Should Fire Emblem Challenge Its Conventions More?

[Original Alear]

On 3/13/2017 at 6:22 PM, Gustavos said:

There are a million directions to go if we want to try new plot conventions, but one I'd like to see is Fire Emblem seriously acknowledging its Death Toll. These games ask us to tactically slaughter scores of enemies, preferably without the loss of our own units. Because their lives are precious, they have portraits, they have names, they can level up, we cannot help but emphasize. Prince Marth, the liberator of Archanea who murdered all that stood in his way. When Conquest tried to tell us at the end of the map that there were no fatalities on the enemy's side, it makes us laugh. We didn't hold back or approach the map any differently, but what if that were an actual side objective? 

Using weapon types and battle commands intended to subdue, disarm, or capture enemy combatants instead of taking their lives. I dare not suggest a blue to red karma scale like it's 2008, but it's a good way for the player to affect the story when they take the role of a Lord who's in a position of power and influence. And more importantly from my perspective, some new gameplay elements. Non lethal solutions to combat should be much harder and take a great level of decision making than killing outright. Your archer can make a difficult leg shot to cut an enemy's movement range, letting a new hand-to-hand unit come in for the KO. Lure a pack of enemies into a room with a gas trap that knocks them out. Have your healers wield sleep staves and Mages use lightning tomes that behave as tasers would. But to keep the "kill them all" path from getting too easy, increase the amount of enemies in later chapters to reflect the main character creating more and more enemies for himself. Meanwhile, different characters join your cause. On the tyrant path, you earn the respect of dudes like Walhart while you find a Donnel type character angry that you killed his Pa. Who was his Pa? Dunno, enemies don't have unique portraits and names, after all.

This is probably my favorite idea in the thread.

I remember the supply camp mission in FE10 - you are told to avoid killing senators, but it's ok to kill normal troops and burn the supplies. Incidentally, evil/selfishness/shortsightedness is often attributed to the senators, while the Begnion rank and file seem to be considered relatively decent in the aggregate. But you're still tasked with sparing the senators, since it'll enhance the urgency of the attack if they call for help. So FE already at least once used sparing mechanics in a morally questionable way.

[bethany81707]

I was actually working on a story concept for a Fire Emblem setting, and I find it kind of funny that I'm currently nursing the idea of the final boss being a Dragon in the literary sense rather than the literal.

As for the question, I'm not entirely sure how long a Fire Emblem game can hold an open world. Multiple potential objectives, maybe (maybe actually use that world map to suggest alternate routes), but free exploration with no firm direction? No.

 

[Extrasolar]

Hmm, I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand, I appreciate and love how Fire Emblem is one of the most self-referential series in existence, with stuff like the reoccurring and recognizable archetypes, characters being based on characters from earlier games, dragons and dragon lore, many of the same weapons/tomes, different Fire Emblems and such, giving each game - despite being in mostly unconnected worlds - a 'familiar' feel, while at the same time avoiding the "same game with a fresh coat of paint"  phenomena that other series (Pokemon in particular, which is why I've lost interest in the series since Black and White changed up the usual Pokemon plot) has felt like for me.

I think that Fire Emblem has done a great job, regardless of the similar conventions used in their storytelling, of fleshing out each game and giving it is own unique identity (for the most part; I think Fates tried a little too hard to be Awakening), through design and tone as well as plot elements. To me, these conventions are what set FE games apart from other games, as well as the unique characters, support conversations, and whatnot.

I do agree insomuch as POR/RD feeling the most fresh in regards to the plot, with the focus on a non-noble lord, the dragons being 'ordinary' people, and the large focus on the Greil Mercenaries. Not to mention for the first part of RD, you're a resistance group fighting a more powerful empire for the liberation of your home country, and your lords are far from idealistic and naive. (Seems like we're getting something similar in Echoes, but I don't know much about anything from Gaiden other than the larger overall plot)

What I don't want to see is an open-world game. Fire Emblem, to me, has always about the satisfaction of slowly but surely battling your way across the continent in order to reach that climactic battle with the main villain at the 'evil' country capitol city or villain lair/castle. Branching paths and different options on a world map to get there, however, would be an interesting thing to do. (i.e., You could go through the murky swamp and avoid the enemy's main force on the way to the capitol, but you're going to have to battle swamp monsters or something. Which do you choose?)

I had the idea from the "Main Character's Personality" thread in the FE Switch forum. I think this would turn a lot of the common conventions on their head (wise, noble, and kind lord, focus on nobility and international politics, etc.), while still subscribing to the lessons that FE strives to teach (the power of bonds, compassion is good, etc.)
 

On 3/7/2017 at 3:25 PM, Extrasolar said:

I'd like to see someone from the underbelly of society rather than its top; a protagonist from a thieves' guild, or a some similar underground institution, would be interesting. Maybe they'd be the people that keeps the good, shining kingdom running behind the scenes, being forced to do the things that no one else wants to do, the like. They'd be a very cynical, very cold person, who kept a few close friends they could rely on and that's it. He or she would be forced to grow a conscience after getting wrapped up with the princess or prince of the kingdom, who is very much a naive, cheerful sort. They wouldn't get along at all at first, but come to appreciate one another slowly.

That's actually a pretty interesting setup, now that I think about it, and one that hasn't really been done in FE. They'd basically have to help the princess/prince either reclaim their kingdom from the villain, defeat an ancient evil, something selfless, and learn the meaning of bonds and such.

 

[Dragrath]

Someone brought forth that they can't see a FE game without the supernatural antagonist but what about supernatural powers being used for a particular more mundane force? 

One idea I pondered before involves a faction who have found a way to get "unlimited" usage from a divine staff or revival through drawing on extra-dimensional power(i.e. like the Dragon gates of recent games). Their goal actually would put them as the ones aiding the common man from powerful lords that don't see commoners as humans akin to serfdom in the feudal age. The supernatural foe at play would then be an opportunist taking advantage of the opening created by drawing outside power. Some rouge Fomortiis like being that slips through and is hostile to everyone more or less a law of unintended consequences. 

[Topaz Light]

Personally, I wouldn't be adverse to it, so long as it wasn't to such an extent that it might as well be a different IP entirely that just happens to be called Fire Emblem. I'd love to see more emphasis given to alternative victory conditions and various side objectives, and for a while now I've felt that more or less restricting themselves to just the one basic plotline about some plucky young royal/noble setting out to oppose an evil emperor who got it in his head to conquer the whole continent essentially just because he's evil is an egregious underutilization of Fire Emblem's potential for delivering interesting plots with its gameplay style. It'd be conducive to just about any plot than entails the protagonist having command of a fighting platoon and the battles being largely bigger-scale fights that span about your average Fire Emblem map's worth of space, and yet they've mostly just used the one premise, albeit with frequent variations here and there, but the same basic conflict.