The next Fire Emblem story

[Thane]

Tally-ho chaps,

On other parts of the forum I've not been silent about my opinion of Fire Emblem's writing in general: I consider it mediocre at best and dreadful at worst. Many elements of a well-told game narrative are often either lacking or completely missing, which I think is a shame, because I love the gameplay and believe there is potential to make a story as good as Suikoden II, a game with many elements similar to Fire Emblem, provided it was handled by capable writers.

But I'm not here to talk about my possibly controversial opinions, I just merely wanted to give you some background as to why I made a thread like this. I love a good story no matter the format, and it's more often than not the reason why I check out new video games. While it has never been Fire Emblem's strong point, I would love to see it improve since, like I said, I really enjoy the gameplay and I think the setting and style have a lot of potential.

So my questions for you all are these: what would you like the next Fire Emblem game to be about? How should the conflict be portrayed? What should some major themes be? What should the world be like? And so on.

You're free to share any ideas you may have; if you have ideas for an entire world and characters, then that's more than a welcome contribution. The only thing I don't want to see are posts that just list things that should be removed, like "no more fan service", since that's not really what the topic is about - I agree, but it's not suggesting any new storyline.

I should also mention that I have played Fire Emblem Fates. I know for some it's a bit early to already think about the story of the next game, but for me it has been over three or four months since I completed all routes, so I'm curious to see what people can come up with.

That said, let's begin!

I personally only have a few suggestions. One of these would be to entirely scrap the playable character - I know I said I didn't want posts that just listed content they wished to have removed, but bear with me. To me, player avatars are very rarely done right. I've seen it done correctly in Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, but that's about the only time I can think of where a self-insert really improved the narrative in ways a normal protagonist could not due to the nature of the game. The choices were always yours, you were forced to think hard about pretty much every major event and the game never treated you as a sue, something that is sadly very common with avatars.

Even other well-written games can fall into the self-insert trap. One of my favorite games of all time in terms of story, Persona 4, has a silent protagonist whom everyone treats like he's the best thing since sliced bread and half the town wants to bang him - even though he hardly says anything and can act like a dick. Player worshipping is a common thing, and the game often has to work around the fact that the protagonist rarely talks - even if an avatar DOES talk, the game has to accommodate them in ways a normal narrative wouldn't; Robin is an example of this, being able to marry every single character, for instance.

Just removing the self-insert doesn't suddenly fix all the problems, naturally. In the Tellius series people inexplicably fell in love with Ike and the narrative went out of its way to show us what an utter badass he is, and too many lords in the series are way too similar. However, like I've said, I think it's much easier to portray a balanced narrative well without a self-insert involved. As long as they don't make the new protagonist a goody two-shoe, an edgy teenager or as interesting as a piece of wet cardboard, it's an improvement.

Secondly, I wish to see more political conflicts. The era in which Fire Emblem takes place lends itself well to manipulation, backstabbing, schemes, plots, family feuds and other such interesting elements. The key here is not only to make it a bit harder to see who is right and who is wrong, but also to not make it needlessly convoluted. If we take another well-written, exciting game with a lot going for it (also called "the best game no one ever played"), Ghost Trick, there are plenty of things going on at once, such as keeping people from dying, a time limit, finding out the identity of the protagonist, several kinds of supernatural elements and a colorful cast of characters - yet it never gets confusing. There's never an abundance of details to keep in mind, nor lame plot twists in an attempt to shock the player - the events unfold naturally, as the many mysteries progressively get clearer. - It is, more or less, the opposite of a game like Persona 3, but I won't go into detail there, since the post is already long enough.

Now, tell me what you want out of the next Fire Emblem game's story!

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i literally want Kotor 2, but in fire emblem form

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

I want a story that clearly takes inspiration from real life history.

Me and my sister actually talk about a FE story we could make one day if a FE creator ever gets released, and a good part of it is copied from real life events that actually happened, lol. Backstabbing, treachery, deception, lies, it's all there, and some good guys have to lie too to get trust from the commonfolk.

Another thing I want is a good and tragic implementation of a second generation.

For example, a playable character of the first gen would abandon her son to silently let him die alone in the wild (out of disappointment, or other terrible/petty reasons), and then in the second gen, he is a playable unit and harbors a deep hate or feeling of revenge towards her, and you can make them meet on the battlefield.

Some of your Gen 1 units could be back as playable units, but others would become bosses.

The super duper prepromote in the final mission you get could be one of the coolest Gen 1 units, too.

Stuff like that. I'd love a story where the generations are used fully both to narrate and create intersting gameplay situations. With two generations, you get a better sense of history, of epicness, and that's very cool.

I'd also take a simple story that's well told. Sacred Stones and Binding Blade don't have super compelling and complex stories, but I think they are nice to read and work well with FE' style and gameplay. Maybe they could build upon such type of stories.

[The Geek]

I think what we need in FE are more good villains. The Begnion Senators were bland. Ashera was bland. Gangrel kind of worked as a starter villain. Walhart had potential but was too underdeveloped to work. Validar and Grima were about as stock and boring as villains get.

I want a villain that's evil, but has a good reason for being so. Ashnard was pretty good but I feel like he didn't have much going for him other than being a stock Social Darwinist (I might be misremembering it's been years since I played the Tellius Saga). I think Zephiel was pretty good in this regard.

Additionally, as OP said, a Lord that isn't all perfect and everyone loves them would be a nice change of pace. Of course doing this might invite the plot hole of "how did this person manage to accumulate an army if they aren't liked by everyone?" but I'm sure that a way around that could be found.

[Radiant head]

I don't think Fire Emblem will ever have high aspirations story-wise. A game like Path of Radiance basically has what I realistically hope and expect from a well written game. The story is simple, but the world building and things like Jill's character arc are th ekind of things that make me engaged. So even when Radiant Dawn's story was a complete mess, I'm still able to enjoy and replay the game because it has such a great world built, and characters that I enjoy coming back to.

Of course Fire Emblem can hypothetically do a story that's more complex and interesting than Path of Radiance, but there's just no precedent of this ever happening, and the current trend of the games are going in the exact opposite direction, so...

A game like Final Fantasy Tactics, I find it much more unappealing than most of Fire Emblem in terms of gameplay and user interface, but it does intrigue and complex multi-factions way better than Radiant Dawn or Fates attempted to. There was a genuine sense of the fact that you're just one of a dozen factors in a much larger intrigue, and as a result it's more adult and less angsty than Fire Emblem.

I'll freely admit this post is basically just stream-of-conscious rambling, because I don't really have a coherent idea of what the ideal Fire Emblem game would look like.

[CyborgZeta]

They should go with their original ideas from Awakening's development and set the next Fire Emblem on Mars.

[secondworld]

Of course Fire Emblem can hypothetically do a story that's more complex and interesting than Path of Radiance, but there's just no precedent of this ever happening

I'd argue that the Jugdral duology did just that.

As for what I want from a Fire Emblem story, well, I'd love the kind of complex, political war story that's been suggested a few times already, but after Awakening and what I know of Fates, I'm not entirely confident that something that ambitious could be pulled off well.. For now I would be satisfied with just a simple good guys bad guys story given that it's written well(using Path of Radiance as the standard).

Edited November 2, 2015 by DavidSW

[Radiant head]

I wasn't very impressed with Geneology at all from a writing perspective. Mostly just felt like a bunch of poorly executed Shakespeare cliches.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Radiant head

[The Geek]

I wasn't very impressed with Geneology at all from a writing perspective. Mostly just felt like a bunch of poorly executed Shakespeare cliches.

Nah man, they're Norse and Irish cliches.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I personally do not care what the next FE story is about. I honestly cannot bring myself to care too much about the actual subject matter. I would like it to be a bit less animu-mu and more political intrigue, but thats kinda where my Give-A-Snot-Meter stops. All that matters is that it makes sense and isnt a total slice of swiss cheese. Consistency, decent world building, timelines working, and decent characters. Thats literally all i ask for. If the main meat of the story is relatively basic and not very complex, thats fine too. (See: Sacred Stones) As long as it makes sense. I think thats the issue with the last two games, is that the stories dont really make a lot of sense and theres no foundation of world building and lore. Avatar also makes a bit of a mess of things.

I think what we need in FE are more good villains. The Begnion Senators were bland. Ashera was bland. Gangrel kind of worked as a starter villain. Walhart had potential but was too underdeveloped to work. Validar and Grima were about as stock and boring as villains get.

I want a villain that's evil, but has a good reason for being so. Ashnard was pretty good but I feel like he didn't have much going for him other than being a stock Social Darwinist (I might be misremembering it's been years since I played the Tellius Saga). I think Zephiel was pretty good in this regard.

Additionally, as OP said, a Lord that isn't all perfect and everyone loves them would be a nice change of pace. Of course doing this might invite the plot hole of "how did this person manage to accumulate an army if they aren't liked by everyone?" but I'm sure that a way around that could be found.

I agree. I want to see less Voldemort-type villains and more Roose Bolton type villains. I dont want mustache twirlers with no motives other than EVULZ leading my baddie conflict. Gangrel and Walhart would have been amazing villains had...well see the previous paragraph i wrote. Theres no world building and lore to really back these guys up. Therefore we ended up with second-rate bargain bin bullshit villains. :(

Many Lord/Military commanders have led massive armies without being loved by the entire universe, so yes, its possible to have a lord like that.

[Leif]

I've always wanted to write a Fire Emblem story. If I were ever asked to write a Fire Emblem tale, I would add...

1.) More political drama

No more cliche plots involving: cults wanting to resurrect dark lord / alternate dimensions / gods and goddesses wanting to destroy all, etc. IS has to stop with this. They've done it with EVERY single game. Genealogy and Thracia 776 were the closest we got to a 'political intrigue' storyline. Some of the chapters focused on the drama between the various kingdoms in Jugdral and the strain it placed on the main characters, i.e. Eltshan and Sigurd. But, sadly, we had to get involved with the Lopto Empire then worry about the resurrection of the dark dragon, blah blah blah. I would include Path of Radiance in the 'more political storyline' category too, but Radiant Dawn absolutely ruined Telius's story arc. Radiant Dawn was fun to play, but I skipped through all the dialogue once I started my second run. The Blood Contract was a BS plot device. There can still be supernatural elements, like magic, dragons, transforming animal people tribes and cults, but they have to be used in a manner that won't end up creating a cliche storyline. I want more moral ambiguity.

Look at Shin Megami Tensei. Though the mainline games are rather barebones in terms of plot (they can mostly be summed up as: "join my side for these reasons!"), they introduced a ton of moral ambiguity with your choices. There was no right or wrong. Choosing neutral, even though it's usually the morally sound path to take, causes future consequences. Look at Shin Megami Tensei 1 and 2. The neutral path is the canon choice Kazuya made. His choice created a world with more suffering (in Shin Megami Tensei 2), despite choosing the 'best' path. In most JRPGs, the narrative focuses on a 'feel good' ending. This usually causes protagonist's character becomes cliched. Everything the protagonist does is deemed morally right and for the best of the world. Most of the Fire Emblem lords fail to escape from that trope and Marth is the best example.

2.) Every playable character has to matter to the plot

No more gimmicky, throw-away characters. Each recruitable unit should contribute in some way to the main plot. Take, for instance, Kellam from FE13. He can be killed off and the plot would keep on going. Despite being a Shepard, he makes no contribution to the story at all. You can remedy this issue by giving these playable characters more screen time. Perhaps one unit could act as tactician, like Soren from FE9-10, others could be spies or offer emotional support to the protagonist, etc. IS tried to have character supports remedy this, but relying on bonus conversations doesn't help make playable units feel important. I'd like to see other units react to events that are relevant to the main plot! Sacred Stones has a smaller cast of playable units. I would like to have a smaller cast of units in a future Fire Emblem game since it would, theoretically, give more screen time to allied units.

3) NO CHILDREN

I repeat, no children. Children are fun, but only from a gameplay point of view. However, I can think of ways where you can have a "child mechanic," so to speak, without having to come up with a ridiculous plot excuse to include them.

Marriage between two units should be mutually beneficial. Their growth rates, stats, class options, and max stats could be influenced. This is where reclassing would me modified too. Characters would have outfit changes based on the class they reclass to. Instead of having an armor knight retain armor when changing into a thief, for example, they would dress in a cloak and hood to match the thief class. This would add some level of replay since you could try all sorts of combos and unlock new classes and alternate portraits for characters. In short, children should be eliminated from any future Fire Emblem story.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Leif

[OakTree]

No archetypes, especially villainous ones, these are so repetitive that they start to hold the plot back at times. The biggest variations we had were Thracia (Haven't played it, but i heard that outside of Leif's character development the plot suffers from retconning too much Genealogy elements.), Blazing Sword (Decent, but all over the place) and Radiant Dawn (Bad plot devices and a severe case of "Interesting character motivations and backstories? We can't have that, instead, let's have a group of cartoony villains who are secetly behind everything!")

Edited November 2, 2015 by OakTree

[Thane]

i literally want Kotor 2, but in fire emblem form

Oh god...that'd be pretty sweet. I don't trust the Fire Emblem writers to actually pull a character like Kreia off anytime soon though. Hell, I don't even expect competent writers to do that.

Additionally, as OP said, a Lord that isn't all perfect and everyone loves them would be a nice change of pace. Of course doing this might invite the plot hole of "how did this person manage to accumulate an army if they aren't liked by everyone?" but I'm sure that a way around that could be found.

Competence, like in the real world? Or if we stick to the formula of there always being a lord, then access to a military is more or less always guaranteed.

I do agree with people sayng that we definitely need better villains though. I don't like a single Fire Emblem villain aside from maybe Gangrel, but he falls flat because the story that's supposed to back the story up simply disappears. Most people/characters - bad guys/villains included - always have more than one layer and should have some contrasting duality. I know I make a lot of references to other games, but Ace Attorney is one game that pulls this off in the most natural way out of any game I have ever played; characters actually act like (often silly and exaggerated, but this is a game that relies on humor) like people and have various sides to them; the cold, efficient proescutor Edgeworth can't sometimes handle a recurring witness, is secretly in love with a kids show and harbors thoughts, feelings and secrets that gradually get revealed as the game and series progress; Maya is a bundle of nonsensical energy yet people know it's in part because of her messed up background and family situation, she's afrad of not being useful and she can be incredibly mature when the situation calls for it. - I'm just giving you a quick rundown of two characters, but this game really does nail the whole "people are more than just tropes" - there's always a sense of duality, and that usually extends even to minor characters as well.

Not Dual Destinies though because that's a pile of shit.

Anyway, good villains usually drive the story more than the main characters do, and well-written ones don't just kick puppies all day. On the other side of the coin, the good guys shouldn't be right all the time and hold friendship speeches every five minutes, nor should the narrative treat the protagonists with silken gloves since that doesn't set up for good character development. However, I do want to point out that making an edgy, hardcore character is probably worse than any cheesy, friendship speech-giving protagonist could ever be. Motives and shades of gray are key.

One last example from a game I keep bringing up (mainly because it's so long and genuinely GOOD throughout): Persona 4 is the world's happiest game about murders and the difficulty of not being okay with who you are and pursuing your true self, but the game never shies away from showing the characters' dark secrets and thoughts that, you know, regular people have - hell, the game takes a turn for the dark at one point, and several members of the group contemplate something really bad, yet it never feels forced or like an attempt to be edgy because it fits the context.

I sort of feel like I've been ranting again, so I hope this is coherent. In short: people are complex, show duality and don't lose the human element in the writing, portrayal of the conflict or characters' personalities or dialogue.

[Alazen]

FE definitely should try to make a future war between nations muddier than what Awakening and Fates went with. Awakening could MAYBE be excused in that it was designed at a time when the series' future was up in the air, but Fates can not. Especially since both Gaiden and Judgral did the ''Green Nation VS Rugged Nation'' conflict in a muddier way than Fates.

If you're going to make one of the factions a nation where eating babies is a national pastime then you could at least let Kamui seriously play the part WITHOUT the narrative twisting itself into knots for Kamui to not be vilified. Warcraft 3 managed to do it.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Alazen

[NekoKnight]

While I wouldn't describe Fire Emblem as having amazing stories, they're acceptable framework for the gameplay and it's the personal interactions between characters that make the series shine (I can't get into the Fire Emblems without support conversations). The "good" stories are mostly about not having so much "bad" as Radiant Dawn and Fates provides in abundance.

So, what do I want?

1. Decisions that matter

I want a story where the protagonist makes choices that will affect the course of the plot. It doesn't need to be as extreme as a route split ala SS or Fates but choices that have significant consequences. If you decide to kill certain people, others should try to avenge them/betray you on account of their convictions. If you make a political alliance, you should get special support from that faction. Which brings up another concept I'd like to see; political marriages. People LOVE their waifus and husbandos so why not make it a part of the plot (not for the purpose of a second generation)? I'm surprised that for a series that has so many political intrigues that securing alliances through marriage hasn't come up as a central element. I'd propose a story where the lord (and/or other main characters) need to make alliances but can only do it with marriage. Who the protagonist marries will determine what enemies you'll fight, allies you'll gain and what resources you'll have. Alternatively, certain factions might only ally with you if you make enemies with another faction or betray your already recruited allies.

2. Balancing the Natural and Supernatural

I'm convinced that most stories that bank on the supernatural as the primary antagonists are going to be less interesting than ones that focus on human drama. Even Sacred Stones with its backdrop of demons uprising, is still memorable for the relationship between Lyon and the twins. I think Sealed Sword did it right, having a faction of supernatural enemies (the dragons) but them being in league with the human antagonists (Bern). If the supernatural element is the leading player, the villain is inevitably going to want to destroy the world or some kind of nonsense. If there are significant supernatural elements, it should be the theme of the world (think the situation with the undead and the ending of the Age of Fire in Dark souls) rather than "Crazy dragons want to blow shit up, man."

3. Atmosphere and Villains

As alluded to in the above two paragraphs, there should be a lot of political intrigue and moral grayness. It shouldn't be immediately discernible who the "bad guys" are, and a character or faction's morality shouldn't be static. Villains (or antagonists, rather) should be nuanced, have legitimate (not for teh evuls) reasons for pursuing their agenda. Some villains should be cruel and ambitious but others should have sympathetic motivations but all the same need to be stopped to prevent bad things from happening. I've often professed my love for GoT, so this won't come as a surprise to people but we need more villains like Tywin Lanister. Brutal and cunning but not "evil". More subtle characters like Petyr Baelish who play the long game would be welcome as well. Just...no more Macbeth's, Ganz' and Validars, mmkay?

2.) Every playable character has to matter to the plot

No more gimmicky, throw-away characters. Each recruitable unit should contribute in some way to the main plot. Take, for instance, Kellam from FE13. He can be killed off and the plot would keep on going. Despite being a Shepard, he makes no contribution to the story at all. You can remedy this issue by giving these playable characters more screen time. Perhaps one unit could act as tactician, like Soren from FE9-10, others could be spies or offer emotional support to the protagonist, etc. IS tried to have character supports remedy this, but relying on bonus conversations doesn't help make playable units feel important. I'd like to see other units react to events that are relevant to the main plot! Sacred Stones has a smaller cast of playable units. I would like to have a smaller cast of units in a future Fire Emblem game since it would, theoretically, give more screen time to allied units.

Like it or not, support conversations are the best you can hope for in terms of minor characters getting development, and they should be celebrated for their opportunity to develop characters and do world-building without being too intrusive or exposition heavy in the main plot. You could make a smaller cast, but to make a cast so small that everyone has significant involvement, it wouldn't really be a Fire Emblem game anymore. Mind you, I do enjoy what they did with Soren but even in PoR, the amount of characters who had a significant role was small.

Edited November 3, 2015 by NekoKnight

[maybe]

i dunno about any of you but I felt like Manfroy was actually a pretty decent villain

like sure he has the same cliche boring goals and motivations as other fire emblem villains (resurrect dark god, rule continent), but I feel like they were handled pretty well with him

he doesn't start in a position of power or anything, and is basically just the leader of a group of weirdos who are unsuccessfully attempting to bring back an evil god

but he has an actual plan of what he's going to do to have power over Jugdral

he does the whole thing by manipulating the needed people and preying off of what they want

it could come off as really boring and cliche, but Alvis is the kind of guy who has an interesting motivation

he wants to help people and DOES believe he can be a good ruler, but has it in him to do whatever it takes to do so, even if it means killing a large amount of rather important people

so it's through that that Manfroy manages to have his little demon child born, make Alvis emperor of Jugdral, get rid of Sigurd and his buddies, and have power over Jugdral through Julius

i like how they managed to have a character that tries to have power without just making him kill people or be a dickish king

i'm not saying that's necessarily how they should go about it again, but that it was probably one of if not the best that fire emblem's done for a villain

or maybe I'm just wrong but I liked it

I may or may not write something about what I actually want in a plot later I just wanted to mention this since people were talking about villains

Edited November 3, 2015 by maybe

[Ryo]

Not relying on stupid plot contrivances to push the story forward would be a good start.

[General Banzai]

I hear people talking about villains. I hear them talk about grayer motivations. I hear them talk about politics.

I present Sacred Stones and brush my hands of this denuded landscape

The people will one day see the hero dead and unsung beneath a thousand cries of "too easy"

[secondworld]

Sacred Stones has other problems.

What particularly bugs me is how the story split is executed. When the player chooses to follow Erika or Ephraim, the story changes, but only slightly. What happens is each route has important plot details and events that are very relevant to what's currently happening, and half of them happen off screen and are just told to you in a bit of dialogue, "Oh hey btw we beat Grado while you were off doing stuff and Lyon is also behind what happened." You don't get to see the full story on your first playthrough, and it's not just minor details and backstory.

Of all the things for that game to not bring back from Gaiden, controlling two parties shouldn't have been one of them.

[-Cynthia-]

I just found the story of Sacred Stones kinda...boring. I guess it avoids a number of the plot issues players took issue with in Blazing Sword/Radiant Dawn/Awakening, but perhaps it's a little too short and simple to qualify as great(or even good) for many people.

I don't think the super standard set up (evil empire invading good nation, royals run away to friendly nation) and Magvel being underdeveloped and bland did it many favors.

Edited November 3, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[kantoorfarina]

I hear people talking about villains. I hear them talk about grayer motivations. I hear them talk about politics.

I present Sacred Stones and brush my hands of this denuded landscape

The people will one day see the hero dead and unsung beneath a thousand cries of "too easy"

I agree, Sacred Stones has great villains. Selena, Orson, Lyon, Carlyle, perhaps Riev, Valter... Even some of the un-important bosses like Gheb and Pablo are pretty well-written. Characters is definitely FE8's strong suit. (Although I don't recall any real politics aside from that bit about Pablo killing Innes would have destroyed Carcino's relationship with Frelia.)

My problem with Awakening's writing is that it leaves so many things underdeveloped. Mustafa isn't nearly as interesting as Camus or Selena. He fights because his king makes him. Camus on the other hand, fights because he knows that every minute he's on the battlefield, an innocent in Grust is in danger and he can't bring himself to betray them. That's a much better way of make the enemy morally grey than "They're being forced to!". The game briefly mentions that Chrom's father was cruel to Plegia and its people, and then not only do neither of the playable plegians hold any grudge against Ylisse for it, Gangrel says in his supports with MU that he only waged war on Ylisse because Valm threatened him! Taguels had potential, but really they were just an afterthought and they were never mentioned outside of Panne/Yarne and their supports. Validar is one of the worst villains in the series. Comically evil with no reason for his goals, really unnecessary "I am your father!' twist that they never do anything with, he's just really bad. And that's just scratching the surface!

I'm typing this at midnight and i'm not really a professional writer, so i'm not sure what i'd do if I were to write the next game. I do know, however, that when I find an error or plot hole in my story, I would simply go back a bit and see how I could make the story work without using a plot device, instead of having the story absolutely require conveniences to properly flow. And I would keep the Lord in the moral right, but I wouldn't make him like Kamui who never does anything wrong, either.

Edited November 3, 2015 by kantoorfarina

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

I dunno though, there are a good bunch of FE villains that are good and not on Validar's levels of crappiness. Many of them are sympathethic(sp?) and grey enough, IMO.

Examples were already brought up so I don't think I have to explain my reasoning.

Personally, I'd focus on having more flawed protagonists, like Micaiah and apparently Leif in his own game.

FE heroes are paragons of justice and peace, but I wouldn't mind if they tried to break from this route. Not too much though, I don't want a jackass or an edgy mofo.

No "There is never not enough death..." pls.

[Taka-kun]

I do agree with people sayng that we definitely need better villains though. I don't like a single Fire Emblem villain aside from maybe Gangrel, but he falls flat because the story that's supposed to back the story up simply disappears. Most people/characters - bad guys/villains included - always have more than one layer and should have some contrasting duality. I know I make a lot of references to other games, but Ace Attorney is one game that pulls this off in the most natural way out of any game I have ever played; characters actually act like (often silly and exaggerated, but this is a game that relies on humor) like people and have various sides to them; the cold, efficient proescutor Edgeworth can't sometimes handle a recurring witness, is secretly in love with a kids show and harbors thoughts, feelings and secrets that gradually get revealed as the game and series progress; Maya is a bundle of nonsensical energy yet people know it's in part because of her messed up background and family situation, she's afrad of not being useful and she can be incredibly mature when the situation calls for it. - I'm just giving you a quick rundown of two characters, but this game really does nail the whole "people are more than just tropes" - there's always a sense of duality, and that usually extends even to minor characters as well.

Not Dual Destinies though because that's a pile of shit.

You should play PLvsPW. Though lacking in some areas, the narrative, with the accompanying stellar soundstrack, hooks you in for quite awhile. Saying what I was dissapointed with will spoil the game but I believe the game stands on its own.

With the off-topicness out of the way, I think I do agree with most opinions in this thread. Grayer plot, more fleshed out villains, less-beloved heroes. I would like to see a Lord who is ambitious for once, instead of being chosen by royal blood, or perhaps still retain their supposed "white morality" but so stuck-up with it that they don't see the suffering they cause.

The Avatar system needs to be revamped, if it's kept at all. I believe the Mass Effect series did a good job with Shepherd. By ME3, Shepherd is famous/notorious and bowed down because he/she went though heaven and hell, not because they were the chosen one. Hard work and determination is the way to go.

Lastly, if they are going to keep children, keep generational wars, like back in FE4. I would like to see some Wars of the Roses-style drama with opposing sides' children keeping the fight that their parents started but yeah, that's not gonna happen anytime soon. More focus on human conflict rather than heroVsDragon is what I want.

That said, I think we are all just engaging in wishful thinking. FE prides itself in its fantasy concept with idealistic wars and the fact that we are all here proves that it has been successful, just not optimal.

[Thane]

No "There is never not enough death..." pls.

Agreed. Plenty of people seem to believe that a darker story immediately makes it better, or that character deaths somehow automatically improve the quality of the work, which is nothing but nonsense. Context is always the key; forced character deaths or script make the story that much harder to take seriously. When including something like that, the writers have to ask themselves why they're killing off a character, how it affects the story or the atmosphere of it and how both readers/players/viewers and characters will react - if they can't come up with any suitable answers, then it's usually just a completely unnecessary death.

Dark themes also don't automatically improve the quality of the writing either. Majora's Mask, a genuinely dark, creepy game which understands that the implied, subtle horrors and the moon serving as a constant reminder of the inevitability of death stick with the player far longer than Persona 3's edgy emo rants about dying ever could.

You should play PLvsPW. Though lacking in some areas, the narrative, with the accompanying stellar soundstrack, hooks you in for quite awhile. Saying what I was dissapointed with will spoil the game but I believe the game stands on its own.

Ugh, that game was also just a waste of time. Professor Layton was essentially Kamui, and the ending literally made me facepalm. That's what I mean with plot twists just for the sake of having plot twists; if writers get too obsessed with surprising the player, consistency and logic are usually sacrificed.

That said, I think we are all just engaging in wishful thinking. FE prides itself in its fantasy concept with idealistic wars and the fact that we are all here proves that it has been successful, just not optimal.

People can be here for a lot of reasons - one of the main reasons why I created this thread was because I really like Fire Emblem's playstyle and was thoroughly, utterly disappointed by Fates' story, and so I want to discuss how the next game should look so such an abomination is never made again. Who's to say the game wouldn't get more popular if they didn't write about "idealistic wars"?

I've got a question for all of you: most of us seem to be in agreement that villains should be more sympathetic, the protagonist less "pure" for the lack of a better word, and the conflicts more complex. However, how would you go about writing something like that? What should such a conflict be about? A common suggestion seems to be "fertile lands vs barren wastes", but that has been done both in the series and outside of it - Windwaker springs to mind immediately, where every single Zelda fan suddenly felt empathy for the previously generic bad guy after a 30 second speech. That's some good writing.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Thane

[NekoKnight]

I've got a question for all of you: most of us seem to be in agreement that villains should be more sympathetic, the protagonist less "pure" for the lack of a better word, and the conflicts more complex. However, how would you go about writing something like that? What should such a conflict be about? A common suggestion seems to be "fertile lands vs barren wastes", but that has been done both in the series and outside of it - Windwaker springs to mind immediately, where every single Zelda fan suddenly felt empathy for the previously generic bad guy after a 30 second speech. That's some good writing.

As a general concept, a villain that has a utopian dream that requires horrible sacrifices or a villain trying to prevent the decline of humanity that similarly requires a lot of bloodshed would be appropriate. I think Awakening's assertion that Plegia and Valm were trying to invade to prepare against and even greater threat was...a decent idea, but it's only suggested in optional content, completely contrary to the villains' main story personalities (spiteful war-monger and power-hungry tyrant, respectively).

Zephiel is another FE villain I'm fond of. His goals and methodology are brutal, but it's hard not to sympathize for him after learning of his past.