What makes a FE story "good" or "bad"?

[Augestein]

5 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

...??? But it's not simple? There's so much going on in the story. Racism issues, corrupt nobles, power struggles, etc. It's anything BUT simple.

Well yeah, Hector is buffer than PoR Ike, but not RD Ike, I'm pretty sure.

Of which never gets off the ground of going anywhere. 
Racism is very superficial. It doesn't really deal with several issues outside of "racism is bad." The closest thing we get for that is Jill and maybe Naesala (which is ruined by RD BTW). But considering she's not the main character, it's barely a focus of the story. But rather, a subplot. a good one, but a subplot nonetheless. It fits in with the story, but it's not really complicated, because it's never something Ike himself needs to focus on or even understand for that matter. 

Corrupt nobles? That's still simple. It's just a standard obstacle in the heroes' path. It doesn't cause Ike to reflect on anything except "man, I really hate nobles! See? Look, they suck." 

FE6 Hector however...? He's undeniably bigger than RD Ike. 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Augestein

[Anacybele]

4 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I feel like you skimmed my post. If you didn't, then sorry for assuming, but it really seems like you missed the general points I was going for.

The point about his strength growth was literally a fraction of a sentence. My focus in that post was on Hector's Con, which does actually correlate to the size of a character. Hector beats out Bartre(BIG musclehead) in Con. Hector only loses to Oswin and walking steak Hawkeye. So if you want to hazard a guess as to how big/muscular Hector is, he's bigger than Bartre, smaller than Hawkeye. About the same as Dorcas.

Again, Ike's appetite is a thing that comes up when the army talks about food, and only then. It's support flavoring, and while Ike really likes food, obviously, it's not something I think Ike even considers. He just eats a lot, and then doesn't think about food until it's brought up. It's not something that comes up in the main plot ever. Ike doesn't chew out Sanaki and then immediately go "Ya got any meat?" He doesn't beat the Black Knight and then go "Yeah! Time to celebrate with a whole cow!" That IS, however, something Ilyana could do, where again, eating actually is a cornerstone of her personality.

For Ike, it's support/base convo flavoring. Yeah, when Ike isn't present and his army is goofing off, it's something that comes up. I'm not denying that it's a part of his character to some degree, but he wouldn't be really that different of a character at all if it was never brought up. You take away Ike being strong, loyal, or his disdain for nobles? Actually would change most interactions he has.

I didn't skim, I was just pointing out things that could be contradicted.

But true, while removing Ike's food thing wouldn't really change him as much as removing those other things, it IS still a part of his character like you just admitted.

@Augestein Corrupt nobles by itself is simple, sure. But combine it with everything else I mentioned? You've got a complex and deep story. Sorry, but we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Anacybele

[Slumber]

2 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

I didn't skim, I was just pointing out things that could be contradicted.

But true, while removing Ike's food thing wouldn't really change him as much as removing those other things, it IS still a part of his character like you just admitted.

Yeah, but you listed it as if it was just as big as the others. It's one of his smallest character traits, usually only brought up when he isn't even around. If you want to label smaller details like that, EVERY FE lord is unique, even Chrom.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Slumber

[Anacybele]

Just now, Slumber said:

Yeah, but you listed it as if it was just as big as the others. It's one of his smallest character traits, usually only brought up when he isn't even around.

What? I never said it was as big as the others. I thought I even said it wasn't, it just isn't as small as you make it out to be in my opinion. If I came off as saying it was as big as his other traits, then that wasn't the intent.

[Troykv]

I think it's interesting to discuss this kind of stuff, I need to check my arguments :P

______

Beefy Tier: FE6!Hector > FE10!Ike > FE7!Hector > FE9!Ike

[Slumber]

4 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

What? I never said it was as big as the others. I thought I even said it wasn't, it just isn't as small as you make it out to be in my opinion. If I came off as saying it was as big as his other traits, then that wasn't the intent.

 

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

What other lords are very passionate, blunt, noble-hating big eating muscleheads? XD

You listed off all of Ike's major character traits, and also added big eating as if it was just as big. It was also one of the two traits that separates him from Hector in that list that we continued to argue about as if it was a big deal.

[Anacybele]

4 minutes ago, Slumber said:

You listed off all of Ike's major character traits, and also added big eating as if it was just as big. It was also one of the two traits that separates him from Hector in that list that we continued to argue about as if it was a big deal.

Notice I also listed it near last. Meaning I didn't think it as important as what came before it.

[Slumber]

Just now, Anacybele said:

Notice I also listed it near last. Meaning I didn't think it as important as what came before it.

But that's not how listing things works, especially in a casual sentence structure.

[Anacybele]

Just now, Slumber said:

But that's not how listing things works, especially in a casual sentence structure.

Maybe not for you. But that's how I tend to list things like that.

[eclipse]

The story is the reason why I play the game.  I like a minimalistic plot, but not so minimalistic that I forget about who I'm controlling!

I think Fates tried to be some sort of epic, complex tale, but it didn't have enough greyness in it to truly pull it off.  Imagine if Azura had used straight-up manipulation in Chapter 15 Conquest, instead of an exploding crystal ("Your siblings - will they believe you, or their father?  And what of you, should they decide to leave you out here, all alone?  You, the bearer of Yato, abandoned by those who you claim to care about the most, after turning your back on another group who cared about you just as much.").  If your goal is to be as black and white as possible, then keep the story simple.

[NekoKnight]

Came here for the story discussion, stayed for "Who is the biggest beefcake lord" conversation

A lot of people have brought up worldbuilding which I feel is Fates' greatest failing (among many) so instead I'll talk about character agency. A good story has characters who have reasonably competent decision making skills. They may stumble along the way but they are never passive or make obviously poor choices to justify a plot existing.

Let's look at the principle characters in Fates.
Azura (Conquest/Birthright): Has known about the real threat all along and chooses not to act on it because of plot contrivances (the curse isn't actually hard to circumvent).
Kamui (Conquest): Is aware they are fighting for the wrong side but agrees to an insane and immoral plan because Conquest couldn't happen otherwise.
Xander (All routes): Obstinate dumbass that knows his father is evil but sticks with him anyway. Until he doesn't.
 

By comparison, in Tellius you have Ike or Micaiah/Ike/Elincia making headway into their stories and even when they stumble, there is reasonable plot justifications for why they do.

 

[maybe]

4 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Came here for the story discussion, stayed for "Who is the biggest beefcake lord" conversation

the real answer is eliwood anyway, he can carry a sword that's bigger than both his and his horse's entire bodies

dude's gotta be ripped as fuck

[mikethepokemaster]

Damn this topic turn from what make a good story to why Ike games are better than Fates. Well since 60% only played the gba and ikes games the 45% play Awakening and Fates and the 5% played gaiden and the other Japan only games. I can see why they only discuss the games in the west. Sad it only about 14 and 10.

[Salamud]

Accounting for each game's release year:

-Archanea with Valencia are too archaic and/or leave too much into outside sources like guidebooks. The remakes don't help considering how Shadow Dragon left out little things like Mededus' backstory and Hardin being important while New Mystery of the Emblem on the other hand shoehorned a Mary Sue.

-Judgral has an interesting setting held back by archaic technology, development issues, and the already mentioned leaving too much into outside sources. Thracia 776 deserves credit for really showing that you're a rebel on the run against an empire and characterizing the empire how it does.

-Binding Blade is a reimaigning of the Archanea games. A big flaw is the character of Yahn, who largely does the job of telling the player what hasn't already been told at the 2nd to last chapter.

-Blazing Blade was designed to be baby's first Fire Emblem, and it shows from Lyn (a Lord who plays the dual role of introducing the audience AND being a surrogate for the audience). Nergal is a ridiculously strong villain when compared with the abilities of his enemies, complete with not steamrolling them when he has the opportunity and nothing to lose by doing so. Nergal also suffers from having his backstory dumped into Gaiden chapters. 

-Sacred Stones is what I would call the best storytelling of the series. Eirika and Ephraim are both developed Lords with characters like Innes playing a respectably big role. Other characters like Joshua are at least noticeably integrated within the setting or have respectably big roles within Chapters. Grado does a respectable job as an enemy empire being both effective and characterized. Lyon/Fomortiis is the best single lead antagonist in the series, having a shown past with the Lords with routes that show different sides of the character.

-Tellius would be the runner-up. Ike, the lopsided portrayal of the Laguz Vs Beorc conflict, the Black Knight, the Blood Pact, Micaiah with her pals getting hijacked by the Greil Mercenaries and Sephiran drag it down.

-Awakening is a mess that's transparently designed as if it might be the last game in the series. From the attempts to ape past events and/or characters (like the Grimleal who manage to be a more ridiculous version of Loptyr's cult, or even the largely irrevalant 2nd Gen), the underexplored plot points (Falchion gleams), or the three loosely connected conflicts shoved into one (Ylisse VS Plegia, Ylisse VS Valm, Lucina and Friends VS Grima), you can tell they jammed in whatever they could into the game and hoped for the best.

>Fates' plot is a meme by this point, so I'll just say Anankos should not be a thing.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Salamud

[Extrasolar]

7 hours ago, mikethepokemaster said:

Damn this topic turn from what make a good story to why Ike games are better than Fates. Well since 60% only played the gba and ikes games the 45% play Awakening and Fates and the 5% played gaiden and the other Japan only games

I mean, it kind of started that way. The OP itself asked why the Tellius games are considered better-written than Fates, and people were answering that question. Not sure where you're getting those numbers, on another note... But that's why only Tellius and Fates were being discussed at first.

3 hours ago, Salamud said:

-Tellius would be the runner-up. Ike, the lopsided portrayal of the Laguz Vs Beorc conflict, the Black Knight, the Blood Pact, Micaiah with her pals getting hijacked by the Greil Mercenaries and Sephiran drag it down.

 I'm curious. Can you expand on what you mean about these? (Bolding is mine, ofc).

Edited March 27, 2017 by Extrasolar

[NekoKnight]

2 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

 I'm curious. Can you expand on what you mean about these? (Bolding is mine, ofc).

In a plot with a lot of good and bad characters for the Beorc factions, the Laguz nations are almost uniformly good guys. The only bad ones (the ravens) get an excuse in RD as well. I presume he means that Ike was a spot-light stealer (and boring?) and the Black Knight being portrayed as noble was BS.

[Thane]

30 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

 I'm curious. Can you expand on what you mean about these? (Bolding is mine, ofc).

In addition to what NekoKnight said, the Black Knight straight up murdered Greil because he felt like it, yet gets a sob story in Radiant Dawn and has Ike call him his final teacher. It's just...odd to me, though I can't speak for Salamud.

[Dragrath]

2 minutes ago, Thane said:

In addition to what NekoKnight said, the Black Knight straight up murdered Greil because he felt like it, yet gets a sob story in Radiant Dawn and has Ike call him his final teacher. It's just...odd to me, though I can't speak for Salamud.

I get where you are coming from it is like RD tried to recon him to not be completely evil as he was portrayed in POR which doesn't work after the things the Black Knight said and did in the first game unless you assume he is near bipolar...

[Extrasolar]

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

In a plot with a lot of good and bad characters for the Beorc factions, the Laguz nations are almost uniformly good guys.

Just going off the backstory of the laguz-beorc conflict, it makes total sense why the laguz are portrayed as the good guys. I mean, it wasn't the laguz that put the beorc in chains and forced them to be slaves. The anti-beorc sentiment among some of the laguz is completely justified in that case. Lethe says it best in her conversations with Jill.

Quote

"Lethe: …Are you serious? I take it humans aren’t interested in passing history down to their children… …Typical. All right… Centuries ago, when Begnion was still a monarchy, the only countries were Begnion and Goldoa. Goldoa was as it is today: a reclusive nation inhabited only by dragon tribes. All the other laguz lived in Begnion with the humans.
Jill: Humans and sub-humans used to live together in Begnion?! I had no idea…
Lethe: A human was named as the first king, although the laguz’s superior strength led us to rule more often than not. Despite the harmony that most felt about this arrangement, the senators wanted nothing to do with it. In the name of the “apostle,” they claimed that only a human could be the true ruler of Begnion…and started a civil war. Like blind, mewling kittens, the laguz kings underestimated the situation… We never had a chance. Caught by surprise, my brothers suffered defeat after defeat in the face of superior human weapons and magic. …That was the start of long, dark days… The start of laguz slavery.
Jill: …
Lethe: After nearly 200 years, a small number of enslaved laguz managed to escape their human captors in Begnion. The beast tribes fled to the mountains and unexplored forest areas–places where humans were loathe to tread. The bird tribes, on the other hand, escaped to the distant southern islands. This is how our laguz kingdoms began. It took another eighty years, and the blood of many brother laguz, until we were formally recognized as nations. This is why we fight. Why we hate. Humans don’t want former slaves to have countries and be treated as equals. Laguz carry the shame of the past deep in their hearts, and struggle still for the freedom that you take for granted. This is the true history of Tellius… No wonder humans would bury it."

Basically, humans are assholes. laguz are for the most part victims. Considering even the word for beorc is said in-game to mean "the chosen ones" (in the sense of being the goddess' favorite creations), I think it speaks for itself.

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

and the Black Knight being portrayed as noble was BS.

 

40 minutes ago, Thane said:

the Black Knight straight up murdered Greil because he felt like it, yet gets a sob story in Radiant Dawn and has Ike call him his final teacher.

(Can't speak on the Ike boring part, since that's subjective, and yeah, the spotlight-stealer part is definitely true in RD.)

We've had people that have done heinous things in the past portrayed later as sympathetic.

Arvis' barbecue party incinerates the entire First Generation of Genealogy with a few exceptions, and later on he's one of the most sympathetic characters in the game because his life turns to utter shit right after (son is Satan, wife is murdered by said Satanic son, daughter is missing, he's being blackmailed to hell and helpelss to stop his Satanic son's reign of terror).

Travant transforms from more or less a one-note asshole villain as he's portrayed in FE4 after cutting down Quan and Ethylyn in cold blood (while they have a toddler with them, no less) to a multifaceted, sympathetic king simply looking to help out his people in FE5. He's got affection for his adopted daughter, and even suddenly feels bad about murdering Quan and Ethlyn.

Michalis in Shadow Dragon kills his dad, is an expansionist/conquering crazy king of Macedon, and is generally a huge dick and an enemy of Marth except for his attachment to his younger sister, but is kept alive into NM, let off the hook, and goes on to conquer more kingdoms in his ending.

Definitely not excusing Zelgius' actions and/or worse moments, but I don't think him being sympathetic in the end and noble is badly-written, since FE has a history of it and has done it before. Fundamentally noble people still have their flaws and/or moments of being assholes sometimes.
 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Thane]

14 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Basically, humans are assholes. laguz are for the most part victims.Considering even the word for beorc is said in-game to mean "the chosen ones" (in the sense of being the goddess' favorite creations), I think it speaks for itself.

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here. NekoKnight said that in a conflict where human characters range from omnicidal assholes like Ashnard to the mostly morally upstanding Greil Mercenaries, it's a flaw of the game that the Laguz are portrayed almost entirely in a positive light save for the Ravens, which are given an excuse at the end of Radiant Dawn anyway. Having the Laguz be victims of a lot of racism doesn't change that.

14 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Definitely not excusing Zelgius' actions and/or worse moments, but I don't think him being sympathetic in the end and noble is badly-written, since FE has a history of it and has done it before. Fundamentally noble people still have their flaws and/or moments of being assholes sometimes.

Previous examples do not exactly change the portrayal of the Black Knight. As far as I know, Arvis and Trabant had good intentions from the get-go yet were still very much treated like villains. The Black Knight is painted as this mystery figure with access to a bunch of arcane items and techniques, with a past tied to Greil who he kills. Then it's revealed he did it to test his sword skills and Ike calls him his last teacher. Nevermind the fact that I don't like the Black Knight to begin with, but to try and make him sympathetic even though he had killed someone for a purely selfish reason is silly.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Thane

[Extrasolar]

12 minutes ago, Thane said:

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here. NekoKnight said that in a conflict where human characters range from omnicidal assholes like Ashnard to the mostly morally upstanding Greil Mercenaries, it's a flaw of the game that the Laguz are portrayed almost entirely in a positive light save for the Ravens, which are given an excuse at the end of Radiant Dawn anyway. Having the Laguz be victims of a lot of racism doesn't change that.

Basically, the lopsided portrayal of the laguz-beorc conflict was one of the points brought up as bad writing, and NekoKnight said that the laguz are always potrayed as good guys in their conflict with the beorc. I brought up that considering the backstory of the games, that it's completely justified for them to be portrayed as the good guys in the conflict, because that's what they've been. I disagree that it's a flaw in the game, because we get reasoning for it, and reasoning that makes sense. (Why would a race of people forcibly made slaves by the other, mistreated, and then labelled as less than human at any point be considered the "bad guys" in the conflict? Imo, that's frankly insulting and gets into a lot of unfortunate implications of victim blaming.) Now, if you wish there wasn't such a black and white portrayal of it, that's another thing completely. But as it is, black and white isn't necessarily flawed writing, and FE uses it all the time, sometimes to great effect.

We got a wide gamut of personality types for laguz as well, and if we're including villains like Ashnard (purposefully over the top dickish), we can include Pain and Agony as violent assholes just like Ashnard. We got morally upstanding Caineghis, strict, overpowering and bullheaded Dheginsea, sweet and kind Kurthanaga, cold and sharp Lethe, relaxed and friendly Ranulf, sneaky and slimy Naesala.. really, we get just as much variety from the laguz as we do from the beorc, and that's not even taking into account that there are far more beorc characters in the games than there are laguz characters, so the ratio is skewed no matter what.

12 minutes ago, Thane said:

As far as I know, Arvis and Trabant had good intentions from the get-go yet were still very much treated like villains. The Black Knight is painted as this mystery figure with access to a bunch of arcane items and techniques, with a past tied to Greil who he kills. Then it's revealed he did it to test his sword skills and Ike calls him his last teacher. Nevermind the fact that I don't like the Black Knight to begin with, but to try and make him sympathetic even though he had killed someone for a purely selfish reason is silly.

My point is that Arvis' actions are much, much more heinous than the Zelgius', despite his good intentions (I didn't bring up that he brainwashed and kidnapped another innocent man's wife, and murdered him in front of her), he's still treated sympathetically. People are fine with him being sympathetic for the most part. Nobody uses it as a strike against FE4's writing.

Travant's good intentions were revealed in the subsequent game, with absolutely no trace of his good intentions in FE4 at all, similar to how Zelgius was made sympathetic in RD. Again, not used as a strike against FE4's writing.

I honestly don't see it as much of a problem with it. If anything, I think the reveal of Zelgius was well done, since his attitude makes sense with his status as a Branded, and since FE has done the same thing in the past. I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Interdimensional Observer]

On Sephiran, I like him as a villain. He isn't original (I believe Karelian in Xenogears operates under similar motivations), but he is unique by FE standards. A little pathetic yes, but I think that is necessary for his course of actions. If Sephiran were stronger, he would have abided like Degh.

Ike's spotlight steal wouldn't have been so bad if Part 2 had ended differently. And if there wasn't quite as much praise for Ike- Tanith's minor line at the start of 3-12, something like "We're under attack, go tell General Ike!" really irks me because it suggests the great Holy Guard of Begnion is utterly incompetent without a random mercenary leading it.

And as for the Black Knight- yeah, things would have been better if IS had planned everything out before making PoR to ensure consistency between the games. They clearly had a lot of major ideas already worked out, but minutiae like the BK's backstory and logic obviously wasn't.

And it is possible that the BK did want to test his abilities in PoR and not kill Greil. But got too enticed by the heat of the moment- "at last, a battle with my old master!" and overdid it. I'll offer a different critique of the BK from what has already been given, and add that his whole "I'm Branded, don't wanna be lonely" story was a terrible cop out.

I've heard some say the BK detracts from Ashnard, but honestly, how much of a rapport could the Mad King (almost as bad as Nergal in terms of holding back) develop with Ike? The BK is free to be anywhere, a king doesn't have that luxury.

Moral of today's story: Tellius does not have the best FE story, it has the least worst.

[Thane]

1 minute ago, Extrasolar said:

Basically, the lopsided portrayal of the laguz-beorc conflict was one of the points brought up as bad writing, and NekoKnight said that the laguz are always potrayed as good guys in their conflict with the beorc. I brought up that considering the backstory of the games, that it's completely justified for them to be portrayed as the good guys in the conflict, because that's what they've been. I disagree that it's a flaw in the game, because we get reasoning for it, and reasoning that makes sense. (Why would a race of people forcibly made slaves by the other, mistreated, and then labelled as less than human at any point be considered the "bad guys" in the conflict? Imo, that's frankly insulting and gets into a lot of unfortunate implications of victim blaming.) Now, if you wish there wasn't such a black and white portrayal of it, that's another thing completely. But as it is, black and white isn't necessarily flawed writing, and FE uses it all the time, sometimes to great effect..

I can't speak for NekoKnight, but that's personally something I don't like much in the Tellius games either. I think it was a dumb decision to make it so one-sided, and I believe that's the core of the problem here. Having a theme of different groups coming to understand each other in spite of their differences feels a lot less effective when it's just one side being the assholes. 

4 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

We got a wide gamut of personality types for laguz as well, and if we're including villains like Ashnard (purposefully over the top dickish), we can include Pain and Agony as violent assholes just like Ashnard. We got morally upstanding Caineghis, strict, overpowering and bullheaded Dheginsea, sweet and kind Kurthanaga, cold and sharp Lethe, relaxed and friendly Ranulf, sneaky and slimy Naesala.. really, we get just as much variety from the laguz as we do from the beorc, and that's not even taking into account that there are far more beorc characters in the games than there are laguz characters, so the ratio is skewed no matter what.

Right. And the humans get the villains and the vast majority of the assholes. 

5 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

My point is that Arvis' actions are much, much more heinous than the Zelgius', despite his good intentions (I didn't bring up that he brainwashed and kidnapped another innocent man's wife, and murdered him in front of her), he's still treated sympathetically. People are fine with him being sympathetic for the most part. Nobody uses it as a strike against FE4's writing.

Travant's good intentions were revealed in the subsequent game, with absolutely no trace of his good intentions in FE4 at all, similar to how Zelgius was made sympathetic in RD. Again, not used as a strike against FE4's writing.

I honestly don't see it as much of a problem with it. If anything, I think the reveal of Zelgius was well done, since his attitude makes sense with his status as a Branded, and since FE has done the same thing in the past. I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

You're using examples of past games to excuse the writing of another one, not to mention I haven't played them and can't adequately respond, so I'm not sure what you want me to say here. The way I see it with Arvis is that he's still very much a villain, just that he had good intentions. Killing him is always a priority, and he doesn't get a sad, near-death scene where Seliph calls him his last teacher or anything of the sort. If people treat him sympathetically, it might be because he actually did try to improve the world, and did so for seven years until everything went to shit - The Black Knight murdered Greil for purely selfish reasons. 

But again, I can't comment, nor should it really matter considering it doesn't somehow make Tellius' writing better by pointing at previous examples. I just find the Black Knight's portrayal in both games to be so utterly silly, and excusing him for his actions feels wrong. I bet Mist would've liked to have a word with the guy before he died, but I guess we can't have that.

[Extrasolar]

33 minutes ago, Thane said:

Right. And the humans get the villains and the vast majority of the assholes. 

The humans get the vast majority of characters in the Tellius series to begin with, assholes or not, so I mean, it only makes sense.

33 minutes ago, Thane said:

Killing him is always a priority, and he doesn't get a sad, near-death scene where Seliph calls him his last teacher or anything of the sort.

No, but Seliph does end up forgiving Arvis for his actions against his father during a talk with Lewyn, and coming to peace with the rage he held against Arvis in his heart. Does that count?

33 minutes ago, Thane said:

If people treat him sympathetically, it might be because he actually did try to improve the world, and did so for seven years until everything went to shit

Yeah, but it's subjective on what people think is "deserving of sympathy" (i.e. well-written) and what isn't. Both Zelgius and Arvis are sympathetic imo, and I think that Zelgius' sympathetic story fits his actions; Arvis' story is more tragic, but that's because he does more awful things than Zelgius, good intentions or not. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

I personally think they're both very well-written antagonists with sympathetic backstories.

33 minutes ago, Thane said:

I just find the Black Knight's portrayal in both games to be so utterly silly, and excusing him for his actions feels wrong.

I'm bringing up other games because to me it doesn't make much sense or hold much water to specifically call out the Tellius games for doing something that other games in the series have done (some in the exact same way, some giving the villains worse feats, etc.) as "badly written" in particular, while not saying anything about the past games, or even praising them for the same thing. Obviously likes and dislikes are subjective; if you don't like the character or aren't personally invested in his story, that's perfectly fine, and no one can fault you for it. But I just see the previous thought as a bit of a double standard.

By the way I'm definitely not saying his actions should be excused, because they shouldn't. Personally I find his expanded character in RD to be compelling and well-done, and if you don't that's fine too. It's all subjective, but I personally don't think it's badly-written.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Thane]

5 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

The humans get the vast majority of characters in the Tellius series to begin with, assholes or not, so I mean, it only makes sense.

Does it? Why not make more use of the available characters? Why make it so one-sided in the first place if they want to delve into the theme of fantasy hatred and overcoming it?

6 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

No, but Seliph does end up forgiving Arvis for his actions against his father during a talk with Lewyn, and coming to peace with the rage he held against Arvis in his heart. Does that count

Again, you're asking questions I can't answer since I haven't played the game. I'll say that if Arvis only crime had been brainwashing Deidre and taunted Sigurd before killing him for only personal reasons, which is more in line of what the Black Knight did, I would've said no.

7 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Yeah, but it's subjective on what people think is "deserving of sympathy" (i.e. well-written) and what isn't. Both Zelgius and Arvis are sympathetic imo, and I think that Zelgius' sympathetic story fits his actions; Arvis' story is more tragic, but that's because he does more awful things than Zelgius, good intentions or not. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

I personally think they're both very well-written antagonists with sympathetic backstories.

Alright. We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I groan every time the Black Knight appears. I believe him and Ashnard should've fused into one villain somehow; would've given Ashard some much-needed development.

9 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

I'm bringing up other games because to me it doesn't make much sense or hold much water to specifically call out the Tellius games for doing something that other games in the series have done (some in the exact same way, some giving the villains worse feats, etc.) as "badly written" in particular, while not saying anything about the past games, or even praising them for the same thing. Obviously likes and dislikes are subjective; if you don't like the character or aren't personally invested in his story, that's perfectly fine, and no one can fault you for it. But I just see the previous thought as a bit of a double standard.

Fair enough. I find this attitude annoying as well when people ignore previous entries' flaws and berate Awakening for them. However, it's not so simple as just chalking the villains down to why they did what they did; I think one of the Black Knight's main problems is the fact that he's just so unbearably boring.

12 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

By the way I'm definitely not saying his actions should be excused, because they shouldn't. Personally I find his expanded character in RD to be compelling and well-done, and if you don't that's fine too. It's all subjective, but I personally don't think it's badly-written.

At least we can agree it's not Fates.