[How many hours do you have?]

583:38 hours. Somewhat higher than expected.

[0% Growth Awakening Question]

It would probably depend on the difficulty. Awakening is unlike the other games in that it doesn't really give you strong pre-promotes, but it's also unlike other games in that you have easy access to bonus stats via tonics and Pair-up.

It could be interesting, maybe with some Bonus Box or Renown help, but the late-game Routs are going to be pretty challenging.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

You said it's not possible to verify that your assumptions about author intentions are correct, and are using that to claim that my assumptions about the author's intent on how Emmeryn is portrayed is incorrect. But if your point is so easily summarized, would you mind doing it for us? It might get your argument across clearer.

I never weighed in on whether it was possible/impossible; that would be silly. I am saying that there's no evidence of intention in the case of Awakening (at least not to the extent that people claim to support their arguments), and it'll stay that way until someone pulls off a miracle. There is next to no information, it's very nearly a black box: you are left with reading chicken entrails and making wild suppositions.

Take a proper story, like the one I mentioned earlier: Brave New World. It has a consistent narrative, it doesn't undermine itself with an infinite series of funhouse mirror plot holes, it's strictly a novel (and not playing double-duty as vidya), there is a single author, and Aldous Huxley gave interviews that we can read/watch where he talked about his novel and expressed personal opinions. It's very easy to figure out author intent in this case.

Awakening? The story is a mess of spaghetti, it contradicts itself, plot holes abound, tons of people had writing input, and they didn't even plan out every plot twist in advance. Literally, they were adding shit to the story in the middle of development. It's no wonder that the game turned out the way that it did, with that kind of process.

So pardon my incredulity when people claim to be able to deduce the intentions of the writers.

Awakening's characters have been described as tropey hundreds of times.

My cat's breath smells like cat food. What do those things have in common? They are irrelevant nonsense. See above. Not all tropes are created equally.

(full disclosure, I don't actually own a cat)

But, uh, are you saying that claiming that the story portrays a character is good when they're actually incompetent is being treated as a religion?

No, I am not. The religion here, is just the attachment to something that can't be proven to be true, and the violent response to anything contrary to that idea.

And not to encourage you to be rude or anything, but I'm pretty sure the amount of flak you're getting right now has more to do with your mannerisms than your point.

Don't worry, your encouragement or discouragement wouldn't have any effect on my behavior. This is not a restaurant, and I don't take orders.

It would be better if someone's reactions were based on my points, rather than on my tone. One of those things is evidence-based, the other isn't. But as I've stated before, I don't care either way.

You've presented plenty of evidence that Emmeryn is a bad ruler (and nobody disagrees), but you haven't done anything to show it doesn't portray her as good other than to say examples of her being good don't count. So yeah, you've got no evidence either.

This supposes that the point of my argument was to show that Emm is a bad ruler. Of course, that's wrong, and furthermore you should know better, since this entire throw-down took place in one thread. I am going to say this to you one more time, and that's it. If you manage to whiff the point: dead to me. Got no time for your nonsense.

My argument is that people are going too far. The hyperbole machine is cranked to 11. The first couple pages of this thread found people saying things like this:

"Giving a character nothing but praise, idealization and glorification by everyone but the dastardly, mustache twirling, puppy-kicking excuse of a villain, is giving the audience precise instructions on how they are supposed to feel about them."

"Except the game keeps insisting she never did anything wrong. I don't want the game to explicitly tell me that she was wrong. I can see that she's an idiot by myself. I just want it to stop telling me that she's literally perfect when's she far from it."

"[Emm is] glorified as the perfect symbol of peace."

I am just pushing back against these silly things, and others like them.

This isn't a UFO convention filled with fanatics though, it's a handful of people complaining about a game's story. But if you were at such a convention, it would be on you to question why you were there in the first place.

It was just an example to illustrate the essential point: evidence is not a democracy. People do that in arguments, showing the extreme in order to put a floor under the basic idea, and then circling back to something less asinine. UFO-heads have their dicks so far into the jar of peanut butter (AKA, "fucking nuts"), that it's a useful example of the phenomenon.

Challenging people's opinions without the intent to change them makes no sense to me.

Fixed that for you, my edit in bold. I already told you why I do it: it's fun. This thread is a ripe environment for me to make all kinds of colorful metaphors, which is a favorite pastime of mine.

I don't care if someone has a wrong opinion, except to the extent that their ignorance lends itself to entertaining me for a few minutes.

But then you wouldn't have an immobile brick wall to challenge for your entertainment...

I'd call you more of a glacier. You're gliding down the hill at one meter per day, slowly going about your business regardless of what people have to say to you.

=-=-=-=-=-=

But then who would correct you when you are wrong?

Generally it's me. I have this crazy thing I do where I actually take a half a minute to proofread and/or verify things before I post them. It's kinda weird, but I'm hoping that it will eventually catch on around this forum.

No, they do. You do realize that context is collective, don't you? The accompanying dialogue and the events which preceded and proceeded those image are exactly what context is about. Every CG in Awakening is meant to give off an impression. It does not do so simply by showing you an image, it does so with the entirety of the scene. Music, dialogue, and the events surrounding the image are important. You are blatantly disregarding these things for the convenience of your argument. Emmeryn's CG and Walhart's CG give entirely different impressions and you know it. Do not warp or ignore context as you see fit.

The "collective context" when it comes to this particular point is that sunlight is so over-used as an effect that it loses its impact. The artist in this game has a photon fetish. The CGs are full of sunlight porn. Go look at some of them. When you use a particular effect to this extent, it ceases to convey special meaning. The CG of random d-bags in the streets being bathed in cosmic cancer-rays is enough just on its own, mind you, but the others make it even more obvious, just in case there was any ambiguity left.

Oh, and speaking of blatantly disregarding things for the convenience of argument, let's hear your explanation as to why heavily-armed soldiers are featured prominently in Emm's "peace paragon" CG. Don't think that I forgot that you haven't addressed that particular point at all. At this juncture, failure to even acknowledge the point is tantamount to conceding it, given how much effort you've put into railing about "context".

Here you go ignoring context. Again. "Be selfish for once in your life!" changes the entire direction of their argument. Chrom wasn't confronting Emm because she had a stupid plan, he was confronting Emm because she was being too selfless. It's obvious by the choice of music in the scene that the game was trying to instill a sense of sorrow or sympathy in the viewer. This is why I stated a simple text reference is not enough. One needs to see the scene in its entirety in order to fully understand it. And her plan ended up working in the end. Chrom and pragmatism? Wrong. Emmeryn and idealism? Right. This was the message of that scene.

Three things, here. First of all, the "be selfish" changes nothing about their argument, since 1) he still has yet to call it a "terrible" plan, and 2) Emm doesn't even acknowledge it (she responds to "we need you" with "ILU"). Oh Emm, you could fill in for Ralph Wiggum in a heartbeat.

Secondly, Chrom absolutely was confronting her because her plan was stupid. He called out exactly what would happen: that she'd be walking into her own death.

Finally, Emm's plan failed utterly, since what was supposed to happen was that Chrom would show up in Ylisstol with Feroxi reinforcements. I don't know why people have the impression that her original idea was to sacrifice herself: that only happened because she was boxed-in by previous terrible decisions that went horribly wrong.

I understand that the story is confusing, but make some cursory attempt to follow along if you're going to argue with me about it.

No, the take away was that Emmeryn had reached the hearts of the Plegian military. Are you forgetting why Chrom was attacked? It was because they chose to fight.

Only in this thread can "fighting to keep from being captured/killed" be spun as "Chrom chose to fight". I don't even have to add anything to this; it's absurd enough on its own.

Guess what this is. It's called foreshadowing. And the soldier who was about to turn? A microcosm of the events that would proceed this chapter. You have missed the entire point of that chapter. Emmeryn was the focal point of this chapter, as it was the chapter directly after her sacrifice. The name of the song that plays in the chapter was a reference to Emm.

I didn't "miss the point" of the chapter; I noted that the dialogue goes out of its way to point out two important things:

1) there is a reason for Plegians to desert that has nothing to do with Emm, and

2) Emm's influence was not enough to allow Chrom and the Shepherds to be allowed to escape.

Both of those things undermine the impact of Emm's sacrifice. This is notable because they didn't have to do either of them; neither are strictly important to the story. Since I am a curious person rather than a dogmatic one, I find it pretty interesting. I'm sorry that it doesn't even tickle your brain cells.

What exactly is this secondary reason?

Gangrel is a huge asshole that will indiscriminately murder people. When you are one of those people subject to being murdered on a whim, that sort of counts as a reason to pack your shit and leave.

They chanted her name and deserted simultaneously. Emmeryn alone was the reason for their change of heart.

People have all sorts of justifications for doing things, not all of which are directly stated. "Alone" is a silly choice of word, since it's a nakedly ridiculous idea that the Plegians would desert for just a single reason. Surely you aren't implying that they were Kool and the Gang with everything until Emm took a dive.

The point is not that Emmeryn is flawless, but that the game chooses to ignore her flaws and paint her a saint despite her bad decisions.

"The game" does no such thing. "The game" shows you the immediate consequence of Emm's decision: Ylisstol falls, and she is captured. You can't separate those two things. The fall of Ylisstol was a thing that happened, and there is no ambiguity when it comes to who is to blame for the decision to return there. It was all on Emm, and it was in direct contrast with Chrom.

Done. Fin. Enough of this already.

Cute. Ylisse was doomed to fall because it had been overrun by Gangrel long before Emm returned.

Ylisse is the country, Ylisstol is the capital city. Gangrel broke through the border, and the Plegians were half a day behind the exalt. Emm left to return to Ylisstol, which fell. She's not getting captured if she stays with the group and goes to Feroxi.

"Let us embrace again in Ylisstol when you arrive with Feroxi reinforcements. I know you will come."

It would have been taken over regardless of her decision. You are attributing the temporary fall of Ylisse to Emm's return when it was actually a result of Emm's departure.

No, I'm pointing out that she doesn't get captured if she doesn't turn around and walk right into Gangrel's arms.

---> The point

---> Your head

Do you have any sort of retort that's not a copy/paste comeback that's older than the Internet?

Do you know how victory was made possible against Plegia? Because Gangrel's troops laid down their arms en masse thanks to Emm's sacrifice.

Victory was secured because the Shepherds stabbed Gangrel until he stopped moving. Emm didn't peace him to death. Don't forget that Ylisse still wins the war against Plegia in the alternate history where the Exalt gets assassinated, Chrom gets jacked, and the Fire Emblem is stolen.

The game still glorifies Emm's ideologies because even after her death the bad guys are the guys who don't agree with her. Her death was used to make the bad guys seem even badder. Gangrel laughing at Emm's death? Walhart calling her weak? They must be the bad guys. This goes back to the black and white morality of Awakening. Chrom essentially takes up a crusade to uphold her ideals through violence. It's contradictory, and part of the reason Chrom is considered an asshat (poor guy, a victim of Awakening's terrible writing). Nevermind the third arc where he would rather make the world suffer again somewhere down the line than give up Robin, but that's a different matter.

Chrom doesn't agree with her, either. The fact that Chrom goes on to completely pervert Emm's ideals -- in full recognition of that fact, mind you -- just goes to show how naive she really was. Even though he is proving Walhart to be correct, he gets results and saves the world. Sort of.

Call the story shitty (and it IS shitty), but this is the story that we're given to work with.

I'll concede that her sacrifice was the only sensible decision she made but it could have been avoided. The annoying part is that the game expects you to forget all the stupid shit she did leading up to the sacrifice. One is to forget her terrible decisions because it was part of her plan all along and it worked out in the end because she basically said "Stop fighting." and leapt. Her ideologies were immortalized through her Christ-like sacrifice. Maybe there was something stirring up in Plegia with Emmeryn's fall being the last straw, but we'll never know because Awakening doesn't know how to build its own world.

"The game" isn't expecting you to forget it. As mentioned, they throw it right back into your face in the Valm arc.

You are over-thinking it. There is a very simple explanation for this: Emm was intended to be a flawed character. If you keep that little idea in mind, everything else falls neatly into place, and you don't need these ridiculous constructs that explain away the numerous points where she is shown to be less than perfect.

[The Lunatic Club]

About that Chapter 2 strat, make sure that you hit those level/stat benchmarks by the end of Prologue. It makes the later chapters much easier. I haven't taken the +SPD Robin past Chapter 3 (previous PTs have always been +DEF), but it shouldn't be an issue; the generic strategies will work, other than your opening move, which has to be more conservative.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

A civil war would never happen.

Of course it wouldn't, because Chrom wouldn't be crazy enough to assault his sister and force people to take sides. He's a soldier, and a good one.

If you really think so, then you are quite naive.

... regretting teaching you this word.

Emmeryn would stand down in an instant before letting anything happen to Chrom. Let's assume that Chrom does indeed punch her to try and stop her. Let's assume that this does somehow start a civil wat between Chrom and Emmeryn. You really think Emmeryn would let that happen? She would rethink her decision instantly if tensions did escalate further. She would never allow that to happen.

No way to know if Emm would actually have this reaction, although since this rabbit hole already has you throwing out Chrom's character, maybe we can make up stuff for Emm as well as other characters. I say that Lissa takes the opportunity to shank Chrom in the back, and crown herself queen. Why not? It's no less insane.

And the soldiers are not chanting "Gangrel a shit!" as they abandon the battlefield. The primary focus is on Emmeryn. They're chanting her name as they leave. She is quite literally a Messiah archetype who died for everyone's sins. And somehow that's not glorification of her sacrifice?

I'm sorta getting tired of pointing out that I acknowledged on Page 1 that Emm actually made a legitimate sacrifice here. It's the one correct thing that she did; the problem is that getting there required a comedy of terrible decisions.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

No, that still does exist meeting her walk into a trap.

English, please. I have no idea what this means.

All your post do is she that neither Chrom nor Emmeryn (but her especially) don't deserve to be in charge.

That is neither here nor there: I am not making a judgment about suitability of rule (you're free to, although I'll just ignore you), but rather pointing out that Chrom isn't stopping Emm without fracturing Ylisse. Starting a civil war in the middle of a crisis is a pretty insane thing to do.

You may have suggested the punching idea in jest but it rely is the best course of action.

I mean, it's not like the following cutscene didn't feature a character punching some one with authority that they card about to knock some sense into them. No, that would be stupid, right? Oh wait....

People throw around the phrase "[this] makes it hard to take [so-and-so] seriously" a lot, usually inappropriately, but it definitely applies here. I have no idea why you'd think those two things were comparable. This is like suggesting that there's no difference between shaking a bottle of mustard, and shaking a baby, because they both have shaking in them. Sumia is just knocking Chrom out of a funk; she's not trying to force him to change his mind about something. It was poorly-timed comic relief.

Random thought: the two people here who most get on my case about "context", are routinely ignoring it in their arguments. At what point can we consider the two of you to be thoroughly discredited on this issue? Is there any way to fast-track it? This is getting tiresome.

=-=-=-=-=

If you have that much trouble discerning what I'm talking about, even with me here to inform you when you (deliberately?) misinterpret me, no wonder you don't think it's possible to discern author intentions.

Emphasis mine. This is why you and I don't see eye to eye here, because you're either not bothering to pay attention to what I actually say, or your ability to accurately summarize someone's point is woefully inadequate to the task at hand here. I have never said anything close to "it's not possible to discern author intentions". Considering that you went out of your way to needle me for being "super-literal", I'd think this would clue you in that I am pretty particular about the words that I use.

If it really wasn't, though, why do you think things like this would exist: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnAesop

I guess since there's no way to know what author intentions actually are, all those are just examples of people randomly extrapolating things without any idea of what they're talking about, right?

I was talking about Awakening specifically, not literature in general. It's easy to find tropes in proper stories; they are tropes for a reason. However, there is a huge difference between something like Brave New World or The Watchmen, and the hacked-together contradictory mess of a story from something that's primarily a videogame first. AKA, Awakening. Let's not pretend that this title has rich characterization, or an amazing narrative. There are enough craters in this plot, that one could be forgiven for mistaking it for the surface of the Moon.

In any case, change "belief" to "idea" and answer that again without getting hung up on one word.

I seized it on because you made a good point; it IS like a religion. Look at the breathless responses to my heresy in this thread. It's a good thing that the screams of rage only make me stronger.

It's generally accepted that the game portrays Emmeryn (or at least tries to) as a good ruler/paragon of peace/whatever synonym for good you prefer. If you think it doesn't and are trying to change people's minds, you bear the burden of proof.

A logical fallacy, and I suspect that you know it if you're being honest with yourself. The correctness of something doesn't depend upon how many people believe, because it's not subject to their approval in the first place. Evidence is evidence, and if you don't have any, your castle is built on sand and bluster.

This community is susceptible to hype, front-runnerism, groupthink, etc. I've been here for a very long time (check it, yo), and slain more than my fair share of shitty-but-popular notions along the way. If I walk into a UFO convention, and scoff at the sadly inadequate eyewitness accounts of moonbats, it's not "on me" to prove that aliens aren't abducting people, even if I'm outnumbered 100 to 1.

Sure, you can just keep doing what you're doing now and say "I already proved it, you need to prove she's good", but that's not going to convince anyone and you know it.

Glorious. First, you give me permission to do something that you have no authority to deny me in the first place. Second, you imply that I'm trying to change's someone mind about something, when I am on record as stating that I am not trying to do anything of the sort (because it's a fool's game: notice how nobody on the other side of the argument will concede even the smallest point, like the bit about sunlight). I am here to give my own opinions, and challenge other people on theirs; nothing more. It's entertaining.

Spare me this nonsense, please.

=-=-=-=-=

I decided to stop replying to you (Interceptor) after you blatantly ignored the context of the images you posted.

It is a shame that you didn't go with your gut on this one.

I was pretty done when you likened Walhart's image to Emm's. Do you even context? Do you even associated dialogue? Do you even focal point? What about the events that precede and proceed those images? You ignored all of that and said "they have sunlight so your point is false!" But I have to reply now since you of all people are trying to give me a lecture on ignoring context.

The events that bookend the images don't matter in particular: I was making the simple point that the game uses sunlight in CGs like a toddler uses tomato sauce on her face. It is so heavily and indiscriminately applied (I gave two particularly stark examples, but there are more), that it diminishes the argument that Emmeryn got the treatment for any one particular purpose. The person ignoring context in this case... is you.

The game lacks a narrator. Every message that it tries to convey is through the dialogue of the characters. I believe this has been stated to you multiple times.

I believe that I subverted this point and threw it back into your face. If the dialogue of characters are the messages of "the game", then Chrom's argument with Emmeryn at the end of Chapter 7 is the ultimate refutation of the idea that she is some sort of flawless paragon. He called her plan "terrible", right to her face, and not a single person confronted him on that. And he was later proven to be right about it.

The soldier acted as a microcosm of the Plegian military. The fact that the soldier stayed and fought for Mustafa is irrelevant, what matters here is that he had a drastic and sudden change of heart, regardless of how temporary it was, due to Emmeryn's words. Emm's morality speech and Christ-like sacrifice reached him. The game, through its characters, indirectly glorifies Emmeryn's actions.

It's irrelevant that the outcome of Chapter 10 was exactly the same as it would have been had Emm not made a speech before taking a flying leap? The take-away from the Chapter was the following:

- The penalty for insubordination is death.

- Gangrel is a monster that would retaliate by murdering someone's family.

- A soldier's loyalty to his commander was greater than Emmeryn's words.

They established a secondary reason for Plegians to desert, and showed the limitations of Emm's powers, but somehow this proves that Emm's sacrifice was glorified? The end result in Chapter 10 was that Chrom's crew still got attacked!

Never mind that the specifics of her sacrifice having an effect were never in dispute: look at my comments on Page 1 of this thread. It obviously had an effect, but the key points here are that 1) there was also another reason for the mass desertion, and 2) her decision was actually a good one for once, and thus worthy of note. Everything else leading up to that? Not so much.

You think the soldier was the only one whose heart changed?

No. See above.

Emm wanted to go back because she's Emmeryn. Chrom wanted to charge into Plegia because they were going to murder his damn sister. If Chrom could be talked out of it, then so could Emm. All it really does is make Emm seem stubborn.

This is terrible logic.

Emm decided to go back to Ylisstol after the facts on the ground changed (Cordelia's news), and after Chrom repeatedly and with much passion argued against the point. Talking Chrom out of charging into Plegia? That just required people pointing out that he needed to act wisely: he readily agreed to let Robin come up with a strategy.

Emm's stubbornness -- if that's what it really is -- is certainly a flaw of hers in this situation.

As I've said before, the crux of the entire scene was Chrom's "Be selfish for once in your life!". That changed the context of the entirety of Emm's decision. Despite how stubborn, stupid, and arguably selfish her decision was, the game, through the dialogue of our only source of reliable narrative (the primary cast), still paints her decision as wise ( "As for the peace I seek... You cannot see who it is for. I have to go. I'm sorryI truly am.)[/size], selfless, and noble.

And stupid. Regardless of how "the game" paints Emm's decision, "the game" then immediately shows that Yisstol fell and that she was captured in the process. You can't tell me that it doesn't mean anything that immediately after a conflict between Chrom and Emm, Chrom was show to be in the right.

Well I guess you could, because it's not against the rules to be wrong, but you get my meaning.

And as I said before, the solution to the problem also goes right back to Chrom. Who ultimately ended Plegia's aggression for good? Was it Emmeryn? No, it was Chrom and his Shepherds, and rather violently at that (and they did it AGAIN in Valm). If "the game" is making the point that Emm is some kind of Christ-figure, and "the game" is also undermining her character and her ideals at the same time, where exactly does that leave her overall?

[spoiler=THE SHOCKING ANSWER]It leaves her as a flawed character in a crappy story.

=-=-=-=-=

Well, if chanting someone's name while abandoning the field isn't being turned into a saint... 9_9

Well, if they said "fuck this shit" (which is way better), the game's rating would have had to change.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

So what? Does it mean he should let her walk into an obvious trap? You're reasoning is really weak. Perhaps he should just punch her. What's she (or Phila or anyone really) going to do? Execute him?

Good lord. Yes, it does mean that when Chrom loses his last bid to convince Emm with his words and arguments, he lets her go rather than upend the command structure and start a Ylissean civil war in the middle of a crisis. What on earth do you expect is going to happen when two sides won't back down, and one of them resorts to violence? People are going to take sides.

When I mentioned the punching thing, it was in jest, i.e. something so obviously ridiculous that you'd get the point that he had no choice. I was not expecting people to be so unworldly that they'd take it seriously.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Oh I understand your point, I am completely taken aback by how naive it was.

I disagree. The game frames their change of heart in a way that credits Emm more than it discredits Gangrel. [...] The game makes it seem like Emm changed their hearts, not that they had a change or heart due to Gangrel being a dick.

More of this "the game" business, when actually it's just a single magnanimous Plegian general talking. Also, you cut out a HUGE amount of context, namely this:

Soldier: But I don't wish to abandon you, sir!

Mustafa: I cannot defy the king, lad. I know him well. He would murder my wife and child to set an example. I will accept the blame for your actions today. Now go!

Soldier: W-wait, General! I see a cause worth fighting for, one I believe in: loyalty to my general

Note that Mustafa fights for Gangrel for a very personal reason, and then the Soldiers join with him to fight against Chrom anyway. Literally they put loyalty to their commander over anything that Emmeryn said. So much for that!

Hilariously, the helpful Wyvern Rider reminds us what the punishment for insubordination is. Pay close attention, RJW!

There's even an example of that in this game. [...] Instead of blindly charging in there, the Khans warn Chrom that it is a bad idea. Chrom, who's been proven to at least have half a brain, realizes that they are correct and decides to take a more cautious approach. So no, the "no one could have stopped Emmeryn" excuse does not hold up.

Emm DOES listen to reason at first: she agrees to Frederick's idea of retreating to the eastern palace (end of Chapter 6). But at the end of Chapter 7, she changes her mind, and nothing that Chrom says (and he tries, repeatedly) alters her course:

Emmeryn: Come, Phila. We must go.

This is a dismissal. Go read the entire thing; Emm is not wavering, Chrom cannot talk her down. Not even Frederick or Phila try to change her mind.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

Well, to stop her, he could've ordered the sheperds to... ehh... ehhh... well... she's still the Exalt, I don't think he could've stopped her if he wanted to; or at least it's how I imagine it: the sheperds would never say no to their Queen.

Yes, precisely. And don't forget that Phila is also there, and she absolutely doesn't take orders from Chrom. I can't imagine Frederick siding with him, either. The idea of Chrom "stopping" Emmeryn is a sort of simplistic fantasy.

Honestly though, I didn't read the plot enough. I might as well start my homosexy playthrough to re-read the story of the first arc and see if things are really how Interceptor says.

Or maybe you can do a better job of finding evidence for Emm's sainthood than the others have been able to do. The script is posted on the wiki, and basically complete.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

To stop her from doing stupid things? I hope they think that. Instead of following her orders like a dumb shit, he should have stopped her. Ranks means nothing if you're doing something fucking stupid.

"Stopped her". This again. What do you propose that he does? Punch her in the face? Challenge her to a duel? Trip her as she tries to walk away? Deface all of her maps so that she gets lost and can't find her way back to Ylisstol?

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

No, my argument isn't about me hoping nobody looks behind the curtain, it's about Awakening hoping nobody looks behind the curtain. And yes, it is possible to determine intentions when looking at how things are portrayed.

It's possible to guess at intentions, sure. There's no way to verify that your assumptions are correct, and therein lies the problem: you can't prove it.

As was said earlier, if you want to challenge established beliefs, the burden of proof falls on you.

And here is where you accidentally put your finger on the essential problem (I replaced your emphasis with my own). Look at the bolded portions. Beliefs? Apparently this is more like a religion than it is a science. I've repeatedly asked for evidence of the various assertions that people have made in this thread, and no smoking gun has yet emerged. All I get in response are weak, contradictory points that don't stand up to scrutiny.

How can you say that the burden of proof falls upon me, when the religion isn't evidence-based in the first place? Where's the proof that this "the game says XYZ" business isn't some collective wishful thinking? I've shot holes in everything that's been presented, and frankly I'm a little shocked that it's as weak as it is.

I was sure that there'd be at least something that was unequivocal, but either the script provides thin gruel to go on, or the lot of you are horrible sleuths.

-----

And now for Part 2:

... You're not seriously denying the context here, are you? Of course she has guards, things are still turbulent and there is a neighboring nation that wants to see her head on a stick (y'know, the bad guys?). Ylisse is not stupid enough to entirely ditch a concept as basic as security against unforeseen measures, which is what the guards exist for in the first place.

There's basic security, and then there's what actually happened. The guards aren't unusual. What's unusual is that 1) there are soldiers in full parade-style stormtrooper gear, and 2) they are in the CG, photo-bombing like Chris Bosh. Neither of those two things are necessary, not unless you're expecting a full-scale battle on city streets in broad daylight, and/or are intentionally making a show of force.

Note that the second thing in particular is somewhat fundamentally incompatible with the idea of Emm as some sort of Peace Paragon, sort of like delivering democracy with cruise missiles.

Emm with the sun shining on her (strong connotations)

It was a nice day. Look at this picture:

The sun is also shining on these random assholes. Which of them are Christ-figures? Also:

tl;dr the sunshine is meaningless. Let it go.

The game never actively calls her out on her bad decisions.

This logic is rejected. Chrom is one of the main characters, and he not only called her out right in front of everyone, but went completely unchallenged. If the characters in this game are truly the voice of the writers, as some people in this thread claim, why isn't this completely fatal to your point?

Each of the consequences of her bad decisions are blamed entirely on our established villain, Plegia.

Wrong. You can't escape the counter-factual, because the conflict between Chrom and Emm brings it directly to the fore. What would have happened if Emm hadn't made poor decisions? Chrom looks like a prophet, because he predicted what would happen.

http://wordsinasentence.com/incredulous-in-a-sentence/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incredulous (example sentences)

Remember what I just said about you looking like an ass? It's one thing to be arrogant, then it's another thing entirely to be arrogant and incorrect. I'd expect an apology, but heaven forbid you realize that you're wrong.

A person can be incredulous, a thing a person does can be incredulous (like an expression), but not just a thing by itself. I would never describe a viewpoint as "incredulous", though my tone or manner might be. Your own citations say the same thing.

The chapter after her leap is her miraculously changing the hearts of many a soldier because she was oh so selfless.

Or because Gangrel was a horrible person:

Chrom: Perhaps this explains why your own soldiers refuse to stand behind you? You are a poison. A festering wound. And I will do what my sister could not.

This is an especially delicious line, because it not only establishes another reason for the Plegians to turn tail, but it also calls attention to the fact that Emmeryn failed to solve the essential problem. And just in case that was too deep a point for the listening audience, Chrom and his crew proceed to demonstrate the solution by killing Gangrel.

And just in case you missed the point on Gangrel, you get another bite at the apple in Valm.

In the same breath of criticism, Chrom is indirectly glorifying her selflessness. This is precisely the issue. Despite how obviously stupid her decision to return to Ylisse is, the game still tries to prop it up as an act of selflessness.

Alternatively: a desperate last-ditch attempt to keep his older sister from marching towards her death. Or does anyone else besides RJW think he should have directly defied her orders?

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

How many battles happened as a result of Plegia's aggression? Cht.5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. That's six fights. A surgical strike would probably take two or three. When I said FE was about battles, I meant that in a "the more the merrier" sense- killing Gangrel off early just robs potential for more gameplay. And Cht.11 is almost halfway through the game, by the way.

"Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. There are ~26 proper Chapters, plus whatever Paralogues you run into along the way. Plegia's aggression ends up being less than a fifth of the entire game. Shortening the Gangrel sequence and replacing the lost battles with something else (Risen, Grimleal, Feroxi, whatever) would be as difficult as falling out of bed if you had planned to do it from the start. Maybe in this alternate universe, they could have the desert chapter feel less awkward and tacked-on.

Yes, I can. Being intentionally shown something and noticing it anyway are different things. The game wants me to think that Emm is perfect, and even though it's obvious that she isn't it still tries. They did a terrible job of hiding her flaws, but the fact that they tried at all is what people are mad about.

You are reading tea leaves the moment that you start talking about "intentions", because you don't actually know what they were. This game's plot isn't some tightly-controlled narrative; with the way that it undermines itself, it reads like the product of a committee of ferrets in a room with a disco ball. In the end, your argument hinges on making assertions and hoping that nobody looks behind the curtain.

Nope. That's not acceptable.

Well then, at this point I don't see why people keep replying to you. If you only cared about expressing your opinion then you wouldn't go against 3/4 people at once; I feel like you only want to anger others now.

As I said before: I am not only expressing my opinion, I'm also challenging other people on theirs.

I thought you might've wanted to read it, since you said you didn't.

I did want to read it, that's why I asked. When I said that I didn't see the purpose of citing it, I meant that I don't know why Yoshi even brought it up, since it doesn't at all support his point.

stuff

I'll get to you later.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

If this was real life, taking him down might work. Unfortunately this is a story, and it makes a pretty uninteresting story if the villain dies right at the start (not to mention that FE is a game about epic battles, and there needs to be a source of battles). Sure, there could be another source, but it would change the story enough that it might as well be about something else entirely.

Fire Emblem is also about surgical strikes with small teams, and presumably I don't need to elaborate on what that might mean.

Anyway, Gangrel is small-time. In the canon he's dead by Chapter 11, and there are several chapters prior to that (Risen fights, Feroxi) where Plegia isn't really playing a direct role anyway. There are other ways to create conflict and move things along. Your "epic" battles come in the Valm arc, and there's plenty of time in the intervening years for Emm to die from cancer or get run over by a herd of wild elephants.

It's not about whether we think Emmeryn is a good leader (I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that she made a huge mess), it's about whether the game acknowledges that she made a mess, or claims that the bad stuff she did was actually good while ignoring realistic consequences (basically whether or not the game is poorly written).

You can't really square the idea that "the game" doesn't acknowledge the mess that Emm made, with the fact that you are a witness to the direct cause-and-effect of her idiocy.

I feel like a broken record, here. Chapter 7 is the perfect example of this phenomenon. If "the game" was trying to hide Emm's flaws, they did a piss-poor job of it. Chrom points out that Emm is walking into her own death. A main character confronts her directly, isn't challenged by anyone else, and turns out to be correct.

Why is this even still a discussion?

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

And Interceptor, you shouldn't be rude towards people too, just because you try to intimidate others by saying they're adorable, that doesn't make your arguments stronger.

I have no idea why people always feel the need to give me unsolicited advice about my posting style. What makes you think I'm trying to enhance the strength of my arguments? Consider this as a possibility: there's no way that I can summon sufficient Give-a-Shit to talk to some people unless I'm amusing myself in the process.

Anyway, here's Emmeryn's barracks description from Serenes Forest's website: Exalt of Ylisse; Chrom and Lissa's older sister. She's known as a peace-loving and kind queen. After leaping off a Plegian cliff, she lost all memories of her time as queen and now has trouble speaking. Yet her caring heart remains unchanged. The most resilient.

Thanks. I don't see what the purpose of citing this was. I'm not sure that it was ever disputed that Emm was "peace-loving and kind"; that's an entirely uncontroversial observation.

The fact remains that the game still wants the audience to see Emmeryn as a perfect icon of peace.

Where I come from, something isn't a "fact" unless it's proven first. Emmeryn is shown to be imperfect just through the natural course of the game.

When the two most prominent people who disagree with her idealogy (Walhart and Gangrel) are the villains of the game and are proven wrong by Chrom defeating them, this point is only reinforced.

This is almost the worst possible example you could have given: Gangrel and Walhart both fell to the same kind of violence that Emmeryn stood against. It's a complete subversion of her ideology, and was a major part of the main story. Chrom didn't prove them wrong; he proved them right.

This is not a case of 'maybe that's what they intended or maybe not'.

Actually, that's exactly what it is. Unless you have some sort of mind-reading device, you have no idea what was intended.

Individually, the evidence may not seem like much and may be up to interpretation but it all adds up.

It adds up to a nothingburger. Let's do the arithmetic:

1) Emm is idolized by her younger siblings, her trusted butler-protector, and Old Man.

2) There's a CG with some pretty music and visual effects. Pay no attention to the armored soldiers that are photobombing.

3) Aversa made fun of Ricken and Maribelle. I don't understand this one either, but for completion's sake.

4) Barracks conversation says that she's "peace-loving and kind".

What am I missing? When does this pile of toothpicks add up to a Log Cabin of Justice? I haven't even made the subtractions yet.

I'm pretty sure you said "you can count the bodies." If you get to take everything super-literally, take yourself the same way and prove it.

Nope; it was nothing but a way to describe a point, and therefore I have no problem discarding it as not useful.

Old line: "Who said Awakening was clever about it? There's no subtlety about Emm's flaws; you can measure the results of her pacifism by counting the bodies."

New line: "Who said Awakening was clever about it? There's no subtlety about Emm's flaws; her pacifism has serious negative consequences during the story.

And those soldiers would have died anyway if they had been ordered to march off to war.

Why is marching off to war the alternative to pacifism? I'm no Duke Wellington, but I'm pretty sure that something like "taking out Gangrel" would be a pretty good idea for starters.

Please don't call me adorbs. I haven't insulted you yet in this thread, and I'll thank you not to take the first shot.

I'd have apologized for this, but instead I'm putting you on notice for the pedantry. Don't waste my time.

I actually said the exact opposite, that nonfiction is inherently biased in some form, while all bias in fiction is intentional and used to portray the world the way the author wants you to see it. In Awakening's case, the bias is obviously pro-Emmeryn. Do you really think the devs would have spent the resources to include that CGI if it's really as meaningless as you say it is?

I didn't say it was meaningless; I said that it was unexceptional. The game would be worse without it, since it's it's a pretty CG, and it fits into the flow of the Japanese-style story dump. But that's it.

When did this turn into "pro-Emmeryn"? The game is obviously pro-Emmeryn on the whole (FFS, Chrom is one of the principal characters), the question was whether she was viewed as some sort of deity-saint, or whatever crazy title it was that the Hyperbole Patrol attached to her.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

I was talking about your initial response

Of course you were; and I'm not responding to you, I'm replying to the you from a week ago Thursday. Meanwhile, it's a matter of record that you blew right past a paragraph-long explanation about something you accused me of ignoring, and I threw it back in your face like a banana cream pie.

Your explanation falls flat when assassins break into her palace. The same palace that is also in her own hometown populated by her followers.

There's plenty of reason for her to have guards, but not in the way that they are depicted. Why is her escort armored and mounted? It's broad daylight in a bustling city, there isn't going to be a battle in the streets with heavies. And why soldiers conspicuously in the CG, anyway? If the purpose of the scene is to convey the point that Emm is some paragon of peace (PEACE not "piece", FFS), having the soldiers there significantly undermines the effect, and at the very least serves as a stark contrast to what the characters are saying.

It's almost like that wasn't the point of the CG, and that the soldiers are just parade theater to convey the fact that Emm is the Exalt, and she's in charge. I mean, if that was the case, surely that explains "The exalt is your ruler, yes?", as the first substantive comment from a character following the CG.

But no, it couldn't be. Otherwise you'd be wrong, and Naga forbid that.

Like I said, hard to take you seriously when your responses are that laughable.

This is in fact that third time you've said that; how many more do I need before I get a free 6" sub? Could you maybe mix up your obvious deflections? Just for variety.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

I'm a little disappointed that you didn't detail how Chrom was going to slug Emmeryn in the face at the end of chapter 7, right in front of Phila. A real missed opportunity for some quality fanfic, right there.

His evasive response to this is just the icing. As is the nitpicking on grammar of all things.

I can't comment on it if I can't see it, so I just asked if it was recorded somewhere. I don't have Emm recruited in any current file available. What's your preferred response? That I just make something up?

Hell, you even ignored the contents of the image of itself. You ignored the soldiers around her [...]

Yes, I ignored the soldiers so hard that I talked about them for an entire paragraph in a post that hasn't been edited.

Naturally, you'll need to bring your own music along, and it's unlikely that anyone will flanked by generic-looking armored soldiers, both mounted and on foot. If you ask me, the beef sort of detracts from the ideal; what need does an idolized figure have for an armed escort, anyway? Surely a universally admired figure has nothing to fear from her own people, not in her own hometown. And if anything sketchy happened, wouldn't her cult of worshippers rush to her aid?

You can't see my face right now, but I am shocked, simply shocked that you replied to a post without reading it properly.

Got anything else?

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

What context didn't you ignore?

This is a non-response. I'll ask again: what "context" did I ignore in this sequence? I gave an example of one of Emm's strongest supporters directly calling her plan "terrible". To her face. Strictly speaking, I could have also could have pointed out where he said "no, Emm", or "this is madness!", or "this is absurd!", but that would have just been overkill. At this point, your argument that no "good" person ever opposes Emm, was smashed on the bottom of a cliff just like she was, and twisting the knife would just be bad form.

He posts this image of Emmeryn. The context here is important. It shows Emmeryn being glorified as the icon of piece. This is before we've actually met her too. The dialogue and context of said dialogue paint her as the ultimate paragon.

There's nothing special about this CG; I examined it pretty closely, but I don't see her curing leprosy or multiplying loaves of bread, although admittedly she could be healing cripples with her offscreen right hand -- there's no way to know. It looks nice, but is otherwise unexceptional. If you want to see a pretty smiling girl with a tattoo taking a walk in the sunlight and waving at people, go to a park on a nice weekend.

Naturally, you'll need to bring your own music along, and it's unlikely that anyone will flanked by generic-looking armored soldiers, both mounted and on foot. If you ask me, the beef sort of detracts from the ideal; what need does an idolized figure have for an armed escort, anyway? Surely a universally admired figure has nothing to fear from her own people, not in her own hometown. And if anything sketchy happened, wouldn't her cult of worshippers rush to her aid?

No, I'm afraid it's just a pretty CG, though that doesn't stop people from seeing things that they are pre-disposed to seeing.

You know, I've got Robin the Amnesiac on my side here. His/her first thought after establishing that the Exalt was the ruler of Ylisse, was to openly wonder if it was safe for her to be walking amongst commoners.

And you ignore context again since Emmeryn's decision to leave for Ylisstol again is painted as a noble and selfless thing to do. Chrom even urges her to be 'selfish for once.

What does this have to do with anything? Nobody is impugning Emmeryn's selflessness or nobility: you can see from her actions and decisions that she completely buys into her own nonsense. The entire point is that it was a bad decision, and one of the main characters calls her out on it. Chrom is not some faceless generic, and nobody challenges him on it, either.

And so what if she pulls rank? IF Chrom felt that strongly about it being a bad decision, he would have stopped her.

Oh my. Just for shits and giggles, suppose that the crown prince did decide to go down the path of insubordination, defying the commands of his ruler in a time of crisis. How do you propose that Chrom "stops her"? I think it's pretty clear from the dialogue that there's no chance of him talking her down. Is there violence involved? A hunger strike? How do you suppose that Frederick and Phila react to a direct confrontation between Chrom and the Exalt?

I can't wait to hear this. Hey, do you have a newsletter that I can subscribe to?

Then how many are there?

No way to know, from available evidence, but a good starting point is anyone who died as a result of Emm's actions (or inaction). That'll include victims of the "raids", a whole lot of Pegasus Knights, whatever Ylissians and Feroxi died in battle, for starters. Granted, the counter-factual gets messy because of Lucina's interference; in an alternate history, it's even bloodier.

You're saying that, because the only time Emmeryn is ever glorified is by people who are loyal to her, the story gives you no proof that she actually is glorified. But these people make up 100% of the playable cast, and there isn't even a narrator to "objectively confirm" that she's an awesome leader.

That is not what I am saying. There is certainly an element of glorification, but it does not appear to exist to the extent that certain people breathlessly claim that it does. Not only are the examples given thus far pretty flimsy, but any detached third party can see in-game what damage that Emm's decisions cause. It's the foundation of the criticism of her in this thread, and it's not hidden from the players.

Where's all this portrayal of her as a bad leader you're seeing under the "false portrayal" of her as good, and where are you getting that the good portrayal is intended as false and the bad as true?

Intentionality doesn't even enter the equation; I'm talking about the game as it exists, since none of us can read the minds of the writers. Emm's depiction as a flawless saint is not an unbroken circle, and we can say this because it's pretty easy to point to instances where her dogma leads her to make bad decisions. I am not making up the fact that she went back to Ylisstol -- like an idiot -- and got captured: that is an actual thing that happened in the game, and every player sees it.

You've lost your right to insult my literary capabilities if you can't understand why context is important.

This is adorable. What is the governing body that enforces someone's "right" to point out an obvious fact? Does this mean that I am forbidden from correcting you in the future if you should use the word "anti-climax" incorrectly? Just as an example.

Of course this is irrelevant, since I actually DO understand why context is important, but the concept of losing my "right" to say something amuses me to no end.

This scene combines both dialogue from our only trustworthy source (along with the joy of the old man) and a visual cue to present the idea that Emmeryn is a paragon of peace.

For the umpteenth time: you're free to come to this conclusion (I personally do not), but now you have to square it with the fact that Emmeryn makes some verifiably bad decisions, and the game does not hide the negative consequences of said decisions from the player. They are, in fact, some of the basis of the criticism of Emmeryn in this very thread.

For you to propose this incredulous view point

Please stop abusing the English language. A viewpoint cannot be "incredulous", unless you think that a viewpoint is a person.

[...] and then be the only one who supports it, you've placed the burden of proof upon yourself.

A thousand times "nay". This is not a popularity contest, nor is the burden of proof on the person who isn't making wild assertions. Never mind that I'm not actually trying to change anyone's opinion on this, just offering my own viewpoint and challenging other people on theirs. Just like the plot of Awakening, people can come to their own conclusions, and it's no problem of mine if someone makes a poor one.

Awakening is not nonfiction. It's not an account of the events in Archanea during a certain time period from a potentially biased point of view, it is those events.

This is also adorbs. Are you of the opinion that a nonfiction work can't be biased, or that a fiction can't be unbiased? It's a little offtopic, so you don't have to answer, but lulz.

Anyway, if Awakening's version of a narrator isn't enough to convince you that she's portrayed as perfect, check out her nifty character description in the Barracks. That's the dev's own summary of her character, unbiased by potential character viewpoints. Are you going to deny that too?

Sorry, I always ignore her, and she is not in my Barracks on any file. Is it captured somewhere?

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

I don't know, but I always have this feeling that the game never links the deaths of many to Emmeryn's idiocy, but to Gangrel's cruelty and war's horrors.

They probably don't draw any links directly, but they also don't establish theory of gravity, either. Reasonable people can look at the events of the game, and come to the conclusion that Emm has blood on her hands. I mean, I'm no scholar of the script, and that was my take-away. The basic point is that you can come to your own conclusions based on all of the events of the game, and not just ride along with whatever cotton candy you are presented with.

Still you continue with your laughable responses. I don't have to repeat examples of her being idolised because others have already done so.

Translation: you still ain't got shit. Perhaps take half the time that you spend conspicuously avoiding uncomfortable responses, and put it towards combing the game script for evidence of your assertions.

And your weak response (which consisted of deliberately ignoring context and altering the meaning, like you did with that pathetic response to the pic OwnagePuffs posted) did nothing to dilute the arguments made.

What context did I ignore, exactly? The part where Chrom also calls her plan "absurd"? Or "madness"? I just cut to the money line: he was completely against her idiocy the entire time.

You need to step it up. Everyone sees through your BS.

Ooooh... "everyone", huh? Do you think me some sort of impressionable teenager, who cares what people think about my opinions? Tell me more about the disdain of my peers; will I be ostracized from the tribe of cool kids?

Oh please, he goes along with the plan within seconds.

Emm pulled rank. She commanded Lissa to stay, and would have done to same to him. Chrom followed orders.

Nevermind [...]

Yes, never mind your point. Let's review:

You: "Anyone who disagrees with her is evil and petty"

Me: <evidence that Chrom, the hero of the story, strongly disagreed with Emm on an important decision>

You:[it doesn't matter what goes here, because the discussion on this point is over]

I think that ought to make this clear; there's no need to go down rabbit holes following points that I never made in the first place. Thanks for playing.

[Once upon a time there was a tier list]

Meh, Hard mode. I think this mode is too easy at this point of Awakening's life; pretty much everyone is good if you aren't terribly constrained by turncounts, even Donnel.

Nice to see N.O.W.I. properly represented in A-tier, though, since she used to be massively underrated.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

No, no, you still can't separate the words of the characters from the the ideas the game is trying to convey. Especially a game which lacks a narrator or exposition from a neutral source. The words of characters are how the writers convey their ideas. Yes, their words carry bias but it is also the only way the game states anything.

There's no evidence of such motivations on the part of the writers. Some stories do that, some don't. Sure, we can go on a whimsical Inference Fantasy Adventure and just make shit up as we go along, but that makes for a flimsy argument. There's no way to separate what actually happened, from what you want to believe happened.

Also, in-game events blow up your argument, but we'll get to that momentarily.

The examples are clear to anyone who can read. I won't quote every single mention of Emmeryn since we'd be here all day.

Or in other words, you ain't got shit. I asked for examples, and what's been given thus far has had all the structural integrity of a house of cards in a hurricane. If it's so clear, why are you having such difficulty? Surely you aren't just asserting something that isn't true!

But suffice to say, the characters keep praising her and the game allows for any discussion on why she's wrong. Anyone who disagrees with her is evil and petty and anyone who agrees with her is good. Because that's how writing works. The words the characters say are important. No matter how much you try to deny that their words don't carry any sort of message.

Anyone who disagrees with her is evil and petty, huh? I suppose that not only does the game disallow good people to disagree with Emm, but SURELY not someone who was otherwise on her side, right? Well...

Emmeryn

...... I love you, Chrom. Both you and Lissa are my everything. As for the peace I seek... You cannot see who it is for. I have to go. I'm sorryI truly am. Let us embrace again in Ylisstol when you arrive with Feroxi reinforcements. I know you will come.

Chrom

...This is a terrible plan.

Aaand this argument is over.

You'd have a point, except the game uses a visual cue to present the idea to the viewer that Emm is flawless.

Just to be clear, is a CG of a pretty girl on a sunny day with nice music the extent of your best evidence?

You've really got to provide some evidence that Awakening is clever enough to subtly present Emmeryn's flaws to the viewer when the rest of the story is a clusterfuck.

Who said Awakening was clever about it? There's no subtlety about Emm's flaws; you can measure the results of her pacifism by counting the bodies.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

Dat feel when the only part of my post you focus on is the part that was meant to be a humorous remark.

You might have missed the actual reply, since I did actually respond to pretty much everything you said.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

You can't separate what the characters say and what the game is trying to say that easily. Nuh uh. That's bullshit.

Because it's devastating to your case? Not my problem. The fact that these things are coming from characters, rather than some omniscient figure, is actually a pretty important distinction. For example, Gangrel says this during Chapter 9:

"Now, now, my boy-no one needs die today. Not you. Not the exalt. Not your friends. Just lay down your sword, and give me the Fire Emblem."

Does anyone interpret this as meaning that Chrom can surrender and everyone will be OK? No, because we know that Gangrel is a crazy, double-crossing MF'er. Someone should always view things like this through the prism of the motivations of the person who said them; that's why whenever you and your ilk refer to "the game" stating something, I just laugh and adjust my monocle.

When pressed for an example of this Emm idolatry, you ignored it, for reasons unknown. Others stepped up in your stead, but neither example given actually held up under scrutiny. Hyperbole exposed as hyperbolic... film at 11.

Please do put in more effort

In the words of the great, always-quotable Presea: "50% output should be sufficient."

amateurish

This is a really strange choice of adjective for an insult. Regardless of the definition of the word, the root here is "amateur". Amateurs are significantly more skilled in their trade than laypersons, and there aren't any professional Awakening debaters as far as I am aware. Thanks for the compliment!

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

What? Sorry, you lost me.

Try actually answering my question.

I did answer your question. Just to refresh your memory: you asked me why I was defending Awakening "so hard". Firstly, I object to the premise: this is as easy for me as falling out of bed; count your blessings that I'm not putting forth any sort of real effort. Secondly, I only defend Awakening because the arguments people are making are silly and ridiculous; it's not that I like Emm as a character, but more that the commentary against her in this thread is incoherent.

I mean, there are good points to be made, here. But instead of any of those, we get "Awakening doesn't have a narrative", and "Emm's suicide is cowardice", and "jumping was not a sacrifice"... to say nothing of people who see no difference between "Chrom and Lissa idolizing their older sister" and "THE GAME FORCING YOU TO BELEEEEEEIVE".

I am in a batting cage, and people are lobbing softballs at me, underhand. Or, in your language, something like this:

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

Dude, why are you defending a piece of shit writing so hard?

Am I giving the impression of effort? This is as easy as falling off a log. Criticism of Awakening here is so over the top ridiculous, it can hardly be taken seriously. The hyperbole and naiveté (I LOVE people's opinions on suicide... cute as buttons, all of you!) would make for a delicious comedic omelet, if I thought that people were actually doing it on purpose. I mean, FFS, we just had someone say that Awakening has a "non-existent narrative"; somewhere in the world, a grade school literature teacher is sobbing uncontrollably and doesn't know why.

Its plot is crap and ive come to accept that. But its not going to stop me from pointing out how fucking shitty Emmeryn was as a character.

Oh heaven forbid, don't stop, please go on. I'd like I see how many synonyms for poop that you can cram into one post. So far, you're up to three.

Fair enough. Let's ask someone else... Like one of the bad guys. How about Aversa?

The essential point here: what people claim is "the game" doing various things, is actually more accurately described as certain characters saying stuff, which is another thing entirely. It's not as if we have some gravitas-dripping badass narrator here, like Radiant Dawn.

Fun fact: throughout all of Cht.5, Aversa insults pretty much everyone except Emmeryn. Not even a single sarcastic compliment (though Gangrel has plenty of those). She doesn't bother in Cht.9 either. Make of that what you will.

Maribelle, Ricken and... who else? Are we talking about a different Chapter 5? The only thing I can "make of" this factoid is that the arguments of Emmeryn being glorified are even weaker than I initially thought.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

Maybe her survival of that fall was gods punishment for being an incompetent ruler and being incredibly lucky with everything else.

Obviously Miracle activated right as she hit the ground. And don't tell me she didn't have it; she just unequipped it before her Paralogue. She's not getting to A-rank Staves unless she spent some time as a Cleric.

[Emmeryn's Sacrifice]

I doubt Awakening will ever get much praise from me unless the next game is somehow worse but in that case, Awakening will only get praise for not being as bad. Unless the next game is good. But we'll see when it actually becomes a thing.

I suspect that the only thing that's going to change in 2020 is that you'll be six years older. The future Awakening apologists are the ones who are playing it now, and enjoying it for what it is. Sort of like how the kids from my generation hold up Final Fantasy 7 as some pinnacle of greatness, because that was their first exposure to the franchise.

EDIT:

When you first see her in town. Chapter 2, I believe? She's glorified as the perfect symbol of peace.

In other words, you mean Chrom, Lissa, and Frederick giving unbiased background to an amnesiac who wouldn't know any better. I don't know about anyone else, but when I really want to get the pulse on someone, I ask their younger siblings and the f'n butler.

The game was not interested in letting you see how much of a dumbass she was [...]

This isn't true unless the game ejects the cartridge every time you get to the end of Chapter 7, which is a "yell at the movie screen" moment if there ever was one.

Awakening's (non-existent) narrative

This game doesn't have a narrative that exists? Feel free to walk that one back if you intend to be taken seriously.