Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

 I don't agree with Awakening's Story being better than Echoes at all but I do think its a valid opinion. The problem with the story of Echoes is that its very clumsy and for some people that can be a deal breaker. Awakening tells a much more coherent story but the story they end up telling is fairly unexciting, poorly developed and rushed. 

For me I judge Awakening's story negatively because of it being relatively dull and underdeveloped while I praise Echoes for its presentation and soul. But that's a very subjective opinion. One could also compare the stories and judge Awakening more favorably for its competence while being more harsh on Echoes for its inconsistencies and flaws. 

 

5 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

Unfortunately for Celica, I don't see what she can give to Alm, because Alm is perfect. Every choice he makes is the right choice and his outlook on life is proven to be the correct one by the end of the game. Celica, meanwhile is wrong about everything. She's secretive and yet she lashes out at others for not understanding her. It seems like they're only together because fate said so and not because their relationship really developed to that point. Also, I don't really buy them still caring  about each other that strongly considering they only knew each other for a brief period and then they were separated for many years.

Well this is pure headcanon on my part but I do think Alm will need Celica and Mycen for the more political side of the job. Alm is likely going to be a good warrior king and won't have a hard time winning over the people but his dialogue also shows he's still a boy and a goofball who might have a hard time pencil pushing on a desk until he matures a bit. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Regarding the fact of Gaiden, I consider the story of Echoes to be somehow inferior when it comes to the original.

Especially in regards to how the Final Chapter was changed. Celica's acceptance of Judah's offer in Gaiden made sense due to how Alm and his party was in danger of being killed by dracozombies.

Also, Echoes omited a great part in Gaiden in which while Alm and his party hurry to the final battle in Duma's tower, you can see how Celica and her party are fighting for their lives against Duma and his minions by showing messages like "Celica's party is fighting,  Celica lost 2 HP!"

It's a great gameplay-story integration. At least Celica didn't just ditch her party like what she did in Echoes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Slumber said:

Some of the saving grace is what @Interdimensional Observer  says. Alm being royalty may make us immediately feel that some of these themes get downplayed, but they do make more sense in the context of the game itself.

which is why I put SoV's story above Fates' story. Because when you really think about it, both stories suffer from the same fundamental problems. In that the game tries to go for a morally ambiguous story but is, for whatever reason, too afraid to make it's main character look bad so it just doesn't work. What makes fates worse is that it's just a convoluted mess of a story with really no defining themes to speak of. The only themes you can really kind of discern from that story are "blood vs. bond" and "the consequences of one's choice" which are both undercut severely by a number of reasons and events in the story. Echoes at least has an idea on what it's messages are even if handles them about as well as how Felicia handles dishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spatha said:

Especially in regards to how the Final Chapter was changed. Celica's acceptance of Judah's offer in Gaiden made sense due to how Alm and his party was in danger of being killed by dracozombies.

I'm honestly surprised that they didn't add that to Jedah's reasoning when meeting him at Duma's tower. Well, okay, they kind of did, but I was expecting them to emphasize it more. It seems like it would have been his final ultimatum that, if the offer of Mila's freedom in exchange for Celica's soul wasn't enough, and if force didn't work, Jedah could threaten Alm's army with a limitless horde of necrodragons. No matter how long it took, he would keep sending them until Alm's forces were eventually overwhelmed or Celica agreed to the deal.

This way, any rashness could at least be understandable on Celica's part, and depending on how the player did things, they'd be glad to not be fighting any more repetitious fights. To their credit, Jedah does at least bring up the necrodragons when you meet them, and he does stop the attacks, but it doesn't have the impact that it should.

1 hour ago, Spatha said:

Also, Echoes omited a great part in Gaiden in which while Alm and his party hurry to the final battle in Duma's tower, you can see how Celica and her party are fighting for their lives against Duma and his minions by showing messages like "Celica's party is fighting,  Celica lost 2 HP!"

It's a great gameplay-story integration. At least Celica didn't just ditch her party like what she did in Echoes.

I would not be surprised if IS wanted to implement this feature into Echoes, but decided to scrap it in the end. I could see them having trouble inserting it in an intuitive and balanced fashion given the way Echoes handles dungeons, and eventually decided that those resources were best put elsewhere. I could also see time/money constraints forcing IS to put the idea on the chopping block, especially if they had other parts of they game they needed to focus on completing first, and it could have been seen as a frustrating feature, even if it was cool from a story standpoint. The two aren't mutually exclusive, so both could have been the case.

I do wonder now if the cutscene about Celica's group fighting off hordes of terrors was simply meant to reference the mechanic in the original Gaiden, or if it was in fact a placeholder in the event that the feature was implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ottservia said:

(Snip)

I'm going to quote my original argument here real quick because it highlights my distaste for the "Alm contradicts himself" argument

18 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

Yes I was aware you only meant SoV and I only say that SoV is the best of the 3ds for the reasons i stated sorry for the confusion on that matter.

As for the rest of your post I've always thought the whole "Alm contradicts his theme" was a little weird. Let me Explain...

To say that is the theme of the game is missing out on the many themes SoV presents and even when only talking about Alm's route. The Commoner vs. Noble theme is the main theme of Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 (alms route) and has many events such as the infighting with Fernand, Berkut's ideals, and Clive's growing suspicion of Alm as the 2 former events take place and grow. Throughout all of chapter 3 Alm faces that question time and again and it Clive finally admits hes wrong after Alm is able to save Delthea and then stands up for him in front of Berkut and Fernand at the beginning of chapter 4 and that wraps up that theme nicely. 

The game transitions eventually to destiny and responsibility as Alm is tied back to the foreshadowing Mycen gave us at Zofia Castle at the end chapter 1.

The reason I have a distaste for the argument of Alm contradicting his own theme is because it would of been lame to dwell on "noble vs. commoner" while Alm was marching down to slay Duma and get falchion (hopefully not in that order). It is a bit weird that they went with theme knowing what Alm's identity is I will give you that, but it still added a nice conflict for Alm to face in the early days of him joining the deliverance.

To me even with that odd choice paired against a game that has 3-4 stories scrunched in to 1, with only 1 of those being really good with the others dragging the 1st arc down filling the story with contrivances does not hold a lot of weight with me, but then again that's just me.

I agree that those are some of the main themes of Awakening and that they aren't necessarily contradicted in the story but Grima screws over the entire story by resurrecting himself without all the stones do you remember what I'm talking about? It's when they put the fake stone in and then Grima says something about "the life force will renew me" or something along those lines and so the entire plot of keeping the fire emblem out of Validars hands was pointless and it makes Grima really stupid for just sitting around AFK whole time.

It's stuff like this along with tons of pointless arcs that make awakening so forgettable to me, and trust me I'll be one of the first to say that Alm is nothing special but using these points against SOV (which are valid points) against Awakening of all the games is baffling to me.

Of course it just get's into the matter of subjectivity because it looks like to me you are overlooking the mess that I believe Awakening's story is compared to SoV. Or maybe I'm just a bitter person (probably the latter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JimmyBeans said:

I'm going to quote my original argument here real quick because it highlights my distaste for the "Alm contradicts himself" argument

I agree that those are some of the main themes of Awakening and that they aren't necessarily contradicted in the story but Grima screws over the entire story by resurrecting himself without all the stones do you remember what I'm talking about? It's when they put the fake stone in and then Grima says something about "the life force will renew me" or something along those lines and so the entire plot of keeping the fire emblem out of Validars hands was pointless and it makes Grima really stupid for just sitting around AFK whole time.

It's stuff like this along with tons of pointless arcs that make awakening so forgettable to me, and trust me I'll be one of the first to say that Alm is nothing special but using these points against SOV (which are valid points) against Awakening of all the games is baffling to me.

Of course it just get's into the matter of subjectivity because it looks like to me you are overlooking the mess that I believe Awakening's story is compared to SoV. Or maybe I'm just a bitter person (probably the latter).

I am not at all blind to awakening's faults. Awakening most certainly has it's problems. But at the very least it's story is more coherent that SoV's. I am not excusing that part of awakening's plot it's rushed and kind of pointless. I will not deny that. The reason I say awakening is better is because it handles it's themes better than SoV. The way awakening handles it's story is not perfect. It stumbles quite a bit because it tries to cram so much plot into so few chapters. But as Etrurian said it is at very least coherent. Like the way awakening handles its themes is like throwing together a college essay just a night before it is due. It's a little sloppy, rushed, light on research, and some things don't make sense but it was still good enough to get a passing grade. It met the bear minimum. SoV on the other hand is like you writing an essay on the on a topic you know nothing about without even bothering to do the proper research. It's full of contradiction and made up bullcrap. Yet you expect a good grade.

Okay maybe that analogy doesn't really work for SoV but what I'm trying to get at here is that the very foundation the story is built upon(it's themes) fundamentally cannot work with how this story is presented and written. The themes and ideas of a story are what make up it's core foundation. When you really think about, all a story is is just an author's conveyance of their perception of reality. That's what art is in general really. The themes and ideas of a story are what ground it and allow us as viewers to understand what the story is trying to say/explore. It is by far the most important aspect of any story because it relates to everything else. The problem with SoV again is that its themes make no sense for how the story is told and presented. It tries to tell a morally gray story but for some stupid reason Alm CANNOT be wrong at all so it falls flat. The ideas it tries to present do not work because they are undermined by its protagonist. 

32 minutes ago, JimmyBeans said:

The reason I have a distaste for the argument of Alm contradicting his own theme is because it would of been lame to dwell on "noble vs. commoner" while Alm was marching down to slay Duma and get falchion (hopefully not in that order). It is a bit weird that they went with theme knowing what Alm's identity is I will give you that, but it still added a nice conflict for Alm to face in the early days of him joining the deliverance.

Here's the thing though. It's not that it's "lame" for the story to not focus on that theme by this point in the game. It's that the game presented that conflict as an important piece to this story and never resolved it in a satisfying way. I mean if it was more of a less important theme that got sort of brushed to the side along with the side character it was attached to and didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Fine, I can kind of excuse that. However the whole "noble vs. commoner" theme is the central motivation/conflict of not one but two of the central villains of this story(those being Berkut and Fernand) and the way its handled just makes the whole conflict just fall apart. It cannot work. It just can't because of the contradictions present. It just makes the whole thing feel pointless. Like why put so much emphasis on it, if you're just be hypocritical about it. I know the grima Resurrection thing is similar but that part of the story does not affect it's core foundation only what's built upon that foundation. The whole "noble vs commoner" contradiction, however, does. 

 

The difference with awakening is that awakening's story can work. It does not handle it's themes so clumsily. Yeah it stumbles(a lot actually) but it does not at all contradict itself. It knows what themes it wants to explore and does what it needs to explore those themes. They may have built nothing but a small shack upon the foundation but at least that shack can be used and it's stable. With SoV on the other hand, the thing they built you could barely even call a shack. It's shaky, rickety and falls apart at even the slightest touch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

 I don't agree with Awakening's Story being better than Echoes at all but I do think its a valid opinion. The problem with the story of Echoes is that its very clumsy and for some people that can be a deal breaker. Awakening tells a much more coherent story but the story they end up telling is fairly unexciting, poorly developed and rushed. 

For all I harp on SoV for, I do find its themes more interesting, and however flawed in the execution, several characters make good foils to each other and represent different aspects of the world. Awakening is mostly competently told but "We can change our future" and "the power of friendship" aren't exactly riveting topics. I could see myself being impressed with Awakening if I were a lot younger and less familiar with that kind of story.

7 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Well this is pure headcanon on my part but I do think Alm will need Celica and Mycen for the more political side of the job. Alm is likely going to be a good warrior king and won't have a hard time winning over the people but his dialogue also shows he's still a boy and a goofball who might have a hard time pencil pushing on a desk until he matures a bit. 

It's kind of hard to say how they would turn out. Alm is pretty cool and competent, only really being shaken by the deeply personal revelations of part 4&5. Alm is focused on immediate problems so he's definitely a good guy for wartime leadership. He's also apparently oozing in charisma so it wouldn't be hard to see a lot of people wanting to follow him. Celica is more of a mixed bag. She does think about the larger picture for how Zofia will get by after the war is over but the game shows her to be overemotional and reckless, not seeking advice when she really should.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2019 at 2:08 PM, SageHarpuiaJDJ said:

It's very popular, actually. Like I've seen very few people defend Fates story.

Huh i rember bringing it help to people before (not here) and they didn't like my thoughts on it, that's why i brought it up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely agree with Awakening's story above Echoes. Echoes's story is... ugh. Can we please not overlook the fact that Echoes's story is misogynistic garbage? (Celica's actions and the contrast between her and Alm, Rinea the wife as sacrificial pawn to develop a man, the outright majority of the game's women needing to be rescued, etc.) I see at least people are discussing how much Echoes sabotages its own themes, which I definitely agree with. Its plotting is nothing to write home about and it makes poor use of its setting (which admittedly is at least an interesting idea).

Praise for the game's "soul" honestly makes me squirm a bit. IMO it's a game whose heart is clearly in an unpleasant place, but has a nice exterior and good dialog / voice acting to cover that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I am not at all blind to awakening's faults. Awakening most certainly has it's problems. But at the very least it's story is more coherent that SoV's. I am not excusing that part of awakening's plot it's rushed and kind of pointless. I will not deny that. The reason I say awakening is better is because it handles it's themes better than SoV. The way awakening handles it's story is not perfect. It stumbles quite a bit because it tries to cram so much plot into so few chapters. But as Etrurian said it is at very least coherent. Like the way awakening handles its themes is like throwing together a college essay just a night before it is due. It's a little sloppy, rushed, light on research, and some things don't make sense but it was still good enough to get a passing grade. It met the bear minimum. SoV on the other hand is like you writing an essay on the on a topic you know nothing about without even bothering to do the proper research. It's full of contradiction and made up bullcrap. Yet you expect a good grade.

Okay maybe that analogy doesn't really work for SoV but what I'm trying to get at here is that the very foundation the story is built upon(it's themes) fundamentally cannot work with how this story is presented and written. The themes and ideas of a story are what make up it's core foundation. When you really think about, all a story is is just an author's conveyance of their perception of reality. That's what art is in general really. The themes and ideas of a story are what ground it and allow us as viewers to understand what the story is trying to say/explore. It is by far the most important aspect of any story because it relates to everything else. The problem with SoV again is that its themes make no sense for how the story is told and presented. It tries to tell a morally gray story but for some stupid reason Alm CANNOT be wrong at all so it falls flat. The ideas it tries to present do not work because they are undermined by its protagonist. 

Here's the thing though. It's not that it's "lame" for the story to not focus on that theme by this point in the game. It's that the game presented that conflict as an important piece to this story and never resolved it in a satisfying way. I mean if it was more of a less important theme that got sort of brushed to the side along with the side character it was attached to and didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Fine, I can kind of excuse that. However the whole "noble vs. commoner" theme is the central motivation/conflict of not one but two of the central villains of this story(those being Berkut and Fernand) and the way its handled just makes the whole conflict just fall apart. It cannot work. It just can't because of the contradictions present. It just makes the whole thing feel pointless. Like why put so much emphasis on it, if you're just be hypocritical about it. I know the grima Resurrection thing is similar but that part of the story does not affect it's core foundation only what's built upon that foundation. The whole "noble vs commoner" contradiction, however, does. 

 

The difference with awakening is that awakening's story can work. It does not handle it's themes so clumsily. Yeah it stumbles(a lot actually) but it does not at all contradict itself. It knows what themes it wants to explore and does what it needs to explore those themes. They may have built nothing but a small shack upon the foundation but at least that shack can be used and it's stable. With SoV on the other hand, the thing they built you could barely even call a shack. It's shaky, rickety and falls apart at even the slightest touch. 

1. I don't believe this at all, Alm is not perfect and always right.. He took the path of the sword and had no qualms with killing any of his enemies from the start of the game showing himself to be one of the more aggressive Lords while still being portrayed in a "good guy" light. He didn't stop and think about what he was doing, even with Mycen's warning, or try to peacefully resolve the conflict (something Celica would try and do) and you can argue that the way Alm did was the only way it could've been done but it doesn't change the fact that he personally killed literally the last of his family. And before you say it it doesn't matter that he didn't know he just attacked what was in front of him and payed the price.

2. Like I said before I believe Nobles vs. Commoners was resolved in a meaningful way and it focuses way more on Clive in that regard way more than it does Berkut and Fernand as they exist as one of the many things that instills doubt in his mind about Alm. This theme takes Clive down a very interesting character arc, making him more interesting than Alm I'd say, and ends with Clive standing up for Alm in front of Berkut and Fernand in Rigel as the events of chapter 3 have removed the doubt from his mind. There is a reason why we go so long without seeing Clive and Fernand after that and for why Fernand got off'd right when we took the castle as well and you can argue that they did lazily but truth is the plot just didn't need him anymore and Berkut's focus shifted. Think about even if you say the themes are contradicted Alm still came from nothing whereas Berkut lost everything.

3. You are right about the aspects you mentioned being very important to a story, but that is not nearly everything that constitutes a good story in the slightest and doesn't by itself make a story really good or really bad. What i'm saying is that by this logic, based on story cohesion and lack of contradictions alone, you could argue that Shadow Dragon is a better story than Awakening. Which I'll say that SD works a lot better as a story better than a lot of games including fe7, but it lacks the soul and fluff that the other games, including Awakening, have.

4. This ties into 1. a little bit but Alm is meant to be a good person and portrayed as one, the game is just less black and white as a whole and so it seems like the story itself is morally grey but that is just because it came after Fates of all games in my opinion. As an example take Warhammer Fantasy if you know about it at all, where the "good guy" of the story is an Emperor of a human nation being torn apart by petty arguing while a brutal world is always trying to kill them in the most grotesque and brutal ways possible. Demons, psycho wood elves, Norscan raiders, vampires, etc. The Emperor, Karl Franz is his name, united his empire by force and riled up his people in a state of massive Xenophobia and blood lust towards everything that isn't a man or a dwarf for the most part and proved himself to be an amazing leader and savior of his race on a terrible grim dark esque world. It's good versus evil yet if you put Karl Franz in a game like fates he would be seen as a bad guy by Corrin because the vision of Morality is so skewed in that game.

My point is that it's not as morally gray as you might think. Alm didn't commit any war crimes nor did he revel in violence or slaughter, he fought honorably that is just how war is.

You said in an earlier post that Alm didn't act aggressive and ruthless like Duma when he was supposed to be his descendant, but you have to remember that original Duma and degenerated Duma (the one that you fight) are very different as his original Ideals were "Trial breeds Strength" and not a sith level of lusting for power with any evil means necessary. This explains why Rudolf was not a bad person as well but was built up to be strong both physically and mentally (sacrificing himself). Alm was raised by Mycen and is a descendant of Duma which is why he is strong, disciplined, and a good guy and still pays for his actions. Whether or not he pays for them enough is the actual argument.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/1/2019 at 5:09 AM, henrymidfields said:

Same here. It goes against the intended design of the game, and it's just plain unrealistic. What? You somehow summoned a Terminator/Shin Godzilla in a medieval battlefield?

Apart from Pokemon BW-styled scaling experience and improved enemy AI like in Conquests, the game should focus more on teamwork. Perhaps maybe emulate actions used in warfare, such as flanking (damage and accuracy bonuses/penalties for two allied units flanking an enemy unit), or support firepower (a modified Attack Stance with optional attack bonuses for a units and an nearby allied unit with an appropriate long-distance tome/ballista attacking an enemy) - make it so that you are encouraged to field more units. Maybe make it so that you gain bonuses/penalties depending on how many enemy and allied units are nearby (to emulate morale and desperation). And the bonuses as fixed numbers and penalties percentage-based to discourage Seths/Titanias from soloing.

Oops!, I had missed the message.

The idea of giving bonuses to flank attacks and the emulation of morale and desperation are interesting. We already have skills that improve the performance of surrounding teammates based on what a unit represents to the rest of the party (Charm, Strategist's L35 skill, Azura's personal and L35 skills; Yukimura, Izana and Kaze's personal skills, etcetera), and these type of skills could balance the morale-desperation ratio. Furthermore, such skills could be modified to only affect unpaired units at equal or close levels than the unit with the skill. Or there could be a 'morale rating', based on the number of units fielded and the proximity of their individual levels.

A way to improve armoured units could be to give them skills that affect their surrounding teammates instead of just making them bulkier. Say, give a General a skill that has percentage chance (based on the Skill of the General or combined with the other unit's Luck) of halving or blocking the attacks made to adjacent (unpaired) units. Or a skill that raises the Hit and Avoid of (unpaired) surrounding teammates, acknowledging that the mere presence of a General improves the morale of the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

1. I don't believe this at all, Alm is not perfect and always right.. He took the path of the sword and had no qualms with killing any of his enemies from the start of the game showing himself to be one of the more aggressive Lords while still being portrayed in a "good guy" light. He didn't stop and think about what he was doing, even with Mycen's warning, or try to peacefully resolve the conflict (something Celica would try and do) and you can argue that the way Alm did was the only way it could've been done but it doesn't change the fact that he personally killed literally the last of his family. And before you say it it doesn't matter that he didn't know he just attacked what was in front of him and payed the price.

you see the whole thing about alm and my problems with him is that throughout the story he is never portrayed as wrong in any shape or form. Yes gameplay wise he does kill generic enemy units but the story never acknowledges this. You see the type of story echoes is trying to tell(at least based on my interpretations) is that you cannot rule a kingdom with strength or kindness alone and following the extremes of either ideology will bring a kingdom to ruin as shown through growing hardships both zofia and rigel are facing during the time this game takes place. Alm and Celica are supposed to be representative of their respective gods' ideologies.

Alm is supposed to represent duma's philosophy of strength.Strength is born through hardship as you said. It is only through struggle and finding the strength to overcome that hardship that mankind can truly prosper. That is duma's philosophy. Kindness to him is a sign of weakness. You will never know true happiness until you've faced hardship. You shouldn't be pampered. You have to work for your strength. you have to work for your happiness. It's not something that should simply be given to you. What the story tries to say about this philosophy is that while yes it does make a decent point, following it to the extreme will lead to a kingdom where kindness is all but lost. There is no compassion or empathy just empty suffering and torment from the strong to the weak. People start killing without mercy or remorse. People suffer and no one does a thing to help them. That is the logical flaw of that philosophy. It is a leader's duty to help the weak not torment them. True strength comes from kindness. Alm's entire arch should reflect this but it doesn't. His character should be about disregarding the help of the gods and resolving the issue with human force. Showcasing both the benefits and flaws of his representative ideology. Who needs the mother's blessing when humans have the strength to fight on their own. if another kingdom invades, it is their duty to defend their kingdom and destroy the opposition without remorse. Alm gets the positives of duma's ideals down just not the negatives. Cause yeah he's right we can't just run to the earth mother with a tail between our legs and beg her for assistance. Sometimes you need to have the strength to solve problems on your own. However strict strength can also lead to a lack of empathy and mercy. You take it too far and you're just left with nothing but a pool of blood. The problem with Alm's story is that it never explores that aspect of Duma's ideas. Alm never makes a mistake due to any innate character flaw. Which is the problem. That's kind of how the narrative wants to explore its themes but it doesn't go all the way because Alm is already the perfect leader so why go through a character arch at all. He's already kind so he doesn't need to learn kindness. He's never portrayed as being in the wrong. Rigel invades so they have to take them out. Like yeah that's correct no one is going to argue that(except celica but I'll get to her in a minute). The problem is that the story needs to twist that in a way that allows Alm to realize the flaws of his own ideals and grow beyond that. However, the story does not do this. Why? because alm is perfect and how DARE anyone even think about disagreeing with him. Look how cool he is wielding the royal sword and beating those rigelian scum. 

Now if you want to make the argument in that that's not how the game wants to tell it's story let's take a look at our other protagonist. Celica is pretty much the perfect example of doing this type of story correctly. Her arch reflects Mila's philosophies of kindness. Throughout her campaign it is her kindness that allows her to recruit allies to fight for her. It is through this kindness that allows the people of the port town to be saved from the pirates and be happy. It is a leader's to help their people through kindness and compassion. Kindness breeds happiness. However, kindness without strength will only get you so far and a kind heart can be exploited. This is shown by Celica not knowing what to do after she finds out what happens to mila. She doesn't know what to do because mila usually has the answer to everything. It shows how too much kindness can lead a person to become overly dependent and complacent. Then later, the love she has for her friends and alm is exploited by jedah for his nefarious purposes. She places her trust in him but is lead astray because well you shouldn't just place blind trust in someone like that. It's showing how her innate kind and trusting nature can be exploited to create suffering and ruin. This is good. THIS is how Alm should've been handled. It shows both the good and bad aspects of strictly following a singular ideology. Celica is punished due to her innate character flaws and that's a good thing because that's the entire point. She is wrong. She's supposed to be wrong. I have my own issues with how Celica's arch is handled but fundamentally speaking it does what it needs to do. It stumbles in areas but it still works. 

my point with all of this is that the theme this game tries to tackle makes it inherently morally gray. It has to be(at least at first) for it to be told well.

4 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

2. Like I said before I believe Nobles vs. Commoners was resolved in a meaningful way and it focuses way more on Clive in that regard way more than it does Berkut and Fernand as they exist as one of the many things that instills doubt in his mind about Alm. This theme takes Clive down a very interesting character arc, making him more interesting than Alm I'd say, and ends with Clive standing up for Alm in front of Berkut and Fernand in Rigel as the events of chapter 3 have removed the doubt from his mind. There is a reason why we go so long without seeing Clive and Fernand after that and for why Fernand got off'd right when we took the castle as well and you can argue that they did lazily but truth is the plot just didn't need him anymore and Berkut's focus shifted. Think about even if you say the themes are contradicted Alm still came from nothing whereas Berkut lost everything.

and as I have stated before, Alm is THE MAIN CATALYST for this theme not clive. Clive is an important piece of the puzzle, yes, but not the main focus. I will agree Clive's character and his role in the story is handled well. The issue is Alm. He is the main catalyst to exploring this theme but no he can't do that because he directly contradicts it. It wouldn't be that much of an issue if he was royal born but was raised in a farmland and worked from nothing into something. That's not the issue. The issue is the story makes it very explicitly clear that IT'S BECAUSE OF HIS ROYAL BLOOD that he is able to do all these awesome things. The other characters can't wield the royal sword because THEY'RE not royalty only alm is, therefore he gets to wield the special sword. Only rigelian royalty can enter the vault where Falchion lies and because of that only Alm can do it not anyone else they're not special like he is. It doesn't matter how much hard work and effort they put in, they will never be able to enter that vault and wield falchion or the royal sword. They were not born with the special birthmark that alm was born with. The whole thing about Alm trying to prove berkut and fernand wrong about how blood and status have everything to do with a man's worth becomes meaningless. Because they're not wrong, It's because of alm's royal heritage that he is special not because he worked for it. His worth IS defined by his status and bloodline not his hard work or whatever. It's a direct contradiction of the theme in question which renders any conflict that arises from said themes null and void because at that point Alm(and by extension the story) is just being a hypocrit and no one likes a hypocrit.

4 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

3. You are right about the aspects you mentioned being very important to a story, but that is not nearly everything that constitutes a good story in the slightest and doesn't by itself make a story really good or really bad. What i'm saying is that by this logic, based on story cohesion and lack of contradictions alone, you could argue that Shadow Dragon is a better story than Awakening. Which I'll say that SD works a lot better as a story better than a lot of games including fe7, but it lacks the soul and fluff that the other games, including Awakening, have.

yes it's not the only thing that constitutes a good story BUT the themes are the most important aspects of the story. It is the foundation of which everything else is built. Without it, the story cannot stand. Like I said the themes of the story are what generate its more meaningful conflicts and if the themes are contradicted those conflicts become meaningless. Just look at the hot mess of a dumpster fire fates' story is. One of the main reason that story is so bad is because its themes are near nonexistent or completely undercut in favor of sucking corrin's dick. Like any theme that story tries to go for is either completely forgotten about, completely undercut, or both. 

SD is a better story than awakening because of how simple it is. Yeah awakening and SoV have charm but charm can only get you so far. SD is coherent and builds a simple structure upon a simple foundation. It is a good story all be it an overly simplistic one and that's fine because it doesn't try to be anything more than that.  There's nothing wrong with a simple story with simple themes. All this isn't to say that I don't enjoy SoV's story. It's got good presentation, some nice characters, interesting themes in concept, and a whole lot of charm. Those are things the story does do well and I will give credit where credit is due. However, I feel it just undercuts a lot of what tries to do and because of that the story just falls apart upon its very foundation.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

SD is a better story than awakening because of how simple it is. Yeah awakening and SoV have charm but charm can only get you so far. SD is coherent and builds a simple structure upon a simple foundation. It is a good story all be it an overly simplistic one and that's fine because it doesn't try to be anything more than that.  There's nothing wrong with a simple story with simple themes. All this isn't to say that I don't enjoy SoV's story. It's got good presentation, some nice characters, interesting themes in concept, and a whole lot of charm. Those are things the story does do well and I will give credit where credit is due. However, I feel it just undercuts a lot of what tries to do and because of that the story just falls apart upon its very foundation.

Can I ask what your definition of charm is? I'm just curious.

For myself, the word charm can be defined as "admirable simplicity", that is how I think I can best word it. Something or someone that is simple, but nonetheless is somehow appealing.

Charm is not depth, charm can be what is used to a make a character appealing in the absence of depth.

Charm can take multiple forms- cuteness like a Pikachu or Morgan, or badassery like Sephiroth or Ike, there are other forms too. For other examples of charm, I would use Mickey Mouse, I would use Mario, I would use the casts of SNES JRPGs- nobody in Chrono Trigger has depth, save maybe Magus.

Charm is useful because it requires quantitatively less writing I would think to achieve than depth. Therefore, mass producing things that attempt to be charming (individuals will judge apart from creators' expectations) is easier than mass producing things that attempt to have depth. FE most often relies on charm for its 40+ casts, understandably so.

Although having a deep and charming character is possible I think. For the opposite of good depth is convolution, not charm.

Using this definition, SD has to have some measure of charm if the plot on deems to be good. Not so much for the characters necessarily, since if one thinks a character is boring and simple and not worthy of admiration, they are therefore, not charming. They are its real antithesis- bland.

 

Although I do see your bigger criticism here comparing SD with SoV is best summarized as execution and ambition. SD had little declared ambition and the execution lived up to what ambition there was. SoV had more declared ambition and the execution failed to match it. This is of course, an issue not unknown in FE, both in narrative and gameplay. The franchise has fluctuated between an absence of narrative ambition (besides SD, perhaps FE6 and PoR) and an overabundance of it (Genealogy, RD, Fates), and some middle ground or more ambiguous titles (Blazing, Awakening, I'd hazard SoV actually). 

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

SD is a better story than awakening because of how simple it is. Yeah awakening and SoV have charm but charm can only get you so far. SD is coherent and builds a simple structure upon a simple foundation. It is a good story all be it an overly simplistic one and that's fine because it doesn't try to be anything more than that.  There's nothing wrong with a simple story with simple themes. All this isn't to say that I don't enjoy SoV's story. It's got good presentation, some nice characters, interesting themes in concept, and a whole lot of charm. Those are things the story does do well and I will give credit where credit is due. However, I feel it just undercuts a lot of what tries to do and because of that the story just falls apart upon its very foundation.

I think that might be taking things a bit too far. Shadow Dragon isn't just simple, its bare bones. Path of Radiance, Binding Blade and Blazing sword are simple stories with simple foundations. I suppose Shadow Dragon is coherent but that's only because nothing ever happens and thus nothing can go wrong.

There are a lot of things to say about Echoes or Awakening but at least things happen. Villains act and heroes react, adventures are had and challenges are overcome. Shadow Dragon doesn't have that. Villains never act so Marth can't react. No villain in Shadow Dragon has much(or any) screentime before the chapter you fight them in, no interesting adventures are had because no one speaks a word and because the villains are eternally absent it doesn't really feel as if any challenge is overcome. Aside from one meaningful scene in Altea nothing ever happens in Shadow Dragon so I'd conclude its the worst story by default and I'd also argue its among the worst told stories. I'd take Corrin worship, Awakening rushing past every villain or people praising Alm too much over Marth only speaking with his adviser and the one plot relevant princess to discuss fairly mundane things. 

Quote

Although I do see your bigger criticism here comparing SD with SoV is best summarized as execution and ambition. SD had little declared ambition and the execution lived up to what ambition there was. SoV had more declared ambition and the execution failed to match it. This is of course, an issue not unknown in FE, both in narrative and gameplay. The franchise has fluctuated between an absence of narrative ambition (besides SD, perhaps FE6 and PoR) and an overabundance of it (Genealogy, RD, Fates), and some middle ground or more ambiguous titles (Blazing, Awakening, I'd hazard SoV actually). 

I think that's a very decent way of putting it. I suppose I personally lean more towards an appreciation of the overabundance of ambition. Things might go wrong when you aim too high but it often does produce result that have a very clear sense of merit. No matter how RD stumbles it also successfully delves deeper into things than any FE before or since. Meanwhile a lack of ambition means that even if you succeed in reaching those ambition the result won't be anything worthwhile. Path of Radiance managed to avoid that pitfall by just being incredibly detailed about its fairly mundane plot. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Alm and Celica are supposed to be representative of their respective gods' ideologies.

Are they, though? I have a feeling that may not actually be the case.

59 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Alm is supposed to represent duma's philosophy of strength.

---

However strict strength can also lead to a lack of empathy and mercy. You take it too far and you're just left with nothing but a pool of blood. The problem with Alm's story is that it never explores that aspect of Duma's ideas. 

Personally, I think that, if that was really the plan, it was going to fail. Alm grew up in Zofia, far from any Rigelina contact or influence except for Mycen. From the start, it was a doomed idea that he would follow the ideology of Duma to the letter. If anything, he too might end up like Celica (or not as much since he didn't spent his life in a priory) if it wasn't for Mycen.

Quote

Now if you want to make the argument in that that's not how the game wants to tell it's story let's take a look at our other protagonist.

Again, it assumes they wanted to have both protagonist doing the same. Following the flawed philosophies of the siblings and then learning of otherwise. Perhaps the idea was that one would do things the way the siblings do, and the other was already following a more balanced path. And they choose Alm because, again, it would be hard to justify how he could follow Duma's philosophy when he grew up more under Mila's, with Mycen as his safety net to avoid a full conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

you see the whole thing about alm and my problems with him is that throughout the story he is never portrayed as wrong in any shape or form. Yes gameplay wise he does kill generic enemy units but the story never acknowledges this. You see the type of story echoes is trying to tell(at least based on my interpretations) is that you cannot rule a kingdom with strength or kindness alone and following the extremes of either ideology will bring a kingdom to ruin as shown through growing hardships both zofia and rigel are facing during the time this game takes place. Alm and Celica are supposed to be representative of their respective gods' ideologies.

 

Alm is supposed to represent duma's philosophy of strength.Strength is born through hardship as you said. It is only through struggle and finding the strength to overcome that hardship that mankind can truly prosper. That is duma's philosophy. Kindness to him is a sign of weakness. You will never know true happiness until you've faced hardship. You shouldn't be pampered. You have to work for your strength. you have to work for your happiness. It's not something that should simply be given to you. What the story tries to say about this philosophy is that while yes it does make a decent point, following it to the extreme will lead to a kingdom where kindness is all but lost. There is no compassion or empathy just empty suffering and torment from the strong to the weak. People start killing without mercy or remorse. People suffer and no one does a thing to help them. That is the logical flaw of that philosophy. It is a leader's duty to help the weak not torment them. True strength comes from kindness. Alm's entire arch should reflect this but it doesn't. His character should be about disregarding the help of the gods and resolving the issue with human force. Showcasing both the benefits and flaws of his representative ideology. Who needs the mother's blessing when humans have the strength to fight on their own. if another kingdom invades, it is their duty to defend their kingdom and destroy the opposition without remorse. Alm gets the positives of duma's ideals down just not the negatives. Cause yeah he's right we can't just run to the earth mother with a tail between our legs and beg her for assistance. Sometimes you need to have the strength to solve problems on your own. However strict strength can also lead to a lack of empathy and mercy. You take it too far and you're just left with nothing but a pool of blood. The problem with Alm's story is that it never explores that aspect of Duma's ideas. Alm never makes a mistake due to any innate character flaw. Which is the problem. That's kind of how the narrative wants to explore its themes but it doesn't go all the way because Alm is already the perfect leader so why go through a character arch at all. He's already kind so he doesn't need to learn kindness. He's never portrayed as being in the wrong. Rigel invades so they have to take them out. Like yeah that's correct no one is going to argue that(except celica but I'll get to her in a minute). The problem is that the story needs to twist that in a way that allows Alm to realize the flaws of his own ideals and grow beyond that. However, the story does not do this. Why? because alm is perfect and how DARE anyone even think about disagreeing with him. Look how cool he is wielding the royal sword and beating those rigelian scum. 

Now if you want to make the argument in that that's not how the game wants to tell it's story let's take a look at our other protagonist. Celica is pretty much the perfect example of doing this type of story correctly. Her arch reflects Mila's philosophies of kindness. Throughout her campaign it is her kindness that allows her to recruit allies to fight for her. It is through this kindness that allows the people of the port town to be saved from the pirates and be happy. It is a leader's to help their people through kindness and compassion. Kindness breeds happiness. However, kindness without strength will only get you so far and a kind heart can be exploited. This is shown by Celica not knowing what to do after she finds out what happens to mila. She doesn't know what to do because mila usually has the answer to everything. It shows how too much kindness can lead a person to become overly dependent and complacent. Then later, the love she has for her friends and alm is exploited by jedah for his nefarious purposes. She places her trust in him but is lead astray because well you shouldn't just place blind trust in someone like that. It's showing how her innate kind and trusting nature can be exploited to create suffering and ruin. This is good. THIS is how Alm should've been handled. It shows both the good and bad aspects of strictly following a singular ideology. Celica is punished due to her innate character flaws and that's a good thing because that's the entire point. She is wrong. She's supposed to be wrong. I have my own issues with how Celica's arch is handled but fundamentally speaking it does what it needs to do. It stumbles in areas but it still works. 

and as I have stated before, Alm is THE MAIN CATALYST for this theme not clive. Clive is an important piece of the puzzle, yes, but not the main focus. I will agree Clive's character and his role in the story is handled well. The issue is Alm. He is the main catalyst to exploring this theme but no he can't do that because he directly contradicts it. It wouldn't be that much of an issue if he was royal born but was raised in a farmland and worked from nothing into something. That's not the issue. The issue is the story makes it very explicitly clear that IT'S BECAUSE OF HIS ROYAL BLOOD that he is able to do all these awesome things. The other characters can't wield the royal sword because THEY'RE not royalty only alm is, therefore he gets to wield the special sword. Only rigelian royalty can enter the vault where Falchion lies and because of that only Alm can do it not anyone else they're not special like he is. It doesn't matter how much hard work and effort they put in, they will never be able to enter that vault and wield falchion or the royal sword. They were not born with the special birthmark that alm was born with. The whole thing about Alm trying to prove berkut and fernand wrong about how blood and status have everything to do with a man's worth becomes meaningless. Because they're not wrong, It's because of alm's royal heritage that he is special not because he worked for it. His worth IS defined by his status and bloodline not his hard work or whatever. It's a direct contradiction of the theme in question which renders any conflict that arises from said themes null and void because at that point Alm(and by extension the story) is just being a hypocrit and no one likes a hypocrit.

yes it's not the only thing that constitutes a good story BUT the themes are the most important aspects of the story. It is the foundation of which everything else is built. Without it, the story cannot stand. Like I said the themes of the story are what generate its more meaningful conflicts and if the themes are contradicted those conflicts become meaningless. Just look at the hot mess of a dumpster fire fates' story is. One of the main reason that story is so bad is because its themes are near nonexistent or completely undercut in favor of sucking corrin's dick. Like any theme that story tries to go for is either completely forgotten about, completely undercut, or both. 

SD is a better story than awakening because of how simple it is. Yeah awakening and SoV have charm but charm can only get you so far. SD is coherent and builds a simple structure upon a simple foundation. It is a good story all be it an overly simplistic one and that's fine because it doesn't try to be anything more than that.  There's nothing wrong with a simple story with simple themes. All this isn't to say that I don't enjoy SoV's story. It's got good presentation, some nice characters, interesting themes in concept, and a whole lot of charm. Those are things the story does do well and I will give credit where credit is due. However, I feel it just undercuts a lot of what tries to do and because of that the story just falls apart upon its very foundation.

We have dissected this pretty far and it's really headed into what we FEEL is good zone, I'm afraid it can only go into that zone from here so here soon we will probably have to agree to disagree.

Let me agree and say that a lot of these are valid problems of Alm as a character and as I say again that Alm is nothing special, but what you described is what plagues basically 75% of fire emblem protagonists throughout the series. Every character makes a mistake but almost every game never dwells on it nor the consequences, here is some examples.

1. Awakening didn't focus on Chrom's ruthlessness towards Mustafa and squandered the best part imo of Chrom's character and made him generic.

2. Michiah faced no real consequence for letting Jarod live, it is completely her fault he started bombarding the city with catapults and what not.

3. Corrin does tons of stupid stuff and is still loved by everyone, and everyone who doesn't like him is automatically evil.

there are many more but at least we have some good ones like Eliwood.

You cannot ignore the fact that Alm payed for his actions, you can argue that it wasn't done well, but he still does and as for the rest of your reply this just comes down to one thing that we cannot seem to get passed, and that is I believe that the themes are handled well enough and that Alm coming from nothing still fits into those themes good enough to make the story draw me in and immerse me. I also believe that the themes are wrapped up effectively and moved aside for new ones as the story progresses and that constitutes a good story that does not fall apart at the seams.

Obviously you do not agree so that is where we are at an impasse but regardless I learned a perspective about this game that shed some light for why some parties found SoV disappointing and I hope you see why I think it's fine as well.

If you want to keep talking about it that is fine but we have dissected it down to the wire at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Can I ask what your definition of charm is? I'm just curious.

My definition of charm is in line with yours. I never said SD had no charm. It's just to me personally SoV and awakening have more of it(Then again I've only played like 10 chapters of SD so yeah) and Charm in it of itself is a very subjective thing.

1 hour ago, JimmyBeans said:

We have dissected this pretty far and it's really headed into what we FEEL is good zone, I'm afraid it can only go into that zone from here so here soon we will probably have to agree to disagree.

Let me agree and say that a lot of these are valid problems of Alm as a character and as I say again that Alm is nothing special, but what you described is what plagues basically 75% of fire emblem protagonists throughout the series. Every character makes a mistake but almost every game never dwells on it nor the consequences, here is some examples.

1. Awakening didn't focus on Chrom's ruthlessness towards Mustafa and squandered the best part imo of Chrom's character and made him generic.

2. Michiah faced no real consequence for letting Jarod live, it is completely her fault he started bombarding the city with catapults and what not.

3. Corrin does tons of stupid stuff and is still loved by everyone, and everyone who doesn't like him is automatically evil.

there are many more but at least we have some good ones like Eliwood.

You cannot ignore the fact that Alm payed for his actions, you can argue that it wasn't done well, but he still does and as for the rest of your reply this just comes down to one thing that we cannot seem to get passed, and that is I believe that the themes are handled well enough and that Alm coming from nothing still fits into those themes good enough to make the story draw me in and immerse me. I also believe that the themes are wrapped up effectively and moved aside for new ones as the story progresses and that constitutes a good story that does not fall apart at the seams.

Obviously you do not agree so that is where we are at an impasse but regardless I learned a perspective about this game that shed some light for why some parties found SoV disappointing and I hope you see why I think it's fine as well.

If you want to keep talking about it that is fine but we have dissected it down to the wire at this point.

It appears that is the case. I think we have reached the point of where it just boils down to personal taste and what each of us personally values within a story which is fine. When it comes to things like narrative analysis you can never be truly 100% objective. There are parts that can be broken down and argued however, at the end of the day everyone has different tastes and each story appeals to different people. I will say I did enjoy our little discussion and I gained somewhat of a new perspective on things. I would also like to apologize if I came off as overtly rude or anything. In heated debate like this sometimes I tend to get overly passionate. Though I will say this whole debate has got me itching to play SoV again. 

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Are they, though? I have a feeling that may not actually be the case.

I mean just one look at the argument between alm and celica on the balcony at the end of act 2 kind of spells out to you point blank.  Hell the opening cut scene of the game where the two, as children, are talking about duma and mila and promise to never fight like they did. Its made pretty clear what the devs were trying to go for here.

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Again, it assumes they wanted to have both protagonist doing the same. Following the flawed philosophies of the siblings and then learning of otherwise. Perhaps the idea was that one would do things the way the siblings do, and the other was already following a more balanced path. And they choose Alm because, again, it would be hard to justify how he could follow Duma's philosophy when he grew up more under Mila's, with Mycen as his safety net to avoid a full conversion.

I kind of agree and that's exactly why berkut was added to this story. He is supposed to represent the negative side of Duma's ideals. However, it's not as emphasized or explored as heavily as it should be. The foil relationship between Alm and Berkut is an interesting one but ultimately doesn't really get explored as it should be and as such the impact had on the overall narrative is a tad lukewarm. 

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JimmyBeans said:

2. Michiah faced no real consequence for letting Jarod live, it is completely her fault he started bombarding the city with catapults and what not.

 

No offense but you yourself falsified your initial statement. Him bombarding the city and killing scores of civilians is a pretty dire consequence. 

1 hour ago, JimmyBeans said:

there are many more but at least we have some good ones like Eliwood.

 

What types of consequences did Eliwood face that were worse than Micaiah's? Same with Alm. 

Edited by Icelerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ottservia said:

 

It appears that is the case. I think we have reached the point of where it just boils down to personal taste and what each of us personally values within a story which is fine. When it comes to things like narrative analysis you can never be truly 100% objective. There are parts that can be broken down and argued however, at the end of the day everyone has different tastes and each story appeals to different people. I will say I did enjoy our little discussion and I gained somewhat of a new perspective on things. I would also like to apologize if I came off as overtly rude or anything. In heated debate like this sometimes I tend to get overly passionate. Though I will say this whole debate has got me itching to play SoV again.

No worries man I didn't get a negative impression from you at all,  just enjoy these kind of discussions.

6 hours ago, Icelerate said:

No offense but you yourself falsified your initial statement. Him bombarding the city and killing scores of civilians is a pretty dire consequence. 

What types of consequences did Eliwood face that were worse than Micaiah's? Same with Alm. 

I really don't feel like arguing with you because I think I'm just gonna get hounded about how great Michiah is.....

I will say this though, Michiah is a good character in my eyes and I think she feels pretty human for the most part, but what I meant by that is she personally didn't get punished by the game for letting Jarod go, it just panned immediately to her rallying everyone to save the day. It was a missed opportunity to be sure and I know I used her as an example but I really do think she is one of the better ones.

As for what I bolded in your post this wasn't my argument at all.. I wasn't comparing who had the worse consequences I was saying the games didn't give them the proper attention.

One of Eliwood's main character traits is that he is physically weak, and the game drags him through the mud because of it like the death of his father and such. There are quite a few tragedies that occur in that game that Eliwood takes the brunt of and it is handled with care and maturity showing how weak Eliwood is and thus leaving room for strength. Without weakness there is no strength and all that jazz.

Alm, while inferior to Eliwood imo, pays for his actions by personally killing the last of his remaining family and the game shows us how that affects him and having to be rallied by Mycen for him to finish the job.

Michiah has some good moments, but the scene with Jarod was a mistep as far as I'm concerned.

There are you satisfied? Man I really hope so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, starburst said:

Oops!, I had missed the message.

The idea of giving bonuses to flank attacks and the emulation of morale and desperation are interesting. We already have skills that improve the performance of surrounding teammates based on what a unit represents to the rest of the party (Charm, Strategist's L35 skill, Azura's personal and L35 skills; Yukimura, Izana and Kaze's personal skills, etcetera), and these type of skills could balance the morale-desperation ratio. Furthermore, such skills could be modified to only affect unpaired units at equal or close levels than the unit with the skill. Or there could be a 'morale rating', based on the number of units fielded and the proximity of their individual levels.

A way to improve armoured units could be to give them skills that affect their surrounding teammates instead of just making them bulkier. Say, give a General a skill that has percentage chance (based on the Skill of the General or combined with the other unit's Luck) of halving or blocking the attacks made to adjacent (unpaired) units. Or a skill that raises the Hit and Avoid of (unpaired) surrounding teammates, acknowledging that the mere presence of a General improves the morale of the group.

Reply to unbolded: And if this turns out to be too complex, we can always restrict the player penalties and enemy bonuses on higher difficulties. 

Reply to bold: YES! Yes a thousand times! And while we are at it, we could give EXP to the armor knights or generals who successfully halved or blocked attacks towards adjacent units.  Other ideas include:

  • Heroes, on the other hand, can lower enemies' morale (referencing Dieck's epilogue in FE6 mentioning how the opposing troops did a runner from just sighting Dieck)
  • Swordmasters intercepting enemy attacks against his or her allies by ambush. (The would-be damage is divided between the swordmaster and the enemy.) Alternately, the unit can raise his/her allies' critical activation rate (say +5%).
  • Bishops has the same function as Generals, except for magic attacks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

I really don't feel like arguing with you because I think I'm just gonna get hounded about how great Michiah is.....

I will say this though, Michiah is a good character in my eyes and I think she feels pretty human for the most part, but what I meant by that is she personally didn't get punished by the game for letting Jarod go, it just panned immediately to her rallying everyone to save the day. It was a missed opportunity to be sure and I know I used her as an example but I really do think she is one of the better ones.

As for what I bolded in your post this wasn't my argument at all.. I wasn't comparing who had the worse consequences I was saying the games didn't give them the proper attention.

One of Eliwood's main character traits is that he is physically weak, and the game drags him through the mud because of it like the death of his father and such. There are quite a few tragedies that occur in that game that Eliwood takes the brunt of and it is handled with care and maturity showing how weak Eliwood is and thus leaving room for strength. Without weakness there is no strength and all that jazz.

Alm, while inferior to Eliwood imo, pays for his actions by personally killing the last of his remaining family and the game shows us how that affects him and having to be rallied by Mycen for him to finish the job.

Michiah has some good moments, but the scene with Jarod was a mistep as far as I'm concerned.

There are you satisfied? Man I really hope so

Lol it seems like you're scared. XD

The game showed the consequence of the action and made it explicitly clear it had consequences. Micaiah being forced to rally the troops is simply her correcting the mistake she made. Micaiah herself claimed it was a bad move on her part and even the Black Knight questioned the decision. 

Spoiler

Black Knight:
“You would simply let him go?”

Micaiah:
“He is not ours to judge. He belongs to the apostle now. I suppose he must bury his fallen friend and pray before facing her.”

Spoiler

Micaiah:
“Yes. There was another soldier who sacrificed his life protecting Jarod. I presume Jarod’s burying him now. Oh! Oh, no…”

Sothe:
“What is it?!”

Micaiah:
“I see a dark cloud… It’s dimming the light of hope… By letting Jarod go, I may have allowed something terrible to happen…”

 

 

I Don't think Eliwood's weaknesses are given the same weight as Micaiah's but yes he's a great character. 

Alm only pays for his actions once and it was actually the correct thing to do as it is all part of Rudolf's plan so I don't see him comparable to Micaiah or Eliwood either. Just compare Alm with Celica in the same game and it's pretty clear he's pretty perfect for the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2019 at 7:56 AM, Ottservia said:

I mean just one look at the argument between alm and celica on the balcony at the end of act 2 kind of spells out to you point blank.  Hell the opening cut scene of the game where the two, as children, are talking about duma and mila and promise to never fight like they did. Its made pretty clear what the devs were trying to go for here.

On 2/10/2019 at 6:50 AM, Acacia Sgt said:

Again, it assumes they wanted to have both protagonist doing the same. Following the flawed philosophies of the siblings and then learning of otherwise. Perhaps the idea was that one would do things the way the siblings do, and the other was already following a more balanced path. And they choose Alm because, again, it would be hard to justify how he could follow Duma's philosophy when he grew up more under Mila's, with Mycen as his safety net to avoid a full conversion.

I kind of agree and that's exactly why berkut was added to this story. He is supposed to represent the negative side of Duma's ideals. However, it's not as emphasized or explored as heavily as it should be. The foil relationship between Alm and Berkut is an interesting one but ultimately doesn't really get explored as it should be and as such the impact had on the overall narrative is a tad lukewarm. 

To add onto this, there is a scene where Celica admits she was wrong about everything and Alm pays lipservice to the idea that "without you, all I can do is charge forward without thinking" even though that's never been the wrong decision. And then when Duma is dying, he talks to Alm and Celica about the need for a united Valentia to have the positives of both Duma and Mila's philosophies, but Alm already has these qualities and doesn't need the lecture. Both scenes suggest that Alm and Celica are supposed to be two incomplete halves, but instead Celica is the 3rd wheel to Alm's complete character.

Had Berkut had the mark Duma (and I'd say go a step further and make Alm not the heir of Rigel, which would fix a lot of the thematic problems but require retooling of the plot), we'd at least be clear that Alm is something separate from the philosophies carried by Berkut and Celica. It could even tie into Berkut's rage that despite being a 'chosen one' he's getting usurped by this nobody without a brand.

Edited by NekoKnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can just move the brand to Berkut and expect things to remain more or less the same. If Alm didn't had the brand, he wouldn't have been sent away with Mycen. Alm and Berkut would've simply traded roles. Berkut would more or less end like Alm is, and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I don't think you can just move the brand to Berkut and expect things to remain more or less the same. If Alm didn't had the brand, he wouldn't have been sent away with Mycen. Alm and Berkut would've simply traded roles. Berkut would more or less end like Alm is, and vice versa.

still would've been better than what we got despite the retooling necessary to make it work. 

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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