How do you rank the FE stories from best to worst?

[Emperor Hardin]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Hardin, do you know what villain means?

Villain (noun): (in a film, novel, or play) a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.

None of Xander's actions are in any way evil. Camus archetypes are NEVER evil, and thus never villains. If anything, they are more under the case of anti-heroes. 

Actively fighting for the villain force of their free will, that is villainous.

Villain has multiple definitions, a character can have noble motivations and actions while still being a villain.

[Slumber]

2 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Actively fighting for the villain force of their free will, that is villainous.

Villain has multiple definitions, a character can have noble motivations and actions while still being a villain.

I've had this argument so many times when I tried to argue that Kratos from God of War is a villain protagonist.

But yes, Xander in Birthright is a villain. Camus is a villain. A handful of Camus' AREN'T inherently villainous, though. It's case by case(Eldigan and the Reeve brothers, for example, I'd say aren't villainous Camus' archetypes).

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Emperor Hardin said:

Actively fighting for the villain force of their free will, that is villainous.

Villain has multiple definitions, a character can have noble motivations and actions while still being a villain.

Yes, there are villains that commit evil but have noble intentions. I don't argue against that. But Xander hasn't committed any evil really. He's the crown prince of Nohr and thus cannot betray his country. While yes, there could have been more better written ways Xander was handled, but the case is that Xander was never a villain. An anti-hero is what he was. 

Furthermore, Xander doesn't fit the bill of the villain when he is actually part of the protagonist's group in two of the paths. So in that regard, if you call for Xander a villain of Fates, you are wrong. You can assert at best that he's a villain for Birthright, but not Fates as a whole, and even that's a stretch. 

[Silverly]

I think the word Hardin is looking for is antagonist. Not all antagonists are necessarily evil, villains are. Villains are usually antagonists but not always vice versa, if that makes any sense.

Anyways for stories I guess I'll say Blazing Sword>Awakening>Conquest>Birthright>Revelation

[Slumber]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yes, there are villains that commit evil but have noble intentions. I don't argue against that. But Xander hasn't committed any evil really. He's the crown prince of Nohr and thus cannot betray his country. While yes, there could have been more better written ways Xander was handled, but the case is that Xander was never a villain. An anti-hero is what he was. 

Furthermore, Xander doesn't fit the bill of the villain when he is actually part of the protagonist's group in two of the paths. So in that regard, if you call for Xander a villain of Fates, you are wrong. You can assert at best that he's a villain for Birthright, but not Fates as a whole, and even that's a stretch. 

Xander blindly fights for the bad guys and ends up murdering his own sister.

He even admits how much he fucked up when he dies.

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Xander blindly fights for the bad guys and ends up murdering his own sister.

He even admits how much he fucked up when he dies.

To that, I turn you to Ghast Station, who delves into Xander's character from Support Science.

[Slumber]

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

To that, I turn you to Ghast Station, who delves into Xander's character from Support Science.

Didn't Ghast conclude that support Xander and story Xander are basically two different people? And that story Xander is actually a conflicted bad guy, while support Xander is basically the one with all the noble traits?

[omegaxis1]

5 minutes ago, SilvertheShadow said:

I think the word Hardin is looking for is antagonist. Not all antagonists are necessarily evil, villains are. Villains are usually antagonists but not always vice versa, if that makes any sense.

^ Okay see, this I would accept much more likely. Antagonist would be fitting on Xander on Birthright. Not villain. Villains are Garon, Anankos, and Iago. 

1 minute ago, Slumber said:

Didn't Ghast conclude that support Xander and story Xander are basically two different people? And that story Xander is actually a conflicted bad guy, while support Xander is basically the one with all the noble traits?

Yes, and that's precisely the issue. They are so different that there's no logic in the actions Story Xander does when you look at Support Xander, which is the problem since they're SUPPOSED to be one and the same. The conclusion ultimately came to this: bad writing. That's pretty much it. And Ghast really didn't want to say that as the conclusion, but it was just too much.

[Emperor Hardin]

In Conquest, I'd say argue both Xander and Corrin are sympathetic villain protagonists, personally.

[Icelerate]

1 hour ago, Emperor Hardin said:

I'd agree.

The Mustache twirling villain game is Awakening.

I haven't played Awakening or Fates. I've only played FE7-FE10 while seeing an FE6 and FE15 LP but I've never got the impression that RD villains are generic and 1D in comparison to the other games. 

Anyhow,

1. Radiant Dawn

This game gets a lot of legitimate criticism for its plot/writing but I believe most of its faults are overexaggerated. The game has the best plot for me because it fits in quite nicely with the end of Path of Radiance and shows us that even when good guys win, the aftermath of a war can leave a great evil for the losers of the previous war to overcome. Part one starts off with the Dawn Brigade helping out the suffering population while evading the Begnion Empire until merging with the Daein Liberation Army. Once they merge, they are able to mount an insurgency against the Begnion Empire until the noise from the revolution forces Begnion to stop the occupation. I believe this was a realistic attempt at showcasing a rebellion because usually rebels win against an occupying force due to the population or government of the empire getting tired of the war due to the negative public image of the occupation of war as opposed to rebels somehow overpowering a far superior imperial force. Part two shows how an uprising can be instigated against a benevolent ruler due to racism and nationalism. Part three shows a war with ups and downs for both parties. Strategies, blackmail, racism, deception and politics are a huge part of the war. We get to see how a benevolent person can end up losing their benevolent qualities due to desperation because of their own benevolence, which is ironic but an interesting take on what is usually a black and white story. Part four goes into the theme of order vs chaos and reverses PoR in the sense that the final villain is obsessed with order whereas PoR's final villain was obsessed with chaos. A lot of lore and backstory is thrown, arguably more so than in any other FE game. 

2. Path of Radiance

PoR, SS and BB are all quite similar when it comes to story but PoR has more polish due to being a GC game and its ending leaves it open for an epic sequel. It has the best world building of the three and the most interesting characters. 

3. Sacred Stones

I found the relationship of the main villain with the protagonists interesting along with the split route which gives this game more depth than BB. 

4. Binding Blade

What puts this game above SoV is that Elibe has multiple countries involved in a world war whereas the next game only has two countries. 

5. Shadows of Valentia

While this game did have interesting characters, the plot didn't have much going for it on Celica's side. Even on Alm's side, the plot is basically a straightforward liberate your country and take over the enemy nation. The same thing happens in the other three FE games above it except those games have multiple countries involved which make the politics more complex.  

6. Blazing Sword

The game feels like part four of Radiant Dawn except without the lore and backstory of the end game. Basically, you roam around Elibe constantly getting ambushed by Black Fang. The part where Eliwood is rescuing his father is good but after that, the plot loses its steam until the Bern arc starts. There isn't really a war going on except an uprising in the beginning of the game. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Icelerate

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Emperor Hardin said:

In Conquest, I'd say argue both Xander and Corrin are sympathetic villain protagonists, personally.

Anti-heroes. Fighting for the wrong side, but looking to make things right or better. Ultimately leads to them dethroning Garon after finding out he's a monster. 

[Slumber]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Anti-heroes. Fighting for the wrong side, but looking to make things right or better. Ultimately leads to them dethroning Garon after finding out he's a monster. 

But the thing is, hero is basically synonymous with "good guys" or "good side". We don't say somebody like Eddie Brock or Flash Thompson Venom are "anti-heroes", we say they're "anti-villains", since they're ultimately vigilantes that protect normal people, but they violently murder and want to kill Spider-Man, the good guy.

The Punisher, meanwhile, is an anti-hero who does all the same things, but usually allies himself with the good guys.

Xander allies himself with and emboldens the bad guys. He's a villain. He's an anti-villain, but he's a villain.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Slumber

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Slumber said:

But the thing is, hero is basically synonymous with "good guys" or "good side". We don't say somebody like Eddie Brock Venom is an "anti-hero", we say he's an "anti-villain", since he's ultimately a vigilante that protects normal people, but he murders and wants to kill Spider-Man, the good guy.

The Punisher, meanwhile, is an anti-hero who does all the same thing, but usually allies himself with the good guys.

Xander allies himself with and emboldens the bad guys. He's a villain. He's an anti-villain, but he's a villain.

Not quite. Nohr is considered the bad guys only because of Garon, Iago, and Hans. However, Xander wants to protect his nation, and it was explained that Nohr has a great shortage of food, whereas Ryoma comments that Hoshido has an abundance of food. Before Garon was even possessed, why was it said that Hoshido and Nohr were always on bad terms? Only line of conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Hoshido didn't help Nohr out. 

[Slumber]

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

Not quite. Nohr is considered the bad guys only because of Garon, Iago, and Hans. However, Xander wants to protect his nation, and it was explained that Nohr has a great shortage of food, whereas Ryoma comments that Hoshido has an abundance of food. Before Garon was even possessed, why was it said that Hoshido and Nohr were always on bad terms? Only line of conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Hoshido didn't help Nohr out. 

The problem is that "protecting Nohr" for most of Xander's story means obeying Garon. Of all the siblings, Xander is far and away the one the most hesitant to disobey Garon, which comes with a LOT of baggage and villainous deeds/actions. This extends to Corrin in Conquest.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Slumber said:

The problem is that "protecting Nohr" for most of Xander's story means obeying Garon. Of all the siblings, Xander is far and away the one the most hesitant to disobey Garon, which comes with a LOT of baggage and villainous deeds/actions. This extends to Corrin in Conquest.

Which once again is something that contradicts what Support Xander indicates. 

[Slumber]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Which once again is something that contradicts what Support Xander indicates. 

Xander's actions in story supersede Xander's words in supports.

Plus, we're mostly talking about Birthright Xander here, where for all intents and purposes, support Xander doesn't exist.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Slumber

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Slumber said:

Xander's actions in story supersede Xander's words in supports.

Plus, we're mostly talking about Birthright Xander here, where for all intents and purposes, support Xander doesn't exist.

That's actually very incorrect. Support and Story are supposed to display the same character. They are supposed to be the same person. You cannot assert that Story Xander is the real Xander and Support Xander is the fake, because that doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, there are indications on Xander's actions in supports on how he acts in the past as well, which also indicates how he is supposed to be. Supports are always there to delve deeper into characters to understand them, whereas Story is just having characters go through it for the sake of plot. 

[Icelerate]

14 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

In Conquest, I'd say argue both Xander and Corrin are sympathetic villain protagonists, personally.

What would Micaiah be in part 3? Between chapter 3-6 - chapter 3-11, she's essentially a Camus. Afterwards, until 3E, she's blackmailed. 

[Slumber]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's actually very incorrect. Support and Story are supposed to display the same character. They are supposed to be the same person. You cannot assert that Story Xander is the real Xander and Support Xander is the fake, because that doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, there are indications on Xander's actions in supports on how he acts in the past as well, which also indicates how he is supposed to be. Supports are always there to delve deeper into characters to understand them, whereas Story is just having characters go through it for the sake of plot. 

Each of the story branches have characters acting in different ways.

Birthright has Xander adhering to Garon's/Nohr orders the most strictly, and Garon/Nohr are the most explicitly evil and antagonistic in Birthright. The character we get out of Xander in his supports is one who loves his country and loves his siblings. The Xander we get in the story of Birthright is of a man who would kill his siblings for the sake of his country and the laughably evil Garon. Which he does with Elise, and attempts to do again with Corrin.

He's a villain in Birthright.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Slumber

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Slumber said:

Each of the story branches have characters acting in different ways.

Birthright has Xander adhering to Garon's/Nohr orders the most strictly, and Garon/Nohr are the most explicitly evil and antagonistic in Birthright. The character we get out of Xander in his supports is one who loves his country and loves his siblings. The Xander we get in the story of Birthright is of a man who would kill his siblings for the sake of his country and Garon. Which he does with Elise, and attempts to do again with Corrin.

He's a villain in Birthright.

Exactly. This strikes as a contradiction that had Xander act completely out of character, which goes to show how badly written Fates as a whole is. Xander is a man that is very noble and always strives to do the right thing, and he values his country and family a great deal. By all means, Xander should have actually changed sides the moment he knew that Garon was no longer himself, which Xander even admitted to as such when he died, which also contradicts Conquest, where when he knew that Garon was no longer himself, he went against Garon.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Okay so I unfortunately haven't had the opportunity to play many of the FE games :( My net isn't great so emulators aren't really an option for me.

1: Radiant Dawn. This was my first FE game and I love it so much. It has its issues for sure but in many ways that just makes me appreciate and love the game more. I wish I was a better writer or I would go through and rewrite it myself, but alas... 

2: Awakening: It's better than Fates

3: Fates: I at least finished it

4: Echoes: I stopped playing which makes me really sad. I was really, really hoping I would love it as much as RD.

[Alastor15243]

On 10/17/2017 at 10:46 AM, Dark Holy Elf said:

 

Conquest - I embrace Conquest more than most people here because I think it asks some interesting questions - what will people do to justify war? Corrin basically pushes the war all the way to its end because she wants to keep her family intact. It's really bad from a moral standpoint but that's the point (people can easily rationalise the deaths of thousands of others). The game also has some excellent character work and some effective emotional scenes, though the setting is garbage.

I can’t get behind this interpretation at all. Only Corrin is in a position for the “this is a necessary and noble evil” thing to be him just making excuses for his horrible actions. Azura has every reason NOT to go through with the plan if it were truly solely for the sake of the Nohr Family, and Hinoka should have hated Corrin at the end if that’s what the story was going for. But no, the narrative genuinely acts like Corrin did something even vaguely resembling the right thing.

[Athena_57]

Of the ones I've finished (no FE1/3/8/9/10), from best to worst:

1. Judgral (still playing FE5, which is why I put them together, but it seems great so far and Genealogy was very good)

2. Blazing Sword, story was engaging, I liked the main characters, which helped a lot in that regard

3. Echoes, medium story, but brought very well, leading to a good experience overall

4. Binding Blade, very basic, but good worldbuilding and not much wrong with it.

5. Awakening, pretty bad story, but the first time I played it I enjoyed it. Only after I started reflecting upon it I noticed how mediocre it was.

6. Conquest, bad antagonists, bad main character, bad story, just really fucking bad. However, not quite as bad as:

7. Revelations, like conquest, but with the horrible Valla arc added and everyone joining you for the sake of having everyone join you.

EDIT: Also, I started FE8 once, until I dropped it for being too easy, but though I hear a lot of praise for the story, I myself don't really love the whole "corrupted good guy is now evil" thing that much. Also, I really did not like the twins at all. I did not finish it, and thus did not rank it, but if I had to place it somewhere I'd put it in between FE6 and awakening. But perhaps if I'd play the entire game I'd appreciate Lyon more.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by athena_57

[Bartozio]

Haven't finished Thracia yet, so I'll exclude that one.

1. Radiant Dawn
2. Genology of the holy war
3. Sacred Stones
4. Path of Radiance
5. Blazing Sword
6. Shadows of Valentia
7. Awakening
8. Heroes of Light and Shadow
9. Binding Blade
10. Shadow Dragon
11. Fates

A lot of these are pretty close calls though. I might add reasons at a later point.

 

[Shiki]

Not going to list the entirety of Judgral since I didn't play these games. I don't have too much experience with Mystery of the Emblem to really give an opinion about it but I find its general tone of a grey conflict quite pleasing.

From Worst-to-Best:

Fates Revelations:
Utter trainweck through and through. They couldn't even do the cliche plot of having a villain, that is responsible for everything bad happening, right.

Fates Conquest:
The only reason why this is above Revelations is its premise of being on the 'bad' side (so playing Camus pretty much). Otherwise it falls right in there with Revelations in one of the worst video game plots ever. I haven't seen such disrespect for its characters in an RPG.

Awakening:
Ok, as much as I hate Awakening as a game, its first 1/3 of the story is quite solid. There it little to critize there, it's told well and leaves some lasting impact. However the entirety of the Time Travel mechanic, that relies so much on that one betrayal scene, screws over the rest of the game hard. Doesn't help that half of the game is filled with that pointless Valm Arc and then throws Chrom out of the window to make Robin the main character. It had the potential to be much better.

Radiant Dawn:
Part 1 is okay and Part 2 is impressive despite its short length. Part 3 has a good concept and the conflict between Laguz vs Begnion is one of the grandest conflicts in FE. But was handled terribly at the 2nd half with the entire Blood Pact nonsense with Daein. It falls in the same pit as Conquest. They could have given Daein proper reasons to fight. I don't mind that Ike and his GMs have the spotlight but they could either stick with that or share it properly between the 2 sides.
Then following it up with the terrible, terrible Part 4 and you have a story that starts off strong but drops the ball at the later stages. It kinda de-values some of the characters as well (esp. the Black Knight).

Blazing Blade:
The story doesn't make any sense. It's supposed to be the prequel to Binding Blade, but it tramples almost on everything that it established there and makes a lot of convenient plot devices to erase its tracks for its sequel (hey, Marcus, I'm pretty sure you were in Arcadia. Apparently it wasn't important to tell us that, huh?!) etc. If you don't know about the Binding Blade the entirety of Etruria is never explored properly even though a good amount of the cast comes from there.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have its good points. It's character-driven and you have some memorable moments there. But the huge disconnect with its sequel leaves a bad aftertaste.

Fates Birthright:
Now because this is still part of Fates it is ultimately flawed in many ways. However, it's the most coherent storyline of the 3 and doesn't rely on the other 2 for the complete picture. Ryoma playing his Bond games is stupid but in general this comes quite close to a standard FE story when it comes to newer entries and that's fine by me. There are some genuine good moments in Birthright and the characters are more believeable overall.

Shadows of Valentia:
Pretty interesting story with some flawed ideas like Rudolf's plan and Celica being even more naive than Eirika (if that was even possible). Alm is pretty much the Mary Sue of Lords but there are still enjoyable and genuinely intriguing plot moments in Valentia that can be appreciated and it has solid themes to think about.

Sacred Stones:
Despite lacking in proper world building (but not Fates-level of bad) its characters, especially the villains, make it up for it. It is more character-driven and while it lacks an interesting punch to its overall conflict it is still enjoyable. If nothing else, it can be boring but not flawed like the previously mentioned titles.

Binding Blade:
Pretty good plot. It's told in a grand scheme with plenty of world building, political schemes and a villain that isn't just 'I am an evil sorcerer that will destroy the world'. It does borrow some elements from Shadow Dragon which it is based off (as FE6 is a re-telling of Shadow Dragon) but it is still one of the most solid plots in Fire Emblem.

Path of Radiance:
Like Binding Blade it has excellent world building and the general themes of racism and morality are very well told. Ashnard takes a page of Zephiel of being not a villain that is evil for the sake of evil and does a good job of making his point. Even though the Begnion Arc and the rest of the game are quite different (as one is a continent-wide conflict, the other slavery within a country) they don't deviate that much from the core values the story tries to convey, making it still feel coherent enough.
Overall, takes my vote for the best plot in Fire Emblem.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Talandar