Why do some people say the path of radiance is the best in the series story wise?

[Sentinel07]

I agree with a lot of what the people above have said: the story, characters, and worldbuilding of PoR are a lot more detailed and fleshed out than other FE games, almost to the point where I would disagree with previous statements that PoR's plot was "safe". I like how it tried to cover all those topics the people above mentioned. Their is one more topic PoR touched on that, as far as I know, no other FE game did: it actually challenged the idea of inherited power and its ups and downs. Ike being a commoner rather than another prince (and having no dream or ambition for wealth or influence whatsoever), the rampant classism in Begnion compared to the way the Laguz live (Kings have to earn their title), and Ashnard being a radical Social Darwinist are just a few examples of just how important a topic it was in Path of Radiance, and I don't think any other FE game really dived into that particular topic.

I actually can't believe I forgot that fact. PoR's theme of challenging inheritance was another theme I really liked, possibly my favorite out of everything PoR tried to convey.

[KoimanZX]

I remember hearing somewhere that the plot of Path of Radiance is essentially copied from a story arc in Berserk. Is that actually true? Because I never read Berserk and just took the person's word for it. It would make sense as many people say that the plots in Berserk are sort of what one would expect in a Fire Emblem-type world, but better executed (with Guts being the standard for a "manly" protagonist in Japanese media and Ike's basis in many ways).

[blah the Prussian]

I think it's probably because all the other stories are worse. Tellius at least has some great characters (Elincia, Sanaki, Soren especially) a badass villain, and the best worldbuilding. The other FE stories are either too safe, (FE6, FE13, FE7), too bloated (RD) or morally disgusting (Conquest, and, hey, Serenes's Law!). Personally, I prefer Sacred Stones and the original, but I'd say that Tellius was the last time an FE story wasn't horseshit, so that counts for something. I also think people give Ike too much credit; again, biased towards royalty, but whatever. He should have been at the very most the Watson to Elincia's Holmes, IMO. I also despise the Black Knight for being a redundant, confused, Darth Vader ripoff but without all the stuff that made Darth Vader cool. Ashnard, though, is great, being the only human big bad in Fire Emblem. So overall, Tellius is less incompetant than most of the rest of FE, and what it gets right, it really gets right. It shouldn't be put on a pedestal, but it has some good stuff.

[NekoKnight]

I remember hearing somewhere that the plot of Path of Radiance is essentially copied from a story arc in Berserk. Is that actually true? Because I never read Berserk and just took the person's word for it. It would make sense as many people say that the plots in Berserk are sort of what one would expect in a Fire Emblem-type world, but better executed (with Guts being the standard for a "manly" protagonist in Japanese media and Ike's basis in many ways).

Hm, I can't say that Path of Radiance resembles any Berserk story arc. Guts does start off as a mercenary and works his way up in society but the similarities between the two tales are superficial at best. I can see some visual similarities between adult Ike and Guts, with the build, short hair and large sword in common. Berserk, particularly the Golden Age arc, could very easily have been a Fire Emblem story, but better told.

Go read Berserk now.

I'll keep plugging this series until the day I die.

[blah the Prussian]

I actually can't believe I forgot that fact. PoR's theme of challenging inheritance was another theme I really liked, possibly my favorite out of everything PoR tried to convey.

Forgot to say this; I disagree with this vehemently. POR tries to be an examination of the various systems of transferring power, but falls flat because inheritance is the only one that actually gets fairly looked at. The Laguz are portrayed as a utopia, and the consequences of having a system where Kings rise to power based explicitly on their physical strength is never really explored. The social implications of that isn't explored either; what would having claimants fight for the throne do for the stability of the realm. It gets especially ridiculous when you realize that Ashnard's system is basically the same as what the Laguz have, but the game rightly condemns the system when the Beorc do it. They also could have connected how resentment for being 11th in line for the throne could have led Ashnard to have those beliefs in the first place. So overall, I get what Tellius was trying to do, but the execution was badly mismanaged.

[NekoKnight]

Forgot to say this; I disagree with this vehemently. POR tries to be an examination of the various systems of transferring power, but falls flat because inheritance is the only one that actually gets fairly looked at. The Laguz are portrayed as a utopia, and the consequences of having a system where Kings rise to power based explicitly on their physical strength is never really explored. The social implications of that isn't explored either; what would having claimants fight for the throne do for the stability of the realm. It gets especially ridiculous when you realize that Ashnard's system is basically the same as what the Laguz have, but the game rightly condemns the system when the Beorc do it. They also could have connected how resentment for being 11th in line for the throne could have led Ashnard to have those beliefs in the first place. So overall, I get what Tellius was trying to do, but the execution was badly mismanaged.

I think these are unfair assumptions. When you say POR "tries" an examination, that suggests that was a significant purpose of the story (it's a coming-of-age story nestled in a world war), when these elements were merely featured. As far as Laguz societies being utopias, I think that's more a matter of them being out of focus. Lets take a look at Sacred Stones. Frelia, Rausten, Jehanna don't show any indication of internal conflict but you wouldn't assume they are utopias just because the story doesn't look into them.

[blah the Prussian]

I think these are unfair assumptions. When you say POR "tries" an examination, that suggests that was a significant purpose of the story (it's a coming-of-age story nestled in a world war), when these elements were merely featured. As far as Laguz societies being utopias, I think that's more a matter of them being out of focus. Lets take a look at Sacred Stones. Frelia, Rausten, Jehanna don't show any indication of internal conflict but you wouldn't assume they are utopias just because the story doesn't look into them.

First point: fair enough, but I still think that if you try to do something, however minor, you should do it well.

Second point: That would be fair, but the problem is that we are presented with a society in the form of Ashnard's Daein that tries to be what Gallia is but with Beorc, and is portrayed as a horrific dictatorship, which is what a country using Gallia's system would be. The double standard is clear.

[vanguard333]

I do not think it is not a double standard; there are clear differences between the Laguz system and Ashnard. The Laguz leaders are decided by strength, but, unlike Ashnard, they are not obsessed with bringing about war. Also, they are not trying to force their ideology on the rest of Tellius, whereas Ashnard is. They are similar in ideology, but, even though the game does not dive much into it in the case of the laguz, it is clear that how the Laguz implement that ideology is different from Ashnard. They choose their leaders by strength, but, one example being the meeting between the Laguz leaders, they do not let strength decide everything and they do not seek out war. Gallia are not a horrible dictatorship because Caineghis, their leader, chooses not to be a horrible dictator.

[Radiant head]

i think the idea is that the laguz highly value physicality and strength, so the writers extended that into how they decide their leaders, but i suspect they didn't really think about the "might makes right" implications of that, mostly because it's not even a focus of the story. it would make more sense if "strongest" meant more than just physical strength - like caineghis is depicted as being much more than just the physically strongest beast laguz.

and yeah ultimately the laguz don't go around destroying other countries so that does make them better than ashnard.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Radiant head

[ping]

@blah: To my knowledge, we get very little specific informations about how the laguz kings are chosen. I only remember a few lines from Ulki's Welcome-abord dialogue with Ike:

Ulki: That's...natural. In laguz society, the strongest become king. Unlike the beorc, kingship is not tied to blood, so we have no weak kings. I'm sorry... Perhaps that was improper.
Ike: No, I agree with you. Choosing a ruler by strength instead of birth makes much more sense.
Ulki: When we face Begnion troops, we target the units with weak leadership and eliminate them first. Beorc weapons can be very powerful, but not everyone wields them well. Since beorc also choose generals by bloodlines, their competency is uneven...and that is a weakness of beorc armies.

(I found the dialogue via Ctrl-F for 'strongest' in a complete game script)

I haven't played PoR without skipping all the dialogue for a while, but I don't remember anything else about the laguz succession law. So for all we know, the laguz kingdoms could just be elective monarchies. Pure speculation, of course, but so's the assumption that succession would be decided in a fight.

The way Skrimir inherits the throne of Gallia after the events in RD (he was already named as the crown prince sometime before RD and Cain just abdicates when he thinks Skrimir is ready for the throne) rather suggest a peaceful succession, at least in Gallia.

Anyway, Ashnard's idea of a ideal world order isn't quite the same.

Ashnard: Do you believe that a person of low birth should simply endure the curse of his station? I think not. If you are stronger than those around you, you should benefit from your strength. This is why I will use my strength to remake this world. Class and rank will not matter. Human and sub-human will not matter. The strong will possess everything. The weak will submit to their will. Is this not the meaning of peace?

(His boss convo with Reyson of all people)

I don't think there is anything in the game suggesting that laguz society is anything like that.

[Etrurian emperor]

Forgot to say this; I disagree with this vehemently. POR tries to be an examination of the various systems of transferring power, but falls flat because inheritance is the only one that actually gets fairly looked at. The Laguz are portrayed as a utopia, and the consequences of having a system where Kings rise to power based explicitly on their physical strength is never really explored. The social implications of that isn't explored either; what would having claimants fight for the throne do for the stability of the realm. It gets especially ridiculous when you realize that Ashnard's system is basically the same as what the Laguz have, but the game rightly condemns the system when the Beorc do it. They also could have connected how resentment for being 11th in line for the throne could have led Ashnard to have those beliefs in the first place. So overall, I get what Tellius was trying to do, but the execution was badly mismanaged.

I agree to some extend but it only really applies to Galia. If we look at another Laguz nation then we can see Kilvas isn't nearly as much as an utopia. Instead its a dirt poor, pirate infested rathole that's in an abusive relationship with Begnion and willing to side with the villains for a quick buck.

Kilvas also doesn't seem to have the same strength based monarchy as Galia and Phoenicis do. Tibarn mentions there being a line of succession in which something happened which bumped Neasalla to being the first in line. That thing also happens to be the same once employed by Ashnard, albeit not by Neasalla himself.

We don't know enough about Phoenicis to say its on the same level as Galia. It seems a better place than Kilvas but they are more militaristic than Galia at least.

[Tolvir]

It's a more grounded story for me. It isn't some end of the world, got to find the fire Emblem and stop either a demon, dragon, deity or mix of one of those. It's one guy and his army conquering the others, and you are stopping him. It's a nice change of pace from the typical fire Emblem story.

[geraq]

Forgot to say this; I disagree with this vehemently. POR tries to be an examination of the various systems of transferring power, but falls flat because inheritance is the only one that actually gets fairly looked at. The Laguz are portrayed as a utopia, and the consequences of having a system where Kings rise to power based explicitly on their physical strength is never really explored. The social implications of that isn't explored either; what would having claimants fight for the throne do for the stability of the realm. It gets especially ridiculous when you realize that Ashnard's system is basically the same as what the Laguz have, but the game rightly condemns the system when the Beorc do it. They also could have connected how resentment for being 11th in line for the throne could have led Ashnard to have those beliefs in the first place. So overall, I get what Tellius was trying to do, but the execution was badly mismanaged.

Except that in Laguz society (at least in the beast tribe) this is well-established and socially acceptable. If I remember correctly, every Laguz warrior has the right to publicly challenge the current king to a duel for the throne. The Laguz not only cultivate physical strength but also some form of warrior code of honor, and balance and respect for nature. Ashnard got his way to the throne of Daein through treachery and murder, it is hardly the same thing. I understand that In his mind "strong" meant "willing to do anything", not just being physically strong. I wonder if he would have been okay with some nephew of his poisoning him or something.

I haven't played PoR without skipping all the dialogue for a while, but I don't remember anything else about the laguz succession law. So for all we know, the laguz kingdoms could just be elective monarchies. Pure speculation, of course, but so's the assumption that succession would be decided in a fight.

The way Skrimir inherits the throne of Gallia after the events in RD (he was already named as the crown prince sometime before RD and Cain just abdicates when he thinks Skrimir is ready for the throne) rather suggest a peaceful succession, at least in Gallia.

I recall it was mentioned also by Lethe while she was criticising Beorc traditions and social structure. I remember it being mentioned again in FE10 when Ludveck raises a rebel army to overthrow Elincia. I know that applies only to the beast tribe, but I also remember being mentioned several times that Tibarn is the strongest of hawks, so it makes sense that the right to rule is also strength-based in Phoenicis.

I don't think Skrimir sucession right is just hereditary or elective. Red lions are stated to be the strongest of the beast clan, and Skrimir is also referred to as the strongest warrior/general of Galia. There was no fight because Caineghis abdicated, he didn't needed to defend his title as King. I understand that Skrimir had the right to challenge him at any time, though, but I doubt he would have won.

The real question for me is how heron kings are elected... the one who sings louder is going to be king?

[Sentinel07]

Except that in Laguz society (at least in the beast tribe) this is well-established and socially acceptable. If I remember correctly, every Laguz warrior has the right to publicly challenge the current king to a duel for the throne. The Laguz not only cultivate physical strength but also some form of warrior code of honor, and balance and respect for nature. Ashnard got his way to the throne of Daein through treachery and murder, it is hardly the same thing. I understand that In his mind "strong" meant "willing to do anything", not just being physically strong. I wonder if he would have been okay with some nephew of his poisoning him or something.

I recall it was mentioned also by Lethe while she was criticising Beorc traditions and social structure. I remember it being mentioned again in FE10 when Ludveck raises a rebel army to overthrow Elincia. I know that applies only to the beast tribe, but I also remember being mentioned several times that Tibarn is the strongest of hawks, so it makes sense that the right to rule is also strength-based in Phoenicis.

I don't think Skrimir sucession right is just hereditary or elective. Red lions are stated to be the strongest of the beast clan, and Skrimir is also referred to as the strongest warrior/general of Galia. There was no fight because Caineghis abdicated, he didn't needed to defend his title as King. I understand that Skrimir had the right to challenge him at any time, though, but I doubt he would have won.

The real question for me is how heron kings are elected... the one who sings louder is going to be king?

Well, the Herons have an actual royal family compared to other Laguz tribe. This is just speculation on my part, but I imagine they might have a more Beorc-like line of succession given they are not beings of strength.

[CappnRob]

Tellius stands out in a lot of ways compared to the games before it. The world building was a lot more involved as well as direct: Beorc and Laguz tensions were a center focus element instead of a side thing like say, Lycian-Sacae racism. We also experienced and explored the international machinations of these nations, and Daein's war is explored through the eyes of both the conquered and the outsiders.

Furthermore, PoR's supporting cast is very active in the narrative: Titania, Oscar, Boyd, Mist, Jill, and many others all are active in involving themselves with the primary narrative, and the inclusion of base conversations really gets Ike involved with his soldiers beyond just recruiting them and supports. All of these things loan to PoR having very strong writing in spite of its actual plot being fairly unassuming and unembellished.

[blah the Prussian]

So, terribly sorry for the wait with the response, but my wifi got fucked. Anyway:

Yes, I admit that Gallia does not invade other countries, and thus it is better than Daein (Tibarn's impersonation of Somalia, on the other hand...) However, Daein's Social Darwinism is stated to be a bad system, or at least implied to be, and Gallia's isn't. Any system where you select your leader on strength is bound to fail in the real world. You might speculate on what "strong" and "weak" mean in this context, but the game doesn't explicitly state something different from their normal definitions, so I think we're forced to see a horse as a horse, so to speak. If Gallia's monarchy is elective, that makes the situation worse; elective monarchies have historically done rather poorly. See Poland-Lithuania, where the King relying on the electorate to get in power meant in practice a puppet monarchy ruled by factions of the nobility. Overall, I fail to see how any society that values strength over intelligence in leadership would be left with something more than a bunch of brutes with no idea how to run a country in power. Now, to the credit of RD, it does show some nuance in this system by having Skrimir, who got his position thanks to strength rather than intelligence, be a strategic fuckup and lose to Zelgius, who was promoted thanks to intelligence and, being a noble, also got the opportunity to study the campaigns of the greatest Generals in Tellius's past. But IMO that's too little, too late, especially since Skrimir is basically the only instance of a flaw in this system.

[geraq]

Well, the Herons have an actual royal family compared to other Laguz tribe. This is just speculation on my part, but I imagine they might have a more Beorc-like line of succession given they are not beings of strength.

I thought of them as being the current royal family, in the same sense as Caineghis and Skrimir. I read somewhere that only white herons had the right to rule, but I didn't find why. Maybe there is some mechanism for magical strength measuring, but as you say this is all speculation. It is fun, nevertheless.

Tellius stands out in a lot of ways compared to the games before it. The world building was a lot more involved as well as direct: Beorc and Laguz tensions were a center focus element instead of a side thing like say, Lycian-Sacae racism. We also experienced and explored the international machinations of these nations, and Daein's war is explored through the eyes of both the conquered and the outsiders.

Furthermore, PoR's supporting cast is very active in the narrative: Titania, Oscar, Boyd, Mist, Jill, and many others all are active in involving themselves with the primary narrative, and the inclusion of base conversations really gets Ike involved with his soldiers beyond just recruiting them and supports. All of these things loan to PoR having very strong writing in spite of its actual plot being fairly unassuming and unembellished.

Agreed. The script-writing, the social and political topics it covers and the detailed backstory for the nations, characters and interactions between them are what makes PoR story so compelling, rather than the plot itself.

[CappnRob]

Agreed. The script-writing, the social and political topics it covers and the detailed backstory for the nations, characters and interactions between them are what makes PoR story so compelling, rather than the plot itself.

Honestly I don't know why people are saying Fire Emblem isn't a game series for enjoying the writing. Sure the plots might be predictable and sometimes formulaic, but good writing is more about making something work well than making something new, and yes, PoR really embodies this. Hell, PoR has supports that CHANGE if certain characters DIE doesn't it? That's fantastic attention to detail and cross-character continuity, who cares if the base plot is a typical "band of unlikely heroes challenge a superpower at war"? (And even then PoR really spins those tropes on their head as well, the Greil Mercs spend half the story basically running scared and have to suck up to Bengnion for any aide and Ike's rough and tumble personality lands him in hot water more than it does him any favors).

[geraq]

Honestly I don't know why people are saying Fire Emblem isn't a game series for enjoying the writing. Sure the plots might be predictable and sometimes formulaic, but good writing is more about making something work well than making something new, and yes, PoR really embodies this. Hell, PoR has supports that CHANGE if certain characters DIE doesn't it? That's fantastic attention to detail and cross-character continuity, who cares if the base plot is a typical "band of unlikely heroes challenge a superpower at war"? (And even then PoR really spins those tropes on their head as well, the Greil Mercs spend half the story basically running scared and have to suck up to Bengnion for any aide and Ike's rough and tumble personality lands him in hot water more than it does him any favors).

I think those people are talking about the plot rather than the writing. Personally, I'm used to platformers with little to no storyline so I don't have a reference to make a comparison, but I've read that traditional RPGs usually have more engrossing storylines with lots of complex characters and plot twists. Too bad such gameplay was never of my liking, as I can't enjoy a good story if I don't like the gameplay. The stories here are simpler, yet entertaining, and I enjoyed them on its own right (for the most part), as much as I enjoy reading about classical mythology. I agree that the writing is good enough to make you care about the characters and their struggles, but I understand that people might prefer storylines with a little more substance.

[NekoKnight]

So, terribly sorry for the wait with the response, but my wifi got fucked. Anyway:

Yes, I admit that Gallia does not invade other countries, and thus it is better than Daein (Tibarn's impersonation of Somalia, on the other hand...) However, Daein's Social Darwinism is stated to be a bad system, or at least implied to be, and Gallia's isn't. Any system where you select your leader on strength is bound to fail in the real world. You might speculate on what "strong" and "weak" mean in this context, but the game doesn't explicitly state something different from their normal definitions, so I think we're forced to see a horse as a horse, so to speak. If Gallia's monarchy is elective, that makes the situation worse; elective monarchies have historically done rather poorly. See Poland-Lithuania, where the King relying on the electorate to get in power meant in practice a puppet monarchy ruled by factions of the nobility. Overall, I fail to see how any society that values strength over intelligence in leadership would be left with something more than a bunch of brutes with no idea how to run a country in power. Now, to the credit of RD, it does show some nuance in this system by having Skrimir, who got his position thanks to strength rather than intelligence, be a strategic fuckup and lose to Zelgius, who was promoted thanks to intelligence and, being a noble, also got the opportunity to study the campaigns of the greatest Generals in Tellius's past. But IMO that's too little, too late, especially since Skrimir is basically the only instance of a flaw in this system.

Isn't Gallia just a mirror of social hierarchies we see in real life animals, specifically lions? Sure, Laguz are sentient but the logic seems to be that they are a warrior society that value strength before anything else. Savage by Beorc standards? Probably but maybe their society is really that simple. We don't really see what living as a Laguz is like but my impression was they live naturalistic lives without anything that would lead to social unrest like wealth disparity or bad social policies. It helps that they are reclusive so they don't have to deal with outsiders very often.

I'm sure they could have gone more into the workings of their society to see if it is truly as ideal as it seems but it would probably distract from the greater narrative being told. The human conflicts going on, combined with their relation to the Laguz is a lot to talk about already.

Honestly I don't know why people are saying Fire Emblem isn't a game series for enjoying the writing. Sure the plots might be predictable and sometimes formulaic, but good writing is more about making something work well than making something new, and yes, PoR really embodies this. Hell, PoR has supports that CHANGE if certain characters DIE doesn't it? That's fantastic attention to detail and cross-character continuity, who cares if the base plot is a typical "band of unlikely heroes challenge a superpower at war"? (And even then PoR really spins those tropes on their head as well, the Greil Mercs spend half the story basically running scared and have to suck up to Bengnion for any aide and Ike's rough and tumble personality lands him in hot water more than it does him any favors).

This is how I feel on game stories. You can have a common plot but the telling is what's important. Take the game Dragon Age Origins, it's the story of an army of darkness invading the land and requiring you to gather allies amongst elves, dwarves and men to fight them. The player classes are even rogue, mage and warrior! With just that description, I'd skip the title in a heartbeat but there is SO MUCH world building and well written dialogue that it's a good story even if the plot is something you've heard a thousand times.

[blah the Prussian]

Isn't Gallia just a mirror of social hierarchies we see in real life animals, specifically lions? Sure, Laguz are sentient but the logic seems to be that they are a warrior society that value strength before anything else. Savage by Beorc standards? Probably but maybe their society is really that simple. We don't really see what living as a Laguz is like but my impression was they live naturalistic lives without anything that would lead to social unrest like wealth disparity or bad social policies. It helps that they are reclusive so they don't have to deal with outsiders very often.

I'm sure they could have gone more into the workings of their society to see if it is truly as ideal as it seems but it would probably distract from the greater narrative being told. The human conflicts going on, combined with their relation to the Laguz is a lot to talk about already.

If Gallia was based off of real life lions it would be even worse. Not only do head lions get a harem of every other female, when a new male comes to power they kill all of the Cubs of the old male. That's hardly a model for a stable and successful society. If the Laguz live in tandem with nature, does that mean they don't have agriculture? If you don't have agriculture, you fundamentally cannot survive as a civilization, because you don't have a constant source of food.

[NekoKnight]

If Gallia was based off of real life lions it would be even worse. Not only do head lions get a harem of every other female, when a new male comes to power they kill all of the Cubs of the old male. That's hardly a model for a stable and successful society. If the Laguz live in tandem with nature, does that mean they don't have agriculture? If you don't have agriculture, you fundamentally cannot survive as a civilization, because you don't have a constant source of food.

I was referring to the "strongest guy takes charge", although I understand real life lions are pretty brutal. At any rate, we don't know much about their society so we can only make guess about how it functions.

[eclipse]

Honestly I don't know why people are saying Fire Emblem isn't a game series for enjoying the writing. Sure the plots might be predictable and sometimes formulaic, but good writing is more about making something work well than making something new, and yes, PoR really embodies this. Hell, PoR has supports that CHANGE if certain characters DIE doesn't it? That's fantastic attention to detail and cross-character continuity, who cares if the base plot is a typical "band of unlikely heroes challenge a superpower at war"? (And even then PoR really spins those tropes on their head as well, the Greil Mercs spend half the story basically running scared and have to suck up to Bengnion for any aide and Ike's rough and tumble personality lands him in hot water more than it does him any favors).

Because the writing really is mediocre. My favorite of the plots is Archanea, because the writing works with such an extremely simple premise. The game doesn't try to pretend that everyone is relevant, because it's Marth's story, and even though Marth values his comrades, history writers see it differently. I think Tellius did an okay job of trying to build a world, even if there were parts of the narrative I felt were badly handled (Micaiah and Yune). I think Fire Emblem is at its best when it focuses on the gameplay, not the story.

Then again, my favorite cast is in Shadow Dragon, because I got enough out of most of their personalities in a single death quote. I don't need a backstory on my characters to enjoy them. A little personalization goes a long way, IMO.

Edited January 10, 2017 by eclipse

[geraq]

If Gallia was based off of real life lions it would be even worse. Not only do head lions get a harem of every other female, when a new male comes to power they kill all of the Cubs of the old male. That's hardly a model for a stable and successful society. If the Laguz live in tandem with nature, does that mean they don't have agriculture? If you don't have agriculture, you fundamentally cannot survive as a civilization, because you don't have a constant source of food.

This is a little extreme, it could mean that they also wouldn't use wood to build houses unless they were beavers or something. Their animal traits are not what determines their way of life, I think their societies seem to resemble native tribes (at least how they are depicted in TV and movies) of proud warriors with a high sense of honor and respect for the mystic powers of nature. In my mind, they are similars to the Orcs in Warcraft, with the difference that here they also rightfully demand to be treated as humans.

Because the writing really is mediocre. My favorite of the plots is Archanea, because the writing works with such an extremely simple premise. The game doesn't try to pretend that everyone is relevant, because it's Marth's story, and even though Marth values his comrades, history writers see it differently. I think Tellius did an okay job of trying to build a world, even if there were parts of the narrative I felt were badly handled (Micaiah and Yune). I think Fire Emblem is at its best when it focuses on the gameplay, not the story.

Then again, my favorite cast is in Shadow Dragon, because I got enough out of most of their personalities in a single death quote. I don't need a backstory on my characters to enjoy them. A little personalization goes a long way, IMO.

All plots are fairly simple but in my opninion it's the dialogue what makes them better and more memorable. For example, FE7 was my first game in the series and I loved it, but after I beat it and played other games I came to think that its plot resembled a Saturday morning cartoon, with the heroes defeating the minion of the week until they face the big bad, who wanted power for no apparent reason and showed-up from time to time to menace the heroes. Other games did it a little better, giving the villain a compelling reason to act that way. However, the dialogue was good enough to make me care about it and about its characters, and there were parts of it that were genuinely good, like Hector's relationship with his brother. I enjoyed the effort put in script-writing over a mediocre premise. As far as I know the focus is always put on the gameplay, sometimes to the detriment of the story, and I wouldn't like it to be the other way around.

Other times I prefer a blank slate so I can imagine the parts that the game doesn't tell me or doesn't make clear enough. This happened to me with Gaiden, with the chronogical ordering of certain events or the motivations for given characters for doing what they did. And I also like to mentally rewrite the second half of Radiant Dawn's plot, but that's a story for another day.

Edited January 10, 2017 by geraq

[blah the Prussian]

This is a little extreme, it could mean that they also wouldn't use wood to build houses unless they were beavers or something. Their animal traits are not what determines their way of life, I think their societies seem to resemble native tribes (at least how they are depicted in TV and movies) of proud warriors with a high sense of honor and respect for the mystic powers of nature. In my mind, they are similars to the Orcs in Warcraft, with the difference that here they also rightfully demand to be treated as humans.

But native tribes in general, at least historically, held elections for their leader, or the position was hereditary. If a person was to dethrone the chief in a fight, it would be a coup. Native tribes also had at the very least basic buildings, and certainly practiced agriculture.