What if Fire Emblem had an established antagonist

[Ishi]

So yeah what if Fire Emblem had an established antagonist like many other Nintendo games for example every game we see gharnef or medeus would be in it. Would you still enjoy the plots or even the games as much?

[BBM]

Those are mostly all games which also have established protagonists for every game (Link, Mario). That style works for games where there are only really a few main characters. I don't think it'd work in a series like Fire Emblem with a huge cast.

[fengaridotdll]

Time travel. Lots and lots of time travel. Unless he's a Manakete, demon or god(ess) (I.e. Ashera, Fomortiis, Medeus, etc.)

Edited October 21, 2014 by Mastergabe2000

[Dragoncat]

They would also have to probably stick to one world if they want to do what Zelda does. Hyrule changes enough between games, so that's doable. And it wouldnt have to be time travel, Ganon(dorf) is just sealed away most of the time instead of killed.

Would be interesting, but if I want that, I'll just play Zelda...

[Anacybele]

Yeah, I agree with what's been said. FE would also need an established protagonist for that to work. But it goes with multiple protagonists and antagonists instead. And I'm just fine with it. It helps keep each game feeling fresh.

[Etria]

Hm, no. I like it that Fire Emblem has different worlds. I'd be okay with it in a case like PoR/RD or FE 4/5. But you'd need a coherent, relatively tight story for that and, as others said, a cast that's not too big. RD really suffered under the huge amount of characters. And the antagonist would need more backstory to keep him interesting. Bowser can manage with barely any characterisation (outside of Paper Mario or so I heard) because Mario games are not about the story. I'd also argue that Legend of Zelda doesn't focus all that much on a story. As long as Ganondorf has some well-established goal, he gets by with little characterisation as well.

But Fire Emblem does make a point to include a story that is a bit more complex than "princess gets kidnap, you save her"/ "triforce is in danger, safe it by completing dungeons". So probably a lot would have to be changed.

[IceBrand]

For Fire Emblem to have an established antagonist, it would have to do one of the following:

- Spilt Timelines

- Main villain is immortal.

- Other villains are trying to revive them/control their power.

Basically either the Mario or Zelda route.

[fengaridotdll]

For Fire Emblem to have an established antagonist, it would have to do one of the following:

- Spilt Timelines

- Main villain is immortal.

- Other villains are trying to revive them/control their power.

Basically either the Mario or Zelda route.

Interesting idea... Now we would need to see how many times Medeus could be revived. There's been two so far ("Shadow Dragon" games (The ones with Shadow Dragon somewhere in the title) and the Mystery of the Emblem games)

[Roivann]

Lest we forget, the Fire Emblem itself isn't really ever the same thing throughout the series. If FE can't keep its titular artifact consistent, then a consistent recurring antagonist seems like a far cry.

[DomesticHausCat]

Heck, every world is different every other game as well. This series is more or less closer to the Final Fantasy format than the Zelda style format Imo. Each Final Fantasy is different and has different worlds entirely also. Thing is, I think if they would want to have a recurring villain then the world has to be the same and established as well. Just like Hyrule from the Zelda games.

Honestly, this might be something they will be trying to do since Awakening made an effort to tie a lot of the games together when they had no indication to be otherwise. I think the recurring villain aspect all lies on this actually, the combining of the worlds thing and how far they go with it in future games.

[Topazd]

The only recurring element that has remained mostly consistent is probably Naga. The "evil earth dragon" is kind of like Fire Emblem's equivalent of a recurring antagonist (Medeus, Loptyr, some may argue Grima) but even that's stretching it.

I personally think having a consistently recurring antagonist would only be detrimental for the series.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Topazd255

[X-Naut]

The only recurring element that has remained mostly consistent is probably Naga. The "evil earth dragon" is kind of like Fire Emblem's equivalent of a recurring antagonist (Medeus, Loptyr, some may argue Grima) but even that's stretching it.

I personally think having a consistently recurring antagonist would only be detrimental for the series.

Don't forget about Anna!

Otherwise my thoughts have already been summed up, with its multiple continuities a single antagonist would be difficult to pull off well.

[Knight]

I'd like to see Medeus as a villain again in another game honestly, but if it were a consistent thing I'd get bored.

[Magical Glace]

Or we can just have 13 Marth games, He gets like a fourth of the series anyway! We'd have ten times less SSB arguments too!

Silliness aside, it would only work if all the games were about Marth and his relatives, or some other lord (but let's be real, it would be Marth).

That's all I can say

[Jotari]

Clearly Anna is the true villain of the series. Why else would you fight her in Apotheosis?

[fengaridotdll]

Clearly Anna is the true villain of the series. Why else would you fight her in Apotheosis?

BEST. COMMENT. EVER.

[Lord Raven]

So yeah what if Fire Emblem had an established antagonist like many other Nintendo games for example every game we see gharnef or medeus would be in it. Would you still enjoy the plots or even the games as much?

Interesting you bring up Medeus - I feel like Medeus and Loptous and that whole clan could be seen as the ultimate antagonists. You'd need to trace FE6-10 back to Loptous but it works for every other game just about.

[Jotari]

Interesting you bring up Medeus - I feel like Medeus and Loptous and that whole clan could be seen as the ultimate antagonists. You'd need to trace FE6-10 back to Loptous but it works for every other game just about.

Loputousu is Ashera!

[Paper Jam]

I like the way the Dresden Files tied all of its various antagonists together, and I think that if there's any way to tie all of Fire Emblem's antagonists together, that would be it.

Then again, it does seem a bit weird to suppose that the same evil cosmic force would be motivating every single villain in FE. Formortis is clearly the power behind Lyon, for example, but it seems weird to suppose that he might be the power behind Nergal, Zephiel, Jahn, Ashnard, and Sephiran as well. And that's less than half of the villains in FE.

I speak of villains in terms of plot rather than gameplay. Zephiel and Jahn, for example, were much greater antagonists in FE6's plot than Idoun was. If anything, Idoun from FE6 and the Dragon from FE7 were more victims than villains, plotwise.

[Jotari]

I like the way the Dresden Files tied all of its various antagonists together, and I think that if there's any way to tie all of Fire Emblem's antagonists together, that would be it.

Then again, it does seem a bit weird to suppose that the same evil cosmic force would be motivating every single villain in FE. Formortis is clearly the power behind Lyon, for example, but it seems weird to suppose that he might be the power behind Nergal, Zephiel, Jahn, Ashnard, and Sephiran as well. And that's less than half of the villains in FE.

I speak of villains in terms of plot rather than gameplay. Zephiel and Jahn, for example, were much greater antagonists in FE6's plot than Idoun was. If anything, Idoun from FE6 and the Dragon from FE7 were more victims than villains, plotwise.

Wow. It would completely destroy Zephiel and Lehran's entire character if they were being manipulated by a higher force. The whole point of them is that their tragic backstory brought them to their own conclusions about the word.

[MCProductions]

Personally I like it the way it is now but with the exception of sacred stones and POR, dragons have always been a antagonistic force minor or major. Heck, RD had the whole dragon tribe laguz be an enemy for just one chapter just so dragons could be antagonistic on tellius. In my opinion, Dragons ARE Fire Emblem`s reocurring antagonist

[Ownagepuffs]

Well it could work if every lord was as stupid as Chrom and decided to just stuff the dragon in a closet for like 1000 years and make the next guy deal with it.

[fengaridotdll]

Personally I like it the way it is now but with the exception of sacred stones and POR, dragons have always been a antagonistic force minor or major. Heck, RD had the whole dragon tribe laguz be an enemy for just one chapter just so dragons could be antagonistic on tellius. In my opinion, Dragons ARE Fire Emblem`s reocurring antagonist

Necro much?

[General Banzai]

FE has never been about the main antagonists

In fact usually its main antagonists are de-emphasized and in the shadows

The puppetmaster politicoes from across the land in the name of some vague evil

In essence they are the opposite of the player an unseen force commanding legions across a chessboard for the purpose of evil

These overarching chess battles set the stage for the smaller scaler more personal conflicts between the real characters

[Marston]

Fire Emblem already has an established antagonist who is called RNG Godess. That one even fools you into believing to be on your side because your 23% attacks hit - but then you get a reminder when you eat that 1% critical and reset.

Edit: And of course someone mentioned the exact same thing 2 posts after I stopped reading to write this. >_>

Edited January 11, 2015 by Marston