A Sardonic Look at Fire Emblem Fates

[Hoshidoooont]

Sorry man, can't find the quote; when I read the Japanese transcription of the DLC, Anankos said "if he/she chooses wrong..." and referred to Birthright and Conquest.

However, even in the English version he does say that the only way to save the world is to kill, well, himself, meaning that regardless of the supposed happy endings of Birthright and Conquest, the world is fucked.

In Conquest the impression I got is that the world is saved since Anankos's primary agents are killed off at the end, and presumably he is weakened as well. Same thing for Birthright.

In Revelations you cut off the head of the snake, also saving the world, but in all three timelines/routes you end up saving the world of Fates.

That sounds good to me. I have so many issues with how all three routes are handled. The gameplay and music are good, but the story is a mess. I would like to see a better written story in the next game because IntSys has shown in other FEs that they can do better and a good story can make a game more enjoyable. Good gameplay and music is not always enough. I don't know if minimizing the next FE's story like Pokemon is a good idea. Pokemon has been moving up storywise since Gen III (Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald). Pokemon X & Y's story was minimized unlike Black & White's and Black 2/White 2's, but that didn't work out too well and a lot of people in the Pokemon community criticize it. FE's story doesn't need to be minimized it needs better writers. It really does.

Was X and Y's storyline really that bad? I played Black and Black 2 back to back when the latter came out and I thought it was Gamefreak's best attempt at a storyline in Pokemon since the Orre games.

...Then I got ORAS and the entire game felt like a disappointment, although that's less to do with the story, and far more to do with the lack of an Emerald-style Battle Frontier, expanded Safari Zone, new postgame areas to explore, etc.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Hoshidoooont

[B.Leu]

I'm just going to say this: I don't like homosexual relationship in video games, because they are generally really iffy, looking at Bioware there, but we are talking about Fire Emblem.
I'm all for FemKamui/Soleil and FemKamui/Rhajat, but if it's to have iffy writing in game with iffy character, with iffy written personality, with iffy everything, I'd rather not have that.

I've read FemKamui/Rhajat fanfictions that was better than more than half of the supports of the game. I'm not that I'm making fun of fanfic or anything, you see what I mean.

Was X and Y's storyline really that bad? I played Black and Black 2 back to back when the latter came out and I thought it was Gamefreak's best attempt at a storyline in Pokemon since the Orre games.

...Then I got ORAS and the entire game felt like a disappointment, although that's less to do with the story, and far more to do with the lack of an Emerald-style Battle Frontier, expanded Safari Zone, new postgame areas to explore, etc.

Eh, tough choice, I'm sorta with Thane here, Black and White was fascinating and had the perfect balance of 'Going with your friends on a pokemon journey', story (Hail N and Ghestis.), and badges. Unlike X and Y who was veeeeeeeery deep into the 'friends' territory to the point where I was already bored of them after the first badge. Seriously, five freaking friends, only one of them being remotely interesting, and even he/she is boring.

Still haven't finished ORAS yet... because my save is lost. :p

Then again, saying which Pokemon I dislike the most is like saying which Zelda I dislike the most. It's like asking which cat I dislike the most, it does't mean much, I like them all anyways.

[Abvora]

Which still causes problems, because we're back to problems that rival Radiant Dawn's blood pact. We need more information. It's a great deal to assume the context of a conversation to force the plot to work. We have to guess the context of the conversation. Regardless, it STILL doesn't work, because that means that when they are actually physically in Valla, Azura should be able to give a better answer besides the avoidance of the questions that she does. The conversation is the most rigid way of avoiding the conversation I've ever seen. Revelations shouldn't have existed, and Conquest should have had the goal change after they arrived in Valla and basically been the rest of revelations from there. The story would have worked much better, and there would have been more conflict between the siblings between the two factions doing it this way.

No. I'm assuming the world doesn't exist in a void where things only happen the second the player starts playing. And why would it even matter at that point? Conquest Corrin would be WAY better off abandoning Nohr mid war than Revelations Corrin that literally starts out with no one but Azura, and the maid/butler. There's no reason. Especially when Corrin is deceiving Garon the ENTIRE time.

Actually judging her on these ones is more a judge of her than her supports or anything else. 2 out of 3 paths, she really doesn't do anything about it. Her record is already looking pretty bleak, but then they actually physically arrive on the land that she can tell Corrin what's happening, and ... Doesn't. Considering what's at stake, this is really bad.

Which honestly doesn't give him much of a pass either. But even then, Xander's still makes far more sense as there's a huge difference between not wanting to kill your father and threatening the person that says that they want to basically take your father out, and refusing to reveal the information because... Reasons.

But because Revelation existed, the writers had to make Azura act completely out of character to accommodate for the third path, because if she spilled the beans now it wouldn't exist. Azura's decision isn't in-character for her, because as soon as she can she tells what she knows in Revelation; she would and should do the same here, but the writers don't let her.

Conquest Corrin would be better off abandoning Nohr, but doesn't because the writers don't want you to, because they want to sell you Revelation. This is the same reason each story, despite being advertised as whole, still leaves questions hanging ("who possessed Garon/Takumi"? in Conquest, "why was Garon slime?" in Conquest, etc).

On one of those paths, she doesn't do anything because they never set foot in Valla, and the plot moves them along too fast for a detour. "Fort is attacked"->"brothers are missing"->"rescue brothers"->"invade Nohr and beeline to capitol"->"fight royals + Garon"->"end". On Conquest, she suffers from the same thing characters in that route consistently suffer from--being handed Idiot Balls and railroaded into making out-of-character decisions so the plot can happen.

Xander is all about family, but he's fine with threatening one of his siblings for..reasons. That is just as bad as keeping silent because the writers want you to.

When characters make stupid decisions that are in-character for them, they can be held responsible for their actions. When previously smart, moral characters are railroaded into making stupid, immoral decisions to move the plot along? That's the writers' fault for not coming up with a better way to do it, not theirs.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Abvora

[Augestein]

Of course. I'm not disagreeing with you on it being the writer's fault, and there lies the problem with Fates: it's not well written which causes characters to have to act inhuman for the plot to work. Which is a shame, I like the idea of the two factions going head to head. The idea is good. But if we argue that way, then we should only judge the characters based on what they look like really. And really Xander doing what he does is bad, but far more forgivable of a sin than Azura keeping quiet for no reason. There's at least something of an excuse of Xander. For Azura? It's actual corporate greed and no excuse in game for Azura outside of that. That's the issue.

But really, not all is bad for Fates though. I find the characters in this better than Awakening for instance. Oh, and Conquest is really fun, and it's nice to see such an upgrade from a sequel. For once, I think I can say pretty much everything is better gameplay wise from Awakening.

[HylianTiki]

I agree with this review and I cannot wait until Revelation and the Xenologues are up.

I agree with everything that was said in terms of what each story was lacking. I think that they left way too many loose ends tbat way they could make people buy all three paths.

While I think that Garon is to blame for the poor plot outcomes I'd say Corrin is not free of faults here. I understand the dangers in making them sway more toward one type of personality than another because they are the player, but more pereonality was needed. I mean what do we kmow about Corrin really?

I mean they're sheltered, naive, do gooder, good with a sword, lost his mother, can turn into a dragon, determined, somewhat of a suicidal maniac, abd then what? All of these things can be summed up as what I like to call "early stage protagonist" these are the characteristics EVERY hero has at the beginning of their quest. I'd like to think that they do change after evetything they experience, but their cjaracter development is not obvious.

I have a problem with that because this character is supposed to be you.

All this goes to say that there should have been more grey areas where you were allowed to choose and this define how Corrin was changing, it would have helped them a lot.

[secondworld]

To be honest I'm not even sure if I think Conquest's story is worse than Awakening's or not. At face value Conquest seems to be worse, but Awakening being connected to the previous games actually creates even more problems and holes than what's already in the script and in some ways a lack of respect for previous games can be taken from the game. I dunno.

Either way I'd still say that Gaiden is the top contender for worst story and worse plot twist but that game came out in '92 so I'm sure many people would be more forgiving than I, which is valid.

[Abvora]

But really, not all is bad for Fates though. I find the characters in this better than Awakening for instance. Oh, and Conquest is really fun, and it's nice to see such an upgrade from a sequel. For once, I think I can say pretty much everything is better gameplay wise from Awakening.

Agreed. I think Fates improved on everything Awakening did except the epilogues (those were a step backwards; would it have killed IntSys to write more than one line for each character?). The soundtrack is amazing, the characters are generally better written, and the gameplay is possibly the series has had yet.

[Sentinel07]

You know, after thinking about it for a while, Conquest's story somewhat makes me remember Alucard's words from Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.

"But you must always remember, that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

In a way, this almost sums up Corrin and the Nohrian siblings. All they really try to do is damage control throughout the story. In the grand scheme of things, they do nothing until the final 2 chapters.

[NekoKnight]

I've been playing through the NA!Revelations and this part confused me a little. Apparently you are able to directly talk about the curse provided you don't mention Valla or Anankos. Couldn't Azura have told Kamui or any of the royal siblings "I know some REALLY critical information concerning my origin and a world ending threat but I'm under a CURSE that will prevent me from giving specific details here, so we need to go somewhere else."?

In Conquest the impression I got is that the world is saved since Anankos's primary agents are killed off at the end, and presumably he is weakened as well. Same thing for Birthright.

In Revelations you cut off the head of the snake, also saving the world, but in all three timelines/routes you end up saving the world of Fates.

His "primary agents"? You mean just Garon and Possessed Takumi? Is there any indication that Anankos can't continue to send his forces into Nohr/Hoshido after the conclusion of Birthright and Conquest? If so, that kind of undermines Kamui's role as the "chosen one" when he didn't really need to be there at all.

[Jedi]

To be honest I'm not even sure if I think Conquest's story is worse than Awakening's or not. At face value Conquest seems to be worse, but Awakening being connected to the previous games actually creates even more problems and holes than what's already in the script and in some ways a lack of respect for previous games can be taken from the game. I dunno.

Yeah like Grima not being related to Medeus at all was a huge letdown, because at the end of FE3/FE12 he mentions the Earth Dragons coming back in the future yadayada, and Grima could have been a legit sendoff to that line.

But instead... Well you know what we got.

[Lann La Mirah]

Phenomenal write up on Conquest, Leif! I agree with pretty much everything you said about it. Haven't finished Birthright or Revelations yet, so I can't comment on those. But I'll come back and read when I finish those routes!

In other news, I wish there were like buttons on these posts. So many posts I agree with, lol.

[Book Bro]

Good write ups! I'm playing through Revelation right now, about halfway through, so I'm looking forward to your thoughts. So far, I'm feeling like it's the worst story of the three, which is a shame because as the "true path" I was hoping it would be the best one.

As far as Kamui, I actually liked them Birthright (I used Femui) better than in Conquest (where I used Mamui). At least in Birthright, her goals and actions made some sense. In both paths, Kamui is understandably pissed and confused about Garon's bomb-sword. But in Conquest he forgets about it right away because he wants to impress Dad for some reason. I was hoping Kamui would be more manipulative and learn how to work against Garon from the shadows with Leo and Camilla, but he doesn't really do anything to undermine Garon until the last chapter, even when presented with several opportunities. The main problem I had with Birthright was that the whole campaign feels like random battles with Nohr royal fights here and there. Conquest at least has clear story progression even if the later half is nonsensical.

The siblings should have had more screen time. I thought what happened to the Nohrians in Birthright was so interesting, but we only really saw Elise in the castle throughout the story. Why not show Camilla struggling with her depression, or Leo realizing the truth about Garon and trying to figure out what to do with that knowledge? Or Xander being an obedient lapdog to his obviously evil dad. And the Hoshidans, what did they do after Kamui left with Xander? Their city has just been devastated, their mother killed, but we don't see any of their struggles with all of this. Only Takumi reacts, and Ryoma in that one chapter.

And the villains, it's been said, but their only motivation is "we're jerks". I thought Iago would be deserving of his Shakespearian name(s), but sadly there's nothing to him. We don't even know why he hates Kamui so much. Garon, I feel could still have been a slime if only he had been less obviously evil and had a better motive for the war, and you didn't find out he was a slime until the end. All in all I think Hans is the best of the three (not saying much), at least he has a semi-interesting backstory and makes you hate him for reasons other than "he's lame". I still like them all better than Validar.

Like you Conquest is my favourite of the three, unless Revelation really impresses me in the second half, if only because Birthright was a bit boring and safe.

[BruceLee]

When characters make stupid decisions that are in-character for them, they can be held responsible for their actions. When previously smart, moral characters are railroaded into making stupid, immoral decisions to move the plot along? That's the writers' fault for not coming up with a better way to do it, not theirs.

That's just silly. When characters do stupid things it's gonna affect them negatively in my eyes, regardless of inconsistency with their supports or w/e. I will dislike both the writing and the character.

It's the writer's job to avoid making me dislike the character. In Conquest's case the writers sacrificed Azura, Xander and Corrin's characters to further their plot. In my eyes at least.

You know, after thinking about it for a while, Conquest's story somewhat makes me remember Alucard's words from Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.

"But you must always remember, that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

In a way, this almost sums up Corrin and the Nohrian siblings. All they really try to do is damage control throughout the story. In the grand scheme of things, they do nothing until the final 2 chapters.

True, and the game trying to tell us that they are so heroic and great makes it very annoying.

Edited April 5, 2016 by BruceLee

[Thane]

In Conquest the impression I got is that the world is saved since Anankos's primary agents are killed off at the end, and presumably he is weakened as well. Same thing for Birthright.

In Revelations you cut off the head of the snake, also saving the world, but in all three timelines/routes you end up saving the world of Fates.

Do you have any proof that killing Garon and Takumi somehow permanently stopped Anankos? A quote I've missed or anything? Because the way I see it, Anankos can just influence more people and send more of his redshirts to do his dirty work whenever he damn well pleases since he's still alive; why would he suddenly pose no threat because he lost a proxy? There's a reason as to why the sane part of Anankos in Hidden Truths didn't say "the only way to save the world is to kill me...or just kill some random lieutenant of mine, which should also do the trick".

Also, whle Garon was undoubtedly important, don't forget Sumeragi and his ability to blow up large portions of cities

I've been playing through the NA!Revelations and this part confused me a little. Apparently you are able to directly talk about the curse provided you don't mention Valla or Anankos. Couldn't Azura have told Kamui or any of the royal siblings "I know some REALLY critical information concerning my origin and a world ending threat but I'm under a CURSE that will prevent me from giving specific details here, so we need to go somewhere else."?

His "primary agents"? You mean just Garon and Possessed Takumi? Is there any indication that Anankos can't continue to send his forces into Nohr/Hoshido after the conclusion of Birthright and Conquest? If so, that kind of undermines Kamui's role as the "chosen one" when he didn't really need to be there at all.

I don't think the game expects you to think about the curse, since it makes no sense and is left mostly unexplained and vague. It's for that reason Azura doesn't mention Anankos at all while in Valla during Conquest, even though she already knows everything worth knowing about him, essentially.

[Dangerus]

We had more characters to choose from though. I was maybe hoping for a chance to have less love interests for Kamui.

[Augestein]

As far as Kamui, I actually liked them Birthright (I used Femui) better than in Conquest (where I used Mamui). At least in Birthright, her goals and actions made some sense. In both paths, Kamui is understandably pissed and confused about Garon's bomb-sword. But in Conquest he forgets about it right away because he wants to impress Dad for some reason. I was hoping Kamui would be more manipulative and learn how to work against Garon from the shadows with Leo and Camilla, but he doesn't really do anything to undermine Garon until the last chapter, even when presented with several opportunities. The main problem I had with Birthright was that the whole campaign feels like random battles with Nohr royal fights here and there. Conquest at least has clear story progression even if the later half is nonsensical.

But (s)he does actually question about the sword bomb in Conquest. As soon as (s)he gets back. So I can't really complain about that. What's wrong with Conquest is that you have Corrin doing the father's work just fine and the game has Garon yammering about how he needs to make Corrin suffer... For unclear reasons. Or why Garon is even so irritated when Corrin returns rather than actually surprised that Corrin has returned. And Azura is the main problem with Conquest for me by far. Corrin being ineffective at outwardly opposing Garon isn't the problem. The problem is that every one of his/her siblings are like "yep, Garon is trash, but we can't do anything about it... Yet." Which really doesn't make much sense, as the implications in the game seem to be that Nohr started the war, but all the royalty sans Garon are kind of against it, so it's questionable why anyone is even doing things humoring Garon.

[Book Bro]

The problem is that every one of his/her siblings are like "yep, Garon is trash, but we can't do anything about it... Yet." Which really doesn't make much sense, as the implications in the game seem to be that Nohr started the war, but all the royalty sans Garon are kind of against it, so it's questionable why anyone is even doing things humoring Garon.

This reminds me of that line Xander has near the beginning, after he overhears Garon plotting the best ways to make Kamui suffer. Xander says he "knows what must be done" or something like that. I was waiting for him to do something but nothing ever came of it. Unless it was supposed to reference him letting Elise and her retainers wander off into the woods.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Book Bro

[Tolvir]

That's just silly. When characters do stupid things it's gonna affect them negatively in my eyes, regardless of inconsistency with their supports or w/e. I will dislike both the writing and the character.

It's the writer's job to avoid making me dislike the character. In Conquest's case the writers sacrificed Azura, Xander and Corrin's characters to further their plot. In my eyes at least.

True, and the game trying to tell us that they are so heroic and great makes it very annoying.

I dont know, I always think that if a character does something out of character that makes no sense, the blame goes on the writer, not the character. It isnt the character's fault the writer doesnt know how to have consistency, so I always enjoy the base idea of the character, and leave out the stupid out of character things as that is the writers own doing. The blame needs to be fully put on the writer so that they maybe learn from their mistakes and do a better job, hating the character because of the writer's own faults really doesnt do anything.

For example I like the character Thrall from the Warcraft series. His current writers cant write for him to save their lives, and have him do plenty of things that would of been out of character from his original background/writing, but I put that blame on them, not the character. I just ignore the stupid writing and enjoy the character for what he was supposed to be. I guess maybe I have a weird way of looking at characters, but that is the way I see it.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Tolvir

[Time the Crestfallen]

I dont know, I always think that if a character does something out of character that makes no sense, the blame goes on the writer, not the character. It isnt the character's fault the writer doesnt know how to have consistency, so I always enjoy the base idea of the character, and leave out the stupid out of character things as that is the writers own doing. The blame needs to be fully put on the writer so that they maybe learn from their mistakes and do a better job, hating the character because of the writer's own faults really doesnt do anything.

For example I like the character Thrall from the Warcraft series. His current writers cant write for him to save their lives, and have him do plenty of things that would of been out of character from his original background/writing, but I put that blame on them, not the character. I just ignore the stupid writing and enjoy the character for what he was supposed to be. I guess maybe I have a weird way of looking at characters, but that is the way I see it.

That's a funny way of spelling Green Jesus...

[NekoKnight]

I don't think the game expects you to think about the curse, since it makes no sense and is left mostly unexplained and vague. It's for that reason Azura doesn't mention Anankos at all while in Valla during Conquest, even though she already knows everything worth knowing about him, essentially.

The curse is a lot less limiting than I previously thought. In Conquest endgame, Leon questions why Azura couldn't tell anyone what she knows earlier and she responds with the incredibly vague "There are reasons I can't tell you" which would imply she can't talk about the curse. But in Revelations she is able to tell them about the curse and indirectly reference Anankos and Valla. As poor as the Conquest writing is, the existence of Revelation (and the efforts to hide it in Conquest and Birthright) is probably the greatest sin.

This reminds me of that line Xander has near the beginning, after he overhears Garon plotting the best ways to make Kamui suffer. Xander says he "knows what must be done" or something like that. I was waiting for him to do something but nothing ever came of it. Unless it was supposed to reference him letting Elise and her retainers wander off into the woods.

That's what he was referencing. Elise even mentions that it was thanks to him that she could come. We'd have a very different game if Xander had stronger morals.

I dont know, I always think that if a character does something out of character that makes no sense, the blame goes on the writer, not the character. It isnt the character's fault the writer doesnt know how to have consistency, so I always enjoy the base idea of the character, and leave out the stupid out of character things as that is the writers own doing. The blame needs to be fully put on the writer so that they maybe learn from their mistakes and do a better job, hating the character because of the writer's own faults really doesnt do anything.

For example I like the character Thrall from the Warcraft series. His current writers cant write for him to save their lives, and have him do plenty of things that would of been out of character from his original background/writing, but I put that blame on them, not the character. I just ignore the stupid writing and enjoy the character for what he was supposed to be. I guess maybe I have a weird way of looking at characters, but that is the way I see it.

It's not always easy to separate the character from the writing though. When a character is mostly consistent (and likable) it's easy to write off random stupidity as incompetent writing but what about when a character is largely inconsistent (Xander loving his family and peace but supporting his warmongering dad and threatening to kill Corrin) or drastically affects the story in a negative way (Azura's ooc inaction in Conquest and Birthright that allowed those routes to exist)? I can handwave Kaze joining you in Nohr as being "The writers wanted to give you a loyal ninja retainer but didn't think about the story implications" but I absolutely loathe the former two for their story involvement (support convos paint a different picture).

TL;DR Characters are works of fiction so separating one part of fiction from the parts you dislike can be hard.

Edited April 6, 2016 by NekoKnight

[Time the Crestfallen]

It's not always easy to separate the character from the writing though. When a character is mostly consistent (and likable) it's easy to write off random stupidity as incompetent writing but what about when a character is largely inconsistent (Xander loving his family and peace but supporting his warmongering dad and threatening to kill Corrin) or drastically affects the story in a negative way (Azura's ooc inaction in Conquest and Birthright that allowed those routes to exist)? I can handwave Kaze joining you in Nohr as being "The writers wanted to give you a loyal ninja retainer but didn't think about the story implications" but I absolutely loathe the former two for their story involvement (support convos paint a different picture).

TL;DR Characters are works of fiction so separating one part of fiction from the parts you dislike can be hard.

I'm an unbiased man (Shut up, I am!), but I find Azura's inaction a lot easier to forgive then say, Xander's, because her inaction isn't tied as much as to the story as it is to the way the game is sold. If Azura actually actively tried to get people to know about Valla, she could do it. It wouldn't be as easy as some people have made it out to be, but she could do it.

But she can't, because Birthright and Conquest wouldn't exist if she did. The fact that the ending scene for both routes includes her basically telling the player to buy Revelation for the full story, and then when you're playing Revelation she dumps all the exposition you need on the first route exclusive chapter and that you can be in Valla during Conquest and she won't even mention that their's a third faction that's behind pretty much everything to do with the plot makes it worse.

Tl;DR Xander is poorly written to serve the plot and keep the player on the railroad the devs have laid out, Azura is poorly written to justify the route split and being able to sell the golden ending (and an entire third of the game at that) as a $19.99 DLC.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Phillius

[Tolvir]

That's a funny way of spelling Green Jesus...

I mean Warcraft III Thrall, not Metzen's Self Insert and Waifu from WoW :p.

The curse is a lot less limiting than I previously thought. In Conquest endgame, Leon questions why Azura couldn't tell anyone what she knows earlier and she responds with the incredibly vague "There are reasons I can't tell you" which would imply she can't talk about the curse. But in Revelations she is able to tell them about the curse and indirectly reference Anankos and Valla. As poor as the Conquest writing is, the existence of Revelation (and the efforts to hide it in Conquest and Birthright) is probably the greatest sin.

That's what he was referencing. Elise even mentions that it was thanks to him that she could come. We'd have a very different game if Xander had stronger morals.

It's not always easy to separate the character from the writing though. When a character is mostly consistent (and likable) it's easy to write off random stupidity as incompetent writing but what about when a character is largely inconsistent (Xander loving his family and peace but supporting his warmongering dad and threatening to kill Corrin) or drastically affects the story in a negative way (Azura's ooc inaction in Conquest and Birthright that allowed those routes to exist)? I can handwave Kaze joining you in Nohr as being "The writers wanted to give you a loyal ninja retainer but didn't think about the story implications" but I absolutely loathe the former two for their story involvement (support convos paint a different picture).

TL;DR Characters are works of fiction so separating one part of fiction from the parts you dislike can be hard.

I see what you mean, it is hard to separate that when it is such a large part of the story. I personally like Xander for what he was supposed to be, but that forces me to have to leave a large chunk of the story behind for me to do that. It was out of character for what he was originally supposed to be, but at the same time it shows that side of him so much its hard to tell if that was the way he was always meant to be written, or if it was the writer going back on what they did before. Doesnt help that IS practically had two different sets of writers doing supports and the main story, so it caused a huge problem in the characters. Xander in his supports seems like an honorable respectable guy, but in the story he is really a self righteous hypocrite.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Tolvir

[Thane]

I mean Warcraft III Thrall, not Metzen's Self Insert and Waifu from WoW :p.

I may not be in touch with WoW anymore, but last I heard, all of Knaak's novels were considered shit, and when another author killed off his original character, people were overjoyed.

No more raptor armies.

The curse is a lot less limiting than I previously thought. In Conquest endgame, Leon questions why Azura couldn't tell anyone what she knows earlier and she responds with the incredibly vague "There are reasons I can't tell you" which would imply she can't talk about the curse. But in Revelations she is able to tell them about the curse and indirectly reference Anankos and Valla. As poor as the Conquest writing is, the existence of Revelation (and the efforts to hide it in Conquest and Birthright) is probably the greatest sin.

Yeah, it's strange that she doesn't even hint at her knowing something and letting everyone know something is wrong, but again, we couldn't have had three routes that way.

And yes, I agree with that last bit as well.

[NekoKnight]

I'm an unbiased man (Shut up, I am!), but I find Azura's inaction a lot easier to forgive then say, Xander's, because her inaction isn't tied as much as to the story as it is to the way the game is sold. If Azura actually actively tried to get people to know about Valla, she could do it. It wouldn't be as easy as some people have made it out to be, but she could do it.

But she can't, because Birthright and Conquest wouldn't exist if she did. The fact that the ending scene for both routes includes her basically telling the player to buy Revelation for the full story, and then when you're playing Revelation she dumps all the exposition you need on the first route exclusive chapter and that you can be in Valla during Conquest and she won't even mention that their's a third faction that's behind pretty much everything to do with the plot makes it worse.

Tl;DR Xander is poorly written to serve the plot and keep the player on the railroad the devs have laid out, Azura is poorly written to justify the route split and being able to sell the golden ending (and an entire third of the game at that) as a $19.99 DLC.

Aren't Azura and Marx the same if you view them like that? Marx is mostly an obstinate boob to add more drama to the game just like Azura is forced to be tight-lipped to allow Revelation to exist. But when you take that all away, what is left? That's two thirds of the story effectively ruined by the writers trying to shoehorn a third route in there. The only reason to like either of those characters (in my opinion) is via their supports and ignore everything else.

I see what you mean, it is hard to separate that when it is such a large part of the story. I personally like Xander for what he was supposed to be, but that forces me to have to leave a large chunk of the story behind for me to do that. It was out of character for what he was originally supposed to be, but at the same time it shows that side of him so much its hard to tell if that was the way he was always meant to be written, or if it was the writer going back on what they did before. Doesnt help that IS practically had two different sets of writers doing supports and the main story, so it caused a huge problem in the characters. Xander in his supports seems like an honorable respectable guy, but in the story he is really a self righteous hypocrite.

That's the heart of the issue, isn't it? We say "what the character was intended to be" but isn't that just our selective interpretation of what we consider canon characterization? You can't objectively say half of a character's actions are in character and the other half isn't.

[Augestein]

I'm an unbiased man (Shut up, I am!), but I find Azura's inaction a lot easier to forgive then say, Xander's, because her inaction isn't tied as much as to the story as it is to the way the game is sold. If Azura actually actively tried to get people to know about Valla, she could do it. It wouldn't be as easy as some people have made it out to be, but she could do it.

But she can't, because Birthright and Conquest wouldn't exist if she did. The fact that the ending scene for both routes includes her basically telling the player to buy Revelation for the full story, and then when you're playing Revelation she dumps all the exposition you need on the first route exclusive chapter and that you can be in Valla during Conquest and she won't even mention that their's a third faction that's behind pretty much everything to do with the plot makes it worse.

Tl;DR Xander is poorly written to serve the plot and keep the player on the railroad the devs have laid out, Azura is poorly written to justify the route split and being able to sell the golden ending (and an entire third of the game at that) as a $19.99 DLC.

Which is sad, because all you had to do is let Azura die in both Conquest and Birthright. Not only would have made people want to save Azura in the 3rd route , but it'd actually preserve her character integrity. Xander is a bit harder to excuse, but again, you can be of the mind that he was torn between duty for his kingdom and embellishing to his personal desires. Heck, you have some supports like Elise x Arthur even addressing this fact.