General Banzai

FE7 is a building full of holes and in need of repair. You have a broad, detailed plot but there are several things wrong with it. FESD is an empty foundation. It has a tight, basic framework and not much else. Even if you spend all your time plugging in FE7's holes, you're still stuck with a story where nothing much happens and the characters have little or no development, where the tone is jarringly incompatible with what happens. With FESD, though, you can build your own building, which can be as good as you want it to be. That's my analogy for it, at least.

Having a plot full of holes isn't the same as having a blank slate. Especially in regards to the characters.

Indeed it did.

I've read a peer-reviewed article in a respected academic journal analyzing the plot of Space Invaders. (And another analyzing the plot of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas). So yeah, Fire Emblem is fair game. And yes, I am saying that FESD has a better plot than FE7.

The problem is there's already the assumption that Jerme and Pascal tricked Brendan into thinking they weren't crazy, which has no textual evidence. Honestly though it's highly likely that Jerme is one of the "new" Black Fang that Sonia enlisted, unless there's something in the script which says Jerme has been around a long time (he's at least been around longer than Jaffar, but Jaffar is a fairly recent addition too). The real problem is Pascal.

Could you show me where in the thread I compared anyone I was arguing against to an ostrich with their head in the ground? ...Or anything remotely similar to that?

Wait, I'm the one portraying those who critique or disagree with me as ridiculous strawmen? I most definitely agree with your sentiments here. I feel that adding more cutscenes is not the way to a better story. In fact, some of the best stories in video games are done with very little, if any, custscenes. See, where video games have the potential to be unique is in how they make the player identify with them; meaning that due to being able to CONTROL the characters, you in effect BECOME a character. For an environmental class I took last year I wrote an essay on how Super Mario Sunshine conveys an environmentalist message by making the player take the active role of cleaning up pollution. Instead of watching someone clean up, YOU are cleaning up, and thus the effect is deepened and comes through clearer to you. This is also why I believe there is a certain quality to FESD's story. While it seems empty and primitive, I feel the emptiness allows you yourself to fill in your own blanks, and in effect create the story yourself as you play. A game where those blanks are filled in for you can be good as well, if the story is good. If the story is bad, however, which is what I am trying to claim about FE7, then there is no opportunity for you to create your own story as the story is already there.

Did you not understand the part where I said that FE7's fundamental problem was not about plot holes? ...And Lyon's the most intricate and well-developed character in the entire series, so yeah.

Halfway through my FESS analysis as we speak :V

Butbutbut I thought you just were talking about how much you liked FE7's story because it was so dramatic and compelling. If it's missing one of the key tenants of drama, however, then how can it be either?

I'm analyzing a story. The age of the story doesn't matter. Is an analysis of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (30 years old) less understandable than an analysis of Hamlet (400 years old)?

It has a story; it can be analyzed. Just because something is a game doesn't mean it can't be "literary".

The analysis of literature has been, since its inception, the arguing of opinions. If you're unwilling to play ball then I'll rest my case.

Oh I love this. FE7 is neither interesting nor compelling sans for perhaps the Bern royal family. This was what I was saying in my original critique; and yet nearly every response to this topic has been people posting inane and purely hypothetical explanations for the plot holes which I explained in order to bring forth the larger point. There is no progress in Fire Emblem 7. None whatsoever. The characters do not progress over time. At the end of the game nothing is different than how it was at the beginning of the game. Nothing has HAPPENED. Nergal spawned out of thin air to gain power. This caused some fights, some people died. Then Nergal was defeated and we were left off right where we began. The story started with everything at status quo and ended with everything at status quo. Everything about this story--from its place as an utterly pointless prequel to a game well-enclosed and without loose ends, from the chapter maps filled with enemies who appear from nowhere simply seeking to kill you, from the main characters themselves--nothing profound has happened over the course of this game. We have learned nothing new; the characters themselves have learned nothing new. If you want to take this to a loftier level, I'll take it there. For as far as I'm concerned, Fire Emblem 7 has no story whatsoever, merely a loosely connected string of battles revolving around a similar set of characters. A story needs progression. You can have a villain, a hero, and a conflict but without progression you still have no story; merely a snapshot. A hideously prolonged snapshot of nauseating disinterest. So let's ignore every single fucking plot hole in the entire game. This game, from a technical standpoint, is perfect. Let's just assume that. This game however still lacks one of the most basic tenants of plot; and that is motion. Oh, but you'll say: "The game starts with you stopping and rebellion and ends with you saving the world," and if that's what you think you've missed the point entirely. There is more to motion than a mere change of the banner waved by the enemies you fight.

This game isn't realistic whatsoever. Even ignoring the fantasy setting. A collection of happy-go-lucky kids on a Napoleonic tour de force fighting Mr. Kill-You-Later?

What is weird about claiming Kishuna is Renault's friend is how Renault accuses Nergal of turning his friend into a soulless puppet, while Kishuna is Nergal's first morph to actually have emotions. I mean, Denning is more likely to be Renault's friend.

Okay so you guys first spend all this time trying to convince me how Ephidel has Darin in his pocket completely (something I already knew, mind you) and now you're trying to tell me that Ephidel would be incapable of convincing Darin of attacking Ostia? Daein Soldier 2 General Dakova's gone...We're being beaten...We...We don't stand a chance. Retreat! Quickly now, retreat! I mean not only does this soldier explicitly refer to him as a general but it also seems like he's so good that they're entirely helpless without him. Norris M-my lord Black Knight! A ship is departing If we ready our own ship and set sail without delay, we can overtake it immediately! Black Knight ... Sephiran Listen to me, Daein general. You will withdraw from this place. I will not allow you to pursue that ship. Norris Who are you supposed to be,fool? You've no idea who you're speaking to, do you? Black Knight Gather your men....Withdraw. Norris Y-yet we-- Black Knight I will not repeat myself. Do it now. Norris Yes...yes, at once! Narshen's also characterized throughout the story as a coward and an incompetent, and also as someone who doesn't like to get his own hands dirty. Iunno killing retreating men seems like just the thing that would enrage the enemy into attacking more Wow, really? There are plenty of villains who are convincing and interesting and yet insane. Kefka, for instance. The Joker from the Dark Knight, for another. The villain of John Steinbeck's much-applauded East of Eden is insane. The villain of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian is insane. The villain of Henrik Ibsen's Hedda Gabler is insane. Not to say every villain who is insane is automatically a good villain; but there's something to say for strong writing and convincing dialogue. Valter, by the way, has some excellent writing, and if you want I'll pull out over 9000 Valter quotes which really indicate this. As I said earlier, I really enjoyed Sonia's writing and character. I mean I could step back and say "Oh, she's just a soulless puppet who unquestioningly does everything Nergal tells her to" and decide that that's not fodder for a very interesting villain, but what really makes her awesome is the cruelty and ruthlessness of her speech and the excellent writing of her dialogue. Typically the Black Knight just stands around on the map unless something moves into his range. Even in hard mode he doesn't move to the full extent of his movement. So he's obviously not trying very hard. When did we ever imply this was the case? We simply said that FE7 has far MORE plot issues than most Fire Emblems. You mean Renault's supports? The one where he refers to a friend Nergal transformed into a morph but where there's absolutely no indication that morph was Kishuna? Good thing Duessel has Webster's Dictionary to go and look up these pesky words. Not to mention there's nothing anywhere to indicate that Duessel is a man who relies solely on facts and accurate information to make decisions. Not to mention he does feel great regret for his mistake anyways. Also you conveniently only posted half of the quote which explains why Duessel had the lance to begin with. Let me post the whole thing. Duessel: Yes, Cormag. It's a magic weapon of dark design that's been in my family for ages. Legend states that the leader of our house must always carry it, but never use it. We are prohibited from wielding it until such a time as madness itself rules the day. It's part of my legacy, and yet...I... I made a grave error... I allowed Valter to use this lance. Hmm. "We are prohibited from wielding it until such a time as madness itself rules the day." So he's not just carrying it around for no reason; there may actually be a time where he needs to use it. "It's part of my legacy." So it's due to tradition that he carries it as well. The cutscene ends before we see the sword strike Ranulf.

Doesn't need to be successful. Read my other posts on Laus vs Ostia.

Even an unsuccessful attack would be likely to incite Bern into war, according to what several people say about Bern throughout the game. But also, this brings up the question as to why Darin fled Laus at all. He had two/thirds of his army undeployed as well as his best commanders also undeployed. Why not simply deploy those units and crush Eliwood with numbers, instead of running away simply because "Erik is struggling!" This problem is more Ephidel's than Darin's of course; Darin only leaves because Ephidel convinces him to. But it doesn't make sense for Ephidel to want to run away.

So... Based on something said in a support conversation we infer that Ephidel's invasion of Caelin was warmongering and it only didn't work because Eliwood was too fast at stopping the invasion. That's the first passable explanation I've seen of the rebellion ever. But I still think ordering Darin to invade Ostia would have made much more sense for Ephidel's goals.

13x takes place in Caelin. This means Caelin is in between Laus and Pherae. Since Pherae is east of Laus, then Caelin is also east of Laus. Meanwhile, Valor is west of Laus.

Wait wait wait why is it beneficial for Ephidel and friends to invade ANYWHERE at that moment of time? You haven't made that clear to me, and that quote you keep posting means absolutely nothing to me. Explain its significance.

You know there's a difference between spoonfeeding you an explanation and not giving you even the slightest hint towards one. You guys continue to say you've made acceptable explanations as to why Darin would invade Caelin but I've yet to see anything that explains why: 1. Darin would go the opposite direction of Valor 2. Invade a country when he's already been ousted from his own country 3. Ephidel would even ask him to leave Laus instead of reinforcing Erik 4. How invading Caelin is apt to start a rebellion anyways 5. How invading Caelin is apt to do anything but draw the ire of Ostia. Perhaps Ostia has its hands tied but Darin obviously doesn't know this; why else would he say in Chapter 14 "Ostia? That would be ruinous?!" 6. How invading Caelin is apt to do anything but enact the Lycian pact in EliwoodxHector in which all Lycian nations will come to the aid of a Lycian nation under attack If Ephidel wants quintessence why not just go whole hog and attack Ostia directly? Ostia's bigger so there'd be more casualties. More casualties = more quintessence. Not only that but an attack on Ostia is likely to trigger Bern to invade Lycia also. So why Caelin? Even if Laus's attack on Ostia failed pitifully, "if Bern sees the slightest crack in Ostia's defenses it is likely to invade with all its might behind it." Isn't that the whole point of the Zephiel assassination subplot? Also I've gone this entire time without a single personal insult towards anyone arguing with me. Is it possible to have conflicting opinions on something and still think that the other person is an okay guy? I don't know what I've done to draw your hatred besides point out the flaws in a game you like. I certainly don't bear you any ill will even though you are attacking me.

The first quote doesn't imply anything more than Ostia may forgive Laus for invading Caelin. The second quote, while more strongly implying that Hausen did not support rebellion, still doesn't explain why Darin or Ephidel would go and invade Caelin. Oh, and thanks for all the insults. Really makes you seem like you know what you're talking about.

I like how Hector has to ask is that's the enemy.