So, SF...

[Djeets]

why is it that people was against loptyr again? it's not that Loptyr will make the world where the strong lives and The weak submit like Ashnard did, so what's the point on making a war against him?

Loptyr just wants to be the ruler of the world, that's it, just agreed with that and everything will be peaceful >.<

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

1. Because Loptyr is an Earth Dragon. Going with FE lore alone, this is quite a trouble

2. Its not that simple. Mara say hi

[Phoenix Wright]

A Song of Ice and Fire has cartoonishly evil villains like Joffrey. So what? Deep stories can have stupid plot elements.

Joffrey is hardly an evil "villain." No one gives a damn about him.

And the phrase "cartoonishly evil," is meant to describe villains without redeeming qualities or deep character development (or lack of it altogether), rather than literally cartoon-like villains. Jaffar from Aladdin is evil for evil's sake. So are the Begnion senators.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Djeets]

1. Because Loptyr is an Earth Dragon. Going with FE lore alone, this is quite a trouble

2. Its not that simple. Mara say hi

then that proves most of FE lores are racist towards dragon races... (FE 7 was brutal example here...)

as for the "mara" stuff, i don't get it.. do you mean maira of Galle's little bro?

[Chiki]

Joffrey is hardly an evil "villain." No one gives a damn about him.

And the phrase "cartoonishly evil," is meant to describe villains without redeeming qualities or deep character development, rather than literally cartoon-like villains. Jaffar from Aladdin is evil for evil's sake. So are the Begnion senators.

Lol. What the hell are you talking about? Joffrey chopping off Ned's head started an entire war between the North and King's Landing. How in the fuck is that unimportant?

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Uhhh no

Go look up FE1 backstory and you know the issue

And yes, I mean Maira

[Chiki]

Just before I forget, Joffrey is cartoonishly evil. He has no redeeming qualities as someone in the book put it:

Joffrey. He had been a handsome lad, tall and strong for his age, but that was all the good that could be said of him.

He is evil for evil's sake. It happens even in fantasy novels. Fire Emblem having cartoonish villains means nothing.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

Lol. What the hell are you talking about? Joffrey chopping off Ned's head started an entire war between the North and King's Landing. How in the fuck is that unimportant?

It's not that it's unimportant, but tensions were high enough that the war would have happened anyway. Ned's execution was just a catalyst.

It's pretty evident that no one gives a damn about Joffrey. Even his mother loves him only because she feels obligated that she should. Everyone around him manipulates him for their own gain. Joffrey is a teenage fool.

Joffrey is nearly textbook definition of being cartoonishly evil. My point is that he's no "villain." It's debatable whether there's even a defined protagonist and antagonist of these books, but even if there were, say the Starks (good guys) vs the Lannisters (bad guys), still no one would give a damn about Joffrey. He's inconsequential to nearly everyone.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[1% critted]

What's going on here now?

[Chiki]

It's not that it's unimportant, but tensions were high enough that the war would have happened anyway. Ned's execution was just a catalyst.

It's pretty evident that no one gives a damn about Joffrey. Even his mother loves him only because she feels obligated that she should. Everyone around him manipulates him for their own gain. Joffrey is a teenage fool.

Joffrey is nearly textbook definition of being cartoonishly evil. My point is that he's no "villain." It's debatable whether there's even a defined protagonist and antagonist of these books, but even if there were, say the Starks (good guys) vs the Lannisters (bad guys), still no one would give a damn about Joffrey. He's inconsequential to nearly everyone.

"Not Robert the Second," Tyrion said. "Aerys the Third."

"The boy is thirteen. There is time yet." Lord Tywin paced to the window. That was unlike him; he was more upset than he wished to show. "He requires a sharp lesson."

"Renly is not the king," Robb said. It was the first time her son had spoken. Like his father, he knew how to listen.

"You cannot mean to hold to Joffrey, my lord," Galbart Glover said. "He put your father to death."

"That makes him evil," Robb replied. "I do not know that it makes Renly king. Joffrey is still Robert's eldest trueborn son, so the throne is rightfully his by all the laws of the realm. Were he to die, and I mean to see that he does, he has a younger brother. Tommen is next in line after Joffrey."

Arya huddled down and held her tongue. Valar morghulis, she thought sullenly. Ser Ilyn, Ser Meryn, King Joffrey, Queen Cersei. Dunsen, Polliver, Raff the Sweetling, Ser Gregor and the Tickler. And the Hound, the Hound, the Hound.

More evidence in case you haven't read the books:

"As you moved Ser Dontos to poison Joffrey?" It had to have been Dontos, she had concluded.

Littlefinger laughed. "Ser Dontos the Red was a skin of wine with legs. He could never have been trusted with a task of such enormity. He would have bungled it or betrayed me. No, all Dontos had to do was lead you from the castle . . . and make certain you wore your silver hair net."

The black amethysts. "But . . . if not Dontos, who? Do you have other . . . pieces?"

"You could turn King's Landing upside down and not find a single man with a mockingbird sewn over his heart, but that does not mean I am friendless."

Pretty much everyone wanted Joffrey dead because he was a piece of shit. People cared too much.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Chiki

[Jedi]

What's going on here now?

I think it turned into "A Song of Ice and Fire" Discussion somehow

[Phoenix Wright]

right, sorry about that.

[Trickster]

I think it turned into "A Song of Ice and Fire" Discussion somehow

Well better than having this turn into a massive flame war over fire emblem games just by asking they phrase, "Why do people not like the DS games?"

And shadow dragon wasn't THAT bad, it just could have done better.

[Baldrick]

On the subject of Loptyr's cult being cartoonishly evil... somebody hasn't reached Yied Shrine, I see.

I think FE4's story is one of the strongest in the series, given there are so many sympathetic antagonists.

[shadykid]

I think it turned into "A Song of Ice and Fire" Discussion somehow

well, that's one word away from "A Song of Ice and Fire Emblem"

*shot*

Edited August 14, 2013 by shadykid

[The Void]

Hunting children, causing tons of death and torturing people is "cartoonish"?

I don't want to know what cartoons you grew up with.

Tell me what redeeming qualities Manfloy actually shows. Or any other Loptyr worshiper who isn't Salem (who is a playable character in a later game).

Even in Thracia 776, it turns out not even his own grandaughter likes him. Let alone how Manfloy acted like a Bond villain in the last chapter of GotHW, where he took Julia away to send against Celice and Co. instead of killing her or telling someone to as soon as he could.

The Lopt cult has more depth than what some people here think. It means some people don't understand FE4/FE5's story.

They don't want to "kill everything." They go child hunting not to kill children for amusement, but to raise strong enough warriors to worship Lopt. Yes, people die, but that's not the goal: rather the consequence of raising powerful warriors.

I've never seen the Lopt cult go on needless massacres. They aren't evil for the sake of being evil.

Part of the reason why they're so evil is because they lived in isolation in the Yied Desert ever since the 12 Crusaders kicked their asses. Obviously that can lead to some resentment.

The main reason they do the evil things they do is because of religious belief. That's not so cartoonish is it? It happens all the time in real life. Look at Al Qaeda. How the fuck is that "cartoonish?"

People don't agree with me on a video game=Some people don't understand a video game.

And Lopyr's cult does massacre civilians and sacrifice children. Arion brings up the first to Linoan to let Thracia control Tahra. Let alone how chapter 10's intro brings up how children are being rounded and sacrificed with Julius going on about how the child sacrifices would break the mothers for them to be slaves.

Why don't you name a redeeming quality any Loptyr worshiper who isn't Salem shows.

On the subject of Loptyr's cult being cartoonishly evil... somebody hasn't reached Yied Shrine, I see.

I think FE4's story is one of the strongest in the series, given there are so many sympathetic antagonists.

Name a redeeming quality Manfloy shows. Let alone how he doesn't kill or tell someone to kill Julia when he has the chance.

He's a James Bond villain.

Edited August 15, 2013 by The Void

[Constable Reggie]

People don't agree with me on a video game=Some people don't understand a video game.

And Lopyr's cult does massacre citizens and sacrifice children. Arion brings up the first to Linoan to let Thracia control Tahra. Let alone how chapter 10's intro brings up how children are being rounded and sacrificed with Julius going on about how the child sacrifices would break the mothers for them to be slaves.

Why don't you name a redeeming quality any Loptyr worshiper who isn't Salem shows.

Loptyr massacres them if they try to rebel (while simultaneously making them an example for other villages), they don't do it for no reason (which is why Arion insists on taking control of Tahra, a nation known to stand defiant against Grandbell/lopto), and the sacrifice children thing is more of a "reeducate them, pick off the ones who are weak, empower the strong", which again, is a reasonable plan for their goals. They're not being evil just for evil's sake, but rather to employ their totalitarian empire. Also, you mind quoting Julius' dialogue saying that they're sacrificing childrens in order to break their mothers? Because the most relevant dialogue I know of is chapter 4's, where he explains that they're doing it for a completely different reason

edit: whoops mixing up fe4 and 5, gimme a sec to read fe4's ch10

Julius' dialogue in ch10 is still in character though, since he feels the inhabitants of the old generation are pathetic/not worthy, and wants to raise a "better" nation and generation in his name. If Fe5 didn't exist, I could possibly see the "evil for evil sake's" argument, but thankfully it does exist, and expands on Julius/Lopto's goals and intentions

The only huge misstep is Manfloy's plan to send Julia against your army, since that could end catastrophically, while only achieving gloat-status, but I'd say that's more Manfloy's fault (the dude conquered the entire continent, so what can you say), rather than the entire Lopt empire being cartoonishly evil.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Baldrick]

There are none, because Loptyr's sect is set up such that only those who have no conscience whatsoever or can ignore it survive. According to Salem, they do not tolerate traitors. Merely trying to leave gets you branded a traitor, and Salem would have died if Pahn hadn't intervened. Presumably, given their love of making examples of civilians who resist, any Lopt priest who shows a sign of rebellion would be killed, and not all of them would be as lucky as Salem.

The point made at Yied Shrine is that innocent people, whose only crime was to be blood-related to Galle and his followers, were persecuted and driven to evil by the ancestors of the protagonists. Since they were not allowed to live in the old world, they had to create a new world. It doesn't really qualify as "redeeming qualities", but it's reason to feel pity for them.

[Trickster]

Eh, I do believe most of four and fives villains were poorly characterized. Hell in awakening people openly mock Ryderik (Walhart calling him a school yard bully was great) Manfroy gives his curse of bad villain to Validar by making them want to resurrect a god, THAT WILL END THE WORLD, for few reasons, in fewer in Validar's case.

However fire emblem has quite a few good villains too, Nergal, BK, sephiran, Gangrel, Walhart, Camus, Hardin, and Lyon. Sure this list can be debatable but I don't think many villains in 4 or 5 can compare save for Travant. But consider he's one villain over two games, it's not that impressive.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Travant is amazing because he is the only villain that wins at the end of the day

How many villain can brag that they win even more by losing?

Edited August 15, 2013 by Salesmaster MU

[Chiki]

It's impossible for me to prove to you that Fire Emblem games do have deep stories because it's ultimately subjective. But showing you that even its own creators think it has a deep story, and that its fans do as well, is definitely evidence of the fact that at least it's worth trying for the story due to the chance that you will like it.

[Constable Reggie]

They never said it was deep, though. They said it was grand/large/epic/long. And again, that's only them stating their intentions, which don't account into actually judging the product. However, don't fear, I can most likely say that RD's story was definitely grand in scale, and long.

Deep on the other hand is something that should be debated, as it generates discussion (which is nice) and gives all sides a better view on general consensus of the story as a whole. Obviously it's impossible to prove objectively that it's deep, but you can give evidence (from the game, not interviews) and reasoning as to why you think so.

[Chiki]

It's very unlikely for a story which is grand to not be deep. I can't think of any cases in which that is so, but I can think of many contrary cases; ASOIAF is one of them.

Horace's original claim was that people shouldn't be playing Fire Emblem games for their story. It's a general statement, so it applies to the population as a whole.

I think a much better way to disprove this claim, rather than just talk about how deep the story is, is to consider what people in general think--as Horace's statement is too a general statement. To suggest that one should point to the story itself and talk about how deep it is is itself flawed reasoning, because one has already admitted that x is subjective--if one has already admitted x is subjective, why should they talk about their own subjective opinions on a game, and point to, for example, Ashera turning everyone into stone? It doesn't make much sense. You can't argue that something is deep in general and also say that it's subjective.

Just because you think Ashera turning people into stone is deep, doesn't mean others do: it's subjective and you can't use your own subjective reasoning for the general population's views.

If you want to convince someone that a story may be deep for them, then you have to show them what others think. Showing them the opinions of the creators of the game is just one step--but it isn't enough, because the creator of Teletubbies may think his story is deep when it isn't--but you also have to show them the opinions of others. If a sizable portion of the general population finds it deep, then yes. But one person's subjective ramblings on parts of the story doesn't mean anything.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Chiki

[Junkhead]

Sometimes I feel a sort of short-lived envy for people who are used to reading litariture. It makes me seem rather incompetent when it comes to arguing because they seem to have a rather vast arsenal of weaponry, when it comes to words.

Although that's something my parents should've said in the first place, "you should read because it's some form of entertainment through visualized through your imagination", something I didn't know until recently (about 2 years ago). Reading has always been a chore, forced by my parents, and that I never really understood the meaning of...

[Espinosa]

I don't get people who are all like "wow reading is so amazing" and "books are my life" and shit. When I'm interested in something, I'll do my research and reading will be the most likely means of absorbing that information in an efficient manner. If there's a good documentary on it, then reading is out. If I have to talk to people to make this knowledge my own, then my eyes won't be doing any of the work. But people seem to like to pretend that it's the process of going through a piece of text with their eyes that's so orgasmic rather than just admit they're fond of fashionable storytelling from Dan Brown or Paolo Coelho or some bullshit.