I want another villain like Grima*3H spoilers*

[Etrurian emperor]

On 8/16/2019 at 1:41 PM, Hekselka said:

 

I'd rather have an Arvis or an Edelgard any day of the week instead off some of the other FE saturday cartoon villains.

I'd say both villains have their strengths and weaknesses.  

When done properly a villain like Arvis is usually better then a saterday morning cartoon villain. But they can also fall completely flat if you don't buy their motivation. A lot of well intended or visionary villains fall into the trap of being really blatantly in the wrong and if that's the case then the whole villain falls flat. 

An obviously evil villain has less chances to impress but also less chances to go wrong. 

[Ottservia]

45 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

When done properly a villain like Arvis is usually better then a saterday morning cartoon villain. But they can also fall completely flat if you don't buy their motivation. A lot of well intended or visionary villains fall into the trap of being really blatantly in the wrong and if that's the case then the whole villain falls flat. 

ehhhhh I don't agree with this cause like the whole point of a villain is the fact that they are wrong. That's kind of the idea. The only time stuff like this is not true is  in a story like death note or code geass where the morality of who is right and wrong is completely blurred and the themes presented are explored in a way that makes it difficult to root for any given "side" of the argument. It simply just presents an idea and allows the characters and the audience to draw their own conclusions without really painting anyone as wholly in the wrong or right(then again in that case there is no such thing as a villain but rather just a bunch of antagonistic forces working against each other but fsjapdfaspm). Most other villains of this ilk usually do carry some sort of contradiction in their ideals or some kind of hypocrisy that proves their philosophy wrong which gives the heroes a chance to defeat them. That philosophy usually goes against the core messages of the story at hand and in proving it wrong the heroes can better convey the true message that the story wants to. Like I dunno if what I just explained made sense but in summary , complaining that a villain is a hypocrite is like complaining that you can order burgers at Mcdonalds cause that's kind of the idea of a villain in the first place. 

[Etrurian emperor]

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

ehhhhh I don't agree with this cause like the whole point of a villain is the fact that they are wrong. That's kind of the idea. The only time stuff like this is not true is  in a story like death note or code geass where the morality of who is right and wrong is completely blurred and the themes presented are explored in a way that makes it difficult to root for any given "side" of the argument. It simply just presents an idea and allows the characters and the audience to draw their own conclusions without really painting anyone as wholly in the wrong or right(then again in that case there is no such thing as a villain but rather just a bunch of antagonistic forces working against each other but fsjapdfaspm). Most other villains of this ilk usually do carry some sort of contradiction in their ideals or some kind of hypocrisy that proves their philosophy wrong which gives the heroes a chance to defeat them. That philosophy usually goes against the core messages of the story at hand and in proving it wrong the heroes can better convey the true message that the story wants to. Like I dunno if what I just explained made sense but in summary , complaining that a villain is a hypocrite is like complaining that you can order burgers at Mcdonalds cause that's kind of the idea of a villain in the first place. 

I don't really agree with this. The tragedy of the sympathetic villain isn't that they are wrong at identifying a problem but that they are terribly wrong when applying their solution. Edelgard and Arvis aren't wrong when examining the problems of their worlds. They make valid observation and are honestly doing what they think is best to fix it. And both are all the more interesting for it. What makes them villains isn't their cause but the means they use to achieve their goals. 

But Zephiel also honestly thinks he's doing the right thing. But he's wrong. Unlike Arvis and Edelgard he's just wrong in the observation he makes. There really is an oppressive cast system in Fodlan and people really do get burned at the stake in Jugdral. Arvis and Edelgard are correct in trying to fix that. But when Zephiel concludes humanity is rotten because daddy was the one person in the world who didn't love him he's just wrong and he's trying to fix a problem that isn't there.

A sympathetic villain is at its best when they do seek to address problems that genuinely exist and when they aren't obviously, irredeemably evil about fixing them. For that sort of villain to work they need to have a valid point and at least some set of positive traits that makes the audience sympathize with them. 

 

[Flere210]

And Arvis manages to make things 10 times worse, while Edelgard most likely suceed, but Claude would have succeded anyway whitout starting a war, so yes, they are misguided and are not following the best path to solve the issue. More often than not the problem of a Villain is tunnelvision as they think there is only one, usually violent, way to solve the problem.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Flere210

[Ottservia]

8 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't really agree with this. The tragedy of the sympathetic villain isn't that they are wrong at identifying a problem but that they are terribly wrong when applying their solution. Edelgard and Arvis aren't wrong when examining the problems of their worlds. They make valid observation and are honestly doing what they think is best to fix it. And both are all the more interesting for it. What makes them villains isn't their cause but the means they use to achieve their goals. 

But Zephiel also honestly thinks he's doing the right thing. But he's wrong. Unlike Arvis and Edelgard he's just wrong in the observation he makes. There really is an oppressive cast system in Fodlan and people really do get burned at the stake in Jugdral. Arvis and Edelgard are correct in trying to fix that. But when Zephiel concludes humanity is rotten because daddy was the one person in the world who didn't love him he's just wrong and he's trying to fix a problem that isn't there.

A sympathetic villain is at its best when they do seek to address problems that genuinely exist and when they aren't obviously, irredeemably evil about fixing them. For that sort of villain to work they need to have a valid point and at least some set of positive traits that makes the audience sympathize with them. 

 

Yes, but they are still wrong at the end of the day are they not? They may have a point in the ideas and ambitions they strive to achieve however they’re still portrayed as in the wrong when all is said and done. Again they have a point but they are wrong in how they go about trying to prove that point. You cannot defeat a sound argument so if a villain did indeed have a sound argument the heroes would be unable to defeat them. A villain has to be wrong in some fashion in order to be defeated. It doesn’t matter how they’re wrong be it their methods, corr ideology, whatever. They just have to be wrong and portrayed as such throughout the course of the narrative. A villain who has a point that is ultimately undermined by some form of contradictions is what allows them to be defeated. Take Pein from Naruto as an example. He did indeed have a point and a good one at that but where he went wrong is that in trying to unite the world through empathy he had abandoned what empathy was himself. It’s only in exploiting that contradiction that Naruto was able to defeat him. For an FE example look at Walhart. He wants nothing more than to abandon the past, to discard the traditions and legacies of those that came before in order to forge his own path and future. However in doing so he only ends up repeating the past which contradicts his core belief. By trying to discard the past, he never truly escapes it which allows Chrom(someone who acknowledges the past and has learned from it) to defeat him. It is only because of those contradictions that these villains and their ideals can be defeated. They are definitively wrong no matter what kind of valid argument they posed. Their arguments were not completely sound so they(and by extension their arguments) were defeated.

[Strullemia]

7 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I'd say both villains have their strengths and weaknesses.  

When done properly a villain like Arvis is usually better then a saterday morning cartoon villain. But they can also fall completely flat if you don't buy their motivation. A lot of well intended or visionary villains fall into the trap of being really blatantly in the wrong and if that's the case then the whole villain falls flat. 

An obviously evil villain has less chances to impress but also less chances to go wrong. 

True, which is why I hope that IS will continue to write more well written characters like them. I don't mind a obviously evil villain from time to time but I much prefer one that has more interesting goals. That makes it all the more satisfying to fight them.

@Flere210

Claude only managed to pull his plans through because he made use of the war. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Hekselka

[Etrurian emperor]

4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Yes, but they are still wrong at the end of the day are they not?

Yes but there are different flavors of wrong and each breeds a different reaction in the audience. 

Gharnef is wrong because he's just irredeemable evil which can breed amusement or contemt in the audience but never empathy. 

Zephiel is wrong because he's a gigantic crybaby. For people like me that just makes him silly.  

Michalis is wrong because he's an absolute dullard which can breed contempt in players like me. 

Nergal is wrong because he's insane which can garner some degree of pity. 

And Edelward and Arvis are right but are wrong in how they address this. Though even this can be debated. Its notable that things only went wrong for the world Arvis went on to create because he was sabotaged and not because he was hypocritical or dishonest in his ideals or that those ideals were wrong.  Going by her ending things actually end up swimmingly for Fodlan once Edelgard's initial bloodbath is over. 

[Ottservia]

21 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Yes but there are different flavors of wrong and each breeds a different reaction in the audience. 

To this I agree somewhat. However the crux of your argument here is a subjective one. Like yeah you can believe Zephiel's reasons for doing the things he does are kind of stupid but that's mostly a subjective take. Like my point is that just because you don't agree with a villain or character that doesn't make it bad writing because you're supposed to disagree with a villain that's kind of the idea. You're never really supposed to root for villain like ever and that's what makes them villains. What makes it bad writing is if it doesn't make sense within the context of the story or the message the story wants to tell(like with Berkut). Like they're not supposed to be right. whether you agree with a villain is mostly irrelevant to the quality of the story because again you're not supposed to agree with them. A villain is just a specialized version of an antagonist which is supposed to oppose the protagonist in some meaningful conflict that reflects the themes of the story. That's what a villain is supposed to do and should be criticized on that front rather than if you agree with them or not because whether or not you agree with a villain is almost a completely subjective point meaning that argument is rendered moot and cannot work. cause you can disagree with anyone. what if I said I disagree with Edelgard's ideals and methods. Does that make her a bad villain? simply because I don't agree with her? of course not! cause that's not what makes a bad villain. Again that's a subjective claim. To critique or analyze something requires a level of objectivity for the the argumentative claim to work. To say a villain is "bad" or poorly written just because you don't agree with them is wholly subjective and cannot be used as an argumentative claim.

[0 Def Cleric]

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

To say a villain is "bad" or poorly written just because you don't agree with them is wholly subjective and cannot be used as an argumentative claim.

Dude, you need to put spacing in your paragraphs. Badly.

And you're arguing with something that wasn't said, in the first place. Yes, every villain exists to be wrong, but depending on how they're wrong, they'll engender more sympathy and interest from an audience. A literal ooze puppet that makes completely irrational decisions is generally less interesting to a wider audience than a villain who could have, in another world, been a hero. Or one that's actually terrifying, just based on their actions alone, rather than cartoonish. 

Of course villains can be wrong, that's how they're supposed to be! But it's much better if they're wrong in an interesting way. For example, with your first post on this thread, Grima just oozes charm, and that lets them be interesting to the player even though they're an absolute abomination. Garon doesn't really have anything going for him besides "is a puppet of the greater mastermind" and we've seen that six hundred times before. 

Evil doesn't mean you have to be a flat character. 

[Julian Solo]

8 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Dude, you need to put spacing in your paragraphs. Badly.

And you're arguing with something that wasn't said, in the first place. Yes, every villain exists to be wrong, but depending on how they're wrong, they'll engender more sympathy and interest from an audience. A literal ooze puppet that makes completely irrational decisions is generally less interesting to a wider audience than a villain who could have, in another world, been a hero. Or one that's actually terrifying, just based on their actions alone, rather than cartoonish. 

Of course villains can be wrong, that's how they're supposed to be! But it's much better if they're wrong in an interesting way. For example, with your first post on this thread, Grima just oozes charm, and that lets them be interesting to the player even though they're an absolute abomination. Garon doesn't really have anything going for him besides "is a puppet of the greater mastermind" and we've seen that six hundred times before. 

Evil doesn't mean you have to be a flat character. 

Garon such a weird villain because his a confirmed cartiture. Water clone of Anankos whose only function is to abuse Corrin and there siblings.

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Of course villains can be wrong, that's how they're supposed to be! But it's much better if they're wrong in an interesting way. For example, with your first post on this thread, Grima just oozes charm, and that lets them be interesting to the player even though they're an absolute abomination. Garon doesn't really have anything going for him besides "is a puppet of the greater mastermind" and we've seen that six hundred times before. 

yes, but that's not what makes a good villain. "interesting" is inherently a subjective term to describe something. What I may find interesting is completely different from what you may find interesting and that's totally okay. There is nothing wrong with people having different opinions. I find Grima charming but someone else might not and even so that's not what makes Grima a good villain.

What makes Grima a good villain is his role in the story and what he represents in regards to the themes of the narrative. Grima himself is a representation of failure. to be more specific, he is a representation of the failures of humanity to learn from their mistakes which is pretty much the entire point of awakening's narrative. Learning from the mistakes of the past to move forward. This idea permeates literally everywhere throughout Grima's character. He was created out forneus's grief from being unable to move on from the past. and even disregarding his backstory(which is mostly irrelevant anyway), he constantly says he and robin are the same. But they're not because the robin that became Grima's vessel had failed. That Robin failed to make meaningful connections and believe in his friends therefore Grima was resurrected and bad things happened as a result. Grima saying he and Robin are the same is the same as saying that Robin is the same person who made those mistakes when He's not both literally and figuratively. In defeating him you prove that. I could go all day about the themes and ideas presents within awakening's narrative but I've done that in another thread(link in sig). 

My main point here is that a villain should be criticized by how well they play their role in the story. A villain's actions don't need to make sense so long as it is conducive to the themes of the narrative. Garon's actions being as nonsensical as they are is kind of the point. His actions aren't supposed to make sense because otherwise Corrin wouldn't question them and that's the entire point. You're supposed to question Garon and unveil the deception he brings on. That's what the narrative wants you to do and it does that relatively well if you ask me. Like to criticize Garon's actions for not making sense is like criticizing water for being wet because that's the entire point. Again I could go on all day about this but I already have in a different thread(link in my sig). 

What makes a well written villain is not whether or not they're interesting or agreeable because that's subjective. I can find literally anything interesting that doesn't make it well written though. My point is that a good villain is a villain that challenges our hero in a meaningful way that reflects the themes of the story. That's what a villain is supposed to do. Whether or not their actions or motives are interesting or make sense is for the most part irrelevant to that conversation

[0 Def Cleric]

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

[All That Nonsense]

Themes don't mean anything when the story's garbage on its own. A story is meant first to convey a series of events, and then portray a theme through those events. If it can't portray the series of events believably, it fails as a story, and is simply an unfulfilled theme statement. 

Garon's actions do not need to be nonsensical to drive the plot. Cruel actions can make perfect sense in the context of a story, and yet they can still be easily questioned. Corrin doesn't need to be childishly inept at noticing oddities in people's behavior to drive the plot; even if Fates had a coherent theme in finding the truth at all costs, Corrin is an active detriment to it. Garon could easily have simply changed from being a firm but kind ruler to a cruel and overbearing one with no seeming reason, and that would drive the plot enough to get Corrin to question "is this man truly who he says he is" without having to make Garon's actions spew out of a random number generator each chapter. 

Grima is a decent villain because they both drive forward the themes of the story and are a consistently written being. They always work to further their goals, while Garon's actions are inconsistent enough to make you question whether he even has a goal- which is in complete opposition to what he is, as a puppet of Anankos. He should be performing the tasks that Anankos sets out for him, yet his actions are so inconsistent and even contradictory that Anankos would do well to eat him as soon as we get to Conquest Ch.10. Fates' story is a garbage fire for other reasons, but its inconsistent writing of Garon is a major one. 

(I've read the Fates story "analysis" in your signature, and it's far too focused on theme to count as one. Despite what high school English literature classes will teach you, a good theme does not a good story make.) 

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Themes don't mean anything when the story's garbage on its own. A story is meant first to convey a series of events, and then portray a theme through those events. If it can't portray the series of events believably, it fails as a story, and is simply an unfulfilled theme statement. 

to that I raise a question. What is a story if not just a conveyance of an author's view on reality? Writing is a form of art and like all art is a form of expression. Everything in a story is in service to some core idea the author wants to explore. That's just what stories are. The themes aren't in service to the events of the story. It's the other way around. A story is supposed to convey an idea not a series of events. Those series of events are supposed to help convey the idea otherwise it's shallow. Authors write stories to convey ideas and messages about the world around them. Those ideas can be as simple as "pizza tastes good" to as complex as "existentialism". Think about why people create things in the first place. Why does a writer write? 

Stories in it of themselves are inherently unrealistic when you really think about it. and even then that is a subjective point because personally I can overlook something that is "unrealistic" if it has an interesting idea to explore. If you can't then that's fine because it's a matter of personal opinion. Like it's unrealistic for me to be able to defy the power of an ancient god due to the power of friendship but the thematic idea behind it still makes sense as it is one's connections with others that can help a person be pulled out from the despair of failure. In that way it delivers a message through unrealistic means which is fine. To claim claim a story is unrealistic or contrived is moot because stories are inherently unrealistic and contrived. Nothing in a story happens naturally or organically. Every event in the story is deliberately planned out by the author to happen in order to convey an idea.  That's just how writing works.

Story telling means to lie. You must trick your audience into thinking the events are happening naturally when they're not. That's the illusion of storytelling but even then it can be seen as subjective. Cause when you think about it suspension of disbelief is inherently subjective cause it's different for every person. I can buy into a lot of things that may seem forced or contrived to someone else. Again, it varies from person and the author has very little control over that. 

1 hour ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Garon's actions do not need to be nonsensical to drive the plot. Cruel actions can make perfect sense in the context of a story, and yet they can still be easily questioned. Corrin doesn't need to be childishly inept at noticing oddities in people's behavior to drive the plot; even if Fates had a coherent theme in finding the truth at all costs, Corrin is an active detriment to it. Garon could easily have simply changed from being a firm but kind ruler to a cruel and overbearing one with no seeming reason, and that would drive the plot enough to get Corrin to question "is this man truly who he says he is" without having to make Garon's actions spew out of a random number generator each chapter. 

you are correct in that Garon's actions don't need to be inconsistent to convey the story's theme. Neither does Corrin need to be ineptly naive. However, that is how the story WANTS to convey its theme and that's fine. The events of a story don't "need" to happen. Grima doesn't "need" to be resurrected to convey the message the story wants to convey but that's how the story wants to convey its message so that's what happens. Like the story wants to convey a message or theme and it can do that however the fuck it wants so long as the theme is consistent and it doesn't contradict itself there should be no problem. Also Garon does have a somewhat consistent goal and that is really to cause as much as destruction as possible without giving away the fact he's not Garon and yeah that's kind of what he does. 

Edit: Though I will say chapter 15 of conquest is a very weird oddity in this case because how weird it is. Like thematically it's supposed to act as a sort of reward to Corrin finally questioning Garon but it's inconsistent with Azura's character and even with what she represents thematically throughout the story. Now that is a plot point I will fully admit could've been done better. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Ottservia

[0 Def Cleric]

30 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

[all that]

Stories do, yes, exist to tell an author's view on the world, generally. 
However, the other (and far more important) purpose of stories is to entertain, especially in a video game context. 
And a story conveying its theme poorly when it has great opportunity to portray it well is... not entertaining in the slightest. Organically portraying events (whether it can be truly organic or not) makes a story more believable, and thus entertaining. Fates fails on that point in every way, but especially with Garon's portrayal. Cut him from the story, and you'd immediately improve it by a factor of 10, simply because his actions are so difficult to believe. 

If a story wants to portray its theme in a certain way, then it must portray it competently, or it will be subject to criticism from people like me. A proper theme makes as much logical sense (of course, taking humans' penchant for irrationality into account) as possible within the confines of the setting. For example, though Awakening's story isn't terrible by any means, the idea of inescapable fate could be portrayed by other means than inconsistent internal logic, so I rank it a good deal lower then Genealogy's first generation, with a similar theme. 

...No FE game's story is a literary work of the century, though. 

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Stories do, yes, exist to tell an author's view on the world, generally. 
However, the other (and far more important) purpose of stories is to entertain, especially in a video game context. 
And a story conveying its theme poorly when it has great opportunity to portray it well is... not entertaining in the slightest. Organically portraying events (whether it can be truly organic or not) makes a story more believable, and thus entertaining. Fates fails on that point in every way, but especially with Garon's portrayal. Cut him from the story, and you'd immediately improve it by a factor of 10, simply because his actions are so difficult to believe. 

If a story wants to portray its theme in a certain way, then it must portray it competently, or it will be subject to criticism from people like me. A proper theme makes as much logical sense (of course, taking humans' penchant for irrationality into account) as possible within the confines of the setting. For example, though Awakening's story isn't terrible by any means, the idea of inescapable fate could be portrayed by other means than inconsistent internal logic, so I rank it a good deal lower then Genealogy's first generation, with a similar theme. 

...No FE game's story is a literary work of the century, though. 

a fair enough assessment but what does "portray a theme competently" mean? cause like a story can explore it's themes however it wants so long as that theme is consistent. Awakening's themes are consistent even within the rules of it's own universe. For as unrealistic as it is, it gets the message across that it wants to get across which then I consider it a success. The theme is clear and understandable and conveyed competently because of how it was built up and explored throughout the coarse of the story. The same is true of fates. The theme is consistent(chapter 15 of conquest aside anyway) and conveys it clearly and understandably. The intended message is delivered in the way it wants to. It doesn't really contradict it's own message nor does it go against it's own internal logic. The message is clearly conveyed which I consider a success.

On the entertainment argument. well that is subjective. That's all a matter of personal opinion which is fine but cannot be used as an objective argument. I mean I can say all day that echoes's story is entertaining. But does that make echoes a good story? hell no! It doesn't matter how entertaining I find it that doesn't change the fact that SoV's story blatantly contradicts its own themes at every turn. 

[0 Def Cleric]

Just now, Ottservia said:

a fair enough assessment but what does "portray a theme competently" mean? cause like a story can explore it's themes however it wants so long as that theme is consistent. Awakening's themes are consistent even within the rules of it's own universe. For as unrealistic as it is, it gets the message across that it wants to get across which then I consider it a success. The theme is clear and understandable and conveyed competently because of how it was built up and explored throughout the coarse of the story. The same is true of fates. The theme is consistent(chapter 15 of conquest aside anyway) and conveys it clearly and understandably. The intended message is delivered in the way it wants to. It doesn't really contradict it's own message nor does it go against it's own internal logic. The message is clearly conveyed which I consider a success.

On the entertainment argument. well that is subjective. That's all a matter of personal opinion which is fine but cannot be used as an objective argument. I mean I can say all day that echoes's story is entertaining. But does that make echoes a good story? hell no! It doesn't matter how entertaining I find it that doesn't change the fact that SoV's story blatantly contradicts its own themes at every turn. 

Portraying a theme competently is, essentially, in my mind, portraying a theme within the context of the world you have created. A story can explore its themes however it wants, yes, but not necessarily be successful as a story. Just portraying a message consistently makes it nothing but a PSA, not a story; and no one listens to PSAs for (unironic) entertainment. 

Entertainment is, as I've said, the secondary but arguably more important purpose of a story. A story must hit both points (interesting/consistent with themes) to be a decent story; hitting one makes it poor, and ideally a story hits the third point of "portrays a well-developed world" as well to make it an excellent one. Shadows of Valentia is a passable story, if not an excellent one; it hits two of those points (interest and development of a world) well, while flopping on theme. Whereas Fates only arguably hits the theme point and that's it. 

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Entertainment is, as I've said, the secondary but arguably more important purpose of a story. A story must hit both points (interesting/consistent with themes) to be a decent story; hitting one makes it poor, and ideally a story hits the third point of "portrays a well-developed world" as well to make it an excellent one. Shadows of Valentia is a passable story, if not an excellent one; it hits two of those points (interest and development of a world) well, while flopping on theme. Whereas Fates only arguably hits the theme point and that's it. 

again that is a subjective point. That is not all objective. I'll say again to form an argumentative claim there has to be a level of objectivity involved. The Entertainment value of a story is completely subjective and cannot be used as an argumentative claim. You may not find fates's story entertaining but I do. Does me finding fates's entertaining make it good? fuck no! like hell it does. Why? because that is SUBJECTIVE!! that is all a matter of personal taste and preference!! and it is perfectly fine to have opinions but your own personal taste has literally nothing to do with the objective quality of a story's writing. It doesn't. I mean I like Corrin's character design but that does make Corrin a good character? no it doesn't cause my personal opinion has literally nothing to do with that. Like I don't understand what your point is other than the fact that you don't find fates's story entertaining which is fine cause opinions and all that but that's not an argument that's just an opinion that you have. Like just because YOU personally don't like something that doesn't make it objectively terrible.

[0 Def Cleric]

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

again that is a subjective point. That is not all objective. I'll say again to form an argumentative claim there has to be a level of objectivity involved. The Entertainment value of a story is completely subjective and cannot be used as an argumentative claim. You may not find fates's story entertaining but I do. Does me finding fates's entertaining make it good? fuck no! like hell it does. Why? because that is SUBJECTIVE!! that is all a matter of personal taste and preference!! and it is perfectly fine to have opinions but your own personal taste has literally nothing to do with the objective quality of a story's writing. It doesn't. I mean I like Corrin's character design but that does make Corrin a good character? no it doesn't cause my personal opinion has literally nothing to do with that. Like I don't understand what your point is other than the fact that you don't find fates's story entertaining which is fine cause opinions and all that but that's not an argument that's just an opinion that you have. Like just because YOU personally don't like something that doesn't make it objectively terrible.

Me personally disliking something doesn't make it terrible, no. I don't mind Revelations' story at all, as a stand-alone, but that doesn't make it necessarily good, either!  But it's not really subjective that one of a story's main purposes is to entertain, and if the majority do not find it interesting, or at least entertaining, it is not achieving the primary goal of a video game story. There's a difference between a Fire Emblem story and the Inferno by Dante, you know. Fire Emblem stories exist to entertain. Mass-produced video games are not philosophical treatises, and if the majority does not find them entertaining, they have failed in their purpose, regardless of how subjective or objective their distaste is. 

...But considering Fates' story does not consistently portray its theme, nor does it develop its setting, nor does it develop its characters, it's rather objective to say "this does not follow what a story should follow, and thus it is bad."

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you on this any more, considering you have absolutely no standards for a story besides "it has a theme that I think it is consistent with", which would be 99% of works of media, ever. Death of the author, man. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by 0 Def Cleric

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

But it's not really subjective that one of a story's main purposes is to entertain, and if the majority do not find it interesting, or at least entertaining, it is not achieving the primary goal of a video game story. There's a difference between a Fire Emblem story and the Inferno by Dante, you know. Fire Emblem stories exist to entertain. Mass-produced video games are not philosophical treatises, and if the majority does not find them entertaining, they have failed in their purpose, regardless of how subjective or objective their distaste is. 

Yes, a story is meant to entertain. I'm not arguing against that. What I am saying is that the entertainment value of a story is subjective. It varies from person to person. Just because a good majority of people find a story to be entertaining that DOES NOT MAKE IT GOOD and the opposite is also true. So what you're saying here is that popularity = quality. That's not how that works. Just because something is popular that doesn't make it good just look at SAO. That story is entertaining to a lot of people, but is it good? fuck no it isn't. That's essentially the argument you're making. Also don't tell me to not overanalyze video game stories. Just because a story is a video game story doesn't mean it can't contain deeper messages or ideas that can be applied to our real world. Art conveys ideas to invoke emotion. You can find deeper meaning in ANYTHING intended or not because that's just how art works. Artist gain ideas from the world around them and those ideas show up in their works intended or no. 

[Interdimensional Observer]

Looks like someone is going a little tsun themselves, which is a shame because in other contexts, I do like said person.

If you start using BOLD WORDS! in your argument, maybe you're getting a little hot under the collar.

 

I don't super-delve into themes or characters. I'm more, if not entirely, a surface person who assumes the minimal in terms of what IS actually thought of what it was writing and adhere more to that. But smoke your own strain of weed I say, if you enjoy that kind of thing. And weed is perfectly fine to smoke and should be recreationally legal.🍁🚬

 

Major Villain-wise (leaves out almost all Camuses and most other supporting villains), for FE for me. Loosely ranked with explanations:

Spoiler

Absolute Favorites:

1. Sephiran- I acknowledge he's a last-minute pity magnet and flawed, but his character just really appeals to me.
2. Dheginsea- Not a real villain, but he was brilliantly handled. Blending neutrality, and the powerful-yet-fragile specialness of dragons in an interesting way. Forms a good contrast with the above.
3. Medeus- With My Profound Pity for his total lack of screen time in EVERY SINGLE GAME HE HAS BEEN IN! The lone Earth Dragon who remained loyal to Naga until humans abused their salvation from the feral dragons needs more love and effort from IS to be given to him.

The Mad Kings + a Lyon Tier:

1. Gangrel- I love to hate him, I like his pettiness, and his crudeness, it all works. He's only around for the first arc, but good riddance! He "died" at a good time, he didn't overstay his welcome, he doesn't have any real flaws for it when I actually think about it. The only problem is the lousy anti-Valm excuse his Support gets for his screwing around, but I'll just pretend, contrary to the likely truth, that he actually died for good.
2. Travant- A good character, some real sympathy for him, whilst still being very evil. And the musical leitmotif for the Kingdom of Thracia is magnificent! He gets points deducted solely for how poorly he treats Altena, despite Kaga's claims that he truly loves her.
3. Ephraim!Lyon- A fine, more subtle possession. The DK is controlling him for sure, because Lyon telling Ephraim to kill him after he becomes the DK, for the sake of saving Grado from a future cataclysmic earthquake, doesn't add up at all. But Lyon is being led to believe he isn't being manipulated, and he doesn't show blatant outwards signs of that. The farce of agency is delectable. 
4. Ashnard- I like Shin Megami Tensei. Ashnard is the epitome of the Chaos alignment. Therefore, I like him. His design is nice too. His plan has flaws, yielding Daein when having two countries to wage war from is better than one. And ultimately, he was lied to, but maybe it's childhood bias, but I still like him. My liking for Ashnard is more superficial I admit than for other villains.
5. Walhart- An Atheist Humanist Draconian Dictator. Walhart's premise is good, and I wouldn't have minded seeing a world where he prevailed and fought Grima using purely human power, with no need for the toothpicks of dead lizards. But, like Ashnard, he is a little flat, and the "I conquer in the morning, I conquer at night! Conquest conquest that is my wife!" detracts from his more fascinating aspects, if an essential part of them.

 

An Eclectic Mix of People:

1. Ashera- She loses points right away from being something of a tool. Sephiran awoke her and never told her the truth that he facilitated it. She is manipulated, even if she goes about things for her own purposes. But, I like her being a goddess, and I like the Order-Chaos thematic in RD.
2. Nergal- Utterly irrational, the husk of a former human being, whose descent into being swallowed by darkness needs more details explained. He gets points for having intimacy with the main heroes though, albeit this intimacy stems from his irrationality causing him to miss opportunities when he could have killed those meddling kids. I also like to contextualize him with Bramimond and Canas's brothers. Nergal went into Elder Magic to resurrect, Bramimond does exactly that minutes after he dies; Canas's brothers represent one extreme of those who succumb to darkness, Nergal is the other- inactivity and hyperactivity.
3. Julius- Inoffensive. A child whose personality is being heavily distorted by possession, that is nice. But, I guess he didn't actually do that much, which is why I don't rank him high.
4. Dark Emperor Hardin- Lose many points for not being truly evil and just a pawn, not really an independent villain, which are what is being ranked here. But his sympathetic story behind the corruption is good. I wish we could have had more of him in SD to make the pain of fighting him worse.
5. Manfroy- He gets here solely because of his almost-complete success as a villain, rare feat I compare to FFVI's Kefka (albeit Kefka did less to almost win). He isn't really likable in any way. And he suddenly stops being the biggest winner in Jugdral for no reason. He brought down the entire continent in Gen 1, and he kidnapped Julia with his warping deus ex machina, but his brains just suddenly fail him.
6. Arvis- Invented by Kaga, who was the original Arvis fanboy to the highest degree. But I didn't see as much that was sympathetic as I wanted to. And him having saved some children, handing over the Tyrfing, and protecting the Naga tome, well the latter two are good, but the first seemed thrown in to make him better. I hope FE4 Remake gives more well-handled sympathetic moments for Arvis, glimpses into his happy married life, some flashbacks with Azelle. Because I want him to be a good sympathy villain I can really really like, but the bad in the 1st Gen overrode the good for me. But I don't dislike Arvis, he just didn't win me over when he was supposed to do that. I will not redact my calls for an opera called Emperor Arvis though.

 

An Even Odder Assortment:

1. The Black Knight- I like Zelgius, I love the flashiness of the Black Knight. He is good in PoR. All the points he sheds comes from the last minute insecurity problem following his death, that crumbles his character into some contradictions.
   • Maybe it could all be reconciled, if Zelgius had been shown for all his good temper, to have an edge of bloodlust once given to personalized battle. Calm and cool as a commander and off the battlefield, a good foe being able to push him to inhuman cravings. But as is, that isn't is. The game does not suggest he had a creepy insatiable desire to fight Greil even if it killed his beloved mentor who could think of otherwise not so creepily.
2. Gharnef- Nergal's Genetic Father. He has a background able to elicit a little empathy, but no true pity. He is really powerful, able to threaten Medeus even Gotoh says, and Medeus is indeed Gotoh's pawn in Mystery, thats cool. But, Gharnef is even less rational than Nergal, which puts a damper on him. Depending on the mood though, I might rank Gharnef higher than Nergal actually.
3. Lekain- Perhaps the best of a terrible FE villain archetype- the Pesky Noble. It was stated in the artbooks he himself engineered the Serenes Massacre and the Misaha Assassination which preceded it. Those two events broke Sephiran into nihilistic despair, who then manipulated Lekain into contributing to that misanthropic plan. The interplay of two villains, one makes the one who then wags the other, is something FE usually doesn't do. I find it novel, and hence Lekain gets points.
4. Formortiis- He is very generic, being a literally titular Demon King, nothing fancy or more unique. No backstory explaining why he exists hurts him too. But he looks cool, and isn't yet another dragon.
5. Eirika!Lyon- A soul that is tormented by the Demon King without end. He is very pitiable, too much so for me. And yet for all pity, the game on Eirika's route never says he was try to stop the big earthquake, which undercuts my ability to sympathize with him. Him just being a good-hearted friend of Eirika's isn't enough.

 

I wish I could like them more. But...

1. Grima- "RAWR I'm the Fell Dragon!" I didn't care much for this thing in Awakening, and SoV's material I've only read secondhand; though belated as it is, simply trying to make it better means I give IS a small cupcake. And the notion that Grima is an unholy corpse with divine blood, an inherently unstable creation that never should have been in the first place, elicits a modicum of sympathy from me. And oh, I'll throw him a few more points for being 100% successful in some worlds.
2. Raydrik- I have to consider him without the minor but likable Project Exile embellishments. Raydrik is incompetent, Raydrik schmoozes, and Raydrik can put on a good theatrical performance. The problem, is that strong act the Harlequin of Connaught put on suddenly ceases. Creating a minor villain to be a new personal villain for Leif was a swell idea, but after the Manster Escape it collapsed hard. Raydrik's reappearance at the very end can't salvage it.
3. Medeus Without My Pity- The idea is still good.
4. Jahn- He is different, but fell flat.
5. Zephiel- He did little to curry favor with me in FE6. Playing FE7 first was bad, since this Zephiel lacks any trace of the young Zephiel's goodness. If he had given Hector mercy as he died, if he had not spat at Cecilia as a pathetic Etrurian despite Zephiel himself being half-Etrurian. If his misanthropic plan was better, or he just had more of other things, I could have liked him more. Admittedly the changeover is a sign of how twisted he has become, but I couldn't pity him. I couldn't hate him in the good way, I couldn't sympathize either with his plans.
6. Arion- I'm including him only because I want to when I shouldn't. I understand all the immense pressures he was under, but Dear Old Dad said he didn't have to lead Thracia into battle with Seliph, Arion could whatever he wanted to. But, Arion continued the battle with Seliph anyhow, to Thracia's total loss, if paving the way to reunification of the Thracian Peninsula under the northern kingship of my lovable Leif. Arion dun goofed.😛 To the point the chapter title is "For Whose Sake Are You Doing This Arihead?". Thracia 776 did make you smarter though with Tahra, I thank it.
7. Validar- I'll give him points for being nearly successful in Chrom World (an anomaly of Lucina was what stopped him), and actually being successful in Lucina World. But his mannerisms and appearance are sooooo cartoonishly bad I must sentence him to the job of cleaning up all the urine and feces in my warhorse/pegasus/wyvern stables- with his hands, no tools.
8. Veld- By near-universal consensus I think. Raydrik gets the credit for the sorrow of Eyvel, Veld only cast the spell to end it.

Please note I don't actually like ranking things. I feel it tends to make the negative stand out more than the good. But, I'm doing it here anyhow. No hard feelings, okay?😉🤝

Edited August 21, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[0 Def Cleric]

34 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

[a good post]

Fantastic villain ranking list! I'd probably rank Grima and Julius higher myself, but I'm completely unashamed to say that that's my absolutely GIGANTIC Evil Dragon That Isn't Actually Insane bias shining through. 

Which of course means that I entirely agree with you about Medeus's lack of screen time : (

He's not even a king, he's just a prince! And he ended up with the weight of the entirety of the Earth Tribe's sealing on his shoulders. Poor guy. 

[Ottservia]

4 hours ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you on this any more, considering you have absolutely no standards for a story besides "it has a theme that I think it is consistent with", which would be 99% of works of media, ever. Death of the author, man. 

Yeah I only focus on a story’s thematic elements cause that’s the only way to objectively discern a good story from a bad one when you really get right down to it. I take storytelling very seriously as an artistic medium. I like to discern deeper meaning from the stories to further my own understanding of the world I live in. That’s what art is. That’s what art does. Art can affect people in ways That goes beyond words and that is something I value very deeply whether you agree or not. Now I ask you to please explain to me what objectively makes a story “good” to you? Cause I am very curious as to what that is.

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Ottservia

[Icelerate]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah I only focus on a story’s thematic elements cause that’s the only way to objectively discern a good story from a bad one when you really get right down to it. I take storytelling very seriously as an artistic medium. I like to discern deeper meaning from the stories to further my own understanding of the world I live in. That’s what art is. That’s what art does. Art can affect people in ways That goes beyond words and that is something I value very deeply whether you agree or not. Now I ask you to please explain to me what objectively makes a story “good” to you? Cause I am very curious as to what that is.

Whether a story even has a theme and how strongly it adheres to it is inherently subjective. If you disagree, prove to me objectively speaking, that a theme even matters. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Icelerate

[0 Def Cleric]

5 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Now I ask you to please explain to me what objectively makes a story “good” to you? Cause I am very curious as to what that is.

It's very simple! 

Nothing makes a story objectively good, because the consumption of a story, from its basic wording down to its themes, is entirely from the reader's own view. There is no truly "good" or "bad" story in this world, because what is important to everyone who consumes stories is different. Some people prioritize characterization, some prioritize themes, and some simply prioritize enjoying the experience! Literary critique is based entirely around the idea of subjectivity in the analysis of stories. 

It's a wonderful thing, really. Since it's something created from human minds, human minds have to interpret it to understand it and enjoy it or despise it or be thoroughly ambivalent towards it. Is including tropes a good thing? A bad thing? It's up to the reader! Just as everything is. And of course, your view of the story and its themes will always depend on you, as a person! 

[Icelerate]

9 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Nothing makes a story objectively good, because the consumption of a story, from its basic wording down to its themes, is entirely from the reader's own view. There is no truly "good" or "bad" story in this world, because what is important to everyone who consumes stories is different. Some people prioritize characterization, some prioritize themes, and some simply prioritize enjoying the experience! Literary critique is based entirely around the idea of subjectivity in the analysis of stories. 

I agree. I think the elements that make a story good are characters, plot (series of events), themes and world building. How well done each of these categories does and which of these categories is more important for a particular story is inherently subjective. 

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

• Zephiel- He did little to curry favor with me in FE6. Playing FE7 first was bad, since this Zephiel lacks any trace of the young Zephiel's goodness. If he had given Hector mercy as he died, if he had not spat at Cecilia as a pathetic Etrurian despite Zephiel himself being half-Etrurian. If his misanthropic plan was better, or he just had more of other things, I could have liked him more. Admittedly the changeover is a sign of how twisted he has become, but I couldn't pity him. I couldn't hate him in the good way, I couldn't sympathize either with his plans.
•  

Interesting how Zephiel is at the very bottom while Sephiran is at the top despite them having the same motive basically. 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Icelerate