What are the benefits and repercussions of some Fire Emblem stories taking place in separate universes?

[Thane]

Hello everyone.

The title pretty much says it all.

I've pondered this for a while, and I'm not sure I always see the point in having a Fire Emblem story take place on a continent that's set in another world separated from the rest. Barring Tellius, which needs an origin story to truly tell a story that's the most different one we've had in the series, the other worlds don't really do anything so dramatically different so as to justify them needing an entirely separate universe.

If you'll allow me to speculate, I think the series could've benefited from a more cohesive worldbuilding, where Fire Emblem stories take place at different times and places in the same world. That way, we could have more long-reaching subplots, grow invested in how, for example, noble houses, empires and organizations rise and decline over the course of the years, decades or centuries between the games. Characters could make references to other past events more easily and set up something for the next installment, among other things.

Naturally, separate universes allow for completely different stories, free from the restraints of previous worldbuilding, but like I said earlier, Elibe, Magvel and Fateslandia don't really use this to any meaningful extent.

What are your opinions on the matter?

[NekoKnight]

I think ultimately the freedom to create unique settings outweighs the benefit of having some super long continuity. I wouldn't want the series to be stuck in the legacy of Marth forever.

[Magical Glace]

Trying to create continuity where there is none just gets convoluted.

See: The Legend of Zelda.

[Thane]

6 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I think ultimately the freedom to create unique settings outweighs the benefit of having some super long continuity. I wouldn't want the series to be stuck in the legacy of Marth forever.

 

2 minutes ago, Glaceon Mage said:

Trying to create continuity where there is none just gets convoluted.

See: The Legend of Zelda.

I'm not suggesting trying to tie things together of what we have now, merely what some positives and negatives can be of the current format, and if this should be kept going forward. For example, if Fire Emblem for the next couple of installments moved to a completely different universe and tried creating a really coherent and more complex chronology, would you object to that?

[Tolvir]

I like the idea of making it one "World" if you will. Fates seems a little excluded from the rest, but they could always explain that much like how Dungeons and Dragons explains the existence of Krynn, Faerun, and Greyhawk. Literal different worlds.

I would prefer it not to be like Final Fantasy. While it works there, it is also annoying to see a world rarely ever revisited, and just left in the dust once its game is done. FE has done a better job of that, with Archanea, Valentia, and possibly Tellius (though mostly fan theory) being a part of the same world. So the idea of it all being linked and being on, preferably 1-2 possible worlds, would be nice.

[maybe]

i think the primary reason for it is to not alienate new players so they can start with any game (except radiant dawn or new mystery of the emblem)

i don't think having more games in a single universe would do much, but I did find what awakening did interesting, having it take place thousands of years after mystery of the emblem. problem is, it wasn't really used that well there either. the only thing that really mattered from a previous game was tiki, who was still alive. aside from that, nothing from FE1-3 really mattered. the falchion was still there, but you start with it and never do anything with it aside from kill the final boss. the emblem is still there, but it's no longer used for the same reason. valentia is there, now named after its former king, but this has no meaning beyond a little reference. naga is still there, but rather than lopt or medeus being the enemy, you have some other evil dragon, making it being naga seem arbitrary.

the only other times that games were in the same universe without being direct sequels/prequels were gaiden and fates.

gaiden being in the same world as fe1 is pretty pointless, but allows for the return of a few characters, as well as continuing the story of camus, who returns in the next game. i think what they did with camus wasn't a bad idea, but aside from that the connected world  still seems unnecessary.

in fates, it allows characters to return, but none of them are in a way that helps a character's story like camus and they're very obviously just there because they were popular. it also leads to a very convoluted explanation as to how the two games are connected, and ultimately does nothing for the story, although it did add a bit to the returning characters

so ultimately, I think either could work well, but tellius is really the only time where it being a different world actually mattered. fe7 and 8 might as well have been in the same world, and fe3 and 13 could've just been separate ones with a little name changing.

i'd say they should keep doing it as they are, since it can lead to more interesting new settings (like tellius) and less weird convoluted continuity between games (fates), but I wouldn't be against more installments taking place in the same world as long as it was done well. there has to be actual meaning to it being in the same universe, rather than just pointless references or returning characters

Edited May 28, 2017 by unique

[Interdimensional Observer]

Any chance this idea was inspired by the Trails franchise? Not that I've played it, but I given what I've heard of the games, it seems like a possibility.

And with that in mind, I think that following Suikoden I-III+V (which I think is what Trails does to a more integrated and grander extent) and having each game be some mentioned but unexplored conflict within the same world, but in a different geopolitical realm, would work. And while I'm generally dismissive of making prequels based on the legends provided in a given game, I did enjoy Baten Kaitos: Origins a lot (even if it could've used a little more detail for showing a certain moment of the past). And a Magvel prequel is something I personally think could work well given we have no idea what 3 of the 5 legendary heroes are even named.

 

 

As for what FE has already done, Jugdral, Archanea, and Valentia (and their future versions) are all already set in the same world, even if they might as well be in their own worlds (which is what you Thane are arguing against). Elibe, Magvel, and Fates could fit into the same world on the grounds of comparable dragonology, if not perfectly identical dragonology due to the dragon decline/degeneration in Elibe only being the result of the Divine Weapons, and Magvel not having one at all. Only Tellius due to Laguz functioning differently would have to be excluded. Though you could always place Tellius as being the oldest of worlds and use that excuse for the differences.

[Refa]

1 hour ago, Thane said:

If you'll allow me to speculate, I think the series could've benefited from a more cohesive worldbuilding, where Fire Emblem stories take place at different times and places in the same world. That way, we could have more long-reaching subplots, grow invested in how, for example, noble houses, empires and organizations rise and decline over the course of the years, decades or centuries between the games. Characters could make references to other past events more easily and set up something for the next installment, among other things.

Naturally, separate universes allow for completely different stories, free from the restraints of previous worldbuilding, but like I said earlier, Elibe, Magvel and Fateslandia don't really use this to any meaningful extent.

What are your opinions on the matter?

I agree with this in theory.  Series like Suikoden and Trails in the Sky have very localized conflicts in the individual games despite taking place in very huge worlds.  It really gets you invested in the area that you're in and interested in playing future games with differing settings as well.  A more popular example of a game series that does this is Pokemon, but I wouldn't exactly consider that franchise to be as story heavy as the previously mentioned ones.  However, I don't think FE actually has done a good job of doing this.  I can't think of anything from Archanea that was referenced in Jugdral other than dragons, or the other way around, for example.  This is a consequence of the games' storytelling being such a one and done affair.  They don't really plan for future games when they're making the current one.  To bring things back to Trails, there are multiple countries on the continent of Zemuria (the setting of the game) and you learn a good deal about them even when you aren't visiting them.  Of course, another reason this is such a problem is because FE in general doesn't have the best of worldbuilding.

tl,dr; it could definitely benefit from doing so, but they'd need to do more future planning than they've done in previous games.

1 hour ago, Thane said:

I'm not suggesting trying to tie things together of what we have now, merely what some positives and negatives can be of the current format, and if this should be kept going forward. For example, if Fire Emblem for the next couple of installments moved to a completely different universe and tried creating a really coherent and more complex chronology, would you object to that?

This would be rad.

[B.Leu]

2 hours ago, Glaceon Mage said:

Trying to create continuity where there is none just gets convoluted.

See: The Legend of Zelda.

This.

Plus, I just don't see the point of destroying what make a game so unique among it's series such good idea. Each FIre Emblem have it's different... everything. Why doing something like that ? Why retcon ?
Awakening seems like a big smash up of everything Fire Emblem, so... but it doesn't fully. excuse the 'another worlds' devices used left in right for everything and nothing.

[NoirCore]

I prefer there being a multiverse. Just trying to tie everything up into one world would cause some restrictions, while just adding a completely new world with also the option to add to an already established world (like with Jugdral and Ylisse/Valm to Archanea/Valentia) allows for more world-building freedom. Even if some elements are consistent such as manaketes throughout different worlds, it's not too big of a deal in my opinion.

[Slumber]

Benefits: It gives a lot of context and allows for long term world-building. The FE1-5+Awakening world gives an impression of an old world where dragons have very overreaching powers and wage devastating wars.

Repercussions: It makes the series incredibly inconsistent. FE8-10 deal with Gods and Demons, which while conceptually not too dissimilar from the roles of dragons in the Archanea-verse, these entities clearly aren't dragons, and they're never brought up in other games. The role of the Fire Emblem also loses all meaning when it can be basically a magic deus ex machina that can do whatever the plot needs. If these games take place in separate/parallel universes, at least there's a reason for the Fire Emblem doing different things. Plus, much like the Gods/Dragons type deals, many other similar concepts don't work the same across the games(Like manaketes/animal tribes and the Laguz from Tellius). It just makes for an overall very inconsistent world. These are just the big things, too, let alone the smaller details specific to each game that takes place in a separate universe, like the Sacred Stones and their function in their titular game having no ground in any other game in the series, or why dark magic sometimes corrupts the soul(FE6-7), sometimes it's the ability to channel magic from another source(Like a dragon in FE1-5), or why it's sometimes just an old, difficult to use magic with no repercussions(FE8-10).

Plus, it makes the plot of FE6-7 very confusing, where dragons aren't native to whatever world Elibe takes place in. If we were to suddenly find out that FE6-7 take place in the same universe as FE1-5+A, then where in the world are the dragons coming from when the Dragon Gate opens? And why is Elibe's world toxic to dragons suddenly? It makes more sense that the Dragon Gate opens up a portal to some place in Archanea(Or maybe some other world with native dragons, but Archanea's world makes most sense), a completely different world, and that allows the dragons to come to Elibe.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Slumber

[Ertrick36]

I think what all really comes down to is the execution of it all.  Some have cited Zelda as having problematic continuity, but that isn't a problem with the concept of having a continuity so much as it is how the writers/devs are going about trying to piece it all together.

With all these games, there was a specific way the worlds were set up.  You might be able to find a way to piece it all together if you're clever and detail-oriented, but I highly doubt anyone who writes stories for IS is like that.  Fact is, unless they step up with their writing team and start holding them seriously accountable, the stories will easily get very messy and you'll outright have some retcons (though I'm at least assuming the hypothetical would apply before the whole "DLC Realm" concept was ingrained into the lore).

There is a lot continuity does to benefit some franchises, there's no doubt in this.  But I don't really have faith in IS to do it well.  I mean, look at the deal with Grima.  They introduced him in Awakening, but he's obviously not Medeus and as far as anyone knew he never even existed in Archanea during Marth's time.  So then two games later they brute-forced an extended story into a remake so that they can finally put this Fire Emblem Mystery to rest.  If that's how IS would handle all continuity issues, then I'd be at least half as worried as I am with Akira Toriyama's ability to write Dragon Ball consistently anymore.

[Jedi]

3 hours ago, Refa said:

I agree with this in theory.  Series like Suikoden and Trails in the Sky have very localized conflicts in the individual games despite taking place in very huge worlds.  It really gets you invested in the area that you're in and interested in playing future games with differing settings as well.  A more popular example of a game series that does this is Pokemon, but I wouldn't exactly consider that franchise to be as story heavy as the previously mentioned ones.  However, I don't think FE actually has done a good job of doing this.  I can't think of anything from Archanea that was referenced in Jugdral other than dragons, or the other way around, for example.  This is a consequence of the games' storytelling being such a one and done affair.  They don't really plan for future games when they're making the current one.  To bring things back to Trails, there are multiple countries on the continent of Zemuria (the setting of the game) and you learn a good deal about them even when you aren't visiting them.  Of course, another reason this is such a problem is because FE in general doesn't have the best of worldbuilding.

tl,dr; it could definitely benefit from doing so, but they'd need to do more future planning than they've done in previous games.

Pretty much agree with everything said here, if we had worldbuilding on the tier of Trails I highly doubt people would have as many issues with FE storytelling in general.

[Jotari]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:56 PM, unique said:

i think the primary reason for it is to not alienate new players so they can start with any game (except radiant dawn or new mystery of the emblem)

i don't think having more games in a single universe would do much, but I did find what awakening did interesting, having it take place thousands of years after mystery of the emblem. problem is, it wasn't really used that well there either. the only thing that really mattered from a previous game was tiki, who was still alive. aside from that, nothing from FE1-3 really mattered. the falchion was still there, but you start with it and never do anything with it aside from kill the final boss. the emblem is still there, but it's no longer used for the same reason. valentia is there, now named after its former king, but this has no meaning beyond a little reference. naga is still there, but rather than lopt or medeus being the enemy, you have some other evil dragon, making it being naga seem arbitrary.

the only other times that games were in the same universe without being direct sequels/prequels were gaiden and fates.

gaiden being in the same world as fe1 is pretty pointless, but allows for the return of a few characters, as well as continuing the story of camus, who returns in the next game. i think what they did with camus wasn't a bad idea, but aside from that the connected world  still seems unnecessary.

in fates, it allows characters to return, but none of them are in a way that helps a character's story like camus and they're very obviously just there because they were popular. it also leads to a very convoluted explanation as to how the two games are connected, and ultimately does nothing for the story, although it did add a bit to the returning characters

so ultimately, I think either could work well, but tellius is really the only time where it being a different world actually mattered. fe7 and 8 might as well have been in the same world, and fe3 and 13 could've just been separate ones with a little name changing.

i'd say they should keep doing it as they are, since it can lead to more interesting new settings (like tellius) and less weird convoluted continuity between games (fates), but I wouldn't be against more installments taking place in the same world as long as it was done well. there has to be actual meaning to it being in the same universe, rather than just pointless references or returning characters

Yeah Tiki was super important in Awakening. She...told Chrom to collect some stones... and...Nope, thats it. Thats all she contributed.

[maybe]

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

Yeah Tiki was super important in Awakening. She...told Chrom to collect some stones... and...Nope, thats it. Thats all she contributed.

so... she did do something

i don't get what the point of quoting me for this was

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, unique said:

so... she did do something

i don't get what the point of quoting me for this was

Not a criticism of your post. Just venting about Awakening. Tiki was such wasted potential there. She could have been replaced by a carrier pigeon (or Lucina could have just told Chrom the info Tiki provided, she already knew it anyway since she used the stones to travel back in time). Her relation to the plot was just as important as anything else from Archanea, which is practically zero.

[Salamud]

You could just cut out the time traveling Children and have Tiki get messages from the Future.

[Ae†her]

Some of the stories I believe take place in different realities (creations or universes), but can directly be related to the plots of other games or run on a different time-space setting, and what not. Anyways to have separate realities for Fire Emblem allows you to have the freedom to connect continuities, as well allow you to create separate worlds free of the history, magic, gods, and whatever mystical forces that limit another world, so it's better to have what FE has now. Also I just have to say this: they should make FE: Heroes non-canon to the main Fire Emblem multi-verse/universe.

[RJWalker]

Tiki is such wasted potential in Awakening. A glaring example is that if you only played Awakening, you would never know that Tiki is Naga's daughter since this is never mentioned.

As for the topic, there are no negative consequences of having games set in different universes. If the story needs more, you can always do a sequel. Whereas with having the games set in different universes with no connections, you can easily tell different stories without having excessive sequel baggage.

[Book Bro]

On 2017-5-28 at 11:23 AM, Refa said:

I agree with this in theory.  Series like Suikoden and Trails in the Sky have very localized conflicts in the individual games despite taking place in very huge worlds.  It really gets you invested in the area that you're in and interested in playing future games with differing settings as well.  A more popular example of a game series that does this is Pokemon, but I wouldn't exactly consider that franchise to be as story heavy as the previously mentioned ones.  However, I don't think FE actually has done a good job of doing this.  I can't think of anything from Archanea that was referenced in Jugdral other than dragons, or the other way around, for example.  This is a consequence of the games' storytelling being such a one and done affair.  They don't really plan for future games when they're making the current one.  To bring things back to Trails, there are multiple countries on the continent of Zemuria (the setting of the game) and you learn a good deal about them even when you aren't visiting them.  Of course, another reason this is such a problem is because FE in general doesn't have the best of worldbuilding.

tl,dr; it could definitely benefit from doing so, but they'd need to do more future planning than they've done in previous games.

This would be rad.

I agree with this. For the existing games I find it useless to now try to tie things together because the mythologies are very much separate, and Awakening proves going back to a previous world much later in the future is not really something the writers can pull off. But I love the idea for a 3 or 4 game mini-series that does this. Especially if it's a more "human" story that explores political themes over several decades, like Thane and others suggest, and leaves supernatural stuff to a minimum. I like the latter type of stories just fine but it'd be a nice change.