What makes a good plotline?

[BBM]

FE9, for me, is the best storyline-wise because although you still have the reclaim your kingdom storyline, it's more than that. It's also a coming-of-age story for Ike (and to a lesser extent, Elincia) as he struggles with his father's death and attempts to get revenge. It also has some of the best character development in Ike, Jill, and Lethe. FE8 does have better villains though. Lyon, like the FE10 Senators, is there constantly, and is one of the only villains in the series (besides the guy from FE2) who has a motive beyond "lol rule the world"

[Jotari]

Something else all Fire Emblem games need for it to be a Fire Emblem story. Unless its Eliwood, the father of the main lord will die at some point. Not sure if people reckon this is a good recurring plot point or not but it is a trend in the series. Not sure about Fe13 though, does Krom's father die in that (actually if its a hugely spoilerific plot point then don't tell me)?

Edited June 16, 2012 by Jotari

[Original Alear]

By this logic, Twilight is good. It's divisive and a lot has been written about it.

I think that's fair, actually. Even if I'm personally uninterested in Twilight, at least it has given people who dislike and like it something to talk about. A lot of books that I imagine are of similar quality (I say imagine because I never read Twilight) don't really generate as much buzz, so there's not as much benefit to reading them. That being said, I don't think it's a good sole barometer for what makes something good. It's even rather tertiary - for me, I've never discussed many of my favorite works with anyone else who has actually read them, and even though my favorite work has a lot of internet discussion around it, I don't participate in it. Also, most of the people who discuss it seem to think it's excellent like I do, and more get into (never very divisive, that I've seen) discussions about theories regarding the story.

[OrangeCrush980]

Fire Emblem 7's plotline is perfection, so a good plotline is one similar to FE7's.

[General Banzai]

Is it time for me to write another essay that will lead to a community-wide flame war and will eventually increase my warn by another 10%?

I can start by saying that FE4 and FE7 both have lousy plots.

[Ciarre]

Those are always entertaining, at least. It's divisive and people either love or hate it. Like "good plots".

[Rewjeo]

Trying to objectively define whether or not the story of a niche video game is good seems rather pointless to me. Objectively defining whether or not any story is good seems pointless to me, actually, and it kind of defeats the purpose of a story. Like it or don't, but analyzing it is an awful lot of effort to put into accomplishing nothing good.

[Ein]

Can't we just agree that they're all bad/good? :c

[Dark Sage]

People play Fire Emblem for the story?

[Colonel M]

By this logic, Twilight is good. It's divisive and a lot has been written about it.

If we speak strictly on the books, Twilight isn't bad, but it isn't something I would praise all day every day about, either. Tolerable enough is probably the best to say.

The movies are the real thing that drags Twilight into an unforgiving sea of despair and confusion.

[Titamon]

I always find the lore more interesting than the stories themselves tbh

[deranger]

Trying to objectively define whether or not the story of a niche video game is good seems rather pointless to me. Objectively defining whether or not any story is good seems pointless to me, actually, and it kind of defeats the purpose of a story. Like it or don't, but analyzing it is an awful lot of effort to put into accomplishing nothing good.

The findings analyzing plots objectively aids anyone attempting to write a plot. FE Hacks need plots. So Objectively defining what makes a story good or bad hopefully creates better story lines for fan made games.

[Life]

By this logic, Twilight is good. It's divisive and a lot has been written about it.

Twilight isn't a good example. Looking at the writing itself (with a literary view), it's actually shit.

Dan Brown books would be a better example. Not great writing but effective.

[-Cynthia-]

I'd like to see something where the hero makes morally questionable choices and you have to wonder who really is the good guy. That would be cool, IMO. I don't know what the overall plot would do though.

I think this is the problem with Fire Emblem- it's very basic as to who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" most of the time with only an exception or two in each game. The series is so set on following the original FE1 formula which leaves the villains either unexplained or just mustache-twirling evil.

FE10 breaks the FE1 mold with a different plot structure and actually adds some moral ambiguity to the game- namely Micaiah's decisions in Part 3 although there are several others as well. This makes Micaiah a controversial character and thus makes the plot more interesting IMO.

[Paperblade]

Twilight isn't a good example. Looking at the writing itself (with a literary view), it's actually shit.

Dan Brown books would be a better example. Not great writing but effective.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying Twilight isn't a good comparison because the writing is bad on a technical level? If so, what does this have to do with the point I was trying to make? Twilight isn't just shit because the writing is bad, the characters are totally unrealistic and overly perfect--just like Micaiah. They are "divisive" because some people don't think so.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Paperblade

[Westbrick]

I personally liked FE7 ATTEMPTING to do something other than "evil country invades". It falls flat on its face (Assassin's guild with frontline fighters worthy of a small army!), but it at least tried (even if it was forced to by being a prequel of a game that stated it hadn't seen war recently).

Just wanted to call out another example of blind, irrational FE7 hatred that has no basis in reality. Really now, these posts are ridiculous. There are plenty of good reasons not to like FE7, just like there are plenty of good reasons not to like any of the FE games in the series; making them up out of thin air is silly.

P.S. Fire Emblem has a reputation in the general gaming world of having competent plots and excellent character development, so I'm not sure who these people are who are complaining that FE casts need more fleshing out.

Is it time for me to write another essay that will lead to a community-wide flame war and will eventually increase my warn by another 10%?

I can start by saying that FE4 and FE7 both have lousy plots.

Actually, FE4 and FE7 have far and away the best plots in the series, although they perform their roles in opposite ways (grandiose, large-scale versus a smaller, more intimate conflict). Would love to hear your thoughts on FE4, although I'm going to have to amnesty any talks regarding FE7 on the grounds that a burning, irrational hatred of something isn't conducive to intelligent discussion.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Westbrick

[Life]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying Twilight isn't a good comparison because the writing is bad on a technical level? If so, what does this have to do with the point I was trying to make? Twilight isn't just shit because the writing is bad, the characters are totally unrealistic and overly perfect--just like Micaiah. They are "divisive" because some people don't think so.

Twilight is shit because EVERYTHING of it is shit. It's a wet dream put into paper. That's the only reason why some people "like" it.

[Jotari]

I think this is the problem with Fire Emblem- it's very basic as to who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" most of the time with only an exception or two in each game. The series is so set on following the original FE1 formula which leaves the villains either unexplained or just mustache-twirling evil.

I've heard people complain about that aspect of Fire Emblem before and I have to disagree. Since Fire Emblem 4 most of the villains in each game have been very redeemable in their evil. The only really irredeemable bad guy in FE4 is Manfroy, people actually do feel very sympathetic for the likes of Alvis and even Trabant despite him being a complete bastard. A good portion of the bosses in the second half of the game are children of people you killed earlier in the game looking for revenge after you murdered their entire family. Even Julius is possessed to be evil and was described as being very kind before that. It even tries to humanize the likes of Manfroy and the lopt sect at one point by showing a prayer on the wall written by a child raised in a lopt sect. The so called "good guys" of Fe4 where pretty brutal towards any survivors of the lopt empire with plenty of burnings and man hunts that its only a natural reaction for them to want to reclaim their lost empire.

Most of Fe6's cast are just devoted to Zelguis who in turn is just someone who is mad with grief after being unjustly abused and almost killed by his father. The only real monster in Fe6 is Narshen. Murdock, Galle and Brunya are just loyal followers of their king. Idoun is probably one of the most sympathetic antagonistic of the whole series being nothing but a slave without a soul to call her own. Yahn before her makes it very clear that he holds no hatred for humans and believes they are just on two different sides. And that's after the humans wiped out his entire race and blamed all of the worlds misfortune on them. He's even nice enough to tell Roy a story about it.

I haven't played Fe7 but I've heard that Nergal is depicted as a sympathetic villain. Something about his wife being sealed away or something.

Fe8 has Formortiis as the monstrous antagonist but the people he acct through and who are seen as the villains throughout most of the game are depicted as just people who are a victim of unfortunate circumstances, Lyon, Vigarde and to some extent Orson. Though admittedly that game does have quite a few people who are just evil for the fun of it like Valter, Caellach and Riev.

I haven't played Fe9 but from what I hear it has quite a few cases like Fe6 where a lot of villains are just people loyal to their king, though admittedly Ashnard is a much less sympathetic King.

Even going back to the times of NES era games where story was unheard of there's a few redeemable villains like Camus and Michalis.

Being a series of games where you casually slaughter hordes of human enemies there are quite a few random evil for the sake of it bosses but on a whole most Fire Emblem games tend to have their primary and important villains have some form of reasoning behind their actions. The only real "unexplained or just mustache-twirling evil" characters in the series who aren't random chapter bosses tend to sealed evil in a can characters who are rarely explained in any media that uses that trope.

[Westbrick]

I haven't played Fe7 but I've heard that Nergal is depicted as a sympathetic villain. Something about his wife being sealed away or something.

Fe8 has Formortiis as the monstrous antagonist but the people he acct through and who are seen as the villains throughout most of the game are depicted as just people who are a victim of unfortunate circumstances, Lyon, Vigarde and to some extent Orson. Though admittedly that game does have quite a few people who are just evil for the fun of it like Valter, Caellach and Riev.

Nergal's quest for power, which ultimately made him go crazy and lust for the return of dragons, was originally driven by the murder of his wife and his feeling of powerlessness. It's never explicitly touched on outside of the brief flashback Athos provides and 19xx, but it's a nice little touch, and makes him a much deeper character than he would have been otherwise.

And yeah, FE8 is by far the worst in the series (maybe except for the very early titles) about having shallow, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil antagonists. One of the many unfortunate defects in what should have been a pretty solid plot.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Westbrick

[Dark Sage]

Just wanted to call out another example of blind, irrational FE7 hatred that has no basis in reality. Really now, these posts are ridiculous. There are plenty of good reasons not to like FE7, just like there are plenty of good reasons not to like any of the FE games in the series; making them up out of thin air is silly.

P.S. Fire Emblem has a reputation in the general gaming world of having competent plots and excellent character development, so I'm not sure who these people are who are complaining that FE casts need more fleshing out.

Actually, FE4 and FE7 have far and away the best plots in the series, although they perform their roles in opposite ways (grandiose, large-scale versus a smaller, more intimate conflict). Would love to hear your thoughts on FE4, although I'm going to have to amnesty any talks regarding FE7 on the grounds that a burning, irrational hatred of something isn't conducive to intelligent discussion.

And yeah, FE8 is by far the worst in the series (maybe except for the very early titles) about having shallow, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil antagonists. One of the many unfortunate defects in what should have been a pretty solid plot.

Shh. Don't let General Banzai hear you.

I do have to disagree with you regarding FE4's plot. While it at least does something different in not making all the villains except 1 or 2 of them mustache twirlingly evil, the story itself is pretty generic, the characters have very little personality (particularly in the 2nd generation), and the dialogue and exposition is completely wooden.

[BrightBow]

Nergal's quest for power, which ultimately made him go crazy and lust for the return of dragons, was originally driven by the murder of his wife and his feeling of powerlessness. It's never explicitly touched on outside of the brief flashback Athos provides and 19xx, but it's a nice little touch, and makes him a much deeper character than he would have been otherwise.

And yeah, FE8 is by far the worst in the series (maybe except for the very early titles) about having shallow, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil antagonists. One of the many unfortunate defects in what should have been a pretty solid plot.

FE8 villains are shallow and Nergal has deep?

So how exactly is Nergal being corrupted by his feeling of powerlessness any better then Lyon being corrupted by his feeling of powerlessness?

At least we actually see it in the latter's case because the information is not hidden in a secret chapter with requirements that are impossible to figure out. And almost impossible to archive through mere coincidence as well.

That might be something to note: A story needs to be actually told. It's not sufficient if the important stuff is only somewhere in the writers notes but not anywhere in the end product.

Edit:

And Valter, Caellach and Orson have their own motivations. I do grant you Riev, though. I doubt even General Banzai could justify this guy. But then again, he gave Marty a 10/10 rating, so I guess he would at least try.

Anyway, Caellach doesn't want to get stuck doing unrewarding mercenary work and tries to move up in his world. Seems fairly understandable to me.

Valter is a sick bastard who gets of on fighting, raping and killing. Remember how Ephrahim admitted he had an "unstillable lust for battle"? I think the idea behind Valter might be to show how Ephrahim or just men in general might be if they would lack certain restraints.

And Orson is in for the chance of being together with his wife.

The former two just lack empathy so they are capable of doing anything to further their goals, no matter how twisted. Which is sadly not really rare in the real world.

Edit2: Nevermind, sorry.

I really need to stop posting so late. That just makes me write stuff that even I think is stupid.

Edited June 20, 2012 by BrightBow

[Baldrick]

Feh, and I was all set to write a response...

[Westbrick]

Shh. Don't let General Banzai hear you.

I do have to disagree with you regarding FE4's plot. While it at least does something different in not making all the villains except 1 or 2 of them mustache twirlingly evil, the story itself is pretty generic, the characters have very little personality (particularly in the 2nd generation), and the dialogue and exposition is completely wooden.

I'm all ears for some intelligent criticism of FE4's plot, and since it seems less-discussed than other plots in the series (at least in my experience), I may have missed some of the more common points against it. But for me, what FE4 does well is that, on top of rock-solid character development, it's got a very unique feel that combines realpolitik with sorcery and the occult. Worked well for me.

P.S. Just to be clear, FE8 has some really great characters here and there, and Lyon is the best of the bunch. Far better than Nergal. But beyond that, it's a landslide victory for FE7, and I'd love to get into a discussion about this so long as we can keep things civil and don't strikethrough entire paragraphs!

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong about Valter, but isn't his entire backstory

that he touched DA CURSD LANZ and became comically barbaric?

That's some Riev-caliber development right there.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Westbrick

[Anouleth]

And yeah, FE8 is by far the worst in the series (maybe except for the very early titles) about having shallow, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil antagonists. One of the many unfortunate defects in what should have been a pretty solid plot.

Let's consider the main antagonists of FE7:

First ten chapters is Lundgren. He is evil. So, so evil. He kidnaps children, poisons his brother (why he didn't just stab the fucker is up for debate since he was perfectly open about giving him poison), is generally unpleasant and incompetent and unpopular.

Then, we have Ephidel for the next ten or so chapters. He's somewhat of a blank slate. He doesn't seem to take any pleasure in his evil work, but at the same time he doesn't mind killing and lying either.

Then, we have Nergal. Nergal is obsessed with power and has no qualms about killing people. He doesn't care even when Eliwood kills Ninian. He's disgusted by weak people and considers them to be nothing more than sources of quintessence. However, he was led to this path by the traumatic death of his wife.

I can't really say that these three main antagonists are qualitatively more evil than, say, Riev, Vigarde and Lyon. Riev is completely evil, but so is Lundgren. Vigarde is more like Ephidel: an ambivalent puppet for a greater villain. Lyon is cruel and has no compunctions about killing, or abusing the trust of Eirika, but like Nergal, he was motivated by the traumatic death of his father.

[Westbrick]

Let's consider the main antagonists of FE7:

First ten chapters is Lundgren. He is evil. So, so evil. He kidnaps children, poisons his brother (why he didn't just stab the fucker is up for debate since he was perfectly open about giving him poison), is generally unpleasant and incompetent and unpopular.

Then, we have Ephidel for the next ten or so chapters. He's somewhat of a blank slate. He doesn't seem to take any pleasure in his evil work, but at the same time he doesn't mind killing and lying either.

Then, we have Nergal. Nergal is obsessed with power and has no qualms about killing people. He doesn't care even when Eliwood kills Ninian. He's disgusted by weak people and considers them to be nothing more than sources of quintessence. However, he was led to this path by the traumatic death of his wife.

I can't really say that these three main antagonists are qualitatively more evil than, say, Riev, Vigarde and Lyon. Riev is completely evil, but so is Lundgren. Vigarde is more like Ephidel: an ambivalent puppet for a greater villain. Lyon is cruel and has no compunctions about killing, or abusing the trust of Eirika, but like Nergal, he was motivated by the traumatic death of his father.

1) Lundgren is a bit player in the FE7 plot line, and isn't particularly well-developed. Like you said, he's about on the same level as Riev: motivated by some selfish motive (taking the throne versus bringing about the return of demons), and willing to kill those who stand in his way. The difference here is that Riev is a major FE8 villain, whereas Lundgren is a minor antagonist at most.

2) Ephidel is moderately well-developed given who he is: as a morph, he's void of any real life experience, and has been created for a specific purpose. Still, he has a consistent personality (cool, collected, rational) and a strong presence. He fills his role well. Again, I'm not sure how fair it is to compare him to someone like Vigarde, who is actually an empty puppet with no personality. Limstella is a better character to juxtapose against Vigarde than Ephidel. Remember: Limstella showed no visible emotion at the thought of her body being destroyed by Nergal after dealing with Eliwood & Co., while Ephidel was screaming for help while the Dragon was collapsing. That said, even Limstella is incredibly interesting from time to time ("Yes, as is this sorrow" is still one of my favorite lines from that game), whereas the only notable thing I remember puppet Vigarde doing is being sort of a dick to Selena.

3) Lyon is excellent, and every FE fan should agree here.

You've left out most of the actually well-developed FE7 antagonists other than Nergal, those being (to varying degrees) Lloyd, Linus, Uhai, Sonia, and Desmond. Then you have a number of minor antagonists worth mentioning, like Kishuna, Reed, Ursula, and Darin; and to be honest, most of the major FE8 antagonists end up no more developed than this lot. Who is, say, Caellach? A guy who wants to become king, the embodiment of ambition. Who is Orson? A knight whose loyalty was torn between his nation and his love. Both are entirely one-dimensional. I will say that Selena is very well-developed and worth focusing on a bit more.

Oh, and I also feel there's a strong case to be made that FE7's NPC units were more significantly developed as well- looking at Uther, Fargus, Elbert, etc.- but that might be another issue for another day.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Westbrick