If everyone in the cast didn't have a gimmick....

[Phoenix Wright]

like i care

those games pursue story in ways that are divorced from gameplay (phoenix wright less so, but only because it's hardly a game to begin with). If your medium is a video game, you should use the specific things you can do in a game to tell that story in a way that is different than how you would tell it in a book or movie

see my earlier comment about thracia having the best story in the series. Why? Because that game's gameplay tells the story as much as the story itself does. Fatigue, capturing, and even the inability to change formations at the beginning of chapters all create the impression of a harried, ragtag army constantly on the run and constantly in trouble. The game's oppressive and unfair difficulty places the player in the position of Lief, the naive and unknowledgeable leader who is constantly scolded by his advisors for doing the wrong thing. Meanwhile the story elements contribute to the gameplay as well, so that Lief's large group of bickering advisors (most clearly exemplified in August v Dorias) try to force their own ideas and views about strategy onto Lief/the player, and thus affect how the player plays the game. [we see this latter point in most, if not all, games in the series, but it occurs most notably here and in PoR]

video games are the ultimate expression of postmodernism, in which the reader/player does actual battle with the creator of art in the form of their creations. every game is in essence a puzzle which the player must solve in order to prevail over the puzzlemaker. this basic tension is at the heart of every game and is in and of itself a more compelling story than shakespeare

and yet many creators are content to obscure this tension through armies of cutscenes that are entirely removed from the actual content of the game

uh...have you ever played the last of us? or metal gear solid, for that matter?

[General Banzai]

uh...have you ever played the last of us? or metal gear solid, for that matter?

I've played MGS and Phoenix Wright, hence those are the two games I specifically called out in my post

edit: I should add I don't even dislike either of those games, or even the gameplay in either of those games, or even the story in either of those games

Edited September 21, 2013 by General Banzai

[Phoenix Wright]

Ah, I realize you specified, but by opening with "those games," I assumed you were attacking all 3. TLoU is a much better example anyhow, and is really the shining example of the point I'm trying to make (as well as yours, now that I think about it).

I suppose I'll try to explain MGS a little bit. Now, obviously you're correct about it for a good majority of the game's storytelling. I'd be a fool to disagree. However, I think the gameplay elements do help further the story. However, they're not major, or powerful components in doing so, I'll admit.

Stealth gameplay--secrecy of the mission

Snake is alone--super-soldier who's the only one that can do the job

Rarely learn much from higher-ups/important characters (except Liquid near the end) when Snake is present--Snake's a tool being used by the government

To name a few. Again, I know they're weak, but at least they're present. Also, I know we were being general about the MGS franchise, but I did a quick outline of the PS1/Gamecube title in particular. Future titles are similar to it, anyway (but done slightly better with each release).

edit: I understand. I just don't think it was fair to say I was being "one-dimensional." They were just quick examples.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Constable Reggie]

@bearclaw i do extremely vaguely recall saying that I thought Libra was a touch above the rest of the chars, I'll have to go back and look at some of his convos to see exactly why i did

@Viewtiful your response to Duels at Dawn says everything that needs to be said. The only thing I feel I could add is that you seem completely oblivious to the fact that 13's gameplay is an active hindrance to its storytelling, not a complement.

also you guys in general demonstrate an entirely one-dimensional outlook on what storytelling is and should be, as seen from the mentions of Phoenix Wright and MGS as examples of "good" storytelling in games

The fact of the matter is that so few games fully utilize what games as an art medium have the potential to do, so it's rather pointless discussing the few games that do excellently meld gameplay and storytelling (Spec Ops is probably the best game in regard to this). I would love to discuss Fe5 all day and how it meshed gameplay and story nicely, but remember, we're talking about Fe13, a game that has no qualms with harming its storytelling if it means adding something to the gameplay. We can't use the standards that games like Fe5 or Spec Ops set (as a game) because it's infinitely above the level 13 (and even 7-10) is at. There is no reason for you to look down on everyone else because we compare and contrast differing games' stories via its quality of writing.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Party Moth]

@Viewtiful_J: Let me clarify... When I said the word "art" in my last post, I meant high art which reflects us as human beings and leaves us pondering self-evaluation and seeking to better ourselves as individuals. Something video games need to prove they can do in order to be respected amongst other mediums (and some of them have).

EDIT: All of this is quickly getting out of hand. How about we take this to private messages since this pertains more to the story itself than the characters?

Edited September 21, 2013 by Duels at Dawn

[amadeuscho]

those games pursue story in ways that are divorced from gameplay (phoenix wright less so, but only because it's hardly a game to begin with). If your medium is a video game, you should use the specific things you can do in a game to tell that story in a way that is different than how you would tell it in a book or movie

I disagree with the contention that Ace Attorney is hardly a game. The video game is a modern construction; the visual novel concept is a very old genre within games. It relies on defining the visual novel genre as not within the realm of what makes a game. By chance have you checked out the Walking Dead the Video Game? That is a great example of a visual novel and great storytelling to its finest.

@viewtiful: there's no way i'm going to give detailed analyses of characters i think are boring in my spare time.

Additionally, the difference between AA and FE, amongst many, is that those characters are seen for 1 case and are well-written, as opposed to seeing them for the entire game and then some with borderline terrible writing. I don't like everything about the franchise, but it is certainly a good example in my opinion.

ps. I never mentioned anything about my feelings towards the anime influences. I realize it's a general statement, but seeing as I'm the only one that's mentioned AA as an example, I can't help but feel it's a personalized argument towards me.

I didn't know who exactly said it so the argument wasn't personalized to you. I didn't realize someone said it until Bazaar mentioned it. It's not just the anime influences however; many of the games murder suspects and even prosecutors do find their fair of cliches. Why do most murderers confess after Phoenix rats them out? But the characters are likable enough to overlook these factors.

I love everything about the Ace Attorney series. Its proud and adament about what it is, and does it better than anything else I've seen. It's such a brilliant series and character (Phoenix Wright that is).

@Viewtiful_J: Let me clarify... When I said the word "art" in my last post, I meant high art which reflects us as human beings and leaves us pondering self-evaluation and seeking to better ourselves as individuals. Something video games need to prove they can do in order to be respected amongst other mediums (and some of them have).

I had more to say but decided to cut it down because of length.

Length is no matter! Have you seen my last few posts? That's a pretty narrow definition of art. Self reflection comes from either seeing yourself in art or art bringing out something in my view. Which is A) objective and B) differs from person to person. Video games don't need to anything to respected amongst other mediums. It's fool's gold. It relies on confining what makes video games art to what other mediums consider art. Super Mario Bros 3 is art. It's poetry how each characters moves to exactly the right positions for a speed run. It's beauty in its design, with its play like structure.. It's complete control of a character's ability as you can control how Mario falls. That's not something other mediums can readily understand. Hence cubist art may not look good to people outside the art world. But in the Art world, it's beautiful because of what it tries to accomplish. It's basically seeing reality all at once.

The way to make video games seen as high art (not that's necessary) is to create a culture of what is good storytelling in video games that binds together the separate differences between genres and games. I.E. gameplay.

I never said anime could never be good, nor that I had never seen examples of it being so.

I have seen good anime. Anime that calls upon philosophical concepts that leave one pondering reality or researching to gain further knowledge. Anime that can bring a man to tears. Anime that explores the psychological truths of "selflessness." Fire Emblem: Awakening does not benefit from nor look to these anime in any way.

You said there is a reason Anime isn't taken seriously as art.

That's not what Anime needs to be good. It needs to tell a good story.

Dragonball and Gundam are directly akin to the mythos of Spider-Man and Batman. In that, they are the modern myths of Japanese culture, just as American superheroes are they myths of modern U.S. culture. They are also art. They are enduring figures within Japanese culture over the last maybe thirty years nows. But it is something that would be hard to grapple with coming from an outside perspective, i.e. not looking at their importance and roles as myths within Japanese culture. Like transplanting cave hieroglyphics to modern culture without applying their specific context.

Hint, in case I wasn't obvious enough regarding Chrom: This is not about who is the protagonist or that you can have multiple protagonists in a video game.

As for the other comparisons, they are pivotal to the point I'm making. Gharnef and Validar must be compared because both play a similar role in their early appearances. As Ranger Jack Walker mentioned a few pages back, Gharnef's invincibility gives him that much needed menace that gameplay (which is important in aiding the story's portrayal) makes all the more real as you the player realize you cannot hope to defeat him in his early appearance. On the other hand, Validar is defeated by the player in three chapters, completely destroying what little menace he had. His lack of good characterization and lack of decisions made on his part leaves him failing miserably at the role Gharnef succeeded at 23 years ago. Grima is Medeus but without the parallels that symbolized him as the hatred inherent in humanity when oppressed and downtrodden.

I'll be more clear: Elaborate your problem with Chrom because that sentence makes no sense. Chrom can't be invalidated as the protagonist because he is the protagonist. The game says so by every measure.

That relies on Validar having the same roles as Gharnef. Which he doesn't. He dies in chapter 5 and is revived to serve Grima. It's a very different role. He is basically a cult member in this game, and thus acts like a cult member. He is Grima's servant Villain's roles change between video games. Zant isn't the same Ganondorf from Ocarina of Time. Kefka and Sephiroth are different.

When it comes to Grima, I guess what I'd say is that not every villain represents the same theme or a theme in general. I don't compare Grima to Medeus for the same reason as above. Villains serves the purpose, at least in the context of this storytelling, of making the protagonist look stronger. While the villain can be strong character in itself, it is not necessary within the context of story so long as the protagonist is revealed by facing them. Kefka is a great villain in video games by any measure. Through his actions, he makes the heroes look stronger. That's his role as a villain.

The reason I bring these two characters up in particular is because when it comes right down to it, the NES game did it better. Aren't video games about growth and improvement with each installment, no matter what your stance is on them as an art form? These roles and their gameplay/symbolism did not improve 23 years later. They got worse.

Video games as a medium have improved in gameplay, which as an element of storytelling. That's what should undeniable improve with every installment. FE13's gameplay is much better than FE1's. And FE11's I might add. So in that respect, FE13's storytelling is better than FE1 and FE11, the measurable amount games should improve in different generations.

FE1's (FE11's) and FE13's stories when separated from gameplay (which is crazy in video games) are a matter of personal preference. If you ask me, in this respect: FE went up with 4 and 5, back down with 6 and 7 and 8, went back up but less high with 9 went lower with 10 and lower in 13. So by your measure, 6, 7, and 8 are worse than FE4 and 5. Now I understand that you are trying to say FE13 is demonstrable worse than other games throughout the series, but I have many counters to that contention throughout this thread.

Explain these things to me:

Most of these don't make the plot insensible, these are preferences on what you want the game' storytelling. I'll play ball with a few of them.

-How the Hierarch being introduced with two lines as Emmeryn's caretaker/political guidance before turning on said loyalty in six lines of dialogue works as "good storytelling"

See top point. But, previous Exault was terrible, so anyone can turn on this successors.

-How an entire nation/army can turn on their ruler due to the death of a leader of the country that attempted to purge them from the earth less than 20 years ago

The Halidom and Plegia enjoyed peace before Gangrel started war again based on vengeance and to gain an item they probably no nothing about. Nations generally don't like pointless wars. Once they realize their pointless, they generally want to end the war (see United States and Iraq).

-How bringing over all the rulers of two nations (excluding generic village girl, the only one utterly and unquestionably politically inept because she's from the village) to another continent while leaving the exalt's child alone (when it's been proven that assassination attempts can and have been done by the current ruler of Plegia) at the capital is in any universe a good idea

Do you know how diplomacy works? It usually requires leaders meeting up with each other. And who says she isn't being protected by your units that aren't at the meeting? Presumably she is being protected by knights, as all royalty is at all time within the castle. Why can't knights like Kellam and Stahl protect her? Even if none of the shepherds are there a) Killing Lucina means nothing if you don't kill Chrom the current Exault first B) does everyone know Lucina has been born c) the other knights can still defend her. There is no reason to believe that there isn't other Stahl and Sully level knights that you don't use in the game that protect her. The Ylissan army is huge. The Shephered are dedicates to specific strikes.

-How Walhart, a ruthless man with no regards to strategy, somehow is conquering an entire continent without tactics

With more power and a larger army. He conquered Valm one by one, nation by nation. The nations basically surrendered because they don't want to lose more of their citizens. And whose to say he has terrible strategy/ no tactics? Even if it were to say it game, i.e. "I rely on power and ruthlessness" something like that, it doesn't mean he has no tactics. The joker in the Dark Knight says he's an agent of chaos, but he still plans out every step of his crime and the movie. His chapters exemplify his presumed strategy within the game.

-How said continent is losing the fight and why they are not using guerrilla warfare to counter such an abrasive charge

Due to his conquering of Valm, he has a larger army that is unified. Valm was conquered due to weak leaders like Yen'fay and Virion. The continent is spread out, not unified, and not everyone has strong tactical prowess. And why guerrilla warfare doesn't work on a larger army. alm's leaders gave up the fight. They didn't want citizens to lose their lives for a foe they could not defeat. Without a unifying force within the guerrilla forces, it would not work. And that's not the story the game is telling.

-How the Deadlords serve to fit the narrative besides an excuse to have an extra chapter and fanservice

The Deadlords are in the Judgral series as well. Not to mention they have been summoning Risen the entire game. Why can't they summon the Deadlords? They are basically super powered Risen.

-How Validar doing absolutely nothing of his own volition past Chapter 5 makes him a "good villain"

The Grimleal are a religious sect dedicated to reviving Grima. That's their sole goal. It makes sense that he embodies the will of Grima. Didn't say he was a good villain. He's at about the same level as Nergal for me. Serving a specific role in the story to the extent he should.

Last one is too vague. I would just say the rule of vampires in movies in regards to Grima. Replace vampire with Grima and kill with regarding rules of Grima: "How can you kill a vampire in movies? "

"Cross, garlic..."

"Wrong! However the fuck you want, because vampires don't exist!"

I'll point it out further if you elaborate.

@Viewtiful your response to Duels at Dawn says everything that needs to be said. The only thing I feel I could add is that you seem completely oblivious to the fact that 13's gameplay is an active hindrance to its storytelling, not a complement.

Gameplay is an element of storytelling. It is the principle element of storytelling that differentiates it from other mediums.You can't separate gameplay from story because gameplay is story. It is akin to the comic panels of art in comics. Poor, incoherent, or tone deaf art can hinder story, not the fact that art exists.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Viewtiful_J

[Party Moth]

As mentioned above, I think this discussion would suit better in private messages at this point. We've both derailed from characters and into discussion of story and art. If you would like to continue this discussion, I'd love to resume it somewhere more fitting to the topic.

[DodgeDusk]

-How Walhart, a ruthless man with no regards to strategy, somehow is conquering an entire continent without tactics

With more power and a larger army. He conquered Valm one by one, nation by nation. The nations basically surrendered because they don't want to lose more of their citizens. And whose to say he has terrible strategy/ no tactics? Even if it were to say it game, i.e. "I rely on power and ruthlessness" something like that, it doesn't mean he has no tactics.

He says in one of the female Avatar supports that he disregarded strategy completely, instead opting for brute force.* I know you said in either this forum or another one you don't count the DLC paralogues as canon (effectively making that said support canon) but I thought it was still worth noting

If I've interoperated what you've said wrong then feel free to reply. I tend to do that a lot

* Walhart: I cannot help you in this. I had little need for battle plans and plots. Little need for the cunning trickery of the tactician... I won battles on the mettle of my soldiers and the strength of our beliefs.

Avatar: So you rejected strategy entirely?

Walhart: I was the Conqueror! Master of all men. My domain stretched from sea to sea! I held no disdain for your strategy. I simply had no need for it.

[RJWalker]

Just start a new thread to discuss the story. And hopefully, a new thread means things will be less heated.

I disagree that FE13's storytelling is better than FE11. FE13 fails at complementing the story with gameplay.

Take the chapter where Lucina reveals her true identity. We see an assassin attack Chrom and Lucina rushing in and Dual Gaurding it. But often, this assassin would never even have done a single point of damage to Chrom. This makes me laugh every time.

Also, Gharnef charging towards you is a genuine holy shit moment. Validar charging towards you is... not.

I do agree with Banzai that FE5 does this whole 'integrating gameplay with story) even better even though I don't think too highly fo FE5's story. How much of it was intentional considering the general 'rushed' feel of the game but it's reasonable to say that most of it was designed to compliment the story.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

The fact that Chrom is both a naive and weak leader despite the fact that the game tried to say otherwise is a good enough reason to say FE13 story is inferior

Like, imagine if MU suddenly turns evil. They're DEAD. No question asked. The sad thing is, this actually happened in canon.

The same can't really be said for say.... Marth because something simmilar to this(a powerful ally suddenly turns evil) has actually happened(Hardin) and he did not simply become Jeigan's mind slave.

Also the way that Chapter 13(is it 13? because it has been month since I played the game) is handled.

Just my two cents

EDIT: Also I agree with RJW about Gharnef. Gharnef is damn near INVINCIBLE, a threat even WITH his weakness, he TURNS MARTH'S GREATEST ALLY against him AGAINST HIM, and the game even tried to make a parallel to show his motives. Even outside of the fact that he is an actual threat both in gameplay(lets face it, Validar is always a joke regardless of what gameplay mode is played, yes, even Lunatic. Meanwhile even in H1, you need to have a proper character and strategy to beat Gharnef) and story(Validar's story participation consists of losing several times before the story does something questionable to put him in) Gharnef is just a much better villain in general

Also I need to mention the ridiculousness of Pair Up being One Man Army Button.

I can rant more about how every female character in FE13 put together won't even compare to Sheeda, but thats being overkill

Edited September 21, 2013 by JSND

[Phoenix Wright]

The fact that Chrom is both a naive and weak leader despite the fact that the game tried to say otherwise is a good enough reason to say FE13 story is inferior

Like, imagine if MU suddenly turns evil. They're DEAD. No question asked. The sad thing is, this actually happened in canon.

The same can't really be said for say.... Marth because something simmilar to this(a powerful ally suddenly turns evil) has actually happened(Hardin) and he did not simply become Jeigan's mind slave.

Also the way that Chapter 13(is it 13? because it has been month since I played the game) is handled.

Just my two cents

similarly, lyon. i dislike that eirika unrealistically relies on her brother heavily, but the relationship between the trio is written pretty well, with lyon, in my opinion, having the strongest writing. i felt that hardin could have used more, but all-in-all, i like what IS did with him too (especially for its time, it was pretty good).

the same can't be said for fe13. mu is too robotic for anyone to feel anything towards him/her, and chrom is too reliant on mu and cookie-cutter himself for there to be anything of emotional value to the player in their relationship.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Also one of the problem with the game's story is the fact that, as some have said the game does not have consistency in its feel

Now, this does not mean being comedic or Dark with a slice of comedy is bad, far from it.

For example, lets see Chapter 3(which is the perfect for this)

We saw... a risen. Great, a bunch of undead army that you need to fight. Thing might be a huge threat.

And then suddenly we are shown with stuff like Vaike forgetting his Axe, and Miriel bringing his Axe and mocking him for it

Its one thing if a character is a type that "seems to not take the mission seriously, but they did"(major example of this would be FE7 Sain or FE8 Forde) but what we get here is basically incompetence for no reason other than lolcomedy, and this is supposed to be a pretty serious moments

And when it comes to theme, the game TRIED to be Dark, but is so stupid, that its hard to take it seriously. Such as the finale with one massive ominous music out of nowhere. And suddenly, Basilio returned(which is stupid in and on itself), the team suddenly is transported into Naga's place, again completely killing the pacing, and the fight against Grima is a bunch of "POWER OF FRIENDSHIP! TOO STRONK!" There is no actual sense of danger or any resemblance to a pacing right there. Validar and Grima being "Evil for no reason other than I am evil" does not help

As stupid as Valm Arc's Yen'fay sub plot is, that arc made a much better finale to the game than the final arc can ever hope to be(it does, in fact have a proper set up to make an entire game. We are treated with a princess who escaped from her country, and then we helped her, seized some important parts and learned some revelations about the "behind the scene" of the war. Although nobody give a fuck about Yen'fay. And then we have a sudden death of one of our closest companions, which has all the right feels to it: it happened suddenly, gives up a good impact to the team, or at least one part of the team. And finally, a final showdown to end it all against Walhart himself.)

Edited September 21, 2013 by JSND

[RJWalker]

I actually don't have any real problem with the Valm arc itself. It's not particularly interesting but it's not horrendously bad like the third act. It's just that the Valm arc is so badly shoved in that it ruins the game, although the game had already take a dive off the deep end with Emmeryn.

The Valm arc, with some polish would have made a good story by itself in a separate game or something.

[General Banzai]

man, FE11's story is way better than FE13's story

that's hardly even a contest

I'd probably say FE13 has the worst story in the series, except maybe FE4 Gen 1, if we can count Gen 1 as its own separate story.

[Dark Sage]

At least FE4 Gen 1 has a consistent tone throughout, unlike FE13, which is about as consistent as a Michael Bay movie.

[General Banzai]

At least FE4 Gen 1 has a consistent tone throughout, unlike FE13, which is about as consistent as a Michael Bay movie.

michael bay movies are pretty consistent

FE4 Gen 1 is just way worse in every way though

[RJWalker]

I can get over FE4 Gen 1's failings. The love story between Sigurd and Dierdre is shit but the rest of it is pretty good. It's just that the pacing is all over the place.

[ZemZem]

I liked FE4 Gen II's story better than Gen I's.

If only FE5 was paced better.

[HK Motendra]

What did this turn into?

[Dark Sage]

michael bay movies are pretty consistent

not the transformers movies