Do you wish Awakening treated Death more seriously? (Spoilers)

[Czar_Yoshi]

Comparing Faramir to generic enemy units seems more than a little off kilter to me. If anything, Faramir would be more comparable to a friendly NPC like Phila. It would be more apt to compare generic enemy units to the various orcs and trolls, and I doubt Tolkien was particularly concerned if readers felt a pang of sympathy for those creatures. What's more, Gimli and Legolas compete with each other by keeping track of how many enemies they have killed. How is that any better than the irreverent behavior the characters in Awakening display when they kill their enemies?

Most of the enemies you fight don't even have a name, let alone a personality or backstory. So why should I care about some nameless enemy Bandit, who shares his model with countless others, and tries to kill my units for no other reason besides he's on team red and my units are on team blue?

Furthermore, the CPU controlled units will not show any mercy to my units, so why should I show them any mercy (especially since they drop EXP on their defeat)?

I'm aware of that. What I'm saying is that it's not the fact that the mooks are fictional that introduces apathy, it's the fact that they're flatter than flat.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Czar_Yoshi

[Beelzebub]

It's easier than ever to empathize with enemies in this game, considering they all have proper portraits and hurt expressions.

I will say that tonally the game is pretty inconsistent. Up through chapter 4 the game looks like some merry adventure. The music is almost always playful, and the Shepherds are like a clubhouse gang. They don't seem too bothered by the appearance of the risen, and killing a garrison of their allies, the Feroxi, is written off as a harmless mistake. This changes quite drastically from chapter 5 onward, in increasing measure. Compare this to the beginning of Path of Radiance, which also had a somewhat mellow beginning. The Greil Mercenaries are a (mostly) nice group of people, but they never look like they have fun doing their job. Instead, their work is treated as a very serious, and dangerous, business. We see how dangerous it can be when a member is almost killed due to some rashness on their part. I never got the impression the Shepherds were an organized military force, they all seem so undisciplined. Even mercenaries in PoR seem far more disciplined in comparison.

Another thing that bothers me is that the game does a poor job of showing how devastating a war can be. In previous games we get a view of how brutal an occupying army can be. Again, I think PoR handles this the best; we get to see how horribly Daein treats the Crimeans (and how grateful they are when emancipated), and how horrified the Daein population are at having the same done to them (fears that prove justified). In Awakening, at best we see what war does to two people, Emmeryn and Yen'fay. But even then, the blame seems to be put of Gangrel and Excellus respectively, not war itself. The Camus character is another way to show the tragedy of war, forcing a good and honorable person to die because he happens to be on the wrong side. Again, though, the villains are made out to be Gangrel and Excellus, who who will murder Mustafa and Yen'fay's family if they do not continue to fight.

Perhaps most dangerous, though, is the idea that war brings excitement and adventure. While all of the games (and indeed, plenty of games in general) are in danger of this, none stand out more than Awakening. From the goofy critical quotes, to the light-hearted support conversations, to the romances, to the aforementioned lack of showing the seriousness of war, the game makes war look like a fun adventure, when the reality is anything but. I understand people might like a lighter-tone, but it simply clashes with the subject matter.

[Skynstein]

I suppose I'm not supposed to care one bit when Denethor sends Faramir and his regiment to retake Osgilliath in The Lord of the Rings either, because they're fictional too, right?

Caring about fictional characters is a fundamental requirement for fiction to work. They can't and shouldn't be blown off lightly, and when the author does so, it can either mean (depending on the level of self-awareness present) that they're delivering some scathing social critique, or a poor writer. So do you really not care about them because they're fictional? Or because the devs don't and want you to feel the same?

I don't care about them because they're all called Risen, Ruffian, Plegian and Valmese, all have the same portraits, and are supposed to be experience fodder anyway. We view them from the heroes perspective, we see them as enemies, so we're not supposed to care about them. It's war, people die, that's what they signed for. Anyone saying they care about redshirts/regular mooks dying in movies/games is a hypocrite.

[FrostyFireMage]

Imagine if there was a game that made constant light-hearted fun of child abuse/rape/racism/etc. Would it be okay to say it was acceptable because it's "just a game?"

[UnknownUber]

Imagine if there was a game that made constant light-hearted fun of child abuse/rape/racism/etc. Would it be okay to say it was acceptable because it's "just a game?"

That's funny because Awakening does loosely mention all of that with the whole Noire and Tharja debacle, Olivia's Stalker Story, and the whole Manakete and Taguel Treatment

[FrostyFireMage]

What makes the whole "killing is fun" implication worse is the strong "killing and revenge is wrong and only spreads suffering" message the first third of the game has.

[Roivann]

I don't care about them because they're all called Risen, Ruffian, Plegian and Valmese, all have the same portraits, and are supposed to be experience fodder anyway. We view them from the heroes perspective, we see them as enemies, so we're not supposed to care about them. It's war, people die, that's what they signed for. Anyone saying they care about redshirts/regular mooks dying in movies/games is a hypocrite.

Death's Embrace- the enemies are innocent villagers turned into risen. A player character can have their remorseful pre-battle "I'm sorry" quote and follow it up with a joke and a sword in the risen's gut.

Renewal- The enemy soldier who speaks is very much played to be sympathetic and unwilling to fight. Mustafa is portrayed as understanding Chrom's plight. His final line is "Well done, Ylisseans... Hrrggh! Please...spare my men...".

Also, how exactly is it hypocritical to feel compassion for fictional characters?

[Etria]

I personally don't care about the enemy soldiers either because they are just pixel. But I am not part of this game world. It doesn't matter.

But if I want to look at the writing of the game, I do have to see how the characters (and with that the writers) are treating the enemies. And for them they are not just pixel. So the end of this story is; the character are completely unconcerned about the fact that they slaughter human beings. There is no doubt if they should do this, no one has a problem with killing. And it would've been rather easy to fix at least part of it; do not write such horrible battle quotes.

[Damosel]

Some very observant comments in this thread on FE13's dissonance on the portrayal of war and character's written reactions to it.

One thing that really bothers me is how Chrom rolls up kingdoms with his military, kills those in charge, and waltzes home. In FE4 it's pretty obvious that as each nation outside of Granvalle is being seized by Sigurd's army they send beauracratic people over to, well, take over- imperialist and expansionist to be sure (and there are moments like Isaach where it's shown to be a bad thing), but it makes sure things don't break down into warlords and anarchy. But Ylisse doesn't do that, instead Chrom appearent raizes the enemy countryside and leaves a power vaccum. At least as far as I can tell, since Validar and Aversa go from religious leaders to straight up rulers after Gangrel's offed and Chrom doesn't have a clue about it until they meet face-to-face.

There's no appareant efforts to help the defeated rebuild either, not Plegia, and definitely not Valm considering instead of bowing out to help their recently Liberated nations Virion and Say'ri go back to Ylisse cause we recuirted them so they should never ever leave appearently. The ruling and defensive structures are gone, so assumably the civilian population are on their own when it comes to roving bandits. (The fact that wandering Risen terrorizing the world is mention then ignored also makes the lords we play read as negligent. If FE8 taught me anything it's that randmon monsters WILL destroy a village.) Considering the topic of rebuilding only comes up in Chrom and his wife's epilogue cards, it's obvious Ylisse is his first and foremost concern- screw everyone else.

So the treatement of not only dead but also the living characters bothers me a great deal in FE13- not that I'm expecting detailed statecraft in an FE game, but the game's writing tells me that none of these units will make effective rulers. (the two-year skip doesn't help either cause it doesn't feel like this army you've amassed has any pressing goal they're fighting towards...instead they're just hanging out)

Edit: Also towards the OP, yes I do wish characters that died in cut scenes actually stayed dead. Gangrel and Emmeryn for certain, but MU takes the cake since their sacrafice is the most convienant of all time.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Damosel

[MercyWalk]

When you grow up, in and around death you do become desensitized to an extent. Take a look at modern day soldiers in places like Somalia, look at the movie Blood Diamond and the portrayal of child soldiers, shit take a look at Chicago's gang violence and it's associated Drill rap scene.

[Etria]

When you grow up, in and around death you do become desensitized to an extent.

I'd agree, but I personally don't find that the characters are portrayed as such. They sometimes do mention that war is cruel and killing is horrible (Lissa especially), and yet they are not shown to regret having to kill. Lissa also has some questionable battle cries. I do think that they wanted to do that theme again (it's a FE staple), but the writing is just not good.

[MercyWalk]

I'd agree, but I personally don't find that the characters are portrayed as such. They sometimes do mention that war is cruel and killing is horrible (Lissa especially), and yet they are not shown to regret having to kill. Lissa also has some questionable battle cries. I do think that they wanted to do that theme again (it's a FE staple), but the writing is just not good.

They dont regret it because it's a kill or be killed world. I do recognise how ridiculous the writing is though.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Desensitized to death due to living in a kill-or-be-killed world? That kind of thing could happen, but it tends to carry somewhat obvious psychological side-effects, which a good portion of the cast clearly don't have.

Actually, the most unstable of the bunch tend to be the children, which makes sense in the context of their future. So I could see them telling jokes while mowing down enemies due to extreme apathy/insanity, but I have a hard time buying that the same excuse applies to the likes of Donnel and Lissa.

[Etria]

I think they already managed to write someone who grew up in a kill-or-be-killed and yet still not wanting to kill rather well: Eirika carries her unwill to kill through the entire game and yet knows that without killing she can't make the war stop. But the Awakening cast acknowledges it just for a moment and then carries on killing as if nothing happened.

I mean, I would not have anything against it if the characters were shown to not care much about the death of the enemies. But then they should not moan about how war and killing is wrong. I just want consistency.

[RJWalker]

Flames on the Blue is one major example.

I'm not asking for the characters to suddenly get angsty and cry over the deaths of their enemies but...

A little humility in the face of so much death would have been nice. But no, they're cheering and praising Robin (again!)

The critical quotes are also awful as they ruin any seriousness the game could have had.\

One thing that really bothers me is how Chrom rolls up kingdoms with his military, kills those in charge, and waltzes home. In FE4 it's pretty obvious that as each nation outside of Granvalle is There's no appareant efforts to help the defeated rebuild either, not Plegia, and definitely not Valm considering instead of bowing out to help their recently Liberated nations Virion and Say'ri go back to Ylisse cause we recuirted them so they should never ever leave appearently. The ruling and defensive structures are gone, so assumably the civilian population are on their own when it comes to roving bandits. (The fact that wandering Risen terrorizing the world is mention then ignored also makes the lords we play read as negligent. If FE8 taught me anything it's that randmon monsters WILL destroy a village.) Considering the topic of rebuilding only comes up in Chrom and his wife's epilogue cards, it's obvious Ylisse is his first and foremost concern- screw everyone else.

Oh man, that's a really good point. Returning in skirmishes to find a village that you fought hard to defend in an earlier chapter and see that is has been destroyed was a pretty grim feeling.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[RJWalker]

EDIT: Double post. Please delete.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Kirie]

Huh. It's an interesting subject, and one I'd not given much thought to before, but reading over this has made me think, and I'll try and give a stab at elucidating my thoughts and feelings.

Before Awakening, I would easily have considered FE4 or FE10 to be my favourite games, and both of those games definitely fall on the serious end up the spectrum as far as FE plots go (at least, in my own opinion and recollection). I haven't actually played SnK in ages so I don't remember the plot all too well, but FE10 (and 9 as well, though to a bit of a lesser extent) definitely hammers in the seriousness of war and how it hurts people, how violence begets more violence, and this is reinforced constantly within the plot and the various interactions of the characters. These sorts of topics have always been interesting to me, personally, and especially so within the context of a strategy game like Fire Emblem where death is permanent and you can't just revive someone in combat in case a boss squishes them.

That said, plot has never really been a super strong suit of Fire Emblem, given that it's a game (and a rather specific type of one, at that) and so lots of concessions are made to account for mechanics and gameplay. Very often, tropes and setups are used and reused. I am, and always have been, totally fine with this; if I want an amazing story, I'll go read a novel instead of playing a video game. Though even accounting for that, Awakening's plot is on the poor side. It has a very interesting universe and setup (I love the nods that are given to recent and distant history, the setup of the countries and continents and their cultures/governments), but falls flat in execution. Some of the biggest contributors have been mentioned in this thread already, like the lack of care given to conquered areas and many other things that just get forgotten about or glosses over. Even relatively minor things like Virion and Say'ri sticking with Chrom's army after the conquest of Valm rather than sticking around to support and rebuild their countries aren't even mentioned or discussed; it's just assumed that both characters will be sticking with you and there's not even a small conversation or anything about it.

It's things like this that make Awakening seem like much more of a "fantasy" game than previous installments. It takes a very lighthearted approach to warfare (especially compared to the relatively recent Radiant Dawn) and doesn't concern itself about the details that would make the game seem more realistic.

As far as the actual subject of the thread title, though, I think the actual aspect of death (separate from concepts of warfare and war ethics, etc.) is handled more or less fine. Fire Emblem (aside from Awakening's casual mode) certainly hammers home the concept of character death being a serious thing and something to be avoided at all costs, much more so than other JRPGs (cast a revive spell or use an item, come on) and even other strategy games (Advance Wars, I'm looking at you). Awakening isn't even different from other FE titles in its treatment of dead PCs: death phrase, sad music, and then you restart the game. Wait, you mean there are people who actually let PCs die and keep playing? You heathens.

As far as enemy death goes, the game is a bit inconsistent, even not account for the SpotPass maps. Most bosses and redshirts can easily just be assumed dead, but some bosses are beaten just like the others and yet are still shown to be alive and relatively well after the battle (Raimi, Cervantes). And yet, other bosses are confirmed dead (Validar; you know the group considers him dead after how surprised they are when he's back, but no one blinks an eye at fighting Mustachio Man again). I'm not going to feel overly sad about enemy units being defeated, but the inconsistency has always bothered me. Perhaps each death is simply considered a casualty (which is not the same thing as a fatality) and death is only confirmed when the plot requires it.

The critical quotes and things... you guys don't really think that these people would actually be shouting these things out loud in battle, do you? It's a quick little blurb combined with a picture that's an audio/visual cue that something cool happened. It's not a part of the actual storyline. It falls under the category of narrative dissonance, which this game has a lot of. For example: going back to Ylisse to fight zombies even when you're at that level when you're stuck in the middle of the ocean, or people still referencing their old classes in support/barracks conversation, or going back and killing some dudes in the Outlands for days even though Grima has been resurrected and you're right before the final level, etc. and so forth. I can understand disliking the tone or the voices and turning the music down, but don't take it for granted that people are actually constantly saying these things in battle, otherwise I also hope you're the type of FE player that never travels back and forth between continents while a war is going on just so you can see what the merchant that popped up over in Regna Ferox has on offer.

In the end, it's a game. The plot is mediocre at best and doesn't even try to be as serious as some of the earlier installments, but I can live with that. I can really appreciate a good plot in a game, but a bad plot has never ruined a game experience for me that I can think of, and trust me, I've played some games with horrendous plots (ex. every Pokémon game to ever exist in the history of humanity). I can still enjoy a game with a bad plot, and I really enjoy Awakening, since the gameplay is super solid.

And, hey, there's always headcannon to help maintain suspension of disbelief.

[Etria]

The critical quotes and things... you guys don't really think that these people would actually be shouting these things out loud in battle, do you? It's a quick little blurb combined with a picture that's an audio/visual cue that something cool happened. It's not a part of the actual storyline. It falls under the category of narrative dissonance, which this game has a lot of. For example: going back to Ylisse to fight zombies even when you're at that level when you're stuck in the middle of the ocean, or people still referencing their old classes in support/barracks conversation, or going back and killing some dudes in the Outlands for days even though Grima has been resurrected and you're right before the final level, etc. and so forth. I can understand disliking the tone or the voices and turning the music down, but don't take it for granted that people are actually constantly saying these things in battle, otherwise I also hope you're the type of FE player that never travels back and forth between continents while a war is going on just so you can see what the merchant that popped up over in Regna Ferox has on offer.

Er, no. If the battle quotes were meant to be on a metalevel, then they wouldn't be character-specific (or fitting for their personality). Nor would then anything they say be canon. And even if it were on a purely metalevel, they could've used less questionable exclamations.

And yeah, the overworld was badly implemented. FE8 had one as well and they did it better there. It was still odd, but at least between dramatic chapters, you did not have the option to walk all over the world. You were forced to do the next chapter immediately, which made the story more cohesive. It would've been okay if Awakening had done that as well.

[ClassyWolf]

In the end, it's a game. The plot is mediocre at best and doesn't even try to be as serious as some of the earlier installments, but I can live with that. I can really appreciate a good plot in a game, but a bad plot has never ruined a game experience for me that I can think of, and trust me, I've played some games with horrendous plots (ex. every Pokémon game to ever exist in the history of humanity). I can still enjoy a game with a bad plot, and I really enjoy Awakening, since the gameplay is super solid.

And, hey, there's always headcannon to help maintain suspension of disbelief.

The thing is, the old fe games have had at least decent writing most of the time, and I probably wouldn't be that annoyed with it if it wasn't a sequel, but a lot of things that are references to e.g Marths games, they got wrong or could have done a lot better, a lot of things that I wonder why we never see, like Khadein, the one place which produces magic.

And on topic, yeah, I think this game could have dealt with death a lot better, and a lot of the characters does seem out of character, like Lissa and Ricken who are just kids, and it's not like they haven't done this before, taken someone who doesn't know the world well or anything about war, like Eirika and Elincia.