Fates Reviews are in

[Dark Sage]

The reviews barely touch on the story or don't even mention it. There are a few critiques here or there about melodrama or whatnot but generally, unless the person goes into detail on their opinions, statements about the story should be taken with a grain of salt.

Professional reviewers still comment on story and have all other recent games to compare it to. For example Mario & Luigi Paper Jam's story was brought up in a number of reviews where reviewers were criticising it specifically for the story. Considering recent games like Undertale, Last of Us and all those Walking Simulators being held up for storytelling the standard reviewers have is still going to be there when they're playing Fire Emblem.

If Fates genuinely had a bad story compared to what else is on the market or other Fire Emblem games it wouldn't get away with it. If someone was hyped into thinking a story would be mindblowing and it wasn't for then, it doesn't make the game's story bad for simply not reaching their unrealistic expectations. The level of hyperbole that some people have around the story is frankly ridiculous especially around the fantastical elements to the point it's no surprise that those coming in with a level head are atleast fine with the story and or even think it's great.

Game reviewers also think Final Fantasy X and Heavy Rain have great stories and that the Last of Us is the Citizen Kane of video games. A lot of walking simulators also don't have good stories or writing, Gone Home being a good example. The point is that the opinions of video game reviewers on what a good story is can be questionable, partly because their standards might be extremely low (due to most games having shit stories and writing) and partly because they probably haven't read an actual book since high school. Reviews in general should really be taken with a grain of salt, whether good or bad, as they are for the most part subjective.

Your attempts to discredit critics of the plot as being dishonest or spiteful are incredibly disingenuous and frankly more hyperbolic than any of the plot complaints given. Some people probably did have their plot expectations too high, but a lot of us simply expected at least a decent story, which I don't think is unreasonable in the least. I think people have the right to express their disappointment.

It's not wrong to like Fates. I like games with underwhelming stories, too (like Dragon Age 2!). There are more things to it than just story.

But it's not wrong to be criticize and be disappointed in it, either. It doesn't mean their expectations are "unrealistic" or the fans are more "level-headed" than the detractors, especially when they've explained themselves pretty well. Story and plot are more relevant to roleplaying games than other genres (for example, I don't expect a Mario game with an evil versus gray storyline because lol).

This is sounding more and more like "how dare you not like something I like/want to like!"

You're talking to the guy who compared critics of amie and some of the more questionable sexual elements like Soliel's portrayal to soccer moms and religious fanatics who think Harry Potter is satanist. Don't expect intellectual honesty out of him.

[The DanMan]

They'll probably continue to innovate and change the game and it eventually won't be that much like Awakening or previous entries because stagnation was what was killing the series in the first place. Being one way for a long time isn't a good idea, even Fates changed a lot from Awakening... the series returning to being like any of the 12 before Awakening would be a death sentence for the series(outside of remakes).

I think they'll eventually get to their Fire Emblem on Mars idea at some point.

Ah no. Just, no.

What "killed" the series before was the borderline flop of the Radiant Duelogy and Nintendo not advertising it.

What "saved" the series was advertisement, word of mouth, and the removal of the psychological barrier that permadeath presented via casual mode.

But really, you've defended FE14's story with very convoluted theories made of almost purely inference and headcanon to try to defend it. I'm pretty sure you have another convoluted theory on how you're totally right and I'm stupid.

Edited February 18, 2016 by The DanMan

[Tsuky]

Your attempts to discredit critics of the plot as being dishonest or spiteful are incredibly disingenuous and frankly more hyperbolic than any of the plot complaints given. Some people probably did have their plot expectations too high, but a lot of us simply expected at least a decent story, which I don't think is unreasonable in the least. I think people have the right to express their disappointment.

Exactly. If you disagree with people's criticisms on the plot, feel free to come up with your rebuttals. But as it stands, there are some major problems that don't have justifications. I personally didn't think I had too high of an expectation; I just expected it to be better than Awakening, given how much the story was hyped up. But after going through the story, I was just like "wat." Given the choice, I'd rather have the story be bland and simple than be a convoluted mess. But I digress; don't want this to turn into another plot thread :P

Edited February 18, 2016 by Tsuky

[arvilino]

The reviews barely touch on the story or don't even mention it. There are a few critiques here or there about melodrama or whatnot but generally, unless the person goes into detail on their opinions, statements about the story should be taken with a grain of salt.

Game reviewers also think Final Fantasy X and Heavy Rain have great stories and that the Last of Us is the Citizen Kane of video games. A lot of walking simulators also don't have good stories or writing, Gone Home being a good example. The point is that the opinions of video game reviewers on what a good story is can be questionable, partly because their standards might be extremely low (due to most games having shit stories and writing) and partly because they probably haven't read an actual book since high school. Reviews in general should really be taken with a grain of salt, whether good or bad, as they are for the most part subjective.

Your attempts to discredit critics of the plot as being dishonest or spiteful are incredibly disingenuous and frankly more hyperbolic than any of the plot complaints given. Some people probably did have their plot expectations too high, but a lot of us simply expected at least a decent story, which I don't think is unreasonable in the least. I think people have the right to express their disappointment.

You're talking to the guy who compared critics of amie and some of the more questionable sexual elements like Soliel's portrayal to soccer moms and religious fanatics who think Harry Potter is satanist. Don't expect intellectual honesty out of him.

The vast majority of reviews, atleast the ones that were posted yesterday had all called the story atleast decent and others thought it was great. Some reviewers might have low standards but dismissing that not one of them said it was bad with "Well they probably all people with low standards who never read books", you can't really say they're all that way(or any really since you don't really know them).

I'm not saying videogame reviews aren't dubious/subjective by themselves. In fact I said "If Fates genuinely had a bad story compared to what else is on the market or other Fire Emblem games it wouldn't get away with it." in that it couldn't get away the way it has with reviews if it had a bad story for a videogame. In reality it's all around not getting criticised for it's story(whien Fire Emblem games, specifically Radiant Dawn have actually been criticised in reviews in the past) and in cases praised by several reviewers. I don't think it's a faux pas for me to say it's good evidence people detracting the whole plot aren't exactly being fair with it if they're saying it's a bad story.

Unless they mean a bad story as in "Almost every videogame has a bad story, Fates story flaws means it isn't nearly as good as well written literature so it's bad" in which case, their expectations would have been pretty damn high for a videogame especially a story that has to conform to the gameplay. If they want stories with a much higher standard they're looking at the wrong medium videogame stories need to complement their gameplay, for example you'd be hardpressed to find a good fantasy book that manages to put 20-28 battles involving the main character in its story.

I'm not being dishonest when I'm saying people are overblowing things, on the internet that's pretty much a trademark of any discussion and it leads to people being about as thin skinned as soccermoms.

Edited February 18, 2016 by arvilino

[FrostyFireMage]

It's true that if video game plots were as good as in literature there'd be no reason to actually read a book.

[Dark Sage]

The vast majority of reviews, atleast the ones that were posted yesterday had all called the story atleast decent and others thought it was great. Some reviewers might have low standards but dismissing that not one of them said it was bad with "Well they probably all people with low standards who never read books", you can't really say they're all that way(or any really since you don't really know them).

I'm not saying videogame reviews aren't dubious/subjective by themselves. In fact I said "If Fates genuinely had a bad story compared to what else is on the market or other Fire Emblem games it wouldn't get away with it." in that it couldn't get away the way it has with reviews if it had a bad story for a videogame. In reality it's all around not getting criticised for it's story(whien Fire Emblem games, specifically Radiant Dawn have actually been criticised in reviews in the past) and in cases praised by several reviewers. I don't think it's a faux pas for me to say it's good evidence people detracting the whole plot aren't exactly being fair with it if they're saying it's a bad story.

Unless they mean a bad story as in "Almost every videogame has a bad story, Fates story flaws means it isn't nearly as good as well written literature so it's bad" in which case, their expectations would have been pretty damn high for a videogame especially a story that has to conform to the gameplay. If they want stories with a much higher standard they're looking at the wrong medium videogame stories need to complement their gameplay, for example you'd be hardpressed to find a good fantasy book that manages to put 20-28 battles involving the main character in its story.

I'm not being dishonest when I'm saying people are overblowing things, on the internet that's pretty much a trademark of any discussion and it leads to people being about as thin skinned as soccermoms.

First of all, if I am dismissing what reviewers said about the story, it's because it's barely touched upon and I think that to fully evaluate a story, you need to be both specific and you need time to think about it, which I said at the beginning of my post by the way. The format of a review makes a good evaluation of a story impossible.

You're also putting words into people's mouths. If you asked most people here how Fates' story compares with other games, they'll most likely say that it's not the worst FE story (but they'll still probably say it's pretty bad) and I seriously doubt most people think that it's worse than most video game stories; the only one who thinks that as far as I know is Thane, who says it's one of the worst game stories he's ever seen which I don't agree with at all. If people are rather hostile towards the story, it's because it's a game that people actually care about and had some expectations for, and the story is linked with the direction of the series that not everyone is on board with. And by the way, nobody has said that Fates' story is bad because it's not literary quality, but I'm certain that you know that's what nobody meant and this is yet another poor attempt to discredit people. But I'd say that if a narrative is a big part of the game, then yes, it should strive to be of a more literary quality and not trying is holding the medium back.

You're not intellectually dishonest because you're saying people are overblowing things, you're intellectually dishonest because you're ascribing malicious motivations and strawmanning people who don't agree with you. People criticizing the plot can handle disagreement just fine: this topic is a good example where people disagree on the plot but can still be civil and respectful to one another. Don't try and claim your soccer mom comparison is regarding sensitivity because you always use that comparison when it comes to topics like skinship and people being grossed out by the shotacon/lolicon stuff in the game. If anything, you've displayed the thinnest skin so far because you're actively trying to shut up people who disagree with you, whereas nobody else has.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Dark Sage

[arvilino]

First of all, if I am dismissing what reviewers said about the story, it's because it's barely touched upon and I think that to fully evaluate a story, you need to be both specific and you need time to think about it, which I said at the beginning of my post by the way. The format of a review makes a good evaluation of a story impossible.

You're also putting words into people's mouths. If you asked most people here how Fates' story compares with other games, they'll most likely say that it's not the worst FE story (but they'll still probably say it's pretty bad) and I seriously doubt most people think that it's worse than most video game stories; the only one who thinks that as far as I know is Thane, who says it's one of the worst game stories he's ever seen which I don't agree with at all. If people are rather hostile towards the story, it's because it's a game that people actually care about and had some expectations for, and the story is linked with the direction of the series that not everyone is on board with. And by the way, nobody has said that Fates' story is bad because it's not literary quality, but I'm certain that you know that's what nobody meant and this is yet another poor attempt to discredit people. But I'd say that if a narrative is a big part of the game, then yes, it should strive to be of a more literary quality and not trying is holding the medium back.

You're not intellectually dishonest because you're saying people are overblowing things, you're intellectually dishonest because you're ascribing malicious motivations and strawmanning people who don't agree with you. People criticizing the plot can handle disagreement just fine: this topic is a good example where people disagree on the plot but can still be civil and respectful to one another. Don't try and claim your soccer mom comparison is regarding sensitivity because you always use that comparison when it comes to topics like skinship and people being grossed out by the shotacon/lolicon stuff in the game. If anything, you've displayed the thinnest skin so far because you're actively trying to shut up people who disagree with you, whereas nobody else has.

I seriously don't have any issue with people simply criticising the game, I have read that thread before you linked it. I didn't directly comment on the story until I could read a translation, however after reading it a lot of comments being made on the game started to stand out. For a while you were saying Corrin's characterisation was inconsistent for refusing Garon's orders in chapter 2(Which you were calling chapter 1). Then following his orders afterwards in Conquest without anyone correcting it. Also the characters forgiving each other in the Conquest route as well. A lot of people including yourself were not aware of the number of times and the outcome of the battles against the siblings while discussing it.

Needing to to post evidence from the plot to someone who supposedly already knew it just seemed pretty wrong to me. Like I was either having a discussion with someone who didn't know the plot details but were acting as if they analysed it or someone who knew the plot details but was intentionally omitting it. Certainly didn't seem like what I'd see from someone who seriously cared about the game, analysed it and didn't like it. But I believed and just said what I would of someone who'd knowingly leave conflicting details out on purpose.

In terms of reviews I disagree. I think a good story in a videogame presents interesting and perhaps unique scenario designed in a way that plays to gaming's strengths in that it complements the gameplay, which means it can vary from game to game e.g. how having very few cutscenes and only a little dialogue is the great for something like a Mario platformer. As a result it shouldn't really take much more than a playthrough to form a decent opinion of a videogame story as it will be apparent as you're playing it, how many of them stand up as standalone stories separate from the game? Game stories are weak to varying degrees when divorced from the games, again no standalone fantasy novel would seriously include 20-28 battles and 30+ characters in the main group yet Fire Emblem has to for the games sake.

Edited February 19, 2016 by arvilino

[Captain Karnage]

I feel like this would be an appropriate time to share this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/3bx6a0/on_the_topic_of_censorship_in_fire_emblem_fates/

After reading it I think Tree house might have changed some of the more "questionable" aspects of the story

[Seanp12]

Video game stories really ought not be literary quality. Stories in video games are meant to enhance and complement, not to be the main feature. For example, I enjoy Kid Icarus Uprising's story, but if it were in any medium other than a game, its pacing would be absolutely wacky, the roller-coaster plot would be insane, and the snarky character attitudes would seem like a fast-paced cartoon show without much real substance. But it's not. It's a video game story, which means the pacing flows perfectly with the gameplay, the roller-coaster plot fits well with the type of game Kid Icarus is, and the snarky character attitudes add a vital piece of flavor to a game that just wouldn't be as good without it. Majora's Mask is a good example too, since its main story and sideplots are far too disparate to flow smoothly together into a novel or a movie, but as a game, it works, because a video game is a medium of experience rather than plot.

Fire Emblem doesn't match up with that concept nearly as well, since it was born in the era that video game storytelling was just getting started, but it still applies. People enjoy Fire Emblem stories, not for their plots, but for their characters and experience. So even if the story doesn't match up with what makes sense for a book or movie, if it enhances the experience of the game, it has served its purpose, and is therefore a good video game story.

Now, I'll have to wait another day before I can say whether I believe Fates has one of those or not, but I hope you get my point.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I didn't play on Lunatic no, but I believe someone confirmed it for me.

Also, I hope you like waiting for slow-moving platforms.

Oh no, not slow-moving platforms! Wrrryy

[Dark Sage]

I seriously don't have any issue with people simply criticising the game, I have read that thread before you linked it. I didn't directly comment on the story until I could read a translation, however after reading it a lot of comments being made on the game started to stand out. For a while you were saying Corrin's characterisation was inconsistent for refusing Garon's orders in chapter 2(Which you were calling chapter 1). Then following his orders afterwards in Conquest without anyone correcting it. Also the characters forgiving each other in the Conquest route as well. A lot of people including yourself were not aware of the number of times and the outcome of the battles against the siblings while discussing it.

Needing to to post evidence from the plot to someone who supposedly already knew it just seemed pretty wrong to me. Like I was either having a discussion with someone who didn't know the plot details but were acting as if they analysed it or someone who knew the plot details but was intentionally omitting it. Certainly didn't seem like what I'd see from someone who seriously cared about the game, analysed it and didn't like it. But I believed and just said what I would of someone who'd knowingly leave conflicting details out on purpose.

I also admitted I was wrong about Chapter 2 and Corrin's behavior in relation to it and that I was mistaken about the number of battles Corrin let the royals go and have since dropped those complaints. People not liking how the characters forgive each other is a legitimate grievance though. Anyway, people are human and can makes mistakes; I would not have assumed that if you got details wrong that you were doing so out of some ulterior motive. I've seen heated debates on stories here before, most famously General Banzai's analyses; people got certain details wrong too and debates could turn hostile, but people assumed that if someone got something wrong, than it was either due to misinterpretation, forgetfulness, or some human error and not out of malice or revenge or whatever ridiculous shit you try to pull. People here have also admitted that localization changes might clear some things up, and there could have been things lost in translation. Like, I would have been happy to give you the benefit of the doubt if you got something wrong, so to you to immediately assume the worst about our characters is infuriating.

Plus everytime someone says anything negative about Awakening or Fates, I can always count any posts you make will defend it tooth and nail, sometimes strawmanning or misrepresenting people, so I call bullshit on you being able to handle criticism of your favorite games.

In terms of reviews I disagree. I think a good story in a videogame presents interesting and perhaps unique scenario designed in a way that plays to gaming's strengths in that it complements the gameplay, which means it can vary from game to game e.g. how having very few cutscenes and only a little dialogue is the great for something like a Mario platformer. As a result it shouldn't really take much more than a playthrough to form a decent opinion of a videogame story as it will be apparent as you're playing it, how many of them stand up as standalone stories separate from the game? Game stories are weak to varying degrees when divorced from the games, again no standalone fantasy novel would seriously include 20-28 battles and 30+ characters in the main group yet Fire Emblem has to for the games sake.

Yeah, games that use the interactivity of the medium well to tell a great story are good, which is why games such as Silent Hill 2 and Shadow of the Colossus are very good storywise.

Your example of Mario not needing multiple playthroughs to judge its story due to the very little amount of dialogue and cutscenes and applying that to games in general is a false equivalency. Like no shit it wouldn't take multiple playthroughs to form a good opinion on Mario since there's very little to digest, but for games that are much more ambitious and use much more dialogue and cutscenes, then you may indeed need to take some time to fully judge it since there's more to digest. Another reason why Silent Hill 2 and Shadow of the Colossus are so good storywise is because they not only hold up under another playthrough with closer analysis but they improve because things make much more sense in context, and you uncover details and layers you may have missed before. Most games aren't that good about taking advantage about fully mixing interactivity with the narrative and take a more cinematic or literature like approach to convey a story. In such cases, yeah they should strive to emulate the quality of the great novels. I realize there is only so much they can do given the limited amount of maps they have to work with (though paralogues and the world map would've been good tools to expand on story elements more), but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort. Fire Emblem games aren't the best at using the more novel-like approach to storytelling, but Fates is worse off than most of the other games in the series in that regard.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Dark Sage

[nordopolica]

Oh no, not slow-moving platforms! Wrrryy

It's actually a really tedious mission. Many of the gimmicks in Revelation are pretty cool in concept but unfortunately get tired very quickly.

[Soonaynay]

I understand the need for an "accurate" review, but it honestly saddens me how few people on this thread think Fates deserves its amazing ratings. Maybe the story has flaws, but there's always the chance that the localization improved on the dialogue in a way that enhances the story overall. Even if the story isn't great, that doesn't mean Fates doesn't deserve a high rating. There are tons of high-rated games out there each with discernible issues, but the other elements are so good they outshine everything else, and they give that game its good rating. No game is ever perfect.

[Loki Laufeyson]

It's actually a really tedious mission. Many of the gimmicks in Revelation are pretty cool in concept but unfortunately get tired very quickly.

:( that sucks. Because ive been jonesin' for some weird maps for ages now. Well, soon i shall see for myself.

I understand the need for an "accurate" review, but it honestly saddens me how few people on this thread think Fates deserves its amazing ratings. Maybe the story has flaws, but there's always the chance that the localization improved on the dialogue in a way that enhances the story overall. Even if the story isn't great, that doesn't mean Fates doesn't deserve a high rating. There are tons of high-rated games out there each with discernible issues, but the other elements are so good they outshine everything else, and they give that game its good rating. No game is ever perfect.

I do agree. Like, i do think its similar to Awakening where the localized writing just really adds to things. Or just dresses it up to the point where people arent going to notice gaping plotholes and some dodgy plot devices. Or they focus more on character interaction than plot progression.

[Dark Sage]

That's really only Thane who thinks the game should be marked down heavily for the plot. I don't agree with that at all and I don't think most people do either.

Then again, I also think game and movie reviews are a joke and using them to support or trash a game is pretty stupid so what do I know.

[Jedi]

That's really only Thane who thinks the game should be marked down heavily for the plot. I don't agree with that at all and I don't think most people do either.

Then again, I also think game and movie reviews are a joke and using them to support or trash a game is pretty stupid so what do I know.

I agree with you entirely on reviews, I only trust a few reviewers and none of them are like official, usually I like making my own opinions on games and stuff. People trying to sway me one way or another without context is one of my own personal pet peeves, like recommendations are nice. I just hate when people force opinions on me especially because of reviews.

I've been part of the Sonic and Final Fantasy fandoms for ages, I cannot stand actually interacting with most people in them because they nitpick the silliest things, like I'll fully admit both franchises have had their fair share of stumbles but when people are decrying even the parts they get right just because they aren't like other things in their series, it greatly frustrates me.

Back to Fire Emblem however, the plots overall in the series aren't super great when seen with a critical eye (But they are far from the worst) however I've always felt the character interactions and how the main characters react to situations make up for it, along with of course the gameplay.

Then again I'm one of those weird people who can ignore everything meh/bad about a game as long as it plays well, and my standards are admittedly not as high as some others who play games. Along with having strange personal preferences (such as I can play the old SMT games and not bitch too much about the interface lol).

Edit: sorry if this is hard to read, I typed it out on mobile.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Jedi

[Roflolxp54]

Here's something simple:

Video games are, well, games, first and foremost. It should be no surprise that gameplay tends to be at the forefront in development and in reviews. If a video game's story is bad, you can simply ignore it (ie. press the START button to skip story cutscenes) while playing.

If you absolutely MUST have to have a good story, and if a bad story absolutely ruins a video game to you, go visit your local library or something.

[nordopolica]

Here's something simple:

Video games are, well, games, first and foremost. It should be no surprise that gameplay tends to be at the forefront in development and in reviews. If a video game's story is bad, you can simply ignore it (ie. press the START button to skip story cutscenes) while playing.

If you absolutely MUST have to have a good story, and if a bad story absolutely ruins a video game to you, go visit your local library or something.

I don't really agree with this.

I agree that games don't necessarily have to have good stories if not stories at all, but your last line really rubs me the wrong way for some reason. If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book, but they're just words on a page. Games have the unique edge of being terrific storytelling mediums and being interactive, involving the responder in a way only they can do. The example that frequently comes up for this is the Metal Gear series. Sure there will be people who will tell you that the stealth gameplay is top of the line - the best of the best - but a lot more will tell you the controls suck and it gets tedious pretty fast, barring 5 and maybe Peacewalker (although it has problems of its own). So why have I played every installment? Because the story is intriguing to me. I love the world and the characters and the ridiculous plotlines. For me, the gameplay sections of MGS1-4 were mere padding between the story cutscenes, and while this can't be said for all games, the balance of story and gameplay in many others is what makes them stand out.

But back on the topic of Fates reviews, I also don't agree that it deserves a bad score. I actually really enjoyed it, although I found Birthright to be a bit boring gameplay-wise after playing through both others. I'm just one of the people who is just overwhelmingly salty about the Gamespot Conquest review, because if reviews don't take story into account, then Conquest deserved a markedly better score than Birthright and Revelation. It's pretty much classic FE at its best.

Edited February 19, 2016 by nordopolica

[Seanp12]

A good story can make up for a lot of bad gameplay. But the gameplay still has to be decent. On the other hand, a story isn't even really necessary, if the gameplay is good. Story is just a very scrumptious seasoning on whatever dish you're eating. But sometimes it's the difference between a good game and a great game.

That said, if you want story first and foremost, the library really is the best place to look. Video game stories are limited by the need for near-constant action and other gameplay elements (e.g.

satisfying psycho shippers who want to ship siblings by making them fake siblings

).

Edited February 19, 2016 by Seanp12

[Roflolxp54]

I don't really agree with this.

-explanation-

You don't have to agree with me. It's just my view regarding gameplay and story in video games. Fire Emblem games aren't the only video games to have trouble with storytelling -- take a look at other games like the main series Pokemon games.

As for Fates, I've already preordered the Special edition bundle in full. Definitely planning on enjoying it should I have enough time to play through it.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Roflolxp54

[Great Geargia Gateway]

Here's something simple:

Video games are, well, games, first and foremost. It should be no surprise that gameplay tends to be at the forefront in development and in reviews. If a video game's story is bad, you can simply ignore it (ie. press the START button to skip story cutscenes) while playing.

If you absolutely MUST have to have a good story, and if a bad story absolutely ruins a video game to you, go visit your local library or something.

That doesn't change that it's still there over a good fleshed out story. I have the right to judge a story if it's bad, I'll judge it and the writers will get told off for it, as they should. That's apart of being a critique.

I think it's rather stupid to just ignore a bad story because it's optional, and the writers won't get penalized and come back to do a bad job again. If you did a bad job, you should be told, so the writers can develop and make better stories in the future. We shouldn't let this slip.

[Seanp12]

If a story deserves criticism, sure, let it have it. Just don't let your faults with a supplementary part of the game diminish its strengths as a whole.

[NekoKnight]

A game should be judged for what it tried to accomplish and what it actually achieved. They invested heavily into the writing so you can't tell me that's not an important part of the product. If you went to a fancy restaurant for a four course meal and the wine tasted like piss, would it really be fair to dismiss criticism with "Well, you don't really need wine to enjoy a meal. Just ignore the wine." ?

[Baldrick]

Just don't let your faults with a supplementary part of the game diminish its strengths as a whole.

That's what people don't seem to get. For some, the plot is not a supplementary part of FE, it's all interconnected. They are moving the units around the grid not just to try and score as many points as possible, but because they're sympathetic to the lord's aims, or at least want to find out what happens next. If the plot can't do that much...

Going back on the topic, the plot was hyped by the developers (they got some famous writer to write it) and the reviews are generally positive when they mention the plot. Unlike Awakening, the plot is meant to be one of the selling points of the game, which is why comments like "you can ignore the plot, it's optional" are even more egregious.

[Pretty_Handsome]

Strange that Conquest scored high when everything about it is bad but the difficulty when compared to Hoshido.

Way I see it, Conquest is so much wasted potential.