Alastor plays and ranks the whole series! Mission Complete! ...For now.

[Acacia Sgt]

True. The only recent conflict before the War of Shadows was the unification of Talys. Would've been interesting if that had been such a case. Though Eremiya looks too young for that, since at least by the timeline, Talys was unified in 579 AY.

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Maof06 said:

I have to side with Otts in this one, because more often than not stories need very specific events in order for something to happen, and I can use GOTHW itself as an example. We have dumb things happening like Maera and his descendants still having children and putting the world in danger, or Julius not killing literally the only person who can defeat him, even though there is no reason to keep her alive. Without moments like these there would be no story, but just because it happened doesn't mean that GOTHW doesn't have a good story. If there's something I learned while reading countless works is that reality is often unrealistic.

I'm sorry if I am late and you guys have already moved on from this discussion.

Those are bad elements of a good story though. Excusing lazy writing with "Well there wouldn't be a plot otherwise" is, well it encourages lazy writing. You can make a plot that actually makes more sense the further you delve into it rather than less. And some writers do go to the effort to do so. I don't think writers who don't should be hearld to the same standard as writers who do worker harder to ensure that because "Eh no stories make sense anyway." Holding things to the standard they hold themselves all well and good, but Awakening (and Genealogy) is not a surrealist or absurdist piece. It's meant to be taking place in a world where people are much like ourselves with thoughts and actions that make sense for their goals.

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Finally someone else gets it! Storytelling is inherently unrealistic and inherently contrived. When you really get right down to it complaining about those things in stories is kind of pointless. The problem with trying to apply realism to a story is that it can be freely done to the biases of the one applying it. All unrealistic really means is something that is not true to reality. Which stories already are inherently to some degree. It’s called fiction for a reason. The rules any given story follows is not gonna be completely 1:1 with reality because a story can never truly represent reality. A story will inevitably break reality in order to get across its ideas. Dialogue being the prominent example. Real life conversation is nothing like scripted dialogue. But at the same stories will inevitably be invocative of reality simply because they spring from the human which does draw from reality. Really at the end of the day complaining about “realism” doesn’t really mean anything because stories are inherently unrealistic. Judge each piece of media by the rules it sets for itself not the rules you apply to it. 

Stories can obviously represent reality exactly by being a recount of true events.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Jotari

[Ottservia]

28 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Those are bad elements of a good story though. Excusing lazy writing with "Well there wouldn't be a plot otherwise" is, well it encourages lazy writing. You can make a plot that actually makes more sense the further you delve into it rather than less.

That’s true of literally every story in existence though. Like all stories are constructed in a specific way for a specific reason. Like I said the problem with the realism complaints is that it can be done freely to the biases of the one applying it. Like I can say Sigurd’s character is unrealistic for his naivete but like that’s literally the point of his character. Kaga says so himself and he’s punished for it. Like just because it’s unrealistic to you that doesn’t make it unrealistic to everyone else. It’s by no means universal. And if we wanna go by the rule “unrealistic/contrived = bad writing” then every story in existence that isn’t improv is bad writing simply by the sheer fact that the events of the story were written with a specific goal in mind. They did not happen spontaneously. The dialogue was written for the purposes of furthering the conflict, characterization, exposition, etc. like obviously the only reason the characters are explaining how their super powers work is because the reader needs to know how they work so they can better understand the story. Like you could call any moment like that contrived for that reason but it’s still necessary for the story. This is kind of what I mean when I say storytelling is inherently contrived. Cause you call anything in a story an excuse by the writer to pull the story in a specific direction because that’s literally the point of storytelling to express one’s ideas and how they view reality.  

 

28 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Stories can obviously represent reality exactly by being a recount of true events.

That is not at all what I meant. Even so, those stories still have dialogue meant to convey some kind of meaning correct? Dialogue that flows well, is easy to follow and understand, and moves the story forward. That’s what dialogue is meant to do. Now tell me, what about scripted dialogue is at all like real life conversation? You can’t because they’re not similar in the slightest. Meaning dialogue by itself is unrealistic by definition and every story that has scripted dialogue is unrealistic. That was my point.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Ottservia

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

That’s true of literally every story in existence though. Like all stories are constructed in a specific way for a specific reason. Like I said the problem with the realism complaints is that it can be done freely to the biases of the one applying it. Like I can say Sigurd’s character is unrealistic for his naivete but like that’s literally the point of his character. Kaga says so himself and he’s punished for it.

Imo Kaga is completley wrong there. Sigurd isn't naieve at all. Closest he gets to being naive is thinking he can convince Grandbell to return Agustria's sovereignty in half a year, which was more an on the moment desperate plea. Every decision he makes in his story he either has no choice in the matter or makes the out and out best choice possible. The thing people point to, marrying Deirdre and taking in Shannan would have really obviously bad consequences if he didn't take those actions. He cannot be blamed for taking Deirdre away from the spirit forest when Manfroy already knew about her existence, was searching the area already and Deidre had a habit of wandering out all on her own (that's how she met Sigurd).  To me Sigurd's story is not one of a character being punished for his decisions, but a character who was completely fucked over by the world through no fault of his own.

Quote

 

Like just because it’s unrealistic to you that doesn’t make it unrealistic to everyone else. It’s by no means universal. And if we wanna go by the rule “unrealistic/contrived = bad writing” then every story in existence that isn’t improv is bad writing simply by the sheer fact that the events of the story were written with a specific goal in mind. They did not happen spontaneously. The dialogue was written for the purposes of furthering the conflict, characterization, exposition, etc. like obviously the only reason the characters are explaining how their super powers work is because the reader needs to know how they work so they can better understand the story. Like you could call any moment like that contrived for that reason but it’s still necessary for the story. This is kind of what I mean when I say storytelling is inherently contrived. Cause you call anything in a story an excuse by the writer to pull the story in a specific direction because that’s literally the point of storytelling to express one’s ideas and how they view reality.  

Nope. You can call the contrived ones contrived. The ones that aren't contrived you shouldn't call contrived.

Quote

 

That is not at all what I meant. Even so, those stories still have dialogue meant to convey some kind of meaning correct? Dialogue that flows well, is easy to follow and understand, and moves the story forward.

Sometimes. Some stories don't have any dialogue at all. Check out Symphony for the City of the Dead. I don't think there's a single line of dialogue in that story at all.

Quote

That’s what dialogue is meant to do. Now tell me, what about scripted dialogue is at all like real life conversation? You can’t because they’re not similar in the slightest. Meaning dialogue by itself is unrealistic by definition and every story that has scripted dialogue is unrealistic. That was my point.

Depends on the story. Most dialogue is pragmatic over realistic, but some writers do go to the effort of making realistic dictation for their story. It's hard to do and make the dialogue still sound good and functional (especially in a written medium where mutterings and mishearings can't be conveyed as well) Should they not? Are you saying that doesn't enhance the story in any way and that it's a wasted effort. And conversely, yes, unrealistic dialogue can be really, really bad. You say all dialogue is unrealistic, but there's a spectrum there, dialogue that is overly stilted or overly uniform is generally bad writing and people do criticize it. And rightfully so. If every character in your book sounds like the same person because there's no variation in their voice, that is not a good thing.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Jotari

[Alastor15243]

Yeah, really, this "all writing is contrived" argument just seems like it's saying that "nothing is perfect, therefore everything is equally bad, and if you don't care about it in the ones that try harder, you shouldn't care about it in the ones that barely try at all".

Edited December 20, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Venger_06]

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

Those are bad elements of a good story though. Excusing lazy writing with "Well there wouldn't be a plot otherwise" is, well it encourages lazy writing. You can make a plot that actually makes more sense the further you delve into it rather than less. And some writers do go to the effort to do so. I don't think writers who don't should be hearld to the same standard as writers who do worker harder to ensure that because "Eh no stories make sense anyway."

4 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Yeah, really, this "all writing is contrived" argument just seems like it's saying that "nothing is perfect, therefore everything is equally bad, and if you don't care about it in the ones that try harder, you shouldn't care about it in the ones that barely try at all".

What I really meant by that is that while there are some moments that may not make sense according to someone’s perception, it doesn’t make the story inherently bad, and the payoff can make it all worthwhile. I am not saying that a writer should be lazy and that trying or not the result is the same, but that the positives that originated from the moment when you could not suspend your disbelief can outweigh the flaws. YMMV if the result made a good impression on you or not, but the moment we are discussing is mostly okay in my book, because I think the payoff is great and the small moments is what's most important. That's what I think the greater strength of Awakening is: when we get these intimate moments with the characters, they're surprisingly poignant. FE7 is very similar in this regard.

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

Imo Kaga is completley wrong there. Sigurd isn't naieve at all. Closest he gets to being naive is thinking he can convince Grandbell to return Agustria's sovereignty in half a year, which was more an on the moment desperate plea. Every decision he makes in his story he either has no choice in the matter or makes the out and out best choice possible. The thing people point to, marrying Deirdre and taking in Shannan would have really obviously bad consequences if he didn't take those actions. He cannot be blamed for taking Deirdre away from the spirit forest when Manfroy already knew about her existence, was searching the area already and Deidre had a habit of wandering out all on her own (that's how she met Sigurd).  To me Sigurd's story is not one of a character being punished for his decisions, but a character who was completely fucked over by the world through no fault of his own.

If Sigurd had taken Deirdre to Azmur and shown her brand of Naga, could he change his fate? That always got me thinking, but I think this would only worsen their situation. If he appeared married to Kurth's heiress, it would be even easier for Reptor and Langbalt to accuse him of murdering the prince to seize Grannvale's power. Even though he was fucked anyway and did the best he could in his situation, he didn't think about the long-term consequences when he went to invade Verdane and Agustria.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Maof06

[Ottservia]

3 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Yeah, really, this "all writing is contrived" argument just seems like it's saying that "nothing is perfect, therefore everything is equally bad, and if you don't care about it in the ones that try harder, you shouldn't care about it in the ones that barely try at all".

I’m not saying that it’s okay for writers to be lazy far from it. What I am saying though just because a moment may seem contrived or unrealistic that doesn’t mean it actually is. Cause sometimes there is meaning to those moments. Thematic meaning. Like with the awakening example, there is a purpose for why all that had to happen in that specific way. It was to showcase a specific idea and it does that relatively well if you ask me. Just because it seems unrealistic to you that doesn’t make it unrealistic to everyone else. Personally from my perspective it makes perfect sense why Chrom would apologize there but to you it doesn’t make any sense and that’s fine. But just because you don’t like it that doesn’t make it bad writing. Like I said these complaints are deeply rooted in bias. Like you know instead of disregarding these moments for not making sense try to figure out why they do because it may end up making more sense than you realize and if you were to change it then the story would not be the same. What I mean by all stories are contrived is that all stories are constructed and just because you can see why it was constructed the way it was that doesn’t mean it’s bad. There’s this really good video by craftsdwarf that really accurately explains why complaining about realism and contrivance isn’t really a good criticism that I’ll link here.

 

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not saying that it’s okay for writers to be lazy far from it. What I am saying though just because a moment may seem contrived or unrealistic that doesn’t mean it actually is. Cause sometimes there is meaning to those moments. Thematic meaning. Like with the awakening example, there is a purpose for why all that had to happen in that specific way. It was to showcase a specific idea and it does that relatively well if you ask me.

Well I think with Alastor quickly coming up with an example that would have evoked the same thematic beats and made more sense means that no, it didn't need to happen that specific way at all. In fact that specific way was a very bad way of displaying the themes as it contradicts the true weight of the themes by basically making Chrom quite inarguable correct in his actions.

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What I mean by all stories are contrived is that all stories are constructed and just because you can see why it was constructed the way it was that doesn’t mean it’s bad

The thing is that those two words do not mean the same thing. All stories are indeed constructed, that does not mean all stories are contrived. In the same way all houses are constructed, but one that is made out of nearby materials in a quick fashion is contrived.

 

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not saying that it’s okay for writers to be lazy far from it. What I am saying though just because a moment may seem contrived or unrealistic that doesn’t mean it actually is. Cause sometimes there is meaning to those moments. Thematic meaning.

You say that like it's impossible or extremely difficult to add thematic meaning to a story where characters are believable and the story makes sense, or that adding themes to a story automatically compensates for a story being dumb. Jordan Peele's "Us" is a story that has themes up the wazoo, but it didn't need to make it so that the Tethered stopped making sense if you think about them for more than a microsecond. They didn't even need to explain the Tethered at all. And yet they did. They could've just kept them as creepy, supernatural, metaphorical monsters embodying the themes Peele wanted to talk about, and the story would have been way better because the monsters would have stayed "mysterious" instead of "dumb". As YMS said about the movie: "On one hand this is a film that you can discover more about the more you think about it, and on the other it's a film that makes less sense the more you think about it."

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

You say that like it's impossible or extremely difficult to add thematic meaning to a story where characters are believable and the story makes sense, or that adding themes to a story automatically compensates for a story being dumb.

It depends on the story really. It’s not universal. Like I said it’s biased. I can overlook problems like that because personally it doesn’t take away from the thematic message being made. There’s no argument to be had there because it’s entirely subjective. No story is perfect that should be obvious. You can find a plot hole in literally anything if you look hard enough. And that’s really the problem with those kinds of criticism. You’re basically making a mountain out of a mole hill. Sure it having a logical inconsistency can be seen as bad but how much does it really matter in the grand scheme of things. Again going back to the awakening example. Personally, I can appreciate the ideas they’re trying to showcase so the seemingly logical inconsistency doesn’t bother me. Are there better ways to handle it? probably but the way they did was fine. Minor logical inconsistency aside. Like @Maof06 said, the meaning behind these moments can outweigh the broken suspension of disbelief and that’s what it does for me. I can appreciate the ideas being presented so those logical inconsistencies don’t bother me because to me the thematic build up and pay off later on is satisfactory to me. That’s not to say you shouldn’t be bothered by these things because you absolutely can be and you are completely entitled to that opinion. But don’t try to twist that opinion into anything more than what it is, a personal preference not a legitimate criticism. To end I will quote the video I linked above.

“To read it merely by reality creates dissonance, but as stated earlier, it’s a dissonance that’s unavoidable once you understand that storytelling is by nature artificial and unable to truly represent reality in so many ways. Because even if the lack of reality is graciously accepted and utilized, stories are ultimately made by and read by people, who will inevitably include and derive human ideas from the stories they engage in. Love Live is not worse for divorcing itself from reality in a way that avoids the same reality Wake Up Girls uses to create conflict, as not only does it feed into the character motivations and tone in wants to evoke, but even in their greater abstraction from reality there is still the very real ideas of character struggling to improve themselves so that they might achieve what wouldn’t be possible otherwise.”

 

[Samz707]

30 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well I think with Alastor quickly coming up with an example that would have evoked the same thematic beats and made more sense means that no, it didn't need to happen that specific way at all. In fact that specific way was a very bad way of displaying the themes as it contradicts the true weight of the themes by basically making Chrom quite inarguable correct in his actions.

Pretty much, I never get the vibe that Chrom's ever actually in the wrong in Awakening. (Well, he's an idiot for hiring Robin, brushes off killing Raimi's soldiers to the point of sociopathy and such, never actually in the wrong for anything that the developers want to see as flaws.)

 

38 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not saying that it’s okay for writers to be lazy far from it. What I am saying though just because a moment may seem contrived or unrealistic that doesn’t mean it actually is. Cause sometimes there is meaning to those moments. Thematic meaning. Like with the awakening example, there is a purpose for why all that had to happen in that specific way. It was to showcase a specific idea and it does that relatively well if you ask me. Just because it seems unrealistic to you that doesn’t make it unrealistic to everyone else.

And just because you don't see at is unrealistic doesn't mean others can't.

Also Thematic meaning is literally the problem, it's painfully obvious the game is trying to push a (as far as I can see in my playthrough as this LP is actually what's motivating me to finally finish it as I originally called it quits in the early Valm Arc) not very good message, the events in the story are contrived  intentionally to push a theme. (And IMO that Theme is terrible anyway.)

There's a difference between having themes naturally occur on your work in a way that players can pick up on and decide for themselves and sorta forcing them onto the player by contrived means and effectively preaching it to them.

An "Out of universe" reason doesn't excuse it from an "In Universe" view.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Samz707

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I can overlook problems like that because personally it doesn’t take away from the thematic message being made.

Why? Why do you enjoy themes that much? What do they do for you to add to the entertainment value of a story? Genuinely curious.

[Ottservia]

14 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Why? Why do you enjoy themes that much? What do they do for you to add to the entertainment value of a story? Genuinely curious.

Because that’s kind of the point of storytelling. Stories, like all forms of art, are a form of expression. An expression of how one perceives the world around them. The themes of a story are essentially what ties everything else together. Why does this character lose this fight? Because of some innate character flaw that the story wants to explore. As an aspiring writer, I want to convey ideas through my stories. Ideas and messages that people can resonate with and help them to better understand themselves and the world around them. That’s what stories are to me. Relating to and understanding the core message behind a given work is a beautiful thing and can lead to introspection as well as the furthering of one’s worldview. I want to understand stories and the messages behind them. I want to know why I can relate to a character and why others can relate to a character I can’t. What makes a scene so emotional to both me and others. Why do we cry or feel happy with stories? What about stories makes us feel these emotions? It’s because we can understand the themes and messages behind those moments. The tragedy of a fictional character not realizing the flaws in their ideals until its too late, a character never giving up despite all odds, the horror and tregedy of war, the despair found in regret and loss, the beauty of a moment that you take for granted until it is nothing more than a fading memory, etc.. Those are only a fraction of the messages stories can convey and I feel like we should appreciate those things. Those are the things that make stories what they are. What allows us to understand and relate to them. That’s what art is.

[Jotari]

I don't think themes can even really be backed up in a story that contradicts logic. Like in the Chrom example the way it plays out does weaken the theme because Chrom is not making a mistake. Acting like it was a mistake he needs to apologize for afterwards doesn't actually make it a mistake. The thematic throughline fails to hit home because he's not actually acting in the rash manner everyone is pretending he is acting for the theme to actually be present. It's a work wanting to have its theme but not actually having it, compensating by having the characters claim there's a theme. If you want to have a theme of a character acting in a rash manner and then being humbled by the results of it, then you actually have have that character act in a rash manner and actually have to have them humbled with a noticeable change in their behaviour. If you fail to actually do that you're not actually exploring a theme. You're just saying "Hey, this is a theme" and not actually doing anything with it.

Next chapter we'll be treated to a theme of betrayal of sorts, where once again the characters are going to tell us there's a theme of betrayal happening which the story in no way backs up due to apperantly loyal and beloved betrayer having no existence at all in the plot until the moment he betrays the party. He is literally invented on the spot to initiate a conflict in the chapter. That is not accomplishing any themeatic exploration of betrayed loyalty because we see none of the loyalty and love the characters share. Chrom and Lissa just tell us and in the very next sentence he betrays them. It's almost comical how badly written that is, yet despite Awakening being a comedic game, they're trying to sell that moment completely straight.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Jotari

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Because that’s kind of the point of storytelling. Stories, like all forms of art, are a form of expression. An expression of how one perceives the world around them. The themes of a story are essentially what ties everything else together.

But all a theme amounts to is an artist's intention. Everything else is the actual execution. You don't need to sacrifice execution to have a good intention, and having interesting intentions shouldn't excuse shoddy execution.

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

But all a theme amounts to is an artist's intention. Everything else is the actual execution. You don't need to sacrifice execution to have a good intention, and having interesting intentions shouldn't excuse shoddy execution.

Okay then what is poor execution? Genuine question because to me poor execution is whenever a story is inconsistent with itself or those themes to which awakening never really is. Cause yes execution is important but minor logical inconsistencies that hardly take away from the story’s thematic message is not poor execution because 1. That’s just a matter of personal preference not a narrative flaw. And 2. It’s just an incredibly small thing to be hung up about. Realism in stories isn’t what matters. It’s verisimilitude. As I say time and time again, Judge a story by the rules it sets for itself not the rules you set for it. So long as the story follows its own rules without being contradictory(with no explanation anyway because retcons can work) then I don’t see the issue. Any idea should be good in theory so long as the story remains emotionally and thematically satisfying. Every story follows a different set of rules. There’s no universal standard so trying to apply one doesn’t work. Stories need to be judged on a case by case basis. Like a big criticism I hear of SAO that’s really fucking dumb is that SAO wouldn’t be good game in real life. Like okay you’re technically correct but that’s besides the point. What does that have anything to do with the story’s themes regarding the beauty of a virtual world and how indistinguishable it can be from reality? Like to use that as a criticism of SAO doesn’t work because the story had no intention of exploring that idea or acknowledging it because it has nothing to do with the themes or ideas it wants to get across. That’s not poor execution. Poor execution would be a character saying he was flawed when the story never presents him as such(I.e. Alm). Cause at least with Chrom he is saying that he was wrong and the story in that moment tries to portray him as such(from things like Gangrel’s response, his dialogue in the scene, and Emmeryn’s scolding). Could it have been handled better? Definitely, but it’s by no means inconsistent in accordance to the story’s own rules and what it has already established. In that way, any other logical inconsistency doesn’t bother me personally. It can definitely bother you but that doesn’t mean it should bother everyone else.

[Alastor15243]

27 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

As I say time and time again, Judge a story by the rules it sets for itself not the rules you set for it.

I don't understand what you could possibly mean by this. If you mean something along the lines of "Magic A is Magic A", where things like magic don't need to be logical as long as they're consistent and follow their own rules, I totally get stuff like that. Suspension of disbelief is crucial to enjoy any story with myths and magic. But if you're trying to say that a story should be able to set its own rules for what qualifies as intelligent or moral behavior, and that if it doesn't make sense, that's my problem and not the writer's... I just can't agree with that. In the slightest. Because that sounds like it would be starting to object to the concept of literary criticism itself.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Ottservia]

43 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

I don't understand what you could possibly mean by this. If you mean something along the lines of "Magic A is Magic A", where things like magic don't need to be logical as long as they're consistent and follow their own rules, I totally get stuff like that. Suspension of disbelief is crucial to enjoy any story with myths and magic. But if you're trying to say that a story should be able to set its own rules for what qualifies as intelligent or moral behavior, and that if it doesn't make sense, that's my problem and not the writer's... I just can't agree with that. In the slightest.

Well that depends on what you mean by “doesn’t make sense” if what you mean is that it’s something that doesn’t make sense on moral front then yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. Because no story is obligated to pander to your moral sensibilities least of all ones from an entirely different culture you may not understand. Morality is already a complex thing on its own that really has no set rules to it and varies from person to person. We all have our ideals and values. Authors are no different and just because you disagree with what an author considers morally right or wrong in their story that does not make it poorly written. The same is true of stories that showcase less savory moral values( like love craft’s unapologetic racism) but that’s worth a whole discussion on its own that I don’t wanna get into here. Just know my stance is that I disagree with those kinds of messages but that doesn’t take away from the quality of the writing. Regardless, the entire purpose of storytelling is to present ideas and just because you disagree with those ideas that doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s just different. And I feel like we should respect those ideas and perspectives and not simply dissmiss them as bad on the grounds that you disagree.

On a logical front, that’s kind of what I’m saying. Obviously if a character contradicts themselves without any reason or explanation at least none that the story acknowledges then yeah that’s bad writing(Looking at you Ryouma). Or if a story breaks it’s own internal logic without explanation then yes that is bad writing. However, just because a character acts in way that goes against what you would do in that situation then no that’s not bad writing. That’s on you because that’s personal. Not everyone is going to feel that way. Hell, some people might heavily relate to the character in question and might even relate most to that moment in particular because that’s something they would personally do. 
 

it’s like this. I relate to Severa a lot. Everything about her character is something I resonate with on a very personal level. But not everyone is going to relate to her in the same way. I find that her relationship with her mom is incredibly “realistic” because I’ve been in that situation before. It’s happened to me in my own life so I can relate. However, everyone’s lives are different and some people may view it as “unrealistic” because it’s never happened to them or anyone they know. They may not like it for that reason which they are perfectly entitled to say. But to call it bad writing for that reason is a moot point because you are criticizing the character for not being what you want them to be. To make Severa more “realistic” to the people who dislike her would only serve to make her “unrealistic” to people like me. She wouldn’t be the same character anymore. The character had no intention of being what you wanted them to be. Severa was written to be an abrasive tsundere with an inferiority complex. To change her character to be “nicer” because you disagree with the idea of dealing with trauma in the abrasive way she does is missing the point. She wouldn’t be the same character anymore and people like myself and many others would no longer relate to her because she’s now more “realistic” to you not me. It’s like Fates’ continent not having a name or the story not delving into the lore and politics of its world. It had no intention of doing that or telling that kind of story so you shouldn’t criticize it for not having those things. It never wanted to explore those ideas. If Fates wanted to explore those ideas, it would have but it didn’t because it didn’t want to. It’s really that simple.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Ottservia

[Alastor15243]

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

However, just because a character acts in way that goes against what you would do in that situation then no that’s not bad writing.

That's not even the criticism that started this entire argument. It's not that Chrom did something I wouldn't do in that situation, it's that he did something that everyone would do in that situation and then later apologized for it despite it not remotely being in his character to even see what he did as a bad thing. And then you basically said that in order to appreciate the story and its themes properly, we have to will ourselves to see his actions here as a flaw he has to grow from even though that 1: makes no sense, and 2: is something that the story barely even put in the effort to convey in that scene.

[Ottservia]

15 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

That's not even the criticism that started this entire argument. It's not that Chrom did something I wouldn't do in that situation, it's that he did something that everyone would do in that situation and then later apologized for it despite it not remotely being in his character to even see what he did as a bad thing. And then you basically said that in order to appreciate the story and its themes properly, we have to will ourselves to see his actions here as a flaw he has to grow from even though that 1: makes no sense, and 2: is something that the story barely even put in the effort to convey in that scene.

1. I was using that as a general example not at all related to the situation that started it. It was just as a general example for my argument.

2. Not in his character? Have we been playing the same game? One of the entire points about Chrom’s character is that he’s self-depracative especially in comparison to his sister. That’s something that’s been well established ever since the prologue. Like Lucina has to get that from someone and her father is likely where she gets it from. He wants to be more like his sister so of course he would apologize for doing something that his sister would deem wrong. Chrom idiolizes Emmeryn to the point where it blinds him to both her flaws and what her ideals truly stand for. That’s the kind of person he is.

3. but at least the story puts in the effort to get that idea across in the way it finds most suitable. You may not see it that way because it doesn’t make sense to you. But it certainly makes sense to me and it’s not at all inconsistent with stories themes or internal logic. So in that way can that be called a true objective major narrative flaw? I would argue no because 1. It’s a minor issue that many people like myself can overlook and 2. The internal consistency of the story is intact.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Ottservia

[Alastor15243]

...We're not getting anywhere at this point, honestly. Maybe we should drop this.

[Samz707]

33 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

 

2. Not in his character? Have we been playing the same game? One of the entire points about Chrom’s character is that he’s self-depracative especially in comparison to his sister. That’s something that’s been well established ever since the prologue. Like Lucina has to get that from someone and her father is likely where she gets it from. He wants to be more like his sister so of course he would apologize for doing something that his sister would deem wrong. Chrom idiolizes Emmeryn to the point where it blinds him to both her flaws and what her ideals truly stand for. That’s the kind of person he is.

Except literally everyone idiolizes Emmeryn that's not Gangrel, if they didn't they'd probably call Chrom out for blindly idiolizing her without remembering her flaws, which no one does. 

It feels like the game itself idiolizes her.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Samz707

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

...We're not getting anywhere at this point, honestly. Maybe we should drop this.

I'd say so. This "debate", not uncommon if you check other topics where the exact same points were brought up absolutely no one was persuaded, is clogging up a topic intended for other things. If you can't persuade, then agree to disagree and disengage. Thats what I'd say.

This is video games, and any talk of literary criticism is just as much a matter of entertainment, and therefore not really important in the grand scheme of the world. And if the "debates" of talking past each other are neither fun nor important, then one should close their mouth and ears to the outside, and instead return to the fun of the entertainment being debated itself.

[Emperor Hardin]

2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

...We're not getting anywhere at this point, honestly. Maybe we should drop this.

Wanna hear about the Eremiya plot holes?

15 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

True. The only recent conflict before the War of Shadows was the unification of Talys. Would've been interesting if that had been such a case. Though Eremiya looks too young for that, since at least by the timeline, Talys was unified in 579 AY.

Eremiya was brainwashed to be evil when Clarisse was a small toddler too young to remember her parents.

[Alastor15243]

7 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Wanna hear about the Eremiya plot holes?

Eremiya was brainwashed to be evil when Clarisse was a small toddler too young to remember her parents.

Right, right, I remember seeing that very early in the morning when I checked out the thread updates after randomly waking up. Totally forgot about that by the time I woke up for real.

That hadn't occurred to me. I assumed they were talking about the war in Shadow Dragon, but obviously that's impossible given how old the assassins are and how young they were when they started getting raised.

...How the fuck old is Eremiyah supposed to be, then? She barely looks a day over 20.