QUINTESSENCE? DONT UNDERSTAND

[Psych]

Rescuing wasn't in the game until FE5. It didn't exist in the original, so why would they suddenly add it in.

[Dark Sage]

Because they added in the Reclass system which wasn't in the original.

[General Banzai]

Adding new things to FESD's story would have been terrible. The gaidans, for instance, are some of the most nauseatingly bland aspects of the story.

[-Cynthia-]

Adding new things to FESD's story would have been terrible. The gaidans, for instance, are some of the most nauseatingly bland aspects of the story.

That's not a good reason not to add things, that just means that what they did choose to add was (perhaps) not very good. There are a number of ways to make FE1's story more interesting, bland gaidens are not the way to go.

[Momo]

Adding new things to FESD's story would have been terrible. The gaidans, for instance, are some of the most nauseatingly bland aspects of the story.

The first one added Athena, the only person in the universe with a French accent.

[eclipse]

The first one added Athena, the only person in the universe with a French accent.

That's a French accent? Didn't know that.

[Psych]

It sounds more Romanian or Russian, or at least Eastern European, but definitely not French.

[Mikethfc]

The first one added Athena, the only person in the universe with a French accent.

Saying V instead of W is a stereotype associated with the Germans rather than the French and I wouldn't have thought it constitutes an accent rather than a speech impediment, but I know which one is more fun to imagine

If you're playing what's basically an improved remake of the original and your main complaint is not the gameplay, but a 24 year old plot that was made for an system on the tiny NES, then you might want to get priorities sorted out.

Truthfully I liked the bits where they did include story, Camus, Michalis, Jiol etc. but to say that its better than FE7 because it doesn't have the enough depth to tear holes in it seems silly.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Mikethfc

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

to me you can't compair FE1 to FE7.

there is atleast an 16 or so year differences between when the games were made, and were made for two very different time periods.

compairing FE1 to FE7 is kinda like compairing Final fantasy 1 to final fanasty 7. they aren't even in the same universe

[Momo]

That's a French accent? Didn't know that.

It sounds more Romanian or Russian, or at least Eastern European, but definitely not French.

Saying V instead of W is a stereotype associated with the Germans rather than the French and I wouldn't have thought it constitutes an accent rather than a speech impediment, but I know which one is more fun to imagine

Truthfully I liked the bits where they did include story, Camus, Michalis, Jiol etc. but to say that its better than FE7 because it doesn't have the enough depth to tear holes in it seems silly.

You know what I mean

[Jaybee]

to me you can't compair FE1 to FE7.

there is atleast an 16 or so year differences between when the games were made, and were made for two very different time periods.

compairing FE1 to FE7 is kinda like compairing Final fantasy 1 to final fanasty 7. they aren't even in the same universe

That is a stupid as hell argument, and you know it.

Does that mean I cannot compare Merchant of Venice and The Tempest, because Tempest was written 12 years after MoV? Despite the fact that they have the same playwright? Oh wait, they're set in different universes, so of course I can't compare them! Ha ha ha!

If you were to bring this argument up all the time, you would never be able to compare anything. Imagine that!

[Dark Sage]

to me you can't compair FE1 to FE7.

there is atleast an 16 or so year differences between when the games were made, and were made for two very different time periods.

compairing FE1 to FE7 is kinda like compairing Final fantasy 1 to final fanasty 7. they aren't even in the same universe

You can compare FF1 and FF7 and I'd honestly say that FF1 is a much better and enjoyable game than FF7, but that's another can of worms altogether.

[Psych]

Does that mean we can only compare 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12? 4 and 5? 6 and 7? 9 and 10?

At least SS is safe from thi- oh wait, it's already perfect.

[Aethereal]

to me you can't compair FE1 to FE7.

there is atleast an 16 or so year differences between when the games were made, and were made for two very different time periods.

compairing FE1 to FE7 is kinda like compairing Final fantasy 1 to final fanasty 7. they aren't even in the same universe

I think you're missing something here. Every one here probably respects the Fire Emblem 1 game. I appreciate what it did, and that it started the Fire Emblem franchise, and got it rolling. I can also realize it's gaping flaws while appreciating it. People can have criticisms of things they enjoy. We can compare FE1 and FE7, and it's not an insult at what FE1 has done for the series. Saying that it didn't have a strong plot compared to FE7 takes nothing away from all it's done. I think you're trying to hard to defend something that nobody is attacking.

[Lord Raven]

That is a stupid as hell argument, and you know it.

Does that mean I cannot compare Merchant of Venice and The Tempest, because Tempest was written 12 years after MoV? Despite the fact that they have the same playwright? Oh wait, they're set in different universes, so of course I can't compare them! Ha ha ha!

If you were to bring this argument up all the time, you would never be able to compare anything. Imagine that!

Apples and Oranges. Books are different because there's just so damn many of them and they've been written for a long time. A 12 year gap between novels is absolutely nothing.

In the video game industry, even a couple year gap is a massive difference; imagine a game 1.5 decades ago being compared, in plot, to a modern day game. FE1 was more "gameplay with plot" (considering the small amounts of dialogue and stuff) than FE7's "plot&gameplay" intentions.

[Original Alear]

Video games have the opportunity to be unique, but as games have evolved, games that aspire to have deep and compelling stories have just added more cutscenes (MGS, Xenosaga, FF), making them more like movies with gameplay in-between. But I don't play games to watch a movie's length of cutscenes and then have gameplay for two hours. I want story with my gameplay. The logical evolution, I would think, is that we moved towards the storyline happening DURING the gameplay--but instead we're moving in the opposite direction.

Clearly this is the brilliance of a game like Braid, but yet - personally - I didn't care much for it as I watched it being played, the mechanics themselves seemed fairly rudimentary and I never felt compelled to play it myself once the ending,

not a particularly original one either - cycling of the hero/villain roles within the game -

was spoiled. I don't see why everything needs to be shmushed together (instant gratification) to make ya happy dammit! Another thing is that I would single out MGS as a game with lots of storyline flavor to the gameplay aspect, if that makes any sense - there's lots of commentary on how silly certain aspects of the game are within the story, on and off codec. MGS actually reminds me a lot of Earthbound in that regard, even though Kojima cliams to hate Earthbound both are more openly postmodern than a lot of well known games of that earlier time period, IMO.

(I really hate that I am using a nothing term like postmodern. Here I mean a movement with a belief in relativity of meaning and that tends to enjoy pastiche, aka playful poking fun of societal norms rather than parody or satire, which would cast the norms in a more negative light.)

I know this thread was meant for FE discussion but I don't feel very criminal going beyond that at this point.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Loki Laufeyjarson

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Apples and Oranges. Books are different because there's just so damn many of them and they've been written for a long time. A 12 year gap between novels is absolutely nothing.

In the video game industry, even a couple year gap is a massive difference; imagine a game 1.5 decades ago being compared, in plot, to a modern day game. FE1 was more "gameplay with plot" (considering the small amounts of dialogue and stuff) than FE7's "plot&gameplay" intentions.

kinda like how it would be rather hard to compair something like Golden Eye 64 and Halo.

sure they are both of the same shooter genre, but there are atleast two console era's apart.

and as stated...games between years change very massively over time.

i can't remember a single dynasty/samurai/gundam/warriors game that stayed the exact same and i've played all of them.

Edited August 1, 2011 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Othin]

Where in the game does it say that neither Pascal nor Jerme are subtle enough to trick Brendan into thinking they're not as crazy or evil as they actually are. You want everything to be backed up explicitly by the game, so where's your proof of these two things?

EDIT: typos

It's not what the game says; it's about what it shows. Pascal, as quoted previously, had invited his citizens to his castle and slaughtered them, then later openly mocked the Black Fang's morals. Both of those show a person who wouldn't plausibly even bother trying to hide his actions and feelings, even if he could hide them from the Black Fang, which he couldn't. Serenes doesn't have scripts from Jerme's chapter to reference here, but he, too, is very explicit about his desire to maim people. Jerme may be more questionable; it's reasonable to expect to not be held accountable for what he says to people he intends to kill, and as Banzai noted, he might plausibly have joined and left the Four Fangs within part of the year since Nergal started gaining power - less likely, because of how little time that leaves for Nergal to gain power, Jerme to have power, and then Jaffar to have power, but it's not an issue I intend to press. What is significant is that Pascal's massacre is not something he could have expected to not be held accountable for, and therefore it's clear that he just didn't care.

He was in prison. What's wrong with that?

He shouldn't have been able to gain power in the Black Fang in the first place, or been left alive when he went against their morals and started murdering. In other words, exactly what's been explained since the first post.

Plot discussion? Sure. Problems with the plot? Already known. A 11,000 word "literary analysis" by someone who is known to have problems with this game? That's crossing into the realm of stupidity.

I know the plot isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. Most of the people on both sides of the thread admit to it. But I don't see it as a big thing, because the point of Fire Emblem is to beat up the opposing army, not sit there and read.

So in other words, you think the analysis is accurate, but it doesn't affect how you feel about the game. In that case, I ask again: Why post? There are people for whom plot does play a factor in playing FE, and they are who this thread is directed at. If you aren't one of them, why impede the discussion for those who do care?

This isn't a question that needs to be answered if you intend on ceasing posting in this thread, of course.

[bottlegnomes]

It's not what the game says; it's about what it shows. Pascal, as quoted previously, had invited his citizens to his castle and slaughtered them, then later openly mocked the Black Fang's morals. Both of those show a person who wouldn't plausibly even bother trying to hide his actions and feelings, even if he could hide them from the Black Fang, which he couldn't. Serenes doesn't have scripts from Jerme's chapter to reference here, but he, too, is very explicit about his desire to maim people. Jerme may be more questionable; it's reasonable to expect to not be held accountable for what he says to people he intends to kill, and as Banzai noted, he might plausibly have joined and left the Four Fangs within part of the year since Nergal started gaining power - less likely, because of how little time that leaves for Nergal to gain power, Jerme to have power, and then Jaffar to have power, but it's not an issue I intend to press. What is significant is that Pascal's massacre is not something he could have expected to not be held accountable for, and therefore it's clear that he just didn't care.

That destroyed his reputation as a noble and drove him from his position. I guess you think he was a noble for like a month? I doubt he wasn't able to control himself at least somewhat and retain his position for a while, given his age. As for mocking the Black Fang's morals, Sonia made a point of bringing it up to see what he thought about them. There's no proof he mocked it at any other time. He was also competent enough to keep the rest of the Black Fang from knowing he was engaging their current targets. I fail to see how the game shows he's incapable of hiding something, especially from someone like Brendan, whom Sonia was able to convince to marry her, despite being everything he despised. So if Pascal and Jerme are incapable of getting Brendan to allow them to join the Fang then Sonia shouldn't have been able to get Brendan to marry her, but I don't seem to recall you having a problem with that part of the story.

[Othin]

That destroyed his reputation as a noble and drove him from his position. I guess you think he was a noble for like a month? I doubt he wasn't able to control himself at least somewhat and retain his position for a while, given his age. As for mocking the Black Fang's morals, Sonia made a point of bringing it up to see what he thought about them. There's no proof he mocked it at any other time. He was also competent enough to keep the rest of the Black Fang from knowing he was engaging their current targets. I fail to see how the game shows he's incapable of hiding something, especially from someone like Brendan, whom Sonia was able to convince to marry her, despite being everything he despised. So if Pascal and Jerme are incapable of getting Brendan to allow them to join the Fang then Sonia shouldn't have been able to get Brendan to marry her, but I don't seem to recall you having a problem with that part of the story.

Pointing out the same plothole occurring somewhere else in the story doesn't mean the instance we were originally talking about wasn't a plothole; it just means you've found another plothole. Or, in Pascal's case, another plothole that would be created by justifying an existing plothole. This only goes to show how FE7's plot lacks any coherency at all; every time it's inspected, another plothole appears. I hadn't given Brandan's marriage to Sonia any thought previously, but that's yet another big issue with FE7's story - the method by which the Black Fang was controlled to be used by Nergal doesn't even make any sense in the first place.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Othin

[Mikethfc]

So in other words, you think the analysis is accurate, but it doesn't affect how you feel about the game. In that case, I ask again: Why post? There are people for whom plot does play a factor in playing FE, and they are who this thread is directed at. If you aren't one of them, why impede the discussion for those who do care?

This isn't a question that needs to be answered if you intend on ceasing posting in this thread, of course.

Normally when one uses the phrase "in other words" one doesn't alter the meaning of the original text so dramatically.

The gist of what was said I believe is that everybody and their mum knows that the plot does have several flaws but it is a game, the focus is predominantly on gameplay rather than story because it IS a game.

And whilst I can't deny that the different theories that stemmed from it like SeverIan?'s idea of Ursula killing Jaffar to frame him was pre-meditated certainly were interesting but to be blunt I found the depth of the analysis a little bit unnecessary but maybe it opened up a whole new perspective on the game for somebody else in which case best of luck to wherever that takes them.

[General Spoon]

I hadn't given Brandan's marriage to Sonia any thought previously, but that's yet another big issue with FE7's story - the method by which the Black Fang was controlled to be used by Nergal doesn't even make any sense in the first place.

Sonia has a vagina. I honestly don't think that using this as an explanation is stretching for answers. Then again, I don't really recall much of anything about Brenden's personality, so whatever :/

[Othin]

Normally when one uses the phrase "in other words" one doesn't alter the meaning of the original text so dramatically.

The gist of what was said I believe is that everybody and their mum knows that the plot does have several flaws but it is a game, the focus is predominantly on gameplay rather than story because it IS a game.

And whilst I can't deny that the different theories that stemmed from it like SeverIan?'s idea of Ursula killing Jaffar to frame him was pre-meditated certainly were interesting but to be blunt I found the depth of the analysis a little bit unnecessary but maybe it opened up a whole new perspective on the game for somebody else in which case best of luck to wherever that takes them.

So then this brings other flaws to the attention of people who care. What's the problem, in that case?

Again, if it's not for you, that's fine; no one will tell you that it should be. Just realize that it's meaningful for others here, as the responses have shown.

Sonia has a vagina. I honestly don't think that using this as an explanation is stretching for answers. Then again, I don't really recall much of anything about Brenden's personality, so whatever :/

Brendan is shown as having cared greatly about upholding the Black Fang's morals, and despite being the leader of a criminal group, he was respected well enough that it's difficult to imagine him being that desperate.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Othin

[Dark Sage]

It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that Sonia seduced Brendan and clouded his better judgement. She's a morph with a specific purpose, mainly to be a manipulator and a seductress. She's also a powerful sage, which means she could've used magic to help her get close to Brendan. Just like how Ephidel has a certain power over people, Sonia also has similar abilities.

@Pascal and Jerme: I also think that those two weren't really thought out that well and the history regarding them is quite unclear. This is something that I believe a lot of FE7 fans would agree is a major weakness in the plot.

@Darin and Ephidel: Been a short while since this has been discussed, but here's how I see it.

The complaint that you and Banzai have made is that it makes no sense for Darin to attack Caelin when he could attack Ostia instead since a conflict between Laus and Caelin would generate less quintessence than a conflict between Ostia and Laus. But consider this. Darin may be Ephidel's puppet for all intents and purposes, but he's not suicidal. Attacking Ostia with such a small force would pretty much be akin to killing himself since Darin lacks the manpower to attack Ostia. This is something that Darin would not do, no matter how much Ephidel would attempt to convince him. Keep in mind that attacking Ostia wouldn't make that much sense for Ephidel either there is a good chance that Darin would get killed there and that would ruin his plans. Basically the costs of attacking Ostia completely outweigh the benefits. Attacking Caelin is pretty much the next best thing.

[bottlegnomes]

All Brendan marrying Sonia means is that he's somewhat naive and can be tricked by someone who appears to want to be good. It's hardly a plot hole; that actually goes with his founding the Black Fang, an organization based on a somewhat naive ideal. It'd be easy enough to make someone like that believe that you want to change your ways when you really don't. There's absolutely nothing in the story that suggests that it's even remotely impossible for Pascal and Jerme to get into the Black Fang. The only reason you think it's a plot hole is because the game doesn't spell it out for you.