vanguard333

Simply cutting it down for length. Thanks for the reply. I completely agree about the "throwing everything into the kitchen sink" and trying to appeal to everyone leading to satisfying no one. As I said in my response to the guy who said the writing was lazy, I genuinely think that Fates' writing problems were from mixed/confused priorities and overreaching ambition, not laziness.

Paper Mario: Description: Paper Mario leaves his storybook to join Smash Bros. Paper Mario is mainly based on how he plays in the first three Paper Mario games (the ones that were called Mario Story in Japan): using partners in addition to hammer and jumping. Paper Mario always has a partner following him when he fights, and his special moves revolve around these partners. He can swap a partner by pressing b, and his up, side and down specials are each a special attack from said partner. I haven't played any of the Paper Mario games, so I don't know which partners from the first two games would be ideal for Smash Bros.

I'll check. I think the one I was referring to was the one on page 7, where I theorized that Fates' writing problems stem from overreaching ambition and trying to essentially write three game plots in the timeframe normally allotted for one game's plot. That said, I have made a lot of different replies on different aspects of Fates' writing, and I really would appreciate a response to any of them really. On that same page, I had also made a brief point about how one thing that there was a lot of hype for Fates, and one thing that helped that was the marketing, for pretty much the first time for an FE game, the marketing for it was pretty much perfect (Awakening was the first time an FE game got marketing that actually existed). I also made a point on page 7 about how Corrin's different abilities (namely the Yato and the dragon powers) largely go underutilized by the plot, especially in terms of character exploration. Funny enough, someone had posted a bunch of paragraphs above my reply that made a lot of additional points about the dragon powers that I agree with. I had also made a detailed point about the difference between coincidence and contrivance and how a story should be driven by character actions (a point you later made with a lot fewer words) all the way back in page 2. On page 1, I made a point about how, gameplay-wise (so not really story, but story does come up), Fates feels like it was made to cater to everyone and that they just threw in every gameplay element they could think of to see what fans would like and what they wouldn't like.

I did not say that Fates' writing is not bad; I think Fates' storytelling is bad, and I've made that clear many times. What I was actually saying was that the specific symptoms strike me more as being the result of rush & overambition than laziness. EDIT: Basically, I agree with you that Fates' writing is of very poor quality. I was just saying that I don't think the main writer sat down and thought, "Alright, time to put in no effort today!" I think the main writer sat down and thought, "****! There's less than a month before the deadline and I'm still on the first draft of the Hoshido plot! How am I going to finish these on time! Why did i ever agree to write the plot for three games at once?" I finally get a reply after a long time, and it's someone completely misunderstanding what I was saying... 😢

The only game I can think of off the top of my head that I played that actually released in 2020 would be Final Fantasy 7 Remake, and I'm only halfway done that game. So, I guess that would be my favourite game that released in 2020. To be fair to it, it has been great so far: great gameplay, great presentation, interesting characters, etc. As for favourite games that I played in 2020, well, I finally finished Valkyria Chronicles 4, and that was a great game. There was also the Link's Awakening Remake. Both of those games were great. EDIT: Oh; I just remembered Fire Emblem: Three Houses as well. I still have yet to finish it, but I really like it so far. I just need to do the last couple missions of Verdant Wind, then do Azure Moon and finally Silver Snow.

I don't know all the details; that could be what happened. I was just trying to say the broad strokes so to speak. Anyway, what did you think of my overall point about Fates' writing? It's been a while since I got a reply on this thread.

I don't think the story is lazy; there are enough little flashes of competent writing or at least competent writing that the story strikes me not as lazy, but as something put together hastily and haphazardly, as if it were rushed or overstretched, and I think that's exactly what happened: writing effectively three stories in a timespan that would normally be devoted to writing one overstretched the writing team; they bit off more than they could chew. Further evidence to support this is that Three Houses, in its four different routes, shows varying (but far less than Fates) degrees of the same problem despite being delayed twice and despite the game's programming being handled by Koei Tecmo so the IS team could focus on the story. "Overreaching ambition invites disaster" - Sephiran.

Yeah; hype was definitely a factor. One thing that helped was that the marketing for the game was almost perfect; something that had never really happened before in FE as marketing had been almost nonexistent prior to Awakening, and even Awakening's marketing was more helped by (probably accidental) good timing. To this day, I still consider the "Fire Emblem If: Choose Your Path trailer" one of the best video game trailers ever made (not necessarily the best, but definitely up there), as it efficiently conveys everything unique and interesting about the game in a very exciting and intriguing way.

To clarify, what part of what I said was "parroted back at you"? Everything I said was either in disagreement with something you said or unrelated to anything you said, and the section you quoted was the latter; that's the reason I left an extra space between my response to you and my response to Florete: to indicate that I was moving on to discussing something else. Agree with you about what? As for that second part, "then I don't see how you think it's okay to criticize a story based on your experience seeking out spoilers online" There are so many things wrong with this: 1. I never said that it's okay to do something like that, nor did I do something like that. 2. I'm criticizing the game on the blatant false advertising that surrounded it and the wasted potential for an actual prequel. Both of those criticisms have nothing to do with the story taken in its own, but entirely have to do with the wider context surrounding the game's release, which is inarguably fair game for someone who hasn't played the game to criticize. 3. As for whether or not it's okay for someone to criticize a story based on spoilers they heard, purely as a hypothetical, I would say all depends on a number of factors: how much of the story did they spoil? How familiar are they with the series the story is a part of? And most importantly: what is the criticism they're making? For example, if someone said something like, "I never played Final Fantasy XV, but I know the whole story's garbage because I read on Wikipedia that Noctis dies at the end", that would obviously be a nonsensical argument that would not be okay for them to make. However, if someone said, "I never played Final Fantasy XV, but I saw someone livestream it because I was unsure whether whether or not I wanted to get it, and the romance between Noctis and Luna is practically nonexistent compared to previous FF romances: they never even interact as adults before she gets Aerith-ed by the game's main villain." I'd say that criticism's fair game for them to make. As for, "I just thought it was annoying to see somebody decide they hated a game before it could make its case to anybody, but that's the internet" do you think I wanted to dislike this game? For that matter, do you really think that I hate this game? I don't hate this game; I don't hate anything, and I don't even dislike this game; I dislike the wider context surrounding this game's release; I dislike the false advertising and the wasted potential. Had this game been advertised honestly (and before says that that would've been impossible to do without spoilers, I've heard that argument before and it's just plain wrong) and had I been convinced to get it, I probably would have been able to enjoy this game for what it is. My problem is that I can't separate it from that wider context, and it's fair game for me to criticize that wider context.

I can think of four problems with this comparison: 1. Metal Gear Solid as a series was always at least somewhat meta and full of mind games. The first game had a boss that knew what games the player had also played on the console and who you beat by unplugging the controller from slot 1 and inserting it into slot 2. There was precedence for mind games. 2. Ultimately, as you pointed out, players still got the ship mission that was advertised. Information was omitted rather than outright lied about. Again, from Nintendo's own website: "Experience the events of the Great Calamity" "Join the struggle that brought Hyrule to its knees" "The Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity game is the only way to see firsthand what happened 100 years ago" Those all convey that it's a proper prequel; there's no way around that. These are bald-faced lies. 3. That misdirection was used to enhance the story, character and themes of MGS2 by adding that meta layer to all of it. All Age of Calamity does with that misdirection is sucker fans who were hoping for a prequel out of their money. 4. Hideo Kojima is known for being very... for lack of a better word, odd, with his directing and how he writes his games and how he addresses his audiences. By contrast, Nintendo is known more for being straightforward. "Here's this game, here's what's unique about it. There. Done." One can expect some level of mind games and meta-narrative from Kojima; one does not expect similar misleading from Nintendo. It's not that the burger doesn't look like what's on the picture; it's more like ordering a veggie burger and then the waiter gives it to you, and it turns out that the buns are made entirely out of meat loaf. I have not once made a claim of ignorance; I even said that the reason I spoiled myself on the game's story was that I saw the warning signs when I heard about what the egg guardian did in the demo and Age of Calamity supposedly being a prequel was the only reason I was interested in the game, so I didn't want to risk wasting $80 (I will maintain the right call there; I didn't do myself a disservice at all, but saved myself from buying a can of worms labeled "peanut brittle"). I'm not making bad-faith arguments or pretending to be more ignorant than I was; don't insinuate stuff like that; I don't like being accused of arguing in bad faith as I do everything in my power to argue in good faith; I even took courses in university on logic and critical thinking in part to help with my argumentation. This. Seeing how something unfolds is way more important than knowing what happens. People still watch and read prequels all the time, and they can be very compelling stories. In fact, knowing how a story ultimately plays out can increase tension and suspense, rather than diminish it. One hypothetical example I really like is that if you show people in a room and have the room blow up, the audience feels a few seconds of shock. But, if you show the audience a room full of people and tell the audience there's a bomb somewhere in the room that will go off in ten minutes, suddenly there's ten minutes of suspense. I would also add that there's a big difference between knowing how something plays out and experiencing how it plays out; that's something video games have as an interactive medium that makes them particularly able to excel when it comes to prequels. Seeing Link defend Zelda from Guardians, be overwhelmed and pass out near death is shocking. But now imagine playing as Link and experiencing that happening through gameplay; suddenly the addition of experiencing it makes it all the more hard-hitting.

I don't view a story through the lens of hard work; I was just saying that emphasis on training/hard work is a neat writing tool that I personally (as in this is very subjective) prefer to see over a character just being given power. In the Iron Man example that I brought up, the building-the-suit and experimentation did quite a bit of comedy as well as character exploration; reinforcing how he's changed and become driven to rid the war-torn parts of the world of the weapons that he built, that even though he's back home, part of him is still in the cave and all that. Obviously a lot can be done without a character needing to train; I'm just saying that I personally prefer it. Funny enough, it's only now that I remember a way I can bring this back to Fire Emblem. One of the many reasons Ike is my favourite FE protagonist is how much emphasis and attention-to-detail is placed on his growth, both as a leader and as a swordsman as well as other things. Out of all the FE protagonists, he is the one where the power scaling is most-clearly defined, and part of that is because we see him work for it. With Corrin, obviously they weren't going for a "needing to work for it" in terms of his abilities, and that's completely fine since Fates is going for a very different narrative. As far as how the story uses Corrin's abilities are concerned, however, I do have some issues: I like how they handle the Yato, at least to some extent. I don't like that it appeared out of nowhere in chapter 5; I definitely feel that it would have been better if it had been given some proper buildup since it's a legendary sword with history behind it (compare to Ragnell, which did get some buildup before we even knew of its significance with the Black Knight tossing it to Greil and saying, "Here, use this blade."). However, I do like the implication in Revelations that the Yato doesn't choose Corrin out of any sense of them being worthy, but instead because Corrin ultimately desires peace just like the Rainbow Sage who made the sword now does. It's an interesting variation on the "chosen-wielder" trope, and I just wish it had been explored a bit more. However, Corrin's dragon powers I have a big problem with. They get good buildup; Corrin going into a rage at Gunther's apparent death and awakening the lance-arm ability was interesting. Chapter 5 having him turn completely into a dragon and lose control of himself due to their grief and rage at Mikoto's death is interesting. Corrin being calmed down by Azura is interesting, and Corrin being the only First Dragon-descendant in this generation to have that kind of power is inherently interesting and creates a possible mystery about them... and the story ditches all this entirely the moment Azura gives Corrin a dragonstone. For one thing, where did she get the dragonstone? But that's beside the point; this power has a ton of potential for interesting emotional character drama as it's basically a superpowered evil side akin to something like The Hulk or the Nine-Tailed Fox from Naruto (see the video in the spoiler tag below for more info about superpowered evil sides). So, yeah; considering this is a story of a protagonist torn between two warring families, and the hidden main villain is a First Dragon who succumbed to madness and degeneration, there's tons of potential in Corrin having to deal with the dragon power and the risk of madness. And yet, the power is never brought up again in any of the three routes except as a quick aside in Conquest when Corrin's ambushed by some mindless ones and they say they can't use their dragonstone (even though they can in said chapter). Tons of wasted potential. The nature of a character's abilities are a good avenue for exploring said character and their struggles. Ike's are used extremely well within Path of Radiance's narrative; Corrin's aren't. What do you think, Ottservia?

Don't get me wrong, "with great power comes great responsibility" is great, and I did say that I enjoy good superhero stories. What I was lamenting was not so much the presence of superheroes that do work for their abilities so much as an almost lack of superheroes that do work for their abilities. I was just saying that I personally prefer (as in this is completely subjective) when characters have to train and improve their abilities. I'm even fine with characters being born with/receiving power so long as that's not the be-all-and-end-all of it. For a good example, Star Wars (at least the first six movies) had it that only some people are born strong with the Force, but it still put a lot of importance on training regardless; when Luke confronts Vader in episode 5, he loses because he wasn't ready. I just think there's a lot more potential avenues for storytelling when there's an element of hard work involved. Does that make sense?

Incidentally, you just described something that I'm not really a fan of in superhero stories. As much as I enjoy a good superhero story, I'm not a fan of how western superheroes just "get" their powers so-to-speak without having to work for it. Even Batman with all his detective skills and martial arts wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as he does if he hadn't been born into a huge sum of wealth. It is something I can easily overlook, but I do prefer when heroes have to work in some way for their abilities. One thing I really liked about the Iron Man movie was that it spent time showing him making the different parts of his suit and experimenting with different parts. Similarly, one thing I liked about the Captain America movie was that he was deliberately chosen for receiving the serum.

From Nintendo's Age of Calamity website: "Experience the events of the Great Calamity" "Join the struggle that brought Hyrule to its knees." "The Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity game is the only way to see firsthand what happened 100 years ago." Yes, Egg Guardian going back in time was in the demo, but everything they kept saying about the game kept saying it was going to be a prequel to Breath of the Wild. I'd say that the false advertisement argument very much holds water and that there's no way around it; it's just a fact that Nintendo falsely advertised the game.

Huh, interesting. Looking back, I also remember wyverns in Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn having four legs, so never mind then. I would like Fire Emblem to be a bit more consistent about this.

I'd say that Three Houses, with the particular monster mechanics and such, is theoretically better-suited to having a good boss fight than most FE games. As for whether or not it succeeds in execution, I'm not sure. I will say that I did like The Immovable and The Immaculate One (Crimson Flower) as boss fights.

I'd say it depends on the game, kind-of like how I don't think there's one art style that best fits Legend of Zelda: each has different pros and cons and should be chosen to best suit the game. That said, my personal favourite would be the Tellius games, followed by Three Houses and then Shadow Dragon.

Two-legged dragons are wyverns. I'd suggest either making her four-legged or a wyvern. I do like the artwork though.

Agreed. Plus, if they went with the War of Heroes option, you know that the game would be advertised as a prologue taking place in the War of Heroes, only to actually be a game where someone goes back in time to undo the death of Sothis and the events of the Red Canyon just so it can have a happier ending (cough Age of Calamity cough).

Very true, and the false advertising that kept saying this game was going to be an actual prequel was also Nintendo's doing. So, yeah; bot have A LOT of explaining to do.

Yes, they do. They said this game would be a prequel to Breath of the Wild, that we'd experience the events of the Calamity. This... this was some sick prank akin to a can of snakes labeled, "peanut brittle". They have a lot of questions to answer; first question obviously being: "Where's the real game?!"

This. I only bought Dragon Age Inquisition because it was a used copy on sale for $10 and I bought it before the loot boxes stuff happened. Well, two very recent examples would be Ubisoft with AC: Valhalla and Nintendo/Koei Tecmo with Age of Calamity: I made a whole thread about why I was upset with Ubisoft about AC: Valhalla. The short version is that the game's portrayal of Celtic people is basically every stereotype pooled together, and it's really offensive, especially since they're planning a DLC campaign in 9th Century Ireland that uses all those stereotypes, so they're using these stereotypes to represent the ancestors of an entire nation that's been stereotyped, oppressed and split in half over its history. For more information, see the thread I made. As for Age of Calamity, I can't stand false advertising. A prequel to Breath of the Wild, they said. You'll be able to experience the events of the Calamity, they said. They lied! My only interest in the game was that it was supposedly a prequel to Breath of the Wild; that the player would experience Hyrule, Link, and the Champions' respective last stands against the Calamity Ganon. I wanted to see that, I wanted to experience that, and the marketing said that was what the game would be. But, instead, it's an elaborate prank by Nintendo and Koei Tecmo equivalent to promising a can of food when you're hungry only for the can to be full of snakes (the springy kind, not the animal kind). I'm sure, on its own, I might be able to enjoy Age of Calamity for what it is: a sort-of alternate timeline "what-if" scenario. But I can't separate it from the false advertising that presented it as something far more interesting.

I'm going to break this down into parts: 1. Deku happening to run into All Might is a coincidence; as I said before, coincidences are fine so long as they're only creating the circumstances for character decisions, and the character decisions drive the plot forward. Deku running into All Might itself does not drive the plot forward; what drives the plot forward is Deku asking All Might if he too can be a hero even without a quirk, and later on Deku trying to save Bakugo and unwittingly spurring All Might into action after seeing Deku trying to help Bakugo, leading All Might to choose Deku as his successor. Would that have happened if they hadn't run into each other? Obviously not, but what was truly important wasn't Deku and All Might running into each other; it was their decisions. I already gave two other examples of stories that, like this one, open with a coincidence but use that coincidence to prompt character choice. 2. The Nighteye example is interesting. One could argue it's not a coincidence but an example of setup and payoff: the audience already knows Nighteye's a collector and that the guy Overhaul assigned to watch Eri is buying a bunch of toys for her to try to keep her from running away again as he doesn't want Overhaul to kill him like the last guy who was assigned to watch Eri. These and the fact that Nighteye and the heroes are actively looking for the base take away a lot of the coincidence. It is still a coincidence that they happen to be in the store at the same time, but it is greatly mitigated by the surrounding factors. So this one is a bit hard for me, as I'm not sure if it really counts. I'd have to think about it more. If I recall correctly, you have a tendency to refer to a lot of criticisms you don't like as "conversation-enders"; it almost makes me wonder who is the one who ends the conversation. I've never seen "contrived" used to end a conversation; I've seen, "This is contrived", "How?", "Here's how: [lists how]", etc.

I already explained why contrivance is a valid criticism while bringing up problems other than breaking immersion. Yes, stories are inherently artificial, but if a story is relying on coincidence rather than character decision to move the plot forward, then the story's far less meaningful. I've been in enough media discussions with you that I know how important you consider themes and their exploration to be in storytelling, so let me put it this way: every moment a story uses a contrivance rather than character decision & consequences is a moment that the themes aren't being expressed or explored, and at their worst, contrivances can actually damage of contradict a story's theme because the story is using coincidences to make things happen instead of the characters. I agree to an extent about Three Houses' plot points in White Clouds being a bit disconnected, and I have seen that criticism brought up before by others. To an extent, it is a consequence of the different structure. As for Fates, one can indeed argue that there is a genuine sequence of events; however, that sequence of events is kept going a lot of the time by contrivances rather than by character.

I made this same point a long while back in the thread (though admittedly with a lot more words). Read what I said a while back: there's a difference between a story having coincidences and a story being driven by coincidences. Stories, ideally, are supposed to be driven by the actions the characters make because of who they are and the circumstances around them. A story using coincidences to prompt character decisions that drive the plot forward is fine; contrivances occur when the coincidence itself is the thing driving the plot, and that is a problem. So no, you cannot say that every story can be considered strung together by coincidences. For just one very quick example, my favourite novel of all time, The Hobbit: Are you familiar with the whataboutism fallacy (this time, it's not the official name for it, but I don't know the official name for it); when you respond to a criticism basically by saying, "What about this other thing? Isn't it also guilty?" Like when people try to defend Rey in the Star Wars sequels by pointing at child Anakin in The Phantom Menace and saying, "Isn't he also a mary sue?" The obvious problem is that precedence is not grounds for deflecting criticism, but there's another flaw that that example illustrates: even if making that comparison were a valid argument, it depends on people being fine with it in one case but not the other, and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that a lot of people did not like child Anakin in The Phantom Menace. I kind-of had to talk about that before going in to your Three Houses comparison, not necessarily because it is a whataboutism, but because the comparison has some similar weaknesses. I've only played Crimson Flower and Verdant Wind so far, but I can say there are certainly moments of contrivance in Three Houses, and people have indeed criticized those moments. But the overarching plot is, for the most part, driven by character: for the biggest example in the game, Edelgard chooses to wage war on the church, and she makes that choice because of what she knows and who she is. Those moments of contrivance are blemishes in an ultimately character-driven story. Fates, meanwhile, depends on contrivances to keep the plot going; the characters don't move the plot forward, coincidences do.