How would you compare Fernand and Berkut to the previous FE 3DS villains?

[Thane]

9 hours ago, FoxyGrandpa said:

I see alot of people complaining about Berkut and Rinea's relationship, but I feel the issue was that the development of the relationship wasn't fully portrayed rather than the actual relationship between the two characters being bad.

That is literally all we have to go for. It's just an informed attribute that they love each other; they have absolutely zero chemistry. Berkut is a warrior at heart and places his social standing high regard. He's also easily angered and haughty. Rinea is shown as a traditional anime girl in that she's humble, quiet, shy and polite. More importantly, however, she's got absolutely no desire to be empress or even see battles, literally two polar opposites of Berkut's character. Their interactions are few, short and often end with him shouting at her. 

Saying "well they were supposed to have a good relationship, they just didn't portray it well" means absolutely nothing because we've got nothing else to go on.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Thane

[SavageVolug]

I like both of them, they remind me of the sort of character you might run across in a book like Ivanhoe (I am not comparing Echoes' story to Ivanhoe obviously Ivanhoe is a much deeper story). This kind of aristocratic noble who judges people based off of birth, one's father, mother and family tree. Basically the kind of guy who if your father was a thief for example he would constantly refer to you as The Thief's Son and would be treating you as though you were also a thief even if you had never stolen a penny in your life. In short I think these two are much better villains than the ones in the past two games. 

[Black_Knight]

In terms of Frenand's backstory, here's the story the Ally Soldier, in the Deliverance's Hideout Command Post, tells.

Quote

Frenand's hatred for commoners is understandable.

The peasants living on his lands were starving 'cause of the drought.

They blamed Fernand for not providing for them and stormed his manor.

His family died during the attack. ...Truly, a terrible thing.

 

[Heptade]

I think the only 3DS antagonists to be as interesting as those two would be some of the siblings from the path you didn't chose in Fates. I actually enjoyed Xander as an antagonist. Takumi was quite compelling as well.

[DragonFlames]

I honestly have no idea why every villain absolutely HAS to be complex and be motivated by something or other. I do not hate that type of villain, don't get me wrong, but I feel that it has been done to death by now. There are only so many things one could have as a motivation to be a villain.
If you want that kind of villain, look no further than the Tales series of games. Most of their villains aren't really villains, but people you can actually feel sorry for and understand them, and that is - most of the time at least - not what I am looking for in a villain, to be completely honest. People like Van, Duke, Artorius, Gaius and Richter - who are all awesome as characters - don't really feel like villains - people you are supposed to hate - since you can understand them just as well as you can understand your protagonists and they are only antagonists because their motivations differ from yours. While that does make for an interesting story, it doesn't need to be in every story ever. Everything has its time and its place, I say.

I love villains who are just evil for the sake of being evil, since it is so satisfying to finally kick their teeth in and you get a rush of happiness from killing them once and for all. And if you write a story yourself, you can make them as evil and unlikable as you want, since they don't have moral standards, they don't adhere to some creed or any of that stuff. They want to destroy things just for the hell of it.
Done right, this can work incredibly well, done wrong and you have Fire Emblem Fates on your hands.
Sure, it didn't work with Garon, since that was meant to be a personal thing for Corrin and his dumbass siblings and Anankos' presence in and of itself was a mistake, but still, being 'cartoonishly evil' isn't entirely unrealistic. Just look at human history and some of the flat-out and undeniably evil people it produced (not going to name any names for the sake of everyone's sanity). Those could have been considered 'cartoonishly evil' as well. 
Hell, the whole 'dragons go insane' plot is basically a perfect setup for the evil-for-the-sake-of-being-evil villain and that crap worked out pretty well so far: Medeus, the Fire Dragon, Idoun (or is it Idenn?), and Duma.

But yeah, I do like Berkut and Fernand as villains. It's a 'you love to hate them' kind of thing. Compared to the other villains from 3DS Fire Emblems, they are definitely up there, but it doesn't feel as satisfying to kill Berkut as it does, say, Validar, since Berkut is more like the type of antagonist I described in my first paragraph.
Fernand is a prick and he does a good job as one, too, so being able to beat some sense into him does feel satisfying as well. I'm just sad that you aren't allowed to finish the job yourself.

[avbitran]

Some folks here mentioned that Fernand's story is revealed only trough base conversations and its bad, but I disagree. I think that most of the time the game use the base conversetions to spoon-feed you information about the story, and while sometimes it helps foreshadowing future events, most of the time it's straight up spoils them. I think the Fernand bits were actually a good example of a base conversation done right.

[Frenzify]

22 hours ago, Bowbow said:

People are way too hard on Fernand I think. His entire family just got fucking murdered. Mom, dad, sisters, brothers. Children were killed. All by ungrateful people living on their land who were actually being treated well. They have the blood of children on their hands. What's worse is that it didn't accomplish a damn thing or magically end the famine going on in Zofia. Fernand loved his family and held similar views as Clive did towards the common folk and they back stabbed him. You're lying through your teeth if you say you wouldn't feel mistrust, anger and grief if the same happened to you.

This is why I don't outright hate him, either. If I remember correctly, the information about his family was from talking to an optional person in a village, although, I may be remembering that wrong. But it could explain why some people feel like he's just a jerk, with no motivation, since they might just have not talked to that person. The most I can criticise his character is that he may have overreacted. Actually, he definitely overreacted, and there was no need for him to join the opposing army, just because he didn't agree with the methods of the Deliverance. But he was still done better than Garon, or Validar, or Gangrel, or most other 3DS Fire Emblem villains, really.

[DragonFlames]

8 minutes ago, abits said:

Some folks here mentioned that Fernand's story is revealed only trough base conversations and its bad, but I disagree. I think that most of the time the game use the base conversetions to spoon-feed you information about the story, and while sometimes it helps foreshadowing future events, most of the time it's straight up spoils them. I think the Fernand bits were actually a good example of a base conversation done right.

Which ones spoil? The only real 'spoiler' was that Luthier was a thing (and probably a character that will join you at some point) and had a sister named Delthea before you can recruit either of them, as far as I can remember. The others only gave you hints about beating the next map, or any future map really, as vague as some of the hints were, or gave you information about the lore, some characters or the place you are in. I could be remembering wrong, however.

[avbitran]

Just now, DragonFlames said:

Which ones spoil? The only real 'spoiler' was that Luthier was a thing (and probably a character that will join you at some point) and had a sister named Delthea before you can recruit either of them, as far as I can remember. The others only gave you hints about beating the next map, or any future map really, as vague as some of the hints were, or gave you information about the lore, some characters or the place you are in. I could be remembering wrong, however.

I can't Remember specifics, but there were few that made me realise some plot point, like the fact alm is rudolf's son and that the masked man is conrad, but maybe I confuse base conversations with the character's conversations between battles...

[Slumber]

6 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:

Which ones spoil? The only real 'spoiler' was that Luthier was a thing (and probably a character that will join you at some point) and had a sister named Delthea before you can recruit either of them, as far as I can remember. The others only gave you hints about beating the next map, or any future map really, as vague as some of the hints were, or gave you information about the lore, some characters or the place you are in. I could be remembering wrong, however.

There's stuff like people mentioning Mycen didn't have children as early as the end of act 1, if I recall, and I think somebody mentions Rudolf possibly having an heir. You can put two and two together pretty early(Even before Alm picks up the Royal Sword) if you're paying enough attention.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Slumber

[DragonFlames]

2 minutes ago, abits said:

I can't Remember specifics, but there were few that made me realise some plot point, like the fact alm is rudolf's son and that the masked man is conrad, but maybe I confuse base conversations with the character's conversations between battles...

Well, the fact that Alm was Rudolf's true son wasn't that well hidden, anyways. The earliest (and most blatant hint) was dropped as soon as the end of act 1.

[avbitran]

Yeah and I think it's a shame, because it would have make the reveal moment way more intense. I think they tried to clue it but went too far with it.

[Etrurian emperor]

I don't think its an entirely fair comparison because of the extremely low quality of the villains that came before. Berkut and company have to do very little work to be better then them.

I think they are better then villains like Garon but I don't entirely like either of them.

Fernand is kind of irredeemable in everything he says and does and there's no real logic that could justify his questionable actions. In fact him honestly thinking peasants shouldn't fight nor get any reward if they do points to someone who's completely illogical and is willing to switch side the moment those pesky logical people get their way. He's not troubled by Alm being a newbie, just by him being a commoner.  

I'm okay with Berkut. He's a decent rival character but his obsession with his own nobility doesn't really sit will with me. Shouldn't Rigel be the sort of place where power matters instead of birth. Its always brought up how power hungry Rigelians are and to what length they will go through in order to get more powerful. So why should Berkut's birth matter and why should a proper Rigelian like him think it does. 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Etrurian emperor

[SnowFire]

Agree with most of the comments above - most of the DS/3DS villains are unfortunately terrible (Gangrel is good, !Robin is almost good, the other siblings in Fates are sometimes decent, after that a vast sea of awful), and just keeping it simple and understandable does miles for Echoes, so B & F are actually pretty decent.  Not legendary villains, but they do work.

For Berkut, the thing I'll add is that it's not necessary to show the entire love story to explain how a couple got together.  I'm fine with accepting it on faith that they had a courtship and that soldiers often date/marry people not hyped up on combat.  I also like any sort of recognition that villains have families and loved ones, and they would probably be sad about Our Heroes going on a killing spree.  Sacrificing Rinea is some classic melodrama, but sure.  The Alm rivalry also made considerably more sense than yon average anime rivalry.

For Fernand, they try to add a bit of depth, and it sorta works, but also sorta doesn't?  You have a lot of latitude with how to work "noble prejudice" plotlines because actual humans are tremendously inconsistent and hypocrites, but I do think that the writing went a little too far by IMMEDIATELY having Fernand turn on Alm for basically no reason.  Nobles aren't generally opposed to the concept of commoners existing; in fact they're often quite happy to have them around...  as servants and advisors.  "Soldier in the army" certainly qualifies as servant, so I can't see why he was so enraged at Alm merely joining up!  Yon average snooty noble villain, IMO, should be polite and friendly to their equals; scheming & plotting against, and complaining about, their superiors; and rude and demanding to their inferiors.  Servants merely line up with who they answer to; their servants are wonderful, their rival's servants are miserable, they don't really count on their own except as vessels of their master's will (a wildly incorrect assumption often).  It's especially weird because there's a line about Mycen being made a Count; presumably his grandson, if not the highest of nobility, would be a perfectly reasonable knight to add to a noble army.  Now, if he flips out after Clive makes Alm the leader, fine.  If they figure out some excuse to have Alm accidentally insult Fernand in dialogue, fine.  But he's utterly contemptuous from the beginning, which begs the question, does he think that only nobles should go to war or something?  That sounds like a weird form of chivalry if anything ("let us do the fighting and dying for you").  Anyway, what it ACTUALLY comes off is Fernand being a bit of a fool, which is *fine* (villains can make mistakes too!), but then have slightly less plot hype for him being a decent person.

[Sentinel07]

Well, I gotta say, I'm glad for the Rise of the Deliverance pack. Gave me a lot of new insight on Fernand.

Granted, I already liked him as an antagonist, but after playing those maps, I'm glad there's more context to him.

[Black_Knight]

The DLC does help flesh out Fernand greatly. He still is prideful, but didn't have the contempt for peasants like he did in the game.

Spoiler

A great contrast is how he allowed Clive to negotiate with the traders and focused all his ire on Slayde. And after Clive promised to tell the King of the trader's plight, Fernand only went to question him and how he might not be able to keep his promise after they were riding back to the castle as opposed to how he would  more than likely have contradicted Clive right in front of the traders if the scenario took place in 401. And not only did he decide to hear Clive out, he then pledged his support hum in his promise to help the traders by being there for Clive in front of the king.

You also get to see his interactions with Clare and Matilda via Memory Prisms and see him loosen up a bit, or speak fondly of his family at the start of Battle of Zofia Harbor.

The game goes out of its way to litter hints everywhere that Fernand was a good man before the peasants revolted and killed his family. Which was further pushed along by the fact that Clive, Clare and Matilda still cared for him even after he defected to Rigel.

Frenand is one of those characters that if don't stop and explore the world or just skip over text, it's extremely easy to just dismiss him as an irrational, and haughty character.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Black_Knight

[RJWalker]

Alm and Rudolf's relationship didn't really seem like it was supposed to be a big secret. Awakening's DLC already spoiled this and this is very old game. So the game treats it as something the player can figure out on their own by understanding how fiction is written and the actual secret is why Alm was raised in some village by Mycen and why Rudolf is doing what he does.

[L9999]

18 minutes ago, RJWalker said:

Alm and Rudolf's relationship didn't really seem like it was supposed to be a big secret. Awakening's DLC already spoiled this and this is very old game. So the game treats it as something the player can figure out on their own by understanding how fiction is written and the actual secret is why Alm was raised in some village by Mycen and why Rudolf is doing what he does.

I got flamed because I commented "what's so spoilery of a game from 1992?" Like, that information is in every FE website in existence. I read it up in 2013.

[DragonFlames]

On 2.6.2017 at 9:48 AM, RJWalker said:

Alm and Rudolf's relationship didn't really seem like it was supposed to be a big secret. Awakening's DLC already spoiled this and this is very old game. So the game treats it as something the player can figure out on their own by understanding how fiction is written and the actual secret is why Alm was raised in some village by Mycen and why Rudolf is doing what he does.

Which is what is actually supposed to be the interesting part of it all. At least I think so.

[Slyfox]

On 5/31/2017 at 1:53 AM, FoxyGrandpa said:

I think both are on par with Gangrel and Walhart as villains, and better than Validar, Grima, Garon, Hans, Iago, and Anakos.

Pretty much this, but I would put them a little below Gangrel and Walhart, but still leagues better than the rest. Fernand and Berkut had more potential than any of the previous villains, but sadly they are just kind of "there" not doing anything meaningful.

That's the problem with all villains in Echoes however, all very interesting but ultimately have little screen time and do nothing. A villain or antagonist or whatever it is you want is only truly effective when you see what actions they take and the results thereof. Someone NOT taking action can also be effective, but people won't buy them as a threat if that's how you try to sell them.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Slyfox

[Slumber]

I still don't know why so many people like Walhart.

I get Gangrel. He's the Joker. People like that kind of character.

But Walhart? I get liking the idea behind him, basically a hardcore Darwinist trying to cull the human race to have a better chance at surviving against the upcoming calamities. It's a neat idea that's been done before, and can be pretty compelling when executed well. But that's really ALL there is to him. He doesn't really have much of a character, he's a pretty standard "I'm a powerful emperor" type character, and the Valm empire in general is poorly explored and comes out of nowhere. And correct me if I'm wrong, it's never really explained or questioned why Walhart knows something big's about to happen. You deal with him and then whoop, gotta deal with Grima.

And, while Gangrel gets a full backstory when you can recruit and support with him that reveals that he has a sympathetic backstory that actually kind of justifies why he's so angry and wants to see Ylisse burn, Walhart doesn't. Walhart is just more "I'M A CONQUEROR" over and over.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Slumber

[Interdimensional Observer]

10 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I get Gangrel. He's the Joker. People like that kind of character.

But Walhart? I get liking the idea behind him, basically a hardcore Darwinist trying to cull the human race to have a better chance at surviving against the upcoming calamities. It's a neat idea that's been done before, and can be pretty compelling when executed well. But that really ALL there is to him. He doesn't really have much of a character, he's a pretty standard "I'm a powerful emperor" type character, and the Valm empire in general is poorly explored and comes out of nowhere. And correct me if I'm wrong, it's never really explained or questioned why Walhart knows something big's about to happen. You deal with him and then whoop, gotta deal with Grima.

And, while Gangrel gets a full backstory when you can recruit and support with him that reveals that he has a sympathetic backstory that actually kind of justifies why he's so angry and wants to see Ylisse burn, Walhart doesn't. Walhart is just more "I'M A CONQUEROR" over and over.

I'm in agreement, the idea behind Walhart is good (and unoriginal- though what isn't?), but he's a slab of hamburger meat more uncooked than the color of his armor. The Valm Arc's disconnect from the arc that came before it- Gangrel/Plegia, and the one that comes after- Grimleal/Grima, contributes to this. We never see Walhart in action fighting the Grimleal, he's on another continent removed from them.

You mention Gangrel having grounds for sympathy, and that is true regarding Chrom's Father's injuries to Plegia. I'd like to add that his supports mention his war with Ylisse as being motivated, partly at least, as way of unify the Ylissean (there is no actual name given for it) continent against Valm. That, while bearing a ground for sympathy, is a little odd given Valm is on another continent, and long distance maritime empires aren't that easy to maintain.

I'm getting the feeling some plot issues could have been ameliorated, not necessarily by cutting Walhart, but simply by getting rid of Valm the continent and moving Walhart across the sea (Chon'sin can go poof for all I care, Tiki can live at Mount Prism). While Chrom butts heads with Plegia, we could have Walhart, a minor player at this point, agreeing to attack Plegia from another direction, just to gently introduce him. Then, in the year that follows the defeat of Gangrel, Walhart could notice the chaos as having improved the standings of the Grimleal and he invades Plegia to restore order and destroy the cult. Validar would then concoct some sort of response. (Perhaps Validar has some Risen make attacks on Regna Ferox and the attacks are feigned as from Walhart- who been putting Regna Ferox on edge about due to his recent geopolitical ambitions; kinda like what Manfroy did when he faked Issachan attacks on Darna- triggering the Grannvale campaign which begins FE4.) Whatever Validar does, Chrom and co. fight the ambitious Walhart when their diplomacy with him fails and he makes blatantly belligerent statements ("either work with me or submit b/c I must stop the Grimleal threat you somehow don't see"), on top of fighting off increasing Risen swarms which ultimately approach apocalyptic status as Grima comes closer and closer to resurrection.

[Slumber]

4 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'm in agreement, the idea behind Walhart is good (and unoriginal- though what isn't?), but he's a slab of hamburger meat more uncooked than the color of his armor. The Valm Arc's disconnect from the arc that came before it- Gangrel/Plegia, and the one that comes after- Grimleal/Grima, contributes to this. We never see Walhart in action fighting the Grimleal, he's on another continent removed from them.

You mention Gangrel having grounds for sympathy, and that is true regarding Chrom's Father's injuries to Plegia. I'd like to add that his supports mention his war with Ylisse as being motivated, partly at least, as way of unify the Ylissean (there is no actual name given for it) continent against Valm. That, while bearing a ground for sympathy, is a little odd given Valm is on another continent, and long distance maritime empires aren't that easy to maintain.

I'm getting the feeling some plot issues could have been ameliorated, not necessarily by cutting Walhart, but simply by getting rid of Valm the continent and moving Walhart across the sea (Chon'sin can go poof for all I care, Tiki can live at Mount Prism). While Chrom butts heads with Plegia, we could have Walhart, a minor player at this point, agreeing to attack Plegia from another direction, just to gently introduce him. Then, in the year that follows the defeat of Gangrel, Walhart could notice the chaos as having improved the standings of the Grimleal and he invades Plegia to restore order and destroy the cult. Validar would then concoct some sort of response. (Perhaps Validar has some Risen make attacks on Regna Ferox and the attacks are feigned as from Walhart- who been putting Regna Ferox on edge about due to his recent geopolitical ambitions; kinda like what Manfroy did when he faked Issachan attacks on Darna- triggering the Grannvale campaign which begins FE4.) Whatever Validar does, Chrom and co. fight the ambitious Walhart when their diplomacy with him fails and he makes blatantly belligerent statements ("either work with me or submit b/c I must stop the Grimleal threat you somehow don't see"), on top of fighting off increasing Risen swarms which ultimately approach apocalyptic status as Grima comes closer and closer to resurrection.

Yes, that would have been much better. But IS hasn't been on their A-game with story telling recently. Echoes managed to tell a coherent, well-paced story, but that was mostly handled by basically the back-up team at IS. Plus, they already knew how the story had to be paced. 

I don't even think you'd need to ignore Valm as an entire continent on its own to achieve this.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Slumber

[Thane]

10 hours ago, Slumber said:

Yes, that would have been much better. But IS hasn't been on their A-game with story telling recently. Echoes managed to tell a coherent, well-paced story, but that was mostly handled by basically the back-up team at IS. Plus, they already knew how the story had to be paced. 

I strongly disagree. This is not a particularly well-told story, and most certainly not well-paced. You can spend many maps not really advancing the plot, and then a lot of things happen all at once. Certain subplots are completely skimmed over and ignored for convenience later on, like Desaix's whole arc. Alm becomes leader, then the pressured Deliverance can immediately take Zofia Castle, Desaix's flees, and then he's killed and only referenced again when meeting Slayde at the very end of chapter 4. 

Honestly, the more I think about the plot, the more disappointed I get. Sure, it's not Fates or Blazing Blade, but few games are.

[Slumber]

1 hour ago, Thane said:

I strongly disagree. This is not a particularly well-told story, and most certainly not well-paced. You can spend many maps not really advancing the plot, and then a lot of things happen all at once. Certain subplots are completely skimmed over and ignored for convenience later on, like Desaix's whole arc. Alm becomes leader, then the pressured Deliverance can immediately take Zofia Castle, Desaix's flees, and then he's killed and only referenced again when meeting Slayde at the very end of chapter 4. 

Honestly, the more I think about the plot, the more disappointed I get. Sure, it's not Fates or Blazing Blade, but few games are.

I mean, compared to Awakening, where there's a solid 8 chapters that come out of nowhere, don't advance the plot, and don't develop that characters at all? Or Sacred Stones, which more or less also falls guilty to the whole "multiple chapters of just fighting faceless monters", but that takes up a much larger percentage of the game? 

Even if Echoes has a lot of maps where you're just fighting nameless monsters, they're mostly front loaded and don't take very long. Major events and big plot points still come at a pretty even pace, and there's usually not a long stretch where nothing is happening. Desaix could have been brought up more by Celica, and he could have been mentioned more, but his arc wasn't unimportant by any means. It's the arc that kickstarts Alm's whole side of the story, and it's the main driving point of liberating Zofia. 

So maybe I shouldn't have said "well-paced", but "well-paced for Fire Emblem". 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Slumber