multiple [Multiple Path games] Do you really disappointed if the next game have a multiple choice/path ?

[Fabulously Olivier]

13 minutes ago, lenticular said:

For whatever it's worth, I would largely agree with such a person, although I would word it differently. I generally don't find a lot of value in the concept of canonicity of fiction. For works that are intended to be able to be played, read or watched as a standalone, I also think that it should be valid to analyse them purely on their own merits. So, for instance, I would see it as a bit silly if someone tried to analyse or understand The Two Towers Part 2 outside of the context of the rest of The Lord of the Rings. However, I think that it's entirely reasonable to want to discuss The Hobbit as a standalone work, without taking cues from The Lord of the Rings or the rest of Tolkien's legendarium. For analyses that focus on authorial intent, canon can be useful as a way to understand what the author(s) was (were) thinking, but I'm generally more interested in interpretations of the work.

As a somewhat silly example, Holst was somewhat infamous in Three Houses for how he never actually showed up. My tongue-in-cheek interpretation for this was that "Holst" didn't actually exist, but was Hilda's drag king/superhero alternate identity. This was a silly interpretation, definitely, and not one that was particularly supported by the text. But given that we never actually saw Holst, we were free to make up whatever we wanted to about him, and I liked that. Then Three Hopes came along and had Holst as an actual character. Does that make my interpretation of Three Houses even less valid than it already was? I would say no, though I recognise that many people would say yes. But for me, I am still looking at Three Houses as a stand-alone work, not as part of some larger Fódlan legendarium.

In a way, I think there are a few slightly disturbing connotations to the idea that it is only ever valid to view a work through the scope of the broadest possible canon. Personally, I have not played Three Hopes and have no desire to do so. (I tried the demo but didn't enjoy it; I've nothing against it, it just isn't for me.) So does that mean I'm no longer allowed to have opinions and thoughts about the story and narrative of Three Houses? I certainly hope not.

I'd even go a step further, and say that it is entirely valid to try to analyse and understand any individual path of any multi-pathed Fire Emblem game. I strongly suspect that the majority of players of Three Houses did not complete all four routes, that the majority of players of Fates did not complete all three routes. They are long games. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a majority of players didn't even finish a single route. As game developers, it would be bordering on incompetence for IS not to realise that most players aren't going complete Three Houses four times, so there is an onus on them to ensure that the game -- and its narrative-- must function as a complete unit based on only route. It's good to have extra routes add extra nuance, lore, and background, but I don't think that it should ever be required. To me, an analysis of Azure Moon is as valid as an analysis of Three Houses is as valid as an analysis of the two Fódlan games in combination.

I think there is value to treating each arc and each game as its own thing, and also as part of a whole. A lot of Trails of Cold Steel players have not gone back to experience Sky and the Crossbell duology. They don't have to. The story of the world is comprehensible without them. But they do miss out on a greater appreciation (and frankly better stories) by choosing not to. 

 

In much the same way, the separate arcs of Houses and Hopes all do stand alone sufficiently to be appreciated, but are also a part of a larger whole that can be experienced.

[Dark Holy Elf]

59 minutes ago, lenticular said:

For whatever it's worth, I would largely agree with such a person, although I would word it differently. I generally don't find a lot of value in the concept of canonicity of fiction. For works that are intended to be able to be played, read or watched as a standalone, I also think that it should be valid to analyse them purely on their own merits. So, for instance, I would see it as a bit silly if someone tried to analyse or understand The Two Towers Part 2 outside of the context of the rest of The Lord of the Rings. However, I think that it's entirely reasonable to want to discuss The Hobbit as a standalone work, without taking cues from The Lord of the Rings or the rest of Tolkien's legendarium. For analyses that focus on authorial intent, canon can be useful as a way to understand what the author(s) was (were) thinking, but I'm generally more interested in interpretations of the work.

As a somewhat silly example, Holst was somewhat infamous in Three Houses for how he never actually showed up. My tongue-in-cheek interpretation for this was that "Holst" didn't actually exist, but was Hilda's drag king/superhero alternate identity. This was a silly interpretation, definitely, and not one that was particularly supported by the text. But given that we never actually saw Holst, we were free to make up whatever we wanted to about him, and I liked that. Then Three Hopes came along and had Holst as an actual character. Does that make my interpretation of Three Houses even less valid than it already was? I would say no, though I recognise that many people would say yes. But for me, I am still looking at Three Houses as a stand-alone work, not as part of some larger Fódlan legendarium.

In a way, I think there are a few slightly disturbing connotations to the idea that it is only ever valid to view a work through the scope of the broadest possible canon. Personally, I have not played Three Hopes and have no desire to do so. (I tried the demo but didn't enjoy it; I've nothing against it, it just isn't for me.) So does that mean I'm no longer allowed to have opinions and thoughts about the story and narrative of Three Houses? I certainly hope not.

I'd even go a step further, and say that it is entirely valid to try to analyse and understand any individual path of any multi-pathed Fire Emblem game. I strongly suspect that the majority of players of Three Houses did not complete all four routes, that the majority of players of Fates did not complete all three routes. They are long games. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a majority of players didn't even finish a single route. As game developers, it would be bordering on incompetence for IS not to realise that most players aren't going complete Three Houses four times, so there is an onus on them to ensure that the game -- and its narrative-- must function as a complete unit based on only route. It's good to have extra routes add extra nuance, lore, and background, but I don't think that it should ever be required. To me, an analysis of Azure Moon is as valid as an analysis of Three Houses is as valid as an analysis of the two Fódlan games in combination.

I definitely think there's value in looking at a work as a standalone work. Especially earlier books/movies/games/etc., are frequently both conceived and put out into the world independent of anything that might come later. I agree that one can certainly talk about the themes and other details of stories as individual works.

That said, there are certainly some discussions of stories where knowledge of a later work does impact conversations. In 1978, it would be a valid headcanon that Luke Skywalker's father was indeed literally dead; now, we know that not to be the case (and any discussion of the scene where Obi-Wan tells Luke about his father takes this into account). Similarly, while one can certainly interpret a great deal about Gollum's character using the text of The Hobbit alone, any interpretations which directly contradict Lord of the Rings are not, in my view, worth taking seriously any more. And in the silly example I already used, if you had the headcanon that Caspar's father was named Thomas, well, that was fine a few months ago, but now I would consider it to be obviously incorrect and only a contrarian would hold to it.

I agree that it's absolutely valid to analyze, discuss, and try to understand single games, and even single paths, so on that we agree. In particular, the more the discussion avoids "factual plot points" (e.g. Count Bergliez's first name) and instead is about interpreting things like character actions (e.g. what factors motivate Dimitri's breakdown and recovery, or whether Edelgard's war is justified), the more appropriate I think this is. Although if you wish to have these discussions with other people, I think it's reasonable that they may choose to bring in evidence from other routes/timelines.

[drattakbowser]

- Binding Blade : What can I do for the last chapter ?

- Blazing Blade : What can i do for Chapter 11 ?

- Sacred Stones : What can I do for Chapter 9 ?

- Fates : What can I do for Chapter 6

- Three Houses : What can I do for begin Chapter 1

- Three Hopes : Same for Three Houses.

I not like I need to replay for like Binding Blade Bad/Good, Blazing Blade Eliwood/Hector, Sacred Stones Eirika/Ephraim, Fates Birthright/Conquest/Revelation, Three Houses Silver Snow/Azure Moon/Verdant Wind/Crimson Flower and Warrior Three Hopes Scarlet Blaze/Azure Gleam/Golden Wildfire.

 

If a new game have more 5 path I am COMPLETELY lost.

[drattakbowser]

The reason I post it is after I watching the movie "Black Mirror : Bandersnatch" I was know what I do the same for Fire Emblem games and other.

Edited September 11, 2022 by drattakbowser

[Acacia Sgt]

Already gave some statements in the other thread, but just to paraphrase...

Personally, I wouldn't be disappointed, but as it is I'd prefer to have at least once again a single-route game. Heck, if you want storyline variety, do it like what SRW 30 did, or like the Compact trilogy, Impact, and MX.

[Metal Flash]

I would be more sad than disappointed. I just want a single, conclusive narrative the goes from point a to point b.

If there has to be multiple paths, keep it at two and focus on fleshing out those two paths.

[Florete]

11 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Doesn't IS themselves count Heroes as mainline? Even though by any reasonable standard, it shouldn't be.

They do. They also count Archanea Saga on its own, iirc, making it technically FE5 and everything from Thracia onward different from what the fans have been using.

I've never encountered another fandom that insists on using numbers for its entries when they aren't used in the titles already (like Final Fantasy). It's ridiculous. 

Though I do still accept referring to Blazing Blade as FE7 since it wasn't actually released with that title and we still need a way to identify it among the rest of the series. Though even then, with Archanea Saga included it would technically be FE8.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

On 9/10/2022 at 10:13 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

edit: Though to acknowledge @Shanty Pete's 1st Mate chiming in, maybe this is just me. Would you consider it fair to call Three Houess already a story of four different alternate universes, then?

I... guess you could say as much? Like, suppose CF didn't exist in-canon, and someone wrote a story of "what if Teach sided with Edelgard instead of Rhea?". In that case, I would consider that story an "AU". But to refer to a story within the existing canon as an "alternate universe" feels... off to me. Like, the canonical stories are alternative to each other, yes. But they're not "alternative" to the canon, because they're all equally "canon".

When it comes to Three Hopes, I think I'd be more comfortable considering it an AU. It's its own game that's telling its own stories, relative to Three Houses. So even though it's an "official" work (not fanfic), it has its own canon, so to speak. Although, whether this is a difference of degree or kind may be up for debate.

On 9/10/2022 at 11:14 PM, lenticular said:

As a somewhat silly example, Holst was somewhat infamous in Three Houses for how he never actually showed up. My tongue-in-cheek interpretation for this was that "Holst" didn't actually exist, but was Hilda's drag king/superhero alternate identity. This was a silly interpretation, definitely, and not one that was particularly supported by the text. But given that we never actually saw Holst, we were free to make up whatever we wanted to about him, and I liked that. Then Three Hopes came along and had Holst as an actual character. Does that make my interpretation of Three Houses even less valid than it already was? I would say no, though I recognise that many people would say yes. But for me, I am still looking at Three Houses as a stand-alone work, not as part of some larger Fódlan legendarium.

Ooh, I like this headcanon. For my part, I viewed Holst as real, but more of a blowhard than anything else. He needs to retain his reputation, so he can't actually risk coming onto the field of battle and losing.

I do wonder, though - does this apply to a game like Path of Radiance? Like, maybe I think that the Black Knight is actually Giffca. Is that acceptable, because it's not immediately contradicted in-game? Or is it counter-canon, because it's contradicted by Radiant Dawn? And, should hidden elements of the game (i.e. Zelgius's unused stats) factor into the question of canonicity? I don't think there's a clear answer, but it's an interesting matter to consider.