It's those kinds of things that prevent a character from being one note to me because they have more characterization beyond just the one emphasized character trait. They're not like Kellam who only has the one joke(albeit a clever one) and not anymore characterization beyond that. Like characterization and character development go hand in hand. You can't really have one without the other. What makes a character well rounded is how those two things feed into each other.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Ottservia

[Baldrick]

10 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

I'm not against this at all. I've even written fan versions of trio supports* and am a fan of the base conversations in POR and RD. My problem comes from the idea that you think these are good substitutes for supports. Trust me, they're not. When you get a group of characters, you're not going to get a lot of depth in the writing.

Ogier can talk about his sister in a base conversation. In fact, you could take his supports with Lilina, and turn it into a base conversation. Just because they can feature more than two characters, it doesn’t mean they need to.

Quote

These group things and base conversations and subplots are great supplements, not substitutes

I don’t think supports can do anything that base conversations can’t. So it’s not so much a substitute as much as an improvement.

 

Quote

That's where the crux of the issue lies between you and me at least. I have no problems with subplots or multi-person dialogues, but they aren't replacements because you run into the same problem as bad supports - the quality will determine the effectiveness. Nyx going "I'M CURSED TO LOOK LIKE A CHILD" will happen in group supports or dialogues just as often as it does in other things if her subplot is about dark magic at all. Does that free up space for her supports to talk about other things? Absolutely! But again, that is the two working in tandem, not subbing out one for another. Nyx would still be as one-note with a subplot about her youthful body if that's all she got as she would with all of the supports about it.

With supports, Nyx has to explain her curse to every support partner, because the player could activate any of those supports first. This is not only a waste of the writer’s time, but the player is bored by several identical explanations. 
 

With base conversations, you only need to explain it once. 

 

[Use the Falchion]

53 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I think you need to re-examine your definition of “One note” if Ike is fitting into that definition 

while I agree with your overall point, I hesitate to call characters like Peri or Bernedetta(I would also say Nyx but it's been a while since I've read her supports) One note. The term "one note" is one I generally have an issue with already because I feel like a lot of people don't understand what it really means. To me at least, a one note character has the one character trait and almost nothing else. They're shallow and have little in the way of characterization and character development so basically the entirety of Sov's cast. It's in the way of characterization that I hesitate to call Bernie or Peri "One note" because they have good characterization. Just from the way Bernedetta interacts with others you get a good sense of who she is as a person. We know what she likes and dislikes and how her backstory feeds into those things. She's a hikkikamori and the fact that I can tell you that without the game directly stating that(It might actually call her something similar but it's been a while since I've played 3H) is a sign of good characterization. The same goes for Peri. You get a good sense of her personality just from maybe a few lines of dialogue. She's extremely childish with a peverse sense of innocence(which is exasperated in the japanese version where she refers to herself in the third person which is a very childish way of speaking). We also know she's a great cook because she had to learn to cook for herself because she killed all the servants. It's a bit of characterization that builds off of her backstory. It's those kinds of things that prevent a character from being one note to me because they have more characterization beyond just the one emphasized character trait. They're not like Kellam who only has the one joke(albeit a clever one) and not anymore characterization beyond that. Like characterization and character development go hand in hand. You can't really have one without the other. What makes a character well rounded is how those two things feed into each other.

 

 

That's totally fair! I consider Bernadetta a little more than one-note since most of her supports revolve around the same gimmick of "I'm afraid and do something irrational, and in later supports I calm down and we can become friends/allies." I 100% agree with you on Peri in the sense that she's not entirely one-note. I think she suffers from the same problems as Bernadetta overall (with her support with Laslow doing what Bernie's support with Byleth does in telling the audience about why they are the way they are), in that her supports go over the same thing a lot; but I also think her other skills in cooking and baking, and her attitude around combat balance things out, if only barely. The problem is that if most of Peri's supports revolve around her morality on mortality, then people aren't going to search for the other parts that really help flesh her out. (It's the same problem I have with people who claim all of the Awakening characters are one-note. They're not, but those players only see the gimmick and the end-results of pairings, not the conversations or relationships between the characters.)

I don't entirely agree on the fact that characterization needs character development, or at least not major, "my whole worldview is changed" development. The two definitely go hand-in-hand, and development can only help, but I don't agree that it's entirely necessary. What characters need are facets. Explore these facets, and things can be fun. And heck, add the development here! Have a character learn how to appreciate dancing. Not only have they learned something new, but they've developed in a way that makes it feel intimate to the characters supporting each other while still benefiting the readers. The Sakura/Elise, Azura/Elise, and Hinoka/Camilla support convos are great at this. In each we learn a little more about the characters in question, their skills and philosophies, and their relationship with each other. But nothing is so major that it feels like their whole characterization should be different. Azura and Elise go on an emotional sister-bonding journey; Hinoka learns about what she can and can't do and comes to respect Camilla; Sakura and Elise share their skills with instruments and play a song together. The characters developed, but it doesn't feel forced, rushed, or big. It's a small thing, and that's fine. To me, these are prime examples of what supports can and probably should be. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Just because they can feature more than two characters, it doesn’t mean they need to.

 I mean, it feels like you're arguing for support conversations with this comment, and I'm fine with that...

 

2 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

I don’t think supports can do anything that base conversations can’t. So it’s not so much a substitute as much as an improvement.

Nope, they're supplements because they aren't given time to build a real relationship. Base conversations are just that, conversations. I can have a conversation with anyone, but it's not going to mean anything if it only happens once. Relationships are built up over time, which is what supports help do. 

 

3 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

With supports, Nyx has to explain her curse to every support partner, because the player could activate any of those supports first. This is not only a waste of the writer’s time, but the player is bored by several identical explanations. 
 

With base conversations, you only need to explain it once. 

I don't disagree with the gist of this - heck, I almost edited in a scenario where this exact thing occurs! The reason I didn't was because I couldn't come up with a scenario where the Nyx would actively want to explain her gimmick to the whole army or where it'd feel real if/when she does. Nyx has to repeat everything because she has to keep restating the same thing to different people for the exact reason you say. But that's one of the prices of being an observer and not an in-game character. Sure Nyx could go "I'm only going to say this once, so listen well," but then she'd still be in the same boat for characters who join later. (This is also a Nyx-specific problem.) 

Or look at Lon'qu! He's a pretty simple character, and his backstory is only explored in one support. Lon'qu is NEVER announce his trauma for all of the army to hear. Why would he? What makes him different is that his support partners go about different ways to help him overcome his fears. With Cordelia it's practicing together; Sully and F!Robin actively beat or spar the trauma out of the poor swordsman; with Lissa it's due to constant exposure; Miriel chooses to find the boundaries of Lon'qu's trauma and work from there; Panne works to give Lon'qu a peaceful rest; Cherche provides closure; and Maribelle opts for the soft, patient approach. Each of these tackle more or less the same problem and never fully heal the issue, but they build a relationship. Same issue, different characterizations, not a waste of time. 

Base conversations deal with the exact same problem as Nyx's "let me share my history" approach - these are in-world conversations observed by the people who were there. Why on earth would a late-game unit know about a base conversation in Chapter 5? That makes no sense. 

 

So what's the fix?

The first option is to stop making characters with gimmicks that come to define them in such an overpowering way. This isn't the easiest fix, but it's the one we should be working towards and the one I think FE games usually achieve. (Unfortunately, I don't think Modern FE games are going to be without their Nowi/Nyx/Flayn archetypes. I like them as characters, but only one of those is even remotely appropriate for romance IMO.)

The second fix is what you propose, and to substitute supports for base conversations. Congratulations, you've fixed on gimmick but now have a bunch of shallow conversations between cast members that go nowhere and ultimately end up exacerbating characters' gimmicks because the creators have nowhere else to put them. Sure, you could have multiple base conversations, but then what's the functional difference between those and support conversations outside of "more people," because I can't think of one. 

The third fix is to have them exist together. Have support conversations be about building relationships between characters as individuals, and then have base conversations supplement those by having group conversations and settings. Raphael, Ingrid, and Bernadetta are going to behave differently in a room together when the focus is on food or knighthood than they would in paired supports, where the focus is elsewhere. The same goes for someone like Seteth talking with Flayn in public versus their private conversations. Why on earth would Seteth call Flayn is daughter in the presence of someone else in a random base conversation? This isn't for our benefit - we've already figured out their relationship LONG before this part. Heck, the game can even nod to that! It's for their benefit to do it and ours to watch. But the characters' benefit should come first. 

The fourth fix is subplots. This isn't a terrible fix, but it runs into the same issue as base conversations when done exclusively - these do the same things as support conversations. All of these exist to make the units into characters, but if all you have is a gimmick or archetype and one conversation or storyline, you're not going to get deep with these characters. Paralogues help fix this issue somewhat, but even they're not perfect - do you know how annoying it is to have Caspar for Mercedes' paralogue, or Lysithea for Ferdinand's? It makes so little sense at times, and these characters have so little in common it's jarring.

There's also the fact that neither subplots nor base conversations fully mesh with certain games. Subplots may work in FE4 or an FE4 remake, but they'd make far less sense in something like FE7 or Awakening. FE8 could probably balance both really well, but something like Three Houses would struggle with it. (Paralogues are great shortcuts for this, but they don't entirely fix the issue. Three Houses treats them like combat base conversations in a lot of ways.) 

[Ottservia]

17 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

I don't entirely agree on the fact that characterization needs character development, or at least not major, "my whole worldview is changed" development. The two definitely go hand-in-hand, and development can only help, but I don't agree that it's entirely necessary. What characters need are facets. Explore these facets, and things can be fun. And heck, add the development here! Have a character learn how to appreciate dancing. Not only have they learned something new, but they've developed in a way that makes it feel intimate to the characters supporting each other while still benefiting the readers. The Sakura/Elise, Azura/Elise, and Hinoka/Camilla support convos are great at this. In each we learn a little more about the characters in question, their skills and philosophies, and their relationship with each other. But nothing is so major that it feels like their whole characterization should be different. Azura and Elise go on an emotional sister-bonding journey; Hinoka learns about what she can and can't do and comes to respect Camilla; Sakura and Elise share their skills with instruments and play a song together. The characters developed, but it doesn't feel forced, rushed, or big. It's a small thing, and that's fine. To me, these are prime examples of what supports can and probably should be. 

Let me rephrase thar last sentence because I completely agree. You can have characterization without character development cause all characterization really is at the end of the day is how the character is described/shown to the audience. Their general personality. It’s why I don’t like people criticizing “character gimmick” because a gimmick is really is just an overly exaggerated character trait used mostly for humor which is just a facet of characterization and it’s mostly used to make characters stick out a little more. A character doesn’t need character development to be likable or hell even well rounded but they do need characterization for those things. I can name plenty of instances where a character works simply based on their characterization alone. Character development is a different beast though cause in order to do character development you need characterization. You can’t have character go through an arc without a starting and that is essentially what characterization is there to do which is to set up the starting point of the character arc. The reason Severa’s dere hit as hard as they do is because of how she was characterized before that. She’s initially characterized as someone who’s harsh with a bit of a barbed tongue but the more you get to know her the more you learn she’s actually really sweet with a lot of emotional baggage. It’s the contrast between the two sides of her personality and how those things are explained through backstory is what makes her character work. Severa’s character would not work if her tsun side was toned down because the whole point is she uses that to cover up her more insecure and vulnerable side and it’s in exploring that contrast where her character shines.

[Baldrick]

15 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

I mean, it feels like you're arguing for support conversations with this comment, and I'm fine with that...

I don’t know how you get that from “b.c. can do everything s.c. can, and more”.

Quote

Nope, they're supplements because they aren't given time to build a real relationship.
Base conversations are just that, conversations. I can have a conversation with anyone, but it's not going to mean anything if it only happens once. Relationships are built up over time, which is what supports help do. 

You can have multiple base conversations with the same participants, spread over multiple chapters.

Quote

I don't disagree with the gist of this - heck, I almost edited in a scenario where this exact thing occurs! The reason I didn't was because I couldn't come up with a scenario where the Nyx would actively want to explain her gimmick to the whole army or where it'd feel real if/when she does.

Nyx explains it once. In subsequent conversations, she and other characters reference it without explaining it, with the implication that other characters have learnt about it offscreen.

 

Quote

The second fix is what you propose, and to substitute supports for base conversations. Congratulations, you've fixed on gimmick but now have a bunch of shallow conversations between cast members that go nowhere and ultimately end up exacerbating characters' gimmicks because the creators have nowhere else to put them. Sure, you could have multiple base conversations, but then what's the functional difference between those and support conversations outside of "more people," because I can't think of one. 

You can set those conversations to trigger at chapter X, instead of when the player has made them stand together/interact X times. This improves the pacing of the conversation thread and gives the writer the option of referencing the main plot.

You can write a plot thread without worrying about redundancy because you don’t know which supports the players have unlocked.

The support mechanic is freed up to be a pure gameplay mechanic, like in RD.

[Use the Falchion]

 

9 hours ago, Baldrick said:

You can have multiple base conversations with the same participants, spread over multiple chapters.

Multiple conversations with the same participants spread over multiple chapters...hmm...that sounds pretty familiar if you ask me. The only difference between what you mean here and what you're saying is that the conversations reference current events in the game, which is what current games like Echoes and Three Houses have been building back up towards. After each chapter, characters say something new about the events of the world, be it how they have to ration supplies or how they saw a former classmate or friend die on the battlefield. It may not be the base conversations you want, but it is a step towards that. 

 

10 hours ago, Baldrick said:

The support mechanic is freed up to be a pure gameplay mechanic, like in RD.

Ah, I think I understand a little more of your perspective now. Yeah, we're definitely not going to come to a compromise on this sadly. RD is my least favorite FE game. Don't get me wrong, I respect the ever-loving stuffing out of it, but the support system singlehandedly ruined the entire game for me. Yes, I dislike it because the supports function like how you want supports in the future to function, as purely a gameplay mechanic. It's an awful idea to me, and ruins everything supports are supposed to be. RD's system is generic for most characters in a game where the most characters need to stand out. It plays favorites and ignores those that aren't main characters or who the game itself doesn't ship. It's an awful system and I'd rather have a dozen more games with Fates' level of writing supports than EVER return to RD's support style. 

Generic supports ruin characters more than repeated supports do. At least the latter tries to implement character voice, even if the content is the same (again, Lon'qu). Generic supports utterly destroy any type of characterization if you're not one of the main characters, especially in a game with a cast as large as RD. You're not really getting to know these characters, you're getting stat bonuses. And don't get me wrong, mechanics like supports should absolutely be pulling double-duty in terms of gameplay function (I still remember how insane my Ike/Mia combination was!). But to water down supports to generic lines of dialogue? No thanks. How many new characters in RD that aren't main characters do you know? Like, well and truly know outside of their gimmick?

 

10 hours ago, Baldrick said:

Nyx explains it once. In subsequent conversations, she and other characters reference it without explaining it, with the implication that other characters have learnt about it offscreen.

And then very little would change. It's still be: 

C-Support - inciting conflict

B-Support - reference to curse

A-Support - we move on

The problem isn't with the system, it's with the character. 

 

10 hours ago, Baldrick said:

don’t know how you get that from “b.c. can do everything s.c. can, and more”.

It had more to do with your "we don't need multiple characters in base conversations" implication, which means it's functionally no different than the current support system.

 

10 hours ago, Baldrick said:

You can set those conversations to trigger at chapter X, instead of when the player has made them stand together/interact X times. This improves the pacing of the conversation thread and gives the writer the option of referencing the main plot.

OR you can have both, where the base conversations trigger at Chapter X, and they don't need to reference the supports unless Support Level XYZ is completed. People can have two conversations about two different things at the same time. You've never texted someone to start a conversation about topic A, and then they texted topic B, and so you both have to address both?

 

10 hours ago, Baldrick said:

This improves the pacing of the conversation thread and gives the writer the option of referencing the main plot.

I mean, again, Three Houses and Echoes have been working back to this without compromising supports at all, so I think your point here is moot. The only thing missing is having characters interact without the Avatar there, and we're working back to this. 

 

10 hours ago, Baldrick said:

You can write a plot thread without worrying about redundancy because you don’t know which supports the players have unlocked.

Or you stop focusing on major plot threads and refocus on character-specific developments on a smaller scale.

Still I don't think we're going to reach a compromise on this.

To finish, again, don't read this as me saying that "base conversations are bad," because that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that they would either serve the exact same purpose as supports if done exclusively, or they could function as a supplement or complement to supports when done in tandem. Trading out one system for another is like trading out an apple for leafy greens. They're both good for you, but neither will truly fill you up. But together you can make an apple salad, and that will last you longer than either would separately. (Peanut butter and toast can be another metaphor meaning the exact same thing if you'd like.) 

[Baldrick]

In RD, support conversations were not replaced by the support greetings, they were replaced by base conversations.

Two-person base conversations can perfectly replicate any support conversation. Support conversations are unlocked at the discretion of the player, so it is impossible for the writers to pace them precisely and avoid redundancy without reducing player agency.

Base conversations have no disadvantages compared to support conversations, and several advantages. So they are the objectively superior system.

[Alastor15243]

On 4/24/2021 at 4:53 AM, Florete said:

This is also why permadeath needs to vacate the FE premises

Fire Emblem would stop being Fire Emblem without permadeath far faster than it would stop being Fire Emblem without supports.

[Acacia Sgt]

1 hour ago, Baldrick said:

In RD, support conversations were not replaced by the support greetings, they were replaced by base conversations.

Two-person base conversations can perfectly replicate any support conversation. Support conversations are unlocked at the discretion of the player, so it is impossible for the writers to pace them precisely and avoid redundancy without reducing player agency.

Base conversations have no disadvantages compared to support conversations, and several advantages. So they are the objectively superior system.

PoR employed both, and then some. Since PoR's support points were gained on a per-chapter basis, thus the ranks had thresholds and the convos themselves could be more defined. Specially since PoR also implemented for further variations. Like how the Makalov-Astrid support would have some lines changed if Marcia died. Or the Jill-Mist one would have its A rank change depending if you triggered before or after doing the Shiharam chapter.

I'd say, that was in my opinion the best way to handle supports. And Base convos helped flesh things even further when supports couldn't.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Acacia Sgt

[Florete]

2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Fire Emblem would stop being Fire Emblem without permadeath far faster than it would stop being Fire Emblem without supports.

Fire Emblem without permadeath has existed since Awakening. Permadeath is not a necessary part of Fire Emblem's identity.

[Use the Falchion]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Like how the Makalov-Astrid support would have some lines changed if Marcia died. Or the Jill-Mist one would have its A rank change depending if you triggered before or after doing the Shiharam chapter.

Three Houses did a similar thing on an admittedly much smaller scale. Ashe's supports with Marianne have an extra line of dialogue or two in them if Marianne (and I think Ashe as well) reached a B-Support with Sylvain. Dorothea's lines after the Great Bridge of Myrddin battle depend on whether or not you can and/or choose to recruit Ferdinand. Either way it shows that IntSys hasn't thrown out the idea yet, but they're still working on how to implement it within an explorable base. (It should work just like supports in terms of going to a screen and clicking on it, but I think I can sort of understand why it's not like that - if the characters will be in that base, and you have the room to explore, isn't it better to let them talk about the events to the player instead of going to a menu? I'm not saying it's correct or even whether or not I agree, but if that line of thinking is why base conversations were moved away from, I do understand.)

 

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I'd say, that was in my opinion the best way to handle supports. And Base convos helped flesh things even further when supports couldn't.

100% agree. PoR had the most robust characterization features out of all of the FE games. It's only drawback was the support limit. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Use the Falchion