The next Fire Emblem story

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

well if Koei's made it possible then surely IS can, unless we're actually suggesting Koei has better writing...which they might be these days.

[blah the Prussian]

We're looking at this from a narrative perspective, while yes, the themes of love and companionship is not that important in Fire Emblem, it's still one of the few consistent elements found through the plot of most of the games in the series, andthere are some subtle elements even in the older games in the series that integrate these themes in gameplay, i mean, Supports were added as a mechanic in FE3, far more longer than most of the people assume it has existed for, there also some more subtle ways that game integrated these themes, such as, for example, recruiting the four Clerics in the final chapter.

EDIT: How could i forget the perma-death mechanic? That's one of the biggest aspects that integrate the themes i mentioned into gameplay.

And while yes, making the game about conquest doesn't rule out these themes, it causes some problems, i mean, how is the player supposed to sympathize with a group of soldiers who all care about each other and protect each other so much when said soldiers are invading other nations and likely killing hundreds of soldiers who are just deffending their own country? The only way to make that work would be to make most characters have unsympathetic goals, which would make it much harder to establish a true feel of companionship among the cast. Either that, or make the entire story a Guilt Trip, which would just not be fun at all.

You make it seem as though conquerers never have good reasons for doing what they are doing. In reality, conquerers can want to conquer for a variety of reasons; they don't just have to be warmongering twats. Alvis, for example, wanted to conquer Jugdral to make the lives of the common people better, and if it hadn't been for the whole embarrassment with the Lopto Sect he would have been a hero. You think peasants care about who rules over them. They'll fight for the monarch who frees them, not the monarch who happens to be from their country.

[Alazen]

And while yes, making the game about conquest doesn't rule out these themes, it causes some problems, i mean, how is the player supposed to sympathize with a group of soldiers who all care about each other and protect each other so much when said soldiers are invading other nations and likely killing hundreds of soldiers who are just deffending their own country? The only way to make that work would be to make most characters have unsympathetic goals, which would make it much harder to establish a true feel of companionship among the cast. Either that, or make the entire story a Guilt Trip, which would just not be fun at all.

You're acting like FE has never had the player army invade a nation. Even Awakening had an entire fleet get burned before Robin and Co. marched around Valm.

[Jotari]

I'd like if in the next game the conflict has already been occurring for some time before the story starts. Not sure about Fates but every other non sequel storyline in the series starts with "Everything was peaceful until the ______ Nation suddenly attacked," Usually quite easily conquering the hero's homeland too. I'd like to see something where there's been a war that's been on the go for years before the protagonist gets involved either because they were too young when it first broke out, or preferably, they were living a sheltered life in the aggressor's country and had no idea what the war was truly like. Aside from Genealogy of Holy War, it seems like all these continent spanning conflicts are completely wrapped up in a about a year (and even in Genealogy of Holy War Gen II takes place almost entirely within a year with the bulk of the conflict happening off screen).

Edited November 26, 2015 by Jotari

[OakTree]

You make it seem as though conquerers never have good reasons for doing what they are doing. In reality, conquerers can want to conquer for a variety of reasons; they don't just have to be warmongering twats. Alvis, for example, wanted to conquer Jugdral to make the lives of the common people better, and if it hadn't been for the whole embarrassment with the Lopto Sect he would have been a hero. You think peasants care about who rules over them. They'll fight for the monarch who frees them, not the monarch who happens to be from their country.

Yes, conquerors can have good reasons, the problem has nothing to do with that, but with the army, how can you justify an army following such a leader without making them unsympathetic? How can you justify an army following an anti-heroic figure while still making the player think the army is made of good people? Some ways to do it would be to make the characters be loyalists and/or make them feel extremelly guilty about what they're doing, but those things causes some problems, the first could work but would have to be pulled extremelly well to actually make the player sympatize with the army (And we're talking about IS, who writes at best, above average plots), the second would just be, as i mentioned before, a Guilt Trip.

Also, i haven't played Genealogy yet, but isn't Arvis' kingdom peaceful due to fear?

You're acting like FE has never had the player army invade a nation. Even Awakening had an entire fleet get burned before Robin and Co. marched around Valm.

Awakening's plot is terrible, it's arguably one of the darkest games in the series, but it whitewashes or ignores so many things that it's almost disturbing.

[Jotari]

Alvis' empire is said to be peaceful at first with a lot of people welcoming the changes he brings especially since he seemed to have ended a conflict that was upsetting the continent on multiple fronts. Things only took a turn for the horrible because Alvis happened to ally with a psychotic religious sect who wanted to make blood sacrifices out of children (and he was pretty much black mailed into helping them since they had dirt on him that would have got him burned alive if the public found out). Initially however the lopt sect takes a back seat in the ruling as they wait for their messiah to be born and things are apparently just dandy for everyone who's not our protagonists children, fleeing for their lives.

Also the player takes part in a hostile invasion during the second act of Radiant Dawn with the justification being they are royally pissed off.

[Gomez_Addams]

Alvis' empire is said to be peaceful at first with a lot of people welcoming the changes he brings especially since he seemed to have ended a conflict that was upsetting the continent on multiple fronts.

A conflict that he and his allies caused.

[Jotari]

A conflict that he and his allies caused.

Oh yeah well I'm not talking the moral ramifications of his actions. Just stating the facts that he was well received in the early days when it wasn't a rein based on fear. That's why I said he seemed to have ended the conflict. Although I don't think there's any evidence Alvis was plotting things from the start. When we see him in the prologue he seems to be genuine enough. It's the impression I get at least that Langbolt and Reptor were the ones who started everything at Manfloy's behest with Andorey and Alvis getting in on the act when they started seeing opportunities.

[blah the Prussian]

If the conqueror is sympathetic I don't see how the army won't be. Again, the conqueror could be fighting a war of liberation, no war crimes included. The soldiers don't need to feel guilty if what they're doing is right. Seriously, how is this hard?

[OakTree]

If the conqueror is sympathetic I don't see how the army won't be. Again, the conqueror could be fighting a war of liberation, no war crimes included. The soldiers don't need to feel guilty if what they're doing is right. Seriously, how is this hard?

How is a Liberation War a conquest? An invasion, sure, but unless the territory you are invading is annexed to your own at the end of things, i don't see how it can be considered a conquest.

[blah the Prussian]

How is a Liberation War a conquest? An invasion, sure, but unless the territory you are invading is annexed to your own at the end of things, i don't see how it can be considered a conquest.

Oh, then territory will still be annexed. Its just that the people of the land will be better off under the hero.

[Gomez_Addams]

Oh, then territory will still be annexed. Its just that the people of the land will be better off under the hero.

Define "better off."

[blah the Prussian]

Define "better off."

For example they would have been serfs under nation 1, but they won't be under nation 2.

[OakTree]

Oh, then territory will still be annexed. Its just that the people of the land will be better off under the hero.

Then there's another problem: How is it a conquest if the intent is not even to conquer? To me, a game can only be considered to be about conquest if:

1. The player invades foreign territory, obviously.

2. The intent of the player is to acquire territory, if the goal of the player does not directly involve conquering, then i don't consider it a conquest.

3. The player is the one to initiate the conflict, it can't be a case of "The player is just one of many warlords", the player must be the one that starts the war.

[blah the Prussian]

Then there's another problem: How is it a conquest if the intent is not even to conquer? To me, a game can only be considered to be about conquest if:

1. The player invades foreign territory, obviously.

2. The intent of the player is to acquire territory, if the goal of the player does not directly involve conquering, then i don't consider it a conquest.

3. The player is the one to initiate the conflict, it can't be a case of "The player is just one of many warlords", the player must be the one that starts the war.

How does my proposal not fit these requirements?

[OakTree]

How does my proposal not fit these requirements?

A liberation war implies that either:

1. The conqueror is not doing this because he knows he might gain the territory, but simply because he wants to free the other country.

2. The conqueror is doing this for territory, which basically mean he is either making himself out to be a hero and deceiving everyone or making his plans clear and trying to do a total takeover, both don't work most of the time in different ways, the first makes him a manipulating bastard, and the second makes it harder to sympathize with him, because either the conqueror is simply a bastard, or he has good intentions, but if the conqueror really does have noble goals in mind, the player will question why he needs to be the ruler at the end of things (Because the country's royal houses can't be made entirely of ***holes, there has to be some good lords who could take over things at the end of the invasion), and then there is the option to make the conqueror a visionary, which is the only way it could work, but it has to be done extremelly well to work.

[blah the Prussian]

A liberation war implies that either:

1. The conqueror is not doing this because he knows he might gain the territory, but simply because he wants to free the other country.

2. The conqueror is doing this for territory, which basically mean he is either making himself out to be a hero and deceiving everyone or making his plans clear and trying to do a total takeover, both don't work most of the time in different ways, the first makes him a manipulating bastard, and the second makes it harder to sympathize with him, because either the conqueror is simply a bastard, or he has good intentions, but if the conqueror really does have noble goals in mind, the player will question why he needs to be the ruler at the end of things (Because the country's royal houses can't be made entirely of ***holes, there has to be some good lords who could take over things at the end of the invasion), and then there is the option to make the conqueror a visionary, which is the only way it could work, but it has to be done extremelly well to work.

The war,doesn't have to be about liberation to still be just. It can be about unification for example, in the vein of Oda Nobunaga or Bismarck. Also, the conqueror gets to be leader in the end because he earned it, gosh darn it. Obviously he wouldn't pull a Stalin and lie about conquering everything, because no one likes a liar, but I honestly don't see how someone in it for territory is automatically bad.

[OakTree]

The war,doesn't have to be about liberation to still be just. It can be about unification for example, in the vein of Oda Nobunaga or Bismarck. Also, the conqueror gets to be leader in the end because he earned it, gosh darn it. Obviously he wouldn't pull a Stalin and lie about conquering everything, because no one likes a liar, but I honestly don't see how someone in it for territory is automatically bad.

Once again, that is the "visionary" type of conqueror, and they are one of the few cases where creating a conqueror as a protagonist can work, but as i said, making these characters the protagonists is so hard and easy to screw up that you might as well not try.

[Jotari]

IS should just get the IP and make us a Legend of the Galactic Heroes game. Course it'd only be released in Japan no doubt >.>

[Gomez_Addams]

IS should just get the IP and make us a Legend of the Galactic Heroes game. Course it'd only be released in Japan no doubt >.>

I can see it now:

Mittermeyer and Reuenthal would both be lolis.

Kircheis would be a blue haired pegasus knight.

Bittenfeld would be the obligatory benchwarmer.

At the end of the game, Job Truniht and that bald Fezzan guy would merge into a giant dragon Reinhard has to fight.

There'd be a way to save Yang.

[Anouleth]

I think part of the problem is trying to impose concepts of "good vs. evil" and "freedom vs. tyranny" onto medieval era conflicts that were usually not about goodness or freedom but rather power. Was the Anarchy, or the Hundred Years War fought for freedom? We might say that one side or the other had a better claim to the throne, but is being slightly more descended from the previous king than the other guy really the same as being on the side of Goodness and Virtue? In practice, one King was much the same as another; if you supported a particular king, it was not because he was Just and Moral but usually because you had a material stake, skin in the game. Part of the reason the Wars of the Roses went on for so long was because in their victory, the House of York had stripped many defenders of the Red Rose of their pride and property, giving them a strong reason to support the Lancastrians.

[blah the Prussian]

Now if in Fates you could choose between the Neue Reich and join the Imperial Fleet or the FPA and join the Yang Fleet that would be interesting. Much better than what we got anyway.

I think part of the problem is trying to impose concepts of "good vs. evil" and "freedom vs. tyranny" onto medieval era conflicts that were usually not about goodness or freedom but rather power. Was the Anarchy, or the Hundred Years War fought for freedom? We might say that one side or the other had a better claim to the throne, but is being slightly more descended from the previous king than the other guy really the same as being on the side of Goodness and Virtue? In practice, one King was much the same as another; if you supported a particular king, it was not because he was Just and Moral but usually because you had a material stake, skin in the game. Part of the reason the Wars of the Roses went on for so long was because in their victory, the House of York had stripped many defenders of the Red Rose of their pride and property, giving them a strong reason to support the Lancastrians.

You're absolutely right. The problem is all previous FEs have had clear good guys and clear bad guys. They are midieval in setting, but not in spirit.

[Jotari]

At the end of the game, Job Truniht and that bald Fezzan guy would merge into a giant dragon Reinhard has to fight.

Narratively speaking that would be a much better way to handle Rubinsky rather than having him slowly succumb to brain cancer and end up being way less important than he's initially painted. Also we're still flying space ships right? Cause I don't think I've ever fought a giant space dragon and that seems like a significant loss to my life's quality.

[Gomez_Addams]

Now if in Fates you could choose between the Neue Reich and join the Imperial Fleet or the FPA and join the Yang Fleet that would be interesting. Much better than what we got anyway.

You're absolutely right. The problem is all previous FEs have had clear good guys and clear bad guys. They are midieval in setting, but not in spirit.

Hmmm... I think the problem I have with that is that I don't see FE as a medieval setting, but a fantasy one. Less Game of Thrones, more Lord of the Rings, if you get where I'm coming from. There's nuance there, sure, and intrigue, but there's still an absolute good and an absolute evil.

[blah the Prussian]

Hmmm... I think the problem I have with that is that I don't see FE as a medieval setting, but a fantasy one. Less Game of Thrones, more Lord of the Rings, if you get where I'm coming from. There's nuance there, sure, and intrigue, but there's still an absolute good and an absolute evil.

Yeah, pretty much, that's what I was saying.