What would you say are the big issue Fire Emblem's writing has always stuggled with?

[Roland]

Fire Emblem's writing hasn't been perfect. Ignoring the hilarious blunder of Awakening and Fates's writing, some have had varying opinions on the stories of the other games.

What would you say are the big issues that Fire Emblem's writing has always struggled with, and I'm not talking about issues that started with Awakening and Fates or any of the other games, I'm talking about issues that have stuck with the series since day one and have plagued the series for years. What would you consider to be the big issues Fire Emblem's writing has always struggled with?

[Anacybele]

Giving too much attention to the male lord when there's also a female lord. The male lord always takes away the spotlight in some way. Eirika almost avoids this, but in the end, Ephraim is played up a bit more, I think. And a female lord is ALWAYS sharing the spotlight with a male regardless. IS refuses to make an FE game where there is no male lord messing with a female lord's potential.

Lyn suffers the most from this imo. She's just a tutorial and then after that, lacks much story presence at all. She's just "there" in favor of Eliwood and sorta Hector.

Lucina shouldn't even have been given the lord class. I see why she was, but...she's not a lord at all in any other way, really.

I'm not fond of any female lords in the series save for Sharena because of this. And even Sharena suffers imo. I only love her because she does things I wish I could myself... And she's just adorable at times. :P But Alfonse still has more story presence and depth.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Anacybele

[Dragoncat]

I second Ana. Celica may have more story presence than Alm though, or equal?

[Hawkwing]

Telling instead of showing, and having to account for permadeath are the two series wide ones.

Every single game in the series is very text-based. This was somewhat inevitable in the earlier games, where the technology simply wasn't there, but even the later games rely on talking a lot more than showing. Granted, there are other factors to consider of why they rely on this (it takes more time and resources to animate cutscenes or interactions or even just do draw a still portrait than it is to simply add text and make the portraits blink and move their mouths every now and again), but it can range on how much this helps or hurts the presentation (and it can even do both).

Permadeath is something that defines the series, but it results in putting the writers in a predicament. Either they have to account for every time a character may be dead at that point, and thus have to write several different ways a single scene could play out, or they limit the amount of characters that consistently appear during the story, and thus limit the development some characters receive to supports, which is a double-edged sword. Neither option is really appealing, and both have own pros and cons.

[Von Ithipathachai]

39 minutes ago, Dragoncat said:

I second Ana. Celica may have more story presence than Alm though, or equal?

I thought their story presence was roughly equal, though Alm is considered the "priority" Lord of the two as the story starts with him and (probably for that reason) ends with him fighting to rescue Celica from being sacrificed.

I believe this way of doing things worked better in the original Gaiden (where Alm was introduced into the story before Celica, making it clear that he is THE main Lord and that Celica is meant simply to be a very important secondary character) than it did in Shadows of Valentia (where the new Prologue introduces Alm and Celica into the story into the same time and obscures the roles their respective characters are meant to play).

...Come to think of it, I need to figure out a better way for the two Lords in my own game to share the spotlight more effectively, since as it stands now Claudius loses a lot of spotlight/focus to Carol not long after their armies merge.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Von Ithipathachai

[Ottservia]

35 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Telling instead of showing, and having to account for permadeath are the two series wide ones.

Every single game in the series is very text-based. This was somewhat inevitable in the earlier games, where the technology simply wasn't there, but even the later games rely on talking a lot more than showing. Granted, there are other factors to consider of why they rely on this (it takes more time and resources to animate cutscenes or interactions or even just do draw a still portrait than it is to simply add text and make the portraits blink and move their mouths every now and again), but it can range on how much this helps or hurts the presentation (and it can even do both).

Permadeath is something that defines the series, but it results in putting the writers in a predicament. Either they have to account for every time a character may be dead at that point, and thus have to write several different ways a single scene could play out, or they limit the amount of characters that consistently appear during the story, and thus limit the development some characters receive to supports, which is a double-edged sword. Neither option is really appealing, and both have own pros and cons.

this

Also I've noticed the series has structural problems as well. I mean from the games I've played the story doesn't seem to flow all that well. They tend to use more of an "and then" structure rather than a "but, so" structure. This leads to story beats from chapter to chapter feeling disconnected, abrupt, and jarring. Another thing I've noticed is the contradiction of the stories themes. Fates is a good example of this but it's kind of hard to descern the themes of that game with how messy it's story is so I'm not gonna get into that. SoV is another egregious example of contradicting your own story's themes and all of that can be blamed on alm. The reason being is that the narrative is for whatever reason too afraid to paint alm in any sort of negative light and in a story all about how the extremes of two opposing yet symbiotic ideologies is bad then well yeah you kind have to challenge the main character's ideals a bit. I mean people say fire emblem is all about moral gray but I just don't see it. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Otts486

[Von Ithipathachai]

14 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

SoV is another egregious example of contradicting your own story's themes and all of that can be blamed on alm. The reason being is that the narrative is for whatever reason too afraid to paint alm in any sort of negative light and in a story all about how the extremes of two opposing yet symbiotic ideologies is bad then well yeah you kind have to challenge the main characters a bit. I mean people say fire emblem is all about moral gray but I just don't see it. 

How I interpret this is that IS desired to take Gaiden's story in interesting new directions with Shadows of Valentia, but at the same time were too afraid of upsetting purists in this instance to fully follow through with it.  So whatever happened had to have the same end result as the the original game even if that meant undermining the themes they were trying to convey.

I heard Fates as a game and/or story got compromised due to internal conflicts among the developers over how it should be approached and I would not be surprised if this affected Shadows of Valentia's story as well.

[Zihark11]

Straying away from Royalty and bloodlines. i know its what Fire emblem is about but it would be cool to see a story where your guy isnt Royalty like Ike.

 

[Etrurian emperor]

I wouldn't say this has ''always'' been a problem but about midway through the series the writers really stopped trying with the Gharnef archtype. Izuka aside Nergal was probably the last one allowed to be his own character. Riev, Validar, and Jedah are all practically the same character without much of an unique spin on the archtype and SD Gharnef is differentiated only by not being loyal to his dragon. Jagen's can be young and female these days, and Hardin's have always come in all shapes and form so why is adding some flair to the Gharnef's so difficult? 

Its a fine archtype but them all being so similar makes them quite predictable and them always being such presence in the plot makes their repetitiveness harmful to the story. 

[omegaxis1]

10 minutes ago, Zihark11 said:

Straying away from Royalty and bloodlines. i know its what Fire emblem is about but it would be cool to see a story where your guy isnt Royalty like Ike.

4

Might not be royalty, but may technically be a noble by Greil. 

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Telling instead of showing, and having to account for permadeath are the two series wide ones.

Every single game in the series is very text-based. This was somewhat inevitable in the earlier games, where the technology simply wasn't there, but even the later games rely on talking a lot more than showing. Granted, there are other factors to consider of why they rely on this (it takes more time and resources to animate cutscenes or interactions or even just do draw a still portrait than it is to simply add text and make the portraits blink and move their mouths every now and again), but it can range on how much this helps or hurts the presentation (and it can even do both).

Permadeath is something that defines the series, but it results in putting the writers in a predicament. Either they have to account for every time a character may be dead at that point, and thus have to write several different ways a single scene could play out, or they limit the amount of characters that consistently appear during the story, and thus limit the development some characters receive to supports, which is a double-edged sword. Neither option is really appealing, and both have own pros and cons.

I believe the ONLY game that ever accounted for the permadeath more seriously was actually Path of Radiance, as MUCH text earlier on gets heavily influenced over who died, as it changes things very much so. 

I'll be honest while Tellius has issues and such that I found annoying, I cannot deny that there was a LOT more effort put into this than other games have had. Though in the end, this game is possibly from Kaga's notes as well, given the similarities to Berwick. 

Also, you basically took the words I wanted to say. My main thing is always the lack of show and more of tell. Many times there is a conflict that is told to us to be a big deal, but in the end, never works out because they tell us. Awakening did cutscenes that did spectacularly in showing us some things but still fell on its face by telling us other things. Like the Valm arc was filled with tells and little shows. 

Tellius also suffers this by telling us that the laguz also persecuted the beorc and was first to do so, but then they fail to really show us this or have that many laguz that are that terrible. The only two laguz that were in any way really bad were Dheginsea and Lehran, one being too passive and allowing the persecution to get worse (but it is sort of justifiable as he didn't want the dragon race to be engulfed in chaos energy and they had to avoid a continental war), and the other did it because of beorcs. Not only that, but the Branded are said to have suffered, and we have never once seen any Branded ever actually face this persecution. Didn't even see a Branded being ignored by a laguz which is supposed to be even worse. But I couldn't see it, so I can't fully sympathize. 

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

Giving too much attention to the male lord when there's also a female lord. The male lord always takes away the spotlight in some way. Eirika almost avoids this, but in the end, Ephraim is played up a bit more, I think. And a female lord is ALWAYS sharing the spotlight with a male regardless. IS refuses to make an FE game where there is no male lord messing with a female lord's potential.

Lyn suffers the most from this imo. She's just a tutorial and then after that, lacks much story presence at all. She's just "there" in favor of Eliwood and sorta Hector.

Lucina shouldn't even have been given the lord class. I see why she was, but...she's not a lord at all in any other way, really.

I'm not fond of any female lords in the series save for Sharena because of this. And even Sharena suffers imo. I only love her because she does things I wish I could myself... And she's just adorable at times. :P But Alfonse still has more story presence and depth.

Lucina honestly deserves her own spot in her own game. I would absolutely LOVE to see a game that is based around her future world and how she has to work to fight the inevitable, only to fail. It is something spectacular if we could have this. Find a way to also fit the pairings we want and maybe even bring in Morgan if one is able to do so. Lucina's story serves to be a very ambitious game if one does so, but it isn't easy, that's for sure. 

Female lords that have no need to share the spotlight is sadly nonexistent for Fire Emblem. So if Lucina gets her own game, she shares no spotlight and is independent. 

[vanguard333]

48 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I wouldn't say this has ''always'' been a problem but about midway through the series the writers really stopped trying with the Gharnef archtype. Izuka aside Nergal was probably the last one allowed to be his own character. Riev, Validar, and Jedah are all practically the same character without much of an unique spin on the archtype and SD Gharnef is differentiated only by not being loyal to his dragon. Jagen's can be young and female these days, and Hardin's have always come in all shapes and form so why is adding some flair to the Gharnef's so difficult? 

Its a fine archtype but them all being so similar makes them quite predictable and them always being such presence in the plot makes their repetitiveness harmful to the story. 

You're forgetting Sephiran, who is easily one of the best-written examples of the Gharnef archetype. 

 

I can't think of any problems that FE has always struggled with that haven't been mentioned yet, but I can think of a few recurring issues:

1. FE games have long struggled with worldbuilding. We'll have the name of the continent, several kingdoms, an ancient historical event that is critical to the main plot, and that's about it. Ever wondered why the lord's home kingdom can tend to feel generic? This is one of the main reasons why. Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn are easily the best FE games at worldbuilding; the continent has a rich, multi-layered history that is relevant to the story, the various nations all have distinct cultures and reasons why they do or do not get involved in the conflict, etc., and even individual towns and cities get some depth to them. 
2. the main lords are often part of important families, yet their mom's always missing with little-to-no explanation and the dad always dies (funny enough, in a way, it's the other way around in Fates). At least what happened with Ike-and-Mist's mother was a plot point, and Greil was given several chapters before he died. I get it; they need a reason why the protagonist is the one leading the army, but the problem is that the parents are given next to nothing in terms of, well, being actual characters; the only exceptions I can think of are Ike's parents.

[Anacybele]

2 hours ago, Zihark11 said:

Straying away from Royalty and bloodlines. i know its what Fire emblem is about but it would be cool to see a story where your guy isnt Royalty like Ike.

I agree with this too. One reason I love Tellius so much is that it does something a little different with the story due to Ike not being royalty or nobility. Ike being different like that is one thing that makes me love him too!

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

I believe the ONLY game that ever accounted for the permadeath more seriously was actually Path of Radiance, as MUCH text earlier on gets heavily influenced over who died, as it changes things very much so. 

Another thing awesome about Tellius too, yeah, is that characters will actually sometimes react later to whenever you lose units in battle! It wasn't done absolutely perfectly (there's a case where Rolf will still say he almost shot an arrow at Boyd even if Boyd was already dead by then, as an example of a little oversight), but it was done very well and it made the characters more human.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Anacybele

[Etrurian emperor]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

You're forgetting Sephiran, who is easily one of the best-written examples of the Gharnef archetype.

I don't really see Sephiran as a Gharnef. If he has any connection to the archtype its as a foil rather than an example of it. Sure he's a schemer who's pulling the strings from the shadows but he lacks all other traits. He's not selfish nor cruel, he's not butt ugly and obsessed with darkness and he's not particularly loyal to the ancient evil since his schemes stem from his personal disillusionment as opposed to Dheginsea who's more loyal to Ashera and their bargain. 

I see Izuka as the Gharnef of Tellius and Sephiran as a different beast entirely. Izuka fits right next to the likes of Riev or Gharnef. 

[Thane]

I don't know if I could easily point to a single all-encompassing issue, but there are two issues that get to me the most, and they're kind of intertwined. 

First of all, the villains. While we've got characters like Lyon and Arvis, the true big bads are usually evil entities that must be stopped at all costs and thus offer little in terms of personal engagement. Not all villains must have complex motives but the problem is that almost no major Fire Emblem villain does, and the ones that do get manipulated or corrupted by the previously mentioned evil entities. 

Secondly, and this is more vague, but I believe Fire Emblem is far too mired in tradition. You always play as a young, hot anime stud, the game is always set in medieval anime Europe with the one noteable exception being Hoshido, and generally the same story beats, tropes, and character archetypes show up along the way. You defeat the big bad and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity and then the game ends. It feels very formulaic, and it's strange that not more is done whenever Fire Emblem moves to a new world; there are often historical differences, but the feeling of the worlds is incredibly similar. More could be done with the Fire Emblem setting. If you don't want to try and change the medieval setting, then do something creative with the structure of the story, at least; maybe let us play as an experienced king rather than a young stud. Maybe shift the focus from countries invading to something on a more personal level. This series holds so much untapped potential for what kinds of stories it can tell.

I realize I'm painting in broad strokes here and that there are exceptions to what I've said, mostly from Tellius and perhaps Jugdral, but I think we can mostly agree that the series has a lot of staples it doesn't seem willing to part with. Sun & Moon and to a much greater extent Breath of the Wild looked at what made their long-running series so good and tossed away some unnecessary baggage, which placed both games in the very top of their respective franchises for me, and I believe Fire Emblem could do the same. Granted, different doesn't equal better, but I think there's room for a lot more different kinds of stories told in the Fire Emblem format that would fit well with the gameplay, too.

[omegaxis1]

4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't really see Sephiran as a Gharnef. If he has any connection to the archtype its as a foil rather than an example of it. Sure he's a schemer who's pulling the strings from the shadows but he lacks all other traits. He's not selfish nor cruel, he's not butt ugly and obsessed with darkness and he's not particularly loyal to the ancient evil since his schemes stem from his personal disillusionment as opposed to Dheginsea who's more loyal to Ashera and their bargain. 

I see Izuka as the Gharnef of Tellius and Sephiran as a different beast entirely. Izuka fits right next to the likes of Riev or Gharnef. 

Gharnef archetypes are only generally evil, but though Sephiran is not "mwahaha" evil, he has done many evil things, ruined the lives of many people, and caused wars that cost the lives of thousands, and all this so that he can commit omnicide.

Sephiran fills all the roles needed to be part of the Gharnef archetype. 

[Slumber]

I'd say the biggest issue with the series right now is its inability to move on from the structure laid out by FE1. Whether it be the same story structure of "A mighty military nation is secretly influenced by an evil sorcerer to do bad things, but the evil sorcerer is doing bad things for an even bigger baddie, usually of the scaled variety", or just repeating character archetypes like the Camus constantly.

It's one thing to do this once or twice, but IS has done it for almost every single game in the franchise. Archanea does it twice-ish. Valentia does it. Jugdral does it. Elibe twists the formula a bit, but can be simplified in these terms for both games. PoR does it, and the full payoff is in RD. Awakening does it. The only two that don't really do it are Fates and SS, but even they still rely heavily on some aspects of this story structure.

[NekoKnight]

While there aren't many protagonists I dislike outright (just Corrin and Celica), the series hasn't been the best at writing reasonably flawed characters. The male lead is usually a flawless moral paragon. This can limit the range of their character depth as well as their character development (Sigurd, Hector and Ike are notable exceptions). The female protagonists, conversely, are flawed but it usually boils down to them being naive and foolish. Eirika and Celica fall for this trope, although Micaiah avoids it. The treatment of males and females together leads to males usually being more important and correct in their methodology.

[Ottservia]

8 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

While there aren't many protagonists I dislike outright (just Corrin and Celica), the series hasn't been the best at writing reasonably flawed characters. The male lead is usually a flawless moral paragon. This can limit the range of their character depth as well as their character development (Sigurd, Hector and Ike are notable exceptions). The female protagonists, conversely, are flawed but it usually boils down to them being naive and foolish. Eirika and Celica fall for this trope, although Micaiah avoids it. The treatment of males and females together leads to males usually being more important and correct in their methodology.

You see normally flawless paragon heroes aren’t necessarily a bad thing and can be used to great effect if the story is built around it. The problem, as you might’ve guessed, is that these stories aren’t built around that idea. Or at least most of them anyway. I mean that sort of protagonist works(as far as I can tell anyway) pretty well in SD and to a lesser degree in awakening. However, as I stated earlier that kind of protagonist cannot work in a story like SoV or fates where moral ambiguity and duality are central aspects to the story’s themes and overall narrative. The reason being is that because corrin and alm are always portrayed as being “right” with very little in the way if interpretation means that the “moral gray” that the story is trying to go for is completely lost because the player has to side with the paragon otherwise we look like the “bad guys”. There’s no room for interpretation allowing for us as players to draw our own conclusions which is the corner stone of proper morally ambiguous story telling.

[AnonymousSpeed]

10 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Permadeath is something that defines the series, but it results in putting the writers in a predicament. Either they have to account for every time a character may be dead at that point, and thus have to write several different ways a single scene could play out, or they limit the amount of characters that consistently appear during the story, and thus limit the development some characters receive to supports, which is a double-edged sword. Neither option is really appealing, and both have own pros and cons.

This is an excellent point, and reveals a sort of fundamental contradiction between Fire Emblem's core gameplay elements. The story can't really be dynamic because it'd get swept away in its own tide.

10 hours ago, Otts486 said:

I mean people say fire emblem is all about moral gray but I just don't see it. 

You make several excellent points, but this one is especially good.

Really, Fire Emblem has a big problem with people. What I mean when I say that is, for a series which we all want to be morally ambiguous, even the best games have you lay low legions of bandits and...that pretty effectively sets the tone. The only people you shed tears over are the ones with names, the generics don't count as people, so the idea that the franchise is about moral ambiguity or understand the other side of a war is in total contradiction to the gameplay, so the story just...can't work, on a fundamental level.

[NekoKnight]

5 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

However, as I stated earlier that kind of protagonist cannot work in a story like SoV or fates where moral ambiguity and duality are central aspects to the story’s themes and overall narrative.

You hit the nail on the head here.

Like I said before, I don't dislike many protagonists, even when they feel kind of samey, because for many stories, "the noble prince" is a good base to work with (consider Blazing Sword, where Eliwood effectively contrasts and balances Lyn and Hector). But like you said, sometimes the story calls for something different from that baseline.

So rather than the protagonists being too safe, perhaps I should say that we ought to have more stories that benefit from a different kind of protagonist.

[Etrurian emperor]

6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Gharnef archetypes are only generally evil, but though Sephiran is not "mwahaha" evil, he has done many evil things, ruined the lives of many people, and caused wars that cost the lives of thousands, and all this so that he can commit omnicide.

Sephiran fills all the roles needed to be part of the Gharnef archetype. 

They aren't just evil but gleefully and sadistically so in a way Sephiran really isn't. He does evil acts but doesn't enjoy any of them and they seem to weigh pretty heavily on him. Unlike any Gharnef Sephiran is also capable of doing good deeds for no other reason than because he likes helping others. Things like him healing Brom or curing Ike's trauma served no further scheme other than a desire to help others. 

Putting him and Izuka next to each other makes it pretty clear who should be sorted with Gharnef and who shouldn't. Izuka has all the Gharnef traits aside from a lower position on the villain totem pole than usual while Sephiran is often the polar opposite of these traits. 

[omegaxis1]

4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

They aren't just evil but gleefully and sadistically so in a way Sephiran really isn't. He does evil acts but doesn't enjoy any of them and they seem to weigh pretty heavily on him. Unlike any Gharnef Sephiran is also capable of doing good deeds for no other reason than because he likes helping others. Things like him healing Brom or curing Ike's trauma served no further scheme other than a desire to help others. 

Putting him and Izuka next to each other makes it pretty clear who should be sorted with Gharnef and who shouldn't. Izuka has all the Gharnef traits aside from a lower position on the villain totem pole than usual while Sephiran is often the polar opposite of these traits. 

If Gharnef archetypes were defined for being sadistically evil, then Sephiran would not fill that role. But they aren't defined by just that. They are defined by how they are the mastermind behind the entire story of events and generally the second to last boss that is generally fought. 

Even if Sephiran is weighed by some form of remorse, he still did end up committing many atrocities that honestly shouldn't be forgiven. He had thousands of people die, manipulated many people to cause greater conflict. Even if he felt guilty, he still did it, and ultimately was still trying to commit omnicide, which is something that no other Gharnef archetype had gone for. Yeah, he's sympathetic, but certainly not forgiven for what he did, and I honestly feel like people give him too much forgiveness for what he did just because he has this tragic backstory. 

[Ottservia]

20 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

How I interpret this is that IS desired to take Gaiden's story in interesting new directions with Shadows of Valentia, but at the same time were too afraid of upsetting purists in this instance to fully follow through with it.  So whatever happened had to have the same end result as the the original game even if that meant undermining the themes they were trying to convey.

I heard Fates as a game and/or story got compromised due to internal conflicts among the developers over how it should be approached and I would not be surprised if this affected Shadows of Valentia's story as well.

as sad and true as that may me, it still doesn't excuse the poor writing present. This is the quintessential reason I say awakening has a better story than SoV because at least awakening sticks to its themes and has protagonists whose conflicts and struggles are in line with said themes and perpetuate them rather than go against them. Could awakening's story been done better? most certainly but at the very least it doesn't contradict itself at every turn. 

 

10 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Really, Fire Emblem has a big problem with people. What I mean when I say that is, for a series which we all want to be morally ambiguous, even the best games have you lay low legions of bandits and...that pretty effectively sets the tone. The only people you shed tears over are the ones with names, the generics don't count as people, so the idea that the franchise is about moral ambiguity or understand the other side of a war is in total contradiction to the gameplay, so the story just...can't work, on a fundamental level.

yeah that is a problem with the series. As I said, the series wants to moral ambiguity but for whatever reason their stuck in this mindset of tradition and "the protagonist must always be right" which makes them just end up contradicting themselves and it's annoying when it happens. This is also why I love chapter 10 of awakening so much. They got you to ACTUALLY CARE about the generics and feel bad about cutting them down. It was a genuinely good story moment that shows that no matter who you are people desire peace above all else and can be moved by single act of kindness.

10 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

Like I said before, I don't dislike many protagonists, even when they feel kind of samey, because for many stories, "the noble prince" is a good base to work with (consider Blazing Sword, where Eliwood effectively contrasts and balances Lyn and Hector). But like you said, sometimes the story calls for something different from that baseline.

So rather than the protagonists being too safe, perhaps I should say that we ought to have more stories that benefit from a different kind of protagonist.

really at the end of the day it's all about the story you're trying to tell and how you want to go about telling that story. The problem with fire emblem is that their so mired in tradition that when they try to do something different they just end up falling flat on their face because they use old storytelling conventions in a story that is so obviously not meant to be told that way.

@NekoKnight Also can I just say I hate the term "flawed character" when it comes to critique. The reason being is it's a term not unlike "mary sue" where it's constant misuse has lead it to be a boogeyman buzzword than anything substantial. Every character has "flaws" per say even mary sues. The problem isn't that the character isn't "flawed" it's that they don't struggle or have any conflict which leads to an empty boring story. This is why I prefer terms "character conflict" or "character struggle" cause to me those phrases actually get to the heart of the matter.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Otts486

[vanguard333]

10 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

While there aren't many protagonists I dislike outright (just Corrin and Celica), the series hasn't been the best at writing reasonably flawed characters. The male lead is usually a flawless moral paragon. This can limit the range of their character depth as well as their character development (Sigurd, Hector and Ike are notable exceptions). The female protagonists, conversely, are flawed but it usually boils down to them being naive and foolish. Eirika and Celica fall for this trope, although Micaiah avoids it. The treatment of males and females together leads to males usually being more important and correct in their methodology.

I'll agree that the male lords are usually fairly bland. To add to that; the funny thing is, they also tend to fail at being paragons. A paragon hero is a hero who does good when they see good needing to be done, and they inspire others and act as a catalyst for character development in other characters. Most of the bland, generic FE lords fail at being an inspiration or a catalyst for character development. 

Ike is probably- no, definitely, the best paragon hero in Fire Emblem. Apart from his vendetta with the Black Knight, everything he does is out of a desire to do good where he sees good needing to be done, and he is quite noticeably an inspiration and catalyst for character development in others; particularly Elincia and Soren. The game manages to effectively show this without having to say it, and, when it is pointed out, it's usually after the fact:

Black Knight
Though his skill with the blade is rough, there is something...uncanny about him. People seem drawn to him. And not just Begnion's apostle, either. He's also gained the trust of the Serenes survivors...and of King Phoenicis as well.

[Von Ithipathachai]

17 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

as sad and true as that may me, it still doesn't excuse the poor writing present. This is the quintessential reason I say awakening has a better story than SoV because at least awakening sticks to its themes and has protagonists whose conflicts and struggles are in line with said themes and perpetuate them rather than go against them. Could awakening's story been done better? most certainly but at the very least it doesn't contradict itself at every turn. 

Indeed, I wasn't looking for an excuse for Shadows of Valentia's writing issues.  I was simply trying to explain why I thought they happened.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Von Ithipathachai