Jump to content

Ideas for differently structured Fire Emblem stories


Thane
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone.

For a long time I've wanted a Fire Emblem story that really challenges the series' traditions and conventions. One first step towards that would be to change up how the story is told and how the player relates to it. We've had second generations in Genealogy of the Holy War, dual protagonists in Gaiden and Echoes, and different takes on a route split system in Sacred Stones and Fates. However, I think there's room for a more creatively told story, and I've got two concrete ideas on how I'd want to go about that, one minor and one major.

My less dramatic idea would be to implement more player choice in the story. It can be something so simple as choosing between a more profitable yet dangerous road, or a safer yet less rewarding one, like I believe Thracia 776 did. You can also get more creative with it. For example, imagine that you're invading the bad guy's country, and you've got a chance to either take out their cavalry or their Wyvern Riders, assuring that one of the groups won't bother you in the next couple of maps. However, while one group poses a bigger threat to you, and would make more sense to neutralize, it might cause your soldiers to question whether or not it's right to kill so many people like that. Maybe an important party member knows someone in one of the groups and will leave you if you choose to risk her friend's life. 

I'm not saying these are the most well-thought-out ideas, but I think you get the picture. These kinds of choices would not only allow for great replayability, but it would also increase immersion while making the roster more dynamic.

My more dramatic idea would involve dual protagonists, like in Gaiden. However, I think it would be cool to if you played as one of the protagonists first, and over the course of their campaign, they grow into a character the second protagonist needs to stop. This would make it a story split into two major parts à la Genealogy of the Holy War, though without any need for a major time skip. It would also mean you're fighting against characters you've established a connection with, adding to the drama. 

One of the high points in the series for me was in Radiant Dawn when you kept fighting against other playable characters. However, the conflict wasn't properly justified, and the sporadic changes between parties made it difficult to truly connect to what was going on. Here, you would focus on one group first and then the second, allowing for a more streamlined narrative. Naturally, this would mean that both protagonists need to have understandable goals and motives so that it makes sense for the first group to keep following the first protagonist. The cherry on top would be if you can choose who gets to win in the end.

Those are some of my ideas. What are yours?

Edited by Thane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a lot of time and effort to get the Dragon Shield in both Gaiden and Shadows of Valentia and I still find it stupidly funny that they pull the whole "Oh, that was Desaix's double!" Because really what would change in the story had he died there? Pretty much nothing. You would have had a more complete victory (which would feel richly deserved after you've been pelting him for 40 turns) and not have to fight him later. So, yeah, I'm all in favor of making the story more dynamic, even if its just for little things like defeating a boss sooner than you're meant to (I generally don't like it when bosses retreat. In other games I'm fine with it but Fire Emblem puts a lot more stock in characters dying when their HP reaches 0). Wholesale route changes would also be great like the way visual novels are structured.

On a different meaning for differently structured, I think it could be fun to play a Fire Emblem game set on an Archipelago rather than one continuous landmass. Not sure why. Just think that could make for a nice change of feel in how the nations and culture are structured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thane said:

My less dramatic idea would be to implement more player choice in the story. It can be something so simple as choosing between a more profitable yet dangerous road, or a safer yet less rewarding one, like I believe Thracia 776 did. You can also get more creative with it. For example, imagine that you're invading the bad guy's country, and you've got a chance to either take out their cavalry or their Wyvern Riders, assuring that one of the groups won't bother you in the next couple of maps. However, while one group poses a bigger threat to you, and would make more sense to neutralize, it might cause your soldiers to question whether or not it's right to kill so many people like that. Maybe an important party member knows someone in one of the groups and will leave you if you choose to risk her friend's life. 

This is basically what I would hope for. They tried to have direct interaction with the player since FE7's tactitian, but it's still always been only one linear narrative string that the player could hardly influence. I guess supports are kind of a way for the player to change the playing world, but since that's almost completely seperate from the stories, I'd hesitate to count that. Obviously, there are some exceptions, like Kaze's A support, Chroms potentially very rushed wedding, or Guinivere's coronation, to take an older example. But most of the time, there's no difference whatsoever if and with who someone has a support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the paralogues in 13 and 14 change in any way depending on the dads (Awakening) or moms (Fates).

So as long as they plan to keep the avatar in, I want Actual Decisions, the bigger the impact, the better. Not necessarily a plethora of completely different endings though (after all, the goal is usually pretty clear, i.e. save the world from the evil dragon/king/demon/god), but definitely differences in how the world reacts to the player character. Stuff like enemies disappearing because the player chose to help their families in some way earlier, or even just different lines in the cutscenes. Just as long as they don't do the "fake choices" thing where you can technically choose between different options that just remerge into one single string after five seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of player choices, I wouldn't mind the way Starcraft 2 (specifically Wings of Liberty) did its story and its various choices.

At its core, the main story was made up of several short story arcs, such as trying to help out a group of colonists or doing jobs assigned by a shady organization. Each side arc would wrap itself in an okay manner, but the main draw was the various rewards that carried with the player as he/she progresses. Now granted, some of the choices in Starcraft 2 don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but that can be addressed during the transfer.

So, transforming this into Fire Emblem terms, let's say the setting is an Empire undergoing a civil war. The player plays a heir to the imperial throne and seeks to unite the empire once again and can choose what kingdom to focus their efforts on. So, does the player head off to the Holy Kingdom to gather Clerics and Paladins, or head off to the Military Kingdom for their famous Wyvern Riders and Generals? Perhaps the simple farmers need a helping hand as they are harassed by bandit and nobility alike, or clear out the corrupt Merchant Kingdom to reestablish naval routes and mingle with foreign mercenaries. The main story would be uniting the empire, but side respective kingdom has its own side arc that should wrap up its own loose ends. Of course, the main story's climatic clash and "big bad" can be hinted at throughout the side arcs. (Perhaps it is another Tellius situation where someone wants to provoke a war large enough to wake up a god / goddess for something.)

As for something that actually affects gameplay, say the player needs to besiege the "unbreakable fortress." While the ultimate objective is to take the fort, the player is allowed to engage in other activities that will affect the Fort's strength. For example, say there is a special shipment of weapons heading to the fortress - intercepting it grants the player these weapons while ignoring it grants these weapons to the defenders. Maybe by helping out a local villager, he may say there is a hidden back route to the Fortress, opening up a new deployment zone when the battle begins proper. Perhaps there is a high-ranking officer can could be assassinated, but the more noble among your party will object if such an action is taken. These examples can go on and on...

* * * * *

The biggest problem with branching storylines is that while they are awesome on paper, they may not necessarily be the best investment since most players will not experience the entire game and all the side routes. The most dedicated will, but the casual player may only finish one route, provided they finish the game at all. As for how to make a proper branching storyline for Fire Emblem standards, I am still uncertain. All I can think of is Tactics Ogre, but even that mostly just branches off in the middle but eventually ties itself together towards the end.

The only branching paths I am familiar with are the Visual Novel style ones, but taking that and adding Fire Emblem mechanics will be a huge undertaking indeed. This is not even including the various "bad endings," "normal endings," and "true ending" format of VNs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sire said:

The only branching paths I am familiar with are the Visual Novel style ones, but taking that and adding Fire Emblem mechanics will be a huge undertaking indeed. This is not even including the various "bad endings," "normal endings," and "true ending" format of VNs...

A huge undertaking yes, but only about as big an undertaking as Fates was by default. Consider, if instead of splitting into the three routes at the start of the game, Revelations was actually a split off from one of the other two routes, much later in the story. This would save a bunch of chapters to design because they're shared between routes. Fates essentially was a visual novel style multiple route based game, only instead of being more nuanced with it they gave a single choice near the very start of the game (Revelations even comes across very like a "True Ending" compared to the other two). The only thing that I see that really makes a game with more integrated branches unlikely is that they managed to get away with charging for each route separately in Fates which wouldn't really be possible with later and more numerous choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had this weird idea for a story where there are two main campaigns, the first you play plays out structurely like a typical Fire Emblem story, yet there are a lot of characters who are of great importance to the story who you never get to really play as or fight against, or who are not important to the story but just happen to shortly appear with the player never knowing what their deal is, so comes the second route, which would feature one of said characters as the protagonist and would happen at arround the same time as the original route in order to fill the missing gaps, the second route would also be far less straight-forward than the original one in both story content and gameplay, with the second protagonist facing conflicts far less straight-forward than "We are being attacked by the other army" and "We must seize the other army's base" and the gameplay itself going for bigger variance than the first campaign due to said different conflicts, i myself don't even know if there's any actual benefit to telling the story in this specific way that can't be achieved in simpler ways, but i just find the idea appealing for some reason.

Edited by OakTree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wanted to play as the enemy faction since my first FE, Blazing Sword. Why can't we take all the route of the enemy country, meet the sorceror and summon a dragon to conquer another kingdom/nation? I mean, we can be siths on Star Wars, after all. While Fates tried to do this and approach it in a subtle way (really sublte, if not vague) it always made clear that the player was always the good ones (despite being in Conquest's route).

I'm running out of ideas right now but maybe we can be put on a setting of a major war or holy war in which different countries/cults/regions are involved, and you get to choose to play one of them, among 4 or 5, and tell the story from different perspectives, all stories being slightly different: one can be a traditionally happy fe story, another one can be a tragic one, and so on; but I'm afraid that'd be quite big of a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember before Fates came out thinking it'd be neat if postgame Corrin (and maybe another character) would be allowed to return to the Branch of Fate with their memories of the previous path(s) intact. Corrin's character grows across multiple playthroughs and gets some good ol' dramatic irony all over the place. Could work with all sorts of paths or choices too.

I'm sure this idea has been done in a multiple paths game before, but whatever. Also Groundhog Day is my favorite movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, a bear said:

I'm sure this idea has been done in a multiple paths game before, but whatever.

Radiant Historia has Stocke doing this the entire game. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Persona 2: Eternal Punishment is basically Persona 2: Innocent Sin all over again, except with one character retaining their memories of everything that happened.

 

 

Perhaps instead of two great opposing forces, FE could try doing something closer to Odin Sphere. The game has 5 playable characters, each with their own storyline ultimately interconnected to some degree with the other four. Amazing, there are no real chronology or writing screwups despite the very real potential to do so (the game even gives you an event viewer that clearly delineates everything). And while they do clash against each other on occasion, each PC is generally more concerned with resolving their own personal or national problems in the world. A shared cast of NPCs, like Demon Lord Odin (who wouldn't have made for a bad Garon) and the dragon Wagner, are who the PCs interact with more often.

For FE, 5 independent lords would be too many, unless we did some form of consolidation wherein 2 lords join up and share a story beyond a certain point. But having say 3 lords each traveling the world in FE7 fashion (with a small band of comrades and not an army) would possibly work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't played every single game in the series so forgive me if this has been done before, but I would think it would be interesting if there were 2 lords each with their own story yet loosely connecting to another. For the first 20 chapters of the game, you follow Lord 1 doing his/her campaign and building his/her army. The next 20 chapters features an entirely separate lord and following his/her campaign with a different army, Each lord leads an army of about 20 units each; the two lords and their respective armies meet up for the third arc which is shorter (lets say ~10 chapters) and serves as the climax to the main plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Zerxen said:

I haven't played every single game in the series so forgive me if this has been done before, but I would think it would be interesting if there were 2 lords each with their own story yet loosely connecting to another. For the first 20 chapters of the game, you follow Lord 1 doing his/her campaign and building his/her army. The next 20 chapters features an entirely separate lord and following his/her campaign with a different army, Each lord leads an army of about 20 units each; the two lords and their respective armies meet up for the third arc which is shorter (lets say ~10 chapters) and serves as the climax to the main plot.

Gaiden does this to some extent (You can move both parties at once (After doing an opening part with each party), but they're separate), so it's not a first.

I won't say anything about SoV as I didn't pick it up yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2017 at 8:13 PM, Sire said:

As for something that actually affects gameplay, say the player needs to besiege the "unbreakable fortress." While the ultimate objective is to take the fort, the player is allowed to engage in other activities that will affect the Fort's strength. For example, say there is a special shipment of weapons heading to the fortress - intercepting it grants the player these weapons while ignoring it grants these weapons to the defenders. Maybe by helping out a local villager, he may say there is a hidden back route to the Fortress, opening up a new deployment zone when the battle begins proper. Perhaps there is a high-ranking officer can could be assassinated, but the more noble among your party will object if such an action is taken. These examples can go on and on...

If they do that, it might be seen as an attempt to remind people of Breath of the Wild and how you could beat Ganon any time you wanted. 

Not that that's a bad thing. That game was tight, and it would add a lot of replayability to the game with the concept of doing 'low mission runs' and the like.

I think that if you want to mix up the series, one good way to do it is to add more and varied objectives, both optional and required. I liked the idea of having to burn the supplies for 'that one radiant dawn mission tm'  or trying to keep the allied soldiers alive in FE7 for a side quest, but I think you'd need more than that. Maybe a chapter with a very small number of allowed units (3 to 5 or so) with an emphasis on stealth? Maybe it could even be optional, just to get those units to an advantageous position behind some enemy lines and ready to eliminate some ranged units that will give you trouble otherwise. The point is, change it up and only have the objective be 'rout the enemy' when that is the objective that makes sense. Killing every single combatant seems like an unrealistic goal, and if there have to be more enemies in order to make that clear then so be it, but routing a gang of bandits doesn't seem too far fetched.

To relate to storytelling, the objectives the game FORCES you to do should be logical or necessary, the OPTIONAL ones should be daring or risky. Or maybe there should be sliding scales related to your gameplay that will affect your rank, ending, or gameplay factors. For example, you could be seen as a calculating general who is very reliable, but with the downside of being unrelatable. You could be a bad-ass, guns blazing kind of leader who inspires his/her troops with daring plans, but risks their lives in his suicidal gambits. But I think the story downsides of these playstyles ought to be overlooked as long as you're a good leader- that is to say, if you don't let your soldiers die, you'll get a good ending. That way, you'll get different endings but if you are good at the game you'll always be 'right' in the end. It's a big time investment to play a strategy RPG like these ones. It's best if no one gets bad endings for making what are, in the end, arbitrary decisions that will bring you to the end of the game one way or another.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like for there to be an actual FE lord who came up from nothing, like a Great Gatsby, Edmund Dantes type of character. I have an idea for this sort of a character, and I have a backstory that I made-up for him too, but I won't say it in this post. The reason I want that kind of a lord is because he could affect the plot greatly by adding darker more meaningful themes to a Fire Emblem story. I understand that some people may think that "that's not really what FE games are supposed to be about", but really it doesn't matter. FE has always tried to push the boundaries of its games, and having a darker FE game wouldn't be the worst thing ever, right? Especially if we can make it serious, dramatic and impactful, as we play a game with even better and more enjoyable mechanics. Now how would a FE lord that came up from nothing affect the plot of the game? Well, if an FE lord that came up from nothing had to take cruel measures, and learn so much to be at the top, then he could be a interesting character who takes different plans and choices then any other FE lord from any other game, affecting the plot greatly. 

I'll talk more about what I mean by this eventually, but this is all I have to say for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Altina said:

I would like for there to be an actual FE lord who came up from nothing, like a Great Gatsby, Edmund Dantes type of character. I have an idea for this sort of a character, and I have a backstory that I made-up for him too, but I won't say it in this post. The reason I want that kind of a lord is because he could affect the plot greatly by adding darker more meaningful themes to a Fire Emblem story. I understand that some people may think that "that's not really what FE games are supposed to be about", but really it doesn't matter. FE has always tried to push the boundaries of its games, and having a darker FE game wouldn't be the worst thing ever, right? Especially if we can make it serious, dramatic and impactful, as we play a game with even better and more enjoyable mechanics. Now how would a FE lord that came up from nothing affect the plot of the game? Well, if an FE lord that came up from nothing had to take cruel measures, and learn so much to be at the top, then he could be a interesting character who takes different plans and choices then any other FE lord from any other game, affecting the plot greatly. 

I'll talk more about what I mean by this eventually, but this is all I have to say for now.

That's exactly what I was thinking about for a Fire Emblem story.

Almost every protagonist in the series comes from an elevated position in society and all of them have that general list of heroic qualities. What I want to see in a Fire Emblem is someone the opposite of that; someone born with very little who pushes forward with his cunning and determination. They might have kindness and empathy but these qualities would be secondary to their ambition.

I think a story that followed a character who fights for their own dream rather than duty would be a significant and interesting shift in the usual story conventions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2017 at 4:02 AM, Altina said:

I would like for there to be an actual FE lord who came up from nothing, like a Great Gatsby, Edmund Dantes type of character. I have an idea for this sort of a character, and I have a backstory that I made-up for him too, but I won't say it in this post. The reason I want that kind of a lord is because he could affect the plot greatly by adding darker more meaningful themes to a Fire Emblem story. I understand that some people may think that "that's not really what FE games are supposed to be about", but really it doesn't matter. FE has always tried to push the boundaries of its games, and having a darker FE game wouldn't be the worst thing ever, right? Especially if we can make it serious, dramatic and impactful, as we play a game with even better and more enjoyable mechanics. Now how would a FE lord that came up from nothing affect the plot of the game? Well, if an FE lord that came up from nothing had to take cruel measures, and learn so much to be at the top, then he could be a interesting character who takes different plans and choices then any other FE lord from any other game, affecting the plot greatly. 

I'll talk more about what I mean by this eventually, but this is all I have to say for now.

 

On 5/29/2017 at 7:10 PM, NekoKnight said:

That's exactly what I was thinking about for a Fire Emblem story.

Almost every protagonist in the series comes from an elevated position in society and all of them have that general list of heroic qualities. What I want to see in a Fire Emblem is someone the opposite of that; someone born with very little who pushes forward with his cunning and determination. They might have kindness and empathy but these qualities would be secondary to their ambition.

I think a story that followed a character who fights for their own dream rather than duty would be a significant and interesting shift in the usual story conventions.

 

That was going to be Alm,until acts 3 and 4 killed that idea.

Edited by ThatOneWeakArcher
Spoiler mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎29‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 10:02 AM, Altina said:

I would like for there to be an actual FE lord who came up from nothing, like a Great Gatsby, Edmund Dantes type of character.

His name is Ike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

His name is Ike.

Ike always had the mercenaries at his disposal, and he got it after Greil died; Ike was always something.and he grew to become a better leader, and that's really it to him. If you instead have a lord who grew up in a poor village and was of a race of people that are somewhat discriminated against, but he managed to make it all the way to the position of King of the kingdom he once grew up in the suburbs of, that tells you something. That tells you this guy did not play around when he was on the path to conquest, if you get to work with such a king you'll see his ruthless tactics, unending cruelty, but also you'll get to see a good man despite everything he does. That to me sounds like a very interesting journey, and it could make a great game with a pretty special, dramatic and entertaining story.

Edited by Altina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Altina said:

Ike was always something

Ike started out as a member of some no-name mercenary group, so I wouldn't count that as him being "somebody". It was only after he started to help reclaim Crimea that he started to make a name for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Ike started out as a member of some no-name mercenary group, so I wouldn't count that as him being "somebody". It was only after he started to help reclaim Crimea that he started to make a name for himself.

Agreed with this. I think people overstate how "privileged" Ike was in the game. Inheriting a mercenary company with 7 members is hardly having the world fall in your lap.

That said, while Ike has a good personal growth arc, I'd like a story where the protagonist starts from nothing and WANTS to be someone important in society.

Edited by NekoKnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Ike started out as a member of some no-name mercenary group, so I wouldn't count that as him being "somebody". It was only after he started to help reclaim Crimea that he started to make a name for himself.

True, but at least he had people to help him out even if it was just a band of mercenaries. It's way different than someone who let's say grew up in a poor village, and sought kingship no matter what it took. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Altina said:

True, but at least he had people to help him out even if it was just a band of mercenaries. It's way different than someone who let's say grew up in a poor village, and sought kingship no matter what it took. 

 

It's a Fire Emblem game. Unless you want the first six maps to be a solo there undoubtedly will be people helping the protagonist out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

It's a Fire Emblem game. Unless you want the first six maps to be a solo there undoubtedly will be people helping the protagonist out.

They wouldn't necessarily have to be childhood friends, family, and retainers though. It could be the protagonist has just joined/been drafted into the army and is tossed into a squadron of people they neither know nor necessarily like or who care about them. They've been brought together and will fight together for a certain cause, but they won't fight as true comrades sharing a single vision- that develops over time if at all.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's a Fire Emblem game. Unless you want the first six maps to be a solo there undoubtedly will be people helping the protagonist out.

Umm I never said the main story has to be about the main character in his early childhood and life, I wouldn't want a main story with a bunch of time skips. Also even if there was a Paralogue or DLC for the main character's past the fights don't have to start with the main character running into a bunch of bandits all of a sudden I don't even know why that would have to be a necessary battle or fight to be shown. He will obviously fight with other units and allies he's forced to work with in his early life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I recall observing is that Fire Emblem's gameplay style is really conducive to any combat-heavy plot involving large-scale battles and following a group of characters numbering in multiple dozens.

Therefore, I think it'd be interesting to see things like a main character who was, well... anything other than a person of royal or noble birth. Maybe a commander of some city guard or something, or a leader of a band of thieves or bandits or something... hell, even revisiting a mercenary band might be cool!

As for the structure of the story itself, I think it would be neat to see more Fire Emblem stories that didn't eventually end with a battle against some super-powerful supernatural being who's largely a non-presence in the story proper. Fire Emblem's stories thrive when it comes to their vast and diverse arrays of human characters, so the decision to exclude the final boss from the story's developed cast always seems baffling to me whenever it's done. Besides, I find that final boss battles are more satisfying when the character being fought is familiar and the conflict with them has been built up to the climax that is the final boss fight, rather than just, "oh hey here's some super strong thing to fight before you're done".

Another idea I had that could tie into the player choice aspect is a story centering around a problem or conflict to which there really is no clean or easy solution, with the main characters being in a position to try to solve that problem nonetheless, and it being up to the player how they go about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

The player control two different parties pretty much like Shadows of Valentia,  the difference is that the map is open and the characters can be freely recruitable by either party, and depending of who is recruited by each crew, major or minor details in the story will change . Lets say its pirate Emblem. So theres two crews of initially 9 characters that are pirates,  this class is full customizable like the villagers or students in Three Houses. Plus there's two avatars, one for each ship. The other 30 available characters have fixed classes and are freely recruitable but theres a limit for each army to keep balancd obviously.  

 

The ship works  like "My Castle " or "Monastery" feature in which you can roam free and do side activities adding the rpg element. Features lkke capture is back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...