QUINTESSENCE? DONT UNDERSTAND

[Mekkah]

By the way, you let 31x get away with "just a shopping spree". But what the hell is going on in this bit of dialogue?

Marcus:

Ostia's castle town is as impressive as ever. Shops and items of all types imaginable.

Hector:

For generations, our ancestors dedicated themselves to a sort of frugal militarism. Nobles and commoners alike shunned extravagance. "Corrupt neither the body nor the mind," they cried! Since the time of Roland, this has been the dominant ideology of Ostia.

Marcus:

I heard that when Lord Uther first participated in the Lycian Council as Marquess Ostia, he gave a scathing indictment of the peer system. Now I understand, his philosophy had its roots in the history of Ostia itself.

Hector:

That's right. Yet this thinking... it threatens the lifestyles of many of our aristocrats. So some groups view my brother with enmity. I must grow wiser so that I can sit at my brother's side and aid him. Of course, my fighting skills are not yet what they should be…

I don't get it. What does this have to do with anything?

By the way:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=21426&st=20

Useful thread.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Mekkah

[General Spoon]

I actually can't, because I could be sued. You need special permission to even show an article like that to a class, let alone publicly post it on the internet.

I can however, link to something similar for another old arcade game; Missile Command.

[-Cynthia-]

I don't get it. What does this have to do with anything?

Whether or not Ostia has a lot of shops in it or is practicing a less mercantile society probably is not the important thing here. The important thing is that Hector is acknowledging that he has a responsibility to learn such things if he wants to become a good ruler. Hector used to be glad of his reputation as the marquess's loutish younger brother- this scene represents a shift away from that line of thinking, perhaps due to Uther's death.* It's also one of the reasons the claim that there is no character development...is somewhat questionable.

*Hector saying that he wants to help his brother rule may initially seem a plothole since he just deduced from Oswin that Uther is dead last chapter. However, he later says he's putting on a brave face for the others so they can complete their mission- which probably includes not acknowledging Uther's death for the moment.

[General Banzai]

I can however, link to something similar for another old arcade game; Missile Command.

How is something on a comedy website remotely similar to a peer-reviewed journal?

I just checked and it turns out I don't even have access to UCLA's database when I'm not actually at the school.

[bottlegnomes]

How is something on a comedy website remotely similar to a peer-reviewed journal?

I just checked and it turns out I don't even have access to UCLA's database when I'm not actually at the school.

Geeze, they're strict. Our library is a public library. The only limitations are that you have to be a student check stuff out and they close the library to non-students after 10 pm to keep hobos from sleeping in there. I'm not kidding about the last part.

[deleted35362]

Normally I just lurk the ROM hacking section to see if Serenes Emblem has come out yet,

but someone showed this to me in AIM chat. I always thought something was wrong with

the story after the all the times I've played FE7, but now, all I can say is...

General Banzai, you are the MAN.

[BlueLeafeon]

I will never be able to play this game and take it seriously again.

Though, this was a very entertaining read and I laughed throughout. Oi...story developers everywhere need to read this and learn what NOT to do.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Sure the plot gets weird and full of holes in areas. (I really agree about the Kishuna stuff. I mean that IS left field) But hell, i like to play the game for the sake of it being fun to play. A lot of those "Random Bandit" chapters really only exist to level up yer guys. Same deal with Talons Alight and Crazed Beast. Filler levels in order to make your guys awesome. (i like Hector mode for that reason actually. Not gonna lie.)

[Geriba]

This rant was re-posted over at GameFAQs. I read half of it, skimmed the rest, and had a good laugh. Then I learned people were taking it seriously, which was baffling, so I typed up a response.

Now, I come to SerenesForest, and what do I find? People taking it seriously. Look, I understand the temptation to be impressed by BIG TEXT DUMP OHWOW, but it doesn't take too much effort to realize that this guy doesn't have a clue. So I'm just going to re-post my response from GameFAQs over here in the hopes that the 28 pages of discussion this empty rant has generated doesn't go unredeemed:

{{{

I'm very surprised people are taking this seriously, so here's my attempt to respond to as much of this as I can stomach.

Couple of things to start off. First, let's start out with this quote from mid-way in the rant:

Too bad this game is so rife with holes that there are still so many more it takes all this time to explain them all.

Now, "rife with holes" implies that there are a great many plot holes that should be obvious. I'm going to wager that he can't even identify one. Second, although this is called a "critical analysis," it's nothing of the kind. It's teeming with petty gripes and self-proclaimed "improvements" to the story that would be out-of-place in any genuine critical analysis. So let's refer to this as what it really is: a pretentious piece of nerdrage.

His problems with Lyn's mode are largely overblown and not worth looking at except from a distance. There are a couple instances where we're not entirely clear about Lundgren's motivation, but this is to be expected: it happens in just about every story, and not only in video games. There's room to leave things up to the imagination, and for the most part, it's not hard to connect the dots. Which is good, because a plot hole is a much greater offense to good writing than ambiguous motivations or a minor lack of clarity.

Then we get to the main plot, and I begin to wonder whether or not he's serious.

First, he needs either Ninian or Nils to open the Dragon's Gate for him. Then, he needs a large amount of quintessence in order to call the dragons, which he can do himself.

This is factually incorrect. He needs a lot of quintessence to control the dragons, not call them; as we see at the end of the game, Nergal can simply call dragons even with his dying breath.

This simply correction fixes a good many of his supposed "plot holes," which should demonstrate how poorly thought-out and pathetic this rant is.

But if Elbert truly supported the rebellion why did Nergal imprison him? Hell, why did Nergal imprison him either way? If Nergal wanted his quintessence why not just take it and be done with Elbert? Keeping Elbert alive certainly doesn't work well for Nergal as Elbert releases Ninian and Nils later on, so… why?

Once again, explicitly stated in-game: Elbert has a tremendous amount of quintessence for a single human being (likely owing to his bravery and stalwart resolve), making him an excellent choice of sacrifice for the gate-opening ritual.

Ephidel's actions are mysterious when you first play the game but make no sense in hindsight. And that is what this game does. It has plot holes all over the place and covers them up with tarp, makes you look the other way so you never learn that anything was wrong in the first place. It dazzles you with flashy effects in order to cover up egregious plot errors. I'll explain all of these later, and you'll be hitting yourself wondering how you never noticed such problems. They aren't minor, nit-picky errors either; some of them deal with the entire plot of the game.

You know what I just realized? This guy's trying to be like RedLetterMedia- but is doing a horrendous job. Ephidel's actions make perfect sense: he was commissioned by Nergal to create conflict and strife throughout Lycia, generating quintessence for Nergal to collect.

Let me ask you one question. Why does Darin invade Caelin? I can't find a single thing in the plot that even tries to explain this. It makes sense for gameplay reasons, of course—brings Lyn back in the story. But can anyone explain to me what justification Darin—or Ephidel—have for invading Crimea? To get quintessence?

Nergal wants quintessence. Darin wants to become the ruler of Lycia. It's not rocket science.

Jaffar is even just lounging around at the Dragon's Gate, doing nothing but killing Leila. Why not send him?

Because he was protecting the most important asset of all: Elbert.

Darin has already revealed himself to be an incompetent leader, why would you entrust defense of the Dragon's Gate to him? Especially with Jaffar prowling around? Why not send Jaffar to kill Eliwood? He's right there, in the Dragon's Gate, he even kills Leila, and yet Nergal does not order him to do anything else? That makes no sense.

This guy needs to keep in mind that for Nergal, having dozens of Black Fang members die off is no problem at all. It generates conflict, which in turn generates quintessence. The entire point of the Dragon's Gate skirmish was to keep Eliwood and company at bay long enough to perform the ritual, and Nergal believed that Darin was up for the job. He was mistaken, but this isn't a plot hole. As I explained before, keeping Jaffar on Elbert was much, much safer than throwing him into a large-scale battle and risking him being killed.

[And as another poster pointed out, Darin was practically on his hands and knees for the position, so Nergal accepted. Remember to distinguish between gameplay and story.]

So yeah, if anyone can give me an explanation here [for Kishuna] I'd love to hear it.

Kishuna is an enigma, his motivations largely kept mysterious. This type of character is done all the time in fiction.

Legault then appears and apparently he's second in skill only to the Four Fangs, which is funny because he's a Level 12 Thief.

A quick note here, because he makes this mistake at least a couple dozen times: in any RPG, you can't equate story logic with gameplay logic. This is basic stuff here.

Anyways Ephidel finally dies because even though he has the power to warp anytime he wants he just stands at the gate when it explodes.

I'm assuming this guy doesn't have eyes, then, because the summoned dragon was literally collapsing into the gate. A warp spell would prove ineffective in the face of that kind of energy.

Elbert dies and Nergal takes his quintessence, which I suppose he couldn't have done earlier for whatever reason.

Saving him for the sacrifice.

Meanwhile we're introduced to Pent, who is searching for a macguffin artifact in the desert which is never explained or revealed to the player.

It's strongly implied to be one of the three Heavel's seals.

Oh, god, and now we've moved on to Chapter 26. Believe it or not, the story only begins to make less sense from here on out. I didn't think it was possible. But it's true. This is where the plot truly begins to unravel at the seams.

Yep, this guy is definitely trying to be RedLetterMedia. How quaint.

Also, Nergal makes Vaida ridiculously overpowered with magical power. Yet he does this for no other enemy besides Limstella. Why not? Who knows.

Presumably, he does- it just doesn't manifest itself in the gameplay. Remember, there's a sharp contrast between story logic and gameplay logic in RPGs.

But if chaos is what they want, why not simply assassinate Zephiel? Do they want Bern to be peaceful instead of chaotic? What's the point of a scapegoat?

Without a scapegoat, the King of Bern is the clear suspect for the assassination. Having Nino be a scapegoat remedies this glaring problem.

Why doesn't Nergal want to kill them? What's the good for him in keeping them alive? To harvest their quintessence? Why doesn't he just kill them then harvest their quintessence, the same way Limstella harvests the quintessence of Ursula after she dies?

Nergal, having been corrupted by dark magic and the conquest of power, is no longer completely sane. Think about it: why summon the dragons in the first place? Because Nergal values chaos and control. Keeping Eliwood and company alive to witness and suffer the hellfire he plans to unleash goes along with this mentality. You could argue that the "crazy villain" thing is a pretty common trope, I guess, but it's not bad writing, and certainly not a plot hole.

Athos tries to fight Nergal and does five damage. Nergal claims he could kill all of them right now… but decides to leave. Yeah. Just like that. He doesn't even try to take Nils with him, even though Nils is right there and Eliwood is immobilized and helpless when he realizes he killed Ninian.

This is specifically explained: Nergal needs greater quintessence to recover from his wounds. [And as a previous poster pointed out, the blast itself consumes a great deal of energy. Nice catch.]

This game is a plot of cloth and stilts. It puts on a front face, gives the impression of depth, but underneath is nothing but sticks.

Actually no, it doesn't. The plot to Fire Emblem 7 is pretty standard RPG fare, and serves as a framework for the excellent character development and fantastic gameplay. It's not complicated.

The rest of this rant isn't worth my time, or anybody's time for that matter.

And I find it funny how he accuses this game of adhering to "middle-school logic" when his writing, proofreading, and grammar skills barely reach a sixth grade level.

}}}

Bottom line: I'm an asshole, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying way too hard.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Doomguy

[Florete]

This rant was re-posted over at GameFAQs. I read half of it, skimmed the rest, and had a good laugh. Then I learned people were taking it seriously, which was baffling, so I typed up a response.

Now, I come to SerenesForest, and what do I find? People taking it seriously. Look, I understand the temptation to be impressed by BIG TEXT DUMP OHWOW, but it doesn't take too much effort to realize that this guy doesn't have a clue. So I'm just going to re-post my response from GameFAQs over here in the hopes that the 28 pages of discussion this empty rant has generated doesn't go unredeemed:

{{{

I'm very surprised people are taking this seriously, so here's my attempt to respond to as much of this as I can stomach.

There have been a lot of accusations throughout that this rant is not, in fact, worth taking seriously. Just an fyi.

[Geriba]

There have been a lot of accusations throughout that this rant is not, in fact, worth taking seriously. Just an fyi.

Sure, but then you get stuff like this...

Normally I just lurk the ROM hacking section to see if Serenes Emblem has come out yet,

but someone showed this to me in AIM chat. I always thought something was wrong with

the story after the all the times I've played FE7, but now, all I can say is...

General Banzai, you are the MAN.

...as late as page 28. I suppose I'm just surprised that the response is so mixed, when it should clearly be tipped in one direction.

[General Banzai]

This rant was re-posted over at GameFAQs. I read half of it, skimmed the rest, and had a good laugh. Then I learned people were taking it seriously, which was baffling, so I typed up a response.

Now, I come to SerenesForest, and what do I find? People taking it seriously. Look, I understand the temptation to be impressed by BIG TEXT DUMP OHWOW, but it doesn't take too much effort to realize that this guy doesn't have a clue. So I'm just going to re-post my response from GameFAQs over here in the hopes that the 28 pages of discussion this empty rant has generated doesn't go unredeemed:

{{{

I'm very surprised people are taking this seriously, so here's my attempt to respond to as much of this as I can stomach.

Couple of things to start off. First, let's start out with this quote from mid-way in the rant:

Too bad this game is so rife with holes that there are still so many more it takes all this time to explain them all.

Now, "rife with holes" implies that there are a great many plot holes that should be obvious. I'm going to wager that he can't even identify one. Second, although this is called a "critical analysis," it's nothing of the kind. It's teeming with petty gripes and self-proclaimed "improvements" to the story that would be out-of-place in any genuine critical analysis. So let's refer to this as what it really is: a pretentious piece of nerdrage.

His problems with Lyn's mode are largely overblown and not worth looking at except from a distance. There are a couple instances where we're not entirely clear about Lundgren's motivation, but this is to be expected: it happens in just about every story, and not only in video games. There's room to leave things up to the imagination, and for the most part, it's not hard to connect the dots. Which is good, because a plot hole is a much greater offense to good writing than ambiguous motivations or a minor lack of clarity.

Then we get to the main plot, and I begin to wonder whether or not he's serious.

First, he needs either Ninian or Nils to open the Dragon's Gate for him. Then, he needs a large amount of quintessence in order to call the dragons, which he can do himself.

This is factually incorrect. He needs a lot of quintessence to control the dragons, not call them; as we see at the end of the game, Nergal can simply call dragons even with his dying breath.

This simply correction fixes a good many of his supposed "plot holes," which should demonstrate how poorly thought-out and pathetic this rant is.

But if Elbert truly supported the rebellion why did Nergal imprison him? Hell, why did Nergal imprison him either way? If Nergal wanted his quintessence why not just take it and be done with Elbert? Keeping Elbert alive certainly doesn't work well for Nergal as Elbert releases Ninian and Nils later on, so… why?

Once again, explicitly stated in-game: Elbert has a tremendous amount of quintessence for a single human being (likely owing to his bravery and stalwart resolve), making him an excellent choice of sacrifice for the gate-opening ritual.

Ephidel's actions are mysterious when you first play the game but make no sense in hindsight. And that is what this game does. It has plot holes all over the place and covers them up with tarp, makes you look the other way so you never learn that anything was wrong in the first place. It dazzles you with flashy effects in order to cover up egregious plot errors. I'll explain all of these later, and you'll be hitting yourself wondering how you never noticed such problems. They aren't minor, nit-picky errors either; some of them deal with the entire plot of the game.

You know what I just realized? This guy's trying to be like RedLetterMedia- but is doing a horrendous job. Ephidel's actions make perfect sense: he was commissioned by Nergal to create conflict and strife throughout Lycia, generating quintessence for Nergal to collect.

Let me ask you one question. Why does Darin invade Caelin? I can't find a single thing in the plot that even tries to explain this. It makes sense for gameplay reasons, of course—brings Lyn back in the story. But can anyone explain to me what justification Darin—or Ephidel—have for invading Crimea? To get quintessence?

Nergal wants quintessence. Darin wants to become the ruler of Lycia. It's not rocket science.

Jaffar is even just lounging around at the Dragon's Gate, doing nothing but killing Leila. Why not send him?

Because he was protecting the most important asset of all: Elbert.

Darin has already revealed himself to be an incompetent leader, why would you entrust defense of the Dragon's Gate to him? Especially with Jaffar prowling around? Why not send Jaffar to kill Eliwood? He's right there, in the Dragon's Gate, he even kills Leila, and yet Nergal does not order him to do anything else? That makes no sense.

This guy needs to keep in mind that for Nergal, having dozens of Black Fang members die off is no problem at all. It generates conflict, which in turn generates quintessence. The entire point of the Dragon's Gate skirmish was to keep Eliwood and company at bay long enough to perform the ritual, and Nergal believed that Darin was up for the job. He was mistaken, but this isn't a plot hole. As I explained before, keeping Jaffar on Elbert was much, much safer than throwing him into a large-scale battle and risking him being killed.

[And as another poster pointed out, Darin was practically on his hands and knees for the position, so Nergal accepted. Remember to distinguish between gameplay and story.]

So yeah, if anyone can give me an explanation here [for Kishuna] I'd love to hear it.

Kishuna is an enigma, his motivations largely kept mysterious. This type of character is done all the time in fiction.

Legault then appears and apparently he's second in skill only to the Four Fangs, which is funny because he's a Level 12 Thief.

A quick note here, because he makes this mistake at least a couple dozen times: in any RPG, you can't equate story logic with gameplay logic. This is basic stuff here.

Anyways Ephidel finally dies because even though he has the power to warp anytime he wants he just stands at the gate when it explodes.

I'm assuming this guy doesn't have eyes, then, because the summoned dragon was literally collapsing into the gate. A warp spell would prove ineffective in the face of that kind of energy.

Elbert dies and Nergal takes his quintessence, which I suppose he couldn't have done earlier for whatever reason.

Saving him for the sacrifice.

Meanwhile we're introduced to Pent, who is searching for a macguffin artifact in the desert which is never explained or revealed to the player.

It's strongly implied to be one of the three Heavel's seals.

Oh, god, and now we've moved on to Chapter 26. Believe it or not, the story only begins to make less sense from here on out. I didn't think it was possible. But it's true. This is where the plot truly begins to unravel at the seams.

Yep, this guy is definitely trying to be RedLetterMedia. How quaint.

Also, Nergal makes Vaida ridiculously overpowered with magical power. Yet he does this for no other enemy besides Limstella. Why not? Who knows.

Presumably, he does- it just doesn't manifest itself in the gameplay. Remember, there's a sharp contrast between story logic and gameplay logic in RPGs.

But if chaos is what they want, why not simply assassinate Zephiel? Do they want Bern to be peaceful instead of chaotic? What's the point of a scapegoat?

Without a scapegoat, the King of Bern is the clear suspect for the assassination. Having Nino be a scapegoat remedies this glaring problem.

Why doesn't Nergal want to kill them? What's the good for him in keeping them alive? To harvest their quintessence? Why doesn't he just kill them then harvest their quintessence, the same way Limstella harvests the quintessence of Ursula after she dies?

Nergal, having been corrupted by dark magic and the conquest of power, is no longer completely sane. Think about it: why summon the dragons in the first place? Because Nergal values chaos and control. Keeping Eliwood and company alive to witness and suffer the hellfire he plans to unleash goes along with this mentality. You could argue that the "crazy villain" thing is a pretty common trope, I guess, but it's not bad writing, and certainly not a plot hole.

Athos tries to fight Nergal and does five damage. Nergal claims he could kill all of them right now… but decides to leave. Yeah. Just like that. He doesn't even try to take Nils with him, even though Nils is right there and Eliwood is immobilized and helpless when he realizes he killed Ninian.

This is specifically explained: Nergal needs greater quintessence to recover from his wounds. [And as a previous poster pointed out, the blast itself consumes a great deal of energy. Nice catch.]

This game is a plot of cloth and stilts. It puts on a front face, gives the impression of depth, but underneath is nothing but sticks.

Actually no, it doesn't. The plot to Fire Emblem 7 is pretty standard RPG fare, and serves as a framework for the excellent character development and fantastic gameplay. It's not complicated.

The rest of this rant isn't worth my time, or anybody's time for that matter.

And I find it funny how he accuses this game of adhering to "middle-school logic" when his writing, proofreading, and grammar skills barely reach a sixth grade level.

}}}

Bottom line: I'm an asshole, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying way too hard.

Good job ignoring textual evidence.

Let's see... Your first actual argument against me is when you state that Nergal needs quintessence to control dragons, but not to call them. Wrong. Here's the quote in New Resolve which clearly refutes that.

Nils:

...I think it's because we can open the Dragon's Gate. Just calling them? Nergal can do that on his own.

Hector:

Are you serious?

Nils:

Yes, but it requires a tremendous amount of quintessence.

Then, since at every other point in the story Nergal (and Limstella) can harvest the quintessence of someone whenever they die and use it later, there's absolutely no justification for Nergal keeping Elbert specifically alive for the time when he plans to open the Dragon's Gate. He could have killed Elbert earlier and taken his quintessence then; in fact, in New Resolve Nils stats that Nergal got a lot of his quintessence from Elbert's knights, who had died earlier. So keeping Elbert alive had no bearing on the quintessence Nergal could have extracted from him.

Oh boy, comparisons to RedLetterMedia. Anyways, Ephidel's actions don't make sense, since as I pointed out at numerous points in the original post, Ephidel often acts in ways which allow his plans to be foiled, or else ignores excellent opportunities to cause the chaos Nergal desires. A few examples: He apathy towards Eliwood speaking with Ostia, his invasion of Caelin instead of Ostia, and his orders that Darin flee with over half his army instead of crush Eliwood with numbers. Conveniently, you ignore all my points in which I explain why Ephidel's actions make no sense, and simply say "they make sense because he was causing chaos." I know that's what he's SUPPOSED to do, but as I explained before, he does a terrible job of it.

I don't understand why Jaffar had to guard Elbert and not, say, Nergal himself, who is at least twice as powerful as Jaffar. Not to mention that as soon as Eliwood and friends actually get to the Dragon's Gate to stop Nergal's plan, Ephidel has Jaffar leave for seemingly no reason.

And Ephidel's warp spell would prove ineffective? I guess that explains why Nergal can warp away from the collapsing gate seconds before it obliterates Ephidel. They were also the exact same distance from the gate, so proximity had nothing to do with the disparity between them.

Also, enigmatic characters in fiction never remain enigmatic the whole game. There is some sort of resolution to every loose thread. Kishuna has no explanation, no resolution, adds absolutely nothing to the story.

Nergal is crazy, and thus everything he does that doesn't make sense is explained? That's just poor writing.

Anyways, nice try, but you haven't said a single thing which somebody hasn't brought up before, only to be refuted. In fact, a lot of the things you brought up were never brought up before because there was such an obvious in-textual evidence which disproved them. Then you only looked at maybe, ten of my points and dismissed all the rest because apparently it wasn't worth your time. So great. You sure proved me wrong.

[Geriba]

Good job ignoring textual evidence.

Let's see... Your first actual argument against me is when you state that Nergal needs quintessence to control dragons, but not to call them. Wrong. Here's the quote in New Resolve which clearly refutes that.

Nils:

...I think it's because we can open the Dragon's Gate. Just calling them? Nergal can do that on his own.

Hector:

Are you serious?

Nils:

Yes, but it requires a tremendous amount of quintessence.

Nothing here contradicts what I said. Nergal can't open the gate, so he needs Ninian/Nils to help. Calling dragons requires a "tremendous amount of quintessence," according to Nils, but we also see Nergal do just that with his dying breath. How to we resolve this apparent inconsistency? Simple: by accepting that Nergal deals with quintessence in *huge* quantities. Even after dozens of skirmishes, battles, and even quasi-wars, Nergal still doesn't feel confident enough to control the dragons he plans to summon.

Then, since at every other point in the story Nergal (and Limstella) can harvest the quintessence of someone whenever they die and use it later, there's absolutely no justification for Nergal keeping Elbert specifically alive for the time when he plans to open the Dragon's Gate. He could have killed Elbert earlier and taken his quintessence then; in fact, in New Resolve Nils stats that Nergal got a lot of his quintessence from Elbert's knights, who had died earlier. So keeping Elbert alive had no bearing on the quintessence Nergal could have extracted from him.

Wrong. He was needed for the Ritual. Do we know the specifics of how this process works? Nope, but clearly, keeping him alive was necessary. That's the bottom line.

Oh boy, comparisons to RedLetterMedia.

Admitting you've heard of him only confirms my suspicions.

Anyways, Ephidel's actions don't make sense, since as I pointed out at numerous points in the original post, Ephidel often acts in ways which allow his plans to be foiled, or else ignores excellent opportunities to cause the chaos Nergal desires. A few examples: He apathy towards Eliwood speaking with Ostia, his invasion of Caelin instead of Ostia, and his orders that Darin flee with over half his army instead of crush Eliwood with numbers. Conveniently, you ignore all my points in which I explain why Ephidel's actions make no sense, and simply say "they make sense because he was causing chaos." I know that's what he's SUPPOSED to do, but as I explained before, he does a terrible job of it.

I really didn't want to waste my time getting into the specifics, but you're wrong. Even if you *were* right, your accusations are wrong: it's not that Ephidel's actions "don't make sense," but rather that they're not the most efficient way to do things according to, well, you. Maybe I'll dive into the specifics later, but this is a minor point either way. You just need to accept that "Ephidel's an incompetent moron because he caused chaos, but could've caused even MORE chaos if only he'd listened to MY advice!" is a nonsensical complaint to levy against him.

I don't understand why Jaffar had to guard Elbert and not, say, Nergal himself, who is at least twice as powerful as Jaffar. Not to mention that as soon as Eliwood and friends actually get to the Dragon's Gate to stop Nergal's plan, Ephidel has Jaffar leave for seemingly no reason.

Ephidel had Jaffar leave because his purpose there- to stop Eliwood and company from escaping with Elbert- was fulfilled. What was the other thing Jaffar had planned? We don't know, but presumably it was another assignment. The Four Fangs are rather busy, you understand. It's not a "plot hole" or "bad writing" that everything isn't needlessly and obnoxiously spelled out.

And Ephidel's warp spell would prove ineffective? I guess that explains why Nergal can warp away from the collapsing gate seconds before it obliterates Ephidel. They were also the exact same distance from the gate, so proximity had nothing to do with the disparity between them.

Equal distance, highly unequal power. Nergal is Nergal, and Ephidel is an expendable creation of Nergal. Worlds apart.

Also, enigmatic characters in fiction never remain enigmatic the whole game. There is some sort of resolution to every loose thread. Kishuna has no explanation, no resolution, adds absolutely nothing to the story.

That's actually not true at all. Plenty of great works of fiction keep minor sub-plots shrouded in mystery. And really now, let's be clear about what Kishuna is: a minor, minor sub-plot. His purpose in FE7 is to shed light on the character of Nergal (and maybe Renault), as well as serve as a neat gameplay mechanic. What was his motivation? Well, he's a being created for the sole purpose of carrying emotion, so I'd assume Kishuna is driven by emotional instability. But it's better kept ambiguous.

Nergal is crazy, and thus everything he does that doesn't make sense is explained? That's just poor writing.

You've misunderstood. Nergal wants to envelop the world in chaos. By keeping Eliwood and company alive, he believes that he will bring them into immense suffering when they realize all of their work will be for nothing. Beyond that, Nergal is simply arrogant, because he has fate on his side. Remember what Athos says in Nabata: the "wheels of fate" have all but foretold that Nergal will succeed. Why bother killing small worms when you could watch them squirm? It's consistent with Nergal's insane, megalomaniacal character. Shout "bad writing" all you want; it won't change this.

Anyways, nice try, but you haven't said a single thing which somebody hasn't brought up before, only to be refuted. In fact, a lot of the things you brought up were never brought up before because there was such an obvious in-textual evidence which disproved them. Then you only looked at maybe, ten of my points and dismissed all the rest because apparently it wasn't worth your time. So great. You sure proved me wrong.

This entire topic (which, for whatever reason, I was compelled to read) has been an exercise in redundancy. People indulge you as if you have something new or insightful to say, when your incompetence and inability to see past your own childish biases leads you to hold this game to a ludicrous double-standard. Speaking of cherry-picking points, I'm glad your hypocrisy carries over into this response as well.

Keep on trying though, kiddo. Every misguided word you post only makes your own position less credible.

[General Banzai]

Nothing here contradicts what I said. Nergal can't open the gate, so he needs Ninian/Nils to help. Calling dragons requires a "tremendous amount of quintessence," according to Nils, but we also see Nergal do just that with his dying breath. How to we resolve this apparent inconsistency? Simple: by accepting that Nergal deals with quintessence in *huge* quantities. Even after dozens of skirmishes, battles, and even quasi-wars, Nergal still doesn't feel confident enough to control the dragons he plans to summon.

Limstella and Athos both say that Nergal doesn't have much quintessence left by endgame. So I don't see how your explanation, which is not only completely unsupported by anything in the script, even explains anything. In fact, I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.

Wrong. He was needed for the Ritual. Do we know the specifics of how this process works? Nope, but clearly, keeping him alive was necessary. That's the bottom line.

You're saying here that since Elbert was kept alive, there must have been a good reason for it, even if we don't know that reason. No. Something happening without any textual explanation as for why it happened--in this case, textual evidence seems to contradict there being any reason for it happening--is a lapse on the part of the writer. I guess you could explain every plothole in existence with the statement "We don't know why that happened, but since it happened, there must be some good unknown reason for it." That doesn't explain anything. You don't even try to give some hypothetical explanation for why Elbert would be kept alive. You just assume that the writing is infallible and thus every problem in the story has some hidden explanation beyond our comprehension.

I really didn't want to waste my time getting into the specifics, but you're wrong. Even if you *were* right, your accusations are wrong: it's not that Ephidel's actions "don't make sense," but rather that they're not the most efficient way to do things according to, well, you. Maybe I'll dive into the specifics later, but this is a minor point either way. You just need to accept that "Ephidel's an incompetent moron because he caused chaos, but could've caused even MORE chaos if only he'd listened to MY advice!" is a nonsensical complaint to levy against him.

Well, I'm going to go out and say that YOU'RE wrong, only it's a waste of my time to explain to you why. Yeah. So ha, two can play it that way. Anyways, Ephidel's actions are not the most efficient way to do things according to other evidence in the text, which I pointed in the original analysis. In fact, he could have caused more chaos had he listened to what Hector had to say, or what Pent had to say, or what Uther had to say. And even if we decide to accept that Ephidel is incompetent, that certainly strikes against him being a creepy and fearsome villain, as many (both ingame and outside of the game) are wont to say.

Ephidel had Jaffar leave because his purpose there- to stop Eliwood and company from escaping with Elbert- was fulfilled. What was the other thing Jaffar had planned? We don't know, but presumably it was another assignment. The Four Fangs are rather busy, you understand. It's not a "plot hole" or "bad writing" that everything isn't needlessly and obnoxiously spelled out.

Since Eliwood and friends eventually do manage to escape with Elbert, I'm gonna assume that Jaffar's purpose wasn't fulfilled at all. Anyways, Jaffar is in Nergal's pocket, as people at several points in the story claim; so I fail to see what Jaffar could do that is more important than making sure Nergal's ceremony goes off without issue. If Jaffar's most important mission before leaving is to guard Elbert, an old man tied up in the middle of the Black Fang headquarters, under personal supervision by Nergal, then I don't see how some random unknown assignment could possibly be more important that stopping the army of people who just charged into the Dragon's Gate to stop Nergal's ceremony.

Equal distance, highly unequal power. Nergal is Nergal, and Ephidel is an expendable creation of Nergal. Worlds apart.

So we're already assuming that the collapsing Dragon's Gate has some kind of energy vortex which suppresses magical power, and Nergal but not Ephidel has just the amount of power to escape from the Gate. Mmkay.

That's actually not true at all. Plenty of great works of fiction keep minor sub-plots shrouded in mystery. And really now, let's be clear about what Kishuna is: a minor, minor sub-plot. His purpose in FE7 is to shed light on the character of Nergal (and maybe Renault), as well as serve as a neat gameplay mechanic. What was his motivation? Well, he's a being created for the sole purpose of carrying emotion, so I'd assume Kishuna is driven by emotional instability. But it's better kept ambiguous.

Plenty of great works of fiction. Like...? Certainly not any I've read. Certainly not Shakespeare, or Steinbeck, or Orwell, or Fitzgerald, or Cervantes, or Homer, or Virgil, or Sophocles, or Vonnegut, or Faulkner, or Ellison, or... anyone else that I've read, except for Kafka, and Kafka only left all his stories unresolved because he died before he could finish any of them. And I fail to see how three chapters of Kishuna showing up for random, unexplained reasons and fighting you is something better left ambiguous.

You've misunderstood. Nergal wants to envelop the world in chaos. By keeping Eliwood and company alive, he believes that he will bring them into immense suffering when they realize all of their work will be for nothing. Beyond that, Nergal is simply arrogant, because he has fate on his side. Remember what Athos says in Nabata: the "wheels of fate" have all but foretold that Nergal will succeed. Why bother killing small worms when you could watch them squirm? It's consistent with Nergal's insane, megalomaniacal character. Shout "bad writing" all you want; it won't change this.

If that's your explanation for his character, then it certainly doesn't make a very good character out of him. And if fate is on his side, then how do Eliwood and friends beat him anyways? If fate can be inaccurate, or changed, then that isn't an explanation for why Nergal would be so cocky, why he pretty much stands aside and lets Eliwood get Durandal and Armads, ye ancient weapons of lore that defeated dragonkind eons ago.

This entire topic (which, for whatever reason, I was compelled to read) has been an exercise in redundancy. People indulge you as if you have something new or insightful to say, when your incompetence and inability to see past your own childish biases leads you to hold this game to a ludicrous double-standard. Speaking of cherry-picking points, I'm glad your hypocrisy carries over into this response as well.

Insults insults, defamation defamation

Keep on trying though, kiddo. Every misguided word you post only makes your own position less credible.

I could say the exact same to you and it wouldn't be any more relevant. I mean let me just punctuate my response here by saying I win, you lose, hahahahahaha there's nothing you can do about it. That will make it true, right?

[Geriba]

Limstella and Athos both say that Nergal doesn't have much quintessence left by endgame. So I don't see how your explanation, which is not only completely unsupported by anything in the script, even explains anything. In fact, I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.

I'm getting tired of this back-and-forth. brb, gonna go look up the game text

EDIT: So the text is basically impossible to find past what this site has, but suffice to say that Nils talks about how Nergal seeks to "control the dragons' power" for his own purposes. Towards the end of the game, when his power is waning, he doesn't seek to call the dragons then and there; rather, he hopes to defeat Eliwood and company once and for all. I'm guessing he planned to build back his quintessence later on. When that all went to hell? Call up 'dem dragons.

You're saying here that since Elbert was kept alive, there must have been a good reason for it, even if we don't know that reason.

In fact, we do know the reason: to carry out the Ritual.

No. Something happening without any textual explanation as for why it happened--in this case, textual evidence seems to contradict there being any reason for it happening--is a lapse on the part of the writer. I guess you could explain every plothole in existence with the statement "We don't know why that happened, but since it happened, there must be some good unknown reason for it." That doesn't explain anything. You don't even try to give some hypothetical explanation for why Elbert would be kept alive. You just assume that the writing is infallible and thus every problem in the story has some hidden explanation beyond our comprehension.

You're confused again. We know what the motivation is- it's spelled out quite clearly- but we don't know the specifics. There's a big difference between "Nergal did this for some reason" and "Nergal did this to carry out the Ritual, the specifics of which are partially unknown to the player."

Well, I'm going to go out and say that YOU'RE wrong, only it's a waste of my time to explain to you why. Yeah. So ha, two can play it that way.

Yep. Except that, you know, you wasted your time typing up a goddamn dissertation about a simple sRPG plot for... no real reason. Something tells me that, no, your time actually isn't that valuable after all.

Anyways, Ephidel's actions are not the most efficient way to do things according to other evidence in the text, which I pointed in the original analysis. In fact, he could have caused more chaos had he listened to what Hector had to say, or what Pent had to say, or what Uther had to say. And even if we decide to accept that Ephidel is incompetent, that certainly strikes against him being a creepy and fearsome villain, as many (both ingame and outside of the game) are wont to say.

This is more of the same. Ephidel had a plan of action, which worked, but not quite as well as he would have liked. He also didn't account for the unexpected variable in Eliwood and company. You can nitpick all you want and try to "improve" his plan in hindsight, but it's unbelievably petty.

Since Eliwood and friends eventually do manage to escape with Elbert, I'm gonna assume that Jaffar's purpose wasn't fulfilled at all.

I take it you missed the part where the dragon literally collapsed.

Anyways, Jaffar is in Nergal's pocket, as people at several points in the story claim; so I fail to see what Jaffar could do that is more important than making sure Nergal's ceremony goes off without issue. If Jaffar's most important mission before leaving is to guard Elbert, an old man tied up in the middle of the Black Fang headquarters, under personal supervision by Nergal, then I don't see how some random unknown assignment could possibly be more important that stopping the army of people who just charged into the Dragon's Gate to stop Nergal's ceremony.

Elbert was absolutely essential to enacting the Ritual; protecting him should have been, and rightfully was, a top priority. Bottom line.

So we're already assuming that the collapsing Dragon's Gate has some kind of energy vortex which suppresses magical power, and Nergal but not Ephidel has just the amount of power to escape from the Gate. Mmkay.

No need to assume, bro. Ephidel uses magic to warp all over the place; when the gate collapsed, Nergal- an infinitely powerful shaman- was able to escape its radius, while Ephidel- a mere puppet- was not. "Induction."

And I fail to see how three chapters of Kishuna showing up for random, unexplained reasons and fighting you is something better left ambiguous.

It's better left ambiguous because Kishuna is a minor, minor symbolic character. He's not even human; why should we judge him according to human motivations? He's an emotionally distressed puppet.

And this technique is usually done in fantasy and science fiction. Tolkein does it, Lewis does it, and plenty of others do it.

If that's your explanation for his character, then it certainly doesn't make a very good character out of him.

Awesome, bro! Glad to know your opinion! Now please, explain to me where there's a "plot hole," exactly?

And if fate is on his side, then how do Eliwood and friends beat him anyways? If fate can be inaccurate, or changed, then that isn't an explanation for why Nergal would be so cocky, why he pretty much stands aside and lets Eliwood get Durandal and Armads, ye ancient weapons of lore that defeated dragonkind eons ago.

"The power of hope/courage/convenience." It's a tried-and-true RPG plot cliche, perhaps seen most prominently in Final Fantasy VI. I'm sure you'll chime in with something about how "the writing is bad" (which is really just a translation for "I don't like it waaaah"), but no plot hole to be found here either. Too bad.

Insults insults, defamation defamation

Yeah, that's what happens when you embarrass yourself publicly: you get called out for it by people who know better.

I could say the exact same to you and it wouldn't be any more relevant. I mean let me just punctuate my response here by saying I win, you lose, hahahahahaha there's nothing you can do about it. That will make it true, right?

You typed up a 12,000 word essay about a plot in a GBA game; you've officially "lost," no matter how the argument goes. Thankfully, you don't have any tenable arguments on your side, so I guess I win anyway. As usual.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Doomguy

[General Banzai]

I love this. I don't even know where to begin here. For starters, you completely ignore textual evidence, instead choosing to make up your own explanations for events. "I guess Nergal was doing this." "I think Nergal was doing this." Everything you say is purely hypothetical. In regards to the ritual, since there is no logical explanation in-game why Elbert has to be kept alive for the ritual, you simply assume a logical explanation exists, only we have no way of knowing about it. You even ignore textual evidence which would imply that Elbert doesn't have to be alive for Nergal to use his quintessence to open the gate.

Having someone do something and never explaining why is bad writing. Sure, it's good at times to keep a character's motivations or the reason why they exists secret from the reader for a time, but not permanently. You can claim that "bad writing" is simply a matter of opinion, but there are clear indicators of when something is good writing and when something is bad writing. Otherwise, why would some books be well-liked and others not? Why would some stories be considered classics and others not? What would be the purpose of classes teaching writing? How would a professor be able to grade an essay? How would Strunk and White get away with writing the Elements of Style? So disregarding "bad writing" as me simply bawling is you simply disregarding my points.

Anyways, to top it off, you simply continue to insult me. I can do that too. I mean, if I'm such a dweeb for writing the analysis, you're a dweeb for responding to it, and writing multi-paragraph essays explaining just why I am wrong (unsuccessfully, I may add, since simply saying someone is arguing unsuccessfully is a foolproof debate technique amirite?). I mean, it's not like you have any tenable arguments on your side, so I guess I win anyway. As usual.

[Tangerine]

Come ooooon boys, maybe this debate is getting a little too heated ? Perhaps you should sing a heartwarming and colorful duet rather than argue over what is ultimately quite ineffectual to either of your lives! My vote goes to "You've Got a Friend in Me".

Or just continue normally, without so much aggression as to offend eachother or other users.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Tangerine

[Paperblade]

Thread's over, everyone go home.

I am the only real winner here.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Paperkitty

[Tangerine]

I think we all win if I can get a duet out of them. Okay now nobody make me respond again or I'll have to verbally warn myself for thread derailment.

[Geriba]

I

I'm exactly one word into this response, and I already know exactly what it's going to say. As my eyes glaze down, the structure of the post is not in quotation format- as you'd usually expect from a proper response- but rather in paragraph format. This indicates to me that you're going to utterly derail the topic, choose not to try and counter my points directly, and instead go on a tangent about how you know writing, how I'm a jerk-off, that I'm somehow "ignoring" your brilliance, or some other irrelevancy. It's going to be a nonsensical tirade instead of a proper rebuttal. Let's see...

love this. I don't even know where to begin here. For starters, you completely ignore textual evidence, instead choosing to make up your own explanations for events. "I guess Nergal was doing this." "I think Nergal was doing this." Everything you say is purely hypothetical. In regards to the ritual, since there is no logical explanation in-game why Elbert has to be kept alive for the ritual, you simply assume a logical explanation exists, only we have no way of knowing about it. You even ignore textual evidence which would imply that Elbert doesn't have to be alive for Nergal to use his quintessence to open the gate.

Yep, nailed it.

I don't ignore textual evidence; in my previous post, I told you that Nils explains to Eliwood and company how Nergal plans to control the dragons. That's one fact. There's also the fact that, at the end of the game, Nergal manages to summon dragons from the (then-opened) gate with his dying breath. Your idea that the massive amounts of every he was collecting was for calling the dragons alone is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry.

Now let's talk about the Ritual. Here's what we know about it: Nergal considers it an essential step to opening the Dragon's Gate; he chooses Elbert because of his tremendous individual level of quintessence; the Ritual is so essential to the process that he sends his best man, the Angel of Death, to watch over the sacrifice; and, as far as we can tell, the Ritual was only used during the initial opening. These are the facts. From here, there are two possible interpretations:

1) Nergal, being a megalomaniacal super-genius and master of magic, knew what he was doing, especially when it comes to magical rites. No in-game evidence or text later contradicts the necessity of the Ritual during the initial opening, so although the player might not know the specifics, it's a safe bet that something pretty damn important was going on. Perhaps it involves getting inside Ninian's head; perhaps it involves something else entirely. Either way, Nergal's title of Dark Druid and comparable status to Athos aren't bestowed upon him for nothing.

2) LOL PLOT HOLE, ALSO I'M A DUMBASS

I went with the first option. Guess which one you went with?

Having someone do something and never explaining why is bad writing. Sure, it's good at times to keep a character's motivations or the reason why they exists secret from the reader for a time, but not permanently. You can claim that "bad writing" is simply a matter of opinion, but there are clear indicators of when something is good writing and when something is bad writing. Otherwise, why would some books be well-liked and others not? Why would some stories be considered classics and others not? What would be the purpose of classes teaching writing? How would a professor be able to grade an essay? How would Strunk and White get away with writing the Elements of Style? So disregarding "bad writing" as me simply bawling is you simply disregarding my points.

I love how you just *completely* ignored what I typed, so you know what? Much as your original dissertation was a colossal waste of time, typing up yet another response where I simply repeat myself is a waste of time. So here's a nice little copy-paste for you, complete with new additions and bolded parts for your pleasure:

"[Kishuna's] purpose in FE7 is to shed light on the character of Nergal (and maybe Renault), as well as serve as a neat gameplay mechanic. What was his motivation? Well, he's a being created for the sole purpose of carrying emotion, so I'd assume Kishuna is driven by emotional instability.

[...]

It's better left ambiguous because Kishuna is a minor, minor symbolic character... He's an emotionally distressed puppet.

And this technique is usually done in fantasy and science fiction. Tolkein does it, Lewis does it, and plenty of others do it."

If it's still not getting through, I can also add underlining and maybe increase the font size for you.

Anyways, to top it off, you simply continue to insult me. I can do that too. I mean, if I'm such a dweeb for writing the analysis, you're a dweeb for responding to it, and writing multi-paragraph essays explaining just why I am wrong (unsuccessfully, I may add, since simply saying someone is arguing unsuccessfully is a foolproof debate technique amirite?). I mean, it's not like you have any tenable arguments on your side, so I guess I win anyway. As usual.

Are you really comparing me to you in this case? You took the initiative to write a dissertation-length hate-paper about Fire Emblem 7's plot, for seemingly no reason other than to generate controversy. Furthermore, you followed up this paper with 28 forum-pages worth of responses, trying to hit home your ridiculous "essay" as if you'd experienced gaming enlightenment, when you're really just an insufferable loudmouth. How many hours upon hours did you spend playing, researching, writing, proofreading (oh wait, probably none LOL), and responding?

Compare that to myself: I read the paper (~20 minutes), posted a response on GameFAQs (~20 minutes), copy-pasted it over here (~5 minutes), and have indulged myself in a discussion with you (~30 minutes total). Hell, I've barely broken the one-hour mark! And on top of that, I actually enjoy Fire Emblem 7's plot, so defending it is actually a *good* use of my time. What do YOU get out of needlessly attacking it?

I mean Jesus F. Christ, if you're going to waste your time, at least be a tad bit persuasive.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Doomguy

[frat_tastic]

I think anyone who is under the impression that a dissertation is only 12,000 words can't possibly be taken seriously about anything.

[General Banzai]

See, the reason I didn't respond to your post in quotation format is because, as you pointed out yourself, the argument was going in circles. You said absolutely nothing in this post that you haven't said in posts previously; my response to you this time would be no different than it has been the last few times.

I say that most of your statements involve you making assumptions and posing hypothetical explanations to what happened. Then what do you do in response? Make assumptions and pose hypothetical explanations as to what happened. Saying that "In text Nils says that Nergal needs quintessence to control dragons" neither refutes Nils's other statement that he requires tremendous amounts of quintessence to call dragons through the gate nor does it explain how Nergal managed to call dragons through the gate at the end of the game despite Athos and Limstella both explaining that Nergal has run low on quintessence.

"Your idea that the massive amounts of every he was collecting was for calling the dragons alone is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong." How so? As I posted earlier, in New Resolve Nils specifically explains that Nergal requires tremendous amounts of quintessence to call dragons. If he is out of quintessence by endgame, then I fail to see how he calls the dragons.

"Now let's talk about the Ritual. Here's what we know about it: Nergal considers it an essential step to opening the Dragon's Gate; he chooses Elbert because of his tremendous individual level of quintessence; the Ritual is so essential to the process that he sends his best man, the Angel of Death, to watch over the sacrifice; and, as far as we can tell, the Ritual was only used during the initial opening. These are the facts."

What are also the facts? That Nergal opens the gate later in the game without this ritual. So obviously it isn't an essential step to opening the Dragon's Gate. Here's another fact: That Nergal can take quintessence off of dead men and store it for later use. So if he chose Elbert for his quintessence, there's absolutely no reason why Elbert has to be alive for the ritual.

Anyways, the conclusions you draw, as I stated in my previous post, rely on assuming that the game is infallible; that because Nergal is a super genius everything he does is done right. You come up with a lot of hypothetical explanations for things that are not mentioned in the game whatsoever.

""[Kishuna's] purpose in FE7 is to shed light on the character of Nergal (and maybe Renault), as well as serve as a neat gameplay mechanic. What was his motivation? Well, he's a being created for the sole purpose of carrying emotion, so I'd assume Kishuna is driven by emotional instability."

Kishuna sheds light on the character of Nergal? How so? Also, more assumptions and hypotheticals

"And this technique is usually done in fantasy and science fiction. Tolkein does it, Lewis does it, and plenty of others do it."

And where does Tolkein do it? And where does Lewis do it? I'm not familiar with Lewis but examples would be nice.

Anyways I won't respond to your insults this time since doing so is pointless and merely goads you to post more insults. I assume next post you'll say a lot of the same things you've been saying, and I'll say a lot of things I've been saying in response, and nothing will change, and nothing will happen, and you'll wind up thinking you're right, and I'll wind up thinking I'm right, and nobody else watching this discussion will care.

[Acacia Sgt]

What are also the facts? That Nergal opens the gate later in the game without this ritual. So obviously it isn't an essential step to opening the Dragon's Gate. Here's another fact: That Nergal can take quintessence off of dead men and store it for later use. So if he chose Elbert for his quintessence, there's absolutely no reason why Elbert has to be alive for the ritual.

Maybe the ritual involved something like, perhaps... the death of a being with a lot of quintessence? That maybe is not harvested, stored quintessence used but rather the unleashing of such by separating it from it's host?

I mean, let's look at it...

Chapter 19: Elbert is dealt a fatal blow. Gate Opens.

Final Chapter: Nergal is dealt a fatal blow. Gate Opens.

Hmm, now that looks like a pattern. Not entirely confirmed, but it does hint to that way...

Edited August 5, 2011 by Acacia Sgt

[Geriba]

I think anyone who is under the impression that a dissertation is only 12,000 words can't possibly be taken seriously about anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Try to keep up if you're just jumping in. As a fun fact, I'm actually seriously considering pursing a Ph.D.

See, the reason I didn't respond to your post in quotation format is because, as you pointed out yourself, the argument was going in circles. You said absolutely nothing in this post that you haven't said in posts previously; my response to you this time would be no different than it has been the last few times.

As a matter of fact, I said plenty of new things, and clarified many more. You're just looking for an excuse to be lazy and obtuse.

I say that most of your statements involve you making assumptions and posing hypothetical explanations to what happened. Then what do you do in response? Make assumptions and pose hypothetical explanations as to what happened.

The silver lining here is that, count-for-count, my explanation holds up a hell of a lot better than yours does. Whether you realize it or not, you're making the same types of assumptions, little man.

Saying that "In text Nils says that Nergal needs quintessence to control dragons" neither refutes Nils's other statement that he requires tremendous amounts of quintessence to call dragons through the gate nor does it explain how Nergal managed to call dragons through the gate at the end of the game despite Athos and Limstella both explaining that Nergal has run low on quintessence.

This is why I probably won't have kids for a while: I hate repeating myself over and over again.

Proposition 1: After being fatally wounded, Nergal is low on quintessence.

Proposition 2: After being fatally wounded, Nergal summons dragons.

---

Conclusion: Nergal does not require a peak amount of quintessence to call dragons.

Notice that word peak. At any given time, Nergal is in the process of absorbing and incorporating the quintessence of dozens, if not hundreds, of people into his being. When Nils says that calling dragons requires a tremendous amount of quintessence, he doesn't appear to mean "tremendous for Nergal," but rather "tremendous in general." This is confirmed by the fact that Nergal does indeed summon dragons when his energy is all but depleted, as well as the fact that Nils makes clear Nergal seeks ultimately to control the dragons.

Where is your evidence that all of that energy is for merely opening the gate? Hm? Love to hear it.

"Your idea that the massive amounts of every he was collecting was for calling the dragons alone is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong." How so? As I posted earlier, in New Resolve Nils specifically explains that Nergal requires tremendous amounts of quintessence to call dragons. If he is out of quintessence by endgame, then I fail to see how he calls the dragons.

See above. And really now, just think about it. What takes more energy: issuing a simple call, or harnessing the awesome powers of dozens of legendary beasts who nearly wiped out humanity? And given the fact that, at the end of the game, Nergal summons dragons from the open gate with virtually no energy, there's no rational way to conceive of it otherwise.

What are also the facts? That Nergal opens the gate later in the game without this ritual. So obviously it isn't an essential step to opening the Dragon's Gate.

I already covered this: it was an essential part during the initial stage. Are you so dense and uncreative that you can't fill in this small step yourself? There's also the very real problem that, well, we're dealing with magic; what kind of explanation do you want?

Bottom line, this doesn't constitute a "plot hole," but rather a partially ambiguous magical process, where the player is not entirely privy to the complex thoughts of a millennia-old master archsage.

Here's another fact: That Nergal can take quintessence off of dead men and store it for later use. So if he chose Elbert for his quintessence, there's absolutely no reason why Elbert has to be alive for the ritual.

Bolded for effect: we don't know the complete details of how the Ritual works. Clearly, it was an exceptional case.

Anyways, the conclusions you draw, as I stated in my previous post, rely on assuming that the game is infallible; that because Nergal is a super genius everything he does is done right. You come up with a lot of hypothetical explanations for things that are not mentioned in the game whatsoever.

Wrong. My explanations rely on the safe assumption that, as a master magician, super-genius, and scholar, Nergal knew what he was doing, and the Ritual was necessary.

Kishuna sheds light on the character of Nergal? How so?

The creation of Kishuna...

-further affirms Nergal's cruelty

-demonstrates that Nergal is willing to toy not just with life, but with emotions

-reflects how Nergal's desire for revenge cost him his own emotions, symbolized by the throwing out of his emotionally-capable creation

And where does Tolkein do it? And where does Lewis do it? I'm not familiar with Lewis but examples would be nice.

Pick up any Sci-Fi book in the world. Chances are, it will deal with some kind of extraterrestrial life form. Sometimes, these life forms are given human qualities, their motivations explored and explained in a relatable fashion; many times- especially if they're side characters, like Kishuna- their aims will be chalked up to nothing more than "they're just not like us." It's left ambiguous. You should know this, if you are in fact an English major at UCLA.

And to recap, here's what we know about Kishuna:

-as a morph, he is sub-human

-he has been given the capabilities for experiencing emotions

-he has been thrown away, left to wander the world

-when around the player, the aura he gives off is one of "sadness"

He might not have a motivation in the first place- after all, do animals have "motivation"?- but if he does, it almost certainly involves emotions on some level.

Anyways I won't respond to your insults this time since doing so is pointless and merely goads you to post more insults.

Hate to say this, but I'll be insulting you whether you respond to them or not. You were asking for this kind of treatment with that asinine OP.

I assume next post you'll say a lot of the same things you've been saying, and I'll say a lot of things I've been saying in response, and nothing will change, and nothing will happen, and you'll wind up thinking you're right, and I'll wind up thinking I'm right, and nobody else watching this discussion will care.

What a goddamn hypocrite. So is this how you think a debate works? Is this all you believe people are capable of? One person says one thing, another person says another, they bicker for a bit, and then go their separate ways, unconvinced? That's complete tripe: reasonable people can enter a debate, impassioned or not, and come out with a totally new perspective. So long as the other person's been the least bit persuasive, naturally.

But hey, let's say you're right. Let's say that people aren't going to change their minds, and are only going to yell at each other until they run out of energy. Then why did you post this essay in the first place?

[bottlegnomes]

The sheer amount of arrogance in these posts is baffling. As for the Ph.D. thing, way to toot your own horn.

So I'm kind of on topic, Kishuna also gives off an angry aura in Genesis. He only actually gives off a sad one in the Value of Life.

On a side note, it could be said FE7's plot is more true to life because there are so many things left unanswered and unexplained: Life's a bad story, full of inconsistencies, absurd twists, ridiculous situations, and lacking closure.