The place of a protagonist in Fire Emblem

[Guest TI-83 Supercalc]

Imagine a franchise making it's fans so bitter that they give up all hope and go "this series was always mediocre/bad I'm not mad at all, nope."

I think being that invested in a video game franchise is a little unhealthy.

13 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

This.

Another comment that irks me is the "go read a book if you want a good story". Acting like games can't or shouldn't have good stories just because there is a medium that focuses exclusively on writing is just bizarre. I don't expect a game to be able to go as in depth into developing its characters or world as a book is able to, but I will judge it based on what is possible in the medium and how much the game prioritizes having a story. Are Fire Emblem games comparable to the greatest epics of literature? Of course not, and no one expects them to be. A game story can still be competently told, have endearing characters and a well defined world. That's what makes a good story, regardless of how many pages the script could fill.

Precisely.

Tactics Ogre, Nier Automata, Final Fantasy Tactics, Shadow of the Colossus, Vagrant Story (lots of Matsuno on this list huh?), Undertale, RDR 1 and 2, Metal Gear Solid, etc.

There are plenty of great stories in video games. We may get garbage like Detroit: Become Human and FE: Fates but that doesn't mean the whole medium is unable to competently tell a story.

[Guest This Guy]

Suikoden 2 is a masterpiece of writing and I will have no one say otherwise.

[Lewyn]

3 hours ago, Guest TI-83 Supercalc said:

Imagine a franchise making it's fans so bitter that they give up all hope and go "this series was always mediocre/bad I'm not mad at all, nope."

I think being that invested in a video game franchise is a little unhealthy.

Precisely.

Tactics Ogre, Nier Automata, Final Fantasy Tactics, Shadow of the Colossus, Vagrant Story (lots of Matsuno on this list huh?), Undertale, RDR 1 and 2, Metal Gear Solid, etc.

There are plenty of great stories in video games. We may get garbage like Detroit: Become Human and FE: Fates but that doesn't mean the whole medium is unable to competently tell a story.

Exactly.  Particularly since Fire Emblem is a strategy RPG, story is a big part of keeping interest not just gameplay.  The gameplay in RPGs is almost never thrilling enough to get away with a simple or bad story like say a mario game.  Bowser has kidnapped the Princess, Mario must save her.  Well that is all that is needed, cause the level design and platforming gameplay is so incredible no one cares.  That isn't ever the case even with the best RPGs.

One needs good gameplay and good story.  In fact for RPGs, there are some famous ones that are cited as 'great games' but the gameplay might be super repetitive and uninnovative but it has great music, art and a memorable story...which makes it a memorable worthwhile experience to some.  

 

[Guest Josie]

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

there are some famous ones that are cited as 'great games' but the gameplay might be super repetitive and uninnovative but it has great music, art and a memorable story...which makes it a memorable worthwhile experience to some.  

 

This is exactly how I'd describe Undertale tbh. Dull, repetitive gameplay but the soundtrack and story more than make up for it.

[Icelerate]

On 18/02/2019 at 8:14 AM, NekoKnight said:

I won't be a member of the fandom if the stories ever get so bad that Corrin is considered one of the better characters.

But what if the gameplay is much better than before? 

 

[NekoKnight]

2 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

But what if the gameplay is much better than before? 

 

I probably wouldn't play it. To put it into perspective, Fates was actively a less enjoyable experience on account of the writing. Revelation was so boring I never finished it and the protagonist was so loathesome I'm still talking about it years later. Fates had good gameplay but the writing was approaching intolerable, which is not something I want to spent my time on.

[Icelerate]

24 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I probably wouldn't play it. To put it into perspective, Fates was actively a less enjoyable experience on account of the writing. Revelation was so boring I never finished it and the protagonist was so loathesome I'm still talking about it years later. Fates had good gameplay but the writing was approaching intolerable, which is not something I want to spent my time on.

Do you think story>gameplay for you and for the fanbase in general? I think so or else FE4 wouldn't be so highly regarded and Fates Conquest wouldn't be so reviled. There is also PoR which I find to be an overrated game due to having less fun maps to play on compared to all three GBA titles but is regarded to be one of the best games in the franchise. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Icelerate

[NekoKnight]

44 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Do you think story>gameplay for you and for the fanbase in general? I think so or else FE4 wouldn't be so highly regarded and Fates Conquest wouldn't be so reviled. There is also PoR which I find to be an overrated game due to having less fun maps to play on compared to all three GBA titles but is regarded to be one of the best games in the franchise. 

Everyone values different things. Some people mash the A button through story sections on repeat play throughs but I never would because an RPG is an interactive story to me and skipping the story is missing half the experience. Of course having good gameplay is also critical which is why I stopped playing Tactics Ogre and Undertale despite their often lauded stories (I really wanted to keep playing Tactics Ogre but that gameplay was frustrating). At least you can enjoy a game's story on YouTube even if the gameplay blows (or you just aren't that good at it, like for me and The Last of Us, lol).

Some people often make the point that gameplay is the most critical part of a game, and while I don't disagree, if I found a game had good gameplay (60% of the experience) but it had a revolting story (40% of the experience), I'd still call that being a failure.

I'd say people who value stories as much as me are a minority of players, sadly. A lot of people are utterly disinterested in writing quality (Fates is extremely popular despite it being so terribly written it borders on parody).

[Kori]

4 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

Everyone values different things. Some people mash the A button through story sections on repeat play throughs but I never would because an RPG is an interactive story to me and skipping the story is missing half the experience. Of course having good gameplay is also critical which is why I stopped playing Tactics Ogre and Undertale despite their often lauded stories (I really wanted to keep playing Tactics Ogre but that gameplay was frustrating). At least you can enjoy a game's story on YouTube even if the gameplay blows (or you just aren't that good at it, like for me and The Last of Us, lol).

Some people often make the point that gameplay is the most critical part of a game, and while I don't disagree, if I found a game had good gameplay (60% of the experience) but it had a revolting story (40% of the experience), I'd still call that being a failure.

I'd say people who value stories as much as me are a minority of players, sadly. A lot of people are utterly disinterested in writing quality (Fates is extremely popular despite it being so terribly written it borders on parody).

It's the same for me. I won't go as far as calling the gameplay simply a support for the story, and ideally it should be engaging as well, but it won't be what makes or breaks an RPG for me. Enjoying the story can make me play a game even if the mechanics are a pain (ex: FE4, which I'd never have touched if I hadn't read a LP of it before), the opposite isn't true unless we're talking, say, Pokémon. (By which I don't mean Pokémon stories are bad, just that they're not the selling point of the games, which is fine.)

Edited February 22, 2019 by Kori

[Ayra]

Gameplay > story for me by a significant margin, except in extreme cases. For me, an amazing story will enhance my enjoyment of a game by a good amount, and an awful story filled with plot holes (or detestable characters) will ruin it. For example, Nier Automata's story was excellent and I thoroughly enjoyed how everything fell in perfectly by the end: what I thought were plot holes or questionable things weren't in the end, and things made sense. On the reverse, I detested Children of Zodiarks characters and the plot and setting had big holes, which led me to hate the game.

However, the majority of games have their story fall somewhere between "Good" and "Bad"... and to me, it doesn't change my enjoyment much by itself. I'll prefer a game with good gameplay and bad story over a game with good story and ok gameplay. Conquest is literally my favorite game of all time (not just within the series) and I love it to bits despite the story and setting definitively falling low on the "bad" side. The gameplay is basically perfect in my eyes and I love the music, the visuals and many of its characters. There's significant story issues (Corrin-centricism in particular) but it didn't affect my enjoyment much. Would I have preferred a story ala Path of Radiance? For sure! But as is, Conquest is still my favorite and most replayed game of all time.

 

Anyhow, regarding protagonists and avatars... I'm mostly of the same mind as the topic creator. I prefer a world which doesn't revolve around the protagonist. Fates does this the worst of course, with how Corrin-centric the world is. Chapter 6 is the most shining example: the dialog and arguing is about where Corrin go, not the massive war that is being started. Iago is the Nohr strategist, but every single moment featuring him is thinking how to torture Corrin in particular for no obvious reason instead of figuring out how to start a war.

As OP mentioned, Alm shares a lot of those traits though. There's multiple scenes in the game that talk how Alm is "special", how he is "different" from the rest of them, how he was "meant for greater things than them". Alm is the player's proxy just as much as Corrin is: you just happen not to be able to customize him. 

I don't think the core issue is there being an avatar or not: it's how the world react to the protagonist in general. Having an avatar doesn't necessarily require the world to turn around them any more than a fixed protagonist... it just happen that avatar-lead games tends to be built like this often. Fire Emblem games have big casts and they feature an army of people working together: I feel that having a special "chosen one" is not a good idea in settings like this.

Personally, I'm happy with a Robin style avatar. Events happened independently of her, she didn't receive undue praise constantly, the world didn't revolve around her, and neither her nor Chrom have the "Chosen Ones" aspect pushed too much. She doesn't even get a special weapon. She also featured her own personality and quirks; much love to Robin personally. 

 

I am worried regarding Byleth though. I never liked silent protagonists in story-heavy games in the first place: I don't self-insert at all, so a silent protagonist simply means that I'm controlling a super dull character with zero emotion (love Ys games, hate Adol due to that). The fact that there is so much emphasis on "You" instead of "Byleth" is concerning, as well as the "time warp sequence", the "special super unique sword" from the first trailer and how only "you" can hear Sothis.

It does seem very likely we'll have a "You, the player, are the Chosen One" situation, but it's also possible it'll be understated quite a bit. For example, yes, Byleth might be getting the super special sword and be the primary contact with Sothis, but it's possible that those things are not that central to the plot. Many critical events (including the core plot elements) might still be occuring outside of Byleth's purview and the plot might still be mostly separate from her "special" status. Maybe.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Ayra

[PrincessAlyson]

Out of all FE Avatars/PCs I think Robin was done the best. S/he had importance to the plot but also put in enough work to be worthy of that. Chrom got plenty of screentime as the Main Lord. Corrin was terrible; everything s/he did was praised, whether it was stupid or not. You can't praise someone for their flaws and then expect them to be any better! Kris was okay, but s/he did steal a lot from Marth. Mark was barely there, which was okay but not great IMO. 

I hope Byleth actually puts in enough effort to deserve importance.

[vanguard333]

For me, gameplay matters more than story, but at the same time, it shouldn't be either/or. Story, ideally, helps give context and motivation for the player, and helps provide greater immersion. I can enjoy a game in spite of its story, but I'm really not someone who can just play the game and skip the story. 

For instance, in an Action RPG, if I'm just wandering around and fighting monsters without a good context, then I'm left going, "What am I even doing?" It's one reason I enjoy The Legend of Zelda far more than the Soulsborne games; even Ocarina of Time provided context and had Link do far more than just run around on his own and slay monsters.

It's the same thing with a Strategy RPG. Of all the Fire Emblem games, Path of Radiance is my favourite. I would honestly say that Radiant Dawn has overall better gameplay (though it's not without its own issues). but Path of Radiance has by far and away the best story: 

51 minutes ago, Ayra said:

I am worried regarding Byleth though. I never liked silent protagonists in story-heavy games in the first place: I don't self-insert at all, so a silent protagonist simply means that I'm controlling a super dull character with zero emotion (love Ys games, hate Adol due to that). The fact that there is so much emphasis on "You" instead of "Byleth" is concerning, as well as the "time warp sequence", the "special super unique sword" from the first trailer and how only "you" can hear Sothis.

I myself have less of a problem than most with silent protagonists in a story-heavy game; probably stemming from my favourite game series being Legend of Zelda, but I agree. 

 

53 minutes ago, Ayra said:

It does seem very likely we'll have a "You, the player, are the Chosen One" situation, but it's also possible it'll be understated quite a bit. For example, yes, Byleth might be getting the super special sword and be the primary contact with Sothis, but it's possible that those things are not that central to the plot. Many critical events (including the core plot elements) might still be occurring outside of Byleth's purview and the plot might still be mostly separate from her "special" status. Maybe.

I'd say it would actually be worse if those things weren't important to the plot. The fact My Castle was barely contextualized, and Corrin being a Manakete was plot relevant for only chapter 5 (especially after the marketing put so much emphasis on the fact that Corrin's a Manakete) made both of those things far worse. 

I do agree with the latter part though; Byleth, ideally, should be relevant, but there should be parts of the story completely outside of Byleth. 

[Cysx]

1 hour ago, Ayra said:

Alm is the player's proxy just as much as Corrin is: you just happen not to be able to customize him. 

I largely agree with everything else you said, but Alm is a character from a NES game which features two protagonists of roughly equal importance; he does not compare with a straight up playable avatar, personnalization or not.

[Ayra]

26 minutes ago, Cysx said:

I largely agree with everything else you said, but Alm is a character from a NES game which features two protagonists of roughly equal importance; he does not compare with a straight up playable avatar, personnalization or not.

I really can't vouch for Gaiden Alm since I've never played it, but I disagree on the "equal importance" as far as SoV is concerned. Or at least, how the two protagonists are treated.

Alm gets two unique swords. He's always right and does no wrong; people telling him he's wrong all come around a few stages later. He's the one who defeat the final boss, as well as every story-relevant enemy like Berkut and Fernand. The villagers constantly tell him how special he his, how much greater he is than them. The two times he needs to be rescued, he's in the middle of valiantly fighting the enemy and is saved from Celica from far away.

Celica doesn't get any plot important weapon. She picks a string of awful decisions later on. She doesn't beat anyone significant: all she defeats are one-note brigands and pirates. Her friends are more like "normal friends" that care for her: they don't hold her on a pedestal and tell how her special and great and unique she is, and they constantly tell her she's wrong later on (they are right, not her). She needs to be rescued by the valiant Alm directly two times, plus Conrad a few times.

Alm is constantly praised, Celica doesn't. Alm is never shown in a truly vulnerable state, Celica is. Alm accomplish every single important objective in the game, while Celica is basically doing two irrelevant sidequests (pirates and bandits) before walking through a swamp and turning herself in.

 

Could you have SoV with Celica's side of the game not being playable? Easily; very little would need to be changed for that to work actually. Her side of the game is basically a side quest. Could you have SoV without Alm's side of the game? Not at all; it's the near-entirety of the game as far as plot, villains and events go.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Ayra

[Hawkwing]

The role of the protagonist in Fire Emblem is to wield a special weapon to slay the final boss. Otherwise, they are the only character not allowed to die in a game that heavily features permadeath.

On a serious note, though, I don't really have much to comment about the lords in the series. I think they can get away with having less supports than the rest of your army, just because they can get some characterization from the story. I also think there are times when the plot can be a bit too convenient to their journey, but that's probably just an inevitability of having a story focus upon one character in a game with a large cast. I usually have more to comment about a lords gameplay performance.

As for Byleth, I curious if they're going to be less of an avatar and more of an audience surrogate. We haven't been presented any customization options yet, and because they appear in cutscenes, I kinda doubt there will be any. I'm curious if it will be less "this is YOU, the player" and more "this character will ask YOUR questions about the world".

An example that comes to mind about what I mean for the latter is the Captain from Blustone. They have a set personality, appearance, and voice, and while you can customize their name, that's only because there are multiplayer/guild mechanics present, and otherwise they're mostly referred to as "Captain". There are a few places where you can choose what to say, but that's only for unique dialogue and doesn't actually affect anything (although more games need the ability to admit that the edgelords speech was cool, tell them that they're trying too hard, or that if they've been wronged, they should file a report to a Humans Rights Association).

However, while they player may not be able to control the Captains actions and responses, what they DO is fill in the audiences spot for being introduced to the world. While the Captain may not be the player, they are the person who learns about how this fictional world works at the same time as the audience. The Captain is the first playable character and is how player learns how the game works, with more details being explained once you gain a partner and progress further through the game. The Captain is introduced to each new playable character, interacts with them whenever they increase in rank, and even appears in good number of conversations between characters in a similar vein to supports. The Captain may not represent the player, but they do represent the audience being introduced to a fictional setting and it's characters.

While there are several differences between Fire Emblem and Blustone (as well as a number of similarities, but that's a discussion for elsewhere), I think that Byleth could serve a similar role. Seeing as they're going to be a teacher, they probably won't be the one asking questions, but the player will probably still learn about the world and its characters through Byleth's interactions.

[Cysx]

18 minutes ago, Ayra said:

I really can't vouch for Gaiden Alm since I've never played it, but I disagree on the "equal importance" as far as SoV is concerned. Or at least, how the two protagonists are treated.

Alm gets two unique swords. He's always right and does no wrong; people telling him he's wrong all come around a few stages later. He's the one who defeat the final boss, as well as every story-relevant enemy like Berkut and Fernand. The villagers constantly tell him how special he his, how much greater he is than them. The two times he needs to be rescued, he's in the middle of valiantly fighting the enemy and is saved from Celica from far away.

Celica doesn't get any plot important weapon. She picks a string of awful decisions later on. She doesn't beat anyone significant: all she defeats are one-note brigands and pirates. Her friends are more like "normal friends" that care for her: they don't hold her on a pedestal and tell how her special and great and unique she is, and they constantly tell her she's wrong later on (they are right, not her). She needs to be rescued by the valiant Alm directly two times, plus Conrad a few times.

Alm is constantly praised, Celica doesn't. Alm is never shown in a truly vulnerable state, Celica is. Alm accomplish every single important objective in the game, while Celica is basically doing two irrelevant sidequests (pirates and bandits) before walking through a swamp and turning herself in.

 

Could you have SoV with Celica's side of the game not being playable? Easily; very little would need to be changed for that to work actually. Her side of the game is basically a side quest. Could you have SoV without Alm's side of the game? Not at all; it's the near-entirety of the game as far as plot, villains and events go.

I was speaking in terms of gameplay and place in the story. SoV is like, 55% Alm and 45% Celica. As far as what they accomplish, Celica liberates entire regions of the continent the moment she's out of her monastery, and unlike Alm, who, past his decision of leaving the village, is constantly forced into the war because someone has to do it, Celica personally decides to delay her journey to be a good guy with no deliverance behind her. Alm accomplishes more in the end but he quickly gets to lead an army; considering Celica's troop is literally only the people you play as, what she does is arguably much more impressive. Fair enough about the personal swords, though.

I don't even want to get into specifics, but I really can't relate to most of what you're saying here. Alm unwillingly kills the two last family members he has because of his lack of foresight and not listening to Mycen/Celica, gets tricked by Nuibaba, gets heavily criticized by Clive if Mathilda dies in her cell(which is relevant because that's not a thing for Celica if she fails to recruit someone, not even Valbar, who has Leon blaming everyone for it, not Celica specifically), fails at understanding Celica, ultimately only saves her because Milla intervenes, and is throughout the entire game completely oblivious to what's actually going on behind the scenes. Him being praised is something that happens to nigh every FE protagonist, and so is being able to do things the rest of the supporting cast cannot. It's a bit silly to say, but run off the mill guys tend not to make the most interesting heroes out there. He's not praised constantly, there is one scene where Tobin and Gray converse about it, and the fact is, he's been leading an army for a while by then, it's pretty logical that they'd feel inferior. And while Clive exists, the character of Saber is largely about putting Celica on a pedestal too, and so is Mae's quite frankly.

It's funny you say that Celica's tale doesn't matter, because at the heart of things, SoV is a story of two dragon gods degenerating, and Alm's side barely touches on that until the reunion. Celica has a lot of filler for sure, but what she gets beyond it is considerably more meaningful, while Alm is unwillingly leading a war against a ruler that is actively trying to lose. Yes I'm simplifying but, that's still very much a thing. As far as villains go, I'd say Desaix matters more than Grieth for sure, but Berkut and Rudolf vs Jedah and Duma is a considerably tougher call. And while I can agree that Alm's story stands on its own better, considering it'd be much worse as a result, I'm not sure how much value that really has.

--

Outside of those technicalities, the fact remains that the basis for Alm's character was most likely not player worship, while that absolutely is a big aspect of Corrin. Alm was created at a time where it was not really a thing in videogame storytelling, and while his character saw some evolution, his tale and actions are faithful from my understanding.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Cysx said:

It's a bit silly to say, but run off the mill guys tend not to make the most interesting heroes out there.

Ok as someone who spends an unhealthy amount of time analyzing their favorite and least favorite stories for their themes,nuances, etc. I CANNOT let this statement pass me by without saying anything. To say something like this is to completely ignore all the fundamentals of good story telling. A good protagonist is one WE as the audience can relate to and WE are just run of the mill people. To say something like this is to say that WE could not make for an interesting hero in a story which is wholly untrue and completely goes against the entire point stories with those kinds of heroes are going for(like spiderverse for example). Characters are an abstract reflection of an author’s perception of the struggles real people(like you or I) go through and is manifested in the characters who are used to explore those concepts. To say otherwise is missing the point of a story. Yes characters go through fantastical situations BUT those scenarios(at least in good stories anyway) are driven by inherently relatable and human motivations/desires/emotions. The pain of loss, worrying over a loved one, feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, depression, etc. All of these things are feelings that real run of the mill people can relate to and understand which is the entire point of a story and the characters used to tell that story. Ugh I’m sorry for the rant but a statement like that just irritates me on so many levels. 

[Lewyn]

15 hours ago, Guest Josie said:

This is exactly how I'd describe Undertale tbh. Dull, repetitive gameplay but the soundtrack and story more than make up for it.

See for me, and this is why there are many highly acclaimed RPGs that I don't enjoy/play, the gameplay has to be at least good/enjoyable.  It can get away with not being great/amazing like I would want for genres like fighter, platformer, puzzle, etc. However if the gameplay is truly dull or unenjoyable then here is where that book comparison works.  Might as well skip the boring gameplay and read one of the great works of literature.  There are countless amazing books and one would never have time to read them all.

As it relates to Fire Emblem I've enjoyed the gameplay of every one.  Conquest is the best of Fates cause its gameplay/map design is much much more interesting than Birthright (which is a  version of most fire emblems except with the garbage Corrin factor) and Revelations (which at first seems big and awesome, and becomes a mess).  Conquest story is by far the worst and most disappointing considering it has the most interesting set up, but the gameplay makes it a very enjoyable experience.  FE4 has the most amazing epic story, but personally I always much preferred huge maps also, and I love the skill system as well as how children work. 

So yeah gameplay is a greater factor by some margin than story for me, but story is important as well.  In conclusion for me.

Bad gameplay/good story= I would rather read a book

Good gameplay/bad story= Would rather play another genre where the gameplay is not just good but incredible

Good gameplay/good story= Now we are talking!  Hope Three houses is this.

[Cysx]

41 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Ok as someone who spends an unhealthy amount of time analyzing their favorite and least favorite stories for their themes,nuances, etc. I CANNOT let this statement pass me by without saying anything. To say something like this is to completely ignore all the fundamentals of good story telling. A good protagonist is one WE as the audience can relate to and WE are just run of the mill people. To say something like this is to say that WE could not make for an interesting hero in a story which is wholly untrue and completely goes against the entire point stories with those kinds of heroes are going for(like spiderverse for example). Characters are an abstract reflection of an author’s perception of the struggles real people(like you or I) go through and is manifested in the characters who are used to explore those concepts. To say otherwise is missing the point of a story. Yes characters go through fantastical situations BUT those scenarios(at least in good stories anyway) are driven by inherently relatable and human motivations/desires/emotions. The pain of loss, worrying over a loved one, feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, depression, etc. All of these things are feelings that real run of the mill people can relate to and understand which is the entire point of a story and the characters used to tell that story. Ugh I’m sorry for the rant but a statement like that just irritates me on so many levels. 

Apologies, that statement was not meant to stand on its own. I agree that you have to give your audience someone they can relate to on some level, that is indeed a pretty fundamental concept. At the same time, there are things that are normal for regular human beings that people do not want to see too much of in fiction. I think it's a balance to strike, and as such my actual sentence should have been that extremely normal people don't make good protagonists; if we disagree on this as well, then I'm sorry. I indeed do not believe I'd make a good hero myself, and neither would the few people I feel I know well enough to pass this judgement on a superficial level. To semi-quote a comic I read some time ago, the way we portray ourselves in fiction is inherently unrealistic.

[Ottservia]

13 minutes ago, Cysx said:

Apologies, that statement was not meant to stand on its own. I agree that you have to give your audience someone they can relate to on some level, that is indeed a pretty fundamental concept. At the same time, there are things that are normal for regular human beings that people do not want to see too much of in fiction. I think it's a balance to strike, and as such my actual sentence should have been that extremely normal people don't make good protagonists; if we disagree on this as well, then I'm sorry. I indeed do not believe I'd make a good hero myself, and neither would the few people I feel I know well enough to pass this judgement on a superficial level. To semi-quote a comic I read some time ago, the way we portray ourselves in fiction is inherently unrealistic.

And I am sorry if I came off as overtly rude. That was not my intention and I apologize for it. I agree with the statement that there are things that people do that we don't want to see and that the way we portray ourselves in fiction is inherently unrealistic which is why I said a character is an abstract reflection of real life people. Like I said characters do indeed go through fantastical situations but what grounds those situations for us as an audience to understand is the very human level emotions/motivations/desires behind it. Like to use spiderverse as an example, obviously not all of use can relate to be bitten by a radioactive spider and being forced stop an inter dimensional portal about to destroy all of new york by beating up a scientist with octopus arms. However we can all relate to that feeling of being trapped and being forced to follow the path of expectations versus where our passions truly lie.We can all relate to that feeling of being inadequate as if we don't belong. These emotions can hold us back and prevent us from really reaching our true potential. It is a very human and relatable emotion that drives our main character and the story he's a part of. That is what a good story is, at least to me anyway. Anyway I'm sorry if I was came off as a bit too curt in my original post and I hope we can come to a consensus on this.

[Cysx]

25 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

And I am sorry if I came off as overtly rude. That was not my intention and I apologize for it. I agree with the statement that there are things that people do that we don't want to see and that the way we portray ourselves in fiction is inherently unrealistic which is why I said a character is an abstract reflection of real life people. Like I said characters do indeed go through fantastical situations but what grounds those situations for us as an audience to understand is the very human level emotions/motivations/desires behind it. Like to use spiderverse as an example, obviously not all of use can relate to be bitten by a radioactive spider and being forced stop an inter dimensional portal about to destroy all of new york by beating up a scientist with octopus arms. However we can all relate to that feeling of being trapped and being forced to follow the path of expectations versus where our passions truly lie.We can all relate to that feeling of being inadequate as if we don't belong. These emotions can hold us back and prevent us from really reaching our true potential. It is a very human and relatable emotion that drives our main character and the story he's a part of. That is what a good story is, at least to me anyway. Anyway I'm sorry if I was came off as a bit too curt in my original post and I hope we can come to a consensus on this.

You did not come off as rude to me, but passionate, which I can definitely respect. And frankly, I'm in agreement with pretty much everything you just said; the one nitpick I'd have being that while I agree that a well-written human element is a massive asset to a story, I wouldn't go so far as to say that you cannot have a good story without it, which is potentially not even something you meant to imply in the first place. And even if it was, eh, agree to disagree as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry again for that oversimplification.

[NekoKnight]

9 hours ago, Cysx said:

I don't even want to get into specifics, but I really can't relate to most of what you're saying here. Alm unwillingly kills the two last family members he has because of his lack of foresight and not listening to Mycen/Celica, gets tricked by Nuibaba, gets heavily criticized by Clive if Mathilda dies in her cell(which is relevant because that's not a thing for Celica if she fails to recruit someone, not even Valbar, who has Leon blaming everyone for it, not Celica specifically), fails at understanding Celica, ultimately only saves her because Milla intervenes, and is throughout the entire game completely oblivious to what's actually going on behind the scenes. Him being praised is something that happens to nigh every FE protagonist, and so is being able to do things the rest of the supporting cast cannot. It's a bit silly to say, but run off the mill guys tend not to make the most interesting heroes out there. He's not praised constantly, there is one scene where Tobin and Gray converse about it, and the fact is, he's been leading an army for a while by then, it's pretty logical that they'd feel inferior. And while Clive exists, the character of Saber is largely about putting Celica on a pedestal too, and so is Mae's quite frankly.

I don't think these points stand up to scrutiny.
>Alm unwillingly kills the last two members of his family.
Even if Alm put two and two together to figure out his true identity, killing Rudolf and Berkut would be unavoidable unless Alm backed out of the war, which by that point would be very out of character. And not listening to Mycen and Celica? Mycen intentionally kept Alm in the dark and Celica didn't know Alm was Rudolf's son.
>Gets tricked by Nuibaba
And then he marches up to her front door, kills her and saves Tatiana which in turn allows Camus to join up with them. A pretty positive outcome.
>Gets heavily criticized if Mathilda dies in her cell
This is a well written bit of dialogue if it does happen but as it only happens when the player plays very badly, it can't be considered a canon outcome. Were that so, you could consider Alm letting all of his friends die in the war (it can happen if you let it) when judging his flaws as a character.
>Fails at understanding Celica
Their miscommunication is entirely the fault of Celica who hides all of the relevant information that would resolve their conflict
>Only saves Celica because Milla intervenes
This is technically correct but I don't know what it says about Alm.
>He is completely oblivious to what's actually going on behind the scenes.
Thanks to Mycen and Celica. And yet Alm knows enough to do everything that is required to be the hero.
>Him being praised is something that happens to nigh every FE protagonist.
This is only true for some protagonists. Roy fits a similar pattern of always making the correct decisions despite Merlinus cautioning against his actions, but most lords are not praised to the extent Alm is. Alm gets talked about being Zofia's future king long before anyone even knows he's royalty and Tobin's conclusion is that Alm is just naturally better than him and everyone in Ram village because of some innate quality. Clive's big character moment was realizing that Alm is wiser and more competent than he is. All of this is backed up by Alm never making mistakes that could be attributed to his own flaws.

Even if you think Celica's actions fit her character or think her journey had some merits, Alm is a much more relatable character. Alm is brave, honest and direct where Celica is emotional, dishonest and stubborn. Alm is dealing with an immediate and visible problem where Celica handwaves it because she doesn't want to deal with it personally. Alm explains his reasoning to Celica and offers to stand down if someone more qualified can take his place and Celica screams unfounded accusations and storms off without explaining herself. Alm's journey from the start is always making the moral and correct choice but starting from part 4, all of Celica's actions are misguided, lead her party and herself into peril and ultimately she admits everything she believed in was wrong. I can't see their characters as being even remotely even.

[Cysx]

On 23/02/2019 at 4:07 AM, NekoKnight said:

I don't think these points stand up to scrutiny.
>Alm unwillingly kills the last two members of his family.
Even if Alm put two and two together to figure out his true identity, killing Rudolf and Berkut would be unavoidable unless Alm backed out of the war, which by that point would be very out of character. And not listening to Mycen and Celica? Mycen intentionally kept Alm in the dark and Celica didn't know Alm was Rudolf's son.
>Gets tricked by Nuibaba
And then he marches up to her front door, kills her and saves Tatiana which in turn allows Camus to join up with them. A pretty positive outcome.
>Gets heavily criticized if Mathilda dies in her cell
This is a well written bit of dialogue if it does happen but as it only happens when the player plays very badly, it can't be considered a canon outcome. Were that so, you could consider Alm letting all of his friends die in the war (it can happen if you let it) when judging his flaws as a character.
>Fails at understanding Celica
Their miscommunication is entirely the fault of Celica who hides all of the relevant information that would resolve their conflict
>Only saves Celica because Milla intervenes
This is technically correct but I don't know what it says about Alm.
>He is completely oblivious to what's actually going on behind the scenes.

I mean that went for what was said above as well, and in both cases that could most likely be justified by a wish to keep things relatively short, but alright, let's make lists(also sorry I'm late):

>Even if Alm put two and two together to figure out his true identity, killing Rudolf and Berkut would be unavoidable unless Alm backed out of the war, which by that point would be very out of character. And not listening to Mycen and Celica? Mycen intentionally kept Alm in the dark and Celica didn't know Alm was Rudolf's son.
While true that their deaths were difficult to avoid(well, their defeat at least, deaths is considerably more debatable), the fact remains that these are things that Alm did not want, but couldn't avoid. Things did not go his way. As for Mycen and Celica, I was referring to not going to war in the first place.

>And then he marches up to her front door, kills her and saves Tatiana which in turn allows Camus to join up with them. A pretty positive outcome.
The point being that Alm isn't that smart and doesn't always have the best judgement. I think a major theme with him is that things work out for him, but apparently some say it's because he's almost flawless, while really, he just gets lucky a lot of the time. Which isn't much better but is more a storytelling problem than a problem with Alm, arguably. Most importantly, there's a big difference between getting lucky and rightfully prevailing in every situation.

>This is a well written bit of dialogue if it does happen but as it only happens when the player plays very badly, it can't be considered a canon outcome. Were that so, you could consider Alm letting all of his friends die in the war (it can happen if you let it) when judging his flaws as a character.
I won't get into gameplay and story segregation because me just mentioning it is sufficient, but I do think it says a lot that the writers went through the trouble of putting that very specific scene in the game, and that it matters when debating whether or not Alm's character was meant to make the player feel good about themselves. And admittedly it is pretty tough to get Mathilda killed, but we have no way to determine if the writers knew that in advance.

>Their miscommunication is entirely the fault of Celica who hides all of the relevant information that would resolve their conflict
I'd say she is more to blame for sure, even though her reasons are acceptable. The fact remains that Alm fails at understanding her plight completely, which reflects upon his ability to figure things out poorly. Celica, on the other hand, has a pretty solid grasp on the situation. This is a tangent but, out of the two, Celica's plan is the better one with the information they have available, and Alm just gets lucky(or rather, doesn't really have a plan), outside the, you know, killing off his family business.

>This is technically correct but I don't know what it says about Alm.
More than if he didn't need Milla. It shows him being limited.

>Thanks to Mycen and Celica. And yet Alm knows enough to do everything that is required to be the hero.
Okay, so to an extent it is true that the game makes a lot of efforts to present Alm's mistakes as not his fault. That is absolutely a fair thing to say imo. At the same time, you can't deny that he knows nothing when he indeed knows nothing. He just goes in and hopes for the best. The fact that it's enough to "be the hero" is, again, a storytelling problem, and not a positive about Alm. If being the hero is easy, then Alm's pedestal is that much lower.

> This is only true for some protagonists. Roy fits a similar pattern of always making the correct decisions despite Merlinus cautioning against his actions, but most lords are not praised to the extent Alm is. Alm gets talked about being Zofia's future king long before anyone even knows he's royalty and Tobin's conclusion is that Alm is just naturally better than him and everyone in Ram village because of some innate quality. Clive's big character moment was realizing that Alm is wiser and more competent than he is. All of this is backed up by Alm never making mistakes that could be attributed to his own flaws.
Marth is essentially admired by everyone and gets his fair share of praising in the remakes, girls in the army are randomly in love with him, he's well respected, etc.
Sigurd is praised by Edin, Azelle, Eldigan, Cuan, his retainers of course, Ira... I think there's Jamka as well, likely Claude, it's love at first sight with Dierdre, etc.
Seliph is praised by Lewyn, Leif, Ced, Altenna, Shanam, and that's with him being one of the most passive lords out there.
Leif gets praised but also regularly criticized, so I find he strikes a decent balance.
Roy is pretty passive too, he gets his moments earlygame but after that, I wouldn't say it's so bad with him either.
The FE7 trio tends to share the spotlight so they get a bit each but at the end of the day yeah they're not too bad
Ephraim is Ephraim, Eirika doesn't get much from what I recall
Ike, even as early as FE9, gets the respect of many important people very quickly, and ends up as one of the most praised lords of all with FE10 added into the mix.
Robin and Corrin I don't really think I need to say much about. They're super special and the game likes to regularly remind you of that. Despite this, there's still room for Chrom to be admired as an incredible warrior by many in his troop, and he gets his own Catria just because.
I think Alm's main problem is as I said, Clive. But something I don't see being brought up a lot is that Clive seems constantly on the verge of depression, which makes his praise feel considerably easier to earn. Most importantly, he's using his praising of Alm as an excuse to put himself down most of the time, that is pretty much Clive's character in a nutshell. This matters a lot. It gives legitimate reason to think that many people could have been Clive's Alm, or at least get close.
I addressed Tobin already, and that's also an example of him praising Alm because of his own insecurities. Also I think that last sentence is a bit gratuitously dismissive of everything I've said, but so be it.

> Even if you think Celica's actions fit her character or think her journey had some merits, Alm is a much more relatable character. Alm is brave, honest and direct where Celica is emotional, dishonest and stubborn. Alm is dealing with an immediate and visible problem where Celica handwaves it because she doesn't want to deal with it personally. Alm explains his reasoning to Celica and offers to stand down if someone more qualified can take his place and Celica screams unfounded accusations and storms off without explaining herself. Alm's journey from the start is always making the moral and correct choice but starting from part 4, all of Celica's actions are misguided, lead her party and herself into peril and ultimately she admits everything she believed in was wrong. I can't see their characters as being even remotely even.
Her being wrong or right has nothing to do with my argument, it's about how important she is and how much the player has to deal with her, which is a lot. Alm being more relatable(which I can agree with) doesn't change the fact that he's sharing the spotlight with someone. If anything, the fact that Celica is not meant to be relatable for the player is a pretty decent sign that that isn't what the writers were going for with this game when her place in the story/gameplay is as large as it is.
To address what you said more specifically, I wouldn't say she's dishonest, and both Alm and herself are stubborn(as well as honest). Celica handwaves her royal obligations but not the problem itself, as she truly believes that getting Milla's help is the better solution, and again, it kinda is on paper, at least temporarily, as it would avoid a lot of bloodshed. Her main issue is that she also has the selfish goal of protecting Alm in particular. As far as that interaction goes, well she tries to talk him out of the war because she's seen him die, goes a bit too far, he unwillingly hits a nerve and she leaves; that's pretty much the gist of it. That's not on Alm, but at the same time it's easy to understand why hearing him criticize her father would hurt her. I frankly don't think that scene is nearly as imbalanced as people say, the only thing that's lacking is showing that it's a touchy subject for Celica at some point beforehand, but, come on everyone, that's not hard to figure out.
As for part 4, that's the big Celica downfall for sure. At first she makes the wrong choices for decent reasons, but then she just acts straight up stupid. It's not nearly as clear cut as you're presenting it to be in the end though, as Milla does save the day and this really was about gods from the start. But, the story does conclude on an Alm note. That's why I said it was 55/45 and not 50/50 between the two, which also fits for gameplay because of part 5. Even if we argue semantics here, the result would be way more than enough for my point to stand; Alm shares a lot of the spotlight with Celica. There are two legitimate main characters in Echoes, not just one.

That's not needlessly long at all, go me